FY 2024-25 Mid-Year
Budget Presentation
Andrew Murray, City Manager
Rekha Nayar, Finance Director
March 11, 2025
Agenda
• FY 2024-25 Mid-year: Items Missed Approval
• FY 2024-25 Mid-year: Items for Reconsideration
• FY 2024-25 Mid-year: New Items for Consideration
2 FY 2024-25 Mid-year: Items Missed Approval
3 • General Fund revenue reduced by $1.24M Including Measure P • Reallocation of Adopted budgeted salary savings
o $6.65M redistributed to departments
• Other Fund Midyear Adjustments
o Expenditure and transfer-out budget will increase by $1.64M, with these additional costs covered through a combination of increased revenues, transfer-in, and fund balance.
• Measure P Expenditures Totaling $650K
• Fire: Protective Equipment & Thermal Imaging $155K
• Fire: Standards of Cover $75K
• Public Works: Modular Dispatch Center $300K
• Public Works: Bay Vine Trail $20K
• Public Works: Intersection Improvement Project $100K
4 FY 2024-25 Mid-year: Items for Reconsideration
5 FY 2024-25 Mid-year: New Items for Consideration
Next steps
6 Step 2 of Midyear will occur on March 25, 2025
CONTACT(S)
Rekha Nayar
[email protected]
Item 9.D.:
Budget Amendment for
Mare Island Causeway
Bridge Project
Melissa Tigbao, Public Works Director
Mare Island Causeway Bridge Project
• 2012 Caltrans Bridge Inspection Reports indicated
repairs were needed
• Project was included in the Bridge Preventative
Maintenance Project (BPMP) for federal funding
• FFY 2015-16 Caltrans appropriated funding for
preliminary design, environmental, public outreach,
and construction documents ($1.058M)
• Caltrans delayed appropriation of construction
funding during Covid
• FFY 2023-24 Caltrans appropriated funding for
Construction ($10,925,487)
Mare Island Causeway Bridge Project
• Scope of work includes:
– Spot repair and overcoat liftspan and towers.
– Repairing cracked, spalled and delaminated concrete in the substructure and superstructure.
– Repair cracks and apply a polyester overlay on the bridge deck. – Replace deck joint seals.
– Replace damaged sidewalk panels.
– Repair or replace deteriorating piles.
– Repair or replace metal railing posts.
– Replace underwater anodes.
– Restore the logo.
– Clean, repair, and paint metal railings.
– Repair existing timber fenders.
– Repair and replace existing lighting.
– Apply traffic striping to bridge deck and roadway.
• Project was advertised August 2024, bids opened
November 2024
• 2 bids received:
• Lowest bid was $19,869,755
• Second bid was over $25M
• Low bid contractor holding his bid price until May
2025
• Staff contacted Caltrans to request additional BPMP
grant funds; Caltrans agreed to appropriate additional
funds FFY 2024-25 ($10,935,890)
Mare Island Causeway Bridge Project (con't)
Mare Island Causeway Bridge Project
(con't) - funding and budget gap
• The $22,920,196 in Federal BPMP Grants require an 11.47% local match which is $2,957,862.03
• The total project budget includes design/engineering, project management (design oversight, bidding, grants management, contracting, etc.), construction, construction management and inspection. The Engineer's Estimate based upon the bid price for construction is now $28.3M, so there is a $3M+ funding gap.
• Expected project completion - summer 2027
CURRENT BUDGET
Fund 221 – Grants/Reimbursements – Federal BPMP Grant (2019) $ 437,586 Fund 221 – Grants/Reimbursements – Federal BPMP Grant (2021) $ 621,233 Fund 221 – Grants/Reimbursements – Federal BPMP Grant (2024) $ 10,925,487 Fund 221 – Grants/Reimbursements – Federal BPMP Grant (2024) $ 10,935,890 Fund 112 – MI CFD Fund (Appropriated in 2012-2016) $ 2,099,073 Fund 204 – Bridge Construction Fund (2025) $ 298,562 $ 25,317,831
Measure P Oversight Committee (MPOC)
• MPOC January 23, 2025 – Denied recommendation of
Measure P funding due to the following:
1. City transparency with MI residents paying CFD
2. Committee requested MISTEA documents
3. Request staff clarify if CFD funds can be used as
matching funds
• $2,099,073 was appropriated in FY Budgets 2012-2016
toward Bridge Repair, and no additional CFD was
allocated since that time. Bridge repair qualifies as a CFD expense and is being used for construction
expenses, not as a local match
• Measure P is discretionary and may be used as a local match
Notice of Intent to Amend the FY 2024-25
CIP Budget, Step 1 of 2 and Further Action
• Failure to approve the necessary budget amendments
will result in the loss of $21,861,377 HBP grant funds
and Caltrans will reassign the funding to another
agency
• If Step 1 approved, Staff will return for Step 2 of 2 on March 25, 2025
• If Step 2 approved, Staff will present award of
construction contract on April 11, 2025 to allow
construction phase to begin in May 2025
CONTACT(S)
Melissa Tigbao, P .E.,
Public Works Director
Appeal of a Certificate of
Appropriateness and
Development Review for a
New Single-Family
Residence at 128 Carolina
Street
Cesar Orozco, Planning Manager
Planning and Development Services
March 11, 2025
Overview
• Purpose of Tonight’s Meeting
• Project History
• Provide an Overview of the project
• Architectural Heritage and Landmark
Commission Action
• Appeal of the Commission Approval
• Written Communications
• Recommendation
Purpose of Tonight’s
Meeting
• Hold a public hearing on the
appeal of the Architectural
Heritage and Landmark
Commission (AHLC) approval of a
Certificate of Appropriateness
and Development Review for a
new single-family residence at
128 Carolina Street.
Project History
• Application Submitted: June 28, 2022
• Application Deemed Complete: May 29, 2024
• AHLC Public Notice
– In Times Hearld and mailed out:11/7/24
• AHLC Hearing: 11/21/24
• Appeal of AHLC Decision Submitted: 12/2/24
• City Council Public Notice:
– In Times Hearld and mailed out: 2/6/25
• Council Hearing: 3/11/25
Project Setting
128 Carolina Street
• Vacant 3,250 square-foot lot
within St. Vincent’s Historic
District.
St. Vincent’s Historic District
Proposed Project
• Two-story - 1,732
square-foot single-
family residence.
• Attached 280 square-
foot garage off the
alley
• Overall height of 24
feet and three-inches
• 3 bedroom and two
and half-bathrooms
Proposed Project
Zoning Code Consistency
Residential Low Density – Development Standards (VMC Table 16.202) Development Standard Development Standard Proposal Compliance Max. Density (units per
acre) 9 1 Yes
Minim. Lot Size 5,000 square feet 3,250 square feet Nonconforming lot* Minim. Lot Width 50 feet 25 feet Nonconforming lot*
Max. Building Height 35 feet 24 feet and three-
inches Yes
Setbacks
Front: 15 feet
Sides: 10 feet from one
side and five from the
other
Rear: 5 feet
Garage: 20 feet from
the front or 5 feet from
the rear
Front: 50 feet
Sides: 5 feet from both
sides
Garage: 20 feet from
the front or 5 feet from
the rear
Yes
Side Yard: VMC
16.202.02 (A.5) allows
reduction of side yard
setbacks for
nonconforming lots
* A non-conforming lot within a residential zoning district shall conform to the maximum allowable density of that zoning district. However, at a minimum, one single-unit dwelling unit and customary accessory buildings may be established on a non-conforming lot, provided the unit and accessory buildings conform to the current standards of the zoning district.
Zoning Code Consistency (Cont.)
Residential Low Density – Development Standards (VMC Table 16.202) Development Standard Development Standard Proposal Compliance Max. Lot Coverage 50 % 27% Yes
Covered off-street
Parking 1 1 Yes
Required Landscaping 20% of front yard
(75 sq.ft.)
75 percent
(282 sq.ft.) Yes
Street Trees 1 per 50 feet of
frontage
1 per the 25 feet of
frontage Yes
Fence Height 6 feet for side and rear 6 feet side and rear Yes Zoning Code Consistency (Cont.)
Design Standards for single-unit housing (detached and attached) Development Standards (VMC Section 16.203)
Development
Standard Development Standard Proposal Compliance
Principle Entry
Visible from the street and
include a projection or recess
of 5 feet
5-foot projection with a
covered porch Yes
Architectural
Articulation
No street-facing facade shall
run in a continuous plane of
more than 25 feet without a
window or a minimum four-
foot projection, offset, or
recess of the building wall at
least one foot in depth.
Street-facing façade
includes bay windows,
covered porch to
break-up the wall
Yes
Paving
No more than 50% of the
street facing yard shall be
paved with impervious surface.
More than 50 percent
of the front yard will be
landscaped and
include a previous
gravel walkway.
Yes
CEQA Determination
• Exempt under
– Section 15303 of the CEQA
Guidelines (“Class 3, “New
Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures”).
AHLC Action
• On November 21, 2024, the AHLC held a hearing and
reviewed testimony both oral and written regarding
the project.
• The AHLC approved the project with recommended
conditions with a 5 – 0 vote (two commissioners were
absent).
Appellant Claims
1. No precedent of a two-story building on the lot; the original structure cannot be rebuilt in original dimensions due to current code. The cottage that originally existed on the property was no larger than 700 square feet. The footprint of the historic building was nearly identical to the neighboring cottage Staff Response: The RLD zoning for the site allows for a single-family dwelling to be built, subject to the development standards of the district (VMC Chapter 16.202 – Residential Districts). The project would be consistent with all the applicable development standards, including maximum building height, front, interior side and rear setbacks for the residence and garage, and maximum lot coverage.
In addition, all residential development with the City must comply with California Housing Accountability Act (HAA)(Government Code Section 65589.5), including that in an historic district. The HAA limits a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects, that are consistent with objective local development standards and contribute to meeting housing need.
Appellant Claims
2. Survey legitimacy is questionable. (Markers not industry standard) Staff Response: A survey is not required for a Certificate of Appropriateness application; however, a 'boundary survey' is required for a Development Review application. According to the Planning Division’s published application submittal checklist, the boundary survey shall: 1) be prepared by a licensed California Surveyor or Civil Engineer licensed to perform survey; 2) include a drawing to scale (utilizing an Engineer’s Scale and a Scale Bar); 3) include the date of survey preparation and any subsequent revisions; 4) include the street address and Assessor’s Parcel Map Number; and 5) include information on any existing easements. A boundary survey for the proposed project was submitted as part of the planning application, and it was reviewed by staff and deemed to have met the submittal requirements for processing of the planning application.
Further, as part of a subsequent building permit review, the Building Division will also require submittal of a 'survey report' since this project involves new construction at five-feet from the property line (this requirement is described in the Building Division's published "C-03R Checklist for New Residential Construction"). As a standard practice in Vallejo, once a building permit has been issued and construction has commenced, the Building Division will require a signed letter from the engineer or surveyor to confirm the accuracy of the foundation in accordance with approved plans.
Appellant Claims
3. The public right-of-way for most neighbors to access their properties off Lozier Alley would be blocked for an extended time frame. This includes houses on the alley that only are accessible via the alley. This is an issue of quality of life for everyone in the block who rely on the alley for access to their properties.
Staff Response: Lozier Alley stretches the entire block and can be accessed by vehicles from either end. During future construction of this site, if any construction equipment is required to be parked in any manner that would block access through the alley for an extended duration of time (typically considered 2-4 hours, or longer in some cases), then an encroachment permit would be deemed necessary. Encroachment permits are issued by the Public Works Department, and they are intended to ensure appropriate traffic controls are in place in the event there is private, temporary occupancy of any public right of way. The requirement to obtain an encroachment permit in this event has been made a condition of approval of the Project.
Recommendation
• Deny the Appeal (APP24-0003) and grant a Certificate
of Appropriateness (COA22-0007) and Development
Review (DVR22-0031) and finding environmental
determination that the Project is exempt under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to allow a
new single-family residence at 128 Carolina Street.
Required Findings
• The required findings City Council will need to make
to deny the appeal and approve the Certificate of
Appropriateness and Development Review are set
forth in full in the Resolution and Staff Report.
CONTACT(S)
Kristin Pollot, AICP – Planning and Development
Services Director
(707) 648-4382
[email protected]
Cesar Orozco, Planning Manager – Current
Development
(707) 648-4326
[email protected]