Should the city take control of Napa Pipe?
Possible city-county swap would change the deal at industrial site
By JILLIAN JONES
Register Staff Writer
June 26th, 2009
June 24th, 2009
June 5th, 2009
April 27th, 2009
April 2nd, 2009
March 30th, 2009
March 26th, 2009
March 20th, 2009
March 18th, 2009
Plans for residential development at the former Napa Pipe site could be derailed if the county accepts a proposal to let the city of Napa have jurisdiction over the project.
Napa Mayor Jill Techel said the city will present an offer to the county next week to take on 70 percent of the county’s state-mandated housing requirements for the next 21 years. In return, the county would agree to let the city annex Napa Pipe, bringing the development under the city’s jurisdiction, Techel said.
Annexation of county land would require ratification by city voters, and changing which jurisdiction controls the 152-acre Napa Pipe site represents another twist in developer Keith Rogal’s efforts to put townhomes and riverfront retail and parks on the long-time industrial site.
The property is in the unincorporated part of the county, just outside city limits. The Napa County General Plan calls for residential development to take place mostly within cities, while the county remain largely agricultural.
The county has been eyeing Napa Pipe as its solution to burdensome state requirements to provide for affordable housing on unincorporated county land. But if the city agreed to take on 70 percent of the county’s affordable housing obligation, the county would have less of a need to see residential development at Napa Pipe.
Tension also is building as city officials challenge the idea of a large residential development — the largest of its kind in county history — just outside Napa’s boundaries.
Moving a potential residential project into the city “seems to make sense,” Techel said.
Napa City Manager Mike Parness said, “We understand the county’s need to provide for the housing. We think it makes more sense that the housing be built and served within the city (so we can) properly plan for and accommodate” it.
Supervisor Mark Luce said the county is open to the idea of trading housing requirements for jurisdiction over Napa Pipe. Luce and Supervisor Bill Dodd have been meeting with Techel and City Councilwoman Juliana Inman to discuss the future of the development.
“If they come up with a deal that we can’t refuse to get us out of the housing business for the next 21 years, then yes, we’ll have to listen,” Luce said.
City officials have made clear that, under city jurisdiction, the development at Napa Pipe would not resemble the current 3,200 townhomes that are currently proposed.
“At this point, if it was within the city planning, we’d be looking at other options,” Techel said, adding she would like to see “more multiple uses” on the site. “There may be some housing there,” Techel said. “We certainly have some concerns about 3,200 homes.”
The owner’s view
Napa Pipe developer Keith Rogal, however, said he will not change the planning process to work under city jurisdiction after spending years and millions of dollars working with the county.
Rogal wrote to the Napa City Council and Napa County Board of Supervisors this week, stating that he is open to the possibility of annexation, but that he would not “start over with a new and different process.”
Rogal said in an interview that it would be a waste of his and citizens’ time and money to start again from scratch, especially when several environmental studies on Napa Pipe are scheduled to be released next week.
“To get right at the point where there’s about to be public discussion, and for the meetings to be behind closed doors and say, ‘Let’s just change the rules altogether in as yet an unknown way,’ … that’s an exercise for someone else. It’s not an exercise for us,” he said.
Rogal said that for “a residential development of any kind” to move forward at Napa Pipe, “it’s going to move forward in the jurisdiction where we presently exist.”
“If that jurisdiction wishes not to have a residential development … that’s their prerogative, and then the result is a large industrial development,” he said.
Rogal noted that if housing is not built at Napa Pipe, the city and county must find other sites to meet housing requirements.
In his letter, Rogal said he would not consider city staff’s recommendations for alternative uses at Napa Pipe, “such as a luxury resort-style subdivision, a low-end parking/storage facility for city trucks and buses (the ‘corporate yard’), or a major industrial development.”
Techel and Parness deny that those options were ever proposed by the city.
Rogal said in his letter that he is willing to collaborate with the city to address its concerns about Napa Pipe, and recommends a “binding, tri-party contract, such as an Inter-Agency Cooperation Agreement,” which could include issues such as the possible annexation of Napa Pipe.
Rogal also calls for a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report.
Techel and Parness interpret Rogal’s letter as an attempt to speed up the process so as to keep the development within the county.
“He feels like he’s on a path ... and he wants to move forward with these 3,200 homes,” Techel said. “We could get a chance to kind of change the direction.”
Luce said Rogal’s letter should serve as a reminder that the city and county must consider the developer’s wishes in their discussions about Napa Pipe.
“I think what (the letter) does is it reminds us that there is a third party here,” Luce said. “I think anything that moves forward needs to be done cooperatively. I don’t know that we can just bulldoze our way through.”
“It has to work for him,” Luce said. “Otherwise, we create another mess.”
Meanwhile, Rogal has sent a separate letter to the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District about using surplus water at Napa Pipe to address other county needs.
The letter previews an environmental study that Rogal says will show that Napa Pipe has more groundwater than would be needed to support 3,200 homes at the site. He suggests in the letter that the extra groundwater be used to address water shortages in other parts of the county, including the Coombsville area, which is facing a long-term water shortage.
In the letter, he calls for the county to convene a group to study the issue.
The water study is one of three environmental studies related to Napa Pipe. Napa County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman said the studies are complete and should be released next week, assuming the city signs off on them. At that point, the studies will become available as drafts and subject to public input.
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.
lwright wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:05 AM:
BUT if the City will take 70% of the County’s housing over 21 years regardless of what happens at Napa Pipe, then this makes no sense for anybody – except for those owning land already within the City’s sphere, like Ghisletta and Big Ranch, etc.
City Council, if no housing goes in at Napa Pipe, please explain to us why taking on 70% of the County’s obligation for the next 21 years AND increasing our jobs/housing imbalance is a good thing. Your public statements to the press are woefully lacking in substance. You play on people’s fears of the specter of Napa Pipe but you don’t tell us where all that housing will in fact go.
Your argument about keeping housing in the City in order to preserve ag land in the County is also completely specious in this instance. Napa Pipe is already-developed URBAN land. Yet you want to rip up 140 acres of RURAL ag watershed land on Ghisletta to put in 1000+ homes and corporate park. Please help us understand your theory here because it sounds more like a power grab issue for staff and officials rather than something that’s truly in the best interests of the rest of us.
If you approve this plan without spelling out to the Napa citizenry in a very public forum precisely where all that housing is going to go over the next 21 years, and without receiving our sanction for the permanent and far-reaching consequences for Napa’s landscape, you will have betrayed us all. "
gxnapasteve wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:52 AM:
manxkat wrote on Nov 23, 2008 9:19 AM:
mofosheee wrote on Nov 23, 2008 9:36 AM:
Ms. Mayor step up to the plate and do your job.
Rogal is a crook "
MarshaMarsha wrote on Nov 23, 2008 9:37 AM:
From Napa Pipe, two lanes going in to Napa, two lanes going out. There is NO possibility of building a second road to the area. The State Hospital and NVC are in the way.
If Mr. Rogal believes that modern humans will burden themselves with bicycles, water taxis, light rail, or buses instead of just conveniently hopping into their auto to go into Napa then he is completely out of touch. "
Paddy wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:11 AM:
This is the real problem. Napa needs to take a stand and tell Sacramento that we are not going to be dictated to. Napa County residents will determine it's future development, what makes sense and what doesn't. 3200 homes at Napa Pipe DO NOT make sense. Either does CITY OF NAPA taking on 70% of the county's housing.
Just say no to Sacramento, I'm willing to pay my share of the legal costs. Happy too! "
smart growther wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:35 AM:
But lets not forget that the community, not the developer, should be driving the decisions here. Remember all the homes proposed at the Southern Crossing or at Stanly Ranch? In both cases, the community said NO.
Mr Rogal and his investors have one idea of how this area should be developed but should not hold the City or County hostage. Since Napa Pipe is not zoned for housing, a General Plan amendment is required. There are no entitlements. It's a risk they clearly understood when they bought it. "
napablogger wrote on Nov 23, 2008 11:28 AM:
What is going to happen is high density inside city limits and no public transportation. Guess what is going to happen to traffic all over town?
The city just doesn't want Napa Pipe and I think the real agenda is to stop it. They are presenting ideas to Rogal they know he won't accept. We are going to end up with 2 million sq ft of new industrial space, another 10,000 trucks on the road and another 10,000 single driver commuters when we could have had the first reasonable spot to start public transportation and a neighbornood near jobs and stores where people could get out of their cars.
And the city keeps saying 3200 homes to scare people--they can and would do the project with a lot less, the county put 850 homes on their planning, in two phases, total 1700.
And I am sorry to have to say this publicly but City planning is not good. Ask anyone who has tried to get through there. A group of local developers has been working for four years to try to get that department organized and workable.
The county owns the land, the county has done a far better job of managing projects, and we need the housing for low income and workers. "
vocal-de-local wrote on Nov 23, 2008 11:51 AM:
I'm concerned about how the law is a tool used to drive population growth further and further out of control. I'm sure they don't see it that way but whoever controls this process must be fairly stupid to not see how the state of California is being ruined by it. Do other states have this "forced growth"? What are the penalties. We need to evaluate whether paying the penalties is much worse than allowing the growth to occur.
And here's something to consider about growth. Initially it looks good. Homeowners are taxed and hopefully they spend some money within the county. The hidden costs are that their children must attend school. Our roads further deteriorate due to increased traffic. There are always increased social costs with growth. We will need more policemen, more firemen, more probation officers etc. Taxpayers subsidize it. So is it better for us to just pay the upfront fines to stop growth or to accept the costs of growth and pay later? Either way we pay.
And to Rogal: enough is enough. How much money do you REALLY need to live comfortably? You've got a money addiction problem. Deal with it. Don't make it OUR problem. And you probably have a gambling problem too. You knew when you bought this property what the risks were. Just because you invested mega bucks in your attempts to make this parcel more valuable does not increase the obligations of our local government. Not everyone and everything is for sale. Sometimes when you gamble, you lose, no matter how much money you pour into it. "
modern napkin wrote on Nov 23, 2008 2:24 PM:
If you'd been on a Napa Pipe tour, you would know that Rogal's plans are creative, inclusive, and environmentally sound. There will be parks, retail, and recreation in addition to the badly needed places to live. Otherwise it remains a flat, paved, industrial wasteland. Maybe that's what you call conservation, but change is on its way. Let's trust those who know how to handle it. "
notpc wrote on Nov 23, 2008 2:29 PM:
missmarvelous wrote on Nov 23, 2008 3:43 PM:
napablogger wrote on Nov 23, 2008 5:32 PM:
We have no real control over these state laws, and missmarvelous they are state laws, not federal. I disagree with the state laws, but I and the county of Napa are not going to change those laws any time soon, so we have to deal with them.
The law is that we have to have a realistic plan to build housing including affordable housing in a certain time frame. The penalty is that we can get sued by affordable housing advoctes and a judge could order where housing can get built instead of us deciding ourselves. I can see that we are heading there now. Also, a judge can pull all permits, and all construction will shut down, period.
Also, this is not about Rogal wanting money. He could make as much money and have a lot less hassle doing some other plan.
It is not about stopping growth either. Not building housing at Napa Pipe means you will build something else that may be even more growth inducing, and still have to build housing elsewhere.
It is about where is the best place to put housing. In your neighborhood or at Napa Pipe? "
bennyd wrote on Nov 23, 2008 5:55 PM:
mikeb wrote on Nov 23, 2008 5:57 PM:
napa4change wrote on Nov 23, 2008 6:06 PM:
Vocal - I sure hope that you don't plan on having any children, or if you already have children, that they don't have any children, because guess what - that only adds to our growth problem that you seem so upset about. I also hope that you don't own your own business where you are hiring employees to come work for you here. Guess what, this ALSO adds to the growth problem you write about.
"I'm concerned about how the law is a tool used to drive population growth further and further out of control." - No, what the law actually does is it attempts to handle the growth that is happening EVERYWHERE. Growth is inevitable, population is increasing and people have to live somewhere, right? The question is, how do we place this growth smartly, properly and responsibly. Hmmm, what makes more sense - reusing an already paved over eye sore? Or, say, the beautiful rolling green hills of the Ghisletta property?? "
Sickothis wrote on Nov 23, 2008 6:06 PM:
napa4change wrote on Nov 23, 2008 6:11 PM:
napablogger wrote on Nov 23, 2008 6:11 PM:
The plan to shift it over to the city is because the city doesn't want it, and they are going to tank the project.
The question I want them to answer then is where are they going to put the housing. The public should demand to know where else housing is going to go instead before the public decides what they think. And it has to be realistic and actually be done, not these bs plans to put affordable housing at Moskowite corners, etc, where you know it will never get built.
One of the places that housing was supposed to go to satisfy the law suit we already got was Angwin---and look what has happened there. The rest of the spots were even more unrealistic.
The affordable housing advocates know this, the state knows this, and other counties do not care if Napa is slow growth, they don't want the growth either. So they are not going to put up with our bs housing plans forever. "
napablogger wrote on Nov 23, 2008 6:14 PM:
Napa in my view does not need another 2 million sq ft of industrial space, we need a place for people to live who already work here and get them off the roads in the morning commute. "
vocal-de-local wrote on Nov 23, 2008 7:14 PM:
Facilitating the growth by adding more and more housing and services to an already overpopulated state is not the answer. In nature, "expense" controls growth. In the human world, the expense is manifested in the form of a dollar. In the lower animal level, it's manifested as starvation and rejection which allows the strongest to survive. I don't want to ever go there. Do you? That's where we are headed if we do not get a grip on the situation.
Out of curiosity, at what point do you say enough is enough? Is Mexico City acceptable to you? That's the direction that state mandated growth is pushing us. Is that the type of world you want to bequeath to your children?
I think it's time for some very bright attorney to throw "environmental damage" back toward the affordable housing advocates. If they're going to be legal bullies, so can we. "
native74 wrote on Nov 23, 2008 7:18 PM:
I've listened to Mr. Rogal and his 'spiel' and was suaded until waking up from a kool-aid hangover. I wonder if he is a disciple of Benny Hinn...makes you wonder.
Remember Carneros Inn in the County? An Inn? Well, they built homes as well. A LOT of them. Of course not in the "affordable" range for the 'middle class' --- like how that word keeps coming up? I sure don't. Just listen to him sometimes. REALLY listen and you'll catch it possibly. Catch the "elitist" attitude that I caught and how he truly wants to stay there as well as his business partners. You know how you do that? You sell sell sell and the Sups seems to be putting that pitch on the City now. In this instance I don't mind being called a hayseed if that means I'm hip to a used car sales pitch! Ever bought a used tractor or saw a great gentle horse no need to ride ad?
I hope more Napans wake-up and stop drinking the kool-aid. Take a look around. The market has finally come down and a lot of my 'middle class' friends are finally able to afford a home here. There isn't a dent yet in the new re-sale market so how would it handle to 3,200 more home? Yikes! WAKE-UP! "
109823 wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:07 PM:
Napan since 1965 wrote on Nov 24, 2008 9:33 AM:
It makes good sense to me that the City of Napa should—at the very minimum—have a strong voice in what happens at Napa Pipe, and I’m pleased to learn that the City and County are interested in finding a better solution for providing mandated housing than that which Mr. Rogal proposes.
In the past, I recall seeing a suggestion that the Napa Expo should be moved to the Napa Pipe site, and the currently required affordable housing should be built at the "old" Expo location. It would also remove one of the BIG negatives at the present site—the severe lack of parking, limiting use of the facility for larger events.
Keith Rogal’s plans to build what amounts to a "new city" outside of the city limits never appealed to me, along with a large percentage of voters, based on results of the June ballot measure aimed at derailing his plans. “Our View”—Napa Pipe back on center stage,” notes that Napa Pipe owners had to spend more than $1.5 million to narrowly defeat that measure!
I definitely welcome the idea of the City and County giving serious consideration to the proposals set forth in Sunday’s front-page article titled “Should the city take control of Napa Pipe?”
If annexation succeeds, when the “old” Napa Expo site reached capacity for housing, future “mandated housing” of all types could be built "as needed" under the mandates for both the City of Napa and Napa County—all within the new city limits!! "
modern napkin wrote on Nov 24, 2008 11:18 AM:
mikeb wrote on Nov 24, 2008 11:33 AM:
napa4change wrote on Nov 24, 2008 1:17 PM:
anticommie wrote on Nov 30, 2008 8:53 AM:
"This is the real problem. Napa needs to take a stand and tell Sacramento that we are not going to be dictated to. Napa County residents will determine it's future development, what makes sense and what doesn't. 3200 homes at Napa Pipe DO NOT make sense. Either does CITY OF NAPA taking on 70% of the county's housing."
I agree with Paddy on this. Why should Sacremento FORCE our community to build housing, for anybody? The hogwash that comes out of that liberal capital is disgusting. Another example of liberal politicians dictating what is "fair" for everybody. Tear Napa Pipe down and build a nature reserve like gxnapasteve stated. I like that idea. "