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 Beth Painter
Councilmember Liz Alessio
Councilmember Mary Luros
Councilmember Bernie Narvaez
3:30 PM City Hall Council ChambersTuesday, June 6, 2023 3:30 PM Afternoon Session
6:30 PM Evening Session
3:30 P.M. AFTERNOON SESSION
1. CALL TO ORDER: 3:45 P.M.
1.A. Roll Call:
Councilmember Alessio, Councilmember Luros, Councilmember Narvaez, Vice Mayor Painter, and Mayor Sedgley
Present: 5 -
2. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS:
City Clerk Carranza announced that staff had asked to pull items 5.U. and
5.W. from consideration that afternoon; both items would be returning at a future meeting.
Additionally, she announced the following supplemental documents:
Items 3.A. and 3.B: Email from Elizabeth Mercer.
Item 4: Four emails from Jarvis Peay.
Item 6.B.:
- Emails from Lola Ellwein.
- City staff response to Lola Ellwein's comments.
Item 7.A.
- PowerPoint Presentation from City Staff.
- Email from Slow Down Napa.
(Copies of all supplemental documents are included in Attachment 1)
June 6, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
(See supplemental document in Attachment 1)
3.A. 107-2023 Pride Month
Mayor Sedgley and members of Council read the proclamation. Bailie, Director of Training and Technical Assistance, and Solicia Aguilar, Director, LGBTQ Connection, accepted the proclamation and provided remarks.
3.B. 119-2023
Proclamation in Celebration of Juneteenth Holiday
Mayor Sedgley and members of Council read the proclamation. JT Thompson and Stephen Corley, People B4 Policy, accepted the proclamation and provided remarks.
Michael Walker, Napa resident, City of Napa employee and member of the City's Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Committee, provided remarks thanking Mayor and Councilmembers for both recognitions, and highlighted the committee's efforts.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
(See supplemental documents in Attachment 1)
5. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Approval of the Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Councilmember Luros, seconded by Councilmember Narvaez, to approve the Consent Agenda with items 5.U. and 5.W. pulled from the agenda, and item 5.I. pulled for discussion. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Alessio, Luros, Narvaez, Painter, and Sedgley5 -
5.A. 208-2023
City Council Meeting Minutes
Approved the minutes from the May 16, 2023 Regular Meeting of the City Council.
June 6, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
5.B. 205-2023 Regulations for Interruptible Surplus Agricultural Water Service, Water for Temporary Purposes, Water Conservation, and Water Shortage Approved the second reading and final passage, and adopted Ordinance O2023-007 amending Napa Municipal Code Section 13.04.050 (from “Metered Rates for Interruptible Surplus Agricultural Water Service” to “Interruptible Surplus Agricultural Water Service”), Section 13.04.350 (from “Water for Construction Purposes” to “Water for Temporary Purposes”), Chapter 13.09 (from “Permanent Water Conservation Regulations” to “Water Conservation Regulations”), and Chapter 13.10 (from “Moderate Water Shortage Regulations” to “Water Shortage Regulations”); repealing Napa Municipal Code Chapter 13.12 (“Severe Water Shortage Regulations”); and determining that the actions authorized by this ordinance are exempt from CEQA.
Enactment No: O2023-007
5.C. 213-2023
Appointment of City Treasurer
Adopted Resolution R2023-052 to appoint Finance Director Rajneil Prasad as City Treasurer.
Enactment No: R2023-052
5.D. 195-2023 Financial System Software On-Premises Migration Agreement Authorized the Finance Director to execute Amendment No. 3 to City Agreement No. C2019 282 with Koa Hills Consulting LLC, in the amount of $135,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $605,736 for on-going technical and application support in addition to project management and tools support hours for the current IFAS financial system through the completion of the project.
5.E. 216-2023
Budget Adjustment for Radio Communications Project
Authorized a Budget Adjustment transferring $180,000 that’s currently appropriated in the Non-Recurring Information Technology Budget over to the Equipment Replacement Fund for radio replacements as documented in Council Budget Amendment No. 4P12.
5.F. 196-2023
Classification Plan for Electrician I/II, Accountant I/II and Budget Analyst I/II Adopted Resolution R2023-053 amending the City Classification Plan by Adopting the Revised Classification Specifications for Electrician I/II, Accountant I/II and Budget Analyst I/II to reinstate as flexible staffing positions.
Enactment No: R2023-053
5.G. 194-2023
Designation of the City’s Agents for California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Financial Assistance
Adopted Resolution R2023-054 authorizing the Assistant City Manager, or Risk Manager, or Finance Director to execute documents on behalf of the City of Napa for financial assistance for specified matters pertaining to State of California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES 130).
Enactment No: R2023-054
June 6, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
5.H. 202-2023 Acceptance of Homeless, Housing Assistance and Prevention Grant Authorized the City Manager to: (1) execute all documents necessary to accept a grant from the State of California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency for the Homeless, Housing Assistance and Prevention Program Round 4 in the amount of $657,995.23; and (2) approve the increase of revenue and expenditures budgets by $328,997.61 in the Non-Recurring General Fund, as documented in Budget Adjustment #13.
5.I. 184-2023
Agreement with County of Napa for Homeless Services
This item was pulled for discussion by Councilmember Alessio. She shared that she would like the data entered into the HMIS system more timely, and asked if the seven day requirement could be shortened.
Deputy City Manager Molly Rattigan provided a response.
Brief discussion ensued.
A motion was made by Councilmember Alessio, seconded by Vice Mayor Painter, to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the County of Napa in the amount of $234,000 for Fiscal Years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 for the reimbursement of City expenses related to the provision of homeless outreach and related services. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Alessio, Luros, Narvaez, Painter, and Sedgley5 -
5.J. 124-2023
Paramedic Tax Rate
Adopted Resolution R2023-055 authorizing the Paramedic tax rate for Fiscal Year 2023/24.
Enactment No: R2023-055
5.K. 123-2023 Lake Park and River Park Estates Maintenance Districts Assessment Rates
Adopted Resolution R2023-056 authorizing the Lake Park and River Park Maintenance Districts' assessment rates for Fiscal Year 2023/24.
Enactment No: R2023-056
5.L. 159-2023 Downtown Business Promotions Tax Area - FY 2023-2024 Annual Report and Budget
Adopted Resolution R2023-057 approving the FY 2023-2024 Annual Report and Budget for the Downtown Business Promotions Tax Area; authorizing the City Clerk to schedule a public hearing on June 20, 2023 to levy taxes in accordance with Napa Municipal Code Chapter 3.28; and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA.
Enactment No: R2023-057
June 6, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
5.M. 160-2023 Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment Area - FY 2023-2024 Annual Report and Budget
Adopted Resolution R2023-058 approving the FY 2023-2024 Annual Report and Budget for the Oxbow Business Promotions Assessment Area; authorizing the City Clerk to schedule a public hearing on June 20, 2023 to levy taxes in accordance with Napa Municipal Code Chapter 3.29; and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA.
Enactment No: R2023-058
5.N. 189-2023
Downtown Parking Assessment Area - 2024 Annual Report and Budget Adopted Resolution R2023-059 approving the 2024 Annual Report, Budget and Advisory Board for the Downtown Parking Assessment Area, authorizing the City Clerk to schedule a public hearing on June 20, 2023 to levy assessments in accordance with Napa Municipal Code Chapter 3.30; and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA.
Enactment No: R2023-059
5.O. 170-2023
SB1 Road Repair and Accountability Act - Project List Application FY2023-24
Adopted Resolution R223-060 adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2023-24 funded by Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA.
Enactment No: R2023-060
5.P. 197-2023
FY23 Capital Improvement Program Amendment
Adopted Resolution R2023-061 amending the Capital Improvement Project Plan as documented in Council Budget Amendment No. 12P12.
Enactment No: R2023-061
5.Q. 173-2023 On-Call Trucking Services for Hauling Materials Authorized the Public Works Director to execute on behalf of the City agreements with (1) C.B. Roadways, Inc., and (2) V. Dolan Trucking, Inc., for on-call trucking services to haul materials for City operations for FY24, FY25, and FY26 each in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000; and determine that the actions authorized by this item are exempt from CEQA.
5.R. 174-2023
Asphalt and Aggregate Materials Purchase Contract
Authorized the Public Works Director to execute on behalf of the City Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. C2022-543 with Syar Industries, Inc., for the purchase of asphalt and aggregate materials in the increased amount of $800,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $4,004,000 and to extend the term of the agreement to March 31, 2024, and determine that the actions authorized by this item are exempt from CEQA.
June 6, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
5.S. 175-2023 Concrete Materials Purchase Contract
Authorized the Public Works Director to execute on behalf of the City Amendment No. 1 to Agreement C2023-569 with Syar Concrete, LLC, for the purchase of concrete materials in the increased amount of $300,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $640,000 and to extend the term of the agreement to March 31, 2024, and determine that the actions authorized by this item are exempt from CEQA.
5.T. 198-2023
Five-Way Intersection Improvement Project - Cooperative Agreement with the California Department of Transportation
Authorized the Public Works Director to execute on behalf of the City a Cooperative Agreement in substantial conformance with Attachment 1 with the California Department of Transportation to complete CEQA analysis and design documents for improvements to the intersection of Silverado Trail (SR121)/East Avenue/Third Street/Coombsville Road.
5.U. 203-2023
Amendment to Fifth Street Parking Garage Agreement
By the request of staff this Item was pulled from the agenda and no action was taken.
5.V. 206-2023 Freeway Drive Rehabilitation - First Street to Laurel Street Adopted Resolution R2023-062: (1) authorizing the Public Works Director to award a construction contract to, and execute a construction contract with, O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc., for the Freeway Drive Rehabilitation - First Street to Laurel Street project in the bid amount of $1,243,457; (2) authorizing the Public Works Director to approve change orders and charges for project services up to $212,346 for a total project amount not to exceed $1,455,803; and (3) determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA.
Enactment No: R2023-062
5.W. 209-2023
Recreational Facility Joint Use Agreement with Napa Valley Unified School District
By the request of staff this Item was pulled from the agenda and no action was taken.
6. CONSENT HEARINGS:
Approval of the Consent Agenda
Mayor Sedgley announced the consent hearings. There were no requests to speak; the hearings were opened and closed without comment.
A motion was made by Councilmember Luros, seconded by Councilmember Narvaez, to approve the Consent Hearing Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Alessio, Luros, Narvaez, Painter, and Sedgley5 -
June 6, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
6.A. 182-2023 Napa Valley Corporate Park Landscape and Lighting Assessment District, Fiscal Year 2023-2024
Adopted Resolution R2023-063 approving the Engineer’s Report, confirming diagram and assessment, ordering levy of assessment for the Napa Valley Corporate Park Landscape and Lighting District for Fiscal Year 2023-2024, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA.
Enactment No: R2023-063
6.B. 183-2023
Citywide Landscape Maintenance Assessment District, Fiscal Year 2023-2024
(See supplemental document in Attachment 1)
Adopted Resolution R2023-064 approving the Engineer’s Report, confirming diagram and assessment, ordering levy of assessment for the Citywide Landscape Maintenance Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2023-2024, and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA.
Enactment No: R2023-064
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
June 6, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
7.A. 125-2023 City of Napa FY 2023/24 and FY 2024/25 Proposed Budget Public Hearing
(See supplemental documents in Attachment 1)
City Manager Potter opened the item.
Finance Director Raj Prasad and Budget Officer Jessie Gooch provided the report.
Mayor Sedgley called for disclosures; there were none.
Mayor Sedgley opened public comment.
Carlotta Sainato, Program Manager, Napa County Bicycle Coalition - glad to see that traffic safety for all modes had been identified as a priority. She understands how the City will improve and expand the bicycle network, but asked that funding be set aside in the budget for Street Sweeping of Class 4 bike lanes.
Maureen Trippe, Slow Down Napa - looking for "Traffic Calming Implementation", which was not included. would like to see that, specifically, as a line item in budget.
A motion was made by Councilmember Alessio, seconded by Vice Mayor Painter, to close the public testimony. The motion carried unanimously.
Discussion was turned over to Council.
Public Works Director Julie Lucido provided response to public comments.
Individual Council comments and questions ensued.
A motion was made by Councilmember Alessio, seconded by Councilmember Narvaez, to provide direction to staff to finalize the proposed FY 2023/24 and FY 2024/25 Budgets and present that document for final review and approval at the regularly scheduled meeting on June 20, 2023. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Alessio, Luros, Narvaez, Painter, and Sedgley5 -
June 6, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
8. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER:
Councilmember Luros asked if Councilmembers would support a request to form an advisory committee of two Councilmembers and two County Supervisors to explore joint working space for the City and County.
Discussion ensued. Her request was supported by Council, and City Manager Potter shared he was confident an item to appoint members could come back at the next Council meeting scheduled for June 20, 2023.
Vice Mayor Painter thanked City Manger Potter for attending a meeting at Congregation Beth Shalom regarding hate speech. In addition, in the spirit of the proclamations read earlier that day, she acknowledged June 18th as International Day to Combat Hate Speech.
Councilmember Alessio provided additional comments regarding hate speech and shared that she appreciated the City demonstrating and communicating inclusiveness. She thanked Napa Police Officers for being great ambassadors of the City during Bottlerock. She also asked if Council would support a request to have staff come back to a future meeting with options for the 2024 4th of July celebration. Brief discussion ensued.
Council supported the request.
9. CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Barrett announced the Closed Session item.
June 6, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
9.A. 218-2023 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54956.8): City Negotiators: Julie Lucido, Jessica Lowe, Michael Barrett, and Steve Potter. Under Negotiation: price and terms of payment for the potential acquisition of each of the following properties, with a corresponding identification of the negotiating parties for each parcel.
• 2023 Big Ranch Road (APN 038-170-008): Partial acquisition of approximate 4,704 square foot permanent easement, approximate 2,823 square foot temporary construction easement, and 240 square foot utility temporary construction easement; Property Owner: Todd J. Morse • 2033 Big Ranch Road (APN 038-170-007): Partial acquisition of approximate 2,203 square foot permanent easement, approximate 1,908 square foot temporary construction easement, and 575 square foot utility temporary construction easement; Property Owners: Michael Imfeld and Mayen Shueh
• 2047 Big Ranch Road (APN 038-170-006): Partial acquisition of approximate 2,203 square foot permanent easement, approximate 1,908 square foot temporary construction easement, and 970 square foot utility temporary construction easement; Property Owner: Rosemary Hafeli CITY COUNCIL RECESS: 5:03 P.M.
6:30 P.M. EVENING SESSION
10. CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 P.M.
10.A. Roll Call:
Councilmember Alessio, Councilmember Luros, Councilmember Narvaez, Vice Mayor Painter, and Mayor Sedgley
Present: 5 -
11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
12. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS:
City Clerk Carranza announced the following supplemental documents:
Item 15.A.:
- PowerPoint Presentation from City Staff.
- Emails from Leroy W. Moore, Paul Hicks, and Cass Walker. (Copies of all supplemental documents are included in Attachment 2)
13. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
June 6, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
13.A. 204-2023 Napa County Historical Society’s 75th Anniversary Mayor Sedgley and members of Council read the proclamation. Sheli Smith, Executive Director of the Napa County Historical Society accepted the proclamation and provided remarks.
14. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
15. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
June 6, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
15.A. 115-2023 Redwood Road Subdivision
(See supplemental documents in Attachment 2)
Mayor Sedgley opened the hearing.
Michael Allen, Senior Planner, provided the staff report.
Mayor Sedgley called for disclosures; Councilmembers provided them.
Mayor Sedgley turned discussion over to Council for clarifying questions.
Brief questions ensued and Mr. Allen provided responses.
Mayor Sedgley offered applicant an opening statement. Thomas Baldacci of Montair Associates Group thanked staff and provided brief comments about the project.
Mayor Sedgley opened public testimony.
Tracy Schulze - provided comments in opposition of the thru street connection of Ruston Lane to Redwood Road. Would like the City to pursue alternate options.
Paul Hicks - provided comments in opposition of the Ruston Lane extension. Would like the City to review policies regarding noticing to neighborhoods on projects.
Michael Snider - shared concerns with the public walking along the backside of his house on Argyle Street.
Bernadette Moor - spoke in support of the thru street connection of Ruston Lane to Redwood Road.
A motion was made by Vice Mayor Painter, seconded by Councilmember Alessio to close public testimony. The motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Sedgley offered a rebuttal to the applicant following public testimony; the applicant declined.
Discussion was turned back over to Council for deliberation. Individual questions and comments ensued with Mr. Allen, Fire Chief Zach Curren and Public Works Director Julie Lucido responding to various questions from Council regarding the extension, emergency response, traffic calming and elevation.
June 6, 2023CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
Vice Mayor Painter suggested that the first sentence of Condition 2 of the resolution be edited to read "Building Permits for each lot shall provide stubs capable of providing for future utility connections (sub-feeds) for future ADU or Junior ADU.
A motion was made by Councilmember Luros, seconded by Vice Mayor Painter, to adopt Resolution R2023-065 approving a Design Review Permit and Tentative Subdivision Map for the Redwood Road Subdivision, a subdivision of a 1.56-acre property into 6 single-family lots at 2550, 2552 & 2554 Redwood Road, with an amendment to the first sentence of Condition 2 to read "Building Permits for each lot shall provide stubs capable of providing for future utility connections (sub-feeds) for future ADU or Junior ADU,” and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Alessio, Luros, Narvaez, Painter, and Sedgley5 -
Enactment No: R2023-065
16. REPORT ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Barrett announced there was no reportable action taken in Closed Session.
17. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER:
City Clerk Carranza thanked Office Assistant Paulette Cooper, whose last day with the City would be June 8th, for her service to the City, and to members of Council.
Mayor Sedgley shared the City was holding a Time Capsule Unveiling Event on June 22nd at 10:00 a.m.
18. ADJOURNMENT: 7:41 P.M.
Submitted by:
_______________________________
Tiffany Carranza, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 1
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS &
COMMUNICATIONS Office of the City Clerk
City Council of the City of Napa
Regular Meeting
June 6, 2023
FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA
AFTERNOON SESSION:
SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
3. SPECIAL PRESENTIONS
3.A Pride Month & 3.B. Juneteeth Holiday
1) Email from Elizabeth Mercer received on June 5, 2023.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT:
1) Email 1 from Jarvis Peay received on June 5, 2023.
2) Email 2 from Jarvis Peay received on June 5, 2023.
3) Email 3 from Jarvis Peay received on June 5, 2023
4) Email 4 from Jarvis Peay received on June 5, 2023
6.CONSENT HEARINGS:
6.B Citywide Landscape Maintenance Assessment District, Fiscal Year 2023-2024 1) Email from Lola Ellwein received on June 1, 2023.
2) City staff response to Lola Ellwein’s comment sent on June 5, 2023. 3) Email from Lola Ellwein received on June 6, 2023.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.A City of Napa FY 2023/24 and FY 2024/25 Proposed Budget • PowerPoint Presentation from City Staff.
1) Email from Slow Down Napa received on June 5, 2023.
Liz Fitrakis MercerFrom:
ClerkTo:
Subject:
Date:
6/6/23 City Council Public Comment Submission: Agenda Items 107-2023 and 119-2023 Monday,June 05,2023 8:50:56 PM
k...................
Hello,
Please submit the following comment in regards to Agenda Items 107-2023 and 119-2023 3|e 3|e 3|e 3|e 3fe 3fe 3fe
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Thank you for officially recognizing June as Pride Month,and for the celebration of Juneteenth. I realize that I am perhaps a more privileged member of our community as a cis, white woman,but it makes me proud that our city is recognizing the struggles of all members of our community and is celebrating our diversity. As there are calls to "choke the woke" right here in our town, that very loud voice is in the minority. While we have had dark moments in our local history, we have come a long way to be an inclusive and welcoming community;yet we have a long way to go. These proclamations are a step in the right direction.
These two critical messages are not only what the rest of the world needs to hear,but clearly there are some residents that need to be reminded as well. By making these two official proclamations today (Agenda Items 107-2023 and 119-2023),we stand in solidarity with ALL of our neighbors and send a clear and loud message that ALL are welcome here in Napa.
With deep gratitude,
Elizabeth Mercer
Napa,CA.
i[EXTERNAL]
Items 3.A. and 3.B.
2 [EXTERNAL]
Thank you. Can an average Joe, or Flo just send a CPRA request to a government employee ? ............................................................................................................................. Gonzalez and Potter betrayed the public trust, as well as my trust that thy would honor their jobs and the rule of law by not responding to, or acting on my CPRA requests and complaints. They did so in violation
of the law. i am now demanding full investigations. I am seeking a full investigation and a report about these incidents, as well as apologies, etc.
From: Lola Ellwein
To: Clerk; Scott Sedgley; Liz Alessio; Mary Luros; Bernie Narvaez; Michael Barrett Subject: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing Re: Citywide Landscape Maintenance Assessment District Date: Friday, June 2, 2023 2:18:31 PM
June 2, 2023
City of Napa
City Clerk
Mayor
Councilmembers
City Attorney
City Hall - 955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
Re: Proposed Levy of Assessment for Landscape Maintenance I reside in District 1 on Summerfield Drive. While I do not oppose assessments for landscape maintenance in general, I have several objections to the City’s recent proposal to levy an increased assessment.
1. The Proposed Increased Assessment Was Not Properly Noticed and Must Be Withdrawn.
I happened to see the notice of public hearing in the Napa Valley Register concerning the proposed levy of assessment for the citywide landscape maintenance. The proposed Resolution adopting the levy states that “[n]otice of the hearing was processed pursuant to provisions of Section 22626(a) of the Streets and Highways Code, duly noticed and published once in the local paper at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing.” However, subsection (a) of Section 22626 applies only if “the assessments are to be levied in the same or lesser amounts than in any previous year.”
The notice published in the paper does not state that the assessment will be increased. However, the proposed Resolution ordering the levy expressly states that the City Council ordered the report “for the proposed increase of assessments.” The proposed increase in assessments triggers constitutional and statutory requirements of written notice by mail.
Section 22626(b) of the Streets and Highways Code states that “[i]f the assessments are to be increased from any previous year, the legislative body shall cause notice of the public hearing with respect to the increase to be given pursuant to Section 55753 of the Government Code.” Section 55753(b) provides that “[p]rior to levying a new or increased assessment, [EXTERNAL]
or an existing assessment that is subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution, an agency shall give notice by mail to the record owner of each identified parcel.” Section 55753(b) also provides that the mailed notice must be given “45 days prior to the date of the public hearing upon the proposed assessment.”
Notice of this proposed increased assessment was not mailed and was not given 45 days prior to the hearing. Accordingly, the notice does not meet legal requirements and therefore must be withdrawn.
2. The Engineer’s Report Is Inadequate: It Does Not Present Required Specifications.
According to the Executive Summary Section of the Engineer’s Report, the proposed Resolution approving the Report and ordering the levy “directed Julie B. Lucido, P.E., to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications of the existing improvements to be made within the District or within any zone thereof, [and] an estimate of the costs of proposed new improvements and/or maintenance of servicing existing improvements, . . ..” However, the Report fails to provide any plans or specification.
The Report gives general information. It states: “Facilities to be maintained and serviced may include, but are not limited to: landscaping, parking lots, walkways, crosswalks, fences, signs, park and parkways, streetlights, retaining walls, embankments, drainage facilities, sprinkler systems, electrical energy for irrigation controllers and streetlights and associated appurtenant facilities. Landscaping may include ornamental planting including lawns, shrubs and trees. Servicing may include installing, operating, maintaining, repairing and replacing the public facilities together with the equipment, facilities, staff time and any necessary administrative
activities. The repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, treating for disease or injury, as well as the maintenance, repair and replacement, as necessary, of all irrigation systems and graffiti removal from walls immediately
adjacent to the cultivated areas.” This does not tell me what I’m being asked to pay for with regard to my subdivision.
The only “plan” or “specification” concerning my subdivision (Vineyard View Estates) in the Engineer’s Report is that “[t]he cost of maintaining the ten (10) foot strip, approximately 800 feet long on the west side of Summerfield Drive, shall be assessed equally to the owners of Lots 1 through 13 of Vineyard Vista Estates Subdivision. The ten (10) foot strip consists of the area behind the sidewalk and the area between the curb and sidewalk approximately 100 feet southerly of Salvador Avenue, all in the public right-of-way.” The attached “budget” for my subdivision does
not provides any more specification. It refers only to costs for regular and part time employees, a property tax admin fee, an assessment roll “prep,” and water charges. These references are wholly inadequate to provide landowners notice of what we are being asked to pay for.
3. What Maintenance Has Been or Will Be Done?
As I said, I’m not opposed to paying for landscape maintenance. However, the 10 foot strip across the street in front of my home is never maintained. It looks awful and always has. Many of the original plants are dead or dying. The most that I’ve ever seen done to the strip is hacking the weeds and dried shrubs into square or rectangular shapes, and that’s only happened a few times in the 25+ years I’ve lived in my home. These squat weed shapes are bone dry most of the year. I guess there is no irrigation, though the Engineer’s Report refers to $550 allocated to “water” costs for my subdivision. The weed shapes have recently erupted with new weeds and have only turned green because of our recent showers and mild weather. I’m not sure you can call the weed shapes a “landscape.” But I’m curious. What is the plan? Same as it ever was? In which case, why would an increased assessment be appropriate?
I look forward to receiving your reply.
Lola Ellwein
Via email to:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
From: Patrick Melgar
To: Clerk;
Cc: Heather Maloney
Subject: RE: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing Re: Citywide Landscape Maintenance Assessment District Date: Monday, June 05, 2023 4:05:14 PM
Dear Ms. Ellwein,
There is no proposed increase in the Vineyard Vista Estates assessments for the upcoming year. The assessment on your property in Vineyard Vista Estates has remained at $160 per year since Fiscal Year 1997/1998. The City complied with the noticing requirement for the June 6, 2023 Public Hearing on the assessment for the Citywide Landscape Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2023- 2024.
The Staff Report for the agenda item stated that “[t]he City proposes to continue the levy of assessments at the same amounts (no increase) and in the same manner as last year.” Therefore, because the proposed assessment is the same amount as has been levied in prior years, the City was only required to publish notice in the Napa Valley Register 10 days prior to the hearing under California Streets and Highways Code Sec. 22626.
The City was not required to provide written
notice to each property owner.
On May 16, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution of intention to approve the Preliminary Engineer’s Report, levy and collect assessments, and give notice of a Public Hearing for the Citywide Landscape Maintenance Assessment.
The Public Hearing was set for June 6, 2023 and notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Napa Valley Register on May 26, 2023, which was more than ten days prior to the hearing date.
Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, all parcels that have special benefit conferred upon them as result of the maintenance provided must be assessed, and each parcel is assessed in proportion to the estimated benefit received. Page 21 of the Engineer’s Report includes the following description of maintenance costs; “
the cost of maintaining the ten (10) foot strip,
approximately 800 feet long on the west side of Summerfield Drive, shall be assessed equally to the owners of Lots 1 through 13 of Vineyard Vista Estates Subdivision. The ten (10) foot strip consists of the area behind the sidewalk and the area between the curb and sidewalk approximately 100 feet southerly of Salvador Avenue, all in the public right-of-way”
The cost includes the labor, materials, the admin costs to prepare this report and manage the district over the year. The table on page 15 identifies estimated fiscal year 2023-24 costs of $4,000 to maintain the district.
These costs will be covered by $2,080 in assessments collected ($160 per parcel), and the City will contribute $1,370 of General Fund money, outside of the assessments, to subsidize the actual full cost of the Vineyard Vista Subdivision Assessment District during the year.
Thank you for contacting the City of Napa with your questions.
Sincerely,
Patrick Melgar
Management Analyst II
be increased. However, the proposed Resolution ordering the levy expressly states that the City Council ordered the report “for the proposed increase of assessments.” The proposed increase in assessments triggers constitutional and statutory requirements of written notice by mail.
Section 22626(b) of the Streets and Highways Code states that “[i]f the assessments are to be increased from any previous year, the legislative body shall cause notice of the public hearing with respect to the increase to be given pursuant to Section 55753 of the Government Code.” Section 55753(b) provides that “[p]rior to levying a new or increased assessment, or an existing assessment that is subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution, an agency shall give notice by mail to the record owner of each identified parcel.” Section 55753(b) also provides that the mailed notice must be given “45 days prior to the date of the public hearing upon the proposed assessment.”
Notice of this proposed increased assessment was not mailed and was not given 45 days prior to the hearing. Accordingly, the notice does not meet legal requirements and therefore must be withdrawn.
2. The Engineer’s Report Is Inadequate: It Does Not Present Required Specifications.
According to the Executive Summary Section of the Engineer’s Report, the proposed Resolution approving the Report and ordering the levy “directed Julie B. Lucido, P.E., to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications of the existing improvements to be made within the District or within any zone thereof, [and] an estimate of the costs of proposed new improvements and/or maintenance of servicing existing improvements, . . ..” However, the Report fails to provide any plans or specification.
The Report gives general information. It states: “Facilities to be maintained and serviced may include, but are not limited to: landscaping, parking lots, walkways, crosswalks, fences, signs, park and parkways, streetlights, retaining walls, embankments, drainage facilities, sprinkler systems, electrical energy for irrigation controllers and streetlights and associated appurtenant facilities. Landscaping may include ornamental planting including lawns, shrubs and trees. Servicing may include installing, operating, maintaining, repairing and replacing the public facilities together with the equipment, facilities, staff time and any necessary administrative
activities. The repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, treating for disease or injury, as well as the maintenance, repair and replacement, as necessary, of all irrigation systems and graffiti removal from walls immediately
adjacent to the cultivated areas.” This does not tell me what I’m being
From:
To: Scott Sedolev
Clerk; Liz Alessio;Mary Luros;Bernie Narvaez; Michael Barrett; Patrick Melqar Re: June 6,2023 Public Hearing Re: Citywide Landscape Maintenance Assessment District Tuesday,June 06,2023 9:56:14 AM
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
j [EXTERNAL]
Thank you, Scott.Iappreciate your response.
If the proposed Resolution ordering the levy had not expressly stated that the council ordered the report "for the proposed increase of assessments," there would have been no issue concerning notice. To avoid the problem in the future,Irequest that the council edit the word "increase" from future resolutions, if in fact an increase is not being proposed.
However, my objections remain concerning the adequacy of the engineer's report to provide notice of what we are being assessed for and whether any actual "maintenance" has been or will be done. As the response I received from Mr. Melgar of Public Works was framed in general terms and did not specifically address these objections,Ihope that the council will address them at the hearing.
Lola
On Tuesday, June 6, 2023, 07:17:24 AM PDT, Scott Sedgley <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning Lola,
Thank you for your well researched and articulated comments on the proposed action to extend the existing maintenance district.
This action does not include increasing fees. If it were the noticing you sight would come into play.
Sincerely
Scott
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 2, 2023, at 2:18 PM, Lola Ellwein wrote:
i[EXTERNAL]
June 2, 2023
City of Napa
City Clerk
Mayor
Councilmembers
l
City Attorney
City Hall - 955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
Re: Proposed Levy of Assessment for Landscape Maintenance I reside in District 1 on Summerfield Drive. While I do not oppose assessments for landscape maintenance in general, I have several objections to the City’s recent proposal to levy an increased assessment.
1. The Proposed Increased Assessment Was Not Properly
Noticed and Must Be Withdrawn.
I happened to see the notice of public hearing in the Napa Valley Register concerning the proposed levy of assessment for the citywide landscape maintenance. The proposed Resolution adopting the levy states that “[n]otice of the hearing was processed pursuant to provisions of Section 22626(a) of the Streets and Highways Code, duly noticed and published once in the local paper at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing.” However, subsection (a) of Section 22626 applies only if “the assessments are to be levied in the same or lesser amounts than in any previous year.”
