Napa Pipe developer open to change
Rogal: Nothing final about 3,200-home plan
By JILLIAN JONES
Register Staff Writer
November 19th, 2009
October 25th, 2009
October 5th, 2009
September 27th, 2009
September 23rd, 2009
September 18th, 2009
September 9th, 2009
November 25th, 2009
November 23rd, 2009
November 22nd, 2009
November 21st, 2009
At Napa Pipe, 3,200 doesn’t actually mean 3,200.
The number is just a starting point, Napa Pipe developer Keith Rogal said this week, explaining that the proposed development at the south county site will probably feature fewer homes than the 3,200 originally proposed.
With a series of environmental studies nearing completion, Rogal said the project will be modified to reflect new data and input from the community. Critics of the mixed-use project have long challenged the idea of 3,200 new townhomes, which would go down as the largest development of its kind in the county.
“The numbers will be less than 3,200, but we wanted to put enough specificity in that you could do this study,” Rogal said. Though he could not say exactly where the numbers might fall, Rogal said the proposal will likely include “some residential development that’s mixed-use that’s less than 3,200.”
The proposal originally pitched to Napa County features 3,200 townhomes, a hotel, restaurants and retail, as well as 550,000 square feet of light industrial and office space.
“This plan was a starting point — it was the result of considerable study — but not ever intended to be final,” Rogal wrote in an e-mail. “Rather, it was intended to allow for detailed analysis and public input.”
Now, Rogal wrote, “we have more information to use in refining the project plan.” Three studies on the potential impacts of development at Napa Pipe are scheduled to be released this week.
Rogal lists key factors in determining the final number of proposed units as: “the number of people per acre needed to make neighborhood stores and services work, including transit, the affordable housing issues, (effect) on area intersections … and which intersections can be improved, types and costs of public facilities desired (such as art and artisan spaces, active recreation facilities), and desired average housing prices.”
“We’re confident that there is a number that will work in this community — that will balance these sometimes competing interests — and we will be exploring this in detail, in the months ahead,” Rogal wrote.
Rogal said he will also modify plans for industrial use on the site’s southern 50 acres. Because of the expected impacts on commuter traffic, “we are planning to reduce that square footage, and alter the types of uses proposed there,” Rogal wrote.
Napa County Supervisor Mark Luce said he is not surprised by Rogal’s comments.
“I’ve sensed that for a long time,” he said. “I don’t know how many fewer (homes will be proposed), but things always change through the process, and we haven’t gone through the process.”
Noting that the proposal still must undergo a detailed environmental impact report and appear before the Planning Commission, Luce said, “It’s really in an infant stage. You sort of have a vision but you don’t have a project.”
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.
MarshaMarsha wrote on Dec 7, 2008 9:14 AM:
Two lanes going there, two lanes coming back, and that isn't going to change with the State Hospital and NVC in the way. You can't push sand through an hourglass.
Any large development in that area will devastate traffic on 221 between Imola and Kaiser Road unless someone comes up with an amazing traffic solution. "
napan79 wrote on Dec 7, 2008 9:34 AM:
savenapa wrote on Dec 7, 2008 12:09 PM:
msdemo wrote on Dec 7, 2008 1:04 PM:
Mykdgirl54 wrote on Dec 7, 2008 1:41 PM:
Besides as far as Im concerned Napa, and the entire COUNTRY right now is in a "housing surplus" and is cash strapped. Building more houses won't get Napans into more homes unless their price tags are going to be $100. If not, then it's waist of time, money, labor, resources, and land. "
winemd wrote on Dec 7, 2008 2:49 PM:
winemd wrote on Dec 7, 2008 2:50 PM:
Keith Rogal wrote on Dec 7, 2008 2:57 PM:
manxkat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 3:50 PM:
sickothis wrote on Dec 7, 2008 4:14 PM:
I'm getting really tired of the uneducated, uninformed negative tripe on these boards. Get involved, join a committee or two, maybe get on an oversight committee or board, go to a meeting and actually learn some of the issues. Otherwise all you're doing is making yourself look stupid and lowering the quality of the discussion. "
jeeper16 wrote on Dec 7, 2008 4:56 PM:
savenapa wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:14 PM:
If I were to abosolutely spell it out the Register police would not print my article. But let me try to clear things a little for you, if you actually meant what you said and didnt just propose and rhetorical question to me.
The ones that have 40 people in a house do so because they want it that way. It is a cultural thing for them to live with multiple generations of their families and the inllaws and all of that. That many people in a home is actually breaking our laws but to those that live like that, they dont care about our laws or local codes. Tons of people in one house is like I said, the cultural norm, easier to export whatever surplus money to another country, a way to get over on paying for services through property taxes like schools, sewer, etc. The whole municipal framework is engineered to work with a 3 to 4 person family. (roads, parking, schools, sewage treatment, emergency services, taxes, hospitals, dare I say clean air, etc., etc.
Most will deny my absolute frankness, but that will never change what is REALLY going on in this community and most others. "
missmarvelous wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:51 PM:
109823 wrote on Dec 7, 2008 7:57 PM:
sickothis wrote on Dec 7, 2008 8:09 PM:
Remember about 15 years ago all that no growth/slow growth drum beating? Well, it didn't work, we didn't plan for the growth accordingly, and now we have Trancas, Soscol, and Imola just to name a couple of sore spots. It's coming, like it or not. So we darn well better plan for it smartly.
HTTP://WWW.ABAG.CA.GOV "
winemd wrote on Dec 7, 2008 9:08 PM:
I see these as separate issues that need to be addressed in different ways. 1) I believe laws and rules should be enforced. Does anyone know the law for owner occupied homes (as opposed to rentals - the law is 2 per bedroom plus 1)? 2) I think we do need more "middle" jobs in Napa. 3) I think we need more homes that will allow first time buyers a chance to live here. We need chances for someone out of college and looking for a decent job to find one here and to find somewhere to live that is reasonably close to their job. I have commuted and I would not want to go back to that. Can everyone own a house? No. But the rental situation in this town is not easy either. Rents are up a bit and availability is low. I don't think there is a good fast answer, so I am trying to figure out if Napa Pipe can fit into the solution. "
savenapa wrote on Dec 7, 2008 9:39 PM:
Local codes will be inforced when we demand in groups that they be inforced. When we bring suits to the local authorities for turning a blind eye. A local undisclosed (for now) code enforcement officer actually lied to me and told me there were no such limitations written into the code. Only until I sited the county code did he knuckke under and change his story. Then he said that code enforcement was understaffed and "what do you want ME to do about it?" These attidudes need to be challenged legally. Perhaps we can all start a nonprofit to get the ball rolling. If we can get enough voices I am game. Just remember that our silence is a vote of approval. "
savenapa wrote on Dec 7, 2008 9:56 PM:
Last time I searched the county code I couldnt find it. However, a few months prior I dd find occupancy limits for unincorporated Napa. IF I remember correctly it was based on square footage of "sleeping quarters", or something like that. I started making noise about it downtown and the next time I went to access the county code online I couldnt find the reference. So...I guess we need to go look at the hard copy. Don't quote me but I think it said 1 person per 200 square feet of sleeping quarters. Whatever the actual numbers are, there is no way on Gods Green Earth that most of my neighbors are in complience. "
savenapa wrote on Dec 7, 2008 10:08 PM:
Yes that is what I am saying, that many of the low income buyers will do just like what they did in my neighborhood where we are unincorporated and have"starter homes". In fact, my insurance agent told me that he sees 7 and 8 people on a mortage to qualify. Just take a look around. It saddens me that my kids will never be able to buy here, but the tactics that these other people use is not an option by any stretch of the imagination. "
psoren wrote on Dec 7, 2008 10:24 PM:
I predict the market will bottom and stabilize by 2012. I would then start building around 2013, maybe 2014 and cash in on the next upswing in real estate values. 10 years up... 10 years down.
Let's do a little math based on some educated guesses... trust me, I am good at this ;)
2,800: Estimate of homes to be built.
2,000 square feet homes; small lots.
$85-$95 cost per sq. ft.: let's say $85... trust me labor & materials will be real cheap, and soon.
$170,000: Cost to build one unit.
$375,000: Estimated sale price per unit.
$205,000: The profit... per unit.
$574,000,000: 2,800 units built x $205,000 (Just a hair over 1/2 a Billion)
-$42,000,000: Less the cost of the land.
$532,000,000: Est. profit to Keith Rogal
Of course subtract from that $532 mil the cost of permits, soil testing, ecological impact studies and of course last but not least, the sales commission for those hungry "Realtors". Of course, all this is chump change in the grand scheme of things.
This is Big Money time. I surmise that none of you commenting here have even met, let alone had a conversation with a Big Money person.
Now, who thinks this isn't going to happen?
And would you like to make a bet? ;) "
sickothis wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:56 AM:
Furthermore - isn't making mo money what all the faux conservative no growthers here are all about? "
valleylocal wrote on Dec 8, 2008 11:07 AM:
You said we need jobs - um building homes creates jobs... ANd Napa is required to have so many new homes so there going to come anyway. Maybe you'd prefer highrises in downtown or new homes in your backyard.
I hope people will realize Mr. Rogal has the best solution to housing issues here in Napa and stop looking for any prejudicial excuse to stop the project. "
renrut wrote on Dec 8, 2008 12:30 PM: