Agenda packet — Vallejo City Council, September 20, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

Hybrid Options are available for members of the public to participate. To participate remotely:

https://ZoomRegular.CityofVallejo.net
Option to join by phone:

CALL AND NOTICE OF

SPECIAL MEETING
AT 6:00 PM

OF THE VALLEJO CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 20, 2022

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
555 Santa Clara Street, Vallejo, California

NOTICE: Members of the Public will be able to participate in-person or remotely via Zoom.

City Hall and the Council Chambers will be open to members of the public 30 minutes prior to the start of the meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the Public may provide public comments during the City Council Meeting in person or via ZOOM (https://ZoomRegular.Cityofvallejo.net), or via phone, by dialing (669) 900-6833.

For additional instructions on how to speak remotely during public comment, please visit, www.cityofvallejo.net/publiccomment

VIEW THE MEETING:

There are four different ways you can view this public meeting:
 In Person
 Watch Vallejo local channel 28
 Stream from the City website: www.cityofvallejo.net/Streaming  Join the Zoom webinar:https://ZoomRegular.Cityofvallejo.net

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE VALLEJO CITY COUNCIL:

You are hereby notified that I do hereby call the Vallejo City Council in special session to consider only the matters stated on the agenda listed below.

NOTICE: Members of the public shall have the opportunity to address the City Council concerning any item listed on the agenda before or during consideration of that item. No other items may be discussed at this special meeting.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Hybrid Options are available for members of the public to participate. To participate remotely:

https://ZoomRegular.CityofVallejo.net
Option to join by phone:

3. ROLL CALL

4. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION

5. PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
Members of the public wishing to address the Council on Consent Calendar items may do so in person by signing in to the Public Speaker's kiosk located in the back of the Council Chambers or via ZOOM:(https://ZoomRegular.Cityofvallejo.net), Option to join by phone: Dial (669) 900-6833. Enter Meeting ID: 914 0075 0676#. Press * 9 to digitally raise your hand from the phone. For additional instructions on how to speak remotely during public comment, please visit, www.cityofvallejo.net/publiccomment. In person speakers will be recognized first. Each speaker is limited to three minutes pursuant to Vallejo Municipal Code Section 2.02.310. Requests for removal of Consent Items received from the public are subject to approval by a majority vote of the Council.

Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be heard immediately after approval of the Consent Calendar and Agenda.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Recommendation: Approve minutes for the special and regular meetings of July 26, 2022 and the special meetings of August 23, 2022
Contact: Dawn G. Abrahamson, MMC, City Clerk (707) 648-4527 [email protected]
B. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY MANAGER'S RESPONSE TO THE 2021-2022 SOLANO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED
"DELAYS IN RELOCATION OF VALLEJO POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE
COSTLY" AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO FORWARD THE

RESPONSE TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE SOLANO COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT AND FOREPERSON OF THE SOLANO COUNTY GRAND JURY
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the City Manager's response to the 2021-2022 Solano County Grand Jury Report entitled "Delays in Relocation of Vallejo Police Department Are Costly" and authorizing the City Clerk to forward the response to the Presiding Judge of the Solano County Superior Court and Foreperson of the Solano County Grand Jury.

Contact: Mike Malone, City Manager. (707) 648-4576
[email protected]
Hybrid Options are available for members of the public to participate. To participate remotely:

https://ZoomRegular.CityofVallejo.net
Option to join by phone:

Dial (669) 900-6833
Enter Meeting ID: 914 0075 0676#
Press *9 to digitally raise your hand from the phone
For additional instructions on how to speak during public comment, please visit, www.cityofvallejo.net/publiccomment
C. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY’S RESPONSE TO THE 2021-2022 GRAND JURY REPORT REGARDING

EFFECTIVE EMERGENCY RESPONSE NEEDS CITY AND COUNTY

SUPPORT
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the City of Vallejo's response to the 2021-2022 Solano County Grand Jury Report entitled "Effective Emergency Response Needs City and County Support" and authorize the City Clerk to forward said response to the Presiding Judge of the Solano County Superior Court and Foreperson of the Solano County Grand Jury.

Contact: Kyle Long, Fire Chief (707) 648-4526
[email protected]

7. ACTION CALENDAR
NOTICE: Members of the public wishing to address the Council on Action Calendar Items may do so in person by signing in to the Public Speaker's kiosk located in the back of the Council Chambers or via ZOOM (https://ZoomRegular.Cityofvallejo.net), or via phone, by dialing (669) 900-6833. Enter Meeting ID: 914 0075 0676#. Press *9 to digitally raise your hand from the phone. For additional instructions on how to speak remotely during public comment, please visit, www.cityofvallejo.net/publiccomment.

Each speaker is limited to five minutes pursuant to Vallejo Municipal Code Section

2.02.420. In person speakers will be recognized first.

A. CONDUCT THE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING OF APPEAL OF

PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF MAJOR USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY V-TOWN FARMS LOCATED AT 5184 SONOMA
BOULEVARD, SUITE 300
Recommendation: Conduct the continued public hearing and direct staff to return with findings and a resolution memorializing the Council’s decision on Appeal (APP) #22-0001 to amend Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008 for V-Town Farms at 5184 Sonoma Boulevard, Suite 300.

Contact: Christina Ratcliffe, Planning and Development Services Director [email protected] (707) 648-4382

8. ADJOURNMENT

Dated: Thursday, September 15, 2022

Robert H. McConnell, Mayor

Hybrid Options are available for members of the public to participate. To participate remotely:

https://ZoomRegular.CityofVallejo.net
Option to join by phone:

Dial (669) 900-6833
Enter Meeting ID: 914 0075 0676#
Press *9 to digitally raise your hand from the phone
For additional instructions on how to speak during public comment, please visit, www.cityofvallejo.net/publiccomment
I, Dawn Abrahamson, City Clerk, do herby certify that I have caused a true copy of the above notice and agenda to be delivered to each of the member of the Vallejo City Council, at the time and in the manner prescribed by law and that this agenda was posted at City Hall, 555 Santa Clara Street, CA at 12:00 p.m., Thursday, September 15, 2022.

Dated: Thursday, September 15, 2022

Dawn G. Abrahamson, City Clerk

Special City Council Meeting Minutes
July 26, 2022
Page | 1

VALLEJO CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
JULY 26, 2022

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
555 Santa Clara Street, Vallejo, California

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:15 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor McConnell, Vice Mayor Verder-Aliga (arrived at 6:19 p.m.), Councilmembers Arriola, Brown (arrived at 6:18 p.m.), Dew, Loera-Diaz, and Miessner (arrived at 6:18 p.m.)

Absent: None
Staff present: City Manager Malone, City Attorney Nebb, City Clerk Abrahamson and Assistant City Manager Davis
The Council convened into Closed Session in the Council Conference Room at 6:19 p.m.

3. CLOSED SESSION
A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957
Title: City Attorney

4. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
________________________________
ROBERT H. MCCONNELL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________
DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON

CITY CLERK
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
July 26, 2022
Page | 1

VALLEJO CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
555 Santa Clara Street, Vallejo, California
JULY 26, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL

Present: City Manager Malone, City Attorney Nebb and City Clerk Abrahamson

4. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Nebb announced there was no action to report for Closed Session Item 3A.

5. PRESENTATIONS AND COMMENDATIONS
Action: Presentations were made by Samantha Meyer (Project Developer, Eden Housing) and Jon Riley.

Speakers: Ryan Messano, Brad Beltane and Anne Carr (Presentation Item 5A). Daniel Golinski and Jameelah Hannif (Presentation Item 5B).

A. EDEN HOUSING SACRAMENTO STREET PROJECT UPDATE
B. WATERFRONT WEEKEND UPDATE

6. FIRST COMMUNITY FORUM
Speakers: Ryan Messano, Daniel Boone, Marissa, Janet Prophett, Ruscal Cayangyang, Durriya Syed, and Anne Carr.

7. PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
Speakers: None

8. CONSENT CALENDAR AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Moved by Vice Mayor Verder-Aliga and carried unanimously, unless otherwise noted, approval of the Agenda and the Consent Calendar with the removal of Item 8G from the Consent Calendar making it Item 8.1
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Recommendation: Approve minutes for the special meetings of July 5 and 7, Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
July 26, 2022
Page | 2
2022 and the special and regular meetings of July 12, 2022 Contact: Dawn G. Abrahamson, MMC, City Clerk (707) 648-4527 [email protected]
Action: Approved minutes.

B. WAIVE FULL READING AND AUTHORIZING INTRODUCTIONS AND/OR

ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES BY TITLE ONLY
Recommendation: Waive reading and authorize introductions and/or adoption of any and all ordinances on this agenda, if any, by title only. This is a standard procedural action so the City Council does not have to read an ordinance in its entirety.

Contact: Dawn G. Abrahamson, MMC, City Clerk (707) 648-4527 [email protected]
Action: Waived reading and authorized introductions and/or adoption of any and all ordinances on this agenda, if any, by title only. This is a standard procedural action so the City Council does not have to read an ordinance in its entirety.

C. ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.09 OF THE VALLEJO

MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO THE INCREASE OF A SEVEN-EIGHTHS (0.875) OF ONE CENT TRANSACTION AND USE TAX
Recommendation: Adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 3.09 of the Vallejo Municipal Code related to the increase of a seven-eighths (0.875) of one center Transaction and Use Tax
Contact: Terrance Davis, Assistant City Manager (707) 648-4301 [email protected]
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 1866 N.C. (2d). (Noes – McConnell) D. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS: MAY 2022
Recommendation: Ratify the payment of claims for the period of May 1, 2022 through May 31, 2022.

Contact: Rekha Nayar, Finance Director (707) 648-4592
[email protected]
Action: Ratified the payment of claims for the period of May 1, 2022 through May 31, 2022.

E. CITY TREASURER’S INVESTMENT REPORT
Recommendation: Accept the City Treasurer’s Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2022.

Contact: Rekha Nayar, Finance Director, (707) 648-4592
[email protected]
Action: Accepted the City Treasurer’s Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2022.

F. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FY 2022-23 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BUDGET FOR PW9432: RADAR FEEDBACK

SIGNS/RE-STRIPING
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution to amend the FY2022-2023 Capital Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
July 26, 2022
Page | 3
Improvement Project budget to recognize $55,000 of grant funding from the Solano Transportation Authority and appropriate expenditure budget to PW9432: Radar Feedback Signs / Re-striping Project.

Contact: Melissa L. Tigbao, Public Works Director, (707) 648-4085 [email protected]
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-138 N.C.

G. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING WITH COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION THE
LEAVEN
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Memorandum of Understanding with the community-based organization The Leaven, in an amount not to exceed $299,800 for activities related to the Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Grant.

Contact: Shawny K. Williams, Chief of Police (707) 648-4540 [email protected]
Action: item was removed from the Consent Calendar.

Staff responded to questions from Councilmembers. Councilmembers provided comment.

Action: Moved by Councilmember Arriola and carried unanimously to authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Memorandum of Understanding with the community-based organization The Leaven, in an amount not to exceed $299,800 for activities related to the Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Grant.

H. ADOPT RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE WATERSTONE PHASE 1C (BORDONI RANCH) SUBDIVISION AS

COMPLETE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF

COMPLETION WITH THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR THE COUNTY

OF SOLANO
Recommendation: Adopt the resolution accepting the subdivision improvements for the Waterstone Phase 1C (Bordoni Ranch) subdivision as complete and authorizing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the Office of the Recorder for the County of Solano.

Contact: Melissa L Tigbao, Public Works Director, (707) 648-4085 [email protected]
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-139 N.C.

I. ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 GENERAL

FUND BUDGET ADDING A LIMITED-TERM SPECIAL ADVISOR TO THE

CITY MANAGER TO OVERSEE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution to amend the General Fund budget adding a limited-term position of Special Advisor to the City Manager to oversee the Economic Development Division, effective August 1, 2022 through August 1, 2023.

Contact: Gillian Hayes, Assistant City Manager (707) 648-4163 [email protected]
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
July 26, 2022
Page | 4
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-140 N.C.

J. ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE CITY'S SALARY PLAN
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution to amend the City's Salary Plan for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Contact: Carmen Valdez, HR Advisor
[email protected]
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-141 N.C.

K. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO THE 2021-2022 GRAND JURY REPORT REGARDING

ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the response to the 2021-2022 Solano County Grand Jury Report entitled "Electric Vehicle Infrastructure in Solano County" and authorize the City Clerk to forward said response to the Presiding Judge of the Solano County Superior Court and Foreperson of the Solano County Grand Jury.

Contact: Melissa Tigbao, Public Works Director (707) 648-4315 [email protected]
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-142 N.C.

9. ACTION CALENDAR
A. ADOPT RESOLUTION MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE

ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE & LANDMARKS COMMISSION, CODE

ENFORCEMENT APPEALS BOARD, ECONOMIC VITALITY COMMISSION,

PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING STEERING COMMITTEE (PBSC) AND THE

SISTER CITY COMMISSION
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution making the following appointments:

1. An appointment to the Architectural Heritage & Landmarks Commission - 1 vacancy

2. An appointment to the Code Enforcement Appeals Board - 1 vacancy

3. Appointments to the Economic Vitality Commission - 4 vacancies

4. Appointments to the PBSC - 5 member and 3 alternate vacancies

5. Appointments to the Sister City Commission - 3 vacancies Contact: Dawn G. Abrahamson, City Clerk (707) 648-4527
[email protected]
The City Council went through an applicant nomination process for appointments. Appointments to the Code Enforcement Appeals Board, the Economic Vitality Commission and the PBSC were made by acclimation.

Action 2: Moved by Vice Mayor Verder-Aliga and carried unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 22-143, a resolution making the following appointments:

Architectural Heritage & Landmarks Commission: appointed Ann Adams for a Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
July 26, 2022
Page | 5
term to commence immediately and expire December 31, 2025.

Code Enforcement Appeals Board: appointed Kevin Tennyson for a term to commence immediately and expire December 31,2025.

Economic Vitality Commission: appointed Thomas Barbeiro, L. Alexander Matias and Dwight Monroe Jr. for terms to commence immediately and expire June 30, 2026.

Sister City Commission: appointed Paul Lamb, Elissa Stewart Shanks and Pelton Stewart for terms to commence immediately and expire June 30, 2026.

PBSC: appointed Ann Adams and Ruscal Cayangyang (at-large members) for terms to commence immediately and expire June 30, 2024.

B. ADOPT A RESOLUTION DECLARING AS SURPLUS THREE CITY-OWNED PROPERTIES COMPRISED OF: (1) A PORTION OF APN 0182-020-130; (2) APNS 0056-062-200 AND-210, CONSISTING OF A FORMER PARKING LOT LOCATED ON BROADWAY NEAR TENNESSEE; AND (3) 485 SANTA
CLARA STREET (APN 0055-170-380) PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221(b)(1) AND MAKING FINDINGS RELATED THERETO Recommendation: Adopt a resolution to:

1. Finding determination that three properties as identified are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378; and

2. Declaring City-owned property located at: (1) a portion of APN 0182-020- 130 consisting of 4.2 acres contiguous with APN 0182-020-020 to the south; (2) a former parking lot located on Broadway near Tennessee (APNs 0056-062-200, -210), and (3) 485 Santa Clara Street (APN 0055- 170-380), as "Surplus Land" pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(b)(1).

Contact: Emi Thériault, Economic Development Program Manager (707) 649- 5454
[email protected]
Ivette Iraheta, Economic Development Program Manager (707) 645-2622 [email protected]
Gillian Hayes, Assistant City Manager (707) 648-4163
[email protected]
Assistant City Manager Hayes provided introductory comments and an overview of the staff report.

Speakers: Anne Carr.

Staff responded to questions from Councilmembers. Councilmembers provided comment.

Action: Moved by Vice Mayor Verder-Aliga and carried unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 22-144 N.C.

C. DESIGNATE A VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE FOR THE BUSINESS Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
July 26, 2022
Page | 6

PORTION OF THE ANNUAL LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES

CONFERENCE
Recommendation: Designate a City of Vallejo voting delegate and voting alternate for the business portion of the Annual League of California Cities Conference.

Contact: Dawn G. Abrahamson, City Clerk (707) 648-4527
[email protected]
Action: Moved by Vice Mayor Verder-Aliga and carried unanimously to designate Councilmember Dew as the voting delegate and Vice Mayor Verder- Aliga as the voting alternate for the business portion of the Annual League of California Cities Conference.

D. REQUEST BY VICE MAYOR VERDER-ALIGA TO ADD AN AGENDA ITEM

AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING TO INCREASE THE STIPEND FOR

VALLEJO CITY COUNCILMEMBERS AND THE MAYOR
Recommendation: Consider Vice Mayor Verder-Aliga's request and direct staff to prepare and present relevant materials at a subsequent meeting.

Contact: Vice Mayor Verder-Aliga
[email protected]
Vice Mayor Verder-Aliga presented her request. Councilmembers provided comment.

Action: Moved by Mayor McConnell and carried unanimously to direct staff to prepare and present relevant materials at the October 11, 2022 regular council meeting.

10. INFORMATION CALENDAR – None.

11. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Malone announced a summer recess from regular Council meetings and board and commission meetings in the month of August and reminded the Council and the community about National Night Out, August 2, 2022.

12. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
City Attorney Nebb provided an overview of her quarterly report.

A. QUARTERLY REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021/2022, FOURTH QUARTER (APR - JUN 2022)
Recommendation: Informational report only. No action is required.

Contact: Veronica A.F. Nebb, City Attorney (707) 648-4545 [email protected]

13. COMMUNITY FORUM
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
July 26, 2022
Page | 7
Speakers: None.

14. REPORT OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Councilmembers reported out various community events and meetings attended.

15. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m.
________________________________
ROBERT H. MCCONNELL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________
DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON

CITY CLERK
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
August 23, 2022
Page | 1

VALLEJO CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 23, 2022

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
555 Santa Clara Street, Vallejo, California

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor McConnell, Vice Mayor Verder-Aliga (arrived at 5:05 p.m.), Councilmembers Arriola, Brown (arrived during Closed Session), Dew, Loera-Diaz, and Miessner (arrived during Closed Session)

Absent: None
Staff present: City Manager Malone, City Attorney Nebb, City Clerk Abrahamson, Assistant City Manager Davis, Deputy City Attorney Jackson, and HR Consultant Valdez
The City Council convened into closed session in the Council Conference Room at 5:05 p.m.

3. CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
Name of Case: City of Vallejo v. WFG Liquidation Corporation, Solano County Superior Court Case Number Pending
B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957
Title: City Attorney

4. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m.
_________________________________
ROBERT H. MCCONNELL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________
DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON

CITY CLERK
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
August 23, 2022
Page | 2
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
August 23, 2022
Page | 1

VALLEJO CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 23, 2022

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
555 Santa Clara Street, Vallejo, California

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:06 p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor McConnell, Vice Mayor Verder-Aliga,
Councilmembers Arriola, Brown, Dew, Loera-Diaz, and Miessner

Absent: None
Staff present: City Manager Malone, City Attorney Nebb and City Clerk Abrahamson,

4. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Nebb reported Council provided direction to staff with respect to Closed Session Item 3A.

5. ACTION CALENDAR
A. POLICE OVERSIGHT MODEL WORKSHOP
Recommendation: Receive presentation of information from the community engagement meetings and the various oversight model characteristics. Based upon input received, provide direction to staff to prepare a draft ordinance to be presented at a subsequent meeting for additional comment and direction.

Contact: Veronica A.F. Nebb, City Attorney (707) 648-4545 [email protected]
City Manager Malone provided introductory comments.

City Attorney Nebb outlined the process for this evening’s meeting and next steps and provided an overview of the community engagement meetings. Chief Assistant City Attorney Risner shared various oversight models. City Attorney Nebb discussed model characteristics.

Renee Sykes, Mike Nisperos, Brien Farrell, Allison Mezzera, Ian Emperador, Chase Christensen, and Greg Carter (Common Ground Representatives) addressed Council regarding their proposed ordinance.

Speakers: Gary Wettstein, Janet Prohett, Daniel Boone, Ruscal Cayangyang, Ashley Monterrosa, Michelle Monterrosa, Andrea Sorce, Garrett Toles, Don Special City Council Meeting Minutes
August 23, 2022
Page | 2
Jordan, Rick Perez, Liat Meitzenheimer, Christine Watson, Jasmine D., Mercedes, Giselle, Melissa Swift, Renee, Brad Beltane, and Robert Schussel.

Staff responded to questions from Councilmembers. Councilmembers provided comment.

6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
________________________________
ROBERT H. MCCONNELL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________
DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON

CITY CLERK
CONSENT CALENDAR 6.B.

DATE: September 20, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Mike Malone, City Manager
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY MANAGER'S RESPONSE TO THE 2021-2022 SOLANO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED "DELAYS IN RELOCATION OF VALLEJO POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE COSTLY" AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO FORWARD

THE RESPONSE TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

AND FOREPERSON OF THE SOLANO COUNTY GRAND JURY

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the City Manager's response to the 2021-2022 Solano County Grand Jury Report entitled "Delays in Relocation of Vallejo Police Department Are Costly" and authorizing the City Clerk to forward the response to the Presiding Judge of the Solano County Superior Court and Foreperson of the Solano County Grand Jury.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is required by law to respond to the Grand Jury Report and to comment on its findings.

Adopting the resolution approving and authorizing the response and directing the City Clerk to forward it to the Presiding Judge of the Solano County Superior Court and to the Foreperson of the Solano County Grand Jury will satisfy this obligation.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On June 30, 2022, the Solano County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled "Delays in Relocation of Vallejo Police Department Are Costly" (Report).

The Foreperson of the Grand Jury requested the City of Vallejo provide a written response by September 27, 2022, to be filed with the clerk of the court and forwarded to the State Archivist for retention in perpetuity. The Grand Jury investigated concerns regarding the condition of the Vallejo Police Department's current 111 Amador location, and subsequent relocation efforts.

In the report there are five findings and recommendations that require a written response from the City.

The City Manager's Office has prepared a response to the Report on behalf of the City of Vallejo for the City Council's approval. If approved, the City Clerk will forward the response to the Presiding Judge of the Solano County Superior Court and an electronic copy to the Foreperson of the Grand Jury, as required by law.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact resulting from or related to this action.

Date: September 20, 2022
Subject: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY MANAGER'S RESPONSE TO THE 2021-2022 SOLANO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED "DELAYS IN RELOCATION OF VALLEJO POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE COSTLY" AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO FORWARD

THE RESPONSE TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

AND FOREPERSON OF THE SOLANO COUNTY GRAND JURY

Page 2 ends

foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378.

ATTACHMENTS

1. GJReport - Relocation Delays

2. RESOLUTION 2021-2022 Response to Grand Jury Report Delays in Relocation of VPD are Costly_CAO Stamp

3. Exhibit A to Reso_Grand Jury Response 2021-2021 Delays in Relocating VPD

CONTACT
Mike Malone, City Manager. (707) 648-4576
[email protected]
2021-2022
DE

LAYS IN RELOCATION OF VALLEJO POLICE

DEPARTMENT ARE COSTLY
- 2 -

DELAYS IN RELOCATION OF VALLEJO POLICE

DEPARTMENT ARE COSTLY
Solano County Civil Grand Jury 2021-2022
I. SUMMARY
C
ontinuous delays in relocating the Vallejo Police Department from its current facility have resulted in a substantial increase in the cost of such a move. In addition, they have resulted in a more dangerous, insufficient facility that affects the health of Vallejo’s law enforcement and the health of the community at large. The lack of a decent facility directly affects recruitment efforts, therefore also affecting the community’s safety because of an understaffed department.

I
n monetary terms, the delay is reflected in the millions of additional dollars that the retrofitting of the property at 400 Mare Island Way (the original relocation plan) will cost. The city of Vallejo purchased the building in 2019 for the police department relocation. The delay has already led to an additional cost of at least ten to twenty million dollars. An alternate suggestion is buying a different property and building a facility there, which means added expenditures to buy a new location and to erect a new building. The city is already struggling to find the funds to retrofit the existing building—the cost of purchasing and building on a new site will multiply the need for funding.

If the police department remains in the current facility, the city will continue to spend thousands of dollars each year to add “band-aids” to the current site. Meanwhile, the useable parts of the facility keep shrinking as rooms deemed unusable because of lead and asbestos contamination as well as mold (the current building floods each time Vallejo has a significant rain) are closed off to help ensure a healthy environment for the police personnel and visitors. Punishing current law enforcement officers for the alleged past shameful acts of others does not seem to be a reasonable step towards building a better, safer Vallejo.

F
orty percent of crime victims in Vallejo are children. Most are under 14 years old. The current facility at 111 Amador Street does not have adequate space to deal with traumatized victims, nor does it have an environment that meets the needs of a physically or sexually abused child or one who has witnessed trauma.

T
he Community Assistance Resource & Engagement (CARE) Center has been established at the 400 Mare Island Way building and is currently used to counsel and treat crime victims and witnesses. Although the Center is part of the Police Department, there is a collaboration with other community services. This facility is located downstairs and is separate from the proposed Police facility. The Center offers space, counselors, psychological and other specialists with specific training in dealing with assault victims. Interviews of crime victims, both children, and adults are performed by one interviewer while other advocates listen to the interaction. The District Attorney, social workers, and other advocates can witness the interaction with the victim and interviewer through audio and visual means.
- 3 -
II. INTRODUCTION
T
he Solano County Civil Grand Jury began its journey into investigating the police department by looking at the newly established CARE Center. It is an area within the police department in which investigators and various local social agencies have an opportunity to interact with victims of crime not only to address their needs but also to gather information about the crime. Some community members were unhappy about the location of the Center saying that its proximity to the police department will make crime victims uncomfortable. With this in mind, the Civil Grand Jury toured both the proposed police department facility (400 Mare Island Way) and the current police department location (111 Amador Street). Both tours included the victim interview areas.

The contrast between the two facilities emphasized the need to relocate the Vallejo Police Department to a better facility. The Amador location which was built in the 1960s shows every one of its sixty plus years especially since the years since Vallejo declared bankruptcy have been marked with a lack of building maintenance. Meanwhile, the Mare Island Way location displays an atmosphere of a work in progress as the Vallejo City Council delays decisions on how to go forward with the relocation plan.

III. METHODOLOGY
T
oured
400 Mare Island Way (proposed site for Vallejo Police Department) 111 Amador Street (current Vallejo Police Department site) A
ttended
Vallejo City Council meetings
March 8, 2022
March 22 zoom
April 12 zoom and in person
Public meeting sponsored by the city inviting location recommendations from the public (March 27, 2022)
I
nterviewed
Vallejo City Council Members
Vallejo Police Department Administrators
Vallejo City Administrators
Vallejo City staff
Environmental Consulting Companies
R
eviewed
Environmental Testing Reports
Cardno 2014
RGA 2015-2017
ATC 2015-2016
TRC 2018 - 2020
OIR (Office of Independent Review) Group Report
Solano County Library Facilities Master Plan
- 4 -
N
ewspaper articles
Vallejo Times-Herald – February 11, 2022
Vallejo Times-Herald – February 19, 2022
Vallejo Times-Herald – February 27, 2022
Vallejo Times Herald – March 8, 2022
Vallejo Times Herald – March 10, 2022
Vallejo Times Herald – March 16, 2022
Vallejo Times Herald – March 22, 2022
Vallejo Times Herald – March 23, 2022
Vallejo Times Herald – April 12, 2022
Valljeo Times Herald – April 14, 2022
R
eviewed Websites
City of Vallejo web site
https://www.visitvallejo.com/about-vallejo/mare-island-history https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2022/04/15/vallejo-police-headquarters-council-pivots- library-site-not-waterfront/
https://localnewsmatters.org/2022/04/16/vallejos-search-for-new-police-headquarters-shifts- from-waterfront-site-to-library-building/
https://localnewsmatters.org/2022/03/04/edifice-to-dysfunction-vallejo-polarized-over- proposed-waterfront-police-station/
https://www.vallejosun.com/protest-planned-over-proposed-30m-loan-for-new-vallejo- police-department-hq/
https://www.vallejosun.com/vallejo-city-council-eyes-alternate-locations-away-from- waterfront-for-new-police-hq/
https://openvallejo.org/2020/07/28/for-vallejos-problem-officers-a-pattern-of-public- accolades/
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/nbc-bay-area-investigation-links-group-of-vallejo- police-officers-to-majority-of-use-of-force-incidents/2201307/ https://www.commercialcafe.com/commercial-property/us/ca/vallejo/400-mare-island-way/ http://www.areavibes.com/vallejo-ca/demographics
https://biggestuscities.com/vallejo-california
www.NeighborhoolScout.com/CA/ca/vallejo
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts
https://www.kron4.com/nes/bay-area/Vallejo Police Officer’s Association concerned over ‘unprecedented rate’ of officers leaving force
www.solanohistory.org
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=vallejo+police+department+defunding&view https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/vallejo/crime
https://icma.org/sites/default/files/305747_Analysis%20of%20Police%20Department%20Sta ffing%20_%20McCabe.pdf
I
V. STATEMENT OF FACTS
- 5 -
T
he Vallejo Police Department facility, located at 111 Amador Street, Vallejo, was built in 1961 when the Vallejo population was approximately 60,000. Currently it is just over 121,000.

I
n the spring of 1996, Vallejo experienced a devastating financial blow. After a 142-year relationship with the City, the United States Navy officially closed the Mare Island shipyard. The financial shortfall created by the Navy’s withdrawal came to a head in 2008 when the City declared bankruptcy. The belt-tightening that Vallejo put into place meant deep cuts in the ranks of sworn police officers and cuts in pay for those who stayed with the department and those who joined their ranks later. Staffing in the police department dropped from 150 officers to 77 at its lowest point. Ultimately, the smaller police force is in a position of having to prioritize calls.

According to the ICMA Center for Public Safety Management, the ideal ratio of full-time officers per 1,000 residents ranges from 2.6 per 1,000 to 1.8 per 1,000, with an average ratio of

2.5 full-time officers per 1,000 residents. The Vallejo force currently functions with 0.8 police officers per one thousand citizens.

The
public has experienced the effect of the bankruptcy cutbacks in the form of fewer available officers and less effective policing. Another impact manifests itself in the lack of maintenance of city buildings. Over the years, the police facility has deteriorated due to age and deferred maintenance. This deterioration has led to concern about the safety of the building.

T
he City of Vallejo began hiring environmental health consultants to conduct testing for toxicity in the Amador location of the Police Department in 2014. The early studies found both asbestos and lead contaminants in the building. The testing has continued, although the companies conducting the tests have changed. The constant is that areas on the first floor contain unhealthy levels of lead and asbestos.

In March of 2016, acting on the test results and professional recommendations of an environmental health and safety firm, the Public Works Department engaged its on-call design and construction‐management consulting company. The firm started project management services for the generation of construction documents to combine the building asbestos and lead abatement with the pending earthquake repair and renovation work. The project strategy involved the temporary relocation of police department staff to portable buildings at the adjacent employee parking lot for approximately one year. At that point, the abatement and renovation project would be complete.

I
n July 2016, Vallejo re-prioritized the project to suspend building abatement and renovation efforts. The new plan was to relocate police department staff to portable buildings where they would be housed for approximately five to ten years until the city could establish a permanent facility. Staff worked with the on-call consultant from August 2016 through February 2017 to finalize the design of the interim facility improvements, giving the city time to negotiate a new scope of services to produce bid documents for the long-term portable buildings. However, that plan never came to fruition.

A
ccording to the May 2, 2017 RGA Environmental, Inc. (RGA) report, “Surface contamination due to the presence of lead and cadmium, as well as damaged friable ACMs (asbestos-containing materials) are known conditions within the building and represent potentials for exposures to - 6 -
know
n hazardous agents. There are a number of building maintenance activities and sampling strategies which should be considered to mitigate known hazards to reduce risks of adverse effects.” RGA found lead contamination, which they surmised resulted from the use as an indoor firing range. The firing range area was later remodeled and turned into a cardio room and the SWAT locker room.

E
arly in 2018, city staff identified two locations as plausible sites for relocation of the Vallejo Police Department: Southern Waterfront (Solano Avenue and Sonoma Boulevard) and Rollingwood Drive (which is no longer available). Later that year, the former State Farm building at 400 Mare Island Way was up for sale and the city purchased it for the police department.

I
n 2019, Vallejo Public Works contracted with TRC, a company that identifies industrial and residential contamination and provides solutions to mitigate hazardous issues. Contaminants identified in the building were primarily lead and asbestos. There were areas of the facility that had to be deemed “off limits” to personnel. TRC cleaned the contaminated areas, but subsequent testing of the same locations three months later showed the reappearance of those same contaminants. Continued cleaning costs the city thousands of dollars each quarter and will continue as long as the hazardous materials are present and the building is occupied.

T
he building, in its current condition, needs extensive repairs and changes to address:
· S
ewage and flooding problems
· Lack of interview rooms,
· Lack of backup generator
· Inadequate locker and shower facilities
· Failing HVAC system
· Insufficient space for required staffing
O
n February 26, 2019, the Vallejo City Council voted five to two in favor of purchasing the Mare Island Way property as the relocation site of the Vallejo Police Department. Funding for the purchase came from the General Fund, reserves, and CIP (Capital Improvement Project funds). Once the city purchased the building, it needed a general plan amendment to change the zoning. In addition to the zoning issue, a vocal community group opposed the waterfront location and made its views clear to the city. Reasons for the opposition ran from feelings that the police force did not deserve a nice new location to concerns that a police presence on the waterfront would scare away tourists. The zoning issue and the vocal opposition both contributed to the delay in the plan moving forward.

I
n the summer of 2019, Vallejo City officials hired OIR (Office of Independent Review) Group to analyze and assess the operation of the Vallejo Police Department. A veteran former federal civil rights prosecutor leads OIR, which includes experienced police practices and oversight professionals. The OIR Group describes the Amador facility: “The headquarters building itself has deteriorated and is plagued with asbestos and faulty plumbing; its sub-optimal status as a facility makes it emblematic in the staff’s eyes of the challenging circumstances that perpetually confront them. Equipment is notoriously old and faulty.” - 7 -
C
ontroversy and divisiveness among the City’s elected officials have led to delays, and in 2021 the City Council halted further plans to relocate the police station. The City Council has been delaying action while members are divided on the issue and unclear as to their power to approve or deny the move. Fielding public comments and protests, time spent attempting to find other locations, and the costs involved in delaying a relocation have resulted in no decisions.

I
n March 2022, the Vallejo Police Department presented an updated work plan for the Vallejo Police Department Transformation Initiative based on the 2020 OIR recommendations. It states that “Progress will be monitored internally as well as in collaboration with the California Department of Justice.” It includes the recommendation of the OIR Group report that the City of Vallejo and the Vallejo Police Department “develop the proposed new headquarters facility (400 Mare Island Way)” as the current facility is deteriorated and inadequate.

O
IR also found that the poor working conditions in the Amador building have led to “burn out, discouragement and a pervasive sense of being underappreciated by city officials as well as outsiders. Working conditions fostered an ‘us against the world mindset.” Other than the issue of understaffing, salaries are below the market average; the workload is highly demanding, and forced overtime is routine. All these factors make it challenging to attract and retain the appropriate staffing. Included in its recommendations were:
“
The Department should persevere with the City in its efforts to develop the proposed new headquarters facility and look for ways to enhance community access and engagement. The City should ensure that VPD has sufficient resources to properly maintain and audit its retained stores of evidence and property.”
V
allejo City staff conducted a cost study to compare the cost of building a new facility at a different site versus retrofitting the Mare Island Way building. The staff determined that the cost to build a new facility would be approximately $100 million at that time. Retrofitting Mare Island Way would cost $30-$35 million. The original cost of the building was $13.45 million.

Public Works determined that tearing down the current 111 Amador Street facility and rebuilding in the same location would not be a good investment for the City.

C
ity Council meetings have been open to discussing alternative options for relocating the Vallejo Police Department. However, meetings designed to discuss building options became chaotic as members of the audience engaged in shouting matches with city council members, knocked computers to the floor and slammed their fists into plastic protective barriers in front of council members subsequently no progress has been made to date to move the project forward.

C
omplicating the issue of inadequate housing for the police department are community allegations of excessive use of force, homicide, and badge bending to “celebrate” violence by police officers While the anger and frustration of family members and activists are understandable, their determination to stop the relocation of the police department is counterproductive and is aimed at the wrong people. The new Police Chief Shawny Williams, previously from the San Jose Police Department, was brought in with the mandate that he would change the culture of the police department. One of the most significant changes he has made - 8 -
s
ince taking over the department is the mandatory requirement that officers have their body cameras on whenever they are in contact with the general public. In addition, police officers have to undergo training in accountability, leadership, de-escalation, and community relations.

Moreover, the department is creating a matrix to show the consequences for failure to follow policy requirements. In addition, the police department administration is working to improve community communication and transparency.

V
allejo City Council’s efforts to discuss the relocation of the police department have been met with resistance. Many of the protesters’ comments indicated that the police department does not deserve a good facility because of previous alledged wrongdoing. This attitude is taken to heart by the council since there are several factors at play. The most prominent seems to be the adage “you get what you pay for.” As long as the Vallejo community accepts a building, often described as “deplorable,” the risk is an inability to hire an experienced, professional staff. The status of the building and the below-market pay scale make recruiting high-end police professionals difficult at best.

A
t their meeting on April 12, 2022, the City Council turned away from the building bought specifically to serve as the new Vallejo Police Department building. They asked city staff to look into moving the department to the current John F. Kennedy (JFK) library at 505 Santa Clara Street. The March 7, 2021 Solano County Library Facilities Master Plan (Master Plan) describes the library as “a dark, aging building beset with maintenance issues.” The building has been updated throughout the years, including the addition of solar panels and exterior LED lighting.

However, some of the more significant issues within the facility are still awaiting the City’s attention. It is not ADA compliant because the main elevator has been out of service for years.

M
eanwhile, according to the Master Plan, “an old second elevator also threatens to break down any day.” In addition, there are persistent issues with the HVAC system and broken windows, which the Civil Grand Jury observed. While the atrium provides natural light, it also amplifies sound and causes noise issues. Most of the windows along the perimeter have decorative concrete “protrusions” which block light to those areas. The Master Plan also points out that “poor sightlines throughout the building create security challenges.” JFK is “overdue for a significant renovation. The library facility has some of the same issues that plague the current police department facility.

A
t the April 12, 2022 Vallejo City Council meeting, Interim Assistant City Manager Terrance Davis advised the council, “The costs for moving the library and remodeling its building to accommodate the police department exceed estimated costs for a waterfront station.” That estimated cost is $38.1 million. That would not include the added cost of relocating the library to Mare Island Way.

A
nother option is upgrading the current police facility on Amador Street. The cost is estimated at $59.8 million. That does not include the cost of relocating the City’s corporation yard to provide room for the expansion of the building.
- 9 -
A
third option is using city land or private land to build a station or remodel an existing building from the ground up. According to Davis, that would be an estimated “$56.1 million, plus any additional costs to acquire the land, if necessary.”
T
he fourth option that Davis presented was a $30 million plan to retrofit the Mare Island Way building, which the City purchased for $13.45 million. Initially, the estimated cost for retrofitting the Mare Island Way facility was $10-20 million. The inaction by the city council has only resulted in the continuously increasing cost to establish a new police department facility. The most recent estimate in retrofitting the building has grown to $30-35 million, with modifications which eliminate some of the original plans.

W
hile the debate on the relocation of the Vallejo Police Department continues, most of the police force including the executive offices continues to operate out of the facility on Amador while the CARE facility and a couple of the departments have made their way to the Mare Island building. 4 00 MARE ISLAND WAY FINANCING BUDGET

LINE ITEM BUDGET
Direct Construction $15,300,000
General Contractor
Overhead
$ 2,500,000
Escalation and Design
Contingency
$ 4,700,000
Indirect Costs $ 5,000,000
Construction Subtotal $27,500,000
Construction
Contingency
$ 2,500,000 (8%)
Total $30,000,000
V. F INDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDING 1 – In 2019, the City of Vallejo purchased the former State Farm Insurance building at 400 Mare Island Way specifically for the new location of the Vallejo Police Department. The cost of the move continues to rise as the city continues to delay the move.

RECOMMENDATION 1A – Vallejo City Council take the steps they need to relocate the police department.

RECOMMENDATION 1B – The city seeks and applies for federal and state infrastructure grants to pay for retrofitting the chosen building to meet the needs of the police department.

FINDING 2 –Current police headquarters has deteriorated and is inadequate for the city’s needs.

The building has been neglected for too long. Continually repairing the current facility is not a fiscally responsible policy.
- 10 -
RECOMMENDATION 2A – The city needs to move the police department as soon as possible to a location that will help ensure a well-run police department in Vallejo.

RECOMMENDATION 2B – Since the proposed JFK Library site is not ADA compliant, the city must find a new facility that guarantees access to all.

FINDING 3 –A significant portion of the existing Vallejo Police Department building at 111 Amador is no longer useable because of asbestos and lead contamination. The City is spending thousands of dollars quarterly to pay for testing and cleanup of areas contaminated with asbestos and lead. In addition, after each rain, the building floods and the city has to send in a crew to address water damage as well as the removal of mold.

RECOMMENDATION 3 – Relocate the Vallejo Police Department as promptly as possible.

FINDING 4 – In 2008, the city of Vallejo filed for bankruptcy and cut its police force by about half. The police department is still understaffed. Although the Police Chief has initiated a stronger recruiting effort, the working conditions in the Amador facility prove to be a deterrent to successful recruiting. The current building has been described as “deplorable” by city officials and others who have toured the facility. The Amador Street structure is a deterrent to the department’s ability to attract and hire new employees.

RECOMMENDATION 4A – Relocate the police department to provide a more attractive, healthy working environment, which will enhance recruitment efforts.

RECOMMENDATION 4B – In addition to moving the Police Department to a new building, Vallejo seek funding through federal and state grants to augment the pay for police officers.

FINDING 5 – The Amador building is an inappropriate environment for the CARE Center’s work.

RECOMMENDATION 5 – The CARE Center continue to provide services at the 400 Mare Island Building, where the environment is separate from the business of the police department. It is a trauma-centered, calming environment for victims, primarily children, seeking help.

COMMENTS
T
he general public and those agencies investigating the Vallejo Police Department have continuously called for transparency. Frustrations mount when resistance is encountered: that resistance to providing information has exacerbated the distrust and animosity that some members of the public have toward law enforcement in Vallejo. Unfortunately, the Solano County Civil Grand Jury, while conducting investigations this term, encountered a significant amount of resistance to transparency from the Vallejo City Attorney’s Office.

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Valle
jo Public Works Department Administration (all)
Vallejo City Manager (all)
- 11 -
V
allejo City Council (all)
Vallejo Police Department Administration (all)

COURTESY COPIES
N/
A
RESOLUTION NO. 22-______

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO APPROVING THE CITY MANAGER’S RESPONSE TO THE RESPONSE TO THE 2021-2022 GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED “DELAYS IN RELOCATION OF VALLEJO POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE COSTLY”

AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO FORWARD THE RESPONSE TO THE PRESIDING

JUDGE OF THE SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AND FOREPERSON OF THE SOLANO

COUNTY GRAND JURY
WHEREAS, pursuant to Penal Code section 933, a public agency that receives a Grand Jury Report addressing aspects of the public agency’s operations must comment on the report’s findings and recommendations contained in the report in writing within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court with a copy to the Foreperson of the Grand Jury; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Vallejo has received and reviewed the 2021-2022 Solano County Civil Grand Jury Report released on June 30, 2022, entitled “Delays in Relocation of Vallejo Police Departments are Costly,” and reviewed the City’s prepared response to the Report.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Vallejo approves and authorizes the response to the 2021-2022 Solano County Grand Jury Report entitled “Delays in Relocation of Vallejo Police Departments are Costly,” a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.

Section 2. The City Council of the City of Vallejo directs the City Clerk to forward the City’s Grand Jury Report response to the Presiding Judge of the Solano County Superior Court and to the Foreperson of the Solano County Grand Jury.

ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO at a regular meeting held on September 20, 2022, with the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

ROBERT H. MCCONNELL, MAYOR
DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON, CITY CLERK
September 20, 2022
Honorable Judge Wendy Getty
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
Solano County Superior Court
600 Union Avenue
Fairfield, CA 94533
Sent Via Email: [email protected]
RE: 2021-2022 Grand Jury Report Entitled: Delays in Relocation of Vallejo Police Department Are Costly
Dear Judge Getty:

This letter contains the City of Vallejo’s response to the Solano County Grand Jury Report of June 30, 2022, regarding the relocation of the Vallejo Police Department.

Finding 1: In 2019, the City of Vallejo purchased the former State Farm Insurance building at 400 Mare Island Way specifically for the new location of the Vallejo Police Department. The cost of the move continues to rise as the city continues to delay the move.

Response: Agree, in part. The estimated cost in 2019 to bring the 400 Mare Island building into compliance with current code was $24 million dollars. As of May 2022, the proposed cost of rehabilitating the 400 Mare Island building was estimated to be approximately $30 million dollars. While the costs have risen approximately 25% in 3 years, that increase is not substantially greater than the general inflation rate. Time associated with the planning and financing of any large project is inherently likely to result in increased costs in an inflationary market. As the City has explored alternatives demanded by the public, the JFK Library site has been looked at as an alternative to become the relocated police facility. The cost to renovate the JFK Library site for a relocated police facility is preliminarily estimated to be between $38 million and $53 million dollars depending on the level of desired improvements ultimately determined to be appropriate.

Recommendation 1A: Vallejo City Council take the steps they need to relocate the police department.

Response: Agree in part. Per City Council direction, City staff are currently engaged in ongoing feasibility assessments to determine a new location or a strategy to refurbish an existing facility to meet current police department needs.

Recommendation 1B: The city seeks and applies for federal and state infrastructure grants to pay for retrofitting the chosen building to meet the needs of the police department.

Response: Agree in part. The City continues to seek federal and State grants for infrastructure. However, grant funding specific to facilities has not been readily available, so it is likely that a local funding source will be required.

Finding 2: Current police headquarters has deteriorated and is inadequate for the city’s needs.

The building has been neglected for too long. Continually repairing the current facility is not fiscally responsible policy.

Response: Agree in part. Ongoing facility maintenance is required regardless, until a new location or another alternative is determined.

Recommendation 2 A: The city needs to move the police department as soon as possible to a location that will help ensure a well-run police department in Vallejo.

Response: Agree in part. The City needs to address an improved police facility that meets the current and future needs of the department. However, a determination as to whether such action properly includes a new location or a rehabilitated location has not yet been fully analyzed and no decision has yet been made.

Recommendation 2 B: Since the proposed JFK Library site is not ADA compliant, the city must find a new facility that guarantees access to all.

Response: Disagree. The JFK Library building has two elevators. ADA compliance relating to the Library overall are part of the City’s draft ADA Transition Plan. The West Elevator is fully operational, has been replaced and brought into compliance. The East Elevator is currently being evaluated for compliance issues identified in the draft ADA Transition Plan and is scheduled to be in compliance by December 30, 2022.

Finding 3: A significant portion of the existing Vallejo Police Department building at 111 Amador is no longer useable because of asbestos and lead contamination. The City is spending thousands of dollars quarterly to pay for testing and cleanup of areas contaminated with asbestos and lead. In addition, after each rain, the building floods and the city has to send in a crew to address water damage as well as the removal of mold.

Response: Disagree. Roughly 2000 square feet (roughly 10% of the original facility) constituting the former indoor shooting range is currently closed to employee access with shooting range activities currently occurring offsite. Lead and asbestos abatement and cleaning in those areas was completed and is monitored to ensure employee safety.

Recommendation 3: Relocate the Vallejo Police Department as promptly as possible.

Finding 4:In 2008, the City of Vallejo filed for bankruptcy and cut its police force by about half. The police department is still understaffed. Although the Police Chief has initiated a stronger recruiting effort, the working conditions in the Amador facility prove to be a deterrent to successful recruiting. The current building has been described as “deplorable” by city officials and others who have toured the facility.

