955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
www.cityofnapa.org
CITY OF NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Vice Mayor Bernie Narvaez
Councilmember Liz Alessio
Councilmember Mary Luros
Couincilmember Beth Painter
3:30 PM City Hall Council ChambersTuesday, February 6, 2024 3:30 PM Afternoon Session
6:30 PM Evening Session
3:30 P.M. AFTERNOON SESSION
1. CALL TO ORDER: 3:30 P.M.
1.A. Roll Call:
Councilmember Alessio, Councilmember Luros, Councilmember Painter, Vice Mayor Narvaez, and Mayor Sedgley
Present: 5 -
2. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS:
City Clerk Carranza announced the following supplemental documents:
Item 3 - Emails from Napa Housing Coalition, Chuck Shinnamon, Thomas Bensel, Steve Carlin and John Salmon.
Items 5.A. and 5.B. - PowerPoint presentations from City staff.
Item 7.A.
- PowerPoint Presentation by City Staff.
- Request to address Council from Mayen Shueh.
- Emails from Mayan Shueh and Joshua Winston.
(Copies of all supplemental documents are included in Attachment 1)
ATTACHMENT 1
February 6, 2024CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
3. PUBLIC COMMENT:
(See supplemental documents in Attachment 1)
Cass Walker - asked Council to begin the process recommended in the 2040 General Plan to update the Downtown Specific Plan, including a specific planning study of the Oxbow District.
John Salmon - asked Council to support the Housing Coalition's request to schedule an agenda item to direct City Staff to begin the process recommended in the 2040 General Plan to update the Downtown Specific Plan, including a specific planning study of the Oxbow District.
Carol Whichard - attended the planning commission meeting last week; disappointed in the approval of the "Foxbow" hotel project. Would also like to see a study of the Oxbow District.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Luros announced her recusal from participation in item
4.K. due to a conflict of interest as Foodshed Napa Valley was her client, therefore a source of income.
Approval of the Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Councilmember Painter, seconded by Vice Mayor Narvaez, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Alessio, Luros, Painter, Narvaez, and Sedgley5 -
4.A. 027-2024
City Council Meeting Minutes
Approved the minutes from the January 16, 2024 Regular Meeting of the City Council.
4.B. 026-2024 Voter Polling Service
Authorized the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No.
C2023-101 with TeamCivX on behalf of the City for Financial Engineering, Measure Feasibility/Development and Communication services, to expand the scope of services for additional polling and increase the maximum contract amount by $38,235 for a total amount not to exceed $162,370 and determine that the actions authorized by this item are exempt from CEQA.
ATTACHMENT 1
February 6, 2024CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
4.C. 011-2024 Memorandum of Understanding for Regional Grant Applications from Multiple Government Agencies
Authorized the City Manager to execute on behalf of the City a Memorandum of Understanding with American Canyon Fire Protection District, City of Calistoga, City of St. Helena, and County of Napa for Regional Grant Applications.
4.D. 008-2024
Annual Report on Development Impact Fees for Fiscal Year 2023 Received the Annual Report on Development Impact Fees with Required Five-Year Findings for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2023.
4.E. 488-2023 2023 Annual Fire Inspection Compliance Report Adopted Resolution R2024-006 acknowledging receipt of the 2023 Annual Fire Inspection Compliance Report prepared pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2 - 13146.4.
Enactment No: R2024-006
4.F. 010-2024
Revisions to Classification Plan
Adopted Resolution R2024-007 approving revisions to the Classification Plan for City Employees to delete inactive classification specifications.
Enactment No: R2024-007
4.G. 028-2024 Milliken Diversion Dam Access Improvements Adopted Resolution R2024-008:
(1) Authorizing the Utilities Director to award to and execute a construction contract with Sierra Mountain Construction, Inc. for construction of the Milliken Diversion Dam Access Improvements (account 53160133-9017FR11) in the bid amount of $4,824,685;
(2) Authorizing the Utilities Director to approve change orders and execute contracts for project services in a total amount not to exceed $1,225,315, for a total project amount of $6,050,000;
(3) Establishing CIP budget and expenditure account for Milliken Diversion Dam Access Improvements (account 53160133-9017FR11) with a transfer of $810,869.77 as documented in Council Budget Amendment No. 444;
(4) Approving a transfer in the amount of $5,239,130.23 from Water Non-Recurring Undesignated Fund Balance account 539-35999 to CIP Project account 53160133-9017FR11, as documented in Council Budget Amendment No. 444; and (5) Determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA.
Enactment No: R2024-008
ATTACHMENT 1
February 6, 2024CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
4.H. 007-2024 Water Control System Equipment and Software Authorized the Utilities Director to execute a contract in an amount not to exceed $200,000 with Rexel USA, Inc., for the purchase of water control system equipment, software, and associated items for use in the municipal water treatment and distribution systems, and determine this action is exempt from CEQA.
4.I. 442-2023
Professional Services for GIS and Lucity Optimization Roadmap Implementation
Authorized the Public Works Director to execute on behalf of the City a contract with Infinity Technologies for technical and project management services for the implementation of the GIS and Lucity Optimization Roadmap in an amount not to exceed $425,000.
4.J. 486-2023
Napa Pipe Block 14 Subdivision Final Map, a 21 Residential Lot Project Located on Compass Drive
Adopted Resolution R2024-009 approving the Final Map of Napa Pipe 2 - Block 14 (Project No. ENG23-0013), to subdivide property located on Compass Drive into 21 residential lots, authorizing the Mayor to sign said Final Map, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution were adequately analyzed by a previous CEQA action.
Enactment No: R2024-009
4.K. 020-2024
Food Delivery Services for North Napa Center
A motion was made by Councilmember Painter, seconded by Vice Mayor Narvaez to authorize the City Manager to execute the following agreements for the provision of meal delivery services through June 30, 2026 at North Napa Center located at 3380 Solano Avenue:
1. Foodshed Napa Valley, LLC for an amount not to exceed $500,000;
2. Moss and Vine Events, LLC for an amount not to exceed $350,000; and
3. JJEM Foods, LLC for an amount from to exceed $150,000.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Alessio, Painter, Narvaez, and Sedgley4 -
Recused: Luros 1 -
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
ATTACHMENT 1
February 6, 2024CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
5.A. 021-2024 Report on Fire Department Organizational and Operational Analysis (See supplemental document in Attachment 1)
Fire Chief Zach Curren provided the report.
Discussion was turned over to Council. Individual comments and questions ensued.
There were no requests to speak from members of the public.
5.B. 466-2023
Highway 29 Undercrossing Mural Public Art Project
(See supplemental document in Attachment 1)
Meredith Knudsen, Public Art Coordinator, and Katrina Gregory, Recreation and Public Art Manager, provided the report.
Artist David Ocelotl Garcia joined via video conference and responded to questions from members of Council.
There were no requests to speak from members of the public.
A motion was made by Councilmember Alessio, seconded by Councilmember Painter, to adopt Resolution R2024-010:
(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. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Alessio, Luros, Painter, Narvaez, and Sedgley5 -
Enactment No: R2024-010
6. CONSENT HEARINGS:
ATTACHMENT 1
February 6, 2024CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
Approval of the Consent Hearing Agenda
Mayor Sedgley announced the consent hearing. There were no requests to speak; the hearing was opened and closed without comment.
A motion was made by Councilmember Luros, seconded by Councilmember Painter, to approve the Consent Hearing Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Alessio, Luros, Painter, Narvaez, and Sedgley5 -
6.A. 367-2023
Modrall Subdivision II Extension
Adopted Resolution R2024-011 approving a two-year extension of a previously approved Tentative Subdivision Map, Design Review Permit and Use Permit to subdivide an approximately 5.53-acre property into six (6) residential lots at 45 Los Robles Drive and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution were adequately analyzed by a previous CEQA action.
Enactment No: R2024-011
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ATTACHMENT 1
February 6, 2024CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
7.A. 404-2023 Acquisition of Real Property Needed for the Big Ranch Road Widening Project (City Project No. ST11PW02)
(See supplemental documents in Attachment 1)
Mayor Sedgley announced the public hearing and reviewed the hearing process.
Ian Heid, Senior Civil Engineer, joined by Nicholas Muscolino, outside Counsel with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, provided the staff report.
Mayor Sedgley called for any clarifying questions from members of Council before opening public testimony. Staff responded to brief questions.
Mayor Sedgley called for general comments from the public regarding the project. There were no requests to speak from members of the public.
He then called for public comment on each individual property as follows:
1. Property located at 2023 Big Ranch Road.
The following person spoke regarding 2023 Big Ranch Road:
Todd Morse, owner - suggested that City staff and property owners could continue without the need of a resolution of necessity. Is not opposed to the project, but would like a fair opportunity to bring negotiations together and get fair market value for his land.
2. Property located at 2033 Big Ranch Road
The following person spoke regarding 2033 Big Ranch Road:
Mayen Shueh-Imfeld, owner - shared various concerns regarding the process. Would like a new appraisal from the City and a fair market value offer. Suggested that the hearing be continued.
3. 2047 Big Ranch Road:
The following person spoke regarding 2047 Big Ranch Road:
Josh Winston, JLL Development, and property owner - shared a summary of negotiations. Would like additional time to meet with staff and suggested that the hearing be delayed. Would like to see a new appraisal from the City.
ATTACHMENT 1
February 6, 2024CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
A motion was made by Councilmember Alessio, seconded by Vice Mayor Narvaez, to close public testimony. The motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Sedgley called for disclosures; Councilmembers provided them.
Discussion was turned over to Council; individual City Council questions and comments ensued. Staff, including outside Counsel, provided responses and further clarification.
A motion was made by Coucilmember Painter, seconded by
Councilmember Luros, to approve staff's recommendation. Due to a required four affirmative votes to approve the Resolutions of Necessity for each property, the motion failed by the following vote:
Alessio - No
Luros - Aye
Narvaez - No
Painter - Aye
Sedgley - Aye
Brief additional discussion ensued.
A motion was made by Councilmember Alessio, seconded by Councilmember Narvaez, to continue the hearing for no less than one month, and no more than two months. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Alessio, Luros, Painter, and Narvaez4 -
No: Sedgley1 -
8. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER: None.
ATTACHMENT 1
February 6, 2024CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
9. CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Barrett announced the closed session items.
9.A. 033-2024 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code section 54957.6): City designated representatives: Steve Potter, Liz Habkirk, Heather Ruiz, MJ Tueros, Rajneil Prasad, Kelly Trujillo, Michael Barrett, and Jesse Lad (Meyers Nave). Employee organizations: Napa City Employees Association (NCEA), Napa Police Officers Association (NPOA), and Napa City Firefighters Association (NCFA)
CITY COUNCIL RECESS: 5:49 P.M.
6:30 P.M. EVENING SESSION
10. CALL TO ORDER: 6:33 P.M.
10.A. Roll Call:
Councilmember Alessio, Councilmember Luros, Councilmember Painter, Vice Mayor Narvaez, and Mayor Sedgley
Present: 5 -
11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
12. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS:
City Clerk Carranza announced the following supplemental items:
Item 14.B.:
- PowerPoint Presentation by City Staff.
- email from the Napa County Bicycle Coalition.
(Copies of all supplemental documents are included in Attachment 2)
13. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
14. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
14.A. 019-2024
State Prohousing Designation Application
Deputy City Manager Molly Rattigan provided the report.
There were no requests to speak from members of the public.
A motion was made by Councilmember Luros, seconded by Councilmember Painter, to adopt Resolution R2024-012 authorizing the Deputy City Manager to submit a final application to the California Department of Housing and Community Development Prohousing Designation Program. The motion carried by the following vote:
ATTACHMENT 1
February 6, 2024CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
Aye: Alessio, Luros, Painter, Narvaez, and Sedgley5 -
Enactment No: R2024-012
14.B. 428-2023 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
(See supplemental documents in Attachment 2)
Public Works Director Julie Lucido opened the report. She introduced representatives from the engineering firm, TJKM, who were also in attendance and available to answer any questions.
Senior Transportation Planner Lorien Clark provided the report.
Mayor Sedgley called for public comment.
Maureen Trippe, Slow Down Napa - shared concerns with neighborhood traffic; questioned if the plan was sufficient to address actual needs. Would like to see pilot projects implemented in neighborhoods.
Discussion was turned over to Council with invidvidual members provided question, comments and considerations for the program.
A motion was made by Councilmember Painter, seconded by Councilmember Alessio, to direct staff to complete the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program update with the inclusion of the considerations provided by Councilmembers that evening. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Alessio, Luros, Painter, Narvaez, and Sedgley5 -
15. REPORT ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Barrett announced that there was no reportable action taken in Closed Session.
16. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER:
Vice Mayor Narvaez provided recognition to the Parks and Recreation department for putting on the Lighted Arts Festival. He also thanked the crews who responded to the weather event the weekend prior. He was appreciative of the collaboration between agencies.
Councilmember Alessio asked if there was support in asking staff to bring a proclamation in honor of Black History Month to Council at the next meeting. Her request was supported.
17. ADJOURNMENT: 7:28 P.M.
ATTACHMENT 1
February 6, 2024CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
The next regularly scheduled meeting for the City Council of the City of Napa is February 20, 2024.
Submitted by:
_______________________________
Tiffany Carranza, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
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 Item 3. Public Comment
ATTACHMENT 1
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
ATTACHMENT 1
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)
ATTACHMENT 1
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]
ATTACHMENT 1
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
ATTACHMENT 1
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
ATTACHMENT 1
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
ATTACHMENT 1
JOHN F. SALMON
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 to 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,
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
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
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
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
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
1 mile from Sullivan Block
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
NVUSD Corp Yard
8 ac
ATTACHMENT 1
CalTrans Corp Yard
10 ac
ATTACHMENT 1
County HHS Site
8.6 ac
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
Fire D
epartment
Organizat
ional
& Operational
Analysis
February
6, 2024
City Council Regular Meeting
2/6/2024
Supplemental -
Item 5.A.
From: City Staff
ATTACHMENT 1
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
ther
efore risk growth)
• Recommend steps to position NFD to address change
and
growth in advance with appropriate resources and
infrastructure
ATTACHMENT 1
Consultant (AP Triton) performed the following:
Approach
• Evaluation of Current
Cond
itions
• Support Programs
• Community Risk
Assessme
nt (Hazard &
Risk)
• Findings &
Rec
ommendations
ATTACHMENT 1
Evaluation of
Current Conditions
• NFD Overview
• Management Components
• Financial Overview
• Staffing & Personnel
• Stakeholder Interviews
• Capital Facilities &
Equipm
ent
• System Performance
(St
andards of Cover)
ATTACHMENT 1
Evaluation of Support Programs
• Communications & Dispatch
• Emergency Medical Services
Syst
em
• Training & Education Programs
• Life Safety Services
• Public Education
Progr
ams
• Special Teams
ATTACHMENT 1
Community Risk Assessment
• Overview of the City of
Napa &
Napa County
• Risk Classification
• Land Use
• Physical Assets Protected
• Critical Infrastructure
ATTACHMENT 1
Key Findings
• Call volume
• Reliance on other agencies
• No staffed engine at Fire
Stat
ion 1
• Some outdate facilities.
• Need enhancements to Fire
Prev
ention Programs
• No dedicated Emergency
Manager
• Sta
ff is not co-locat ed
• City is growing at southern
end (pl
anning need)
ATTACHMENT 1
Recommendation Buckets:
• In progress/lower financial Impact/On-going or no action (curren
tly)
• Larger Considerations (more planning or potential for higher financ
ial Impact)
• Future Considerations (May have significant impacts to staff, long-
term planning, or financial considerations)
ATTACHMENT 1
Recommendation Bucket:
In progress/lower financial
Impact/on-going or no
action (currently)
Some examples:
• Commercial Occupancy
Inspec
tions
• Cost benefit analysis of
EMS
Medications
• Develop Wellness/Fitness
Progr
am
• Emergency Management
ATTACHMENT 1
Recommendation Bucket:
Larger Considerations:
More planning or potential
for higher financial impact
Some examples:
• Place E1 in Service
• Master Facilities Plan
• Enhanced Dispatch Protocols
& St
andards
• DEI in Hiring Practices
• Enhanced Auto and Mutual
Aid
ATTACHMENT 1
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
Nort
h of Napa Creek @
Linda Vista
• Improve/Develop Regional
Trai
ning Facility
• Evaluate need for additional
Civic/
Public Safety Facilities
& Resources at South end
of town
ATTACHMENT 1
Conclusion:
Exciting time for the City
and for Napa Fire
Department:
• Positive energy and
growt
h effort
• Focused on improving
inter
nal policy, process
and procedure
• Focused on training &
succ
ession planning.
• Focused on our
contr
ibution to the City
as a whole
• Our community is in
good hands!
ATTACHMENT 1
Thank You
ATTACHMENT 1
Hig
hway 29 Undercrossing
Mural Public Art Project
City
Council Meeting
Febr
uary 6, 2024
City Council Regular Meeting
2/6/2024
Supplemental - Item No. 5.B.
From: City Staff
ATTACHMENT 1
Project Background
• City of Napa Public Works Department has recently completed the construction of the new Highway 29 und
ercrossing
• 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 loc
ation 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 pla
ce-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 fro
m 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
Highway 29 Undercrossing Site Map
Between California Boulevard and Coffield Avenue
ATTACHMENT 1
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
ATTACHMENT 1
Project Construction Site Drawings
ATTACHMENT 1
Current Site Photos
ATTACHMENT 1
Current Site Photos
ATTACHMENT 1
Artist & Artwork Selection Process
• Art Selection Panel – 4 member s
• 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 Commi
ttee in Nov 2023
ATTACHMENT 1
Highway 29 Undercrossing Mural
Recommended Finalist
“The Weavers”
by
David Garcia
ATTACHMENT 1
David Garcia
• Artist from Eliz abeth, CO
• Work ranges from large scale interior and exterior murals, sculptures and mos
aics
• His work can be seen in national and international public art com
missions, and both museum and private collections
• David has developed his own technique and philosophy on painting and sculptu
re 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 includ
e: Cal Poly SLO, Colorado History
Museum, Denver Art Museum
ATTACHMENT 1
David Garcia
ATTACHMENT 1
David Garcia
ATTACHMENT 1
David Garcia
ATTACHMENT 1
David Garcia’s Proposal – “The Weavers”
ATTACHMENT 1
David Garcia’s Proposal – “The Weavers”
• “The Weavers” is inspired by the weaving of a basket or textile. Traditionally in native culture, a text
ile 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 t
he 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 inhabi
tants 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
• Final application with City Council Resolution will be submitted to Calt
rans for approval as part of their Transportation Art Program (TAP) • Execute Local Agency Agreement (LAA) wit h Caltrans and secure encroachment permit
• Execute agreement with Artist
• Estimated installation timeframe: April-May 2024
Next Steps
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
PUBL
IC HEARING
Februar
y 6, 2024
ACQUISI
TION OF REAL
PROPERTY NEEDED FOR THE
BIG RANCH ROAD WIDENING
City Council Regular Meeting
2/6/2024
Supplemental - Item 7.A.
From: City Staff
ATTACHMENT 1
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 compat
ible 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
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 negotiat
e with each property owner on compensation.
• If unable to agree on compensation, a jury will decide the amount of just compens
ation in any resulting eminent domain action.
• Each Resolution of Necessity must be adopted by a 2/3 vote (4 affi
rmative votes is the minimum). If adopted, the City Attorney will cause complaints in eminent domain to be filed.
ATTACHMENT 1
Agenda
• Project Overview
• Overview of Eminent Domain Process
• Resolution of Necessity – Requir ed Findings
• Specific Detail by Parcel
ATTACHMENT 1
Big Ranch Road Widening Project
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
• S
idewalk and roadway improvements north of project
sit
e were constructed in 2007.
• Sidewalk and roadway improvements south of project
sit
e (in front of Mechanics Bank) were constructed in
2004.
• The project connects the existing pedestrian and
bicy
cle facilities located north and south of project site. • The project will install Stormdrain facilities and will undergrou
nd overhead utilities fronting the private
parcels.
ATTACHMENT 1
Project
Summary
(continued)
• The Project meets two goals of the 2040
General
Plan.
• GOAL TE 2-2: Ev aluate 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: Pr
omote development of
the Big Ranch Road area as a cohesive,
vibrant neighborhood, integrated with the
surrounding uses
ATTACHMENT 1
Proposed Right-of-Way
• Acquisition line is set by
existi
ng 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
Project Scope
2033 Big Ranch Road
ATTACHMENT 1
Alternative Designs
• Project design alternatives would require acquisition of more property right
s than currently identified.
• The “no build” alternative fails to meet the obligations of the Big Ranch Road S
pecific 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
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 sche
dule date for appraisal;
• City hires appraiser to estimate the property’s fair market value, incl
uding improvements and damages resulting from the
acquisition;
• City offers to purchase property from owner for property’s appr
aised fair market value;
• If City and owner cannot agree on purchase price, City sends own
er notice of public hearing on “resolution of necessity”; • City holds a public hearing to consider adoption of a “resolution of ne
cessity” to acquire property by eminent domain.
ATTACHMENT 1
The Eminent Domain Process, cont.
• If City Council adopts a resolution of necessity, City files a complaint in em
inent domain;
• If City needs possession immediately for the Project, it:
• deposits the “amo unt 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 Prop
erty’s fair market value;
• 90-days before trial: City and property ow ner exchange their respective appraisers’ valuations;
• City and owner depose each other’s experts and (often) participate in med
iation
• 20-days before trial: City and property owner exchange fi nal settlement offers/demands;
• If no settlement, jury fixes just compensation at trial.
ATTACHMENT 1
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 propos
ed project;
d) The City has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necess
ary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the property, including making the Government Code offer.
ATTACHMENT 1
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-
excl
usive temporary
construction easement
• 240 sq ft two-year non -exclusive
utility temporary construction
easement
ATTACHMENT 1
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, thereaf
ter 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 di scussed and withdrawn on 12/15/23 • Formal counter-offer received by City staff on 2/1/2024 • Under evaluation for continued negotiations
ATTACHMENT 1
2033 Big Ranch Road (APN 038-170-007)
• Property Owners: Michael
Imf
eld & Mayen Shueh
• 2,203 sq ft permanent
easement
• 1,908
sq ft two-year non-
exclusi
ve temporary
construction easement
• 575 sq ft two-year non-
exclusi
ve utility temporary
construction easement
ATTACHMENT 1
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, thereaf
ter 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 di scussed and withdrawn on 12/15/23 • Formal counter-offer received by City staff on 1/30/2024 • Under evaluation for continued negotiations
ATTACHMENT 1
2047 Big Ranch Road (APN 038-170-006)
• Property Owner: JIL
Developm
ent
• 2,203 sq ft permanent
easement
• 1,908
sq ft two-year non-
exclusi
ve temporary
construction easement
• 970 sq ft two-year non-
exclusi
ve utility temporary
construction easement
ATTACHMENT 1
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, thereaf
ter 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 recei ved by City staff on 12/21/23 • Formal counter-offer received by City staff on 1/16/2024 • Under evaluation for continued negotiations
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
Questions
Councilmember Questions
ATTACHMENT 1
Public Hearing
Open Public Comment
ATTACHMENT 1
Public Hearing
Close Public Comment
Motion on Staff’s Recommendation
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
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
ATTACHMENT 1
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
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
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
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
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
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
I 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:
EVENING SESSION:
14.B. Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
• PowerPoint Presentation by City Staff.
1) Email from Napa County Bicycle Coalition on February 1, 2024.
ATTACHMENT 1
Neigh
borhood Traffic Calming
Program (NTCP)
Napa
City Council Meeting
Februar
y 6, 2024
Presented by:
Lorien Clark, Senior Transportation Planner
City Council Regular Meeting
2/6/2024
Supplemental - Item 14.B.
From: City Staff
ATTACHMENT 1
Project Introduction
Update Program
Current Program: Citywide Guidelines for
Traf
fic Calming and Neighborhood Traffic
Management (July 14, 2005)
Neighborhood Focus
Local and Collector roads
Compliment Other Work
NVTA Vision Zero Plan
City of Napa Local Roadway Safety Plan
(LRSP)
Ci
ty of Napa Capital Improvement
Pro
gram (CIP)
ATTACHMENT 1
The NTCP goals are to:
NTCP Goals & Benefits
The NTCP can benefit the community by:
Encouraging
Fostering
Educating
Improving
Establishing
Lower Traffic Volumes
Reduce Speeding
Enhance Safety for all Road Users
ATTACHMENT 1
Community Engagement
NTCP Community Workshops
11 total meetings
Project Webpage
Online Map Tool
Online Feedback Form
City Commission Meetings
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advi
sory Commission (BPAC)
Meetings
ATTACHMENT 1
Report
Structure
Chapter 1:
Introduction
Chapter 2:
Implementation
Process
Chapter 3:
Traffic Calming
Measures
Chapter 4:
References
Chapter 5:
Glossary
Draft NTCP Document
Chapter 5:
Glossary
Appendices
ATTACHMENT 1
Traffic Calming Measures
Tier I
Tier III
Involves minor engineering analysis and design considerations, some community outreach, and lower implementation costs.
Involves moderately complex engineering analysis and design, community outreach, and implementation costs.
Inv
olves extensive engineering analysis and design, community outreach, higher implementation costs, and is slower to implement.
Tier II
The NTCP provides a list (“toolbox”) of traffic calming measures. Each measure has its pro s, cons, and suitable environment for application.
The traffic calming measures are categorized into thr ee tiers:
ATTACHMENT 1
Traffic Calming Measures – Example
Measure
Tier
Description
Measure Example
Implementation
Cost Estimates
Benefits
Disadvantages
ATTACHMENT 1
Tier I Traffic Calming Measures
Edgeline/Centerline Striping Speed Legends Signage Botts Dots/Raised Reflectors High Visibility Crosswalks Targeted Location Speed Enforcement* *Measure(s) can be classified into
other tiers depending on level of
effort.
ATTACHMENT 1
Tier II/Tier IIB Traffic Calming Measures
Increased Patrol and Warnings/Citations*
Street Smart Program*
Dynamic Speed Feedback Signs Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Multimodal Road Reconfiguration
(Road Diet)*
Angled Parking Quick Build/ Pilot Projects*
*Measure(s) can be classified into
other tiers depending on level of
effort.
