After being at loggerheads over development at the former Napa Pipe site for over a year, Napa city and Napa County officials are talking seriously about letting the city take charge of what happens at the 152-acre riverside property.

Under one proposal, Napa would agree to absorb much of the unincorporated area’s mandated housing for the next 21 years, with the county transferring the Napa Pipe site to city jurisdiction.

“The county is interested in getting out of the housing business,” Supervisor Mark Luce said in an interview.

“If the city could provide a way to provide housing for the county, we’re open to anything,” Supervisor Bill Dodd said.

On Tuesday, the Napa City Council hired a consultant to analyze the economic feasibility of Napa shouldering 70 percent of the unincorporated area’s housing obligation.

Over the next 45 days, dk Consulting of Walnut Creek will consider how this housing could fit inside the city’s Rural Urban Limit and the Napa Pipe property, which is currently in the county’s domain.

By the end of November, the city should know if there are any “fatal flaws” in this housing sharing concept, Dana Smith, assistant city manager, said.

The possibility of a breakthrough agreement took shape during private meetings in recent months between two members of the city council and two members of the county board of supervisors.

In the past, Napa city and Napa County agreed that Napa Valley cities should be housing centers, with the county largely reserved for agriculture and open space.

This understanding was sorely tested when a new development group bought Napa Pipe three years ago and proposed 3,200 homes and light industrial development.

Vote ahead?

County supervisors have been processing Napa Development Partners’ development application, saying they needed the Napa Pipe development to meet the county’s regional housing allocation.

City officials have objected to the prospect of the county creating a new urban center at the city’s edge, with possible traffic, water and financial impacts on city residents.

If the city took on most of the county’s housing obligation and Napa Pipe came under the city’s control, the county’s commitment to city-centered urban development would be reaffirmed, Mayor Jill Techel said.

The potential housing agreement is “exciting,” Techel said. “It’s a chance to do the right thing for our city and our valley.”

“I think everybody is just trying to get real,” said Councilwoman Juliana Inman, who participated in the confidential talks with Techel.

Everything at this stage is conceptual, the central players emphasized. There are no specifics about what would happen where, only that the city would accept most of the county’s future housing.

“We all agree on the philosophy. The devil is in the details,” Smith said.

It’s not clear whether Napa Pipe might be annexed to the city, which would require a vote of residents, or simply brought into the city’s sphere of influence, officials said. Those are discussions for another day, they said.

Separately, people have begun talking about shifting the fairgrounds to Napa Pipe, opening up 35 acres near downtown to be developed with housing and other urban uses, the mayor said.

The study by dk Consulting will look at the feasibility of moving the city’s corporation yard on Jackson Street, near the intersection of Lincoln and Soscol avenues, to Napa Pipe.

This kind of creative land-use thinking would keep housing growth at the center of the city, Techel said.

For the developers of Napa Pipe, talk of putting their property under city control is probably “unsettling,” Dodd said. “There is the appearance that the process could change. I don’t think that’s something the developer is real thrilled about.”

Luce, who along with Dodd represented the county in confidential talks, said a change in jurisdiction might work to the developer’s advantage. “They might be able to move along the project more easily in the city than in the county,” he said.

Bringing in the public

Last spring, a developer-financed group, Keep Napa Napa, spent $1.8 million to fight off an initiative that would have killed the plan for 3,200 homes in the unincorporated area. Opponents said they did not want a dense urban development so removed from the center of Napa.

As Inman sees it, Keith Rogal, the managing partner at Napa Redevelopment Partners, might smile on the possibility of city control. “He’s very much into reducing his high risk. City cooperation may reduce the risk,” she said.

Contacted Wednesday afternoon while traveling on the East Coast, Rogal said he was watching developments. “To the extent the county and the city are engaged in cooperative, constructive dialogue, that’s great,” he said.

Talk of moving Napa Valley Exposition or the city’s corporation yard to Napa Pipe are premature, Rogal said. “We have 152 acres. We’ll develop it industrially or we’ll develop it as a mixed-use project. That will really depend on whether the community of Napa finds this the best way to meet county needs,” he said.

City officials stressed that nothing definitive will happen until the city brings the public into the discussion.

“What does the community think this area should be like?” Inman said. “That’s a key unknown.”

If the city and county can agree to cooperate long-term on housing, that would lead to a very public planning process, Smith said.

The Association of Bay Area Governments is requiring the city of Napa to plan for 2,024 housing units between 2007 and 2014. This is less than the city’s historical building average of 300 units annually.

In 1999-2006, the city’s allocation was much higher, 3,369 units.

The county’s allocation for the next seven years is 651 units. The city has already agreed to take 82 of these units.

During the previous housing cycle, the city agreed to take 664 of the county’s much higher allocation of 1,969 units, extracting a cash subsidy in perpetuity from the county for each home built.

The county subsequently decided that it had entered into a bad deal. That’s why supervisors until recently looked at Napa Pipe as a better way to handle its housing problem.

Although the city took on some of the county’s allocation last time, Dodd said the city likely got the same amount of housing growth that it would have received without the deal.

Napa will pay dk Consulting $96,500 for its analysis of housing cooperation between city and county.

While Rogal has been paying for city-county studies of his development application, it wasn’t appropriate to ask him to pay for this, Smith said. “It’s our question,” she said.

Daniel Iacafano of MIG Inc. of Berkeley has been mediating talks between two supervisors and two council members and their staffs. The tab so far is $24,186, rising to $42,810 if 10 three-hour mediation sessions occur. The city and county are splitting this cost.