NVR Logo
Hotel proposed for near Highway 29 and First Street
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Save and Share Share
2 p.m. A 16-room inn with a three-story waterfall is being proposed for a key location at the entrance to downtown Napa.

The waterfall, which would be lit at night, would become a landmark for motorists turning off Highway 29 at First Street, said architect Chris Craiker.
The inn is planned for the vacant quarter-acre lot at the northeast corner of California Boulevard and First.

In 2005, property owner Charles Gonzales of Menlo Park got city approval for a nine-room, Craftsman-style inn on the site. The inn was never built.
“Unfortunately, nine rooms just didn’t pencil out,” Craiker said. “It takes 16 rooms to make it work.”

The new design calls for eight hotel rooms and eight extended-stay units with kitchens, with a manager’s unit tucked into the fourth-floor attic.
To accommodate parking, ground-level spaces for 17 vehicles would be topped by two floors of guest rooms at the Clay Street side of the property. The entrance would be off of Walnut Street.

The waterfall would be an eye-catcher, creating a “ceremonial entry to Napa,” Craiker said.

Mindful of environmental concerns, Craiker said “waterfalls have come a long way. They can be energy conserving.” The cascade would be powered by high-efficiency, low-energy pumps, he said.

The Planning Commission will review Craiker’s pre-application proposal Thursday night at City Hall.

Craiker’s design runs up against General Plan limits on building mass at that location, city planner Kevin Eberle said. The earlier design for nine rooms was close to the maximum allowed site coverage, he said.

To avoid this restriction, Craiker is suggesting that the eight proposed extended stay suites be considered as single occupancy residences, not hotel units.

Next week’s discussion is expected to focus on technical issues such as these, said Marlene Demery, the city’s interim planning manager. Until they are settled, Craiker cannot submit a final design for staff review,  she said.

Craiker describes the new design as Craftsman, but with a contemporary flair. The facade of the lower two stories would be covered with stone squares, with stucco on the third story. Metal roofing would clad the attic.

The 2005 design called for a smaller building, described at the time as looking like a “large home.”

The new design, with 16 guest rooms, will function more as an “inn” than a motel, Craiker said. It will have the accouterments of a B&B, including a breakfast room and on-site manager, he said.

In his written description of the project, Craiker called it a “high quality, luxury facility.”

Craiker, who said he had a small ownership interest in the project, operated the 1801 Inn at Jefferson and First streets for seven years in the 1990s.

The entrance to downtown at First Street and Highway 29 is destined to have more tourist-serving amenities, he said. California Boulevard between First and Second streets is zoned for a hotel. A 46-room project was approved for the site in 200. The project was never built, but the permit remains valid, Eberle said.

Embassy Suites, which occupies the north end of the freeway exit, has submitted an application to add some 40 additional rooms close to the intersection, Eberle said.

Two small inns are located at California and Second Street.
45 comment(s)

bornin74 wrote on Mar 13, 2008 2:21 PM:

" NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO "

diehard4ever wrote on Mar 13, 2008 2:28 PM:

" I would love to see something classy and pretty built in that corner. The way it is right now is an "eye sore". It is not like it is going to block a gorgeous view, it will actually block the view of more ugly buildings behind it. Go for it! "

kevin wrote on Mar 13, 2008 2:28 PM:

" The waterfall won't last long. No one even has fountains anymore because they are politically incorrect and the (idiotic) public perception is that they are wasting water. Similiar to the effect of driving around in a Hummer... "

4gnapan wrote on Mar 13, 2008 2:59 PM:

" As long as they dont go cutting down any more redwoods, putting something on that ugly empty lot would be quite nice. "

common sense wrote on Mar 13, 2008 3:16 PM:

" Cool. Waterfalls good. "

funnyme wrote on Mar 13, 2008 3:30 PM:

" Hey Kevin, this is a great thing! People still buy Hummers and SUV's and water their lawns and gardens and take the kids out for a ride or a walk to look at pretty things and do politically incorrect things like eating ice cream in front of someone who can't...This is not a comunist country where everybody is hungry and everything looks gray. This is America, the Land of the Free -and that includes free enterprise. Can't wait to see it built. "

caligirl wrote on Mar 13, 2008 4:23 PM:

" A nice park at that comgested intersection would be a beautiful addition.....we don't need more hotels/motels/B&B/extended stay facilities in Napa.....enough is enough.....not to mention the additional traffic that would be generated through this busy intersection as well on the surrounding residential streets.....am I the only one who thinks this is a HORRIBLE idea? When will the all mighty dollar stop winning out in Napa? "

MyInput wrote on Mar 13, 2008 5:01 PM:

" This sounds like a good use for this site and the project would add to the City's transient occupancy tax revenues.

