NVR Logo
Napa Pipe dreams: Residents, planners gather to share ideas for south county site
Friday, March 20, 2009
Save and Share Share
Charged with creating their ideal project for the Napa Pipe site, several dozen people gathered Wednesday night for the first in a series of workshops on the controversial south county development proposal.

Participants at the special Napa County Planning Commission meeting — held at the Napa County Office of Education — were asked to brainstorm, “What makes a successful neighborhood?”
Planning specialist and Napa Pipe consultant Reid Ewing kicked off the workshop addressing the benefits of compact developments like the one proposed at Napa Pipe. High-density developments reduce reliance on cars, improve air quality and build a sense of community, he said.

Ewing stressed the benefits of developments with a range of housing types, activities  within walking distance and access to a variety of transit options — all elements of the 2,600-home proposal for Napa Pipe.
Following Ewing’s presentation, Napa County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman divided the crowd into four groups to discuss the design of their own neighborhoods and to brainstorm ideas for Napa Pipe. Each group was joined by a planning commissioner — Planning Commission Chairman Bob Fiddaman was absent — and a member of planning department staff.

A handful of Napa Pipe architects joined the discussion, as did several Napa Pipe supporters. A few opponents from the group Get A Grip on Growth attended Wednesday’s meeting.
The results of the brainstorming session were remarkably similar to the project proposed at Napa Pipe.

Groups called for a mixed-use development with affordable housing within walking distance of restaurants, offices and mom-and-pop shops. They asked for parks, bike paths and community centers.

The development should take advantage of the railway that runs through the property, groups said, and should have some light industrial use.

Young people spoke Wednesday to the need for entertainment and activities that go later than

7 p.m. Several called for art studios and other creative gathering spaces.

Alex Lydon, 23, the founder of Wandering Rose, a local arts organization, showed up with two of his friends to represent young prospective home-buyers. “We’re here because we heard this was affordable housing that’s aimed at our demographic,” Lydon said. “We want to be part of making sure the development happens.”

Elaine Markovich, another Napa Pipe supporter, said she and her husband wanted to add their voices to the mix. “We live in Napa, we love Napa, and we want to make sure Napa continues to be the community we want to live in,” she said.

While Napa County Planning Commissioner Matt Pope commended the enthusiasm of participants, he noted that the proposal must still undergo an environmental impact review before a final decision is made.

“This process cannot be a substitute for, of course, the EIR,” he said. “Certainly, pending those and other conclusions, while (Wednesday’s) meeting was enjoyable … it could all be rendered academic.”

Critics of the project, including officials from the city of Napa, have said it is too large. Slow-growth activist Eve Kahn from Get A Grip on Growth called Wednesday’s meeting “very informative,” but took issue with the fact that Napa Pipe consultants participated in the discussions, putting their ideas on the board along with the rest.

“I think the people who are paid by the developer shouldn’t be participants,” she said. “They should never be viewed as speaking for the community.”

Pope agreed, “Obviously, that shouldn’t be considered as unbiased input.”

Napa Pipe developer Keith Rogal responded that consultants made up only a small number of participants Wednesday; and that they never explicitly said what should be at Napa Pipe.

Rogal said Kahn’s group has only a couple of active members and that their regular appearance at meetings and in coverage of Napa Pipe skews perceptions about the project. “Their voices drown out a vastly larger number of people who don’t know to go to public hearings,” he said, “but they’re starting to speak up.”

The next Napa Pipe workshop will take place at 6 p.m. on April 8 at the Napa County Office of Education, 2121 Imola Ave., Napa.

Dedicated to “Neighborhood character and design,” the meeting will take ideas from Wednesday’s meeting and incorporate them into an overall design. Later meetings will delve into more technical topics, such as water and traffic.

People who missed Wednesday’s meeting can still e-mail their ideas to STRIPPI@co.napa.ca.us.

Design award

Meanwhile, Napa Pipe reached another milestone in the design process. The U.S. Green Building Council awarded the Napa Pipe plan a preliminary gold rating in its LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for Neighborhood Development program.

Though typically focused on buildings, the LEED certification program now ranks neighborhood developments in terms of smart growth, urbanism and green building. If Napa Pipe is approved in its current state or with slight modifications, the project will advance to the second stage of certification. After it is constructed, it will would qualify for the third and final stage of LEED for Neighborhood Development certification.

“We spent a quarter of a million dollars just on the associated studies to investigate, plan, and document how (these) best practices and innovations in sustainability would be integrated into our design,” Rogal said. “Now that they have been validated by the world’s leading green building rating organization, we would be ready to make them binding commitments, integrated into the proposed project’s approvals.”
70 comment(s)

GET REAL wrote on Mar 20, 2009 6:38 AM:

" This project has to happen, ask any commercial realtor in Napa, and they will explain that Napa County is behind in the "affordable Housing" element. The Fed's do not play around, if there is not some form of low-income/affordable housing built, Napa County risks losing Federal funding. the Pipe project is a way of fullfilling part of the "affordable Housing" componet. Remember "if you build it, they will come, they also may come from other cities and counties... "

Paddy wrote on Mar 20, 2009 7:04 AM:

" Rogal is dead wrong. Eve Kahn and Get a Grip on Growth speaks for a very large number of us in Napa. Keep up the good fight Eve! "

nwnapan wrote on Mar 20, 2009 7:31 AM:

" Two things:

First - Did any of the critics (not withstanding those mentioned) of Napa Pipe who routinely post on this site attend this meeting to voice their concerns?

Second - Regarding the consultants input: Pope agreed, “Obviously, that shouldn’t be considered as unbiased input.” That's specious logic as none of the input is unbiased. You're either for the project or you not. Either way you're biased. Do you think Get a Grip came in with a bipartisan attitude? "

epicuria wrote on Mar 20, 2009 8:20 AM:

" NWNAPAN: Those few "Just say no" folks who inject their negativity into the Napa Pipe postings week in and week out wouldn't know what to do at such brainstorming sessions. They'd have to come up with ideas, draw upon some creativity, be pragmatic, see the glass as half full--all traits missing from their rants. "

5th generation napan wrote on Mar 20, 2009 8:59 AM:

" How many houses in exactly how much space? How dense is the denstiy proposed? (21 people per acre?/ 40 people per acre?) How much will the average house cost? What size of house to lot ratio be? How close to the neighbors will you be? Will the property tax go to the county? And is the Sheriff and Forest Service Fire acceptable for there infastructure protection? And Napa Pipe was purchased for x sum of money. How much needs to be generated (I assume thru the sale of houses) from each lot to acheive their expenditures and profit? I really would be interested in answers to these specific questions. This must already be know and will tell the general public a lot about what must be there for the owners to profit. We have a right to know. "

valleylocal wrote on Mar 20, 2009 9:09 AM:

" Napa Pipe would be such a feather in the cap for the City of Napa. A progressive lead green neighborhood is exactly what we need more of. But no - not the Napa City Council, no progressive thinking there, God forbid Napa should move forward. It might offend the good ol' boys that are hell bent on keeping Napa in the dark ages. "

Project707 wrote on Mar 20, 2009 9:12 AM:

" Hey Epicuria and all the other Rogal bloggers,

There are more than a "few, just say no folks" that you only think of. Anyone that understands the increased traffic, stresses on the current infrastructure, and current downturn of the economy know that this is just a profit incentive project for Rogal and his investors. Even Rogal himself said that he has to build more units than Napa needs or wants to make a profit.

Until we stand up against the big money he's throwing at this project, this will ultimately go down as the largest error the city will ever agree to make and spend billions correcting itself later. "

Paddy wrote on Mar 20, 2009 9:24 AM:

" My goodness. I thought personal attacks were off limits here. Guess not. But it's not surprising that these supporters find they have to stoop to this to make their point. It's the 19th century mentality again pushing for this.

I'm not always able to make these meetings. I hold 2 jobs, raising 4 children and find myself pretty busy. Is that ok with all of you? I don't think it excludes me from making comments about what a bad idea Napa Pipe is to our community. In fact, I have more of a stake with the next generation of home buyers looking to live in a nice town; not the congested quagmire proposed here. "

Paddy wrote on Mar 20, 2009 9:37 AM:

" In a previous post epicuria writes: "Those who seek to pull up the draw bridge or return to some simpler time are content with a boring blue collar town. Some of us want more for Napa, and Rogel's plan contributes toward this objective."

I really don't know where epi lives but when did Napa become boring? There is nothing going to be built on Napa Pipe that will change that. I've not seen, or heard, anything to bolster a solution for "boring" and I've seen the plans. Bored people are bored people. Nothing you can build will cure that.

There is no drawbridge today, but the fifedom being proposed will make a few very rich at the expense of the majority. Once this is a done deal they will be the ones pulling up the drawbridges to their new castles and revel in the mess left behind. "

That's Me wrote on Mar 20, 2009 10:03 AM:

" Fine, kill the plan for a green neighborhood with affordable homes for us, and instead we'll get another Napa Yacht Club development with houses only the wealthy can afford. It would be a lot easier than all this.

I can see it now: a high-end gated neighborhood of seven-figure mansions with boat docks, a place most of us will never see, a "resort style living" development of second (third, whatever) homes for rich retirees and out of towners.

What a vision! It must be one that Get a Grip on Growth shares, because that is what they will get. The developer will make money either way. "

5th generation napan wrote on Mar 20, 2009 10:40 AM:

" So? What is the average price of the home proposed to be here? No one has ever given a price out of what the affordabe or average price per home will be. Still waiting to hear a real number. "

reader wrote on Mar 20, 2009 11:15 AM:

" What is "affordable" housing in Napa County? I'd be living on a cloud if I guessed even $400,000. Affordable housing proposals lift the hopes and misled the low/moderate income folks into believing they might one day own a home in Napa. Today, a $400,000 home, with 20% down ($80,00) leaves a hefty, approximate $3,500.00 month mortgage payment. That payment is not for the low and moderate income folks. Sorry, I am not in yet.

Putting in rail transportation to Napa College, downtown Napa and up-valley, to start with, and a promise to dedicate funds to continue extension of rail service southward, does bring me closer to consideration. Road traffic is a primary concern. "

Paddy wrote on Mar 20, 2009 11:58 AM:

" I did a search on real estate in Napa County and found 165 properties available for under $300,000 or less...

Make no mistake about it, no matter what the starting price is for the units proposed at Napa Pipe on day 1 that price will escalate after the first year and continue to escalate until were exactly where it's perceived we are now.

This is not the right geographic location for this type of development and taxpayers are going to be saddled with far too much of the cost to schools, streets and infrastructure. "

LuvsTrains wrote on Mar 20, 2009 12:08 PM:

" K:)

It is the folks not at meetings. These are the folks that leadership works for and hard at work they should be! I expect the folks behind the housing plan better make sure they get a move on for this need and get this going . We can't allow us to ignore what this valley needs to face, we have allowed for years in the valley to succeed in this industry, wine industry. Leadership has always accommodated their needs ....yet we cannot take care of the folks, that make this industry?

Don't shove units around town that really can't do the job of healthy lifestyle the government is reaching to.

Folks that work hard and say "what is that they are trying to build in the old site at Napa Pipe?" a project that can offer an opportunity for individual or family, who wish to live in new community with affordable housing option. Allowing family to reap benefits of mixed use lifestyle.

Were getting over our heads with Traffic, traffic is noticeable and everywhere folks, every city nationwide. But the voters of this County, refuse to assist. So, we build and can't stop it, you better hope design works.

Get grip folks should start assisting NCTPA folks, pressure the voters and wine industries to assist our regional problem were all responsible for. OUR TRAFFIC, not Napa pipes.

Does get a grip voice, have idea of life in a mixed use? Show me where in Napa is there a mixed use living that sets the example of why Napa Pipe's LEED ND project would not work here. the need to provide and improve lifestyles. "

5th generation napan wrote on Mar 20, 2009 12:32 PM:

" Lixit Corp. Great example of a "business" supporting its employees. Low profile, in the neighborhood, utilizing mass transit for its employees income level and a great community supporter. There NAPA PIPE, What industry are you proposing that will sustainably support the people living at Napa pipe to afford 300,000 to 900,000 dollar homes? What industry? Can't hear you. "

Project707 wrote on Mar 20, 2009 12:39 PM:

" The only thing "Green" about this project is what was buried underneath the site. Just wait until an environmental report is actually done on this site. "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 20, 2009 12:46 PM:

" I reject the idea that we need to provide more housing.

I also reject the idea we need to provide lifestyles, or improved lifestyles.

Can someone provide me with a reason we need to provide anybody anything ? Is it because the State insists we provide housing as THEY see fit ?

There are plenty of places to provide mixed-use areas. The Central Valley, along with other areas, has tons of land. We do not. And we don't owe anybody anything.

If someone says we do, please explain why. "

MP wrote on Mar 20, 2009 1:02 PM:

" A lot of the traffic we experience is due to the fact that people work in the valley but live elsewhere. With a higher density neighborhood, people could live closer and some traffic would come off the road. Add long term rail transit and even more traffic is affected. If the site is used for industry it means more commuting employees, more trucks bringing goods in and out...more traffic, not less. Lots of questions yet to be answered, for sure but the idea of using the site for housing and building a beautiful neighborhood is certainly worth exploring. "

5th generation napan wrote on Mar 20, 2009 2:09 PM:

" I kinda agree with MP, but a lot of Napans are commuting out of town and would love to work here.
An I have a good idea of what housing prices are here, but I like Mr. Rogal to tell me what he is envisioning the housing prices to be for the 3500 or 2800 or 800 houses he is proposing.
Frankly lets face it, once that property is gone its gone. Napa does need to attract other industries here. You know why ABAG is mandating housing here, its because there are huge industry bases in Richmond, Oakland, East Bay, and other area's where people dont want to live. So, they get the work and the tax base, and make us supply the housing element. Maybe that's why so many commute from Napa. It was different when we commuted 20 min from here to Mare Is, Kaiser, Basalt, but now people are commuting 1 to 2 hours to the bay area.
So tell me again why its wrong to entise industry to our town and work here? Pollution, well Green and LEED also apply to industry as well. When Chevron followed the envrionmental requirements they actually made more money by becoming more energy efficeient and lowering their overhead cost. Grass roots industry being built today is nothing like what was built even 10 years ago. It can be a win win situation if as much energy is put into finding the right industry for Napa pipe location and not fighting about an unsustainable housing project. If Mr. Rogal presented X industry with good paying jobs as part of the project (like an anchor business for a mall) and provided support housing in addition I'd be more incline to support him. Right now its Him recouping investors money. "

manxkat wrote on Mar 20, 2009 3:48 PM:

" I asked Mr. Ewing what he thought about the fact that no schools are planned to be included in the Napa Pipe project. He was so incredulous that his jaw dropped. He couldn't believe it. He said that failure to provide schools would create huge traffic problems taking kids to and from existing schools miles away. He said that providing schools would be a sales incentive to the developer. He said there are ways to develop schools on smaller sites nowadays. "

Keith Rogal wrote on Mar 20, 2009 6:00 PM:

" "Manxkat" your distortion of Mr. Ewing's comments is really rather irresponsible, as is your continued unwillingness to actually listen to what I have said many, many times. Furthermore, you apparently have chosen to ignore Dr. Glaser, Superintendent of Napa Valley Unified School District, who has also affirmed these same points in this newspaper, in a feature story.

Once more for the record: we have committed, publicly, and for more than four years, to provide for a school site at Napa Pipe or adjacent to it, IF the School District and their experts wish us to do so. In addition, we will pay the very substantial fees which are calculated and required under State law, to address the financial impacts of a project such as ours, on the school system. Finally, we have never asserted that there should or should not be a school on site, nor prejudged how many school age children such a neighborhood would have. I have said, literally hundreds of times by now, that while the smaller housing types we've proposed will be targeted for single persons, younger families, and empty-nesters, there will undoubtedly be some school age children there. And I have said, hundreds of times, that we would be taking the direction of those in the County who have the professional training and specific responsibility to answer such questions: specifically, the Superintendent of Schools and his staff.

I agree with Dr. Ewing, and with you, if this is your position, that it is wonderful to have a school right in one's neighborhood. I'd like to think we could both acknowledge, however, that the decision as to where our School District wants their facilities, is not up to me or to you. "

That's Me wrote on Mar 20, 2009 6:06 PM:

" 1. Isn't the school district already looking at a new campus in south Napa, because of existing and predicted need? I read that in this newspaper.

2. Why was there no call for a school at Sheveland Ranch? And what problems have been created by the lack of said school? "

That's Me wrote on Mar 20, 2009 6:08 PM:

" P.S How can you demand "real numbers" for home values in a market that is changing as quickly as this one? "

epicuria wrote on Mar 20, 2009 6:20 PM:

" While many Napans commute outside of the county, the housing/jobs balance is way out of whack in the area surrounding Napa Pipe (Napa Corporate Centre, Napa Industrial Park, Airport Park). No need to entice industry which is a (Napa) Pipe Dream. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission projects that by 2030, at least 32 percent of Napa County’s anticipated 80,000 jobs will be held by workers commuting from out of county. "

GET REAL wrote on Mar 20, 2009 6:22 PM:

" If the reason that this big housing project is being planned is to meet the Fed's affordable housing mandate, believe me these will be low-income and moderately priced homes. You will have to qualify based on "what you dont earn." Because of the Napa County lawsuit, the Fed's will be carefully watching to see how this is handled. It will be high-density housing... "

manxkat wrote on Mar 20, 2009 7:00 PM:

" Dear Mr. Rogal: The average American family has 2.6 people which translates to 7500 people for your 2,500 homes. This also translates to 1,500 to 2,000 children which will require 4 elementary schools, at least 2 middle schools and at least one high school.
American Canyon developers slithered through and failed to provide the adequate infrastructure for the homes they built and now Napans are paying for 30 years by bonded taxes on their homes and businesses for a $150 million high school.
It is obvious to me that you need to provide at least 6 schools at a likely cost of $400 million dollars.
Napa Pipe will house as many people and the combined population of St. Helena and Calistoga, each of which has a complete school district - you are offering nothing.
Just who do you think should pay the $400 million cost for the schools that your development will require? Napans?
Or, is it your plan that 2,000 children should crowd into the existing Napa schools and that their parents should create traffic jams taking them and picking them up from school every day?
Developers pay school impact fees which according to NVUSD staff is inadequate to provide the schools needed for new development. I am a member of the Measure M&G bond oversight committee and I see the costs of new and refurbished schools and the cost of land.
I can tell you clearly that Napans will not allow you to stuff us with the $400 million dollar cost of the schools your development will require. "

manxkat wrote on Mar 20, 2009 7:12 PM:

" Dear Mr. Rogal: I am sorry but I neglected to ask you a couple questions. The first is, how many schools did your provide for your Carneros Inn development which I believe has several hundred homes. And the second is, why didnt you pay for any highway improvements to Hwy 12 on which your development fronts? The reason I ask this question is that Carneros Highway is reported by Caltrans to be the most dangerous 2 lane highway in California.
Just wondering if you could answer my 2 questions. "

rogers wrote on Mar 20, 2009 7:23 PM:

" I have to take issue with Mr. Ewing's comment "High-density developments reduce reliance on cars, improve air quality and build a sense of community."

Perhaps in larger metropolitan cities where an extensive public transportation system already exists, but that is not the case in Napa and most of California. It appears that even in the poorest households of Napa, there are at least 2 cars. Workers have to get to work, whether it is across town or out of town.

I question the lofty visions of turning the current rails or river into some kind of new public transportation. Talk is cheap. Let's see who will be enlisted to jump on board here and provide this new public transportation and at what cost? And what will it do? Take people into downtown Napa a mere 2 miles down the road, and how often will it run?

Don't believe it! It will be expanded Vine transportation at added cost to all local taxpayers. And I bet there will still be at least 2 cars per household. The fact that you pile this many people on top of one another does NOT build a "sense of community".

At least apartment buildings can restrict the number of people living in a space. There would be no such limitation here. If three families decide to move in together for whatever reason, that's their choice, not their neighbors or management.

High density construction only adds to frustration when no one can find a place to park the car they require to drive to work. We have seen this already in so much of Napa's dense infill housing.

I would prefer that the City of Napa put this one on hold. "

cpslowine wrote on Mar 20, 2009 7:30 PM:

" I also did a MLS search for homes in Napa under $300k and I only came up with 31 listings. Most of which need A LOT of TLC. Once you figure in the cost for much needed TLC the home becomes a lot more than $300k plus A LOT of head aches.

Also- I work for a large employer located in the Napa Airpark and I am one of the few that actually live in Napa. Most commute in from other areas because they feel they can get a better value and quality of life outside of Napa. I dislike commuting, so I pay a premium to live in Napa close to a job and industry that I love. Do I have a better quality of life? Not really, but I do have more time to sit at home with nothing to do because I only have a 10 minute ride to and from work. Napa is beautiful, has low pollution and a lack of tacky chain restaurants, but that does not provide a community like Napa Pipe. Napa Pipe could provide a progressive neighborhood that could improve my quality of life and that is why I support it. "

Keith Rogal wrote on Mar 20, 2009 8:02 PM:

" Manxkat: I'm delighted to answer your questions, and correct some additional misinformation which someone has given you.

The Carneros Inn development has 24 homes, not several hundred. No children have are resident at the Inn (although it's nice when they visit). As a result, no one would ever have imagined a school as being something relevant to the Inn development.

In addition, you assert, completely incorrectly, that we "didn't pay for any highway improvements to Highway 12". In fact, we paid in excess of $1 million in highway improvements.

You are clearly very interested in the project, and have many concerns. You also - and I mean no rudeness or disrespect in saying so - are simply not well-informed and keep passing judgment based on wrong information. I'd like to encourage you to take off the blogger mask for a while, and just make a reservation to come on one of my site tours. Or if the time isn't convenient for you, send us an email to talk@aHomeforNapans.com or phone us at 707-237-5300 with some times that might work for you, gather some other concerned friends and neighbors to pepper me in person with all the questions and suggestions you have. People generally find it useful to meet on site, but I'd be glad to meet at a local restaurant as well, like Boon Fly or Gillwoods, or somewhere up valley if you prefer. The issues and choices facing Napa around housing and traffic are complex and important, and worthy of substantive, open dialogue, not just 300 word back-and-forth volleys under assumed names in a little square text box on our computer screens. "

epicuria wrote on Mar 20, 2009 8:51 PM:

" So all you bashers of Napa Pipe/Napa Redevelopment Partners--here's your chance for a Keith Rogel smackdown. Why not take Mr. Rogel's offer and duke it out mano e mano. All the firing from behind cyber boulders is easy. Dialogue in person is more challenging but also more rewarding. And you might just score some points. Unless you prefer to stay hidden behind your boulders and just continue to take pot shots. "

manxkat wrote on Mar 20, 2009 9:35 PM:

" I would be happy to meet with Mr. Rogal. The problem is that I have already been in two presentations of his and the answers to the school questions still are vague. I don't intend to be lectured to as he says above several times he has told us "hundreds of times".

