Slow-growth group: Smaller Napa Pipe plan may be too small

2012-02-20T22:00:00Z 2012-04-05T20:46:46Z Slow-growth group: Smaller Napa Pipe plan may be too smallPETER JENSEN Napa Valley Register
February 20, 2012 10:00 pm  • 

Napa County planning staff is touting its vision for a smaller Napa Pipe project as providing a compact, walkable neighborhood, but a local group is questioning if it’s too small to make that possible.

Staff and developer Keith Rogal are offering competing proposals for the project, with Rogal advocating a 2,050-home project on 134 acres, while staff supports a 700- to 945-home project on 63 acres.

The developer’s original proposal was for 3,200 homes, then 2,580, and finally 2,050. The project will be mixed-use and have a hotel, a living facility for seniors, and other retail and commercial spaces.

Both proposals will be offered at the county Planning Commission’s meeting Tuesday at 6 p.m. at the Napa Valley Opera House, 1030 Main St. Members of the public are invited to question staff and the applicant. Another meeting will be held March 19, and residents can offer comments at that meeting. The commission will make a recommendation on the project after the public comments.

Planning Director Hillary Gitelman has said the smaller project allowed staff to strike a balance between providing the compact, walkable neighborhood the developer envisions with the reduced housing needs the county anticipates having.

Eve Kahn, chair of Get a Grip on Growth, said when she first read the staff proposal she was pleased with the vision for a smaller project. It didn’t require an exemption to limits included in the county’s growth management plan — “one of my big battles,” Kahn said.

But she questioned if the project’s size would be enough to support a school at the site and retail facilities, elements of keeping traffic off the roads.

“Once you cut it down small enough, you just put even more people on the road,” Kahn said. “A sustainable, walkable community goes out the door.”

Kahn’s group raised concerns about the project in a letter to county planners after the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report was released in 2009. It did so again after a supplement to that report was issued last year. 

The applicants propose possibly setting aside a 10-acre site for an elementary school, while county staff’s proposal does not.

Kahn said she was also concerned about what kind of tenants the development would attract, saying it might appeal more to people looking to purchase a second home, not working-class families.

“My fear is you’re going to have a lot of tourists and hotels and not the workforce housing we need,” Kahn said. “We need housing for our workers and it needs to be in a place that fits their lifestyles.”

Kahn said she was opposed to the project, and said building it would jeopardize opportunities to bring light-industrial development to the area.

“It’s the last big light-industrial space,” Kahn said. “This project should get turned down now.”

Bernhard Krevet, president of Friends of the Napa River, said his organization still needed to wade through the details contained in the voluminous environmental report for the project, but said staff’s proposal potentially posed less impact to the environment.

“In a way, I like the reduced (project) because it would reduce some of the pressures on our natural environment,” Krevet said.

Krevet questioned putting the residential units nearest the river, which both proposals do, as that area is prone to be the most impacted by flooding or sea levels rising.

Krevet said his group raised concerns about the project’s environmental impacts in two letters, one in 2010 and another in 2011. The group is still researching and Krevet couldn’t yet say if its concerns were adequately addressed.


CORRECTION: The original version of this story has been changed to reflect that it is the county staff's proposal that does not include a school.

Copyright 2015 Napa Valley Register. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(5) Comments

  1. REPUBLICANKID
    Report Abuse
    REPUBLICANKID - February 20, 2012 10:28 pm
    I bet The Project will go Bankrupt and the land will sit vacant for many years. I just dont see it getting done at any size anytime soon.
  2. RalphMouth
    Report Abuse
    RalphMouth - February 21, 2012 5:58 am
    Please continue to look at all options before anything is built. This project will alter the quality of life for current residents. Mixed use with medium density sounds good to me. It does sound good to have light industry, school, home, and entertainment in the same community. That way I don't need to leave and be in the long line of traffic that currently exist.
  3. MarkMiwords
    Report Abuse
    MarkMiwords - February 21, 2012 7:15 am
    *Exasperation* When are they going to stop building homes in the floodplain/flood-way? We all know better. How can staff even consider putting houses there?
  4. Elizabeth
    Report Abuse
    Elizabeth - February 21, 2012 10:12 am
    Just a quick correction:
    "The applicants propose possibly setting aside a 10-acre site for an elementary school, while city staff’s proposal does not."
    Of course, the staff proposal is from Napa County planning staff rather than City.
    Please join us at the Opera House tonight for a Planning Commission Public Hearing on the project. Find out details on our website at countyofnapa.org. Thank you, Elizabeth Emmett, Napa County Public Information Officer
  5. farmboy
    Report Abuse
    farmboy - February 21, 2012 10:22 am
    Just what kind of "light industrial" use does Ms. Kahn believe the site will attract? Were any knocking on the door before Mr. Rogal and partners bought it? In this economy, the only "industrial" we seem to attract is huge "tilt up" mega warehouses and they are so attractive and don't employ many humans, so less traffic, unless of course you count the huge big rigs in and out, in and out. Wouldn't that be nice, more big concrete buildings and truck traffic? Mr. Rogal might as well propose this project to the Sanitation Board because it will go down the toilet no matter what he does. No politician in his/her right mind will ever vote for it unless they don't care about re-election. By the way NVR, the article says that "City staff" proposed the revised plan. Government reporters should know the difference between city and county.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick