County Supervisors Approve Napa Pipe Environmental Impact Report

Close to 300 people turned out for this afternoon's public hearing on Napa Pipe, but fewer than 100 remained nearly five hours later when the supervisors voted on the environmental impact report for the proposed development.

6:30 p.m.: The supervisors unanimously approved the environmental impact report before continuing the hearing to Feb. 5. Click "Keep me posted" for automatic notification when we publish our full report from the meeting.

3:45 p.m.: After a recess, supervisor Brad Wagenknecht has reconvened the public hearing. In the first part of the hearing, 26 local residents made public comments. At least 40 more people have submitted cards to speak, Wagenknecht said.


  • Napa Pipe: Yes or No?
  • Michael Haley: Napa Pipe Comment for January 14 meeting of the Board of Supervisors
  • What Really Happened at the Napa Pipe Meeting?
  • Letter: "Napa Pipe is Bad for Students"
  • County Holds Hearings on Napa Pipe
  • Comment Period Extended on Napa Pipe Report
  • Luce “Happy" to Keep Napa Pipe Industrial
  • New Napa Pipe Hearings Set
  • Where Do You Stand on Napa Pipe?
  • How Big Should Napa Pipe Be?
  • Was Law Broken at Napa Pipe Meeting?
  • Many Voices Expected at Napa Pipe Hearing
  • Napa Pipe Vote Postponed
  • Napa Pipe Plan Divides County Planners
  • Napa Pipe Hearings Canceled as Developers Revise Proposal
  • Napa Pipe Returns to Planning Commission

Stay Patched in! Follow Napa Valley Patch on Twitter | Like Napa Valley Patch on Facebook | Sign up for the daily email with links to the latest news | Got something to say? Start a blog and share your views.

Louisa Hufstader January 15, 2013 at 05:08 AM
"Napa Citizen," you can't have it both ways: If you want to call people names and accuse them of being bribed, don't hide behind a fake screen name when you do it. This is only fair.
Belle (Orchid Lady) January 15, 2013 at 05:41 PM
I want to know if the EIR will look at what type of pollution would be released in to the river in the instance of a flood? Raw sewage is the least of what comes to mind if the area becomes an island. What about 15 years from now? Will it sit at a higher flood risk? Will property owners be able to get flood insurance? Does the City/County think ABOUT LONG TERM impacts on rezoning and how it will back future officials in to a corner so-to-speak? I think these are things they should ask. They should also ask the developer what he is prepared to pony up when the site floods, pollutes the river, and the residents loose everything....I'm betting there is no obligation after building something so obviously flawed, because it is expected that Napa wouldn't allow a bad project that would potentially damage people...
Belle (Orchid Lady) January 15, 2013 at 07:16 PM
I found it! It was over here all along! LOL, silly me!
supportnapapipe March 25, 2013 at 05:28 PM
I grew up in Sonoma County, and now in my 20's i cannot afford to live near my family, because property values are so high. With very little low income housing, the younger generations are being diaplaced and forced out. Napa is no different. There is very little apartment housing, yet plenty of jobs. We as a community, cannot choose to exclude certain demographics and insist that only wealthy middle-aged families should live in Napa. We need to provide housing for all kinds of people. We are already working in Napa, so the traffic is already an issue. If there was more housing, fewer people would be commuting, and we would simply be accepting those who work here to be a complete part of our community.
vocal-de-local March 25, 2013 at 09:01 PM
supNP, I understand what you're saying but Napa PIpe is not going to solve the affordable housing issue. These are probably going to be 'for sale' units with a 'few' units based on market value minus a discount. In other words, you're income will probably still need to be $100,000 plus per year to qualify for ownership. I do not believe it's the responsibility of society to make sure everyone has home ownership. I would rather see resources put into a rental market where the footprint is minimal (we are trying to preserve agricultural lands in Napa and we cannot tolerate sprawl). Plus we have water issues. Growth must have limits. The question I have for you is - are you going to be willing to live in Napa in a 2 bdrm 1000 sq ft rental unit or commute to Fairfield where you can rent a bigger house with a backyard for the same price? We cannot force the Napa real estate market to match Vallejo and Fairfield just because you might want a bigger home. Trying to make everything 100% equal is unhealthy both economically and environmentally. That mentality encourages sprawl and destroys ecosystems.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »