County reworks housing plan

Supervisors pull back on rezoning Napa Pipe

By JILLIAN JONES
Register Staff Writer

The Napa County Board of Supervisors agreed to make major, last-minute changes to the county’s long-term housing plan Tuesday in an attempt to allay fears over what might be perceived as the fast-tracking of Napa Pipe.

The county now plans to include only about 300 homes at the Napa Pipe site in its Housing Element — a document that outlines where state-mandated affordable housing can be built in unincorporated Napa County. Until Tuesday, the county’s plan included 850 homes at Napa Pipe, about one-third of the 2,600 homes proposed.

The change came after slow-growth activists erupted earlier this month when Napa County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman announced that by including a portion of the Napa Pipe site in its housing strategy, the county would be obligated to rezone part of the south county site for residential use. The Napa Pipe is zoned industrial.

Supervisors agreed Tuesday to go back to the drawing board with a proposal from the city of Napa, which would include only about 300 homes at Napa Pipe.

This proposal allows for the minimum number of affordable housing units required by the state, Gitelman said. It takes into account additional sites in Angwin, Spanish Flat and Moskowite Corner, but it eliminates the buffer of several hundred additional units deliberately built into the Housing Element in case the state should reject one or more sites.

Gitelman said county staff will present the modified housing plan to the Napa County Planning Commission in May and to the Board of Supervisors in June. The deadline to submit the Housing Element to the state is June 30.

On Tuesday, Supervisor Diane Dillon called the changes “the only viable option before us.” She said that while she firmly believes that the county must include some units at Napa Pipe to meet state requirements, she supports including only the minimum.

Supervisor Mark Luce expressed concerns about the city’s proposal, fearing that the state might not find that each of the housing sites are viable options for affordable housing. Including only 300 units at Napa Pipe “isn’t going to get us there, but I guess there’s no harm in trying,” Luce said.

Bill Dodd was the only supervisor to argue explicitly against the city’s proposal. Dodd said the state might reject the county’s Housing Element as providing an insufficient number of affordable homes or that the county could open itself up to lawsuits, such as the one that hamstrung the county in 2003, Deharo vs. Napa County.

On Tuesday, all supervisors expressed an interest in resuming previously failed negotiations with the city about who should have jurisdiction over Napa Pipe. They agreed, however, that it is too late to reach an agreement before June, when both the city and county must submit their housing plans to the state for approval.

About 20 speakers turned out for the hearing on Tuesday, many of whom spoke in favor of the Napa Pipe proposal.

Several mentioned that the Napa Pipe proposal, which includes relatively small townhomes in six- and seven-story buildings, would benefit young people who otherwise might not be able to afford to own a home here. Others stressed the need for affordable housing in Napa County.

Members of Get a Grip on Growth argued against including any Napa Pipe land in the county’s housing plan, as did a representative from the Napa County Farm Bureau.

David Grabill, the lawyer who filed the DeHaro suit, warned supervisors that they would be opening themselves up to litigation by including a reduced number of units at Napa Pipe in the housing plan. He argued that housing at Spanish Flat and Moskowite Corner would be impossible to build, and that the Angwin site is questionable, as well. The 300 homes at Napa Pipe would fail to make up the shortfall, he said.

“We don’t want to begin litigation, and you don’t, either,” Grabill said.

Developer Keith Rogal, head of Napa Redevelopment Partners — which paid $40 million for the Napa Pipe property a few years ago and has proposed 2,600 homes, as well as parks, retail and industrial spaces — warned that a plan for fewer homes at Napa Pipe is not economically viable. He said that while his proposal should not be considered by the county until environmental studies are completed later this year, that supervisors should know that he will not develop a mere 350, or even 850, units on the property.

Napa Valley Register Copyright © 2009