Members of the Napa County Conservation, Development and Planning Commission can expect to hear a lot of public comment at the special commission meeting tonight at , held to discuss the proposed Napa Pipe development.
A similar meeting last month drew about 150 people to the and many of them had comments and questions about the recently-completed environmental impact report for the 154-acre property, where developers propose to build more than 2,000 apartments with nearby retail and office spaces at the former industrial site on the Napa River.
Why some like Napa Pipe
The proposal is acclaimed by some for its New Urbanist design, which emphasizes walkable neighborhoods with nearby services and public transportation—a combination supporters say would help cut down on the region's worsening traffic by reducing the need for car trips outside the development.
But many Napans are strongly opposed to the prospect.
Why some dislike it
Slow-growth advocates and many Napa city dwellers—including members of the city council—see the concept as a form of urban sprawl that would saddle the city with an unwanted suburb.
According to the , there is also a growing movement to forestall residential development in order to keep the waterfront site available for renewed industrial use.
Local anti-sprawl advocates and the oppose the development proposal as well, for reasons including population density and the use of groundwater.
Who gets heard at tonight's meeting?
At the commission's Feb. 21 special public meeting, Napa residents were not allowed to address the developer, commission members or county planning staff directly: Instead, they were required to hand-write their remarks on cards that were then read aloud by planning commission chair Michael Basayne.
This practice led to a who said the county may have violated state open meeting laws by imposing the comment card restrictions after posting an agenda that said comments could be made verbally.
At tonight's meeting, people will be allowed to pose their questions and comments aloud, according to the agenda:
If you wish to speak on an item on the Agenda and under discussion by the Commission, you may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairperson. After being recognized by the Chairperson, please step to one of the microphones and state your name and address and make your presentation. No comment or testimony shall be shouted from the audience.
However, the agenda prohibits addressing comments or questions to the developer or county staff:
All comments are to be directed to the Commission, including inquiries requiring staff response. Time limitations shall be at the discretion of the Chair or Commission.
Tonight's special meeting begins at 6 p.m. in the Little Theater, Building 1200 at .
The developer's slide show from the Feb. 21 meeting accompanies this article.
For more about the Napa Pipe development, including Michael Haley's traffic analysis and links to other reporting, please see our Napa Pipe topic page at napa.patch.com/topics/Napa-Pipe.
With the last shipments finished out around July and August of 2004 the property has been "sitting" for 7.5 years. Has the 90 years of pollution really been fixed in 7.5 years? If not, can they dig far enough down to get the remaining toxic soil? Do families really want to risk living and raising their children in such an area? Maybe we should stop trying to move more people to the Napa Valley and focus on improving transportation options to and from the valley. Why not focus on building a transit center using the rails already in place to connect us with the rest of the bay area? Building homes provides jobs for a short period of time in the valley. Assuming the contractors are local and they use Napa Valley residents. Building a transit center provides jobs for the long term, and helps the congestion on our local roads as well as around the Bay Area.
I recently read that Napa is lacking in large commercial properties. The Napa Pipe property could solve that problem. With access to the river and rail so close, it’s the perfect location for a corporate park and light industry. Maybe we could lure some of the Bay Area tech companies up our way. This type of commercial development would encourage a more gradual population increase of a workforce that could afford to purchase the homes that are already here. In turn, this would create upward pressure on property values, which would benefit our struggling homeowners. I feel certain that a better solution for any state mandated housing increase could be developed.