or adults and children as-in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or the protection of the individual and which is required by State law to be treated as a single housekeeping unit for zoning purposes. This use includes the administration of limited medical assistance. "Residential care, senior." As defined by California Health and Safety Code Section 1569.2, as it may be amended, as a housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by persons sixty years of age or over (or their authorized representative) where varying levels and intensities of care and supervision, protective supervision, or personal care are provided based on their varying needs.
"Residential land use districts." Any property within the city which is designated "Primarily Single -Family", "Mix of Housing Types/Medium Density" and "Primarily Multi-Family" on the general plan land use map. "Residential use in property zoned planned development (PD)." A planned development which contains residential units an any property within the PD zoning district as set forth on the zoning map, as it may be amended from time to time. For purposes of applying distance locational limitations in this code, only the portion of the area zoned PD actually containing residential units shall be considered the residential land use designation. "Restaurant with drive-through." Establishment where food or coffee-type beverages are purchased by motorists who remain in their vehicles during the sales transaction including drive -up service. "Restaurant, full service." Restaurant providing food and beverage services to patrons who order and are served while seated and pay after eating. Take-out service may also be provided. Full-service restaurant includes eating places authorized to sell beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption on-site under Type 47 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control license and eating places that are authorized to sell beer and wine under a Type 41 License.
"Restaurant, limited service." Establishment where food and beverages are consumed on the premises, taken out, or delivered, and where limited table service is provided. This classification includes cafes, cafeterias, coffee shops, delicatessens, fast-food restaurants, quick service restaurants/fast-food establishments, sandwich shops, limited-service pizza parlors, self-service restaurants, and snack bars with indoor or outdoor seating for customers. This classification includes bakeries that have tables f or on-site consumption of products. "Retail sales." The purchase of finished goods and services by consumers and businesses. "Reversed corner lot." A corner lot, the rear of which abuts a key lot. "Reversed frontage lot." A double-frontage lot for which the boundary along one of the streets is established as the front lot line and the boundary along the other street is established as the rear lot line. "Ridesharing." Any mode of transportation other than a single occupancy vehicle that transports one or more persons to a worksite.
"Rooming house" and/or "boardinghouse." A building or portion thereof, other than a hotel or motel, providing room and/or board for compensation with or without meals. "Salvage" and "wrecking." Storage and dismantling of vehicles and equipment for sale of parts, as well as their collection, storage, exchange or sale of goods, including, but not limited to any used building materials, used containers or steel drums, used tires, and similar or related articles or property. "School." Any institution of learning for minors, whether public or private, which offers instruction in those courses of study required by the California Education Code or which is maintained pursuant to standards set by the state board of education and has an approved conditional use permit, if required, under the applicable jurisdiction.
This definition includes nursery schools, kindergartens, elementary schools, junior high schools, senior high schools, or special institutions of learning under the jurisdiction of the state department of education. The definition of school does not include a vocational institution. "Screening." A wall, fence, hedge, informal planting, or berm provided for the purpose of buffering a building or activity from neighboring areas, different land uses, visual impacts, or from the street.
"Section 6409." Section 6409(a) of the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112- 96, 126 Stat. 156, codified as 47 USC Section 1455(a), as may be amended. "Security grate." A metal grate that rolls up over, or slides across, a window or door to provide protection against unwanted entry. It also can be a fixed metal fixture over window openings. "Senior citizen housing development." A residential development with at least thirty- five dwelling units, meeting the definition of a senior citizen housing development set forth in California Civil Code Section 51.3. "Senior citizen." As defined in California Civil Code Section 51.3, a person sixty -two years of age or older, or fifty-five years of age or older who may occupy a senior citizen housing development. "Senior housing." Residential development designed for senior citizen households. Any age restrictions must be consistent with federal and state requirements.
"Sensitive land use." A residence, public or private school, public library, public or private park, public or private playground, or religious institution, where minors would likely be present. "Service stations." An establishment engaged in the retail sale of vehicle and equipment fuel, lubricants, parts and accessories. These uses include service stations with convenience stores, self- service auto washes and facilities having service bays for vehicle service and repair. The service and repair may include incidental maintenance and repair of automobiles and light trucks but shall not include maintenance and repair of large trucks, or body and fender work or automobile painting on any vehicles. Li ght auto/vehicle/equipment repair is allowed here but not heavy as described above.
"Service stations, full service." A service station that has one or more service bays. "Service stations, minimum service." A service station that has no service bays. "Setback." The minimum or maximum distance that is required between a building or building feature and a property line, right-of-way, shoreline or other place or line the Zoning Code or other ordinances establishes to govern the placement of structures.
"Shared parking." An arrangement in which multiple uses with different peak parking demand periods use the same off-street parking spaces.
"Shopkeeper unit." A dwelling unit located above and with an internal connection to a ground floor commercial space that is operated by the resident of the dwelling unit and meets applicable occupancy separation requirements of the California Building Code. This use type is distinguished from a live-work unit. "Side lot line." Any lot line that is not a front or rear lot line. "Sign copy." The visually communicative elements mounted on a sign. Also called copy. "Sign." A structure, device, figure, display, message placard, or other contrivance, or any part thereof, situated outdoors or indoors, which is designed, constructed, intended, or used to advertise, or to provide information in the nature of advertising, to direct or attract attention to an object, person, institution, business, product, service, event, or location by any means, including words, letters, figures, designs, symbols, fixtures, colors, illumination, or projected images. Does not include murals , paintings and other works of art that are not intended to advertise or identify any business or product. "Significant tree." Any tree or stand of trees on private property having either a height of twenty- five feet measured above ground level, or a diameter of ten or more inches. "Signs, abandoned." A sign that no longer advertises a business, lessor, owner, product, service or activity on the premises where the sign is displayed.
"Signs, awning." A sign copy or logo attached to or painted to the outside surface of an awning.
"Signs, cabinet." A sign which contains all the text and/or logo symbols within a single enclosed cabinet and may or may not be internally illuminated. Also called a can or panel sign. "Signs, construction." A temporary sign announcing/describing a construction project, architect, builder/developer, engineer, etc. in words and/or drawings. "Signs, directional." An exterior on-site sign that directs or guides pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic and which does not include general advertising for hire but may direct persons to specific locations of public facilities or parts of an establishment that have separate exterior entrances. Examples include accessible parking, one -way, exit, entrance, rest rooms, emergency room, garage, underground utilities, and such similar functions. Also called directional signage.
"Signs, flag." A piece of fabric or other flexible material, usually rectangular, of distinctive design, used as a symbol, which is capable of movement, or fluttering in moving air or wind. "Signs, freestanding." A sign supported by structures or supports that are placed on, or anchored in, the ground and which are structurally independent from any building including "monument signs," "pole signs," "pylon signs," and "ground signs."
"Signs, freeway oriented." A sign that orients primarily to the traveling public using a freeway or expressway and installed for the purpose of identifying major business locations within certain commercial zoning districts in close proximity to a freeway or expressway.
"Signs, illuminated (indirect/internal illumination)." A sign that is illuminated with an artificial source of light.
An indirectly illuminated sign is a sign whose light source is external to the sign and which casts its light onto the sign from some distance. An internally illuminated sign is a sign whose light source is located in the interior of the sign so that the rays go through the face of the sign, or light source which is attached to the face of the sign and is perceived as a design element of the sign.
"Signs, monument." A low-profile freestanding sign erected upon or supported solely by a planter, pedestal base, or similar ground structure approximately the same width as the sign and which is designed to incorporate the architectural theme and building material of the building on the premises. Internal supports, open braces, poles or pylons, if any, are enclosed by decorative covers or otherwise not exposed to view. "Signs, off-site." A sign identifying a use, facility, service, or product which is not located, sold, or manufactured on the same premises as the sign or which identifies a use, service, or product by a brand name which, although sold or manufactured on the premises, does not constitute the principal item for sale or manufactured on the premises. The on-site/off-site distinction does not apply to non-commercial messages. This includes billboards. Contrast: on-site sign.
"Signs, on-site." A sign identifying a use, facility, service, or product which is located, sold, or manufactured on the same premises as the sign. The on-site/off-site distinction does not apply to non-commercial messages.
Contrast: off-site sign.
"Signs, permanent." A sign constructed of durable materials and intended to exist for the duration of time that the use or occupant is located on the premises.
"Signs, pole (pylon sign)." An elevated freestanding sign that is supported by one or more exposed poles or columns that are permanently attached directly into or upon the ground. "Signs, portable." A freestanding sign that is not permanently affixed, anchored or secured to either the ground or a structure on the property it occupies.
"Signs, projecting." A building wall sign, the surface of which is not parallel to the face of the supporting wall and which is supported wholly by the wall.
"Signs, real estate for sale" or "lease." A temporary sign that advertises the sale, lease or rental of the property but not including temporary subdivision signs or signs on establishments offering transient occupancy such as hotels, motels, and inns.
"Signs, roof." A sign constructed upon or over a roof or placed so as to extend above the edge of the roof. "Signs, temporary." A sign intended to be displayed for a limited period of time and capable of being viewed from a public right-of-way, parking area or neighboring property. Temporary signs do not include portable signs. "Signs, tenant." A sign that identifies a tenant, occupant, or establishment whether residential or commercial on the site. A multi-tenant sign displays the names of each tenant, occupant, or establishment whether residential or commercial on the site.
"Signs, wall (wall-mounted sign)." A sign which is attached to or painted on the exterior wall of a structure with the display surface of the sign approximately parallel to the building wall. "Signs, window." A sign posted, painted, placed, or affixed in or on a window exposed to public view. An interior sign which faces a window exposed to public view and is located within five feet of the window. "Single occupancy vehicle." A privately-operated motor vehicle whose only occupant is the driver, including for hire vehicles with one passenger.
"Single room occupancy." A facility providing dwelling units where each unit meets the requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1 as an efficiency unit or guest room. The unit may have kitchen or bathroom facilities and shall be offered on a monthly basis or longer. "Single-unit dwelling, attached." A dwelling unit that is designed for occupancy by one household located on a single lot that does not contain any other unit (except an accessory dwelling unit, where permitted) and is attached through common vertical walls to one or more dwellings on an abutting lot; sometimes called a "townhouse" or "zero-lot line" development.
"Single-unit dwelling, detached." A dwelling unit that is designed for occupancy by one household, located on a single lot that does not contain any other dwelling unit (except an accessory dwelling unit, where permitted), and not attached to another dwelling unit on an abutting lot. This classification includes individual manufactured housing units installed on a foundation system pursuant to Section 18551 of the California Health and Safety Code. "Single-unit residential." A building containing one dwelling unit located on a single lot. These include mobile homes and manufactured housing installed on a foundation system pursuant to Section 18551 of the California Health and Safety Code.
"Site." A continuous area of land used comprised of one or more lots intended for a use or group of uses. "Site, wireless facility." As defined by the FCC in 47 CFR Section 1.40001(b)(6), as may be amended, which provides that for towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower, any access or utility easements currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted to that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground.
"Skilled nursing facility." A facility or a distinct part of a hospital that provides continuous skilled nursing care and supportive care to patients whose primary need is for the availability of skilled nursing care on an extended basis. It provides twenty-four-hour inpatient care and, as a minimum, includes physician, nursing, dietary, pharmaceutical services and an activity program. Intermediate care programs that provide skilled nursing and supportive care for patients on a less-than-continuous basis are classified as skilled nursing facilities. "Small lot development." A residential project with a detached single -unit structure or structures, or attached townhouse units with separate walls that abut or are separated by a smaller amount of space on lots that are smaller than conventional single-unit development.
"Small wireless facilities (small cell wireless facilities)." As defined by the FCC in its "Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order" adopted September 26, 2018, encompasses facilities that meet the following conditions:
Are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas as defined in 47 CFR Section
1.1320(d); or Are mounted on structures no more than ten percent taller than other adjacent structures; or Do not extend above existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than fifty feet or by more than ten percent, whichever is greater; Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna in 47 CFR Section 1.1320(d)), is no more than three cubic feet in volume; All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any preexisting associated equipment on the structure, is no more than twenty- eight cubic feet in volume; The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under 47 CFR Part 17; The facilities are not located on tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR Section 800.16(x); and The facilities do not result in human exposure to radio frequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in 47 CFR Section
1.1307(b).
"Smoke shop" or "tobacco retailer." Any establishment that devotes twenty percent or more of the display area to the sale or exchange of tobacco products and/or tobacco paraphernalia. (See Definition .) This does not include retail sales of cannabis for recreational or medical purposes, which are separately regulated. "Social services center." Facility providing a variety of supportive services for disabled and homeless individuals and other targeted groups on a less-than-twenty-four-hour basis. Examples of services provided are counseling, meal programs, personal storage lockers, showers, instructional programs, television rooms, and meeting spaces. This classification is distinguished from licensed day care centers (See adult day care and early education facility), clinics (see clinic), and emergency shelters providing twenty-four-hour or overnight care (see emergency shelter).
"Specified anatomical areas." Less than completely and opaquely covered, and/or simulated to be reasonably anatomically correct even if completely and opaquely covered: Human genitals, pubic region; buttock; or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola; or human or simulated male genitals in a discernible turgid state even if completely and opaquely covered.
"Specified sexual activities." Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal; and/or acts of human masturbation, sexual stimulation or arousal; and/or use of human or animal ejaculation, sodomy, oral copulation, coitus or masturbation; and/or masochism, erotic or sexually oriented torture, beating, or the infliction of pain; and/or human excretion, urination, menstruation, vaginal or anal irrigation; and/or fondling or erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttock, or female breast. "Stable." A building for the lodging and care of horses, ponies, and similar animals. "Stable, commercial." A stable for horses to be let, hired, kept, bred, trained, or used for compensation. "Stable, private." A stable owned and operated by the owner or an occupant of the property for his or her own use.
"Stoop." A staircase, typically smaller than a deck, porch or patio that provides access to a building entry. "Storage, outdoor." Storage of vehicles or commercial goods or materials that are not contained within a building. Typical uses include monument or stone yards, grain elevators or open storage yards. "Story." That portion of a building between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above.
"Street." A public or private thoroughfare providing a primary means of access to property. "Street frontage." The length of the property line of any one premises parallel to and along the public right - of-way that it borders, and which is identified by an officially assigned street address. "Street side lot line." Any side lot line that abuts a public street.
"Street side yard." A yard extending along the street side of a corner lot from the front lot line to the rear lot line, and to a depth specified for the zoning district in which it is located and measured inward from the street side lot line.
"Street tree." Any tree of any species or size planted in parkways, sidewalk areas, easements, and rights -of- way granted to the city.
"Street wall." All contiguous walls of a building whose overall limits comprise the building facade. "Structural alterations." Any physical change to or the removal of the supporting members of a structure or building, such as bearing walls, columns, beams, or girders, including the creation, enlargement, or removal of doors or windows and changes to a roofline or roof shape. See "Alterations, major and minor". "Structure height." The vertical distance between a point or all points on top of a structure or any of its appurtenances and the ground below.
"Structure, accessory." A detached subordinate structure used only as incidental to the main structure on the same lot. "Accessory structure" shall not mean an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), as defined in this Zoning Code. "Structure, detached." A structure, no part of which is attached by any means to any other structure. "Structure, existing." A structure erected prior to the effective date of the Zoning Code, or one for which a valid legal building permit has been issued prior to this effective date of the Zoning Code. "Structure, non-conforming." See "Non-conforming Structure". "Structure, primary (structure, main)." A structure housing the principal use of a site or functioning as the principal use.
"Structure, temporary." A structure without any foundation or footings, and which is intended to be removed when the designated time period, activity, or use for which the temporary structure was erected has ceased.
"Structure." A physical structure that is manufactured, built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any place of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. "Subdivider." Any person who 1) having an interest in land causes it, directly or indirectly, to be divided into a subdivision, or 2) directly or indirectly, sells, leases, or develops, or offers to sell, lease, or develop, or advertises for sale, lease, or development, any interest, lot, parcel site, unit, or plat in a subdivision, or 3) engages directly or through an agent in the business of selling, leasing, developing, or offering for sale, lease, or development a subdivision or any interest, lot, parcel site, unity, or plat in a subdivision; and who is directly or indirectly controlled by, or under direct, or indirect common control with any of the foregoing. "Substantial change, wireless facility." As defined by the FCC in 47 CFR Section 1.40001(b)(7), as may be amended, which defines that term differently based on the particular wireless facility type (tower or base station) and location (in or outside the public right-of-way). This definition organizes the FCC's criteria and thresholds for a substantial change according to the wireless facility type and location. The collocation or modification involves the installation of more than the standard number of equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four; or The proposed collocation or modification increases the overall height more than ten percent or the height of one additional antenna array not to exceed twenty feet (whichever is greater); or For towers in the public rights - of-way and for all base stations, a substantial change occurs when: The proposed collocation or modification increases the overall height more than ten percent or ten feet (whichever is greater); or The proposed collocati on or modification increases the width more than twenty feet from the edge of the wireless tower or the width of the wireless tower at the level of the appurtenance (whichever is greater); or The proposed collocation or modification increases the width more than six feet from the edge of the wireless tower or base station; or The proposed collocation or modification involves excavation outside the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the wireless tower, including any access or utility easements currently related to the site. The proposed collocation or modification involves excavation outside the area in proximity to the structure or other
transmission equipment already deployed on the ground. The proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground when there are no existing ground- mounted equipment cabinets; or The proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of any new ground -mounted equipment cabinets that are ten percent larger in height or volume than any existing ground- mounted equipment cabinets; or The proposed collocation or modification violates a prior conditi on of approval, provided however that the collocation need not comply with any prior condition of approval related to height, width, equipment cabinets, or excavation that is inconsistent with the thresholds for a substantial change described in this subse ction. "Supportive housing." Housing with no limit on length of stay that is occupied by the target population and is linked to an on-site or off-site service that assists supportive housing residents in retaining housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live independently. "Swap meet." The display, exchange, barter or sale of new or used common household items or office equipment and furnishings, clothing, personal effects, household furnishings and household appliances at an approved location. These include both indoor and outdoor swap meets, conducted on either a permanent or recurring basis. Also known as a flea market.
"Target population." Persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health condition, or individuals eligible for services provided pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homel ess people. "Tasting room, accessory." A space for on-site tasting of alcoholic beverages and retail sales that is licensed by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and operated within a winery, micro -brewery/micro- distillery, grocery store, large format liquor store or wine shop but not within a liquor store or a convenience store or mini-market associated with fuel sales.
"Tasting room/wine bar, stand-alone." An establishment or place within a winery or brewery or other premises or a separate establishment licensed by the state department of alcoholic beverage control where wine, beer, and other alcoholic beverages produced, grown, or processed on the same site or off- site are offered for sale or without charge to members of the public. Food may also be served. Tasting rooms may be established and operated by a single winery or brewery or collectively by a group of producers . "Telecommuting." Any employee(s) working at home, off-site, or at a telecommuting center for a full workday, eliminating the trip to work or reducing travel distance by more than fifty percent. "Temporary real estate sales office." A temporary real estate sales office within the area of an approved development project, solely for the first sale of units, approved as part of the overall project. "Temporary use." A use of a building or property that is limited in duration and does not permanently alter the character or physical facilities of the premises or property. "Through lot." A lot having frontage on two parallel or approximately parallel streets. “Tobacco-Cigar Bar or Lounge” means an establishment that is open to the public and is designated for the consumption or use of tobacco products purchased on the premises or elsewhere.
"Tobacco Retail Store”- means any business establishment utilized for the sale of any tobacco product.
Tobacco Retail-Major: Over 20% of retail area is dedicated to tobacco products.
Tobacco Retail-Minor: 20% or less of retail area is dedicated to tobacco products. "Tobacco related products."
1. Any product containing, made of, or derived from tobacco or nicotine that is intended for human consumption or is likely to be consumed, whether smoked, heated, chewed, absorbded, dissolved, inhaled, snorted, sniffed, or ingested by any other means, including but not limited to , cigarettes, cigars, little cigars, chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco, snuff or snus;
2. Any electronic device that delivers nicotine or any other substances to the person inhaling from the device, that may be aerosolized or vaporized by such device, whether or not the substance contains nicotine, including bt not limited to a vaporizer/vape, electronic cigarette, electroinc cigar, electronic pipe, or electronic hookah;
3. Any component, part, or accessory of (1) (2), whether or not any of these contain tobacco or nicotine, including but not limited to, filters, rolling papers, blunt or hemp wraps, hookahs, mouthpieces and pipes. “Tobacco Product” does not include drugs, devices,or products authorized for sale by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as those terms are defined in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or cannabis products.
1. Any substance containing tobacco leaf, including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, hookah tobacco, snuff, chewing tobacco, dipping tobacco, snus, bidis, or any other preparation of tobacco; and any product or formulation of matter containing biologically active amounts of nicotine that is manufactured, sold, offered for sale, or otherwise distributed with the expectation that the product or matter will be introduced into the human body, but does not include any cessation product specifica lly approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for use in treating nicotine or tobacco dependence. Any implement or object that is or may be used in conjunction with the consumption, inhalation or ingestion of either tobacco or other like dried plant material or other substance which may be consumed in the same manner, including instruments or paraphernalia for the smoking or ingestion of tobacco or other like plant, herbal or fruit products.
"Tower." As defined by the FCC in 47 CFR Section 1.40001(b)(9), as may be amended, which defines that term as any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC -licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities, including structures that are constructed for wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul, and the associated site. Examples include, but are not limited to, monopoles (i.e., a bare, unconcealed pole solely intended to support wireless transmission equipment), mono-trees, and lattice towers.
"Townhouse." An attached, privately owned single-unit dwelling that is adjacent to another similarly owned single-unit dwelling unit/s with which it shares a common party wall having no doors, windows, or other provisions for human passage or visibility. Also called a row house. "Trail systems." This includes district/citywide pathways using public easements, rights -of-way, and natural features such as watercourses and ridgelines, providing a non-vehicular circulation system throughout the city and district to connect major facilities and points of activity and interest. Such a trail system increases the effectiveness of recreational opportunities by providing the linkage between separate facilities to create a continuous recreational network. Such a system itself also provides recreation opportunities, such as walking, jogging, bicycling, nature study, photography, and the like.
"Transit." A shared passenger transportation service, which is available for use by the general public, as distinct from modes such as taxicabs, carpools, or vanpools which are not shared by strangers without a private arrangement. Transit includes buses, ferries, trams, trains, rail, or other conveyance which provides to the general public a service on a regular and continuing basis. Also known as public transportation, public transit or mass transit.
"Transitional housing." Dwelling units with a limited length of stay that are operated under a program requiring recirculation to another program recipient at some future point in time. It may be designated for homeless individuals or families transitioning to permanent housing as defined in subdivision (h) of Section
50675.2 of the California Health and Safety Code. Facilities may be linked to onsite or offsite supportive services designed to help residents gain skills needed to live independently. This classification includes domestic violence shelters.
"Transmission equipment." As defined by the FCC in 47 CFR Section 1.40001(b)(8), as may be amended, which defines that term as equipment that facilitates transmission for any FCC -licensed or authorized wireless communication service, including, but not limited to, radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply. The term includes equipment associated with wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety serv ices, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. "Transportation allowance." A financial incentive offered to employees instead of a parking subsidy to provide employees flexibility in mode choice. Employees are typically required to execute an agreement that they do not commute in a single-occupant vehicle in order to be eligible to receive the benefit "Transportation alternatives." Walking, bicycling, taking transit, carpooling, vanpooling, and telecommuting. "Transportation demand management (TDM)." A system designed and implemented to reduce traffic congestion, demand for parking and associated air pollution noise, fuel consumption. "Transportation management organization (TMO)." Transportation management organizations (TMOs) are city-certified organizations that provide transportation services in a particular area or citywide. They are generally public-private partnerships, consisting primarily of area businesses with local government support. TMOs provide an institutional framework for TDM programs and services. "Undevelopable land." All portions of the site that, if developed, would subject persons or property to a high level of risk for personal injury or property damage due to its proximity to a known hazard, including, but not limited to, any portion of the site within fifty feet of a cliff, or fault line, biologically sensitive areas, sites with overall slopes greater than thirty percent, sites within an unrepaired slide area or in a ravine. Areas of undevelopable land are included from calculations of net site area, allowable floor area, allowable residential units, minimum lot size, and density.
"Unenclosed." Open on at least one side.
"Urban farm." An agricultural use in an urban area, in a zoning district where urban land uses predominate.
Urban farms may be of any size, though permit requirements will differ. Community gardens, community- supported agriculture farms, and private farms are all considered urban farms. "Urban villages." An area in a mixed-use corridor that is served by public transit and provides a combination of retail shops and services as well as spaces and facilities for civic uses catering to the daily needs of residents who live in mixed-use buildings in the village and in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Urban villages are intended to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists.
"Use." The purpose for which land, premises or structure thereon is designed, arranged, or intended, or for which it is or may be occupied or used.
"Use classification." A system of classifying uses into a limited number of use types based on common functional, product, or compatibility characteristics (e.g., residential, retail, commercial and office; institutional and community facilities, industrial, and transportation, communication, and utilities). "Use permit." A discretionary permit, such as minor use permit, or major use permit, that provides for the accommodation of land uses with special site or design requirements, operating characteristics, or potential adverse effects on surroundings, that are not permitted by right but may be approved upon completion of a review process and, where necessary, the imposition of conditions of approval. "Use type." A category that classifies similar uses based on common functional, product, or compatibility characteristics.
"Use, non-conforming." See "Non-conforming Use".
"Utility pole." A pole or tower owned by any utility company that is primarily used to support wires or cables necessary for the provision of electrical or other utility services regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.
"Utility, major." Generating plants, electrical substations, aboveground electrical transmission lines, refuse collection or disposal facilities, dredge disposal sites, water reservoirs, water or wastewater treatment plants, and similar facilities of public agencies or public utilities. "Utility, minor." A utility facility that is necessary to support a legally established use and involves only minor structures (e.g., electrical distribution lines).
"Vanpool." A van or similar motor vehicle in which seven to fifteen persons commute to and from the worksite for the majority (at least twenty-one percent) of the commute trip. "Variance." A discretionary permit allowing a departure from specific provisions of a zoning ordinance such as setbacks, side yards, frontage requirements, and lot size, but not involving the actual use or structure, thus relieving a property owner from strict adherence to development standards when some special circumstances exist which deprive the property owner from developing the property in a manner enjoyed by similar properties. "Vehicle." Any passenger car or truck, including Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs), used for commute purposes including any motorized two-wheeled vehicle. Vehicles shall not include bicycles, transit services, buses serving multiple worksites, or vehicles that stop only to load or unload passengers or materials at a worksite while on route to other worksites.
"Vehicle miles traveled (VMT)." A method used in transportation planning to measure the amount of travel for all vehicles in a geographic region over a given period of time, typically a one -year period. VMT is calculated as the sum of the number of miles traveled by each vehicle. "Viewing room, adult use." The room, booth, or area where a patron of a sexually oriented business would ordinarily be positioned while watching a film, videocassette, digital videodisc, or other video reproduction. "Visibility triangle." A triangular area at the intersection of any two public streets or a driveway, alley, or path with a public street within which height limitation apply to structures or vegetation that may interfere with the visibility of a pedestrian, cyclist, or other vehicle operator. Also called a Sight distance triangle. "Visible." Capable of being seen (whether or not legible) by a person of normal height and visual acuity walking or driving on a public road or in a public place. "Walk-in clientele office." Offices providing direct services to patrons or clients that may or may not require appointments. This use classification includes employment agencies, insurance agent offices, real estate offices, travel agencies, private utility company offices, and offices for elected officials. It does not include banks or check - cashing facilities, which are separately classified and regulated (See Banks and Financial Institutions). "Wall." Any vertical exterior surface of building or any part thereof, including windows. "Warehouse." A building used primarily to store goods and materials. "Warehousing, storage," and "distribution." Storage and distribution facilities without sales to the public on- site or direct public access except for public storage in small individual space exclusively and directly accessible to a specific tenant.
"Warehousing" and "storage, indoor." Storage within an enclosed building of commercial goods prior to their distribution to wholesale and retail outlets and the storage of industrial equipment, products and materials. This includes cold storage, draying or freight, moving and storage, and warehouses, but not the storage of hazardous chemical, mineral, and explosive materials.
"Wetlands." Marshes, swamps or other areas characterized by wet soil conditions either permanently or seasonally, which are important to sustaining wildlife and biological resources. "Wine cellar." A storage room or warehouse facility for the blending, cellar treatment, storage, bottling, and/or packaging of wine but not wine production. It may include eating areas, tasting rooms and retail areas as accessory uses.
"Wireless." Any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service transmitted over frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum.
"Wireless telecommunication facility." Any facility constructed, installed, or operated for wireless service, including but not limited to, antennas or other types of equipment for the transmission or receipt of such signals, telecommunication towers, or similar structures supporting such equipment, related accessory equipment, equipment buildings, and other accessory equipment. This definition does not apply to broadcast antennas, antennas designed for amateur radio use, or satellite dishes designed for re sidential or household purposes. "Worksite." The place of employment, base of operation, or any work location in the city of Vallejo of an employee. It includes all of the employer's buildings or facilities, including outdoor facilities. "Wrecking, towing" and "impound." The storage of operative or inoperative vehicles. These uses include storage of parking tow-aways, impound yards, and storage lots for buses and recreational vehicles, but do not include vehicle dismantling.
"Yard." An open space on a lot, other than a court on a lot, that is unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward.
"Yard depth." That dimension of a yard measured at a right angle and horizontally from an abutting property line.
"Yard, required." The strip of land which abuts property lines and is unoccupied or unobstructed except as permitted by the Zoning Code. Also called "setback".
"Zero lot line." A building or structure constructed at a property line. Typically, a detached single -unit dwelling or attached units such as townhomes.
ACTION ITEM 9.D.
DATE: November 19, 2024
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Andrew Murray, City Manager
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the scopes of work that City staff developed for sixteen City Council referrals and provide direction to staff on whether or not to implement the referrals.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
City staff needs direction from Council on whether or not to implement Council referrals that City staff recently scoped.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
City Council referrals are projects that the City Council directs City staff to research and possibly implement in addition to staff’s routine work and projects required by other City work planning processes, such as the strategic plan and the budget processes. In Vallejo, the City Council requests and provides direction to staff on referrals through the following process:
• A Council Member requests, during the Report of the Presiding Officer and Members of the City Council portion of a Council Meeting, that the City Council consider at a future meeting whether to direct staff to develop a scope (tasks, schedule, and budget) to implement a project regarding a particular issue.
• City staff agendizes Council discussion and action (majority, via minute order) on whether to direct staff to scope a project regarding the issue. The Council Member that originally requested the referral describes the issue and objective.
• If approved in Step 1, City staff prepares a scope and agendizes Council discussion and action on whether City staff shall implement the scope.
• If approved in Step 2, City staff implements the project and completes the work.
This process is similar to that used by many other jurisdictions.
At the City Council meeting on September 10, 2024, City staff presented information on the 31 referrals that Council recently requested. The 31 included two referrals that had been completed; seven that had been approved for implementation and were awaiting completion; four that were awaiting scoping from staff; and eighteen that were pending a Council decision on whether to direct staff to scope. At the September 10, 2024 meeting, City Council added a new referral, bifurcated one referral, eliminated three referrals, and provided updated direction to staff on the referrals. At that meeting, Council directed staff to present, at a Council meeting in October 2024, scopes that the City Council had previously requested for four referrals. The scopes for those four referrals were presented to the City Council at a meeting on October 22, 2024, and City Council directed staff to implement those four referrals. At the September 10, 2024 Council meeting, Council directed staff to create scopes for sixteen referrals that had been pending a Council decision on whether to direct staff to scope. Council directed staff to present scopes for these sixteen referrals at a Council meeting in November
Date: November 19, 2024
Subject: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS
2024. Below is a list of those sixteen referrals.
Table 1: Referrals for Which City Council Requested Scopes on September 10, 2024 Topic Date Requested Requestor
Short-Term Rentals (Airbnb, VRBO) Ordinance April 11, 2023 Verder-Aliga Agendize presentation of Marina condition issues and invite Congressional Representatives and staff to be a part of the discussion June 13, 2023 Loera-Diaz
Creation of an Unhoused Commission June 20, 2023 Bregenzer Analysis and subsequent presentation or report of the following ordinances:
• Tenant Anti-Harassment
• Rent Control
• Just Cause Evictions
• Condo/Apartment Conversion ordinance that would include rights to refusal or the right to buy or receive relocation compensation
July 11, 2023 Palmares
Request on behalf of the Surveillance Advisory Board (SAB) to amend ordinance to change frequency of regular meetings beyond bi-monthly September 26,
2023
Arriola
Discussion on building permit fees for low-income housing October 24, 2023 Bregenzer Schedule Study Session on funding “how to help” for non-profits and CM to provide report mentioned at 10/24 council mtg
October 24, 2023 Loera-Diaz
Consider supplementing VPD with security services December 19, 2023
Bregenzer
Consider placing moratorium on Mills Act requests until consistent program is in place
December 19,
2023
Bregenzer
Discuss rebranding of the VPD and change name to Vallejo Police Services Department
December 19,
2023
Loera-Diaz
Review of Boards/Commissions/Committees (mentioned at council meeting)
Early 2024 Mayor
McConnell
-Policy to support Vallejo Community Land Trust
-Tenant right protection to Council
-Just cause eviction protection*
-Rent Stabilization*
May 28, 2024 Verder-Aliga
Ordinance that COV will not take a position (ex. Ceasefire/Gaza) in international conflicts. Similar to City of San Jose.
May 28,
2024
Verder-Aliga
Consider & Direct the City Manager to provide quarterly reports to Council on all Housing & Public Works Projects
July 9, 2024 Loera-Diaz
Date: November 19, 2024
Subject: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS
Creation of a Public Safety Committee July 23, 2024 Palmares, Verder-Aliga &
McConnell
Creation of a Public Safety Task Force July 23, 2024 Palmares, Verder-Aliga &
McConnell
The updated list of all recent referrals, based on City Council action on September 10, 2024 and October 22, 2024, sorted by request date and current status, is shown in Attachment 1.
Below are scopes for these sixteen referrals, which include a potential schedule, responsible department(s), main tasks, and budget/resources that would be required to complete the referral. Note that if the City Council decides to move forward with multiple referrals that require work by the same department(s), those referrals will need to be prioritized as part of a future City work planning discussion and the schedules will likely need to change to account for bandwidth issues. This discussion could take place as part of the City Council’s annual goal setting meeting.
Table 2: Potential Scopes for Referrals
Topic Schedule Responsible
Department(s
)
Main Tasks Budget/Resource
s
Short-Term Rentals (Airbnb,
VRBO) Ordinance
Begin work on
ordinance April
2025, complete
work and
present
ordinance to
Council in early
2026
City Attorney,
Finance,
Planning and
Development
Services
Conduct
outreach, draft
and present
ordinance,
implement
ordinance
City staff time (City
Attorney: 50 hours;
Finance: 10 hours;
Planning and
Development
Services: 100
hours)
Agendize presentation of Marina
condition issues and invite
Congressional Representatives
and staff to be a part of the
discussion
March 2025 Public Works,
Planning and
Development
Services
Assemble and
present
information on
Marina conditions
City staff time
(Public Works: 10
hours; Economic
Development: 5
hours; Planning
and Development
Services: 5 hours)
Creation of an Unhoused
Commission
Begin work in
March 2025,
continue until
the City Council
terminates the
ad-hoc
committee
City Manager,
City Attorney
City Council
determination of
ad-hoc committee
members; staff
liaison facilitation
of and research
for the
committee;
committee
recommendation
to the City
Council
City staff time (per
meeting) (City
Manager’s
department: 15
hours; City
Attorney’s
department: 15
hours)
Date: November 19, 2024
Subject: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS
Analysis and subsequent
presentation or report of the
following ordinances:
• Tenant Anti-Harassment
• Rent Control
• Just Cause Evictions
• Condo/Apartment
Conversion
The City will
analyze these
potential
programs
through the
Housing
Element (Policy
F 1.1.3). The
timeline noted in
the Housing
Element is begin
research in June
2025, conduct at
least four
outreach efforts,
City Council
consideration of
programs or
ordinances by
June 2026, and
subsequent
actions, if
necessary, by
January 2028.
Establish
additional
measures if
necessary by
January 2029.
Planning and
Development
Services, City
Attorney
Planning and
Development
Services
Department and
City Attorney
research these
issues and
provide
recommendation
to City Council
City staff time
(Planning and
Development
Services: 100
hours; City
Attorney: 200 +
hours)
Request on behalf of the
Surveillance Advisory Board
(SAB) to amend ordinance to
change frequency of regular
meetings beyond bi-monthly
March 2025 City Attorney,
City Manager,
Police
Department,
Information
Technology
City Attorney
draft ordinance
for City Council
consideration;
Police
Department, City
Attorney, and
Information
Technology staff
SAB meetings
City staff time (City
Attorney to draft
ordinance: 5
hours; (per
meeting) (City
Police Department:
5 hours; City
Attorney’s
department: 5
hours; and
Information
Technology: 5
hours)
Discussion on building permit
fees for low-income housing
June 2025 Planning and
Development
Services; City
Attorney;
Finance
Assemble and
present
information on
building permit
fees for low-
income housing
and City
discretion on
City staff time
(Planning and
Development
Services: 20
hours; City
Attorney: 10 hours;
Finance: 5 hours)
Date: November 19, 2024
Subject: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS
such and receive
Council direction
Schedule Study Session on
funding “how to help” for non-
profits
April 2025 City Manager Assemble and
present
information on
how to help for
nonprofits and
receive Council
direction
City staff time (City
Manager: 15
hours)
Consider supplementing VPD
with security services
Begin work in
May 2024,
complete work
in January 2025
City Manager;
City Attorney;
Public Works
Select and
engage private
security firm to
conduct
surveillance and
report suspicious
activity to the
Police
Department
City staff time (City
Manager: 20 hours
to administer
selection process;
City Attorney: 10
hours to draft and
review contract:
Public Works: 5
hours per month to
administer
contract); budget
for contract with
private security
firm
Consider placing moratorium on
Mills Act requests until
consistent program is in place
October 2025 Planning and
Development
Services; City
Attorney
Agendize Council
discussion and
direction
regarding Mills
Act contracts
City staff time
(Planning and
Development
Services: 20
hours; City
Attorney: 20 hours)
Discuss rebranding of the VPD
and change name to Vallejo
Police Services Department
July 2025 Police
Department;
City Manager
Police
Department and
City Manager
research topic,
conduct
community
engagement, and
present findings
and
recommendations
to City Council
City staff time
(Police
Department: 20
hours; City
Manager: 20
hours); budget for
contract with
branding firm and
new collateral
Review of
Boards/Commissions/Committe
es (mentioned at council
meeting)
Begin work in
January 2024,
complete work
in April 2025
City Attorney;
City Manager;
City Clerk
Select and
engage
consultant to
analyze City
boards and
commissions and
provide findings
and
City staff time (City
Attorney: 30 hours;
City Manager: 15
hours; City Clerk:
10 hours)
Date: November 19, 2024
Subject: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS
recommendations
; present findings
and
recommendations
to the City
Council
-Policy to support Vallejo
Community Land Trust
-Tenant right protection to
Council
-Just cause eviction protection*
-Rent Stabilization*
Consider
combining with
separate referral
on tenant anti-
harassment,
rent control, just
cause evictions,
and
condo/apartmen
t conversion
Adding these
additional issues
will add at least 50
hours of staff time.
Ordinance that COV will not take
a position (ex. Ceasefire/Gaza)
in international conflicts. Similar
to City of San Jose.
April 2025 City Attorney;
City Manager
City Attorney
draft resolution
for City Council
consideration
City staff time (City
Attorney: 5 hours;
City Manager: 5
hours)
Consider & Direct the City
Manager to provide quarterly
reports to Council on all Housing
& Public Works Projects
April 2025 City Manager;
Public Works
City Manager and
Public Works
create reports
City staff time (per
quarter) (Public
Works: 5 hours;
City Manager: 5
hours)
Creation of a Public Safety
Committee
Begin work in
April 2025,
continue until
the City Council
terminates the
committee
Police
Department
City Council
determination of
committee
members; staff
liaison facilitation
of and research
for the
committee;
committee
recommendation
to the City
Council
City staff time (per
meeting) (Police
Department: 15
hours; City
Manager: 5 hours;
City Attorney: 10
hours)
Creation of a Public Safety Task
Force
Begin work in
April 2025,
continue until
the City Council
terminates the
task force
Police
Department
City Council
determination of
task force
members; staff
liaison facilitation
of and research
for the task force;
task force
recommendation
to the City
Council
City staff time (per
meeting) (Police
Department: 15
hours; City
Attorney: 20 hours)
Date: November 19, 2024
Subject: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of implementing the sixteen Council referrals under consideration is noted in the Budget/Resources column of Table 2 above. Some of the required resources are already within the FY 2024- 2025 adopted budget. For some referrals, if approved for implementation, additional resources would need to be allocated by the City Council.
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. City Council Referrals - Updated at 10-22-24 Council Meeting
CONTACT
Andrew Murray, CIty Manager (707) 648-4576
[email protected]
City of Vallejo - City Council Referrals
Sorted by Date of Request
Updated October 23, 2024 (following Council direction at October 22, 2024 Council meeting) Number Requester Date Requested
(Step 0)
Topic Current Status Decision to Direct
Staff to Scope (Step
1) on Agenda
Step 1 Action
(Approved/Denied)
Decision to Direct
Staff to Implement
(Step 2) on Agenda
Step 2 Action
(Approved/Denied)
Completed Implementation
Completion Date
Responsible
Department
Step Notes Other Notes
2 Mayor
McConnell and
Loera-Diaz
Late 2022 Options for Locating Safer
RV/Vehicle Locations and
Potential Services in
Partnership with Local
Nonprofits
Completed February 14, 2023 Approved. April 11, 2023 Approved. Date for Step 2 TBD by City
Manager but not
later than June 30,
2023.
Yes June 30, 2023 City
Manager/Planning and
Development Services
Requested unknown;
Approved to move to Step 2
February 14, 2023;
Approved to implement
(Step 3) April 11, 2023;
Completed June 30, 2023
Discussed as part of a
broader workshop on
homelessness on June 20,
2023. This issue will also
again be considered when
staff presents a proposed
updated homeless strategy
on October 8, 2024.
10 Loera-Diaz May 23, 2023 Request CDOJ continue
partnership in ongoing
collaborative reform
efforts relating to VPD
beyond expiration date of
current agreement
Completed June 13, 2023 Approval to move to
Step 2
Yes Police Department Requested May 23, 2023;
Approved to move to Step 2
June 13, 2023
Completed with the
execution of the
Settlement Agreement
between the City and DOJ.
1 Palmares Late 2022 Mare Island CFD/MISTEA Approved for implementation,
awaiting completion
April 25, 2023 -
staff presented as
an informational
item
Approved. Directed
staff to allow
MISTEA to make a
presentation
May 30, 2023 Economic DevelopmentRequested unknown;
Approved to move to Step 2
April 25, 2023; Approved
to implement (Step 3) May
30, 2023; Completed March
26, 2024
Item returned to Council
on 3/26/24. Staff was
directed to restructure
the CFDs at the time of
the new MISP approval and
implementation when the
land densities will be
known and can be accounted
for within future
development.
3 Bregenzer Early 2023 Tobacco Retail Licensing
(TRL) Ordinance
Approved for
implementation,
awaiting completion
April 11, 2023 Approval to move to
Step 2
April 25, 2023 Approved. Directed
staff to return to
Council with a
comprehensive
ordinance for its
consideration
Planning and
Development
Services, City
Attorney
Requested unknown;
Approved to move to Step 2
April 11, 2023; Approved
to implement (Step 3)
April 25, 2023
Introduction of Ordinance
on June 25, 2024. Council
directed CAO to hold
retailer/coalition
workshops held in August.
Item is scheduled to
return to Council for
direction on Sept. 24,
2024.
4 Mayor
McConnell
January 2023 Create council ad-hoc
committee: 1) for purposes
of reviewing City Charter
Approved for
implementation,
awaiting completion
March 14, 2023 Approval to move to
Step 2. Scope to be
presented to Council
in October 2024.
October 22, 2024 City Manager/City
Attorney/City Clerk
Requested January 2023;
Approved to move to Step 2
on March 14, 2023
5 Mayor
McConnell
January 2023 Create council ad-hoc
committee: 2) Revise VMC
Chapter 2.02 related to
Council
Meetings/Rules/Meeting
Procedures.
Approved for
implementation,
awaiting completion
March 14, 2023 Approval to move to
Step 2. Scope to be
presented to Council
in October 2024.
October 22, 2024 City Manager/City
Attorney/City Clerk
Requested January 2023;
Approved to move to Step 2
on March 14, 2023
Councilmember Bregenzer
requested rule to adjourn
meetings at 10 pm and
items not covered move to
next meeting agenda
(requested at 10/10/23
mtg)
7 Bregenzer May 9, 2023 Sale of Herbert House Approved for implementation,
awaiting completion
October 10, 2023 Approved. Return to
Council sometime in
December 2023 to
include sale of
house and underlying
property
December 12, 2023 Approved. Staff was
directed to return
to Council with lot
diagrams and obtain
further direction on
the sale.
Economic
Development/Public
Works
Requested May 9, 2023;
Approved to move to Step 2
October 10, 2023; Approved
to implement (Step 3)
December 12, 2023
Appraisal contract
approved August 2024,
staff will agendize closed
session discussion with
City Council by end of
year 2024
9 Bregenzer May 23, 2023 Establish 2-person council
ad-hoc subcommittee on
collaborative reform
efforts related to VPD
Approved for
implementation,
awaiting completion
June 13, 2023 Approval to move to
Step 2. Scope to be
presented to Council
in October 2024.
October 22, 2024 City Manager/City
Attorney/City
Clerk/Police
Department
Requested May 23, 2023;
Approved to move to Step 2
June 13, 2023
Step 0 - Council Member requests at Council meeting that issue be agendized for future Council meeting to be considered for scoping Step 1 - Council discusses issue at a Council meeting to decide whether to direct staff to scope a project related to the issue Step 2 - Council discusses scope of project and decides whether to direct staff to implement project Step 3 - Council has directed staff to implement project and staff is working to complete project City of Vallejo - City Council Referrals
Sorted by Date of Request
Updated October 23, 2024 (following Council direction at October 22, 2024 Council meeting) Step 0 - Council Member requests at Council meeting that issue be agendized for future Council meeting to be considered for scoping Step 1 - Council discusses issue at a Council meeting to decide whether to direct staff to scope a project related to the issue Step 2 - Council discusses scope of project and decides whether to direct staff to implement project Step 3 - Council has directed staff to implement project and staff is working to complete project 11 Bregenzer May 23, 2023 Additional Red Light
Enforcement Cameras to
assist PD
Approved for
implementation,
awaiting completion
September 26, 2023 Approved. Staff
directed to bring
Step 2 back to
Council for further
discussion
December 12, 2023 Approved. Police Requested May 23, 2023; Approved to move to Step 2
September 26, 2023
Staff was directed to
return to Council
following
review/discussion with
recommendations from SAB.
See minutes from
12/12/2023. Staff will
agendize for SAB
discussion.
14 Loera-Diaz Mid 2023 Dispatch Move Update Approved for implementation,
awaiting completion
October 24, 2023 Update and directed
staff on the final
relocation site for
a temporary
emergency Dispatch
Center at 111 Amador
Street
May 14, 2024 Adopted Resolution
awarding
construction
contract to Whitley
Manufacturing Co.
Public Works Requested unknown;
Approved to move to Step 2
(scoping) October 24,
2023; approved to
implement (Step 3) May 14,
2024
17 Loera-Diaz September 2023 Building Permit Fee
Waivers to protect
businesses from theft and
process for business
retention grant
applications/awarding
grants
Approved for
implementation,
awaiting completion
November 28, 2023 Approval to move to
Step 2
7/23/24 - Small
Business Hardening
Grant Program
Approved Small
Business Hardening
Grant Program at
7/23/24 meeting
Economic DevelopmentRequested September 2023;
Approved to move to Step 2
(scoping) November 28,
2023; Approved to
implement (Step 3) July
23, 2024
Council approved a program
at its 7/23 meeting with
additional funding to
return to Council as part
of the next ARPA scrub.
25 McConnell &
Loera-Diaz
February 27, 2024 Consideration of
increasing fines,
penalties, impoundment
rules and other deterrents
related to Sideshow
activities
Approved for
implementation,
awaiting completion
March 12, 2024 Approval to move to
Step 2. Scope to be
presented to Council
in October 2024.
October 22, 2024 Police Department
and City Attorney
Requested February 27,
2024; Approved to move to
Step 2 March 12, 2024
Direction at 3/12/24
meeting, return to Council
to include research on
ideas expressed as rapidly
as possible. An ordinance
has been drafted and will
be brought to Council.
26 Loera-Diaz March/April 2024 Audit for Broadway Project Approved for implementation,
awaiting completion
May 14, 2024 Approval to move to
Step 2
July 9, 2024 Approved Finance Requested unknown;
Approved to move to Step 2
May 14, 2024; Approved to
move to implementation
(Step 3) July 9, 2024
Council authorized
initiation of a process
for audit with MRG for
Broadway Project. Auditor
to report to Council and
CM. Audit to include
financials, review dates,
timelines, deadlines with
outcomes provided to
Council and CM.
6 Verder-Aliga April 11, 2023 Short-term Rentals (Air
BnB, VRBO) Ordinance
Request again at 5/28/24
cc mtg.
Awaiting scope from
staff
September 10, 2024 Approved. Scope to
be presented to
Council in November
2024.
Finance, City
Attorney, Planning
and Development
Services
Requested April 11, 2023 Discuss policy
implications with Council
first
12 Loera-Diaz June 13, 2023 Agendize Marina condition
issues and invite
Congressional Reps and
staff to be a part of the
discussion
Awaiting scope from
staff
September 10, 2024 Approved. Scope to
be presented to
Council in November
2024.
Public Works Requested June 13, 2023
13 Bregenzer June 20, 2023 Creation of an Unhoused
Commission
Awaiting scope from
staff
September 10, 2024 Approved. Scope to
be presented to
Council in November
2024.
City Manager/City
Attorney/City Clerk
Requested June 20, 2023
City of Vallejo - City Council Referrals
Sorted by Date of Request
Updated October 23, 2024 (following Council direction at October 22, 2024 Council meeting) Step 0 - Council Member requests at Council meeting that issue be agendized for future Council meeting to be considered for scoping Step 1 - Council discusses issue at a Council meeting to decide whether to direct staff to scope a project related to the issue Step 2 - Council discusses scope of project and decides whether to direct staff to implement project Step 3 - Council has directed staff to implement project and staff is working to complete project 15 Palmares July 11, 2023 Analysis and subsequent
presentation or report of
the following ordinances
· Tenant anti-
harassment
· Rent Control*
· Just Cause
Evictions*
· Condo/Apartment
Conversion ordinance that
would include rights to
refusal or the right to
buy or receive relocation
compensation
Awaiting scope from
staff
September 10, 2024 Approved. Scope to
be presented to
Council in November
2024.
Planning and
Development
Services, City
Attorney
Requested July 11, 2023;
Topic revised at September
10, 2024 Council meeting
Council to prioritize
requested items
*requested by
Councilmember Verder-Aliga
at 5/28/24 council
meeting.
The topic was narrowed at
the City Council meeting
on September 10, 2024.
18 Arriola September 26, 2023 Request on behalf of SAB
to amend ordinance to
change frequency of
regular meetings beyond bi-
monthly
CM Verder-Aliga supported
this at the 7/23/24 cc
mtg.
Awaiting scope from
staff
September 10, 2024 Approved. Scope to
be presented to
Council in November
2024.
Police Department,
City Attorney
Requested September 26,
2023
19 Bregenzer October 24, 2023 Discussion on building
permit fees for low-income
housing
Awaiting scope from
staff
September 10, 2024 Approved. Scope to
be presented to
Council in November
2024.
Planning and
Development Services
Requested October 24, 2023
20 Loera-Diaz October 24, 2023 Schedule Study Session on funding “how to help” for
non-profits and CM to
provide report mentioned
at 10/24 council mtg.
Awaiting scope from
staff
September 10, 2024 Approved. Scope to
be presented to
Council in November
2024.
City Manager Requested October 24, 2023
21 Bregenzer December 19, 2023 Consider supplementing VPD with Security Services
Awaiting scope from
staff
September 10, 2024 Approved. Scope to
be presented to
Council in November
2024.
Police Department Requested December 19,
2023
The City issued an RFP for
private security services
and is reviewing
proposals.
22 Bregenzer December 19, 2023 Consider placing
moratorium on Mills Act
requests until consistent
program is in place
Awaiting scope from
staff
September 10, 2024 Approved. Scope to
be presented to
Council in November
2024.
Planning and
Development Services
Requested December 19,
2023
23 Loera-Diaz December 19, 2023 Discuss rebranding of the VPD and change name to
Vallejo Police Services
Department
Awaiting scope from
staff
September 10, 2024 Approved. Scope to
be presented to
Council in November
2024.
City Manager/Police
Department
Requested December 19,
2023
24 Mayor
McConnell
Early 2024 Review of
Boards/Commissions/Committ
ees (mentioned at council
meeting)
Awaiting scope from
staff
September 10, 2024 Approved. Scope to
be presented to
Council in November
2024.
City Manager/City
Attorney/City Clerk
Requested unknown Received Scope of Work
(SOW) from MRG 12/2023.
Consultant completed work
and submitted a draft to
staff March 2024. Draft is
with Veronica and Andrew
to review/provide
comment/recommended
updates to draft.
Tentatively scheduled for
10/8/24 council meeting
City of Vallejo - City Council Referrals
Sorted by Date of Request
Updated October 23, 2024 (following Council direction at October 22, 2024 Council meeting) Step 0 - Council Member requests at Council meeting that issue be agendized for future Council meeting to be considered for scoping Step 1 - Council discusses issue at a Council meeting to decide whether to direct staff to scope a project related to the issue Step 2 - Council discusses scope of project and decides whether to direct staff to implement project Step 3 - Council has directed staff to implement project and staff is working to complete project 27 Verder-Aliga May 28, 2024 · Policy to
support Vallejo Community
Land Trust
· Tenant right
protection to Council
· Just cause
eviction protection*
· Rent
Stabilization*
Awaiting scope from
staff
September 10, 2024 Approved. Scope to
be presented to
Council in November
2024.
Planning and
Development Services
Requested May 28, 2024;
Topic revised at September
10, 2024 Council meeting
*requested by
Councilmember Palmares at
July 11, 2023 meeting.
Topic modified during
Council meeting on
September 10, 2024.28 Verder-Aliga May 28, 2024 Ordinance for COV will not take a position (ex.
Ceasefire/Gaza) in
international conflicts.
Similar to City of San
Jose
Awaiting scope from
staff
September 10, 2024 Approved. Scope to
be presented to
Council in November
2024.
City Manager/City
Attorney/City Clerk
Requested May 28, 2024
29 Loera-Diaz July 9, 2024 Consider & Direct the City
Manager to provide
quarterly reports to
Council on all Housing &
Public Works Projects
Awaiting scope from
staff
September 10, 2024 Approved. Scope to
be presented to
Council in November
2024.
City
Manager/Planning and
Development
Services/Public
Works
Requested July 9, 2024
30 Palmares,
Verder-Aliga
& McConnell
July 23, 2024 Creation of a Public
Safety Committee
Awaiting scope from
staff
September 10, 2024 Approved. Scope to
be presented to
Council in November
2024.
City Manager/City
Attorney/City
Clerk/Police
Department
Requested July 23, 2024 At Council meeting on
September 10, 2024,
Council directed that the
original referral
regarding a committee and
task force to be split
into two different
referrals. This is one
half of the original
referral.
32 Palmares,
Verder-Aliga
& McConnell
July 23, 2024 Creation of a Public
Safety Task Force
Awaiting scope from
staff
September 10, 2024 Approved. Scope to
be presented to
Council in November
2024.
City Manager/City
Attorney/City
Clerk/Police
Department
Requested July 23, 2024 There had previously been
one referral, 30, related
to a committee and task
force. At Council meeting
on September 10, 2024,
Council directed that
referral to be split into
two different referrals.
This is one half of the
original referral.33 Palmares September 10, 2024 Create short-term economic development strategy for
downtown
Pending Council
decision on whether
to direct staff to
scope
Economic Development
Department
8 Mayor
McConnell and
Arriola
May 12, 2023 Pursue creation of Vallejo
Vocational Arts School
Eliminated September 10, 2024 Referral withdrawn
by requester
City Manager Referral withdrawn by
requester at September 10,
2024 Council meeting
16 Palmares July 25, 2023 Discuss review of live
aboard fees at the Vallejo
Marina
Eliminated September 10, 2024 Referral withdrawn
by requester
Public Works Referral withdrawn by
requester at September 10,
2024 Council meeting
31 Palmares July 23, 2024 Address homelessness
encampments at Vallejo
Heights. Look at City of
New Orleans as they have
been successful. Meet with
Association and City staff
to come up with solutions
as expeditiously as
possible
Eliminated September 10, 2024 Referral withdrawn
by requester
City
Manager/Planning and
Development Services
Referral withdrawn by
requester at September 10,
2024 Council meeting
ACTION ITEM 9.E.
DATE: November 19, 2024
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Gillian Haen, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS
OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO THE PROPOSED APPLICATION TO PLACE LAND
WITHIN THE CITY OF VALLEJO IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TRIBE
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the CIty Manager to execute a Cooperative Agreement with the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California relating to the proposed application to place land within the CIty of Vallejo in trust for the benefit of the Tribe.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City may enter into the Cooperative Agreement with the Scotts Valley Tribe to ensure the City interests are protected regarding analysis of impacts from the Proposed Project that includes a gaming casino, Tribal housing and Tribal Administration buildings on 160 acres in the proposed Fee to Trust application located at I- 80 and Admiral Callahan. This Agreement would allow the City to continue analyzing the environmental impacts and negotiating with the Tribe, without committing to a position on the project. Since the CIty has no approval authority over the Proposed Project, it is recommended that we enter into this Agreement to preserve our right to mitigate potential impacts of the potential project.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Background
In July 2024, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the potential environmental consequences of the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians (Tribe) proposed Casino and Tribal Housing Project, which includes the acquisition by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) of a 160- acre property into federal trust status for the benefit of the Tribe for gaming purposes. The Project Site consists of four parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers 0182010010, 0182020020, 0182020080, 0182020010) within the City of Vallejo in Solano County, California. The Project Site is bordered by I-80 to the west; Columbus Parkway and commercial development to the south; undeveloped land to the north; and undeveloped land, City water tank, electrical substation, and Vallejo Fire Station #27 to the east. The Project Site is undeveloped except for several unpaved ranch roads and a horse boarding facility. Following the acquisition of the Project Site into federal trust, the Tribe proposes to develop a casino facility, Tribal housing, a Tribal administration building, and associated parking and infrastructure on the Project Site (Proposed Project). The federal actions necessary to implement the Proposed Project trigger the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For the purpose of this EA, the BIA will serve as the Lead Agency for compliance with NEPA and the City of Vallejo is a Responsible Agency. On July 8, 2024, the BIA circulated the NEPA EA for public review.
The City of Vallejo analyzed the document and submitted comments to the BIA on August 22, 2024 regarding potential impacts on the City. City staff also participated in the public hearing on the document on July 23, 2024.
Date: November 19, 2024
Subject: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO
INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO THE PROPOSED APPLICATION TO
PLACE LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF VALLEJO IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE TRIBE
Prior to the City submitting its comment letter, the Scotts Valley Tribe reached out to City staff to discuss the potential impacts on the City of Vallejo. The Tribe offered to engage with the City to further study and analyze the potential impacts of the Proposed Project and discuss potential mitigation measures for the potential impacts on the City.
Scotts Valley Tribe Proposed Project Process
The Tribe must complete two processes before the Proposed Project can be approved. The Fee to Trust application and then the Gaming Compact negotiation with the Governor if the Tribe chooses to develop a Class III Gaming facility. A class II facility would not require a compact. The City does not hold discretionary approval over either of these processes. The City's role is limited to Responsible Agency status relating to the environmental impact assessment in the Fee to Trust process.
Federal Fee to Trust Application
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) land-to-trust process, also known as a fee-to-trust land acquisition, which the Tribe has applied for, involves the following steps:
Application: Eligible applicants submit a written request to the BIA's Office of Trust Services. Tribes can use a tribal resolution to meet this requirement.
• Notice of application: The BIA Regional Office issues a Notice of Land Acquisition Application. • Comments: The BIA Regional Office collects comments on the proposed transaction for 30 days. • Response: The applicant has 30 days to respond to the comments. • Environmental analysis: The BIA considers the appropriate environmental analysis. This is the step the Tribe is currently taking and the City is involved through the comment process of the environmental document.
• Decision: The BIA issues a Notice of Decision within 120 days of notifying the applicant that their application is complete.
Gaming Compact Application
• If the BIA approves the Tribe's Fee to Trust application, the Tribe may submit a request to negotiate a Tribal State Gaming Compact with the California Governor detailing the types of gaming allowed on the reservation, including specific game types and revenue sharing with the State. Without the Gaming Contract, the Tribe's gaming facilities are limited to Class II gaming (card rooms and bingo games). • Federal Approval: The negotiated compact must be approved by the federal government. • Tribal Gaming Ordinance: The Tribe must establish a tribal gaming ordinance outlining how the casino will be operated, including regulations on gaming activities, revenue distribution, and background checks.
• NIGC Review: The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) must review and approve the Tribe's gaming ordinance.
Proposed Cooperative Agreement with the Tribe
The Tribe is interested in executing a Cooperative Agreement with the City in order to further discuss and analyze environmental and community impacts from the proposed project. Since the City submitted a detailed Date: November 19, 2024
Subject: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO
INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO THE PROPOSED APPLICATION TO
PLACE LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF VALLEJO IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE TRIBE
letter of our concerns with the potential project impacts, the City and the Tribe would like to increase the analysis in the impact areas and discuss potential mitigation to reduce those impacts. This Cooperative Agreement allows for the Tribe to fund further analysis of the impact areas through a Reimbursement Agreement, so that the City can assess what potential mitigations, if any, could mitigate the impacts to our community.
The Cooperative Agreement formalizes the Parties’ commitment to initiating discussions and establishing a foundational framework for cooperative negotiations on matters of shared interest relating to the Proposed Project and Project Site. Immediately upon the execution of this Cooperative Agreement, the Parties shall commence diligent and good faith negotiations and shall otherwise use their best efforts to finalize, approve, execute and deliver an Intergovernmental Agreement. The purpose of the Intergovernmental Agreement is to provide for binding and enforceable mitigations of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Proposed Project, including but not limited to:
Water Infrastructure, Easements, Capacity and Supply: Design, connection, and expansion of water services to support the Proposed Project and Project Site’s development, including any necessary easements, infrastructure, necessary supply, and capacity expansion.
Sewer, Wastewater and Stormwater: Coordinating with the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District and the City on the establishment of appropriate easements and infrastructure necessary for wastewater and stormwater services and capacity therefor.
Vehicle and Emergency Access: Ensuring adequate access to the Proposed Project and Project Site for vehicles, including emergency services, to maintain public safety and facilitate emergency response.
Transportation Infrastructure and Capacity: Design, planning and construction of necessary infrastructure for traffic and transportation to address both local and regional impacts.
Public Safety Services: Identifying service level capacity necessary for law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services to be provided in connection with the proposed Project impacts.
Social Impacts: Identifying adequate measures to address social impacts resulting from the Proposed Project, such as gambling addiction, personal bankruptcies, prostitution, drug addiction, and crime are addressed.
Other Impacts: Facilitating discussions of any other impacts identified in the Environmental Assessment or those which may be identified by the Parties during the negotiations contemplated herein.
Benefits and Risks of Entering into the Agreement
The City does not hold any approval authority over the Fee to Trust or the Gaming Compact processes. Approval of this Agreement would allow the City the opportunity to further study the potential impacts of the Proposed Project, the costs of which would be reimbursed through a Reimbursement Agreement with the Tribe, and solidify appropriate mitigation through a future Intergovernmental Agreement. Technical expert consultants would be engaged for this analysis and these studies would create the foundation for the analysis to support potential future mitigation in an effort to protect the City from negative impacts of the Proposed Project.
The benefit of the Cooperative Agreement for the Tribe is, they would be able to document additional analysis necessary to define impacts and mitigations for their proposed project in the BIA environmental document, while directly communicating with City staff and receiving review, input, and facts to support potential project mitigation. The Tribe has also communicated its values related to being a good neighbor and taking care of the City of Vallejo as a priority since they believe their ancestors have historically been in the area. The benefit for the City of the Cooperative Agreement is that the City would be able to ensure our interests are protected through technical consultant expert analysis of the impact areas and input on potential mitigations to ensure Date: November 19, 2024
Subject: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO
INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO THE PROPOSED APPLICATION TO
PLACE LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF VALLEJO IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE TRIBE
that if this project moves ahead, the City’s needs are protected. Similar examples of mitigation and community benefit contributions for local governments who have entered into similar agreements include one Bay Area county receiving one time fees of over $5M for impacts and recurring fees of $17M a year in addition to a community benefit yearly payment towards parks of $30M per year and $12M per year in community grants. Another Bay Area city receives $14M a year in recurring payments for mitigations and community benefits. In contrast, another Bay Area city that chose not to negotiate mitigations receives no recurring payments. The opportunity to work together with the Tribe to ensure the City of Vallejo is protected from the Proposed Project impacts is a positive way to provide safeguards so that if the project moves ahead, the impacts are fairly mitigated.
Risks of not moving forward with the Cooperative Agreement are that the Tribe may proceed in this process without involving the City. The BIA analysis of mitigation may not be the same as the City of Vallejo analysis on appropriate mitigation, therefore we cannot completely rely on the EA process to protect the City's interests. The City water transmission line on the property, the City water tank, and the fact that the hillside is a documented landslide zone are a few of the larger concerns that need further analysis and mitigation relating to potential future project impacts. Since the City does not have approval authority, it is a better position to prepare for the most impactful outcome and protect our City interests.
The City has the right to terminate the Agreement at any time. Signing the Agreement does not commit the City to any position regarding the Proposed Project. If the negotiations are fruitful, the Parties will be working towards an Intergovernmental Agreement to formalize the binding mitigation to protect the City's interests but the overall commitment level at this time is minor since the termination clause allows the City to withdraw for any reason at our sole discretion.
Overall Proposed Project Concerns
Community concerns regarding casinos in general are fairly common. One of the benefits of entering into the Cooperative Agreement is that it provides the City a path to independent analysis of areas of concern that are specific to Vallejo in order to ensure mitigation reduces impacts if the project moves forward and is approved by the BIA.
Next Steps
If the City Council approves the Cooperative Agreement and negotiations are fruitful, the next step is to negotiate an Intergovernmental Agreement. There will be additional opportunities for public input during the Intergovernmental Agreement process.
Given the above information, staff recommends that the City Council enter into the Cooperative Agreement with the Tribe in order to take a proactive approach to this process.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no budget impacts as a result of this Cooperative Agreement. City staff anticipates that there will be a reimbursement agreement executed between the Tribe and City that will cover all of the City's costs for implementation of the Cooperative Agreement.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Date: November 19, 2024
Subject: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO
INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO THE PROPOSED APPLICATION TO
PLACE LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF VALLEJO IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE TRIBE
This action is not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not an action 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 Guidelines section 15378.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Execute Cooperative Agreement with Pomo Band of Indians of California_CAO Stamp
2. 20241113 Cooperative Agreement FINAL
3. Response to Scotts Valley EA 8-22-24
CONTACT
Gillian Haen, Assistant City Manager (707) 648-4576
[email protected]
RESOLUTION NO. 24- _____ N.C.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE SCOTTS
VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO THE PROPOSED
APPLICATION TO PLACE LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF VALLEJO IN TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE TRIBE
WHEREAS, both Parties have engaged in preliminary discussions concerning various matters of mutual interest and concern relating to four parcels of undeveloped land located within and adjacent to the City of Vallejo boundary in Solano County, California, known to both Parties as the “Project Site,” and identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 0182-010-010; 0182-020-010; 0182-020-020, and 0182-020-080; and
WHEREAS, the Tribe has submitted an application (Application) to the United States Department of the Interior requesting that the United States take title to the Project Site so that it will be held in trust for the benefit of the Tribe. As part of the Application, the Tribe has proposed a gaming project and project alternatives as set forth in the Environmental Assessment (Proposed Project); and
WHEREAS, the City has an interest in ensuring that if the Project Site is taken into Trust, impacts from the Proposed Project on Vallejo are adequately mitigated through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment process; and WHEREAS, the Project Site is bordered by I-80 to the west; Columbus Parkway and commercial development to the south; undeveloped land to the north; and undeveloped land, City water tank, electrical substation, and Vallejo Fire Station #27 to the east; and WHEREAS, in the event the Department of the Interior agrees to place the Project Site into Trust for the benefit of the Tribe absent an agreement, the City would have limited regulatory authority over the Project Site or the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the Parties agree that if the trust application to the BIA is approved, among other priorities, the provision of emergency services and public utilities to the Proposed Project and Project Site benefits the Tribe, the City and the citizens of the region by protecting the health and safety of persons on or near the Proposed Project and Project Site; and WHEREAS, as the Department of the Interior completes its environmental assessment of the Proposed Project and Project Site, both Parties recognize the importance and need for immediate discussions to occur on the various topics of mutual interest concerning the Proposed Project and Project Site that include, but are not limited to: water infrastructure; existing and potential future easements and supply capacity related to same; wastewater, sewer, and storm drainage easements and capacity; vehicle and emergency vehicle access to the Project Site; transportation infrastructure and capacity; public safety capacity and response; and any other environmental impact area potentially affecting the City, its residents, businesses, and visitors; and
WHEREAS, both Parties acknowledge that the above-mentioned topics of mutual interest require prompt attention and commitment to mitigate any potential impacts caused by future development of the Proposed Project and Project Site and wish to memorialize such terms in writing; and
WHEREAS, the Parties intend to incorporate these topics, as well as any other negotiated terms, into a separate and subsequent Intergovernmental Agreement; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Cooperative Agreement is to establish a legally enforceable framework for negotiating and entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement to mitigate the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on the City of Vallejo; and WHEREAS, the Tribe and the City intend to establish a cooperative and mutually respectful government-to-government relationship between each other with respect to the Tribe’s potential development of the Proposed Project and Project Site and mitigation of potential impacts that are caused by future development of the Proposed Project and Project Site; and WHEREAS, this Agreement establishes a procedure for negotiation of a government payment and funding mechanism and, by executing this Agreement and the activities contemplated herein, the City does not commit itself to any project as that term is defined under the California Environmental Quality Act or the NEPA; and
WHEREAS, the Parties expressly intend for the Intergovernmental Agreement to replace and supersede this Cooperative Agreement, and that upon its execution, the Cooperative Agreement shall be rendered null and void; and
WHEREAS, this Cooperative Agreement is not intended to limit the City’s rights under applicable law to address the adequacy or appropriateness of the environmental analysis in the Environmental Assessment.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the Cooperative Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A, with any modifications recommended by the City Attorney or the City Manager.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Vallejo at a regular meeting held on November 19, 2024, with the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________________
ROBERT MCCONNELL, MAYOR
ATTEST: ______________________________________
DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON, CITY CLERK
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA
AND
CITY OF VALLEJO
THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (“Cooperative Agreement”) is made and entered into this ___ day of ______, 2024, by and between Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California (the “Tribe”), a federally recognized Indian tribe and the City of Vallejo (the “City”), a California municipal corporation. Each referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, both Parties have engaged in preliminary discussions concerning various matters of mutual interest and concern relating to four parcels of undeveloped land located within and adjacent to the City of Vallejo boundary in Solano County, California, known to both Parties as the “Project Site,” and identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 0182-010-010; 0182-020-010; 0182-020-020, and 0182-020-080; and
WHEREAS, the Tribe has submitted an application (the “Application”) to the United States Department of the Interior requesting that the United States take title to the Project Site so that it will be held in trust for the benefit of the Tribe. As part of the Application, the Tribe has proposed a gaming project and project alternatives as set forth in the Environmental Assessment (Proposed Project); and
WHEREAS, the City has an interest in ensuring that if the Project Site is taken into Trust, impacts from the Proposed Project on Vallejo are adequately mitigated through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment process; and WHEREAS, the Project Site is bordered by I-80 to the west; Columbus Parkway and commercial development to the south; undeveloped land to the north; and undeveloped land, City water tank, electrical substation, and Vallejo Fire Station #27 to the east; and WHEREAS, the Parties agree that if the Application to the Department of the Interior is approved, among other priorities, the provision of emergency services and public utilities to the Proposed Project and Project Site benefits the Tribe, the City and the citizens of the region by protecting the health and safety of persons on or near the Proposed Project and Project Site; and WHEREAS, as the Department of the Interior completes its environmental assessment of the Proposed Project and Project Site, both Parties recognize the importance and need for immediate discussions to occur on the various topics of mutual interest and concern regarding the Proposed
Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo Project and Project Site that include, but are not limited to: water infrastructure; existing and potential future easements and supply capacity related to same; wastewater, sewer, and storm drainage easements and capacity; vehicle and emergency vehicle access to the Project Site; transportation infrastructure and capacity; public safety capacity and response; and any other environmental impact area potentially affecting the City, its residents, businesses, and visitors; and
WHEREAS, both Parties acknowledge that the above-mentioned topics of mutual interest and concern require prompt attention and commitment to mitigate any potential impacts caused by future development of the Proposed Project and Project Site and wish to memorialize such terms in writing; and
WHEREAS, the Parties intend to address these topics, as well as any other negotiated terms, in a separate and subsequent Intergovernmental Agreement; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Cooperative Agreement is to establish a legally enforceable framework for negotiating a potential Intergovernmental Agreement to mitigate the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on the City of Vallejo; and WHEREAS, the Tribe and the City intend to establish a cooperative and mutually respectful government-to-government relationship between each other with respect to the Tribe’s potential development of the Proposed Project and Project Site and mitigation of potential impacts that are caused by future development of the Proposed Project and Project Site; and WHEREAS, this Agreement establishes a procedure for negotiation of a government payment and funding mechanism and, by executing this Agreement and the activities contemplated herein, the City does not commit itself to any project as that term is defined under the California Environmental Quality Act or the NEPA; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement does not constitute a “project” for CEQA purposes because it involves the creation of a government funding mechanism and/or other government fiscal activity. The terms in this Agreement do not involve any commitment to any “ project” outside of tribal trust land which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment and only require the Tribe to make payments for identified mitigation measures and community benefit programs. This Agreement does not obligate the City to undertake any specified mitigation measure or program or construction project nor does it set a time for development as those terms are used in CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes and acknowledges that the Proposed Project will be located inside the incorporated boundaries of the City and that, if acquired into trust status, the City would have no authority to exercise jurisdiction over the Proposed Project. The City will not have legal authority to deliberate on, approve, disapprove, or otherwise exercise judgment regarding the Proposed Project. The City is therefore not deliberating on, approving,
Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo disapproving, or otherwise exercising judgment regarding the Proposed Project by entering into this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Parties expressly intend for the Intergovernmental Agreement to replace and supersede this Cooperative Agreement, and that upon its execution, the Cooperative Agreement shall be rendered null and void; and
WHEREAS, this Cooperative Agreement is not intended to limit the City’s rights under applicable law to address the adequacy or appropriateness of the environmental analysis in the Environmental Assessment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Objective, Intent, and Purpose
The purpose of this Cooperative Agreement is to formalize the Parties’ commitment to initiating discussions and establishing a foundational framework for cooperative negotiations on matters of shared interest relating to the Proposed Project and Project Site. Immediately upon the execution of this Cooperative Agreement, the Parties shall commence diligent and good faith negotiations and shall otherwise use their best efforts to finalize, approve, execute and deliver an Intergovernmental Agreement to meet the objectives described herein. The purpose of the Intergovernmental Agreement is to provide for binding and enforceable mitigations of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Proposed Project, including but not limited to:
(a) Water Infrastructure, Easements, Capacity and Supply: Design, connection, and expansion of water services to support the Proposed Project and Project Site’s development, including any necessary easements, infrastructure, necessary supply, and capacity expansion.
(b) Sewer, Wastewater and Stormwater: Coordinating with the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District and the City on the establishment of appropriate easements and infrastructure necessary for wastewater and stormwater services and capacity therefor. (c) Vehicle and Emergency Access: Ensuring adequate access to the Proposed Project and Project Site for vehicles, including emergency services, to maintain public safety and facilitate emergency response.
(d) Transportation Infrastructure and Capacity: Design, planning and construction of necessary infrastructure for traffic and transportation to address local and regional impacts.
Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo (e) Public Safety Services: Identifying service level capacity necessary for law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services to be provided in connection with the Proposed Project impacts.
(f) Social Impacts: Identifying adequate measures to address social impacts resulting from the Proposed Project, such as gambling addiction, personal bankruptcies, prostitution, drug addiction, and crime.
(g) Other Impacts: Facilitating discussions of any other impacts identified in the Environmental Assessment or those which may be identified by the Parties during the negotiations contemplated herein.
This Cooperative Agreement serves as an initial step towards a comprehensive Intergovernmental Agreement that will formalize the specific terms and conditions related to these topics, as well as any other matters mutually agreed upon by the Parties. Negotiations for the Intergovernmental Agreement will be guided by a mutual evaluation of each Party’s specific needs, standards, and resource capacities. This Cooperative Agreement also serves to identify ways for the Tribe and the City to work together to provide services and benefits to the Tribal community and City of Vallejo residents. The Tribe agrees to enter into a Reimbursement Agreement to reimburse the City for all costs and expenses incurred by the City in connection with the technical expert analysis required to inform the parties of the potential impacts and potential mitigations of the Proposed Project, plus a 20% Administrative fee.
2. Scope of Discussions
The discussions under this Cooperative Agreement will focus on key areas essential to the completion of the Environment Assessment of the Proposed Project and Project Site described in Section 1. The Parties are committed to promptly engaging in discussions to reach mutual understanding on these topics and incorporate the agreed-upon terms into a future Intergovernmental Agreement.
Additionally, the Parties may explore other relevant topics, including but not limited to:
(i) biological resources, (ii) transportation and traffic management, (iii) visual and aesthetic considerations, (iv) geotechnical issues and landslide risk, (v) market studies and economic analysis, (vi) utility easement locations, and (vii) environmental impacts identified in the final Environmental Assessment prepared by the Department of the Interior. The Parties agree to consider any additional topics that may arise during the course of discussions.
3. Intergovernmental Agreement
The terms and conditions established through negotiations under this Cooperative Agreement, along with any additional topics identified during the discussions, will be formalized in a subsequent Intergovernmental Agreement which will be applicable if the United States
Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo Department of the Interior places the Project Site into Trust. The Intergovernmental Agreement will incorporate the mutually agreed-upon topics set forth in this Cooperative Agreement and any other provisions that the Parties determine necessary to support the development and ongoing cooperation regarding the proposed Project and Project Site. The primary purpose of the Intergovernmental Agreement will be to provide a funding mechanism for the Tribe to compensate the City relating to the topics of interest identified herein, as well as to provide reasonable compensation to offset impacts to public safety and other impacts attributable to development and tribal gaming activities on the proposed Project and Project Site.
4. Mutual Topics of Interest
As the Department of the Interior’s consideration of the acquisition of the Project Site into trust for the Tribe progresses, the Tribe and the City commit to ongoing consultation and cooperation on the following areas:
4.1. Emergency Services Provision
The Tribe and the City will work in good faith to establish the terms of an Intergovernmental Agreement for the delivery of emergency services to the Proposed Project and Project Site. This will include:
(a) Law Enforcement: Negotiating provisions for law enforcement services post trust acquisition, including, but not limited to: addressing the City’s requirements for training, vehicles, and personnel necessary to support law enforcement efforts at the Proposed Project and Project Site.
(b) Fire and Emergency Medical Services: Currently, Vallejo Fire Station #27 serves the Proposed Project and Project Site. The Intergovernmental Agreement will include but is not limited to provision of fire protection and emergency medical service post-trust acquisition at the Proposed Project and Project Site. At the Tribe’s request, the City will also negotiate terms for conducting fire inspection services at the Proposed Project and Project Site.
4.2. Infrastructure and Utility Connectivity
The Tribe plans to integrate City utility connections to serve development within the Proposed Project and Project Site, adhering to the City’s development guidelines and public works standards. Key aspects include:
(a) Design and Approval: Utility connections will be designed to meet City requirements, with the City responsible for reviewing and approving designs, as well as inspecting the connections. Fees and rates for City utility services will be consistent with those applied to other City customers.
Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo (b) Coordination of Utilities: The Tribe and the City will coordinate, as needed, to facilitate the extension of City utilities to and throughout the Proposed Project and Project Site. (c) Easements for Utilities: The Tribe will grant easements to the City for accessing and maintaining utility improvements that are maintained or owned by the City within the Proposed Project and Project Site, including an easement for the City’s water tank access and maintenance.
4.3. Roadways
The Tribe will retain ownership of all roadways within the Proposed Project and Project Site and will be responsible for the associated design, construction, and maintenance costs. The Intergovernmental Agreement with the City will include:
(a) Traffic Management: City approval of design and construction of improvements related to traffic impacts such as: new roadways, lane widening, traffic control measures, and regulatory signage.
(b) Emergency and Alternative Access: Negotiating and designing easements for emergency access and alternative roadways across City or other lands to ensure adequate ingress and egress including construction and maintenance of same.
4.4. Land Use.
The Intergovernmental Agreement shall include terms for addressing land use impacts arising from the development of the Proposed Project and Project Site.
Specifically, the Parties agree that the Intergovernmental Agreement will address the City’s interests and concerns regarding infrastructure on the trust land that may have an impact on the surrounding off-trust land areas. The Tribe will work collaboratively with the City to assess and address such concerns to ensure that any potential impacts on the City’s infrastructure systems and services are analyzed and mitigated appropriately. Furthermore, the Tribe will be responsible for obtaining land use approvals and building permits from the City for off-trust land infrastructure development. Any off-trust land development associated with the Proposed Project shall be subject to the City’s zoning and development standards, including but not limited to the City of Vallejo Zoning Code, California Building Code, California Fire Code, and other City-adopted uniform codes set forth in Title 12 of the Vallejo Municipal Code.
The Tribe acknowledges and agrees that the Proposed Project shall comply with the building and construction standards of the California Building Code and California Administrative Code or alternatively such standards of the International Building Code and International Code Council. In addition, the Tribe will agree to meet the City’s building and safety standards. The Tribe will agree to consult with the City concerning the design of the
Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo Proposed Project and to receive the City’s input as to the Proposed Project design.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge that the City does not have any jurisdiction or regulatory authority over the design of the Proposed Project, does not have legal authority to approve or disapprove the Proposed Project design, and that the decision of the Tribe to accept or reject input from the City as to the Proposed Project design shall be wholly voluntary for the Tribe and within the Tribe’s sole discretion. While no City-issued permits are required for construction on trust land, the Tribe shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that its design and construction meet qualifications and standards equivalent to those required by the City, where applicable to other properties within the City. .
4.5 Addressing Other Potential City Impacts
The Intergovernmental Agreement will include terms for addressing potential impacts arising from the development of the Proposed Project and Project Site, such as:
(a) Traffic and Community Services: Evaluating and mitigating any increased demands on traffic, community services, utilities, and land use compatibility. (b) Environmental Considerations: Facilitating discussions around environmental impacts, including wastewater and stormwater management.
(c) Economic Considerations: Facilitating discussions of the Tribe’s fair share of fees, taxes, assessments and other revenues that the City may lose as a result of the Proposed Project.
(d) Housing Considerations: Facilitating discussions around mitigating the loss to the City’s potential housing capacity.
(e) Other Considerations: Facilitating discussions of impacts not expressly identified herein which may arise throughout the Environmental Assessment, trust and gaming compact process.
5. Wastewater and Stormwater Management
The Tribe acknowledges that the City does not provide wastewater or most stormwater services and will seek a separate agreement with the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District for those services controlled by the District.
6. City Non-Opposition
Provided the Intergovernmental Agreement is timely executed by the Parties and in consideration of the covenants of the Tribe within this Cooperative Agreement, the City agrees not to oppose any efforts by the Tribe to cause the Department of the Interior to accept trust title to the Project Site for the benefit of the Tribe.
Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo
7. Term
This Cooperative Agreement shall be effective as of the date first written above and shall continue in effect until: 1) superseded by the execution of a formalized Intergovernmental Agreement; 2) terminated by the City in accordance with Section 9, below; 3) the Application is withdrawn before a final determination is made by the Department of the Interior; or 4) a final determination is made by the Department of the Interior to not take the Project Site into Trust, whichever occurs first.
8. Dispute Resolution
In an effort to foster good government-to-government relationships, the Parties agree to the dispute resolution procedures set forth in this Section. The Parties shall make their best efforts to resolve claims of breach of this Cooperative Agreement by good faith negotiations whenever possible. Any such disputes between the Parties shall first be subjected to a process of meeting and conferring in good faith in order to foster a spirit of cooperation in the efficiency in the administration of the terms, provisions and conditions of this Cooperative Agreement as follows:
(a) A Party shall give the other party, as soon as possible after the event giving rise to the dispute, written notice setting forth, with specificity, the claims that constitute breach of this Cooperative Agreement.
(b) The Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to resolve such a dispute through negotiation not later than 10 days after receipt of the notice, unless the Parties agree in writing to the extension of time.
This section may not be construed to waive, limit, or restrict the ability of the Parties to pursue, by mutual agreement, any other method of dispute resolution including, but not limited to, arbitration, mediation, or utilization of a technical advisor to the Parties; provided, however, that no party is under an obligation to agree to such alternative method of dispute resolution.
9. Termination
The City has the right, at any time and in its sole discretion, to immediately terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the Tribe.
Upon termination of this Agreement as provided herein, none of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to survive such termination and neither party shall have any liability to the other Party with respect to any matters arising under or related to this Agreement.
10. Confidential Information
Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo The Parties agree that, to the extent permitted by law, any non-public information disclosed during the negotiations or performance of this Cooperative Agreement (“Confidential Information”) shall be treated as confidential. Confidential Information may include proprietary business data, financial details, trade secrets, or any other information that is reasonably designated as confidential by the Tribe as the disclosing party.
The City shall not disclose any Confidential Information to third Parties except as required by law, including, but not limited to, the California Public Records Act (CPRA), or by court order. If a request for disclosure of Confidential Information provided by the Tribe is made under the CPRA, the City shall promptly notify the Tribe. The City will cooperate with the Tribe’s efforts to seek a protective order or other remedy to maintain confidentiality, if requested.
The confidentiality obligations set forth herein shall not apply to information that: (i) becomes publicly available through no wrongful act or omission of the City as the receiving Party; (ii) is lawfully received from a third party without an obligation of confidentiality; (iii) is independently developed by the City as the receiving party without reference to the disclosed Confidential Information; or (iv) must be disclosed pursuant to a legal obligation, regulation, or court order.
11. Governing Law; Venue.
This Cooperative Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.
Venue shall be in Solano County.
12. Limited Waiver of Sovereign Immunity
Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the Tribe expressly and irrevocably waives Sovereign Immunity (and defenses based thereon), in favor of the City, but not to any other person or entity, as to any dispute which specifically arises under this Cooperative Agreement, and not as to any other actions, matters, or disputes. The waiver shall include a resolution of the General Council of the Tribe, in a form similar to attachment ‘A.’
13. Miscellaneous
13.1Notices. All notices, requests, demands, and other communications under this Cooperative Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given on the date of service if served personally on the Party to whom notice is to be given, or on the third day after mailing if mailed to the Party to whom notice is to be given, by first class mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, and properly addressed as follows:
As to the Tribe: Office of the Chairman
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians
Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo 804 Eleventh Street
Lakeport CA 95453
With a copy to: Patrick R. Bergin
Peebles Bergin Schulte & Robinson LLP
2020 L Street, Ste. 250
Sacramento, CA 95811
As to the City: City Manager
City of Vallejo
555 Santa Clara Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
With a copy to: City Attorney
City of Vallejo
555 Santa Clara Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
Either Party may change its address for the purposes of this Cooperative Agreement by providing written notice of the new address to the other Party.
12.2Limitation of Liability. Neither Party shall be liable to the other for any indirect, special, incidental, punitive, or consequential damages, including but not limited to loss of profits, revenue, data, or use, incurred by either Party or any third party, whether in an action based on contract, tort, or otherwise, even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
12.3No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Cooperative Agreement does not confer any rights or benefits upon any person or entity other than the Parties, their successors, or permitted assigns.
12.4Severability. If any provision of this Cooperative Agreement is found to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will remain in full force and effect. To the extent possible, the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision will be modified to reflect the original intent of the Parties while complying with applicable law.
12.5Waiver. No delay or failure by either Party to exercise any right, power, or privilege under this Cooperative Agreement will be deemed a waiver of such right, power, or privilege. A waiver of any breach shall not constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach.
Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo
12.6Amendment; Modification. This Cooperative Agreement may be amended or modified only by a written instrument signed by both Parties. No amendment shall be effective unless it is in writing and signed by both Parties.
12.7Neutral Interpretation. This Cooperative Agreement shall be interpreted in an impartial manner, without regard to which Party drafted any provision. Both Parties acknowledge that they have had the opportunity to negotiate the terms and therefore agree that no presumption will arise against the drafting Party in interpreting or enforcing the Agreement.
12.8Headings. The headings and captions in this Cooperative Agreement are for convenience and reference only and do not affect the interpretation or scope of the provisions.
12.9Counterparts. This Cooperative Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
12.10Electronic Signature. The Parties agree that this Cooperative Agreement may be executed by electronic signatures, which shall be considered equivalent to handwritten signatures for all purposes. The Parties further agree not to challenge the validity of this Cooperative Agreement solely on the basis that it was signed electronically.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Cooperative Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives and have executed this Cooperative Agreement as of the date first written above.
CITY OF VALLEJO:
Date:_____________ By:___________________________________ Robert H. McConnell Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY:
Date:_____________ By:___________________________________ Veronica Nebb, Esq.
City Attorney
SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS:
Date:_____________ By:___________________________________ Shawn Davis
Tribal Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY COUNSEL FOR THE TRIBE:
Date:_____________ By:___________________________________ Patrick R. Bergin, Esq.
Peebles Bergin Schulte & Robinson LLP
Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo
ATTACHMENT A
SCOTTS VALLEY GENERAL COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. S.V. # ___-_____
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL BY THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE
SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS FOR A CERTAIN LIMITED WAIVER
OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND CONSENT TO JURISDICTION FOR THE
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO
INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA AND CITY OF VALLEJO
WHEREAS, The Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians (“Band”) is a sovereign, self-governing Indian Tribe formally recognized by the United States Government; and WHEREAS, The Band is organized under the Constitution of the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Sugar Bowl Reservation ("Constitution"), adopted and approved September 24, 1994; and
WHEREAS, Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution vests the General Council with the reserved authority to waive the Band's sovereign immunity to uncontested suit; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Article III of the Constitution, the governing body of the Band is the Tribal Council; and
WHEREAS, Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution vests the Tribal Council with the appropriate powers necessary to implement the provisions of the Constitution of Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians and to effectively govern the affairs of Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians; and
WHEREAS, The jurisdiction of the Band extends to all those lands held in trust, or hereinafter acquired in trust by the United States of America for the Band or any member thereof; and
WHEREAS, The Band and the City of Vallejo (“City”) intend to establish a cooperative and mutually respectful government-to-government relationship between each other and have entered into a Cooperative Agreement, authorized by Tribal Council Resolution No.____ , for the purpose of negotiating topics of mutual interest and concern in an Intergovernmental Agreement regarding the Band’s proposed casino and tribal housing project in Vallejo; and
Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo WHEREAS, by Tribal Council Resolution No.____ , the Tribal Council has requested that the General Council approve a limited waiver of the Tribe's sovereign immunity with regard to disputes specifically arising under the Cooperative Agreement as provided and to the extent set forth in the Cooperative Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A. Delegation of Authority to Offer Limited Waiver of Sovereign Immunity. The General Council hereby authorizes the grant of a limited waiver of sovereign immunity and authorizes the Tribal Council to effectuate the waiver on behalf of the Band to the City of Vallejo (the “City”), for the purpose of executing the Cooperative Agreement, provided that such waivers are in compliance in all material respects with this Resolution and the limitations set forth herein.
B. Prescription on Recourse under Limitations of Waivers of Sovereign Immunity. The limited waiver of sovereign immunity the Tribal Council authorizes and approves on behalf of the Band must comply in all material respects with the limited purposes according to the conditions set forth in this Resolution, must specifically identify the benefiting party, and must be in accordance with this Resolution.
C. Limited Waiver of Sovereign Immunity. The Band does not consent to a waiver of sovereign immunity from suit except for the limited purpose as set forth in this section. The grant of a waiver sovereign immunity set forth herein only applies to the City and solely for the purpose of permitting processes, including but not limited to obtaining land use approvals and building permits from the City as contained in the Cooperative Agreement. This waiver does not extend to any actions beyond the scope of permitting and land use approvals pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement. Except as expressly stated herein, nothing in this limited waiver of sovereign immunity shall be deemed a further waiver of the Band’s sovereign immunity or a consent to the jurisdiction of any State or Federal court or any other body.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the General Council authorizes the Chairman of the Tribal Council and the Tribe’s designated representatives to take any necessary actions to implement the provisions of this resolution and to finalize and execute the Cooperative Agreement with the City of Vallejo.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be effective immediately upon approval by the General Council.
CERTIFICATION
We, the undersigned duly elected officials of the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a duly-called meeting of the General Council on this_____ day of ___________, 2024, at which a quorum was present, by a vote of ______for, _____ against, and ____abstentions. ·
By:
Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo _________________________________
Tribal Chairman
By:
_________________________________
Tribal Secretary
Office of the City Manager ∙ 555 Santa Clara Street ∙ Vallejo ∙ CA ∙ 94590 ∙ 707.648.4576 August 22, 2024
To:
Chad Broussard, Environmental Protection Specialist
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Pacific Regional Office
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento, CA 95825
Via email: [email protected]
From:
Andrew Murray,
City Manager
City of Vallejo
555 Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
Vallejo, CA 04590
Email: [email protected]
Re: Environmental Assessment, Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians Casino and Tribal Fee-to- Trust Project. July, 2024
Mr. Broussard,
On behalf of the City of Vallejo, thank you for considering these comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the for the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians proposed fee-to-trust Casino and Tribal Housing project. The City is mindful of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) role in reviewing and deciding on the application made by the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians, and its role as trustee. The City is respectful of tribal sovereignty and understands the need for tribal self-determination and economic development to provide for tribal members, their families, and their future.
At the same time, the City of Vallejo is committed to ensuring that impacts to the environment are clearly and appropriately identified, analyzed, and mitigated with clear, specific, timely measures. Section 102 in Title I of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental considerations in their planning and decision- making through a systematic interdisciplinary approach. Specifically, all federal agencies are to prepare detailed statements assessing the environmental impact of and alternatives to major federal actions significantly affecting the environment.
Regrettably, in this case, the EA released in July is flawed and does not contain sufficient information or analysis to assess the environmental impact of the project. Nor does the EA contain specific and quantifiable mitigation measures in order for BIA to make a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Given the complexity of the project and its impacts, the City of [Type here]
Vallejo feels The Bureau should prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Project.
Attached is a list of some of the deficiencies of the EA. While comprehensive, there may be issues that were not addressed owing to the short review time. When considering further study through an EIS, the City of Vallejo requests sufficient time to review and analyze the further study. The City suggests at least 60 days review time for consideration of the EIS and the potential impacts and mitigations proposed.
Please let me know if you have questions or if there is more information I can provide. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Andrew Murray
City Manager
City of Vallejo
Cc:
City of Vallejo Mayor and City Council
Scotts Valley Tribal Council and Tribal Administrator
[Type here]
City of Vallejo Comments on the Scotts Valley EA- August 22, 2024:
The EA relies on inadequate analysis of the potential significant impacts of the Project The City has multiple concerns regarding the Environmental Assessment (EA). In many instances, the EA relies on Best Management Practices (BMPs), deferred studies, and vague mitigations, which does not provide a true and complete analysis of potential impacts of the project, nor appropriate mitigations to address these impacts as NEPA requires.
The City’s specific concerns are listed below by category. Unless otherwise indicated, all comments are in response to “Alternative A”, which is identified as the proposed Project.
Project Understanding
The proposed Project consists of the following components:
• Transfer of the 160-acre Project Site within the City of Vallejo into federal trust status for the benefit of the Tribe for gaming purposes; and
• Subsequent development by the Tribe of a casino facility with restaurants, bars and ballroom consisting of 614,959 SF;
• A Parking Garage (4,056 spaces), Bus Depot (12 spaces), Loading Dock: together consisting of 1,595,011 SF;
• Twenty-four homes: the square footage/footprint of these homes is not indicated in the EA; • Tribal Administration Building, consisting of 12,555 SF; • Associated infrastructure on and off site.
The Project does not call out the size of the proposed 24 homes either individually or collectively. The impact cannot therefore be evaluated properly, nor any potential impacts identified or mitigated. Likewise, the project description does not show the size or location of proposed tanks for water and diesel, or the possible wastewater treatment plant, Fire Station or Police Station. These project components were not shown on the site plans in the EA, nor analyzed, nor mitigation proposed.
Reliance on Best Management Practices, deferred studies and vague, deferred mitigations
The EA relies in part on Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address potential environmental impacts, for impacts that are not clearly identified. Table 2.1-4, a list of BMPs is used throughout the document as addressing impacts. The use of BMPs is inadequate for environmental protection. The BMPs do not address a specific quantified impact, are not measurable or able to be monitored to address an impact, and are often described in the EA as “to the extent feasible” and “when practicable”.
Multiple mitigations called out rely on studies yet to be prepared, are vague and defer implementation and specific measures until studies are completed and impacts determined. In addition, there is no timeline nor a responsible party for any mitigation listed. This is not in keeping with NEPA guidelines.
An EIS should be prepared that identifies specific impacts, analyzes them, and incorporates measurable standards to address relevant concerns, as well as a timeframe for implementation and identification of the responsible monitoring party, all prior to approving the proposed project.
Without these standards, there is potential for the project to have significant adverse impacts on the environment. A MOU with the City of Vallejo should be drafted to cover all the project impacts and mitigations and agreed upon implementation prior to project consideration. The lack of studies and deferred mitigations are mentioned by topic, below. [Type here]
Land Resources
Landslides
1. Section 3.2 of the EA briefly discusses Land Resources and some negative impacts, and defers specific geotechnical studies and mitigations to a future time. This is deferring study, analysis and mitigations which should be included in any Environmental Review document prior to considering a proposed project.
2. In Figure 2.1-7 of the EA, four landslides were identified either entirely within or partially extending onto the Project Site. Per Appendix D, the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, ENGEO, states that: “the report was developed with limited subsurface data.” In fact, the geotechnical report is clearly titled “Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration”. Design level investigation should be analyzed now to ensure the feasibility of the proposed project.
3. ENGEO continues that “The Eastern Landslide Complex contains nested landslide planes over a 350-acre area, and the toe of the slide extends onto the eastern and southern portions of the Project Site. On the western boundary of the landslide complex it abuts two ridges comprised of silica-carbonate rock. Landslide deposits were encountered during boring exploration consisting of highly sheared and altered shale to the exploration depth of 75.5 feet.
The Hunter Hill Landslide, located on the northwestern portion of the Project Site, is a deep-seated landslide that is approximately 600 feet wide, 1,300 feet long, and 60 feet deep. Landslide deposits were encountered during boring exploration to the full depth of exploration, which was greater than 60 feet deep. The Solano Bike Pathway that wraps around the south and western edges of the property was observed to have cracking, which is indicative of continued movement of the landslide.” Rather than pursuing further study and analysis of these issues, the EA simply states:
“With incorporation of the preliminary geotechnical recommendations into the site design and adherence to BMPs described in Table 2.1-4, impacts due to landslides and slope stability would be less than significant.”
4. The preliminary geotechnical recommendations are just that, preliminary. In the cover letter of the “Exploration” ENGEO states: “…the site is suitable for the proposed development provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into planning, and that a design level, site specific geotechnical exploration is performed to develop design recommendations.” The geotechnical recommendations are not specific to the Project and are not mitigations, nor are BMPs. A design level, site specific geotechnical exploration should be performed now that identifies design level mitigations to ensure the site is developable at this intensity.
5. There is a proposed development, called Solano Ranch, for Parcels 182020080, 182020010, and 182020020. The EA does not address the status of this development. If the Solano Ranch Development does not move forward, then the EA/EIS shall state that improvements associated with the Solano Ranch development are abandoned or state no additional improvements of the parcels, are planned. Currently, the Solano Ranch project needs 4 acres of adjacent City lands in order to buttress the hillside to prepare [Type here]
for future development. Please explain intention for development on the proposed Solano Ranch parcels and how the hillside will be stabilized.
Seismic Considerations
1. The EA states that “As described in Table 2.1-4, a design-level geotechnical report would be prepared prior to construction with standards no less stringent than the IBC. Use of these standards would allow ground shaking-related hazards to be managed from a geologic, geotechnical, and structural standpoint such that risks to the health or safety of workers or members of the public would be reduced. Therefore, impacts from potential seismic conditions and induced hazards would be less than significant.” This is a deferred study with a deferred and vague mitigation. The study and the potential mitigation should not be deferred to some point in the future.
2. The EA defers site-specific studies and any required mitigations. This is not in keeping with NEPA and does not provide the information needed to make an informed decision on the project. An EIS should be prepared to attain the level of analysis needed to determine if the proposed project can move forward.
Water Resources
1. Section 3.32 of the EA states that “There are no permanent water features within the Project Site; therefore, drainage features are only wetted during and following rain events and do not hold water year-round.” However in Appendix C (Hydrogeologic Assessment) of Appendix B (Water and Wastewater Feasibility Study), it states that four springs are present on or near the project site. Judging by Exhibit 1 of that document two springs are definitely on-site, one could be on the property line and one is on the adjacent property. The section goes on to document flow rates of 1/4 gallon to 2 3/4 gallons per minute from the springs. It also discusses water flowing from a culvert out of the southernmost spring. Why was this information not included in the EA, but only in an Appendix of an Appendix? Why are the springs not shown on any site plan in the EA? This information should be studied, analyzed and include appropriate mitigations (if any).
2. Section 3.3.3 addresses potential impacts on surface water during construction as being less than significant because an NPDES permit will be required and the Project will have BMPs that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. There is no information detailing impacts, no way of knowing that measures proposed would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, and BMPs are not mitigations
3. Section 3.3.3 of the EA also references bio-retention areas that are not shown on the site plans and square footage is not provided. This section of the EA defers studies and mitigations and is inadequate at analyzing potential impacts to water resources and providing potential mitigations. Additional concerns regarding provision of water services are addressed in the Water Services Section, below. [Type here]
Biological Resources
In Section 3.5.3 of the EA, the following impacts are identified:
1. Loss of 1.1 acres of freshwater marsh habitat considered sensitive and likely considered waters of the U.S.
The EA states that mitigation for loss of waters of the U.S. is subject to USACE review but is likely to include a minimum 1:1 ratio through habitat creation, restoration, or purchase of USACE-approved credits. The EA assumes that with implementation of the deferred mitigation, adverse impacts to sensitive habitats, including waters of the U.S., would be reduced to less- than-significant levels.
Neither the impact nor the mitigation are clearly defined here. The impact to freshwater marsh is “likely” considered Waters of the US. This is not a clearly defined impact. The EA then proposes a mitigation that is subject to future review and “likely” to include a minimum 1:1 ratio of habitat creation, restoration or purchase of USACE-approved credits. Further, the mitigation language reads: “Potential waters of the U.S. shall be avoided to the extent feasible. Where roadways cross waters of the U.S., such designs shall be through free-spanning or similar methods where possible.”.The mitigation continues that if the impact is unavoidable a 404 permit and 4501 certification shall be obtained. This defers study, analysis of impacts and mitigations.
2. Impacts to Northwest Pond Turtle Dispersal Habitat
Section 3.5.3 of the EA discusses the loss of dispersal habitat for the Northwest Pond Turtle (NPT). The Project would result in impacts to 53.6 acres of lower-quality dispersal habitat for NPT. Approximately 106.4 acres (66.5%) of dispersal habitat within the site would be avoided.
The EA states that following implementation of Project, the NPT would be able to disperse across the Project Site. Therefore, loss of dispersal habitat would not adversely impact NPT.
This conclusion lacks any analysis and is not supported by any facts in evidence. The EA states that 53.6 acres of dispersal habitat are lost, but because there is more dispersal habitat on site there is no negative impact. This is potentially a negative impact with no analysis done and no mitigation identified.
3. Impacts to California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF)
The EA discusses effect of the loss of 1.1 acres of aestivation habitat to the CRLF. It relies on the same mitigation called out for the loss of the marshland habitat (#1 above) and lists the same deferred mitigations. The EA also states that additional compensatory options are possible, and the mitigations identified are four different options with no criteria for selecting what mitigation should be used or who would be responsible for that decision and implementation.
The EA also states that mitigation includes completion of Section 7 consultation with USFWS and the issuance of a Biological Opinion (BO) prior to construction. As a component of the BO, USFWS may require additional actions to ensure jeopardy of the species would not occur. Why has consultation with the USFWS not been done? The completion of Section 7 consultation and issuing of the BO would clearly detail impacts and required mitigations. This again defers study, analysis, and mitigations.
[Type here]
4. Impacts to Callippe Silverspot Butterfly
The EA calls out the loss of 2.9 acres of Callippe Silverspot butterfly host plant habitat and 50.3 acres of nectar resource habitat. The EA defers the Section 7 consultation until a future date and proposes a multiple choice mitigation with no criteria as to how to choose the best option or who would choose. The EA states that compensatory mitigation for loss of host plant habitat shall be at a 3:1 ratio and shall only be through similar quality host plant habitat. How was this ratio arrived at? The EA states that compensatory mitigation for loss of foraging habitat shall be at a 2:1 ratio for similar-quality foraging habitat and 1:1 for host plant habitat. The EA states that final mitigation ratios shall be determined in consultation with USFWS. This again defers study, analysis and mitigations. The consultation should occur now so impacts and mitigations are fully vetted prior to project approval.
Transportation and Circulation
The City’s Traffic Engineer reviewed the EA and finds that the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is flawed and the analysis is incorrect.
1. The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA—Appendix K) was prepared with incorrect methodology (Level of Service-LOS). The analysis must utilize Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) to determine travel impacts and must include VMT analysis for both the construction and the patron VMT for the project.
2. In the EA page 3-55, Section 3.8.2 Impacts - Queue Lengths (Alternatives A & B):
a. Queue lengths at Intersection #1 Columbus Parkway (Auto Mall Parkway) & Admiral Callaghan Lane exceed existing storage and will further impact traffic circulation (even with mitigation by adding an additional eastbound left turn lane and signal timing overlap of southbound right turn). No mitigation is currently considered for northbound movements.
b. Queue lengths at Intersection #5 Admiral Callaghan Lane & Plaza Drive exceed existing storage and will further impact traffic circulation. Westbound left turn will further queue into adjacent intersections to the east and north. No mitigation is currently considered.
c. Queue lengths at Intersection #13 Redwood Street & Fairgrounds Drive / I-80 Southbound ramps exceed existing storage and will further impact traffic circulation (queue onto I-80 Southbound). No mitigation is currently considered.
3. In the EA pgs 3-55-56, Section 3.8.2 Site Access and Circulation (Alternatives A & B):
a. No mitigation for site access and circulation for special events is currently considered.
b. No access points are indicated.
c. A dirt road connection to the existing bike path is mentioned, but not shown on the project plans.
d. Bike path is noted, but not shown on the project plans. e. The existing width of a bike path will not accommodate emergency vehicles, and cannot serve as an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA), as proposed. A minimum of 12 feet paved is required to provide emergency vehicle access. f. Emergency vehicle access and egress are not shown on or off site. [Type here]
g. Alternatives A & B, SolTrans bus route schedules 7A, 7B and 38 will be impacted by the queue lengths and thereby incur a traffic delay which was not analyzed.
4. In the EA page 3-114 , Section 3.15.7 Cumulative Effects – Transportation and Circulation:
a. What portion of Columbus Parkway will be widened to reduce cumulative impact in year 2045? Who will be responsible for this design and construction work? b. Year 2045 trips will require south approach improvements to Intersection #1 Columbus Parkway (Auto Mall Parkway) & Admiral Callaghan Lane to mitigate the increase in northbound trips which was not included in the analysis For all Alternatives-
5. No Figure/s illustrating the proposed lane configurations at north approach to Intersection #1 Columbus Parkway (Auto Mall Parkway) & Admiral Callaghan Lane.
Please provide plans showing the proposed configurations.
6. No Figure/s illustrating the proposed lane configurations for all roads on site. Please provide plans showing the proposed configurations.
7. Appendix K, Figure 3 shows Existing Lane Configurations, however, no other Figures illustrates the Future / Proposed Lane Configurations. Please provide plans showing the proposed configurations.
8. Technical Appendices – Intersection #1 Admiral Callaghan Lane / Project Driveway & Auto Mall northbound lane configurations is modeled incorrectly in Synchro. Existing condition - Northbound thru is combined with #2 northbound left turn lane. Modeled in Synchro as exclusive dual northbound left turn lanes and combined northbound thru with northbound right turn lane.
9. Non vehicular travel should be analyzed for the proposed project and multimodal circulation should be analyzed and depicted on the project plans.
10. The Traffic analysis should consider both employee and visitor VMT impacts and should not only be discussed in the appendices, but should be discussed in the EA/EIS.
As the above comments indicate, there is not sufficient information to make an informed determination regarding potential transportation impacts. The TIA must be corrected and any potential impacts identified, analyzed, and proposed mitigations included, as well as inclusion of timing and responsible parties in an EIS.
Land Use
The zoning designation for the parcels is as follows:
0182-010-010: Regional Commercial/Parks, Recreation and Open Space 0182-020-010: Regional Commercial
0182-020-020: Regional Commercial
0182-020-080: Parks, Recreation and Open Space
1. The proposed project would result in conversion of Parks, Recreation and Open Space and grazing land into a casino, housing and Tribal administration buildings.
The planning for the density and intensity of these land use designations and for [Type here]
the City’s infrastructure in the area was done with the assumption that the Project Site would continue to be used for agriculture and open space or regional commercial in the area adjacent to Columbus Parkway. The Vallejo zoning code does not have any use classification for a casino so the proposed casino would be inconsistent with existing zoning. Further, the area proposed for the housing structures is zoned Parks, Recreation and Open Space and per City of Vallejo Municipal Code Section 16.301, residential is not an allowed use in that zone. The EA does not discuss impacts to the long-range vision of these planning documents particularly regarding circulation, safety, public amenities, and public services.
Air Quality/Green House Gas (GHG)
The estimated GHG emissions for this project are based in large part on the operational emissions which are based on the TIA (above). As the TIA is flawed and its conclusions inaccurate, the GHG analysis is as well.
Public Services and Utilities
Wastewater
The City notes that the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District (VFWD) is a separate entity from the City. Our understanding is that the Tribe has reached out to VFWD for a review of the Flood and Wastewater topics in the EA. The City is aware that the VFWD has capacity issues for the projects currently under review. One assumes this proposed project would likewise have capacity issues, and the City will let them address these issues more fully.
1. The City notes that the applicant proposes two options for the handling of Wastewater.
Option 1 would be to rely on VFWD. Option 2 proposes a Wastewater Treatment Plant on-site in the “utilities area”. No square footage or site plan is provided for this option and therefore it cannot be evaluated. It is clear that this option could have potential effects in creating odor issues. This is addressed in the Hazardous Air Pollutants and Odors Section, below.
2. The City also notes that the Wastewater Study in Appendix B of the EA erroneously calls out that the project is within unincorporated Solano County. The Project is entirely within the City of Vallejo. Further, this area is designated Open Space/Recreational in the General Plan. This type of development was not anticipated and therefore not planned for in the City’s or VFWD’s future development projections.
Water Service
1. Both options of the proposed project propose to build across City utility easements and City infrastructure which is not feasible. The infrastructure is not easily relocated and building across it impacts the safety of water delivery Citywide. These water transmission lines provide water service to the larger City system and are an integral part of the City’s water delivery. The City cannot allow buildings over critical infrastructure or utility easements. In order to proceed in any way, the issue needs study and analysis to determine feasibility of any alternative proposal.
2. Similarly, both options propose a recycled water element that has not been discussed or analyzed with the State Division of Drinking Water requirements. [Type here]
Option 1
Section 2.1.3 of the EA lays out two possible options for Water supply. Option 1 assumes that the Vallejo Water District would supply water. The Section further states that a 1.5-million- gallon, welded steel storage tank would be constructed to store City provided water, and a pump station and hydropneumatics tank would be constructed to provide distribution system pressure and fire flow. The proposed storage tanks and pump station would be in the “utility area” in the southern portion of the Project Site (Figure 2.1-1). All water storage and distribution facilities would be designed to comply with City standards. The Tribe would enter into an agreement with the City for the provision of potable water.
The City of Vallejo Water Department also has the following comments on the deficiencies of the EA Option 1:
1. While Figure 2.1-1 shows a site plan with a “utility area”, nothing is called out in that area. Depending on varying options in the EA, the utility area would contain:
-Wastewater treatment plant and pump station,
-Fire station,
-Police station,
-Diesel tanks for back-up generators, and a
-1.5 million-gallon water tank
-Alternatively, instead of that water tank it may contain a water purification tank/system if the option to use well water is pursued. None of the above options for the utility area have been studied appropriately or analyzed either separately or as a group. Certainly having all these uses in one area could have multiple impacts that have not been considered.
2. There is no visual simulation or any site plans for the proposed 1.5 million gallon tank and pump station, or any of the other options for the “utility area" listed above. For reference, a 1.5 million gallon water tank recently built in Chico is 80 feet in diameter and 32 feet high. The impacts of this potential system, let alone all the items listed above, are not analyzed in the EA, nor mitigation suggested.
3. The EA covers 4 parcels of land 1820100110, 182020080, 182020010, and 182020020.
Vallejo’s easements are only shown on Parcel 182020020. There are easements containing City infrastructure on all parcels. These were not shown or addressed in the EA.
4. Vallejo’s water facilities and their easements, including access easements and slope easement, are affected by the proposed improvements on all parcels. The environmental document is required to show any proposed mitigations for all of Vallejo’s existing water facilities infrastructure as well as proposed mitigations for the access easement from Columbus Parkway and the slope easement for Columbus Tank. This has not been done.
5. The EA does not address how future improvements will affect the Columbus Tank foundation or slope stability or infringe upon the City’s existing slope easement at Columbus Tank. This needs to be studied and all potential impacts identified, and mitigation ensured.
6. A site-specific water master plan is needed in order to determine potential impacts. Two pressure zones could possibly supply the project, the 292 Pressure Zone or the 400 [Type here]
Pressure Zone. A site-specific water master plan that includes the broader impacts to the distribution system on the hydraulic impacts of the proposed pump stations and tank is required for the Project identifying the impacts on each zone. A complete analysis of the entire distribution system will not be required; however, the boundary conditions of the proposed model must be reviewed and approved by Water Department. Additional mitigations, requirements or improvements may be required after the results of the water master plan are identified.
7. Section 4.3 – Water Storage Tank and Pump Station. The provision of fire flow capacity is dependent upon the results of the site-specific water master plan, mentioned in Comment 6. At this time, due to insufficient information, the City will not provide fire flow through dedicated pumping capacity directly from Vallejo’s 292 water zone 24-inch water main.
8. Section 4.3 – The language is unclear regarding the Water Storage Tank and Pump Station. This needs to clearly state that Vallejo shall not construct the onsite storage tank, or any other water facilities associated with the Project. All sizes and locations of Water Storage Tank and Pump station must be called out in order to be studied and any potential impacts identified and mitigations identified.
9. There is an increased security risk to City Water facilities due to the Project. This was not evaluated in the EA. Increased security to the existing Columbus Parkway Tank, which serves the 292 Pressure Zone, as well as the main water transmission line which are cornerstone to of the operation of the entirety of the City’s distribution system, must be studied and possible mitigations identified with a timeframe and implementation plan that is reasonable to achieve.
10. Section 3.1.2 of Appendix B – Water and Wastewater Feasibility Study does not contain the most recent City standards. City standards and requirements are currently being updated. Contact the Water Department to obtain the current standards.
11. Section 1.1 of the EA states the project parcels shall be transferred into a federal trust status. A water service agreement between Vallejo and the Tribe, as well as Vallejo and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) stating that both the Tribe and the BIA shall abide by the Vallejo Municipal Code and any future updates to the Code related to these easements and infrastructure is required. This agreement will also include language stating Vallejo shall not be responsible for any damages from the use, repair, operation, maintenance or replacement of any water facilities in this project. This agreement must be in place prior to finalization of the environmental document.
12. The environmental document shall include all work proposed for Parcels 182020080, 182020010, and 182020020, since those parcels are included in the EA. There is a proposed development, called Solano Ranch, for Parcels 182020080, 182020010, and 182020020. The EA does not address the status of this development. If the Solano Ranch Development is not being continued, then the EA shall state that improvements associated with the Solano Ranch development are abandoned or state no additional improvements of the parcels, other than the proposed water treatment facilities, are planned.
[Type here]
13. Applicant has not confirmed with the Vallejo Fire Department the correct fire flow requirements for the Project. This must be done prior to finalization of the environmental document.
14. Further, if the Tribe is to enter into an agreement with Vallejo Water Department, this must move forward and address all service and infrastructure impacts prior to the approval of the proposed project. Without this there is no mitigation for potential impacts.
Option 2
Section 2.1.3 also gives as a possible option potable water provided through the installation of groundwater wells on the Project Site. The EA states that a minimum of two wells would be installed in order that one can be serviced without interrupting the water supply. Wells would be drilled to 500 to 1,000 feet below ground surface. Due to the fractured bedrock underlying the Project Site, more than two wells may be required to serve the development depending on the available capacity of each. Actual well capacity, location, and operating strategy would be developed during the design phase; however, no wells will be installed within the Biological Preserve described in Section 2.1.3.
The City of Vallejo Water Department also has the following comments on the deficiencies of the EA Option 2:
1. The EA states that each well would have an approximate footprint of 20 feet by 30 feet, including the pump, well, piping, and miscellaneous equipment. Additionally, around each well would be a control zone with a minimum radius of 50-feet to protect the source from vandalism, tampering, and other possible sources of contamination. Each well would also be setback from any recycled water use area or impoundment as required by Title 22 criteria.
2. The location and total size of these wells is not known. The number of wells is not known, nor addressed as part of the Visual Impacts. The study, analysis and any potential impacts, and mitigation of this option is deferred until a later date. Well design and capacity should be studied during an EIS to ensure adequate water supply and facilities may be accommodated for within the proposed project site.
3. While the EA recognizes that there has been historical mining operations in the region, and that it is anticipated that an on-site water treatment plant would be required to meet Clean Drinking Water Act requirements, including the removal of mercury and other heavy metals, no analysis on the amount of contamination has been provided or on the justification of the required size/capacity of the treatment plant.
4. The proposed layout of the treatment plant and process flow diagram can be seen in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 of Appendix B (see Section 4.1.2 of Appendix B). A 1.5-million- gallon, welded steel storage tank would be constructed to store water after it is treated on-site and a pump station and hydropneumatics tank would be constructed to provide distribution system pressure.
5. It is stated that this tank would accommodate four hours of fire flow at 4,000 gpm.
However the Vallejo Fire Department was never consulted regarding amount and pressure of water required for the proposed development. It is again stated that the proposed storage tanks and pump station would be located in the “utility area” in the [Type here]
southern portion of the Project Site, yet no information is included on the site plan or in the photo simulations.
6. According to the conclusions drawn by ENGEO in Appendix B:“Groundwater supply wells are not located on the project site or nearby. Our research did not identify previous well pump tests conducted in either soil or rock units on or near the site. It is also not known whether fractures throughout the Great Valley rock and silica-carbonate rock will provide sufficient flow to develop groundwater supply wells. Therefore, the potential yield of these materials is uncertain.” If this option is to be truly viable, more study is required, as well as an analysis of any potential impacts there may be to the groundwater, such as ground subsidence.
7. Conclusions in Appendix B further state that “Historical mercury mining operations were present at multiple locations near the site, including St. John’s Mine located less than 1 mile northeast of the site. We consider it feasible that groundwater from both upper soil units and deeper bedrock in this area may be contaminated with heavy metals due to the historical mining operations and possible flow of water through rocks containing heavy metals.” While the EA lays out a scheme to add a treatment plant to bring the water to Clean Drinking Water Act requirements, no study has been done to show what level of contamination is in the groundwater. Without this information, potential mitigations are also unknown. This defers both the study of a potential impact and any possible mitigation to a future unspecified date which is not acceptable for compliance with NEPA.
Hazardous Materials & Wildfire
Hazardous Air Pollutants and Odors
1. Discussed in 3.4.3-Impacts in the EA, Option 2 in handling wastewater calls out an on- site wastewater treatment site. This site would be located in the utilities area, but the size and location are unclear.
2. It is proposed that if the Tribe did not enter into an agreement with Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District (VFWD), waste would be treated at an on-site Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located in the utility area in the southern portion of the Project Site. Anaerobic decomposition of organic matter containing sulfur and nitrogen accounts for the majority of odor-producing substances found in domestic wastewater.
Additionally, the decomposition of domestic wastewater can produce inorganic gases, which commonly include hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, CO2, and CH4. The EA states that these odors would not be detrimental to health but could cause annoyances or mild symptoms (e.g., headache) if exposure duration is long and concentrations are high enough. Please provide more information on this impact and proposed mitigations.
3. The on-site WWTP proposed under Option 2 would include filtration of exhaust air and the EA states it would not cause significant adverse odor impacts with the implementation of the BMPs proposed in Table 2.1-4, including odor-reducing components and designs incorporated into the WWTP.
4. There is no study to support the potential impacts and no specific mitigation proposed, and, as stated before, a BMP is not an appropriate mitigation measure, even if the impact were quantified.
[Type here]
Hazardous Materials
In Section 3.12.3 of the EA, it is stated that the presence of heavy metals and Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) within the soil and bedrock on the Project Site could pose health hazards to onsite workers during the construction phase or onsite residents or patrons during the operation of the Project. The EA then relies on BMPs listed in Table 2.1-4 to act as mitigation to ensure that people are not negatively affected.
The EA goes on to state that the eastern portion of the Project Site contains silica-carbonate bedrock that includes serpentine, which may potentially contain NOA that poses health risks when airborne. Site preparation activities during construction have the greatest potential to mobilize NOA, if it is present within the silica-carbonate bedrock or serpentine soils.
The degree of these hazardous components is not quantified, and the EA relies on BMPs to mitigate for an undefined impact. This is an inadequate and deferred study and mitigation.
Wildfire
The EA identifies additional population that would need to be evacuated during a Wildfire emergency, but does not address that only one road for access and egress is proposed for over 4,000 cars. A deferred mitigation with no responsible party states that “Prior to occupancy, the Tribe shall coordinate with emergency evacuation and traffic experts to develop a project- specific evacuation plan…”
Of particular concern, and as stated above in the Transportation, Police and Fire discussion, emergency access is not sufficient, nor has there been an analysis of effective measures to evacuate the added population in case of Wildfire or other emergency. Study, analysis and mitigations are required.
Visual Resources
The visual simulations are poorly done and do not reflect the proposed administration building, housing, or utility area. Further, large power lines are present and will remain and those are not shown on the simulations. It is unclear how far the rooftop parking is from these power lines.
The casino also includes up to a 50-feet retaining wall, yet this is not indicated on the plans or in the visual simulations.
Massive tanks for water and diesel storage and possibly a wastewater treatment plant, as well as a fire station and police station are proposed in the “utilities area”, but not included in any site plan or visual simulation.
To assist with mitigating the potential impacts on visual resources, the City of Vallejo requests that the Scotts Valley Tribe submit plans for review through the City of Vallejo permitting process even though it is not required for land in trust. This would help alleviate impacts by ensuring the project complies with the standards set forth in the City’s Ordinance Zoning and Building Codes despite the lack of jurisdiction.
The potential impact of the whole Project is not studied, and therefore not analyzed or mitigated for appropriately.
[Type here]
Geotechnical
The area has multiple landslides as deep as 75 feet. The EA defers a site-specific geotechnical analysis to the building stage. This is not appropriate and defers both a key study and potential mitigations to a later time.
Also, as mentioned in the Water Service section above, the EA does not address how future improvements will affect the Columbus Tank foundation or slope stability or infringe upon the City’s existing slope easement at Columbus Tank. This needs to be studied and all potential impacts identified and mitigation ensured.
The evaluation of potential geotechnical impacts is inadequate and defers specific studies and possible design changes or mitigations to a future date. Please address these areas in the EIS.
Market Study, Economic Impact Study, and Community and Social Impact Study The Market Study, Economic Impact Study, and Community and Social Impact Study was prepared by Advantage Partners Consulting (APC), for Acorn Environmental and the Scotts Valley Pomo Band of Indians. As described on the company’s web page, APC specializes in corporate finance, market research, feasibility studies, and strategic solutions for the gaming and hospitality industry. The document evaluates potential market, economic, and community and social impacts, including impacts to Police Department, Fire Department and Emergency Medical Services (EMS).
1. The document produced by APC (Appendix A of the EA), which incorporates all three studies listed above, relies on a comparison to a casino (Hard Rock Sacramento) in Wheatland, Yuba County. The document states that the Hard Rock Sacramento Casino is half the size of the proposed casino in Vallejo, the casino complex includes a hotel (no size given) and a 2,500 seat entertainment venue. It is five miles south of Marysville and 32 miles north of Sacramento. The surrounding area is sparsely populated, and the study states that it is hindered by being less convenient than its competing casinos, which is also not similar to this proposal in the incorporated City of Vallejo.
2. The studies relied upon by the EA state that Wheatland, Yuba County is “highly similar” in demographics, size and economy to the City of Vallejo. This cannot be further from the truth.
Wheatland is a rural, sparsely populated city with largely agricultural economy and a population of 3,789. The whole of Yuba County has a population of approximately 84,000, the population of Vallejo is 125,350. Vallejo has virtually no agriculture, but a diverse economy in a largely built-out city with urban characteristics that differ from Wheatland greatly.
3. Further inadequacies of the studies: The economic impacts are estimated for the Solano County rather than the City of Vallejo. Fiscal impacts on services are estimated as a revenue and do not take into account the actual cost of service provision to the project.
There is no meaningful backup or methodology for service cost estimates for Police, Fire or EMS and each of these estimates seem grossly inaccurate. a. Vallejo’s population is around 125,350 according to the US Census Bureau website, not 96,000 as stated in table 3.7-2 of the EA.
b. Page 10 of Appendix A states that Vallejo does not have enough meeting space, and therefore the meeting space proposed as part of the Project would have no negative [Type here]
impact. This is incorrect. The proposed entertainment and banquet uses will likely cannibalize existing businesses in the City since these uses exist and are underutilized.
This would likely result in a negative impact and blight that is not addressed in the EA. c. The EA depends upon this comparison to a tiny City in Yuba County to assume impacts to Vallejo municipal services, and Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS).
No Risk Assessment or Standards of Coverage Study was prepared in order to determine impacts to Vallejo Police, Fire or EMS. This is discussed below in the Police Services and Fire and EMS sections.
In sum, the City does not see how these two projects (the Wheatland Casino, and the proposed Project in Vallejo), or the locations and demographics can be deemed “highly similar”. The analyses, assumptions and conclusions based on this comparison are severely flawed and cannot be relied upon.
Police Services
1. The EA assumes that the proposed Project would have a similar impact as a casino half its size located in a tiny sparsely populated City in Yuba County. As mentioned above, this comparison is severely flawed. No Risk Assessment or Standards of Coverage Study was prepared in order to determine impacts to the Vallejo Police Department (VPD). There is no meaningful backup or methodology for service cost estimates for Police Services. Further, no mention of the on-going VPD severe staffing shortage is even mentioned, nor is the high crime rate in Vallejo. The fact that Vallejo is the most diverse city in the United States for medium sized cities, also brings many struggles that Wheatland does not suffer from. Please address the struggles with crime, education, economic development, and funding that Vallejo struggles with and how this proposal will impact those areas.
2. The EA states that the Tribe will “make a good faith effort” to enter into an agreement with VPD or Solano County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO) to provide law enforcement service for the proposed Project. This is inadequate, and provides no information regarding the contents of the possible future agreement. Any agreement for services should be entered into prior to completion of the environmental document so that any potential impact is clearly addressed and mitigated.
3. The EA further states that if an agreement cannot be reached with either VPD or SCSO, the Tribe will build their own law enforcement station on-site. No particulars of the station, its size, location, or other details are given, nor any potential impact of the station studied. The potential impact of a new station requires further study, analysis and potential mitigations.
4. Further, the VPD was not given the opportunity to review the Project regarding Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), or ingress/egress in an emergency situation. The EA does not contain enough information or exhibits to make review feasible.
5. Additionally, there is only one road proposed for the casino, housing, and administration building. This is not sufficient emergency access/egress for either the Police Department or Fire Department, nor does it provide adequate egress in case of emergency (addressed above).
[Type here]
6. The evaluation of the need for Law Enforcement Services for the Project is severely flawed, the conclusions invalid, and the proposed mitigations vague and deferred.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
1. The EA states that Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are expected to be provided by the City of Vallejo Fire Department. In evaluating the need for Fire Services for the Project in Vallejo, APC interviewed the Fire Chief/Safety Officer, Mr. Randy York of the Olivehurst Public Utility District in May 2024. The Olivehurst Fire Department, under the Olivehurst Public Utility District, despite physically located in Yuba County, has been providing Fire and EMS services to Hard Rock Sacramento since October 2019.
The authors of the study did not speak with the City of Vallejo Fire Department to understand or analyze potential impacts of a largely different setting than Olivehurst.
2. The study uses Hard Rock Sacramento as a comparable “because of the highly similar demographics”. As stated before, this cannot be farther from the truth. There is no similarity between Wheatland, Yuba County and Vallejo in demographics, economy, municipal services, Police, or Fire and EMS.
3. The APC study bases the cost of providing Fire and EMS services on what was needed in Yuba County. There was no Risk Analysis or Standards of Coverage Study. Page 3- 86 of the EA states that the Tribe will “make a good faith effort” to enter into an agreement with Vallejo Fire Department. This is a deferred mitigation which NEPA does not support.
4. There was no study to determine the impacts to the Vallejo Fire Department, and “making a good faith effort” to enter into an agreement is not a mitigation. The applicant has not contacted the City of Vallejo Fire Department or the City to discuss potential impacts or an agreement for services. Any agreement for services should be entered into prior to completion of the environmental document so that any potential impact is clearly addressed.
5. The EA further states that if an agreement cannot be reached, then the Tribe would provide its own station and service. As with the Police station, the location and size of this possible station is not indicated as part of the Project, and therefore has not been analyzed for potential impacts. The potential impact of a new station requires further study, analysis and potential mitigations.
Additional comments regarding Police and Fire Emergency Services:
1. The proposed project indicates one fire access roadway. Two independent access roads are required. (Also see Transportation and Circulation Section comments, above)
2. The site plans provided do not show either the width or grade of access and egress, therefore it is unknown what impact the access roads would have.
3. As discussed in the Water Services Section, above, it is not known what water source will be utilized by the Project or if there is sufficient amount/pressure to satisfy Fire Safety requirements.
4. The evaluation of the need for Fire Safety Services for the Project is severely flawed, the conclusions invalid and the proposed mitigation vague and deferred.
5. Reminder that the majority of the parcels are currently zoned Parks, Recreation and Open Space and the projected services to that zoning were much less intense than the [Type here]
proposed commercial, retail and housing land uses. An agreement with the City of Vallejo would need to be in place prior to approving the proposed project in order to satisfy necessary mitigations to impacts required by NEPA.
Socioeconomic Conditions and Environmental Justice
Section 3.7 of the EA cites a total population of Vallejo as 96,305. This is incorrect. According to the US Census Bureau website, the City of Vallejo’s current population is 125,350.
The conclusions in the EA regarding this topic are based upon the same flawed studies produced by APC (above) The Market Study, Economic Impact Study, and Community and Social Impact Study.
Section 3.3.3 states the assessment criteria for determining impacts to Socioeconomic Criteria and Environmental Justice.
“Potential socioeconomic effects include unemployment, insufficient housing supply, crime, problem gambling, and substitution effects. An adverse economic, fiscal, or social impact would occur if the effect of the project were to negatively alter the ability of governments to perform at existing levels or alter the ability of people to obtain public health and safety services such that physical impacts to the physical environment would occur. An impact associated with environmental justice would be considered significant if development were to have an adverse disproportionate impact on minority, low-income or other disadvantaged populations.”
1. The EA maintains that the Project would be a benefit to the community in overall economic output and employment opportunities but does not address the fact that most of Vallejo is an underserved population including minorities, low income and other disadvantages. The EA further states that there would be no burden on Police, Fire and EMS, due to the mitigations proposed. As noted in the Police Services and Fire and EMS Sections above, there was no Risk Analysis or Standards of Coverage Study done for any of the Vallejo Services. The EA conclusion is inadequate and inaccurate.
2. In evaluating the impact to Housing, the EA focuses entirely on Solano County, with no mention of the City of Vallejo. The study is severely flawed and does not address impacts to Housing in Vallejo. Impacts to housing stock should also be analyzed. The housing section assumes there would be no significant impact. Some potential mitigations to housing impacts that should be considered include the following:
a. Provide temporary housing facilities on-site for the construction workers. b. Provide permanent affordable housing on-site for casino workers. c. Provide information about the median salary of the construction workers and the casino workers, to determine the appropriate housing affordability. d. Project alternatives should evaluate additional on-site housing options.
3. Page 3-86 of the EA states that the Tribe will “make a good faith effort” to enter into an agreement with VPD (or SCSO) and VFD/EMS. Any agreement for services should be entered into prior to completion of the environmental document so that any potential impact is clearly addressed.
4. Further, no mention of the on-going VPD severe staffing shortage is even mentioned, nor is the high crime rate in Vallejo. Since the authors of the Study did not prepare a Risk Analysis or Standards of Coverage Study, the Annual Direct Fiscal Impacts listed in Table 3.7-8 cannot be relied upon.
[Type here]
5. In discussing the Social Effects of gambling (Pathological and Problem gambling), the EA states: “Prevention and treatment programs, including programs through the California Office of Problem Gambling, exist throughout the State. The project would contribute funding to these programs via fees established in a Tribal-State gaming compact, which would be entered into prior to the commencement of Class III gaming activities.” The EA goes on to claim that the Project “would not substantially increase the prevalence of problem gamblers as several existing gaming facilities are already established within relatively short driving distances from the Project Site.”
6. The same study made the case for the Project not taking business away from other casinos, but expanding the amount of gambling. As stated previously, the APC study is severely flawed. It is not reasonable to state that gambling will increase, but problem gambling in the surrounding community will not. While the Tribe states that as a future mitigation they will enter into an agreement with the State to help fund State programs to address problem gambling, this is not only deferred, but does not address the impact to the Vallejo community. The City of Vallejo requests local programming and funding to address and mitigate these impacts.
7. The EA also claims that there is no increase in crime caused by a casino. The EA and the flawed APC study claim that all evidence of casinos linked to increased crime is anecdotal. The EA notes that increasing crime and calls for service to public safety are associated with any population increase, not necessarily gaming specifically, and concludes that the development, due to its large gatherings of people, may result in increased calls to law enforcement. The EA then claims that “the addition of the Project is not expected to lead to a material increase in crime rates in the area.” 68 of Appendix A concludes the Project would increase total calls for service by 1.28%. This is based on the same flawed comparison to a casino in a sparsely populated area of Yuba County.
Again, no study of VPD services or challenges was performed. Please provide factual analysis regarding population growth and the link to crime as well as analysis supporting the claim that casinos do not increase crime rates.
8.The Vallejo Police Department anticipates an increase in calls related to:
a. Traffic, noise, accidents, DUI’s, loud exhaust, and speeding. b. Disturbing the peace/Public Intoxication
c. Trespassing
d. Property Crimes
e. Prostitution
f. Assaults
g. Drug activity
h. Human Trafficking
i. Violent Crime
Mitigations for the increase of the call volume should be analyzed and proposed in the EIS.
9.It is also informative to consider the experience of Sonoma County, when faced with a similarly flawed EA, which claimed that there was no qualitative evidence of an increase in crime from a casino. The office of the Sonoma County Counsel provided the following information in his letter to BIA November 13, 2023:
[Type here]
“Contrary to the conclusions of the EA, the causal link to crime from casinos is clear, and there is no evidence that the project would not require additional law enforcement facilities. In 2012, before the opening of the Graton Casino, the area surrounding that location (288 Golf Course Drive) was very similar to the proposed project area, and it generated two calls for service. (In the calendar year 2022, the area surrounding the proposed site generated one call for service.) However, upon the opening of Graton Casino in 2013, the location generated 1,757 calls for service, an increase of 1,755 calls. Last fiscal year (22/23), Graton Casino generated 529 of the 6,680 calls for service in Sheriff’s Office Zone 5 (a very large Patrol Zone that includes the unincorporated areas surrounding Petaluma, Rohnert Park, and Cotati, stretching from the northern city limits of Rohnert Park to the Sonoma/Marin County border). The calls for service included, but were not limited to, assaults, trespassing, multiple types of theft, stolen vehicles, public intoxication, and drug activity. The decline from opening to fiscal year 22/23 in the case of the Graton Casino is not necessarily good news, as deputies are no longer specifically assigned to the casino and some crime previously reported by the assigned deputies themselves is possibly going unreported.”
Vallejo is a City with a disadvantaged population and a Police Department struggling to meet current calls for service in a timely manner. The Project would add an increase to calls for service in the area and potentially increase in crime that has not been studied, analyzed or proper mitigations proposed. This EA fails to clearly identify the socioeconomic impacts or to address in any meaningful way the impact to environmental justice.
CONCLUSION
As described in the comments above, there is a potential for significant adverse impacts in almost every area discussed by the EA. There are also possible significant adverse impacts associated with the Project that are either not identified in the EA or not adequately mitigated below the threshold of significance. Impacts in the areas of water, traffic, biological resources, public services, and utilities and hazards may be unmitigatable and would therefore be significant and unavoidable.
In addition, we note that there are several agreements that must be entered into between the Tribe and the City:
• Fire Department Services
• Police Department Services
• Water Department Services
• Intergovernmental Agreement
• Gaming Compact
Because of the lack of analysis, flawed studies, deferred mitigations, and in order to have a meaningful environmental document that clearly shows potential impacts and mitigations, and the City of Vallejo requests that the Bureau prepare an Environmental Impact Study (EIS).The City respectfully requests that the EIS review period is 60 days so the City can conduct a public hearing, gather feedback from the community, and analyze the hopefully updated studies and proposed mitigations. WE look forward to working with the Bureau to ensure that NEPA is properly administered and implemented as a responsible agency.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these important issues.