NVR Logo
A school at Napa Pipe?
Developer sets land aside, but it is too early for talks
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Save and Share Share
Napa Pipe developers recently bought three tracts of land neighboring the original 154-acre Napa Pipe site and will set property aside for a new elementary school campus if local officials request it.

One possibility is a 19-acre parcel on the southern edge of the Napa Pipe property, which Napa Redevelopment Partners leader Keith Rogal referred to as a “study” or “reserve” area.
A specific purpose for the site has yet to be determined, he said, but the land could end up slated for a school, fairgrounds, church or other facility. Napa Pipe developers also recently acquired a 10-acre parcel north of the original Napa Pipe property and an option on eight other acres, also to the north, Rogal said.

Public hearings on Napa Pipe are scheduled in the next few weeks and a vote from the Napa County Board of Supervisors is expected next year. As a result, Rogal said, plans are far from definite, but talks with school district officials revealed that the 10-acre site “seemed most interesting for a school.”
Rogal said his vision of Napa Pipe includes making it a “walkable property” for residents who could enjoy close proximity to school, church and other services. Rogal said if the school district remains interested in putting a school on Napa Pipe land, developers “would work with them to make the land available either on the property or very nearby the property.”

Don Evans, Napa Valley Unified School District’s director of school planning and construction, said it’s too early to talk in detail about a possible school at Napa Pipe. But he acknowledged that the proposed 2,580-home development would bring many new students to the area.
“Any time you have a project of this size, there’s the real potential that at some grade level … a school may be necessary,” he said.

If Napa Pipe were built out as proposed, according to the draft environmental impact report released last week, the first homes would be finished in 2013 and the whole site built out by 2022.

Napa Pipe would bring about 1,105 new students to the school district, according to the report. Nearly 500 would be elementary school-aged children, nearly 270 are expected to be middle school students and the remaining 350 or so would be high school-aged, the report states.

In 2008, a NVUSD demographic report indicated a need for a new elementary school in the southern quadrant of Napa within about the next 10 years.

Evans noted “a possibility that there could be two elementary schools out there,” referring to a campus that might eventually be built north of Imola Avenue and east of Soscol Avenue and a potential school at Napa Pipe.

As with Canyon Oaks Elementary School in American Canyon, a new school partly paid for by a developer would cost the district less than building one from scratch. The school district could net approximately $3.2 million in developers’ fees “during build-out of the project,” according to a Napa Pipe report. The report states the district could nearly double that amount if the school district uses a different fee structure.

Thanks in large part to developers’ fees and state funding, NVUSD paid for just $1 million of the approximately $15.5 million Canyon Oaks Elementary School project in American Canyon. Standard Pacific, the developer of new homes near Canyon Oaks, paid for the rest.

As for a south Napa school, said Evans, “We would certainly explore all possibilities to avoid the district having to commit dollars we certainly don’t have in this economic time, nor would we be looking to ask voters to support construction for that.”

Yet projections and plans are only preliminary. NVUSD Superintendent John Glaser said with the Napa Pipe environmental report just released, the project not yet approved and the schools focusing on more pressing budget and planning matters, NVUSD is “nowhere near being into discussions” about the possibility of a new school at Napa Pipe.
19 comment(s)

countyresident wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:37 AM:

" Unfortunately Developers don't have the county's best interest at heart...otherwise this would be an affortable retirement area complete. "

So It Goes wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:58 AM:

" Check out the last two paragraphs of this article…
Even Don Evans our "NVUSD Bond Measure Construction Czar" says,
“We would certainly explore all possibilities to avoid the district having to commit dollars we certainly don’t have in this economic time, nor would we be looking to ask voters to support construction for that.”
AND
Our school Superintendent says, NVUSD is “nowhere near being into discussions” about the possibility of a new school at Napa Pipe.

We already have schools built in Napa that are looking at being closed Mr. Developer!
It’s because we don't have the money to support the long-term cost of school staffing and maintenance.

This developer and his group of investors are willing to "set aside" a piece of property for a possible church or school? Whoopee!

Because this developer is suggesting he’s willing to not build houses on every last square inch of this property, is this supposed to entice the Napa community into believing the developer cares about the community's future traffic, infrastructure and school problems?

Nice try, but we’re not a bunch of rabbits willing to bite at every fake carrot you stick in front of us.

Not buying it.
Sorry, better try another marketing move.

Better yet, Give It Up and develop something that won’t drain our city coffers completely dry. "

napalove wrote on Oct 25, 2009 9:33 AM:

" I wonder what all of the Napa Pipe naysayers who a couple of weeks ago were accusing Napa Pipe’s developers as being the destroyer of Napa’s schools will say now. "

littleonett wrote on Oct 25, 2009 11:04 AM:

" Napa Pipe is not what is causing the economic woes of Napa schools, nor it is it the savior. It does however offer the opportunity to provide new funding and a site for a school that others feel is needed in this part of the County. "

So It Goes wrote on Oct 25, 2009 11:59 AM:

" napalove-
We Napa Pipe naysayers are going to say the same thing today as we said a couple of weeks ago.
This "extra" property the developer might set aside for school/church/whatever doesn't mean dippity-do.

Nothing like the Register trying to ruin a perfectly good Sunday by reminding us that our community is under siege by a developer's mass housing plan.

Maybe this developer and his investors can find someother out-of-town individuals to sue our city on behalf of low income want-to-be homeowners.
For peat sake, a lot of people want to own a home...

I want to look ten years younger too...
AND
I want the State and Federal government to come through with the required and promised funding for all the school mandates they bestow on us...

None of the last two things are going to happen, because sometimes reality just bites.

But, realikty won't stop this development group from trying to slowly bleed our community with these continuous attacks. "

So It Goes wrote on Oct 25, 2009 12:05 PM:

" By the way,
No one said Napa Pipe Developers were the "destroyer of Napa's schools."
But, to further shoot holes in a ship that's already taking on water is beyond immoral.
There, I got to use the "moral" card Mr. Rogal already tried to play on us in another article today. "

blackpony wrote on Oct 25, 2009 2:07 PM:

" if there closing schools down y open one? when there money in the packets "

MamaKing wrote on Oct 25, 2009 2:16 PM:

" This seems a bit obvious to me, but they're talking about closing Carneros School. Carneros is relatively near this property. Why not have the developers pay to keep Carneros open; let the current kids stay there, then redraw the boundaries later when Napa Pipe has neighborhood children. That's gotta be cheaper than building a school from "scratch" and utilizes a beautiful school with a new multi-purpose building and a million dollar setting. "

sharonden wrote on Oct 25, 2009 2:53 PM:

" NVUSD Director Evans seems to recognize that a school local to the Napa Pipe project will be a valuable asset to the area, and to Napa itself. Superintendent Glaser would do well to get on board with the positive aspects that Napa Pipe has for the future of Napa County, and the children who will live and attend school here. "

Cadence wrote on Oct 25, 2009 2:57 PM:

" Instead of reinventing the wheel, why not see how the school issue has played out nearby?
Mountain House, near Tracy, is a planned "lifestyle" community in unincorporated San Joaquin County, approved in 1994.
Today it has nearly 10,000 residents. It has 2 elementary schools of its own, a third is being built, and it uses a nearby fourth school. Now it needs its own 80 million dollar high school. "

Paddy wrote on Oct 25, 2009 3:32 PM:

" 2,580 homes and only 1,105 students?!!! What the ration ofstudents to homes in Napa today? I can guarantee you they are not < 1 per household.

The numbers in this EIR don't appear to have much to do with the current reality of Napa.

I'm really insulted at how naive or stupid Rogal, et al believe Napan's are to think we're buying into the low numbers and impact this report wants us to believe.

On one hand we're closing three schools only to turn around and stick taxpayers with building at least one new school. I'm infuriated with the arrogance of this project, this new city that we will be paying for forever. "

LMW wrote on Oct 25, 2009 3:49 PM:

" too early for talks?

I do not support that we are paying mr evans to even have time for thoughts here at NP. MOre dollars he continues to waste!!!

We have existing schools that need attending. I DO NOT support that my 6 year old can not be provided a healthy environment to have his lunch, if water comes through the roof on a rainy day...yes, I'm not happy, if we spend 400,000 on a school beautification and does not improve flow of traffic at the school, yes we have concerns to address....If we can't attend to those needs, we have no business looking at new projects and I don't support developments who don't see this need or leadership we can't step either. "

gaslight wrote on Oct 25, 2009 4:19 PM:

" A school in the airport flight path? How do you mitigate that? "

wonkagirl wrote on Oct 25, 2009 5:11 PM:

" WHY? Why in the world would there be a school built when there is talk about closing 3 or more of them? Completely LAME. "

So It Goes wrote on Oct 25, 2009 6:25 PM:

" Sharonden
"NVUSD Director Evans seems to recognize that a school local to the Napa Pipe project will be a valuable asset to the area, and to Napa itself."

What lines did you read between to come up with this idea.
Mr. Evans has kept many people busy and building in the past few years with our bond money.
He's built and improved schools that are now slated to close.
He's moved the same portable classrooms back and forth around the district with our bond money.

Mr. Evans is supposed to retire after the last of our bond money is spent.
We should let him peacefully retire, say thank you, and live within our means from now on.

MamaKing-
Bussing from Napa Pipe to Carneros?
No matter how bad you want to keep the school open, Carneros parents wouldn't be happy with that.
And it's not a big enough school to support the extra students.
The only option will be costly and long-term bussing throughout Napa, to and from the Napa Pipe area. "

Keith Rogal wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:18 PM:

" Paddy expresses profound skepticism about the projections for numbers of people per household and for number of students per household. He also speculates on what "Rogal" must be thinking.

Since I’m Rogal, let me tell you what I'm thinking: I'm thinking I'm not a demographer and I don't pretend to be one. Nor am I the person preparing the EIR.

But I'm also thinking that the kind of concerns Paddy raises are important and their importance is recognized in California law. And that is precisely the reason why EIRs are prepared by independent technical analysts working for the public agency, and not by or for the developer. It is also why they are released as what is called a DRAFT EIR, and not a Final one, so that after people read it they can raise questions, identify what seem to them to be flaws in the analysis, and introduce evidence on their particular area of expertise or interest.

It is clear from numerous postings that Paddy spends quite a bit of time reading and writing about demographic and fiscal matters. Nothing wrong with blogging as a means of expression, but it doesn't do much to advance the debate on factual matters. If Paddy wants his (or her) voice to actually count on these topics which are clearly of concern, it will be important for him (or her) to write an actual signed comment letter, email one, or give oral testimony at one of the Planning Commission's public meetings. Any of those approaches will then become part of the public record, and the County in preparing their Final EIR is obligated, bylaw, to address specifically all substantive comments. "

Napagrrl wrote on Oct 25, 2009 10:38 PM:

" Geez! Register! Your "counter" said 296 words but when I submitted it, it told me 306!! My "back" button didn't work.

Anyway, "soitgoes:" says, "Bussing from Napa Pipe to Carneros? ... Carneros parents wouldn't be happy with that."

To which I say, "Why not?" Carneros parents want nothing more than to have their school remain open. These are extremely involved parents.

Then, s/he goes on to say, "And it's not a big enough school to support the extra students. The only option will be costly and long-term bussing throughout Napa, to and from the Napa Pipe area. "

Um, the kids going to Carneros are already bussed because they have been displaced by the NVLA. There are many NVUSD kids who are bussed a lot farther than the distance between Napa Pipe and Carneros. If the NVLA-area kids can't go to the school actually in their neighborhood, why should Napa Pipe be any different? Why not build a new school in the NVLA area for the kids who didn't get into or choose NVLA? Why should "newcomers" get the best school situation? Further, Carneros has empty classrooms as well as a prepared space for relocatables. In addition, there is room for either another permanent building or more portable buildings. Using existing facilities makes a lot more sense than new buildings or sites. Finally, maybe bussing Napa Pipe kids into Carneros would achieve the desegregation issue trotted out by NVUSD every time they decide Carneros needs to close. At a recent board meeting, one of the members said he feared, and I paraphrase, "a white Napa and a Latino Napa." "

4gnapan wrote on Oct 25, 2009 11:42 PM:

" Just Say NO to Napa Pipe Housing...
Return it to its Industrial / Business Park roots and re-create the JOBS this valley needs. "

Paddy wrote on Oct 26, 2009 11:45 AM:

" Thank you for your comments Mr. Rogal. I am concerned about this development and what I'm reading in the EIR is troubling. It appears some of the numbers are on the conservative side. Some seem very conservative.

There are other comments outside of the EIR that I find disturbing. Can you explain your comments regarding the church? Will religion now be considered when determining who may live at this development? I'm sure not. But trying to combine facts and statistics with emotional aspects of this development such as providing religion and education to the community seems duplicitous. "

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