The Planning Commission Does a

 

          Slam Dunk (sort of)

 

August 16, 2012 Meeting



8/18/12

By Hatfield McCoy

with editorial comment in italics



Anyone who has paid attention to the Planning Commission over the past decade, and probably even before that, has learned that the commission has been largely made up of a few rubber stamping Chamber of Commerce people, with a few different minded members managing to be appointed on rare occasion. The current commission is no different.

 

The mantra is “Absolutely positively anything is a good thing because it is better than nothing." 

 

Vallejo is now faced with yet another new project from East Bay developer Joe Callahan. He is the developer who brought us that wonderful looking State Farm building and stripped us of a beautiful redwood shaded park in the process. Callahan now proposes to place over 400 residential rental units on our CENTRAL waterfront, with hundreds of parking spaces. He also proposes to place a large office building at the end of Maine Street for a yet unnamed tenant.


The Planning Commission met at their regularly appointed time last Monday, August 13th. However, after convening, the meeting was cancelled within minutes and rescheduled for Thursday, August 16th. Some feel that city staff was playing games to confuse the public. Only five of the seven members were in attendance at the Thursday meeting: Eschenburg, Graden, Klimsch, Kinney and Adams with Peterman and Cortez absent. Several war veterans were present to state their concerns about potentially losing their Veterans Memorial Park currently situated behind the library. Activist Joe Mickelson stated that over 1400 veterans frequently use that park, and share the park with their families. He reminded the group that the veterans just spent money they don’t really have to put up the granite monument honoring Vallejo’s fallen war veterans. In addition to the Vets, a few dozen citizens peppered the audience. Councilman Robert McConnell was the only member of the city council in attendance.


Several speakers came forward. One speaker said:“It baffles me why you would build a big box office building on our precious waterfront when you don’t even know who the prospective tenant is, or whether or not they will come to Vallejo.” Downtown property owner and merchant, B.J. Conrad asked several rational questions. Among them were: How will the already overburdened police and fire department take care of 400 more rental units? Why are we in such a big rush to do this? Is the contractor willing to finance necessary infrastructure, or will he leave that up to the tax payers? What if we build the office building, and the potential tenant goes elsewhere anyways? Conrad ended her line of questioning with: Where are you going to put over 1,000 parking places, right at the center of our waterfront?


A brand new commissioner, Anthony (Tony) Adams, kicked off the discussion of the proposed project. “I have tried to think of ways to make this work. I have met with Joe Callahan and find him to be a gracious fellow. But I cannot in good conscience support this project.” Adams was one of three planning commissioners in attendance at the “second public hearing” which was part of the City Council meeting on Tuesday, August 14. “The waterfront is one of the few jewels we have left, we must consider this proposal very carefully. Will people come to visit apartments and office buildings? No, but they will come to see a waterfront. We need sound long-term effects and advantages for Vallejo and for Vallejo’s people. Do we want to become a ‘Destination Area’ or a ‘Pass-thru Departure Area’?” he asked. Adams spoke with passion when he further said: “We can separate this into three aspects of reflection: Heart & Soul, Spirit & Intention and Systems Thinking. The Systems Thinking element is the rational lens. We need to look at a long term solution. It’s a natural desire to want to do something – anything. But the symptom now is the poor economy, so we react to the pain, but forget the cure. We do not need a quick fix for the pain, we need to obtain the greatest possible leverage to get the waterfront we all so dearly want. We simply cannot and must not give it away.” Adams finished his address with this statement: “We need to shape our future in a proactive way, not a reactive way. We are no longer willing to simply react to the events around us, please for the sake of Vallejo’s future, let’s do it right!”


Once Adams finished his impassioned statements illuminating the reasons as to his rejection of this proposal (Adams was the sole dissenting vote) , Commissioner Klimsch addressed Jpe Callahan: “I apologize for the way our other ‘division’ has addressed you, Mr. Callahan. You have been here for fourteen years, and have done a lot for Vallejo.” Vice Chairman Graden offered many sound questions, and had obviously put a little more thought into his vote. Klimsch finalized the discussion with: “Change is always painful, I approve this project.” Graden then called for the vote, Klimsch made the motion, seconded by Kinney, and it was a done deal with a ‘Motion carries’ vote on a 4-1 split. Let’s watch Adams carefully. He appears both thoughtful and independent.

Comments
Add New Search RSS
Anonymous   |August.28.2012
We don't need more low income housing in the downtown area. I would like to feel like I can walk down the waterfront like people do in San Francisco. What's wrong with a Pier 39 idea with shops? How is a condominium going to boost our economy and bring more visitors to Vallejo. We already have a lot of housing in Vallejo. What we need is more businesses in Vallejo. We will lose so much beauty and the community will suffer if we develop condominiums. The Waterfront has become an area for festivals and community gatherings. What a loss if all we do is put up a huge condominium and block
the view we have of our historic waterfront area.
anonymous   |August.26.2012
I would love to move over to Vallejo on the waterfront. I can totally see this being a little Sausalito with little shops,places to grab a nice ethnic meal, and a rich history to remind us of days gone by. I currently live in Marin and was really sorry to see the vote go the way it did. It seems like common sense that no one would build office buildings on the waterfront. This is not rocket science....thank God!
Restaurant Incubator   |August.23.2012
When I look at some lively downtown, e.g. Palo Alto, Mountain View, Both have more than 50% of their business food related.

People need to eat everyday. So if you have good food at reasonable price, people will come.

We need to make it easier for people to try out their family recipe and cooking talent without too much risk. We are a diverse community and let's have all different ethnic food in downtown.

Have a incubator and make it less risky to try.
Natasha Clarke   |August.23.2012
Waterfront need Nice hotels stay enoph out of water to attract visitors and public at large to spend days or wacation in our waterfront and downtown
Natasha Clarke   |August.23.2012
Old Massonic building next to Empress will have afortable condos for "artists" I want to see this artists first before City approve build more apartments or condos at Waterfront. We don't need to rush. Let see who will hang out in front of Empress. If City consuls make rule no more then 20%of section 8 at any rental properties in Downtown different people will come. If Masonic building will have 50% artists and 50% section 8 who will go out of this property what do you think.
Natasha Clarke   |August.23.2012
Rentals condos or afortable apartments will kill Downtown Vallejo permanently. Very nice profit for investors build this for section 8 and have regular profit from government who pays for them. But who will live around and take care of this? the people who live in Downtown or have business there. How many time my costumers who give the deposit to have Weding reception at Dance Unlimited come back and take deposit back because their invited guests afraid to come to Downtown. Do we need more offices building? All Downtown are available for rent so many apartments too and houses. Waterfront
need to be for promenades we need have big concret outside stage for wine festivals, Hollidays events, music bands playgrounds for children and youth. Did you see what Suisun City have everybody there. Our waterfront better and can be more biutiful city will have more profit from visitors not from section 8 apartment and offices. Gomes say Downtown Vallejo is our hart the waterfront is our sol and she is right. This land can change Downtown dramatically to be up or down forewer.
wharf rat   |August.22.2012
A skunk dunk if there ever was one
CEQA   |August.22.2012
As a trades person even I am fairly adept
with CEQA to consider our Economic Development Director states She is "not very up on CEQA" is rather disturbing I studied CEQA on my own time and dime to better serve my community . Considering the compensation package , this experience should have come with the position, if not the new hire should have buried themselves in the books until they were at speed . We live in a tough economic time , money is tighter than ever , all the six figure salaries
at City Hall need to be reviewed and possibly adjusted to ensure we are getting what we are
paying for, it is a new era and the gravy train is out of
fuel .
Anonymous   |August.21.2012
The problem here is not Mr. Callahan or any developer. It is City staff. Staff is supposed to work for the citizens of Vallejo. They act more like they work for he City of Bell. Who is hiring them and who directs them? I was flabbergasted when the new Economic Development Director admitted to the Planning Commission that she didn't know much about CEQA and proceeded to turn the presentation over to a hired gun who put up a powerpoint slide saying that no additional environmental analysis was required for the change from owner occupied housing to dense rental housing. Staff is supposed to be
the gatekeeper. The gobblygook bureaucratic reference the hired gun gave was to a section of the CEQA Guidelines that says that a project is not exempt if there is new information or circumstances that could not have been anticipated when the Project was originally evaluated. Stuff like the economic downturn, the end of Redevelopment, the City's bankruptcy, the departure of Triad. All change the parameters of the purpose and need for the original Project. So staff tried (again) to grease the skids for a developer by tweaking the interpretationn of the law to the detriment of the entire
community and then apologized prettily for manipulating the public meetings to limit public participation. If anything is holding Vallejo back from realizing its full potential it is City staff. (I see that Al DeSilva is baaaack. Does Craig Whittom need help?)

If you want a viable alternative to Callahan's Plan, it is pretty simple. Enforce the State, Federal and local codes so that "investors" are required to maintain their properties and screen their tenants to keep nuisance renters so that the our neighborhoods are safe and livable again. Stop the exodus of decent homeowners who
are no longer willing to live in a war zone waiting for some developer to build something somewhere that will make it all better. When homeowners with disposable income outnumber the scuzzballs, prostitutes, thieves, homeless and gangbangers, they will wander downtown and life will return. Mr. Callahan said himself, "retail follows roofs". That's a suburban mantra but it works for urban centers too. Retail will follow revitalized neighborhoods with roofs covering owner occupied homes rather than roofs covering vacant houses and blighted rentals.
Anonymous   |August.21.2012
Triad was vested in the downtown and that didn't stop Osby from giving them the boot.
Weighing In   |August.21.2012
Well here is some intelligent discourse today. Sure sometimes it gets a little rough but in Fellow Anon's defense, we have been F-ed with by city staff and some chosen (read bought) council members in the past. Just when you think bad planning is a thing of the past, it rears it's head as it is steamrolled down our throats in record time.

This plan is flawed, seriously flawed and the process is has been mangled. When you say, "Callahan has a tenant, things are being speeded up because the tenant has set terms, not the City, not Callahan" you are wrong. Do you realize there is no
tenant but an IDEA of a MAYBE tenant?

Here are deal breakers for me; an office building on prime waterfront land - and that's it. He doesn't have to perform other than that. But for a second issue - and this is the fatal flaw for many, many people, 426 RENTAL units on prime waterfront land.

Joe pushed through a cherry picking extraordinaire of the State Farm parcel out of this whole plan previously and we the public got sucker punched. The City of Vallejo got pennies on the dollar value for that parcel and pledges from Joe & Co. that the park they stripped out (the only playground in all of
the downtown) would be replaced and that the Redwood Grove would stay to act as a barrier from the apartments right there. Both things GONE and never replaced. Matter of fact if you try to picnic or play on the grass by the State Farm building they sic security on you. Look but don't touch.

No sorry, Joe has earned his bad reputation. Time to show Joe the door and get a great developer in with a holistic, cohesive plan with the citizenry at the table.
Anonymous   |August.21.2012
Hey there. Don't hold me responsible for what you didn't communicate. I asked more than once what your position was and what your vision was. You didn't explain it, nor provide the support you just gave for your position. You're right, I didn't have some of that information. So am I not entitled to weigh in? I have an open mind, I didn't see one coming from you so I responded accordingly. I certainly understand your position better now and your skepticism. I would support you advocating for Callahan doing what was agreed to, I have my own doubts. That said, I also think that is worth finding
out more about what he is proposing, no designs yet on the table. Like I said, if it stinks, and he is not being responsive to the community, then by all means try to sink it before it swims. However, so far he has shown that he is willing to respond to some of the community concerns, he has offered modifications as to the retail element, the pedestrian element, and so on. I am very concerned about the "Texas Wrap" proposal, but not to well done residential per the original master plan. But I also think that a little flexibility may be necessary. As you state the economy has changed,
and one of the issues is getting anybody to do anything here. I am not in favor of selling out either just to get something done and I deeply resent your implications. While others laud your "passion" I find your language very disrespectful and presumptuous. There are ways to express your angry or angst without attacking people who disagree with you . . . and I am not even necessarily in disagreement with your ultimate position it seems. It appears that you are in favor of the master plan, albeit resentful of the process you had to go to get there which is understandable. Your war
cries don't impress me, they scare me. It appears you are more interested in intimidation than communication and apparently so are at least some of your associates on this blog. More on-line bullying as far as I am concerned.
wharf rat   |August.21.2012
Fyi the internet is peppered with info on the waterfront development history to current there has been many complex and
questionable deals struck back when it was a redevelopment area . Way back in 2005 a deal was cut with Solano County for a percentage of low income housing on the waterfront to meet County and ABAG numbers was this a trade off for some other project ? this was built into the original agreement for an RDA area with the county , so it seems we have been prostituting our waterfront assets for some time considering this was a massive redevelopment area for years and now
redevelopment is done in the whole
scope has changed as per Council members
(new time ,new project) "new economy,new financing scenario" hopefully fresh start ,quality planning and public support .google Vallejo waterfront Solano County see for your selves .
the peeps   |August.21.2012
Know Vallejo
You seem to be a repository of info on Vallejo , do you know what Callahan has
vested in waterfront development ? and if we are liable to compensate him if we dump the deal ? why does his deal live for so long ? please post if you know
thanks
the peeps
wharf rat   |August.21.2012
@ Fellow Anonymous
Yes bravo and encore !! very well put you covered most of the bases with the fire in your belly and passion !! Some of us have been contributing to preservation of our waterfront assets since the 80's or before
and wont give up without a fight! it is imperative we develop a first class waterfront plan a current one not an antique retread from the land of the lost
this crap about a huge residential element needed to fund all the amenities
was used to hold hostage the origional plan this has never been what the people of Vallejo wanted and remains so . Why the hell
should we compromise our asset
for the enrichment of one developer I say take your crappy project and stuff it ! what City in the bay area would approve such a substandard project on prime waterfront land ? answer is NONE
this is very valuable land and has great potential . The VA can move into the State Farm building when they leave or even lease out City Hall upper floors City offices can relocate into their owned real estate across the street .
Fellow Anonymous   |August.21.2012
You guess wrong, Anonymous. Maybe in your in-depth studying of the master plan, you should have looked a bit deeper into the history of its development. What you see today is a compromise between the city, Callahan and the citizens (Waterfront Coalition). The compromising was done and hammered out with a lot of hard work by the citizens volunteering their time and money. They had to sue to get this compromise. Do you know how much lawyers charge? A planer? Paid for out of citizen donations.

I did a bit of googling on the waterfront coalition to see if they have a copy of their plan online.
It looks like their website isn't up, but I did find some interesting tidbits:

The citizens plan won a national award for their plan. (http://www.waterfrontcenter.org/Awards/2005Awards.html) Scroll down to the bottom and there's a thumbnail of the citizens plan. I see a lot of density and open space, contrary to your "guess" on what "we" opponents want.

St. Vincent's Hill Neighborhood Association developed their own plan.

Here's a flyer from 2004, maybe? Quotes from citizens, some of them have passed, who care deeply aboat our waterfront and the treatment of this community
by Callahan. There were a lot of people from a variety of groups opposing Callahan's plan. (Mrs. Brodie should be on here!):

http://www.vallejowaterfrontcoalition.org/flyers/you_said_it.pdf

So stop pointing fingers and "guessing" what those of us who oppose this proposal want. The community compromised. Callahan compromised. He's going back on that agreement and is giving the community exactly what we fought against originally. It feels like a double war. It was supposed to be over, but after the treaty was signed, the opposition went behind our backs and tried to sink our
battleship. Ain't going to happen.
Anonymous   |August.21.2012
Finally, your comments smack of the anti-development forces that are totally unnuanced and oppose everything except land preservation. I am all for land preservation, but I am also for good development where it will benefit the community. Good development of the waterfront, including preservation of open space, would be a blessing to this struggling town, in my opinion. I am not saying Callahan, or any particular person, is the best advocate for that. However, when someone does come forward, I think it is up to the community to respectively consider their proposal and argue respectfully for
their concerns . . . or stop the project if it is too horrendous and no satisfying compromise can be made. If your position is simply for open space, it appears that vote was not approved by the larger community when the master plan was approved. So is your plan to set the community back by not working with a plan that has been already adopted by the larger community or to work with it to be certain your interests are represented.
Anonymous   |August.21.2012
I give you or anyone else props for your past involvement, and I certainly understand the concerns with using public lands, giving overly generous concessions to developers, and the public investments as to recent developments in the city. Whose condescending now? So what is your vision for the waterfront? What is your vision for economic development? Do you think there is any place for public/private partnerships? Does anyone who considers supporting any development automatically become a "brown-noser" in your world? Are you willing to compromise or does that qualify, to you, as being
weak and being a developer whore or whatever you think. Sorry if I came across as condescending, I find your opinions as extremely aggravating as you apparently find mine. In no way do I suggest that any developer should be handed a project or not have to reckon with community concerns or the preservation of community assetts. Your comments way overstate what I believe. But I do believe in negotiating and trying to achieve some kind of consensus that appeals to the broadest concerns and interests. As far as the State Farm building, or any project, as I stated, no one project is going to change
the world, and if the developer promised that, he was obviously selling the project, that's what they do, you don't have to buy it. I'm guessing your vision for the waterfront is acres of open space and parks. Well that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But it won't change the economic climate in this town. Do you, or whoever your representing, have equally viable solutions to that concern?
know vallejo   |August.21.2012
bravo, fellow anomymous, bravo. well said.
Fellow Anonymous   |August.21.2012
Your misguided and undeserved condescension is dripping all over your post, "fellow anonymous." You have no idea of what I or anybody else talking here does or doesn't do in this city. You've drunk the koolaid, obviously. That's fine. Portray "us people" as wanting no development if that makes you feel better for being such a sellout to "anything is better than nothing."

"...one of the best opportunities to jumpstart economic development in this town."

I'm not cynical, just a realist. Callahan said that about State Farm, too. What happened to that jumpstart
and wonderful new amenities it would create? Crickets, that's all we hear.

"...attitude of participation, negotiation, and contributing to positive change rather than just attacking, blaming, and sitting at home at your computer stewing over your powerlessness in the face of others who are actively taking a position and taking risks. Very easy to sit back, or to just attack, much harder to commit to something, work for it, deal with the risk and the frustration, and the time and energy it takes."

Many of "us" have been fighting for our waterfront since 1997. Many of
"us" created and supported a citizen-driven alternative plan for the waterfront. I think that 15 years is quite a committment, and would qualify as work, time, and using our collective energy. And instead of sitting back and just "taking a position," we actually did something concrete. Instead of just "taking a position" or "complaining," we provided an alternative. What did you do, "fellow anonymous?"

"You can't blame a developer for wanting to try to minimize his or her own risk, or even City Hall for that matter, no one wants to lose money on a
project or waste time."

And you can't blame citizens who want to minimize the theft of their publicly owned resource just to help a developer "minimize their risk." We don't want to lose money on a project either. You know, that little thing called the taxpayer dollar? Thats the only thing Callahan is willing to risk.

As for the wonderful new developments on the waterfront, they're both built with government/taxpayer money (a parking garage and a bus station). There's no investment here by the developer. And btw, Callahan doesn't have the money to fund any public uses that won't
make him cash. DeSilva did, his former partner who quit when the getting was good.

And yes, just because a tenant has "requirements," let's by all means rush a huge decision that will completely change a master plan and effect Vallejo's best asst forever. Sure, just screw the transparent public process. Bow down and bend over, and thank them for even considering poor ol' Vallejo. You feel free to go ahead and scrape the ground. But "they like me, they really like me!" won't work for me. Our waterfront is more valuable than that old and tired low self-esteem attitude that has
permeated Vallejo's decisions forever. Until now.

Say hello to the new reality. You'll get used to it and eventually you'll like it because you won't need to be a brown nosing boot licker anymore and can just hold your head high.
Anonymous   |August.21.2012
Back at you fellow anonymous person. Thanks for turning your attack strategy on me now. Lovely. That said, I guess you have all the answers so no point in communicating with you, but your skepticism is understandable and at least you do seem to have some knowledge of the history of the master plan and tax provisions, etc. But you take the most cynical view possible and you don't allow for adjustments, changes, new opportunities, negotiations, and just finding new answers in general. The master plan does not have to be abandoned, nor should it be. There are still opportunities within the
original strategy that can be realized, and funding for parks can be borne by the developer himself, for example, rather than through tax incremental financing. If there are well done elements added to the waterfront, it will in effect generate its own economy over time, pulling in money and interest that is not there now, as is the course of progress for most new development. If you want to be a pessimist and a blamer fine, but you are not adding much in terms of opening doors to the future of Vallejo, either by contribuing, negotiating, or establishing a position of mutual respect for
establishing new terms. If you and others here deplore all development on the waterfront, that's fine, a legitimate position. But if that happens it will deny the rest of the City of one of the best opportunities it has to jump start economic development in this town and will deny people of the amenties that they, and future residents might enjoy if changes are made. The City has already developed new infrastructure to support the development of the waterfront and the downtown. There is a new garage, a new transit center, street renovations on Mare Island Way, Virgina Street, and Georgia
Street. All these features are beginning to lay the foundation for the future. Vallejo is moving forward on many counts despite the negativity and "know-it-all" cynicism of people like you. As far as the other blogger's comment that the State Farm building is empty, that is not true. It is occupied and it exists as yet another piece of the puzzle that will lead to a revitalized waterfront and community. Not by itself alone, but as one component in the overall development of the city. Though I know this is wasted energy on my part, as far as some of you are concerned, try considering an
attitude of participation, negotiation, and contributing to positive change rather than just attacking, blaming, and sitting at home at your computer stewing over your powerlessness in the face of others who are actively taking a position and taking risks. Very easy to sit back, or to just attack, much harder to commit to something, work for it, deal with the risk and the frustration, and the time and energy it takes. Finally, you can't blame a developer for wanting to try to minimize his or her own risk, or even City Hall for that matter, no one wants to lose money on a project or waste time
and resources on something that doesn't have a prayer. Callahan has a tenant, things are being speeded up because the tenant has set terms, not the City, not Callahan. Unfortunately, that has created a mess in terms of public hearings. The alternative will be to lose the tenant, lose the jobs, lose another chance to step forward. Backing away is not such a easy decision. Until things start happening here, not many other potential tenants, developers or business owners are going to take the risk of moving to Vallejo.
Flying Pig   |August.20.2012
Valleho does change for the better if ever so slowly.

2007-2008 are crazy years and I am not sure will things be back to that level soon.

I expressed my concerns about the neighborhood and was informed by long time neighbors that our block is better today than 10 years ago.

He told me the corner house was a crack house at one point and now is a rental in reasonable shape. Another house, abandoned at the corner for many years, was rebuilt by an investor and now a rental. A few new owners moved in and several solid old timers.

Sure it can be improved but I have seen it changing for the
better.

For those who can not see themselves change or the community change, they can only see what is today.
wharf rat   |August.20.2012
sounds like dollar green would be an appropiate shade for Ms Piggy . So 40 k
people one event if they all just spent $5.00 that would be $200.000 gross considering the permit fees etc for undeveloped land this looks like a goldmine for COV . "Dont look a gift pig in the mouth"
Mousy   |August.20.2012
Pirate Fest brings 40K people to our waterfront. Yet it's a pig?
Anonymous   |August.20.2012
Clark, are you suggesting we find a better shade of lipstick to put on the pig?
Clarke Johnston   |August.20.2012
From reading between the lines regarding the cancellation of the Inter-Tribal Pow Wow, and comments that I personally heard during the Pirate Festival, as well as the Wednesday Night events, the COV isn't exactly bending over to enable promotion of these types of events. When you look at the Benicia or Martinez Peddlers Fairs, or the Petaluma Butter & Eggs event, the common thread is PEOPLE coming to visit, have a good time, and enjoy the atmosphere. Now, being realistic, Georgia Street after dark is a work in progress (Being charitable), but there's no reason that the COV shouldn't be trying
harder to entice visitors to daytime waterfront events. Right now, some of the cost/fee/permit/form hoops are acting more as barriers then as perfunctory paperwork. We need to encourage foot traffic, and hopefully in the process garner some better press and public perceptions for Vallejo. (In an effort to counter balance the usually untimely bad press when there's a shooting, robbery, or the umpteenth Craigslist scam gone bad)
know vallejo   |August.20.2012
sorry, klimisch, by his own admission, was apologizing for gomes and brown.
Anon II   |August.20.2012
I think Klimsch apologized for the 'other division' of the planning commission, not the council. The council does not weigh in on this until Tuesday night, August 28 7p.m. regular meeting.I agree, Anthony Adams is a man to watch for a potential Vallejo city council member.
Watch planning commission tonight too; bet Adams has done his homework on tonight's issues too. I think that the 4 progressive on council will do the right thing with respect to the waterfront. We need to have faith.
Anonymous   |August.20.2012



Vallejo Independent Bulletin - Offline








 









Vallejo Independent Bulletin





This site is temporarily unavailable.
Could not connect to the database server





Salty Dog   |August.20.2012
@ anon:

What do I want...like?

I want the same that I see along the waterfront- open areas with pathways for promenading and viewing water activity. It sets it apart from the rest of Vallejo and is a welcome relief and stark contrast to the closed, unsafe and furtive feelings of the DT area.

I want more of the same with more trees and benches and activities the enhance a safe outdoor experience along with commerce that supports that.

All I know is that I feel far safer along the waterfront, find it a friendlier place to be. I want more, please.

But, what do I know...I am visioning
again.
Firebug   |August.20.2012
avatar I am continuously amused at posters asking us why we are soured to office space when we have the vacant state farm building as a monument to pie int he sky thinking and promises of revitalizing Vallejo that never materialized.

Clarke Johnston   |August.20.2012
@ Mr. Your witty comments must reflect your own Amsterdam Dreams, eh? Better lay off for a while, no?
Anonymous   |August.20.2012
@anon: the "master plan" that you speak of and claim to have reviewed thoroughly is old and outdated. The housing included in it would never fly in today's market. The plan was in a redevelopment area. The money made off the expensive housing (a thing of the past) would have created tax increment, which would have provided the money for the public uses in the plan. There is no redevelopment anymore. No public uses. No expensive housing.

And this plan that you claim we should all support because the waterfront coalition agreed to the compromise plan in their settlement with
Callahan? It doesn't exist anymore. Callahan is proposing to change it. That's what all of this is about. But he doesn't want to change the whole plan to make sure it all works together and it what we want as a community. He wants to cherry pick the best parcel and do what is NOT called for in your "well-reviewed" plan and put a government office building with wonderful water views. And change the once-expensive for-sale housing to rentals we don't need in Vallejo. ("don't worry though, we'll convert them to for-sale condos later, wink wink.".

So before you chastise people,
perhaps you should educate yourself more. Otherwise you just look defensive and stupid. Or is "not so smart" a "nicer" way to speak for you?
Mr :)   |August.20.2012
One speaker said It baffles me why you would build a big box office building on our precious waterfront when you don't even know who the prospective tenant is

Sounds like a front for an MMD. Ground floor retail sales, upper floors grow operation, roof top restaurant and hookah bar. All painted fluorescent green. All customers will be given fluorescent green plastic bags to litter Vallejo with.
Mr :)   |August.20.2012
One speaker said It baffles me why you would build a big box office building on our precious waterfront when you don
Mr :)   |August.20.2012
"One speaker said:
wharf rat   |August.20.2012
@ Anon
Perhaps I can assist you with understanding lack of praise for the state farm building. it displaced an open space
park scape and a redwood grove this was viewed by many as an asset and was pleasing to look upon . The development was touted as the anchor project for the renisanse of downtown Vallejo. The open space had value to many Vallejo residents
an few see the building as a equitable trade off . The price paid for the land
would be interesting to know it could have been very low far below its value.
perhaps if the developer had dialed back his rhetoric and glossy pitch the
locals
would have had lower expectations .
as it sits now the project has no noticeable positive impacts for the downtown ,certianly not for the waterfront the only positive impact was to Callahans pocket and the now dead redevelopment agency .
Anonymous   |August.19.2012
The negativity expressed here is truly disheartening. Instead of attacking people why don't you express what your for? If you don't like a proposal, they be clear about what you object too and please clarify you vision for turning Vallejo around. Personally, I have reviewed the original master plan for the city and thought the ideas within it were excellent. It proposes a range of development for the waterfront while maintaining significant open space. Offices were part of that plan, as was residential housing, reatail, restaurants and the like. Do you object to the master plan that was
created with input from local citizens and approved by the politicians you elected? Or is it just this project? What is it about an office building you don't like . . . note that he has not yet shown a design . . . and neither is the a design for the residential housing. That said, I do have concerns that he may be straying from the vision of the original master plan. I think he should be asked to stay consistent with that original vision . . . which he paid for by the way. If he builds too big, too corporate, that would betray the vision. As far as the State Farm building, I don't find that
so awful. I really don't understand why some of you hate it so much. What do you like? You don't really say, you just spew criticisms and negativity.
Anonymous   |August.19.2012
Excuse me? The Non-Planning Commission approved this crappy project, why? Because they said it would "send a good message to developers." That kind of decision-making belongs to the elected policy makers, not the appointed commissioners playing out their fantasies of of being a council member. It was a joke. Tony Adams was the only bright light ina very dim room.
Salty Dog   |August.19.2012
The fact that Adams has only been in Vallejo for two months is hardly a negative and no reason to discount his summation with heavy reference to the Official and already existing Waterfront Plan. A breath of new fresh air comes to mind.

Land use planning and "vision" are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the existing
Official Plan started with the visions of scores of residents.The current propesed amended plan is a "vision" of one man with a checkered development history that places the primary emphasis on the economic bottom line.

If you want to differentiate the rolls of
different decision making bodies,remember that the public good and private gain can coexist,but often does not.

I don' see the coexistence in this amendment.
GW   |August.19.2012
Well, maybe there will be a seat on council for this man in the future!

Betting that our ship will come in by finally initiating a plan that has grown a beard over the years, is not the way to go. The Planning Commissions mission is self explanatory.

I have used the waterfront on rare occasions, I do not live by it, but since there is no space that is attracting the masses as our waterfront does, why populate it with a massive housing project?
Anonymous   |August.19.2012
Mr Adams has only lived in Vallejo for two months and is on a commission that requires a greater knowledge of the city than he could possibly have.
The commission's purpose is often misunderstood, the job of the Planning Commission is land use period.
People who talk about what they'd like to do for Vallejo's economic problems should really be on the Economic Development Commission.
People who want to develop a vision for Vallejo should run for City Council.
GW   |August.19.2012
I agree, Mr. Adams appeared to have given serious thought to this situation and then voted what he thought was best for the people of Vallejo and the property.

I very much appreciated his thoughtful comments and believe he weighed them very carefully along with a certain quiet passion. Thank you!

I have yet to realize the benefits an office building with bottom floor garage can bring to the revitalization of the down town. This thing will be located on the water front, have employees with limited time off (lunch) and as seen in Oakland, will split as soon as that whistle blows, to the
ferry, bus and to the roads leading away from Vallejo.

Since I am certain the majority of jobs will be transfers coming with whom ever it is that will occupy this building, how many new hires will be from Vallejo and/or the North Bay?

Unless we will have a miraculous influx of quality establishments in close proximity of this save all complex, most employees will take their money to the cafeteria just about every federal building has. Eliminate the parking garage under the building for employees and let them use the newly constructed public garage and replace that space with
retail.

I am not fond of drawing comparisons with other cities, but the office building scenario in down town Oakland is a prime example of bustling during the day and deserted/dead landscape after business hours.

That is when the not very desirable night life begins. In Oakland's case they actually have an assortment of restaurants/bars in the area, we do not!
Our selection is very limited in that regard and with boredom comes what we are already experiencing and are trying to eliminate from the equation.

We most likely will have an office building in our future. If it will
actually get the nod from this secret tenant, that is supposed to lease it, is up in the air. The only chance we will have to receive an acceptable building, both in usefulness and attractiveness, will remain in the hands of the Design Review Board and the citizens that wish to give their input, publicly.
John K   |August.19.2012
Dennis Klimisch made a poor decision, embracing the idea that anything is a good thing because it is better than nothing. I remember walking, jogging, biking, and short-cutting through that beautiful redwood-shaded waterfront park before it was transformed into the inaccessible private property of State Farm. A publicly accessible open space full of weeds is better than another ugly brown wart on Our Waterfront. Why does our planning commission think of Vallejo as a desperate prostitute? Why not build that kind of crap elsewhere, perhaps where deed restrictions prohibit grocery stores?
Firebug   |August.19.2012
avatar Status quo for Mr. Klimish, why would anyone trust him to make business decisions for Vallejo when his wife does not even allow him to make business decisions at their auto body shop? I think he should stick to picking up rubbish on Sonoma Blvd, and leave it to the council majority to clean up after his poor business decisions.
Clarke Johnston   |August.19.2012
I just can't envision rental units being a smart solution to Vallejos' or downtowns' growth issues. Just not in the cards.
Jim Davis   |August.19.2012
I heard about this project last week, when Marc reviewed a council meeting. Now it's approved? That's it for the discussion? Wow. And I had heard that Vallejo was slow to act. I am counting on the council to stop this in its tracks. Calahan can't disclose the occupant because it's confidential? I've got his confidential. Rental units? You gotta be kidding. We need a commercial center, not rental units. We must not give up an inch of waterfront for non-income generating occupancy. I don't like the politics in this town. Secret, underhanded, a cabal of movers and shakers that no one
else knows about. So much for the Brown Act. Love, Jim
Salty Dog   |August.19.2012
It is heartening to know that there is leadership in Vallejo of Mr Adams' thoughtful caliber.

Heart & Soul, Spirit & Intention and Systems Thinking hit the nail squarely, yet the other members refused to consider these concepts in their knee jerk reactions.

Heart & Soul, Spirit & Intention are human values that usually take a bashing when contested with the "rational" approach of systems theory.

Yet,that systems theory approach,in this case is devoid of solid factual input,throughput and output.

What we have here is a strong argument for narrow self interest leading to garbage in
equals garbage out in a never ending negative feedback loop.

Mr Adams seems to get it. Now lets see if the majority of Council also gets it. This is where this new majority needs to walk the talk. The rubber has hit the road.
Monica   |August.19.2012
they APPROVED IT? How do we protest this? The rescheduled meeting is terrible! There was no public notification! I'm outraged that those idiots gave away our greatest asset!
@ wack a weasel   |August.19.2012
It's when I see posts like yours that I yearn for a LIKE button. Right-on!
Wack-a-Weasel   |August.19.2012
Thank god Klimsch's vote can be pounded into dust by the council -- he's truly lacking in intelligence.

Callahan has done "a lot" for Vallejo? Tell us what? Give us one thing that meant "a lot" to Vallejo? State Farm doesn't count because it's SUCKS. The parking garage was all federal and state money. He doesn't donate to local causes or organizations (other than certain council members campaigns maybe.) He's a user and a schmoozer and a modern day snake oil salesman. Thanks Tony, for seeing thru the BS.

And who does Klimisch think he is apoligizing for the city council's
behavior? They appointed him! I hope the council spanks the little weasel.
Anonymous   |August.18.2012
Thank goodness we have Adams. Gone are the days of a forward thinking planning commission with McConnell/Legalos/Harrington-Cole. Luckily we now have a forward thinking council majority!
Anonymous   |August.18.2012
Anthony Adams is my hero!! As is Alice Brody! (oh & Stephanie Gomes & Marti Brown too)!
Write comment
Name:
 
:angry::0:confused::cheer:B):evil::silly::dry::lol::kiss::D:pinch:
:(:shock::X:side::):P:unsure::woohoo::huh::whistle:;):s
 
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

3.23 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."