Dear Planning Commissioners,

My company is the owner of 384 Fairgrounds Drive in Vallejo. We obtained entitlements for a 106,360 square foot self-storage project May 18, 2020 (approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Major Use Permit, Site Development Permit with unanimous Planning Commission approval and no public opposition). Notably, the project was found to be consistent with the zoning (Linear Commercial (CL)) and general plan (Business/Limited Residential (B/LR)) at the time of approval. We subsequently closed escrow on purchasing the land and now have made a substantial investment in plans, entitlements and property in the City of Vallejo. Our planned self-storage project will transform what is currently a vacant lot with dilapidated structures, into a community-benefitting development with first class architecture and landscaping.

Shortly after purchasing the property we discovered that the city was working on a zoning update that would make self-storage an outright prohibited use use under the proposed new zoning designation for our property (Regional Commercial (RC)), thereby making our project a non-conforming use immediately upon completion. Ironically, the general plan would still allow self-storage on our property, making the proposed zoning designation and general plan inconsistent.

Of specific concern is Section 16.105(B)(1) and (2) of the March 5, 2021 redraft of the zoning code (see attachment A). Though the previous draft released January 6, 2021 was acceptable (but not ideal), the way this section was revised in the March 5th redraft, under a scenario of 50% or greater casualty it would be impossible to rebuild our self-storage facility. As you can imagine, this would severely limit our ability to obtain financing for the development making it unlikely to proceed, and in general would degrade the value of the property.

In order to solve the subject non-conforming issues, we respectfully request one of the following solutions, in order of preference:

a) that the draft zoning code be revised to allow existing and approved self-storage facilities within the proposed RC zoning designation (there are only three existing/operating facilities, plus our one approved project within the proposed RC designation). This would not open the door to more self-storage projects being built in Vallejo – it would only allow existing and approved projects to remain conforming thereby avoiding negative impacts to their business operations and property values; or,

b) that Sections 16.105(B)(1) and 16.105(B)(2) of the most recent the zoning code draft released March 5, 2021 be revised back to the previous version released January 6, 2021 (see attachment B) that would allow non-conforming uses to be rebuilt to their existing configuration in cases of 50% or greater casualty with a Major Use Permit. With this change, the city would still have discretion to approve or disapprove a Major Use Permit that would allow a non-conforming self-storage facility to be rebuilt to its existing configuration in the case of a 50%+ casualty. Though having to obtain another Major Use Permit would involve risk to the property owner making this solution less desirable, at least there would be a path to potentially rebuilding the project which would allow us to obtain project financing.

LRG Investors remains committed to seeing our approved self-storage project through to completion. I would also like to point out an existing drainage issue on the property that our project’s completion would solve. There is a city-owned storm drain inlet on Fairgrounds Drive that dumps onto, and flows across our property, for which there is no easement or known consent. The drainage has created a wetlands area, which our project entitlements addressed and we are now finalizing permits for with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Army Corps of Engineers and CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, all at considerable cost. Though this drainage is technically an illegal encroachment upon private property, we have been a team player with the city, seeking to solve the issue through proper permitting, completion of our project, and ongoing monitoring/maintenance. Please understand that this is in no way meant as threatening, only that there has been a long-term liability on the property that LRG is focused on solving on the city’s behalf, assuming our project can proceed. The improvements to the drainage and solution to this issue would only be completed part and parcel with the overall project development.

I trust that in light of these facts, the City of Vallejo will work with us to incorporate one of the above solutions so that we can complete our project which has enjoyed strong city and community support. I am available to discuss any questions you may have on our proposed solutions and thank you in advance for your consideration of the matter.

Very Truly Yours,

Ryan Nickelson
LRG Investors

The PROS (Public Recreation & Outdoor Space) District requirements should explicitly include language allowing, "Educational activities, curriculum and services that are substantially (more than 50% of educational program hours) based outdoors. This includes early education through post secondary educational studies."
Currently you can plant a private vineyard in this PROS designation that has no public access, but you can't operate a school with an outdoor education model where more than 50% of the education is outdoors, such as for a nature preschool. You can put in a artificial turf soccer stadium in a pristine outdoor area, but not allow children to paint on easels in a garden, conduct science experiments in nature, or play in a mud kitchen, if it's part of a school program with a classroom. Vallejo can become a national leader in outdoor education with this simple slight change change to our Zoning Code.

It’s time to stop the wear
And tear on the bridge by those trying to save time when 37 is backed up. It’s also unfair that MI residents pay for the bridge more than other residents. Please continue to enhance pedestrian
And bike friendly features of the bridge.

1) People regularly drive 25 over the speed limit. Speeding needs to be enforced.
2)Add signage and barriers to block right turns for westbound traffic. Close the Right turn lane from the bridge. If drivers can't turn right from west bound lanes they will be forced to turn around on the Island to enter 37, deturing them from using the bridge to bypass 37 wilson entrance.
3) close N gate bypass road under 37 Mi overpass. Drivers use it to cut the cui when traffic is backed up and it serves no purpose.

4) End the unfair tax burden on MI residents.

On a daily basis I see hundreds of cars coming to Mare Island and passing thru this bridge in the morning and immediately will make a right turn on Railroad Ave. and then proceed to Hwy 37. They do this as a shortcut instead of going thru Wilson St. (outside of Mare Island). The intent is to go to Hwy 37 westbound and cut through the Hwy 37 bridge traffic. If for some reason expenses to this bridge are to be allocated to the citizens of Vallejo, it is to be absorbed by EVERY homeowner of Vallejo and not just homeowners of Mare Island. As it stands right now, Mare Island homeowners are taking the brunt of the bridge expenses. Mare Island homeowners are being taxed differently versus the other Vallejo homeowners. It should be the same to be fair.

It is ridiculous that the residents of Mare Island have to provide funding for this project. The majority of traffic over the bridge consists of those shortcutting to/from 37. The residents of Mare Island also pay for the maintenance and operations of bridge openings, be that for commercial or pleasure craft. Those who use the bridge, either for traffic or openings, should be required to pay. I could care less about the color, something low maintenance would be nice since my tax dollars are used for the expense. Skip the old logos and other bits that no one cares about anymore, it makes no sense.

Mare Island home owners pay a lot of additional property taxes ($4000+ each) for the bridge and most of the people who use the bridge do not live on the island. This is an unfair tax and tax burden. We have asked for tax relief for many many years and our pleas are always ignored. The bridge belongs to the City of Vallejo, not the residents on Mare Island. Put a bridge toll for non residents and/or remove the sole burden of paying for the bridge from the backs of Mare Island residents.

Safety is vital:

1. Have appropriate signage for directing Bicyclists/Pedestrians crossing the bridge...it is extremely unsafe when these groups are on the roadway, rather than the sidewalk.

2. Install better signs indicating speed to cross the bridge

3. Install a "NO PASSING" sign

4. Install a sign indicating Rail Ties/Slippery Surface or whatever you need to do for drivers not familiar with driving on the bridge.

I too am a resident of Mare Island. Please staff Mare Island with appropriate fire/police protection during this project. And moving forward, if there is a way to limit unnecessary traffic using Mare Island as a shortcut...that would be fabulous.

It just doesn't seem right that the residents of Mare Island are paying 100% of the bridge costs when they use it far less than non-residents. I feel that a toll system for the bridge for non-residents be a part of the planned improvements. You can set up the cameras like they do for the other bigger bridges in the bay area and then collect the tolls thru that system.

It is time to transfer financial responsibility for this bridge away from the residents of Mare Island! Why is Caltrans or Solano County not covering this bridge? The residents of Mare Island should not be paying for it, as we are a small, small percentage of the traffic over the bridge. If we have to pay for the bridge, we need to put a toll for all non-Mare Island residents. The City of Vallejo must address this issue!!