Napa Pipe report delayed
Draft environmental review now slated for mid-October
By JILLIAN JONES
Register Staff Writer
November 19th, 2009
October 25th, 2009
October 5th, 2009
September 27th, 2009
September 23rd, 2009
September 18th, 2009
September 9th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 15th, 2009
November 5th, 2009
Napa County officials say they will not meet a Sept. 15 target date to release an environmental review of the mixed-use development proposed at Napa Pipe.
A draft of the extensive study is now expected by the middle of October, Napa County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman said.
“It’s taking longer than I thought to get it all pulled together,” she said. “The final inch always takes longer than you thought.”
The change in schedule pushes the release of the final environmental review off to early 2010 and the county’s vote on the project to the middle of next year, she said.
Consultants, under the direction of county staff, have been hard at work on the environmental impact review — or EIR — since January, exhaustively studying potential impacts of the 2,580-home development proposed at the south county Napa Pipe site.
Gitelman said the EIR will identify ways to reduce environmental impacts and will study a handful of alternatives to the current proposal.
“We are studying a wide range of alternatives in order to give the public and decision-makers some real comparisons (and) choices,” she said.
Alternatives include a “no project” option that assumes the site remains zoned for industrial use and a series of less dense alternatives with the same mix of land uses as the proposed project.
“It’s a large project and a complex EIR,” Gitelman said. “We wanted to give the public and decision-makers all the information they need to make an informed decision about the proposal.”
Among the topics most likely to get people talking, Gitelman said, are traffic, groundwater, public services, flooding and hazardous materials.
“I think everybody’s going to be looking at all of it,” said Ginny Simms, a longstanding member of the local group Get a Grip on Growth. “I’ll be looking. We’ll all be looking.”
Napa Pipe developer Keith Rogal said the “exceptional degree of participation and scrutiny” will ensure that “no important question or possibility is overlooked.”
“When we started this effort a few years ago, we wanted a project that was informed by the needs of the community and addressed all reasonable questions concerns and suggestions,” Rogal said. “That’s why we’ve had hundreds of community meetings and made real changes to our plans based on the feedback from everyday Napans. And that’s why we have been fully supportive of an exceptionally comprehensive EIR and environmental review process.”
The report is being paid for by the developers and has cost about $1 million, Rogal said.
After the draft report comes out in October, the public will have 60 days to comment, according to Gitelman. County officials are considering a public meeting at the beginning of the process to explain how best to provide input.
The county must then address each of the comments in its final EIR, which Gitelman said should be out “early in the new year.”
Napa Pipe then heads to the Napa County Planning Commission and ultimately the Napa County Board of Supervisors for a vote in 2010.
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.
manxkat wrote on Sep 9, 2009 6:57 AM:
This sounds like Hillary is preparing the plan for the developer. Isn't that backwards? Is Mr. Rogal now telling the county what to do? Or more indelicately, has he "employed" Hillary? "
Paddy wrote on Sep 9, 2009 8:20 AM:
LOLA wrote on Sep 9, 2009 9:26 AM:
Does anyone ever audit the impact of these large projects after they are completed to see how real the "minimal" projected traffic and environmental impacts were? As an example, the traffic flow on Big Ranch Road Avenue has increased dramatically since the new Soscal cut through was completed. Had that impact been projected? "
Teddy wrote on Sep 9, 2009 11:02 AM:
Cadence wrote on Sep 9, 2009 1:21 PM:
I don't know about you, but to me "under the direction of" has a different meaning than your "at the direction of." If I work under you, then what I do is at your behest and you are ultimately responsible for my product. If I work AT your direction, then I might be independent and just waiting for you to say go, then I do my own thing.
I suspect manxkat's conclusion is correct. I also believe that LOLA has every right to be worried. The watered down traffic impact report is going to resemble the final traffic crush like an acorn resembles an oak tree.
And don't ask, don't tell about the truck-ridden mess during the 10+ years of construction. Just widening a small stretch of Hwy 121 has added dozens of daily dirt truck trips on hwys 121 and 29. "
napavalley35 wrote on Sep 9, 2009 2:53 PM:
As for traffic they will study traffic as per the State mandated requirements as well as CEQA standards. Residential and commercial properties have far less traffic than an industrial sites. People are saying this will make traffic worse only because the property has been vacant for so long. If you brought a "Napa Pipe" back the traffic would be orders of magnitude higher than this development. I have seen the traffic reports for the former Napa Pipe facility and I have seen the preliminary traffic reports for the new development. I think people are going to complain no matter what this property ends up being. If you are going to have an opinion please familarize yourself with the CEQA process and the steps a developer must go though to get their permit approved. It is very complicated and requires research and a basic understanding of science. Reading a NVR article is not research nor gives you the tools to understand what is going on as evident by these posts. "
Cadence wrote on Sep 9, 2009 4:40 PM:
You know and I know that state regulations are brought to bear - hard - only upon request (i.e., threat of lawsuit.)
I haven't see traffic reports. I have, however, seen the TRAFFIC when Napa Pipe existed. I have also seen the TRAFFIC evolve over the last 10 years as more and more subdivisions are built and also as more and more workers commute in. The traffic is far worse now than 10 years ago and occasionally comes to a full stop for no reason except lots of vehicles.
So plain old logic tells me that ading almost 3,000 residences and a handful of water taxis is going to impact traffic most horribly. And the rail idea? It's a good one and if our neighbor counties Marin and Sonoma are any indicators, rail's gonna be a long time coming. "