ATTACHMENT 1
Bulbouts
Pedestrian Refuge Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Chokers
Pace Car Program
Tier III Traffic Calming Measures
Lateral Shift Chicanes
Forced Turn IslandTraffic Circle Single-Lane Roundabout
ATTACHMENT 1
Tier III Traffic Calming Measures - Continued
Full ClosureDiagonal Diverters
Partial Closure
Raised Intersections
Raised Crosswalks
Speed Table
Speed Cushion
ATTACHMENT 1
Implementation Process
The City of Napa’s NTCP process is divided into seven primary steps:
ATTACHMENT 1
Process Steps
Application
Resident submits application
• Type of concern
• Location
• 20% neighborhood support
Evaluation and Notification
City evaluates application
• Seven evaluation criteria
City notifies applicant of next steps
Evaluation Criteria
• Must be a collector or local street
• Posted speed limit of 35mph or less
• Meets minimum volume threshold
• Segments are greater than 500ft
• 85th percentile speed 5mph above speed limit
• Location has a crash history
• Location is in a school zone or along a bike route
ATTACHMENT 1
Process Steps - Continued
Neighborhood Support
Tier IIb and Tier III Measures
• 60% neighborhood support
Two collection options
• Petition – Resident
• Ma
iler – City (upon request)
De
sign and Consensus
Data collection, engineering analysis, and design
Coordination
• Fire Department, Police Department, etc.
ATTACHMENT 1
Process Steps - Continued
Prioritization and Funding
Project prioritization scoring criteria
• 100-point scale
Funding determination
• Existing funding available; or
• Seek additional funding source
ATTACHMENT 1
Process Steps - Continued
Implementation
Project construction
• Timeline varies
• Prioritization
• Funding availability
• Design complexities
Monitoring and Evaluation
Project effectiveness
• Occurs after construction
ATTACHMENT 1
Comments on Draft NTCP Document
Comments collected from:
Workshop #3 Meetings
Online Feedback Form
E-mails
C
omment Summary:
Implementation Process
• Signature Threshold
• Prioritization Criteria
₋ Other Adopted Plans
₋ Equity
Traffic Calming Measures
• Benefits/Disadvantages
• Tier Change
• Additional Measures
Concerns at Specific Locations
ATTACHMENT 1
Next Steps
Finalize NTCP
Incorporate final comments in NTCP document
Present final document to the City of Napa
Bicycle
and Pedestrian Advisory Commission
Return to City Council to seek direction to
imp
lement the NTCP
Applications
Open NTCP Application Forms for community
subm
ittal
Funding
$100,000 budgeted annually for FY2023/24 and
FY2024/
25
ATTACHMENT 1
Questions?
ATTACHMENT 1
P.O.
Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org
February
1, 2024
Re: City of Napa’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
Dear Council Members,
The Napa County Bicycle Coalition (NCBC) represents over 2,000 members and supporters throughout Napa County in advocating to make riding a bicycle in our communities safe, convenient, and accessible for riders of all ages and abilities. For over 15 years, NCBC has worked with local organizations, businesses, elected officials, and the public to align our transportation infrastructure with the needs of cyclists and other active transportation users.
On behalf of our city’s vulnerable road users, NCBC thanks you again for making Traffic Safety a Napa City Council priority for 2023-2025. Traffic calming is a key strategy for making the roads safer for all, and we are grateful the City of Napa allocated resources to conduct a thorough update of its Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP). We are hopeful that this program will result in implemented changes that reduce collisions and make Napa’s streets safer.
In November 2023, NCBC submitted comments to the City of Napa’s Public Works Department requesting and suggesting changes to the Draft NTCP that we believed would improve its implementation, accessibility, equity, and impact. We want to thank Public Works, including Senior Transportation Planner Lorien Clark, for taking the time to carefully consider our input and incorporate so much of it into the current draft of the NTCP. While we have not seen the current NTCP’s redlined edits, we are confident the changes we requested have been incorporated where feasible, and we are supportive of the NTCP moving forward. We appreciate the City’s partnership, and we are excited to see the projects that result from this updated program. We hope each of you will support the NTCP moving forward, as well, so that the new NTCP can be launched and project implementation can begin.
Thank you for your time, and please feel free to contact us should you have any questions or would like to discuss our input.
Sincerely,
Kara Vernor
Executive Director
Item 14.B.
ATTACHMENT 1