The long awaited meeting where Mark Luce returned to cast his vote on the fate of the PUC eco-village turned in a new direction yesterday with Luce's compromise plan. Saddled by a map displayed for the public that was impossible to read, Luce laid out his plan. With PD and RR's and PI's flying, the often lively and even angry discourse amongst the Supervisors was difficult to follow.

 

In the end it appears the plan -- with three yes votes and two no -- is to change much of the urban residential zone to an institutional development only zone (PI). The land where the proposed eco-village is to be built if approved remains in a developable zone for now, but if the project gets tanked in the planning process then that land reverts to institutional only.

 

I read that PUC was happy with this because it still allows them to go forward with the eco-village ... but if I were them I would watch out. I believe the intention is to tank the eco-village in planning now, then they will be stuck with all institutional property which would preclude doing anything with their land for a profit.

 

Both Diane Dillon and Bill Dodd appeared pretty angry at the end of the meeting.

Dillon is angry because she doesn't even want to allow institutional zoning, but wants to shut down all development altogether.

Dodd was angry because he feels like Luce's plan is a "bait and switch,” pretend to offer them a shot at the eco-village, shut it down and in the meantime they have agreed to also give up all the other property they own to development and end up with nothing.

 

My mind turns to where are we going with all this? What is the future of Napa if this continual refusal to allow any housing development or other development continues?

 

After a break, the room cleared and only a few hard cores like myself and Carol Kunze of the Sierra Club were left. Yet a vitally important second piece of land use decision making occurred, a large chunk of property in Pope Valley where the owner hoped to develop some housing, about 100 homes.

 

The planning commission had recommended downzoning the parcel to rural residential (RR), meaning that one house per 10 acres could be built, meaning only 14 homes. All but Dodd weighed in and said they favored just stripping the property owner of any development rights at all, and returning the land to agriculture. It was noted that it was not suitable for grapes, but Keith Caldwell said they could do cattle grazing such that there was still some agricultural use left.

 

Combine this with the decision on Lake Luciana, throw in the strong opposition to Napa Pipe, and where we are going is to stop all development in the unincorporated county, even on land that is not suitable for grape growing and that is now zoned for other uses. It appears that many if not most people want this.

 

Aside from the obvious, destroying the value of the property for the person who owns it and robbing them of a lot of money, what are the consequences for the county and the future of Napa? Where is the vision?

 

It seems to me that where this leads no one knows for sure, but one thing is that the unincorporated county will only have McMansions and more wineries/vineyards, as that is all that is allowed. There will be more pressure then to develop both, and that is a very unbalanced plan.

 

Since the cities are mostly built out, property values are going to spiral upward again with the lack of housing, even if we build some token affordable apartment buildings here and there. Forget about your children living here, we are well on our way to a wealthy retirement community already, and that pattern will continue to strengthen.

 

Most of the people arguing for ending development don't care about what happens to the individual property owners, so it is not an issue for them that someone could lose some money or an investment. But there is a psychological damage that is done to people as well, it is not just all about the money.

 

And the justification for taking people's property rights away is that the needs of the larger community take precedence. There is no doubt that sometimes that is true, but look at what needs we are saying take precedence here. The need to build McMansions and more vineyards? Is that the pressing need, or is it more a need to build housing where people who work here can live and get traffic off the road?

 

I have been impressed recently with the city of Napa's efforts to create a vision for itself, but there is a clear lack of vision with the County and it is not integrated with Napa's plans. What happened to the growth summit we were supposed to have? Where are we going?

Michael Haley is president of the Napa County Taxpayers Alliance. He writes on local, state and national issues. He can be reached at napaeagle@hughes.net.