Affordable housing advocate David Grabill is back on the scene, this time accusing the city of Napa of violating the law by holding discussions about Napa Pipe in secret.

Grabill — the Santa Rosa lawyer who sued Napa County in 2003 on behalf of tenants — is challenging the Napa City Council to hold discussions related to the possible annexation of the Napa Pipe site publicly and in open session.

City and county officials have held private meetings together to study the proposed mixed-use development at Napa Pipe, located on county land. Because only two officials each from the city and county are participating in the discussions, the meetings are not required to be held in public.

Napa County Supervisors Mark Luce and Bill Dodd represent the county in these so-called “two by two” meetings; Napa Mayor Jill Techel and City Councilwoman Juliana Inman represent the city.

Techel said late last month that the city will offer to take on a large share of the county’s housing requirements if the county agrees to let the city annex the Napa Pipe site. In early October, the council voted to do a 45-day analysis of such an arrangement. The analysis, by dk Consulting, has not been released.

Luce said this week that he doesn’t believe the city will be able to follow through with the proposal, and that the county will proceed as if Napa Pipe will remain under county jurisdiction.

In a letter sent to the city on Thursday, Grabill cited the Brown Act, California’s primary open records law, in demanding that all discussions about trading housing requirements and annexing Napa Pipe take place in open session. In addition to private meetings between the city and county, Grabill suggested that the council is discussing Napa Pipe during closed session under “litigation privilege.”

Techel and Inman were not available for comment on topics discussed during closed session.

However, in a voicemail message to the Register, Techel said the city will present the report by dk Consulting in the next two weeks during an open-session council meeting.

“Making that document available is absolutely no problem,” she said.

Grabill charges that, “The purpose of the Brown Act is plainly frustrated when elected officials deliberate important policy decisions behind closed doors, even if they eventually take formal action in a public session.”

Noting that the city’s action can be deemed invalid if found in violation of the Brown Act, Grabill wrote that, “The city should therefore conduct its deliberations in public, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also to avoid the risk that the city’s actions will ultimately be invalidated by a court.”

“As an advocate for affordable housing in the city and county of Napa,” Grabill continued, “I request public disclosure of the report prepared by dk Consulting immediately upon receipt by the city.

“Further, I request that all future discussions by the council concerning the city’s plans regarding the proposed transfer, as well as regarding Napa Pipe, be conducted in public session, as required by the Brown Act.”

Grabill is the Santa Rosa lawyer who sued Napa County in 2003, forcing the county into expensive housing agreements with the cities of Napa and American Canyon. The lawsuit, DeHaro vs. County of Napa, also prompted the county to zone for high-density housing near Lake Berryessa and the Silverado Resort.

This year, Grabill threatened to sue again if voters approved Measure N, which would have made the county’s 1 percent residential growth rate subject to the will of a majority of voters instead of the majority of the Board of Supervisors. Many local political analysts said voters would prevent the proposed development at Napa Pipe. Measure N was defeated in June.