SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATION - AFTERNOON — Napa City Council, February 6, 2024

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Office of the City Clerk

City Council of the City of Napa
Regular Meeting
February 6, 2024

FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA

AFTERNOON SESSION:

SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING

3. PUBLIC COMMENT:
1) Email from Napa Housing Coalition received on February 5, 2024. 2) Email from Chuck Shinnamon received on February 6, 2024. 3) Email from Thomas Bensel received on February 6, 2024. 4) Email from Steve Carlin received on February 6, 2024. 5) Email from John Salmon received on February 6, 2024.

5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:

5.A. Report on Fire Department Organizational and Operational Analysis • PowerPoint Presentation from Staff

5.B. Highway 29 Undercrossing Mural Public Art Project
• PowerPoint Presentation from Staff

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

7.A. Continuation – Acquisition of Real Property Needed for the Big Ranch Road Widening
• PowerPoint Presentation from Staff
• Request to address Council from Mayen Shueh received on January 22, 2024. 1) Email from Mayen Shueh received on February 5, 2024. 2) Email from Joshua Winston received on February 6, 2024.

February 2,2024

Mayor
Scott
Sedgley

Vice Mayor

Bernie Narvaez

City Councilmember
Beth Painter

City Councilmember
Mary Luros

City Councilmember Liz Alessio

Via Email:

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:

The Napa Housing Coalition is formally
requesting that an agenda item be placed on
an upcoming
City Council Agenda
directing

City
Staff to

begin the process recommended in the 2040 General
Plan adopted in 2022 to update the DTSP including a specific planning

study
of

the Oxbow
District.

Currently, the City of Napa has approximately 3,000 hotel rooms with an occupancy rate hovering around 63% and lower in the winter months.

It is critical to start addressing the right mix of
use
s

including housing, commercial, hospitality and office.

Before deciding what is needed downtown
,

we encourage the City

of Napa

to retain
an independent

consultant

to
prepare

Hotel Market Analysis
as
suggested in the 2040 General Plan

looking at:

1)
T
he existing hotel market
and why it is

not rebounding quickly to pre
-
COVID levels
.

2)
D
etermine
the
impact of adding additional rooms
to the market

such as the Cambria

Hotel
.

3)
I
nclude
the

impact of the development
of
approved
but not
yet
built hotel projects
.

4)
I
nclude the impact of the number of

hotel rooms in process including the South Copia Hotel, First and Oxbow, and Wine Train

in t
his

analysis
.

As has been outlined to the Council in the past, there is the potential of over 1,100 hotel rooms in the Oxbow District alone.

5)
C
onsider the hotel rooms being discussed at the Kohl's

site
,
Cinedome
and other

locations.

Further, as an example, a site for a hotel is included in the Napa Pipe approvals.

6)
Develop a

plan
for
an appropriate number of
rooms,
preferred
timing and
location
s.

7) Make recommendations on how to address the housing needs of below median

income workers.

It will take months
to prepare and issue a

scope of
work and

hire

a consultant

to prepare

a Hotel
Market Analysis that can be used to inform the DTSP update and Oxbow District

planning
process.

We could easily be into 2025 before we have meaningful information.

In the meantime,
the City of Napa Planning Department continues to process isolated hotel projects , relying on the
2012 DTSP environmental work
and not
addressing

the cumulative impacts.

Now is the time to
implement
the
recommendations in the 2040 General Plan
!

We believe the Agenda Item should also
include
a discussion of a Moratorium on hotels until these studies are concluded

and new guidelines
implemented.

Sincerely,

The Napa Housing Coalition Steering
Committee

Cass Walker
, Judy Myers, Howard Siegel
, Chuck Shinnamon

Item 3. Public Comment
Summary of Approved, Pending and Under Consideration Hotel Projects in Downtown Napa and the Oxbow District 2.5.2024
Projects Approved But Not Yet Built Number of Rooms Location Napa Ritz Carlton 351 Oxbow District
Black Elk Boutique Hotel 27 Oxbow District
Westin Expansion 32 Oxbow District
Post Office 163 Downtown
Napa River Inn Expansion 24 Downtown
Embassy Suites Expansion 54 Downtown

In Planning Process
First and Oxbow 123 Oxbow District
South Copia Hotel 170 Oxbow District
Wine Train Hotel 148 Oxbow District

Under Conversation
Kohl’s Block TBD Downtown
CineDome TBD Downtown
Total Rooms = 1092
From:

Charles Shinnamon
To:

Clerk
Subject:

Update to DTSP and the Oxbow; Hotels
Date:

Tuesday, February 6, 2024 8:56:01 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Mayor Sedgely and Councilmembers,

I will not be able to attend today’s afternoon meeting and I want to briefly share my thoughts. The new General Plan specifically called for an update to the Downtown Specific Plan and for an update and plan for the Oxbow. My strong impression during our GPAC sessions was that these two important issues would be addressed “later” rather than in the middle of the GP update. Given the changes in downtown since 2012 and the pressures facing the Oxbow, now is the time to take a step back and bring these areas into 2024 and beyond.

The ULI Oxbow report and its follow up specifically called for a Vision and Plan for the Oxbow and it also called for an overall parking plan for the Oxbow. If we keep putting these off, all of a sudden, we will wake up and the opportunity will be lost.

