NVR Logo
Napa Pipe developer open to change
Rogal: Nothing final about 3,200-home plan
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Save and Share Share
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.”
23 comment(s)

MarshaMarsha wrote on Dec 7, 2008 9:14 AM:

" Doesn't matter. Even though I support this development, there still isn't a realistic solution to the traffic problems it will create.

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:

" We don't need any more homes built in Napa. Napa is getting too big and we need to keep it from growing even more. Also look at all the foreclosed homes that are on the market in the Napa area that are not selling. Stop the building! "

savenapa wrote on Dec 7, 2008 12:09 PM:

" Turning Napa Pipe into residential is a joke. We need jobs not homes. When is the last time you people tryed to get down trancas at 3PM or navigate redwood road with about a gazillion Escalades picking up their kids? The last thing we need are MORE homes. We need to enforce our already on the books zoning laws regarding ocupancy limitations. What good is one more single family dwelling if we let certain people pack another forty humans in it? There lies our problem folks. There is where the infrastructure breakdown occurs AND the lack of tax revenue. "

msdemo wrote on Dec 7, 2008 1:04 PM:

" Other problems are sewage and sprawl. As I drive around there are so many vacant lots that could be filled in and keep within the city limits. I like the idea best of switching property with the fairgrounds. The flood project won't necessarily protect this area but at least the sprawl will be avoided. I don't think it is necessarily the best time to plan new homes with so many empty. "

Mykdgirl54 wrote on Dec 7, 2008 1:41 PM:

" I agree with savenapa - has anyone tried looking the classifieds lately? Unless you have a Ph.D, or wine, or hotel management experiences and/or higher educational degrees - so sorry for you there is no work here.

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:

" savenapa - I don't understand something. You say that we don't need more homes, and then say that people are packing multiple families into single family dwellings. It seems like based on that statement that we do need more homes. Maybe I am misinterpreting what you are saying. Can you clarify? "

winemd wrote on Dec 7, 2008 2:50 PM:

" Oh and I agree about the job situation. The classified ads are the smallest for work I have ever seen. "

Keith Rogal wrote on Dec 7, 2008 2:57 PM:

" Just a bit of additional background that might be of interest: if housing were to be approved for the Napa Pipe property, there would still not be ANY new housing for sale for about three more years; in other words, no new homes would appear before about 2011-2012. "

manxkat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 3:50 PM:

" They have no plans to build schools in a community that will house 9,000 to 15,000. That means we homeowners will have to buy the schools for them, just like we had to buy a high school for American Canyon. Meanwhile the school impact fees will go to increase teacher salaries instead of buying new schools. Our elected officials and school officials are blind to this. "

sickothis wrote on Dec 7, 2008 4:14 PM:

" Typical mindless drivel. There would be no houses there for three years. And manxkat - it doesn't matter where the houses are, we will accommodate 20k more people in Napa in the next 10 years. We will build schools. As a matter of fact, the school issue is already being addressed for long term trends.

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:

" With the economy in the sorry state that is in, I doubt that anything will be done on that property for quite some time. Afterall, they cannot sell the homes that are already currently on the market, much less try to sell any NEW homes. Home prices are about 1/3 the price they were this time a year ago. Who in their right mind would dump all of that money into a losing proposition? "

savenapa wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:14 PM:

" Wine MD:

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:

" From what I understand, Napa County has a mandate by the Feds to build 3400 low income homes. I am assuming this is what the Napa Pipe project is all about. It does not matter how much traffic it will create, if there is the infrastructure there or if any one cares... The Feds want affordable houses, 3400 have to go somewhere. This is not about luxury homes, its about low-affordable homes. It is to satisfy the lawsuits Napa County has to satisfy or lose Federal dollars... "

109823 wrote on Dec 7, 2008 7:57 PM:

" Savenapa, you're spot on with your observation. What ever happened to the single family dwelling? If we put <=3200 homes and, as stated, they're affordable then we will again invite multifamily occupancy. When will are local laws/codes be enforced for these violations? "

sickothis wrote on Dec 7, 2008 8:09 PM:

" missmarvelous - it's State. ABAG. Association of Bay Area Governments. 9 Bay Area Counties. Approx. 7.1 mil people. Approx 7.7 million people by 2015. Napa County has approx 140k people today which is approximately 12% growth since 1990. If the current trend continues there will be approximately 17,000 more people here in the next 15 years. In Napa.

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:

" savenapa - yes I meant the question as a serious one. I am really trying to understand more about this issue so that I can make up my mind about it. Are you also saying that if we have 3200 townhomes that are affordable especially to those trying to get into the market that these will go that route and we will have 40 people in these homes?
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:

" 109823 :

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:

" winemd:

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:

" winemd:
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:

" Keith Rogal: I take it that you will start building in 2011 or 2012 because you are predicting that we will just be emerging from the bottom of this housing market around that time.

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:

" psoren - My math came out even higher, but whatever. There is also the downside risk, which you did not mention, and the economic impact, which you did not mention. Sure the developers stand to make money, actually a ton of money, but think about all those football and baseball stadiums, paid for with public money, for the benefit of massively wealthy team owners. Why does the public pay for it? For the public benefit.

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:

" savenapa

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:

" I am always amazed at how far bloggers will go condemn this or that when it is clear from what they wirte that they have no idea, not a one, what is happening. Most of the above is sadly misinformed and simply knee jerk liberal reactions that are predictable. Let this play out folks. Let Mr. Rogal, the Council and the BOS ge the facts and play this out. Anthing less is poorly considered. We expect nonsense from M. Haley and that ilk. After all, they get off trying to act smart. "

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