The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About0620_CC_AGD_PKTTuesday, June 20, 2017 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org City Hall Council Chambers REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - Final 3:30 PM Afternoon Session 6:30 PM Evening Session FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA See last pages of agenda for City Council procedural information Vea las últimas páginas de esta agenda para información sobre juntas del poder legislativo CITY COUNCIL Mayor Jill Techel Vice Mayor Juliana Inman Councilmember Doris Gentry Councilmember Peter Mott Councilmember Scott Sedgley June 20, 2017CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - Final 3:30 P.M. AFTERNOON SESSION 1. CALL TO ORDER: 1.A. Roll Call: 2. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS: 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: Parks and Recreation Month979-20173.A. Recommendation:Proclaim July, 2017 as Parks and Recreation Month. ATCH 1 - ProclamationAttachments: Recognition of Nancy Weiss, Assistant City Manager973-20173.B. Recommendation:Proclaim the City Council's recognition of Nancy Weiss, Assistant City Manager, for her many positive contributions to the City, on the occasion of her retirement. ATCH 1 - ProclamationAttachments: Recognition of LeAnna Fisher, Personnel Assistant978-20173.C. Recommendation:Proclaim the City Council's recognition of LeAnna Fisher, Personnel Assistant, for her many positive contributions to the City, on the occasion of her retirement. ATCH 1 - ProclamationAttachments: 4. PUBLIC COMMENT: 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: City Council Meeting Minutes971-20175.A. Recommendation:Approve the May 30, 2017 Special and June 6, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes. ATCH 1 - Special Meeting Minutes Draft ATCH 2 - Regular Meeting Minutes Draft Attachments: Page 2 of 10CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/16/2017 June 20, 2017CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - Final Lake Park and River Park Estates Maintenance Districts Assessment Rates 858-20175.B. Recommendation:Adopt a resolution authorizing the Lake Park and River Park Maintenance Districts' assessment rates for Fiscal Year 2017/18. ATCH 1 - ResolutionAttachments: Monthly Budget and Investment Statement920-20175.C. Recommendation:Receive and file the Monthly Budget and Investment Statement as of April 30, 2017. ATCH 1 - Apr 2017 Budget and Investment StatementAttachments: Statement of Investment Policy986-20175.D. Recommendation:Adopt a resolution updating the City's Statement of Investment Policy and delegating authority to the City Treasurer to invest funds in accordance with the Statement of Investment Policy. ATTCH 1 - Resolution EX A - Investment Policy FY 2017-18 ATCH 2 - Investment Policy FY 2017-18 REDLINE.pdf Attachments: Healthcare Insurance Services958-20175.E. Recommendation:Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements with healthcare providers for healthcare insurance services. ATCH 1- Resolution EX A - Kaiser Permanente Agreement EX B - Western Health Agreement EX C - Delta Dental & Delta Care Agreement and Plan Docs Attachments: Paramedic Tax Rate984-20175.F. Recommendation:Adopt a resolution authorizing the Paramedic tax rate for Fiscal Year 2017/18. ATCH 1 - ResolutionAttachments: Summary Abandonment and Quit Claim of Portions of Gasser Drive 974-20175.G. Recommendation:Adopt a resolution authorizing summary abandonment and quit claim of portions of unimproved Gasser Drive, between Tulocay Creek and Soscol Avenue, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. ATCH 1 - Resolution EX A through D-1 - Legal Descriptions and Plat Maps ATCH 2 - Location Map Attachments: Roof Extensions and Concrete Slab Project at Materials Diversion Facility 977-20175.H. Page 3 of 10CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/16/2017 June 20, 2017CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - Final Recommendation:Adopt a resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to negotiate and execute a Design-Build Agreement with Ledcor Construction Inc., in an amount not to exceed $2,400,000, for design and construction services for roof extensions and concrete slab at the City's Materials Diversion Facility, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution were adequately analyzed by a previous CEQA action. ATCH 1 - Resolution ATCH 2 - RFP Evaluation Sheet ATCH 3 - Ledcor Construction Proposal ATCH 4 - Shimmick Construction Proposal ATCH 5 - Request for Proposal for Design Build Services Attachments: Trower Avenue Storm Drain Improvements Project - Phase 1 982-20175.I. Recommendation:Adopt a resolution approving a construction contract with Bay Pacific Pipelines Inc. for the Trower Avenue Storm Drain Improvements Project - Phase 1 in the bid amount of $1,987,325, authorizing the Public Works Director to approve contract amendments and charges for project services up to a total amount not to exceed $2,327,000, authorizing a budget appropriation in the amount of $177,000, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. ATCH 1 - Resolution ATCH 2 - Project Location Map Attachments: Dewatering Equipment (Centrifuge) at Edward I. Barwick Jamieson Treatment Plant (EIBJTP) 877-20175.J. Recommendation:Authorize the Public Works Director to negotiate and execute an agreement with GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $450,000 for procurement of dewatering equipment and operations support services at the City's water treatment plant. ATCH 1 - Exception Request for Specialty ItemsAttachments: Monitoring, Analysis, and Modeling of Hennessey and Milliken Watersheds 913-20175.K. Recommendation:Authorize the Public Works Director to execute Memorandum of Understanding with Napa County for the study of the Hennessey and Milliken Watersheds, at a City cost not to exceed $112,500, and determine that the actions authorized by this item are exempt from CEQA. ATCH 1 - Memorandum of UnderstandingAttachments: Animal and Licensing Services959-20175.L. Page 4 of 10CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/16/2017 June 20, 2017CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - Final Recommendation:Adopt a resolution approving Amendment No. 6 to Agreement No. 8350 with the County of Napa, to obtain Animal and Licensing Services, in the amount of $287,864 for fiscal year 2017/2018, $302,257 for fiscal year 2018/2019 and $317,370 for fiscal year 2019/2020. ATCH 1- Resolution Animal Services ATCH 2 - Animal Services Agreement Attachments: 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: Junior Unit Initiative Program951-20176.A. Recommendation:Adopt a resolution authorizing the establishment and funding of a Junior Unit Initiative Program, to provide loans to construct junior accessory dwelling units to facilitate new low-income housing. ATCH 1 - Resolution - Junior Unit ProgramAttachments: Downtown Public Restroom Installations at two City Parking Lots: (1) East of Main Street between First and Second Streets, and (2) Southeast Corner of Pearl and West Streets 969-20176.B. Recommendation:Adopt a resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to approve a contract with Exeloo Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $350,000, to purchase two automatic public toilets; authorizing a budget re-programming of $110,000; determining that the purchase of the automatic public toilets meets the requirements for acquisition of a specialty item as set forth in Napa Municipal Code Section 2.91.050; and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. ATCH 1 - Resolution ATCH 2 - Exception Request for Specialty Items Attachments: 7. CONSENT HEARINGS: Downtown Business Promotions Tax Area - 2018 Levy of Taxes 960-20177.A. Recommendation:Adopt a resolution levying taxes in the Downtown Business Promotions Tax Area (DBPTA) for 2018 in accordance with Napa Municipal Code Chapter 3.28; and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA ATCH 1 - Resolution EX A - 2018 DBPTA Annual Rept and Budget Attachments: Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment Area - 2018 Levy of Assessments 961-20177.B. Recommendation:Adopt a resolution levying assessments in the Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment Area for 2018 in accordance with Napa Municipal Code Chapter 3.29, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. Page 5 of 10CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/16/2017 June 20, 2017CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - Final ATCH 1 - Resolution EX A - 2018 Oxbow Business Promo Annual Report and Budget Attachments: Rezoning of property located on the west side of Soscol Avenue south of Sousa Lane. 945-20177.C. Recommendation:1. Adopt a resolution adopting a Negative Declaration for the Soscol Gasser Zoning Amendment; and 2. Approve the first reading and introduction of an ordinance amending the Zoning Map established under Section 17.04.050 of the Napa Municipal Code pertaining to the rezoning of property located at 459 and 473 Soscol Avenue from MP-G3, Tulocay Village, to CC, Community Commercial District. ATCH 1 - Resolution CEQA ATCH 2 - Ordinance Soscol Gasser Rezone ATCH 3 - Planning Commission Report ATCH 4 - Initial Study and Negative Declaration (1) Attachments: 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS/APPEALS: City of Napa FY 2017-18 and 2018-19 Budget Adoption856-20178.A. Recommendation:Adopt resolutions approving and adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Years 2017-18 and 2018-19; and approving the City-Wide Position Staffing Plan. ATCH 1 - Resolution Approving Budget with EXS A, B & C ATTCH 2 - Resolution Amending Staffing Plan EX A to ATCH 2 - Five Year Staffing Plan ATTCH 3 - Summary of Budget Changes Attachments: Community Facilities District 2017-1, Gasser Soscol Gateway 946-20178.B. Recommendation:1.Adopt a Resolution Declaring the Intention to Establish Community Facilities District No. 2017-1 Entitled "City of Napa Community Facilities District No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway)"; and 2.Adopt a Resolution Declaring the Intention to Incur Bonded Indebtedness and Other Debt for the "City of Napa Community Facilities District No 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway)"; and 3.Approve the first reading and introduction of an Ordinance Amending Napa Municipal Code Title 3 To Add a New Chapter 3.44 "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act Taxes" ATCH 1 - Petition (Gasser Foundation) with EXS A & B ATCH 2 - Petition (Palmetto Hospitality) with EXS A & B ATCH 3 - Resolution of Intent to Establish with EX A EX B - Rate and Method of Apportionment EX C - Proposed Boundaries ATCH 4 - Resolution of Intent to Incur Debt ATCH 5 - Ordinance Amending NMC Attachments: Page 6 of 10CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/16/2017 June 20, 2017CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - Final CITY COUNCIL RECESS 9. 5:45 PM COMMISSION INTERVIEWS AND APPOINTMENTS: Cultural Heritage Commission Membership968-20179.A. Recommendation:Interview applicants and appoint two individuals to the Cultural Heritage Commission; with one being designated as a Preservation Professional, terms effective July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019. ATCH 1 - ApplicationsAttachments: Civil Service Commission Membership967-20179.B. Recommendation:Interview applicants and appoint one individual to the Civil Service Commission as a Council-appointed member for a term effective July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2020. ATCH 1 - ApplicationsAttachments: 10. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER: 11. CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)): United States District Court, Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-00965-EDL. 990-201711.A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)): Significant exposure to litigation in one potential case. 991-201711.B. 6:30 P.M. EVENING SESSION 12. CALL TO ORDER: 12.A. Roll Call: 13. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 14. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS: 15. REPORT ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION: 16. PUBLIC COMMENT: Page 7 of 10CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/16/2017 June 20, 2017CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - Final 17. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: Stoddard West Apartments Project Loan895-201717.A. Recommendation:Adopt a resolution approving a loan from the City of Napa Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund in the amount of $1,000,000 to Burbank Housing Development Corporation for Stoddard West Apartments Project. ATCH 1 - ResolutionAttachments: 18. PUBLIC HEARINGS/APPEALS: Stoddard West 50-unit multi-family apartments on a 2.37 acre site on Gasser Drive Extension at Tulocay Creek. 878-201718.A. Recommendation:Adopt a resolution approving a Use Permit and Design Review Permit for Stoddard West, a 50-unit multi-family development on a 2.37 acre property located at the property identified as Assessor Parcel Number 004-081-012, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution were adequately analyzed by previous CEQA actions. ATCH 1 - Draft Resolution ATCH 2 - Planning Commission Report & Minutes ATCH 3 - Finding of No Significant Impact ATCH 4 - Project Description & Plans Attachments: 19. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER: 20. ADJOURNMENT: The next regularly scheduled meeting of City of Napa City Council of the City of Napa is July 18, 2017. I hereby certify that the agenda for the above stated meeting was posted at a location freely accessible to members of the public at City Hall, 955 School Street, on Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. _______________________________ Jonathan Sheldon, Deputy City Clerk Page 8 of 10CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/16/2017 June 20, 2017CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - Final MEETING DATES: The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Tuesday of each month; additional meetings may be scheduled as needed. INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS: Information and documents related to items on this agenda are available on the City ’s website at www.cityofnapa.org; you may also contact the City Clerk for information by email at clerk@cityofnapa .org; by calling (707) 257-9503; or in person at 955 School Street, Napa. Any documents related to an agenda item that are provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are reported by the City Clerk at the meeting under “Supplemental Reports and Communications,” and are available for public inspection. CITY POLICY TO FACILITATE ACCESS TO PUBLIC MEETINGS: The City of Napa complies with all applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California law, and does not discriminate against any person with a disability. If any person has a disability and requires information or materials in an appropriate alternative format (or any other reasonable accommodation ), contact the City Clerk at (707) 257-9503 or email at clerk@cityofnapa .org. For TTY/ Speech-to-Speech users, dial 7-1-1 for the California Relay Service, for text -to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish -language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In making any request to the City for assistance, please provide advance notice of at least three business days prior to the meeting. TRADUCCIONES EN ESPAÑOL / SPANISH-LANGUAGE TRANSLATIONS: Esta agenda identifica los asuntos que ser án considerados en una junta del poder legislativo. Todas las juntas del poder legislativo est án abiertas al público, y se invita a los miembros del p úblico a asistir y dirigirse directamente ante el poder legislativo. Si usted desea recibir una copia de esta agenda o informaci ón relacionada en español, por favor p óngase en contacto con la Secretaria de la Ciudad al 707-257-9503 o por correo electrónico a Clerk@cityofnapa.org. CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS: Meetings are conducted in accordance with the requirements of state law (the “Ralph M. Brown Act,” California Government Code Sections 54950, et seq.) and the City’s Rules of Order (Council Policy Resolution 19). Members of the public may address the Council at designated times and are expected to conduct themselves with courtesy and respect. Speakers should direct comments to the Mayor and City Councilmembers, not the audience. Speakers are expected to yield the floor when the time limit is identified and comply with the City ’s Rules of Order. Speaking times are limited to no more than three minutes per person, with the exception of certain hearings and appeals, or at the discretion of the Mayor or City Council. PUBLIC COMMENT (INCLUDING CONSENT CALENDAR AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS): The public may directly address the City Council on any subject within the Council ’s subject matter jurisdiction, including any matter that is not on the agenda. Speaking time is limited to no more than three (3) minutes per person, unless modified at the discretion of the Mayor or City Council. If the matter is not on the agenda, or if the matter is on the Consent Calendar, or is an Administrative Report, submit a speaker card or request to speak during the Public Comment portion of the meeting. Speaker cards are not required if the speaker otherwise makes a clear and timely request to address the Council, but do promote the efficient and orderly progress of the meeting. Information on Speaker Cards is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. CONSENT CALENDAR: These items are considered routine and may be approved by a single vote. Only the Mayor or a majority of the City Council may authorize public input after the consent calendar is introduced. Page 9 of 10CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/16/2017 June 20, 2017CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - Final ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Only the Mayor or a majority of the City Council may authorize public input after an administrative report item is introduced. CONSENT HEARINGS: These items are considered routine and may be approved by a single vote; however, any member of the public or City Council may remove an item for consideration during the public hearing portion of the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS/APPEALS During any public hearing or appeal, any person may directly address the City Council. Applicants (or appellants) are allowed 10 minutes to present testimony at the beginning of the public hearing, and if needed, 5 minutes to present rebuttal at the end of the public hearing. All other speakers will be limited to 3 minutes. CLOSED SESSION The City Council is authorized to meet in closed session, without attendance by the public, on limited confidential topics such as pending litigation, real property negotiations, or personnel or labor matters. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is the state law that requires the City to evaluate and document the potential environmental consequences of discretionary decision. (See, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 - 21189.3; and the “CEQA Guidelines” at California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 - 15387). For each item that requires a CEQA determination by City Council, there is a reference to that determination on this agenda, and more information regarding the CEQA analysis is included in the documents that accompany this Agenda. To the extent that City staff determines that particular items are not subject to CEQA, there will be no indication of a CEQA action on this Agenda. CHALLENGES TO DECISIONS MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL: If a person wishes to file a legal challenge to any decision made by the City Council, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised during the meeting, or in a written communication received by the City Clerk prior to or during the meeting. In addition, a legal challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies. The time limit to commence any legal challenge may be subject to strict timing requirements, and failure to comply with applicable timing requirements may result in a legal challenge being barred. Any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City Council is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision. Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi -adjudicative decision made by City Council must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Page 10 of 10CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/16/2017 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:979-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:3.A. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Dorothy Roberts, City Clerk Prepared By: Carlyce Banayat, Imaging Clerk TITLE: Parks and Recreation Month RECOMMENDED ACTION: Proclaim July, 2017 as Parks and Recreation Month. DISCUSSION: This is a request from the City of Napa Parks and Recreation Services Department. City of Napa employees John Coates, Parks and Recreation Director, Katrina Gregory, Recreation Division Manager, and Dave Perazzo, Parks and Facilities Division Manager will be present to accept the proclamation. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None CEQA: The City Clerk has determined that the recommended action described in this agenda report is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c) DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Proclamation NOTIFICATION: None CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Page 1 of 477 CITY OF NAPA PROCLAMATION Designation of July 2017 As Parks and Recreation Month WHEREAS, parks and recreation programs are an integral part of communities throughout this country, including the City of Napa, and our parks and recreation programs are vitally important to establishing and maintaining the quality of life in our communities, and contribute to the economic and environmental well-being of our community and region; and WHEREAS, parks and recreation programs build healthy, active communities that aid in prevention of chronic disease, provide therapeutic recreation services for those who are mentally or physically disabled, improve the mental and emotional health of all citizens, and WHEREAS, parks and recreation programs increase a community’s economic prosperity through increased property values, expansion of the local tax base, increase tourism, the attraction and retention of business and crime reduction; and WHEREAS, parks and recreation areas are fundamental to the environmental well-being of our community; and parks and recreation areas ensures the ecological beauty of our community, and provide a place for children and adults to connect with nature and recreate outdoors; and WHEREAS, the U.S. House of Representatives has designated July as Parks and Recreation Month; and the City of Napa recognizes the benefits derived from parks and recreation resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Jill Techel, Mayor of the City of Napa, on behalf of the Napa City Council, do hereby proclaim July 2017 as Parks and Recreation Month in the City of Napa. Dated: June 20, 2017 ________________________________ JILL TECHEL, MAYOR CITY OF NAPA ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:973-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:3.B. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Mike Parness, City Manager Prepared By: Desire Brun, Assistant to the City Manager TITLE: Recognition of Nancy Weiss, Assistant City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION: Proclaim the City Council’s recognition of Nancy Weiss, Assistant City Manager, for her many positive contributions to the City, on the occasion of her retirement. DISCUSSION: This is a request from the City Manager. Nancy Weiss, Departing City of Napa Assistant City Manager, will be present to accept the proclamation. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None CEQA: The City Clerk has determined that the recommended action described in this agenda report is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Proclamation NOTIFICATION: None CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Page 3 of 477 CITY OF NAPA PROCLAMATION Honoring Assistant City Manager Nancy Weiss June 20, 2017 WHEREAS, On August 25, 2003, Nancy Weiss came to the City of Napa as Assistant City Manager; and WHEREAS, Her achievements include worked with City staff and key County officials on the Homeless System Redesign, authored and successfully initiated a November 2014 ballot for Charter Amendments updating personnel systems, worked with County to establish a Local Assistance Center (LAC) for residents and businesses that sustained damage due to the August 2014 earthquake, led employee bargaining and outreach effort to restructure City health and retiree benefits, worked with council subcommittee and key county officials to negotiate first Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between City and County of Napa recognized by the State for innovative, regional planning approach for meeting affordable housing needs, and negotiated MOU for construction and maintenance of City/County parking garage; and WHEREAS,In addition to her current position, her public service since 1983, spanning over 30 years, includes holding the positions of Interim City Manager for the City of Napa, Town Administrator for the Town of Yountville, Assistant City Manager for the City of Benicia, and Assistant to the City Manager for the City of Healdsburg; and WHEREAS,Giving back to her community, Nancy’s contributions extend beyond the City organization and include her active involvement in community and professional organizations, serving on the Board of Directors of Community Action Napa Valley (CANV), member of the Preparing the Next Generation (PNG) Task Force through ICMA (International City Management Association), serves as a mentor and coach through her participation in MMANC (Municipal Management Assistants of Northern California). She is a member of the California Public Employers Labor Relations Association (CalPELRA) and California City Management Foundation (CCMF), and is a contributor to the Napa County Organization of Governments; and WHEREAS, Nancy is particularly recognized by her staff and co-workers as a mentor with a gift for encouraging the heart, a team player with an eye towards collaboration, possessing a distinctive and infectious laugh, a person with unlimited intelligence and above all a friend. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Jill Techel, Mayor of the City of Napa, along with the City Council, do hereby recognize Nancy Weiss for her many contributions, dedication and commitment to the City of Napa and its citizens and wish her well in her future endeavors and retirement. Dated: June 20, 2017 _________________________________ JILL TECHEL, MAYOR CITY OF NAPA Page 4 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:978-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:3.C. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Dorothy Roberts, City Clerk Prepared By: Tiffany Carranza, Office Assistant II TITLE: Recognition of LeAnna Fisher, Personnel Assistant RECOMMENDED ACTION: Proclaim the City Council’s recognition of LeAnna Fisher, Personnel Assistant, for her many positive contributions to the City, on the occasion of her retirement. DISCUSSION: This is a request from the Human Resources Department. LeAnna Fisher, Personnel Assistant will be present to accept the proclamation. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None CEQA: The City Clerk has determined that the recommended action described in this agenda report is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Proclamation NOTIFICATION: None CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Page 5 of 477 CITY OF NAPA PROCLAMATION Honoring LeAnna Fisher June 20, 2017 WHEREAS, on July 8, 1981, LeAnna Fisher applied for employment with the City of Napa and on February 2, 1982 LeAnna Fisher began her 35-year long career with the City of Napa. WHEREAS, from February 1982 through July 1, 1986 LeAnna served the citizens and employees of Napa in the capacity of Typist-Clerk in the Police Department; and WHEREAS, from July 1986 to June 3, 1987, LeAnna served the citizens and employees of Napa in the capacity of Personnel Aide for the Human Resources (formerly known as Personnel)Department; and WHEREAS, from June 1987 to June 30, 2017 LeAnna faithfully served the citizens and the employees of Napa in the capacity of Personnel Assistant in the Human Resources Department for the City of Napa and was a key facilitator in the City’s Annual Recognition Awards events; and WHEREAS, LeAnnahas consistently demonstrated reliability, caring,and support for her fellow HR and City of Napa co-workers; and WHEREAS,the City Council and City Staff would like to thank LeAnnafor her many contributions, dedication, and 35-year-plus commitment to the City of Napa and wish her well in her future endeavors and retirement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, JILL TECHEL, Mayor of the City of Napa, along with the City Council, do hereby recognize LeAnna Fisher on the occasion of her retirement, and express our deep appreciation for her committed service to the City of Napa and to its citizens. Dated: June 20, 2017 _________________________________ JILL TECHEL, MAYOR CITY OF NAPA Page 6 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:971-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.A. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Dorothy Roberts, City Clerk Prepared By: Carlyce Banayat, Imaging Clerk TITLE: City Council Meeting Minutes RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the May 30, 2017 Special and June 6, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes. DISCUSSION: Approve the May 30, 2017 Special and June 6, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None CEQA: The City Clerk has determined that the recommended action described in this agenda report is not subject to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - May 30, 2017 Draft Special City Council Meeting Minutes ATCH 2 - June 6, 2017 Draft Regular City Council Meeting Minutes NOTIFICATION: None CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Page 7 of 477 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org CITY OF NAPA MEETING MINUTES - Draft - Unapproved CITY COUNCIL Mayor Jill Techel Vice Mayor Juliana Inman Councilmember Doris Gentry Councilmember Peter Mott Councilmember Scott Sedgley 2:00 PM City Hall Council ChambersTuesday, May 30, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2:00 P.M. 1.A. Roll Call: Councilmember Gentry, Councilmember Mott, Councilmember Sedgley, Vice Mayor Inman, and Mayor Techel Present:5 - 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Techel called for the pledge of allegiance. 3. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS: 4. PUBLIC COMMENT: 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 5.A.905-2017 Public Safety and City Administration Project (JL FC15PW02) to Develop a New Joint Public Safety and City Administration Building and Sell Excess City Land for Private Development. Bob Hunt, Managing Director with JLL, and the City's consultant for the project, provided information about the public private partnership and the two development teams. A break was called at 2:54 p.m. to prepare for the next presentation. Meeting reconvened at 3:00 p.m. Michael Cohen, principal with Strada, provided information about their proposal, introduced his team, and the Strada/Scannell qualifications. Joe Fisher on behalf of the Gasser Foundation stated the Foundation was supportive of the idea of the city moving the new city facilities on the Gasser property and will cooperate if the site is chosen. Page 1CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/12/2017 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 4 Page 8 of 477 May 30, 2017CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - Draft - Unapproved Paul Woolford, Architect, with HOK, detailed the public civic center campus. A "flyover" video was shown to depict the plan. Daniel Simons, Architect, provided further information about the design, the residential units, and the superblock site. Daniel Simons, Architect, with David Baker Architects discussed the residential component of the development downtown at the Superblock and the Community Services Building site. Mr. Cohen then summarized the Strada/Scannell proposal and stressed that they were committed to a collaborative and successful process. A break was called at 3:58 p.m. to prepare for the Plenary presentation. Meeting reconvened at 4:00 p.m. Stuart Marks, principal with the Plenary Group, provided information about their proposal, introduced his team and their qualifications. Patrick Daly, with Woods Baggett Architects discussed the public civic center campus. Mr. Marks discussed the issue of the need for swing space, moving, demolition and target dates and the operations and maintenance which would be overseen by Johnson Controls. He discussed the financing structure and the option for the 4th floor use which could either be leased or used for future city expansion. Sharon Lai, Director of the Development with Stanford Hotels discussed the real estate development portion of the project. Mr. Marks then presented their "flyover" animation video which showed the details of their proposed development. Mayor Techel called for a short dinner break at 5:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 5:34 p.m. City Manager Parness presented the staff analysis of the presentations of proposals by both development teams. He introduced Bob Gamble, Managing Director Public Financial Management and City's advisor. Mr. Gamble provided details on the financial analysis and an overview of the payments for each proposal. Page 2CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/12/2017 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 of 4 Page 9 of 477 May 30, 2017CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - Draft - Unapproved Mr. Hunt, JLL Managing Director, discussed the evaluation process and the analysis. He then reviewed the benefits and risk of both development teams. City Manager Parness stated the Plenary Group appeared to be the most affordable of the two teams both in the short and long term. He talked about the city's financial obligations. He stated the next steps were to authorize the city's special legal counsel to begin exclusive negotiation agreement with preferred development team, complete the rezone of the rezone of the super block, and plan development and approval of the public and private components. Mayor Techel called for public comments on the item. Brett Risley stated the building trades would be happy to work with the city and look forward to participating in the public hearings. John Salmon, resident, stated while either team would make a good partner, there were three issues missing, cooperation, vision, cooperation and focus. He stressed that the county and city should mover into a joint venture for a consolidated building. Thomas Hodge, resident, stated the projects were good but questioned the strain on the Community Development Department and asked Council to assure that citizens don't take a back seat to the project. Lisa Bush, resident, agreed there should be a co-location with the county and supported the Strada/Scannell proposal. Jeff Doran, resident, stated keeping City Hall downtown was vital and supported the Plenary plan. Mr. Marks, Plenary Group responded to concerns raised. Mr. Cohen, Strada/Scannell, discussed the benefits of their proposal and argued that it was difficult to understand how the Strada proposal would cost more than proposal submitted by Plenary. Council comments and questions ensued. Councilmember Gentry asked the city manager questions on the financing. City Councilmembers provided disclosures; Mayor Techel stated she met with Olson team. No other disclosures were provided. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the City's General Plan and Page 3CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/12/2017 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 3 of 4 Page 10 of 477 May 30, 2017CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - Draft - Unapproved Specific Plan, the fact that the city had previously contacted the county to consider co-location and there was no interest by the county in co-locating, the city's vision, the design of the proposals, the look of Napa, staging locations during construction, and the challenge of the need for swing space. The general consensus of the Council was that City Hall should stay downtown. Mayor Techel stated there would be more public hearings; and that this meeting was only the beginning of a public process. A motion was made by Councilmember Gentry, seconded by Vice Mayor Inman, to select Plenary Properties Napa as best qualified to develop the Project based on the evaluation criteria identified in the Request for Proposals, and directed staff to negotiate terms of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Plenary Properties Napa, to be brought back to City Council for consideration at a subsequent public meeting. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gentry, Mott, Sedgley, Inman, and Techel5 - 6. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER: 7.ADJOURNMENT: 7:15 P.M. Page 4CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/12/2017 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 4 of 4 Page 11 of 477 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org CITY OF NAPA MEETING MINUTES - Draft - Unapproved CITY COUNCIL Mayor Jill Techel Vice Mayor Juliana Inman Councilmember Doris Gentry Councilmember Peter Mott Councilmember Scott Sedgley 3:30 PM City Hall Council ChambersTuesday, June 6, 2017 3:30 PM Afternoon Session 6:30 PM Evening Session 1.CALL TO ORDER: 3:34 P.M. 1.A. Roll Call: Councilmember Mott, Councilmember Sedgley, Vice Mayor Inman, and Mayor Techel Present:4 - Councilmember GentryAbsent:1 - 2. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS: City Clerk Roberts announced the following: PowerPoint presentations for Items 5D, 6A and 6B. Move Item 5D Amendment to Budget and Third Quarter Report to Item 6C Administrative Reports. 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 3.A.928-2017 CPR and AED Awareness Week The proclamation was read by City Council and accepted by Michael Oliveri, City of Napa EMS Specialist, who provided details on the Hands only CPR and AED Awareness Week. 4.PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no requests to speak. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: A motion was made by Councilmember Mott, seconded by Vice Mayor Inman, to approve the Consent Agenda with Item 5D pulled and moved to Item 6C Administrative Reports. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 1CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/12/2017 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 12 of 477 June 6, 2017CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - Draft - Unapproved Aye:Mott, Sedgley, Inman, and Techel4 - Absent:Gentry1 - 5.A.930-2017 City Council Meeting Minutes. The May 16, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes were approved. 5.B.904-2017 Amendment No. 1 to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Napa and the Napa City Firefighters’ Association. Adopted Amendment No. 1 to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Napa and the Napa City Firefighters’ Association, and authorize the Assistant to the City Manager to execute the Amendment 5.C.933-2017 Appointment of City Treasurer Adopted Resolution R2017-062 to appoint Finance Director Brian Cochran as City Treasurer. Enactment No: R2017-062 5.D.970-2017 Amendment to Budget and Third Quarter Report for Fiscal Year 2016/17 Pulled from Consent; heard later in the meeting as Item 6C. City Manager Parness introduced the item, Brian Cochran, Finance Director provided the information on the various financial reports Discussion and questions ensued. A motion was made by Vice Mayor Inman, seconded by Councilmember Mott, to adopt Resolution R2017-063 approving Amendments to the Adopted Budget for the 2016/17 Fiscal Year; and receive and file the Third Quarter Report for Fiscal Year 2016/17. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Mott, Sedgley, Inman, and Techel4 - Absent:Gentry1 - Enactment No: R2017-063 5.E.939-2017 Downtown Business Promotions Tax Area - 2018 Annual Report and Budget Adopted Resolution R2017-064 approving the 2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Downtown Business Promotions Tax Area; authorizing the City Clerk to schedule a public hearing on June 20, 2017, to levy taxes in accordance with Napa Municipal Code Chapter 3.28; and determined that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. Enactment No: R2017-064 5.F.940-2017 Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment Area - 2018 Annual Report and Page 2CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/12/2017 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 13 of 477 June 6, 2017CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - Draft - Unapproved Budget Adopted Resolution R2017-65 approving the 2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment Area; authorizing the City Clerk to schedule a public hearing on June 20, 2017 to levy assessments in accordance with Napa Municipal Code Chapter 3.29; and determined that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. Enactment No: R2017-065 5.G.942-2017 Public Art Ordinance Amendment Approved the second reading and final passage, and adopted Ordinance O2017-009 amending Napa Municipal Code Chapter 15.108 to modify the selection criteria for members of the City’s Public Art Steering Committee. Enactment No: O2017-009 5.H.949-2017 One Bay Area Grant 2 Program Resolution of Local Support for the Five-Way Intersection Project Adopted Resolution R2017-066 authorizing the filing of an application for $2,000,000 in funding assigned to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and committing any necessary matching funds and stating the assurance to complete the Project. Enactment No: R2017-066 5.I.952-2017 Summary Abandonment of a Storm Drainage Easement Adopted Resolution R2017-067 authorizing summary abandonment of a Storm Drainage Easement affecting a portion of property located at 790 Lincoln Avenue (APN 001-193-004) and determined that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. Enactment No: R2017-067 5.J.965-2017 Priority Conservation Area Resolution of Local Support for the Vine Trail Soscol Gap Closure Project Adopted Resolution R2017-068 authorizing the filing of an application for $650,000 in funding assigned to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and committing any necessary matching funds and stating the assurance to complete the Project, and determined that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. Enactment No: R2017-068 6.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6.A.844-2017 Napa Tourism Improvement District Budget and Work Plan for FY 2017-18 Indexes:Tourism Improvement District Shari Cooper, City of Napa Development Project Coordinator, Page 3CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/12/2017 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 14 of 477 June 6, 2017CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - Draft - Unapproved provided details regarding the Napa Tourism Improvement District Budget and Work Plan. Clay Gregory, President and CEO of Visit Napa Valley, provided background on the Tourism Improvement District and details on their activities over the year. City Manager Parness stated that the programs were critical and their planning for operating reserve and contingency was critical. Lindsay Moore, with D. Augustine & Associates provided details on the firm's marketing efforts for the City of Napa. Questions and comments ensued. Adopted Resolution R 2017-069 approving the Napa Tourism Improvement District Local Governing Committee Budget and Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-18. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Mott, Sedgley, Inman, and Techel4 - Absent:Gentry1 - Enactment No: R2017-069 6.B.845-2017 Marketing, Event Planning, and Related Consulting Services Approved an Agreement for Services with D. Augustine & Associates for Marketing, Advertising, Public Relations, Event Planning & Related Services for the Napa Tourism Improvement District Local Governing Committee (Napa TID) in an amount not to exceed $408,938 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Mott, Sedgley, Inman, and Techel4 - Absent:Gentry1 - 7.CONSENT HEARINGS: Mayor Techel announced the Consent Hearings and called for public testimony. Councilmember Mott asked for general clarification on the items, noting there were three tentative approval extensions. Items 7 C and 7 E were pulled for discussion by Councilmember Mott. Approval of the Consent Agenda A motion was made by Councilmember Mott, seconded by Vice Mayor Inman, to approve the Consent Agenda with Items 7C and 7E pulled for discussion. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Mott, Sedgley, Inman, and Techel4 - Page 4CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/12/2017 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 15 of 477 June 6, 2017CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - Draft - Unapproved Absent:Gentry1 - 7.A.906-2017 Pear Tree Terrace Tentative Subdivision Map Extension Adopted Resolution R2017-070 approving a two-year extension to a previously approved Use Permit, Design Review Permit and Tentative Subdivision Map for the Pear Tree Terrace Townhomes (71 townhouse lots developed on a four acre property, generally located between 1151 and 1187 Per Tree Lane), and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution were adequately analyzed by a previous CEQA action. Enactment No: R2017-070 7.B.907-2017 Modrall Tentative Subdivision Map Extension Adopted Resolution R2017-071 approving a two-year extension to a previously approved Use Permit, Design Review Permit and Tentative Subdivision Map for the Modrall Subdivision (6 single-family residential lots on a 5.5 acre parcel, located at 45 Los Robles Drive), and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution were adequately analyzed by a previous CEQA action Enactment No: R2017-071 7.C.908-2017 Redwood Duets Tentative Subdivision Map Extension Pulled from Consent Hearings. Community Development Director Tooker explained the process how staff analyzes map extensions. Councilmember Mott voiced concern over the long delays. Council discussion ensued. Mayor Techel called for public testimony, there were no requests to speak. Councilmember Mott moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Councilmember Inman. The motion was unanimously carried. Adopted Resolution R2017-072 approving a two year extension to a previously approved Use Permit, Design Review Permit and Tentative Subdivision Map for the Redwood Duets Subdivision (34 residential townhouse lots on a 2 acre property, located at 2033 Redwood Road) and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. Aye:Mott, Sedgley, Inman, and Techel4 - Absent:Gentry1 - Enactment No: R2017-072 7.D.957-2017 Big Ranch Road Widening Project Adopted Resolution R2017-073 approving the Big Ranch Road Widening Project Preliminary Design and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program in accordance with CEQA. Page 5CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/12/2017 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 16 of 477 June 6, 2017CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - Draft - Unapproved Enactment No: R2017-073 7.E.935-2017 Downtown Napa Property and Business Improvement District Annual Report and Levy of Assessments Pulled from Consent Hearings. Mayor Techel announced the item and called for public testimony. There were no requests to speak. Councilmember Mott moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Councilmember Inman. The motion was unanimously carried. Adopted Resolution R2017-074 approving the 2017/2018 Annual Report for the Downtown Napa Property and Business Improvement District (PBID), levying assessments in the PBID, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution is exempt from CEQA. Aye:Mott, Sedgley, Inman, and Techel4 - Absent:Gentry1 - Enactment No: R2017-074 7.F.936-2017 Citywide Landscape Maintenance Assessment District, FY 2017-2018 Adopted Resolution R2017-075 approving the Engineer’s Report, confirming diagram and assessment, ordering levy of assessment for the Citywide Landscape Maintenance Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. R2017-075 Enactment No: R2017-075 7.G.954-2017 Napa Valley Corporate Park Landscape and Lighting Assessment District, Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Adopted Resolution R2017-076 approving the Engineer’s Report, confirming diagram and assessment, ordering levy of assessment for the Napa Valley Corporate Park Landscape and Lighting District for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. Enactment No: R2017-076 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS/APPEALS: 8.A.893-2017 The Reserve at Napa, 117-Unit Multifamily Senior Housing Project at 710-714 Trancas Street - TEFRA Hearing for Reissuance of Bonds Andrea Lark, City of Napa Affordable Housing Representative, provided information regarding the Reserve at Napa reissuance Housing Revenue bonds. Page 6CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/12/2017 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 17 of 477 June 6, 2017CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - Draft - Unapproved Mayor Techel called for public testimony, there were no requests to speak. Vice Mayor Inman moved to close the public hearing, Councilmember Sedgley seconded. The motion was unanimously carried. Adopted Resolution R2017-077authorizing the reissuance of “Housing Authority of the City of Napa Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (the Reserve at Napa) 2001 Series B” in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $5,000,000 to refinance a 117-unit multifamily rental housing development owned by Napa Senior Apartments, L.P., and authorizing the execution, delivery, and approval of other related matters. Aye:Mott, Sedgley, Inman, and Techel4 - Absent:Gentry1 - Enactment No: R2017-077 9. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER: Mayor Techel announced that she and Councilmember Gentry were at the California Transportation Awards, along with Public Works Director LaRochelle and Deputy Public Works Director Whan, where the City won an award for the Vine Trail Oak Knoll Segment of the Vine Trail. Mayor Techel stated that she and Councilmember Sedgley attended the recent Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) meeting, where the announcement was made that ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) had merged staff; a decision as to whether the Boards would be merged would be made at a later date. There were no other comments. 10. CLOSED SESSION: 10.A.972-2017 City Attorney Barrett announced the Closed Session items. CITY COUNCIL RECESS 5:05 P.M. 6:30 P.M. EVENING SESSION 11. CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 P.M. 11.A. Roll Call: Councilmember Mott, Councilmember Sedgley, Vice Mayor Inman, and Mayor Techel Present:4 - Page 7CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/12/2017 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 18 of 477 June 6, 2017CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - Draft - Unapproved Councilmember GentryAbsent:1 - 12. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 13. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS: City Clerk Roberts announced the supplemental item as follows: Powerpoint Presentation by staff Item 17.A. 14. REPORT ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Barrett stated during Closed Session, City Council approved on a unanimous 4-0 vote (Gentry absent) to authorize initiation of litigation in one case. Records and information on the matter would be available after the action formally commenced. 15. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 15.A.934-2017 Proclamation Recognizing Outstanding NVUSD Student Athlete Alyvia Fiske Council read the proclamation honoring Alyvia Fiske as "Outstanding NVSUD Athlete". Alyvia introduced her family and talked about her upcoming college plans. Her coach came forward and congratulated Alyvia on her outstanding skills and promising future. 16. PUBLIC COMMENT: David Horobin, resident and architect, urged City Council to formally commit to the U.S. Climate Alliance. Michael Friedman, resident, also came forward to discuss the importance of maintaining the mandates included in the the U.S. Climate Alliance. In response to questions by Mr. Friedman, Mayor Techel stated that she has signed on to the U.S. Conference of Mayors Agreement and the City has a commitment to sustainability and to doing the right thing for the next generation. 17. PUBLIC HEARINGS/APPEALS: 17.A.855-2017 Proposed Budget for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19 Brian Cochran, Finance Director, presented the budget and the proposed changes made since the Budget Workshop. He provided an overview of the General Fund, other funds, and proposed staffing changes. Page 8CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/12/2017 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 19 of 477 June 6, 2017CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - Draft - Unapproved Mayor Techel called for public comment. Patrick Band, Executive Director of the Napa County Bicycle Coalition, commented on the draft budget and the opportunities for utilizing Measure T funds. He commented on CIP projects he felt may impact safe biking, on Safe Routes to Schools programming and helmet giveaways and the need for valet parking for large events. Amanda Steiner ,SEIU Field Representative, representing the NCEA members in the City, commented on the proposed budget and Building Inspector staffing changes. She submitted two letters from Building Inspectors with respect to their perspective on working out of their job classification. There were no further comments. Councilmember Mott moved to close the public hearing, Vice Mayor Inman seconded. The motion was unanimously carried. Public Works Director LaRochelle gave an overview of some public works projects; and clarified how Measure T funds could be spent, and reviewed past allocations from the City on the Safe Routes to School. Discussion ensued regarding valet parking for bicycles. Patrick Band stated that the Coalition had requested funding to Safe Routes to Schools to fill the gap that was created by the Red Light Camera loss of revenue. City Manager Parness provided background on the classifications of the Building Division and the building inspector reclass issue. He stated if employees they feel they are working out of classification, they are encouraged to talk to Human Resources for a full analysis. Further discussion ensued. Directed staff to incorporate the changes discussed in order to finalize the proposed budget for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19, and return to City Council for final review and approval at the regularly scheduled meeting on June 20, 2017. Aye:Mott, Sedgley, Inman, and Techel4 - Absent:Gentry1 - 18. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER: There were no comments. Page 9CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/12/2017 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 20 of 477 June 6, 2017CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - Draft - Unapproved 19. ADJOURNMENT: 7:22 P.M. /s/ Dorothy Roberts, City Clerk Page 10CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/12/2017 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 21 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:858-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.B. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Brian Cochran, Finance Director Prepared By: Jessie Sauter, Finance Analyst TITLE: Lake Park and River Park Estates Maintenance Districts Assessment Rates RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the Lake Park and River Park Maintenance Districts' assessment rates for Fiscal Year 2017/18. DISCUSSION: Attached are the FY 2017/18 rates for the assessments for the Lake Park and River Park Estates Maintenance Districts. An adopted resolution is required annually by the County of Napa Auditor- Controller's Office for inclusion of the assessments on the property tax bills. No change is proposed to the previously approved rate of assessment. The Lake Park Maintenance District was formed in 1966 by City Council Resolution No. 4070. An assessment is levied annually on property within the assessment district boundaries to fund operation and maintenance costs of the flood control levees, greenbelt areas, park area serving as a detention basin and flood pumping station. For FY 2017/18, the assessments will generate approximately $100,000 in revenue which is deposited to the Lake Park Maintenance District Special Revenue Fund. The River Park Estates Maintenance District was formed in 1961 by City Council Resolution No. 2271. An assessment is levied annually on property within the assessment district boundaries to fund operation and maintenance costs of the levees and banks within the boundaries of the maintenance district. For FY 2017/18, the assessments will generate approximately $260,000 in revenue which is deposited to the River Park Estates Maintenance Special Revenue Fund. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The revenues derived from the assessments have been budgeted as part of the City’s biannual budget process. The proposed budgets for Lake Park and River Park Assessment Districts for FY 2017/18 are $100,000 and $260,000, respectively. CEQA: The City Manager has determined that the Recommended Action described in this Agenda Report is CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 22 of 477 File #:858-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.B. not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Resolution authorizing the Lake Park and River Park Maintenance Districts' assessment rates for Fiscal Year 2017/18. NOTIFICATION: None. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 23 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-___Page 1 of 1 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE LAKE PARK AND RIVER PARK MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS' ASSESSMENT RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017/18 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this resolution. 2. Pursuant to Resolution 4070 adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa on December 5, 1966, ordering and fixing boundaries of the Lake Park Maintenance District and the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, Section 5830 thereof, there is hereby fixed and levied a rate of $0.1125 per $100 of assessed valuation to cover the costs of maintaining the Lake Park Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2017/18. 3. Pursuant to Resolution 2271 adopted by the City council of the City of Napa on August 7, 1961, ordering and fixing boundaries of the River Park Estates Canal Maintenance District and the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, Section 5830 thereof, there is hereby fixed and levied a rate of $0.1688 per $100 of assessed valuation to cover the costs of maintaining the river Park Estates Canal Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2017/18. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to form Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 24 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:920-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.C. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Brian Cochran, Finance Director Prepared By: Jessie Sauter, Finance Analyst TITLE: Monthly Budget and Investment Statement RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Budget and Investment Statement as of April 30, 2017. DISCUSSION: The City of Napa prepares the Monthly Budget and Investment Statement on a monthly basis to report the status of cash and investments to Council, including current operating position by fund group. The attached Monthly Budget and Investment Statement summarizes the budget status and investments of all City funds, including General Fund, Enterprise Funds, Capital Project Funds and Special Revenue Funds, as of April 30, 2017. This Statement fulfills the requirements of Napa Municipal Code section 2.32.050 by providing budget status information, and the requirements of City Charter Section 58 by providing current cash totals. The Reports include the following information: ·Total Cash and Invested Funds ·Budget to Year-to-Date Actual by major fund or fund group FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There is no financial impact as the Monthly Budget and Investment Statement is presented for informational purposes only. CEQA: The Finance Manager has determined that the recommended actions described in this agenda report are not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 -Monthly Budget and Investment Statement as of April 30, 2017 NOTIFICATION: None. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 25 of 477 File #:920-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.C. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 26 of 477 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Monthly Budget and Investment Statement As of A pril 30, 2017 This Budget and Investment Statement summarizes the budget status and investments of all City funds, including General Fund, Enterprise Funds, Capital Project Funds and Special Revenue Funds, as of the date identified above. This Statement fulfills the requirements of Napa Municipal Code section 2.32.050 by providing budget status information, and the requirements of City Charter Section 58 by providing current cash totals. The City of Napa column below represents the City’s pooled cash, while the Fiduciary Funds column includes Successor Agency bond proceeds and reserves and payroll disbursements passing through the payroll clearing account. I hereby certify that the investments summarized in this Statement comply with the City’s adopted Statement of Investment Policy and City Charter Section 58, and that sufficient funds are available to meet expenditure requirements for the next six months. Bond funds are in compliance with their respective bond indentures, which may have different provisions than the City’s Investment Policy. More detailed information summarized in this Statement is available for review upon request. Brian Cochran, Finance Director Type of Investment City of Napa as of 4/30/2017 Fiduciary Funds as of 4/30/2017 Grand Total as of 4/30/2017 Cash in Bank and on Hand 15,210,149 2,793,918 18,004,067 Cash Proceeds from MDF Bond Issuance, received Nov 2 12,249,174 - 12,249,174 Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)50,039,086 - 50,039,086 U.S. Treasury Bond / Note 26,993,448 195,469 27,188,917 Supra-National Agency Bond / Note 3,052,667 - 3,052,667 Federal Agency Collateralized Mortgage Obligation 2,152,471 645,340 2,797,811 Federal Agency Bond / Note 23,270,987 - 23,270,987 Corporate Note 17,659,277 - 17,659,277 Commercial Paper 3,115,044 Certificate of Deposit 12,353,584 - 12,353,584 Asset-Backed Security / Collateralized Mortgage Obligati 3,739,643 - 3,739,643 Money Market Fund 119,648 102,119 221,767 TOTAL City of Napa Cash and Invested Funds 169,955,179 3,736,847 173,692,025 Page 27 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 2 The table below provides the budget status for the City’s funds, grouped by major fund, or major fund category, as of the date identified above and includes several Net Positions of less than zero. Budgets with a negative Net Position will use fund balance to make up the difference. This use of available fund balance to balance the budget has been approved by City Council with the adoption of the FY 2016/17 budget. Negative Year-to-Date (YTD) Actual amounts are to be expected, given that both revenue collections and expenditure incurrences fluctuate throughout the year. FY 2016/17 Budget as of 4/30/2017 FY 2016/17 YTD Actual as of 4/30/2017 % to date (Budget to Actual) General Fund Revenues 84,240,734 67,590,595 80.24% Expenditures 83,505,785 60,428,414 72.36% Net Position 734,949 7,162,181 Non-Recurring General Fund Revenues 7,147,589 2,195,310 30.71% Expenditures 10,506,483 1,638,298 15.59% Net Position (3,358,894) 557,012 Special Revenue Funds Revenues 11,782,155 10,823,259 91.86% Expenditures 19,956,164 6,525,284 32.70% Net Position (8,174,009) 4,297,975 Capital Project Funds Revenues 31,517,861 15,661,326 49.69% Expenditures 50,967,058 19,860,807 38.97% Net Position (19,449,198) (4,199,482) Materials Diversion Fund Revenues 33,917,809 22,667,802 66.83% Expenditures 38,182,269 19,701,502 51.60% Net Position (4,264,460) 2,966,300 Water Enterprise Fund Revenues 34,647,176 20,394,571 58.86% Expenditures 47,503,521 18,427,067 38.79% Net Position (12,856,345) 1,967,504 Internal Service Funds Revenues 12,119,953 9,201,144 75.92% Expenditures 13,206,607 8,835,053 66.90% Net Position (1,086,654) 366,091 Successor Agency Trust Fund Revenues 5,109,645 4,742,877 92.82% Expenditures 5,324,034 5,036,271 94.60% Net Position (214,389) (293,394) Housing Authority Fund Revenues 13,283,536 11,151,102 83.95% Expenditures 13,527,902 10,904,475 80.61% Net Position (244,366) 246,627 ALL FUNDS Revenues 233,766,458 164,427,985 70.34% Expenditures 282,679,825 151,357,171 53.54% Net Position (48,913,367) 13,070,815 Page 28 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:986-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.D. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Brian Cochran, Finance Director Prepared By: Jessie Sauter, Finance Analyst TITLE: Statement of Investment Policy RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution updating the City’s Statement of Investment Policy and delegating authority to the City Treasurer to invest funds in accordance with the Statement of Investment Policy. DISCUSSION: Consistent with California Government Code Section 53646(a)(2), the Treasurer annually renders to the City Council a Statement of Investment Policy for consideration and approval. Further, consistent with Government Code Section 53607, the City Council annually delegates authority to the City Treasurer to make investments on behalf of the City. Pursuant to Council action on June 6, 2017, the City Council appointed Finance Director Brian Cochran to serve as the City Treasurer, which includes the responsibility to make investments on behalf of the City. The Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)section has a proposed change to update LAIF Limitations from $65,000,000 per account to the “maximum amount permitted by LAIF’s Local Investment Advisory Board”. This change enables the City to follow LAIF’s guidelines without updating the investment policy. The Additional Guidelines section has a proposed change to remove the following: ·Adequate liquidity equivalent to six month expenditures shall be maintained. ·No more than 50% of the overall City portfolio shall mature beyond 2 years. A redline copy of the proposed Statement of Investment Policy is provided as Attachment 2 for convenience to identify all proposed revisions to the policy. A clean copy of the proposed policy is provided as Exhibit A to the resolution. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There is no fiscal impact. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 29 of 477 File #:986-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.D. CEQA: The Finance Director has determined that the Recommended Action described in this Agenda Report is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Resolution to update the City’s Statement of Investment Policy. Ex A - Proposed Statement of Investment Policy (Clean) ATCH 2 - Proposed Statement of Investment Policy (Redline) NOTIFICATION: None CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 30 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 1 of 2 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, UPDATING THE CITY’S STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY, AND DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY TREASURER TO INVEST FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY WHEREAS, consistent with California Government Code Section 53646, the City Treasurer annually renders to the City Council a statement of investment policy; and WHEREAS, consistent with Government Code Section 53607, the City Council annually delegates authority to the City Treasurer to make investments on behalf of the City; and WHEREAS, the Council appointed Finance Director Brian Cochran to serve as the City Treasurer on June 6, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this resolution. 2. The City Council of the City of Napa, State of California hereby adopts the update of the City’s Statement of Investment Policy attached hereby as Exhibit “A”. 3. The City Council hereby delegates authority to the City Treasurer to invest funds in accordance with the City’s Statement of Investment Policy. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Page 31 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 2 of 2 June 20, 2017 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20 th day of June, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: __________________________ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to form: _________________________ Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 32 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 2017 R2017-__Page 1 of 11 1. Policy It is the policy of the City of Napa (“City”) to invest public funds in a manner which will provide maximum security, meet the daily cash flow demands of the City, and provide highest investment return while conforming to all California laws and local statutes governing the investment of public funds. 2. Scope This investment policy applies to all the funds and investment activities under the direct authority of the City. This investment policy has been separately approved by the respective governing bodies of the Housing Authority of the City of Napa (“HACN”) and the Successor Agency to the Napa Community Redevelopment Agency (“Successor Agency”); thus, references in this policy to the “City” shall apply equivalently to HACN and the Successor Agency. There are four categories of funds that are separately invested in accordance with specialized requirements for administration and reserve requirements, which supersede conflicting requirements of this policy, including: employees' retirement funds (governed by CalPERS), pension stabilization trust funds (governed by separate investment guidelines adopted by City Council), CERBT trust funds (Governed by CalPERS), and certain debt issues which are invested by trustees appointed under indenture agreements. Funds are accounted for in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and include the following: General Fund Special Revenue Funds Capital Project Funds Debt Service Funds Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds Trust and Agency Funds 3. Prudence All persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the City are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the prudent investor standard: 'When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency. 4. Objective The primary objectives in priority order, of the City’s investment activities shall be: 4.1 Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments of the City shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure that capital losses are avoided, whether from securities default, broker-dealer default, or erosion of market value. To attain this objective, diversification is required in order that potential losses on individual securities do not exceed the income generated from the remainder of the portfolio. The City may elect to sell a security prior to its maturity and record a capital gain or loss in order to improve the Page 33 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 2017 R2017-__Page 2 of 11 quality, liquidity or yield of the portfolio in response to market conditions or the City's risk preferences. 4.2 Liquidity: The City’s investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated. 4.3 Return on Investment: The City’s investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the City's investment risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio. 5. Delegation of Authority Pursuant to the City of Napa Municipal Code Section 2.32.030(g), the Finance Director/Treasurer is delegated investment authority and is responsible for investment decisions and activities. Section 53607 of the California Government Code requires that delegation of authority is only valid for a one-year period or until the delegation of the authority is revoked or expires. Authority must be renewed each year. The Finance Director/Treasurer shall establish written procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent with this investment policy. Procedures should include reference to: Safekeeping, master repurchase agreement, wire transfer agreement, collateral/depository agreement and banking service contract. Such procedures shall include explicit delegation of authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. No City personnel may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the Finance Director/Treasurer. He or she shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of subordinate officials. The City may engage the services of one or more external professional money managers to assist in the management of the City's investment portfolio in a manner consistent with the City's objectives. Such external managers may be granted discretion to purchase and sell investment securities in accordance with this Investment Policy. Such managers must be registered under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940. 6. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Employees and investment officials shall disclose to the City Manager any material financial interests in financial institutions that conduct business within the jurisdiction, and they shall further disclose any large personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the City’s portfolio. Employees and officers shall subordinate their personal investment transactions to those of the City's, particularly with regard to the time of purchases and sales. 7. Authorized Money Managers. Financial Dealers and Institutions The City may contract with professional money managers to assist in the management of all or part of its investment portfolio in compliance with the investment guidelines detailed in the Allowable Investment and Additional Investment Guidelines of this policy (Reference pages 5- 11). If the Finance Director/City Treasurer directly invests in individual securities, then the City will maintain a list of financial institutions and primary dealers authorized to provide investment Page 34 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 2017 R2017-__Page 3 of 11 services. Professional money managers working with the City may maintain their own list. "Primary" dealers include those that regularly report to the Federal Reserve Bank and should qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15C3-1 (uniform net capital rule). All financial institutions, dealers and cash managers who desire to become qualified bidders for investment transactions must supply the City with the following: audited financial statements, proof of National Association of Security Dealers certification when applicable, trading resolution, proof of State of California registration when applicable, completed questionnaire and certification of having read the City of Napa's investment policy and depository contracts. A current audited financial statement is required to be on file for each financial institution and dealer. 8. Authorized Investments The City is governed by the California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. Authorized investments of the City are detailed in the Allowable Investment and Additional Investment Guidelines of this policy (Reference pages 5-11). 9. Collateralization Collateralization will be required as indicated in the Allowable Investment and Additional Investment Guidelines of this policy (Reference pages 5-11). Collateral will always be held by an independent third party with whom the City has a current custodial agreement. A clearly marked evidence of ownership (safekeeping receipt) must be supplied to the city and retained. The right of collateral substitution may be granted. 10. Safekeeping and Custody All securities owned by the City, shall be held in safekeeping by the City's custodian bank or a third party bank trust department, acting as agent for the City under the terms of a custody or trustee agreement executed by the bank and by the City. All securities will be received and delivered using standard delivery-versus-payment (DVP) procedures. 11. Diversification The City will diversify its investments by security type and institution as detailed in the Allowable Investment and Additional Investment Guidelines of this policy (Reference pages 5-11). 12. Maximum Maturities Unless matched to a specific cash flow, the City will not directly invest in securities maturing more than 5 years from the date of purchase (See exception indicated in the Allowable Investment and Additional Investment Guidelines of this policy (Reference pages 5-11). 13. Internal Control The Finance Director/Treasurer shall establish a system of written internal controls which shall be reviewed by an independent auditor. This review will provide internal control by assuring compliance with policies and procedures. The controls shall be designed to prevent losses of public funds arising from fraud, employee error, misrepresentation of third parties, unanticipated changes in financial markets, or imprudent actions by employees and officers of the City. Controls deemed most important include: control of collusion, separation of duties, separation of transaction authority from accounting and recordkeeping, clear delegation of authority, specific limitations regarding securities losses and remedial action, written confirmation of telephone Page 35 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 2017 R2017-__Page 4 of 11 transactions, minimizing the number of authorized investment officials, documentation of transactions and strategies, and code of ethics standards. 14. Performance Standards The investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market average rate of return through budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints and cash flow needs. The specific investment performance objective for the portfolio shall be to earn a total rate of return over a market cycle which is approximately equal to a market benchmark index. The current benchmark index for the portfolio is the Merrill Lynch U.S. Treasuries/ Agencies 1-5 Year Index. 15. Reporting Per California Government Code section 53607, the Finance Director/Treasurer shall provide monthly transactions to the City Council. Per California Government Code section 53646, the Finance Director/Treasurer may render a periodic report to the City Council. This report shall include: Type of investment, issuer, Date of maturity, Par and dollar amount invested on all securities, The quarterly report shall state compliance of the portfolio to the statement of investment policy, or manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance. The quarterly report shall also include a statement denoting the ability of the local agency to meet its pool's expenditure requirements for the next six months, or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money shall, or may, not be available. Monthly statements generated by the City's contracted investment managers shall provide the following information: Type of investment Issuer Maturity date Par and dollar amount invested on all securities Market value as of the date of the report and source of valuation 16. Investment Policy Adoption The City’s investment policy shall be adopted by City Council resolution. Any modifications made thereto must be approved by the City Council. Page 36 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 2017 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT GUIDELINES R2017-__Page 5 of 11 A. CASH AND INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS City funds that are necessary to meet current operating demands may be kept in checking accounts and savings accounts at financial institutions as identified in California State Government Code Section 53648 provided that they are adequately secured with proper collateral as prescribed by Government Code Sections 53656 and/or 53658. The Finance Director/City Treasurer is authorized to establish systems by which funds may be transferred between these checking and savings accounts, and to and from allowable investment instruments in accordance with this policy. Allowable investments for the portfolio of the City are limited by California State Government Code Sections 53601 et seq.; 53635. They are further restricted by the Finance Director/City Treasurer’s investment strategy. Allowable investments for the Housing Authority of the City of Napa are further restricted by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Required HA Cash Management and Investment Policies and Procedures as provided in Notice PIH 96-33(HA). Percentages of Investment Participation and percentages of Maximum Investment Participation apply at the time of purchase. Purchase transactions may not exceed $10,000,000, nor exceed five-year maturities. Exceptions can only be approved by City Council. The investment instruments and percentages of participation permitted by this policy are: 1. U.S. Treasury Securities (bills, notes and bonds) are sold to finance gaps between the federal government's receipts and expenditures. A Treasury bill (or T-bill) is an obligation of the U.S. government to pay the bearer a fixed sum on a specific date. Bills are sold by the Treasury at a discount from their par (face) value through a competitive auction. Treasury notes are coupon securities paying interest every six months and have a fixed maturity of not less than one year and not more than 10 years. Treasury bonds are coupon securities paying interest every six months with maturities of more than 10 years. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: No limit specified: City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity - 5 years 2) Maximum par value total size - None 3) Maximum par value per issue - None 4) Credit- Full faith and credit of the Federal Government 2. U.S. Agency & Government Sponsored Enterprise Securities are not direct obligations of the United States but rather are direct obligations of agencies of the federal government or government-sponsored enterprises. Securities issued by U.S. government agencies are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The federal government has sponsored the creation of, or the financial support of several corporations, also known as government-sponsored enterprises. None of these organizations Page 37 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 2017 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT GUIDELINES R2017-__Page 6 of 11 carry the federal government guarantee. FDIC-guaranteed securities were a new fixed-income asset class in 2008 that resulted from the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation's creation of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP). Eligible banking institutions participating in the TLGP Program were able to issue debt guaranteed by the FDIC through 10/31/09. The Program covers commercial paper and corporate debt issued by participating banks and bank holding companies for issues that are greater than 30 days maturity, but maturing on or before 12/31/2012. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: No limit specified. City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity - 5 years 2) Maximum allocation - no limitation 3) Maximum allocation per issuer - no limitation 4) Credit - Despite having no statutory limitation concerning this category, prudent investment practice necessitates constant analysis of the issuing agency. Although these issues have either the implicit or explicit guarantee of the federal government, market perception often limits the liquidity of these issues. 3. Obligations of the State of California or any local agency within the state,including bonds payable solely out of revenues from a revenue producing property owned, controlled or operated by the state or any local agency, or by a department, board, agency or authority of the state or any local agency. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: No limit specified. City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity - 5 years 2) Maximum allocation - no limitation 3) Maximum allocation per issuer - 5% 4) Credit - Despite having no statutory limitation concerning this category, prudent investment practice necessitates constant analysis of the issuing State or agency. 4. Registered treasury notes or bonds of any of the other 49 states in addition to California, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a state, or by a department, board, agency, or authority of any of these states. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: No limit specified. City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity - 5 years 2) Maximum allocation - no limitation 3) Maximum allocation per issue - 5% 4) Credit - Despite having no statutory limitation concerning this category, prudent investment practice necessitates constant analysis of the issuing State. Page 38 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 2017 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT GUIDELINES R2017-__Page 7 of 11 5. Bankers acceptances are typically created from a letter of credit issued in a foreign trade transaction. It is a time draft drawn on and accepted by a bank to pay a specified amount of money on a specified date. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: 1) Purchases may not exceed 180 days. 2) Purchases are restricted to 40% of the agency's surplus money. 3) No more than 30% of the City's surplus money may be invested in the bankers’ acceptances of any one commercial bank. 4) Include only those that are eligible for discounting with the Federal Reserve System. City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity – 180 days 2) Maximum allocation is 30% of portfolio 3) Maximum par value per institution - regardless of sector, $2,000,000 or 5% whichever is lower. 4) Credit - financial institutions that shall only include banks that have short-term credit ratings of A-1, P-1 or equivalent ratings from other recognized rating services. 6. Certificate of Deposit 6A. Certificate of Deposit (Time Deposit)is a time deposit in a financial institution documented by a certificate that bears a specified dollar amount of the deposit, a specified maturity date and a specified interest rate. California Government Code Section 53635.8 Requirement: No limit specified. City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity - 2 years 2) Maximum par value total size - No restriction 3) Maximum par value per institution - $250,000 4) Credit - from City authorized financial institutions. Collateralization must comply with statutory regulations. 6B. Negotiable Certificate of Deposits are issued by nationally or state-chartered banks, savings associations or federal associations (as defined by Section 5102 of the Financial Code), state or federal credit unions, or by federally- or state-licensed branches of foreign banks and are traditionally trade in lots of at least $1,000,000. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: Shall not exceed the net worth of the institution. City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum Maturity - 5 years 2) Maximum allocation 30% Page 39 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 2017 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT GUIDELINES R2017-__Page 8 of 11 3) Maximum allocation per institution - 5% regardless of sector 4) Credit - Must be rated in a rating category of “A” (long-term) or its equivalent or better or A-1 (short-term) or its equivalent or better, by a nationally recognized statistical-rating organization. 7. Commercial Paper are short-term unsecured promissory notes issued by various economic entities in the open market to finance certain short-term credit needs. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: 1) Prime quality of the highest ranking or of the highest letter and numerical rating as provided for by nationally recognized statistical-rating organization. 2) Issuing corporation must be organized and operating within the United States. 3) Issuing corporation must have total assets in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000). 4) Issuing corporation must be rated in a rating category of "A" or its equivalent or higher by a nationallyrecognized statistical-ratingorganization for the issuer's debt, other than commercial paper. 5) Purchases may not exceed 270 days maturity. 6) Purchases may not represent more than 10% of the outstanding paper of an issuing corporation. 7) Purchases may not exceed 25% of the agency's surplus money. City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity - 270 days 2) Maximum allocation 25% 3) Maximum allocation per issuer - 5% per issuer regardless of sector. 4) Credit - CA GC Section 53601 requirements. 8. Medium Term Notes (MTNs)issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: 1) Maximum of five years maturity 2) Shall be rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized statistical ratings organization. 3) May not exceed 30% of surplus money City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity – 5 years 2) Maximum allocation - 30% 3) Maximum allocation per issuer - 5% regardless of sector 4) Credit - from City or money manager authorized institutions that shall only include institutions rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or higher by a nationally recognized statistical-rating organization. Any downgrading of these issues below the minimum required after purchase shall be reported to the Council in the quarterly reports. Page 40 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 2017 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT GUIDELINES R2017-__Page 9 of 11 9. Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)was established by the State to enable treasurers to place funds in a pool for investments. LAIF Limitations: 1)Maximum amount permitted by LAIF’s Local Investment Advisory Board. 2) No more than 15 transactions in a month City of Napa Limitation: None 10. A Repurchase Agreement is not a security but a contractual agreement. It consists of two simultaneous transactions. First, an investor purchases securities (collateral) from a bank or dealer. At the same time, the selling bank or dealer contractually agrees to repurchase the collateral security at the same price (plus interest) at some mutually agreed future date. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: 1) Term of repurchase agreements shall be for 1 year or less. 2) All securities under a repurchase agreement shall be held by the agency's safekeeping agent. 3) The seller of repurchase securities shall not be entitled to substitute securities, except as authorized by the City. New or substitute securities should be reasonably identical to the original securities in terms of maturity, yield, quality and liquidity. City of Napa Limitation: This investment vehicle, when utilized, shall comply with the following guidelines: 1) Maximum maturity - 30 days 2) Maximum par value total size - 20% 3) Maximum par value per institution - 20% 4) Credit - a) Securities shall be marked to market daily and shall be maintained at a value no lower than $102. b) Securities acceptable as collateral shall be U.S. Treasury obligations only. c) It should be covered by a master repurchase agreement. 5) Repurchase agreements shall only be made with primary dealers of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 11. Money Market Funds The City is authorized to invest in shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies that are money market funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and are subject to either one of the following requirements: 1) The institutions shall have the highest rating provided by not less than two nationally recognized rating services. 2) The institutions' investment advisors shall be registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years' experience managing money market mutual funds with assets under management in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000). The purchase price of shares of beneficial interest purchased shall not include any commission that these companies may charge. Page 41 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 2017 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT GUIDELINES R2017-__Page 10 of 11 City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum allocation - 20% of agency's funds. 2) Maximum of 10% per any one money market mutual fund. 12. California Asset Management Program.The City is authorized to invest in shares of the California Asset Management Program, a joint powers authority established to provide investment services for California public agencies under section 53601(p). 1) CAMP Limitations: City's investment may not comprise more than 10% of the CAMP Pool. 2) City of Napa Limitation: None 13. Asset-Backed Securities.The City is authorized to invest in a mortgage pass-through security, collateralized mortgage obligation, mortgage-backed or other pay-through bond, equipment lease-backed certificate, consumer receivable pass-through certificate, or consumer receivable-backed bond. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: 1) Maximum of five years maturity 2) Shall be issued by an issuer rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or higher rating for the issuer’s debt as provided by a nationally recognized statistical ratings organization and rated in a rating category of “AA” or its equivalent or better. 3) May not exceed 20% of surplus money City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity - 5 years 2) Maximum allocation - 20% 3) Maximum allocation per issuer - 5% regardless of sector 4) Credit - CA GC Section 53601 requirements. 14. Supranationals.The City is authorized to invest in United States dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, or Inter-American Development Bank. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: 1) Maximum of five years maturity 2) Shall be rated in a rating category of “AA” or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized statistical ratings organization. 