BENEFITS FOR ALL
39
40 • The faulty CFDs have stifled growth and development on Mare Island for 20 years.
• Every person in Vallejo has paid the price of the faulty Mare Island CFDs– in lost jobs and lost wages not paid and not spent in Vallejo that could have grown our City’s economy. • Reduced quality of life for everyone in Vallejo because the City lost tens of millions of dollars of general fund revenues that would have filled plenty of potholes, cleaned up tons of garbage, helped our homeless population and invested in our youth.
• Reducing the tax burden on Mare Island will increase
business, help existing businesses grow and expand, speed development-- history has shown, when Mare Island
thrives, Vallejo, Solano County and our entire region thrives too.
When Mare Island thrives, our City, County and Region thrive too…
41 The facts demonstrate that the “extra” fire and
police taxes are an unfair burden
on ALL Mare Island taxpayers.
We know that Vallejo believes in FAIRNESS…
City of Vallejo Code of Ethics is all about FAIRNESS…
City of Vallejo Code of Ethics, cont’d…
44
QUESTIONS?
46 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
47 /From CFD 2005-1A (Facilities) Budget for FY 2022-23 • City charged Mare Island homeowners $65K + $69K = $134K for “CFD Project” • Should the City Council ask Staff what that money was used for? • Was that money used by Staff to pay Goodwin Consulting Group to challenge homeowner requests for CFD tax relief? (For example, the April 25 Goodwin presentation?)
51 Mare Island pays 1.85% of VPD
budget (on top of taxes paid by all
property owners.)
This is 2016 amount.
$833,000 in FY 2021-22
52 Mare Island CFDs pay 8.57% of
VFD budget-- on top of taxes
paid by all property owners.
Comments:
• Over 90% of all VFD calls are
medical related – no
relationship to building
square footage.
• No other CFDs in Vallejo
charge for Fire Services based
on this formula.
This is Goodwin 2016 number.
$2,498,000 in FY 2021-22
53
54
55 The Council has determined, under Chapter 14.45 of the Vallejo Municipal Code, that the levy of the Special Tax for CFD No. 2002-1 shall terminate upon the determination by the Administrator that revenues available from the following sources exceed the cost of services authorized to be funded by the CFD: revenues generated from property or activities on Mare Island that are required to be applied to reduce the Special Tax Requirement, including but not limited to, property tax, sales tax, utility users tax, transient occupancy tax, franchise tax, business license fees, possessory interest tax, property transfer tax, storm drainage revenues, and net water and sanitary sewer revenue.
If, in any Fiscal Year, the City determines that revenues available from these sources exceed the cost of services to be funded by CFD No. 2002-1, and such excess revenues are not associated with a one-time infusion of revenue that cannot be expected to recur in subsequent Fiscal Years, the City Clerk shall file such Notices of Cessation of Special Tax or other documents as may be required to evidence the termination of the Special Tax in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Vallejo Municipal Code.
Rate and Method of Apportionment (RMA) Language
Regarding CFD 2002-1“Sunset”
(from Goodwin Admin Report Appendix D)
2020 U.S. CENSUS DATA FOR 94592 - $138,491,000 ANNUAL PAYROLL In 2023, now 110 businesses
on Mare Island, so the
annual $138,000,000 payroll
is even larger. None of this
payroll is credited as
“revenue” from “activities”
on Mare Island in the RMA
formulas.
(Source re 110 businesses:
Mare Island Company)
57 Offsetting Revenue Source Amount
Property Taxes $ 657,029
Sales Tax $ 371,000
Cable TV Franchise $ 23,996
Gas Franchise $ 17,831
Garbage Franchise $ 58,751
Electric Franchise $ 110,841
Cable TV Users $ 32,217
GAS/ELECTRIC USERS $ 400,000
TELEPHONE USERS $ 26,614
PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX $ 113,260
BUSINESS LICENSES $ 100,062
INVESTMENT INCOME $ 50,000
Total Offsetting Revenue $ 1,961,601
CFD 2002-1 FY 2022-23 Budget -- Offsetting Revenue Sources Note: These revenues do not
consider all the economic
contributions of Mare Island to the
City such as:
- >110 businesses
- > 3300 well paid jobs
- >$138,000,000 annual payroll
Eliminating Fire and Police
budgets in CFD 2002-1 will
substantially increase all
revenues to the City by
spurring development.
Economic Policy Institute
https://www.epi.org/publication/updated-employment-multipliersfor-the-u-s-economy/ Updated employment multipliers for the U.S. economy
Report • By Josh Bivens • January 23, 2019
Employment multipliers per 100 direct jobs,
by major private-sector industry group
Major industry group Direct
jobs
Supplier
jobs*
Induced
jobs**
Total
indirect
jobs
Agriculture, forest,
fishing, and hunting 100 93.6 134.8 228.5
Mining 100 224.0 166.0 390.0
Utilities 100 515.4 442.2 957.7
Construction 100 88.0 138.1 226.1
Durable manufacturing 100 289.1 454.9 744.1
Nondurable
manufacturing 100 184.8 329.5 514.3
* Includes materials and capital services supplier jobs ** Includes jobs supported by respending of income from direct jobs and supplier jobs, as well as public-sector jobs supported by tax revenue 100 jobs in durable manufacturing (for
example, Factory OS), generates 744 other jobs
(paychecks) flowing through the economy,
benefitting not only Mare Island, all of Vallejo,
Solano County, and beyond.
3300 jobs on Mare Island currently.
(Source: Mare Island Company)
In January 2008, Lennar told
the City reducing CFDs would
boost development on Mare
Island, and that the existing
CFD taxes were slowing and
impeding development, to the
detriment of the City’s General
Fund.
63 What CFD Ratepayer Categories Pay
From “Goodwin Report” for Mare Island CFD 2002-1 FY 2021-21 (Appendix A) Category 1 includes 322 homeowner properties
Category 2 includes Touro University, Alco Recycling, Earthquake Protection Systems, etc.
Category 3 includes over 100 Nimitz leases (including Factory O_S, Mare Island Dry Dock, Alston) Category 4 includes City of Vallejo Buildings, WETA, and MIHPF Buildings (Quarters A & B + Museum) Category 5 includes St. Peter’s Chapel
Category 6 includes unused Nimitz property likely to be used for residential Category 7 includes North Mare Island that was sold to Nimitz in 2022 NOTE: No CFD fees are paid by the Veterans Clinic, U.S. Forestry Service, or U.S. Army Reserves.
Number from City of Vallejo Finance Dept.
after various adjustments
64 EXAMPLES OF MARE ISLAND COMPANY LESSEE’S CFD FEES
(from FY 2021-22 Goodwin Annual Administration Report)
65 CFD 2002-1 FY 2022-23 Budget - Revenue and Expenditures Summary (Fund 112) Offsetting Revenue Source Amount
Property Taxes $ 657,029
Sales Tax $ 371,000
Cable TV Franchise $ 23,996
Gas Franchise $ 17,831
Garbage Franchise $ 58,751
Electric Franchise $ 110,841
Cable TV Users $ 32,217
GAS/ELECTRIC USERS $ 400,000
TElEPHONE USERS $ 26,614
PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX $ 113,260
BUSINESS LICENSES $ 100,062
INVESTMENT INCOME $ 50,000
Total Offsetting Revenue Counted $ 1,961,601
Budgeted Expenditures $ 4,535,791
Revenues - Expenditures $ (2,574,190)
Expenditures
Services and
Materials Admininistration Total
% CFD 2002-1
Budget
POLICE AND FIRE (for Mare Island)
Fire $ 2,498,000 0 $ 2,498,000 55.07%
Police $ 833,000 0 $ 833,000 18.37%
Total $ 3,331,000 73.44%
Supplemental Information:
Summary of CFD 2002-1
Revenues & Expenditures
FY 2022-23
3 Pages
CFD 2002-1 FY 2022-23 Budget - Revenue and Expenditures Summary (Fund 112) Offsetting Revenue Source Amount
Property Taxes $ 657,029
Sales Tax $ 371,000
Cable TV Franchise $ 23,996
Gas Franchise $ 17,831
Garbage Franchise $ 58,751
Electric Franchise $ 110,841
Cable TV Users $ 32,217
GAS/ELECTRIC USERS $ 400,000
TElEPHONE USERS $ 26,614
PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX $ 113,260
BUSINESS LICENSES $ 100,062
INVESTMENT INCOME $ 50,000
Total Offsetting Revenue $ 1,961,601
CFD Revenue to be Collected During FY $ 2,141,755
Total Revenues $ 4,103,356
Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,802,189
Revenues + Fund Balance $ 5,905,545
Budgeted Expenditures $ 4,598,897
(Revenues+Fund Balance) - Expenditures $ 1,306,648
CFD 2002-1 SPECIAL TAX
Expenditures
Services and
Materials Admininistration Total
% CFD 2002-1
Budget
POLICE AND FIRE (for Mare Island)
Fire $ 2,498,000 0 $ 2,498,000 55.07%
Police $ 833,000 0 $ 833,000 18.37%
Total $ 3,331,000 73.44%
GENERAL
- Predator Management $ 65,424 $ 65,424 1.44%
- Mainstar Services $ -
--Software Programs $ - $ -
-CFD Tax for Bldg 535 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 1.10%
-Public Works Admin Costs $ 17,500 $ 17,500 0.39%
Total $ 132,924 2.93%
BUILDINGS
- 535, Gazebo $ 9,000 $ 9,000 0.20%
Alden Park Flagpole $ 50,000 $ 50,000 1.10%
Misc
-Public Works Admin Costs $ 33,840 $ 33,840 0.75%
Total $ 92,840 2.05%
STREETS, TRAFFIC LIGHTS
Trees, asphalt, paint, concrete, etc. $ 71,000 $ 71,000 1.57% Steetlights, traffic lights $ 65,000 $ 65,000 1.43%
-Public Works Admin Costs $ 224,291 $ 224,291 4.94%
Total $ 360,291 7.94%
BRIDGE
Staff Costs $ 340,083 $ 340,083 7.50%
City Subsidy $ (250,000) $ (250,000)
Public Works Admin Costs $ 135,441 $ 135,441
Total $ 225,524 4.97%
GROUNDS
B4 Basin, Chapel & Alden Parks $ 137,000 $ 137,000 3.02% -Public Works Admin Costs $ 59,823 $ 59,823 1.32%
Total $ 196,823 4.34%
ADMIN
Goodwin Consulting $ 45,000 $ 45,000 0.99%
Legal $ 20,000 $ 20,000 0.44%
County Admn Fee $ 26,168 $ 26,168 0.58%
City Cost Distributions $ 105,221 $ 105,221 2.32%
Total $ 196,389 4.33%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 3,959,675 $ 576,116 $ 4,535,791 100.00% Page 956 of 1722 Mare Island Community Facilities Districts 2005-1A (Services), 2005-1A (Facilities) and 2005-1B FY 2021-22 Budget - Revenue and Expenditures Summary
CFD Revenue
Beginning Fund
Balance Expenditures Ending Fund Balance
2005-1A Services (Fund 113) $ 281,569 $ 303,405 $ 203,517 $ 381,457 2005-1A Facility (Fund 213) $ 100,002 $ 1,606,191 $ 141,000 $ 1,565,193 2005-1B Services (Fund 114) $ - $ 1,059,141 $ 340,529 $ 718,612 2005-1A (Services) Detail Services Admin Total
Grounds Services (New Image Contract) $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Rehabilitation $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Gas & Electricity $ 2,500 $ 2,500
Water - Moved to 2005-1B Services?
Telecommunications $ 3,000
LMD Administration $ 65,742 $ 65,742
Other Admin $ 7,275 $ 7,275
Total $ 130,500 $ 73,017 $ 200,517
2005-1A (Facilities) Detail
CFD Alternative - Finance $ 66,500 $ 65,000
CFD Alternative - Legal $ 69,000 $ 69,000
Admin 5500 $ 5,500
Total $ 135,500 $ 5,500 $ 141,000
2005-1B Detail
Security including LPR Cameras $ 30,000 $ 30,000
Water $ 114,000 $ 114,000
Lighting project, trash cans Tree Work $ 115,000 $ 115,000 CFD Project $ 70,000 $ 70,000
$ 5,000
Admin $ 11,529
Total $ 329,000 $ 11,529 $ 340,529 Page 957 of 1722
69 CFD 2002-1 $3,213.22
CFD 2005-1A Services $988.44
CFD 2005-1A - Facilities $678.22
TOTAL $4,879.88
70 What Mare Island Homeowners Pay
for Fire and Police Services
From CFD 2002-1
FY 2022-23 Budget
$4,598,897 Amount
% of CFD
2002-1
Budget*
Homeowner Paid*
Extra CFD Fire Tax $ 2,498,000 55.1% 1,766.60 $
Extra CFD Police Tax $ 833,000 18.4% $ 578.06
Total $ 3,331,000 73.50% 2,344.66 $
*Based on $3213 fees
for CFD 2002-1 shown
on property tax bill.
71 CFD 2005-1A and 2005-1B Report Information
72 From the 2005-1A and 2005-1B Rate and Method of Apportionment (RMA)
April 25, 2023 City Council Meeting, Transcribed From Video Ms. Goodwin [begins 4:33:25] Well the police and fire costs are provided to us as part of the budget, so every year, we consult with the City to find out what the budget for all the services for Mare Island is.
And so, it’s not, we don’t, we’re not involved in determining that budget, or understanding you know which costs, um, how the costs are allocated, there’s a list of authorized services for the island, and the budget for those services is put together by the City and provided to us.
Hon. Mayor [begins 4:30:45] There is one thing I want to try to clarify tonight, it is not a question, okay, Mr. Glaze has argued that the members of Mare Island are being charged too much for police and fire services, it’s not part of the CFD formula, he maintains. Maybe that’s true and maybe that’s not, I don’t know. But, are we, realistically determining how much service for fire and police only, should be passed on to the residents of Mare Island, forgetting all the services that go with development and everything else. That seems to be the crux, because if Mr. Glaze is correct in that argument, we don’t need to change the CFDs. If he’s not correct, then we do, and each change has repercussions elsewhere.
So I don’t know how we get accurate information on that.
Goodwin PPT Slide 5,
April 25, 2023
The incorrect estimated
2002 service costs have
automatically increased 2%
per year, every year, since
2002.
Yet, the Goodwin/City
Staff response is: just
keep paying for 3 more
years!
75 Nebb: [4:38:55] “Non-residential goes to zero before residential receives a credit, correct?” Goodwin: [4:39:25] “It’s being presented as if a simple budget reduction is the solution, and that will have no impact on what’s levied on the homeowners.
“Until what’s levied on the non-residential goes to zero in Step 2, then you don’t get to Step 1 and start reducing Step 1. And that’s why the steps of taxation need to be changed.” [4:39:50] Goodwin: [4:39:57] “In the current fiscal year, $2.1 ,Million dollars was levied for services in the CFD, and only $900,000 of that was on the residential. Which means you would have to get rid of more than a million dollars in costs before the residential was even touched, and had any opportunity to be reduced. So it’s not as simple as just creating more revenues on the island, or cutting the budget a bit, because it still wouldn’t help the homeowners and I know that’s the overriding objective here.” [4:40:36] City Attorney Ms. Nebb and Ms. Goodwin Discussion of
CFD Special Tax Apportionment on April 25….
ATTACHMENT - 3
BENINK &
SLAVENS, LLP
8885 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 207
San Diego, CA 92108
Tel: 619.369.5252 Fax: 619.369.5253
www.beninkslavens.com
Eric J. Benink, Esq.
[email protected]
Vincent D. Slavens, Esq.
[email protected]
November 15, 2021
Via e-mail and U.S. Mail
Mike Malone
Interim City Manager
City of Vallejo
555 Santa Clara Street
Third Floor
Vallejo, CA 94590
RE: Mare Island CFDs
Dear Mr. Malone:
We represent Mare Island resident and residential property owner Daniel Boone. We have reviewed concerns related to Mare Island CFDs expressed by Mr. Boone and other Mare Island property owners. We write to demand that the City commit to take certain corrective actions to address the City’s illegal administration of the CFDs. We also request, pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA), that the City provide documents that will assist us in better understanding some items the City has budgeted for the CFDs, which are then used to calculate special taxes each year.
Demanded Corrective Actions
The Rate and Method of Apportionment (RMA) for CFD No. 2002-1 establishes a maximum special tax, with annual increases capped at 2% of the prior year’s tax. In sum, it requires the City to determine the “special tax requirement.” If the special tax requirement is less than the “maximum special tax,” then the special tax for the upcoming fiscal year must be reduced by the percentage representing the difference between the requirement and the max.1 The “special tax requirement” means the amount necessary to pay service costs pursuant to the CFD budget prepared by the City (and related expenses) and to maintain an operating reserve of $300,000. The City must reduce this amount by surplus funds from special taxes in prior years, other tax and fee revenue from properties and activities on Mare Island, and in the City’s sole discretion, “other revenues” paid by the Master Developer, including funds paid to lease dredge ponds. (See RMA, pp. 9-10.)
1 This pertains only to developed residential properties.
Mike Malone
Interim City Manager
November 15, 2021
The City has not applied surplus funds for at least three fiscal years. For example, the ending balance in CFD No. 2002-01 has been as follows:
FY 19-20 $2,610,252 (Audited)
FY 20-21 $1,802,189 (Revised Budget)
FY 21-22 $1,243,000 (Budgeted)
Because the City is only permitted to reserve $300,000, the City was required to apply the amount by which these large surpluses exceed $300,000 to reduce the special taxes in the following year. We demand that the City commit to faithfully applying the surpluses going forward.
Furthermore, the RMA for CFD No. 2002-01 contains the following language:
Once the Maximum Special Tax has been reduced pursuant to the steps set forth in this Section D, the Maximum Special Tax shall not, in any future Fiscal Year, be increased above this reduced amount.
(See RMA, p. 8.) Accordingly, we also request that the City recalculate the special taxes over the past three fiscal years (to account for surpluses) and cap the max special tax going forward at the amount of the lowest recalculated tax.
Request for Records
The City’s budgets refer to items for which we seek further information. Specifically, we seek any and all (a) accounting records that describe, identify, or account for the actual expenditures of monies budgeted and (b) documents on which the budgeted amounts were based, related to the following accounting entries:
CFD No. 2005-1A (Facilities Fund):
“Nondepartmental” in FY 19-20, 20-21 and 21-22 in the amounts of $7,050, $142,000 and $141,000 respectively.
CFD No. 2002-01:
“Administration” in FY 19-20, 20-21, and 21-22 in the amounts of $182,355, $192,909, and $193,791, respectively.
Mike Malone
Interim City Manager
November 15, 2021
We request that the City reply within 30 days stating its intention on our demands for corrective action. We also request that the City provide the CPRA documents in the manner as provided by law.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Eric J. Benink
Cc: Dawn G. Abrahamson, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT - 4
RE: Mare Island CFDs, independent analysis, information and data, public monies, transparancy
Veronica Nebb <[email protected]>
Thu 8/3/2023 6:34 AM
To:Daniel Boone <[email protected]>
Cc:Mike Malone <[email protected]>;Gillian Hayes <[email protected]>;Terrance Davis <[email protected]>;Robert H. McConnell <[email protected]>;Rozzana Verder-Aliga <[email protected]>;Mina Loera-Diaz <[email protected]>;Tina Arriola <[email protected]>;Peter Bregenzer <[email protected]>;JR Matulac <[email protected]>;Charles Palmares <[email protected]>;Susan Nichols <[email protected]>;Sherianne Grimm <[email protected]>;DANIEL GLAZE <[email protected]>;James Ducharme <[email protected]>;Miguel Buchwald <[email protected]>;Vincent McMillan <[email protected]>;Jim Casper <[email protected]>;Wendell Quigley <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Mr. Glaze,
Thank you for your e-mail message. We have engaged the services of aƩorneys from Jones Hall to perform this work. They were not a part of the original formaƟon of the CFD. They have been asked to look at the formaƟon of the CFD and the appropriateness of the formula for allocaƟon of police and fire costs to MI CFDs.
They have also been asked to address the manner of accounƟng for and any limitaƟon on funds not expended and applicaƟon of the formulas (and formula credits) to non-residenƟal and residenƟal CFD rates They have also been asked to include issues specifically raised by your group.
I have already forwarded many of your e-mail and presentaƟon materials. However, I am happy to have you send the full list of materials that you want to have forwarded so that we are sure nothing has been missed. I agree that it is important that all materials are provided and I am not certain that I have everything that you have submiƩed. The sooner that you can send those materials the beƩer. They will complete their work before the Council next considers the item.
Regards, Veronica
From: Daniel Boone <danielbooneaƩ[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 8:00 AM
To: Veronica Nebb <[email protected]>
Cc: Mike Malone <[email protected]>; Gillian Hayes <[email protected]>; Terrance Davis <[email protected]>; Robert H. McConnell <[email protected]>; Rozzana Verder-Aliga <[email protected]>; Mina Loera-Diaz <Mina.Loera[email protected]>; Tina Arriola <[email protected]>; Peter Bregenzer <[email protected]>; JR Matulac <[email protected]>; Charles Palmares <[email protected]>; Susan Nichols <[email protected]>; Sherianne Grimm <[email protected]>; DANIEL GLAZE <[email protected]>; James Ducharme <[email protected]>; Miguel Buchwald <[email protected]>; Vincent McMillan <[email protected]>; Jim Casper <[email protected]>; Wendell Quigley <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Mare Island CFDs, independent analysis, informaƟon and data, public monies, transparancy Dear Ms. Nebb, Thank you for your comments at the July 25 Council me eƟng that the City has engaged a firm to conduct the independe nt analysis re garding Mare I sland CFDs. We would like to know what firm has been e ngaged, what quesƟons they ZjQcmQRYFpfptBanne rStart Firefox https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/id/AQMkADAwATExAGQ2Ny00Yz... 1 of 2 1/28/2024, 7:32 PM Page 970 of 1722
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBanne rE nd Dear Ms. Nebb, Thank you for your comments at the July 25 Council meeting that the City has engaged a firm to conduct the independent analysis regarding Mare Island CFDs. We would like to know what firm has been engaged, what questions they have been asked to analyze, and what is the timeline for their work. Because the independent analysis involves the City's handling of public monies, the process should be as transparant as possible.
We respectfully assert that it is important and necessary for the independent analyzers to receive information/data from our MISTEA group for their analysis. With all due respect, for the same reason City Staff and Susan Goodwin cannot be neutral evaluators of their own work related to the CFDs, they also cannot be neutral information/data-providers to the independent analyzers. We are also not neutral information/data-providers, but by providing the independent analyzers with information/data from the City/Ms.
Goodwin, and information/data from Mare Island CFD payers, they will have the most complete factual basis available for their analysis.
Please let us know when/how best to provide information to the independent analyzers, which must be soon if they are already at work. In-person meetings would be our preference.
Thank you.
Daniel Boone
Firefox https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/id/AQMkADAwATExAGQ2Ny00Yz... 2 of 2 1/28/2024, 7:32 PM Page 971 of 1722
0~/~5/2010 12:48 FAX Iii 007 /037
,,
I
.,
1 I
CITY OFV~JO Ageud11. lrem No,
COUNC~ COMMUNICATION Date: A-pril 16, 2002
TO: ~aYor and hAembera of lha City Council
FROM: OJ'Jicl R, Martinez, City Menage, . a <?, I ..0 I Alvan, P. da SIJva, DirectorofComrnonity Development "'~ I· &l,,. ({;/4.,,_ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION 01= THE CllY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFVALlEJO OF INTENTION 'rO ESTABLISH OOMMUNliY FACIUiES CFO NO. 2002-1 (MARE ISLAND SERVICES)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt lhe atteohed resolutton or Intention to o&tabDah Community Facilities CFO No.2002~ 1 (Mata Island Services). •
,QACKGROL!f~O
The Mure l,nd Final Reu1:11 PJan racogn~ed d1,1rfn9 the 8atly years of the conver!!lon that the ~• an r~venue from lhe dav!tlopment on Mare ·Jsland wculd nol aupport the • municipal ~ices C:08t on Mar~ Islam. In Older to mitigate Iha lnltlal fmanclal·burden. In June 1998, the Cily negotiated 1he Mpre IPIW Nayal ShJpyaa, Qua Q!(Glpkar CoopQli,Ye Agreement (CoapatatJve Asreement) with the Navy. Pursuant to the Cooperetivo Ai,reerrici"I, the Clly aaaumad rv11ponelbllfty for carolal<er mall\tenanm and operations of the comnton atees and un--f"sed buildlnqs on the Island. The Federal Govemmi,nt, In tum, commltt$d to and roimbura~ the City for the coat of providing the;G services for the four years of the Agreemenl The Mare Island Cooperative Agreement tolmboraernants ended on Saptamber 30, 2001.
Aa a mHns or tranaltlon 10 a poet.Cooperative Agreement municipal services cost rundlng structure, the ·cretlllon of Improvement Ol11tr1ct 2001-1 (a1sc, known caa the Martt Island Mu"iclpal S8f'Ylcel DlslriGt) was proposed. OuJing the period of February 2001 to April 2001 lhe Vallefo City Counc:11 took a serifl4 of acuan, lhat elltabllshed Iha lmptovemenl Ois111cl. Resp0ndfn11 to ei lawsuil, local oourts dlsallo~cUhe lrnprovemenl Olstriet.
In respollSEI to the Court's action, City stsff explored alternate options available to financing the munk;ipllll services coat on MG111 lshilnd. Af1i:,r due carislderatlliln of the optlo"s, City staff n:,commended that a Community Facilities Olstffct (also krio'\'Vn ilS a MeUO" RoDS Olstt1ct) would best seNe \h1, desired puri,ase, On Novem~a, 1 !5, 2002, tha City Council held a study s~n lo dfscuss fnfonnetlol'l on lhu fonneUon oflhe Community Fadlllle& District 11nd ta receive, public Input, On Nowmber27, 2001, the City Councll approved • Re$olutlon 01-482 N.C. lndicatlngthe Council's lnlenlion lo rorm a Communiiy Faclli(ies Olsttlct and directed staff to begin the process to rorm lho dli;triet. On Oacembar 18, 2001, The Vallejo Chy Councll aulhoiued start' to ,etaln the l.llw firm of Jones 1-f~II (Resolullon 01 v .,_,_ 1
EXHIBITS A-C - ~age 24 of 60
Y tJ/ ~ ..,, ,v 1-Y IL. 'tO rnl\
----
C· ,,
Citl ofVall~o Cow . ..::ll~C=o=mm==u~m~·ca:::t:io:=.:n==:,__~--'---~-..!:P~a~ge~2 . . . r
524 N.C,) and lhe Goodwin Conaul~ng ~mup (Resolullon 01-512 N.C.) ro assist wllh.the creation of the Mare Island Community Fa0illtle11 t>istrtcl 2002-1. o;, January a, 2002 the CllyCouncU ppssed.~olutlon02-1◄ N.C., which authoitted amending the Vallejo Munlclpil Code by adding _Ch.ipter 14.45 to Tltlo 14 providing .for th~ City,orValleJo-Mare Island Flnandng Code. Thu, acllon V(U apptoved on the second and final reading on JanUIJIY 15, 2002. Most racentty, the Vallc,fo C.lty Council approved, on February ze 2002 Resolution 02-91N.C. which m&de admlnl$1ratlve updates lo ~solulfon 01-482 end' ' dlrec;Ced start and consultant& to c:onllnue pttqHlflltlons for die format c;onvnoncament of prcceedlngs to es1ab~$h the Community FaQllilfes Olstrlct. Duling lhlli agenda It.em a mare detailed dla~,afon on the rate and mett,ad of do-JeJapment ofthf! proposed Spec:iat Tax fomiula was p,eaented. As wHh p,st mestlngs on tl'Jl$ Issue the pobl'rc wa& lm,ltad to comment on the Community Fa01111fes District. •
GYBRENTACllQli
City staff request& that thit City Co11nail approve the attaehed resolution of lntf!nt • ronnatliy atarts the pro~• of forming the CFO. The B\lthorlty ror It comes from the Mello-Roas Community Fctcllitlo& Act of 1982 (Sections 53311, el seq., CaDfornla Govemmenl Code) (•Ac:t1 as sLtJ)plementod b'J the Clly of'ValleJo-Msrs Island Services Flnar:tclng Code (Sectro111
14.45.010, Vallajo City Muni~pal Coda) (•Codo").
Hlghrlghts of the proposed Resolulkm ius folrows: If the propo~d ~esolutton Is apj:Jto,18d by 1hcr01ty eaunotl the offigjal name or the CFO Is -eom~urnty Facfilllea CFO NQ, 2002-1 (Mare Island &,rvicest and rep'/acel;fmodlff~ the name spae:ifled in City Cauncll Resolution .No. 02- 9; N. C. of Febrvary·2i,, 2002, Under S$Cllon1 5 and 7 of lh<J ReaoluUon. we endaa'IOt to make it dear that only fee simple ownershlf)& wlU be taxed and able to vofe. The cinly landii to ba taxed CJnd farWhic:h votes may be ~st for the tux ara thoee no longer owned by the U.S.
GDV8ntmenl. Unlike our outf'ier effon at ~atlng • servlcee dl$ttlct, tho N11vy le oo longer involvc,d with tho propertlc!G contained within the CFO.
Thia rNolulion reqqires Iha recording of 1h11 Boundary Mep as soo11 ea poaslble aner adoption of lhls resolutlon, If Council approvua lhci resoluUon, lhe officlel El0und11,y Mar, WIii be 1Vt::0rded With Iha City of ValJelo's City Clerk end wlll be ~vallable for citizen's review ill het offices during nonnal tn.relne•• houn1 In Vade)o City 11aU, For CQUnoll'a convenience a reduced copy of the m11p is attached for referenoe. The types of services proposed to be nnanc:ad by lhi, Cf'O is contained In l;xhlbll A of lh" Raaoh,llon and lhs p,oposed rate emd method of app0t1Jonroent of the Spectal illl< 1$ pt"Gvided In Exhibit b lo the Ruolutlon. If apprO\'ed by the City Councll, Iha Reaolulfon sol, Tue,d•y, May 1, 2002, al. 7:0D p.m. In tho Council Chambenr, Vallejo C;ty Hall, 55~ Santa Chlra Slreel, ValleJo, Callro~la when the. Counci1•w111 conduct a public l\aarlng OI\ the 86tabllgtvnenc of the CFO end consider and finally detsmiirie whether the public lnteteit, convetdence und neoeaslty require the forrnadon ot lhn CFO end the Spaclsl Tax. At the concluston of lti!!i Public Hearing lhe result; o(lhG special olecllon or lhe owners al fee slmpltt Interest In reel property within the CFO wm bo orflciafty tubulatsd.
Ill 0001031
EXHIBITS A-C - Page 25 of 50
V..J{t..J{&..VIV ll'.. . 'tO rl\l\
' ., ..
FISCALIMPW
This action wilJ hlW8 no effect,on 1he CnY'6 General Fund. All costs assoclatl!ld With tho establlshmerrt-of tha Mare Island MIJJllcipsl Servk;es Improvement Di&1riet rs being paid from lhe Mare lslahd WarkJng Capital ACCOl,Ull
o'ocuMENfS AJIACHeb
·RltduC8dunaflicfilcopyofCFOCommunlty Faclll\llJ:, CFO No. 2002-1 (Mare Island Services) • Bound~ Map • . R$SOIUClon w/ Exhibits A ~ 8
PRB'ARED'B'{
GIi HoUlngllWOrth, Maro lst.nd Conversion Program Manager 649-6452 or E-mail: [email protected]
CONJAQT
Alvaro da Sliva, Director or Community Development
648-4579 or E-mail! [email protected] . .Qi!,111
H:\MRU:DMnST.Aff.RPTIMolloRoos7.RPT.doc\1-402--05 (Council ResoliJtlons} ·······--.=u-,-
•• --·
1408-18 (CFO 2002~1) '
~ 009/037
EXHIBITS A-C • Page 26 of 50
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
RE: Mare Island CFDs - status of Jones Hall report?
Veronica Nebb <[email protected]>
Mon 11/13/2023 1:14 PM
To:Daniel Boone <[email protected]>
Cc:Mike Malone <[email protected]>;Narcissa Wilson <[email protected]>;Susan Nichols <[email protected]>;Sherianne Grimm <[email protected]>;DANIEL GLAZE <[email protected]>;James Ducharme <[email protected]>;Miguel Buchwald <[email protected]>;Vincent McMillan <[email protected]>;Jim Casper <[email protected]>;Wendell Quigley <[email protected]> Mr. Boone,
Thank you for your paƟence.
Jones Hall is sƟll working on formulaƟng a final opinion relaƟng to the legal issues raised. The legal opinion of Jones Hall, is as I have menƟoned previously, an opinion to the City. As such it will not be presented at a public meeƟng at this Ɵme.
Regards, Veronica
__________________________________________________________________________________ Veronica A. F. Nebb City Attorney
City of Vallejo | City Attorney’s Office
(707) 648‐4456 | [email protected]
This email contains material that is confidential and/or privileged under the work product doctrine, and attorney-client or official information privileges, for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any reliance on or review of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient, or any distribution or forwarding of this email, without express written permission of the City Attorney is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Daniel Boone <danielbooneaƩ[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 12:47 PM
To: Veronica Nebb <[email protected]>
Cc: Mike Malone <[email protected]>; Narcissa Wilson <[email protected]>; Robert H. McConnell <[email protected]>; Rozzana Verder-Aliga <Rozzana.Verder[email protected]>; Mina Loera-Diaz <[email protected]>; Tina Arriola <[email protected]>; Peter Bregenzer <[email protected]>; JR Matulac <[email protected]>; Charles Palmares <[email protected]>; Susan Nichols <[email protected]>; Sherianne Grimm <[email protected]>; DANIEL GLAZE <[email protected]>; James Ducharme <[email protected]>; Miguel Buchwald <[email protected]>; Vincent McMillan <[email protected]>; Jim Casper <[email protected]>; Wendell Quigley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Mare Island CFDs - status of Jones Hall report? Dear Ms. Nebb, Knowing you must receive many emails each day, I understand that mine below may have become submerge d in the deluge. Would you ple ase respond regarding the status of the Jones H all work on the points MISTEA raised during our ZjQcmQRYFpfptBanne rStart ZjQcmQRYFpfptBanne rE nd Firefox https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/id/AQMkADAwATExAGQ2Ny00Yz... 1 of 3 1/28/2024, 7:43 PM Page 975 of 1722
Dear Ms. Nebb,
Knowing you must receive many emails each day, I understand that mine below may have become submerged in the deluge. Would you please respond regarding the status of the Jones Hall work on the points MISTEA raised during our Mare Island CFDs presentation, 5-1/2 months ago on May 30? Will the Jones Hall findings be given to City Council at a public meeting?
Thank you for considering my request.
Sincerely,
Daniel Boone
From: Daniel Boone
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:27 AM
To: Veronica Nebb <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Cc: Narcissa Wilson <[email protected]>; McConnell Robert <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Diaz Mina <[email protected]>; Arriola Tina <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Charles Palmares <[email protected]>; Susan Nichols <[email protected]>; Sherianne Grimm <[email protected]>; DANIEL GLAZE <[email protected]>; James Ducharme <[email protected]>; Miguel Buchwald <[email protected]>; Vincent McMillan <[email protected]>; Jim Casper <[email protected]>; Wendell Quigley <[email protected]>
Subject: Mare Island CFDs - status of Jones Hall report? Dear Ms. Nebb,
I believe we last communicated about the Jones Hall report regarding Mare Island CFDs at the August 14 in-person meeting at City Hall.
Could you please tell me the status of the report? Will a report on the Jones Hall findings be given to City Council at a public meeting? Thank you for considering my request.
Sincerely,
Daniel Boone
Firefox https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/id/AQMkADAwATExAGQ2Ny00Yz... 2 of 3 1/28/2024, 7:43 PM Page 976 of 1722
ATTACHMENT - 5
ATTACHMENT - 6
FY 2023-24 Proposed Budget
Workshop
Mike Malone, City Manager
Rekha Nayar, Finance Director
June 6, 2023
Conclusion
• City continues to maintain a
structurally balanced General Fund
budget
• Vacancy savings of $7.1 mil has been
utilized to balance the budget
• We will be requesting council
approval of the proposed budget on
June 13
• HR will be providing an update of
the vacancy trends
33
General Fund – Police Revenue/Expenditure
Proposed Budget page 33 - 35
Revenue $ 4.61 $ 4.42 $ 2.66 $ (1.76)
Expenditure
Salaries and benefits 38.55 46.29 45.04 (1.24)
Services and supplies 3.01 2.54 2.82 0.28
Vehicle maintenance & replacement 1.66 1.96 2.29 0.33
Transfer out - Capital Funds 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07
Interfund - General Liability Allocation 4.42 7.24 7.64 0.40 Interfund allocations (0.06) (0.07) 0.02 0.09
Total Expenditure $ 47.57 $ 57.96 $ 57.89
Authorized Positions
Sworn 132 132 132 -
Non-Sworn 69 69 59 (10)
Total Authorized Positions 201 201 191 (10)
(In Millions) FY 21-22
Actuals
FY 22-23
Adopted
FY 23-24
Proposed
Difference
AMT
* Code Enforcement Division moved to P&DS in FY 22-23 Midyear 26 Lab Processing Fees $ 65,000
Evidence Vehicle Storage $ 96,000
Virtra Replacement 110,000
Leadership Training & Range Costs 105,000
In-Car Cameras 104,000
Total $ 480,000
FY 23-24 Service and Supplies Ask
34 Citywide Vacancies 2020 - 2023
(a) Code Enforcement Division moved to Planning and Development Services Department in FY22-23 Midyear. (b) Code Enforcement Division moved from Police Department in FY22-23 Midyear. (c) Citywide total does not include City Mayor’s office.
Departments
Allocated
FTEs
Vacancies Allocated
FTEs
Vacancies Allocated
FTEs
Vacancies Allocated
FTEs
Vacancies
City Attorney 13 2 13 3 14 2 14 1
City Clerk 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 0
City Manager 18 5 18 8 16 8 16 2
ED 6 0 5 0 7 1
Finance 38 7 38 7 41 7 42 13
Fire 105 9 108 12 109 26 96 21
Housing 15 4 15 4 15 6 15 5
Human Resource 14 1 14 2 21 7 21 4
Information Technology 12 5 13 2 12 2 11.5 1.5
P&DS (a) 24 4 24 4 31 8 35 14
Police (b) 175 21 187 25 201 68 190 73
Public Works 93.5 25 93.5 25 90 21 89.5 18.5
Water 101.5 20 107.5 19 120 39 121 36
Citywide Totals (c) 618 104 639 112 673 195 660 190
City Vacancy Report
2020 2021 2022 2023
As of pay period ending March
CONTACT(S)
Rekha Nayar: [email protected]
Florita Cruz: [email protected]
Calvin Cho: [email protected]
Stephanie Sifuentes: [email protected] Shelee Loughmiller: [email protected] 38
ATTACHMENT - 7
UPDATE - PUBLIC SAFETY
STAFFING EMERGENCY
Jason Ta, Interim Chief of Police
November 28, 2023
1
CURRENT STAFFING NUMBERS
Total Sworn Staffing 75 76
Modified Duty Officers 2 2
Off on Worker’s Comp. 9 10
Sworn Working Full Duty 64 64
Anticipated Officers Resigning 5 4
Officers Starting /Final Offers 2 0
5 Officers Working Patrol 35 33
Supervisors Working Patrol (Sgts) 5 5
11-14-23 Current
ATTACHMENT - 8
ATTACHMENT - 9
ATTACHMENT - 10
Filed 03/29/11 Case 10-02298 Doc 68
Filed 03/29/11 Case 10-02298 Doc 68
Filed 03/29/11 Case 10-02298 Doc 68
ATTACHMENT -11
Filed 04/01/11 Case 10-02298 Doc 70
Filed 04/01/11 Case 10-02298 Doc 70
ATTACHMENT -12
)
GOODWIN CONSULTING G~OUP
MEMORANDUM
August 24, 2016
To:
From:
Re:
Jon Oiler
Victor Irzyk
Public Safety Cost Allocation Methodology for Mare Island Jon per your request, this memo describes the cost allocation methodology for estimating the portion of the City of Vallejo's public safety budget for police and fire services that may be allocated to services provided for Mare Island. This cost allocation was originally performed in coordination with the City in 2010.
Police Protection Services
The cost of police protection services was allocated to Mare Island based on the number of persons served on Mare Island in proportion to the number of persons served in the City. The persons served factor equals the number of residents plus employees and Toure students on Mare Island. However, because employees and students may spend only a portion of the day on Mare Island, their impact on police service is weighted to be only 50% of a resident's impact on police services.
To calculate the persons served on Mare Island, the number of residents is first determined. This was done by multiplying the California Department of Finance (DOF) average persons per household estimate (2.82 PPR) for the City by the 264 occupied residential units on Mare Island; this equals 745 residents. :;=-
Next the number of employees and students on Mare Island is determined. Toure University's Registrar's office rep01ied that the University had 1,200 students in November 2010. Another 2,440 employees worked on Mare Island at this time. Together the total employees and students on Mare Island totaled to 3,640; but because they are weighted at 50% of a resident, the total persons served is 1,820. Adding the 1,820 to the 745 residents gives us 2,565 total persons served on Mare Island.
• •• • 555 lJN1veRs 1TY Avt::Nuri, su1Te 2e:o • SAcRAM £NTo, CA sisa2s P HONE: (916) 561•0890 • FAX: (8 H5) 561··089 1
)
Jon Oiler
August 24, 2016
The City's persons served in 2010 was 138,649 and is based on DOF's population estimate of 121,097 in 2010 plus 50% of the estimated employees and students in the City. Data from Claritas showed that the total employees and students in the City were 35,104 in 2010; this equals 17,552 persons served. Adding the 17,552 to the 121,097 residents gives us 138,649 total persons served in the City of Vallejo in 2010.
When comparing populations, Mare Island's 2,565 persons served is approximately 1.85% of the City's 138,649 persons served. Because the need for police services is proportional to the number of persons served, it can be estimated that 1.85% of the police department's costs can be attributed and allocated to Mare Island. (See attached Table 1 for a detailed allocation of the City's police department budget.)
Fire Protection and Suppression Services
The cost of fire services was allocated to Mare Island based on the total building space on Mare Island in proportion to the total building space in the City. Based on the Solano County Assessor's Roll, the City's total residential building space is 49.0 million square feet. We estimated the total non-residential building space in the City by applying typical building square footage per employee figures to the estimated number of employees for various types of commercial, office, and industrial developments in the City. This produced an estimate of 18.5 million square feet of nonresidential building space in the City. As a result, the total residential and nonresidential building square footage in the City is 67.5 million For Mare Island, the total residential building space is 705,821 square feet; total non-residential building space is 5.1 million. Total residential and nonresidential building square footage on Mare Island is 5.8 million.
When comparing total building space, Mare Island's 5.8 million building square feet is approximately 8.57% of the City's 67.5 million. Because the need for fire protection services is proportional to the amount of building space, it can be estimated that 8.57% of the fire department's costs can be attributed and allocated to Mare Island. (See attached Table 2 for detailed allocation of the City's fire department budget.) Jon if you have any questions regarding this, don't hesitate to contact me.
_ _)
Table 1
City of Vallejo
Mare Island Safety Cost Allocation
Police Protection Services
Demographic Data /1 City of Vallejo Mare Island
Population 121,097
Housing Units 43,840
Occupied 42,120
Persons Per Houshold 2.821
Employees and Students= 0.5 Residents 17,552
Total Persons Served /2 138,649
Percentage of Total 100.00%
Cost Allocation /3 $33,000,000
·v1it
/1 Source: Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.; Claritas; Touro University. /2 Based on informal analysis of Mare Island demographics and not an extensive study.
745
275
264
2.821
1,820
2,565
1.85%
$610,498
'i,~'-6
/3 Source: City of Vallejo. 11/4/2010
)
Table 2
City of Vallejo
Mare Island Safety Cost Allocation
Fire Protection and Suppression Services
Land Use Data City of Vallejo Mare Island
Residential Square Footage /1 48,977,382
Non-Residential Square Footage /2 18,553,611
Total Square Footage 67,530,993
Percentage of Total 100.00%
Cost Allocation /3 $20,000,000
/1 Source: Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.; CD-Data.
/2 Source: Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.; Claritas.
/3 Source: City ofVallejo.
705,821
5,084,664
5,790,485
8.57%
$1,714,912
ATTACHMENT -13
ATTACHMENT -14
CFD 2002-1 CUMULATIVE “EXTRA” FIRE AND POLICE CHARGES
2002-2023
FISCAL YEAR
ENDING
TOTAL POLICE
BUDGET
CHARGED TO CFD
2002-1 (est)
TOTAL FIRE
BUDGET
CHARGED TO CFD
2002-1 (est)
TOTAL CFD
CHARGES
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
CHARGES
2003 31,780,000 $ $ 587,930 $ 18,398,800 $ 1,576,777 $ 2,164,707 $ 2,164,707 Estimated from CFD staff & reports 2004 31,661,800 $ $ 585,743 $ 20,316,400 $ 1,741,115 $ 2,326,859 $ 4,491,566 2005 31,780,000 $ $ 587,930 $ 20,861,000 $ 1,787,788 $ 2,375,718 $ 6,867,284 2006 30,774,000 $ $ 569,319 $ 22,059,500 $ 1,890,499 $ 2,459,818 $ 9,327,102 2007 40,245,687 $ $ 744,545 $ 25,451,885 $ 2,181,227 $ 2,925,772 $ 12,252,874 2008 43,000,944 $ $ 795,517 $ 26,542,825 $ 2,274,720 $ 3,070,238 $ 15,323,111 2009 36,690,126 $ $ 678,767 $ 23,821,235 $ 2,041,480 $ 2,720,247 $ 18,043,358 2010 28,781,427 $ $ 532,456 $ 19,827,320 $ 1,699,201 $ 2,231,658 $ 20,275,016 Estimated from 2016 Allocation Formulas 2011 28,872,198 $ $ 534,136 $ 17,100,807 $ 1,465,539 $ 1,999,675 $ 22,274,691 2012 31,668,649 $ $ 585,870 $ 19,513,740 $ 1,672,328 $ 2,258,198 $ 24,532,888 2013 38,130,490 $ $ 705,414 $ 21,087,573 $ 1,807,205 $ 2,512,619 $ 27,045,507 2014 39,524,535 $ $ 731,204 $ 24,822,856 $ 2,127,319 $ 2,858,523 $ 29,904,030 2015 36,268,748 $ $ 670,972 $ 24,830,166 $ 2,127,945 $ 2,798,917 $ 32,702,947 2016 39,969,230 $ $ 739,431 $ 24,387,558 $ 2,090,014 $ 2,829,444 $ 35,532,392 2017 44,323,680 $ $ 819,988 $ 26,205,262 $ 2,245,791 $ 3,065,779 $ 38,598,171 2018 44,337,217 $ $ 596,000 $ 26,797,408 $ 1,822,200 $ 2,418,200 $ 41,016,371 Actuals from City Data 2019 47,406,791 $ $ 716,000 $ 28,170,606 $ 2,162,000 $ 2,878,000 $ 43,894,371 2020 46,323,975 $ $ 716,000 $ 28,054,675 $ 2,162,000 $ 2,878,000 $ 46,772,371 2021 52,049,945 $ $ 731,000 $ 31,452,445 $ 2,162,000 $ 2,893,000 $ 49,665,371 2022 55,296,120 $ $ 769,000 $ 33,527,511 $ 2,320,000 $ 3,089,000 $ 52,754,371 2023 59,535,707 $ $ 833,000 $ 35,854,429 $ 2,498,000 $ 3,331,000 $ 56,085,371 TOTALS 14,230,223 41,855,148 $ 56,085,371
MARE ISLAND
TAXPAYERS HAVE
ALREADY PAID MORE
THAN OUR FAIR SHARE!
ATTACHMENT -15
13 2774
6174
2143
65 2382
6951
2061
65 2603
6322
2578
65 2822
5790
5309
65 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
94589 94590 94591 94592
Vallejo Fire Department Calls by Zip Code
2016 2017 2018 2021
NOTE: % OF VPD
calls was similar.
Average annual
number used for
94592--
There were only a
total of 650 VFD
calls for a 12-year
period vs 147,000
calls for other zip
codes. (=0.4%)
14 Though
Mare Island
has less
crime, we
want to pay
for police
services the
same as all
other Vallejo
taxpayers,
not “extra.”
ATTACHMENT -16
ATTACHMENT -17
Exp,enses for Fiscal Year 2.005-06
ervices Budget
Op · rating R • rv
•. urph1s Carded Forward from Fis.cal Year 2004~05
Estimated Revenues for Fis.cal Year 2005~0,
et Fiscal Year 2005-06 Special Tax Requirement
$5 055,900
250,000
$5,.305,900
( 1,310,000)
($383,786)
$3,612.,114
Expenses for Fiscal Year 2006-07
_ ervices Budget
R paym nt to c~ty tbr Amount Advanc d to Cov r Co t
Amount . d d to · ur DeHnqu .nci
City's Administrative Expenses
Operating Reserve
• urplus Carried Forward from Fiscal Year 2005-06
Estimated Revenue for Fiscal Year 2006-07
Other Revenues (Interest on Funds)
et Fiscal Year 2006-07 Special Tax Requirement
$5,292,142
$t000,000
0 179,358
-300,000
$6;771 -500
( 1,098,000)
($603,500)
($46,000
$5,.024,000
Expenses for Fiscal Year 2007-08
S rvic • Budget
Repayment to City for Amounts Advanc d for Mare Island rvtc Amount eeded to Cure Delinquencies
City's Administrative Expenses
Operating R erve
Surplus Carried Forward from Fiscal Year 2006-07
Estimated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2007-08
Other Revenues (Interest on Funds)
et Fiscal Year 2007-08 Special Tax Requirement
5,674,970
2,431 ,422
0 $139,030
$300,000
$8,545 422
($2,431,422)
($990 000)
($100,000
$5,024,000
Expenses for Fiscal Year 2008-09
S rvic Budg t
Repayment to City for Amount Advanced for are I land erv1ce Amount eeded to Cure Delinquencies
City's Administrative Expenses
Operating Re r e
Surplus Carried Forward from Fiscal Year 2007-08
Estimated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2008-09
Other Re enues {lntere ton Funds)
et Fiscal Year 2008-09 Special Tax Requirement
5,795,645
2,955,115
,0
$124,0 l 7
$290,568
$9,165 345
($3,235,.872)
($1111203)
($60,000)
$4,758 270
Expenses for Fiscal Year 2009-10
ervices Budget
Repayment to City for Amounts Advanced for Mare Jsland Services Amount ed d to Cure Delinquencie from Fi cal Y-ar 2008-09 City' Admini trativ Expen e (includ d in rv1c Budg t)
Operating Reserve (included in Services Budget)
Surplus Carried Forward from Fi cal Year 2008-09
Estimated Revenues for Fi cal Year 2009-10
Other Revenues (Interest on Funds)
et Fi cal Year 2009-10 Special Tax Requirement
4,171,000
0 $1,333,417
0 0
$5 504,417
($1, I 00,000)
($1,206,000)
($20,000)
$3,178,417
Expenses for Fiscal Year 2010-ll
S rvice Budg t
Repayment to City for Amount Advanced for Mare Island erv1ce Amount eeded to Cure Delinquencies from Fiscal Year 2009-10 City's Administrative Expenses (included in Services Budget) Operating R erve (included in ervic Budg t)
Surplus Carried Forward from Fiseal Year 2009-10
Estimated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2010-11
Other Revenues {Interest on Funds)
Fiscal Year 2010-11 Special Tax Requirement
4,069,215
1,368,158
0 0
0 $5,437 373
($2,350,801)
($1,234 716)
($50,000)
$1801 856
Expenses for Fiscal Year 2011-12
S rvic Budg t
Repaym nt to City for Amount Advanc d for Mar l land rv1c Amount - eeded to Cure Delinquencies from Fiscal Year 2010-11 City's Administrative, Expenses (included in Services Budget) Operating R erv (included in ervic Budget)
Surplus Carried Forward! from Fiscal Year 2010-11
Estimated Revenues for Fi cal Year 2011-12
Other Revenues (Interest on Funds)
Fiscal Year 2011-12 Special Tax Requirement
3,819,739
1,084,702
0 0
0 $4,904,441
($2,272,.762)
($1,212,.721)
($50,000)
$1368,958
Expenses for Fiscal Year 20l2-13
ervices Budget
Repayment to City for Amounts Advanced for Mare Island Services Amount . d d to Cur D linqu nci from Fi cal Y ar 2011-12 ity's Administrative Expenses (included in ervices Budget) Operating Reserve (included in Services Budget)
Surplus Carried Forward from Fi cal Year 2011-12
Estimated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2012-13
Other Revenues (Interest on Funds)
Fiscal Year 2012-13 Special Tax Requirement
3,928,541
· 317 834 > >
0 0
0 $5 246,375
($1,563,286)
($1,364,721)
( 20,000)
$2,298,368
Expenses for Fiscal Year 2013-14
ervices Budget
Repayment to City for Amounts Advanced for Mare Island erv1ces Amount d "d to Cur D linqu nci from Fi cal Y ar 2012-13 City' Admini trative Exp n 'included in ervic Budg t)
Operating Reserve (included in Services Budget)
Surplus Carried Fon,,ard from Fiscal Year 2012-13
Estimated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2013-14
Other Revenues (Interest on Funds)
Fiscal Year 2013-14 Special Tax Requirement
5.035 646
$],797 253
$0
$0
$0
$6 832 899
($2,508,828)
($1 489,437)
($25,000)
$2,809,634
E pen · e· for Fi cal ear .2014-15 5 793 835
ervices Budget ,4 4 6,709
R paym n t Ci1 fi r m unt d an ed f; .r Mar I land rv1ce 1 7 126 Amount eeded to Cur Delinquencies from Fi cal ear 2013-14 0 Ci ' dmini trati E 'p-n - ( in Jud -d in rvac - Budg t 0 Op rating R rv , in luded in nr1 Budg t 0
urplu Carried orward from i ,cal ear 2013-14 (, 1 381 832) E timated Revenue for Fi ·cal Year 2014-1- ( 1,147 589) Other Re . enue • • t on Fund·) ( 106 708)
Fi ca ear 2014-15 pecial Ta Requirement 157 706
pen e for Fi cal Year 2015-16
• rvic Budg t
R~payment lo ity o Al unt d nc d for Ma I land rv1c
Am unt Ne ded t ur D linqu nci fr m i cal Y ar 20 l4-1
it- ' Admini trativ p n (in lud d in . rv1 1- ud t
p rati g R e e included i1 udg t
urplu arried Forward from Fi al Year 2014-15
Estimated Revenu for Fi cal Year 2015-16
Other - t on Funds)
Fi cal Year 2015-16 pecial Tax Requirem nt
2,1 2
1 0 4 7
0 0
0 5 732,669
,($2 220. 039)
($1314 309)
($26,000)
2172321
◄ ·p_n _ for 1:iscal _ -=-ar 2016-17
erv1 B dget
, f; r m • nt I, · Mar I lan
.- i cal •• ar 101 ~16
tint t d R venu for i -al -ar 2016-17
Ott. ~ )·
... 015-16
, 2t59
90 t07"9
·o
:o
··o
'_ 4 59·1,.678
( .974 9 'l)
( 143 490)
. ·pen e for i cal ear 2017-18
Budg t
eel d
· in Jud d i - udg t
for i ' CaJ ar 2017-18
,· cal ar 2017-18 p cial Ta R quir meot
al Y r
Budg t
6 ,4
0 4 747 721
( 1 323 36)
( .JO 858)
2 261627
Expenses for Fiscal Year 2018-19
S rvi Budg t
AmountN - "d d to ur D hnqu nd from Fi cal Y ar2017-18
itf Ad mini trative -. p n e ( includ d in Budg t
Op rating Re erv included in ervk Budge
Estimated Revenue for Fi. cal Year 2018-19
Other Re enue (Interest on Fund )
Fi cal Year 2018-19 Special Tax Requirement
4 115 111 ' '
0 0
0 4,115 Ill
($1,.641 365)
( '26 000)
2,447,746
Expense for Fiscal Year 2019-20
rvi e Budget
Am untN d d t ur D Hnqu n i fr m Fi al Y ar2018-19
i • Admini trativ pen e (included in rvic - Budg -t
Op -rating Re . IV't~ (includ din ervice Budget)
E timated Revenues for Fistal Year 2019-20
Other Revenue (Interest on Fund)
Fiscal Year 2019-20 Special Tax Requirement
4,045,670
0 0
0 4 045,670
($2,.083 378)
( 34 000)
l 928,292
E pense for Fiscal Year 2020-21
r ic • Budg t
Amount Needed to ure Delinqu nci from Fi cal Year 2019-20 ity s dministrative Exp nses (included in ervices Budget) Op r ing R '. (includ din rv·c Budge )
Estimated Revenue for Fi cal Year 2020-21
Other Revenue {Interest on · unds)
Fi cal Year 2020-21 Special Tax Requirement
3,970 043
0 0
0 3 970 043
($2 158 186)
( '25,000)
I 786,857
E pense for Fiscal Year 2021-22
r ice ' Budget
Amount Need d to ure Delinqu nci s from i cal Year 2020-2 1 ity's Administrative xpenses (included in · ervices Budget) Op rating Re er e (incl uded in ervice • Budget)
Estimated Revenue for Fi cal Year 2021-22 (1)
Intere t on Funds
Fi cal Year 2021-22 Special Tax Requirement
4,24 157
0 0
0 4,248,157
($2 392,560)
( '50,000)
1,805,597
(1) lnclud the B ginning vailabl Fund Balance from th pre iou FY in addition to 0th r Revenue attributable to Mare l land in luding property and al taxe , mlnu th cash flow needed to nsure availabiliry of fimd .
E pen e for Fiscal Year 2022-23
-r ices Budg -t
Amount Needed to ure Delinquenci from Fi cal Year 2021-22 ity s Adn1inistrative Expenses included in · ervices Budg t) Op -rating R er e (inc1uded in erv c Budget)
◄ stimated Revenue for Fi •Cal Year 2022-23 (1)
lntere ton Funds
Fi cal Year 2022-23 Special Tax Requirement
4,535 7 1
0 0
0 4 535,791
($2 344,036)
( 50,000)
2,141,755
(/) In lude th B ginning vailable Ftmd Balanc from th pr viou FYin addition to 0th r Rev rwes attributable to Mare l land in luding property and al • taxe , minu th cash flow needed to nsure availability of fimdw.
ATTACHMENT -18
87 CENTS “ADMINISTRATION” FOR EVERY $1 OF SERVICES PROVIDED After sending over the final Powerpoint for tonight’s presentation, we discovered an additional fact about the CFDs.
The FY 2022-23 budget included $576,000 for “Administration costs,” i.e. charges for City staff to “administer” the expenditure of $3,959,675 (TOTAL EXPENDITURES, Table below).
But wait-- $3.3 million of that was channeled directly to Fire and Police budgets, which did not require any “administration.”
So, $3,959,675 – $3,300,000 = $659,675 spent on other categories of services. $576K divided by $659K = 87%
So, for every dollar City staff spent on “services,” they charged us 87 cents.
ATTACHMENT -19
ATTACHMENT - 20
Table: CBP2020.CB2000CBP
Geographic Area
Name 2017 NAICS code Meaning of NAICS
code
Meaning of Legal
form of organization
code
Meaning of
Employment size of
establishments code
Year Number of
establishments
Annual payroll
($1,000)
First-quarter payroll
($1,000)
Number of
employees
ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 00 Total for all sectors All establishments All establishments 2020 58 138,491 33,172 1,647 ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 00 Total for all sectors All establishments Establishments with
less than 5 employees 2020 20 N N N
ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 00 Total for all sectors All establishments Establishments with 5
to 9 employees 2020 12 N N N
ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 00 Total for all sectors All establishments Establishments with 10
to 19 employees 2020 10 N N N
ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 00 Total for all sectors All establishments Establishments with 20
to 49 employees 2020 9 N N N
ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 00 Total for all sectors All establishments Establishments with 50
to 99 employees 2020 4 N N N
ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 23 Construction All establishments All establishments 2020 8 N N N ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 23 Construction All establishments Establishments with 5
to 9 employees 2020 3 N N N
ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 31-33 Manufacturing All establishments All establishments 2020 12 N N N ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 31-33 Manufacturing All establishments Establishments with
less than 5 employees 2020 3 N N N
ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 31-33 Manufacturing All establishments Establishments with 10
to 19 employees 2020 4 N N N
ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 42 Wholesale trade All establishments All establishments 2020 8 N N N ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 42 Wholesale trade All establishments Establishments with
less than 5 employees 2020 3 N N N
ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 48-49
Transportation and
warehousing All establishments All establishments 2020 5 N N N ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 54
Professional, scientific,
and technical services All establishments All establishments 2020 7 N N N ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 54
Professional, scientific,
and technical services All establishments
Establishments with
less than 5 employees 2020 5 N N N
ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 62
Health care and social
assistance All establishments All establishments 2020 4 N N N ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 62
Health care and social
assistance All establishments
Establishments with
less than 5 employees 2020 3 N N N
ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 81
Other services (except
public administration) All establishments All establishments 2020 7 N N N ZIP 94592 (Vallejo, CA) 81
Other services (except
public administration) All establishments
Establishments with 5
to 9 employees 2020 3 N N N
data.census.gov | Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy 1
ATTACHMENT - 21
Economic Policy Institute
https://www.epi.org/publication/updated-employment-multipliersfor-the-u-s-economy/ Updated employment multipliers for the U.S. economy
Report • By Josh Bivens • January 23, 2019
Employment multipliers per 100 direct jobs,
by major private-sector industry group
Major industry group Direct
jobs
Supplier
jobs*
Induced
jobs**
Total
indirect
jobs
Agriculture, forest,
fishing, and hunting 100 93.6 134.8 228.5
Mining 100 224.0 166.0 390.0
Utilities 100 515.4 442.2 957.7
Construction 100 88.0 138.1 226.1
Durable manufacturing 100 289.1 454.9 744.1
Nondurable
manufacturing 100 184.8 329.5 514.3
* Includes materials and capital services supplier jobs ** Includes jobs supported by respending of income from direct jobs and supplier jobs, as well as public-sector jobs supported by tax revenue 100 jobs in durable manufacturing (for
example, Factory OS), generates 744 other jobs
(paychecks) flowing through the economy,
benefitting not only Mare Island, all of Vallejo,
Solano County, and beyond.
3300 jobs on Mare Island currently.
(Source: Mare Island Company)
ATTACHMENT - 22
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF VALLEJO
AND
GOODWIN CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
This First Amendment to the Master Agreement made and entered into on January 24, 2017, hereafter referred to as Agreement, between the Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc., a California Corporation, therein referred to as Consultant, and the City of Vallejo, a municipal corporation, therein referred to as City, is made and entered into on this l~ day of r~.-t.rr 2020.
Consultant and City do mutually agree as follows:
1. Additional Services. The scope of services to be provided as specified in Exhibit A of the Agreement is amended to include the services described in Exhibit A of this First Amendment ("Additional Services").
2. Payment for Additional Services. In consideration of Consultant providing the Additional Services in Exhibit A, Consultant shall be paid an amount not to exceed Three Hundred Ninety-one thousand dollars and no/100 cents ($391,000.00).
Consultant agrees that the amount of increase in the not to exceed amount specified above shall constitute full compensation for the Additional Services, and shall fully compensate Consultant for any and all direct and indirect costs that may be incurred by Consultant in connection with the Additional Services, including costs associated with any changes and/or delays in work schedules or in the performance of other services or work by Consultant.
3. Integration. This First Amendment contains the entire agreement between the parties with respect to its subject matter and supersedes whatever oral or written understanding they may have had prior to the execution of this First Amendment. This First Amendment shall not be amended or modified except by a written agreement executed by each of the parties. Except as specifically revised herein, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and CONSULTANT shall perform all duties, obligations and conditions required under the Agreement.
4. Inconsistencies. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this First Amendment and the Agreement, the provisions of this First Amendment shall control in all respects.
Approved as to form:
' B~
omey
First Amendment to Agreement Between City of Vallejo and Goodwin Consulting Group Page 1 of 3
5. Ambiguities. The parties have each carefully reviewed this First Amendment and have agreed to each term of this First Amendment. No ambiguity shall be presumed to be construed against either party.
6. Counterparts. This First Amendment may be executed by the parties in one or more counterparts all of which collectively shall constitute one document and agreement.
7. Facsimile Signatures. This First Amendment shall be binding upon the receipt of facsimile signatures; provided, however, that any person transmitting his or her signature by facsimile shall promptly send an original signature to the other party at the addresses noted below:
City:
Consultant:
Rekha Nayar
Finance Director
555 Santa Clara Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
Susan Goodwin, President
Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.
555 University Avenue, Suite 280
Sacramento, CA 95825
8. Authority. The person signing this First Amendment for Consultant hereby represents and warrants that he or she is fully authorized to sign this First Amendment on behalf of Consultant.
(SIGNATURES ARE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE)
First Amendment to Agreement Between City of Vallejo and Goodwin Consulting Group Page 2 of 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this First Amendment on the day and year first hereinabove appearing.
GOODWIN CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
a Cali.fom.i orporati: d t.... .
BY: C-.7Na~-' & ___ ~ _,.
Susan Goodwin
President
DATE: __ 3
.... /,_1_" ..... /;_~_ 0
_ __ _
\ '\- 0000 yq~g
Vallejo Business License No.
(City Seal}
CITY OF VALLEJO,
a municipal corporation
BY: _ccQ=---... ........ O..........,,.QS).....,_~"""-' ............. 1,...__&9=---_
GREG NYHOFF
City Manager
DATE: ~ £) H(i;)<J I
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
APPROVED
~i~ AS TO FORM:
~ IN6'turf-trl
City Attorney _
OVED AS TO INSURANCE:
First Amendment to Agreement Between City of Vallejo and Goodwin Consulting Group Page 3 of3
EXHIBIT A
Attachment 1 - Scope of Work
CITY OF VALLEJO
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT No. 2002-1
(MARE ISLAND SERVICES),
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT No. 2005-lA
(MARE ISLAND), AND
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT No. 2005-18
(MARE ISLAND)
REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTRUCTURING OF SPECIAL TAX FORMULAS
SCOPE OF WORK
Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc. (GCG) will assist the City of Vallejo in analyzing the financial impacts to the City from two proposed modifications to the City's Mare Island CFDs. GCG will also assist the City in implementing the modification(s) ultimately chosen by the City, if any.
The two modifications will be evaluated separately. The outline below describes the tasks that GCG will perform for each modification pursuant to this Scope of Work.
Modification 1: Elimination of CFO No. 2005-1B
• Phase I: Financial Review
o Review the necessary background documents (i.e., CFD formation documents, legal documents, Rate and Method of Apportionment, etc.)
o Calculate the taxing capacity that the City would lose in future years after implementing Modification I.
o Prepare a written memo to summarize the financial impacts to the City. o Meet or call City staff to review the initial analysis and discuss changes or additional alternatives that the City would like to have considered. GCG will provide a revised summary based on feedback from City staff. • Phase 2: Plan for Implementation
o Prepare a written memo detailing necessary steps to implement Modification I. • Phase 3: Implementation
o Review legal documents prepared by the City's CFO counsel related to the implementation.
Modification 2: With and Without a 1% Escalator on Residential Special Taxes, Reallocate a Portion of Incremental Other Revenues to Developed Residential Property in CFO No. 2002-1 and Accompanying Changes to CFO No. 2005-lA
• Phase 1 : Financial Review
o Discuss the City's financing needs for the Mare Island CFDs with City staff. o Assist City staff with determining the appropriate modifications to be made to CFD No. 2005-1 A to remove its connection to CFD No. 2002-1.
o Review the necessary background documents (i.e, CFD formation documents, legal documents, Rate and Method of Apportionment, etc.)
o Work with City staff to create up to five scenarios to be evaluated and determine assumptions for each scenario.
o Calculate a sample tax levy for each affected CFO for each scenario and review the sample tax levies to determine the potential financial impacts to the City. o Prepare a written memo summarizing the results.
o Meet or call City staff to review the initial analysis and discuss changes or additional alternatives that the City would like to have considered. GCG will provide a revised summary based on feedback from City staff. • Phase 2: Plan for Implementation
o Prepare a written memo detailing necessary steps to implement Modification 2. • Phase 3: Implementation
o Write a new Rate and Method of Apportionment (RMA) for each modified CFO. o Discuss the new RMAs with City staff and legal counsel and provide revised RMAs based on feedback from the restructuring team.
o Review legal documents prepared by the City's CFD counsel related to implementation of Modification 2.
o As needed, attend meetings, including City Council meetings and/or workshops with affected parties.
EXHIBITB
Attachment 2 - Fee Schedule
CITY OF VALLEJO
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2002-1
(MARE ISLAND SERVICES),
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT No. 2005-lA
(MARE ISLAND), AND
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2005-1B
(MARE ISLAND)
REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTRUCTURING OF SPECIAL TAX FORMULAS
FEE SCHEDULE
Services and Expenses
The budget associated with each Phase of the Scope of Work in Exhibit A is described below.
The budgeted amounts are maximum amounts not to be exceeded, subject to the limitations identified below.
Modification l: Elimination of CFD No. 2005-1B
• Phase I: $3,500
• Phase 2: $600
• Phase 3: $0
Modification 2: Reallocate a Portion of Incremental Other Revenues to Developed Residential in CFD No. 2002-1 and Accompanying Changes to CFD No. 2005-lA • Phase I: $40,000
• Phase 2: $1,000
• Phase 3: $45,000
Additional consulting services beyond those included in the scope of work may be provided within the budget if total hourly billings are less than the maximum. Alternatively, if the scope of work can be completed for less than the maximum budget for any Phase, only the hours and expenses actually incurred will be billed. Services will be billed based on the hourly fee schedule on the following page.
GCG Hourlv Service Rates
Mana1dng Principal $310/Hour
Senior Principal $300/Hour
Principal $260/Hour
Vice President $230/Hour
Senior Associate $210/Hour
Associate $195/Hour
Analyst $185/Hour
Research Assistant $90/Hour
Note: Tllese l,ourly rates are effective tltrouglt December 31, 1019 a11d may be adjusted tltereafter.
Billing Structure
GCG will provide the City with a monthly invoice identifying services provided and expenses incurred. Invoices are due and payable within thirty days of receipt.
Limitations
The following services are not included in the scope of work provided in Exhibit A and will be billed on a time and materials basis or pursuant to a separate contract if needed:
• For Modification 2: Attendance at more than three meetings • For Modification 2: Analysis of more than five scenarios
ATTACHMENT - 23
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF VALLEJO
AND
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
This First Amendment to the Master Agreement made and entered into on January 11, 2005, hereafter referred to as Agreement, between the Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, a California Limited Liability Partnership, therein referred to as Consultant, and the City of Vallejo, a municipal corporation, therein referred to as City, is made and entered into on this I O day of . ~ iA-'J 2020.
Consultant and City do mutually agree as follows:
1. Additional Services. The scope of services to be provided as specified in Exhibit A of the Agreement is amended to include the services described in Exhibit A of this First Amendment ("Additional Services").
2. Payment for Additional Services. In consideration of Consultant providing the Additional Services in Exhibit A, Consultant shall be paid an amount not to exceed one hundred sixty thousand dollars and no/100 cents ($160,000.00).
Consultant agrees that the amount of increase in the not to exceed amount specified above shall constitute full compensation for the Additional Services, and shall fully compensate Consultant for any and all direct and indirect costs that may be incurred by Consultant in connection with the Additional Services, including costs associated with any changes and/or delays in work schedules or in the performance of other services or work by Consultant.
3. Integration. This First Amendment contains the entire agreement between the parties with respect to its subject matter and supersedes whatever oral or written understanding they may have had prior to the execution of this First Amendment. This First Amendment shall not be amended or modified except by a written agreement executed by each of the parties. Except as specifically revised herein, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and CONSULTANT shall perform all duties, obligations and conditions required under the Agreement.
4. Inconsistencies. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this First Amendment and the Agreement, the provisions of this First Amendment shall control in all respects.
5. Ambiguities. The parties have each carefully reviewed this First Amendment and have agreed to each term of this First Amendment. No ambiguity shall be presumed to be construed against either party.
6. Counterparts. This First Amendment may be executed by the parties in one or First Amendment to Agreement Between City of Vallejo and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Page 1 of 5
more counterparts all of which collectively shall constitute one document and agreement.
7. Facsimile Signatures. This First Amendment shall be binding upon the receipt of facsimile signatures; provided, however, that any person transmitting his or her signature by facsimile shall promptly send an original signature to the other party at the addresses noted below:
City:
Consultant:
Rekha Nayar
Finance Director
555 Santa Clara Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
Devin Brennan
Partner
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
8. Authority. The person signing this First Amendment for Consultant hereby represents and warrants that he or she is fully authorized to sign this First Amendment on behalf of Consultant.
(SIGNATURES ARE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE)
First Amendment to Agreement Between City of Vallejo and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Page 2 of 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this First Amendment on the day and year first hereinabove appearing.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
LLP
A California Limited Liability Partnership
BY:~~~
DEVIN BRENNAN
Partner
DATE: __ l-_7_-_to--'-,>l_D __ _
(City Seal)
CITY OF VALLEJO,
a municipal corpor r
ager
DATE: --Zh--1-L,' -...,:; fiow ~ - -
APPROVED AS_ TO CONTENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
ERIKA L HY
Risk Manager
First Amendment to Agreement Between City of Vallejo and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Page 3 of5
Exhibit A
Subsequent Statement of Work
Review and Implementation of Restructuring of Special Tax Formulas Consultant to conduct a legal review of the following two proposed modifications to the Mare Island CFDs. Consultant to also prepare a written memo detailing its findings separately for each action. For example, the implications for implementing the first modification should be explained separately from the implications for implementing the second modification.
Two proposed modifications to the CFD:
Modification 1: Elimination of CFD No. 2005-1B
City would need to process an Ordinance to dissolve the 2005-1B Mare CFD without conducting change proceedings. There would be no change to the Rate and Method of Apportionment ("RMA").
Modification 2: With and Without a 2% Escalator on Residential Special Taxes. Reallocate a Portion of Incremental Other Revenues to Developed Residential Property in CFD No. 2002·1 and Accompanying Changes to CFO No. 2005-lA
Under this modification, 50% of future incremental net revenues over a Base Year (defined as change in revenues over base year minus change in expenses of a base year) would be allocated to Developed Residential Property through change proceedings and an amendment to the RMA.
Process will be in three phases:
• Phase 1: Legal Review
Initial review to identify the liability implications for each action and the long-term legal consequences of the City implementing these changes. Consultant to review CFD documents {formation documents including resolutions, notice of special tax, and other legal documents) and provide advice via a written memo to the City on the liability and legal consequences of each modification.
o Option 1 cost estimate: $8,000 • $12,000
a Option 2 cost estimate: $4,000 • $8,000
• Phase 2: Plan for Implementation
Consultant to prepare written memo detailing necessary steps to undertake either modification.
First Amendment to Agreement Between City or Vallejo and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Page4 of 5
o Option 1 cost estimate: $8,000
o Option 2 cost estimate: $7,000
• Phase 3: Implementation
Consultant shall undertake legal work to implement one or both modification(s). o Option 1 cost estimate: $30,000 - $50,000
o Option 2 cost estimate: $75,000
First Amendment to Agreement Between City of Vallejo and Orrick. Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT - 24
City of Vallejo
Code of Ethics and Conduct
For
Elected and Appointed Officials
Adopted March 28, 2017
Amended January 22, 2019
Amended September 10, 2019
For ease of reference the term “member” refers to any member of the Vallejo City Council, City Manager, City Attorney or City Boards and Commissions established by City ordinance or Council policy. 2 Table of Contents
PURPOSE....................................................................................................................................................... 3 ETHICS........................................................................................................................................................... 3 CONDUCT...................................................................................................................................................... 6
1. General Behavior Guidelines. .......................................................................................................... 6
2. Elected and Appointed Officials’ Conduct with One Another. ....................................................... 6 (a) In Public Meetings.................................................................................................................... 7 (b) In Private Encounters. .............................................................................................................. 7
3. Elected and Appointed Officials’ Conduct with the Public............................................................. 7 (a) In Public Meetings.................................................................................................................... 7 (b) In Unofficial Settings. ............................................................................................................... 8
4. Elected and Appointed Officials’ Conduct with City Staff............................................................... 9
5. Council Conduct with Boards and Commissions...........................................................................10
6. Conduct with the Media. ...............................................................................................................11 COMPLIANCE ..............................................................................................................................................11 IMPLEMENTATION .....................................................................................................................................13
For ease of reference the term “member” refers to any member of the Vallejo City Council, City Manager, City Attorney or City Boards and Commissions established by City ordinance or Council policy. 3
PURPOSE
The Vallejo City Council has adopted this Code of Ethics and Conduct for members of the City Council and the City’s boards and commissions to ensure public confidence in the integrity of local government and its effective and fair operation.
ETHICS
The citizens and businesses of Vallejo are entitled to have a fair, ethical and accountable local government which has earned the public’s full confidence in its integrity. In keeping with the City of Vallejo’s commitment to excellence, the effective functioning of democratic government therefore requires that:
public officials, both elected and appointed, comply with both the letter and spirit of the laws and policies affecting the operations of government; public officials be independent, impartial and fair in their judgment and actions; public office be used for the public good, not for personal gain; and public deliberations and processes be conducted openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility.
To this end, the Vallejo City Council has adopted this Code of Ethics and Conduct for members of the City Council and the City’s boards and commissions to ensure public confidence in the integrity of local government and its effective and fair operation. The Ethics section of the City’s Code of Ethics and Conduct provides guidance on ethical issues and questions of right and wrong.
Members of the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and of all Boards and Commissions shall conduct themselves in accordance with the following ethical standards:
1. Act in the Public Interest. Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, members will work for the common good of the people of Vallejo and not for any private or personal interest, and they will assure fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims and transactions coming before them.
2. Comply with both the spirit and the letter of the Law and City Policy. Members shall comply with the laws of the nation, the State of California and the City of Vallejo in the performance of their public duties.
3. Conduct of Members. The professional and personal conduct of members while exercising the powers and duties of their office must be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of the City Council, Boards and Commissions, the staff or public.
For ease of reference the term “member” refers to any member of the Vallejo City Council, City Manager, City Attorney or City Boards and Commissions established by City ordinance or Council policy. 4
4. Respect for Process. Members shall perform their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the City Council.
5. Conduct at Public Meetings. Members shall prepare themselves for review and consideration of public issues; listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions before the body; and focus on the business at hand.
6. Decisions Based on Merit. Members shall base their decisions on the merits and substance of the matter at hand, rather than on unrelated considerations. When making adjudicative decisions (those decisions where the member is called upon to determine and apply facts particular to an individual case), members shall refrain from making public statements of support or opposition, including statements on social media (including “likes” on Facebook or other online venues), shall maintain an open mind until the conclusion of the hearing on the matter, and shall base their decisions on the facts presented at the hearing and the law.
7. Communication. For adjudicative matters pending before the body, members shall rely upon agenda materials and information received at the public meeting for information to support their decision, and shall refrain from receiving information outside of an open public meeting, except on advice of the City Attorney. Members shall publicly disclose substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration by the body which they may have received from sources outside of the public decision-making process.
8. Conflict of Interest. In order to assure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the common good and compliance with conflict of interest laws, members shall not use their official positions to influence government decisions in which they have (a) a material financial interest, (b) an organizational responsibility or personal relationship which may give the appearance of a conflict of interest, or (c) a strong personal bias. Additionally, members will use their best efforts to refrain from creating an appearance of impropriety in their actions and decisions.
A member who has a potential conflict of interest regarding a particular decision shall disclose the matter to the City Attorney and reasonably cooperate with the City Attorney to analyze the potential conflict. If advised by the City Attorney to seek advice from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) or other appropriate state agency, a member shall not participate in a decision unless and until he or she has requested and received advice allowing the member to participate. A member shall diligently pursue obtaining such advice. The member shall provide the City Attorney a copy of any written request or advice, and conform his or her participation to the advice given. In providing assistance to members, the City Attorney represents the City and not individual members.
In accordance with the law, members shall disclose investments, interests in real property, sources of income, and gifts; and if they have a conflict of interest regarding a particular decision, shall not, once the conflict is ascertained, participate in the decision and shall not discuss or
For ease of reference the term “member” refers to any member of the Vallejo City Council, City Manager, City Attorney or City Boards and Commissions established by City ordinance or Council policy. 5 comment on the matter in any way to any person including other members unless otherwise permitted by law.
9. Gifts and Favors. Members shall not take any special advantage, by virtue of their public office, of services or opportunities for personal gain that is not available to the public in general.
They shall refrain from accepting any gifts, favors or promises of future benefits which might compromise their independence of judgment or action or give the appearance of being compromised.
10. Confidential Information. Members must maintain the confidentiality of all written materials and verbal information provided to members which is confidential or privileged.
Members shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization, nor use such information to advance their personal, financial or other private interests.
11. Use of Public Resources. Members shall not use public resources which are not available to the public in general (e.g., City staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities) for private gain or for personal purposes not otherwise authorized by law.
12. Representation of Private Interests. In keeping with their role as stewards of the public interest, members of the City Council shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of third parties before the City Council or any Board, Commission or proceeding of the City, nor shall members of Boards and Commissions appear before their own bodies or before the City Council on behalf of the private interests of third parties on matters related to the areas of service of their bodies.
13. Advocacy. Members shall represent the official policies or positions of the City Council, Board or Commission to the best of their ability when designated as delegates for this purpose.
When presenting their individual opinions and positions, members shall explicitly state they do not represent their body or the City of Vallejo, nor will they allow the inference that they do.
Councilmembers and Board and Commission members have the right to endorse candidates for all City Council seats or other elected offices. It is inappropriate to mention or display endorsements during City Council meetings, Board/Commission meetings, or other official City meetings. Members shall refrain from publicly supporting or opposing a project that will be considered in a quasi-judicial capacity by the City Council, or any Board or Commission unless that member has been given authorization to do so by the body to which the member has been appointed.
14. Policy Role of Members. Members shall respect and adhere to the council-manager structure of Vallejo City government as outlined in the Vallejo City Code. In this structure, the City Council determines the policies of the City with the advice, information and analysis provided by City staff, Boards and Commissions, and the public. Except as provided by the City Code, members shall not interfere with the administrative functions of the City or the professional duties of City staff; nor shall they impair the ability of staff to implement Council policy decisions.
For ease of reference the term “member” refers to any member of the Vallejo City Council, City Manager, City Attorney or City Boards and Commissions established by City ordinance or Council policy. 6
15. Independence of Boards and Commissions. Because of the value of the independent advice of Boards and Commissions to the public decision-making process, members of the City Council shall refrain from using their position to unduly influence the deliberations or outcomes of Board and Commission proceedings.
16. Positive Work Place Environment. Members shall support the maintenance of a positive and constructive work place environment for City employees and for citizens and businesses dealing with the City. Members shall recognize their special role in dealings with City employees to in no way create the perception of inappropriate direction to staff.
CONDUCT
The Conduct Guidelines are designed to describe the manner in which elected and appointed officials should treat one another, City staff, constituents, and others they come into contact with while representing the City of Vallejo.
1. General Behavior Guidelines.
City appointed and elected officials and staff will endeavor to communicate with each other and with members of the public in accordance with the following behavior guidelines at all public meetings and while discussing municipal affairs in public fora including social networks and social media platforms and listserves.
a. Treat everyone courteously.
b. Listen to others respectfully.
c. Exercise self-control.
d. Give open-minded consideration to all viewpoints.
e. Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate.
f. Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights that are inherent components of an inclusive public process and tools for forging sound decisions. g. Refrain from personal attacks on others.
2. Elected and Appointed Officials’ Conduct with One Another.
Elected and appointed officials are composed of individuals with a wide variety of backgrounds, personalities, values, opinions, and goals. Despite this diversity, all have chosen to serve in public office in order to preserve and protect the present and the future of the community. In all cases, this common goal should be acknowledged even though individuals may disagree on contentious issues.
For ease of reference the term “member” refers to any member of the Vallejo City Council, City Manager, City Attorney or City Boards and Commissions established by City ordinance or Council policy. 7 (a) In Public Meetings.
Use formal titles.
Elected and appointed officials should refer to one another formally during public meetings, such as Mayor, Vice Mayor, Chair, Commissioner or Councilmember followed by the individual’s last name.
Practice civility and decorum in discussions and debate.
Public officials shall not make belligerent, personal, impertinent, slanderous, threatening, abusive, or disparaging comments. Shouting or physical actions that could be construed as threatening will not be tolerated.
Honor the role of the Chair in maintaining order.
It is the responsibility of the Chair to keep the comments of members on track during public meetings. Members should honor efforts by the Chair to focus discussion on current agenda items. If there is disagreement about the agenda or the Chair’s actions, those objections should be voiced politely and with stated reasons, following procedures outlined in parliamentary procedure.
Avoid personal comments that could offend other members.
If a member is personally offended by the remarks of another member, the offended member should make notes of the actual words used and call for a "point of personal privilege" that challenges the other member to justify or apologize for the language used. The Chair will maintain control of this discussion.
Demonstrate effective problem-solving approaches.
Members have a public stage and have the responsibility to show how individuals with disparate points of view can find common ground and seek a compromise that benefits the community as a whole.
(b) In Private Encounters.
Continue respectful behavior in private.
The same level of respect and consideration of differing points of view that is deemed appropriate for public discussions should be maintained in private conversations.
3. Elected and Appointed Officials’ Conduct with the Public. (a) In Public Meetings.
Making the public feel welcome is an important part of the democratic process. No signs of partiality, prejudice or disrespect should be evident on the part of individual members toward an
For ease of reference the term “member” refers to any member of the Vallejo City Council, City Manager, City Attorney or City Boards and Commissions established by City ordinance or Council policy. 8 individual participating in a public forum. Every effort should be made to be fair and impartial in listening to public testimony.
Be welcoming to speakers and treat them with care and gentleness.
While questions of clarification may be asked, the official’s primary role during public testimony is to listen, not to interrogate.
Be fair and equitable in allocating public hearing time to individual speakers.
The Chair will determine and announce limits on speakers at the start of the public hearing process.
Practice active listening.
It is disconcerting to speakers to have members not look at them when they are speaking. It is fine to look down at documents or to make notes, but reading for a long period of time or gazing around the room gives the appearance of disinterest. Members shall try to be conscious of facial expressions, and avoid those that could be interpreted as "smirking," disbelief, anger or boredom.
Maintain an open mind.
Members of the public deserve an opportunity to influence the thinking of elected and appointed officials.
Ask for clarification, but avoid debate and argument with the public.
Only the Chair – not individual members – can interrupt a speaker during a presentation.
However, a member can ask the Chair for a point of order if the speaker is off the topic or exhibiting behavior or language the member finds disturbing. (b) In Unofficial Settings.
Make no promises on behalf of the Council, board/commission or City.
Members will frequently be asked to explain a Council or board/commission action or to give their opinion about an issue as they meet and talk with constituents in the community. It is appropriate to give a brief overview of City policy and to refer to City staff for further information.
It is inappropriate to overtly or implicitly promise Council or board/commission action, or to promise City staff will do something specific (fix a pothole, remove a library book, plant new flowers in the median, etc).
Make no personal comments about other members.
It is acceptable to publicly disagree about an issue, but it is unacceptable to make derogatory comments about other members, their opinions and actions.
For ease of reference the term “member” refers to any member of the Vallejo City Council, City Manager, City Attorney or City Boards and Commissions established by City ordinance or Council policy. 9
4. Elected and Appointed Officials’ Conduct with City Staff.
Governance of a City relies on the cooperative efforts of elected officials, who set policy, appointed officials who advise the elected, and City staff who implement and administer the Council’s policies. Therefore, every effort should be made to be cooperative and show mutual respect for the contributions made by each individual for the good of the community.
Treat all staff as professionals.
Clear, honest communication that respects the abilities, experience, and dignity of each individual is expected. Poor behavior towards staff is not acceptable.
Do not disrupt City staff from their jobs.
Elected and appointed officials should not disrupt City staff while they are in meetings, on the phone, or engrossed in performing their job functions in order to have their individual needs met.
Do not attend City staff meetings unless requested by staff – even if the elected or appointed official does not say anything, his or her presence implies support, shows partiality, may intimidate staff, and hampers staff’s ability to do their job objectively.
Never publicly criticize an individual employee.
Elected and appointed officials should never express concerns about the performance of a City employee in public, to the employee directly, or to the employee’s manager. Comments about staff performance should only be made to the City Manager through private correspondence or conversation. Appointed officials should make their comments regarding staff to the City Manager.
Do not get involved in administrative functions.
Elected and appointed officials acting in their individual capacity must not attempt to influence City staff on the making of appointments, awarding of contracts, selecting of consultants, processing of development applications, or granting of City licenses and permits.
Do not solicit political support from staff.
Elected and appointed officials should not solicit any type of political support (financial contributions, display of posters or lawn signs, name on support list, etc.) from City staff. City staff may, as private citizens with constitutional rights, support political candidates but all such activities must be done away from the workplace.
No Attorney-Client Relationship.
Members shall not seek to establish an attorney-client relationship with the City Attorney, including his or her staff and attorneys contracted to work on behalf of the City. The City Attorney represents the City and not individual members. Members who consult with the City Attorney cannot enjoy or establish an attorney-client relationship with the attorney.
For ease of reference the term “member” refers to any member of the Vallejo City Council, City Manager, City Attorney or City Boards and Commissions established by City ordinance or Council policy. 10
5. Council Conduct with Boards and Commissions.
The City has established several Boards and Commissions as a means of gathering more community input. Citizens who serve on Boards and Commissions become more involved in government and serve as advisors to the City Council. They are a valuable resource to the City’s leadership and should be treated with appreciation and respect.
If attending a Board or Commission meeting, be careful to only express personal opinions.
Councilmembers may attend any Board or Commission meeting, which are always open to any member of the public. However, they should be sensitive to the way their participation could be viewed as unfairly affecting the process, especially if the councilmember endorses a position, or if attendance is on behalf of an individual, business or developer. Any public comments by a Councilmember at a Board or Commission meeting should be clearly made as individual opinion and not a representation of the feelings of the entire City Council.
Limit contact with Board and Commission members to questions of clarification.
It is inappropriate for a Councilmember to contact a Board or Commission member to lobby on behalf of an individual, business, or developer, and vice versa. It is acceptable for Councilmembers to contact Board or Commission members in order to clarify a position taken by the Board or Commission.
Respect that Boards and Commissions serve the community, not individual Councilmembers.
The City Council appoints individuals to serve on Boards and Commissions, and it is the responsibility of Boards and Commissions to follow policy established by the Council. But Board and Commission members do not report to individual Councilmembers, nor should Councilmembers feel they have the power or right to threaten Board and Commission members with removal if they disagree about an issue. Appointment and re-appointment to a Board or Commission should be based on such criteria as expertise, ability to work with staff and the public, and commitment to fulfilling official duties. A Board or Commission appointment should not be used as a political "reward."
Be respectful of diverse opinions.
A primary role of Boards and Commissions is to represent many points of view in the community and to provide the Council with advice based on a full spectrum of concerns and perspectives.
Councilmembers may have a closer working relationship with some individuals serving on Boards and Commissions, but must be fair and respectful of all citizens serving on Boards and Commissions.
Keep political support away from public forums.
Board and Commission members may offer political support to a Councilmember, but not in a public forum while conducting official duties. Conversely, Councilmembers may support Board and Commission members who are running for office, but not in an official forum in their capacity as a Councilmember.
For ease of reference the term “member” refers to any member of the Vallejo City Council, City Manager, City Attorney or City Boards and Commissions established by City ordinance or Council policy. 11
6. Conduct with the Media.
Board and Commission members are not authorized to represent the City to media outlets (including broadcast, print, and social media sites) outside of official board/commission meetings unless specifically authorized to do so.
The Mayor is the official spokesperson for the City Council on City positions.
The Mayor is the designated representative of the City Council to present and speak on the official City position. If an individual Councilmember is contacted by the media, the Councilmember should be clear about whether their comments represent the official City position or a personal viewpoint.
Choose words carefully and cautiously.
Comments taken out of context can cause problems. Be especially cautious about humor, sardonic asides, sarcasm, or word play. It is never appropriate to use personal slurs or swear words when talking with the media.
COMPLIANCE
Acknowledgement of Code of Ethics and Conduct.
Members shall sign an acknowledgement that they have read and understand the Code of Ethics and Conduct.
Ethics Training for Local Officials.
The Mayor, Councilmembers, City Manager, City Attorney, Board and Commission Members who are out of compliance with State or City mandated requirements for ethics training shall not represent the City on intergovernmental assignments or Council subcommittees.
Primary and Additional Responsibility.
The Vallejo Code of Ethics and Conduct expresses standards of ethical conduct expected for members of the Vallejo City Council, Boards and Commissions. Members themselves have the primary responsibility to assure that ethical standards are understood and met, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government. The chairs of Boards and Commissions and the Mayor and City Council have the additional responsibility to intervene when actions of members that appear to be in violation of the Code of Ethics and Conduct are brought to their attention.
Violations.
City Council:
Individual Councilmembers should first point out perceived violations of the Vallejo Code of Ethics and Conduct directly to the member believed to be in violation. If the violation(s) continues, then the matter should be referred to the Mayor in private. If the Mayor is the
For ease of reference the term “member” refers to any member of the Vallejo City Council, City Manager, City Attorney or City Boards and Commissions established by City ordinance or Council policy. 12 individual whose actions are being questioned, then the matter should be referred to the Vice Mayor. It is the responsibility of the Mayor (or Vice Mayor) to initiate action if a member is not in compliance with the Code of Ethics and Conduct. If no action is taken by the Mayor (or Vice Mayor), then the alleged violation(s) can be brought up with the full City Council.
Board and Commission Members:
Whenever it is perceived that a Board and Commission member may have violated the Vallejo Code of Ethics and Conduct, such perception will be referred to both the Council Liaison and the City Manager. The Council liaison and the City Manager shall have a conversation with the Member who has allegedly violated this Code. In the event the Council Liaison determines that the conduct violates the Vallejo Code of Ethics and Conduct, the matter shall be either 1) discussed privately with the member or 2) discussed in a written warning issued by the Liaison to the Member alerting the Member to the applicable section of the Code of Conduct. Egregious or repeated violations may lead to additional sanctions as set forth below. Copies of written warnings shall be distributed to all Councilmembers, the City Manager, and the City Attorney.
Counseling, verbal reprimands and written warnings may be administered by the Mayor to Board and Commission members failing to comply with City policy. These lower levels of sanctions shall be kept private to the degree allowed by law. Copies of all written reprimands administered by the Mayor shall be distributed in memo format to the Chair of the respective Board or Commission, the City Clerk, the City Attorney, the City Manager, and the City Council.
The City Council may impose sanctions on Board and Commission members whose conduct does not comply with the City’s policies, up to and including removal from office. Any form of discipline imposed by Council shall be determined by a majority vote of at least a quorum of the Council at a noticed public meeting and such action shall be preceded by a Report to Council with supporting documentation.
When deemed warranted, the Mayor or majority of Council may call for an investigation of Board or Commission member conduct. Additionally, should the City Manager or City Attorney believe an investigation into a member’s conduct is warranted, they may refer the matter to the Mayor or City Council. The Mayor or City Council shall ask the City Manager or the City Attorney to investigate the allegation and report the findings.
Nothing in this Code of Ethics and Conduct shall limit what might otherwise be available to remedy conduct that violates City, state, or federal law. These sanctions are alternatives to any other remedy that might otherwise be available to remedy conduct that violates this code or state or federal law. In order to protect and preserve good government, any individual, including the City Manager and the City Attorney (after complying with Rule 3-600(B) of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct), who knows or reasonably believes that a member has acted or intends or refuses to act in a manner that is or may be a violation of law reasonably imputable to the organization, or in a manner which is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, may report the violation to the appropriate governmental authorities.
For ease of reference the term “member” refers to any member of the Vallejo City Council, City Manager, City Attorney or City Boards and Commissions established by City ordinance or Council policy. 13
IMPLEMENTATION
The Code of Ethics and Conduct is intended to be self-enforcing and is an expression of the standards of conduct for members expected by the City. It therefore becomes most effective when members are thoroughly familiar with it and embrace its provisions.
For this reason, this document shall be included in the annual trainings of the City Council Board and Commissions, and newly elected and appointed officials including the City Manager and the City Attorney. Members entering office shall sign a statement (example below) acknowledging they have read and understand the Code of Ethics and Conduct, and a copy of such statement shall be filed with the City Clerk. In addition, the Code of Ethics and Conduct shall be periodically reviewed by the City Council, and updated as necessary.
I affirm that I have read and understand the City of Vallejo Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials.
_____________________________________
Name
Date
March 4, 2024
State Controller Malia M. Cohen
300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1850
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: Requested Audit of the Mare Island Community Facilities Districts Dear Controller Cohen;
I have received a copy of a letter my constituents have submitted to you, requesting an audit of the Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) established on Mare Island, in the City of Vallejo, over 20 years ago.
According to their letter, the CFDs have never been independently audited outside of the required annual City audits, while during that time; the City has collected and expended tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money through the CFDs.
My constituents’ letter to you describes their concerns about the City’s administration of the CFDs, and their multiple attempts to resolve those concerns directly with the City, without any measurable success.
I make no judgment about the City of Vallejo’s actions or inaction regarding the Mare Island CFDs. I do request, however, that you lend your attention to the concerns they have raised in their letter to you, and determine whether an audit by your office is in order.
Thanks for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Bill Dodd
Senator, District 3
ACTION ITEM 9.A.
DATE: May 26, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Kristin Pollot, AICP - Planning and Development Director Cesar Orozco, Planning Manager- Current Development
SUBJECT: HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND (1) ADOPT A RESOLUTION
APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FAIRVIEW AT
NORTHGATE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EIR) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15162 AND 15164; (2) INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FAIRVIEW AT NORTHGATE MASTER PLAN (PD24-0002) TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FROM 178 TO 245 AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP (PLN25-0110) TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT
FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF ADMIRAL
CALLAGHAN LANE AND TURNER PARKWAY FROM REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (APNs: 0069-048-040, -050) AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RMD) (APN: 0069- 048-030) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD); AND (3) ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT (TM24-0002), DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DVR24-0021), DESIGN REVIEW (DR24-0008), AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW (LR24-0015) FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAIRVIEW AT
NORTHGATE PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing to consider and:
I. Adopt a resolution approving an addendum to the previously certified Fairview at Northgate Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15164; II. Introduce an ordinance approving an amendment to the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan (PD24- 0002) to increase the number of residential dwellings from 178 to 245 units, and amending the Zoning Map (PLN25-0110) to change the zoning district for the vacant property on the southeast corner of Admiral Callaghan Lane and Turner Parkway from Regional Commercial (APN: 0069-048-040, -050) and Residential Medium Density (APN:0069-048-030) to Planned Development (PD); and III. Adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the Vesting Tentative Map (TM24-0002), Development Review (DVR24-0021), Design Review (DR24-0008) and Landscape Review (LR24-0015), for the Development of the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan, subject to conditions of approval.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider an addendum to the certified EIR and approve an amendment to the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan, amendment to the Zoning District, amendment to the Vesting Tentative Map, Development Review, Design Review and Landscape Review (collectively known as the “Project”). The addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Section
Date: May 26, 2026
Subject: HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND (1) ADOPT A RESOLUTION
APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FAIRVIEW AT
NORTHGATE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EIR) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15162 AND 15164; (2) INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FAIRVIEW AT NORTHGATE MASTER PLAN (PD24-0002) TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FROM 178 TO 245 AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP (PLN25-0110) TO CHANGE THE ZONING
DISTRICT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF
ADMIRAL CALLAGHAN LANE AND TURNER PARKWAY FROM REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (APNs: 0069-048-040, -050) AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RMD) (APN: 0069-048-030) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD); AND (3) ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT (TM24- 0002), DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DVR24-0021), DESIGN REVIEW (DR24-0008), AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW (LR24-0015) FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAIRVIEW AT
NORTHGATE PROJECT
21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164), the project implements the City of Vallejo General Plan (“General Plan”), and the project meets all required findings under the Vallejo Municipal Code (VMC).
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On April 9, 2020, the Vallejo City Council adopted a Zoning Map Amendment, Planned Development, and Vesting Tentative Map to rezone the subject site from Pedestrian Shopping and Service (CP) to Mixed-Use Planned Development for a mixed-use project known as the “Fairview at Northgate Master Plan” (“Planned Development”). The site is a vacant 51.3-acre (2,234,628-square-foot) parcel located off Admiral Callaghan Lane and Turner Parkway in northeast Vallejo. The main components of the approved project included: a 152,138-square-foot Costco store with a tire center, gasoline sales, and 774 surface parking spaces; a commercial center with four buildings totaling 27,500 square feet, including a drive-through restaurant and 188 surface parking spaces; 178 two-story single-family dwellings; a central open space buffer including protected wetlands between the commercial and residential portions of the project; and the widening of Admiral Callaghan Lane from two to four lanes, including a new traffic signal at the main Costco driveway.
Fairview Residential Developers, LP, the applicant, applied for an amendment to the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan, amendment to the Vesting Tentative Map, Development Review, Design Review and Landscape Review for the increase in residential dwelling units from 178 to 245 units for the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan. Additionally, the project includes a rezoning of the subject property from Regional Commercial and Residential Medium Density, back to Planned Development. The revised proposal includes 119 detached single-family residences and 126 cluster-type detached residences (i.e. bungalows). To facilitate the proposed amendments, the revised Vesting Tentative Map would subdivide the vacant 23.19-acre parcel within the eastern half of the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan, into a total of 168 parcels to accommodate the increase in units. Of the 168 parcels proposed, 119 would be dedicated to detached single-family residences, 42 would be dedicated to the cluster-type of homes (which would incorporate a condominium map for air-space rights for each unit), three will be for private alleys, one for a central neighborhood park and one for the linear park and bio-retention basin on the western edge of the subdivision (see Figure 2).
The 119 detached single-family residences are proposed to be developed with three different floor plans dispersed throughout the subdivision, each offering three different exterior palettes that depict a 'Wine Country Agrarian' architectural style. The floor plans range in size from 2,241 to 2,350 square feet, with an overall average building height of approximately 27 feet. Floor Plan 1 includes four bedrooms and two and a half
Date: May 26, 2026
Subject: HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND (1) ADOPT A RESOLUTION
APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FAIRVIEW AT
NORTHGATE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EIR) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15162 AND 15164; (2) INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FAIRVIEW AT NORTHGATE MASTER PLAN (PD24-0002) TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FROM 178 TO 245 AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP (PLN25-0110) TO CHANGE THE ZONING
DISTRICT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF
ADMIRAL CALLAGHAN LANE AND TURNER PARKWAY FROM REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (APNs: 0069-048-040, -050) AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RMD) (APN: 0069-048-030) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD); AND (3) ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT (TM24- 0002), DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DVR24-0021), DESIGN REVIEW (DR24-0008), AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW (LR24-0015) FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAIRVIEW AT
NORTHGATE PROJECT
bathrooms, with the option to convert one of the bedrooms into a loft. Floor Plan 2 offers five bedrooms and four bathrooms, while Floor Plan 3 provides four bedrooms and three bathrooms. Each floor plan includes an attached two-car garage and additional off-street parking on the driveway.
The 126 cluster-type single-family detached homes would be located in the central portions of the site. Each lot is proposed to contain three units: two detached units in the front half of the lot with direct pedestrian access to a new street, and the third unit located above three two-car garages facing private alleys. Between the three buildings, a common open paseo would be shared by the units. The cluster-style homes would be offered in three different floor plans, ranging from 1,590 to 1,699 square feet, with building heights ranging from approximately 24 feet to 28 feet. Floor Plan 1 features three bedrooms and two bathrooms, while Floor Plans 2 and 3 each offer four bedrooms and three bathrooms. Floor Plan 1 units would be located above the three two-car garages, which would have direct access from a private alley. In addition to the residential units, the proposed subdivision includes new streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, lighting, and amenities such as a neighborhood park, a linear park, and a dog park. New landscaping, including street trees, shrubs, and ground cover, are also proposed for installation within all front yards.
The project plans can be viewed as Exhibit E of the attached Resolution, titled “Resolution Adopting Project.” Please note that the plan set has not been changed or revised since the Planning Commission hearing.
Development Entitlements
The following development entitlements have been requested for the project:
• CEQA Determination: Consideration and approval of an Addendum to the previously certified EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15162 and 15164;
• Amendment of the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan: Amend the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan to modify the residential development standards to increase the residential dwelling units from 178 to 245 units;
• Amendment of the Zoning Map: Amend the Zoning Map to change the Zoning District for the project site from Regional Commercial (RC) and Residential Medium Density (RMD), back to Planned Development;
• Amendment of the Vesting Tentative Map: Amend the previously approved Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide the vacant 23.19-acre parcel into a total of 168 new parcels. Of the 168 parcels, 119 would be dedicated to detached single-family residences, 42 would be dedicated to the cluster-type of homes
Date: May 26, 2026
Subject: HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND (1) ADOPT A RESOLUTION
APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FAIRVIEW AT
NORTHGATE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EIR) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15162 AND 15164; (2) INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FAIRVIEW AT NORTHGATE MASTER PLAN (PD24-0002) TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FROM 178 TO 245 AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP (PLN25-0110) TO CHANGE THE ZONING
DISTRICT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF
ADMIRAL CALLAGHAN LANE AND TURNER PARKWAY FROM REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (APNs: 0069-048-040, -050) AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RMD) (APN: 0069-048-030) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD); AND (3) ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT (TM24- 0002), DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DVR24-0021), DESIGN REVIEW (DR24-0008), AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW (LR24-0015) FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAIRVIEW AT
NORTHGATE PROJECT
(which will incorporate a condominium map for air-space rights for each unit), three would be for private alleys, one for a central neighborhood park and one for the linear park and bio-retention basin; • Development Review: Site review of the new development proposal for the 245 residential dwelling units and associated infrastructure;
• Design Review: Approval of the project’s site design aspects including site design and building architecture; and
• Landscape Review: Approval of the associated landscaping for the front yards of the single-family residential units and elsewhere throughout the subdivision.
The project and its associated entitlements were reviewed against applicable policies and actions of the City of Vallejo General Plan 2040, applicable submittal requirements for an amendment to the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan, amendment of the Vesting Tentative Map, amendment of the Zoning Map, Development Review, Design Review and Landscape Review, and required findings for approvals specified in Title 16: Zoning, of the Vallejo Municipal Code. In all instances, the project and its associated entitlements were found to be consistent with the applicable policies, actions, standards and findings. Therefore, staff is recommending the City Council consider approving an Addendum to the previously certified EIR, as well as all requested entitlements for the project, as conditioned.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On April 20, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and reviewed the project, environmental review, and subsequently voted 5-0, with one absence, recommending the City Council of the full project, as presented. The Planning Commission staff report associated with that action, is attached as Attachment 17 (and available here: April 20, 2026 PC Staff Report), the resolutions recommending approval are also available here: PC26-08 Resolution and PC26-09 Resolution, and the meeting minutes are available here: April 20, 2026 – Meeting Minutes.
Staff Analysis
The Planning Commission staff report, incorporated herein by reference, includes an analysis of the project’s consistency with the General Plan 2040 and Vallejo Municipal, including Title 16: Zoning. Hyperlinks to the staff report and meeting minutes are included in the preceding sections above and are also attached to this staff report. Additionally, video (with audio) for the April 20, 2026 Planning Commission hearing is available here: https://www.youtube.com/live/1R_4R7h4fPc?si=sRyBCzZUHS0LrVHB
Date: May 26, 2026
Subject: HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND (1) ADOPT A RESOLUTION
APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FAIRVIEW AT
NORTHGATE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EIR) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15162 AND 15164; (2) INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FAIRVIEW AT NORTHGATE MASTER PLAN (PD24-0002) TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FROM 178 TO 245 AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP (PLN25-0110) TO CHANGE THE ZONING
DISTRICT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF
ADMIRAL CALLAGHAN LANE AND TURNER PARKWAY FROM REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (APNs: 0069-048-040, -050) AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RMD) (APN: 0069-048-030) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD); AND (3) ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT (TM24- 0002), DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DVR24-0021), DESIGN REVIEW (DR24-0008), AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW (LR24-0015) FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAIRVIEW AT
NORTHGATE PROJECT
Public Notice
On May 5, 2026, pursuant to VMC Section 16.602.08, notice of this hearing was published as 1/8 advertisement display in the Times Herald, mailed to all active neighborhood groups, all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, the Vallejo Unified School District, local agencies expected to provide water, wastewater treatment, and/or other essential facilities or services to the project, the property owner’s, the applicant, and electronically sent to the members of the City Council, Planning Commission and any other interested parties. Additionally, a notice for the hearing was posted at the site at three different locations.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project application is subject to the City of Vallejo Master Fee schedule, and the applicant is covering the cost of the entitlements required to process the project. The project, if approved and constructed, would result in the creation and assessment of new residential parcels, resulting in an increase of property taxes.
Additionally, prior to issuance of building permits, building permit fees, development impact fees, school district impact fees and Greater Vallejo Recreational District Impact fees will be collected.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City retained LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) to prepare an addendum to the existing certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was prepared for the 2020 approval of the Fairview at Northgate Project EIR (State Clearing House [SCH] #2018102007) to evaluate whether the proposed changes to the Zoning Map and Amendment to the Planned Development would result in any new or substantially more adverse significant effects or require new mitigation measures not identified in the Fairview at Northgate Project EIR.
The addendum prepared by LSA is included as Exhibit A to the recommended resolution for Environmental Review. Given the analysis contained in the addendum, development of the proposed project would not cause any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects that were not previously examined in the Certified EIR and would not require any new mitigation measures. Therefore, no further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Section 15162 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Date: May 26, 2026
Subject: HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND (1) ADOPT A RESOLUTION
APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FAIRVIEW AT
NORTHGATE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EIR) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15162 AND 15164; (2) INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FAIRVIEW AT NORTHGATE MASTER PLAN (PD24-0002) TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FROM 178 TO 245 AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP (PLN25-0110) TO CHANGE THE ZONING
DISTRICT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF
ADMIRAL CALLAGHAN LANE AND TURNER PARKWAY FROM REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (APNs: 0069-048-040, -050) AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RMD) (APN: 0069-048-030) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD); AND (3) ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT (TM24- 0002), DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DVR24-0021), DESIGN REVIEW (DR24-0008), AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW (LR24-0015) FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAIRVIEW AT
NORTHGATE PROJECT
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended Resolution - For CEQA_CAO Stamp
2. Exhibit A - Addendum to the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan EIR
3. Appendix A to Addendum - Emissions Analysis Memorandum
4. Appendix B to Addendum - Trip Generation Memorandum
5. Appendix C to Addendum- Sewer Flow and Water Demand Analysis Memorandum
6. Recommended Resolution - For Project_CAO Stamp
7. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
8. Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval from June 9, 2020
9. Exhibit C - General Plan Consistency
10. Exhibit D - Planned Development Consistency
11. Exhibit E - Amended Vesting Tentative Map and Floor Plans - Dated December 2025
12. Ordinance Amending the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan and Zoning Map_CAO Stamp
13. Exhibit A - Amended Fairview at Northgate Master Plan
14. Exhibit B - General Plan Consistency
15. Exhibit C - Amended Fairview at Northgate Master Plan Project Plans
16. Exhibit D - Zoning Map Amendment
17. April 20, 2026 - PC Staff Report
CONTACT
Cesar Orozco, Planning Manager - Current Development
(707) 648-5436
[email protected]
RESOLUTION NO. 26-XX N.C.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO APPROVING AN
ADDENDUM TO THE FAIRVIEW AT NORTHGATE PROJECT CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (“CERTIFIED EIR”) IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND
ADOPTING FINDINGS RELATING THERETO
APNs: 0069-048-030, -040, & -050
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2017, the City Council adopted General Plan 2040 and Certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2020, the City of Vallejo City Council adopted Resolution No. 20- 065 N.C certifying an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (State Clearing House [SCH]# 2018102007) for the Fairview at Northgate Project and approved a Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA17-0001), Vesting Tentative Map (TM17-002), Planned Development (PD17-0007) and Use Permit (UP18-0007) to approve the mixed-use project located on a single vacant 51.29-acre parcel at Admiral Callaghan Lane and Turner Parkway (the “Subject Property”) known as the “Fairview at Northgate Master Plan” (“Planned Development”); and
WHEREAS, the main components of the 2020 Planned Development include a 152,138- square-foot Costco store with a tire center, gasoline sales, and 774 surface parking spaces; a commercial center with four buildings totaling 27,500 square feet, including a drive-through restaurant and 188 surface parking spaces; 178 two-story single-family dwellings; a central open space buffer including protected wetlands between the commercial and residential portions of the project; and the widening of Admiral Callaghan Lane from two to four lanes, including a new traffic signal at the main Costco driveway; and
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, the City Council adopted a new Zoning Code and Zoning Map and inadvertently rezoned the Subject Property from Planned Development (PD) to regional commercial (RC) and residential medium density (RMD); and WHEREAS, the subject property has a current General Plan land use designation of Mix of Housing Typer/Medium Density (R-MH); and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2023, a Final Map was recorded with Solano County subdividing the 51.29-acre parcel into three parcels and assigning the new Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0069-480-030, 0069-480-040, and 0069-480-050 to the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, on June 5, 2024, the applicant formally applied for a Vesting Tentative Map Amendment (TM24-0002), Development Review (DVR24-0021), Design Review (DR24- 0008), and Planned Development Amendment (PD24-0002) to amend the Fairview at
2 Northgate Planned Development Master Plan to increase the residential component of the project from 178-units to 245-units; and
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, after multiple rounds of review, the application was determined to be complete; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2025, the City retained LSA to prepare an Addendum to the Fairview at Northgate Project Certified EIR to analyze the potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project. The Addendum, dated August 2025, and entitled “Addendum to the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan EIR,” was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. The Addendum is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the City processed an application for a Zoning Map Amendment (PLN25- 0110) to correct the inadvertent zoning error. The Zoning Map Amendment and the entitlements described in the recitals above are collectively referred to as the “Project”; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2026, after giving public notices required by State Law and the City of Vallejo Municipal Code, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and voted 5-0, with one absence, to adopt Resolution No. PC26-08, recommending approval of an Addendum to the Fairview at Northgate Certified Environmental Impact Report to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2026, pursuant to Vallejo Municipal Code Section 16.602.08, notice of this hearing was published as a 1/8-advertisment display in the Times Herald and mailed to all active neighborhood groups and property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, the property owners, the Vallejo City United School district and all other local agencies expected to provide water, wastewater treatment, or other essential facilities or services to the Project and electronically mailed to the members of the City Council and Planning Commission, and to applicant and interested parties.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 26, 2026, to consider and receive testimony on the environmental review determination pursuant to CEQA prior to taking action on the Project and its associated development entitlements and introduction of an ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1. Recitals
The foregoing recitals are true and correct, and the same are incorporated herein by reference.
3 Section 2. Record
The Record of Proceedings ("Record") upon which the City Council bases its recommendation includes but is not limited to: (1) the Addendum to the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan EIR; (2) the staff reports, City files and records and other documents prepared for and/or submitted to the City relating to the Addendum and the Project’s other entitlements; (3) the application, including all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted to the City in connection with the Project; (4) the evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this resolution; (5) Vallejo General Plan 2040 and its certified final Environmental Impact Report (“GP EIR”); (6) the 2021 Zoning Code and its Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; (5) the Vallejo 2023-2031 Housing Element and the Addendum to the GP EIR; (7) the Vallejo Municipal Code; (8) all documentary and oral evidence received at public meetings, hearings, or submitted to the City during the comment period relating to the Project; and (9) all other matters of common knowledge to the City Council including, but not limited to, City state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records, and projections related to development within the City of Vallejo and its surrounding areas.
The location and custodian of the records is the City Clerk’s office located on the third floor of the City of Vallejo, 555 Santa Clara Street, Vallejo, California 94590.
Section 3. Certified EIR and Addendum Considered
Based upon the Record as a whole, and all other matters deemed material and relevant prior to adopting this resolution, the City Council hereby approves an Addendum to the Fairview at Northgate EIR based on the following:
a. The proposed Addendum was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164); and
b. The City Council considered the Fairview at Northgate Project Certified EIR and its Addendum in relation to the other Project entitlements; and c. The Addendum reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis as Lead Agency.
Section 4. California Environmental Quality Act Findings The City Council find that none of the circumstances set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present with respect to the Project and no further environmental review is required based on the following findings:
1. The Project does not represent a substantial change to the project analyzed in the Fairview at Northgate Project Certified EIR and does not require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; Facts in Support: Based on the information and analysis set forth in Chapter 4.0 of the Addendum, development of the proposed project would not cause any new or
4 substantially more severe significant environmental effects related to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, utilities and service systems, or wildfire that were not previously examined in the Certified EIR and would not require any additional mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Certified EIR.
2. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Facts in Support: The circumstances under which the proposed Project would occur are not changed from what was assumed in the Fairview at Northgate Project EIR, nor does the proposed Project result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts, as demonstrated in the Environmental Checklist in Chapter 4.0 of the Addendum. No notable circumstances pertaining to the Project site or its surroundings have occurred since the Fairview at Northgate EIR analysis was prepared. While updates and changes have occurred to certain CEQA criteria, thresholds, and/or analysis approaches as a result of amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, caselaw, or other regulations or adopted standards and/or guidance, these are disclosed in the Checklist for public information and discussed to clarify that none are considered changed circumstances for purposes of this Section.
3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Fairview at Northgate EIR was adopted, shows any of the following:
A. The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Fairview at Northgate Certified EIR;
Facts in Support: The Fairview at Northgate Project Certified EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts for air quality, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation.
GHG Emissions
Because the proposed Project would develop the project site at a similar intensity as the 2020 approved project, construction emissions are expected to be similar to the 2020 approved project (approximately 4,004 MT CO2e over the construction period). Operational emissions would primarily come from energy consumption, vehicle traffic, solid waste generation, water and wastewater services, and vegetation land use change. The proposed project would result in slightly increased emissions, however, the net increase in emissions would not be substantial and there would be no new significant impacts. Further, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-12, consistent with the 2020 approved project. With implementation of mitigation, including Mitigation Measure GHG-12, which requires the purchase of GHG carbon credits and/or offsets to reduce any remaining emissions below the applicable Air District thresholds, operational emissions would be reduced to below the Air District’s
5 efficiency threshold of 4.05 MT CO2e, similar to the 2020 approved project.
Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measures, GHG emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Noise
Development of the proposed project would not cause any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects related to noise that were not previously examined in the Certified EIR and would not require any additional mitigation measure beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. Certified EIR Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Construction Noise, as provided in Table 5.A in Chapter 5.0 of the Addendum, would remain applicable to the proposed project, and would ensure that impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant.
Transportation/Traffic
Development of the proposed project would not cause any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects related to transportation or traffic that were not previously examined in the Certified EIR and would not require any additional mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Certified EIR.
Certified EIR Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-4, as provided in Table 5.A in Chapter 5.0, Mitigation Measures of the Addendum. would remain applicable to the proposed project and would address impacts related to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system.
However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of these mitigation measures, similar to the 2020 approved project. Impacts related to transportation and traffic would not increase the severity of the significant and unavoidable impacts and no new impact would occur. All other impacts related to transportation would remain less than significant, as identified in the Certified EIR.
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Fairview at Northgate Certified EIR;
Facts in Support: As discussed above, the development would not cause any significant effects previously examined in the Fairview at Northgate Certified EIR to be more severe than shown in the Fairview at Northgate Certified EIR.
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
Facts in Support: There is no new information of substantial importance has been identified that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence, at the time the Fairview at Northgate EIR was certified. Specifically, no new information demonstrates that mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant environmental effects, and that the project proponents have declined to adopt such measures or alternatives. Accordingly, this circumstance requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR has not occurred. This conclusion is supported by the analysis contained in the Addendum and the administrative
6 record, which confirm that previously rejected mitigation measures and alternatives remain infeasible or would not result in substantially greater impact reduction than those already adopted.
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Facts in Support: There is no new information of substantial importance that has been identified that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Fairview at Northgate EIR was certified. In particular, no new information demonstrates that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the prior EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant environmental effects, and that the project proponents have declined to adopt such measures or alternatives. Accordingly, this circumstance requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR has not occurred. This finding is supported by the analysis in the Addendum, which confirm that the project does not involve new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives beyond those previously evaluated that would substantially lessen significant impacts.
Section 5. Indemnity and Tim Limitations
a. The Applicant, property owner and any successor(s) in interest, whether in whole or in part, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, attorneys, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought against the City or its agents, officers, attorneys, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the decision(s) at issue herein. This indemnification shall include damages or fees awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action whether incurred by the Applicant, the City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such action. b. The Applicant, property owner and any successor(s) in interest, whether in whole or in part, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, employees, and attorneys for all costs incurred in additional investigation of or study of, or for supplementing, preparing, redrafting, revising, or amending any document, if made necessary by said legal action and the Applicant, property owner, and/or any successor in interest desires to pursue securing such approvals, after initiation of such litigation, which are conditioned on the approval of such documents in a form and under conditions approved by the City Attorney. c. In the event that a claim, action, or proceeding described above is brought, the City shall promptly notify the Applicant, property owner, and/or any successor(s) in interest of the existence of the claim, action, or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding; the City shall retain the right to (i) approve the counsel to so defend the City, (ii) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted, and (iii) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City shall also have the right not to participate in said defense, except that the City agrees to cooperate with the Applicant, property owner, and/or any successor(s) in interest in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding. If the City chooses to have counsel of its own to
7 defend any claim, action, or proceeding where the developer has already retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the Applicant, property owner and/or any successor(s) in interest.
d. The Applicant, property owner and any successor(s) in interest, whether in whole or in part, indemnifies the City for all the City’s costs, fees, and damages which the City incurs in enforcing the above indemnification provisions. e. Unless a shorter limitation period applies, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6. e. The conditions of Project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), the conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun.
If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO at a regular meeting held on May 26, 2026, with the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
ANDREA SOURCE, MAYOR
Attest:
___________________________________
DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON, CITY CLERK
Exhibits:
A. Addendum to the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan EIR a. Appendix A – Emissions Analysis
b. Appendix B – Traffic Memo
c. Appendix C – Sewer Flow and Water Demand
August 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E
M A S T E R P L A N E I R
FAIRVIEW AT NORTHGATE PROJECT
VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
This page intentionally left blank
August 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E
M A S T E R P L A N E I R
FAIRVIEW AT NORTHGATE PROJECT
VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
Cesar Orozco, Planning Manager – Current Development
City of Vallejo
Planning and Development Services
555 Santa Clara Street
Vallejo, California 94590
Prepared by:
LSA
157 Park Place
Pt. Richmond, California 94801
(510) 236-6810
Project No. 20242122
This page intentionally left blank
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................................. ii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................................ iii
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION................................................................................... 1-1
2.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Purpose of State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 Consistency Analysis ........................2-1
2.2 Previous CEQA Review ......................................................................................................2-2
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Project Site ........................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Fairview at Northgate Master Plan (2020 Approved Project) ..........................................3-7
3.3 Proposed Project...............................................................................................................3-8
3.4 Project Approvals............................................................................................................3-16
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ........................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..................................................................................4-4
4.3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................4-6
4.4 Biological Resources........................................................................................................4-12
4.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................4-16
4.6 Energy Conservation .......................................................................................................4-19
4.7 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................4-21
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................................................4-25
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................4-28
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .........................................................................................4-33
4.11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................4-38
4.12 Mineral Resources...........................................................................................................4-41
4.13 Noise................................................................................................................................4-42
4.14 Population and Housing ..................................................................................................4-45
4.15 Public Services.................................................................................................................4-47
4.16 Recreation .......................................................................................................................4-49
4.17 Transportation/Traffic.....................................................................................................4-51
4.18 Utilities and Service Systems...........................................................................................4-54
4.19 Wildfire............................................................................................................................4-58
5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 REPORT PREPARERS ......................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 LSA Associates, Inc. ...........................................................................................................6-1
7.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 7-1
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) ii
APPENDICES
A: EMISSIONS ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM
B: TRIP GENERATION MEMORANDUM
C: SEWER FLOW AND WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) iii
FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 3-1: Regional Location and Project Vicinity..............................................................................3-3 Figure 3-2: Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses...........................................................................3-5 Figure 3-3: Approved Large Lot Subdivision......................................................................................3-11 Figure 3-4: Proposed Vesting Tentative Map....................................................................................3-13 TABLES
Table 3.A: Comparison of the 2020 Approved Project and Proposed Project Components ..............3-9 Table 3.B: Potential Permits and Approvals......................................................................................3-16 Table 5.A: Summary of Impacts and Applicable Mitigation Measures ...............................................5-2
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
2020 approved project Fairview at Northgate Master Plan AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
Air District Bay Area Air District
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
BACT Best Available Control Technology
Basin Plan San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan BMPs best management practices
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CBSC California Building Standards Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
Certified EIR EIR prepared for the 2020 approved project (SCH #2018102007) City City of Vallejo
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
County Solano County
dBA A-weighted decibel
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) v DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FAR floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
HCP Solano Habitat Conservation Plan
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
I-80 Interstate 80
kWh kilowatt hour
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
LID Low Impact Development
LOS level of service
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MRP Municipal Regional Permit
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MT CO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
NOE Notice of Exemption
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx nitrogen oxide
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
vi P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) NSR New Source Review
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PPV peak particle velocity
proposed project Fairview at Northgate Project
R-MH Mix of Housing Types/Medium Density
RC Regional Commercial
RE Retail/Entertainment
RECs recognized environmental conditions
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RMD Residential Medium Density
ROG reactive organic gases
RPS California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard
RWQCB San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bill
SCH State Clearinghouse
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SPPS Sears Point Pump Station
SPSF Sears Point Storage Facility
SR-37 State Route 37
STA Solano Transportation Authority
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) vii SWQP Storm Water Quality Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TDM Transportation Demand Management
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VCUSD Vallejo City Unified School District
VFWD Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WOTUS waters of the United States
WDID Waste Discharge Identification Number
WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 1-1
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title:
Fairview at Northgate Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Vallejo
Planning and Development Services
555 Santa Clara Street
Vallejo, California 94590
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Cesar Orozco, Planning Manager – Current Development
Phone: (707) 648-5436
[email protected]
4. Project Location:
The approximately 51.3-acre project site consists of one parcel located southeast of Admiral Callaghan Lane and Turner Parkway in the City of Vallejo, Solano County (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APN] 0081-490-0101). The project site is bounded by Turner Parkway to the north, Admiral Callaghan Lane to the west, tracts of single-family residential development in the Hunter Ranch neighborhood to the east, and multi-family residential in the Quail Ridge Condominiums, single-family residential, and additional commercial uses to the south.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Fairview Residential Development, LP
9216 Kiefer Boulevard
Sacramento, CA 95826
6. General Plan Designation:
Retail/Entertainment (RE), Mix of Housing Types/Medium Density (R-MH)
7. Zoning:
Regional Commercial (RC), Residential Medium Density (RMD)
8. Project Description:
Since approval of the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan (2020 approved project) and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the 2020 approved project (State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2018102007) (Certified EIR), the project applicant has requested to modify the 2020 approved project. The proposed project would increase the residential component of the 2020 approved project on the same 23.8-acre portion of the 1 After certification of the Certified EIR and approval of the 2020 approved project, a parcel map was recorded to subdivide the 51.16-acre parcel into three parcels, resulting in new APNs for each parcel.
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
1 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -2 project site from 178 single-family residences to 245 units, with 119 detached single-family residences and 126 cluster type single-family detached homes (i.e., bungalows). Additionally, the proposed project would remove one of the four commercial buildings, reducing the retail square footage by approximately 9,195 square feet.
In 2021, the City inadvertently amended the City’s Zoning Map to designate the project site as RC and RMD as part of the Zoning Code update. As such, the proposed project includes a zone change to restore the Planned Development (PD) zoning designation, as was identified in the Certified EIR.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site is generally surrounded by existing development, including single-family residential uses associated with the Hunter Ranch neighborhood to the east; multi-family residential uses associated with the Quail Ridge Condominiums, single-family residential uses, and commercial uses to the south; and commercial uses to the north. Admiral Callaghan Lane and the Interstate 80 (I-80) freeway corridor are located directly west of the project site, followed by commercial and multi-family residential uses associated with the Fairground Drive Apartments and Newell Mobile City (a mobile home community). The Solano County Fairgrounds, Six Flags Discovery Kingdom, Dan Foley Park, and Lake Chabot are located northwest of the project site, west of I-80. Refer to Figure 3-2 (provided in Chapter 3.0, Project Description).
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financial approval, or participation agreements):
In addition to project approvals from the City of Vallejo, the proposed project would require approval from the Vallejo Water Department for connection to the water system, the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District for connection to the wastewater conveyance system, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for permits related to stormwater discharge and wetland, and Pacific Gas and Electric for connection of electricity and natural gas service.
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 2-1
2.0 INTRODUCTION
This evaluation compares the potential environmental effects of the proposed Fairview at Northgate Project (proposed project) with the scope of analysis and identified environmental impacts in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan (2020 approved project), which was certified by the City of Vallejo (City) on April 9, 2020 (Certified EIR). 2 The purpose of this analysis, referred to herein as an Addendum to the Certified EIR (Addendum) is to determine whether the project: (a) falls within the scope of the Certified EIR; (b) is consistent with the findings of the Certified EIR; and (c) would result in any potential impacts during project construction or operation that were not previously analyzed in the Certified EIR or that are unique or peculiar to the project site. This evaluation has been prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164. As discussed in Chapter 4.0 of this document and further explained in Chapters 5.0 and 6.0, the proposed project is consistent with the Certified EIR and no new or more severe impacts would result.
2.1 PURPOSE OF STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15162 CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The Certified EIR evaluated the potential environmental impacts anticipated to result from implementation of the Northgate at Fairview Master Plan. The City is the Lead Agency for environmental review.
This Addendum is prepared pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration). As outlined in Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency must prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Section 15162 states that “no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines … one or more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
2 City of Vallejo. 2020. Fairview at Northgate Draft Environmental Impact Report. April 9.
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
2 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -2 b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.”
2.2 PREVIOUS CEQA REVIEW
This evaluation compares the potential environmental effects of the proposed Fairview at Northgate Project (proposed project) with the scope of analysis and identified environmental impacts in the program-level Certified EIR for the approved Fairview at Northgate Master Plan, certified in April 2020 by the City of Vallejo. In addition, this evaluation incorporates the Certified EIR mitigation measures as applicable (see Chapter 5.0). Where applicable, the text indicates whether Certified EIR mitigation measures are superseded by City of Vallejo Conditions of Approval or Best Management Practices as outlined in the City’s Municipal Code.
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 3-1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following describes the proposed Fairview at Northgate Project (proposed project) that is the subject of this Addendum to the certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan (State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2018102007) (Certified EIR). This Addendum was prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The proposed project includes modifications to the Fairview at Northgate Master Plan that was evaluated in the Certified EIR, as described in more detail below. In addition, the proposed project includes a zone change from RC and RMD to PD to correct the erroneous rezoning in 2021. The City of Vallejo (City) is the Lead Agency for review of the proposed project under CEQA.
3.1 PROJECT SITE
The following section describes the project location, existing conditions, surrounding land uses, and the regulatory setting.
3.1.1 Project Location
The approximately 51.3-acre project site consists of one parcel located southeast of Admiral Callaghan Lane and Turner Parkway in the City of Vallejo, Solano County (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 0081-490-010). The project site is bounded by Turner Parkway to the north, Admiral Callaghan Lane to the west, tracts of single-family residential development in the Hunter Ranch neighborhood to the east, and multi-family residential in the Quail Ridge Condominiums, singlefamily residential, and additional commercial uses to the south. Interstate 80 (I-80) freeway is located immediately adjacent to the west of Admiral Callaghan Lane. Regional access to the project site is provided via I-80. Locally, the project site is accessed by Admiral Callaghan Lane and Turner Parkway. Figure 3-1 shows the regional and local context of the project site. Figure 3-2 depicts an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding land uses.
3.1.2 Existing Conditions
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The topography of the project site varies, with the eastern portion of the project site relatively flat and the western portion slightly elevated near Admiral Callaghan Lane. The project site generally consists of non-native annual grassland and scattered mature trees, which primarily line Turner Parkway on the northern project site boundary and the single-family residences on the eastern and southern project site boundaries. A seasonal wetland traverses the site flowing from south to north and ultimately drains into an existing 54-inch storm drain that conveys storm water from the project site underneath Turner Parkway. An existing Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) gas pipeline and 15-foot-wide easement traverses the western portion of the project site, and an existing Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District (VFWD) sewer main and 15-foot-wide easement traverses the central portion of the project site.
3.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses
As shown on Figure 3-2, the project site is generally surrounded by existing development, including single-family residential uses associated with the Hunter Ranch neighborhood to the east; multiPage 1131 of 1722
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
3 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -2 family residential uses associated with the Quail Ridge Condominiums, single-family residential uses, and commercial uses to the south; and commercial uses to the north. Admiral Callaghan Lane and the I-80 freeway corridor are located directly west of the project site, followed by commercial and multi-family residential uses associated with the Fairground Drive Apartments and Newell Mobile City (a mobile home community). The Solano County Fairgrounds, Six Flags Discovery Kingdom, Dan Foley Park, and Lake Chabot are located northwest of the project site, west of I-80.
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
3 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -4 This page intentionally left blank
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
3 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -6 This page intentionally left blank
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 3-7
3.1.4 Regulatory Setting
The City of Vallejo General Plan 2040 Land Use Map3 designates the western portion of the project site as Retail/Entertainment (RE), and the central and eastern portions of the project site as Mix of Housing Types/Medium Density (R-MH). The RE designation provides for general retail, services, and entertainment for local residents as well as consumers and visitors from the wider region. Permitted land uses include shopping centers, auto sales, amusement parks, hotels, restaurants, service stations, marine-related operations, offices, general retail, personal and business services, and similar commercial uses. The maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR) in the RE designation is 1.5.
The R-MH applies to residential neighborhoods largely characterized either by (1) single-family homes but with a mix of other housing types, including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, some smaller scale apartment buildings and small commercial spaces; or (2) primarily single-use, multi-family developments with common outdoor spaces may be appropriate where they can be visually integrated into the existing neighborhood context. Permitted land uses include single-family homes; in some instances, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, smaller scale apartment buildings, and small commercial spaces; and public facilities such as schools, religious institutions, parks, and other community facilities appropriate within a residential neighborhood. The maximum permitted residential density in the R-MH designation is 25 dwelling units per acre.
The City of Vallejo Zoning Map4identifies the western portion of the project site as Regional Commercial (RC), and the central and eastern portions of the project site as Residential Medium Density (RMD). The RC Zoning District is intended to create and establish regulations for sites that provide general retail, services, and commercial recreation and entertainment for local residents as well as consumers and visitors from the region, and the RMD Zoning District is intended to create and establish regulations for a district with a mix of housing types, including attached and detached, and small apartment buildings, subject to density limits (up to 25 dwelling units per acre) and design and development standards to ensure land use compatibility. Mixed-use development with residential and small commercial spaces and a variety of neighborhood supportive services, such as public and educational facilities, open spaces, and community facilities are also allowed within the RMD Zoning District.
3.2 FAIRVIEW AT NORTHGATE MASTER PLAN (2020 APPROVED PROJECT) On April 9, 2020, the City of Vallejo City Council approved a mixed-use development, known as the “Fairview at Northgate Master Plan,” on the vacant 51.3-acre site (2020 approved project). The 2020 approved project included the subdivision of the project site into four parcels in order to facilitate the development of the 2020 approved project with commercial and residential uses. Parcels 1 and 2, which comprise the western portion of the project site, would consist of the proposed commercial development and Parcel 3, which consists of the existing wetland area in the center of the project site, would remain undeveloped as 5.7 acres of open space area. The proposed 3 City of Vallejo. Propel Vallejo, General Plan 2040, amendments through July 24, 2018. Adopted August 29, 2017.
4 City of Vallejo. Zoning Map. Adopted July 22, 2021. Website: https://covit.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/ index.html?appid=7638bbc2a29d4c4387366372429f6daa&extent=-122.3063,38.0807,-122.2239,38.1134 (accessed August 2, 2024).
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
3 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -8 residential development would be located on Parcel 4, which consists of the western 23.8 acres of the project site.
The 2020 approved project included development of a 152,138-square-foot Costco store with a tire center, gasoline sales, and 774 surface parking spaces, and a commercial center with four buildings totaling 27,500 square feet, including a drive-through restaurant and 188 surface parking spaces on
21.8 acres of the 51.3-acre project site (Parcels 1 and 2). The 2020 approved project also included a
23.8-acre subdivided residential community consisting of 178 two-story single-family dwellings (Parcel 4); a central open space area including protected wetlands between the commercial and residential portions of the project (Parcel 3); and the widening of Admiral Callaghan Lane from two to four lanes with a new traffic signal at the main Costco driveway. An EIR was prepared for the 2020 approved project, which was certified by the City on April 9, 2020 (SCH #2018102007). The City filed a Notice of Determination on June 16, 2020.
3.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
The project applicant, Fairview Residential Development, LP, is requesting to modify the 2020 approved project to increase the total number of residential units from 178 to 245. Additionally, the proposed project would remove one of the four commercial buildings, reducing the retail square footage by approximately 9,195 square feet. The City inadvertently amended the zoning map to designate the project site as RC and RMD. As such, the proposed project also includes a zone change to restore the PD zoning designation, as provided in the Certified EIR, but with a revised lot width.
Table 3.A provides a summary comparison of the 2020 approved project and proposed project components. Figure 3-3 depicts the boundaries of the approved large lot subdivision on the project site (i.e., Parcels 1 through 4), and Figure 3-4 depicts the proposed boundaries of Parcels A through E within the proposed residential development area.
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 3-9 Table 3.A: Comparison of the 2020 Approved Project and Proposed Project Components
Proposed Use
2020 Approved Project Proposed Project
Size Units Size Units
Commercial
Parcel 1
Costco 152,138 square feet -- No Change
Gasoline Station 50 square feet 30 fuel pumps No Change Parcel 2
Commercial
Buildings 27,500 square feet -- 18,305 square feet --
Commercial Area
Subtotal 179,688 square feet 30 fuel pumps 170,593 square feet 30 fuel pumps Open Space
Parcel 3
Central Corridor 5.7 acres -- No Change
Residential
Parcel 4
Residential Units -- 178 -- 245
Source: Fairview at Northgate Draft Environmental Impact Report (2020), Fairview-Vallejo Developers, LLC (2025)
3.3.1 Residential Development
The proposed project would increase the residential component of the 2020 approved project on the 23.8-acre portion of the project site (Parcel 4) from 178 two-story single-family residences to 245 units, consisting of 119 detached single-family residences and 126 cluster type single-family detached homes (i.e., bungalows). This modification would increase the number of units from a density of 7.48 units per gross acre to 10.29 units per gross acre, which is within the allowable density for the R-MH land use designation.
The proposed project would further subdivide Parcel 4 into five smaller parcels (Parcels A through E) to facilitate construction of the proposed residential development. Parcels A, B, and C would be located on the northern portion of Parcel 4 and consist of the 126 bungalow-style residences and 19 of the 119 detached single-family residences that would be located along the eastern project site boundary. Parcel D would be located on the southern portion of Parcel 4 and consist of the remaining 100 detached single-family residences and a 43,620-square-foot neighborhood park that would be located between the two different housing types. Parcel E would consist of a 39,716- square-foot private linear park located along the western edge of the proposed residential development and a 30,266-square-foot bioretention basin for stormwater treatment, which would be located in the northwest corner of Parcel E.
3.3.2 Commercial Development
The proposed project would remove one of the four commercial buildings previously proposed on Parcel 2, reducing the retail square footage by approximately 9,195 square feet, for a total of
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
3 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -10 170,593 square feet of commercial development. The proposed project does not include any modifications to the 152,138-square-foot Costco building, which is already under construction.
3.3.3 Access and Parking
As shown in Figure 3-4, the proposed residential development would be accessed via two new streets from Turner Parkway (“A” Street and “C” Street). The new access streets would connect to five new streets (“B” Street, “D” Street, “E” Street, “F” Street”, and “G” Street) that would run eastto-west across Parcel 4 and provide access to the individual residences.
The proposed residential development would also include 745 total parking spaces, including 490 parking spaces associated with garages and driveways and 255 on-street parking spaces. Pursuant to California Building Code Sections 11B-208.2 and 11B-208.2.4, seven of the 255 on-street parking spaces would be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible parking spaces. New sidewalks would also be provided along the proposed streets throughout the proposed residential development area.
The proposed project does not modify the improvements to Admiral Callaghan Lane to widen the road from two to four lanes or the improvements to Runer Parkway, including a new traffic signal at the main Costco driveway.
PARCEL 4
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
PARCEL 3
PROPOSED OPEN
SPACE
MAY, 2024
OF 18 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A18575 NO. REVISION NO. BY REVISION BY FAIRVIEW AT NORTHGATE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
PNBVALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
OF
FOR
DRAWN BY IVW
AS SHOWNAPN: 0081-490-010
LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION
C2.0
LEGEND
AUGUST 11, 2024 AUGUST 8, 2024
SOURCE: Kier+Wright
I:\2024\20242122\G\Large_Lot.ai (2/28/2025)
FIGURE 3-3
Fairview at Northgate Addendum
Approved Large Lot Subdivision FEET
0 150 300
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
3 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -12 This page intentionally left blank
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
70 71
68 69
66 67
64 65
62 63
60 61
58 59
56 57
72 73
75 74
77 76
79 78
81 80
83 82
85 84
87 86
102
103
100
101
98 99
96 97
94 95
92 93
90 91
88 89
104
105
107
106
109
108
111
110
113
112
115
114
117
116
119
118
126
125
124
123
122
121
120
132
133
131
130
129
128
140 127
139
138
137
136
135
134
146
147
145
144
143
142
154 141
153
152
151
150
149
148
160
159
158
157
156
155 103
161
1 HUNTER COURT
LINEAR PARK
EXISTING WETLANDS
BIO-RETENTION
BASIN
TURNER PARKWAY
FOOTHILL DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
A STREET
D STREET
C STREET
B STREET
E STREET
F STREET
G STREET
PARCEL A
PARCEL B
PARCEL C
PARCEL D
PARCEL E
PUBLIC ACCESS
PRIVATE ACCESS
LEGEND
LOT AREA SUMMARY TABLE
LOT NO.
GROSS
LOT
SIZE
(SF)
NET
LOT
SIZE
(SF)
GROSS
LOT
SIZE
(AC)
NET
LOT
SIZE
(AC)
1 3,184 2,983 0.07 0.07
2 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
3 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
4 3,753 2,626 0.09 0.06
5 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
6 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
7 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
8 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
9 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
10 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
11 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
12 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
13 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
14 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
15 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
16 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
17 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
18 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
19 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
20 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
21 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
22 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
23 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
24 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
25 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
26 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
27 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
28 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
29 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
30 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
31 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
32 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
33 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
34 3,183 2,982 0.07 0.07
35 3,121 2,918 0.07 0.07
36 5,492 5,312 0.13 0.12
37 8,133 7,954 0.19 0.18
38 5,172 4,993 0.12 0.11
39 3,152 2,948 0.07 0.07
40 3,206 3,005 0.07 0.07
41 3,210 3,009 0.07 0.07
42 3,214 3,013 0.07 0.07
43 3,219 3,018 0.07 0.07
44 3,223 3,022 0.07 0.07
45 3,227 3,026 0.07 0.07
46 3,231 3,030 0.07 0.07
47 3,235 3,034 0.07 0.07
48 3,239 3,038 0.07 0.07
49 3,243 3,042 0.07 0.07
50 3,247 3,046 0.07 0.07
51 3,251 3,050 0.07 0.07
52 3,255 3,054 0.07 0.07
53 3,259 3,058 0.07 0.07
54 3,245 3,042 0.07 0.07
55 3,175 2,970 0.07 0.07
56 3,252 2,588 0.07 0.06
57 2,831 2,630 0.06 0.06
58 2,831 2,630 0.06 0.06
59 2,831 2,630 0.06 0.06
60 2,831 2,630 0.06 0.06
61 2,831 2,630 0.06 0.06
62 2,831 2,630 0.06 0.06
63 2,831 2,630 0.06 0.06
64 2,831 2,630 0.06 0.06
65 2,831 2,630 0.06 0.06
66 2,831 2,630 0.06 0.06
67 2,831 2,630 0.06 0.06
68 2,831 2,630 0.06 0.06
69 2,831 2,630 0.06 0.06
70 2,831 2,630 0.06 0.06
71 3,252 2,588 0.07 0.06
72 3,528 2,822 0.08 0.06
73 3,065 2,864 0.07 0.07
74 3,065 2,864 0.07 0.07
75 3,065 2,864 0.07 0.07
76 3,065 2,864 0.07 0.07
77 3,065 2,864 0.07 0.07
78 3,065 2,864 0.07 0.07
79 3,065 2,864 0.07 0.07
80 3,065 2,864
81 3,065 2,864
82 3,065 2,864
83 3,065 2,864
84 3,065 2,864
85 3,065 2,864
86 3,065 2,864
87 3,528 2,822
88 3,252 2,588
89 2,831 2,630
90 2,831 2,630
91 2,831 2,630
92 2,831 2,630
93 2,831 2,630
94 2,831 2,630
95 2,831 2,630
96 2,831 2,630
97 2,831 2,630
98 2,831 2,630
99 2,831 2,630
100 2,831 2,630
101 2,831 2,630
102 2,831 2,630
103 3,252 2,588
104 3,528 2,822
105 3,065 2,864
106 3,065 2,864
107 3,065 2,864
108 3,065 2,864
109 3,065 2,864
110 3,065 2,864
111 3,065 2,864
112 3,065 2,864
113 3,065 2,864
114 3,065 2,864
115 3,065 2,864
116 3,065 2,864
117 3,065 2,864
118 3,065 2,864
119 3,528 2,822
120 6,760 6,253
121 6,000 5,550
122 6,000 5,550
123 6,000 5,550
124 6,000 5,550
125 6,000 5,550
126 6,760 6,253
127 6,674 6,674
128 6,000 6,000
129 6,000 6,000
130 6,000 6,000
131 6,000 6,000
132 6,000 6,000
133 6,674 6,674
134 6,674 6,674
135 6,000 6,000
136 6,000 6,000
137 6,000 6,000
138 6,000 6,000
139 6,000 6,000
140 6,674 6,674
141 6,674 6,674
142 6,000 6,000
143 6,000 6,000
144 6,000 6,000
145 6,000 6,000
146 6,000 6,000
147 6,674 6,674
148 6,674 6,674
149 6,000 6,000
150 6,000 6,000
151 6,000 6,000
152 6,000 6,000
153 6,000 6,000
154 6,674 6,674
155 7,163 7,163
156 6,000 6,355
157 6,000 6,353
158 6,000 6,350
159 6,000 6,348
160 6,000 6,346
161 7,147 7,147
TOTALS: 638,972 608,797
SOURCE: Kier+Wright
I:\2024\20242122\G\Vesting_Map.ai (2/28/2025)
FIGURE 3-4
Fairview at Northgate Addendum
Proposed Vesting Tentative Map FEET
0 100 200
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
3 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -14 This page intentionally left blank
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 3-15
3.3.4 Open Space and Landscaping
As discussed above, Parcel 3, which consists of an existing wetland area in the center of the project site, would remain undeveloped as 5.7 acres of open space area, similar to the 2020 approved project. In addition, similar to the 2020 approved project, the proposed residential development would include a 43,620-square-foot neighborhood park located between the two different housing types, and Parcel E would consist of a 39,716-square-foot private linear park located along the western edge of the proposed residential development and a 30,266-square-foot bioretention basin for stormwater treatment located in the northwest corner. Further, approximately 33 to 36 percent of each residential lot within the proposed residential development area would consist of landscaping.
3.3.5 Utilities and Infrastructure
The project site is located in an urban area that is currently served by existing utilities, including water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electricity, gas, and telecommunications infrastructure.
Existing and proposed utility connections for the proposed residential development are discussed below. The proposed project would include connections to existing utility infrastructure, similar to the 2020 approved project.
3.3.5.1 Water
Water service for the proposed project would be provided by the Vallejo Water Department. The Vallejo Water Department maintains existing water lines in the vicinity of the project site, including an existing 14-inch water line within Turner Parkway. The proposed project would include new water lines through the proposed residential development that would connect to the existing 14- inch water line located within Turner Parkway at two locations, one from within “A” Street and the other from within “C” Street.
3.3.5.2 Wastewater
Wastewater treatment would be provided by the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District (VFWD).
The VFWD maintains existing sanitary sewer lines within the vicinity of the project site, including a 12-inch line within Turner Parkway. New sanitary sewer lines would be installed throughout the project site that would tie into the existing lines within Turner Parkway at two locations, one from within “A” Street and the other from within “C” Street.
3.3.5.3 Storm Water
As discussed above, the topography of the project site varies, with the eastern portion of the project site, where the proposed residential development would be located, relatively flat, and the western portion, where the proposed commercial development would be located, slightly elevated near Admiral Callaghan Lane. Under existing conditions, storm water from the project site generally drains to the northwest to the existing culvert system under Turner Parkway via the existing 54-inch storm drain. Storm water from the southerly portion of the project site and adjacent areas flows into the existing drainage system that parallels the southern project site boundary. Storm water from there is conducted through a culvert under Admiral Callaghan Lane and I-80.
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
3 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -16 Upon construction of the proposed project, storm water from the entire project site would continue to be discharged to the existing culvert system under Turner Parkway via the exiting 54-inch storm drain along the northern project site boundary. Specifically, storm water from the western portion of the project site, consisting of the proposed commercial development, would be collected and directed to the central portion of the project site (Parcel 3) at two locations and discharged to the existing culvert system under Turner Parkway via the existing 54-inch storm drain. Storm water from the eastern portion of the project site, consisting of the proposed residential development, would be collected and directed to the proposed bioretention basin located at the northwest corner of Parcel 4. Overflows from the bioretention basin would discharge to the existing culvert system under Turner Parkway via the existing 54-inch storm drain. In addition, a proposed 24-inch catch basin structure with an 18-inch storm drainpipe would connect to the existing 54-inch storm drain to control the 100-year, 24-hour storm event, ensuring the ponding elevation remains significantly below the adjacent roadway elevation of Turner Parkway.
Overall, all on-site drainage would be collected and treated on site prior to conveyance to the existing storm drain system within Turner Parkway.
3.3.5.4 Electricity and Natural Gas
Electricity and natural gas is provided to the project site by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).
The proposed project would include connections to the existing electricity and natural gas infrastructure within Turner Parkway.
3.3.6 Demolition and Construction
Construction of the proposed project would include site preparation, installation of utilities, paving, building construction, landscaping, and architectural coating activities. Consistent with the 2020 approved project, no import or export is proposed.
3.4 PROJECT APPROVALS
While the City is the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed project, other agencies also have discretionary authority related to the project or serve as responsible and/or trustee agencies in connection to the proposed project. A list of these agencies and potential permits and approvals that may be required is provided in Table 3.B.
Table 3.B: Potential Permits and Approvals
Lead Agency Permits/Approvals
City of Vallejo ⚫ Environmental Review
⚫ Development Plan Approval
⚫ Design Review Approval
⚫ Grading Permits
⚫ Zoning Clearance for Issuance of Building Permits
⚫ Approval of Zone Change to Planned Development
⚫ Planned Development Amendment
Other Agencies/Entities
Vallejo Water Department ⚫ Connection to Water System
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 3-17 Table 3.B: Potential Permits and Approvals
Lead Agency Permits/Approvals
Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District (VFWD) ⚫ Connection to Wastewater Conveyance System Regional Water Quality Control Board ⚫ Waste Discharge Requirement ⚫ Wetland Permits
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) ⚫ Reconnection of Electricity/Natural Gas Service Source: Compiled by LSA (2025).
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
3 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -18 This page intentionally left blank
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 4-1
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
State CEQA Guidelines 15168(c)(4) recommends using a written checklist or similar device to confirm whether the environmental effects of a subsequent activity were adequately covered in a program EIR. This checklist confirms that the proposed project is within the scope of the Certified EIR and that implementation of the proposed project would have no new significant environmental effects, would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or require new mitigation measures beyond what was prescribed in the Certified EIR. As such, the City of Vallejo can approve the proposed project, and no further environmental review is required.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, the Fairview at Northgate Project does not require further review under CEQA.
4.1 AESTHETICS
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
4.1.1 Certified EIR Analysis
Section 4.1 of the Certified EIR analyzed potential impacts related to aesthetic resources with implementation of the 2020 approved project. The Certified EIR determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1, which requires the preparation of a Lighting Plan, would ensure that outdoor lighting fixtures do not cause substantial glare or light spillover into surrounding properties, including the open space area, and would reduce impacts related to lighting and glare to less than significant. Additionally, the Certified EIR determined the 2020 approved project would have no impact on scenic resources and would not significantly impact any visual character of the project site as the project site is not a designated scenic vista, does not contain natural features that would be considered scenic, and does not include any officially recognized scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings.
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
4 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -2
4.1.2 Project Impacts
4.1.2.1 Scenic Vistas and Scenic Resources
The proposed project would be located within the same project site as the 2020 approved project and would be subject to the same regulations relating to aesthetic resources as identified in the Certified EIR.
The Certified EIR determined that the project site is not a designated scenic vista, does not contain natural features that would be considered scenic, and does not include any officially recognized scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. The Certified EIR therefore determined that the 2020 approved project would have no impact on scenic resources, and the proposed project does not affect this conclusion. In addition, similar to the 2020 approved project, the proposed project would not introduce structures or elements that would obstruct or degrade views of any recognized scenic vistas or scenic resources as none exist in the surrounding area.
Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts related to scenic vistas and scenic resources would be less than significant.
4.1.2.2 Visual Character
The visual character of the project site has not changed since preparation of the Certified EIR. The project is generally surrounded by existing development, including single-family residential uses associated with the Hunter Ranch neighborhood to the east; multi-family residential uses associated with the Quail Ridge Condominiums, single-family residential uses, and commercial uses to the south; and commercial uses to the north. Admiral Callaghan Lane and the I-80 freeway corridor are located directly west of the project site, followed by commercial and multi-family residential uses associated with the Fairground Drive Apartments and Newell Mobile City (a mobile home community). The proposed project includes the same type of uses at a similar scale and design as the 2020 approved project and would be located within the same project site. In addition, similar to the 2020 approved project, the proposed project would be similar to the visual character of the surrounding development. Development on the site would appear as a continuation of adjacent land uses and would not present unexpected or otherwise adverse aesthetic character within the vicinity of the project site, similar to the approved project. Therefore, the proposed project would not change conclusions of the Certified EIR, and potential impacts related to visual character would be less than significant.
4.1.2.3 Light and Glare
As stated above, the proposed project would be located within the same project site as the 2020 approved project. The project site is vacant with no existing sources of light. However, light sources associated with residential and commercial uses, as well as from vehicle headlights and roadway lighting, exist in the surrounding area. Similar to the 2020 approved project, implementation of the proposed project would introduce new lighting to a currently vacant site with no light sources.
Lighting would be used for the commercial center and residences, including parking areas and roadway lighting. Light sources would consist of exterior and interior building lighting including signage and security lighting including commercial and pedestrian-scale pole lights, bollard lights, exterior wall lights, to provide security lighting for the commercial and residential areas including walkways, buildings, and parking areas. Overall, new lighting at the project site associated with the
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 4-3 proposed project would be similar to the lighting proposed as part of the 2020 approved project.
Similar to the 2020 approved project, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1, which requires preparation of a Lighting Plan, would reduce impacts related to light and glare to less than significant. The Lighting Plan would be reviewed by City staff to ensure that the proposed project does not adversely affect the visual quality of the area or create a substantial new source of light and glare, and to ensure light does not spill offsite including within the proposed open space area which could adversely affect wildlife including nesting birds.
4.1.3 Conclusion
Given the above analysis, development of the proposed project would not cause any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects related to aesthetics that were not previously examined in the Certified EIR and would not require any additional mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. Certified EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1, as provided in Table 5.A in Chapter 5.0, Mitigation Measures, at the end of this document, would remain applicable to the proposed project and would ensure that impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant. All other impacts related to aesthetic resources would remain less than significant or no impact would occur, as identified in the Certified EIR. Therefore, no further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
4 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -4
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
4.2.1 Certified EIR Analysis
As discussed in Chapter 5.0 of the Certified EIR the 2020 approved project would have no impact on agriculture or forestry resources, and no mitigation was prescribed. According to the Certified EIR, the project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance, or forest land, nor is it subject to a Williamson Act contract. As such, the Certified EIR determined that implementation of the 2020 approved project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or the loss of forest land through conversion to non-forest use. Additionally, the 2020 approved project would not involve changes in zoning or land use that would impact agricultural operations or forestry resources. Therefore, the Certified EIR determined that the 2020 approved project would have no impact on agriculture and forestry resources.
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 4-5
4.2.2 Project Impacts
As the proposed project would be located within the same project site as the 2020 approved project, the proposed project would not be located on a site designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance, or forest land, and would not be subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, similar to the 2020 approved project, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or the loss of forest land through conversion to non-forest use. In addition, the proposed project would not involve changes in zoning or land use that would impact agricultural operations or forestry resources.
Therefore, no impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources would occur with implementation of the proposed project, similar to the 2020 approved project.
4.2.3 Conclusion
Given the above analysis, development of the proposed project would not cause any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects related to agriculture and forestry resources that were not previously examined in the Certified EIR and would not require any new mitigation measures. No impact related to agriculture and forestry resources would remain, as identified in the Certified EIR. Therefore, no further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
4 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -6
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
4.3.1 Certified EIR Analysis
Section 4.2 of the Certified EIR analyzed potential air quality impacts associated with implementation of the 2020 approved project and identified significant unavoidable impacts related to operation-period criteria pollutants. Mitigation measures were required to reduce all other air quality related impacts to a less than significant level, as further discussed below.
The Certified EIR determined that Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would ensure that construction-related emissions remain below applicable thresholds. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requires the preparation and implementation of a Construction Management Plan that incorporates the Bay Area Air District’s (Air District) Basic Construction Measures to reduce dust and pollutant emissions. These measures include watering exposed surfaces, covering haul trucks, limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, minimizing idling times, and ensuring construction equipment is properly maintained. Compliance with these measures would minimize fugitive dust and particulate matter emissions during construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 requires the implementation of the Air District’s Additional Construction Mitigation Measures, which would reduce nitrogen oxides (NOₓ) and particulate matter (less than 10 microns in size [PM₁₀] and less than 2.5 microns in size [PM₂.₅]) emissions. These measures include limiting simultaneous excavation and grading activities, requiring the use of Tier 4 final off-road equipment or equivalent emissions reductions, restricting diesel-powered equipment idling to two minutes, and using low-volatile organic compound (VOC) coatings to minimize VOC emissions.
In addition to the air quality mitigation measures, the Certified EIR prescribed the following mitigation measures to ensure the project remains below the Air District’s greenhouse gas (GHG) significance thresholds, which would further reduce impacts to air quality:
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 4-7 • Mitigation Measure TR-4, which requires the construction of a new bus pull-out on eastbound Turner Parkway;
• Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires the installation of accessible outdoor electrical outlets to facilitate the use of electric-powered landscaping equipment; • Mitigation Measure GHG-2, which prohibits wood-burning and natural gas hearths; • Mitigation Measure GHG-3, which mandates a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce vehicle trips through measures such as improved pedestrian access, bike facilities, and commuter incentives;
• Mitigation Measure GHG-4, which requires integration of traffic calming elements into the site’s circulation network;
• Mitigation Measure GHG-5, which requires provision of pedestrian sidewalks and crosswalks throughout the site;
• Mitigation Measure GHG-6, which calls for a multi-use internal trail and bikeway system that would reduce GHG emissions associated with transportation and building energy use; • Mitigation Measure GHG-7, which requires Costco to utilize alternatively fueled equipment, such as electric or natural gas-powered mobile units, for operational activities; • Mitigation Measure GHG-8, which limits truck idling times and requires signage and staff training;
• Mitigation Measure GHG-9, which mandates electrical hookups at each loading dock to power transport refrigeration units;
• Mitigation Measure GHG-10, which requires the project to accommodate rooftop photovoltaic systems and mandates installation of a renewable energy system capable of generating at least 500,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) annually within four years of occupancy; • Mitigation Measure GHG-11, which outlines a comprehensive list of additional GHG reduction strategies addressing energy and water efficiency, solid waste diversion, and community education, including requirements for high-efficiency appliances, drought-tolerant landscaping, construction recycling, and a project-specific website with GHG reduction resources; and • Mitigation Measure GHG-12, which requires the applicant to purchase and retire verified GHG offsets for a 30-year period.
According to the Air District, a project must incorporate all applicable and feasible control measures and must not disrupt or hinder their implementation to be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan.
The Certified EIR determined that the 2020 approved project would comply with applicable City, State, and regional air quality regulations, as outlined in Table 4.2-6: Project Consistency with
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
4 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -8 Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures in the Certified EIR. Compliance with these measures are required to be enforced as conditions of project approval, in addition to any mitigation measures required under CEQA.
The Certified EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the 2020 approved project would comply with applicable Air District regulations, including Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings; Regulation 8, Rule 15: Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts; and Regulation 9, Rule 8: Organic Compounds. In accordance with the federal New Source Review (NSR) Program and the Air District’s Regulation 2, Rule 2, new or modified sources of emissions must apply Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and provide emission offsets to minimize air pollutant emissions. This rule also fulfills federal NSR and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, ensuring new development does not significantly degrade air quality.
However, operational air quality emissions generated by the 2020 approved project would exceed the Air District’s emissions thresholds for NOX. Because the 2020 approved project would exceed these thresholds, the 2020 approved project would potentially conflict with the Air District’s Clean Air Plan, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Furthermore, the Certified EIR confirmed that emissions modeling results from the California Emissions Estimate Model (CalEEMod) demonstrated that the 2020 approved project’s construction emissions would not exceed the Air District’s average daily thresholds. The Certified EIR determined the 2020 approved project would not cause exceedances for reactive organic gases (ROG), particulate matter (PM₁₀), or fine particulate matter (PM₂.₅) (see Table 4.2-7: Unmitigated and Mitigated Construction Emissions of the Certified EIR). While the Air District does not establish numerical thresholds for fugitive PM₁₀ and PM₂.₅ emissions during construction, the project would be required to comply with the Air District’s Basic Construction Measures as specified in Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Consequently, the 2020 approved project would not violate air quality standards, contribute to existing violations, or expose sensitive receptors to harmful pollutant levels during construction.
However, the Certified EIR determined operational air quality emissions for the 2020 approved project, particularly for NOₓ, would exceed the Air District’s thresholds. This exceeds the thresholds intended to identify projects with the potential to generate a substantial amount of criteria air pollutants, making the air quality impacts significant and unavoidable.
Air dispersion modeling in the Certified EIR demonstrated that temporary impacts from construction and mobile source impacts from operation of the 2020 approved project would not result in significant air quality impacts, and no criteria pollutant health impacts would occur. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to pollutant levels exceeding health-based ambient air quality standards, and project construction and operation impacts to sensitive receptors were determined to be less than significant.
The 2020 approved project does not include land uses typically associated with significant odor emissions, such as wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, or refineries, as identified by the Air District. Temporary construction-related odors may occur from the use of diesel equipment, asphalt application, and architectural coatings, but these would be localized, short-term, and quickly
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 4-9 dissipate. Operational odors could result from restaurant uses within the commercial portion of the project, particularly from cooking equipment and waste areas. However, adherence to Air District Regulation 7: Odorous Substances and Regulation 1, Rule 1-301: Public Nuisance, along with standard ventilation and waste handling practices, would reduce these impacts. As such, both construction and operational odor impacts were found to be less than significant in the Certified EIR.
4.3.2 Project Impacts
4.3.2.1 Air Quality Plan Consistency
Similar to the 2020 approved project, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable air quality regulations, including the Bay Area Air District 2017 Clean Air Plan. The City of Vallejo General Plan 2040 Land Use Map5 designates the western portion of the project site as Retail/Entertainment (RE), and the central and eastern portions of the project site as Mix of Housing Types/Medium Density (R-MH). The City of Vallejo Zoning Map6 was inadvertently rezoned to identify the western portion of the project site as Regional Commercial (RC), and the central and eastern portions of the project site as Residential Medium Density (RMD). The proposed project would require a zone change to restore the PD zoning district, as was designated in the Certified EIR, but with a revised lot width. While a zone change is proposed, the proposed uses of the project site remain consistent with the intent of the City’s current zoning and General Plan land use designations.
A project is considered consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan if it does not exceed the growth assumptions of the plan based on regional forecasts of population, travel demand, and business growth.7The City's General Plan aligns with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) growth projections. Additionally, project-related employment generation would support the City’s jobs and housing goals. The proposed project would increase the residential component of the 2020 approved project but would reduce the overall retail square footage of the 2020 approved project and is not anticipated to result in substantial population change, as discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, below. As such, the proposed project would not exceed the growth assumptions in the Clean Air Plan.8
To be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan, a project must also incorporate all applicable and feasible control measures and must not disrupt or hinder their implementation.9The proposed 5 City of Vallejo. Propel Vallejo, General Plan 2040, amendments through July 24, 2018. Adopted August 29, 2017.
6 City of Vallejo. Zoning Map. Adopted July 22, 2021. Website: https://covit.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/ index.html?appid=7638bbc2a29d4c4387366372429f6daa&extent=-122.3063,38.0807,-122.2239,38.1134 (accessed August 2, 2024).
7 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050: Regional Growth Forecast.
Website: https://planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf (accessed April 2025).
8 Ibid.
9 Bay Area Air District (Air District). 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachmenta_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?rev=8c588738a4fb455b9cabb27360409529&sc_lang=en (accessed April 2025).
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
4 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -10 project would comply with applicable City, State, and regional air quality regulations, including those outlined in Certified EIR Table 4.2-6: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures.10 Compliance with these measures would be enforced as conditions of project approval, in addition to any mitigation measures required under CEQA.
In addition, similar to the 2020 approved project, the proposed project would incorporate all applicable feasible control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan and comply with State, regional, and local air quality regulations. This includes compliance with Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2.
However, as described in Section 4.3.1, above, operational air quality emissions, particularly for NOₓ, would exceed the Air District’s thresholds. Because the proposed uses of the project site are similar to the 2020 approved project, implementation of the proposed project would not increase the severity of the significant and unavoidable impacts, and no new impact would occur.
4.3.2.2 Air Quality Standards
The proposed project’s nitrogen oxide (NOₓ) construction emissions would be reduced below Air District thresholds with the implementation of the Air District’s Additional Construction Mitigation Measures as outlined in Mitigation Measure AQ-2. As stated above, the proposed project would also be required to comply with applicable Air District regulations. These regulatory requirements would further reduce specific construction-related emissions and ensure compliance with regional air quality standards. The emission estimates from CalEEMod modeling for the 2020 approved project demonstrate that the project’s construction emissions would not exceed the Air District’s average daily thresholds with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. The proposed project would increase residential uses and decrease commercial uses on the project site.
Residential uses are typically less energy intensive than commercial; therefore, by reducing the commercial use and increasing the residential uses, these modeling estimates would still be applicable.
Based on the Fairview Northgate Emissions Analysis of Project Design Update, prepared by Ramboll and dated January 8, 2025 (Appendix A), operational air quality emissions of the proposed project would exceed the Air District’s thresholds for NOₓ, as previously identified in the Certified EIR. The criteria air pollutant emissions for VOC, PM10 and PM2.5 were determined to be less than significant in the Certified EIR and would remain less than significant for the proposed project. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not increase the severity of the significant and unavoidable impacts, and no new impact would occur.
4.3.2.3 Sensitive Receptors
Similar to the 2020 approved project, sensitive receptors are located adjacent to the project site, including single-family residences associated with the Hunter Ranch neighborhood located to the east and multi-family residences associated with the Quail Ridge Condominiums and additional single-family residential uses, located south of the project site. As stated above, sensitive receptors in the project vicinity would not be exposed to pollutant levels exceeding health-based ambient air 10 City of Vallejo. 2020. Fairview at Northgate Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. Website:
file:///P:/2024/20242122%20Vallejo%20-%20Fairview%20at%20Northgate/BACKGROUND/_Fairview %20at%20Northgate%20DEIR%202020-01.pdf (accessed April 2025).
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 4-11 quality standards during construction or operation of the proposed project based on air dispersal rates as calculated in the air dispersion modeling from the Certified EIR.
Therefore, similar to the 2020 approved project, the proposed project's air quality impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
4.3.2.4 Odors
Similar to the 2020 approved project, the proposed project would not include any land uses identified by the Air District as significant sources of odors, such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, or refineries. During construction, temporary odors may result from diesel-powered equipment, asphalt paving, and architectural coatings. However, these emissions would be localized, short-term, and would dissipate quickly. Similar to the 2020 approved project, operational odors may arise from restaurants within the commercial component of the proposed project, particularly from charbroilers, griddles, deep fryers, and waste disposal areas. However, compliance with Air District Regulation 7: Odorous Substances and Regulation 1, Rule 1-301: Public Nuisance, as well as standard ventilation and waste management practices, would minimize potential impacts.
Therefore, similar to the 2020 approved project, both construction and operational odor impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
4.3.3 Conclusion
Given the above analysis, development of the proposed project would not cause any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects related to air quality that were not previously examined in the Certified EIR and would not require any additional mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. Certified EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, as provided in Table 5.A in Chapter 5.0, Mitigation Measures, of this document, would remain applicable to the proposed project and would ensure that impacts related to air quality plan consistency and exceeding air quality standards are reduced. As noted in the Certified EIR, in addition to the air quality mitigation measures listed below, Mitigation Measure TR-4, provided in Section 4.17, Transportation/Traffic, and Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-12, provided in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, would also remain applicable to the proposed project.
Impacts related to air quality would not increase the severity of the significant and unavoidable impacts and no new impact would occur. Therefore, no further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
4 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -12
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
4.4.1 Certified EIR Analysis
Section 4.3 of the Certified EIR analyzed biological resource impacts with implementation of the 2020 approved project. The Certified EIR determined that implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts of the 2020 approved project on biological resources:
• Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires preconstruction nesting bird surveys if vegetation removal or ground disturbance occurs during the nesting season and requires exclusion zones upon discovery of active nests;
• Mitigation Measure BIO-2, which mandates notification of, and proper permitting through the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding the presence of on-site wetlands;
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 4-13 • Mitigation Measure BIO-3, which requires wetland compensation through mitigation credits at a USACE- and RWQCB-approved wetlands bank;
• Mitigation Measure BIO-4, which mandates protective construction fencing near jurisdictional wetlands and riparian areas; and
• Mitigation Measure BIO-5, which requires designated construction staging areas at least 300 feet from wetlands (or as far as feasible), would reduce potential impacts on protected wetlands to less than significant.
The Certified EIR determined the project site has a moderate potential to support one special-status plant species, the coast iris; however, a protocol-level plant survey conducted after observing the species at a nearby reference site did not document any coast iris individuals on site. Therefore, coast iris is considered absent, and no avoidance or minimization measures are necessary.
The Certified EIR also determined the project site has moderate to high potential to support nesting habitat for eight special-status bird species, including the white-tailed kite, northern harrier, Nuttall’s woodpecker, oak titmouse, loggerhead shrike, Bryant’s savannah sparrow, Samuel’s song sparrow, and San Francisco common yellowthroat. Additionally, an Allen’s hummingbird, a specialstatus species, was observed during the site visit performed in May 2020. The site also provides habitat for common bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)11 and California Fish and Game Codes 350312 and 3513.13 Construction and operation activities at the project site could result in nest removal or disturbance, leading to nest abandonment. These impacts could be significant under CEQA and in violation of federal and State laws. However, the Certified EIR determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, as provided above, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
The Certified EIR also determined the project site lacks natural habitat corridors and does not support migratory or special-status fish species. All significant trees removed would be replaced in accordance with the City’s Zoning Code. Additionally, because the Solano Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was not adopted at the time the EIR was certified, the Certified EIR determined that the 2020 approved project would not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Overall, the Certified EIR determined that compliance with State, regional, and local air quality regulations and Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 would ensure all potential biological resource impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 11 United States. 1918. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). As amended 2017. Website: https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2020-title16/pdf/USCODE-2020-title16-chap7-subchapII-sec703.pdf (accessed April 2025).
12 California Code, Fish and Game Code. FGC § 3503. Website: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/fish-and-gamecode/fgc-sect-3503/ (accessed April 2025). 13 California Code, Fish and Game Code. FGC § 3513. Website https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/fish-and-gamecode/fgc-sect-3513/ (accessed April 2025).
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
4 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -14
4.4.2 Project Impacts
4.4.2.1 Protected Plants and Wildlife
The proposed project would not expand the development footprint beyond the footprint of the 2020 approved project. Similar to the 2020 approved project, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts on special-status bird species to less than significant by requiring a nesting bird survey prior to construction. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1, as detailed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, would further minimize light spillover into open space areas, which would further reduce potential disturbance to nesting birds and this impact would remain less than significant.
4.4.2.2 Riparian Habitat
The project site contains three sensitive biological communities: (1) a perennial stream located on an approximately 85 linear foot portion of Blue Rock Springs Creek, which is located in the southwestern corner of the project site; (2) several anthropogenic depressions and tire ruts caused by unauthorized off-road vehicle and excavation activity located in the north-central and west portions of the project site; and (3) seasonal wetland swales located in the low, flat areas at the base of the hills in the center and on the eastern portion of the project site. Similar to the 2020 approved project, the proposed project was designed to avoid seasonal wetlands in the central region of the site; however, project activities would result in impacts to seasonal wetland swales and anthropogenic depressions. To reduce disturbance, an existing PG&E gas line and a portion of an existing sewer line underlying the project site would be abandoned in place and a temporary bridge span would be constructed over the preserved wetlands in the central open space area.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 through BIO-5, which explicitly prescribe protections for wetlands, would reduce impacts to wetland habitats to a less than significant level, similar to the 2020 approved project.
4.4.2.3 Federally Protected Wetlands
The project site contains two wetland types, including seasonal wetland streams and anthropogenic depressions. Anthropogenic depressions observed on site during field surveys as part of the Certified EIR resulted from past disturbances, including off-road vehicle use. USACE personnel confirmed during a site visit in May 2019 that these features qualify as waters of the United States (WOTUS) under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act.
Similar to the Certified EIR, work affecting wetlands and open water habitats would require permits from federal and State agencies, discussed in Chapter 1.0, Project Information, of this Addendum.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 through BIO-5, which explicitly prescribe protections for wetlands, would reduce impacts to wetland habitats to a less than significant level.
4.4.2.4 Wildlife Movement Corridors
The project site is surrounded by existing urban development, including residential and commercial uses, and does not contain any significant natural habitat corridors. Additionally, the project site is not hydrologically connected to a natural watercourse that supports migratory fish or other specialPage 1162 of 1722
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 4-15 status aquatic species, nor does it contain Essential Fish Habitat. Blue Rock Springs Creek, located along the southwest boundary of the project site, transitions underground downstream, making it inaccessible to migratory fish. As a result, similar to the Certified EIR, the proposed project would not substantially interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory species.
As previously discussed, the project site has the potential to support nesting for eight special-status bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Sections 3500 and 4511 of the California Fish and Game Code. Similar to the Certified EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce wildlife movement corridor impacts to a less than significant level.
4.4.2.5 Mature Trees
Similar to the 2020 approved project, the proposed project would include removal of existing trees on the project site, including street trees along Turner Parkway. In accordance with Section
16.70.070 of the City’s Zoning Code, each significant tree removed must be replaced on a one-toone basis with large box-sized trees. Similar to the Certified EIR, compliance with these requirements would be incorporated as conditions of project approval. Therefore, impacts related to mature tree removal would be less than significant, similar to the 2020 approved project.
4.4.2.6 Habitat Plan Consistency
The City is a participating member agency in the preparation and approval process for the Solano Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), although the Solano HCP has still not been adopted. As with the 2020 approved project, the proposed project would comply with Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5, which would include measures related to special-status plant and animal species and their habitat. Similar to the 2020 approved project, the proposed project would not conflict with implementation of an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
Therefore, no impact would occur, similar to the 2020 approved project.
4.4.3 Conclusion
Given the above analysis, development of the proposed project would not cause any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects related to biological resources that were not previously examined in the Certified EIR and would not require any additional mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. Certified EIR Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5, as provided in Table 5.A in Chapter 5.0, Mitigation Measures, at the end of this document, would remain applicable to the proposed project and would ensure that impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant. Therefore, no further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
4 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -16
4.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)? Or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
4.5.1 Certified EIR Analysis
Section 4.4 of the Certified EIR analyzed impacts to cultural resources associated with implementation of the 2020 approved project. The Certified EIR included a field assessment of the project site that determined there was no evidence of prehistoric or historic cultural resources. The site is within a region historically occupied by the Patwin people and was used for agriculture in the 1800s and 1900s. Consequently, there is potential for undiscovered archaeological resources to exist below the ground surface.
The Certified EIR determined that implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources to less than significant:
• Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which requires a Cultural Awareness Training Program for all construction personnel prior to ground disturbance;
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 4-17 • Mitigation Measure CUL-2, which requires continuous archaeological monitoring during grading and on-call monitoring during trenching, with authority to halt work upon discovery of cultural materials;
• Mitigation Measure CUL-3, which requires work to stop and a qualified archaeologist to evaluate any unanticipated cultural or tribal cultural resources discovered during construction; and • Mitigation Measure CUL-4, which outlines procedures if human remains are encountered, including coordination with the Solano County Coroner and Native American Heritage Commission.
4.5.2 Project Impacts
4.5.2.1 Historic Resources
As discussed above, the Certified EIR concluded that there are no historic properties located on or adjacent to the project site as determined in the cultural resources report, included as Appendix E of the Certified EIR. As the proposed project would be located within the same project site as the 2020 approved project and have similar project footprint, impacts to historic resources would be less than significant, similar to the 2020 approved project.
4.5.2.2 Archaeological Resources
As the proposed project would be located on the same site and would be subject to the same conditions, construction of the proposed project has the potential to uncover previously unknown archaeological resource. Similar to the 2020 approved project, upon the discovery of archaeological resources, the project would implement a preservation in place policy, as specified by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3). If preservation is not feasible, treatment measures would be developed in consultation with the City and appropriate Native American representatives. In addition, a qualified archaeologist would document and evaluate the findings.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which requires a Cultural Awareness Training Program for all construction personnel prior to ground disturbance; Mitigation Measure CUL-2, which requires continuous archaeological monitoring during grading and on-call monitoring during trenching, with authority to halt work upon discovery of cultural materials; and Mitigation Measure CUL-3, which requires work to stop and a qualified archaeologist to evaluate any unanticipated cultural or tribal cultural resources discovered during construction along with compliance with CEQA regulations would reduce impact to archaeological resources to less than significant with mitigation, similar to the 2020 approved project.
4.5.2.3 Disturbance of Human Remains
Ground-disturbing activities during grading and construction could potentially encounter previously unknown buried human remains. Mitigation Measure CUL-4 outlines procedures for recording and treating human remains if encountered during construction. The measure ensures that remains are protected, preserved, and treated following applicable laws and regulations. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would reduce potential impacts related to the disturbance of human remains to less than significant with mitigation, similar to the 2020 approved project.
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
4 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -18
4.5.2.4 Tribal Cultural Resources
Implementation of the proposed project could result in disturbance or destruction of unknown buried tribal cultural resources that were not located during previous study and site evaluation.
Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 and compliance with CEQA regulations would reduce impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources to less than significant with mitigation, similar to the 2020 approved project.
4.5.3 Conclusion
Given the above analysis, development of the proposed project would not cause any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects related to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources that were not previously examined in the Certified EIR and would not require any additional mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. Certified EIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-5, as provided in Table 5.A in Chapter 5.0, Mitigation Measures, at the end of this document, would remain applicable to the proposed project and would ensure that impacts related to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Therefore, no further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 4-19
4.6 ENERGY CONSERVATION
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
4.6.1 Certified EIR Analysis
Section 4.11 of the Certified EIR analyzed potential impacts related to energy conservation with implementation of the 2020 approved project. The Certified EIR determined that the 2020 approved project would be consistent with local, State, and federal energy regulations. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that the 2020 approved project incorporates applicable energy-efficient design features and construction practices, which would reduce the 2020 approved project’s overall energy consumption.
In addition, Mitigation Measure TR-4, which requires the construction of a new bus pull-out on eastbound turner parkway; and Mitigation Measure GHG-10, which requires the project to accommodate rooftop photovoltaic systems and mandates installation of a renewable energy system capable of generating at least 500,000 kWh annually within four years of occupancy would further reduce impacts to energy conservation.
Therefore, the Certified EIR concluded that the 2020 approved project would not result in significant impacts related to energy conservation.
4.6.2 Project Impacts
4.6.2.1 Energy Consumption
Similar to the 2020 approved project, the proposed project would comply with all federal, State, and local energy efficiency requirements including United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) engine emissions standards for construction equipment, Title 24 standards of the California Building Code, which aims to reduce energy consumption through the use of energy-efficient features, and California Plumbing and Green Building Codes, which require high-efficiency water fixtures and automatic irrigation systems.
Additionally, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), the electricity provider for the proposed project, is subject to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), which mandates increased procurement from renewable resources, targeting 60 percent by 2030 and 100 percent clean energy by 2045. In addition, Mitigation Measure GHG-10 requires the Costco store within the proposed project to accommodate rooftop solar panels and install them within four years.
Considering the proposed project’s proximity to commercial and office areas which would help reduce vehicle trips, and the energy efficiency standards and sustainable project design features
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
4 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -20 incorporated into the project, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the potential impacts on energy consumption would be less than significant, similar to the 2020 approved project.
4.6.2.2 Energy Plan Consistency
As stated above, the proposed project would comply with State energy efficiency regulations, including State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards.
The City of Vallejo’s 2012 Climate Action Plan aims to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in alignment with Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which set a goal to reduce California's GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The commercial components of the project incorporate energy-efficient features, such as high-R-value insulated wall panels, reflective cool roofing, highefficiency HVAC units and restroom fixtures, and reclaim tanks that capture heat from refrigeration equipment to heat domestic water. Additional energy-saving measures, discussed in Section 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, further enhance energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy, ensuring consistency with AB 32, the State's Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), and Title 24.
The proposed project is also consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040, which integrates transportation, land use, and housing to reduce GHG emissions in line with CARB targets. The project site is located near major roadways and employment centers, reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated transportation energy consumption. Additionally, Mitigation Measure TR-4, as discussed in Section 4.17 Transportation/Traffic, requires a new SolTrans bus pullout, improving transit access and further reducing transportation-related energy use. Additional measures discussed in Section
4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, would reduce travel demand, contributing to lower project VMT and energy consumption.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of local, State, or regional energy conservation plans, similar to the 2020 approved project. Potential energy-related impacts would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.6.3 Conclusion
Given the above analysis, development of the proposed project would not cause any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects related to energy that were not previously examined in the Certified EIR and would not require any additional mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. The Certified EIR did not prescribe any mitigation measures associated with energy conservation; however, the Certified EIR references prescribed Mitigation Measure TR-4 and Mitigation Measure GHG-10, as provided in Table 5.A in Chapter 5.0, Mitigation Measures, at the end of this document, to further reduce impacts to energy conservation. Impacts related to energy would remain less than significant as identified in the Certified EIR. Therefore, no further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 4-21
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
4.7.1 Certified EIR Analysis
Section 4.5 of the Certified EIR analyzed potential impacts related to geology and soils with implementation of the 2020 approved project. The Certified EIR determined the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no active or potentially active faults are known to cross the site. A geotechnical investigation was prepared for the project site and identified the presence of clay-type soils with moderate-to-high shrink-swell potential, which may be subject to expansion and contraction with changes in moisture content. Geologic mapping conducted for the project site indicates that the site is underlain by sedimentary bedrock units, including sandstone, claystone, and siltstone, which are part of the Great Valley Sequence. These formations are considered to have a moderate-to-high potential to contain paleontological resources.
The Certified EIR also determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires the preparation of a design-level geotechnical report with site-specific recommendations, which must be approved by the City of Vallejo prior to issuance of any grading permit, and Mitigation Measure GEO-2, which requires the retention of a qualified paleontologist for the purpose of monitoring mass grading and construction activities, would ensure that the 2020 approved project would not result in significant impacts related to geology or seismicity hazards or destroy unique
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
4 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -22 paleontological resources. As such, the Certified EIR determined that potential impacts related to seismic hazards, erosion, unstable or expansive soils, and paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Because the 2020 approved project would connect to existing sewer lines and septic systems are prohibited within the City, the Certified EIR determined that impacts related to septic tanks and water disposal would not occur.
4.7.2 Project Impacts
4.7.2.1 Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
The proposed project would be located within the same project site as the 2020 approved project.
As discussed above, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no active or potentially active faults are known to cross the site. However, like much of the San Francisco Bay Area, the project site could experience strong ground shaking resulting from a major seismic event along nearby regional faults, including the Hayward, Calaveras, and San Andreas Faults.
Similar to the 2020 approved project, construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with the current California Building Standards Code (CBSC), including provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) that address seismic design criteria. These regulations require that buildings be designed and constructed to resist seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and other potential seismic hazards based on site-specific geotechnical conditions.
In addition, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1, similar to the 2020 approved project, which requires preparation of a site-specific design-level geotechnical investigation to be conducted prior to issuance of building permits. The investigation must include detailed recommendations for grading, foundation design, seismic design parameters, and soil stability, which must be incorporated into final project plans. Therefore, with compliance with existing regulations and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking and other seismic hazards would be reduced to less than significant, similar to the 2020 approved project.
4.7.2.2 Erosion/Loss of Top Soil
Similar to the 2020 approved project, construction of the proposed project would involve grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities that could temporarily expose soil and increase the potential for erosion, particularly during storm events. The potential for soil erosion would be greatest during the initial phases of construction when vegetation is removed, and soil is disturbed.
As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, following this discussion, all construction activities associated with the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s grading ordinance and the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 4-23 erosion and prevent sedimentation from leaving the construction site. Typical BMPs include silt fences, fiber rolls, stabilized construction entrances, and temporary cover measures.
Implementation of these standard erosion control measures would minimize the potential for significant erosion or loss of topsoil during construction. Once construction is complete and landscaping or other permanent surface cover is established, the potential for erosion would be further reduced. Therefore, with compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of construction BMPs detailed in the SWPPP, the proposed project would not result in significant erosion or loss of topsoil, similar to the 2020 approved project.
4.7.2.3 Unstable and Expansive Soils
Similar to the 2020 approved project, the proposed project would be required to comply with the recommendations provided in the site-specific geotechnical investigation and the applicable CBC standards. As provided above, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1, similar to the 2020 approved project, which requires preparation and implementation of a design-level geotechnical report to guide project design and construction.
Therefore, with compliance with applicable codes and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, potential impacts related to unstable or expansive soils would be reduced to less than significant, similar to the 2020 approved project.
4.7.2.4 Septic Tanks/Wastewater Disposal
Similar to the 2020 approved project, the proposed project would not include septic systems, which are not allowed in the City. Therefore, no septic systems would be constructed as part of the project, and no impacts would occur.
4.7.2.5 Paleontological Resources
As stated above, the proposed project would be located within the same project site as the 2020 approved project. Similar to the 2020 approved project, construction of the proposed project would involve ground-disturbing activities such as site grading, excavation for building foundations, and installation of utilities. These activities would have the potential to disturb previously undisturbed geological formations that may contain paleontological resources. While portions of the project site have already been disturbed by previous development activities, areas of undisturbed soil remain and could contain fossilized materials of scientific importance.
To reduce the potential for impacts to paleontological resources, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-2, similar to the 2020 approved project, which requires the preparation and implementation of a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. This plan would include worker training, monitoring by a qualified paleontologist during ground disturbance within sensitive formations, and recovery and curation of any significant paleontological resources encountered during project construction. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on paleontological resources, similar to the 2020 approved project.
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
4 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -24
4.7.3 Conclusion
Given the above analysis, development of the proposed project would not cause any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects related to geology and soils that were not previously examined in the Certified EIR and would not require any additional mitigation measure beyond those identified in the Certified EIR. Certified EIR Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, as provided in Table 5.A in Chapter 5.0, Mitigation Measures, at the end of this document, would remain applicable to the proposed project and would ensure that impacts related to geology and soils and paleontological resources would be less than significant. Therefore, no further environmental analysis related to this topic is required pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) 4-25
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
Reduced
Impact
No New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
4.8.1 Certified EIR Analysis
Section 4.6 of the Certified EIR assessed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts with implementation of the 2020 approved project. The Certified EIR determined that construction of the 2020 approved project would generate 4,004 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e), and operational emissions would reach 9,798 MT CO2e in 2023 without mitigation. With implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-11, the Certified EIR determined that operational emissions would be reduced to 4,893 MT CO2e in 2023 and 4,250 MT CO2e by 2030, which would not be below applicable Air District thresholds; however, Mitigation Measure GHG-12 requires the purchase of GHG carbon credits and/or offsets to reduce any remaining emissions below the applicable Air District thresholds. Therefore, impacts were identified as less than significant with implementation of mitigation. Additionally, the 2020 approved project was determined to be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040, supporting regional growth, VMT reduction, and sustainability goals through infill development and alternative transportation features.
Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-12 are referenced in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of this document.
Overall, the Certified EIR determined that compliance with the applicable GHG reduction measures and implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-12 would ensure that impacts associated with GHG emissions would be less than significant.
4.8.2 Project Impacts
4.8.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Similar to the 2020 approved project, the proposed project would generate both direct and indirect GHG emissions from construction and operational activities. Construction-related emissions would result from the operation of construction equipment, transportation, and material delivery. Because the proposed project would develop the project site at a similar intensity as the 2020 approved project, construction emissions are expected to be similar to the 2020 approved project (approximately 4,004 MT CO2e over the construction period). Operational emissions would primarily come from energy consumption, vehicle traffic, solid waste generation, water and wastewater services, and vegetation land use change. Based on the Fairview Northgate Emissions Analysis of
F A I R V I E W A T N O R T H G A T E P R O J E C T
V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
MA S T E R P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5
4 P:\2024\20242122 Vallejo - Fairview at Northgate\PRODUCTS\3_Final\Fairview at Northgate Addendum_Final.docx (08/27/25) -26 Project Design Update prepared by Ramboll, dated January 8, 2025 (Appendix A), the proposed project would result in slightly increased emissions, however, the net increase in emissions would not be substantial and there would be no new significant impacts. As discussed therein, the updated emissions would still exceed applicable Air District thresholds prior to mitigation. However, the emissions per service population is lower for the Project in 2023 and 2030 in comparison to the 2020 approved project. Further, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-12, consistent with the 2020 approved project. With implementation of mitigation, including Mitigation Measure GHG-12, which requires the purchase of GHG carbon credits and/or offsets to reduce any remaining emissions below the applicable Air District thresholds, operational emissions would be reduced to below the Air District’s efficiency threshold of 4.05 MT CO2e, similar to the 2020 approved project. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measures, GHG emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level.
4.8.2.2 Consistency with Applicable Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans Plan Bay Area 2040 is the regional transportation and land use plan adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and ABAG. The plan outlines strategies for accommodating projected regional growth, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and guiding transportation investments through 2040.
A project is considered consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040 if it supports regional growth projections, land use efficiency, and sustainability goals. Growth projections help estimate future emissions tied to increased population, development, and transportation, ensuring projects are evaluated in the context of long-term climate goals and regional growth. In addition, they provide the basis for applying per capita thresholds and identifying appropriate mitigation strategies. Similar to the 2020 approved project, the project site is designated for Retail/Entertainment (RE) and Mix of Housing Types/Medium Density (R-MH) under the City’s General Plan. As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of the Certified EIR, the 2020 approved project represents a 0.43 percent increase in the City’s 2018 population and is within ABAG’s forecasted population growth for 2040.
The proposed project is an infill development located in a previously disturbed area with existing infrastructure. It includes a mix of commercial and residential uses adjacent to existing development, supporting Plan Bay Area 2040’s goals for compact development and reduced VMT.
The proposed project also incorporates features that promote alternative transportation, including a new SolTrans bus pull-out (Mitigation Measure TR-4), a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program (Mitigation Measure GHG-3), internal trails and sidewalks (Mitigation Measures GHG-4 through GHG-6), and electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Similar to the 2020 approved project, the proposed project would align with Plan Bay Area 2040’s goals for VMT reduction, infill development, and improved mobility. As set forth in the Fairview Northgate Emissions Analysis of Project Design Update prepared by Ramboll, dated January 8, 2025 (Appendix A), the proposed project would remain consistent with the City of Vallejo Climate Action Plan (CAP). The consistency analysis as well as the CAP compliance checklist table included in the Certified EIR remain largely unchanged, but are included in Attachment B to the Fairview Northgate Emissions Analysis of Project Design Update, with minor updates. Therefore, impacts related to