Vallejo City Council
February 25, 2025

Item 9A

ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTANT

AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH FOTH & VAN DYKE AND
ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL

VALLEJO MARINA DESIGN AND PERMITTING

SERVICES
February 25, 2025
Melissa Tigbao, Public Works Director
Sidney Wilson, Administrative Analyst II
Vallejo Municipal Marina
BCDC Permit No. 1986.001.13
11 Docks with 621 Slips
204 Rented slips
417 unoccupied slips (158 unusable)
Marina Management – F3 Marina
July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2026
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) Permit Status –
On June 21, 2023, with assistance from F3 Marina, after 2 years of consultation with BCDC, Vallejo Marina received re-authorization of the live-aboard program (26 berths max) within the permit through June 2, 2033.

Dredging History of Marina
2013: 65,000 CY (North Basin) $1.04M
2014: 53,000 CY (N & S Basin) $1.1M
2016: 20,000 CY (South Basin) $556,000
*2017 Winter storms further damaged 1977 seawall*
2019: 50,000 CY (North Basin) $1.2M
Marina Budget Received for Dredging:

FY 2016-17 $300,000
FY 2017-18 $300,000
FY 2018-19 $300,000
FY 2019-20 $300,000
FY 2020-21 $0
FY 2021-22 $300,000
FY 2022-23 $0
FY 2023-24 $0
FY 2024-25 $0
Current unencumbered
project balance: $225,972
*July 2024 Marina survey
data collected by Bay Mare
Services determined the
amount of sediment above
the design depth has reached
over 410,000 CY
Current Marina Challenges
• Damaged and deteriorated
infrastructure
• Uncertainty in the market for slips
• Relationship between the marina
and surrounding land use and
economic development
• Need for strategic planning of
investment toward the marina
• Permit violations brought
unanticipated costs
• Expired dredging permits
• Budget for necessary dredging,
repairs, and improvements
Beginning of Long-Term Planning
• USCG dredge events focused on providing access to their floats yet they still provide some benefit for slips
• Collaboration with WETA and their improvements
• With the support of the MAC, city engaged Foth & Van
Dyke in 2023-2024 to perform a marina sedimentation
analysis and alternative marina configurations; as well as design plans and related permitting for the removal of
Dock A
• Continuing these planning efforts is a shovel-ready
approach for the marina and will help facilitate future funding opportunities
$1.5M California Natural Resources
Agency (CNRA) General Fund Earmark
January 2024 CNRA notified City of Vallejo of being grant recipient for the Vallejo Marina Seawall Rehabilitation Project (GF2356-0) Feb 2024 CNRA provided Grant Guidelines and Project Information Package. Grant Agreement between City and CNRA can only be executed after all project info docs are approved. Grant Agreement and deadline to encumber $1.5M is March 2025
March-June
2024
City staff working on completing Project Information Package while project being reassigned to different staff at CNRA June 2024 Staff learned that any use of the $1.5M toward hard construction costs (e.g. seawall repair, dredging) the City would be restricted to not use or allow the use of any portion of the marina as security for any debt for at least 25 years July-Sept
2024
Staff worked with F3 Marina, Foth & Van Dyke, CNRA, to
identify a project that would meet the criteria of the grant funds without future debt restriction
$1.5M California Natural Resources
Agency (CNRA) Grant timeline
November
2024
Staff received Marina Advisory Committee (MAC) support for the city to enter into Grant Agreement and $1.5M planning project for the permitting and regulatory engagement,
seawall configurations and design, dredge analysis, and sediment sampling
December
2024
City Council approved budget amendment to recognize and allocate funding on December 17, 2024, via Resolution No. 24-199 and approved City to enter into Grant Agreement
Feb-March
2025
Amend Foth & Van Dyke contract and encumber funds by
CNRA deadline of March 30, 2025
March 1,
2027
Funds must be fully expended
Foth & Van Dyke $1.5M Scope of Work
• Project Management and Grant Administration
• Feasibility and Market Analysis
• Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Permitting
• Hydrographic Surveys and Analysis
• Structural Assessments and Inspections
• Public and Stakeholder outreach/engagement
• Sediment sampling and preliminary engineering
• Design, Advertisement, Bid for dredging and
construction or reconfiguration of the marina
What Comes Next?
• PW to schedule Marina walking tour with
Councilmembers and continue to collaborate with MAC
• PW return to Council with a presentation of the marina conditions and update of permit status, final report of the sedimentation study (currently underway)
• Council will be involved in the stakeholder outreach
portion of the grant, and will receive periodic updates as the market rate study is completed and the planning
project moves along
• Staff to ensure Marina planning project will coordinate with the Waterfront Master Plan being developed and
led by Planning and Development Services Department
(2-3 year duration; $1.3M MTC Grant)

CONTACT(S)
Melissa Tigbao, Public Works Director
[email protected]
Island Energy Gas and
Electricity Operation
Agreements
Gillian Haen, Assistant City Manager
Erin Hanford, Econ Dev Program Manager
History/Timeline
• 7/1993: The Mare Island Naval Shipyard is
ordered closed by the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act (BRAC).
• 9/1996: Following determination that City would
not assume the responsibility for gas and electric
utility distribution on the Island, Navy awards
contract for the sale of the Mare Island gas and
electrical system to the City of Pittsburg.
• 4/1997: City of Pittsburg and its Redevelopment
Agency forms Pittsburg Power Company (PPC) as
a joint powers authority, operating on Mare Island
under the name Island Energy. Island Energy
commences operations as a municipal gas and
electric utility provider on the Island under a
license agreement with the Navy on 4/1/1997.

History/Timeline (Cont.)
• 8/2001: Navy executes a Grant of Non-Exclusive
Easements for Gas and Electric Distribution
Systems andAssociated Buildings on Mare Island
with Island Energy. Under this Easement and Navy’s
Bill of Sale to Island Energy, Island Energy acquires
the existing hard assets, including all utility
distribution systems and related buildings, and the
easements on which the systems and buildings
were located.
• 11/2004 – 2/2005: City amends the Vallejo
Municipal Code by adding Chapter 2.80, entitled
“Franchises-Mare Island Gas & Electric Services”
and awards the gas and electric franchises on Mare
Island to Island Energy.
• 2/2005: Council approves the Operation
Agreements with Island Energy for the operation,
maintenance and construction of electric and gas
utility systems on Mare Island.

Operation Agreement
Current Terms
• Term: 20-year agreements (one for gas;
one for electricity). Both expire 3/1/2025.
• Purpose: Agreements are intended to
ensure the orderly delivery of gas and
electricity to Mare Island for current users
and future planned development and
improvements on the Island.

Operation Agreements Key
Terms
o Franchise: City grants Island Energy a non-exclusive
franchise to construct, maintain and use in public
streets and places all poles, wires, conduits and
appurtenances when needed to extend service.
o Fees: Island Energy pays City 2% of its gross annual receipts similar to that paid by PG&E in other areas of the City. Island Energy fees, which average ~$145,000
per year, plus utility taxes are credited to the Mare
Island CFD as revenues.
o Development: As Island develops, Island Energy will
exchange existing easements and electric distribution
facilities and buildings conveyed under the Grant of
Easement for relocated easements, facilities and
buildings.
o Relocation Fund: Island Energy to establish and
make contributions to a relocation fund to defray cost of relocating facilities. Balance is currently $350,000.

Operation Agreements
Additional Terms
o Island Energy is required to allow joint use of
common trenches within the Franchise Area.
o Island Energy must construct, restore, maintain and
use all poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances in
compliance with all applicable laws.
o Advisory Committee: City and Island Energy to
meet regularly to discuss issues during course of
Mare Island development, including anticipated
development and proposed changes to tariffs and
rates.

Operation Agreement-Proposed
First Amendment for Consideration
One-year term extension with a 6-month extension
option. Provides for the following:

1. Island Energy and City will analyze the
power needs for the new Mare Island
Specific Plan that MIC recently submitted to
City. Staff anticipates an energy capacity
study will be done as part of this
assessment.

2. Both parties will negotiate the necessary
terms and conditions in a new long-term
agreement to address the anticipated
increase in power needs.

3. Island Energy will continue to pay the City
two percent (2%) of their gross receipts for
both gas and electricity which averages
approximately $145,000 per year and is
credited as revenue to the Mare Island CFD.

Operation Agreement First
Amendments Edits

Next Steps

1. City has sent Island Energy a summary of
MIC’s proposed MI Specific Plan density
increases for both residential and commercial
uses.

2. City has asked Island Energy to evaluate future
power needs based on these density increases
and also identify how power will be purchased
and physically provided to the Island via
infrastructure improvements.

3. Both parties will meet regularly to negotiate a
long-term agreement that will come back to
City Council for review and approval.

CONTACT(S)
Gillian Haen, Assistant City Manager
Appeal of Use Permit,
Variance, Exception,
Landscape Review for
“Springstowne
Bottleshop”
Cesar Orozco, Planning Manager
Planning and Development Services
February 25, 2025
Overview
• Purpose of Tonight’s Meeting
• Project History
• Provide an Overview of the project
• Planning Commission Action
• Appeal of the Commission Approval
• Written Communications
• Recommendation
Purpose of Tonight’s
Meeting
• Hold a public hearing on the
appeal of the Planning
Commission approval of a Major
Use Permit, Variance, Exception
and Landscape Review for the
relocation of a liquor store,
known as Springstowne
Bottleshop to be located at 2168
Springs Road.

Project History
• Application Submitted: June 28, 2022
• Application Deemed Complete: May 29, 2024
• Planning Commission Public Notice
– In Times Hearld:11/3/24
– Public Notice mailed to property owners within 500-ft radius: 11/4/24
• Planning Commission Hearing: 11/18/24
• Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Submitted:
11/21/24
• City Council Public Notice:
– In Times Hearld: 2/11/25
– Public Notice mailed to property owners within 500-ft radius: 2/6/25
• Council Hearing: 2/25/25
Project Setting

2154 Springs Road
(Existing Location)
• On July 8, 1994 – Springstowne
Bottleshop was issued a Type-21
(Beer, Wine and Spirits)ABC
License.
• Approx. 3,075 square feet tenant
space.

Proposed Project
• Springstowne Bottleshop
– Relocating from 2154 Springs Road to 2168 Springs Road with a Major Use Permit
– 2,797 square foot tenant space - 775 square feet
dedicated to alcohol sales
– 2,353 square feet of new landscaping, 6 off-street
parking spaces, and new trash enclosure
– Reduce hours of operation from 7:30 a.m. to 1 a.m.,
Sunday – Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. to 2 a.m. Friday-
Saturday, to 8 a.m. to 12 a.m. (midnight) seven days a
week
– Request for an Exception to reduce landscaping
requirements and a Variance to waive requirement for 6- foot sound wall.

Proposed Project

Deemed Approved Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
• Businesses engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages prior to August 25, 1998, and did not possess a minor
or major use permit automatically became deemed
approved on July 22, 2021 (effective date of the new
zoning code) and shall no longer be considered
nonconforming uses. (VMC § 16.305.06.B.)
• A deemed approved status differs from a
nonconforming use. Deemed approved status is tied
directly to the business and does not run with the
land.
• A nonconforming use is a use that was legal when
established that no longer complies with current
regulations. Nonconforming uses run with the land.

Deemed Approved Alcoholic
Beverage Sales, Cont’d.
• Because Springstowne Bottleshop engaged in the sale
of alcoholic beverages prior to August 25, 1998 and did not have a minor or major use permit, it became
automatically deemed approved as of July 22, 2021.
• Because Springstowne Bottleshop’s deemed approved
status is tied only to the business and not the land, the existing location does not have nonconforming use
status.

Landscaping
• The project includes 2,353
square feet of new
landscaping for the entire
parcel, rather than merely
the portion of the building
associated with the
tenant improvements.
• Landscaping consisting of
trees, shrubs, and
groundcover, to be along
Springs Road and
throughout the site.
• Exception requested to
reduce required
landscaping by 15.4%.

Required Wall
• A 6-foot sound wall between the
business and the residential use
to the north is required for any
new alcohol sales outlet.
• A variance is being requested to
waive the requirement due to an
existing public utility easement
that prevents construction of a
permanent structure.

Alcoholic Beverage Sales
• VMC Chapter 16.305 includes regulations on the business such as:
– prevent loitering on site,
– limit late-night sales of alcohol,
– keep the property clean and free of litter/graffiti,
– display proper signage related to regulations, allow for periodic inspections by City staff (including PD) as
needed, and
– follow proper requirements if/when the business
changes hands to a new operator.
• These regulations are established to implement the general plan's policy to promote responsible sale and service of alcoholic beverages.

CEQA Determination
• Exempt under
– Section 15301 of the CEQA
Guidelines (Class 1, “Existing
Facilities”)
– Section 15303 of the CEQA
Guidelines (Class 3, “New
Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures”).

Planning Commission
Action
• On November 18, 2024, the Planning Commission
held a hearing and reviewed testimony both oral and
written regarding the project.
• The Planning Commission approved the project with
recommended conditions with a 4 – 0 vote (three
commissioners were absent).

Appellant Claims

1. The old location retains its deemed approved alcoholic beverage sales use, despite Staff’s interpretation otherwise. The approved land use runs with the land.

Staff Response: Disagree – The Vallejo Municipal Code defines “Deemed Approved Use” to mean- A business or entity that uses a building, structure, or site, or portion of such, for the sale of alcoholic beverages. A "deemed approved use" is not a "non-conforming use.“ Because the “deemed approved” status is tied only to the business and does not run with the land, once the deemed approved business relocates, the “old location” does not retain any right to continue an alcoholic beverage sales use.

2. This is supported by Vallejo’s own municipal code Section 16.305.06 (C) and

16.305.02 (B)(12)(a). Looking at Section 16.305.06 and particularly subsection C about abandonment, it’s clear that the deemed approved status applies to the alcoholic beverage land use at that location, not just to a specific business. The interpretation is supported by the language in Section 16.305.06 (C) which states: “Whenever a deemed approved use discontinues active operation for a continuous period of 12 moths, such deemed approved use shall not be resumed. Related structures may be utilized thereafter only for a permitted use.”
Staff Response: Disagree – These sections of the VMC do not support Appellant’s claim, as a deemed approved use is not a nonconforming use, and the deemed approved use applies only to the business or entity and not the land.

Appellant Claim

2. VMC provides that “No liquor Store… shall be established within one thousand feet of a property containing an existing or approved liquor store…” a. The original location has a deemed approved liquor store use which can continue, that use remains, the new location would be establishing a liquor store within 1,000 feet of that existing use.

Staff Response: The original location does not possess a deemed approved status, which attaches only to the business or entity. If the Council approves the use permit for the Springstowne Bottleshop and it begins operations at its new location, its deemed approved status automatically terminates .

The new location is compliant with the 1,000-foot buffer, as there is no other liquor store located within 1,000 feet.

Appellant Claim

3. The findings for denial of a use permit include that 16.305.06 protects the land use on the existing site, legal precedent protects the land use on the existing site, and Vallejo’s municipal code calls for 1,000 foot buffer from existing approved locations.

Staff Response: There is no land use on the existing site to protect once the Springstowne Bottleshop relocates. Because a deemed approved status is not a nonconforming use, there is no land use on the existing site to protect. The new location is compliant with the 1,000-foot buffer, as there is no other liquor store within 1,000 feet.

Written Communication
• Summary of Written Communications:
– Appellant Attorney Support of Appeal
– Applicant Attorney Support of Denial of the Appeal
– Support of denial support of the appeal
• Total of 3 written communications received since
2/6/25
– 2 in support and 1 in opposition of the appeal
Recommendation
• Deny the Appeal (APP24-0002) grant a Use Permit
(UP22-0007), Variance (VAR24-0001), Exception (EXC24-
0006), Landscape Review(LR24-0013) (Project) and
environmental determination that the Project is
exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) to allow an alcohol sales establishment at 2168
Springs Road.

Required Findings
• The required findings City Council will need to make
to deny the appeal and approve the Major Use
Permit, Exception, Variance and Landscape Review
are set forth in full in the Resolution and Staff Report.

CONTACT(S)
Kristin Pollot, AICP – Planning and Development
Services Director
(707) 648-4382
[email protected]
Cesar Orozco, Planning Manager
(707) 648-4326
[email protected]
Broadway Project
Monthly Schedule and
Budget Update
Gillian Haen, Assistant City
Manager
Natalie Peterson, Assistant to
the City Manager
February 25, 2025
Broadway Project Background
• Location: 1937 Broadway
• 47 Permanent Supportive Housing
Units
• Roughly 90% complete
• Partners:
– Developer: Firm Foundation
– Operator: Shelter Inc.
• Firm Foundation – current property
owners (through construction)
• City to take ownership at end of
construction
Update on Schedule
• Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) – April 2025 • Certificate of Occupancy (construction completion) – May 2025
• Full Lease-Up – 90 days from construction completion
• These dates incorporate recent and forecasted weather delays through the remainder of construction
• Earlier History
– May 2022 – Awarded Homekey Grant
– June 2022 – Council accepted grant and amended budget – September 19, 2022 – Construction started
– September 24, 2024 – Measure P and City ARPA funds
allocated by Council
Update on Budget
• Total Funding Secured:
$27,114,262
• Funding Spent: $23,934,517
– Includes January 2025 invoices
• Remaining Funding: $3,179,745
• Remaining funding is anticipated
to be sufficient to complete the
construction of the project

Construction Highlights
• Scaffolding down
• All doors & glass installed
• Elevator operational – receiving
permanent power soon
• Hallway carpet install began
• Grading began – exterior
pathways
• Site concrete starting later this
week (walkways, curbs, etc.)

CONTACT(S)
Gillian Haen, Assistant City
Manager
[email protected]
Natalie Peterson, Assistant to the
City Manager
[email protected]

P.O. BOX 1611, BENICIA, CA 94510
Tele: (925) 239-2380 Fax (925) 239 2382
Email: [email protected]
February 19, 2025

VIA EMAIL TRANSMISSION ONLY:

[email protected]
Mayor Andrea Sorce
Tele. (707) 648-4377
Mayor's Executive Assistant
Erik Rzomp
[email protected]
City Hall Council Chambers
555 Santa Clara St., Vallejo, CA 94590
Tele. (707) 648-4377

[email protected]
Vice Mayor Peter Bregenzer
District 5 Council Member
City Hall Council Chambers
555 Santa Clara St., Vallejo, CA 94590
Tele. (707) 648-4131

[email protected]
Council Member Alexander Matias
District 1
City Hall Council Chambers
555 Santa Clara St., Vallejo, CA 94590
Tele. (707) 648-4134

[email protected]
Council Member Diosdado Matulac
District 2 Council Member
City Hall Council Chambers
555 Santa Clara St., Vallejo, CA 94590
Tele. (707) 648-4132

[email protected]
Council Member Tonia Lediju
District 3 Council Member
City Hall Council Chambers
555 Santa Clara St., Vallejo, CA 94590
Tele. (707) 649-7716

[email protected]
Council Member Charles Palmares
District 4 Council Member City Hall
Council Chambers
555 Santa Clara St., Vallejo, CA 94590
Tele. (707) 648-4133

[email protected]
Council Member Helen-Marie Gordon
District 6 Council Member
City Hall Council Chambers
555 Santa Clara St., Vallejo, CA 94590
Tele. (707) 649-7711

Re: Appeal (APP24-0002) of the of the Planning Commission’s approval of Use Permit (UP22-0007) Landscape Review (LR24-0013) (“Project”) regarding the proposed location of a liquor store (hereinafter “the Appeal”); Site Location: 2168 Springs Road, Vallejo, CA (APN 0069-175-240) (“Site”) Applicant: Roberto Cortez (“Applicant”)
Hearing Date: February 25, 2025 at 7:00 p.m.

Dear Mayor and Council Members,

This office represents the appellant McInerney Enterprises, LLC (“Appellant”) with regard to the aforementioned Appeal. By this letter, Appellant seeks to amplify and clarify its position Vallejo Mayor and City Council Members
February 19, 2025

MOLLICA LAW P.O. BOX 1611, BENICIA, CA 94510
Tele.: (925) 239-2380 Fax: (925) 239-2382
Email: [email protected]
relating to the Appeal, which askes the City Council to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission to issue a Major Use Permit to the Applicant on behalf of Rajwinder Sidhu, doing business as the Springstowne Bottleshop for Use Permit UP22-007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Major Use Permit”) to operate a liquor store 2168 Springs Road, Vallejo. Ms. Sidhu is currently the tenant and operator of the Springstowne Bottleshop at the immediately adjacent commercial real property owned by Appellant and located at 2154 Springs Road, Vallejo (the “Subject Property”), pursuant to a commercial lease.

I. SUMMARY
Appellant seeks de novo review of the decision of the Planning Commission because it clearly misinterpreted the applicable ordinance and the legal and practical effect of depriving Appellant of its right to operate a liquor store at the Subject Property. The Subject Property has been operated as a liquor store for more than 60 years and the applicable law allows Appellant to continue to so operate the Subject Property indefinitely, provided that the use as a liquor store does not been “discontinued for a period over one year.” The Planning Commission decision is clearly based upon a misinterpretation of the ordinance, which threatens to permanently deprive Appellant of significant property rights.

The ordinance in question is the Alcoholic Beverage Sales Ordinance, which is codified at VMC Chapter 16.305 (“the Ordinance”). As explained more fully below, the language of the Ordinance is perfectly clear that the Subject Property does not lose its status as “deemed approved” merely because the tenant relocates. Yet, the Planning Commission erroneously determined that the Subject Property would immediately loose its “exempt” status upon approval of the Major Use Permit. This part of the decision misinterprets several provisions of the Ordinance, which clearly state that an “an existing non-conforming alcohol outlet” shall not “lapse” until “operations have been discontinued for a period of over one year.” (VMC

16.305.02(B)(12)(a)) The decision further compounded the error by determining that the Tenant’s proposed “new location” should receive a Major Use Permit even though that location would violate the Ordinance’s prohibition of having two liquor stores within a thousand feet of each other. Not only did the decision approve a Major Use Permit for a site within 1,000 feet of the Subject Property, it went on to erroneously declare that the Subject Property would thereafter been precluded from leasing to a liquor store because of the 1,000 foot limitation of VMC Section 16.305.05. In fact, the Planning Commission interpreted the Ordinance exactly backwards.

Because the legal and practical effect of the decision “takes” Appellant’s property rights based upon a clear misinterpretation of the applicable law, it must be overturned. If not reversed by the City Council on appeal, the decision would constitute an arbitrary and capricious administrative ruling based upon a misinterpretation and misapplication of applicable law and be subject to review on a petition for writ of mandamus. The decision would also constitute a regulatory taking of real property and compel the Appellant to seek compensation.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Appellant is the current owner of the commercial real property located at 2154 Springs Road, Vallejo (the “Subject Property”). The Subject Property has for at least the past 60 years been the Vallejo Mayor and City Council Members
February 19, 2025

MOLLICA LAW P.O. BOX 1611, BENICIA, CA 94510
Tele.: (925) 239-2380 Fax: (925) 239-2382
Email: [email protected]
site of a liquor store. As explained more fully below, because of its use as a liquor store long before the Ordinance was adopted, it was “grandfathered” in and “exempt” from the Ordinance.

The Ordinance provides that such existing uses are “deemed approved.”

The Subject Property is currently occupied by tenant Rajwinder Sidhu, doing business as the Springstowne Bottleshop (“Tenant”), under a commercial lease dated June 22, 2018 (“Lease”). (Exh. A) The term of the Lease is set to expire on July 31, 2026, unless the Tenant opts to exercise a second Option to extend the Lease term by another three years, until July 21, 2029.

The Tenant has operated a liquor store at the Subject Property since at least 2008, when a business license was issued to the Springstowne Bottle Shop to operate a liquor store. The Tenant also owned and operated the Spring Market located at 2623 Spring Road, Vallejo, from 2003 to 2020.

On June 28, 2022, Robert Cortez, on behalf of Sidhu, submitted an application to relocate the liquor store to the adjacent property, located at 2168 Springs Road. The proposed new site is located just a few hundred feet from a Charter School. The Application represented that a liquor store would be operated at the Site, but that only 775 square feet of the 2,797 square feet of new site to be “dedicated to the sale of alcohol.” (Exh. B, pg. 2) The Staff Report related to the Application included the ariel Site Photo below, which shows the “Project Location” of 2168 Springs Road directly adjacent to the Subject Property.

Site Photo

(Exh. C)

On November 18, 2024, the Application for a Major Use Permit to operate a liquor store came before the Vallejo Planning Commission as item 7A. (Exh. D, pg. 3) The Staff Report recommended approval of the Project “based on the findings provided in the attached Resolution Subject
Property
Vallejo Mayor and City Council Members
February 19, 2025

MOLLICA LAW P.O. BOX 1611, BENICIA, CA 94510
Tele.: (925) 239-2380 Fax: (925) 239-2382
Email: [email protected]
and subject to the Conditions of Approval provided as Exhibit A to the Resolution.” (Exh. E, ph. 1) Among other things, the Staff Report advised that “VMC section 16.305.05 provides that liquor stores shall require a major use permit, as prescribed in Chapter 16.606, Minor and Major Use Permits.” (Exh. E, pg. 3) The Staff Report recommended approval of Use Permit (UP22- 0007), “subject to the Conditions of Approval.” (Exh. E, pg. 1) The Staff Analysis of the Staff Report explained that:

As previously mentioned, all businesses engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages, including eating and drinking establishments that were non- conforming uses prior to August 25, 1998 and still do not possess a minor or major use permit for the sale and service of alcohol shall automatically become deemed approved uses and shall no longer be considered non-conforming uses.

The existing location of the liquor store obtained an ABC license in January 1, 1994, prior to the August 25, 1998, deeming the sale of alcoholic use as “deemed approved.”

(Exh. E, pg. 6 (emphasis added))

The Staff Report explained that although the existing use was “deemed approved,” the “proposed project of relocating the liquor store, would require compliance with applicable standards in the VMC Title 16 – Zoning Code and require a Major Use Permit in the NMX zoning district.” (Exh. E, pg. 6) However, the Staff Report erroneously advised that “with the approval of the Major Use Permit as proposed, the deemed approved status for the existing location would cease, and the new location would be in conformance with the zoning code.” (Exh. E, pg. 6)

Appellant appeared at the November 18, 2024 hearing before the Planning Commission to oppose the Application. The Staff Presentation explained that the Subject Property was “deemed approved” under the Ordinance, which had been “in operation over 16 years.” (11/18/2024 Hearing Video (“Video’) 25:57) The Staff Presentation did not address the concerns about the misinterpretation of the Ordinance, but did erroneously state that “a new liquor store at the existing location can not (SIC) occupy the existing space due to the 1,000-foot buffer limit” contained in the Ordinance. (Video 28:51) The Planning Manager, Cesar Orozco, erroneously represented to the Planning Commission that “with the approval of the Major Use Permit, the deemed approved status of the existing location would cease.” (Exh. E, pg. 6)

During the hearing, Kathleen McInerney Olson, on behalf of Appellant, appeared to contest the Staff’s interpretation of the Ordinance. (Video 50:29) She indicated that she “does not agree with the Staff Report” because the “deemed approved” status as a liquor store “runs with the land” and cannot “lapse” until the use as a liquor store has ceased for more than one year. She explained that the proposed Site was “less than 100 feet from” the Subject Property. She clarified that if the Springstowne Bottleshop wanted to move at least one thousand feet from the Subject Property, then Appellant would have no objection. Though she tried to explain the specific language that had been misinterpreted by Staff, but the Planning Commission declared her time expired and would not allow her to fully explain the mistakes being made by Staff. (Video 54:19)
Vallejo Mayor and City Council Members
February 19, 2025

MOLLICA LAW P.O. BOX 1611, BENICIA, CA 94510
Tele.: (925) 239-2380 Fax: (925) 239-2382
Email: [email protected]

Much of the debate among the Planning Commissioners about the Application had to do with testimony offered by the public about Springstowne Bottleshop’s failure to maintain the liquor store at the Subject Property, allowing loitering, trash, crime and a general failure to maintain the site.1 During the hearing, Chairman Blind ask for clarification of whether the deemed approved “land use travels with the land.” (Video 1:36:35) Planning and Development Director Kristin Pollot clarified that typically when a “use permit” is involved, the “land use would stay with the land,” but she explained that “staff’s interpretation is that a deemed approved use is a use, and it does not stick with the land.” (Video 1:37:03) Commissioner Taylor also inquired as to whether the “deemed approved” status of the existing location could be “revoked” if the operator failed to properly maintain the premises, including compliance with the “performance standards” set forth in VMC 16.305.06. (Video 1:10:01) In response, City Attorney Laura Zagaroli advised though performance standards existed, it was a “moot point” as to whether the Applicant had historically complied with such standards during its operations at the existing property. (Video 1:10:20) Chairman Blind opined that the issues concerning “loitering and littering” would not be addressed by a denial of the Application, but that approval of the Application with conditions of approval would provide the “one means of control” to rectify “how this business operates.” 2 (Video 1:49:30)

Because of these misinterpretations of the Ordinance, the Planning Commission ultimately approved the Application. (Video 1:59:20) The Resolution approving the Application states that “the project also adheres to the applicable development standards specific in Title 16 of the VMC, as proposed and subject to necessary conditions.” (Exh. E, pg. 11) The Major Use Permit imposed certain Conditions of Approval, including the requirement that “prior to occupancy, the existing “Springstowne Bottleshop” liquor store located at 2154 Springs Road shall be permanently closed.” (Exh. E, pg. 19)

The Major Use Permit provided that “this project approval shall automatically expire two years after approval, unless authorized construction has commenced to the expiration date (November 18, 2026; if approved at this meeting and not appealed).” (Exh. E, pg. 9)

1 It should be noted that keeping the premises clean and safe is entirely the responsibility of the Tenant. Under Section 17 of the Lease, Springstowne Bottleshop was and remains obligated to “professionally maintain the Premises,” including keeping “the parking lot clean as well as the alley behind the building.” ( Exh. A, pg. 2)

2 This advice was completely incorrect. Even “exempt” or “deemed approved” operators are required by the Ordinance to meet certain safety standards and a history of non-compliance is relevant to approval of a use permit.

VMC 16.305.06 explains that though “businesses selling alcoholic beverages” that were in business “before the adoption of these regulations” were “non-conforming,” they nevertheless would be required to “comply with performance standards” imposed by the law, including: 1) “to protect adjacent neighborhoods;” 2) ‘provide opportunities for businesses which sell alcoholic beverages to operate in a mutually beneficial relationship to each other;” 3) “provide mechanisms to address problems . . . such as litter, loitering, graffiti, unruly behavior and escalated noise levels; 4) to avoid “undue public nuisances;” 5) to ensure sites are “properly maintained” to avoid “negative impacts . . . to the surrounding environment,” and; 6) to “monitor deemed approved use s to ensure that they do not substantially change their mode or character of operation.” (VMC 15.305.06(A)) Section 15.305.06(A) can be enforced by code enforcement whether or not a Major Use Permit exists.

Vallejo Mayor and City Council Members
February 19, 2025

MOLLICA LAW P.O. BOX 1611, BENICIA, CA 94510
Tele.: (925) 239-2380 Fax: (925) 239-2382
Email: [email protected]
III. LEGAL ISSUES
A. The Hearing of This Appeal is Untimely
Appellant timely filed this Appeal on November 21, 2024, but the hearing had been unreasonably delayed by Staff. VMC 16.602.14(D)(3) provides that the “director shall schedule the appeal for consideration by the authorized hearing body within forty-five calendar days of the date the appeal is filed.” The deadline was to have the appeal heard by January 6, 2024, but instead, the Staff has played games with the hearing date, at one point representing to the Applicant that the hearing could take place on May 27, 2025. These delays unreasonably prejudice Appellant’s attempt to resolve this dispute so that it can continue its liquor store operations after Springstowne Bottleshop vacates.

B. The Planning Commission Decision Was Predicated Upon A Misinterpretation Of The Clear Provisions of the Ordinance, Which Preserve Appellant’s “Deemed Approved” Status For A Year Operations Have Been Discontinued When the law was first adopted in mid-2017,3 it imposed a new obligation upon Retail Alcohol Sales Establishments to obtain a “major conditional use permit” prior to operation. (See VMC

16.305.02, formerly VMC 16.78.120) Because Appellant operated a liquor store for many years before the Alcohol Beverage Sales Ordinance (Chapter 16.305) was adopted, it was a legal nonconforming use to which the Ordinance did not apply. Both the original Ordinance as well as the current version required such a Major Use Permit but expressly declared “exempt” any “existing alcohol outlet that was lawfully established and is non-conforming solely due to the lack of an approved minor or major use permit.” (VMC 16.305.02(B)(12)(a)) The Ordinance clarifies that “all businesses . . . that were non-conforming uses prior to August 25, 1998 and still do not possess a minor or major use permit for the sale and service of alcohol shall automatically become deemed approved uses and shall no longer be considered non-conforming uses. (VMC

16.305.06(B)) Thus, Appellant’s operation of a liquor store at the site is legally “deemed approved” under the Ordinance though it does not maintain a Major Use Permit.

The Ordinance does provide that the “deemed approved” use may be lost by a cessation of business operations. The Ordinance clarifies “the operation of an existing non-conforming alcohol outlet shall be considered lapsed . . .where operations have been discontinued for a period of over one year,” in which case, “a minor or major use permit shall be required.” (VMC

16.305.02(B)(12)(a)) Furthermore, VMC Section 16.305.06(C) specifically provides:

Abandonment. Whenever a deemed approved use discontinues active operation for a continuous period of twelve months, such deemed approved use shall not be resumed. Related structures may be utilized thereafter only for a permitted use.

At the time of the Planning Commission’s decision, the Appellant’s Property was being used as a Retail Alcohol Sales Establishment and it will continue to do so at least until the Lease expires

3 Ordinance No. 1761 N.C. (2d)

Vallejo Mayor and City Council Members
February 19, 2025

MOLLICA LAW P.O. BOX 1611, BENICIA, CA 94510
Tele.: (925) 239-2380 Fax: (925) 239-2382
Email: [email protected]
on July 31, 2026, unless the Lessee opts to exercise its Second Option Agreement to extend the Lease until July 31, 2029. (Exh. A) Thus, Appellant currently enjoys “deemed approved” status and the Subject Property will continue to be “deemed approved” for at least a year after the current operator vacates (unless, of course, Applicant leases to another Retail Alcohol Retail Establishment within that time). However, the Staff Report incorrectly analyzed the Ordinance by advising the Planning Commission that “with the approval of the Major Use Permit as proposed, the deemed approved status for the existing location would cease, and the new location would be in conformance with the zoning code.” (Exh. B, pg. 6) The Staff Report incorrectly goes on to say:

It should be noted that a new liquor store will not be able to occupy the existing location due to the limitation in VMC Section 16.305.05 (B) stating, ‘no liquor store . . . shall be established within one thousand feet of a property containing an existing or approved liquor store, convenience store or mini-market associated with fuel sales offering alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption.’ The limitation of a 1,000-foot buffer would limit the location of a new alcoholic beverage sales for off-site consumption if the Planning Commission approves the relocation of the existing deemed approved liquor store.

(Exh. B, pg. 6)

These recommendations and the findings made based upon them completely contradict the plain language of VMC §§16.305.02(B)(12)(a)) and VMC §16.305.06(C) The Planning Commissions’ decision to approve the Application was predicated on the erroneous interpretation of the Ordinance that the “deemed approved status for the existing location would cease” immediately upon “the approval of the Major Use Permit,” which is flatly contradicted by the “lapse” provisions of both VMC 16.305.02(B)(12)(a)) and VMC Section 16.305.06(C).4 The Ordinance makes clear that the existing location loses its “deemed approved’ status only “where operations have been discontinued for a period of over one year.” Since operations continue today and will continue until at least July 31, 2029, it was a grave mistake to advise the Planning Commission that the “existing” use would terminate upon issuance of a Major Use Permit for the adjoining property. If the current operator vacates the Subject Property, Appellant has one year within which to lease the Subject Property to a different operator.

C. The Approval Misapplied The Ordinance To Permit Two Retail Alcohol Establishments Within One Thousand Feet of One Another
As discussed above, the Appellant’s use of the Subject Property as a Retail Alcohol Sales Establishment is “deemed approved” and remains in effect unless alcohols sales cease for more than one year. The practical effect of this status is that after the Applicant vacates the Subject Property, then Appellant can re-lease the Subject Property to another Retail Alcohol Sales Establishment at the same site within a year without the need for a Major Use Permit.

4 It is worth noting that mere “approval of a Major Use Permit” for another property could not have resulted in the immediate cessation of “deemed approved status for the existing location” under any interpretation of the Ordinance.

Vallejo Mayor and City Council Members
February 19, 2025

MOLLICA LAW P.O. BOX 1611, BENICIA, CA 94510
Tele.: (925) 239-2380 Fax: (925) 239-2382
Email: [email protected]
Appellant’s non-conforming and “deemed approved” status does not require it to obtain a Major Use Permit except in the event of a “lapse,” which is unlikely to occur. Since the Ordinance makes clear that Appellant is not required to obtain a Major Use Permit after its current Tenant moves out, the practical effect of the Planning Commission’s erroneous decision is that it will have approved a Major Use Permit for a competing Retail Alcohol Sales Establishment that is directly adjacent to the existing use. Thus, the approval erroneously violates VMC

16.305.05(B), which precludes two liquor stores within one thousand feet of each other.

VMC 16.305.05(B) provides that:

No liquor store, except for a large format liquor store, or convenience store, or mini-market associated with fuel sales offering alcoholic beverages for off- premise consumption shall be established within one thousand feet of a property containing an existing or approved liquor store, convenience store or mini-market associated with fuel sales offering alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption.

(VMC §16.305.05(B))

Though VMC Section 15.305.05(B) precludes two liquor stores within one thousand feet of each other, the Director or Planning Commission retained the discretion to allow concentrations of Alcohol Beverage Establishments otherwise prohibited by law.5 However, the approval in question did not authorize two establishments directly adjacent to one another. Rather, the decision was predicated on the false assumption that the Subject Property would be precluded from operating a liquor store in the future.

As already explained, the Staff Report erroneously advised the Planning Commission that “a new liquor store will not be able to occupy the existing location due to the limitation in VMC Section

16.305.05 (B) . . . .” However, this recommendation was clearly based upon a misinterpretation of the applicable law. Thus, the approval of the Application must be reviewed in light of the fact that the Subject Property retains its “deemed approved” status and may continue to operate a liquor store at the Subject Property with a new tenant without the need for a Major Use Permit.

Since that “deemed approved” status will remain in effect for a year after its current Tenant moves out, it is a clear violation of VMC Section 15.305.05(B) to approve the use as a liquor store of the adjoining property without making any “public convenience or necessity” findings.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

5 VMC 16.305.03 provides that “the director or the planning commission may make a determination of public convenience or necessity to allow the establishment of a new retail alcohol sales establishment or to allow the issuance of an additional license for any alcohol sales establishment in any area of the city that has an undue concentration of retail alcohol outlets or a higher crime rate than the average defined by the California Business and Professions Code Section 23958.4 (a).”
Vallejo Mayor and City Council Members
February 19, 2025

MOLLICA LAW P.O. BOX 1611, BENICIA, CA 94510
Tele.: (925) 239-2380 Fax: (925) 239-2382
Email: [email protected]
D. The Planning Commission’s Approval Of A Major Use Permit is Both Arbitrary and Capricious And A Regulatory Taking
The Subject Property has been a liquor store for at least the past 60 years. Thus, the Planning Commission’s decision that “the deemed approved status for the existing location would cease” upon approval of the Major Use Permit so that the “new location would be in conformance with the zoning code” had the legal and practical effect of denying the continued use of the Subject Property as a liquor store after decades of continued use. The legal and practical affect of the Planning Commission’s decision was to permanently deny Appellant the continued “deemed approved” use though it had not taken any action to abandon its use as a liquor store. In this case, the Planning Commission’s decision was clearly based upon a misinterpretation of its own Ordinance, so its decision would be overturned upon review as an abuse of discretion.

If the Planning Commission’s decision is not reversed on appeal, it would be reviewable under a peremptory writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1088, 1094.5 and 1105.

In such a review, decisions that are arbitrary, capricious and lacking in evidentiary or legal support are deemed an abuse of discretion and will be overturned. (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq.:

St. Vincent's School for Boys, Catholic charities CYO v. City of San Rafael (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 989.

A “regulatory taking” occurs when some governmental action so restricts the owner's use and enjoyment of the property that it amounts to a “taking” even though there is no physical invasion or damage to the property and no planned or formal exercise of the power of eminent domain. (Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (2005) 544 U.S. 528, 537; First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles County (1997) 482 U.S. 304, 315) When a restriction, condition, or regulation imposed by the public entity “goes too far,” it constitutes a taking of private property for a public use. The regulation in question may involve a modification of use such as a rezoning or a limitation on the intensity of development that is permanent. (Miller & Starr, 7 Cal. Real Est. § 23:23 (4th ed.)) Compensation is required for a regulatory taking when the regulation denies the owner all economically viable use of his or her property. (Charles A.

Pratt Const. Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Com'n (2008) 162 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1080)

If the original decision is upheld by the City Council, the ruling would be reviewable both as an abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedures Act as well as a regulatory taking of property because it would have the legal and practical effect of denying the Appellant the bona fide use of the Subject Property. If a regulatory taking is determined, Appellant will be awarded compensation for the lost value of the Subject Property.

E. The Decision To Reduce Off Street Parking Requirements Negatively Impacts the Subject Property
The decision to approve the Application also is incorrect because it allows the Applicant to reduce the amount of parking required to serve the shopping center. 2168 Springs is part of a commercial building that is appr. 4600 square feet in size. VMC Table 16.508-B entitled “Off Street Parking” requires commercial uses provide two off-street parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of space. VMC 16.104.02(A)G requires “rounding up” in this situation, which means that Vallejo Mayor and City Council Members
February 19, 2025

MOLLICA LAW P.O. BOX 1611, BENICIA, CA 94510
Tele.: (925) 239-2380 Fax: (925) 239-2382
Email: [email protected]
total parking for the proposed site should be 10 sites total. The Application applies to only part of the building, indicating that the proposed new site has an “existing floor area” of 2,797 square feet, that it has 16 existing parking spaces and 16 “proposed spaces.” Yet, the Proposed Plans only provide for 6 parking spaces. Inexplicably, the Staff Report finds that “as proposed, the six off-street parking space meets the minimum requirement.”

The reduction of the total parking spaces for 2168 Springs from 16 to 6 will have a negative impact upon the Subject Property because the commercial buildings and the parking areas are adjacent.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and the facts and circumstances presented by Appellant at the time of the hearing of this matter, the City Council should sustain the appeal and reverse the decision of the Planning Commission, denying the Application for a Major Use Permit. The Planning Commission’s approval was clearly based upon a misinterpretation and misapplication of the Ordinance. Upholding the decision and issuance of the Major Use Permit will cause the Appellant serious harm and loss of important property rights.

Very truly yours,

MOLLICA LAW

By___________________
Terry Mollica

Encls.

Cc: client
Evan Gorman [email protected]
Cesar Orozco [email protected]
Veronica A.F. Nebb [email protected]
Laura Zagaroli [email protected]

2168 Springs Road
0069-175-240
Liquor sales and other non-alcoholic convenience items
ABC
2,797 sq. ft.
16 16
N/A
N/A
Monday - Sunday 8am - 12am
2 2
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rajwinder Sidhu 707 639-6929 Springstowne Bottle Shop
2168 Springs Road, Vallejo CA 94591
X
2,797 sq. ft.
775 sq. ft.
707 642-2448
x
Sunday - Thursday: 8am - 12am
Friday - Saturday: 8am - 2am
Sunday - Thursday: 8am - 12am
Friday - Saturday: 8am - 2am
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Existing outdoor lighting is not proposed to change. Outdoor wall mounted fixtures attached to the top the building illuminate the parking lot, side, and alley.

N/A
4-5
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
ABC - Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) Training Program Alcohol and Beer Promotional Posters and Door Stickers
No
Spring Market 2637 Springs Rd Vallejo CA September 2003 - October 2020 Attachment B
Date: November 18, 2024
SUBJECT: SPRINGTOWNE BOTTLESHOP” STORE RELOCATION
(UP22-0007, EXC24-0006, LR24-0013 AND VAR24-0001) .

Figure 1 – Project Location
Project
Location
1 NOTICE: Members of the public will be able to participate in-person or remotely via Zoom.

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

VIEW THE MEETING:

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3 of the Brown Act, members of the public shall be afforded the opportunity to speak on any agenda item of interest to them after being recognized by the presiding officer. Members of the public wishing to be so recognized are requested to submit a completed speaker card to the Secretary of the Planning Commission prior to the consideration of the item or raise their hand via ZOOM:(https://ZoomRegular.Cityofvallejo.net
) or by phone: Dial (669) 900-6833. Enter Meeting ID: 914 0075 0676#. Press * 9 to digitally raise your hand from the phone. For additional instructions on how to speak remotely during public comment, please visit www.cityofvallejo.net/publiccomment. In person speakers will be recognized first.

This AGENDA contains a brief general description of each item to be considered. The posting of the recommended actions does not indicate what action may be taken. If comments come to the Planning Commission without prior notice and are not listed on the AGENDA, no specific answers or response should be expected at this meeting per State law.

Notice of Availability of Public Records: All public records relating to an open session item, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act, that are distributed to a majority of the Planning Commission will be available on the City of Vallejo website at www.cityofvallejo.net
subject to staff’s ability to post the documents prior to the meeting.

Disclosure Requirements: Government Code Section 84308 (d) sets forth disclosure requirements which apply to persons who actively support or oppose projects in which they have a "financial interest", as that term is defined by the Political Reform Act of 1974. If you fall within that category, and if you (or your agent) have made a contribution of $250 or more to any commissioner within the last twelve months to be used in a federal, state or local election, you must disclose the fact of that contribution in a statement to the Commission.

Appeal Rights: The applicant or any party adversely affected by the decision of the Planning Commission may, within ten days after the rendition of the decision of the Planning Commission, appeal the decision by filing a written appeal with the Director of Planning and Development Services.

Such written appeal shall state the reason or reasons for the appeal and why the applicant believes he or she is adversely affected by the decision of the Planning Commission. Such appeal shall not be timely filed unless it is actually received by Director of Planning and Development Services or designee no later than the close of business on the tenth calendar day after the rendition of the decision of the Planning Commission. If such date falls on a weekend or City holiday, then the deadline shall be extended until the next regular business day.

The Council Chambers in City Hall is ADA compliant. Devices for the hearing impaired are available from the City Clerk. Requests for disability related modifications or accommodations, aids or services may be made by a person with a disability to the City Clerk's office no less than 72 hours prior to the meeting as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof.

If you have any questions regarding any of the following agenda items, please call the assigned planner or project manager at (707) 648-4326.

AGENDA

VALLEJO PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M.

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

555 Santa Clara Street, Vallejo, California

November 18, 2024
Eric Blind, Chair
Anthony Taylor, Vice-Chair
Donald Douglass
Wanda Madeiros
Tara Beasley-Stansberry
Phillip Balbuena
Craig Standafer

AGENDA
City of Vallejo Planning Commission November 18, 2024

2 1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL

4. CONSENT CALENDAR AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Upon motion of any Commissioner, all items placed upon the consent calendar may be acted upon collectively, and each shall be deemed to have received the action recommended by the Secretary or City Attorney; except that if any Commissioner objects to the placement of an item on the consent calendar, or if any member of the public wishes to address the Commission on any such item, the item shall be removed from the consent calendar and shall be heard and acted upon in its proper place on the agenda as designated by the Presiding Officer.

After making changes in the agenda, if any, as permitted under these rules of order and procedure, the Commission shall approve the agenda which shall constitute the agenda of business to be considered at the meeting. The motion offered to approve the agenda shall include the adoption of the consent calendar.

A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

a. October 21, 2024 - Regular Meeting

C. OTHER CONSENT ITEMS -None.

5. REPORT OF THE CITY COUNCIL LIASION
The City Council Liaison may, from time to time, wish to make announcements and report on items of activity that may be of interest to the Commission and the general public.

6. COMMUNITY FORUM
The Presiding Officer shall announce that members of the public have the opportunity to directly address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission and not on the current agenda. Up to fifteen (15) minutes shall be set aside for the community forum and each speaker shall be allocated up to three (3) minutes, unless time is extended by the Presiding Officer with the Commission’s consent. Items of business listed on the agenda shall not be further discussed under the community forum. Anyone desiring to address the Commission may indicate such interest in one of the two ways listed below:

1. Any interested members of the public desiring to communicate with the Planning Commission for this item may approach the podium to speak when the Presiding Officer opens the Community Forum and indicate that they would like to do so.

2.Any interested members of the public desiring to communicate with the Planning Commission for this item may do so via ZOOM:(https://ZoomRegular.Cityofvallejo.net ), or by phone: Dial (669)
900-6833. Enter Meeting ID: 914 0075 0676#. Press * 9 to digitally raise your hand from the phone.

For additional instructions on how to speak remotely during public comment, please visit www.cityofvallejo.net/publiccomment. Please know that in-person speakers will be recognized first.

AGENDA
City of Vallejo Planning Commission November 18, 2024

3 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. PROJECT TITLE: “Springtowne Bottleshop” Store Relocation

PROJECT NUMBER: Use Permit (UP22- 0007), Exception (EXC24- 0006), Landscape Review (LR24 -0013) and Variance (VAR24 -
0001)

PREPARED BY: Cesar Orozco, Planning Manager

PROJECT SUMMARY: The project consists of relocating the existing liquor store known as “Springtowne Bottleshop” from 2154 Springs
Road to 2168 Springs Road with hours of operation from 8 a.m. to 12 a.m.(midnight), seven days a week. The project includes new landscaping, and on-site improvements.

CEQA DETERMINATION: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15301(a) (Class 1 “Existing Facilities”) and Section 15303(c) (Class 3 “New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures”).

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the project exempt from environmental review pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a) and 15303(c), and
approve Use Permit (UP22- 0007), Exception (EXC24-
0006), Landscape Review (LR24- 0013) and Varianc e
(VAR24-0001), based on the findings provided in the
attached Resolution and subject to the Conditions of
Approval provided as Exhibit A to the Resolution.

B. PROJECT TITLE: Zoning Code Clean Up and Corrections

PROJECT NUMBER: Code Text Amendment (CTA24-0003)

PREPARED BY: Christina Ratcliffe, AICP, Planning Consultant

PROJECT SUMMARY: The proposed project includes miscellaneous amendments to Title 16 (Zoning Code) of the Vallejo Municipal Code (VMC) to correct errors and inconsistencies within the
Code.

CEQA DETERMINATION: The project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the “common sense exemption,”
because it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the activity in question may have a
significant effect on the environment.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the project exempt from environmental review pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), and adopt a
resolution recommending City Council adoption of the
proposed Zoning Code amendments.

AGENDA
City of Vallejo Planning Commission November 18, 2024

4 8. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Written communications from the public will be received and filed. Written communications regarding items on the agenda will be noted at the time the item is considered.

9. REGULAR REPORTS

A. SECRETARY’S REPORT
The Secretary may, from time to time, report on items that may be of interest to the Commission and general public.

B. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
The City Attorney may, from time to time, report on items that may be of interest to the Commission and general public.

C. REPORT OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSION
The Presiding Officer and any Commissioner may, from time to time, wish to make certain announcements, request information from staff, and to report on items of activity that may be of interest to the Commission and the general public.

D. REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES

10. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS

A. INFORMATIONAL ITEM(S)

B. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
a. Overview of new State housing laws

11. ADJOURNMENT

I, Dalia Vidor, do hereby certify that I have caused a true copy of the above notice and agenda to be delivered to each of the members of the Vallejo Planning Commission, at the time and in the manner prescribed by law and that this agenda was posted at City Hall, 555 Santa Clara Street, CA at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 14, 2024.

Dated: November 14, 2024
Dalia Vidor .

Dalia Vidor
DATE: November 18, 2024 Item#: 7A
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Cesar Orozco, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: “Springtowne Bottleshop” Store Relocation (UP22-0007, EXC24-0006, LR24-0013 AND VAR24-0001)

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Summary: The project consists of relocating the existing liquor store known as “Springtowne Bottleshop” from 2154 Springs Road to 2168 Springs Road with hours of operation from 8 a.m. to 12 a.m.(midnight), seven days a week. The project includes new landscaping, and on-site improvements.

Project Number(s): Use Permit (UP22-0007), Exception (EXC24-0006), Landscape Review (LR24-0013) and Variance (VAR24-0001)
Location: 2168 Springs Road (APN:0069-175-240)
Applicant: Roberto Cortez
Owner: Ranjwnder Sidhu
General Plan Land Use Designation: Neighborhood Corridor Zoning District: Neighborhood Mixed-Use
CEQA: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15301(a) (Class 1 “Existing Facilities”) and Section 15303(c) (Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”).

RECOMMENDATION
S
taff recommends that the Planning Commission find the p roject exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a) and 15303(c), and approve Use Permit (UP22-0007), Exception (EXC24-0006), Landscape Review (LR24-0013) and Variance (VAR24-0001), based on the findings provided in the attached Resolution and subject to the Conditions of Approval provided as Exhibit A to the Resolution.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Background
On January 1, 1994, Alcoholic Beverage Contral issued a Type 21 – off- sale general alcohol license for the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits.

On M
arch 20, 2008, a business license was issued for Springstowne Bottle Shop to operate a liquor store at 2154 Springs Road. The existing business has been in operation for over 16 years at the existing location of 2154 Springs Road.

Date: November 18, 2024
Subject: “SPRINGTOWNE BOTTLESHOP” STORE RELOCATION
(UP22-0007, EXC24-0006, LR24-0013 AND VAR24-0001)

On June 28, 2022, Roberto Cortez, the applicant, on behalf of Ranjwnder Sidhu, the property owner, submitted for a Use Permit to relocate an existing liquor store. The application was deemed incomplete, as additional entitlements were required.

The applicant submitted the revised project plans and applied for a Landscape Review, Exception and a Variance. The project plans were routed to various city departments and outside agencies for their review, and the application was determined to be complete on May 29, 2024.

Location and Land Use Context
The project site is located at 2168 Springs Road; at the corner of Springs Road and Lain Drive. The site is surrounded by existing commercial and residential uses. The subject site is bounded by single- family residences and Taft Way to the north, Lain Drive and an automotive detailing shop to the east, Springs Road and a commercial shopping center to the south and a commercial shopping center to the west (see Figure 1 of Attachment B).

Interstate 780 (I -780) is approximately 1.3 miles to the south and Interstate-80 is approximately 0.8 miles to the west. Each provide regional access while Springs Road and Lain Drive provide direct access to the project site. The immediate vicinity o f the project site is characterized by existing commercial and single- family (see figure 1 in A ttachment C). The site’s General Plan 2040 Land Use Designation is Neighborhood Corridor (NC) and is implemented by the Neighborhood Mixed -Use (NMX) Zoning District.

Project Description
The project consists of the relocation of an existing liquor store, known as “Springstowne Bottleshop” from 2154 Springs Road (APN:0069-175-270) to 2168 Springs Road (APN:0069 -175-240). The new location at 2168 Springs Road, which is currently occupied by three tenants and totals 2,797 square feet, w ould be merged into one single-unit tenant space with interior tenant improvement s to accommodate the new liquor store. Once reconfigured, the 2,797 square- foot tenant space would include a 1,675 square -foot sales floor area, 460 square feet for two walk -in coolers, 216 square feet for dry storage, and 446 square feet for a break room and restroom. A total of 775 square feet of the sales floor area w ould be dedicated to the sale of alcohol items (about 27% of the total sales floor area). The project also includes 2,353 square feet of new landscaping, six (6) reconfigured off-street parking spaces and a new 79 square-foot trash enclosure (see Figure 2 of Attachment B). The applicant has requested an Exception to reduce the required, 2,782.8 square feet of landscaping, by 25% percent and a Variance to waive the requirement for a six-foot solid wall along the rear property line adjacent to the residential zoning district.

The operator intends to s ell the following types of alcoholic beverages : individual containers of beer less than 40 ounces (oz), 40 oz beer, 6-12 packs of beer, ale or wine coolers, cases of beer or wine, malt liquor 12 oz or greater, kegs of beer, individual containers of wine coolers , bottles of wines 750 milliliter (ml) or larger, 6 -12 packs of wine coolers, individual container of fortified wines less than 500 ml, fortified wines of any size, distilled spirits smaller than pint -size, and distilled spirits pint- size or larger. These offerings are the same as what is currently sold at their existing location at 2154 Springs Road.

Regarding business hours, the liquor store operator has proposed to reduce its hours of operations from 7:30 a.m. to 1 a.m., Sunday – Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. to 2 a.m. Friday -Saturday, to 8 a.m. to 12 a.m. (midnight) seven days a week. A total of four employees would operate the store, two full -time and two part- time. Employees would continue to receive training from ABC – Responsible Beverage Service Training Program for proper sales of alcoholic beverages , as they do in conjunction with the current businesses location.

The existing Type 21 – Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 21 – General off -sale for beer, wine and distilled spirits was original issued on January 1, 1994
1, and has been transferred through the years. The existing operators originally obtained the Type 21 license on July 8, 1994. Vallejo Municipal Code (VMC) Section 16.305.06 (B) states, “ all businesses engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages, including eating and drinking establishments that were non- conforming uses prior to August 25, 1998 and still do not possess a minor or major use permit for the sale and service of alcohol shall automatically become deemed approved uses and shall no longer be considered non- conforming uses.” The existing liquor store is categorized as deemed approved. With the relocation of the deemed approved use from one location to another, and the legalization of the use through the issuance of a Minor Use Permit, the deemed approved status for the existing business will cease.

Code Compliance

1 According to the ABC License Query System - https://www.abc.ca.gov/licensing/license-lookup/ Date: November 18, 2024
Subject: “SPRINGTOWNE BOTTLESHOP” STORE RELOCATION
(UP22-0007, EXC24-0006, LR24-0013 AND VAR24-0001)

I. Required Entitlements

Use Permit: VMC section 16.305.05 provides that liquor stores shall require a major use permit, as prescribed in Chapter 16.606, Minor and Major Use Permits.” According to VMC section 16.606.02.B, “the planning commission shall review, approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application for a major use permit based on consideration of the requirements of this chapter.” VMC Table 16.301 – A” Land Use Regulations states a liquor store in the Neighborhood Mixed -Use Zoning district requires a Major Use Permit and is subject to the standards found in VMC Chapter 16.305 – Alcoholic Beverage Sales.

Exception: VMC Section 16.608.01 states that t he director may grant relief from the dimensional requirements specified in the Zoning Code, not to exceed twenty -five percent of the requirement with an Exception. The Director has forwarded the review of the Exception to the Planning Commission to review the project in whole and take action on the required entitlements. A request for an Exception has been made to reduce the required landscaping for the site by 25 percent.

Variance: VMC Section 16.607.01 (A) states, “ Variances may be granted to vary or modify dimensional and performance standards but shall not be granted to allow uses or activities that this Zoning Code does not authorize for a specific lot or site.” According to VMC Section 16.607.02 (A) , “Review Authority,” t he planning commission, architectural heritage and landmarks commission, in accordance with Table 16.601- A: Permit Review Authority, or city council on appeal must approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application for a variance, in accordance with Table 16.601-A: Permit Review Authority, based on consideration of the requirements of this chapter.” VMC Section

16.305.02 (B.10) requires a sound wall of six feet in height between the business and abutting residential zoning district or use. A Variance was requested to waive this requirement.

II. General Plan Consistency

The General Plan 2040 Land Use Designation for the subject property is Neighborhood Corridor (NC). The General Plan characterizes this designation as follows:

The NC designation is intended to promote pedestrian‐oriented neighborhood "main streets" with an emphasis on shops and services catering to the daily needs of local residents, particularly at mixed ‐use Urban Villages. Permitted uses in the NC designation include multifamily developments, retail, personal and automotive services, professional offices, community facilities, and other uses conducted primarily inside of buildings and compatible with an eclectic neighborhood ‐oriented mixed‐use environment. The maximum permitted FAR in the NC designation is 2.0, with minimum residential density of 18 dwelling units per acre up to 30 dwelling units per acre.

The project is consistent with the NC land use designation in that in includes the continuation of an existing liquor store that serves existing residents in the area. The proposed relocation of the existing liquor store would beautify an underutilized site with new landscaping and maintain an existing business in the City. Additionally, the project is consistent with applicable General Plan 2040 policies and actions, such as Policy CP -1.11: Responsible Alcohol Sales, Policy EET-3.2: Local Business Retention, and Policy NBE-1.8 Urban Forest (refer to Table 1 of Attachment B).

III. Zoning Code Compliance

The project site is zoned Neighborhood Mixed -Use (NMX). The zoning code provides the following description for the NMX zoning district:

The NMX Zoning District is intended to create and establish regulations for neighborhood -serving mixed-use areas along the corridors. The neighborhood mixed -use areas include the primary commercial corridors such as Tennessee Street, Solano Avenue, Springs Road, Broadway, Sonoma Boulevard as well as other areas.

Design and development standards will ensure that development at neighborhood nodes is appropriately Date: November 18, 2024
Subject: “SPRINGTOWNE BOTTLESHOP” STORE RELOCATION
(UP22-0007, EXC24-0006, LR24-0013 AND VAR24-0001)

scaled to ensure the physical form relates to and does not overwhelm adjacent single- family residential neighborhoods.

VMC Table 16.102 -A: Zoning Districts states, the NMX zoning district implements the NC General Plan Land Use Designation. VMC Table 16.301 – A: Land Use Regulations provides that a “Liquor Store” is permitted in the NMX zoning district after obtaining a Major Use Permit, as prescribed in Chapter 16.606 – Minor or Major Use Permit, and subject to the standards found in VMC Chapter 16.305 – Alcoholic Beverage Sales.

Although the proposed project does not involve physical exterior changes to the building, the proposed project site improvements were reviewed against applicable development standards found within the NMX zoning district and other chapters and sections that apply to the project, such as landscaping and off -street parking (refer to T able 2 of Attachment B). As proposed and condition, the proposed project is consistent with applicable development standards.

IV. Required Findings

1. Use Permit Findings. VMC Section 16.606.03 requires the review authority, Planning Commission, to make the following findings prior to granting a Major Use Permit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Exception. VMC Section 16.608.05, requires the review authority, Planning Commission, to make the following findings prior to granting an Exception:

a. The exception is necessary due to the physical characteristics of the property and the proposed use or structure or other circumstances, including, but not limited to, topography, noise exposure, irregular property boundaries, or other unusual circumstance;

b. There are no alternatives to the requested exception that could provide an equivalent level of benefit to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants or to the general public;

Date: November 18, 2024
Subject: “SPRINGTOWNE BOTTLESHOP” STORE RELOCATION
(UP22-0007, EXC24-0006, LR24-0013 AND VAR24-0001)

c. The granting of the requested exception will not be detrimental to the health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property or result in a change in land use or density that would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code;

d. If the exception requested is to provide reasonable accommodation pursuant to state or federal law, the review authority must also make the following findings in addition to any other findings that this Zoning Code requires:

i. That the subject housing or property will be used by an individual or organization entitled to protection;
ii. If the request for accommodation is to provide fair access to housing, that the request is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual protected under state or federal law;
iii. That the conditions imposed, if any, are necessary to further a compelling public interest and represent the least restrictive means of furthering that interest; and iv. That denial of the requested exception would impose a substantial burden on religious exercise or would conflict with any state or federal statute requiring reasonable accommodation to provide access to housing; and

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

f. Notification. Notice shall be provided in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 16.602, Common Procedures, Section 16.602.08, Noticing. When a project subject to an exception permit approval and requires a development review permit, use permit variance, an amendment of the Zoning Code or any other discretionary action, the notice for such approval shall also state that the project is subject to an exception.

3. Variance Findings. VMC Section 16.607.03 requires the Planning Commission to make the following findings prior to granting an Variance:

a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. In this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits;

b. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other conforming property in the same vicinity and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors;

c. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property;

d. That the conditions upon which the requested variance is based would not be applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification;

e. That either the variance is so insignificant that granting it will not be incompatible with the general plan; or the potentially adverse effects of the variance on said plan, which would be avoided by denying the variance, are exceeded by the individual hardship which would be relieved by granting the variance; and

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

Date: November 18, 2024
Subject: “SPRINGTOWNE BOTTLESHOP” STORE RELOCATION
(UP22-0007, EXC24-0006, LR24-0013 AND VAR24-0001)

Staff Analysis
Staff believes all the applicable Use Permit, Exception and Variance findings as listed above, can be made for the proposed project. A summary of staff’s analysis is included below, with specific analysis associated with each required finding , including recommended statements of fact, incorporated into the attached Resolution (Attachment 1 of this report).

I. Deemed Approved Alcoholic Beverage Sales

As previously mentioned, a ll businesses engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages, including eating and drinking establishments that were non-conforming uses prior to August 25, 1998 and still do not possess a minor or major use permit for the sale and service of alcohol shall automatically become deemed approved uses and shall no longer be considered non-conforming uses. The existing location of the liquor store obtained an ABC license in January 1, 1994, prior to the August 25, 1998, deeming the sale of alcoholic use as “deemed approved.”

The proposed project of relocating the liquor store, would require compliance with applicable standards in the VMC Title 16 – Zoning Code and require a Major Use Permit in the NMX zoning district. With the approval of the Major Use Permit as proposed, the deemed approved status for the existing location would cease, and the new location would be in conformance with the zoning code.

It should be noted that a new liquor store will not be able to occupy the existing location due to the limitation in VMC Section 16.305.05 (B) stating, “ no
liquor store, except for a large format liquor store, or convenience store, or mini - market associated with fuel sales offering alcoholic beverages for off -premise consumption shall be established within one thousand feet of a property containing an existing or approved liquor store, convenience store or mini - market associated with fuel sales offering alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption.” The limitation of a 1,000 - foot buffer w ould limit the location of a new alcoholic beverage sales for off -site consumption if the Planning Commission approves the relocation of the existing deemed approved liquor store.

II. Landscaping.

The proposed project includes a total of 2,353 square feet of landscaping on the project site. VMC Table 16.504 -A:

Landscape Requirements states a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped , which would equate to a minimum of 2,78 3 square feet of landscaping required on the 13,914 square -foot project site . If approved, the requested Exception would allow a reduction of up to 25 percent in the amount of landscaping required on the site. A 25 percent reduction would reduce the current requirement f rom 2,783 square feet of landscaping, down to 2,087 square feet. The current propos al for 2,353 square feet of landscaping is equivalent to a reduction of about 15.4 percent, which is within the allowable limits for an Exception request.

A majority of the landscaping proposed would be around the perimeter of the project site and would consist of trees, shrubs, vines, and ground cover. A total of four trees would be planted as a part of the proposed project. The new landscaping would beautify the site and create a sense of place on an underutilized site. A variety of trees, shrubs and ground cover w ould also be planted along the north property line, adjacent to the residences, to create a buffer between the new use and the existing residences.

III. Required Wall

VMC Section 16.305.02 (B.10) requires placement of a sound wall up to six feet in height shall be provided between the business and any abutting residential zoning district or use. The applicant has requested a Variance from this requirement because there is an existing five- foot reserve easement along the north property boundary line that prevents the installation of a permanent structure.

Date: November 18, 2024
Subject: “SPRINGTOWNE BOTTLESHOP” STORE RELOCATION
(UP22-0007, EXC24-0006, LR24-0013 AND VAR24-0001)

IV. Off-Street Parking

The project proposes six (6) off-street parking spaces, with one of the stalls designed for ADA accessibility. VMC Table

16.508-B: “Off Street Parking” requires commercial uses provide two off -street parking spaces per 1,000 square feet.

With an overall tenant space of 2,797 square feet, a total of 5.5 off -street parking spaces is required. VMC Section

16.104.02 (A) General Rounding states, fractions of one -half (0.5) or greater must be rounded up to the nearest whole number, and fractions of less than one -half (0.5) must be rounded down to the nearest whole number, except as otherwise provided. As such, the parking requirement is rounded up to a minimum of six off -street parking spaced. As proposed, the six off-street parking space meets the minimum requirement.

V. Hours of Operation

The liquor store operator has proposed to reduce its hours of operations from 7:30 a.m. to 1 a.m., Sunday – Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. to 2 a.m. Friday -Saturday, to 8 a.m. to 12 a.m. (midnight) seven days a week. As conditioned, any potential future changes to the proposed hours of operation w ould need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.

VI. Alcoholic Beverage Sales

VMC Chapter 16.305, Alcoholic Beverage Sales, includes additional regulations established to implement the general plan's policy to promote responsible sale and service of alcoholic beverages, as well as reduce impacts from the operation of businesses selling alcoholic beverages for on- site or off -site consumption. VMC Section 16.305.02, includes an extensive list of requirements related to alcoholic beverage sales, which would be carried forward as conditions on this project approval (as applicable). These requirements generally relate to ensuring the business operator prevents loitering on site, limits late- night sales of alcohol, keeps the property clean and free of litter/graffiti, displays proper signage related to regulations, allows for periodic inspections by City staff (including PD) as needed, and follows proper requirements if/when the business changes hands to a new operator .

VMC Section 16.305.05, includes additional requirements specific to “liquor stores, convenience stores, and mini - markets associated with fuel sales offering alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption.” The proposed project would comply with these requirements as follows:

A. The planning commission may grant such a permit only if, from the facts presented with the application, at the public hearing, or as determined by investigation, it finds that the conditions described in Section

16.305.04, Eating and Drinking Establishments, exist.

a. (Section 16.305.04.A) The location and operating characteristics of the proposed alcohol sales will not adversely affect sensitive land uses in the surrounding area, including, but not limited to, residences, schools, parks, playgrounds, places of religious assembly, hospitals, and convalescent homes. For the purposes of this chapter, "adversely affect" means to impact in a substantial, negative manner the economic value, habitability, or use of properties in the immediate area.

Staff Analysis: The only sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the project site would be the existing residences located to the north and an elementary school to the east. The proposed relocation of the liquor store would not adversely affect the nearby residences and schools in the area, in that the business would adhere to all requirements outlined in the VMC Section 16.305.02, ensuring responsible sale of alcoholic beverages at the site.

b. (Section 16.305.04.B) The impacts of any nearby discretionary land use that is already subject to a use permit and that also proposes to engage in late night alcohol sales and/or service are not increased;

Staff Analysis: The proposed use does not include late night alcohol sales, and the existing liquor store location (at 2154 Springs Rd.) would close prior to opening the new location.

Date: November 18, 2024
Subject: “SPRINGTOWNE BOTTLESHOP” STORE RELOCATION
(UP22-0007, EXC24-0006, LR24-0013 AND VAR24-0001)

c. (Section 16.305.04.C) Conditions including, but not limited to, interior and exterior restrictions such as noise controls, location and use of parking areas, sound barriers, and other performance standards manage, minimize, mitigate, eliminate or reduce the impacts of that activity on the public health and safety.

Staff Analysis: The proposed relocation of the liquor store would not contribute any new noise source to the existing area, and it is not expected to result in increased traffic to the site that could impact parking areas or other performance standards intended to manage, minimize, mitigate, eliminate or reduce impacts on public health and safety.

B. No liquor store, except for a large format liquor store, or convenience store, or mini -market associated with fuel sales offering alcoholic beverages for off -premise consumption shall be established within one thousand feet of a property containing an existing or approved liquor store, convenience store or mini -market associated with fuel sales offering alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption.

Staff Analysis: The existing “Springtowne Bottleshop” store is the only existing business w ithin 1,000 feet of the project site that qualifies as “ an existing or approved liquor store, convenience store or mini -market associated with fuel sales offering alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption .” However, since this business is proposed for relocation and would be required to close prior to the opening of the new location, the project would comply with this VMC requirement, as conditioned .

C. A convenience store or mini -market may sell beer and wine under a ABC Type 20 license provided the total floor area devoted to display of such products does not exceed ten percent of the gross floor area.

Staff Analysis: Not Applicable; the proposed relocation of the alcohol outlet is a liquor store and not a convenience store or mini-market.

Notice and Comments

On November 4 2024, pursuant to VMC Section 16.602.08, a notice of this hearing was published in the Times Herald, mailed to all active neighborhood groups, all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, and any other interested part ies and local agencies expected to provide water, wastewater treatment, and/or other essential facilities or services to the project, as well as to members of the Planning Commission, the applicant and property owner.

As of the writing of this staff report, s taff has received a comment from the managing property owner regarding the deemed approved status and the requirement of 1,000 foot limitation of a new liquor store.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Under the California Environmental Quality Act, the State has identified a list of classes of projects, which have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment and are therefore exempt from the requirements of CEQA. The proposed project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(a) (Class 1 “Existing Facilities”) and ( Section 15303(c) (Class 3: “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”) due to the proposal includes interior alterations to an existing building less than 10,000 square feet in area on a site zoned for the proposed use and where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive.

Moreover, none of the exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 apply, in that: (a) the site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, (b) there are no cumulative impacts, (c) there are no significant effects due to unusual circumstances, (d) the project is not located near a scenic highway, (e) the project site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and (f) the project would not adversely affect any historical resource.

Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

CONCLUSION
Date: November 18, 2024
Subject: “SPRINGTOWNE BOTTLESHOP” STORE RELOCATION
(UP22-0007, EXC24-0006, LR24-0013 AND VAR24-0001)

Based on the analysis contained in this staff report and the project’s consistency with General Plan 2040 and the VMC, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the p roject exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(a) and 15303(c), and approve Use Permit (UP22 -0007), Exception (EXC24- 0006), Landscape Review (LR24- 0013) and Variance (VAR24- 0001), based on the findings provided in the attached Resolution and subject to the Conditions of Approval provided as Exhibit A to the Resolution.

EXPIRATION

Pursuant to VMC Section 16.602.12 (A.2), the approval of the Use Permit (UP22 -0007), Exception (EXC24 -0006), Landscape Review (LR24 -0013) and Variance (VAR24 -0001) shall automatically expire two years after approval, unless authorized construction has commenced prior to the expiration date (November 18, 2026; if approved at this meeting and not appealed).

APPEAL PROCEDURES

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

Notice of the appeal, including the date and time of the City Council’s consideration of the appeal, shall be sent by the Cit y Clerk to all property owners within five hundred feet of the project boundary. The Council may affirm, reverse, or modify any decision of the Planning Commission that is appealed.

LEVINE ACT: GOVERNMENT CODE 84308

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

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

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution No. PC24-XX
a. Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval
B. Supporting Information Tables and Images
C. Project Plans
D. Off-Site Sale of Alcohol Supplemental Questionnaire

STAFF CONTACT
Cesar Orozco, Planning Manager
707.648.5436
[email protected]

CITY OF VALLEJO PLANNING COMMISSION

RESOLUTION NO. PC 24-XX

RESOLUTION APPROVING USE PERMIT (UP22-0007), EXCEPTION (EXC24-0006), LANDSCAPE REVIEW (LR24-0013), AND VARIANCE (VAR24-0001) FOR THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING LIQUOR STORE KNOWN AS “SPRINGTOWNE BOTTLESHOP” FROM 2154 SPRINGS ROAD TO 2168 SPRINGS ROAD (APN: 0069-175-240)

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

RECITALS

WHEREAS, on August 29, 2017, the City Council adopted General Plan 2040; and

WHEREAS, the property which is the subject of the above-referenced proposed entitlements (Subject Property) has a General Plan 2040 land use designation of Neighborhood Corridor; and

WHEREAS, on July 22, 2021, the City Council adopted a new Zoning Code and Zoning Map; and

WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in the Neighborhood Mixed-Use Zoning District; and

WHEREAS, on June 28, 2022, Roberto Cortez, the applicant, on behalf of Ranjwnder Sidhu, the property owner, submitted for a Use Permit to relocate an existing liquor store. The application was deemed incomplete, as additional entitlements were required. The applicant submitted the revised project plans and applied for a Landscape Review, Exception and a Variance; and

WHEREAS, on May 29, 2024, the application was determined to be complete for processing; and

WHEREAS, on November 4, 2024, pursuant to Vallejo Municipal Code Section16.602.08(A), notice of this hearing was published in the Times Herald and mailed to all active neighborhood groups and property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and electronically mailed to the members of the Planning Commission and to the applicant; and

WHEREAS, on November 18, 2024, the City of Vallejo Planning Commission, after giving all public notices required by State law and the City of Vallejo Municipal Code, conducted a duly noticed public hearing; and

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

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

II. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING

Under the California Environmental Quality Act, the State has identified a list of classes of projects, which have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment and are therefore exempt from the requirements of CEQA. The proposed project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(a) (Class 1: “Existing Facilities”) and Section 15303(c) (Class 3: “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”) due to the proposal includes ATTACHMENT 1

interior alterations to an existing building that is less than 10,000 square feet in area on a site zoned for the proposed use and where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive.

Moreover, none of the exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 apply, in that:
(a) the site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, (b) there are no cumulative impacts, (c) there are no significant effects due to unusual circumstances, (d) the project is not located near a scenic highway, (e) the project site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and (f) the project would not adversely affect any historical resource. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

III. FINDINGS RELEVANT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAJOR USE PERMIT (VMC Section 16.606.03)

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

The proposed project aligns with the Neighborhood Mixed- Use (NMX) Zoning District regulations outlined in VMC Table 16.301-A, which conditionally permits a liquor store. To comply with these regulations, a Major Use Permit (MJP) is required. The project al so adheres to the applicable development standards specific in Title 16 of the VMC, as proposed and subject to necessary conditions.

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

The project site is designated as Neighborhood Corridor (NC) in the General Plan Land Use Map. The General Plan 2040 NC designation is intended to promote pedestrian ‐
oriented neighborhood "main streets" with an emphasis on shops and services catering to the daily needs of local residents. The project is consistent with the NC land use designation in that it includes the continuation of an existing liquor store that serves existing residents in the area. The proposed relocation of the existing liquor store, would beautify an underutilized site with new landscaping, maintaining an existing business in the City.

Additionally, the project is consistent with applicable General Plan 2040 policies and actions, such as Policy CP-1.11: Responsible Alcohol Sales, Policy EET-3.2: Local Business Retention, and Policy NBE-1.8 Urban Forest.

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

The subject parcel is physically suitable for the proposed use and will incorporate a reconfigured off-street parking, new landscaping and a new trash enclosure.

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

The proposed project is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the zoning district, as it is allowed use with a Major Use Permit. The proposal will reactivate and beautify an underutilized site with an existing liquor store and proposed site improvements.

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

The physical location of the proposed project on an underutilized site will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood.

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

As proposed, the relocation of the liquor store, associated improvements and hours of operation of 8 a.m. to 12 a.m. seven days a week, will not create any nuisances arising from the emission of odors, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare at a level exceeding the ambient conditions. As proposed and conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or general welfare.

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

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

The proposed project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(a) (Class 1 “Existing Facilities”) and Section 15303(c) (Class 3: “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”) due to the proposal includes interior alterations to an existing building less than 10,000 square feet in building floor area on a site zoned for the proposed use (not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances) where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive.

IV. FINDINGS RELEVANT TO THE APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION (VMC Section

16.608.05)

A. The exception is necessary due to the physical characteristics of the property and the proposed use or structure or other circumstances, including, but not limited to, topography, noise exposure, irregular property boundaries, or other unusual circumstance.

The exception to reduce the amount of required landscaping from 2,783 square feet to 2,087 square feet (a 15.4 percent reduction), is necessary due to the physical constraints of the Subject P roperty. Without the reduction, there will not be adequate space for a vehicle aisle along the north property line, nor will there be adequate space for vehicles to pull out of the parking spaces.

B. There are no alternatives to the requested exception that could provide an equivalent level of benefit to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants or to the general public;

There are no alternatives to the requested exception that could provide equivalent benefit to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants or the general public. The exception to reduce the required landscaping will not cause any detriment to the subject site or surrounding owners and occupants.

C. The granting of the requested exception will not be detrimental to the health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property or result in a change in land use or density that would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code .

The granting of the exception to reduce the required landscaping by 15.4 percent will not be detrimental to the health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property or result in a change in land use or density that would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.

D. If the exception requested is to provide reasonable accommodation pursuant to state or federal law, the review authority must also make the following findings in addition to any other findings that this Zoning Code requires:

i. That the subject housing or property will be used by an individual or organization entitled to protection;
ii. If the request for accommodation is to provide fair access to housing, that the request is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual protected under state or federal law;
iii. That the conditions imposed, if any, are necessary to further a compelling public interest and represent the least restrictive means of furthering that interest; and
iv. That denial of the requested exception would impose a substantial burden on religious exercise or would conflict with any state or federal statute requiring reasonable accommodation to provide access to housing

Not applicable; the requested exception is not for reasonable accommodation.

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

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

The proposed project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(a) (Class 1 “Existing Facilities”) and Section 15303(c) (Class 3: “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”) due to the proposal includes interior alterations to an existing building less than 10,000 square feet in building floor area on a site zoned for the proposed use (not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances) where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive.

Moreover, none of the exceptions listed in Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply, in that: (a) the site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, (b) there are no cumulative impacts, (c) there are no significant effects due to unusual circumstances, (d) the project is not located near a scenic highway, (e) the project site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and (f) the project would not adversely affect any historical resource. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

F. Notification. Notice shall be provided in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 16.602, Common Procedures, Section 16.602.08, Noticing. When a project subject to an exception permit approval and requires a development review permit, use permit variance, an amendment of the Zoning Code or any other discretionary action, the notice for such approval shall also state that the project is subject to an exception.

On November 4 2024, pursuant to VMC Section 16.602.08, a notice of this hearing was published in the Times Herald, mailed to all active neighborhood groups, all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, and any other interested parties and local agencies expected to provide water, wastewater treatment, and/or other essential facilities or services to the project, as well as to members of the Planning Commission, the applicant and property owner.

V. FINDINGS RELEVANT TO THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE (VMC Section 16.607.03)

a. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. In this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits;

The requested variance to eliminate a requirement for install ation of the six-foot solid wall along the north property line, adjacent to the residential zoning district, is necessary due to the existing five- foot reserved easement along the north property line. The existing easement will prevent the installation of footings that would be necessary to safely and appropriately construct a solid six -foot wall. The existing wooden six -foot fence will remain and new landscaping will be installed to create additional buffer between the subject site and the adjacent residences to the north.

b. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other conforming property in the same vicinity and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors;

The requested variance to eliminate a requirement for install ation of the solid six-foot wall is necessary due to the existing five- foot reserved easement along the north property line. The existing easement will prevent the installation of footings that would be necessary to safely and appropriately construct a solid six -foot wall.

The existing
wooden six -foot fence will remain and new landscaping will be installed to create

additional buffer between the subject site and the adjacent residences to the north, all of which will assist the preservation and enjoyment of substantial rights posses sed by other conforming properties in the same vicinity. Further, the variance will not constitute a special privilege.

c. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property;

The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties to the north, in that the existing wooden six -foot fence will remain and new landscaping will be installed to create additional buffer between the subject site and the adjacent residences to the north.

d. That the conditions upon which the requested variance is based would not be applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification;

This condition upon the requested variance is solely based on the Subject Property and will not generally be applicable to other properties within the same zoning classifications.

e. That either the variance is so insignificant that granting it will not be incompatible with the general plan; or the potentially adverse effects of the variance on said plan, which would be avoided by denying the variance, are exceeded by the individual ha rdship which would be relieved by granting the variance; and

The granting of the variance for the waiver of a solid six -foot fence and allowing the existing six -foot wood fence to remain with new adjacent landscaping, will not be incompatible with the general plan.

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

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

The proposed project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(a) (Class 1 “Existing Facilities”) and Section 15303(c) (Class 3: “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”) due to the proposal includes interior alterations to an existing building less than 10,000 square feet in building floor area on a site zoned for the proposed use (not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances) where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive.

Moreover, none of the exceptions listed in Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply, in that:
(a) the site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, (b) there are no cumulative impacts, (c) there are no significant effects due to unusual circumstances, (d) the project is not located near a scenic highway, (e) the project site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and (f) the project would not adversely affect any historical resource. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

VI. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECT

NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the above recitals and findings are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby determines that the project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(a) (Class 1 “Existing Facilities”) and Section 15303(c) (Class 3:
“New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”) due to the proposal includes interior alterations to existing building less than 10,000 square feet in building floor area on a site zoned for the proposed use (not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances), where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive.

Moreover, none of the exceptions listed in Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply, in that: (a) the site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, (b) there are no cumulative impacts, (c) there are no significant effects due to unusual circumstances, (d) the project is not located near a scenic highway, (e) the project site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and (f) the project would not adversely affect any historical resource. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES Use Permit (UP22-0007), Exception (EXC24-0006), Landscape Review (LR24-0013) and Variance (VAR24- 0001) for the project based on the above findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached to this Resolution.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

_______________________________________________________ Eric Blind, CHAIRPERSON
City of Vallejo Planning Commission

Attest:

_______________________________

CESAR OROZCO, SECRETARY
City of Vallejo Planning Commission

Attachment 1: Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Resolution
Exhibit A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

USE PERMIT (UP22-0007)
EXCEPTION (EXC24-0006)
LANDSCAPE REVIEW (LR24-0013)
VARIANCE (VAR24-0001)
2168 SPRINGS ROAD
(APN: 0069-175-240)

PERMIT DESCRIPTION:

The project consists of relocating the existing liquor store known as “Springtowne Bottleshop” from 2154 Springs Road to 2168 Springs Road with hours of operation from 8 a.m. to 12 a.m.(midnight), seven days a week. The project includes new landscaping, and on-site improvements.

A. PLANNING DIVISION
Staff contact: Cesar Orozco, Planning Manager
[email protected] | 707.648.5436

Pre-Building Permit

1. Prior to building permit issuance, submit a numbered list to the Planning Division with a written response on how each condition of approval contained in this report will be satisfied. The list should be submitted to the project planner who will coordinate continued development of the project. The approved conditions of approval shall also be included in the permit set after the cover sheet with each condition listed.

2. Prior to building permit issuance, obtain a Temporary Use Permit from the Planning Division for any temporary office or construction trailer, as necessary.

3. Prior to building permit issuance, the Planning Division shall confirm that the building permit drawings and subsequent construction substantially conform with the approved Planning application drawings included in this report.

4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Director may require the applicant to submit such information as proposed machinery, processes, products, or environmental impacts as may be necessary to demonstrate the ability of the proposed uses to comply with applicable performance standards. Such required information may include reports by expert consultants. Whenever an environmental impact report has been submitted and determined to be adequate under state and city guidelines, no further information shall be required. (VMC Section 16.505.02 (B))

D
uring Construction

5. Construction activities shall be managed in compliance with the following requirements, as applicable:

a. Site Watering. During the construction of a project, all portions of the site shall be watered as necessary to reduce emissions of dust and other particulate matter, and all stockpiles shall be covered.
b. Maintenance. Streets and sidewalks shall be made dirt free at the completion of construction.
c. Noise. All construction and transport equipment shall be muffled in accordance with state and federal laws.
d. Emissions. Construction and transport equipment shall be operated so as to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and equipment should be running only when necessary.

2 e. Hours of Operation. Grading and pile driving operations within ¼ mile of residential units shall be limited to between 8:00 am and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays to ensure compliance with the requirements for construction activity in Subsection 16.502.12.D.1., Maximum Noise Level for Temporary Construction Activity, or as otherwise restricted as part of an approval. f. Water Run-off. All water run-off from construction sites shall be controlled. During construction, trucks and equipment should be running only when necessary, and shall comply with Chapter 12.41 of the Vallejo Municipal Code.

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

16.502.09 (C))

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

8. Fencing for construction sites shall not be installed until a building permit or grading permit has been issued and shall be removed prior to final inspection. In the event that the building permits expire before the construction is completed, the Director may issue a temporary use permit pursuant to Chapter 16.339, Temporary Uses, to allow the fencing to remain for a longer period of time. (VMC Section 16.505.08 (B))

Pre-Operation

9. Prior to operation/final building inspection, the landscape architect shall provide a complete Certificate of Completion and Certificate of Installation According to the Landscape Documentation in accordance with VMC Section 16.504.09 - Water Efficient Landscape Requirements. The documentation shall include the following:
a. Certificate of Completion (VMC Section 16.504.09 (G.9)) b. Irrigation Scheduling (VMC Section 16.504.09 (G.9.c)) c. Schedule of Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance (VMC Section 16.504.09 (G.9.d)) d. Landscape Irrigation Audit Report (VMC 16.504.09 (G.9.e)) e. Soil Analysis Report (VMC Section 16.504.09 (G.9.f))

10. Prior to occupancy/final building inspection, the applicant shall install landscaping and irrigation per approved plans. The landscape architect shall verify in writing that the landscaping and irrigation have been installed in accordance with the approved landscape plans with respect to size, health, number and species of plants, and the overall design concept.

11. Prior to operation/final building inspection, new American Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements shall be installed including a new ADA compliant access path from the public right -of-way to the convenience store, as well as an ADA compliant restroom and a new ADA compliant parking stall.

12. Prior to occupancy/final building inspection, the existing nonconforming sign shall be removed.

13. Prior to occupancy, the existing “Springtowne Bottleshop” liquor store located at 2154 Springs Road shall be permanently closed.

3 14. Prior to occupancy/final building inspection, the site shall be inspected by the Planning Division.

All inspections require a minimum 24-hour notice. Occupancy permits shall not be granted until all construction and landscaping are completed and finaled in accordance with the approved plans and required conditions of approval or a bond has been posted to cover all costs of the unfinished work as agreed to by the Director.

Operation

15. The operator of the use shall prevent loitering or other activity in the parking lot that would be a nuisance to adjacent uses and/or residential neighborhoods.

16. The site shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator is responsible for daily removal of trash, litter, and debris from premises and on all abutting sidewalks with twenty feet of the premises. One permanent, non-flammable trash receptacle shall be installed near all public entrances and exits to the establishment.

17. Notices shall be prominently displayed that prohibit loitering and littering and request patrons to not disturb neighbors or block driveways;

18. Employees of the establishment shall walk a one-hundred-foot radius from the facility at some point prior to thirty minutes after closing and shall pick up and dispose of any discarded beverage containers and other trash left by patrons.

19. The following signs shall be prominently displayed in a readily visible manner:

a. "California State Law prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under twenty - one years of age";
b. "No loitering or public drinking"; and
c. "It is illegal to possess an open container of alcohol in the vicinity of this establishment".

20. A copy of the conditions of approval and the ABC license shall be required to be kept on the premises and presented to any law enforcement officer or authorized city official upon request. All businesses that engage in retail alcoholic beverage sales shall be subject to inspection by the city staff any time the chief of police, or their designee, finds that criminal or nuisance activities are occurring on or near the premises.

21. The hours of operation shall be between 8 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., seven days a week. Any future requested changes to the hours of operation shall be reviewed by the City of Vallejo Planning Division.

Landscaping

22. Maintenance Required. All landscaping shall be permanently maintained in a healthy and thriving condition at all times, in compliance with the approved landscape plan. Irrigation systems and their components shall be maintained in a fully functional manner consistent with the original approved design or upgraded to reflect current best practices for water efficiency. Regular maintenance shall include:
a. Adjusting, checking, and repairing irrigation equipment; resetting automatic controllers; aerating and de- thatching turf areas; adding/replenishing fertilizer, mulch, soil amendments; insect control; the replacement of dead or diseased plants; pruning; watering; and weeding all landscaped areas.

4 b. The trimming of vegetation as necessary to maintain the effective functioning of solar energy facilities and passive solar design features installed both on site and on adjacent properties.
c. The trimming of vegetation as necessary to keep pedestrian and bicycle paths clear. (VMC Section 16.504.08 (A))

23. Litter shall be removed from all landscaped areas in a timely fashion. (VMC Section 16.504.08 (B))

24. Turf areas shall be mowed on a regular basis and be kept green. Accumulation of leaves, twigs, bark, and other similar materials shall be removed on a regular basis. Planting areas shall be kept free of weeds at all times. (VMC Section 16.504.08 (C))

25. Landscaping maintenance shall include:
d. Pruning, cultivating, weeding, fertilizing, replacement of plants, and watering on a regular basis.
e. Pruning or removal of overgrown vegetation, cultivated or uncultivated, that may harbor rats, vermin, or other nuisances, or otherwise be detrimental to neighboring properties. f. The removal of dead, decayed, diseased, or hazardous trees, weeds and debris that create an unsightly appearance and may be dangerous to public safety and welfare or detrimental to neighboring properties or property values. Compliance shall be by removal, replacement, or maintenance.
g. Landscaping (trees, shrubs, ground cover, turf, etc.) which, due to accident, damage, disease, lack of maintenance, or other cause, fails to show a healthy appearance and growth, shall be replaced. Replacement plants shall conform to all standards that gov ern the original planting installation, approved landscaping plan, or as approved by the Director. (VMC Section 16.504.08 (D))

Fences and Screening

26. Maintenance. Fencing on site shall be continuously maintained with no sign of rust or disrepair.

Graffiti shall be removed within forty-eight hours. (VMC Section 16.505.02 (B)).

27. General Requirements. All exterior mechanical equipment, whether on a roof, on the side of a structure, or located on the ground, shall be screened from public view. Exterior mechanical equipment to be screened includes, without limitation, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork, transformers, smoke exhaust fans, water meters, backflow preventers, service entry section, back-up and emergency generators, and similar utility devices.
a. Screening shall be architecturally integrated into the main structure with regard to materials, color, shape, and size to appear as an integral part of the building or structure. b. Equipment shall be screened on all sides, and screening materials shall be opaque. c. When screening with plants, evergreen types of vegetation shall be planted and maintained. Plant material sizes and types shall be selected and installed so that, at the time of building occupancy, such plants effectively screen their respective equipment. d. The use of wood expanded metal lath, and chain link for the purpose of screening is prohibited. (VMC Section 16.505.10)

Lighting

28. Lighting shall be designed, located, and installed to be directed downward or toward structures, be shielded or fully shielded, and shall be well -maintained in order to prevent glare, light trespass

5 (unwanted light on adjacent lots and public rights-of-way), and light pollution to the maximum extent feasible. No permanently installed lighting shall blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity or brightness, as determined by the Director. (VMC Section 16.506.04 (B))

29. Timing. All outdoor lighting in non- residential zoning districts shall be turned off during daylight hours and during any hours when the building is not in use and the lighting is not required for security. Time clocks or photo- sensor systems may be required as a condition of approval of a discretionary permit. (VMC Section 16.506.04 (D))

Signs

30. No signs be installed until the applicant receives Zoning Compliance Review approval by City of Vallejo Planning Division.

31. Temporary Signs Within Commercial Zoning Districts. Temporary signs are allowed within commercial zoning districts without a sign permit for a maximum of sixty days after the opening of a new business, provided that the area of the temporary signs shall not exceed fifty percent of the total sign area allowed on the site by Section 16.509.04, General Requirements for All Signs. (VMC Section 16.509.03 (P)).

32. Moving, Flashing, Electronic/Digital and Windblown Signs. No moving, rotating, flashing, or changing of color intensity or signs with electronic/digitally created content (i.e., electronic reader board signs), and no windblown signs, such as posters, pennants, streamers, or strings of light bulbs, balloons, or other inflated objects are permitted. The only exceptions to these requirements are time and temperature devices and signs installed by a governmental agency in carrying out its responsibility to protect public health, safety, and general welfare. (VMC Section 16.509.07 (C))

33. Portable Signs. An "A" frame sign or other sign attached to a device used to allow the sign to be rolled or moved around is prohibited. Included in this category are signs larger than three square feet affixed to a vehicle intended for the purpose of business identification, directional to a business, or advertisement of a business. (VMC Section 16.509.07 (D))

General Requirements

34. This project approval shall automatically expire within two years of the effective date (November 18, 2026; if approved), unless exercised or extended.

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

36. The Director may approve a one-year extension of any permit or approval granted for a residential or non-residential project under the Zoning Code upon receipt of a written application and fees received fifteen calendar days before the expiration date with the required fee prior to expiration of the permit. (VMC Section 16.602.11 (C.1))

37. No change in the use or structure for which a permit or other approval has been issued is permitted unless the permit is modified as provided for in the Zoning Code. (VMC Section 16.602.11 (D))

6 38. For new developments, utilities including, but not limited to, all electrical, telephone, cable television, fiber-optic cable, gas, water, sewer, irrigation/recycled water, and similar distribution lines providing direct service to a project shall be installed underground within the site. This requirement may be waived by the D irector upon determining that underground installation is infeasible, or the electrical line is otherwise exempt from an under-grounding requirement. (VMC Section 16.501.10)

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

B. BUILDING DIVISION
Staff Contact: Bill Collins, CBO, CASp, CFM - Chief Building Official [email protected] | 707.648.4387

1. Plans and permits required for Building, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical work per California Code of Regulations, Title 24, and applicable City Ordinance in effect at the time of completed Building Permit application date and required fees paid at time of application.

2. 2022 California Code of Regulations applies if permit application(s) are received before the end of 2025. After 12-31-2025 the 2025 California Code of Regulations will apply.

3. Accessibility required per CBC 11B and 2010 ADA.

C. PUBLIC WORKS
Staff Contact: James Paluck, Consulting Senior Engineer [email protected] | 707.554.5902

1. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS. All public improvements shall be designed to City of Vallejo standards and to accepted engineering design standards. The City Engineer has all such standards on file and the Engineer's decision shall be final regarding the specific standards that shall apply. (COV, Regulations & Standard Specifications, 2011).

2. IMPROVEMENT PLANS. Prior to building permit submittals, submit three sets of plans to the Department of Public Works for plan check review and approval. (Improvement or civil plans are to be prepared by a licensed civil engineer.) Plans are to include, but may not be limited to, grading and erosion control plans, improvement plans, joint trench utility, street light plans, and landscaping, irrigation and fencing plans and all supporting documentation, calculations and pertinent reports. (COV, Regulations & Standard Specifications, 2011, Section 1.1.7–A).

3. LINE OF SIGHT CRITERION. In design of grading and landscaping, line of sight distance shall be provided based on Caltrans standards. Installation of fencing, signage, above ground utility boxes,

7 etc. shall not block the line of sight of traffic and must be set back as necessary. (VMC Chapter

10.14).

4. DUST AND EROSION CONTROL. All dust and erosion control shall be in conformance with City standards and ordinances. (VMC Chapters 12.40.050 & 12.40.070).

5. COMPACTION TESTS. Prior to building permit issuance or acceptance of grading, compaction test results and certification letter from the project soils engineer and civil engineer confirming that the grading is in conformance with the approved plans must be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Test values must meet minimum relative compaction recommended by the soils engineer (usually at least 90 percent). (COV, Regulations & Standard Specifications, 2011, Section 2.4.1).

6. DRIVEWAY STANDARDS. Entrances to any private project must be standard driveway approaches unless deviation is permitted by the City Engineer. (VMC, Chapter 10.04.260). Prior to start of construction of sidewalk or driveway, applicant to obtain a sidewalk permit.

7. STREET EXCAVATION PERMIT. Obtain a street excavation permit from the Department of Public Works prior to performing any work within City streets or rights-of-way, or prior to any cutting and restoration work in existing public streets for utility trenches. All work shall conform to City standards. (VMC Chapter 10.08).

8. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. Prior to building permit issuance, obtain an encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works for all work proposed within the public right-of-way. (VMC Chapter

10.16).

9. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. Prior to start of construction; submit a traffic control plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (CA MUTCD).

10. COORDINATION OF CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION. Construction inspection shall be coordinated with the Department of Public Works and no construction shall deviate from the approved plans. (COV, Regulation & Standard Specification Sections 1.1.4 & 1.1.5).

11. PLAN CHANGES. The project design engineer shall be responsible for the project plans. If plan deviations are necessary, the project engineer must first prepare a revised plan or details of the proposed change for review by the Department of Public Works and, when applicable, by Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District. Changes shall be made in the field only after approval by the City.

At the completion of the project, the design engineer must prepare and sign the "as built" plans. (COV, Regulation & Standard Specification Section 1.1.9).

12. BONDS AND FEES. Prior to approval of construction plans, provide bonds and pay applicable fees.

Bonding shall be provided to the City in the form of a "Performance Surety" and a separate "Labor and Materials Surety" in amounts stipulated by City ordinance. (VMC, Section 15.12.090)

13. INSTALL IMPROVEMENTS. Prior to occupancy/final building inspection, install the improvements required by the Department of Public Works including but not limited to streets and utilities.

14. SIDEWALK REPAIR. Prior to occupancy/final building inspection, remove and replace any broken curb, gutter, sidewalk or driveway approach as directed in the field by the City Engineer. (VMC, Section 10.04).

15. FLOOD PROTECTION. The project is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area or Coastal High Hazard Area. Prior to obtaining a building permit, apply to FEMA for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR-F). Prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy or project acceptance by the City, whichever is applicable, obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-F) from FEMA. In each

8 case, it could take at least 90 days for FEMA to process a complete CLOMR, CLOMR-F, LOMR, or LOMR-F application. Applicants are encouraged to submit their requests using the Online Letter of Map Change (LOMC) tool. Please visit the FEMA website at https://www.fema.gov/glossary/conditional-letter-map-revision-clomr. For hardcopy (paper) submittals, the completed application package should be submitted to: LOMC CLEARINGHOUSE, 3601 EISENHOWER AVENUE, SUITE 500, ALEXANDRIA, VA 22304-6426. (VMC Chapter 7.98 - Flood Damage Protection).

16. STREET TREES. Prior to release for occupancy, plant required street trees in accordance with City Municipal Code. The list of approved trees is available in the office of the Public Works Director.

The minimum standard shall be at least one tree for each 50 feet of street frontage or fraction thereof, including secondary or side streets. Street tree(s) shall be inspected by Public Works Landscape Inspector prior to release for occupancy. (VMC Chapter 15.06.190 and Regulations and Standard Specifications Section 3.3.48).

17. JOINT TRENCH. The developer shall provide joint trench plans for the underground electrical, gas, telephone, cable television and communications conduits and cables including the size, location and details of all trenches, location of all building utility service stubs and meters and placement or arrangements of junction structures as a part of the Improvement Plans submitted for the project.

The composite drawings and/or utility improvement plans shall be signed by a licensed civil engineer. (VMC Chapters 15.06.160 & 15.06.170).

18. SIGNAL INTERCONNECT CABLES. There may be fiber optic and /or copper signal inter connect cables located at the edge of the roadway or under the sidewalk. The plans should address either the relocation of these cables or a note should be made of the cable location. A warning should be included on the plans stating that if the cable damaged, the entire length of the cable between the two nearest hubs will be will be replaced by the contractor unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer.

19. ADA COMPLIANCE WITHIN CITY ROW. In order to ensure ADA compliance within any and all City ROW, ADA compliance will be addressed in accordance to the state government and federal codes.

20. STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN AND C.3 REQUIREMENTS.

Stormwater Control Plan and C.3 Requirements. Applicant shall provide the following and obtain approval prior to issuance of grading permit:

a. Submit a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) prepared in accordance with the current C.3 Guidebook for review and approval by Engineering Services prior to issuance of any permit.

The C.3 Guidebook shall mean the most recent version of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) Stormwater C.3 Guidebook including any addenda and the most recent version of the City of Vallejo Addendum to the CCCWP Stormwater C.3 Guidebook. The SWCP shall be prepared and certified by a Civil Engineer, registered in the State of California, demonstrating an understanding of the design of treatment measures for water quality and groundwater protection principles applicable to the project site. Include features and facilities to ensure runoff is treated before leaving the site. Use the LID Design Guide including sizing factors and criteria for treatment only (ENGR).

b. Prior to issuance of permits for building, site improvements, or landscaping, applicant shall submit a permit application consistent with the applicant’s approved Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP), and include drawings and specifications necessary for construction of site design features, measures to limit directly connected impervious area, pervious pavements, self- retaining areas, treatment BMP's, permanent source control BMP’s, and other features that control stormwater flow and potential stormwater pollutants. The permit application shall include a completed “Stormwater Control Plan Checklist” as described in the C.3 Guidebook, and a detailed draft Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan consistent with the

9 general O&M plan included in the applicant’s approved Stormwater Control Plan. Guidelines for the preparation of Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plans are in Chapter 6 of the C.3 Guidebook. (ENGR)

c. Construct stormwater treatment measures per the approved SWCP prior to occupancy approval. (ENGR)

d. Submit a final Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) in accordance with City of Vallejo Guidelines, for review and approval by Engineering Services, prior to occupancy approval. This O&M Plan shall incorporate City comments on the draft O&M Plan and any revisions resulting from changes made during construction. The implementation of the O&M Plan shall be the responsibility of each property owner concurrently and individually or through a recorded joint maintenance agreement where one exists or through a Business Owners Association (BOA). (ENGR)
e. Execute and record any agreements identified in the SWCP which pertain to the transfer of ownership, right-of-entry for inspection or abatement, and/or long-term maintenance of stormwater treatment or hydrograph modification BMPs, prior to occupancy approval. (ENGR)

21. BUSINESS OWNERS ASSOCIATION (BOA)
Should the developer form a BOA for the maintenance of these facilities then three copies of the BOA’s Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted with the Grading and Improvement Plans, for review and approval. The CC&Rs shall include the following provisions and shall be recorded prior to the first occupancy:

a. A Business Owners Association (BOA) shall be formed and shall be responsible in perpetuity, for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of all permanent stormwater management facilities included in the approved Stormwater Control Plan and the approved Stormwater Control Operations and Maintenance Plan.

b. Contain a statement that in the event these areas or facilities are not properly maintained, repaired or replaced according to the approved plans, each property owner shall be responsible for their proportionate share of these costs, secured by a lien on the property in favor of the BOA, in accordance with the BOA procedures.

c. Provide reciprocal easements over all parcels for maintenance purposes.

d. The BOA shall be responsible for enforcing the CC&Rs and providing written notice of any violation to the property owners.

e. The BOA shall provide the Planning Division with the name, address and phone number of the current HOA representative.

D. Fire Prevention
Staff Contact: Vincent Sproete, Fire Prevention Manager [email protected] | 707.648.4566

1. Prior to final inspection, in accordance with the 2022 California Fire Code approved address numbers shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible

10 and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall clearly contrast with their background. The characters shall be a minimum of 4" high (6" for Commercial) with a 1/2" stroke. The size of the building and distance or location of the address numbers from the roadway may necessitate larger numbers.

2. A flush-mounted (recessed) Knox Box (key box) mounted no higher than 5 feet above the finished floor containing appropriate keys for emergency Fire Department access shall be provided. The minimium size box is the 3200 series with a hinged door and recessed mounting kit. The tamper kit is not required, box color may be any of the Knox options. It takes approximately 2 weeks for delivery. For more information call the Fire Prevention Division at (707) 658-4565 or visit www.knoxbox.com Due prior to final inspection.

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

4. If the Tenant Improvements require modification of an automatic fire sprinkler system, a permit is required from the Fire Department prior to any such work being completed.

5. If applicable, modifications to the Fire Alarm system require a permit from the Fire Department prior to the work being completed.

6. Prior to final Inspection, in accordance with the 2022 California Fire Code rooms or areas containing controls for HVAC systems, electrical panels, automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire alarm equipment or other detection, suppression or control elements shall be identified with appropriate signs.

7. The minimum fire-extinguisher requirement shall be one 2A-10BC rated portable unit in such locations so that maximum floor-travel distance does not exceed 75' to the nearest extinguisher from any portion of the building with a maximum of 3,000 square feet of floor area surveyed. Plan submittal shall include the proposed location of extinguishers. Final location shall be approved in the field by the Fire Department.

8. All fire extinguishers shall be mounted in a conspicuous and readily accessible location either on a bracket or within an approved storage cabinet. Fire extinguishers shall be mounted so the top of the unit is 3 feet to 5 feet off the finished floor. If the extinguisher is not readily visible, a sign shall be located directly above the extinguisher. The sign shall be legible and of a contrasting color with its background.

9. All buildings shall comply with the 2022 California Building Code, Chapter 10 Means of Egress requirments. Including but not limited to; exit signs, exit doors, exit hardware and exit illumination.

10. Provide an approved exit sign over all required exit doors.

11. Emergency exit lighting shall be provided at or near all exits and as designated by the Fire Marshal.

Due prior to final inspection.

12. All emergency lighting, exit sign lights shall have two separate sources of power as required by the California Building Code.

13. Locking devices on exit doors shall conform to the California Building Code. Only one lock or latch requiring one motion/operation to open/unlock is required. No double keyed dead-bolts are permitted on exit doors.

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

15. All compressed gas cylinders shall be adequately secured to prevent falling or being knocked over.

Fasteners used to secure cylinders shall be of non-combustible material. This requirement shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Prevention Division prior to final inspection sign-off.

16. Carbon dioxide enrichment systems that exceed 100 pounds require a separate permit from the Fire Department. CFC 5307.4

17. If the proposed trash enclosure is within 5 feet of the exisiting building, fire sprinkler coverage must be provided over the dumpster area.

18. A final inspection from the Fire Prevention Division is required prior to permit sign-off.

Attachment B
Date: November 18, 2024
SUBJECT: SPRINGTOWNE BOTTLESHOP” STORE RELOCATION
(UP22-0007, EXC24-0006, LR24-0013 AND VAR24-0001) .

Table 1 - General Plan 2040 Policies and Actions
Policies and Actions Staff’s Analysis
Policy CP-1.11:

Responsible Alcohol Sales. Promote responsible
alcohol sales through regulation and education.

The four employees of the liquor store will be provided ABC – Responsible Beverage Service Training Program for responsible sales of alcoholic beverages Policy EET-3.2:

Local Business Retention. Retain existing businesses
and encourage their expansion within Vallejo.

The proposed relocation of an existing liquor store will contribute to the retention of an existing business. This eliminates the need for them to travel across town to another store that offers beer and wine for off-site consumption.

Policy NBE-1.8:

Urban Forest. Encourage planting of street trees and
landscaping to beautify the city, encourage walking
and biking and create a stronger sense of identity.

The proposed project would include a total of 2,353 square feet of landscaping on the project site. The majority of the landscaping would be around the perimeter of the project site and would consist of trees, shrubs, vines, and ground cover will beautify the site.

Attachment B
Date: November 18, 2024
SUBJECT: SPRINGTOWNE BOTTLESHOP” STORE RELOCATION
(UP22-0007, EXC24-0006, LR24-0013 AND VAR24-0001) .

Table B – NMX Zoning District Development Standards
VMC Table/Section Requirement Proposal Compliance
Table 16.203-A - Landscaping
Minimum perimeter
landscaping when adjacent to
Residential Zoning District – 4-
feet
5 feet and four inches Yes
Street Trees – 1 per 30 feet of
frontage
Required – 3 street trees
3 street trees Yes
Table 16.504 – Landscape
Requirements
Minimum of 20 percent of the
site shall be landscaped
Required – 2,782.8 square feet
2,353 square feet
No; requested an Exception to
reduce landscaping by 15.4
percent
Section 16.504.06 (A.1)
Streetscape landscaping along
major arterials
Minimum of 8 feet wide
landscaping along the length of
the parcel
8 feet Yes
Table 16.508 – B: Street Parking
Requirements
Minimum of 2 per 1,000 square
feet
Required: 6 off-street parking
spaces for 2,797 square feet
6 Yes
Table 16.508-D Bicycle Parking
Standards
The greater of 1 per 5,000
square feet or 2 for short-term
and 2 for long-term bicycle
parking
2 for short-term
2 for long-term Yes

Attachment B
Date: November 18, 2024
SUBJECT: SPRINGTOWNE BOTTLESHOP” STORE RELOCATION
(UP22-0007, EXC24-0006, LR24-0013 AND VAR24-0001) .

Figure 1 – Project Location
Project
Location
Attachment B
Date: November 18, 2024
SUBJECT: SPRINGTOWNE BOTTLESHOP” STORE RELOCATION
(UP22-0007, EXC24-0006, LR24-0013 AND VAR24-0001) .

Figure 2 – Site Plan

Page | 1

February 11, 2025
City of Vallejo City Council
Mayor Andrea Source (via email: [email protected]) Vice Mayor Peter Bregenzer (via email: [email protected]) Council Member Alexander Matias (via email: [email protected]) Council Member Diosdado "JR" Matulac (via email: [email protected]) Council Member Tonia Lediju (via email: [email protected]) Council Member Charles Palmares (via email: [email protected]) Council Member Helen-Marie "Cookie" Gordon (via email: Helen- [email protected])

RE: Objection to Appeal - Springstowne Bottleshop / Use Permit (UP22- 0007), Exception (EXC24-0006), Landscape Review (LR24-0013) and Variance (VAR24-0001)

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Members of Council,
I hope this memorandum finds you all well. I am writing you on behalf of my client, Rajwinder Sidhu (“Raj”) regarding her pending major use application identified above (the “ Application”) before the City of Vallejo (the “City”).

As you know, at the November 18, 2024 meeting of the City’s Planning Commission (the “Commission”), Raj received approval of her Application by the Commission.

Unfortunately, an appeal was filed by a joint disinterested third party, Terry McInerney and Kathleen Olson (the “ Appellants”). The Appellants are Raj’s landlord for the space where her store currently operates. They claim the Commission and City staff are mistaken in their decision. However, Appellants’ arguments are false and unfounded.

I understand i t c a n b e c o n c e r n i n g w h e n a n a p p e l l a n t q u o t e s c a s e l a w . T h e l a w surrounding land use in California is complex and ever changing. However, City staff and the Commission did nothing wrong in their approval of Raj’s application.

The initial case cited by the Appellants for the basis of their appeal (State ex rel. Fairmount Center Co. v. Arnold, 138 Ohio St. 259) is easy to dismiss from your consideration because it was a State of Ohio decision made by the Ohio Supreme Court based predominantly

Page | 2

on Ohio law. It has zero application or precedential value in California, and especially with this pending appeal. It is clear Appellants ’ use of Google misled them on the legal standing for their appeal.

The second case (Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1954) 43 Cal.2d 121) was decided by the California Court of Appeals and is actually based on California law.

However, it has no legal application to the pending appeal.

In that case, the Plaintiffs, a cement company and a lessor of the land, under the argument of a regulatory taking, sought to enjoin the defendant county from enforcing zoning ordinance provisions that would restrict the Plaintiffs from operating a cement mixing plant in a rezoned district.

The Livingston case is distinguished by the pertinent facts of this appeal. There has not been a change in zoning in the land subject to the Application and the City has not forbid the use of the Applicant’s land based on such a change.

I n f a c t , q u i t e t h e o p p o s i t e . T h e C i t y , a f t e r e x t e n s i v e r e v i e w , p r o p e r l y a p p r o v e d R a j ’ s Application to operate her business on land that is appropriately zoned. Even Livingston pointed out that “The rights of the users of property as those rights existed under prevailing zoning conditions are well recognized and have always been protected.” Using the Appellants ’ own case citation as support, one can easily conclude the Commission made the right decision in their approval.

T h e i s s u e h e r e i s q u i t e s i m p l e . T h e l a n d s u b j e c t t o t h e A p p l i c a t i o n i s z o n e d f o r i t s intended use. After submission of the Application for the intended use, the Commission properly approved it. However, the Appellants are attempting to complicate this appeal because of their misunderstanding of the City Ordinance concerning the liquor license connected with Raj’s Application.

Raj and her late husband have owned and operated the Springstowne Bottleshop for over 30 years, long before the City had an ordinance that regulated the issuance of licenses to sell liquor within the City. Because of that, the City Ordinance involved (See Vallejo Municipal Code 16.305.06) allows for these businesses to continue t heir operations with a licensing status of “Deemed Approved”. Meaning, the City does not require additional applications from these businesses because they were “deemed approved” to operate in conformity with the City code.

Page | 3

However, any change to the business operating under the Deemed Approved status requires the submission of a major use permit with the City (See Vallejo Municipal Code

16.305(b)(12)). That is the situation presently before you. Raj and her family have dreamed for decades to own the land where their store operated and not be subject to the financial disposition of a landlord. A dream that Raj’s husband was never able to realize before his death. In essence, this application is Raj’s pursuit of her late husband’s dream.

The Appellants argue that the zoned use for their land does not change because of a vacating tenant, and they are correct. However, that is not what is at issue. Nothing within Raj’s application before the City will change the zoning of the Appellants ’ property.

The Appellants claim they have a vested property right in the deemed approved license status. However, that could not be more inaccurate. That vested right belongs to the business owner (Raj), not the landlord, and with the City’s approval, Raj is allowed to relocate her business.

While it is true that a legal non -confirming use runs with the land, the same is not true for a “deemed approved” license status for alcohol sales. The Appellants only have a vested property right in allowing a conforming use (or legal non —conforming use) to occupy their property, and the right to collect rent from that tenant. Nothing more.

The Appellants have no rights to Raj’s deemed approve license status. As the Ordinance is written, the only person with a vested right to the deemed approved license status is Raj. That is until there is a change to Raj’s business, which is what is before the Council on this appeal.

For Raj’s application, the Springstowne Bottleshop is simply moving less than a hundred f e e t a w a y , a l l w i t h i n t h e s a m e n e i g h b o r h o o d c e n t e r . T h i s i s a n a p p r o v e d u s e , w i t h a business owner who has chosen to operate her business in the City of Vallejo for over 30 years.

In closing, I think it is important for you to understand the motive of the Appellants ’ appeal. Sadly, they are motivated by improper and self -serving intentions. They are fighting against Raj’s application because they will no longer be able to charge her bloated rent payments.

Page | 4

Instead, they are using this appeal, among other appalling methods, to separate Raj from her business. Without going into details, the Appellants have been using their lease with Raj, the pending lease renewal, and now this appeal, to force Raj away from her business, in favor of one of the Appellants’ clients. Don’t take my word for it - the Appellants say it themselves in a text message to Raj on November 14, 2024 (see attached). (Note:

Appellants are real estate brokers with an office in the City of Benicia.) The Appellants are asking you to reject Raj’s application in favor of their unknown clients, from whom the Appellants will profit. However, in order for the Appellants to accomplish this, their prospective replacement tenant would still be required to seek the same approval Raj is requesting from you through her Application.

The Appellants’ motivations are clear. They do not want to release Raj from the shackles of her lease with them. Instead, they want to extract Raj from her business that spans three decades and are using this appeal to accomplish this malicious intent. Th e Springstowne Bottleshop is how Raj earn s a living for her family. Den ying her application means denying her ability to provide for her daughter and young son.

If for nothing else, in the interest of economic justice and in equity, I hope you will not reward the Appellants’ malicious tactics. Instead, I pray you will choose to approve Raj’s application, and let her continue her business in the City of Vallejo.

Thank you for your consideration and for what you do for the City. I am available should any of you have any questions or concerns that I can address. My phone number is (916) 333-7910 and my email address is [email protected].

Warm Regards,
Filippi Law Firm, P.C.

James A. Filippi, II
Principal Attorney
CC:

1. City Manager Andrew Murray (via email: [email protected])

Page | 5

2. Assistant City Manager Gillian Haen (via email: [email protected])

3. City Attorney Veronica A.F. Nebb (via email: [email protected])

4. Assistant City Attorney Laura Zagaroli (via email:
[email protected])

5. City Clerk Dawn G. Abrahamson (via email:
[email protected])

6. Planning Manager Cesar Orozco (via email: [email protected])

7. Client