New homes for Napans only?

Supervisors unveil Luce's workforce housing plan

By JILLIAN JONES
Register Staff Writer

Napa County supervisors unveiled a controversial proposal recently to require that some new homes be set aside for local workers.

Seeking to address imbalances that have more than a quarter of local workers living in neighboring counties, Napa County Supervisor Mark Luce spearheaded a two-year effort to craft a workforce housing law that he hopes will remove traffic from the roads and pollutants from the air while giving locals a better shot at buying a home in Napa County.

Critics of the measure say it undermines the home-buying market and that similar plans have failed elsewhere.

As currently proposed, the ordinance would place a deed restriction on 20 percent of all new homes as inclusionary affordable housing — meaning they would be available only to those who earn 50 to 120 percent of median income — with a preference for local employees. Thirty percent of homes would be sold at market-rate, but would be deed-restricted as workforce housing, meaning they could only be sold to members of the local workforce.

Households with at least one person who is employed full-time in Napa County or within 10 miles of the development would qualify. Occupants would not be affected if they changed jobs or retired.

In an alternate scenario also before supervisors, a higher percentage of new market-rate homes would be deed restricted as workforce housing. Under that proposal, only the first sale of the home would have to be to a member of the local workforce. Subsequent sales would be unrestricted after six months.

If passed in Napa County, a workforce housing ordinance would affect only land unincorporated county land.

“Cities would have to adopt their own (laws) if they were interested,” Luce said.

‘Very concerned’

American Canyon already has an inclusionary housing policy in place that affects about 180 units, most of which are apartments. The policy gives preference to workers in American Canyon, veterans, and American Canyon residents looking to relocate within the city. But American Canyon City Manager Richard Ramirez said the countywide ordinance before supervisors “goes significantly further than our preference policy.”

Critics of the workforce housing proposal have expressed concern over the legality of such an ordinance, as well as its viability during the current fiscal crisis.

“A preference system for inclusionary units is very concerning to us,” Michael Strong of the North Bay Association of Realtors wrote in a letter to the Napa County Board of Supervisors. “We have found, in other jurisdictions, that preference systems are not performing well in a down market cycle.”

In a letter from the Napa County Farm Bureau, President Peter Nissen said he would not support an ordinance that did not specifically exempt remote areas of the county and agricultural land.

Meanwhile, developer Keith Rogal has proposed a development agreement that could circumvent these and other potential complications. Rogal, who is proposing the development of 3,200 residential units at Napa Pipe, suggested the county forego a countywide ordinance in favor of a development agreement only at Napa Pipe.

“By doing things in the framework of a development agreement, it keeps it an absolutely site-specific, one-time, unique solution to a county problem, and it avoids the potential risk of an ordinance,” Rogal said.

The workforce housing proposal was in part inspired by the prospect of so many homes on Napa Pipe property. Luce has said he wants to find a way to guarantee that the proposed Napa Pipe development helps Napa County solve the county’s thorny housing problems. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission projects that by 2030, at least 32 percent of Napa County’s anticipated 80,000 jobs will be held by workers commuting from out of county.

Rogal said a development agreement “is a way to deal with a unique situation and to define it timely and focus on the specific circumstances at hand.”

In the event that the Napa Pipe site is sold, Rogal said any development agreement in place would be binding on the new owner.

Supervisors agreed to explore a development agreement with Napa Pipe while also forming a stakeholders committee to discuss a countywide ordinance.

Luce said he invites all interested organizations to join the stakeholders committee, including the Farm Bureau, North Bay Realtors, Triad Communities and Save Rural Angwin — the latter two have interests in the proposed development of the Angwin eco-village. Pacific Union College’s proposed eco-village in Angwin is on county land and could be affected by a workforce housing ordinance.

As far as a site-specific agreement goes, Luce said the county “will cross the bridge when we come to it.” For the time being, he said discussions will proceed as if the county is pursuing a countywide law.

Meetings are expected to begin in the coming weeks, he said, and Luce said he hopes to have more information to the Board of Supervisors within the next few months.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated when supervisors made the proposal.

Napa Valley Register Copyright © 2009