Napa City Council to weigh Foster Road zoning as general plan process nears end | Local News | #citycouncil

Much of the general plan is apparently settled after years of edits and debate. But the City Council will need to weigh two long-requested major changes recommended by the city’s Planning Commission on Sept. 1, one of which would likely trigger a legal challenge should the City Council move forward with it.

The recommendation in question — also requested by several public commenters at multiple public meetings — is to change the zoning of the undeveloped 144-acre area near Foster Road and Golden Gate Drive, west of Highway 29, to a greenbelt. That would effectively block large-scale development by limiting housing development to one unit per 20 acres. The area is currently identified in the draft general plan as a spot for future housing.

Napa attorney Kevin Teague, of the Holman Teague Roche Anglin law firm, sent city attorney Michael Barrett a letter Sept. 9 on behalf of the Ghisletta family — which owns land in the Foster Road area that once hosted a dairy farm — saying that proceeding with the Foster Road recommendation could open the city up to significant legal liability, and would clash with the city’s own policy direction.

Teague specifically cites California’s Housing Crisis Act of 2019, arguing that the commission recommendation directly violates the law’s “prohibition on any net loss in residential capacity.” He also cites California’s Housing Element Law, saying it would place the city in “legal jeopardy by failing to adequately identify housing sites.”

California is in the midst of a housing shortage, which has led the state to take such steps as setting a goal of building 2.5 million new homes by 2030. That effort includes increasing pressure on cities to plan for more housing.

For example, the state last month announced it would be performing a comprehensive review of San Francisco’s housing policies and procedures given its very low rate of approving housing construction, among other reasons. Should the city not receive state approval for its housing element, it risks losing billions in state affordable housing funds, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. 

In the letter, Teague additionally cites the U.S. and California constitutions, saying the curb on home construction near Foster Road would violate prohibitions on taking private property for public use without just compensation along with causing the deprivation of civil rights, among other reasons.

“The Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council would expose the City to liability from actions by the State Attorney General, private citizens, housing interest groups and affected property owners,” Teague wrote in the letter. “Please let me know if you would like to discuss these items further. This may be unnecessary as the family has confidence that the City Council understands these matters far better than the Planning Commission and would not support such extreme policy and legal errors.”

Teague also notes that the commission moved forward with the recommendation despite a half-century of city and community planning to maintain the site as a housing reserve, and the roughly four years of planning that’s gone into the general plan update.

The Napa City Council did indeed meet to discuss the “significant exposure to litigation in one potential case” during a closed session on Thursday, but no reportable action was taken.

The other major Planning Commission recommendation was that a long-controversial plan to extend Linda Vista Avenue on a bridge over the Napa Creek should be removed from the general plan altogether. Multiple previous attempts to carry out that project have been shot down by the City Council after community outcry rose against the proposals, though city staff members have argued the extension would improve emergency response times and increase connectivity.

Several edits, suggested by both the city’s Planning Commission and members of the public, have already been folded into the plan since it was first opened for public review in February. Such changes include, for example, an added goal to limit the expansion of gas stations and strengthened language in the climate change and sustainability element, among much else.

The council is also being asked to certify the environmental impact report for the general plan, required by the California Environmental Quality Act to consider the potential adverse impacts projects identified by the general plan would have, at the Tuesday meeting.