The notice published in the paper does not state that the assessment will be increased. However, the proposed Resolution ordering the levy expressly states that the City Council ordered the report “for the proposed increase of assessments.” The proposed increase in assessments triggers constitutional and statutory requirements of written notice by mail.
Section 22626(b) of the Streets and Highways Code states that “[i]f the assessments are to be increased from any previous year, the legislative body shall cause notice of the public hearing with respect to the increase to be given pursuant to Section 55753 of the Government Code.” Section 55753(b) provides that “[p]rior to levying a new or increased assessment, or an existing assessment that is subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution, an agency shall give notice by mail to the record owner of each identified parcel.” Section 55753(b) also provides that the mailed notice must be given “45 days prior to the date of the public hearing upon the proposed assessment.”
Notice of this proposed increased assessment was not mailed and was not given 45 days prior to the hearing. Accordingly, the notice does not meet legal requirements and therefore must be
withdrawn.
2. The Engineer’s Report Is Inadequate: It Does Not Present Required Specifications.
According to the Executive Summary Section of the Engineer’s Report, the proposed Resolution approving the Report and ordering the levy “directed Julie B. Lucido, P.E., to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications of the existing improvements to be made within the District or within any zone thereof, [and] an estimate of the costs of proposed new improvements and/or maintenance of servicing existing
improvements, . . ..” However, the Report fails to provide any plans or specification.
The Report gives general information. It states: “Facilities to be maintained and serviced may include, but are not limited to:
landscaping, parking lots, walkways, crosswalks, fences, signs, park and parkways, streetlights, retaining walls, embankments, drainage facilities, sprinkler systems, electrical energy for irrigation controllers and
streetlights and associated appurtenant facilities. Landscaping may include ornamental planting including lawns, shrubs and trees. Servicing may include installing, operating, maintaining, repairing and replacing the public facilities together with the equipment, facilities, staff time and any necessary administrative activities. The repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, treating for disease or injury, as well as the maintenance, repair and replacement, as necessary, of all irrigation systems and graffiti removal from walls immediately adjacent to the cultivated areas.” This does not tell me what I’m being asked to pay for with regard to my subdivision.
The only “plan” or “specification” concerning my subdivision (Vineyard View Estates) in the Engineer’s Report is that “[t]he cost of maintaining the ten (10) foot strip, approximately 800 feet long on the west side of Summerfield Drive, shall be assessed equally to the owners of Lots 1 through 13 of Vineyard Vista Estates Subdivision. The ten (10) foot strip consists of the area behind the sidewalk and the area between the curb and sidewalk approximately 100 feet southerly of Salvador Avenue, all in the public right-of-way.” The attached “budget” for my subdivision does not provides any more specification. It refers only to costs for regular and part time employees, a property tax admin fee, an assessment roll “prep,” and water charges. These references are wholly inadequate to provide landowners notice of what we are being asked to pay for.
Proposed Budget
FY
2023/24 and FY 2024/25
June
6, 2023
City Council Regular Meeting
6/6/2023
Supplemental I - 7.A.
From: City Staff
Agenda
• Counc
il Priorities & Budget Theme
• General Fund
• CIP
• Other Funds
• Staffing Changes
• Comments and Direction to Staff
FY 2022/23
Budget Process
City
Council Priority Setting
Januar
y 31, 2023
CIP
Workshop
Apri
l 4, 2023
Budg
et Workshop
Apri
l 18, 2023
Budg
et Public Hearing
June
6, 2023
Budg
et Adoption:
June
20, 2023
FY 2023/24
Council Priorities
• General
Plan Implementation
• Climate Action & Sustainability
• Housing & Homelessness
• Traffic Safety for all Modes of Travel
• Public Infrastructure
Budget Pac
kages for Council Priorities
Climat
e Action &
Sustainability,
$319,000
General Plan
Implementation,
$1,824,960
Housing &
Homelessness,
$500,000
Public Infrastructure,
$2,406,470
Traffic Safety for all
Modes of Travel,
$687,790
General Fu
nd (Regular and Non-Recurring) Additional Funding for
Council Priorities in FY 2023/24 and FY 2024/25
General
Fund Revenue Changes
FY 2024
/25FY 2023/24
125,653,380121,300,150Estimated Revenue at
4/18/2023
+541,000+578,000Updated TOT Projection
+234,000+181,500Revenue from Budget
Packages
+7,650+9,270Finalized Cost Allocation Plan
+0+250,000Additional Excess ERAF to
Balance the Budget
126,436,030122,318,920Estimated Revenue at
6/6/2023
General
Fund Expenditure Changes
FY 2024
/25FY 2023/24
122,662,690119,165,230Estimated Expenditures at
4/18/2023
+2,143,950+1,523,540Budget Packages
-128,200+246,770Self-Funded Insurance
Recalculation
+711,380+652,840Internal Service Fund
Recalculations
+133,850+542,460Transfers to Reserves
125,523,670122,130,840Estimated Expenditures at
6/6/2023
Budget Pac
kage Changes
• Adjusted ca
lculations for self-funded
insurances for all employees, including new
employees on budget packages
General
Fund
Reve
nues and Expenditures
0 20
40 60
80 100
12 0
140
2020/21
Actual
2021/22
Actual
2022/23
Adjusted
2023/24
Proposed
2024/25
Proposed
Milli
ons
Expenditu
res Operating Re
venues Non-
Operating Revenues
General
Fund
Ope
rating Position
(8)
(6
)
(4)
(2)
-
2 4
6 8
10 12
14/15
Actual
15/16
Actual
16/17
Actual
17/18
Actual
18/19
Actual
20/21
Actual
21/22
Actual
22/23
Adjusted
23/24
Proposed
24/25
Proposed
Milli
ons
To
CIP Reserves To
Emergency Reserve To
Operating Reserve
To
Contingency Reserve Surplus
/(Deficit)
FMV
Investm
ent
Adjustment
General
Fund
Fun
d Balance / Reserves
-10
-5
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
202
1/22 Actual 22/23 Adjusted 2023/24 Proposed 2024/25 Proposed Milli
ons
Unassig
ned Fund Balance Emergen
cy Reserve Operating Re
serve
Conti
ngency Reserve Legally
Restricted
Proposed CIP
FY24 by Category
To
tal Budget: $32,437,000
Bridg
e, 150,000
Fac
ilities, 4,420,000
Mat
erials Diversion,
1,155,000
Miscellaneous
,
1,000,000
Park
, 717,000
Publ
ic Art, 275,000
Storm
Drain, 600,000
Stree
ts, Traffic Safety,
Multi-Modal,
11,275,000
Tr
affic Signal,
1,400,000
Wa
ter, 11,445,000
Proposed CIP
FY24 by Funding Source
To
tal Budget: $32,437,000
CIP Facilities
Reserve, 4,420,000
CIP Ge
neral Reserve, 1,367,000
Housing
, 500,000
Materials Div
ersion Fund,
1,155,000
Measure
T, 10,900,000
N Jef
ferson DIF Street Imprv,
922,000
Other
Agencies, 1,800,000
Public
Art Fund, 275,000
State
Gas Tax, 953,000
Street
Imprv DIF Streets, 500,000
Water
Enterprise, 9,645,000
Speci
al Revenue Funds
• Special Re
venue Funds: Legally restricted
funding, total of $26.0M in FY 2023/24; $19.1M
in FY 2024/25
• Includes Development Impact Fees, Assessment
Districts, Measure T, and other restricted funding
Internal Servi
ce Funds
• Goods/S
ervices provided by one City
department to another
• Total of $17.0M in FY 2023/24 and $19.1 in FY
2024/25
Enterprise
Funds
• Solid W
aste and Recycling Funds
– FY24
Expenditure Budget: $47.8M
– FY25 Expenditure Budget: $49.1M
– Includes budgeted CIP projects
• Water
Funds
– FY24
Expenditure Budget: $55.6M
– FY25 Expenditure Budget: $51.5M
– Includes budget for decision packages and CIP
projects
Staffi
ng Changes
• 1 FTE
deleted and replaced with different
classifications in FY 2023/24
• 8 Regular FTE added in FY 2023/24
– 4 Gen
eral Fund, 1 General Liability Internal Service
Fund, 3 Water Enterprise Fund
• 1 Re
gular FTE added in FY 2024/25
– 1 Gen
eral Fund
Concl
usion
Next S
teps:
June
20th Adoption
• FY
2023/24 Operating Budget
• FY 2024/25 Operating Budget
• Five-Year Capital Improvement
Program (CIP)
• Staffing Plan
Conclusi
on of Budget Presentation
Recommen
ded Action:
Provide Comments / Direction
Council
Questions or Comments?
June 5, 2023
The Honorable Scott Sedgley, Mayor City of Napa 955 School Street, Napa, California Via email: [email protected]
Supplemental written comments on item 7.A of June 6 City Council meeting: City of Napa FY 2023/24 and FY 2024/25 Proposed Budget
Dear Mayor Sedgley,
On behalf of Slow Down Napa we request that funding specifically for implementation of Traffic Calming be included in the City of Napa budget for FY 2023/24 and FY 2024/25. A distinct budget line for Traffic Calming implementation will make clear the City's decision to advance beyond decades of good intentions and elaborate guidelines to begin making this reform the reality on our residential streets.
Since Slow Down Napa has participated in every community meeting for composing new Traffic Calming guidelines, we realize that the process is not complete, indeed the final set of meetings has not yet been scheduled. It may therefore seem premature to allocate funds for a process that is still being defined. But the Public Works department can estimate the costs of one or a few implementations, and budgeting this will eliminate one cause for delay after guidelines and plans have been approved.
Last year’s transfer of $400,000 from the red light camera fund to support increased enforcement and traffic safety equipment is appreciated, but is not enough to address the problem of speeding in residential neighborhoods. We need to invest in Traffic Calming measures, such as speed cushions and narrower lanes.
Traffic Calming measures can be integrated into routine street paving and improvement work.
Most residential neighborhood measures are small-scale and relatively inexpensive. For example, Calistoga is spending $10,000 on a pilot project with three speed cushions. When the City recently approved an advance of $500,000 for street paving that was ahead of schedule, the idea of including a few Traffic Calming pilot projects was quickly dismissed. There is no apparent intention to do this additional work.
The Key Initiative for FY 2023/24 and FY 2024/25 also lacks clear intentions about Traffic Calming implementation. The Initiative states that the City will complete the update to the Napa Traffic Calming Program and solicit and evaluate applications for the NTCP. However, reviewing applications is not implementation work. While it is encouraging that a Senior Traffic Engineer has been proposed in the budget, this is bundled with vague mention of traffic studies for $570,000 over two years. These expenses should be listed distinctly: how much for salary of Senior Traffic Engineer, for traffic studies, for implementation.
Our request for a specific budget line arises from a similar concern that bundled funding could mask inaction on Traffic Calming implementation. As citizen volunteers we want to see our advocacy become reality, and not end up as another chapter in a history of futile good intentions.
Sincere thanks from Slow Down Napa,
Katrina Cho, Daniel Harder, Genji Schmeder, Joyce Stavert, Mauren Trippe Item 7.A.
ATTACHMENT 2
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS &
COMMUNICATIONS Office of the City Clerk
City Council of the City of Napa
Regular Meeting
June 6, 2023
FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA
EVENING SESSION:
SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
15.A PUBLIC HEARINGS:
15.A Redwood Road Subdivision
• PowerPoint Presentation from City Staff.
1) Email from Leroy W. Moore received on June 1, 2023 (sent directly to Council and staff) 2) Email from Paul Hicks received on June 5, 2023
3) Email from Cass Walker received on June 5, 2023.
Redwood Road S
ubdivision
PL22-0128
June 6,
2023
City Council Regular Meeting
6/6/2023
Supplemental I - Item 15.A.
From: City Staff
Entitlements
• Tentative Subdivision Map
– Subdivide 1.56-acr e property into 6 residential lots • Design Review
– Tentative Subdivision Map
– 6 Single-family residential units
Project Location
• 2550, 2554 & 2552 Redwood Road
• 67,953 square-fe et (1.56-acre) parcel
Property Designation
• General Plan
• Low Density Residential
(3-8 d
u/acre)
• 1.56-acre lot
• mi
n 4 – max 12 units
• Z
oning
• RS-7 - Single-F amily Res
(Min. 7,000 sq. ft. lot
size)
Tentative Map
Site Plan
Neighborhood Lot Configuration
Ruston Lane Extension
Ruston Lane Extension
• General Plan Policies – Re : Street Thru Connections:
• LUCD 3-6: W here feasible, incorporate the following design strategies into new development to support multimodal transportation, community cohesion and connectivity: Provide greater street, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity with connections to adjacent developments, trails, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and transit stops. Avoid exclusive development typologies such as gated, walled, or fenced-off developments which do not support a cohesive neighborhood environment. • LUCD 3-1: P romote development that fosters a sense of community by providing safe, pedestrian friendly, tree-lined streets; walkways to everyday destinations such as schools, bikeways, trails, parks, and stores;buildings that exhibit visual diversity, pedestrian-scale, and street orientation; central gathering places; and recreational amenities for a variety of age groups.
• Goal LUCD-3: E nhance Napa’s community character by promoting walkability, inclusivity, and connections between neighborhoods, key centers, and the Napa River.
Ruston Lane Extension
• Provides better fire safety access – Fire Station No. 3 – 2000 Trower Avenue
Site Limitations
• Typical Road Width:
• 56 Feet Right-of-W ay:
• 10 ft. sidewalk/planter x 2
• 36 ft. roadway: (10-fo ot travel
lane x 2; 8-foot parking bays x 2)
• Project:
• 41 Feet Right-of-Way:
• 10 ft. sidewalk/planter x 1
• 28 ft. roadway: (10-foot travel
lane x 2; 8-foot parking bay x 1)
Neighborhood Access
Project Architecture
Plan Matrix
Lot 1 & 4: Plan 1-A – Traditional Elevation
Lot 1 & 4: Plan 1-A – Traditional Elevation
Lot 1 & 4: Plan 1-A – Traditional Floor Plan
Lots 2 & 5: Plan 2-A – Traditional Elevation
Lots 2 & 5: Plan 2-A – Traditional Elevation
Lots 3: Plan 2-B – Agrarian Elevation
Lots 3: Plan 2-B – Agrarian Elevation
Lots 2, 3 & 5: Plans 2-A & 2-B – Traditional & Agrarian Floor Plans
Lot 6: Plan 1-B – Farmhouse Elevation
Lot 6: Plan 1-B – Farmhouse Elevation
Lot 6: Plan 1-B – Agrarian Floor Plan
Landscape Plan
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2023:
Commission di scussion focused on –
• Project’s compatibility w ith existing neighborhood which they felt the project did;
• Questioned ab ility to add Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) – Applicant agreed to a condition requiring ADU utility stub-outs for future ADU’s;
• Extension of Rus ton Lane.
Five members of t he public spoke in opposition to the Ruston Ln. extension.
Planning Commission r ecommended approval (4 – 1).
Final Council Action:
Approve a Design Review Permit and Tentative
Subdivision Map for the Redwood Road
Subdivision, a subdivision of a 1.56-acre property
into 6 single-family lots at 250, 2552 & 2554
Redwood Road and determine the actions
authorized by this resolution are exempt from
CEQA.
End of Presentation
Materials
From: Samantha Pascoe
To: Samantha Pascoe
Subject: Fw: Redwood Road Subdivision – 2550, 2552, & 2554 Redwood Road (File PL22-0128) Date: Thursday, June 1, 2023 4:22:32 PM
Attachments: Ruston Lane Petition - 001.pdf
From: Leroy Moore
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 6:31 PM
To: Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>; Liz Alessio <[email protected]>; Beth Painter <[email protected]>; Mary Luros <[email protected]>; Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Allen <[email protected]>
Subject: Redwood Road Subdivision – 2550, 2552, & 2554 Redwood Road (File PL22-0128)
Dear Napa City Council,
Attached you will find a petition from the residents of Argyle Street regarding the Redwood Road Subdivision – 2550, 2552, & 2554 Redwood Road (File PL22-0128) which you are reviewing and hopefully approving at your June 6th council meeting. Argyle Street runs adjacent to Ruston Lane.
The residents of Argyle urge you to vote YES on the development plans. We will formally submit the original signed petition at your June 6, 2023 meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Leroy W. Moore
CC: Michael Allen, City of Napa Senior Planner
Item 15.A.
[EXTERNAL]
From: Paul Hicks
Date:June 5,2023 at 6:25:39 PM PDT
Subject:Ruston Lane
>
[EXTERNAL]
Hi All,
Bcc'd everyone for propriety since I've sent this to City Council and a few neighbors.
This is about the item on the agenda regarding Ruston Lane.
The pictures are for a sense of how the applicant is doing business in the city and how they're treating their neighbors. This is what the property looks like today. It's been a couple of months since Planning Commission voted to approve and I thought you might to know what our new neighbors think about us as a community and a city. It's a pretty clear example of their commitment. The boarded up houses are not horribly unexpected but someone should be responsible for maintaining the property. You would think they would at least mow the lawn.
Not to be petty but the applicant has been cavalier with their conversations with the neighborhood and the City. Since many have tried and failed,here's hoping that you'll at least look the reasons why no- one in 50 years has successfully pulled this off.
How is this suddenly acceptable to the city? What exactly changed,who decided that it was appropriate,and how did they get there without any input other than that from the developer. It seems to me that City Council should at least take a long look at what this would mean for the neighborhood.
Thank you for your time.
Paul
Paul Hicks.
Rustin Lane.
.
From: Mary Luros
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Ruston Lane Extension - Redwood Rd Subdivision Date: Monday, June 05, 2023 9:32:19 PM
Mary Luros
Councilmember, District 3
City of Napa
PO Box 660 / 955 School Street, Napa, CA 94559
Phone (707) 258-7800 x5284
Email [email protected]
Website www.cityofnapa.org
Social www.facebook.com/CityOfNapa · @CityOfNapa
Begin forwarded message:
From: cass walker < >
Date: June 5, 2023 at 8:14:50 PM PDT
To: Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>, Mary Luros <[email protected]>, Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>, Beth Painter <[email protected]>, Liz Alessio <[email protected]> Cc: Steve Potter <[email protected]>, Julie Lucido <[email protected]>
Subject:
Ruston Lane Extension - Redwood Rd Subdivision
[EXTERNAL]
Good Evening
Several neighbors on Ruston Lane reached out to me because I used to live on this street. I understand that the City Council will be considering a residential infill project on Redwood Road that backs up to Ruston Lane tomorrow night. There has been a long term City policy regarding "connectivity" to allow public safety to quickly get to different locations and different parts of the City. In this past this has been focused on major streets.
However, in this case that policy does not seem to make sense what is "connectivity". Ruston Lane is a cul-de-sac street that is part of a larger subdivision that has been in place for over 50 years. There is direct access into and out of this neighborhood from 2 streets that connect directly to Redwood (Argyle and Young)
and 2 streets that intersect Dry Creek Road (Particia and Clara). The connectivity to other areas of the CIty is via Dry Creek Road and Pueblo. This "punch through" does not provide direct access through the subdivision. Putting Ruston through to Redwood does not gain any direct connectivity into other parts of the subdivision that are not already in place. It only provides access to Rutson Lane which has 18 residents.