I have personally asked Mr. Rogal to his face about providing for schools and I have personally asked the foremost architecht in front of Mr. Rogal why there are no schools planned for Napa Pipe. There still is no satisfactory answer.

I and the people of Napa have 4 school bonds on our homes now for the next 30 years because AMCAN developers failed to provide schools and because NVUSD and Napa College failed to maintain the school facilities entrusted to them.

We will not pay for more neglect nor mismanagement of our schools nor poor planning nor developers sliding through the lack of planning.

We have multiple layers of elected and appointed school officials in this community all making 6 figure incomes and princly retirement packages - but they are somehow mute when it comes to Napa Pipe. They are somehow ignorant of the debacle of American Canyon - eventhough they have been in office over 10 years and in my estimation responsible for failing to require adequate school facilities or raise the consciousness of Napans adequately so that people could take charge.

Instead of meeting with Mr. Rogal a better idea would be to put the following question to a vote of the people of the NVUSD, "Should Napans have to buy schools for Mr. Rogal?" "

manxkat wrote on Mar 20, 2009 9:43 PM:

" Since I have Mr. Rogal's attention I will propose a solution to his schools problem.
The Napa Pipe Development shall be required to enter into a Community Develpment Agreement (Mello-Roos) in which the developer and the homeowners pay for and provide all municipal services such as schools, police, fire, sewer, water, city services such that there is no financial impact for any reason on the existing Napa community. Require Napa Pipe to have private streets, a gated entry and a HOA that manage the project. If the property taxes collected are insufficient for municipal authorities then Napa Pipe and its property owners would agree to adjust its fees as necessary to continue a "no financial impact" on the local community.
I would agree with this! "

napat wrote on Mar 20, 2009 9:46 PM:

" "--this will ultimately go down as the largest error the city will ever agree to make and spend billions correcting itself later. "

As it is, we have to schedule doctor visits to Kaiser Vallejo at certain times in order to avoid the horrible traffic tie ups. I hate to think of what would happen in a personal emergency trying to get to the hospital! Until AC builds access roads or CalTrans builds overpasses, this Napa Pipe Dream must not be built. Remember, folks, the Trancas underpass at Hwy. 29 took 40 years to be built.

Yes, there are a lot of us GGG members who do not go to these publicity meetings. The deceptive KNN mailings confused a lot of people.

Napa has historically been high priced as has St. Helena. Also, I'm curious about all those empty condos on California Blvd. across from Lucky. They either are or soon will be low priced housing. "

cpslowine wrote on Mar 20, 2009 11:16 PM:

" Manxcat- How does Keith's quote not answer your question? They will provide for a school if the school district deems that one is necessary.

"Once more for the record: we have committed, publicly, and for more than four years, to provide for a school site at Napa Pipe or adjacent to it, IF the School District and their experts wish us to do so. In addition, we will pay the very substantial fees which are calculated and required under State law, to address the financial impacts of a project such as ours, on the school system. Finally, we have never asserted that there should or should not be a school on site, nor prejudged how many school age children such a neighborhood would have. I have said, literally hundreds of times by now, that while the smaller housing types we've proposed will be targeted for single persons, younger families, and empty-nesters, there will undoubtedly be some school age children there. And I have said, hundreds of times, that we would be taking the direction of those in the County who have the professional training and specific responsibility to answer such questions: specifically, the Superintendent of Schools and his staff."- Keith Rogal

Also- Won't property taxes cover municipal needs such as roads, fire and police? How does your home property cover these costs? Are Napa Pipe residents expected to not pay taxes? I think not. We all pay our part. "

Keith Rogal wrote on Mar 20, 2009 11:20 PM:

" Manxkat, perhaps this might be a helpful clarification on this subject: neither I, nor any other private property owner decides where schools should go, nor what should be paid in the way of school fees. Neither I nor any other private property owner decides what are the appropriate mitigations for the impacts of projects. Those are assessments which, I'm sure you will agree, should not be left to the business community in their sole discretion, but are properly the responsibility of the public sector. Your concerns are substantial, and I'd suggest they could be more effectively addressed were you to write a comprehensive letter to the Superintendent of Schools and to the County Planning Director, copy the Editor of the Napa Register, identify these as the concerns of blogger, "Manxkat", and please cc me. In that way, you and I can both know that your legitimate and important concerns are really being clearly heard by the people who actually are responsible for these issues. Further, that is a forum where you can get an answer from the actual decision-makers, and not simply from fellow bloggers. None of us here today, not me, not you, nor anyone else blogging, can actually make the best assessment on these issues, nor implement the appropriate solutions. But the School District and the Planning Department can, and I'm sure citizen commentary like yours can help. "

cpslowine wrote on Mar 20, 2009 11:21 PM:

" The condos on California across from Lucky are empty because they paid too much for the property thinking they could sell them for $600k a pop. That failed and they are stuck with overpriced apartments. Does anyone remember the ""sold thermometer" that used to be posted outside of the property? "

Paddy wrote on Mar 20, 2009 11:23 PM:

" Five years ago it used to take 10 minutes to get from the five corners (East/Silverado/Coombsville/3rd) to the 221/29 interchange. It now takes between 20 and 30 minutes. With the addition of Napa Pipe (and who knows how many additional traffic signals) it will potentially take 35 to 45 minutes to make the same trip. Traffic backups on Imola, Soscol, Silverado, Hwy 29 will be epic and probably legendary. Tourism will stay away in droves, the economy will tank and Napa County jobs will dry up.

I've never imagined this but I would have to consider moving away from a town I now love and volunteer in. It will be too sad to watch what will happen to Napa if this development were to be approved. "

Paddy wrote on Mar 20, 2009 11:31 PM:

" Keith Rogal writes, "we will pay the very substantial fees which are calculated and required under State law, to address the financial impacts of a project such as ours, on the school system."

That is not satisfactory. The vast majority of those funds will be coming out of the taxpayer's pockets and will increase with every school bond that is passed. So far, we've been very generous in voting for bond measures to improve our schools but that will change as Rogalville slams us with thousands of new students for which Rogalville did not BUILD schools.

Go beyond offering " to provide for a school site at Napa Pipe or adjacent to it". Actually pay for the construction of the schools themselves. Then pay for the infrastructure and pay for all road improvements required to move cars and bodies through that bottleneck. Then we'll listen to your proposal. "

NVR Brian Kennedy wrote on Mar 20, 2009 11:31 PM:

" Zoop, please contact me at "bkennedy@napanews.com" your provided email address is not valid. "

Keith Rogal wrote on Mar 20, 2009 11:38 PM:

" Mr. Manxkat, I'm just now seeing your earlier comment from 9:43 pm where you suggest "The Napa Pipe Development shall be required to enter into a Community Develpment Agreement (Mello-Roos) in which the developer and the homeowners pay for and provide all municipal services". I'm pleased to hear we have a shared view on this important matter - that new development in Napa should not be a burden on the existing taxpayers, but should pay its own way.

When you are able to find the time to attend one of our site tours, I think you will be pleased to learn that such an approach is, in fact, is exactly what we are committed to doing. I agree whole-heartedly. As you suggest, Community Facilities Districts and Home Owner Associations are excellent financial tools which are often used to ensure new developments have reliable services, and pay their own way. And in fact, we committed several years ago to using those very tools, and this is something I speak of in all of our public presentations. I and our team would look forward to discussing these issues in more detail, in a public forum soon, with you and any other interested parties. "

cpslowine wrote on Mar 20, 2009 11:44 PM:

" Again- Napa Pipe residents will pay property taxes just like you and I already do. No one is asking you to pay mello roos to pay for your streets, police and fire in your neighborhoods. Why should Napa Pipe residents pay extra? "

LuvsTrains wrote on Mar 21, 2009 12:56 AM:

" 2,000 children at Napa pipe???

Are we in the correct county? Try 600 or slightly more, not over 1,000 that's for sure.
Take half that count away, cause the parents of this school have proven they prefer to put there children in private/ chartered schools. "

reason-ator wrote on Mar 21, 2009 1:01 AM:

" I would like to re-commend ( not recommend ) Mr. Rogal for jumping into the fray here.

He knows I am against his project. I have continually criticized his business tactics as deceptive. I have also suggested that he and his group are here to reap profits and leave us with a mess. I have suggested that he is an excellent salesman, who will lead us into believing he is promising just about anything, when I believe he really wants to spend as little as possible while deceiving us into believing this project will do all except possibly cure cancer. I also have suggested much more uncomplimentary tactics and promises, and yet he comes here to defend himself.

I am impressed that he has come here to defend himself. I believe it is a calculated decision as part of process to manipulate and deceive in order to get this project approved with as little compromise as possible.

I STILL believe all of this to be true, and I doubt he will change my mind. I understand that this is part of a sales tactic, and yet I know this is unpleasant for him.

He and his partners made a gamble when they purchased this property, and now they are in a position that they have to do as much as possible in order to keep from losing money. It is not a pleasant part of this process, but I commend him for taking on this almost mandatory, but undesirable task. It can't be easy.

I am impressed. But I still am firmly convinced that his project will be a big mistake for everyone except those who will profit from it.

Thanks for subjecting yourself to this, sir. It can't be easy. "

Paddy wrote on Mar 21, 2009 8:59 AM:

" cpslowine - my latest search of homes < $300,000:

"Your search for properties in All Napa County from $0 to $300,000 returned 122 results."

LuvsTrains - If the average family has 2.6 children than let's go with the original proposal of over 3000 units times 2 children.... 6000 children.

It's critical we look at worst case scenarios when designing instead of optimal case because in my experience optimal case rarely happens, worst case is often the norm. "

LuvsTrains wrote on Mar 21, 2009 11:18 AM:

" Paddy

Do count for AC schools, the 4, Napa Junction ES, Donaldson, Canyon Oak and AC Middle and then see population count.

yes we should seek worst case, but your numbers are way off! and not all folks in NP will have children and if this is a critical point in designing. You bet it should count.

Maybe I'll just point to a mixed use developement in Napa Junction. There are only 216 units with affordable housing on site. Only 30-40 children come out of this complex. Not the 561 your count would be. "

winewoman wrote on Mar 21, 2009 12:42 PM:

" cpslowine - I also work in Napa Corporate Park and live in Napa. I do not agree with the project for the very reasons you state you are for the project. In fact, the people that I work with who commute from other bay area cities choose not to live in Napa - not because of home prices. They prefer the bustling city atmosphere with an active nightlife, restaurants, but more importantly, other industry. Should they lose their jobs here in Napa, they are in closer proximity to other work opportunities. In fact, the other bay area cities are even more expensive to live in than Napa.

Would it be more cost effective for the city to buy those empty condos across from Lucky and make those "affordable housing"? Just asking.

I'm with Reason-ator, "I also reject the idea we need to provide lifestyles, or improved lifestyles."

What is affordable housing? Put a number on it. How is it determined? Who defines what affordable housing is - in number.

What about the people who already live here and who commute out of town to find work? Why aren't we courting industry so that current residents can work closer to home? Has anyone thought about the fact that the "affordable housing" demographic is transient? Waitstaff, housekeepers, groundskeepers, tasting room staff - they move around, are transient, don't stay in the same place for 20 years. Affordable/low income housing is transient.

I appreciate that Paddy and Reason-ator and Manxkat are asking questions. Wouldn't we be a bunch of fools to follow the herd - and not ask the hard questions? "

sotto voce wrote on Mar 21, 2009 3:37 PM:

" "Affordable housing" is a technical term. As I am prohibited from posting a link, google "Napa Affordable Housing" and it will take you to a City website which lists the number in a household and the percentage of median income. That is what we are talking about here.

NP will just deteriorate into a ghetto. Think Westwood, Collier and Shetler. There is even a Nuisance Ordinance in Napa promulgated for the late Ed Keith. Do we want another ordinance in honor of Rogal?

Do we ever learn? "

manxkat wrote on Mar 21, 2009 4:45 PM:

" To sotto voce: I am confused as to why you are prohibited from posting a link when Mr. Rogal in his post above at 8:02 PM was allowed to post his email address.
In the "comment guidelines" which we all are required where it says "What gets your comment deleted" it states "posting e-mail addresses". But, maybe, sotto voce your comments like mine have a history of political disagreement with the NVR staff.
Freedom of speech therefore is not free for all it is only free to those who agree with the politics of the NVR staff with the censor pen. "

NVR Brian Kennedy wrote on Mar 21, 2009 5:02 PM:

" Sotto voce, posting links to web sites is OK now. Anonymous people posting personal contact information like email addresses / phone numbers is not OK. "

sotto voce wrote on Mar 21, 2009 7:56 PM:

" "Affordable Housing" as defined by the City as is follows:

http://74.205.120.199/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=251&Itemid=343

Pretty grim, don't you think?

So now that you know who your neighbors will be, would you want to live there? Retired folk, it is NOT Napa Yacht Club! You Young Turks, Rogal is not thinking about you and your skating rink! He is addressing DINKs - Double Income young professionals without kids.

Besides, Rogal has not addressed toxic waste on the site.

Don't be fooled! "

jasonjac wrote on Mar 22, 2009 6:17 PM:

" It is one thing to express your opinion about Napa Pipe and judge the merits of the project. It is another to take personal shots at Mr. Roagal. He has lived in our community for the better part of a decade and has built a business, The Carneros Inn, and a home in Napa that employs hundreds of people. Anyone that has visited the Inn knows that there is nothing CHEAP about it. The idea that he and his partners would build Napa Pipe on the cheap is not only absurd it is baseless and factless. They have taken over for years to simply engage the public in a conversation about what to do with the property and are now in the midst of a huge environmental review. Why not wait to pass judgment until we have all the facts? I for one am looking forward to see what Mr. Rogal and his partners are going to do with the property! "

LuvsTrains wrote on Mar 22, 2009 7:09 PM:

" Jasonjac
You are correct. Folks need to stop in to Carneros Inn and see for themselves. The uniqueness of the Inn and cottages is absolutely worth the tour. My children enjoyed the visit. The fact that the Napa Valley landscape blends so well with this project, it is proof for me that I can count on it that there is hope for 1025 Kaiser Road.

Definitely, a Touch of Class!

The Market stole my visits from Starbucks! "

winewoman wrote on Mar 22, 2009 9:31 PM:

" jasionjac - now that's the kind of blind logic that frightens me about our future generations. I'm sure Mr. Rogul can handle the heat - after all - criticism and scepticism are appropriate in assessing the issues. The Napa Pipe project really has with very little in common with the Carneros Inn -and I haven't heard anyone describe the Napa Pipe project as cheap - in fact, far from that. We have much to lose in this - there's nothing cheap about it. "

epicuria wrote on Mar 22, 2009 9:52 PM:

" To read the Chicken Little comments bashing Keith Rogel and NP you'd think the project was breaking ground tomorrow at 4 p.m. Schools, transportation, remediation of the contaminated ground, and related impacts are being studied and will be addressed (or not) over the coming months.

A good part of the world was built by developers who risked capital to realize their market objectives, and make our environment both more appealing and more useful. But somehow here in Napa the ~d~ word is anathema. The Good Old Boys who pine for the Good Old Days are only interested in throwing wrenches into the workings of the evaluation system. They have nothing positive to contribute. Just more and more kvetching. Fortunately, as the old saying goes, the dog barks, but the caravan moves on "

epicuria wrote on Mar 23, 2009 8:35 AM:

" Winewoman: You miss the point of bringing up The Carneros Inn. What TCI and NP projects have in common is not land use, obviously, but architectural and landscape quality. Rogel possesses what many in this town lack: taste and style. Sure, the fiscal and other impacts must be dealt with, but if they arre, we'll have a new neighborhood with high acclaim among the discriminating public and design professionals. Of course, those who miss seeing the cows on the hillsides will continue to decry the development. "

winewoman wrote on Mar 23, 2009 8:49 AM:

" ...and a great many boondoggle have been built by developers who risked - and lost - their own and other investors capital.

