|
The trouble with Napa Pipe
Share
Email
Print
CommentRelated
It’s too big. It needs more study. It may not do enough to ease Napa County’s affordable housing crunch.
Those are the main concerns regarding Napa Redevelopment Partners’ ambitious plan for seven-story buildings and 3,200 townhomes at the 152-acre Napa Pipe property.
Those are the main concerns regarding Napa Redevelopment Partners’ ambitious plan for seven-story buildings and 3,200 townhomes at the 152-acre Napa Pipe property.
The Napa Pipe proposal got the Napa County Board of Supervisors excited, as the county is seeking ways of meeting state housing quotas. The board signaled it would consider a change away from industrial zoning, and that created opposition to Napa Pipe in the form of Measure N.
Appearing on the June 3 ballot, Measure N would strengthen the county’s existing 1 percent per year growth cap and 35-foot height limit on buildings, giving voters the power to accept or reject any exceptions to the rules. The measure would hamstring the current Napa Pipe proposal.
Appearing on the June 3 ballot, Measure N would strengthen the county’s existing 1 percent per year growth cap and 35-foot height limit on buildings, giving voters the power to accept or reject any exceptions to the rules. The measure would hamstring the current Napa Pipe proposal.
Napa Redevelopment Partners’ leader, Keith Rogal, points out that the project is far from a done deal. The group is paying for water, traffic and other studies and — Measure N or no — must present a full-blown environmental impact report for public hearings and county approval.
If Measure N is intended to kill the project, Rogal told the Register editorial board, it will misfire. His group will come up with a revised plan. (And yet, by election day Napa Redevelopment Partners may have spent the better part of $1 million to defeat Measure N.)
If Measure N is intended to kill the project, Rogal told the Register editorial board, it will misfire. His group will come up with a revised plan. (And yet, by election day Napa Redevelopment Partners may have spent the better part of $1 million to defeat Measure N.)
It is important that Napa Pipe studies are on-going. But it’s not enough. Here’s what should happen if today’s leaders want to do right by tomorrow’s residents. The county must:
• Get serious about the size of the project. Even Napa Redevelopment Partners’ natural allies among supervisors and planning commissioners say 3,200 homes are just too much. The public needs to be presented with a realistic plan.
• Test whether legal mechanisms such as deed restrictions can ensure that hundreds of Napa Pipe homes become workforce housing, not just “affordable” homes that only solve the political riddle of meeting state housing mandates. Without that, trading off the creation of thousands of market-rate homes for hundreds of so-called affordable units ought to be a non-starter.
• Host a reasoned debate about height limits. The mantra of the day is that if Napa is not to grow out, then it must grow up. OK, so what are appropriate building heights? May we decide this without 3,200 proverbial guns pointed at our heads?
• Craft a comprehensive county-wide housing policy. Napa Pipe alone could take care of our state housing mandates for years. But it is not alone. The Ghisletta property off Napa’s Foster Road may see 1,000 homes. Pacific Union College plans 380 homes in Angwin. American Canyon plans more homes. Infill projects in the cities will provide still more.
Citizens are clamoring for a prudent policy that puts our quality of life ahead of developer dreams. As proposed, the Napa Pipe project doesn’t meet the mark.
(This is the second of four editorials on Napa Pipe and Measure N. Coming Saturday: The trouble with Measure N. Sunday: The Register endorsement.)
• Get serious about the size of the project. Even Napa Redevelopment Partners’ natural allies among supervisors and planning commissioners say 3,200 homes are just too much. The public needs to be presented with a realistic plan.
• Test whether legal mechanisms such as deed restrictions can ensure that hundreds of Napa Pipe homes become workforce housing, not just “affordable” homes that only solve the political riddle of meeting state housing mandates. Without that, trading off the creation of thousands of market-rate homes for hundreds of so-called affordable units ought to be a non-starter.
• Host a reasoned debate about height limits. The mantra of the day is that if Napa is not to grow out, then it must grow up. OK, so what are appropriate building heights? May we decide this without 3,200 proverbial guns pointed at our heads?
• Craft a comprehensive county-wide housing policy. Napa Pipe alone could take care of our state housing mandates for years. But it is not alone. The Ghisletta property off Napa’s Foster Road may see 1,000 homes. Pacific Union College plans 380 homes in Angwin. American Canyon plans more homes. Infill projects in the cities will provide still more.
Citizens are clamoring for a prudent policy that puts our quality of life ahead of developer dreams. As proposed, the Napa Pipe project doesn’t meet the mark.
(This is the second of four editorials on Napa Pipe and Measure N. Coming Saturday: The trouble with Measure N. Sunday: The Register endorsement.)
Join the conversation
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.
|
|
nwnapan wrote on May 9, 2008 7:58 AM:
1. Experienced developers always ask for more because they know their project will most likely get cut. So all the banter about 3,200 homes is moot. It's not going to happen at that size.
2. Deed restrictions are a band-aid. The State's affordable housing mandates need to be changed as suggested by Dan Monez's opinion piece in today's paper. This is something that has been a focal point for Mark Luce as well. Mark is very vocal about the detrimental effects of the State's mandate.
3. Height is not the most relevant issue. The relevant issue is how height is structured into the architectural design. Seven stories with setbacks can be very aesthetically appealing if designed correctly.
4. The general plan is addressing this issue to an extent. The City of Napa has taken the lead by creating a Housing Committee made up of Napa residents. The County should take notice.
"
TheWholeTruth wrote on May 9, 2008 8:53 AM:
I'm all for Napa Pipe going through the normal planning and approval process, but I fear that NRP will be paying for all these high priced consultant reports and selecting the consultants they think they can best manipulate to achive the result they want. Current Supervisors were already "excited" with the 3200 home 7 story plan, so, the "new plan" may not be much better.
No matter what, the proposal, I fear, will be a new City, but we need measure N to give our residents a vote on final approval as a check and balance upon the proposed government action. If the developer does not get too greedy (like in his original proposal) my guess is voters will embrace a well planned, scaled down development with a proper balance of residents, commercial and green industry. No doubt, Napa needs and deserves responsible development.
Actually, I had little against NRP until they came up with the twisted political embarrassment, KNN. It seems to me NRP is KNN, thus I will never trust them as far as I can throw them. They have perverted, tortured and twisted the truth seemingly just to see to it Napa County Residents do not get to vote on their plan. This means, NRP, with all their money and power, is afraid of us, the voters.
This fear is healthy for Napans and will help generate good plans for Napa Pipe as well as other proposals if N is Passed.
If N looses we are sheep being lead to slaughter.
"
vocal-de-local wrote on May 9, 2008 1:17 PM:
nightwatchman wrote on May 9, 2008 2:22 PM:
Bill wrote on May 9, 2008 10:39 PM:
TheWholeTruth wrote on May 11, 2008 10:43 PM:
I guess the more one can pay, the better the "study" becomes for the buyer.
Give anyone out here a warm, fuzzy feeling about the unbiased protective value of the study rising from the ashes of this program?
Well, if ya do, please contact me about this bridge I'm sellin! "