Register says Lawsuit led to better housing plan

Decade-old lawsuit led to better housing plan

Napa Valley Register editorial | Posted: Sunday, July 3, 2011 12:00 am

The bedrock principle on which the Napa Valley has flourished both economically and culturally in the last half-century has centered on protecting its agriculture. But safeguarding land against development doesn’t excuse the county or its cities from state-mandated housing obligations.

That delicate balance between ag preservation and new housing requirements makes for some difficult planning challenges. Every choice is thoroughly scrutinized not just locally, but by litigious affordable housing advocates.

When Napa Superior Court Judge Ray Guadagni ruled in June that the county’s housing plan complied with California state law — in response to a challenge by attorney David Grabill, representing Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano — it showed that the county is, in fact, balancing its goals well.

“We were relieved,” County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman said. “One of the frustrating things for me is that we spent all this time and energy and money debating the finer points of the law when we could have been spending all of that time, energy and money on providing affordable housing.”

Litigation may be the enemy of progress now, but it was also likely the original catalyst for the county’s current, more progressive, look at its housing needs.

Almost a decade ago, Latinos Unidos and Grabill first sued the county over its housing plans after the county’s Housing Element lost units to the incorporation of American Canyon. Expensive deals between the county and the cities of Napa and American Canyon — but not much housing — were the result.

That lawsuit may have been the foundation for the county’s subregional housing alliance, which has brought the county and its municipalities together to share future housing allocations from the Association of Bay Area Governments. Housing numbers will now be given to Napa County and its municipalities  to distribute in a way that makes more planning sense for the entire region.

“It would be fair to say that there was sort of a head-in-the-sand attitude toward housing in the county prior to that first lawsuit,” said Larry Florin, the county’s housing director. “It certainly has evolved into us thinking more proactively about how we deal with it.”

That evolution has grown to include consideration for state legislation like Senate Bill 375 and Assembly Bill 32, which called for future development to be near a city’s transportation network  to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.

And development dollars can go a lot further when, for example, affordable housing incentives come from both county and city sources, as evidenced with the recent contributions to the Alexander Crossing proposal in the city of Napa.

Napa County has righted its housing plans in the last decade and made a real attempt at meeting our ever-changing housing needs.

The county’s actions have demonstrated an interest in doing more than just meeting a planning obligation.

Hopefully, livable affordable housing units will follow soon.

For some Napans, “ag preserve” will forever mean “no more houses anywhere in Napa County.”

But that’s not the law, and that’s not the county’s approach to the future.