County says Luciana meeting not up for debate

Home » News » Local

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Comment

By JILLIAN JONES
Register Staff Writer

Jillian Jones articles

November 25th, 2009

County goes back to drawing board on housing plan

Lake Luciana hearing pushed back to January

November 23rd, 2009

Key winery law comes under new scrutiny

November 22nd, 2009

Luciana supporters seek delay in county vote

November 21st, 2009

County sued over housing

Napa County leaders are refusing to back down from a decision to re-do their vote on the Lake Luciana golf course proposal.

The Napa County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 on Tuesday, with Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht abstaining, to hold a new hearing on the championship golf course project proposed for Pope Valley.

The board will re-hear the project and vote again on Dec. 1, this time with Wagenknecht abstaining.

The re-hearing is meant to insulate the county from several legal claims made by developers in two separate lawsuits filed against the county and the board.

Lawyers for the Lake Luciana proposal charge that the board held a biased and procedurally flawed hearing in June when it voted 3-2 to reject the project. Among the allegations, developers claim that the board violated the Brown Act, a state law meant to ensure that government business is conducted in public view.

On Wednesday, Lake Luciana lawyer Mike Durkee formally requested that the board abandon plans for a re-hearing. He announced that Lake Luciana developers had dismissed the Brown Act charges, and he argued that the board no longer had any reason to hold a new hearing now that those charges were dropped.

Napa County Counsel Robert Westmeyer charged back Friday that the decision is not up for debate.

“It is puzzling that you and your clients would object to this (new vote), given that it provides the very relief that Lake Luciana seeks in its lawsuit,” Westmeyer wrote in a letter to Durkee on Friday. Namely, he said, the re-hearing will mean the June vote to reject Lake Luciana will no longer stand, and the project will get a new shot in front of the board.

Durkee scoffed at Westmeyer’s “feigned puzzlement about our reticence” to hold a new hearing.

“This whole thing’s a sham,” Durkee said. “It’s all a set-up to get to a 2-2 deadlock.”

Regardless, Westmeyer said, the decision to hold a new hearing “is not subject to petition for reconsideration”.

Meanwhile, Napa County Deputy County Counsel Laura Anderson is reminding people who commented on the project during the June hearing that they will have to speak again in December if they want their comments to count.

10 comment(s)

ambonizay wrote on Oct 31, 2009 8:45 AM:

" Brad W. should step down as a Supervisor after revealing he took part in a private discussion in violation of the Brown Act and then voted down the Aetna Springs project due to his personal agenda if the project was rejected. Shame on you Brad. Abstain now that the truth is revealed? Spineless. "

So It Goes wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:52 AM:

" ambonizay,
I believe your comments have proved correct Mr. Posner’s point in his editorial comment today about NVR bloggers, as well as validating my response about individual people’s perspectives on subjects.

Thank goodness we live in a country we can share our various and vastly different perspectives. "

SusanC wrote on Oct 31, 2009 10:22 AM:

" Interesting that the county offers the developers what they are asking the court for - a rehearing - and they try to turn it down.

Is it because they think they can replace one of the supervisors in the election next year with their hand-picked candidate?

Re Brad, reread the articles on Luciana from this week. He did not "reveal he took part in a violation of the Brown Act." And this project did not involve Aetna Springs. "

Moegunst wrote on Oct 31, 2009 10:33 AM:

" Terrific. Another opportunity to be heard. Let's hope the developers bring back Tom Doak to show his beautiful golf course designs. People come from all over the world to play on them. Maybe they will reopen the golf course he already designed in Pope Valley which is now closed. "

notanapanative wrote on Oct 31, 2009 11:51 AM:

" Regardless of what happens with this project, I am deeply troubled by the alleged Brown Act Violations, and our BoS (and legal teams) response.

Redoing the vote does not negate that violations occurred.

Secret/private meeting on the project either happened or they did not.

This alleged violation needs to be investigated and the results publicly disclosed.

If it is proven false then the Supervisors involved need to be publicly exonerated.

If it is proven true then they need to be held accountable by the courts and the public/voters.

The people of Napa deserve to know whether their BoS acted appropriately or not.

It is important not just for this project but for the future of the County.

Everyone needs and deserves to know what the ground rules and processes are for development.

If there are back room dealings, it not only opens the County up to legal jeopardy, but it diminishes the quality of life in the valley, by only allowing developments which are party to this "special process" to move forward, the very sort of thing that happens in Chicago.

Will the people responsible for the BoS please investigate and publish their findings, for the sake of our BoS and the people of Napa?

We deserve to know if our BoS are acting appropriately and ethically. "

So It Goes wrote on Oct 31, 2009 2:09 PM:

" notanapanative-

Allegations are just that, “allegations” ('an assertion, esp without proof').

The fact that you are “…deeply troubled by the alleged Brown Act Violations” is a personal issue at this point.

These now dropped “allegations” of alleged “violations” are unfounded (not proven) and apparently have been denied by ALL of the supervisors according to the NVR.

The developer’s lawyers decided NOT to pursue their own “allegations” and I believe our Napa County BOS’s legal counsel has given his advice on this matter.

You want more?
You not happy with letting the developer’s lawyer’s drop their “allegations”?
You want to look into it more deeply?

Then you pay for, and hire your own legal counsel to consult with.
Do whatever will make you feel secure.

As a Napa citizen, I’m pretty happy with our county’s legal advice thus far, and that the developers decided not to pursue this unfounded “allegation” any further.

You are not the only person in Napa unhappy about the scheming and shenanigans by all involved with potential new development projects in our county. "

napathinker wrote on Oct 31, 2009 3:10 PM:

" What good will this project bring to the Pope Valley area and Napa County? Will the developers guarentee 80% of construction jobs then operating jobs will go to Napa County residents? NO. They will come from Lake County, which is closer to the project or "import" General Manager, accountants, and others for all but the few menial jobs and throw the rest of the "scraps" to "locals". What Napa County residents will be able to partake of the amenities of this development. I make $35,000 per year. Will I be able to afford to play Golf or eat at their resturaunt? I doubt it. Send this development packing. I have no problem with our supervisors discussing behind closed doors some of the details associated with issues. As long as BEFORE they make their final decisions there is enough ample opportunity for PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND that discussion is taken seriously. We cannot allow developers to dictate to our elected officials and the general public through lawsuits and intimidation what can and cannot be done in our communities. If the majority of Napa County Citizens don't want this project, and that is made know publicly to our elected officials, then so be it. Hey, a novel idea. Put it on a general election ballot and see what county citizens have to say about it..I think any of the supervisors vote FOR this development, they should be subject to RECALL, because they are going against what the citizens of Napa County want, which is this development to go away..Build it in Lake County. Maybe it would help the high unemployment there, then they can hire Napa County citizens that will take their wages out of Lake County and bring them to Napa County... "

So It Goes wrote on Oct 31, 2009 8:36 PM:

" Hey napathinker,
What an interesting idea; let the voters decide on large development projects.

These developments will affect our community long-term.

Why not let the community decide if we want to grow a new city, and new massive development support systems. "

wb5218 wrote on Oct 31, 2009 11:42 PM:

" Sure let the people vote on every issue.

Are you asking to completely do away with the Board of Supervisors?

Who would need them if the people voted on every issue?

Napa thinker- I am sorry to here that you cannot participate in every thing Napa County has to offer?
May I ask when you were able to enjoy a 2002 Harlan estate Wine? "

So It Goes wrote on Nov 1, 2009 8:42 AM:

" wb5218
Where did you read anyone here say, "...let the people vote on every issue." Who said "EVERY"?

I said,
"...let the voters decide on large development projects."
...L..A..R..G..E...that means something really, really BIG.

You suggest that voting on "LARGE development projects" is the samething as voting on
"every issue"?

I'm not sure if you bothered to read my comment further, but I followed up with:
"Why not let the community decide if we want to grow a new city, and new massive development support systems. "

Thank you for letting me clarify that point. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

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: