Public fears that local leaders aren’t doing enough to rein in growth are having an effect on members of the Napa City Council and Napa County Board of Supervisors.

Sensing growing voter unrest as large housing projects loom on the horizon, elected officials have begun talking about putting aside recent differences in order to deal with the perceived threat of runaway development.

Napa Councilwoman Juliana Inman went public a week ago with the novel idea that the city and county agree to a “unified growth cap” to protect both agriculture and residents who see their communities threatened.

Elected officials sense the public’s alarm when developers talk about thousands of new housing units, Inman said. “We’re not blind and deaf,” she said.

On Wednesday, Supervisor Bill Dodd and Napa Mayor Jill Techel elaborated on the need for cooperation at a Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency meeting.

Unless all the cities and the county can agree on a common growth policy and deal with crumbling roadways, more voter initiatives can be expected to take growth out of the hands of elected officials, Dodd said.

“The answer lies in working together. The question is, When are we going to do it?” Dodd said.

“We were the golden child of how to do it,” Techel responded.  ... We were on such a good path,” but are floundering now.

Techel and the Napa council members blame the county for walking away from a 2003 agreement that tied the city and county to planning collaboration and shared regional housing allocations.

In a follow-up interview, Dodd conceded that the county had struck out on its own. Instead of initially requiring that proposed urban uses at the former Napa Pipe property go into the city, the county is exploring developing the property in the unincorporated area as a way of meeting the county’s housing needs.

The county needs to protect its housing options, but the perceived go-it-alone policies of the city and county are not going over well with voters, Dodd said.

“They see potholes. They see congestion issues,” Dodd said. “They’re wondering how can we continue to grow until our infrastructure issues are solved. Others are saying why should we continue to grow at all.”

“I think the citizens deserve better. We need to take a closer look at how we’re growing countywide,” Dodd said.

Supervisor Mark Luce said he nodded in agreement when he read Inman’s comment about a unified growth cap. “That sounds like a good one,” he said in an interview Friday.

Luce said he had been toying with such an idea himself, but had rejected it as too politically difficult. Complex financial issues would have to be sorted out if some jurisdictions absorbed more than their share of housing, but it’s worth a try, he said.

The major causes of resident concern are proposals for 3,200 housing units at Napa Pipe, in the unincorporated area, and city pre-zoning for up to 1,000 units on Ghisletta land along Foster Road, within the city’s Rural Urban Limit.

In addition, the city in 2006 approved 500 units on Gasser Foundation land west of Soscol Avenue, creating the potential for nearly 5,000 new residences in south Napa.

Faced with so much potential development, residents are calling elected officials to express alarm, Napa Councilman Mark van Gorder said. “I think Juliana’s comments are echoing a sentiment that is beginning to grow in the city and the Upvalley, as well,” he said.

If elected leaders want to grapple with growth issues, there are various ways of doing do. Techel suggested that the NCTPA could serve as a forum for exploring ways to cooperate.

Dodd proposed that city and county staffs get together to hash out complex legal and planning issues, then present options to elected officials.

“It will take all of our good heads to work together,” Inman said. Fortunately, the Napa Valley has a “great track record” of dealing with growth pressures, starting with the adoption of the Agricultural Preserve 40 years ago, she said.

Dodd noted that the city and county have time to come up with a shared growth strategy since the Napa Pipe development plan is only in the first stages of analysis and the city has not yet annexed the Ghisletta property.

County policy calls for a 1 percent annual growth rate, or slightly more than 100 units a year, while the city strives for a 1 percent average, which is a little more than 300 units annually.

Both jurisdictions have been living within these goals, but voters want assurances that housing developments won’t explode, Dodd said. “We have to make sure we don’t have an inordinate amount of development in a short time,” he said.

An initiative heading for the June ballot would lock in the county’s 1 percent growth rate, taking it out of the hands of supervisors. When it comes to allaying resident growth concerns, actions will speak louder than words, Techel told Dodd. “I think we have to commit ourselves to great regional planning. That’s the deal,” she said.

This is an election year for many public officials. Dodd, Luce, Techel and van Gorder will all be up for re-election.