Dollar Store

 Extravaganza

City Staff set to sell Waterfront property for“Just a Buck”

8/24/12 -- Page 127 of the published staff reports for the August 28, 2012 Vallejo City Council Meeting indicate that City Staff is recommending the waterfront property at the corner of Maine St and Mare Island Way (parcel L1) be sold to developer Callahan Property Company for the purchase price of $1.

Vallejo does have a lot of Dollar Stores...but WOW!!

The excerpt from the staff reports for Tuesday's City Council Meeting is as follows:

“Purchase Price for Developer Parcel L1. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, including, without limitation, the other provisions of Section 201 and any provision concerning the application of a credit toward payment of a Purchase Price, the Purchase Price to be paid by the Developer for Parcel L1 shall be ONE DOLLAR ($1.00). The determination of the Purchase Price for all other Developer Parcels shall be undertaken completely without regard to the Purchase Price payable for Parcel L1 in accordance with subsection e., and as if the purchase of Parcel L1 did not occur.”

You can view the full agenda and staff reports on the Vallejo City website HERE

Be at City Council chambers this Tuesday at 7PM if you have an opinion on this matter.

Comments

Add New Search RSS

wharf rat   |August.28.2012 So if Council votes yes tonight at that very instant they will have gifted almost half a million dollars to an out of town developer . "You just couldnt make up this stuff if you tried"

Make Staff Accountable   |August.28.2012 @comeback kid I agree completely with what you said and we should urge city council to vote no. But what can we do to prevent this from happening again? My take is that our staff is not doing the work we hired them to do and made bad recommendation. If we keep those staff around, SAME THING will happen again. This time we caught this craziness due to some diligent citizen who read through the 538 page report but will we be so lucky for the next time? We pay our staff because we citizens and council members do not have the time to comb through 538 pages of paper so we RELY on our staff and believe they will make the best recommendation with the benefit of the citizen in mind. If a staff does not have the confidence of the citizen so EVERYONE needs to read the 538 page report then it becomes counter productive and even destructive. There is no reason to keep this staff anymore. Do not blame the developers, they are here to make a buck. Make our OWN staff accountable. Call out the names that made bad recommendation and fire them.

Housing Consultant   |August.28.2012 A terrible idea to sell prime real estate to a development concern for a mere $1! A $1 sale is done for not-for-profit developers who do far more with less than the for profit groups. Vallejoans should be outraged at such a blatant give-a-way of city resources.

comeback kid   |August.28.2012 1) Selling precious waterfront property in a PRIME commercial area for $1 is an outrage. In 2008, an official appraiser set the value of parcel L1 at $481,338 (p167, City staff reports of 8/28/12). Even in changed market conditions, the parcel is worth more. 2) The key concept in the Waterfront master plan is MIXED-USE, not silos of activity. The proposed zoning changes completely undermine the entire character of what was achieved by the Waterfront Coalition, namely a mixed-use strategy that could invigorate the area 24/7, not leave dead zones. 3) The office building Callahan proposes has VERY shaky financial feasibility. In order for it to succeed, he needs to get the property for $1 (i.e., free), and will need to charge office rents higher than those charged in the Jack London Square area. The rent scenario is not realistic, and the donation of precious waterfront land for this proposal is theft. WRITE CITY COUNCIL TO VOTE NO ON THE CALLAHAN PROPOSAL, AND ATTEND THE 8/28 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO OPPOSE THIS TRAVESTY.

GW   |August.27.2012 With green space I mean landscaping, not parks. Vallejo is no longer in the business to give residents anything smaller than 7 acres when it comes to parks. Since the site is 1.7 acres a park is not even a talking point. A well maintained green belt on the waterfront that does lend itself to strolling with mindful pet owners cleaning up after themselves would be something I could appreciate.

Mousy   |August.27.2012 My goodness do people get rather crazy when it comes to development. Hotels, signature buildings. Even the Sydney Opera house has come up. Can you name a single city, any city of a population of ~100K, that has a "signature" building like that? The economics here in town simply can't support that kind of idea without massive public subsidies. We can't even try to attract a prime tenant without it being controversial. And that's when we have a good chance to attract a good tenant and have a subsidy pay for itself! I don't like the idea of a park there in Parcel L1. I did until I researched it. We've plenty of ill-used public space just across the street, on the south end of the waterfront near Brinkmans. Plenty of dead grass to go around already. Would anyone really spend time in a park facing a garage when you've the water front across the street? No, other than for neighborhood folks cutting through. It'd be green space we have to pay to maintain because a handful of people like the idea but not because there is a real need. Parks are not free! What we need to focus on is making Vallejo great for us Vallejoans. None of this build it and they will come idea (worked great for Stockton, didn't it?) but building spaces that we residents can enjoy. Parcel L1 isn't really a space well suited for the general public. If condos are out in this economy office space is best (which Vallejo doesn't actually have much of, modern office space). What'd be best for the town is a grocery store on Georgia and Mare Island, behind the post office. You'd get Ferry riders stopping in on their way home. It's an easy spot from either 37 or Curtola too. Then you can start building the condos (note: not rentals, but you'd have to wait a couple years) across the street. Either skip the retail or make it limited (ie Georgia St facing) as Vallejo has plenty of that already. What we need on this side of downtown is a counterbalance to 201 Maine and the poverty in the vicinity. It doesn't need to be extravagant, but just enough ownership to counteract the climate down there. Having well sheltered parking is a must, because all it takes is one episode of your car getting broken into and people loose trust. With condos, even entry level condos, you're gaining the sense of ownership downtown that's lacking outside the area's historic districts.

GW   |August.27.2012 My comment was with respect to an amphitheater at the location. I am fully aware that anything could be sqeezed into a few sqare feet of space and be considered functional and innovative. I am not always impressed by how SF or NY are using spaces that should remain free of buildings of any kind due to odd shape and accessability. If I lived in SF or NY I also would be just fine living in a 500sq. foot walk-up costing too much and at the same time be considered prime property. This is Vallejo, not SF or NY or any place in between and as of now we still have the luxury of having available space that will allow for construction of freestanding innovative structures connected by green spaces between them. I am certain Callahan as well as the city will insist on putting something on the 1.7 acres. Heaven forbid it would remain a well tended green space fronting the side of the public garage wall.

Odd shaped or not   |August.27.2012 Odd shape lot is not a problem for creative designer but could be a problem for box builder. Time Square NYC is the first comes to mind. There are also several landmark building in SF that are on odd shaped lot and are beautiful.

wharf rat   |August.27.2012 @ know Vallejo yes the position was riped off from Barbara our County Supervisor who has run for re-election un-opposed for how many years ??? and just why has She run un-oposed ?? because She backs up Her Community and does not sell out to the up-county GOB'S Barbara can look out of Her window at Mare Island , yet Seifert is appointed by the board to over see MI , something does not pass the smell test . Vallejo is the largest City in Solano County yet our most effective County Supervisor is prevented from performing Her commitment to represent Her constituants . Vallejo is the tax based bread basket that all of our Cities contribute to. It is clear the time is ripe for Vallejo to remove its'self from the County . When the largest City in the County is ex-communicated from the Democratic process it is time to move on !!! Welcome County of Vallejo good by Solano it is time to redraw the lines . just as was done to dilute our vote on County issues - tit for tat , get over it and regroup because we wont be contributing our TAX revenue County wide anymore . it will stay in-house . All Vallejo residents should withhold their their tax payments to County until a special fund is created . Supervised by a "special master" this could be the first real and relevant taxpayer justice ever enacted by a California County !! and possibly in American history, excluding the tea party "a mostly theatrical event well steeped in history" . So whats the beef"?? well it is simple , we elected this most incredible Woman year in and year out as our County representitive only to find that Her influence on the County Board of Supervisors has been eroded and trashed time and time again by special interests (as in those who stand to profit by their position) this totally juvenile/idiotic crap just shows how dis-functional local Government can become when the Citezen oversite component is absent . So SHAME on you for running an organisation that requires the people to over see those that were elected while those that were really qualified were not .

GW   |August.26.2012 Monica, the parcel is only 1.7acres and oddly shaped. The office building in it self is not that much of an issue to me, the above ground level in-house parking situation is, along with the purchase price. Replace parking with retail and other amenities and I could be swayed depending on the design.

Monica   |August.26.2012 Ive been brainstorming ( dream storming) alternative structures for the parcel next to the parking garage. How about an amphitheater with the audience facing the river? Concerts, revivals, all sorts of piblic entertainment could be held there. The structures must be, according to the waterfront plan, incorporate the"highest and most creative standards for urban design" (pg.27). Are we seeing that in Callahan's design?

Mousy   |August.26.2012 So I finally had a chance to read the actual document, after reading all the blather here. I think the dollar sale idea works but ONLY if Callehan lands the VA at this site. There is no language about what to do if he does not. It's an awkward site, sandwiched between a parking garage and condo complex, cater corner from the lovely 201 Main. That itself would drag any apartment complex downhill quick fast and in a hurry. It's not big enough for major retail, and just far enough from the ferry complex that people will skip it on their way to their cars. It isn't a good spot for a park either, cut off by the new parking structure the way it is. An office building could work there though, because who cares if they face the garage while at work? What it isn't is a key to fix downtown. The bus terminal and ferry garage will block downtown from the foot traffic it could otherwise generate. It takes a problem parcel, made more problem by the new garage, and makes it into something useful IF WE LAND THE VA. And only if we land the VA. But do I see language there, noooooooo. What I don't agree with is making the apartments higher density and moving them to the location of the north parking lot. It's the density that kills this idea for me. And you're subsidizing that bad idea via the dollar sale.

know vallejo   |August.26.2012 ...and stole the position of chair of that board from barbara kondylis.

How Can Al DeSilva?   |August.26.2012 How can Al DeSilva influence COV through Vallejo Oversight Board for the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. Is the influence through VHA? Is the current planning mess in COV due to Al DeSilva?

Anonymous   |August.26.2012 Thanks to Linda "Sell-out" Seifert, who appointed Al DeSilva.

GW   |August.26.2012 County supervisor appointee representative to the Vallejo Oversight Board for the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. Once there is a foot in the door, it is forever glued to the thresh hold. Sorry!

Anonymous   |August.26.2012 Thanks for the info on Al DaSilva. What is his current position and how can he influence COV?

Anonymous   |August.26.2012 Al DaSilva and the DeSilva in the Callahan/DeSilva Project are different. The DeSilva component is part of a huge regional contruction firm called DeSilva/Gates. You see their fancy trucks and yellow water towers on Mare Island and around the region. Since infrastucture is a big player in Redevelopment Projects, DeSilva/Gates is a big beneficiary. Al DaSilva is a former employee of the COV with fingers in a number of questionable projects. He is a key architect in the shift from the Federal Mare Island payroll to Federal HUD subsidized housing revenues, the VHA and Redevelopment. The reason you keep hearing the word "mob" is because of the long standing belief that Vallejo was the west coast terminous of the Chicago mob's drug pipeline that got cut off when the Feds shut the Chicago end down. The belief is that the Vallejo mobsters just went into real estate (legal theft is so much easier than illegal theft) and sent their kids to Stanford to become real estate lawyers. So those guys are still around and, just like taking lands from the Native Americans, the best "free" lands are those held in common by the people like military bases and State Lands. And the easiest people to con are those that are desperate.

Mariner's Landing   |August.26.2012 It is hard to understand. We pay top dollar for "My Cafe," but we give prime waterfront land away for a dollar. That needs an explanation.

anon   |August.26.2012 Al da silva was Vallejos economic development director for a long time he had several depts put under him including the VHA and others I dont think there is a relationship with De Silva LLC however he did own property in the Downtown RDA so there could be a conflict of interest .

Anonymous   |August.25.2012 I do not know much but there was a CALLAHAN DESILVA VALLEJO, LLC as the developer for Vallejo Station Project. DeSilva left the group and left us with Callahan.

Monica   |August.25.2012 Can somebody fill in my history gap, please? Who is Al DaSilva? Why do I keep hearing "mob?" BTW, if the mayor does not recuse himself, a recall is appropriate, don't you think?

Monica   |August.25.2012 Michelle Hightower $117k. Ursula Reynosa $68k. Hmmmmm...

Calling all Calpers   |August.25.2012 So why is Calpers permitting this? I thought they were trying to wring every last bit of juice out of every California city? I am surprised they are not suing, demanding that Vallejo sell the properties at auction and mail the check to Calpers.

Motion of No Confidence   |August.25.2012 Motion of No Confidence With the selling out of city property at $1 embedded in a 538 page agenda. I have no confidence on staff recommendation. When we hire someone as staff, we rely on their good judgement and they are paid for making good decisions. The current $1 give away is a good example of bad judgement and glaring mistake from the staff. Without trust, a staff will no longer able to provide service and the staff should go. Next Tuesday's meeting also include staff recommendation to sign another agreement with Callahan with COV as Successor Agency to the former Vallejo Redevelopment Agency. We need to have all the money part understood before signing. This recommendation is from VHA and I sure hope they did a better job than planning.

Anonymous   |August.25.2012 At least two council members already ripped Callahan at the last council meeting for bringing such crap. I just hope there are two more council members who will add their voices to these two (hint hint, the two men on our council majority!)

anon   |August.25.2012 It would not surprise me if when this whole thing is done to see some led away in handcuffs . This corruption has been killing this town for ever , it needs to be stopped we are the laughing stock of the bay area , what other City would even consider such a crocked deal, this whole scam seems like just another bad Vallejo dream I wish I could wake up and find it was a dream . Wonder if Callahan has ties to Bell CA .

Hightower has to go!   |August.25.2012 re: So everyone of those folks sitting around the COV conference table figuring out how to circumvent CEQA and spin staff reports to manipulate decision-makers should be canned. I agree. But Michelle Hightower is the senior planner and the leader of the group and she should be the first one to be fired. Ursula Reynosa is the poor front and newbie to be put up to take the heat, the lady behind the curtain is Michelle Hightower. She knew there is no chance for her to get 426 rental units approved by City council at the water front so she sneakily added this change to the changes required by this pie-in-the-sky tenant. With this pie in the sky as a bait, she attached this poison hook of more rental and $1 give away. Not only is her proposal a bad planning which can be changed, her sneakiness damaged the trust a senior planner need from the community. Without the trust from the community, she can not function effectively. Whoever is going to trust her recommendation to sign another agreement with a developer? Michelle Hightower DOES NOT HAVE THE TRUST of the community and she has to go!

Anonymous   |August.25.2012 The legal definition of moral turpitude includes making false representation, knowledge of such false knowledge by the perpetrator, reliance on the false representation by the person defrauded and aiding and abetting. So everyone of those folks sitting around the COV conference table figuring out how to circumvent CEQA and spin staff reports to manipulate decision-makers should be canned.

wharf rat   |August.25.2012 Our Council members should berade these idiots at the meeting , give em the whipping they deserve and when the staff that have their fingerprints on this fiasco are known they should be dismissed then and there ,looks like the CM is giving some all the rope they want. Does anyone have facts about the garage elevator problem ?? if so pls post

GW   |August.25.2012 This is only my take and opinion, but before the planner is putting anything on paper and able to bring to the table for all to see and the council to approve, discussions have to have been held what the next steps will be to get the ball rolling again, after all the project has sat for a while. Heads gathered around the table and discussions were held about what would be the best possible approach to make this whole scenario palatable to the residents and most of all those that need to be pleased. Enter a secretive tenant willing to occupy a freshly minted building in close proximity of transportation with parking in-house. That the Ferry is such a big part in the possibility of bringing this tenant to our shores tells me that the employees occupying the building in the future are out of towner's, most likely transfers and not new local jobs. A local job recipient does not need the Ferry! Truly, the language of the Amendment is extremely dry and the content confusing as well as the references cited against what was and is desired now, is mind bending. Was that the intent? Not many would be able to digest all of that and still remember what was on page 1 after a few days of reading and re-reading the post-it noted sections! This definitely was not worked on in just the past few weeks, but has been in the works for some time, I am sure of it. I agree, some of those mentioned in prior posts are making a reappearance either during discussion or in actual public positions. They are no longer employees of the city, but contributed mightily and continue to plague us with their vision even to this day. I hope we are not blinded by the possibility of a few office jobs and the massive construction hours promised.

Anonymous   |August.25.2012 re: The "dots" are: Spering, Curtola, DaSilva and Intintoli plus their consileiri from Green Vallejo. Why bring all these outsiders into the picture of Vallejo Planning? They are not on our payroll. They did not submit a plan to sell our property for $1. Depict Michelle Hightower as a helpless victim by past wrong doing is just absurd. If Spering can turn his old city into single family neighborhood with less crime, Why can't Michelle learn from him? Why is she pushing for high density, and not just owner occupied but rentals? We have a few lots we can bulldoze and start over again but is that ever in HER PLANNING? Leaving all those areas that need to be bulldozed or redeveloped untouched and begging Callahan to develop a prime water front lot by giving away the store at $1. Talk about her planning skill. Putting Brian Dolan, Spering, Curtola, DaSilva ... up as her shield from her planning responsibility and the reason for bad planning is just another indication of her lack of critical thinking skill, not able to stand on her own feet and incompetence. Who else is causing all her misery and need to be blamed? Bring them on..

Anonymous   |August.25.2012 Just like a huckster claiming this deal is only good TODAY! so you better sign here. There is a reason for the timing. Most normal folks are either on the last vacation of summer or frantically trying to get their kids ready for the start of the school year. When normal citizens are distracted is when the scuzzy deals are cut below the radar of public scrutiny. The other favored time frame is between Thanksgiving and New Years. In my world, moral turpitude is grounds for immediate dismissal.

Anonymous   |August.25.2012 Connect the dots. Jim Spering is the chair of the ABAG One Bay Plan and the former mayor of Suisun City who made the entire City into a Redevelopment Area. A notorious crime filled low income housing neighborhood on the north side of the harbor was bulldozed and the former residents shipped off to Vallejo. His "affordable" housing strategy was an New Urbanist neighborhood of single family homes with nice front porches and garages off alley ways with rooms over which could be used for recreation rooms or tricked out as small apartments to rent out. This strategy keeps the riffraff out because no one wants that in their back yards. So the underclass "low" income subsidized folks are not accommodated. So that's Spering's world view and joining up with Al DaSilva???? Remember the Solano County General Plan update several years ago. Gaffed by former Vallejo Mayor Terry Curtola. It called for all the County's "affordable" housing to be accommodated on unincorporated parcels of the County within the City Limits of Vallejo. The "dots" are: Spering, Curtola, DaSilva and Intintoli plus their consileiri from Green Vallejo.

Anonymous   |August.25.2012 If we asked Callahan to submit the plan to city council instead of Michelle Hightower, I bet Callahan dares not put $1 as the price of the land. Now Michelle Hightower is doing the dirty deeds for the developer and we are paying her to give away our city asset!!

Anonymous   |August.25.2012 Why does Michelle Hightower pushing for 426 rental units as a change from owner occupied condos? Does Michelle Hightower understand we have more rental housing available in our area than jobs and the rent is the lowest in the bay area? Instead of planning to bring our current housing stock up to par, she is planning in building more? Is this the PLANNING she is doing? Making a bad situation even worse? Is this the best a SENIOR PLANNER can do? Obviously 426 is a number from her work. It is not 420 or 430. What is her justification for this number? or is this number calculated for her by someone? Lacking vision and her own planning, Michelle Hightower is holding ABAG's plan as her own plan. Using ABAG's plan as a guideline is OK, but a planner needs to adapt the plan to local condition. Michelle Hightower is out of touch with local concerns, following ABAG's plan by the words without critical thinking and judgement. Making her plan irrelevant to our city and even worse - destructive and counter-productive. We do not need 426 more rental around downtown at this point and she does not see it!! Michelle Hightower's planning style is totally REACTIVE, asking the council to amend a plan just because the DEVELOPER has a deadline to meet. Changing the plan to whatever the developer wants. Is this what we are looking for in a senior planner? Why don't we just ask Callahan to submit a plan for council approval instead of asking Michelle Hightower? Can Callahan's plan be worse and ask for more than her's? Besides, Callahan will do it for free and not on our payroll. She has been with COV for a few years, what other accomplishments she has to justify her position as a senior planner? With her brilliant planning of packaging this 426 rental units together with a water front land give away for the pursuit of POSSIBLE commercial development with a POTENTIAL tenant...Is this the planning we need? WHY ARE WE PAYING HER?

GW   |August.25.2012 Agreed, Dolan has left a few years ago,(200 but had a major hand in creating what we now grapple with on either side of the Strait. For some time he even was secretary to the planning commission (2005). daSilva has resurfaced also, I believe he acted as interim development director for Suisun City and is on their oversight committee also. Supervisor Jim Spering, Chair Mayor Pete Sanchez, Vice Chair Alvaro da Silva John Kearns Scott Sheldon Rosemary Thurston All very interesting....

Enough   |August.25.2012 I just sent off a letter via email to our elected council, city manager, and Ms. Luna-Reynosa opposing such an insulting and idiotic idea and that the residents of Vallejo will not tolerate this type of business anymore! They should all be bombarded with our voices of outrage to this craziness even before the council meeting Tuesday night.

Anonymous   |August.25.2012 Michelle does not have a problem lying to decision makers. Several years ago she lied to the AHLC about CEQA.... specifically that the Programmatic level EIR for the Master Plan covered Specific Project based approval. NOT. But her cute little smile convinced the volunteer lay commissioners. The National Trust for Historic Preservation attorneys corrected the COV's outrageous mistakes. Unfortunately, that is what is takes in Vallejo....outside attorneys. About the garage. A number of good citizens testified about the high water table problem for the garage but the "smartest guys in the room" ruled. They blew off the whole "sea level rise" issue as a hoax too. The EPA figured on 39" by 2050 but those figures have been increased by recent data. The garage will be an expensive monument to COV stupidity. Callahan's plan also includes a bunch of slab-on-grade townhouses on Mariner's Cove where the little marsh is. The COV also lied to FEMA so Mariner's Cove is conveniently outside the 100 flood plain so the homes there will not need to have flood insurance. Who will be on the hook for the damage? Not FEMA or the insurance companies.

Enough   |August.25.2012 Everyone needs to write our to the city manager, and our economic development director, Ursula Luna Reynosa, and the mayor and each councilmember, by email, fax, personal note, all before Tuesday night. The subject line on all emails should be WE ARE INSULTED AND APPALLED WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO SELL MY WATERFRONT FOR $1. This is ridiculous, and I am not alone with feeling angry, outraged, frustrated, appalled, and insulted. An economic development director who recommends selling PRIME WATERFRONT PROPERTY for $1? To a dveloper who intends to make a profit on the property? OF course he will profit, if his purchase price is $1 and his property taxes are based on $1 for the land. ENOUGH, ENOUGH ENOUGH. It should not matter if you are in favor of Callahan's new proposal for an office building on L1 and apartments in our Veterans Park on Parcel J, or if you oppose the new plan ...... either way, WE SHOULD NOT AGREE TO ALLOW OUR CITY OR OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO SELL OUR .... YES, OUR,,,,, WATERFRONT FOR $1. ENOUGH!!!!!

IUOE   |August.25.2012 @ anon just what we thought! the below tidal influence elevator vaults were the obvious culprit , too bad the Citesens were not involved in the process , they would have spotted the problem right away! plan review should have a citisen component included .Considering we all are paying for this we should have a role in protecting ourselves from these over budget problems , in fact engineers contacted this site to express concerns re: the garage deficiencies . Building below tidal levels is very challenging it seems our staff were not up to the job , blame it on a contractor or a other group , bottom line you signed off on it ! in the design phase . all the thousands of dollars of bridge tolls that I have paid for years has been thrown away by my City , something I think about every time I drive past the monument to the PORK God .

Names Please!!   |August.24.2012 Re: Planning Dept. We only have 3 planners: HIGHTOWER, MICHELLE D TUIKKA, WILLIAM A ADAMS, MARCUS E By being the highest paid among the three, I believe Michelle should be the one responsible for the final planning report. Why is Michelle Hightower pushing the ABAG plan so zealously? I do not see an obvious reason. Saying Brian Dolan is the one responsible for what is happening now is like saying "The devil MADE me do it!" Michelle Hightower is a grown person, fully capable of making decisions and handsomely compensated for. Brian Dolan has left for many years and if Michelle Hightower is still working under the shadow of Brian Dolan after all these years and not able to stand on her own two feet then there is a problem. Unless Michelle Hightower was dictated by her boss or other city staff, like community development or such. Is Gary West Michelle's boss? Gary West has the highest pay in Economic Development Dep. so I assume he is the boss.

Anonymous   |August.24.2012 That Mare Island Plan Brian Dolan is so famous for got the City in a lawsuit with the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Great testiment to his ability.

Anonymous   |August.24.2012 Brian was present and had oversight for the Bordoni Ranch project I. The Bordoni Ranch Project was a classic case of developer manipulation and insider dealing. More to come on this.

Anonymous   |August.24.2012 Brian Doh!-lan. He was a complete idiot and screwed the COV with his stupidity. And apparently claims it as a good thing now. Sheesh.

