The Napa County Board of Supervisors found itself between a rock and hard place Tuesday.

The board sent the Responsible Growth Initiative off to the June 3 ballot — in a unanimous vote with Supervisor Diane Dillon absent — even though county leaders are sure the measure will be the subject of expensive litigation if it passes.

“In our role I feel somewhat of an obligation to put this on the ballot,” Supervisor Mark Luce said. “I will let others fight those (litigation) battles. There will be litigation to follow whether we’re supporting or defending.”

If the measure passes, the county will be obliged to defend it from a legal challenge. Luce also referenced advice from County Counsel Robert Westmeyer that the board would get sued — and likely lose — if it failed to place a measure with enough qualifying signatures on the ballot.

The measure seeks to strictly enforce the county’s 1 percent annual cap on residential growth, as well as blocking supervisors from waiving height limits on buildings in the county. The measure would likely doom the proposal for 3,200 townhomes at the former Napa Pipe site.

A spokesman for Keep Napa Napa, a group funded by the developers of the 3,200-home Napa Pipe proposal, said it is unlikely that the measure would face a legal challenge before the voters weigh in this June.

“We don’t have an intention of challenging it going onto the ballot,” Keep Napa Napa campaign manager Nick Caston said. “I think the measure pretty much speaks for itself with how flawed it is.”

James Marshall, a Napa-based attorney who is the self-described originator of the initiative, took issue with a report the county issued last week that poked holes in the measure. Among other criticisms, county consultants’ said the measure would cause the county to lose needed flexibility to meet its state housing mandates.

Marshall said the measure should go before the people. “If the citizens want to give up their rights to make a decision then they shouldn’t be living in a democracy,” he said.

Marshall also said the county’s estimate that it would have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to host special elections to ratify future housing elements — if the measure passed — was a scare tactic. County staff could simply schedule ratifications for general elections, he said, as well as explain any reasonable changes. Voters, he said, would surely support reasonable changes.

“It’s simply a matter of the county advising the citizens of its needs,” Marshall said.