On July 11, 2022 we submitted our response to the Draft Housing Element Update, the county’s plan to address requirements for low-income housing in Napa County. We vehemently oppose the plan to put 100 units in a part of the park that hosts large group events, including scouting, camping, equestrian, emergency response training, indigenous gatherings, and many more.

Our letter:

Subject: Draft Housing Element Update Comments from the Sierra Club

To: Napa Housing Element Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors, Governor’s office.

From: Napa Sierra Club Group Conservation Committee

The Napa Sierra Club Group has publicly opposed consideration of Skyline Wilderness Park as a site for housing of any kind. The park has been very successfully managed to provide a wide range of outdoor experiences to an extremely diverse community, experiences not available anywhere else in the county. We have encouraged members of the community to voice their concern that the county would even think about harming such a unique place; such a unique place that renders numerous beneficial services should never find its way onto such a list, no matter how well it “pencils out” against a set of criteria.  Our position was published in our newsletter, and been distributed widely [https://www.sierraclub.org/redwood/napa/blog/2022/05/red-flag-warning-save-skyline-wilderness-park-development-roland-dumas-phd].

I recently captured the view of one user of the portion of the park that is on the list of housing sites. I told her and her mother that the 5 acres they are on might be turned into housing. Her response, unscripted, is here.

Process

The draft housing element documents the process of selecting the target sites, including required information, criteria, various demographic analyses, and appears quite rigorous. It does note, however that in the description of each property, the current use of the property should be documented. For most of the locations, that would be a simple description, there is no current use. For Skyline, there was no description of the current use. Had the preparers of the document visited the location, they might have seen a wide variety of community activities. Had the preparers of the document contacted the Skyline Citizen Community, the organization chartered with management of the park, they would have received a comprehensive list of groups and activities that this parcel serves. They would have also discovered that the revenue from the “flat” portion of the park, this parcel included, supports the operation of the entire park, including the wilderness trail system. Had they looked and asked, they would have seen, heard, and understood.

The process depicted the Skyline Wilderness Park location as “state owned land on Imola.” That very generic label surely wouldn’t attract as much attention as “a piece of Skyline Park” would. We can only speculate why the lapse in transparency.

State requirement of park services

In the Planning Commission session of 7/6, Director Morrison narrated other counties’ experience with developing housing elements. He described Los Angeles County’s plan being rejected by the state because there were insufficient parklands for the planned new housing. That makes sense, because high density housing residents have less outdoor space associated with their residences. This requirement acknowledges the physical and mental benefits of access to park services.

Napa, on the other hand, seems to be planning on destroying parkland for high density housing. The proximity of the rest of the park is noted as a positive attribute of the location. With the 5-acre location being part of a 20-acre parcel that is designated for eventual development, that positive attribute will have to be progressively decremented with each cycle. At the end, the park will not be economically viable and will not be able to host large group gatherings of any kind.

Implicit preference for sacrificing Skyline to save other locations.

In the 7/6 Planning Commission meeting, Director Morrison stated that the state intends for there to be low-income housing on this parcel. If the county doesn’t do it, the state will.  Given this situation, the county should claim credit for housing at this location even if the state does the development, which would reduce the number of units needed at other locations.

Implicitly, this argues that development in Skyline Park may be a priority, as it would save other locations. The county is considering cannibalizing beneficial services to reduce the impact on, and complaints from, residents of wealthy areas. Franky, this is a perversion of the mission of working in the public interest. 

Transparency

Through the narrative description of the state’s views, requirements, and intent, there is no documentation of the veracity of these representations. We would like the county officers who are in dialog with state offices to document these meetings for the public to know that the public interest is being served.

Call to action

For members of the Housing Element Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors, we challenge you to protect Skyline Park from development. Do not succumb to “the process is making us do this”; declare that you will never vote to include Skyline Park in a list of sites to be developed. Protect it.

Roland A. Dumas, Ph.D.

Chair, Conservation Committee

Sierra Club Napa Group