CITY OF VALLEJO
2022 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGIC PLAN
• Gillian Hayes, Assistant City Manager
• Paul Kelley, Special Advisor to City Manager – Economic Development Manager
• Emi Theriault, Economic Development Program Manager
Recommendation and Background
• Proposal
Hire a Local Economic Development Expert
• Last Economic Development Strategy –2 0 1 2
• Covid-19 Pandemic’s Impact
Vallejo’s Post Pandemic Economy and Solutions
• Federal Assistance
Funding and the ARPA grant program
• 2022 Economic Development Strategy
For the Council’s Priority & City Economic Well being
PROJECT SUMMARY
TASK 1-THE VALLEJO DATABOOK
PROJECT SUMMARY
TASK 2-
COMMUNITY OUTREACH PLANIndex of Economic and Community ProgressSolano County 2020
PROJECT SUMMARY
TASK 3-
Draft Economic Development Strategic Plan
PROJECT SUMMARY
TASK 4-
Final Document
City of Vallejo’s 2022
Economic Development Strategic
Plan:
A Roadmap for Vallejo’s Future
SCHEDULE
Mapping of Plan
and
Deliverables
ARPA Phase ‐ Project Task Description
ARPA Deadline /
Estimated Completion
Phase 1 Hire Project Contractor June 30, 2022 / May 2022 Phase 2 Generate 2022 COV Strategic Plan June 30, 2023 / May 30, 2023 Task 1 The Vallejo Databook
Task 2 Community Outreach
Task 3 Drafting the Plan
Task 4 Presenting the Proposed Final Plan
Phase 3 Initiate Pilot Project(s) as recommended June 30, 2024 / TBD BUDGET
Project Budget By Primary Line-Item
Use of Funds Proposed Budget
EFA $135,000
Subcontractor and Interns $100,000
Printing Costs for Final Strategic Plan, including:
Binders, printing, and electronic media
$2,000
Community Meeting Costs $3,000
Travel and Data $5,000
Subtotals (Consultant Contract Portion) $245,000
Implementation Projects $155,000
Total Allocation – Specific Plan Project $400,000
Funding Source: Project Funding (by General Use fo
r Project) Approved by City
Council on September 28, 2022.
PROJECT SUMMARY – Dr. Eyler - EFA
Slides from Dr. Eyler
City of Vallejo’s 2022
Economic Development Strategic
Plan:
A Roadmap for Vallejo’s Future
City of Vallejo
Economic Development Strategic Plan
May 2022
Robert Eyler, PhD
President, Economic Forensics and Analytics
Professor, Economics, Sonoma State University
[email protected]
10 Vallejo as a City Economy, Context and
Forecasts
• Vallejo has many opportunities, some challenges
• City economy affected by regional and global changes (inflation as one example) • Basic idea: build a strategic plan that seizes opportunities and creates long‐term social and economic mobility
• Three Phases proposed
• Phase 1:
• Formulation of Scope and Deliverables; Hiring of Consultant Team • Phase 2:
• a: Community Outreach
• b: Production of Strategic Plan and Data/Studies
• Phase 3:
• a: Prioritization of Example Projects and Identification of Pilot Projects • b: Final Document for Council and Community
• What is the economic context for this project to begin? 11 Inflation Watching: 2021 to 2025
12 What to Watch in Vallejo
• Are prices falling or
stabilizing?
• How high will interest
rates go?
• Are wages going to
continue to rise?
• How much higher will
housing prices go?
Another Recession by 2023 or 2024?
• No
• Relatively low interest rates and
continues
• Federal and state spending provide
support for continued growth
• Eastern Europe crisis ends with
softening of financial market
pressures
• Global adjustments to COVID‐19
reduce supply‐chain concerns
• Yes
• Interest rate increases reduce growth
• Federal spending moves toward
defense, shifting investor
expectations
• Expected inflation remains above
pre‐pandemic norms to 2025
• Eastern European issues do not end
easy, creating more and wider
economic problems globally
13 Employment Data, California, Vallejo and Solano County, Changes from Jan 2020 to March 2022 and Unemployment Rate
Category
Change
Vallejo
% Change/
U Rate
Change
Solano
County
% Change/
U Rate
Change
California
% Change/
U Rate
Civilian
Labor Force ‐700 ‐1.3% ‐3,400 ‐1.7% ‐194,700 ‐1.0%
Civilian Employment ‐1,700 ‐3.2% ‐4,100 ‐2.1% ‐158,800 ‐0.8% Unemployment Rate 5.9% 4.6% 4.2%
Source: California EDD
Employment Recovery Comparison, Vallejo, Solano County and California, Months from Peak, Index Jan 2020 = 100, as of March 2022 15 Source: California EDD and EFA
95.8 80
85 90
95 100
105
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 02 12 22 32 4 Months Since Jan 2020
Vallejo Solano County California
‐45.8%
‐32.2%
‐26.3%
‐23.6%
‐22.2% ‐9.1%‐8.6%‐4.7%
‐…
‐4.0%
‐3.6%
‐2.2%
‐0.8%0.0% 2.0%
2.6%
3.7%
5.5%7.9%
16.0%
22.4%
41.3%
93.8%
‐60.0% ‐40.0% ‐20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Advanced Manufacturing
Information
Light Manufacturing
Retail Stores
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Construction
Finance and Insurance
Non‐stores Retail
Food and Bev Manu
Delivery
Percentage Change in Jobs
California
Status Quo Vallejo Outlook, Employment by Vallejo Employers:
Forecast 2019 to 2025 (% Change from 2019, Pre-Pandemic Benchmark)
16 Sources: California EDD, EMSI and EFA
Housing Forecast, March 2022, ZillowTM Research, % Change for the coming year to March 2023, Median Home Price Growth 17 Source: ZillowTM Research
12.5%
13.6%
15.1%
16.5%
21.0% 19.4%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Vallejo
Solano County
California
Bakersfield
Chico
Clearlake
Crescent City
El Centro
Eureka
Fresno
Hanford
Los Angeles‐Long Beach‐…
Madera
Merced
Modesto
Napa
Red Bluff
Redding
Riverside
Sacramento
Salinas
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
San Luis Obispo
Santa Cruz
Santa Maria‐Santa…
Santa Rosa
Sonora
Stockton
Susanville
Truckee
Ukiah
Vallejo
Ventura
Visalia
Yuba City
Percentage Change, Median Home Price
Economic Development Strategic Plan
18 Tools for Accountability and Momentum
• Need to form a dataset to follow and also indicators of progress • Social and economic: is Vallejo improving as a community? • Includes determining peer and aspirant communities
• City‐specific data
• Employment: identifying “target” industries with large multiplier effects • Must fit Vallejo and Vallejo must fit the current and potential employers • Industry mix, taxable sales, importance of specific industries • Commercial real estate availability and opportunities • Housing mix and opportunities
• Demography and social progress metrics (comparing to other places) • Cutting across education, race/ethnicity, income levels: is there upward mobility annually? • Context
• National, state and regional forecasts: what drives Vallejo’s economy from outside? • Can Vallejo harness more external markets?
19 Community Outreach
• Facilitate meetings and survey work with local businesses, workers, workforce development, city staff, and other stakeholder groups
• Develop community outreach plan and execute focused on gathering the voice of stakeholders across Vallejo and also providing realistic expectations • Better understand what opportunities and challenges exist in Vallejo beyond what other data tell our team
• Identify multiple locations, geographically dispersed, for community meetings • Identify a variety of meeting weekly dates and times responsive to the needs of residents and business owners
20 Community Outreach (cont.)
• Local residents and local workers at Vallejo’s employers • Local employers (private and public employers)
• Advocacy organizations (social advocates for black, indigenous and people of color or BIPOC communities and including local chambers of commerce) • Developers of commercial spaces
• Multifamily and single‐family housing developers
• Elected officials (including the county, state and federal officials that represent Vallejo)
21 Building the Plan: Social Equity/Inclusiveness
• Community outreach plan
• Messaging and websites dedicated to the plan and its projects • Marketing strategies that make Vallejo a more likely choice for new or expanding businesses • Best practices in peer and aspirant cities
• Why and how have these places done community outreach • Resource Assessment
• Parties responsible for the plan
• Priority projects must be realistic and feasible
• budget for a community outreach plan is also provided • Implementation and Assessment: the plan identifies
• Timeline and priority ordering of projects and tasks to 2030 • Key performance indicators for Vallejo to track and measure per economic progress and social equity • Resource planning
• Cost estimates for identified priority projects for city government • Conceptual costs of the projects for private‐sector actors that become partners on the projects; and • Financing tools for the City of Vallejo to consider as part of these projects 22 Projects Focused on Community Ascension
• Priority projects
• 2‐3 projects that can be executed by Dec 31, 2024 per the ARPA funding, that are feasible and can engage Vallejo’s opportunities as identified above; • Classics
• Investment in preparing a property to be “shovel‐ready” • Investment in partnerships between a local employer and Solano Community College for Vallejo residents to be trained in manufacturing
• Investment in downtown program to support merchants and flow of residents and visitors to downtown Vallejo
• Out‐of‐the‐box:
• Investment in one year of recruiting for major life‐sciences or manufacturing or technology with city partnership to locate in Vallejo (various tools possible) • Tied to a potential location ready for user to begin construction or operations 23 Roadmap
24 Data
Where is Vallejo
now and where is
the region going?
Community Outreach
Hearing the voice
of residents,
employers, non‐
profits, community
leaders, and
elected officials
Building the plan
Using what we
have learned and
changes since
project start to
identify projects,
community
outreach, and key
performance
indicators
Pilot Projects using ARPA
Funds
Initial projects to
move Vallejo to a
better tomorrow
Assess Progress using key
performance indicators
What is working
and why
What is not
working and why
Initiate new
projects using new
data and learning
from pilot projects
Thanks!
Questions?
[email protected]
@bobby7007
25 RECOMMENDED
CITY COUNCIL
ACTIONS:
• Adopt A RESOLUTION
– authorizing the city manager to execute a professional services agreement with Economics, Forensics & Analytics (EFA) for development of the Economic Development Strategic Plan in an amount not to exceed $245,000 Current Economic Development Strategy
– Allocate $400,000 from ARPA funds for the EFA agreement plus $155,000 to implement the projects recommended by the Plan
CONTACT(S)
Emi Thériault, Economic Development Program
Manager ; [email protected]
Paul Kelley, Special Advisor to City Manager - Economic Development Manager; [email protected]
Gillian Hayes, Assistant City Manager;
[email protected]
Introduction and First Reading
of an Ordinance Amending
Municipal Code Section 12.28
(Fireworks)
Kyle D. Long
Fire Chief
Purpose
• Clarify Permit Requirements
• Outline Fines
• Define Offenders
Background
• $1 Million in Damage
• 400 Calls on July 4th
• 500 reports on SeeClickFix in July
Changes
• Clarity in Permitted Firework Displays
• Social Host Liability
• Violation Outlines
– $1,000
– Administrative Penalties for Safe
Disposal
– Liability for Response Costs
CONTACT(S)
Kyle D. Long, Fire Chief
Vincent Sproete, Fire Prevention Manager
V‐Town Farms
City Council Presentation
May 10, 2022
Business Update
• Recap of where the business is at…
– Monthly Retail revenues are approximately $700K.
– Monthly Wholesale revenue is approximately $300K.
– Monthly cannabis fees to the City are approximately $50K – 47 Employees… 44% are Vallejo residents (55% of hires have been V allejo residents) • 14 in Manufacturing & Packaging
• 33 in Retail
• Pertaining to the 800 Number for Neighborhood complaints… – Nine months of operation… not one neighborhood complaint – Two customer complaints pertaining to service.
• Pertaining to the Community Outreach Program…
– In as much as there have been no neighborhood complaints, this may be moot. • Pertaining to Donations to Non‐Profits…
– Preliminary List is attached.
– Solano AIDS Coalition is the only beneficiary to‐date.
The 60% Transparency Requirement
• This requirement is not in the code.
• Meeting it will damage the aesthetics of the building; not improve them. And it will surely diminish Safety & Security.
• If we were applying today, it would be with a minor use permit and we would not be required to meet this requirement.
• The building as it now exists is both conforming and legal. • BASE Structural Engineers…
– Two approaches to achieving 60%
– Approach #1… $329,000 and closed for 6 weeks (Jim Garton Construct ion) – Approach #2… $278,000 and closed for 6 weeks (Jim Garton Construct ion) – Neither approach is affordable for the company.
• 60% Plan B…
– Reconfigure the Retail floor from 9,000sf to 1,500sf and add one 4 x 10 window in the front. – The reduced Retail area will reduce the Distribution and Manufacturing areas. – Distribution would be resized from 1,500sf to 450sf. Manufacturi ng from 500sf to 150sf. – The downsized areas will not support current staffing.
The $600K Donation Requirement
• We did not offer this. We agreed to it in the context of a $60 Mi llion revenue business. – At 4:05:25 of the City Council Meeting on May 25th, Councilmember Dew raised the matter for the first time and, in the context of V‐Town Farms producing "double" the revenues of CoCo Farms in Antioch, asked if we could agree to donate $600K per year. – I agreed. Again... in the context of V‐Town Farms producing twic e the revenue of CoCo Farms. – At 37:05 of the City Council Meeting on June 7th, I requested that the $600,000 requirement be changed to 1%. And again clarified that the $600,000 was one percent of the planned $60 Million in annual revenue for V‐Town Farms. – The requested edit was denied.
• So again…
– We did not "offer" it.
– We agreed to it in the context of V‐Town Farms doubling the revenues of CoCo Farms. Effectively, $60 Million in annual revenues.
– We requested that the $600,000 be changed to 1%, and the request was denied. • No other cannabis company is required to make donations. • We are offering 1% of Revenue. This would be approximately $100, 000 this year . • If at some point we ARE a $60 Million business, then the donation would be $600,000; which is what was contemplated during the City Council meetings.
V-Town Farms
Christina Ratcliffe, AICP , Planning and
Development Services Director
Steve Arnold, Chief Building Official,
CASp
May 10, 2022
Overview
• Purpose of Tonight’s Meeting
• Project History & Setting
• V-Town Farms Operation
• Appeal of Planning Commission denial of a request to
Amend Conditions of Approval
– Community Benefit
– Transparency Requirement
• Public Notifications and Written Communications
• Recommendation
Purpose of Tonight’s Meeting
• Hold public hearing for appeal by Charles
Wesley of Kolaboration Vallejo, LLC.
• Hear public comment
• Consider and take action on the appeal of
the Planning Commission denial of request
to amend V-Town Farms Use Permit (UP)
#20-0008
Project History & Setting
• Planning Commission Hearing approval of Use Permit :
3/15/2021
• Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Submitted:
3/25/2021
• City Council Hearing: 5/25/2021
• City Council Hearing: 6/7/2021
• Building Permit (BP-2021-0468) Issued: 7/2/2021
• New Zoning Code Effective: 7/22/2021
• Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Issued: 7/30/2021
V-Town Farms Commenced Business Operations
7/31/2021
Site
Project History & Setting
• Applicant Email: Request for Amendment:
10/25/2021
• Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Expired:
10/29/2021
• Major Use Permit Amendment Request Submitted:
11/23/2021
• Planning Commission Hearing: 2/23/2022
V-Town Farms Operation
• Floor Plan (19,035 of 49,871 square feet used)
Retail Cannabis Sales Area (7,965 square feet)
Retail Cannabis Storage (4,455 square feet)
Cannabis Manufacturing (494 square feet)
Cannabis Distribution (1,485 square feet)
Customer Check-In (810 square feet)
Employee Break Area (3,016 square feet)
Unoccupied Space (30,836 square feet)
• No Cannabis Cultivation
• Permitted Hours of Operation: 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P .M. • 258 spaces provided on parcel
V-Town Farms Floor Plan
Request for Amendments
• Existing Condition 14: As offered by the Applicant, Applicant shall donate a minimum of $600,000 annually to local non- profit agencies or schools of its choosing for the benefit of Vallejo residents, primarily those residing in District 2. Said donation shall be adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA.
•
Proposed Condition 14:
The Applicant shall donate a minimum
of 1% of Revenue annually to local non-profit agencies and schools of its choosing for the benefit of Vallejo residents; primarily those residing in District 2. –
The applicant is proposing revenue be defined as the total collections less City and St ate sales and excise taxes.
Transparency Requirement
Existing Condition 40.b:
Storefronts shall maintain transparent windows that allow visibility into the store, with a minimum of 60 percent transparency on the street frontage at the ground level and allow visibility into the building at a minimum of four feet above the ground.Proposed Condition 40.b:
As long as the Applicant maintains at least two armed security guards on the premises 24 hours a day and seve
n days per week, the Applicant shall not be
required to meet the 60% Transparency Requir
ement; whether or not the requirement is
reinstated in the Code.
Engineering Issues to meet
Transparency Requirement
• Staff received a letter on May 9, 2022
dated February 28, 2022 from the
applicant’s design firm BASE Design
regarding a structural support system and
two options for achieving the reviewed
plan 60% storefront transparency
requirement.
• This type of strengthening recommended
by BASE Design is common and normal
for storefront alterations.
• Either of the two options are acceptable
to submit for revision to issued plans.
Planning Commission Hearing and
Decision
• The Planning Commission heard the Request for an
amendment to the Use Permit on February 23,
2022. The Staff Recommendation was for denial of
the request.
• The Planning Commission denied the
amendment request by 4-3 vote
– AYES: Commissioners Blind, Bowman,
Douglass, and Palmares.
– NOES: Chair Cohen-Thompson, Vice
Chair Stamps, and Commissioner
Matulac
Appellant Claim #1
Appellant Claim: At least two of the
Commissioners assumed that we would appeal
their adverse decision to the City Council, and so
voted with that in mind. These Commissioners
wanted the City Council to weigh in on the
donation condition. Effectively, "I don't need to vote
in favor of the applicant, because he will then take
it to the City Council and they will vote in favor of
him."
• Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the
Planning Commission video and did not find any
such statement by a Commissioner.
Appellant Claim# 2
Appellant Claim : Four of the Commissioners did
not properly consider all of the relevant facts of the
matter, such as (1) the context in which the
$600,000 donation was agreed to and (2) the fact
that the building as it now exists is both legal and
conforming.
•
• Staff Response: The Planning Commission
reviewed the packet, the information submitted
by the appellant, testimony from the appellant
and the public. The Commission then discussed
the matter at length, considering all relevant
facts prior to rendering their decision.
Appellant Claim #3
Appellant Claim: One of the Commissioners was
inordinately influenced by her misunderstanding of an
immaterial matter ... she cited that there was
presently no City Councilmember who lives in District
2; ringing into question the integrity of the Applicant who had earlier state… “One of the City
Councilmembers requested that the donation
primarily benefit District 2, because the business is in District 2."
• Staff Response: This statement is speculation by
the applicant. Each of the Commissioners reviewed
the material and public comments and came to
their conclusions regarding the project prior to the
decision.
Appellant Claim #4
Appellant Claim: One of the Commissioners
voted to deny the Application because he was not
permitted to motion that "primarily District 2" be
struck from the $600,000 Condition.
• Staff Response: The Resolution brought to the
Commission was for denial. Staff informed the
Commission that if the Commission wanted to
approve the proposed modification, they may
state clearly what the findings and conditions
should be and staff would return at a future
meeting with a resolution reflecting the
Commissions’ direction. The Commission chose
not to do this and denied the application.
Appellant Claim #5
Appellant Claim: The Planning Director provided
statements of the Commission that were completely
unrelated to the Applicant's request. These statements
were designed to tarnish the Applicant. These were... (1) the false statement that the air purifier system had not been installed and (2) the statement that the Applicant was late in remitting the Community Outreach fee.
Staff Response: When an applicant is requesting
modifications to any condition of approval, staff believes it is relevant and necessary to consider the Applicant’s overall compliance with the conditions of approval.
(1) The Director provided information relayed to her from the Building Official regarding the incomplete status of the building permit, which status was based on the fact the Carbon Filtration system had not been inspected.
Appellant Claim #5 Continued
•
(2) The applicant was late in remitting the
Community Outreach fee. It required multiple
emails from staff to Applicant from November
of 2021 until February of 2022, when the
deposit was submitted. Now that the monies
have been submitted, the first outreach will be
held on May 19, 2022.
The Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
issued to the Applicant has expired, and that
the following building permit requirements are
not in compliance:
Appellant Claim #5 Continued
•
A. The interior walls separating the retail space from the non-occupied space within the building premises do not
continue all the way up to the ceiling, so the occupied 19,035 S.F. and unoccupied 30,800 S.F. spaces are
sharing the same air. Accordingly, the plans for HVAC
system and does not comply since the system is designed only for the V-town tenant space 19,035 S.F.
B. The building permit application for the exterior Lighting Plan (a condition of approval) was withdrawn by the
applicant.
C. The trash enclosure has not been completed.
D. The permit for roof repair has expired. The roof needs a final inspection.
E. The mechanical permit for Carbon filtration has not
had an inspection.
F. The accessibility items shall comply with CBC 11B and reviewed plans.
Appellant Claim #6
Appellant Claim : The Planning Director
mischaracterized a letter from our structural
engineer, creating the impression that achieving
60% transparency was still viable. What the letter
says is that. .. "With the current proposed new
openings [to achieve 42%], the remaining portions
of CMU wall have just enough capacity to resist
seismic loads from the building as a whole." A
more accurate and forthright characterization
would have been… “42% transparency can be
achieved without imperiling the structure.
Attempting to achieve more than that would
require adding shotcrete to the face of the
structure and strengthening the roof." The
characterization she provided was not
forthcoming. She had the letter in front of her and
could have offered to read from it.
Appellant Claim #6 Continued
• Staff Response: This is not
accurate. The letter from the
applicants design firm BASE Design
dated September 9, 2021 stating all
new openings in exterior CMU walls
still need to be analyzed and the
letter failed to offer solutions to
provide the transparency per
conditions of permit approval.
Further staff comments in Claim #10
staff response.
Appellant Claim #7
Appellant Claim: The City Attorney misled the
Planning Commission into thinking it lacked
authority to direct staff to revise the conditions in
their own words and return with a new resolution.
Staff Response: This is not true. At the
Commission meeting, both the City Attorney and
staff advised the Commission that should they
want to approve the modifications, they could
direct staff accordingly and staff would return with
a resolution of approval at a later date.
Appellant Claim #8
Appellant Claim: No other cannabis operator has
an annual community benefit contribution,
particularly one divorced from the health of the
business.
• Staff Response: This is not contested.
However, the applicant discussed this with the
Council at length and agreed to the contribution
being included as a condition and not just a
statement of intent.
Appellant Claim #9
Appellant Claim: The 60% transparency requirement is not currently required by the zoning code and makes no sense given (1) the building's location 200 feet from a street and far from pedestrian traffic, (2) that the building has load-bearing CMU walls, and (3) transparency is likely to attract property crime here.
Appellant Claim #9 Continued
• Staff Response: The transparency requirement was required by the code at the time the application was originally
submitted. As stated previously, the omission of the
transparency requirement was omitted from the Zoning Code in error, along with other requirements. Staff intends to correct this omission within the next few months. The 60% transparency was also included as a condition of approval by both the Planning Commission and the Council. The
applicant’s engineer provided a letter stating that the achievement of the 60% transparency would require further study. Staff further believes that the requirement would enhance the aesthetics of the structure. Staff cannot speak to the appellant’s assertion regarding future potential property crime.
Appellant Claim #10
Appellant Claim: V-Town Farms is adversely
affected by the decision. Continuation of the two
appealed conditions puts V-Town Farms at a
competitive disadvantage and imperils the
business. V-Town Farms will demonstrate,
through its engineer and contractor estimates, that
achieving 60% transparency is "not possible"
without a new structural support system for the
building. V-Town Farms will demonstrate that the
commitment to donate $600,000 per year to non-
profits was within the context of its good faith
estimate, based on other retail locations, of doing
$60 million per year in revenue. V-Town Farms
could not have foreseen the drastic change in the
cannabis market, causing it to have only $9 million
in revenue.
•
Appellant Claim #10 Continued
• Staff Response: Staff received a
letter on May 9, 2022 dated
February 22, 2022 from the
applicant’s design firm BASE
Design regarding a structural
support system and two options for
achieving the reviewed plan
transparency requirement. This
type of strengthening is common
and normal for these types of
projects.
Public Notifications
• Per the Vallejo Municipal Code, the Notice
was
• Published in VTH on 04/26/2022
• Sent to:
Applicant
Property owners within 500 feet
Neighborhood groups within 500 feet
Planning Commission
City Council
• Posted on Site
Recommendation
• Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal of
Planning Commission denial of Request to
Amend Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008
• Should the Council wish to approve either
or both proposed amendments, or add
other amendments, direct staff to return
with a revised Resolution detailing all
required findings.
CONTACT(S)
Christina Ratcliffe, AICP
(707) 648-4382
[email protected]
Steve Arnold, CBO, CASp
(707) 648-4387
[email protected]
Planning & Development Services
Department
and
Economic Development Division
May 2022 Update
• Gillian Hayes, Assistant City Manager
• Christina Ratcliffe, AICP , Planning & Development Services Director
• Paul Kelley, Special Advisor to the City Manager, Economic Development Manager
PDS:
What Happened in Q-3?
• Residential and Commercial Projects
moving forward…
A
B
C D
Eden Housing: 2118 Sacramento
Longshore Cove: 201 Main
A
B
C
Building Planning
Q3 FY 18-19 842 115
Q3 FY 19-20 918 57
Q3 FY 20-21 907 92
Q3 FY 21-22 935 77
842
115
918
57 907
92 935
77 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Q3 FY 18-19 Q3 FY 19-20 Q3 FY 20-21 Q3 FY 21-22
Quarter 3 Building & Planning Permit Comparison
Fiscal Year Building & Planning Revenue Comparison as of 03/31/2022
Fiscal Year ADU Application Comparison as of 03/31/2022 ADU Applications
FY 18-19 39
FY 19-20 35
FY 20-21 78
FY 21-22 51
39 35
78 51
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22
Looking Ahead:
3 Element Update
Housing, Safety, Environmental
Justice
Looking Ahead: Sonoma and
Magazine Market rate Apartments
Looking ahead: Solano 360 Specific
Plan Update
Planning and Development Services
On-going work
• Process Planning and Building Permits
• Zoning Code Clean-up
• New Permitting Software
• Building Code Update
• Retain, Increase and Train Staff
• Dwelling Unit discretionary permits being
processed now: 1, 330.
• Dwelling Units in Preliminary Review now:
811
Economic Development Division
• Paul Kelley, Special Advisor to the City
Manager, Economic Development Manager
Economic Development 2022
• North Mare Island Disp. & Dev Agreement
• Waterfront Update
• Solano 360
• Economic Development ARPA Funds
– Small business Grants
– Strategic Plan
• Staff and Commissions
Economic Development 2022
• NMI DDA
– Approved March 2022
– Due Diligence – till Mid 2022
– Planner on Board and start on
• Building Removal / Beautification started
• Specific Plan
• Connolly Corridor planning
– Close/Transfer Q3 2022
Connelly Corridor
Economic Development 2022
• Waterfront
– Northern – applications/map/deadline ('22)
– Central – Cleared Title and next steps
– Southern
• PGE Clean up – Commence 21/22
• Visioning ‘23
• Complete 25/26
Southern Waterfront - Cleanup
Southern Waterfront - Cleanup
Southern Waterfront – Cleanup / Restored small
properties
Economic Development 2022
• Solano 360
– Coordination
– Contract Planner – County funded
– Entitlements 2022/23 Construction 23/24
• ED/PDS Coordination
• Preliminary proposed:
Economic Development 2022
• ARPA Funds Implementation
– Small Business Pandemic Recovery Grant - $350K
– Marketing May/June
– Applications June/July
– Awards July
• Restaurant Resiliency – $100K
– Marketing/Recruitment – May/June
– Agreements and Roll out July/August
– Complete Winter ’22
• Arts Commission – Grants - 2022
Economic Development 2022
• Staff On Boarding
• Grants and Admin
– EPA Brownfields $600K
• Schedule
– EDA Grant: Mare Island Infrastructure Assessment $960K of $1.5 mil project
• RFP Mid 2022; Award Fall 22
• Complete ’23
• Fairview/Costco
• Commissions – EVC Work Plan implementation
CONTACT(S)
Gillian Hayes, Assistant City Manager
[email protected]
Christina Ratcliffe, AICP , Planning & Development Services Director
[email protected]
Paul Kelley, Special Advisor to the City Manager, Economic Development Manager
[email protected]