3) May not exceed 30% of surplus money City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity- 5 years 2) Maximum allocation 30% 3) Maximum allocation per issuer- 5% regardless of sector Page 42 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 2017 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT GUIDELINES R2017-__Page 11 of 11 4) Credit- CA GC Section 53601 requirements. Other investments not authorized by the City of Napa (with the exception of LAIF and CAMP): 1) Reverse repurchase agreement 2) Mutual funds 3) Derivatives such as financial futures and options, step-ups, floaters, inverse floaters, Interest-only (lOs), Principal-only (POs), forwards, currency and interest rate swaps, caps, floors, collars, STRIPS except those already owned as of 12/31/83), etc. 4) Local government investment pools other than LAIF unless specifically approved by the City Council. 5) Eurodollar CDs 6) Federal (Fed) funds. B. ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES 1) Where California Government Code Section 53601 specifies a percentage limitation for a particular category of investment, that percentage is applicable only at the date of purchase. 2) The rating criteria will apply at the time of purchase. If an eligible investment is downgraded after purchase to a rating category which is below the minimum required, the Finance Manager will document his/her analysis and recommendation for disposition of the security for review and approval by the Finance Director / Treasurer. 3) Securities shall not be purchased with trading or speculation (such as anticipating an appreciation of capital value through changes in market interest rates) as the dominant criterion for the section of the security, 4) Transfer of funds to any one institution of more than $5,000,000 shall be approved by the Finance Director/Treasurer. 5) All new financial institutions or primary dealers not already approved by professional money managers working with the City shall be approved by the Finance Director/Treasurer. 6) Trading is prohibited when cash or securities are not available to pay for the securities being purchased. Taking of short position, i.e. selling securities which the City does not own, is also prohibited. 7) Written policies and procedures for the delegation of authority for all investment activities shall be strictly followed. 8) Written investment procedures shall be strictly followed. 0) In case a financial institution or depository is downgraded, the Finance Director/Treasurer shall promptly make and implement an informed decision on whether to sell, withdraw, or retain any security or deposit in the City portfolio issued or held by such affected financial institution or depository. 10) Written policies and procedures for the selection and maintenance of qualified financial institutions should be strictly followed. The Finance Director/Treasurer shall continue to monitor financial institutions' credit characteristics and financial history throughout the period in which City funds are deposited or invested. Page 43 of 477 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 20162017 Page 1 of 13 1. Policy It is the policy of the City of Napa (“City”) to invest public funds in a manner which will provide maximum security, meet the daily cash flow demands of the City, and provide highest investment return while conforming to all California laws and local statutes governing the investment of public funds. 2. Scope This investment policy applies to all the funds and investment activities under the direct authority of the City. This investment policy has been separately approved by the respective governing bodies of the Housing Authority of the City of Napa (“HACN”) and the Successor Agency to the Napa Community Redevelopment Agency (“Successor Agency”); thus, references in this policy to the “City” shall apply equivalently to HACN and the Successor Agency. There are four categories of funds that are separately invested in accordance with specialized requirements for administration and reserve requirements, which supersede conflicting requirements of this policy, including: employees' retirement funds (governed by CalPERS), pension stabilization trust funds (governed by separate investment guidelines adopted by City Council), CERBT trust funds (Governed by CalPERS), and certain debt issues which are invested by trustees appointed under indenture agreements. Funds are accounted for in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and include the following: General Fund Special Revenue Funds Capital Project Funds Debt Service Funds Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds Trust and Agency Funds 3. Prudence All persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the City are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the prudent investor standard: 'When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency. 4. Objective The primary objectives in priority order, of the City’s investment activities shall be: 4.1 Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments of the City shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure that capital losses are avoided, whether from securities default, broker-dealer default, or erosion of market value. To attain this objective, diversification is required in order that potential losses on individual securities do not exceed the income generated from the remainder of the portfolio. The City may elect to sell a security prior to its maturity and record a capital gain or loss in order to Page 44 of 477 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 20162017 Page 2 of 13 improve the quality, liquidity or yield of the portfolio in response to market conditions or the City's risk preferences. 4.2 Liquidity: The City’s investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated. 4.3 Return on Investment: The City’s investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the City's investment risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio. 5. Delegation of Authority Pursuant to the City of Napa Municipal Code Section 2.32.030(g), the Finance Director/Treasurer is delegated investment authority and is responsible for investment decisions and activities. Section 53607 of the California Government Code requires that delegation of authority is only valid for a one-year period or until the delegation of the authority is revoked or expires. Authority must be renewed each year. The Finance Director/Treasurer shall establish written procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent with this investment policy. Procedures should include reference to: Safekeeping, master repurchase agreement, wire transfer agreement, collateral/depository agreement and banking service contract. Such procedures shall include explicit delegation of authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. No City personnel may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the Finance Director/Treasurer. He or she shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of subordinate officials. The City may engage the services of one or more external investment professional money managers to assist in the management of the City's investment portfolio in a manner consistent with the City's objectives. Such external managers may be granted discretion to purchase and sell investment securities in accordance with this Investment Policy. Such managers must be registered under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940. 6. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Employees and investment officials shall disclose to the City Manager any material financial interests in financial institutions that conduct business within the jurisdiction, and they shall further disclose any large personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the City’s portfolio. Employees and officers shall subordinate their personal investment transactions to those of the City's, particularly with regard to the time of purchases and sales. 7. Authorized Money Managers. Financial Dealers and Institutions The City may contract with professional money managers to assist in the management of all or part of its investment portfolio in compliance with the investment guidelines detailed in the Allowable Investment and Additional Investment Guidelines of this policy (Reference pages 5- 11). If the Finance Director/City Treasurer directly invests in individual securities, then the City will Page 45 of 477 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 20162017 Page 3 of 13 maintain a list of financial institutions and primary dealers authorized to provide investment services. Professional money managers working with the City may maintain their own list. "Primary" dealers include those that regularly report to the Federal Reserve Bank and should qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15C3-1 (uniform net capital rule). All financial institutions, dealers and cash managers who desire to become qualified bidders for investment transactions must supply the City with the following: audited financial statements, proof of National Association of Security Dealers certification when applicable, trading resolution, proof of State of California registration when applicable, completed questionnaire and certification of having read the City of Napa's investment policy and depository contracts. A current audited financial statement is required to be on file for each financial institution and dealer. 8. Authorized Investments The City is governed by the California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. Authorized investments of the City are detailed in the Allowable Investment and Additional Investment Guidelines of this policy (Reference pages 5-11). 9. Collateralization Collateralization will be required as indicated in the Allowable Investment and Additional Investment Guidelines of this policy (Reference pages 5-11). Collateral will always be held by an independent third party with whom the City has a current custodial agreement. A clearly marked evidence of ownership (safekeeping receipt) must be supplied to the city and retained. The right of collateral substitution may be granted. 10. Safekeeping and Custody All securities owned by the City, shall be held in safekeeping by the City's custodian bank or a third party bank trust department, acting as agent for the City under the terms of a custody or trustee agreement executed by the bank and by the City. All securities will be received and delivered using standard delivery-versus-payment (DVP) procedures. 11. Diversification The City will diversify its investments by security type and institution as detailed in the Allowable Investment and Additional Investment Guidelines of this policy (Reference pages 5-11). 12. Maximum Maturities Unless matched to a specific cash flow, the City will not directly invest in securities maturing more than 5 years from the date of purchase (See exception indicated in the Allowable Investment and Additional Investment Guidelines of this policy (Reference pages 5-11). 13. Internal Control The Finance Director/Treasurer shall establish a system of written internal controls which shall be reviewed by an independent auditor. This review will provide internal control by assuring compliance with policies and procedures. The controls shall be designed to prevent losses of public funds arising from fraud, employee error, misrepresentation of third parties, unanticipated changes in financial markets, or imprudent actions by employees and officers of the City. Controls deemed most important include: control of collusion, separation of duties, separation of transaction authority from accounting and recordkeeping, clear delegation of authority, Page 46 of 477 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 20162017 Page 4 of 13 specific limitations regarding securities losses and remedial action, written confirmation of telephone transactions, minimizing the number of authorized investment officials, documentation of transactions and strategies, and code of ethics standards. 14. Performance Standards The investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market average rate of return through budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints and cash flow needs. The specific investment performance objective for the portfolio shall be to earn a total rate of return over a market cycle which is approximately equal to a market benchmark index. The current benchmark index for the portfolio is the Merrill Lynch U.S. Treasuries/ Agencies 1-5 Year Index. 15. Reporting Per California Government Code section 53607, the Finance Director/Treasurer shall provide monthly transactions to the City Council. Per California Government Code section 53646, the Finance Director/Treasurer shall may render a quarterly periodic report to the City Council. This report shall include: Type of investment, issuer, Date of maturity, Par and dollar amount invested on all securities, The quarterly report shall state compliance of the portfolio to the statement of investment policy, or manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance. The quarterly report shall also include a statement denoting the ability of the local agency to meet its pool's expenditure requirements for the next six months, or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money shall, or may, not be available. Monthly statements generated by the City's contracted investment managers shall provide the following information: Type of investment Issuer Maturity date Par and dollar amount invested on all securities Market value as of the date of the report and source of valuation 16. Investment Policy Adoption The City’s investment policy shall be adopted by City Council resolution. Any modifications made thereto must be approved by the City Council. Page 47 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 20162017 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT GUIDELINES Page 5 of 13 A. CASH AND INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS City funds that are necessary to meet current operating demands may be kept in checking accounts and savings accounts at financial institutions as identified in California State Government Code Section 53648 provided that they are adequately secured with proper collateral as prescribed by Government Code Sections 53656 and/or 53658. The Finance Director/City Treasurer is authorized to establish systems by which funds may be transferred between these checking and savings accounts, and to and from allowable investment instruments in accordance with this policy. Allowable investments for the portfolio of the City are limited by California State Government Code Sections 53601 et seq.; 53635. They are further restricted by the Finance Director/City Treasurer’s investment strategy. Allowable investments for the Housing Authority of the City of Napa are further restricted by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Required HA Cash Management and Investment Policies and Procedures as provided in Notice PIH 96-33(HA). Percentages of Investment Participation and percentages of Maximum Investment Participation apply at the time of purchase. Purchase transactions may not exceed $10,000,000, nor exceed five-year maturities. Exceptions can only be approved by City Council. The investment instruments and percentages of participation permitted by this policy are: 1. U.S. Treasury Securities (bills, notes and bonds) are sold to finance gaps between the federal government's receipts and expenditures. A Treasury bill (or T-bill) is an obligation of the U.S. government to pay the bearer a fixed sum on a specific date. Bills are sold by the Treasury at a discount from their par (face) value through a competitive auction. Treasury notes are coupon securities paying interest every six months and have a fixed maturity of not less than one year and not more than 10 years. Treasury bonds are coupon securities paying interest every six months with maturities of more than 10 years. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: No limit specified: City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity - 5 years 2) Maximum par value total size - None 3) Maximum par value per issue - None 4) Credit- Full faith and credit of the Federal Government 2. U.S. Agency & Government Sponsored Enterprise Securities are not direct obligations of the United States but rather are direct obligations of agencies of the federal government or government-sponsored enterprises. Securities issued by U.S. government agencies are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. They include the following agencies: -Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) -Export-Import Bank (EXIMBANK) -Small Business Administration (SBAs) Page 48 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 20162017 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT GUIDELINES Page 6 of 13 -Farmers Home Administration (FHA) -General Services Administration (GSA) -Maritime Administration The federal government has sponsored the creation of, or the financial support of several corporations, also known as government-sponsored enterprises. None of these organizations carry the federal government guarantee. They include: -Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) -Federal Farm Credit Bank (FFCB) -Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) -Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) -Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) FDIC-guaranteed securities were a new fixed-income asset class in 2008 that resulted from the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation's creation of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP). Eligible banking institutions participating in the TLGP Program were able to issue debt guaranteed by the FDIC through 10/31/09. The Program covers commercial paper and corporate debt issued by participating banks and bank holding companies for issues that are greater than 30 days maturity, but maturing on or before 12/31/2012. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: No limit specified. City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity - 5 years 2) Maximum allocation - no limitation 3) Maximum allocation per issuer - no limitation 4) Credit - Despite having no statutory limitation concerning this category, prudent investment practice necessitates constant analysis of the issuing agency. Although these issues have either the implicit or explicit guarantee of the federal government, market perception often limits the liquidity of these issues. 3. Obligations of the State of California or any local agency within the state, including bonds payable solely out of revenues from a revenue producing property owned, controlled or operated by the state or any local agency, or by a department, board, agency or authority of the state or any local agency. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: No limit specified. City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity - 5 years 2) Maximum allocation - no limitation 3) Maximum allocation per issuer - 5% 4) Credit - Despite having no statutory limitation concerning this category, prudent investment practice necessitates constant analysis of the issuing State or agency. 4. Registered treasury notes or bonds of any of the other 49 states in addition to California, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing Page 49 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 20162017 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT GUIDELINES Page 7 of 13 property owned, controlled, or operated by a state, or by a department, board, agency, or authority of any of these states. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: No limit specified. City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity - 5 years 2) Maximum allocation - no limitation 3) Maximum allocation per issue - 5% 4) Credit - Despite having no statutory limitation concerning this category, prudent investment practice necessitates constant analysis of the issuing State. 5. Bankers acceptances are typically created from a letter of credit issued in a foreign trade transaction. It is a time draft drawn on and accepted by a bank to pay a specified amount of money on a specified date. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: 1) Purchases may not exceed 180 days. 2) Purchases are restricted to 40% of the agency's surplus money. 3) No more than 30% of the City's surplus money may be invested in the bankers’ acceptances of any one commercial bank. 4) Include only those that are eligible for discounting with the Federal Reserve System. City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity – 180 days 12) Maximum allocation is 30% of portfolio 23) Maximum par value per institution - regardless of sector, $2,000,000 or 5% whichever is lower. 34) Credit - financial institutions that shall only include banks that have short-term credit ratings of A-1, P-1 or equivalent ratings from other recognized rating services. 6. Certificate of Deposit 6A. Certificate of Deposit (Time Deposit) is a time deposit in a financial institution documented by a certificate that bears a specified dollar amount of the deposit, a specified maturity date and a specified interest rate. California Government Code Section 53635.8 Requirement: No limit specified. City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity - 2 years 2) Maximum par value total size - No restriction 3) Maximum par value per institution - $500,000250,000 4) Credit - from City authorized financial institutions. Collateralization must comply with statutory regulations. Page 50 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 20162017 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT GUIDELINES Page 8 of 13 6B. Negotiable Certificate of Deposits are issued by nationally or state-chartered banks, savings associations or federal associations (as defined by Section 5102 of the Financial Code), state or federal credit unions, or by federally- or state-licensed branches of foreign banks and are traditionally trade in lots of at least $1,000,000. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: Shall not exceed the net worth of the institution. City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum Maturity - 5 years 2) Maximum allocation 30% 3) Maximum allocation per institution - 5% regardless of sector 4) Credit - Must be rated in a rating category of at least “A” (long-term) or its equivalent or better or A-1 (short-term) or its equivalent or better, by a nationally recognized statistical-rating organization. 7. Commercial Paper are short-term unsecured promissory notes issued by various economic entities in the open market to finance certain short-term credit needs. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: 1) Prime quality of the highest ranking or of the highest letter and numerical rating as provided for by nationally recognized statistical-rating organization. 2) Issuing corporation must be organized and operating within the United States. 3) Issuing corporation must have total assets in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000). 4) Issuing corporation must have anbe rated in a rating category of "A" or its equivalent or higher rating by a nationally recognized statistical-rating organization for the issuer's debt, other than commercial paper. 5) Purchases may not exceed 270 days maturity. 6) Purchases may not represent more than 10% of the outstanding paper of an issuing corporation. 7) Purchases may not exceed 25% of the agency's surplus money. City of Napa Limitation: 1) 1) Maximum maturity - 270 days 2) Maximum allocation 25% 3) Maximum allocation per issuer - 5% per issuer regardless of sector. 34) Credit - CA GC Section 53601 requirements. 8. Medium Term Notes (MTNs) issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: 1) Maximum of five years maturity 2) Shall be rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized statistical ratings organization. Page 51 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 20162017 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT GUIDELINES Page 9 of 13 3) May not exceed 30% of surplus money City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum maturity – 5 years 2) Maximum allocation - 30% 13) Maximum allocation per issuer - 5% regardless of sector 24) Credit - from City or money manager authorized institutions that shall only include institutions rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or higher by a nationally recognized statistical-rating organization. Any downgrading of these issues below the minimum required after purchase shall be reported to the Council in the quarterly reports. 9. Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) was established by the State to enable treasurers to place funds in a pool for investments. City of Napa Limitation: None LAIF Limitations: 1) Maximum amount permitted by LAIF’s Local Investment Advisory Board.$65,000,000 per account 2) No more than 15 transactions in a month City of Napa Limitation: None 10. A Repurchase Agreement is not a security but a contractual agreement. It consists of two simultaneous transactions. First, an investor purchases securities (collateral) from a bank or dealer. At the same time, the selling bank or dealer contractually agrees to repurchase the collateral security at the same price (plus interest) at some mutually agreed future date. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: 1) Term of repurchase agreements shall be for 1 year or less. 2) All securities under a repurchase agreement shall be held by the agency's safekeeping agent. 3) The seller of repurchase securities shall not be entitled to substitute securities, except as authorized by the City. New or substitute securities should be reasonably identical to the original securities in terms of maturity, yield, quality and liquidity. City of Napa Limitation: This investment vehicle, when utilized, shall comply with the following guidelines: 1) Maximum maturity - 30 days 2) Maximum par value total size - 20% 3) Maximum par value per institution - 20% 4) Credit - a) Securities shall be marked to market daily and shall be maintained at a value no lower than $102. b) Securities acceptable as collateral shall be U.S. Treasury obligations only. c) It should be covered by a master repurchase agreement. 5) Repurchase agreements shall only be made with primary dealers of the Federal Page 52 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 20162017 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT GUIDELINES Page 10 of 13 Reserve Bank of New York. 11. Money Market Funds The City is authorized to invest in shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies that are money market funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and are subject to either one of the following requirements: 1) The institutions shall have the highest rating provided by not less than two nationally recognized rating services. 2) The institutions' investment advisors shall be registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years' experience managing money market mutual funds with assets under management in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000). The purchase price of shares of beneficial interest purchased shall not include any commission that these companies may charge. City of Napa Limitation: 1) Maximum allocation - 20% of agency's funds. 2) Maximum of 10% per any one money market mutual fund. 12. California Asset Management Program. The City is authorized to invest in shares of the California Asset Management Program, a joint powers authority established to provide investment services for California public agencies under section 53601(p). 1) City of Napa Limitation: None 21) CAMP Limitations: City's investment may not comprise more than 10% of the CAMP Pool. 12) City of Napa Limitation: None 13. Asset-Backed Securities. The City is authorized to invest in a mortgage pass-through security, collateralized mortgage obligation, mortgage-backed or other pay-through bond, equipment lease-backed certificate, consumer receivable pass-through certificate, or consumer receivable-backed bond. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: 1) Maximum of five years maturity 2) Shall be issued by an issuer having anrated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or higher rating for the issuer’s debt as provided by a nationally recognized statistical ratings organization and rated in a rating category of “AA” or its equivalent or better. 3) May not exceed 20% of surplus money City of Napa Limitation: 1) 1) Maximum maturity - 5 years 1)2) Maximum allocation - 20% 23) Maximum allocation per issuer - 5% regardless of sector 34) Credit - CA GC Section 53601 requirements. Page 53 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 20162017 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT GUIDELINES Page 11 of 13 14. Supranationals. The City is authorized to invest in United States dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, or Inter-American Development Bank. California Government Code Section 53601 Requirement: 1) Maximum of five years maturity 2) Shall be rated in a rating category of “AA” or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized statistical ratings organization. 3) May not exceed 30% of surplus money City of Napa Limitation: 1) 1) Maximum maturity- 5 years 1)2) Maximum allocation 30% 23) Maximum allocation per issuer- 5% regardless of sector 34) Credit- CA GC Section 53601 requirements. Other investments not authorized by the City of Napa (with the exception of LAIF and CAMP): 1) Reverse repurchase agreement 2) Mutual funds 3) Derivatives such as financial futures and options, step-ups, floaters, inverse floaters, Interest-only (lOs), Principal-only (POs), forwards, currency and interest rate swaps, caps, floors, collars, STRIPS except those already owned as of 12/31/83), etc. 4) Local government investment pools other than LAIF unless specifically approved by the City Council. 5) Eurodollar CDs 6) Federal (Fed) funds. B. ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES 1) Adequate liquidity equivalent to six-month expenditures shall be maintained. 2) No more than 50% of the overall City portfolio shall mature beyond 2 years. 31) Where California Government Code Section 53601 specifies a percentage limitation for a particular category of investment, that percentage is applicable only at the date of purchase. 42) The rating criteria will apply at the time of purchase. If an eligible investment is downgraded after purchase to a rating category which is below the minimum required, the Finance Manager will document his/her analysis and recommendation for disposition of the security for review and approval by the Finance Director / Treasurer. 53) Securities shall not be purchased with trading or speculation (such as anticipating an appreciation of capital value through changes in market interest rates) as the dominant criterion for the section of the security, 64) Transfer of funds to any one institution of more than $5,000,000 shall be approved by the Finance Director/Treasurer. Page 54 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 20162017 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT GUIDELINES Page 12 of 13 75) All new financial institutions or primary dealers not already approved by prof essional money managers working with the City shall be approved by the Finance Director/Treasurer. 86) Trading is prohibited when cash or securities are not available to pay for the securities being purchased. Taking of short position, i.e. selling securities which the City does not own, is also prohibited. 97) Written policies and procedures for the delegation of authority for all investment activities shall be strictly followed. 108) Written investment procedures shall be strictly followed. 110) In case a financial institution or depository is downgraded, the Finance Director/Treasurer shall promptly make and implement an informed decision on whether to sell, withdraw, or retain any security or deposit in the City portfolio issued or held by such affected financial institution or depository. 1210) Written policies and procedures for the selection and maintenance of qualified financial institutions should be strictly followed. The Finance Director/Treasurer shall continue to monitor financial institutions' credit characteristics and financial history throughout the period in which City funds are deposited or invested. Page 55 of 477 Exhibit A CITY OF NAPA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY June 20162017 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT GUIDELINES Page 13 of 13 Page 56 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:958-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.E. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Brian Cochran, Finance Director Prepared By: Desiree Brun, Assistant to the City Manager TITLE: Healthcare Insurance Services RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements with healthcare providers for healthcare insurance services. DISCUSSION: The City offers healthcare benefits to eligible City employees (including dependents and retirees), as approved by City Council through negotiated memoranda of understandings (“MOUs”) with represented employees, and through resolutions providing benefits to unrepresented employees. The MOUs and resolutions document the level of benefits offered, and the maximum monthly premium that will be paid by the City, and the portion of the cost (if any) which is required to be paid by the employee. The City’s bi-annual budget includes the City’s costs of funding these healthcare benefits at the levels approved by the City Council. The City implements the healthcare benefits provided to City employees through agreements with private healthcare providers. The City’s current healthcare providers include Kaiser Permanente, Western Health Advantage, and Delta Dental of California. Healthcare rates are set annually. Each year, several months in advance of the effective date, the City receives notification of healthcare rates for the coming twelve-month period. The City is required to execute amendments with each provider reflecting the revised monthly healthcare premiums. As new agreements and amendments, between the City and the healthcare providers, are being proposed for the new fiscal year, the purpose of this item is to clarify the scope of the delegation of authority to the City Manager to execute agreements and amendments with healthcare providers, in substantial conformance with the terms of the attached agreements with Kaiser Permanente, Western Health Advantage, and Delta Dental of California (which includes Delta Dental Premier, and Delta Care services). FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City’s cost for employee and retiree healthcare coverage is included in the approved Operating Budget. Delegation of authority to the City Manager to approve agreements and amendments with CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 57 of 477 File #:958-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.E. Budget. Delegation of authority to the City Manager to approve agreements and amendments with healthcare providers will result in no additional cost to the City. CEQA: The Assistant to the City Manager has determined that the Recommended Action described in this Agenda Report is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Agreements with Healthcare Providers for Healthcare Insurance Services. EX A - Kaiser Permanente Agreement EX B - Western Health Agreement EX C - Delta Dental and Delta Care Agreement and Plan Docs NOTIFICATION: None CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 58 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 1 of 2 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WITH HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS FOR HEALTHCARE INSURANCE SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Napa has executed agreements with healthcare providers to provide healthcare insurance for eligible City employees, dependents and retirees; and WHEREAS, these healthcare providers periodically require that the City execute amendments to those agreements to reflect adjustments to billing rates; and WHEREAS, the City Council, through approved bargaining group labor agreements, establishes guidelines for healthcare coverage and costs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this resolution. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute agreements, including any amendments thereto, with healthcare providers to provide healthcare insurance services subject to the following: a) Healthcare benefits provided under the agreement or amendment will be in substantial conformance with the benefits provided under the agreements attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference between the City and: Exhibit “A” Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.; Exhibit “B” Western Health Advantage, a not for profit health care service plan; and Exhibit “C” Delta Dental of California (which includes Delta Dental Premier, and Delta Care services). b) The costs to be incurred under the agreement or amendment will be within available appropriations in the City’s approved budget. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Page 59 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 2 of 2 June 20, 2017 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of June 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:___ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to Form: _________________________ Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 60 of 477 R2017-__Page 1 of 19Page 61 of 477 Page 2 of 19Page 62 of 477 Page 3 of 19Page 63 of 477 Page 4 of 19Page 64 of 477 Page 5 of 19Page 65 of 477 Page 6 of 19Page 66 of 477 Page 7 of 19Page 67 of 477 Page 8 of 19Page 68 of 477 Page 9 of 19Page 69 of 477 Page 10 of 19Page 70 of 477 Page 11 of 19Page 71 of 477 Page 12 of 19Page 72 of 477 Page 13 of 19Page 73 of 477 Page 14 of 19Page 74 of 477 Page 15 of 19Page 75 of 477 Page 16 of 19Page 76 of 477 Page 17 of 19Page 77 of 477 Page 18 of 19Page 78 of 477 Page 19 of 19Page 79 of 477 City of Napa June 20, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Item 5.E. EX B Page 80 of 477 City of Napa June 20, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Item 5.E. EX C Page 81 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:984-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.F. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Brian Cochran, Finance Director Prepared By: Jessie Sauter, Finance Analyst TITLE: Paramedic Tax Rate RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the Paramedic tax rate for Fiscal Year 2017/18. DISCUSSION: Attached is the FY 2017/18 rate for the Paramedic Tax. An adopted resolution is required annually by the County of Napa Auditor- Controller's Office for inclusion on the property tax bills. No change is proposed to the current tax rate. Section 95.1 of the Napa City Charter, as amended on January 25, 1977, authorizes an annual tax levy of six cents on each $100 of assessed valuation for the purpose of providing emergency medical technician (paramedic) services throughout the City. However, following voter approval of Proposition 13 and implementing State legislation, the City's authority to impose the paramedic tax was capped at the amount imposed in the 1982/83 fiscal year. The City has consistently imposed the paramedic tax from fiscal years 1982/83 through 2016/17 at 1.5 cents on each $100 of assessed valuation. At the 1.5 cent rate, the Paramedic Tax is projected to generate $1.7 million in revenue to the General Fund during FY 2017/18. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The revenues derived from this tax have been included in the Fiscal Year 2017/18 proposed budget, in the amount of $1.7 million. CEQA: The City Manager has determined that the Recommended Action described in this Agenda Report is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Resolution authorizing the Paramedic tax rate for Fiscal Year 2017/18. NOTIFICATION: None. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 82 of 477 File #:984-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.F. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 83 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 1 of 1 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PARAMEDIC TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017/18 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this resolution. 2. Pursuant to Section 95.1 of the Charter of the City of Napa, there is hereby fixed and levied a rate of 1.5 cents per $100 of assessed valuation for paramedic purposes on all taxable property, both real and personal, in the City of Napa, County of Napa, State of California, excepting such property as is by law exempt from taxation, on each $100 of assessed valuation of taxable property as shown by the assessment roll of the County of Napa for Fiscal Year 2017/18. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20 th day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to form Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 84 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:974-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.G. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Jacques R. LaRochelle, Public Works Director Prepared By: Jeff Freitas, Property Manager TITLE: Summary Abandonment and Quit Claim of Portions of Gasser Drive RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing summary abandonment and quit claim of portions of unimproved Gasser Drive, between Tulocay Creek and Soscol Avenue, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. DISCUSSION: The City of Napa has received a request to abandon and quit claim portions of unimproved Gasser Drive extending between Soscol Avenue and Tulocay Creek (“Subject Easement”), from the Gasser Foundation, owner of the properties on both sides of unimproved Gasser Drive (APNs 046-190-052, 046-190-053, 046-190-054 and 046-190-024). The location of the right-of-way proposed to be abandoned is depicted on Attachment 2. The right-of-way for the future extension of Gasser Drive was offered for dedication by the Gasser Foundation to the City of Napa in 1995 by that certain Offer of Dedication, recorded July 25, 1995 as Instrument No. 1995-015853, Napa County Official Records, and the City accepted the Offer of Dedication by that certain Certificate of Acceptance recorded March 11, 1996 as Instrument No. 1996 -005917, Napa County Official Records. Pursuant to its Master Plan, the Gasser Foundation is developing its property surrounding the Subject Easement, including the sale of a portion for development of an affordable housing project. As development plans for the surrounding properties have been advanced, it has been determined that the entire dedicated width of future Gasser Drive is not necessary to support the development proposed. The request, therefore, is to abandon and quit claim to the Gasser Foundation strips along the outside edges of the Gasser Drive right-of-way to narrow the right-of-way for the future extension of Gasser Drive. Abandonment of the Subject Easement qualifies for a summary abandonment under Section 8333(a) of the California Streets and Highways Code because the Subject Easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated for five consecutive years immediately preceding the CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 85 of 477 File #:974-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.G. proposed abandonment. Under the summary abandonment process, a public hearing is not required. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There is no financial impact to the City of Napa anticipated as a result of the proposed action. CEQA: City staff recommends that the City Council determine that the Recommended Action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (minor alteration of existing facilities). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Resolution EX A through D-1 - Legal Description and Plat Maps of Subject Easement ATCH 2 - Location Map NOTIFICATION: None. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 86 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 1 of 2 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING SUMMARY ABANDONMENT AND QUIT CLAIM OF PORTIONS OF UNIMPROVED GASSER DRIVE, BETWEEN TULOCAY CREEK AND SOSCOL AVENUE, AND DETERMINING THAT THE ACTIONS AUTHORIZED BY THIS RESOLUTION ARE EXEMPT FROM CEQA WHEREAS, right-of-way for the future extension of Gasser Drive was offered for dedication from the Gasser Foundation to the City of Napa (City) by that certain Offer of Dedication, recorded July 25, 1995 as Instrument No. 1995-015853, Napa County Official Records; and WHEREAS, the City accepted the Offer of Dedication for the future extension of Gasser Drive by that certain Certificate of Acceptance recorded March 11, 1996 as Instrument No. 1996-005917, Napa County Official Records; and WHEREAS, current development of surrounding properties by the Gasser Foundation pursuant to its Master Plan do not require the full width of right-of-way for the future extension of Gasser Drive as contemplated when said right-of-way was dedicated to the City; and WHEREAS, the Gasser Foundation, owner of the properties adjacent to the future extension of Gasser Drive (APNs 046-190-052, 046-190-053, 046-190-054 and 046-190-024) has requested the abandonment and quit claim of portions of the unimproved Gasser Drive (“Subject Easement”); and WHEREAS, the abandonment of the Subject Easement qualifies for a summary abandonment under Section 8333(a) of the California Streets and Highways Code because the Subject Easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed abandonment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution. Page 87 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 2 of 2 June 20, 2017 2. The City Council hereby determines that the actions authorized by this Resolution are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (minor alteration of existing facilities). 3. Pursuant to Section 8335 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, the City Council hereby vacates and abandons the Subject Easement, which is a portion of the future extension of Gasser Drive, as more particularly described and shown on Exhibits A and A-1, B and B-1, C and C-1, and D and D-1. 4. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute a Quit Claim Deed to convey the City’s interest in the abandoned Subject Easement areas to the Gasser Foundation. 5. The City Council hereby authorizes the Property Manager to process the herein described abandonment and Quit Claim and execute any additional documents necessary to complete the abandonment and quit claim. 6. The City Council hereby authorizes the recordation of this Resolution of Abandonment and said Quit Claim Deed in the Office of the County Recorder of Napa County and, upon the recordation of said Resolution of Abandonment, the Subject Easement described and shown on Exhibits A, B, C, and D shall no longer constitute a public right-of-way. 7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ________________________ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to form: Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 88 of 477 Page 1 of 11EXHIBITS A THROUGH D-1 OF ATTACHMENT 1R2017-__Page 89 of 477 Page 2 of 11Page 90 of 477 Page 3 of 11Page 91 of 477 Page 4 of 11Page 92 of 477 Page 5 of 11Page 93 of 477 Page 6 of 11EXHIBITS A THROUGH D-1 OF ATTACHMENT 1Page 94 of 477 Page 7 of 11EXHIBITS A THROUGH D-1 OF ATTACHMENT 1Page 95 of 477 Page 8 of 11EXHIBITS A THROUGH D-1 OF ATTACHMENT 1Page 96 of 477 Page 9 of 11EXHIBITS A THROUGH D-1 OF ATTACHMENT 1Page 97 of 477 Page 10 of 11EXHIBITS A THROUGH D-1 OF ATTACHMENT 1Page 98 of 477 Page 11 of 11EXHIBITS A THROUGH D-1 OF ATTACHMENT 1Page 99 of 477 ATTACHMENT 2Page 100 of 477 City of Napa June 20, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Item 5.H. ATCH 4 City of Napa June 20, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Item 5.H. ATCH 5 Page 101 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:977-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.H. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Jacques R. LaRochelle, Public Works Director Prepared By: Phil Brun, Deputy Public Works Director (Operations) TITLE: Roof Extensions and Concrete Slab Project at Materials Diversion Facility RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to negotiate and execute a Design-Build Agreement with Ledcor Construction Inc., in an amount not to exceed $2,400,000, for design and construction services for roof extensions and concrete slab at the City’s Materials Diversion Facility, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution were adequately analyzed by a previous CEQA action. DISCUSSION: The Materials Diversion Facility (MDF) receives and processes all residential and commercial source separated recyclables and yardwaste generated within the City and collected by the City’s hauler, Napa Recycling & Waste Services LLC (NRWS). The MDF also receives and processes materials delivered by haulers servicing surrounding jurisdictions and by self-haul customers. The Solid Waste & Materials Diversion Fund recently secured bond funds to construct a variety of necessary improvements at the MDF including covered compost facilities, stormwater management improvements, roof/building structures to cover operations and other site improvements. The specific improvements included in the Design-Build Agreement requested for authorization in this staff report, are as follows: ·Metal Canopy Roof Structure - 40’x120’x26’ low eave height ·Metal Canopy Roof Structure - 75’x102’x26’ low eave height ·Metal Canopy Roof Structure - 75’x102’x26’ low eave height ·Metal Canopy Roof Structure - 50’x72’x 20’ low eave height ·Metal Canopy Roof Structure - 25’x200’x26’ low eave height ·Concrete Slab - 40’x300’x8” The metal canopy roof structures will be install adjacent to the Materials Sorting Facility and will provide cover for processing and storage of source separated recyclables. The concrete slab will tie CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 102 of 477 File #:977-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.H. into the existing slab in the south-east corner of the facility and provide appropriate space for storage of recyclables. These improvements are necessary to comply with stormwater regulations and enhance operations within the area available to process and store recyclables. On April 26, 2017, the City posted an advertisement soliciting Requests for Proposals (RFPs) from Design-Build Contractors and on June 2, 2017, received two proposals. Staff conducted a review of each proposal to determine the best overall value to the City based on criteria detailed in the RFP (see Attachment 1). Both firms who submitted had the demonstrated and relevant experience to meet the expectations outlined in the City’s RFP; however, Ledcor Construction Inc. ranked highest based primarily on the proposed construction price being approximately $194,000 less and identified several value modifications, totaling approximately $220,000 for the City to consider when negotiating the final contract. Ledcor maintains an office in Napa and their proposal includes the use of local subcontractors for engineering, site work, concrete and electrical. Ledcor estimated that 56% of the cost of their proposal will be performed by local businesses. City staff recommends selection of Ledcor Construction, Inc., for Design-Build services for roof extensions and concrete slab at the Materials Diversion Facility. It is further recommended that Council authorize the Public Works Director to negotiate the final scope of work and price and execute a Design-Build Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: In September 2016, Council approved the issuance of revenue bonds for the Solid Waste and Materials Diversion Fund for capital improvements at the Materials Diversion Facility. $12,500,000 in bond proceeds were received and are available to fund these improvements. The remaining funds will be used for a Design-Build contract to complete covered compost facilities and stormwater processing improvements which is expected to be presented to City Council in September 2017. CEQA: City staff recommends that the City Council determine that the potential environmental effects of the Recommended Action described in this Agenda Report were adequately analyzed by the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Napa Renewable Resource Project (File No. PL12-0022), adopted November 7, 2013 (Resolution No. PC2013-15), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Resolution ATCH 2 - RFP Evaluation Sheet ATCH 3 - Ledcor Construction Proposal ATCH 4 - Shimmick Construction Proposal ATCH 5 - Request for Proposal for Design-Build Services NOTIFICATION: None CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 103 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 1 of 5 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A DESIGN-BUILD AGREEMENT WITH LEDCOR CONSTRUCTION INC., IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,400,000, FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR ROOF EXTENSIONS AND CONCRETE SLAB AT THE CITY’S MATERIALS DIVERSION FACILITY AND DETERMINING THAT THE ACTIONS AUTHORIZED BY THIS RESOLUTION WERE ADEQUATELY ANALYZED BY A PREVIOUS CEQA ACTION WHEREAS, the City’s Solid Waste and Materials Diversion Fund recently secured bond financing to construct a variety of necessary capital improvements at the City’s Materials Diversion Facility; and WHEREAS, Napa Municipal Code Section 2.70.91 authorizes the City to enter into contracts with design-build entities for any combination of services needed for the design and construction or manufacture of a project provided that City Council makes a written determination that the proposed contract complies with certain requirements; and WHEREAS, in April of 2017, City staff issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) from Design-Build contractors and on June 2, 2017, received two proposals; and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the proposal submissions and concluded that the proposal submitted by Ledcor Construction Inc. offers the best overall value to the City based on the selection criteria identified in the RFP; and WHEREAS, in 2013, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and adopted for the Napa Renewable Resources Project, which included an analysis of the need for roof structures for storm water compliance and the use of concrete slabs; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution. Page 104 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 2 of 5 June 20, 2017 2. The City Council finds that the 2013 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared and adopted for the Napa Renewable Resources Project included analysis of significant improvements at the existing Materials Diversion Facility including adding facilities for covered composting, anaerobic digestion, biomass gasification, storm water management and solar panels. Roof structures for storm water compliance were identified in the analysis, however the specific structures to be constructed were not known at the time. Concrete slabs were included in the analysis for the covered composting facility, however the specific slab for recyclable storage was not included. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Page 105 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 3 of 5 June 20, 2017 The City Council hereby finds that the actions authorized by this Resolution include the same or similar type and scope of construction activities within the previously analyzed footprint of the existing developed and operating industrial facility and do not constitute the type of substantial change that would require major revisions to the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Accordingly, the City Council hereby further determines that the potential environmental effects of the actions authorized by this Resolution were adequately analyzed by the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Napa Renewable Resource Project (File No. PL12-0022), adopted November 7, 2013 (Resolution No. PC2013-15), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 3. Pursuant to Napa Municipal Code Section 2.91.070, the City Council hereby makes the following determinations in support of the authorization set forth in this Resolution for the Public Works Director to negotiate the final scope of work and price for a Design-Build Contract to complete the construction of the capital improvements for roof extensions and concrete slab at the Materials Diversion Facility: A. The City’s goals for the proposed project will be more cost effectively achieved through a design-build contract, as compared to the City’s formal bidding process, after taking into consideration (for all combined services and property needed for the project): costs; timing; the need to coordinate with third parties; unique requirements for project quality; the likely need to consider innovative solutions to unique project challenges (such as the need to incorporate specialized equipment or other project components); and the need to consider unique project financing alternatives. Findings: Using the formal bidding process would have required separate structural, geotechnical and civil design contracts with City staff coordinating the design, permitting and construction management efforts. The design-build process more efficiently and cost-effectively placed all design efforts under a single entity that is also responsible for permitting, inspection, testing and coordination with ongoing operations. B. The City actively solicited proposals from design-build entities in a manner that effectively requested competitive proposals from entities qualified and available to successfully complete the proposed project under a design-build contract. Findings: Request for Proposals from Design-Build contractors were actively advertised in Northern California plan rooms and contractor trade associations. C. After evaluating the respective qualifications and proposals submitted by competitive proposers, and after negotiating contract terms with the apparently successful design-build entity, the City selected the design-build entity on a “best value” basis that will most cost effectively achieve the City’s goals for the Page 106 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 4 of 5 June 20, 2017 proposed project, after considering: the criteria set forth in paragraph A above; the feasibility and likelihood of success of the design-build entity’s approach to the project; overall price (including initial costs and life cycle costs); schedule; the design-build entity’s experience, training, and qualifications (including an evaluation of references on similar projects related to responsiveness, timeliness, quality of work, and overall performance); the design-build entity’s capacity, capability, and financial stability to complete the project; and overall responsiveness to the City’s RFP. Findings: Ledcor Construction Inc. has extensive experience with the type and scope of construction activities included in the Design-Build Contract. Their price quote was the lowest proposal and offered additional value engineering options for the City to consider to further reduce cost. D. The contract between the design-build entity and the City: (a) meets the purpose and goals identified in Subsection 2.91.010(D) of Napa Municipal Code Chapter 2.91, and (b) complies with the requirements of Subsection 2.91.030(B) of Napa Municipal Code Chapter 2.91. Findings: Yes, the contract meets the goals of the Napa Municipal Code and provides the best value to the City with a qualified contractor to deliver the Design-Build services in a timely and cost effective manner. 4. The City Council hereby authorizes the Public Works Director to negotiate and execute a Design-Build Contract with Ledcor Construction Inc. in an amount not to exceed $2,400,000 for design and construction services for roof extensions and concrete slab at the City’s Materials Diversion Facility. 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Page 107 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 5 of 5 June 20, 2017 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ________________________ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to for: _________________________ Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 108 of 477 Part IV – SELECTION CRITERIA The qualification and proposal submittals will be evaluated to determine the best overall value to the City. The evaluation criteria are listed below: Evaluation Sheet Criteria Maximum Points GENERAL – Overall quality of the proposal, completeness, responsiveness and readability. 5 SCOPE and SCHEDULE – Level of detail and completeness of scope of work, documented understanding of the work to be done, detailed and well thought out schedule, ability to meet the schedule and demonstrated value to the City. 15 DESIGN TEAM – Successful experience with similar kinds of work, quality and applicability of references, demonstrated technical ability, firm history, level of experience, qualifications of design team and organization of team. 15 CONSTRUCTION TEAM – Successful experience with similar kinds of work, quality and applicability of references, demonstrated technical ability, firm history, level of experience, qualifications of subcontractors for specialty work (concrete, metal structures, etc.), organization of team, demonstrated value to the City based on results of past projects. 15 COORDINATION – Demonstrated understanding of site constraints, daily operation of facility and coordination with NRWS activities, public interaction and working hour restrictions. 10 CONTRACT PRICE – Completeness and accuracy of Cost Proposal Worksheet, options for value engineering and overall value to the City. (See details below for Local Bidder Preference) 40 Total 100 The top-ranked firm based upon the proposal submittal will be expected to execute an agreement for Design-Build Services with the City. Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 109 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 1 | 21 Part III – PROPOSAL CONTENT AND FORMAT A. TRANSMITTAL LETTER 1. Design-build contractor contact: Napa Office: Jeff Baptista, Operations Manager 466 Devlin Road, Napa CA 94558 707-257-5231 jeff.baptista@Ledcor.com 2. Locations: US Headquarters: 6405 Mira Mesa Blvd, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92121 858.527.6400 Local Office: 466 Devlin Road Napa, CA 94558 3. Company Management/Ownership The Ledcor Group of Companies is one of the largest privately-held multi-disciplined construction companies, ranking among the top construction companies in North America. Our values We are an organization built upon the values of safety, quality, integrity, sustainability, and success. For over half a century, Ledcor has developed strong working relationships—80 per cent of our business is with repeat clients. Our markets We have 65 years of experience delivering full construction services and/or turnkey services for buildings, infrastructure, transportation, oil/gas and chemicals, mining, forestry, power, communications, environmental, and real estate investments. Our annual volume is in excess of $3.5 B. Our geographic diversity Our geographic diversity provides local knowledge of practices and standards. We assist our clients with their expansion plans into new markets. With 16 offices throughout North America, Ledcor combines the resources and experience of each local office, providing construction services tailor-made to each of our clients’ needs in all segments of the market. Projects of all sizes Throughout Ledcor’s history, we have consistently demonstrated strong management skills in projects of all sizes - no project is too small or too large. Our team We have a staff of approximately 8,000 people across North America. Our teamwork approach, experienced personnel and safety-conscious attitude have defined Ledcor as a company who has the ability to respond to any challenge that a project can offer and bring it to a successful completion. Page 1 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 110 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 2 | 21 Our services Our services include project/construction management services, design-build, public- private partnerships, along with Green Building Performance Solutions. Through our diversification, we also provide operations/maintenance, plant site facilities, highways, pipelines, transportation and supply chain services, and telecommunications organizations. Safety Ledcor’s award-winning Health, Safety, and Environmental (HS&E) program is applied to every project. Our robust HS&E program is designed to protect our employees, trade contractors, clients, the public, and property. We are proud of our reputation and achievements in being recognized in the construction industry as a company that works diligently to provide a safe and healthy work environment. Quality We are committed to quality—one of our core values. Our quality programs bring efficiency in planning, execution, and completion to achieve the highest level of quality for our clients. Our in-house programs are flexible and are designed to capture the requirements of clients, consultants, and authorities. Sustainability We have integrated sustainability into our corporate philosophy and business practices. We are committed to progressive change in our industry and sectors in which we work. Through Ledcor Renew, Ledcor Environmental Solutions, Carbon Credit Corporation, and Offsetters, we focus on offering solutions for energy efficiency, fuel choices, waste & recycling opportunities, and water management practices. Giving back to our Communities We are committed to making our communities a better place to live and work. In the last five years, we have given back over $24 M to our local communities. Ledcor’s culture promotes donations and sponsorships from the corporate level and branch office to employees. We support hospitals, children’s hospice, community outreach programs, and United Way. B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Ledcor Napa is a unique branch to the Ledcor Group composed of a team who specialize and focus on the delivery of variety of commercial public and private projects. We have had our roots in the Napa and Sonoma areas for years, establishing strong relationship and well-known reputation with owners and designers alike. Ledcor has not had any contract terminated in the last three years. Attachment A does not apply. C. TEAM QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE Business Entity: 1. Ledcor’s proposed team is looking forward to collaborating with the City of Napa. We are dedicated to delivering a successful project staffed with highly competent leadership. Ledcor’s project management team has dedicated the majority of their careers to the commercial sector. Another distinct advantage of this team is their rich history of working together on similar, successful construction management projects for public agencies. Page 2 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 111 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 3 | 21 Assigned Project Personnel Personnel Role Years in Industry Jeff Baptista Operation Manager 28 John McBroom Project Manager 40 Jose Zavala Superintendent 15 Alex Pimieta Project Engineer 5 Kyle Schuh QC Manager 20 2. Company Participants: Team Partner Type of Entity Officers/ Principals Location Years in Business Average $/year Bonding Cap. # of Employees # of Project Employees O’Malley Wilson Westphal Architect Corporation Dan Westphal Kevin O’Malley Santa Rosa, CA 17 400,000 n/a 3 2 Chaudhary & Associates Civil Eng Corporation Sudhir K Chaudhary Napa, CA 41 6.0M n/a 42 4 RHG, Soil Engineer Corporation Eric Chase Santa Rosa, CA 37 4.5M n/a 14 3 ZFA, Structural Engineer Corporation Chris Jonas, Kevin Zucco Santa Rosa, CA 43 8.9M n/a 63 2 Benchmark, Site Work Corporation Chad Yates Napa, CA 10 5.0M 20 9 R.E Maher Concrete Corporation Rod Maher American Canyon 20 30.0M 20.0M 100 10 Division 13 Metal Bldgs Corporation Mark Davis Santa Rosa, CA 25 3.4M n/a 15 6 Northern Fire Protect. Fire Sprinklers Sole Proprietorship Frank Higdon Santa Rosa, CA 33 1.5M n/a 6 2 Napa Electrical Corporation Ruben Perez Napa, CA 78 12.0M 2.5M 70 2 3. Ledcor does not anticipate working with projects partnership, joint venture or none legal entities. License and Qualifications: All team members are licensed and qualified to work on construction projects of this type. All sub-consultants and subcontractors will have their project work credentials examined and verified by Ledcor Construction Page 3 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 112 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 4 | 21 Team Member State License Contractors Lic # Classification Expiration Date Ledcor CA 817882 B-Bldg 03/31/2019 Architect – O’Malley Wilson Wesphal CA C24722 Architecture 09/30/2017 Civil Eng. – Chaudhary & Associates CA n/a Professional N/A Soil Eng – RGH Engineering CA GE2628 N/A 06/30/2019 Structural Eng - ZFA CA 5246 Structural 09/30/2017 Site Work - Benchmark CA 957791 A-Eng 02/28/2019 Concrete – R.E Maher CA 514236 A, B, C-8 04/30/2019 Metal Bldgs – Division 13 Buildings CA 993383 B-Bldg 06/30/2018 Fire Sprinklers – Northern Fire Prot. CA 964187 C-16 08/31/2017 Electrical – Napa Electric CA 214940 C10 08/31/2017 General Design and Build Experience 1. Please see Exhibit – A under column E 2. Ledcor performs value engineering analysis and implements any and all recommendations on every design-build project. 3. Discuss change order history, we address change orders in the following steps: a. We identify the change in condition b. Notify all team participants c. Find a solution that satisfies every participant needs d. We prepare and submit the change order documentation for Owners approval e. Incorporate the changes and proceed with the work f. Please see Exhibit – B for a change order history example 4. For a variety of public and private please see Exhibit – C. Project Management 1. Our team prioritizes taking the time to understand and analyze our client’s most pressing issues. We carefully review the project scope and requirements and customize our approach to suit the city’s needs. From there, Ledcor takes the lead to direct the manpower and provide expertise necessary to overcome challenges, leading to completion of our work on time and under budget. Elements of our Construction and Project Management Approach: THE RIGHT TEAM: We have put together a team of professionals who are passionate about the industry and have worked together on numerous projects, including expansion projects and facilities containing laboratory components. CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCOPE: We ensure that our guidance, leadership, and coordination in completing bid documents, prequalifications, and schedule have the correct focus in mind for the project. Therefore, after project award, our team will meet with the City and architect to gain an in-depth understanding of the refined requirements for this project. Page 4 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 113 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 5 | 21 COLLABORATION DURING DESIGN: As the project design progresses, Ledcor will take charge to support design development meetings, provide meeting agendas and minutes, compile constructability review comments, submit detailed preliminary estimates of costs and monitor the preconstruction progress via a bar chart schedule. Collaboration is the Ledcor way. PRO-ACTIVE PRE-CONSTRUCTION: We understand the process of jurisdictional approvals including the necessity to gain required approvals in advance. When necessary, we utilize a “fast track” approach to identify permits that can be processed and approved earlier to start the construction process sooner. By issuing early release packages that offer agencies “first pass” at approving items that have significant design and cost impacts, we can maintain the project schedule while still gaining the correct approvals along the way. BIDDING: Our team understands the intricate nuances of bidding out Multiple-Prime CM projects. We know it is not enough to just advertise the projects; we must also improve bid solicitations to include local contractors, as well as those with municipal experience and those who have previously worked with Ledcor. To ensure overall project success, we focus on three principles when making decisions throughout preconstruction: · Provide contractors adequate time to bid the project · Provide contractors adequate space to laydown and build · Provide contractors the best drawings – a result of ensuring the architect coordinates design review comments and answers pre-bid questions via addenda. Attention to these three principles has resulted in accurate, competitive bids, highly qualified contractors, and our most successful projects. CONSTRUCTION: During construction, Ledcor leads the effort in monitoring and measuring the work process. Our collaboration with the architect removes ambiguities, which can arise in materials and construction specifications. We work in unison with the architect to develop a clear understanding of what is specified and expected, so our focus remains on completing a quality project on schedule without unnecessary delays and within budget. COMMISSIONING AND CLOSEOUT: For each of our projects, commissioning and closeout is overseen from beginning to end. We take charge to ensure all systems are developed consistently with the City’s wishes and operating properly before occupancy, and when the building is fully operational. Working hand in hand with the City, we ensure a seamless occupancy. By utilizing digital, hyperlinked plan sets throughout construction, we can provide the City with a comprehensive closeout package immediately upon completion. (See Exhibit - D for team organizational chart) 2. See Exhibit – E for team resumes 3. We estimate the team member time spend on project to be as follows: · Jeff Baptista, Project Executive, 20 percent · John McBroom, Project Manager, 50 percent · Joze Zavala, Superintendent, 100 percent Page 5 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 114 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 6 | 21 · Alex Pimienta, Project Engineer, 100 percent · Kyle Schuh, QA/QC Manager, 20 percent Metal Roof Structures: 1. Ledcor’s experience working on projects composed of, or incorporating, metal buildings, metal roof structures and concrete is quite extensive. Our work on such projects locally has afforded us the opportunity to learn what works and what doesn’t, in terms of scheduling, application, exterior coatings treatment selection, insulation materials selection and site work preparation. This experience allows Ledcor to properly identify the scope and requirements of the Materials Sorting Facility and employ the appropriate, methodical plan to ensure the successful completion of the project. Please refer to Exhibit – A (see column F) for examples of our work with Metal Roof and Concrete construction projects. 2. Please refer to Exhibit - A 3. Please refer to Exhibit – A Concrete Construction: 1. Ledcor’s experience working on projects composed of, or incorporating, metal buildings, metal roof structures and concrete is quite extensive. Our work on such projects locally has afforded us the opportunity to learn what works and what doesn’t, in terms of scheduling, application, exterior coatings treatment selection, insulation materials selection and site work preparation. This experience allows Ledcor to properly identify the scope and requirements of the Materials Sorting Facility and employ the appropriate, methodical plan to ensure the successful completion of the project. Please refer to Exhibit – A (see column G) for examples of our work with Metal Roof and Concrete construction projects. 2. Please refer to Exhibit - A 3. Please refer to Exhibit – A Project Schedule: 1. STRATEGIES TO DELIVER THE PROJECT ON TIME AND UNDER BUDGET Ledcor will staff the project with personnel experienced with construction in an occupied environment. Our experience dictates that construction around an occupied facility requires flexibility to adapt to constantly changing constraints such as a scheduled shut down, a space’s availability to commence work, a day where owner requests no work to be performed, and inclement weather. We will foster a team atmosphere of contingency planning so that reacting to ‘curveballs’ is second nature and does not impede progress. Strategies Ledcor implements to ensure on-time completion include: · Conduct a detailed risk assessment of the project at the pre-construction stage and tailor our corporate program into a Project Specific Safety Program (PSSP) to address the unique requirements of the various work processes to be employed by Ledcor and our trade contractors. Ledcor will work closely with the selected trade contractors and consultants to ensure that qualified, competent personnel carry out the needs of this project in a safe and efficient manner. · Prioritize subcontracting strategy so that critical path subcontractors can commence generating RFI’s, shop drawings, and submittals as early as possible. · Identify long lead items early to begin the procurement activities as soon as possible. Work closely with subcontractors to track lead times. · Maintain discipline in the execution of the Project Schedule, regularly communicate progress, potential negative impacts, and recommended mitigation strategies. · Utilize subcontractors that have the capacity to increase manpower as needed. Page 6 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 115 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 7 | 21 · Listen to our Clients. We welcome feedback of any kind to ensure the smoothest completion of your project. Collaboration with our partners is the Ledcor way. STEPS TAKEN TO ENSURE PROJECT COORDINATION For the City’s Materials Sorting Facility, Ledcor will draw upon its sizeable repository of time- tested procedures that have been honed over the years. At the outset of the project, Ledcor will seek to identify all the team members and stakeholders and their respective roles and responsibilities. Considerations for project coordination include: · A clear understanding of communication flow, particularly with respect to timely answers to Requests For Information (RFI’s). · Regular meetings, typically weekly, with Owner, Architect, and Ledcor. Communicate information by publishing meeting minutes, including action items. · Weekly meetings with Ledcor and the foreman for each of the subcontractors. · Weekly safety meetings with subcontractors. · Project Quality Plan (PQP) – solicit input from Stakeholders; it includes regular check-in puts to calibrate targets are being met or exceeded. · Daily field reporting, Hazard Assessments, etc. · Effective verbal and written communications. Establish relationships and communication procedures with key site personnel to keep them informed. · Be accessible to contractors, the Architect, and the Owner. Understand and work with their needs and constraints. 2. Ledcor do not anticipate any issues with meeting schedule. 3. We see no opportunities to accelerate the schedule at this time. Work around Public and within Operating Facility 1. Our team prioritizes taking the time to understand and analyze the client’s most pressing issues. From there, Ledcor takes the lead to direct the manpower and provide expertise necessary to overcome challenges, leading to completion of our work on time and within budget. We understand the City’s Materials Sorting Facility project will occur in a fully operational facility and that systems serving occupied areas must remain fully operational during construction. We also understand the requirement to adhere to strict operational control guidelines. Local Presence. Local Responsibility We offer the resources and experience of a large corporate entity to the small regional contractor, for which we have become known. Our office is located less than 2 miles from the project site, allowing us to respond to issues quickly day or night. Specific Occupied Building Expertise Ledcor has completed dozens of construction, remodel, renovations, and tenant improvements of/in fully operational buildings and offices. We are especially adept at minimizing disruptions, adhering to client operational requirements, and implementing shift schedules or night work to ensuring the most number of qualified bidders. Flexible to the Needs of the City of Napa We understand that work in occupied spaces may occur in off hours and that the facility is not to be disrupted. Ledcor has a vast amount of experience working flexible hours to Page 7 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 116 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 8 | 21 eliminate construction disruptions or to accommodate fast-track projects through critical portions of the project. Proactive Approach With a focus on collaborating with owners and architects, our team identifies challenges and resolves them before they impact schedule or budget. We identify program and code requirements at the start of every project and actively address them throughout the project. Extensive Resources When you work with Ledcor, you’re working alongside a local team with local expertise, backed by the resources and experience of a large corporate entity. Ledcor Construction is part of the Ledcor Group of Companies - a $3.5 Billion firm with 68 years of experience delivering construction services. Safety: 1. Our number one priority of every phase of the project is the safety and wellbeing of every person on campus. To ensure a fully compliant and zero impact environment, we will implement the following: · Establish clearly identified construction zones and path of travel delineation from public interaction. · Create material handling areas and methods for debris removal. · Identification of all energized and active building systems with a clear method for working around these conditions. We will operate with a zero-distribution methodology. · Control of all air flow movement and infectious control within the building. · An enhanced effort towards daily housekeeping and overall campus presence. · Ensure the highest level of preplanning and interaction with the CM and hospital facilities staff. · Proposed early shift start times for material stocking and higher noise level activities. 2. See Exhibit – F for Safety Program and EMR Data. References: 1. Design/Build Projects PROJECT #1 Benovia Winery, Santa Rosa, CA - Joe Anderson 602-361-1385 PROJECT #2 Materra Cunat Winery, Napa, CA - Brian Cunat 815-482-1657 PROJECT #3 Mending Wall Winery, St. Helena, CA - Thomas Brown 707-339-1381 2. LEDCOR TEAM MEMBER REFERENCES JOHN MCBROOM, PROJECT MANAGER Reference #1 Lokoya Winery, St. Helena, CA – Ted Sibert (Ted.Sibert@JFWMail.com) Reference #2 Tench Winery, St Helena, CA – Remmelt Reigersman 646-660-4200 Reference #3 Farm Collective, Napa, CA – James Harder 707-942-1543 JOSE ZAVALA, PROJECT SUPERINTENDENT Reference #1 Materra Cunat Winery, Napa, CA - Brian Cunat 815-482-1657 Reference #2 Tench Winery, St Helena, CA – Remmelt Reigersman 646-660-4200 Reference #3 Riverfront, Napa, CA - Mark Funseth 510-529-2611 Page 8 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 117 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 9 | 21 ALEX PIMIETA, PROJECT ENGINEER Reference #1 Materra Cunat Winery, Napa, CA - Brian Cunat 815-482-1657 Reference #2 Tench Winery, St Helena, CA – Remmelt Reigersman 646-660-4200 Reference #3 Lokoya Winery, St. Helena, CA – Ted Sibert (Ted.Sibert@JFWMail.com) KYLE SCHUH, QA/QC MANAGER Reference #1 Benovia Winery, Santa Rosa, CA - Joe Anderson 602-361-1385 Reference #2 Lokoya Winery, St. Helena, CA – Ted Sibert (Ted.Sibert@JFWMail.com) Reference #3 Davis Estates, Calistoga, CA – Mike Davis (miked@davisstates.com) D. SUBCONSULTANTS / SUBCONTRACTORS Design/Build Projects Team Member Key Personnel Ledcor Jeff Baptista, John McBroom Architect – O’Malley Wilson Westphal Dan Westphal Civil Eng. – Chaudhary & Associates Sudhir K. Chaudhary Soil Eng – RGH Engineering Eric Chase Structural Eng - ZFA Chris Jonas Site Work - Benchmark Chad Yates Concrete – R.E Maher Rod Maher Metal Bldgs – Division 13 Buildings Mark Davis Fire Sprinklers – Northern Fire Prot. Frank Higdon Electrical – Napa Electric James Trumble E. PROJECT APPROACH The Ledcor team provides the City of Napa with a strong team organization and already honed working relationship. With successful projects already on our resumes, our team, including several repeat sub consultants, functions within a highly efficient and collaborative environment. We are drawing on our past experience collaborating on projects in configuring a team for the Materials Sorting Facility. Ledcor’s strong team organization, clear lines of authority, collaborative approach and focus schedules, budgets and quality played a key role in the successful delivery of these projects. With a history of Design- Build/Design-Assist project collaboration, our team has an established line of communication that will ensure information is being communicated accurately and timely to the proper personnel. Ledcor will implement these already established procedures in the design and construction of the Materials Sorting Facility to ensure we exceed the City of Napa’s expectations. Ledcor, as the Design-Build contractor, interfaces directly with the Owner as the party responsible for the successful delivery of the project. With overall responsibility for the performance of the team, Jeff Baptista, Project Executive, is empowered to promptly resolve issues that may arise and is dedicated to delivering a quality project on time and on budget. Our internal team includes highly experienced staff members dedicated to the project throughout its duration. Our team members have participated in Design-Build and Construction Management projects of similar size, scope or complexity to the proposed Project, including transit facilities, police stations, fire stations and public facilities and are ready to bring their experience to the City of Napa. Serving as the General Contractor, Ledcor’s team maintains responsibility for the overall management and delivery of the project. John McBroom, Project Manager, Jose Zavala, Superintendent, and Alex Pimienta, Project Engineer, will serve as the management team on the project. This team has worked on several Design-Build projects and collectedly brings over 40 years of experience managing a variety of public and private construction projects. This team will be supported by additional off site resources such as our Page 9 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 118 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 10 | 21 estimating, scheduling, value analysis, constructability, purchasing, and BIM teams. To ensure success of the project, we will implement our proven chain of command and established lines of communication. We understand the necessity and correlation between document completeness, coordination, and constructability and completing projects on time and within budget. Our team has completed numerous facilities that succeed in these areas, as well as provided architecture that is recognized for its excellence. Design-Builder’s Approach to Management of Key Personnel With overall responsibility for the performance of the team, Jeff Baptista, Project Executive, is empowered to promptly resolve issues that may arise and is dedicated to delivering a quality project on time and within budget. Jeff will serve as the primary contact during design and construction, ensuring consistency and timeliness of communication. As Project Manager of Construction, John McBroom, reports directly to the City of Napa and their representatives and is responsible for working with Kyle Schuh, Quality Control Manager, who takes responsibility for the implementation of our Construction Quality Program. John McBroom, Project Manager, is skilled at actively leading the construction phases, coordinating with design team, reviewing document constructability, overseeing construction activities and providing guidance to staff and contractors. Jose Zavala, Project Superintendent, oversees day-to-day operations on site and is responsible for establishing and monitoring performance targets so that the quality, safety, budget, and schedule objectives are being met. He also makes sure that the project is built according to approved plans, specifications, and applicable building codes. O’Malley Wilson Westphal Architects’ Principal Architect, Dan Westphal, AIA, will be Principal Engineer/Architect and will collaborate with the Owner throughout the process. Dan Westphal has extensive experience with Design-Build, public works and transportation projects. He will lead the Design-Build team effort in conjunction with the Ledcor team, ensuring decisions made during the design process are carried through to construction. Supporting the Ledcor/O’Malley Wilson Westphal team is a diverse group of specialty designer subconsultants including Chaudhary & Associates, Civil Engineer and ZFA Structural Engineers. As a vital member of the team, the City of Napa will fully participate in the design and construction process with immediate and ongoing access to the rest of our team. Working with the City, our team will define project roles and contact procedures customized to meet the needs of the City. This collaboration between the City of Napa and the entire team provides all stakeholders access to the right people with the right information at the right time. Description of Design-Builder’s Management and Organizational Approach Our Design-Build Team, led by Ledcor and O’Malley Wilson Westphal Architects, is an experienced team with a proven track record, that will provide effective project management. We will utilize open collaboration and clear communication, ensuring that all project goals are met, the project is delivered on-time, within budget. We have found that utilizing the Progressive Design-Build (PDB) approach, with public projects in particular, effectively facilitates involvement of the design-build team during the earliest stages of project development, which ensures we are part of the project team developing design solutions and therefore promoting the greatest amount of collaboration between the City of Napa and the Design-Build entity. Ultimately, it allows for ongoing communication, collaboration and connectivity from project conception through to completion. In our experience, this delivery method with public works projects has allowed for a variety of Owner benefits, including: · Owner is able to select the best Design-Build team based on qualifications Page 10 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 119 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 11 | 21 · Owner-customized design to the budget · Flexibility and opportunity for Owner to collaborate on permitting / design · Cost analysis options can be provided to Owner as project progresses · Construction estimating can begin very early in design, allowing comparison of specific technical solutions · Progressive estimates keep the Owner informed and supports informed “scope adjustment decisions” · Risk and contingencies reduced and schedule needs met · Better opportunities for local workforce and subcontracting · Open-book approach enables Owner to make well-informed decisions We center our management approach around the belief that projects succeed in an environment where collaboration and partnership flourish. This collaborative environment extends to all stakeholders and the community. Beginning at mobilization and continuing through project duration, we work together to confirm communication and contract administration procedures which address the completion of the project. Ledcor makes it a priority to ensure tracking of quality control start up and commissioning is maintained on the project from beginning to end. In collaboration with our project team, we ensure all systems are developed consistently with the City’s requirements. When the building is fully operational, we are there to provide post- construction services, including initial operations support and process optimization services to ensure all occupants are satisfied and comfortable with operation as planned to ensure a seamless occupancy. Throughout construction, we hold weekly jobsite meetings with contractors, Architect, and City representatives, where we record and distribute meeting minutes to all attendees. Updated schedules are distributed and incorporated into the contract documents. During construction, a fully-equipped trailer will be placed onsite, providing the team with a centralized area to hold meetings, view project documents and models and oversee construction. Our field teams are equipped with tablets synchronized to the cloud- based, hyperlinked documents. This provides all onsite and off-site team members access to all approved project documents. Project photos are also linked, allowing field managers and superintendents to address many issues from wherever they are on the project site. The success of a project revolves around the thoroughness and reasonableness of the project schedule and control of the budget. Deadlines are met by establishing a system of accountability, which all stakeholders are held to. Under the guidance and oversight of the Project Manager, each member of the project team is responsible for schedules that speak directly to their particular scope of the project. This positively impacts every project element, ensuring each task is identified and that a commitment from the trade is secured. Our responsibility is to monitor and minimize all budget costs, and in turn build a successful project that all stakeholders are proud of. Ledcor creates and manages a comprehensive budget that includes, construction and change orders. We tie the master budget to the master schedule, providing the City of Napa with current and forecasted monetary needs. Each subcontractor will be tied contractually to a schedule for its own scope of work that will support the overall project schedule. We will approach your project with an innovative “whole building” philosophy, considering all aspects of design, construction and quality. We will take into account all building components and systems during the design phase and integrate them to work together. As part of this approach, we will create buy-in to identify common goals, hold regular design team coordination meetings and ensure personnel are aware of any information discussed at meetings. We propose that a partnering workshop be staged at the setup of the Materials Sorting Facility project. The sole agenda of this workshop is to establish and begin implementing the decision-making partnering process, and we propose that this process would continue throughout the project’s duration. At the partnering workshops, the stakeholders identify all respective goals for the project in which their interests overlap. These jointly-developed and mutually agreed to goals may include implementing specific Page 11 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 120 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 12 | 21 procedures and systems to solve concerns on the job, meeting the financial goals of each party, limiting review periods for contract submittals, no lost time because of injuries, or other goals specific to the project. These meetings also enable us to identify and resolve potential problems at an early stage, saving time, money and headache. Ledcor has one of the best safety records of any major construction company in North America. Safety forms a major part of our corporate philosophy and day-to-day activities. Ledcor will work closely with the selected trade contractors and consultants to make sure that qualified, competent personnel carry out the needs of this project in a safe and efficient manner. Our project team will manage health and safety on the site and ensure compliance with all local government regulations and other bylaws, codes, and standards applicable to the project. Taking care to actively manage all phases of construction with a precise plan of action, Ledcor will work with the City during schematic design validation, design development, construction documents, permitting, construction and commissioning and closeout. PROGRESSIVE DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT PROCESS Kickoff Meeting · Verify project vision and goals · Determine project sustainability goals · Review schedule, program development, budget and meetings schedule · Schedule community outreach events, if required Pre-Project Organization / Programming · Interviews with City leaders, staff, potential users · Identify critical adjacencies · Conduct stakeholder & community activities (if requested) · Review alternative materials and systems and conduct life cycle analysis · Outline building functions, adjacencies, amenities, and square footage calculations within the guidelines set forth in the RFP Final program clarification · Verify necessary permits, codes and other requirements Schematic Design · Provide preliminary plans & studies, schematic drawings, scaled site use plans, plot plan, architectural concept design including the program and functional requirements, scaled floor plans, preliminary exterior elevations, proposed roof system (if required), and energy saving design features. · Use a bubble diagram for clarification of spaces · Prepare probable construction cost estimation · Present preliminary color schedule of materials selections, finishes, and other aesthetic considerations Design Development · Following approval of Schematic Drawings, produce site plans and floor plans, elevations, showing structural, mechanical, electrical systems · Outline specifications · Update construction cost estimate · Provide timetable · Assist the City in obtaining required approvals · Provide materials & colors schedule Page 12 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 121 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 13 | 21 · Develop list of early procurement items · Sustainability update · On and off-site utility confirmation Construction Documents · Provide complete working drawings and specifications · Outreach Coordination/permitting of other AHJs / Public and Private Agencies Construction Administration We will review and approve Contractor’s submittals, provide necessary additional drawings, answer RFIs, etc. Regular visits are made to the job site and photo verification of progress is part of the process. We work with clients through completion and are on hand to quickly resolve unexpected issues and unforeseen conditions to prevent delays in construction. Post Construction Services After successfully managing the project to near completion, a part of our Work Plan includes closing out the project to the satisfaction of the client. Understanding the nuances of transit planning, we have experience providing services in initial operations support and process optimization. We will work with the Contractor and develop a punch list and follow through to close out. We work with the City to ensure all items are completed. All of this goes hand-in-hand with our Quality Assurance program. INTEGRATED DESIGN-BUILD TEAM With a history of Design-Build/Design-Bid-Build project collaboration, our team has an established line of communication that will ensure information is being communicated accurately and timely to the proper personnel. The Ledcor team provides the City of Napa with a strong team organization and already honed working relationship. With successful projects already on our resumes, our team, including several repeat subconsultants, functions within a highly efficient and collaborative environment. We are drawing on our past experience collaborating on public facilities in configuring a team for the Materials Sorting Facility. As a vital member of the team, the City of Napa will receive priority in participating in the design and construction process with immediate and ongoing access to the rest of our team. Working with the City, our team will define project roles and contact procedures customized to meet the needs of the City. This collaboration between the City of Napa and the entire team provides all stakeholders access to the right people with the right information at the right time. F. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 1. Ledcor is committed to a standard of construction quality, methods, and procedures that meets the requirements of the contract specifications for the project. We have developed Ledcor’s Construction Quality Program (CQP) that provides overarching guidance to our approach to managing quality of construction on all our projects. Ledcor’s CQP is based on three principles: Systematic execution - We develop project-specific quality plans with ordered processes and procedures that meet industry standards but are also tailored to each project’s requirements. We focus our decades of experience on integrating client quality needs, consultant quality expectations, contract type, construction cost, community location, construction type(s), and complexity. Page 13 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 122 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 14 | 21 Integrated problem solving - Every project has its challenges. We plan for them by integrating quality considerations in the pre-construction phase. During construction, we identify, log, and track to completion mock-ups, tests, issues, non-conformances, deficiencies, and warranty items identified by Ledcor, the client, consultants, and trade contractors. Continuous learning - Not only do we learn from our challenges, we also learn from our clients, consultants, and trade contractors, and refine our processes and procedures on an ongoing basis. We communicate our lessons learned to other Ledcor project teams. The Ledcor CQP is scalable and is designed to capture the project’s unique requirements. Prior to the commencement of each project, our site team develops a project specific quality plan. The Project Quality Plan (PQP) is reviewed and signed off by the Ledcor branch manager. This provides executive oversight to how we will approach, manage and deliver quality construction for each project. The standard PQP is implemented throughout the project planning, execution, and completion stages of each Ledcor project, starting at contract award. Planning During this phase, we: · Receive and review the drawings and specifications and identify items that require particular quality management attention. · Review contract scope and specifications and identify quality management requirements. · Make sure quality assumptions made by estimating staff are communicated to the project execution team through a formal meeting process. · Communicate to subcontractors and suppliers specified quality requirements described by contract scope through individual post-bid meetings. · Plan and schedule construction quality activities including timing of submittals, mockups, meetings, and quality verifications. · Plan and schedule for water ingress prevention. · Transfer and share information about the quality requirements, processes, and procedures with Ledcor project personnel. · Verify that adequate Ledcor resources are available to manage the quality process and that they are trained in quality management procedures. · Complete and seek your approval for the Project’s Quality Plan (PQP), which describes in detail the specific techniques to be employed to manage the quality of your project. · Incorporate the approved PQP in all of our trade contract agreements, including obtaining, reviewing, and approving Subcontractor Quality Plans from key trades. Execution During this phase, we: · Implement, manage, and monitor the PQP. · At the start of their work, formally review with each trade contractor the commitments they made at the bid stage, their approach to achieving those Page 14 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 123 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 15 | 21 commitments, and emerging aspects of construction that may affect the quality of their work, including their proposed solutions. · Identify, track, and resolve installations, products, methods, or processes that do not meet requirements or that are non-conforming. · Monitor weather events to minimize the likelihood of water ingress during construction and mitigate any damage that may occur. · Manage emergent issues; resolve, administer, and document resolutions. · Manage the timeliness of information and communicate issues and corrective actions. Completion During this phase, we: · Manage the correction of any identified deficiencies. · Assist with commissioning and handover. · Perform post-completion project reviews and share lessons learned, which promotes ongoing learning and improvements. · Document and manage the resolution of warranty items identified during the warranty period. 2. Kyle Schuh will be the project’s Quality Assurance and Control Manager. (See Exhibit - E Team Member Resumes) 3. Please see Paragraph F.1 above. Page 15 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 124 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 16 | 21 G. EXCEPTIONS 1 Landscaping, landscape irrigation or Landscape Consultant 2 Acoustical consultants. 3 Lighting consultant. 4 Waterproofing consultant. 5 Hazardous material testing and abatement. 6 Financing. 7 Hard rock excavation. 8 Lime treatment. 9 Dewatering. 10 Force drying of soil material. 11 Temporary fire hydrant. 12 Fire watch. 13 Removal or repairing unmarked underground utilities. 14 Fire Alarm 15 Material weighing equipment or scales 16 Audio/Video or Security systems 17 Surveillance systems and security monitoring 18 Work to existing buildings other than illustrated on drawings or denoted in estimate 19 20 21 22 23 Special Inspections or inspection fees Protection of existing structures Salvage or moving of owners stored materials or equipment Temp. water connection Road or parking lot striping or signage 24 PG&E or AT&T engineering or fees of any kind 25 26 27 28 29 Unforeseen conditions Building signage of any kind Electrical other than lighting Fire water Piping for Gas, Domestic water 30 Proposal is based on a contract with mutually agreeable contract terms Page 16 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 125 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 17 | 21 H. SCOPE OF WORK Our Cost Estimate is based on Design Build and site visit with Kevin Miller Division 1 - General Requirements/Conditions Based on (4) month duration to add (5) Pre Engineered Awning covers and 40’ X 300’ concrete utility slab · Phase 1 Design Build to be Concrete Slab · Phase 2 Design Build would be the addition of (5) metal framed awnings · Temp. toilet and handwashing station · On Site Supervision · Project Management Division 2 – Selective Demolition and Grading · Saw cutting and removal existing slabs for Column Footings · Excavation and haul spoils @ New 40’X 300’ slab area · Over Ex and recompact to sub base · Provide and Install 6” AB @ sub base to grade · Provide and install (2) 24”X 24” area drains and up to 300’ of 8” storm drain piping for future connection Division 3 Concrete · Provide and Install 8” thick 40’ X 300’ utility slab with broom finish · Provide and Install double mat # 5 rebar grade 60 @ 18” OC both directions · Concrete mix design to be up to 4000 psi · Saw cut and excavate new footings for awning structures, size & depth TBD estimated no larger than 4’X 4’X 3’ · Install anchor bolts for new awning structure columns · Pour back footings with 4000 psi mix design, finished to match level of existing surrounding grades Division 13- Pre-Engineered Metal Structures · Design Build Metal Awnings to include (1) 40’X 120’with 26’ low eve height, (1) 75’X 204’ with 26’ low eve height, (1) 25’X 200’ with 26’ low eve height, (1) 50’X 72’ with low eve height, 204’ section will be in two sections. · Primary and secondary steel to be Galvanized · Structures are not structurally connected to existing building, they will be attached via flashing & counter flashing for waterproofing Division 15 Fire Sprinklers · Fire Sprinklers to meet Factory Mutual requirements · All sprinkler piping to be black steel pipe with brass sprinklers connected to existing building fire sprinkler system. · Added fire main is included from riser for added water capacity if required · Concrete core drilling through existing structure is included for piping to awnings Division 16 – Electrical · Design Build lighting and lighting plans · Provide and install specified lighting fixtures connected to existing building lighting power · Provide and Install conduit and low voltage wiring for tamper valve @ existing fire riser if required .Owner should carry an additional contingency for un-foreseen conditions, revisions or additions. Page 17 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 126 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 18 | 21 I. COST PROPOSAL Page 18 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 127 of 477 Page 19 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 128 of 477 Page 20 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 129 of 477 Page 21 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 130 of 477 Page 22 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 131 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 19 | 21 Page 23 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 132 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 20 | 21 J. PROJECT SCHEDULE Page 24 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 133 of 477 Design Build Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions & Concrete Slab Extension Project At the City’s Materials Diversion Facility P a g e 21 | 21 K. RECOMMENDED VALUE MODIFICATIONS Pricing Alternates, V.E. options: 1. Option to delete area drains and piping @ new slab deduct $67,375 2. Option to delete “Factory Mutual Requirements @ Fire Sprinkler system deduct $25,000 3. Option to delete added main sprinkler piping from fire riser if not required deduct $18,000 4. Option to delete Galvanizing @ primary steel and add paint deduct $40,000 5. Option to delete 14ga bird screen under metal roofs deduct $70,000 Page 25 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 134 of 477 Page 26 of 63ATTACHMENT 3Page 135 of 477 Page 27 of 63ATTACHMENT 3Page 136 of 477 Page 28 of 63ATTACHMENT 3Page 137 of 477 Page 29 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 138 of 477 Addendum No. 2 Request for Proposal Page 1 of 4 Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extension and Concrete Slab Extension Project Design-Build Services Project (City JL) No. MD18PW01 ADDENDUM NO. 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL MATERIALS SORTING FACILITY ROOF EXTENSION AND CONCRETE SLAB EXTENSION PROJECT DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES PROJECT (CITY JL) NO. MD18PW01 CITY OF NAPA, CALIFORNIA MAY 22, 2017 This addendum is being issued to clarify two items related to the City of Napa’s Request for Proposals (RFP) for Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extensions and Concrete Slab Extension Project Design-Build Services issued April 26, 2017. Proposals are due at 4:00 PM, Friday, June 2, 2017. ITEMS OF CLARIFICATIONS BY CITY Item 1 (Written Permission for Use of Property not owned by the City of Napa): In Addendum #1 for this RFP, the City of Napa (City) addressed a proposer question regarding an alternate proposal that would depend on access and use of property to the south of the City’s Materials Diversion Facility (MDF) owned by the Napa-Vallejo Waste Management Authority (NVWMA). In addendum #1, the City wrote the following: “With reference to the southern access and laydown area specifically noted in the RFI diagram and question, proposers should be aware that this property is not owned by the City of Napa but instead is owned by a public Joint Powers Authority (of which the City of Napa is a member jurisdiction) named the Napa-Vallejo Waste Management Authority (NVMWA). The Executive Director of the NVWMA is Mr. Rich Luthy who may be reached by email at Rich.Luthy@countyofnapa.org or by phone at (707) 299-1314. Any alternate proposal that intends to utilize property not owned by the City of Napa must secure written permission from that property owner and submit the written permission as part of the alternate proposal submittal.” In subsequent email communication from the NVWMA to one of the proposers seeking written permission for use of NVWMA property as a potential alternative proposal for City RFP for this project, NVWMA Executive Director Rich Luthy noted that the NVWMA Board of Directors does not meet again until June 8, 2017 (after the June 2, 2017 RFP submittal date). Mr. Luthy also noted that further environment analysis would need to occur before NVWMA-owned property could be used or permission issued by the NVWMA. Furthermore, Mr. Luthy wrote the following: “… We are willing to give your proposal serious consideration, but I can’t give you a firm yes or no until we know more about potential wetlands and we have worked out an access agreement acceptable to our Legal Counsel. Page 30 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 139 of 477 Addendum No. 2 Request for Proposal Page 2 of 4 Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extension and Concrete Slab Extension Project Design-Build Services Project (City JL) No. MD18PW01 I attempted to advise the City that I may not be able to provide written permission by their submittal date, but the Addendum was being issued at about the same time I was responding to the City, and that information was not reflected in the Addendum.” In light of the above statement from the NVWMA and given timeline challenges and requirements of public agencies such as the NVWMA, the City seeks to clarify what will be accepted in lieu of “written permission” for an alternative proposal that utilizes space and access from NVWMA- owned property to the south of City-owned MDF property. For the purposes of submittal to the City by June 2nd, each proposer wishing to submit an alternative proposal that depends on use of NVWMA-owned property should secure a letter from the NVWMA affirming that the NVWMA would consider use of their property if the proposer is selected by the City and any potential environmental restrictions are properly identified and addressed by the proposer. Such a letter of consideration from the NVWMA will substitute for the “written permission” requirement described in Addendum No. 1 to this Design-Build (DB) RFP. Please note that while a consideration letter from the NVWMA will satisfy the written permission requirement for the June 2nd submittal, it is ultimately the responsibility of each proposer to secure written permission for any alternative proposal utilizing property not owned by the City of Napa. Item 2 (Modification of a single “Open span” Requirement for Roof Extensions): Page 2 of Attachment E of the project RFP described the required roof extensions as follows: Page 31 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 140 of 477 Addendum No. 2 Request for Proposal Page 3 of 4 Materials Sorting Facility Roof Extension and Concrete Slab Extension Project Design-Build Services Project (City JL) No. MD18PW01 The City has verified with the MDF operator (Napa Recycling & Waste Services, LLC or NRWS) that one of the front “open span” dimensions can be reduced to a minimum of 20 feet of spacing between support columns. This change is only for the western roof extension structure (number “5” roof dimension as listed above and in project RFP Attachment E) and shown to the left of the Materials Sorting Facility in cut-out from project RFP Exhibit 1 below. Thus, the required roof extension dimensions shown in project RFP Attachment E are modified as follows (see bolded red text for modified City direction related to this change): “Required Components • Open span on front of each structure (second dimension in description above) to allow unimpeded access for refuse trucks and other equipment. The sole exception to the front open span requirement is the Western roof structure (200 feet) where the support columns may be reduced to a minimum of 20 foot spacing between support columns. • Minimum 20’ spacing between support columns on sides of each structure as well as Western roof extension structure front span.” Please note again the front open span dimension has ONLY been modified for the western roof extension structure (number 5 roof dimension). All other front open span dimensions and unimpeded access requirements remained unchanged. Page 32 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 141 of 477 Page 33 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 142 of 477 Page 34 of 63ATTACHMENT 3Page 143 of 477 Page 35 of 63ATTACHMENT 3Page 144 of 477 Page 36 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 145 of 477 Page 37 of 63ATTACHMENT 3Page 146 of 477 Page 38 of 63ATTACHMENT 3Page 147 of 477 Page 39 of 63ATTACHMENT 3Page 148 of 477 EXHIBIT - A Page 1 of 1 PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT VALUE START DATE DESIGN/BUILD METAL ROOF CONCRETE COMPLETE DATE GBA (sf)CONTRACT TYPE CLIENT ARCHITECT PROJECT MANAGER SUPERINTENDENT Meritage Resort Napa, CA $ 18,392,000 2005 March 2006 July 140,000 Lump Sum Napa Hositality Group Concepts Four Inc.Robert Chrzanowski Jeff Wisuri Morimoto Restaurant Napa, CA $ 2,500,000 2010 January 2010 July 7,200 Lump Sum Channel Properties Group Dean Larkin Design Jeff Baptista Dan Karlstad Poetry Inn Yountville, CA $ 6,300,000 2004 May 2005 April 9,500 Cost Plus Poetry Inn Inc.Backen & Gillam Architects Rod Field Mitch Hamilton Bouchon Bakery TI Yountville, CA $ 1,500,000 2013 November 2014 April 31,500 Cost Plus Thomas Keller Restaurant Group A Squared Studios Jeff Baptista Jose Zavala Justin-Siena Cafeteria & Kitchen Renovation Napa, CA $ 1,500,000 2013 May 2013 September 9,000 Lump Sum Justin Siena High School Ratcliff Architects Jeff Baptista Blaise Goodpaster Mending Wall Winery St. Helena, CA $ 9,200,000 2014 June D/B MR CON 2015 May 30,000 Design Build Frank Dotzler (Outpost)A2 Studios Jeff Baptista Justin Adams Benovia Winery Santa Rosa, CA $ 6,450,000 2015 April MR CON 2015 October 22,000 Cost Plus HTO Properties, LLC A2 Studios John McBroom Mitch Hamilton Cliff Lede Vineyards Yountville, CA $ 8,200,000 2004 May 2005 May 73,000 Cost Plus Twin Peaks Inc.Backen & Gillam Architects Rod Field Mitch Hamilton Cuvaison Estate Wines Napa, CA $ 3,800,000 2008 September MR CON 2009 July 16,000 Lump Sum Cuvaison Winery Goulds, Evans, Baum, Thornley Don Parker Marc Alves Dana Estates St. Helena, CA $ 14,000,000 2006 June 2008 September 32,900 Cost Plus Kodo Inc.Backen & Gillam Architects Rod Field Vince Van Dyke Dancing Hares Vineyard Saint Helena, CA $ 3,400,000 2008 April MR CON 2009 August 3,000 Cost Plus Dancing Hares Winery Backen & Gillam Architects Rod Field Mitch Hamilton Davis Estates Calistoga, CA $ 25,000,000 2013 June 32,404 Cost Plus FrostFire Vineyard, LLC Backen, Gillam & Kroeger Architects Jeff Crow Dan Karlstad Futo Wines Oakville, CA $ 13,000,000 2006 September MR CON 2007 September 16,000 Cost Plus KT Wineco, LLC Backen & Gillam Architects Robert Chrzanowski Mitch Hamilton Gloria Ferrer Expansion Sonoma, CA $ 3,000,000 2006 April 2006 September N/A Lump Sum Gloria Ferrer Champagne Caves Summit Engineering John Smith Mitch Hamilton Intelsat-Boeing MSV Gateway Exp.Napa, CA $ 1,140,000 2008 April 2008 July 1,500 GMP Intelsat Corporation Valley Architects Robert Chrzanowski Dan Karlstad Larkmead Vineyards Calistoga, CA $ 2,800,000 2005 Febuary 2005 December 8,800 Cost Plus Larkmead Vineyards Backen & Gillam Architects John Smith Marc Alves Marciano Estate Saint Helena, CA $ 10,700,000 2011 June 2013 March 21,400 Cost Plus Napa Vineland LLC Backen & Gillam Architects Rod Field Vince Van Dyke Materra Cunat Family Vineyards Napa, CA $ 8,700,000 2014 March D/B MR CON 2015 May Cost Plus Cunat DaRosa and Associates Donald Swift Jose Zavala Nickel & Nickel Oakville, CA $ 3,410,000 2007 August MR CON 2008 June 6,371 Cost Plus Nickel & Nickel Winery Taylor Lombardo Architects Robert Chrzanowski Mitch Hamilton Nine Suns Saint Helena, CA $ 15,200,000 2013 September 19,665 Cost Plus Diversified Business Group, LLC Juan Carlos Rod Field/ Jeff Baptista Jeff Wisuri Outpost Wines Angwin, CA $ 3,200,000 2005 January MR CON 2005 December 10,300 Cost Plus Frank Doztler (Outpost)Backen & Gillam Architects John Smith Marc Alves Staglin Family Vineyard Rutherford, CA $ 4,000,000 2008 October 2010 March 8,469 Cost Plus Staglin Family Vineyards BAR Architects Don Parker Vince Van Dyke T-Vine Winery Calistoga, CA $ 2,100,000 2012 July 2013 June 2,400 Lump Sum Old Vine Partners, T-Vine vonRasfeld and Associates Jeff Baptista Mitch Hamilton Ram's Gate Winery Sonoma, CA $ 11,700,000 2009 July 2011 October 21,395 Cost Plus Carneros Vintners, LLC Backen, Gillam & Kroeger Rod Field Jeff Wisuri Richard's Grove Pavilion Windsor, CA $ 3,000,000 2014 September MR CON 2014 December 2,000 Lump Sum Jackson Family Investments A Squared Studios Mark Yoder Jose Zavala Intelsat - Data Building and Sat Office Napa, CA $ 3,098,000 2012 January 2013 April Client Svc. Agreement Robert Chrzanowski Sawyer Cellars Napa, CA $ 302,000 2015 August D/B 2015 December 2,800 Cost Plus Charles Sawyer O'Malley Wilson Westphal John McBroom Nick Quinones Farm Collective Wine Napa, CA $ 1,300,000 2015 February D/B 2015 July 12,000 Cost Plus James Harder vonRasfeld and Associates John McBroom Lance O'Pry Healdsburg Residence Healdsburg, CA $ 12,500,000 2009 September 2011 November 18,125 Cost Plus Benovia Vineyards, LLC Backen & Gillam Architects Rod Field Mitch Hamilton Calistoga Residence Calistoga, CA $ 300,000 2013 April 2013 July 3,200 Cost Plus Beautiful Day, LLC APIE Design Robert Chrzanowski Mitch Hamilton H.I. Residence Maui, HI $ 10,500,000 2013 April 2015 November 7,500 Cost Plus H.I. Residence Walker Warner Architects Robert Chrzanowski Craig Adkison Riverfront Napa, CA $ 48,800,000 2007 April 2009 March 250,353 GMP Riverfront Construction LLC Johnson Lyman Architects Mike Vitello; Jeff Crow Jeff Wisuri Westin Verasa Napa Valley Napa, CA $ 51,969,000 2007 January 2008 November 230,000 GMP Intrawest Napa Development Company, LLC OZ Architects David Yung Jeff Wisuri Yountville Residence Yountville, CA 2008 September 2011 June Backen & Gillam Architects Robert Chrzanowski Marc Alves Carnera Corporate Center Napa, CA $ 7,000,000 2006, May 2007 December 70,800 Cost Plus Napa Valley Gateway, LP Form Architects Rod Field Marc Alves B C D E F G H I J K L M N O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Page 40 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 149 of 477 Page 41 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 150 of 477 Page 42 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 151 of 477 Page 43 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 152 of 477 Page 44 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 153 of 477 Page 45 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 154 of 477 Page 46 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 155 of 477 Page 47 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 156 of 477 Page 1 of 3 Construction Projects completed in past 5 years Scheduled Completion Date Project Name Owner Architects % of Work Performed with Own Forces Contract Amount 2017 February Stoneview Nature Center County of Los Angeles EYRC Architects 0 8,175,825$ 2017 January Block C Mixed-Use Apartments Urban Villages San Marcos Safdie Rabines 0 31,169,404$ 2017 January MVUSD Audio Visual Upgrades Murrieta Valley Unified School District Johnson Consulting Engineers 0 16,000,000$ 2017 January Costco Wholesale Receiving | Tire Addition Costco MG2 Corp 0 3,183,416$ 2017 February Merge Seabreeze Properties Safdie Rabines 0 8,100,000$ 2017 February Fairfield Marriott Urban Villages San Marcos Joseph Wong Design Associates 0 11,700,000$ 2017 December Temecula Elementary School Moderization Temecula Valley Unified School District MGPA 0 5,000,000$ 2017 August 1810 State McMillin AVRP 0 31,305,835$ 2016 September General Atomics Bldg. 31 West Side Office Tenant Improvement General Atomics Krenek Design Group 0 1,071,808$ 2017 April General Atomics Bldg. 23 TI & AMS Lab General Atomics Krenek Design Group 0 5,864,809$ 2016 November TVHS Culinary Arts and 2-Story Classroom Building Temecula Valley Unified School District MGPA 0 19,600,000$ 2016 December TVUSD 2016 Technology Upgrades Temecula Valley Unified School District N/A 0 4,600,000$ 2016 August 1020 Prospect St. Demolition Hammer Ventures N/A 0 520,494$ 2015 October Copa Vida Tenant Improvment Cruzan Monroe MAKE Architecture 0 1,011,476$ 2015 November Little Italy Apartments Water Main Relocation HG Fenton N/A 0 570,121$ 2015 November Little Italy Grading & Shoring HG Fenton Earth Support Systems 0 3,240,184$ 2015 May General Atomics ASI Recreation Center General Atomics Gensler Architects 0 3,336,881$ 2015 May ViaSat Street Work ViaSat Smith Consulting Architects 0 1,280,190$ 2015 May Troutman Sanders Office Renovation, 4th Floor Troutman Sanders Gensler Architects 0 477,307$ 2015 June Jefferson Elementary Lennox School District Perkins + Will 0 22,817,292$ 2015 June ViaSat Building 10 Tenant Improvement ViaSat Smith Consulting Architects 0 8,972,000$ 2015 December East Los Angeles College Campus Student Center and Bookstore Los Angeles Community College District EYRC Architects 0 29,931,036$ 2015 August Sorrento Valley Renovation Cruzan Monroe LPA Inc. 0 3,502,926$ 2015 April ViaSat Building 10 Shell ViaSat Smith Consulting Architects 0 10,854,036$ 2015 April ViaSat Building 1 Site Work ViaSat Smith Consulting Architects 0 823,483$ 2014 September Temecula Valley Unified School Technology Upgrades Temecula Valley Unified School District FBA Engineering 0 8,094,033$ 2014 October Woodland Park Middle School (Phase 1 of 2)San Marcos Unified School District NTD Architecture 0 946,530$ Page 48 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 157 of 477 Page 2 of 3 Construction Projects completed in past 5 years Scheduled Completion Date Project Name Owner Architects % of Work Performed with Own Forces Contract Amount 2014 October San Marcos Unified School District Technology San Marcos Unified School District Johnson Consulting Engineers 0 2,301,810$ 2014 January Twin Oaks High School Building C (Winter Work)San Marcos Unified School District NTD Architecture 0 156,500$ 2014 December San Marcos USD 2014 Summer Projects San Marcos Unified School District Alpha Studio Design Group 0 4,994,641$ 2014 August The Quad Phase III Student Housing Seabreeze Properties Safdie Rabines 0 14,929,159$ 2014 April Diamond View Terrace Kitchen and Office T.I.Cruzan Monroe Carrier Johnson 0 284,000$ 2013 September Goddard School Goddard School Smith Consulting Architects 0 1,700,000$ 2013 May Solterra EcoLuxury Apartments HG Fenton Architects Orange 0 14,400,000$ 2013 May Mental Health Unit Temecula Valley Unified School District MGPA 0 850,000$ 2013 March General Atomics A24 ITER. Tenant Improvement General Atomics Smith Consulting Architects 0 5,500,000$ 2013 March Morehouse Restroom Renovations Cruzan Monroe Gensler Architects 0 216,440$ 2013 March Murrieta Regional Learning Center Riverside County Office of Education Higginson & Cartozian Architects 0 9,800,000$ 2013 June MERCI Group Home MERCI Crane Architectural Group 0 5,000,000$ 2013 February San Diego Convention Center Renovation West Wing Phase 3 San Diego Convention Center Corp.Smart Design Commercial Interio 0 364,000$ 2013 February Temecula High School Theater and Locker Room Temecula Valley Unified School District MGPA 0 14,000,000$ 2013 December General Atomics Bldg. 01 2nd Floor T.I.General Atomics General Atomics (in house)0 229,337$ 2013 December General Atomics Bldg. 14 2nd Floor T.I.General Atomics Krenek Design Group 0 481,664$ 2013 August General Atomics Bldg. 20 Secure Software Intergation Lab General Atomics KMA Architecture & Engineering 0 2,792,995$ 2013 August Twin Oaks High School Summer Work San Marcos Unified School District NTD Architecture 0 156,000$ 2012 September Ruocco Park Port of San Diego ONA Landscape Architects 0 3,466,529$ 2012 November General Atomics Bldg. 20 SCIF T.I.General Atomics KMA Architecture & Engineering 0 2,681,165$ 2012 May Carlson Wagonlit (Mendota Hts)Carlson Wagonlit Box Studios 0 510,000$ 2012 May Carlsbad Safety Training Center City of Carlsbad RRM Design Group 0 11,200,000$ 2012 May Fairbanks Ranch Fire Station Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District Jeff Katz Architecture 0 4,736,530$ 2012 February UCLA South Campus Student Center UCLA Safdie Rabines 0 9,000,000$ 2012 December Temecula High School Theater Site Work Temecula Valley Unified School District MGPA 0 850,000$ 2012 August Jing Si Books and Cafe T.I.Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation Cal Arc Design Studio 0 478,216$ 2016 October Aqua Via Balcony Legacy Partners Residential, Inc.Craiker Architects & Planners Ass 0 556,519$ 2017 January Far Niente Winery - Tank Replacement Far Niente Wine Estates LLC JVA Incorporated 0 312,000$ Page 49 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 158 of 477 Page 3 of 3 Construction Projects completed in past 5 years Scheduled Completion Date Project Name Owner Architects % of Work Performed with Own Forces Contract Amount 2017 March Lokoya Winery Jackson Family Wines Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects 0 4,500,000$ 2016 January Farm Collective Winery Farm Collective Winery Von Raesfield & Associates 0 1,318,000$ 2015 February Freemark Abbey Storm Drain Jackson Family Wines Inc.Reichers & Spense Associates 0 336,000$ 2015 September OSD Wine Library One Sweet Dream LLC A Squared Studios 0 491,000$ 2016 February The Grove Chew Chew Kitchen Jackson Family Wines Inc.A Squared Studios 0 2,950,000$ 2015 August Materra Winery Cunat Premium Vineyards, LLC DaRosa and Associates 0 8,700,000$ 2016 September 3730 Silverado Trail 3730 Silverado Trail, LLC A Squared Studios 0 9,243,000$ 2015 December Benovia HTO Winery Benovia A Squared Studios 0 6,700,000$ 2014 February Justin Siena High School Justin-Siena High School Ratcliff Architect 0 1,922,000$ 2017 January Davis Estates Winery & Cave Frostfire Vineyards, LLC Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects 0 26,000,000$ 2013 May Mumm Napa - Office Expansion Mumm Napa Pernod Ricard USA Patrick Mervin & Associates Architects 140,000$ 2012 May Ad-Hoc Dishwashing AD-HOC LP Ware Malcomb 0 1,099,000$ 2013 December Boulettes Larder Restaurant Boulettes Larder Restaurant vRA Architects 0 1,700,000$ 2013 September T-Vine Old Vine Parters vRA Architects 0 2,074,000$ 2014 January Davis Estates Winery Frostfire Vineyards, LLC Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects 0 2,079,000$ 2012 September Frati Gelato Shop Riverfront Construction, LLC Johnson Lyman Architect 0 92,000$ 2013 March Intelsat, New Power Bldg Ph-1 Intelsat Corporation Valley Architects 0 3,100,000$ 2012 February CBK Repair Cindy's Backstreet Kitchen LLC N/A 0 28,000$ 2012 May Bouchon ADA Repair Bouchon Bakery N/A 0 1,036,000$ 2012 March AD-Hoc Restaurant AD-HOC LP Ware Malcomb 0 554,000$ 2017 February Edgewater Phase I United Dominion Realty, L.P.Craiker Architects & Planners 0 3,600,000$ Page 50 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 159 of 477 Report CommunicateOWNERARCHITECTLEDCOR LEDCOR CONSTRUCTION INC ARCHITECT O’Malley Wilson Westphal PROJECT EXECUTIVE Jeff Baptista PROJECT SUPERINTENDENT Jose Zavala PROJECT ENGINEER Alex Pimienta CIVIL ENGINEER Chaudhary & Associates ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Napa Electric STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ZFA CITY OF NAPA PROJECT MANAGER John McBroom QA / QC MANAGER Kyle Schuh EXHIBIT - D Page 51 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 160 of 477 PROJECT EXPERIENCE Napa Riverfront $48.8 M Napa, CA Ram’s Gate Winery $11.7 M Sonoma, CA Mattera Cunat Family Vineyards $8.7 M Napa, CA Groth Winery Production and Office Facility $8 M Oakville, CA San Francisco State University Psychology Building Seismic Upgrade and Remodel $6 M San Francisco, CA Chimney Rock Winery $6 M Napa, CA Groth Winery VIP Tasting & Chai Barrel Room $4 M Oakville, CA Rutherford Hill Winery $4 M Rutherford, CA University of California at Irvine Main Library Seismic Upgrade $4 M Irvine, CA Staglin Family Vineyard $4 M Rutherford, CA Education 1996, University of San Francisco, MBA in Finance 1989, Oregon State University, Civil Engineering JEFF BAPTISTA History Jeff joined Ledcor in 2006 and has over 20 years of construction experience. Role Jeff provides guidance to project management and estimating staff from project pre-construction through to completion. He makes sure that projects are staffed appropriately given the complexity, schedule, and quality requirements. OPERATIONS MANAGER LEDCOR EXHIBIT - E Page 52 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 161 of 477 Justin Siena Cafeteria and Kitchen Renovation $1.5 M Napa, CA Cardinale/Lokoya Winery $1.7 M Oakville, CA Boulettes Larder Restaurant $1.5 M San Francisco, CA Intelsat Boeing MSV Gateway Expansion Design Build $1.6 M Napa, CA Napa Valley College, Three Main Restroom Renovations $1.5 M Napa, CA Napa Valley College Replacement of Restroom Facilities, Ground Keeping Building and Announcer Booth, Softball complex $1.5 M Napa, CA San Francisco State University, Tiburon Romberg Center Lavoratory Renovations $1.5 M San Francisco, CA Indian Valley College, Child Daycare Classroom $1.5 M Novato, CA Cardinale Winery, Tasting Room $1.5 M Oakville, CA Tyler Florence Rotisserie and Wine $1.4 M Napa, CA Cuvaison Winery $3.8 M Napa, CA Peju Province Winery $3 M Rutherford, CA San Francisco State University Seismic Retrofit of the Arts and Industry Building, Main Campus $3 M San Francisco, CA Sonoma State University, Seismic Upgrade to Darwin and Stevenson Halls $3 M Rohnert Park, CA San Francisco State University Humanities Building Exterior Failure Repairs $2.5 M San Francisco, CA Morimoto Restaurant $2.5 M Napa, CA Napa Valley College Building 101 and 102 Capital Goods Warehouses $2 M Napa, CA Madrigal Winery $2 M Saint Helena, CA T-Vine Winery $2.1 M Calistoga, CA Ad Hoc Restaurant $2 M Yountville, CA Napa Valley College Teaching Winery $2 M Napa, CA PROJECT EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED) JEFF BAPTISTA LEDCOR EXHIBIT - E Page 53 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 162 of 477 Cardinale Winery VIP, Tasting Room $800 K Oakville, CA Pizzeria Rosso and Wine Bar $720 K Petaluma, CA Pizzeria Rosso $614 K Petaluma, CA Ad Hoc Restaurant $550 K Yountville, CA Bank of the West $320 K Napa, CA Bouchon Bakery $1.5 M Yountville, CA San Francisco State University, Biochemistry Laboratory Renovations $1 M San Francisco, CA Napa Valley College, Infrastructure Upgrades $1 M Napa, CA Napa Valley College Culinary Arts Expansion (Upvalley Campus) $1 M Napa, CA PROJECT EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED) JEFF BAPTISTA LEDCOR EXHIBIT - E Page 54 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 163 of 477 PROJECT EXPERIENCE San Francisco Main Library $6.6 M San Francisco, CA Alpha Omega Winery Remodel $6.4 M St. Helena, CA Charles Krug Winery, Redwood Cellar and Carriage House Buildings Historic Restoration and Seismic Upgrades $6.2 M St. Helena, CA Benovia Winery $6.45 M Santa Rosa, CA City Center Buildings $4.5 M Oakland, CA Whitehall Lane Winery Remodel and New Building $3.7 M St. Helena, CA Alpha Omega Barrel Building $3.2 M St. Helena, CA Hastings School of Law Remodel and Seismic Upgrades $3.1 M San Francisco, CA Richards Grove Pavilion $3 M Windsor, CA Van Ness Lofts Remodel and Seismic Upgrades $3 M San Francisco, CA Education 1974, Napa Junior College Affiliations 2009-present, Board member, Napa Fire and Building Codes Board of Appeals 2009- present, Commissioner, Napa HDCP access Board of Appeals 2010-2011, Member, Napa County Grand Jury 1972-2001, Carpenters Union Local #22, San Francisco, CA 1995-1997, American Canyon Fire Explorer Program JOHN MCBROOM History John joined Ledcor in 2014 with 40 years of construction experience. Role John is the main representative on site. He provides guidance to project staff and is responsible for the smooth functioning of day-to-day operations by developing and monitoring performance so that projects are completed on time and within budget. He also makes sure that site safety, environmental standards, quality of materials, and workmanship meet or exceed standards. PROJECT MANAGER LEDCOR TEAM MEMBER RESUMES EXHIBIT - E Page 55 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 164 of 477 Orrick, Inc. Remodel and TI $1.2 M San Francisco, CA Oakville Ranch Remodel and Seismic Upgrades $1.1 M Oakville, CA Hotel 1424 Remodel and Seismic Upgrades $1 M St. Helena, CA Carter Oak Bank, TI $460 K St. Helena, CA Napa Valley Wine Train Parking Lot $160 K St. Helena, CA Lokoya Winery $4.5M St. Helena, CA Napa Farm Collective $1.5M Napa, CA Tench Winery $7M Napa, CA Keever Winery $2.3 M Yountville, CA Napa Valley Plastic Surgery Remodel $2.2 M Napa, CA Napa Valley Wine Train $2.1 M St. Helena, CA Kaiser Road Building Remodel $2 M Napa, CA Walsh Warehouse $1.4 M Napa, CA Carnegie Library, Historic Restoration and Seismic Upgrades $1.4 M St. Helena, CA PROJECT EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED) JOHN MCBROOM LEDCOR TEAM MEMBER RESUMES EXHIBIT - E Page 56 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 165 of 477 PROJECT EXPERIENCE Napa Riverfront $48.8 M Napa, CA Westin Verasa Napa Valley $52 M Napa, CA Nine Suns $15.2 M St. Helena, CA Materra Cunat Family Vineyards $6.5 M Napa, CA Poetry Inn $6.3 M Yountville, CA Richard’s Grove Pavilion $3 M Windsor, CA Bouchon Bakery $1.5 M Yountville, CA Tyler Florence Rotisserie and Wine Shop $1.4 M Napa, CA Boulettes Larder Restaurant $1.5 M San Francisco, CA Frati Gelato Cafe $23 K Napa, CA Tench Winery $7M Napa, CA Education 2002, Universidad Autonoma De Baja California, Bachelor’s in Tourism JOSE ZAVALA History Jose joined Ledcor in 2004 and has 14 years of construction experience. Role Jose oversees all construction activities on site and provides guidance to project staff and trade contractors. He is responsible for establishing and monitoring performance targets so that the quality, safety, budget, and schedule objectives are being met. He also makes sure that projects are built according to approved plans, specifications, and applicable building codes. PROJECT SUPERINTENDENT LEDCOR EXHIBIT - E Page 57 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 166 of 477 PROJECT EXPERIENCE Nine Suns Winery $15.2 M St. Helena, CA Lokoya Winery $4 M St. Helena, CA Tench Winery $7M Napa, CA ALEX PIMIETA History Alex joined Ledcor in 2015 and has 8 years of construction experience. Role Alex provides technical support and assists project staff in the document control for the project. He is responsible for record-keeping functions, supporting the trade contract management and change order processes, facilitating the review and distribution of shop drawings, coordinating the RFI process, and organizing project close-out procedures. PROJECT ENGINEER LEDCOR EXHIBIT - E Page 58 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 167 of 477 PROJECT EXPERIENCE Davis Estates $25 M Calistoga, CA Yountville Residence $15.5 M Yountville, CA Futo Winery $15 M Oakville, CA Nine Suns $15.2 M St. Helena, CA Dana Estates $14 M St. Helena, CA Healdsburg Residence $12.5 M Healdsburg, CA Ram’s Gate Winery $11.7 M Sonoma, CA Marciano Estate $10.7 M St. Helena, CA Cliff Lede Vineyards $8.2 M Yountville, CA Poetry Inn $6.3 M Yountville, CA Benovia Winery $6.45 M Santa Rosa, CA Cuvaison Estate Wines $3.8 M Napa, CA Education 1994, University of California at Davis, BS Organizational Studies KYLE SCHUH History Kyle joined Ledcor in 2006 and has 17 years of construction experience. Role Kyle provides technical support and assists project staff in the document control for the project. He is responsible for record-keeping functions, supporting the trade contract management and change order processes, facilitating the review and distribution of shop drawings, coordinating the RFI process, and organizing project close-out procedures. PROJECT ENGINEER, QUALITY MANAGER LEDCOR EXHIBIT - E Page 59 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 168 of 477 Cardinale/Lokoya Winery $1.7 M Oakville, CA Calistoga Residence $1.5 M Calistoga, CA Farm Collective Wine $1.3 M Napa, CA St. Helena Residence $1.3 M St. Helena, CA Mustard’s Grill Remodel $1.2 M Yountville, CA Tra Vigne Resturant $550 K St. Helena, CA Twin Peaks Winery Maintenance $500 K Yountville, CA Staglin Family Vineyard $4 M Rutherford, CA Nickel & Nickel $3.4 M Oakville, CA Dancing Hares Vineyard $3.4 M St. Helena, CA O’Shaughnessy Winery $3.2 M Angwin, CA St. Helena Residence $3 M St. Helena, CA Terra Valentine Winery $3 M St. Helena, CA Yountville Cross Roads Inc. $2.1 M Yountville, CA T-Vine Winery $2.1 M Calistoga, CA PROJECT EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED) KYLE SCHUH LEDCOR EXHIBIT - E Page 60 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 169 of 477 Year Region Fatal LTI RWC Other Lost Days Restricted Days Injury/ Illness Type G H I J K L M Employees Hours LTIF TRIF 2016 Edge 7 12098 0.00 2016 Hawaii 3 4413 0.00 2016 Irvine 1 1 19 36540 5.47 2016 Las Vegas 56 112705 0.00 2016 Napa 21 41714 0.00 2016 San Diego 60 118609 0.00 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 166 326079 0.00 0.61 Year Region Fatal LTI RWC Other Lost Days Restricted Days Injury/ Illness Type G H I J K L M Employees Hours LTIF TRIF 2015 Chicago 8 14845 0.00 2015 Corporate 22 42948 0.00 2015 Edge 11 21652 0.00 2015 Hawaii 1 107 1 11 21891 9.14 2015 Irvine 18 34515 0.00 2015 Las Vegas 49 97002 0.00 2015 Napa 1 167 1 36 69988 2.86 2015 San Diego 1 1 36 70295 2.85 0 0 2 1 0 274 3 191 373136 0.00 1.61 Year Region Fatal LTI RWC Other Lost Days Restricted Days Injury/ Illness Type G H I J K L M Employees Hours LTIF TRIF 2014 Chicago 1 1 18 35483 5.64 2014 Corporate 9 16949 0.00 2014 Edge 15 30032 0.00 2014 Hawaii 23 45970 0.00 2014 Irvine 16 30863 0.00 2014 Las Vegas 2 2 38 74013 5.40 2014 Napa 1 28 1 34 66590 3.00 2014 San Diego 20 40068 0 0 0 1 3 0 28 4 173 339968 0.00 2.35 U.S. Construction Group U.S. Construction Group U.S. Construction Group EXHIBIT - FPage 61 of 63ATTACHMENT 3Page 170 of 477 Year Region Fatal LTI RWC Other Lost Days Restricted Days Injury/ Illness Type G H I J K L M Employees Hours LTIF TRIF 2013 Chicago 21 39936 0.00 2013 Corporate 8 14939 0.00 2013 Edge 1 1 14 27640 7.24 2013 Hawaii 1 1 103 2 58 115622 3.46 2013 Irvine 17 32123 0.00 2013 Las Vegas 1 134 1 25 50650 3.95 2013 Napa 29 57258 0.00 2013 San Diego 17 32456 0.00 0 0 2 2 0 237 4 189 370624 0.00 2.16 Year Region Fatal LTI RWC Other Lost Days Restricted Days Injury/ Illness Type G H I J K L M Employees Hours LTIF TRIF 2012 Chicago 1 1 19 37160 5.38 2012 Corporate 8 15912 0.00 2012 Edge 11 17556 0.00 2012 Hawaii 1 137 1 93 194039 1.03 2012 Irvine 1 28 1 12 23481 8.52 2012 Las Vegas 3 3 24 46930 12.78 2012 Napa 1 1 2 3 41 4 31 60603 13.20 2012 San Diego 22 42053 0.00 0 1 3 6 3 206 10 220 437734 0.46 4.57 Year Region Fatal LTI RWC Other Lost Days Restricted Days Injury/ Illness Type G H I J K L M Employees Hours LTIF TRIF 2011 Chicago 21 41804 0.00 2011 Charlotte 3 3983 0.00 2011 Dallas 4 4287 0.00 2011 Hawaii 2 2 62 127852 3.13 2011 Las Vegas 21 42337 0.00 2011 Napa 1 1 27 54133 3.69 2011 San Diego 1 1 33 2 47 92085 4.34 0 0 1 4 0 33 5 185 366481 0.00 2.73 LTIF- Lost Time Incident Frequency TRIF - Total Recordable Incident Frequency U.S. Construction Group U.S. Construction Group U.S. Construction Group EXHIBIT - FPage 62 of 63ATTACHMENT 3Page 171 of 477 Aon Risk Insurance Services West, Inc. | Construction Services Group 707 Wilshire Boulevard | Suite 2600 | Los Angeles | CA 90017 t +1.213.630.3200 | f +1.847.953.4529 | aon.com License No. 0530733 January 4, 2017 Ledcor Contractors Group Inc. 6405 Mira Mesa Boulevard, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92121 RE: Ledcor Construction Inc. / EDGE Construction LLC NCCI Interstate Experience Modification Rating Risk ID – 917676224 To Whom It May Concern: Following are the historical Experience Modification Ratings for Ledcor Construction Inc. / EDGE Construction LLC as promulgated by The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) for the previous 5 years: Effective: Experience Modification Rating 09/01/2016 0.78 09/01/2015 0.69 01/01/2015 0.66 01/01/2014 0.77 01/01/2013 0.75 01/01/2012 0.75 Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, Ariel Clearman Ariel Clearman Account Specialist Aon – Construction Services Group EXHIBIT - F Page 63 of 63 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 172 of 477 City of Napa June 20, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Item 5.H. ATCH 4 City of Napa June 20, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Item 5.H. ATCH 5 Page 173 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:982-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.I. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Jacques R. LaRochelle, Public Works Director Prepared By: Shannon Barcal, Associate Civil Engineer TITLE: Trower Avenue Storm Drain Improvements Project - Phase 1 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution approving a construction contract with Bay Pacific Pipelines Inc. for the Trower Avenue Storm Drain Improvements Project - Phase 1 in the bid amount of $1,987,325, authorizing the Public Works Director to approve contract amendments and charges for project services up to a total amount not to exceed $2,327,000, authorizing a budget appropriation in the amount of $177,000, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. DISCUSSION: The Trower Avenue Storm Drain Improvements Project - Phase 1 includes storm drainage improvements along Trower Avenue from the Salvador Creek crossing east of Jefferson Street west to Lassen Drive. The work generally consists of installing storm drainage infrastructure including large diameter storm drain pipe, junction structures, manholes and catch-basins. The storm drain pipe is to tie into the existing concrete culvert located in Trower Avenue at Salvador Creek. This project was bid previously; however, City Council at the May 16, 2017 meeting rejected all bids due to the low bidder withdrawing their bid and the two remaining bids exceeding the available budget for the project. The project was reissued for bid on May 18, 2017 with revised specifications providing enhancements to the overall project delivery schedule, construction traffic control and staging areas intended to improve constructability and reduce project cost. Three (3) bids for construction were received and opened at 3:00 P.M. on June 9, 2017. The engineer’s estimate for project construction, including Addendum No. 1 was $1.93 million. The bids received were as follows: $1,987,325 Bay Pacific Pipelines Inc., Novato, CA* $2,057,870 JMB Construction Inc., South San Francisco, CA CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 174 of 477 File #:982-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.I. $2,497,865 Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc., Santa Rosa, CA *Apparent Lowest and Best Bid. This project is subject to a Local Business Preference pursuant to Chapter 2.93 of the Napa Municipal Code which affords local businesses a preference of a three percent (3%) reduction factor to the bid. None of the bidders qualify for the local business preference. Based on the apparent lowest and best bid, the construction budget is proposed as follows: Lowest and Best Bid Amount - $1,987,325 Construction Contingency (10% of bid) - $198,733 City Engineering Division Management - $6,000 Material/Geotechnical Testing - $26,000 Construction Division Management and Inspection - $80,000 Total - $2,298,058 The construction contingency, engineering division management, material/geotechnical testing, and construction division management values are estimates. The funds can be used interchangeably between the items listed above. City staff believes due to the current construction market the above lowest and best bid amount is acceptable for Phase 1 construction. To meet the project schedule, the City Council at their April 18, 2017 meeting, authorized procurement of the necessary reinforced concrete pipe from Rinker Materials. As the final design evolved after that date the need for additional reinforced concrete pipe was identified. Staff is requesting authorization to amend the original procurement amount to purchase the additional pipe necessary and also add a contingency to address unforeseen conditions that might require additional pipe purchases. The additional reinforced concrete pipe is estimated to cost just under $3,000 and a 5% contingency on top of the revised total is $9,634. The contingency amount will only be used if additional pipe is required during construction. The proposed amendment to the pipe procurement purchase order is summarized below: A. Previous Purchase Order Authorization (P124762): $189,937.65 B. Additional Pipe Purchase: $2,731.70 C. Subtotal (A + B): $192,669.35 D. 5% contingency (5% of C): $9,633.47 E. Amended Purchase Order Total (C + D): $203,000.00 (rounded up to nearest thousand) The project’s outfall is located within Salvador Creek triggering the need for environmental regulatory permits which include wildlife biological services for the Salvador Creek portion of the work. This work is proposed to occur during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31 in the Bay Area). The permits require pre-construction nesting bird surveys be performed. Staff requested a CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 175 of 477 File #:982-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.I. professional services contract from GHD, Inc. for wildlife biological services to perform the necessary nesting bird surveys. GHD, Inc. provides wildlife biological services independent of their civil engineering design services. The existing CIP Budget for this project did not contemplate the need for this professional service, therefore an additional appropriation of $14,900 is requested to cover pre-construction surveys. The biological survey contract includes approximately $11,000 to perform two bird surveys and approximately $4,000 will only be used if a protected bird species is discovered triggering further regulatory compliance. For the actions described herein, the existing FY project budget is insufficient to cover the project costs, therefore an additional budget appropriation is requested. The total funds needed for Phase 1 of the Trower Avenue Storm Drain Improvements project is approximately $2,327,000 [$2,298,058 (Construction Budget) + $13,062.35 (Rinker Materials PO Amendment) + $14,900 (Biological Services)]. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Existing FY 16-17 project budget is insufficient to cover the project costs, however a significant portion of the balance of the funds needed are identified in the current CIP 17-18 budget which will be available July 1, 2017 assuming budget approval at the June 20, 2017 City Council meeting. In the current 5-year Capital Improvement Program plan, $2.15 million is programmed for construction of the project in FY 2017/18. The construction contract is estimated to be fully executed after July 1, 2017, however, additional funds are needed to fully fund the remaining costs of this project. Staff requests an additional appropriation of $177,000 be added to the project budget. SOURCES: $ 177,000 CIP General Fund Reserve (30199-25301-CIPGFRSV-25301) (New Appropriation) $ 2,150,000 FY2017/18 CIP Budget (Available July 1, 2017 assuming budget approval at June 20,2017 City Council meeting) $ 2,327,000 TOTAL USES: $ 2,327,000 Trower Stormdrain Improvements (30101-57601-SD17PW03GF-57601) $ 2,327,000 TOTAL CEQA: City staff recommends that the City Council determine that the Recommended Action is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.21 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15282(k) (the installation of new pipeline or maintenance, repair, restoration, removal, or demolition of an existing pipeline, for projects less than one mile in length). CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 176 of 477 File #:982-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.I. DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Resolution ATCH 2 - Location Map for Trower Avenue Storm Drain Improvements Project NOTIFICATION: None. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 177 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 1 of 3 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH BAY PACIFIC PIPELINES INC. FOR THE TROWER AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT – PHASE 1 IN THE BID AMOUNT OF $1,987,325, AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENTS AND CHARGES FOR PROJECT SERVICES UP TO A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $2,327,000, AUTHORIZING A BUDGET APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $177,000, AND DETERMINING THAT THE ACTIONS AUTHORIZED BY THIS RESOLUTION ARE EXEMPT FROM CEQA WHEREAS, bids were opened and read on June 9, 2017, for the Trower Avenue Storm Drain Improvements Project – Phase 1 with the lowest and best bid submitted by Bay Pacific Pipelines Inc. in the amount of $1,987,325; and WHEREAS, existing project budget is insufficient to cover the project costs, therefore an additional budget appropriation is required; and WHEREAS, the construction budget consists of funding the contract amount of $1,987,325 plus contingency, material/geotechnical testing, contract administration, construction management, and inspection (amounts are interchangeable) for a total amount of $2,298,058; and WHEREAS, the project’s outfall is located within Salvador Creek triggering the need for environmental regulatory permits which include wildlife biological services for the Salvador Creek portion of the work; and WHEREAS, GHD Inc. submitted a proposal to perform pre-construction nesting bird surveys for a total not to exceed amount of $14,900; and WHEREAS, the City entered into a contract, through issuance of a purchase order (P124762), for the procurement of reinforced concrete pipe for the Trower Avenue Storm Drain Improvements Project - Phase 1 with Rinker Materials in the amount of $189,937.65; and WHEREAS, the final design of the Project evolved after the purchase order was issued, and City staff identified the need for additional reinforced concrete pipe at an estimated cost of $13,062.35 (includes contingency), as an amendment to the existing purchase order with Rinker Materials; and Page 178 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 2 of 3 June 20, 2017 WHEREAS, the total funding anticipated to be needed to complete this project is an amount not to exceed $2,327,000 ($2,298,050 + $14,900 + $13,062.35); and WHEREAS, funding for the project is composed of funds from the FY 2017/18 CIP budget and a proposed additional appropriation of $177,000 from the CIP General Fund Reserve; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution. 2. The City Council hereby determines that the actions authorized by this Resolution are statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.21 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15282(k) (the installation of new pipeline or maintenance, repair, restoration, removal, or demolition of an existing pipeline, as long as the project does not exceed one mile in length). 3. The City Council hereby authorizes the Public Works Director to award and execute the construction contract for the Trower Avenue Storm Drain Improvements Project – Phase 1 to the lowest and best bidder, Bay Pacific Pipelines Inc., in the amount of $1,987,325. 4. The City Council hereby authorizes the Public Works Director to execute construction contract change orders, execute other contracts and agreements, and authorize charges to the project budget for contract administration, submittal reviews, construction inspections, testing, and material purchases up to an amount of $339,675, for a total amount not to exceed for the project of $2,327,000 ($1,987,325 + $339,675 = $2,327,000). 5. The City Council hereby authorizes an additional appropriation of $177,000 from the CIP General Fund Reserve to the project as follows: SOURCES: $ 0 Trower Stormdrain Improvements (SD17PW03) (Existing Budget) $ 177,000 CIP General Fund Reserve (30199-25301-CIPGFRSV-25301) (New Appropriation) Page 179 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 3 of 3 June 20, 2017 $ 2,150,000 FY2017/18 to FY2016/17 CIP Budget (Re-Programmed) (Available July 1, 2017 assuming budget approval at June 20,2017 City Council meeting) $ 2,327,000 TOTAL USES: $ 2,327,000 Trower Stormdrain Improvements (30101-57601-SD17PW03GF-57601) $ 2,327,000 TOTAL 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20 th day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ________________________ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to form: Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 180 of 477 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 1 of 1 Page 181 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:877-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.J. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Jacques R. LaRochelle, Public Works Director Prepared By: Michael J. Hether, Senior Civil Engineer TITLE: Dewatering Equipment (Centrifuge) at Edward I. Barwick Jamieson Treatment Plant (EIBJTP) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Public Works Director to negotiate and execute an agreement with GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $450,000 for procurement of dewatering equipment and operations support services at the City’s water treatment plant. DISCUSSION: EIBJTP treats source water delivered through the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA) from Barker Slough in the Sacramento Delta. In 2010, major treatment plant additions and improvements were completed which allowed the City to more effectively treat its existing allotment of State Water Project (SWP) water supply; additionally, the improvements enabled the City to consolidate operational practices and provide higher quality water to its customers. Accordingly, City staff operates EIBJTP during wet and dry seasons. The quality of raw water received through the NBA varies depending on the season (wet versus dry). During dry seasons, the City receives raw water that is less turbid (i.e. less cloudy or hazy due to suspended particles); conversely, during wet seasons, the raw water is more turbid. The volume of particulate (i.e. sludge) left over at the conclusion of the water treatment process is directly related to the turbidity levels in the raw water received through the NBA. In order to effectively and efficiently manage high volumes of wet sludge at the end of any treatment process, it (the sludge) must be dried which can either be achieved naturally (e.g. spread out in a field and exposed to air and sunlight) or mechanically (e.g. belt filter press, vacuum filtration, centrifuge); the former requires access to open land and requires labor-intensive efforts to spread the sludge to facilitate drying and disposal, while the latter requires installation of dewatering equipment (i.e. centrifuge). The parcel that EIBJTP occupies is not large enough to efficiently address handling and disposal of sludge; consequently, the City must rely on a mechanical means to facilitate drying and disposal. The City has been leasing centrifuge equipment since completion of the EIBJTP improvement project CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Page 182 of 477 File #:877-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.J. because at that time, equipment leasing provided better value (i.e. the cost to lease was less than the cost to purchase). Since then, leasing price options have changed as there is limited competition amongst service providers, which has resulted in cost prohibitive lease options. For the reasons stated, City staff recommends purchasing centrifuge equipment in lieu of leasing. City staff has been working with the design consultant (Mott MacDonald) to complete a basis of design; however, the design (civil, electrical, mechanical, etc.) cannot be completed until the centrifuge is selected. Once selected, Mott MacDonald will tailor the remainder of the design around the specific centrifuge requirements. Upon completion of the design and construction project advertisement (May 2018), City staff will recommend award of a construction contract (July 2018). On April 14, 2017, the City posted an advertisement soliciting Requests for Proposals (RFPs) from centrifuge suppliers offering equipment and support services and on May 12, 2017, received four proposals. Staff conducted a merit-based review based on criteria detailed in the RFP which are summarized as follows: Capacity and Skill to Perform (30 points), Ability to Provide Future Maintenance Services (40 points), Cost (20 points), and Current Technology (10 points) for a total of 100 points. All centrifuge suppliers who submitted had the demonstrated and relevant experience to meet the expectations outlined in the City’s RFP; however GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc., ranked highest in the dimensions of Cost, Ability to Provide Future Maintenance Services, as well as having completed similar projects for agencies comparable to the City’s water utility. City staff recommends selection of GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc., for centrifuge procurement and operations support services. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Funding for dewatering equipment procurement and support services is provided by existing appropriations more specifically described as follows: SOURCES: $850,000 EIBJTP Sludge Centrifuge Equipment (53103-57601-WQ16PW05-53201) USES: $337,500 EIBJTP Sludge Centrifuge Equipment Procurement $57,000 Installation, Start-up and Maintenance Support Services (one year) $55,500 Contingency $450,000 Total Procurement & Support Services with Contingency CEQA: The Public Works Director has determined that the Recommended Action described in this Agenda CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Page 183 of 477 File #:877-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.J. Report is not in-and-of-itself a “project” (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378) since it does not result in a physical change in the environment. However, the Recommended Action is a part of a larger “project” that will be subject to environmental review in accordance with CEQA at the “earliest feasible time” prior to “approval” consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15004 and 15352. The larger “project” will involve site construction and installation of the dewatering equipment, and staff plans to bring back a CEQA analysis of that project to Council prior to the construction contract approval. DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Exception Request for Specialty Items NOTIFICATION: None CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Page 184 of 477 EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR SPECIALTY ITEMS Per NMC 2.91.050, the City may enter into a contract for a "specialty item," provided that the City Manager makes a written determination of the following: 1. Project need which the City intends to satisfy through the c ontract for the specialty item. Please provide a functional description (or performance criteria) of the City’s needs. Part of the City’s water treatment process involves the handling and disposal of sludge at the end of the process. In order to effectively and efficiently manage high volumes of wet sludge, the City must rely on dewatering equipment (centrifuge) to facilitate drying, which in turn, lowers disposal costs . 2. The types of property or service which are available (or used by other similarly situ ated private or public agencies) to meet this need (or similar needs), and the contractors which are available to provide the property or service. Please provide documentation of the steps the City has taken to evaluate the types of property, service, and contractors potentially available to serve the City's needs. A centrifuge is a common piece of equipment used by sewer and water agencies across the nation to dewater and dispose of sludge. In this specific case, City staff advertised a request for propos al (equipment procurement includes professional support services), received and evaluated four proposals and selected GEA to supply the centrifuge equipment and professional services. 3. Please provide the reasons why a similar property or service cannot meet the City’s needs (including considerations of compatibility with other City property and services regarding maintenance, repair, training, quality, price, or similar considerations), or why the City's needs can only be met by one type of property or service (the specialty item). City staff has been working with the design consultant to develop a basis of design, but cannot complete a dewatering facility design until the centrifuge is selected. Once selected, the design consultant can tailor the remainder of the facility design around the specific centrifuge requirements. As part of the merit-based review process, the ability to provide professional services was listed among the evaluation criteria; GEA scored the highest across this dimension. 4. By entering into a contract for the specialty item from the proposed contractor, the City will meet the purpose and goals identified in NMC Section 2.91.010. Yes. 5. The contract complies with the requirements of NMC Section 2.91.030 (B). YES NO BUDGET APPROVAL: YES NO IFAS BUDGET #: 53103-57601-WQ16PW05-56101 REQUESTOR NAME AND DEPARTMENT Michael Hether – Public Works Department-Water Division EXTENSION 7336 REQUESTED VENDOR NAME GEA Separator Group VENDOR CONTACT PHONE NUMBER 714.262.8606 _________ Signature of Requestor Date _________ Department Head Signature Date _________ City Manager Date Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 185 of 477 NMC 2.91.010 D. Consistent with the requirements of the City Charter, including City Charter Sections 100 through 105, this Chapter establish es the parameters by which representatives of the City may enter into contractual obligations on behalf of the City. It is the goal of the City that any administrative regulations adopted to implement this Chapter, and any City contract, will meet the following goals: 1. Obtain the most cost effective result for the City, which avoids improvidence, extravagance, and any other waste of public funds or public property, and which also achieves an appropriate balance between the costs and benefits of maximizing quality within available resources. 2. Takes into consideration all reasonably available relevant information regarding the range of types, effectiveness, quality, and costs of potential property, services, public projects, and contractors available to achieve the City's project goals. Depending upon the particular requirements of the project (and the more particular procedures identified in this chapter), the information to be considered may include data gathered from one or more of the following sources: similar City projects, other public agencies, professional journals, private businesses, outreach to potential contractors, and private businesses, competitive bids, formal or informal quotes, proposals, or qualification statements. 3. Guards against favoritism, fraud, corruption, and conflicts of interest. 4. Efficiently uses City resources in the preparation, approval, administration, and enforcement of contracts which are effective tools in achieving the City's goals. NMC 2.91.030 B. Execution and administration of contracts 1. The City Manager is authorized to take any steps necessary to prepare contract documents, prior to final approval of the contract, in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Chapter, including: requesting proposals, inviting bids, applying for grants, and negotiating contract terms. 2. The City Manager is authorized to execute any contract on behalf of the City provided that: (a) pursuant to City Charter Section 100, the contract is in writing and approved as to form by the City Attorney; and (b) the contract is covered by sufficient unencumbered funds appropriated in the adopted budget, and (to the extent required by City Charter Section 100) the contract is endorsed by the City Auditor; and (c) the contract is prepared in accordance with all other requirements of this Code and the administrative regulations; and (d) the contract is covered by any one of the following categories: (i) the City Council has separately authorized the City Manager to execute on behalf of the City pursuant to an ordinance, resolution, or other Council action, or (ii) the City’s commitments under the contract are in an amount less than or equal to the amount established by the Controller of the State of California for formal bidding procedures as required by California Public Contract Code Sections 22020 and 22032(c) (as of January 1, 2009, this amount is established at $125,000), or (iii) the contract is necessary to resolve an emergency pursuant to Section 2.91.040 of this Chapter or pursuant to Chapter 2.89 of this Code. It shall be unlawful to split, or separate into smaller contracts, any contract for the purpose of evading the dollar amounts identified in this chapter. 3. The City Manager is authorized to implement and enforce each contractor's compliance with contract requirements, including inspections and acceptance of complete performance, and termination of the contract, all in accordance with the requirements of the contract. NMC 2.91.050 Exceptions for Specialty Items A. The City may enter into a contract for a "specialty item," in accordance with this section, without further complying with the requirements of this Code, provided that the City Manager makes a written determination of the following: 1. The project need which the City intends to satisfy through the contract for the specialty item. This includes a functional description (or performance criteria) of the City’s needs. 2. The types of property or service which are available (or used by other similarly situated private or public agencies) to meet this need (or similar needs), and the contractors which are available to provide the property or service. This includes documentation of the steps the City has taken to evaluate the types of property, service, and contractors potentially available to serve the City's needs. 3. The reasons why a similar property or service cannot meet the City’s needs (including considerations of compatibility with other City property and services regarding maintenance, repair, training, quality, price, or similar considerations), or why the City's needs can only be met by one type of property or service (the specialty item). 4. By entering into a contract for the specialty item from the proposed contractor, the City will meet the purpose and goals identified in Section 2.91.010 of this Chapter. 5. The contract complies with the requirements of Section 2.91.030 (B) of this Chapter. B. The City Council hereby determines that compliance with the requirements of this Section shall satisfy the requirement to award City contracts to the lowest and best bidder, pursuant to City Charter Section 101. Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 186 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:913-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.K. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Jacques R. LaRochelle, Public Works Director Prepared By: Joy Eldredge, Water General Manager TITLE: Monitoring, Analysis, and Modeling of Hennessey and Milliken Watersheds RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Public Works Director to execute Memorandum of Understanding with Napa County for the study of the Hennessey and Milliken Watersheds, at a City cost not to exceed $112,500, and determine that the actions authorized by this item are exempt from CEQA. DISCUSSION: The City of Napa (City) owns and operates two local surface water dams, reservoirs, and treatment plants that are vital to the municipal water supply for the City of Napa and surrounding areas in unincorporated Napa County. The City provides treat & wheel services to the Cities of Calistoga and American Canyon as well as wholesale water to the City of St. Helena. The City’s water system provides water for 84,000 people throughout Napa County. In recent years, there have been a cumulative increase in the number of land use changes within the watershed where runoff contributes to these critical surface water supplies. The City identified this work as part of a larger Master Plan to address multiple items associated with Reservoir and Watershed operations. However, this portion of the work was separated from the Master Plan so that City staff can work together with County staff who reviews and approves land use changes in the watersheds. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) documents that the County will hold the contract for the coequal work. City and County staff has determined there is a need to review multiple aspects of the watershed lands, document the current situation, and assess future scenarios by setting up a model of the watershed that considers natural soils, land formations and existing and proposed land use changes. The scope of work will include recommendations for the monitoring and analysis of the tributaries above the drinking water reservoir water to understand natural and man- made contributions to the municipal drinking water supplies. Existing and future monitoring data will be used to calibrate and refine the watershed model. This model and information will be used to assure a stable, sustainable water supply for the City’s water customers by increasing the understanding the quality of raw water upstream of the reservoirs. County Staff will issue the jointly approved request for proposals for the work and City and County CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 187 of 477 File #:913-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.K. Staff will review submissions, and agree upon the most qualified team to perform the professional services. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are no impacts now. The total cost to the City for this effort is anticipated to be $80,000 - $112,500. CEQA: City staff recommends that the City Council determine that the Recommended Action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 (data collection and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 − Memorandum of Understanding with Napa County for Study of Hennessey and Milliken Watersheds NOTIFICATION: None. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 188 of 477 1 Napa County Agreement No. _______ City of Napa Agreement No. _______ MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE STUDY OF THE HENNESSEY AND MILLIKEN WATERSHEDS This Memorandum of Understanding for the study of the Hennessey and Milliken Watersheds (hereinafter “Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____day of ___________, 2017 by and between the City of Napa, a California charter city (hereinafter "CITY"), and Napa County, a political subdivision of the State of California (“COUNTY”). CITY and COUNTY may be identified as “a Party,” or collectively, as “the Parties”. The Parties are each public entities organized and operating under the laws of the State of California and each is a public agency as defined in California Government Code Section 6500. RECITALS WHEREAS, residents of the COUNTY live in the Hennessey and Milliken Watersheds (collectively “Watersheds”); and WHEREAS, the City provides municipal water service to over 80,000 residents, including the entirety of the City, as well as portions of the County; and the City obtains water supply to serve its municipal water service customers from the surface water flows across the Watersheds, which are captured in City reservoirs at Lake Hennessey and Milliken Lake; and WHEREAS, residents of the City are also residents of the County; and WHEREAS, the CITY and COUNTY share the vision of protecting water quality within Watersheds, especially those that contribute to drinking water sources throughout Napa County; and WHEREAS, the residents of the CITY and COUNTY would benefit from an updated study of the Watersheds and creation of a model that quantifies land surface contributions to water quality (“Study”); and WHEREAS, each Party has the power under the laws of the State of California to enter into a professional services agreement to secure the necessary services to perform the Study; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to share the costs of the Study; and WHEREAS, the Parties recognize the need for confidentiality in discussions and communications during the drafting and preparation of the Study in order to encourage frank and open deliberation and correspondence; and WHEREAS, the Parties wish to enter into this Agreement in order to set forth necessary cooperative procedures and protocols for the administration of securing the aforementioned study Page 1 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 189 of 477 2 and sharing the associated costs; TERMS NOW, THEREFORE, said CITY and said COUNTY for the considerations hereinafter set forth, mutually agree as follows: 1. TERM; TERMINATION FOR CAUSE. This Agreement shall commence on the date first above written. The Agreement may be terminated only by either: (1) mutual agreement of the parties; or (2) the other Party’s failure to cure any material breach in its obligations under Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Agreement within thirty (30) days of receipt by one party of notice from the other describing the nature of such breach. 2. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND TESTING. (a) Award and Administration of Consultant’s Agreement. COUNTY shall be responsible for issuing an RFQ/RFP for professional services from qualified consultants to perform the Study, awarding and administering the professional services agreement for the Study (“Consultant’s Agreement”), and paying the consultant in accordance with the Consultant’s Agreement (including any amendment thereto). The scope of services to be performed by the consultant under the Consultant’s Agreement shall be in substantial conformance with the terms set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated by reference herein, unless modifications to the scope of services are approved by COUNTY and CITY in accordance with this Agreement. (b) Costs. The costs of the Study shall include the Consultant’s professional services, testing, and other costs necessary for the Study that are reimbursed to the consultant by COUNTY pursuant to the Consultant’s Agreement. An approximate cost estimate for the work is $180,000. (c) Allocation of Funding for Consultant’s Agreement. CITY will reimburse the COUNTY for half of the costs of the Consultant’s Agreement, subject to the limits set forth in this Agreement. Any costs of the Consultant’s Agreement that exceed the estimate set forth above , through an amendment to the Consultant’s Agreement, shall be referred to as an “Overrun.” To the extent that an Overrun is approved by CITY and COUNTY in accordance with this Agreement, CITY will reimburse the COUNTY for half of the costs of the Overrun. Any Overrun shall be supported by an amendment to the scope of services approved by COUNTY and the CITY Public Works Director. Any Overrun resulting in the total cost of the Consultant’s Agreement exceeding 125% of the cost estimate set forth above shall require prior approval from the City Council. (d) Collaboration Between the Parties. The Parties agree to the following to ensure the Study meets both entities needs: • COUNTY and CITY shall coordinate and agree upon the RFQ prior to issuance of the solicitation. • COUNTY and CITY shall review Consultant submittals submitted in response to the RFQ and agree upon the Consultant selected to perform the Study. • COUNTY and CITY shall receive all consultant work products and communications at the same time. Page 2 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 190 of 477 3 • COUNTY and CITY shall coordinate and agree upon comments and changes prior to providing feedback to the Consultant. • COUNTY shall then address comments provided by CITY and provide copies to CITY after documents are finalized with CITY’s and COUNTY’s agreed upon comments and changes. • Both Parties will be notified and be given the opportunity to attend all project meetings with the selected Consultant. Both Parties shall be included in all written communications with the selected Consultant and any sub-consultants and invited to participate in or, if agreed upon by COUNTY and CITY ahead of time, • Any changes to the proposed scope attached as Exhibit B shall be mutually agreed upon by CITY and COUNTY prior to COUNTY executing the Consultant’s Agreement, or an amendment to the Consultant’s Agreement, with the selected consultant. CITY’s Director of Public Works is authorized by CITY to agree to changes in scope on behalf of CITY. • Neither Party shall release information from the Study to any third party without coordinating with the other Party. Both Parties agree to notify the other immediately upon any request for any records created pursuant to Consultant’s Agreement that the Parties have not previously agreed to be released. Besides the requirement to notify the other Party, this provision shall not impact either Party’s ability to timely respond to any legally required release of such records. • In the unlikely event of a disagreement between the Public Works Directors of the CITY and COUNTY, the City Manager and County CEO will meet to determine a resolution. 3. INVOICING AND PAYMENT. Upon COUNTY’s payment of costs to the consultant, COUNTY shall invoice CITY on a monthly basis, documenting the full amount paid by the COUNTY to the consultant, and the amount owed by CITY to COUNTY for CITY’s half of the costs. CITY shall pay COUNTY within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice. 4. INSURANCE. COUNTY shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect throughout the term of this Agreement, and thereafter as to matters occurring during the term of this Agreement, the following insurance coverage or equivalent amounts of self-insurance or, as to work which is performed by persons or entities under subcontract to COUNTY, shall require such persons or entities to provide the same coverage: (a) Workers' Compensation insurance. To the extent required by law, workers' compensation insurance in the performance of any of COUNTY’s duties under this Agreement; and upon request by CITY shall provide certification of such coverage. (b) Liability insurance. (1) Commercial general liability insurance coverage of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence, issued by a company having a A.M. Best rating of A:VII or better, covering liability for any personal injury, including death, to any person and/or damage to the property of any person arising from the acts or omissions of COUNTY or any officer, agent, or employee of COUNTY under this Agreement except for acts Page 3 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 191 of 477 4 or omissions performed in strict compliance with express direction COUNTY’s governing board, officers or personnel. (2) Professional liability/errors and omissions insurance in an amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence, covering all professional acts or omissions of CITY or its agents arising out of or in connection with this Agreement except for those acts or omissions performed in strict compliance with express direction from COUNTY’s governing board, officers or personnel unless such direction was based upon professional advice from CITY or the agents of CITY under this Agreement. (3) Comprehensive automobile liability insurance policy (Bodily Injury and Property Damage) on owned, hired, leased and non-owned vehicles used in conjunction with CITY’s activities under this Agreement of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,00,000) combined single limit per occurrence. (c) Certificates of Coverage. Where the foregoing coverages are provided by insurance rather than by self-insurance (written proof of which shall be provided to CITY ), the coverages shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Coverage which shall be filed with the CITY Director of Public Works prior to reimbursement of COUNTY by CITY for performance of any of COUNTY’s duties under this Agreement; shall name CITY, its officers, employees, and agents as additional insureds; shall be kept current during the term of this Agreement; shall provide that CITY shall be given no less than thirty (30) days prior written notice of any non-renewal, cancellation, other termination, or material change; shall provide that the insurance provided is primary coverage to CITY with respect to any insurance or self-insurance programs maintained by CITY; and shall provide that the inclusion of more than one insured shall not operate to impair the rights of one insured against another insured, the coverage afforded applying as though separate policies had been issued to each insured, but the inclusion of more than one insured shall not operate to increase the limits of the company's liability. Upon request of CITY’s Director of Public Works, COUNTY shall provide or arrange for the insurer to provide CITY with certified copies of the actual insurance policies or relevant portions thereof within thirty (30) days of the request. (e) Inclusion in Subcontracts. COUNTY agrees to require all subcontractors and any other entity or person who is involved in providing services under this Agreement to comply with the Workers Compensation and General Liability insurance requirements set forth in this Paragraph 4 and to require subcontractors to name the CITY as an additional insured. 5. INDEMNIFICATION. (a) By CITY. CITY shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY and the officers, agents and employees of COUNTY from any claim, loss or liability including without limitation, those for personal injury (including death) or damage to property, arising out of or connected with any aspect of the performance by CITY or its officers, agents, or employees, of activities or obligations required of CITY under this Agreement except where the loss was proximately caused by acts or omissions of CITY performed in strict compliance with express direction from COUNTY’s governing board, officers or personnel other than direction based upon and conforming to advice from CITY. (b) By COUNTY. COUNTY shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY and the officers, agents and employees of CITY from any claim, loss or liability including without limitation, those for personal injury (including death) or damage to property, arising out of or connected with any aspect of the performance by COUNTY or its officers, agents, or employees, of obligations required of COUNTY under this Agreement as well as for claims where the loss Page 4 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 192 of 477 5 was proximately caused by acts or omissions of CITY performed in strict compliance with express direction from COUNTY’s governing board, officers or personnel other than direction based upon and conforming to advice from CITY. 6. ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND CONFIDENTIALITY. (a) Information and communications that are otherwise protected under the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privileges or protections may be exchanged – whether in written, oral, electronic, or any other form – among or between the Parties and/or any Consultant(s) retained in connection with the purposes described in this Agreement, without in any way waiving or compromising such privilege or doctrines. Such information and communications includes, but is not limited to, drafts of the Study, draft portions of the Study, correspondence, reports, analyses, strategies, proposals, conversations, interviews, mental impressions, deliberations, and legal memoranda (collectively, “Study Information”). Study Information exchanged between or among the Parties and/or any Consultant(s) retained in connection with the purposes described in this Agreement, and Study Information that has been exchanged, is privileged from disclosure to other third parties as a result of attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protections. The sharing of Study Information among or between the Parties and/or any Consultant(s) retained in connection with the purposes of this Agreement is based on the Parties’ understanding that such privileges apply when government entities share common interests. This understanding is based, in part, on the common interest doctrine recognized in such cases as Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assn. v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 754; OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874; Armenta v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 525; STI Outdoor v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 334; and Raytheon Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 683. In the absence of such a common interest privilege, the Parties would not communicate Study Information to each other. (b) Open and frank communication among or between the Parties and/or any Consultant(s) retained in connection with the purposes described in this Agreement being essential to the furtherance of the purpose of this Agreement and the Study, Study Information composed, compiled, created, generated, reviewed, or otherwise used may be exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code sec. 6250, et seq.) pursuant to the deliberative process privilege encompassed by Govt. Code sec. 6255 and related case law, and pursuant to the exemption for drafts encompassed by Govt. Code sec. 6254, subd. (a). Study Information shall additionally be exempt from disclosure under other applicable statutory or other legal exemption. (c) If the CITY receives a request from any third party for inspection or a copy of any Study Information, the CITY shall forward the request to the COUNTY, and the COUNTY shall respond to the request on behalf of the CITY in accordance with the requirements of the California Public Records Act (relying on any relevant exemptions from disclosure, including those summarized in this Agreement). (d) The final Study and any attachments to the final Study, as determined to be final by mutual agreement of the Parties, shall be a public record subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code sec. 6250, et seq.). Disclosure of the final Study or its attachments as so determined shall not be a breach or waiver of any privilege Page 5 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 193 of 477 6 or agreement in this section. 7. NO WAIVER. The waiver by any of the parties of any breach or violation of any requirement of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any such breach in the future, or of the breach of any other requirement of this Agreement. 8. NOTICES. All notices required or authorized by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered in person or by deposit in the United States mail, by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. Any mailed notice, demand, request, consent, approval or communication that any party desires to give any other party shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth below. Any party may change its address by notifying the other parties of the change of address. Any notice sent by mail in the manner prescribed by this paragraph shall be deemed to have been received on the date noted on the return receipt or five days following the date of deposit, whichever is earlier. COUNTY CITY Director of Public Works Public Works Director County of Napa City of Napa 1195 Third Street, Suite 101 P.O. Box 660 Napa, CA 94559 Napa, CA 94559 9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. In performing any services required under this Agreement to be reimbursed by CITY, COUNTY shall observe and comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, ordinances, and codes, including to the extent applicable, the laws pertaining to relocation assistance. Such laws shall also include, but not be limited to, the following, except where otherwise prohibited by state or local law: (a) Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, COUNTY and its subcontractors shall not deny the benefits thereof to any person on the basis of sex, race, color, ancestry, religion or religious creed, national origin or ethnic group identification, sexual orientation, marital status, age (over 40), mental disability, physical disability or medical condition (including cancer, HIV and AIDS), nor shall they discriminate unlawfully against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, race, color, ancestry, religion or religious creed, national origin or ethnic group identification, sexual orientation, marital status, age (over 40), mental disability, physical disability or medical condition (including cancer, HIV and AIDS), or use of family care leave. COUNTY shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination or harassment. In addition to the foregoing general obligations, COUNTY shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code section 12900, et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (Title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 7285.0, et seq.), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (sections 11135- 11139.5) and any state or local regulations adopted to implement any of the foregoing, as such statutes and regulations may be amended from time to time. To the extent this Agreement subcontracts to COUNTY services or works required of CITY by the State of California pursuant to agreements between COUNTY and the State, the applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Government Code section 12990 (a) through (f), set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Code of regulations are expressly Page 6 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 194 of 477 7 incorporated into this Agreement by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full, and COUNTY and any of its subcontractors shall give written notice of their obligations thereunder to labor organizations with which they have collective bargaining or other agreements. (b) Documentation of Right to Work. COUNTY agrees to abide by the requirements of the Immigration and Control Reform Act pertaining to assuring that all newly- hired employees of COUNTY performing any services under this Agreement have a legal right to work in the United States of America, that all required documentation of such right to work is inspected, and that INS Form 1-9 (as it may be amended from time to time) is completed and on file for each employee. CITY shall make the required documentation available upon request to COUNTY for inspection. (c) Inclusion in Subcontracts. To the extent any of the services required of COUNTY under this Agreement are subcontracted to a third party, COUNTY shall include the provisions of (a) and (b), above, in all such subcontracts as obligations of the subcontractor. 10. AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT. CITY and COUNTY each warrant hereby that they are legally permitted and otherwise have the authority to enter into and perform this Agreement. 11. INDEPENDENT ENTITIES. Although this Agreement is a Joint Powers Agreement as authorized by California Government Code Sections 6500 et seq, CITY and COUNTY are independent entities, and CITY and COUNTY and the respective officers, agents and employees of CITY and COUNTY are not, and shall not be deemed, employees of the other agency for any purpose, including but not limited to worker’s compensation and employee benefits. 12. PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES AND OTHER BENFEFITS. In accordance with California Government Code Section 6513, all of the privileges and immunities from liability, all exemptions from laws, ordinances and rules, and all pension, relief, disability, workmen’s compensation, and other benefits which apply to the activity of the trustees, officers, employees or agents of the Parties when performing their functions within the territorial limits of their respective Public Agencies, shall apply to them to the same degree and extent while engaged in the performance of any of their functions and duties associated with performance of this Agreement. 13. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create any rights in third parties and CITY and COUNTY do not intend to create such rights. 14. ATTORNEY'S FEES. In the event that any of the parties commences legal action of any kind or character to either enforce the provisions of this Agreement or to obtain damages for breach thereof, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to all costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in connection with such action. 15. RECORDS AND TITLE TO DOCUMENTS. Upon completion of the study, COUNTY shall require the consultant to provide original copies to the COUNTY and CITY. Page 7 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 195 of 477 8 16. ENTIRETY OF CONTRACT. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties relating to the subject of this Agreement and supersedes all previous agreements, promises, representations, understandings and negotiations, whether written or oral, among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF NAPA, a California Charter City: NAPA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of California: (Signature) (Signature) Jacques R. LaRochelle, Public Works Director BELIA RAMOS, Chair of the Board of Supervisors ATTEST: APPROVED BY THE NAPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Date (Signature) Processed By: Dorothy Roberts, City Clerk Deputy Clerk of the Board COUNTERSIGNED: ATTEST (Signature) (Signature) Desiree Brun, City Auditor GLADYS I. COIL, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: (Signature) (Signature) Michael W. Barrett, City Attorney MINH TRAN, County Counsel Page 8 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 196 of 477 1 Exh. A EXHIBIT “A” PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK: The following generally describes the scope of work that shall be performed by the selected contractor to develop a plan for monitoring the watershed, analyzing data, and developing a model. Expected outcomes from this contract include the following. • Calibrated watershed model of Hennessey and Milliken watersheds • Simulated water quality outputs and comparison to observed data (where available) • Monitoring plan which specifies additional data collection to be used to improve accuracy of model outputs and reflect changing conditions over time • Identification of additional data needs and next steps for updating and using model Specific tasks and deliverables are detailed in the following sections. Task 1 - TM1: Watershed Monitoring, Analyses, and Modeling TM1 shall include developing a watershed monitoring and analysis plan, and developing and applying a watershed model for the Lake Hennessy and Milliken Reservoir watersheds. TM1 will include the Monitoring and Analysis Plan, and Watershed Model TM that will be completed through the following tasks. Task 1.1 – Monitoring and Analysis Plan The purpose of the monitoring plan is to support ongoing model calibration and develop a record of changing water quality conditions over time. After data review, the team will assess state and county census and other GIS and land use data to identify population and land use changes, municipal and industrial wastewater discharges that are tributary to the City’s untreated water facilities, local and regional NPDES permits for urban runoff, hazardous materials spills involving tributaries, watershed control and management practices of the City and County, and state and federal drinking water standards and regulations. A monitoring and analysis plan shall be developed based on the information collected to assess historical, planned and potential changes within the watershed, such as from wild fire, timber harvest, grazing, recreation, and land use. In addition, the monitoring plan shall incorporate all other monitoring recommendations identified in the City of Napa Watershed Sanitary Survey dated November 2012. The monitoring plan shall identify the following information to be collected for this purpose: • Parameters • Locations • Frequency • Analytical methods Page 9 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 197 of 477 [Type here] [Type here] 2 Exh. A Based on preliminary review of available existing data, discussions with City and County staff, and understanding of potential water quality concerns, it is anticipated that the following categories of parameters shall be monitored: • General Physical Parameters • Nutrients • Pesticides and Herbicides • Algae and potential for cyanotoxins • Bacteria • Sediment • Alkalinity • Turbidity Specific parameters to be monitored will be selected to support modeling of the parameters identified in Task 1.2.1. Monitoring locations will be established for continuity with existing monitoring and designed to maximize the benefit of the collected data in calibrating source loading in future use of the model. Locations and frequency will be determined in coordination with City and County staff to build upon current effort to the greatest extent possible and to identify locations that will be accessible for sample collection. Another important aspect of model calibration is understanding existing land use and land management practices. Outreach to specific local stakeholders shall be conducted to engage major property owners including the City of Napa Water Division Water Quality Manager, Water Treatment Manager, Watershed Supervisor and watershed facility workers, Napa County Parks and Open Space District employees, CalFire representatives, wastewater operators, farmers, ranchers, and vineyard operators to understand local conditions, operations and management practices. Specific stakeholders to be contacted will be identified and prioritized based on discussions with City and County staff, and interviews will be conducted in close coordination with City and County staff. For the cost estimate, we assume up to six stakeholder meetings. Task 1.1 Deliverables: • Draft and Final Monitoring and Analysis Plan (electronic deliverables) • Up to six (6) stakeholder interviews in coordination with the City and County • Meeting agendas, minutes and materials Task 1.2 - Watershed Model Development This task will involve the development and application of two watershed models for the Lake Hennessy and Milliken Reservoir watersheds. The Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework (WARMF) model is preferred but alternative suggestions will be considered. Task 1.2.1 - Data Acquisition and Model Set Up The watershed model will require input data including topography, climate, land use, land cover, air quality, point source, septic system and water diversion information. Data shall be obtained from publicly available sources such as the National Climatic Data Center, USDA Cropland Data Layer, USGS, and National Land Cover Dataset, unless more detailed local data are available from the City or County through this or a previous project. Data with a temporal component will be acquired for an estimated 5- to 8-year period covering both wet and dry climate. Upon data Page 10 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 198 of 477 [Type here] [Type here] 3 Exh. A acquisition, the estimated time period may be refined to insure both wet and dry climate years are represented in initial establishment of the model. It is recognized this model will be developed and used long into the future. Over time, actual monitoring data will be used to refine the assumptions and compare it to modeled output data; and will continue to refine and recalibrate the model into the future. The initial set up is a starting point. Observed streamflow and observed water quality data will be obtained from any previous monitoring efforts for the Lake Hennessy and Milliken Reservoir watersheds. The following GIS data layers shall be used to build the model: Publicly-available spatial data: • Soils o Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO, USDA NRCS); or o State Soil Geographic (STATSGO, USDA NRCS); or o Digital General Soil Map of the United States (STATSGO2, USDA NRCS) • National Hydrography Dataset (NHD or NHDPlus) • Land use data and land cover data (NLCD, USDA Cropland, USGS LandSat) • Elevation data (NED) Local data, as available: • Locally-developed land use, land cover, and/or zoning and master planning data* o Parcels layer with land use description o Drainage boundaries/watersheds o Domestic water supply drainages o Vineyard (ag) boundaries o Erosion control plan layer, to determine unbuilt vineyard entitlements, if any o Potentially Plantable Soils layer, to determine vineyard buildout potential, if needed o ICE Vegetation layer (veg types countywide, mapped to 2.5ha minimum mapping unit o Winery locations • Locally-developed elevation data or processed LiDAR data* o Digital elevation model o Slopes raster • Locations of existing water quality and flow monitoring stations • Any existing bathymetry data for reservoirs • Locations and discharge data for point sources • Locations and discharge data for diversions • Locations and data for septic systems to the extent available. • Any information on animal populations, existing BMPs, and fertilizer applications from available sources including but not limited to submissions to the County Agricultural Commissioner and the Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB). Page 11 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 199 of 477 [Type here] [Type here] 4 Exh. A • Locations of recreational use including trail maps and park areas* Items marked with an asterisk (*) are available from the County. In addition to the GIS layers above, the following input data shall be collected from publically- available sources. • Meteorology data o National Climate Data Center (NCDC): Global Summary of the Day o National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) SNOTEL Data (Western U.S.) o California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) o California Data Exchange Center (CDEC) • Rain Chemistry o National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) • Air Chemistry o Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) • Point Source Data o EPA Pollution Control System (PCS) Database o State Regulatory Agencies o Dischargers’ Records • Diversions, Irrigation o Local utility information (water and wastewater providers) • Observed hydrology o USGS Gages (river flow) o CDEC • Water quality data o USGS o EPA (STORET) o CDEC o Local sources o City of Napa Water Division • Water districts • Dischargers • Water diverters / planned discharges from impoundments within the watershed The model shall be developed to simulate shallow groundwater flow, surface runoff, and water quality from runoff from a variety of sources such as point sources, nonpoint sources, animal waste, septic systems, fertilizer, fungicide or pesticide application, recreational uses, and urban runoff. Output shall include simulated flow and in-stream concentrations for parameters of interest to the City and/or County. These are anticipated to include the following: • Temperature Page 12 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 200 of 477 [Type here] [Type here] 5 Exh. A • pH • turbidity • Calcium • Alkalinity • Chloride • Sulfate • Total Nitrogen • Total Kjeldhal Nitrogen • Nitrate • Ammonia • Total Phosphorus • Phosphate • Total and Dissolved Organic Carbon • Inorganic Carbon • Total Suspended Solids • Total Dissolved Solids • Total Phytoplankton • Dissolved Oxygen • Biological Oxygen Demand • Fecal Coliform • Pesticides and Herbicides The watersheds shall be delineated into subcatchments based on the location of existing and planned monitoring, as well as the natural drainage systems. Subcatchments shall be delineated on a scale consistent with the resolution of available data and watershed topography. The model shall include and simulate all areas upstream of the reservoirs. The model will not include simulation of the reservoirs themselves however reservoir modeling and in-reservoir treatment options will be assessed under separate scopes of work.. The model and results of this study will be cross- referenced with those efforts. Task 1.2.2 - Model Calibration The model shall be calibrated to available flow and water quality monitoring data. If sufficient streamflow and water quality data are available, a portion of the simulation time period will be used to validate the model calibration. If no flow data are available, gage data from a nearby watershed will be used to develop estimated flow hydrographs for the Hennessey and Milliken watersheds using a drainage area ratio (DAR) method. Both visual and statistical calibration evaluations will be conducted as appropriate for the level of observed data available. It should be noted that it is anticipated that the level of water quality data available may not support calibration for one or more parameters of interest. If sufficient water quality data are not available to calibrate for a specific water quality parameter, the model will still be built to simulate that parameter such Page 13 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 201 of 477 [Type here] [Type here] 6 Exh. A that over time, once the monitoring program has been implemented, the model calibration may be updated to better simulate that parameter. Task 1.2.3 - Model Application and Documentation The calibrated model shall be used to run two (2) simulations that explore different characterizations of future land use within the watershed. This will help the City and County to analyze the effects of changing land use on water quality. Previously identified land use changes include but are not limited to grazing, conservation/preservation, recreational trails, timber harvest, vineyard establishment. The county has jurisdiction over approving land use changes in privately owned lands in the watershed. Changes to the surface of the land and how land is used are being modeled to understand if and quantify how that may affect drinking water quality. It is anticipated that future land use to be simulated will be provided by the County in GIS format. The stated GIS layers of existing and potential vineyard development and existing septic systems are known layers, as are land areas that have conservation easements over previously grazed surfaces. The model shall incorporate data that exists and make assumptions and correlations for future anticipated land use changes based on actual data from similar land uses. Stakeholder interviews will further define the extent of data that is already available and identify data to be gathered. All model parameters will be held constant except land cover/land use, which will be modified to reflect the predicted future condition. In addition, future climate change conditions based on available work performed locally will be incorporated into model scenarios. The results of the data acquisition, model calibration, and model application will be presented in a technical memorandum. Where applicable, output from the watershed models (tributary flow and concentrations, future climate change conditions) will be used to inform activities and assist in developing recommendations Task 1.2 Deliverables: • Draft and Final Watershed Model (software, GIS layers, databases and all input files) • Draft and Final Watershed Modeling TM1 clearly defining assumptions, inputs and discussion of sensitivity analyses (electronic deliverables) If desired by the City and County, the following optional tasks (not in this scope) may be performed: • Run additional model scenarios. • Run the model for future climate change conditions • Activate the reservoir simulation. Calibrate the reservoir models. • Link the watershed models with external reservoir WQ models. Task 2 – Project Management, Meetings, and Coordination Consultant shall provide project oversight and contract management. In addition to a kickoff meeting, a one-day site visit shall be conducted early in the project. Up to 12 one-hour conference calls will be scheduled to update the City and County on progress and receive input. The Kick-off Meeting will be held at the City’s offices and include in person attendance from lead team members. The meeting will be used to review and discuss the scope of the project and approach, data available, and set project objectives. A one-day field visit with the core team shall be conducted at a later date but will be calendared during the schedule review at the kick-off meeting so the appropriate City and County staff can be involved. Anticipated topics for joint meetings are outlined below: Page 14 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 202 of 477 [Type here] [Type here] 7 Exh. A • Kickoff Meeting: Provide overview of scope and schedule, review and discuss data needs • Site visit: Visit both reservoir sites and major hydrologic and land use features • Meeting 1: Following preliminary data collection efforts, meet to discuss additional data needs and identified data gaps and approaches to collecting or developing additional data; identify stakeholder meeting approach (as discussed in Task 1.1) • Meeting 2: Meet to review model set up, including grid size, resolution, data inputs, etc (Task 1.2.1) • Meeting 3: Present preliminary model calibration and ongoing data needs (Task 1.2.2); discuss draft Monitoring Plan (Task 1.1) • Meeting 4: Present and discuss the draft Watershed Model and Model technical memorandum, (Task 1.2.3) Task 2 Deliverables: • Kick-off meeting • Six Stakeholder Interviews • Four Joint Meetings • One-day site visit • Meeting agendas, minutes and materials (electronic) • Monthly invoices and progress reports Schedule The project is expected to be completed within 15 months after notice to proceed. This assumes that the required data are readily available and submitted deliverables are reviewed by the City and County in a timely manner. Page 15 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 203 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:959-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.L. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Steve Potter, Police Chief Prepared By: Patrick Manzer, Police Captain TITLE: Animal and Licensing Services RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution approving Amendment No. 6 to Agreement No. 8350 with the County of Napa, to obtain Animal and Licensing Services, in the amount of $287,864 for fiscal year 2017/2018, $302,257 for fiscal year 2018/2019 and $317,370 for fiscal year 2019/2020. DISCUSSION: In 2003, the City entered into Agreement No. 8350 by which the County of Napa provides animal and licensing services to the City. The Agreement has been regularly extended for continued services. The City and County recently concluded negotiations for such services for fiscal years 2017/2018 in the amount of $287,864, 2018/2019 in the amount of $302,257 and 2019/2020 in the amount of $317,370. This amendment represents an increase of eleven-point eight percent (11.8%) from fiscal year 2016/2017, and then a five percent increase for each fiscal year thereafter in the cost of animal and licensing services. The added costs reflect increases in animal control officer benefits and overall operating costs. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The increased cost for services has been calculated into proposed (2017/2018 and 2018/2019) two (2) year budget. The final year will be factored into the first year of the next two (2) year budget cycle. CEQA: The Chief of Police has determined that the Recommended Action described in this agenda report is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Resolution Animal and Licensing Services Contract ATCH 2 - Amendment No. 6 to City of Napa Agreement No. 8350 NOTIFICATION: CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 204 of 477 File #:959-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:5.L. None CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 205 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 1 of 2 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO AGREEMENT NO. 8350 WITH THE COUNTY OF NAPA, TO OBTAIN ANIMAL AND LICENSING SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $287,864 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017/2018, $302,257 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018/2019, AND $313,370 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019/2020 WHEREAS, the City of Napa wishes to obtain specialized services in the form of Animal and Licensing Services from the County of Napa; and the County of Napa is willing to provide such specialized services to the City of Napa under the terms and conditions set forth herein; WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution. 2. The City Council hereby approves Amendment No. 6 to City of Napa Agreement 8350/County of Napa Agreement 3585 for the County of Napa to provide Animal and Licensing services to the City of Napa; and authorizes the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 6 on behalf of the City. The City of Napa will compensate the County of Napa in the amount of Two Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Four Dollars ($287,864) for fiscal year 2017/2018, Three Hundred Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Seven Dollars ($302,257) for fiscal year 2018/2019 and Three Hundred Seventeen Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Dollars ($317,370) for fiscal year 2019/2020. The compensation with cover employee and administrative costs associated with performing the duties outlined in the Scope of Work. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Page 206 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 2 of 2 June 20, 2017 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of June 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ________________________ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to form: _______ Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 207 of 477 1 AMENDMENT NO. 6 NAPA COUNTY AGREEMENT NO. 3585 CITY OF NAPA AGREEMENT NO. 8350 AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL AND LICENSING SERVICES BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF NAPA AND THE CITY OF NAPA, CALIFORNIA THIS AMENDMENT NO. 6 (“Amendment”) to NAPA COUNTY AGREEMENT NO. 3585/CITY OF NAPA AGREEMENT NO. 8350 (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of this 1st day of July, 2017, by and between the COUNTY OF NAPA, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY"), and the CITY OF NAPA, a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "CITY"). RECITALS WHEREAS, COUNTY presently provides certain animal services, including animal shelter (dog pound) services to CITY under the Agreement between the parties; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to modify the annual compensation provided under the Agreement. TERMS NOW, THEREFORE, CITY and COUNTY amend the Agreement as follows: A. Paragraph 4 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows: 4. Compensation. CITY shall pay COUNTY at the rate of Two Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Four Dollars ($287,864) for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, Three Hundred Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Seven Dollars ($302,257) for Fiscal Year 2018-2019, and Three Hundred Seventeen Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Dollars ($317,370) for Fiscal Year 2019-2020. COUNTY shall retain those fees described in Exhibit "B-6” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. B. Exhibit “A-6,” relating to Scope of Services, is attached hereto and is incorporated by reference herein. References in the Agreement to Exhibit “A” shall be deemed to mean Exhibit “A-6” for purposes of the obligations of the parties effective as of the date of this Amendment. C. Exhibit “B-6,” relating to Compensation, Fees, and Expenses, is attached hereto and is incorporated by reference herein. References in the Agreement to Exhibit “B” shall be deemed to mean Exhibit “B-6” for purposes of the obligations of the parties effective as of the date of this Amendment. D. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended hereby shall remain in full ATTACHMENT 2 Page 1 of 6 Page 208 of 477 2 force and effect. E. This Amendment No. 6 shall be effective as of July 1, 2017. EXECUTED in the County of Napa, State of California as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF NAPA: COUNTY OF NAPA: _________________________________ ___________________________________ (Signature) (Signature) Mike Parness, City Manager BELIA RAMOS, Chair of the Board of Supervisors* (Type name and title) (Type name and title) ATTEST: ATTEST: _________________________________ _________________________________ (Signature) Dorothy Roberts, City Clerk Gladys I. Coil, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Type name and title) (Type name and title) COUNTERSIGNED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ S. Darbinian (e signature) (Signature) (Signature) Desiree Brun, City Auditor Deputy County Counsel (Type name and title) APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED BY THE NAPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (Signature) Date: Michael W. Barrett, City Attorney (Type name and title) By: Deputy Clerk of the Board *Corporation, partnership, limited liability corporation, sole proprietorship, etc. Unless corporate resolution delegates an individual to sign contracts, an agreement with a corporation shall be signed by the President or Vice President and the Secretary or Treasurer of the corporation. A general partner shall sign on behalf of a general partnership. The managing member, if authorized, may sign on behalf of a limited liability corporation. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 of 6 Page 209 of 477 3 EXHIBIT A-6 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. Services Provided By County. Except for the services to be provided under Paragraph 2 below, COUNTY shall enforce Napa Municipal Code Chapter 6.04 and 6.05 and provide to CITY the following services: a. Animal Control Officers: COUNTY agrees to maintain at least two animal control officers on duty to respond to calls within the CITY area during all regular working hours and at least on call at all other times. b. Animal Shelter Hours of Operation: COUNTY’s animal shelter office will be open during the following hours: Monday through Friday 10:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. Saturday 11:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. Sundays and Holidays Closed c. Animal Shelter Services: (1) Pet redemption program (2) Pet adoption and placement program (3) Dead animal disposal (dogs and cats only) (4) Cat trapping program (5) Dog licensing d. Field Services: Field services shall be provided on the following schedule: Monday through Friday 8:00 A.M. - 1 hr. after sunset Saturday & Sundays 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. Holidays No regular field services; however on-call/stand-by for emergencies will be available Field services will be provided as follows: (1) Enforcement of dog at large provisions of the Municipal Code (2) Routine patrol for stray dogs (3) Animal bite investigation (4) Injured animal pick-up and treatment (5) Stray livestock control (6) Enforcement of license and vaccination provisions of the Napa Municipal Code (7) Dead animal removal (dogs and cats only; public property only) (8) Eradication of rabid or suspected rabid animals (9) Assistance to CITY Police including but not limited to: a) Animals in traffic. b) Vicious animal investigations. c) Cruelty investigations. d) Neighborhood Improvement Program. COUNTY’s Animal Control Officer shall have authority to provide the following ATTACHMENT 2 Page 3 of 6 Page 210 of 477 4 field services, but primary responsibility for enforcement shall lie with CITY: (1) Enforcement of animal regulations in CITY Parks (2) Enforcement of the municipal code leash law provisions. e. Emergency Field Services: (1) Emergency field services will be provided at all times that regular animal shelter and field services are not provided. Emergency field services will be provided by having an animal control officer on on-call or stand-by status. (2) Emergency Field Services will be provided as follows: a) Injured animals b) Dog bite investigations c) Rabid animals d) Traffic hazard e) Assistance to CITY Police 2. Parameters of Animal Services to be Provided. a. COUNTY's obligation to keep an animal control officer on stand-by is limited to emergency field services. b. Regular field services, including patrol, shall be provided by the COUNTY to the CITY on an eight (8) hour basis on Saturdays and Sundays. c. Reports to be provided to the CITY by the COUNTY. County shall report to CITY quarterly the level of animal services activity with the CITY. Such reports will describe activities undertaken by COUNTY Animal Control officers assigned to work within CITY limits. Reports shall contain: Number of CITY cases Number of citations Number of Hearings (Potentially Dangerous or Vicious Animals) Number of bite reports Number of warning letters sent Number of Correction notices 3. Potentially Dangerous and Vicious Animal Violations Under County Code and Policies. The City has enacted Napa Municipal Code Section 6.05, entitled “Potentially Dangerous and Vicious Animals,” which authorizes investigation, enforcement and adjudication of potentially dangerous or vicious animal violations and contains substantively equivalent provisions to the Napa County Code Chapter 6.16. So long as CITY retains Section 6.05 substantially equivalent to Section 6.16, COUNTY shall provide all services relating to investigation, enforcement and adjudication of such matters relating to violations of Section 6.05, including provision of a Dangerous Animal Hearing Panel and staffing thereof. 4. Services Not Provided By COUNTY. COUNTY shall not enforce nor provide services to CITY that exceed or extend beyond the current provisions of the Napa County Code, including but not limited to the following: ATTACHMENT 2 Page 4 of 6 Page 211 of 477 5 a. COUNTY will not enforce any zoning regulations, including those relating to agricultural operations or animal husbandry, or regulations concerning barking or howling dogs or other similar nuisances caused by animals. b. COUNTY will not undertake to represent CITY in any judicial or administrative proceedings in relation to CITY's ordinance unless at the time of such representation the provisions of CITY’s ordinance are substantively equivalent to the animal control and dangerous animal enforcement and adjudication provisions of Napa County Code Chapter 6.16 as determined by the Napa County Counsel. Notwithstanding the foregoing, COUNTY employees, compelled by a lawful subpoena, will testify as witnesses in judicial or administrative proceedings in which CITY's ordinance may be implicated if not in strict compliance with the COUNTY CODE. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 5 of 6 Page 212 of 477 6 EXHIBIT B-6 COMPENSATION, FEES, and EXPENSES 1. a. Annual Compensation For Services. CITY shall pay COUNTY at the rate of Two Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Four Dollars ($287,864) for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, Three Hundred Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Seven Dollars ($302,257) for Fiscal Year 2018-2019, and Three Hundred Seventeen Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Dollars ($317,370) for Fiscal Year 2019-2020. All payments shall be made quarterly of each fiscal year. Said amount is intended to cover the salaries of additional personnel which will include two full-time animal control officers to work within the jurisdictional limits of CITY. b. Compensation For Services Relating to Potentially Dangerous and Vicious Animals. In addition to the annual compensation set forth in Paragraph 1(a) above, in the event the Animal Control Officer’s determination under Napa Municipal Code Section 6.05 is appealed, and goes to hearing, CITY agrees to reimburse COUNTY for all costs incurred for services provided in preparation for, and attendance at such a hearing. Employee preparation and attendance costs shall be calculated based on the salaries, benefits, and overhead (direct and indirect) of those employees providing services. CITY shall reimburse COUNTY within 60 days of presentation of an invoice, claim, or other demand for payment for such services, which shall include itemized entries of time, timekeeper, and task for which recovery is sought. If COUNTY receives a full or partial cost recovery from the animal’s owner and/or keeper, any such amount shall be credited against the CITY’s account for such hearing, and COUNTY shall reduce the CITY’S bill, or make refund to the CITY in like amount. c. Compensation Rates. COUNTY will be reimbursed for those costs related to provide services under Paragraph 3 of Exhibit “A-3” based on the following hourly fees, plus costs, after submission of invoices: Deputy County Counsel $106- $153 Paralegal $63 - $66 Senior Animal Control Officer $47 - $ 50 Animal Control Officer $24 - $ 30 2. CITY’s Sale of Licenses. CITY retains the right to develop its own programs to issue dog licenses. COUNTY will allow CITY to retain 25% of the fee collected directly by CITY in the sale of CITY dog licenses and CITY shall pay the remainder of the fee to COUNTY. 3. COUNTY’S Collection of Revenues Sale of Licenses. COUNTY shall collect and retain all revenues from the COUNTY's licensing of dogs within CITY limits, and shall also collect and retain all fees and charges (including but not limited to redemption fees) received at the animal shelter in relation to animals that originate within CITY limits. 4. CITY’s Payment of Veterinarian Bills. CITY shall pay all veterinarian bills and special care bills for injured animals and for the care of exotic animals outside of the COUNTY Shelter. Any cost recovered for these services by COUNTY shall be credited to CITY. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 6 of 6 Page 213 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:951-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:6.A. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Rick Tooker, Community Development Director Prepared By: Lark Ferrell, Housing Manager TITLE: Junior Unit Initiative Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the establishment and funding of a Junior Unit Initiative Program, to provide loans to construct junior accessory dwelling units to facilitate new low-income housing. DISCUSSION: Introduction In March 2017, both in response to recent changes to State Law and to further facilitate the creation of second units, the City adopted the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to allow the creation of both accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (Junior Units). Junior Units are created by carving out a separate apartment not more than 500 square feet in size from one or more bedrooms within an existing single-family home. Junior Units may have a separate bathroom or may share the bathroom with the primary single-family home, and they are not required to contain full kitchens but rather may include efficiency kitchens with a small sink, food preparation counter and cooking appliance such as a microwave. Conversely, ADUs are separate, independent dwelling units with a full kitchen and bathroom that may be completely detached from the primary single-family home, attached to the single-family home by an addition, or located within the existing single-family home. The proposed Junior Unit Initiative Program focuses on the creation of Junior Units rather than on the more expensive ADUs. Last year, the City of Napa was selected as one of 50 midsized cities across the United States to participate in the Invest Health Initiative. Invest Health is a collaboration between the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Reinvestment Fund to improve the health of communities by bringing together community leaders to develop new partnerships and innovative solutions to community issues. The proposed Program can be considered a pilot for a larger effort the City and County are working on as part of the Invest Health Initiative. As part of this initiative, the City and its partners (e.g., County Health and Human Services and Queen of the Valley Medical Group) have been exploring ways to expand the affordable housing supply in Napa. The Napa Invest Health team CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Page 214 of 477 File #:951-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:6.A. believes expanding the supply of Junior Units offers a unique solution to addressing housing needs in the community. If the Junior Unit Initiative Program successful, it could serve as a pilot for a larger program to encourage Junior Units throughout Napa County. Junior Units can be created for much less than it costs to create traditional housing units or even ADUs constructed as detached units or as an addition to the primary single-family structures. Although stand-alone apartments, these units are generally smaller at not more than 500 square feet and include an efficiency kitchen (also referred to as a European kitchen), a private, locking entrance, and a private bathroom or access to a bathroom in the primary single-family home. Often soundproofing is added to help ensure privacy for both the Junior Unit and the primary home. The cost to create these units can range generally from $10,000 to $40,000. Creating Junior Units provides existing homeowners with additional income which helps make homeownership more affordable. It also can expand the supply of affordable rental properties in Napa. These units provide additional benefits to the community such as allowing seniors to age in place and decreasing their risk of social isolation. Junior Units are often referred to as “flexible housing” because they can adapt to a homeowner’s changing needs over time. For example, when a young couple buys a home and creates a Junior Unit, the rental unit provides them with extra income to help offset their mortgage costs. As the family grows, the Junior Unit can be reabsorbed back into the primary unit, allowing the family to use the entire house for their family’s needs. Later, after their children grow up and leave home, the couple can move into the Junior Unit and rent out the main residence, providing them with extra income to supplement their retirement. Proposed Program To implement the proposed Junior Unit Initiative Program (the “Program”), the City would contract with non-profit Lilypad Homes. Lilypad Homes has been active in promoting the creation of Junior Units both in Marin County and statewide. Under the proposed contract, Lilypad Homes would provide homeowners in Napa with feasibility assessments to determine how Junior Units could be created within their owner-occupied single-family homes. This service would be available to any interested Napa homeowner with a single-family home that does not otherwise contained an ADU on the property. A homeowner who agreed to install a Junior Unit in their home and rent either the primary home or the Junior Unit to a low-income tenant would be eligible to receive free of costs schematic design and construction estimates for creating the unit. If after receiving the design and estimates, the homeowner proceeded with creating the unit through the proposed Program, the City would also provide the homeowner with construction management services and an interest-free, forgivable loan of up to $40,000 to create the Junior Unit. Additionally, if the homeowner agreed to making ADA improvements to the rental unit, the City would provide the homeowner with a grant for up to $5,000 for the cost of these improvements. Under the proposed terms of the Program’s financing, for every year a unit was rented to a low-income tenant the City would forgive 5% of the loan. If at any time, the homeowner decided to stop participation in the Program, the forgiveness would stop and the homeowner would have one year to repay the remaining loan balance in full. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Page 215 of 477 File #:951-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:6.A. Under the proposed Program, the City would encourage homeowners to utilize the services of a professional property management company and utilize Napa Valley Community Housing’s Home Sharing Program to identify pre-screened tenants for the units. The City would host workshops for homeowners to provide information on various topics such as fair housing regulations, landlord roles and responsibilities, financial implications of renting out property, and related issues. Under the proposed Program, the City would utilize general funds designated in the City’s budget for affordable housing. The budget would include up to $392,500 for loans and grants to homeowners, $47,500 for Lilypad Homes for services to homeowners and to provide workshops, and $10,000 for Housing staff to provide construction management and other related services to participating homeowners. It is estimated that at least 50 homeowners would receive feasibility assessments and 15 homeowners would receive loans through the Program over the next year. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Approval of this action would allocate $350,000 from the General Fund for FY2016-2017 and $100,000 from FY2017-2018 which have been budgeted for affordable housing (49723-55002 JLHSGJRUNITS-55002). Of the combined $450,000 in budgeted funds, $392,500 would be for grants and loans, $47,500 for contract services for Lilypad to administer the program, and $10,000 for staff time to oversee the program. CEQA: The Community Development Director has determined that the Recommended Action described in this Agenda Report is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1: Resolution authorizing the Junior Unit Initiative Program NOTIFICATION: Notification was provided to Lilypad Homes, County of Napa, Live Healthy Napa County and Napa Housing Coalition. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Page 216 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 1 of 3 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNDING OF A JUNIOR UNIT INITIATIVE PROGRAM, TO PROVIDE LOANS TO CONSTRUCT J UNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO FACILITATE NEW LOW-INCOME HOUSING WHEREAS, on March 7, 2017, following the enactment of State legislation under SB 1069, AB 2299 and AB 2406, the City adopted Ordinance O2017-007 which amended Napa Municipal Code Section 17.52.015 to update local regulations governing the construction and permitting of Junior Accessory Dwelling Units within owner- occupied single-family residences; and WHEREAS, these units can be created within owner-occupied single-family homes citywide at a relatively low cost; and WHEREAS, because the City wishes to expand the supply of affordable housing in the City of Napa, it wishes to encourage and facilitate the creation of Junior Accessory Dwelling Units within owner-occupied single-family residences by establishing a Junior Unit Initiative Program (the “Program”); and WHEREAS, to implement the Program, the City plans to contract with non profit Lilypad Homes to provide feasibility assessments for the creation of and construction drawings for homeowners citywide who are interested in creating Junior Accessory Dwelling Units within their owner-occupied, single family residences; and WHEREAS, under the Program, the City would also provide financing and construction management services to homeowners who agree to make either the primary unit or the Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit available for rent to low-income households at an affordable rent; and WHEREAS, the financing shall include (1) up to $40,000 for the creation of new Junior Accessory Dwelling Units in the form of a 0% 20-year loan which shall be forgiven 5% per year that either the Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit or the primary unit is rented to a low-income household at an affordable rent and (2) up to $5,000 in the form of a grant for American with Disability Act (ADA) improvements made to the unit rented to a low-income household; and WHEREAS, households who own single family homes within the city limits of the City of Napa and agree to rent either the primary unit or the Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit for rent to low-income households at affordable rents for up to 20 years are considered “Eligible Households”; and Page 217 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 2 of 3 May 2, 2017 WHEREAS, Eligible Households shall be placed on a waiting list and selected for participation on a first-come, first served basis; and WHEREAS, the City would also encourage Program participants to utilize third party property management and non-profit Napa Valley Community Housing’s home sharing matching program to identify pre-screened tenants; and WHEREAS, the Program is estimated to cost $450,000 for approximately 50 feasibility assessments, approximately 12 to 15 schematic designs and construction estimates, financing for the construction of approximately 12 to 15 Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, and program delivery by Housing Division staff. WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution. 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the Community Development Director or designee of the Community Development Director or City Manager to establish and implement administrative procedures and necessary contract documents (collectively, “Administrative Policies and Documents”) to establish and administer a Junior Unit Initiative Program. The Administrative Policies and Documents shall be in writing and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Administrative Policies and Documents, and any changes to the maximum funding amounts per eligible household as authorized under Section 2(D) below, shall be posted on the City’s website for at least 30 days prior to their effective date. The Administrative Policies and Documents shall be consistent with the following general criteria. A. The program shall be used to fund construction of new ““Junior Accessory Dwelling Units,” as defined under Napa Municipal Code Section 17.52.015(F), and shall be open to Eligible Households, as defined under Section 2(B) below. B. “Eligible Households” shall mean households that own single family homes within the city limits of the City of Napa and agree to rent either the primary unit or the Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit within owner-occupied single-family residences for rent to “Low-Income Households” at affordable rents for up to 20 years. “Low Income Households” shall mean households whose total household income does not exceed 80% of area median income as established annually by the U.S. Department of HUD adjusted by actual household size. Page 218 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 3 of 3 May 2, 2017 C. The Community Development Director shall establish a set of objective review criteria and an application process, with Eligible Household applicants placed on a waiting list and selected for participation on a first come, first served basis. Financing for each Eligible Household may include 1) up to $40,000 for the creation of Accessory Dwelling Units in the form of a 0% 20-year loan which shall be forgiven 5% per year that either the Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit or the primary unit is rented to a low-income household at an affordable rent and (2) up to $5,000 in the form of a grant for American with Disability Act (ADA) improvements made to either the Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit or the primary dwelling unit if it will be rented to the Low Income Household at affordable rent. D. The maximum funding thresholds for Eligible Households may be adjusted on an annual basis as approved by the Community Development Director based on the annual percentage increase of construction costs as set forth in the Engineering News-Record 20-City average cost index. 3. The City Council hereby authorizes allocating up to $450,000 from the General Fund for the Junior Unit Initiative Program which shall be funded with up to $350,000 from the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 budget and $100,000 from the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 budget. Any funding for the program beyond Fiscal Year 2017-2018 shall be subject to resolution of the City Council. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ________________________ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to for: _________________________ Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 219 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:969-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:6.B. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Jacques R. LaRochelle, Public Works Director Prepared By: Rosa N. Corona, Assistant Engineer TITLE: Downtown Public Restroom Installations at two City Parking Lots: (1) East of Main Street between First and Second Streets, and (2) Southeast Corner of Pearl and West Streets RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to approve a contract with Exeloo Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $350,000, to purchase two automatic public toilets; authorizing a budget re-programming of $110,000; determining that the purchase of the automatic public toilets meets the requirements for acquisition of a specialty item as set forth in Napa Municipal Code Section 2.91.050; and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. DISCUSSION: The City of Napa has embraced its unique, colorful and historically significant downtown core and is continuing to draw residents and visitors from around the region and the world. A goal of the City is to provide a higher level of service to the community and visitors who are using the downtown parks and public spaces. City staff has been working to meet this goal by implementing Capital Improvement Project MS17PR01, Downtown Restrooms. This project will provide clean, safe and accessible restrooms in convenient locations for visitors both in the Veteran’s Park region and within the vicinity of the Oxbow Bypass. Automatic Public Toilets (APT) are proposed to be installed at two public parking lot locations; the lot located on the east side of Main Street between First and Second Streets just north of Downtown Joe’s (Main Street Lot), and the lot located at the southeast corner of the Pearl and West Streets, the former location of City’s Parks and Rec Building (Pearl/West Lot). Unlike port-a-potties and standard block constructed restrooms, APT’s have a minimal footprint, provide ADA accessibility, are relatively easy to install and relocate, while providing a functional design with intelligent features. They provide an automated wash down system that washes the unit down with disinfectant and water sprays after use, then dries the surfaces with high pressure fans before becoming available for the next user. APT systems also have electric door operation that can be set to lock the units at night and open them again at a preset time in the morning. With the CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 220 of 477 File #:969-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:6.B. automated system, a large amount of statistical data is available and is routed to a remote monitoring system providing information for optimal and efficient operation by City staff. The current challenge with implementation of this project is two-fold; where to best place the APT in the Main Street lot due to site constraints and financial limitations in the current budget. The site constraints at the Main Street lot are largely driven by its proximity to the Napa River Flood Project. The original project assumed the new APT would replace the port-a-potties currently located at the eastern edge of the parking lot. However, federal regulations and the Army Corps of Engineers require a 15-foot wide zone clear of all permanent structures or obstructions to provide access for flood-fighting in the event of an emergency. The port-a-potties are considered portable and easily removed in this event, the APT would be fixed and not readily removed in the same instance. Additionally, this location has become an attractive nuisance to nefarious behavior due to the setback from the public right-of-way. Finally, the infrastructure will need to be installed to the APT location with this original location being the furthest run for water, sanitary sewer and electrical lines. To address these concerns, staff is proposing the APT be located within the existing planter island adjacent to and facing the sidewalk on Main Street. This location is well outside the floodwall clear zone, is adjacent to the well-travelled right-of-way and greatly reduces the length needed to install necessary utilities. A further benefit, this location will not affect or remove any off-street parking stalls. A site plan and graphic will be provided at the Council meeting. The Pearl/West Lot does not have the same site challenges. The APT is proposed to be located along the West Street frontage also adjacent to and facing the sidewalk. In anticipation of this installation, City forces kept the existing sewer, water, and electrical utilities previously serving the Parks and Recreation Department building so they may serve the APT installation. A site plan and graphic will also be provided at the Council meeting. The financial limitations with the current capital project budget (Downtown Restroom MS17PR01) are as follows: The existing budget balance is +/-$330,000. The APTs will cost $173,801 each, including sales tax. Engineering, Site/Utility Work & Inspection at the Main Street Lot, in the proposed sidewalk adjacent location, is estimated to be $59,475. Engineering, Site/Utility Work & Inspection at the Pearl/West Lot is estimated to be $32,305. The grand total being $439,382 leaving a projected project budget deficit of $109,382. The project discussed in this staff report is the Downtown Restroom CIP MS17PR01 which has the budget deficit. The upcoming two-year CIP budget contains funds for four additional public restrooms, Alston Park, Westwood Hills Park, Triangle Park and Riverside Park (CIP PK18PR02) with a total budget of $1,075,000 ($175,000 programmed for FY18 and $300,000 for each FY20, FY21, and FY22). Staff is requesting that the Downtown Restroom CIP MS17PR01 project budget be increased by $110,000 in 2017/18, with the understanding that the planned FY20 budget for Alston Park, Westwood Hills Park, Triangle Park and Riverside Park (CIP PK18PR02)in FY20 will be reduced by $110,000 down to $190,000. If Council concurs with this strategy, staff is seeking to acquire two APT’s from the Exeloo Corporation via the “specialty item” procurement process based on the following logic. City staff CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 221 of 477 File #:969-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:6.B. contacted three APT companies: Hering International, LLC, The Portland Loo and Exeloo Corporation. City staff reviewed the available APTs of each company and evaluated how each might satisfy the City’s needs. Specifically, City staff is seeking a unit that was low in maintenance and cost, could be easily relocated, provides two single-occupancy cabins to accommodate high demands, and provide remote monitoring as an option. The following table provides a quick reference comparing the three manufacturers and how Exeloo Corporation would be a potential candidate to sole source. Manufacture/Distributor Low Maintenance Ease of Relocation Multiple Cabins per Unit Remote Monitoring Hearing International, LLC X X X The Portland Loo X X Exeloo Corporation X X X X As shown on the table, Exeloo Corporation can provide an APT that satisfies the City’s needs. The ability to relocate the unit with ease is essential as the Pearl/West Lot site is a temporary parking lot. Future redevelopment of the site will necessitate the relocation of the facility. A written determination supporting the sole source recommendation is included as Attachment 2. The APT has been identified as a long lead-time item, with delivery times in the 3-month range. This procurement will initiate the purchase of the APTs in advance of the site work and varied levels of utility work necessary to prepare for the APT installation. Engineering staff is preparing the necessary construction documents to let a contract for the site and utility work with the intent of completing the site work during the APT lead time. The APT will become a City furnished item under the construction contract for the project. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Insufficient budget for procurement of the two APTs and the Engineering, Site/Utility Work & Inspection within the existing Downtown Restroom project (MS17PR01). To provide the additional needed funding, staff requests a $110,000 increase to MS17PR01’s FY18 Budget (30101-57601-MS17PR01-57403), with funds to come from the General Fund CIP Reserve. SOURCES: $ 330,000 Downtown Restrooms MS17PR01 (Existing Budget) $ 110,000 Restrooms PK18PR02 (FY 20 Budget) (Appropriation from General Fund CIP Reserve; planned decrease to future FY20 CIP budget) $ 440,000 TOTAL CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 222 of 477 File #:969-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:6.B. USES: $ 440,000 Downtown Restroom Project MS17PR01 (FY 18 Budget) Note: This item is occurring before the City Council takes final action on the Budget for FY17-18, FY18-19 and is pending adoption of said budget. If the proposed budgets for MS17PR01 and PK18PR02 are not approved as recommended in the proposed FY17-18 & 18-19 Budget, this item will return at the next regularly scheduled City Council Meeting with a proposal for an alternate funding source. CEQA: City staff recommends that the City Council determine that the Recommended Action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(e) (accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences) and Section 15311(c) (placement of seasonal or temporary use items such as lifeguard towers, mobile food units, portable restrooms, or similar items in generally the same locations from time to time in publicly owned parks, stadiums, or other facilities designed for public use). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Resolution ATCH 2 - Exception Request for Specialty Items NOTIFICATION: None. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 223 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 1 of 3 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO APPROVE A CONTRACT WITH EXELOO CORPORATION, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $350,000, TO PURCHASE TWO AUTOMATIC PUBLIC TOILETS; AUTHORIZING A BUDGET RE- PROGRAMMING OF $110,000; DETERMINING THAT THE PURCHASE OF THE AUTOMATIC PUBLIC TOILETS MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ACQUISITION OF A SPECIALTY ITEM AS SET FORTH IN NAPA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.91.050; AND DETERMINING THAT THE ACTIONS AUTHORIZED BY THIS RESOLUTION ARE EXEMPT FROM CEQA WHEREAS, a goal of the City is to provide a higher level of service to the community and visitors who are using the downtown parks and public spaces; and WHEREAS, City staff has been working to meet this goal by implementing Capital Improvement Project MS17PR01, Downtown Restrooms which will provide clean, safe and accessible restrooms in convenient locations for visitors both in the Veteran’s Park region and within the vicinity of the Oxbow Bypass. Automatic Public Toilets (APT) are proposed to be installed at two public parking lot locations; the lot located on the east side of Main Street between First and Second Streets just north of Downtown Joe’s (Main Street Lot), and the lot located at the southeast corner of the Pearl and West Streets, the former location of City’s Parks and Rec Building (Pearl/West Lot); and WHEREAS, financial limitations for the procurement of the two APTs and the Engineering, Site/Utility Work & Inspection necessary for construction exist within the current budget for CIP MS17PR01 leaving a deficit of $110,000; and WHEREAS, the upcoming two-year CIP budget contains funds for four additional public restrooms, Alston Park, Westwood Hills Park, Triangle Park and Riverside Park (CIP PK18PR02) with a total budget of $1,075,000 ($175,000 programmed for FY18 and $300,000 for each FY20, FY21, and FY22). Staff is requesting that the Downtown Restroom CIP MS17PR01 project budget be increased by $110,000 in 2017/18, with the understanding that the planned FY20 budget for Alston Park, Westwood Hills Park, Triangle Park, and Riverside Park restrooms (CIP PK18PR02) will be reduced by $110,000 down to $190,000; and WHEREAS, APT’s have a minimal footprint, provide ADA accessibility, are relatively easy to install and relocate, while providing a functional design with intelligent features, and with the automated system, a large amount of statistical data is available Page 224 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 2 of 3 June 20, 2017 and is routed to a remote monitoring system providing information for optimal and efficient operation by City; and WHEREAS, City staff identified Exeloo Corporation as a potential candidate to sole source based on an APT that was low in maintenance and cost, could be easily relocated, provides two single-occupancy cabins to accommodate high demands and provide remote monitoring as an option; and WHEREAS, site and utility work is required to prepare the location for the APT installation, the APT has been identified as a long lead-time item, with delivery times in the 3-month range; and WHEREAS, this procurement will initiate the purchase of the APT in advance of the site work, and in the interim, construction documents to let a contract for the necessary site and utility work will be completed, with the intent of completing the site work during the APT lead time; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution. 2. The City Council hereby determines that the actions authorized by this Resolution are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(e) (accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences) and Section 15311(c) (placement of seasonal or temporary use items such as lifeguard towers, mobile food units, portable restrooms, or similar items in generally the same locations from time to time in publicly owned parks, stadiums, or other facilities designed for public use). 3. The City Council hereby determines, based on the facts set forth in the staff report and Attachment 2 accompanying this resolution, that the purchase of Exeloo Automatic Public Toilets meets the requirements for acquisition of a specialty item, as set forth in Napa Municipal Code Section 2.91.050. 4. The City Council hereby authorizes the Public Works Director to approve a contract with, and issue a purchase order to, Exeloo Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $350,000, for the purchase of two automatic public toilets. Page 225 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 3 of 3 June 20, 2017 5. The City Council hereby authorizes an appropriation increase of $110,000 from the General Fund CIP Reserve to the project as follows: SOURCES: $ 330,000 Downtown Restrooms MS17PR01 (Existing Budget) $ 110,000 Restrooms PK18PR02 (FY 20 Budget) (Appropriation from General Fund CIP Reserve; planned decrease to future budget in FY20 of $110,000) $ 440,000 TOTAL USES: $ 440,000 Downtown Restroom Project MS17PR01 (FY 18 Budget) $ 440,000 TOTAL 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ________________________ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to form: Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 226 of 477 EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR SPECIALTY ITEMS Per NMC 2.91.050, the City may enter into a contract for a "specialty item," provided that the City Manager makes a written determination of the following: 1. Project need which the City intends to satisfy through the contract for the specialty item. Please provide a functional description (or performance criteria) of the City’s needs. With increased development in the downtown area, the need to provide a higher level of service to the community and visitors using the downtown parks and public spaces has increased. The installation of an Automatic Public Toilet (APT) on Parking Lot X (previously occupied by CineDome and the Parks and Recreation Department) will satisfy this need. This location is ideal since the APT will be using existing sewer, water, and electrical hook-ups previously used by the building housing the Parks and Recreation Department. Unlike, port-a-potties and standard block constructed restrooms, the Exeloo Corporation APT proposed for installation has a minimal footprint, is relatively easy to construct and relocate, and provides a solid, functional design with intelligent features. A key feature is the unit’s remote monitoring capability which allows city staff to monitor usage, toiletry needs and provides monthly reports to help make informed investment decisions in the future. 2. The types of property or service which are available (or used by other similarly situated private or public agencies) to meet this need (or similar needs), and the contractors which are available to provide the property or service. Please provide documentation of the steps the City has taken to evaluate the types of property, service, and contractors potentially available to serve the City's needs. Many metropolitan areas such as Seattle, Atlanta and Los Angeles have installed similar APTs to meet the needs of their high-pedestrian-traffic areas. There are limited manufacturers and distributors of APTs in the United States. City staff contacted three companies: Hering International, LLC, The Portland Loo and Exeloo Corporation. City staff reviewed the APTs of each company and evaluated how each company’s product would satisfy the City’s established criteria and needs. Specifically, city staff is seeking a unit that was low in maintenance and cost, could be easily relocated, provides two single-occupancy cabins to accommodate high demands and provide remote monitoring as an option. The following table provides a quick reference of how each product “scored”. Manufacture/Distributor Low Maintenance Ease of Relocation Multiple Cabins per Unit Remote Monitoring Hearing International, LLC X X X The Portland Loo X X Exeloo Corporation X X X X Exeloo Corporation meets all criteria established by the City. Page 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 227 of 477 3. Please provide the reasons why a similar property or service cannot meet the City’s needs (including considerations of compatibility with other City property and services regarding maintenance, repair, training, quality, price, or similar considerations), or why the City's needs can only be met by one unique or proprietary type of property or service (the specialty item). There are limited manufacturers of APTs in the United States. As shown on the previous Table, Exeloo Corporation can provide the City with a unit that is low maintenance with single or double cabins per unit, and the option of remote monitoring. The ability to relocate the unit with ease is essential as the potential site for this unit is a temporary parking lot and will redevelop to a higher- level use in the future thus necessitating the need to move the APT. 4. By entering into a contract for the specialty item from the proposed contractor, the City will meet the purpose and goals identified in NMC Section 2.91.010. 5. The contract complies with the requirements of NMC Section 2.91.030 (B). YES NO BUDGET APPROVAL: YES NO IFAS BUDGET #: 3010-57601-FC13PR01-57601 REQUESTOR NAME AND DEPARTMENT EXTENSION REQUESTED VENDOR NAME VENDOR CONTACT PHONE NUMBER Signature of Requestor Date Department Head Signature Date City Manager Date Page 2 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 228 of 477 NMC 2.91.010 D. Consistent with the requirements of the City Charter, including City Charter Sections 100 through 105, this Chapter establishes the parameters by which representatives of the City may enter into contractual obligations on behalf of the City. It is the goal of the City that any administrative regulations adopted to implement this Chapter, and any City contract, will meet the following goals: 1. Obtain the most cost effective result for the City, which avoids improvidence, extravagance, and any other waste of public funds or public property, and which also achieves an appropriate balance between the costs and benefits of maximizing quality within available resources. 2. Takes into consideration all reasonably available relevant information regarding the range of types, effectiveness, quality, and costs of potential property, services, public projects, and contractors available to achieve the City's project goals. Depending upon the particular requirements of the project (and the more particular procedures identified in this chapter), the information to be considered may include data gathered from one or more of the following sources: similar City projects, other public agencies, professional journals, private businesses, outreach to potential contractors, and private businesses, competitive bids, formal or informal quotes, proposals, or qualification statements. 3. Guards against favoritism, fraud, corruption, and conflicts of interest. 4. Efficiently uses City resources in the preparation, approval, administration, and enforcement of contracts which are effective tools in achieving the City's goals. NMC 2.91.030 B. Execution and administration of contracts 1. The City Manager is authorized to take any steps necessary to prepare contract documents, prior to final approval of the contract, in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Chapter, including: requesting proposals, inviting bids, applying for grants, and negotiating contract terms. 2. The City Manager is authorized to execute any contract on behalf of the City provided that: (a) pursuant to City Charter Section 100, the contract is in writing and approved as to form by the City Attorney; and (b) the contract is covered by sufficient unencumbered funds appropriated in the adopted budget, and (to the extent required by City Charter Section 100) the contract is endorsed by the City Auditor; and (c) the contract is prepared in accordance with all other requirements of this Code and the administrative regulations; and (d) the contract is covered by any one of the following categories: (i) the City Council has separately authorized the City Manager to execute on behalf of the City pursuant to an ordinance, resolution, or other Council action, or (ii) the City’s commitments under the contract are in an amount less than or equal to the amount established by the Controller of the State of California for formal bidding procedures as required by California Public Contract Code Sections 22020 and 22032(c) (as of January 1, 2009, this amount is established at $125,000), or (iii) the contract is necessary to resolve an emergency pursuant to Section 2.91.040 of this Chapter or pursuant to Chapter 2.89 of this Code. It shall be unlawful to split, or separate into smaller contracts, any contract for the purpose of evading the dollar amounts identified in this chapter. 3. The City Manager is authorized to implement and enforce each contractor's compliance with contract requirements, including inspections and acceptance of complete performance, and termination of the contract, all in accordance with the requirements of the contract. Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 229 of 477 NMC 2.91.050 Exceptions for Specialty Items A. The City may enter into a contract for a "specialty item," in accordance with this section, without further complying with the requirements of this chapter, provided that the City Manager or the City Council makes a written determination of the following: 1. The project need which the City intends to satisfy through the contract for the specialty item. This includes a functional description (or performance criteria) of the City’s needs. 2. The types of property or service which are available (or used by other similarly situated private or public agencies) to meet this need (or similar needs), and the contractors which are available to provide the property or service. This includes documentation of the steps the City has taken to evaluate the types of property, service, and contractors potentially available to serve the City's needs. The City shall invite proposals from interested contractors by providing written public notice of the proposed contract in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, at least five days prior to the date bids are due to the City. 3. The reasons why it is impracticable for a similar property or service to meet the City’s needs (including considerations of compatibility with other City property and services regarding maintenance, repair, training, quality, price, or similar considerations); or why the City's needs can only be met by one unique or proprietary type of property or service (the specialty item). 4. By entering into a contract for the specialty item from the proposed contractor, the City will meet the purpose and goals identified in Subsection 2.91.010(D) of this Chapter. 5. The contract complies with the requirements of Subsection 2.91.030 (B) of this Chapter. B. The City Council hereby determines that substantial compliance with the requirements of this Section shall satisfy the requirement to award City contracts to the lowest and best bidder, pursuant to City Charter Section 101 and Graydon v. Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 631. (O2009 5) Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 230 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:960-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:7.A. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Rick Tooker, Community Development Director Prepared By: Shari Cooper, Development Project Coordinator TITLE: Downtown Business Promotions Tax Area - 2018 Levy of Taxes RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution levying taxes in the Downtown Business Promotions Tax Area (DBPTA) for 2018 in accordance with Napa Municipal Code Chapter 3.28; and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA DISCUSSION: On June 6, 2017, the City Council approved the “2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Downtown Business Promotions Tax” (DBPTA) and adopted a Resolution of Intention to hold a public hearing on June 20, 2017 to levy the business license taxes. To implement the State of California Streets and Highways Code Sections 36000, et seq., and per the terms of City Agreement 9354, “Napa Downtown Association Agreement, Management of Assessment Districts,” a public hearing notice has been published and posted to notify the public of the availability for review of all documents relating to the improvements and activities of the Downtown Business Promotions Tax Area. The tax rate is set by ordinance and provided for in the Napa Municipal Code Chapter 3.28 “Napa Parking & Business Improvement District”: a promotional marketing tax equal to 40 percent of the business license fee. This revenue is collected by the City and managed by the Napa Downtown Association (NDA) for administrative and marketing purposes to benefit the businesses within the Downtown Business Promotions Tax Area. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The recommended action results in no financial City obligation or impact to its General Fund, but there are costs related to City staff time for financial accounting and preparation of staff reports and resolutions. The DBPTA tax revenue, equal to 40 percent of the business license tax, is collected by the Finance Department and remitted to the NDA monthly. CEQA: City staff recommends that the City Council determine that the Recommended Action is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15323 (normal operation of facilities for public gatherings). CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 231 of 477 File #:960-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:7.A. DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Resolution to levy taxes in the Downtown Business Promotions Tax Area (DBPTA) for 2018 Ex A - “2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Downtown Business Promotions Tax” NOTIFICATION: City staff notified the Napa Downtown Association of this agenda item before the meeting date. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 232 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__ Page 1 of 3 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LEVYING TAXES IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS PROMOTIONS TAX AREA (DBPTA) FOR 2018 IN ACCORDANCE WITH NAPA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.28; AND DETERMINING THAT THE ACTIONS AUTHORIZED BY THIS RESOLUTION ARE EXEMPT FROM CEQA. WHEREAS, in order to implement the State of California Streets and Highways Code sections 36000, et seq. and City Agreement No. 9354 between the City of Napa and the Napa Downtown Association, Management of Assessment Districts, approved on June 19, 2007, the City of Napa City Council adopted Resolution No. R2017-064 on June 6, 2017 approving the “2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Downtown Business Promotional Tax”; and declaring its intent to levy taxes upon businesses within the Downtown Business Promotional Tax Area as outlined in Napa Municipal Code Section 3.28 (Napa Parking & Business Improvement Area 1, Benefit Zone 2); and WHEREAS, said “2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Downtown Promotional Tax” provided as Exhibit “A” to this Resolution contains the Napa Downtown Association (NDA) responses to specific measures from the California Streets and Highways Code Section 36533 including 2018 NDA advisory board members; 2016 NDA Budget to Actuals, 2017 NDA Budget, and the 2018 NDA Budget Estimate for the Downtown Promotional Tax, including expected revenues and expenses; and the Downtown Business Promotional Tax Boundary Map; WHEREAS, the “Downtown Business Promotional Tax Area” is located generally in the downtown area bounded by Soscol Avenue, Third Street, Jefferson Street, and Yount Street, and more particularly shown in Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, a public hearing notice of the City Council’s intention to hold a public hearing to levy said taxes was published in the Napa Valley Register on Friday, June 9, 2017, and posted in publicly accessible locations; and the Napa Downtown Association was notified of this agenda item prior to the meeting date; and WHEREAS, said notice was given that the “2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Downtown Promotional Tax” containing all documents, location maps, and information relating to the improvements and activities to be funded by said assessments was approved by the City Council on June 6, 2017 and is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Napa, CA, 955 School Street, Napa, CA; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was held by the City Council of the City of Napa on June 20, 2017 at the hour of 3:30 p.m., and at the hearing all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the levying of taxes in the “Downtown Business Promotional Tax,” were heard; and Page 233 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__ Page 2 of 3 June 20, 2017 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this resolution. 2. The City Council hereby determines that the actions authorized by this Resolution are exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15323 (normal operation of facilities for public gatherings). 3. The City Council hereby confirms the “2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Downtown Promotional Tax” as described in the recitals of this resolution. Improvements and activities to be provided by the NDA during its 2018 fiscal year are the Napa Live: Inside and Out; Napa Show & Shine Night/Main Street Reunion Car Show; Blues, Brews & BBQ; Hometown Halloween; Napa Tree Lighting Ceremony and Christmas Parade; and the Wine Tasting Card program. 4. The City Council hereby authorizes the levying and collection of taxes on businesses within the “Downtown Business Promotional Tax Area” for 2018, in accordance with Napa Municipal Code Section 3.28. 5. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to disperse tax revenue from the Downtown Business Promotional Tax to the NDA, to be used by NDA in accordance with the “2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Downtown Promotional Tax” and City Agreement 9354. 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Page 234 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__ Page 3 of 3 June 20, 2017 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of June 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ________________________ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to form: ______________________________ Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 235 of 477 2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Downtown Business Promotions Tax January 1 – December 31, 2017 Although there are no specific reporting requirements established for the DBPTA tax, City staff has used the format provided by California Streets and Highways Code Section 36533 for the DBPTA annual report. This format is as follows: 1.Any proposed change in boundary of area or benefit zone, or parcel classification. Response: No changes to boundaries or classifications are proposed. 2.Improvements and activities to be provided for the fiscal year. Response: a)In 2016, the NDA introduced a new event, “Napa Live: Inside and Out.” This live music event occurs at 40 locations, mostly inside businesses, and includes outdoor venues (up to three stages) in public parks. This event does not require any City street closures and a minimum amount of vendors will be brought in for the event. Because the event was so successful, the NDA plans to host the event three different months (June, September, and October). b)Napa Show & Shine/Main Street Reunion Car Show: The car show will be held on Third Street and Main Street south of Third, and Show and Shine will be held in Parking Lot X at Pearl and West streets. c)Blues, Brews & BBQ. d)Hometown Halloween, which will be jointly hosted with the City of Napa e)Napa Tree Lighting Ceremony f)Christmas Parade g)The Wine Tasting Card program, which now features half -price tastings at 12 downtown tasting rooms. 3.Estimated cost to provide the improvements and activities for the year. Response: The NDA estimates it will cost $592,074 to manage and promote the DBPTA. The DBPTA tax revenue funds approximately 20 percent of the overall program. 4. Method and basis of levying taxes in the Napa DBPTA: Response: The taxes for the DBPTA are levied in an amount equal to 40 percent of the business license tax for businesses in the benefit zone. Business license taxes are imposed on each business pursuant to Napa Municipal Code Chapter 5.04. 5.Amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from previous fiscal EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 6 June 20, 2017R2017-__ Page 236 of 477 2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Downtown Business Promotions Tax year. Response: The DBPTA concluded the 2016 year with $45,419 net income. That balance will be carried forward into 2017. 6.Amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than taxes levied pursuant to this part. Response: The budget anticipates a total of $474,974 resulting from the Oxbow Promotional Assessment, carryover from the previous year, registration fees, Downtown Parking & Business Improvement District administration, commercial vendors, the Wine Tasting Card, alcohol beverage sales, sponsorships, and interest earnings. The Board of Directors of the NDA serves as the Advisory Board to the DBPTA. For the 2018 DBPTA, the NDA Board of Directors and their respective affiliations are: Tom Finch, Filippi’s Pizza Grotto Sara Brooks, Napa River Inn Steve Pierce, Executive Room Ruth Appleby, Bank of Napa Celeste Carducci, Uncorked at Oxbow/ McClelland Priest Bed & Breakfast Allison Hallum, Eiko’s Gordon Huether, Gordon Huether Gallery Bill La Liberte, Oxbow Public Market JB Leamer, Jax White Mule Diner Anette Madsen, Anette’s Chocolate Sheri Thomas, Meritage Resort and Spa Craig Smith, Executive Director EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 6 June 20, 2017 Page 237 of 477 Budget Actuals Oxbow Promotional Assessment 26,700 36,214 Downtown Promotional Tax 112,350 116,458 Main Street Registration Fee 20,500 25,433 PBID Administration 54,000 54,000 Commercial Vendors 9,150 Wine Tasting Card 45,400 55,970 Alcohol Beverage Sales 87,000 85,882 Sponsorships 72,500 95,237 Bank Interest 100 56 Misc. Income 500 0 Total Income 428,200 469,250 Budget Actuals State Taxes 75 Job Fair 630 Printing 150 294 Electricity 360 Reconciliation Discrepancies 0 Petty Cash Fund 0 Contributions 500 1,200 Restaurant/Food 2,000 Supplies/ Materials 19,860 22,532 Collateral 3,900 12,554 Event Entertainment 17,040 25,853 Alcoholic Beverage 34,925 32,767 Porta-Potties 1,200 1,078 ABC Permit 600 400 Accountant 4,000 5,145 Advertising 41,500 44,139 Bank Charges 240 408 Contract Services 80,150 73,573 Dues/Subscription 2,400 889 Employee Payroll 133,076 125,231 Franchise Taxes 85 General Membership Meeting 300 128 Insurance 30,095 30,788 Offices Supplies 1,200 1,815 Permits and Licenses 3,750 5,518 Postage/Box Rental 1,190 548 Printing and Reproduction 2,800 1,301 Rent 11,400 5,500 Storage Unit 14,414 19,200 Telephone 8,700 6,005 Travel/Expenses 1,500 239 Web Site 3,600 5,809 Total Expenses 420,925 423,631 Net Ordinary Income 7,275 45,619 Other Expense Prior Period Adjustment 0 200 Total other expenses 0 200 Net Other Income -200 Net Income 7,275 45,419 Expenses 2016 Budget to Actuals for the Downtown Napa Association Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment and the Downtown Business Promotions Tax Income EXHIBIT A Page 3 of 6 June 20, 2017 2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Downtown Business Promotions Tax Page 238 of 477 Budget Oxbow Promotional Assessment 40,300 Downtown Promotional Tax 117,100 Carryover from 2016 45,419 Main Street Registration Fee 25,600 PBID Administration 54,000 Commercial Vendors 2,000 Wine Tasting Card 13,500 Alcohol Beverage Sales 146,160 Sponsorships 147,950 Bank Interest 45 Total Income 592,074 Budget Job Fair 6,000 Printing 500 Contributions 1,000 Supplies/ Materials 23,015 Collateral 1,398 Event Entertainment 80,204 Alcoholic Beverage 50,394 ABC Permit 450 Accountant 6,000 Advertising 81,830 Contract Services 82,913 Employee Payroll 126,520 Insurance 32,840 Permits and Licenses 49,142 Postage/Box Rental 400 Printing and Reproduction 2,800 Rent 11,740 Storage Unit 570 Telephone 5,900 Web Site 6,200 Total Expenses 569,816 Net Ordinary Income 22,258 Net Income 22,258 Expenses Income 2017 Budget for the Napa Downtown Association Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment and the Downtown Business Promotions Tax EXHIBIT A Page 4 of 6 June 20, 2017 2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Downtown Business Promotions Tax Page 239 of 477 2018 Projected Tax and Assessment Revenue Oxbow Promotions Assessment $40,300 Downtown PromotionsTax $117,100 Total $157,400 26% Other Income used by the DNA Other Total Income Oxbow Percentage of Total Amount PBID Admin 54,000$ $27,000 (50% of PBID Admin Costs instead of 26%) Commercial Vendors 2,000$ $520 Wine Tasting Card 13,500$ $3,510 Alcohol Beverage Sales 146,160$ $38,002 Sponsorships 147,950$ $38,467 Bank Interest 45$ $12 Total 363,655$ $107,510 = Outside revenue budgeted for Oxbow BIA expenditures $40,300 + Oxbow BIA assessment amount $147,810 $107,510 $40,300 $2.67 For every $1 of assessment revenue spent, DNA is expending an additional $2.67 in the Oxbow. 2018 Budget Estimate of Revenue Contributions to the Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment and Downtown Business Promotions Tax = Oxbow "percentage share" Total expenditure within the Oxbow Promotional District The DNA will budget 26% of the following revenue sources (except for PBID Admin Costs) for expenditure in the Oxbow BIA: EXHIBIT A Page 5 of 6 June 20, 2017 2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Downtown Business Promotions Tax Page 240 of 477 BOUNDARY MAP for the Downtown Business Promotions Tax Area EXHIBIT A Page 6 of 6 June 20, 2017 2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Downtown Business Promotions Tax Page 241 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:961-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:7.B. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Rick Tooker, Community Development Director Prepared By: Shari Cooper, Development Project Coordinator TITLE: Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment Area - 2018 Levy of Assessments RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution levying assessments in the Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment Area for 2018 in accordance with Napa Municipal Code Chapter 3.29, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. DISCUSSION: On June 6, 2017, the City Council approved the “2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment Area” (Oxbow BPAA), and adopted a Resolution of Intention to hold a public hearing on June 20, 2017 to levy the business license assessments. To implement the State of California Streets and Highways Code Sections 36500, et seq., and per the terms of City Agreement 9354, “Napa Downtown Association Agreement, Management of Assessment Districts,” a public hearing notice has been published and posted to notify the public of the ability to review all documents relating to the improvements and activities of the Oxbow BPAA. The assessment rate has been set by ordinance and provided for in the Napa Municipal Code Chapter 3.29 “Oxbow Business Improvement Area”: a promotional marketing assessment equal to 40 percent of the business license fee. This revenue is collected by the City and managed by the Napa Downtown Association (NDA) for administrative and marketing purposes to benefit the businesses within the Oxbow BPAA. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The recommended action results in no financial City obligation or impact to its General Fund, but there are costs related to City staff time for financial accounting and preparation of staff reports and resolutions. The DBPTA tax revenue, equal to 40 percent of the business license tax, is collected by the Finance Department and remitted to the NDA monthly. CEQA: City staff recommends that the City Council determine that the Recommended Action is exempt from CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 242 of 477 File #:961-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:7.B. CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15323 (normal operation of facilities for public gatherings). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Resolution to levy assessments in the Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment Area for 2018 EX A - 2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Oxbow BPAA NOTIFICATION: City staff notified the Napa Downtown Association of this agenda item before the meeting date. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 243 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__ Page 1 of 3 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LEVYING ASSESSMENTS IN THE OXBOW BUSINESS PROMOTIONS ASSESSMENT AREA FOR 2018 IN ACCORDANCE WITH NAPA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.29, AND DETERMINING THAT THE ACTIONS AUTHORIZED BY THIS RESOLUTION ARE EXEMPT FROM CEQA WHEREAS, in order to implement the State of California Streets and Highways Code sections 36500, et seq. and City Agreement No. 9354 between the City of Napa and the Napa Downtown Association (NDA), Management of Assessment Districts, approved on June 19, 2007, the City of Napa City Council adopted Resolution No. R2017-065 on June 6, 2017, approving the “2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment Area (Oxbow BPAA)”; and declaring its intent to levy assessments upon businesses within the Oxbow BPAA as outlined in Napa Municipal Code Section 3.29 (Oxbow Business Improvement Area); and WHEREAS, said “2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Oxbow BPAA” provided as Exhibit “A” to this Resolution contains the Napa Downtown Association (NDA) responses to specific measures from the California Streets and Highways Code Section 36533 including 2018 NDA advisory board members; 2016 NDA Budget to Actuals, 2017 NDA Budget, and the 2018 NDA Budget Estimate for the Oxbow BPAA, including expected revenues and expenses; and the Oxbow BPAA Boundary Map; and WHEREAS, the “Oxbow BPAA” is located generally in the downtown Napa area bounded by Soscol Avenue, Silverado Trail, Fourth Street, and River Terrace Way, and more particularly shown in Exhibit A, “2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Oxbow BPAA”; and WHEREAS, a public hearing notice of the City Council’s intention to hold a public hearing to levy said assessment was published in the Napa Valley Register on Friday, June 9, 2017, and posted in publicly accessible locations; and the Napa Downtown Association was notified of this agenda item prior to the meeting date; and WHEREAS, said notice was given that the “2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Oxbow BPAA” containing all documents, location maps, and information relating to the improvements and activities to be funded by said assessments was approved by the City Council on June 6, 2017, and is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Napa, CA, 955 School Street, Napa, CA; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was held by the City Council of the City of Napa on June 20, 2017 at the hour of 3:30 p.m., and at the hearing all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the levying of assessments in the Oxbow BPAA were heard; and Page 244 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__ Page 2 of 3 June 20, 2017 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1.The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this resolution. 2.The City Council hereby determines that the actions authorized by this Resolution are exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15323 (normal operation of facilities for public gatherings). 3.The City Council hereby confirms the “2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Oxbow BPAA” as described in the recitals of this resolution. Improvements and activities to be provided by the NDA during its 2018 fiscal year include: (a) Promotion of Public Events: Promote three events: 1) “Napa Live: Inside and Out” (to be held in June, September, and October); 2) “Blues, Brews & BBQ” (August); and 3) “Hometown Halloween” (October). All of these events take place within the Oxbow BPAA. While all businesses in the area receive a general benefit from the Oxbow BPAA activities, businesses who pay the 40 percent Oxbow BPAA assessment receive a special benefit of free booth space at events hosted by the NDA, which normally cost $350 per restaurant booth and $200 per wine booth. On average, Oxbow BPAA businesses are given six free booths per year. (b) Furnish Music: Provide live music as part of the “Napa Live: Inside and Out,” event. The NDA will reimburse businesses within the Oxbow BPAA $125 if they elect to provide live music inside their business during the event to help offset the cost of the entertainment. (c) Promote Tourism within the Oxbow BPAA: Include Oxbow BPAA businesses and events in print and on-line promotional material including Downtown Napa maps and the www.DoNapa.com website. (d) Other Activities that Benefit Business: Include Oxbow BPAA businesses in the “Shop Napa Guide,” which is distributed to all lodging facilities within the City of Napa and some in American Canyon, and at participating businesses. Expenses include the design, production and distribution of the guide. Include Oxbow BPAA businesses on the Wine Tasting Card, which is Page 245 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__ Page 3 of 3 June 20, 2017 distributed to all lodging facilities within the City of Napa, the Welcome Center and at participating businesses. Expenses include the design, production, and distribution of the card. Program Management and Support. NDA staff provides ongoing administrative support for the benefits delivered to the businesses in the Oxbow BPAA, which includes website (business listings and updates),Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest), and daily office and management expenses (rent, utilities, supplies, payroll, insurance, accounting, etc.) 4.The City Council hereby authorizes the levying and collection of assessments on businesses within the Oxbow BPAA for 2018 as outlined in Napa Municipal Code Section 3.29. 5.Assessments shall be collected for the year at the same time and in the same manner as the collection of the business license taxes from each business in the Area. Collection shall be made by the Finance Director of the City or such other official of the City responsible for the collection of such taxes and assessments. 6.The Finance Director is hereby authorized to disperse assessment revenue from the 2018 Oxbow BPAA to the NDA, to be used by NDA in accordance with the Oxbow BIA 2016 Annual Report and City Agreement 9354.”. 7.This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of June 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ________________________ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to form: ______________________________ Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 246 of 477 EXHIBIT A 2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment (per California Streets and Highways Code Section 36533) Required Components of Annual Report for the Oxbow Business Improvement Area January 1 – December 31, 2018 California Streets and Highways Code Section 36533 The California Streets and Highways Code Section 36533 require that the annual report for the Oxbow BPAA contain the following information: 1. Any proposed change in boundary of area or benefit zone, or parcel classification. Response: No changes to boundaries or classificatio ns are proposed. 2. Improvements and activities to be provided for the January – December 2018 fiscal year. Streets and Highways Code Section 36513 defines “activities” to include all of the following: a) promotion of public events which benefit assessed businesses and which take place on or in public spaces within the benefit zone; b) furnishing of music in any public place in the benefit zone; c) promotion of tourism within the benefit zone; and c) activities which benefit businesses located and operating in the benefit zone. Response: In 2018, the anticipated assessment revenue for the Oxbow BPAA is $40,300. The NDA will combine this revenue with other revenue (see Exhibit “C” to Attachment 1) to produce the following activities that correlate to the defined requirements above: (a) Promote Public Events: Promote three events: 1) “Napa Live: Inside and Out” (to be held in June, September, and October); 2) “Blues, Brews & BBQ” (August); and 3) “Hometown Halloween” (October). All of these events take place within the Oxbow BPAA. While all businesses in the area receive a general benefit from the Oxbow BPAA activities, businesses who pay the 40 percent Oxbow BPAA assessment receive a special benefit of free booth space at events hosted by the NDA, which normally cost $350 per restaurant booth and $200 per wine booth. On average, Oxbow BPAA businesses are given six free booths per year. (b) Furnish Music: Provide live music as part of the “Napa Live: Inside and Out,” event. The NDA will reimburse businesses within the Oxbow BPAA $125 if they elect to provide Page 1 of 7 June 20, 2017R2017-__ Page 247 of 477 live music inside their business during the event to help offset the cost of the entertainment. (c) Promote Tourism within the Oxbow BPAA: Include Oxbow BPAA businesses and events in print and on-line promotional material including Downtown Napa maps and the www.DoNapa.com website. (d) Other Activities that Benefit Business: •Include Oxbow BPAA businesses in the “Shop Napa Guide,” which is distributed to all lodging facilities within the City of Napa and some in American Canyon, and at participating businesses. Expenses include the design, production and distribution of the guide. •Include Oxbow BPAA businesses on the Wine Tasting Card, which is distributed to all lodging facilities within the City of Napa, the Welcome Center and at participating businesses. Expenses include the design, production, and distribution of the card. •Program Management and Support. NDA staff provides ongoing administrative support for the benefits delivered to the businesses in the Oxbow BPAA, which includes website (business listings and updates), Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest), and daily office and management expenses (rent, utilities, supplies, payroll, insurance, accounting, etc.) 3. Estimate of cost to provide the improvements and activities for the year: Response: The estimated cost to fund the items listed above is $147,810. The Oxbow BPAA will contribute $40,300 and the balance will be funded by other sources. Every assessment dollar will leverage $2.67 from other sources. 4. Method and basis of levying assessment. Response: The assessments for the Oxbow BPAA shall be levied in an amount equal to 40 percent of the business license tax (imposed on each business pursuant to Napa Municipal Code Chapters 3.29 Oxbow Business Improvement Area and 5.04 Business Licenses Generally). 5. Amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from previous fiscal year. Response: $45,419 will be carried over from 2016 into 2017. 2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment (per California Streets and Highways Code Section 36533) Page 2 of 7 June 20, 2017 EXHIBIT A Page 248 of 477 6. Amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part. Response: The budget anticipates $592,074 from event registration fees, Parking & Business Improvement District promotions, commercial vendors, the Wine Tasting Card, alcohol beverage sales, sponsorships, bank interest, carry over balance from 2016 and the Downtown Promotional Tax for the NDA. 7.The Board of Directors of the NDA serves as the Advisory Board to the Oxbow BPAA. For 2018, the NDA Board of Directors and their respective affiliations are: Tom Finch, Filippi’s Pizza Grotto Sara Brooks, Napa River Inn Steve Pierce, Executive Room Ruth Appleby, Bank of Napa Celeste Carducci, Uncorked at Oxbow/ McClelland – Priest Bed & Breakfast Allison Hallum, Eiko’s Gordon Huether, Gordon Huether Gallery Bill La Liberte, Oxbow Public Market JB Leamer, Jax White Mule Diner Anette Madsen, Anette’s Chocolate Sheri Thomas, Meritage Resort and Spa Craig Smith, Executive Director Page 3 of 7 June 20, 2017 EXHIBIT A Page 249 of 477 Budget Actuals Oxbow Promotional Assessment 26,700 36,214 Downtown Promotional Tax 112,350 116,458 Main Street Registration Fee 20,500 25,433 PBID Administration 54,000 54,000 Commercial Vendors 9,150 Wine Tasting Card 45,400 55,970 Alcohol Beverage Sales 87,000 85,882 Sponsorships 72,500 95,237 Bank Interest 100 56 Misc. Income 500 0 Total Income 428,200 469,250 Budget Actuals State Taxes 75 Job Fair 630 Printing 150 294 Electricity 360 Reconciliation Discrepancies 0 Petty Cash Fund 0 Contributions 500 1,200 Restaurant/Food 2,000 Supplies/ Materials 19,860 22,532 Collateral 3,900 12,554 Event Entertainment 17,040 25,853 Alcoholic Beverage 34,925 32,767 Porta-Potties 1,200 1,078 ABC Permit 600 400 Accountant 4,000 5,145 Advertising 41,500 44,139 Bank Charges 240 408 Contract Services 80,150 73,573 Dues/Subscription 2,400 889 Employee Payroll 133,076 125,231 Franchise Taxes 85 General Membership Meeting 300 128 Insurance 30,095 30,788 Offices Supplies 1,200 1,815 Permits and Licenses 3,750 5,518 Postage/Box Rental 1,190 548 Printing and Reproduction 2,800 1,301 Rent 11,400 5,500 Storage Unit 14,414 19,200 Telephone 8,700 6,005 Travel/Expenses 1,500 239 Web Site 3,600 5,809 Total Expenses 420,925 423,631 Net Ordinary Income 7,275 45,619 Other Expense Prior Period Adjustment 0 200 Total other expenses 0 200 Net Other Income -200 Net Income 7,275 45,419 Expenses 2016 Budget to Actuals for the Downtown Napa Association Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment and the Downtown Business Promotions Tax Income 2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment (per California Streets and Highways Code Section 36533) Page 4 of 7 June 20, 2017 EXHIBIT A Page 250 of 477 Budget Oxbow Promotional Assessment 40,300 Downtown Promotional Tax 117,100 Carryover from 2016 45,419 Main Street Registration Fee 25,600 PBID Administration 54,000 Commercial Vendors 2,000 Wine Tasting Card 13,500 Alcohol Beverage Sales 146,160 Sponsorships 147,950 Bank Interest 45 Total Income 592,074 Budget Job Fair 6,000 Printing 500 Contributions 1,000 Supplies/ Materials 23,015 Collateral 1,398 Event Entertainment 80,204 Alcoholic Beverage 50,394 ABC Permit 450 Accountant 6,000 Advertising 81,830 Contract Services 82,913 Employee Payroll 126,520 Insurance 32,840 Permits and Licenses 49,142 Postage/Box Rental 400 Printing and Reproduction 2,800 Rent 11,740 Storage Unit 570 Telephone 5,900 Web Site 6,200 Total Expenses 569,816 Net Ordinary Income 22,258 Net Income 22,258 Expenses Income 2017 Budget for the Napa Downtown Association Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment and the Downtown Business Promotions Tax 2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment (per California Streets and Highways Code Section 36533) Page 5 of 7 June 20, 2017 EXHIBIT A Page 251 of 477 2018 Projected Tax and Assessment Revenue Oxbow Promotions Assessment $40,300 Downtown PromotionsTax $117,100 Total $157,400 26% Other Income used by the DNA Other Total Income Oxbow Percentage of Total Amount PBID Admin 54,000$ $27,000 (50% of PBID Admin Costs instead of 26%) Commercial Vendors 2,000$ $520 Wine Tasting Card 13,500$ $3,510 Alcohol Beverage Sales 146,160$ $38,002 Sponsorships 147,950$ $38,467 Bank Interest 45$ $12 Total 363,655$ $107,510 = Outside revenue budgeted for Oxbow BIA expenditures $40,300 + Oxbow BIA assessment amount $147,810 $107,510 $40,300 $2.67 For every $1 of assessment revenue spent, DNA is expending an additional $2.67 in the Oxbow. 2018 Budget Estimate of Revenue Contributions to the Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment and Downtown Business Promotions Tax = Oxbow "percentage share" Total expenditure within the Oxbow Promotional District The DNA will budget 26% of the following revenue sources (except for PBID Admin Costs) for expenditure in the Oxbow BIA: 2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment (per California Streets and Highways Code Section 36533) Page 6 of 7 June 20, 2017 EXHIBIT A Page 252 of 477 BOUNDARY MAP for the Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment Area Page 7 of 7 2018 Annual Report and Budget for the Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment (per California Streets and Highways Code Section 36533) June 20, 2017 EXHIBIT A Page 253 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:945-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:7.C. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Rick Tooker, Community Development Director Prepared By: Michael Walker, Senior Planner TITLE: Rezoning of property located on the west side of Soscol Avenue south of Sousa Lane. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Adopt a resolution adopting a Negative Declaration for the Soscol Gasser Zoning Amendment; and 2. Approve the first reading and introduction of an ordinance amending the Zoning Map established under Section 17.04.050 of the Napa Municipal Code pertaining to the rezoning of property located at 459 and 473 Soscol Avenue from MP-G3, Tulocay Village, to CC, Community Commercial District. DISCUSSION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION In January 2017, the Planning Commission approved the Soscol Gasser Parcel Map, an application to subdivide three commercial parcels (totaling 7.3 acres) along the west side of Soscol Avenue into four commercial parcels. This map has not yet completed the final map process through the Public Works Department. This application is requesting approval to rezone two of these parcels: 1) Parcel A is a 2.63 acre parcel located on the south side of the new entry road that will serve the Vista Tulocay Apartments; and 2) Parcel B a 2.03 acre parcel located on the north side of the entry road. The applicant is requesting to rezone the parcels from the MP:G3, Gasser Master Plan Tulocay Place Zoning District to the CC, Community Commercial Zoning District. The current zoning of Parcel A is MP- G3:FP:SC:TI, Tulocay Place: Floodplain overlay: Soscol Corridor overlay: Traffic Impact Overlay Zoning District. Parcel B is current split zoned, with the southern half of the property zoned MP- G3:FP:SC:TI, Tulocay Place: Floodplain overlay: Soscol Corridor overlay: Traffic Impact Overlay Zoning District, and the northern half of the property zoned CC:FP:SC:TI, Community Commercial: Floodplain overlay: Soscol Corridor overlay: Traffic Impact Overlay Zoning District. The proposed rezone applies only to the principal zoning designations and not the overlay zoning districts, which will remain the same. No new buildings or development are proposed in conjunction with this application. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 254 of 477 File #:945-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:7.C. ZONING AMENDMENT The project site is located within two zoning districts. Parcel A is located within the MP:G3 FP:SC:TI, Gasser Master Plan Tulocay Place District: Floodplain: Soscol Corridor: Traffic Impact Zoning Overlay District. The intent of the Tulocay Place District was to create community retail commercial uses east of North Drive and community and neighborhood serving retail commercial uses west of North Drive, providing a community entrance, focal point and gathering place, and residential and/or mixed uses west of North Drive. When the Gasser Master Plan was approved, it was anticipated that the Tulocay Place District could be developed with up to 80,000 square feet of retail commercial. Parcel B is split zoned with the southern half of the property located within the MP:G3 FP:SC:TI, Gasser Master Plan Tulocay Place District: Floodplain: Soscol Corridor: Traffic Impact Zoning Overlay District and the northern half located within CC:FP:SC:TI, Community Commercial: Floodplain: Soscol Corridor: Traffic Impact Zoning Overlay District. The development standards (building height, setbacks, lot size) of the Tulocay Place District and the Community Commercial Zoning District are essentially the same, with the principal difference being the range of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses. The proposed rezoning will not effect on future parking requirements since parking is calculated by use and similar types of permitted retail uses under the CC have the same parking ratio (1 space per each 250 square feet) as retail uses under the MP-G3 designation. The Tulocay Place District does not list auto related sales as permitted or conditionally permitted uses, and the proposed rezoning will allow the properties the opportunity to be developed with auto sales related uses which is a conditional use in the Community Commercial Zoning District. Although auto sales are a potential use of the properties, no specific building designs have been proposed for this project at this point; however, the design of the future building or land use will be subject to approval of a Discretionary Permit by the Community Development Department and/or the Planning Commission. It is noted that the rezoning would not result in any change to the development standards applicable to the property, including density, floor area ratio, setbacks and height. This is because the development standards for properties in the Specific Plan are based upon each property’s location rather than its land use designation or zoning. Traffic Impact Overlay The Traffic Impact Overlay limits the traffic intensity of uses adjacent to the Soscol Avenue "crucial corridor" and establishes development standards designed to minimize traffic conflicts. The proposed rezoning will have no bearing on the application of the Traffic Impact Overlay as it will remain in place. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 255 of 477 File #:945-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:7.C. Floodplain Overlay The site is subject to the :FP, Floodplain Management Regulations, which require that the Floodplain Administrator review all on-site improvements. As previously noted Parcels A and B contain a “Flowage Easement” which is designed to allow overland stormwater to flow from Soscol Avenue into the wetland area located to the west of the proposed parcels. The proposed parcels have been designed in accordance with the requirements for non-residential construction in the floodplain zone. The proposed rezoning will have no bearing on the application of the Floodplain Overlay as it will remain in place. A significant portion of the two properties is encumbered with a “Flowage Easement” which must remain open to allow overland stormwater to flow from Soscol Avenue into the wetland area located to the west of the proposed parcels. This easement significantly restricts the development opportunities on these two parcels as the area within the easement cannot be developed with buildings or other structures, and is generally planned to be developed with parking and or landscaping so as not to impede the flow of stormwater. Soscol Corridor Overlay The proposed Rezoning does not include the construction of any new buildings or structures. As such, the Rezoning application does not raise any concerns related to the aesthetic standards of the Soscol Guidelines which will remain in place. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY On May 4, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the proposed project on the Consent Calendar. There were no speakers on the project. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the project. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No direct financial impacts to the City have been identified with this application. CEQA: City staff recommends that the City Council determine that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City Council, that the Recommended Action, as analyzed in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the Soscol Gasser Rezoning dated April 17, 2017, will have significant effect on the environment; and that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074. DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Draft resolution adopting a Negative Declaration for the Soscol Gasser Zoning Amendment ATCH 2 - Draft ordinance amending the Zoning Map ATCH 3 - Planning Commission staff report dated May 4, 2017 ATCH 4 - Initial study and negative declaration NOTIFICATION: CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 256 of 477 File #:945-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:7.C. Mailing by US Postal Service was provided to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property; legal notices of public hearing were published in the Napa Valley Register at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 257 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 1 of 2 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SOSCOL GASSER ZONING AMENDMENT WHEREAS, The Gasser Foundation submitted an application (PL17-0047) to rezone the properties at 459 & 473 Soscol Avenue (APNs: 046-190-062, & 063) from MU-G3, Tulocay Village to CC, Community commercial; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), requires that the City consider the potential environmental impacts of the Project prior to approving any entitlements for the Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Napa Community Development Department prepared an Initial Study for Soscol Gasser Rezone (PL17-0047), dated April 14, 2017 which concludes that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared for adoption (“the Negative Declaration”); and WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration regarding the Project was prepared pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, Code of California Regulations, Title XIV, Section 15000 et seq., and the City of Napa CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2017 the City of Napa posted a Notice of Completion of the Negative Declaration which identified the review period from April 14, 2017 to May 4, 2017, for review and comment by the public and public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project; and, WHEREAS, on May 4, 2017 the Planning Commission considered the Negative Declaration and all written and oral testimony submitted to them at a noticed public hearing on the Project at which the Planning Commission heard a presentation by staff and took public testimony, and thereafter closed the public hearing and subsequently recommended that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and Zoning Amendment; and WHEREAS, on June __, 2017 the City Council considered the Negative Declaration and all written and oral testimony submitted to them at a noticed public hearing on a Zoning Amendment, and received the recommendation of the Planning Commission, received a presentation by staff, and took public testimony, and thereafter closed the public hearing and considered the adequacy of the Negative Declaration. Page 258 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017 __Page 2 of 2 June 20, 2017 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution. The record of the Project’s environmental review shall be kept at the Napa City Community Development Department, 1600 First Street, Napa, CA 94559. 2. The City Council hereby finds that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City Council, that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and that this determination reflects the City Council’s independent judgment; and the City Council adopts a Negative Declaration for this Project. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the xx day of June 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ________________________ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to form: __________________________ Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 259 of 477 ATTACHMENT 2 O2017-__Page 1 of 5 June 20, 2017 ORDINANCE O2017-__ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION 17.04.050 OF THE NAPA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 459 AND 473 SOSCOL AVENUE FROM MP-G3, TULOCAY VILLAGE DISTRICT TO CC, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, The Gasser Foundation submitted an application (PL17-0047) to rezone the properties at 459 & 473 Soscol Avenue (APNs: 046-190-062, & 063) from MU-G3, Tulocay Village to CC, Community commercial; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meeting of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public meetings; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Napa as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby determines that the potential environmental effects of “the Project” described in the Agenda Report presented to the City Council at their _________, 2017 meeting, were adequately examined by the Negative Declaration that was adopted by the City Council on ___________, 2017 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the General Plan. The properties have a General Plan designation of CC-533, Community Commercial, which provides for commercial uses serving the entire community, including retail and service uses. The Community Commercial Zoning District was established to implement the commercial land use category of the Community Commercial General Plan designation. As such, the proposed zoning amendment is consistent with the General Plan. Such consistency is specifically demonstrated in the record, including but not limited to the analysis contained in the Staff Report and Initial Study. 2. The public health, safety and general welfare are served by the adoption of the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment is in the public interest, since it is consistent with the principles of the General Plan such as locating appropriate land uses within the boundaries and urban limits of the City of Napa, which land uses are complementary to the mix of uses within the city; and, because they are appropriate to its surroundings. Page 260 of 477 ATTACHMENT 2 O2017-__Page 2 of 5 June 20, 2017 The subject properties are undeveloped and temporarily operating as construction staging. 3. If a rezoning to a district with a larger minimum lot size is proposed, effectively reducing the planned residential density, the City shall also find that the remaining sites in the Housing Element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to California Government Code section 65584; or if not, that it has identified sufficient additional, adequate and available sites with an equal or greater residential density in the jurisdiction so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. This finding is not applicable to this project because the project does not include any proposal to increase a minimum lot size nor does it eliminate any site designated in the Housing Element from future use as a housing site. SECTION 3: Amendment. The boundaries of the Districts of the Zoning Map established under Section 17.04.040(A) of the Napa Municipal Code are hereby amended pursuant to Chapter 17.66 of such Code to re-designate the properties at 459 & 473 Soscol Avenue to CC, Community Commercial Zoning District as shown in Exhibits "A1 & A2" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Exhibit "A1” reflects the Zoning Districts as they exist prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and Exhibit “A2" reflects the Amended Zoning Districts, as they will be after the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 4: Severability. If any section, sub-section, subdivision, paragraph, clause or phrase in this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections or portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, sub-section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub- sections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following adoption. Page 261 of 477 ATTACHMENT 2 O2017-__Page 3 of 5 June 20, 2017 City of Napa, a municipal corporation MAYOR: _______________________________ ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NAPA STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF NAPA SS: CITY OF NAPA I, Dorothy Roberts, City Clerk of the City of Napa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance had its first reading and was introduced during the regular meeting of the City Council on the 20th day of June, 2017, and had its second reading and was adopted and passed during the regular meeting of the City Council on the ___ day of ________, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: __________________________ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to Form: ________________________ Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 262 of 477 ATTACHMENT 2 O2017-__Page 4 of 5 June 20, 2017 EXHIBIT “A1” EXISTING ZONING MAP Page 263 of 477 ATTACHMENT 2 O2017-__Page 5 of 5 June 20, 2017 EXHIBIT “A2” PROPOSED ZONING MAP MP-G3 Page 264 of 477 Community Development Department – Planning Division 1600 First Street + P.O. Box 660 Napa, CA 94559-0660 (707) 257-9530 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM # 7.A. File No. 17-0047 SOSCOL GASSER ZONING AMENDMENT I. GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT SUMMARY: Application to Rezone two commercial parcel adjacent to Soscol Avenue LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 459 & 473 Soscol Avenue APN 046-190-062 and 063 GENERAL PLAN: CC-533, Community Commercial ZONING: Existing: MP-G3, Tulocay Village Proposed: CC, Community Commercial APPLICANT: Gasser Foundation (Joe Peatman) 433 Soscol Avenue, Suite A-120 Napa, CA 94559 Phone: (707) 256-1646 STAFF PLANNER: Mike Walker, Senior Planner Phone: (707) 257-9530 LOCATION MAP N ATTACHMENT 3 Page 1 of 6 Page 265 of 477 II. HISTORY / PROJECT DESCRIPTION In January 2017, the Planning Commission approved the Soscol Gasser Parcel Map, an application to subdivide three commercial parcels (totaling 7.3 acres) along the west side of Soscol Avenue into four commercial parcels. This map has not yet completed the final map process through the Public Works Department. This application is requesting approval to rezone two of these parcels: 1) Parcel A is a 2.63 acre parcel located on the south side of the new entry road that will serve the Vista Tulocay Apartments; and 2) Parcel B a 2.03 acre parcel located on the north side of the entry road. The applicant is requesting to rezone the parcels from the MP:G3, Gasser Master Plan Tulocay Place Zoning District to the CC, Community Commercial Zoning District. The current zoning of Parcel A is MP-G3:FP:SC:TI, Tulocay Place: Floodplain overlay: Soscol Corridor overlay: Traffic Impact Overlay Zoning District. Parcel B is current split zoned, with the southern half of the property zoned MP-G3:FP:SC:TI, Tulocay Place: Floodplain overlay: Soscol Corridor overlay: Traffic Impact Overlay Zoning District, and the northern half of the property zoned CC:FP:SC:TI, Community Commercial: Floodplain overlay: Soscol Corridor overlay: Traffic Impact Overlay Zoning District. The proposed rezone applies only to the principal zoning designations and not the overlay zoning districts, which will remain the same. No new buildings or development are proposed in conjunction with this application. FIGURE 1 – PROPOSED REZONING MAP N ATTACHMENT 3 Page 2 of 6 Page 266 of 477 III. PROJECT CONTEXT The two subject parcels are located on the west side of Soscol Avenue between the Gasser Office Building to the south and the Hanlees Auto Dealership to the north. The parcels are currently vacant, but up until two years ago were previously developed with auto related commercial uses. These two parcels are the only properties on the west side of Soscol Avenue in the immediate area that are not zoned CC. IV. ANALYSIS A. GENERAL PLAN The properties have a General Plan designation of CC-533, Community Commercial, which provides for commercial uses serving the entire community, including retail and service uses. The General Plan suggests that CC areas be developed in shopping center configurations or as infill commercial uses in established community commercial areas. The proposed rezoning of the properties from the MP-G3, Gasser Master Plan Tulocay Place District to the CC, Community Commercial Zoning District is consistent with the CC General Plan designation. The proposed rezoning will have no effect of the size of future buildings as the floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.40 for POD CC-533 will remain unchanged. B. Zoning The project site is located within two zoning districts. Parcel A is located within the MP:G3 FP:SC:TI, Gasser Master Plan Tulocay Place District: Floodplain: Soscol Corridor: Traffic Impact Zoning Overlay District. The intent of the Tulocay Place District was to create community retail commercial uses east of North Drive and community and neighborhood serving retail commercial uses west of North Drive, providing a community entrance, focal point and gathering place, and residential and/or mixed uses west of North Drive. When the Gasser Master Plan was approved, it was anticipated that the Tulocay Place District could be developed with up to 80,000 square feet of retail commercial. Parcel B is split zoned with the southern half of the property located within the MP:G3 FP:SC:TI, Gasser Master Plan Tulocay Place District: Floodplain: Soscol Corridor: Traffic Impact Zoning Overlay District and the northern half located within CC:FP:SC:TI, Community Commercial: Floodplain: Soscol Corridor: Traffic Impact Zoning Overlay District. The development standards (building height, setbacks, lot size) of the Tulocay Place District and the Community Commercial Zoning District are essentially the same, with the principal difference being the range of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses. The proposed rezoning will not effect on future parking requirements since parking is calculated by use and similar types of permitted retail uses under the CC have the same ATTACHMENT 3 Page 3 of 6 Page 267 of 477 parking ratio (1 space per each 250 square feet) as retail uses under the MP-G3 designation. Figure 4 – Existing Zoning District Map The Tulocay Place District does not list auto related sales as permitted or conditionally permitted uses, and the proposed rezoning will allow the properties the opportunity to be developed with auto sales related uses which is a conditional use in the Community Commercial Zoning District. Although auto sales are a potential use of the properties, no specific building designs have been proposed for this project at this point; however, the design of the future building or land use will be subject to approval of a Discretionary Permit by the Community Development Department and/or the Planning Commission. It is noted that the rezoning would not result in any change to the development standards applicable to the property, including density, floor area ratio, setbacks and height. This is because the development standards for properties in the Specific Plan are based upon each property’s location rather than its land use designation or zoning. Traffic Impact Overlay ATTACHMENT 3 Page 4 of 6 Page 268 of 477 The Traffic Impact Overlay limits the traffic intensity of uses adjacent to the Soscol Avenue "crucial corridor" and establishes development standards designed to minimize traffic conflicts. The proposed rezoning will have no bearing on the application of the Traffic Impact Overlay as it will remain in place. Floodplain Overlay The site is subject to the :FP, Floodplain Management Regulations, which require that the Floodplain Administrator review all on-site improvements. As previously noted Parcels A and B contain a “Flowage Easement” which is designed to allow overland stormwater to flow from Soscol Avenue into the wetland area located to the west of the proposed parcels. The proposed parcels have been designed in accordance with the requirements for non-residential construction in the floodplain zone. The proposed rezoning will have no bearing on the application of the Floodplain Overlay as it will remain in place. A significant portion of the two properties is encumbered with a “Flowage Easement” which must remain open to allow overland stormwater to flow from Soscol Avenue into the wetland area located to the west of the proposed parcels. This easement significantly restricts the development opportunities on these two parcels as the area within the easement cannot be developed with buildings or other structures, and is generally planned to be developed with parking and or landscaping so as not to impede the flow of stormwater. Soscol Corridor Overlay The proposed Rezoning does not include the construction of any new buildings or structures. As such, the Rezoning application does not raise any concerns related to the aesthetic standards of the Soscol Guidelines which will remain in place. C. DESIGN REVIEW No specific building designs have been proposed for this project at this point; however, the design of the future building will be subject to approval of a Design Review Permit by the Community Development Department and/or Planning Commission to determine compliance with the Soscol Avenue Design Guidelines. D. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study determined that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment (see Attachment 3). A Negative Declaration has been prepared for adoption. The posting period of the proposed Negative Declaration was April 17 through May 4, 2017. No comments have been received as of the writing of this report. V. REQUIRED FINDINGS ATTACHMENT 3 Page 5 of 6 Page 269 of 477 The Planning Commission’s recommendation on this application is subject to the required findings NMC 17.66.080 relating to zoning ordinance amendments. These findings are provided in the draft ordinance attached to this Staff Report. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation that the City Council approve the requested Zoning Amendment. VII. ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION 1. Continue the application with direction for project modifications. 2. Direct Staff to return to the Planning Commission with a resolution documenting findings from the record of the hearing to support denial of the proposed project. VIII. REQUIRED ACTIONS Applications for final action by the City Council after recommendation from the Planning Commission: Make the findings set forth in the attached ordinance and forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt: 1. A resolution adopting a Negative Declaration 2. An ordinance authorizing a Zoning Amendment for the project site. IX. NOTICE A courtesy notice that an application was received was provided by US Postal Service on March 22, 2017 to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property. Notice of the public hearing was provided by US Postal Service on April 21, 2017 to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property. Notice of the public hearing was also published in the Napa Valley Register on April 21, 2017 and provided to people previously requesting notice on the matter at the same time notice was provided to the newspaper for publication. The Applicant was also provided a copy of this report and the associated attachments in advance of the public hearing on the project. X. DOCUMENTS ATTACHED 1. Draft City Council Resolution adopting a Negative Declaration 2. Draft City Council Ordinance amending the Zoning Map 3. Negative Declaration and Initial Study 4. MP:G3, Tulocay Place Zoning regulations 5. CC, Community Commercial Zoning regulations ATTACHMENT 3 Page 6 of 6 Page 270 of 477 Community Development Department I NITIAL S TUDY O F E NVIRONMENTAL S IGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: Soscol Gasser Zoning Amendment FILE NUMBER: PL17-0047 SITE ADDRESS: 459 & 476 Soscol Avenue APNs: 046-190-062 046-190-063 GENERAL PLAN: CC-533; Community Commercial ZONING: Existing - MP-G3:FP:SC:TI, Tulocay Place: Floodplain Overlay: Soscol Corridor Overlay: Traffic Impact Overlay Zoning District. Proposed - CC:FP:SC:TI, Community Commercial: Floodplain overlay: Soscol Corridor overlay: Traffic Impact Overlay Zoning District. APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Gasser Foundation (Joe Peatman) 433 Soscol Avenue Napa Ca 94559 PHONE: 707-256-1646 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This application is requesting approval to rezone two parcels located on the west side of Soscol Avenue. Parcel A is a 2.63-acre parcel located on the south side of the new entry road that will serve the Vista Tulocay Apartments. Parcel B a 2.03-acre parcel located on the north side of the entry road. The applicant is requesting to rezone the parcels from the MP:G3, Gasser Master Plan Tulocay Place Zoning District to the CC, Community Commercial Zoning District. The current zoning of Parcel A is MP- G3:FP:SC:TI, Tulocay Place: Floodplain overlay: Soscol Corridor overlay: Traffic Impact Overlay Zoning District. Parcel B is currently split zoned, with the southern half of the property zoned MP-G3:FP:SC:TI, Tulocay Place: Floodplain overlay: Soscol Corridor overlay: Traffic Impact Overlay Zoning District, and the northern half of the property zoned CC:FP:SC:TI, Community Commercial: Floodplain overlay: Soscol Corridor overlay: Traffic Impact Overlay Zoning District. The proposed rezone applies only to the principle Zoning designations and not the overlay zoning districts will remain the same. No development is being proposed in conjunction with this project. ATTACHMENT 4 Page 1 of 12 Page 271 of 477 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The two subject parcels are located on the west side of Soscol Avenue between the Gasser Office Building to the south and the Hanlees Auto Dealership to the north. The parcels are currently vacant, but up until two years ago were previously developed with auto related commercial uses. These two parcels were previously zoned CC, Community Commercial prior to the adoption of the Gasser Master Plan in 2006. The parcels are located approximately 550 feet south of Oil Company Road (Sousa lane Extension). CITY APPROVALS REQUIRED: Zoning Amendment OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES: None. ATTACHMENT 4 Page 2 of 12 Page 272 of 477 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. This initial study prescribes mitigation measures to reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology & Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use & Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population & Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation & Traffic Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance CEQA DETERMINATION: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. A Notice of Negative Declaration will be prepared and posted for the period of April 14, 2017 to May 4, 2017. PREPARED BY: April 13, 2017 Michael Walker, Senior Planner Date For: Rick Tooker Community Development Director ATTACHMENT 4 Page 3 of 12 Page 273 of 477 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: Environmental Issue Area Potentially Significant Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Significant Impact, Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X Discussion: No construction is proposed as part of this amendment. The proposed Rezoning to change the land use category for the subject property to better recognize the existing historical commercial use on the site, will not have significant effects on a scenic vista, damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, substantially degrade existing visual character or create new sources of light. The site is already paved and was previously developed with auto related uses, with the existing views from Soscol Avenue and surrounding properties being that of a developed commercial use. Any subsequent development applications will need to address applicable General Plan policies and City design guidelines that help implement the aesthetic policies in the General Plan. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: The project would not result in any negative impacts to aesthetics or affect the scenic attributes of the surrounding area. No scenic resources will be impacted. The project will not introduce substantially more exterior lighting than currently exists. The project will have no impact to aesthetics. II. AGRICULTURAL & FOREST RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? X b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract? X c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production? X d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X Discussion: No construction is proposed as part of this amendment. The adoption of the proposed amendment is an administrative action and policy determination and as such will not result in changes in the environment. The amendment will not result in the loss or conversion of any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No land within the City of Napa is under a Williamson Act Contract. No loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use will occur. Furthermore, the City’s Rural Urban Limit (RUL) policy requires that all development take place with the RUL boundaries. Lands outside the RUL boundaries are protected for agricultural uses. As such, the project will not result in the conversion of agricultural farmland, conflict with land zoned for agricultural use or influence land under Williamson Act contract. Mitigation Measures: None. ATTACHMENT 4 Page 4 of 12 Page 274 of 477 Environmental Issue Area Potentially Significant Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Significant Impact, Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Conclusion: No impact to agricultural resources. III. AIR QUALITY. [Significance criteria established by the BAAQMD may be relied upon to make the following determinations] Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Discussion: No construction is proposed as part of this amendment. The proposed Zoning Amendment will not obstruct the implementation of BAAQMD plans, nor will it violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As the subject properties are previously disturbed and no new construction is proposed, the project not result in the cumulative net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment, expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, or create objectionable odors. Any future development and resulting structures would be subject to the same design review process that currently exists and impacts to sensitive receptors and the creation of objectionable odors would be subject to subsequent environmental review and analyzed during the application process. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impact to air quality. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? X b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS? X c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X Discussion: No construction is proposed as part of this amendment. Because the sites were previously developed with commercial buildings and parking lots the project site has not been identified as habitat for ATTACHMENT 4 Page 5 of 12 Page 275 of 477 Environmental Issue Area Potentially Significant Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Significant Impact, Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The site does not contain riparian habitat, wetlands, or sensitive natural communities. No vegetation/trees will be removed in conjunction with this project. The proposed Rezoning will recognize the historical commercial use of the site. The project will not result in any significant changes to the development standards that are currently applicable to the property. Future redevelopment projects will be subject to subsequent environmental review and will be evaluated for potential impacts to biological resources. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impact to biological resources. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Sec.15064.5? X b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5? X c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X Discussion: The project pertains to the use of existing undeveloped but previously disturbed properties and therefore, there are no physical changes to structures. Future redevelopment projects will be subject to subsequent environmental review and will be evaluated for potential impacts to cultural resources. Mitigation Measures: None Conclusion: No impact to cultural resources. VI. GEOLOGY & SOILS. Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Pub. 42 X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse)? X d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X Discussion: The project pertains to the Rezoning of an undeveloped, but previously disturbed properties and as such will not result in any direct changes in the environment. As with most of the San Francisco Bay Area, various sites throughout the City would be subject to ground shaking in the event of a regional earthquake. However, the ATTACHMENT 4 Page 6 of 12 Page 276 of 477 Environmental Issue Area Potentially Significant Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Significant Impact, Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact rezoning of an existing commercial property would not increase the potential to expose more people to strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides. Any future construction would be subject to environmental review associated with new development entitlement approvals. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impact to geology and soils. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X Discussion: The project will not cause an increase in cumulative greenhouse gas emissions nor will it conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing greenhouse gases. Any future structures and uses would be subject to the application review process that currently exists. Mitigation Measures: None Conclusion: No impact to greenhouse gas emissions. VIII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? X b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X e. For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? X Discussion: No construction is proposed as part of this amendment. If a future development project is proposed, it will be evaluated for its impacts with regards to hazards and hazardous materials. The uses allowed within the CL land use designation do not typically involve routine transport, handling or disposal of hazardous materials or emit hazardous emissions. The project site is not within airport land use plan boundaries. The change in land use designation will have no impact to any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site, is not within airport land use plan boundaries, and is not adjacent to wild lands. Mitigation Measures: None. ATTACHMENT 4 Page 7 of 12 Page 277 of 477 Environmental Issue Area Potentially Significant Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Significant Impact, Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Conclusion: No impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials. IX. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? X c Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? X d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? X e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Discussion: As the project pertains to existing undeveloped but previously disturbed properties, this project will not introduce new impervious surfaces which may change the rate of absorption of drainage and surface water run-off. Any future development of the property would be subject to environmental review associated with new development entitlement approvals. Since the property is not in a location that would be affected by seiches or tsunamis, the project would not be subject to these phenomena. All projects in the City are connected to City water supplies, thus will not affect any nearby wells. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impacts to hydrology and water quality. X. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or resolution of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X Discussion: The proposed Rezoning will be consistent with the zoning of adjacent to properties to the north ATTACHMENT 4 Page 8 of 12 Page 278 of 477 Environmental Issue Area Potentially Significant Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Significant Impact, Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact and south of the site; therefore, the request will not divide an established community. The Rezone would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. The project is requesting a change to the land use and zoning change to a designation which allows the development of auto sale related sues with the approval of a Use Permit. With the approval of the requested Rezoning, and subsequent Use Permit, the project would not conflict with Zoning Ordinance’s land use and development standards. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impacts to land use & planning. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? X Discussion: There are no known or documented mineral resource sites affected by the project, and mitigation measures are not required. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impacts to mineral resources. XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?? X b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? X c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project X d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X e. For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X Discussion: The Rezoning of the parcels from one type of commercial use to another type of commercial use in an established commercial area would not expose people to noise levels in excess of General Plan standards or create substantial increases in background noise levels above existing levels. The project site is not within an airport land use plan area. Any future construction would be subject to environmental review associated with new development entitlement approvals. Mitigation Measures: None Conclusion: No impact to Noise. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads and other infrastructure)? X b. Displacing substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X ATTACHMENT 4 Page 9 of 12 Page 279 of 477 Environmental Issue Area Potentially Significant Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Significant Impact, Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Discussion: The project will not significantly impact population and housing. The project sites are undeveloped and have been historically operating as auto related uses. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No significant impact to Population and Housing. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services including: X i) Fire Protection? X ii) Police Protection? X iii) Schools? X iv) Parks? X v) Other Public Facilities? X Discussion: Adequate fire and police protection, and other facilities are available to serve the project. The project does not propose any new construction. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impact to public services. XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that a substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion or recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X Discussion: This project will not significantly impact the existing parks and recreational facilities that are primarily located and designed to serve the local population. The Parks and Recreation element of the General Plan does not identify this area of the City as underserved with parks or recreation facilities and it is not anticipated that this project will require any new facilities. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impact to recreation. XVI. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X ATTACHMENT 4 Page 10 of 12 Page 280 of 477 Environmental Issue Area Potentially Significant Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Significant Impact, Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity X g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X Discussion: The project will not substantially increase traffic hazards. The Rezoning will not generate a substantial increase in traffic as the properties have been recently used for auto related uses. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: No impact to Transportation and Traffic. XVII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? X f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X Discussion: The subject site is undeveloped and no new construction is proposed as part of the project. The project will not impact utilities and service systems, and special mitigation measures are not required. Any future construction would be subject to environmental review associated with new development entitlement approvals. Mitigation Measures: None. Conclusion: The sites have previously been developed as commercial uses and the rezoning will not alter or worsen existing conditions. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No b. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in conjunction with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) No c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No ATTACHMENT 4 Page 11 of 12 Page 281 of 477 Environmental Issue Area Potentially Significant Impact, Unmitigated Potentially Significant Impact, Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Discussion: The project pertains to the future land use of existing undeveloped properties and therefore does not grant approval of physical changes to structures. As no construction is proposed, the project will not substantially increase impacts to the surrounding area or City resources. No significant impacts would occur as a result of this project. SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED IN PREPARATION OF THIS INITIAL STUDY: Project Specific Studies and Contacts: Applicant’s Written Project Statement Aerial Photo As permitted by Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this initial study incorporates several documents by reference. The reference documents identified below were utilized during the preparation of the Initial Study. The relevant information and/or analyses that have been incorporated by reference into this initial study have been summarized. Each of the documents identified below, which have been incorporated by reference, are available for review at the City of Napa Community Development Department, located at 1600 First Street, Napa, California 94559. City of Napa; General Plan Policy Document, Adopted December, 1998 (Amended 2007). City of Napa; General Plan Background Report, Adopted December, 1998. City of Napa; General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Adopted December, 1998. City of Napa; Zoning Ordinance, 2003. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Guidelines, 1996 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area ’97 Clean Air Plan, December, 1997 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Napa River/Napa Creek Flood Protection Project General Design Manual and Supplemental EIR/EIR, December, 1997. State of California, Resources Agency, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ATTACHMENT 4 Page 12 of 12 Page 282 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:856-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:8.A. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Mike Parness, City Manager Prepared By: Brian Cochran, Finance Director TITLE: City of Napa FY 2017-18 and 2018-19 Budget Adoption RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolutions approving and adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Years 2017-18 and 2018-19; and approving the City-Wide Position Staffing Plan. DISCUSSION: On June 6, 2017, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to receive public comment on the Proposed Budget for fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The City Council reviewed the proposed budget in detail at that meeting. The Proposed Budget for Fiscal Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 provides the City of Napa’s financial plan for City activities and programs for the next two years beginning July 1, 2017. The budget explains the City’s organizational structure, includes basic program descriptions and provides an overview of the City’s finances and related budget priorities, and includes recommended changes to the City’s spending and staffing plans. The goal of this budget is to balance the need to be responsive in providing services to residents, businesses and visitors in our community with the need to operate within the limitation of available resources. The budget document includes the budgets for the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Internal Service Funds, Enterprise Funds, the Successor Agency to the Napa Community Redevelopment Agency, the Housing Authority of the City of Napa and the Capital Improvement Program. During the June 6, 2017 Public Hearing, public comment on the budget was received and discussion by Council members resulted in no requested amendments to the budget as proposed. However, staff has become aware of several clean-up items over the past few weeks since the Public Hearing, and staff is proposing to incorporate these minor modifications (presented in Attachment 3) into the adopted budget. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total budget including all funds is $229.6 million for Fiscal Year 2017-18 and $225.5 million for Fiscal Year 2018-19. The total General Fund operating budget is $89.1 million for Fiscal Year 2017- 18 and represents a ten percent increase in spending compared to the Fiscal Year 2016-17 adjusted budget. For Fiscal Year 2018-19, the General Fund budget is proposed to increase by seven percent to $95.4 million. Details for all other funds are included in the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Years 2017 CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 283 of 477 File #:856-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:8.A. to $95.4 million. Details for all other funds are included in the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Years 2017 -18 and 2018-19 document posted to the website and made available for public view. The Proposed Budget is inclusive of and has been modified by the decision packages and other changes / errata outlined in the Public Hearing of June 6, 2017, as well as by the modifications presented in Attachment 3 to this staff report. CEQA: The City Manager has determined that the Recommended Action described in this Agenda Report is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Resolution of the City Council of the City of Napa, State of California, approving and adopting the budget for the Fiscal Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 with Exs “A”, “B” and “C” EX A - Link to Proposed Budget FY 2017-18 and 2018-19 EX B - City Departments and Divisions EX C - Schedule of Funds ATCH 2 - Resolution of the City Council of the City of Napa, State of California, amending the City- Wide Position Staffing Plan with Ex “A” EX A - Five Year Staffing Plan ATCH 3 - Summary of changes to proposed budget since the June 6th public hearing NOTIFICATION: None CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 284 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_Page 1 of 6 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 2017- 18 AND 2018-19 WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of City Charter sections 89, 90, and 91, and Napa Municipal Code section 3.04.010, the City Council considers and adopts its budget of estimated revenues and expenditures for each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 6, 2017 to allow for Council review and public input to the ”Proposed Budget” for Fiscal Years 2017-18 and 2018-19, which included a “Budget Errata – Changes to budget proposed on 5/16/2017” incorporated as Attachment 3; and WHEREAS, the City Council has examined the Proposed Budget, has conferred with the City Manager and appropriate staff in public study sessions, and has deliberated and considered the budget during public hearings; and WHEREAS, the proposed budget document has been updated to include changes requested by Council at the budget workshop on May 16 th, 2017 and the public hearing on June 6, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Manager is hereby directed to incorporate any amendments to the Proposed Budget, as may be made by the City Council during the public hearing on June 20, 2017 (as described on Exhibit “A” “Proposed Budget for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19” and Attachment 3 “Summary of Changes to Budget Proposed on 5/16/2017 and Updated 6/6/2017” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference) into a document entitled “City of Napa Budget, Fiscal Years 2017-18 and 2018-19.” The adopted budget may be referred to as “the Budget,” and a copy of the budget shall be filed in the office of the City Clerk. The budget is hereby adopted and approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to implement the budget in accordance with the requirements of the City Charter, the Napa Municipal Code, and this resolution. While the City Manager maintains responsibility for the implementation of the budget, the City Manager may make a written Page 285 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_Page 2 of 6 June 20, 2017 delegation of authority to implement portions of the budget to duly authorized employees within each City department. Each “department” of the City is identified on Exhibit “B,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Unless specifically authorized by this resolution, or otherwise approved by the City Council: (a) the amount appropriated in the budget for any “fund” may not be modified (each “fund” in the budget is identified on Exhibit “C,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference); (b) the amount appropriated in the budget for any capital project identified in Budget Section 7 (Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Summary) may not be modified; and (c) the amount appropriated in the budget for any “reserve” may not be modified. 4. The City Manager is authorized to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one account to another account within the same fund; provided that the City Manager is not authorized to transfer an appropriation for any reserve or any capital project without approval of the City Council. 5. The City Manager is authorized to increase appropriations for each fund in each fiscal year, in an amount not to exceed the amount encumbered but not yet expended from that fund for the previous fiscal year. The actual amount of these increased appropriations due to unexpended encumbrances will be reported to City Council as a part of the annual financial audit for the previous fiscal year. 6. The City Manager is authorized to increase appropriations for each fund in each fiscal year, in an amount not to exceed not yet expended appropriations from that fund for the previous fiscal year for continuing nonrecurring projects. 7. To the extent an operation relies on estimated fee revenue as its source of revenue, and the revenue received during the fiscal year exceeds the estimated revenue identified in the budget, the City Manager is authorized to increase appropriations for that operation and that fiscal year in an amount not to exceed the lesser of: (a) amount of the increased fee revenue or (b) 15% of the budgeted fund fee revenue estimate. The actual amount of these increased appropriations due to increased revenues are subject to approval in writing by the City Manager, filing with the Finance Director, and reporting to City Council as a part of the quarterly financial report in which the increase is authorized. 8. To the extent an operation receives donations for a specified purpose, the City Manager is authorized to increase appropriations for that operation and that fiscal year in an amount not to exceed the amount of the donation. The actual amount of these increased appropriations due to increased revenues are subject to approval in writing by the City Manager, filing with the Finance Page 286 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_Page 3 of 6 June 20, 2017 Director, and reporting to City Council as a part of the quarterly financial report in which the increase is authorized. 9. The City Council hereby adopts the Fleet Replacement Schedule identified in Budget Appendix J and authorizes the Fleet Manager to coordinate purchase the vehicles on the schedule in the fiscal year identified on the schedule within a reasonable variance of the estimated cost provided on the schedule. 10.The City Council hereby adopts the FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 budgets with the understanding that the City Manager and Finance Director will bring mid- cycle adjustments back to the City Council in June, 2018. 11.The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this resolution. 12.This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:_______ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to form: _________________________ Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 287 of 477 EXHIBIT A Proposed Budget R2017-_Page 4 of 6 June 20, 2017 Proposed Budget for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19: http://cityofnapa.org/images/finance/Budget_Financials/Budgets/FY18-19-Proposed- Budget-to-Council-as-of-May-12.pdf Page 288 of 477 EXHIBIT B City Departments and Divisions R2017-_Page 5 of 6 June 20, 2017 Department Divisions City Council Administrative Services: City Manager City Clerk City Attorney Human Resources Finance Finance Administration Accounting & Auditing Revenues & Collections Purchasing/Central Stores Information Technology Parks and Recreation Services: Parks and Recreation Services Administration Parks Recreation Building/Facility Maintenance Development Services: Community Development Administration Planning Building Inspection Code Enforcement Economic Development Housing Administration Public Works Administration Special Projects Real Property Engineering Development Engineering Construction Maintenance Fleet Management Solid Waste & Materials Diversion Enterprise Water Enterprise Public Safety: Police Administration Operations Special Operations Support Services Fire Administration Operations Prevention Page 289 of 477 EXHIBIT C Schedule of Funds R2017-_Page 6 of 6 June 20, 2017 Fund Type / Fund Name General Fund General Fund Special Revenue Funds Traffic Fund Measure T Underground Utility Impact Fire/Paramedic Impact Street Improvement Impact Development Impact Park Acquisition and Development Impact Tourism Improvement District Public Art Parking Impact Other Special Revenue (Damage Reimbursement) Housing Impact Fees CDBG Program CDBG Rehab Revolving Loan HOME Program CalHOME Grant (Down Payment Assistance Program) Successor Agency Low Mod Set Aside Assessment Districts Downtown Business District Oxbow Business District Business District Parking Land Development Tax Alston Park Trust Public Safety Programs Fire Literacy Program Golf Course Parking Security/Enforcement Parking Garage/Maintenance Capital Project Funds Capital Projects Street Resurfacing Program Sidewalk Program Proprietary Enterprise Funds Solid Waste & Materials Diversion Water Operations Proprietary Internal Service Funds Fleet Management Fund Central Stores Information Technology Risk Management Post Employment Benefits Equipment Replacement Private Purpose Trust Funds Successor Agency to the Napa Community Redevelopment Agency Page 290 of 477 ATTACHMENT 2 R2017-__Page 1 of 2 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION 2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CITY- WIDE POSITION STAFFING PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council regularly approves, by resolution, a Five-Year Budget Staffing Plan as a part of the budget review process, which documents the number of positions for each employment classification that the City Manager is authorized to fill with a City employee; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015, the City Council adopted such a Five-Year Budget Staffing Plan as a part of the Adopted Budget for Fiscal Years 2015-16 and 2016-17, and the City Council has regularly approved subsequent resolutions that amended the 2015 Staffing Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends that the City Council approve additional modifications to the previously approved Staffing plan, as set forth in this resolution, in order to more accurately reflect job skills and responsibilities of employment classifications needed to address the City’s needs in FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19; and WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends, by adoption of this resolution, that the City Council reallocate 12 positions (from one classification to a different classification), and remove 1 full time position, and add 12 full time positions in the FY 2017-18 budget, and add 4 full time positions in FY 2018-19 in order to provide essential municipal services; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the modifications to the Staffing Plan set forth in this resolution are necessary in order to guarantee sufficient resources to provide essential services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution. Page 291 of 477 ATTACHMENT 2 R2017-__Page 2 of 2 June 20, 2017 2. The City Council hereby approves the Five-Year Budget Staffing Plan (hereinafter “Staffing Plan”), as described in the City Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18 and 2018-19, and as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to approve the hiring of City employees to fill temporary position allocations, which are in addition to the positions identified in the Staffing Plan, subject to the following restrictions: a. The City Manager may only approve a temporary position allocation under this section for an existing position identified in the Staffing Plan that is filled with an incumbent City employee, and the incumbent City employee is known or anticipated to be retiring, resigning, or otherwise terminating service with the City within 180 days. b. The hiring of a City employee to fill the temporary position allocation is necessary to ease the transition of duties and maintain a consistent level of service for the community. c. The temporary position allocation shall now exceed 180 days without Council approval. d. The temporary position allocation must be funded within the approved Departmental Operating Budget. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ________________________ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to form: _______ Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 292 of 477 Appendix A Five-Year Budget Staffing Plan Position Title 2014-15 Amended 2015-16 Amended 2016-17 Amended 2017-18 Proposed 2018-19 Proposed City Manager City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Assistant City Manager - Administrative Services [1]1.00 1.00 1.00 - - Assistant City Manager - Development Services [1]- - - 1.00 1.00 Assistant to the City Manager [2]1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Community Outreach Coordinator (Management Analyst I/II) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Secretary to the City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Part Time -FTE 0.17 0.12 - - - Total full time employees 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Total part time employees 0.17 0.12 - - - Total City Manager 5.17 5.12 5.00 5.00 5.00 City Clerk City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Deputy City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Records Analyst - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Records Specialist (LT)1.00 - - - - Imaging Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Office Assistant I/II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Part Time - FTE 0.57 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 Total full time employees 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Total part time employees 0.57 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 Total City Clerk 4.57 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48 Total limited term employees 1.00 - - - - City Attorney City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Assistant City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Deputy City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Legal Secretary to the Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total City Attorney 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Human Resources Human Resources Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Assistant Human Resources Director - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Personnel Manager 1.00 - - - - Management Analyst I/II [3]1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 Safety Officer [4]1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Personnel Assistant [3][5]2.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 Office Assistant I/II [5]- - - 1.00 1.00 Part Time -FTE 0.48 - - - - Total full time employees 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Total part time employees 0.48 - - - - Total Human Resources 6.48 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Finance Administration Finance Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Finance Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Finance Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Administrative Assistant - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Administrative Secretary 1.00 - - - - Part Time -FTE - - - 0.72 0.48 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.72 4.48 Accounting & Audit Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Senior Accountant - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 Accountant 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Accounting Technician/Tech Entry 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Account Clerk I/II 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Part Time -FTE 0.46 0.46 0.46 - - 8.46 9.46 9.46 9.00 9.00 Revenue Revenue Operations Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Accounting Technician/Tech Entry 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Accounting Technician/Tech Entry (LT)1.00 - - - - Account Clerk I/II 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Part Time -FTE 0.75 - - - - 10.75 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Note: All Decision Package changes are dependent upon full review by City of Napa Human Resources and are subject to change. [1] DP-516 replaces ACM - Administrative Services with ACM - Development Services [2] DP-516 includes a classification study for this position [3] DP-509 reclasses 1 Personnel Assistant to Management Analyst I/II [4] Funded through Risk Management Internal Service Fund [5] DP-510 reclasses 1 Personnel Assistant to Office Assistant I/II Department/ Division Accounting & Auditing EXHIBIT A R2017-__Page 1 of 7 Page 293 of 477 Appendix A Five-Year Budget Staffing Plan Position Title 2014-15 Amended 2015-16 Adopted 2016-17 Adjusted 2017-18 Proposed 2018-19 Proposed Finance (Continued) Purchasing Purchasing Services Manager - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 Purchasing & Inventory Specialist [1]- - - 1.00 1.00 Management Analyst I/II - 1.00 - - - Purchasing Agent 1.00 - - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 Information Technology Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Systems Administrator [2]2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 Systems Analyst [2]5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 GIS Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Telecommunication Technician 1.00 - - - - Telecommunication Specialist 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Part Time -FTE - - - - - 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 Total full time employees 33.00 35.00 35.00 36.00 36.00 Total part time employees 1.21 0.46 0.46 0.72 0.48 Total Finance 34.21 35.46 35.46 36.72 36.48 Total limited term employees 1.00 - - - - Parks & Recreation Services Administration Parks & Recreation Services Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Management Analyst I/II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Senior Office Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Secretary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Office Assistant I/II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Part Time -FTE - 1.03 0.96 1.23 0.48 5.00 6.03 5.96 6.23 5.48 Recreation Recreation Manager - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Recreation Supervisor 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Recreation Coordinator 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Part Time -FTE [3]16.61 11.79 11.79 14.40 15.02 22.61 18.79 18.79 21.40 22.02 Parks Parks, Trees & Facilities Maintenance Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parks Trees & Facilities Supervisor 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Park Maintenance Worker III 7.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Park Maintenance Worker I/II 12.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 Maintenance Laborer 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Part Time -FTE [4]5.16 5.10 6.20 7.68 8.11 31.16 33.10 34.20 35.68 36.11 Parks, Trees & Facilities Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Maintenance Craftsworker 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Custodian 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Part Time -FTE 2.24 0.46 0.46 1.12 1.39 8.24 6.46 6.46 7.12 7.39 Total full time employees 43.00 46.00 46.00 46.00 46.00 Total part time employees 24.01 18.38 19.41 24.42 25.00 Total Parks & Recreation Services 67.01 64.38 65.41 70.42 71.00 Community Development Administration Community Development Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Management Analyst I/II [5]1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 Administrative Secretary [5]1.00 1.00 1.00 - - Office Assistant I/II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Planning Planning Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Senior Planner 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Associate Planner [6]2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Assistant Planner [6]1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 Secretary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Part Time -FTE 0.46 0.17 0.10 0.19 0.19 7.46 7.17 7.10 7.19 7.19 Note: All Decision Package changes are dependent upon full review by City of Napa Human Resources and are subject to change. [1] Moved from Public Works - Central Stores; position is managed by Finance and funded through Central Stores Internal Service Fund [2] DP-407 reclasses 1 Systems Analyst to Systems Administrator [3] Additional part-time FTE added with DP-440, DP-441 and DP-443. FY 17/18: 3.12 FTE, FY 18/19: 3.72 FTE [4] Additional part-time FTE added with DP-463 and DP-447. FY 17/18: 1.48 FTE, FY 18/19: 1.48 FTE [5] DP-494 reclasses 1 Administrative Secretary to Management Analyst I/II [6] DP-493 reclasses 1 Associate Planner to Assistant Planner Department/ Division Information Technology Bldg and Facility Maintenance EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 7 Page 294 of 477 Appendix A Five-Year Budget Staffing Plan Position Title 2014-15 Amended 2015-16 Adopted 2016-17 Adjusted 2017-18 Proposed 2018-19 Proposed Community Development (Continued) Building Inspection Chief Building Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Deputy Chief Building Official [1]- - 1.00 1.00 1.00 Senior Building Inspector [1]1.00 1.00 - - - Plans Examiner 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Building Inspector 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Permit Technician [2]1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 9.00 Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Officer 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Econ Dev & Redevelopment Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sr Development Project Coordinator - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sr Development Project Coordinator (LT)1.00 - - - - Development Project Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Manager [3]- - - 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 Housing Housing Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Housing Rehab Prgm Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rental Assistant Prgm Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Affordable Housing Representative 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Housing Rehabilitation Specialist [4]- - 1.00 - - Secretary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Housing Specialist 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Office Assistant I/II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Part Time -FTE 1.83 2.19 1.19 1.27 0.95 12.83 13.19 13.19 12.27 11.95 Total full time employees 33.00 36.00 37.00 37.00 38.00 Total part time employees 2.29 2.36 1.29 1.46 1.14 Total Community Development 35.29 38.36 38.29 38.46 39.14 Total limited term employees 1.00 - - - - Public Works Administration Public Works Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Deputy PW Director - Engineering 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Deputy PW Director - Operations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Admin Services Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Management Analyst I/II [5]- - 1.00 1.00 1.00 Accounting Technician/Tech Entry [5]1.00 1.00 - - - Secretary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Office Assistant I/II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Part Time -FTE - 1.08 1.08 0.88 0.88 7.00 8.08 8.08 7.88 7.88 Maintenance Public Works Maintenance Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Management Analyst I/II - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Associate Civil Engineer [6]- - - 1.00 1.00 Junior Engineer / Assistant Engineer [6]- 1.00 1.00 - - Engineering Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Street Field Supervisor 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Heavy Equipment Operator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Street Maintenance Worker III 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Street Maintenance Worker I/II [7]9.00 9.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 Part Time -FTE 0.46 3.31 3.31 2.81 1.85 19.46 24.31 25.31 24.81 25.85 Electrical Electrical Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Electrician III 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Electrician I/II 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Electrician I/II - (LT)1.00 1.00 - - - Part Time -FTE 0.47 - - - - 6.47 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 Note: All Decision Package changes are dependent upon full review by City of Napa Human Resources and are subject to change. [1] R2017-29 added 1 Deputy Chief Building Official and deleted 1 Senior Building Inspector [2] DP-493 adds 1 Permit Technician in FY 18/19 [3] DP-518 adds 1 Parking Manager [4] Position added at mid-cycle, never filled. Will revert back to use of PT staff. [5] R2016-36 eliminated 1 Accounting Technician - Entry and added 1 Management Analyst I/II [6] DP-432 reclasses 1 Junior/Assistant Engineer to Associate Civil Engineer [7] DP-488 removes 1.92 part-time FTE and adds 2 Street Maintenance Worker I/II in FY 18/19 Department/ Division Economic Development EXHIBIT A Page 3 of 7 Page 295 of 477 Appendix A Five-Year Budget Staffing Plan Position Title 2014-15 Amended 2015-16 Adopted 2016-17 Adjusted 2017-18 Proposed 2018-19 Proposed Public Works (Continued) Real Property Property Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Engineering Aide [1]- - - - 1.00 Part Time -FTE [1]- 0.50 0.46 - 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.46 2.00 Engineering Senior Civil Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Associate Civil Engineer [2][3]1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 Junior Engineer / Assistant Engineer [3]2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 Engineering Assistant [4]1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 Engineering Aide / Senior Engineering Aide [2][4]3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Part Time -FTE 0.23 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.19 8.23 8.27 7.27 11.19 11.19 Senior Civil Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Associate Civil Engineer [3]1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Junior Engineer / Assistant Engineer [3]2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Transportation Planner I/II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Engineering Assistant [4][5]3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 Engineering Aide / Senior Engineering Aide [4]1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 Part Time -FTE 0.22 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 9.22 11.92 13.92 12.00 12.00 Construction Senior Civil Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Junior Engineer / Assistant Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Construction Inspector [5]2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Construction Inspector Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Engineering Aide / Senior Engineering Aide 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Part Time -FTE - - - 0.19 0.19 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.19 7.19 Materials Diversion Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Management Analyst I/II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 W aste Prevention Specialist [6]- - 1.00 1.00 1.00 Waste Prevention Representative [6]1.00 1.00 - - - Senior Scalehouse Attendant [7]- - - 1.00 1.00 Scalehouse Attendant 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Part Time -FTE 2.00 2.38 2.38 2.42 2.42 7.00 7.38 7.38 8.42 8.42 Water Admin Water General Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Senior Civil Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Associate Civil Engineer 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Water Resources Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Engineering Assistant 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Water Conservation Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Junior Engineer / Assistant Engineer [8]- - - - 1.00 Engineering Aide / Senior Engineering Aide [8]2.00 - 1.00 1.00 - Engineering Aide - (LT)1.00 1.00 - - - Secretary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 10.00 10.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 Note: All Decision Package changes are dependent upon full review by City of Napa Human Resources and are subject to change. [1] DP-451 removes 0.46 part-time FTE and adds 1 Engineering Aide [2] DP-285 adds 1 Associate Civil Engineer and 1 Senior Engineering Aide. Positions will be funded through Gas Tax in FY 17/18 and Measure T in FY 18/19 [3] DP-490 moves the Special Projects Section (1 Associate Civil Engineer and 1 Junior/Assistant Engineer) from Development Engineering to Engineering [4] DP-491 moves 1 Engineering Assistant from Development Engineering to Engineering, and moves 1 Senior Engineering Aide from Engineering to Development Engineering [5] DP-497 includes a classification study for two Engineering Assistants and 1 Construction Inspector [6] R2016-94 eliminated 1 Waste Prevention Representative and added 1 Waste Prevention Specialist [7] DP-439 adds 1 Senior Scalehouse Attendant [8] DP-433 reclasses 1 Engineering Aide/Senior Engineering Aide to Junior/Assistant Engineer in FY 18/19 Development Engineering Department/ Division Material Diversion Services EXHIBIT A Page 4 of 7 Page 296 of 477 Appendix A Five-Year Budget Staffing Plan Position Title 2014-15 Amended 2015-16 Adopted 2016-17 Adjusted 2017-18 Proposed 2018-19 Proposed Public Works (Continued) Water Distribution Water Distribution System Superintendant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Water Facilities Supervisor [1]2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Supervising Water Service Worker [2]1.00 - - 1.00 1.00 Water Systems Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Water Meter Specialist [2]1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - Water Facilities Worker III 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Water Facilities Worker I/II [1]6.00 8.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 Heavy Equipment Operator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Water Services Worker 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Senior Office Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 22.00 23.00 23.00 21.00 20.00 Water Treatment Water Quality Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Water Treatment Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Plant Maintenance Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Water Facilities Supervisor [1]- - - 1.00 1.00 Water Facilities Worker I/II [1]- - - 2.00 2.00 Control Systems Administrator [3]- - 1.00 1.00 1.00 Control System Supervisor [3]1.00 1.00 - - - Control Systems Analyst [3]- - 2.00 2.00 2.00 Control System Specialist [3]2.00 2.00 - - - Senior Water Treatment Facility Operator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Water Treatment Facility Operator/Trainee [2]9.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Plant Maintenance Electrician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Plant Maintenance Mechanic III 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Plant Maintenance Mechanic I/II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Water Quality Supervisor [4]- - - 1.00 1.00 Laboratory Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Purchasing & Inventory Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Part Time -FTE 4.66 3.23 3.23 3.23 3.23 27.66 27.23 27.23 31.23 31.23 59.66 60.23 61.23 63.23 62.23 Central Stores Purchasing & Inventory Specialist [5]1.00 1.00 1.00 - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fleet Shop Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Equipment Mechanic 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Office Assistant I/II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Part Time -FTE - - - 1.38 1.38 7.00 7.00 7.00 8.38 8.38 Total full time employees 123.00 129.00 134.00 138.00 140.00 Total part time employees 8.04 11.19 11.69 12.57 11.15 Total Public Works 131.04 140.19 145.69 150.57 151.15 Total limited term employees 2.00 2.00 - - - Police Administration Police Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Administrative Services Manager 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Administrative Secretary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Secretary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Part Time -FTE 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.48 0.48 4.44 4.44 4.44 3.98 3.98 Special Operations Police Lieutenant 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Police Sergeant 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Police Officer 12.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 Police Forensic Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Homeless Outreach Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Police Property Technician [6]1.00 1.00 1.00 Part Time -FTE 5.58 3.92 3.92 2.88 2.88 24.58 25.92 26.92 25.88 25.88 Note: All Decision Package changes are dependent upon full review by City of Napa Human Resources and are subject to change. [1] Positions being moved from Water Distribution to Water Treatment [2] R2015-116 eliminated 1 Supervising Water Service Worker and added 1 Water Treatment Facility Operator. DP-426 adds back the Supervising Water Service Worker postion in FY 17/18 and eliminates the Water Meter Specialist position in FY 18/19 [3] R2017-10 eliminated 1 Control Systems Supervisor and 2 Control Systems Specialists. Added 1 Control Systems Adminstrator and 2 Control Systems Analysts [4] DP-425 adds 1 Water Quality Supervisor [5] Position moved to Finance Department [6] R2016-118 eliminated 1 Community Service Officer I/II and added 1 Police Property Technician Department/ Division Fleet Management EXHIBIT A Page 5 of 7 Page 297 of 477 Appendix A Five-Year Budget Staffing Plan Position Title 2014-15 Amended 2015-16 Adopted 2016-17 Adjusted 2017-18 Proposed 2018-19 Proposed Police (Continued) Patrol Police Captain 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Police Lieutenant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Police Sergeant 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Police Officer/Police Officer Trainee [1]45.00 44.00 44.00 46.00 46.00 Community Service Officer I/II [2]5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Part Time -FTE 0.46 0.46 0.46 2.35 2.35 60.46 59.46 59.46 63.35 63.35 Support Services Police Captain 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Communications Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Police Records Bureau Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Public Safety Dispatch Supervisor 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Public Safety Dispatcher II 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Public Safety Call Taker / Public Safety Dispatcher I 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Senior Police Records Assist.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Community Service Officer I/II [3]1.00 1.00 - - - Police Records Assistant I/II 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 Police Property Technician [4]- - - 1.00 1.00 Part Time -FTE 1.55 2.60 2.60 3.77 3.77 41.55 42.60 41.60 43.77 43.77 Total full time employees 122.50 124.50 124.50 126.50 126.50 Total part time employees 8.53 7.92 7.92 9.47 9.47 Total Police 131.03 132.42 132.42 135.97 135.97 Fire Administration Fire Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Administrative Services Manager 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Secretary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Part Time -FTE 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.22 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.72 2.72 Prevention Fire Division Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fire Prevention Inspector III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fire Prevention Inspector I/II 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Secretary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Part Time -FTE 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.77 0.77 5.55 6.55 6.55 6.77 6.77 Operations Fire Division Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fire Battalion Chief 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Fire Captain [5]16.00 15.00 15.00 16.00 16.00 Firefighter/Paramedic [6]26.00 26.00 26.00 27.00 27.00 Firefighter [6]11.00 11.00 11.00 12.00 12.00 Emergency Medical Services Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Part Time -FTE 1.79 1.79 2.29 3.31 3.31 59.79 59.79 60.29 64.31 64.31 Total full time employees 65.50 66.50 66.50 69.50 69.50 Total part time employees 2.51 2.51 3.01 4.29 4.29 Total Fire 68.01 69.01 69.51 73.79 73.79 Total City Staff 486.81 501.42 508.26 527.42 529.03 Note: All Decision Package changes are dependent upon full review by City of Napa Human Resources and are subject to change. [1] DP-478 adds 2 Police Officers [2] DP-479 adds 1 Community Service Officer I/II [3] R2016-118 eliminated 1 Community Service Officer I/II and added 1 Police Property Technician [4] DP-495 adds 1 Police Property Technician [5] DP-474 adds 1 Fire Captain [6] DP-485 adds 1 Firefighter/Paramedic and 1 Firefighter Department/ Division EXHIBIT A Page 6 of 7 Page 298 of 477 Appendix A Five-Year Budget Staffing Plan Position Title 2014-15 Amended 2015-16 Adopted 2016-17 Adjusted 2017-18 Proposed 2018-19 Proposed City Staff by Fund General Fund: General Fund - full time 370.00 387.00 392.00 399.00 403.00 General Fund - part time 40.77 37.81 38.65 46.39 44.99 General Fund subtotal 410.77 424.81 430.65 445.39 447.99 Non-General Fund: Central Stores Fund 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Risk Management Fund 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fleet Management Fund - full time 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Fleet Management Fund - part time - - - 1.38 1.38 Fleet Management subtotal 7.00 7.00 7.00 8.38 8.38 Material Diversion - full time 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 Material Diversion - part time 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.42 2.42 Material Diversion subtotal 7.38 7.38 7.38 8.42 8.42 Water - full time 55.00 57.00 58.00 60.00 59.00 Water - part time 4.66 3.23 3.23 3.23 3.23 Water subtotal 59.66 60.23 61.23 63.23 62.23 Non General Fund - full time 69.00 71.00 72.00 75.00 74.00 Non General Fund - part time 7.04 5.61 5.61 7.03 7.03 Non General Fund subtotal 76.04 76.61 77.61 82.03 81.03 Total City Staff 486.81 501.42 508.26 527.42 529.03 City Staff by Type Full Time Employees 439.00 458.00 464.00 474.00 477.00 Part Time Employees 47.81 43.42 44.26 53.42 52.03 Total City Staff 486.81 501.42 508.26 527.42 529.03 Limited Term Employees 5.00 2.00 - - - Department/ Division EXHIBIT A Page 7 of 7 Page 299 of 477 ATTACHMENT 3 Summary of Changes to Budget Proposed on 5/16/2017 and Updated 6/6/2017 General Fund Operating Description FY18 Amount Increase / (Decrease) FY19 Amount Increase / (Decrease) Revenue: Transfer in from Traffic Fund Gas Tax revenue to support DP-285 Services, Materials & Supplies expenditures.46,350 Expenditures: Public Works Services, Materials & Supplies Expenditures related to DP-285 (Measure T Program Staff); will be offset by Gas Tax revenue transferred in from the Traffic Fund.46,350 Other Funds Description FY18 Amount Increase / (Decrease) FY19 Amount Increase / (Decrease) Expenditures: Traffic Fund: DP-285 Salaries and Benefits Budget brought before Council on June 6, 2017 included expenditures related to DP-285 in the Traffic Fund. Revised budget will include these salaries and benefits expenditures in the CIP fund.(269,090) Expenditures: Traffic Fund: Transfer to CIP Fund Gas Tax revenues are being used to support DP-285 (Measure T Program Staff). Funds will be transferred from the Traffic Fund to the CIP Fund to pay for salaries and benefits for these two new positions for FY 2017/18.269,090 Expenditures: Traffic Fund: DP-285 Salaries and Benefits Budget brought before Council on June 6, 2017 included expenditures related to DP-285 in the Traffic Fund. Revised budget will include these services, materials and supplies expenditures in the General Fund.(46,350) Expenditures: Traffic Fund: Transfer to General Fund Gas Tax revenues are being used to support DP-285 (Measure T Program Staff). Funds will be transferred from the Traffic Fund to the General Fund to pay for servies, materials and supplies for this decision package for FY 2017/18.46,350 Revenue: CIP Fund: Transfers In Transfer in from Traffic Fund to support DP-285 (Measure T Program Staff) salaries and benefits expenditures.269,090 Expenditures: CIP Fund: Salaries, Benefits, etc Expenditures related to DP-285 (Measure T Program Staff) salaries and benefits.269,090 Expenditures: Fire/Paramedic Impact Fund: Debt Service Payment to General Fund for Fire Station #5 interfund loan.205,600 205,600 Expenditures: Street Improvement Impact Fund: Transfer to CIP Fund Transfer out to CIP Fund for new project ST18PW07, Soscol/Imola Intersection Improvements.10,000 200,000 Revenue: CIP Fund: Transfers In Transfer in from Street Improvement Impact Fund for new project ST18PW07, Soscol/Imola Intersection Improvements.10,000 200,000 June 20, 2017 1 Page 300 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:946-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:8.B. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Jacques R. LaRochelle, Public Works Director Prepared By: Tim Wood, Sr. Civil Engineer TITLE: Community Facilities District 2017-1, Gasser Soscol Gateway RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Adopt a Resolution Declaring the Intention to Establish Community Facilities District No. 2017- 1 Entitled "City of Napa Community Facilities District No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway)"; and 2. Adopt a Resolution Declaring the Intention to Incur Bonded Indebtedness and Other Debt for the “City of Napa Community Facilities District No 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway)”; and 3. Approve the first reading and introduction of an Ordinance Amending Napa Municipal Code Title 3 To Add a New Chapter 3.44 "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act Taxes” DISCUSSION: Background.The Gasser Soscol Gateway area has been developing as a mixed-use development for several years. For the next phases of development to proceed, several roadway and drainage improvements are required, consistent with the conditions of approval for the Gasser Master Plan. The Peter A. and Vernice H. Gasser Foundation (“Gasser Foundation”), developer of the next phases of the development, has requested that the City form a community facilities district (a “CFD”) under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Mello-Roos Act”) to fund at least $15.5 million of the costs for these improvements, which the Gasser Foundation will construct. In general terms, the boundaries of the proposed CFD are described in Attachment 3, Exhibit C, generally including parcels in and around the Gasser Master Plan boundaries, north of Imola Avenue, and west of Soscol Avenue. Property owners of the parcels within the proposed CFD (the Gasser Foundation, and Palmetto Hospitality of Napa, LLC) have petitioned the City to form the CFD, as shown on the petitions shown in Attachments 1 and 2. If the proposed CFD is approved by property owners of two-thirds of the area within the CFD boundaries, and approved by the City Council, the CFD will authorize the establishment of a special tax imposed on the parcels within the CFD. The CFD tax will generate revenue to support the issuance of bonds, to finance the construction of the public facilities described in Attachment 3, Exhibit A. Legal Authority to Establish a CFD. As identified above, the CFD is proposed to be formed and implemented under the Mello-Roos Act, which is codified in California Government Code Sections 53311 through 53368.3. City Charter Sections 4 and 88 authorize the City to adopt an ordinance to CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 301 of 477 File #:946-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:8.B. 53311 through 53368.3. City Charter Sections 4 and 88 authorize the City to adopt an ordinance to establish a system for the levy and collection of taxes in a manner authorized by State law. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the ordinance (Attachment 5) to allow the City to avail itself of the special tax proceedings under the Mello-Roos Act. Formation of CFD 2017-1.The Resolution of Intention to Establish CFD 2017-1 for the Gasser Soscol Gateway (the “Resolution of Intention to Establish”) is included as Attachment 3 to this staff report, and it includes: (1) a description of the public improvements to be funded by CFD 2017-1 (Exhibit A), (2) the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax, which establishes the maximum special tax rates for property in CFD 2017-1 (“Rate and Method”) (Exhibit B) and (3) a boundary map for the proposed CFD 2017-1 (Exhibit C). The Resolution of Intention to Incur Bonded Indebtedness and Other Debt for CFD 2017-1 for the Gasser Soscol Gateway (the “Resolution of Intention - Debt”) is included as Attachment 4, and it declares the City Council’s intent to issue bonds and other debt for CFD 2017-1 in a principal amount not to exceed $21 million. The bonds and other debt will be payable only from special taxes levied in CFD 2017-1. The resolutions of intention call for public hearings to be held on September 5, 2017. If, after holding the public hearings, the City Council decides to proceed with formation of CFD 2017-1 and authorization of bonds for CFD 2017-1, it will hold an election of the landowners in CFD 2017-1, who are the qualified electors under the Mello-Roos Act. If the City establishes CFD 2017-1, it will be authorized to levy a special tax on 23 parcels within the Soscol Gateway area. Of these parcels, 19 are already developed. Of the developed parcels, all are owned by the Gasser Foundation except for the Hampton Inn (which is owned by Palmetto Hospitality of Napa, LLC). The four undeveloped parcels are owned by the Gasser Foundation as well. Proposed tax structure for CFD 2017-1. The Rate and Method authorizes the City to levy a maximum annual tax on taxable parcels of $35,562 per acre. Maximum Term of Special Taxes.The Resolution of Intention to Establish CFD 2017-1 provides that special taxes may not be levied on taxable parcels after fiscal year 2057-58, a period of 40 years. Overall tax burden on parcel owners.The combined special taxes on all taxable parcels within CFD 2017-1 are estimated to generate over $1.3 million in revenue per year. From this amount, the City may receive $25,000 for administrative expenses related to CFD 2017-1. Use of bond proceeds and reimbursements to the Gasser Foundation. Using conservative assumptions, the City's finance team estimates that the proposed CFD 2017-1 will generate approximately $15.5 million to reimburse the Gasser Foundation for construction of public infrastructure. Bond proceeds will also be used to pay costs of issuing the bonds and fund a debt service reserve fund. Consistency with City's existing Goals and Policies for CFDs.The Mello-Roos Act requires public agencies that wish to initiate formation of a CFD to consider and adopt local goals and policies CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 302 of 477 File #:946-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:8.B. agencies that wish to initiate formation of a CFD to consider and adopt local goals and policies concerning the use of the Mello-Roos Act that contain certain require elements. On April 18, 2017, the City adopted Local Goals and Policies for CFDs formed by the City (the “Goals and Policies”). The Goals and Policies cover the topics required by the Mello-Roos Act, including the tax structure of CFDs, the facilities to be funded by CFDs, and credit issues regarding the issuance of special tax bonds for CFDs. The tax structure and the facilities to be funded by CFD 2017-1 are consistent with the Goals and Policies and the Mello-Roos Act. NEXT STEPS IN CFD 2017-1 FORMATION The second reading of the Ordinance will take place at the July 18, 2017 City Council meeting. The City Council will hold public hearings regarding the formation of CFD 2017-1 and the issuance of bonds and other debt for CFD 2017-1 on September 5, 2017. After the hearing, the Council will consider resolutions forming CFD 2017-1 and calling an election of the qualified landowner electors in CFD 2017-1. The qualified landowner electors will be asked to vote on the levy of the special tax pursuant to the Rate and Method, the issuance of the bonds and other debt and the establishment of an appropriations limit for CFD 2017-1. If the qualified landowner electors approve the levy of the special tax and the issuance of the bonds (a favorable vote of at least two-thirds of those voting is required, with each landowner receiving one vote for each acre and portion of an acre owned by it in CFD 2017-1), then the Council will consider introduction of an ordinance levying the special tax in CFD 2017-1. It is also expected that the Council will be presented on September 5 with an acquisition agreement between the City and the Gasser Foundation. The purpose of the agreement is to establish the process by which the City will accept public infrastructure constructed by the Gasser Foundation and reimburse Gasser Foundation for the related construction costs with proceeds of bonds issued for CFD 2017-1 and special tax revenues. Finally, also on September 5, the City will be asked to approve the issuance of bonds for CFD 2017-1 and related bond documents. It is anticipated that the City will file a judicial validation action in the Superior Court of the County of Napa to confirm the validity of CFD 2017-1, the CFD 2017-1 special taxes and the bonds to be issued for CFD 2017-1. Consequently, the City's finance team expects the CFD 2017-1 bonds to be issued in January 2018. The final bond documents, including the disclosure document to be distributed by the underwriter of the bonds to potential investors, will be presented for Council approval towards the end of calendar year 2017. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution of Intention to Establish and the Resolution of Intention - Debt. Staff also recommends that the City Council introduce the Ordinance. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 303 of 477 File #:946-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:8.B. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The obligation to pay special taxes for CFD 2017-1 is an obligation of the property within CFD 2017- 1. The special taxes do not constitute a personal obligation of the landowner. The City has no obligation to pay the special taxes if they are not paid by landowners in CFD 2017-1. The special taxes are secured by a lien on the taxable parcels within CFD 2017-1. When bonds are issued for CFD 2017-1, debt service will be secured solely by a pledge of the special taxes on parcels within CFD 2017-1. The City has no obligation to pay debt service on the bonds from funds other than the special taxes and moneys in the debt service reserve fund for the bonds. In connection with the issuance of the bonds for CFD 2017-1, the City will agree to initiate judicial foreclosure against parcels that are delinquent in the payment of special taxes. The costs associated with the foreclosure are payable from the special taxes. Extremely high rates of delinquencies could impact the City’s general fund if special taxes were insufficient to pay for the City's foreclosure costs. However, the City’s general fund can be reimbursed from foreclosure sale proceeds, when available. The City is responsible for administering the levy of the special taxes for CFD 2017-1, and will be reimbursed for its time and expenses with annual special tax revenues. CEQA: The Public Works Director has determined that the Recommended Action described in this Agenda Report is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060 DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Petition to Create a Community Facilities District - Gasser Foundation with Exhibits A & B EX A - Assessor Parcel Numbers EX B - Proposed Description of Facilities to be Financed by CFD ATCH 2 - Petition to Create a Community Facilities District - Palmetto Hospitality with Exhibits A & B EX A - Assessor Parcel Numbers EX B - Proposed Description of Facilities to be Financed by CFD ATCH 3 - Resolution of Intent to Establish a CFD with Exhibit A EX A - DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES TO BE FINANCED BY THE CFD EX B - Rate and Method of Apportionment EX C - Proposed Boundaries of City of Napa, CFD No. 2017-1 ATCH 4 - Resolution of Intent to Incur Bond Indebtedness ATCH 5 - Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Title 3 to Add a New Chapter 3.44 “Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act Taxes” NOTIFICATION: Legal notice of public hearing published in the Napa Valley Register on June 9, 2017. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 304 of 477 Page 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 305 of 477 Page 2 of 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 306 of 477 Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 307 of 477 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 308 of 477 Page 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 309 of 477 Page 2 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 310 of 477 Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 311 of 477 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 312 of 477 ATTACHMENT 3 R2017-__Page 1 of 7 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT ENTITLED “CITY OF NAPA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-1 (GASSER SOSCOL GATEWAY)” WHEREAS, under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (the “Act”), Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5, commencing at Section 53311, of the California Government Code, the City Council is authorized to establish a community facilities district and to act as the legislative body for a community facilities district; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having received a petition from the owners of not less than 10% of the area of land proposed to be included in the proposed community facilities district, concludes that is necessary and now desires to proceed with the establishment of a community facilities district in order to finance costs of public infrastructure necessary or incident to development within the proposed boundaries of the proposed community facilities district; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution. 2. The City Council proposes to conduct proceedings to establish a community facilities district pursuant to the Act. 3. The City Council proposes to name the community facilities district: “City of Napa Community Facilities District No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway)” (the “CFD”). 4. The City Council proposes and preliminarily approves boundaries of the CFD as shown on the map of the Proposed Boundaries of the CFD, as shown on Exhibit C attached hereto and hereby incorporated herein. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to record, or cause to be recorded, the map of the boundaries of the CFD in the office of the Recorder of Napa County within 15 days of the date of adoption of this Resolution. 5. The City Council proposes the type of public facilities listed on Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby incorporated herein (the “Facilities”) for financing by the CFD. The City Council hereby determines that the Facilities are necessary to meet increased demands placed upon local agencies as the result of development occurring within the Page 313 of 477 ATTACHMENT 3 R2017-__Page 2 of 7 June 20, 2017 CFD. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the public interest will not be served by allowing the property owners in the CFD to enter into a contract in accordance with Section 53329.5(a) of the Act. The City Council declares that, notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council, on behalf of CFD, may enter into one or more contracts directly with any of the property owners with respect to the construction and/or acquisition of the any portion of the Facilities. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to enter into joint community facilities agreements with any entity that will own or operate any of the Facilities, as may be necessary to comply with the provisions of Section 53316.2(a) and (b) of the Act. The City Council hereby declares that such joint agreements will be beneficial to owners of property in the area of the CFD. 6. The City Council hereby declares its intention, except to the extent that funds are otherwise available, to levy a special tax (the “Special Tax”) to pay directly for the Facilities and/or pay the principal and interest on bonds and other debt (as defined in the Act) of the City issued to finance the Facilities. The Special Tax will be secured by recordation of a continuing lien against all non-exempt real property in the CFD, levied annually within the CFD, and collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes, or in such other manner as the City Council or its designee shall determine, including direct billing of the affected property owners. The City Council hereby declares that the proposed rate and method of apportionment of the Special Tax among the parcels of real property within the CFD in sufficient detail to allow each landowner within the proposed CFD to estimate the maximum amount such owner will have to pay, are described in Exhibit B attached hereto and hereby incorporated herein (the “Rate and Method”). The City Council hereby declares that the Special Tax to finance Facilities to be levied in the CFD shall not be levied in the CFD after the fiscal year specified in the Rate and Method, except that a Special Tax installment that was lawfully levied in or before the final tax year and that remains delinquent may be collected in subsequent years. Under no circumstances shall the Special Tax levied against any parcel in the CFD used for private residential purposes be increased as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other parcel or parcels within the CFD by more than 10 percent. The City Council hereby finds that the provisions of Section 53313.6, 53313.7 and 53313.9 of the Act (relating to adjustments to ad valorem property taxes and schools financed by a community facilities district) are inapplicable to the proposed CFD. 7. The City Council hereby declares its intent that, except as may otherwise be provided by law or by the Rate and Method, all lands owned by any public entity, including the United States, the State of California and/or the City, or any departments or political subdivisions thereof, shall be omitted from the levy of the Special Tax to be made to cover the costs and expenses of the Facilities and the CFD. The City Council hereby declares its intent that, in the event that a portion of the property within the CFD shall become for any reason exempt, wholly or in part, from the levy of the Special Tax, the Page 314 of 477 ATTACHMENT 3 R2017-__Page 3 of 7 June 20, 2017 City Council will, on behalf of the CFD, increase the levy to the extent necessary upon the remaining property within the CFD which is not exempt in order to yield the required debt service payments and other annual expenses of the CFD, if any, subject to the provisions of the Rate and Method. 8. The City Council hereby declares its intention that the levy of the Special Tax shall be subject to the approval of the qualified electors of the CFD at a special election, and that the proposed voting procedure shall be by mailed or hand-delivered ballot among the landowners in the proposed CFD, with each owner having one vote for each acre or portion of an acre such owner owns in the CFD. 9. The City Council hereby declares its intention that, acting as the legislative body for the CFD, to cause bonds and other debt (as defined in the Act) of the City to be issued for the CFD in one or more series pursuant to the Act to finance in whole or in part the construction and/or acquisition of the Facilities. The bonds and other debt shall be in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $21,000,000, shall be issued in such series and bear interest payable semi-annually or in such other manner as the City Council shall determine, at a rate not to exceed the maximum rate of interest as may be authorized by applicable law at the time of sale of such bonds, and shall mature not to exceed 40 years from the date of the issuance thereof. 10. The City Council hereby directs the City's Director of Public Works, as the officer having charge and control of the Facilities in and for the CFD, or the designee of such officer, to study said proposed Facilities and to make, or cause to be made, and file with the City Clerk a report in writing (the “CFD Report”) presenting the following: (a) A description of the Facilities by type which will be required to adequately meet the needs of the CFD. (b) An estimate of the fair and reasonable cost of the Facilities including the cost of acquisition of lands, rights-of-way and easements, any physical facilities required in conjunction therewith and incidental expenses in connection therewith, including the costs of the proposed bond financing and all other related costs as provided in Section 53345.3 of the Act. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to make the CFD Report a part of the record of the public hearing specified below. 11. The City Council hereby appoints and fixes Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 3:30 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, in the Council Chambers, 955 School St., Napa, CA 94559, as the time and place when and where the City Council, as legislative body for the CFD, will conduct a public hearing on the establishment of the CFD and consider and finally determine whether the public interest, convenience and necessity require the formation of the CFD and the levy of the Special Tax. Page 315 of 477 ATTACHMENT 3 R2017-__Page 4 of 7 June 20, 2017 12. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to cause notice of the public hearing to be given by publication one time in a newspaper published in the area of the CFD. The City Council directs the City Clerk to complete the publication at least seven days before the date of the public hearing specified above. The City Council hereby directs the notices to be substantially in the form specified in Section 53322 of the Act. 13. The City Council reserves to itself the right and authority set forth in Section 53344.1 of the Act related to the tender of bonds, subject to any limitations set forth in any bond resolution or trust indenture related to the issuance of bonds. 14. Section 53314.9 of the Act provides that, either before or after formation of the CFD, the City may accept work in-kind from any source, including, but not limited to, private persons or private entities, may provide, by resolution, for the use of that work in- kind for any authorized purpose and the City Council may enter into an agreement (an “Acquisition Agreement”), by resolution, with the person or entity advancing the work in- kind, to reimburse the person or entity for the value, or cost, whichever is less, of the work in-kind, as determined by the City Council, with or without interest, under the conditions specified in the Act. Any work in-kind must be performed or constructed as if the work had been performed or constructed under the direction and supervision, or under the authority of, the City. The City and The Peter A. and Vernice H. Gasser Foundation, a California corporation intend to enter into an Acquisition Agreement. 15. The City Council authorizes and directs the City Manager, the Finance Director, the City Clerk and all other officers and agents of the City to take all actions necessary or advisable to give effect to the transactions contemplated by this Resolution. 16. The City Council hereby declares that its adoption of this Resolution shall in no way obligate the City Council of the City to form the CFD, and that the formation of the CFD shall be subject to the approval of the City Council by resolution following the holding of the public hearing referred to above. 17. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Page 316 of 477 ATTACHMENT 3 R2017-__Page 5 of 7 June 20, 2017 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ________________________ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to form: Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 317 of 477 ATTACHMENT 3 R2017-__Page 6 of 7 June 20, 2017 EXHIBIT A CITY OF NAPA Community Facilities District No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway) DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES TO BE FINANCED BY THE CFD The City of Napa Community Facilities District No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway) (the “CFD”) shall be authorized to finance all or a portion of the costs of acquisition, construction, and improvement of the following public improvements (the “Facilities”). The parentheticals shown below identify the related conditions of approval for the proposed development in the CFD. 1. Gasser Drive Extension Roadway Improvements (COA 24) 2. Gasser Drive Bridge over Tulocay Creek (COA 24) 3. Gasser Drive - North Drive to Soscol (COA 24) 4. Sousa Lane Intersection (COA 27; COA 28) 5. Residual Overland Improvements / Peatman Drive (North Drive) (COA 38) 6. Water Quality Improvements (COA 13, COA 39; COA WQ3; COA WQ4; COA WQ5) 7. Flood Hazard Improvements (COA 14; COA 40; COA 15; COA 41) 8. Drainage Improvements (COA 16; COA 42; COA 43; COA 44; COA 45) 9. Water System Improvements (COA 46; COA 47) The Facilities shall be constructed, whether or not acquired in their completed states, pursuant to the plans and specifications approved by the City or Napa (the "City") and the officials thereof, including the Director of Public Works. Any Facility authorized to be financed by the CFD may be financed through the construction and acquisition of the facility or through the payment of fees for such facility. The Facilities authorized to be financed may be located within or outside the boundaries of the CFD. The Facilities to be financed shall include all hard and soft costs associated with the facilities, including the costs of the acquisition of land and rights-of-way, the costs of design, engineering and planning, the costs of any environmental or traffic studies, surveys or other reports, costs related to landscaping and irrigation, soils testing, permits, plan check, and inspection fees, insurance, legal and related overhead costs, coordination and supervision and any other costs or appurtenances related to any of the foregoing as further defined in one or more acquisition agreements with the developer of the property in the CFD. Page 318 of 477 ATTACHMENT 3 R2017-__Page 7 of 7 June 20, 2017 INCIDENTAL COSTS Special taxes collected in the CFD will also fund, in whole or in part, the incidental costs associated with the Facilities authorized to be financed. Incidental costs include, but are not limited to: 1. Administrative expenses and fees including, but not limited to, costs incurred to form the CFD, to annually administer the CFD, to levy and collect special taxes for the CFD, and any other costs incurred in standard administration of the CFD by the City or their authorized consultants; 2. Any amounts needed to cure actual or estimated delinquencies in special taxes for the current or previous fiscal years; 3. Bond related expenses, including underwriters discount, reserve fund, capitalized interest, bond, disclosure, and underwriter counsel fees and all other incidental expenses; and 4. Reimbursement of costs related to the formation of the CFD advanced by the City and any landowner(s) in the CFD, or any party related to any of the foregoing, as well as reimbursement of any costs advanced by the City or any landowner(s) in the CFD or any party related to any of the foregoing, for Facilities, fees or other purposes or costs of the CFD. Special taxes may be collected and set-aside in designated funds and collected over several years, and used to fund Facilities authorized to be financed by the CFD. Page 319 of 477 EXHIBIT B TO ATTACHMENT 3 City of Napa June 6, 2017 CFD No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway) Page 1 EXHIBIT B RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT FOR CITY OF NAPA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-1 (GASSER SOSCOL GATEWAY) To the extent provided herein a Special Tax shall be levied on all Assessor’s Parcels of Taxable Property in the City of Napa Community Facilities District No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway) and collected each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2017-18, in an amount determined by the CFD Administrator through the application of the procedures described below. All of the real property in CFD No. 2017-1, unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent and in the manner herein provided. A. DEFINITIONS The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings: "Acre” or “Acreage" means the number of acres of land area of an Assessor’s Parcel as shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map or, if the land area is not shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, the land area shown on the applicable Final Map, parcel map, condominium plan, or other recorded County parcel map. One acre is equal to 43,560 square feet. "Act"means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code. "Administrative Expenses"means the following actual or reasonably estimated costs related to the administration of CFD No. 2017-1: the costs of computing the Special Taxes and preparing the annual Special Tax collection schedules (whether by the City, CFD No. 2017-1, or any designee thereof); the costs of collecting the Special Taxes (whether by the County, the City, through foreclosure proceedings, or otherwise); the costs of remitting the Special Taxes to the Trustee; the costs of the Trustee (including its legal counsel) in the discharge of the duties required of it under the Indenture; the costs to the City, CFD No. 2017-1 or any designee thereof of complying with arbitrage rebate requirements; the costs to the City, CFD No. 2017-1 or any designee thereof of complying with City, CFD No. 2017-1 or obligated persons disclosure requirements associated with applicable federal and state securities laws and of the Act; the costs associated with preparing Special Tax disclosure statements and responding to public inquiries regarding the Special Taxes; the costs of the City, CFD No. 2017-1 or any designee thereof related to an appeal of the Special Tax; the costs associated with the release of funds from an escrow account; attorney’s fees and other costs related to commencing and pursuing to completion any foreclosure of delinquent Special Taxes; the costs of City staff time and reasonable overhead relating to the administration of CFD No. 2017-1; and any other costs or third Page 320 of 477 EXHIBIT B TO ATTACHMENT 3 City of Napa June 6, 2017 CFD No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway) Page 2 party expenses estimated or advanced by the City or CFD No. 2017-1 for any other administrative purposes of CFD No. 2017-1. "Assessor's Parcel"means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor's Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor's Parcel number. "Assessor's Parcel Map"means an official map of the Assessor of the County designating parcels by Assessor's Parcel number. "Bonds" means any bonds or other debt (as defined in Section 53317(d) of the Act), whether in one or more series, issued by CFD No. 2017-1 under the Act. "CFD Administrator"means an official of the City, or designee thereof, who is responsible for determining the Special Tax Requirement, providing for the levy and collection of the Special Taxes, and other duties as set forth herein. "CFD No. 2017-1"means the City of Napa Community Facilities District No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway). "City"means the City of Napa. "County"means the County of Napa. "Developed Property"means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property, exclusive of Taxable Property Owner Association Property or Taxable Public Property, for which a building permit for construction of new building square footage (excluding any permits for additions to property where the addition is less than 1,000 square feet) was issued prior to May 1 of the prior Fiscal Year. Once a property is assigned to the Developed Property category, it cannot be reclassified in subsequent years to Undeveloped Property, "Final Map"means (i) for property other than Condominiums, a final map approved by the City pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) that creates individual lots for which building permits may be issued, or (ii) for Condominiums, a final map approved by the City and a condominium plan recorded pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1352 creating such individual lots or parcels. "Fiscal Year"means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30. "Indenture"means the indenture, fiscal agent agreement, resolution or other instrument pursuant to which Bonds are issued, as modified, amended and/or supplemented from time to time, and any instrument replacing or supplementing the same. "Maximum Special Tax"means, with respect to an Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property, the Maximum Special Tax, determined in accordance with Section C below that can be levied in any Fiscal Year on such Assessor’s Parcel. "Outstanding Bonds"means all Bonds which are outstanding under and in accordance with the provisions of the Indenture. Page 321 of 477 EXHIBIT B TO ATTACHMENT 3 City of Napa June 6, 2017 CFD No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway) Page 3 "Property Owner Association Property"means, for each Fiscal Year, any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2017-1 that is owned by or irrevocably dedicated to a property owner association, including any master or sub-association. "Proportionately"means (a) with respect to the Special Tax for Developed Property that the ratio of the actual Special Tax levy to the Maximum Special Tax is equal for all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property; (b) with respect to the Special Tax for Undeveloped Property that the ratio of the actual Special Tax levy to the Maximum Special Tax is equal for all Assessor’s Parcels of Undeveloped Property; (c) with respect to the Special Tax for Taxable Property Owner Association Property that the ratio of the actual Special Tax levy to the Maximum Special Tax is equal for all Assessor’s Parcels of Taxable Property Owner Association Property; and (d) with respect to the Special Tax for Taxable Public Property that the ratio of the actual Special Tax levy to the Maximum Special Tax is equal for all Assessor’s Parcels of Taxable Public Property. "Public Property"means, for each Fiscal Year, any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2017-1 that (i) is owned by or irrevocably offered for dedication to the federal government, the State, the County, the City or any other public agency, provided however that any property leased by a public agency to a private entity and subject to taxation under Section 53340.1 of the Act shall be taxed and classified in accordance with its use; or (ii) is encumbered by a public utility easement making impractical its use for any purpose other than that set forth in the easement. "Reserve Requirement"means the reserve requirement for the Bonds as defined in the Indenture. "Residential Property"means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit has been issued for purposes of constructing one or more residential dwelling units. "Special Tax"means the annual special tax to be levied in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property, Undeveloped Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, and Taxable Public Property to fund the Special Tax Requirement. "Special Tax Requirement"means that amount required or estimated to be required in any Fiscal Year to pay: (1) debt service and other periodic costs on the Bonds due in the calendar year commencing in such Fiscal Year; (2) directly for the acquisition or construction of authorized facilities of CFD No. 2017-1, to the extent that the inclusion of such amount does not increase the Special Tax levy beyond the step three in Section D; (3) Administrative Expenses; (4) any amount required to increase the amount on deposit in any reserve fund established for the Bonds to the Reserve Requirement applicable thereto; (5) for reasonably anticipated delinquent Special Taxes based on the delinquency rate for Special Taxes levied in the previous Fiscal Year; and (6) the costs of remarketing, credit enhancement and liquidity facility and reserve surety fees; less (7) a credit for funds available to reduce the annual Special Tax levy, as determined by the CFD Administrator pursuant to the Indenture. Page 322 of 477 EXHIBIT B TO ATTACHMENT 3 City of Napa June 6, 2017 CFD No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway) Page 4 "State"means the State of California. "Taxable Property"means, for each Fiscal Year, all of the property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2017-1 which is not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to law or Section E below. "Taxable Property Owner Association Property"means, for each Fiscal Year, all Assessor’s Parcels of Property Owner Association Property that are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to Section E below. "Taxable Public Property"means, for each Fiscal Year, all Assessor’s Parcels of Public Property that are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to law or Section E below. "Trustee"means the trustee or fiscal agent under the Indenture. "Undeveloped Property"means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property not classified as Developed Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, or Taxable Public Property. B. ASSIGNMENT TO LAND USE CATEGORIES Each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property within CFD No. 2017-1 shall be classified as Developed Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, Taxable Public Property, or Undeveloped Property, and shall be subject to the Special Tax in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment determined pursuant to Sections C, D, and E below. C. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE 1. Developed Property - Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property shall be $35,562.00 per Acre 2. Undeveloped Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, and Taxable Public Property - Maximum Special Tax The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor’s Parcel of Undeveloped Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, and Taxable Public Property shall be $35,562.00 per Acre. Page 323 of 477 EXHIBIT B TO ATTACHMENT 3 City of Napa June 6, 2017 CFD No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway) Page 5 D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX Commencing with Fiscal Year 2017-18 and for each following Fiscal Year, the CFD Administrator shall determine the Special Tax Requirement and shall levy the Special Tax as follows: 1. On July 1 of each year coordinate with the Napa County Assessor’s Office to determine if the Taxable Properties of the prior Fiscal Year are valid Assessor’s Parcels for the current Fiscal Year. If the Assessor’s Parcels of the prior Fiscal Year are valid Assessor’s Parcels proceed to Step “3” below; 2. If some or all of the Taxable Properties of the prior Fiscal Year are invalid Assessor’s Parcels for the current Fiscal Year, prorate the Maximum Special Tax for each invalid Assessor’s Parcel to the newly created Taxable Property based on their Acreage for the current Fiscal Year showing the Maximum Special Tax for each valid Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property; 3. The Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property at up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax for Developed Property, as needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement; 4. If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first three steps has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcel of UndevelopedProperty at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for Undeveloped Property as needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement; 5. If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first four steps have been completed, then the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property Owner Association Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for Taxable Property Owner Association Property; and 6. If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first five steps have been completed, then the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcel of TaxablePublic Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for Taxable Public Property. Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances shall the Special Tax levied against any Assessor’s Parcel of Residential Property for which an occupancy permit for private residential use has been issued be increased by more than 10% as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other Assessor’s Parcel within CFD No. 2017- 1. Page 324 of 477 EXHIBIT B TO ATTACHMENT 3 City of Napa June 6, 2017 CFD No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway) Page 6 E. EXEMPTIONS The CFD Administrator shall classify as Exempt Property (i) Assessor’s Parcels which are owned by, irrevocably offered for dedication, encumbered by or restricted in use by the State of California, Federal or other local governments, including school districts, (excluding all property leased by a public agency to a private entity and subject to taxation under Section 53340.1 of the Act), (ii) Assessor’s Parcels with public or utility easements making impractical their utilization for other than the purposes set forth in the easement, or (iii) Assessor’s Parcels which are owned by, irrevocably offered for dedication, encumbered by or restricted in use by a property owners' association. Notwithstanding the above, the CFD Administrator shall not classify an Assessor’s Parcel as Exempt Property if such classification would reduce the sum of all Taxable Property to less than 36.56 Acres. Assessor's Parcels which cannot be classified as Exempt Property because such classification would reduce the Acreage of all Taxable Property to less than 36.56 Acres will be classified as Taxable Public Property or Taxable Property Owners’ Association Property, and will be subject to Special Taxes commencing with step five in Section D. At such time, an Assessor’s Parcel must be classified as Taxable Public Property or Taxable Property Owners’ Association Property, the following hierarchy shall be used to determine which Assessor’s Parcel will be taxed to ensure that the Taxable Property is not less than 36.56 acres: First, an Assessor’s Parcel as designated in (iii) above Second, an Assessor’s Parcel as designated in (ii) above Third, an Assessor’s Parcel as designated in (i) above No Special Tax shall be levied on any Assessor’s Parcel that has had its Special Tax obligation prepaid in full pursuant to Section H. F. APPEALS Any property owner claiming that the amount or application of the Special Tax is not correct and requesting a refund may file a written notice of appeal and refund to that effect with the CFD Administrator not later than one calendar year after having paid the Special Tax that is disputed. The CFD Administrator shall promptly review the appeal, and if necessary, meet with the property owner, consider written and oral evidence regarding the amount of the Special Tax, and decide the appeal. If the CFD Administrator's decision requires the Special Tax be modified or changed in favor of the property owner, a cash refund shall not be made (except for the last year of levy), but an adjustment shall be made to the next Special Tax levy. Any dispute over the decision of the CFD Administrator shall be referred to an administrative hearing before a hearing officer in accordance with Napa Municipal Code Chapter 1.26 and the decision of the hearing officer shall be final. This Page 325 of 477 EXHIBIT B TO ATTACHMENT 3 City of Napa June 6, 2017 CFD No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway) Page 7 procedure shall be exclusive and its exhaustion by any property owner shall be a condition precedent to any legal action by such owner. G. MANNER OF COLLECTION The Special Tax shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that the City may directly bill the Special Tax and may collect Special Taxes at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet its financial obligations. H. PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX The Special Tax may be prepaid as described below. The following definitions apply to this Section H: "CFD Public Facilities Capacity"is equal to $15.5 million. "Construction Fund" means a fund or account, however denominated, specifically identified in the Indenture to hold funds which are available for expenditure to acquire or construct public facilities eligible for financing by CFD No. 2017-1 under the Act, including funds resulting from the levy of Special Taxes to pay directly for the acquisition or construction of authorized facilities. "Future Facilities Costs"means, as of any date, the CFD Public Facilities Capacity minus (i) public facility costs previously paid from the Construction Fund, (ii) moneys currently on deposit in the Construction Fund, and (iii) moneys currently on deposit in an escrow fund that are expected to be available to finance public facilities costs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the City makes a covenant for the benefit of the owners of Bonds, that no additional Bonds (other than refunding Bonds issued under the Act) payable from the Special Tax will be issued by CFD No. 2017-1, the Future Facilities Costs shall be reduced to $0. "Outstanding Bonds"means, for purposes of this Section H, all Bonds which are deemed to be outstanding under the Indenture after the first interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year. "Reserve Fund"means each fund established under an Indenture as a reserve for the payment of principal of, and interest and any premium on, the Bonds. Page 326 of 477 EXHIBIT B TO ATTACHMENT 3 City of Napa June 6, 2017 CFD No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway) Page 8 1. Developed Property A. Prepayment in Full The Special Tax on any Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property may be prepaid and permanently satisfied. The Special Tax obligation applicable to such Assessor's Parcel in CFD No. 2017-1 may be fully prepaid and the obligation of the Assessor's Parcel to pay the Special Tax permanently satisfied as described herein; provided that a prepayment may be made only if there are no delinquent Special Taxes with respect to such Assessor's Parcel at the time of prepayment. An owner of an Assessor's Parcel intending to prepay the Special Tax obligation shall provide the CFD Administrator with written notice of intent to prepay. Within 30 days of receipt of such written notice, the CFD Administrator shall notify such owner of the Prepayment Amount (defined below) for such Assessor's Parcel. The CFD Administrator may charge a reasonable fee for providing this calculation. The Prepayment Amount shall be calculated as summarized below (capitalized terms as defined below): Bond Redemption Amount plus Redemption Premium plus Future Facilities Amount plus Defeasance Amount plus Administrative Fees and Expenses less Reserve Fund Credit Total: equals Prepayment Amount As of the proposed date of prepayment, the Prepayment Amount shall be calculated as follows: Steps: 1. Confirm that no Special Tax delinquencies apply to such Assessor’s Parcel. 2. For Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property, compute the Maximum Special Tax applicable for the Assessor’s Parcel to be prepaid. Page 327 of 477 EXHIBIT B TO ATTACHMENT 3 City of Napa June 6, 2017 CFD No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway) Page 9 3. Divide the Maximum Special Tax computed pursuant to Step 2 by the total estimated Maximum Special Tax for all current Developed Property, and 4. Multiply the quotient computed pursuant to Step 3 by the Outstanding Bonds to compute the amount of Outstanding Bonds to be paid or redeemed (the "Bond Redemption Amount"). 5. Multiply the Bond Redemption Amount computed pursuant to Step 4 by the applicable redemption premium, if any, on the Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed (the "Redemption Premium"). 6. Compute the current Future Facilities Costs. 7. Multiply the quotient computed pursuant to Step 3 by the amount determined pursuant to Step 6 to compute the amount of Future Facilities Costs to be prepaid (the "Future Facilities Amount"). 8. Compute the amount needed to pay interest on the Bond Redemption Amount from the first bond interest payment date following the current Fiscal Year until the earliest redemption date for the Outstanding Bonds. 9. Determine the Special Tax levied on the Assessor’s Parcel in the current Fiscal Year which has not yet been paid. 10. Compute the minimum amount the CFD Administrator reasonably expects to derive from the reinvestment of the Prepayment Amount less the Future Facilities Amount and the Administrative Fees and Expenses from the date of prepayment until the redemption date for the Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed with the prepayment. 11. Add the amounts computed pursuant to Steps 8 and 9 and subtract the amount computed pursuant to Step 10 (the "Defeasance Amount"). 12. Verify the administrative fees and expenses of No. 2017-1, including the costs of computation of the prepayment, the costs to invest the prepayment proceeds, the costs of redeeming Bonds, and the costs of recording any notices to evidence the prepayment and the redemption (the "Administrative Fees and Expenses"). 13. The reserve fund credit (the "Reserve Fund Credit") shall equal the lesser of: (a) the expected reduction in the Reserve Requirement, if any, associated with the redemption of Outstanding Bonds as a result of the prepayment, or (b) the amount derived by subtracting the new Reserve Requirement in effect after the redemption of Outstanding Bonds as a result of the prepayment from the balance Page 328 of 477 EXHIBIT B TO ATTACHMENT 3 City of Napa June 6, 2017 CFD No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway) Page 10 in the Reserve Fund established under the Indenture on the prepayment date, but in no event shall such amount be less than zero. 14. The Special Tax prepayment is equal to the sum of the amounts computed pursuant to Steps 4, 5, 7, 11 and 12, less the amount computed pursuant to Step 13 (the "Prepayment Amount"). 15. From the Prepayment Amount, the amounts computed pursuant to Steps 4, 5, 11, and 13 shall be deposited into the appropriate fund or account as established under the Indenture and be used to redeem Outstanding Bonds or make debt service payments thereon. The amount computed pursuant to Step 7 shall be deposited into the Construction Fund. The amount computed pursuant to Step 12 shall be retained by CFD No. 2017-1. The Prepayment Amount may be sufficient to redeem other than a $5,000 increment of Bonds. In such cases, the increment above $5,000 or integral multiple thereof will be retained in the appropriate fund or account established under the Indenture to be used with the next redemption of Bonds or to make debt service payments. As a result of the payment of the current Fiscal Year’s Special Tax levy as determined under Step 9 (above), the CFD Administrator shall remove the current Fiscal Year’s Special Tax levy for such Assessor’s Parcel from the County tax rolls. With respect to any Assessor's Parcel on which the Special Tax is prepaid and permanently satisfied pursuant hereto, the City shall cause a notice of cancellation of special tax lien to be recorded in compliance with the Act, to indicate the prepayment and permanent satisfaction of such Special Tax and the cancellation of the Special Tax lien on such Assessor’s Parcel. B. Prepayment in Part The Special Tax on any Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property may be partially prepaid. The amount of the prepayment shall be calculated as in Section H.1.A, except that a partial prepayment shall be calculated according to the following formula: PP = (PE – A) × F + A These terms have the following meaning: PP = the partial prepayment PE = the Prepayment Amount calculated according to Section H.1.A Page 329 of 477 EXHIBIT B TO ATTACHMENT 3 City of Napa June 6, 2017 CFD No. 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway) Page 11 F = the percent by which the owner of the Assessor's Parcel is partially prepaying the Maximum Special Tax A = the Administrative Fees and Expenses according to Section H.1.A An owner of an Assessor's Parcel intending to partially prepay the Special Tax obligation shall provide the CFD Administrator with (i) written notice of intent to partially prepay and (ii) the percentage of the Special Tax to be prepaid. Within 30 days of receipt of such written notice, the CFD Administrator shall notify such owner of the partial Prepayment Amount for such Assessor’s Parcel. The CFD Administrator may charge a reasonable fee for providing this calculation. With respect to any Assessor's Parcel that is partially prepaid, CFD No. 2017-1 shall (i) distribute the funds remitted to it according to Section H.1.A. and (ii) indicate in the records of CFD No. 2017-1 that there has been a partial prepayment of the Special Tax and that a portion of the Special Tax equal to the outstanding percentage (1.00 - F) of the remaining Maximum Special Tax shall continue to be levied on such Assessor's Parcel pursuant to Section D. I. TERM OF SPECIAL TAX The Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property for a period not to exceed forty years from the Fiscal Year in which such Assessor’s Parcel is first classified as Developed Property. Notwithstanding the foregoing no Special Tax shall be levied after Fiscal Year 2057-58. Page 330 of 477 PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OFCITY OF NAPA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT No. 2017-1 CITY OF NAPACOUNTY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NAPA THIS _______ DAY OF ______________, 2017. _______________________________DOROTHY ROBERTS, CITY CLERKCITY OF NAPACOUNTY OF NAPASTATE OF CALIFORNIA I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN MAP SHOWING PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF CITY OF NAPA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-1 (GASSER SOSCOL GATEWAY), CITY OF NAPA, COUNTY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF, HELD ON THE_______DAY OF_______________, 2017, BY ITS RESOLUTION NO. _______________. FILED THIS_______DAY OF________________, 2017, AT THE HOUR OF__________O'CLOCK___M IN BOOK _______ OF MAPS OFASSESSMENT AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS AT PAGE_______, DOCUMENT NO._______________ IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER IN THE COUNTY NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. (GASSER SOSCOL GATEWAY) _______________________________DOROTHY ROBERTS, CITY CLERKCITY OF NAPACOUNTY OF NAPASTATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEET 1 OF 1 _______________________________COUNTY RECORDERCOUNTY OF NAPASTATE OF CALIFORNIA REFERENCE IS HERBY MADE TO THE ASSESSOR'S MAPS OF THE COUNTY OF NAPA FOR A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE LINES AND DIMENSIONS OF EACH LOT AND PARCEL. Reference Number Assessor Parcel Number 1 005-180-0282 005-200-0133 005-200-0274 005-200-0285 046-190-0246 046-190-0457 046-190-0528 046-190-0539 046-190-05410 046-190-06711 046-692-00112 046-692-00213 046-693-01014 046-693-01315 046-693-01416 046-693-01517 046-693-01618 046-693-01719 046-694-00420 046-694-00521 046-694-00622 046-694-00723 049-694-008 Legend CFD No. 2017-1 Boundary Parcels Reference Number1 2 3 4 6 5 9 8 11 12 13 20 21 23 19 122 14 15 1718 16 7 10 O i l C o m p a n y R d K a n s a s A v e ImolaAve Prepared by Francisco & Associates, Inc. 0 400200 Feet S o s c o l A v e GasserDrSoscolAveEXHIBIT C TO ATTACHMENT 3 R2017-__ Page 331 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 R2017-__Page 1 of 3 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS AND OTHER DEBT FOR THE “CITY OF NAPA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-1 (GASSER SOSCOL GATEWAY)” WHEREAS, the City Council has this date adopted its "Resolution of City Council of the City of Napa, State of California Declaring its Intention to Establish Community Facilities District", stating its intention to form the “City of Napa Community Facilities District 2017-1 (Gasser Soscol Gateway)” (the “CFD”) pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (the “Act”), for the purpose of financing certain public improvements (the “Facilities”) as further provided in that Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council estimates the amount required for the financing of the costs of the Facilities to be the sum of not to exceed $21,000,000; and WHEREAS, in order to finance the costs of the Facilities it is necessary to incur bonded indebtedness in the amount of not to exceed $21,000,000 on behalf of the CFD; and WHEREAS, United States Income Tax Regulations section 1.150-2 provides generally that proceeds of tax-exempt debt are not deemed to be expended when such proceeds are used for reimbursement of expenditures made prior to the date of issuance of such debt unless certain procedures are followed, one of which is a requirement that (with certain exceptions), prior to the payment of any such expenditure, the issuer declares an intention to reimburse such expenditure; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and for the public benefit that the City declares its official intent to reimburse the expenditures referenced herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution. 2. The City Council hereby declares that it is necessary to incur bonded indebtedness and other debt (as defined in the Act) in one or more series within the boundaries of the proposed CFD in the maximum aggregate principal amount of up to $21,000,000 to finance the costs of the Facilities. Page 332 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 R2017-__Page 2 of 3 June 20, 2017 3. The City Council hereby declares that the bonded indebtedness and other debt is proposed to be incurred for the purpose of financing the costs of the Facilities, including acquisition and improvement costs and all costs incidental to or connected with the accomplishment of said purposes and of the financing thereof, as permitted by Section 53345.3 of the Act. The City Council hereby declares that it reasonably expects (i) to pay certain costs of the Facilities prior to the date of issuance of the bonded indebtedness and (ii) to use a portion of the proceeds of the bonded indebtedness for reimbursement of expenditures for the Facilities that are paid before the date of issuance of the bonded indebtedness. 4. The City Council hereby declares that, acting as legislative body for the CFD, it intends to authorize the issuance and sale of bonds and other debt (as defined in the Act) in one or more series in the maximum aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $21,000,000 bearing interest payable semi-annually or in such other manner as the City Council shall determine, at a rate not to exceed the maximum rate of interest as may be authorized by applicable law at the time of sale of such bonds or other debt, and maturing not to exceed 40 years from the date of the issuance of the bonds or other debt. 5. The City Council hereby appoints and fixes Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 3:30 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, in the Council Chambers, 955 School St., Napa, CA 94559, as the time and place when and where the City Council, as legislative body for the CFD, will conduct a public hearing on the proposed bonds and other debt issues and consider and finally determine whether the public interest, convenience and necessity require the issuance of bonds and other debt of the of the City on behalf of the CFD. 6. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to cause notice of the public hearing to be given by publication one time in a newspaper of general circulation circulated within the CFD. The publication of the notice shall be completed at least seven (7) days before the date specified above for the public hearing. The notice shall be substantially in the form specified in Section 53346 of the Act, with the form summarizing the provisions hereof hereby specifically approved. 7. The City Council hereby declares that its adoption of this Resolution shall in no way obligate the City Council of the City to form the CFD or to issue bonds or other debt for the CFD. Issuance of the bonds shall be subject to the approval of the City Council by resolution following the holding of the public hearing referred to above. 8. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Page 333 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 R2017-__Page 3 of 3 June 20, 2017 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ________________________ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to form: Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 334 of 477 ATTACHMENT 5 O2017-__Page 1 of 3 June 20, 2017 ORDINANCE O2017-__ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AMENDING NAPA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 3 TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 3.44 “MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES ACT TAXES” WHEREAS, the City has broad constitutional “home rule” authority as a California charter city, pursuant to California Constitution Article XI, Section 5, and City Charter Section 4, to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to conflicting provisions in the City Charter, state or federal constitutions, federal laws, or state statutes in matters of statewide concern; and WHEREAS, City Charter Section 4 provides that the City has and may exercise all powers that are conferred upon municipalities by the Constitution and laws of the State of California, and which it would be lawful for the Charter specifically to enumerate, and no enumeration of particular powers in and by the Charter shall be held to be exclusive; and WHEREAS, City Charter Section 88 states that the City Council, by ordinance, shall provide a system, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Charter, for the assessment, levy and collection of all City taxes, and that other provisions of the Charter concerning the assessment, levy and collection of taxes shall be subject to the provisions of any such ordinance while the same shall be in force; and WHEREAS, City Charter Section 88 further states that the City Council shall have the power to avail itself, by ordinance, of any law of the State of California whereby assessments may be made by the Assessor of the County in which the City is situated and taxes collected by the Tax Collector of said County; and WHEREAS, the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Chapter 2.5, commencing with Section 53311 of Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the California Government Code), as amended from time to time (the “Mello-Roos Act”), provides an alternative method of financing certain public capital facilities and services through the levying of special taxes and the incurrence of bonded indebtedness and other debt within the boundaries of a community facilities district (if the tax and the debt are approved by two- thirds vote of qualified electors within the district); and WHEREAS, under the Mello-Roos Act, the qualified electors of a special tax election within a community facilities district shall be the registered voters within the district; however, if there are fewer than 12 registered voters within the district, the qualified electors shall be the owners of property within the district, each casting one vote for each acre or portion of an acre owned by it within the district; and WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized to establish a community facilities district under the Mello-Roos Act, and to act as the legislative body for a community facilities district; and Page 335 of 477 ATTACHMENT 5 O2017-__Page 2 of 3 June 20, 2017 WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to establish a system for availing itself of the Mello-Roos Act whenever it determines that it is necessary or desirable to carry out the purposes of the Mello-Roos Act; and WHEREAS, the City’s establishment of a system for availing itself of the Mello- Roos Act, as authorized by City Charter Sections 4 and 88 and as summarized in the recitals of this ordinance, is supplemental to, and not in conflict with, alternative taxing systems identified in City Charter Sections 93, 95, 95.1, and 96; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meeting of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Napa as follows: SECTION 1:Amendment. Napa Municipal Code Title 3 is hereby amended to add a new Chapter 3.44 as follows: “Chapter 3.44 Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act Taxes Sections: 3.44.010 Definitions.3.44.020 Use of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act. 3.44.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter: “Mello-Roos Act” means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Chapter 2.5, commencing with Section 53311 of Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the California Government Code), as amended from time to time. 3.44.020 Use of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act. A. The City hereby avails itself of the alternative method of financing certain public capital facilities and services as set forth in the Mello-Roos Act. The City Council may authorize the financing of certain public capital facilities or services pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act, whenever the Council determines by resolution that it is necessary or desirable to do so. B. Whenever the City forms a community facilities district pursuant to this chapter, the City Council shall act as the legislative body for the district. Page 336 of 477 ATTACHMENT 5 O2017-__Page 3 of 3 June 20, 2017 SECTION 2:Severability. If any section, sub-section, subdivision, paragraph, clause or phrase in this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections or portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, sub-section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub- sections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3:Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following adoption. City of Napa, a municipal corporation MAYOR: _______________________________ ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NAPA STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF NAPA SS: CITY OF NAPA I, Dorothy Roberts, City Clerk of the City of Napa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance had its first reading and was introduced during the public meeting of the City Council on the 20 th day of June, 2017, and had its second reading and was adopted and passed during the public meeting of the City Council on the ___ day of ____, 20__, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: __________________________ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to Form: ________________________ Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 337 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:968-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:9.A. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Dorothy Roberts, City Clerk Prepared By: Tiffany Carranza, Office Assistant II TITLE: Cultural Heritage Commission Membership RECOMMENDED ACTION: Interview applicants and appoint two individuals to the Cultural Heritage Commission; with one being designated as a Preservation Professional, terms effective July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019. DISCUSSION: COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION The Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC), is a five-member advisory body to the City Council on matters related to preservation of historic resources, particularly regarding the City’s Historic Preservation Element (within the City’s General Plan). The Commission acts as the decision-making body for specified actions, particularly related to the consideration of certificates of appropriateness. (For detailed information on the composition, duties, and qualifications, see NMC Chapters 2.70 and 15.52). No less than two members of the Commission must be designated “preservation professionals” defined as those who demonstrate professional experience in the field of architecture, landscape architecture, history, architectural history, rehabilitation and construction, urban planning, American studies, cultural geography, pre-historic and historic archeology, folklore or cultural anthropology, conservation, or other historic preservation related disciplines to such extent available in the community. All members of the Commission must be registered voters and full-time residents, with the exception of the two designated preservation professionals, who may be full time residents of either the City of Napa or the County of Napa NUMBER AND TIMING OF VACANCIES INCLUDING SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS There are two seats to be filled due to the term expirations of Deborah Macdonald and Sarah Van CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 338 of 477 File #:968-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:9.A. Giesen, effective June 30, 2017. Ms. Van Giesen is serving in the capacity as one of the two preservation professional (see above definition). In accordance with NMC 2.70.060, the recruitment and selection process should be conducted in order to encourage adequate representation from the city’s historic districts, including Alta Heights, Downtown Napa, Spencer’s Addition/West Napa, Soscol Gateway/East Napa, and the Napa Abajo/Fuller Park National Register District. RECRUITMENT PROCESS The City Clerk accepted applications for the Committee from April 27, 2017 through May 26, 2017. Recruitment announcements were published on the City’s website, posted at various locations at City Hall, Human Resources, and the Community Services building, and sent to the Napa County Library, Napa Valley College, Napa Chamber of Commerce, Napa Valley Unified School District, Napa County Board of Supervisors, Napa County Administration, Napa County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Napa Valley Coalition of Non-Profit Agencies, Napa Valley Community Housing, Puertas Abiertas Community Resource Center, and Leadership Napa Valley. APPLICATIONS RECEIVED Three applications were received: Deborah Macdonald, Brett Rushing and Sarah Van Giesen. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None CEQA: The City Clerk has determined that the recommended action described in this agenda report is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Applications NOTIFICATION: Applicants CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 339 of 477 Submit Date: May 02, 2017 First Name Middle Initial Last Name Email Address Street Address Suite or Apt City State Postal Code Primary Phone Alternate Phone Length of Residence in the City of Napa: Length of Residence in the County of Napa: Employer Job Title Cultural Heritage Commission: Submitted City of Napa Boards & Commissions Profile Mailing Address (if different than Resident Address above) Registered to vote in the City of Napa? Yes No Interests & Experiences Which Boards would you like to apply for? Cultural Heritage Commission Deborah Macdonald Napa CA 94558 6 years 6 years self President, Textured Design Napa Deborah Macdonald Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 17 Page 340 of 477 Upload a Resume Have you ever attended a meeting of this board? If so, how many? Question applies to Cultural Heritage Commission,Planning Commission. Some Commissions and Boards require specific seats to be designated as "Design Professionals". Are you applying as a Design Professional? If you have marked "YES", please provide details under "Relevant Experience" in this section. You may attach your resume below. Yes No Community Service Experience: Collabria Care (f/k/a Napa Valley Hospice & Adult Day Services (2013 to present) Community Development Block Grant Committee (2012-2014) Cultural Heritage Commission (February 2015 to present) Breast Cancer Registry (2005-2011) Education: New England School of Law, JD, (1982) Rutgers University, BA History (1979) Other relevant experience or expertise: I practiced law for over 25 years. I majored in history in college and was also involved in the preservation of Paul Revere's original coppersmith barn located on the premises of my employer/manufacturer. I also started two small businesses. Additional Questions What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this board? My understanding of the role and responsibility of this board is to make recommendations to the City Council on the designation of landmarks and historic districts, to review and make recommendations on Certificates of Appropriateness related to renovation of historic resources, and to review and make comments on issues related to the historic resources of the committee.As a Commissioner, I have attended all but two meetings of this board during my entire tenure. Deborah Macdonald Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 of 17 Page 341 of 477 What duties of this board are most interesting to you? The duties of this board that are most interesting to me is ensuring that the applicants for Certificates of Appropriateness have full and fair opportunities to present the issues and listening to the concerns of the community members who always present new and interesting ways of seeing the issues presented. I am passionate about preserving our historic resources and promoting our local history. I am also pleased that the update and review of the Preservation Ordinance has been accomplished. What activities of this board are least interesting to you? The activities of this board that are least interesting to me are reviewing the annual reports/plans presented to the State. What programs or projects would you like to see improved or implemented? Now that the historic signage program has been "green lighted", I would like to see a larger scale promotion of our local history. I would also like to see status survey updates supplemented with owners' concerns and the impacts of their historic preservation designation, providing context for planning. How would you approach improving these project(s) or program(s)? I would convene a forum of historic property owners to solicit their concerns and input. I would also like to see a full publicity campaign and educational forum to promote and explain the historic signage program. Are you involved in any organizations or activities that may result in a conflict of interest if you are appointed to this board? I am not involved in any organizations or activities that may result in a conflict of interest if I were re- appointed to this board. Please list two local references and their phone numbers: How did you learn of this vacancy? Other Deborah Macdonald Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 3 of 17 Page 342 of 477 DEBORAH A. MACDONALD, ESQ. PROFILE Senior strategic, operational, and community leader, entrepreneur, and attorney with over 25 years experience across multiple industry sectors. Rare blend of exceptionally strong cognitive and communicative and capabilities, emotional intelligence, legal and business savvy, financial acumen, adaptability and ability to learn new subject areas quickly and handle multiple responsibilities simultaneously. Participatory management style, accomplished motivator, strong track record of achievement in creative and innovative problem solving. EDUCATION ·Juris Doctor: New England School of Law ·BA History, Rutgers University – High Distinction ·MIT Sloan School of Management Greater Boston Executive Program in Business Management ·Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University - Merger Week; Finance for Executives ·Harvard Law School, Program on Negotiation for Senior Executives ·Napa Valley College, Fundamentals of Computer Aided Design; Introduction to Photoshop SUMMARY OF SKILLS Entrepreneurial and Business Leadership ·Founded and led two for profit businesses, one nonprofit affiliate, and instrumental in startup of clients’ nonprofit startups ·Led high profile nonprofit foundation, including staff and fundraising oversight, program and service development, budget and contract management ·Managed multimodality health care operation including administrative, professional and technical employees, and volunteers ·Formed and managed startup stand alone mammography screening center serving the underserved ·Provided strong P&L results-oriented financial leadership ·Created and implemented business, strategic, and marketing plans ·Organized, drafted, and developed start up funding initiatives ·Forged strong relationships with industry organizations and cultivated strategic private, public and non-profit sector alliances ·Evaluated and advised on equipment leases, joint ventures, new revenue avenues, productivity advances in health care ·Provided interim legal and operational management services for health care entities · Managed Emergency Department Care Coordination/Community Health Center medical home project, ensuring cross collaboration, fostering partnerships, and improving the quality and coordination of care Strategic Planning ·Led strategic planning processes for biotech incubator, vision services foundation, community service organizations ·Led CEO and organizational succession planning ·Devised social responsibility programs for physician-led companies including nonprofit foundation 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 4 of 17 Page 343 of 477 formation strategy, mission, vision, and program development ·Collaborated with senior staff to identify, conceptualize and develop major business opportunities in line with strategic and business plans Organizational and Financial Management ·Drafted business plan rationale for funding, return on community investment/value proposition, market and data analyses, research, stakeholder views, survey development, for community health collaborative ·Created and oversaw budgets, pro forma, and other financial documents ·Managed corporate headquarters legal department, provided legal services for the corporation and over 22 subsidiaries internationally ·Managed, negotiated, and closed mergers and acquisitions ·Closed $15M asset based re-financing ·Saved over $2M through the successful management of complex product liability litigation Marketing and Public Relations ·Created and directed public relations and marketing communications documents and plans ·Developed program promotions, agreements, brochures, newsletters, annual reports ·Researched and monitored healthcare advocacy efforts ·Represented interests in industry related groups, educating public and media, and prepared written materials ·Developed partnerships and facilitated collaborations ·Designed and implemented marketing and outreach plan for medical professionals Fund-Raising Activities ·Organized, drafted, and developed start up funding initiatives ·Created grant applications and donor solicitations; raised $150k to support programs and events ·Led event planning and managed execution for over 1,200-person fundraiser ·Researched local impact and community specific data ·Advised local arts organization on funding schemes ·Coordinated volunteer involvement Policy Evaluation and Development ·Led federal compliance efforts, including patient privacy and electronic submissions standards ·Performed comprehensive legal audit of records and systems and made recommendations for all holdings, including corporate, human resources, marketing, sales, licensing, environmental, and manufacturing ·Authored compliance, human resource, and export policies ·Directed and developed SEC regulatory and stock exchange rules of compliance and documentation, and listing applications ·Oversaw corporate government and regulatory filings Board and External Decision-Making Bodies Experience ·Board officer, member and chair of board finance and governance committees ·Facilitated board meetings, conducted and analyzed board self-assessments, provided board training and board governance guidance ·Performed public company corporate legal and secretarial functions ·General practice of law with appearances at all court levels 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 5 of 17 Page 344 of 477 ·Worked effectively with regulatory bodies to obtain permits, approvals, and decisions ·Interfaced with trade organizations to obtain cooperative support WORK HISTORY 2012 to Present: Founder and President, Napa Home, LLC d/b/a Textured Design Napa 2006 to Present:Founder and President, Core Corporate Consulting, LLC 2004 to 2006:Executive Director, Cris Collinsworth ProScan Foundation 2002 to 2004:Director-designate, Greater Cincinnati Cancer Legal Resource Center, Ft. Thomas, KY 2000 to 2002:General Counsel, Oncology/Hematology Care, Inc.; Cembex Care Solutions, Inc., Cincinnati, OH 1999:Consultant, Continental Graphics Holdings, Inc., Los Angeles, CA 1998:Associate General Counsel; General Counsel (designate) of business unit spin- off, Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA 1992 to 1998:General Counsel, Assistant Secretary/Clerk, Plymouth Rubber Company, Inc., Canton, MA 1990 to 1992:General Counsel, Datamedia Corporation, Nashua, NH 1986 to 1990:Counsel, NEC Technologies, Inc., Boxborough, MA 1981 to 1986:Associate, Cohen & Shiels, Boston, MA; Hayt, Hayt & Landau, Lynnfield, MA; Goodman & Garr, Boston, MA PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND ACTIVITIES ·Licensed to practice law in California, (active), Ohio (inactive), and Massachusetts, (inactive) ·2010 Athena Award Finalist, recognition for professional excellence, giving back to communities, and creating leadership opportunities for women ·Leadership Napa Valley Class 27; Member of Practicum Group organizing Napa Valley Nonprofit Board PICK ·Commissioner, Cultural Heritage Commission, City of Napa ·Director, Governance Chair, Executive Committee, Collabria Care, (f/k/a Napa Valley Hospice & Adult Day Services) ·Associate Member, Napa Valley Coalitin of Nonprofit Agencies (2011-2015) ·Presenter, Greater Cincinnati Health Council, Solutions 2009 Senior Executive Breakfast, “The Strategic Advantage to Community Benefit” ·Lecturer, Northern Kentucky Chamber University, “Corporate Social Responsibility: Circle Of CSR Competitive Advantage” (2009) ·Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), “Connexions” August 2008, “Doing Well By Doing Good”, by Deborah Macdonald, Esq., Founder, Core Corporate Consulting ·BusinessWise (NPR) Radio Program, Corporate Social Responsibility, April 15, 2008 ·President, Greater Cincinnati Breast Cancer Registry Advisory Board (2008-2009) ·Lecturer, Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce Top Tier Leadership, “Crafting And Articulating A Vision” (Spring and Fall Sessions, 2007) ·Presenter, Health Foundation, Skills Building for Non Profits in Strategic Planning and Succession Planning (July 2007) ·Presenter, Leadership Council of Human Service Executives, Executive Toolbox, Succession Planning (2006) ·Board Member, St. Elizabeth Foundation (2002-2004) ·Member of Communities Joined in Action (2007-2011) ·Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce Health Policy Committee (2007) ·President, Ovation Theatre Company (2004 – 2007) ·Fine Arts Fund Cincinnati, Arts Resource Council (2009) 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 6 of 17 Page 345 of 477 ·Business Volunteers for the Arts Advisor, 2002-2004 ·Xavier University Women of Excellence Mentor Committee (2009) ·Director, Treasurer, head of Finance Committee, Neponset Valley Nursing Association, Inc. and Neponset Valley Hospice (1993-1998) 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 7 of 17 Page 346 of 477 Submit Date: May 24, 2017 First Name Middle Initial Last Name Email Address Street Address Suite or Apt City State Postal Code Primary Phone Alternate Phone Length of Residence in the City of Napa: Length of Residence in the County of Napa: Employer Job Title Cultural Heritage Commission: Submitted City of Napa Boards & Commissions Profile Mailing Address (if different than Resident Address above) Registered to vote in the City of Napa? Yes No Interests & Experiences Which Boards would you like to apply for? Cultural Heritage Commission Brett Rushing Napa CA 94558 1 yr 1 yr State of Californisa Supervising Environmental Planner Brett Rushing Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 8 of 17 Page 347 of 477 Upload a Resume Question applies to Planning Commission,Cultural Heritage Commission. Some Commissions and Boards require specific seats to be designated as "Design Professionals". Are you applying as a Design Professional? If you have marked "YES", please provide details under "Relevant Experience" in this section. You may attach your resume below. Yes No Community Service Experience: None outside of my civil service. I am new to Napa and would like to get involved. Education: Louisiana State University, BA Anthropology, BA Art History San Francisco State University, MA Anthropology (Archaeology) Other relevant experience or expertise: I am the Office Chief for the Office of Cultural Resource Studies at Caltrans in Oakland. I supervise a team of archaeologists and architectural historians in CEQA/NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA compliance for small and large transportation projects. I also work with CLGs and local agencies through the Office of Local Assistance to ensure compliance (CEQA/NHPA/NEPA) for federally funded local projects. I have worked in historic preservation for 20 years in California (Bay Area) and the West. I have worked for small companies and large environmental consulting firms and for the last 12 years, for the Dept. of Transportation. I regularly consult with the SHPO's office and serve as the District Native American Coordinator conducting consultation with tribes and individuals. I have conducted a few architectural studies and I am very familiar with the criteria for NRHP listing for built resources, having served as supervisor for an office of architectural historians. I won't bore you with any more details. But, I would be happy to supply a resume. Additional Questions What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this board? To preserve, protect and enhance the CIty's cultural, archaeological and historic heritage. Brett Rushing Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 9 of 17 Page 348 of 477 Have you ever attended a meeting of this board? If so, how many? What duties of this board are most interesting to you? Identification, evaluation and protection of the history of Napa. I am particularly interested in cultural landscape and the native American presence in the Valley and identifying ways to educate the public on those resources that may go unnoticed by the citizens of Napa. I do quite a bit of public outreach in my current position and I recognize the importance of including the public through educational programs. I am also interested in preserving the architectural heritage of the City. Napa has so much architectural character, I would like to do my part to preserve and protect the resources. What activities of this board are least interesting to you? None What programs or projects would you like to see improved or implemented? i would like to find more ways to foster appreciation of the landscapes, locations and resources by the public. If the public is aware of these resources, they will undoubtedly take a more active role in their protection. How would you approach improving these project(s) or program(s)? Outreach to schools, civic organizations, historical societies and tribes to foster pride in the City and it's citizens. Are you involved in any organizations or activities that may result in a conflict of interest if you are appointed to this board? None that I know of, unless my current employment for the State would somehow conflict. Please list two local references and their phone numbers: How did you learn of this vacancy? Internet Yes. Just 1. (I just found out this board exists!) Brett Rushing Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 10 of 17 Page 349 of 477 Submit Date: May 26, 2017 First Name Middle Initial Last Name Email Address Street Address Suite or Apt City State Postal Code Primary Phone Alternate Phone Length of Residence in the City of Napa: Length of Residence in the County of Napa: Employer Job Title City of Napa Boards & Commissions Profile Mailing Address (if different than Resident Address above) Registered to vote in the City of Napa? Yes No Interests & Experiences Which Boards would you like to apply for? Cultural Heritage Commission: Submitted Sarah L Van Giesen Napa CA 94559 18 years 18 years Self Architectural Designer / Project Manager Sarah L Van Giesen Page 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 11 of 17 Page 350 of 477 Upload a Resume Have you ever attended a meeting of this board? If so, how many? Question applies to Cultural Heritage Commission,Planning Commission. Some Commissions and Boards require specific seats to be designated as "Design Professionals". Are you applying as a Design Professional? If you have marked "YES", please provide details under "Relevant Experience" in this section. You may attach your resume below. Yes No Community Service Experience: Downtown Specific Plan Steering Comm. - June 2009 - June 2012, Preservation Professional Alta Heights Magnet School Site Council - August 2010-June 2016, Chairperson Leadership Napa Valley - Class 25 - September 2012 - May 2013 Napa County Landmarks - October 2007 - Present, Vice President, Secretary City of Napa Cultural Heritage Commission - June 2003 - Present, Chairperson, Vice - Chairperson Education: University of California, Berkeley - Bachelor of Arts, Architecture, Graduation June 1988 University of Washington, Seattle- Masters of Architecture / Certificate of Historic Preservation and Planning, Graduation June 1994 Other relevant experience or expertise: Please see attached resume. Additional Questions What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this board? To serve at the will of City Council to make sound and fair choices to protect and preserve cultural icons, or portions thereof, when appropriate. YES, more than I can count over the past 14 years! Sarah L Van Giesen Page 2 of 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 12 of 17 Page 351 of 477 What duties of this board are most interesting to you? The C of A process has always been the most rewarding and challenging. When able to engage in a dialog with applicants to best reach a compromise that is both appropriate and thoughtful while at the same time acceptable for the Applicant, the City and the surrounding neighborhood / environs is what continues to interest me to serve the City and the Council. What activities of this board are least interesting to you? Once again I will need to say that the training for Brown Act is the least "stimulating" part of being a Commissioner. However, I know that this continues to be an important training that will always add some new thoughts on how to appropriately engage in dialog with other commissioners as well as with other members and organizations in our community. What programs or projects would you like to see improved or implemented? 1) I want to finish the process of creating a sustainable Historic Signage Program for the City of Napa. We are so close to implementing the now created and approved signage package for the only local City of Napa Historic district, Calistoga. I want to work with the Council in addition to all professionals necessary to see this signage package get fabricated and installed in Calistoga Historic District. 2) I would like to continue this momentum with the signage program in the Calistoga District and work to make the Napa Abajo Fuller Park the next local Historic District. It is already a Federal Historic District. Once this is appointed, then work towards getting the signage package fabricated and installed in this district. 3) I have a great desire to work with Council and the CHC to look towards nominating some of the more significant potential Historic Districts to become actual Historic Districts. The City with huge support from the preservation community and other neighborhood leaders has already spent a great deal of money in the thorough Page and Turnbull Historic Context Statement document for the City of Napa. This report has already named and prioritized potential Historic Districts. Before this document is outdated and the state may require a new one, the CHC should work with council to see these professional recommendations become a reality to name some of the Districts that are closer to our downtown core. With the great growth in our City, these districts are a "marketing treasure" to entice even more visitors to the City of Napa. 4) I would like to see if the CHC will be able to find a place to reuse the large beautiful stones that were a part of the historic bridge over the Napa Creek. Perhaps they could be used in some capacity in some of the many projects that are coming to the City of Napa. If not used now, then at least create a planned thought to come out of "retirement!" Sarah L Van Giesen Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 13 of 17 Page 352 of 477 How would you approach improving these project(s) or program(s)? 1) Continue to work with city staff to find the fabricators for the signs and monuments. Will also work with Public Works to find the appropriate locations for the signs in a tasteful amount of locations. 2) Work with the neighborhood of Napa Abjao Fuller Park, local Preservation leaders, the City Staff and SHPO to create the most streamline process to nominate the District into a Local Historic District. We would hold some Public Meetings to inform the neighborhood of the nomination process. 3) For nomination of the potential districts, again work with the neighborhoods, the City staff, SHPO and the consultant that created the Historic Context Statement, Page and Turbull. 4) For the large "mothballed" bridge stones, see if any local developers, such as those working on Stone Brewery, could use them in their landscaping. Remind the Planning Commission that these large stones are STILL available for use and perhaps they could recommend the use of them to some applicants. Work with the City of Napa Parks and Recreation Commission to hear their thoughts on possible reuse in the redesign of Kennedy Park. Are you involved in any organizations or activities that may result in a conflict of interest if you are appointed to this board? No Please list two local references and their phone numbers: How did you learn of this vacancy? Other Sarah L Van Giesen Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 14 of 17 Page 353 of 477 SARAH L. VAN GIESEN SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS:  Communication: Proven ability to work on multiple tasks in a coordinated team effort to achieve common goals. Excellent verbal presentation and written communication skills.  Management Experience: 16 plus years as a manager of people, design, & construction. Proven expertise in troubleshooting and quickly reaching solutions for difficult situations.  Comprehensive Design / Construction Training: Experience in the development of projects through all phases of design and construction. Solid foundation with schematics, design development, construction documents, budgeting, scheduling, permitting, construction admin. and punch lists.  People Relations: Successful experience working with Clients, Engineers, Architects, Tenant Coordinators, Owner’s representatives, subcontractors and vendors as a liaison between all involved parties. EDUCATION: Master of Architecture, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 1994 Certificate of Achievement in Historic Preservation Planning and Design Bachelor of Arts, Architecture, College of Environmental Design, University of California at Berkeley, 1988. AWARDS: College of Architecture and Urban Planning Award for Group Projects, U of W, 1994 Student Award for Outstanding Preservation / Adaptive Reuse Project, U of W, 1994 Associated Students of UC Berkeley, Bears Lair Design Competition, 1988 Awarded 1st place in an open competition for a $1.2 million renovation of the restaurant & bar / entertainment facility. Youth For Understanding Scholarship Award, Oslo, Norway Student, 1984 Girls State Recipient, Santa Rosa High School, Sonoma County, 1983 AFFILIATIONS / HOBBIES: Member of Chaperone Group that took U12 Premier Soccer Team to Budapest Hungary – summer 2016 Member of River Middle School 8th grade Event Planning Committee – 2016 - Present Alta Heights Magnet School - School Site Council, Chairperson, August, 2010 to 2016 Downtown Napa Specific Plan Steering Committee Member, June 2009 to 2012 Chair of 300+ person fundraiser, Gator Royale, Alta Heights Elementary School, August 2009 to March 2010 Joint Venture Committee of Napa County Landmarks & Napa County Historical Society, Oct. 2011 to 2015 Napa County Landmarks, Vice President and Board Member, October 2007 to present Commissioner on City of Napa Cultural Heritage Commission, June 2003 to present Member National Trust for Historic Preservation, Napa County Historical Society & CA Preservation Found. Lifetime Member University of California Alumni Association and California Women’s Crew Alumni Hobbies include: Painting, sketching, photography, travel, triathlons, skiing and singing in choral groups. FOR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, PLEASE CONTINUE ATTACHMENT 1 Page 15 of 17 Page 354 of 477 SARAH L. VAN GIESEN Page 2 EXPERIENCE September 2014 - Present NAPA DESIGN PARTNERS Napa, CA ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER, PRESERVATIONIST, PROJECT MANAGER Design and Preservation work Include: 1) Renovations to various historic homes in Napa County. 2) Historic Assessments for various historic homes in Napa County. 3) Historic Goodman Mansion – renovations to earthquake damage as well as design of new historically sensitive egress stair. 4) Consulting on sensitive Historic Preservation and adaptive re-use matters in relation to new construction on and around historic structures. August 1999 - Present VAN GIESEN DESIGNS Napa, CA DESIGNER, PROJECT MANAGER, PLANNER Designs Include: 1) Kitchen Design, Santa Rosa- ‘Sixties’ design is ‘gutted’ & re-designed with modern European sensibilities. 2) S. F. Pacific Heights Renovation-interior finishes & colorist consultant; re-design of all window fenestration. 3) Vallejo House renovation from Bungalow style to 50’s Modern style. 4) Napa Home renovation/addition of 30’s Bungalow. Etc. 5) Northstar at Tahoe - gutted 1972 condo and oversaw renovation of one bath/one bedroom to two baths/two bedrooms. 6) Scientopia Discovery Center-site acquitions/design, pre- design, design development, interiors, etc. 7) Bargenquast Home Office remodel. 8) 1950’s ranch home remod el. August 1998 – June 2000 FISHER DEVELOPMENT, INC. (FDI) San Francisco, CA PROJECT MANAGER / ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER Responsibilities: Reviewed and analyzed all cost implications for Architects and Engineers Sketches / Bulletins as on site construction manager. Contributed to the resolution of architectural / construction detail revisions on site. Responsible for creating a construction budget & schedule and for managing a team of professionals & Subs to wor k together to construct the highest respected retail stores in the world. Projects include: Don Fisher (Gap CEO) Residence; SEPHORA, a high-end French make-up and fragrance store; Williams-Sonoma and Pottery Barn stores. May 1997 - July 1998 BALDAUF CATTON VON ECKARTSBERG ARCHITECTS (BCV) San Francisco, CA PROJECT DESIGNER / PROJECT MANAGER Responsibilities: Assisted Principals with design and responsible for construction documents, permitting, and construction admin on an upscale residences. Worked on design development and construction documents for high- end retail & restaurants. Responsible for design development, permitting, and construction documents on well- respected bakery. Projects Include: Pottery Barn & Williams-Sonoma stores; Broadway Pointe retail shops; Il Fornaio & Piatti restaurants; Artisan Bakers; Napa Valley-Big Ranch, Mount Tamalpais & Mill Valley Residences. May 1996 - May 1997: BACKEN ARRIGONI AND ROSS, INC. (BAR) San Francisco, CA PROJECT MANAGER / JOB CAPTAIN Responsibilities: Performed design development and construction documents on high-end retail stores & complexes. Of a two-person team responsible for schematics and design development on large assisted living facility. Projects Include: Pottery Barn & Ralph Lauren-Polo; Disney-Japan, Marine Learning Center at Ft. Mason; UCSF/Mt. Zion Assisted Living and Adult Day Care facilities for seniors. April 1996 - May 1996 SIMON MARTIN-VEGUE WINKELSTEIN MORRIS (SMWM) San Francisco, CA DESIGNER / TEAM LEADER Responsibilities: Worked on Berkeley Civic Center and downtown master plans. Performed presentations on Berkeley HS renovation and Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Plan. Schematic design for Bard College redev. January 1995 - December 1995 CLARK ASSOCIATES Seattle, WA PROJECT MANAGER / LEAD DESIGNER Responsibilities: Designed and developed the Saint Martin’s College Old Main Building, a fast -track fire renovation in Olympia, WA. Conducted all CA responsibilities. The project phases included contractual issues, site analysis, building design, construction documents and permitting. Chose finishes for overall building renovation. FOR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, PLEASE CONTINUE ATTACHMENT 1 Page 16 of 17 Page 355 of 477 SARAH L. VAN GIESEN Page 3 EXPERIENCE June 1992 - April 1994 BOYLE WAGONER ARCHITECTS Seattle, WA INTERN ARCHITECT Responsibilities: Designed, developed, and selected finish materials for Olympia Children’s Daycare Center and small commercial kitchen. Measured and drafted as-builts; did field sketches, photography, and site verifications; constructed as-built and design development models; Projects Include: Delridge Community Center, Western WA University Archives, Olympia Children’s Daycare Center. Documented HABS/HAER stu dies on historic structures. June 1990 - August 1991 BAYFRONT ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING Oakland, CA DRAFTSPERSON Responsibilities: Directed take-off measurements at the site; drafted pertinent sketches and measurements to scale; assisted with general office management; wrote instruction to bidders; created door and window schedules for all office projects. August 1989 - June 1990 LARSON YUEN ASSOCIATES INC. Walnut Creek, CA DRAFTSPERSON / OFFICE MANAGER Responsibilities: Responsible for revising red-lined drawings on all foundation, floor, and roof framing plans for both residential and commercial projects. Assisted in the analysis of post 1989 Loma Preata earthquake damage on East Bay structures. Not only reviewed the shear/structural damage to these structures, but also assisted in recommending which buildings should be tagged for various levels of damage including those that required “red tags.” Managed day to day operations of the office including filing, phones, scheduling, and general communication. REFERENCES UPON REQUEST ATTACHMENT 1 Page 17 of 17 Page 356 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:967-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:9.B. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Dorothy Roberts, City Clerk Prepared By: Tiffany Carranza, Office Assistant II TITLE: Civil Service Commission Membership RECOMMENDED ACTION: Interview applicants and appoint one individual to the Civil Service Commission as a Council- appointed member for a term effective July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2020. DISCUSSION: COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION The Civil Service Commission is advisory to the City Council on matters concerning personnel administration, including the establishment of classification specifications and salaries for classified City employees. They are the decision-making body for appeals submitted by classified City employees. Pursuant to Section 76.1 of the City Charter, the Commission consists of five members, two of whom are appointed by the City Council, two are elected by the classified employees, and one member is appointed by the other four members. NUMBER AND TIMING OF VACANCIES INCLUDING SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS There is one seat to be filled due to the term expiration of Council-appointed member, Paul Hicks, effective June 30, 2017. RECRUITMENT PROCESS The City Clerk accepted applications for the Committee from April 27, 2017 through May 26, 2017. Recruitment announcements were published on the City’s website, posted at various locations at City Hall, Human Resources, and the Community Services building, and sent to the Napa County Library, Napa Valley College, Napa Chamber of Commerce, Napa Valley Unified School District, Napa County Board of Supervisors, Napa County Administration, Napa County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Napa Valley Coalition of Non-Profit Agencies, Napa Valley Community Housing, Puertas CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 357 of 477 File #:967-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:9.B. Commerce, Napa Valley Coalition of Non-Profit Agencies, Napa Valley Community Housing, Puertas Abiertas Community Resource Center, and Leadership Napa Valley. APPLICATIONS RECEIVED Two applications were received: Paul Hicks and Alton Hoover. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None CEQA: The City Clerk has determined that the recommended action described in this agenda report is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c). DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Applications NOTIFICATION: Applicants CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 358 of 477 Submit Date: May 04, 2017 First Name Middle Initial Last Name Email Address Street Address Suite or Apt City State Postal Code Primary Phone Alternate Phone Length of Residence in the City of Napa: Length of Residence in the County of Napa: Employer Job Title Civil Service Commission: Submitted City of Napa Boards & Commissions Profile ve) Registered to vote in the City of Napa? Yes No Interests & Experiences Which Boards would you like to apply for? Civil Service Commission Alton Hoover Napa CA 94558 2 Years 6 Months 2 Years 6 Months Future Income Payments, LLC Chief Technology Officer Alton Hoover Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 13 Page 359 of 477 Upload a Resume Have you ever attended a meeting of this board? If so, how many? Community Service Experience: Napa Sunrise Rotary, 100 Men Who Give a Damn About Napa County, 11-99 Foundation Lifetime member Education: MBA - Georgia State University BSBA - University of Central Florida Other relevant experience or expertise: Chief Technology Officer - Future Income Payments, LLC Former Chief Executive Officer - PeoplePoint Systems, Inc. Former Chief Operating Officer - PeoplePoint Systems, Inc. Former Co-Principal Investigator - National Science Foundation - SURAnet Former Research Faculty - Georgia Institute of Technology Additional Questions What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this board? The Civil Service Commission is advisory to the City Council on matters concerning personnel administration, including the establishment of classification specifications and salaries for classified City employees. They are the decision-making body for appeals submitted by classified City employees. As a member of the Civil Service Commission I would participate in advising the city on matters related to city personnel administration including city employment position classification and compensation for Classified employee positions and participating in the decision process for City of Napa employee appeals. What duties of this board are most interesting to you? I'm interested in bringing my business and management experience to the Napa Civil Service Commission. What activities of this board are least interesting to you? N/A No Alton Hoover Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 of 13 Page 360 of 477 What programs or projects would you like to see improved or implemented? How would you approach improving these project(s) or program(s)? Are you involved in any organizations or activities that may result in a conflict of interest if you are appointed to this board? No Please list two local references and their phone numbers: How did you learn of this vacancy? Internet Alton Hoover Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 3 of 13 Page 361 of 477 ALTON HOOVER PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY Senior product/systems development executive. Operationsfocused, skilled in improving overall business strategy and execution through team building and leadership in both small/startup and large/multinational corporations. Experienced in driving strategic product planning, product development, engineering process implementation, and ensuring financial performance and operating budget adherence. Complete agile software product development, integration, and lifecycle management IPSEC IP Network Security Product marketing & product management Network operations Multisite project & subcontract management Government Contracting Information/Internet security – cryptography High reliability scalable hardware/software infrastructure Digital media content distribution 24x7 Customer service/technical assistance Distribution channel and major account support Social Networking applications Graph Data Modeling/Analytics PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Future Income Payments, LLC Chief Technology Officer (514 – Present) Recruited to direct Future Income Payments technology operations, infrastructure and software engineering. Management direction of all software engineering, information technology operations and infrastructure including: software development (inhouse and remote development teams), quality assurance (QA), IT IP/SEC security, technical support, infrastructure deployment, data and voice networking, data warehouse and strategic technology planning. Management of Financial Services, Call Center Management and Automotive Leasing customer relationship management CRM systems (Authority Software and DealerSocket). Management of Cisco, Nextiva and Five9 based voice over IP (VoIP) telephony and inbound/outbound telemarketing systems. Management of ADP and Quickbooks accounting systems. Management of all commercial business web sites including payment processing and embedded text and audio/video chat services. Supported systems for U.S. and offshore 24x7 call centers. Supported multistate business operations in California, Virginia, Texas and Michigan PeoplePoint Systems, Inc. Vice President of Engineering & Chief Operating Officer & Chief Executive Officer (10/07 – 04/14) Recruited to direct PeoplePoint Systems, Inc. Enterprise Social Networking technology and software ATTACHMENT 1 Page 4 of 13 Page 362 of 477 ALTON HOOVER PAGE 2 of 5 engineering business. Responsible for all PeoplePoint Systems business operations, product marketing, product development, quality assurance, product support, human resources, finance and accounting corporate functions. Directed product development and delivery of Aristotle 1.01.4, Aristotle 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 and PeoplePoint 1.0 Enterprise Social Networking products. Executive management point of contact for the U.S. Air Force Research Lab Aristotle Project. Web 2.0 DHTML based application using a standard browserbased client and associated Java servlet. Wrote funded proposals for $608K for the Defense Technical Information Center Social Networking application, $2,760K AFRL SBIR Software architecture: Java servlet utilizing a tightly coupled graph database and object store developed with Open Laszlo, AJAX, Hibernate, JDBC, Lucene, Oracle, MS SQL, MySQL and Apache web services. Responsible for preparation of statement of work and proposals for government RFP responses and primary technical contact with technology development partners including the Air Force Research Lab, Office of Naval Research and the Defense Technical Information Center. Spare Backup, Inc. Vice President of Engineering (6/06 8/07) Responsible for all software product development operations including R&D, software engineering, QA, production operations, security, and technology infrastructure for this Internet backup services provider (32 employees). Tightly managed and turned around C# based client and asp.net server software development process implemented structured methodologies to ensure timely software release schedules. Produced 4 major release upgrades within 15 months (V1.0 V4.0) stabilizing the product, meeting the design specification and accelerating the growth of installed users 500%. Worked with business alliance partners including: HP, Circuit City, CompUSA, and Download.com to achieve business growth. Brought new collocation data centers online at SunGard (Scottsdale, AZ/Carlstadt, NJ) supporting fully redundant/mirrored production facilities. Recruited and managed 10 technical staff. Annual budget of $2.5M Luna Imaging, Inc. Chief Technology Officer (11/03 – 2/05) Responsible for all software development, quality assurance, product support, publications, hosted services, contract project management and overall profit/loss. (48 employees) Managed strategic alliance relationships with Sun, Oracle, Sprinta, and Unisearch. Extended Luna software to LINUX, MySQL and IBM DB2. Rearchitected Luna software to eliminate unnecessary royalty licensing fees. Directed the release of Luna Insight 4.1 and Luna Insight 5.0 and the design, development and launch of Luna's new product offerings: Insight Studio, Insight Studio Hosted, and Personal Insight. Luna Imaging's distributed server complex delivers over 1.5 terabyte of highresolution digital imagery and metadata. Recruited and managed technical staff of 14. Annual budget of $2.8M. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 5 of 13 Page 363 of 477 ALTON HOOVER PAGE 3 of 5 ClickRadio, Inc. Chief Technology Officer (12/99 10/03) Responsible for all software product development operations including R&D, programming, QA, production operations and technology infrastructure for this Internet content media provider (100 employees) Managed alliances with Sun, HP, IBM, Phillips, Lucent, Cisco, and Rogue Wave, Level (3) Communications, MCI, and Verizon. Architected ClickRadio server complex and directed deployment of New York and Sunnyvale collocation production operations centers. Product included digital rights management system based upon ClickRadio/Lucent Technologies jointly developed proprietary cryptographic security. Directed development of ClickRadio V1.X client for early market capture followed by the release V2 of the ClickRadio tuner application. Achieved growth of installed base to 300,000 registered users within 6 months of launch. Created a full screen version of ClickRadio on AOL TV SetTop Converter Box and initiated joint development project between ClickRadio and Philips. Recruited and managed technical staff of 26. Annual budget of $5.7M. FAME Information Services, Inc. Senior Vice President, Operations & Development (4/95 8/99) Responsible for all core software development, enterprise production operations for FAME 7x24 data center, QA, publications, and customer 24x7 hotline for the online provider of financial data services. Business acquired by SunGard. (80 employees) Directed development and support for FAME UNIX and Windows products including: FAME Analytics Suite. Developed strategy for Internet delivery products including: FAME WebFactory, FAME SiteServer, and FAME Channel. Created FAME CRM Hotline Customer Support system utilizing Remedy software and Sybase relational database. Recruited and managed technical staff of 48. Annual budget $6.5M. Advanced Network & Services, Inc. Vice President, Information & Applications Services (3/91 4/95) Responsible for the general management of security products business unit including: business plan, marketing strategy, revenue/profit & loss, remote operational facility management, product development, hardware/software field support, product documentation, OEM partnership, develop and ITAR/COCOM munitions export licensing for encryption technology. (40 employees) Business acquired by AOL. Directed the design and development of the InterLock firewall (IPSEC), the KeyRing VPDN securityenhanced router, provisioning secure outsourced networks, and consultative services. Security products were installed at Fortune 500 customers including: American Standard, AMOCO, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 6 of 13 Page 364 of 477 ALTON HOOVER PAGE 4 of 5 CBS, Citibank, Ernest & Young, McGraw Hill, SIAC, U.S. Treasury, and the U.S. Senate. Recruited and managed technical staff of 12. Annual budget $1.2M Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Founding CoChair IP Security Working Group (IPSEC) (7/93 1/94) Founded and CoChaired the IP Security working Group (IPSEC) at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Hosted the first birds of a feather (BOF) conference meeting at the Cambridge, MA IETF #24 in 1992. Cowrote draft charter for the IPSEC Working Group and received approval at IETF #26 Columbus, OH with supporting working group protocols including: SIP, AVT, Mobile IP, CAT, TUBA, CIPSO, SC27, SC6, and IEEE 802.10. Cochaired IPSEC working group meeting at IETF #27 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. My team specifically worked on IPSEC firewall and key management technology for secure IP networks. National Science Foundation (NSF) CoPrincipal Investigator, National Science Foundation (NSF) – SURAnet (5/89 3/91) Directed the Southeastern Universities Research Association network, which was funded via competitive $1M contract award by the National Science Foundation and contracts from service subscribers. SURAnet provides networking technology and infrastructure to interconnect over 100 research universities and labs. Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT) Director, Network Technologies, Strategic Planning and Development (5/89 3/91) Responsible for all administrative, business, research and instructional networking. This network operation included the design, installation, monitoring, maintenance, and tuning of the fiber optic network supporting multichannel video, data, and voice transmission. Managed LAN/WAN network supported 10,000 nodes for instruction video and remote learning. Development of longrange technology plans for the Board of Regents EDP Plan, and Georgia Tech. EDUCATION MBA Executive MBA Program Georgia State University June, 1985 BS Business Administration Finance University of Central Florida, 1977 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AND AWARDS Security: ATTACHMENT 1 Page 7 of 13 Page 365 of 477 ALTON HOOVER PAGE 5 of 5 DoD Secret Security Clearance Inactive Founding CoChair IP Security Working Group Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Pioneer Member Internet Society Publications/Presentation: Internet World, Vol. 6 #2 "Securing The Enterprise", February, 95 Computer Currents, Networking, "The Promise And A View For The Nineties" October, 90 Federation of American Research Networks Conference, 91 InfoBase Europe 94 Computer Security Institute, November, 93 Mecklermedia's Official Internet World Internet Security Handbook, Chapter – “Securing the Enterprise”, August, 1995 Technologies: UNIX – Solaris, Red Hat Enterprise, AIX LINUX MS Windows OS X DB2 UDB Oracle MS SQL Server MySQL Apache LAMP Remedy RogueWave C++ C# C# ASP.NET JAVA PERL TCP/IP SMTP POP3/IMAP Firewalls – Cisco IPSEC Routing Cisco VPN Hibernate Lucene IOS Big Data Graph Data Open Lazslo Exchange AJAX TCP/IP NetApp AWS ATTACHMENT 1 Page 8 of 13 Page 366 of 477 Submit Date: May 21, 2017 First Name Middle Initial Last Name Email Address Street Address Suite or Apt City State Postal Code Primary Phone Alternate Phone Length of Residence in the City of Napa: Length of Residence in the County of Napa: Employer Job Title Civil Service Commission: Appointed City of Napa Boards & Commissions Profile Mailing Address (if different than Resident Address above) Registered to vote in the City of Napa? Yes No Interests & Experiences Which Boards would you like to apply for? Civil Service Commission Paul W.W Hicks Napa CA 94558 22.75 yrs 22.75 yrs Payroll Masters Vice President Paul W. W Hicks Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 9 of 13 Page 367 of 477 Upload a Resume Have you ever attended a meeting of this board? If so, how many? Community Service Experience: Active 20-30 Club - Past Active Life Education: Keuka College - BS Management Other relevant experience or expertise: WANB Regional Board, Chamber of Commerce Board, Leadership Napa Valley. Additional Questions What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this board? The Civil Service Commission acts in an administrative capacity for the City Council on issues concerning personnel administration, classified service regulations, and appeals by persons in the classified service regarding employment status or condition of employment. The Civil Service Commission provides recommendations to the City Council on salaries and new classifications in the classified service. Two members are appointed by the City Council, two members are elected by classified employees, and one is appointed by the other four Commission Members. What duties of this board are most interesting to you? Appeals, dispute resolution. What activities of this board are least interesting to you? Although necessary for oversight - routine administrative items. What programs or projects would you like to see improved or implemented? Review of the Rules, meeting schedule, modernazation and cleanup of Class Specs. +-80 Paul W. W Hicks Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 10 of 13 Page 368 of 477 How would you approach improving these project(s) or program(s)? Work with the HR Department and the Stakeholders. Are you involved in any organizations or activities that may result in a conflict of interest if you are appointed to this board? No. Please list two local references and their phone numbers: How did you learn of this vacancy? Other Paul W. W Hicks Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 11 of 13 Page 369 of 477 Paul Hicks Vice President of Development at Payroll Masters Summary Payroll Expert, CA Labor law, Time and Attendance Systems Experience Payroll Masters Vice President Development January 1995 - Present http://www.payrollmasters.com Workfor Alliance of the North Bay serving Napa, Lake and Marin Counties Board Member 2012 - Present Regional Board, Local Advisory Committee http://www.workforcealliancenorthbay.org/ Napa Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee - Board of Directors January 2011 - Present Executive Committee Legislative Action Committee Candidate Endorsement Committee – Chair http://www.napachamber.com/ Civil Service Commission at City of Napa October 2010 - Present The Civil Service Commission acts in an administrative capacity for the City Council on issues concerning personnel administration, classified service regulations, appeals by persons in the classified service regarding employment status or condition of employment, and provides recommendations to the City Council on salaries and new classifications in the classified service. Two members are appointed by the City Council, two members are elected by classified employees, and one is appointed by the other four Commission members. HTPLM, Inc. Member - Board of Directors March 2010 - August 2014 (4 years 5 months) High Tech Professional Labor Management (HTPLM) is an IT staffing and recruitment/placement firm created specifically to provide highly qualified employees on project driven contractor basis to technology companies across the United States. We serve firms of all sizes, from local start-ups to Fortune 500 multinationals. The "one stop shop" for CTO’s, CIO’s, COO’s, HR Directors, IT Directors, Managers and Recruiters looking for high quality contract engineers, programmers and IT professionals. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 12 of 13 Page 370 of 477 Turnaround time to fill high end, highly qualified, highly vetted and highly relevant IT Contractor positions is just HOURS versus weeks or even months. HTPLM recruits, hires, and will manage the employee relationship providing payroll, workers’ compensation, employee benefits, and HR Services for short and long term contractors, contract-to -hire employees or direct hire specialized recruiting. Trellis Napa Valley: A Food, Wine and Technology Incubator Board President October 2011 - June 2014 (2 years 8 months) Successful incubators create companies and jobs appropriate for each incubator’s area, and the model Trellis Napa Valley has selected will focus on creating high wage, white and green collar jobs. The goal is to produce successful firms that will leave the program financially viable and freestanding. Incubator graduates have the potential to create wealth, revitalize neighborhoods, commercialize new technologies, and strengthen local economies. Bayberry, Inc. Member - Board of Directors January 2009 - June 2014 (5 years 5 months) http://www.bayberry.biz/ Bayberry provides supported living and residential services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Lake, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. Team Captain - For Our Friends and Family 2003 - 2011 (8 years) http://tinyurl.com/3ewogxx Education Keuka College BS Management, Finance/HR, 1988 - 1992 Activities and Societies: President Management Club Treasurer Sigma Lambda Sigma (Academic Honor Society) State University of New York at Fredonia N/A, Physics/Chem, 1985 - 1987 Activities and Societies: Phi Kappa Sigma ATTACHMENT 1 Page 13 of 13 Page 371 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:990-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:11.A. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Page 372 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:991-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:11.B. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Page 373 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:895-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:17.A. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Rick Tooker, Community Development Director Prepared By: Lark Ferrell, Housing Manager TITLE: Stoddard West Apartments Project Loan RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution approving a loan from the City of Napa Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund in the amount of $1,000,000 to Burbank Housing Development Corporation for Stoddard West Apartments Project. DISCUSSION: Burbank Housing Development Corporation (BHDC) is proposing to develop Stoddard West Apartments Project, an affordable rental project (the “Project”) which would be located on Gasser Drive north of the South Napa Market Place along Tulocay Creek. The Project would include 49 units affordable to lower income households and one unrestricted manager’s unit. Rents in the Project would be well below market and generally affordable to households earning 30% to 60% of area median. The Project would include 15 one-bedroom units, 30 two-bedroom units, and 15 three- bedroom units. BHDC is an experienced non-profit housing developer based in Sonoma County. BHDC was established in 1980 and has successfully developed, owned, and operated over 3,600 units of affordable housing. It has developed numerous types of housing including both multifamily rental housing, farmworker rental housing, special needs housing, and mutual self-help (sweat equity) ownership housing. It currently manages over 2,900 units of affordable housing in Sonoma and Napa Counties. BHDC has requested a $1,000,000 loan from the City’s Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund for the development of the Project. In May 2017, the City approved amending the CDBG Annual Action Plan to award BHDC $2,000,000 in CDBG funding to acquire the land from the Gasser Foundation for the Project. BHDC is proposing to leverage the City loans with a $2,000,000 loan from the County, $2,000,000 from the Napa Valley Community Foundation, $1,500,000 from the Gasser Foundation, a $3,204,000 conventional mortgage loan, and $10,410,000 in tax credit equity. Additionally, Gasser Foundation would donate approximately $650,000 in previously completed predevelopment work to the Project. BHDC has also submitted a request to the Housing Authority of the City of Napa for eight project-based vouchers for the Project. This request is on the Housing CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Page 374 of 477 File #:895-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:17.A. the City of Napa for eight project-based vouchers for the Project. This request is on the Housing Authority’s June 20, 2017 agenda. BHDC intends to submit a 9% tax credit application in the June rounds. BHDC believes this round is likely to be the Project’s best opportunity to secure these valuable tax credits. BHDC has provided staff a detailed analysis documenting that in recent 9% tax credit rounds, successful applications for the East Bay Region (which includes Napa) have had significantly higher per unit local subsidies than elsewhere in the State. Because the tax credit scoring uses local funding as a tie breaker, all new construction 9% tax credit projects funded in the East Bay Region since 2014 have been located in Alameda County, a much more urban county which has many more resources to invest into affordable housing projects. Alameda County voters recently passed a housing bond measure which will soon bring even more housing resources into their community. Because of this, BHDC has worked very aggressively and strategically to put together a financing plan that maximizes the Project’s chance of receiving an award in the June 2017 tax credit round. This means that while the amount of local government per unit subsidy of $100,000 is slightly higher than for other recent affordable projects in Napa which all relied on 4% tax credits, the Project’s financing has been structured in order to maximize the Project’s chances of a successful 9% tax credit application. If the Project’s 9% tax credit application is approved, it is anticipated the project would be fully funded and ready to break ground in the March 2018. The Project was recently approved by Planning Commission and its final approval of its entitlements is also scheduled on City Council’s June 20th meeting. In order to meet the June 9% tax credit application deadline, the loan approval is being made prior to finalizing the loan documents. However, the loan terms would be based on the City and County joint underwriting guidelines. These guidelines were approved by the City Council in July 2010. In accordance with these guidelines, the City’s loan would be at 3% simple interest with a 55-year term. It would be payable from residual receipts. As a condition of the loan, the City would record 55-year affordability restrictions against the Project. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This item has no impact to the General Fund. However, it would result in the commitment of funds for a $1,000,000 loan in the City’s Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund (22201-58608). CEQA: City staff recommends that the City Council determine the potential environmental effects of the Project were adequately examined by the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adopted for the Gasser Master Plan (File No. 02-0134), certified December 12, 2006, and the Addendum that was prepared in conjunction with the Vista Tulocay Apartments (File No. PL13-0139), adopted August 16, 2016. The Gasser Master Plan EIR and the Addendum are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are incorporated herein by reference. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 which stipulates that where an environmental impact report has previously been prepared on a project, no additional CEQA review is required for subsequent approvals unless there are new significant environmental impacts which were not addressed in the previous EIR. Staff recommends the City Council determine (1) there is no substantial change to the project that involves new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of a previously identified CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Page 375 of 477 File #:895-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:17.A. new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect; (2) there is not a substantial change to the circumstances which the project is undertake that involves new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect; and (3) there is no new information of substantial importance that shows the Project will have a significant effect, significant effects will be more severe, and mitigation measures that would reduce significant effects are rejected by the Applicant. The project shall be subject to the mitigations incorporated as conditions of approval identified in City Council Resolution R2006-193. DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: ATCH 1 - Resolution approving $1,000,000 loan to Burbank Housing Development Corporation for Stoddard West Apartments NOTIFICATION: Notification was provided to BHDC, Gasser Foundation, and the County. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Page 376 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 1 of 3 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LOAN FROM THE CITY OF NAPA AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000 TO BURBANK HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE STODDARD WEST APARTMENTS PROJECT WHEREAS, there is a significant need for affordable housing in Napa; and WHEREAS, Burbank Housing Development Corporation, a non-profit public benefit corporation (the “Developer”) is proposing to develop an affordable rental project which would be located on APN 046-190-052 on Gasser Drive (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project would include 49 affordable units and one unrestricted manager’s unit; and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested a loan in the amount of $1,000,000 from the City’s Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund to assist with the development of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project would expand the community’s supply of affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the City has determined the potential environmental effects of the Project were adequately examined by the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adopted for the Gasser Master Plan (File No. 02-0134), certified December 12, 2006, and the Addendum that was prepared in conjunction with the Vista Tulocay Apartments (File No. PL13-0139), adopted August 16, 2016. The Gasser Master Plan EIR and the Addendum are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are incorporated herein by reference. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 which stipulates that where an environmental impact report has previously been prepared on a project, no additional CEQA review is required for subsequent approvals unless there are new significant environmental impacts which were not addressed in the previous EIR. The City has determined there is no substantial change to the project that involves new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect; (2) there is not a substantial change to the circumstances which the project is undertake that involves new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect; and (3) there is no new information of substantial importance that shows the Project will have a significant effect, significant effects will be more severe, and mitigation measures that would reduce significant effects are rejected by the Applicant. The project shall be subject to the mitigations incorporated as conditions of approval identified in City Council Resolution R2006 193. Page 377 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 2 of 3 June 20, 2017 WHEREAS; City Council has considered all information related to this matter as presented at the public meeting of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Napa, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution. 2. The City Council hereby determines that the potential environmental effects of the Project were adequately examined by the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adopted for the Gasser Master Plan (File No. 02-0134), certified December 12, 2006, and the Addendum that was prepared in conjunction with the Vista Tulocay Apartments (File No. PL13-0139), adopted August 16, 2016. The Gasser Master Plan EIR and the Addendum are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are incorporated herein by reference. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 which stipulates that where an environmental impact report has previously been prepared on a project, no additional CEQA review is required for subsequent approvals unless there are new significant environmental impacts which were not addressed in the previous EIR. The City has determined there is no substantial change to the project that involves new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect; (2) there is not a substantial change to the circumstances which the project is undertake that involves new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect; and (3) there is no new information of substantial importance that shows the Project will have a significant effect, significant effects will be more severe, and mitigation measures that would reduce significant effects are rejected by the Applicant. The project shall be subject to the mitigations incorporated as conditions of approval identified in City Council Resolution R2006 193. 3. The City Council hereby authorizes a budget adjustment to the Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund for the $1,000,000 loan to the Developer (22201-58608) in the FY2016-17 budget. 4. The City Council approves a loan to the Developer in the amount of $1,000,000 from the City of Napa Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund to assist in the development of the Project, and delegates authority to the City Manager to execute the loan documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, which incorporate the following terms and conditions: A. The City’s contribution shall be structured as a three percent (3.0%) simple interest residual receipts loan with a term of up to fifty-five years. Page 378 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-__Page 3 of 3 June 20, 2017 B. The loan shall be evidenced by a Promissory Note and secured by a Deed of Trust and by a Regulatory Agreement which shall run for 55 years against the property. All agreements shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. C. All other financing must be secured and construction begin no later than June 30, 2019. 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to form: Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 379 of 477 CITY OF NAPA Staff Report 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 www.cityofnapa.org File #:878-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:18.A. To:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From:Rick Tooker, Community Development Director Prepared By: Karlo Felix, Senior Planner TITLE: Stoddard West 50-unit multi-family apartments on a 2.37 acre site on Gasser Drive Extension at Tulocay Creek. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution approving a Use Permit and Design Review Permit for Stoddard West, a 50-unit multi-family development on a 2.37 acre property located at the property identified as Assessor Parcel Number 004-081-012, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution were adequately analyzed by previous CEQA actions. DISCUSSION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant requests approval to develop a 2.37-acre parcel located of the west-side of the Gasser Drive Extension adjacent to Tulocay Creek into a 50-unit apartment complex. This project would be a joint venture between The Gasser Foundation and Burbank Housing to provide affordable housing. The project will consist of a three- and four-story building that will provide a mix of 15 one-bedroom, 20 two-bedroom, and 15 three-bedroom units. All proposed units will be income-restricted and managed by Burbank Housing. Proposed amenities include a community room, bicycle room, playground, and community garden area. Parking for the proposed development will include 100 off- street parking spaces within a combination of carports and open parking spaces. GENERAL PLAN The property is located within the MU-532, Mixed Use General Plan Designation, which provides for a functionally integrated mix of retail commercial, office, light manufacturing, and higher density residential uses between 20 to 40 units per acre. The 50 units on this 2.37-acre site result in a project density of 21 units per acre which is consistent with the density range of the MU-532 Designation. Analysis of how the proposal is supported by General Plan goals and policies can be found in Subsection IV.A of Attachment 2. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 380 of 477 File #:878-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:18.A. ZONING The project site is located within the Creekside District of the Gasser Master Plan. Multi-family residential uses are a conditional use subject to approval of a Use Permit, and may be incorporated at a density of 10-40 units/acre if the overall PM peak-hour trip generation for the entire Gasser Master Plan District is not exceeded (as analyzed in the Gasser Master Plan Draft EIR), and other zoning standards are met. In calculating the trip generation from the proposed 50-unit development, the Public Works Department has determined that the proposed development does not exceed the overall PM peak-hour trip generation requirement. As provided in the analysis of the revised traffic demand, residential peak hour traffic is lower than the traffic assigned to the site when assumed to be non-residential spaces such as office use. The Creekside District does not require a rear or side yard setback, and with its location on the west- side of Gasser Drive the buildings are intended to be located/oriented to take advantage of wetland and Tulocay Creek views. The proposed building is located adjacent to the required setback limits of Tulocay Creek and the wetland area consistent with the Gasser Master Plan. The proposed landscape areas exceed the minimum 20% landscape area requirement for the project site. The proposed building is consistent with the Creekside Development Standards regarding setbacks, yards and required landscape area. The proposed building will have a maximum height of 42 feet, which is well within the 48-foot maximum height of the Creekside District. PARKING The parking layout plan prepared for the development provides a total of 100 spaces, consisting of 51 carport spaces and 49 uncovered spaces. The development is required to provide a total of 50 covered parking spaces; 51 covered spaces have been proposed, which satisfies the covered parking requirement. Additionally, because the development will be on a street which will not provide on-street parking, the proposed development has been designed with a guest parking ratio of one space per two units, which satisfies the parking space requirements identified above. The guest parking spaces will be distributed throughout the proposed development. The Applicant requests a Use Permit for 12 tandem parking spaces that will be located within the driveways leading to a carport. These tandem parking spaces are located outside of the drive aisle and would typically be used only by a resident or guest of the corresponding unit. DESIGN REVIEW The proposed development includes 50 living units within a new three- to four-story building. The new building is designed in the shape of an “L” with a landscape courtyard to be developed on the inside of the “L.” The building will be located along the southern end of the triangular shaped property with the parking located to the east and north of the proposed building. The residential building essentially consists of a combination of three- and four-story walk-ups. The fourth-floor elements are proposed on the longer portion of the building to provide a varying roof height and building plane which break up the perceived bulk of the building. The residential building CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 381 of 477 File #:878-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:18.A. has been designed with a common vocabulary of forms and architectural elements. The exterior finish of the buildings is predominantly stucco with corrugated metal siding elements in a variety of unique color schemes. The proposed building features metal railing on balconies with composition roofing shingles. The units feature windows that are aligned with each other and other building elements to provide a harmonious appearance. The change in roof forms and varying wall planes present interesting elevations that are not overly repetitive. Additional analysis of the project’s design can be found in Subsection IV.F of Attachment 2. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW On May 18, 2017 the Planning Commission considered the proposed project. The Commission received testimony from two persons who were supportive of the project given it is a well-designed affordable housing development. During deliberations, several Commissioners stated their interest in provided additional articulation at the windows on the south-side of the building. At the conclusion of the hearing the Planning Commission voted 4-0-1 to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the project. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No direct financial impacts to the City have been identified with this application. CEQA: City staff recommends that City Council determine that the potential environmental effects of the Recommended Action described in this staff report were adequately analyzed by the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Gasser Master Plan (File No. 02-134), adopted December 12, 2006; and the Addendum to the EIR for the Gasser Master Plan prepared for Vista Tulocay Apartments (File No. PL13-0139), adopted August 16, 2016, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The Applicant is seeking US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds to acquire a long-term lease interest in the project site for the construction of the development. Pursuant to 24 CFR Part 58, grantees of HUD funds (i.e. the City) are required to comply with NEPA prior to the obligation of those funds. While the proposed project does not obligate the funds, the requested entitlements (Use Permit and Design Review Permit) are associated with the request to commit the funds. The commitment of these funds is being reviewed by the City Council under a separate item at this meeting. Staff has completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) which concluded that the proposed project and the required mitigation measures identified in the 2006 EIR would not significantly affect the quality of the human environmental. Therefore, Staff has prepared a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) which is included as Attachment 3 of this report. DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: 1. ATCH 1: Draft resolution approving a Use Permit and Design Review Permit for Stoddard West 2. ATCH 2: Planning Commission staff report dated May 18, 2017 and draft minutes excerpts 3. ATCH 3: Finding of No Significant Impact & Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds and CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 382 of 477 File #:878-2017 Date:6/20/2017 Item #:18.A. Environmental Assessment 4. ATCH 4: Project description and plans NOTIFICATION: Mailing by US Postal Service was provided to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property; legal notices of public hearing were published in the Napa Valley Register at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. CITY OF NAPA Printed on 6/15/2017Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 383 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 1 of 26 June 20, 2017 RESOLUTION R2017-__ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A USE PERMIT AND A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR STODDARD WEST, A 50-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON A 2.37 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 004-081- 012, AND DETERMINING THAT THE ACTIONS AUTHORIZED BY THIS RESOLUTION WERE ADEQUATLY ANALYZED BY PREVIOUS CEQA ACTIONS WHEREAS, the Gasser Foundation submitted an application (File No. PL17-0061) for a Use Permit to authorize a multi-family development and tandem parking and a Design Review Permit for a multi-family development (the “Project”) at the property identified as Assessor Parcel Number 004-081-012 on April 6, 2017; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Napa, State of California, held a noticed public hearing on May 18, 2017 and has recommended approval of the subject application; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Napa as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution. Section 2. The City Council hereby determines that the potential environmental effects of the Recommended Action described in the Staff Report were adequately examined by the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adopted for the Gasser Master Plan (File No. 02-0134), certified December 12, 2006, and the Addendum that was prepared in conjunction with the Vista Tulocay Apartments (File No. PL13-0139), adopted August 16, 2016. The Gasser Master Plan EIR and the Addendum are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are incorporated herein by reference. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 which stipulates that where an environmental impact report has previously been prepared on a project, no additional CEQA review is required for subsequent approvals unless there are new significant environmental impacts which were not addressed in the previous EIR. As described in the Staff Report: (1) there is no substantial change to the project that involves new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect; (2) there is not a substantial change to the circumstances which the Page 384 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 2 of 26 June 20, 2017 project is undertake that involves new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect; and (3) there is no new information of substantial importance that shows the project will have a significant effect, significant effects will be more severe, and mitigation measures that would reduce significant effects are rejected by the Applicant. The project shall be subject to the mitigations incorporated as conditions of approval identified in City Council Resolution R2006 193. Section 3. The City Council hereby approves the Use Permit as defined on the plans submitted as a part of the subject application and makes the following findings in support of the approval: A. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, applicable specific plans, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district and overlay district in which the site is located. The property has a General Plan designation of MU, Mixed Use (MU-532), which provides for higher density residential uses that are typically attached. Residential densities shall range from 20 to 40 units per acre which would allow between 47 to 94 units on this 2.37-acre site. The 50 units on this site results in a project density of 21 units an acre which is consist with the density range. Higher density residential are promoted and encouraged adjacent to employment and neighborhood-serving commercial uses to ensure the efficient use of land, public facilities and services. Land Use Element Policy LU-3.4 seeks to “… provide for the efficient development and redevelopment of land within the RUL in order to allow job and housing growth…” The proposed 50-unit development provides for an efficient housing development that will provide housing for lower income levels on an underutilized parcel of land consistent with this policy. Land Use Element Goal LU-4 seeks to “preserve and enhance the residential character of existing neighborhoods and provide for new residential development consistent with the city's character and urban form.” The proposed development is located adjacent to Vista Tulocay, a 282-unit multi-family development. The proposed development is consistent in character and urban form with Vista Tulocay consistent with this goal. Land Use Element Policy LU-4.1 requires new residential density to conform to the density range established in Table 1-4 of the General Plan. The property is located within the MU-532 Designation which allows for residential density ranges between 20 and 40 units per acre. The proposed 50-unit development has a project density of 21 units per acre which is consistent with this density range. Housing Element Policy H1.1 seeks to “promote creative and efficient use of vacant and built on land within its RUL to help maintain the City’s pre- Page 385 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 3 of 26 June 20, 2017 eminent agricultural environment and open space.” The proposed 50-unit development provides an efficient housing development that will provide housing for lower income levels on an underutilized parcel of land consistent with this policy. Housing Element Policy H1.2 requires that the City maintain an adequate supply of land for all types to meet State-mandated housing needs within the 2015-2023 Housing Element timeframe. The proposed 50-unit development is consistent with the above policy in that it provides housing units that will help meet the quantified housing needs for the City for affordable rate housing units. Housing Element Goal H-2 encourages the development of “a variety of housing types and choices.” Housing Element Policy H2.2 also encourages “an increased mix of various types of housing throughout the City to meet community housing needs, provide greater housing choices, and improve transportation choices.” The proposed development is a multi-family development located in close proximity to services and transit. Furthermore, it provides for income-restricted apartments with a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units that are currently in demand and needed to satisfy the community housing needs consistent with this goal and policy. Housing Element Policy H2.1 requires that the City “continue to support and encourage new affordable housing projects.” The City has given priority to the processing of this application which provides for the construction of a 100% affordable on-site housing units consistent with this policy. Housing Element Policy H2.9 states the “City shall consider redesignation of additional appropriate sites to Multi-Family Land Use categories as needed throughout the City where opportunities are available.” The proposed 50-unit development is an opportunity to provide this much- needed land use on a property that is open and available and does not displace or impact adjacent properties. It requires the approval of a Use Permit to authorize a multi-family development on property that was previously designated for a commercial type development, consistent with this policy. Housing Element Policy H2.14 states the “City shall assure that affordable housing provided through density bonuses, and other programs or incentives remain affordable long-term consistent with State law.” The 50 rental units will remain affordable for residents for a period of time, consistent with the land lease term of 75 years, consistent with this policy. Housing Element Policy H3.1 seeks to “assure high quality, well-designed housing that respects the surrounding neighborhood, and provide for a greater variety of housing options to meet community needs.” The Housing Page 386 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 4 of 26 June 20, 2017 Element also encourages the efficient use of land and that make every effort to approve well-designed projects consistent with General Plan densities. This project appears consistent with both of these policy goals, as the proposed development of 50 apartment units on the 2.37-acre site is consistent with the General Plan density range. All of the units within the development will be affordable to eligible low-income families. In addition, the City has adopted Residential Design Guidelines to ensure that new infill developments are compatible with existing neighborhoods. There are no applicable specific plan design policies. B. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City. The proposed apartment development in the underdeveloped mixed use area is not likely to result in any impacts that would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The proposed residential development will not cause any health, safety, and/or general welfare hardship to the community. The development has been designed to provide the equivalent amount of parking as a multi-family rental development. Adequate guest parking has been provided for guests visiting the complex, which is also served with pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation connections. Staff has circulated the application to other affected departments and agencies; their comments and special conditions have been incorporated to ensure the proposed development will not pose a nuisance to the community. C. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Residential multi-family developments may be established with Use Permit approval. The project is designed in compliance with the provisions and development standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The project has been appropriately conditioned to ensure compliance with General Plan policies and property development standards and will not result in adverse impacts to adjacent properties or to the general health, safety, and welfare of the community. As analyzed in the staff report the project is in compliance with the parking standards of Zoning Ordinance Section 17.54.110, and meets all applicable standards of parking stall size, vehicle access and backing movements. Page 387 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 5 of 26 June 20, 2017 Section 4. The City Council hereby approves the Design Review Permit as defined on the plans submitted as a part of the subject application and makes the following findings in support of the approval: A. The project design is in accord with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan design policies. The property has a General Plan designation of MU, Mixed Use (MU-532), which provides for higher density residential uses that are typically attached. Residential densities shall range from 20 to 40 units per acre which would allow between 47 to 94 units on this 2.37-acre site. The 50 units on this site results in a project density of 21 units an acre which is consist with the density range. Higher density residential are promoted and encouraged adjacent to employment and neighborhood-serving commercial uses to ensure the efficient use of land, public facilities and services. Land Use Element Policy LU-3.4 seeks to “… provide for the efficient development and redevelopment of land within the RUL in order to allow job and housing growth…” The proposed 50-unit development provides for an efficient housing development that will provide housing for lower income levels on an underutilized parcel of land consistent with this policy. Land Use Element Goal LU-4 seeks to “preserve and enhance the residential character of existing neighborhoods and provide for new residential development consistent with the city's character and urban form.” The proposed development is located adjacent to Vista Tulocay, a 282-unit multi-family development. The proposed development is consistent in character and urban form with Vista Tulocay consistent with this goal. Housing Element Policy H1.1 seeks to “promote creative and efficient use of vacant and built on land within its RUL to help maintain the City’s pre- eminent agricultural environment and open space.” The proposed 50-unit development provides an efficient housing development that will provide housing for lower income levels on an underutilized parcel of land consistent with this policy. Housing Element Goal H-2 encourages the development of “a variety of housing types and choices.” Housing Element Policy H2.2 also encourages “an increased mix of various types of housing throughout the City to meet community housing needs, provide greater housing choices, and improve transportation choices.” The proposed development is a multi-family development located in close proximity to services and transit. Furthermore, it provides for income-restricted apartments with a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units that are currently in demand and needed to satisfy the community housing needs consistent with this goal and policy. Page 388 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 6 of 26 June 20, 2017 Housing Element Policy H3.1 seeks to “assure high quality, well-designed housing that respects the surrounding neighborhood, and provide for a greater variety of housing options to meet community needs.” The Housing Element also encourages the efficient use of land and that make every effort to approve well-designed projects consistent with General Plan densities. This project appears consistent with both of these policy goals, as the proposed development of 50 apartment units on the 2.37-acre site is consistent with the General Plan density range. All of the units within the development will be affordable to eligible low-income families. In addition, the City has adopted Residential Design Guidelines to ensure that new infill developments are compatible with existing neighborhoods. There are no applicable specific plan design guidelines. B. The project design is consistent with applicable Design Review Guidelines adopted by the City Council. The proposed site layout and architecture are consistent with the goals, policies, and recommendations outlined within the Residential Design Guidelines which encourage multi-family developments to be designed to be respectful of the scale and rhythm of Napa’s traditional neighborhoods. A mix of coherent forms, details, and materials are proposed to create a contemporary development of homes that complement the neighborhood. Parking is located on the periphery of the site, and the buildings are oriented to frame a central courtyard for residents. Landscaping includes a mixture of plantings and hardscape that defines public, semi-private, and private spaces and creates opportunities for social interaction. The hierarchy of fenestration treatment, detailing, and exterior wall materials provide visual interest and reduce the overall perceived bulk and height. The proposed elevations include three-dimensional elements that break up the wall surfaces. C. The Design Review permit is in accord with provisions of this Title and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare. Residential multi-family developments may be established with Use Permit and Design Review approval. The development has been designed consistent with the provision of the Zoning Ordinance and with Design Review approval, the proposed project will be in compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The project has been appropriately conditioned to ensure compliance with General Plan policies and property development standards and will not result in adverse impacts to adjacent properties or to the general health, safety, and welfare of the community. Page 389 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 7 of 26 June 20, 2017 Section 5. The City Council approval of the Use Permit and Design Review Permit is subject to the following conditions: Community Development Department – Planning Division 1. The Planning Manager is authorized to determine whether the Applicant is in compliance with the requirements of the Use Permit and the Design Review Permit. 2. All project conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of Building Permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. 3. All mechanical and utility equipment, including transformers and backflow devices, shall be screened and/or integrated in to a building structure. Screens shall not be used where they would disproportionately increase the mass of the building or introduce elements that are inconsistent with the high level of design quality reviewed as part of this approval. Because transformers and backflow prevention devices are regularly maintained and tested, screening is required to meet certain criteria for the accessibility and visibility, as specified in this handout. Landscaping and screening of devices must be installed, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on the project. 4. The plans submitted for Building Permit for the future building within the development shall include building elevations that provide the same level of architectural detail found on the front elevation for all elevations. The exterior treatment of each building elevation shall be consistent in form and materials, and provide an overall coherent design for the entire building. 5. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall include final landscape plans for the proposed development that shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit. All Landscaping shall be installed in compliance with approved landscape plans prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. The plans submitted for building permit shall include the fences, walls, trash enclosures and carport details shown on the images for the development and included within the staff report. These features shall be designed in the same architectural style and include the same details and quality materials. 7. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted to protrude above the plane level of the roof unless otherwise screened from public view. Any devices used to screen such equipment shall appear as an integrated part of the architectural design, and as such, be constructed of complementary materials and finished in a complementary texture and color scheme to the overall architectural design. Page 390 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 8 of 26 June 20, 2017 8. No banner signs or other temporary signs shall be installed without prior approval of a sign permit as required by code. 9. Consistent with the City’s Sign Ordinance, no portable (e.g. A-frame, portable, rotating, flashing, animated, moving or having the appearance of moving, inflatable) signs are permitted. 10. Prior to the issuance of occupancy for the affected dwelling unit, the developer shall install a directory sign indicating the location and house number of individual units which do not front on the street. 11. Each unit shall have a minimum of one parking space available for their use within a carport. 12. The parking and storage of recreational vehicles is prohibited. 13. These entitlements shall be valid for a period of two years following the effective date of this action. In order to avoid expiration of the entitlements, a Building Permit shall be issued prior to the expiration date. The Applicant may also apply for the discretionary approval of an extension of the entitlements prior to the initial two-year expiration. Community Development Department – Housing Division 14. The Developer is proposing to develop the project as an affordable housing project. In order for the project to not be subject to the Affordable Housing Impact fees imposed by Napa Municipal Code Chapter 15.94, the Developer must enter into a recorded regulatory agreement with the City with a term of not less than 55 years to ensure at least 15% of the total units are affordable to and rented by households with incomes of not more than 80% of median income. Fire Department 15. In accordance with the Standard Mitigation Measures and conditions of approval set forth in the City of Napa Policy Resolution 27, and the Standard Fees and Charges (Policy Resolution 16), the developer shall pay the Fire and Paramedic Impact Fee prior to the issuance of any building permits. 16. Fire Department plan review shall be based on the information submitted at the time of permit application. 17. All projects shall provide adequate fire flow in accordance with Appendix B and C of the California Fire Code. 18. An automatic fire sprinkler (NFPA13) and standpipe system and shall be installed in accordance with provisions set forth in the California Fire Code as amended by the City of Napa and the applicable National Fire Protection Association Standard. Page 391 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 9 of 26 June 20, 2017 19. In new construction, fire protection equipment should be located within an interior room having an exterior access door or in an exterior enclosure attached to the building, specifically for the purpose of housing such equipment. 20. Plans and calculations for all fire protection systems and features shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 21. Underground utility contractor, architect and fire sprinkler contractor shall coordinate location of risers and control valves prior to the issuance of a building permit. 22. Plans for the building fire alarm system or water sprinkler monitoring system (as required) shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 23. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed minimum width of 20 feet (curb to curb) and a minimum unobstructed vertical clearance of 13’ 6”. They shall have an all-weather paved surface capable of supporting a GVW of 71,000 lbs 24. When required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads shall be designated as Fire Lanes and appropriate signs and/or markings installed in accordance with the California Vehicle Code and approved City standards. Public Works Department 25. Applicant shall submit Improvement Plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer (Engineer of Record) in substantial conformance with the referenced site plan. All improvements shall be designed in accordance with the City’s Standard Specifications and Standard Plans, and the City’s “Post-Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Design Standards”. 26. The Applicant shall construct improvements to be dedicated to and/or maintained by the City of Napa (i.e. “Public Improvements”) as generally shown on the site plan and more specifically described below: 27. Install sidewalks, pedestrian connections and enhancements appropriate to serve the development. Final design and location of project driveways, sidewalks, pedestrian connections and enhancements shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. a. Project driveways on Gasser Drive shall be designed with standard curb returns per City of Napa Public Works Standard Drawing S-8. b. Driveway visibility shall be provided per Public Works Standard Specification Drawing S-25. c. Comply with the Gasser Master Plan Conditions of Approval for the North Area. If the Stoddard West Apartment project is the first to Page 392 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 10 of 26 June 20, 2017 develop in the North area, it will initiate the design and construction of the street improvements described in Gasser Master Plan Conditions of Approval 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35 & 38. Said improvements shall include curbs, sidewalks, planter strips, medians, stormwater treatment and related landscaping, drainage, street lighting and safety related signing and striping improvements. Improvements encroaching or affecting Caltrans right of way will require approval and encroachment permits from Caltrans. Master Plan related improvements include: (1) The Gasser Drive Bridge and Extension (Kansas to Soscol) (GMP COA#24). These improvements shall include: (a) A single travel lane and 5-foot bicycle lane in each direction. (b) A pedestrian sidewalk along the east side of the streel. (c) A dedicated right turn pocket for southbound Soscol Avenue at Gasser Drive. (d) Installation of water mains, sanitary sewers and other utilities as deemed necessary to facilitate development of fronting properties. (e) Signalization of the Gasser Drive/Kansas Avenue intersection. The intersection geometry at this new signalized intersection shall be as follows: A. Northbound Gasser Drive: (1) through lane and (1) right-turn lane B. Southbound Gasser Drive: (1) shared through/left-turn lane C. Westbound Kansas Avenue: (1) left-turn lane and (1) right-turn lane (2) Soscol Avenue @ Project Driveway (Main Entry Road) (GMP COA#27). Construct a new traffic signal at the intersection. The new intersection geometry shall be as follows: (a) Northbound Soscol Avenue: (2) through lanes and (1) left-turn lane Page 393 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 11 of 26 June 20, 2017 (b) Southbound Soscol Avenue: (2) through lanes and (1) right-turn lane (c) Project Entrance: (1) westbound receiving lane, (2) eastbound left-turn lanes and (1) eastbound right-turn lane (3) Soscol Avenue @ Oil Company Road/Sousa Lane (GMP COA#28) - Reconfigure the intersection so that both the eastbound and westbound stop-controlled approaches of Oil Company Road/Sousa Lane to Soscol Avenue include a single right-turn lane and a single receiving lane. As part of this reconfiguration, the developer shall design and construct a raised median along Soscol Avenue that prohibits left turn and through movements from Oil Company Road and Sousa Lane, but that allows for northbound and southbound left turn movements from Soscol Avenue. (4) Soscol Avenue @ Kansas Avenue (GMP COA#31)- Construct the following improvements at the intersection: (a) Re-striping of eastbound Kansas Avenue at Soscol Avenue to install a double left turn lane, a single through and a single right-turn lane at the existing signals. (b) Relocation of the existing signal and installation of a single westbound left turn lane, a single through lane and a single right turn lane at the existing signals. (c) Addition of an overlap phase for the westbound, eastbound and southbound right-turn movements and provide protected phasing for the southbound left-turn movement. (5) North/South Access Road, Main Entry Road, Oil Company Road and Soscol Avenue (North of Silverado Trail) (GMP COA#38) (a) Complete construction of the North/South Access Road, Main Entry Road, Oil Company Road and Soscol Avenue (North of Silverado Trail) in conformance with the plans prepared by Foulk Civil Engineering. These road improvements shall include removal and relocation of existing improvements, curbs, sidewalks, planter strips, medians, stormwater Page 394 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 12 of 26 June 20, 2017 treatment and related landscaping, drainage, street lighting, traffic signals and safety related signing, striping, undergrounding of existing overhead distribution facilities and installation of water mains, sanitary sewers and other utilities as deemed necessary to facilitate development of fronting properties. (6) Soscol Avenue @ Imola Avenue (GMP COA#33)- Construct the following improvements at the intersection: (a) Installation on eastbound lmola Avenue of a double left turn lane, a single through lane, a right turn lane and a single receiving lane. (b) Installation on westbound lmola Avenue of a single left turn lane, a single through lane and a right turn lane at the existing signals. (c) Provide protected phasing for the eastbound and westbound left-turn movements, as well as right-turn overlap phasing in the westbound approach. (7) Soscol Avenue: Magnolia Drive to Silverado Trail (GMP COA#35) – Construct interim improvements for the widening of Soscol Avenue to six through lanes between Magnolia Drive and Silverado Trail. Interim improvements shall include medians and additional through lanes within existing right-of- way, as well as intersection improvements identified above (8) Imola Avenue @ Jefferson Street (GMP COA#29) – Construct a right-turn lane on the southbound approach and the reconfigure this approach to provide a left-turn lane, a shared- through-left-turn lane, and a right-turn lane from Jefferson Street to Imola Avenue. d. Water infrastructure improvements sufficient to meet City water quality, operational and fire flow standards as follows: (1) Abandon unused water mains and/or services as directed by the City. (2) Relocate the existing pipeline at the southeast corner of the property and abandonment of the existing 8" pipeline in the levee at the south end of the property. Page 395 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 13 of 26 June 20, 2017 (3) Install a sufficient number of hydrants on all public water facilities at City-approved locations. (4) Install a sufficient number of water main valves at City- approved locations. (5) Install appropriately-sized potable water services (fire, commercial, residential, irrigation, etc.) with approved backflow devices. (6) Install the following sub-regional water system improvements identified in the Gasser Master Plan (GMP COA#46): (a) Install a twelve-inch water main in Silverado Trail beginning at the end of the existing twelve-inch water main in Silverado Trail (476 Silverado Trail), thence northward to Sousa Lane (250 feet more or less), and terminating as a direct connection to the existing eight- inch main in Sousa Lane (at Silverado Trail) and twenty-four inch main in Sousa Lane and Silverado Trail, thereby converting existing portions of Hydraulic Zone 2 to Hydraulic Zone 3, and all affected services transferred appropriately. (b) Install an eight-inch water main in Soscol Avenue beginning at the blow-off on the end of the water main in Soscol Avenue in front of the Gasser Building (433 Soscol Avenue), proceeding northward to the twelve- inch main in Oil Company Road, with all affected services transferred from the unused water main to the newly installed eight-inch main. 28. The Applicant shall construct all improvements that will not be dedicated to and/or maintained by the City of Napa (i.e. the “Private Improvements”) as generally shown on the site plan and more specifically described below: a. Install a drive aisle and parking area pavement structural sections in accordance with site-specific geotechnical engineer recommendations or City minimum standards, whichever is greater. b. The drive alignment must be capable of accommodating standard Napa Recycling and Waste Services collection vehicles in a single pass (no 3+ point turning movements). If necessary, portions of the curb of the proposed street shall be designated “No Parking” (red curb) to enable the collection vehicles clear access. Page 396 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 14 of 26 June 20, 2017 c. Per City of Napa Public Works Standard Specification 3.02.02 H., no on-site parking space shall be allowed within the initial 20-feet of the driveway, where it connects to the public street measured from the back of sidewalk of the fronting street or from the ultimate right-of- way line in areas without sidewalks. d. Install all new utilities required to serve the project underground. e. All water service laterals (domestic, irrigation, and fire water) shall include an approved backflow prevention devices. f. Designate applicable on-site fire hydrants as private. g. Install drainage facilities, including detention pipe(s), metering boxes, and other appurtenances to collect and convey all surface drainage to an approved outfall. h. Install all post-construction stormwater treatment facilities consistent with the standards in the city’s NPDES permit and in accordance with the post construction storm water management requirements established by the city, including but not limited to, the current version of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association Post-Construction Manual or an updated version of that manual or other post-construction storm water management standards as adopted by Council resolution. 29. Prior to approval of the Improvement Plans, the Applicant shall: a. Submit the City’s “Initial Submittal Checklist” and “Improvement Plan Checklist”. b. Pay the initial cash deposit of $7000 for City plan check services. c. Contact the City of Napa Fire Department to confirm fire suppression requirements, fire service sizes and fire hydrant locations. d. Provide the following: (1) Public Street Repair Plan (2) Utility Plan (3) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (a) Applicant shall provide Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) and a schedule for implementation of Page 397 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 15 of 26 June 20, 2017 approved measures to the Development Engineering Division for review and approval with the first improvement plans submitted for review. A grading permit shall not be issued until the erosion and sediment control plan is approved. (b) Construction Water Quality Measures –the property owner shall insure that the Developer and the contractor incorporate storm water quality Best Management Practices (BMP’s) into the project construction process. (c) Project > 1 acre of disturbance: Provide an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) and/or a State Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (project disturbance >1 acre), as required per the States Construction General Permit. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) along with waste discharge identification number (WDID) will need to be provided to the Public Works – Stormwater Program prior to grading permits. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stor mwater/constpermits.shtml PLEASE NOTE: Item above does not require a separate Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP). The ESCP is a part or element of these plans; however, the SWPPP must address all elements of the required ESCP. See ESCP template at: http://www.cityofnapa.org/images/publicworks/BUD/es cp_reviewprocjun2014.pdf . (d) The construction BMP’s shall be shown on the project Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. (e) The project property owner shall insure that the contractor manages all construction activities; and handles, stores and disposes of all hazardous and non- hazardous waste in a manner that eliminates or minimizes (to the maximum extent practicable) the discharge of pollutants (e.g. motor oil, fuels, paints/stains and solvents, asphalt products, concrete, herbicides and pesticides, etc.) to the storm drains, ground water, and/or waterways. Page 398 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 16 of 26 June 20, 2017 (f) The project property owner shall insure that the contractor incorporates spill prevention and cleanup measures into the construction operation. All discarded materials shall be removed from the site and disposed of at an approved disposal facility. (g) The project property owner shall pay all cleanup, testing, disposal and City administrative costs associated with the discharge of pollutants into the storm drains and/or waterways as a result of the project construction activity. (4) Post-Construction Storm Water Runoff Management Plan (a) The Applicant shall incorporate post Development measures (BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP’S)) into the project design to mitigate project impacts to water quality. As ultimate maintenance responsibility for these BMP’s will be divided amongst different entities, separate plans shall be prepared for the on-site BMP’s and the off-site BMP’s The manual and templates may be downloaded from the BASMAA website at: http://www.basmaa.org/BoardandCommittees/PhaseII .aspx under “Projects and Programs” (b) The post-construction BMP’s shall be shown on the project improvement plans and in the required Storm Water Control Plan (SCP). (5) Geotechnical Report (6) Construction Traffic Control Plan. (7) Plans submitted for building permit review shall include turning radius drawings to ensure that after servicing the trash/recycling enclosure, the collection truck can maneuver the site in order to either; (a) exit the south driveway; or (b) drive through the parking lot and exit the north driveway without obstructions. e. Pothole or otherwise physically determine the actual horizontal location and vertical depth of all existing underground utilities throughout the proposed area of work. Provide the design of all new utility installations required to serve the project including a schedule Page 399 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 17 of 26 June 20, 2017 for implementation of such work as to prevent disrupting of utility service to adjacent properties. f. Provide acknowledgement by the District Engineer that the design of the sanitary sewer system design is approved by the Napa Sanitation District. g. Provide acknowledgment by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record that the Plans incorporate all design and construction criteria specified in the Geotechnical Report. h. Furnish proof of the acquisition of all rights of entry and/or temporary and permanent easements necessary to construct the project and the location of all such rights on the Plans. i. Submit all required water connection fees. 30. Prior to commencing any activities on-site, the Applicant shall: a. Pay of all current account balances. b. Pay an initial inspection fee deposit for improvements subject to Public Works Department inspection. c. Submit a copy of the Notice of Intent for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’ General Construction Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2009-0009-DWQ). d. Conduct a pre-construction meeting with representatives of the City whereby the Applicant and their Contractor provides the following: (1) (6) full-size bond copies of the approved Improvement Plans for the City’s use. (2) (1) job-site copy of the latest edition of the City of Napa Public Works Department Standard Specifications and Standard Plans for their use. (3) (1) job-site copy of the approved SWPPP for their use. 31. Prior to approval of a Building Permit, the Applicant shall: a. Construct all of Public & Private Improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Alternatively, the Applicant may enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City to construct all of the Page 400 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 18 of 26 June 20, 2017 Improvements prior to Occupancy of the first unit or as otherwise specified below. Such an Agreement will require the Applicant to provide bonds, proof of workers compensation insurance, and general liability insurance in the forms and amounts as proof satisfactory in form to the City. b. Per City Ordinance O2010 18, file a Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan (WRRP) with the building permit application (which will be forwarded by Building Division staff to the C&DD Compliance Official/Materials Diversions staff). The WRRP form is provided by the City. No building permit shall be issued for any project until the Compliance Official has approved the WRRP. c. Comply with the requirements of Napa Municipal Code Chapter 17.38 Floodplain Management. These include: (1) The project site plan shall indicate the limits and Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of the Floodplain as delineated in the current FEMA FIS and FIRM prepared for the County of Napa. All elevations should be based on NAD88 datum and so noted on the site plan. (2) All new construction or substantial improvement shall be flood proofed to a minimum of one foot above the BFE per FEMA Technical Bulletin 7-93 and shall be noted on the plans. (3) If applicable, indicate on plans water resistant materials for all construction below BFE plus one foot per FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-93. (4) If applicable, indicate on plans that electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air conditioning equipment (including ductwork) and other services are located a minimum of one foot above BFE or flood proofed to one foot above the BFE. (5) Provide a letter prepared by a Licensed Surveyor (or Civil Engineer authorized to perform surveying by the State) verifying the correct elevation of the lowest floor relative to the FEMA identified Base Flood Elevation. All referenced elevations shall be based on NAD88 datum and the current FEMA FIS and FIRM prepared for the County of Napa. d. The Developer shall prepare both interim and ultimate improvement plans for the widening of Soscol Avenue to six through lanes between Magnolia Drive and Silverado Trail. Interim improvements shall include medians and additional through lanes within existing Page 401 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 19 of 26 June 20, 2017 right-of-way, as well as, intersection improvements identified above. Ultimate shall include all additional through lanes and required right- of-way. The widened Soscol bridge over Tulocay Creek will be designed and constructed by Caltrans, but the ultimate improvement plans shall show conforms consistent with a widened Soscol bridge over Tulocay Creek. (1) The Developer shall have prepared a right-of-way exhibit defining the Caltrans, City or otherwise public right-of-way for Soscol Avenue (SR 121) from the north curb return of the intersection of Soscol Avenue and the existing Silverado Trail to the southern curb return of the intersection of Soscol Avenue with Magnolia Avenue. e. Convey all easements and dedications, public and private, for the construction, use and/or maintenance of roads or other access, drainage facilities, utilities and post-construction storm water management facilities. This condition requires the acquisition of off-site real property. The Developer shall enter into a property acquisition agreement with the City, by which the following requirements will be documented: (1) Developer will make a reasonable good faith effort to acquire the necessary right-of-way at the Developer's cost within a specified timeframe; (2) if the Developer makes a reasonable good faith effort but is unable to acquire the necessary right-of-way within the specified timeframe, the Developer may request the City to acquire the necessary right-of-way through the exercise of eminent domain; (3) the Developer shall pay all costs incurred by the City to acquire the necessary right-of-way; (4) the Developer shall complete the improvements required by this condition at such time as the City acquires an interest in the necessary right-of-way that will permit the improvements to be made; and (5) if the City does not acquire an interest in the necessary right-of-way that will permit the improvements to be made, the Developer shall be relieved of the obligation to construct the off-site improvements. The developer should begin good faith efforts to identify and acquire any necessary property at its earliest opportunity, so that construction of required improvement is not delayed by this process. f. Enter into a long-term maintenance agreement with the City of Napa approved both as to form and substance by the City Attorney and City Engineer for long term maintenance and financing for median and parkway landscaping appurtenant to all of the public streets that are part of the project and required under these Conditions of Approval. Page 402 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 20 of 26 June 20, 2017 g. Enter into long term maintenance agreements with the City of Napa approved both as to form and substance by the City Attorney and City Engineer for long term maintenance, financing and monitoring for the on-site and off-site post construction storm water best management practices that are incorporated as part of the project and as called out in the Approved Stormwater Control Plan. (1) The agreements shall include a detailed outline of responsible parties, inspections, maintenance procedures, monitoring documentation and annual reporting to the City Public Works Department, and procedures for administration and oversight. (2) The agreements must provide for the perpetual maintenance and replacement of the improvement as well as appropriate provisions relating to enforcement options, the right of the City to access the property to perform work, the right of the City to recover its costs, indemnification and enforcement provisions, as well as any other provisions deemed necessary or convenient to accomplish the City’s objectives. The City of Napa shall either be a signatory to the agreements or a third- party beneficiary to the agreement with the right but not the obligation to enforce the obligation and secure attorney’s fees for legal counsel to enforce such obligations. (3) Updated information, including contact information, must be provided to the municipality whenever a property is sold and whenever designated individuals or contractors change. (4) Appropriate easements or other arrangements satisfactory to the City Engineer and City Attorney necessary or convenient to ensure the feasibility of the scheme and fulfillment of maintenance responsibilities shall be secured and recorded prior to improvement plan approval. (5) The owner of the real property shall provide a written document, deed, agreement or similar writing acceptable to the Director, obligating the project proponent, their successors in control of the project and successors in fee title to the underlying real property (or premises), to assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of all installed treatment systems and hydromodification controls, if any, for the project. (6) The owner or operator of any installed treatment system or hydromodification control shall provide the Director with information and physical access necessary to assess Page 403 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 21 of 26 June 20, 2017 compliance with this chapter, with the city’s NPDES permit, and with any writing establishing operation and maintenance responsibilities and shall pay the city an annual fee for inspection and maintenance services in accordance with the latest Master Fee Schedule adopted by the City Council. (O2014-15, 11/18/14). h. Pay all account balances and current fees based on the rate in effect at the time of permit issuance. The fee amounts listed below are for informational purposes only as they are updated periodically. These fees include, but may not be limited to the following: (1) Street Improvement Fee (comprised of street and utility undergrounding components) The street improvement component has been credited in full based on SIF qualifying improvements already constructed or otherwise required in the Gasser Master Plan Area: Land Use Unit Street Component Rate Utility Underground Rate Street Component Fee Utility Underground Fee Apartment 50 $1,669 $1,529 N/A –See Above $76,450 (2) Gasser Master Plan related “proportionate share” contributions (a) Silverado Trail/Soscol Avenue/Gasser Drive intersection realignment (GMP COA#25). -The cost to design and construct a second westbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Silverado Trail and Soscol Avenue. The Gasser Master Plan’s total proportionate share is 16.19% of the total cost for this intersection improvement. (b) Third Street intersection with the Silverado Trail, Coombsville Road and East Avenue. (GMP COA#12) The cost to design and construct interim improvement of the Third Street intersection with the Silverado Trail, Coombsville Road and East Avenue as approved by Caltrans and City of Napa. The Gasser Master Plan’s total proportionate share is 8.91% of the total cost for this intersection improvement. The North Gasser share is 3.83%. Page 404 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 22 of 26 June 20, 2017 (c) Soscol Avenue intersection with Lincoln Avenue (GMP COA#34) -The cost to design and construct a double left turn lane on the southbound approach of Soscol Avenue to Lincoln Avenue. The Gasser Master Plan’s proportionate share is 5.47% of the total cost of this intersection improvement. The North Gasser share is 2.35%. 32. Prior to Occupancy of the first unit, the Applicant shall: a. Submit an inspector’s punch list indicating that all of the “Public & Private Improvements” are constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b. Restore all adjacent off-site road surfaces to pre-project conditions. c. Submit a certification by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record that all the work has been completed in substantial conformance with the recommendations in Soils Investigation/Geotechnical Report. d. Provide an FEMA Elevation Certificate prepared by a Licensed Surveyor (or Civil Engineer authorized to perform surveying by the State) based on finished construction. e. Submit a certification by the Engineer of Record that all work has been completed in substantial conformance with the approved Improvement Plans. f. All disturbed areas shall be installed with final permanent stabilization measures to insure no sediment laden discharges from the site. g. Applicant shall complete the Final Stormwater Inspection Sign Off form as specified in the Stormwater Control Plan. A copy of the form may be requested from the Public Works Development Engineering Division – Stormwater Program. h. Identify all on-site post-construction stormwater quality bmp’s and along the project frontage with the appropriate street address (addresses to be provided by City) and GIS coordinates i. Submit any remaining meter set and/or hot-tap fees to the Water Division at 1340 Clay Street, Napa, 94559. Page 405 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 23 of 26 June 20, 2017 j. Submit certification that all backflow devices have been installed and tested by an AWWA certified tester (a list of testers is provided by the City of Napa) to the City of Napa Water Division. k. Provide the Water Division with written documentation identifying building connections and points of service. The documentation shall include APN of the parcel, street addresses associated with the parcel and the new water service account numbers specific to the addresses and/or parcels being served. l. Complete the water demand mitigation requirements of this project as specified by the City of Napa Water Division. The Applicant will be contacted by the City of Napa Water Division after obtaining a building permit specifying the requirements for the proposed project. m. Provide a digital copy of the Improvement Plans that include all as- built or field changes, in digital AutoCAD format, compatible with the City’s current version, and tied to the City’s coordinate system. n. Within sixty (60) days of the final inspection, the applicant shall submit documentation, signed and certified under penalty of perjury, to the Compliance Official that the diversion requirement for the project per the approved WRRP has been met. Napa Sanitation District 33. A plan showing the required sanitary sewer improvements shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer conforming to NSD standards, and shall be submitted to the District for approval. 34. No floor drains are allowed in the common area buildings except in the restroom, locker room, and food service areas. 35. Discharge lines from the elevator sump pits shall not be connected to the sanitary sewer system. 36. NapaSan has a current program that allows for the deferral of payment of sewer capacity charges for affordable residential projects for up to 18 months after building permit issuance. Please contact NapaSan for additional information. 37. The proposed development would be subject to the following fees, based on the rates in effect at the time they are paid: a. Agreement Fees b. Plan Check Fees Page 406 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 24 of 26 June 20, 2017 c. Inspection Fees d. Capacity Charges (per apartment unit) e. Capacity Charges (based on use and square footage for office and community areas) 38. NapaSan has updated sanitary sewer and recycled water standard specifications and details. The updated specifications and details are available online at NapaSan's website (www.NapaSan.com). NapaSan may revise the standard specifications and details at any time. It is the responsibility of the engineer, contractor, and developer to verify that they are in possession of the current version of the standards prior to design and construction of sanitary sewer and recycled water improvements. City General Conditions 39. Gasser Master Plan. Unless otherwise amended by this resolution, the proposed development is subject to all relevant Mitigation Measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report certified and adopted by the City Council via R2006 212, adopted on December 12, 2006, and the “Implementation Section Conditions of Approval” and Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in City Council R2006 213. 40. The plans submitted for improvement plan review and Building Permit review shall include a written analysis specifying how each of the conditions of approval have been addressed or incorporated into either the improvement plan set or building plan set. 41. Unless otherwise specifically provided, each condition of this approval shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a Building Permit, or if a Building Permit is not required, prior to the commencement of use; however, in the event the subject approval is for a tentative subdivision map or parcel map, each condition shall be satisfied prior to final map approval. Applicant’s (and landowner’s, if different) execution of the City’s improvement agreement with required security may be accepted in lieu of condition completion. 42. No use authorized by this permit may commence until after the Applicant executes any required permit agreement. 43. Applicant shall pay all applicable fees and charges at the required time and at the rate in effect at time of payment (in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule; see individual departments regarding the timing of fee payment requirements). 44. Applicant shall design and construct all improvements and facilities shown on any approved Tentative Map, site plan, or other documents submitted for permit approval, and with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by City, to comply with the General Plan, any applicable Specific Plan, the Napa Municipal Code (NMC), City Ordinances and resolutions, the "Standard Specifications" of the Public Page 407 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 25 of 26 June 20, 2017 Works and Fire Departments, as well as any approved Tentative Map, site plan or other documents submitted for permit approval and with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by City. 45. The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitations period is specified by any other provision. Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. 46. To the full extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify, defend, release and hold City, its agents, officers, and employees from and against any claims, suits, liabilities, actions, damages, penalties or causes of action by any person, including Applicant, for any injury (including death) or damage to person or property or to set aside, attack, void or annul any actions of City, its agents, officers and employees, from any cause whatsoever in whole or in part arising out of or in connection with (1) the processing, conditioning or approval of the subject property; (2) any failure to comply with all applicable laws and regulations; or (3) the design, installation or operation of project improvements and regardless whether the actions or omissions are alleged to be caused by City or Applicant so long as City promptly notifies Applicant of any such claim, etc., and the City cooperates in the defense of same. 47. If the Applicant is not the owner of the subject property, all agreements required to be executed by the City must be executed by the Owner(s) as well as the Applicant. 48. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these conditions (and mitigations) constitute written notice of the statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby notified that the 90-day period in which you may protest those fees, the amount of which has been identified herein, dedications, reservations and other exactions have begun. If you fail to file a protest complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction. 49. Violation of any term, condition, mitigation measure or project description relating to this approval is unlawful, prohibited and a violation of the Napa Municipal Code and can result in revocation or modification of this approval and/or the institution of civil and/or criminal enforcement and/or abatement proceedings. 50. Project approval would not have been granted but for the applicability and validity of each and every one of the specified mitigations and conditions, and if any one or more of such conditions and mitigations is found to be invalid by a court of law, this Page 408 of 477 ATTACHMENT 1 R2017-_ Page 26 of 26 June 20, 2017 project approval would not have been granted without requiring other valid conditions and/or mitigations consistent with achieving the purpose and intent of such approval. Section 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a public meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ________________________ Dorothy Roberts City Clerk Approved as to form: Michael W. Barrett City Attorney Page 409 of 477 Community Development Department – Planning Division 1600 First Street + P.O. Box 660 Napa, CA 94559-0660 (707) 257-9530 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 18, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 7.A. File No. PL17-0061 STODDARD WEST I. GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT SUMMARY: Request for a 50-unit multi-family development on a 2.37 acre property. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: West-side of Gasser Drive extension APN 046-190-052 GENERAL PLAN: MU-532, Mixed Use ZONING: MP-G2, Creekside; :FP, Floodplain Management Overlay APPLICANT / PROPERTY OWNER: Gasser Foundation (Joe Peatman) 433 Soscol Avenue, A120 Napa, CA 94559 Phone: (707) 255-1646 STAFF PLANNER: Karlo Felix, Senior Planner Phone: (707) 257-9354 LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT 2 Page 1 of 18 Page 410 of 477 Stoddard West #17-0061 2 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant requests approval to develop a 2.37-acre parcel located of the west-side of the Gasser Drive Extension adjacent to Tulocay Creek into a 50-unit apartment complex. This project would be a joint venture between The Gasser Foundation and Burbank Housing to provide affordable housing. The project will consist of a three- and four-story building that will provide a mix of 15 one-bedroom, 20 two-bedroom, and 15 three-bedroom units. All proposed units will be income-restricted and managed by Burbank Housing. Proposed amenities include a community room, bicycle room, playground, and community garden area. Parking for the proposed development will include 100 off-street parking spaces within a combination of carports and open parking spaces. The project includes the following applications: 1. Use Permit to authorize a multi-family development and tandem parking for 24 parking spaces; and 2. Design Review Permit for a multi-family development. FIGURE 1 – SITE PLAN Vehicular access to the development will be from two driveways along the Gasser Drive Extension. The one-bedroom units will range in size from 578 to 652 square feet (sq. ft.), the two-bedroom will units range in size from 868 to 1,061 sq. ft., and the three-bedroom units will be 1,131 sq. ft. Each unit is designed to include materials which minimize low volatile organic compounds (VOCs), Green Label wall-to-wall carpeting, formaldehyde- free cabinets, and individual heating and air units. In addition, ultra-low-flow toilets would be included in all the units. The building is designed to exceed Title 24 energy standards and will incorporate Energy Star-rated appliances, energy efficient lighting, double-pane windows, and energy efficient insulation. III. CONTEXT The project site is located within the Gasser Master Plan Creekside District, which is a triangular area bisected by the Gasser Drive Extension and adjacent to protected ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 of 18 Page 411 of 477 Stoddard West #17-0061 3 wetlands and Tulocay Creek. The Creekside District is comprised of a 3.0-acre site on the east-side of the Gasser Drive Extension and a 2.37-acre project site located on the west side. The Creekside District was originally approved for up to 70,000 sq. ft. of office/retail commercial uses, but does allow the development of residential uses provided that anticipated traffic impacts, established by standards of the Gasser Master Plan, are not exceeded. Off-street bicycle/pedestrian trail amenities are planned along Tulocay Creek but there will be no trail on the west side of the parcel. Figure 2 – Context Map IV. ANALYSIS A. GENERAL PLAN The property is located within the MU-532, Mixed Use General Plan Designation, which provides for a functionally integrated mix of retail commercial, office, light manufacturing, and higher density residential uses that are typically attached. Residential densities shall range from 20 to 40 units per acre, while densities up to 45 units per acre may be allowed on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the City. The 50 units on this 2.37-acre site result in a project density of 21 units per acre which is consistent with the density range of the MU-532 Designation. Higher density residential uses (over 15 units/acre) are generally located nearest to thoroughfares, transit corridors and community-serving commercial and public/quasi-public uses and are encouraged adjacent to employment and neighborhood-serving commercial uses to ensure the efficient use of land, public facilities, and services. The proposal is consistent with this Designation and is supported by the following General Plan goals and policies: Land Use Element Policy LU-3.4 seeks to “… provide for the efficient development and redevelopment of land within the RUL in order to allow job and housing growth…” ATTACHMENT 2 Page 3 of 18 Page 412 of 477 Stoddard West #17-0061 4 The proposed 50-unit development provides for an efficient housing development that will provide housing for lower income levels on an underutilized parcel of land consistent with this policy. Land Use Element Goal LU-4 seeks to “preserve and enhance the residential character of existing neighborhoods and provide for new residential development consistent with the city's character and urban form.” The proposed development is located adjacent to Vista Tulocay, a 282-unit multi-family development. The proposed development is consistent in character and urban form with Vista Tulocay consistent with this goal. Land Use Element Policy LU-4.1 requires new residential density to conform to the density range established in Table 1-4 of the General Plan. The property is located within the MU-532 Designation which allows for residential density ranges between 20 and 40 units per acre. The proposed 50-unit development has a project density of 21 units per acre which is consistent with this density range. Housing Element Policy H1.1 seeks to “promote creative and efficient use of vacant and built on land within its RUL to help maintain the City’s pre-eminent agricultural environment and open space.” The proposed 50-unit development provides an efficient housing development that will provide housing for lower income levels on an underutilized parcel of land consistent with this policy. Housing Element Policy H1.2 requires that the City maintain an adequate supply of land for all types to meet State-mandated housing needs within the 2015-2023 Housing Element timeframe. The proposed 50-unit development is consistent with the above policy in that it provides housing units that will help meet the quantified housing needs for the City for affordable rate housing units. Housing Element Goal H-2 encourages the development of “a variety of housing types and choices.” Housing Element Policy H2.2 also encourages “an increased mix of various types of housing throughout the City to meet community housing needs, provide greater housing choices, and improve transportation choices.” The proposed development is a multi-family development located in close proximity to services and transit. Furthermore, it provides for income-restricted apartments with a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units that are currently in demand and needed to satisfy the community housing needs consistent with this goal and policy. Housing Element Policy H2.1 requires that the City “continue to support and encourage new affordable housing projects.” The City has given priority to the processing of this application which provides for the construction of a 100% affordable on-site housing units consistent with this policy. Housing Element Policy H2.9 states the “City shall consider redesignation of additional appropriate sites to Multi-Family Land Use categories as needed throughout the City where opportunities are available.” The proposed 50-unit development is an opportunity to provide this much-needed land use on a property that is open and available and does not displace or impact adjacent properties. It requires the approval of a Use Permit to authorize a multi-family development on property that was previously designated for a commercial type development, consistent with this policy. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 4 of 18 Page 413 of 477 Stoddard West #17-0061 5 Housing Element Policy H2.14 states the “City shall assure that affordable housing provided through density bonuses, and other programs or incentives remain affordable long-term consistent with State law.” The 50 rental units will remain affordable for residents for a period of time, consistent with the land lease term of 75 years, consistent with this policy. Housing Element Policy H3.1 seeks to “assure high quality, well-designed housing that respects the surrounding neighborhood, and provide for a greater variety of housing options to meet community needs.” The Housing Element also encourages the efficient use of land and that make every effort to approve well-designed projects consistent with General Plan densities. This project appears consistent with both of these policy goals, as the proposed development of 50 apartment units on the 2.37- acre site is consistent with the General Plan density range. All of the units within the development will be affordable to eligible low-income families. In addition, the City has adopted Residential Design Guidelines to ensure that new infill developments are compatible with existing neighborhoods. B. ZONING The project site is located within the Creekside District of the Gasser Master Plan. Multi- family residential uses are a conditional use subject to approval of a Use Permit, and may be incorporated at a density of 10-40 units/acre if the overall PM peak-hour trip generation for the entire Gasser Master Plan District is not exceeded (as analyzed in the Gasser Master Plan Draft EIR), and other zoning standards are met. In calculating the trip generation from the proposed 50-unit development, the Public Works Department has determined that the proposed development does not exceed the overall PM peak-hour trip generation requirement. As provided in the analysis of the revised traffic demand, residential peak hour traffic is lower than the traffic assigned to the site when assumed to be non-residential spaces such as office use. The Creekside District does not require a rear or side yard setback, and with its location on the west-side of Gasser Drive the buildings are intended to be located/oriented to take advantage of wetland and Tulocay Creek views. The proposed building is located adjacent to the required setback limits of Tulocay Creek and the wetland area consistent with the Gasser Master Plan. The proposed landscape areas exceed the minimum 20% landscape area requirement for the project site. The proposed building is consistent with the Creekside Development Standards regarding setbacks, yards and required landscape area. The proposed building will have a maximum height of 42 feet, which is well within the 48-foot maximum height of the Creekside District. TABLE 1 – PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Standard Proposed Height (feet) min. 48 42 Front Setback (feet)min. 10 40 Side Yard (feet) none 19 Rear Yard (feet)none 15 Landscape Area (percentage)min. 20 min. 28 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 5 of 18 Page 414 of 477 Stoddard West #17-0061 6 Off-street pedestrian and bicycle trails within the Gasser Project are intended to provide a key recreation resource to residents and the public. One of the goals of the Master Plan is to create a system of linked off-street multi-use trails along the railroad tracks, around much of the North Wetlands, along the north-side of Tulocay Creek, and over Tulocay Creek to South River Place by way of the City of Napa’s crossing of the Napa Valley Wine Train Bridge. The Master Plan supports and is consistent with City efforts to provide a connection across the railroad tracks at Tulocay Creek to the citywide River Trail for resident and community access. The proposed development takes advantage of an existing public trails easement that exists along the southern boundary of the property adjacent to Tulocay Creek. C. PARKING The Zoning Ordinance establishes the following parking requirements for the proposed 50-unit multi-family residential development: TABLE 2 – PARKING STANDARDS Units Standard Required 1-bedroom 15 1.25 spaces / unit 18.75 2-bedroom 20 1.50 spaces / unit 30.00 3-bedroom 15 1.75 spaces / unit 26.25 Guest 50 1 space / 2 units 25.00 Total 100 The parking layout plan prepared for the development provides a total of 100 spaces, consisting of 51 carport spaces and 49 uncovered spaces. The development is required to provide a total of 50 covered parking spaces; 51 covered spaces have been proposed, which satisfies the covered parking requirement. Additionally, because the development will be on a street which will not provide on-street parking, the proposed development has been designed with a guest parking ratio of one space per two units, which satisfies the parking space requirements identified above. The guest parking spaces will be distributed throughout the proposed development. Napa Municipal Code (NMC) Section 17.54.110 generally restricts the use of tandem parking (parking one car behind another, where one car must be moved to get the second car out), except as provided below for residential applications: A. Residential driveways leading to a garage/carport or other uncovered space outside of setback areas for single-family, condominium, duplex and accessory second unit uses, where at least 2 spaces are required for the unit and the tandem space is for the same household. B. Residential tandem garages for single-family homes that require 5 or more parking spaces through an exception process. With this exception, the driveway space can continue to count as a legal space. C. Other residential development through a Use Permit. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 6 of 18 Page 415 of 477 Stoddard West #17-0061 7 Consistent with the exception in “C” above, the Applicant requests a Use Permit for 12 tandem parking spaces that will be located within the driveways leading to a carport. These tandem parking spaces are located outside of the drive aisle and would typically be used only by a resident or guest of the corresponding unit. Based on the parking lot design and location of the tandem parking spaces, Staff supports the Use Permit for tandem parking. D. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT OVERLAY The site is also subject to the Floodplain Management (FP) Overlay District regulations, which require that the City's Floodplain Administrator review all on-site improvements. After review of the proposed plans and the Applicant's hydraulic analysis of the project, the Floodplain Administrator has determined that the improvements are consistent with both the existing City policy and standards and with Federal floodplain criteria. E. WETLAND SETBACK The project site is located directly adjacent to the North Wetlands which is owned by the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Flood Control District). The Applicant has been working closely with the Flood Control District, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife on the appropriate riparian setback for the development. The project incorporates a 50-foot riparian/wetland setback from the edge of the wetlands. This setback area will be landscaped and new split rail fence (similar to the fence design used at Vista Tulocay Apartments) will delineate the buffer area from the common area landscaping that will be constructed along the wetlands. F. DESIGN REVIEW The proposed development includes 50 living units within a new three- to four-story building, consisting of 15 one-bedroom, 20 two-bedroom, and 15 three-bedroom units. The new building is designed in the shape of an “L” with a landscape courtyard to be developed on the inside of the “L.” The building will be located along the southern end of the triangular shaped property with the parking located to the east and north of the proposed building. The Fire Code requires that all developments of 50 or more units provide a secondary means of vehicular egress in the event of an emergency, which shall remain unobstructed at all times (i.e., not dedicated for emergency vehicle access only, but rather open to resident use at all times). Consistent with this requirement, the Applicant proposes two driveway access points from the Gasser Drive Extension. In accordance with the Gasser Master Plan Design Guidelines, Staff relied on the principles found in the City’s Residential Design Guidelines for reviewing the site development and architectural design. The applicable guidelines are identified below, followed by a response identifying how the project application addresses the guidelines. Figure 3 – Perspective Front Elevation ATTACHMENT 2 Page 7 of 18 Page 416 of 477 Stoddard West #17-0061 8 Site Plan a. Buildings should frame neighborhood gateways and define community and common open spaces. Public, communal, and private spaces should be clearly distinguishable. The proposed building frames a landscape courtyard that is located on the interior of the “L” shaped building. The building is located/oriented to take advantage of the views of the adjacent wetland and Tulocay Creek which will be fenced to clearly define the boundary of the private and public spaces. b. Ground floor units should have direct access from streets and from common spaces. Units should provide "eyes-on-the-street" security by orienting towards streets and common areas. The ground floor units have access to the adjacent common spaces and from the central pedestrian passages within the building. The units provide windows and balconies oriented to the common area and street to create the desired “eyes on the street” security. c. Entry drives to multifamily housing should be designed to create a positive identity for the project. Landscape and site design should frame and distinguish entry drives. A pair of Red Sunset Maple trees will frame the southern-most driveway creating a positive identity for the project. d. Parking lots should be screened by shade trees, landscaping, or buildings. Parking should be unobtrusive and not disrupt the quality of common spaces and pedestrian environments of multifamily development. Parking should be distributed throughout the site in discrete courts and garages. The parking areas will be screened from the adjacent public street with shrubs and trees. The proposed uncovered surface parking areas have been designed consistent with the “one tree for every five parking spaces” requirement. The location of the parking areas does not conflict with common open space areas or ATTACHMENT 2 Page 8 of 18 Page 417 of 477 Stoddard West #17-0061 9 the pedestrian walkways that are located throughout the development. Parking is located within carports and surface spaces and evenly distributed within the proposed development away from the public view. e. Services for multifamily development should not be visible from public areas. Trash bins, utility meters, transformers, and other service elements should be enclosed or otherwise concealed from view. The recycling and waste areas for the development will be located within the northern portion of the building and will not be highly visible from public open spaces areas. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring that all mechanical and utility equipment, including transformers and backflow devices, be screened and/or integrated in to the building structure. Figure 4 – Common Areas ATTACHMENT 2 Page 9 of 18 Page 418 of 477 Stoddard West #17-0061 10 Figure 5 – Landscape Plan Common Areas f. Common open areas and parks provide gathering places, add livability and value: Encourage usable common open space in larger housing developments, considering higher heights, increased densities or decreased setbacks on some portions of the site as a tradeoff for providing such amenities. The design of the development includes a large courtyard feature near the project entrance, a community garden, playground and large open area with a series of pedestrian walkways connected throughout the project which provide access to the residential units as well as the interior common areas, office and the adjacent creek trail. g. Multifamily development must provide common and/or private open space for each unit consistent with development standards in the Zoning Ordinance. Multifamily projects should include both landscaped and hardscape areas that encourage social interaction. Play spaces for children are strongly encouraged and should be both secure and observable. Common private open space should be centrally located and have a physical and visible connection to public open space. Common open space should be connected to each project’s internal pedestrian system. The development includes several common areas that are located throughout with a community center, balconies and outdoor entertainment areas. The guidelines suggest that multifamily development must provide both common and private open space for each unit consistent with development standards in the Zoning Ordinance. Although not a Zoning requirement, the development provides the minimum open space requirement of 200 square feet per unit that is typically required of a multi-family development. The common open spaces are ATTACHMENT 2 Page 10 of 18 Page 419 of 477 Stoddard West #17-0061 11 conveniently located and have a physical and visible connection to the residential units. All common open space areas are connected to the project’s internal pedestrian system. The proposed landscape design includes a variety of communal spaces that use drought-tolerant, low-water usage plants. The project will plant trees in compliance with the City’s parking lot design standards and street requirements. According to the project’s landscaping plan, the Project will plant new trees including Red Maple, Pin Oak, Western Redbud, California Sycamore and Crape Myrtle. All onsite landscaping and irrigation plans would be designed by a licensed landscape architect or landscape contractor and approved by the City of Napa Public Works Department Water Division, prior to the approval of Improvement Plans and issuance of building permits for the project. Figure 6 – Building Front Perspective Figure 7 – Front SW Perspective ATTACHMENT 2 Page 11 of 18 Page 420 of 477 Stoddard West #17-0061 12 Figure 8 – Building Rear Perspective Architectural Design h. Multifamily projects should utilize a unifying theme and a common vocabulary of forms and architectural elements. Building forms should use varying roof heights, setbacks and wall planes to break up the perceived bulk of buildings. Long, unbroken volumes and large, unarticulated wall and roof planes should not be permitted. The residential building essentially consists of a combination of three- and four-story walk-ups. The fourth-floor elements are proposed on the longer portion of the building to provide a varying roof height and building plane which break up the perceived bulk of the building. The residential building has been designed with a common vocabulary of forms and architectural elements. The exterior finish of the buildings is predominantly stucco with corrugated metal siding elements in a variety of unique color schemes. The proposed building features metal railing on balconies with composition roofing shingles. The units feature windows that are aligned with each other and other building elements to provide a harmonious appearance. The change in roof forms and varying wall planes present interesting elevations that are not overly repetitive. i. Facades should have three-dimensional elements, such as chimneys, balconies, bay windows or dormers, to break up large wall and roof surfaces. Every facade should possess an overall design concept that is well composed and articulated and of consistent quality. Multiple wall offsets and varied roof forms create a reduced sense of scale. The hierarchy of fenestration treatment, detailing, and exterior wall materials provides visual interest when seen from a distance or from a pedestrian level. Second-floor balconies and open railings develop shadow patterns and textures. Each elevation has the same level of articulation and quality as the front elevation. j. Roof forms should reflect their context. While traditional sloping roofs, such as gable or hip roofs are generally preferred, there may be instances (such as adjacent to a traditional commercial district) where flat roofs may be allowed, if screened from public view by continuous parapets or by pitched roofs. The proposed residential building provides a combination of roof forms with traditional sloping roof consistent with the guidelines. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 12 of 18 Page 421 of 477 Stoddard West #17-0061 13 k. Outbuildings, such as community buildings, management offices, club houses, or freestanding parking garages should incorporate design features, materials and colors of the residential buildings. With the exception of the proposed carport structures, no outbuildings are proposed for this development. The proposed office, community room, and bicycle room been incorporated within the proposed residential building. l. Stairways, fences, trash enclosures and other accessory elements should be designed as integral parts of the architecture. These should not be visible features at the ends of streets or driveways. The proposed stairways are located in the interior of the building and will not be visible. Additionally, the trash area is integrated in design and materials with the building. A new split rail fence will be constructed at the top of the wetland and creek areas to delineate the buffer area from the common area landscaping that will be constructed along the wetlands. Figure 9 – Building Materials and Colors Materials and Color m. Multi-family housing should demonstrate a commitment to lasting and durable design with materials and colors that support overall image and massing concepts. The proposed buildings have a contemporary design with sustainable exterior materials such as three coat stucco, metal siding, vinyl windows and composite shingle roofs. The proposed building has common design details and materials that create a unifying architectural theme. The proposed building has been designed with a clear pattern of openings, a recognizable entry and appropriate roof details to create an interesting roofline. n. All the facades should employ the same quality of materials. On corner units, architectural materials should be consistent on both exposed elevations. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 13 of 18 Page 422 of 477 Stoddard West #17-0061 14 All elevations share the same level of architectural detail and material treatment. o. Painted surfaces should use colors that reinforce architectural concepts and are compatible with natural materials, such as brick or stone. The proposed color scheme for the new buildings will be an adobe beige or cream along with tan, brown and gray for the stucco elements. The composite roofs will be a gray. The building colors are appropriate for the particular building style. G. HOUSING AUTHORITY COMMENTS The Housing Authority recommends that the Planning Commission support the project and forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the project. The Applicant will enter into an agreement to construct 100% of the housing units (50) at affordable rental prices to low- income households for a period of 75 years commensurate with the underlying land lease of property. The Housing Authority supports this project, as it will provide the type of affordable housing which has been identified as a need in the City of Napa Housing Element. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has determined that project’s potential environmental effects were adequately examined by the following documents pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15063 and 15162:  Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Gasser Master Plan (File No. 02-134), adopted December 12, 2006 [herein referenced as the 2006 EIR]; and  Addendum to the EIR for the Gasser Master Plan prepared for Vista Tulocay Apartments (File No. PL13-0139), adopted August 16, 2016. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), a subsequent EIR shall not be required when: A. There is not a substantial change to the project that involves new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect; B. There is not a substantial change to the circumstances which the project is undertaken that involves new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect; and C. There is no new information of substantial importance that shows the project will have a significant effect, significant effects will be more severe, and mitigation measures that would reduce significant effects are rejected by the Applicant. The CEQA Guidelines establish 17 environmental issue areas that are reviewed as a part of a CEQA environmental checklist form. Staff has identified that analysis of transportation and traffic issues was warranted. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 14 of 18 Page 423 of 477 Stoddard West #17-0061 15 The 2006 EIR analyzed a project where the subject site was developed as 26,000 square feet of offices. The project proposes to replace the office use with a 50-unit multi-family residential development. A peak hour trip generation analysis (Crane Transportation Group – date stamped received April 6, 2017) concluded that the project would result in 13 additional inbound trips and 21 fewer outbound trips; a reversal of the traffic pattern versus offices due to the change in land uses. The Public Works Department has reviewed the analysis and concluded that no additional mitigations are required. As such, there is no substantial change to the project that involves new significant impacts; there are no substantial changes to the circumstances which the project is being undertaken that involves new significant impacts; and there is no new information of substantial importance that shows the project will have a significant effect. The adopted 2016 EIR addressed all environmental impacts of this project and no new significant environmental impacts have been identified; therefore, the 2016 EIR remains adequate for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental effects of the apartment development. The proposed development will be required to comply with all applicable mitigation measures of the 2016 EIR prepared for the Master Plan as specified in City Council Resolution R2006 193 and these mitigations will be incorporated as conditions of any approval of the project. VI. REQUIRED FINDINGS The Planning Commission’s decision regarding this project is subject to the required findings established in NMC Section 17.60.070 relating to the Use Permits and Section 17.62.080 relating to the Design Review Permits. These findings are provided in the draft resolution attached to this Staff Report. VII. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice that this application was received was provided by the City on April 14, 2017, and notice of the scheduled public hearing was provided on May 4, 2017, by US Postal Service to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property. Notice of the public hearing was also published in the Napa Valley Register on May 5, 2017 and provided to people previously requesting notice on the matter at the same time notice was provided to the newspaper for publication. The Applicant was also provided a copy of this report and the associated attachments in advance of the public hearing on the project. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Use Permit for a multi-family development and tandem parking and approve the Design Review Permit for a multi-family development based on a determination that the application is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 15 of 18 Page 424 of 477 Stoddard West #17-0061 16 IX. REQUIRED ACTIONS Final actions by the Planning Commission: 1. Forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a resolution approving a Use Permit to authorize a multi-family development and tandem parking; and Design Review Permit for a multi-family development. X. DOCUMENTS ATTACHED 1. Draft City Council Resolution 2. Project Description and Plans ATTACHMENT 2 Page 16 of 18 Page 425 of 477 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES EXCERPT May 18 , 2017 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS/APPEALS A. STODDARD WEST – NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOSCOL AVENUE AND SILVERADO TRAIL (BEHIND 333 SOSCOL AVENUE) (File No. PL17-0061) Use Permit and Design Review Permit for a multi-family residential development. The Applicant proposes a 50-unit development on a 2.37 acre parcel. All of the units will be income restricted and includes a mix of 15 one-bedrooms, 20 two-bedrooms, and 15 three-bedroom units. A total of 100 on-site parking spaces are proposed in a combination of surface and covered parking spaces. The project site is located on the west-side of the future Gasser Drive extension; within the MU-532, Mixed Use General Plan Designation; the MP-G2, Creekside Zoning District; and the :FP and :TI, Floodplain Management and Traffic Impact Overlay Districts. (APN 046-190-052) Senior Planner Karlo Felix presented the staff report and provided a recommendation. Commissioners provided disclosures. Vice-Chair Murray asked about the use of the tandem parking. Chair Kelley asked for clarification on the setbacks establishment and fence at the wetlands. Chair Kelley invited the Applicants to speak. Cassandra Walker, Housing Consultant for Gasser Foundation, briefed the Commission on the proposed project. The Project Architect for Gasser Foundation, provided design details. Vice-Chair Murray inquired on possible changes to window treatment on a portion of the project. Chair Kelley supported this by adding that shade would be advisable. The Applicant agreed to consider changes. Commissioner Myers asked about additional entrances to the building. Chair Kelley asked the Applicant for a brief description of project funding, which was addressed by Ms. Walker. Chair Kelley opened the item for Public Hearing. Dave Whitmer, 2137 Euclid Avenue, Napa Housing Coalition Member and Napa resident expressed support for the proposed project as it fulfills a need for Napa residents. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 17 of 18 Page 426 of 477 Granules Lindberg, Napa Housing Coalition Member, expressed support for the proposed project as it offers affordability and energy and water efficient measures. After receiving no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Painter expressed her appreciation for the quality of design expressing that affordable housing can also be well designed. Commissioner Myers thanked the Applicants for presenting a project that promotes the interest of housing and admired the effort considering the limited resources. Vice-Chair Murray agreed that this project satisfied many community requests and requirements and thanked Mr. and Mrs. Gasser for their generosity. Chair Kelley expressed his appreciation for the project design and commended the developed partnership that is helping fulfill the need of affordable housing. Commissioners Myers and Murray moved and seconded to forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a resolution approving a Use Permit to authorize a multi-family development and tandem parking and a Design Review Permit for the site plan, building plans, and elevations. Motion carried: AYES: Kelley, Murray, Painter, Myers NOES: ABSENT: Huether ABSTAIN: ATTACHMENT 2 Page 18 of 18 Page 427 of 477 N OTICE OF F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT & N OTICE OF I NTENT TO R EQUEST R ELEASE OF F UNDS Mailing Address: PO Box 660 Napa, CA 94559 Community Development Department 1600 First Street 707.257.9530 May 31, 2017 City of Napa PO Box 660 Napa, CA 94559 707.257.9530 These notices shall satisfy two separate but related procedural requirements for activities to be undertaken by the Burbank Housing Development Corporation (BHDC). REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS: On or about June 20, 2017 the City of Napa will authorize BHDC to submit a request to the HUD for the release of CDBG funds under Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, to undertake a project known as Stoddard West (File No. PL17-0061), for the purpose of acquiring a long-term lease interest on a property for the development of an income-restricted, 50-unit, multi-family residential development. The project site is located on property located off of Gasser Drive in the City of Napa, California; also identified as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 046.190.052. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT: The City of Napa has determined that the project will have no significant impact on the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required. Additional project information is contained in the Environmental Review Record (ERR) on file at the Community Development Department, 1600 First Street, Napa, CA for review and may be examined or copied weekdays 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. PUBLIC COMMENT: Any individual, group, or agency disagreeing with this determination or wishing to comment on the project may submit written comments to Karlo Felix, Senior Planner, at the Community Development Department, PO Box 660, Napa, CA 94559. All comments received by June 19, 2017 will be considered by the City of Napa prior to authorizing submission of a request for release of funds. Comments should specify which Notice they are addressing. RELEASE OF FUNDS: The City of Napa certifies to HUD that Rick Tooker in his capacity as Community Development Director consents to accept the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts if an action is brought to enforce responsibilities in relation to the environmental review process and that these responsibilities have been satisfied. HUD's approval of the certification satisfies its responsibilities under NEPA and related laws and authorities, and allows BHDC to use Program funds. OBJECTIONS TO RELEASE OF FUNDS: HUD will accept objections to its release of funds and the City of Napa's certification for a period of fifteen days following the anticipated submission date or its actual receipt of the request (whichever is later) only if they are on one of the following bases: (a) the certification was not executed by the Certifying Officer of the RE; (b) the RE has omitted a step or failed to make a decision or finding required by HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 58; (c) the grant recipient has committed funds or incurred costs not authorized by 24 CFR Part 58 before approval of a release of funds by HUD; or (d) another Federal agency acting pursuant to 40 CFR Part 1504 has submitted a written finding that the project is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of environmental quality. Objections must ATTACHMENT 3 Page 1 of 15 Page 428 of 477 be prepared and submitted in accordance with the required procedures (24 CFR Part 58) and shall be addressed to Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD Region IX, One Sansome Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 94101. Potential objectors should contact HUD to verify the actual last day of the objection period. CERTIFYING OFFICER: Rick Tooker Community Development Director City of Napa ATTACHMENT 3 Page 2 of 15 Page 429 of 477 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20410 www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov Project Identification: Stoddard West Gasser Drive Napa, CA 94559 APN 046.190.052 Responsible Entity: City of Napa Month / Year: May 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT For HUD-Assisted Projects 24 CFR Part 58 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 3 of 15 Page 430 of 477 E NVIRONMENTAL A SSESSMENT For HUD-Assisted Projects Community Development Department 1600 First Street – PO Box 660 Napa, CA 94559 707.257.9530 PROJECT INFORMATION: Project Name: Stoddard West Responsible Entity: City of Napa Grant Recipient: Burbank Housing Development Corporation Local Identifier: PL17-0061 Preparer: Karlo Felix, Senior Planner Certifying Officer: Rick Tooker, Community Development Director Direct Comments To: Karlo Felix, Senior Planner PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is located on property located off of Gasser Drive in the City of Napa, California; also identified as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 046.190.052. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT: The Grant Recipient (Burbank Housing Development Corporation [BHDC]) seeks CDBG funds to acquire a long- term lease interest in the project site for a future development application to construct a 50-unit multi-family residential development for households at or below 60% of the area median income. The project also includes a development application for Use Permit and Design Review Permit for a multi-family residential development. The Applicant proposes a 50-unit development on a 2.37-acre parcel. All of the units will be income restricted and includes a mix of 15 one-bedrooms, 20 two-bedrooms, and 15 three-bedroom units. A total of 100 on-site parking spaces are proposed in a combination of surface and covered parking spaces. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSAL: The purpose of the proposed project is to acquire a long-term lease of the project site as a part of future development application to construct a 50-unit multi-family residential development for households at or below 60% of the area median income. BHDC proposes to utilize HUD funding, as administered through the City of Napa, to acquire the project site. These funds will be utilized to make capitalized rent payment for a long-term ground lease and to leverage other funding sources. The City’s General Plan includes goals and policies related to the development of affordable housing to address the City’s housing needs. The proposed project makes a positive impact in addressing the housing needs of the community. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: The project site is located at the southern-end of the City of Napa, California. The City of Napa continues to be one of the most expensive real estate markets within San Francisco Bay Area as high demand has continually exceeded both housing supply and affordability. The proposed project seeks to acquire a project site located within the Gasser Master Plan, a mixed-use development that is currently being developed in phases. The project site is currently vacant; however, infrastructure improvements to the area are currently being made as part of the development of the area. If the proposed project is not completed, the funds will remain unspent and the project site will be sold to another developer. ATTACHMENT 3 Page 4 of 15 Page 431 of 477 FUNDING INFORMATION: Grant Number HUD Program Funding Amount - CDBG $2,000,000.00 Estimated Total HUD Funded Amount: $2,000,000.00 Estimated Total Project Cost: $23,986,805.00 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 5 of 15 Page 432 of 477 COMPLIANCE WITH 24 CFR 50.4, 58.5, AND 58.6 LAWS AND AUTHORITIES: Record below the compliance or conformance determinations for each statute, executive order, or regulation. Provide credible, traceable, and supportive source documentation for each authority. Where applicable, complete the necessary reviews or consultations and obtain or note applicable permits of approvals. Clearly note citations, dates/names/titles of contacts, and page references. Attach additional documentation as appropriate. STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS LISTED AT 24 CFR 50.4 and 58.6 Compliance Factors Statutes, Executive Orders, and Regulations listed at 24 CFR §58.5 and §58.6 Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required? Compliance determinations Airport Hazards 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart D Yes No Napa County Airport is located approximately four miles south of the project site. The project site is not located within the Airport Clear Zone or the Accident Potential Zone of the Napa County Airport. No military airfields are located in the vicinity. Source: 3 Coastal Barrier Resources Coastal Barrier Resources Act, as amended by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 [16 USC 3501] Yes No The project site is not located within a Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) Unit, or CRBS buffer zone. Source: 4 Flood Insurance Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 [42 USC 4001-4128 and 42 USC 5154a] Yes No The project is located within Zone AE on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) – Map No. 06055C0517F dated September 29, 2010. Zone AE are areas subject to inundation by the one-percent-annual-change flood event. Flood insurance purchase is required and floodplain management standards apply. Source: 2, 5, 14 STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGLATIONS LISTED AT 24 CFR 50.4 & 58.5 Compliance Factors Statutes, Executive Orders, and Regulations listed at 24 CFR §58.5 and §58.6 Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required? Compliance determinations Clean Air Clean Air Act, as amended, particularly section 176(c) & (d); 40 CFR Parts 6, 51, 93 Yes No The proposed project will conform to the Federal Clean Air Plan. The project is an infill development within an urban area that is served by transit and within walking distance of jobs and services. The trip generation study (Crane Transportation Group, 2017) concluded that while PM peak hour traffic patterns for the proposed project are reverse of what the EIR for the Gasser Master Plan concluded (City of Napa, 2006 – Gasser Master Plan Final EIR), the overall trip generation will not substantially increase traffic in the project area. Mitigation measures adopted for the Gasser Master Plan EIR shall apply. Source: 2, 11, 14 Coastal Zone Management Coastal Zone Management Act, sections 307(c) & (d) Yes No The project site is not located within a coastal management zone (CZM) designated by the State CZM agency. Source: 4 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 6 of 15 Page 433 of 477 STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGLATIONS LISTED AT 24 CFR 50.4 & 58.5 Compliance Factors Statutes, Executive Orders, and Regulations listed at 24 CFR §58.5 and §58.6 Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required? Compliance determinations Contamination and Toxic Substances 24 CFR Part 50.3(i) & 58.5(i)(2) Yes No The project site is not listed on the Cortese list of hazard materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The project is not identified as a Superfund or CERCLIS site. Source: 2, 14 Endangered Species Endangered Species Act of 1973, particularly section 7; 50 CFR Part 402 Yes No The Gasser Master Plan EIR documented that the proposed development would not affect Federally-listed or proposed threatened, and endangered specials; nor designated or proposed critical habitat as it is located within an urbanized area. Source: 2, 14 Explosive and Flammable Hazards 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart C Yes No The project does not involve explosive or flammable materials or operations. There is no visual evidence or indication of unobstructed or unshielded above ground storage tanks or operations utilizing explosive/flammable materials at or in close proximity to the property. The project will not result in an increased number of people being exposed to hazardous operations. Source: 1, 2 Farmlands Protection Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, particularly sections 1504(b) and 1541; 7 CFR Part 658 Yes No The project consists of urban land; therefore the project would not affect farmlands. There are no protected farmlands within the City of Napa. Source: 2, 6 Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988, particularly section 2(a); 24 CFR Part 55 Yes No The project is located within Zone AE on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) – Map No. 06055C0517F dated September 29, 2010. Zone AE are areas subject to inundation by the one-percent-annual-change flood event. Flood insurance purchase is required and floodplain management standards apply. Source: 2, 5, 14 Historic Preservation National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, particularly sections 106 and 110; 36 CFR Part 800 Yes No The City of Napa’s archaeological database identifies the subject properties as having a low-level of archaeological sensitivity. The City of Napa’s historic structures inventory does not identify the property as having any historic resources. Source: 2, 7, 8 Noise Abatement and Control Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended by the Quiet Communities Act of 1978; 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart B Yes No As identified in the Gasser Master Plan EIR, noise-sensitive receptors may be exposed to noise that exceeds the standards identified in the City. HUD environmental noise regulations are established in 24 CFR Part 51B and noise standards for new housing construction would be applicable to this project. Source: 2, 14 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 7 of 15 Page 434 of 477 STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGLATIONS LISTED AT 24 CFR 50.4 & 58.5 Compliance Factors Statutes, Executive Orders, and Regulations listed at 24 CFR §58.5 and §58.6 Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required? Compliance determinations Sole Source Aquifers Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, particularly section 1424(e); 40 CFR Part 149 Yes No The project is not served by a designated sole source aquifer, is not located within a sole source aquifer watershed, and would not affect a sole source aquifer. Source: 2, 9 Wetlands Protection Executive Order 11990, particularly sections 2 and 5 Yes No The project is not served by a designated sole source aquifer, is not located within a sole source aquifer watershed, and would not affect a sole source aquifer. The proposed project is subject to the mitigation measures adopted as a part of the Gasser Master Plan EIR. Source: 2, 14 Wild and Scenic Rivers Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, particularly section 7(b) and (c) Yes No There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers located within the City of Napa. Source: 10 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Compliance Factors Statutes, Executive Orders, and Regulations listed at 24 CFR §58.5 and §58.6 Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required? Compliance determinations Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 Yes No The project includes affordable housing and will not have any disproportionally high health or other negative effects on minority or low-income populations, but will enhance the quality of life of these persons by providing quality affordable housing. Source: 1 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 8 of 15 Page 435 of 477 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FACTORS [24 CFR 58.40; REF. 40 CFR 1508.8 &1508.27]: Recorded below is the qualitative and quantitative significance of the effects of the proposal on the character, features and resources of the project area. Each factor has been evaluated and documented, as appropriate and in proportion to its relevance to the proposed action. Verifiable source documentation has been provided and described in support of each determination, as appropriate. Credible, traceable and supportive source documentation for each authority has been provided. Where applicable, the necessary reviews or consultations have been completed and applicable permits of approvals have been obtained or noted. Citations, dates/names/titles of contacts, and page references are clear. Additional documentation is attached, as appropriate. All conditions, attenuation or mitigation measures have been clearly identified. Impact Codes: Use an impact code from the following list to make the determination of impact for each factor. 1. Minor beneficial impact 2. No impact anticipated 3. Minor Adverse Impact – May require mitigation 4. Significant or potentially significant impact requiring avoidance or modification which may require an Environmental Impact Statement LAND DEVELOPMENT Environmental Assessment Factor Impact Code Impact Evaluation Conformance with Plans / Compatible Land Use and Zoning / Scale and Urban Design 1 The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, particularly the certified Housing Element, as it allows for the development of higher-density, income-restricted, multi-family housing on an underutilized parcel of land. The proposed project also complies with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Residential Design Guidelines. Source: 12 Soil Suitability/ Slope/ Erosion/ Drainage/ Storm Water Runoff 2 The project site is relatively flat in topography with localized elevation differentials. The project site will not substantially alter existing site topography. The soil generally consists of 10 to 46.5 feet of stiff to very stiff, moderately to highly expansive silty clay mixed with varying amounts of sands and gravel. The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Studies Zone. Construction activities shall comply with recommendations in the geotechnical investigations report. Construction activities could result in exposed soil; however, the Applicant will implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) consistent with the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Stormwater runoff will be treated in biorientation basins, consistent City requirements and the NPDES permit. Source: 13, 14 Hazards and Nuisances including Site Safety and Noise 3 Presence of hazardous materials on-site would be considered an adverse impact and require mitigation; however, there are no known contaminated soils on the subject property. The project may result in temporary noise from construction. Construction operations shall, however, comply with the City’s noise standards. Source: 2 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 9 of 15 Page 436 of 477 LAND DEVELOPMENT Environmental Assessment Factor Impact Code Impact Evaluation Energy Consumption 1 The project will be required to comply with applicable building energy efficiency standards pursuant to Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations. Source: 1 SOCIOECONOMIC Environmental Assessment Factor Impact Code Impact Evaluation Employment and Income Patterns 1 The project will provide affordable housing designed to accommodate the unmet needs of the employees in the community. Construction on the project site would provide short- term construction would but would not affect employment in the long-term. No impact is anticipated from the proposed project on employment and income within the project area. Source: 1 Demographic Character Changes, Displacement 1 The project will provide affordable housing designed to accommodate the unmet needs of the community. The project does not represent a significant change to the demographics of the area or on area social services as it is intended to serve the existing population. Source: 1 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES Environmental Assessment Factor Impact Code Impact Evaluation Educational and Cultural Facilities 2 The project site is located within the Napa Valley Unified School District (NVUSD). Pursuant to Government Code Section 65996, the Applicant will pay applicable school impact fees to offset any impacts to school facilities associated with the project. Such payment would be deemed full and complete mitigation of any project-related school impacts. The project site is currently vacant and no cultural facility will be displaced. Source: 1, 2 Commercial Facilities 2 The project site is currently vacant and no commercial facilities will be displaced. The project site is located in close proximity to commercial services, allowing residents easy access. Source: 1 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 10 of 15 Page 437 of 477 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES Environmental Assessment Factor Impact Code Impact Evaluation Health Care and Social Services 2 The City of Napa is home to several emergency and non- emergency facilities. The City also is home to several social service facilities. These facilities are within a reasonable distance of the project site. Source: 1 Solid Waste Disposal / Recycling 2 The project site will be serviced by Napa Recycling and Waste Services (NRWS). The project will be required to enter into a service contract to collect waste, recyclables, and compostables. The incremental increase in service demand is not anticipated to exceed the capacity of or reduce the capabilities of service within the City. Source: 1, 14 Waste Water / Sanitary Sewers 2 Waste water service will be provided by the Napa Sanitation District (NSD). The project will be required to pay applicable capacity charges to NSD. The incremental increase in service demand is not anticipated to exceed the capacity of or reduce the capabilities of service within the City. Source: 1, 14 Water Supply 2 Water service will be provided by the City of Napa. The project will be required to pay applicable connection fees to the City. The incremental increase in service demand is not anticipated to exceed the capacity of or reduce the capabilities of service within the City. Source: 1, 14 Public Safety - Police, Fire and Emergency Medical 2 Police and Fire services will be provided by the City of Napa. The project will be required to pay applicable fire and paramedic fees to the City. The incremental increase in service demand is not anticipated to exceed the capacity of or reduce the capabilities of service within the City. Source: 1, 14 Parks, Open Space and Recreation 2 The project includes an on-site playground and gardens for use by residents. Parks, open space, and recreation services will be provided by the City of Napa. The project will be required to pay applicable park development and dedication fees to the City. The incremental increase in service demand is not anticipated to exceed the capacity of or reduce the capabilities of service within the City. Source: 1, 14 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 11 of 15 Page 438 of 477 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES Environmental Assessment Factor Impact Code Impact Evaluation Transportation and Accessibility 2 Public transportation services will be provided by Napa Valley Transportation Authority. The incremental increase in service demand is not anticipated to exceed the capacity of or reduce the capabilities of service within the City. The site will be adequately serviced by pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and parking facilities. The site is accessible to emergency vehicles and persons with disabilities. Source: 1 NATURAL FEATURES Environmental Assessment Factor Impact Code Impact Evaluation Unique Natural Features, Water Resources 3 The project site is bounded by Tulocay Creek to the south and wetlands to the west; however, no development is proposed for areas within the riparian corridor for the creek and wetlands. No other unique natural features are located on the site. Water service will be provided by the City of Napa and no on-site water sources are proposed to be used. The project is subject to the mitigation measures identified in the Gasser Master Plan EIR. Source: 1, 2, 14 Vegetation, Wildlife 3 The Gasser Master Plan EIR documented that the proposed development would not affect Federally-listed or proposed threatened, and endangered specials; nor designated or proposed critical habitat as it is located within an urbanized area. The project is subject to the mitigation measures identified in the Gasser Master Plan EIR. Source: 1, 2, 14 Other Factors n/a none ATTACHMENT 3 Page 12 of 15 Page 439 of 477 ADDITIONAL STUDIES PERFORMED: None. FIELD INSPECTION: None. LIST OF SOURCES, AGENCIES, AND PERSONS CONSULTED [40 CFR 1508.9(B)]: 1. Project Application 2. City of Napa, 2006. Gasser Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. November 21, 2016. 3. Napa County Airport Land Use Commission, 1999. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 15, 1999. 4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016 (Last updated: March 16, 2016). Results of Coastal Barrier Resources System Mapper electronic database search. Available: https://www.fws.gov/ecological- services/habitat-conservation/cbra/maps/mapper.html. Accessed April 5, 2017. 5. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2010. Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06055C0517F. September 29, 2010. 6. California Department of Conservation, 2016. Napa County Important Farmland 2014. April 2016. 7. City of Napa, 2016. PastFinder (Last Update: 2001). Results of PastFinder electronic database search. Available at City of Napa. Accessed May 9, 2017. 8. City of Napa, 2016. Historic Resources Inventory. January 14, 2016. 9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016. Sole Source Aquifers in Region 9. Available https://www3.epa.gov/region9/water/groundwater/ssa.html. Accessed May 8, 2017. 10. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 2016. National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems – Designations as of November 2016. November 2016. 11. Crane Transportation Group, 2017. Gasser North Trip Generation with 50 Multi-Family Stoddard West Units in Place of Creekside West offices. March 9, 2017. 12. City of Napa, 1998. City of Napa General Plan. December 1, 1998. 13. KC Engineering Company, 2002. Geotechnical Investigation Report on Proposed Commercial Development, Parcels F & G. August 19, 2002. 14. City of Napa, 2006. Resolution of the City of Napa, State of California, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Adopting CEQA Findings for the Gasser Master Plan Rezoning. December 12, 2006. LIST OF PERMITS OBTAINED: None. PUBLIC OUTREACH [24 CFR 50.23 & 58.43]: None. CUMMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS [24 CFR 58.32]: The proposed project is not part of a series of activities. The project would not result in additional cumulative impacts from future related actions. ALTERNATIVES [24 CFR 58.40(E); 40 CFR 1508.9]: An off-site alternative is not available as no other property with the same characteristics as the project site is under the control of the property owner and available to the project proponent. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE [24 CFR 58.40(E)]: A no action alternative would result in no construction of income-restricted multi-family facilities on the project site. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The project will comply with statutory regulations pertaining to environmental issues. With the inclusion of the specified mitigation measures, the proposed project would not have an adverse effect on the environment. No impacts are potentially significant to the extent that an Environmental Impact Statement would be required. ATTACHMENT 3 Page 13 of 15 Page 440 of 477 MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS [40 CFR 1505.2(C)]: Summarize below all mitigation measures adopted by the Responsible Entity to reduce, avoid, or eliminate adverse environmental impacts and to avoid non-compliance or non-conformance with the above-listed authorities and factors. These measures/conditions must be incorporated into project contracts, development agreements, and other relevant documents. The staff responsible for implementing and monitoring mitigation measures should be clearly identified in the mitigation plan. Law, Authority, or Factor Mitigation Measure Resolution R2006 212 – Resolution of the City of Napa, State of California, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Adopting CEQA Findings for the Gasser Master Plan Rezoning By reference, the mitigation measures identified in Exhibit B of the Resolution are incorporated as a requirement of this project. ATTACHMENT 3 Page 14 of 15 Page 441 of 477 DETERMINATION: Finding of No Significant Impact [24 CFR 58.40(g)(1); 40 CFR 1508.27] The project will not result in a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Finding of Significant Impact [24 CFR 58.40(g)(2); 40 CFR 1508.27] The project may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. PREPARER SIGNATURE: /s/ Karlo Felix May 31, 2017 Karlo Felix Senior Planner City of Napa Date CERTIFYING OFFICER SIGNATURE: /s/ Rick Tooker May 31, 2017 Rick Tooker Community Development Director City of Napa Date This original, signed document, and related supporting material must be retained on file by the Responsible Entity in an Environmental Review Record (ERR) for the activity/project (ref: 24 CFR Part 58.38) and in accordance with recordkeeping requirements for the HUD program(s). ATTACHMENT 3 Page 15 of 15 Page 442 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 1 of 35 Page 443 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 2 of 35 Page 444 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 3 of 35 Page 445 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 4 of 35 Page 446 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 5 of 35 Page 447 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 6 of 35 Page 448 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 7 of 35 Page 449 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 8 of 35 Page 450 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 9 of 35 Page 451 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 10 of 35 Page 452 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 11 of 35 Page 453 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 12 of 35 Page 454 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 13 of 35 Page 455 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 14 of 35 Page 456 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 15 of 35 Page 457 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 16 of 35 Page 458 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 17 of 35 Page 459 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 18 of 35 Page 460 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 19 of 35 Page 461 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 20 of 35 Page 462 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 21 of 35 Page 463 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 22 of 35 Page 464 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 23 of 35 Page 465 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 24 of 35 Page 466 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 25 of 35 Page 467 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 26 of 35 Page 468 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 27 of 35 Page 469 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 28 of 35 Page 470 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 29 of 35 Page 471 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 30 of 35 Page 472 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 31 of 35 Page 473 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 32 of 35 Page 474 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 33 of 35 Page 475 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 34 of 35 Page 476 of 477 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 35 of 35 Page 477 of 477