UPDATE OF 3/21/2024 MARE ISLAND COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS (CFDs)STAFF PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL •Gillian Haen, Assistant City Manager•Erin Hanford, ED Program Manager Presented atApril 27, 2026Council Meeting
Agenda1.History of Mare Island closure and CFD formation2.CFDs in California3.CFD formation background4.Outside counsel opinions5.History of CFD meetings6.Changes to the CFDs and timing of future changes to the CFDs7.Staff recommendation and Council Direction Mare Island History1.Mare Island Naval Base closure in 1996.2.Prior Council development approval was contingent on the cost neutrality principle.3.Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) are a common financing tool in California to meet revenue neutrality goals for new development (Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982).4.CFDs formed to fund facilities and services on Mare Island with no impact on the General Fund.
Sample CFDs with Services Special Taxes
CFD Taxes in Solano County
$3,694$3,325
$5,773
$2,812$3,700$3,015
$5,837*
$4,870
$0$1 ,00 0$2 ,00 0$3 ,00 0$4 ,00 0$5 ,00 0$6 ,00 0$7 ,00 0 One LakeVillages at FairfieldLagoon ValleyParklan eHo mesteadVall ey GlenHid den brookeMare IslandFai rfieldFai rfieldVacavilleDixo nDixo nDixo nVall ejoVall ejo Comparable Maximum Special TaxesSolano County CFDs
Max Tax
⁕Includes HOA fee, which covers public services costs in Hiddenbrooke.
Formation of Mare Island CFDs 1.2002-1 Services CFD: “Island wide” –Fund 112 2. 2005-1A CFD -Two components–Services CFD acts like an LMD –Fund 113–Facilities CFD created to provide bond indebtedness up to $40M and/or for facilities capex projects –Fund 2133. 2005-1B Services CFD –Fund 114 –Covers similar services to 2002-1 CFD –Original formed to cover services not included in 2002-1 CFD and to fund gaps created by reduction or elimination of 2002-1 CFD CFD 2002-1 Formation Background•Initial Mare Island CFD created in 2002•Participants: -Approx. 966 acres of residential, commercial, industrial, and golf course-Includes MIC, Touro, Alco, EPS and City-Excludes Federal Tenants•CFD funds City operating expenses including landscaping, lighting, streets, parks, bridge, and public safety•Expires when City determines ongoing revenues exceed ongoing expenses on a continuous basis CFD 2002-1 Key Elements•CFD Special Tax is audited annually through City-wide audit•Includes revenues from the Island “What happens on the Island stays on the Island”•Non-residential property benefits from tax reductions before residential property•Any cost subsidy of up to ~$1.8M by the GF would solely benefit non-residential uses (= current non res levy)•Elimination of residential CFD levy requires a GF subsidy of ~ $3M (FY2526 $5.1M expenses -$2.1M other revenues.
CFD 2002-1 Key Elements (cont.)•Current CFDs based on original land use plan •Absorption estimates were optimistic and have not panned out.•Master Developer (previously LMI and now MIC) as owner of more than 50% of the area within the CFD can protest against any changes to the existing special tax formula which would prevent changes from being made now.
Outside Counsel Opinions –CFD 2002-1 was properly formed in accordance with the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982–CFD 2002-1 has been properly administered on an ongoing basis–Accounting practice with respect to the annual fund carryover is a reasonable practice and is in line with the RMA–The cost neutrality policy behind the formation of CFDs is stated in:•Mare Island Services Financing Code section 14.45.080•Acquisition Agreement between the City and Lennar Mare Island section 6.1.6 Outside Counsel Opinions (continued)–The 2% annual escalator in maximum special tax on residential property is in line with the Mello-Roos Act –The allocation of public safety costs to the CFD is based on typical allocation methodology–The inclusion of administrative costs in the CFD budget is based on typical allocation methodology–Both Mello-Roos Act and the Code have provisions that call for the liberal construction of their respective provisions History of City CFD Meetings–LMI/developer CFD meetings started 2016•Reviewed annual budgets and CFD tax•Developed Major Maintenance 5 YR plan -Defined projects and committed spends and project phasing–Mr. Dan Glaze CFD meetings started ~2016/2017•Reviewed annual budgets line item by line item•Detailed safety allocation methodology•Review of invoices paid from CFD. Staff ensured invoices coded correctly.•Mr. Glaze formed MISTEA–MISTEA CFD meetings started 4/2019•Presented formation and history of CFDs•Answered follow up questions in writing Recent Timeline of CFD Council Meetings•March 29, 2023 -CFD briefing with MI sub-committee•April 25, 2023 –Goodwin CFD presentation to City Council•May 30, 2023 –MISTEA presented to City Council•June 27, 2023 –City Council adoption of FY23-24 budget •March 26, 2024 –CFD presentation to City Council City Changes to CFDIn response to resident’s concerns and multiple meetings City made the following changes to the CFDs:•FY1920: City started subsidizing bridge maintenance costs at ~$200-250K/year•FY2021: City stopped collecting 2005-1B tax resulting in cost savings of ~$400/household•5/2022: Executed NMI DDA which included language committing MIC to restructure CFDs Why wait for new MISP?–Current CFD service costs based on 1999 land use plan–Need new land uses anticipated in new MISP to determine:•Service costs to be funded by new CFDs•Uses that such costs are to be spread across
Implications of Discontinuing Tax Collection on CFD 2005-1A Facilities•Mare Island homeowners tax levy would decrease by ~$60-$788 per HH depending on the home and tax levied on CFD 2002-1•City would have to identify another funding source (ie: General Fund) to fund improvements for facilities authorized under this CFD including the construction and rehabilitation of sewers, storm drains, water facilities, street and bridge improvements and landscaping.
Implications of ModifyingCFD 2002-1 now•The following City subsidies to CFD 2002-1 would solely benefit the non-residential property:1.Up to $1.8M (amount levied on non-res property this FY)2.50% reduction of the CFD 2002-1 levy 3.Removal of safety costs allocated to CFD 2002-1 (GF would need to assume these additional costs estimated at $3.9M in the current FY budget ) •The only way to eliminate the residential property CFD 2002-1 tax is for the City to eliminate the CFD entirely.
Implications of EliminatingCFD 2002-1 now•$3M+ impact to General Fund (GF); to increase over years•Reduction of funding for mainland projects.•Mainland HH (~44K per US Census Bureau) would be subsidizing 322 MI HH.•Reduction or elimination of future development which typically needs CFDs to fund services and improvements.•Effect on Mare Island Development –•Infrastructure and service needs for future development require CFD funding. If current CFD tax is reduced or eliminated there is a risk that voters will not agree to new CFDs to develop the Island•Precedent set for reducing or eliminating CFDs for development projects. Existing development projects may request City to freeze or delete CFD taxes which would negatively effect GF.•Effect on current projects in pipeline (ie: Blue rock, Costco) 3/26/2024 Council Meeting Recommendation and Direction•3/26/2024 Council Meeting•Staff Recommendation: Based on the information presented, including outside Counsel opinion, staff recommended City Council restructure the CFDs at the time of the new MISP approval and implementation, when the land densities will be known and can be accounted for within future development•Council Direction: Councilmembers provided comment and direction to staff to restructure the CFDs at the time of the new MISP approval and implementation, when the land densities will be known and can be accounted for within future development.-Staff recommendation has not changed -Council Questions or Input?
CONTACT(S)
Gillian Haen, Assistant City Manager; [email protected] Hanford, ED Program Manager; [email protected] 2002-1 CFD Boundary Map
2005 CFD Boundary Map
Development Agreements:
Contracting for Vested Rights from
Public and Private Perspectives
Gerald J. Ramiza – Partner, Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP April 2026
2 ✓ Crossing Project, San Bruno, CA – redevelopment of 20-acre former Naval administration property to Transit Oriented high-density mixed-use project. 1999 - Completed.
✓ Pilgrim-Triton Project, Foster City, CA – redevelopment of 20-acre, multi-owner, four phase mixed residential, office and park uses. 2010. Major re-entitlement of one phase from office to townhomes and City-owned workforce housing in 2018. Completed ✓ Gilead Project, Foster City, CA – redevelopment of Gilead headquarters campus, including 1.2 million square feet of office and research and development (R&D) space in 17 buildings together with parking for 3,000 vehicles. Completed ✓ State Street Mixed Use Project, Fremont, CA – redevelopment of key 5-acre property to revitalize downtown, P3 mixed residential/retail project, including acquisition of City property. 2014. Completed. ✓ Apple Campus 2 Project, Cupertino, CA – development of 2.8 million square foot office, research and development building.
Completed
✓ Warm Springs Innovation District, Fremont, CA – development of 2,200 residential units, plus commercial, office and R&D uses adjacent to the new Warm Springs BART station. Nearly complete ✓ North Bay Shore Project, Mountain View, CA –153 acre mixed-use development, involving demolition of existing buildings and reconfiguring existing parcels to accommodate up to 7,000 residential units, 3.11 million square feet of office and R&D buildings, 289,000 square feet of retail commercial space, 525 hotel rooms, land dedication of 6.9 acres to accommodate affordable housing, district parking facilities, 14.8 acres of dedicated public parks, and 11.3 acres of POPO open space, and an optional private district utility system.
✓ Concord Naval Weapons Station Project, Concord, CA –30-year multi phased development with 12,000 residential units, a 63-acre innovation district, elementary school(s), a sport complex, library, neighborhood serving retail and an extensive park system on approximately 2,300 acres of former Concord Naval Weapons Station Property. 30+ Years of Representative Development Agreements:
Introduction – Jerry Ramiza
Overview of Development
Agreements
• Long term land use projects often take years, if not decades, and span multiple changes in legislative bodies and require very substantial upfront investment. • Under common law, there is “no reasonable expectation against changes in land use laws and regulations.” [See e.g., Lakeview Dev. v. S.Lake Tahoe 915 F.2nd 1290 (9th Cir. 1990)] • Traditional “vesting of rights” requires substantial investment and relies on an uncertain, fact- based analysis of what qualifies a “substantial investment.” [See e.g. Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com., 17 Cal.3d 785 (1976)] • Avco – developer was subject to new development restrictions (no vesting), despite having obtained a subdivision map, grading permit and invested substantial amounts on site preparation and infrastructure.
• In response to harsh outcome in Avco, California adopted the first Development Agreement (DA) enabling statute in 1976 [California Gov’t Code § 65864 et.seq.] 3 • Baseline Land Use & Zoning Rules
• Reserved Powers Doctrine: The City cannot “contract
away police power” by entering contracts that bind the
discretion of future City Councils, particularly for land use and zoning decisions.
• Constitutional Requirements of Essential Nexus and
Rough Proportionality:
• City must show direct cause-effect relationship
between City’s conditions of approval and project
impacts, and
• City’s exaction must be roughly proportional to
project impact.
Overview of Development
Agreements
4 • State Legislatures recognized the need for greater certainty to attract private investment in exchange for community benefits • By locking land use regulations and project entitlements for a longer period, private sector developers can secure financing and protect investments
• DAs are exempt from the constitutional limits of nexus and proportionality, which allow the public sector to obtain enhanced community benefits
• A DA is, essentially, a voluntary, negotiated contract between the public sector and private sector related to land development
• To date,16 states have enabling legislation modeled on California’s original statute
Primary Purpose
5 Scope of Vested Rights –
California
• The DA vests or freezes key aspects of a
project to allow for certainty to complete the
development.
• The following are commonly vested by DAs:
• Local land use regulations (e.g. General
Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning)
• Protection from local development
moratoria
• Existing project entitlements and approvals
(Subdivision Maps, etc.)
• Development impact fees (affordable
housing fees, park fees, traffic fees, etc.)
• New exactions (e.g. land dedications for
primary streets, parks, major public
facilities, etc.)
• Some things cannot be vested by a DA:
• Local laws protecting public health and
safety (including building and fire codes)
• Federal or state laws or regulations
• Property, sales or other applicable taxes
(other than special taxes and assessments)
6 In California DAs must:
• “Specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and
provisions for reservation or dedication of land for
public purposes. Ca. Gov. Code § 65865.2.
• Annual Review: the DA “shall include provisions
requiring periodic review at least every 12 months.” In Vallejo DA review is generally done by Planning
Commission.
Mandatory Provisions
7 In California [Ca. Gov. Code 65865.2]:
• DA may include requirements for subsequent discretionary actions
• DA may provide that construction shall be commenced and/or the project or any phase be completed within a specified time • DA may address financing of necessary public facilities and reimbursement over time
• Note: limits on optional provisions:
• No “ad hoc” zoning changes
• No changes in taxes or municipal laws outside of land use context
Optional Provisions
8 Development Agreements must contain:
• Duration of the agreement
• Permitted uses of the property
• Density or intensity of use
• Maximum height and scope of proposed buildings
• Reservations or dedications of land for public use
• Availability of municipal services such as water, sewer, and police and fire at the time building permits are issued
Development Agreements may contain:
• Conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions • The time within which construction will commence and be completed • Rules, regulations and official policies governing land use, density, design, improvement and construction standards and specifications which exist at the time the agreement is made and can be changed during the life of the agreement
• A statement that successors in interest to the land covered by the agreement are bound by the terms of the agreement
• Amendment or cancellation in whole or in part of the agreement by mutual consent (Zoning Code § 17.10.070.)
Vallejo’s Zoning Code Requirements
9 • A public hearing must be held by planning and the City Council. Notice of intention to consider adoption must be given in addition to any other notice required by law. CA Gov Code § 65867.
➢ Vallejo’s requirement: Zoning Code § 17.12.020
• A DA is a legislative act that must be approved by ordinance and is subject to referendum.
• City Council must find that the provisions of the DA are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. § 65867.5.
➢ Vallejo’s required findings: Zoning Code § 17.14.010
• DA may not be approved by initiative. [See Ctr for Comm.
Action v. City of Moreno 26 Cal.App.5th 689 (2018)]
➢ Vallejo’s annual review requirement: Zoning Code §
17.20.010
Approval Process and
Requirements
10 11
• The City is subject to various laws that require information to be made public upon request, e.g. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and California Public Records Act (PRA)
• To align costs and benefits, the public sector frequently requests financial model or “project pro forma” information to determine “when enough is enough.” • Private sector typically considers project pro forma and financial modeling information sensitive confidential business information and will resist sharing on that basis.
• Reconcile developer’s need to retain confidentiality with City’s legitimate need to understand project economics by City retaining a third party qualified financial consultant to review developer’s financial information without making the underlying information public.
Public Process / Confidentiality
12 Private Sector/Developer Goals:
• Regulatory certainty: freezing zoning,
regulations, fees, & other aspects of
development to protect investment.
• Cost certainty: creating a stable pro
forma enables Developers to predict
costs, which facilitates financing and
helps Developers deliver projects in a
timely manner
• Foreseeability: limiting scenarios
where rules of development can
change – new state or federal laws,
changes in law necessitated by
important public health or safety.
Public and Private Sector Goals
– Overview
Public Sector/City Goals:
• Obtain enhanced or “above nexus”
community benefits.
• Impose phasing requirements for
delivery of infrastructure and
community benefits as buildout
occurs. Partially built project must still
work for community.
• Flexibility to impose new requirements
as conditions change.
• Limit life of certain project approvals.
Public and private sector goals are in tension but not mutually exclusive. 13 • Vesting (or freezing) of land use laws, regulations and project entitlements for as long as possible, including against future local initiatives and moratoria.
• Priority and good faith processing and approval of subsequent project approvals (design review, subdivision maps, building permits, etc.). • Vesting of development impact fees and exactions.
• Reimbursement for oversized infrastructure and credits against fees. • Commitments to process and adopt infrastructure public financing mechanisms.
• Commitments to vacate of rights of way/public easements.
Benefits Sought by Private Sector/Developers:
Typical Developer Benefits
14 • Achieve long-range planning goals and higher quality development. • Community benefits that exceed constitutional limits of essential nexus/rough proportionality.
• Increased tax base – property, sales and transient occupancy taxes. • Economic development: catalyst project, additional jobs and/or diversification of job base.
• Community amenities: parks, affordable housing, neighborhood serving retail, privately-owned and maintained but publicly open (POPO) community spaces. • Public infrastructure installed and/or paid for by Developer (sometimes reimbursable by future development).
Benefits Sought by Local Jurisdictions:
Typical Public Benefits
• Large, long-term projects frequently
require substantial upfront investment in
new or expanded public infrastructure
• Financing mechanisms to fund
installation and maintenance of public
infrastructure based on future tax
revenue from development – in
California Mello-Roos Community
Facilities Districts (CFD), Lighting and
Landscaping Districts (LLMD),
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing
(EIFD) and other assessment districts
• Public financing mechanisms result in
lower borrowing rates, which improves
project economics and creates potential
for additional community benefits
• In California, a DA cannot commit the
City to form financing districts but can
set up process for potential formation
• Consider alternative funding
mechanisms – e.g. Owners Association
– if district is not formed
• Prevailing Wage requirements
15 Public Infrastructure - Financing
Mechanisms
Length of Term and Extensions
16 • Tailor term duration to anticipated buildout with allowances considering cyclical nature of development business
• Certainty vs. inevitable market change/flexibility to respond
• Varies widely by project size and state of the market at the time of DA negotiation
• City’s Prior History with Long Term DAs
• Consider shorter initial terms with one or more
extensions in private sector control (e.g. achievable
performance milestones, definable economic
conditions, occupancy/vacancy rates, interest rates,
market saturation studies) or reasonable cash
payments (e.g. dollar per square feet of remaining
development)
Processing of Future Project
Approvals
• DAs commit City to accept and process in good faith future project approvals • Both “discretionary” such as subdivision maps, architectural review permits, etc., and “ministerial” grading and building permits and certificates of occupancy, sign permits, tree removal permits, etc.
• Important objectives:
• Clearly identify anticipated future project approvals • Specify appropriate level of discretion for future approvals e.g. design review limited to consideration of design elements not reconsideration of project • Can provide for “priority” processing subject to Developer’s commitment to reimburse costs pay third party contractors
• Time commitments (e.g., number of days or weeks) for responses to submittals 17 Fees and Benefit Escalators
Processing Fees
• Cost recovery so important to avoid limitations
Connection Fees
• Typically, DA does not limit these fees
Other Agency Fees – e.g. School Fees
• Conduit for collection
Impact Fees
• Review built-in escalators (e.g., CCI, CPI)
• Specify alternative escalator where there is no built-in escalator Community Benefit Payment Escalators
✓ Consider future value.
✓ Impact Fee Lock Period can be shorter than Term
18 CEQA Document
General Plan Amendment
Zoning Code Amendment
Amended and Restated Specific Plan
Amended and Restated Acquisition Agreement
Other Concurrent Approvals
Other Concurrent Agreements
Timing of DA Negotiation
19 Questions?
Mare Island Planning and
Development Projects
Update
City Council Special Meeting
Agenda Item 4.B.
April 27, 2026
Mare Island Planning and Development Projects
Mare Island
Agreements
New Specific Plan
Beautification Plan
Connolly Corridor
Project
Coral Sea Village
Subdivision
Mare Island Agreements
Existing Development Agreements
Lennar Mare Island
Development Agreement
(Lennar DA)
North Mare Island
Disposition and
Development Agreement
(NMI DDA)
Applies to Nimitz holdings
on South Mare Island,
generally south of G Street
Applies to Nimitz holdings
on North Mare Island,
generally north of G Street
Redevelopment of Mare Island is currently governed by two agreements:
New Development Agreement
Staff is negotiating a new development
agreement for island-wide Nimitz holdings:
• Existing agreements do not fully align with
island-wide needs
• New agreement would replace the existing
agreements for consistency with the New
Specific Plan
City Council consideration of the new agreement
is expected to occur concurrently with the New
Specific Plan
Mare Island Ownership Map
New Specific Plan
New Specific Plan: Purpose
Draft New Specific Plan submitted in October 2024 (informed by City and MIC outreach between 2020 and 2025)
• Would replace the existing Specific Plan
• Intended to implement Propel Vallejo 2040 adopted in 2017 • Retains overall planning boundary and broader reuse vision of existing Specific Plan
• Draft Land Use Plan accommodates:
- Up to 14,000 total dwelling units
- Up to 895 new dorms
- 17,000 total jobs
New Specific Plan: Review Status
A consolidated City comment letter was sent to MIC in February 2026 identifying:
• Requested revisions
• Suggested and advisory changes
• Future study and analysis items
• Topics to be addressed in the new development agreement • Regulatory compliance issues (missing infrastructure and financing plans) • Necessary companion approvals
Mare Island Infrastructure Assessment Report
Mare Island Infrastructure Assessment
(MIIA) Report completed in October
2025:
• Evaluated water, sewer, drainage,
flood control, roads, utilities, and
geotechnical conditions
• Identified significant island-wide
infrastructure needs
Findings from the MIIA Report will be
addressed though the revised draft of
the New Specific Plan
Specific Plan Overview
- Brian Jencek, HOK -
Mare Island: A Complete Community
Complete
Communit
y
Mix of Uses
Work
Live
Play Learn
Visit
Healthy
Equitable
Diverse
Resilient
Connected
Convenient
Complete
Community
Mare Island: A Complete Community
Focus on Streets: Walkable,
Bikeable Safe, Healthy & Access
to Nearby Destinations
Mixed-Use Districts:
Mix of Housing Types & Jobs
Economic Diversity, Flexibility
& Resiliency
Multi-Generational & Lifelong
Learning
Civic Uses, Public Space & Services
Healthy, Equitable
& Active Communities
Mare Island: Open Space
2.4 Miles of Accessible
Waterfront.
3.25 Acres of Neighborhood Park
per 1,000 Residents.
4.50 Acres of Community Park per
1,000 Residents.
20+
Miles of Trails Through
Natural Habitat.
Restore + Improve Natural
Systems
Promote Healthy Community
Regenerate Island Ecosystem
Build Resilient Infrastructure
Utilize Nature-Informed Design
Improve Waterfront
Mare Island: Creating Neighborhoods
Mare Island: Initial Draft Land Plan
Mare Island: Revised Land Plan
Mare Island: Revised Land Plan
Environmental Review
- Trevor Macenski, Stantec -
Purpose of CEQA
• Inform decision-makers and public of the proposed project’s potential physical environmental effects
• Engage the public in the environmental review process • Disclose potential impacts of the proposed project on the physical environment
• Avoid and/or reduce potential impacts of the proposed project through mitigation measures and/or alternatives
Why is CEQA Triggered?
• New Specific Plan is a discretionary planning action
• Adoption of a Specific Plan guides future land use, development intensity, and infrastructure, which could result in environmental effects • Planning-level documents, like Specific Plans, are typically evaluated through a program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Mare Island Environmental Review
1998
•NEPA EIS
•CEQA EIR
1999
•Original
Specific Plan
Adopted
2005-2007
•Subsequent
EIRs
Ongoing
•Cleanup and
Remediation
Today
•New Specific
Plan EIR
•Federal
Coordination
Tentative Schedule
New Specific Plan: Tentative Schedule
Summer-Fall 2026
• NEPA
Determination
• CEQA Notice of
Preparation
• Infrastructure Plan
• Financing Plan
• Revised Draft
Specific Plan
Package
Winter 2026-
Spring 2027
• Public Draft EIR
• 45-day Public
Review and
Comment Period
• Final Draft Specific
Plan Package
Summer-
Fall/Winter 2027
• Final EIR/MMRP
• Consideration of:
- Final Specific
Plan
- Final EIR
- New
Development
Agreement
Beautification Plan
Beatification Plan: Overview
Phased public realm and landscape
improvements intended to improve
the visual character and appearance
of major gateways and circulation
corridors on North Mare Island.
• Phase 1: installation of trees,
landscaping, sidewalk
improvements, entry signage, and
art at entries to Mare Island
• Phase 2: landscaping, seeded
meadow, ped and bike paths
between Railroad and Nimitz
Proposed Rendering: Highway 37 Arrival
Proposed Rendering: Causeway Arrival
Beatification Plan: Status
• June 2023 – Plan submitted
• April 2023 – Detailed design
drawings submitted
• May 2025 – Revised plan
submitted
• June 2025 – Application deemed
complete
Implementation timing has been
affected by Building 571 cleanup and
U.S. Navy land transfer:
• Phase 1 to proceed after Building
571 cleanup (Winter 2026)
• Phase 2 processing to continue after
completion of U.S. Navy land transfer
(timing uncertain)
Connolly Corridor Project
Connolly Corridor Project: Overview
Early activation effort centered on
Connolly Street that could move
forward while New Specific Plan is
prepared. Project includes:
• 45,000 sq. ft. of retail space
• 28,000 sq. ft. of office space
• Up to 373 residential units
• 200-room hotel
• 194,000 sq. ft. of open space
Connolly Corridor Project Area
Connolly Corridor Project: Phase 1 Rendering
Connolly Corridor Project: Status
• September 2024 – Phase 1 design
review pre-application submitted
• December 2024 – Comments
provided by City and VFWD
• Raised issues regarding:
- Ownership of sewer and
stormwater infrastructure
- Capacity of sewer
infrastructure for later
phases
• Project advancement has been
paused due to market conditions
and infrastructure issues
• City Council has directed the City
Attorney to identify a mediator to
facilitate a mediation process
between the City and VFWD to
resolve infrastructure-related issues
affecting Connolly Street and
broader Mare Island
Coral Sea Village Subdivision
Coral Sea Village: Overview
Existing subdivision located west of
Flagship Drive near Eleanor Circle.
• Originally entitled by Lennar in 2004
• Includes 68 single-family units, 28
multifamily units, and related
landscaping
• Final subdivision map recorded in
2017
• Building pads + public improvements
installed 2017-2018
Aerial of subdivided lots
Coral Sea Village Subdivision: Status
• Residential units did not proceed
to construction after transition of
Lennar’s holdings to Nimitz
• August 2025 – Application
submitted requesting minor
modifications to previously
approved residential architecture
and landscaping
• All departments and responsible
agencies have reviewed proposal,
and project is being conditioned
for approval
• April 22, 2026 – Public meeting held
to provide project information and
accept comments. Follow up items:
- Posted meeting recording
- Will post Project FAQ sheet
- Receiving additional comments
tonight
- Will provide additional noticing
(using wider radius) prior to
director action
• Planning and Development Services
Director action anticipated for week
of May 11, 2026
Next Steps
Next Steps
• Continue review and refinement of the New Specific Plan • Continue environmental review and infrastructure planning • Advance early implementation items
• Complete current entitlement actions for Beautification Plan, Connolly Corridor Project, and Coral Sea Village Subdivision
• Continue staff negotiation of the new development agreement • Return to City Council at future milestones
THANK YOU
Hector Rojas – Long Range Planning Manager
Planning & Development Services Department
[email protected]
City of Vallejo
555 Santa Clara Street Vallejo, CA 94590
www.cityofvallejo.net