Luciana backers drop part of lawsuit
By JILLIAN JONES
Register Staff Writer
November 25th, 2009
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
November 12th, 2009
November 5th, 2009
October 31st, 2009
November 25th, 2009
November 23rd, 2009
November 22nd, 2009
November 21st, 2009
Even as one Napa County supervisor is accusing the board of conspiring during closed session to vote down Lake Luciana, lawyers for the project’s developers are dropping charges that the board violated the Brown Act.
The act is the law meant to prevent governing bodies from discussing public matters outside the public eye.
Mike Durkee, the Bay Area lawyer who represents Lake Luciana developers Criswell Radovan, sent a letter to Napa County lawyers Wednesday dismissing Brown Act charges in the developers’ two lawsuits against the county.
Developers William Criswell and Robert Radovan are suing the board in both state and federal court, charging the board committed several procedural violations when it voted 3-2 in June to reject their championship golf course proposed for Pope Valley. Among the charges, developers claimed that supervisors Diane Dillon, Brad Wagenknecht and Keith Caldwell — the three votes against Lake Luciana — plotted during a string of serial meetings to vote against the project.
The Brown Act restricts a majority of supervisors from speaking with each other outside of public hearings about upcoming votes.
Dillon, Wagenknecht and Caldwell deny that they violated the Brown Act.
Yet on Tuesday, the board voted 3-1, with Wagenknecht abstaining, to rescind its previous rejection of Lake Luciana and to hold a new hearing on Dec. 1. The do-over is meant to remedy any alleged procedural violations, according to lawyers for the county.
Lawyers for the developers, who object to the Dec. 1 re-hearing, claim that because the Brown Act charges have been dropped, the county no longer has any reason to proceed with the new vote.
“We have now dismissed the lawsuit’s Brown Act cause of action, thereby removing the threat of county liability and the stated reason for the recession,” Durkee wrote in his letter to the county.
Napa County Counsel Robert Westmeyer said the county is considering its response.
“We’re evaluating whether there’s any statutory basis to agree to the proposal to re-hear it, and I expect by (Friday) I will have a formal response,” Westmeyer said.
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.
Moegunst wrote on Oct 30, 2009 6:30 AM:
So It Goes wrote on Oct 30, 2009 7:14 AM:
Trying to sell the rest of the supervisors down the road using the Brown Act was low. Low. Low.
How low can they go?
I guest we'll just have to sit back and watch how Dodd and Luce help/represent us.
Whoops, didn't mean "us" the Napa community,
I should have said "them" (sue-happy developers).
I can't wait to hear the spin on this one by Dodd, "I was just looking out for the community's interest against possible litigation from the developers."
Ya, right!
Got any bridges you'de like to sell any one Mr. Dodd?
Or,
How about more large chunks of Napa?
Can't wait to see what you're going to do with the proposed Napa Pipe mass housing project!
Why don't you help us all right into a budget crisis, more traffic, crowded classrooms, and less city services, Mr. Dodd. "