|
New homes for Napans only?
Supervisors unveil Luce's workforce housing plan
Share
Email
Print
CommentNapa 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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Join the conversation
Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
|
|
mikeb wrote on Oct 1, 2008 7:54 AM:
Dwayne wrote on Oct 1, 2008 8:32 AM:
ECHO wrote on Oct 1, 2008 8:50 AM:
By housing more people from other counties in Napa where will these people shop? Napa does not provide much in variety as for as consumers needs. Two Targets, soon to be three Longs, Walmart and a variety of outlet stores that most locals don't frequent.
When is the City/County going to realize all the lost revenue that our consumers are lining other counties with and provide Napans with some decent consumer choices?
Maybe they could turn Dey Labs into a mall??????? "
antipc wrote on Oct 1, 2008 8:56 AM:
BKF wrote on Oct 1, 2008 8:59 AM:
Sure, we can learn from history, but history has only gotten us to our current situation (which we can probably agree is not a positive thing). It requires change and innovation in order to make a difference. Don't we want something different?
Simply complaining will not get us what we want. Make some rational arguments (and no, citing a lack of historical evidence is not sufficient). Take some action. Whining in the form of a NVR comment is hopeless. "
ping wrote on Oct 1, 2008 9:33 AM:
musikluvr wrote on Oct 1, 2008 9:36 AM:
Rogal is worried! He wants a special law for him and Napa Pipe. What's good for the rest of the county is a threat to his development. "Keep Napa Napa" sure knows how to get what it wants to "Develop Napa Develop. "
jt wrote on Oct 1, 2008 10:13 AM:
ladies and gentleman we have some sharks in the room. "
John Richards wrote on Oct 1, 2008 10:34 AM:
cameltoedoc wrote on Oct 1, 2008 10:52 AM:
Econut wrote on Oct 1, 2008 11:02 AM:
Sharon wrote on Oct 1, 2008 11:59 AM:
4gnapan wrote on Oct 1, 2008 12:37 PM:
what if we're born here, raised here, heck, a 4th generation of such, and work in SF, or heck, even Sonoma ??.. utter stupidity. This does nothing for any true "local".
this is just another form of discrimination. "
Listening wrote on Oct 1, 2008 12:50 PM:
napadad wrote on Oct 1, 2008 1:09 PM:
markluce wrote on Oct 1, 2008 2:21 PM:
The goal is to increase the availability of housing for people who work in or near Napa County and reduce commute distances. The principal objectives of such a program would be:
a. to decrease vehicle miles travelled by people who work in the County and commute to their jobs from other
locations;
b. to decrease traffic congestion in the peak commute hours;
c. to decrease hourly and daily emissions of criteria pollutants known to have adverse effects on human
health;
d. to decrease green house gas emissions that contribute to global climate change;
e. to ensure that emergency personnel and other members of the County workforce are available to respond
effectively in the event of a natural disaster and can hasten the County's economic recovery; and
f. to ensure that the County's workforce feels connected or "invested" in the local community they serve.
We are meeting on Oct 23 with all interested stakeholder to see how to best accomplish these goals. Any ordinance would be subject to
public notification and public hearings prior to any formal action. "
Dwayne wrote on Oct 1, 2008 3:36 PM:
I am surprised at your socialist principles, and you have lost my vote and support... Your proposal is not the foundation that this great country was built upon... You must have visited Russia recently and were impressed at what you saw...??? We won't allow you to take us down that road...!!! "
maya wrote on Oct 1, 2008 4:20 PM:
My only concern is that the people who work here can't afford the homes anyways. The traffic and gas savings make this a smart move. "
chunk wrote on Oct 1, 2008 4:31 PM:
savenapa wrote on Oct 1, 2008 4:51 PM:
Dwayne wrote on Oct 1, 2008 6:17 PM:
The more I think about it, the more aggravated I get about what you propose... What you suggest is exactly the same kind of thinking that got us into the mess the past few weeks (years)...
Haven't you been paying attention...??? People have no "right" to own a home... They have to earn it, despite what Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have done to our economy...
I cannot believe you are the same guy I admired.... "
Annabella wrote on Oct 1, 2008 6:19 PM:
bob2 wrote on Oct 1, 2008 8:24 PM:
Baraki wrote on Oct 1, 2008 8:34 PM:
109823 wrote on Oct 1, 2008 8:57 PM:
Todd Adams wrote on Oct 1, 2008 9:08 PM:
The concerns about the impact of this program are valid, but I think that some of the commentors should consider the costs of having an external workforce. These costs include more traffic, more wear and tear on the roads, and of course the cost of widening Jameson Canyon. These are significant costs which could be mitigated by making it more affordable for workers to live in the County where they work. I hope that the BOS can come up with a fair, equitable, and effective way to address this issue. Good luck! "
vocal-de-local wrote on Oct 1, 2008 10:19 PM:
Two bdrm condos should be allowed a maximum of four occupants and be strictly enforced. If someone takes a job outside of Napa County, they can finish their one year lease but will be required to move out so that someone who works within the county can move in. This will keep the local housing pool strong for local workers without crowding.
"for sale" housing will be too expensive, even at a 20% reduction, for middle income families. There are fewer numbers of middle income people WORKING in Napa County today and it's not practical to establish "for sale" workforce housing for such a limited population who undoubtedly are decreasing.
Most workers in Napa County are going to be service industry employees. They cannot afford "for sale" housing but can afford to pay rent. What Napa County is becoming, and the nature of our future workforce must be evaluated before initiating workforce housing laws which may have legal implications and only serve a very small group of middle class. Is it worth it?
The distance qualification should be replaced with a county qualification. The only two employers in Angwin, for example, are St. Helena Hospital and Pacific Union College. If someone works in Calistoga or even certain areas of St. Helena, they would not qualify. Most employees of these institutes would not be able to afford "for sale" housing, even at 20% off without a substantial down payment. Also, the nature of these two institutions is religious. Limiting workforce housing primarily to employees who work for these institutions might be viewed as discriminatory. "
wowquebonita wrote on Oct 1, 2008 10:23 PM:
TheWholeTruth wrote on Oct 2, 2008 12:01 AM:
I smell Napa Redevelopment Partner's money stamped all over this thinly veiled excuse to add a new city to Napa County, drive existing housing inventory values even further down, relocate higher paying industrial jobs out of town and fill the pockets of the backers of our now “resident” greedy real estate developers.
Nice try Mark....Won't work to help Napa workers, but sure may become a really neat political ploy to aid the developers and their plan to plug up south valley with another 8,000 residents, their cars, trucks, children needing new schools, increased water needs, police and fire demands, ect., ect..
Why don't we start first with some infrastructure improvements like an ungridlocked highway 29, a four lane Jamison Canyon Road, a whole new highway 80 through Fairfield, and some possible route to highway 37 through American Canyon. How many of you bloggers tried to leave Napa at 5:00? Do you really think a few deed restrictions on thousands of new residential structures will unclog these arteries?
O.K., maybe a 12 step program to control the Rogal propaganda addictions looming after the measure N opposition-purchase of Napa County, which relocated Napa Valley voters to curbside on the Napa Pipe Development plan issue, may help clear the heads of these poor souls.
Guess those that voted against N to allow our supervisors to protect us from massive over-development don’t have Mark Luce to protect them. Sad. I think I sense the perfect storm of development inundation in south county. Tropical Development Depression Luce-Rogal?
Board up your windows, especially on all those, vacant post-foreclosure houses you can’t sell. I know, put deed restrictions on homes after foreclosure. This will certainly help sell them to local hospitality workers. Help us! "
musikluvr wrote on Oct 2, 2008 10:04 PM:
If you want to buy a house now is the time to do it or stop your bellyaching. "
someguyinnapa wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:09 AM:
"Haven't you been paying attention...??? People have no "right" to own a home... They have to earn it, despite what Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have done to our economy..."
really? G-Dubya didn't take care of his responsibilty to effectively govern our econmy by sending thousands of our young men and women off to die in a country (IRAQ) that we never should have been in in the first place? I know! I was there the first time under dub-ya's dad's command! And today the $700 BILLION; yes BILLION bailout was approved... free market indeed....
this new locals only plan still stinks like a pipe; a sewer pipe near the river....
and musicluvr....
that is easy for you to say in your sweet convertable and North Napa Neighborhood house on a block of houses that don't fit the rest.... why your neighbor's house just 4 houses away from you is asking a ridiculous 1mil for his house.... AND IT SITS RIGHT ON SALVADOR! What a joke.... Have you ever even been to Westwood? Or do you just use Google maps? That neighbor hood is SOOOOO bad that google maps won't even take pictures for their street view app. Get a clue!
And Bel Aire is turning into the rest of Napa as more and more illegals deteriorate the neighborhood. I grew up on Shasta ave in the 70s and 80s and now Tallac, Beckworth, Diablo, are all becoming run down.
What ever happened to Bel Aire Bowl??? "
geostationary orbit wrote on Oct 3, 2008 2:16 PM:
— United States Declaration of Independence
So from up here it looks like, as legal citizens of this coutry, Yes, Dwayne we do have the right to own a home at a fair price. "
anticommie wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:02 AM:
People have a right to own a home that is for sure. But not ALL people can afford them, and I sure dont want to help anyone but my own family to own one. I could care less who buys a house in Napa, just make sure you can afford you mortgage. "
steph wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:22 AM:
That's quite a stretch.
And, no, ya DON'T have that right unless you have the cash to pay for it.
Try using your line at a bank. You still won't have a house. "
geostationary orbit wrote on Oct 4, 2008 12:09 PM:
Of course you need the money and the ability to pay for your mortgage.
Geez, even eye can see that from way up here!
damn 1s and ls! "
LMW wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:56 AM: