NVR Logo
Foster Road group opposing Ghisletta development
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Save and Share Share
Fearing wrenching changes to their neighborhood, some 200 residents along Foster Road turned out Monday night to learn how they could kill a proposed annexation that could mean up to 1,000 new dwellings.

Most residents said they were stunned to recently find out that 142 acres, most of it former Ghisletta dairy, are on the drawing board to become urbanized.
Development would obliterate their open vistas and semi-rural quality of life, while injecting massive amounts of traffic into their south Napa neighborhood, homeowners said.

While neighbors wanted to snuff development possibilities, top city officials came to Snow Elementary School to explain how they could shape the plans to meet future housing needs and create a new southern gateway.
This wasn’t what residents wanted to hear. There were cries of “fait accompli” and “double-talk” from audience members angry that so much development planning had occurred without their being aware.

For Assistant City Manager Dana Smith and Jean Hasser, the city’s senior planner, it was almost a given that Local Agency Formation Commission will approve the annexation application early next year.
The acreage was put inside the city’s Rural Urban Limit line in 1982. LAFCO brought the property inside the city’s sphere of influence in 2005. The county’s general plan calls for the land to be developed in the city.

“That land is slated in the city’s general plan to be developed for homes like yours,” Smith said.

Officials said that after annexation, when the city begins to process a development application, is the time that neighbors will be best able to shape what happens.

There will be plenty of public workshops and hearings, Hasser said. Residents will be able to weigh in on every aspect of the project during the two to three years that it will take to prepare a site master plan and do environmental studies, Hasser said.

To residents in the Snow multi-purpose room, the city was putting the cart before the horse. Linda Cavalli, the meeting organizer, urged neighbors to flood LAFCO with reasons for denying the annexation.

Keene Simonds, the LAFCO executive officer, said he was still analyzing the merits of the annexation request, with a possible hearing in January or February.

The LAFCO board, composed of supervisors Bill Dodd and Brad Wagenknecht, Napa Councilwoman Juliana Inman, Calistoga Mayor Jack Gingles and public member Brian Kelly, will be able to use discretion in deciding if this application makes sense, Simonds said.

His analysis will look at such factors as whether or not annexation matches local land use policies, the impact on adjacent lands, the adequacy of public services and whether the timing is appropriate.

Simonds said LAFCO’s sphere of influence approval two years ago was “akin to an engagement.” With the property owners’ annexation request, “you’re walking down the aisle,” he said.

The Ghisletta family, which owns 110 acres, is leading the annexation effort, although no development plans have been announced. The Napa Valley Horsemen’s Association, which owns 32 acres, accepts coming into the city as long as it can continue its equestrian activities.

Neighbors, who are calling themselves Save Foster Road, plan to further organize themselves so they can have maximum impact on the LAFCO commissioners.

“It’s all about loss for us,” said neighbor Erin Booth-Sahs, who prefers that rural properties be left as they are.

This south Napa acreage represents one of Napa’s best remaining opportunities for infill development, Hasser said. Napa is committed to growing within its RUL so that county lands can be preserved for open space and agriculture.

The city and the county are negotiating a revenue-sharing agreement to divide property taxes after these parcels come into the city, Hasser said.

The City Council put the 142 acres inside the RUL in 1982 to give the city options for future growth, said Floyd Stone, a council member at the time. The council wanted the city to expand to the south rather than expand to the north where vineyards abut the city limits, he said.

Wagenknecht attended the Snow school meeting, as did Councilmembers Mark van Gorder and Jim Krider and city Planning Commission Chair Gordon Huether.
19 comment(s)

Concerned Citizen wrote on Nov 6, 2007 2:05 PM:

" Good luck Foster Road residents. This IS a fait accompli...as you obviously are finding out as "top city officials came...to explain how they could shape them to meet future housing needs and create a new southern gateway." More "gateway"...to the wine country dreams. More build it for fees, city coffers, etc. More of the SOS! When Asst. City Mgr. Dana Smith replied to your concerns with this innane, "in your face comment:" “That land is slated in the city’s general plan to be developed for homes like yours,” you were being chastised (yeah, you were) and, basically, reprimanded for feeling as you do, not wanting more and more rampant, ugly, ill planned growth. AND, when you read comments such as: "It’s after annexation, when the city begins to process a development application, that neighbors will be best able to shape what happens, officials said. There will be plenty of public workshops and hearings, Residents will be able to weigh in on every aspect of the project..." you need to know that it is a "done deal" and that you have a big, lengthy and, ultimately, losing battle in front of you. Such is the way of development politics in Napa..."bigger is better" seems to be the guiding motto. I wish you luck and you have my sincere sympathy. "

vernacular wrote on Nov 6, 2007 2:45 PM:

" It would be nice to see a map of the proposed annex, to get an idea of the scope... Think anybody at the Register might be able to put a graphic together (even if it's not exact)? "

mikeb wrote on Nov 6, 2007 4:24 PM:

" If you're not happy with the rampant growth being shoved down your throats there is a solution, don't re-elect the incumbants. How many of the Foster Road area residents even know who thier local representatives are? "

lmiller wrote on Nov 6, 2007 4:43 PM:

" I attended that meeting and I live across the street from the proposed development. The city officials spent 2 hours trying to convince us that it's a done deal, there's nothing we can do about it, and it wasn't until the last 5 minutes when they finally (backed into a corner of course) admitted that LAFCO could stop it, and the General Plan from 1982 can be changed. We must have asked those exact questions a dozen times. Do they take classes on how to be so deliberately obtuse? It was a 2 hour propaganda session where they smiled and said they understood, but it was too late. The reality is that it's not too late, but it will be if we allow ourselves to be lured into complacency. I have never been so appalled in my life. So much for our "elected" officials. Interesting to note that the majority of the decision makers that our elected officials appointed aren't even from Napa. Dana Smith said she just got here 6 weeks ago from a town where they built 3000 new homes a year! Is that what they think we want here? Wow. "

supernova8610 wrote on Nov 6, 2007 5:39 PM:

" I know this will wound selfish and unreasonable, but I just wish that no more development would take place in Napa. I like it just the way it is. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Nov 6, 2007 6:14 PM:

" putting the brakes on development puts the brakes on population growth. It's got to stop somewhere. "

informed wrote on Nov 6, 2007 7:00 PM:

" This development is poor planning at it's worst. Urban sprawl will be the legacy of this city council and city manager. Make no mistake this manager/council is bought an paid for by the developers. This development is another Browns Valley without adequate fire protection. This development will require a fire station that the City cannot afford. The Napa City Fire Department is already stretched too thin. This area is outside the City's goal of a five minute response time. It is nearly three miles from the closest fire station (SIX MINUTES) plus 911 dispatch time (ONE MINUTES) plus time for firefighters to receive the call, get dressed and get to the fire truck (ONE MINUTE) Total time is EIGHT MINUTES! According to Fire Chief Tim Borman, this development will REQUIRE ANOTHER FIRE STATION! Another draw on city tax coffers. The result is clear, more development outside the capability of the city to adequately deliver services. This council and manager is deaf to the residents that they purportedly serve. Shame on Napa CIty! "

NapaCitizen wrote on Nov 6, 2007 8:46 PM:

" Wake up and smell the coffee Napa! We all need to get up to speed to stop this....here's the link to the lafco notice and who to contact to actually do something about it! http://napa.lafco.ca.gov/Docs/GoldenGate-FosterRoad/FAQ.pdf "

Straight Talk wrote on Nov 6, 2007 10:54 PM:

" What a pack of lies. I was there. I heard the neighbors concerns. No one from the city lied or misled the public - ever. "lmiller" you are a liar or so completely unable to understand public policy that you should not be writing about it. The City representatives and LAFCO Director must have said seven to eight times within the first hour of the meeting that the annexation was a matter for consideration by the LAFCO board directors and that public comments and letters could persuade LAFCO officials not to approve the annexation. It really is sad to see the lies printed here. I can accept that people are opposed to the development but the end does not justify the means. If you were at the meeting you know that the annexatoin is not a "fait accompli." Even if the property is annexed into the city there will be multiple opportunities for neighbors to create development in the area that they are proud of and perhaps even something that benefits the neighborhood. I just marvel at all the neighbors who don't want any houses there. Do you not know the same arguments were made about the construction of the homes you live in? So, you can ruin Napa's open spaces and agricultural lands for your own enjoyment but God forbid others try to make their home where you like to watch cows. Selfishness is too small a word to describe your personal interests. The tone of the meeting was a new low for Napans. Nothing more than fear, anger and lies. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 6, 2007 11:14 PM:

" I agree with the comments here. I also have to say I was struck by how uninformed Napans are about their own city and neighborhood, and that was part of the problem Smith had in explaining to people what the deal is. Part of the issue not mentioned here is an unholy alliance between the building trades and liberal boosters of affordable housing. Both of these special interest groups have created housing requirements, ongoing forced building throughout the state. Dana Smith said Napa's allotment is 2000 units in the next seven and one half years. What the city is afraid of is that they will end up out of compliance with state law-they are forced to allow housing somewhere, and since they already have this property in the General Plan they are pretty much committed at this point. Voters have also got to wake up to the fact that these state laws are forcing population growth across the state that I dare say 90% of the voters don't want. But the Republicans refuse to stand down the builders, and the Democrats refuse to stand down the affordable housing advocates. Until that happens development is going to go on beyond what most would want to see. If this makes you mad then you need to do something besides trash local officials. You need to become involved and aware before it is announced that the vacant lot next to you is going to be the new home of 85 affordable apt units. "

Concerned Citizen wrote on Nov 7, 2007 7:08 AM:

" We, Napa County, do not have to comply with ABAG requirements for "absorbing our 'fair share' of growth in the 9 county Bay Area." We can petition to be removed from the sphere of influence of Bay Area growth and politics. We can become a part of the counties counties to our north, not the south. We can simply refuse to accept ABAG's projections for our area, pay the fine if we must; I can't imagine that fine would be any worse than the ruination of our gorgeous valley which is taking place now under ABAG's insistence and 'blessing.' Our reps. need to grow spines, they need to stand up and represent rather than continually cowtow to the powers and siren call of developers, "world class" BS and a desire to see their names in "lights." Time to grow up, folks; not grow out. All the posts here are excellent and ARE representative of the general underlying sentiments of the vast majority of Napa citizens....elected officials and appointed toadies: Take note! You are being observed and you have angered just about every facet and faction of your constituency except the carpetbaggers who hope to gain at the expense of this valley, our quality of life, and reason. "

Napa Native wrote on Nov 7, 2007 9:25 AM:

" In a county with a greater gap between the rich and poor than most Latin American countries, we need more housing for the elite to provide all the service industry jobs that people who have to live 50 miles away need to fill! What was once a family oriented community is now becoming a destination, and our elected officials are proud of the fact! Maybe they will let us visit our community when they are done remaking it in their profit orineted image but will any of our children be able to afford to live here? A gateway infers a pass through what they envsion is "the destination", despite the cost to the working families who make it possible. "

Straight Talk wrote on Nov 7, 2007 9:36 AM:

" Yeah napablogger!! Finally, a grain of truth peaks out from the clouds of misinformation in this line of blogs. What you wrote is absolutely true. Thank you. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 7, 2007 10:32 AM:

" thank you straight talk, concerned citizen I really don't think it is fair to blame developers, they are only building what people want. Notice how you left out the part about affordable housing as well. This is why it never gets changed, people stuck in their partisan positions blaming the other side. If you want to blame, blame yourself for not doing anything about it already. A better idea is stop the blame and start looking for solutions. The problem would be a lot more than getting a fine from ABAG, as I said this is the result of state law. Having said that, I think the neighborhood should fight it at every turn, show what you want, but take it to the state level as well. It is not the fault of the wine industry either, they don't want growth, of all groups they are the last to want farmland bulldozed. Napa native's argument is an argument for development, how else are you going to provide housing for your kids unless you build it? Nothing wrong with that, but that is why we are seeing development, not because all these different interest groups have evil intentions. "

Concerned Citizen wrote on Nov 7, 2007 2:09 PM:

" Napablogger, you are absolutely correct when you suggest that if one is unhappy with a situation, one should "blame yourself for not doing anything about it already. A better idea is stop the blame and start looking for solutions." If you knew my real name, you'd know (if you've read the local papers for the last three decades) that I have continually fought against the poorly planned, clueless growth policies of this and past councils, planners, supervisors and developers. I must disagree w/you when you suggest: "don't think it is fair to blame developers, they are only building what people want." Now, if you think about that statement, you must admit that it isn't true...if it were, there would not be the issue before us regarding the Ghisletta property and all the other dozens of disagreements between citizens and local gov. over zoning, annexing, building and growth. Developers build for the profit end of the deal; not because it "is what people want." Some people, like those in positions of political power, have something to gain, financially or otherwise, or who truly have no heart for this valley but wish to make money off it. Anyway, I agree w/you about "affordable housing," I have never subscribed to the notion that anyone who wants to live anywhere should be able to even if it costs taxpayers, quality of life and necessitates high density, stupid growth. No! I don't support that at all. Thanks "

lmiller wrote on Nov 7, 2007 2:25 PM:

" Excuse me, "napablogger" and "Straight Talk", I am not lying. How long did it take the city officials to clearly say that it could be changed. 2 hours of double talk, when what was actually said could have in 5 minutes. I am not opposed to development. I think filling in the ugly empty lots make perfect sense, but to take a rare patch of beautiful Agricultural Land and turn it into a tract of giant houses and apartments is a detriment to our county. Napa is what it is because of the Ag land and beauty of it. If you want to live in Sacramento, move there, this is Napa. I paid a much higher price for my home because of it. Mr. Ghisletta (or family) bought his property for a price reflecting that the property was Ag land, and paid a much lower Property Tax because of it. I also bought my home at a higher price because the property in front of me was ag land and it had a beautiful view. Allowing this development will simply take the value of mine and my neighbors homes, and hand it over to Ghislettas. Where is the justice in that? Why can't he make simply millions selling it to a winery preserving the view, the value of everyone's property and the integrity of our community. Look around your neighborhood, don't tell me there aren't plenty of homes to be bought. Also it's simple supply and demand, the more home available, the less the remaining are worth. By the way, we were at that meeting trying to find out the process, so keep your smugness to yourself. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 7, 2007 4:56 PM:

" lmiller, I did not say you are lying. But at a meeting like that to bring people up to speed to a whole process when they haven't been paying attention for years is very difficult. I am sorry if I am coming across as smug, it is just a fact that people in the City of Napa are not informed in general about zoning, development, and what is going on with land use. The Ghisletta property cannot be used for ag for one example. I go to meetings all the time. If you go to a meeting in the county you will find the citizens conversant in these topics in general, and the difference is apparent. My view is that Dana Smith got frustrated with trying to explain something that takes more than a few sentences to explain. I think she could have done a lot better job, however, she got frustrated. One example is that the answer to the question "can LAFCO stop it" is really not a simple yes or no. So you feel you got a yes at the end, but the truth is that it is very complicated and there are various pressures being exerted that can't be explained simply. That is why it appeared that they wouldn't answer. They would have to have explained the way a whole general plan and housing element works, and how that property fit into it all, which is probably a two hour presention by itself. In any case, I am behind the neighborhood, stay with it and show up for meetings and it will all come together. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 7, 2007 5:04 PM:

" concerned citizen, thanks for your answer. We pretty much agree, my point about developers is that they are just doing their job, it is not their fault that development happens. People want and need the housing and building. It is up to the citizens to decide how much, when and where. If they don't take that reponsibility then builders are going to build where they can, that is how they make money and it is their job. It is not like they are planning the destruction of the world or something. It is like blaming FedEx for a message you get, it is not their fault, they just deliver the messages. Builders build the houses that governments and people say they can. I do think that their lobby in Sacramento is at fault for gaming the system with these housing mandates. But that would be like blaming teachers for a poor education system, rather than the lobbies in Sacramento that keep it that way for their interests. It is important to make these distinctions, because then people get stuck in blame over say Triad in Angwin. Triad has nothing to do with what is happening in Angwin. Triad isn't even from California. So blaming Triad or a developer becomes a major emotional distraction that actually moves us away from solving the problems. You have to look at where the decisions are coming from, and they are coming from government, and from the system set up by citizens who at least allow it. Affordable housing mandates are a good example of that, citizens want it, then take no responsibility for the negative consequences. "

lmiller wrote on Nov 8, 2007 11:30 AM:

" Thank you for a respectful answer. One other thing I would like to point out, is that it's an emotional issue because many of us will lose value in our homes. Many of us (we certainly fall into this category) have put everything we have into our homes. You act like us losing a couple hundred grand in value on our homes is chump change. I think it awfully smug and yes, arrogant to chastise us for being selfish. Should we roll out a welcome mat for Mr. Ghisletta? Maybe we should just hand over the deed. We wouldn't want to be selfish! We moved there recently so for us it's even more personal. We don't have as much of a cushion. Well if we lose our home, we could always rent one of the low-income housing on the Ghisletta property! Oh wait, no we wouldn't qualify. "

Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
Search:
Advanced searchWeb Search Powered By Yahoo! Search
Copyright © 2008 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy