Administrative Hearing on Rebel Vintners Parklet Permit Revocation Appeal - October 30, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Administrative Hearing on Rebel Vintners Parklet Permit Revocation Appeal - October 30, 2024
This administrative hearing, held on October 30, 2024, at 9:00 AM, considered Rebel Vintners' appeal of the City of Napa's decision to revoke their parklet outdoor dining permit (PL23-0027). The hearing officer, Cheryl Shaffner, presided independently. The City argued that Rebel Vintners failed to comply with permit conditions—including late fee payment, failure to remove a canopy, and allowing the parklet to remain vacant and deteriorate for nearly a year—justifying revocation under Napa Municipal Code sections 12.64.110A, B, and F. Rebel Vintners acknowledged the violations but attributed them to the departure of a managing partner and communication challenges, and requested an opportunity to resume compliant operations with a new partner. The City sought upholding the revocation, restoration of the parklet area to pre-permit condition, and reimbursement of fees and costs totaling $7,477.
Discussion Items
- Permit Conditions and Non-Compliance: The City presented evidence that Rebel Vintners’ parklet permit, issued August 28, 2023, required an immediate $2,240 annual fee, but payment was not made until October 12, 2023—45 days later and only after repeated reminders. The required removal of a canopy took 57 days (until October 26, 2023) despite multiple staff emails. The parklet remained vacant for 333 days, with deteriorating conditions including dead plants, trash, missing siding, and storage of prohibited items. Senior Planner Mike Walker and Planning Manager Ricky Caperton testified to these facts, supported by email exhibits.
- Appellant’s Explanation: Jason Holman and Timothy Keith of Rebel Vintners stated the business is a small winery collective with no employees. They explained that the fourth partner (Shadow Box) left abruptly, leaving them unaware of full permit obligations. They admitted the parklet was unused for a year while they searched for a suitable new partner. They argued that communication delays occurred because partners were often away at wineries. They have since corrected all issues (canopy down, trash removed, planters sealed, plywood fixed) and found a new partner, Luis Callegos, to take over parklet operations.
- Scope of Hearing: The hearing officer clarified that her review is limited to whether the revocation was legally and factually sound at the time it was made, not on post-revocation remediation or future intentions.
Key Outcomes
- Decision Reserved: The hearing officer will issue a written ruling within three weeks (by approximately November 20, 2024). She noted that the parties may reach a settlement before then, but any such agreement must involve the City, not her.
- City’s Requests on the Table: The City formally requests that the hearing officer uphold the permit revocation, order Rebel Vintners to restore the parklet to its pre-permit condition, and award the City $7,477 in fees and costs (comprising $2,951.12 in staff time and $4,572.50 in legal fees, excluding the hearing officer’s costs and additional staff time for today).
Meeting Transcript
Okay, good morning. Um this is the hearing on rebel vintners appeal from the city of Napa's permit revocation, PL23-0027. Can everybody hear me okay? Okay. The date is uh Wednesday, October 30th. It's nine o'clock, and we are recording these this proceeding with audio and visual, I believe. Okay. That'll all be available to both parties after this is done. And uh we will start with um introduction. So my name is Cheryl Shaffner. I'm the administrative hearing officer, uh, brought in for this purpose. I'm not employee of the city. I'm an independent administrating administrative hearing officer. And if we could have each side introduce their representatives and their witnesses, for anybody who would want to testify as to factual matters, we will want them introduced and when the time is right, uh uh swear them under oath for their testimony. So let's start with the city. Good morning, Christina Hickey of Best Best and Krieger representing the city, and we have uh Mike Walker and Ricky Capperton here today. Good morning. And for Rebel Vintners. Uh my name's Jason Holman. I'm joined by my own partner Timothy Keith here, and um also a um uh potential new partner um who I don't think will speak today, but he's here also in attendance, Luis Callegos. Okay, and um I'll also note that we have our uh the city's proceedings are being handled uh very kindly and capably by our city clerk's office. Would you like to introduce yourself as well? I'm Samantha Pasco, the deputy city clerk for the city of Napa. Thank you. Okay, I think that's everyone. Well, let's administer the oath. If everyone who will who plans or may testify, raise your right hand. Oh do you solemnly state under penalty of perjury? The testimony you shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, yes, yes. Thank you. I'm sorry, I just had that in my notes. We had you do it last time, didn't we? Uh just mixing it up to keep everybody awake, okay. And uh this is an informal proceeding. We um the formal rules rules of evidence do not apply, but objections will be considered as to irrelevant cumulative, privileged or other potentially still applicable rules in the interest of fairness and efficiency. And I understand that uh the appellant is not represented by counsel, so I know you may not know what those things might be, and that's okay if you feel something is unfair or unfair or just not something that is um should be admitted as reliable and um appropriate uh evidence for admission into the hearing. Feel free to object and we'll talk about it. I don't expect you to play lawyer, so it's okay. Um I think I sent out in the uh notification about the procedures. Each side will have 15 minutes to present their opening statement summary of positions you've you've submitted it all in writing, so it's already in the record, but summarizing it here would be helpful. Maybe add anything that wasn't in your written materials if you need to. Um then we will go into examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and then you'll have time to summarize at the end with closing statements. And I try to get a uh ruling out. I think with I will get a ruling out within with today's time schedule. I think I need three weeks, so we'll we'll have something out in writing within three weeks. Try to do it sooner, but I want to be realistic. Okay. So let's proceed. Would the um city like to begin?
openpublica.com