Supervisors delay move on Napa Pipe fees
Contract negotiations now would send wrong signal; hearings scheduled
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
Napa County supervisors on Tuesday rejected the idea of entering into contractual negotiations with developers at Napa Pipe, fearful that those negotiations would mistakenly signal preparation to approve the 2,580 homes proposed on the south county site.
Supervisors will come back to the table next week to discuss reimbursement of Napa Pipe’s costs after what was supposed to be a simple housekeeping matter turned into a philosophical debate.
County staff asked supervisors Tuesday to require Napa Pipe developers to reimburse the county for consulting fees and staff costs related to the massive Napa Pipe application. Among other things, the proposal would have required developers to pay for up to $325,000 in legal fees for the negotiation of a development agreement between the county and developers.
The agreement would outline the county and developers’ roles in the project if it is approved, Napa County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman said. It would address issues such as affordable housing, workforce housing, infrastructure and the approval process, as well as fiscal agreements, she said.
Supervisors — except for board chairman Mark Luce — bristled at the suggestion that the county even begin discussions about a development agreement on Napa Pipe, which has yet to undergo a full environmental review process.
Supervisor Diane Dillon said negotiating a development agreement now would send “a signal that we’re ready to partner with Napa Pipe.”
Gitelman told the board that the negotiations would obligate them to nothing. “None of this is a commitment to do anything,” she said. “All of this is just initiating a dialogue.”
Dodd and county counsel Robert Westmeyer suggested the board accept reimbursement from Napa Pipe developers for staff time and consultants, including lawyers, but that those lawyers not start negotiations over a development agreement.
Supervisors will continue the discussion next week.
Developer Keith Rogal said he agrees with supervisors.
“I am sympathetic to that feeling and I share that,” he said. “I don’t think anybody’s made up their minds (about Napa Pipe). That would be premature.”
Said Rogal, “We, like the board, would not want to be doing anything that implies anything anywhere other than where we are today. And where we are today is in the early stage of an extensive public process that is intended to have people share their concerns and their questions and their ideas.”
The public will have at least six more chances to share their ideas about Napa Pipe.
Supervisors gave the go-ahead Tuesday to schedule six special Napa County Planning Commission meetings to let the public weigh in on issues related to Napa Pipe.
The evening meetings, beginning this month and continuing through August, will allow the public to comment on issues such as design, traffic and water.
Slow growth advocates Ginny Simms and Eve Kahn of Get a Grip on Growth argued against the timing of the meetings Tuesday, suggesting no new information will be available until the project’s environmental impact review is released in August.
Gitelman said consultants are already at work on the review and that new data will be presented during each public meeting.
Simms, a former Napa County supervisor, said she will consider calling for a public boycott of the meetings. She may also ask members of Get A Grip on Growth to attend the meetings, sitting with their backs to the commission, she said.
Kahn said supervisors should focus on the Housing Element update, which plans for growth in Napa County, before getting bogged down in discussions about Napa Pipe.
Napa Pipe meetings
What makes a successful neighborhood?
March 18, 6 p.m.
Napa County Office of Education, 2121 Imola Ave., Napa
Character and design
April 8, 6 p.m.
Napa County Office of Education, 2121 Imola Ave., Napa
Open space and the Napa River
May 20, 6 p.m.
Napa County Office of Education, 2121 Imola Ave., Napa
Traffic
June 17, 6 p.m.
Napa Pipe, 1025 Kaiser Road
Sustainability (water)
July 15, time TBA
Napa Pipe, 1025 Kaiser Road
Draft environmental impact report
Aug. 19, time TBA
Napa Pipe, 1025 Kaiser Road
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.
marine1/1 wrote on Mar 4, 2009 7:44 AM:
Rob C wrote on Mar 4, 2009 9:17 AM:
That worked out so well for them. Surely Napans wring their hands daily about the tragedy of that development. We'd all like to go back to a dirt field there wouldn't we?
Sure looking forward to their promised new public tantrums.
Goodness, these self-appointed babyboomer nanny-activists can't exit the stage soon enough. "
Cadence wrote on Mar 4, 2009 9:45 AM:
What's wrong with sending this signal?
An honest Board would go ahead and send it. In fact an honest board would simply tell the saps of Napa (the town) that this is happening and that there is nothing more to say.
Heck, that way the honest board could save the time and expense of all of these bogus "public input" meetings and maybe even win points for honesty! "
reader wrote on Mar 4, 2009 10:19 AM:
I am asking this question because I do not believe that a new home in Napa will ever be affordable, for sale or for rent, to Napa's working class. Prove me wrong with some projected figures.
I have asked this same question regarding the proposed Angwin development and have never received a response. Can anyone provide me the projected figures that will allow Napa's workforce to own and rent a new house or Condo in any of the projected development sites in Napa County?
There are mulitudes affordable homes in Napa, Angwin, and Berryessa, the places identified for development, two of which will require the low-income work-force to commute long distances to and from work on mountainous, windy roads. Not very eco in our eco minded society.
What is this push for development really about and why are our leaders bending over for big developers? More revenues? Ok, I can buy that, but only if the truth be spoken and there is honesty about who will really be able to afford these homes. A splattering of "work force" homes amist an upper and middle-class newly developed subdivision will not solve the work force housing proplem. Napa county voters are not stupid.
The best solution is to put the money into a high speed rail service allowing the lower paid workers good transportation in and out of Napa and the valley. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors to enrich developers and further conjest our already conjested roads. "
Cadence wrote on Mar 4, 2009 10:48 AM:
I have never read or heard of any explanation of these restrictions either attempted or successful in any locale.
Can anyone assure us that these restrictions are legal? And if they are not, then why will zoning be changed and this project shunted through in order to "provide workforce housing?" "
napagirl76 wrote on Mar 4, 2009 11:09 AM:
Rob C wrote on Mar 4, 2009 11:12 AM:
For such an interest in "projected figures", the financial math on light rail in the Valley would be very entertaining. "
citizen wrote on Mar 4, 2009 11:28 AM:
Yes, a bit of the sky fell on Napa with South Napa Market Place, not to mention it is ugly (just my opinion. It could have been developed in a more locally compatible way and still meet the needs of citizens.
Local businesses bank locally, big boxes and chains do not; local businesses shop locally, big boxes and chains do not; and, most importantly, local businesses do not under-cut local businesses, they work cooperatively. Imagine, if all of the revenue produced by Target and HD remained in Napa. "
reason-ator wrote on Mar 4, 2009 11:30 AM:
We may as well just do what the American Canyon's city councilperson wants to do and just lower the speed limit on the highways that surround the area of the Napa Crack Pipe mess-to-be.
I just don't think any elected official wants to subject themselves to future wrath by voting against the project. There's too much money involved, and that's more important than quality of life for the exisiting voters.
I've been getting cynical. I've lived here a long time. "
jasonjac wrote on Mar 4, 2009 3:50 PM:
TAXPAYER wrote on Mar 4, 2009 4:07 PM:
This is not County public property, this is private property. What happen to a free America with property rights?
The County and the public collects the property taxes off of this property and they have a say as how this will be used.
That all !!!!!
Wake up America. "
Rob C wrote on Mar 4, 2009 4:59 PM:
Those "Big Boxes" all came in and supplanted "local" merchants. Yet they didn't succeed very well, did they?
As far as Vallergas, it had as much to do with excessive overhead cost as it did from competition. Their model is now specialty, not mass and they have changed with the marketplace. The Redwood location looks pretty vibrant to me. Your anecdotal CV Hardware assessment aside, I have yet to see any of them close.
So we now get to, ahem, "ugly". Uglier than what? Jefferson near Pueblo? Soscol at the Trail? Most of the deserted Town Center? South Napa's a shopping center, not a town green.
And as far as revenue "remaining in Napa", sales at the stores you mention would have occurred regardless. So would you rather the taxes (sales and corporate) stay here or go to the municipality next door that Napans would drive to patronize?
Oh yes, did I forget the Napans who happen to be employed at these "big box" stores - no benefit to them I guess? (Cue the "But they're low-paying, non-union, exploitative, not-a-living-wage jobs" hand-wringing.)
But by all means, If we could go back in time, Get a Grip, et al, would be vindicated and we would all vote for a dirt field there now, right?
Wrong. The only question asked now is when will a real movie theater be built there.
And so after a lot of histrionics, there will be a build-out at NP, as it should be, and ten years later everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about.
But for sure the "Get a Grips" will still be appalled by something. "
reason-ator wrote on Mar 4, 2009 5:24 PM:
taxpayer, do you want your next-door neighbor to open a a loud music club on his private property ? He'll pay property taxes. And you'll be an American who wakes up. I doubt you'll be happy about it, though. That's why we have these processes and zones. "
Joe B wrote on Mar 4, 2009 6:45 PM: