County sued over Lake Luciana project decision
By JILLIAN JONES
Register Staff Writer
November 16th, 2009
November 5th, 2009
October 30th, 2009
October 28th, 2009
October 27th, 2009
October 6th, 2009
September 10th, 2009
September 3rd, 2009
September 2nd, 2009
September 1st, 2009
August 26th, 2009
July 1st, 2009
June 10th, 2009
November 21st, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 15th, 2009
Lake Luciana developers made good this week on promises to sue Napa County over the decision to reject a championship golf course in Pope Valley.
Lawyers for the developers accuse the Napa County Board of Supervisors of conducting an illegal hearing on the project, fraught with bias and procedural violations. The suit was filed Monday in Napa County Superior Court.
Napa County Counsel Robert Westmeyer said he is confident he can defend the county’s decision to reject the 18-hole Lake Luciana golf course proposed by developers Robert Radovan and William Criswell.
The two sides are scheduled to meet in court in February.
In June, the board rejected the Lake Luciana project in a 3-2 vote, with supervisors Diane Dillon, Brad Wagenknecht and Keith Caldwell voting against it.
Lawyers for the developers charged Dillon and Wagenknecht were biased because of their involvement with the Sierra Club, a vocal opponent of Lake Luciana.
The Sierra Club, which contended the golf course would be an inappropriate use of land zoned for agriculture and questioned other aspects of the project, represented opponents in the Lake Luciana hearing before the board.
Project proponents said the golf course plan was within county regulations and would boost the fortunes of rural Pope Valley.
Both Dillon and Wagenknecht acknowledge they played minimal roles on the Sierra Club’s local legislative committee, but they deny that their involvement in the club affected their votes.
Wagenknecht said that his work with local groups such as the Sierra Club is critical to understanding public opinion.
In the lawsuit, Wagenknecht also comes under fire for his friendship with Jim King, the former Napa County Planning Commissioner who was asked to step down in January because of his dealings with Lake Luciana developers.
King admitted he sought consulting work on Criswell and Radovan’s Aetna Springs project several years ago, but later was turned down. Lawyers for the developers charge Wagenknecht held King’s resignation against Criswell and Radovan. They assert that Wagenknecht told developers he would have a hard time voting for Lake Luciana because of it.
Wagenknecht said this is a gross mischaracterization of his conversation with developers. He adds that after decades in the Napa Valley, he has friends on both sides of every issue, making it unreasonable to recuse himself from every such vote.
The lawsuit against the county also charges that Dillon, Wagenknecht and Caldwell violated the Brown Act by discussing Lake Luciana outside of open meetings and conspiring together to vote against the project.
The supervisors deny that any discussions occurred that would have violated the Brown Act.
Caldwell, the newest supervisor on the board and the third vote in a slow-growth majority, for the most part escapes the lawsuit’s personal attacks. Dillon and Wagenknecht bear the brunt of the criticism. Both Dillon and Wagenknecht are up for re-election next year.
This marks the second lawsuit filed against Napa County this year over a land use vote by the board.
Napa County is also doing legal battle with Yountville resident Carol Vendrillo, who sued the county in July over a decision to let her neighbor reorganize his vineyard parcels and increase the development potential of the land.
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.
wb5218 wrote on Sep 3, 2009 8:58 AM:
Isaiah wrote on Sep 3, 2009 11:48 AM:
native74 wrote on Sep 3, 2009 12:23 PM:
Bullying at it's finest by a developer. "
locoallomi wrote on Sep 3, 2009 4:03 PM:
Can we go back to calling it Weeks Lake yet? "
napaimplant wrote on Sep 3, 2009 8:43 PM:
This so called agricultural land is currently being used for NOTHING. It has been vacant for years and nothing has grown there except for weeds and grass. Why not use that land for something other than nothing. If this was usable land, that would be another story. "
Moegunst wrote on Sep 6, 2009 8:04 AM:
wb5218 wrote on Sep 8, 2009 11:16 AM:
those who own the property, get to name the property. Lake included. "