Napa backs out on Ghisletta annexation

Home » News » Local

City Council asks county to suspend Napa Pipe project

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Comment

By KEVIN COURTNEY and DAVID RYAN
Napa Valley Register

City, county hope to tackle housing together

Growth cap measure could benefit 3 local developers

3 p.m.The Napa City Council has decided to withdraw its annexation application for the 142-acre Ghisletta property in southwest Napa.

At the same time, council is asking County Supervisors to suspend its work on the large proposed residential and retail Napa Pipe project.

Council met in closed session last night, then announced this morning the decision to withdraw the annexation application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

“Our plan was to complete the annexation as the General Plan calls for, and then conduct a formal multi-year Master Plan process with public input,” stated Mike Parness, Napa city manager. “While that approach is appropriate, the combination of discussions about Ghisletta and the County’s interest in a major housing project at the former Napa Pipe site has created apprehension in the community. The City Council feels we all need to step back and take a look at our needs with a larger view."

Napa's annexation proposal involved up to 1,000 units on Ghisletta land along Foster Road, within the city’s Rural Urban Limit, while the county is reviewing a proposal for 3,200 housing units at Napa Pipe, in the unincorporated area.

“I’m ecstatic. That is exactly what I think needs to happen,” Eve Kahn, chair of Get a Grip on Growth, said of the city’s turnabout on the Ghisletta annexation.

“We need joint city-county (cooperation). We need Upvalley involvement. People are feeling things are out of control,” Kahn said.

County reaction

County officials said Wednesday that putting the brakes on the 3,200-home Napa Pipe proposal may be costly if the Napa County Board of Supervisors decides to act in accordance with the wishes of the Napa City Council.

The city called on the county Wednesday to suspend the process to permit the Napa Pipe development and engage in a wider planning process for the county and city.

Currently the Napa Pipe proposal is in the process of going through a general plan amendment track — needed to change the zoning for Napa Pipe from industrial to something that would fit houses and a corporate park — with developer Keith Rogal footing the bill for expensive studies of the potential impacts of the proposal.

“Just based on these studies of water, traffic and fiscal he's spent a lot of money on consultant dollars,” Napa County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman said, adding Rogal could have the right to get the county to reimburse him for the cost if the county pulls the plug on his project.

Rogal was not immediately available for comment.

County Counsel Robert Westmeyer said since a least 1980, he’s never heard of the county stopping a general plan amendment process it had started.

County CEO Nancy Watt said the Board of Supervisors could take up the issue as soon as Tuesday or as late as Feb. 5, whenever the board’s schedule will allow it.

Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht praised the city’s idea to suspend the Napa Pipe permit process, but Supervisor Mark Luce accused the city of falsely characterizing the current joint-planning process that it was undergoing with the county regarding Napa Pipe.

In that process, the county is ultimately in the driver’s seat, Luce said, because Napa Pipe is county land.

“The project is in the county of Napa and we're the decision makers in this process,” he said. “ ... Ultimately it’s going to be the county's decision about what's going there. Maybe that frustrates (the city) but that's what it is.”

Check back later in the day for more updates.

26 comment(s)

bubble wrote on Jan 23, 2008 11:31 AM:

" Wow! Look -- the City Council actually does listen to the people. "

Paddy wrote on Jan 23, 2008 12:00 PM:

" This is the first community minded decision our council has made in some time. Perhaps it's getting through to them that Napan's don't want many thousands of additional cars on the worst streets in the Bay Area; smoggy summers; bumper to bumper traffic; crowded, substandard schools; depleted water supplies; plummeting home prices... the list of negatives for the entire community goes on and on. The positives? The very few positives affect a very few in the community. "

NVGal wrote on Jan 23, 2008 12:46 PM:

" This is great news. I hope they do really take a step back and understand what the community really needs. There really needs to be a balance between those of us who live here/tourism/workers that support the tourist industry. They can't keep approving projects without a bigger plan or what this balance really is. But it is a start that they are actually listening, so faith is restored a bit on my end. Lot's of work ahead, though. "

Exasperated wrote on Jan 23, 2008 2:07 PM:

" WooooHoooo! Now we just have to prevent them from turning Napa Pipe into a shanty town. "

steph wrote on Jan 23, 2008 2:45 PM:

" Well, as long as the same anti-growth people don't start moaning about sky-high home prices. Low supply plus high demand equals high prices. Simple. "

notpc wrote on Jan 23, 2008 3:09 PM:

" The people have spoken! There has been some quality development downtown but the proposed Ghisletta project was way out of line. It was urban sprawl with no way to provide for infrastructure improvements. The Napa pipe project is the next project that needs scrutiny. We can not support 3200 housing units without creating horrendous traffic problems. Those developers better get real creative and find solutions to traffic, schools, emergency services. If I'm not mistaken seven story buildings would require another fire dept. aerial truck let alone another engine company. ho is really going to pay for these improvements? "

Steelhead wrote on Jan 23, 2008 4:03 PM:

" Mr. Luce will soon have his new job decription! "

mikeb wrote on Jan 23, 2008 4:59 PM:

" Why on earth would the County have to reimburse Rogal for his costs? Rogal is seeking a change to the zoning of the Napa Pipe Property. There is no guarantee he would ever receie this zoning change. I fail to see how his costs of applying for a zoning change could be the responsibility of the tax payers. "

supernova8610 wrote on Jan 23, 2008 5:02 PM:

" YES!!!! :-D "

Bill wrote on Jan 23, 2008 6:41 PM:

" A very wise step by the city, perhaps the specter of new foreclosures looms in the back of their minds "

pat wrote on Jan 23, 2008 7:30 PM:

" Great news, and a good decision by the city council. Let's see if the county can come through as well. I do find it interesting that Eve Kahn, chair of Get a Grip on Growth, said of the city’s turnabout on the Ghisletta annexation, “I’m ecstatic. That is exactly what I think needs to happen,”. What a joke. Eve Kahn was quoted in this very paper saying "Get a Grip had no problem with the annexation request as it stands". And "It's been designated for many, many years to be targeted for residential" Now that the city council has backed out, Kahn says "That is exactly what I think needs to happen". Unbelievable. Get a Grip needs to get a life. Pick a position and stick with it. No one will take you seriously if you have no conviction.
"

NapaCitizen wrote on Jan 23, 2008 7:48 PM:

" Nice. Actually, it was the only outcome. We'll be watching. "

lwright wrote on Jan 23, 2008 10:30 PM:

" Great news. But let's not be naïve – the City councilmembers and staff have their own agenda and we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be manipulated like dumb sheep. Their decision to withdraw the Ghisletta application isn’t just about “listening to the people”. It’s also about getting rid of the annexation as a campaign issue and deflecting the pressure that was on the City to the County. In one fell swoop, the beseiged councilmembers have transformed themselves into “good guys” who are now beseeching the County to repent of their evil ways and join the forces of light. Please. The Council’s decision was apparently made behind closed doors in the context of deciding whether to sue the County over Napa Pipe. Connect the dots. There’s a larger chess game being played out here.

Ghisletta and Napa Pipe are not apples and apples. The latter project is on land that’s already developed. It’s not like it’s a rural resource. What do all of you who are ripping on that project think should go there? Keep in mind that a big industrial/commercial development is going to increase our housing requirements. If the so-called “Responsible Growth Initiative” is passed, where do you think that housing is going to go? Again, connect the dots -- and follow the money. I'm afraid that we can expect the Ghisletta annexation application to be renewed in the near post-election future.

This victory would taste a lot sweeter if it didn’t smell so badly of political gamesmanship. Why not just withdraw the application because it’s the right thing to do? Now that would be courageous.
"

napadad wrote on Jan 24, 2008 8:58 AM:

" I see the key line in that story being " during that period Techel, Krider and Mark van Groder come up for re election. " See how easily they jump back on the band wagon after the election. What would be nice would be to see the council push the slow growth initiatives and take a hint from the voters. my ballot has already been cast and it will take a lot more than one kiss to make me fall in love! "

Concerned Citizen wrote on Jan 24, 2008 9:54 AM:

" This is an excellent first step; lets make sure our agents/representatives (aka Councilpeople & Supervisors) convinue on this path. And, the quote: Inviting the public to weigh in on growth is what the times call for, Inman said. “Sometimes it can be messy, but it’s not something to fear,” tells us a little about the attitudes and business as usual way in which our elected representatives view the "people;" the public. WE ARE THE VOICES which should always be heard regarding our environment; our home. This should not be feared or seen as "messy." This is what representative government is about; we elect people to speak our voice, act on our wishes, do as we say, in effect. Not in a mean spirited or vindictive way; no, but in a proactive and cooperative way. The people who live here, who pay taxes, who vote, who maintain this area known as Napa are the ones whose desires should be adhered to....not as last ditch effort or change in "business as usual" but, AS business as usual. We are Napans; this is our home and we should have equal or compelling voice in all matters pertaining to growth. Thank you.
"

Sickothis wrote on Jan 24, 2008 9:57 AM:

" For the first time I agree with Jeff Schectman. The Council chickened out. "

daveposner wrote on Jan 24, 2008 11:33 AM:

" Sickothis: "Chickened out" of what? Imposing something their constituency doesn't want? That's called D E M O C R A C Y. "

Concerned Citizen wrote on Jan 24, 2008 12:53 PM:

" Hey! Sickothis! So you say, "I agree with Jeff Schectman. The Council chickened out. " Who gives a flying pig what Jeff Schectman, the former East Coast New Yorker, says. His view has always been skewed; he has actively 'acted' in the least interest of Napa and has his own "progressive" BS agenda. If he is FOR it, I'm definitely AGAINST it. No spokesperson for Napa's future is hel "

north napa wrote on Jan 24, 2008 3:59 PM:

" It's nice that the residents in south Napa get a break but that just opens the flood gates in our backyard in north Napa. There is 80+ acres getting ready for the city to quietly annex into the city for development. Bowman construction with Hall Winery money, O'Brien development and the Van Winden Family are jointly waiting in the wings and hoping that this will happen soon so they can start construction on the last available land to north of town. The infastructure up here can't handle what here now let alone add several hundred more homes. We are being choked up here and nobody seems to care about this area!!! "

reader wrote on Jan 24, 2008 4:25 PM:

" Fantastic decision! Let's all rally for the same outcome regarding the proposed development of suburbs in Angwin. This development will choke our arteries from north valley through the south valley. We need greatly improved infastructure and the exercising of common sense before ANY future development occurs. "

reader wrote on Jan 24, 2008 4:42 PM:

" Steph, "...sky high priced homes..." are already here. Not more development, not zero development will change that. Some people continue to think wrongly that more homes means lower prices (??). More homes equals developer profit based on the highest price the market will bear, and the Napa Valley market will continue to bear high priced homes. You need a better and more informed argument than that. To all who advocated against these projects, please, continue your advocacy; support "Save Rural Angwin (SRA). We need you, too. "

notpc wrote on Jan 24, 2008 5:05 PM:

" I hope the current city council understands how passionate the people feel about quality of life issues for our area. I have never been to so many different places in town and overheard so many people talking about Napa Pipe and Ghisletta developments and the negative impacts they would cause. I hope the council is not so insulated from their constituents that after the election they re-start the development process. I would expect a grassroots recall campaign to materialize. The County Board of Supervisors should also pay attention. "

sotto voce wrote on Jan 24, 2008 6:28 PM:

" Thanks, North Napa, for the reminder. The St. James subdivision of 9 homes passed on a CONSENT CALENDAR without any public imput. What were the politics behind that move? Mr. Russo now has a two story house adjacent to his because there was no advocate to ensure that privacy concerns were addressed. These million dollar homes with 5 foot sideyards now sit idle. Only ONE home sold.
But beware, more annexation is afoot! "

NapaCitizen wrote on Jan 24, 2008 6:40 PM:

" This over-development craze will turn this into a "Whack a Mole" game. We have to be vigilant. When annexation and/or large scale development pops its head, be ready ! "

bike to work wrote on Jan 24, 2008 10:53 PM:

" If the city does not allow this parcel where will the housing go? If the county does not provide housing for it's workers can measure J be thrown out as to restrictive of a growth measure by the courts. The City needs high density housing close in so that people do not need to drive as far to the store, school and work. Napa Pipe is further out, it is not as suitable as the Ghisletta property. "

napaao wrote on Jan 28, 2008 8:59 AM:

" good im glad!!! they would be taking away the natural wild life and adding paper to their pocket! yay for no Ghisletta annexation (rats) "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: