Napa County and its cities are doing less than half of what they could to prepare for a predicted 1 million new Bay Area residents by 2020.

That's the conclusion drawn from a survey done by the Greenbelt Alliance, a group dedicated to protecting the region's greenbelt and improving the livability of its cities and towns.

But Hillary Gitelman, Napa County's planning director, says there is something "gravely amiss" in the methodology used by the organization.

"If it's done right, new growth can make the Bay Area a better place to live," said Tom Steinbach, Greenbelt Alliance's executive director, "but right now, the region doesn't have the policies in place to make sure that happens."

Gitelman responded, "I think a review of the county's general plan and zoning ordinance will reveal aggressive policies to protect agricultural land and (to) direct growth into existing urban areas."

Gitelman said that apparently the lack of an open space district in Napa County led to the low rating, but she notes the county is working to remedy that, with the issue slated to appear on the November ballot.

"We don't (just) have polices supporting smart growth," she said, "we have actually done it here for generations."

Carey Knecht, the Greenbelt Alliance's policy research director, said the group understands and appreciates the efforts made by Napa County, but their analysis was based on written policies and realities, not the political will of an agency. Knecht said the Alliance applauds the Napa effort to make a parks and open space district a reality.

Napa County received an overall "Smart Growth Policy Score" of 41 percent thanks mostly to an impressive 90 percent score in growth management policies, the highest in the Bay Area.

It also fared well in conservation planning policies at 65 percent, again, the area's best score.

But a zero score for open space protection and transportation choices and a 50 percent score in agricultural zoning policies led to the less-than-impressive overall rating.

As for Napa's neighbors, Solano County was rated by the land preservation group at 39 percent, and Sonoma at 46 percent.

The cities of Napa County varied greatly with Napa ranked as third best of the Bay Area's 110 cities. Only Petaluma and San Jose garnered better scores.

The city of Napa's 100 percent ranking in growth boundaries and mixed use development helped bring its scores up along with park proximity and affordable housing policies. Napa ranked only 38 percent in development density policy.

American Canyon was at the bottom of Napa County's list with an overall score of 24 percent, seventy-third in the Bay Area. It did cop a 100 percent in mixed use development policies.

The Greenbelt Alliance said its smart growth scorecard measured policies, not on-the-ground reality. "Political will is also important to achieving smart growth, as it ensures that good policies translate into good development," the executive summary of the report concluded. "The scorecard does not measure political will ... it evaluates only policies, which create the framework to make smart growth possible."

The Greenbelt Alliance played a major role in defeating Measure A, the Fair Pay for Public Benefit Act, in the June election. The plan put forth by the Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance would have provided compensation for property owners whose land values were diminished by county land use action.

The Greenbelt group also supported Measure H, the transportation sales tax that failed.

Gitelman said many view the Greenbelt Alliance as being in sync with Napa County's values and practices, but, "In the future, we would appreciate your help and support -- something your scorecard fails to deliver."