This week I read the agreement between the county and American Canyon concerning American Canyon’s borders and other related issues. I advise anyone who is going to vote on it in American Canyon, and anyone in the county who is concerned about growth issues to take a close look at it. There are some issues that trouble me about it, and I can certainly say that it is a pro growth document.

You can find the documents by clicking here or go to the county Web site, go down the right hand side to agendas and minutes, find Supervisors, and click on documents for the July 1 meeting. Under 10A you will find the related docs.

I have seen a lot of criticism directed at American Canyon that I think is unfair. For instance, at the Napa County growth summit a woman who has to commute to the East Bay for her job lambasted Mayor Leon Garcia to his face about the new traffic lights. I wonder if it occurred to her that most of the traffic is regional, like her being from outside American Canyon, and that people who live in American Canyon need to be able to cross 29 to live their lives as well.

My view is that a lot of the conflict that has existed between American Canyon and the rest of the county comes down to the fact that American Canyon has wanted to grow quickly, and the rest of the county wants slow growth. This has created a tension that underlies a lot of the battles, including the traffic light issue. The lights are seen as an impediment to traffic by those from outside American Canyon, which they are. Inside the city they are seen as an aide to removing the impediment to getting through traffic, which they are as well. Therein lies the conflict.

One community activist in AmCan was telling me of her frustrations with the county, saying that they only gave them three square miles to grow in. I pointed out that Yountville is also three square miles and never seemed to have any problem with it. The difference is that Yountville does not want to grow larger, and American Canyon does. There is nothing inherently wrong with either position, it is just a statement of what a community sees as its particular destiny.

When I look at this proposed agreement between the County and American Canyon, I don’t see that. For one thing, they are going to acquire about 300 acres of industrially zoned property just south of the Airport. One of their arguments is that the County was allowing industry in there anyway, so I guess they want the money from that. Well, OK, at the least that should satisfy those who say we need the 155 acres at Napa Pipe for industry. Now you have double that. That is going to be very growth inducing.

What concerns me the most though is something that is hardly mentioned in the document, but shows itself more on looking at the map. The whole east side of American Canyon, which is now hills and open space, has been included in the new Urban Limit Line (ULL). Not only that, but the agreement includes an agreement to annex that land into the city as the city desires in the future, is my reading of what it says.

What does this mean? A ULL is a Napa invention, and what it means is that it is the line that a city is intended to grow out to. Urban Limit Line, the limit where a city is supposed to end, and open space, and in Napa usually agriculture, begins.

A ULL can also be looked at in the opposite way, namely that here is open space that we are now going to take out of open space, out of the unincorporated county, and develop. Putting land inside the ULL is the first step in development. This is a long term plan to increase the size of the city of American Canyon, and to my eyes a considerable amount.

I find myself wondering, do people in American Canyon really want this much growth? Do they realize what they are signing up for? That property could hold thousands of housing units, way more than Napa Pipe ever will.

Perhaps they do, and if so, well OK. Personally, I would like to see growth slow down there. American Canyon already has water issues, and they of all the localities in the county depend the most on a now threatened state water supply.

If the November transportation sales tax passes, one of the congestion relief projects should bring help to traffic along 29 there, which will be welcomed by many. But a lot more building is going to mean a lot more traffic, any way you slice it.

I would love to hear comments from American Canyonites about their views on this, and if they are aware of what is involved in the new ULL. And I hope that before they vote, they do a careful evaluation of what this new MOU means for them and whether it is indeed something that they want.

Michael Haley is president of the Napa Valley Taxpayers Alliance. He writes a weekly blog for napavalleyregister.com. He can be reached at napaeagle@hughes.net