Napa Pipe will not appear on the November ballot.

Jim Marshall, treasurer of the June Yes on Measure N campaign that would have stopped the proposed 3,200-townhome residential development at the Napa Pipe site, cited voter fatigue and the presence of another important land use measure on the November ballot in deciding not to come back with a new initiative.

“There was some talk among us people that were opposed to major developments in Napa County about doing something following the defeat of Measure N,” Marshall said.

But he said the presence of Measure P, a proposal to extend voter control over zoning changes in the county’s Agricultural Preserve until 2053, dissuaded advocates from coming back to the ballot with a Napa Pipe battle in November. “I did not want to include anything on the November ballot to take away from the focus on passing that,” he said.

The new initiative would have asked Napa County voters to ban residential development on industrial land in the unincorporated county. Specifically, the initiative would have targeted the proposed residential development on the industrial-zoned Napa Pipe site in south Napa County.

Marshall said the Napa Coalition for Responsible Growth plans to wait for the results of three pending environmental reports on Napa Pipe before making its next move. Based on the results of those fiscal, water and traffic impact reports, which are expected in coming weeks, he said the coalition and other local groups will work together to decide if a new initiative is necessary.

“The idea now is let’s see what the Napa Pipe proponents are going to propose. Let’s see what the reports say that are going to be coming in shortly and act accordingly,” Marshall said.

Depending on the size and type of the project, Marshall said a compromise may be in sight.

“I am opposed to a conversion to residential (zoning),” he said. “However, if a project is proposed that is limited in scope — let’s say they plan to do 800 units and do 100 a year — that’s something that I suppose could be tolerated … depending on what the environmental impact will be.”

But, said Marshall, “If it’s close to what they have on the board right now … that’s simply unacceptable.”

The current Napa Pipe proposal is for 3,200 units over 10 years or so.

The Napa Coalition for Responsible Growth will work with other local groups to determine next steps, he said. Specifically, Marshall said he will seek the cooperation of Get A Grip on Growth, the Napa County Farm Bureau, the Napa Valley Vintners Association and the Sierra Club.

“We would not make the mistake we made last time (on Measure N) of going forward without consulting other like-minded groups in the valley,” Marshall said.

Some of the groups Marshall proposes to work with, however, remain skeptical about an initiative aimed at Napa Pipe.

Ginny Simms, former Napa County supervisor and founding member of Get A Grip on Growth, said Napa County has already had its chance to vote against the project with Measure N.

“Get A Grip felt that this was our only opportunity to vote on Napa Pipe and I tend to think it still is, or was,” she said.

“The whole issue to me is a closed book,” said Simms. While she pointed out that she does not speak for other members of Get A Grip on Growth, she said she thinks it would be unrealistic to see another initiative succeed.

“I can’t see any timing or option that would make that doable,” Simms said.

Get A Grip On Growth Chair Eve Kahn noted that the reports on Napa Pipe are still pending and the project is in flux. She called the question of a new initiative “premature ... when we don’t really know what we’re stopping and what we like about it and what we don’t like about it.”

Tyler York said the Napa chapter of the Sierra Club is “willing to sit down and talk to anybody about anything.”

Nap Pipe developer Keith Rogal is asking the public to weigh in on the project as it continues to evolve rather than challenging a proposal that is yet to crystallize.

“I think that there is a likelihood that the proposal will be different than what is out there now,” Rogal said. “The project that will be presented … will be one that respects the desires of the community, and whether that’s a project that’s all industrial or residential or some combination, that’s going to emerge from this public process. … It’s not going to emerge from me taking suggestions from a hired gun.”

If and when a final proposal is approved by the county, the public may choose to vote against it with a referendum, Rogal said. Until that time, he asked, “How can you actually do that when you don’t have a project?”