Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Lawsuit may delay Alexander Crossing apartments
CHANTAL M. LOVELL - Napa Valley Register Monday, September 18, 2011
A pending lawsuit will likely delay construction of 134 new apartments in southeast Napa, but it is too soon to tell for how long.
St. Anton Partners received City Council approval in August to build the Alexander Crossing apartments at 190 Silverado Trail. The Sacramento-based developer had planned to break ground later this year or early next, depending on weather, said Robert Lawler, a project manager.
That schedule is now up in the air following the filing of a lawsuit on Aug. 31 by neighbor Debra Phairas and the Neighbors Against Alexander Crossings, an unincorporated association.
The suit asks the court to prevent St. Anton from “engaging in any physical construction or pre-construction activities” related to the apartment construction while the case is pending.
“We’re still in the process of getting our permits,” Lawler said. It’s too soon to tell how long construction could be delayed as a result of the lawsuit, he said.
Lawler said St. Anton Partners has hired a land-use attorney to help it defend against allegations that include the assertion that the site is zoned for single-family residences.
St. Anton Partners is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with the city of Napa, the City Council and property owner ZR Gateway LLC.
City attorney Michael Barrett said the city is preparing its defense, including a record of the process by which the apartments were approved.
“In general, the court will hear the substance of each party’s position within approximately 9 to 12 months,” he wrote in an email.
In the meantime, Lawler said the developer will continue to seek permits as planned. If a judge does order them to stop all work, or prevents construction from beginning, he is unsure whether the apartments will be ready for occupancy by the spring of 2013, its original estimated date of completion.
Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano, a group that advocates for affordable housing, said the legal challenge further delays people who need affordably- to moderately-priced housing from moving to the city in which they work.
“Alexander Crossing would provide some moderate-income units, and of those 134, 27 would be affordable to low- and very-low-income residents,” said David Grabill, a Santa Rosa attorney who represents the group. Latinos Unidos has previously sued the city and county over lack of affordable housing.
“Right now, one-third of the people who work in Napa County commute from other counties. Most of those people find housing in Napa too expensive. A lot of those people would be interested in Alexander Crossing,” Grabill said.
“Napa has a long way to go to meet its affordable housing needs,” he said. “(Alexander Crossing) is a drop in the bucket, but it’s a drop which is better than no drop. We’re sad the neighbors filed this.”
Napa’s housing manager, Jan Maurer-Watkins, said all new developments are required to make at least 10 percent of their units affordable to people who make 50 percent or less of the area’s median income or pay a fee to contribute to future affordable housing projects.
While the 27 promised affordable units at Alexander Crossing are needed, so are the market-rate apartments, she said.
“There’s more of a demand for rental housing right now because of the foreclosures that have happened over the past years,” she said. “By this project not going through, this would impact the ability of a whole range of Napa residents from finding residences that are affordable to them.”
The neighbors’ attorney, Allan C. Moore, of Danville, said the case is not about preventing apartments from being built or delaying a partially affordable housing project. He said the neighbors behind the suit just want to make sure laws are followed.
“We do not oppose any affordable units, but we do want good government,” Moore said.
The primary issue is whether zoning laws were followed, Moore said. The neighbors allege in the complaint that “a significant portion” of the project is zoned for single-family use, therefore an apartment complex may not be built there.
“I think everybody should care about this,” Moore said. “The multiple-family use was approved in a place that only allows single-family use. ... The general public should always be concerned that the city only approve uses allowed in that zoning.”
Moore equated the alleged wrongdoing with allowing a gas station to be constructed in the heart of a residential area.
The case also accuses the city and other defendants of misleading the public by listing the wrong Assessor’s Parcel Numbers in documents, and failing to do a full environmental impact report.
Grabill said he fears that this type of opposition to new housing projects will deter others from trying to build in Napa. “It’s a red flag to other developers to stay away,” he said.
“We remain committed to the project and we are going to defend it,” Lawler said.
Read more: http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/lawsuit-may-delay-alexander-crossing-apartments/article_4bafbbfe-e271-11e0-8e4a-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1YMwpcFF3
A pending lawsuit will likely delay construction of 134 new apartments in southeast Napa, but it is too soon to tell for how long.
St. Anton Partners received City Council approval in August to build the Alexander Crossing apartments at 190 Silverado Trail. The Sacramento-based developer had planned to break ground later this year or early next, depending on weather, said Robert Lawler, a project manager.
That schedule is now up in the air following the filing of a lawsuit on Aug. 31 by neighbor Debra Phairas and the Neighbors Against Alexander Crossings, an unincorporated association.
The suit asks the court to prevent St. Anton from “engaging in any physical construction or pre-construction activities” related to the apartment construction while the case is pending.
“We’re still in the process of getting our permits,” Lawler said. It’s too soon to tell how long construction could be delayed as a result of the lawsuit, he said.
Lawler said St. Anton Partners has hired a land-use attorney to help it defend against allegations that include the assertion that the site is zoned for single-family residences.
St. Anton Partners is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with the city of Napa, the City Council and property owner ZR Gateway LLC.
City attorney Michael Barrett said the city is preparing its defense, including a record of the process by which the apartments were approved.
“In general, the court will hear the substance of each party’s position within approximately 9 to 12 months,” he wrote in an email.
In the meantime, Lawler said the developer will continue to seek permits as planned. If a judge does order them to stop all work, or prevents construction from beginning, he is unsure whether the apartments will be ready for occupancy by the spring of 2013, its original estimated date of completion.
Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano, a group that advocates for affordable housing, said the legal challenge further delays people who need affordably- to moderately-priced housing from moving to the city in which they work.
“Alexander Crossing would provide some moderate-income units, and of those 134, 27 would be affordable to low- and very-low-income residents,” said David Grabill, a Santa Rosa attorney who represents the group. Latinos Unidos has previously sued the city and county over lack of affordable housing.
“Right now, one-third of the people who work in Napa County commute from other counties. Most of those people find housing in Napa too expensive. A lot of those people would be interested in Alexander Crossing,” Grabill said.
“Napa has a long way to go to meet its affordable housing needs,” he said. “(Alexander Crossing) is a drop in the bucket, but it’s a drop which is better than no drop. We’re sad the neighbors filed this.”
Napa’s housing manager, Jan Maurer-Watkins, said all new developments are required to make at least 10 percent of their units affordable to people who make 50 percent or less of the area’s median income or pay a fee to contribute to future affordable housing projects.
While the 27 promised affordable units at Alexander Crossing are needed, so are the market-rate apartments, she said.
“There’s more of a demand for rental housing right now because of the foreclosures that have happened over the past years,” she said. “By this project not going through, this would impact the ability of a whole range of Napa residents from finding residences that are affordable to them.”
The neighbors’ attorney, Allan C. Moore, of Danville, said the case is not about preventing apartments from being built or delaying a partially affordable housing project. He said the neighbors behind the suit just want to make sure laws are followed.
“We do not oppose any affordable units, but we do want good government,” Moore said.
The primary issue is whether zoning laws were followed, Moore said. The neighbors allege in the complaint that “a significant portion” of the project is zoned for single-family use, therefore an apartment complex may not be built there.
“I think everybody should care about this,” Moore said. “The multiple-family use was approved in a place that only allows single-family use. ... The general public should always be concerned that the city only approve uses allowed in that zoning.”
Moore equated the alleged wrongdoing with allowing a gas station to be constructed in the heart of a residential area.
The case also accuses the city and other defendants of misleading the public by listing the wrong Assessor’s Parcel Numbers in documents, and failing to do a full environmental impact report.
Grabill said he fears that this type of opposition to new housing projects will deter others from trying to build in Napa. “It’s a red flag to other developers to stay away,” he said.
