Vallejo City Council
April 23, 2024

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

Amendment #2 to Legal Counsel Services Agreement
AMENDMENT #2 TO OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL

SERVICES AGREEMENT
Entered into this 23rd day of April 2024
WHEREAS, the City of Vallejo entered into a Legal Counsel Services Agreement (“Agreement) on the 1 st day of February 2023 with BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP, a California limited liability partnership (“Outside Counsel”); WHEREAS, Outside Counsel has been assigned defense of two matters under that Agreement, consisting of two cases entitled Matzke et al. v. City of Vallejo, et al., Solano County Superior Court Case No. FCS056066 and Judy Shepard-Hall v. City of Vallejo, et al., Solano County Superior Court Case No. CU23-00260; IT IS HEREBY AGREED that Paragraph 2 of the Agreement regarding Compensation shall be amended as follows:

2. Compensation. City agrees to pay Outside Legal Counsel at the rate(s) as established in Exhibit B and Attachment 1 of Exhibit B in an amount not to exceed seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000).

IT IS FURTHER AGREED that all other terms and conditions are unchanged and shall remain in effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this addendum to the Agreement on the day and year shown below the name of each of the parties.

BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP,
A limited liability partnership
By:

STACEY SHESTON
Partner
DATE:

Vallejo Business License No.
(City Seal)

CITY OF VALLEJO,
A municipal corporation
VERONICA A.F. NEBB
City Attorney
DATE:

ATTEST:

By:

DAWN ABRAHAMSON
City Clerk
Amendment #1 to Legal Counsel Services Agreement
AMENDMENT #1 TO OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL

SERVICES AGREEMENT
Entered into this ____ day of June 2023
WHEREAS, the City of Vallejo entered into a Legal Counsel Services Agreement (“Agreement) on the 1st day of February 2023 with BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP, a California limited liability partnership (“Outside Counsel”); WHEREAS, Outside Counsel has been assigned defense of two matters under that Agreement, consisting of two cases entitled Matzke et al. v. City of Vallejo, et al., Solano County Superior Court Case No. FCS056066 and Judy Shepard-Hall v. City of Vallejo, et al., Solano County Superior Court Case No. CU23-00260;
IT IS HEREBY AGREED that Paragraph 2 of the Agreement regarding Compensation shall be amended as follows:

2. Compensation. City agrees to pay Outside Legal Counsel at the rate(s) as established in Exhibit B and Attachment 1 of Exhibit B in an amount not to exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per fiscal year, until an increase is acknowledged in writing following City Council approval. Fiscal year is hereby defined as beginning on July 1st and ending June 30th the following year.

IT IS FURTHER AGREED that all other terms and conditions are unchanged and shall remain in effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this addendum to the Agreement on the day and year shown below the name of each of the parties.

BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP,
A limited liability partnership
By:

STACEY SHESTON
Partner
DATE: 06/26/2023
11715241
Vallejo Business License No.
(City Seal)

CITY OF VALLEJO,
A municipal corporation
VERONICA A.F. NEBB
City Attorney
DATE:

ATTEST:

By:

DAWN ABRAHAMSON
City Clerk
26th
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93F8FB83-B90F-42E9-85EE-6E1892699C64 8/10/2023

99999.91545\40984484.1

Outside Legal Counsel Services Agreement

OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL

SERVICES AGREEMENT

This Outside Leg al Counsel Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is made at Vallejo, California, dated for reference this 1st day of February 2023, by and between the CITY OF VALLEJO , a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “City”, and BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP, a California limited liability partnership, hereinafter referred to as “Outside Legal Counsel,” who agree as follows:

1. Services. Outside Legal Counsel, through Stacey Sheston , a partner at Outside Legal Counsel shall serve as Outside Counsel, and shall be responsible for the performance of services hereunder, and as described in Exhibit A , “Scope of Work,” and in accordan ce with Exhibit B, “Compensation.” she shall personally direct all matters except as expressly authorized by the City Attorney, and shall supervise any services performed by other members or employees of Outside Legal Counsel. Outside Counsel’s performance hereunder shall be subject to the review, direction and supervision of the City Attorney. The City Attorney will have primary responsibility for analysis, planning, budgeting, and overall management of the case. To the extent litigation is filed, the City Attorney shall be chief counsel of record for all purposes relating to any litigation.

2. Compensation. City agrees to pay Outside Legal Counsel at the rate(s) as established in Exhibit B and Attachment 1 of Exhibit B in an amount not to exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), until an increase is acknowledged in writing following City Council approval.

3. Independent Contractor. Outside Legal Counsel is an independent contractor and shall not represent that it, or any of its agents or employees, are agents or employees of City except as legal representatives pursuant to this Agreement.

4. Communication with the City. The City Attorney or his/her designee is Outside Le gal Counsel’s contact for all purposes. During the course of this Agreement, Outside Legal Counsel will keep the City Attorney or his/her designee informed of the progress of the services provided under this Agreement , and provide copies of pleadings, motions, orders, decisions, research memoranda, reports on significant developments, and quarterly status reports to the City Attorney.

5. Conflict of Interest. Outside Legal Counsel warrants and represents that to the best of its knowledge there exists no actual or potential conflict of interest. Outside Legal Counsel shall regularly conduct conflicts analyses on its interests and those of its clients and any subcontractor.

In the event that an actual or potential conflict of interest arises during the course of this agreement, Outside Legal Counsel shall immediately disclose such conflict in writing to City.

6. Ownership of Documents. Any City documents or other materials entrusted to Outside Legal Counsel must be maintained in confidence by Outside Legal Counsel, and retained pursuant to Outside Legal Counsel’s retention policy or returned to the City at the conclusion of the case/matter. Originals of all pleadings, memos, opinions, reports, records, documents and other materials, whether in hard copy or electronic form, which are prepared by Outside Legal Counsel, shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon termination of this Agreement or DocuSign Envelope ID: 10CEA736-3A9C-450E-9E91-F2401F90B93F DocuSign Envelope ID: 93F8FB83-B90F-42E9-85EE-6E1892699C64 99999.91545\40984484.1

Outside Legal Counsel Services Agreement

upon the earlier re quest of the City Attorney. Outside Legal Counsel shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership of the documents and materials hereunder.

7. Choice of California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Solano County Superior Court, State of California. Outside Legal Counsel covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action.

8. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

9. Term. This Agreement shall remain in effect for a period of one year. City has the option to extend in one-year increments by written notice up to a total period of three years. Either party to this Agreement may terminate this Agreement with 30 -days written notice to the non- terminating party. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, pursuant to this section, Outside Legal Counsel shall immediately cease all services hereunder except s uch as may be specifically approved by the City Attorney.

10. Indemnification. Outside Legal Counsel shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, representatives and agents, from and against all actions, suits, proceedings, claims, liability , demands, losses, costs, and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys' fees, arising from or related to any negligent performance of services hereunder by Outside Legal Counsel, its officers, employees or agents.

11. Attorneys’ Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit from the losing party.

12. Insurance. Outside Legal Counsel shall comply with the following insurance provisions:

A. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Outside Legal Counsel shall maintain limits no less than:

1. General Liability: $2,000,000.00 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this projec t/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000.00 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability: $1,000,000.00 per accident for bodily injury or disease. If Outside Legal Counsel is not subject to California Workers’ Compensation requirements, Outside Legal Counsel shall file a completed certificate of exemption form which may be obtained from the City prior to commencing any activity authorized hereunder.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 10CEA736-3A9C-450E-9E91-F2401F90B93F DocuSign Envelope ID: 93F8FB83-B90F-42E9-85EE-6E1892699C64 99999.91545\40984484.1

Outside Legal Counsel Services Agreement

4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omission): $2,000,000.00 combined single limit per occurrence, and annual aggregate.

B. Deductible and Self-Insured Retention. Any deductibles or self -insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, the Outside Legal Counsel shall provide a letter from Outside Legal Counsel’s Chief Financial Officer describing financial stability and re sources of Outside Legal Counsel guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.

C. Other Insurance Provisions . The general liability and automobile liability policies, as can be provided, are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

1. The City of Vallejo, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds as respects; liability, including defense costs, arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Outside Legal Counsel; products and completed operations of the Outside Legal Counsel; premises owned, occupied or used by the Outside Legal Counsel; or automobiles owned, leased hired or borrowed by the Outside Legal Counsel. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Vallejo, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. The insurance is to be issued by companies licensed to do business in the State of California.

2. For any claims related to this project, the Outside Legal Counsel’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Vallejo, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Vallejo, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the Outside Legal Counsel’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.

4. The Outside Legal Counsel’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.

5. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.

D. Acceptability of Insurers . Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A .M.

Best’s rating of no less than A:VII.

E. Verification of Coverage. Outside Legal Counsel shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting general and automobile liability insurance coverage required by this DocuSign Envelope ID: 10CEA736-3A9C-450E-9E91-F2401F90B93F DocuSign Envelope ID: 93F8FB83-B90F-42E9-85EE-6E1892699C64 99999.91545\40984484.1

Outside Legal Counsel Services Agreement

clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by t he City before work commences.

F. Subcontractors. Outside Legal Counsel shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subc ontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.

G. Adequacy of Insurance. The City may evaluate the adequacy of insurance requirements annually on the anniversary of this Agreement’s execution and may require that Outside Legal Counsel obtain and maintain higher levels of insurance.

13. Non-liability of City Officers and Employ ees. No officer or employee of City shall be personally liable to Outside Legal Counsel, or any successor in interest, in the event or any default or breach by City or for any amount which may become due to Outside Legal Counsel or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.

14. Notices. All notices or instruments required to be given or delivered by law or this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective upon receipt thereof and shall be by personal service or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to:

If to City: Veronica A.F. Nebb
City Attorney
City of Vallejo, City Hall
555 Santa Clara Street, 3
rd Floor
Vallejo, CA 94590

If to Outside Legal Counsel: Stacey Sheston
Partner
Best Best & Krieger, LLP
500 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814

Any party may change its address for receiving notices by giving written notice of such change to the other party in accordance with this section.

Routine administrative communications shall be made pursuant to section 1 of Exhibit A.

15. Integration Clause. This Agreement, including all Exhibits and Attachments, contains the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes whatever oral or written understanding they may have had prior to the execution of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be amended or modified except by a written agreement executed by each of the parties hereto.

16. Severability Clause. Should any provision of this Agreement ever be deemed to be legally void or unenforceable, all remaining provisions shall survive and be enforceable.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 10CEA736-3A9C-450E-9E91-F2401F90B93F DocuSign Envelope ID: 93F8FB83-B90F-42E9-85EE-6E1892699C64 99999.91545\40984484.1

Outside Legal Counsel Services Agreement

17. Facsimile Signature; Electronic Signature. This Agreement shall be binding upon the receipt of facsimile signatures or e -mailed by PDF or otherwise. Any person transmitting his or her signature by facsimile or electronically shall promptly send an original signature to the other party pursuant to the notice provision of this Agreement. The failure to send an original shall not affect the binding nature of this Agreement.

18. Authority. The person signing this Agreement for Outside Legal Counsel hereby represents and warrants that he/she is fully authorized to sign this Agreement on behalf of Outside Legal Counsel.

19. Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference:

Exhibit A, entitled “Scope of Work,” including any attachments.

Exhibit B, entitled “Compensation,” including any attachments.

[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

DocuSign Envelope ID: 10CEA736-3A9C-450E-9E91-F2401F90B93F DocuSign Envelope ID: 93F8FB83-B90F-42E9-85EE-6E1892699C64 99999.91545\40984484.1

Outside Legal Counsel Services Agreement

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year shown below the name of each of the parties.

BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP,
A limited liability partnership

By:

STACEY SHESTON
Partner

DATE:

Vallejo Business License No.

(City Seal)

CITY OF VALLEJO,
A municipal corporation

VERONICA A.F. NEBB
City Attorney

DATE:

ATTEST:

By:

DAWN ABRAHAMSON
City Clerk

DocuSign Envelope ID: 10CEA736-3A9C-450E-9E91-F2401F90B93F 1/31/2023
2/2/2023
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93F8FB83-B90F-42E9-85EE-6E1892699C64 99999.91545\40984484.1

Outside Legal Counsel Services Agreement Exhibit B, Compensation

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF WORK

1. Services to be Provided.

A. Outside Legal Counsel will perform:

Litigation Services: analysis, representation and vigorous defense of the City of Vallejo, its agents, employees and actors in litigation cases assigned to Outside Legal Counsel by the City Attorney, including all required reporting under this Agreement, drafting and filing of pleadings, motions, court appearances, discovery handling, arbitration or mediation (if appropriate), coordination with staff, resolution or Trial, as requested by the City Attorney.

Each legal project shall be set forth in a Legal Assignment signed by the City Attorney.

All settlements involving recipients of Medicare must be properly reported so as to protect the City from future assessments, liens and fines related to the failure to protect Medicare’s interests in the case.

Adherence to Budget . In accordance with the City of Vallejo “Compensation” requirements (Exhibit B), Outside Legal Counsel will propose and develop a Legal Project Management Plan.

Any significant changes to the Plan, to include any increase in the budget, must be approved by the City Attorney prior to implementation of such changes.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 10CEA736-3A9C-450E-9E91-F2401F90B93F DocuSign Envelope ID: 93F8FB83-B90F-42E9-85EE-6E1892699C64 99999.91545\40984484.1

Outside Legal Counsel Services Agreement Exhibit B, Compensation

EXHIBIT B

COMPENSATION

1. Legal Project Management Plan. For each matter assigned by the City Attorney, Outside Legal Counsel must prepare a Legal Project Management Plan (“Plan”) within 60 days of retention as the initial report to the City Attorney.

The Plan should include a written statement regarding: (1) the scope of the work; (2) the strategy to be pursued; (3) the staffing required; (4) estimated legal fees and significant expenditures, as outlined in the Budget section of these requirements; (5) the estimated settlement value; and (6) the advisability of alternative dispute resolution. If it appears that a case will go to trial, a separate estimate of trial costs should be prepared no later than the close of discovery or 60 days before trial whichever is later. Any significant changes to the Plan must be approved by the City Attorney before implementation of such changes. The Plan, including the budget, must be updated every six months without exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Attorney, in his/her discretion, may make routine advisory or transactional assignments t o Outside Counsel without the need for a Legal Project Management Plan on a case-by-case basis.

Motions should only be pursued when a stipulated or negotiated resolution of the issue cannot be achieved. Advance approval from the City Attorney is required before undertaking pretrial motions. In all matters, both the City Attorney and Outside Legal Counsel will use a cost-benefit analysis to determine the City’ s interests. The analysis will weigh the anticipated benefits of a particular course of action ag ainst the estimated costs, discounted by the probability that the benefits will actually be achieved.

2. Budgets. At the discretion of the City Attorney, Outside Legal Counsel shall provide the City Attorney with a written budget setting forth the scope of work for every legal project, as well as the estimated fees and disbursements. This budget shall be a part of the Legal Project Management Plan. The budget shall explain all of the assumptions on which it is based and specify the following: (i) a detailed description of each separate task, such as motions, pleadings, depositions, reports, etc.; (ii) the name and billing rate for each lawyer and legal assistant to be involved; (iii) the amount of time each task is expected to take; and (iv) the b udgeted charges for each task, broken down by month. Outside Legal Counsel’s compensation under this Agreement shall not exceed the budgeted amount as agreed upon unless amended with the prior approval of the City Attorney. Outside Legal Counsel must notify the City Attorney promptly in the event unanticipated issues cause the estimated legal fees or disbursements to vary significantly from those projected in the current budget. Outside Legal Counsel shall notify City in writing no later than thirty (30) days prior to the estimated date when Outside Legal Counsel will have billed City the budgeted amount, and Outside Legal Counsel shall provide City with an estimate of the additional compensation required to complete the project. For any matter reported to PRISM , Outside Legal Counsel shall also include on each invoice the amount billed to date toward SI R and amount of SIR remaining.

3. Billable Hourly Rate . Outside Legal Counsel shall provide the City Attorney with a schedule of billing rates for the specified partners, associates, and legal assistants applicable to the DocuSign Envelope ID: 10CEA736-3A9C-450E-9E91-F2401F90B93F DocuSign Envelope ID: 93F8FB83-B90F-42E9-85EE-6E1892699C64 99999.91545\40984484.1

Outside Legal Counsel Services Agreement Exhibit B, Compensation

Legal Assignment. Outside Legal Counsel’s schedule of billing rates shall be incorporated herein as Attachment 1 to Exhibit B.

At least 60 days written notice must be given to the City Attorney of any proposed changes in billing rates, and approval must be obtained from the City Attorney prior to the implementation of such changes. Hourly rates include all overhead and internal charges. City agrees to pay Outside Legal Counsel, at the rate(s) as established in Attachment 1 of Exhibit B and in accordance with the provisions of Exhibit B. No partner or associate other than those specified in the budget shall work on or bill for time on a Legal Assignment without prior City Attorney approval.

4. Outside Legal Counsel’s Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable Expenses shall be limited to actual reasonable expenditures of Outside Legal Counsel for expenses that are necessary for the proper completion of the Services and shall only be payable if specifically authorized in advance by City.

A. Vehicle. The City authorizes mileage reimbursed at the IRS approved per mile rate (currently 65.5 cents per/mile) for the use of personal automobiles for business. In addition, all expenditures incurred for parking and tolls will be fully reimbursed when an attorney uses his or her own automobile on City business. Fines for moving and parking violations will not be reimbursed by the City.

B. Delivery/Courier. Standard mail services should be used whenever possible. The preparation of written correspondence and documents should be completed in time to avoid unnecessary use of express mail and delivery services at extra cost. Charges for certified, registered, insured, other special handling or express mail should be billed at the actual cost incurred. Billing should reflect the event that caused the need for urgent delivery.

Failure of proper time management on a case is no reason for incurring these changes.

Only actual mileage for in-house couriers may be billed at the IRS approved rate with no additional surcharge. Actual charges for outside services may be billed.

C. Travel. Air travel should be coach class, and, if possible, by discounted fares.

Actual charges incurred for meals will be reimbursed when Outside Legal Counsel is representing the City on out-of-town travel. Other meal expenses will not be paid.

All travel expenses require an itemized accounting submitted with Outside Legal Counsel’s bill. This accounting must include detailed information about car rental, hotel, air and train fare, and travel meals, regardless of amount.

D. Experts/Specialists. To retain third parties on behalf of the City, such as expert witnesses or specialists, Outside Legal Counsel must obtain approval in advance from the City Attorney.

5. Payments to Outside Legal Counsel. Payments to Outside Legal Counsel shall be made within a reasonable time after receipt of Outside Legal Counsel’s invoice. Bills should be submitted no more than once a month, but no less than every ninety days unless other arrangements have been approved. Outside Legal Counsel shall be responsible for the cost of supplying all documentation necessary to verify the monthly billings to the satisfaction of City.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 10CEA736-3A9C-450E-9E91-F2401F90B93F DocuSign Envelope ID: 93F8FB83-B90F-42E9-85EE-6E1892699C64 99999.91545\40984484.1

Outside Legal Counsel Services Agreement Exhibit B, Compensation

6. Alternative Fee Arrangement. An alternative fee arrangement must be the subject of a separate engagement letter or amendment to this Agreement and must be signed and approved by the City Attorney.

7. Invoices. All invo ices submitted by Outside Legal Counsel shall be submitted no more than once a month but no less than every ninety days, unless other arrangements have been approved. Distinct matters shall be invoiced separately.

A. Each bill should include the following information:

1. Date of Invoice Issuance;

2. Sequential Invoice Number;

3. Amount of this Invoice (Itemize all Reimbursable Expenses);

4. The name of case and case number, Legal Assignment or matter number assigned by the City, as applicable;

5. The date of each service performed and a full description of services rendered. A full description should include the activity performed, the names of the individuals involved, and the subject or purpose of the charges;

6. The name of each partner, associate and legal assistant performing each service and the number of hours worked on each task, billed in .10 hour increments (tasks charged as “block” or multiple item entries are not acceptable);

7. The hourly rate for each person and the resulting total charge for each service;

8. Total fees for all professional services rendered during the billing period;

9. An itemized list of all disbursements (including the per page charge for photocopies and faxes). Receipts may be requested from time to time;

10. Adjustments for fees and disbursements for discounted non- recoverable matters, capped fees or similarly negotiated reductions;

11. The combined total for professional services and disbursements for the month or other approved billing period;

12. Outside Legal Counsel’s identification number or applicable identification number for the attorneys performing the services;

13. “Statement Enclosed” on the envelope;

14. An indication of whether the invoice is interim or final;

15. Total billed to date for all pending Legal Assignments;

16. If the matter is reported to PRISM, include total billed to date toward SIR and amount of SIR remaining.

B. If the City Attorney expressly authorizes the use of a third party, the format for third party billings must conform to these requirements. Outside Legal Counsel is responsible for seeing that vendors it retains comply with our billing format and guidelines.

C. Any month in which Outside Legal Counsel wishes to receive payment, Outside Legal Counsel shall submit to the City Attorney an invoice no later than the tenth (10th) working day of such month, in the form approved by City Attorney, for services rendered pr ior to the date of the invoice.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 10CEA736-3A9C-450E-9E91-F2401F90B93F DocuSign Envelope ID: 93F8FB83-B90F-42E9-85EE-6E1892699C64 99999.91545\40984484.1

Outside Legal Counsel Services Agreement Exhibit B, Compensation

D. Items shall be separated into Services and Reimbursable Expenses. Billings that do not conform to the format outlined above shall be returned to Outside Legal Counsel for correction.

City shall not be responsible for delays in payment to Outside Legal Counsel resulting from Outside Legal Counsel’s failure to comply with the invoice format described above.

E. Request for payment shall be sent to:

Deena York
City Attorney’s Office
City of Vallejo, City Hall
555 Santa Clara Street, 3
rd Floor
Vallejo, CA 94590

8. Accounting Records of Outside Legal Counsel. Outside Legal Counsel shall keep such books and records as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the City Attorney to evaluate the cost and the performance of such services. Books and records pertaining to costs shall be kept and prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The City Attorney shall have full and free access to such books and records at all reasonable times, including the right to inspect, copy, audit, and make records and transcripts from such records. Outside Legal Counsel shall retain all records and books related to performance hereunder for inspection by City for at least three (3) years after receipt of final payment.

9. Taxes. Outside Legal Counsel shall pay, when and as due, any and all taxes incurred as a result of Outside Legal Counsel’s compensation hereunder, including estimated taxes, and shall provide City with proof of such payments upon request.

10. Taxpayer Identification Number. Outside Legal Counsel shall provide City with Outside Legal Counsel’s complete Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification, Form W-9, as issued by the Internal Revenue Service, and any other State or local tax identification number requested by City.

11. Expenses Not Paid. The City will not pay any charges that represent the internal costs or overhead of Outside Legal Counsel . If the charge is questionable, Outside Legal Counsel must receive prior approval from the City. The following are some examples of expenses the City will not pay:

1. For more than one attorney to attend a hearing, deposition or trial, conduct a field investigation or interview, or otherwise handle casework requiring an appearance, absent the prior approval of the City Attorney;

2. Secretarial, clerical or word processing charges;

3. Staff overtime charges;

4. Internal messenger or courier services, except where necessary and less costly than outside services. Only actual mileage for in -house couriers may be billed at the IRS approved rate with no additional surcharge;

5. Photocopy charges in excess of $.15 per page . Any unusual photocopying requirements, including copying by outside services, must be approved in advance by the City Attorney;

6. Accounting or bookkeeping charges;
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10CEA736-3A9C-450E-9E91-F2401F90B93F DocuSign Envelope ID: 93F8FB83-B90F-42E9-85EE-6E1892699C64 99999.91545\40984484.1

Outside Legal Counsel Services Agreement Exhibit B, Compensation

7. Costs of computerized research (e.g., Lexis);

8. Administrative fees or percentages;

9. Ordinary postage;

10. Attempted telephone calls or voicemail messages;

11. Faxes;

12. Staff overtime meals or transportation;

13. For work done to maintain Outside Legal Counsel’s General professional competence;

14. Senior biller, with two exceptions: (1) when each biller is participating in the conference because of his or her unique expertise in a particular field of law; or (2) when a major event has occurred in the matter that must be analyzed by more than one attorney;

15. Administrative and supervisory conferences are not to be charged to the City;

16. Office supplies;

17. Data storage.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 10CEA736-3A9C-450E-9E91-F2401F90B93F DocuSign Envelope ID: 93F8FB83-B90F-42E9-85EE-6E1892699C64 99999.91545\40984484.1

Outside Legal Counsel Services Agreement Exhibit B, Compensation

ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF VALLEJO COMPENSATION RATES

The above rates will be adjusted annually using the cost of living index. At the start of the Client’s fiscal year, July 1, 2024, and every July thereafter during the term of this Agreement, rates and amounts shall be increased for the change in the cost of living for the most recently published twelve (12) month period, as shown by the U.S. Department of Labor in its All Urban Consumers Index set forth in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA area (bi-monthly); provided, however, that such adjustment shall never be lower than zero percent (0%) nor more than five percent (5%).

In addition to the automatic rate increases, either BB&K or the Client may initiate consideration of a rate increase at any time.

FEES FOR ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION (“ESI”) SUPPORT AND

STORAGE
BBK provides Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) services for matters requiring ESI support – typically litigation or threatened litigation matters. BBK provides services for basic ESI processing and storage at the following rates per month based on the number of gigabytes of data (“GB”) processed and stored:
1GB -250GB: $10 per GB
251GB - 550GB: $8 per GB
551GB - 750GB: $6 per GB
751GB - 1TB: $4 per GB
The amount BBK charges for basic processing and storage of ESI allows BBK t o recover the costs of providing such services, plus a net profit for BBK. BBK believes that the rates it charges for processing and storage are lower than comparable services available from third party vendors in the market. If you wish to contract separately with a third party vendor for processing and storage costs, please notify BBK in writing. [OPTIONAL BBK also provides advanced ESI processing services at hourly rates for personnel in its Litigation Support Group. A copy of BBK’s current rates for such services will be provided upon request.] BBK shall not incur costs for ESI support on a particular matter without first confirming by email or written correspondence with the client that the client agrees such services are necessary for the matter at hand.

Partners/Of Counsels $350.00/hour
Associates $275.00/hour
Paralegals $175.00/hour

DocuSign Envelope ID: 10CEA736-3A9C-450E-9E91-F2401F90B93F DocuSign Envelope ID: 93F8FB83-B90F-42E9-85EE-6E1892699C64 RESOLUTION NO. 24-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO AUTHORIZING THE

CITY ATTORNEY TO EXECUTE AN AMEND MENT TO AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES FOR A TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $750,000
WHEREAS, the City of Vallejo utilizes specialized outside legal services to represent it on various matters; and
WHEREAS, the law firm of Best Best & Krieger LLP is currently representing the City on a number of matters related to employment litigation; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney executed an agreement with Best Best & Krieger LLP that is within the City Attorney’s signing authority; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney desires to continue using Best Best & Krieger LLP on matters related to employment law litigation; and
WHEREAS, the continued use of Best Best & Krieger LLP will exceed the City Attorney’s signing authority without City Council approval.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves an Agreement for Legal Services with the law firm of Best Best & Krieger LLP in an amount not to exceed $750,000.00 and authorizes the City Attorney to execute the contract.

ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO at a regular meeting held on April 23, 2024, with the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ROBERT H. MCCONNELL, MAYOR
ATTEST:

DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON, CITY CLERK
CONSENT CALENDAR 8.J.

DATE: April 23, 2024
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Veronica A.F. Nebb, City Attorney
Katelyn M. Knight, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO EXECUTE AN

AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES WITH

THE LAW FIRM OF OPPENHEIMER INVESTIGATIONS GROUP, LLP

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Attorney to execute an amendment to a fee agreement with the law firm of Oppenheimer Investigations Group, LLP for legal investigation services in an amount not to exceed $200,00 per fiscal year and extending the agreement to June 30, 2026.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
Oppenheimer Investigations Group, LLP ("OIG") currently provides legal investigation services to the City of Vallejo with respect to a number of confidential personnel matters subject to attorney-client and work product privileges. The City would like to utilize OIG for additional confidential investigations, which are expected to require additional legal work beyond the City Attorney's monetary authority of $100,000 per fiscal year.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The City of Vallejo utilizes attorneys to provide independent legal investigation services in specialized areas.

Oppenheimer Investigations Group, LLP is experienced in providing independent legal investigation services to public agencies. OIG currently provides legal investigation services to the City with respect to a number of confidential personnel matters. There is a need to renew this contract to continue conducting needed investigations each fiscal year. Conducting such investigations is a mandatory duty of the City relating to certain personnel matters.

FISCAL IMPACT
This is a contract for legal services which are ongoing. Funds to pay the fees are currently allocated in the City Attorney budget.

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. Amendment #2 OIG

2. Amendment #1 OIG

3. OIG Agreement

4. Resolution Authorizing OIG Amendment

Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO EXECUTE AN

AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES WITH

THE LAW FIRM OF OPPENHEIMER INVESTIGATIONS GROUP, LLP

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

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

CONSULTANT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF VALLEJO

AND OPPENHEIMER INVESTIGATIONS GROUP LLP
This Second Amendment to the Consultant and Professional Services Agreement by and between the City of Vallejo, a municipal corporation (“City”) and Oppenheimer Investigations Group, LLP, a California limited liability partnership (“Consultant”) is made and entered into by the parties this April 23, 2024.

WHEREAS, City and Consultant entered into a Consultant and Professional Services Agreement on July 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, City and Consultant executed a First Amendment to the Consultant and Professional Services Agreement on July 1, 2023 (collectively the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that total compensation not exceed $100,000 per fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the term of the Agreement expires on June 30, 2024; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to increase the total compensation amount to allow for additional work to be performed under the Agreement and to extend the term of the Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES DO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The first sentence of Paragraph 16 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
“The term of this Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2022 and shall continue in full force and effect until June 30, 2026, unless earlier terminated.” The remainder of Paragraph 16 shall remain unchanged.

2. Paragraph 2 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“Payment. City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the times and in the manner set forth in Exhibit B, entitled “Compensation.” In no event shall the total Compensation exceed Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) per fiscal year of the Agreement without a written amendment to this Agreement. The payments specified in Exhibit B shall be the only payments to be made to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement.”

3. Paragraph 1.A of Exhibit B to the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“Services. The City Attorney’s Office of the City of Vallejo (“City”) agrees to pay Consultant, at the rate(s) specified below, for those assigned services as set forth in Exhibit A of this Agreement and for all authorized reimbursable expenses, for a total not to exceed Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) per fiscal year for conducting independent and confidential fact-finding reviews and investigations into assigned complaints, and providing confidential investigative reports that will be used for employment-related purposes.

City agrees to pay Consultant for those services set forth in Exhibit A of this Agreement and for all authorized reimbursable expenses, within 30 days of receiving invoice upon satisfactory completion of the services and delivery of the work product.”

4.Integration. This Second Amendment contains the entire agreement between the parties with respect to its subject matter and supersedes whatever oral or written understanding they may have had prior to the execution of this Second Amendment. This Second Amendment shall not be amended or modified except by a written agreement executed by each of the parties. Except as specifically revised herein, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and Consultant shall perform all duties, obligations and conditions required under the Agreement.

5.Inconsistencies. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Second Amendment and the Agreement, the provisions of this Second Amendment shall control in all respects.

6.Ambiguities. The parties have each carefully reviewed this Second Amendment and have agreed to each term of this Second Amendment. No ambiguity shall be presumed to be construed against either party.

7.Counterparts. This Second Amendment may be executed by the parties in one or more counterparts all of which collectively shall constitute one document and agreement.

8.Authority. The person signing this Second Amendment for Consultant hereby represents and warrants that he or she is fully authorized to sign this Second Amendment on behalf of Consultant.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Second Amendment on the day and year first hereinabove appearing.

OPPENHEIMER INVESTIGATIONS

GROUP LLP,
a California Limited Liability Partnership
BY:

Vida Thomas
Managing Partner
DATE:
(City Seal)

CITY OF VALLEJO,
a municipal corporation
BY:

Veronica A. F. Nebb
City Attorney
DATE:

ATTEST:

DAWN G ABRAHAMSON
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE:

ARMOND SARKIS
Risk Manager

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

CONSULTANT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF VALLEJO

AND OPPENHEIMER INVESTIGATIONS GROUP LLP
T
his First Amendment to the Consultant and Professional Services Agreement by and between the City of Vallejo, a municipal corporation (“City”) and Oppenheimer Investigations Group, LLP, a California limited liability partnership (“Consultant”) is made and entered into by the parties this July 1, 2023.

WHEREAS, City and Consultant entered into a Consultant and Professional Services Agreement on July 1, 2022 (“Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, under the terms of the Agreement, Consultant was to provide investigatory services for City personnel matters at the request of the City Attorney; and WHEREAS, the term of the Agreement expires on June 30, 2023; and WHEREAS, the parties to the Agreement desire to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional one year.

NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES DO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The first sentence of Paragraph 16 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
“
The term of this Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2022 and shall continue in full force and effect until June 30, 2024, unless earlier terminated.” T
he remainder of Paragraph 16 shall remain unchanged.

2. P
aragraph 2 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“
Payment. City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the times and in the manner set forth in Exhibit B, entitled “Compensation.” In no event shall the total Compensation exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($ 100,000) per fiscal year of the Agreement without a written amendment to this Agreement. The payments specified in Exhibit B shall be the only payments to be made to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement.”

3. P
aragraph 3 of Exhibit A to the Agreement is amended to add Key Personnel’s 2023 Rates, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

4. P
aragraph 1.A of Exhibit B to the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

DocuSign Envelope ID: E2756319-5EBB-43EB-AAF3-A370E954D3A2 “Services. The City Attorney’s Office of the City of Vallejo (“City”) agrees to pay Consultant, at the rate(s) specified below, for those assigned services as set forth in Exhibit A of this Agreement and for all authorized reimbursable expenses, for a total not to exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) per fiscal year for conducting independent and confidential fact-finding reviews and investigations into assigned complaints, and providing confidential investigative reports that will be used for employment-related purposes.

C
ity agrees to pay Consultant for those services set forth in Exhibit A of this Agreement and for all authorized reimbursable expenses, within 30 days of receiving invoice upon satisfactory completion of the services and delivery of the work product.”

5. A
ttachment 1 to Exhibit B to the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“
See 2022 and 2023 Rates, above.”

6. I
ntegration. This First Amendment contains the entire agreement between the parties with respect to its subject matter and supersedes whatever oral or written understanding they may have had prior to the execution of this First Amendment.

This First Amendment shall not be amended or modified except by a written agreement executed by each of the parties. Except as specifically revised herein, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and Consultant shall perform all duties, obligations and conditions required under the Agreement.

7. I
nconsistencies. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this First Amendment and the Agreement, the provisions of this First Amendment shall control in all respects.

8. A
mbiguities. The parties have each carefully reviewed this First Amendment and have agreed to each term of this First Amendment. No ambiguity shall be presumed to be construed against either party.

9. C
ounterparts. This First Amendment may be executed by the parties in one or more counterparts all of which collectively shall constitute one document and agreement.

10. A
uthority. The person signing this First Amendment for Consultant hereby represents and warrants that he or she is fully authorized to sign this First Amendment on behalf of Consultant.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E2756319-5EBB-43EB-AAF3-A370E954D3A2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this First Amendment on the day and year first hereinabove appearing.

OPPENHEIMER INVESTIGATIONS

GROUP LLP,
a California Limited Liability Partnership

BY:

Vida Thomas
Managing Partner

DATE:

(City Seal)

CITY OF VALLEJO,
a municipal corporation

BY:

Veronica A. F. Nebb
City Attorney

DATE:

ATTEST:

DAWN G ABRAHAMSON
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE:

ARMOND SARKIS
Risk Manager

DocuSign Envelope ID: E2756319-5EBB-43EB-AAF3-A370E954D3A2 8/30/2023
8/30/2023

2023 RATE SHEET A+orney Public Sector/Non-Profit Rate Amy Oppenheimer, Partner $645/hour Vida Thomas, Managing Partner $495/hour Tina Ro-Connolly, Partner Zaneta Seidel, Partner Tracey Merwise, Senior AForney Danielle Drossel, Senior AForney Ilona Turner, Senior AForney $445/hour
Supervision/SubstanKve Edit $445/hour Alezah Trigueros, Partner Jack Morse, AForney Erik Roper, AForney Rachel Reddick, AForney Sandy Fu, Of Counsel Renee Jansen, Of Counsel $395/hour
Madeline Buitelaar, AForney Gorev Ahuja, AForney Ashlyn Clark, AForney $355/hour
Maria Walker, AForney GarreF Smith, AForney JeaneFe Boykins, AForney Neil BauKsta, AForney $315/hour
Writers/Editors $195/hour Interns $125/hour
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2756319-5EBB-43EB-AAF3-A370E954D3A2

ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?

INSR ADDL SUBR

LTR INSD WVD

PRODUCER CONTACT
NAME:

FAXPHONE
(A/C, No):(A/C, No, Ext):

E-MAIL
ADDRESS:

INSURER A :

INSURED INSURER B :

INSURER C :

INSURER D :

INSURER E :

INSURER F :

POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF POLICY EXPTYPE OF INSURANCE LIMITS(MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY)

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY

UMBRELLA LIAB

EXCESS LIAB

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
EACH OCCURRENCE $
DAMAGE TO RENTEDCLAIMS-MADE OCCUR $PREMISES (Ea occurrence) MED EXP (Any one person) $
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $

PRO-POLICY LOC PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGGJECT
OTHER: $

COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
$(Ea accident)
ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person) $

OWNED SCHEDULED
BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $AUTOS ONLY AUTOS

HIRED NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE
$AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY (Per accident)
$

OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE
CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $
DED RETENTION $

PER OTH-

STATUTE ER
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $
If yes, describe under
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMITDESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC #

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
Y / N
N / A
(Mandatory in NH)

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING AN Y REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTR ACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDE D BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY A MEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUT E A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.

If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:

CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.ACORD 25 (2016/03)

CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE

DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)
$
$
$
$
$The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
OPPEN-2 OP ID: P4
06/29/2023
Summer J. Gorsica
Ahern Insurance Brokerage
1615 Murray Canyon Rd Ste 1050
San Diego, CA 92108
Randy T. Gust
858-571-9030 858-571-9010
[email protected]
Sentinel Insurance Company
Prop & Cas Ins Co of Hartford
Oppenheimer Investigations
Group, LLP
1442A Walnut St., Ste 234
Berkeley, CA 94709
Aspen American Insurance Comp
Coalition Services, Inc.

A X 2,000,000
X X 72SBWBE8553 03/05/2023 03/05/2024 1,000,000
10,000
2,000,000
4,000,000
X 4,000,000
2,000,000A
72SBWBE8553 03/05/2023 03/05/2024
XX
XB
X 72WECAF0L8B 02/18/2023 02/18/2024 1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
C LPP00423902 01/11/2023 01/11/2024 EACH/AGG 2M/4M
D Cyber Liability C-4O3G-168853-CYBER-2023 06/24/2023 06/24/2024 EACH/AGG 5M/5M PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY DEDUCTIBLE: $15,000 each claim.

CYBER LIABILITY DEDUCTIBLE: $25,000 each claim.

The City of Vallejo, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as an additional Insured as their Interests appear per written contract. This insurance is Primary and (See Page 2) City of Vallejo
555 Santa Clara Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
858-571-9030
11000
34690
Professional Liab.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E2756319-5EBB-43EB-AAF3-A370E954D3A2 Date

HOLDER CODE

INSURED'S NAME
PAGE
NOTEPAD:

Non-Contributory. Waiver of Subrogation Applies. 30 days' notice of cancellation applies. 10 days for non-payment. 2 Oppenheimer Investigations 06/29/2023
OPPEN-2
OP ID: P4
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2756319-5EBB-43EB-AAF3-A370E954D3A2 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

Countersigned by
Authorized Representative
Form WC 04 03 06 (1) Printed in U.S.A.

Process Date: 01/09/23 Policy Expiration Date: 02/18/24

WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM

OTHERS ENDORSEMENT - CALIFORNIA
Policy Number: 72 WEC AR1C9G Endorsement Number:

Effective Date: 02/18/23 Effective hour is the same as stated on the Information Pa ge of the policy.

Named Insured and Address: Oppenheimer Investigations Group LLP 1442A WALNUT ST STE 234
BERKELEY CA 94709
We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. (This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.) You must maintain payroll records accurately segregating the remuneration of your employees while engaged in the work described in the Schedule.

The additional premium for this endorsement shall be 2 % of the California workers' compensation premium otherwise due on such remuneration.

SCHEDULE
Person or Organization Job Description
Any person or organization for whom you are required by written contract or agreement to obtain this waiver of rights from us
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2756319-5EBB-43EB-AAF3-A370E954D3A2

BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM
f. (3)This Paragraph applies separately to We have issued this policy in reliance you and any additional insured. upon your representations.

3. Financial Responsibility Laws b. Unintentional Failure To Disclose Hazardsa. When this policy is certified as proof of
financial responsibility for the future under If unintentionally you should fail to disclose the provisions of any motor vehicle all hazards relating to the conduct of your financial responsibility law, the insurance business at the inception date of this provided by the policy for "bodily injury" Coverage Part, we shall not deny any liability and "property damage" liability will coverage under this Coverage Part comply with the provisions of the law to because of such failure. the extent of the coverage and limits of 7. Other Insurance insurance required by that law. If other valid and collectible insurance isb. With respect to "mobile equipment" to available for a loss we cover under thiswhich this insurance applies, we will Coverage Part, our obligations are limited asprovide any liability, uninsured motorists, follows:underinsured motorists, no-fault or other a. Primary Insurancecoverage required by any motor vehicle b.law. We will provide the required limits for This insurance is primary except when those coverages. below applies. If other insurance is also primary, we will share with all that other4. Legal Action Against Us c.insurance by the method described inNo person or organization has a right under below.this Coverage Form:
b. Excess Insurancea. To join us as a party or otherwise bring us This insurance is excess over any of theinto a "suit" asking for damages from an other insurance, whether primary, excess,insured; or
contingent or on any other basis:b. To sue us on this Coverage Form unless (1) Your Workall of its terms have been fully complied
with. That is Fire, Extended Coverage,
Builder's Risk, Installation Risk orA person or organization may sue us to recover similar coverage for "your work";on an agreed settlement or on a final judgment against an insured; but we will not be liable for (2) Premises Rented To You damages that are not payable under the terms of That is fire, lightning or explosionthis insurance or that are in excess of the insurance for premises rented to youapplicable limit of insurance. An agreed or temporarily occupied by you withsettlement means a settlement and release of permission of the owner;liability signed by us, the insured and the (3) Tenant Liabilityclaimant or the claimant's legal representative.

That is insurance purchased by you to5. Separation Of Insureds cover your liability as a tenant forExcept with respect to the Limits of Insurance, "property damage" to premises rentedand any rights or duties specifically assigned to you or temporarily occupied by youin this policy to the first Named Insured, this with permission of the owner;insurance applies:
(4) Aircraft, Auto Or Watercrafta. As if each Named Insured were the only If the loss arises out of the maintenanceNamed Insured; and or use of aircraft, "autos" or watercraft tob. Separately to each insured against whom g.the extent not subject to Exclusion ofa claim is made or "suit" is brought. A.Section – Coverages.

6. Representations (5) Property Damage To Borrowed
a. When You Accept This Policy Equipment Or Use Of Elevators By accepting this policy, you agree: If the loss arises out of "property damage" to borrowed equipment or(1) The statements in the Declarations the use of elevators to the extent notare accurate and complete; k. A.subject to Exclusion of Section –(2) Those statements are based upon Coverages.representations you made to us; and

3ROLF\1R6%:%(
Separation Of Insureds
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2756319-5EBB-43EB-AAF3-A370E954D3A2

BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM
(6) When You Are Added As An When this insurance is excess over other Additional Insured To Other insurance, we will pay only our share of Insurance the amount of the loss, if any, that
exceeds the sum of:That is other insurance available to (1)you covering liability for damages The total amount that all such other arising out of the premises or insurance would pay for the loss in the operations, or products and completed absence of this insurance; and operations, for which you have been (2) The total of all deductible and self- added as an additional insured by that insured amounts under all that other insurance; or insurance.
(7) When You Add Others As An We will share the remaining loss, if any, with Additional Insured To This any other insurance that is not described in Insurance this Excess Insurance provision and was not
That is other insurance available to an bought specifically to apply in excess of the additional insured. Limits of Insurance shown in the
Declarations of this Coverage Part.However, the following provisions c. Method Of Sharingapply to other insurance available to any person or organization who is an If all the other insurance permits additional insured under this Coverage contribution by equal shares, we will follow Part: this method also. Under this approach,
(a) Primary Insurance When each insurer contributes equal amounts Required By Contract until it has paid its applicable limit of insurance or none of the loss remains,This insurance is primary if you whichever comes first.have agreed in a written contract, written agreement or permit that If any of the other insurance does not permit this insurance be primary. If other contribution by equal shares, we will insurance is also primary, we will contribute by limits. Under this method, each share with all that other insurance insurer’s share is based on the ratio of its c.by the method described in applicable limit of insurance to the total below. applicable limits of insurance of all insurers.
(b) Primary And Non-Contributory 8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against To Other Insurance When Others To Us
Required By Contract a. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery
If you have agreed in a written If the insured has rights to recover all or contract, written agreement or part of any payment, including permit that this insurance is Supplementary Payments, we have made primary and non-contributory with under this Coverage Part, those rights are the additional insured's own transferred to us. The insured must do insurance, this insurance is nothing after loss to impair them. At our primary and we will not seek request, the insured will bring "suit" or contribution from that other transfer those rights to us and help us insurance. enforce them. This condition does not
(a) (b)Paragraphs and do not apply to apply to Medical Expenses Coverage. other insurance to which the additional b. Waiver Of Rights Of Recovery (Waiver insured has been added as an Of Subrogation)
additional insured. If the insured has waived any rights of When this insurance is excess, we will recovery against any person or have no duty under this Coverage Part to organization for all or part of any payment, defend the insured against any "suit" if any including Supplementary Payments, we other insurer has a duty to defend the have made under this Coverage Part, we insured against that "suit". If no other also waive that right, provided the insured insurer defends, we will undertake to do waived their rights of recovery against so, but we will be entitled to the insured's such person or organization in a contract, rights against all those other insurers. agreement or permit that was executed prior to the injury or damage.

Form SS 00 08 04 05 Page 17 of 24
3ROLF\1R6%:%(
Primary And Non-Contributory
To Other Insurance When
Required By Contract
Of Subrogation)
Waiver Of Rights Of Recovery (Waiver
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2756319-5EBB-43EB-AAF3-A370E954D3A2

BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM

3. Additional Insured - Grantor Of FranchiseF. OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INSURED C.WHO IS AN INSURED under Section isCOVERAGES
amended to include as an additional insuredIf listed or shown as applicable in the Declarations, the person(s) or organization(s) shown in theone or more of the following Optional Additional Declarations as an Additional Insured -Insured Coverages also apply. When any of these Grantor Of Franchise, but only with respect toOptional Additional Insured Coverages apply, their liability as grantor of franchise to you.6.Paragraph (Additional Insureds When Required

4. Additional Insured - Lessor Of Leasedby Written Contract, Written Agreement or Permit) EquipmentC.of Section , Who Is An Insured, does not apply to the person or organization shown in the a. C.WHO IS AN INSURED under Section is Declarations. These coverages are subject to the amended to include as an additional terms and conditions applicable to Business insured the person(s) or organization(s) Liability Coverage in this policy, except as shown in the Declarations as an Additional provided below: Insured – Lessor of Leased Equipment,
but only with respect to liability for "bodily1. Additional Insured - Designated Person Or injury", "property damage" or "personalOrganization
and advertising injury" caused, in whole orC.WHO IS AN INSURED under Section is in part, by your maintenance, operation oramended to include as an additional insured use of equipment leased to you by suchthe person(s) or organization(s) shown in the person(s) or organization(s).Declarations, but only with respect to liability b. With respect to the insurance afforded tofor "bodily injury", "property damage" or these additional insureds, this insurance"personal and advertising injury" caused, in does not apply to any "occurrence" whichwhole or in part, by your acts or omissions or takes place after you cease to lease thatthe acts or omissions of those acting on your equipment.behalf:

5. Additional Insured - Owners Or Othera. In the performance of your ongoing Interests From Whom Land Has Beenoperations; or
Leasedb. In connection with your premises owned
a. C. WHO IS AN INSURED under Section isby or rented to you. amended to include as an additional2. Additional Insured - Managers Or Lessors insured the person(s) or organization(s)Of Premises shown in the Declarations as an Additional a. C.WHO IS AN INSURED under Section is Insured – Owners Or Other Interests From amended to include as an additional insured Whom Land Has Been Leased, but only the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the with respect to liability arising out of the Declarations as an Additional Insured - ownership, maintenance or use of that part Designated Person Or Organization; but only of the land leased to you and shown in the with respect to liability arising out of the Declarations. ownership, maintenance or use of that part of b. With respect to the insurance afforded tothe premises leased to you and shown in the these additional insureds, the followingDeclarations. additional exclusions apply:
b. With respect to the insurance afforded to This insurance does not apply to:these additional insureds, the following (1) Any "occurrence" that takes placeadditional exclusions apply:
after you cease to lease that land; orThis insurance does not apply to:
(2) Structural alterations, new(1) Any "occurrence" which takes place construction or demolition operationsafter you cease to be a tenant in that performed by or on behalf of suchpremises; or person or organization. (2) Structural alterations, new 6. Additional Insured - State Or Politicalconstruction or demolition operations Subdivision – Permitsperformed by or on behalf of such a. C.WHO IS AN INSURED under Section isperson or organization. amended to include as an additional
insured the state or political subdivision
shown in the Declarations as an Additional

3ROLF\1R6%:%(
Additional Insured - Managers Or Lessors
Of Premises
Additional Insured - Designated Person Or
Additional Insured - Lessor Of Leased
Equipment
Additional Insured - Owners Or Othe
Interests From Whom Land Has Been
Leased
Additional Insured - Grantor Of Franchise
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2756319-5EBB-43EB-AAF3-A370E954D3A2

BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM
(e)Insured – State Or Political Subdivision - Any failure to make such Permits, but only with respect to inspections, adjustments, tests or operations performed by you or on your servicing as the vendor has agreed behalf for which the state or political to make or normally undertakes to subdivision has issued a permit. make in the usual course of business, in connection with theb. With respect to the insurance afforded to distribution or sale of the products;these additional insureds, the following (f) Demonstration, installation,additional exclusions apply:
servicing or repair operations,This insurance does not apply to: except such operations performed(1) "Bodily injury", "property damage" or at the vendor's premises in"personal and advertising injury" connection with the sale of thearising out of operations performed for product;the state or municipality; or (g) Products which, after distribution(2) "Bodily injury" or "property damage" or sale by you, have been labeledincluded in the "product-completed or relabeled or used as aoperations" hazard. container, part or ingredient of any

7. Additional Insured – Vendors other thing or substance by or for the vendor; ora. C.WHO IS AN INSURED under Section is
amended to include as an additional (h) "Bodily injury" or "property insured the person(s) or organization(s) damage" arising out of the sole (referred to below as vendor) shown in the negligence of the vendor for its Declarations as an Additional Insured - own acts or omissions or those of Vendor, but only with respect to "bodily its employees or anyone else injury" or "property damage" arising out of acting on its behalf. However, this "your products" which are distributed or exclusion does not apply to:
sold in the regular course of the vendor's (i) The exceptions contained inbusiness and only if this Coverage Part (d) (f)Subparagraphs or ; orprovides coverage for "bodily injury" or (ii) Such inspections,"property damage" included within the adjustments, tests or servicing"products-completed operations hazard". as the vendor has agreed tob. The insurance afforded to the vendor is make or normally undertakessubject to the following additional exclusions: to make in the usual course of (1) This insurance does not apply to: business, in connection with the distribution or sale of the(a) "Bodily injury" or "property products.damage" for which the vendor is
obligated to pay damages by (2) This insurance does not apply to any reason of the assumption of insured person or organization from liability in a contract or agreement. whom you have acquired such This exclusion does not apply to products, or any ingredient, part or liability for damages that the container, entering into, vendor would have in the absence accompanying or containing such of the contract or agreement; products.
(b) Any express warranty 8. Additional Insured – Controlling Interest unauthorized by you; C.WHO IS AN INSURED under Section is (c) Any physical or chemical change
amended to include as an additional insured
in the product made intentionally the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the by the vendor; Declarations as an Additional Insured –
Controlling Interest, but only with respect to(d) Repackaging, unless unpacked their liability arising out of:solely for the purpose of inspection, demonstration, testing, or the a. Their financial control of you; or substitution of parts under b. Premises they own, maintain or control instructions from the manufacturer, while you lease or occupy these premises. and then repackaged in the original
container;
Form SS 00 08 04 05 Page 19 of 24
3ROLF\1R6%:%(
Additional Insured – Vendors
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2756319-5EBB-43EB-AAF3-A370E954D3A2

BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM
This insurance does not apply to structural The limits of insurance that apply to additional D.alterations, new construction and demolition insureds are described in Section – Limits Of operations performed by or for that person or Insurance. organization. How this insurance applies when other insurance

9. Additional Insured – Owners, Lessees Or is available to an additional insured is described in Contractors – Scheduled Person Or E.the Other Insurance Condition in Section – Organization Liability And Medical Expenses General
Conditions.a. C. WHO IS AN INSURED under Section is
amended to include as an additional
G. LIABILITY AND MEDICAL EXPENSES
insured the person(s) or organization(s) DEFINITIONSshown in the Declarations as an Additional

1. "Advertisement" means the widespread publicInsured – Owner, Lessees Or Contractors, dissemination of information or images thatbut only with respect to liability for "bodily has the purpose of inducing the sale of goods,injury", "property damage" or "personal products or services through:and advertising injury" caused, in whole or in part, by your acts or omissions or the a. (1) Radio; acts or omissions of those acting on your (2) Television; behalf: (3) Billboard;
(1) In the performance of your ongoing (4) Magazine;operations for the additional (5) Newspaper;insured(s); or b. The Internet, but only that part of a web(2) In connection with "your work" site that is about goods, products orperformed for that additional insured services for the purposes of inducing theand included within the "products- sale of goods, products or services; orcompleted operations hazard", but c. Any other publication that is givenonly if this Coverage Part provides widespread public distribution.coverage for "bodily injury" or "property damage" included within the However, "advertisement" does not include:
"products-completed operations a. The design, printed material, informationhazard". or images contained in, on or upon the b. With respect to the insurance afforded to packaging or labeling of any goods or these additional insureds, this insurance products; or
does not apply to "bodily injury", "property b. An interactive conversation between ordamage" or "personal an advertising among persons through a computer network.injury" arising out of the rendering of, or

2. "Advertising idea" means any idea for anthe failure to render, any professional "advertisement".architectural, engineering or surveying services, including: 3. "Asbestos hazard" means an exposure or threat of exposure to the actual or alleged(1) The preparing, approving, or failure to properties of asbestos and includes the mereprepare or approve, maps, shop presence of asbestos in any form.drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, field orders, change orders, designs or 4. "Auto" means a land motor vehicle, trailer or drawings and specifications; or semi-trailer designed for travel on public roads, including any attached machinery or(2) Supervisory, inspection, architectural equipment. But "auto" does not includeor engineering activities. "mobile equipment".10. Additional Insured – Co-Owner Of Insured

5. "Bodily injury" means physical:Premises
a. Injury;C.WHO IS AN INSURED under Section is
amended to include as an additional insured b. Sickness; or the person(s) or Organization(s) shown in the c. DiseaseDeclarations as an Additional Insured – Co- sustained by a person and, if arising out of the Owner Of Insured Premises, but only with above, mental anguish or death at any time.respect to their liability as co-owner of the premises shown in the Declarations. 6. "Coverage territory" means:

3ROLF\1R6%:%(
Additional Insured – Owners, Lessees Or
Contractors – Scheduled Person Or
Organization
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2756319-5EBB-43EB-AAF3-A370E954D3A2 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

CALIFORNIA CHANGES
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS

SPECIAL PROPERTY COVERAGE FORM

STANDARD PROPERTY COVERAGE FORM

BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM
A. Paragraphs 2. and 3. of the Cancellation Common
Policy Condition are replaced by the following:

2. All Policies in Effect for 60 Days Or Less:

If this policy has been in effect for 60 days or
less, and is not a renewal of a policy we have
previously issued, we may cancel this policy by
mailing or delivering to the first Named Insured
at the mailing address shown in the policy and
to the producer of record, advance written
notice of cancellation, stating the reason for
cancellation, at least:
a. 10 days before the effective date of
cancellation if we cancel for:
(1) Nonpayment of premium; or
(2) Discovery of fraud or material
misrepresentation by:
(a) Any insured or his or her
representative in obtaining this
insurance; or
(b) You or your representative in
pursuing a claim under this policy.
b. 30 days before the effective date of
cancellation if we cancel for any other
reason.

3. All Policies in Effect For More Than 60 Days
a. If this policy has been in effect for more
than 60 days, or is a renewal of a policy we
issued, we may cancel this policy only upon
the occurrence, after the effective date of
the policy, of one or more of the following,
or as permitted under applicable California
law:
(1) Nonpayment of premium, including
payment due on a prior policy we
issued and due during the current
policy term covering the same risks.
(2) Discovery of fraud or material
misrepresentation by:
(a) Any insured or his or her
representative in obtaining this
insurance; or
(b) You or your representative in
pursuing a claim under this policy.
(3) A judgment by a court or an
administrative tribunal that you have
violated a California or Federal law,
having as one of its necessary
elements an act which materially
increases any of the risks insured
against.
(4) Discovery of willful or grossly negligent
acts or omissions, or of any violations
of state laws or regulations establishing
safety standards, by you or your
representative, which materially
increase any of the risks insured
against.
(5) Failure by you or your representative
to implement reasonable loss control
requirements, agreed to by you as a
condition of policy issuance, or which
were conditions precedent to our use
of a particular rate or rating plan, if that
failure materially increases any of the
risks insured against.
(6) A determination by the Commissioner
of Insurance that the:
(a) Loss of, or changes in, our
reinsurance covering all or part of
the risk would threaten our
financial integrity or solvency; or
(b) Continuation of the policy
coverage would:
i. Place us in violation of
California law or the laws of
the state where we are
domiciled; or
ii. Threaten our solvency.
(7) A change by you or your
representative in the activities or
property of the commercial or industrial
enterprise, which results in a materially
added, increased or changed risk,
unless the added, increased or
changed risk is included in the policy.

F o r mS S0 12 10 22 0 Page 1 of 5
2019, The Hartford
(Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission) 3ROLF\1R6%:%(
b. 30 days before the effective date of
cancellation i f we cancel for an y other
reason.
10 days before the effective date of
cancellationi f wec ancel for:
(1) Nonpayment of premium; o
DocuSign Envelope ID: E2756319-5EBB-43EB-AAF3-A370E954D3A2

RESOLUTION NO. 24-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO AUTHORIZING

THE CITY ATTORNEY TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES FOR A TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $200,000

PER FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, the City of Vallejo utilizes specialized legal investigation services to conduct investigations into confidential personnel matters; and WHEREAS, the law firm of Oppenheimer Investigations Group, LLC is currently conducting a number of confidential investigations; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney executed an agreement with Oppenheimer Investigations Group, LLC that is within the City Attorney’s signing authority; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney desires to continue using Oppenheimer Investigations Group, LLC for additional personnel investigations; and
WHEREAS, the continued use of Oppenheimer Investigations Group, LLC will exceed the City Attorney’s signing authority without City Council approval.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves an Agreement for Legal Services with the law firm of Oppenheimer Investigations Group, LLC in an amount not to exceed $200,000.00 per fiscal year and authorizes the City Attorney to execute the contract.

ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO at a regular meeting held on April 23, 2024, with the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ROBERT H. MCCONNELL, MAYOR
ATTEST:

DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON, CITY CLERK
ACTION ITEM 9.A.

DATE: April 23, 2024
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alicia Jones, Housing Director
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTUON APPROVING CONDUIT

FINANCING ISSUED BY THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY FOR

THE WEST HARBOR PARK APARTMENTS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT

PURSUANT TO THE TAX AND EQUITY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT (TEFRA) WITH

NO FINANCIAL LIABILITY FOR THE CITY

RECOMMENDATION

1. Conduct a public hearing under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act ("TEFRA") in connection with the proposed issuance of revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (the "CMFA"), a joint exercise of powers authority and public entity of the State of California, in an amount not to exceed $45,000,000, (the "Bonds"), for the part of a plan to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 969 Porter Street, Vallejo, California (the "Project"). This is the approval of an issuance of Bonds by another public agency for a project to be constructed within the City of Vallejo and not an issuance of bonds by the City of Vallejo. The City has no financial obligation whatsoever for these bonds.

2. Adopt a Resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds by the CMFA for the benefit of Harbor Park Apartments Phase 2, LP. (the "Borrower"), a partnership of which Klein Financial Corporation (the "Developer") or a related person to the Developer is the general partner, to provide for the financing of the Project, as such adoption is solely for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of TEFRA, the Code, and California Government Code Section 6500 (and following).

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
A public hearing and approval by the City Council is required in order for the Borrower to issue revenue bonds to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 969 Porter Street, Vallejo, California

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The City of Vallejo's Design Review Board conducted a public hearing on June 8, 2023, and made a recommendation to the Vallejo Planning Commission to approve the Project. On August 21, 2023, the Planning Commission approved the Development Review, Design Review, Landscape Review, and Environmental Document.

The Borrower has requested that the CMFA issue one or more series of revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $45,000,000, including but not limited to revenue bonds issued as part of a plan to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 969 Porter Street, Vallejo, California.

In order for all or a portion of the Bonds to qualify as tax-exempt bonds, the City of Vallejo must conduct a

Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTUON APPROVING CONDUIT

FINANCING ISSUED BY THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY

FOR THE WEST HARBOR PARK APARTMENTS AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE TAX AND EQUITY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT (TEFRA) WITH NO FINANCIAL LIABILITY FOR THE CITY

public hearing (the “TEFRA Hearing”) providing the members of the community an opportunity to speak in favor of or against the use of tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the Project. Prior to such TEFRA Hearing, reasonable notice must be provided to the members of the community. Following the close of the TEFRA Hearing, an “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit hosting the Project must provide its approval of the issuance of the Bonds for the financing of the Project.

The CMFA was created on January 1, 2004 pursuant to a joint exercise of powers agreement to promote economic, cultural and community development, through the financing of economic development and charitable activities throughout California. To date, over 350 municipalities, including the City, have become members of CMFA. The CMFA was formed to assist local governments, non-profit organizations and businesses with the issuance of taxable and tax-exempt bonds aimed at improving the standard of living in California. The CMFA’s representatives and its Board of Directors have considerable experience in bond financing.

Even though the City is a member of the joint powers authority issuing the bonds, the approval of the issuance does not constitute a debt of the City of Vallejo and the City has no financial obligation for the bonds. The Borrower is solely responsible for repayment of the bonds.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Bonds to be issued by the CMFA for the Project will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower, and the City will have no financial, legal, moral obligation, liability or responsibility for the Project or the repayment of the Bonds for the financing of the Project. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the Bonds are not obligations of the City or the State of California, but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower.

The Board of Directors of the California Foundation for Stronger Communities, a California non-profit public benefit corporation (the "Foundation"), acts as the Board of Directors for the CMFA. Through its conduit issuance activities, the CMFA shares a portion of the issuance fees it receives with its member communities and donates a portion of these issuance fees to the Foundation for the support of local charities. With respect to the City of Vallejo, it is expected that a portion of the issuance fee attributable to the City will be granted by the CMFA to the General Fund of the City. Such grant may be used for any lawful purpose of the City.

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. Resolution Approving CMFA Bonds for West Harbor Park ApartmentsCAO STAMP

2. TEFRA Public Hearing Notice for West Harbor Park Apartments Dated April 11, 2024

CONTACT
Alicia Jones, Housing Director (707) 648-4408
[email protected]
Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTUON APPROVING CONDUIT

FINANCING ISSUED BY THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY

FOR THE WEST HARBOR PARK APARTMENTS AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE TAX AND EQUITY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT (TEFRA) WITH NO FINANCIAL LIABILITY FOR THE CITY

Approved as to form:

By: for
Veronica Nebb, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO._______________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO

APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL

FINANCE AUTHORITY EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS FOR A

QUALIFIED RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROJECT IN AN AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $45,000,000 FOR THE

PURPOSE OF FINANCING OR REFINANCING THE ACQUISITION,

CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT AND EQUIPPING OF WEST

HARBOR PARK APARTMENTS AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS

RELATING THERETO
WHEREAS, Harbor Park Apartments Phase 2, LP (the "Borrower") a partnership of which Klein Financial Corporation (the "Developer") or a related person to the Developer is the general partner, has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (the "Authority") adopt a plan of financing providing for the issuance of exempt facility bonds for a qualified residential rental project pursuant to Section 142(a)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") in one or more series issued from time to time, including bonds issued to refund such exempt facility bonds in one or more series from time to time, and at no time to exceed $45,000,000 in aggregate principal amount (the "Bonds"), to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 969 Porter Street, Vallejo, California (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved by the City of Vallejo (the "City") because the Project is located within the territorial limits of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the "City Council") is the elected legislative body of the City and is one of the "applicable elected representatives" required to approve the issuance of the Bonds under Section 147(f) of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the City Council approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority in order to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 4 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, dated as of January 1, 2004 (the "Agreement"), among certain local agencies, including the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the City Council has, following notice duly given, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds, and now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Vallejo as follows:

Section 1. The foregoing resolutions are true and correct.

Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority.

It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitute approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority, for the purposes of (a) Section 147(f) of the Code by the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is located, in accordance with said Section 147(f) and (b) Section 4 of the Agreement.

Section 3. The issuance of the Bonds shall be subject to the approval of the Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party. The City shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to the Bonds.

Section 4. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to (i) provide any financing to acquire or construct the Project or any refinancing of the Project; (ii) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, installation or operation of the Project; (iii) make any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the Authority; or (iv) take any further action with respect to the Authority or its membership therein.

Section 5. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this resolution and the financing transaction approved hereby.

Section 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Vallejo this 23rd day of April 2024.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Attest:

By:__________________________
City Clerk

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, April 23, 2024, a public hearing as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code"), will be held with respect to a proposed plan of financing providing for the issuance by the California Municipal Finance Authority (the "Authority") of exempt facility bonds for a qualified residential rental project pursuant to Section 142(a)(7) of the Code in one or more series issued from time to time, including bonds issued to refund such exempt facility bonds in one or more series from time to time, in an amount not to exceed $45,000,000 in aggregate principal amount (the "Bonds"). The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to: (1) finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of West Harbor Park Apartments , a multifamily rental housing project located at 969 Porter Street, Vallejo, California; and (2) pay certain expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. The facilities are to be owned by Harbor Park Apartments Phase 2, LP (the "Borrower") or a partnership of which Klein Financial Corporation (the "Developer") or a related person to the Developer is the general partner.

The Bonds and the obligation to pay principal of and interest thereon and any redemption premium with respect thereto do not constitute indebtedness or an obligation of the Authority, the State of California or any political subdivision thereof, within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation, or a charge against the general credit or taxing powers of any of them. The Bonds shall be a limited obligation of the Authority, payable solely from certain revenues duly pledged therefore and generally representing amounts paid by the Borrower.

The hearing will commence at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, and will be held in the City Council Chambers, 555 Santa Clara Street, Vallejo, California. Interested persons wishing to express their views on the issuance of the Bonds or on the nature and location of the facilities proposed to be financed or refinanced may attend the public hearing or, prior to the time of the hearing, submit written comments.

Additional information concerning the above matter may be obtained from, and written comments should be addressed to, City Clerk, City of Vallejo, 555 Santa Clara Street, Vallejo, California 94590 or emailed to [email protected].

Dated: April 11, 2024

3670527
O

RRICK PUBLIC FINANCE
405 HOWARD STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
0006821604
(Signature) M elanie Irmer
Legal No.

Vallejo Times-Herald
c/o
Legals 57 Commerce Place, Suite A
Vacaville, CA 95687
530-406-6223
[email protected]
I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years a
nd not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the Legal Advertising Clerk of the printer and publisher of the Vallejo Times-Herald, a newspaper published in the English language in the City of Vallejo, County of Solano, State of California.

I declare that the Vallejo Times-Herald is a newspaper of general circulation as defined by the laws of the State of California as determined by this court's order dated June 12, 1952 in the action entitled In the Matter of the Ascertainment and Establishment of the Standing of Vallejo Times-Herald as a Newspaper of General Circulation, Case Number 25864. Said order states "Vallejo Times-Herald" has been established, printed and published in the City of Vallejo, County of Solano, State of California; That it is a newspaper published daily for the dissemination of local and telegraphic news and intelligence of general character and has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers; and...THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED:...That "Vallejo Times-Herald" is a newspaper of general circulation for the City of Vallejo, County of Solano, California. Said order has not been revoked.

I declare that this notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit:
04/11/2024
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true a
nd correct.

Dated at Vallejo, California, this
15th day of April 2024
FILE

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SOLANO, S.S.
693 2
r.BP16-07/03/17 1
r.BP16-07/03/17 2
ACTION ITEM 9.B.

DATE: April 23, 2024
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Christina Ratcliffe, AICP
Planning and Development Services Director
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW THE

OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY

EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

RECOMMENDATION
Public Hearing and Possible Adoption of a Resolution denying an appeal (APP24-001) of the Planning Commission's approval, and granting with conditions, Major Use Permit (UP22-0008) to allow the operation of a new public charter high school with an enrollment of up to 400 students in an existing two-story building at 241-255 Georgia Street (A{PN: 0055-170-390) after finding the project categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32: In-Fill Projects).

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes that the Planning Commission acted appropriately and recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and adopt findings approving the Major Use Permit after determining that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32: In-Fill Projects).

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
LEVINE ACT: Government Code 84308
This item is subject to the Levine Act. City elected and appointed officials, including candidates for City elected office, (City Officers) who have received a contribution of more than $250 within 12 months prior from a party, participant, or their representatives involved in this proceeding may do either of the following: (1) disclose the contribution on the record and recuse themselves from this proceeding; OR (2) return the portion of the contribution that exceeds $250 within 30 days from the time the elected official knew or should have known about the contribution and participate in the proceeding.

All parties, participants, and their representatives must disclose on the record of this proceeding any contribution of more than $250 made to the City Officers, such as the Mayor and/or Councilmembers, within 12 months prior to the date of the proceeding. City Officers are prohibited from accepting, soliciting, or directing a contribution of more than $250 from a party, participant, or their representatives during a proceeding and for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered.

Project Description
The proposed project is for a new charter high school with an enrollment of up to 400 students. The project

Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

proposes the phased conversion of a vacant two-story 34,819 square-foot office building on a 27,000 square foot site at 241-255 Georgia Street in downtown Vallejo. Interior on-site and right-of-way improvements are proposed. Staff determined that the project might qualify for a CEQA exemption and commissioned back-up studies for Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHG), Noise, Transportation and historic resources. A traffic consultant prepared a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and an environmental consultant prepared background analysis and documentation materials regarding GHG, noise analysis and potential historic/cultural resources impacts necessary to make a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption determination.

Original Planning Commission Action on Application
On July 7, 2022, the applicant applied for a Major Use Permit proposing the phased conversion of the vacant two-story, 34,819 square-foot office building at 241-255 Georgia Street along with associated interior/exterior on-site and right-of-way improvements that would allow for the operation of a new public charter high school with an enrollment of up to 400 students.

On March 18, 2024, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the application and approved Major Use Permit (UP) #22-0008, with added conditions, by a 6-1 vote.

On March 28, 2024, Paul L. and Donna Beeman filed a timely Appeal (APP #24-0001) requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission approval of Major Use Permit (UP) #22-0008. The appeal raises four main issues and a conclusion, enumerated below in italics. The appeal letter is provided in its entirety, including attachments (see attachment 2). Staff’s analysis of the points raised in the appeal and the responses thereto follow the appeal points.

ISSUE 1 RAISED ON APPEAL

Commissioner Cohen-Thompson’s improper participation in the public hearing.

Perceived Conflict of Interest
The Vallejo Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials states the following:

Conflict of Interest. In order to assure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the common good and compliance with conflict of interest laws, members shall not use their official positions to influence government decisions in which they have (a) a material financial interest, (b) an organizational responsibility or personal relationship which may give the appearance of a conflict of interest or (c) a strong personal bias.

Additionally, members will use their best efforts to refrain from creating an appearance of impropriety in their actions and decisions.

The Solano County Board of Education (SCBOE), the chartering authority for the applicant Elite Public Schools (EPS), approved a Charter petition for EPS in October 2018, and the school began operating in 2019. Commissioner Cohen-Thompson is a member of the SCBOE. The SCBOE is responsible for providing substantial supervisorial monitoring and oversight of any county authorized charter school and the entities managing said school. SCBOE and EPS communicate weekly regarding oversight, and SCBOE staff provides Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

monthly updates concerning those operations to the County Board at their monthly board meetings and responds to questions from the Board.

In February 2022, the EPS submitted to the SCBOE its Material Revision Petition requesting Board approval to expand its campus, and to purchase (through a lender) the building located at 241-255 Georgia Street for their high school. The EPS provided to the SCBOE extensive information and documentation, including, but not limited to the Purchase and Sale Agreement (executed March 18, 2022), lease terms, and architectural and design plans. The SCBOE voted 7-0 to approve the Petition on May 11, 2022 (see attached). Trustee Cohen-Thompson was present during that meeting, voted with her fellow board members in favor of the Material Revision and therefore should have recused herself from participating in the City of Vallejo Planning Commission public hearing regarding UP22-0008.

When an individual holds positions both as a member of the Planning Commission, and as a trustee of the SCBOE, and a Major Use Permit application by a charter school authorized by the same County Board of Education is up for a vote, it raises significant concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Serving in these dual roles is prohibited under common law principles. The test to determine whether offices are incompatible under Government Code section 1099, is whether there would be any significant clash of duties or loyalties in the exercise of official duties, or if public policy considerations otherwise make it improper for one person to hold both offices. Only one potential significant clash of duties or loyalties is necessary to render these dual roles incompatible. An actual conflict is not required; rather, the mere possibility of a conflict is sufficient to make these roles incompatible in this circumstance. (Opn.Cal.Atty.Gen ., No. 22-802 (2024).)

Given the direct connection between Commissioner Cohen-Thompson's and Trustee Cohen Thompson's dual roles and the entities involved, it appears there is a significant conflict of interest. Voting on a Major Use Permit for a charter school authorized by the SCBOE, of which the individual is a trustee, while also serving on the City Planning Commission compromises objectivity and impartiality in decision-making.

In situations where public officials, such as planning commissioners, are involved in decisions that could potentially benefit entities they oversee in their capacity as trustee, such as the charter school in this case, it is essential to adhere to ethical guidelines, uphold transparency, and avoid conflicts of interest to maintain public trust and integrity in the decision-making process. In this case, Commissioner Cohen-Thompson should have recused herself from participating in the public hearing, and voting on the application to ensure that the decision making process is free from any perceived bias or conflicts of interest. Recusal demonstrates a commitment to fair and impartial governance.

On March 13, 2024 -just four days prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the SCBOE sent a letter to the Planning Commission members regarding "ELITE's application for a Major Use Permit for the 241-255 Georgia Street location"; and stated, "SCBOE appreciates the Planning Commission's consideration and attention to this item". Clearly advocating for approval of the Major Use Permit.

As part of my testimony during the public hearing, I, Paul Beeman made a request for Commission Cohen- Thompson to recuse herself due to her conflict as a trustee of the SCBOE. She then asked the City Attorney, Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

Laura Zagaroli for her advice on whether or not she should recuse herself from participating in the public hearing. Ms. Zagaroli stated that they reviewed the action the Commissioner participated in previously and that it did not relate to the action before the Planning Commission, which is to site the school in downtown.

She further stated that the SCBOE action was a petition for the Charter School and that the interests do not overlap. The City Attorney's understanding of the SCBOE action and their role with EPS contradicts the information provided in the attached Resolution and described above, as the action Commissioner Cohen- Thompson participated in also referenced the school's intent to expand and locate the high school at 241-255 Georgia Street.

In summary, given the significant concerns regarding conflicting loyalties and potential bias, the importance of preserving public trust and integrity in the decision-making process, and to uphold ethical standards required by the City of Vallejo's Code of Ethics, recusal of Commissioner Cohen-Thompson from voting on the proposed location of the charter school in the application for UP22-0008 was absolutely warranted. Further, her active participation during the public hearing led to unfair and biased deliberations, and ultimate decision by the Planning Commission.

ISSUE 1 STAFF RESPONSE

Under the Political Reform Act, a public official has a disqualifying conflict of interest in a governmental decision if it is foreseeable that the decision will have a financial impact on his or her personal finances or other financial interests. In such cases, there is a risk of biased decision-making that could sacrifice the public's interest in favor of the official's private financial interests. If a disqualifying financial conflict of interest exists, an official is prohibited from making or participating in the making of the decision or using their official position to influence the making of the decision. In the present case there is no allegation or evidence presented that Commissioner Cohen - Thompson has any financial interest in the making of the decision. She is not the applicant, the applicant is not a source of income to her, she holds no ownership interest in the 241-255 Georgia Street parcel itself, nor does she have any ownership interest in real property located within 1000 feet of the parcel. Accordingly, Commissioner Cohen-Thompson has no disqualifying conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act that would have required her recusal.

There is a presumption that public officials acting in their adjudicatory capacity are unbiased. This presumption of impartiality can be overcome only by specific evidence demonstrating actual bias or a particular combination of circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias. Here, Commissioner Cohen-Thompson's alleged bias arises from her participation as a member of the Solano County Board of Education in the decision to approve the Elite Public Schools' request to expand its charter school. Appellants allege that the Board provides substantial supervisory monitoring and oversight of the charter schools within the county and that the Solano County Office of Education staff provide monthly updates concerning those operations to the Board.

While Commissioner Cohen-Thompson serves on the Solano County Board of Education, the chartering authority for the applicant Elite Public Schools, that body does not have approval authority over specific locations of charter schools. The Board requires the inclusion of site addresses in charter school petitions to Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

verify that the charter school is within its jurisdiction and to establish that the petition is ripe for its consideration. As the decision of the Board reveals, the project site was not a subject of consideration in any of the Board's findings or analysis. Appellants have not provided specific evidence showing actual bias or an unacceptable risk of bias that would overcome the presumption that Commissioner Cohen-Thompson was unbiased.

Staff further disagrees with the appellants’ contention that the March 13, 2024 letter from the Board "clearly advocates for approval of the Major Use Permit". The letter from the Solano County Superintendent of Schools (included in the link for written attachments and as a separate attachment for ease of reference) stated simply that Elite Public Schools had a charter established in 2018 and had applied for a revision to expand the charter to the 241-255 Georgia Street location. The letter notes that the charter amendment was approved, and that it appreciates the Planning Commission’s “consideration and attention to this matter.” Staff does not believe that this statement advocates for approval of the Major Use Permit, merely that it communicates that the Board approved the charter revision.

Appellants' contention that Commissioner Cohen-Thompson holds two incompatible offices because she serves as a member of the Solano County Board of Education while also serving as a member of the Planning Commission of the City of Vallejo is also of no merit. State law spells out three circumstances where offices are incompatible: 1) where either office can audit, overrule, remove members of, dismiss employees of, or supervise the other office or body; 2) where a significant clash of duties or loyalties between offices is possible; or 3) where public policy considerations make it improper to hold both offices.

Because neither body is authorized to audit, overrule, remove members of, dismiss employees of, or supervise the other, an incompatibility of offices is not established on these grounds. As to whether a significant clash of duties or loyalties between the offices exists, appellants have not alleged sufficient facts to show an incompatibility of offices. The Solano County Board of Education's authority to grant a charter school petition does not touch on, or interfere with, the Planning Commission's authority to make land use decisions.

Nor does the Planning Commission's authority over land use decisions clash with the Board of Education's authority to establish charter schools. Even if the Planning Commission were to deny the right of a charter school to locate in Vallejo, the authority of the Board to establish a charter school in the first instance is not impaired because the Board's jurisdiction extends to the whole of Solano County. Lastly, appellants cite no public policy considerations that would make it improper for an official to hold both offices. The Attorney General Opinion cited by Appellant does not address an incompatibility of offices between a Planning Commission member and a school board trustee.

In light of the above, appellants have not shown sufficient evidence to establish that it was error for Commissioner Cohen-Thompson not to recuse herself from the Planning Commission decision with regard to Elite Charter Public Schools' application for a major use permit. Further, even if such a conflict were to have existed, the City Council reviews the Planning Commission action DeNovo. Such review therefore does not rely on the prior action of the Planning Commission or Commissioner Cohen Thompson.

ISSUE 2 RAISED ON APPEAL
Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

Inaccuracies in the Staff Report and presentation to the Planning Commission which includes incorrect descriptions of surrounding land uses and findings to approve the Major Use Permit.

Planning Division Staff Report and Presentation

The March 18, 2024 Staff Report for UP22-0008 has errors and provides findings for the Major Use Permit that were based on inaccurate information regarding (1) the surrounding land uses; (2) compliance with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code; (3) consistency with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan; (4) compatibility with the existing and permissible land uses within the zoning district; and (5) its potential impact for development on abutting properties and surrounding neighborhood.

Surrounding Land Uses
The Staff Report Project Information and Table describing the surrounding land uses to the west failed to acknowledge the occupancy of our commercial office building at 237 Georgia Street and classifies our building as vacant. The Beeman Building is a two-story structure that is approximately 5,750 square feet in size, is less than 25 feet from the subject building and occupied by Soltrans offices and our professional offices. The building was constructed in 1965 and has never been vacant, except for occasional building improvements for new tenants and upgrades. The site plan on page 4 of the Staff Report identifies several nearby businesses but does not specify any businesses in our building, which is the closest structure to the proposed school.

Figures 4 and 5 on pages 7 and 8 provide the APNs for the surrounding parcels but does not include an APN for our building. Exhibit A, MUP4 Parking Map in the Staff Report also excludes the APN for our building; however, the larger site plan on this exhibit and Figure 2 in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) shows the APN but incorrectly identifies our building as Vallejo City.

The Staff Report also does not identify the adjacent Georgia Mall South, a public open space area immediate west and south of the site that connects to Georgia Mall North on the north side of Georgia Street and the transit center further south of the subject building. This outdoor area serves as a public plaza/paseo and gathering space similar to a park, as well as a pedestrian walkway through the downtown area. Because the project description provided in the Staff Report identified our building as vacant and does not identify the public open space areas as surrounding land uses, the project impacts such as noise, loitering or parking on these uses were not addressed.

The Staff Report and staff presentation to the Planning Commission incorrectly state the project is near complimentary and similar uses that include a Special Education Private School (lmmersive Learning Center at 250 Georgia Street), an unidentified Private Charter School, mistakenly listed on one of the slides as MUP12-0006 at 301 Georgia Street, Pathways Charter School also at 301 Georgia Street, and Cal Maritime at 201 Georgia Street.

The Immersive Learning Center is a non-profit community education center that offers academic enrichment for students with tutoring, workshops and specialized classroom programs such as coding, Minecraft, robotics & engineering. The unidentified Private Charter School (MUP12-0006) was approved for Wit Academy and no Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

longer operates in the downtown. Pathways Charter School, as referenced in their letter to the Planning Commission dated March 14, 2024, is a non-classroom based independent study program.

The lmmersive Center and Pathways Charter School both function quite differently from a public high school.

Such facilities have different operating hours. Occupy much smaller spaces, and have significantly fewer children that access the sites on a daily basis than the proposed use. Cal Maritime operates the Anchor Center which a community educational programming and rental space for outside organizations in the downtown, and is not considered a college or school.

Based on the above, there are no similar uses in the immediate downtown area.

ISSUE 2 STAFF RESPONSE

Planning Division Staff Report and Presentation
The March 18, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report Major Use Permit Findings were correct and substantiated by facts. The surrounding land uses are discussed below. The compliance with applicable provisions of the Zoning Code, consistency with the General Plan and Specific Plan and compatibility with existing and permissible land uses within the zoning district, and the school’s potential impact for development on abutting properties and surrounding neighborhood were analyzed in the Planning Commission staff report and discussed at the hearing. These other topics are addressed in Issue 3 STAFF RESPONSE, below.

Surrounding land uses
Staff correctly characterized the uses to the west of the site in Table 1 of the Planning Commission Staff Report as commercial. Whether a building or some of the offices in it are vacant or not has no bearing on the required findings, nor on the analysis of the project. Figure 2 on page 4 of the Planning Commission report is a clip from Google maps and was never intended to call out every single use in the vicinity, but to orient the reader as to the location of the proposed project. Figures 4 and 5 of the report are clips from the drawings submitted with the application and correctly note the parcel numbers for City of Vallejo-owned property (parking lot and Georgia Mall) immediately adjacent to the proposed project and the SolTrans parking lot.

There is no requirement to call out APNs for nearby properties. Figure 2 in the TIA notes the building as being City of Vallejo ownership, which appears to be a typo. However, ownership of property does not affect the analysis of the project. The use of 237 Georgia Street is an office use and that is what was assumed during the analysis. Further, the staff report accurately described the general surrounding uses by stating: “The immediate vicinity of the project site is characterized by existing commercial, office, retail, and public/quasi- public uses.” Additionally, prior to the opening of the public hearing, members of the Planning Commission disclosed that they had each visited the site to familiarize themselves with the site and its context prior to the public hearing.

Contrary to appellants contention, the Staff Report does identify the Georgia Mall. Figures 1 and 2 of the staff report show the Mall, and it is labeled in Figure 2 as “Georgia Mall.” Figures 4 and 5 (from the applicant’s submittal packet) do not call out the Georgia Mall by name, but it is clearly shown. Further, the Noise Study called out Georgia Mall specifically, and analyzed any potential noise impacts of the proposed project. This is Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

also discussed later in this report under “Noise.” Parking on the Mall was not addressed as parking there is not permitted. Similarly, “loitering” in the Mall was not addressed, as the space is intended for use of all members of the community to walk and gather, as the appellants note.

The Immersive Learning Center and Pathways School are similar and complimentary to a high school use. Immersive Learning Center at 250 Georgia Street (directly across from the project site) and Pathways at 301 Georgia Street #260 (directly across Sacramento Street) both focus on K-12 education and hold classes, tutoring and workshops. This was substantiated by the operators’ information on their websites and in correspondence/testimony provided to the Planning Commission as noted below:

Immersive Learning Center website excerpt:

“Our Academic Support program is a resource designed to help students excel in STEAM subjects. We offer tutoring, classes and workshops that engages students and allows them to lead the way.”

Pathways Charter School letter to the Planning Commission excerpt:

“We have leased space in the 301 Georgia Street Plaza building for almost ten years. We use it to provide offices for our regional school staff and a learning environment for students enrolled in our independent study program. At most, we have 25 students who access the space at any one time, whether to attend small onsite classes, visit our library, or meet with their teachers in person, Monday-Thursday between 9am-2pm.”

The Planning Commission staff report did not include Cal Maritime as a similar or complimentary use to the proposed school but noted that it was part of surrounding uses. In addition, there is a Use Permit (MUP12- 0006) for a similar educational use at 301 Georgia Street. While the original charter school approved by this Use Permit does not exist at present, the Use Permit runs with the land and would permit such a use.

ISSUE 3 RAISED ON APPEAL

Misleading information provided during the public hearing regarding surrounding land uses and alcohol sales.

Consistency with the Zoning Code and General Plan

Zoning Code: The first two findings to approve a Major Use Permit relate to the project's consistency with the Vallejo Zoning Code, applicable specific plans and the General Plan. The property is located within the DMX (Downtown Mixed Use) zoning district which is intended to "implement" the Downtown Vallejo Specific Plan (DVSP). The DVSP identifies the site as part of the Arts and Entertainment District and Policy 4.3.3 in the specific plan states the following:

Promote Central Downtown as Vallejo's Arts and Entertainment district. With its clustering of civic and cultural Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

facilities including City Hall, the JFK Library, the Empress Theater, the Auto Museum and the Naval Museum, Central Downtown is poised to become the Arts and Entertainment district. The City should encourage museums and other arts and cultural facilities to locate in this area, as well as restaurants, cafes and other entertainment activities.

Also, to further define the Arts and Entertainment District, the DVSP includes IM Goal 10.4:

Create an economically viable downtown. Fundamental to the success of Vallejo's downtown revitalization is the rebuilding of its retail component. Central Downtown has been identified as the Arts and Entertainment district and will include the greatest intensity of eating and drinking establishments along with cultural and entertainment venues.

Based on the above, a high school is not considered an Arts and Entertainment land use. The location of a high school in the downtown could also discourage other new businesses typically found in downtown areas from locating in the area, such as restaurants, tasting rooms, breweries, bars and other alcohol serving establishments, and may preclude any further actions to establish a thriving Arts and Entertainment District as envisioned in the DTSP.

The Staff Report does not thoroughly address how the project complies with Section 16.335.02(3)(a) of the Zoning Code which provides a requirement that the school location is appropriate for the use, and adjacent uses will not be adversely affected. As the property owner of one of the adjacent uses, large groups of students occupying the two-story building may adversely impact our commercial office use in terms of noise, parking, traffic and circulation and safety issues and affect the professional office environment. Because the Staff Report incorrectly identified our building as vacant, certain impacts were not considered such as (1) the additional noise generated from students accessing the building on a daily basis and congregating outside before and after school operating hours; (2) the use of Parking Lot G and the availability of parking; (4) the traffic circulation impacts from the additional vehicles at and around the school site; and (5) the potential safety issues that are currently prevalent in high schools.

Section 16.335.02 (B)(5) of the Zoning Code was also not properly addressed. This section requires the applicant to provide a site plan that includes a development phasing "schedule," if the school will be developed in phases. Although the site plan indicates the project will be developed in two phases, an associated schedule was not provided.

General Plan: The Major Use Permit finding No. 2 states, "The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan or planned development and any other applicable plans." The project is inconsistent with the following General Pan policy for the Downtown/Waterfront area:

POLICY NBE-3.1, Action NBE-3. 1A
Catalyst Projects. Accelerate investment in the Downtown/Waterfront that will generate prosperity throughout Vallejo.

Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

A charter school, as well as the owner of the leased property, are both exempt from property tax under the Public School Exemption.

The applicant is engaged in negotiations with the prospective purchaser of the office building at 241-255 Georgia Street to lease said building for a twenty (20) year term, with four 5-year options to extend. Thus, there would be no revenue from either the building owner or the charter school for the next twenty (20) to forty (40) years. The project does not represent an investment that would add to Vallejo's tax base leading to prosperity throughout the City.

With respect to the Arts and Entertainment District, the project conflicts with the following General Plan policies and actions:

Policy NBE-3.3 Entertainment. Promote a variety of retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses that bring economic vitality downtown, enhance the Downtown Arts District, and activate the pedestrian environment.

Action NBE-3.4C Continue to support the Downtown Arts & Entertainment District consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan.

Policy EET-1.5 Arts and Entertainment. Foster a vibrant local arts community to strengthen Vallejo's position as a regional destination for arts and entertainment.

Action EET-1.5A Promote the Downtown/Waterfront District as a music, theater, and entertainment district serving students, visitors, and the region.

Action EET-1.5B Attract new businesses to complement existing music, theater, and entertainment venues.

As noted above. a high school is not considered an arts and entertainment land use. These uses are typically open during evening hours and on the weekends. The proposed high school use would be closed during the evenings, weekends, holidays, and summer months. During these peak times, the building would represent a void in the downtown and not bring vitality to the area. Although the Staff Report indicates the project would bring staff, students and parents to the downtown area increasing pedestrian traffic to restaurants and shops, the Report does not cite examples of how and where this type of revitalization has occurred.

Nearby Alcohol Sales
“Downtown Vallejo is considered an area of overconcentration of alcohol outlets with the California Department of Alcoholic and Beverage Control (ABC), and as such, all new alcohol sales would be required to submit a determination of Public Convenience and Necessity (PCN) to the ABC. During the public hearing, staff presented that the location's proximity to schools and other alcohol serving uses is considered in the required determination/analysis. The information was misleading as Section 16.305.03 Determination of public convenience or necessity of the Zoning Code states the following:

Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

6. Proximity of the proposed site to a residential neighborhood or other sensitive land use such as elementary, secondary and high schools, transitional housing, or facilities providing services to homeless persons.

The Planning Commission would have to make a determination that a new alcohol serving business. in addition to the existing alcohol sales, will have no impact on an area that contains a high school, which is considered a sensitive land use. If such a determination is made, it could be rejected by the ABC, as the area could have up to 400 underaged children in the immediate area during the weekdays.”

ISSUE 3 STAFF RESPONSE
Consistency with the Zoning Code and General Plan

The appellants claim that the project is not in conformance with the Zoning Code or General Plan. This claim is without merit. The project is in the Arts and Entertainment District in the Downtown Vallejo Specific Plan (DVSP). While DVSP Policy 4.3.3 encourages museums and other arts and cultural facilities to locate in this area, as well as restaurants, cafes and other entertainment activities, these uses are not exclusionary of other uses. As a result of the adoption of Ordinance 1853 N.C. (below), the regulation of uses in the downtown are controlled by the DMX zoning district in the Zoning Code. The appellants assume that because a school is not an Arts and Entertainment use, it should not be allowed at this location. However, the Zoning Code allows for a broad range of uses in the DMX, including a school with approval of a Major Use Permit.

On June 22, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1853 N.C. (2d) (attached) which removed development standards from the DVSP (Chapter 8) and placed them in the Zoning Code. In addition, said Ordinance added a broader range of land uses in the Zoning Code specifically to the Downtown Mixed Use Zoning district. That Ordinance provides, in relevant part, as follows:

“WHEREAS, in order to provide a broader, more flexible range of land uses and to implement objective development standards to position Vallejo to be more competitive in the market place, City Council proposes to amend the Downtown Vallejo Specific Plan/Master Plan and White Slough Specific Area Plan/Master Plan by amending select land use regulations and development standards and referencing the New Zoning Code;… The proposed amendment to the Downtown Vallejo Specific Plan/Master Plan is consistent with the Vallejo General Plan. The General Plan 2040 Table 1-2 Consistency with Adopted Plans does not propose any significant changes to the Specific Plan and anticipates that the policies in the Downtown Specific Plan would continue implementation of the Specific Plan, except for development standards, which will be removed from the Specific Plan and addressed by the City's New Zoning Code (referred to as the Development Code in General Plan 2040). The land use regulations in the New Zoning Code will also implement the Specific Plan policies by providing a broader range of land uses, specifically the Downtown Mixed Use zoning district. This zoning district is consistent with the Downtown/Waterfront General Plan Land Use Designation for the area and implements the General Plan goal to foster a mix of uses that encourage people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity." [Emphasis added.]

Ordinance No. 1853 N.C. (2d).

Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

Table 16.301-A: Land Use Regulations, permits a School (K-12): large (10,000 sf or more) in the DMX district and indicates that a Major Use Permit application for this use is required to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.

Appellants also reference DVSP IM Goal 10.4 which states in part that the “…district will include the greatest intensity of eating and drinking establishments along with cultural and entertainment venues.” Again, the Specific Plan does not limit the uses exclusively to eating and drinking establishments and cultural and entertainment venues, and the Zoning Code clearly allows a school with approval of a Major Use Permit. The appellants state that “the location of a high school in the downtown could also discourage other new businesses typically found in downtown areas from locating in the area, such as restaurants, tasting rooms, breweries, bars and other alcohol-serving establishments, and may preclude any further actions to establish a thriving Arts and Entertainment District as envisioned in the DTSP (sic).” Except for a comment regarding Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) licensing, the appellant offers no justification for these claims. The ABC claim is addressed further below in this report.

The appellants further claim that the staff report did not adequately address Section 16.335.02 (3)(a) of the Zoning Code. This claim is without merit. The staff report addressed how the project complies with Section

16.335.02(3)(a) of the Zoning Code in Table 5 of the Planning Commission staff report. The report also noted that the school would bring staff, students and parents into the downtown area, increasing pedestrian traffic to restaurants and shops. Noise, parking, traffic and circulation issues were analyzed thoroughly. The TIA concluded that the project would not have significant impacts based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) or Level of Service (LOS) criteria and noted that ample parking is available for the proposed use in the Downtown Parking District lots. Additionally, the TIA made recommendations to minimize potential queuing impacts from the proposed drop-off and pick-up operations. These recommendations have been incorporated into staff’s recommended conditions of approval for the project. Below is a table from the Planning Commission staff report analyzing Section 16.335.02 (3)(a) standards.

Table 5 – Schools
Standards (VMC Chapter 16.335.02)
Code Section Standard Proposal Compliant

16.335.02. A.3.a That the school location is
appropriate for the use, and
that adjacent uses will not
be adversely affected.

A similar and complimentary
educational use is located
across Georgia Street from
the site. Students also have
easy Access to the library.

In addition, the school would
bring staff, students and
parents into the downtown
area increasing pedestrian
Yes
Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

traffic to restaurants and
shops.

16.335.02. A.3.b That adequate access,
student drop-off areas and
required off-street parking is
provided
Under 16.508.04 A, no
parking is required for this
site. No off-street parking is
available on the site;
however, on-street public
parking is available on
Georgia and Sacramento
Streets.

Additional parking to support
the school and other nearby
uses is available in the
Downtown Parking District
parking lots via parking
passes which can be
purchased.

The applicant is proposing
drop-off zones along the
curbline of the Georgia and
Sacramento Street during
the morning and afternoon
which will temporarily
reduce the availability of the
on-street parallel spaces
during this period. Sixteen
(16) diagonal spaces on
Sacramento Street will be
permanently converted into
8 parallel spaces.

The TIA analyzed these
issues and made
recommendations which
have been incorporated into
the Conditions of Approval.

Yes

16.335.02. A.3.c That outdoor play areas are
appropriately sized,
furnished with facilities and
No outdoor recreation
activities are proposed on
site or required by the State.

Yes
Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

equipment, safe, and
secure.

16.335.02. B.1 That the applicant’s site plan
has the proposed enrollment
and student capacity of the
school
A maximum of 400 students Yes

16.335.02. B.2 That the applicant’s site plan
has the size and location of
all indoor and outdoor areas
for physical education;
PE indoor space noted on
plans
Yes

16.335.02. B.3 That the applicant’s site plan
has the pedestrian and
traffic circulation systems
proposed for the site,
include student drop-off
areas, in addition to queuing
areas for pick up
The TIA and Site Plan show
proposed drop off and
circulation; A Condition of
Approval requires
submission of circulation
plan consistent with the TIA
prior to issuance of permits.

Yes

16.335.02. B.4 That the applicant’s site plan
has the proposed parking,
both on-site and off-site
No on-site parking. Off-site
street parking and
Downtown Parking Lot G
are both shown on the site
plan.

Yes

16.335.02. B.5 That the applicant’s site plan
has the development
phasing schedule, if the
school will be developed in
phases.

The development plans and
project description show the
proposed phasing
Yes

16.335.02. C.1 If the proposed site is within
1,500 feet of a railroad track
easement, a safety study
shall be submitted with the
Use Permit application
N/A, not within 1,500 of
railroad
Yes

16.335.02. C.2 If the proposed site is within
1,500 feet of an above-
ground fuel storage tank or
high-pressure oil or gas
pipeline, or within 2,000 feet
of a hazardous waste
disposal site, a hazards risk
assessment shall be
N/A, none apply Yes
Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

submitted with the Use
Permit application

16.335.02. D.1 The site shall be easily
accessible from arterial or
collector streets and shall
allow minimum peripheral
visibility from planned
driveways and drop-off
areas.

The site on the corner of
Georgia and Sacramento
Streets. Sacramento is a
collector. The site is also
easily accessible from Mare
Island Way and Curtola
Parkway, which are both
arterial streets.

Yes

16.335.02. D.2 Parent drop-off areas,
queuing areas for pick up,
bus loading areas if
provided, and on-site
parking shall be separated
from walkways to allow
students to enter and exit
the school grounds safely.

Walkway separation is
provided
Yes

The appellants claim that staff did not adequately address noise impacts. This claim is without merit. A noise study was prepared for the project. The Noise Study determined that the "…project related construction and operational noise and vibration would not be expected to exceed federal, state, or local standards or expose sensitive land uses to substantial increases in noise or vibration levels." The Noise Study further states that:

"The project would include the addition of outdoor common areas along Georgia Street that would be in use during daytime school hours. The addition of the outdoor patio could result in an increase in localized noise on the project site associated with people talking, congregating, and eating outdoors. Noise associated with people talking and eating would not be unique, dissimilar, or louder than existing ambient noise levels associated with urban environments (e.g., roadway traffic, people talking, landscape equipment).

Additionally, the outdoor areas would be in use for short periods of time during daytime hours (i.e., weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.) and would not be operational during nighttime hours and would not emit nighttime noise. For these reasons, noise from outdoor common areas would not result in adverse effects to nearby sensitive receptors." [Emphasis added]

The appellants claim that safety was not addressed. This claim has no merit. The of the majority of the proposed educational use will occur inside the existing building. The school addressed safety concerns as part of the project, including security cameras/systems, and strictly controlled access to the school. This is included in the project description.

The appellants also claim that the phasing schedule was not included. This claim has no merit. A development phasing schedule consisting of two phases was submitted as part of the application, in accordance with Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

Section 16.335.(B)(5) of the Zoning Code, the development standards for schools. As proposed, Phase I consists of the initial construction phase prior to occupancy and will result in being able to accommodate approximately 250 students. The initial phase would develop approximately 18,000 square feet of interior space suitable for classrooms, bathroom facilities, a serving kitchen, common areas and a future gymnasium on the ground floor with administrative offices planned for the second story. Public right-of-way improvements are also included in Phase I.

No specific date is provided for beginning construction on Phase II since it will occur as enrollment grows up to the 400-student maximum allowed by the approved use permit and funding for the additional tenant improvements become available. Phase II will involve installation of an elevator and renovation of the second floor with tenant improvements converting offices into additional labs and learning spaces for the additional enrollment and new faculty spaces.

The appellants claim that the project does not conform with General Plan policies. This claim has no merit.

The General Plan 2040 Land Use Designation for the subject property is District – Downtown Waterfront (D- DW). The General Plan characterizes this designation as follows:

“The D‐D/W designation applies to the downtown area, consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan; the adjacent Central Waterfront, subject to the Waterfront Planned Development Master Plan; and the Southern Waterfront. It is intended to promote a vibrant, pedestrian‐oriented place that seamlessly integrates downtown with the waterfront. Layering compatible land uses and public amenities, together at various scales and intensities, the D‐D/W designation allows for multiple functions within the same building or adjacent to one another in the same general vicinity to foster a mix of uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity…”

The project is consistent with the Downtown Waterfront (D-D/W) land use designation in that the presence of a charter high school brings students, parents, teachers and staff downtown thereby helping to create a vibrant downtown. The school also adds to the mix of uses in the downtown area so people can live, work, play and shop in close proximity.

The appellants claim that the project is not in conformance with General Plan Policy NBE-3.1 Action NBE-3.1A Catalyst Projects, and that the City will lose money if the school is approved. This claim has no merit. The policy goal is to accelerate investment in the Downtown/Waterfront that will generate prosperity throughout Vallejo. The existing vacant building generated $6,838.51 in property tax revenue for the City of Vallejo in 2023 as the City’s 0.1879 share of each dollar of property tax. The applicant reports that it is in escrow to purchase the property for approximately $6.35 Million. If sold for this amount, at transfer, the City of Vallejo would receive approximately $27,940 in transfer tax.

Further, upon full occupancy the 400 students (and their parents/guardians) and 25 faculty/staff members will generate additional economic activity from transit riders to the downtown because the Planning Commission Conditions of Approval require the charter school to purchase monthly Solano County Transit Passes for each Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

of the students and faculty/staff members in perpetuity while the school is operating. The increase in ridership will likely increase both the pedestrian and economic activity in the area as these new commuters to the school avail themselves of the nearby commercial establishments and amenities.

In addition, students, school visitors and faculty/staff members that drive in will need to purchase parking passes in the Downtown parking lots. Assuming a 50-percent transit usage, a minimum of approximately $2,300 in additional City parking revenue is estimated based on the availability of the City’s $20 monthly passes for the school year. Staff notes that the school will offer summer classes, although the applicant does not anticipate as many students as during the school year.

The possible loss of property tax will be more than offset by the income generated by the increase in pedestrian activity of students, parents, and school staff that will frequent downtown businesses and help to activate the downtown.

The appellants claim that the school is not in conformance with the following General Plan Policies and Actions:

Action NBE-3.4C Continue to support the Downtown Arts & Entertainment District consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan.

Policy EET-1.5 Arts and Entertainment. Foster a vibrant local arts community to strengthen Vallejo's position as a regional destination for arts and entertainment.

Action EET-1.5A Promote the Downtown/Waterfront District as a music, theater, and entertainment district serving students, visitors, and the region.

Action EET-1.5B Attract new businesses to complement existing music, theater, and entertainment venues.

The appellants claim that during the evenings, weekends and summer months the building occupied by the proposed school would represent a void in the downtown and not bring vitality to the area. These claims are without merit. The proposed school would bring students, parents, staff and teachers downtown, helping to create a vibrant pedestrian location. During the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicants and members of the public testified to the present condition of the subject site and the lack of any activity due to the existing office building’s vacancy. Over 40 existing small businesses owners in the surrounding area of Georgia Street sent letters to staff and the Planning Commission supporting the proposed school use because it would be a positive influence that could help revitalize the area and would bring more pedestrian and vehicular activity to the area and support the existing uses found in the vicinity.

The Planning Commission’s approval of a new charter school in a building that has been vacant for the last three years is the very type of catalyst project that many other cities are looking at to help revitalize their downtown areas.

Below is a General Plan Consistency Table that was included in the Planning Commission staff report.

General Plan 2040 Policies and Actions
Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

Policies and Actions Staff’s Analysis
POLICY CP-3.1
High Quality Education. Foster high quality
schools that enhance civic pride.

A proposed public charter high school near the Vallejo Transit Center in the Downtown supports this policy because it allows for additional choice options for a greater geographic diversity of potential students who could benefit from high quality, alternative teaching methods and learning environments.

Action CP-3.1D
Work with charter schools, private schools,
parochial schools,
and preschools to assess needs for a
range of high-quality.
educational opportunities in the
community.

The proposed charter school will provide a high-quality educational choice with easy access and adjacent to the Immersive Learning Center, which focuses on Science Technology Engineering Arts Mathematics (STEAM).

POLICY CP-1.6
Active Transportation Network. Promote
the health benefits of walking and bicycling
by providing a
convenient and safe network of bicycle
paths and routes, sidewalks, pedestrian
paths, and trails, including connections
with major destinations such as civic
facilities, educational institutions,
employment centers, shopping, and
recreation areas.

A proposed high school walking distance to the Vallejo Transit Center, civic facilities such as the John F. Kennedy Library, the Vallejo Ferry Landing, parks, and the waterfront supports this policy by supporting multiple modes of transportation for students, faculty, and visitors. Additionally, Georgia Street is identified as a Class III Bicycle Facility (Bike Route) in the City’s Bikeway Master Plan. The applicant is also providing 38 bicycle parking spaces on site for use by faculty and students.

Action CP-1.6C
Encourage school siting decisions that
take safe walking and bicycling access into
account.

The school is in walking and bicycling distance to downtown retail, civic facilities, parks and the waterfront and Georgia Street is a Class III Bicycle Route. In addition, the applicant is providing bike racks to accommodate 38 bikes.

POLICY CP-1.8
Strong Schools, Engaged Students and
Families. Support efforts by schools to
reduce the dropout rate in
recognition that education is a predictor of
health.

A proposed public charter high school near the Vallejo Transit Center in the Downtown supports this policy because it allows for additional choice options for a greater geographic diversity of potential students who could benefit from high quality, alternative teaching methods and learning environments. In addition, a complimentary educational use, the Immersive Learning Center, which focuses on Science Technology Engineering Arts
Mathematics (STEAM) and computer technology focused K-12 grade education, tutoring, workshops, and summer camps, is located immediately across Georgia Street from the proposed project site, potentially creating synergy for the student population.

Policy NBE-2.8:

Infill Development. Promote infill
The project proposes the renovation and adaptive reuse of a vacant office building in the Downtown and facilitates the addition Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

development targets vacant and
underutilized sites for community-desired
and enhancing uses that is compatible
with surrounding uses.
of a new business that both serves City residents and helps activate the underutilized site and its surroundings. The additional activity provided by the proposed school use is also anticipated to enhance economic activity with new potential customers, clients, and patrons for surrounding commercial uses.

While not on the same scale as Vallejo, an example of this can be found in San Francisco Mayor London Breed’s August 2023, six-month update on her revitalization plan Roadmap to San Francisco’s Future which notes the follow successful strategy and outcomes:

https://www.sf.gov/news/san-francisco-marks-progress-downtown-revitalization

This Roadmap includes facilitating new uses and flexibility in buildings by maximizing the ability to update and adapt buildings to meet the needs of new interested tenants. In addition, San Francisco initiated plans to bring more public employees Downtown, by working with the City Administrator, the School District, and City College to identify opportunities in underutilized buildings.

Additionally, San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) a nonprofit public policy organization noted similar recommendations for revitalizing the City of San Jose’s downtown. One recommended strategy is to look at other potential uses for vacant office space.

https://www.spur.org/news/2023-06-20/revitalizing-san-joses-downtown-five-strategies

Nearby Alcohol Sales
Appellants claim that in order for a new alcohol-serving business to locate in Downtown Vallejo, which has an overconcentration of alcohol outlets with the California Department of Alcoholic and Beverage Control (ABC), that the Planning Commission would have no discretion to make a finding of public convenience or necessity to allow the new business unless it could find that such business—in addition to the existing alcohol sales outlets—would have no impact on an area that contains a high school. Appellants further claim that staff misled the Planning Commission when they presented that the location’s proximity to schools and other alcohol serving uses is merely a consideration when making a determination of public convenience or necessity.

This is an incorrect statement of the law and staff correctly represented to the Planning Commission that consideration of an alcohol sales outlet’s location in proximity to sensitive uses such as a school and not a finding of no impact is the correct standard. Under Section 16.305.03 of the Vallejo Municipal Code, the Director or the Planning Commission may make a determination of public convenience or necessity “based on crime statistics provided by the police department and consideration of the following [factors]:

1. Special or unusual circumstances that justify a new establishment or license including, but not limited to, providing a service that existing alcohol sales uses do not offer;

2. Evidence that the proposed outlet needs the license in order to operate profitably; Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

3. If the business has a license at a different location and is relocating within the same census tract;

4. Consistency of the proposed use with the general plan and any applicable specific plan or planned development approval and evidence that the proposed retail outlet will not have impacts detrimental to development or people living or working in the immediate surrounding neighborhood;

5. Proximity of other alcohol retail outlets, which would serve the needs of prospective patrons;

6. Proximity of the proposed site to a residential neighborhood or other sensitive land use such as elementary, secondary and high schools, transitional housing, or facilities providing services to homeless persons;

7. Whether the economic benefit of the proposed outlet to the district and/or the city will outweigh any possible negative impacts because the proposed use will attract patrons to the area and positively affect adjacent businesses by furthering a city objective, such as the creation and enhancement of entertain and craft beverage areas; and;

8. Whether there is a history of alcohol-related crimes or calls for police service for the area where the use is proposed.”
Thus, the proximity of a new alcohol serving business to a school is only one of eight factors to be considered. Economic benefit that outweighs any possible negative impacts is also a factor. Thus, the Director or Planning Commission is not without discretion to approve a new alcohol-serving business in the general vicinity of the project if the project is approved.

The project site is located in Census Tract 2509 which has approximately 2,700 residents and is allowed three (3) “on-sale” licenses for alcohol beverage services based on its population. There are currently eight (8) businesses with “on-sale” licenses and ABC considers this Census Tract to be “Over Concentrated” requiring a future “on-sale” business to obtain a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity from the City. But once such a determination is made, that fact does not create a reason for ABC to reject the license. Rather, it is a requirement for the ABC license that the City first make a PCN determination. ABC would only have reason to reject the new license if the applicant were otherwise disqualified—for example, if the applicant had a criminal history of multiple DUI convictions.

Accordingly, approval of the Major Use Permit to allow the charter high school would not prohibit future alcohol sales in Downtown Vallejo. Rather, as part of the City’s review of a Public Convenience or Necessity finding required by Vallejo Municipal Code 16.305 for any specific location, proximity to schools is just one of eight factors that are considered by the permitting authority. Staff did not mislead the Planning Commission when it presented this information during the hearing.

ISSUE 4 ON APPEAL:

Determination that the project is exempt from CEQA.

Environmental Review
“Staff's determination that the project is exempt from (CEQA) is inconsistent with the information provided herein. The exemption requires that the project is consistent with "all" applicable general plan polices as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. As previously discussed, the project is inconsistent with several General Plan policies and actions. As such, a complete CEQA analysis should have been undertaken.

Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

Transportation and Parking
The Transportation Impact Analysis includes a parking assessment which does not address the cumulative parking impacts. Such analysis would need to consider the current occupancy rate of the downtown and the impacts of future businesses locating in the area. As a result, a more thorough parking assessment should be required.

Noise
The noise analysis identifies the adjacent Georgia Mall South as an outdoor common area. This area is a public space that can be used as a gathering area for the community and a pedestrian walkway to the transit center. The noise analysis should address how the additional noise generated from large groups of students occupying the space throughout the day will affect the adjacent businesses.

Safety
The environmental review does not address the impacts of school safety with respect to crime rates in the downtown and safety concerns that are prevalent in high schools. An analysis of how these issues can affect the surrounding area in addition to the safety of students, faculty and staff was not provided.

ISSUE 4 STAFF RESPONSE

Appellants erroneously claim that the project is inconsistent with General Plan policies and actions and therefore a complete CEQA analysis should have been undertaken. As described above, the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

The Planning Commission found the project exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32:

In-fill Projects) because the project is on a site of less than 5 acres within city limits surrounded by urban uses, is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations, has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, is adequately served by all required utilities and public services, and approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

Further, none of the exceptions pursuant to Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply because:
• The project is located in an existing, disturbed, urbanized areas within the City limits that does not serve as a sensitive habitat or environment, nor will it impact an officially mapped and designated environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern; • The proposed project is adaptively reusing, a vacant two-story building and the proposed high school use will have significantly less cumulative effect than the prior use of the building and no successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, are proposed; • There are no unusual circumstances, or any evidence of unusual circumstances related to the project that may have a significant environmental impact;
Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

• The project is located inside an existing building and does not have the potential to damage scenic resources (i.e. trees, historic buildings, or rock outcroppings) within an official state scenic highway; • The project is located inside an existing building that is not located on a listed hazardous waste site; nor
• The project is located inside an existing building and no exterior improvements are proposed which may cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

As part of the development application review process, the City retained consultants to prepare additional studies, analysis and research to assist City staff’s review of potential impacts. Specifically, Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, were retained to prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the project and Ascent Environmental Consultants, were retained to provide additional research and background documentation regarding potential noise, air quality, and historic/cultural resources impacts. Copies of the aforementioned environmental background documentation/analysis are provided in Attachments 4-6 of the Planning Commission staff report which is attached to this report (see Attachment 4).

Transportation and Parking
Appellants claim that the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the project was required to address the cumulative parking impacts of the project. The TIA did not perform a cumulative parking impact analysis because parking is not a potential impact that is analyzed under CEQA. Thus, appellants’ suggestion that the TIA is inadequate for this omission is without merit.

Nevertheless, the TIA did analyze whether there would be adequate parking to serve the Project. In Section

8.6 of the TIA, the consultant concluded: “Per the available parking spaces in the City-owned parking lots, the Project would have sufficient parking to satisfy the anticipated parking demand.” Table 9 in this Section, entitled “Existing Parking Lot Occupancy,” lists current percentages of available parking spaces in the nearby City-owned lots: Parking Lot D - 77%; Lot G2 - 55%, Lot H - 95%; Lot I -87%; Lot J - 44%; Lot J - 61%; and Lot K – 73%. There is ample parking to accomodate this use.

The consultant recommended, and the applicant has incorporated into the project, all the TIA recommendations into the project including: 1) the creation of a Parking and Circulation Plan; 2) public right-of- way improvements; 3) new signs; 4) mandatory staffing by school staff acting as traffic guides during drop- off/pick up times; and 5) providing additional bicycle parking to comply with City Zoning Code requirements. These have also been included as Conditions of Approval.

Noise
Contrary to appellants’ claim, the noise analysis conducted by the environmental consultant hired by the City to prepare a Noise Study for the project specifically addressed the potential noise generated by the project on the outdoor common areas along Georgia Street. The consultant concluded that:
"The project would include the addition of outdoor common areas along Georgia Street that would be in use during daytime school hours. The addition of the outdoor patio could result in an increase in localized noise on the project site associated with people talking, congregating, and eating outdoors. Noise associated with Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

people talking and eating would not be unique, dissimilar, or louder than existing ambient noise levels associated with urban environments (e.g., roadway traffic, people talking, landscape equipment).

Additionally, the outdoor areas would be in use for short periods of time during daytime hours (i.e., weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.) and would not be operational during nighttime hours and would not emit nighttime noise. For these reasons, noise from outdoor common areas would not result in adverse effects to nearby sensitive receptors." [Emphasis added.]

Safety
“mpacts of school safety with respect to crime rates in the downtown and safety concerns that are prevalent in high schools” were not addressed in the City’s environmental review of the Project because such concerns outside the purview of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Nevertheless, the applicant provided information as part of its application submittal stating that the school will have its own security cameras/systems, and access to the school will be strictly controlled by the administration.

Conclusion
The project as proposed and conditioned meets the requirements of the DVSP and the Zoning Code, as well as the General Plan. The potential impact of the use was evaluated and discussed in the Planning Commission Staff Report, at the Commission hearing and as addressed in this staff report.

The proposed project is anticipated to add pedestrian traffic to the downtown and result in an overall improvement to the downtown, helping to activate the downtown area. The Downtown Specific Plan states:

"…The Specific Plan is intended to guide investment in Downtown over twenty years. However, the Specific Plan is not intended as a static document and may be updated within the twenty-year period."

That update is precisely what occurred when the Council adopted Ordinance 1853 N.C. modifying the Downtown Specific Plan by putting the development standards in the Zoning Code and expanding the type of uses allowed in the district. One of these uses was a school of 10,000 sf or more, with the approval of a Use Permit.

The Planning Commission reviewed the agenda packet for this project, staff’s presentation, the information submitted by the appellant, testimony from the appellant and the public. The Commission then discussed the matter at length, considered all relevant facts prior to rendering their decision and approving the application for a Use Permit with conditions.

The Planning Commission acted appropriately and staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and adopt findings approving the Major Use Permit after determining that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32: In-Fill Projects). Below are staff’s recommended findings.

Staff notes that there have been numerous correspondence regarding this project. These are accessible via Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

links in the "Written Communications" attachment.

Appeal Denial Findings

Based on the staff analysis and findings above, staff recommends that the following conclusions are applicable to the appeal.

Commissioner Cohen-Thompson’s improper participation in the public hearing.

As discussed at the beginning of this report, appellants have not shown sufficient evidence to establish that it was error for Commissioner Cohen-Thompson not to recuse herself from the Planning Commission decision with regard to Elite Charter Public Schools' application for a major use permit. Further, even if such a conflict were to have existed, the City Council reviews the Planning Commission action DeNovo. Such review therefore does not rely on the prior action of the Planning Commission or Commissioner Cohen-Thompson.

That is, even if her decision was not correct, Council review of this appeal cures any perceived violation of due process or conflict of interest rules.

Inaccuracies in the Staff Report and presentation to the Planning Commission which includes incorrect descriptions of surrounding land uses and findings to approve the Major Use Permit.

As detailed above, this claim is without merit as the staff report and presentation to the Planning Commission provided accurate descriptions of the surrounding uses in the vicinity of the project. Further, substantial evidence of the surrounding land uses was presented by staff at the hearing to support the findings made by the Planning Commission to approve the Major Use Permit.

Misleading information provided during the public hearing regarding surrounding land uses and alcohol sales.

This claim is without merit as detailed above. Correct information regarding surrounding land uses was provided in the report and at the Planning Commission hearing. Correct information on process for potential future alcohol sales in downtown was provided at the hearing.

Project Approval Findings
In addition to the findings on appeal, the City Council is required to affirmatively make findings relating to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a Major Use Permit as set forth in Vallejo Municipal Code Section 16.602.06.

CEQA Findings
Following a review of the project, staff recommends that the City of Vallejo City Council determine that the Project be found to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32: In-fill Projects).

Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that:

Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section.

(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15332

A categorical exemption may not be used where: 1) there is a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances; 2) the project may result in damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway; 3) the project site is categorized as a hazardous waste site by the California Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC); or 4) the project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Here, the proposed project qualifies for the Class 32 In-Fill exemption in that the project is consistent with the District – Downtown Waterfront general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations, is located on a 0.62-acre site within city limits surrounded by urban uses, the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species and is adequately served by all required utilities and public services, and approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Further, none of the exceptions pursuant to Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply, in that:

1. There is no reasonable possibility that the renovation of an existing 2-story commercial building in the downtown will have a significant effect on the environment as there are no unusual circumstances associated with this downtown in-fill site; and

2. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway, as the project site is within the downtown surrounded by urban uses and is not located near a scenic highway;

3. The project site is not listed by DTSC as a hazardous waste site; and

4. The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as documented in the report of the California Historical Resources Information System, NWIC File No. 23- 0811.

Major Use Permit Findings
Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

Vallejo Municipal Code Section 16.606.03, requires the Council make the following findings prior to granting a Major Use Permit (the findings are in bold, and staff’s recommendation follows):

Finding 1. The proposed use is conditionally allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and all other titles of the Vallejo Municipal Code.

Facts in support of Finding 1

As detailed above, the proposed project is located on a property zoned Downtown Mixed Use (DMX). Vallejo Municipal Code Table 16.301-A: Land Use Regulations, requires a Major Use Permit for a School in excess of 10,000 square feet. Further, the project meets all the requirements for schools contained in Section 16.335.02 (3)(a). With the granting of a Use Permit, the project is consistent with the applicable development standards outlined in Title 16 of the Vallejo Municipal Code (VMC), as proposed and conditioned.

Finding 2. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan or planned development and any other applicable plans.

Facts in support of Finding 2:

As discussed above, the project site is designated as District – Downtown Waterfront (D-D/W) on the General Plan Land Use Map. It is intended to promote a vibrant, pedestrian‐oriented place that seamlessly integrates downtown with the waterfront. Layering compatible land uses and public amenities, together at various scales and intensities, the D‐D/W designation allows for multiple functions within the same building or adjacent to one another in the same general vicinity to foster a mix of uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity. The D‐D/W designation is also intended to create a vibrant destination for people from other parts of the city and the region. The project as proposed and conditioned adds 400 students plus teachers and staff to the Downtown area in an existing building that has remained vacant for several years.

This will also bring parents downtown and help to activate economic vitality to the Downtown.

Further, the project is in the Arts and Entertainment District in the Downtown Vallejo Specific Plan (DVSP).

While DVSP Policy 4.3.3 encourages museums and other arts and cultural facilities to locate in this area, as well as restaurants, cafes and other entertainment activities, these uses are not exclusionary of other uses. As a result of the adoption of Ordinance 1853 N.C., the regulation of uses in the downtown are controlled by the DMX zoning district in the Zoning Code.

The project is also consistent with applicable General Plan 2040 and Downtown Specific Plan policies as noted above in the report.

Finding 3 The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed.

Facts in support of Finding 3

Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

The charter high school is proposing to renovate and occupy an existing vacant two-story office building in the Downtown area. No major exterior alterations are proposed to the building. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the proposed use because the majority of activities associated with the school use will occur indoors, the applicant has agreed to incorporate changes to their proposed operational plans and procedures and will construct off-site public improvements to ensure that the proposed use will not create negative impacts on the surrounding properties. These plans and procedures are included as Conditions of Approval.

The applicant is proposing to satisfy recreational needs of students with staggered scheduling in the interior recreation areas.

Finding 4 The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the zoning district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located which may include but not be limited to size, intensity, hours of operation, number of employees, or the nature of the operation.

Facts in support of finding 4

The proposed project is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the zoning district with the granting of a Major Use Permit in that similar educational use is located immediately across Georgia Street from the project site, the use will activate a vacant commercial building and includes site improvements to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. The proposed use plans to operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday-Friday with occasional after-school events and activities. Conditions of approval have been added to reflect these hours and limitations.

Finding 5 The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood.

Facts in support of finding 5

As detailed above, the physical location of the proposed project inside an existing vacant office building will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. Conditions of approval have been added to address vehicle queuing during drop-off and pick up hours.

Finding 6 The proposed use and related project features will not create any nuisances arising from the emission of odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions and would not otherwise be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or general welfare.

Facts in support of finding 6

As proposed and conditioned, the charter high school will not create any nuisances from odors, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare exceeding ambient conditions, in that construction will be primarily Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

indoors and, as detailed above, a noise study concluded that there will be no excessive noise during school operation. As concluded in the Noise study, noise associated with people talking and eating would not be unique, dissimilar, or louder than existing ambient noise levels associated with urban environments (e.g. roadway traffic, people talking, landscape equipment.) As proposed and conditioned, the use will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, security, or general welfare in that a school is a vital part of the community and serves the public welfare.

Finding 7 The project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, if applicable, and the requirements of this chapter.

Facts in support of finding 7

As detailed above, and detailed in the CEQA findings above, staff is recommending that the City Council find the project categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15332, Class 32, In-fill Projects.

FISCAL IMPACT
Although the presence of a school at this location might remove approximately $7,000 per year from the property tax received by the City, the presence of the students, parents, faculty and staff would energize the vitality of downtown and bring in spending power which would off-set this amount.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32: In-fill Projects) because the project is on a site less than 5 acres in size, within city limits surrounded by urban uses, is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations, has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, is adequately served by all required utilities and public services, and approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Further, none of the exceptions pursuant to Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply as discussed herein previously.

ATTACHMENTS

1. 241 Georgia AppealPackage_3-28-24

2. ELITE's Response to Appeal (2024)

3. 241 Georgia St - PC Packet

4. PC 24-04 - signed

5. SCOBE letter 3-13-24

6. Ordinance 1853 Downtown SPA (002)

7. Written Communications
Date: April 23, 2024
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL (APP24-0001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL, AND GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008) TO ALLOW

THE OPERATION OF A NEW CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AFTER FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL PROJECTS)

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

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF VALLEJO

PLANNING COMMISSION

I. PROJECT INFORMATION Item No. 7-A

DATE OF MEETING: March 18, 2024

PROJECT NUMBER: Major Use Permit (UP22-0008)

PREPARED BY: Erwin Ordoñez, Planning Consultant

PROJECT LOCATION: 241-255 Georgia Street

APPLICABLE ZONING
CODE SECTION(S): Schools: Vallejo Municipal Code (VMC) §16.335; Major Use Permit VMC §§16.301-A and 16.606;
Development Standards: Mixed -Use Districts
VMC §16.203-A;
Minimum Parking Requirements VMC
§16.508.04

PROJECT SUMMARY: The project is proposing the phased conversion of a vacant two -story, 34 ,819 square -foot office
building in Downtown Vallejo with associated
interior/exterior on-site and right -of-way
improvements allowing for the operation of a new
charter high school with an enrollment of up to
400 students.

CEQA DETERMINATION: The project is exempt from environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15332 (Class 32 : In -fill Projects) because the
project is on a site of less than 5 acres within city
limits surrounded by urban uses , is consistent
with the applicable general plan designation and
all applicable general plan policies as well as with
the applicable zoning designation and
regulations, has no value as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species , is
adequately served by all required utilities and
public services, and approval of the project would
not result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. None of
the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section
15300.2 apply.

2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC 2 4-XX APPROVING
UP22-0008, subject to the attached conditions of
approval, after FINDING the project categorically
exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15332 ( Class
32: In-fill Exemption).

APPLICANT: Elite Public Schools
100 Whitney Ave.

Vallejo, CA 94589

PROPERTY OWNER: Brian Baylies
51 Red Cypress Ct.

Danville, CA 94506

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: District – Downtown Waterfront (D-D/W)

ZONING DISTRICT: Downtown Mixed Use (DMX)

EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant Office Building

SURROUNDING LAND USE: North – Vallejo Housing Authority Office, Special Education Private School
(Immersive Learning Center)
South – Downtown Parking Lot G/
Vallejo Transit Center
East – Commercial (Restaurant/Office/Retail)
West – Commercial (Vacant Offices)

LOT AREA: 30,666 square feet (.704 acres)

TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 34,819 square foot building, 1.14 FAR

PARKING REQUIREMENTS/
PROVIDED: No on-site parking required (Downtown Parking District)

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Background

In May 2022, Elite Public Schools , the project applicant, submitted a Preliminary Review application, requesting feedback from City staff on a proposed charter high school for 190 students at 241-255 Georgia Street. Staff reviewed the submittal and returned written comments regarding requirements under the Vallejo Municipal Code, associated development standards and processing procedures and additional filing requirements necessary for a formal application.

On July 7, 2022, the applicant applied for a Major Use Permit proposing the phased conversion of the vacant two-story, 34,819 square -foot office building at this location along with associated interior /exterior on-site and right-of-way improvements that would allow for the operation of a new public charter high school 3 charter high school with an enrollment of up to 400 students. Staff determined that the project might qualify for a CEQA exemption and commissioned back-up studies for Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHG), Noise and Transportation. A traffic consultant prepared a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and an environmental consultant prepared background analysis and documentation materials regarding GHG , noise analysis and potential historic/cultural resources impacts necessary to make a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption determination.

Location and Land Use Context

The project is proposed for an existing vacant two-story office building located on a 30, 666 square foot corner lot in the Downtown, with frontages along Georgia Street and Sacramento Street. The site is located across the street from the Vallejo Housing Authorit y, with private offices and a private school use to the north, commercial uses to the east and west, and Downtown Parking Lot G and Vallejo Transit Center to the south:

Table 1 – Surrounding Uses
Direction Land Uses
North
Public (Vallejo Housing Authority), Offices
Special Education Private School
(Immersive Learning Center)
East Commercial (Restaurants/Offices/Retail)

South Downtown Parking Lot G/
Vallejo Transit Center
West
Commercial
(Cal Maritime Anchor Center, Vacant Offices)

The immediate vicinity of the project site is characterized by existing commercial , office, retail, and public/quasi-public uses. City Hall , the John F. Kennedy Library, and M arina Vista Memorial Park are approximately 500 feet northwest of the project site. The Waterfront and Ferry Landing are approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the project site.

4 Figure 1 – Vicinity Map

Figure 2 – Surrounding Uses

5 B. Project Description

The proposed project is requesting approval of a Major Use Permit for the phased conversion of a vacant two-story office building in Downtown Vallejo with associated interior/exterior , on-site and right-of-way improvements allowing for the operation of a new charter high school with an enrollment of up to 400 students. Proposed school hours are Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. with occasional afterschool activities , weekend events, monthly board meetings, and semi -annual parent engagement events.

The existing two-story building is located at 241-255 Georgia Street and has a total building area of 34,819 square feet. Of the interior space, 22,959 SF will be dedicated to school-related education use s on the ground floor and 11,860 square feet of existing mezzanine space on the second floor that will be used for administrative offices. The balance of the second floor volume is open to the floor below creating double height ceilings. Most of the renovation work will be in the form of interior tenant improvements to facilitate the operation of the high school . There is no on-site parking, but adequate public parking is available on - street or in the surrounding Downtown Parking District lots . Visitors, students, and faculty that drive to the school will need to purchase parking passes in the Downtown Parking District lots or use on-street public parking or drop-off when visiting the school. A total of 38 bicycle parking spaces will be provided on-site to comply with City requirements.

The applicant is proposing that t he project will be completed in phases as the school continues to grow enrollment and additional funds for construction become available. Enrollment during the initial phase is anticipated to be approximately 250 students but the applicant is seeking approval for a maximum of 400 students. Staff will include 10 teachers with 25 administrative staff during the initial phase. The proposed initial phase of this project will be to develop approximately 18,000 square feet of interior space suitable for classrooms, bathroom facilities, a serving kitchen, common areas and a future gymnasium on the ground floor with administrative offices planned for the second story and the potential to incorporate additional student capacity and other education -related amenities in future project phases as the existing offices spaces are remodeled. Recreation use areas for PE classes will be provided within the building.

On-site improvements for the initial phase will include:

1. Tenant improvements for 18,000 square feet on the ground floor including installation of entrance door key fob system.

2. Installation of Full Fire Life Safety System building wide - (Fire Sprinklers and Fire Alarm system)

3. Replacement of existing light fixtures to LED to meet Title 24 requirements.

4. Restroom upgrades to meet fixture count and A mericans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements.

5. Removal and replacement of interior walls to create classrooms for the student population.

6. Constructing a serving kitchen for lunch

7. Constructing a future interior basketball court (under a separate building permit)

8. Erecting perimeter fencing and locked security/emergency exit doors.

9. Installation of a perimeter and entrance security camera

10. Construction of ADA access ramp at South entrance

Except for the installation of perimeter fencing at the North- and South-facing elevations of the building and a new accessible ramp to the South, no on-site major exterior (elevation) improvements are currently anticipated (See Figure s 3 & 4). Signs with the school’s name will be proposed to be posted at select location(s) on the building façade and a separate sign permit will be applied for when locations have been identified.

Off-site right-of-way improvements (See Figure 4 & 5) include:

1. Repainting curbs
6 2. Installation of additional signs on Georgia and Sacramento Street frontages to reflect limited hours for “vehicle loading zone only/no parking” during posted weekday morning and afternoon drop off periods.

3. Installation of “Do Not Block Intersection” signs.

4. Removal of 16 diagonal parking spaces and bulb outs on the Sacramento Street frontage and reconstruction of 8 parallel spaces to facilitate the proposed vehicle loading zones.

Figure 3 – Proposed Elevations

7 Figure 4 – Proposed Site Plan

8 Figure 5 – Existing Site Plan

III. STAFF ANALYSIS

Required Permits

The project requires the following approval under the Vallejo Municipal Code (VMC):

Table 2 – Required Permits
Permit Type Description VMC Chapter Review Authority
Major Use Permit School K-12, over 10,000 SF §§16.301-A and

16.606
Planning Commission
Action

9 The Planning Commission is being asked to review and act on the Major Use Permit.

General Plan Consistency

The General Plan 2040 Land Use Designation for the subject property is District – Downtown Waterfront (D-DW). The General Plan characterizes this designation as follows:

The D‐D/W designation applies to the downtown area, consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan; the adjacent Central Waterfront, subject to the Waterfront Planned Development Master Plan; and the Southern Waterfront. It is intended to promote a vibrant, pedestrian‐oriented place that seamlessly integrates downtown with the wat erfront. Layering compatible land uses and public amenities, together at various scales and intensities, the D‐D/W designation allows for multiple functions within the same building or adjacent to one another in the same general vicinity to foster a mix of uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity. The D‐D/W designation is also intended to create a vibrant destination for people from other parts of the city and the region. The maximum permitted FAR in the D‐D/W designation is 6.0, with a minimum residential density of 30 dwelling units per acre up to 90 dwelling units per acre.

The project is consistent with the D-DW land use designation in that a school is a resident serving use that helps foster a mix of uses so people can live, work, play and shop in close proximity.

Table 3 - General Plan 2040 Policies and Actions
Policies and Actions Staff’s Analysis
POLICY CP-3.1
High Quality Education. Foster
high quality schools that enhance
civic pride.

A proposed public charter high school near the Vallejo
Transit Center in the Downtown supports this policy
because it allows for additional choice options for a greater geographic diversity of potential students who could benefit from high quality, alternative teaching methods and learning environments.

Action CP-3.1D
Work with charter schools, private
schools, parochial schools,
and preschools to assess needs for a
range of high-quality.
educational opportunities in the
community.

The proposed charter school will provide a high-quality educational choice with easy access and adjacent to the Immersive Learning Center, which focuses on Science
Technology Engineering Arts Mathematics (STEAM).
10 POLICY CP-1.6
Active Transportation Network.

Promote the health benefits of
walking and bicycling by providing a
convenient and safe network of
bicycle paths and routes, sidewalks,
pedestrian paths, and trails, including
connections with major destinations
such as civic facilities, educational
institutions, employment centers,
shopping, and recreation areas.

A proposed high school walking distance to the Vallejo Transit Center, civic facilities such as the John F. Kennedy Library, the Vallejo Ferry Landing, parks, and the waterfront supports this policy by supporting multiple modes of
transportation for students, faculty, and visitors . Additionally, Georgia Street is identified as a Class III Bicycle Facility (Bike Route) in the City’s Bikeway Master Plan . The applicant is also providing 38 bicycle parking spaces on site for use by faculty and students.

Action CP-1.6C
Encourage school siting decisions that
take safe walking and bicycling access
into account.

The school is in walking and bicycling distance to downtown retail, civic facilities, parks and the waterfront and Georgia Street is a Class III Bicycle Route. In addition, the applicant is providing bike racks to accommodate 38 bikes.

POLICY CP-1.8
Strong Schools, Engaged Students
and Families. Support efforts by
schools to reduce the dropout rate in
recognition that education is a
predictor of health.

A proposed public charter high school near the Vallejo Transit Center in the Downtown supports this policy because it
allows for additional choice options for a greater geographic diversity of potential students who could benefit from high quality, alternative teaching methods and learning
environments. In addition, a complimentary educational use, the Immersive Learning Center, which focuses on Science Technology Engineering Arts Mathematics (STEAM) and
computer technology focused K-12 grade education, tutoring, workshops, and summer camps, is loc ated immediately
across Georgia Street from the proposed project site,
potentially creating synergy for the student population.

Policy NBE-2.8:

Infill Development. Promote infill
development targets vacant and
underutilized sites for community-
desired and enhancing uses that is
compatible with surrounding uses.

The project proposes the renovation and adaptive reuse of a vacant office building in the Downtown and facilitates the addition of a new business that both serves City residents and helps activate the underutilized site and its surroundings.

The additional activity provided by the proposed school use is also anticipated to enhance economic activity with new potential customers, clients, and patrons for surrounding commercial uses.

Vallejo Municipal Code Compliance

The project site is zoned Downtown Mixed Use (DMX ), and the Zoning Code provides the following description of the DMX district:

The DMX Zoning District is intended to create and establish regulations to implement the Downtown Vallejo Specific Plan that will promote a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented place that seamlessly integrates Downtown with the waterfront. A broad range of permitted uses are allowed to provide flexibility in the use of space. Standards for physical form will create an urban character in Downtown, with minimal setbacks and views into ground floor space to activate frontages.

11 The applicants are proposing to occupy an existing vacant two-story office building and operate a public charter high school with an enrollment of up to 400 students and staff of 35 employees . The proposed renovations are in line with an adaptive reuse of the building because the “look and feel” of the building exteriors are generally being maintained and tenant improvements are focused internally on the requirements of the proposed educational use . No major exterior modifications are proposed for the building’s exterior walls and site improvements include fencing on the north and south sides and an ADA access ramp for the building’s two south entrances. Existing landscaping areas will be retain ed and upgraded with new plant materials.

The project is consistent with the applicable standards in the DMX zoning district as demonstrated in the Table, below:

Table 4 – Downtown Mixed Use
Development and Parking Standards (VMC Sections 16.203-A and 16.508.04) Code Section Development Standard Proposal Compliant

16.203.03 D.b.

Entrances: All non-
residential activities
located at the street level
shall provide one direct at-
grade entrance from the
public right-of-way for each
street frontage exceeding
50 feet.

An entrance is located on Georgia
Street, and two additional entrances
are provided on the South building
elevation facing Lot G. Due to grade
difference these are accessed via a
proposed new Sacramento Street
ADA ramp.

Yes

16.508.04 A
Minimum Parking
Requirements: Downtown
Mixed-Use Zoning
District: Buildings and
building additions
constructed prior to
adoption of the Downtown
Specific Plan (September
2005) are exempt from
the requirements of this
chapter. All other
construction and uses in
the downtown shall
provide parking in
compliance with Table

16.508-A: Parking
Requirements in
Downtown Specific Plan
Districts.

City records show that the building
was constructed in 1966, therefore it
is exempt from parking requirements.

Yes

Conditional Use in Downtown Mixed-Use District

Additionally, VMC Table 16.301 -A: Land Use Regulations, lists a School (K -12): large (10,000 sf or more) in the DMX district and indicates that a Major Use Permit application for this use is required to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.

12 Additional School Standards
VMC Section 16.335 (SCHOOLS) further specifies that a Major Use Permit is required for establishment of a school in all or part of an existing building that was not designed for or occupied by a K -12 school and that to grant the Use Permit, the Director or the Planning Commission shall determine, based on the information presented by the applicant that the following standards of Chapter 16.335 apply:

Table 5 – Schools
Standards (VMC Section 16.335.02)
Code Section Standard Proposal Compliant

16.335.02. A.3.a
That the school location is
appropriate for the use,
and that adjacent uses
will not be adversely
affected.

A similar and
complimentary
educational use is located
across Georgia Street
from the site. Students
also have easy Access to
the library. In addition, the
school would bring staff,
students and parents into
the downtown area
increasing pedestrian
traffic to restaurants and
shops.

Yes

16.335.02. A.3.b
That adequate access,
student drop-off areas
and required off-street
parking is provided
Under 16.508.04 A, no
parking is required for this
site. No off-street parking
is available on the site;
however, on-street public
parking is available on
Georgia and Sacramento
Streets.

Additional parking to
support the school and
other nearby uses is
available in the
Downtown Parking
District parking lots via
parking passes which can
be purchased.

The applicant is
proposing drop-off zones
along the curbline of the
Georgia and Sacramento
Street during the morning
and afternoon which will
temporarily reduce the
availability of the on-
street parallel spaces
Yes
13 during this period. Sixteen
(16) diagonal spaces on
Sacramento Street will be
permanently converted
into 8 parallel spaces.

The TIA analyzed these
issues and made
recommendations which
have been incorporated
into the Conditions of
Approval.

16.335.02. A.3.c
That outdoor play areas
are appropriately sized,
furnished with facilities
and equipment, safe, and
secure.

No outdoor recreation
activities are proposed on
site or required by the
State.

Yes

16.335.02. B.1
That the applicant’s site
plan has the proposed
enrollment and student
capacity of the school
A maximum of 400
students Yes

16.335.02. B.2
That the applicant’s site
plan has the size and
location of all indoor and
outdoor areas for physical
education;
PE indoor space noted on
plans Yes

16.335.02. B.3
That the applicant’s site
plan has t he pedestrian
and traffic circulation
systems proposed for the
site, include student drop -
off areas, in addition to
queuing areas for pick up
The TIA and Site Plan
show proposed drop off
and circulation; A
Condition of Approval
requires submission of
circulation plan consistent
with the TIA prior to
issuance of permits.

Yes

16.335.02. B.4
That the applicant’s site
plan has the proposed
parking, both on-site and
off-site
No on-site parking. Off-
site street parking and
Downtown Parking Lot G
are both shown on the
site plan.

Yes

16.335.02. B.5
That the applicant’s site
plan has the development
phasing schedule, if the
school will be developed
in phases.

The development plans
and project description
show the proposed
phasing
Yes

16.335.02. C.1
If the proposed site is
within 1,500 feet of a
railroad track easement, a
safety study shall be
submitted with the Use
Permit application
N/A, not within 1,500 of
railroad Yes
14 16.335.02. C.2
If the proposed site is
within 1,500 feet of an
above-ground fuel
storage tank or high-
pressure oil or gas
pipeline, or within 2,000
feet of a hazardous waste
disposal site, a hazards
risk assessment shall be
submitted with the Use
Permit application
N/A, none apply Yes

16.335.02. D.1
The site shall be easily
accessible from arterial or
collector streets and shall
allow minimum peripheral
visibility from planned
driveways and drop-off
areas.

The site on the corner of
Georgia and Sacramento
Streets. Sacramento is a
collector. The site is also
easily accessible from
Mare Island Way and
Curtola Parkway, which
are both arterial streets.

Yes

16.335.02. D.2
Parent drop-off areas,
queuing areas for pick up,
bus loading areas if
provided, and on-site
parking shall be
separated from walkways
to allow students to enter
and exit the school
grounds safely.

Walkway separation is
provided Yes
15 16.335.02. D.3
Adequate outdoor or
indoor play areas shall be
provided to meet the
needs for the planned
enrollment. The minimum
standard is 50 square feet
of active play area per
student. The Director or
the Planning
Commission, may reduce
this requirement upon
finding that:
a. Public parks are with
one-quarter mile of
the school and a joint-
use agreement with
the City has been
executed, or
b. The scheduling of
Physical Education
(e.g., staggered
recess times)
permits more
efficient use of on-
site facilities.

No outdoor play areas are
provided.

1,685 square feet of
indoor space for PE
activities is provided
(accommodates
approximately 34
students at one time)
There will be four PE
classes daily, five
days/week, which is
sufficient to
accommodate all 400
students.

Staff and the City
Attorney have concluded
that the proposed indoor
recreational
space/staggered PE class
schedule would be
sufficient for Staff’s
recommendation pending
Planning Commission
review as formal approval
body.

16.335.02. F.3
Entries shall be lighted to
ensure the safety of
persons and the security
of buildings. Outdoor
lighting that is not
required for security shall
be turned off when a
building or outdoor
recreational area is not in
use.

Proposed lighting is
shown on the
development plans and is
sufficient to ensure the
safety of persons and
security of the Building.

Yes

The project as proposed with the conditions of approval included in this report complies with the applicable development standards of the DMX District.

16 Discussion

The following comments provide a summary of the staff analysis of the project. They are separated by subject to facilitate the review by the Planning Commission. The information provided is referenced in Section IV, the Findings section at the end of this report.

Recreational space

The proposed charter high school is requesting approval for an enrollment of up to 400 students which would require 50 square feet of recreation space or 20,000 square feet on-site to be consistent with the basic standard noted by VMC 16.335.02.D.3 . The applicant proposes to satisfy the students ’ recreational needs with two designated interior PE areas totaling 1,685 square feet, staggered PE class schedules. The VMC provide s that the Planning Commission has the authority to reduce the 20,000 square foot requirement as part of its review of the Major Use Permit application by finding that :

a) Public parks are with one -quarter mile of the school and a joint -use agreement with the City has been executed , or b) The scheduling of Physical Education (e.g., staggered recess times) permits more efficient use of on-site facilities.

The applicant is requesting approval of its proposal based on the staggered use and size of the proposed interior recreational spaces. Staff believes that this meets the requirement of the code.

Off-Street Parking

The existing building has no off-street parking spaces on site. Per Section 16.508.04 A:

Downtown Mixed-Use Zoning District. Buildings and building additions constructed prior to adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan (September 2005) are exempt from the requirements of this chapter. All other construction and uses in the downtown shall provide parking in compliance with Table 16.508-A: Parking Requirements in Downtown Specific Plan Districts.

City records show that the existing building was constructed in 1966, prior to the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan, and therefore exempt from parking requirements. The property is located within the Downtown Parking District and the project’s occupants and visitors will be eligible to purchase parking passes and use the parking lots within the Downtown Parking District. The TIA prepared by the Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants documented ample available parking in most of the nearby Parking District lots.

In addition, as previously noted, the applicant is providing bike racks and the site is immediately adjacent to the Downtown Vallejo Transit hub, which provides easy access bus service.

Review of Potential Traffic Impacts

During the review process, planning staff had initial concerns regarding potential traffic impacts. The proposed charter high school use is expected to generate 688 average daily trips, with 276 trips occurring in the a.m. peak hour and 166 trips in the p.m. peak hour. The City Traffic Engineer reviewed the site plan , project description and concurred with the appropriateness of retaining a consultant to prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The City retention of a consultant to prepare a TIA was funded by the applicant in early 2023 and work was completed in December 2023 . The City’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed and approved the TIA, which is included as Attachment 3.

The TIA was prepared to determine significant transportation impacts related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project based on standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Vallejo. As required by CEQA, Potential significant impacts from traffic were analyzed using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service (LOS), Site access, circulation, off-site parking, and off-site queuing were also analyzed.
17 The TIA concluded that the project would not have significant impacts based on VMT or LOS criteria and noted that ample parking is available for the proposed use in the Downtown Parking District lots.

Additionally, the TIA made recommendations to minimize potential queuing impacts from the proposed drop-off and pick -up operations . These recommendations have been incorporated into staff’s recommended conditions of approval for the project.

In addition to the TIA, staff had an environmental consultant study potential noise, air quality, and historic/cultural resources impacts. The studies show that there will be no significant impact , which supports the recommended Class 32: In-fill exemption.

IV. FINDINGS

Major Use Permit Findings

VMC Section 16.606.03, requires the review authority to make the following findings prior to granting a Major Use Permit (the findings are in bold, and staff’s determination follows in italics):

A. The proposed use is conditionally allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and all other titles of the Vallejo Municipal Code.

The proposed project is located on a property zoned Downtown Mixed Use (DMX). Vallejo Municipal Code Table 16.301-A: Land Use Regulations, requires a Major Use Permit for a School more than 10,000 square feet. With the granting of a Use Permit, the project is consistent with the applicable development standards outline d in Title 16 of the Vallejo Municipal Code (VMC), as proposed and conditioned.

B. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan or planned development and any other applicable plans.

The project site is designated as District – Downtown Waterfront (D-D/W) on the General Plan Land Use Map. It is intended to promote a vibrant, pedestrian ‐oriented place that seamlessly integrates downtown with the waterfront. Layering compatible land uses and public amenities, together at various scales and intensities, the D‐D/W designation allows for multiple functions within the same building or adjacent to one another in the same general vicinity to foster a mix of uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity. The D ‐D/W designation is also intended to create a vibrant destination for people from other parts of the city and the region . The project as proposed and conditioned adds 400 students and support staff to the Downtown area in an existing building that has remained vacant for years. This will also bring p arents into the downtown and help to activate economic vitality to the Downtown. The project is also consistent with applicable General Plan 2040 policies as noted above in the report.

C. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed.

The public charter high school is proposing to renovate and occupy a vacant two -story office building in the Downtown area. No major exterior alterations are proposed for the exterior design of the building. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the proposed use because most activities associated with the school use will occur indoors, the applicant has agreed to incorporate changes to their proposed operational plans and procedures and will construct off -site public improvements to ensure that the proposed use will not create negative impacts on the surrounding properties. These plans and procedures are included as Conditions of Approval. The applicant is proposing to satisfy recreational needs of students with staggered scheduling in the interior recreation areas.

18 D. The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the zoning district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located which may include but not be limited to size, intensity, hours of operation, number of employees, or the nature of the operation.

The proposed project is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the zoning district. A similar educational use is located immediately across Georgia Street f rom the project site, the use will activate a vacant commercial building and includes site improvements to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. The proposed use plans to operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday-Friday with occasional after-school events and activities. Conditions of approval have been added to reflect these hours and reasonable limitations.

E. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood.

The physical location of the proposed project inside an existing vacant office building will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. Conditions of approval have been added to address vehicle queuing during drop- off and pick up hours.

F. The proposed use and related project features will not create any nuisances arising from the emission of odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions and would not otherwise be detrimental to the public in terest, health, safety, or general welfare.

As proposed and conditioned, the public charter high school will not create any nuisances from odors, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare exceeding ambient conditions. As proposed and conditioned, the use will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or general welfare.

G. The project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, if applicable, and the requirements of this chapter.

Following a review of the project, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission find the project categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15332 , Class 32 : In-fill Projects. Staff required studies that support this exemption, which is discussed in more detail, below.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Following a review of the project, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission find it exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA, the State has identified classes of projects which have been determined to not have a significant impact on the environment and are therefore exempt from the requirements of CEQA.

The project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32: In-fill Projects) because the project is on a site of less than 5 acres within city limits surrounded by urban uses, is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and al l applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations, has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, is adequately served by all required utilities and public services, and approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

Further, none of the exceptions pursuant to Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply. 19 As part of the development application review process, the City retained consultants to prepare additional analysis, research and document topic areas to assist City staff’s review of potential impacts.

Specifically, Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants , were retained to prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the project and Ascent Environmental Consultants, were retained to provide additional research and background documentation regarding potential noise, air quality, and historic/cultural resources impacts. A summary of each analysis is discussed below and copies of the background documentation/analysis are provided in Attachments 4-6.

Transportation Impact Analysis
A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants for this project that includes a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis, Level of Service (LOS) assessment, and site plan review with recommendations.

The VMT Analysis was based on guidelines from the City of Vallejo’s CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Revised October 2020) determined that the Project is not expected to have a VMT-related transportation impact because it is within a Transit Priority Area , is “local-serving” in nature, and is therefore screened out of any additional VMT analysis . This is consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) which notes that “Generally, projects within one half -mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high -quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.”

The LOS analysis concluded that a Level of service analysis is not required under Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) and CEQA but continued to analyze the project’s effect on intersection operations by evaluating eight study intersections. Under Opening Year and Cumulative conditions, the LOS analysis concluded that “the Project does not cause any study intersection to degrade to unacceptable conditions, based on the City’s level of service policies. Therefore, the Project is not required to provide intersection improvements.”

The Intersections analyzed by the TIA include:

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street

7. Maine Street/Sacramento Street

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway

The TIA also documented the following:

• All study intersections are expected to operate acceptably under the Opening Year and Opening Year Plus Project Conditions.
• All study intersections are expected to operate acceptably under the Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.
• The Project proposes no features that would be hazardous to pedestrian travel and does not conflict with any pedestrian facilities plans or programs. The Project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts related to pedestrian facilities. • The proposed project Trip Generation for the proposed private high school with 400 students was estimated to generate 688 average daily trips, with a total of 276 peak hour trips in the morning (172 in-bound, 104 out-bound), and 166 peak hour trips in the afternoon (64 in-bound, 102 out-bound).
20 • The publicly available parking lots in the vicinity of the Project site have considerable availability.
• The Project must include an additional two bicycle parking spaces (3 8 total) to satisfy the City’s requirements.

The TIA included the following recommendations which have been incorporated into the recommend Conditions of Approval:

• Add "No parking from 7 to 9 AM and 3 to 5 PM on weekdays - violators will be towed" signs along both loading zones.
• Paint the curbs white in both loading and unloading zones. • The school should work with the City and local towing operators to actively enforce the no parking restriction.
• Install traffic control devices compliant with “Manual Uniform Traffic Control Devices” (MUTCD) - R10-7 “DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION” on all four approaches to the Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street and Sacramento Street/Georgia Street intersections. Signs shall be mast arm mounted, if possible, with existing equipment (street mounted/installed if not possible on the existing signal mast arms).
• School staff should be stationed at various fixed locations at the loading zones to meet vehicles at the curb and to direct drivers entering/exiting the loading areas. At least six staff members should be stationed on Georgia Street and three on Sacramento Street. At least one staff member should be stationed at the southwest corner of Georgia Street/Sacramento Street to ensure vehicles are not blocking the intersection. • In the morning, staff should be stationed at the loading zones at least one hour before the first morning bell and stay approximately 10 minutes after the start of school. In the afternoon, staff should be stationed at the loading zones at least 10 minutes before the last afternoon bell and stay approximately five minutes after the queues have dissipated. • Vehicles are to pull forward in the loading zones as far as possible to allow for the maximum number of vehicles to drop-off/pick-up their student(s). • Parents/guardians are to stay in their vehicles at all times while students exit/enter via the right side of the vehicles when greeted by the staff member. • The school should create a written drop-off and pick-up procedure with supporting graphics that can be communicated with the students’ parents/guardians via handouts and shared electronically through the school’s website.

Air Quality
The purpose of the Air Quality Study (Attachment 4) is to evaluate whether the proposed project could potentially result in any significant effects related to air quality for purposes of determining consistency with the requirements of a Class 32 Categorical Exemption under CEQA. This study includes a brief explanation of the project, applicable standards of significance, analysis of air quality impacts, emission modeling results, and conclusions.

The Study concludes that the “… Project generated construction and operational criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions would not exceed BAAQMD recommended thresholds of significance for project related construction or operational emissions and thus would not result in a cumulative ly considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The project would generate minimal additional vehicle trips but would not result in substantial mobile or stationary sources of TACs and would not result in sources of odors. Thus, approval of the project would not result in a significant effect related to air quality.”

21 Noise Study
The purpose of th e Noise Study (Attachment 5) is to evaluate whether the project would have a significant effect related to noise. This study includes a brief explanation of the project, applicable standards of significance, analysis of noise and vibration impacts, and conclusions .

The Noise Study concludes that the “…Project-generated construction noise would be short-term and temporary and would comply with the City of Vallejo’s construction noise standards and would not expose sensitive land uses to excessive noise. The project would not result in operational sources of substantial vibration. Project construction would not require the use of vibration-inducing equipment such as pile drivers and all construction would occur during the less sensitive daytime hours when people are awake thereby reducing the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial vibration levels.

Operational stationary noise sources would not result in new substantial sources of noise in the project area or exceed applicably City standards. Operational increases in noise levels from vehicle trips would not result in a substantial increase in noise over existing conditions. Therefore, project related construction and operational noise and vibration would not be expected to exceed federal, state, or local standards or expose sensitive land uses to substantial increases in noise or vibration levels. Thus, approval of the project would not result in a significant effect related to noise.”

Historic/Cultural Resources Study
The purpose of the Study (Attachment 6) is to evaluate whether the project would have a potential significant effect on . The Study concluded that the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource , including both built environment features and archaeological sites.

The Study notes that “…building at 241 -255 Georgia Street is not listed on the CRHR or as a City of Vallejo Landmark. The project does not have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. …

There are no known archeological or tribal cultural resources on the site that qualify as historical resources, according to readily available material. Given that the property has been previously disturbed, the likelihood of finding such resources intact and within their relevant historic context is relatively low. Although not required to support an infill exemption or an SB 330 application, the project would comply with Public Resources Code and Health and Safety Code requirements that protect unanticipated cultural discoveries.”

The Study also provides references to Public Resources Code section 21083.2 (archaeological resources) and Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 (“adopted best practices” for cultural resource discoveries). Staff has incorporated the consultant’s information in the recommended Conditions of Approval to ensure compliance with these regulations.

VI. NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENTS

On March 4, 2024, p ursuant to VMC Section 16.602.08 – Noticing, a notice of this hearing was published in the Times Herald, mailed to all active neighborhood groups, all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, and any other local agency expected to provide water, wastewater treatment, or other essential facilities or services to the project, as well as to members of the Planning Commission, the applicant and property owner . Interested parties were also notified in the same manner.

At the writing of this report, no written communication has been received.

VII. CONCLUSION / STAFF RECOMMENDATION

22 Based on the analysis contained in this staff report and the project’s consistency with General Plan 2040 and the Vallejo Municipal Code, staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Major Use Permit (UP22 -0008), with the Class 32 Categorical Exemption , based on the findings provided in the attached Resolution and subject to the Conditions of Approval provided as Exhibit A to the Resolution.

VIII. EXPIRATION

Pursuant to VMC Section 16.602.12 (A.2), approval of the Major Use Permit, shall automatically expire two years after approval, unless authorized construction has commenced prior to the expiration date (March 18, 2026; if approved at this meeting and not appealed).

IX. APPEAL PROCEDURE

VMC Section 16.602.14, Appeals, the applicant, or any party adversely affected by the decision of the Planning Commission may, within ten days after the rendering of the decision of the Planning Commission, appeal in writing to the City Council by filing a written appeal with a fee of $1,409.21 with the City Clerk. Such written appeal shall state the reason or reasons for the appeal and why the applicant believes he or she is adversely affected by the decision of the Planning Commission. Such appeal shall not be timely filed unless it has been received by the City Clerk or designee no later than the close of business on the tenth calendar day after the decision of the Planning Commission. If such date falls on a weekend or City holiday, then the deadline shall be extended until the next regular business day.

Notice of the appeal, if any, including the date and time of the City Council’s consideration of the appeal, shall be sent by the City Clerk to all property owners within five hundred feet of the project boundary.

The Council may affirm, reverse, or modify any decision of the Planning Commission that is appealed.

X. ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. PC 24-XXX and Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval

2. Project Plans

3. Traffic Impact Study, dated December 2023

4. Ascent Memorandum: Air Quality, dated February 21, 2024

5. Ascent Memorandum: Noise, dated February 21, 2024

6. Ascent Memorandum: Historic Resources, dated February 21, 2024

CITY OF VALLEJO PLANNING COMMISSION

RESOLUTION NO. PC 24-XXX

A RESOLUTION APPROVING MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008)

ALLOWING THE OPERATION OF A NEW PUBLIC CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF UP TO 400 STUDENTS IN AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET (APN:0055-170-390) AND

FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32: IN-FILL

PROJECTS)

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

I. GENERAL FINDINGS

WHEREAS, on August 29, 2017, the City Council adopted General Plan 2040 which serves as a guide for the community’s future growth and development; and

WHEREAS, the Major Use Permit approval is being requested for property that has a General Plan 2040 Land Use Designation of District – Downtown Waterfront (D-D/W); and

WHEREAS, on July 22, 2021, the City Council adopted the Zoning Code and Zoning Map to implement General Plan 2040‘s Land Use Plan; and

WHEREAS, the property is located in the Downtown Mixed Use (DMX) Zoning District; and

WHEREAS, on July 7, 2022, Elite Public Schools submitted an application for a Major Use Permit to allow the operation of a new public charter high school with an enrollment of up to 400 students in an existing two-story building at 241-255 Georgia Street; and

WHEREAS, on August 11, 2023, the application was determined to be complete; and

WHEREAS, on March 18, 2024, the City of Vallejo Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing; and

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

WHEREAS, based on evidence received in the staff report and at the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following factual findings:

II. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING

ATTACHMENT 1

Following a review of the project, the Planning Commission has determined that it is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32: In-fill Projects) because the project is on a site of less than 5 acres within city limits surrounded by urban uses, is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations, has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, is adequately served by all required utilities and public services, and approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Further, none of the exceptions pursuant to Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply, in that
a. There is no reasonable possibility that the renovation of an empty office building will have a significant effect on the environment as there are no unusual circumstances associated with this downtown in-fill site; and b. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway, as the location is not near a scenic highway;
c. The project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code pertaining to hazardous materials; and d. The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

III. FINDINGS RELEVANT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAJOR USE PERMIT

Vallejo Municipal Code (VMC) Section 16.606.03 requires the review authority to make the following findings prior to granting a Major Use Permit. the findings are in bold, and staff’s determination follows in italics.

A. The proposed use is conditionally allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and all other titles of the Vallejo Municipal Code.

The proposed project is located on a property zoned Downtown Mixed Use (DMX). Vallejo Municipal Code Table 16.301-A: Land Use Regulations, requires a Major Use Permit for a school more than 10,000 square feet. The project is consistent with the applicable development standards outlined in Title 16 of the VMC, as proposed and conditioned.

B. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan or planned development and any other applicable plans.

The project site is designated as District – Downtown Waterfront (D-D/W) on the General Plan Land Use Map. It is intended to promote a vibrant, pedestrian‐oriented place that seamlessly integrates downtown with the waterfront. Layering compatible land uses and public amenities, together at various scales and intensities, the D‐D/W designation allows for multiple functions within the same building or adjacent to one another in the same general vicinity to foster a mix of uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity. The D‐D/W designation is also intended to create a vibrant destination for people from other parts of the city and the region. The project as proposed and conditioned adds 400 students and support staff to the Downtown area in an existing building that has remained vacant for years. This will also bring parents into the downtown

and help to activate economic vitality to the Downtown. The project is also consistent with applicable General Plan 2040 policies as noted above in the report.

C. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed.

The public charter high school is proposing to renovate and occupy a vacant two-story office building in the Downtown area. No major exterior alterations are proposed for the exterior design of the building. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the proposed use because most activities associated with the school use will occur indoors, the applicant has agreed to incorporate changes to their proposed operational plans and procedures and will construct off-site public improvements to ensure that the proposed use will not create negative impacts on the surrounding properties. These plans and procedures are included as Conditions of Approval. The applicant is proposing to satisfy recreational needs of students with staggered scheduling in the interior recreation areas.

D. The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the zoning district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located which may include but not be limited to size, intensity, hours of operation, number of employees, or the nature of the operation.

The proposed project is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the zoning district. A similar educational use is located immediately across Georgia Street from the project site, the use will activate a vacant commercial building and includes site improvements to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. The proposed use plans to operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday-Friday with occasional after- school events and activities. Conditions of approval have been added to reflect these hours and reasonable limitations.

E. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood.

The physical location of the proposed project inside an existing vacant office building will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. Conditions of approval have been added to address vehicle queuing during drop-off and pick up hours.

F. The proposed use and related project features will not create any nuisances arising from the emission of odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions and would not otherwise be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or general welfare.

As proposed and conditioned, the public charter high school will not create any nuisances from odors, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare exceeding ambient conditions.

As proposed and conditioned, the use will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or general welfare.

G. The project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, if applicable, and the requirements of this chapter.

Following a review of the project, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission find the project categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15332, Class 32, In-fill Projects. Staff required studies that support this exemption, which is discussed in more detail, below.

IV. DETERMINATIONS RELEVANT TO THE APPROVAL OF ESTABLISHMENT

OF A SCHOOL IN ALL OR PART OF AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR OR OCCUPIED BY A K-12 SCHOOL

VMC Section 16.335.02 A 3 requires the review authority to make the following determinations to grant a Use Permit (the determinations are in bold, and staff’s determination follows in italics):

a. The school location is appropriate for the use, and that adjacent uses will not be adversely affected.

The school location is appropriate for the use, and adjacent uses will not be adversely affected in that a similar and complimentary educational use is located across Georgia Street from the site and students also have easy access to the John F. Kennedy library.

In addition, the school would bring staff, students and parents into the downtown area increasing pedestrian traffic to restaurants and shops.

b. Adequate access, student drop-off areas and required off-street parking is provided.

Under VMC section 16.508.04 A, no parking is required for this site; however, on- street public parking is available on Georgia and Sacramento Streets. Additional parking to support the school and other nearby uses is available in the Downtown Parking District parking lots via parking passes which can be purchased. The applicant is proposing drop-off zones along the curbline of the Georgia and Sacramento Streets during the morning and afternoon which will temporarily reduce the availability of the on-street parallel spaces during this period. Sixteen (16) diagonal spaces on Sacramento Street will be permanently converted into 8 parallel spaces. In addition, the site is adjacent to the Vallejo Transit Hub, and has easy walking or biking via the Class III bike lanes. The applicant is providing bike racks for 38 bikes.

c. Outdoor play areas are appropriately-sized, furnished with facilities and equipment, safe, and secure.

N/A. While indoor PE areas are provided, there are no outdoor facilities.

V. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECT AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby FINDS that the project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32: In-fill Projects), based on the above findings.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES Major Use Permit (UP22-0008) subject to the Conditions of Approval attached to this Resolution.

VI. VOTE

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Vallejo, State of California, on the 18th day of March 2024 by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

_______________________________________________________

JAMAR STAMPS, CHAIRPERSON
City of Vallejo Planning Commission

Attest:

_______________________________

CHRISTINA RATCLIFFE, AICP, SECRETARY
City of Vallejo Planning Commission

Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

MAJOR USE PERMIT (UP22-0008)
241-255 GEORGIA STREET, VALLEJO CA, 94589
APN: 0055-170-390

PERMIT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the phased conversion of a vacant two-story, 34,819 square-foot office building in Downtown Vallejo with associated interior/exterior on-site and right-of-way improvements allowing for the operation of a new public Charter high school with an enrollment of up to 400 students.

A. PLANNING DIVISION

Staff Contact: Erwin Ordoñez, Planning Consultant (707) 648 -4326 [email protected]

Pre-Building Permit:

1. The applicant shall submit a numbered list to the Planning Division with a written response regarding how each condition of project approval contained in this report will be satisfied.

The list should be submitted to the project planner , who will coordinate the development of the project. The approved COA will be included in the permit set after the cover sheet with each condition listed and how the applicant will address each condition in writing.

2. The site plan, floor plans, building elevations, and any additional information or representations, whether oral or written, indicating the proposed manner of operation submitted with an application or submitted during the approval process are deemed conditions of approval. Applicant guarantees, warrants, and ensures compliance with the plans and conditions in all respects.

3. The Applicant shall apply for and receive a Temporary Use Permit from the Planning Division for any temporary office or construction trailer.

During Construction

1. Construction activities shall be managed in compliance with the following requirements:
a. Site Watering. During the project's construction, all portions of the site shall be watered as necessary to reduce emissions of dust and other particulate matter, and all stockpiles shall be covered.
b. Maintenance. Streets and sidewalks shall be made dirt-free at the completion of construction.
c. Noise. All construction and transport equipment shall be muffled in accordance with state and federal laws.
d. Emissions. Construction and transport equipment shall be operated to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and equipment should be running only when necessary.
e. Water Run-off. All water run-off from construction sites shall be controlled. During construction, trucks and equipment should be running only when necessary and shall comply with Chapter 12.41 of the Vallejo Municipal Code.

2. No person shall make, or cause to suffer, or permit to be made upon any public property, public right-of-way, or private property any excessive noise, annoying noise, amplified sound or vibrations that are physically annoying to reasonable persons of normal sensitivity or that are so harsh or so prolonged or unnatural or unusual in their use, time or place as to cause or contribute to the unnecessary and unreasonable discomfort of any persons of normal sensitivity located at the lot line of the property from which these noises emanate or that interfere with the peace and comfort of residents or their guests, or th e operators or customers in places of business in the vicinity, or that may detrimentally or adversely affect such residences or places of business. (VMC Section 16.502.09 (C))

3. Construction, demolition, and related loading/unloading activities that may generate noise shall be limited to 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday- Friday, Saturday 9 am- 6 pm and Sundays and holidays not allowed. (VMC Section 16.502.09 (D))

4. The fencing for construction sites shall not be installed until a building permit or grading permit has been issued and shall be removed before final inspection. In the event that the building permits expire before the construction is completed, the Planning and Development Services Director may issue a temporary use permit under Chapter 16.339, Temporary Uses, to allow the fencing to remain for a longer period of time. (VMC Section

16.505.08 (B))

Pre-Building Final

1. Prior to the first final building inspection, the landscape architect shall provide a completed Certificate of Completion and a Certificate of Installation , according to the Landscape Documentation by VMC Chapter 16.71: Water Efficient Landscape Requirements. The documentation shall include the following:
a. Irrigation Scheduling (VMC §16.71.050)
b. Schedule of Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance (VMC §16.71.051) c. Landscape Irrigation Audit Report (VMC §16.71.052)
d. Soil Management Report (VMC §16.71.045)

2. Prior to first final building inspection, the Applicant shall install landscaping and irrigation per approved plans. The landscape architect shall verify in writing that the landscaping and irrigation have been installed per the approved landscape plans concerning size, health, number and species of plants, and the overall design concept.

Landscaping

1. Maintenance Required. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and always thriving condition, in compliance with the approved landscape plan. Irrigation systems and their components shall be fully functional and consistent with the original approved design or upgraded to reflect current best practices for water efficiency. Regular maintenance shall include but is not limited to:
a. Adjusting, checking, and repairing irrigation equipment; resetting automatic controllers; aerating and de -thatching turf areas; adding/replenishing fertilizer, mulch, and soil amendments; insect control; the replacement of dead or diseased plants; pruning; watering; and weeding all landscaped areas. b. The trimming of vegetation is necessary to maintain the effective functioning of solar energy facilities and passive solar design features installed both on-site and on adjacent properties.
c. Pruning, cultivating, weeding, fertilizing, replacing plants, and regularly watering. d. Pruning or removal of overgrown vegetation, cultivated or uncultivated, that may harbor rats, vermin, or other nuisances or otherwise be detrimental to neighboring properties.
e. The removal of dead, decayed, diseased, or hazardous trees, weeds , and debris that create an unsightly appearance and may be dangerous to public safety and welfare or detrimental to neighboring properties or property values. Compliance shall be by removal, replacement, or maintenance.
f. Landscaping (trees, shrubs, ground cover, turf, etc.) which, due to accident, damage, disease, lack of maintenance, or other cause, fails to show a healthy appearance and growth, shall be replaced. Replacement plants shall conform to all standards that gov ern the original planting installation, approved landscaping plan, or the director's approval. (VMC Section 16.504.08 (D))

2. Accumulation of leaves, twigs, bark, and other similar materials shall be removed regularly. Planting areas shall be always kept free of weeds. (VMC §16.504.08 (C))

Lighting

1. Lighting shall be designed, located, and installed to be directed downward or toward structures, be shielded or fully shielded. It shall be well-maintained to prevent glare, light trespass (unwanted light on adjacent lots and public rights-of-way), and light pollution to the maximum extent feasible. No permanently installed lighting shall blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity or brightness, as determined by the Planning and Development Services Director. (VMC §16.506.04 (B))

General Requirements

1. A final decision on an application for any discretionary approval subject to appeal shall become effective after the expiration of ten calendar days following the date of action unless an appeal is filed. No building permit or business license shall be iss ued until the 11th day following the action date. If a different termination date is fixed at the time of granting, or if actual construction or alteration has begun under valid building permits, the ten days may be waived. (VMC §16.602.11)

2. The review authority, in the granting of any permit, may specify a time consistent with the purposes of the use and necessary to safeguard the public safety, health, and welfare, within which the proposed use must be undertaken and actively and continuously pursued.

If no time period is specified, any permit granted under the Zoning Code shall automatically expire within two years of the effective date (which is March 18, 2024) (VMC §16.602.12 (A)). All Planning permits associated with this approval shall expire on March 18, 2026, unless exercised or extended.

3. If a permit is granted in conjunction with approval of new construction, issuance of a building permit shall constitute exercise of rights; provided, however, that, unless otherwise specified as a condition of project approval, the permit shall expire if:
i. The Building Permit expires.
ii. Final inspection is not completed, or certificate of occupancy issued within the time specified as a condition of project approval.
iii. The rights granted under the permit are not exercised within one year following the earliest to occur of the following: issuance of a certificate of occupancy; or if no certificate of occupancy is required, the last required final inspection for the new construction. (VMC §16.602.11 (B))

4. The Planning and Development Services Director may approve a one -year extension of any permit or approval granted for a residential or non-residential project under the Zoning Code upon receipt of a written application and fees received fifteen calendar da ys (November 6, 2025) before the expiration date with the required fee prior to expiration of the permit. (VMC §16.602.11 (C.1))

5. No change in the use or structure for which a permit or other approval has been issued is permitted unless the permit is modified as provided for in the Zoning Code. For this chapter, the modification of a permit may include minor modification of a develop ment review approval that is in substantial compliance as determined by the Planning and Development Services Director. (VMC §16.602.11 (D))

6. Applications for changes to an approved permit must be filed and processed in compliance with the requirements in VMC Section 16.602.02, Application Forms and Fees, and shall be subject to a fee established by the Master Fee Schedule. a. Minor Modifications. The Planning and Development Services Director may approve minor changes to approved plans that are consistent with the original findings and conditions approved by the hearing body and would not intensify any potentially detrimental effects of the project.
b. Major Modifications. A request for changes in conditions of approval of a discretionary permit or a change in an approved site plan or building plan that would affect the findings adopted as a basis for project approval shall be treated as a new application, except that the Planning and Development Services Director may approve changes that she determines to be minor. (VMC §16.602.11 (E))

7. A request for major changes to an approved site plan or building plan that will not affect the findings adopted as a basis for project approval but are still considered substantial shall be forwarded to the original review authority for the discretionary permit for review and approval. (VMC §16.602.11 (F))

8. For new developments, utilities including, but not limited to, all electrical, telephone, cable television, fiber -optic cable, gas, water, sewer, irrigation/recycled water, and similar distribution lines providing direct service to a project shall be installed underground within the site. The Planning and Development Services Director may waive this requirement upon determining that underground installation is infeasible, or the electrical line is otherwise exempt from an under-grounding requirement. (VMC §16.501.10)

9. The Applicant shall obtain an inspection from the Planning Division before the final building inspection. All inspections require a minimum of 24-hour notice. Occupancy permits shall not be granted until all construction and landscaping are completed and finalized by the approved plans and required conditions of approval or a bond has been posted to cover all costs of the unfinished work as agreed to by the Planning and Development Services Director.

10. 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 o r 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, 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 mod ification 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.

Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)

The following conditions of approval implement recommendations from the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for this project.

1. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall prepare and submit for approval to the City’s Traffic Engineering Division, a proposed Parking and Circulation Plan, which will describe in detail : proposed hours, days of operation, staffing, permanent and temporary signage, methods of dissemination/distribution of information, enforcement mechanisms, and proposed operational procedures for implementing the pedestrian, bicycles and vehicular circula tion/parking noted in the plan.

At least two copies of the approved plan shall be provided to the City Traffic Engineering and Planning Divisions to be retained as a Public Record and to ensure future enforcement of the Major Use Permit Conditions of Approval. Violations of City approved Conditions of Approvals may result in future Use Permit revocation actions.

The required plan shall:
a. Direct parents/guardians to the Georgia Street loading/unloading zone when dropping off or picking up their students.
b. Require that staff, students, and visitors will be responsible for paying for their parking spots in the City-owned and publicly available parking within the surrounding area.
c. Identify vehicles regularly parked in the schools loading zone that need to be ticketed and towed by the City and a mechanism to regularly share this information with Vallejo Police Department and Public Works
d. Detail how (School) Staff will be stationed at unique locations at the loading zones and meet vehicles at the curb to help direct drivers entering/exiting the loading areas.

At least six staff members should be stationed on Georgia Street and three on Sacramento Street. At least one staff member should be stationed at the southwest corner of Georgia Street/Sacramento Street to ensure vehicles are not blocking the intersection.
e. Detail the schedule for staff to be stationed at the loading zones at least one hour before the first morning bell and stay approximately 10 minutes after the start of school.

In the afternoon, staff should be stationed at the loading zones at least 10 minutes before the last afternoon bell and stay approximately five minutes after the queues have dissipated.
f. Require parent’s vehicles to pull forward in the loading zones as far as possible to allow for the maximum number of vehicles to drop-off/pick-up their student(s). g. Require parents/guardians to stay in their vehicles at all times while students exit/enter via the right side of the vehicles when greeted by the staff member. h. Include a written drop-off and pick-up procedure with supporting graphics that can be communicated with the students’ parents/guardians via handouts and shared electronically through the school’s website.

2. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall amend plans submitted for Building Permit Plan Check approval to show bicycle parking facilities to accommodate at least 38 bicycle parking spaces and the required bicycle parking shall be available for use prior to issuance of Final Inspection approvals or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

3. Prior to issuance of Final Inspection approvals or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant(s), at their shall cost, shall permanently install in a manner consistent with City standards, City approved signs along both proposed loading zones (Georgia Street and Sacramento Street) which note the following: "No parking from 7 to 9 AM and 3 to 5 PM on weekdays - violators will be towed".

4. Prior to issuance of Final Inspection approvals or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant(s), at their shall cost, shall permanently paint the curbs white in both loading and unloading zones in a manner consistent with City and State standards.

5. Prior to issuance of Final Inspection approvals or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant(s), at their shall cost, shall permanently install in a manner consistent with City standards, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) compliant R10-7 “DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION” signs on all four approaches to the Santa Clara Stre et/Georgia Street and Sacramento Street/Georgia Street intersections. Signs shall be mast arm mounted if possible with existing equipment (street mounted/installed if not possible on the existing signal mast arms).

6. Prior to issuance of Final Inspection approvals or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant(s), at their cost, shall permanently install or cause to be installed in a manner consistent with City standards, all the improvements noted within the public rights-of-way as depicted in the approved development plans including all regulatory sig ns. The applicant(s) are responsible for obtaining any additional approvals and paying for any additional fees associated with these improvements.

Historical/Cultural Resources Best Practice for Excavation The following conditions of approval implement recommendations from the Historic/Cultural Resources background documentation prepared for this project.

1. The applicant shall immediately notify the City Building and Planning Divisions upon the discovery of any historic, cultural, or archaeological discovery that results from the construction or excavation activities occurring on the project site.

2. If a unique archaeological resource is discovered, reasonable efforts shall be made by the applicant to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. Examples of appropriate treatment, in no order of preference, may include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites. b) Deeding archaeological sites into permanent conservation easements. c) Capping or covering archaeological sites with a layer of soil before building on the sites.
d) Planning parks, greenspace, or other open space to incorporate archaeological sites.

3. To the extent that unique archaeological resources are discovered and preservation in place is not feasible, an archeologist would determine an appropriate treatment plan, which could include excavation. Retention of a qualified archeologist for this pur pose shall be made at the applicant’s expense with the approval of the City.

4. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the applicant shall immediately notify the City and there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains.

If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.

5. Upon the discovery of the Native American remains, the applicant/landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in State Law, with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants’ preferences for treatment.

B. BUILDING DIVISION
Staff Contact: Steve Arnold, Building Official, (707) 648-4387 [email protected]

1. Plans and permits are required for building, mechanical, plumbing and electrical work 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 shall be paid at time of application.

2. 2022 California Code of Regulations will apply to this project if permit application(s) are received before end of 2025. After December 31, 2025, the 2025 California Code of Regulations will apply.

3. Accessibility is required for this project per CBC 11B; See 11b-209.2 and 11B-503 for Passenger drop off and loading zone requirements.

4. Prior to the issuance of permits, please refer to Section 32020 of the Education Code for Fire/Police/Ambulance access requirements at fences or gates.

5. Vertical access is required for Phase 2 second floor education area. Please clarify your intent with Building Division staff prior to applying for permits for Phase 2. A possible exception for second floor office space less than 3000 square feet and not open to the public per 11B..206.2.3 EXC 1.2 (info only)

C. VALLEJO FLOOD & WASTEWATER DISTRICT (VFWD)
Staff Contact: Alan Mitchell, P.E., Contract Plan Check, (530) 681-0553 [email protected]

1. Provide sewer analysis for VFWD approval, prior to issuance of Building Permit.

2. A complete District Pre-Treatment Questionnaire (PTQ) is required, describing the nature of proposed food service. Here is a link for the PTQ that can also be located on the VFWD’s website.

4. Pay applicable VFWD fees (plan review, connection, inspection) before approval by VFWD and issuance of Building Permit.

5. VFWD inspection will be required prior to Building Permit sign-off.

6. Verify depth of existing sewer main, prior to starting construction. Notify VFWD if greater than 10'.

7. Prior to occupancy/final building inspection, provide a standard VFWD cleanout at the right-of-way/easement line per District standards and a two-way cleanout at the building per the U.P.C. This applies to all laterals.

8. New 2-way cleanout is shown under the bike racks, so please confirm the bike racks are moveable for access to cleanout.

9. See VFWD Detail SS-2, Table 1, which shows new lower lateral shall be SDR26 PVC.

10. Confirm separation between existing W and proposed lower sewer lateral. Notify Vallejo PW Water Division to confirm acceptable.

11. Provide sewer analysis before VFWD approval.

12. Pay applicable VFWD fees before approval.

D. SOLANO COUNTY TRANSIT
Staff Contact: Patricia Carr, General Services Manager,[email protected]

1. The drop-off behind the building MUST be controlled by the school. Carpools queues cannot block access to the private roadway or access to the parking spaces.

E. VALLEJO FIRE DEPARTMENT

Fire Prevention Plan Review
Project Description: CHANGE IN USE; Preliminary Review to Establish a Public Charter School (E Occupancy) from an Existing Building — 34,819 sq. ft. of Tenant Improvement — 22,959 E Occupancy and 11,860 of B Occupancy

The project plans have been reviewed with the information supplied. Subsequent plan submittals for review may be subject to additional requirements. Field inspections that discover fire/life safety issues may require additional revisions or alterations. Permits expire 1 year from issuance. The Fire Department recommends a fire safety inspection should occur to review the building for Fire and Building Code compliance.

Fire Code Requirements

FIRE ACCESS

2. The building electrical service disconnecting means shall be installed in a readily accessible location either outside the building or nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors. The disconnecting means shall be accessible to emergency personnel, either directly or by a remote actuating device without requiring transit of the building interior.

3. A 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. 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) 658-4565 or visit www.knoxbox.com

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. 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 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. A building directory sign is required at the main entrance. All buildings require identification numbers or letters.

6. 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.

FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

8. Smoke detection/dampers for HVAC systems shall be required as set forth in the Mechanical Code. Areas served by a single or multiple units exceeding 2,000 CFM shall have detectors installed and supervised by the fire alarm system. Detectors shall not trip a general alarm. Detectors shall be selfrestoring or a readily accessible manual reset shall be installed.

9. The minimum fire-extinguisher requirement shall be one 2A-10BC 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 o f floor area surveyed. Plan submittal shall include the proposed location of extinguishers. Final location shall be approved in the field by the Fire Department.

10. 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.

11. An automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the proposed E Occupancy tenant improvement building. Please submit 2 sets of plans and calculations to the Fire Marshal's Office and obtain permit prior to installation. Please note the density of the system must be compatible with the occupancy classification and designed in accordance with NFPA 13.

12. A manual and automatic fire alarm system that initiates the occupant notification signal utilizing an emergency voice/alarm communication system meeting the requirements of the Fire Code and NFPA 72 is required. When automatic sprinkler systems or smoke de tectors are installed, such systems or detectors shall be connected to the building fire alarm system. Please submit 2 sets of fire alarm plans and obtain permit from the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation. Please include listed device selections cut sheets.

13. A underground fire service main is required. A separate permit from the Fire Prevention Division is required. Please submit 2 sets of plans for the underground fire service main for review by the Fire Official prior to installation.

14. This project shall comply with the California Fire Code regarding fire flow requirements, including Appendix B. Fire flow calculations shall be designed by a fire protection engineer or C-16 licensed contractor.

15. Fire hydrants must be installed and approved by the fire department prior to combustible construction. Fire hydrants shall be spaced a maximum of 300 feet apart.

Please indicate on the plans the location of all existing and proposed Fire hydrants.

16. Approved impact protection shall be installed as necessary to protect hydrants from vehicular damage.

17. The contractor shall be responsible for painting of hydrants, verifying street valves are fully opened and the placement of blue reflective dots prior to requesting a final inspection. Maintenance, inspection and testing of private hydrants are the responsibility of the property owner. Private hydrants shall be painted red.

18. Kitchen. Provide an approved automatic fire extinguishing system to protect all cooking equipment. A permit is required from the Fire Marshal's office for fixed fire extinguishing systems. Please submit 2 sets of plans for review and approval. Design and system calculations shall be prepared by a licensed C-16 Contractor.

19. Activation of the (kitchen) fixed fire extinguishing system shall activate the building fire alarm.

MEANS OF EGRESS

20. An exit corridor is required and shall be a minimum of 44 inches wide and have a fire resistive rating of 1 hour.

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

22. Provide an approved exit sign over all required exit doors.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. All emergency lighting, exit sign lights shall have two separate sources of power as required by the California Building Code.

26. Locking devices on exit doors shall conform to the California Building Code. Only one lock or latch requiring one motion/operation to open/unlock is required. No double keyed dead-bolts are permitted on exit doors.

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

28. Provide panic hardware on all required exits. All exit doors shall open in the exit direction of travel. A, E, 1 2 and 1 2.1 Occupancies only.

MISC. REQUIREMENTS

29. All interior finishes, decorative material and furnishings shall meet the flammability, smoke and combustibility requirements of the Fire Code.

30. All roof material shall be rated class 'A" or better.

31. Provide "Roof Access" sign at roof ladder location.

32. Post an occupant load sign in a conspicuous place near the main exit from all rooms designated as "Assembly Areas". The sign shall read as follows; Maximum Occupants:

General
Dining
(calculations shall be provided by the Architect)

33. Provide a 1-hour fire separation between the B and A & E occupancies as required by the 2019 California Building Code.

34. The Emergency Plan including fire drill procedures shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review prior to final occupancy.

VFD & CSFM Fire Drill Requirements for Schools
CFC 403.5 Group E occupancies. An approved fire safety and evacuation plan in accordance with Section 404 shall be prepared and maintained for Group E occupancies and for buildings containing both a Group E occupancy and an atrium.

Group E occupancies shall comply with Sections 403.5.1 thr ough 403.5.4. [California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, S3.13(a)(1)] Fire Drills. (Group E Occupancies)
(a) Group E Occupancies.
(1) General. Every person and public officer managing, controlling, or in charge of any public, private, or parochial school shall cause the fire alarm signal to be sounded upon the discovery of fire. Every person and public officer managing, controlling, or in charge of any public, private, or parochial school, other than a two-year community college, shall cause the fire alarm signal to be sounded not less than once every calendar month at the elementary and intermediate levels, and not less than twice yearly at the secondary level, in the manner prescribed in California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Section 907. A fire drill shall be held at the secondary level not less than twice every school year.
403.5.1 Group E Occupancies. Every person and public officer managing, controlling, or in charge of any public, private, or parochial school, other than a two-year community college, shall cause the fire alarm signal to be sounded not less than once every calendar month at the elementary and intermediate levels, and not less than twice yearly

at the secondary level in the manner prescribed in Section 907. A fire drill shall be held at the secondary level not less than twice every school year. 403.5.1.1 Emergency Pre-Fire Planning. Each school principal, district superintendent or day nursery manager shall, in cooperation with the enforcing agency, prepare procedures to be followed in case of fire or other emergency. They should include the following:

1. Posting of the telephone number of the fire department in the office and/or at the main switchboard.

2. Assignment of a responsible person to call the fire department upon notification of any fire or activation of the alarm system for any reason other than fire drills.

3. Posting in a conspicuous place in each classroom or assembly area a plan showing paths of travel to evacuate the room in case of emergency and including an alternate route.

4. Posting in each classroom instructions to be followed by the teacher. These should include:
a. 4.1. Maintaining of order during evacuation.
b. 4.2. Removal of roll call book and calling of roll when designated evacuation area is reached.
403.5.2 First emergency evacuation drill. The first emergency evacuation drill of each school year shall be conducted within 10 days of the beginning of classes. 403.5.3 Time of day. Emergency evacuation drills shall be conducted at different hours of the day or evening, during the changing of classes, when the school is at assembly, during the recess or gymnastic periods, or during other times to avoid distinction between drills and actual fires.
403.5.4 Assembly points. Outdoor assembly areas shall be designated and shall be located a safe distance from the building being evacuated to avoid interference with fire department operations. The assembly areas shall be arranged to keep each class separate to provide accountability of all individuals.

35. A final inspection from the Fire Prevention Division is required.

Requests for field inspection shall be made a minimum of 24 hours in advance by calling the Fire Prevention Division at (707) 648 -4565, Monday through Friday 9:00AM to 3:00PM. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please feel fre e to contact this office at (707) 648-4565.

Kinyon + Kim
Architects, Inc.
1801 Oakland Blvd., Suite 320
Walnut Creek, CA. 94596
925.934.1160
F: 925.934.8132
The information, plans, designs, notes and arrangements shown on this drawing are confidential and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the expressed written permission of Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc. Drawings noted as Preliminary, Schematic and/or Conceptual contain information that is conceptual and subject to change. The architect makes no claim as to the accuracy of conceptual information or of information supplied by others.

Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc., 2022c
Project #: Drawn by: Checked by:

Vallejo High School
Tenant Improvements
251 Georgia Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
APN: 0055-170-390
09/26/2023
MUP1
220118 Author Checker
PROJECT DESCRIPTION :

THE PROPOSED PUBLIC CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL WILL PROVIDE
A VALUABLE HIGH SCHOOL IN THE DOWNTOWN VALLEJO AREA.

THE EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 241-255 GEORGIA STREET WILL ACCOMMODATE A MAXIMUM OF 400 STUDENTS AND 35
STAFF. THE BUILDING IS A PARTIAL TWO-STORY BUILDING WITH A COMBINED TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 34,819 SQUARE
FEET.

THE TENANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WILL BE PHASED AS
FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE TO UPGRADE THE BUILDING. THE

FIRST PHASE PERMIT WILL INCLUDE THE FULL GROUND FLOOR

WITH TWO SUITES IDENTIFIED AS DEDUCTIVE ALTERNATES IF THE BIDS COME IN TOO HIGH. THE SECOND PHASE WILL INCLUDE

THE SECOND FLOOR AND ANY WORK THAT WAS NOT
COMPLETED ON THE FIRST FLOOR IN PHASE I.

THE PROGRAM FOR THE GROUND FLOOR INCLUDES 13

CLASSROOMS, A LIBRARY ALCOVE, MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM,
SERVING KITCHEN, 4 OFFICES, RESTROOMS, AND STORAGE
AREAS. THE SECOND FLOOR WILL ACCOMMODATE 5

ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS, STORAGE, RESTROOMS, A
CONFERENCE ROOM AND 4 PRIVATE OFFICES.

THE MAIN VISITOR ENTRANCE WILL BE LOCATED ON GEORGIA

STREET AND THE STUDENT ENTRANCE WILL BE AT THE BACK OF
THE BUILDING AT LOT G. STUDENTS WILL ACCESS THE BUILDING

FROM AN ADA COMPLIANT RAMP OFF SACRAMENTO STREET
THAT WILL LEAD TO A GATED, FENCED WALKWAY. THE

SECOND FLOOR WILL HAVE ACCESS OFF THE WEST END OF

THE BUILDING WITH A NEW ELEVATOR AND COMPLIANT ENTRY
STAIRS.

PROJECT NUMBER:

APN: 0055-170-390
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: III-B
SEPARATION WALLS: AS APPLICABLE
OCCUPANCY GROUP: E OCCUPANCY
TABULATIONS:

TOTAL LOT AREA = 0.704 ACRE (PARCEL 1 @ 0.620 + PARCEL
2 @ 0.034 + PARCEL 3 @ 0.025 + PARCEL 4 @ 0.025)
GROSS BUILDING AREA: 34,819 S.F.
22,990 S.F. GROUND FLOOR
11,860 S.F. SECOND FLOOR.

PROJECT DATA:

ZONING: DMX (DOWNTOWN MIXED-USE)
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:

REQUIRED EXISTING
FRONT SETBACK: 00 00
SIDE SETBACK: 00 00
REAR SETBACK: 00 00
BUILDING HEIGHT: 102 FT. 34 FT.

BICYCLE PARKING (VMC 16.508.12 & TABLE 16.508-D):

SCHOOLS - 2 SHORT-TERM SPACES PER CLASSROOM OR 6% OF
STUDENT CAPACITY PLUS STAFF.
18 CLASSROOMS * 2 = 36 BICYCLE SPACES

PROJECT TEAM

VICINITY MAP

SITE LOCATION
APPLICANT:

ELITE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
100 WHITNEY AVENUE
VALLEJO, CA 94589
(707) 652-3142
CONTACT: DR. RAMONA BISHOP
OWNER:

BRYAN BAYLES
51 RED CYPRESS CT
DANVILLE, CA 94506
ARCHITECT:

KINYON + KIM ARCHITECTS, INC.
1801 OAKLAND BLVD., SUITE 320
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(925) 934-1160
CONTACT: DAVID KIM, AIA
CIVIL:

ATLAS CIVIL DESIGN
872 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
(760) 718-8010
CONTACT: A.J. WHITAKER, PE
PROJECT MANAGEMENT:

JO ANN KOPLIN
[email protected]
(310) 717-4323

PROPOSED ELITE PUBLIC SCHOOLS - VALLEJO
241-255 Georgia Street
Vallejo, CA

MAJOR USE PERMIT (PLANNING SUBMITTAL)

MUP SUBMITTAL SHEET INDEX
MUP1 MUP SUBMITTAL COVER SHEET
MUP2 FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
MUP3 SITE CONTEXT PHOTOS
MUP4 PRELIM SITE LAYOUT
MUP4.1 PRELIM DEMO SITE LAYOUT
MUP5 PHASE 1 PRELIM DEMO GROUND
FLOOR
MUP6 PHASE 1 PRELIM GROUND FLOOR
MUP7 PHASE 2 PRELIM GROUND FLOOR
MUP8 PHASE 2 PRELIM DEMO SECOND
FLOOR
MUP9 PHASE 2 PRELIM SECOND FLOOR
MUP10 PHASE 2 PRELIM ROOF PLAN
MUP11 PRELIM MASTER GROUND FLOOR
MUP12 PRELIM MASTER SECOND FLOOR
MUP13 PRELIM EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1 of 6 TITLE SHEET
2 of 6 DEMOLITION AND SITE IMPROVEMENT

PLAN - A
3 of 6 DEMOLITION AND SITE IMPROVEMENT

PLAN - B
4 of 6 UTILITY PLAN
5 of 6 OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
6 of 6 DETAILS
L1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
TOTAL PARCEL AREA (PARCELS 1, 2 & 3): 30,666 S.F.

EXISTING & PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA: 1,425 S.F. (0.046 %)

EXHIBIT A
Kinyon + Kim
Architects, Inc.
1801 Oakland Blvd., Suite 320
Walnut Creek, CA. 94596
925.934.1160
F: 925.934.8132
The information, plans, designs, notes and arrangements shown on this drawing are confidential and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the expressed written permission of Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc. Drawings noted as Preliminary, Schematic and/or Conceptual contain information that is conceptual and subject to change. The architect makes no claim as to the accuracy of conceptual information or of information supplied by others.

Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc., 2022c
Project #: Drawn by: Checked by:

Vallejo High School
Tenant Improvements
251 Georgia Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
APN: 0055-170-390
09/26/2023
MUP2
220118 Author Checker

EXHIBIT AFIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Kinyon + Kim
Architects, Inc.
1801 Oakland Blvd., Suite 320
Walnut Creek, CA. 94596
925.934.1160
F: 925.934.8132
The information, plans, designs, notes and arrangements shown on this drawing are confidential and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the expressed written permission of Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc. Drawings noted as Preliminary, Schematic and/or Conceptual contain information that is conceptual and subject to change. The architect makes no claim as to the accuracy of conceptual information or of information supplied by others.

Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc., 2022c
Project #: Drawn by: Checked by:

Vallejo High School
Tenant Improvements
251 Georgia Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
APN: 0055-170-390
09/26/2023
MUP3
220118 Author Checker

VIEW FROM GEORGIA STREET

NORTHEAST CORNER

VIEW FROM GEORGIA STREET

NORTHWEST CORNER

VIEW FROM SACRAMENTO STREET

SOUTHEAST CORNER

VIEW FROM SOUTH

NORTH VIEW OF GEORGIA STREET

WEST VIEW

EAST VIEW OF SACRAMENTO ST

WEST VIEW

EXHIBIT A

PROPOSED ELITE

HIGH SCHOOL

EXISTING GROSS
BUILDING AREA: 34,819 S.F.
22,959 S.F. GROUND FLOOR
11,860 S.F. SECOND FLOOR.
400 MAX. STUDENT CAPACITY

DOWNTOWN PARKING LOT G
SCHOOL

ENTRY/EXIT
SCHOOL
ENTRY
SCHOOL

ENTRY/EXIT
SCHOOL

ENTRY/EXIT
EXIT
ONLY
EXIT
ONLY
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 3

EXISTING SIDEWALK

TO REMAIN EXISTING SIDEWALK

TO REMAIN

EXISTING SIDEWALK

TO REMAIN
PARCEL 4 EASEMENT

VALLEJO CITY
APN: 0055-170-530

VALLEJO CITY
APN: 0055-170-220

VALLEJO CITY
APN: 0055-170-170

EXISTING SIDEWALK

TO REMAIN

EXISTING SIDEWALK TO REMAIN
(N) PATHWAY

TO MEET ACCESSIBILITY

WROUGHT IRON

FENCING WITH GATES

OUTDOOR AREA OUTDOOR AREA
L
L
L
22' - 0"5' - 0"20' - 5"6' - 0 1/16"
4 BICYCLE SPACES
PER RACK. TOTAL OF
9 RACKS = 36 SPACES
BICYCLE RACKS, TYP. BICYCLE RACKS, TYP.
11' - 0"
8' - 0"
5' - 0"
6' - 0"18' - 0"5' - 0"18' - 6"

TRASH ROOM

ROLL UP DOOR

SACRAMENTO STREET

WROUGHT IRON

FENCING WITH GATES

GEORGIA STREET

WROUGHT IRON FENCING WITH GATES

LOADING AND UNLOADING STUDENTS
MONDAY - FRIDAY: 8:00 AM TO 9:00 AM (MORNING)
MONDAY - FRIDAY: 3:00 PM TO 4:00 PM (AFTERNOON)
WEDNESDAY: 1:00 PM TO 2:00 PM (EARLY DISMISSAL)

FOOD DELIVERY
MONDAY - FRIDAY: 8:00 AM TO 9:00 AM (MORNING)
MONDAY - FRIDAY: 11:00 AM TO 1:00 PM (AFTERNOON)

AT OTHER TIMES

QUEUE LANE - PARALLEL PARKING

ACCESSIBLE DROP OFF AREA
40' - 0"
9' - 0"

QUEUE LANE - PARALLEL PARKING AT OTHER TIMES

NO PARKING FOR LOADING & UNLOADING
9' - 0"

PROVIDE SIGNAGE

NO PARKING DURING

NON SCHOOL HOURS
PROVIDE SIGNAGE:

NO PARKING DURING

NON SCHOOL HOURS

VALLEJO CITY
APN: 0055-170-270

SOLTRANS
APN: 0055-170-540

GEORGIA ST GEORGIA ST

YORK ST

SACRAMENTO ST SACRAMENTO ST

MARIN ST
ELITE

PUBLIC HS

VIRGINA ST
ROUTE
ROUTE
LOT G2 - APN:
0055-170-530
SOLTRANS - APN:
0055-170-540
LOT K
Kinyon + Kim
Architects, Inc.
1801 Oakland Blvd., Suite 320
Walnut Creek, CA. 94596
925.934.1160
F: 925.934.8132
The information, plans, designs, notes and arrangements shown on this drawing are confidential and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the expressed written permission of Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc. Drawings noted as Preliminary, Schematic and/or Conceptual contain information that is conceptual and subject to change. The architect makes no claim as to the accuracy of conceptual information or of information supplied by others.

Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc., 2022c
Project #: Drawn by: Checked by:

Vallejo High School
Tenant Improvements
251 Georgia Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
APN: 0055-170-390
09/26/2023
MUP4
220118 dek dek
1/16" = 1'-0"
PRELIM SITE LAYOUT 0' 16'8' 32 FEET4'
ELITE Public
Schools

EXHIBIT A

PARKING MAP

PROPOSED ELITE

HIGH SCHOOL

EXISTING GROSS
BUILDING AREA: 34,819 S.F.
22,959 S.F. GROUND FLOOR
11,860 S.F. SECOND FLOOR.
400 MAX. STUDENT CAPACITY

DOWNTOWN PARKING LOT G
SCHOOL

ENTRY/EXIT
SCHOOL
ENTRY
SCHOOL

ENTRY/EXIT
SCHOOL

ENTRY/EXIT
EXIT
ONLY
EXIT
ONLY
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 3

EXISTING SIDEWALK

TO REMAIN EXISTING SIDEWALK

TO REMAIN

EXISTING SIDEWALK

TO REMAIN
PARCEL 4 EASEMENT

VALLEJO CITY
APN: 0055-170-530

VALLEJO CITY
APN: 0055-170-220

VALLEJO CITY
APN: 0055-170-170

EXISTING SIDEWALK

TO REMAIN

EXISTING SIDEWALK TO REMAIN
(N) PATHWAY

TO MEET ACCESSIBILITY

WROUGHT IRON

FENCING WITH GATES

OUTDOOR AREA OUTDOOR AREA
L
L
L
4 BICYCLE SPACES
PER RACK. TOTAL OF
9 RACKS = 36 SPACES
BICYCLE RACKS, TYP. BICYCLE RACKS, TYP.

TRASH ROOM

ROLL UP DOOR

SACRAMENTO STREET

WROUGHT IRON

FENCING WITH GATES

GEORGIA STREET

WROUGHT IRON FENCING WITH GATES

SOLTRANS
APN: 0055-170-540

DEMO LEGEND

DEMOLISHED WALL

EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN
(E) STOREFRONT / DOOR TO BE

REMOVED
Kinyon + Kim
Architects, Inc.
1801 Oakland Blvd., Suite 320
Walnut Creek, CA. 94596
925.934.1160
F: 925.934.8132
The information, plans, designs, notes and arrangements shown on this drawing are confidential and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the expressed written permission of Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc. Drawings noted as Preliminary, Schematic and/or Conceptual contain information that is conceptual and subject to change. The architect makes no claim as to the accuracy of conceptual information or of information supplied by others.

Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc., 2022c
Project #: Drawn by: Checked by:

Vallejo High School
Tenant Improvements
251 Georgia Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
APN: 0055-170-390
09/26/2023
MUP4.1
220118 Author Checker
1/16" = 1'-0"

PRELIM DEMO SITE LAYOUT

EXHIBIT A
0' 16'8' 32 FEET4'
UP UP
UP

WALL LEGEND

DEMOLISHED WALL

EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN
(E) STOREFRONT / DOOR TO BE

REMOVED
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H
RAMP
UP
RAMP
RAMP
RAMP
RAMP
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL.(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.(E) COL.
(E) COL.(E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.

B.8B.6
A.8 A.8
B.7
E.8 E.8
F.4 F.4
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.

Kinyon + Kim
Architects, Inc.
1801 Oakland Blvd., Suite 320
Walnut Creek, CA. 94596
925.934.1160
F: 925.934.8132
The information, plans, designs, notes and arrangements shown on this drawing are confidential and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the expressed written permission of Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc. Drawings noted as Preliminary, Schematic and/or Conceptual contain information that is conceptual and subject to change. The architect makes no claim as to the accuracy of conceptual information or of information supplied by others.

Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc., 2022c
Project #: Drawn by: Checked by:

Vallejo High School
Tenant Improvements
251 Georgia Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
APN: 0055-170-390
09/26/2023
MUP5
220118 Author Checker
0' 8'4' 16 FEET2'
1/8" = 1'-0"
PHASE 1 EXISTING DEMO

PRELIM GROUND FLOOR
EXISTING FIXTURES TO BE REMOVED - PHASE 1
Type Count
HAND SINK 10
KITCHEN SINK 6
WALL HUNG URINAL 2
WATER CLOSET 14

EXHIBIT A
UP
DN
DN
DN
DN
UP
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H

GEORGIA STREET

SACRAMENTO STREET
(E) 7' - 2 1/2"
20 ATHLETIC
108 REGULAR
SUITE #101
56' - 0"
SUITE #104
35' - 8"
SUITE #103
31' - 7 1/2"
SUITE #105
39' - 2 1/2"

STUDENT
ENTRY

STUDENT
ENTRY

OUTDOOR EATING OUTDOOR EATING
RAMP

STUDENT
ENTRY
RAMP
RAMP
RAMP
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL.(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
103 SF
MDF104
93 SF
ELECT.105
136 SF
WOMENS110
127 SF
MENS111
835 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #3103
1292 SF
HALLWAY100
651 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #2102
370 SF
LIBRARY106
718 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #4108
586 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #1101
1292 SF
HALLWAY100
312 SF
ADMIN109
101 SF
STORAGE113
69 SF
SHOWER #1204
70 SF
SHOWER #2206
123 SF
BOYS
RESTROOM205
124 SF
WOMENS207
321 SF
BOYS LOCKERS203
279 SF
GIRLS LOCKERS208
174 SF
MAIN ENTRY201
990 SF
PE SPACE #1202
191 SF
PE STORAGE211
172 SF
OFFICE #2302 104 SF
OFFICE #1301
149 SF
RECEPTION303
108 SF
OFFICE #3304
66 SF
RESTROOM305
738 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #6306
781 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #5307
247 SF
TRASH AREA308
419 SF
SERVERY402
203 SF
STORAGE403
66 SF
RESTROOM404
591 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #7501
584 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #8502
970 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #9503
596 SF
ART LAB506
180 SF
MENS505
SUITE #102
31' - 5 1/4"
38 SF
FIRE RISER407
1003 SF
HALLWAY500
3292 SF

CAFETERIA/
MPR401
115 SF
ELECT.405
320 SF
HALLWAY300
(PHASE 1)(PHASE 1)
75' - 11 1/4"
117' - 4 3/4"
695 SF
PE SPACE #2210
421 SF
HALLWAY209
20 ATHLETIC
72 REGULAR

ROLL UP DOOR

ACCESSIBLE LIFT

FOR SECOND
FLOOR
201 SF
WOMENS504
135 SF
STORAGE507
FUTURE

ELEVATOR
FUTURE

MACHINE
ROOM
597 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #3107 117 SF
STORAGE115
106 SF
STORAGE114
650 SF
HALLWAY309
(PHASE 1) (PHASE 1)
UP
117 SF
JANITOR112
B.8B.6
A.8 A.8
B.7
E.8 E.8
F.4 F.4
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.

PHASE 1
PHASE 2
0' 8'4' 16 FEET2'
Kinyon + Kim
Architects, Inc.
1801 Oakland Blvd., Suite 320
Walnut Creek, CA. 94596
925.934.1160
F: 925.934.8132
The information, plans, designs, notes and arrangements shown on this drawing are confidential and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the expressed written permission of Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc. Drawings noted as Preliminary, Schematic and/or Conceptual contain information that is conceptual and subject to change. The architect makes no claim as to the accuracy of conceptual information or of information supplied by others.

Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc., 2022c
Project #: Drawn by: Checked by:

Vallejo High School
Tenant Improvements
251 Georgia Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
APN: 0055-170-390
09/26/2023
MUP6
220118 Author Checker
1/8" = 1'-0"
PHASE 1 PRELIM FLOOR PLAN

EXHIBIT A

PHASE LEGEND
DN
DN
DN
DN
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H
20 ATHLETIC
72 REGULAR
SUITE #101
56' - 0"
SUITE #102
31' - 5"
SUITE #104
35' - 8"
SUITE #103
31' - 7 1/2"
SUITE #105
39' - 2 1/2"

STUDENT
ENTRY

STUDENT
ENTRY
RAMP

RAMPRAMP
RAMP
RAMP
(E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL.(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
586 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #1101
651 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #2102
597 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #4107
370 SF
LIBRARY106
312 SF
ADMIN109
101 SF
STORAGE113
49 SF
MDI104
93 SF
ELECT.105
191 SF
PE STORAGE211
695 SF
PE SPACE #2210
321 SF
BOYS LOCKERS203
279 SF
GIRLS LOCKERS208
123 SF
MENS205
124 SF
WOMENS207
70 SF
SHOWER #2206
69 SF
SHOWER #1204
250 SF
TRASH AREA308
781 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #7307
738 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #6306
172 SF
OFFICE302 97 SF
OFFICE301
108 SF
OFFICE304
66 SF
RESTROOM305
149 SF
RECEPTION303
174 SF
MAIN ENTRY201
320 SF
HALLWAY300
3292 SF

CAFETERIA/
MPR401
419 SF
SERVERY402 203 SF
STOR.403
115 SF
GAS405
66 SF
RESTROOM404
596 SF
ART LAB506
201 SF
WOMENS504
970 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #10503
584 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #9502
591 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #8501
136 SF
WOMENS110
127 SF
MENS111
1003 SF
HALLWAY500
823 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #3103
(PHASE 2)
421 SF
HALLWAY209
990 SF
PE SPACE #1202
20 ATHLETIC
108 REGULAR

ACCESSIBLE LIFT

FOR SECOND
FLOOR
718 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #5108
117 SF
STORAGE115
106 SF
STORAGE114
180 SF
MENS505
75 SF
MECH. ROOM508
123 SF
ELEVATOR509
135 SF
STORAGE507
117 SF
JANITOR112
UP
B.8B.6
A.8 A.8
B.7
E.8 E.8
F.4 F.4
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.

PHASE 1
PHASE 2
Kinyon + Kim
Architects, Inc.
1801 Oakland Blvd., Suite 320
Walnut Creek, CA. 94596
925.934.1160
F: 925.934.8132
The information, plans, designs, notes and arrangements shown on this drawing are confidential and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the expressed written permission of Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc. Drawings noted as Preliminary, Schematic and/or Conceptual contain information that is conceptual and subject to change. The architect makes no claim as to the accuracy of conceptual information or of information supplied by others.

Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc., 2022c
Project #: Drawn by: Checked by:

Vallejo High School
Tenant Improvements
251 Georgia Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
APN: 0055-170-390
09/26/2023
MUP7
220118 IDA DEK
1/8" = 1'-0"
PHASE 2 PRELIM GROUND
FLOOR 0' 8'4' 16 FEET2'

EXHIBIT A

PHASE LEGEND
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H
DN.

DN.

UP
(E) COL.
(E) COL.(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.(E) COL.
(E) COL.(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.

OPEN TO BELOW
DN.

B.8B.6
A.8 A.8
B.7
E.8 E.8
F.4 F.4
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.

WALL LEGEND

DEMOLISHED WALL

EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN
(E) STOREFRONT / DOOR TO BE

REMOVED
Kinyon + Kim
Architects, Inc.
1801 Oakland Blvd., Suite 320
Walnut Creek, CA. 94596
925.934.1160
F: 925.934.8132
The information, plans, designs, notes and arrangements shown on this drawing are confidential and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the expressed written permission of Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc. Drawings noted as Preliminary, Schematic and/or Conceptual contain information that is conceptual and subject to change. The architect makes no claim as to the accuracy of conceptual information or of information supplied by others.

Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc., 2022c
Project #: Drawn by: Checked by:

Vallejo High School
Tenant Improvements
251 Georgia Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
APN: 0055-170-390
09/26/2023
MUP8
220118 Author Checker
1/8" = 1'-0"
PHASE 2 EXISTING DEMO
PRELIM SECOND FLOOR 0' 8'4' 16 FEET2'
EXISTING FIXTURES TO BE REMOVED - PHASE 2
Type Count
HAND SINK 10
KITCHEN SINK 3
WALL HUNG URINAL 1
WATER CLOSET 12

EXHIBIT A
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H
DN.

DN.

UP
ADA
LIFT
DN.
(E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(PHASE 2)
(PHASE 2)
1093 SF
STORAGE602
702 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #12601
627 SF
STEM LAB #1612
597 SF
STEM LAB #2610
742 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #14604
77 SF
JANITOR620
79 SF
STORAGE613
104 SF
STORAGE611
586 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #16609
669 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #15608
1213 SF

OPEN ADMIN
SPACE619
855 SF

OPEN ADMIN
SPACE612
238 SF

TEACHERS
LOUNGE613
87 SF
RESTROOM614
92 SF
RESTROOM615 186 SF
OFFICE616
1176 SF

OPEN ADMIN
SPACE617
125 SF
OFFICE618
439 SF
HALLWAY614
608 SF
HALLWAY 2600
64 SF
ELEVATOR607

OPEN TO BELOW
110 SF
IT621
206 SF
WOMENS605
205 SF
MENS606(E) COL.
(E) COL.

DN.

DN.

B.8B.6
A.8 A.8
B.7
E.8 E.8
F.4 F.4
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.

PHASE 1
PHASE 2
Kinyon + Kim
Architects, Inc.
1801 Oakland Blvd., Suite 320
Walnut Creek, CA. 94596
925.934.1160
F: 925.934.8132
The information, plans, designs, notes and arrangements shown on this drawing are confidential and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the expressed written permission of Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc. Drawings noted as Preliminary, Schematic and/or Conceptual contain information that is conceptual and subject to change. The architect makes no claim as to the accuracy of conceptual information or of information supplied by others.

Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc., 2022c
Project #: Drawn by: Checked by:

Vallejo High School
Tenant Improvements
251 Georgia Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
APN: 0055-170-390
09/26/2023
MUP9
220118 Author Checker
0' 8'4' 16 FEET2'

EXHIBIT A
1/8" = 1'-0"
PRELIM PHASE 2 SECOND
FLOOR

PHASE LEGEND
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H
1/2" / 1'-0" 1/2" / 1'-0"
1/4" / 1'-0"
(E) COL.
(E) ROOF HATCH TO REMAIN
(E) ROOF HATCH TO REMAIN
AC-3
AC-10
AC-2
AC-11
EF-5
EF-1
AC-5
AC-12
AC-13
AC-8
AC-1
AC-4
AC-14
AC-15
AC-6AC-7 EF-3
EF-2
EF-4
AC-9
B.8B.6
A.8 A.8
B.7
E.8 E.8
F.4 F.4

ROOF LEGEND

EXISTING TO BE

REMOVED

EXISTING TO REMAIN

NEW UNITS TO BE

INSTALLED

EXISTING UNITS TO BE

REMOVED

NEW TO BE INSTALLED
Kinyon + Kim
Architects, Inc.
1801 Oakland Blvd., Suite 320
Walnut Creek, CA. 94596
925.934.1160
F: 925.934.8132
The information, plans, designs, notes and arrangements shown on this drawing are confidential and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the expressed written permission of Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc. Drawings noted as Preliminary, Schematic and/or Conceptual contain information that is conceptual and subject to change. The architect makes no claim as to the accuracy of conceptual information or of information supplied by others.

Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc., 2022c
Project #: Drawn by: Checked by:

Vallejo High School
Tenant Improvements
251 Georgia Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
APN: 0055-170-390
09/26/2023
MUP10
220118 IDA DEK
0' 8'4' 16 FEET2'
1/8" = 1'-0"

PRELIM ROOF PLAN

EXHIBIT A
DN
DN
DN
DN
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H

STUDENT
ENTRY

STUDENT
ENTRY

STUDENT
ENTRY
SUITE #101
56' - 0"
SUITE #102
31' - 5"
SUITE #104
35' - 8"
SUITE #103
31' - 7 1/2"
SUITE #105
39' - 2 1/2"
20 ATHLETIC
108 REGULAR
20 ATHLETIC
72 REGULAR
RAMP
RAMP
RAMP
RAMP
RAMP(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.(E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
36' - 4 1/4"51' - 0 1/4"21' - 0"
31' - 5 1/4"
6' - 11 3/4"
22' - 6"
93 SF
ELECT.105
586 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #1101
651 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #2102
370 SF
LIBRARY106
597 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #4107
312 SF
ADMIN109
136 SF
WOMENS110
127 SF
MENS111
117 SF
JANITOR112
990 SF
PE SPACE #1202
321 SF
BOYS LOCKERS203
279 SF
GIRLS LOCKERS208
123 SF
MENS205
124 SF
WOMENS207
69 SF
SHOWER #1204
70 SF
SHOWER #2206
191 SF
PE STORAGE211
738 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #6306
781 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #7307
250 SF
TRASH AREA308
108 SF
OFFICE304 66 SF
RESTROOM305
149 SF
RECEPTION303
172 SF
OFFICE302
97 SF
OFFICE301
419 SF
SERVERY402
203 SF
STOR.403
115 SF
GAS405
61 SF
RESTROOM404
3279 SF

CAFETERIA/
MPR401
996 SF
HALLWAY500
591 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #8501
584 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #9502
970 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #10503
38 SF
FIRE RISER407
75' - 11 1/4"
(PHASE 1)(PHASE 1)
36' - 1 1/4"
695 SF
PE SPACE #2210
421 SF
HALLWAY209
32' - 10"32' - 9 1/4"
24' - 10"29' - 10"12' - 10 13/16"
24' - 0 5/8"
26' - 4 5/16"
23' - 11 1/16"
19' - 11 1/16"
19' - 11 1/16"
21' - 9 7/8"

ROLL UP DOOR
49 SF
MDF104

TEACHING WALL

TEACHING WALL

TEACHING WALL

TEACHING WALL

TEACHING WALL

TEACHING WALL

TEACHING WALL

TEACHING WALL

TEACHING WALL
201 SF
WOMENS504
180 SF
MENS505
120 SF
ELEVATOR509
50 SF
MECH. ROOM508
718 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #5108
117 SF
STORAGE113
106 SF
STORAGE114
823 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #3103

ACCESSIBLE LIFT

FOR SECOND
FLOOR
(PHASE 1) (PHASE 1)
(PHASE 2)
37' - 11 1/8"
23' - 1 3/8"
31' - 11 3/4"33' - 7 1/8"
596 SF
Room506 134 SF
STORAGE507
UP
UP
101 SF
STORAGE113
B.8B.6
A.8 A.8
B.7
E.8 E.8
F.4 F.4
(E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.

PHASE 1
PHASE 2
Kinyon + Kim
Architects, Inc.
1801 Oakland Blvd., Suite 320
Walnut Creek, CA. 94596
925.934.1160
F: 925.934.8132
The information, plans, designs, notes and arrangements shown on this drawing are confidential and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the expressed written permission of Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc. Drawings noted as Preliminary, Schematic and/or Conceptual contain information that is conceptual and subject to change. The architect makes no claim as to the accuracy of conceptual information or of information supplied by others.

Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc., 2022c
Project #: Drawn by: Checked by:

Vallejo High School
Tenant Improvements
251 Georgia Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
APN: 0055-170-390
09/26/2023
MUP11
220118 Author Checker
1/8" = 1'-0"

PRELIM MASTER GROUND
FLOOR 0' 8'4' 16 FEET2'
1 PLUMBING FIXTURES - GROUND FLOOR
TYPE
COUNT

EXISTING NEW
3 COMP SINK -

BI-LEVEL WATER FOUNTAIN & FILLING
SATION 1-
6FLOOR DRAIN -
14 HAND SINK10
1 HAND SINK HS-31-
SHOWER 2 -
32URINALS
WATER CLOSET 1314
-6KITCHEN SINK
1 DIFFERENCE
1 6
4 1
2 1
-1
-6

EXHIBIT A

PE PROGRAM SPACE
CAFETERIA 3,270 SF
PE SPACE #1 989 SF
PE SPACE #2 694 SF
BOYS LOCKERS 321 SF
SHOWERS #1 69 SF
MENS 123 SF
SHOWERS #2 70 SF
WOMENS 124 SF
GIRLS LOCKERS 278 SF
HALLWAY 420 SF
PE STORAGE 200 SF
LEARNING SPACE #1 712 SF
LEARNING SPACE #2 768 SF
LEARNING SPACE #3 908 SF
LEARNING SPACE #4 597 SF
LEARNING SPACE #5 717 SF
TOTAL 10,260 SF

PHASE LEGEND
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H
DN.

DN.

DN.

UP
ADA
LIFT
DN.
(E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL. (E) COL. (E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
702 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #12601
1093 SF
STORAGE602
742 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #14604627 SF
STEM LAB #1612
595 SF
STEM LAB #2610
586 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #16609
669 SF

LEARNING
SPACE #15608
205 SF
MENS606
206 SF
WOMENS605
1213 SF

OPEN ADMIN
SPACE619
855 SF

OPEN ADMIN
SPACE612
238 SF

TEACHERS
LOUNGE613
87 SF
RESTROOM614
92 SF
RESTROOM615 186 SF
OFFICE616
125 SF
OFFICE618
1176 SF

OPEN ADMIN
SPACE617
(PHASE 2)
(PHASE 2)
64 SF
ELEVATOR607
608 SF
HALLWAY 2600
439 SF
HALLWAY614
77 SF
JANITOR620

OPEN TO BELOW
104 SF
STORAGE611
79 SF
STORAGE613
110 SF
IT621
B.8B.6
A.8 A.8
B.7
E.8 E.8
F.4 F.4
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.
(E) COL.

PHASE 1
PHASE 2
Kinyon + Kim
Architects, Inc.
1801 Oakland Blvd., Suite 320
Walnut Creek, CA. 94596
925.934.1160
F: 925.934.8132
The information, plans, designs, notes and arrangements shown on this drawing are confidential and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the expressed written permission of Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc. Drawings noted as Preliminary, Schematic and/or Conceptual contain information that is conceptual and subject to change. The architect makes no claim as to the accuracy of conceptual information or of information supplied by others.

Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc., 2022c
Project #: Drawn by: Checked by:

Vallejo High School
Tenant Improvements
251 Georgia Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
APN: 0055-170-390
09/26/2023
MUP12
220118 Author Checker
1/8" = 1'-0"

PRELIM MASTER SECOND
FLOOR 0' 8'4' 16 FEET2'

PLUMBING FIXTURES - SECOND FLOOR
TYPE
COUNT

EXISTING NEW
2FLOOR DRAIN -
6 HAND SINK10
11URINALS
WATER CLOSET 712
33KITCHEN SINK

DIFFERENCE
2 -4
-
-5
-

EXHIBIT A

PHASE LEGEND
SUITE 105 LEVEL
0'-0"
+100.00'
(E) 2ND FLR.
12' - 6"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
± 33' - 9"
± 28' - 6"

NEW EXTERIOR LIGHT
FIXTURES, TYP.

NEW EXTERIOR LIGHT
FIXTURES, TYP.

KNOX BOX AT (E) BUILDING KNOX BOX AT (E) BUILDING KNOX BOX AT FENCEKNOX BOX AT (E) BUILDING

A B C D E F G H
NEW EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES, TYP. KNOX BOX AT FENCEKNOX BOX AT (E) BUILDING, TYP.

B.8A.8 B.7 E.8 F.4
SUITE 105 LEVEL
0'-0"
+100.00'
(E) 2ND FLR.
12' - 6"

ABCDEFGH
± 28' - 6"

NEW EXTERIOR LIGHT
FIXTURES, TYP.

KNOX BOX AT (E) BUILDING
SUITE 105 LEVEL
0'-6"
+100.50'
B.6 A.8E.8F.4
(E) 2ND FLR.
12' - 6"
1234567891011
MUP13
5 NEW EXTERIOR LIGHT
FIXTURES, TYP.
4' - 5"
KNOX BOX AT FENCEKNOX BOX AT (E) BUILDING, TYP. KNOX BOX AT FENCE KNOX BOX AT (E) BUILDING KNOX BOX AT FENCE KNOX BOX AT (E)

BUILDING

KNOX BOX AT (E) BUILDING
SUITE 105 LEVEL
0'-6"
+100.50'
6 FOOT HIGH WROUGHT IRON PAINTED BLACK WITH 6

INCH TALL FINAL, WELDED TO PICKETS
VERTICAL PICKETS: 3/4" SQUARE, 16 GA. TUBING @

3.75 INCHES O.C.
3 HORIZONTAL RAILS: 1.5" x 1/8" THICK PUNCHED
CHANNEL. PICKETS, RAILS AND POSTS TO BE WELDED.

POSTS: 2" X 2" 14 GA. POSTS
6' - 0"

KEYED LOCKABLE LATCH SET
3 FEET WIDE GATE WHERE OCCURS AT NORTH SIDE
ONLY, SEE SITE PLAN. CLOSING HINGES WITH

LOCKABLE LATCH SET
Kinyon + Kim
Architects, Inc.
1801 Oakland Blvd., Suite 320
Walnut Creek, CA. 94596
925.934.1160
F: 925.934.8132
The information, plans, designs, notes and arrangements shown on this drawing are confidential and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the expressed written permission of Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc. Drawings noted as Preliminary, Schematic and/or Conceptual contain information that is conceptual and subject to change. The architect makes no claim as to the accuracy of conceptual information or of information supplied by others.

Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc., 2022c
Project #: Drawn by: Checked by:

Vallejo High School
Tenant Improvements
251 Georgia Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
APN: 0055-170-390
09/26/2023
MUP13
220118 Author Checker
1/8" = 1'-0"

PRELIM GEORGIA STREET

ELEVATION NORTH
1/8" = 1'-0"

PRELIM EAST ELEVATION
0' 8'4' 16 FEET2'
0' 8'4' 16 FEET2'
1/8" = 1'-0"

PRELIM WEST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"

PRELIM SOUTH ELEVATION
0' 8'4' 16 FEET2'
0' 8'4' 16 FEET2'
3/8" = 1'-0"MUP13
5 FENCE ELEVATION

EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES

EXHIBIT A

GENERAL ACCESSIBILITY NOTESPROJECT INFORMATION

SHEET INDEX
CODE

ENGINEER'S NOTE
GEORGIA ST. VALLEJO

ADA IMPROVEMENT PLAN
241-255 GEORGIA STREET
CITY OF VALLEJO, CA 94590
APN: 0055-170-390

NOTE TO CONTRACTOR
LEGEND

OWNER/DEVELOPER

BRYAN BAYLES

ENGINEER
ATLAS CIVIL DESIGN, INC.

SITE ADDRESS

ARCHITECT
KINYON + KIM ARCHITECTS, INC.
335
PL
335
335
335
CL

BASIS OF BEARINGS

ABBREVIATIONS

TITLE SHEET

SCOPE OF WORK
www.AtlasCivilDesign.com
Civil Engineering Site Optimization
DesignCivilCivil Design Tel: 1-213-810-8470
San Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo Monterey

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONBYREVISIONSDATE
SHEET
OF

GEORGIA STREET - SCHOOL ADA
241-255 GEORGIA STREET

CITY OF VALLEJO, COUNTY OF SOLANO
6 Underground Service Alert
of Southern California

CITY OF

VALLEJO

SOLANO AVE

GEORGIA ST

SACRAMENTO ST

FLORIDA ST

SONOMA BLVD
29 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE

VICINITY MAP
5TH ST

BENICIA RD

STEFFAN ST

LEMON ST

MAIN ST

YORK ST

CAPITOL ST

CURTOLA PKWY

MARIN ST ALAMEDA ST

MONTEREY ST

PROJECT SITE
780
80 NAPA RIVER

BENCHMARK INFORMATION
1 29 30
30 31
31 31
32 33
33 33
34 34
35 35
37 37
38 R⅊
⅊
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
A
P
R P
P
P
R
R
29 30
30 31
31 31
32 33
33 33
34 34
35 35
37 37
38 2
3 3
5 4
7 DEMOLITION NOTES

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
www.AtlasCivilDesign.com
Civil Engineering Site Optimization
DesignCivilCivil Design Tel: 1-213-810-8470
San Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo Monterey

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONBYREVISIONSDATE
SHEET
OF

GEORGIA STREET - SCHOOL ADA
241-255 GEORGIA STREET

CITY OF VALLEJO, COUNTY OF SOLANO
6 Underground Service Alert
of Southern California

THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS SHOWN HEREON HAVE

BEEN LOCATED FROM OBSERVED FIELD SURVEY

EVIDENCE AND EXISTING DRAWINGS, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: PLANS PROVIDED BY THE
CLIENT, UTILITY COMPANIES, AND MUNICIPAL AGENCIES.

THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEES THAT THE

UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH

UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR
ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT

WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN

ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE

DOES NOT CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS

ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM INFORMATION
AVAILABLE. THE SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY
LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.

UTILITY NOTE

DEMOLITION PLAN
AREA 1

DEMOLITION LEGEND
2 DEMOLITION & IMPROVEMENT PLAN - A

IMPROVEMENT PLAN
AREA 1
0 10' 20' 30'
SCALE: 1"= 10'
0 10' 20' 30'
SCALE: 1"= 10'
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 5 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 5

26 27
27 28
28 29
30 33
3129

GEORGIA STREET
(PUBLIC R.O.W.)

OH ELEC
26 27
27 28
28 29
30 33
3129

GEORGIA STREET
(PUBLIC R.O.W.)

OH ELEC
4 56
7 2
8 7

DEMOLITION NOTES

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
www.AtlasCivilDesign.com
Civil Engineering Site Optimization
DesignCivilCivil Design Tel: 1-213-810-8470
San Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo Monterey

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONBYREVISIONSDATE
SHEET
OF

GEORGIA STREET - SCHOOL ADA
241-255 GEORGIA STREET

CITY OF VALLEJO, COUNTY OF SOLANO
6 Underground Service Alert
of Southern California

THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS SHOWN HEREON HAVE

BEEN LOCATED FROM OBSERVED FIELD SURVEY

EVIDENCE AND EXISTING DRAWINGS, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: PLANS PROVIDED BY THE
CLIENT, UTILITY COMPANIES, AND MUNICIPAL AGENCIES.

THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEES THAT THE

UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH

UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR
ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT

WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN

ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE

DOES NOT CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS

ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM INFORMATION
AVAILABLE. THE SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY
LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.

UTILITY NOTE DEMOLITION PLAN
AREA 2
3 DEMOLITION & IMPROVEMENT PLAN - B

IMPROVEMENT PLAN
AREA 2
0 10' 20' 30'
SCALE: 1"= 10'
0 10' 20' 30'
SCALE: 1"= 10'

DEMOLITION LEGEND
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 5
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 5

5.18 OH ELEC

GEORGIA STREET
(PUBLIC R.O.W.)

SACRAMENTO STREET
(PUBLIC R.O.W.)

WATER CONSTRUCTION NOTES SEWER CONSTRUCTION NOTES FIRE CONSTRUCTION NOTES www.AtlasCivilDesign.com
Civil Engineering Site Optimization
DesignCivilCivil Design Tel: 1-213-810-8470
San Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo Monterey

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONBYREVISIONSDATE
SHEET
OF

GEORGIA STREET - SCHOOL ADA
241-255 GEORGIA STREET

CITY OF VALLEJO, COUNTY OF SOLANO
6 Underground Service Alert
of Southern California
4 UTILITY PLAN

DEMOLITION NOTES

OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES
33 34
34 35
36 36
36 37
3738
STOP

OH ELEC
P
P P P
P
R R
R R
R
R
R
P
A
PS S
S
S
SS
R
R
33 34
34 35
36 36
36 37
3738
STOP

OH ELEC
1 SACRAMENTO STREET
(PUBLIC R.O.W.)
1 2
3 3
4 4
4 5
6 6 6
6 6 6 6 6 6
2 7
www.AtlasCivilDesign.com
Civil Engineering Site Optimization
DesignCivilCivil Design Tel: 1-213-810-8470
San Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo Monterey

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONBYREVISIONSDATE
SHEET
OF

GEORGIA STREET - SCHOOL ADA
241-255 GEORGIA STREET

CITY OF VALLEJO, COUNTY OF SOLANO
6 Underground Service Alert
of Southern California

UTILITY NOTE

DEMOLITION PLAN DEMOLITION LEGEND
5 OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANIMPROVEMENT PLAN
0 10' 20' 30'
SCALE: 1"= 10'
0 10' 20' 30'
SCALE: 1"= 10'
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 2 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 3
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 2 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 3

DETAILS
www.AtlasCivilDesign.com
Civil Engineering Site Optimization
DesignCivilCivil Design Tel: 1-213-810-8470
San Diego Orange County Los Angeles San Luis Obispo Monterey

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONBYREVISIONSDATE
SHEET
OF

GEORGIA STREET - SCHOOL ADA
241-255 GEORGIA STREET

CITY OF VALLEJO, COUNTY OF SOLANO
66 Final
Transportation Impact Analysis
Prepared for:

City of Vallejo
Elite Charter
School Project
100 Pringle Avenue
Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
February 2024
Prepared by

FINAL
Elite Charter School
Transportation Impact Analysis

Prepared for:

City of Vallejo

February 2024

WC23-3967

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ i

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Analysis Approach ..................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Level of Service (LOS) Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 7

3. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................. 10

3.1 Existing Transportation System .....................................................................................................................................10

3.2 Intersection Operations ....................................................................................................................................................16

4. Project Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 20

4.1 Trip Generation ....................................................................................................................................................................20

4.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................................................................................................................21

5. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment ........................................................................... 24

5.1 City of Vallejo VMT Screening Criteria .......................................................................................................................24

5.2 VMT Screening Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................24

6. Project Opening Year Traffic Conditions .............................................................................. 25

6.1 Project Opening Year Forecasts ....................................................................................................................................25

6.2 Analysis of Project Opening Year Conditions ..........................................................................................................25

7. Cumulative Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................... 30

7.1 Cumulative Traffic Forecasts ...........................................................................................................................................30

7.2 Analysis of Cumulative Conditions ..............................................................................................................................30

8. Site Plan Review ...................................................................................................................... 35

8.1 Vehicle Access and Circulation ......................................................................................................................................35

8.2 Pedestrian Access and Circulation ...............................................................................................................................35

8.3 Bicycle Access and Circulation .......................................................................................................................................36

8.4 Emergency Vehicle Access ..............................................................................................................................................36

8.5 Transit Access .......................................................................................................................................................................36

8.6 Parking ....................................................................................................................................................................................37

8.7 Site Loading and Unloading Zones .............................................................................................................................38

Appendices
Appendix A: Data Collection
Appendix B: LOS Calculations
Appendix C: Signal Warrants
Appendix D: Vehicle Queues

List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Site and Study Locations ................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: Project Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3: Existing Transit Routes .................................................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 4: Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities.................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 5: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration ......................................... 17 Figure 6: Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 7: Project Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 8: Project Opening Year Peak Hour Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration .............. 26 Figure 9: Project Opening Year Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration ............................................................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 10: Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration ................................ 31 Figure 11: Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration ....... 32 Figure 12: Pick-Up and Drop-Off Vehicle Queuing ............................................................................................................. 41

List of Tables
Table 1: Intersection LOS and Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) ...................................................................... 8 Table 2: Existing Conditions LOS Results Summary ............................................................................................................. 18 Table 3: Existing Conditions 95th Percentile Queue Summary ......................................................................................... 19 Table 4: Project Trip Generation Summary ............................................................................................................................. 20 Table 5: Project Opening Year and Project Opening Year Plus Project Conditions LOS Results Summary .. 28 Table 6: Opening Year Plus Project Conditions 95th Percentile Queue Summary ................................................... 29 Table 7: Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions LOS Results Summary ........................................... 33 Table 8: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 95th Percentile Queue Summary ........................................................ 34 Table 9: Existing Parking Lot Occupancy ................................................................................................................................. 37 Table 10: Total Number of Vehicles Dropping-Off and Picking-Up per Loading Zone ........................................ 39

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
i
Executive Summary
This report presents the transportation impact analysis (TIA) prepared for the Elite Charter School Project (Project) in the City of Vallejo, California. This TIA includes a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis, level of service (LOS) assessment, and site plan review and recommendations.

Project Description
The Project is located on a parcel at 241/255 Georgia Street, just north of the Vallejo Transit Center. The Project includes the relocation of an existing charter school that houses 400 students and 35 staff members occupying an existing 2-story, 34,819 square-foot commercial building on a 27,000 square-foot site with no existing off-street parking, but adjacent to City-owned parking lots.

VMT Analysis
The Project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled was evaluated based on guidelines from the City of Vallejo’s CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Revised October 2020) and may be used for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes. Consistent with the City’s guidelines, the Project is not expected to have a VMT-related transportation impact because it is within a Transit Priority Area and is local-serving in nature, and is therefore screened out of additional VMT analysis.

LOS Analysis
Level of service analysis is no longer required under Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) and CEQA. However, to ensure consistency with the City’s General Plan, the Project’s effect on intersection operations was evaluated at eight study intersections. Under Opening Year and Cumulative conditions, the Project does not cause any study intersection to degrade to unacceptable conditions, based on the City’s level of service policies. Therefore, the Project is not required to provide intersection improvements under Opening Year Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

Site Plan Review
A detailed site plan review was conducted, and recommendations identified to improve site access and circulation for vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. A comparison of the proposed parking supply versus ITE parking demand and City code requirements for school projects indicate that the proposed vehicle parking supply would meet demand; however, two more bicycle parking spaces are required. The loading and unloading zones for the Project were also evaluated: although the morning drop-off period would not cause adverse effects, afternoon pick-up along Sacramento Street may cause queuing into the Georgia Street/Sacramento Street intersection. Therefore, it is recommended that the school provide a parking plan in which parents/guardians are initially directed to the Georgia Street loading/unloading zone when dropping off or picking up their student. Other recommendations to improve pick-up and drop-off operations are also provided.

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
1 1. Introduction
This report documents the transportation impact analysis prepared for the Elite Charter School Project located in the City of Vallejo, California. The TIA includes level of service analysis, a vehicle miles traveled assessment, and site plan review and recommendations.

1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to summarize the effects of the Project on the local transportation network. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were updated in 2020 per Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) to require the use of VMT to evaluate a project’s environmental effect on the transportation system. The passage of SB 743 eliminates automobile delay, LOS, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining a project’s impacts to the transportation system.

However, lead agencies may elect to utilize LOS for informational purposes or non-CEQA analysis.

The analysis was prepared based on the City of Vallejo’s CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Revised October 2020) and the Traffic Impact Analysis/Study Guidelines which includes methodology and guidelines for a VMT and LOS analysis, respectively. The LOS analysis can also be used to support indirect CEQA impact analysis of traffic generation (air pollution, noise, stormwater runoff, etc.). The City will continue to address congestion, as necessary, but will not rely on traffic LOS analysis as a direct impact within the context of CEQA documentation. This report summarizes the Project’s effect on VMT for CEQA purposes and LOS analysis for informational/non-CEQA analysis to ensure General Plan consistency.

1.2 Project Description
The 2.4-acre Project site is located at 241/255 Georgia Street in the City of Vallejo, bounded by the Vallejo Housing Authority to the north, Vallejo Transit Center to the south, Santa Clara Street to the west, and Sacramento Street to the east, as shown in Figure 1. An existing 2-story, 34,819 square-foot commercial building currently occupies the 27,000 square-foot site; the Project proposes to relocate an existing charter high school that houses 400 students and 35 staff members. The Project proposes the implementation of loading and unloading zones along Georgia Street and Sacramento Street. The existing parallel on-street parking on Georgia Street will remain the same, however, no parking will be allowed during drop-off and pick-up periods before and after school. The 16 existing angled parking spaces on Sacramento Street will be removed and replaced with 7 parallel parking spaces to allow for loading and unloading during drop-off and pick-up periods. Parking will also be allowed on Sacramento Street outside of the drop-off and pick-up periods. The Project site plan is shown on Figure 2.

Sacram
ento St
Ohio St
Butte St
Trinity St
Santa Clara St
M
arin St
Branciforte St
Maxwell Aly Maxwell Aly
Capitol St Capitol St
Hudson Aly
National Aly
Indian Aly
York St
Virginia St
Jeffrey Aly
Maine St
M
arin St
Sutter St
Overland Aly
Carolina St
Kissel Aly
National Aly
Everett Aly
Sutter St
Napa St
Georgia St
Mare Island Way
Florida St
Curtola Pkwy
Mare Island WayMare Island Way
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Vallejo
Mare Island
29 29
Napa River
Vallejo
Transit
Center
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
WC23-3967_1_StudyArea
Project Site and Study Locations
Figure 1
Project Site Study Intersection
#
























 

















 







 












 
 


 
 


















 

 






 

 








     
  







  

   




WC23-3967_2_SitePlan
Project Site Plan
Figure 2
Site Plan Source: Kinyon + Kim Architects, Inc., 09/26/2023.

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
4 2. Analysis Approach
This section describes the assumptions and methodologies utilized in the vehicle miles traveled analysis and level of service analysis.

2.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines were updated in 2020 per Senate Bill 743 to remove level of service from CEQA analysis and require the use of vehicle miles traveled to evaluate a project’s environmental impact on the transportation system. VMT measures the amount of driving generated by a project and thereby its effects on the environment from those miles traveled. SB 743 changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impacts on drivers to measuring the environmental impact of driving.

The relevant CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Transportation Section checklist questions are as follows:

Would the project
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Criterion B is the formal implementation of the SB 743 requirement to analyze VMT as part of the CEQA Transportation section. Under SB 743, congestion-related project effects (such as those measured by LOS or similar metrics) are deemed an unsuitable basis on which to determine a significant environmental effect. The relevant subsection of CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) for the project reads as follows:
(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one half-mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.

(4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household, or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
5 project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

The City of Vallejo, exercising its discretion as lead agency, has the ability to select the methodology and CEQA significance criteria for use in the CEQA Transportation section. The City of Vallejo formally adopted locally applicable CEQA metrics, methodology, and significance criteria in July 2020, published in the City of Vallejo’s CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Revised October 2020) and summarized in the section below.

2.1.1 Analysis Methodology
The City of Vallejo CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines state that VMT analysis should be prepared using the Solano-Napa Activity Based Travel Demand Model (SNABM) available at the time of analysis. The guidelines were prepared using the latest model updated in September 2018. Models are frequently updated over time to reflect new information, and the use of the latest available models in the CEQA analysis of a project is encouraged as CEQA analyses should use the latest and best data available (Cleveland National Forest Foundation vs. San Diego Associations of Governments, 2017) .

2.1.1.1 VMT Screening Methodology
The City of Vallejo’s CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Revised October 2020) provide for a three step VMT screening process, as follows:

1. Step 1 – Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening – Projects located within a TPA may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

2. Step 2 – Low VMT Area Screening – Residential and office projects located within a low-VMT generating area of the City (i.e., lower than citywide average levels, based on the significance thresholds in this document) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

3. Step 3 – Project Type Screening – Local-serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet in size and other local-serving community uses with users drawn primarily from within the city limits may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

Projects not screened through the steps above should complete a VMT analysis using the SNABM travel demand model to determine if they have a significant VMT impact.

2.1.1.2 VMT Analysis Methodology
Projects not screened through the three steps in Section 2.1.1.1 should complete a VMT analysis using the latest Solano-Napa Activity Based Travel Demand model available. VMT calculations should be prepared for the following scenarios:
• Existing No Project: Project-generated VMT metrics from travel model estimates for the Existing condition based on the Solano-Napa Activity Based Travel Demand model without the Project.

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
6 • Existing Plus Project: Project-generated VMT metrics from travel model estimates for the Existing condition based on the Solano-Napa Activity Based Travel Demand model with the Project added to the transportation analysis zone.
• Cumulative No Project: Project effect on VMT metrics from travel model estimates for the Future year 2040 condition based on the Solano-Napa Activity Based Travel Demand model without the Project.
• Cumulative Plus Project: Project effect on VMT metrics from travel model estimates for the Future year 2040 condition based on the Solano-Napa Activity Based Travel Demand model with the Project added to the transportation analysis zone.

2.1.2 Thresholds of Significance
Impacts are identified based on a project’s VMT compared to a percentage of a baseline value of VMT.

The model VMT metric estimates are key in setting baseline values to be used in CEQA thresholds. It is noted, however, that the “base year” thresholds rely on a rolling baseline—that is, the base year baseline metric value should be reconsidered on a project-by-project basis when each project’s Notice of Preparation is released.

The thresholds in the City of Vallejo’s CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines are stratified by project type and include the following thresholds for use in CEQA VMT analyses:

A project would result in a significant impact if:
• Threshold 1: Project-Generated VMT (Residential and Office/Industrial Projects) – Baseline:

Project-generated Residential Tour VMT per resident (for residential projects), Home-Based-Work Tour VMT per employee (for office/industrial projects) or Total VMT per service population (for mixed-use projects) is no higher than the baseline citywide Residential Tour VMT per resident, Home-Based-Work Tour VMT per employee, or Total VMT per service population. • Threshold 2: Project Generated VMT (Residential and Office/Industrial Projects) – Cumulative: Project-generated Residential Tour VMT per resident (for residential projects), Home-Based-Work Tour VMT per employee (for office/industrial projects), or Total VMT per service population (for mixed-use projects) is no higher than the cumulative citywide Residential Tour VMT per resident, Home-Based-Work Tour VMT per employee, or Total VMT per service population. This threshold does not apply if it can be demonstrated that VMT rates are declining at the time of the analysis.
• Threshold 3: Project’s Effect on VMT (Residential and Office/Industrial Projects) – Cumulative: The Project reduces or has no effect on the citywide total VMT under cumulative conditions.
• Threshold 4: Project-Generated VMT and Project’s Effect on VMT (Other Project Types) :

VMT thresholds for other project types, such as institutional, would be developed using considerations unique to the individual project. Projects that are not expected to generate VMT

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
7 above a relevant baseline level and/or are not expected to increase VMT in the cumulative condition would be considered to have a less than significant impact with respect to VMT.

Based on the proposed Project description, Threshold 4 for Other Project Types would apply. Projects that result in a significant impact under Baseline conditions or Cumulative conditions are required to identify mitigation measures. Projects that are unable to mitigate the impact to a less than significant impact with implementation of mitigation measures would result in a significant VMT impact.

2.2 Level of Service (LOS) Analysis

2.2.1 Study Locations
Intersections are generally the critical capacity-controlling elements of suburban roadway networks.

Therefore, the operations of critical intersections surrounding the Project site are used as indicators of the adequacy of the vehicular circulation system. The following intersections, also shown on Figure 1, were selected in coordination with City of Vallejo staff as those most likely to be affected by the Project, and thus warrant analysis:

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street

7. Maine Street/Sacramento Street

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway

2.2.2 Data Collection
Weekday AM (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and PM (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak period intersection turning movement counts (vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles) were collected in May 2023 on a clear day, when schools were in session. Appendix A includes a summary of the May 2023 weekday count data.

Signal timing data was collected from the City of Vallejo and Caltrans.

2.2.3 Study Scenarios
The following scenarios were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours:
• Existing – Existing conditions based on traffic counts at the study locations. • Project Opening Year – Existing traffic counts plus traffic from approved projects expected to be developed prior to the opening of the project.
• Project Opening Year Plus Project – Opening year conditions plus traffic expected to be generated by the Project.

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
8 • Cumulative – Forecasts for the cumulative scenario are based on traffic growth trends as described in the Vallejo General Plan and supplemented by a check of traffic forecasts for the study area in the regional travel demand model.
• Cumulative Plus Project – Cumulative forecasts plus traffic expected to be generated by the Project.

2.2.4 LOS Analysis Methodology
Synchro software, using methodologies from the Highway Capacity Manual, was used to perform this analysis. The analysis results are summarized in vehicle delay in seconds and LOS. LOS is a qualitative description of operations ranging from LOS A, when the roadway facility has excess capacity and vehicles experience little or no delay, to LOS F, where the volume of vehicles exceeds the capacity, resulting in long queues and excessive delays. The study intersections LOS were established based on traffic analysis using the Transportation Research Board (TRB) method in the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.

For signalized intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced by all vehicles passing through the intersection. This methodology uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the delay per vehicle. The delay per vehicle is a portion of the total delay attributed to the signal operations and includes initial deceleration, queue move up time, time stopped, and acceleration.

At unsignalized intersections, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each stop-controlled movement. This incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. For all-way stop-controlled intersections, the LOS is represented by the average control delay for the whole intersection. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, the average delay and worst-case approach delay and associated LOS are reported in this study.

The average control delays and LOS designations for signalized and unsignalized intersections are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Intersection LOS and Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) LOS Signalized Unsignalized
A ≤ 10.0 ≤ 10.0
B 10.1 to 20.0 10.0 – 15.0
C 20.1 to 35.0 15.1 – 25.0
D 35.1 to 55.0 25.1 – 35.0
E 55.1 to 80.0 35.1 – 50.0
F > 80.0 > 50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
9 The City of Vallejo’s General Plan and Traffic Impact Analysis/Study Guidelines were referenced to determine the criteria against which effects should be evaluated as part of this analysis, as described below:

Signalized Intersections – Project-related operational effects on the signalized study intersections in the City of Vallejo do not meet the City’s LOS guidelines if:

1. Project-related traffic causes the level of service rating to deteriorate from LOS D (55 seconds) or better to LOS E or F.

2. Project-related traffic increases the volume-to-capacity ratio by more than 0.0100 for intersections already operating at an unacceptable LOS without the project.

Unsignalized Intersections – Project-related operational effects on unsignalized intersections do not meet the City’s LOS guidelines if:

1. Project generated traffic causes the worst-case movement (or average of all movements for all-way stop-controlled intersections) to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or F.

2. Project-related traffic increases the volume-to-capacity ratio by more than 0.0100 for intersections already operating at an unacceptable LOS without the project.

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
10 3. Existing Conditions
This section describes the existing multimodal transportation system in the study area, including the street system, public transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Existing operating conditions at study intersections are also summarized in this section.

3.1 Existing Transportation System

3.1.1 Vehicle Roadway System
Direct vehicular access to the Project site is provided along Georgia Street and Sacramento Street. Local access to the site is provided via Santa Clara Street, Maine Street, Florida Street, Mare Island Way, and Curtola Parkway. Regional access to the Project site is provided via Interstate 80 (I-80), Interstate 780 (I-780), and State Route 29 (SR 29). These facilities are described below.

3.1.1.1 Local Access
Georgia Street is an east-west two-lane roadway that extends from Columbus Parkway in the east to Mare Island Way in the west. Georgia Street provides access to the Project site for local businesses and essential services, as well as access to east Vallejo and I-80. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street, and parking is prohibited along the roadway.

Sacramento Street is a north-south two-lane roadway that extends from Maine Street in the south to Wilson Avenue to the north. Sacramento Street has direct access to the entrance and parking lot of the Project site and the Vallejo Transit Center. There is a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour with sidewalks and parking provided on both sides of the street.

Santa Clara Street is a north-south two-lane roadway that extends from Maine Street in the south to Indiana Street to the north. Santa Clara Street has direct access to the entrance and parking lot of the Project site, City Hall, and the Vallejo Transit Center. There is a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour with sidewalks and parking provided on both sides of the street.

Maine Street is an east-west two-lane roadway that extends from Solano Avenue in the east to Mare Island Way in the west. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour with sidewalks and parking present on both sides of the street.

Florida Street is an east-west two-lane roadway that extends from Solano Avenue in the east to Mare Island Way in the west. Florida Street has a speed limit of 25 miles per hour and connects east Vallejo to the Project site and provides access to I-80. Sidewalks and parking are provided on both sides of the street.

Mare Island Way is a north-south four-lane divided roadway that extends from Curtola Parkway in the south to Tennessee Street/Mare Island Causeway in the west. Mare Island Way provides access to services

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
11 and amenities such as Mare Island, Vallejo Ferry Terminal, the Waterfront, the Vallejo Yacht Club, and open green spaces. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour with sidewalks and parking present on both sides of the street.

Curtola Parkway is an east-west four-lane roadway that extends from Lemon Street and I-780 in the east and transitions into Mare Island Way in the west. East of Sonoma Boulevard, Curtola Parkway contains discontinuous median strips. West of Sonoma Boulevard, Curtola Parkway is missing median strips for almost two blocks until the street transitions into Mare Island Way. Curtola Parkway provides access to the I-80/I-780 interchange and Curtola Park & Ride and has a speed limit of 40 miles per hour with sidewalks on both sides of the street.

3.1.1.2 Regional Access
Interstate 80 (I-80) is a north-south freeway extending from San Francisco to the California-Nevada state line via Vallejo, Fairfield, and Sacramento. The facility connects the Project site to the San Francisco Bay Area, Napa Valley, and the Sacramento metropolitan area. Connection to the Project site is available through the Georgia Street interchange.

Interstate 780 (I-780) is an east-west, four-lane freeway extending from Vallejo to Benicia. The facility connects the Project site to the outer east San Francisco Bay region with further connections to the Central Valley. Connections to the Project site are available through the Curtola Parkway interchange.

Sonoma Boulevard/State Route 29 (SR 29) is a north-south four-lane roadway that extends from I-80 in the south and transitions into Napa Valley Highway in the north. Sonoma Boulevard is the main arterial connecting Napa County to the rest of the Bay Area and provides access to many local businesses and attractions. The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour with sidewalks and parking present on both sides of the street.

3.1.2 Transit Services and Connectivity
Transit service is provided in the Project area by Solano County Transit (SolTrans), which provides regional bus service. The nearest bus stop is directly south of and adjacent to the Project site, located on York Street between Santa Clara Street and Sacramento Street. The stop is located within the Vallejo Transit Center, which provides access to all SolTrans routes and connections to the municipalities within Solano County as well as the El Cerrito Del Norte and Walnut Creek BART Stations. The existing transit routes and stops in the study area are shown on Figure 3.

1 2 3
4 5 6
7A 7B 8
82 Greyhound
R Y
Georgia St
Sacram
ento St
Wilson Ave
Mare Island W
ay
Tennessee St
Florida St
Alam
eda St
Broadway St
Solano Ave
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Sutter StSutter St
Napa StNapa St
El Dorado StEl Dorado St
Marin StMarin St
Santa Clara StSanta Clara St
Maine StMaine St
Curtola PkwyCurtola Pkwy Curtola PkwyCurtola Pkwy
Vallejo
Mare Island
29 29
Napa River
Vallejo
Transit
Center
Vallejo
Ferry
Terminal
Vallejo
Transit
Center
Vallejo
Ferry
Terminal
1 1
1 1
1 2
3 3
3 4
4 4
4 5
5 6
6 6
6 7A
7A
7A 7B
7A
7B
7B
7B
7B
7A
8 8
82 82
82 82
R
R
R
R
R
Y
Y
WC23-3967_3_Transit
Existing Transit Routes
Figure 3
Project Site SolTrans Bus Route Bus Stop

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
13 3.1.3 Bicycle Facilities
Bikeway planning and design in California typically relies on guidelines and design standards established by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000:

Bikeway Planning and Design). Caltrans provides examples for four distinct types of bikeway facilities, as described below and shown in the accompanying figures.

Class I Bikeways (Shared-Use Paths) provide a separate right-of-way and are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, with vehicle and pedestrian cross-flow minimized. In general, bike paths serve corridors where on-street facilities are not feasible or where sufficient right-of-way exists to allow them to be constructed.

Class II Bikeways (Bicycle Lanes) are dedicated lanes for bicyclists generally adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes. These lanes have special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bicycle lanes are typically five feet wide. Adjacent vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross-flow are permitted.

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
14 Class III Bikeways (Bicycle Routes) are designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicles but have no separated bike right-of-way or lane striping. Bike routes serve either to a) provide a connection to other bicycle facilities where dedicated facilities are infeasible, or b) designate preferred routes through high-demand corridors.

Class IV Bikeways (cycle tracks or “separated” bikeways) provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel within a roadway and are protected from other vehicle traffic by physical barriers including, but not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible vertical barriers such as raise d curbs, or parked cars.

Cyclists may reach the Project site by utilizing the Class II bicycle facilities along Georgia Street from Amador Street to Sonoma Boulevard. Per the City of Vallejo General Plan 2020 Section 6, Class II bicycle facilities are proposed along Sonoma Boulevard, Curtola Parkway, and Marin Street, as well as Class III bicycle facilities along Georgia Street, Sacramento Street, and Maine Street. Existing and proposed bicycle facilities in the study area are displayed on Figure 4.

Georgia St
Sacram
ento St
Wilson Ave
Mare Island W
ay
Tennessee St
Florida St
Alam
eda St
Broadway St
Solano Ave
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Sutter StSutter St
Napa StNapa St
El Dorado StEl Dorado St
Marin StMarin St
Santa Clara StSanta Clara St
Maine StMaine St
Curtola PkwyCurtola Pkwy Curtola PkwyCurtola Pkwy
Vallejo
Mare Island
29 29
Napa River
Vallejo
Transit
Center
WC23-3967_4_BikeFac
Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities
Figure 4
Project Site Existing Planned
Class 1 Multi-Use Path
Class 2 Bicycle Lane
Class 2 Buffered Bicycle Lane
Class 3 Bicycle Boulevard
Class 3 Bicycle Route
Class 4 Separated Bikeway

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
16 3.1.4 Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. The pedestrian environment was evaluated on the connecting roadways that directly serve the Project site and adjacent roadways that connect to transit stops and/or nearby destinations in the greater study area.

Pedestrian connectivity in the vicinity of the Project site is provided by a network of sidewalks and crosswalks that serve the Georgia Street, Sacramento Street, and Santa Clara Street corridors.

Crosswalks are provided to connect existing sidewalks at all study intersections. Pedestrian signals and actuated pushbuttons are also provided at signalized study intersections with crosswalks.

3.2 Intersection Operations
Existing intersection lane configurations and peak hour turning movement volumes, discussed in Section

2.2.2, and presented on Figure 5, were used to calculate the intersection LOS during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. For each study intersection, the 60-minute period with the highest traffic volumes during each two-hour count period was identified as the respective peak hour of traffic. Table 2 presents the existing LOS analysis results using the analysis methodology described in the chapter above. Detailed calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B.

Mono St
G
29 (14)
339 (666)
12 (9)
43 (97)
49 (49)
25 (25)
39 (69)
275 (505)
36 (51)
25 (52)
57 (57)
8 (14)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
16 (32)
587 (579)
9 (14)
12 (31)
4 (20)
5 (15)
3 (5)
429 (425)
39 (51)
36 (111)
11 (16)
14 (20)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
8 (27)
33 (46)
12 (22)
4 (13)
37 (77)
12 (10)
3 (15)
30 (37)
21 (30)
15 (38)
52 (56)
25 (10)

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street
0 (12)
25 (47)
3 (14)
9 (19)
54 (105)
7 (5) 8 (14)
48 (59)
25 (22)
19 (23)
84 (78)
8 (15)

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street
Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street
13 (25)
282 (565)
11 (41)
10 (33)
65 (122)
12 (17)
32 (38)
234 (367)
39 (89)
69 (74)
99 (87)
35 (18)

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street
2 (2)
606 (515)
36 (28)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
371 (457)
68 (60)
24 (47)
0 (0)
34 (42)

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street
Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way
11 (9)
33 (69)
6 (13)
32 (40)
13 (21)
38 (49)

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street
211 (253)
144 (380)
7 (29)
338 (405)
101 (128)
0 (16)
73 (148)
147 (215)
151 (200)
434 (335)

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway
Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
ACF
AE
ACF
AE
ACE
AE
ACE
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ACF
D
ACF
BF
ACE
AE
ACC
AE
B
G
E
ABE
BE
CCF
Existing Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 5
14 (12) CCF

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street 2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street 3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street 4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street 6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street 8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
Project Trip Assignment
Figure 7
29 (34)
5 (5)
51 (20)
2 (1)
6 (2)
4 (3)
14 (6)
1 (0)
14 (5)4 (5)
4 (3)
6 (4)
20 (13)
26 (11)
2 (0)
1 (0)
8 (5)0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (5)
0 (9)
4 (2)
28 (18)
22 (9)
22 (8)
1 (0)
58 (27)
9 (5)
23 (21)
13 (8)
11 (15)
9 (15)
8 (4)
27 (11)
20 (7)
35 (11)
9 (6)
14 (6)
1 (0)
1 (0)
4 (3)
0 (1)
2 (0)
15 (9)
1 (0)
19 (13)
7 (3)
9 (2)
0 (2)
0 (1)
11 (8)
11 (7)
6 (3)
11 (3)
CF
C
AC
CF
AC
F
ACF
CF
AC
C
ACF
ACF
C
AF
ACF
ACF
CF
AC
CF
A
AF
A
F
CF
AC
CF
AC
CF
1 (1)
Project Opening Year Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 8
30 (20)
340 (670)
20 (10)
50 (100)
50 (50)
30 (30)
40 (70)
280 (510)
40 (60)
30 (60)
60 (60)
10 (20)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
20 (40)
590 (580)
10 (20)
20 (40)
10 (20)
10 (20)
10 (10)
430 (430)
40 (60)
40 (120)
20 (20)
20 (20)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
10 (30)
40 (50)
20 (30)
10 (20)
40 (80)
20 (10)
10 (20)
30 (40)
30 (30)
20 (40)
60 (70)
30 (10)

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street
0 (20)
30 (50)
10 (20)
10 (20)
70 (110)
10 (10)
10 (20)
50 (60)
30 (30)
20 (30)
90 (80)
10 (20)

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street
Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street
20 (30)
290 (570)
20 (50)
10 (40)
70 (130)
20 (20)
40 (40)
240 (370)
40 (90)
70 (80)
100 (90)
40 (20)

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street
10 (10)
610 (520)
40 (30)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
380 (460)
70 (60)
30 (50)
0 (0)
40 (50)

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street
Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way
20 (10)
40 (70)
10 (20)
40 (40)
20 (30)
40 (50)

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street
220 (260)
150 (380)
10 (30)
340 (410)
110 (130)
10 (20)
80 (150)
150 (220)
160 (200)
440 (340)

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway
Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
ACF
AE
ACF
AE
ACE
AE
ACE
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ACF
D
ACF
BF
ACE
AE
ACC
AE
B
G
E
ABE
BE
CCF
20 (20) CCF
Project Opening Year Plus Project Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 9
30 (20)
369 (704)
25 (15)
50 (100)
50 (50)
30 (30)
40 (70)
331 (530)
40 (60)
30 (60)
62 (61)
16 (22)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
20 (40)
594 (583)
24 (26)
20 (40)
10 (20)
10 (20)
10 (10)
431 (430)
54 (65)
44 (125)
20 (20)
20 (20)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
14 (33)
46 (54)
40 (43)
10 (20)
66 (91)
22 (10)
10 (20)
31 (40)
38 (35)
20 (40)
60 (72)
30 (10)

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street
0 (22)
30 (55)
10 (29)
14 (22)
98 (128)
32 (19)
10 (20)
72 (68)
30 (30)
21 (30)
90 (80)
68 (47)

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street
Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street
29 (35)
313 (591)
33 (58)
21 (55)
79 (145)
28 (24)
67 (51)
260 (377)
40 (90)
70 (80)
135 (101)
49 (26)

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street
10 (10)
624 (526)
41 (30)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
380 (460)
71 (60)
34 (53)
0 (0)
40 (51)

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street
Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way
22 (10)
40 (70)
25 (29)
40 (40)
21 (30)
59 (63)

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street
227 (263)
159 (382)
10 (30)
340 (412)
110 (131)
10 (20)
91 (158)
161 (227)
166 (203)
451 (343)

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway
Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
ACF
AE
ACF
AE
ACE
AE
ACE
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ACF
D
ACF
BF
ACE
AE
ACC
AE
B
G
E
ABE
BE
CCF
20 (20) CCF
Cumulative Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 10
40 (20)
380 (740)
20 (10)
50 (110)
60 (60)
30 (30)
50 (80)
310 (560)
40 (60)
30 (60)
70 (70)
10 (20)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
20 (40)
740 (730)
20 (20)
20 (40)
10 (30)
10 (20)
10 (10)
540 (540)
50 (70)
40 (130)
20 (20)
20 (30)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
10 (30)
40 (60)
20 (30)
10 (20)
50 (90)
20 (20)
10 (20)
40 (50)
30 (40)
20 (50)
60 (70)
30 (20)

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street
0 (20)
30 (60)
10 (20)
10 (30)
80 (120)
10 (10)
10 (20)
60 (70)
30 (30)
30 (30)
100 (90)
10 (20)

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street
Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street
20 (30)
310 (630)
20 (50)
20 (40)
80 (140)
20 (20)
40 (50)
260 (410)
50 (100)
80 (90)
110 (100)
40 (20)

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street
10 (10)
760 (650)
50 (40)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
470 (580)
90 (80)
30 (60)
0 (0)
40 (50)

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street
Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way
20 (10)
40 (80)
10 (20)
40 (50)
20 (30)
50 (60)

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street
240 (280)
160 (420)
10 (40)
380 (450)
120 (150)
20 (20)
90 (170)
170 (240)
170 (220)
480 (370)

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway
Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
ACF
AE
ACF
AE
ACE
AE
ACE
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ACF
D
ACF
BF
ACE
AE
ACC
AE
B
G
E
ABE
BE
CCF
20 (20) CCF
Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 11
40 (20)
409 (774)
25 (15)
50 (110)
60 (60)
30 (30)
50 (80)
361 (580)
40 (60)
30 (60)
72 (71)
16 (22)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
20 (40)
744 (733)
34 (26)
20 (40)
10 (30)
10 (20)
10 (10)
541 (540)
64 (75)
44 (135)
20 (20)
20 (30)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
14 (33)
46 (64)
40 (43)
10 (20)
76 (101)
22 (20)
10 (20)
41 (50)
38 (45)
20 (50)
60 (72)
30 (20)

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street
0 (22)
30 (65)
10 (29)
14 (32)
108 (138)
32 (19)
10 (20)
82 (78)
30 (30)
31 (30)
100 (90)
68 (47)

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street
Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street
29 (35)
333 (651)
33 (58)
31 (55)
89 (155)
28 (24)
67 (61)
280 (417)
50 (100)
80 (90)
145 (111)
49 (26)

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street
10 (10)
774 (656)
51 (40)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
470 (580)
91 (80)
34 (63)
0 (0)
40 (51)

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street
Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way
22 (10)
40 (80)
25 (29)
40 (50)
21 (30)
69 (73)

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street
247 (283)
169 (422)
10 (40)
380 (452)
120 (151)
20 (20)
101 (178)
181 (247)
176 (223)
491 (373)

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway
Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
ACF
AE
ACF
AE
ACE
AE
ACE
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ACF
D
ACF
BF
ACE
AE
ACC
AE
B
G
E
ABEF
CCF
BE
CCF
20 (20)
Sacram
ento St
Ohio St
Butte St
Trinity St
Santa Clara St
M
arin St
Branciforte St
Maxwell Aly Maxwell Aly
Capitol St Capitol St
Hudson Aly
National Aly
Indian Aly
York St
Virginia St
Jeffrey Aly
Maine St
M
arin St
Sutter St
Overland Aly
Carolina St
Kissel Aly
National Aly
Everett Aly
Sutter St
Napa St
Georgia St
Mare Island Way
Florida St
Curtola Pkwy
Mare Island WayMare Island Way
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Vallejo
Mare Island
29 29
Napa River
Vallejo
Transit
Center
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
WC23-3967_1_StudyArea
Project Site and Study Locations
Figure 1
Project Site Study Intersection
#
WC23-3967_X_Volumes
Project Site Study Intersection
#Signalized IntersectionAM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic VolumesXX (YY) Stop SignSTOP

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
18 Table 2: Existing Conditions LOS Results Summary
Intersection Control¹ Peak
Period2
LOS
Standard
Existing
Delay3 LOS4

1. Sonoma Boulevard & Florida Street Signal AM
PM D 10.1

9.2 B
A

2. Mare Island Way & Georgia Street Signal AM
PM D 11.4

13.4 B
B

3. Santa Clara Street & Georgia Street Signal AM
PM D 5.3

5.8 A
A

4. Sacramento Street & Georgia Street Signal AM
PM D 4.6

5.3 A
A

5. Sonoma Boulevard & Georgia Street Signal AM
PM D 14.4

16.8 B
B

6. Mare Island Way & Maine Street Signal AM
PM D 6.6

6.9 A
A

7. Maine Street & Sacramento Street SSSC AM
PM D 3.2 (9.2)

2.9 (9.6)
A (A)
A (A)

8. Sonoma Boulevard & Curtola Parkway Signal AM
PM D 7.4

8.0 A
A
Notes:

1. Traffic control type (SSSC = Side-Street Stop-Controlled; Signal = Signalized).

2. AM = Weekday morning peak hour, PM = weekday evening peak hour.

3. Whole intersection average delay reported for signalized intersections. Side-street stop-controlled delay presented as Whole Intersection Average Delay (Worst Approach Delay). Delay calculated per HCM 6th Edition methodologies.

4. LOS designation per HCM 6th Edition.

Source: Fehr & Peers, February 2024.

Under Existing Conditions, all intersections operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

Therefore, all intersections operate at an acceptable LOS under Existing No Project peak hour conditions.

3.2.1 Signal Warrant Analysis
The peak hour signal warrants (Warrant 3A and Warrant 3B) from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) were used to determine if a traffic signal is warranted at the Maine Street/Sacramento Street intersection. Based on existing volumes, the existing unsignalized intersection of Main Street/Sacramento Street does not meet peak hour signal Warrant 3A and 3B. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix C.

3.2.2 Vehicle Queues
Although all intersections currently operate within the city’s standards of LOS D or better, there can be periodic vehicle spillback and delays for some individual movements. Table 3 presents the AM and PM peak hour 95th percentile queues for the Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street and Sacramento Street/Georgia

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
19 Street intersections where vehicles queues may occasionally exceed the vehicle storage length . These queues are indicative of maximum design queues occurring during period of peak traffic. Queue worksheets are provided in Appendix D.

Table 3: Existing Conditions 95th Percentile Queue Summary Intersection Movement Storage Length (ft) AM Peak
Period
PM Peak
Period

3. Santa Clara Street & Georgia Street
EB
WB
NB
SB
775
400
250
675
25 25
25 25
25 25
25 25

4. Sacramento Street & Georgia Street
EB
WB
NB
SB
400
900
600
650
25 25
25 25
50 25
25 25
Notes:

Bold indicates queue potentially extends beyond available storage.

Source: Fehr & Peers, February 2024.

As shown in Table 3, 95th percentile queues at the Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street and Sacramento Street/Georgia Street intersections are currently within the available storage.

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
20 4. Project Characteristics
This section describes the trip-making characteristics of the Project. The amount of traffic associated with the Project was estimated using a three-step process:

1. Trip Generation – The amount of vehicle traffic entering/exiting the Project site was estimated.

2. Trip Distribution – The direction trips would use to approach and depart the site was projected.

3. Trip Assignment – Trips were then assigned to specific roadway segments and intersection turning movements.

4.1 Trip Generation
Trip generation refers to the process of estimating how much vehicular traffic a project would add to the surrounding roadway system. Project trip generation estimates are typically prepared for a 24 -hour weekday period as well as the one-hour weekday morning and evening commute peak periods, when traffic volumes on adjacent streets are typically the highest. The school is expected to operate between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM, four days a week, with early dismissal on Wednesdays at 1:00 PM. For the purposes of Project trip generation, the morning and evening peak hour represent the hour before and after school, respectively, when the school generates the most traffic (AM and PM peak hour of generator). The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) published weekday daily, morning, and evening trip generation rates in their Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. This manual is a national compilation of trip generation statistics for land uses of various sizes and types. The assessment makes use of data compiled for the “Private High School” (ITE Code 534) land use. Rates from this reference were used to assess the total number of trips associated with the proposed Project.

Table 4 presents the results of the trip generation analysis performed for the proposed Project. As shown, ITE Trip Generation Manual estimates that the Project will generate 868 daily trips, 276 morning peak hour trips, and 166 evening peak hour trips.

Table 4: Project Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Quantity Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Private High School 400 students 868 172 104 276 64 102 166 Notes:

Trip Generation Calculations:

Daily: T=2.17*X; 50% inbound, 50% outbound
AM Peak Hour: T=0.35*X+135.16; 62% inbound, 38% outbound (AM peak hour of generator) PM Peak Hour: T=0.25*X+65.82; 39% inbound, 61% outbound (PM peak hour of generator) Source: Fehr & Peers, February 2024; Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition.

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
21 4.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project trip distribution refers to the directions of approach and departure vehicles take to access and leave the site. Estimates of regional project trip distribution were developed based on existing travel patterns in the area, information from the SNABM travel demand model, and the location of complementary land uses and students’ homes. The resulting trip distribution percentages are shown on Figure 6. The project trip generation, in combination with the expected trip distribution patterns, was used to assign the peak hour vehicle trips to the local roadway network and study intersections. The Project trip assignment is presented on Figure 7.

Georgia St
Sacram
ento St
Wilson Ave
Mare Island W
ay
Tennessee St
Florida St
Alam
eda St
Broadway St
Solano Ave
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Sutter StSutter St
Napa StNapa St
El Dorado StEl Dorado St
Marin StMarin St
Santa Clara StSanta Clara St
Maine StMaine St
Curtola PkwyCurtola Pkwy Curtola PkwyCurtola Pkwy
Vallejo
Mare Island
29 29
Napa River
Vallejo
Transit
Center
10% 10% 30%
5%
25%
10%
10%
WC23-3967_6_TripDistro
Project Trip Distribution
Figure 6
Project Site Project Trip DistributionXX%
Mono St
29 (14)
339 (666)
12 (9)
43 (97)
49 (49)
25 (25)
39 (69)
275 (505)
36 (51)
25 (52)
57 (57)
8 (14)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
16 (32)
587 (579)
9 (14)
12 (31)
4 (20)
5 (15)
3 (5)
429 (425)
39 (51)
36 (111)
11 (16)
14 (20)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
8 (27)
33 (46)
12 (22)
4 (13)
37 (77)
12 (10)
3 (15)
30 (37)
21 (30)
15 (38)
52 (56)
25 (10)

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street
0 (12)
25 (47)
3 (14)
9 (19)
54 (105)
7 (5) 8 (14)
48 (59)
25 (22)
19 (23)
84 (78)
8 (15)

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street
Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street
13 (25)
282 (565)
11 (41)
10 (33)
65 (122)
12 (17)
32 (38)
234 (367)
39 (89)
69 (74)
99 (87)
35 (18)

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street
2 (2)
606 (515)
36 (28)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
371 (457)
68 (60)
24 (47)
0 (0)
34 (42)

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street
Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way
11 (9)
33 (69)
6 (13)
32 (40)
13 (21)
38 (49)

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street
211 (253)
144 (380)
7 (29)
338 (405)
101 (128)
0 (16)
73 (148)
147 (215)
151 (200)
434 (335)

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway
Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
ACF
AE
ACF
AE
ACE
AE
ACE
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ACF
D
ACF
BF
ACE
AE
ACC
AE
B
G
E
ABE
CEF
BE
CCF
Existing Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 5

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street 2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street 3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street 4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street 6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street 8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
Project Trip Assignment
Figure 7
29 (34)
5 (5)
51 (20)
2 (1)
6 (2)
4 (3)
14 (6)
1 (0)
14 (5)4 (5)
4 (3)
6 (4)
20 (13)
26 (11)
2 (0)
1 (0)
8 (5)0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (5)
0 (9)
4 (2)
28 (18)
22 (9)
22 (8)
1 (0)
58 (27)
9 (5)
23 (21)
13 (8)
11 (15)
9 (15)
8 (4)
27 (11)
20 (7)
35 (11)
9 (6)
14 (6)
1 (0)
1 (0)
4 (3)
0 (1)
2 (0)
15 (9)
1 (0)
19 (13)
7 (3)
9 (2)
0 (2)
0 (1)
11 (8)
11 (7)
6 (3)
11 (3)
CF
C
AC
CF
AC
F
ACF
CF
AC
C
ACF
ACF
C
AF
ACF
ACF
CF
AC
CF
A
AF
A
F
CF
AC
CF
AC
CF
Project Opening Year Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 8
30 (20)
340 (670)
20 (10)
50 (100)
50 (50)
30 (30)
40 (70)
280 (510)
40 (60)
30 (60)
60 (60)
10 (20)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
20 (40)
590 (580)
10 (20)
20 (40)
10 (20)
10 (20)
10 (10)
430 (430)
40 (60)
40 (120)
20 (20)
20 (20)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
10 (30)
40 (50)
20 (30)
10 (20)
40 (80)
20 (10)
10 (20)
30 (40)
30 (30)
20 (40)
60 (70)
30 (10)

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street
0 (20)
30 (50)
10 (20)
10 (20)
70 (110)
10 (10)
10 (20)
50 (60)
30 (30)
20 (30)
90 (80)
10 (20)

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street
Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street
20 (30)
290 (570)
20 (50)
10 (40)
70 (130)
20 (20)
40 (40)
240 (370)
40 (90)
70 (80)
100 (90)
40 (20)

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street
10 (10)
610 (520)
40 (30)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
380 (460)
70 (60)
30 (50)
0 (0)
40 (50)

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street
Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way
20 (10)
40 (70)
10 (20)
40 (40)
20 (30)
40 (50)

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street
220 (260)
150 (380)
10 (30)
340 (410)
110 (130)
10 (20)
80 (150)
150 (220)
160 (200)
440 (340)

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway
Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
ACF
AE
ACF
AE
ACE
AE
ACE
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ACF
D
ACF
BF
ACE
AE
ACC
AE
B
G
E
ABE
CEF
BE
CCF
Project Opening Year Plus Project Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 9
30 (20)
369 (704)
25 (15)
50 (100)
50 (50)
30 (30)
40 (70)
331 (530)
40 (60)
30 (60)
62 (61)
16 (22)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
20 (40)
594 (583)
24 (26)
20 (40)
10 (20)
10 (20)
10 (10)
431 (430)
54 (65)
44 (125)
20 (20)
20 (20)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
14 (33)
46 (54)
40 (43)
10 (20)
66 (91)
22 (10)
10 (20)
31 (40)
38 (35)
20 (40)
60 (72)
30 (10)

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street
0 (22)
30 (55)
10 (29)
14 (22)
98 (128)
32 (19)
10 (20)
72 (68)
30 (30)
21 (30)
90 (80)
68 (47)

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street
Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street
29 (35)
313 (591)
33 (58)
21 (55)
79 (145)
28 (24)
67 (51)
260 (377)
40 (90)
70 (80)
135 (101)
49 (26)

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street
10 (10)
624 (526)
41 (30)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
380 (460)
71 (60)
34 (53)
0 (0)
40 (51)

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street
Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way
22 (10)
40 (70)
25 (29)
40 (40)
21 (30)
59 (63)

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street
227 (263)
159 (382)
10 (30)
340 (412)
110 (131)
10 (20)
91 (158)
161 (227)
166 (203)
451 (343)

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway
Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
ACF
AE
ACF
AE
ACE
AE
ACE
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ACF
D
ACF
BF
ACE
AE
ACC
AE
B
G
E
ABE
CEF
BE
CCF
Cumulative Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 10
40 (20)
380 (740)
20 (10)
50 (110)
60 (60)
30 (30)
50 (80)
310 (560)
40 (60)
30 (60)
70 (70)
10 (20)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
20 (40)
740 (730)
20 (20)
20 (40)
10 (30)
10 (20)
10 (10)
540 (540)
50 (70)
40 (130)
20 (20)
20 (30)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
10 (30)
40 (60)
20 (30)
10 (20)
50 (90)
20 (20)
10 (20)
40 (50)
30 (40)
20 (50)
60 (70)
30 (20)

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street
0 (20)
30 (60)
10 (20)
10 (30)
80 (120)
10 (10)
10 (20)
60 (70)
30 (30)
30 (30)
100 (90)
10 (20)

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street
Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street
20 (30)
310 (630)
20 (50)
20 (40)
80 (140)
20 (20)
40 (50)
260 (410)
50 (100)
80 (90)
110 (100)
40 (20)

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street
10 (10)
760 (650)
50 (40)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
470 (580)
90 (80)
30 (60)
0 (0)
40 (50)

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street
Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way
20 (10)
40 (80)
10 (20)
40 (50)
20 (30)
50 (60)

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street
240 (280)
160 (420)
10 (40)
380 (450)
120 (150)
20 (20)
90 (170)
170 (240)
170 (220)
480 (370)

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway
Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
ACF
AE
ACF
AE
ACE
AE
ACE
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ACF
D
ACF
BF
ACE
AE
ACC
AE
B
G
E
ABE
CEF
BE
CCF
Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 11
40 (20)
409 (774)
25 (15)
50 (110)
60 (60)
30 (30)
50 (80)
361 (580)
40 (60)
30 (60)
72 (71)
16 (22)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
20 (40)
744 (733)
34 (26)
20 (40)
10 (30)
10 (20)
10 (10)
541 (540)
64 (75)
44 (135)
20 (20)
20 (30)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
14 (33)
46 (64)
40 (43)
10 (20)
76 (101)
22 (20)
10 (20)
41 (50)
38 (45)
20 (50)
60 (72)
30 (20)

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street
0 (22)
30 (65)
10 (29)
14 (32)
108 (138)
32 (19)
10 (20)
82 (78)
30 (30)
31 (30)
100 (90)
68 (47)

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street
Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street
29 (35)
333 (651)
33 (58)
31 (55)
89 (155)
28 (24)
67 (61)
280 (417)
50 (100)
80 (90)
145 (111)
49 (26)

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street
10 (10)
774 (656)
51 (40)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
470 (580)
91 (80)
34 (63)
0 (0)
40 (51)

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street
Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way
22 (10)
40 (80)
25 (29)
40 (50)
21 (30)
69 (73)

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street
247 (283)
169 (422)
10 (40)
380 (452)
120 (151)
20 (20)
101 (178)
181 (247)
176 (223)
491 (373)

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway
Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
ACF
AE
ACF
AE
ACE
AE
ACE
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ACF
D
ACF
BF
ACE
AE
ACC
AE
B
G
E
ABEF
CCF
BE
CCF
Sacram
ento St
Ohio St
Butte St
Trinity St
Santa Clara St
M
arin St
Branciforte St
Maxwell Aly Maxwell Aly
Capitol St Capitol St
Hudson Aly
National Aly
Indian Aly
York St
Virginia St
Jeffrey Aly
Maine St
M
arin St
Sutter St
Overland Aly
Carolina St
Kissel Aly
National Aly
Everett Aly
Sutter St
Napa St
Georgia St
Mare Island Way
Florida St
Curtola Pkwy
Mare Island WayMare Island Way
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Vallejo
Mare Island
29 29
Napa River
Vallejo
Transit
Center
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
WC23-3967_1_StudyArea
Project Site and Study Locations
Figure 1
Project Site Study Intersection
#
WC23-3967_X_Volumes
Project Site Study Intersection
#Signalized IntersectionAM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic VolumesXX (YY) Stop SignSTOP

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
24 5. Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) Assessment
This section evaluates the Project’s potential impacts with respect to VMT.

5.1 City of Vallejo VMT Screening Criteria
The City of Vallejo’s CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Revised October 2020) provide for a three step VMT screening process, as follows:
• Step 1 – Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening – Projects located within a TPA may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. • Step 2 – Low VMT Area Screening – Residential and office projects located within a low-VMT generating area of the City (i.e., lower than citywide average levels, based on the significance thresholds in this document) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
• Step 3 – Project Type Screening – Local-serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet in size and other local-serving community uses may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

5.2 VMT Screening Analysis
Steps 1 and 3 of the City of Vallejo’s CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines apply to the proposed Project. The Project is located within a TPA1, just north of the Vallejo Transit Center, and as a high school, the Project is local-serving2 in nature. Therefore, the Project is presumed not to have a VMT- related transportation impact under the City’s guidelines and is screened out of additional VMT analysis.

The proposed Project satisfies the City-established screening criteria and is presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.

1 A TPA is defined as a half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor.
2 “Local-serving” is defined as a project that demonstrates that its users (employees, customers, visitors) would come primarily from within the city limits. The project would therefore not generate new “demand” for the project land uses but would meet at existing demand that would shorten the distance existing residents, employees, customers, or visitors would need to travel.

Elite Charter School Transportation Impact Analysis
February 2024
25 6. Project Opening Year
Traffic Conditions
This chapter discusses opening year traffic conditions with and without the addition of traffic generated by the Project. The Project Opening Year conditions analysis considers approved projects within the study area that are expected to be constructed and occupied in the next year. No roadway improvements were assumed at the study intersections for the analysis of Project Opening Year conditions as none are currently proposed or under consideration.

6.1 Project Opening Year Forecasts
To assess future growth with planned development in the City of Vallejo, several sources of data were reviewed, including the SNABM, and the traffic growth trends as described in Vallejo’s General Plan. Traffic forecasts within the immediate study area were reviewed to ensure that known developments were adequately reflected in the forecasts. Minor adjustments were made to the forecasts to balance traffic volumes between closely spaced intersections in the study area. While there are no nearby approved projects expected to be constructed and occupied in the Project Opening Year timeline, growth rates from the regional model were applied to reflect expected increases in traffic. The resulting Project Opening Year forecasts are presented on Figure 8, which are representative of conditions over the next year. The Project volumes on Figure 7 were added to the Project Opening Year traffic volumes to develop Project Opening Year Plus Project conditions, as presented on Figure 9.

6.2 Analysis of Project Opening Year Conditions
Project Opening Year without and with Project conditions were evaluated using methods described in Chapter 1. The analysis is summarized in Table 5, based on the traffic volumes and lane configurations on Figure 8 and Figure 9. Detailed calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B.

Mono St
G
29 (14)
339 (666)
12 (9)
43 (97)
49 (49)
25 (25)
39 (69)
275 (505)
36 (51)
25 (52)
57 (57)
8 (14)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
16 (32)
587 (579)
9 (14)
12 (31)
4 (20)
5 (15)
3 (5)
429 (425)
39 (51)
36 (111)
11 (16)
14 (20)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
8 (27)
33 (46)
12 (22)
4 (13)
37 (77)
12 (10)
3 (15)
30 (37)
21 (30)
15 (38)
52 (56)
25 (10)

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street
0 (12)
25 (47)
3 (14)
9 (19)
54 (105)
7 (5) 8 (14)
48 (59)
25 (22)
19 (23)
84 (78)
8 (15)

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street
Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street
13 (25)
282 (565)
11 (41)
10 (33)
65 (122)
12 (17)
32 (38)
234 (367)
39 (89)
69 (74)
99 (87)
35 (18)

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street
2 (2)
606 (515)
36 (28)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
371 (457)
68 (60)
24 (47)
0 (0)
34 (42)

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street
Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way
11 (9)
33 (69)
6 (13)
32 (40)
13 (21)
38 (49)

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street
211 (253)
144 (380)
7 (29)
338 (405)
101 (128)
0 (16)
73 (148)
147 (215)
151 (200)
434 (335)

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway
Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
ACF
AE
ACF
AE
ACE
AE
ACE
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ACF
D
ACF
BF
ACE
AE
ACC
AE
B
G
E
ABE
BE
CCF
Existing Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 5
14 (12) CCF

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street 2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street 3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street 4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street 6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street 8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
Project Trip Assignment
Figure 7
29 (34)
5 (5)
51 (20)
2 (1)
6 (2)
4 (3)
14 (6)
1 (0)
14 (5)4 (5)
4 (3)
6 (4)
20 (13)
26 (11)
2 (0)
1 (0)
8 (5)0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (5)
0 (9)
4 (2)
28 (18)
22 (9)
22 (8)
1 (0)
58 (27)
9 (5)
23 (21)
13 (8)
11 (15)
9 (15)
8 (4)
27 (11)
20 (7)
35 (11)
9 (6)
14 (6)
1 (0)
1 (0)
4 (3)
0 (1)
2 (0)
15 (9)
1 (0)
19 (13)
7 (3)
9 (2)
0 (2)
0 (1)
11 (8)
11 (7)
6 (3)
11 (3)
CF
C
AC
CF
AC
F
ACF
CF
AC
C
ACF
ACF
C
AF
ACF
ACF
CF
AC
CF
A
AF
A
F
CF
AC
CF
AC
CF
1 (1)
Project Opening Year Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 8
30 (20)
340 (670)
20 (10)
50 (100)
50 (50)
30 (30)
40 (70)
280 (510)
40 (60)
30 (60)
60 (60)
10 (20)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
20 (40)
590 (580)
10 (20)
20 (40)
10 (20)
10 (20)
10 (10)
430 (430)
40 (60)
40 (120)
20 (20)
20 (20)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
10 (30)
40 (50)
20 (30)
10 (20)
40 (80)
20 (10)
10 (20)
30 (40)
30 (30)
20 (40)
60 (70)
30 (10)

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street
0 (20)
30 (50)
10 (20)
10 (20)
70 (110)
10 (10)
10 (20)
50 (60)
30 (30)
20 (30)
90 (80)
10 (20)

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street
Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street
20 (30)
290 (570)
20 (50)
10 (40)
70 (130)
20 (20)
40 (40)
240 (370)
40 (90)
70 (80)
100 (90)
40 (20)

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street
10 (10)
610 (520)
40 (30)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
380 (460)
70 (60)
30 (50)
0 (0)
40 (50)

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street
Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way
20 (10)
40 (70)
10 (20)
40 (40)
20 (30)
40 (50)

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street
220 (260)
150 (380)
10 (30)
340 (410)
110 (130)
10 (20)
80 (150)
150 (220)
160 (200)
440 (340)

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway
Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
ACF
AE
ACF
AE
ACE
AE
ACE
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ACF
D
ACF
BF
ACE
AE
ACC
AE
B
G
E
ABE
BE
CCF
20 (20) CCF
Project Opening Year Plus Project Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 9
30 (20)
369 (704)
25 (15)
50 (100)
50 (50)
30 (30)
40 (70)
331 (530)
40 (60)
30 (60)
62 (61)
16 (22)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
20 (40)
594 (583)
24 (26)
20 (40)
10 (20)
10 (20)
10 (10)
431 (430)
54 (65)
44 (125)
20 (20)
20 (20)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
14 (33)
46 (54)
40 (43)
10 (20)
66 (91)
22 (10)
10 (20)
31 (40)
38 (35)
20 (40)
60 (72)
30 (10)

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street
0 (22)
30 (55)
10 (29)
14 (22)
98 (128)
32 (19)
10 (20)
72 (68)
30 (30)
21 (30)
90 (80)
68 (47)

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street
Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street
29 (35)
313 (591)
33 (58)
21 (55)
79 (145)
28 (24)
67 (51)
260 (377)
40 (90)
70 (80)
135 (101)
49 (26)

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street
10 (10)
624 (526)
41 (30)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
380 (460)
71 (60)
34 (53)
0 (0)
40 (51)

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street
Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way
22 (10)
40 (70)
25 (29)
40 (40)
21 (30)
59 (63)

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street
227 (263)
159 (382)
10 (30)
340 (412)
110 (131)
10 (20)
91 (158)
161 (227)
166 (203)
451 (343)

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway
Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
ACF
AE
ACF
AE
ACE
AE
ACE
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ACF
D
ACF
BF
ACE
AE
ACC
AE
B
G
E
ABE
BE
CCF
20 (20) CCF
Cumulative Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 10
40 (20)
380 (740)
20 (10)
50 (110)
60 (60)
30 (30)
50 (80)
310 (560)
40 (60)
30 (60)
70 (70)
10 (20)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
20 (40)
740 (730)
20 (20)
20 (40)
10 (30)
10 (20)
10 (10)
540 (540)
50 (70)
40 (130)
20 (20)
20 (30)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
10 (30)
40 (60)
20 (30)
10 (20)
50 (90)
20 (20)
10 (20)
40 (50)
30 (40)
20 (50)
60 (70)
30 (20)

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street
0 (20)
30 (60)
10 (20)
10 (30)
80 (120)
10 (10)
10 (20)
60 (70)
30 (30)
30 (30)
100 (90)
10 (20)

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street
Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street
20 (30)
310 (630)
20 (50)
20 (40)
80 (140)
20 (20)
40 (50)
260 (410)
50 (100)
80 (90)
110 (100)
40 (20)

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street
10 (10)
760 (650)
50 (40)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
470 (580)
90 (80)
30 (60)
0 (0)
40 (50)

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street
Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way
20 (10)
40 (80)
10 (20)
40 (50)
20 (30)
50 (60)

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street
240 (280)
160 (420)
10 (40)
380 (450)
120 (150)
20 (20)
90 (170)
170 (240)
170 (220)
480 (370)

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway
Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
ACF
AE
ACF
AE
ACE
AE
ACE
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ACF
D
ACF
BF
ACE
AE
ACC
AE
B
G
E
ABE
BE
CCF
20 (20) CCF
Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 11
40 (20)
409 (774)
25 (15)
50 (110)
60 (60)
30 (30)
50 (80)
361 (580)
40 (60)
30 (60)
72 (71)
16 (22)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
20 (40)
744 (733)
34 (26)
20 (40)
10 (30)
10 (20)
10 (10)
541 (540)
64 (75)
44 (135)
20 (20)
20 (30)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
14 (33)
46 (64)
40 (43)
10 (20)
76 (101)
22 (20)
10 (20)
41 (50)
38 (45)
20 (50)
60 (72)
30 (20)

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street
0 (22)
30 (65)
10 (29)
14 (32)
108 (138)
32 (19)
10 (20)
82 (78)
30 (30)
31 (30)
100 (90)
68 (47)

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street
Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street
29 (35)
333 (651)
33 (58)
31 (55)
89 (155)
28 (24)
67 (61)
280 (417)
50 (100)
80 (90)
145 (111)
49 (26)

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street
10 (10)
774 (656)
51 (40)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
470 (580)
91 (80)
34 (63)
0 (0)
40 (51)

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street
Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way
22 (10)
40 (80)
25 (29)
40 (50)
21 (30)
69 (73)

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street
247 (283)
169 (422)
10 (40)
380 (452)
120 (151)
20 (20)
101 (178)
181 (247)
176 (223)
491 (373)

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway
Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
ACF
AE
ACF
AE
ACE
AE
ACE
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ACF
D
ACF
BF
ACE
AE
ACC
AE
B
G
E
ABEF
CCF
BE
CCF
20 (20)
Sacram
ento St
Ohio St
Butte St
Trinity St
Santa Clara St
M
arin St
Branciforte St
Maxwell Aly Maxwell Aly
Capitol St Capitol St
Hudson Aly
National Aly
Indian Aly
York St
Virginia St
Jeffrey Aly
Maine St
M
arin St
Sutter St
Overland Aly
Carolina St
Kissel Aly
National Aly
Everett Aly
Sutter St
Napa St
Georgia St
Mare Island Way
Florida St
Curtola Pkwy
Mare Island WayMare Island Way
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Sonoma BlvdSonoma Blvd
Vallejo
Mare Island
29 29
Napa River
Vallejo
Transit
Center
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
WC23-3967_1_StudyArea
Project Site and Study Locations
Figure 1
Project Site Study Intersection
#
WC23-3967_X_Volumes
Project Site Study Intersection
#Signalized IntersectionAM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic VolumesXX (YY) Stop SignSTOP

Mono St
G
29 (14)
339 (666)
12 (9)
43 (97)
49 (49)
25 (25)
39 (69)
275 (505)
36 (51)
25 (52)
57 (57)
8 (14)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
16 (32)
587 (579)
9 (14)
12 (31)
4 (20)
5 (15)
3 (5)
429 (425)
39 (51)
36 (111)
11 (16)
14 (20)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
8 (27)
33 (46)
12 (22)
4 (13)
37 (77)
12 (10)
3 (15)
30 (37)
21 (30)
15 (38)
52 (56)
25 (10)

3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street
0 (12)
25 (47)
3 (14)
9 (19)
54 (105)
7 (5) 8 (14)
48 (59)
25 (22)
19 (23)
84 (78)
8 (15)

4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street
Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street
13 (25)
282 (565)
11 (41)
10 (33)
65 (122)
12 (17)
32 (38)
234 (367)
39 (89)
69 (74)
99 (87)
35 (18)

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street
2 (2)
606 (515)
36 (28)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
371 (457)
68 (60)
24 (47)
0 (0)
34 (42)

6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street
Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way
11 (9)
33 (69)
6 (13)
32 (40)
13 (21)
38 (49)

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street
211 (253)
144 (380)
7 (29)
338 (405)
101 (128)
0 (16)
73 (148)
147 (215)
151 (200)
434 (335)

8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway
Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
ACF
AE
ACF
AE
ACE
AE
ACE
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ACF
D
ACF
BF
ACE
AE
ACC
AE
B
G
E
ABE
BE
CCF
Existing Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 5
14 (12) CCF

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street 2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street 3. Santa Clara Street/Georgia Street 4. Sacramento Street/Georgia Street Florida Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Georgia Street
Mare Island Way
Georgia Street
Santa Clara Street
Georgia Street
Sacramento Street

5. Sonoma Boulevard/Georgia Street 6. Mare Island Way/Maine Street Georgia Street
Sonoma Boulevard
Maine Street
Mare Island Way

7. Sacramento Street/Maine Street 8. Sonoma Boulevard/Curtola Parkway Maine Street
Sacramento Street
Curtola Parkway
Sonoma Boulevard
STOP
Project Trip Assignment
Figure 7
29 (34)
5 (5)
51 (20)
2 (1)
6 (2)
4 (3)
14 (6)
1 (0)
14 (5)4 (5)
4 (3)
6 (4)
20 (13)
26 (11)
2 (0)
1 (0)
8 (5)0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (5)
0 (9)
4 (2)
28 (18)
22 (9)
22 (8)
1 (0)
58 (27)
9 (5)
23 (21)
13 (8)
11 (15)
9 (15)
8 (4)
27 (11)
20 (7)
35 (11)
9 (6)
14 (6)
1 (0)
1 (0)
4 (3)
0 (1)
2 (0)
15 (9)
1 (0)
19 (13)
7 (3)
9 (2)
0 (2)
0 (1)
11 (8)
11 (7)
6 (3)
11 (3)
CF
C
AC
CF
AC
F
ACF
CF
AC
C
ACF
ACF
C
AF
ACF
ACF
CF
AC
CF
A
AF
A
F
CF
AC
CF
AC
CF
1 (1)
Project Opening Year Peak Hour
Intersection Control, Volumes, and Lane Configuration
Figure 8
30 (20)
340 (670)
20 (10)
50 (100)
50 (50)
30 (30)
40 (70)
280 (510)
40 (60)
30 (60)
60 (60)
10 (20)

1. Sonoma Boulevard/Florida Street
20 (40)
590 (580)
10 (20)
20 (40)
10 (20)
10 (20)
10 (10)
430 (430)
40 (60)
40 (120)
20 (20)
20 (20)

2. Mare Island Way/Georgia Street
10 (30)
40 (50)
20 (30)
10 (20)
40 (80)
20 (10)
10 (20)
30 (40)
30 (30)
20 (40)
60 (70)
30 (10)