If a slow growth initiative passes in June, at least three developers with projects on the outskirts of American Canyon and Napa will likely gain in the long run.

Proponents of the Responsible Growth Initiative say they want to curb residential growth in the unincorporated part of the county, particularly the proposed 3,200 townhomes at the former Napa Pipe property. But with more strict controls on county growth, the measure would create more pressure for large residential developments within the two largest cities in Napa County, Napa and American Canyon.

Based on a review of current development and zoning proposals, it appears three properties would become the likeliest to help satisfy state and regional requirements for market-rate and affordable housing.

• One, the 110-acre Ghisletta property near Foster Road in south Napa, is tentatively zoned to have as many as 1,000 dwellings, plus a 31-acre corporate park. The property is within the city of Napa’s Rural-Urban Limit line, but has not been annexed to the city. City leaders and the property owners are seeking to get the property annexed this year.

• Another, the 70-acre Edward Biggs property on the east side of Newell Drive in American Canyon, is slated by its Solano County owner for residential development. Lot lines on this property, part of which was previously owned by the Ghisletta family and others, were redrawn in 2007 so that it could better accommodate single-family homes. The land is just outside the city of American Canyon. The city is currently reconsidering the boundaries of its Rural-Urban Limit line.

• The third, the McGrath development, is just east of American Canyon’s city limit. About 500 homes and 150,000 square feet of commercial space are proposed for this 100-acre property. It is the site of a former cement factory, now owned by the Jaeger family.

Annexations ahead?

Current and former public officials say developers of all three properties may stand to gain if voters pass the Responsible Growth Initiative this June.

The measure seeks to ensure that the current 1 percent residential growth cap in the unincorporated county can’t be overturned by a simple majority of the Napa County Board of Supervisors. Large-scale developments in the county would have to go to a vote of the people.

The initiative would almost certainly spell the doom of the 152-acre 3,200-home Napa Pipe proposal. In addition to the likelihood that such a large project would exceed the county’s annual growth cap, a provision in the Responsible Growth Initiative calls for strict enforcement of a 35-foot height limit on buildings, far shorter than the seven-story townhomes proposed for Napa Pipe.

As a result, the measure would benefit other developers who plan fewer homes, or who might see their properties brought within the cities of Napa or American Canyon — where county growth restrictions don’t apply.

Language in the 26-page Responsible Growth Initiative provides for Napa County to meet state demands to zone for housing by entering into an agreement with the city of American Canyon.

While the county entered into such agreements with American Canyon and Napa around the same time in 2003 and 2004, the measure does not mention the city of Napa. No other way of meeting state-mandated housing demands are specified in the event that the state requires more than 1 percent growth, or about 114 building permits per year.

In the American Canyon-Napa County agreement, the county agreed to allow the city to annex more land in exchange for housing, but American Canyon has yet to provide much of the affordable housing that was expected.

The Napa agreement — in which the county agreed to help fund a parking garage and share other revenues in exchange for the city providing affordable housing — led to more housing, but was .predicated on financial support from the county that has since been renegotiated.

County supervisors have said that with added pressure from the Responsible Growth Initiative, the county may need to broker another agreement with both American Canyon and Napa to meet housing mandates, perhaps allowing annexation of more county land.

Annexation decisions — such as the pending application of Ghisletta land and possible annexation of American Canyon properties — are made by the Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission, which includes representatives of all five local cities and county government.

Under state law, LAFCO exists to prevent sprawl. It considers traffic and other quality-of-life issues, along with long-term planning policies for various cities and the county, when making land-use decisions.

Keene Simonds, LAFCO executive officer, said the Responsible Growth Initiative will likely make a greater case to expand the cities’ boundaries.

“It would be reasonable to suggest (there is) greater justification for annexing the land,” Simonds said.

Knock, knock

The Ghisletta, McGrath and Biggs properties all lie outside their respective cities’ limits. In the case of the McGrath and Biggs properties, they also lie outside American Canyon’s so-called sphere of influence — the line at which LAFCO considers property to be within the city’s purview.

County planners said they must remain neutral on the initiative, and declined comment until after the county issues an official report on the measure’s impacts. That report is expected Feb. 5.

Former American Canyon City Manager Mark Joseph said if the initiative passes, Napa County could be put under more pressure to negotiate new agreements with the cities. “The county is going to knock on the city’s door again,” he said.

Supervisor Bill Dodd said it seems as though the three developments could gain from the Responsible Growth Initiative.

“If there’s no housing development at Napa Pipe, maybe the unknown proponents of the initiative feel like their projects would be more favorable,” he said.

Joe Ghisletta, Terry McGrath and Edward Biggs, the owners of the three sites, all say they are not involved with the Responsible Growth Initiative.

“Absolutely in no way, shape or form, and no one in my family is,” said Ghisletta.

“We have not been involved in any way, shape or form,” said McGrath.

Biggs, other than confirming that he knew nothing about the Responsible Growth Initiative, referred comment to his attorney, David Gilbreth, a semi-retired former land-use attorney at the Napa firm of Dickenson, Peatman and Fogarty.

Public records from March 2007 show that Gilbreth and Ghisletta each own a 12.4 percent stake in Biggs’ American Canyon property. Ghisletta said that records showing that he had sold his interest in the property to Biggs haven’t been recorded with the county yet.

Biggs signed a May 2007 lot line adjustment document with the county, dividing up two parcels so that one 70-acre parcel was at a slope level that could be developed.

Biggs and Ghisletta recently settled a lawsuit filed over the Biggs and Newell family property, which they had agreed in 1992 to develop. The Newells backed out a few years ago and Ghisletta and Gilbreth sued to have the contract enforced.

Gilbreth did not return phone calls requesting comment for this story.

James Marshall, the Napa attorney who is the spokesman for the Responsible Growth Initiative, said he had no intention of making developers’ lives easier.

“I don’t know any of those people,” he said. “I know nothing about it, I obviously could not have had that in my mind when I started this initiative. There’s no doubt it will have an impact on property owners. There’s going to be some people who don’t benefit from this initiative and some people that benefit in some peculiar way. But what I’m looking at is the benefit of all Napa County residents.”