“We remain committed to the project and we are going to defend it,” Lawler said.
Read more: http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/lawsuit-may-delay-alexander-crossing-apartments/article_4bafbbfe-e271-11e0-8e4a-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1YMwpcFF3
Monday, July 4, 2011
Napa Valley Register Editorial
Decade-old lawsuit led to better housing plan
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.
Read more: http://napavalleyregister.com/news/opinion/editorial/decade-old-lawsuit-led-to-better-housing-plan/article_4e11b6f8-a523-11e0-b8a4-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1RABYpFJ6
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.
Read more: http://napavalleyregister.com/news/opinion/editorial/decade-old-lawsuit-led-to-better-housing-plan/article_4e11b6f8-a523-11e0-b8a4-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1RABYpFJ6
Thursday, May 13, 2010
St Helena Star Editorial
Time to face reality
By Doug Ernst
PUBLISHER
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Several letter writers in this week’s edition complain that the Star had the temerity last week to publish — on the front page, no less — a threat by Santa Rosa attorney David Grabill to sue the City of St. Helena if its soon-to-be-completed General Plan Housing Element fails to comply with state law.
One writer says she “resented” the Star for publishing the threat so prominently.
Still another said that publishing the threat was tantamount to inciting “outside agitators.”
“Who is David Grabill?” a third letter writer wants to know.
The outrage reminded me of a 1966 Mad Magazine parody of Ozzie and Harriet, the television sitcom portraying the perfect American family, the Nelsons.
The satire featured “Oozie” and “Harried” and their two sons, “Divot” and “Rickety.” It opens with “Oozie” reading a newspaper with articles missing from beneath headlines such as “Vietnam,” “Laos” and “Race Riots.”
“Harried” is telling a neighbor, “I cut out the articles that might disturb him.”
“Oozie” tells his wife: “I think we should vacation in Cuba this year…”
The point is, newspapers in 1966 printed a lot of “bad news” that Americans didn’t like reading but needed to see. Television comedies were crafted to buffer Americans from bad news.
Forty-four years later, there’s no way to protect people from bad news. Not only is it all around us, it’s also printed, broadcast, podcast, i-cast, e-mailed, Twittered and Facebooked from sea to shining sea.
The truth is, attorneys like David Grabill are going to continue to threaten to sue cities whether the St. Helena Star publishes his threats or not. Nevertheless, let me take a stab at answering the question, “Who is David Grabill?”
According to information gleaned from a 2003 article by the Santa Rosa Press Democrat and a Tuesday morning phone interview, the 68-year-old Grabill:
• Participated in Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic 1963 march on Washington, D.C.
• Worked on Robert F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign in 1968.
• Worked 14 years with California Rural Legal Assistance in Santa Rosa as a legal aid lawyer and housing advocate for farm workers.
• Won a court injunction, in 1982, voiding the arrests of about 50 farmworkers by federal immigration officials and the City of Calistoga, who raided homes and marched arrestees through town in handcuffs. He was assisted by Lincoln Avenue social worker Ana Gonzalez, who is now Ana Vigil, owner of Ana’s Cantina in St. Helena.
• Went to work as a lawyer with the Santa Rosa-based Housing Advocacy Group, formed in 1998 by activists trying to provide housing for low-income people, seniors, farm workers, the disabled and the homeless.
• Sued or threatened to sue more than a half-dozen local governments, winning at least seven major lawsuits against Healdsburg (1991), Sonoma County (1998), Rohnert Park (2001), Santa Rosa (2002), Napa County (2004), Humboldt County (2010) and Mendocino County (2010), requiring taxpayers to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and reaching settlements that require planning for thousands of affordable homes and apartments.
• Worked with Father John Brenkle, the St. Helena monsignor, on housing issues.
• Worked on behalf of St. Helena tenants being forced out of mobile homes by Hall Winery.
• Forced developers to develop less profitable homes.
• Worked with environmentalists to accept housing on land they wanted to protect.
St. Helena residents can follow the example set by Mad Magazine’s “Harried Nilson,” cut articles out of the newspaper and, as the parody said, “live completely and hermetically sealed off from reality,” but that won’t stop David Grabill.
Instead, residents can keep Grabill out of St. Helena City Hall and Napa County Superior Court by making sure that the city’s Housing Element complies with state law.
Thanks for reading.
By Doug Ernst
PUBLISHER
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Several letter writers in this week’s edition complain that the Star had the temerity last week to publish — on the front page, no less — a threat by Santa Rosa attorney David Grabill to sue the City of St. Helena if its soon-to-be-completed General Plan Housing Element fails to comply with state law.
One writer says she “resented” the Star for publishing the threat so prominently.
Still another said that publishing the threat was tantamount to inciting “outside agitators.”
“Who is David Grabill?” a third letter writer wants to know.
The outrage reminded me of a 1966 Mad Magazine parody of Ozzie and Harriet, the television sitcom portraying the perfect American family, the Nelsons.
The satire featured “Oozie” and “Harried” and their two sons, “Divot” and “Rickety.” It opens with “Oozie” reading a newspaper with articles missing from beneath headlines such as “Vietnam,” “Laos” and “Race Riots.”
“Harried” is telling a neighbor, “I cut out the articles that might disturb him.”
“Oozie” tells his wife: “I think we should vacation in Cuba this year…”
The point is, newspapers in 1966 printed a lot of “bad news” that Americans didn’t like reading but needed to see. Television comedies were crafted to buffer Americans from bad news.
Forty-four years later, there’s no way to protect people from bad news. Not only is it all around us, it’s also printed, broadcast, podcast, i-cast, e-mailed, Twittered and Facebooked from sea to shining sea.
The truth is, attorneys like David Grabill are going to continue to threaten to sue cities whether the St. Helena Star publishes his threats or not. Nevertheless, let me take a stab at answering the question, “Who is David Grabill?”
According to information gleaned from a 2003 article by the Santa Rosa Press Democrat and a Tuesday morning phone interview, the 68-year-old Grabill:
• Participated in Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic 1963 march on Washington, D.C.
• Worked on Robert F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign in 1968.
• Worked 14 years with California Rural Legal Assistance in Santa Rosa as a legal aid lawyer and housing advocate for farm workers.
• Won a court injunction, in 1982, voiding the arrests of about 50 farmworkers by federal immigration officials and the City of Calistoga, who raided homes and marched arrestees through town in handcuffs. He was assisted by Lincoln Avenue social worker Ana Gonzalez, who is now Ana Vigil, owner of Ana’s Cantina in St. Helena.
• Went to work as a lawyer with the Santa Rosa-based Housing Advocacy Group, formed in 1998 by activists trying to provide housing for low-income people, seniors, farm workers, the disabled and the homeless.
• Sued or threatened to sue more than a half-dozen local governments, winning at least seven major lawsuits against Healdsburg (1991), Sonoma County (1998), Rohnert Park (2001), Santa Rosa (2002), Napa County (2004), Humboldt County (2010) and Mendocino County (2010), requiring taxpayers to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and reaching settlements that require planning for thousands of affordable homes and apartments.
• Worked with Father John Brenkle, the St. Helena monsignor, on housing issues.
• Worked on behalf of St. Helena tenants being forced out of mobile homes by Hall Winery.
• Forced developers to develop less profitable homes.
• Worked with environmentalists to accept housing on land they wanted to protect.
St. Helena residents can follow the example set by Mad Magazine’s “Harried Nilson,” cut articles out of the newspaper and, as the parody said, “live completely and hermetically sealed off from reality,” but that won’t stop David Grabill.
Instead, residents can keep Grabill out of St. Helena City Hall and Napa County Superior Court by making sure that the city’s Housing Element complies with state law.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