GW   |August.24.2012 @ Who is Brian Dolan Should the following not post see: http://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/show_story.php?id=549 March 9, 2008 Brian Dolan, 47, most recently the director of development services for Vallejo, has been hired as Community Development Director for the city of Pleasanton Dolan brings 22 years of professional urban planning experience to his new position, along with eight years of management skill in municipal planning and private sector experience in environmental engineering. Prior to his Vallejo position, Dolan worked in economic development and planning for the cities of Concord, where he was a principal planner, and Palo Alto. "He also has broad experience in private sector engineering as a senior environmental planner and is well versed on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)," Fialho said. Take special note of this: "He was at the forefront of the planning and implementation of the Mare Island Specific Plan, which encompassed more than 1,000 acres and is considered a model for military base reuse," Fialho added. "He also worked on the development of the General Plan for Palo Alto. Dolan is a former Planning Commission for the city of El Cerrito. His wife Allison, an attorney, serves on the Planning Commission for the town of Moraga, where the Dolans live with their children, Brandon, 13, and Madelyn, 10.

consultant exposes weaknesses   |August.24.2012 Pages 166 through 171 of the Staff report at th City website details the weaknesses in Callhans plan. The current economy makes the vision set out in the master plan untenable and [my words] we will have to settle for a second rate plan. Callahan cant make a decent profit on the commercal building unless he gets the land for free as it is priced at the high end of Class A commercal property.While parcel L1 meets the transist needs in the DDA (primarily for the commerical property) it does nothing for Vallejo.

Names Please !!   |August.24.2012 To aid in understanding the reporting structure, I put a copy of COV Org chart together with 2011 Salary in Excel format under http://sdrv.ms/P58DRh for people who enjoy in playing some detective "Who Done It" game. Let us have a little fun and help our poor city at the same time.

BadRobot   |August.24.2012 BIDDING WAR!!!! I BID $1.25

Who is Brian Dolan?   |August.24.2012 I was looking for his name in the 2011 salary file to see what is his title and how much we pay him and can not find it. Who is he and what is he?

Anonymous   |August.24.2012 I'm voting anyway, Wharf Rat!

Anonymous   |August.24.2012 Brian Dolan's work to get a HUD PDA designation got us the funds to pay for a parking garage that can't be used because the smartest guys in the room forgot to account for the high watertable on a site alongside the Napa River. So the equipment well for the elevator fills up with water. Brian and crew traded a commitment to build a bunch more subsidized housing for the parking garage money. So, since staff FAILED on the parking garage, why are we on the hook for more subsidized housing?

fair market value ?   |August.24.2012 From the old public info site for COV re sale/conveyance of city owned property in the waterfront RDA , clearly nothing can be voted on until council knows exactly what they are gifting to the developer . The DDA establishes that the purchase price for each of the Developer Parcels to be conveyed from the Agency to the Developer will be equal to an updated Base Fair Market Value (Updated Fair Market Value) established by a licensed and qualified appraiser prior to close of escrow for each Developer Parcel. None of the Developer Parcels can be conveyed to the Developer until after the EIR is certified and the necessary approvals for development are granted by the City Council. Updated appraisals will be completed during the same time period as the City Council is considering certifying the EIR. Once appraisals have been completed, the properties will be sold at fair market value established by the appraiser.

wharf rat   |August.24.2012 NO ! anon you can not vote , but our Council can and the Mayor should not due to his long term cozy relationship with Callahan , if he does not recuse himself he could be in a "pickle or worse" soon we will know the real story behind all this .

Dollar Sign   |August.24.2012 Didn't the smaller Denny's property sell for $750,000 plus recently? So parcel J is larger and on the water front. It has to be worth at least a million or more. And so giving it to Callahan has to work out that the city will be guarenteed to receive revenues in excess of a million dollars in order to make this a "reasonable" deal. What revenue generators will come from this deal? Lunch on the waterfront? The proposal is giving them free parking when we can't even maintain our new parking structure next door. Can someone help me understand how this equates to economic development? Why can't we build the office building and lease it out and get the revenue? Somebody?

Anonymous   |August.24.2012 I vote for Whart Rat's proposal. Can we vote?

wharf rat   |August.24.2012 This is an official bid offering "wharf rat" issues a counter bid/proposal of size to blow any competition out of the water . I hereby up the ante to TEN DOLLARS US for all of parcel L, My project will consist of planting thousands of money trees on the site , thereby ensuring we will never want for cash .

anon   |August.24.2012 with all due respect we are a CHARTER City the one calling the shots is the City Manager , as directed by Council they have the power to de-fund City resources being used for this foolishness and should do so right now!! strike or suspend all cost centers associated with this ill conceived giveaway of publicly owned assets this would be much cheaper than the eventual legal costs to defend it . If certain COV dept's have gone rouge eliminate them and re-structure in the future this exercise could save alot of money and be the start of an era of functional and representitive governance .

Anonymous   |August.24.2012 Michelle Hightower told me that Brian Dolan had obtained the HUD PDA designation some time ago before all this "One Bay Plan" garbage. And yes, Al DaSilva is the "Joker" behind all this nefarious dealing. Dollars to donuts, the Mob is the GOB behind the scene. DaSilva developed the "subsidized housing" strategy to replace the Mare Island federal dollars with HUD federal dollars. No wonder they brought him back from his retirement island in Elba.

bird song   |August.24.2012 it now becomes very clear the motive/profit gained by locking out Barbara Kondylis from the many oversite comities and representation of issues "right in Her backyard" Barbara knew too much to be allowed on the oversite board knew too much to represent Mare Island if this corrupt crap continues we need to consider a class action suite against County and especially several COV departments it is time some were put under oath .

Anonymous   |August.24.2012 @Names Please!! re: My next Names Please question is "WHO in Planning department is so zealous in pushing ABAG and why?" Michelle Hightower of Planning Department would be the point person to ABAG/MTC in terms of PDA "Suburban City Center" designation. It may be someone else other than her that wants it, so someone needs to find out who is the person in the shadows.

wharf rat   |August.24.2012 Recently a COV owned parcel connected to the old Sperry mills property was re-leased to a concern wishing to use the land for a port/transportation facility the actual operation was also very vague I believe the terms were aprox $ 40,000 per year for undeveloped land in a not so hot area . Now they want to give away prime waterfront land for $ 1 the stench of this deal is overwhelming .

Names Please!!   |August.24.2012 Ursula Reynosa may not be the final person who is responsible but she IS the CURRENT FOCUS we need concentrate. This is more a focus along the route of investigation and will move (or not) when more facts came out. If we do not have a clear target (just COV staff)to focus our effort, we will not get far. With this focus, we did get some clarity: There are at least two forces that influenced Ursula Reynosa's decision: Planning Department and "Linda Seifert, and Al DaSilva" group. I can see Planning is pushing for 426 Rental Units so they can MEET their GOAL for PDA zone and Callahan sure is happy to go along with. Ursula Reynosa was taken advantage of by COV Planning and "Linda Seifert, and Al DaSilva". for her newness and lack of understanding of city history. Those people know they can not push the plan as it stands so they provide INPUTS to Ursula Reynosa. Ursula Reynosa needs to learn quickly that the first priority of her position is to do something good for the CITY not anything else. My next Names Please question is "WHO in Planning department is so zealous in pushing ABAG and why?"

Dollar Sign   |August.24.2012 Remember that this Sam developer sold us in the State Garm building stating that it would be the catalyst for the revived downtown and waterfront. That it would bring in new businesses and people to live on the waterfront. We sold that property for pennies on a dollar. It cost us almost three times that to facilitate the completion of that building. We lost money on that sale. OUR TAX DOLLARS. And exactly how much money had that building brought us in the form of new revenues? Why are we giving OUR property away? I haven't read if heard a single thing about how much new revenue this building will bring in. Does that figure equate to the value of the property?

Anonymous   |August.24.2012 Illegal!!!! The state lands along the waterfront were conveyed to the City of Vallejo in Trust for purposes consistent with the "Public Trust". The COV is the successor trustee to the State Lands Commission. They can't just do what they want any more than an attorney serving as a Trustee can pocket the assets of a Trust just because. Time to appeal to the State Lands Commission. And fast because the COV is "dealing". I recognize Al DaSilva's skillful manipulation. He must be worried about continuing the funding for his fat pension.

Salty Dog   |August.24.2012 Yes, I know pretty much all there is to know about RE development. Location, location, location. And, in this case, prime land at a prime location. I guess when it isn't your land, you can easily give it up for one dollar. This is not land that is in need of renovation. Protection, yes. Renovation,no. Wackadoodle development that brings on more of the same undesirable denizens( both developers and eventual renters) definitely needs to be guraded against. Spare us the cute RE deals. They aren't.

VallejoGuy   |August.24.2012 Does anyone here legitimately know anything about real estate development? Or how much the land is currently worth? There is a building on First St. in Benicia that sold for $1 with the condition that it would be completely renovated. Very wise investment by the city.

Momster   |August.24.2012 I agree with "names please;" lack of accountability is the reason Vallejo makes stupid grandiose mistakes. No one is ever held accountable and that is why CITY HALL department heads and the powers-to-be get away with so much; i.e. Code Enforcement, Planning dept with their "go a head and Paint over the mural...it's ugly any way" comment. But you all are tough when when want to come after the little people. btw: I was invited to NPD's Chief retirement, you know Vallejo's new chief. I wonder if Keen will be there.

Dollar Store Bargains   |August.24.2012 What can you buy for a dollar at Humongous Bargain Store by Seafood City? A paper towel holder, A bouquet of plastic flowers, some mylar balloons, Parcel L1.

Anonymous   |August.24.2012 Geez, here we go again. Is anyone asking -- really asking -- what Vallejo gets (as in COLD HARD CASH people! Callahan is like a used-car salesman. We

Mousy   |August.24.2012 The north end of MI is exceedingly difficult to build on. Nor was it a rush job like this one, or currently public space that we all use. A dollar is appropriate for a difficult to build location or to assist a charity of some sort. But not to line a developers pocket in prime water front land. For apartments.

Mousy   |August.24.2012 Voice of reason here. Let's not focus on any one person here. We have no evidence. As far as we know they Mayor could have pushed for this, given his ties to the developer. Leave the blame at the feet of City Hall.

Anonymous   |August.24.2012 Question - Wasn't the COV a few years back going to give away the property on North Mare Island to the proposed Touro Cancer Center people for $1 as well? Sounds like standard business practice.

Jay   |August.24.2012 I don't think it's that unusual for a city to sell a piece of property at a bargain rate -- even $1 -- if it means that it will become the site of a commercial development. Right now, it generates no income -- the city owns the land, so it collects no property taxes on it. Developed, it would be on the tax roll and any business located there would be paying license fees, payroll taxes, etc. This sort of incentive in and of itself is not unusual. That said, Callahan and the city have not provided many details about the proposed project, so it is difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate whether this is a good deal for the city and not just the developer.

Clarke Johnston   |August.24.2012 This "Deal". Is it "legitimate", or "consensual"?

Clarke Johnston   |August.24.2012 Gee, why do the words "Sweetheart Deal" and "Collusion" jump so instantly to mind?

More Mixed Messages   |August.24.2012 @Anonymous re: Don't forget, this entire area of the Downtown and Waterfront is also in the former redevelopment area. It is not a redevelopment area anymore. If Ursula Reynosa works on the plan AS IF it is STILL a redevelopment area then she is completely out of step and out of touch. re: where Supervisor Linda Seifert, Chairperson, and Al DaSilva, "Public" Member, are key to this. What do you think Linda Seifert and Al Dasilva's response to Ursula Reynosa's $1 giveaway? Against her giveaway? Ursula will most likely have their support but does it relief her of her responsibility to do a plan that is GOOD for Vallejo? If we are so lack of imagination and ideas, put an ads on SF Chronicle telling people Vallejo is giving away prime water front land to company who has at least 300 people, stable and will build office building at this site. At least, we will not be under the gun to make a decision before an imaginary deadline of a RFP for a POTENTIAL tenant. This tenant may never show but 426 RENTAL units is for sure to come.

Mixed Messages   |August.24.2012 @Anonymous re: ask Staff about how this impacts the Vallejo PDA designation that ABAG/MTC gave Vallejo. What do you think the answer is? The staff will say this plan is against the PDA designation?? I understand this is an open forum and ANYONE can post here. What is your take on ABAG/MTC? The GOD? and we need to do everything it tells us by giving us a DESIGNATION?

Anonymous   |August.24.2012 Don't forget, this entire area of the Downtown and Waterfront is also in the former redevelopment area, SO the Vallejo Redevelopment Oversight Board must sign off on this also before it is final. Very omportant for Vallejo citizens to attend Oversight Board meetings, where Supervisor Linda Seifert, Chairperson, and Al DaSilva, "Public" Member, are key to this. Someone at the August 28th City Council meeting should also ask Staff about how this impacts the Vallejo PDA designation that ABAG/MTC gave Vallejo, a "Suburban City Center", meaning Vallejo is a transit hub in relation to San Francisco.

Names Please !!   |August.24.2012 If we are going for accountability, we need to link names with events and focus on this ONE person ONLY. Not everyone along the event chain. If Ursula's department prepared this report, then she is the one to take the credit/blame. I really like to ask her what is the rational for this proposal because it completely does not make sense to me. I sure like to understand where she is coming from.

Names Please!!   |August.24.2012 Thank you VIB for bringing this to our attention!! I am interested in who is the first person who came up with $1. Yes, Dan has to sign off on it but I am really interested in who initiated this idea. Is this Ursula's idea? Or Dan asked her to put $1? or SOMEONE ELSE? WHO? WHO? Yes, they are new but I don't think giving away city land is a common practice wherever they worked before. So WHERE/WHO do they get this idea that the land should be given away? Are we BEGGING Callahan to build in Vallejo so we give him the land? and we are begging because he has a POTENTIAL client who MAY want to locate here? If we are going to give away this land to a developer, is Callahan the best caliber we can get? If we REALLY want to give away this land, we need to have an open RFP and have all the developer to give us proposals. Or we can give the land to a company who will locate here ...WHY gives to a developer? This is completely crazy. Whoever came up with this idea at the first place is completely unfit for the position and he/she needs to go.

Just wondering   |August.24.2012 "shall be undertaken completely without regard to the Purchase Price payable for Parcel L1" oK, so what did the financial geniuses pay for it? And what amount has yet to be paid?

Anonymous   |August.24.2012 Ursula Reynosa, the economic development director. Dan Keen, city manager had to sign off on it. Looks like these newcomers need a lesson about Vallejo and how many times we've been raped (legitimately of course) with one dollar deals in our past. That won't fly anymore, newbies.

Names Please!!   |August.24.2012 WHO is this STAFF? Let us have names. Don't hind behind "staff report". I really want to know whose idea is this. Names please.

Why?   |August.24.2012 This is crazy!! What do we get for this give away? A PIE in the SKY? Are we paying this person to give away city property? Whoever wrote this should be FIRED!!

Write comment
Name:
Email:
Website:
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.23

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