NVR Logo
Lake Luciana golf course plan gets second chance
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Save and Share Share
1:30 p.m.The Napa County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 Tuesday morning to rescind denial of the controversial Lake Luciana golf course proposed by Pope Valley developers William Criswell and Robert Radovan.

The board voted to hold a new hearing on Lake Luciana at 9:30 a.m. on Dec. 1 with Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht abstaining.
Tuesday’s decision comes amidst a legal battle with Lake Luciana developers, who are suing the board in both state and federal court over a 3-2 decision by county supervisors to reject the championship golf course earlier this year. Attorneys for the developers allege supervisors Wagenknecht and Diane Dillon — two of the three votes against the project — were biased against Lake Luciana and that the board conducted an improper hearing.

Wagenknecht, who maintains that the allegations are false, announced Tuesday that he would recuse himself from all Lake Luciana hearings going forward. Dillon did not recuse herself from the vote.
Supervisor Bill Dodd was the one vote against a new hearing, calling the move “a sham.”

Check back later in the day for more on this story.
19 comment(s)

Paddy wrote on Oct 27, 2009 1:47 PM:

" Unbelievable.... be a man Brad and do what we voted you in to do. Make a difference and don't let developers and lawyers smack you down. Why do you think you have this job?!

Thank you Diane Dillon! "

fedupwithpoliticos wrote on Oct 27, 2009 2:51 PM:

" When the vote is tallied next year, Ms Dillon will understand that the people are not her winery and Sierra Club buddies. The people will understand that there are some cases of development that deserve to be approved without sacrificing the agricultural and watershed preserves and will vote accordingly. Vote on Lake Luciana based on its merits. "

nightwatchman wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:29 PM:

" Yeah, vote for Lake Luciana on it's merits...a private, exclusive, super-expensive golf course which will never benefit 99.999% of the community. "

jmo wrote on Oct 27, 2009 5:42 PM:

" Something is not right here.

A further investigation is needed in this turn about by the Sups! What gives or who gave?? "

gaslight wrote on Oct 27, 2009 6:05 PM:

" Howell-No: Good question that this half-baked article doesn't answer. Was this matter on the agenda? Who put it on? What was the reason given for revisiting the issue? What was the basis for the allegation that the board "conducted an improper hearing"? Did county counsel agree that the hearing was improper and advise the board to rescind denial and hold a new hearing? In what context did Dodd term this action a "sham"?

This article raises many questions and answers none. Can the Register follow up on this action and fill us in, or must we wait until the hearing on Dec. 1st to figure out what's going on? Maybe someone else who attended the meeting can enlighten us. "

Jasper wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:31 PM:

" My guess is that the "second chance" is a legal maneuver which will get the county off the hook and allow them to deny the project either by a new procedure or new information.

The fact that Dodd is unhappy with the "second chance" is some inkling that it is not being exercised to really change the vote of the supervisors.

Just guessing here. "

Paddy wrote on Oct 27, 2009 10:39 PM:

" Considering what happened to Aetna Springs I question the business intelligence of Criswell and Radovan. Sue-eee! "

jmo wrote on Oct 27, 2009 10:58 PM:

" gaslight: It boils down who and how much...please remember "how much' isn't always about money.

The truth will get leaked. It is a matter of time. So who will step up and answer gaslight's questions? "

sharonden wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:18 PM:

" Faced with lawsuits is the only thing that has made the Sups make a superficial turnaround. It needs to be clearly defined that the agenda of the Sups has damaged the County. The fear and reality of a lawsuit is “unbearable” by Napa County. The arrogance of Dillon persists. "

abouttime wrote on Oct 28, 2009 12:02 AM:

" The BOS is trying to take a Mulligan. They can't. Westmeyer knows the County is vulnerable and is trying to redo the damage. He is essentially acknowledging that there was a violation of the Brown Act. Doing it again will not cover his tracks. And Brad trying to duck because he knows he has a conflict and is in a tough reelection race. Dodd is right it is a total Sham. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Oct 28, 2009 2:21 AM:

" I'm sick and tired of bully developers in this county. They do not care, whatsoever, about the people living here. They could care less about the environment or the impact on infrastructure. They are addicted to money and more money. And quite honestly, I even wonder how much these developers care about their own children when they are ruining rural, open space areas, adding pollution and contributing to the degradation of our environment. "

Paddy wrote on Oct 28, 2009 7:49 AM:

" sharonden - you're totally off base. Dillon is representing her support base which is probably the majority of us in Napa. We all stand to lose big time by this short sighted pie-in-the-sky dream. How in the world does that make her arrogant? Far from it.

I only hope Mr. Wagenknecht does the right thing and continue to represent those of us who voted him as supervisor to stop projects just like this one. "

seasoned citizen wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:00 AM:

" does this mean that Sierra Club members cannot vote on land use measures???If this is being pushed in this direction what a pandora"s box is being opened up.... "

reader wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:17 AM:

" Does this mean that all a developer has to do now is threaten or file a law suit and the commission will just roll over? Well, this word will burn like fire througout the developer corportate kingdom and we will see the end of the ag. preserve and open space land in just a few years. I'll be TRIAD just popped open a bottle of bubbly in celebration. "

4466 wrote on Oct 28, 2009 11:33 AM:

" More homes for the rich and famous! Of course a golf course is far more important than ag land. "

4466 wrote on Oct 28, 2009 11:40 AM:

" I read that this development is based on investors who represent a Texas policeman's pension fund. The development needs to be completed so that the fund does not lose money. Radovan et al are bullies and will eventually build the golf course and homes. "

Fiesty1 wrote on Oct 28, 2009 12:24 PM:

" The video and agenda from yesterday's BOS meetings is available. Go to

http://napa.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2 "

countyresident wrote on Oct 28, 2009 10:20 PM:

" The last thing Napa County or any area in California needs, is another golf course. No one wants to live in these archaic outdated concepts of a development - we are so over the waste of resources. "

jmo wrote on Oct 28, 2009 11:33 PM:

" Let them prove that they can make their "FAILED" Aetna Spring project work before we give them another chance.

The theme here is "Us vs. Them" step forward and fight!!!


Only really big money can force this forward! Still want to know why someone from a former big family name wine/winery name isn’t coming forward as a major investor and talking about what the benefits of this project are to the citizens of Napa County. Is Mr.? working thru the back waters of the Napa to ensure change (or is it INSURE change)? Guess I am going start going into the alphabet.
Think I’ll start in the middle third, why not? I thought everyone started at the beginning and that's why I think it takes so long to get the answer!
Wish I had the “unnamed sources in the know?”… maybe you do?.

Maybe diggers will start at the beginning and ending of the list? It shouldn’t take you too long (maybe a week or two). I’ll race you to the finish.

Are any of us/you are brave enough to handle the fall out? Not sure here…perhaps you aren’t either. Brad wasn’t!


What say you? "

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