NVR Logo
The looming Land-use fight
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Save and Share Share
They call themselves the Napa Coalition for Responsible Growth.

A Napa County report says their initiative on the June ballot will violate state laws regarding residential growth, mire the county in litigation and perhaps jeopardize one of the bona fide growth protections in the county, Measure J.
Doesn’t sound like county officials think it is very responsible.

On the other side of the ledger, a group has been formed called Keep Napa Napa.
The proposal this group defends is a plan to construct the first seven-story residential structures in the county, which if built as proposed would exceed the county’s existing annual residential growth cap and put a community of more than 4,000 people where none live today.

City officials, concerned about the development on the edge of – but outside of - town, wonder how this would in fact help to keep Napa Napa.
But those are the names of the game in Napa County land use politics these days, and the two groups stand in opposition to each other.

The coalition’s initiative, Measure N on the June ballot, would undercut the Napa Pipe proposal by making firm the county’s 35-foot height limit on residential buildings, similarly reinforcing the county’s 1 percent residential growth cap and forcing any big county development proposal to the voters for approval or rejection.

Keep Napa Napa was funded by Napa Redevelopment Partners, owner of the Napa Pipe site, to defeat Measure N and tout the benefits of the proposal for Napa Pipe.

In recent weeks, the Register editorial board met with representatives from both groups.

Representatives for the Napa Coalition for Responsible Growth included founder Jim Marshall and campaign manager Victor Ajlouny.

For Keep Napa Napa, the representatives included Nick Caston, campaign manager, and community activist Joe Fischer, a self-described volunteer for the cause. Also present was Keith Rogal, the leader of Napa Redevelopment Partners.

Both the responsible growth and Napa Pipe groups have raised suspicion among residents regarding their financial backers and their true intentions.

The proposals associated with the two sides have also stirred consternation.

The Napa Pipe proposal is the largest single development plan in the history of the county. It would be built on unincorporated county lands, whereas the reigning principal in local planning circles long has been to limit residential development in the county while encouraging it within the cities.

The Responsible Growth Initiative came out of the blue, with no involvement from any of the traditional environmental or agricultural groups that have shaped growth policy in the county for decades. Instead, the group hired a prominent Sacramento political law firm, one far more commonly associated with Republican Party causes than typically-liberal slow growth efforts, to draft their ballot proposal.

Over the next several days, this page will share with readers what we heard from the two sides on their financing, their goals and their political foes.

It is our hope that Register readers and Napa County residents will gain insight from these notes from our meetings that will help them size up two emerging forces that hope to influence in significant ways the way land is used in Napa County.
9 comment(s)

BD4 wrote on Mar 16, 2008 7:26 AM:

" Great! Let's see if the NVR can get the facts right and report in a non-adversarial way. "

musikluvr wrote on Mar 16, 2008 7:53 AM:

" Folks, take just a minut to read this! "Keep Napa Napa" is a name thought up by the developers of Napa Pipe to confuse local residents and to create mistrust. The Napa Pipe developer is the same one who developed the Carneros Inn which provided no schools for hundreds of new homes and no traffic mitigations nor roadway mitigations for the thousands of vehicles it dumps onto HWY 12, which is known to be the 2 lane highway in California with the most accidents.
Napa Pipe wants to ignore the same requirements. Locals are tired of developers who do not provide the mitigatations and infrastructure for their developments. In one of his presentations I personally asked Mr. Rogal if he is providing schools and he said there are none in the plan, eventhough a population of over 9,000 people is projected at Napa Pipe.
It's like the American Canyon mega development. Everybody forgot the schools, the roads, the water supply and the sewage treatment. Now we Napans have to buy them a high school and pay for it for the next 30 years. AMCANs are screaming about the traffic and about their lack of water source.
Measure N will require the Napa Pipe developer to submit to a vote of the people. That's all it is. But the people will require that Napa Pipe provide adequate infrastructure and Mr. Rogal doesn't like that. He can schmooze the county supervisors and city council but he can't hoodwink the voters. Vote yes on N! "

BD4 wrote on Mar 16, 2008 8:37 AM:

" Musikluver - Why would the Carneros Inn be required to build schools? It's a hotel, not "hundreds of new homes!" And if you read the Measure N proposal, you would find that it changes more than just wanting to limit Napa Pipe...that's NOT all it is! If you think Keep Napa Napa is trying to cause mistrust, what do you think Measure N is trying to do by trying to keep the focus on Napa Pipe so people won't see the forest for the trees and all the other changes it proposes. I have no opinion on Napa Pipe...yet, at least until I see and hear about all of the studies that are currently being done. But Meausre N is bad all the way around with or without Napa Pipe. "

common sense wrote on Mar 16, 2008 8:46 AM:

" Napa Pipe should be converted in nothing more than a ferry terminal with a couple of small restaurants and shops. "

101napa4gen wrote on Mar 16, 2008 2:08 PM:

" I wonder why the NVR continues to print articles more focused on the negative issues of Measure J.. So the NVR says it has met with both sides and will continue to share their investigation with us. From my reading the stream of articles NVR has already published, iy sure seems the NVR is already standing with the Napa Redevelopment group. I believe in any other city in America, a local newspaper would investigate and report about a group who is so irresponsible that they mail out a bogus list of supporters. Why does the DEVELOPER keep fprming groups with the name "Napa" in them? It seems the elected officials were on board with the developer until Measure J made the ballot.. If it not for the people of Napa speaking up against this, we might already have had this large project under construction.
Napa citizens deserve to have our local paper print both sides more fairly so we can make up our minds and vote responsibly. "

lwright wrote on Mar 16, 2008 4:49 PM:

" It is extremely unfortunate that Measure N has been turned into a referendum on Napa Pipe -- when the consequences of N passing reach far beyond that one project. I hope the Register is successful in highlighting a third road -- where it's possible to be both against Napa Pipe and against running a poorly driven semi-truck through our future -- aka Measure N.

Okay, people are upset about too much growth. So am I. But where is that growth coming from? With the exception of Napa Pipe, it's all coming from the cities. What does Measure N do about out-of-control growth in Napa and American Canyon? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, N practically guarantees that Ghisletta and the land between Napa and Am Can will be annexed and developed at high densities. American Canyon is already looking to move their sphere of infuence up to Napa's south border. What will N do about development on those lands? Absolutely nothing.

Why do you think we haven't heard a word from Napa's pro-growth City Council on this Measure? They are rubbing their hands together in gleeful anticipation. You N supporters are making their day.

Measure J already protects the County's ag land. Why do we need N? If the supporters want to stop Napa Pipe, for Pete's sake (not to mention our own), there are other ways that don't involve taking a butcher knife to our future. The law of unintended consequences will come beating at our door and it won't be pretty.

Are you N supporters prepared to take responsiblity for those consequences? Have you even thought about what they might be?

"

Kevin wrote on Mar 16, 2008 8:27 PM:

" It would be nice if NVR would actually print Measure N so we could read it... "

Matt wrote on Mar 16, 2008 9:19 PM:

" From what I have read, I will vote against Measure N. lwright, I agree with you on that point.

But I wonder about what you call "out-of-control" growth in Napa. My understanding is that last year, it wasn't more than normal (less than 300 units a year). Percentage wise, that isn't very much.

What I'd like to see is the cities and county work together. We need to have a unified vision of what we want Napa (the entire county) to look like, and work together to make it a reality. I know it seems logical, but that isn't what's happening.
"

lwright wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:13 AM:

" Matt: You're right. "Out-of-control" is an exaggeration and I shouldn't have used that term. I guess I was reacting to the majority opinion in the Napa blog world and elsewhere that we are growing more than we would want. Everyone (including me) seems to hate the traffic, the loss of those charming little pockets of rural space that have been so core to Napa's charm, etc. And it's frustrating to me that people seem to be flocking to Measure N as some sort of protest vote against what they see happening to our community. I heard one blogger exulting that "we'll show them". But show whom? The Napa City Councilmembers don't seem to have met a development project they don't love, repeatedly voting 5-0 in favor no matter how many people show up to voice concerns. I think they have something like five major hotel projects in process right now. Where are all those employees going to live? Stay tuned. More high density "affordable" housing coming to a location near you.



"

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