Vallejo City Council
November 19, 2024

American Rescue Plan Act
Program Status and
Reallocation Discussion
Rekha Nayar, Finance Director
November 19, 2024
1 Agenda
• ARPA Overview and Refresh
• Program Summation - As of 09/30/2024
• Active and Completed Projects
• Recommended Projects
• Next Steps
2 3
ARPA Overview and Refresh
• The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARPA”) wassigned into law by President Biden on March 11, 2021 (P .L. 117-2)
• Total funds allocated to Vallejo: $25,727,736
Local Allocation distributed in two payments:
➢50% in September 2021 – $12.86 Million
➢50% in June 2022 - $12.86 Million

4 Program Summation
As of 09/30/2024
11 Completed
23 Active
5 Reallocated
Council has approved thirty-nine (39) projects
5 39 Projects Council Assigned
as of 5/28/24

66 39 Projects Council Assigned
as of 5/28/24

77 Program Totals
As of 09/30/2024
$25.73M
Allocation
$23.61M
Spent or
Encumbered
$2.12M
Remaining
8 Remaining Funds for Reallocation
Eight (8) projects with available funds: $2.12M
• Sacramento Street Apartments: $1.05M
• Parking Revenue Loss: $437k
• Mural Program & Downtown Clean-up: $340k
• Retention Program: $105k
• Art Grants: $100k
• Vallejo Naval & Historical Museum: $69k
• Costar Software Subscription: $17k
• Planning Support: $4k
9 Recommended Projects
There are six (6) projects where staff is recommending funding. • Fleet Vehicle Type I and Type VI shortfall - $353k
• IT Firewall - $391k
• Citywide Asset Management - $205k
• Extending term Police Assistant positions - $683k
• PD Recruitment cost - $100k
• PD Building Design - $390k
Fire Department - $353k
10 Type I and Type VI shortfall
• On 12/20/22 (RES 22-214), Council approved projects.
• Procurement delays and escalating prices of parts and equipment increased costs
• Per ARPA requirements, City must have possession of apparatus by December 2026.
• Staff recommends swapping ARPA funding to purchase vehicles and equipment previously approved using General Fund Budget.

Firewall
• Existing firewalls are reaching their end of life
• Protect City’s Internal Network for next five years
• State of the Art Hardware to mitigate threats.
11 Information Technology - $391k
Citywide Asset Management
• Currently, task is handled through spreadsheets.
• Necessary to operate the City
• Provide accurate inventory & accounting schedules
• Implementation will be tied to our current Finance Enterprise system and first-year SAAS fees
12 Information Technology - $205k
13 Police Department - $683k
Extending term Police Assistants
• Council authorized three (3) limited-term positions
• Currently filled positions and supplement police department. • Current allocation will fund positions till Feb 2025. • Additional allocation will retain positions until 12/31/2026. 14 Police Department - $100k
Recruitment cost
• Include background checks, Livescans, physical exams, polygraph exams, psych evaluations, and more.
• Average Cost of $2,300 per person.
• Academy Cost range from $53k-$66k per recruit
15 Police Department - $390k
PD building design
• Design started in 2020, Mare Island Way & alternative sites. • September 2023, project was rolled into 3 phases for the current PD building site.
• Funds for additional work related to new PD building
• Current phase is developing construction documents through permitting
Next Steps
• This is Step One of Two Step Process.
• Staff will take Council’s direction and
recommendations for the next step.
• Step Two is scheduled for 12/10/2024 where
staff will request for final approval.
16 CONTACT(S)
Rekha Nayar, Finance Director
[email protected]
17 Andrew Murray
City Manager
Discussion and Direction
on Council Referrals
November 19, 2024
Background
• City Council referrals are miscellaneous projects that Council directs staff to undertake.
• The current referral process is:
• Council Member requests to agendize consideration of
a referral at a future Council meeting
• City staff agendizes the referral for direction on
whether to scope
• If approved, City staff develops and presents a scope at a subsequent meeting
• If approved, City staff implements the scope
Background (Cont’d)
• City Council discussed 31 Council referrals at the Council meeting on September 10, 2024:
• Two (2) referrals completed
• Seven (7) approved for implementation
• Four (4) awaiting scope from staff
• Eighteen (18) pending Council decision to scope
• City Council directed staff to present scopes for sixteen (16) referrals that were pending Council decision at a
Council meeting in November 2024.

Background (Cont’d)
• Scopes include a potential schedule, responsible
department(s), main tasks, and budget/resources that
would be required to complete the referral.
• The potential schedules presented in the scopes below do not account for the fact that the City Council might approve numerous referrals to be implemented by a
single department.
– The specific schedule for implementation of each
approved referral will need to be refined in a future
City Council work planning discussion, perhaps the
annual goal setting meeting in early 2025.

Potential Scopes for Referrals
Topic Schedule Responsible
Department(s) Main Tasks Budget/Resources
1 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)
2 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)
Potential Scopes for Referrals (Cont’d)
Topic Schedule Responsible
Department(s) Main Tasks Budget/Resources
3 Creation of an
Unhoused
Commission
Begin work in March 202, 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
4 Analysis and
subsequent
presentation or report
of the following
ordinances:
· Tenant Anti-
Harassment
· Rent Control
· Just Cause Evictions
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)
Potential Scopes for Referral’s (Cont’d)
Topic Schedule Responsible
Department(s) Main Tasks Budget/Resources
5 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) (Police
Department: 5 hours;
City Attorney’s
department: 5 hours;
and Information
Technology: 5 hours)
6 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 such
and receive Council
direction
City staff time
(Planning and
Development Services:
20 hours.; City
Attorney: 10 hours;
Finance: 5 hours)
Potential Scopes for Referral’s (Cont’d)
Topic Schedule Responsible
Department(s) Main Tasks Budget/Resources
7 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)
8 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
Potential Scopes for Referral’s (Cont’d)
Topic Schedule Responsible
Department(s) Main Tasks Budget/Resourc
es
9 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)
10 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
Potential Scopes for Referral’s (Cont’d)
Topic Schedule Responsible
Department(s) Main Tasks Budget/Resources
11 Review of Boards/
Commissions/Committees
(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
recommendations;
present findings and
recommendations to
the City Council
City staff time
(City Attorney: 30
hours; City
Manager: 15
hours; City Clerk:
10 hours)
12 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/apartment
conversion
Adding these
additional issues
will add at least 50
hours of staff time.

Potential Scopes for Referral’s (Cont’d)
Topic Schedule Responsible
Department(s) Main Tasks Budget/Resources
13 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)
14 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)
Potential Scopes for Referral’s (Cont’d)
Topic Schedule Responsible
Department(s) Main Tasks Budget/Resources
15 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)
16 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)
Next Steps
• Council direction on whether
to implement the Council
referrals recently scoped by
City staff.

CONTACT(S)
Andrew Murray
City Manager
Scotts Valley
Cooperative Agreement
November 19, 2024
Gillian Haen,
Assistant City Manager
Proposed Project Site

Background
July 8, 2024-BIA posted an Environmental Assessment
(EA) to analyze potential environmental consequences
of the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians (Tribe)
proposed Casino and Tribal Housing Project. This was
the first the City heard of the project. City attended scoping meeting in late July.

August 2024-Tribe reached out to City in early August
to begin discussions with City. Late August City sent
comment letter to BIA outlining City impacts and
concerns with the document.

Proposed Project Description
• Gaming Facility: eight-story casino with restaurants, bars, and a ballroom for events on western portion of site.
– estimated 3,640 full-time equivalent jobs (Appendix A). – The casino facility would be open 24 hrs, 7 days a week. • Tribal Housing and Administration: Development of 24
single-family residences and a Tribal administration
building in the northern portion of the Project Site. The Tribal administration building would provide offices for up to 30 Tribal employees.
• Biological Preserve: Establishment of an approximately 45- acre biological preserve within the northeastern portion of the Project Site designed to protect high quality habitat for special-status species. The Tribe proposes to memorialize this commitment via a Tribal ordinance & MOU between
the Tribe, BIA, and USFWS
https://www.scottsvalleycasinoea.com/wp-
content/uploads/2024/07/Scotts_Valley_Casino_and_Tribal_Housing_Project_EA- 508.pdf
Proposed Project Process
• The Tribe must complete 2 processes before the
Proposed Project can be approved.
– The Fee to Trust application
– 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 & ensuring
City easements and infrastructure on the site are
protected.

Fee to Trust Process
• 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: BIA issues a Notice of Application. • Comments: The BIA Regional Office collects comments on the proposed transaction for 30 days.
• Response: 30 days to respond to the comments.
• Environmental Analysis: Tribe is currently in this step 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 the application is complete Gaming Compact Process
• Negotiation: Tribe submits request to negotiate Tribal State Gaming Compact with the California Governor detailing
types of gaming allowed on reservation. Without the
Gaming Contract, the Tribes 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: 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.

PURPOSE: Additional Impact Analysis–
a) Reimbursement Agreement with City to fund
additional impact and mitigation analysis:
-Water Infrastructure, Easements, Capacity, Supply
-Sewer, Wastewater and Stormwater
-Vehicle and Emergency Access
-Transportation Infrastructure and Capacity
-Public Safety Services
-Social Impacts
-Other Impacts
*Termination at City’s sole discretion*
Agreement Purpose
Benefits and Risks
• Allows for further study of impacts and mitigations in a process outside the City’s authority
• Intergovernmental Agreement-Next step to Create
path to formalize mitigation if Tribe moves forward
• Protects City interests through technical expert
analysis and proposed mitigations
• Examples of mitigations in other jurisdictions:
– One bay area county received 1 time $5M
mitigation & $17M recurring yearly for impacts;
$30M for environmental & parks; & $12M for
community grants
– Another bay area city got one time $12k for crime
impacts for not negotiating.

Benefits and Risks (cont)
• Tribe proceeds with the project without City input
and the BIA approves the Fee to Trust application
with a different level of mitigation than will work for Vallejo specific needs.
• Community concerns with casinos-can be looked at
cooperatively instead of after the fact without
leverage.
• No commitment to support project at this time.

More info is gathered and then decided if
appropriate to proceed.
• Termination of Agreement: any reason anytime at
City's sole discretion.

Next Steps
• Additional assessment of environmental impacts
with a Reimbursement Agreement with the Tribe to
fund analysis
• Negotiation of Intergovernmental Agreement. If
Agreement is met, proposed Intergovernmental
Agreement to City Council public hearing
• If Fee to trust is approved by BIA, Tribe negotiates
with the Governor for a Gaming Compact;
if not approved, Agreement will be terminated
• Updated Agreement and attachment A-minor
redline based on comment about retention of utility
and easement authority. Online, on dias, in back of
room.

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
Section 4.4 Land Use-language added to
Cooperative Agreement
Notwithstanding the above, The City expressly retains its full authority over all existing easements and infrastructure located on the Property, and nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a release, waiver, or limitation of the City's rights or jurisdiction concerning such easements and
infrastructure. Should the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 151.14(b), identify and require the elimination of such easements or encumbrances as a condition for
acceptance of the Project Site into trust status due to a determination that they render title unmarketable, the Parties will meet and confer regarding any possible relocation of said easements or encumbrances at the sole cost of the Tribe.

Nothing in this Agreement shall obligate the City to agree to any such relocation or to elimination of any City easement or encumbrance.

Dawn Abrahamson
Matt Rodriguez <[email protected]>
Tuesday, November 19,2024 11:38AM
CityClerk;RobertH.McConnell;Mina Loera-Diaz;[email protected];JR Matulac; CharlesPalmares;PeterBregenzer;Tina Arriola;Andrew Murray PatriciaPonce; BrianHickey;Maria Ojeda; Libby Tyler;Arturo E.Castillo

PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER OF CONCERN ON VALLEJO CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM #9-E - ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO

INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA
FINAL LTR - Mayor Comment to Cityof VallejoCoop Agreement COMBINED SIGNED FORMATTED 111924.ltrevbphi 11824 FINAL.pdf
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outsideyourorganization.

Vallejo Mayor Robert McConnell and Vallejo City Council (incare of City Clerk’s Office)TO:

Vallejo City Manager Andrew Murraycc:

From: San Pablo Mayor PatriciaPonce and San Pablo City Council PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER OF CONCERN ON AGENDA ITEM #9-E - 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 RE:

On behalf of San Pablo Mayor PatriciaPonce and San Pablo City Council, Iam transmittinga public comment letterof concern regarding the above Agenda Item #9-E scheduled on the VallejoCityCouncil meeting agenda (ACTION CALENDAR) fortheirregularmeeting scheduled forTuesday, November 19, 2024 (See Attachment).

The City of San Pablo would likethis letterto be acknowledged as received, and to be included as written public comment as part of the public record this evening under said Agenda item.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Matt Rodriguez,
City Manager
'Teamwork San Pablo - 2024 Year of Revitalization'
1 510.215.3016 IDirect
510.215.3000 IOffice{Main}
510.215.3011 IFax
Address: 1000 Gateway Avenue, San Pablo,
CA 94806
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.sanpabloca.Eov
lAO
I
K/
City Hall Hours;
Monday thru Thursday - 7:30am to 6:00pm CITY HALL OFFICES ARE CLOSED FRIDAYS^} Please see website https://www.sanpabloca.qov/ forother department hours.

This email and any fifestransmitted with itare confidentialand intended solelyforthe use of the individualor entityto which they are addressed. Ifyou have receivedthisemail inerrorpleasenotifythe system administrator- mailto:[email protected]. Pleasenote thatany views or opinionspresented inthisemail are solelythose of the author and do not necessarilyrepresentthose of the Cityof San Pablo. Finally,the recipientshould check thisemail and any attachments for the presence of viruses.The Cityof San Pablo accepts no liabilityforany damage caused by any virustransmittedby thisemail. 2 San Pablo
C All-AmericaCity’P
3 NAIIlK.MinK II ;
CQ o
O
< November 19, 2024
CITYo^SAN PAB 2014
Q. g Cilvof Sew Direclions
E>TRANSMITTAL/ U.S. REGULAR MAIL
Email: [email protected]
< Mr. Robert McConnell, Mayor
Cityof Vallejo
555 Santa Clara Street
Vallejo,California94590
CO
o With e-copies to:

VallejoCityCouncil
VallejoCityManager Andrew Murray
RE: COMMENT LETTER ON VALLEJO CITY COUNCL AGENDA ITEM #9 - E. 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 UND WITHIN THE CITY OF

VALLEJO IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TRIBE
Dear Honorable Mayor McDonnell and VallejoCityCouncil:

On behalf of the Cityof San Pablo CityCouncil,Iam forwarding thisletterof concern for formal consideration by the VallejoCity Council. This letterpertainsto Agenda Item #9 - E. regarding authorizationto execute a Cooperative Agreement between the Cityof Vallejoand the Scotts Valley Band of Porno Indiansrelatedto the proposed Scotts Valley Casino Projectto be locatedwithinthe Cityof Vallejo,CA.

As expressed earlierto U.S.Department of Interior/Bureauof IndianAffairs(DOI/BIA) officialson July22, 2024, the Cityof San Pablo and other interestedstakeholders strongly believethat the preparation of a fullEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS),pursuant to NEPA, isnecessary at thistime due to the extensive scaleof the projectand the multitude of significant,unmitigated impacts that were identifiedin the initialEnvironmental Assessment (EA) (See Attachment). The Cityof Vallejoagreed with thispositionin their own comment letterdated August 22, 2024, in which italso requests that the Bureau prepare an EISon the projectdue to the flawed and incomplete nature of the EA.

To conduct a proper environmental review under NEPA, the Cityof San Pablo believes that completion of this EIS should precede any project-specificnegotiations that may subsequently be contemplated by the Cityof Vallejoor other parties.Further,San Pablo 1000 Gateway Avenue ● San Pablo,CA 94806
Main: 510-215-3000 ● Fax: 510-215-301 I
www.SanPabloCA.gov
Mayor Robert McConnell
Cityof Vallejo,CA
November 19,2024

officialsurge the City of Vallejoto continue to encourage a full,comprehensive EIS analysis under NEPA be conducted to identifyand mitigate allpotentiallysignificant impacts associated with the Scotts Valley project,and to encourage meaningful public review by allthose individualsand agencies that willbe affected.

The Cityof San Pablo islocated just 16 miles from the proposed Casino projectsitein Vallejo,CA. As a resultof thisclose proximity to the proposed projectand itspotentialto exact a substantial economic impact on our community, the Cityof San Pablo strongly urges the City of Vallejoto include a complete and comprehensive analysisof allsocio economic and environmental justiceconcerns associated with the projecton nearby communities, includingSan Pablo. As noted inour July22,2024 BIA comment letter,San Pablo is a socio-economically disadvantaged community with one of the lowest household incomes inthe Bay Area, and with significantlylower household incomes than inVallejo,CA. Accordingto the initialEnvironmental Assessment, San Pablostandsto lose 20% or more of the community impact revenue itreceivesfrom the much smallerscaled San Pablo Lytton Casino.This revenue impact, which would amount to an estimated$8 to $10 millionannual reduction,isessentialfor San Pablo to maintain criticalmunicipal services to its local residents.

The Cityof San Pablo understands that formal authorityisbeing requested atthistime to allow Cityof Vallejoofficialsto develop a new. Cooperative Agreement concurrentlywith any federalapplicationapproved by DOI/EIA officialsinthe foreseeablefuture.Inthe spiritof good governance and intergovernmental cooperation between localCA cities, where revenues are criticalto sustain local municipal services,we believe that there needs to be a primary focus on, and thorough analysisof, allsocio-economic and environmental justiceimpacts. This isparticularlythe case giventhe financialimpact any new Native American gaming establishment willhave on other nearby localcitiesthat already have similarcooperative agreements inplace.

Under the Municipal ServicesAgreement entered intobetween the CityofSan Pabloand LyttonCasino in1999, nearly65% ofthe City'sannual GeneralFund revenuesarereceived from the San Pablo LyttonCasino.This revenue isessentialforSan Pablo to sustainour localcommunity, especiallyemergency servicesand response(policeand fire),youth and senior programs, and other health and safety services.These criticalserviceswillbe substantiallyimpacted by the emergence of a large-scaleCasino projectin such close proximity.The resultwillbe substantialerosion to, and potentialeliminationof,these criticalservices that San Pablo officialsmust provide to itsresidents.Therefore,we believe that there needs to be substantial public review and a financialequity analysis when addressing ail associated benefits and impacts of this proposed Scotts Valley project, and its corresponding impact to surrounding local citiesand government stakeholders.

Mayor Robert McConnell
Cityof Vallejo,CA
November 19,2024

In closing,the Cityof San Pablo appreciatesthe opportunityto submit our concernson thismatter and respectfullyurges Cityof Vallejoofficialsto upholdgood governanceand intergovernmentalcooperation inthe regionwhen itcomes to itsresponsibilitiesas a localregulatoryand governmental authority.Consistentwith the positionpreviously articulatedby the Cityof Vallejoitself,and inaccordance with allapplicableFederaland State laws, we continue to request the preparation of a fullEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)priorto any subsequent considerationand actionwith respectto the proposed ScottsValleyCasino Project.

Should you have any further concerns or questions, please contact San Pablo City Manager Matt Rodriguezat (510)215-3000, or viaemail at:[email protected] Thank you foryourtime and considerationofthismatter.

Sincerely,
PatricaPonce, Mayor
Cityof San Pablo, CA
Attachment: PublicComment Letterfrom Cityof San Pablo to DOI/BIA officials dated 07/22/24
US Senator Alex Padilla
US Senator-elect Adam Schiff
US CongressionalRepresentativeJohn Garamendi {D-8^*^District) cc:

San Pablo City Council
San Pablo CityManager
San Pablo City Attorney
San Pablo Assistant City Manager
San Pablo Community Development Director
San Pablo Administrative Services Director
San Pablo
All-AmericaCity;3 ii.va f
CQ \ fo
O
< CITYo^SAN PABLO 2014
Q- ^ July22,2024 City !^eivDirections
E-TRANSMITTAL & U.S. REGULAR MAIL
Sent via email to: [email protected]
[email protected]
< Amy Dutschke, Regional Director
Bureau of Indian Affairs,PacificRegional Office
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2820
Sacramento, CA 95825
CO
o RE: COMMENT LETTER ON THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY/ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT FOR THE SCOTTS VALLEY CASINO AND TRIBAL HOUSING

PROJECT FROM THE CITY OF SAN PABLO, CA
Dear Ms. Dutschke;
Thank you for making the Notice of Availability/EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) forthe proposed Scotts Valley Casino and TribalHousing Projectavailableforpublicreview. Unfortunately,certain publicagencies which are inclose proximityto thisproposed project,and who are directlyimpacted by the proposed project,were not properlynoticed of the EA document released on July 8, 2024.

However, the Cityof San Pablo appreciatesthe opportunityto providecomments atthistime given the limited timeframe.

The Cityof San Pablo considers itselfto be an interestedpartyregardingthisproposed projectdue to our close proximity,and the vested interestthatour community has withSan Pablo LyttonCasino forwhich we are the host community. The San Pablo LyttonCasino islocatedincentralSan Pablo just offof 1-80freeway corridorin Contra Costa County which isapproximately 16 milesfrom the proposed projectsite.

The San Pablo LyttonCasino islocatedon federaltrustlandestablishedby thefederalgovernment and the Lytton Rancheria Band of Porno Indians (LyttonTribe),withinCityincorporatedlimits.The Lytton Tribe owns and operates the San Pablo Lytton Casino, and has a vested interestinthe consideration of the development of this proposed projectby the ScottsValley Band of Porno Indians,who desire to formally establishfederal trustland for thisnew mega casino gaming operation,which was previouslydenied by BIA officialsin 2016.

Since 1999, San Pablo has served as host community forSan Pablo LyttonCasino which has been an important economic partner for our community forthe past 25 years.The Cityof San Pablo recognizes that,through the City’sMunicipal Services Agreement (MSA) with the LyttonTribe, Casino revenues provide a much appreciated and reliedupon source offundsthatcomprise nearly 65% of the City’annual general fund budget each year. Casino revenues fund criticalmunicipal servicesthrough the MSA agreement to the San Pablo community (pop.32,000),includingbut not limitedto, the following:police and fireprotection,emergency management services,building health and safety,youth and senior services,etc.
1000 Gateway Avenue ● San Pablo,CA 94806
Main: 510-215-3000 ● Fax: 510-215-301 I
www.SanPabloCA.gov
Amy Dutschke, Regional Director
Bureau ofIndianAffairs,PacificRegionalOffice
Date of Transmittal:July 22, 2024
Re: Comment Letter- NoticeofAvailability/EnvironmentalAssessment forthe Scotts Valley Casino and Tribal Housing Projectfrom the Cityof San Pablo, CA

Inadditionto providingcriticalfunding forthe City,the Lytton Tribe and the San Pablo Lytton Casino partnership isan important contributorto our localeconomy through creationofjobs and attraction of visitorswho patronizeour localcommercial corridorsand contributeto our localeconomy. Each year, the Lytton Tribe's generous annual contributionsalso benefitlocalseniors and non-profit community service organizations who provide our localresidents with health care, services forthe disabled, localyouth programs, and more through the San Pablo Community Foundation Grant Program.

Preliminary Concerns on Economic Analysis
San Pablo is one of the lowest-income communities in the Bay Area and includes several tracts which are categorized as Disadvantaged Communities, according to U.S. Census. These are areas throughout Californiawhich sufferimmensely from a combinationofeconomic, health,and environmental burdens. Byway of contrast,San Pablo’smedian household income issignificantly less (16%) than thatof the Cityof Vallejo.

Within itsEconomic Analysis,the EA forthe projectprojectsa reductionof over (-20%) inannual gaming revenues forthe San Pablo LyttonCasino due to the relativelycloseproximityto the proposed project,which would be just16 miles northalongInterstate80. Because the MSA with San Pablo is based on a percentage of the casino's revenue, thiswillresultin a direct commensurate negative impact in benefits that accrue to the Cityof San Pablo, and itsabilityto serve itslocalresidents.This impact must be considered a significantsocio-economic and environmental justiceimpact ofthe proposed project,and isobviouslyoftremendousconcernto the CityofSan Pablo officials,and itsresidents.The EA documentfailstoincludeany analysisof the off-siteenvironmental justiceimpacts on the City of San Pablo,from which the projectwill syphon a considerableportionof Casino revenue which has a correspondingeconomic and negativeimpact to the Cityof San Pablo, and itsprogram and servicedelivery.Based on the projected20% reductioninannual gaming revenues totheSan PabloLyttonCasino,therewould be a potential$8-$10M estimatedannual reductionincriticallocalfundingtotheCityofSan Pablo as a resultof thismega casino project.

Preliminary Concerns on Environmental Impacts
In our opinion, itisvery clearthatthe proposal has the potentialto createsignificantadverse environmental impacts that must be furtherstudied and mitigated.The siteislocatedbeyond the urbanized area of the City of Vallejo in an area that lacks urban infrastructureand is characterizedby steep unstable slopes,grassland,and areas ofsensitiveoak woodland habitat.

The projectitselfwould be ofdisproportionatelyhigh impactand intensity,consistingofan eight- storystructurewithrestaurants,bars,and ballroomforevents,open 24 hours,7 days a week, year- round. The proposed casino buildingwould contain over two millionsquare feet(i.e.2,209,970 square feet),and over 4,000 parking spaces. Of the eightstories,allor portionsofseven floors would be dedicated to parking,with floor5 containingthe casinofacilityitself.There would be a totalof 10 bars/restaurants on this level,with the remaining area devoted to gaming. Floor6 would contain a Grand Ballroom and parking. The projectwould furtherinclude24 housing unitsand a new. TribalAdministration Building of 12,555 square feet. The massive buildingwould step-up Amy Dutschke, Regional Director
Bureau of IndianAffairs,PacificRegional Office
Date ofTransmittai:July 22, 2024
Re: Comment Letter- Noticeof Availability/EnvironmentalAssessmentfortheScottsValleyCasinoand Tribal Housing Projectfrom the Cityof San Pablo,CA

along the hillside,creatinga major visualimpact inwhat iscurrentlyan undevelopedgrassland hillsideinVallejo,CA.

Preliminary Concerns on Land Use Impacts
In terms of land use impacts, justthe southernmost portion(about15%+ ofthe site)ofthe 160- acre parcelisplanned forurban development inthe 2040 CityofVallejoGeneralPlan,which shows this area as future Business/Limited Residential, and the remaining 85%+ is shown as Parks, Recreation and Open Space. Intensifyingthe entiretyofthe sitetoan eight-story,high-density24- hour commercial development with regionaldraw isa significantdeviationfrom the projectionsof this General Plan and in itself must be considered a significantenvironmental impact. The alternativesanalysisforthe futureEIS should consider locationswhich are lessof a deviationfrom the carefullyplanned land uses foreseen inVallejo.Other locationsthatwould not resultinexurban expansion and growth inducement should be investigated.Due to increasing environmental concerns, wildfirehazards, and limitedwater supply,intensivegreenfielddevelopment on the urban edge should be avoided, especiallyinareas thatlacktransportationalternatives.

The siteitselfmay be unsuitable for the scale and type of development proposed. The proposed site consists of rolling hillsideswith grassland, marshland, oak woodland, and natural drainageways. The geological study contained in the Environmental Assessment shows that there are at leastfour(4)landslidesexistingon the site,includingunderlying those areas which are proposed forthe eight-storycasino buildingand the casino housing. Itshould be noted that San Pablo also has portionsof itsplanning area that consistof unstable hillsides.These areas have been zoned for Open Space in order to avoid the significantenvironmental impacts of slope instabilityand the lossof propertyand lifethatcan result.The City of Vallejoalso understands the danger of development on these hillsidesand have wisely planned forOpen Space inthisarea, a future land use designation with which this project would directly conflict.The geologic characteristics and natural hazards present at this site create the potentialfor significant environmental impacts thatmay not be practicallymitigated.

With respect to hydrologic resources, the siteplan would resultin the elimination of existing naturaldrainageways thatcross the property,as wellas areas of wetland. In terms of biological resources, the sitecontains a varietyof naturalhabitatsand itsdevelopment would potentially adversely affectseveralFederal endangered and State-Listedspecialstatusspecies, such as the Californiared-legged frog and the Caliippe SilverspotButterfly.Providing a reserve is a poor substituteforthe naturallyoccurringhabitatpresent on the sitethat would be destroyed by the proposed project.

With over 2,000,000 square feet of buildingand 4,000 parking spaces, the projectwould resultin a projected 8,500 tripsper day with significant unavoidable trafficand circulation impacts.

Unlikethe San Pablo LyttonCasino, the proposed locationofferslittleto no opportunityforaccess using modes other than personal vehicles,such as publictransitor pedestrian access. This will resultin a huge increase in trafficvolumes and significantimpacts on the levelsof service for surrounding intersections.The analysiscontained inthe Environmental Assessment (EA) does not includeany assessment of vehiclemiles traveled(VMT) which isthe currentstatutoryrequirement fortrafficimpact analysisinCaliforniaand the stateof artfortrafficassessment. How many more Amy Dutschke, Regional Director
Bureau of IndianAffairs,PacificRegional Office
Date of Transmittal: July 22, 2024
Re: Comment Letter- NoticeofAvailability/EnvironmentalAssessment fortheScottsValleyCasino and Tribal Housing Projectfrom the CityofSan Pablo,CA

VMT would thisprojectadd to the area and what are the mitigationmeasures thatcan reducethis level?Are thereTransportationDemand Management techniques thatshouldbe applied? The potentialimpact on regional air quality and climate change throughgreenhouse gas emissions from tripsgenerated to and from the sitedemands furtherstudy.The analysisinthese areas should be expanded to reflectthese analysismethods as partofthe EIS.

The projectwould requireup to431,000 gallonsofwaterperday and would potentiallydepend on on-sitegroundwater,a preciousresource which could depletewateravailabilityelsewhereand impairfutureagriculturaluses inthe region.There aresimilarconcernsifwaterserviceissought to be provided by the City of Vallejo.According to the Cityof Vallejo's2020 Urban Water Management Plan,the CityofVallejounder currentconditionswouldbarelybe abletomeet water demand in an increasinglylikelyfive-yeardrought scenario.The immense water usage of the proposed projectwould push the City’swater demand welloverwhat itcan provideinthis circumstance.Close to 300,000 gallonsof wastewater would be generatedeach day and would likelyrequirean onsitewastewatertreatmentfacility,producingquantitiesofsludgeand brinethat willneed to be transportedoff-sitefordisposal.The regionalimplicationsoftheseimpactsshould be studied further in the EIS.

The projectalsohas the potentialtostrainother localservices.Most notably,theCityofVallejo has a policeforce of just47 {including34 patrolofficers)to provideprotectionto its96,000 residents.In fact,in July 2023, the City of Vallejodeclareda stateof emergency over police shortages.The additionofthecasinowiththe highpotentialforcrime-relatedactivitycouldfurther strainlocalpoliceand compromise itsabilityto serviceresidentsofthearea.With respecttofire protection,thesiteiswithina highFireHazard SeverityZone withlocalresponsibility(LRA FHSZ), and epitomizesthe urban wildlandinterfacethathas been thecause and focusoftheState’scrisis of wildfiresexperienced inrecentyears. Protectinga developmentofthismagnitudeislikelywell beyond the capabilityof localfireagencies.

A review of the EA shows many areas that requirefurtherenvironmentalanalysisshould be conducted. Itisunsupportableto findthata projectofthisscope inthislocationwould notresultin significantenvironmental impacts.

Request for Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)Review
Therefore, we strongly urge BIA officialsto require the preparation of an appropriate Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)focused on the potentiallysignificantimpacts of the proposed project,including socio-economic conditions and environmentalJustice,land use, geological stabilityand wildfirehazards, public servicesand utilities,transportation and circulation,air quality, biological resources, and culturalresources.

The Cityof San Pablo looksforward to participatinginthe continuedenvironmentalreviewand development reviewprocesses toensure thatour formal interestsaretakenintoconsideration.

Please feelfree to contact San Pablo City Manager Matt Rodriguez directlyat(510)215-3016, or via email: [email protected] to expand on these matters as expressed by the City of San Pablo.

Amy Dutschke, Regional Director
Bureau of IndianAffairs,PacificRegional Office
Date ofTransmittal:July22, 2024
Re: Comment Letter- Notice of Availability/EnvironmentalAssessment forthe ScottsValleyCasino and Tribal Housing Projectfrom the Cityof San Pablo, CA

Thank you forthe opportunityto articulateour formal concerns over the EA forthe proposed Scotts Valley Casino and TribalHousing Project.

Sincerely,

PATRICIA PONCE, MAYOR

CITY OF SAN PABLO
Honorable TribalChairperson Andrew Mejia and Lytton Rancheria Band of Porno Indians Congressional Representative John Garamendi, D-8’^ District Stateof CA Assemblymember BuffyWicks, D-14’'^District
Contra Costa County Supervisor,John Gioia,District#!
San Pablo City Council
Matt Rodriguez, CityManager
Brian Hickey,CityAttorney
ElizabethTyler,Community Development Director
cc:

Amy Dutschke, Regional Director
Bureau of IndianAffairs,PacificRegional Office
Date ofTransmittal;July 22, 2024
Re: Comment Letter-Notice ofAvailability/EnvironmentalAssessment fortheScottsValleyCasino and Tribal Housing Projectfrom the Cityof San Pablo,CA

Cityof

VALLEJO MEMORANDUM
California
November 19, 2024
Honorable Mayor & Members ofthe CityCouncil
KristinPollot,AlCP, Planning and Development Services Director Correction for Consent Calendar Item 8C - “ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A

THIRD AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TRB & ASSOCIATES, INC. TO INCREASE COMPENSATION TO A MAXIMUM NOT TO EXCEED $400,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAME DATE:

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

The resolutioncontained inthe agenda packet has a typo inthe 8th recital,as the contractterm associated with the Second Amendment was extended to March 25, 2025 (notMarch 25, 2024). The specificrecitalinthe resolution must be revised to read as follows:
“WHEREAS, on April29, 2024, the partiesentered intoa Second Amendment tothe Agreement to increase the maximum not-to-exceed amount of the Agreement to $310,000 and extend the Term thereof to March 25, 2024; and"
Attachment: Revised Resolution - Consent Calendar Item 8C Approved as to form:
ev:

Veronica A-f. Nebb
City Attorney
N.C.RESOLUTION NO. 24-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO APPROVING A

THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTANT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TRB ASSOCIATES, INC. TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM NOT-TO- EXCEED AMOUNT OF THE AGREEMENT TO $400,000, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, the CityofVallejoPlanningand Development ServicesDepartment Building Division uses contract services on an as-needed basis to assiststaffwith plan review, building inspectionsand otherwork relatedto buildingpermitsduringperiodsofhighconstructionactivity or forprojectsrequiringspecializedknowledge; and
WHEREAS, contractualsupport supplements the City staffseffortto reduce plan check turn around time,manage the inspectionworkload inlightoffluctuatingdemand and perform damage assessment safetyinspectionsduring naturaldisasters;and WHEREAS, contractual services assistthe Building Divisionto maintain criticalstaffinglevels when positionsbecome vacant and/or serviceneeds increase;and WHEREAS, the Division’scurrentstaffinglevelisnot sufficientto support the work requiredto process complex buildingapplications,and requiresan outsideconsultantto providetechnical expertiseon a range of disciplinesnecessary to process complex projectsina timelymanner; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2023, the City entered into a Consultant and ProfessionalServices Agreement with Consultant for a one-year term to provide plan review, permittingand field inspectionservices to the City on an as-needed basis in an amount not to exceed $100,000 (Agreement); and
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2023, the partiesentered intoa FirstAmendment tothe Agreement to increase the maximum not-to-exceed amount of the Agreement to $200,000; and WHEREAS, due to staffingshortages, the City exercised itsrightto extend the Agreement; and WHEREAS, on April29, 2024, the partiesentered intoa Second Amendment tothe Agreement to increase the maximum not-to-exceed amount of the Agreement to $310,000 and extend the Term thereof to March 25, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the partiesdesire to amend the agreement to increasethe maximum not-to-exceed amount of the agreement to $400,000; and
WHEREAS, the City'sPlanning and Development Services Department permitapplicationfees willpay forthiswork.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED thatthe City Council hereby approves the Third Amendment to the existingConsultant and Professional Services Agreement with TRB Associates, Inc.,to increase the maximum not-to-exceed amount of the Agreement to $400,000 and authorized the City Manager to execute same.

Adopted by the CityCouncil ofthe CityofVallejoat a regularmeeting held on November 19, 2024 with the followingvote;
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ROBERT MCCONNELL, MAYOR
ATTEST:

DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON, CITY CLERK
Response to Questions from Councilmembers
Regarding the November 19, 2024 Council Agenda

1 Consent Item 8C – 3rd Amendment to TRB & Associates Agreement

1. In the "Resolution Approving the 3rd Amendment"; 2nd section/tab right after the staff report) Page 1 of 2, 4th paragraph from the bottom, the dates are regressing for the proposed increase from $200K to $310K from April 29, 2024 to March 25, 2024??? So what period is this $400K supposed to cover (from what date to what date)? The above discrepancy in the date sequencing (from the Resolution of 3rd Amendment to the 3rd Amendment Consultant and Professionals Services Agreement) appears to be corrected in section "1. " noting the $90K increase to $400K (...from April 29, 2024 to March 25, 2025...) (kindly confirm these are the correct dates).

In page 28 of 94 of the last section/tab of 8C, it states building codes for multiple disciplines to be 2019 they will be plan checking and referencing to. Kindly confirm these are the latest and most updated year for each of these disciplines to plan check and reference to; my cursory review of the "most current year" is 2022 for most (if not all these disciplines) building codes. Please revise/correct this RFP to the most currently accepted building code referenced checks for each discipline noted in the RFP .

Overarching question, with the increased staffing to our Building department, are there current or proposed projects that that our increased staffing can't handle that justifies this continuing (increased/rising cost) consulting agreement (which appears to duplicate the same/similar services to 8D)?
Response:

The proposed resolution does appear to have a typo. As shown in the packet attachments, the last contract amendment for TRB (the 2nd amendment) did extend the contract to March 25, 2025, so that is the current contract extension date.

Regarding the second comment about the applicable codes listed in the proposal (2019 vs. 2022), at the time the proposal was drafted (June 2022), the 2019 codes were still in effect. The 2022 updated codes took effect January 1, 2023. The consultants working for the City currently use the 2022 codes for review, and those code dates are referenced on the cover of every plan set submitted for review. Under the ‘Project Understanding’ section of the TRB proposal, the document states that “it is also understood that all assigned projects are to be reviewed/inspected for adherence to the City of Vallejo’s latest adopted Municipal Codes and Title 24 California Building Standards Codes covering structural, fire prevention, life safety, accessibility, energy conservation, green building, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical provisions, as applicable. ” This sentence should serve as a catch all to cover the concern raised, and staff does not believe the proposal needs to be updated at this time.

To address the overarching question about increased staffing within the Building division, and the need for continuing contract services, it should be noted that while a lot of hiring has happened in PDS over the last 5 months, only two new employees have been added to the Building Division (including the new Chief Building Official who just started in October, and a Response to Questions from Councilmembers
Regarding the November 19, 2024 Council Agenda

2 new Building Inspector I who started in August). The Division still has 4 vacancies (out of 12 total positions), and unfortunately, we had two recent unsuccessful recruitments for an Inspector II and a Plan Check Engineer. Work associated with these positions, plus a contracted permit technician (note - we have an active recruitment open for this role), are the bulk of what these firms are helping the department with, so unfortunately we will need to continue to rely on these firms for assistance until we can get these positions filled.

Consent Item 8D – 2nd Amendment with Shums Coda & Associates, Inc Agreement

1. Overarching question, with the increased staffing to our Building department, are there current or proposed projects that that our increased staffing can't handle that justifies this continuing (increased/rising cost) consulting agreement (which appears to duplicate the same/similar services to 8C)?
Response:

To address the overarching question about increased staffing within the Building division, and the need for continuing contract services, it should be noted that while a lot of hiring has happened in PDS over the last 5 months, only two new employees have been added to the Building Division (including the new Chief Building Official who just started in October, and a new Building Inspector I who started in August). The Division still has 4 vacancies (out of 12 total positions), and unfortunately, we had two recent unsuccessful recruitments for an Inspector II and a Plan Check Engineer. Work associated with these positions, plus a contracted permit technician (note - we have an active recruitment open for this role), are the bulk of what these firms are helping the department with, so unfortunately we will need to continue to rely on these firms for assistance until we can get these positions filled.

Consent Item 8E – 3rd Amendment with Interwest Consulting Group, Inc Agreement

1. Overarching question, with the increased staffing to the Planning department, are there current or proposed projects that that our increased staffing can't handle that justifies this continuing (increased/rising cost) consulting agreement? Response:

To address the overarching question about increased staffing within the Planning division and the need for continuing contract services, I am happy to report that we are not expecting to need any additional general contract staffing services for this division moving forward, as the Planning division will be fully staffed as of December 2nd (when our final new hire officially starts work). The contract with Interwest is intended to cover work that was unfortunately already rendered, and as such this contract will be closed out once the final invoices are paid. It should be noted that there is one more contract that will need amendment for Planning before closing out (for a different firm), but that will be brought to the next Council meeting on 12/10.

Response to Questions from Councilmembers
Regarding the November 19, 2024 Council Agenda

3 My apologies in accidentally omitting this request in the initial email, but in an effort of thorough due diligence, I hope we are:

1. Not only checking the references these consultants are listing, but also reaching out to those cities and jurisdictions they have done work in to confirm we are getting all the positive comments, negative comments and indifferent comments to assure we are getting the most bang for our buck.

2. I hope we are also confirming the hourly rates and scope of work fees they are proposing to us are no higher than what they have charge in other cities and jurisdictions.

THANK YOU all again for your efforts in assuring our Vallejo citizens we are appropriately and competitively using our funds for the consulting services we are engaging with and assuring our citizens we are being good stewards to our limited funds.

Action Item 9B – ARPA State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds/Provide Notice of Intent to Amend FY 24/25 Budget (Step 1)

1. Am I to understand correctly that the request to "unallocated" the noted funds of $2,122,443, approximately $1,800,000 (except the $340,000 Mural Program and Downtown Clean-Up) was "excess" ARPA funding we had "completely funded"? Response:

These are funding available either due to:
- Funds will not be encumbered by Dec 2024 or
- project completed and funding balance. For instance, the Sacramento Street project funding would have been required if HUD had not agreed to offset the payback with future VGRs.

2. For "Project 31; parking Revenue Loss $437,287" , does this cover the safety and broken cameras in the Ferry Terminal Parking garage that is still impacting patrons whose cars are still being broken into and vandalized? Why are these funds not used here? Response:

Parking moved forward with a camera repair/replacement project last year. The system was evaluated and the extent of damage assessed (which cameras were missing, which cameras weren’t working, which cameras were still working, etc.). The camera project had a limited budget (approximately $30k) based upon a matching grant received through Risk and, therefore, included the replacement of cameras at key locations only. Based upon the available budget, not every missing camera was replaced, and all cameras were not upgraded, but all existing cameras function now and have better coverage than before. Unfortunately, the camera system does not appear to be a big crime deterrent as vandalism and theft does still occur.

Response to Questions from Councilmembers
Regarding the November 19, 2024 Council Agenda

4 3. This is listed on the Council Approved project of having allocations of $1,263,383. So what project was "Project Completed/Remaining Funds" referencing to that doesn't cover the Ferry Parking garage that still has safety issues?
Response:

One of the categories for ARPA funding is revenue loss due to COVID. We had calculated loss revenue of the Parking fund based on trends in 2020. Currently Parking is generating enough revenue to cover its expenditure.

4. For "Project 33; Vallejo Naval & Historic Museum $68, 849" , I attended an event there about 2 months ago and they claimed they are in need of funding to repair (replace?) the elevator? why aren't these funds part of this work?

This is listed on the Council Approved project of having allocations of $410,000. So what project was "Project Completed/Remaining Funds" referencing to (since the elevator is not functioning, to meet ADA code)?
Response:

The City’s elevator contractor (Enpro) is currently working on the elevator. Approximately $212k has been paid to date for the work, with just over $133k encumbered for the remaining portions of the project. A fire alarm system will be installed next at the estimated cost of $44k. The remaining balance must be encumbered by 12/31/24 for it to remain in this project. A contract in the amount of the additional funding has not been executed and the tight timeline prevents that action from being completed by the deadline. The funds are being reallocated to prevent losing the funding.

5. For the proposed "re-allocating" of this $2,122,443 funding:

For "Item 13; Fire: Type I / Type IV $352,990" , if the ARPA funding needs to be spent by Dec. 31, 2024, how is "moving this funding to our General Fund" to purchase the excess funding of the Fire Trucks not expected until Dec. 2026 allotted?
Response:

ARPA budget needs to be encumbered in purchase orders by 12/31/24, and it needs to be spent by Dec. 2026. Staff do not expect the Type I Fire unit will be delivered by Dec. 2026 due to the extended production time of that type of apparatus. To expend the budget by the deadline, staff is proposing to use ARPA funding for the purchase of vehicles and equipment previously approved by Council to be purchased (14 Police units, one street sweeper), that have shorter production times and will be delivered prior to the ARPA deadline. The Type VI Brush Truck unit will continue to be purchased with ARPA funds as it will be delivered and paid for prior to the deadline. The General Fund budget Response to Questions from Councilmembers
Regarding the November 19, 2024 Council Agenda

5 previously allocated for the purchase of the Police units and street sweeper will then be used to purchase the Type I Fire Truck.

6. Of the Council approved projects, please confirm:

Below the $2,122,443, there is a reference to 4 sworn personnel and 4 non-sworn personnel what is the status of these line-itemed positions (are they filled? or unfilled in our adopted budget allocation spreadsheet)?
Response: There are only 4 non-sworn positions funded by ARPA. 3 are Police Assistance currently filled and 1 is a limited term COVID coordinator currently vacant.

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: November 19, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council
FROM: Gillian Haen, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Correction for Action Calendar Item 9E – “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”

The Cooperative Agreement published included an error related to the Attachment A. In addition, due to public comment, we have included additional language to strengthen the verbiage related to the City’s easements and infrastructure on the site to include the following additional language to Section 4.4 of the Agreement:

Notwithstanding the above, the City expressly retains its full authority over all existing easements and infrastructure located on the Property, and nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a release, waiver, or limitation of the City's rights or jurisdiction concerning such easements and infrastructure. Should the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 151.14(b), identify and require the elimination of such easements or encumbrances as a condition for acceptance of the Project Site into trust status due to a determination that they render title unmarketable, the Parties will meet and confer regarding any possible relocation of said easements or encumbrances at the sole cost of the Tribe. Nothing in this Agreement shall obligate the City to agree to any such relocation or to elimination of any City easement or encumbrance.

Attached please find the corrected Cooperative Agreement with Attachment A.

Attachments:

Revised Cooperative Agreement – Action Calendar Item 9E Attachment A

Cityof

VALLEJO MEMORANDUM
California
DATE: November 19, 2024
Honorable Mayor & Members ofthe CityCouncil
KristinPollot,AlCP, Planningand Development ServicesDirector Correction for Consent Calendar Item 8C - “ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A

THIRD AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TRB & ASSOCIATES, INC. TO INCREASE COMPENSATION TO A MAXIMUM NOT TO EXCEED $400,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAME TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

II
The originalresolutionpublishedincludea typographicalerrorrelatedtothe currentcontractexpirationdate, and the process previouslyused to extend the contract.To correctthiserror,the7*^and 8*^recitalsneed to be revised to read as follows:
“WHEREAS, due to staffingshortages,the Cityexercised itsrightto extend the Agreement by letterto a new expirationdate of March 28, 2025; and WHEREAS, on April29, 2024, the partiesentered intoa Second Amendment tothe Agreement to increasethe maximum not-to-exceedamount ofthe Agreement to $310,000; and”
Attachments:

Revised Resolution - Consent Calendar Item 8C
TRB Extension Letter
DocuSign Envelope 10:12A1F14D-DAC(M8B2*93D8-S1233EBD26E4 Cityof
VALLEJOCalifornia
PlanningDivision● 555 Santa ClaraStreet ● Vallejo■ CA ● 94590 ● 707-&49-5452 ATTN: Todd BaileyTRB & Associates Inc.
3180 Crow Canyon Place,Ste 216 San Ramon, CA 94583
RE: EXERCISE OF OPTION TO EXTEND
Contract Number: 23-PS149
By and Between: CityofVallejo/TRB & Associates Inc.

Dear Mr. Todd Bailey,
Pursuant to paragraph 16 of the Consultant and ProfessionalServicesAgreement (“Agreement")dated March 28, 2023 the Cityhereby provideswrittennoticeexercisingitsoption to extend the Agreement an additionalone year. The new terminationdate shallnow be March 28, 2025 unlessotherwiseextended by the Citypursuantto paragraph 16 and/orVallejo Municipal Code Chapter 3.20.

Allother provisionsof the Agreement remain unchanged and infullforceand effect.

Ifyou have any questions,please contactDale Millerat [email protected].

Sincerely,
’OoeuSIgnMl by:
7B93C0F2C02241A
Christina Ratcliffe AlCP
Planning & Development Services Director
Approved as to form:

JSLBy:

Veronica A.F. Nebb
Oty Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 24- N.C.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO APPROVING A

THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTANT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TRB ASSOCIATES, INC. TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM NOT-TO- EXCEED AMOUNT OF THE AGREEMENT TO $400,000, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, the CityofVallejoPlanning and Development Services Department Building Division uses contract services on an as-needed basis to assiststaffwith plan review, building inspectionsand otherwork relatedto buildingpermitsduringperiodsofhighconstructionactivity or forprojectsrequiringspecializedknowledge; and
WHEREAS, contractualsupport supplements the City staffseffortto reduce plan check turn around time, manage the inspectionworkload in lightof fluctuatingdemand and perform damage assessment safetyinspectionsduring naturaldisasters;and WHEREAS, contractualservices assistthe BuildingDivisionto maintain criticalstaffinglevels when positionsbecome vacant and/or service needs increase;and WHEREAS, the Division’scurrentstaffinglevelisnot sufficientto support the work requiredto process complex buildingapplications,and requiresan outsideconsultantto providetechnical expertise on a range of disciplinesnecessary to process complex projectsina timelymanner; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2023, the City entered into a Consultant and ProfessionalServices Agreement with Consultant for a one-year term to provide plan review, permitting and field inspection services to the City on an as-needed basis in an amount not to exceed $100,000 (Agreement); and
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2023, the partiesentered intoa FirstAmendment to the Agreement to increase the maximum not-to-exceed amount of the Agreement to $200,000; and WHEREAS, due to staffingshortages, the City exercised itsrightto extend the Agreement by letterto a new expirationdate of March 28, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on April29, 2024, the parties entered intoa Second Amendment to the Agreement to increase the maximum not-to-exceed amount of the Agreement to $310,000; and WHEREAS, the partiesdesire to amend the agreement to increase the maximum not-to-exceed amount of the agreement to $400,000; and
WHEREAS, the City’sPlanning and Development Services Department permit applicationfees willpay forthiswork.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the Third Amendment to the existingConsultant and ProfessionalServices Agreement with TRB Associates, Inc.,to increase the maximum not-to-exceed amount of the Agreement to $400,000 and authorized the City Manager to execute same.

Adopted by the CityCouncil ofthe CityofVallejoat a regularmeeting held on November 19, 2024 withthe followingvote:

AYES;
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ROBERT MCCONNELL, MAYOR
ATTEST;
DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON, CITY CLERK

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

SCOTTS V ALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA

AND

CITY OF V ALLEJO

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.

Notwithstanding the above, the City expressly retains its full authority over all existing easements and infrastructure located on the Property, and nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a release, waiver, or limitation of the City's rights or jurisdiction concerning such easements and infrastructure. Should the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 151.14(b), identify and require the elimination of such easements or encumbrances as a condition for acceptance of the Project Site into trust status due to a determination that they render title unmarketable, the Parties will meet and confer regarding any possible relocation of said easements or encumbrances at the sole cost of the Tribe. Nothing in this Agreement shall obligate the City to agree to any such relocation or to elimination of any City easement or encumbrance.

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.

Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo

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.

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.

Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo

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

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.’

Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo

13. Miscellaneous

13.1 Notices. 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
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.

12.2 Limitation 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.

12.3 No 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.

12.4 Severability. If any provision of this Cooperative Agreement is found to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will remain in full

Cooperative Agreement by and between
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and City of Vallejo 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.

12.5 Waiver. 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.

12.6 Amendment; 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.

12.7 Neutral 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.

12.8 Headings. 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.

12.9 Counterparts. This Cooperative Agreement may be executed in counterparts.

12.10 Electronic 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 V ALLEJO:

Date:_____________ By:___________________________________ Robert H. McConnell Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY:

Date:_____________ By:___________________________________ Veronica Nebb, Esq.

City Attorney

SCOTTS V ALLEY 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 V ALLEY GENERAL COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. S.V . # ___-_____

RESOLUTION FOR APPROV AL BY THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE

SCOTTS V ALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS FOR A CERTAIN LIMITED WAIVER

OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND CONSENT TO JURISDICTION FOR THE

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SCOTTS V ALLEY BAND OF POMO

INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA AND CITY OF V ALLEJO

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, 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. 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

1. The staff report recites that the parties have engaged in preliminary discussions. Please summarize the issues that have been discussed and what was not discussed but is being left to a later time.

City Staff and the Tribes staff/counsel have engaged in discussion about the need for additional analysis regarding the potential environmental impacts listed in the EA comment letter, and the Cooperative Agreement and the staff report for such. These include the following areas which need additional analysis including but not limited to:

Water Infrastructure, Easements, Capacity, Supply; Sewer, Wastewater and Stormwater; Vehicle and Emergency Access; Transportation Infrastructure and Capacity; Public Safety Services; Social Impacts; Other Impacts. These areas will be analyzed by staff and expert consultants to determine impacts and potential mitigations.

2. When the report states that the Vallejo interests are to be adequately mitigated through the NEPA, what legal rights does the city have to place items of interest into the NEPA? The City is a responsible Agency in the NEPA process. If the City does not feel the mitigations are adequate to reduce the environmental impacts, then there is legal recourse.

3. Will Vallejo be able to obtain adequate fire safety items in all of the buildings, such as fire sprinklers throughout, adequate water pressure, number of hydrants? Or is it whatever the tribe feels like doing.

This analysis will be done in the next phase of staff and consultant study. The City will make recommendations to the Tribe for the project and in this Cooperative Agreement, the Tribe has committed to meeting the building codes and City design standards.

4. Please list the various topics of mutual interest and concern to be discussed going forward.

Please see the list above in #1, which is a starting point for further analysis but is not exhaustive.

5. What right of control will the city have over adjacent roads, such as Columbus Parkway, Fairgrounds Drive, Admiral Callahan, the I80 interchange redesigned to adequately provide for the anticipated traffic count, first responder responsibilities and cost contributions, internet sales and taxes therefrom such as for tobacco products when the city is forcing others out of the business, the building of additional housing on the 160 acres, use of the facility by community groups, especially non profits including religious organizations.

The fee to trust application pertains to the 160 privately owned acres proposed. City jurisdiction remains over all the adjacent roads. Traffic and other impacts will be analyzed to ensure those impacts can be adequately mitigated in this next step of the process.

6. How does the city have any right to enforce anything on the 160 campus unless it is in the treaty.

If the 160 acres is accepted into trust, the City will have an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Tribe addressing how they will mitigate the impacts and compensate the City for those impacts. The City will have legal recourse if the Intergovernmental Agreement is breeched.

7. Is the tribe willing to work with a council appointed liaison council member.

Staff can make that request. The Tribal Council has expressed interest in meeting with every City Council member.

8. Can the city and the tribe agree as to what items the city could have jurisdiction over? And, if that agreement is entered, how does it get enforced?
If the land is put into trust, the City will have no jurisdiction over the land. Any government to government agreements will be contained in a future Intergovernmental Agreement to ensure the City is adequately mitigated.

9. Please summarize the legal requirements of the city if it authorized this proposed agreement. If a claim is made that the city has violated the agreement, what happens to resolve that claim.

As described in the Agreement, there is a mediation section to address disagreements. The Tribe waives its sovereignty for this process and the City has legal recourse. The City can also terminate the agreement at any time for any reason at the City’s sole discretion.

10. How does the city obtain an economic impact report to determine the loss of volume now present in already established businesses in the area?
An economic impact analysis will be part of the work that comes out of the Cooperative Agreement before any decision is made to move forward with an Intergovernmental Agreement.

11. Would the tribe be willing to provide a police substation to be used jointly by tribal security forces and VPD?
Those public safety impacts will be analyzed and may result in some sort of additional support for police or fire. City police and Tribal police are typically separate entities. At this point, the impact analysis will look at what the City would need to provide in order to serve the proposed project.

12. How does the COV exert any influence over the design of the buildings on the site? The artists “rendition” was rather ugly!
The City has no authority over project design, but the Tribe has agreed to submit plans to the City for review and comment.

13. How can the city be provided funding from this project to address the added impact on the traffic generated by this project, including the need for better signal lighting? As discussed above, analysis will be done in the impact areas by professional consultants and staff to develop potential mitigations, if possible. Those mitigations could include physical improvements, or monetary supplements to mitigate the impacts.

14. Will the tribe have to negotiate with Vallejo Flood and Sewer as to capacity, fees, and costs of improving the infrastructure? How will solid waste be handled.

The Tribe has entered into a Reimbursement Agreement with VFWD to analyze impacts to sewer and storm. VFWD staff can answer other questions related to this issue.

15. Will the tribe agreed to conduct not less than 2 community meetings to gather public views and provide for those views.

This is an idea that can be negotiated into the Intergovernmental Agreement.

16. Will the tribe need to contribute to the improvements in the design for SR37, I80, especially the on and off ramps
See answers to item #1 and #13.

17. The staff report recites the city agrees not to oppose any efforts by the tribe to cause the DOI to accept trust title. Why does staff recommend such an sweeping ban before we even know what the project looks like.

The Cooperative Agreement section 9 allows for Termination at the City’s sole discretion. It is in the City’s best interest to do the analysis and have the Tribe fund that analysis before we take a position of support or opposition. This Agreement only staets the City will not oppose while we are negotiating. If the City Council decides later to oppose, we only need to terminate the agreement to do so.

18. Is the Tribe open to reopening the agreement in the future to address new developments, including cost of living increases
The is something we could negotiate into the Intergovernmental Agreement and has been done with other Tribes and cities.

19. Please summarize what the city can do, can’t do, and the gray areas concerning the issues to be discussed going forward.

The City is positioning itself for understanding impacts in the affected areas to ensure our community is protected and mitigated adequately.

20. Why 160 acres?
That is what the Tribe applied for in their Fee to Trust Application.

21. What are views of staff about letting the next council weigh in on this application rather than the present council, especially given the reality that there will 4 new members on that council.

The risks outlined in the staff report identify that if the City chooses to not move forward with the Cooperative Agreement, the Tribe may move forward with the Fee to Trust application without the City’s input. The risk is that the BIA may have a different idea of impacts and appropriate mitigation for Vallejo specific impacts and concerns. This agreement is terminable at the City’s sole discretion for any reason. At this point in time, the Cooperative Agreement moving forward allows the City to investigate the impacts with funding from the Tribe so staff is recommending we move forward. The next City Council will have discretion over the Intergovernmental Agreement which is a bigger step towards commitment to the project impacts and mitigations.

From: Zenith Kissana <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 2:50 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Tobacco Retail Licensing

Hello, my name is Zenith and I am a lifelong Vallejo resident. I would like to speak about the urgent need for stronger tobacco retail licensing policies in Vallejo. I I have witnessed firsthand how the predatory targeting by the tobacco industry
Hello, my name is Zenith and I am a lifelong Vallejo resident. I would like to speak about the urgent need for stronger tobacco retail licensing policies in Vallejo. I I have witnessed firsthand how the predatory targeting by the tobacco industry can devastate lives, including within my own family. My brother, who once won an art competition for a piece called Smoking Kills, began smoking cigarettes as a teenager. Despite understanding the dangers, he has not been able to quit. This was only possible because of how easily he could access tobacco products in his youth.

No young person should have the same access he did. Today, the problem has only grown worse, with new flavored products, vibrant packaging, and enticing marketing making tobacco even more appealing to youth.

These tactics are not accidental—they’re calculated efforts by the tobacco industry to hook the next generation.

We have a responsibility to ensure our children are protected from these harmful influences. Strengthening local tobacco policies and enforcement is a critical step to breaking this cycle and creating a healthier future for all Vallejo families.

Despite state laws aimed at restricting the sale of flavored tobacco, recent visits to 25 Vallejo retailers revealed alarming findings. Over two-thirds of these stores openly sold flavored tobacco products like blueberry cigarillos and grape vapes, and many advertised discounts, making these harmful products more accessible to youth. Additionally, the cheapest cigarettes were as low as $5.49, and cigarillos were sold for less than $1.

This issue directly impacts our youth. Between 2021 and 2023, 25% of Vallejo retailers inspected by the state’s STAKE unit sold tobacco to underage decoys—a troubling trend that follows years of high illegal sales rates. According to the California Healthy Kids Survey, 45% of Vallejo juniors said it’s “very easy” or “fairly easy” to get cigarettes, and 67% said the same for e-cigarettes. Furthermore, 34% of 11th graders reported ever vaping, with 13% vaping in the last 30 days. Marginalized groups, including LGBTQ+ youth, are disproportionately affected, using e-cigarettes at much higher rates than their peers.

This is a public health crisis that we can address locally. Tobacco retailers are often clustered near schools— 7 are within 500 feet of a VCUSD school site—putting our children at greater risk. I urge the council to adopt a comprehensive policy to regulate tobacco retail licensing, including regular compliance checks and meaningful penalties for violations. Our youth and community deserve better protection from the predatory practices of the tobacco industry, which spends billions to target vulnerable populations.

Let’s take a stand together to safeguard Vallejo’s future. Thank you.

Zenith Kissana | She/Her
Senior Health Education Specialist, Public Health
[email protected]

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE

BILL EMLEN
County Administrator
[email protected]

DEBBIE VAUGHN
Assistant County Administrator
[email protected]
exas Street, Suite 6500
airficld, C,A 94533 6342
(707) 784-6100
Fax (707) 784.7975
675 r
F
SIAN M. GOLDBERG
Assistant County Admrnistrator
[email protected] COLINTY
www.solanocounty.com
November 19. 2024
Andrew Murray, City Manager
City of Vallejo
555 Santa Clara Street
Vallejo CA 94590
Re: Agenda ltem LE for November 19,2024 City Council Meeting Dear Mr. lvlurray:

This letter provides comments by the County of Solano concerning ltem 9.E on your Agenda for the November 19,2024, City Council Meeting.

Item 9.E asks the Council to authorize a Cooperative Agreement between the City and the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo lndians relating to a proposal for a casino that the tribe wishes to locate within Vallejo.

The County of Solano remains opposed to the proposed project The proposed Cooperative Agreement would be premature, We are not aware of any compelling reason or urgent deadline why the City must enter into a Cooperatrve Agreement now. Rather, the City should engage with the County, the Solano Transportation Authority, and other regional partners at this time, and then subsequently decide for itself in a more inclusive way whether the City views the proposed project favorably or negatively overall. ln other words, we would respectfully suggest that the City give thoughtful consideralion to the merits of the proposed project before deciding on next steps.

The merits of the proposed project depend not merely on whether its physical environmental effects can be analyzed and mitigated, but also on the characler of its anticipated economic and social rmpacts.

Given the scale of the proposed project, its environmental, economic, and social impacts will clearly be substantial. The proposed project would feature a multi-story casino with 3,500 slot machines, 130 gaming tables, parking for over 4,000 vehicles, and continuous 2417 operalion.

The environmental effects of all this are potentially significant, and there are serious questions regarding the economic and social impacts.
ln August of this year, the City submitted comments to the federal Bureau of lndian Affairs (BlA) concerning the legally inadequate Environmental Assessment that the BIA had published. The City's comments pointed out that the Environmental Assessment was defective. As noted by the City, among the document's numerous flaws was the fact that its analysis of economic and social impacts on the surrounding community was "severely flawed," "inadequate," and "inaccurate." The City's comments pointed out that "This EA fails to clearly identify the socioeconomic impacts or to address in any meaningful way the impact to environmentaljustice." The City's comments went on to explain that the proposed project "would likely result in a negative impact and blight." Since August, nothing has changed.

The County likewise provided extensive comments to the BIA in response to the same Environmental Assessment. Citing a range of studies, the County highlighted the very real likelihood that the proposed project would be socially harmful to the community, due to increased crime such as thefts and violent crime, increased bankruptcy rates, increased foreclosures, increased problem gambling, decreased home values, and a range of additional adverse health and well-being impacts.

Given these concerns, already expressed by both the City and the County, it would be premature for anyone to conclude that the proposed project would offer a net benefit to the wider community.

Yet, the proposed Cooperative Agreement that is before you appears to bypass those considerations and instead appears to simply transition to the assumption that the City and its regional partners want this project to occur. ln other words, it puts the cart before the horse. ln part, it does so by not expressly preserving the City's rights to: (1) insist on the preparation of an Environmental lmpact Statement with full opportunities for public review and comment; and (2) ultimately oppose the project.
ln order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), The BIA needs to conduct environmental review of the proposed project before considering whether to approve it. The BIA chose to do so in this instance by initially preparing an Environmental Assessment. An Environmental Assessment is a document that provides analysis for determining whether a proposed action may have a significant impact on the human environment and therefore requires the preparation of an Environmental lmpact Statement. lf a proposed project is plainly expected to have significant impacts, or if the analysis in an Environmental Assessment identifies significant impacts, then an Environmental lmpact Statement is prepared. "The two basic differences between an EA and an EIS are: ('l) the depth of the analysis; and (2) the formalities of public involvement." (Bureau of lndian Affairs, NEPA Guidebook.) The Agenda ltem now under consideration is a draft Cooperative Agreement that makes no mention of an Environmental lmpact Statement being appropriate, anticipated, nor even possible. Rather, throughout the document there are repeated references to an "Environmental Assessment process" and to a supposed forthcoming "Environmental Assessment." This gives the impression that the City is choosing to constrain its future options to requesting better analysis and mitigation solely within the context of an Environmental Assessment, rather than seeking the greater depth of analysis and public involvement that would be available through an Environmental lmpact Statement. ln addition, the draft Cooperative Agreement commits the City to non-opposition toward the project if an lntergovernmental Agreement is signed and commits the City to best efforts to sign one. ln light of the dearth of analysis so far concerning the overall social and economic effects of the project, we would respectfully suggest that it is too early for the City to be contractually obligating itself to non-opposition, even if nominally couched as "best efforts" to not oppose the project. At the end of the day, this may simply turn out to be an undesirable pro.ject from the City's perspective, and the City may decide it wishes to instead use best efforts to oppose it.

The overall impression given by the draft Cooperative Agreement is that the City Council has already determined that it wants the project to occur, and that the City would be satisfied with the lesser analysis and public involvement that would be offered by an Environmental Assessment provided merely that certain narrow technical issues were mitigated. However, this is inconsistent with the City's position to date as expressed in its August 2024 comments to BlA, and to our knowledge this is the first public presentation seeking City Council direction on the proposed project. 2 The County's own August 2024 comments to BIA can be found at this link htlosr//www solanocountv .com/deDts/rm/documents/ei r/scotts vallev casino and tribal housino Droiecudefault.asD ln those comments, the County explained that the BIA must promptly deny the proiect because approving the project would be contrary to the intent of Congress as expressed in federal law. The County's analysis of those statutory requirements is summarized in the County's comment letter to BlA, together with numerous other concerns set forth more fully there. Like the City's comments in August, the County's comments pointed out that the BIA'S analysis of the proposed project was defective, and the proposed prolect would clearly be impactful on the region.

Prior to acting to change positions as expressed in the City's prior comments to the BlA, please consider how entering into this Cooperative Agreement may limit the scope of public process. We continue to recommend, given the regional impacts, that a full Environmental lmpact Statement be required with full opportunities for the public to review and comment.
ln conclusion, we strongly urge the City Council to defer action on the Cooperative Agreement until a higher level of review in the form of an Environmental lmpact Statement is included in and called for in the Agreement, and encourage further engagement with the County and other partners on the merits of the proposed casino given its regional impacts as well as the questionable basis for the proposal under federal law.

Sincerely,
P",// €^/-
Bill Emlen
County Administrator
Solano County Board of Supervisors
City of Vallejo City Council