The Amador Street structure is a deterrent to the department’s ability to attract and hire new employees.

Response: Agree in part. A new or refurbished modern police facility would certainly be a positive element to support the recruitment and retention of new employees and improve overall morale within the department. However, there are a range of other factors including, compensation, workload, training, diversity and community support that also impact law enforcement recruitment. In addition, there is a nationwide challenge in the ability of local governmental entities to attract and hire new employees. The City is actively working to continue to improve and work to employ strategies to recruit and retain department employees.

Recommendation 4A: Relocate the police department to provide a more attractive, healthy working environment, which will enhance recruitment efforts.

Recommendation 4B: In addition to moving the Police Department to a new building, Vallejo seek funding through federal and state grants to augment the pay for police officers.

Response: Agree, in part. City staff continue to look for grant opportunities to augment staffing. However, in general, federal and State grants are one time moneys that are not reliable for ongoing costs. The is however looking at ways to incentivize recruitment monetarily.

Finding 5:The Amador building is an inappropriate environment for the CARE Center’s work.

Response: Agree. The CARE Center is currently located at 400 Mare Island Way.

Recommendation 5: The CARE Center continue to provide services at the 400 Mare Island Building, where the environment is separate from the business of the police department. It is a trauma-centered, calming environment for victims, primarily children, seeking help.

Response: Agree in part. The City has no immediate plans to move the Care Center. However, depending on the long-term choice for a new or rehabilitated police facility, it may be appropriate to relocate the CARE center at that time.

Please let us know if you have any questions or require further information.

Sincerely,
Michael Malone
City Manager
CONSENT CALENDAR 6.C.

DATE: September 20, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Kyle Long, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY’S RESPONSE TO THE 2021-2022 GRAND JURY REPORT REGARDING EFFECTIVE EMERGENCY

RESPONSE NEEDS CITY AND COUNTY SUPPORT

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the City of Vallejo's response to the 2021-2022 Solano County Grand Jury Report entitled "Effective Emergency Response Needs City and County Support" and authorize the City Clerk to forward said response to the Presiding Judge of the Solano County Superior Court and Foreperson of the Solano County Grand Jury.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is required by law to comment on the City of Vallejo's response to the 2021-2022 Solano County Grand Jury Report. Adopting the resolution approving and authorizing the response and directing the City Clerk to forward it to the Presiding Judge of the Solano County Superior Court and to the Foreperson of the Solano County Grand Jury will satisfy this obligation.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On June 29, 2022, the Solano County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled "Effective Emergency Response Needs City and County Support" (Report). (See Exhibit A hereto.) The Foreperson of the Grand Jury requested the City of Vallejo (and other cities in Solano County identified in the report) provide a written response by September 27, 2022, to be filed with the clerk of the court and forwarded to the State Archivist for retention in perpetuity. The Grand Jury investigated concerns regarding the recent LNU fire (August 2020) and the need for better communication and training throughout the County of Solano. The Grand Jury interviewed various local and county agencies, and reviewed various reports prepared by local, county, and state agencies; newspaper articles; and websites concerning recent fire incidents in California, and the procedures and strategies in place to address fire incidents.

The Grand Jury issued six (6) findings, five (5) of which require written responses from the City of Vallejo agencies.

Those findings are as follow:

Finding 2: The lack of a consolidated digital communication system in Solano County hampers effective firefighting efforts.

Finding 3: Although law enforcement and fire departments throughout the county have been working to establish a JPA to develop a consolidated communications system, there is little support from the county to finalize the efforts.

Finding 4: A county fire department is needed to serve the unincorporated areas of Solano County.

Finding 5: Funding from Proposition 172 has not been equitably distributed within the public safety entities.

Finding 6: Only two agencies in the LNU fire produced after-action reports.

Date: September 20, 2022
Subject: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY’S RESPONSE TO THE 2021-2022 GRAND JURY REPORT REGARDING EFFECTIVE EMERGENCY

RESPONSE NEEDS CITY AND COUNTY SUPPORT

Page 2 ends

The Vallejo City Manager, Fire Chief, and Police Chief have prepared a response to the Report. (See Exhibit B hereto.) If approved, the City Clerk will forward the response to the Presiding Judge of the Solano County Superior Court and an electronic copy to the Foreperson of the Grand Jury, as required by law.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact resulting from or related to this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Grand Jury Report

2. Resolution- Response to Grand Jury Report Effective Emergency Response Needs CAO Stamp

3. Exhibit a to Reso_Grand Jury Response 2021-2022 Effective Emergency Response Needs City and County Support

CONTACT
Kyle Long, Fire Chief (707) 648-4526
[email protected]

2021-2022

Effective Emergency Response Needs City and County Support

- 2 -

Effective Emergency Response Needs City and County
Support
Solano County Civil Grand Jury 2021-2022

I. S
UMMARY

“Chaos!” is how some firefighters described the first hours of the LNU fire (August 2020) as it jumped county lines and began its trek into Solano County. The Solano County Civil Grand Jury learned that the “Chaos” came from various failings as firefighters rushed to stop the inferno’s progress. The problems went from difficulty communicating between the multiple firefighters trying to answer the call to some firefighters turning off their radios.

Communication begins with knowing with whom to communicate and what to communicate.

The question “who are you going to call?” must be peremptory to those responsible for emergency communication. During the LNU fire, first responders did not know with whom to communicate, did not have leadership direction, and did not have crucial communication technology. These failings caused critical agencies to be caught off guard in Solano County. In the extreme and rapidly changing fire conditions, the responders were vulnerable and almost entirely on their own.

Failure of the first responders to set up an incident command post that would have coordinated firefighting efforts exacerbated communication failures. Instead, as one fire chief described it, the first ones on the scene did their own thing and started evacuation efforts. Others complained that they lost two hours of valuable time because no one was in charge (there was no incident command center). To make matters worse, once the emergency was over, the various fire districts met to “debrief.” Some experienced frustration because instead of looking for the issues and finding ways to make sure they were never repeated, the firefighters spent the time congratulating themselves on the fine job they had done. Except for two departments, no others filed after-action reports. Almost every firefighter who spoke to the Civil Grand Jury expressed that there tend to be fiefdoms among the fire districts in Solano County, so when trying to respond to fire incidents, everyone has to tread lightly to avoid offending anyone. The price of such caution is the safety of the community.

II. I

NTRODUCTION

Fires in California have become more frequent and ferocious. California no longer has a fire season—fire is a year -round threat. It has become imperative that all fire districts and departments within our county work together to effectively and efficiently fight the fires and protect Solano County. In light of the ferocity of recent fires in California, the Solano County Civil Grand Jury investigated the procedures taken to protect the county and the lessons learned.

III. M

ETHODOLOGY

Interviewed:

Fairfield Fire Department Administration
Solano County Sheriff’s Office/Office of Emergency Services (OES) Administration

- 3 -

Solano County Information Technology Administration
Solano County Sheriff’s Office Administration
Sonoma County Administration
Vacaville Fire Department Administration
Vacaville Fire Protection District Administration
Vallejo City Administration
Vallejo Fire Department Administration
Vallejo Police Department Administration

Reviewed:

National Emergency Communications Plan (September 2019) After-Action Reports:
 Sonoma County: 2018 Tubbs Fire, 2020 Kincade Fire
 CalFire 2020 LNU Fire
 Solano County EOC 2020 LNU After Action Report and Improvement Plan  Solano County OES 2020 After-Action Report
California legislation:
 California Emergency Services Act
 AB 38 Fire Safety, Defensible Space Inspection (2019)  SB 99 General Plans: safety element: emergency evacuation routes (2019) Joint Exercise of Powers of Agreement for Solano County Regional Radio Communications System Authority (Draft)
Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs) for all cities and Solano County, revised 2022 versions.

LAFCO agendas, minutes, Municipal Service Reviews (MSR), and special reports:
 2014 LAFCO: Solano Fire Districts Municipal Service Review  2020 LAFCO: Fire Special Study (aka Citygate report) of the four Solano Fire Protection Districts
Solano County Board of Supervisors agenda 4/26/22
Solano County Documents:
 Board of Supervisors agendas and minutes
 Recommended and Adopted Budgets, 2021-22
 Fire Prevention Program Grant Applications
 Solano County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans and annexes Solano County Civil Grand Jury Reports and Responses:
 2013 Suisun City Fire Protection District
 2015 Fire Protection: Communication Consolidation
 2015 Solano County Office of Emergency Services
 2016 Cordelia Fire Protection District
 2021 Wildfires on the Horizon, Solano Homes at Risk!
Sonoma County Department of Emergency Management, 2021-22 annual report.

Sonoma County Annual Adopted Budget, 2021-22.

Maps:
 High-fire severity zones in Solano County
 CalFire Districts with State Responsibility Areas (SRAs)  Solano County Fire Prevention District boundaries

- 4 -

 Evacuation Annex, City of Benicia 2019:
 Evacuation zones and incident map, Sonoma County:
www.socoemergency.org/emergency/evacuation-zones
Newspaper Articles:
 https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/sonoma-county-to-overhaul- emergency-management-program-following-wildfires/, August 18, 2018, Press Democrat - Sonoma County to overhaul emergency management program following wildfires
 https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/sonoma-county-residents-confident- in-regions-emergency-preparedness-surve/, August 28, 2021, Press Democrat-- Sonoma County residents confident in region’s emergency preparedness, survey finds
 https://www.wintersexpress.com/city/local-officials-talk-actions-after-lnu-fires- to-improve-emergency-response, December 3, 2020 - Winters Express - Local Officials Talk Actions After LNU Fires to Improve Emergency Response  https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2021/01/18/committee-needs-public-input- for-solano-county-hazard-mitigation-survey/, January 18, 2021 - Times Herald - Committee needs public input for Solano County hazard mitigation survey  https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/fairfield/solano-cities- county-cooperate-to-develop-hazard-mitigation-plan-that-includes-climate- change/comment-page-1/, August 8, 2021 - Daily Republic -Solano cities, county cooperate to develop hazard mitigation plan that includes climate change  https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/fairfield/fairfield-suisun- city-officials-declare-state-of-emergency-due-to-virus-spread/comment-page-1/, March 18, 2020 - Daily Republic -Fairfield, Suisun City officials declare state of emergency due to virus spread
 https://www.thereporter.com/2020/03/25/coronavirus-vacaville-city-council- approves-local-emergency-declaration/
March 25, 2020 - Vacaville Reporter - Coronavirus: Vacaville City Council approves local emergency declaration
Websites
 https://www.alertmedia.com/blog/after-action-report (2019-103.pdf)  https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-bill/800  https://abc7news.com/colorado-fire-big-sur-monterey-county-california- wildfires/11500438/
 https://abc7news.com/colorado-fire-big-sur-monterey-county-california- wildfires/11500438/
 https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/sonoma-county-to-overhaul- emergency-management-program-following-wildfires/
 August 18, 2018, Press Democrat - Sonoma County to overhaul emergency management program following wildfires
 https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/sonoma-county-residents-confident- in-regions-emergency-preparedness-surve/
 August 28, 2021, Press Democrat-- Sonoma County residents confident in region’s emergency preparedness, survey finds

- 5 -

 https://www.wintersexpress.com/city/local-officials-talk-actions-after-lnu-fires- to-improve-emergency-response
 https:www.justiceclearinghouse.com
 https://www.alertmedia.com/blog/after-action-report/
 www.nwcg.gov
 https://haggertyconsulting.com
 https://:Rasmussen.answers.com
 https://sfdem.org
 December 3, 2020 - Winters Express - Local Officials Talk Actions After LNU Fires to Improve Emergency Response
 https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2021/01/18/committee-needs-public-input- for-solano-county-hazard-mitigation-survey/
 January 18, 2021 – Vallejo Times Herald - Committee needs public input for Solano County hazard mitigation survey
 https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/fairfield/solano-cities- county-cooperate-to-develop-hazard-mitigation-plan-that-includes-climate- change/comment-page-1/
 August 8, 2021 - Daily Republic -Solano cities, county cooperate to develop hazard mitigation plan that includes climate change
 https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/fairfield/fairfield-suisun- city-officials-declare-state-of-emergency-due-to-virus-spread/comment-page-1/  March 18, 2020 - Daily Republic -Fairfield, Suisun City officials declare state of emergency due to virus spread
 March 25, 2020 - Vacaville Reporter - Coronavirus: Vacaville City Council approves local emergency declaration
 https://www.thereporter.com/2020/03/25/coronavirus-vacaville-city-council- approves-local-emergency-declaration/

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The most alarming failure during the LNU fire was that an Incident Command Post (ICP) was not established in Solano County immediately after the blaze crossed county borders. According to at least one firefighter, “the first person on the scene of a multi-company incident, no matter what rank, is directed to establish command.”
The ICP, a key feature in the US National Incident
Management System (NIMS), is a standardized approach to emergency response command, control, and coordination and should be set up immediately. It provides a common hierarchy for responders allowing multiple agencies to be more effective. Originally, it was established to address the lack of coordination, communication, planning, and valuable and timely intelligence.

NIMS also enhances the firefighters’ ability to predict and react to fire behavior. Responders to the LNU fire complained that failure to establish an Incident Command Post in a timely fashion wasted approximately two to four hours of valuable time after the fire entered Solano County.

When the Solano County Civil Grand Jury tried to establish who was responsible for setting up the Incident Command Post, two different agencies were mentioned: the Vacaville Fire Protection District and CalFire (which was busy fighting a fire in a nearby county). Firefighters interviewed indicated that although CalFire is usually responsible for setting up the ICP during wildfires, the first fire chief on the scene takes on that responsibility until CalFire can respond.

- 6 -

At approximately 10:30 pm, the Fairfield Fire Department personnel received a warning from the Benicia Fire Department personnel that the fire was coming. Finally, between three to four the next morning, CalFire arrived and established the Incident Command Post.

The use of multiple radio communication systems meant not all responding departments and districts could communicate with each other. Some responders carry up to three radios for communication with various responding agencies. Firefighters who responded to Civil Grand Jury questions indicated that fire departments would benefit from multi-band handsets.

Firefighters identified the ineffective current communication system and the lack of a universal county-wide system as the areas in dire need of improvement before the next disaster. Most of the county emergency services, except for Benicia and Vallejo, still use an analog platform for their communication needs; although there is a digital platform supported by the county for communications. The lack of coordination means that, in some instances, firefighters carry as many as three radios to keep in touch with all first responders involved in an incident. In Vallejo, some emergency responders use digital radios (which align with Contra Costa County) and use iPads and cell phones to avoid jamming communications.

The frequency and ferociousness of the fires that have raged across California for the past decade have emphasized the importance of having the ability to communicate and establish timely command and control at the scene of an emergency. Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 United States Code 101 et seq.), as amended, calls for DHS (Department of Homeland Security) to develop the NECP (National Emergency Communications Plan) in coordination with stakeholders from all levels of government and the private sector. DHS updated the plan in 2014.

To address communication shortfalls, the United States Congress directed the DHS Office of Emergency Communications (in 2018, renamed the Emergency Communications Division) within the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) “to develop and periodically update the NECP.” The second and most recent update (September 2019) of the plan states “numerous after-action reports and national assessments have revealed, there are still communications deficiencies that affect the ability of responders to manage routine incidents and support responses to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other incidents.”

The NECP vision for the future state of emergency communications is:
“To enable the Nation’s emergency response community to communicate and share information securely across communications technologies in real time, including all levels of government, jurisdictions, disciplines, organizations, and citizens impacted by any threats or hazards event.”

It sets six goals for emergency communication:

- 7 -

Goal 1: Governance and Leadership: Develop and maintain effective emergency communications governance and leadership across the Emergency Communications Ecosystem Goal 2: Planning and Procedures: Develop and update comprehensive emergency communications plans and procedures that address the evolution of risks, capabilities, and technologies across the Emergency Communications Ecosystem Goal 3: Training, Exercises, and Evaluation: Develop and deliver training, exercise, and evaluation programs that enhance knowledge and target gaps in all available emergency communications technologies
Goal 4: Communications Coordination: Improve effective coordination of available operable and interoperable public safety communications capabilities for incidents and planned events Goal 5: Technology and Infrastructure: Improve lifecycle management of the systems and equipment that enable emergency responders and public safety officials to share information efficiently and securely
Goal 6: Cybersecurity: Strengthen the cybersecurity posture of the Emergency Communications Ecosystem (National Emergency Communications Plan, September 2019, p. ES-1)

In 2015, Benicia hired a new police chief. When he arrived, he found that Benicia had an obsolete communication system. Officers could not effectively transmit back and forth with dispatch. The elements also affected the system—if the weather was bad, the transmission was worse. The Solano County Law Enforcement Administrators Association agreed to work together to move towards improving the county’s communication system. Benicia and Vallejo (both fire and police) followed Alameda and Contra Costa Counties’ lead and contracted with East Bay Radio Communications System Authority (EBRCSA) and implemented a modern digital communications system.

Three years ago, taking matters into their own hands, fire and law enforcement agencies from all seven cities as well as the Sheriff’s Office began a push to form a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) in Solano County similar to the one in Alameda and Contra Costa County. Benicia took the lead and hired a consultant on behalf of the seven cities and the Sheriff’s Office to conduct a study on the issue of consolidating emergency communications.

On January 1, 2021, Benicia, Dixon, Fairfield, Rio Vista, City of Suisun, Vacaville, Vallejo, and Solano County started the process of forming a Joint Powers of Authority and began drafting a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) specifically to address communication issues within the county.

It proposed a unified county communication system.

The recitals for the JPA draft include: (There was no recital 1. listed)

- 8 -

2. WHEREAS, the Parties have a common powers, under their sovereign and police powers, to plan design, finance, construct, operate, and maintain public safety radio communication systems: and

3. WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that the public interest will be served by the joint exercise of these common powers through this agreement to create a Solano County regional radio communications system to serve all citizens of the Parties; and

4. WHEREAS, the Parties recognize the benefit of a joint effort to develop, implement, and subsequently operate and maintain such a centralized system that coordinates the use of publicly possessed radio channels utilizing a P-25 compliant (or equivalent) communications system; and

5. WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that the SCRRCS (Solano County Regional Radio Communications System Authority) will have regional consequences beyond the geographic boundaries of the Parties which will encourage participation by other governmental agencies and enhance services to their residents; and

6. WHEREAS, the development, operation and maintenance of a centralized system is more efficient, better serves the Parties and citizens of Solano County and bordering regions, and provides an opportunity for the Parties to collectively negotiate future contracts with third-party venders. (Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Solano County Regional Radio Communications System Authority draft 2021 p.1)

The purpose and method of the JPA draft include:

1. acquiring real, personal, and intangible property, and

2. providing hardware, software, services, and other items necessary and appropriate to establish, operate, and maintain a regional/centralized P-25 compliant (or equivalent) communications system for the benefit of the Parties (the “Backbone”); and

3. providing a forum for the Parties and other interested entities to discuss, study, develop and implement recommendations of mutual interest regarding public safety communications operations and related matters; and

4. providing access to the Solano County Regional Radio Communication System (“System”) via license or contract to other governmental and private entities. (Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Solano County Regional Radio Communications System Authority draft 2021 p.3-4)

It should be understood that the JPA examined here is a draft and is subject to change.

Seven years ago, the Solano County Civil Grand Jury filed a report that indicated “Fire communication consolidation will improve public safety.” The report went on to recommend the implementation of a fire communications consolidation to enhance public safety. The Solano County Board of Supervisors response to the recommendation was:

“The Board of Supervisors agrees with the finding. Fire communication consolidation has been shown in other jurisdictions to reduce response times and, if implemented throughout Solano County, would simplify the current fire mutual callout process.”

- 9 -

“The recommendation has not been implemented, but may be in the future. A complete consolidation of fire communications in Solano County will take a commitment and effort on the part of all agencies with fire services. At this time, the independent fire protection districts of Suisun City, Cordelia, Vacaville and Montezuma and the two cities of Dixon and Rio Vista use Solano County dispatch with respect to fire communications. Transitioning the remaining fire agencies (municipalities) to the same consolidated system is feasible, but requires separate operational and independent agency commitments.”

Although the Board of Supervisors agreed with the recommendation and recognized the importance of a consolidated communication system, it did not commit to rectifying the situation. The NECP recognizes that “Communications investments are among the most significant, substantial, and long-lasting capital expenditures that public safety agencies make.” This may account for the Board of Supervisors’ slow implementation of the 2015 Solano County Civil Grand Jury recommendation.

At the April 26, 2022, Solano County Board of Supervisors’ meeting, the County Administrator recommended they “Receive a presentation and provide direction to staff on allocating $1,900,000 in state revenue provided to Solano County for wildfire prevention efforts.” Approximately $1.2 million of that money is earmarked for the “acquisition of radio equipment required for radio interoperability.” It could cost as much as $30 million to convert the county communication systems to one universal system.

Efforts to advise the public during an emergency depended on a proactive population. Solano County has two methods of alerting the public during emergencies: Alert Solano (Everbridge) and Nixle. Unfortunately, the systems were dependent on the public to sign up for the service.

During LNU, much of the effort to alert the public involved individuals going door to door. The county has upgraded its alert system with a wireless emergency alert that goes to all cellphones in a designated area, not just those who have subscribed. Solano County can learn a lesson from Sonoma County, which has developed a multi-pronged process alerting the public during an emergency. Sonoma County’s process also includes pre-training the public on emergency procedures. The process includes organizing neighborhood meetings which include instructions in Spanish. The county also provides kits that outline evacuation routes.

Almost all fire department personnel interviewed felt that the county needs a “county” fire department to better address incidents in unincorporated areas and update leadership. Currently, individual fire protection districts (which depend heavily on volunteers) and CalFire protect the unincorporated areas in Solano County. However, as fires in northern California intensify, the number of fire volunteers is diminishing. During the LNU, CalFire was busy addressing blazes in other parts of Northern California and was spread so thin that it could not immediately respond to the inferno threatening Solano County. Further, the unincorporated area spreads far and wide, stretching from the borders of Vallejo to the far reaches of Rio Vista. The prevailing opinion of firefighters that the Civil Grand Jury interviewed is that a county fire department will resolve some of the problems. They also went on to say that some of the current leadership within the firefighting community refuse to change and accept more modern technology and its advantages in fighting fires.

- 10 -

On November 2, 1993, California voters enacted Proposition 172, which established a permanent one-half-cent sales tax to maintain local public safety functions in cities and counties. According to a November 14, 2021, Daily Republic article, few of the dollars generated by Proposition 172 went towards fire safety. The article continues saying “County-controlled Proposition 172 funds go to the Sheriff’s Office, the District Attorney’s Office and the Probation Department.” The
Civil Grand Jury interviewed fire chiefs throughout the county and they all stated that they did not receive any Proposition 172 funds for fire safety. However, according to the Daily Republic Dixon and Vallejo confirmed that they have used Proposition 172 funds to support their fire departments.

After-action reports are essential tools for reviewing performance and results when an emergency occurs. When the Governor declares a “State of Emergency,” there is a state mandate to submit an after-action report to Cal OES. When multiple entities participate in the incident, as was the case in the LNU fire, each entity plays a role and must be accountable for its part in the incident.

California Code of Regulations, Title 19, section 2450 (a) states “Any city, city and county, or county declaring a local emergency for which the governor proclaims a state of emergency, and any state agency responding to that emergency shall complete and transmit an after-action report to Cal OES within ninety (90) days of the close of the incident period.”

The purpose of an after-action report is to analyze the response to an incident, identify strengths, and identify potential areas of improvement. There are four parts of an after-action report.

1. Planning

2. Preparation

3. Actual Conduct

4. Follow through (the most important part)

It lays out vital details such as how the exercise went, what went well, and areas for improvement. It also suggests a concrete plan for improving the response should another similar incident occur. According to Alert Media (a safety publication used by various agencies and companies), creating an after-action report will allow the entity to identify gaps in response plans, learn from mistakes or oversights, and be better prepared. It also asserts that only after honest discussion, planning and follow-through will things improve for future incidents.

The regulation, cited above, requires any city or county declaring a local emergency to respond with such a report. It is unclear if the regulation requires each city to submit a report if the Solano County Sheriff’s Office/Office of Emergency Services submits a report on their behalf.

Nonetheless, every city fire department and fire district experiences unique challenges during the disaster. Without candid input from each of the entities and critical analysis of their performance, the entities may not be able to identify the areas for improvement. Weaknesses in operations, personnel performance, and deficiencies in leadership during a disaster can be addressed and identified.

- 11 -

Only one of the participating cities or districts in Solano County submitted after-action reports (City of Vacaville). According to the Sheriff’s Office, OES puts the after-action report together for Solano County.

In responding to a question regarding the importance of after-action reports, Vallejo Administration acknowledged that “They are important to address shortfalls.” However, they also stated, “This was not our incident, so we didn’t develop an after-action report.” The Fairfield Fire Department and the Vacaville Fire Protection District made the same response.

After-action reports are tools used to self-examine each entity involved in the incident. Some critical shortcomings may be overlooked without a detailed, internal self-evaluation by each department/district. In response to a question regarding the LNU Fire Debriefing Meeting, one attendee stated, “The sequence of events was discussed. Unfortunately, it was not as open as it could be. They tend to walk softly.” He also stated, “Relationships in the county between the different groups are very volatile.” This type of open forum may not encourage free discussion.

If each entity submits written after-action reports to the post-fire debriefing facilitator, the discussion may become more candid and productive.

V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FINDING 1 – The most dangerous failure during the LNU fire was the failure of the first Chief on the scene to establish an Incident Command Post.

R
ECOMMENDATION 1 –Train all emergency response personnel on the protocol for establishing an Incident Command Post. The Incident Command Post must be established immediately when the danger is detected.

F
INDING 2 – The lack of a consolidated digital communication system in Solano County hampers effective firefighting efforts.

R
ECOMMENDATION 2 – The Board of Supervisors broaden efforts to fund and promote the establishment of a modern digital county-wide emergency communications system.

FINDING 3 – Although law enforcement and fire departments throughout the county have been working to establish a JPA to develop a consolidated communications system, there is little support from the county to finalize the efforts.

RECOMMENDATION 3 –Expedite JPA agreement within the county and develop a plan to move forward.

F
INDING 4 – A county fire department is needed to serve the unincorporated areas of Solano County.

R
ECOMMENDATION 4 – Solano County establish a county-wide fire department to serve the unincorporated areas of Solano County.

- 12 -

FINDING 5 – Funding from Proposition 172 has not been equitably distributed within the public safety entities.

RECOMMENDATION 5 – Board of Supervisors and cities within the county reprioritize the distribution of funds garnered from Proposition 172 ensuring that it is distributed more equitably to include fire safety.

F
INDING 6 – Only two agencies involved in the LNU fire produced after-action reports.

R
ECOMMENDATION 6 – Solano County and cities within the county require all responding emergency agencies using public funding to produce after-action reports.

OMMENTS

Because fires are becoming a part of Northern California’s new normal, there is no time to wait.

Solano County and the cities within the county are out of time and must act now before the next catastrophic incident occurs.

EQUIRED RESPONSES

Solano County Board of Supervisors (2, 3, 4, 5)
Solano County Sheriff (Finding 2, 3, 6)
Benicia City Manager (Finding 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Fairfield City Manager (Finding 5)
Vacaville City Manager (Finding 5)
Vallejo City Manager (Finding 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Fairfield Fire Chief (Finding 2, 3, 4, 6)
Vallejo Fire Chief (Finding 2, 3, 4, 6)
Vacaville Fire Chief (Finding 2, 3, 4, 6)
OES Director (Findings 1, 2, 4, 6)
Vallejo Police Chief (Findings 2)
Solano County Administrator (all)
Vacaville Fire Protection District (Finding 1, 2, 6)
DoIT Director (Finding 2)

OURTESY COPIES
Sonoma Emergency Management Director

RESOLUTION NO. 22-______

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING RESPONSE TO THE 2021-2022 GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED EFFECTIVE

EMERGENCY RESPONSE NEEDS CITY AND COUNTY SUPPORT
WHEREAS, pursuant to Penal Code section 933, a public agency that receives a Grand Jury Report addressing aspects of the public agency’s operations must comment on the report’s findings and recommendations contained in the report in writing within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court with a copy to the Foreperson of the Grand Jury; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Vallejo has received and reviewed the 2021-2022 Solano County Civil Grand Jury Report released on June 29, 2022, entitled “Effective Emergency Response Needs City and County Support,” and prepared a response to the Report.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Vallejo approves and authorizes the response to the 2021-2022 Solano County Grand Jury Report entitled “Effective Emergency Response Needs City and County Support,” a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.

Section 2. The City Council of the City of Vallejo directs the City Clerk to forward the City Council’s Grand Jury Report response to the Presiding Judge of the Solano County Superior Court and to the Foreperson of the Solano County Grand Jury.

ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO at a special meeting held on September 20, 2022, with the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

ROBERT H. MCCONNELL, MAYOR
DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON, CITY CLERK
September 20, 2022
Honorable Wendy G. Getty
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
Solano County Superior Court
600 Union Avenue
Fairfield, CA 94533
Sent Via Email: [email protected]
Re: City of Vallejo Response to 2021-2022 Grand Jury Report Entitled:

Effective Emergency Responses Needs City and County Support Honorable Judge Getty:

This letter contains the City of Vallejo’s response to the Solano County Grand Jury Report of June 24, 2022, regarding emergency response to fires in Solano County.

Finding 2: The lack of a consolidated digital communication system in Solano County hampers effective firefighting efforts.

City Manager’s Response to Finding 2: Agree.

Fire Chief’s Response to Finding 2: Agree.

Police Chief’s Response to Finding 2: Agree.

Recommendation 2:The Board of Supervisors broaden efforts to fund and promote the establishment of a modern digital county-wide emergency communications system.

City Manager’s Response to Recommendation 2: Agree.

Fire Chief’s Response to Recommendation 2: Agree.

Police Chief’s Response to Recommendation 2: Agree
Finding 3: Although law enforcement and fire departments throughout the county have been working to establish a JPA to develop consolidated communications system, there is little support from the county to finalize the efforts.

City Manager’s Response to Finding 3: Agree.

Fire Chief’s Response to Finding 3: Agree.

Recommendation 3: Expedite JPA agreement within the county and develop a plan to move forward.

City Manager’s Response to Recommendation 3: Agree.

Fire Chief’s Response to Recommendation 3: Agree.

Finding 4:A county fire department is needed to serve the unincorporated areas of Solano County.

City Manager’s Response to Finding 4: Agree.

Fire Chief’s Response to Finding 4: Agree.

Recommendation 4: Solano County establish a county-wide fire department to serve the unincorporated areas of Solano County.

City Manager’s Response to Recommendation 4: Agree.

Fire Chief’s Response to Recommendation 4:Agree.

Finding 5: Funding from Proposition 172 has not been equitably distributed within the public safety entities.

City Manager’s Response to Finding 5: Agree.

Recommendation 5: Board of Supervisors and cities within the county reprioritize the distribution of funds garnered from Proposition 172 ensuring that it is distributed more equitably to include fire safety.

City Manager’s Response to Recommendation 5:Agree
Finding 6: Only two agencies involved in the LNU fire produced after-action reports.

City Manager’s Response to Finding 6: Agree.

Fire Chief’s Response to Finding 6: Agree.

Recommendation 6: Solano County and cities within the county require all responding emergency agencies using public funding to produce after-action reports.

City Manager’s Response to Recommendation 6: Agree.

Fire Chief’s Response to Recommendation 6: Agree.

Please let us know if you have any questions or require further information.

Sincerely,
Michael Malone
City Manager
ACTION ITEM 7.A.

DATE: September 20, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Christina Ratcliffe, Planning and Development Services Director SUBJECT: CONDUCT THE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING OF APPEAL OF PLANNING

COMMISSION DENIAL OF MAJOR USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY V-TOWN FARMS LOCATED AT 5184 SONOMA BOULEVARD, SUITE 300

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct the continued public hearing and direct staff to return with findings and a resolution memorializing the Council’s decision on Appeal (APP) #22-0001 to amend Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008 for V-Town Farms at 5184 Sonoma Boulevard, Suite 300.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council continue the public hearing, receive additional information from the applicant and direct staff to return with a resolution memorializing Council’s decision as to: 1: the percentage of frontage transparency (window) area acceptable to the Council and 2: the amount of annual community contribution, as offered by the applicant.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

Original Planning Commission and City Council Action on Application V-Town Farms is one of 11 existing cannabis businesses permitted to operate in the City of Vallejo (“City”). V- Town Farms currently operates a cannabis business with retail sales, and accessory uses of cannabis manufacturing and cannabis distribution. The business operates within a 19,035 square foot portion of the 49,871 square foot building space at 5184 Sonoma Boulevard, Suite 300. The remaining 30,836 square feet of the space is vacant and not permitted to be accessed for any part of the cannabis business operation.

On March 15, 2021, Charles Wesley of Kolaboration Vallejo, LLC obtained Planning Commission approval of Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008 for V-Town Farms by a 5-1 vote.

On March 25, 2021, Max Del Real of Ammericann Development filed Appeal (APP) #21-0004 on behalf of California Collective Care, an existing retail cannabis at 1639 Lewis Brown Drive (Vallejo, CA), requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission approval of Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008.

On May 25, 2021, the City Council held a public hearing in consideration of Appeal (APP) #21-0004. The City Council directed City staff by a 6-0 vote to return on June 7, 2021, with revised conditions of approval addressing issues and concerns that were raised during the public hearing. Councilmember Hakeem Brown recused himself and did not participate in the public hearing due to a conflict of interest.

On June 7, 2021, the City Council denied Appeal (APP) #21-0004 and approved Major Use Permit (UP) #20- 0008 for V-Town Farms by a 4-2 vote. This City Council action included the following conditions of approval:
 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

Date: September 20, 2022
Subject: CONDUCT THE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING OF APPEAL OF PLANNING

COMMISSION DENIAL OF MAJOR USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY V- TOWN FARMS LOCATED AT 5184 SONOMA BOULEVARD, SUITE 300

Page 2 ends

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.  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.

Building Permit Issuance after Original Approval
On July 2, 2021, the City’s Building Division issued Building Permit (BP-2021-0468) permitting the operators of V-Town Farms to begin making tenant improvements for the conversion of the building space into a cannabis business.

The issuance of the building permit was contingent upon the operators of V-Town Farms making a subsequent submittal to address an outstanding development requirement to create a storefront with 60 percent transparency in accordance with the condition of approval above.

This transparency requirement was in the Zoning Code in effect at the time V-Town Farms had a complete application (VMC Section 16.82.060.V.3.e). In addition to being part of the Code at the time, this condition is intended to not only allow visibility into the business, but to enhance the aesthetic of the structure. As the Council may recall, and as evidenced in the Planning Commission and City Council recordings, this was a particularly contentious issue at the hearings, and was discussed thoroughly. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council approved the application with the condition that the façade be altered to have 60 percent transparency.

When the new Zoning Code was adopted, a cut and paste error resulted in this requirement and others not being included in the new Zoning Code. Staff will be bringing this correction, as well as other minor edits to the Planning Commission and then to Council in the next few months. Nevertheless, the application was approved under standards that required it, as well as being a condition of approval.

On July 30, 2021, V-Town Farms received a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) and commenced business operations. The applicant had requested the TCO to allow them to open to the public while waiting for windows, which were delayed due to COVID-19 supply chain issues. The Director allowed the applicant 16 weeks from the issuance of the TCO to install additional windows to achieve the 60 percent transparency requirement.

On October 25, 2021, the applicant sent an email detailing that he wanted to amend both the transparency condition and the community contribution condition.

On October 29, 2021, the TCO expired. Staff continued to work with the applicant on explaining the process and the correct application and fees to be submitted for an amendment request.

On November 23, 2021, the applicant filed an application requesting a formal amendment of the conditions of approval for Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008. The request sought an amendment of Conditions 14 and 40.b as follows:
 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.

Date: September 20, 2022
Subject: CONDUCT THE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING OF APPEAL OF PLANNING

COMMISSION DENIAL OF MAJOR USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY V- TOWN FARMS LOCATED AT 5184 SONOMA BOULEVARD, SUITE 300

Page 3 ends

The applicant is proposing the “revenue” be defined as the total collections less City and State sales and excise taxes.

 Proposed Condition 40.b: As long as the Applicant maintains at least two, armed, security guards on the premises 24 hours a day and seven days per week, the Applicant shall not be required to meet the 60% Transparency Requirement; whether or not the requirement is reinstated in the Code.

On February 23, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in consideration of the request to amend Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008. 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).

On March 3, 2022, Mr. Wesley filed Appeal (APP) #22-0001 requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission denial of the Major Use Permit amendment request.

The City Council held a public hearing on the appeal on May 10, 2022. The arguments for the appeal and staff’s responses are detailed in the Council Staff Report of May 10, 2022 and the minutes. (See Attachment Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.)

At the conclusion of the May 10, 2022 Council meeting, Council directed the applicant to work with staff on a compromise on the issue of the required 60% transparency (windows) for the front of the building. Council also directed the applicant to complete other building permit work that has remained incomplete and to provide the gross sales figures for the time V-Town Farms has been in operation.

60% Frontage Transparency (windows)
Staff had previously determined that the 60% requirement applies only to the retail component, and not the office portion nor the empty space. The 60% transparency was included as a condition of approval by both the Planning Commission and the Council. Staff further believes that the requirement would enhance the aesthetics of the structure. The applicant’s engineer provided a letter to staff stating that the achievement of the 60% transparency would require further study.

Both the Chief Building Official and the Director reached out to the applicant regarding a compromise, such as the ~41% transparency the applicant had previously submitted to the building department. The applicant informed staff it was working on other avenues through the City Manager’s office and did not want to engage in discussion with staff. The City Manager informed the applicant that he needed to work with Planning and Development Services staff.

Hearing nothing further from the applicant, the Director sent an email on August 17, 2022 reminding the applicant of the upcoming Council meeting and to please work with our Chief Building Official on resolving the transparency requirement. The email also reminded the applicant to submit cost estimates, engineer reports, or other information regarding the transparency requirement as soon as possible, if he wanted them considered.

On August 26, 2022, the applicant submitted a floor plan showing two additional interior walls near the entrance to reduce the retail frontage area, office space and “storage (no planned use)” areas. The floor plan submitted was not of sufficient detail to allow staff to verify this calculation. Staff requested a more detailed drawing Date: September 20, 2022
Subject: CONDUCT THE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING OF APPEAL OF PLANNING

COMMISSION DENIAL OF MAJOR USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY V- TOWN FARMS LOCATED AT 5184 SONOMA BOULEVARD, SUITE 300

Page 4 ends

and the applicant stated he did not have one. Nevertheless, the applicant submitted a slightly revised floor plan on September 6, 2022.(Attachment No. 3.) This drawing is not sufficient for staff to approve and appears to violate Building and Fire Codes. The proposal maintains the existing glass doors, resulting in a window frontage area of 32.97%, according to the applicant. No additional windows are proposed.

If the Council determines that no additional windows are required, staff recommends no changes to the existing floor plan, as the additional walls create virtually unusable areas within the building and may not conform to Building and Fire Code.

The applicant has proposed replacing the existing transparency requirement set forth in condition of approval

40.b with the following:

“As long as the Applicant maintains at least two, armed, security guards on the premises 24 hours a day and seven days per week, the Applicant shall not be required to meet the 60% Transparency Requirement; whether or not the requirement is reinstated in the Code.”

If the Council wishes to approve the applicant's proposed revision to the 60% transparency requirement, staff recommends directing the applicant to submit detailed drawings, including elevations, so that staff can review the plans and include them in a Resolution memorializing Council's decision.

Incomplete Building Application Permits
The applicant is still working toward completing building permits that are unrelated to the frontage transparency requirement. On August 26, 2022, the applicant submitted a Work List and evaluation of completed/uncompleted items. (See Attachment No. 4.) Staff does not agree with the applicant's evaluation of the completion status of some of the items. The list of incomplete items and staff’s comments are as follows:

Odor Control: This will be completed when interior walls between V-Town space and other space are extended to the ceiling. This relates to:

Perimeter wall extensions: Applicant states it is approved. As of the writing of this report, the plan review is on-going, and not yet approved.

MEC: Installation of HVAC System: Plans and air balance report have not yet been submitted.

Removal of small trash enclosure from plan: It has not yet been confirmed that this is the responsibility of the neighboring tenant.

60% Transparency Negotiate and Complete: Applicant claims they are waiting for the City to assign a negotiator. The P&DS Director has reached out to the applicant regarding this matter. See discussion above.

Customer Path of Travel: Chief Building Official will confirm on Final Inspection.

GROSS SALES

At the May Council meeting, the Council requested that the applicant provide the gross revenues for V-Town farms. Staff cannot disclose such information publicly due to VMC Section 5.04.225, which states:

5.04.225 Information confidential.

A. The information furnished or secured pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed Date: September 20, 2022
Subject: CONDUCT THE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING OF APPEAL OF PLANNING

COMMISSION DENIAL OF MAJOR USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY V- TOWN FARMS LOCATED AT 5184 SONOMA BOULEVARD, SUITE 300

Page 5 ends

confidential in character, and shall not be subject to public inspection, and shall be kept so that the contents thereof shall not become known except to the person charged with the administration of this chapter.

B. Unless in compliance with judicial order, or as may be required for the proper administration of this chapter, the tax and license collector, his agents and employees shall not divulge facts or information obtained in the administration hereof.

After consulting with the City Attorney's office, staff informed the applicant that he may provide this information, but is not required to do so. The applicant did supply staff with some information regarding V- Town receipts. In reviewing the information and comparing it to what was reported by the applicant when submitting cannabis taxes, staff determined that the figures did not match and that the amount claimed by the applicant on August 26, 2022 for the month of July was less than the Finance Department records. When staff asked for clarification from the applicant as to the discrepancy, the applicant replied:

“When accounting closes the books, they reconcile merchant receipts and cash, and this sometimes results in adjustments to Revenue. The workbook sent by our Treasurer does not contain these reconciliations. It is based solely on POS data.” * POS stands for Point of Sale"

On September 6, 2022, the applicant requested the City to share records and reconciliations with him. Staff recommended that at the September 20th meeting he provide the Council with the gross receipts and staff would be able to confirm the numbers.

Community Contribution
The original Community Contribution, offered by the applicant and memorialized as a condition of approval, was $600,000 annually. The applicant proposed amending that amount to "a minimum of 1% of annual revenue":

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.

At the May 10, 2022 Council meeting, Council member Diaz requested a straw vote and the majority of Council was in agreement to reduce the Community Contribution amount to $300,000 for the first year (July 30, 2021-July 30, 2022), with further adjustments to be discussed when the matter returns to Council.

On August 26, 2022, the applicant provided a list of its donations to non-profit groups. (Attachment No. 5.) The donations total $108,914. Sections of the document were redacted because they contained information staff is not allowed to make public, per VMC 5.04.225 (above). The applicant states that the shortfall will be cured before the end of the second year and proposes committing 1% of revenue annually beginning on year #3 and thereafter.

The modification of the amount of the Community Contribution, as agreed to by the applicant, is at the Council’s discretion. Whatever the decision, staff recommends that the following clarifying language be added:

“The donation is to be based on gross receipts, defined as: the total amount the organization received from all sources during its annual accounting period, without subtracting any costs or expenses.” Staff also recommends that donation receipts be provided to the City each year to ensure compliance with this commitment.

Conclusion:

Date: September 20, 2022
Subject: CONDUCT THE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING OF APPEAL OF PLANNING

COMMISSION DENIAL OF MAJOR USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY V- TOWN FARMS LOCATED AT 5184 SONOMA BOULEVARD, SUITE 300

Page 6 ends

Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to return with appropriate findings and a resolution to memorialize Council action as to: 1: the percentage of frontage transparency (window) area acceptable to the Council and 2: the amount of annual community contribution, as offered by the applicant with the clarifying language.

FISCAL IMPACT
This action will have no foreseeable impact on the City's General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The determination to modify an existing major use permit to operate a retail cannabis business involving no expansion of the existing use is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301, "Existing Facilities." Should the Council choose to deny the appeal, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 2000, et seq. (“CEQA”)), and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.) Section 15270, a project that is denied or rejected is exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Based on Council's direction, staff will return with a resolution that provides the relevant CEQA findings.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Att. #1, 5-10-2022 Staff Report and attachments

2. Att. #2, 5-10-2022 CC Minutes

3. Att. #3, V-Town Modified Floor Plan 9-6-2022

4. Att. #4, V-Town TCO Work List 26aug22

5. Att. #5, V-Town First-Year Donations 26aug22_Redacted by Staff

CONTACT
Christina Ratcliffe, Planning and Development Services Director [email protected] (707) 648-4382
ACTION ITEM 9.C.

DATE: May 10, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Christina Ratcliffe, AICP, Planning and Development Services Director SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF REQUEST TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF MAJOR USE PERMIT #20-0008

AUTHORIZING V-TOWN FARMS TO OPERATE A RETAIL CANNABIS BUSINESS LOCATED AT 5184 SONOMA BOULEVARD, SUITE 300

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct the public hearing and adopt a Resolution denying Appeal (APP) #22-0001, and uphold the Planning Commission denial of a request to amend Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008 for V-Town Farms at 5184 Sonoma Boulevard, Suite 300.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the Major Use Permit amendment request as the appellant has not provided compelling evidence to modify the conditions.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Original Planning Commission and City Council Action on Application V-Town Farms is one of eleven existing cannabis businesses permitted to operate in the City of Vallejo (“City”). V-Town Farms currently operates a cannabis business with retail sales, with accessory uses of cannabis manufacturing and cannabis distribution. The business operates within a 19,035 square foot portion of the 49,871 square foot building space at 5184 Sonoma Boulevard, Suite 300. The remaining 30,836 square feet of the space is vacant and not permitted to be accessed for any part of the cannabis business operation.

On March 15, 2021, by a 5-1 vote, Charles Wesley of Kolaboration Vallejo, LLC obtained Planning Commission approval of Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008 to operate V-Town Farms.

On May 25, 2021, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the appeal. The City Council, by a 6-0 vote, directed City staff to return on June 7, 2021, with revised conditions of approval addressing issues and concerns that were raised during the public hearing. Councilmember Hakeem Brown recused himself and did not participate in the public hearing due to a conflict of interest.

On June 7, 2021, the City Council continued the public hearing, after which it voted 4-2 to deny the appeal (APP) #21-0004 and approve Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008, subject to the following conditions of approval:

 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

Date: May 10, 2022
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF REQUEST TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF MAJOR USE PERMIT #20-0008

AUTHORIZING V-TOWN FARMS TO OPERATE A RETAIL CANNABIS BUSINESS LOCATED AT 5184 SONOMA BOULEVARD, SUITE 300

Page 2 ends

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.

 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.

Building Permit Issuance after Original Approval
On July 2, 2021, the City’s Building Division issued Building Permit (BP-2021-0468) permitting V-Town Farms to begin making tenant improvements for the conversion of the existing building space into a cannabis business. The building permit was made contingent upon V-Town Farms creating a storefront with 60 percent transparency in accordance with the condition of approval above.

The 60 percent transparency requirement was a requirement of the Zoning Code in effect at the time V-Town Farms' application was determined to be complete (former VMC Section 16.82.060.V.3.e). This condition is intended to provide visibility into the business and to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the structure. As the Council may recall, and as evidenced in the Planning Commission and City Council recordings, this was a particularly contentious issue at the hearings, and was discussed thoroughly. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council approved the application with the condition that the façade be required to have 60 percent transparency.

When the new Zoning Code was adopted, an error by the publisher resulted in this requirement (and others) being omitted from the new Code. Staff will be bringing these corrections, as well as other minor edits to the Code, back to the Planning Commission and the Council in the next few months. Nevertheless, Major Use Permit #20-0008 was approved under the then-existing regulations and with this condition of approval.

On July 30, 2021, V-Town Farms received a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy and commenced business operations. V-Town Farms requested the Certificate to allow it to open to the public while waiting for the shipment of additional windows, which it indicated were delayed due to COVID-19 supply chain issues. The Director issued the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a period of 16 weeks to allow for this delay.

On October 25, 2021, Appellant sent an email to the Director indicating that he wanted to amend both the transparency condition and the charitable donation conditions of approval.

On October 29, 2021, the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy expired.

On November 23, 2021, Appellant filed an application requesting a formal amendment of the conditions of approval for Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008. The request sought to amend Condition(s) 14 and 40.b as follows:
 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.

Date: May 10, 2022
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF REQUEST TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF MAJOR USE PERMIT #20-0008

AUTHORIZING V-TOWN FARMS TO OPERATE A RETAIL CANNABIS BUSINESS LOCATED AT 5184 SONOMA BOULEVARD, SUITE 300

Page 3 ends

The applicant is proposing the “revenue” be defined as the total collections, less City and State sales and excise taxes.

On February 23, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request to amend Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008. The Planning Commission, by a 4-3 vote, denied the amendment request (AYES: Commissioners Blind, Bowman, Douglass, and Palmares. NOES: Chair Cohen-Thompson, Vice Chair Stamps, and Commissioner Matulac).

On March 3, 2022, Appellant filed Appeal (APP) #22-0001 requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission denial of the Major Use Permit amendment request.

The arguments for the appeal are detailed below in italics followed by staff’s response in roman font. The appeal request is an exhibit to this staff report and provided in its entirety.

A. 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.

B. 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 its decision.

C. 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; bringing into question the integrity of the Applicant who had earlier stated… “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.

D. 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, it should 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.

Date: May 10, 2022
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF REQUEST TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF MAJOR USE PERMIT #20-0008

AUTHORIZING V-TOWN FARMS TO OPERATE A RETAIL CANNABIS BUSINESS LOCATED AT 5184 SONOMA BOULEVARD, SUITE 300

Page 4 ends

E. Appellant Claim: The Planning Director provided statements to 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.

(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.

(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:

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 and unoccupied spaces are sharing the same air.

Accordingly, the plans for HVAC system does not comply since the since the system is designed only for the V-town tenant space.

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. 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 , 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.

Staff Response: The letter from the appellant’s structural engineer is attached. It states that “all new openings need to be analyzed…” This has not been done. The letter further discusses what actions might be done to achieve the 60% transparency requirement.

G. 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 it want to approve the requested modifications, it could direct staff accordingly and staff would return with a resolution of approval at a later date.

H. Appellant Claim: No other cannabis operator has an annual community benefit contribution, particularly one divorced from the health of the business.

Staff Response: While it is true that no other cannabis operator in Vallejo is required to make an annual Date: May 10, 2022
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF REQUEST TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF MAJOR USE PERMIT #20-0008

AUTHORIZING V-TOWN FARMS TO OPERATE A RETAIL CANNABIS BUSINESS LOCATED AT 5184 SONOMA BOULEVARD, SUITE 300

Page 5 ends

community benefit contribution, the Applicant discussed this with the Council at length and agreed to the contribution being imposed as a condition of approval to the Use Permit.

I. 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.

Staff Response: The transparency requirement was required by the zoning regulations in effect at the time the application was originally submitted. 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 believes that the requirement would enhance the aesthetics of the structure. Staff cannot speak to the Appellant’s assertion regarding future potential property crime, but notes that there is an existing robust security system, including on-site security personnel.

J. 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.

Staff Response: Other than the engineer’s letter (attached), staff has not seen any information from the applicant’s engineer or contractor regarding a structural support system. Staff believes that the transparency requirement is possible, but that there is a cost involved that the appellant does not wish to incur. Staff cannot speak to the appellant’s previous revenue estimate and commitment to donate $600,000 to local nonprofits.

However, the applicant agreed to have this added as a condition of approval to the Use Permit.

Conclusion
Staff notes that under City of Vallejo Code, 7.200, the Local Cannabis Regulatory Permit may be revoked if the business is not in compliance with its Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution denying the appellant’s request to modify the conditions of approval. This would require the appellant to move forward with the 60% transparency condition as well as the $600,000 community benefit donation to local non-profits. However, if the Council believes that a modification of the transparency requirement and/or the community benefit is warranted, Council may direct staff to return with appropriate findings and a resolution reflecting Council’s decision.

FISCAL IMPACT
This action will not have an impact on the City’s General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”)), and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.) Section 15270, a project that is disapproved or rejected is exempt from the requirements of CEQA.

ATTACHMENTS

1. APP22-0001 Appeal Request 2022-03-03

2. MJP21-0001 PC Staff Report 2022-02-23 FINAL
Date: May 10, 2022
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF REQUEST TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF MAJOR USE PERMIT #20-0008

AUTHORIZING V-TOWN FARMS TO OPERATE A RETAIL CANNABIS BUSINESS LOCATED AT 5184 SONOMA BOULEVARD, SUITE 300

Page 6 ends

3. MJP21-0001 PC Resolution 2022-02-23 SIGNATURES REQUIRED

4. MJP21-0001 Application Packet 2021-11-23

5. CC Resolution APP-22-001_CAO Stamp

6. Excerpt Previous Zoning Code 16.82.060.V

7. UP20-0008 Email 2021-06-25 Ratcliffe to C. Wesley (Window Transparency D.._

8. V-Town Farms Storefront Structural Assessment - BASE

9. 5-2-22 email V-Town Farms - May 10th City Council Meeting

10. Vallejo City Council Presentation Attachments 10may22

11. Vallejo City Council Presentation 10may22

CONTACT
Christina Ratcliffe, AICP, Planning and Development Services Director [email protected]

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF VALLEJO

PLANNING COMMISSION

I. PROJECT INFORMATION
DATE OF MEETING: February 23, 2022

Item No. 7-A

PREPARED BY: Jonathan Atkinson, Senior Planner

PROJECT LOCATION: 5184 Sonoma Boulevard: Suite 300
(APN: 0067-150-300)

PROJECT NUMBER: Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008

REQUESTED APPROVAL: Amendment to Major Use Permit
(VMC Section 16.606.02.E.2)

PROJECT SUMMARY: Request to amend Major Use Permit (UP) #20 -0008 conditions of approval for V-Town Farms as it pertains to required 60 percent storefront transparency
improvements and $600,000 annual charitable
donations.

ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:

Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”)), and
the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.) Section 15270, a project that is denied or rejected is exempt from the requirements of CEQA.

RECOMMENDATION:

Hold a public hearing and consider the request to modify the conditions of approval for the Major Use Permit.

Adopt a Resolution to DENY request to amend
conditions of approval.

PROJECT DATA SUMMARY:

Applicant: Charles Wesley
Kolaboration Vallejo, LLC
183 Main Street
Rio Vista, CA 94571

Property Owner: RPJR, LLC and JRMVP, LLC
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90067

General Plan Designation: District – North Gateway (D-N/G)

Specific Plan: None
PC Staff Report – V-Town Farms
February 23, 2022

Page 2 ends

Zoning District: Central Corridor (CC) District

Existing Use: Retail Cannabis Business/Vacant Building Space

Surrounding Land Uses: North: Vacant Land
South: Vacant Building
East: Broadway Street/Railroad
West: Sonoma Boulevard (Highway 29)

Lot Area: 4.29 acres

Total Floor Area: 49,871 square feet (19,035 square feet occupied)

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Background

V-Town Farms is one of 11 existing cannabis businesses permitted to operate in the City of Vallejo (“City”). V-Town Farms currently operates a cannabis business with retail sales, and cannabis manufacturing and cannabis distribution as accessory uses, within a portion of the building space at 5184 Sonoma Boulevard: Suite 300.

On March 15, 2021, Charles Wesley of Kolaboration Vallejo, LLC obtained Planning Commission approval of Major Use Permit (UP) #20- 0008 for V -Town Farms by a 5-1 vote. The Planning Commission hearing video can be accessed HERE.

On March 25, 2021, Max Del Real of Ammericann Development filed Appeal (APP) #21- 0004 on behalf of California Collective Care, an existing retail cannabis at 1639 Lewis Brown Drive (Vallejo, CA), requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission approval of Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008.

On June 7, 2021, the City Council denied Appeal (APP) #21- 0004 and approved Major Use Permit (UP) #20- 0008 for V -Town Farms by a 4-2 vote. The City Council hearing video can be accessed HERE.

This City Council action included the following conditions of approval that are the amendment request:

• 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 PC Staff Report – V-Town Farms
February 23, 2022

Page 3 ends

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.

• 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.

The existing City Council District map can be accessed for reference purposes HERE.

On July 2, 2021, the City’s Building Division issued Building Permit (BP -2021-0468) permitting the operators of V -Town Farms to begin making tenant improvements for the conversion of the building space into a cannabis business. The issuance of the building permit was contingent upon the operators of V -Town Farms making a subsequent submittal to address an outstanding development requirement to create a storefront with 60 percent transparency in accordance with the condition of approval above.

This transparency requirement was in the Zoning Code in effect at the time V-Town Farms had a complete application (VMC Section 16.82.060.V .3.e). This is intended to not only allow visibility into the business, but to enhance the aesthetic of the structure. As the Planning Commission may recall, and as evidenced in the Planning Commission and City Council recordings, this was a particularly contentious issue at the hearings, and was discussed thoroughly. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council approved the application with the condition that the façade be altered to have 60 percent transparency.

When the new Zoning Code was adopted, a cut and paste error resulted in this requirement and others not being included in the new Zoning Code. Staff will be bringing this correction, as well as other mi nor edits to the Planning Commission in the next few months. Nevertheless, the application was approved under standards that required it, as well as being a condition of approval.

On July 30, 2021, V-Town Farms received a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCOO) and commenced business operations. The applicant had requested the TCOO to allow them to open to the public while waiting for windows, which were delayed due to COVID- 19 supply chain issues. The Director, allowed the applicant 16 weeks from the issuance of the TCOO to install additional windows to achieve the 60 percent transparency requirement.

On October 25, 2021, the applicant sent an email detailing that he wanted to amend both the transparency condition and the charitable donation condition.

On October 29, 2021, the T COO expired. Staff continued to work with the a pplicant on explaining the process and the correct application and fees to be submitted for an amendment request.

On November 23, 2021, applicant filed an application requesting a formal amendment of the conditions of approval for Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008.

PC Staff Report – V-Town Farms
February 23, 2022

Page 4 ends

B. Location and Land Use Context

The project site is one of three parcels that comprise Meadows Plaza, a commercial shopping center located on approximately 17.75 acres of land in North Vallejo. The following existing developments and land uses surround the project site: undeveloped land is located to the north; Broadway Street is located to the east with a railroad and single- family residences on the other side of the street; two vacant buildings that are part of Meadows Plaza are located to the south; and Sonoma Boulevard (Highway 29) is located to the west. The 4.29- acre project site is characterized by one commercial building with multiple tenant spaces, a surface parking lot, and mature landscaping. Meadows Plaza was formerly home to Walmart (closed in 2007) and Food 4 Less (closed in 2016) and had been largely vacant until V -Town Farms commenced business operations there in 2021.

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map

V-Town Farms is a cannabis business with retail sales, and cannabis manufacturing and cannabis distribution as accessory uses . The cannabis business occupies a 19,035 square foot portion of the existing 49,871 square foot building space . The remaining 30,836 square feet of the building space is vacant and not permitted to be accessed for any part of the cannabis business operation. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the floor area by use. The primary use is the retail sale of cannabis products. Ca nnabis manufacturing involves non-volatile processes to manufacture infused pre- rolls, flowers, and cannabis beverages. Cannabis distribution involves the packaging and shipment of cannabis products, including those manufactured on the premises. Cannabis cultivation is not part of the business operation, nor is it permitted at this loc ation. The permitted hours of operation are 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., seven days a week.

Meadows Drive

PC Staff Report – V-Town Farms
February 23, 2022

Page 5 ends

Table 2 – Breakdown of Building Space Floor Area

Use Area
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
Office and Restroom Areas 810 square feet
Unoccupied Space 30,836 square feet

C. Request for Amendment

The applicant is requesting to amend the following conditions of approval:
• 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.

The applicant’s proposed amendments are as follows:
• 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 the “revenue” be defined as the total collections less City and State sales and excise taxes.

• Proposed Condition 40.b: As long as the Applicant maintains at least two, armed, security guards on the premises 24 hours a day and seven days per week, the Applicant shall not be required to meet the 60% Transparency Requirement; whether or not the requirement is reinstated in the Code.

The applicant cites a collection of reasons as rationale for the amendments in a written request (attached to this staff report for reference).

The reasons are summarized below:

$600,000 Annual Charitable Donation Condition

• The Applicant spent $65,000 in litigation defending the City.

PC Staff Report – V-Town Farms
February 23, 2022

Page 6 ends

• The cannabis market has changed since V-Town Farms agreed to pay the $600,000 annually and sales revenue does not financially justify a charitable donation of this amount.
• No other cannabis operators in Vallejo are required to make charitable donations; putting V-Town Farms at a disadvantage.
• One percent of sales revenue as a charitable donation is V -Town Farms’ practice in Rio Vista (Rio Vista Farms) and Antioch (Coco Farms).
60 Percent Transparency Requirement
• Requiring V-Town Farms to make additional storefront improvements to achieve 60 percent transparency creates security risks.
• There is no aesthetic value to achieving 60 percent transparency at V-Town Farms. • The costs to make additional storefront improvements for 60 percent window transparency would result in employee furloughs.
• The 60 percent transparency requirement for retail cannabis businesses is no longer in the zoning code and existing transparency requirements do not apply to the existing building space.

In response, staff notes that every applicant of a discretionary permit is required to indemnify the City in the event there is legal action resulting from the decision. Staff notes that Mr. Wesley volunteered to contribute $600,000 annually to the community during the appeal hearing, which the offer was accepted by the City Council.

The 60 percent transparency requirement was discussed at length at the Planning Commission and the City Council meetings. The storefront transparency requirement is imposed not only for safety, but to enhance the aesthetic of the existing building. Staff believes the threat of employee furloughs related to the cost of required building improvements is a specious argument.

D. Discussion

Use Permits are intended to allow for activities and uses that may not be appropriate for all locations and whose effect on the surrounding environment cannot be determined prior to being proposed for a particular location. Uses requiring a Use Permit may not be appropriate without specific conditions being applied that eliminate or minimize any negative impacts caused by the us e. The project site is a building space that is partially occupied by V -Town Farms and located in the Meadows Plaza shopping center. The cannabis business is principally retail in operation and is compatible with uses typical of a shopping center, such as commercial shops, services, offices, and restaurants. The cannabis business is subject to Vallejo Municipal Code and State requirements as well as Use Permit conditions added to ensure that the operation does not result in an adverse effect on the surrounding area.

The purpose of this amendment request is to amend two of the original conditions of approval for Major Use Permit (UP) #20 -0008: (1) r equired charitable donations to nonprofits and schools in District 2 of one percent of annual revenue instead of $600,000 annually; and (2) the posting of two onsite security guards 24 hours a day, seven days a week instead of making storefront improvements to achieve 60 percent transparency.

PC Staff Report – V-Town Farms
February 23, 2022

Page 7 ends

Charitable Donations

No other Vallejo cannabis businesses are subject to this condition. However, the operators of V-Town Farms offered to pay $600,000 annually, and this fact was taken into consideration when the City Council heard public testimony, evaluated the application and chose to deny the Appeal and grant the Major Use Permit for V -Town Farms. Staff does not believe that modifying this condition of approval would be in keeping with the intent of the City Council’s action.

Windows on 60 percent of Front Façade Condition

The requirement to achieve 60 percent transparency was not only a condition of the Major Use Permit but a zoning c ode requirement for retail sales of cannabis uses under VMC Section 16.82.060.V.3.e in effect at the time of the approval. After the Maj or Use Permit was granted, the applicant requested a TCOO to move i nto the building space before installing the windows due to supply chain delays. Staff is aware that COVID -19-related supply chain delays have greatly increased the wait time for windows for many of our applicants, and in an effort to work with the applicant, the Director approved a TCOO for 16 weeks.

After moving into the building space, the applicant raised the issue that the building space would not structurally support the added storefront improvements, which in fact was disputed by the structural eng ineer’s report. The applicant is now contesting that compliance with this requirement would be cost -prohibitive and result in employee furloughs. Cost concerns with development and personnel matters for a private business are inappropriate considerations for determination of a land use entitlement.

Other Conditions of Approval Issues

The City Council added as Condition 10 to the Use Permit the requirement to engage in robust community outreach. Staff secured a consultant for this work but the applicant did not provide the funding despite numerous written requests until February 15, 2022; hence this condition of approval has not yet been met. Staff will work with the applicant and consultant to begin the required outreach by March 15, 2022.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 2000, et seq. (“CEQA”)), and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.) Section 15270, a project that is denied or rejected is exempt from the requirements of CEQA.

IV. NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Planning Division provided the following notifications in accordance with Vallejo Municipal Code Section 16.602.08 on February 9, 2022: Published a public notice in the Times Herald newspaper. Mailed notices to every property owner and neighborhood group within 500 feet of the project site and applicant through the United States Postal Service. The Casa Del Monte Homeowners Association is the only identified neighborhood group within 500 feet of the project site for the purposes of project notifications. Posted a notice on the front elevation of the cannabis business. Emailed a PDF copy of the notice to the Planning Commission on PC Staff Report – V-Town Farms
February 23, 2022

Page 8 ends

February 9, 2022. Staff has not received any communications in regard to the application as of writing this staff report.

V. CONCLUSION / STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution to DENY the requested amendments to (U P) #2 0-0008 based on the analysis contained in this staff report and findings provided in the attached Resolution . A denial would mean that the business would continue to be subject to the original conditions of approval imposed by the City Council.

These include (1) $600,000 in annual charitable donations and ( 2) the required 60 percent transparency of the storefront as conditioned by the City Council.

Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the applicant’s request to amend Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008, staff requests that the Planning Commission provide direction to assist in the drafting of findings for approval. Staff would then return with a Resolution and conditions of approval

VI. APPEAL PROCEDURE
The Applicant or any party aggrieved by a determination of the Planning Commission may appeal the action to the City Council. Such appeal must be filed in writing with the Planning Division along with a fee payment of $1,328 within ten (10) calendar days after the action by the Planning Commission. Such appeal shall not be timely filed unless it is received by the Planning Division no later than the close of business on the tenth day following the decision of the Planning Commission. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify any decision of the Planning Commission that is appealed. The City Council may summarily reject any appeal upon determination that the appellant is not adversely affected by a decision under appeal.

Under VMC Section 16.602.14.E, a member of the City Council may also call the decision of the Planning Commission for review within the appeal period. The call for review shall be processed in the same manner as an appeal by any other person. Such action shall stay all proceedings in the same manner as the filing of an appeal. Such action shall not require any statement of reasons and shall not represent opposition to or support of an application or appeal.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Request for Amendment

3. City Council Resolution No. 21-059
• Exhibit A: Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008 Conditions of Approval

4. Approved Plans

5. VMC Development Standards (Cannabis)

6. Written Communications (City Staff and Applicant)

CITY OF VALLEJO PLANNING COMMISION

RESOLUTION

A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST TO AMEND MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP) #20-0008 ISSUED TO V-TOWN FARMS, AN EXISTING CANNABIS BUSINESS,

WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING SPACE IN MEADOWS PLAZA
MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP) #20-0008
5184 SONOMA BOULEVARD: SUITE 300
APN #0067-150-300

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

WHEREAS, on June 7, 2021, the City Council of the City of Vallejo (“City”) approved Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008, which established retail cannabis sales with cannabis manufacturing and cannabis distribution, as accessory uses within an existing building space on property located at 5184 Sonoma Boulevard: Suite 300; and

WHEREAS, on November 23, 2021, Chuck Wesley (“the applicant”) of Kolaboration Vallejo, LLC, filed an application to amend conditions of approval for Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008 (the “project”); and

WHEREAS, on February 23, 2022, after giving all public notices required by State law and the City of Vallejo Municipal Code, the City of Vallejo Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project; and

WHEREAS, the record of proceedings (“record”) upon which the Planning Commission bases its decision on the project at issue herein, includes, but is not limited to: (1) the environmental determination (statutory exemption) for the project; (2) the staff reports, City files and records and other documents, prepared for and/or submitted to the City relating to the project; (3) the evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this resolution; (4) the City of Vallejo General Plan and its related EIR; (5) the Vallejo Municipal Code and its related environmental documents; (6) all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted to the City in connection with the project; (7) all documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings, and hearings regarding the project; (8) all other matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission including, but not limited to, City, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the City of Vallejo and its surrounding areas.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered testimony and evidence, both written and oral, provided at the public hearing, as well as other documents contained in the record of proceedings relating to the project, which are maintained in the offices of the City of Vallejo Planning Division; and

Resolution for V-Town Farms

NOW THEREFORE, based on the record, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:

I. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

II. FINDINGS RELEVANT TO THE DENIAL OF A REQUEST TO AMEND MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP) #20-0008:

A. The applicant offered to pay the $600,000 community benefit annually. The City Council added it as a condition of approval, to which the applicant agreed. This monetary benefit to the City was taken into consideration when the City Council chose to grant the Major Use Permit for V-Town Farms.

B. The required storefront improvements to achieve 60 percent transparency was not only made a condition of the Major Use Permit but was a zoning code requirement for retail sales of cannabis uses under VMC Section

16.82.060.V.3.e in effect at the time of approval. The applicant requested a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to move into the building space without installing the additional windows to allow more time to order and receive the windows.

COVID-19-related supply chain delays have greatly increased the wait time for windows for many applicants, as staff is aware. In an effort to work with the applicant, the Director approved a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for 16 weeks to allow the applicant to open for business while working on ordering the windows. The applicant then decided that he did not want to install windows and wanted to remove that condition of approval.

C. The transparency requirement is not exclusively for safety, but to enhance the aesthetics of the existing building. The façade of the existing building is concrete masonry with minimal fenestration. Both the Planning Commission, and later the City Council on appeal, chose to grant the Major Use Permit with the understanding that the building would undergo façade enhancements through the installation of additional storefront windows.

III. RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP) #20-0008 FOR V-TOWN FARMS AT 5184 SONOMA BOULEVARD: SUITE 300:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby DENIES the request to amend Major Use Permit (UP) #20-0008 for V-Town Farms, a retail cannabis sales use with cannabis manufacturing and cannabis distribution, as accessory uses, based on the findings contained herein.

Resolution for V-Town Farms

IV. VOTE:

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Vallejo, State of California, on the 23rd day of February 2022 by the following vote to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

________________________________________

PEGGY COHEN-THOMPSON, CHAIRPERSON
City of Vallejo Planning Commission

Attest:

________________________________________

MARGARET KAVANAUGH-LYNCH, SECRETARY
City of Vallejo Planning Commission

DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 RESOLUTION NO. 21-059 N.C.

DENYING APPEAL (APP) #21-0004, UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP) #20-0008, AND APPROVING MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP) #20· 0008 TO ESTABLISH RETAIL CANNABIS SALES FORV-TOWN FARMS WITH CANNABIS

MANUFACTURING AND CANNABIS DISTRIBUTION AS ACCESSORY USES WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING SPACE IN MEADOWS PLAZA.
5184 SONOMA BOULEVARD: SUITE 300
APN #0067-150-300
*************************
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2017, the City Council adopted General Plan 2040; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2020, Chuck Wesley of Kolaboration Vallejo, LLC, filed a Major Use Permit application to establish retail cannabis sales with cannabis manufacturing and cannabis distribution as accessory uses ("project") within an existing building space on property located at 5184 Sonoma Boulevard: Suite 300 ("project site"); and
WHEREAS, the project site has a General Plan 2040 land use designation of District - North Gateway; and
WHEREAS, the project site has an interim zoning designation of Pedestrian Shopping and Service (CP), is identified as Planned Development Commercial (PDC) District pursuant to the existing zoning code, and will be zoned Central Corridor Commercial (CC) District under the new zoning code; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2021, after giving all public notices required by State law and the City of Vallejo Municipal Code, the City of Vallejo Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and approved the project; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2021, the Planning Division received an appeal from California Collective Care, requesting that the City Council overturn the Major Use Permit approval; and WHEREAS, the Record of Proceedings ("Record") upon which the City Council bases its decision on the project at issue herein, includes, but is not limited to: (1) the environmental document (categorical exemption) prepared for the project and the appendices and technical reports cited in and/or relied upon in preparing same; (2) the staff reports, City files and records and other documents, prepared for and/or submitted to the City relating to the environmental document and the project; (3) the evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this resolution; (4) the City of Vallejo General Plan and its related EIR; (5) the Vallejo Municipal Code and its related environmental documents; (6) all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted to the City in connection with the environmental document and the project; (7) all documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings, and hearings regarding the environmental document(s) and the project; (8) all other matters of common knowledge to the City Council including, but not limited to, City, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the City of Vallejo and its surrounding areas; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF -439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 WHEREAS, on May 25, 2021, the City Council considered testimony and evidence, both written and oral, provided at the public hearing, as well as other documents contained in the record of proceedings relating to the project, which are maintained in the offices of the City of Vallejo Planning Division; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2021, the City Council continued the public hearing to June 7, 2021; and NOW THEREFORE, based on the Record, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:

I. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING :

Based on the fact that the project involves the reuse of an existing building with a retail cannabis use with minor building and site alterations, the City Council finds that approval and implementation of the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000, et seq. (Guidelines) pursuant to Guidelines Section 15301 ("Existing Facilities").

FACTS IN SUPPORT: The project is proposed to be located within an existing shopping center, Meadows Plaza, in an existing building space formerly occupied by Food 4 Less.

The project is not proposing expansion of the existing building space but rather involves only reoccupation of the space, interior and exterior alterations involving such things as interior partition walls, plumbing and electrical, painting and installation of windows consistent with the examples set forth in Guidelines Section 15301 (a).

None of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply, as follows :
(a) the site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, FACTS IN SUPPORT: The project site is located in an existing building space in an existing operating shopping center, as noted above.
(b) there are no cumulative impacts,
FACTS IN SUPPORT: The project site is located in an existing building space in an existing operating shopping center and replaces a previous retail use, as noted above. (c) there are no significant effects due to unusual circumstances, FACTS IN SUPPORT: The project site is located in a tenant space in an existing operating shopping center and replaces a previous retail use, as noted above. (d) the project is not located near a scenic highway,
FACTS IN SUPPORT: There are no designated scenic highways in the City of Vallejo or otherwise near the project site.
(e) the project site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5,
Resolution for V-Town Fanns
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-4398-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78871 FACTS IN SUPPORT: Planning Division staff checked the list of sites prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65962. 5 and verified that the project site is not located thereon. (f) the project would not affect any historical resource. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: There are no historical resources located on the project site. The project site is located within and existing shopping center.

11. FINDINGS RELEVANT TO THE DENIAL OF THE APPEAL
A. Appellant Claim: The proposed retail cannabis dispensary is too large and will invite crime.

According to the [Planning Commission] Staff Report, the proposed retail sales "will occupy 17,056 square feet of the floor area." Most licensed retail dispensaries in the State of California occupy no more than 2,000-5,000 SF. A "weed super store" in the City of Vallejo will attract unwanted crime. *REASON FOR APPEAL: The Applicant failed to conduct a "public Safety Impact Study" regarding the potential adverse effects of a "weed super store" at this location which could harm surrounding businesses and local residents.

Additionally, the Vallejo Police Department did not participate in the Planning Commission hearing and has been mute on this issue to date.

Staff Response:

All retail cannabis businesses in Vallejo are required to maintain a confidential written security plan regardless of the size and intensity of the operation. The Vallejo Police Department reviewed the Use Permit application and written security plan for V-Town Farms, and did not raise any concerns. The retail cannabis business will employ uniformed security guard(s), as proposed and required, and utilize surveillance technology, as part of its operation. Meadows Plaza has been largely vacant since losing Walmart in 2007 and Food 4 Less in 2016. The introduction of an active retail cannabis business with both uniformed security and security cameras can improve security in the shopping center with the additional surveillance serving as a potential deterrent. No substantial evidence has been submitted that shows a tie between the square footage of a retail cannabis operation and the amount or nature of crime associated therewith. The stated subjective fears do not rise to the level of substantial evidence.

Accordingly, the City Council finds that Appellant's claim ·~"is without merit.

B. Appellant Claim: The proposed location does not reflect the spirit and intent of the City's General Plan.

The City's General Plan 2040 does not support "cannabis use" and/or its related business at the proposed location at 5184 Sonoma Blvd., Suite 300. The D-NG zoning designation does not support a 17,000 SF "weed super store." Resolution for V-Town Farms
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 Staff Response: V-Town Farms is consistent with the General Plan 2040 designation of District - North Gateway (D-NG). General Plan 2040 describes the D-NG designation as follows:

The D-NG designation applies to the northern portion of the area north of SR 37 between Sonoma Boulevard and Broadway Street, a highly-visible area that seNes as a gateway to Napa Valley from SR 37 (heading north) and to Vallejo from American Canyon (heading south). It is intended to foster an integrated, pedestrian-oriented place with a mix of uses, such as retail, dining, entertainment, and lodging, that cater to both motorists passing through and surrounding neighborhoods. It also incorporates higher-density residential development that supports nearby seNices and activates the area. The maximum permitted FAR in the D-NG designation is 2.0, with a minimum residential density of 30 dwelling units per acre up to 50 dwelling units per acre.

A retail cannabis business in the North Gateway District is allowable pursuant to General Plan 2040. This use contributes to the diversity of uses that are envisioned for the North Gateway District. Retail cannabis sales is also a use that will seNe both local residents and motorists passing through Vallejo. V-Town Farms would be particularly well-suited to attract both local residents and motorists with its high visibility from Sonoma Boulevard (Highway 29) and Broadway. An analysis of the project's consistency with General Plan 2040's Guiding Principles and Policies is contained in the Planning Staff report from March 15, 2021, which is attached hereto as Attachment 2 and incorporated herein by reference.

The project site is identified as Planned Development Commercial (PDC) District on the City's existing zoning map. The planned development for the project site permits retail uses but does not specifically mention cannabis use since at the time of the adoption of the planned development for Meadows Plaza, cannabis was not a legally permitted use.

On August 29, 2017, the City Council established the Interim Zoning Policy (IZP) to facilitate development and guide zoning interpretations from the adoption of General Plan 2040 to the adoption of the new zoning code. Under the IZP, each General Plan 2040 land use designation correlates to the City's existing zoning districts and specific plans for the purposes of applying land use and development standards to a proposal. The project site's General Plan 2040 designation of District- North Gateway (D-NG) correlates to the following zoning districts under the IZP: Pedestrian Shopping and SeNice (GP) District and High Density Residential (HOR) District.

The GP District is the "best fit" zoning designation authorized under the IZP because the project site is located within a commercial shopping center that can accommodate a variety of uses, including a retail cannabis business. In addition, the proposed zoning of the project site in the new zoning code is Central Corridor Commercial (CC) District, which would also allow retail cannabis sales with a Minor Use Permit.

Under the IZP, in situations where the proposed use is permitted by General Plan 2040, but not clearly addressed in the existing zoning designation, the applicant may apply for a Major Use Permit to allow the use. Thus Staff required a Major Use Permit application for this project.

The process of a Major Use Permit in the present case is the strictest applicable process under the IZP. The Major Use Permit may be granted under the IZP provided the use is Resolution for V-Town Fanns
OocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-4398-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78871 consistent with General Plan 2040 and subject to the following findings under Section 6 of the IZP:

1. The proposal is appropriate in consideration of the characteristics of the surrounding area.

2. The proposal is consistent with the intent and desired character of the relevant land use designations(s) of General Plan 2040 and any associated General Plan policies.

3. The proposal will clearly promote implementation of General Plan 2040.

4. The proposal conforms to the zoning ordinance requirements of the applicable or "best fit" zoning district.

The project is a retail use proposed to occupy a portion of an existing building that was used as a retail use. The improvements to the site and building fayade and the conditions under which the store will operate, including security, air filters and hours of operation are appropriate for a retail use in an existing shopping center.

The proposal is for a retail use, which is consistent with the intent and land use designation of D-NG, and as such will promote the implementation of General Plan 2040.

The proposal conforms to the IZP "best fit" zoning of GP. In addition, the project site is proposed to be zoned CC District under the new zoning code. Retail cannabis sales uses will be permitted in the CC District with the issuance of a Minor Use Permit. City staff has applied the most restrictive zoning and required the applicant to obtain a Major Use Permit in the present case.

Accordingly, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan 2040 designation of District - North Gateway (D-NG).

General Plan 2040 Guiding Principles
• Guiding Principle 13. Good Jobs, Education & Training. Vallejo provides people with good jobs and its young people with job training and the education they need to succeed. Vallejo embraces innovations in education, and the City's excellent educational institutions and trade schools play a prominent role in its economic vitality and community life.
• Guiding Principle 14. Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Successful Local Businesses.

Vallejo welcomes innovative businesses and fosters entrepreneurship. It is a community that capitalizes on new technologies, community assets, and local knowledge - while helping local businesses to succeed.
• Guiding Principle 15. Economic Development Aligned with Natural Environment.

Vallejo values economic development and aligns well-designed projects with the protection and enhancement of environmental resources. It is a community where sustainable development is efficiently processed and provides broad benefits that serve community needs and enhance the quality of life.
• Guiding Principle 16. Stable, Strong & Diverse Economy. Vallejo is characterized by fiscal stability; a strong, diverse economy, including health care, education, and manufacturing; and efficient use of its lands and waterways. Vallejo's unique setting, community character, and favorable weather are major resources for economic expansion, including tourism and entertainment.

Resolution for V-Town Fanns
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 The project brings good jobs to Vallejo with an innovative business that results in the adaptive reuse of a vacant building and site. Specifically, these are jobs that will provide training and experience in an industry that is expanding throughout California. The project balances economic development with the natural environment in that it will result in the reuse of a vacant building on an infill site, and not disturb natural resources. Lastly, the project contributes to the diverse economy of Vallejo, while also drawing customers from both inside and outside of Vallejo. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan 2040 Guiding Principles 13, 14, 15, and 16.

General Plan 2040 Policies
• Policy NBE-2.8 Infill Development. Promote infill development and target vacant and underutilized sites for community-desired and enhancing uses that are compatible with surrounding uses.

The project site is a vacant building space in a commercial shopping center that has largely sat vacant for several years. Reuse of this underutilized building with a retail use that serves both local and regional customers and provides good jobs will enhance the economy of the area and Vallejo. The cannabis business will be subject to a collection of specific requirements, including the addition of new windows, to ensure it does not create any potential adverse impacts. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan 2040 Policy NBE-2.8.
• Policy NBE-3.8 North Gateway. Accelerate Investment in the North Gateway area to achieve a mixed-use district that caters to both locals and regional travelers to Napa Valley.

Establishment of an active retail cannabis business at 5184 Sonoma Boulevard will help accelerate investment in the North Gateway, particularly Meadows Plaza, which has been largely vacant for years. The retail cannabis business can help draw customers from within and outside of Vallejo to Meadows Plaza for which existing businesses may benefit.

Furthermore, new businesses may be encouraged to fill the vacant tenant spaces.

Accordingly, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan 2040 Policy NBE-3. 8.
• Policy NBE-3.14 Neighborhood Corridors. Connect the community with mixed-use corridors that function as neighborhood main streets for adjacent residential areas.

The establishment of a retail cannabis business contributes to the mix of uses along the Sonoma Boulevard corridor between Highway 29 and Mini Drive. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan 2040 Policy NBE-3.14. • Policy NBE-5.13 Noise Control. Ensure that noise does not affect quality of life in the community.

All of the activities of the retail cannabis business, including the cannabis manufacturing and cannabis distribution accessory uses, will occur indoors and away from sensitive uses, such as residences. Furthermore, the retail cannabis business will be subject to noise-reduction requirements, as operational conditions. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan 2040 Policy NBE-5. 13.

Resolution for V-Town Farms
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 • Policy EET-2.1 Economic Diversification. Attract employment and tax generating businesses that support the economic diversity of the City.

The retail cannabis business contributes to the vibrancy of the Sonoma Boulevard and Broadway corridors because it provides both employment and retail opportunities. The cannabis business is an economically vibrant use that can also draw customers into the area to the potential economic benefit of nearby businesses. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan 2040 Policy EET-2. 1. • Policy EET-3.4 Commercial and Neighborhood Corridors. Enhance commercial corridors to create a vibrant mix of places to live, work, shop, and play.

The operation of the cannabis business contributes to the vibrancy of the Sonoma Boulevard and Broadway corridors because it provides both employment and retail opportunities. The cannabis business is an economically vibrant use that can also draw customers into the area to the potential economic benefit of nearby businesses. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan 2040 Policy EET-3.4.

Accordingly, for all of the reasons stated above, the City Council finds that Appellant's claim "B" is without merit.

C. Appellant Claim: The proposed retail cannabis dispensary is located dangerously close to schools.

Most cities in California require a 1,000 SF "buffer" between retail cannabis stores and K-12 schools in the community. While the City's buffer requires a 600-foot setback from schools, we are greatly concerned about the proposed new dispensary and its close proximity to Dan Mini Elementary School (approximately 900 ft. buffer) and Griffin Academy Middle and High School (approximately 800 ft. buffer).

The Applicant failed to notify its neighbors and the greater Vallejo community of their intention to open a "weed super store" at the proposed location. The Applicant did not hold any Community Outreach Event nor did the Applicant conduct any substantial outreach with its surrounding businesses and local residents, which is a requirement of a Major Use Permit Application in the City of Vallejo.

Staff Response : Both the Vallejo Municipal Code and California Bureau of Cannabis Control prohibit cannabis businesses from operating within 600 feet of K-12 schools, daycares, or youth centers. The proposed retail cannabis business is consistent with this requirement. Furthermore, the appellant fails to provide a basis for claiming that the retail cannabis business is "dangerously close" to area schools. Both Dan Mini Elementary School and Griffin Academy Middle School and High School are separated from the project site by Sonoma Boulevard (Highway 29) and Broadway/railroad respectively, and are located in residential neighborhoods greater than 800 feet from the proposed project site. The appellant fails to identify any negative impacts that V-Town Farms would have on either of the schools, especially in light of these physical separations. Further, the appeal seems to be raising questions as to whether the City's separation requirements set forth in the ordinance are appropriate. However, the issue of the appropriate separation standards was decided at the time of ordinance adoption. The proposed use Resolution for V-Town Farms
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78871 more than meets the separation requirements of the existing ordinance. It would be fundamentally unfair to apply a greater separation requirement to the proposed use than set forth in the ordinance and applied to all other cannabis operators, including appellant.

The Planning Division provided notice of the public hearing for the Use Permit to all property owners and neighborhood groups within 500 feet, the applicant, the Planning Commission, and in the Times Herald newspaper at least 10 business days before the public hearing in accordance with VMC Section 16.82.030.C. The appellant's claim that a community outreach event is a requirement for a Use Permit is incorrect. While a project applicant is welcome to conduct community outreach on behalf of a project; it is not a requirement of the Vallejo Municipal Code nor is it a requirement of the Use Permit application process.

Accordingly, the City Council finds that Appellant's claim "C" is without merit.

D. Appellant Claim: V-Town Farms will harm CCC and will close down other local dispensaries.

The City of Vallejo and the Planning Commission failed to conduct any meaningful and transparent "Economic Impact Report" highlighting the negative and adverse effects of a 17,000 SF 'weed super store' and Its economic Impact on the City's "Permitted Operators," or the eleven (11) original retail cannabis dispensaries in operation since 2015.

Staff Response: The appellant's claim that V-Town Farms will put existing cannabis businesses in Vallejo out of business is at best speculative. The Vallejo Municipal Code does not require any cannabis business to conduct an "economic impact study" prior to operation. V-Town Farms will replace HTP Group, and thus maintain the total number of permitted cannabis businesses at 11. To require an "economic impact study" to be conducted because V-Town Farms is a perceived "weed super store" would be arbitrary and unreasonable.

Accordingly, the City Council finds that Appellant's claim "D" is without merit.

E. Appellant Claim: The Appellant believes that V-Town Farms is not categorically exempt from CEQA.

According the Staff Report provided the Planning Commission on March 15, 2021, the Report states: "The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 "Existing Facilities") in that It involves the reuse of an existing building space for retail cannabis sales with minor building and site alterations. Therefore, no further environmental review is required."
In recognition of the City's General Plan 2040 and the new zoning of the North Gateway District (D-NG), the Appellant strongly believes that this project qualifies for Environmental Review and Staff must make findings on the project's environmental impact. Further, considering the massive size and impeding nature of the proposed project, the Appellant believes the following items support a CEQA Study: (1) The project will have a significant impact on the environment and (2) Significant effects have not been substantially mitigated.

Resolution for V-Town Farms
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4 -CBAB49E78B71 Staff Response: The proposed project for V-Town Farms is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Guidelines Section 15301 ("Existing Facilities'J. V-Town Farms will occupy a 19,035 square foot portion of an existing 49,871 square foot building space that was formerly occupied by Food 4 Less.

The project site had been the location of an existing retail establishment for approximately 25 years. The project is not proposing expansion of this existing building space but rather involves only reoccupation of the space, interior and exterior alterations involving such things as interior partition walls, plumbing and electrical, painting and installation of windows consistent with the examples set forth in Guidelines Section 15301 (a).

None of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 that preclude a project from a CEQA exemption apply. The project site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area in that it is an existing building space in a shopping center; the project replaces a previous retail use at the project site and does not create any cumulative impacts; there are no significant effects due to unusual circumstances; there are no designated scenic highways in the City of Vallejo; the project site is not listed on any lists prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65962. 5; and no historical resources are present nor impacted by the project. There are no significant environmental impacts to mitigate so requiring further environmental review, as suggested by the appellant is unnecessary .

Accordingly, the City Council finds that Appellant's claim "E" is without merit. 111. FINDINGS RELEVANT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAJOR USE PERMIT (VMC Section 16.82.050)
The City Council hereby finds that:

A The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use will be compatible with adjacent uses, building or structures, with consideration given to harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density; to the availability of civic facilities and utilities, to the harmful effect, If any, upon desirable neighborhood character; to the generation of traffic and the capacity and physical character of surrounding streets; and to any other relevant impact of the proposed use.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: The project site is a vacant building space formerly home to Food 4 Less and is characterized by high visibility from Sonoma Boulevard (Highway 29) and a collection of buildings and site improvements that comprise Meadows Plaza. The retail cannabis business is compatible with uses typical of a shopping center, such as commercial shops, services, offices, and restaurants. Because the project involves the reuse of an existing building space, it is consistent with the desired scale, bulk, coverage, and density in the area. The City envisions a mix of uses in the North Gateway, including those that can attract both local residents and motorists passing through Vallejo to and from Napa County. An active retail cannabis establishment is well-suited to draw customers to Meadows Plaza both from within Vallejo and outside communities. The City's Technical Project Review Committee review of the use did not result in any concerns with respect to utilities, traffic and parking, or crime. The Vallejo Police Department also reviewed the project and did not identify any concerns. Furthermore, the cannabis business does not operate within a 600-foot radius of any potentially Resolution for V-Town Farms
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 sensitive land uses, such as daycares, schools with grades kindergarten through 12, and youth centers. The cannabis business will be subject to Vallejo Municipal Code and State requirements, and Use Permit conditions to ensure that the operation does not result in an adverse effect on the surrounding area.

B. That the impacts, as described in subsection A of this section, and the location of the proposed conditional use are consistent with the city general plan.

Refer to Exhibit B of this resolution, incorporated herein by this reference, for the analysis and findings of the project's consistency with General Plan 2040.

IV. FINDINGS RELEVANT TO GENERAL PLAN 2040 CONSISTENCY (Interim Zoning Policy Section 6)
The City Council hereby finds that:

1. The proposal is appropriate in consideration of the characteristics of the surrounding area.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: The surrounding area is characterized by a variety of commercial, industrial, and residential uses, Broadway, Sonoma Boulevard (Highway 29), and close proximity to the Vallejo and American Canyon border. The cannabis business is a retail use that is compatible with the existing and anticipated land uses for the surrounding area.

2. The proposal is consistent with the intent and desired character of the relevant land use designations(s) of General Plan 2040 and any associated General Plan policies.

Refer to Exhibit B of this resolution for the analysis and findings of the project's consistency with General Plan 2040 and associated policies.

3. The proposal will clearly promote implementation of General Plan 2040.

Refer to Exhibit B of this resolution for the analysis and findings of the project's consistency with, and therefore implementation of, General Plan 2040.

4. The proposal conforms to the zoning ordinance requirements of the applicable or "best fit" zoning district.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: The "best fit" zoning district applicable to the proposal is the Pedestrian Shopping and Service District, which conditionally permits retail cannabis sales, with cannabis manufacturing and cannabis distribution permitted as accessory uses. The existing zoning is the Commercial Planned District 89-09, which permits retail sales and associated uses. The proposed Zoning Code designates the project site as Central Commercial Corridor (CC). Retail sales of cannabis with accessory manufacturing and distribution is permitted in the CC District with a Minor Use Permit.

V. FINDINGS RELEVANT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINOR USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL CANNABIS SALES USES (VMC Section 16.82.050.V)
Resolution for V-Town Fanns
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 The City Council hereby finds that:

1. Regulatory Permits. Retail sales of cannabis uses must obtain and maintain all required state and local permits and licenses including the local regulatory permit to operate required under Chapter 7.200 of this code. Revocation of the state cannabis license or the local regulatory permit to operate under Chapter

7.200 of this code shall be grounds for revocation of the minor use permit for the retail sales of cannabis use. Valid and applicable state and local licenses and permits shall be publicly displayed at all times during hours of operation.

Operations and location requirements must at all times comply with applicable regulations contained in Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations as those may be updated from time to time by the California Bureau of Cannabis Control.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: The applicant is required to obtain all regulatory permits under Vallejo Municipal Code Chapter 7. 200 and to maintain all City and State of California permits and licenses , as set forth in condition of approval 1.

2. Locational Limitation.
a. Any retail sales of cannabis use may not be located within a six hundred foot radius of a school providing instruction in kindergarten or any grades one through twelve, day care center, or youth center as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 11353.1. The distance specified in this section shall be the horizontal distance measured in a straight line from the property line of the school or center to the closest property line of the lot on which the permittee is to be located without regard to intervening structures.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: The project site is consistent with this requirement in that there is no school providing instruction in kindergarten or any grades one through twelve, day care center, or youth center as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 11353. 1, within a 600 ft. radius of the lot on which the use is proposed to be located, as measured per the above.
b. Any applicant for a use permit to conduct retail sales of cannabis, whether for 'adult use' or medicinal purposes, must conduct all retail sales at one site.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: The applicant intends to operate a retail cannabis business only at the project site, which use is consistent with this requirement. The applicant's HTP Group location will close prior to the commencement of operations at this location. This will be verified by Planning Division staff.

3. Development and Operational Standards. Retail sales of cannabis uses shall comply with site development standards specified in the applicable zoning district. Such uses shall also comply with the following standards:
a. General:

Resolution for V-Town Farms
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 i. No person under age eighteen (for medical retail sales of cannabis) or twenty-one (for recreational retail sales of cannabis) shall be allowed on the property.
ii. No transactions outside, or partially outside of an enclosed building are permitted. No transactions which are performed through walk-up or drive-through service are allowed.
iii. The property shall not include patio or cafe seating, unless used exclusively for employees in an area not accessible to the general public.
iv. No use, inhalation, smoking, eating, ingestion, or other consumption of cannabis In any form shall be allowed on the property, including the parking areas of the property.
v. No alcohol shall be consumed, made available, sold, offered for sale, given, distributed, traded, or otherwise provided to customers, employees, guests, visitors, or volunteers.
vi. No retail sales of cannabis shall occur, in any form, to anyone between the hours of eight p.m. and nine a.m., except delivery. vii. The property complies with all applicable California State Building Code provisions, the city's property maintenance ordinance and is maintained free of debris, litter and trash.
viii. All transactions, Including but not limited to cash or in-kind contributions, reimbursement or compensation, shall be fully documented.

Ix. The owner will have a written security plan including procedures for verifying identification and age of purchasers. The plan must include a description of licensed and uniformed security guards who must be present on site during hours of operation, Including their number, location and hours, as well as a theft prevention plan including locked exterior doors and windows during the times the business is closed.

The licensed and uniformed security guard best practices shall comply with state law.
x. The point of sale software used to track retail sales must be acceptable to the finance director.
xi. Retail sellers of cannabis may only use one name to identify themselves in the minor use permit, the local regulatory permit, the state license and any other state or local permit that may be required.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: Project conditions of approval ensure compliance with these standards. All of the above standards are contained in the Conditions of Approval 15-31 and the information submitted by the applicant, including the security plan.

Resolution for V-Town Farms
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 b. Limitations on retail area in industrial zones. In the Intensive Use-Limited (IU-L), Intensive Use (IU), and Planned Development Industrial (POI) Districts, no more than fifty percent of the floor area shall be devoted to retail sales.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: The project site is not located in an industrial zoning district.

Therefore, this requirement does not apply.
c. Lighting:
i. Exterior perimeter lighting shall be in place prior to operation; ii. Exterior lighting shall be code compliant LED fixtures or high efficiency luminaries, and shall have an illumination intensity of between one and four foot candles;
iii. Lights shall be directed and shielded so as not to illuminate adjoining properties;
iv. Lights shall include housing to protect against breakage; v. Broken or burnt out lights shall be replaced within forty-eight hours; vi. Transitional lighting shall be incorporated in exterior areas providing access to and from buildings or uses within a site; and vii. Trees and shrubs shall not interfere with the distribution of lighting as required by this section.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: Project plans are compliant with these standards. In addition, continued adherence to these standards are also included as condition of approval 32. d. Signs:
i. A sign shall be posted on the door or in view of the entrance stating that no person under the age of eighteen (for medical retail sales of cannabis) or twenty-one (for recreational Retail sales of cannabis) is allowed on site.
ii. A sign shall be posted stating that the use or consumption of cannabis or cannabis products on or near the premises is prohibited. iii. A sign shall be posted stating loitering on or near the premises is prohibited.
iv. A sign shall be posted outside the facility in full public view containing city contact information for both emergency situations and information regarding public concern about operations.
v. Other requirements as prescribed in Chapter 16.64.

Resolution for V-Town Fanns
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 FACTS IN SUPPORT: Project condition of approval 8 and 33 require compliance with these standards. Staff will also inspect the project site prior to the opening of the dispensary to ensure this is the case. In addition, unannounced inspections are required on a regular basis.
e. Windows: In order to promote a strong pedestrian connection for retail safety, visibility, crime prevention through environmental design and a positive active environment, support natural lighting, and enhance curb appeal and value of retail space:
i. No display of cannabis or cannabis product shall be permitted within ten feet of the window.
ii. Storefronts must maintain transparent windows that allow visibility into the store, with a minimum of sixty 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.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: Project plans and condition of approval 34 ensure compliance with these standards. The plans show the existing windows meet the above standards. In addition, Staff will inspect the project site prior to opening of store to ensure that the windows are transparent and the cannabis product is placed appropriately. In addition, unannounced inspections are required on a regular basis to ensure continued compliance. f. Screening and landscaping:

I. Shrubs located next to pedestrian walkways and other vulnerable areas as determined by the planning manager or his or her designee shall not exceed three feet in height at maturity.
ii. Trees shall be pruned up to six feet above ground.
iii. Trees and shrubs shall be pruned back from windows, doors and walkways.
iv. Decorative stone, brick, and other masonry material shall be grouted to prevent removal by hand.
v. Entrances to the site and parking lots shall be defined with landscaping or entry features.
vi. Outdoor waste and recycle bins shall be contained within a locked structure to prevent unauthorized entry.
vii. Other requirements as prescribed in Chapter 16.70.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: Project plans show shrubs, stone and parking lot comply with the above standards, and City staff will inspect the project site prior to opening of store to ensure that all standards are in place. Condition of approval 35 further ensures compliance with these requirements. In addition, unannounced inspections are required on a regular basis to ensure continued compliance.

Resolution for V-Town Farms
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 g. Noise:
i. The use of generators is prohibited, except as short-term temporary emergency back-up systems; and
ii. Other requirements as prescribed in Section 16.72.030 shall apply.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: Generators are not proposed nor allowed, except as a short-term temporary emergency back-up. Project condition of approval 36 ensures that all requirements in VMC Section 16. 72.030 will be met.
h. Odor control: A sufficient odor-absorbing ventilation and exhaust system shall be Installed and operated to ensure that odor generated by the use is not detected outside the property, anywhere on adjacent properties or public rights-of-way, or within any other separate use or unit located within the same building as the retail sales of cannabis use.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: Project condition of approval 37 ensures compliance with this requirement.
i. Maintenance:

1. Property shall be maintained free of debris, litter and trash; and

2. The use shall comply with Chapter 7.54, Property Maintenance.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: Project condition of approval 38 ensures compliance with this requirement.
j. Other performance standards: The use shall comply with all requirements prescribed in Chapter 16.72.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: Project conditions of approval 39-46 ensure compliance with this requirement.

VI. FINDINGS RELEVANT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINOR USE PERMIT FOR

CANNABIS MANUFACTURING AND CANNABIS DISTRIBUTION ACCESSORY USES (VMC Section 16.58.040.H)
The City Council hereby finds that:

1. Cannabis manufacturing may be permitted as an accessory use subject to the following restrictions:
a. The extraction process shall consist of separating cannabinoids from cannabis plant material solely by press or non-volatile solvent between the temperatures of sixty and two hundred degrees Fahrenheit.
b. The extraction shall take place in an area not to exceed one hundred square feet located within or attached and internally connected to the principal structure.

Resolution for V-Town Farms
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 c. The infusion process shall consist of the direct incorporation of cannabis, cannabinoids, or cannabis concentrates into an edible, topical or other product to produce a cannabis product.
d. The cannabis manufacturing shall not exceed ten percent of the total floor area of the principal use or five hundred square feet, whichever is less. e. The manufacturing space is only accessible to employees and shall not be visible to the general public.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: Project plans and conditions of approval ensure compliance with these standards.

2. Cannabis distribution may be permitted as an accessory use subject .10 the following restrictions:
a. The area utilized for cannabis distribution shall not exceed thirty percent of the total floor area of the principal use or one thousand and five hundred square feet, whichever is lesser.
b. The distribution storage area shall be fully enclosed within or attached and internally connected to the principal structure.
c. The distribution storage area shall only be accessible to employees and shall not be visible to the general public.

FACTS IN SUPPORT: Project conditions of approval ensure compliance with these standards.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED; that based on the findings above, the evidence and testimony, both written and oral, presented at the City Council hearing and the Record as a whole, the City Council hereby DENIES the appeal, UPHOLDS the Planning Commission's approval of the Major Use Permit for the Project, and APPROVES Major Use Permit# 20-0008, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit A, and in accordance with the plans attached hereto as Exhibit B.

Resolution for V-Town Farms
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Vallejo at a special meeting held on June 7, 2021 with the following vote:

AYES: Vice Mayor Verder-Aliga, Councilmembers Dew, Diaz, and Miessner NOES: Mayor McConnell and Councilmember Arriola
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Councilmember Brown ~fr.MCCONNELL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
(1::"~~Y' a~r~S6~
DA@tt1&RAHAMSON, CITY CLERK
Resolution for V-Town Fanns
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

V-TOWN FARMS
MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP) #20-0008
5184 SONOMA BOULEVARD: SUITE 300
APN # 0067-150-300
PERMIT DESCRIPTION: Establishment of retail cannabis sales for V-Town Farms with cannabis manufacturing and cannabis distribution, as accessory uses. V-Town Farms will occupy a 19,035 square foot portion of the existing 49,871 square foot building space that was formerly home to Food 4 Less in Meadows Plaza, and will require minor building and site alterations. Cannabis retail sales will occupy 17,056 square feet of the floor area. Cannabis manufacturing will occupy 494 square feet of the floor area and involve non-volatile processes to manufacture infused pre rolls, cannabis beverages, and flower. Cannabis distribution will occupy 1.485 square feet of the floor area and will involve the packaging and shipment of cannabis products, including those manufactured on the premises. Cannabis cultivation is not proposed as part of the business operation. The remaining vacant 30,836 square feet of the floor area will not be part of the cannabis business operation The permitted hours of operation will be 9:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., or as allowed by the Vallejo Municipal Code, seven days a week.

A. PLANNING DIVISION
Jonathan Atkinson I jonathan.atkinson@cityofvallejo .net I (707) 648-4346 Special Conditions

1. The business owner shall not commence operation of any cannabis activities at 5184 Sonoma Boulevard: Suite 300 until the following occurs:
a. City of Vallejo approval of a local regulatory permit transfer with HTP Group . b. City of Vallejo issuance of a certificate of occupancy for V-Town Farms at 5184 Sonoma Boulevard: Suite 300.
c. State of California approval and issuance of all required licenses . d. HTP Group, Inc. has permanently closed its location at 4345 Sonoma Boulevard: Suite D-4 and has been inspected by City of Vallejo Planning Division staff.

2. Cannabis cultivation is not approved and shall not occur anywhere on the premises and/or within Vallejo City limits without City of Vallejo and State of California approvals.

3. The remaining portion of the building at 5184 Sonoma Boulevard: Suite 300 shall not contain any cannabis uses or activities nor be internally accessible to the cannabis business . Any proposed expansion of the cannabis business shall require written approval from both the City of Vallejo and State of California.

4. The premises shall be graffiti free. See Condition 43 for additional property maintenance requirements.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4 -CBAB49E78B71

5. The existing chain-link fencing along the northern parcel boundary shall be replaced with new fencing to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.

6. All of the existing chain-link fencing with razor wire visible from Broadway shall be replaced with decorative metal fencing to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to operation.

7. All outdoor trash receptacles stored outside shall be secured in a trash enclosure designed to City of Vallejo standards. See Condition 40 for cannabis waste requirements.

8. Signs shall be consistent with the master sign program for Meadows Plaza and the City's Sign Ordinance. The abandoned monument sign structure north of the driveway on Broadway shall be removed. See Condition 38 for additional sign requirements.

9. Street trees shall be installed and maintained at a ratio of one per 50 feet of street frontage along Sonoma Boulevard and Broadway for the project site. No trees shall be removed without written authorization from the City of Vallejo Planning Division. Any trees removed from the subject property shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.

See Condition 35 for additional landscaping requirements.

10. Community Outreach and Reporting Plan (CORP). Applicant shall, on a quarterly basis, engage in community outreach with residents and businesses located within a one-half mile radius of 5184 Sonoma Boulevard to address any issues and concerns arising from/regarding Applicant's cannabis business.
a. The first community outreach meeting shall be held within the first 90 days of V T own Farms' opening and shall continue on a quarterly basis until such time as Council determines this condition can be lifted.
b. The community outreach meetings shall be organized and conducted by a facilitator chosen by the City and paid for by the Applicant. c. In addition to organizing, guiding, and otherwise facilitating the community meetings, the facilitator shall be responsible for documenting any issues raised by the community and the Applicant's response/resolution relating to the issues raised.
d. Within ten days of conclusion of each quarterly meeting, the facilitator shall prepare and file a written report of the meeting with the City of Vallejo Planning Division.

11. Applicant shall post a toll-free phone number near the front door of the premises to receive complaints from the neighborhood . Said number shall be staffed by a live person who shall document the complaints by means of a phone log. Applicant shall provide the phone log to the CORP facilitator prior to each community meeting.

12. As offered by the Applicant, the Applicant shall make a good faith effort to employ up to 50% Vallejo residents, defined as persons living within Vallejo city limits.

13. Prior to opening, Applicant shall have installed an air filtration system that renders cannabis odors undetectable from the premises, other units in the same building as the cannabis business, adjacent tenant spaces, and public rights-of-way. (See Condition 43 for additional odor-control requirements).
2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71

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 (CPl-U), San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA.

15. One year after commencement of operations, Planning Division staff shall prepare and submit a status report to the City Council, at a City Council meeting describing: (1) Applicant's community outreach efforts as reported by the facilitator; (2) the percentage of Vallejo residents employed by the cannabis business; and (3) how the community benefit funds were expended. At said City Council meeting, the City Council shall determine whether the CORP shall be continued for an additional 12-month period or whether the requirement for the CORP may be eliminated.

General Requirements

16. The Planning & Development Services Director is hereby authorized to modify these conditions for minor adjustments to respond to unforeseen field constraints provided that the goals of these conditions can be safely achieved in some other manner. The applicant must submit a written request to the Planning Division demonstrating that the condition(s) is infeasible due to specific constraints (e.g. lack of property rights) and shall include a proposed alternative measure or option to meet the goal or purpose of the condition. The Planning Division shall consult with affected City departments and agencies and may require an application for modification of the approved permit. Changes to conditions that may be authorized by the Planning and Development Services Director are limited to those items that are not adopted standards or were not adopted as mitigation measures or that were not at issue during the public review process. Any modification of the permit conditions shall be documented with an approval letter from the Planning Division, and shall not affect the original permit approval date or the term for expiration of the permit.

17. Within five working days after project approval, the applicanUoperator shall pay the Notice of Exemption filing fee (the latest fees in effect at the time of payment) for County Clerk processing, made payable to Solano County and submitted to the City of Vallejo Planning Division. If an in-person filing is required, such filing shall be completed by the applicant, unless directed otherwise by the Planning Division. NOTE: If the fees are not paid and the Notice of Exemption is not filed within five working days after approval of the project, it will extend time frames for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) legal challenges.

18. The business owner shall submit a numbered list to the Planning Division with a written response on how each Use Permit condition herein will be satisfied prior to issuance of building permits and/or the commencement of the use.

19. Applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend City, its officers, officials, directors, employees, agents, volunteers and affiliates and each of them from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, damages, costs, expenses, actual attorney's fees, applicant's fees, expert fees, losses or liability, in law or in equity, of every kind and nature whatsoever arising out of or in connection with Applicant's operations, or any subcontractor's operations, to be performed under this agreement for Applicant's or subcontractor's tort negligence including active or passive, or strict negligence, including but not limited to personal injury including, but not limited to bodily injury, emotional injury, 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 sickness or disease, or death to persons and/or damage to property of anyone, including loss of use thereof, caused or alleged to be caused by any act or omission of Applicant, or any subcontractor, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for the full period of time allowed by the law, regardless to any limitation by insurance, with the exception of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. No modification of the project, any application, permit, certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, change in applicable laws and regulations, or change in processing methods shall alter the Applicant's indemnity obligation.

Cannabis Permits and Licensing

20. Regulatory Permits. Prior to operation and maintained thereafter, the cannabis business shall obtain all required State and local permits and licenses, including the local regulatory permit to operate under Vallejo Municipal Code (VMC) Chapter 7.200. Revocation of the State cannabis license or the local regulatory permit to operate under VMC Chapter 7.200 shall be grounds for revocation of the Use Permit for the cannabis business.

Valid and applicable State and local licenses and permits shall be publicly displayed at all times during hours of operation, and provided to the City of Vallejo to be maintained on file. Operations and location requirements must at all times comply with applicable regulations contained in Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations, as those may be updated from time to time by the California Bureau of Cannabis Control.

Operational Requirements

21. Operation of the cannabis business shall be substantially in accord with the approved Use Permit application submittal and plans dated "February 3, 2021" and "February 8, 2021" except as modified by the conditions stated herein.

22. Operation of the cannabis business shall be in compliance with all applicable State and VMC requirements.

23. Cannabis Manufacturing. All cannabis manufacturing shall comply with the following regulations:
a. The extraction process shall consists of separating cannabinoids from cannabis plant material solely by press or non-volatile solvent between the temperatures of sixty and two hundred degrees Fahrenheit.
b. The extraction shall take place in an area not to exceed one hundred square feet located within or attached and internally connected to the principal structure. c. The infusion process shall consist of the direct incorporation of cannabis, cannabinoids, or cannabis concentrates into an edible, topical or other product to produce a cannabis product.
d. The cannabis manufacturing shall not exceed ten percent of the total floor area of the principal use or five hundred square feet, whichever is less. e. The manufacturing space is only accessible to employees and shall not be visible to the general public.
4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71

24. Cannabis Distribution. All cannabis distribution activities shall comply with the following regulations:
a. The area utilized for cannabis distribution shall not exceed 30 percent of the total floor area of the retail sales of cannabis use or 1 ,500 square feet, whichever is less. b. The cannabis distribution storage area shall be fully enclosed within or attached and internally connected to the main building.
c. The distribution storage area shall only be accessible to employees and shall not be visible to the general public.

25. The business owner and all managers shall be subject to background search and shall not be able to continue operations, if there are any felony convictions, as specified in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the California Penal Code and subdivision (c) of Section 1192. 7 of the California Penal Code. Any change in ownership shall require an amendment to the local regulatory permit and necessary background checks.

26. The business owner shall only conduct retail sales of cannabis at one location within Vallejo City limits.

27. No person under age 18 years (for medical retail sales of cannabis) or 21 years (for recreational retail sales of cannabis) shall be allowed on the property.

28. No transactions outside, or partially outside of an enclosed building are permitted. No transactions, which are performed through walk-up or drive-through service are allowed unless first authorized in writing by both the City of Vallejo and Bureau of Cannabis Control.

29. The property shall not include patio or cafe seating, unless used exclusively for employees in an area not accessible to the general public.

30. No use, inhalation, smoking, eating, ingestion, or other consumption of cannabis in any form shall be allowed on the property, including the parking areas of the property.

31. No alcohol shall be consumed, made available, sold, offered for sale, given, distributed, traded, or otherwise provided to customers, employees, guests, visitors, or volunteers.

32. No retail sales of cannabis shall occur, in any form, to anyone between the hours of 8 P.M. and 9 A.M., or as allowed by the Vallejo Municipal Code, except delivery. The business owner shall not increase the hours of operation unless authorized in writing by both authorized staff of the City of Vallejo and the California Bureau of Cannabis Control.

33. The property shall comply with all applicable California State Building Code provisions, the City's property maintenance ordinance, and be maintained free of debris, litter and trash.

34. All transactions, including but not limited to cash or in-kind contributions, reimbursement or compensation, shall be fully documented.
5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71

35. The business owner shall maintain a written security plan, including procedures for verifying identification and age of purchasers, on file with the Planning and Development Services Department and the Vallejo Police Department. The plan must include a description of licensed and uniformed security guards, who must be present on site during hours of operation, including their number, location and hours, as well as a theft prevention plan including locked exterior doors and windows during the times the cannabis business is closed. The licensed and uniformed security guard best practices shall comply with State law. The Planning and Development Services Department and Vallejo Police Department shall be notified in writing of any revisions to the approved written security plan dated "Received July 23, 2020".

36. The point of sale software used to track retail sales must be deemed acceptable to the City of Vallejo Finance Director prior to operation.

37. The business owner shall only use one name to identify themselves in the Use Permit, the local regulatory permit to operate, the State license, and any other applicable State or local permit that may be required for the purposes of retail sales of cannabis .

38. Lighting. The following lighting requirements shall apply:
a. Exterior perimeter lighting shall be in place prior to operation. b. Exterior lighting shall be code compliant LED fixtures or high efficiency luminaries, and shall have an illumination intensity of between one and four foot candles. c. Lights shall be directed and shielded so as not to illuminate adjoining properties. d. Lights shall include housing to protect against breakage. e. Broken or burnt out lights shall be replaced within 48 hours. f. Transitional lighting shall be incorporated in exterior areas providing access to and from buildings or uses within the site.
g. Trees and shrubs shall not interfere with the distribution of lighting as required by this Use Permit.

39. Signs. The following signage requirements shall apply:
a. A sign shall be posted on the door or in view of the entrance stating that no person under the age of 18 (for medical retail sales of cannabis) or 21 (for recreational retail sales of cannabis) is allowed on site.
b. A sign shall be posted stating that the use or consumption of cannabis or cannabis products on or near the premises is prohibited.
c. A sign shall be posted stating loitering on or near the premises is prohibited. d. A sign shall be posted outside the facility in full public view containing City of Vallejo contact information for both emergency situations and information regarding public concern about operations.
6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 e. Other Sign Ordinance requirements as prescribed in Title 16 of the VMC.

40. Windows. The following requirements for windows shall apply:
a. No display of cannabis or cannabis product shall be permitted within 10 feet of the window.
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.

41. Screening and Landscaping. The following landscape requirements shall apply:
a. Shrubs located next to pedestrian walkways and other vulnerable areas as determined by the City of Vallejo Planning Manager or his or her designee shall not exceed three feet in height at maturity.
b. Trees shall be pruned up to six feet above ground.
c. Trees and shrubs shall be pruned back from windows, doors, and walkways. d. Decorative stone, brick, and other masonry material shall be grouted to prevent removal by hand.
e. Entrances to the site and parking lots shall be defined with landscaping or entry features.
f. Outdoor waste and recycle bins shall be contained within a locked structure to prevent unauthorized entry.
g. Other screening and landscape regulations as prescribed in Title 16 of the VMC.

42. Noise. The following noise requirements shall apply:
a. The use of generators is prohibited, except as short-term temporary emergency back up systems.
b. Other Noise Performance Standards as prescribed in Title 16 of the VMC.

43. Odor Control. A sufficient odor-absorbing ventilation and exhaust system shall be installed and operated to ensure that odor generated by the cannabis business is not detected outside of the property, anywhere on adjacent properties or public rights-of-way, or within any other separate use or unit located within the same building as the cannabis business.

44. Property Maintenance. The following property maintenance requirements shall apply:
a. Property shall be maintained free of debris, litter and trash. b. The cannabis business shall comply with the Property Maintenance Ordinance under VMC Chapter 7.54.
7 DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71

45. Tracking. The cannabis business shall comply with any labeling, testing, and track and trace program established by the City and/or State agencies . The operator must maintain records tracking all cannabis production and products and shall make all records related to commercial cannabis activity available to the City upon request.

46. Taxes. The cannabis business shall be current on the City's Marijuana Business License Tax and any additional applicable taxes enacted by the City or this Use Permit may be subject to revocation and/or local regulatory permit non-renewal and/or revocation.

47. Parking. The applicant shall maintain the 73 required onsite parking spaces to serve the cannabis business. Parking lot surfaces, lighting, and exterior landscaping shall be maintained in good condition in compliance with the approved plans.

48. Special Events. Special events are prohibited unless authorized in writing by both authorized staff of the City of Vallejo and the California Bureau of Cannabis Control.

49. Inspection. The dispensary shall be subject to inspections by appropriate local and State agencies, including but not limited to the City Manager's Office, Planning and Development Services Department, and/or a third-party inspector appointed by and acting on behalf of the City. Inspections may occur at random times for conformance with the Vallejo Municipal Code and City permit requirements. If interference in the performance of the duty of the agency having jurisdiction occurs, the agency may temporarily suspend the permit and order the dispensary to immediately cease operations.

50. Exterior Modification. All exterior modifications to the building fayade or site, including landscaping, parking lot improvements, fencing, lighting, and signage, shall be subject to City of Vallejo review and approval. Razor or barbed wire and similar fencing is not permitted.

51. Any proposed modification, alteration, and/or expansion of the use authorized by this Use Permit shall require the prior review and approval of the City of Vallejo. Such changes may require a new or modified Use Permit and additional environmental review, if warranted.

52. Use Permit Certificate. This Use Permit, the approved project description, and approved floor plan shall be maintained on site and made available to City of Vallejo officials upon request.

Approval Time/Revocation

53. Approval of this Use Permit shall automatically expire 24 months from the date of approval, unless building permits are issued and authorized construction has commenced prior to the expiration date.

54. The Use Permit shall be deemed abandoned if the cannabis business operation remains not in use for 12 consecutive months. A new Use Permit shall be obtained prior to the resumption of the cannabis business, if deemed abandoned.

55. If the Planning Division, either independently or as a result of complaints from the public, becomes aware that the use is being conducted in a manner which violates the conditions 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 of this Use Permit or other applicable City regulations, and Planning Division staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement, staff will refer the Use Permit to Code Enforcement and/or the Planning Commission for possible suspension or revocation.

B. BUILDING DIVISION
Steve Arnold I [email protected] I (707) 648-4387

1. Permits required per California Code of Regulations, Title 24 and applicable City Ordinance in effect at the time of completed Building Permit application date and required fees paid at time of application. 2019 California Code of Regulations apply if permit application(s) received before end of 2022.

C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
Brian Pizzimenti I [email protected] I (707) 648-4436

1. Access roads that are fire lanes shall either be posted with permanent all-weather signs constructed and installed in accordance with the Fire Department Fire Lane Marking Standards or shall all have curbs painted red and a sign posted at each entrance. Contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for further information and design templates. Location of such areas shall be determined prior to final inspection.

2. Prior to final Inspection, in accordance with the 2019 Califoirnia Fire Code rooms or areas containing controls for HVAC systems, electrical panels, automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire alarm equipment or other detection, suppression or control elements shall be identified with appropriate signs.

3. A flush-mounted (recessed) Knox Box (key box) mounted no higher than 5 feet above the finished floor containing appropriate keys for emergency fire department access shall be provided. The minimium size box is the 3200 series with a hinged door and recessed mounting kit. The tamper kit is not required, box color may be any of the Knox options. It takes approximately 2 weeks for delivery. For more information call the Fire Prevention Division at (707) 648-4565

4. Keys for the Knox Box entry system required by the fire department shall be attached to durable tags with permanent marking identifying the door(s) or lock(s) that the key functions with. i.e. "MASTER" or "MECHANICAL ROOM".

5. Prior to final inspection, in accordance with the 2019 California Fire Code approved address numbers shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall clearly contrast with their background. The characters shall be a minimum of 4" high (6" for Commercial) with a 1/2" stroke. The size of the building and distance or location of the address numbers from the roadway may necessitate larger numbers.

6. Prior to final inspection, the minimum fire-extinguisher requirement shall be one 2A-1 OBC rated portable unit in such locations so that maximum floor-travel distance does not exceed 75' to the nearest extinguisher from any portion of the building with a maximum of 3,000 square feet of floor area surveyed. Plan submittal shall include the proposed 9 DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 location of extinguishers. Final location shall be approved in the field by the fire department. Hazardous areas will require increased sizing of fire extinguishers.

7. All fire extinguishers shall be mounted in a conspicuous and readily accessible location either on a bracket or within an approved storage cabinet. Fire extinguishers shall be mounted so the top of the unit is 3 feet to 5 feet off the finished floor. If the extinguisher is not readily visible, a sign shall be located directly above the extinguisher. The sign shall be legible and of a contrasting color with its background. Final installation measures and indentification signage shall be approved in the field by the Fire Department prior to final inspection sign-off.

8. Means of egress illumination shall be provided and maintained at any time the building is occupied. The means of egress shall be illuminated of not less than 1 foot candle power and shall be approved by the Fire Prevention Division prior to sign-off of the final inspection.

9. Emergency exit lighting shall be provided at or near all exits and as designated by the Fire Marshal. Final exit lighting shall be approved by the Fire Marshal prior to sign-off of the final inspection.

10. In accordance with the 2019 California Fire Code Chapter 10, all emergency lighting and exit signs lights shall have two separate sources of power.

11. All buildings shall comply with the 2019 California Building Code, Chapter 10 Means of Egress requirments. Including but not limited to; exit signs, exit doors, exit hardware and exit illumination.

12. Provide a detailed means of egress, path of travel, exit plan plan prior to building permit approval. Due prior to Building Permit issuance.

13. Locking devices on exit doors shall conform to the 2016 California Fire Code Chapter 10, only one lock or latch requiring one motion/operation to open/unlock is required. No double keyed dead-bolts are permitted on exit doors. Panic hardware is required.

14. Maintain the width of the exit system; tables, chairs, merchandise storage systems and other devices shall not obstruct the means of egress along the path of exit travel based on the cumiulative occupant load served. Maintain clear access to all exits at all times.

15. A separate permit is required for Fire Alarm modification from the Vallejo Fire Department.

Fire alarm system must have current annual certification prior to final inspection.

16. A separate permit is required for Fire Sprinkler modification from the Vallejo Fire Department. Fire sprinkler system must have current annual and five year certification prior to final inspection.

17. Duct smoke detectors complying with UL 268A shall be installed in accordance with the CBC, CFC, CMC and NFPA 72.
a. In the main return air and exhaust air plenum of each air-conditioning system having a capacity greater than 2,000 CFM. Such detectors shall be located in a serviceable area downstream of the last duct inlet.
10 DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-4398-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78871 b. At each connection to a vertical duct or riser serving two or more stories from a return air duct or plenum of an air-conditioning system.

18. Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life-saving or fire-fighting purposes, the Fire Code Official is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved location.

The key box shall be of an approved type and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the Fire Code Official per CFC § 506.1

19. Hazardous Materials Business Plan Requirements. Any occupancy that will be conducting operations or storing materials that are hazardous will obtain the appropriate permits from the City of Vallejo Fire Department and/or Solano County Evironmental Management prior to commencing business operations

20. The provisions of CFC§ 407 shall be applicable where hazardous materials subject to permits under CFC § 5001.5 are used and/or stored on the premises or where required by the Fire Code Official.

21. Storage, use and handling of compressed gases in compressed containers, cylinders, tanks, and systems shall comply with CFC Chapter 53 including those gases regulated elsewhere in the CFC and/or any applicable NFPA Standards as determined by the Fire Code Official. Partially full compressed gas container, cylinders or tanks containing residual gases shall be considered as full for purposes of the controls required.

22. Compressed gases classified as hazardous materials shall also comply with CFC Chapter 50 for general requirements and chapter addressing specific hazards, including CFC Chapters 58 (Flammable Gases), 60 (Highly Toxic and Toxic Materials), 63 (Oxidizer, Oxidizing Gases, and Oxidizing Cryogenic Fluids) and 64 (Pyrophoric Materials) and/or any applicable NFPA Standards as determined by the Fire Code Official.

23. The storage, use and handling of all hazardous materials shall be in accordance with CFC Chapter 50 and California Health and Safety Code requirements. The maximum allowable quantity (MAQ) of hazardous materials per control area will be established using CFC § 5003.1. Applicant will need to contact the Fire Department for hazardous materials storage permitting and approval.

24. Fume Ventilation; continous mechanical ventilation shall be provided per the Calfornia Fire Code and the Building and Mechanical Code.

25. Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (HMIS) per CFC § 5001.5.2. An application for building permit shall include an HMIS. The HIMS shall include the following information:
a. Product name.
b. Component.
c. Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number.
d. Location where stored or used.
e. Container size.
f. Hazard classification.
g. Amount in storage.
h. Amount in use-closed systems.
11 DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71 i. Amount in use-open systems.
j. Safety Data Sheets (SOS) for all proposed materials

26. The business will also need to comply with electronic reporting requirements specific to the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS). Applicants will need to contact the Fire Department for direction and permitting related to hazardous materials inventory reporting amounts.

27. The smoking or carrying of a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette or any other type of smoking paraphernalia or material is prohibited in the areas indicated in CFC § 310. No smoking signs are required.

28. Storage of combustible materials in buildings shall be orderly. Storage shall be separated from heaters or heating devices by distance or shielding so that ignition cannot occur per CFC§ 315.

29. Any security device or system that emits any medium that could obscure a means of egress in any building, structure or premise shall be prohibited per CFC§ 316.5.

30. High-piled storage or rack storage in any occupancy group shall comply with the CFC Chapter 32.

31. A final inspection from the Vallejo Fire Department is required prior to final occupancy.

D. WATER DEPARTMENT
Melissa Cansdale I [email protected] I (707) 553-7223

1. Provide water meter and service sizing calculations per most recent California Plumbing Code and include a water fixture count table.

E. VALLEJO FLOOD AND WASTEWATER DISTRICT
Gustavo Silva I [email protected] I (707) 644-8949

1. The applicant shall pay the applicable plan review fees prior to issuance of building permits.
12 DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78B71

EXHIBIT B

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE PROJECT'S CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN 2040, INCLUDING ITS GUIDLING PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
V-Town Farms is consistent with its General Plan 2040 designation of District- North Gateway (D-NG). Pursuant to General Plan 2040, "[t]he D-NG designation applies to the northern portion of the area north of SR37 between Sonoma Boulevard and Broadway Street, a highly-visible area that serves as a gateway to Napa Valley from SR 37 (heading north) and to Vallejo from American Canyon (heading south). It is intended to foster an integrated, pedestrian oriented place with a mix of uses, such as retail, dining and entertainment, and lodging that cater to both motorists passing through and surrounding neighborhoods." A retail cannabis dispensary is a retail use and thus is allowable in the D-NG designation pursuant to General Plan 2040. Such use contributes to the diversity of uses envisioned for the North Gateway District. Retail cannabis sales will serve both local residents and motorists passing through Vallejo. V-Town Farms would be particularly well-suited to attract both local residents and motorists with its proximity to residences and high visibility from Sonoma Boulevard (Highway 29) and Broadway.

The current zoning designation for the project site is the Planned Development Commercial (PDC) District (Existing Zoning Map). Under the Interim Zoning Policy (IZP), which the City Council established to facilitate development and guide zoning interpretations from the adoption of General Plan 2040 to the adoption of the new zoning code, the project site is indicated as the Pedestrian Shopping and Service (CP) District. In 2017. Under the IZP, each General Plan 2040 land use designation correlates to the City's existing zoning districts and specific plans for the purposes of applying land use and development standards to a proposal. The project site's General Plan 2040 designation of District - North Gateway (D-NG) correlates to the following zoning districts under the IZP: Pedestrian Shopping and Service (CP) District and High Density Residential (HOR) District. Under the IZP, in situations where the proposed use is permitted by General Plan 2040, but not clearly addressed in the existing zoning or the IZP, the applicant may apply for a Major Use Permit to allow the use.

The project site is identified as Planned Development Commercial (PDC) District on the City's existing zoning map. The Planned Development Master Plan for the project site permits retail uses but does not specifically mention cannabis use, since at the time of the adoption of the Planned Development Master Plan, cannabis was not a legally permitted use. The CP District is the "best fit" zoning designation authorized under the IZP because the project site is located within a commercial shopping center that can accommodate a variety of uses, including a retail cannabis business. In addition, the proposed zoning of the project site in the new zoning code is Central Corridor Commercial (CC) District, which would allow retail cannabis sales with a Minor Use Permit. The project conforms with both the CP District and CC District zoning designations.

Accordingly, the City Council finds the project is in conformance with General Plan 2040.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78871 • Guiding Principle 14. Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Successful Local Businesses.

The project brings good jobs to Vallejo with an innovative business that results in the adaptive reuse of a vacant building and site. Specifically, these are jobs that will provide training and experience in an industry that is expanding throughout California. The project balances economic development with the natural environment in that it will result in the reuse of a vacant building on an infill site, and not disturb natural resources. Lastly, the project contributes to the diverse economy of Vallejo, while also drawing customers from both inside and outside of Vallejo. Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Guiding Principles 13, 14, 15, and 16.

The project site is a vacant building space in a commercial shopping center that has largely sat vacant for several years. Reuse of this underutilized building with a retail use that serves both local and regional customers and provides good jobs will enhance the economy of the area and Vallejo. The cannabis business will be subject to a collection of specific requirements, including the addition of new windows, to ensure it does not create any potential adverse impacts. Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy NBE-2. 8.
• Policy NBE-3.8 North Gateway. Accelerate investment in the North Gateway area to achieve a mixed-use district that caters to both locals and regional travelers to Napa Valley.

Furthermore, new businesses may be encouraged to fill the vacant tenant spaces.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 49C538EF-439B-4COF-A2A4-CBAB49E78871 Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy NBE-3. 8.
• Policy NBE-3.14 Neighborhood Corridors . Connect the community with mixed-use corridors that function as neighborhood main streets for adjacent residential areas.

The establishment of a retail cannabis business contributes to the mix of uses along the Sonoma Boulevard corridor between Highway 29 and Mini Drive. Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy NBE-3. 14. • Policy NBE-5.13 Noise Control . Ensure that noise does not affect quality of life in the community.

All of the activities of the retail cannabis business, including the cannabis manufacturing and cannabis distribution accessory uses, will occur indoors and away from sensitive uses, such as residences. Furthermore, the retail cannabis business will be subject to noise-reduction requirements, as operational conditions. Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy NBE-5. 13. • Policy EET-2.1 Economic Diversification. Attract employment and tax generating businesses that support the economic diversity of the City.

The retail cannabis business contributes to the vibrancy of the Sonoma Boulevard and Broadway corridors because it provides both employment and retail opportunities. The cannabis business is an economically vibrant use that can also draw customers into the area to the potential economic benefit of nearby businesses. Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy EET-2.1. • Policy EET-3.4 Commercial and Neighborhood Corridors. Enhance commercial corridors to create a vibrant mix of places to live, work, shop, and play.

The operation of the cannabis business contributes to the vibrancy of the Sonoma Boulevard and Broadway corridors because it provides both employment and retail opportunities. The cannabis business is an economically vibrant use that can also draw customers into the area to the potential economic benefit of nearby businesses. Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy EET-3.4.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. B.

1. 2.

3. 4.

Chapter 16.312 - CANNABIS PROCESSING, CULTIVATION, DISTRIBUTION, TESTING AND RETAIL

16.312.01 - Purpose and applicability.

These provisions establish regulations for the operation of commercial cannabis uses, in a consistent manner with the general plan, this Zoning Code and the requirements of the Chapters 7.100 and 7.200 of the Vallejo Municipal Code. All permits issued in accordance with Vallejo Municipal Code Chapter 7.100 to operate establishments engaged in the retail, processing, cultivation or distribution of cannabis will be void by January 1, 2022. Operations may only continue upon approval of a minor use permit and Vallejo Municipal Code Chapter 7.200 Regulatory Permit.

16.312.02 - Requirements.

Commercial cannabis establishments, including, but not limited to cultivation, distribution, manufacturing, testing and retail uses shall comply with the procedures of the Vallejo Municipal Code, State law, and the regulations of this Zoning Code. Where the Zoning Code conflicts with state law, the more restrictive standards shall apply.

Permits Required.

All cannabis uses shall obtain and maintain all required State and local permits and licenses including the corresponding local permits required under Chapter 7.200 of the Vallejo Municipal Code.

Minor Use Permits pursuant to Chapter 16.606, Minor and Major Use Permits, will only be granted to establishments operating in compliance with applicable State laws and regulations.

Revocation of the state cannabis license (e.g., Microbusiness license) or the local permit to operate under Chapter 7.200 of the Vallejo Municipal Code shall be grounds for revocation of the minor use permit for the cannabis cultivation, distribution, manufacturing and testing laboratory use.

Valid and applicable state and local licenses and permits shall be publicly displayed at all times during hours of operation.

Operations and location requirements shall at all times comply with applicable regulations contained in Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations as those may be updated from time to time by the California Bureau of Cannabis Control.

Locational Limitation.

Retail sale of cannabis for recreational and medical purposes is permitted in the NMX, CC, NC, RC, IL, and IG Zoning Districts subject to the approval of a minor use permit pursuant to Chapter 16.606, Minor and Major Use Permits.

Cannabis cultivation, distribution, manufacturing, and testing laboratories are allowed in the IL and IG Zoning Districts, and in the White Slough Specific Plan Area, Zone 1A which is the zoned CC, subject to the approval of a minor use permit pursuant to Chapter 16.606, Minor and Major Use Permits.

No cannabis cultivation, distribution, manufacturing, testing laboratory or retail use may be located within a six hundred-foot radius of a school providing instruction in kindergarten or any grades 1 through 12, day care center, or youth center as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 11353.1.

The distance specified in this chapter shall be the horizontal distance measured in a straight line from the property line of the school or center to the closest property line of the lot on which the permittee is to be located without regard to intervening structures.

Development and Operation Standards. Cannabis cultivation, distribution, manufacturing and testing laboratory establishments shall comply with the following restrictions:

1. 2.
a.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
b.
i.
ii.
c.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
d.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
e.
i.
ii.

Where this code conflicts MAUCRSA design and development standards, the more restrictive standards shall apply. zoning district requirements must be met, together with the following requirements:

Development and Operational Standards:

General. All activities shall occur within a secure fence at least eight feet in height that fully encloses the area.

The fence must include a lockable gate(s) that is locked at all times, except for during times of active ingress/egress.:

No person under age eighteen shall be allowed on the property.

The site shall not be open to the general public.

No transactions outside, or partially outside of an enclosed building are permitted. No transactions which are performed through walk-up or drive-through service are allowed.

No use, inhalation, smoking, eating, ingestion, or otherwise consumption of cannabis on the property, including the parking areas of the property.

No exhibition or product sales area or retail sales are allowed on the premises.

Cultivation:

The canopy shall not exceed ten thousand square feet; and All cannabis cultivation shall occur indoors, completely enclosed in a structure with opaque walls, and shall not be visible from any public right-of-way
Lighting:

Exterior perimeter lighting shall be in place prior to operation; Exterior lighting shall be Code compliant LED fixtures or high efficacy luminaries, and shall have an illumination intensity of between one and four foot candles; Lights shall be directed and shielded so as not to illuminate into adjoining properties; Lights shall have a housing to protect against breakage; Broken or burnt out lights shall be replaced within five calendar days; Transitional lighting shall be incorporated in exterior areas going to and from buildings or uses within a site; and
Trees and shrubs shall not interfere with the distribution of lighting as required by this section.

Signs:

A sign shall be posted on the door or in view of the entrance stating that no person under the age of eighteen is allowed on site; and
A sign shall be posted stating that the use or consumption of cannabis or cannabis products on or near the premises is prohibited; and
A sign shall be posted stating loitering on or near the premises is prohibited; and A sign shall be posted outside the facility in full public view that contains contact information of the city manager's office for both in case of an emergency situations and for public concern of operations.

Other requirements as prescribed in Chapter 16.509, Signs.

Fencing, screening and landscaping:

All fencing shall be eight feet tall, solid fence, masonry or board-on-board as approved by the planning manager or designee.

Shrubs located next to pedestrian walkways and other vulnerable areas as determined by the planning manager or his or her designee shall not exceed three feet in height at maturity; iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
f.
i.
ii.
g.
h.
i.
ii.
i.

1. a.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.

Trees shall be pruned up to six feet above ground;
Trees and shrubs shall be pruned back from windows, doors and walkways; Decorative stone, brick, and other masonry material shall be grouted to prevent removal by hand; Entrances to the site and parking lots shall be defined with landscaping or entry feature; Outdoor waste and recycle bins shall be contained within a locked structure to prevent unauthorized entry; and
Other requirements as prescribed in Chapter 16.508, Landscaping.

Noise:

The use of generators is prohibited, except as short-term temporary emergency back-up systems; and Other requirements as prescribed in Chapter 16.502.10 Noise.

Odor control: A sufficient odor-absorbing ventilation and exhaust system shall be installed to ensure that odor generated by the use is not detected outside the property, anywhere on adjacent properties or public rights-of-way, or within any other unit located within the same building as the cannabis use.:

Maintenance:

Property shall be maintained free of debris, litter and trash; and Comply with Chapter 7.54, Property Maintenance of the Vallejo Municipal Code.

Other performance standards: comply with all requirements prescribed in Chapter 16.502, Performance Standards.

Retail Sales of Cannabis. Where this code conflicts MAUCRSA design and development standards, the more restrictive standards shall apply. All applicable district requirements are met, together with the following requirements:

Development and Operational Standards. Retail sales of cannabis uses shall comply with development standards specified in the applicable zoning district. Such uses shall also comply with the following standards:

General:

No person under age eighteen (for medical retail sales of cannabis) or twenty-one (for recreational retail sales of cannabis) shall be allowed on the property.

No transactions outside, or partially outside of an enclosed building are permitted. No transactions which are performed through walk-up or drive-through service are allowed.

The property shall not include patio or cafe seating, unless used exclusively for employees in an area not accessible to the general public.

No use, inhalation, smoking, eating, ingestion, or other consumption of cannabis in any form shall be allowed on the property, including the parking areas of the property.

No alcohol shall be consumed, made available, sold, offered for sale, given, distributed, traded, or otherwise provided to customers, employees, guests, visitors, or volunteers.

No retail sales of cannabis shall occur, in any form, to anyone between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., except delivery.

The property complies with all applicable California State Building Code provisions, the city's property maintenance ordinance and is maintained free of debris, litter and trash.

All transactions, including but not limited to cash or in-kind contributions, reimbursement or compensation, shall be fully documented.

The owner will have a written security plan including procedures for verifying identification and age of x.
xi.
b.
c.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
d.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

1. a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
purchasers. The plan must include a description of licensed and uniformed security guards who must be present on site during hours of operation, including their number, location and hours, as well as a theft prevention plan including locked exterior doors and windows during the times the business is closed. The licensed and uniformed security guard best practices shall comply with state law.

The point of sale software used to track retail sales must be acceptable to the finance director.

Retail sellers of cannabis may only use one name to identify themselves in the minor use permit, the local regulatory permit, the state license and any other state or local permit that may be required.

Limitations on retail area in industrial zones. In the IL and IG zoning districts, no more than fifty percent of the floor area shall be devoted to retail sales.:

Lighting:

Exterior perimeter lighting shall be in place prior to operation; Exterior lighting shall be Code compliant LED fixtures or high efficiency luminaries, and shall have an illumination intensity of between one and four foot candles; Lights shall be directed and shielded so as not to illuminate adjoining properties; Lights shall include housing to protect against breakage; Broken or burnt out lights shall be replaced within forty-eight hours; Transitional lighting shall be incorporated in exterior areas providing access to and from buildings or uses within a site; and
Trees and shrubs shall not interfere with the distribution of lighting as required by this section.

Signs:

A sign shall be posted on the door or in view of the entrance stating that no person under the age of eighteen (for medical retail sales of cannabis) or twenty-one (for recreational Retail sales of cannabis) is allowed on site.

A sign shall be posted stating that the use or consumption of cannabis or cannabis products on or near the premises is prohibited.

A sign shall be posted stating loitering on or near the premises is prohibited.

A sign shall be posted outside the facility in full public view containing City contact information for both emergency situations
Cannabis Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses may be permitted, whenever the applicable state permit has been obtained, and subject to a zoning compliance review pursuant to Chapter 16.603, Zoning Compliance Review, whenever the principal use is retail sales of cannabis.

Cannabis manufacturing may be permitted as an accessory use subject to the following restrictions:

The extraction process shall consists of separating cannabinoids from cannabis plant material solely by press or non-volatile solvent between the temperatures of sixty and two hundred degrees Fahrenheit.

The extraction shall take place in an area not to exceed one hundred square feet located within or attached and internally connected to the principal structure.

The infusion process shall consist of the direct incorporation of cannabis, cannabinoids, or cannabis concentrates into an edible, topical or other product to produce a cannabis product.

The cannabis manufacturing shall not exceed ten percent of the total floor area of the principal use or five hundred square feet, whichever is less.

The manufacturing space is only accessible to employees and shall not be visible to the general public.

2. a.
b.
c.

3. 4.

5. Cannabis distribution may be permitted as an accessory use subject to the following restrictions:

The area utilized for cannabis distribution shall not exceed thirty percent of the total floor area of the principal use or one thousand and five hundred square feet, whichever is lesser.

The distribution storage area hall be fully enclosed within or attached and internally connected to the principal structure.

The distribution storage area shall only be accessible to employees and shall not be visible to the general public.

A separate application for zoning compliance review will not be required if the retail sales of cannabis applicant includes manufacturing and/or distribution as accessory use (s) consistent with this chapter, in the initial minor use permit application,
The premises shall be subject to fire, building and health inspection by the city and other regulatory agencies and the accessory use permitted thereon shall be contingent upon compliance with fire, building and health regulations and requirements.