Speaking to the issue of hotels: hotels in the downtown and elsewhere have brought many positive results: increases in visitors, serious moneys for our general fund, dramatic increases in downtown activity, etc. But, there always is too much of a good thing. It is time for all of us, you as elected officials, staff, and the overall community to have a real conversation about the number and scope of hotels and hotel rooms in our town.

Thank you all for what you do for all of us!!

Chuck Shinnamon

Charles W. Shinnamon, P.E.

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

From:

Thomas Bensel
To:

Clerk
Subject:

Oxbow District and the DTSP
Date:

Tuesday, February 6, 2024 9:38:26 AM
Attachments:
image001.png

2.5.2024 NHC Request for GP 2040 Studies.pdf
February 6,2024

Mayor Scott Sedgley
Vice Mayor Bernie Narvaez
City Councilmember Beth Painter
City Councilmember Mary Luros
City Councilmember Liz Alessio

Via Email:

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:

The Culinary Institute of America, via this email, fully supports the recommendations put forth by the Napa Housing Coalition in the attached letter to the Council dated 2/5/24.

We ask that
there be a more comprehensive and uniform analysis of the proposed hotels and developments and their related impacts on the Oxbow District.

Now is the time to look
toward the 2040 General Plan and implement plans/decisions that are beneficial to the entire Oxbow District and all who enjoy its uniqueness.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thomas Bensel '76
Managing Director, CIA California Campus
The Culinary Institute of America
at Greystone
2555 Main Street, St. Helena, CA 94574
The Culinary Institute of America

At Copia
500 First Street,

Napa, CA 94559
O: 707.967.2310
[EXTERNAL]

February 2,2024

Mayor Scott Sedgley
Vice Mayor Bernie Narvaez
City Councilmember Beth Painter
City Councilmember Mary Luros
City Councilmember Liz Alessio

Via Email:

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:

The Napa Housing Coalition is formally requesting that an agenda item be placed on an upcoming City Council Agenda directing City Staff to begin the process recommended in the 2040 General Plan adopted in 2022 to update the DTSP including a specific planning study of the Oxbow District. Currently, the City of Napa has approximately 3,000 hotel rooms with an occupancy rate hovering around 63% and lower in the winter months. It is critical to start addressing the right mix of uses including housing, commercial, hospitality and office.

Before deciding what is needed downtown, we encourage the City of Napa to retain an independent consultant to prepare a Hotel Market Analysis as suggested in the 2040 General Plan looking at:

1) The existing hotel market and why it is not rebounding quickly to pre-COVID levels. 2) Determine the impact of adding additional rooms to the market such as the Cambria Hotel. 3) Include the impact of the development of approved but not yet built hotel projects. 4) Include the impact of the number of hotel rooms in process including the South Copia Hotel, First and Oxbow, and Wine Train in this analysis. As has been outlined to the Council in the past, there is the potential of over 1,100 hotel rooms in the Oxbow District alone. 5) Consider the hotel rooms being discussed at the Kohl's site, Cinedome and other locations.

Further, as an example, a site for a hotel is included in the Napa Pipe approvals. 6) Develop a plan for an appropriate number of rooms, preferred timing and locations. 7) Make recommendations on how to address the housing needs of below median income workers.

It will take months to prepare and issue a scope of work and hire a consultant to prepare a Hotel Market Analysis that can be used to inform the DTSP update and Oxbow District planning process. We could easily be into 2025 before we have meaningful information. In the meantime, the City of Napa Planning Department continues to process isolated hotel projects, relying on the 2012 DTSP environmental work and not addressing the cumulative impacts. Now is the time to implement the recommendations in the 2040 General Plan! We believe the Agenda Item should also include a discussion of a Moratorium on hotels until these studies are concluded and new guidelines implemented.

Sincerely,

The Napa Housing Coalition Steering Committee - Cass Walker, Judy Myers, Howard Siegel, Chuck Shinnamon

From: Steve Carlin
To: Clerk
Cc: Neal Harrison; Vincent Smith
Subject: The Oxbow / Napa Housing Coalition Recommendations Date: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 12:14:14 PM
Attachments: 2.5.2024 NHC Request for GP 2040 Studies.pdf You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
February 6, 2024

Mayor Scott Sedgley
Vice Mayor Bernie Narvaez
City Councilmember Beth Painter
City Councilmember Mary Luros
City Councilmember Liz Alessio

Via Email:

Dear Mayor and Napa City Councilmembers:

I am writing to express support for the recommendations put forth by the Napa Housing Coalition in the attached letter to the Council dated 2/2/24. There is simply too much going on in The Oxbow not to take the important next step of understanding the collective impacts of all the planned or approved developments, largely hotels, in this area. We are certainly not opposed to development in The Oxbow. We welcome responsible and thoughtful additions to this very special slice of Napa. However, without a clear and comprehensive analysis of what future potential development will mean to this area, our community, and the City of Napa, we could easily be jeopardizing what has been accomplished here over the last 20 years if all these projects are built without regard to the whole.

Now is the time to look to the 2040 General Plan and implement plans/decisions that are beneficial to the entire Oxbow District and all who enjoy its uniqueness.

Thank you for your consideration.

Steve Carlin
Oxbow Public Market

February 2,2024

Mayor Scott Sedgley
Vice Mayor Bernie Narvaez
City Councilmember Beth Painter
City Councilmember Mary Luros
City Councilmember Liz Alessio

Via Email:

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:

Before deciding what is needed downtown, we encourage the City of Napa to retain an independent consultant to prepare a Hotel Market Analysis as suggested in the 2040 General Plan looking at:

Sincerely,

The Napa Housing Coalition Steering Committee - Cass Walker, Judy Myers, Howard Siegel, Chuck Shinnamon

J
OHN
F.

S
ALMON

February 6, 2024

Mayor Scott Sedgley

Vice Mayor Bernie Narvaez

City Councilmember Beth Painter

City Councilmember Mary Luros

City Councilmember Liz Alessio

RE:

If Not Now … When?

Napa City Council Meeting

Public Comment

February 6, 2024
Afternoon Session

I plan to speak during Public Comment at this afternoon's Council Meeting to wholeheartedly

support the Housing Coalition's request that the Council schedule an Agenda item to direct City Staff to begin the process recommended in the 2040 General Plan, adopted in 2022, to update the DTSP
,

including a specific planning study of the Oxbow District, to advance the updated planning necessary for the DTSP, not only for the Oxbow, but for the entire and expanded Oxbow area.

In connection with the hotel study that the Housing Coalition requests, the City Council (and the County) should also direct staff to advance needed parking structure studies in connection with

developing
joint City
/

County strategies required to reposition and reuse all of the publicly owned land downtown, first
to satisfy

their

public facility needs and
the excess
property

to be rezoned for needed housing development.

As a reminder
about

the issues involved,
I am again providing
my submittal to the
General Plan Advisory Committee
from

2019, which ends with these cautions about
what
the
product
of
failing to lead on these issues

will be
:

•

Available housing solutions will be delayed and Napa’s Business Economy will likely suffer, traffic will continue to deteriorate and housing costs will continue to skyrocket.

•

Because of the myriad political, statutory and bureaucratic influences and requirements that will impact us along the way, Downtown Napa will be just the product of what survives the private investment and development process, not a vision that was sought.

In the words of famous New York Yankee Catcher and Manager, Yogi Berra,

please

don’t
allow

this

continue to be

"Deja Vu All Over Again."
Please plan ahead for Napa's future
rather than
continuing to

react piecemeal to
the
whims
,

fantasies

and demands

of whichever
development project comes before you next.

Sincerely,

The City and the County need to have a
shared strategy for Napa:
- that satisfies their respective public facility needs John F. Salmon
November 2019
If not Now – then When?
AND
- encourages housing development by
optimizing the use of excess public lands.

If not Now … then when?
2001 City of Napa Population - 72,766
2018 City of Napa Population - 79,989 … less than ½ of 1% increase per year Slow Growth a Product of the Ag Preserve and Napa’s Rural Urban Limits. • “The cost of homes in Napa County soared beyond the reach of many.” • “Plans are afoot to modify the First Street/California Boulevard intersection to prevent traffic backups onto the Highway 29 overpass.”
• “ Ambitious plans to consolidate offices downtown will create ripples of change over the coming decade, including opportunity for more shopping and tourist attractions.” • “The city would like to consolidate offices into a new City Hall if space and money are available.”
• “Until community leaders pronounce that housing is a top priority, zip will get done.“ •
All Quotes from the Napa Register
2001
Inescapable Truths
• The Napa Valley Needs Housing to alleviate traffic issues and to maintain its economic success.
• The County Needs Funding for its capital projects (Jail). • The City Needs to Consolidate its operations for efficiency and cost effectiveness.
• Both the City and the County have more than enough property to satisfy future facility needs ... AND there is excess property that can be dedicated to housing construction.
• The Taxpaying Public needs the City and the County to work together to develop a joint strategy with their properties to ensure optimum use for their respective operations and maximum value from the excess.

The Goal
• Creatively and Cooperatively use Public Lands to:
• Develop needed public facilities;
• Address and accelerate workforce/affordable housing needs; • Ensure optimum government funding opportunities; and
• Enable private development to continue to stimulate the local economy.

The Situation
• Public Land Downtown is Plentiful and Decisions as to its future use will drive how Downtown Napa will look and operate for generations to come.
• The County would have derived far greater value from its Old Sonoma Road and will derive greater value from downtown surplus properties if they are properly zoned by the City prior to being offered to the development market for sale.
• Valuable work has been completed to identify and analyze the future facilities needs of both the County and the City that will be useful in the implementation of cooperative decision making.

As the City revisits its options to develop solutions for new City Administration and Police facilities, the City and County have an exceedingly rare opportunity to prepare a long term strategy for all of their public landholdings in Napa.

What public land you ask?
The Opportunity

1 mile from Sullivan Block

NVUSD Corp Yard
8 ac
CalTrans Corp Yard
10 ac
County HHS Site

8.6 ac
Here are some ideas for our Leaders
to consider in that strategy.
• The City and the County should first identify and set aside the land needed to satisfy their Downtown facility needs, including City Hall and the locations of two future parking structures, which would free other sites for development; in the process they should consider permanent locations for the Police HQ (perhaps at the City Corp Yard) and consolidate maintenance yards.
• The County could trade its Sullivan Block to the City to be used for the development of the City’s new City Hall (without the Police HQ), thereby advancing Downtown Specific Plan goals, consolidating public services in the area of the County building and the Courthouse and avoiding double staff moves, saving millions and avoiding public confusion. • In return for the Sullivan Block, the City could trade marketable excess City properties of equal value to the County, with dense residential zoning in place, to allow the County to liquidate the properties and accelerate downtown housing development. • In the General Plan Update, the City should initiate necessary General Plan Amendments to rezone all City and County owned excess (and to be excess) property, as appropriate, to commercial or dense residential categories, as appropriate, allowing both the City and the County to recognize higher values in the sales market.

Downside of ignoring this opportunity.
• Available housing solutions will be delayed and Napa’s Business Economy will likely suffer, traffic will continue to deteriorate and housing costs will continue to skyrocket.
• Because of the myriad political, statutory and bureaucratic influences and requirements that will impact us along the way, Downtown Napa will be just the product of what survives the private investment and development process, not a vision that was sought.

Fire Department
Organizational
& Operational
Analysis
February 6, 2024
City Council Regular Meeting
2/6/2024
Supplemental -
Item 5.A.

From: City Staff
NFD completed our “Organizational & Operational Analysis” in 2023.

The purpose of the analysis is to understand where the FIRE DEPARTMENT is in relation to:

Purpose
• The risks the community faces today
• Anticipate community change and/or growth (and
therefore risk growth)
• Recommend steps to position NFD to address change
and growth in advance with appropriate resources and
infrastructure
Consultant (AP Triton) performed the following:

Approach
• Evaluation of Current
Conditions
• Support Programs
• Community Risk
Assessment (Hazard &
Risk)
• Findings &
Recommendations

Evaluation of
Current Conditions
• NFD Overview
• Management Components
• Financial Overview
• Staffing & Personnel
• Stakeholder Interviews
• Capital Facilities &
Equipment
• System Performance
(Standards of Cover)
Evaluation of Support Programs
• Communications & Dispatch
• Emergency Medical Services
System
• Training & Education Programs
• Life Safety Services
• Public Education
Programs
• Special Teams
Community Risk Assessment
• Overview of the City of
Napa & Napa County
• Risk Classification
• Land Use
• Physical Assets Protected
• Critical Infrastructure

Key Findings
• Call volume
• Reliance on other agencies
• No staffed engine at Fire
Station 1
• Some outdate facilities.
• Need enhancements to Fire
Prevention Programs
• No dedicated Emergency
Manager
• Staff is not co-located
• City is growing at southern
end (planning need)

Recommendation Buckets:
• In progress/lower financial Impact/On-going or no action (currently)
• Larger Considerations (more planning or potential for higher financial Impact)
• Future Considerations (May have significant impacts to staff, long-term planning, or financial considerations)

Recommendation Bucket:

In progress/lower financial
Impact/on-going or no
action (currently)
Some examples:
• Commercial Occupancy
Inspections
• Cost benefit analysis of
EMS Medications
• Develop Wellness/Fitness
Program
• Emergency Management

Recommendation Bucket:

Larger Considerations:

More planning or potential
for higher financial impact
Some examples:
• Place E1 in Service
• Master Facilities Plan
• Enhanced Dispatch Protocols
& Standards
• DEI in Hiring Practices
• Enhanced Auto and Mutual
Aid

Recommendation Bucket:

Future Considerations:

May have significant
impacts to staff, long-term
planning or financial
considerations.
• Additional response units
during peak periods
• Address response needs
North of Napa Creek @
Linda Vista
• Improve/Develop Regional
Training Facility
• Evaluate need for additional
Civic/Public Safety Facilities
& Resources at South end
of town

Conclusion:

Exciting time for the City
and for Napa Fire
Department:
• Positive energy and
growth effort
• Focused on improving
internal policy, process
and procedure
• Focused on training &
succession planning.
• Focused on our
contribution to the City
as a whole
• Our community is in
good hands!

Thank You
Highway 29 Undercrossing
Mural Public Art Project
City Council Meeting
February 6, 2024
City Council Regular Meeting
2/6/2024
Supplemental - Item No. 5.B.

From: City Staff
Project Background
• City of Napa Public Works Department has recently completed the construction of the new Highway 29 undercrossing
• Project consisted of constructing a Class I multi-use path to provide a safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connection between California Boulevard and Coffield Avenue, linking residential neighborhoods east and west of Highway 29.
• City of Napa Public Art team collaborated with the Public Works Department on this project to identify this location as a site for public art.
• The goal of adding public art to this location is to assist with further beautification at this site and to support place-making with this new and exciting community amenity. • Due to the site location being in a Caltrans right of way, staff submitted and received approval in June 2023 from the Caltrans Transportation Art program and staff will complete the application process upon the adoption of a City Council resolution to approve the project. • This public mural will be a one-of-a-kind original artwork and will express unique attributes of the City’s history, resources, or character.
• The goals and core values for this project are to be aligned with the City’s Public Art Master Plan and Caltrans Transportation Art Guidelines.

Highway 29 Undercrossing Site Map
Between California Boulevard and Coffield Avenue

Project Construction Site Drawings
Wall #1 Dimensions: 165.17' (length) x 7.888' (Height with variations below) Wall #2 Dimensions: 140' (length) x Sloped from 6.8' to .87' (Height) Total: 305 linear feet
Approx.
2000 sq. feet
Project Construction Site Drawings

Current Site Photos

Artist & Artwork Selection Process
• Art Selection Panel – 4 members
• Request For Qualifications (RFQ)
• 48 applicants
• Scored & ranked
• Finalists selected to proceed with RFP
• Request For Proposals (RFP)
• 3 Finalists
• 6 weeks to create their Concept Design Proposals
• $1,000 stipend
• Presentation to Art Selection Panel & Staff
• Recommended Finalist reviewed and supported by Public Art Steering Committee in Nov 2023

Highway 29 Undercrossing Mural
Recommended Finalist
“The Weavers”
by
David Garcia

David Garcia
• Artist from Elizabeth, CO
• Work ranges from large scale interior and exterior murals, sculptures and mosaics
• His work can be seen in national and international public art commissions, and both museum and private collections
• David has developed his own technique and philosophy on painting and sculpture coined “Abstract Imaginism.” Abstract Imaginism is a style of art that combines the spontaneity and unpredictability of abstraction with the creativity and perception of his imagination.
• Commissioned artworks include: Cal Poly SLO, Colorado History Museum, Denver Art Museum
David Garcia

David Garcia

David Garcia’s Proposal – “The Weavers”

David Garcia’s Proposal – “The Weavers”
• “The Weavers” is inspired by the weaving of a basket or textile. Traditionally in native culture, a textile or woven basket, is very significant because it tells a story and captures the history of a community.
• “The Weavers” represents all people from all nations weaving history and manifesting abundance for the future.
• Create a dynamic visual representation that brings a new perspective of the rich history of Napa. • A creative retrospective of the history of Napa beginning with the First Nations and original inhabitants of this land. As you follow along the visual historical narrative of this mural, you will experience different time periods that not only influenced the history of Napa but also changed the history of this country.

• Final application with City Council Resolution will be submitted to Caltrans for approval as part of their Transportation Art Program (TAP) • Execute Local Agency Agreement (LAA) with Caltrans and secure encroachment permit
• Execute agreement with Artist
• Estimated installation timeframe: April-May 2024
Next Steps
Fiscal Impacts
Total project budget $75,000. The artist fee is proposed to be $60,000 and this amount will need to support all costs related to the artist’s design, project management fees and materials including anti-graffiti coating.

Recommended Action
Adopt a resolution (1) authorizing the Parks and Recreation Director on behalf of the City to submit a Transportation Art Proposal (TAP) to Caltrans for the Highway 29 Undercrossing Mural Project located between California Boulevard and Coffield Avenue (2) authorizing the Parks and Recreation Services Director on behalf of the City to execute a Local Agency Agreement (LAA) with Caltrans for the Highway 29 Undercrossing Mural Project; (3) authorizing the Parks and Recreation Services Director on behalf of the City to negotiate and execute an agreement with David Garcia for the design and installation of the artwork titled “The Weavers” for the Highway 29 Undercrossing Mural Project for an amount not-to-exceed $60,000; and (4) determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA.

PUBLIC HEARING
February 6, 2024

ACQUISITION OF REAL

PROPERTY NEEDED FOR THE

BIG RANCH ROAD WIDENING
City Council Regular Meeting
2/6/2024
Supplemental - Item 7.A.

From: City Staff
Recommended Action
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity that would authorize the City to file an eminent domain action to condemn certain property for the Big Ranch Road Widening Project.
To adopt the Resolution of Necessity, Council must make the following findings:

1. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project;

2. The project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury;

3. The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; and

4. An offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner.

Considerations
• Tonight’s hearing is to consider the four findings just described. • The amount of compensation to be paid to each owner should not be discussed at this hearing.
• Even if Council adopts Resolution of Necessity, staff will continue to negotiate with each property owner on compensation.
• If unable to agree on compensation, a jury will decide the amount of just compensation in any resulting eminent domain action.
• Each Resolution of Necessity must be adopted by a 2/3 vote (4 affirmative votes is the minimum). If adopted, the City Attorney will cause complaints in eminent domain to be filed.

Agenda
• Project Overview
• Overview of Eminent Domain Process
• Resolution of Necessity – Required Findings
• Specific Detail by Parcel
Big Ranch Road Widening Project

Project
Summary
• The Project contributes to a key objective of the City’s Big Ranch Road Specific Area Plan, adopted in 1996,
to ensure adequate infrastructure construction to
continue development of the plan area.
• Updated Big Ranch Area Development Impact Fee
adopted 2008.
• Sidewalk and roadway improvements north of project
site were constructed in 2007.
• Sidewalk and roadway improvements south of project
site (in front of Mechanics Bank) were constructed in
2004.
• The project connects the existing pedestrian and
bicycle facilities located north and south of project site. • The project will install Stormdrain facilities and will underground overhead utilities fronting the private
parcels.

Project
Summary
(continued)
• The Project meets two goals of the 2040
General Plan.
• GOAL TE 2-2: Evaluate methods and
undertake transportation facility
improvements to promote biking, walking,
and safer street crossings. Establish a
target date for buildout of currently
planned active transportation network
improvements.
• GOAL LUCD-24: Promote development of
the Big Ranch Road area as a cohesive,
vibrant neighborhood, integrated with the
surrounding uses
Proposed Right-of-Way
• Acquisition line is set by
existing right of way north and
south of the Project area
• Project will expand right of way
on the west side of Big Ranch
Road for approximately 575
feet to conform with existing
sidewalk and roadway
improvements to the north and
south of the project site.

Project Scope
2033 Big Ranch Road
Alternative Designs
• Project design alternatives would require acquisition of more property rights than currently identified.
• The “no build” alternative fails to meet the obligations of the Big Ranch Road Specific Area Plan.
• The project will construct complete streets type infrastructure consistent with the City’s goals to provide safe facilities for all modes of transportation.

The Eminent Domain Process
Generally, when the City seeks to acquire private
property for a public use, it follows these steps:
• City contacts owner to express interest in the property and/or schedule date for appraisal;
• City hires appraiser to estimate the property’s fair market value, including improvements and damages resulting from the
acquisition;
• City offers to purchase property from owner for property’s appraised fair market value;
• If City and owner cannot agree on purchase price, City sends owner notice of public hearing on “resolution of necessity”; • City holds a public hearing to consider adoption of a “resolution of necessity” to acquire property by eminent domain.

The Eminent Domain Process, cont.
• If City Council adopts a resolution of necessity, City files a complaint in eminent domain;
• If City needs possession immediately for the Project, it:
• deposits the “amount of probable just compensation” (i.e., the property’s appraised fair market value) into the State Condemnation Fund; • files a motion for prejudgment possession;
• Litigation:
• City and owner conduct discovery and hire appraisers to estimate the Property’s fair market value;
• 90-days before trial: City and property owner exchange their respective appraisers’ valuations;
• City and owner depose each other’s experts and (often) participate in mediation
• 20-days before trial: City and property owner exchange final settlement offers/demands;
• If no settlement, jury fixes just compensation at trial.

Required Findings – Resolution of Necessity
• California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1245.230
• Findings Necessary for a Public Agency to Acquire Private Property:
a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; b) The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury;
c) The interests in the property sought to be acquired are necessary for the proposed project;
d) The City has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the property, including making the Government Code offer.
2023 Big Ranch Road (APN 038-170-008)
• Property Owner: Todd J. Morse
• 4,704 sq ft permanent
easement
• 2,823 sq ft two-year non-
exclusive temporary
construction easement
• 240 sq ft two-year non-exclusive
utility temporary construction
easement

Summary of Negotiations – Todd Morse
• First contacted Mr. Morse on March 20, 2023.
• Gov. Code Offer sent on March 20, 2023.
• Negotiations managed by consultant from March 2023 until June 2023, thereafter by City staff.
• Six in-Person Meetings with City staff have occurred:
• Three mtg prior to 10/17/23; three after, with last meeting on 12/15/23 • Staff has been in contact numerous times via email and phone • Informal counter-offer discussed and withdrawn on 12/15/23 • Formal counter-offer received by City staff on 2/1/2024 • Under evaluation for continued negotiations
2033 Big Ranch Road (APN 038-170-007)
• Property Owners: Michael
Imfeld & Mayen Shueh
• 2,203 sq ft permanent
easement
• 1,908 sq ft two-year non-
exclusive temporary
construction easement
• 575 sq ft two-year non-
exclusive utility temporary
construction easement

Summary of Negotiations – Michael Imfeld &
Mayen Shueh
• First contacted owners on March 17, 2023.
• Gov. Code Offer sent on March 21, 2023.
• Negotiations managed by consultant from March 2023 until June 2023, thereafter by City staff.
• Three in-Person Meetings with City staff have occurred:
• One mtg prior to 10/17/23; two after, with last meeting on 12/15/23 • Staff has been in contact numerous times via email and phone • Informal counter-offer discussed and withdrawn on 12/15/23 • Formal counter-offer received by City staff on 1/30/2024 • Under evaluation for continued negotiations
2047 Big Ranch Road (APN 038-170-006)
• Property Owner: JIL
Development
• 2,203 sq ft permanent
easement
• 1,908 sq ft two-year non-
exclusive temporary
construction easement
• 970 sq ft two-year non-
exclusive utility temporary
construction easement
Summary of Negotiations – JIL Development
• JIL was notified on May 23, 2023, that purchaser of property would take on legal acquisition process started with prior owner. • Gov. Code Offer sent on July 6, 2023.
• Negotiations managed by consultant from March 2023 until June 2023, thereafter by City staff.
• Nine in-Person Meetings with City staff have occurred:
• Six mtgs prior to 10/17/23; three after, with last meeting on 12/21/23 • Staff has been in contact numerous times via email and phone • Partial counter-offer received by City staff on 12/21/23 • Formal counter-offer received by City staff on 1/16/2024 • Under evaluation for continued negotiations
Recommended Action
• Adopt a Resolution of Necessity to authorize commencement of litigation to acquire by eminent domain portions of the property located at 2023 Big Ranch Road (“Morse Property”) that are needed for the Big Ranch Widening Project; to seek an order of possession for the Morse Property (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.220); and to determine that the actions authorized by this resolution were adequately analyzed by a previous CEQA action.
• Adopt a Resolution of Necessity to authorize commencement of litigation to acquire by eminent domain portions of the property located at 2033 Big Ranch Road (“Imfeld-Shueh Property”) that are needed for the Big Ranch Widening Project; to seek an order of possession for the Imfeld-Shueh Property (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.220); and to determine that the actions authorized by this resolution were adequately analyzed by a previous CEQA action.
• Adopt a Resolution of Necessity to authorize commencement of litigation to acquire by eminent domain portions of the property located at 2047 Big Ranch Road (“JIL Property”) that are needed for the Big Ranch Widening Project; to seek an order of possession for the JIL Property (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.220); and to determine that the actions authorized by this resolution were adequately analyzed by a previous CEQA action.

Questions
Councilmember Questions
Public Hearing
Open Public Comment
Public Hearing
Close Public Comment
Motion on Staff’s Recommendation

From:

Samantha Pascoe
To:

Samantha Pascoe
Subject:

FW: 2033 Big Ranch Road -- Eminent Domain Acquisition
Date:

Monday, February 5, 2024 12:26:32 PM

From:

Mayen Shueh
Sent:

Monday, February 5, 2024 10:43:26 AM
To:

Scott Sedgley <
[email protected]
>; Liz Alessio <
[email protected]
>; Beth Painter
<
[email protected]
>; Mary Luros <
[email protected]
>; Bernie Narvaez
<
[email protected]
>
Subject:
2033 Big Ranch Road -- Eminent Domain Acquisition

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:

I am requesting confirmation that at the February 6, 2024

City Council meeting,
consideration will be given to the threshold questions of the proposed Resolution of Necessity as set forth in Item 2 a - d of the City’s Notice. I am concerned because there was no discussion of these matters and issues on the previous October 17, 2023 meeting.

Council quickly dove into how to speedily and economically acquire the three properties.

When public testimony was closed, there was no way to bring up these omissions.

This email is not meant to be a legal brief on the issues raised in subsections a - d of Item 2 of the Notice. That job falls on the City Attorney, and he might already have done that in a closed session, and discussion occurred, of which my neighbors and I might not be aware of. Approximately twenty years ago the same issues were raised.

The City Council at that time were made aware of the 2 - lane bridge spanning Salvador Creek. It was determined that the bridge was owned by CalTrans, and until the bridge width was expanded, no public interest would be served in that the logjam could not be ameliorated.

I am appending photographs taken on January 16, 2024, at 3:57 p.m. for your information. These photos depict vehicles lined up at Big Ranch Road waiting for the traffic light at Big Ranch road x Trancas to change. The vehicles were actually lined up from the middle of El Centro Avenue

waiting to turn right into Big Ranch Road. There
was no accident involved. The logjam started at the Big Ranch Road x Trancas intersection, and backed up to El Centro. I was there at El Centro. It took me some 30 minutes to reach home.

[EXTERNAL]
Item 7.A.

The following are some of my thoughts as my 3 minute presentation at the Feb 6 meeting will be inadequate to address all the issues. This email just serves to place on record my concerns and to prevent foreclosure from raising the issues later. What I do not address adequately in this email will be fully briefed by my attorney if Condemnation proceedings are commenced against me.

A Public interest and necessity: What public interest is served with the road widening? Twenty years later, the same road conditions exist, but with even more congestion now. Cars going southbound are still piled up during commute hours. Twenty years later, there is still only on road going North, and one going South. What has changed, and wherein lies the necessity? Even with the proposed road widening, there will still be one road going North bound and one going South bound. Ergo: What is the “widening” accomplishing? How is the traffic congestion ameliorated?

B Weighing the greatest public good against the least private injury: You will notice from the photos that during commute hours, it is virtually impossible to get out of our driveways unless some kind motorist lets us in or out. This poses a grave danger when ingress and egress are impeded. It is a daily occurrence and takes place twice a day.

From experience, the greatest opportunity to be let in or out occurs when there is a light change. If motorists are not kind and courteous, we have to wait for the next change of lights. Sometimes frantic pleading helps. Sometimes not.

Traffic stopped in front of our homes emit exhaust. Some folks think it is permissible to toss trash out of their vehicles. Indeed, there was a truck whose cable snapped and wine casks tumbled into my yard. Except for the grassy lawn which acted as a velocity damper, it could have caused damage to life and limb. Some vehicles have music blaring with a thunderous beat, and it is virtually impossible to conduct a conversation outside without yelling to be heard. The Noise Study declares that the decibel level is nothing to be concerned about, but our experience is different. To have these irritations happen 22 feet closer
to our homes is a great imposition without any
tradeoff.

The tall trees and existing lawn in front of our properties serves as a visual and sound barrier, and is an aesthetic patch of green. A fence is no compensation. The great diminution of value and the loss of privacy to my property exceeds whatever public weal is anticipated by the acquisition.

C Necessity of road widening: It is my contention that road widening will NOT achieve the goal of traffic amelioration. The same two lanes will still exist even though more vehicles traverse the road.

D Offer of just compensation: This is the City’s most egregious omission in the process.