Let's hope that the Planning Commission does a thorough job of architectural review. Since the City is considering a green building ordinance that will address energy efficiency and other conservation measures in buildings, the water element should fall by the wayside - where it belongs. By the way, decorative waterfalls, in a semi-arid climate like Napa's, lose a significant amount of water through evaporation - a complete waste of a valuable community resource. "

someguyinnapa wrote on Mar 13, 2008 6:23 PM:

" so you mean to tell me that there will be hotels/inns on 4 corners in the immediate clustered intersection?

that intersection is difficult enough for people (Napans included) to negotiate. most don't realize that a right turn is ok after a stop on a red light from 1st east to Cal south... there is even a sign!

now it will be even more difficult as tourists inadvertanly drive the wrong way on 1st trying to make a left onto walnut!

get real!

once again, the tourists win...

what a flippin joke! "

areyouserious wrote on Mar 13, 2008 6:29 PM:

" Remembner the fountain at the clock tower?

Oh, wait! Remember the clock tower?

Well, that fountain fell victim to boxes of laundry detergeant dozens of times. Just wait Craiker... your VERY CLEAN fountain will overflow with bubbles as soon as it is built! I guarantee it! There is nothing else for kids to do around here.

Besides, another B&B/Inn... Are You Serious?

Gimme a break all ready! When will this town be for the people that live here and not the tourists? "

musikluvr wrote on Mar 13, 2008 7:57 PM:

" Be careful of the Napa City Council stampede to approve. Stand aside you could be trampeled. Don't get in the way of a developer at city hall...He is providing TOT and sales tax revenue and the city has sold us to the employee unions ...so, its gotta be approved come heaven and high water. Gotta raise firemen and police pay cause they are too intimidating for the little lady negotiator...so its easier to sell the town to a developer. "

wrkngmm wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:20 PM:

" I wonder how the driveways will be oriented. Will tourists have to turn left on California to make an immediate right (meaning they will erroneously sit in the left, left turn lane and cut people off)? Or will they have to go down Second, cross over to First and head in the direction of out of town in order to enter the driveway? I think our frustrating one way streets albiet quaint work more in the direction of driving tourists out of town. Downtown Napa has always been interesting. Frankly I look forward to a bubble fountain beats that weird rock fountain at Copia. "

NapaCitizen wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:12 PM:

" In times where we are concerned about water usage, a landmark waterfall for tourists hardly seems appropriate.

We don't need landmarks, we read street signs, have GPS and
many other ways to find our way.

But, with the planning geniuses who approve this crap will undoubtedly buy anything that gives the City more occupany taxes. "

yamamama wrote on Mar 13, 2008 10:14 PM:

" Craiker built a gigantic house on First Street - both the size and style are inappropriate for the neighborhood. It has been sitting empty for two years and hasn't had a buyer. Why should anyone believe he'll do a good job on a hotel on the same street? "

jwk wrote on Mar 14, 2008 5:24 AM:

" A nice Park, green area or something similar would be a nice addition to that congested ugly area. Another B&B or Hotel would contribute much more unwanted traffic and pollution and infastructure strain. But why would we do anything that isn't for the tourist's and visitors and disregard anything to appease our citizens wants and desires.. "

valleygal wrote on Mar 14, 2008 6:01 AM:

" I guess the property owner from Menlo Park really wants Napa to LOOK like Menlo Park..congested and chaotic.
I am not necessarily against another hotel, but that property is the wrong location, it is already busy enough at that intersection. "

cathyodom wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:08 AM:

" The waterfall sounds very beautiful. I'd like to see some artist drawings, maybe Napa Valley Register you can include those? Yes guys, parks are great, but that is a good "hotel area" with Embassy Suites and the Best Western Inn there. Let's see what it looks like with the parking structure. Remember, it will be good payback for the tourists to listen to traffic and the freeway at night, not us! Then they can drink more wine to fall asleep and listen to that waterfall! "

make napa better wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:22 AM:

" Does anyone remember when that corner was a gas station? Now that was congested. If they can't get approved to build the hotel where JC Pennys was, how can they get approved to build something in that corner lot that was built it MY lifetime? "

jeepracer10 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:52 AM:

" What another hotel? Terrible idea and bad location. Why do the tourist need a landmark to call their own anyway? The water conservation comment does make sense. "

Concerned Citizen wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:53 PM:

" This is crazy! I can't imagine a more congested and crazy place to add yet more traffic. Confused visitors trying to navigate our already strange roadways will now be searching for the right entrance/exit and parking in this convoluted intersection where three streets (California, First & Second) meet. WOW! and right when a controversy is already brewing over the way too many hotels planned for Napa, this ridiculous plan emerges. Yes, it had been zoned for commercial/inn type rooms but, come on; is this really a good idea? We already have backup at the stop light and confusion about right turns and left turns...must this situation be exacerbated by additional poor planning? Will these people EVER learn? Deaf, dumb and blind. That seems to be how our planners, councilmembers and city staffers approach such projects. Just because an application has been submitted doesn't mean it MUST be considered....just nix it in the bud before you've created yet another planning/infrastructural blunder. Or, will we see more "business, as usual?" "

Straight Talk wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:34 PM:

" I understand the pros and the con arguments made in the blogs... what frustrates me generally with most (not all) blogs is the lack of constructive criticism. Say the City Council, developers, Planning Commission and Planning Department are "deaf, dumb and blind." It's a free country and we can say what we want. I'm just not persuaded by arguments that don't specifically say what we *should* do.

If you are opposed to something, please say what it is that you support. In this case, clearly the owner is not going to settle for an empty lot. If not an Inn, is it better to build more houses there? And if so, would there be much difference between the proposed Inn? "

Concerned Citizen wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:39 PM:

" There are zoning restrictions, density, height, lot line as well as noise and occupancy limitations on land in Napa city. These help to guide the size and impact of structures which are proposed. The location of this small lot along w/the somewhat confusing traffic flow should influence what type, if any, building can be done on this particular lot. My suggestion is only that; a suggestion. I believe the lot should be single story *(if, and only if ANY building is allowed there). Of course, I would prefer, for traffic safety's sake, that no building occurs. Because it is private property does not automatically mean the owner can do whatever he wishes. He is subject to restrictions, now; however, given the plan he has submitted, the limitations are not enough. His lot is not in a very good location for increased activity such as parking. So, his options are not wide open. Other than that; I have no suggestions. I WOULD leave it an open lot; let the city lease it or buy it and make a pocket park for the neighborhood w/the western and northern edges tree lined as a noise buffer. Remember; there are private residences right next to this property and across the street. A small neighborhood park would be great, beneficial and a low impact use. There, Straight Talk; does that satisfy you? "

jimmie wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:43 PM:

" The waterfall would be a mistake. Ideas like this always end badly. "

Firewater wrote on Mar 15, 2008 7:19 AM:

" Now that I see the picture, You gotta be kidding, The waterfall and the building don't even go together. Waterfall on sleek modern buildings are one thing but this is ridiculous.
Go back to the drawing board. "

common sense wrote on Mar 15, 2008 7:54 AM:

" While some of the ideas that get floated around town are a joke, this one I like. A waterfall is timeless and will never go out of style. The building looks like it will fit in with Napa architecture. That particular location needs SOMETHING. I also seem to recall the recent study pointing out the economic advantages to having a few more hotels around town. I'll support it. "

Straight talk wrote on Mar 15, 2008 8:08 AM:

" Concerned Citizen - Great explanation. Thank you. I disagree with some of your ideas. Who will buy the property from the owner to make your park? Should the city spend 1-2 million dollars to build a park for kids in place you identify as crazy and convoluted intersection? What makes the most sense to me is to finish off that block with another house or two since it is primarily residential.

My point was simply that name calling is a little "third grade" and referring to the people who will ultimately plan and approve any project for that area "Deaf, dumb and blind" doesn't help anyone. "

kbf wrote on Mar 15, 2008 8:22 AM:

" To make napa better, they are building on the old Penneys site. The traffic is already horrible. This guy already has approval for a smaller version so build that. It was a project that was ok when he asked for approval now it won't make enought money for him. I think we who make comments are fustrated and no city council person or planning person is going to take suggestions from us, we've been suggesting for years and look where we are now. "

opiniagirl wrote on Mar 15, 2008 9:28 AM:

" We're not talking about public land subject to "a vote" for a park or any other more "beautiful or natural setting". Would you be willing to pay this owner to play in his park? This land is owned by a private citizen and he has the right to profit from it any way he chooses. as long as he follows the laws; it’s his right to do what he pleases, waterfall and all. I'm all for the rights of individuals. It's this mans right to build ugly houses; add waterfalls to modern design, etc. God Bless America and the freedoms it provides...my advice - avoid the intersection and maybe stay at the inn one night after it's built for a romantic rendezvous =) "

Rob C wrote on Mar 15, 2008 9:39 AM:

" Just like 5000 homes at Napa Pipe and Ghisletta that everyone thinks will sprout overnight, this is just another proposal.

Anyone stick their head out the window and gauge the economic climate? How many hotels proposed during the last boom of the late 90's didn't get built after the bust? How long has the town center been moribund?

Calm down people. "

jeepracer10 wrote on Mar 15, 2008 10:10 AM:

" The waterfall looks like the gutter has ahuge leak and its pouring down the side of the building. It doesnt match the building at all. "

opiniagirl wrote on Mar 15, 2008 10:20 AM:

" Straight talk:

Please do not offend Third Graders; they know better than to call names! =) "

reader wrote on Mar 15, 2008 12:28 PM:

" Now we know why the city is once again contemplating a directional change for First Street.

A water fall running down the side of a shingled craftman style? No, No, No, it doesn't work. Sleek and modern it might work. This drawing looks like a bathroom accident, in more ways than one. "

Mykdgirl54 wrote on Mar 15, 2008 1:03 PM:

" GREAT another inn/hotel in Napa. I think it's a fabulous business plan to add ANOTHER inn to a downtown area with a large hotel (embassy suites) and two other smaller inns within walking distance. This smells like financial suicide. OH - and lets pacifiy the non-tourists of Napa in the process by adding a "landmark" in the form of a fountain.

Im sick of all the hotels, proposed hotels, inns, B&B's. It makes NO SENSE to build them when there is NOTHING TO DO in this town. How about revitalizing downtown with outdoor shopping (ala downtown walnut creek style) How about more parks, perhaps with outdoor stages for music festivals? (i.e. jazz festival in S.F.) Call me crazy but these idea seem like better revenue and options for not only tourists dollars, but locals as well! "

youngblood wrote on Mar 15, 2008 5:12 PM:

" Yeah that’s what NAPA needs...what about the youth in Napa with nothing to do in this yuppie city. One word, ridiculous. "

MyInput wrote on Mar 15, 2008 5:59 PM:

" Sixteen hotel units seems tough to fit here. The site seems appropriate otherwise, given its good highway access and proximity to restaurants, bus lines, and even grocery stores. Hotels are a relatively darned good business to support in our town (there are many worse) - the tax revenue from them can only help fund our parks and other services. This is a good chance to see what sense our City Planning Commission has for appropriate design. There will always be some subjectivity to architectural elements, but the waterfall concept, aside from being a water conservation no-no, seems completely out of place. The owner's claim that it reflects a conservation ethic is laughable. Not only would it waste water, it would make the building look like a regurgitating lego robot. I don't agree that hotels are overdone (yet) in the City of Napa. Yountville - now there's another story. "

Concerned Citizen wrote on Mar 15, 2008 8:49 PM:

" In the past, the city of Napa has purchased lots using eminent domain when the property was necessary or desirable for a project or for public good. This isn't an unheard of practice.

Straight Talk, I believe the comment went something like this: "Deaf, dumb and blind. That seems to be how our planners, councilmembers and city staffers approach such projects." Let me reiterate: APPROACH such projects. This is not name calling.

Any 3rd grader would recognize this.

There is nothing, at all, wrong w/proposing a green area for this parcel, one which serves neighbors. In fact, the area could really use such an area. Lots of small neighborhoods have small parks in fact, in newer housing proposals; this is a requirement of the of the developer/contractor. Not at all off the grid when considering the big picture. Two million dollars for this parcel? I think not. That seems a bit of a bloated figure. Way overvalued; particularly in today's economy.

So, I suggest; rethink your comments; they don't fly. "

DeeJay wrote on Mar 15, 2008 10:59 PM:

" If this MONSTER is planned for this lot, what is being planned for the southeast corner? That piece of land is much larger. Maybe it will be a three-story highrise with a parking garage and volcano. Look at the neighborhood, a park or greenbelt of some kind would look terrific. "

napablogger wrote on Mar 16, 2008 12:35 AM:

" calm down people, I like that one, thanks Rob. I think it is funny, every time there is a vacant piece of land a bunch of people say build a park. This is a quarter acre of land on a very busy intersection. Who in the world would go to this tiny park if it were there? Because of the traffic a commercial use is preferable--who would want to live on a tiny piece of land in the middle of a busy intersection? Or something for youth, what would that be on a quarter acre, a mini soccer field? Maybe they could use tennis balls instead of soccer balls to fit in the space, plus they would bounce off the cars better that are going by. Stop and think for a second. We'd be sticking the tourists with an undesireable property and making some money off it to boot. Plus creating a pleasant entry point into the city. I say go Craiker!! "

Concerned Citizen wrote on Mar 16, 2008 11:38 AM:

" I don't know, Napablogger; have you ever been to San Francisco? Sausalito? The East Bay? Sebastopol? All these places, large and small, have inner city small parks to diffuse some of the negative impacts of crowding. Ever been to St. Helena? Seems to me there is a park right on Main St. *(Hy. 29) where there is an abundance of traffic. Parks serve a purpose; there is nothing negative about green areas/small or large, within city limits and particularly when situated in areas where there are no other parks.

Not a bad idea, at all.

Taking a lunch time rest or just a moment's relaxation among greenery has never been a bad thing.

Oh, and, btw; I didn't explain my position as clearly as I wished. I don't support the idea of eminent domain in this case but, it is not unheard of. I do see that the city could actually spend some funds in a positive way by providing a park...(also, there are several small parks right downtown; one is near Mervyns, another just north of there..and more...)

Too bad some can't see the forest or the trees.

"

angrytoo wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:38 AM:

" A luxurious hotel?? What a marvelous idea!!! It's not like we don't already have those by the dozens all around town. Gee........yet another hotel that my friends and family who come to visit me can't afford. What's next? A Ritz Carlton? Oh wait..........nevermind!! "

14obama wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:51 AM:

" Where are the REAL Napans,the ones who were born and raised here? Every time I turn around there's another out of town capitalist coming in and barfing up his dis-ease for us to walk in. The mayor is,even,an "out of towner" ! Napa has been stolen,hijacked and defaced with a bunch of ugly tourist traps ! We must've been sleeping !
If I want to rent out my place to tourists,by God I Will ! Ain't no hypocrite gonna stop me ! You mean to say that you can bring "out of towners" with big bucks in and allow THEM,to have rights to the Whole concession,but, Not We the People of Napa ? Maybe we should prepare to defend ourselves from this kind of invasion.
Almost All of the comments here are from "Plastic People" who believe Napa should be like any other black topped,ticky-tacky,urban sprawl with all of the franchise stores and restaurants. Too late Now,Napa ! We ALL blew it ! The capitalists pigs win again,but,they always lose in the end.
Too bad they don't Know it ! "

14obama wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:05 AM:

" A Waterfall coming off the side of a building !! Now,That's Real Natural ! Run out of Creativity,or what ? If these AH's are gonna bring in their plastic designs,we should make certain they be a "Class Act" ! Someone was "out to lunch" on That design ! Waterfall DON'T slide down the side of houses or chimneys ! You MUST do better,Children ! It shows the classlessness in our elected officials if they like it,don'you think ? "

napagirl1960 wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:20 AM:

" Oh Great!! just what Napa needs...another Hotel, just like we need another winery. Geez Napa get a clue, we don't need them!! "

Common Sense wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:29 PM:

" I like hotels. They bring masses of people to buy our goods around town. Keeping people employed right now is a smart idea. I also like the fact that hotels also improve the quantity and quality of the night life in Napa...we need more. "

4gnapan wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:55 PM:

" Ok, i've seen the pics.. UGLY.

Thats about as imaginative as a .. oh heck, I cannot come up with a metaphor...

thats not a Waterfall... thats a "water feature"... about as exciting as the one at Target in Gasser plaza..

why is 9 rooms not enough? Greed Factor is soooo annoying. "

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:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy