Appeal 24-0001
of
Major Use Permit
22-0008 which approved a
Public Charter High School
at
241 Georgia Street
City Council Meeting, June 4, 2024
Gillian Haen
Assistant City Manager
Procedure for Evening
1. Staff presentation on Resolution
2. Council discussion and questions on the Resolution
3. Council vote on the Resolution
History of Project
• 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.
• On April 23, 2024, the City Council held a Public Hearing, heard from the applicant, appellant and the community and continued the item to April 30, 2024. • On April 30, 2024, the City Council held a Continued Hearing, heard from the applicant, appellant and the community, closed the public hearing, and directed staff to bring a Resolution Denying the Use Permit to the Council on June 4, 2024.
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Determination
Per Section 15270 of CEQA Guidelines, CEQA does not
apply to projects which a public agency rejects or
disapproves.
Findings to Grant Appeal
1. As alleged by the Appellant, the proposed Project is incompatible with the existing and permitted land uses within the zoning district as set forth in Section IV.A.4 of the resolution.
2. As alleged by the Appellant, the proposed Project will adversely affect the livability and appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood as set forth in Section IV.A.5 of the resolution.
3. As alleged by Appellant, the Project is inconsistent with the Downtown Vallejo Specific Plan and Design Guidelines Policies as set forth in Section IV.A.2 of the resolution.
4. As alleged by the Appellant, the Project is inconsistent with the applicable provision of the Zoning Code as set forth in Section IV.A.1 of the resolution and the facts that support each Finding.
Findings to Deny Use Permit
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.
B. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan or planned development and any other applicable plans.
C. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed.
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.
Findings to Deny Use Permit, Continued
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.
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.
G. The project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, if applicable, and the requirements of this chapter.
• Outlined in the resolution along wit hthe facts that support each Finding.
Conclusion/Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution a resolution of the City Council of the City of Vallejo granting appeal (APP24-0001), overturning the Planning
Commission’s approval of and denying the application for a Major Use Permit (UP22-0008) to allow the operation of a charter high school with an enrollment of up to 400
students at 241-255 Georgia Street , Vallejo, CA
CONTACT(S)
Gillian Haen
Assistant City Manager
Email: [email protected]
Phone Number: 707-648-4163
Email Communication SUBJECT: Appeal of Major Use Permit for Elite School, Findings for Upholding the Appeal and Declining the Major Use Permit TO: City Manager Andrew Murray, Mayor McConnell, Vice-Mayor Loera-Diaz, and City Council Members Arriola, Bregenzer, Matulac, Palmares, and Verder-Aliga, plus Assistant City Manager Haen, City Attorney Nebb, and City Clerk Abrhamson, Greetings everyone, I am writing to once again state my unequivocal support for the Appeal of the Major Use Permit requested by the Elite school. To allow the Elite School downtown will harm downtown business prospects, and also betrays the community's extensive work in producing the General Plan 2040, the Downtown Specific Plan and the new Zoning Code. In previous emails to the Planning Commission and City Council, I have enumerated the many reasons for upholding the Appeal and Denying the Major Use Permit. I will recap those shortly, but in the meantime, want to stress the following: GENERAL COMMENTS & PROCESSES 1) Per the Zoning Code, in order to approve a Major Use Permit, seven findings must be made. The inability to make even one of the seven finding is grounds to deny the permit. This is written into the Zoning Code: "16.606.03 - Required findings: The inability to make one or more of the findings is grounds for denial of an application. " 2) According to the General Plan 2040 and the Zoning Code, 2a) If there is a conflict between certain provisions in the General Plan, the most restrictive code or provision applies. 16.101.02 - J - 1 "Where conflict occurs between the provisions of the Zoning Code and any other City ordinance, chapter, resolution, guideline or regulation, the more restrictive provisions shall control, unless otherwise specified." 2b) If there is a conflict between the Zoning Code & the General Plan, the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan applies. 16.101.02 - K "Any permit, license or approval issued pursuant to the Zoning Code must be consistent with the General Plan and all applicable specific plans. In any case where there is a conflict between the Zoning Code and the General Plan, the General Plan shall prevail." 2c) If there is a conflict between the General Plan and the applicable Specific Plan, the purpose and goals of the Specific Plan take precedence. 16.609.04 - C "...Where a proposed land use is encompassed by the definition of the specific plan's permitted use types but conflicts with the statement of purposes for a specific plan, the proposed land use will not be permitted" 16.609.04 - D - 3 No project may be approved, and no building permit issued unless the project, alteration or use is consistent with an approved specific plan. 3) Although the Planning Department plans to update the Downtown Specific Plan, that has not yet happened, so the existing Downtown Specific Plan is the plan of record. The existing Downtown Specific Plan was produced after one year of meetings with a 50-member Downtown Advisory Group. As an Approved Specific Plan, it is not something to be dismissed, and in fact, I would argue that there is more value in investing to implement the existing plan rather than trying to redo it. In my opinion, the lagging growth downtown stems from not enforcing building codes about vacant commercial buildings, which in turn leads back to favoritism towards political donors such as Buck Kamphausen. NEW INFORMATION In the process of the various hearings, the following has become clear: 1) The building that Elite wants to lease has languished because the owner insists on 10-year leases -- and then on top of that, is lax about making repairs. Thus, Cal Maritime broke their lease for the space. If the owner had a more competitive property and leasing terms, it might have had more tenants. 2) Through the lawsuit Elite had with the school district, they will get 4-years of free rent, plus $237k in cash. Their existing property has room for 240 more students, plus has room for portables. The existing site also has an auditorium, full cafeteria, kitchen, outdoor recreation space, and playing fields. In short, it's what is called a "complete" school. Elite has made it sound like a downtown campus is their only option, when their existing site has plenty of room, and the Crest and Farragut schools would also be options. Elite is using their windfall to invest in real estate instead of improving their academics, for which they have very low scores. 3) Regarding liquor licenses, it only takes one complaint to hang up the process. It's not nearly as easy as Council Member Palmares claims. The Mira Community Center was stymied for years in getting a wine and beer license based on the objections of 1 couple who don't live close enough to even hear activities. The compromise reached requires a ticketed performance on stage, which precludes things like serving wine at art exhibit receptions or providing low-cost space for birthday and anniversary parties -- a disservice to the Mira and to the community. 4) Elite's recent refusal to call police around a teacher becoming violent with a student should give the City pause. Dr Bishop has a long-standing practice of barring police activity at a school, even when that activity is warranted. Elite refused to file a police report around the violent teacher -- the family had to take matters into their own hands to have the violent teacher arrested. Ostensibly barring police is part of a strategy of not criminalizing youth -- but it also keeps the school's record "clean," even when reports would be warranted. The violent teacher had an earlier assault on a student, but that had likewise not been reported. So if there *is* trouble at the school, will they sweep it under the rug? 5) It's not clear that the 2021 changes in the Zoning Code for the Downtown Specific Plan were properly noticed, published or reviewed in a hearing. Wouldn't that invalidate the changes that allowed a school campus to be considered? At minimum, there should be an investigation around this. What I discovered is that the topic was listed on agendas for meetings on 2/24/2021 and 3/15/2021 -- but the changes were not published with either agenda, nor were any changes discussed if you consult the video archives. Then, in an official hearing by the Planning Commission on 3/29/2021, the changes were on the agenda, but listed in a summary chart that said there were only 2 additions to the downtown zoning, adding indoor entertainment and media production. The resolutions on 3/29/2021 said that changes had been previously reviewed, but they had not. Capping all this, Elite's lawyer was given a copy of the changes that even as of this project had not been published on the City website, suggesting favoritism towards the applicant. THE FINDINGS THAT ARE NOT MET FOR GRANTING A MAJOR USE PERMIT 16.606.03 - Required findings in the City Code In the Findings that were necessary to approve the Major Use Permit, the City's Findings B, C, D, E and F were flawed and incorrect. B Finding Required: The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan or planned development and any other applicable plans.
Actual Correct Finding: The City of Vallejo, with contractor Mr Ordonoz presenting, falsely said the usage complies with the General Plan 2040, and did not mention the Downtown Specific Plan at all, which is an additional applicable governing document. The Elite School does NOT comply with the provisions in the General Plan 2040 for an Arts & Entertainment District, and activity 24/7, and it does NOT comply with the Downtown Specific Plan for the same reasons. See numerous citations in attached document. The fact that the mixed-use area is *near* parcels zoned for public use does not invalidate the mixed-use commercial/residential zoning on Georgia St. Policy 4.3.3: Promote Central Downtown as Vallejo's Arts and Entertainment district. * p52 The purpose of the Georgia Street Corridor is to promote a "Main Street" environment in Downtown Vallejo, with a focus on facilitating local- and community~serving retail uses. The land use regulations for this district are intended to: • Preserve appropriate existing uses and provide opportunities for new retail and service uses by setting limitations on other ground-level land uses such as administrative and professional services (office) and residential Policy 5.1.4: Maintain and enhance Georgia Street as the primary retail corridor with a "Main Street" character. Program 5.2.a:Strengthen the primary connections between Downtown and the Waterfront. Program 5.5.a:Require a retail building form on streets identified as "Retail Frontage Streets." Pedestrian activity and interaction at street level are encouraged by locating retail uses at the ground level. 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-1.5APromote the Downtown/Waterfront District as a music, theater,and entertainment district serving students, visitors, and the region. Action EET-1.5BAttract new businesses to complement existing music, theater, and entertainment venues. Action EET-1.5CIncrease the visibility of local arts and artisans through citywide marketing and branding. POLICY NBE-3.3Entertainment. 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-3.3BDevelop and implement a strategy to attract desired retailers to the Downtown/Waterfront District both in the near and long term. Action NBE-3.4CContinue to support the Downtown Arts & Entertainment District consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. POLICY NBE-2.1Strengthen Local Identity. Focus future growth to foster a vibrant Downtown/Waterfront District, strong job centers, comfortable neighborhoods, thriving neighborhood corridors and urban villages, and retail/entertainment clusters that draw visitors from the city and the region. C Finding Required: The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed. Actual Correct Finding: Per Vallejo's Municipal Code, schools are supposed to have 50 sq ft/student. Per the California Department of Education, schools are supposed to have 86-110 sq ft of combined indoor and outdoor space per student; the current recommendation is a combined 95 square feet per student for indoor and outdoor activities. This proposed location has ZERO space for outdoor and physical education. While the code relaxes outdoor space requirements if there is a usable park within 1/4 miles, the proposed outdoor spaces for this location are more than 1-mile from the site, and Elite's offer to use vans to ferry students is unrealistic. The location does not meet the requirements of Vallejo's Municipal Code, nor does it meet the recommendations of the California Department of Education. 16.335 SCHOOLS, 16.335.01 PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY 3. To grant the Use Permit (for a school), the Director or the Planning Commission shall determine, based on the information presented by the applicant and the standards of this Chapter: a. That the school location is appropriate for the use, and that adjacent uses will not be adversely affected; NOT MET b. That adequate access, student drop-off areas and required off-street parking is provided; and NOT MET c. That outdoor play areas are appropriately- sized, furnished with facilities and equipment, safe, and secure. NOT MET D Finding Required: The proposed use is compatible w/ existing and permissible land uses w/in 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. Actual Correct Finding: The Zoning District for downtown is Arts and Entertainment. The school is not compatible with that usage and could directly lead to devaluing existing properties, and could curtail new business. Because liquor licenses are curtailed within 600 ft of schools, there are 3 businesses that might lose their liquor licenses if they decide to sell. New businesses that wanted to add liquor sales could be impeded as well. The City incorrectly referenced the Immersive Learning Center as an "educational use," but that center is used on a limited drop-in basis; it is NOT a full-time school. The City's comparison of a full-time school of 400 students with an after-school drop-in tutoring center is inappropriate. The downtown has had some after-school tutoring centers, and one administrative office for a home-based school, but has not had any K-12 campuses. The Planning Department should have made this clear to their applicant and to their consultant. IM GOAL 10.4CREATE 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. Objective A.1.i(2): Commercial District Mixed-Use Residential Development Program. The City will encourage and facilitate the development of residential units within the City's commercial zones. Action EET-3.3D Work with Vallejo Central Core Restoration Corporation (CCRC), property owners and managers, and employers in the shopping, entertainment, arts, dining, hotel, recreation, and nightlife sectors to coordinate marketing efforts and improve inter-business synergy E. Finding Required: 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. Actual Correct Finding: Because of the local and state laws limiting alcohol sales within 600 feet of school, locating a school downtown could directly lower property values for existing restaurants in close proximity to the site, and could further chill if not kill the development of new restaurants downtown. Moreover, it is not a healthy plan to have hundreds of teenagers strolling an area where alcohol is served and sold. It only takes one complaint to stall or kill an application for a liquor license. The uncertainty alone might dissuade new businesses from opening, and the Elite community has already shown that they are hostile towards downtown and belligerent about their perceived rights. California Alcoholic Beverage Control Section 23789 (b) The department is specifically authorized to refuse the issuance, other than renewal or ownership transfer, of any retail license for premises located within at least 600 feet of schools and public playgrounds or nonprofit youth facilities, including, but not limited to, facilities serving Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, or Campfire Girls. This distance shall be measured pursuant to rules of the department. F. Finding Required: 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. Actual Correct Finding: The drop-off and pick-up of up to 400 students will snarl downtown traffic during those hours, and eliminating street parking close to restaurants poses a significant burden on them in serving their customers. Close-in street parking is already limited, and is prized given the frequency of car theft, catalytic converter theft, and break-ins. Further, having up to 400 students emerge onto downtown streets all at once is more of a nuisance than a boon for most businesses. Because teenagers do not have adult jobs and related incomes, most of them are not yet consumers for downtown restaurants and shops. As is normal for teenagers, when kids get out of school, they tend to be LOUD and rambunctious. Their presence will not help shops and especially restaurants and bars, and would disrupt normal office activities. Policy 6.2.1: Maximize off-street parking to serve short-term parking needs. Curbside property in Downtown Vallejo is one of its greatest assets. On·street parking serves the short-term needs of visitors and shoppers, and is critical to the viability of the ground floor commercial uses. IMPROPER BENDING OF RULES & COVER-UP BY THE CITY OF VALLEJO? Despite Elite's claims of being unfairly treated, the City bent over backwards in twisting or ignoring facts to so they could support the Major Use Permit. You see this in not referencing the Downtown Specific Plan at all, and in incorrectly comparing a part-time tutoring center that might see 10 students for an hour, vs a full-time school for 400 students. Another impropriety was in the City Attorney trying to minimize the City's own Code of Ethics with respect to Planning Commissioner Peggy Cohen-Thompson. Despite the City's claim that financial gain is the only conflict of interest, the City's own Ethics Code calls for officials to recuse if there's even an appearance of impropriety, not to mention a double role of judging on a project for which the city official works. Finally, the reports that the City Attorney privately contacted some members of City Council to try to persuade them to change their votes on the Appeal was improper, if not illegal. The City Council had already publicly voted to uphold the Appeal; the City Attorney's job was to follow that direction, period. The City Attorney had her chance to state her case during the Public Hearing; back room lobbying goes against the spirit of the Brown Act, even if it doesn't meet the technical quorum of reaching 3 Council members. I get that Elite might be rightfully pissed to have spent 2 years on an application only to have it declined. They may even have cause to sue the City, and/or might sue based on shaky grounds. But in this, City residents should not also have to suffer the eclipse of potential for our downtown. From what I can see, the City acted improperly in supporting the Major Use Permit, and showed undue favoritism towards it. Someone should be held accountable within the City so such injustices and such uneven applications of City Code do not occur. Someone in city management royally screwed up, but do not compound that with a cover-up and trying to justify the bad behavior. The trust between the City and residents is already fragile. So the city is in a bind. One possible way out is to offer Elite some sort of sweetheart deal on the Farragut or Crest campuses. Mind you, Dr Bishop is too belligerent to make her an appealing civic partner. But if the City wants to extend an olive branch or make amends, it should *not* be via a downtown campus. Even a smaller campus or temporary use there would have the same chilling impact on downtown. Please, do not waffle on upholding the Appeal, and putting this matter behind us. Then, instead of redoing the Downtown Specific Plan, look at creative ways to implement it. Sincerely, Anne Carr