The appraisal made by Dean Chapman was dated July 1, 2022, and sent to me on January 14, 2023, was DOA and seriously outdated. I pointed out the glaring factual errors and the fact that Mr. Chapman used information from 2018 and 2022. In fact, he NEVER visited the property! When Mr. Chapman called me, he admitted this . I
asked for an update, especially the sale of property next door, and wrote a Critique to the City’s appraisal. Staff said “They would look into it” , but never did. I assume staff found all the shortcomings I pointed out to be true. When the City makes me an offer based on a spurious appraisal, it is made in BAD FAITH.

I look forward to a full and fair hearing on Tuesday. Thank you for your time.

/s/

May S. Imfeld

Attachments: 4 photographs

From:

Samantha Pascoe
To:

Samantha Pascoe
Subject:

FW: Hoping to get on a call-big ranch
Date:

Tuesday, February 6, 2024 10:29:45 AM

From:

Josh W.

Sent:

Monday, February 5, 2024 4:26:26 PM
To:

Liz Alessio <
[email protected]
>
Cc:

Josh W.

Subject:

Hoping to get on a call-big ranch
[EXTERNAL]
Good afternoon Council Member Alessio,I am reaching out via email. I also left you a voicemail around noon, but uncertain if you received

that.I hope this message finds you well. The latest
windstorm was challenging for many people in the

valley, myself included. But I am proactive and
mitigating those issues. Which brings me to my point

of contact, the up and coming council meeting.

I apologize for the last minute email/call, and it was originally not my intent to reach out, but given

the cancellation of my city staff meeting I felt it relevant to touch base. (Meeting with staff was

pushed out through January to last week, 2/1/24, and then canceled Wednesday the day prior. City

staff continued to say they needed more time to review, which was their stance since December,

and in the end they said they want to wait and hear the city councils stance before proceeding with

me and the negotiation.)As I mentioned in my voicemail I wanted to try and seek

the opportunity to
touch base with you and

give some clarity to the council, and you individually.I felt you were reasonable and fair in your process back in October and took into consideration

timing and efforts or
lack there of at that specific time. It would be helpful to have a quick talk with

you prior to the 3
minutes I am offered at the meeting. I hope this would be considered to be fair

given that I do not
get the opportunity to have closed council meetings nor do I get to present to the

council without a
clock as does the staff.A reminder, I am in support of development and I am in support of the road widening project, but I

feel the discussion with city and home owners should be on an even line rather than forced through

with a resolution. I am affected by the project which is why I care, it is personal for me where as for

the city it is more about business. I would hope and felt with you that the council is here for the

community and that is what I am seeking. Help as a community member.

To what I hope would be your satisfaction, I assure you I have provided the city with all documents needed on the evaluation and for an offer from the city, but the step of the city engaging me on this has yet to happen. All my documents were provided with ample time for the city to reengage me after what I felt would have been a simple review of my packet provided.

Documents, put into a packet, and accompanied by a spreadsheet with breakdowns based on discussion/design/just compensation were provided back in December. The spreadsheet was a summary of all paperwork provided in order to help give clarity. There was some additional documentation requested in mid January by Ian, that was not required, but I was happy to provide and I did so promptly. Unfortunately, proceeding after this came with little effort on the city to engage me. Communication broke down nearly to a hault. This has been to my dissatisfaction.

I strived to meet and exceed your expectation, which I felt was a requirement, in order to provide the documentation needed for the city to make an offer or negotiate for the easement of my property. I remember at October’s meeting you had initially intended to give till March to meet back at council, but I stood up and said it was not necessary. In hindsight I should have accepted the offer.

While I did not need the extra time, where design was completed and agreed upon in November, and documentation was provided in December by me, leaving what I thought was sufficient time for the city staff to review and respond, it became apparent that the city staff did need the additional time. Or maybe they did not intend to reengage me, but I doubt that was the intent regardless how it feels and looks.

I understand the city has a lot on their plate, but I had hoped they would prioritize this much needed final phase to the discussion in order to come to an agreement that met both parties needs. I had sincerely hoped I was not going to need to come to the council meeting due to an agreement between myself and city for the easement. But this is not where we are now.

I hope you are a faster reader than I am. I am a better talker and can provide more insight in the process. As stated, design went well and was completed in November. Docs have been handed over but need the city to engage me. I cannot negotiate with myself. I am hoping you can ask the city to do so.

One other point, the contract which I have yet to receive, but this I feel is a lesser issue.

Again, I hope this email finds you well.

And I hope you have some time to have a talk with me prior to the council meeting tomorrow after.

At this point in the day a call makes more sense. Regardless, I am happy to be available to you whenever you can free up. End of day, tonight, tomorrow, I will be available.

Sincerely, thank you for your time.

Joshua Winston

2033 Big Ranch Road
Napa, CA 94558
January 22,2024
CITY OF NAPA C1T! CLERK

RECEIVED
JAN 2 2 2024

HAND DELIVERED
U.S. MAIL / OTHER
^
Ms Tiffany Carranza
Napa City Clerk
955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
Re: Notice of Right to Appear and to be Heard
Hearing Feb 6; 2024 re: 2033 Big Ranch Road Widening
Resolution to Acquire Property by Eminent Domain
Dear Ms. Carranza:

Please be informed that I intend to appear and be heard at the above Hearing.

Please sign the duplicate of this letter to acknowledge receipt.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,
lv^^- ^i^-jL^
Mayen Shueh

Napa City CouncilFebruary 6, 2024

Napa City Council
February 6, 2024