Don't blame the "good old boys" for throwing wrenches in the workings - I think you'll find the people asking questions here are highly educated, worldly and have probably seen these types of projects come and go before. "

5th generation napan wrote on Mar 23, 2009 8:50 AM:

" The good old days. Good high paying jobs by your home, (reduces traffic, encourages money to be spent in our community, fosters home town pride and local commitment) I have heard prices from everyone but Mr. Rogal. What is the prices of his homes? What is the density of the proposed building site. Is he planning a project oriented for families? double income single people? Retirement persons? This is county land. Tell us exactly what infastructrure is planned for this community/ neighborhood? Is it gated and have a homeowners association? Will it draw on Napa City schools? Hospitals? Fire? Police? Water? Sewer? Postal Service? What is the accepted response time? Will he provide contract services like the city of American Canyon? Has he given any though to any type of industry there, or is he planning a couple of ware houses for wine barrels to be stored. Will he provide the necessary utilities and traffic access for the light industry there? Will he build the parks, trails, landscaping, theater, skate rings and all the other stuff people with no kids wants? I would still like to hear from Mr. Rogal himself please. "

winewoman wrote on Mar 23, 2009 12:46 PM:

" epicuria, Try to play nice - it's not necessary to insult. You've discounted "the fiscal and other impacts" issue. Those are hugely critical issues here - and are deal breakers. And, Napa Pipe and Carneros Inn are very different animals, despite what you say. But if you insist it's relevant, why not provide some metrics,numbers, statistics to prove it. With regard to your taste and style issue - well that's personal preference. (notice I didn't insult you. Being pretty isn't everything, epicuria - any woman over the age of 30 can tell you that. "

epicuria wrote on Mar 23, 2009 6:27 PM:

" Winewoman: Again you (wilfully?) miss the point. I am in no way "discounting" the fiscal impacts. Rather I am drawing attention to one significant element of this very complex topic: design. In master planned, mixed use communities, design matters. And by design I don't mean "pretty" facades, but how the interplay of public and private spaces and buildings enhances a sense of place and community.

For those with an open mind, click through on some of the links on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examples_of_New_Urbanism .
Though most of the projects described are larger in scope they share a philosophy of human habitat that, ironically, embraces the values of some of NP's critics. "

Paddy wrote on Mar 23, 2009 9:38 PM:

" epicuria - I know you can't believe this, it's beyond comprehension. There are many of us who prefer deer, fox, turkey, possum, raccoon, birds, fish and bobcats to humans as immediate neighbors. We live here not only because we've been here for decades and generations but because we love the lifestyle.

If you want to live in a community that celebrates 3000 home develepments and the horrific smog, traffic and crime that accompanies it move to Los Angeles, San Bernadino, Riverside and Orange Counties. They'd LOVE to have you and you'd love their spirit. "

Keith Rogal wrote on Mar 24, 2009 12:08 AM:

" Dear 5th Generation and Paddy: I really want to encourage you to come to the Napa Pipe property, take the tour, listen to a detailed run-down on all the issues you are asking about - which do not begin to fit in 300 words - and then ask all the questions that are still unanswered. I think you will be pleasantly surprised that I really do answer all that can be answered at this stage in the process (when studies are still going on and information still being gathered). It takes less effort than all the back-and-forth that happens here, and you'll probably have more fun in a direct and open conversation. You may or may not have a different opinion about the merits of the plan ... I bet you will, but you might not ... but you will be satisfyingly more informed.

As to the issue of habitat and species preservation, which Paddy raises - Paddy and I share that goal. There is absolutely no way to preserve and protect open space and wildlife if we do not choose to reuse long-ago paved and industrialized properties like Napa Pipe, and instead continue low-density of the type Paddy describes (eg San Bernadino, or for that matter, Fairfield, or many neighborhoods much closer). "

5th generation napan wrote on Mar 24, 2009 8:18 AM:

" I work til 3 pm. Whats the schedule of your tours. And are these different than the EIR meets. I have attended those. Thanks for the invite. "

sotto voce wrote on Mar 24, 2009 1:44 PM:

" TAKEN, Mr. Rogal!

I called the number you listed, but the message said there were no site tours currently planned.

So when is the next one? "

5th generation napan wrote on Mar 24, 2009 2:30 PM:

" One can only try! "

winewoman wrote on Mar 24, 2009 3:49 PM:

" epicuria, I didn't miss a thing. "

Keith Rogal wrote on Mar 25, 2009 10:54 AM:

" To Sotto Voce: I believe the next ones will be in about two weeks and should be listed on the website - sorry if next month's weren't up on the site yet when you checked. If you left an email or phone number they will call you with the dates. If you didn't, no problem, just check back on the website tomorrow. Thanks! "

katiem wrote on Mar 25, 2009 3:26 PM:

" New tour dates are now posted on the website: ahomefornapans.com "

geo wrote on Mar 26, 2009 1:21 PM:

" I really cannot believe that anyone thinks the Carneros Inn is beautiful or has any quality. It is a blight to our community. Just get back from it a little bit an view how it looks like an urban concentration camp, just does not fit never has, never will. Also it is draining the life blood from our community, WATER. Does anyone ever address this is not an unlimited resource when letting such projects happen ( I should say inflicted upon us) Remember the Carneros Inn was passed around 1990 to be an RV park, do you see any RVs? They tried to make it the Carneros Lodge, voted down, yet still has managed to grow like a cancer, money talks>>> you know the rest. "

Paddy wrote on Mar 27, 2009 7:38 AM:

" I completely agree geo.... your comparison to an "urban concentration camp" is appropriate. The 12' walls remind me of Napa State Hospital without the guard towers and razor wire.

I'm sure over time they will have to add razor wire as projects like Napa Pipe are built in order to keep out the gangs and punks such developments typically attract. Mr. Rogal won't want to spoil Carneros Lodge's attraction (whatever that might be) with the project he intends to slam down the city of Napa's throat. "

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