Critics question St. Helena’s housing policies

2014-04-30T10:37:00Z 2014-04-30T12:53:44Z Critics question St. Helena’s housing policiesJESSE DUARTE and JASON ENRIQUEZ Napa Valley Register
April 30, 2014 10:37 am  • 

A community forum called to discuss St. Helena’s housing policies was dominated by critics who said the city has failed to provide enough affordable housing.

Residents chided the city for not meeting its most recent housing targets, for counting second units as full-fledged housing, and for proposing a list of potential development sites that critics say is unrealistic.

“We’ve had numerous proposals presented for (developing) property in designated areas, but the political will has not been there,” Sandy Ericson said.

The more than 40 people in attendance said the city needs more housing for local employees, farmworkers and seniors, as well as young families who make too much to qualify for subsidized housing but not enough to break into St. Helena’s pricey real estate market.

“I worry that my kids and other family’s kids, will never be able to afford to live in St. Helena,” Mark Smithers said.

Tuesday’s meeting was related to the update of St. Helena’s Housing Element, a state-mandated component of the General Plan.

Unlike the rest of the plan, which has to be updated every 20 years, cities and counties have to adopt a new Housing Element every eight years. Like other Bay Area jurisdictions, the city has until Jan. 31 to adopt a new Housing Element and get it approved by the state.

A major component of the Housing Element is a list of “opportunity sites” demonstrating that the city has enough land that’s appropriately zoned and available for development during the next eight-year cycle, said Christine O’Rourke, who’s overseeing the Housing Element update for the city.

“The city is not required to build any of that housing,” O’Rourke said. “The city is just required to make sure that the zoning is in place and that there aren’t any constraints on the development of that housing.”

The city’s goal is to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Since the 2014-2022 RHNA focuses on providing housing in already urbanized areas, St. Helena’s RHNA is just 31 units, down sharply from 121 units in the last cycle.

Of those 31 units, 18 must be affordable for people making less than 120 percent of the county’s median income of $86,100 for a family of four. Those affordable units are split up into moderate, low and very low income categories.

Second units

In the 2007-2014 cycle, 77 housing units were developed in the city, 64 percent of the city’s RHNA target. But housing advocates criticized the city for counting 43 second units — also known as granny units — toward that total.

Second units, typically one-bedroom or studio-sized, might be adequate for one person or a couple, but not for families, said John Sales of the housing advocacy group Our Town St. Helena.

When the city surveyed owners of second-units, only four of the 13 owners who responded said their second unit was available for rent, Sales said. The others were reserving the space for family members or guests.

“Aren’t we fudging the numbers a little bit when we start including all these personal use studios?” Sales said. “The intent of the law is to produce livable units that people … can rent.”

O’Rourke said the city can’t regulate who lives in second units, or whether they’re occupied at all. In order to count legally toward the city’s RHNA, a second unit only has to be intended for occupancy, she said.

“Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right,” Smithers said.

Josefina Hurtado said she helped tenants of a condemned Pope Street property look for adequate housing, and second units weren’t feasible.

“In reality they are designated for family or individuals that (the owners) care for, and are not really for our community needs,” Hurtado said.

Mary Stephenson, a member of Our Town St. Helena, questioned why the city was taking credit for working with the owner of Woodbridge Apartments to renew the property’s regulatory agreement to continue providing 50 affordable units for the next 30 years.

Those units were already part of the city’s housing stock, so the city didn’t count them toward their last RHNA allocation. But Stephenson questioned why they were even being mentioned alongside new units.

“You’re saying we preserved 50, but we lost 48,” Stephenson said, referring to the rental units that were eliminated to make way for the Grandview hotel project.

Mike Hardy defended the city, saying it had no control over the housing market crash that occurred during the last cycle.

“If the developer … says. ‘I don’t want to build it,’ then what’s the city supposed to do?” Hardy said.

Future housing options

O’Rourke described a few ways the city could work toward its next RHNA target of 18 affordable units, including eight units approved at the previously condemned Pope Street property, eight second units that are part of the second phase of the Magnolia Oaks project, and a possible nine to 12 units at a half-acre lot on McCorkle Avenue purchased by the city last May.

Calistoga Affordable Housing is overseeing the Pope Street project. CAH President Larry Kromann cautioned the city not to depend on the eight units being developed according to the affordability rates the city envisions.

“Right now, it’s almost impossible to make that work financially,” Kromann said.

When asked about the financial feasibility of the McCorkle project, O’Rourke and Interim Planning Director Greg Desmond declined to provide details.

“It’s in process. I can’t tell you anything more than that,” O’Rourke said.

The city also proposed a list of 12 opportunity sites where housing could be developed.

Stephenson questioned the inclusion of a few sites on the east side of town where development is contingent upon street extensions that the council has removed from the latest draft of the General Plan.

Critics also questioned why the list includes vineyards and other sites that aren’t likely to be developed, especially after the City Council added policies to the draft General Plan discouraging the development of agricultural land.

“We have to cease being disingenuous with our opportunity sites,” said Paul Dohring.

Chuck Vondra recommended removing the 17-acre Hunter property, located past the eastern terminus of Adams Street, from the city’s list. The city is processing an application for 87 housing units on the site, but its location behind the new levee makes it unsuitable for housing, Vondra said.

Taking on the liability of allowing construction behind the levee “would be very dangerous,” Vondra said.

Copyright 2015 Napa Valley Register. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(8) Comments

  1. NapaBill
    Report Abuse
    NapaBill - April 30, 2014 9:15 pm
    Problem is developers and hotels get to do what they want add burdens and take housing for locals away. My kids cannt live here now. Places for housing should stay that way.
  2. Flkeys1998
    Report Abuse
    Flkeys1998 - April 30, 2014 11:10 pm
    Couldn't agree more with you RobertGrahm. Vallejo has lots of low income housing available.
  3. Oldtimenapan
    Report Abuse
    Oldtimenapan - May 01, 2014 7:36 am
    St. Helena, who would want to live in such a stuffed shirt community? The housing is inflated to keep the common folks out .
  4. napa1957
    Report Abuse
    napa1957 - May 01, 2014 10:59 am
    Wow St. Helena...we always knew you thought you were better than the rest of us, but golly!
    You are happy to EMPLOY people at barely subsistence wages, but heaven forbid that they might live in your community. After all...they may be druggies, criminals and gang-bangers!
  5. monster
    Report Abuse
    monster - May 01, 2014 12:41 pm
    And I can't afford to live in Palos Verdes estates. I think I'll throw a fit! If I was a gardener there then I should be able to live there, right? Wrong...
  6. fiat lux
    Report Abuse
    fiat lux - May 01, 2014 2:24 pm
    I agree that no community can or should be expected to meet everyone 's housing needs, but it should do its fair share. In addition to the gardener, we are talking about teachers, insurance agents, nurses, police officers, fire fighters, small business owners, newspaper editors and a whole host of employees who should at least have an opportunity for entry level home ownership. Contrary to popular belief, St.Helena is not a plantation.
  7. Mom219
    Report Abuse
    Mom219 - May 01, 2014 5:10 pm
    There are 11 houses under $600,000, most are under 1500 sf. To qualify for this price range a family needs to be earning at least $100,000 w/ out any other debt. That means no car loans, no student loans, nothing. I was just looking at glass door for vineyard annual wages and most are in the 35-60k range. The math just doesn't work for avatar working families. God forbid you have student loan debt so you could get one of those jobs.
  8. fair_is_fair
    Report Abuse
    fair_is_fair - May 04, 2014 9:53 am
    I would like to suggest that the price point most glaringly absent is for those households earning between 70 and 140k. As a resident and active community volunteer with elementary school aged children, the number of homes being owned as second homes by out of town part time "residents", has directly affected the available inventory and volume of homes for sale in the area, thus inflating the average prices of homes beyond the affordability of many full time and active community residents. The net effect is declining enrollment in schools, fewer community volunteers, fewer youth sports coaches and players, fewer school volunteers, fewer full time neighbors, and a diminished community fabric. The only "positive" spun from this would be the "inflated value of a house to be resold", the commissions a realtor would make, and the property tax increase the city would reap. An alternative suggestion is a property tax surcharge for second homes, and a credit to full time residents of SH.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Featured Businesses