City Of American Canyon Online Community Forums

About 1 year ago, I sat in a city council meeting where a group of developers presented a great visual show of past projects, to get approval of the Canyon Rock Apartment Complex on the corner of Am Can Rd and 29 on the NE edge.

In order to get this approval, the city re-zoned the property from commercial to high density residential, and gave a variance from 16 units per acre to 18 units per acre in order to accomodate the project.

I said at the time this was a major gift, as the site had specific challenges for development including an earthquake fault running in the middle of it and no access from 29 or AC road.

What I find most annoying, is one of the big pushes was to fix the corner as it has been an eyesore, and I specifically remember the developers presenter saying that they would start fixing the corner of AC road at 29 as part of the project.

Well, guess what. This project is NOT happening, as it is a non viable project, as I said at that council meeting. The absorbtion rate for apartments is very slow here, and the prices they wanted to make it work are not supported by the market here either.

Instead, we , the residents of AC, get to continue to look at the corner, and have an unsafe and too narrow right turn lane on AC road to N 29.

The developers I would gather shopped this project to sell it, and couldn't. Now they are proposing to come back "sometime" with a project for condos or townhomes.

Thats unlikely as well, as getting insurance for that project with an earthquake fault running in the middle of it is going to be very tough.

In my view, the council ought to adopt some timeline for starting developments like this that are given the extra ordinary zoning changes and variances that this project did. Failure to do so should sunset the zoning changes and bring the property back to its original zoning.

The promised contribution to AC road never happened, and the corner eyesore remains, now with weeds some 6 feet high. The community was excited about the presentation, but the project never moved forward.

Now for the next one. The 35 unit subdivision on Theresa lane which was approved by the council in March is the next topic.

This project has 3500 sq foot lots, which are very small. This group of developers brought forth this project with pre fabricated homes. These are essentially homes built off site, trucked to the subdivision, and put together on foundations.

What you may not know is getting plans for these are easy and cheap, which is important for a later point. YOU do not need to hire an architect.

The Oat Hill Master plan which some claim does not exists( funny, because I have seen the preliminary layout of the plan, even though ' there is no plan') should have included this piece of property.

But as Rick Hess said at a recent council meeting, it makes more sense to get everyone together, and come up with one plan. Otherwise, you have a bunch of owners submitting smaller projects and you end up with a hodge podge of stuff.

Add in the 35 modular homes on foundations to the hill, and this is exactly what he is talking about.

Again, this was a major gift, as these are some of the smallest lots in AC, and a density that is higher than normal, in order to accommodate 9 homes that are consider low/moderate income.

This project may or may not get built, but it will not be built by the current owners. In fact, they have the subdivision map for SALE FOR 4.2 Million dollars.

Ya, thats right, another great story presented to the council, just like Canyon Rock, an approved project, that is now up for sale. The developers stand to make a windfall, and at about 120K per paper lot, there are looking at a very large windfall.

Meanwhile, someone may or may not built modulars, and hopefully they will stick build a smaller home built on site.

In my view this property would be better suited to be made part of the Oat Hill master plan. Throwing in a small 35 unit subdivision there with whats around it will give the hodge podge look we are trying to avoid with a large master plan for Oat Hill.

There is TOO MUCH A LA CARTE zoning in AmCan. We are not an "all you can eat" restaurant... a bit from here, a bit from there. We have a good General Plan and developers should follow it. It very disrespectful to our City.

But as Rick Hess said at a recent council meeting, it makes more sense to get everyone together, and come up with one plan. Otherwise, you have a bunch of owners submitting smaller projects and you end up with a hodge podge of stuff.

The HW29 lot lines are of the same caliber... 2, 3 acres that no one can do anything with unless someone comes and "buys out" several landowners at once and then stabilizes his position with a zoning. I think we've put off the HW29 specific plan long enough!! Focus s/b on Town Center and HW29.

Wow,

Paul, you have so much insight as to how hte council should have reacted on this issue or that one. I too am in the commercial real estate business. Isn't it a fact that "you can't tell people what to build" on their land?

With that being said you also can't tell them they can't sell it. I would like to see some protection for the 29 corridor. But I feel it is counterproductive to harp on issues continually with an "I told you so" attitude, instead of being part of the solution.

I haven't seen you at the meetings for awhile, in fact the last time you were apoligizing for the city land purchase or something because you were wrong. I think you have a valid point, but just as I know this deal don't you think the council knows too?

Why not talk to the council members and express your views with some possible solutions to end these situations in the future? That is something I am sure all of us in your virtual fan club would like to read.

No more "I told you so's", that just shows the council doesn't find your opinion valid or with merit. I would like to see you share here in this forum ideas to fix the problem and share them at the various council and planning commission meetings.

Other than that good job.

Paul,

We must attend alot of the same meetings and committee appointments. I've noticed that you seem to take information that others have talked about and post it on this web-site without crediting the individual.

Paul you need to express your own ideas, become creative, stand for a issue and support it (don't swagger back and forth to please everyone) and keep your sense of humor. You have a good chance of sitting on the next council if you can do the mentioned.

Mr or MRs Wow- aka guest
"city cannot tell people what the build on their land" Oh ya, since when? They do it all the time. Go ask Standard Pacific Homes why they have the same yellow and white color scheme that they had in 2000 on the Ryder Home development in Montevino. Go find out why they have a house that is 100% all white on the body. Why, because the city made them use those colors. Three homes on Marsala street are all shades of grey one after the other. Do you think the builder would do this? no.

Did you not hear the mayor demanding 20 foot driveways and the former mayor wanting the placement of the door changed on a recent project?

Take Hiddenbrooke- DRHORTON - Go ask Paul at the sales office why they have 70 plus lots in the corner out there- and he will tell you that Horton when to the city with a much lower density, and it was THE CITY that told them they want more out there so they can get more revenue.

So it is NOT a fact that you cannot tell people what to build on their land- it is a fact that cities and counties do it all the time, and change zoning in order to do that, give variances or deny them, approve projects or deny them. Claiming your in commerical real estate and not knowing this- well, thats hard to believe.

With regard to me "being wrong" about the land use, the land use and the deal cut had one very SIGNIFICANT fact left out- the title to the property was deed restricted- thus lowering the value- once that become clear, that matter was clarified and I supported it.

As far as " I told you so's " your right, the council approved the deal anyway.

What should they do different? Just what I said; The members want to see these projects done which is in the best interest of the city- in order to get zoning changes and approvals like the two projects mentioned, the council ought to put in a sunset clause: start construction by this date, or your approval terminates, and the land goes back to its original zoning.

Otherwise, what you get is a bunch of spectulators, getting approvals, then selling out projects, and nothing built for much longer periods of time.

guest of ac-


What specifically have I taken from someone else and put on the web site and not credited the individual. This is a false accusation and is untrue.
Which is typical around this town.

What specifically have I " swaggered " back and forth on ?

I haven't, again another false accusation. But, thats politics, and you re in it!

And one last thing guests;

Your comment of "no more told you so's "that just shows the council doesn't find your opinion valid or with merit".

I disagree. I think it shows that some of the council members have little or no development experience while they making decisions on multimillion dollar projects and the future of this city. Similarly, the planning commission has similar difficulties.

You have to know what to ask for, what you can and cannot get, what is reasonable and what is not, and what makes sense and what doesn't, why designs are designed the way they are and so on.

Example: One of teh council members asked to have the doors moved from the side to the back. Now, do you know why the doors are on the side, and not in the back?

Because of this thing call Feng Shu or however it is spelled- Have a door in the back line up with the front is bad FS- and some buyers, especially asian buyers, will not buy homes with 4's in the address or doors out the back, or stairways facing the front door. But this council member may not have known this, asked for the design change, which did have a good reason for being there. Most of the homes in the Standard Pacific devlp. have the same thing. So there is a reason for it.

It is questionable just how much power this council really has anyway. A good number of the what they want is tabled or delayed or not done. Its either well, we are working on it, or we will get to it, or we dont have enough money. To me, it seems like a congressal chairman (which is the city manager) having the power to bring or not bring stuff to the council, and controls what gets priority and what doesnt.

In fact, I would venture to say the city manager remains the most powerful force in directing this city, and the planning director a close 2nd.

(Feng Shui)

It appears that Standard Pacific is looking to build townhomes at the corner of highway29/ac road, where there was suppose to be apartments.
Currently being reviewed by planning, given what standard pacific has built so far, it is likely that the project they would build there would fit well with the rest of the community they built right next door.

Lets see what they come up with. Townhomes would be much more affordable and bring a higher tax basis to the city than the apartment project.

I personally don't see the council buying into the "condo" scene for that corner. I think that approving those apartments was a bad deal for them and they will change it back to community commercial to match the proposed development across the street.

Other projects have condos proposed. Additionally the only reason the apartments were approved was because of the designs, contributions to affordable housing, onsite daycare and promised capital improvements to the American Canyon Road/ Highway 29 corridor.

It's apparent the public wants good retail exposure and availability. The new center across from Safeway is not enough.

I support commercial development there. Not Condo's!! No more deceptions from developers. This is one to clearly make an example of. It is time to say "sorry, forget it you had your chance". Otherwise the city will command no respect.

I have to agree with the last post. We need to change this parcel of land back to its original use, retail, commercial etc...

As I might recall Councilwoman Coffee and Luporini both voted to keep this retail commercial at a Council meeting a few months ago. We need to put this back on the agenda. I think that Garcia, Shaver and Ben are all to impressionable to developers. Luporini and Coffee are patient and willing to have a better global view of the city.

The developers on this project (that was never to be) was a "boondogle", again.

Luporini seems to be able to work well with the "new" residents and has gained support in numbers. Coffee continues to "work" the issues she promised if elected. Kudo's to both of these powerful , confident, humble women.

Standard Pacific did a great thing by working with the city to deliver a new grammar school timely. If Standard Pacific wants to develop that parcel, the city should work with them. Standard Pacific has brought several important and much needed projects to our city, and they are:

Canyon Oaks Grammar School and the adjoining park
Contribution to the new light coming in at broadway and ac road
The new roadway and light at Donaldson and highway 29
A much larger tax basis than the city ever expect from the new homes

Should they buy the lot on AC Road and Highway 29, my view is the city should work with them on it to get it done. There are no townhomes in AC that I am aware of, and these would definately bring affordability being a smaller and higher density product. Standard Pacific is proposing 166 units, v the 205 or so the other builder wanted in apartments.

Going back to commercial, which is an option, would likely delay development farther into the future, and increase the traffic count at the already bogged intersection. Most likely, although not ideal, from a traffic standpoint, residential would bring the lowest amount of traffic.

From affordability, the city could probably get affordable units as they did with the apartments, but with Standard Pacific you would have owners.

I still believe we should have a sunset clause on these approvals to get things moving along. And as I said and others have re iterated, we should revisit some form of redevelopment to get what we want timely.

Why have we had such a housing boom in AC? LAFCO which dictates land use in Napa County told AC years ago (when they wanted to annex more land towards the airport) that there was too much open space in AC and until they developed the empty fields in the city limits they would not approve additional land to be annexed into the City of AC. Our own supervisor at that time voted against AC's request for annexing additional land into the city limits. This idea of expanding our borders is still the ultimate goal of those in control of the City of AC. Land is Money...
Maybe it's time we take a step back and not develop so quickly.

According to the sales staff, Standard Pacific is purchasing or has purchased highway 29/ac road- plans to build townhomes, now in with the city.

Probably the quickest way to get the corner developed, adds affordable units, home owners association should keep it looking good, least amount of traffic, and right developer in that they are already there at the site, and will be here at least 2 more years.

I for one am glad somebody is buying it that is actually going to do something with it. I hope the planning and city council agree.

I am suggesting that the land be rezoned back to its original zoning rights. We do not need additional homes of any sort built on that intersection. That intersection is prime for services which AC needs to stay competitive. Paul I cannot believe you can't see or feel the wool being pulled over your eyes. Wake up and smell the roses!

Unfortunately, there are several projects for duets and townhomes that will be more viable on the horizon in a few years. What the city needs is more competition with retail.

Since Hess is the only one with retail available he is able to charge whatever he wants. By allowing another person the opportunity to develop this as retail it will actually improve the retail climate and invite more small businesses in. Especially since Napa Junction only wants to lease to franchises like Subway, Jamba Juice, etc.

This would be the perfect compliment to the development across the street that will be coming. As for the "traffic" generated by commercial. Don't see it according to the previous use granted. We don't need any more housing at this time.

We need a high school. We need more playing fields, we need a civic center. Before we build high density housing.

I know you are a fan of Standard Pacific and they did do a great job building that modular school, but they need to stay on task and build out the homes and not try and make a quick extra buck with some high density homes.

I don't see the council supporting this. At least I hope they change back the zoning. Perhaps doing a live/ work project with retail on the bottom and living on the top will offer a whole new layer of retail to the area.

Time to be different and think ahead. We need to make mini destination areas to keep residents shopping locally.

I disagree with both you. When Canyon rock presented their study for the apartments, the traffic report showed significantly less "cars per day" with a residential use, in their case, 209 or so apartments.

The site has major access issue, as they is no exit on highway 29, and no ingress or egress of American Canyon Road. Unless you could get a feeder road off of Donaldson into the site, it will be problematic for a project where there is ongoing traffic coming and going all day long, with one way in, and one way out. Imagine Safeway having one way in, and one way out. THe Safeway is tough enough as it is, with three ways in, and three ways out..

Ac/29 also has other issues like the earthquake fault, the railroad, and the power lines. Thus, the parcel is difficult to develop and difficult to insure no matter what is built there.

One of the issues with rezoning it back will be timing. A sunset clause may have been done with the approval as a condition, but it wasn't. Legally, if the city said now we are going to rezone this property back, the city could be sued for damages from the owner, as the owner would be damaged and the owner may prevail. But even if the owner did not prevail, the corner would be tied up in litigation for years, and that is just unproductive.

Say what you want about Hess'es prices. Personally, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Hess offered me space at 2 bucks a foot gross lease. Down the street near the hotel, it was 2.25 NNN making it around 2.85 a foot. But leasing space is expensive today, I will give you that,but it is expensive all over.

The Safeway center has the highest rents, with one business now closted more several weeks now(Quiznos).

More retail? Sure. But without rooftops , retail doesn't survive.

I've been reading the issues presented by both sides on this parcel. What about turning this into a "baseball" /socceer field. We need them in AC, it would have adequate parking, and the access would not be such a problem.