" I keep hearing we need to be a "world class city" and I believe that is a large part of the problem. I like the "just an hours drive from San Francisco" mentality SF being a world class city with the infrastructure to handle the hundreds of thousands of tourists it see a year, many who are willing to take the drive north to the "quaint Napa Valley" and spend tourist dollars here. I like built out! Im not a nimby but think that if we need more low cost or high density housing we build at the airport rd properties next to the police station and fire dept. not in napa proper. B and B should be the only new hotels and only existing structures. Tearing down 80-100 year old brick buildings that give downtown the charm it still has should not be allowed! Retrofit and upgrade while keeping the old town charm. The developement that is happening now will inevitably change the look and feel of Napa until we are not the desirable destination we once were but a sprawling overconjested suburb without the ability to add the services needed to support the development and then decay will set in. The new structure will not retain their charm as they age they will just decay and as we stop being the destination we are now the new structures will be sold and resold at a loss lowering property values more and hastening the end of the valley as we know it. Look at the multi million dollar losses of copia, selling off parcels to foriegn investors. Just a prelude of things to come. When we get the next flood and the flood control measures fail watch the investors all along the river bail. mankind on the move "

" Good questions. How do they do it on the East coast? I see pictures of picturesque towns and villages in places like Rhode Island and Massachuesettes that 100 years ago should have looked like San Jose today. What did they do? (I am guessing all their kids moved to California...) "

" What concerns me the most isn’t the new development, it is the lack of a clear, concise direction from the city council on where were are going and what the City of Napa will become over the next 25 years. To build up Napa more to house workers for more wineries, without the council understanding the demographics or what the residents really want is insane. Why does Napa get to be the city where all of the winery workers live while north of Salvador residents enjoy their small towns and rural areas? We have a tremendous opportunity to mold Napa into what we want it to be, and it can be great for everyone, but the council is wasting this opportunity by not doing their part of the communicating- listening to it own residents. We are heading towards being the junky city that really doesn’t fit in to the high end/wealthy communities to the north or the transient/blue collar areas to the south. The council wants to capitalize on the tourist trade to bring more revenue in to pay for more services, but services for who, what services? How can you even begin to answer that when you don’t know who lives here or who will be living here in the future? "

" Any future development should be confined to that which is allowed by current regulation. No more, no less. Napa Pipe is a commercial property. Let it be developed in accordance. Its value will be dictated by demand for what it is. The principal zoning for the Ghisleta property is AW. AW would allow for parcel splits as small as 160 acres. Each parcel would be allowed one main house, and one guest house, that's it. What has clouded the Gisleta property is the the city's bestowment of a UR designationon, Urban Reserve. An Urban Reserve designation allows any use in accordance with the principal zoning, any variance would require annexation into the City. Annexation has not, yet, happened. If you want this property annexed continue to elect the same people to office. If you don't think this property should be annexed, that its use and value should remain in accordance with its principal zoning, vote all the local incumbants out. "

" Lots of good comments. I am not necessarily against more growth, like NVGal, but it has to be well planned and can't make Napa into a traffic nightmare. We are also losing our small towny feel and I am afraid that will hurt the tourist industry and we will all end up regretting it. I know there is a lot of hostility toward tourists by some, but they are the basis for our economy and we need them. It is very difficult to strike that balance between all the competing issues that enter into the equation. Right now we are developing neighborhood by neighborhood with the cities and the counties acting independently of each other more or less. "

" kevin, I think the problem here is what you said--the demand. A lot of people want to move to Napa and it seems like we could build an unlimited amount of homes and they would sell. There is a slump right now but these things come and go. Long term we would put as many people in this valley as we want. If we get immigration under control that will help, as all the population increase in California for about two decades has come from immigration. But that will take a while, even if we went to zero immigration for years. I just read yesterday that 48% of the children in California are hispanic now. "

" Napadad, I totally agree with you. People including me feel Napa Pipe is too big, but the thing of it is, if the city of Napa put its future affordable housing there, and American Canyon, and we used that as our housing and slowed the rest way down---no more big residential developments--that would be one way to deal with it. I agree that we need to maintain the old brick structures downtown and elsewhere. They are so much more attractive. One wonders why we get stuck with such ugly architecture all the time, it must be the cost. I am talking that box look. I am actually not as worried about the hotels and commerical development as much myself, as long as it is well integrated. "

" I think we aren't yet "built out," but that any new growth should be within the current city limits. No more annexation. No changing zoning, either for Ghisletta or at Napa Pipe. Napa Pipe is private land, but the impacts of his private land use decisions are most certainly a public concern. My two cents. "

" Napablogger – I am actually not against development and growth as I have seemed to have vented below, but while I was looking forward to some of these new developments and projects I was under the impression that the council knew what it was doing and where they wanted the city to go when it approved these projects that are currently under way. I am now very confused and frustrated and getting the feeling that this is not the case. From your article I get the sense that they still don’t have a solid direction, correct? So without a clear direction, how can you support anything? How do you vote on Measure L (miss-appropriation of funds aside here) if you have no clue who will be living here in 10-20 years? How do you end up supporting a huge project like Napa Pipe when you don’t know where it will all end? If we don’t have a strong council with a solid plan and the backing of the community, we will end up being a city that is under control of whoever has the most money and they will determine what they want to see in Napa. I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and surprised I guess that a lot of this hasn’t been hammer out, but at the same time decisions are being made. "

" NVGal, I think they do have a plan, although Mark Van Gorder recently said it was hard to visualize how it would all look when it got done, so I am not sure they have a complete plan. But I agree with you that they need to do a better job of communicating it. Also, I think the county and the cities, especially Napa and American Canyon, are all operating independently of each other to too great an extent. So we could tank Napa Pipe, then get more living units built less than two miles from there than they were planning for Napa Pipe, and sooner. So what is the difference? The only difference is some imaginary lines drawn on a map, at least to the citizens in Napa. Most feel development inside city limits is better, but if it is green fields on the edge of the city like Ghistletta, the costs for services are going to be the same. American Canyon has water problems that are unresolved. Finally, you voice the biggest complaint that I hear, even from developers---poor planning. I think most people here would get behind some reasonable growth if it were well planned. We have 15,000 cars a day commuting into work here. That and school traffic are the two biggest sources of traffic. These are difficult problems in which there are no easy options, and we need to have a balanced approach and a community dialogue about it all. The solution to the traffic problems is going to be a series of small steps that add up to something larger. That is why I support bike trails, for instance. Some people will take their bike to work, but it is hardly a panacea. "

" Napadad, you are so right... just consider what is happening to the downtown "mall." Sold three or four times at a loss each time while there are still large #'s of unoccupied spaces.

I agree with MikeB...if any development is to occur at Napa Pipe or Ghisletta, it should be as currently zoned; either industrial at NP or agricultural/rural limits at Ghisletta. No zone changes from now on out should be the rule of thumb.

We cannot undo the mistakes of the recent past; tearing down our old stone and brick, tile structures on First, Main Sts., etc..but we can stop the destruction, the cookie cutter ugly mustard, brown and orange buildings such as Clinton St. and Main., and start to restore what we have remaining of Napa's colorful past and character. WE ARE BUILT OUT! and WE MUST ADHERE TO CURRENT RUL's. Think Sebastopol, Sonoma Square, Healdsburg, Arcata, etc. Areas which have maintained smallness along with "class," if class what is deemed 'necessary' by the majority of Napans. "

" We are not just 'Built Out', we are already 'Over Built'. No new anything, just rehab of existing buildings until the streets, sidewalks are at 100% along with the water, sewage, and all utilities adequate in infrastructure and electrical undergound everywhere within City limits, and BART comes into American Canyon. Then... ten years later start issuing building permits for only homes, townhomes and apartments that can be rented or purchased with 1/4 of the MEDIAN income for workers within Napa County for another 20 years. ~Ruff "

" Do you know the way to San Jose? "

" Bravo Michael!

As amember of The GP Steering Committee you are in the know on where we are headed if the Final EIR is approved as written! Housing numbers above those mandated by ABAG! Can Ms. Gitelman explan her position on this.....can MS. Gitelman send the county of Napa in a down hill slide towards a special place being just being like every place? She is working very hard at it!

I suggest we take a hard look at the GP and start asking who wrote this stuff???? "

" Hats off to Michael for presenting the big picture in such articulate terms. He touches on a number of dimensions of the same problem, which is that the people know what they want, but the city and county polititions keep on approving project after project. We know that Napa City and Napa County were highly desirable places to live and work 20 years ago, and are still highly desirable and that is what the people want to preserve. But we are being forced to give that up, piece by piece, by elected officials who are too closely tied to the merchant class or to the philosophy that more is better. Our individual lives are not improved by the numerous developments they have approved. And our lives will not be improved by Napa Pipe or Ghisletta. So we shall have to come right out and say it. No more. No more. Meanwhile, count your blessings when you consider the plight of Angwin where they face a 43 % increase in population from just one project. It is madness for the County to even be considering the greed of a Seattle developer in the face of so much harm to so many others. "

" If peolpe want to move here they dont have to look at new developement, drive down first ave second ave ,third and fourth. Homes for sale right and left! By owner many times because real estate agents want to undervalue them to guarantee a quick sale. And the hotel motel situation is a serious problem only getting worse. The Carneros inn monstrosity is an example of whats in store along with ameritage and the megacondo along the river and whatever they put on the old garbage company property. As long as we let them build more will want to build while they are profitable and profit will be the only deciding factor when decisions are made. At least the meritage and carneros are not built in town on already heavily congested streets. Think of shift change for 100 staff at each location thats 100 coming on and 100 getting off. Now where do they enter the traffic flow? Soscol at first and silverado at first. Rush hour will see solid lines of traffic and i mean solid from silverado at soscol to silverado at lincoln for 1-2 hours and Soscol from the new toyota dealership to pueblo in both directions and First will be impassable from silverado to jefferson. Now those are just the two locations that are already in play. I cant even grasp the scope of the additional drunk drivers leaving the bars and returning from the wine tours or all the wait staff that drink for an hour or two after the shift ends. All on surface streets in town two shifts starting and ending as school starts and ends 7am and 3 pm. I say nothing but B and Bs and 10 - 15 years of traffic upgrades before any new developement in town "

" First of all, thanks for the compliments. I generally agree with NapaDad and Jasper, or at least share their concerns. Boots, it is not Hillary Gitelman's doing on any of this. She is not a policy maker in that sense, but her job is to carry out the policies given to her by the Supervisors. So she is not to blame for any of this. Also, I favor the Angwin project by PUC as I have made clear when I was on the General Plan steering committee. I am going to write a piece on Angwin when the time seems right, but some of the reasons include the fact that the Ag Preserve was agreed to by PUC and others based on the urban bubble and the fact that PUC would be allowed to do some development there at some point. I just don't think you can renege on that agreement, and if the Supervisors do then it throws all their agreements into question. There is a whole list of reasons why I think the PUC development is a good idea which I will detail at some future point. I think the General Plan is a good one, as long as the spirit of it does not get derailed through the process going on now with the Planning Commission and Supervisors. If they start making wholesale changes to what we have then all bets are off. Already there is talk of writing a whole new water element, changing the viewshed ordinance, etc, and if that happens I won't be able to support that. However, I think the General Plan is good and should pass in its current form, more or less. "