Casting a jaundiced eye on the proposed residential development of the Napa Pipe site, the Napa City Council is urging the county to scrutinize the project’s every possible environmental impact.

The city is compiling a long list of concerns that it wants studied when the county begins an environmental impact report on what would be the largest urban development in county history.

City officials philosophically are opposed to Napa Redevelopment Partners’ plan for up to 2,580 homes, with retail, a hotel and 190,000 square feet of offices and industrial uses. The city believes any such development should be located within the city, not just outside the city limits.

The city tried to broker a deal with county supervisors to bring the 154 acres at Napa Pipe under the city’s control, but talks broke down in December.

The county wanted the city to commit to absorbing most or all of the county’s housing requirements for the next 21 years, but this deal met legal obstacles — including a requirement that the agreement undergo environmental review.

Keith Rogal, leader of Napa Redevelopment Partners, has said that the property is on county land and he would prefer to continue the approval process with the county.

Rogal and the city have had clashing views on the project since it was proposed, and those clashes now focus on matters such as the water source for the development and just how much traffic the project would add to local roads.

Laundry list

On Tuesday, the City Council helped city staff compile a laundry list of concerns that they should be addressed by the Napa Pipe environmental review.

Councilmembers fear such a massive project would overwhelm city streets, deluge Kennedy Park, suck up ground water best reserved for agriculture and possibly induce more urban growth.

Dana Smith, an assistant city manager, said the county’s initial list of topics for the environmental study was “substantially lacking in a number of areas.”

Among city concerns:

• Kennedy Park should not be Napa Pipe’s primary recreation facility. The developers are proposing a trail that connects Napa Pipe to Kennedy.

• The new Napa Pipe community, with 5,000 or more residents, would clog local roads and highways. The environmental review needs to identify where the money will come from to improve roadways.

• Napa Pipe intends to tap an underground aquifer for its water supply, which is against current county policy and could threaten agriculture.

• More information is needed about how a private water company and a possible private sewage treatment facility would operate.

• More information is needed about how Napa Pipe might create new transit services and whether these would induce more urban growth.

• The effect of the project on planes using the Napa County Airport is unknown.

With Napa Pipe possibly having its own sewage plant, “What kinds of smells will waft toward the city?” Councilman Mark van Gorder asked. The 154-acre Napa Pipe property is closer to Napa than Napa Sanitation District’s existing treatment plant, he said.

Councilwoman Juliana Inman said she’d like to see more information about the project’s aesthetic impacts, including the effects of adding five feet of fill to lift the land out of the flood zone.

“Those millions of cubic yards of fill — what are the impacts?” Inman said. New dirt would translate into thousands of truck trips or heavy barge traffic on the river, she said.

Inman also cited the visual impact of seven-story buildings on top of fill. “It’s time we see what the project actually looks like,” she said.

Tapping ground water for urban use could set a bad precedent if water availability shrinks, Councilman Jim Krider said.

Streets should be built to urban standards in case the city ever annexes the property, Krider said. “When the city inherits county stuff, we always inherit county problems,” he said.

Councilman Peter Mott said Napa Pipe would increase traffic in the south end of Napa Valley Corporate Park if it creates a second entrance using Anselmo Court. Kaiser Road is the only access street.

Mayor Jill Techel said she wanted to know more about the proposed 40,000 square feet of retail and whether it would draw shoppers from Napa.

Since no school is proposed at Napa Pipe, where will families send their children to school? Inman wondered. “I don’t think we can assume this will be an infertile workforce with no children,” she said.

Noting that Napa Pipe, which hosted heavy industry for a half century, has toxic contamination, van Gorder said more information is needed about the planned cleanup and any effect on ground water.

‘A robust review’

On Wednesday, the Napa County Planning Commission held its own environmental report scoping session.

Whit Manley, a consultant hired by Napa Pipe, said the environmental review should not use conventional standards for predicting traffic impacts. Traffic will be less because the project is mixed use, high density and near so many jobs, he said. He advocated using a more contemporary model for predicting traffic. Planning Commissioner Matt Pope echoed Manley’s recommendation.

Manley said the review should not waste its time looking at alternatives to the project that are not economically feasible, such as an earlier suggestion for 600 homes on the site.

County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman told the Planning Commission that the review would include the “no project” alternative, which would assume the housing goes somewhere else. She said the county is open to suggestions for any alternative projects in between no project and the one  proposed.

Steve Lederer, Napa County environmental management director, said the review should suggest ways of reducing the project’s emissions of greenhouse gases all the way up to a “carbon neutral” option.

Planning Commissioner Terry Scott said a high-density project such as Napa Pipe requires exceptional design. Active and passive recreation facilities should be provided, such as hiking, biking, swimming and tennis, he said.

“This is going to be quite a robust (environmental review),” Gitelman said.

The public can comment on the scope of the Napa Pipe environmental review through Feb. 2. There will be public meeting on the review on Jan. 29 at 6 p.m. at the Elks Lodge, 2840 Soscol Ave., Napa.

Register Staff Writer Jillian Jones contributed to this report.