2023-2031
HOUSING
ELEMENT
CITY OF
NAPA
10-6-2023
DRAFT
Rev. 06
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table of Contents
A Community Profile...........................A-I
B Land Inventory .................................B-I
C Fair Housing......................................C-I D Housing Program Resources .........D-I
E Constraints ........................................ E-I F Energy Conservation....................... F-I
G Evaluation of Past Programs .........G-I
H Public Engagement..........................H-I
I Glossary............................................... I-I J Public Comment Tracking ............. J-I
K Zoning Diagnosis Report................ K-I
Housing Element...........................................................................................5 Housing Element Apendices
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
2023-2031
HOUSING
ELEMENT
CITY OF
NAPA
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Special recognition of all who participated in
the planning effort and gave their personal time
to make the product better and inclusive of the
City’s community members.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Scott Sedgley, Mayor
Beth Painter, Vice Mayor
Mary Luros
Liz Alessio
Bernie Narvaez
PLANNING COMMISSION
Gordon Huether, Chair
Bob Massaro, Vice Chair
Ricardo A. Hurtado
Paul Kelley
Beverly Shotwell
NAPA CITY STAFF
Vincent Smith, Community Development
Director
Michael Walker, AICP, Senior Planner
Ricky Caperton, AICP, Planning Manager
Molly Rattigan, Deputy City Manager
Stephanie Gaul, Housing Manager
Michael Barrett, City Attorney
Sabrina Wolfson, Assistant City Attorney
Jaina French, Communications and Outreach
Eric Phillips, JD., Special Counsel, Burke,
Williams & Sorensen, LLP
HOUSING ELEMENT CONSULTING
TEAM
Dynamic Planning + Science
Ethan Mobley, Project Director
Brian Greer, Project Manager
Kristin D. Pulatie, Project Planner
Raini Ott, Project Planner
Alex Krebs, Data Visualization
Clare Peabody, Data Wrangler
Mintier Harnish
Michael Gibbons, Zoning Consultant
City of Napa | General Plan Housing Element 6th Cycle Update 2023-2031 Cover Image: Adobe Express 2022, CC
Fonts: Roboto Slab Apache License 2.0, MADE Mirage
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................................................................7 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................................................8 Housing Element Organization ..................................................................................................................................................11 Appendices................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 SECTION 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Why are Housing Policies Important? ............................................................................................................................... 13 Statutory Requirements ..........................................................................................................................................................14 General Plan Consistency....................................................................................................................................................... 15 Relationship to Other Elements and Plans...................................................................................................................... 16 SECTION 2. Community Engagement...................................................................................................................................... 17 Summary of Outreach Activities ......................................................................................................................................... 18 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing..........................................................................................................................................18 General Plan Update ....................................................................................................................................................................................18 Newsletters and Online Outreach..........................................................................................................................................................18 Online Content and Outreach..................................................................................................................................................................19 Public Events & Housing Policy Working Groups ...........................................................................................................................20 City Council & Planning Commission Meetings ............................................................................................................................. 22 SECTION 3. Summary Of Land Available for Housing .........................................................................................................23 Regional Housing Needs Allocation...................................................................................................................................23 Income Levels and Ability to Pay ....................................................................................................................................... 24 New Construction........................................................................................................................................................................................ 25 Inventory of Housing Capacity............................................................................................................................................................... 25 Planned and Approved Projects............................................................................................................................................................. 26 Vacant and Underutilized Sites........................................................................................................................................... 27 Affordability Assumptions for Vacant and Underutilized Sites ............................................................................ 28 Findings by Community Plan Area.................................................................................................................................... 28 Accessory Dwelling Unit Projection.................................................................................................................................. 30 Capacity to Accommodate the RHNA................................................................................................................................31 Analyzing the Community Through a Fair Housing Lens ........................................................................................33 SECTION 4. Goals and Policies...................................................................................................................................................35 Process for Updating Housing Element Goals................................................................................................................35 Vision for Housing in Napa in the Year 2031 ..................................................................................................................37 Housing Element Goals .......................................................................................................................................................... 39 Housing Element Policies...................................................................................................................................................... 40 SECTION 5. Implementation.......................................................................................................................................................43 Overview of Napa’s Action Plan for Housing (January 2023-January 2031)..................................................... 43 Housing Element Program Prioritization: Public Process...........................................................................................................43 Goal Implementation..................................................................................................................................................................................44 Quantified Housing Objectives...............................................................................................................................................................44 Contributing Factors...................................................................................................................................................................................45 H1. Supportive Housing Needs...................................................................................................................................................47 H2. Diverse & Equitable Housing...............................................................................................................................................50 H3. Preserve Heritage...................................................................................................................................................................62 H4. Energy Conservation & Infrastructure Improvement...................................................................................................65 H5. Protect Community from Displacement ..........................................................................................................................69 SECTION 6. Works Cited ..............................................................................................................................................................73 Figure 1: Outreach Timeline.........................................................................................................................................................................17 Figure 2: Heritage House / Valle Verde Planned Multi-Family Residential Development................................................ 26 Figure 3: Site Inventory Review Meeting October 2022................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 4: Site Inventory by Community Neighborhood...................................................................................................................29 Figure 5: Napa Sonoma ADU Sample Plan............................................................................................................................................30 Figure 6: Napa City Site Inventory – All Sites...................................................................................................................................... 32 Table 1: City of Napa RHNA..........................................................................................................................................................................24 Table 2: HCD Income Limits based on Persons per Household, 2022 ........................................................................................24 Table 3: Pipeline Unit Summary................................................................................................................................................................ 26 Table 4: Napa ADU Permits 2018-2021.....................................................................................................................................................30 Table 5: ADU Projections to Satisfy RHNA ............................................................................................................................................30 Table 6: Summary of Residential Capacity compared to 2023-2031 RHNA by Income .......................................................31 Table 7: Factors that Contribute to Fair Housing Issues .................................................................................................................45 This Housing Element and associated appendices satisfy
the requirements of State law (Government Code Section
65583(a)) and are organized as follows:
SECTION 1 Introduction provides an overview of the
Housing Element, State requirements, and a summary of
the organization of the Housing Element.
SECTION 2 Community Engagement describes the City’s
efforts to engage all segments of the community during
the preparation of the Housing Element, including the
numerous individuals, organizations, and agencies with
which the City consulted, and the methods of community
outreach.
SECTION 3 Summary Of Land Available for Housing
presents a summary of the City’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation and the inventory of sites within Napa City Limits that are suitable for residential development during the planning period.
SECTION 4 Goals and Policies contains the City’s housing goals and policies that provide direction to help the City meet its housing goals. The Housing Element includes
eight goals that create the framework for how the City
will address housing needs.
SECTION 5 Implementation contains implementation
programs that the City and its partner agencies are
committed to implementing over the planning period. A
summary of the City’s quantified objectives for housing development, rehabilitation, and conservation is also
included.
The following appendices contain important information and analysis to inform and support the Housing Element. They provide the foundation for the goals, policies, and implementation programs.
A. Community Profile describes the characteristics of Napa’s population and housing that are essential to understanding the City’s housing needs, including population and household characteristics, income and employment, housing costs and affordability, special housing needs, and at-risk housing.
B. Land Inventory presents the detailed results of the inventory of sites within the City that are suitable for residential development during the eight-year planning period. It includes a description of the City’s RHNA, number of residential units in the pipeline of approved projects and within master planned communities, and an analysis of capacity on vacant and underutilized sites where housing is an allowed use.
C. Fair Housing Assessment provides an assessment of fair housing practices in Napa, an analysis of the relationship between available sites and areas of high or low opportunity in the City, and a summary of strategies to affirmatively further fair housing.
D. Housing Program Resources presents information on staff resources and funding available to support City housing programs.
E. Constraints identifies nongovernmental and governmental constraints that may inhibit the development, maintenance, or improvement of housing.
F. Opportunities for Energy Conservation summarizes the ways the City is currently addressing the conservation of energy resources as part of larger climate action and adaptation planning processes.
G. Evaluation of Past Housing Element summarizes the City’s achievements in implementing programs under the previous (2013-2021) Housing Element.
H. Public Engagement Summary includes the compilation of community input and feedback received during the various meetings and engagement events.
I. Glossary and References terminology and acronym definitions.
J. Comment Tracking detailed tracking of public, stakeholder, and state review comments on the Housing Element.
K. Zoning Ordinance Diagnosis Report a comprehensive analysis and guide designed to modernize Napa's zoning regulations, aligning them with the 2040 General Plan, updated Housing Element, and state housing law, while recommending strategies to resolve inconsistencies and enhance usability.
This Housing Element is an update of the City of Napa's previous Housing Element, which was adopted by the City Council on March 3, 2015, and certified by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on March 26, 2015. Since then, the City has continued to implement the policies and programs in the adopted Housing Element to respond to its housing needs in coordination with other City goals.
Highlighted progress from 2015-2022 Housing Element:
• 50 affordable housing units were completed at Manzanita Apartments; 34 affordable housing units were completed at Redwood Grove
• River Park Manor, a 105-unit market rate apartment complex that was converted to an affordable housing project, was renovated in 2020. The project includes 104 affordable units and one manager's unit.
• Charter Oaks, a 75-unit affordable rental project, began renovations. In addition to one manager's unit, there will be 43 low-income units.
• The City of Napa adopted an ordinance amendment to exclude any dwelling unit 500 square feet or less from being charged affordable housing impact fees. Additionally, Napa Sanitation District and Napa Valley USD changed their fee structures to exclude ADUs under 500 square feet from impact fees.
A full summary of annual progress reports based on the policies and programs in the 2015-2022 Housing Element can be found in Appendix G. Evaluation of Past Housing Element.
Planning for adequate housing for all residents is a priority for the City of Napa and California as a whole. The State has declared that “the availability of housing is a matter of vital statewide importance and the attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for all Californians is a priority of the highest order.” (Cal. Gov’t Code § 65580)
Cities can play an important role in ensuring adequate housing for all residents in their communities through planning, regulatory, and incentivizing means. The ability of a city to plan for housing for the whole community centers on affordability. Affordability often measures housing cost in relation to gross household income: households spending more than 30 percent of their income, including utilities, are generally considered to be overpaying or cost burdened. Severe overpaying occurs when households pay 50 percent or more of their gross income for housing. See Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment for more information on affordability in Napa.
State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing.
Each local government in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of their city or county. The Housing Element is one of the seven mandated elements of the general plan. Unlike the other mandatory general plan elements, the Housing Element is required to be updated every eight years and is subject to detailed statutory requirements and mandatory review by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). State law requires local government plans to address the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community through their housing elements. The law acknowledges that for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must Brendan Hurley, City of Napa, 2021
adopt land use plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. As a result, housing policy in the state rests largely upon the effective implementation of local general plans and local housing elements.
According to Cal. Gov’t Code § 65583(a), the Housing Element must:
• Provide goals, policies, quantified objectives and scheduled programs to preserve, improve and develop housing;
• Identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community;
• Identify adequate sites that will be zoned and available within the 8-year housing cycle to meet the City’s fair share of regional housing needs at all income levels; • Be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for HCD to review and “certify” that the Housing Element complies with state law; and • Be internally consistent with other parts of the General Plan (and is critical to having a legally adequate General Plan).
State law requires cities and counties to address the needs of all income groups in their housing elements. The official definition of these needs is provided by HCD. Beyond these income-based housing needs, the housing element must also address special needs groups, such as persons with disabilities and homeless persons. See Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment and Appendix C: Fair Housing Assessment for more information on state requirements.
The City of Napa approved its updated General Plan in October 2022, after a multi-year update process.
The Housing Element has been prepared to maintain internal consistency with the Plan as required by State law. Specifically, the sites inventory reflects the capacity under the Napa 2040 General Plan land use designations.
The Housing Element goals, policies, and programs were drafted with the goal of implementing the vision and guiding principles for the 2040 General Plan; including the principle to “promote housing and support a diverse array of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the population.” Relevant guiding principles from the 2040 General Plan update are listed below. When the City considers any future amendment to the General Plan, the City will review the Housing Element to ensure internal consistencies.
The California Government Code requires internal
consistency among the various elements of a general
plan. Cal. Gov. Code § 65300.5 states that the general
plan and the parts and elements thereof shall
comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and
compatible statement of policies.
The Housing Element goals, policies, and programs
were created with the intent to be consistent with
State and local provisions, including all other
elements of the 2040 General Plan and current zoning
code, to avoid any conflicting policies and maintain
effective process that best adheres to the needs of the City’s residents. The Housing Element does not
change land use controls or zoning but guides or
directs decisions, timing. and future updates of such.
`
RELEVANT 2040 GENERAL PLAN
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Principle #1
Foster Napa as a community of connected
neighborhoods, with vibrant, walkable
districts, and revitalized corridors.
Principle #3
Balance local and tourism needs.
Principle #4
Promote housing and support a diverse array
of housing types to meet the needs of all
segments of the population.
Principle #5
Foster connections to nature and open space.
Principle #6
Emphasize environmental sustainability.
Principle #8
Promote continued Downtown revitalization.
This Housing Element has been prepared with extensive community input and a robust public participation plan to ensure a wide range of input and feedback was received on key components.
The City used several methods to solicit feedback from a variety of sources including:
• City staff,
• the Napa Sonoma Collaborative (NSC),
• housing developers,
• housing advocacy groups,
• local nonprofits,
• the broader community from all areas of the City.
Throughout the development of this Housing Element, the City strived to foster a transparent and participatory process and the result is a plan that is informed and reflects input received at each major phase of the process. This chapter describes the City’s efforts to engage all segments of the community during the preparation of the Housing Element, including the numerous individuals, organizations, and agencies with which the City consulted, and the methods of community outreach. Figure 1 outlines the various forms of outreach that were conducted and the frequency of outreach that took place during the Housing Element process. Summary notes from the various community engagement efforts are compiled in Appendix H. Public Engagement Strategy.
Figure 1: Outreach Timeline
The City of Napa Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) was completed in January 2020.
The outreach process included the 2019 Fair Housing Survey, two Fair Housing Forums (including one for Spanish speaking residents), and a public review meeting. The Fair Housing Survey was distributed both online and as a printed version; a total of 303 responses were received. The data, analysis, and community input from the AI was used to aid in the development of the Housing Element fair housing assessment and the policies and implementation programs.
The City initiated the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update in March 2022. Prior to the initiation of the project, City staff also began a comprehensive General Plan Update and used the
process to gather community input on various topics addressed in the General Plan, including housing issues. To initiate the General Plan update and outreach processes, four public meetings were held downtown over two days. Hundreds of
residents attended; recordings are available on the General Plan website. Staff also conducted several in-person and virtual Citywide workshops to identify common themes and visions for Napa, as well as hosting small group meetings for businesses and community groups. Agencies and organizations were
welcomed to presentations about the City’s planning process.
Additional information was gathered via online community surveys that were conducted in English and Spanish; the Napa 2040 website and newsletter provided opportunities for
additional online engagement. The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), Planning Commission, and City Council held meetings to further solicit comments from the public.
Members of the public were invited to peruse the Napa Housing Element website (www.napahousingelement.com) where they could learn more about the housing element process as well as sign up for bi-weekly Housing Element newsletters. Information was available in both English and Spanish.
The General Plan Vision calls for
enhancing the City’s defining
attributes – its blend of smalltown character, historic neighborhoods, and picturesque
setting along the Napa River –
while reflecting its status as a
global destination in the heart of a
premier wine-producing region.
The Vision seeks a community
that is inclusive, family-friendly,
balanced, sustainable, and flexible
to adapt to changing
circumstances. It promotes
compact and sustainable
development patterns in order to
preserve the surrounding open
space and agricultural lands.
Napahousingelement.com is a project website that provides information on the 2023-2031 City of Napa Housing Element, including background information on the requirements of a housing element, a project overview, news & events, frequently asked questions (FAQs), resources, and access to the Balancing Act application.
Balancing Act is a simulation that allows users within the City of Napa community to provide input on where they would like to see new housing in the city.
The Project Team leverages the City’s Facebook page, Instagram page, and Twitter Account to promote the project website, share updates, and highlight upcoming opportunities for involvement, including the Housing Week.
Housing Element 101 Handout
English & Spanish
Housing Week Social Media Graphic
napahousingelement.com English & Spanish
Balancing Act Social Media
Graphic
On July 25-31, 2022, the City hosted Housing Week,
which included activities to solicit public input on
Housing Element policies and priorities. See Section 2
below for details.
The City hosted in-person public outreach events to
gather feedback about the Housing Element Update in
July of 2022. These events included:
• Two tabling sessions at the Napa Farmers Market
• A focus group with Latinx residents of the City of
Napa
• A working session with housing collaborators
• An informational presentation to the Napa Kiwanis
Club
• A booth at Oxbow Market during the summer
concert series
Each public event offered residents the following
mechanisms to share their opinions about housing in
the City of Napa:
Balancing Act Survey
One-page, hardcopy versions of a simplified Balancing
Act survey on clip boards were provided for attendees
to quickly respond. Each attendee received a take-home
card with the website address to participate later, if they do not have time to take the survey in person, and to
spread the word.
DP+S, 2022
Comment Cards
A quarter-page long-answer comment card could be
offered for attendees to write down their general thoughts on the Housing Element and housing in the City of Napa, in lieu of or in addition to the hardcopy survey.
Sticker Priority Mapping of Zones
A large hardcopy map of opportunity zones was set up at all locations to allow attendees to place stickers on the map to visualize housing development opportunities in
the City.
Housing Element 101 Handouts
These hardcopy handouts included basic information on
what a General Plan and Housing Element are and why
the Housing Element is important for the City of Napa.
Take-Home Cards
All attendees received a card with the website address
and basic information to take with them and help spread the word around town.
Visioning Exercise with Penny Jars
This exercise verified and strengthened visioning already done for the General Plan Update. Attendees were
provided with a bag of pennies to distribute however they wished among several jars labeled with housing-related
value statements such as “I want to live near transit” or “I want to be able to save for the future.” Jars are weighed to tally results at the conclusion of each event.
Raffle Prizes
Each event included a prize provided jointly by the City and DP+S to encourage participation. If an attendee
completes a Balancing Act survey, they received a raffle ticket and were entered to win a prize at the end of the event or for the grand prize at the end of the Housing
Element Update project.
DP+S, 2022
Planning Commission Public Review Draft Public Meeting – Jan. 5, 2023 The Planning Commission held a public meeting on January 5, 2023, to introduce the draft Housing Element and kick-off the 30-day public draft review period, which was held from December 22, 2022, through January 21, 2023. During the meeting, city staff presented a report on the draft Housing Element, facilitated discussion on key topics, answered questions, and requested the Commission’s feedback; no formal action was requested or taken.
Planning Commission Review & Recommendation Public Hearing – Sept. 7, 2023 A duly noticed public hearing in front of the Planning Commission was held on September 7, 2023, to review the updated draft Housing Element and make a recommendation to City Council toward adoption. At the hearing, city staff presented a summary of the draft element, its policies and programs, and the public and HCD comments received and resulting revisions to date. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a resolution amending the 2040 General Plan to adopt the 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2023 to 2031 planning period. In addition, staff recommended a determination that the actions authorized by the resolution are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Public comments were taken before and during the hearing and considered by the Commission. A total of three comments were received.
After addressing questions and providing additional information about the draft, the Commission closed the hearing and made a motion to forward a recommendation to City Council to adopt the Housing Element with one minor revision and determine the authorized actions are exempt from CEQA. The minor revision recommended was to move up the timeline for Housing Element Program H4-1.1, Sustainability Standards, from a deadline of 2030 to 2025.
City Council Review & Certification Public Hearing – Oct. 17, 2023 This section will be expanded to include details of meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council held during the Public Review period as well as adoption hearings.
State law (California Government Code
Section 65580 et seq.) requires the
California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) to
project statewide housing needs and
allocate the anticipated need to each
region in the state. For the Bay Area,
including the City of Napa, HCD
provides the regional need to the
Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG), which then distributes the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) to the cities and counties
within the ABAG region. ABAG
allocates housing production goals for
cities and counties based on their projected share of the region’s household growth, the state of the local housing market and vacancies, and the jurisdiction’s housing replacement needs.
ABAG is responsible for developing a Regional Housing Needs Plan1(RHNP) allocating the region’s share of the statewide housing needs to local jurisdictions. The RHNA is a minimum projection of additional housing units needed to accommodate projected household growth of all income levels by the end of the housing element’s statutory planning period. As shown in Column A of Table 3-1, for the 2023-2031 planning period, ABAG assigned Napa the requirement to plan for 1,939 total units; of which 795 units must be affordable to lower-income (extremely low-, very low-, and low-income) households, 319 units must be affordable to moderate-income households, and 925 for above moderate-income households.
In December 2019, the City of Napa and the County of Napa entered into an agreement to request a transfer of 80% of Napa County’s RHNA units to the City of Napa. This agreement facilitated the annexation of the 154-acre Napa Pipe site to the City of Napa. The transfer was submitted to ABAG by Napa County in January 2022. Column B of Table 3-1 shows the unit transfer totals by income category. 1 https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needs-allocation Brendan Hurley, City of Napa, 2021
A key component of the Housing Element is demonstrating how the City will meet its fair share of the regional housing need.
Column C in Table 3-1, illustrated to total effective RHNA for the 2023-2031 planning period across each income category, the total of which is 2,669 units.
Table 3-1: City of Napa RHNA
A. Napa RHNA
(ABAG
Assessment)
B. Napa County
Transfer
C. Napa RHNA
2022 Housing
Element
D. Percentage of
Total
Extremely Low- and Very Low Income 504 266 770 29%
Low Income 291 153 444 17%
Moderate Income 319 86 405 15%
Above Moderate Income 825 225 1,050 39%
Total 1,939 730 2,669
State law defines affordability in terms of target household incomes and the relative percentage these households must pay to purchase or rent decent and safe housing. Affordability is therefore relative to both household income and housing unit cost. In most cases, affordable housing is defined as housing and related costs (e.g., utilities, insurance, property taxes for owner-occupied properties) that requires no more than 30 percent of a household’s gross income.
The income categories (e.g., extremely low-, low-, or moderate- income) and relative ability to pay for housing are determined in relation to the median household income for the City, adjusted by household size. Table 3-2 below shows the 2022 State and Federal income limits for the Napa County area based on household size. The area median income (AMI) for a four-person household in the Napa County area was $119,400 in 2022.
Table 3-2: HCD Income Limits based on Persons per Household, 2022 Persons per Households
Income Categories 1 2 3 4 5
Area Median-Income (100% AMI) $83,600 $95,500 $107,450 $119,400 $128,950 Extremely Low-Income (≤30% AMI) $26,500 $30,300 $34,100 $37,850 $40,900 Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) $44,150 $50,450 $56,750 $63,050 $68,100 Low-Income (51-80% AMI) $70,550 $80,600 $90,700 $100,750 $108,850 Moderate-Income (81-120% AMI) $100,300 $114,650 $128,950 $143,300 $154,750 Source: CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 2022 Every city and county in California is required to plan for its “fair share” of the statewide housing need.
HCD is required to allocate each region’s share of the statewide housing need to Councils of Governments (COGs) based on California Department of Finance population projections and regional population forecasts used in preparing regional transportation plans. This process promotes the following objectives: increase the housing supply and mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the region in an equitable manner; promote infill development and socioeconomic equity; protect environmental and agricultural resources; encourage efficient development patterns; and promote an improved intraregional balance between jobs and housing. (Cal.
Gov’t Code §§ 65580, 65583, 65585)
The RHNA for Napa for the 2023 to 2031 projection period is 2,669 new housing units (770 very lowincome units, 444 low-income units, 405 moderate-income units, and 1,050 above moderate-income units). The City will strive to provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to be built to accommodate the RHNA. Based on existing zoning and General Plan designations, there is capacity to accommodate housing at a range of different densities.
State law requires the City to demonstrate that sufficient land is zoned to provide housing capacity that is adequate to meet the RHNA for each income level. As part of this Housing Element update, City staff conducted a comprehensive inventory of residential units in the pipeline (i.e., approved projects) and all vacant and non-vacant (i.e., underutilized) land within the City limits that is zoned to allow for housing and available to develop within the Housing Element planning period, 2023-2031.
The City of Napa has a significant number of development projects that are seeking entitlements or that have been approved. City of Napa planning staff identified pipeline projects that are currently pending, under review, approved, or under construction. Using this data, compiled in October 2022, there are an estimated 1,963 housing units in the pipeline that are counted toward meeting the RHNA.
Table 3-3 reflects the pipeline units included to meet Napa’s RHNA by income level.
Appendix B details the pipeline developments included in the site inventory. Pipeline projects in the City of Napa are anticipated to provide 372 affordable lower-income, 268 moderate-income units, and 1,323 above moderate-income units to the RHNA, as shown in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Pipeline Unit Summary
Lower-Income
Units
Moderate-Income
Units
Above ModerateIncome Units Total Units
Pipeline Residential
Development 372 268 1,323 1,963
19% 14% 67%
Figure 2: Heritage House / Valle Verde Planned Multi-Family Residential Development The City identified potential vacant and underutilized non-vacant sites zoned to allow for residential development within City limits. Vacant sites were identified initially based on Assessor codes indicating vacant parcels (those without improvements). These sites were then analyzed for the presence of building footprints to confirm vacancy. Underutilized non-vacant sites were limited to those identified in the 2040 General Plan buildout analysis. The analysis includes development potential based on where change (new development or redevelopment) is most likely to occur.
Underutilized sites were defined as parcels with low to moderate assessed improvements (i.e., buildings) to land value (AV) ratio, floor area ratio, or both. All sites were individually reviewed by Napa planning staff to confirm vacancy, realistic development potential, and inclusion into the land inventory. Figure 3 illustrates one of the site inventory review meetings in October, 2022 including City of Napa Community Development Director Vin Smith, Deputy City Manager Molly Rattigan, Senior Planner Michael Walker, Consultants Ethan Mobley, and Brian Greer.
Figure 3: Site Inventory Review Meeting October 2022
Sites were categorized by income level based on zoning, allowed density, and site size:
Lower-income Sites
State law (Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)) establishes a “default density standard” of 20 units per acre for lower-income units in the City of Napa. This is the density that is “deemed appropriate” in State law to accommodate Napa’s lower-income RHNA. Sites between 0.5 acres and 10 acres zoning, or General Plan land use designations that allow for development at 20 units per acre, were generally included in the inventory as lower-income sites.
Moderate-income Sites
Medium-density, multi-unit zoned sites allowing between 10 and 20 dwelling units per acre were inventoried at moderate-income, based on the assumption that the site was too small to accommodate a subsidized lower-income project but large enough for a smaller market-rate, multi-unit development to be built.
Above Moderate-income Sites
Sites with low density residential zoning below 10 dwelling units per acre were categorized as above moderate based on the assumption that a single-unit home would be the most likely to be built. Traditional residential (12 DU/Ac) is also included in this category based on the median home sale price in the city of Napa ($920,000; Redfin, 10/2022).
The planning area within city limits is broken into 12 neighborhoods. City of Napa staff provided the neighborhoods corresponding to existing planning efforts. The neighborhoods are shown in Figure 4.
Applying the assumptions and methodology described in Appendix B, the City determined the total residential capacity from pipeline projects and on vacant and underutilized sites within the City.
Figure 4 illustrates the locations and income-level distribution of the site inventory across each of the city’s neighborhoods.
Figure 4: Site Inventory by Community Neighborhood
Per State law, a projection of the number of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) expected to be built within the 8-year planning period can also be considered as part of the inventory. Based on ABAG’s June 2022 publication “Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA2” the City has projected ADU development to satisfy the RHNA over the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period. ABAG’s methodology3 allows for the rate of ADU permits approved and issued between 2019 and 2021 to be used as the baseline average since the City loosened ADU regulations in 2019.
Based on ADU building permits issued from 2019 to 2021 and excluding permits in 2018, the City projects an average of 46 ADUs per year and 368 ADU units in the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period. Table 3-4 shows the breakdown of ADUs by year permitted by the City.
ABAG guidance includes proportional splits by income level applied to the planning period total at 30% for the very low-, low-, and moderate income levels and 10% for the above moderate-income level. Table 3-4 shows the total ADU counts by income level that the City of Napa is applying toward meetings its RHNA.
Table 3-5: ADU Projections to Satisfy RHNA
Income Category Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total Percentage split 30% 30% 30% 10%
Total Units 110 110 110 36 366
2 https://abag.ca.gov/technical-assistance/using-adus-satisfy-rhna 3 https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-06/ADUs-Projections-Memo_final.pdf Year
ADU
Permits
2018 20
2019 34
2020 45
2021 60
Average 46
2023-2031 Total 366
Table 3-4: Napa ADU Permits 2018-
2021
Figure 5: Napa Sonoma ADU Sample Plan
Table 3-6 below provides a summary of total residential capacity included in the land inventory compared to the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA. As shown in the table, the City has a total capacity for 3,351 units within pipeline residential developments and on vacant and underutilized sites, which is sufficient capacity to accommodate the RHNA of 2,669 units. This total unit capacity realized a surplus of 12 - 43% by income category and a total surplus of 25% as compared to the RHNA.
Table 3-6: Summary of Residential Capacity compared to 2023-2031 RHNA by Income LowerIncome
Units
ModerateIncome UnitsAbove ModerateIncome Units Total Units RHNA 1,214 405 1,050 2,669
Pipeline Residential
Development 337 135 1,412 1,884
Capacity on Vacant Sites 579 74 147 800
Capacity on Underutilized
Sites 202 137 128 467
ADU Projection 220 110 36 366
Total Capacity 1,338 456 1,723 3,517
Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) +124 +51 +673 +848
Surplus % 10.2% 12.6% 64.1% 31.8%
All sites are represented by location and unit capacity as graduated symbols on Figure 6.
Figure 6: Napa City Site Inventory – All Sites
In developing a Housing Element, local governments are charged with the important work of affirmatively furthering fair housing, defined in the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) guidelines as “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” (HCD, 2021)
Throughout California, amenities and access to opportunities are not always readily accessible or attainable due to different social, economic, or cultural barriers in society. Because of this imbalance, it is important to ensure that sites for housing, particularly lower-income units, are distributed throughout the City where access to amenities and opportunities are higher, rather than only in concentrated areas of high segregation and poverty. To ensure this, the City needs to consider the accessibility of various opportunities when planning for housing. This includes assessing accessibility to jobs, transportation, and good education and health services. Appendix C. provides a more detailed fair housing assessment to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). It compares the sites inventory to several of these indicators to determine how the inventory affects fair housing conditions and access to opportunity. See Appendix C. for more information on AFFH and the Site Inventory analysis.
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
The Housing Element includes five goals that create the framework for how the City of Napa will address housing needs during the planning period. Within each goal section, the policies provide direction for how the City will achieve that goal. The goals and policies were developed with extensive community input and reflect the City’s ambition to create equitable and inclusive neighborhoods and to provide opportunities for a variety of housing at all levels of affordability to meet the current and future needs of all residents.
The process for updating the 2023-2031 Housing Element goals, policies, and programs involved reviewing several source documents, evaluating whether issue gaps existed, maintaining a throughline on the progress made in the last Housing Element, and then writing actionable goals. • Reviewed General Plan Principles to focus on those that were related to housing. Identified six principles to evaluate in the context of the updated Housing Element. • Compared them to the visioning statements that were ranked in importance by the public. This ranking was used to set the order of the new goals.
• Reviewed goals from the last HE cycle to see where gaps existed between old activities and vision for the future.
• Updated and created new goals to make sure that the principles of the general plan plus the public vision were turned into actionable goals for the next HE cycle.
Visioning is a way of looking at the future. It is important that the Housing Element focuses on today’s issues and concerns, but also looks forward to a point in time to identify a desired end state – taking a constructive, positive look at our community by defining what we want instead of just reacting to today’s problems. The public reviewed and ranked six vision statements to guide the City in creating its Housing Element.
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
The Housing Element includes five goals that create the framework for how the City of Napa will address housing needs during the planning period.
Support a diverse array of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the population with consideration of special characteristics protected under state and federal fair housing laws.
Promote a diverse, abundant, adaptable, and equitably distributed mix of rental and ownership housing.
Honor Napa's local heritage and agrarian economy through the preservation and revitalization of historic and cultural resources.
Through processes and programs that are responsive to environmental justice concerns, conduct infrastructure improvements and promote development of energy-efficient residential units and rehabilitation of existing units to reduce energy consumption.
Recognizing the importance of Napa's tourism-based economy, balance sustainable and equitable growth with the needs of the local workforce, including protections from displacement.
Each goal includes a series of policies to be implemented in facilitating how the city will achieve the prescribed goals. Presented below are each of the Housing Element policies by goal.
GOAL H1 Supportive Housing Needs
Support a diverse array of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the population with consideration of special characteristics protected under state and federal fair housing laws.
Policy H1-1
The City will continue to support and implement adopted plans and actions to respond to the needs of all segments of the population, including zoning approaches as required by State law.
Programs:
H1-1.1, H1-1.2, H1-1.3
Policy H1-2
The City will prioritize providing housing assistance and housing development incentives that serve those groups with demonstrated special needs, such as lower income households, seniors, persons with disabilities, persons with mental illness, large families with children, female-headed households, victims of domestic violence, transitional aged youth, and people who are exiting homelessness.
Programs:
H1-2.1, H1-2.2, H1-2.3
H1-2.4
GOAL H2 Diverse and Equitable Housing
The City shall affirmatively further fair housing in all City housing programs and promote a diverse, abundant, adaptable, and equitably distributed mix of rental and ownership housing.
Policy H2-1
The City will assure that affordable housing provided through density bonuses, ADUs, and other programs or incentives remains affordable long-term, consistent with State law.
Programs:
H2-1.1, H2-1.2, H2-1.3
Policy H2-2
The City will ensure there is a sufficient supply of land zoned and that application processes are streamlined to accommodate projected housing needs with an equitable distribution of various of housing types.
Programs:
H2-2.1, H2-2.2, H2-2.3,
H2-2.4, H2-2.5, H2-2.6,
H2-2.7, H2-2.8, H2-2.9,
H2-2.10
Policy H2-3
The City will promote diverse and mixed-income neighborhoods throughout the City by encouraging new affordable housing development in high resource areas and by promoting homeownership opportunities.
Programs:
H2-3.1, H2-3.2, H2-3.3
Policy H2-4
The City will partner with community-based organizations to engage residents in area-specific planning and connect residents to programs and resources that promote affordable housing, housing security, and home ownership and which affirmatively further fair housing principles.
Programs:
H2-4.1, H2-4.2, H2-4.3,
H2-4.4, H2-4.5
GOAL H3 Preserve Heritage
Honor Napa’s local heritage and agrarian economy through the preservation and revitalization of historic and cultural resources.
Policy H3-1
The City will support the preservation, maintenance, and improvement of existing housing.
Programs:
H3-1.1, H3-1.2
Policy H3-2
The City will facilitate infill housing, especially in older neighborhoods, along commercial corridors, near employment centers, and near high-frequency transit areas, to revitalize neighborhoods and commercial corridors, promote walkability and increased transit ridership, and provide increased housing options.
Programs:
H3-2.1, H3-2.2
Policy H3-3
The City will prioritize keeping people housed when enforcing codes that address health and safety concerns.
Programs:
H3-3.1
GOAL H4 Energy Conservation and Infrastructure Improvement Through processes and programs that are responsive to environmental justice concerns, conduct improvements to infrastructure and community amenities, and promote development of energy-efficient residential units and rehabilitation of existing units to reduce resource consumption.
Policy H4-1
Through its standards and guidelines, the City will require new residential development and rehabilitation projects to incorporate sustainable building design, siting, construction, and operation.
Programs:
H4-1.1
Policy H4-2
The City will strengthen ways to assure convenient walking, bicycling, and transit opportunities and connections through prioritization of transportation network accessibility, maintenance, and improvement in areas of greatest need.
Programs:
H4-2.1, H4-2.2, H4-2.3
Policy H4-3
The City will encourage and support energy and resource conservation throughout the life cycle of residential structures, including construction, rehabilitation and remodeling, and deconstruction.
Programs:
H4-3.1
Policy H4-4
The City will promote equitable access to parks, open space, and outdoor recreation opportunities when planning for new housing development.
Programs:
H4-4.1
GOAL H5 Protect Community from Displacement
Recognizing the importance of Napa’s tourism-based economy, balance sustainable and equitable growth with the needs of the local workforce, including protections from displacement.
Policy H5-1
The City will protect and preserve its existing rental housing stock and existing affordable housing units at risk of conversion to market rate housing or other land uses, including federal- and state-subsidized units.
Programs:
H5-1.1, H5-1.2, H5-1.3,
H5-1.4, H5-1.5
Policy H5-2
Recognizing the impact on housing demand imposed by non-residential development, City will continue to prioritize balancing economic growth with the housing needs of workers and their families to prevent displacement.
Programs:
H5-2.1, H5-2.2, H5-2.3
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
The Napa Housing Element is built around preserving and enhancing residential neighborhoods, sustaining the community's character and environmental resources, and efficiently planning for the future use of remaining undeveloped or redeveloping properties so that they fulfill unmet needs. The implementation programs in the Housing Element, as described below, are intended to address these concerns.
In reviewing the list of programs on the following pages it is important to recognize two other concerns:
(1) the City has limited Staff and budget resources available to undertake all of the programs listed immediately; and (2) some programs require other funding or actions to occur first.
The Action Plan for Housing, including the implementation programs described in the Housing Element, represents the City’s commitment to take an active leadership role in assuring the implementation of the programs described. It is also the City’s ongoing intent to: (1) encourage public review of and participation in all aspects of the planning process; and (2) perform an annual review of the Housing Element in order to periodically revise and update this Action Plan as necessary to keep it effective.
The listing of implementation programs in the appendices can be used as a tool during the annual evaluation of the Housing Element.
As part of the Housing Element public participation process, residents of the City of Napa were asked to complete a prioritization exercise and evaluation of housing needs in the City to inform the 2023- 2031 Housing Plan. Residents participated in penny jar visioning exercises, attended Housing Element presentations and focus groups, and created their own housing plans using the digital and analog tool Balancing Act. Based on these feedback sources, the City recommends revisions to specific programs and the prioritization of specific activities for the 6 th planning period.
Generally, the public expressed a strong desire to increase opportunities for affordable housing across a variety of income levels, including programs to assist those in the “missing middle” who cannot otherwise access supportive housing programs. As such, the City will work to identify financial and administrative resources to support the implementation of these priority programs.
The following section details the program implementation for each policy. Presented by goal and policy, each program includes a description, history of prior implementation consolidation, timeline, funding, department responsibility, quantified objectives, and AFFH contributing factors.
This implementation program focuses on supporting housing needs, improving infrastructure, and offering a wider range of housing choices for everyone in the city. Heritage, equity, inclusion, and antidisplacement are themes woven throughout the implementation program actions. The city aims to ensure that Napa is an equitable and inclusive city by protecting and providing opportunities to those residents who are most vulnerable.
State law requires the Housing Element to include quantified objectives for the maximum number of units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, or conserved. Policies and programs establish the strategies to achieve these objectives. The City’s quantified objectives are described under each program and represent the City’s best effort in implementing each of the programs. For lower income categories, assumptions are based primarily on past program performance and projected funding availability. For market rate units, objectives are estimated based on historic building activity, current construction trends and land availability.
In general, new construction totals are at or above the City’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) numbers described in Section 3 except for extremely low and very low-income units, where limited funding is the key constraint. However, a planned transitional housing facility is expected to assist eight extremely low-income households, and rehabilitation and voucher programs also target and assist lower income households. Table 5-1 summarizes quantified objectives by income group. See individual programs for more details on quantified objectives.
Table 5-1: Summary of Quantified Objectives by Income Group Income Group New Construction1 Rehabilitation2
Conservation/
Preservation3 Total
Extremely Low 454 134 250 838
Very Low 453 133 250 836
Low 453 133 250 836
Moderate 446 446
Above Moderate 1,723 1,723
Total 3,529 400 319 4,679
Notes: 1New construction objective is based on, but exceeds, the RHNA and reflects Program H2-2.5. 2Rehabilitation objective reflects Programs H1-2.2,
H2-1.3, and H3-3.1. 3Conservation/Preservation objective reflects Programs H1-2.4, H3-3.1, and H5-1.5.
The Fair Housing Assessment explores a range of potential issues that impact fair housing regionally and in the City of Napa. Some of these issues more clearly influence housing fairness in the city, especially when the data collected herein is paired with local input and perceptions.
Table 5-2 presents priority fair housing issues for Napa, identifies primary factors contributing to housing fairness issues in the city (“contributing factors”), and cross-references policies which address each issue and contributing factor pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(v).
A contributing factor is a factor that creates, contributes to, perpetuates, or increases the severity of one or more fair housing issue. Contributing factors in this section are prioritized based on those that most limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance. (HCD, 2021) Prioritized contributing factors are bolded. More information on how each issue was developed see Appendix C.
Table 5-2: Factors that Contribute to Fair Housing Issues AFFH Identified
Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factor Meaningful Action(s) Issue 1:
Segregation with
persons of color and
lower-income
residents centered
in downtown,
central, and south
east areas of city
A. Moderate levels of income and racial
segregation.
H2-2.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
B. Disproportionate presence of Hispanicidentifying persons in low-resource areas.
H2-2.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
C. Past practices of nationwide redlining. H2-4.1, H2-4.2 D. Discriminatory patterns in lending. H2-4.1, H2-4.2
E. Patterns of public and private
investments including redevelopment
programs.
H2-1.1, H2-2.6, H2-2.7, H2-3.1
F. Limited affordable housing available for
low-income residents throughout the City.
H2-1.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
G. Low vacancy rates with demand for
housing outpacing supply.
H2-1.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
H. Displacement of residents due to
economic pressures.
H2-4.4, H5-1.1, H5-1.2, H5-2.3
I. Limited location and type(s) of
affordable housing.
H2-2.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
Issue 2:
Disparities in
Access to
J. Limited access to proficient schools. H2-2.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5 K. Racial/ethnic/income-based disparities
in access to proficient schools.
H2-2.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
AFFH Identified
Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factor Meaningful Action(s) Opportunities,
especially in the
downtown core and
south east parts of
Napa
B. Disproportionate presence of Hispanicidentifying persons in low-resource areas.
H2-2.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
D. Discriminatory patterns in lending. H2-4.1, H2-4.2
G. Low vacancy rates with demand for
housing outpacing supply.
H2-2.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
J. Limited access to proficient schools. H2-1.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5 Issue 3:
Disproportionate
Housing Needs
L. Hispanic Households tend to have
higher rates of cost burdens and housing
problems.
H2-2.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
M. Insufficient affordable housing in a
range of unit sizes.
H2-2.4
D. Discriminatory patterns in lending. H2-4.1, H2-4.2
N. High risk of displacement throughout
Napa.
H2-2.1, H2-2.3
O. Lack of Publicly Supported Housing. H2-4.4, H5-1.1, H5-1.2, H5-2.3 G. Low vacancy rates with demand for
housing outpacing supply.
H2-2.2, H2-2.6
P. Elevated displacement risk for lowerincome households due to natural disasters, especially wildfires.
H2-1.1, H2-2.1
L. Hispanic Households tend to have
higher rates of cost burdens and housing
problems.
H2-4.4
Issue 4:
Fair Housing
Enforcement and
Outreach
Q. Limited resources for fair housing
outreach and enforcement.
H2-4.4
R. Insufficient Fair Housing education,
especially for households that are most
vulnerable to housing insecurity.
H2-4.1, H2-4.2, H2-4.3
D. Discriminatory patterns in lending. H2-4.1, H2-4.2
H1. SUPPORTIVE HOUSING NEEDS
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H1. Supportive Housing Needs Support a diverse array of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the population with consideration of special characteristics protected under state and federal fair housing laws ▪ Special needs/Supportive
▪ Homeless
▪ Transitional
▪ Elderly
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H1-1
The City will continue to support and
implement adopted plans and actions to
respond to the needs of all segments of the
population, including zoning approaches as
required by State law.
Includes consolidated/modified policies:
H4.2, H4.5, H5.3
H1-1.1 - Collaborate to Provide Housing to Populations with Special Needs The City will actively pursue partnerships and collaboration with public and private service agencies and developers to assist in the development and rehabilitation of housing and to support services to meet the housing needs of those with special characteristics protected under state and federal fair housing laws. Along with other resources, the City will use density bonuses to assist in meeting housing needs of those with special characteristics.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H5.M
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H4.1
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing and Homeless Services Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), conduct outreach annually, produce an annual report to track progress.
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time, public and private sources CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A H1-1.2 - Residential Care Facilities
The City will support the provision of residential care facilities for special needs persons by continuing to permit small facilities in all residential areas and larger facilities as provided by updating the Zoning Ordinance to meet state law.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H4.5
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Division, City Attorney QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE By the end of 2023
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
H1-1.3 - Legislative Advocacy
Support key legislation that assists cities like Napa to develop affordable housing units.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H5.5
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Division, Planning Division, City Attorney QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), annual
legislative monitoring on behalf of the city.
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H1. Supportive Housing Needs Support a diverse array of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the population with consideration of special characteristics protected under state and federal fair housing laws ▪ Special needs/Supportive
▪ Homeless
▪ Transitional
▪ Elderly
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H1-2
The City will prioritize providing housing
assistance and housing development
incentives that serve those groups with
demonstrated special needs, such as lower
income households, seniors, persons with
disabilities, persons with mental illness, large
families with children, female-headed
households, victims of domestic violence,
transitional aged youth, and people who are
exiting homelessness.
H1-2.1 – Continuum of Care
The City shall work with the Continuum of Care, its members, service providers, and jurisdictions, on a coordinated response plan that is updated regularly. The efforts shall include potential shelter sites and strategies to address homelessness, with an emphasis on addressing disproportionate barriers to existing homelessness and accessing housing among marginalized populations. The efforts shall include metrics and indicators to track the efficacy of programs and investments to address homelessness. These metrics will be presented each year in a publicly available annual report.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H4.A, H4.E
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Authority, Housing Division, City Manager and County of Napa working with non-profits
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A
TIMELINE Consider the creation and adoption of a plan by 2028 and update as needed.
FUNDING SOURCE Shelter Acquisition Programs, CDBG and General Fund CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A H1-2.2 – Supportive and Transitional Housing for Homeless through SROs The City will assist in meeting needs for additional permanent, supportive, and transitional housing for previously homeless and special needs populations. As part of the program the City will promote well-managed Single Room Occupancy (SRO) projects, including efforts to rehabilitate existing facilities to provide SRO housing, and the development of efficiency apartments as lower cost permanent housing. SRO projects involving special needs groups must be linked with social services and case management.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H4.B
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Authority and County of Napa in coordination with housing developers and other non-profits
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE Rehabilitate 100 units of housing to SRO units over the 6 th
Cycle period.
TIMELINE By 2028
FUNDING SOURCE Continuum of Care federal funds with local match, Affordable Housing Impact Fee Funds, Section 8 Housing
Vouchers
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H1. Supportive Housing Needs Support a diverse array of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the population with consideration of special characteristics protected under state and federal fair housing laws ▪ Special needs/Supportive
▪ Homeless
▪ Transitional
▪ Elderly
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H1-2.3 – Permanent, Supportive and Transitional Housing In partnership with public and private agencies, the City will assist in meeting needs for additional permanent, supportive, and transitional housing for intellectual and developmental disabilities. This can be accomplished by:
▪ Assisting developers to apply for available State and Federal monies in support of housing construction and rehabilitation targeted for persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities.
▪ Initiate a cooperative outreach program with the North Bay Regional Center to inform people when new housing becomes available for developmentally disabled persons. ▪ Continue to partner with the North Bay Housing Coalition to rehabilitate units for the developmentally disabled and provide access to Section 8 vouchers.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H4.I
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Division of the City Manager’s Office, with support from Continuum of Care partners; North Bay
Housing Coalition.
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE Assist 2 Developers to Apply for State and Federal Monies Develop annual outreach messaging regarding
availability of funds.
TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031)
FUNDING SOURCE Section 8 program, staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A H1-2.4 – Rental Assistance
The Housing Authority of the City of Napa will continue to provide rental assistance and social services support for homeless persons and persons with special needs to the extent federal funding is available.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H4.D, H4.C
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H4.3
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Authority and Homeless Services Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES Maintain a minimum of 8 shelter Plus Care vouchers/year, 75 Mainstream vouchers for
disabled/year, 17 VASH Vouchers, and 93 Family
Unification Vouchers, and 100 non-elderly Disabled (NED) Vouchers. Increase the percentage of homeless persons
moving from temporary to permanent housing. Track the
percentage of homeless persons staying in permanent
housing long-term.
TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), monitoring conducted annually
FUNDING SOURCE Voucher programs CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A H2. DIVERSE & EQUITABLE HOUSING
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H2. Diverse & Equitable
Housing
The City shall affirmatively further fair housing in all City housing programs and promote a diverse, abundant, adaptable, and equitably distributed mix of rental and ownership housing. [P84] ▪ Renters
▪ First time homeowners
▪ Economic programs for buying
▪ Mixed densities and income levels
▪ Needs of missing middle
▪ ADUs
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H2-1
The City will assure that affordable housing
provided through density bonuses, ADUs, and
other programs or incentives remains
affordable long-term, consistent with State
law.
H2-1.1 – Development Incentive Program
In coordination with the Housing Authority, support applications by affordable housing providers and developers for funding, loans, and tax credits through priority processing, fee deferrals, and incentives under the density bonus ordinance to construct:
▪ New, affordable rental units for very low- and low-income renter households and ▪ New affordable ownership units for first time low- and moderate-income homebuyers, with priority for locations in high-resource areas such as the North and West Quadrants.
Housing types may include Self-Help and Community-Help new housing.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H2.B, H2.C
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Division, Housing Authority, private developers, and non-profit agencies.
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE Support 220 new rental units for very low- and lowincome households, and support 15 new ownership TIMELINE By 2031 units for low- and moderate-income households FUNDING SOURCE Possible sources of funding include, Affordable Housing Impact Fee, Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program,
HOME Rental Construction Program; 1% TOT for
Affordable and Workforce Housing, Mortgage Revenue
Bonds
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR E, F, G, J, P
H2-1.2 – Long Term Agreements and Deed Restrictions
Continue to implement and monitor long-term agreements or deed restrictions with developers of affordable housing units that are funded by or receive incentives from Federal, State, or local housing programs. Agreements and restrictions will govern unit affordability, monitor the continuing affordability of such units, and provide incentives for renewal of affordability agreements where feasible.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H2.G
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Division, Housing Authority, City Attorney QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), monitoring conducted annually
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H2. Diverse & Equitable
Housing
The City shall affirmatively further fair housing in all City housing programs and promote a diverse, abundant, adaptable, and equitably distributed mix of rental and ownership housing. [P84] ▪ Renters
▪ First time homeowners
▪ Economic programs for buying
▪ Mixed densities and income levels
▪ Needs of missing middle
▪ ADUs
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H2-1.3 – Acquisition and Rehabilitation
The City will incentivize the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing, market rate, substandard rental housing for conversion to affordable rentals for extremely low, very low- and lowincome households. Conversion projects must plan for high quality ongoing property management and maintenance and include restrictions on remaining affordable for 55 years.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H3.O
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Division, Code Enforcement QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE Rehabilitate 40 substandard rental units for extremely low, very low-, and low-income renters.
Assist rehabilitation of 120 units of substandard
owner-occupied housing for very low- and lowincome households.
TIMELINE By 2031
FUNDING SOURCE Community Development Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation Program, , HOME Rehabilitation Program
and code enforcement program enforcing existing
codes and health and safety regulations; private
sources
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H2. Diverse & Equitable
Housing
The City shall affirmatively further fair housing in all City housing programs and promote a diverse, abundant, adaptable, and equitably distributed mix of rental and ownership housing. [P84] ▪ Renters
▪ First time homeowners
▪ Economic programs for buying
▪ Mixed densities and income levels
▪ Needs of missing middle
▪ ADUs
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H2-2
The City will ensure there is a sufficient supply
of land zoned and that application processes
are streamlined to accommodate projected
housing needs with an equitable distribution
of various of housing types. [P3]
H2-2.1 – Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Updates
Update the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to address changes in state law and other deficiencies as detailed in the Zoning Diagnosis Report (Appendix K), specifically including:
▪ Implementation of a housing replacement program for replacement of existing lower-income units, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code Section 65915(c)(3) ▪ Administrative review of small subdivisions and development, pursuant to SB 9 ▪ Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units allowances in nonresidential zones where residential uses are permitted, for increased height, for encroachment into the front setback, and for separate conveyances, pursuant to SB 897, AB 2221, and AB 345 ▪ Density Bonuses and Affordable Housing Concessions qualifications, definitions of associated terms, and allowances for development standards modification, pursuant to AB 682, AB1551, AB 290, AB 2334, and AB 571
▪ Low Barrier Navigation Centers as a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code Section 65660 ▪ Emergency Shelters as a use by-right, along with appropriate updates to the definition and applicable development standards, including parking, pursuant to AB 2339 and Cal.
Gov. Code 65583(a)(4)
▪ Increase accessibility of the Zoning Ordinance through updates to organization, format, and useability ▪ Large employee and agricultural employee housing as uses permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses in the same zone (e.g., POS district), pursuant to Cal Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6
▪ Mobile home parks as uses permitted either by-right or conditionally in zones and General Plan designations where residential uses are allowed or planned, along with appropriate updates to definitions for mobile/manufactured homes, pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code Sections 65852.3 through 65852.7 ▪ Supportive Housing explicitly permitted in the same manner as the types of housing it most closely resembles and allowed by-right where multi-family and mixed uses are allowed, including in nonresidential zones, pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code Section 65651 Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H1.6, H2.3, H2.9 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE By 2023
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR A, B, G I, J, K, L, N, P Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H2. Diverse & Equitable
Housing
The City shall affirmatively further fair housing in all City housing programs and promote a diverse, abundant, adaptable, and equitably distributed mix of rental and ownership housing. [P84] ▪ Renters
▪ First time homeowners
▪ Economic programs for buying
▪ Mixed densities and income levels
▪ Needs of missing middle
▪ ADUs
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H2-2.2 – Conversation of Publicly Owned Lands for Housing In compliance with the Surplus Lands Act and in collaboration with other public agencies, the City shall undertake a review of publicly and institutionally owned lands to consider their viability for residential, residential mixed-use, and/or affordable housing development, and pursue follow-up actions such as prioritizing sites for purchase or affordable development.
As part of this effort, the City will take the following actions:
▪ Application of the Affordable Housing Overlay zoning district to such lands ▪ Outreach to affordable housing developers about financial assistance and other incentives ▪ Issue Requests for Proposals on such lands found viable and ready for housing development ▪ Provide additional incentives to facilitate development on such lands (e.g., streamlining for final entitlements, priority in building permit queue) ▪ By 2028, if development of such lands does not progress as anticipated, the City will take additional actions to facilitate housing development and maintain adequate sites to accommodate RHNA
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H1.F, H2.A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H1.12, H1.13, H1.14, H2.3 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Division, Planning Division, Economic Development
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE Create a minimum of 22 lower- and moderateincome housing units by converting publiclyTIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023 owned lands. -2031); Complete initial review of publicly-owned lands by 2026; Conduct
follow-up actions within 1 year of determining a site is viable and ready for housing development
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time, General Funds CONTRIBUTING FACTOR G H2-2.3 – ADU and JADU Incentive Program in High Opportunity Areas Encourage additional, well-designed accessory dwelling units as a desired use in all residential neighborhoods throughout the City and implement incentive programs for ADUs and JADUs that house local workers or that are deed restricted. Encourage homeowners to construct an ADU with an agreement to charge rents affordable for lower income households or rent the ADU to Housing Choice Voucher participants.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H3.D
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H1.6
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Division, Housing Authority, Housing Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE Finance at least 28 ADUs by 2031. Ensure that financial assistance is distributed throughout the
City, particularly in areas of high opportunity.
TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), monitoring conducted annually. Reported with APRs.
FUNDING SOURCE Homeowner Funding, Junior Unit Initiative Program, Permanent Local Housing Allocation.
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR A, B, F, G, I, J, K, L, N
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H2. Diverse & Equitable
Housing
The City shall affirmatively further fair housing in all City housing programs and promote a diverse, abundant, adaptable, and equitably distributed mix of rental and ownership housing. [P84] ▪ Renters
▪ First time homeowners
▪ Economic programs for buying
▪ Mixed densities and income levels
▪ Needs of missing middle
▪ ADUs
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H2-2.4 –In Fill Housing Prototypes
Encourage additional, well-designed duplexes, triplexes, and other attached dwelling types throughout the Single-Family, Traditional Residential, and any other single-family General Plan designations and zoning districts that allow these uses. Density bonuses may be provided for affordable units. The City shall work with infill developers and other stakeholders on replicable site plans or architectural plans to reduce pre-development costs and expedite the planning approval process for a variety of ADA-accessible infill housing types, including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, bungalow courts, and other workforce housing types, that can be used throughout the City.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H3.6, H1.6
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE Assist in the production of 20 units per year.
TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), monitoring conducted annually. Establish initial timeline with
developers and stakeholders for ongoing collaboration
(e.g., annual meeting) by 2025. Reported with APRs.
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR A, B, F, G, I, J, K, L, M H2-2.5 – Develop Web-based Land Inventory
The City shall develop and maintain a web-based inventory of housing element sites that is updated quarterly to identify sites appropriate for housing. The inventory will also track remaining capacity to meet the RHNA in compliance with no-net loss requirements to maintain adequate capacity for lower- and moderate-income housing throughout the Housing Element Planning Period. The inventory will also highlight surplus City-owned sites and other public lands that would be appropriate for affordable housing.
This web-based inventory will assist the city to maintain an adequate supply of land designated for all types of residential development to meet the quantified housing need of 1,939 City units and 730 absorbed from the County’s obligation. This will also assist the City to evaluate residential development proposals for consistency with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Sites Inventory. If a development approval will cause the Sites Inventory to be unable to accommodate all income levels of the RHNA, then additional site(s) shall be added pursuant to Government Code Section 65863(b)(1).
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H1.2
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE The City shall maintain a sufficient supply of land zoned for multi-family housing to meet the
quantitative housing need of 1,360 Lower-Income,
446 Moderate-Income units, and 1,723 Above
Moderate-Income units.
TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), monitoring conducted annually.
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H2. Diverse & Equitable
Housing
The City shall affirmatively further fair housing in all City housing programs and promote a diverse, abundant, adaptable, and equitably distributed mix of rental and ownership housing. [P84] ▪ Renters
▪ First time homeowners
▪ Economic programs for buying
▪ Mixed densities and income levels
▪ Needs of missing middle
▪ ADUs
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H2-2.6 - Land Banking Program
Based on availability of funding, the City Housing Division and Housing Authority of the City of Napa, will continue to pursue land acquisition/land banking opportunities for future affordable projects.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H2.11
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Division/Housing Authority, private developers, and non-profit agencies.
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE Land bank to accommodate 110 low-income units.
TIMELINE By 2031
FUNDING SOURCE Possible sources of funding include local Housing Trust Fund, Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program, HOME
Rental Construction Program; Mortgage Revenue Bonds
and 1% TOT for Affordable and Workforce Housing.
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR E, G
H2-2.7 – Impact Fee Realignment
During the Housing Cycle, review developer and impact fees to align fee increases with changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and set fee structure to encourage mixed-use and diverse development.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H5.D
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H2.3
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Division and Finance Dept. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Update Fee Schedule by 2028
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR E
H2-2.8 – Fast Tracking Program
Implement enhanced processing for 100% affordable housing projects across all City departments, to include: fees deferred/reduced/waived, fast-tracking projects, APR on fast-tracked units produced.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H5.1, H5.2
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Enhanced processing by 2025
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H2. Diverse & Equitable
Housing
The City shall affirmatively further fair housing in all City housing programs and promote a diverse, abundant, adaptable, and equitably distributed mix of rental and ownership housing. [P84] ▪ Renters
▪ First time homeowners
▪ Economic programs for buying
▪ Mixed densities and income levels
▪ Needs of missing middle
▪ ADUs
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H2-2.9 – General Plan Monitoring
Monitor development projects to achieve minimum densities as designated by the General Plan per Government Code section 65863. The City shall not approve development below minimum designated General Plan densities unless physical or environmental constraints preclude their achievement. If development on a site is to occur over time, the applicant must show that the proposed development does not prevent subsequent development of the site to its minimum density.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H1.3, H5.4
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), monitoring conducted annually.
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
H2-2.10 – Alternative Adequate Sites
To ensure the City can accomplish the RHNA, alternative adequate sites will be included as appropriate, pursuant to state law, and the City will meet the following for such sites:
▪ The city has committed $2,200,000 of general fund money to assist 90 units at the “Heritage House” project via an enforceable agreement dated June 1, 2022. ▪ The city has committed $2,200,000 of general fund money and grants from the CDBG-R program, Project Homekey, and County of Napa to assist 54 units at the “Valley Lodge” project via an enforceable agreement dated August 1, 2022. ▪ Commit to meet the requirements of Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.1 and reporting the status of the City’s committed assistance on its annual planning reports.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning and Housing Divisions QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE Commit funding to support 144 units TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031)
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR F, G, I, M Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H2. Diverse & Equitable
Housing
The City shall affirmatively further fair housing in all City housing programs and promote a diverse, abundant, adaptable, and equitably distributed mix of rental and ownership housing. [P84] ▪ Renters
▪ First time homeowners
▪ Economic programs for buying
▪ Mixed densities and income levels
▪ Needs of missing middle
▪ ADUs
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H2-3
The City will promote diverse and mixedincome neighborhoods throughout the City by encouraging new affordable housing
development in high resource areas and by
promoting homeownership opportunities.
H2-3.1 – Low Income and Special Needs Funding Program
Utilize existing and pursue future funding resources such as housing impact fees, local revenue bonds, lodging tax revenue, and State and federal funds to be used for the development of housing at income levels below 120% AMI (low income) for homeownership opportunities, especially in the highest resource areas of the City like the North and West Quadrants.
Funding sources can also support special needs housing and support services, first time homebuyer programs, retention of existing subsidized units as affordable, low-income renters, and rehabilitation of existing low-income units. When the City issues a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), projects that meet the following criteria will be prioritized:
▪ Incorporate cost efficient methods for home construction and operation, including value engineering; ▪ Address State requirements for minimum unit sizes unless applicant can justify alternative sizes; ▪ Include energy/water efficient and sustainable building methods and materials; and ▪ Locate within close proximity to transit, employment, and services.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H5.K
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H5.8
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Authority, Housing Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE Support development or preservation of 20 lowincome units, with approximately 10 each in the North and West Quadrants
TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), Notice of Funding Availability issued annually.
FUNDING SOURCE Local, State and federal sources including HOME funds, Mortgage Credit Certificate allocations, Low Income
Housing Tax Credits, etc.
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR E
H2-3.2 – Long Term Housing Needs through Specific Plans Address long-term housing needs through future Specific Plans particularly along major transportation corridors, near services, and on large sites where services and transit can be incorporated. Such plans shall be developed through an effective and collaborative community involvement process.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H1.15
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), monitoring conducted annually.
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H2. Diverse & Equitable
Housing
The City shall affirmatively further fair housing in all City housing programs and promote a diverse, abundant, adaptable, and equitably distributed mix of rental and ownership housing. [P84] ▪ Renters
▪ First time homeowners
▪ Economic programs for buying
▪ Mixed densities and income levels
▪ Needs of missing middle
▪ ADUs
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H2-3.3 – Harvest Middle School Housing Development
To facilitate appropriate housing development for the large-acreage Harvest Middle School site, the City will incentivize the construction of, or adaptive reuse of existing structures to provide, no less than 53 units affordable to low-income households for a period of 55 years or more by coordinating with the property owners and offering the following:
▪ Issue a Request for Proposal, if desired by the property owner ▪ Financial incentives including deferral or waiver of application fees ▪ Fast-tracked development review procedures and priority in building permit queue ▪ Technical assistance through any necessary discretionary review processes ▪ Additional incentives such as financial assistance, fee waivers, and modifications or reductions to development requirements will be considered and applied proportionally, as appropriate, for:
o Any units that address disproportionate housing needs (e.g., units tailored to large households, farmworkers, extremely low-income households, etc.) o Providing on-site supportive services (e.g., financial counselling, language services, childcare) o Other investments that increase access to opportunities (e.g., educational or job training center, multimodal transportation facilities, recreational or community spaces) Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning, Housing, and Economic Development Divisions
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE 53 low-income deed-restricted units TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031); Approach property owner with incentives by July 2024
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR G, M, N, P H2-4
The City will partner with community-based
organizations to engage residents in areaspecific planning and connect residents to programs and resources that promote
affordable housing, housing security, and
home ownership and which affirmatively
further fair housing principles.
H2-4.1 – Expanding Information for Developers
To support transparency and public education, the City will maintain and annually update webpages dedicated to housing development and resources. This accessible site will include information in English and Spanish that covers:
▪ Materials and information on planning processes, timelines, fees, guidelines, and public noticing for permit applications; ▪ Housing assistance program options, including eligibility standards; ▪ Contact information for City housing staff; and
▪ Links to relevant partner agencies and fair housing resources.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H5.J
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning & Housing Divisions QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE By 2024
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR D, R
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H2. Diverse & Equitable
Housing
The City shall affirmatively further fair housing in all City housing programs and promote a diverse, abundant, adaptable, and equitably distributed mix of rental and ownership housing. [P84] ▪ Renters
▪ First time homeowners
▪ Economic programs for buying
▪ Mixed densities and income levels
▪ Needs of missing middle
▪ ADUs
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H2-4.2 – Connecting the Community to Housing Resources
The City will continue to support and partner with public and private agencies, community groups, and non-profits to connect all segments of the population to housing resources, with special consideration for understanding and addressing the housing needs of farmworkers and other underrepresented groups. The City will provide an annual progress report detailing the number of people served and resources used via these partnerships. Programs and partners the City will support include:
▪ Resources for Spanish-speaking and other non-English speaking residents. ▪ Low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyer resources. ▪ Rental assistance vouchers.
▪ Outreach/counseling related to housing.
▪ Dispute resolution and fair housing practices, including by financially supporting Fair Housing Napa Valley. ▪ Continue to partner with the Napa County Housing Authority (NCHA) on understanding and addressing farmworker housing needs, including:
o Through the end of 2024, engage with NCHA throughout their farmworker housing needs assessment process and support as requested and appropriate. o Upon the completion of NCHA’s updated needs assessment, identify housing support strategies to be implemented on an ongoing basis, including assistance in identifying sites within the City to meet farmworker housing needs. o Meet quarterly with the NCHA and other community-based organizations that support the farmworker community like the Napa Valley Vintners, Farmworker Committee, Napa County Farmworker Foundation, etc.
o Provide support for rehabilitation funding for units rented by the farmworker community. ▪ Continue to include requirements in the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to integrate farmworker housing opportunities into mixed-income housing developments approved throughout the planning period.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H2.D, H5.J
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H1.5, H2.10, H4.7 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Division, and Housing Authority QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE APR detailing the number of people served and TIMELINE Ongoing during 6 resources used via these partnerships th Cycle (2023-2031), monitoring conducted annually.
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR C, D, R
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H2. Diverse & Equitable
Housing
The City shall affirmatively further fair housing in all City housing programs and promote a diverse, abundant, adaptable, and equitably distributed mix of rental and ownership housing. [P84] ▪ Renters
▪ First time homeowners
▪ Economic programs for buying
▪ Mixed densities and income levels
▪ Needs of missing middle
▪ ADUs
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H2-4.3 – Expanding Information on Housing Assistance
Continue to use, to the fullest extent possible, available Federal subsidies to residents through the Section 8 or other rental assistance programs. The Housing Authority will provide information to local residents on the use of any new housing assistance programs which become available.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H5.L
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Authority, Housing Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE Maintain existing allocation of up to 1,378 monthly Section 8 Rental Vouchers Countywide (including
Program 4.D special needs vouchers)
TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), monitoring conducted annually.
FUNDING SOURCE Section 8 voucher program and or other federal and state funding sources.
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR R
H2-4.4 – Anti-Displacement
Engage community members and partner organizations in visioning processes to create local anti-displacement solutions through neighborhood-level planning in areas targeted for inclusive economic and community development, particularly those at-risk of displacement such as in the West and North Quadrants. This engagement may be conducted concurrently with public engagement before July 2025 for the City’s consolidated planning cycle.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning, Housing and Economic Development Divisions
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A
TIMELINE By 2025
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR H, O, L, Q Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H2. Diverse & Equitable
Housing
The City shall affirmatively further fair housing in all City housing programs and promote a diverse, abundant, adaptable, and equitably distributed mix of rental and ownership housing. [P84] ▪ Renters
▪ First time homeowners
▪ Economic programs for buying
▪ Mixed densities and income levels
▪ Needs of missing middle
▪ ADUs
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H2-4.5 – Visioning Housing Goals in Master Plans
Promote community visioning processes for master plans and specific plans to identify use and design objectives specific to these areas to create broad, community-based visions that include opportunities for housing. Specific plans should:
▪ Include housing goals.
▪ Incorporate fast track process provisions for subsequent projects that are consistent with the plan. ▪ Identify those sites which are desirable for residential or residential mixed-use. ▪ Be developed through an effective and collaborative community involvement process (consistent with Policy H2-4). ▪ Be clear and easily implemented.
▪ As appropriate, identify desired three-dimensional qualities and allow density to fit within that envelope. ▪ Include standards to assure that identified housing goals will happen, such as identifying the mix of uses, minimum density standards, or a percentage of affordable units, and a minimum number of housing units by type.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H2.3, H2.5
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing and Planning Divisions QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE By 2029
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR A, B, F, G, I, J, K, L H3. PRESERVE HERITAGE
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H3. Preserve Heritage
Honor Napa’s local heritage and agrarian economy through the preservation and revitalization of historic and cultural resources.
▪ Buildings/downtown
▪ Ag economy
▪ Code enforcement
▪ Neighborhood investments or revitalization
▪ Historic resources
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H3-1
The City will support the preservation,
maintenance, and improvement of existing
housing.
H3-1.1 – Emergency Repairs and Rehabilitation
The City will continue the Emergency Home Repair Program to help repair windows, doors, leaking roofs plus plumbing and electrical problems for income eligible City of Napa homeowners and landlords. As part of this program home repair and rental repair loans are available for needed repairs including foundation, structural, electrical, heating and cooling, windows, flooring, painting, insulation, and termite repairs, as well as disabled accessibility and energy efficiency improvements.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H3.H, H3.I
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), monitoring conducted annually.
FUNDING SOURCE Capital Improvement Program funds, CDBG, and publicprivate partnership rehabilitation programs such as 'Rebuilding Together.'
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
H3-1.2 – Design Standards
Adopt and implement objective design standards that:
▪ Promote certainty of review outcomes;
▪ Encourage appropriate maintenance and rehabilitation of historic homes; ▪ Consider existing neighborhood character;
▪ Incorporate universal design principles to serve special needs populations, as appropriate; ▪ Support the development of high-quality, well-designed housing; and ▪ Provide for a greater variety of housing options to meet community needs.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H3.1, H3.8
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing and Planning Divisions QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE By 2025
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H3. Preserve Heritage
Honor Napa’s local heritage and agrarian economy through the preservation and revitalization of historic and cultural resources.
▪ Buildings/downtown
▪ Ag economy
▪ Code enforcement
▪ Neighborhood investments or revitalization
▪ Historic resources
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H3-2
The City will facilitate infill housing,
especially in older neighborhoods, along
commercial corridors, near employment
centers, and near high-frequency transit
areas, to revitalize neighborhoods and
commercial corridors, promote walkability
and increased transit ridership, and provide
increased housing options.
H3-2.1 Corridor Focus Areas
Incentivize mixed-use and higher density development patterns in new projects in corridor focus areas. Criteria for identifying key sites include site size, site location near services and transit, access to active transportation and recreation opportunities, and whether proposed businesses would create higher-than-average percentages of low wage jobs.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H2.4, H2.15
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Develop Criteria and Incentives by 2026
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
H3-2.2 – Design Review Guidelines
Update the residential design review guidelines and process to consider:
▪ Fee adjustments,
▪ Objective standards and criteria,
▪ Increased design flexibility for unique projects and settings to minimize use of Planned Development regulations, ▪ Mandatory early engagement,
▪ Public meeting timeline, and development of ADUs and higher quality infill multi-family housing. ▪ Reduce or eliminate minimum parking standards, consistent with state law.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H3.A, H3.B
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Update Design Review Standards by 2025
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H3. Preserve Heritage
Honor Napa’s local heritage and agrarian economy through the preservation and revitalization of historic and cultural resources.
▪ Buildings/downtown
▪ Ag economy
▪ Code enforcement
▪ Neighborhood investments or revitalization
▪ Historic resources
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H3-3
The City will prioritize keeping people housed
when enforcing codes that address health and
safety concerns.
H3-3.1 – Code Enforcement
Update code enforcement policies and use available subsidies to rehabilitate substandard residential units for extremely low, very low- and low-income renters, with a focus on health, safety, and energy conservation improvements. Prioritize place-based solutions to reduce displacement risk for residents by improving living conditions and enabling them to remain in their home and community.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H3.G
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Division, Housing Authority, and Code Enforcement in coordination with Fair Housing Napa
Valley
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE Rehabilitate 40 substandard rental units for extremely low, very low-, and low-income renters. Assist
rehabilitation of 100 units of substandard owneroccupied housing for very low- and low-income households.
TIMELINE By 2026, possibly in tandem with Zoning Ordinance updates.
FUNDING SOURCE CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Program, HOME Rehabilitation Program and code enforcement program
enforcing existing codes and health and safety regulations; private sources.
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
H4. ENERGY CONSERVATION & INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H4. Energy Conservation &
Infrastructure Improvement
Through processes and programs that are responsive to environmental justice concerns, conduct improvements to infrastructure and community amenities, and promote development of energy-efficient residential units and rehabilitation of existing units to reduce resource consumption. ▪ Areas of greatest/highest need
▪ Place-based
▪ Water, transportation, sewer, utilities
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H4-1
Through its standards and guidelines, the City
will require new residential development and
rehabilitation projects to incorporate
sustainable building design, siting,
construction, and operation.
H4-1.1 – Sustainability Standards
In addition to continuing sustainable development patterns, the City shall continue to update its energy efficiency building, recycling, and sustainability standards to continue to meet State standards. When appropriate, the City will require projects to exceed, rather than meet, State standards for energy efficiency, water conservation, and recycling.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H2.H
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H2.15
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Divisions QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE By 2025
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
H4-2
The City will strengthen ways to assure
convenient walking, bicycling, and transit
opportunities and connections through
prioritization of transportation network
accessibility, maintenance, and improvement
in areas of greatest need. (Source: Program 69)
H4-2.1 – Transit and Connection Opportunities
Given the diminishing availability of developable land, the City will continue to identify opportunities to connect housing with transportation, neighborhood services, and amenities. Consistent with other General Plan Transportation Element policies, the city will use the following criteria in reviewing development proposals, selecting housing sites, and or selecting parcels as part land inventory:
▪ Housing on the site will help affirmatively further fair housing by expanding the distribution and variety of housing types and sizes in the city. ▪ Provides for adequate, safe, and accessible internal and external multi-modal traffic circulation, including emergency evacuation. ▪ Offers convenient access to existing public transportation or the potential for such access as public transportation systems are expanded. ▪ Offers convenient access to neighborhood services and amenities typically required by residents. ▪ Offers convenient access to typical neighborhood recreation amenities or designed to provide adequate recreation amenities on-site.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H3.11
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing and Planning Divisions and Public Work Dept. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), monitoring conducted annually.
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H4. Energy Conservation &
Infrastructure Improvement
Through processes and programs that are responsive to environmental justice concerns, conduct improvements to infrastructure and community amenities, and promote development of energy-efficient residential units and rehabilitation of existing units to reduce resource consumption. ▪ Areas of greatest/highest need
▪ Place-based
▪ Water, transportation, sewer, utilities
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H4-2.2 – Potential Reuse of Commercial Sites
The City will reevaluate the use of neighborhood shopping centers or other commercial sites if, at a future date, the owner initiates redevelopment of the site or any of these commercial activities become not viable. If residential or mixed-use developments are considered, criteria for determining the appropriate housing types include:
▪ The type of street (major, collector, etc.) which would provide access to the site and levels of service on the street in the morning and afternoon peak hours. ▪ Availability of public services, like transit, and facilities such as infrastructure (water, sewer, etc.), school capacity, parks and open space. ▪ The ability of the project to provide landscaping for parking areas, façade modulation and orientation of buildings which would ensure privacy for, and minimize impacts on, any adjacent single-family homes, and reduce the perception of density in a multi-family project. ▪ Potential to provide housing for employees.
▪ The ability of the project to provide neighborhood serving commercial uses. ▪ Potential to provide riverfront amenities and/or riverfront commercial uses.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H3.11
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Ongoing: 2023-2031
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
H4-2.3 – Expanding Transportation Options for Affordable Housing Tenants Consistent with the Transportation Element, the City will continue to work with the Napa Valley Transportation Authority to seek funding opportunities to expand multi-modal transportation opportunities to areas of greatest need, promoting connections between affordable housing and community resources.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H3.K
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Division and Public Works Dept. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), monitoring and at least one meeting conducted annually.
FUNDING SOURCE Cal Trans and other transportation funding opportunities.
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H4. Energy Conservation &
Infrastructure Improvement
Through processes and programs that are responsive to environmental justice concerns, conduct improvements to infrastructure and community amenities, and promote development of energy-efficient residential units and rehabilitation of existing units to reduce resource consumption. ▪ Areas of greatest/highest need
▪ Place-based
▪ Water, transportation, sewer, utilities
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H4-3
The City will encourage and support energy
and resource conservation throughout the life
cycle of residential structures, including
construction, rehabilitation and remodeling,
and deconstruction.
H4-3.1 – Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation
The City will apply for funds to assist residents with energy efficiency and water conservation retrofits and weatherization resources. and/or partner with community services agencies to provide financial assistance for low-income persons to offset the cost of weatherization and heating and cooling homes.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H2.H
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing and Planning Divisions and Utilities Dept. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE APRs will include number of residents assisted.
FUNDING SOURCE Various fundings sources. CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A H4-3.2 – Priority Water Service
The City will adopt written policies and procedures regarding the provision of City water service for housing developments affordable to lower-income households, pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code Section 65589.7 and as accounted for in the most recent Urban Water Management Plan, provided sufficient supply and infrastructure capacity is available to meet project needs.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning and Housing Divisions, Utilities Dept., and Public Works Dept.
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A
TIMELINE By 2025
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR E, F, G, I, M H4-4
The City will promote equitable access to
parks, open space, and outdoor recreation
opportunities when planning for new housing
development.
H4-4.1 – Recreation Improvements for the Underserved
Establish mechanisms to prioritize City park and recreation amenity improvements that are convenient and universally accessible near underserved and higher density residential and mixeduse areas, such as in the South East and Central Quadrants, in conformance with the Parks Master Plan recommendations and the Community Services, Parks, and Recreation Element.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H3.M
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Division and Parks and Recreation Dept. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Develop Prioritization Process by 2030
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H4. Energy Conservation &
Infrastructure Improvement
Through processes and programs that are responsive to environmental justice concerns, conduct improvements to infrastructure and community amenities, and promote development of energy-efficient residential units and rehabilitation of existing units to reduce resource consumption. ▪ Areas of greatest/highest need
▪ Place-based
▪ Water, transportation, sewer, utilities
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H4-4.2 – Investment in Areas of Greatest Need
To increase community investment and access to opportunities in the City’s areas of greatest need, specifically the South East Quadrant, the City will take such actions as the following (in order of priority):
1. Expand access to community meetings, including addressing language barriers and meeting times, to engage all segments of the population.
2. Facilitate inter-governmental and inter-agency coordination to identify specific neighborhoods and community areas of highest need and potential place-based strategies.
3. Recruit residents from areas of concentrated poverty to serve on boards, committees, task forces, and other local government decision-making bodies to help provide community-based strategies.
4. Develop a proactive code enforcement program that targets areas of concentrated rehabilitation needs, results in repairs, and mitigates potential cost, displacement and relocation impacts on residents.
5. In the South East Quadrant, collaborate with Napa Valley Transportation Authority to provide additional or improve existing multi-modal transportation connections to community resources and economic opportunities.
6. Address negative impacts from climate change through investments in adaptation measures such as urban forestry, flood prevention, etc. in disadvantaged areas.
7. Leverage private investment for community revitalization, including philanthropic, and seek dedicated funding to prioritize basic infrastructure improvements (e.g., water, sewer) in disadvantaged areas.
8. In the South East Quadrant, facilitate development of a full-service grocery store and other retail.
9. Catalyze leadership and future community wide decision-makers, including affirmative recruitment in hiring practices to help provide community-based strategies.
10. Through engagement with community members and by leveraging available funding resources, facilitate the establishment of community spaces and recreation opportunities, such as parks and trails.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE Complete at least 1 action per year during the TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031); Identify partners planning period and investment opportunities and development partners
by July 2025; Apply for funding to support annual actions thereafter.
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time and state and federal grants CONTRIBUTING FACTOR A, B, E H5. PROTECT COMMUNITY FROM DISPLACEMENT
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H5. Protect Community from
Displacement
Recognizing the importance of Napa’s tourism-based economy, balance sustainable and equitable growth with the needs of the local workforce, including protections from displacement. ▪ Needs of long-time locals – protect residents from displacement ▪ Workforce support (people who make the town run)
▪ Support tourism industry, places for visitors
▪ Farmworker housing
▪ Prioritize local housing resources for local people
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H5-1
The City will protect and preserve its existing
rental housing stock and existing affordable
housing units at risk of conversion to market
rate housing or other land uses, including
federal- and state-subsidized units.
H5-1.1 – Preventing Displacement
Develop an Anti-Displacement Strategy, including assessment of a variety of tenant protection measures to determine if appropriate for the City, including but not limited to:
▪ Expansion of relocation benefits beyond those required by California law for landlords to pay to lower-income tenants to also apply to moderate-income tenants; ▪ Expansion of the amount of relocation benefits beyond those required by California law for lower-income tenants; ▪ Minimum lease terms;
▪ Required notifications to tenants and landlords of legal requirements; and ▪ Expansion of any other relocation/anti-displacement provisions.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Ongoing during 6th Cycle (2023-2031), initial outreach by 2025 and begin implementation by July 2026.
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR H, O
H5-1.2 – Eligibility Preferences
Consistent with state and federal fair housing laws, establish eligibility preferences for affordable housing programs that prioritize people who live in, work in, or were recently displaced from Napa.
Policy is subject to the FHA and related laws.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H2.I
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Division and City Attorney’s Office. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE APR including number of people who were served through eligibility preferences.
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR H, O
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H5. Protect Community from
Displacement
Recognizing the importance of Napa’s tourism-based economy, balance sustainable and equitable growth with the needs of the local workforce, including protections from displacement. ▪ Needs of long-time locals – protect residents from displacement ▪ Workforce support (people who make the town run)
▪ Support tourism industry, places for visitors
▪ Farmworker housing
▪ Prioritize local housing resources for local people
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H5-1.3 – Affordable Housing Database
The City will develop a system and or database of affordable housing to document the number of units under agreements annually. The system will track projects approved, including ADUs, the number of affordable units by income level, and the various funding sources.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Develop tracking system by 2026.
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
H5-1.4 – Preserving Existing Supply
To the extent permitted by law, continue to use mechanisms in the City Code to regulate the conversion of rental, mobile home, and multi-family housing to other uses to protect and conserve the supply of low- and moderate-income housing options both for rent and ownership. Sites zoned for multi-family shall not be redesignated or rezoned for other uses without equivalent additional land being designated for multi-family purposes.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H2.8, H3.14, H3.15, H3.16 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing and Planning Divisions QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Ongoing: 2023-2031
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H5. Protect Community from
Displacement
Recognizing the importance of Napa’s tourism-based economy, balance sustainable and equitable growth with the needs of the local workforce, including protections from displacement. ▪ Needs of long-time locals – protect residents from displacement ▪ Workforce support (people who make the town run)
▪ Support tourism industry, places for visitors
▪ Farmworker housing
▪ Prioritize local housing resources for local people
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H5-1.5 – Affordable Housing Monitoring
Use the housing database from program H5-1.3 as a mechanism to monitor and identify units at risk of losing their affordability subsidies, not meeting affordability requirements, or losing rent restriction agreements, including affordable units provided through density bonuses or other programs or incentives. For housing at risk of converting to market rate, including the 84 affordable Napa Creek Manor units estimated to convert to market-rate on May 31, 2029, the City will:
▪ Contact property owners of units at risk of converting to market-rate housing within one year of affordability expiration to discuss the City’s desire to preserve complexes as affordable housing.
▪ Coordinate with owners of expiring subsidies to ensure the required notices to tenants are sent out at 3 years, 12 months, and 6 months. ▪ Reach out to agencies interested in purchasing and/or managing at-risk units. ▪ Work with tenants to provide education regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures pursuant to California law.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H3.N
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H2.14, H3.12, H3.13, H3.17 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE Preserve 319 units as affordable housing.
TIMELINE Use of database by 2027, actions for Napa Creek Manor Prepare the Risk Assessments annually. starting 2026.
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
H5-2
Recognizing the impact on housing demand
imposed by non-residential development, City
will continue to prioritize balancing economic
growth with the housing needs of workers and
their families to prevent displacement.
H5-2.1 – Addressing Local Housing Needs
To adequately provide housing for a variety of household types, include requirements to demonstrate higher density development (18 units per acre or more) addresses local housing needs (e.g., special needs, larger housing units with three bedrooms or more). The City may then consider actions or conditional approvals that are responsive to local needs.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H1.C, H1.D
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Develop requirements by 2028.
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
Goal No. and Title Goal Language Goal Themes
H5. Protect Community from
Displacement
Recognizing the importance of Napa’s tourism-based economy, balance sustainable and equitable growth with the needs of the local workforce, including protections from displacement. ▪ Needs of long-time locals – protect residents from displacement ▪ Workforce support (people who make the town run)
▪ Support tourism industry, places for visitors
▪ Farmworker housing
▪ Prioritize local housing resources for local people
RELATED POLICIES RELATED PROGRAMS
H5-2.2 – Matching Jobs to Housing
Require analysis of how major, non-residential development proposals (over 100 employees) impact housing demand, which may require mitigation measures (above housing impact fee requirements) to provide better housing and jobs balance in the City of Napa. If an impact is identified, appropriate mitigation may be required, including but not limited to the provision of new housing units or opportunities for employees, payment of in lieu fees, or an alternative equivalent action.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: H1.D, H1.E
Includes consolidated/modified policies: H1.10
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Planning Division and Economic Development Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Develop requirements by 2028
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N/A
H5-2.3 – Neighborhoods of Opportunity and Ownership
Work to make all neighborhoods places of opportunity and encourage investments while minimizing the involuntary displacement of people of color and other vulnerable populations, such as lowincome households, the elderly, and people with disabilities due to the influx of less vulnerable populations attracted by increased opportunities and/or investments. The City shall conduct outreach with community-based organizations (CBOs) and other potential community partners that are working with interested low-income community members to develop new forms of communitydriven, collective ownership models and wealth building strategies for lower-income residents (e.g., co-op housing, community land trusts) to identify ways the City can support these efforts, especially in the highest resource areas of the City like the North and West Quadrants. The City shall work with communities at-risk of displacement, including in the North, West, and Central Quadrants, to evaluate these ownership models.
Includes consolidated/modified programs: N/A
Includes consolidated/modified policies: N/A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Housing Division QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE N/A TIMELINE Initiate coordination in 2024 and provide ongoing support as appropriate.
FUNDING SOURCE Staff time CONTRIBUTING FACTOR H, O
HCD. (2021, April). Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Retrieved from https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/docs/AFFH_Document_Final_4-27-2021.pdf
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
Appendix A
Community Profile
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Napa | General Plan Housing Element 6th Cycle Update 2023-2031 Cover Image: Steve Gadomski, Source Adobe Stock, 2022
SECTION A.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ A-1 SECTION A.2. Summary of Key Facts.....................................................................................................................................A-2 SECTION A.3. Looking to the Future: Regional Housing Needs.......................................................................................A-5 A.3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination.............................................................................................................A-5 A.3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation.....................................................................................................................A-5 A.3.3 Population.......................................................................................................................................................................A-6 A.3.4 Age .....................................................................................................................................................................................A-7 A.3.5 Race and Ethnicity.......................................................................................................................................................A-9 A.3.6 Employment Trends ...................................................................................................................................................A-9 A.3.6.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers ..................................................................................................................................................A-9 A.3.6.2 Unemployment...........................................................................................................................................................................A-13 A.3.7 Tenure.............................................................................................................................................................................A-14 A.3.8 Displacement............................................................................................................................................................... A-17 A.3.9 Extremely Low-Income Households..................................................................................................................A-18 A.3.9.1 ELI Wages and Employment Trends ..................................................................................................................................A-19 A.3.9.2 ELI Tenure and Race................................................................................................................................................................ A-20 A.3.9.3 ELI Housing Problems............................................................................................................................................................. A-22 A.3.9.4 Existing and Projected ELI Needs...................................................................................................................................... A-22 SECTION A.4. Housing Stock Characteristics................................................................................................................... A-24 A.4.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits ....................................................................................... A-24 SECTION A.5. Special Housing Needs ................................................................................................................................. A-27 A.5.1 Large Households .......................................................................................................................................................A-27 A.5.2 Female-Headed Households..................................................................................................................................A-28 A.5.3 Seniors............................................................................................................................................................................A-30 A.5.4 People with Disabilities ........................................................................................................................................... A-31 A.5.5 Homelessness..............................................................................................................................................................A-33 A.5.6 Farmworkers................................................................................................................................................................A-37 A.5.7 Non-English Speakers..............................................................................................................................................A-39 A.5.8 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion.......................................................................... A-40 A.5.8.1 Cost Analysis................................................................................................................................................................................A-41 A.5.9 Substandard Housing .............................................................................................................................................. A-44 A.5.10 Home and Rent Values...........................................................................................................................................A-45 A.5.11 Overpayment and Overcrowding ...................................................................................................................... A-48 SECTION A.6. Works Cited ..................................................................................................................................................... A-57 Figure A-1: Population Growth Trends .................................................................................................................................................A-7 Figure A-2: Population by Age, 2000-2019...........................................................................................................................................A-8 Figure A-3: Senior and Youth Population by Race...........................................................................................................................A-8 Figure A-4: Population by Race, 2000-2019.........................................................................................................................................A-9 Figure A-5: Job Growth, 2002-2018.......................................................................................................................................................A-10 Figure A-6: Workers by Earnings, with Place of Work and Place of Residence..................................................................A-11 Figure A-7: Jobs-Worker Ratios by Wage Group in City of Napa .............................................................................................A-12 Figure A-8: Jobs-Household Ratio........................................................................................................................................................A-12 Figure A-9: Resident Employment by Industry ..............................................................................................................................A-13 Figure A-10: Unemployment Rate ........................................................................................................................................................A-14 Figure A-11: Housing Tenure...................................................................................................................................................................A-15 Figure A-12: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder.................................................................................................................A-15 Figure A-13: Housing Tenure by Age ...................................................................................................................................................A-16 Figure A-14: Housing Tenure by Housing Type...............................................................................................................................A-17 Figure A-15: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure.....................................................................................................A-18 Figure A-16: Households by Household Income Level.................................................................................................................A-19 Figure A-17: Household Income Level by Tenure...........................................................................................................................A-21 Figure A-18: Poverty Status by Race ....................................................................................................................................................A-21 Figure A-19: Housing Type Trends ......................................................................................................................................................A-24 Figure A-20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built .................................................................................................................... A-25 Figure A-21: Vacant Units by Type ...................................................................................................................................................... A-26 Figure A-22: Household Size by Tenure ............................................................................................................................................ A-27 Figure A-23: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms ................................................................................................................. A-28 Figure A-24: Household Type ................................................................................................................................................................ A-29 Figure A-25: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status................................................................................................... A-29 Figure A-26: Senior Households by Income and Tenure............................................................................................................ A-30 Figure A-27: Senior Population by Type of Disability...................................................................................................................A-31 Figure A-28: Population with a Disability......................................................................................................................................... A-32 Figure A-29: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Napa County........................................................ A-34 Figure A-30: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Napa County................................................ A-35 Figure A-31: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Napa County ............................................................. A-35 Figure A-32: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness , Napa County ................................... A-36 Figure A-33: Farm Operations and Farm Labor, Napa County................................................................................................. A-39 Figure A-34: Population with Limited English Proficiency ......................................................................................................A-40 Figure A-35: Substandard Housing Issues Reported.................................................................................................................... A-45 Figure A-36: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units .................................................................................................................A-46 Figure A-37: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)................................................................................................................................A-46 Figure A-38: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units............................................................................................................A-47 Figure A-39: Median Contract Rent ....................................................................................................................................................A-48 Figure A-40: Cost Burden by Tenure ..................................................................................................................................................A-49 Figure A-41: Cost Burden by Income Level ......................................................................................................................................A-49 Figure A-42: Cost Burden by Race ........................................................................................................................................................A-51 Figure A-43: Cost Burden by Household Size ................................................................................................................................. A-52 Figure A-44: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level........................................................................................ A-53 Figure A-45: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity.................................................................................................................... A-54 Figure A-46: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity....................................................................................................... A-54 Figure A-47: Overcrowding by Race ....................................................................................................................................................A-55 Table A-1: Illustrative RHNA from ABAG Methodology .................................................................................................................A-6 Table A-2: Population Growth Trends, 1990-2020 ............................................................................................................................A-6 Table A-3: Occupations and Wages in Napa MSA......................................................................................................................... A-20 Table A-4: ELI Housing Problems......................................................................................................................................................... A-22 Table A-5: Housing Unit Permits Issued by Income Group, 2015-2022................................................................................. A-26 Table A-6: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age.............................................................................................. A-32 Table A-7: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Living Arrangement............................................................ A-33 Table A-8: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness........................................................................ A-37 Table A-9: Migrant Worker Student Population............................................................................................................................. A-38 Table A-10: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion ..........................................................................................................................A-41 Table A-11: Rehabilitation Costs for At-Risk Units........................................................................................................................A-42 Table A-12: Cost Burden by Tenure ..................................................................................................................................................... A-50
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
The Bay Area continues to see growth in both population and jobs, which means more housing of various types and sizes is needed to ensure that residents across all income levels, life stages, and abilities have a place to call home. While the number of people drawn to the region over the past 30 years has steadily increased, housing production has stalled, contributing to the housing shortage that communities are experiencing today. In many cities, this has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer commutes, and fewer people across incomes being able to purchase homes or meet surging rents.
The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update provides a roadmap for how to meet our growth and housing challenges. Required by the state, the Housing Element identifies what the existing housing conditions and community needs are, reiterates goals, and creates a plan for more housing. The Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan, which guides the policies of the City of Napa.
Chaolik, Source Adobe Stock
▪ Population: Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The City of Napa population increased by 9.2 percent from 2000 to 2020, which is below the growth rate of the Bay Area.
▪ Age: In 2019, City of Napa’s youth population under the age of 18 years was 17,962 and senior population aged 65 years and older was 13,156. These age groups represent 22.7 percent and 16.6 percent, respectively, of Napa’s population.
▪ Race/Ethnicity: In 2020, 52.6 percent of Napa’s population was White while 0.6 percent was Black or African American, 3.3 percent was Asian, and 40.5 percent was Latinx. People of color in Napa comprise a proportion below the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole.1 ▪ Employment: City of Napa residents most commonly work in the Health & Educational Services industry. From January 2010 to January 2021, the unemployment rate in Napa decreased by 2.8 percentage points. Since 2010, the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction increased by 5,790 (20.3 percent). Additionally, the jobs-household ratio in Napa has increased from 0.98 in 2002 to
1.2 jobs per household in 2018.
▪ Number of Homes: The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in lengthening commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in Napa increased 1.8 percent from 2010 to 2020, which is above the growth rate for Napa County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period.
1 The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey accounts for ethnic origin separate from racial identity. The numbers reported here use an accounting of both, such that the racial categories are shown exclusive of Latinx status, to allow for an accounting of the Latinx population regardless of racial identity. The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx, but occasionally, when discussing US Census data, Hispanic or Non-Hispanic is used to clearly link to the data source. ▪ Home Prices: A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all City of Napa residents to live and thrive in the community.
– Ownership: The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $500,000 to $750,000 in 2019. Home prices increased by 81.9 percent from 2010 to 2020. – Rental Prices: The typical contract rent for an apartment in Napa was $1,590 per month in 2019. Rental prices increased by 48.8 percent from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $63,920 per year. 2 ▪ Housing Type: It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 62.0 percent of homes in Napa were single-family detached, 7.1 percent were single-family attached, 9.6 percent were small multi-family (two to four units), and 16.8 percent were medium or large multi-family (five units or more). Between 2010 and 2020, the number of single-family units increased more than multi-family units.
Generally, in Napa, the share of the housing stock that is detached single-family homes is above that of other jurisdictions in the region.
▪ Cost Burden: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30 percent of its income on housing costs. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In Napa, 21.9 percent of households spend 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing, while 16.4 percent of households are severely cost-burdened and use the majority of their income for housing. ▪ Displacement/Gentrification: According to research from the University of California, Berkeley,
35.6 percent of households in the City of Napa live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement, and 23.3 percent live in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrification.
2.7 percent of households in Napa live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. There are various ways to address displacement, including ensuring new housing at all income levels is built. 2 Note that contract rents may differ significantly from, often being lower than, current listing prices. ▪ Neighborhood: State-commissioned research shows that 2.6 percent of residents in Napa live in neighborhoods identified as “Highest Resource” or “High Resource” areas while 51.1 percent of residents live in areas identified as “Low Resource” or “High Segregation and Poverty” areas.
These neighborhood designations are based on a range of indicators covering areas such as education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors.3
▪ Special Housing Needs: Some population groups may have special housing needs that require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to accessing stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. In Napa, 11 percent of residents have a disability of some kind and may require accessible housing. Additionally, 12.4 percent of Napa households are larger households with five or more people, who likely need larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. Ten percent of households are female-headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity.
3 For more information on the “opportunity area” categories developed by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, see this website: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp. The degree to which different jurisdictions and neighborhoods have access to opportunity will likely need to be analyzed as part of new Housing Element requirements related to affirmatively furthering fair housing. ABAG/MTC will be providing jurisdictions with technical assistance on this topic, following the release of additional guidance from HCD.
Note on Data
Many of the tables in this report are sourced from data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, both of which are samples and as such, are subject to sampling variability. This means that data is an estimate, and that other estimates could be possible if another set of respondents had been reached. We use the five-year release to get a larger data pool to minimize this “margin of error” but particularly for smaller cities, the data is based on fewer responses and the information should be interpreted accordingly.
The Plan Bay Area 20504 Final Blueprint forecasts that the nine-county Bay Area region will add 1.4 million new households between 2015 and 2050. For the eight-year period covered by this Housing Element, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has identified the Bay Area region’s housing need as 441,176 units. The total number of housing units assigned by HCD is separated into four income categories that cover housing types for all income levels, from very lowincome households to market rate housing.5 This calculation, known as the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND), is based on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance, as well as adjustments that incorporate the region’s existing housing need. The adjustments result from recent legislation requiring HCD to apply additional adjustment factors to the baseline growth projection from the Department of Finance in order for the region to get closer to healthy housing markets. To this end, adjustments focus on the region’s vacancy rate, level of overcrowding and the share of cost-burdened households; adjustments seek to bring the region more in line with comparable ones.6 These new laws governing the methodology for how HCD calculates the RHND resulted in a significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area region must plan compared to previous RHNA cycles.
A starting point for the Housing Element Update process for every California jurisdiction is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) – the share of the RHND assigned to each jurisdiction in the Bay Area region by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). State housing element law requires ABAG to develop a methodology that calculates the number of housing units assigned to each city and county and distributes each jurisdiction’s housing unit allocation among four affordability levels based on area median income (AMI). For this RHNA cycle, the RHND increased by 135 percent, from 187,990 to 441,776. For more information on the RHNA process this cycle, see ABAG’s website:
https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needs-allocation Almost all jurisdictions in the Bay Area were likely to receive a larger RHNA this cycle compared to the last cycle, primarily due to changes in state law that led to a considerably higher RHND compared to 4 Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range plan charting the course for the future of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. It covers four key issues: the economy, the environment, housing and transportation 5 HCD divides the RHND into the following four income categories: very low-income at 0-50% of area median income (AMI); low-income at 50-80% AMI; moderate-income at 80-120% AMI; and above moderate-income at 120% or more AMI. 6 For more information on HCD’s RHND calculation for the Bay Area, see this letter sent to ABAG from HCD on June 9, 2020:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/abagrhna-final060920(r).pdf previous cycles. For the City of Napa, the initial RHNA to be planned for this cycle is 1,939 units, an increase from the last cycle. Napa’s allocation received from the ABAG’s adopted RHNA Methodology is broken down by income category in Table A-1.
Table A-1: Illustrative RHNA from ABAG Methodology
Income Group
City of
Napa
Units
Napa
County
Units
Bay Area
Units
City of Napa
Percent
Napa
County
Percent
Bay Area
Percent
Very Low-Income
(<50% AMI) 504 1,138 114,442 26.0% 29.6% 25.9%
Low-Income
(50%-80% AMI) 291 658 65,892 15.0% 17.1% 14.9%
Moderate-Income
(80%-120% AMI) 319 571 72,712 16.5% 14.9% 16.5%
Above ModerateIncome
(>120% AMI)
825 1,477 188,130 42.5% 38.4% 42.6%
Total 1,939 3,844 44,1176 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Methodology and tentative numbers were approved by ABAG’s Executive board on January 21, 2021 (Resolution No. 02-2021).
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth. Since 2000, the City of Napa’s population has increased by
9.2 percent; this rate is below that of the region as a whole, at 14.8 percent. In Napa, roughly 11.9 percent of its population moved during the past year, which is 1.5 percent lower than the regional rate of 13.4 percent.
Table A-2: Population Growth Trends, 1990-2020
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
City of Napa 61,865 65,804 72,585 75,772 76,915 79,464 79,278 Napa County 110,765 117,216 124,279 132,314 136,484 141,010 139,088 Bay Area 6,020,147 6,381,961 6,784,348 7,073,912 7,150,739 7,595,694 7,790,537 Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; California Department of Finance, E-5 series In 2020, the population of Napa was estimated to be 79,278 (Table A-2). From 1990 to 2000, the population increased by 17.3 percent, while it increased by six percent from 2000 to 2010. In the most recent decade (2010 to 2020), the population increased by 3.1 percent. The population of Napa makes up 57 percent of Napa County.7
Figure A-1: Population Growth Trends
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; California Department of Finance, E-5 series Note: The data shown on the graph represents population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the first year shown. The data points represent the relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their populations in that year.
The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options and related services. There has also been a move by many to age-in-place or downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multi-family and accessible units are also needed.
In the City of Napa, the median age in 2000 was 36 years; by 2019, this figure had increased, landing at around 39 years. More specifically, the population of those under age 14 has decreased since 2010, while the 65-and-over population has increased (Figure A-2).
7 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure A-1 shows population for the City of Napa, Napa County, and Bay Area region indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the population growth (i.e., percent change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990.
Figure A-2: Population by Age, 2000-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001 Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing.
People of color8 make up 10 percent of seniors and 29.2 percent of youth under 18 (Figure A-3).
Figure A-3: Senior and Youth Population by Race
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G)
8 Here, all non-white racial groups are counted. Number of Persons Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices, and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today9. Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Napa identifying as White has decreased – and by the same token the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased – by 17 percentage points, with the 2019 population standing at 41,628 (Figure A-4). In absolute terms, the Hispanic or Latinx population increased the most while the White, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most.
Figure A-4: Population by Race, 2000-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002
Within a city, employed residents either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city or employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than 9 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The Color of Law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America.
New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.
jobs and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. To some extent, the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub-regional scale.
One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” them. Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in Napa increased by 28 percent (Figure A-5).
Figure A-5: Job Growth, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018
There are 40,418 employed residents and 38,579 jobs10 in the City of Napa, and the ratio of jobs to resident workers is 0.95; therefore, Napa is a net exporter of workers. Figure A-6 shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics in Napa. A community may offer employment for lower-income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers. Conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for housing in particular price categories. A surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other 10 Employed residents in a jurisdiction is counted by place of residence (they may work elsewhere) while jobs in a jurisdiction are counted by place of work (they may live elsewhere). The jobs may differ from those reported in Figure A-5 as the source for the time series is from administrative data, while the cross-sectional data is from a survey. jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may appear. Napa has more low-wage jobs than low-wage residents, where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000 per year. At the other end of the wage spectrum, the city has more high-wage residents than high-wage jobs, where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000 per year (Figure A-6).11
Figure A-6: Workers by Earnings, with Place of Work and Place of Residence Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519
Figure A-7 shows the balance of Napa’s resident workers to the jobs located in the city for different wage groups as a ratio, where a value of one means that a city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers (i.e., a balance, in principle). Values above one indicate a city will need to import workers for jobs in a given wage group. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region.
Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community.
New jobs may draw new residents and, when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where employment growth has been in relatively lower wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate, it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users.
11 The source table is top-coded at $75,000, precluding more fine grained analysis at the higher end of the wage spectrum.
If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also with a high jobs-to-household ratio. Thus, bringing housing into the measure, the jobs-household ratio in Napa has increased from 0.98 in 2002, to 1.2 jobs per household in 2018 (Figure A-8).
Figure A-7: Jobs-Worker Ratios by Wage Group in City of Napa Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018 Figure A-8: Jobs-Household Ratio
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households) In terms of job sector composition, the largest in which Napa residents work is Health & Educational Services (Figure A-9). The same is true for the Bay Area as a whole; the Health & Educational Services industry employs the most workers regionally.
Figure A-9: Resident Employment by Industry
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030
In Napa, there was a 2.8 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021. Jurisdictions throughout the region, including the City of Napa, experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020 (Figure A-10).
Figure A-10: Unemployment Rate
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021.
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity in a city and region (i.e., the ability for individuals to stay in their homes). Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase. In Napa, there are a total of 28,189 housing units, and fewer residents rent than own their homes (41.7 percent versus 58.3 percent) (Figure A-11). By comparison, 35.8 percent of households in Napa County are renters, while 44 percent of Bay Area households rent their homes.
Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race and ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policies are still evident across Bay Area communities.12
In Napa, 43.6 percent of Black households own their homes, while homeownership rates are 65.5 percent for Asian households, 42.0 percent for Latinx households, and 59.9 percent for White 12 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The Color of Law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America.
New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.
households (Figure A-12). Notably, recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their housing elements.
Figure A-11: Housing Tenure
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003
Figure A-12: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I)
The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market. In Napa, 64.5 percent of households between the ages of 25 and 44 years are renters, while only 27.2 percent of households over 65 years rent their homes (Figure A-13).
In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multi-family housing. In Napa, 78.3 percent of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while only 5.4 percent of households in multi-family housing are homeowners (Figure A-14).
Figure A-13: Housing Tenure by Age
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007
Figure A-14: Housing Tenure by Housing Type
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032
Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major concern in the Bay Area and the City of Napa. Displacement has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate-income residents. When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they often also lose their support network.
The University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley) has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay area, identifying their risk for gentrification. They find that in Napa, 35.6 percent of households live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 23.3 percent live in neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing gentrification. Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce.13 13 More information about gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project’s webpage:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/. Learn more about the different gentrification and displacement typologies at this link:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/typology_sheet_2018_0.png. View maps that show which typologies correspond to which parts of a jurisdiction here: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/san-francisco/sf-bay-areagentrification-and-displacement Figure A-15: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure.
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state. (Bohn, S. et al., 2020) In Napa, 50.9 percent of households make more than 100 percent of the area median income (AMI) 14 , compared to 10.5 percent making less than 30 percent of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (Figure A-16).
AMI levels in Figure A-16 are based on the HUD metro area where City of Napa is located. Households making between 80 and 120 percent AMI are moderate-income, those making 50 to 80 percent are lowincome, those making 30 to 50 percent are very low-income, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-income (ELI). In the City of Napa, 30 percent AMI is equivalent to the annual income of $37,850 for a family of four or $26,500 or less for a one-person household. 14 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for AMI. HUD calculates AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County).
Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100 percent AMI, while 15 percent make less than 30 percent AMI. In Napa County, 30 percent AMI is equivalent to the annual income of $27,950 for a family of four.
Figure A-16: Households by Household Income Level
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service and hospitality workers, fulltime students, teachers, farm and agricultural workers, and healthcare professionals – can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in these industries. Examples of occupations with wages that could qualify as extremely low income “single earner” four person households in the Napa Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) are present in Table A-3.
Workers in the Napa MSA had an average (mean) hourly wage of $31.56 in May 2022, six percent above the nationwide average of $29.76. Wages in the local area were higher than their respective national averages in 15 of the 22 major occupational groups, including healthcare practitioners; technical, community, and social services; and educational instruction and library workers. When compared to the nationwide distribution, Napa area employment was more highly concentrated in 10 of the 22 occupational groups, including those related to food preparation and service; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance; and sales.
Table A-3: Occupations and Wages in Napa MSA
Title Annual Avg. Wage
Manicurists and Pedicurists $34,590
Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers $35,390
Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers $35,400 Food Processing Workers, All Other $35,450
Baggage Porters and Bellhops $35,470
Packers and Packagers, Hand $35,540
Fast Food and Counter Workers $36,020
Amusement and Recreation Attendants $36,030
Cooks, Fast Food $36,440
Cashiers $36,530
Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and Coffee Shop $36,650 Recreation Workers $36,880
Dishwashers $36,990
Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Workers $37,810
Source: Bureau of Labor Statics
Throughout the region, there are disparities among the incomes of homeowners and renters. Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing units available that are affordable for low-income households. In Napa, the largest proportion of renters and the largest proportion of homeowners both fall into the Greater than 100 percent of AMI income group (Figure A-17).
Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. (Moore, Montojo, & Mauri, 2019) These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement, or homelessness. In Napa, Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents (Figure A-18).
Figure A-17: Household Income Level by Tenure
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Figure A-18: Poverty Status by Race
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I)
According to HUD CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) data, approximately 3,230 extremely low-income households resided in the city, representing 11.5 percent of the total households.
Most ELI households are renters and experience a high incidence of housing problems. For example, 81 percent of ELI households faced housing problems (defined as cost burden greater than 30 percent of income and/or overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities) and 80 percent were in overpayment situations. Even further, 62 percent of extremely low-income households paid more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs.
Table A-4: ELI Housing Problems
Owner
Occupied
Renter
Occupied Total
Income Group Count % Count %
Total Number of ELI Households (<30% HAMFI) 1035 32% 2,195 68% 3,230 Count / % with Any Housing Problems 820 79% 1,775 81% 2,595 Count / % with Cost Burden (>30% of Income) 805 78% 1,755 80% 2,560 Count / % with Severe Cost Burden (>30% of Income) 605 58% 1,355 62% 1,960 Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2015-2019 ACS The four housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities; incomplete plumbing facilities more than 1 person per room; and cost burden greater than 30%.
Disproportionate housing needs are also discussed in relation to tenure, overpayment, overcrowding, and other factors in Section A.5.11.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a)(1), 50% of the City’s very low-income regional housing needs assigned by HCD are extremely low-income households. As a result, from the very low income need of 770 units, the city has a projected need of 385 units for ELI households. ELI households have a variety of housing situations and needs, and many seek rental housing and often face overpayment, overcrowding, or substandard housing conditions as illustrated above.. For example, most families and individuals receiving public assistance, such as social security insurance (SSI) or disability insurance, are considered ELI households. Also, some extremely low-income households are additionally burdened with mental health problems or other disabilities or special needs. To address the range of needs, the City will employ a detailed housing strategy that includes promoting a variety of housing types, such as single-room occupancy (SRO) units.
The housing needs of extremely low-income households require tailored solutions, such as deeper income targeting for subsidies; rent subsidies, including vouchers; SRO, shared, or group housing; and housing with supportive services. As discussed in more detail in Appendix E, Constraints, the City of Napa Municipal Code allows SROs and other types of group housing, as well as transitional, supportive, and employee housing uses, which are treated similarly to the land uses they most closely resemble.
However, the Housing Element includes Program H2-2.1 to amend the Zoning Ordinance to further clarify and more broadly allow such uses in the interest of meeting the housing needs of extremely low-income households and to comply with state law. The City of Napa has two current projects that target very low- and extremely low-income populations, particularly those persons exiting homelessness. The Valley Lodge project includes 54 SRO units, all for clients exiting homelessness.
Valley Lodge includes 38 project-based vouchers and additional permanent supportive housing rental assistance sources as many of those being housed on site have zero income or are very low income. Of the 54 units, 27 are currently occupied and the remaining 27 will be occupied by August 2023. The second current project is Heritage House, which includes 35 SRO units and four one-bedroom units for households at or below 20 percent AMI that have exited homelessness. These units will be leased in November 2024 and will include clients that have zero income. There are 28 project-based vouchers dedicated to studio units in the Heritage House project.
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-family buildings. However, some households are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing,” including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may open more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place.
The housing stock of Napa in 2020 was made up of 62 percent single-family detached homes, 7.1 percent single-family attached homes, 9.6 percent multi-family homes with two to four units, 16.8 percent multi-family homes with five or more units, and 4.4 percent mobile homes (Figure A-19). In Napa, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Single-Family Home: Detached.
Figure A-19: Housing Type Trends
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; California Department of Finance, E-5 series Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. In Napa, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built 1960 to 1979, with 9,998 units constructed during this period (Figure A-20). These older neighborhoods in Napa have a higher concentration of dilapidated housing and higher need for rehabilitation or replacement and include areas on the outskirts of the downtown core, the Abajo area, and around Freeway Drive. There is also a concentration of higher rehabilitation or replacement need for existing housing south of downtown where there are a number of small multi-family complexes that are in poorer condition.
Since 2010, 2.7 percent of the current housing stock was built, which is 816 units.
Figure A-20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034
Vacant units make up 7.3 percent of the overall housing stock in the City of Napa. The rental vacancy stands at 2.0 percent, while the ownership vacancy rate is 1.4 percent. Of the vacant units, the most common type of vacancy is Other Vacant (Figure A-21).15 Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up
2.6 percent of total housing units, with the majority of vacancies made up of units listed For Rent; used For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use; and not otherwise classified (Other Vacant).
The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as “for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use” are those that are held for short-term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like AirBnB are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to 15 The vacancy rates by tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle includes the full stock (7.3 percent). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and vacant) and ownership stock (occupied and vacant), but exclude a significant number of vacancy categories, including the numerically significant other vacant.
foreclosure, personal or family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs or renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.16 In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated or repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions. (Dow, 2018)
Figure A-21: Vacant Units by Type
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004
Between 2015 and 2022, 1,851 housing units were issued permits in the City of Napa, with 75.3 percent of permits issued for above moderate-income housing, 7.1 percent for moderate-income housing, and
17.6 percent for low- or very low-income housing (Table A-5).
Table A-5: Housing Unit Permits Issued by Income Group, 2015-2022 Income Group No. of Permits Issued
Very Low-Income Permits 160
Low-Income Permits 166
Moderate-Income Permits 132
Above Moderate-Income Permits 1,393
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2022)
16 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf.
Large households, with five or more persons, often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s housing stock does not include larger homes and apartments, large households can end up living in overcrowded conditions. In Napa, 54.3 percent of large households are renters (Figure A-22), and Latinx and multi-racial households are the most likely to experience overcrowding (Figure A-47). In 2017, 23.2 percent of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50 percent of AMI. Large households in Napa are also more likely to be cost-burdened compared to all other household types (Figure A-43). The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community. Large families are generally served by housing units with three or more bedrooms, of which there are 16,228 units in Napa. Among these large units with three or more bedrooms, 20.8 percent are renter occupied and 79.2 percent are owner occupied (Figure A-23).
There are multiple resources available in Napa to assist large households, including financial, technical, and emergency assistance through various nonprofit and governmental entities17. Although there are no agencies that exclusively serve large households, there are loan and other financial programs to help families find, rehabilitate, or expand their housing, such as services provided by Napa County. In addition, Housing Element Programs H2-3.1 and H5-2.1 aim to increase housing options for large lower-income households.
Figure A-22: Household Size by Tenure
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009
17 See http://www.cityofnapa.org/207/Other-Housing-Assistance-Resources-in-Na Figure A-23: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly femaleheaded households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In Napa, the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 51.2 percent of total, while Female-Headed Households make up 10 percent of all households (Figure A-24).
Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging. In Napa, 19.8 percent of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while 7.5 percent of female-headed households without children live in poverty (Figure A-25).
There are multiple resources available in Napa to assist female-headed households, with or without children, including financial, technical, and emergency assistance through various nonprofit and governmental entities18. Although Napa Emergency Womens Services (NEWS) does not exclude maleheaded households from its programs, it is one of the primary agencies serving female-headed households in the Napa Valley and provides assistance for emergency sheltering and permanent housing, as well as victims of domestic violence. Around 80 percent of clients served by NEWS have either already lost their housing or are at risk of losing housing, and 98 percent are low-to-moderate 18 See http://www.cityofnapa.org/207/Other-Housing-Assistance-Resources-in-Na income. NEWS helped 97 households in Napa find new, stable housing during fiscal year 2020 to 2021.
From 2021 to 2022, NEWS directly sheltered 46 adults and 42 children and assisted 140 households by distributing $252,000 in flexible financial assistance, such as to help cover rent. There are also resources available in Napa specifically to female-headed households with children, such as Community Resources for Children.
Figure A-24: Household Type
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001
Figure A-25: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions, or reduced mobility (Figure A-27). Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent make 0 to 30 percent of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners make Greater than 100 percent of AMI (Figure A-26).
Figure A-26: Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Figure A-27: Senior Population by Type of Disability
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.
When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.
Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness, and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure A-28 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Napa. Overall, 11 percent of people in Napa have a disability of some kind19.
19 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.
Figure A-28: Population with a Disability
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18101 State law also requires housing elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them.20 In Napa, children under the age of 18 make up 40.3 percent of the population with a developmental disability, while adults account for 59.7 percent (Table A-6). The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Napa is within the home of a parent, family member, or other guardian (Table A-7).
Table A-6: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group No. of Persons
Age 18+ 414
Age Under 18 279
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020
20 For more information or data on developmental disabilities for City of Napa, contact the North Bay Regional Center. 89% 88% 90%
11% 12% 10%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Napa Napa County Bay Area
Percent of Non-institutionalized
population
No disability With a disability
Table A-7: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Living Arrangement Residence Type No. of Persons
Home of Parent/Family/Guardian 465
Independent/Supported Living 191
Community Care Facility 13
Other 8
Intermediate Care Facility 8
Foster/Family Home 4
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020)
The city’s adopted reasonable accommodation regulations and procedures are consistent with state and federal Fair Housing Laws and provide people with disabilities equitable access to housing opportunities. Such accommodations that can be approved include modifications to development design standards and fee waivers, as further described in Appendix E. In addition, Housing Element Program H3-1.2 calls for updates to the city’s design standards, including incorporating universal design principles to better serve special needs populations. There are also multiple agencies in Napa, such as the Disability Services and Legal Center (mydslc.org), that assist people with disabilities in gaining more independence in housing and other aspects of life.
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term. Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction, and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances.
The 2022 Napa County point-in-time (PIT) count found 494 homeless persons countywide living either sheltered or unsheltered on February 22, 2022. Most of those individuals were located within the City of Napa, likely because Napa is the largest service provider for homeless resources in the county and is the largest city in the county with the most access to public transit. The 2022 PIT total increased six percent as compared to the 464 total persons counted in 2020, and 2022 saw a 33 percent decrease in chronic homelessness and a 51 percent increase in unsheltered chronic homelessness. In 2021, 759 individuals were served by the homeless system of care in shelter and housing projects. (Napa CoC, 2022)
While there are a number of homeless persons in North Napa, the primary concentrations of homelessness are located around the Highway 29 and Trancas Street intersection and within and south of the downtown core. In particular, concentrations are found near the OLE Health campuses, South Napa Shelter, and Kennedy Park. These hot spots are likely due to the majority of public and homeless services being located in South Napa, including OLE Health’s main campus and Napa County Health and Human Services. The public transportation system is also more robust in and south of downtown.
In Napa County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is that without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 53.7 percent are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in transitional housing (Figure A-29).
Figure A-29: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Napa County Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. However, in Napa County, White (Hispanic and NonHispanic) residents represent the largest proportion of residents experiencing homelessness and Number of Persons account for 77 percent of the homeless population while making up 73.4 percent of the overall population (Figure A-30). Latinx residents in Napa represent 38.5 percent of the population experiencing homelessness while comprising 33.9 percent of the general population (Figure A-31).
Figure A-30: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Napa County Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I)
Figure A-31: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Napa County Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I)
Many of those experiencing homelessness have self-reported – mental illness, substance abuse, and/or a history domestic violence – that are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. In Napa County, homeless individuals often self-report a severe mental illness, with 177 persons reporting this condition (Figure A-32). Of those persons, 44.1 percent are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling mental health conditions.
Figure A-32: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness 21 , Napa County
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
In the City of Napa, the local public school student population experiencing homelessness totaled 154 during the 2019 - 2020 academic year, a 34.5 percent decrease since the 2016-2017 school year. By comparison, during the same time period, Napa County experienced a 29.1 percent decrease, and the Bay Area experienced an 8.5 percent decrease. During the 2019-2020 school year, there were still 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects.
The number of students in City of Napa public schools experiencing homelessness during the 2019 - 2020 academic year represents 57 percent of the Napa County total and 1.1 percent of the Bay Area total.
Table A-8identifies the annual totals of students experiencing homelessness in the city, county, and region from 2016 to 2020.
21 For more information, see HCD’s Building Blocks webpage for People Experiencing Homelessness:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-needs/people-experiencinghomelessness.shtml Table A-8: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness Academic Year City of Napa Napa County Bay Area
2016-17 235 381 14,990
2017-18 267 433 15,142
2018-19 155 249 15,427
2019-20 154 270 13,718
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern.
Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farm workers in Napa County has increased since 2002, totaling 4,290 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased, totaling 5,734 in 2017 (Figure A-33).
As a population, farmworkers are largely made up of foreign-born, Latinx persons, with a median age of around 40 years old. Most farmworkers speak Spanish at home, and a significant portion of the population is female, ranging between 21 to 32 percent statewide depending on the data source. (UC Merced, 2022) Based on the 2022 Farmworker Health Study conducted by the University of California, Merced, there are a multitude of challenges that farmworkers face, including substandard housing.
From the study, most farmworkers rent their homes, and few rely on employer assistance for housing.
The research suggests that most of the homes farmworkers occupy are older, may not be appropriate for habitation (e.g., garages or similar spaces), and are in need of major repairs, such as to fix roofs; plumbing, heating, and cooling systems; water leaks and moisture intrusion; insect and rodent problems; and drinking water quality. Farmworkers are also at higher risk for respiratory illnesses and infectious diseases due to poor ventilation and overcrowding. (Id.) In Napa, the migrant worker student population in local public schools totaled 909 during the 2019-2020 academic year and has increased by 13.5 percent since the 2016-2017 year. The change at the county level is a 19.4 percent increase in the number of migrant worker students over the same period.
However, the trend for the region over the past few years has been a decline of 2.4 percent (Table A-9).
Recognizing farmworkers as a critical, yet underserved, segment of the Napa Valley community, the City of Napa helps connect workers in need to available resources and does targeted outreach to this population when appropriate housing opportunities arise. In particular, the city works with the Napa County Housing Authority (NCHA) which is primarily focused on addressing the need for safe and affordable housing for farmworkers, especially those who are migrant or seasonal. As part of NCHA’s programing, it currently provides three farmworker housing centers and is seeking to expand housing opportunities. The City of Napa will continue to support NCHA in providing and expanding these programs.
While the City of Napa’s Housing Authority administers federal housing programs, the Napa County Housing Authority is focused on addressing farmworker housing needs in the community, specifically, including the operation of three farmworker housing sites in unincorporated Napa County. NCHA is responsible for overseeing Community Service Area No. 3, which is legislature-approved assessment that grape growers elect to impose on themselves to operate the farmworker centers and contribute to the needs of farmworker housing. NCHA also regularly conducts a Farmworker Housing Needs Assessment, which was last completed in 2012. A new assessment began in September 2023 and is expected to be completed by Spring 2024 and includes surveys, focus groups, and key informant interviews.
The City of Napa regularly partners with NCHA and local community organizations to understand and support the needs of farmworkers in Napa Valley. As an example, the community is seeing an increase in the number of year-round farmworkers, resulting in an increased need for permanent affordable housing rather than temporary accommodations. Additionally, women are increasingly accepting farmworker jobs, and there are many families in the community where one or more of the heads of household are farmworkers. While the ongoing needs assessment may confirm this, there is an increased desire and need to integrate farmworker households into the broader community, including schools, rather than to have farmworker-specific housing developments. Recently, the city partnered with Napa County and Burbank Housing to seek Joe Serna funding to support a dedicated set aside of units for farmworkers and their families as part of the larger 90-unit Heritage House/Valley Verde project.
Table A-9: Migrant Worker Student Population
Academic Year City of Napa Napa County Bay Area
2016-17 741 903 4,630
2017-18 982 1,173 4,607
2018-19 909 1,090 4,075
2019-20 841 1,078 3,976
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) Figure A-33: Farm Operations and Farm Labor, Napa County Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7:
Hired Farm Labor
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights, or they might be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns. In the City of Napa, 9.6 percent of residents five years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is above the proportion for Napa County. Throughout the region the proportion of residents five years and older with limited English proficiency is eight percent (Figure A-34).
Figure A-34: Population with Limited English Proficiency Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005
While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market-rate than it is to build new affordable housing.
The data in Table A-10 comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing. However, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at-risk assisted units in the City of Napa not captured. There are 1,472 assisted units located in Napa and included in the Preservation Database.
Of these units, zero percent are at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion.22 22 California Housing Partnership uses the following risk categories for assisted housing developments in its database:
- Very-High Risk: Affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market-rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable nonprofit, mission-driven developer. - High Risk: Affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market-rate in the next one to five years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable nonprofit, mission-driven developer.
There are 84 units in the Preservation Database identified as having a Moderate Risk of conversion to market-rate housing. The 84 affordable units are associated with the Napa Creek Manor development on Jefferson Street, which is supported by HUD and CalHFA programs. The estimated date that the units will convert to market-rate is May 31, 2029; however, Housing Element Program H5-1.5 directs the City of Napa to take several actions to prevent conversion of these units, specifically, as well as other affordable housing units identified in a new tracking database. Actions the city will take include contacting property owners within one year of affordability expiration to discuss preservation; coordinating with owners to ensure required tenant notices are sent; conducting outreach to agencies interested in purchasing and/or managing at-risk units; and working with tenants to provide education regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures pursuant to California law.
Table A-10: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Risk Category City of Napa Napa County Bay Area
Low 1,388 1,972 110,177
Moderate 84 84 3,375
High 0 0 1,854
Very High 0 0 1,053
Total Assisted Units in Database 1,472 2,056 116,459
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020) While the City of Napa will take actions intended to prevent the conversion of the 84 at-risk Napa Creek Manor units, state law requires that all housing elements include additional information and analysis regarding the conversion of existing, assisted housing developments to other non-low income uses (Statutes of 1989, Chapter 1452). This helps to address the concern that many affordable housing developments would have affordability restrictions lifted when their government financing was soon to expire or could be pre-paid. Without sanctions imposed due to financing restrictions, affordability of units is no longer assured.
- Moderate Risk: Affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market-rate in the next five to 10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
- Low Risk: Affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10 or more years or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
Further, the cost of preserving existing assisted units is significantly less than the cost required to replace units through new construction. Conservation of assisted units generally requires rehabilitation of the aging structure and re-structuring finances to maintain a low debt service and legally restrict rents. Construction costs, land prices, and land availability are primary factors limiting the development of affordable housing, and it is estimated that new construction of 84 low-income housing units would cost around $69 million. New construction is more feasible than subsidizing the rents of 84 extremely low-income senior households (estimated at $84 million over 55 years), but the most cost-efficient option is to preserve existing units through acquisition and rehabilitation, which is estimated to cost around $58 million for Napa Creek Manor.
In order to provide a cost analysis of preserving at-risk units, costs must be determined for the potential options: 1) preservation/rehabilitation, 2) new construction/replacement, and 3) tenant-based rental assistance. The following costs anticipate rehabilitation, construction, or rental assistance of units comparable to those in the Napa Creek Manor, which are primarily one-bedroom apartments for independent seniors.
Option No. 1 – Preservation/Rehabilitation
The primary factors used to analyze the cost of preserving the 84 at-risk Napa Creek Manor low-income senior housing units include acquisition, rehabilitation, and financing. Actual acquisition costs depend on several variables such as condition, size, location, existing financing, and availability of financing (governmental and market). Table A-11 presents the estimated rehabilitation costs for the City of Napa, resulting in an estimated total cost of almost $58 million for the 84 at-risk units in Napa Creek Manor.
Table A-11: Rehabilitation Costs for At-Risk Units
Cost Types Per Unit Cost Total Cost
Acquisition $500,000 $42,000,000
Rehabilitation $100,000 $8,400,000
Financing/Other (15% of Costs) $90,000 $7,560,000
Total Cost of Rehabilitation $690,000 $57,960,000
Option No. 2 – New Construction/Replacement
The high cost of land and construction in Napa make affordable housing development difficult without substantial subsidy. Projects in Napa tend to be smaller in scale due to the developed nature of the community and small size of remaining vacant or underutilized parcels available.
Small projects are not competitive for many state funding sources and are not able to benefit from economies of scale. This results in higher development costs and higher ongoing management costs per unit. The City of Napa has two new build projects that have recently applied for Affordable Housing Development Impact Funds that are in the early stages of assembling financing. The first project at the Napa Methodist Church in downtown Napa includes a land donation from the church and is estimated to cost $810,000 per unit to develop. The second project is intended to be a Permanent Supportive Housing project for very low-income households at 515 Silverado Trail. This project includes the acquisition of just over one acre of land for 40 units for an estimated development cost of $837,258 per unit. Based on costs for these recent low-income housing projects, it is estimated that new construction/replacement cost of the 84 at-risk Napa Creek Manor low-income senior housing units would be around $69 million total, or $820,000 per unit.
Option No. 3 – Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
The cost of providing tenant-based rental assistance as an option to at-risk housing preservation depends largely on household income, shelter costs of the unit, and the number of years assistance is provided. In looking at the affordable housing provided by Napa Creek Manor, this analysis assumes assistance for 84 low-income senior households.
If an extremely low-income senior household requiring rental assistance earns $28,050 (approximately 30% of AMI for a one-person household), then that senior could afford approximately $701 per month for shelter costs. According to Zillow Rentals Data, the median rent in the City of Napa in 2023 was $2,220. The difference between these figures would result in $1,519 per month in necessary assistance.
Per one-bedroom unit for a low-income senior household, the total annual cost of tenant-based rental assistance would be $18,228. For comparison purposes, typical affordable housing developments carry an affordability term of at least 55 years, which would bring the total cost to $1,002,540 per low-income senior household. Consequently, providing tenant-based rental assistance for the 84 at-risk Napa Creek Manor units would be approximately $84 million total in costs for the City of Napa over a 55-year period.
It is noted that these costs do not reflect potential cost savings associated with various federal and state housing grant and loan programs, discussed in Appendix D, Housing Program Resources.
Cost Analysis Summary
As demonstrated above, the most cost-effective approach is to acquire, preserve, and rehabilitate the 84 at-risk units, which would cost the city approximately $58 million total. Providing tenant-based rental assistance, without the subsidy of housing vouchers or other state and federal programs, is the most expensive approach to replacing the at-risk units, which would cost approximately $84 million to support 84 extremely low-income senior households over a 55-year period. New construction to replace the 84 units is the mid-cost approach, which totals approximately $69 million; however, replacement would also take three to five years of planning and construction before units would be available for occupancy. The longer the development process, the more likely costs will increase, particularly in the current construction and interest rate market. If the City of Napa were to pursue the replacement option, it is likely that there would need to be short-term tenant-based rental assistance to account for the gap between conversion of the existing units and occupancy of the replacement units.
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. There are four HUDdesignated severe housing problems, including:
▪ Lack of complete kitchen facilities;
▪ Lack of complete plumbing facilities;
▪ Severe overcrowding; and
▪ Being severely cost-burdened.
Households are considered to have a housing problem if they experience at least one of the above and, in Napa, 20 to 40 percent of households experience at least one of these issues. The two former issues, lack of kitchen and plumbing facilities, are discussed under this section. See Section A.5.11 for discussion of the two latter issues, overcrowding and overpayment.
The Census Bureau data included in Figure A-35 shows some of the substandard conditions that may be present in the City of Napa. For example, 3.3 percent of renters in Napa reported lacking a kitchen and 0.5 percent reported lacking plumbing, compared to 0.3 and 0.1 percent of Napa homeowners that reported lacking a kitchen or plumbing, respectively.
Based on evidence gathered by City of Napa staff and reports from housing partners in the community, the estimated number of units in need of rehabilitation or replacement due to lack of kitchen or plumbing facilities is 588. In 2017, there were a total of 82 households in the city with incomplete plumbing facilities, representing 0.3 percent of households. This is compared to 0.2 percent of households lacking complete plumbing facilities in 2010. There were also 506 households lacking complete kitchen facilities in 2017, compared to 275 households in 2010; this was a change from one percent of households in 2010 to 1.8 percent in 2017. (City of Napa, 2019) Figure A-35: Substandard Housing Issues Reported
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages, and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, housing costs have long been among the highest in the nation. The typical home value in Napa was estimated at $759,760 in December of 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were valued between $500,000 and $750,000 (Figure A-36). By comparison, the typical home value is $768,410 in Napa County and $1,077,230 in the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued between $500,000 to $750,000.
The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 138.1 percent in Napa from $319,050 to $759,760. This change is below the change in Napa County, and below the change for the region (Figure A-37). Percent of Units Lacking Amenity Figure A-36: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2017-2021), Table B25075 Figure A-37: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years.
Many renters have been priced out, evicted, or displaced, particularly in communities of color.
Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.
In Napa, the largest proportion of rental units rented in recent years fall in the $1,500 to $2,000 per month category, totaling 26.2 percent, followed by 24 percent in the $1,000 to $1,500 category (Figure A-38). Looking beyond the city, the largest share of units rented in Napa County and the region was in the $1,500 to $2,000 category.
Since 2011, the median rent has increased by 52.4 percent in Napa, from $1,149 to $1,751 per month (Figure A-39). In Napa County, the median rent has increased 45.2 percent, from $1,181 to $1,715. The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,268 to $1,987, a 56.7 percent increase.23
Figure A-38: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2017-2021), Table B25056 23 While the data on home values shown in Figure A-36 comes from Zillow, Zillow does not have data on rent prices available for most Bay Area jurisdictions. To have a more comprehensive dataset on rental data for the region, the rent data in this document comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which may not fully reflect current rents.
Figure A-39: Median Contract Rent
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.
A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.
Renters are often more cost-burdened than homeowners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market rate increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Napa, 29.2 percent of all renters spend 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing compared to 16.9 percent of those that own (Figure A-40). Additionally, 23.8 percent of renters spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while only 10.4 percent of owners are severely cost-burdened. The disparity between renters and owners carries through for lower-income households, earning less than 80 percent of AMI, where 74.2 percent of renters are cost-burdened with 37.6 percent severely so, compared to 52.8 and 27.5 percent of owners, respectively. See Figure A-40 and Table A-12 for a more detailed analysis of cost burden by tenure.
In Napa, 16.4 percent of all households spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 21.9 percent spend 30 to 50 percent. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (Figure A-41). For example, 67 percent of Napa households making less than 30 percent of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For Napa residents making more than 100 percent AMI, just 1.1 percent are severely cost-burdened, and 86.2 percent of those making more than 100 percent AMI spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing.
Figure A-40: Cost Burden by Tenure
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091
Figure A-41: Cost Burden by Income Level
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Table A-12: Cost Burden by Tenure
Household Income by
Cost Burden*
Owner Renter
Cost
Burden >
30%
% of
Owner
HH
Cost
Burden >
50%
% of
Owner
HH
Cost
Burden >
30%
% of
Renter
HH
Cost
Burden >
50%
% of
Renter
HH
<= 30% HAMFI 805 77.8% 605 58.5% 1,755 80.0% 1,355 61.7% >30% to <=50% HAMFI 800 52.6% 400 26.3% 1,990 86.0% 945 40.8% >50% to <=80% HAMFI 1,125 42.9% 420 16.0% 1,445 58.3% 325 13.1% >80% to <=100% HAMFI 595 35.0% 130 7.6% 445 35.2% 35 2.8% >100% HAMFI 950 9.9% 120 1.3% 245 7.0% 0 0.0%
Total 4,275 26.0% 1,675 10.2% 5,880 50.1% 2,660 22.6%
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2015-2019
Note: * Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs", which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HAMFI = HUD Area Median Family Income, this is the median family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. HAMFI will not necessarily be the same as other calculations of median incomes (such as a simple Census number), due to a series of adjustments that are made.
Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.
Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most cost-burdened with 30 percent spending 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing. Asian / API, Non-Hispanic residents are the most severely cost-burdened with 20.7 percent spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing (Figure A-42).
Figure A-42: Cost Burden by Race
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.
In Napa, 28.3 percent of large family households experience a cost burden of 30 to 50 percent, while 12.1 percent of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Of all other households, 21.2 percent have a cost burden of 30 to 50 percent, with 16.8 percent spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing (Figure A-43).
Figure A-43: Cost Burden by Household Size
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors. Of seniors making less than 30 percent of AMI, 58.5 are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100 percent of AMI, 85 percent are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing (Figure A-44).
Figure A-44: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded.
Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In Napa, 4.4 percent of households that rent are severely overcrowded compared to 0.4 percent of households that own (Figure A-45), and 8.8 percent of renters experience moderate overcrowding compared to 3.3 percent for those own.
Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. Very low-income households (below 50 percent AMI) experience severe overcrowding at a rate of 1.9 percent, while 0.7 percent of households above 100 percent AMI experience this level of overcrowding (Figure A-46).
Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding similar to how they are more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In Napa, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) (Figure A-47).
Figure A-45: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Figure A-46: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Figure A-47: Overcrowding by Race
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Bohn, S. et al. (2020). Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California.
City of Napa. (2019). Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. Retrieved from https://www.cityofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/6146/2019-Analysis-of-Impediments-toFair-Housing-ChoiceDow, P. (2018). Unpacking the Growth in san Francisco's Vacant Housing Stock: Client report for the San Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley.
Moore, E., Montojo, N., & Mauri, N. (2019). Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing in the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.
Napa CoC. (2022). Strategic Plan to Address Homelessness. Napa City-County Continuum of Care (Napa CoC). Retrieved from
https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/24961/Napa-CoC-Strategic-Plan-toAddress-Homelessness-PDF?bidId= UC Merced. (2022). Farmworker Health in California: Health in a Time of Contagion, Drought, and Climate Change. Retrieved from
https://clc.ucmerced.edu/sites/clc.ucmerced.edu/files/page/documents/fwhs_report_2.2.2383. pdf
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Appendix B
Land Inventory
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Napa | General Plan Housing Element 6th Cycle Update 2023-2031 Cover Image: Site Inventory Analysis, Brian Greer, DP+S, 2022 SECTION B.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ B-1 B.1.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation........................................................................................................................B-1 B.1.2 Potential for Future Housing .................................................................................................................................... B-2 SECTION B.2. Planned and Approved Projects – Pipeline Residential Development................................................B-5 B.2.1 Overview........................................................................................................................................................................... B-5 B.2.1.1 Income Assumptions...................................................................................................................................................................B-5 B.2.2 Summary of Pipeline Residential Development.............................................................................................. B-6 B.2.2.1 Affordability Ratings of Pipeline Project Units ................................................................................................................B-6 B.2.3 Pipeline Projects Accommodating the Lower-Income RHNA.................................................................. B-10 Heritage House/Valle Verde ................................................................................................................................................................B-10 SoCo (formerly Pietro Place).................................................................................................................................................................B-11 Caritas Affordable Apartments ...........................................................................................................................................................B-11 Bridgeview Apartments Addition ..................................................................................................................................................... B-12 Napa Pipe .................................................................................................................................................................................................... B-13 Monarch Landing Affordable..............................................................................................................................................................B-14 Wine Train Housing ................................................................................................................................................................................ B-15 Health and Human Services (HHS) Site..........................................................................................................................................B-16 Valley Lodge...............................................................................................................................................................................................B-16 B.2.4 Large Sites in the Pipeline .......................................................................................................................................B-17 SECTION B.3. Vacant and Underutilized Sites................................................................................................................... B-18 B.3.1 Overview..........................................................................................................................................................................B-18 B.3.2 Affordability Assumptions......................................................................................................................................B-20 B.3.3 Assumed Density.........................................................................................................................................................B-21 B.3.4 Vacant Sites..................................................................................................................................................................B-24 B.3.5 Underutilized (Nonvacant) Sites ..........................................................................................................................B-25 B.3.5.1 Higher Density Residential Redevelopment ...................................................................................................................B-25 B.3.5.2 Current Trends and Market Conditions............................................................................................................................B-26 B.3.5.3 Planned Development..............................................................................................................................................................B-26 B.3.6 Sites Identified in Previous Housing Elements..............................................................................................B-29 B.3.7 Downtown Specific Plan...........................................................................................................................................B-31 B.3.8 Small Sites Accommodating the Lower-Income RHNA .............................................................................B-32 B.3.9 Large Sites in Lower Income Vacant Category...............................................................................................B-33 SECTION B.4. Accessory Dwelling Unit Projection...........................................................................................................B-34 SECTION B.5. Summary of Capacity to Accommodate the RHNA ................................................................................B-35 SECTION B.6. Infrastructure Availability ............................................................................................................................B-37 B.6.1 Water and Sewer..........................................................................................................................................................B-37 B.6.2 Dry Utilities ...................................................................................................................................................................B-38 SECTION B.7. Land Inventory Sites ......................................................................................................................................B-39 SECTION B.8. Works Cited.......................................................................................................................................................B-45 SECTION B.9. Alternatives Sites Checklists .......................................................................................................................B-47 Figure B-1: Napa City Site Inventory......................................................................................................................................................B-4 Figure B-2: Pipeline Project Identifier Numbers in Napa City.....................................................................................................B-8 Figure B-3: Pipeline Project Unit Capacity in Napa City ...............................................................................................................B-9 Figure B-4: Building Footprints Over Napa County Parcels.......................................................................................................B-18 Figure B-5: Parcel-Based Site Inventory Algorithm ......................................................................................................................B-19 Figure B-6: Site Inventory Review Meeting October 2022 ..........................................................................................................B-20 Figure B-7: Vacant Parcel Calculation Method ...............................................................................................................................B-24 Figure B-8: Sites Used in Prior Housing Elements ........................................................................................................................B-30 Figure B-9: Sites in the DTSP..................................................................................................................................................................B-32 Figure B-10: Sub-Half Acre Vacant Low-Income Parcels in the Site Inventory.................................................................B-32 Figure B-11: Oxbow Commons Site.......................................................................................................................................................B-32 Figure B-12: Former Harvest Middle School Site............................................................................................................................B-33 Figure B-13: Napa City Site Inventory – All Sites ...........................................................................................................................B-36 Table B-1: City of Napa RHNA...................................................................................................................................................................B-2 Table B-2: City of Napa Site Inventory ..................................................................................................................................................B-3 Table B-3: Pipeline Project Affordability..............................................................................................................................................B-5 Table B-4: Pipeline Unit Summary.........................................................................................................................................................B-6 Table B-5: Pipeline Projects Contributing to the RHNA.................................................................................................................B-7 Table B-6: Density Assumptions by General Plan Land Use ..................................................................................................... B-21 Table B-7: Sample Average Apartment Unit Size...........................................................................................................................B-22 Table B-8: FAR to Unit Density Conversions....................................................................................................................................B-22 Table B-9: Realistic Development Potential Based on Recent Projects ................................................................................B-23 Table B-10: Sites Used in Prior Housing Element...........................................................................................................................B-29 Table B-11: DTSP Residential Density Standards............................................................................................................................ B-31 Table B-12: Napa ADU Permits 2018-2021 ..........................................................................................................................................B-34 Table B-13: ADU Projections to Satisfy RHNA..................................................................................................................................B-34 Table B-14: Summary of Residential Capacity compared to 2023-2031 RHNA by Income............................................B-35 Table B-15: City of Napa Land Inventory............................................................................................................................................B-39
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
California law (Government Code § 65583 (a)(3)) requires that housing elements contain an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and non-vacant (i.e., underutilized) sites having potential for redevelopment. State law also requires an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites.
This appendix presents an inventory of sites within Napa City Limits that are suitable for residential development during the planning period of this Housing Element, 2023-2031. The analysis presented in this appendix demonstrates there is an adequate supply of suitable land to accommodate the city’s portion of the regional housing allocation (RHNA) of 2,669 units, including housing at all income levels.
The RHNA is the State of California-required process that seeks to ensure cities and counties are planning for enough housing to accommodate all economic segments of the community. The process is split into the following three steps:
1. Regional Determination: The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provides each region a Regional Determination of housing need, which includes a total number of units split into four income categories. The City of Napa is within the region covered by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). HCD provided ABAG a Regional Determination of 441,176 units for the 6th Cycle RHNA (2023-2031). This is the total number of units that the cities and counties in the ABAG region must collectively plan to accommodate.
2. RHNA Methodology: Councils of Governments (COG), including ABAG, are responsible for developing a RHNA methodology for allocating the Regional Determination to each city and county in the COG’s region. This methodology must further specify state objectives, including, but not limited to, promoting infill, equity, and environmental protection; ensuring jobs-housing balance; and affirmatively furthering fair housing.
3. Housing Element Updates: Each city and county must then adopt a housing element that demonstrates how the jurisdiction can accommodate its assigned RHNA through its zoning and other land use policy documents. HCD reviews each jurisdiction’s housing element for compliance with state law.
The City of Napa’s share of the regional housing need was determined by a methodology prepared by ABAG as part of the Regional Housing Needs Plan adopted in December 2021. In accordance with ABAG’s Regional Housing Needs Plan, the City of Napa must plan to accommodate a total of 1,939 housing units between June 30, 2022, and December 15, 2030. Column A of Table B-1 shows the city’s RHNA by income category.
In December 2019, the City of Napa and Napa County entered into an agreement to request a transfer of 80 percent of county’s RHNA units to the city. This agreement facilitated the annexation of the 154-acre Napa Pipe site to the City of Napa. The transfer was submitted to ABAG by Napa County in January 2022. Column B of Table B-1 shows the unit transfer totals by income category.
Column C in Table B-1, illustrates the total effective RHNA for the 2023-2031 planning period across each income category, the sum of which is 2,669 units.
Table B-1: City of Napa RHNA
A. Napa RHNA
(ABAG
Assessment)
B. Napa County
Transfer
C. Napa RHNA
2022 Housing
Element
D. Percentage of
Total
Extremely Low- and Very Low-Income 504 266 770 29%
Low-Income 291 153 444 17%
Moderate-Income 319 86 405 15%
Above Moderate-Income 825 225 1,050 39%
Total 1,939 730 2,669
State law also requires the city to identify the projected need for extremely low-income housing and, assuming that 50 percent of the very low-income housing need is extremely low-income housing need, there is a projected need of 385 extremely low-income housing units.
The Housing Element is required to identify and describe land available for residential development to meet the city’s RHNA for the 2023-2031 projection period. The City of Napa plans to accommodate the RHNA using a combination of:
▪ Sites with planned and approved residential development (“Pipeline”); ▪ Vacant sites;
▪ Underutilized sites with buildout unit capacity as defined in the 2040 Napa General Plan; and ▪ Projected accessory dwelling unit (ADU) construction based on production history.
The City of Napa Site Inventory is summarized in Table B-2 and shown on the map in Figure B-1. The method for each category contributing to the Site Inventory and meeting the city’s RHNA is presented in subsequent sections. State law, Government Code § 65583(c)(10), requires the sites analysis to be analyzed with respect to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) to ensure that affordable housing is dispersed equitably throughout the city rather than concentrated in areas of high segregation and poverty or low resource areas that have historically been underserved. See Appendix C. for this analysis.
Table B-2: City of Napa Site Inventory
LowerIncome
Units
ModerateIncome UnitsAbove ModerateIncome Units Total Units RHNA 1,214 405 1,050 2,669
Pipeline Residential
Development 337 135 1,412 1,884
Capacity on Vacant Sites 579 74 147 800
Capacity on Underutilized
Sites 202 137 128 467
ADU Projection 220 110 36 366
Total Capacity 1,338 456 1,723 3,517
Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) +124 +51 +673 +848
Surplus % 10.2% 12.6% 64.1% 31.8%
As portrayed in Table B-2, approximately 42 percent of the lower-income unit RHNA (579 units out of 1,369 units) is achieved by assuming new development on non-vacant sites. Therefore, this site inventory is compliant with the requirement that no more than half of RHNA capacity in the lowerincome category be planned on non-vacant sites.
Figure B-1: Napa City Site Inventory
The City of Napa has a significant number of development projects that are seeking entitlements or that have been approved (entitled or permitted) or built since the start of the Sixth Cycle RHNA projection period on June 30, 2022. City of Napa planning staff identified current pipeline projects that are currently pending, under review, approved, or under construction. The project listing and status was accumulated and detailed in October 2022 for this pipeline project analysis.
Income levels for pipeline projects included in the site inventory are based on the HCD State Income Limits for 2022 (Kirkeby, 2022). The Area Median Income (AMI) for a four-person household in Napa County is $119,400. The AMI was translated into annual income in each income level category (A. in Table B-3). Using the HUD rent burden threshold of 30 percent, a monthly housing cost allocation for each income category is then determined (B. in Table B-3). The unit counts for each pipeline project were defined by comparing planned rents/unit costs to the thresholds presented in Table B-3.
Table B-3: Pipeline Project Affordability
Income Level Affordability for Pipeline Projects
Extremely
Low-Income
≤30% AMI
Very LowIncome
31-50% AMI
Low-Income
51-80% AMI
ModerateIncome
81-120% AMI
Above
ModerateIncome
>120% AMI
A. Annual Income
Upper Limit
$ 35,820 $ 59,700 $ 95,520 $ 143,280 $ 143,280
B. Monthly Housing
+ Utilities
30% Monthly Income
$ 896 $ 1,493 $ 2,388 $ 3,582 $ 3,582
In total, there are 1,963 units from planned and approved projects that are counted toward meeting the RHNA. Based on the affordability restrictions described above, the projects listed in the table are anticipated to provide 372 affordable lower-income units, 268 moderate-income units, and 1,323 above moderate-income units in the pipeline as shown in Table B-4.
Table B-4: Pipeline Unit Summary
Lower-Income
Units
Moderate-Income
Units
Above ModerateIncome Units Total Units
Pipeline Residential
Development 337 135 1,412 1,884
18% 7% 75%
Each pipeline project is detailed in Table B-5 and mapped in Figure B-2.
The approach to determining the affordability of units stems from the specifics provided in each development application. Key factors include entitlement requirements, the nature of funding sources, or alternative equivalents to the Affordable Housing Impact Fee, all of which result in deed restrictions.
Entitlements, or the rights granted by the city to develop a property for a particular use, often stipulate the proportion of affordable units required in a development. Deed restrictions, legally binding agreements attached to the title of the property, further dictate the affordability requirement and frequently specify the length of time a property must remain affordable. Developers of affordable housing will often target the lowest income categories for deed restricted units since units designated extremely low- and very-low income score higher in competitive funding competitions.
The projects included in Table B-5 and the units presented at various income levels correspond to approved development applications with planned units at affordability as outlined in the various income-level buckets presented: Extremely Low Income (≤30% AMI), Very Low Income (31-50% AMI), Low-Income (51-80% AMI), Moderate Income (81-120% AMI), and Above Moderate Income (120%+ AMI).
Pipeline project ID numbers 13, 24, 57, and 110 in Table B-5 have deed restrictions in place and are under construction at various stages of completion. Pipeline projects 58, 103, and 109 have approved entitlements from the city and are securing final financing; unit mixes are subject to change in the favor of affordability based on final funding sources. Project 74 has an executed development agreement dictating minimum affordability and is currently seeking entitlements. Project 107 is also actively seeking entitlements from the city, including a density bonus.
Table B-5: Pipeline Projects Contributing to the RHNA
ID Project Name
Extremely
Low-Income
≤30% AMI
Very Low
Income
31-50%
AMI
LowIncome 51-
80% AMI
ModerateIncome 81-
120% AMI
Above
ModerateIncome
120% AMI
Res.
Units Dev. Type
6 Vista Grove Subdivision 0 0 0 0 27 27 Single-Family
Res.
8 Zinfandel Subdivision 0 0 0 0 54 54 Single-Family
Res.
13 Heritage House/Valle
Verde
44 44 0 0 2 90 Multi-Family
Res.
21 Western Meadows &
Borrette Lane Parcel Map
0 0 0 0 12 12 Single-Family
Res.
24 Pietro Place 0 11 0 0 160 171 Multi-Family
Res.
32 First Street Apartments
II
0 0 0 0 50 50 Multi-Family
Res.
33 Keller Apartments 0 0 0 0 24 24 Multi-Family
Res.
57 Caritas Affordable
Apartments
0 2 8 9 1 20 Multi-Family
Res.
58 Bridgeview Apartments
Addition
0 3 8 0 5 16 Multi-Family
Res.
63 Terrace Drive
Subdivision
0 0 0 17 0 17 Single-Family
Res.
68 Foster Road Townhomes 0 0 0 0 14 14 Multi-Family
Res.
74 Napa Pipe GPA & Rezone 0 28 28 44 761 861 Hotel, MixedUse 76 Stanly Ranch Resort 0 0 0 0 70 70 Hotel, MultiFamily Res. 100 Alta East 0 0 0 0 5 5 Single-Family
Res.
101 Marvin Gardens 0 0 0 0 8 8 Multi-Family
Res. (Duplex)
102 ST. James Place 0 0 0 0 23 23 Multi-Family
Res.
103 Monarch Landing
Affordable
0 0 76 0 1 77 Multi-Family
Res.
105 Lone Oak Subd 0 0 0 0 6 6 Single-Family
Res.
106 Browns Valley Subd 0 0 0 0 11 11 Single-Family
Res.
107 Wine Train Housing 0 0 6 49 0 55 Multi-Family
Res., Mixed-Use
108 Napa Creek Condos 0 0 0 0 48 48 Single-Family
Res.
109 HHS Site 0 25 0 16 119 160 Res., Mixed
Development
110 Valley Lodge 54 0 0 0 1 55 Multi-Family
Res.
113 Wilkins Townhomes 0 0 0 0 10 10 Single-Family
Res.
Figure B-2: Pipeline Project Identifier Numbers in Napa City Figure B-3: Pipeline Project Unit Capacity in Napa City Various projects in the development pipeline contribute to the lower-income RHNA for the city. The following sections provide details on each development project along with a description of the units contributing to the lower-income allocation (lower-income categories are detailed in Table B-3 while lower-income pipeline projects are listed among all pipeline projects in Table B-5).
DEVELOPMENT TYPE
Multi-Family Residential
AFFORDABLE UNITS
Forty-four units will be
restricted for extremely lowincome households, and 44
additional units will be
restricted to incomes not
exceeding 85 percent of AMI.
Two managers’ units will be
unrestricted. Affordability of
the units to extremely and very
low-income households is ensured for a minimum of 55 years, pursuant to the Affordable Housing Loan Agreement (C2022-100) with the City of Napa effective June 1, 2022. A copy of the completed Alternative Sites Checklist for this project is provided in SECTION B.9.
DESCRIPTION
Two developments make up the unified vision of Heritage House and Valle Verde Apartments, a 90- unit affordable housing project in northeast Napa. Heritage House/Valle Verde totals 90 units of affordable multifamily residential units that includes the rehabilitation of an existing structure to create 66 units that will consists of eight one-bedroom apartments and 58 studio apartments, including 40 units of supportive housing. The new construction component will include 12 one-bedroom units (including four units of supportive housing), six two-bedroom units, and six three-bedroom units.
The combined 90 units being built will have space for families, farmworker housing, and permanent supportive housing. Located at 3700 and 3710 Valle Verde Drive, these new homes are conveniently located to shopping, services, public transportation, and schools.
Project Timeline: Construction has been ongoing and the first phase of units is expected to be completed by November 2023 with the second phase of units expected to be available for occupancy by March 2024.
DEVELOPMENT TYPE
Multi-Family Residential
AFFORDABLE UNITS
Of the 171 units, 11 will be
affordable rental/sales prices
for very low-income
households not exceeding 50
percent of AMI for a period of
55 years.
DESCRIPTION
SoCo is a 171-unit apartment complex on Central Avenue in Napa that is currently under construction and includes 101 one-bedroom units and 70 two-bedroom units. After opening as a rental complex, it is planned to gradually be converted into a condominium development starting 10 years after opening.
Project Timeline: Construction is ongoing. The first phase of units is available for occupancy as of August 2023, with the remainder of the project expected to be completed in phases through 2023.
DEVELOPMENT TYPE
Multi-Family Residential
AFFORDABLE UNITS
Of the 20 units, two will be restricted to very
low-income households not exceeding 50
percent of AMI, eight will be restricted to
low-income households not exceeding 80
percent of AMI, five will be restricted to moderate-income households not exceeding 100 percent of AMI, and four will be restricted to moderate-income households not exceeding 120 percent of AMI. One manager’s unit will be unrestricted.
DESCRIPTION
Caritas Village is a 20-unit affordable housing development that will provide desperately needed workforce housing. An important aspect of this planned development is its connection to the approval of a new Trinitas/Marriott Hotel in south Napa. In lieu of paying the Affordable Housing Impact Fee for the Trinitas hotel project, the developer agreed to build affordable housing units on an off-site property, which resulted in the Caritas Village project.
Project Timeline: Construction was completed as of June 2023 and occupancy began in July 2023.
DEVELOPMENT TYPE
Multi-Family Residential
AFFORDABLE UNITS
Of the 16 new units, three units will be restricted to very low-income households and eight units will be restricted to low-income households.
DESCRIPTION
Bridgeview currently operates as a 41-unit multi-family residential development at 122 Brown Street in Napa. The addition includes the development of 16 additional units on an adjacent property located at 151 Riverside Drive.
Project Timeline: Project approved. Application for a minor modification is currently under review by the city with approvals pending additional information from the applicant; there are no city-imposed barriers to final approval. The project is anticipated to begin construction as soon as all approvals are secured and to complete construction within the Housing Element planning period. The developer is financially invested in completion of the project since they own the property and most entitlements are secured.
DEVELOPMENT TYPE
Mixed-Use Residential
AFFORDABLE UNITS
Of the 945 units planned in this
development, at least 70 units
must be deed-restricted to very
low-income households and an
additional 70 must be deedrestricted to low- or very lowincome households. An additional 50 units must be deedrestricted to moderate-income households. This project may be
built in phases with the number
of deed restricted units phased
in.
DESCRIPTION
The 154-acre project is located at the old Napa Pipe industrial site along the Napa River at 1025 Kaiser Road, about a quarter mile north of the Butler Bridge on Highway 29. It is owned by Napa Redevelopment Partners, and Catellus, based in Oakland, is the development manager for the project.
The Napa Pipe site was annexed to the City of Napa in 2020. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.08, the city and county entered into an agreement authorizing the county to report certain affordable units produced on the Napa Pipe site in its Annual Progress Report each year up to a maximum of 140 units. The number of affordable units to be reported by the county will depend on the funding dedicated to the project by the City from sources other than Affordable Housing Impact Fees and the project phase in which the affordable units are constructed (Phase 1 or Phase 2).
Project Timeline: The first phases of development have been approved. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2024 and to be completed within the Housing Element planning period.
DEVELOPMENT TYPE
Multi-Family Residential
AFFORDABLE UNITS
Of the 77 units, 76 will be restricted to lowincome households at or below 60 percent of AMI and one manager’s unit will be
unrestricted. At least 16 units will be
designated for permanent supportive
housing or other special needs
populations.
DESCRIPTION
Monarch Landing, Napa Valley Community Housing’s (NVCH) latest housing development, proposes to develop 77 units of infill affordable housing in the City of Napa. Located at 1000 Shetler Avenue, Monarch Landing is close to transit and retail hubs enabling future residents easy access to the South Napa Marketplace.
Project Timeline: Project is currently securing funding, potentially including tax credits, and is expected to begin construction in 2024 with completion in 2025. The developer is financially invested in completion of the project since they own the property and have all entitlements secured.
DEVELOPMENT TYPE:
Mixed-Use Residential
AFFORDABLE UNITS
Six Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units will be deedrestricted and made available for very low-income households.
DESCRIPTION
The proposed development includes 9,950 square
feet of commercial/retail space and 61 residential units, including six SRO units. Each SRO will be provided with a private bedroom and bathroom and have shared access to group kitchen, living, and dining areas.
In addition to the six SRO units, 35 studio units, 14 one-bedroom units, and four three-bedroom units are proposed.
The project includes a mixed-use building which fronts Soscol Avenue with ground-floor retail/commercial space, two levels of residential units above on the Soscol-facing side, and three levels of residential above on the internally facing side of the building. The secondary building is situated behind the primary building and provides tuck-under parking with two levels of residential above.
Project Timeline: Project is currently under review by the city with approvals pending additional information from the applicant; there are no city-imposed barriers to final approval. The project is anticipated to begin construction as soon as all approvals are secured and to complete construction within the Housing Element planning period. The developer is financially invested in completion of the project since they own the property and most entitlements are secured.
DEVELOPMENT TYPE
Single- and Multi-Family Residential
AFFORDABLE UNITS
The project includes approximately 25
units for low-income households at 80
percent of AMI or below. The project in its
current proposal will include at least 16
ownership units restricted to moderateincome households at 81 percent to 120 percent of AMI.
DESCRIPTION
This project is still in the planning phase but will include approximately 160 ownership and rental units, including six units that will be located in renovated historic buildings. The target population will be a mix of low-income, moderate-income, and workforce housing units.
Project Timeline: Project is expected to have funding secured by September 2023, and construction is expected to commence in 2024 with completion in 2025. The developer is financially invested in completion of the project since they own the property and all entitlements are secured.
DEVELOPMENT TYPE
Single Resident Occupancy
AFFORDABLE UNITS
Of the total 55 units, 54 will be restricted as
supportive housing units to extremely lowincome households referred through the County’s Coordinated Entry System.
Affordability of the units to extremely lowincome households and persons experiencing homelessness is ensured for a minimum of 55
years, pursuant to the Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants recorded with the Napa County Recorder on August 29, 2022, at Serial No. 22-16223. A copy of the completed Alternative Sites Checklist for this project is provided in SECTION B.9.
DESCRIPTION
Valley Lodge is a Project Homekey site that will include 54 permanent supportive housing units and one manager’s unit. Supportive services will be provided onsite. The project will include 20 units for clients exiting chronic homelessness, 14 units for transitional-aged youth and 20 units for clients exiting homelessness. All referrals to the project will come through the County’s Coordinated Entry System.
Project Timeline: The first phase of Valley Lodge (27 units) was completed and occupied in April 2023.
The remaining 27 units are expected to be completed by August 2023.
One vacant site in the Pipeline accommodating the lower income category is over 10 acres. This site is the location of the Napa Pipe development plan as described in Section B.2.3. At 160 acres, the project includes a plan to provide over 70 units of deed-restricted low-income housing.
State law requires each jurisdiction to demonstrate that sufficient land is zoned to provide housing capacity that is adequate to meet the RHNA for each income level. To determine housing capacity, City of Napa staff and the consultant team (Dynamic Planning + Science) conducted an analysis of vacant and non-vacant developable land within the city limits that is within General Plan land use designations and zoned to allow for housing. This section describes the method used to calculate the housing capacity on these sites.
The inventory and analysis of available sites was performed utilizing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping software and data analytics. The city started with three primary data sources: 1) 2022 Napa County parcel data, 2) City of Napa and Open Street Map (OSM) building footprints, and 3) a vacant and underutilized (i.e., non-vacant) parcel inventory created by Dyett & Bhatia (D&B) in 2020 for the 2040 General Plan Update.
The 2022 Napa County parcel dataset includes assessor land use codes to identify vacant sites. This data can be outdated or inaccurate and was updated by intersecting with building footprints to enhance the vacancy status. A sample of this data is shown in Figure B-4.
Figure B-4: Building Footprints Over Napa County Parcels The 2020 D&B parcel inventory was created based on assessor land use codes and the improvementto-land-value ratio to identify sites that were potentially underutilized. The 2040 General Plan also provided buildout units for underutilized sites.
All parcels in the city were evaluated via programmatic modelling illustrated in Figure B-5 to determine eligibility, inclusion, and residential unit capacity in the site inventory. For a given parcel, the vacancy, General Plan land use, and
corresponding density and
income level are defined and
determine using one of three unit
capacity calculation methods. If a
parcel is deemed vacant, the unit
capacity is calculated based on
either the General Plan land use
designation or the Downtown
Specific Plan (DTSP) building
form zones. If a parcel is deemed
non-vacant, the unit capacity
falls back on the buildout
capacity as defined by the 2040
General Plan (all parcels with
buildout capacity less than one
unit were removed). Finally, a
variety of constraints may
disqualify a parcel for inclusion
in the Site Inventory, including
environmental conditions like
contamination or other hazards;
unusual parcel size or shape;
encumbrances such as
easements or an airport
compatibility overlay; use in 2015-2022 annual progress reports (APRs); parks; and use in a previous site inventory.
The city narrowed down the 2019 parcel inventory to only those sites within city limits that were zoned to allow for residential development and were not otherwise constrained by unusual conditions.
Consequently, none of the sites included in the final inventory have any known conditions that would preclude residential development within the planning period.
As a process of the site inventory algorithm, all parcels in the city and those included in the sites inventory were reviewed for vacancy status, zoning and land use, environmental constraints, use in 2015-2022 Housing Element APRs, and use in prior site inventory.
The sites included in the inventory have all been designated for residential development and are not constrained by topography, known environmental factors, or other site-specific constraints that would limit development. The city screened the inventory to remove parcels that are currently occupied by residential uses.
Once the initial inventory of sites was created, the consulting team met with city staff in the Planning and Housing Divisions to verify the sites included in the inventory (Figure B-6). These staff members Figure B-5: Parcel-Based Site Inventory Algorithm
have specific knowledge of current projects in the pipeline and development interest in certain areas of the city.
Figure B-6: Site Inventory Review Meeting October 2022
City planning and housing staff reviewed the vacancy status of each site and confirmed classification of each site as vacant, underutilized, redevelopment-candidate, or not realistic for redevelopment due to other conditions.
Once all the sites and assumptions had been verified, assumptions were applied to the available sites to calculate housing capacity. A spot-check was then conducted of individual parcels to confirm that the calculations resulted in realistic capacity numbers.
Table B-6 shows how sites were categorized for the inventory based on zoning and allowed density and how the assumed densities assigned align with state-defined density thresholds appropriate for specific income groups as follows:
▪ Lower-Income Sites. State law (Government Code § 65583.2(c)(3)) establishes a “default density standard” of 20 units per acre or higher for lower-income units in the City of Napa. This is the density that is “deemed appropriate” in state law to accommodate Napa’s lower-income RHNA. Sites between one-half acres and 10 acres in size where zoning or General Plan land use designations allow for development at 20 units per acre or higher density were generally included in the inventory as lower-income sites.
▪ Moderate-Income Sites. Sites zoned for medium-density, multi-family residential allowing between 10 and 20 dwelling units per acre were inventoried at moderate-income, based on the assumption that the site was too small to accommodate a subsidized lower-income project but large enough for a smaller market-rate, multi-family development to be built. ▪ Above Moderate-Income Sites. Sites with low-density residential zoning below 10 dwelling units per acre were categorized as above moderate-income based on the assumption that a single-family home would be the most likely to be built. Traditional residential with a density of 12 dwelling units per acre is also included in this category based on the median home sale price in the City of Napa of $920,000 (Redfin, 10/2022).
Density is dictated by the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Section 17.08.030 of the City of Napa Zoning Ordinance states that dwelling unit density in residential zoning districts is defined by the underlying General Plan land use designation. Likewise, density for most, but not all, zoning districts in the city is determined on an individual parcel level by the underlying General Plan land use designation. Exceptions include the Downtown Neighborhood (DN), Oxbow Commercial (OBC), and Tulocay Village (MP-G4) zoning districts among others, in which densities are established in adopted area-specific plans. In addition, there are three zoning districts that do not use a typical density standard of dwelling units per acre; instead, a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is applied through the General Plan designation.
For purposes of the site inventory, the density standard of the General Plan is applied except where a parcel is within the Downtown Specific Plan area. For those zoning districts that use FAR from the General Plan, an equivalent density was determined using the average dwelling unit size of 900 square feet based on several recent housing projects. General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan densities are presented in Table B-6.
Table B-6: Density Assumptions by General Plan Land Use Land Use
Max. Density
(DU/ac) FAR Income Level
Development
Potential
Realistic
Density
Business Professional 40 Lower 80% 32
Agriculture 1 Above Moderate 80% 0.8
Greenbelt 0.05 Above Moderate 80% 0.04
Flex Industrial 20 Lower 80% 16
Corridor Mixed-Use High 35 2
Lower 80% 28
Corridor Mixed-Use Low 26 1.5 Lower 80% 20.8
Foster Road Mixed Use 10 Moderate 80% 8
Napa Pipe Mixed-Use 20 Lower 80% 16
Residential Mixed-Use 40 Lower 80% 32
Public-Serving 20 1
Lower 80% 16
High Density Residential 40 Lower 80% 32
Low Density Residential 8 Above Moderate 80% 6.4
Medium Density Residential 18 Moderate 80% 14.4
Traditional Residential 12 Above Moderate 80% 9.6
Land Use
Max. Density
(DU/ac) FAR Income Level
Development
Potential
Realistic
Density
Very Low Density Residential 2 Above Moderate 80% 1.6
Downtown Specific Plan
Downtown I 60 Lower 80% 48
Downtown II 40 Lower 80% 32
Transition 25 Lower 80% 20
Land uses without residential unit density defined in dwelling units per acre but with FAR defined (Corridor Mixed-Use High, Corridor Mixed-Use Low, and Public-Serving) use a translation to density for unit capacity calculations in the site inventory. Table B-7 presents a recently completed example project with detailed unit size information. An average per unit square footage is derived from the unit count and average area of each known unit size. Table B-8 outlines the translation from FAR to unit density based on the average unit area, which was found to be 900 square feet based on the recent projects studied (Table B-9). The base residential FAR is reduced by the minimum commercial use FAR assigned by the General Plan designation (A.), then further reduced by the development potential defined for each land use and halved (C.); this square footage is then divided by 900 to obtain the unit density from FAR (D.).
Table B-7: Sample Average Apartment Unit Size
Manzanita Apartments
2951 Soscol Avenue, Napa
Apartment Size (Bedrooms)
1 2 3 Total
Avg. ft² 680 951 1,284
Unit Count 25 13 13 51
Total ft² 17,000 12,363 16,692 46,055
903 Avg. ft²
Table B-8: FAR to Unit Density Conversions
A. Residential
FAR
B. Total FAR C. Realistic Development
Area
D. Total Units on 1
Acre Lot
FAR - Min.
Comm. Use
On 1 Acre Lot 50% Lot Area * Dev.
Potential
Assuming Avg. 900 ft²
Unit
Corridor Mixed-Use High 1.85 80,586 32,234 36
Corridor Mixed-Use Low 1.35 58,806 23,522 26
Public-Serving 1.00 43,560 17,424 19
In general, the realistic residential development potential of vacant and non-vacant sites has been assumed to be 80 percent of the maximum permitted density of the applicable land use designation. To determine the realistic development potential on vacant and non-vacant sites, the city reviewed the density of recently built and low-income residential projects in the pipeline (Table B-9). As shown in the table, sites developed with residential and mixed-use developments averaged 83 percent of the allowed densities.
Table B-9: Realistic Development Potential Based on Recent Projects Project Name Acres
Total
Units General Plan
Project
Density
Max.
Allowed
Density
% Max.
Density
Manzanita Apartments 1.8 51 High Density Residential 28 40 70% Vista Tulocay/The Brayden 12.5 500 High Density Residential 40 40 100% Stoddard West 2.4 50 High Density Residential 21 40 53% Monarch Landing 2.3 77 High Density Residential 34 40 85% St. James Place 0.9 23 Corridor Mixed-Use Low 25 26 96% Valley Lodge 1.8 55 Corridor Mixed-Use High 31 35 89%
Affordable Housing Developments Average Realistic Density 82% Unit capacity calculations for
vacant sites in the site inventory
were made by either the 2040
General Plan land use
designation density or the
Downtown Specific Plan
building form zone density.
As Figure B-7 illustrates, in the
case of a site inventory parcel
that is outside the Downtown
Specific Plan (DTSP) area, the
unit capacity will be calculated
by multiplying the general plan
land use density by the site area
and development potential. For a
parcel inside the DTSP area, the
unit calculation will use the
density of the DTSP zone. The
density values are shown in
Table B-6 .
Figure B-7: Vacant Parcel Calculation Method
Underutilized parcels have been analyzed on various metrics, focusing on their potential for redevelopment. While the methodology for identifying and including these nonvacant parcels, as well as realistic capacity assumptions for the sites, is outlined in the previous sections, it is important to take a closer look at the potential for revitalization and conversion to higher density residential. We recognize the necessity to elaborate on the existing uses of these nonvacant sites and highlight opportunities for further development during the planning period. A detailed description of existing uses is imperative in formulating an in-depth analysis that underlines the potential for additional development.
In addition to a comprehensive analysis of current uses, it is essential to understand the barriers existing uses may pose to further residential development. To this end, the analysis considers experiences from past redevelopment projects for similar sites to high-density residential and any existing contracts or leases that could affect redevelopment. To provide a well-rounded perspective, current trends and market conditions in the city are also considered in relation to the sites identified for potential redevelopment. Factors such as the age and condition of existing structures, explicit developer interest, and the ratio of improvement-to-land values are incorporated into the analysis.
Through this multi-faceted approach, a comprehensive view of the potential for the redevelopment of underutilized parcels emerges, in alignment with city planning goals and market dynamics.
Table B-10 details the underutilized parcels included in the site inventory along with their development potential category and additional notes on redevelopment context. The units provided for each parcel reflect the realistic capacity based on parcel size, constraints, and zoning as calculated for the site inventory.
Eight out of eighteen of the underutilized parcels included in Table B-10 represent as potential redevelopment candidates. Although there is no explicit developer interest at this time, the types of uses located on these nonvacant parcels have tended to redevelop into higher density residential in the past. The existing uses of these parcels, as defined by the Napa County Assessor’s office, include:
four dwelling units, rural residential, single-family residential, and vineyard.
It is worth noting that these present uses, despite being varied, are not alien to the concept of redevelopment. In fact, similar parcels with such usage patterns have previously been successfully transformed into higher density residential properties. A recent example is the Caritas Village affordable housing development which redeveloped from two residential units to 20 (see Caritas Affordable Apartments).
Each of these nine parcels offers unique potential due to their individual characteristics and locations.
The parcels with use code “four dwelling units”, for instance, already signify a structure that can be further developed or renovated to accommodate more residences. The “rural residential” and “single- family homes” also offer the opportunity for conversion into multifamily dwelling units, capitalizing on the growing demand for affordable housing options.
Past experiences indicate that these types of sites can indeed undergo successful transitions to higher density residential use.
As part of the analysis, local real estate market trends were investigated, including changes in property prices, rental rates, and vacancy rates. A thorough understanding of these metrics can provide insights into the viability of redevelopment projects. For instance, rising property prices and decreasing vacancy rates might suggest a growing demand for housing, making residential redevelopment projects more attractive. In Napa, the typical home value has increased 138.1 percent from $319,050 to $759,760 since 2001, and vacancy rates are low at two percent for rental units and 1.4 percent for ownership units (see Appendix A).
Market conditions, such as the current demand for specific types of residential or commercial properties, are also studied. This includes examining the performance of different sectors (e.g., multifamily, single-family, commercial) and understanding where the demand is strongest.
Another factor considered is the socio-economic conditions of the city, which include population growth rates, demographic changes, and income levels. For example, a significant increase in population or changes in demographics necessitates the development of more diverse and affordable housing options. In 2020, the population of Napa was estimated to be 79,278, and there was a population increase of 3.1 percent over the most recent decade (2010 to 2020). The population is also aging, and its racial and ethnic mix is becoming more diverse with the Hispanic or Latinx population growing the most since 2000 (see Appendix A).
Finally, the legal and regulatory landscape is scrutinized, including zoning laws and development policies, as these significantly influence the feasibility and profitability of redevelopment projects. The interplay between these factors and the existing use of underutilized parcels is central to the analysis.
Ten out of eighteen of the underutilized parcels included in Table B-10 have known developer or owner interest in redevelopment, including pending applications or known planned development. This interest is not merely speculative but has materialized in the form of pending applications or announced plans for redevelopment.
Each of these nine parcels is at varying stages of the development process. Some are in the preliminary phases with owners or developers expressing intent to develop, while others have already advanced to the point of submitting formal applications for redevelopment. This variation in stages allows observation and understanding of the full spectrum of the development process, from initial interest to concrete planning and pre-development actions.
The planned developments for these parcels are diverse, reflecting the varied needs and opportunities within the community. These projects not only offer potential for residential growth but also contribute to the local economy through job creation during construction and subsequent operation phases.
Table B-10: Underutilized Parcel Redevelopment Potential APN Type Units Dev. Potential Notes
003-242-007-
000 Above Moderate 117 Developer
Interest
The owner plans to transform the property
into a combination of commercial spaces,
hotels, and residential units, with the
inclusion of an affordable housing
component.
003-262-006-
000 Low Income 4
Developer
Interest
Owner intent is to develop housing. Owner
discussed this intent at a Housing Week
event.
003-262-007-
000 Low Income 1
Developer
Interest
Owner intent is to develop housing. Owner
discussed this intent at a Housing Week
event.
004-460-030-
000 Low Income 53 Developer
Interest
There is an interest in redeveloping a majority
of the property. The school district is working
with some potential buyers to buy and
develop a large portion into residential.
Anticipated to progress in the near future, this
project will increase residential density on the
parcel.
038-250-037-
000 Above Moderate 11 Developer
Interest
Property is the old vintage farm. The city has
rezoned the parcel to RI4 allowing 4,000 sq ft
lots. There is an active development
application on the property. The development
plan also includes the property directly
adjacent to the south.
038-361-042-
000 Moderate 73 Redevelopment
Candidate
Parcel is a vacant vineyard and potentially
prime residential. The site is zoned RS4
allowing 4,000 square foot lots. This site was
identified as "significant but unavoidable" in
the GP EIR with analysis on the importance of
development within the RUL.
042-331-008-
000 Low Income 50
Developer
Interest
Interest by church to develop housing on site.
The interest includes developing
underutilized land on the church not
redeveloping the existing structures. 30 units
are presented in the site inventory and
represent <50% of the 117 units that the
undeveloped land can support.
044-062-032-
000 Low Income 47
Redevelopment
Candidate
The 1.5-acre parcel is zoned for multifamily
residences and can support up to 40 units per
acre. The site’s zoning allows for a
considerable increase. Based on the parcel
size and zoning, the potential exists to
accommodate 47units, significantly
enhancing our residential development
capacity.
045-062-008-
000 Moderate 7
Redevelopment
Candidate
Underutilized parcel in the moderate-income
category identified as a site that allows
significant redevelopment potential.
045-062-014-
000 Moderate 12 Redevelopment
Candidate
Underutilized parcel in the moderate-income
category identified as a site that allows
significant redevelopment potential.
APN Type Units Dev. Potential Notes
045-072-008-
000 Moderate 24 Developer
Interest
Underutilized parcel in the moderate-income
category identified as a site that allows
significant redevelopment potential. Trends
have shown interest to develop residential
capacity on church sites like this.
046-020-024-
000 Moderate 5
Redevelopment
Candidate
Underutilized parcel in the moderate-income
category identified as a site that allows
significant redevelopment potential.
Underutilized - property to the north just
converted to permanent supportive housing
(Valley Lodge)
046-050-001-
000 Low Income 9
Developer
Interest
Parcel owner has expressed interest in
redevelopment and site can support
significant additional units.
046-050-002-
000 Low Income 10 Developer
Interest
Parcel owner has expressed interest in
redevelopment and site can support
significant additional units.
046-061-038-
000 Moderate 3
Redevelopment
Candidate
The parcel, assigned an RI4 zoning
designation, is located in an area notable for
recent development activity, especially
around Saratoga and the eastern cul-de-sac.
As one of the last undeveloped sites amidst a
substantially modernized vicinity, it's logical
to earmark this parcel for redevelopment to
sustain the area's ongoing transformation.
Furthermore, the accessibility provided by the
adjacent cul-de-sac makes this parcel an
attractive prospect for redevelopment,
offering at least one additional access point.
046-200-020-
000 Low Income 15 Redevelopment
Candidate
The site, zoned for multifamily use, is large
and located in an area experiencing
substantial redevelopment. Currently, the site
is significantly underutilized, serving merely
as automobile storage. Considering the
prevailing trends and the property's potential,
it presents a prime opportunity for
redevelopment.
046-211-003-000 Low Income 4
Redevelopment
Candidate
Given the recent approval of a 10-unit
townhome development on the neighboring
southern property, the likelihood of
redevelopment for the parcel at Wilkins and
Shetler is high. Also included in the inventory
is Monarch Landing, a recently approved 77
unit Affordable Housing development nearby,
suggesting a strong trend towards local
property enhancement in the area.
038-370-008-
000
Low
Income Moderate 9 low / 13 moderate
Developer
Interest
This parcel is not included in the pipeline but
has a detailed plan to develop including an
exemption under GC 54221(f)(1)(A), which
requires at least 40% of units to be affordable to
75% of AMI for lower income households (75%
of 80% AMI = 60% AMI). Of the 40%, at least
half shall be affordable to very low-income
households (50% AMI), and the remaining units
will be affordable to moderate income
households (120% AM).
In general, all sites that have been included in prior housing elements have been removed from the site inventory. However, sites were checked for increasing zoning density from the 2020 General Plan to the 2040 General Plan. Sites that have increased in residential density prior to the beginning of the 6th Cycle planning period were considered for inclusion in the site inventory.
Nine sites in the inventory that are identified as lower-income sites were included in two previous housing element site inventories. These nine sites have all been subject to increased land use densities between the 2020 and 2040 General Plans, and increased densities took effect prior to the 6 th Cycle
planning period. As Table B-11 details, these sites (by APN) have changed from either Multi-Family Residential (MFR) or Local Commercial (LC) to High Density Residential, resulting in increases in byright densities of between 10 and 20 units per acre. To demonstrate this, the 2020 and 2040 General Plan densities are presented and compared in Table B-11. Since the 2020 General Plan Pod designations dictated the specific density allowances within the MFR or LC land use designations, the table also includes notes on the previous Westwood (PA 7), Central Napa (PA 8), Beard (PA 5), and Alta heights (PA 6) Pod designations assigned to the previously used sites. For all of the previously used inventory sites that have been kept, the by-right density applied under the new 2040 General Plan is 40 units per acre.
Figure B-8 illustrates the location of each site included in two prior housing elements and included in this site inventory.
Table B-11: Sites Used in Prior Housing Element
Site
Inv.
Units
2020 General Plan 2040 General Plan
APN Land Use Density Land Use Density Density Δ Notes
004-081-005-000 37 Multi-Family
Residential 30 High Density Residential 40 +10
PA 7 Westwood Pod
MFR-132 = 20-30
042-312-037-000 13 Multi-Family
Residential 20 High Density Residential 40 +20
PA 7 Westwood Pod
MFR-113 = 15-20
042-312-038-000 14 Multi-Family
Residential 20 High Density Residential 40 +20
PA 7 Westwood Pod
MFR-113 = 15-20
043-111-002-000 17 Multi-Family
Residential 20 High Density Residential 40 +20
PA 8 Central Napa Pod
MFR-151 = 15-20
043-342-005-000 27 Local
Commercial 25 High Density Residential 40 +15
PA 7 Westwood MFR126 = 20-30 LC = 25 max
per GP narrative
044-062-005-000 48 Multi-Family
Residential 25 High Density Residential 40 +15
PA 5 Beard Pod MFR-77
= 20-25
045-041-005-000 17 Multi-Family
Residential 20 High Density Residential 40 +20
PA 6 Alta Heights Pod
MFR-104 = 15-20
050-270-033-000 22 Multi-Family
Residential 20 High Density Residential 40 +20
PA 7 Westwood Pod
MFR-114 = 15-20
050-270-034-000 24 Multi-Family
Residential 20 High Density Residential 40 +20
PA 7 Westwood Pod
MFR-114 = 15-20
Figure B-8: Sites Used in Prior Housing Elements
Some parcels in the site inventory fall within the City of Napa Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). The DTSP provides the guiding framework for realizing the vision of a vibrant, healthy, and balanced pedestrian-oriented city center. The development standards of the DTSP are targeted towards revitalization by facilitating the redevelopment of underutilized land and simultaneously protecting sensitive neighborhoods situated along the edges of downtown.
The DTSP contains overriding development standards. The maximum density allowed per the residential density standards of the DTSP are identified in Table B-12. The income level and realistic development densities used in the site inventory are shown in Table B-6.
The sites included within the DTSP are shown on Figure B-9. For these sites, the unit capacity calculation used the underlying DTSP residential density allowance in lieu of the 2040 General Plan density.
Table B-12: DTSP Residential Density Standards
Land Use Max Density (DU/ac)
Downtown Specific Plan
Downtown I 60
Downtown II 40
Transition 25
Figure B-9: Sites in the DTSP
There are two small vacant sites accommodating
the lower-income RHNA in the site inventory
that are below the half-acre threshold. These
sites were included due to their potential of being
developed together as a project in the future.
As shown in Figure B-10, two parcels on 1st Street,
near Chelsea Ave. are included – each of which
are around 0.4 acres. These parcels are
physically adjacent, characteristically uniform,
and share the same owner. As such, these
parcels have been analyzed as a single site in the
site inventory. In addition, the City of Napa has a
record of facilitating affordable housing
development on small sites through lot
consolidation processes, including for three
recent projects: Bridgeview Apartments
(approved), SoCo (approved/under construction),
and Manzanita Family Apartments (completed). Compared to these recent projects, the two small sites accommodating the lower-income RHNA have similar characteristics, including being relatively flat and being adjacent to other high-density residential communities. Similar to SoCo and Manzanita, the two small sites are zoned for multifamily development and have also benefitted from the recently adopted General Plan with an increased density of up to 40 units per acre. In addition, the sites are similarly located along a major corridor with direct access to existing utilities, transportation, and other services.
Figure B-10: Sub-Half Acre Vacant Low-Income Parcels in the Site Inventory
One underutilized site in the site inventory
accommodating the lower income category is over 10
acres. Due to existing patterns of development and
current buildout in the city, there are no recent examples of infill site development on 10 or more acres; although, the Napa Pipe project is a unique example. Almost all of the lands suitable for residential development at higher densities is located centrally since larger greenfill sites on the outskirts of the city have fewer services. The recently approved Old Sonoma Mixed Use site is a prime example
of consolidation of parcels followed by subdivision to
accommodate a mix of housing types on a total of 8.6
acres.
This large site included in the inventory is the location of the recently closed Harvest Middle School. The unit
calculation for this site is utilizing the buildout analysis from the 2040 General Plan. Realistically, this site would be subdivided and developed at a smaller size; therefore, the buildout unit count used in the site inventory (53) is equivalent to a 2.65-acre vacant lot being developed at 20 units per acre (matching the surrounding density allowances for this parcel).
This calculation is the equivalent of approximately 10 percent of the parcel being developed at 20 units per acre. Further, inclusion of the 2.65-acre portion of the Harvest Middle School site in the inventory aligns with recent infill development patterns that have mostly seen activity on sites less than eight acres.
Figure B-12: Former Harvest Middle School Site
Per state law, a projection of the number of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) expected to be built within the eight-year planning period can also be considered as part of the inventory. Based on ABAG’s June 2022 publication “Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA2,” the City has projected ADU development to satisfy the RHNA over the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period. ABAG’s methodology3 allows for the rate of ADU permits approved and issued between 2019 and 2021 to be used as the baseline average since the City loosened ADU regulations in 2019.
Based on ADU permits approved from 2019 to 2021 and excluding permits in 2018, an average of 46 ADUs per year, and total of 368 ADU units in the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period, are projected.
Table B-13 shows the breakdown of ADUs by year permitted by the city.
ABAG guidance includes proportional splits by income level applied to the planning period total at 30 percent for the very low-, low-, and moderate-income levels and 10 percent for the above moderateincome level. Table B-13 shows the total ADU counts by income level that the City of Napa is applying toward meeting its RHNA.
Table B-14: ADU Projections to Satisfy RHNA
Income Category Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total Percentage split 30% 30% 30% 10%
Total Units 110 110 110 37 367
2 https://abag.ca.gov/technical-assistance/using-adus-satisfy-rhna 3 https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-06/ADUs-Projections-Memo_final.pdf Year
ADU
Permits
2018 20
2019 34
2020 45
2021 60
Average 46
2023-2031 Total 368
Table B-13: Napa ADU Permits 2018-
2021
Table B-15 below provides a summary of total residential capacity included in the site inventory compared to the City of Napa’s 6th Cycle RHNA. As shown in the table, the city has a total capacity for 3,351 units within pipeline residential developments and on vacant and underutilized sites, which is sufficient capacity to accommodate the RHNA of 2,669 units. This total unit capacity equates to a surplus of 12 to 43 percent by income category and a total surplus of 25 percent as compared to the RHNA.
Table B-15: Summary of Residential Capacity compared to 2023-2031 RHNA by Income Lower-Income
Units
ModerateIncome Units
Above
ModerateIncome Units Total Units
RHNA 1,214 405 1,050 2,669
Pipeline Residential
Development 337 135 1,412 1,884
Capacity on Vacant
Sites 579 74 147 800
Capacity on
Underutilized Sites 202 137 128 467
ADU Projection 220 110 36 366
Total Capacity 1,338 456 1,723 3,517
Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) +124 +51 +673 +848
Surplus % 10.2% 12.6% 64.1% 31.8%
All sites are represented by location and unit capacity as graduated symbols on Figure B-13.
Figure B-13: Napa City Site Inventory – All Sites
This section addresses the availability of infrastructure to accommodate planned residential growth throughout the Housing Element planning period (2023-2031). The Housing Element includes programs to help support infrastructure improvements in areas targeted for development to ensure that there is enough water, sewer, and dry utility capacity to meet housing units projected in the RHNA.
The City of Napa, through the 2040 General Plan, is projecting approximately 7,800 new dwelling units and approximately 10,800 new jobs on the horizon. The Urban Water Management Plan demonstrates that the city’s water supplies can meet projected demands during normal years through 2045 and basic five-year droughts from 2020 through 2030. For five-year droughts beginning in 2035, 2040, and 2045, a small supply shortfall could be expected in the second through fifth years; however, the City has determined that it can implement adequate water conservation efforts and public awareness campaigns to achieve necessary demand reductions, which are supported as part of the goals and policies in the 2040 General Plan.
The Napa Sanitation District (NapSan) provides wastewater disposal throughout the city. NapaSan owns and operates the sanitary sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant that serves the city. There are approximately 38,250 connections within NapaSan's approximately 21 square miles of service area. Through a network of approximately 270 miles of underground sewer mains, assisted by a system of three lift stations, the wastewater makes its way to the Soscol Water Recycling Facility (SWRF) for treatment. The SWRF is a secondary and tertiary biological physical-chemical treatment facility that treats a mixture of domestic and industrial wastewater. NapaSan wastewater processes include primary treatment, activated sludge facilities, oxidation ponds, clarifiers, sludge digestion and solids de-watering facilities. The SWRF has a dry weather treatment design capacity of 15.4 million gallons per day (MGD). The wastewater is treated and discharged in various manners, depending on the source of the wastewater and the time of year. NapaSan’s regulating body, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, permits discharge to the Napa River in accordance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. NapaSan provides full secondary treatment and disinfection at its wastewater facility whenever discharging to the Napa River. During the summer months, discharge to the Napa River is prohibited and wastewater is either stored in stabilization ponds or treated and beneficially reused for landscape irrigation in industrial parks, golf courses, parks, pasturelands, and vineyards. This high quality “Title 22 Unrestricted Use” recycled water is provided to all recycled water users (District, 2022).
Information about upgrades and changes to both the collection system and the wastewater treatment plant is covered in NapaSan’s Collection System Master Plan (CSMP) and the Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan (WWTPMP). City staff shall coordinate with NapaSan when NapaSan updates these documents to ensure that the sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant can accommodate future growth within the city. As more housing units are added to the city, additional capacity improvements may be needed to the wastewater treatment plant to accommodate peak flows.
The city’s storm drainage system consists of a network of open ditches, culverts, and underground pipes of various sizes and capacities, many of which are maintained by the city’s Public Works Department. The ongoing Napa River and Creek Flood Protection Project includes improvements that will help lower the risk of flooding of Napa Creek and the Napa River. Several project components have been completed, and remaining project elements including floodwalls are estimated to be completed by 2027. To help manage stormwater pollution discharge, the city is part of a joint effort with Napa County and neighboring jurisdictions on the Napa Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (NCSPPP). Though the county and each of the five cities and towns carry out their own individual stormwater pollution prevention programs, NCSPPP provides for the coordination and consistency of approaches between the individual participants and documents their efforts in annual reports. NCSPPP is funded by the member agencies and is administered by the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electrical services and natural gas in the city.
Telephone, cable, and broadband services are provided to the City of Napa by a variety of services providers, including AT&T, Xfinity, T-Mobile, and Verizon. Access to dry utilities is available throughout the city.
Table B-16: City of Napa Land Inventory
LOW INCOME
VACANT PARCELS
APN Land Use GPLU Max
Density DTSP DTSP Max Density Zoning Unit Method Acres Use Code Use Vacancy Previous Site
Inventory
Low Income Units Moderate Income
Units
Above-Moderate
Units
Total Site
Inventory Units
042-312-037-000
High Density
Residential 40 N 1
multi family
residential Vacant 0.4 10
VACANT LOT
RESIDENTIAL Vacant B 13 0 0 13
042-312-038-000 High Density
Residential 40 N 1
multi family
residential Vacant 0.4 10 VACANT LOT RESIDENTIAL Vacant B 14 0 0 14 003-251-029-000
Downtown
Neighborhood 20 Downtown II 40
downtown
neighborhood DTSP 0.9 51
COMMERCIAL
IMPROVED Vacant N 27 0 0 27
003-213-010-000 Downtown Public 0 Downtown II 40 downtown public DTSP 1.0 81 IMPRVD LAND
NON-TAXABLE
Vacant N 30 0 0 30
005-180-018-000 Corridor MixedUse Low26 N 1
public or quasi
public schools
and health
facilities
Vacant 6.0 80 VACANT LAND
NON-TAXABLE
Vacant N 125 0 0 125
005-180-016-000 Corridor MixedUse Low26 N 1
public or quasi
public schools
and health
facilities
Vacant 2.7 80 VACANT LAND
NON-TAXABLE
Vacant N 56 0 0 56
005-171-042-000 Corridor MixedUse High 35 N 1
mixed use
tannery bend Vacant 0.8 50 VACANT LAND COMMERCIAL
Vacant N 22 0 0 22
046-211-009-000
Corridor MixedUse High 35 N 1Community
Commercial Vacant 1.0 50
VACANT LAND
COMMERCIAL Vacant N 28 0 0 28
004-081-005-000 High Density
Residential 40 N 1
multi family
residential Vacant 1.2 10 VACANT LOT RESIDENTIAL Vacant B 37 0 0 37 045-041-005-000 High Density
Residential 40 N 1
multi family
residential Vacant 0.5 20 VACANT LAND MULTIPLE
Vacant B 17 0 0 17
046-450-002-000 Public-Serving 20 N 1
public or quasi
public schools
and health
facilities
Vacant 2.2 80
VACANT LAND
NON-TAXABLE
Vacant N 35 0 0 35
044-062-005-000
High Density
Residential 40 N 1
multi family
residential Vacant 1.5 20
VACANT LAND
MULTIPLE
Vacant B 48 0 0 48
043-111-002-000 High Density
Residential 40 N 1
multi family
residential Vacant 0.6 50 VACANT LAND COMMERCIAL
Vacant B 17 0 0 17
043-342-005-000
High Density
Residential 40 N 1
multi family
residential Vacant 0.9 20
VACANT LAND
MULTIPLE
Vacant B 27 0 0 27
APN Land Use GPLU Max
Density DTSP
DTSP Max
Density Zoning Unit Method Acres Use Code Use Vacancy
Previous Site
Inventory
Low Income Units Moderate Income
Units
Above-Moderate
Units
Total Site
Inventory Units
050-270-033-000 High Density
Residential 40 N 1
multi family
residential Vacant 0.7 10 VACANT LOT RESIDENTIAL Vacant B 22 0 0 22 047-230-044-000 Public-Serving 20 N 1
park or open
space
Vacant 2.3 80 VACANT LAND
NON-TAXABLE
Vacant N 37 0 0 37
050-270-034-000 High Density
Residential 40 N 1
multi family
residential Vacant 0.8 10 VACANT LOT RESIDENTIAL Vacant B 24 0 0 24
LOW INCOME
UNDERUTILIZED PARCELS
APN Land Use GPLU Max
Density DTSP DTSP Max Density Zoning Unit Method Acres Use Code Use Vacancy Previous
Site
Inventory
Low Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
AboveModerate
Units
Total Site
Inventory
Units
042-331-008-
000
High Density
Residential 40 N 1
multi family
residential Buildout 3.7 51
Church with interest to develop housing
on site. The interest includes
developing underutilized land on the
church not redeveloping the existing
structures. 30 units are presented in the
site inventory and represent <50% of the
117 units that the undeveloped land can
support.
2 50 0 0 50
046-050-002-
000
High Density
Residential 40 N 1
mixed use -
gateway
Buildout 1.0 11
Single-Family Residential. Parcel owner
has expressed interest in
redevelopment and site can support
significant additional units.
2 10 0 0 10
046-050-001-
000
High Density
Residential 40 N 1
mixed use -
gateway
Buildout 1.1 214
Single-Family Residential. Parcel owner
has expressed interest in
redevelopment and site can support
significant additional units.
2 9 0 0 9
046-200-020-
000
High Density
Residential 40 N 1
multi family
residential Buildout 2.0 11
The site, zoned for multifamily use, is
large and located in an area
experiencing substantial
redevelopment. Currently, the site is
significantly underutilized, serving
merely as automobile storage.
Considering the prevailing trends and
the property's potential, it presents a
prime opportunity for redevelopment.
2 15 0 0 15
004-460-030-
000 Public-Serving 20 N 1
public-quasi
public schools
and health
facilities
Buildout 26.7 81
Former Middle School. There is an
interest in redeveloping a majority of
the property. The school district is
working with some potential buyers to
buy and develop a large portion into
residential. Anticipated to progress in
the near future, this project will increase
residential density on the parcel.
N 53 0 0 53
APN Land Use GPLU Max
Density DTSP DTSP Max Density Zoning Unit Method Acres Use Code Use Vacancy Previous
Site
Inventory
Low Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above-
Moderate
Units
Total Site
Inventory
Units
046-211-003-
000
High Density
Residential 40
N1
multi family
residential Buildout 0.5 11
Single Family Residential. Given the
recent approval of a 10-unit townhome
development on the neighboring
southern property, the likelihood of
redevelopment for the parcel at Wilkins
and Shetler is high. Also included in the
inventory is Monarch Landing, a
recently approved 77 unit Affordable
Housing development nearby,
suggesting a strong trend towards local
property enhancement in the area.
24004
044-062-032-
000
High Density
Residential 40
N1
multi family
residential Buildout 1.5 11
Single Familiy Residential. The 1.5-acre parcel
is zoned for multifamily residences and can
support up to 40 units per acre. The site’s
zoning allows for a considerable increase.
Based on the parcel size and zoning, the
potential exists to accommodate 47units,
significantly enhancing our residential
development capacity.
2 4700 47
003-262-006-
000
Downtown
Neighborhood 20 Transition 25 downtown neighborhood Buildout 0.7 51 Church. Owner intent is to develop housing.
Owner discussed this intent at a Housing Week
event.
N4004
003-262-007-
000
Downtown
Neighborhood 20 Transition 25 downtown neighborhood Buildout 0.5 51 Church. Owner intent is to develop housing.
Owner discussed this intent at a Housing Week
event.
N1001
038-370-008-
000
Low Density
Residential
8N1
single family
residential,
minimum lot
size 5,000 sq ft
Buildout 2.9 51
Single Family Residential. This parcel is
not included in the pipeline but has a
detailed plan to develop including an
exemption under GC 54221(f)(1)(A),
which requires at least 40% of units to
be affordable to 75% of AMI for lower
income households (75% of 80% AMI =
60% AMI). Of the 40%, at least half shall
be affordable to very low-income
households (50% AMI), and the
remaining units will be affordable to
moderate income households (120%
AM).
N9 1309
MODERATE INCOME
VACANT PARCELS
APN Land Use GPLU Max
Density DTSP DTSP Max Density Zoning Unit Method Acres Use Code Use Vacancy Previous Site Inventory Low Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above-
Moderate Units
Total Site
Inventory
Units
003-242-004-
000
Oxbow
Commercial 10 Downtown II 40 oxbow commercial DTSP 0.5 5001 VACANT
COMM W/MISC
IMP
VacantN0 130 13
001-022-011-
000
Medium
Density
Residential
18N1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 5,000 sq ft
Vacant 0.1 80 VACANT LAND
NON-TAXABLE Vacant
N0101
006-152-003-
000
Medium
Density
Residential
18N1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 5,000 sq ft
Vacant 1.2 10 VACANT LOT
RESIDENTIAL Vacant
N0 170 17
002-082-060-
000
Medium
Density
Residential
18N1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 4,000 sq ft
Vacant 1.1 10 VACANT LOT
RESIDENTIAL Vacant
N0 150 15
045-072-021-
000
Medium
Density
Residential
18N1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 5,000 sq ft
Vacant 0.2 10 VACANT LOT
RESIDENTIAL Vacant
N0202
004-303-007-
000
Medium
Density
Residential
18N1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 4,000 sq ft
Vacant 0.1 10 VACANT LOT
RESIDENTIAL Vacant
N0101
045-062-015-
000
Medium
Density
Residential
18N1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 5,000 sq ft
Vacant 0.2 10 VACANT LOT
RESIDENTIAL Vacant
N0303
046-262-027-
000
Medium
Density
Residential
18N1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 5,000 sq ft
Vacant 0.1 10 VACANT LOT
RESIDENTIAL Vacant
N0101
045-042-010-
000
Medium
Density
Residential
18N1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 5,000 sq ft
Vacant 1.4 50 VACANT LAND
COMMERCIAL Vacant
N0 200 20
042-283-006-
000
Medium
Density
Residential
18N1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 7,000 sq ft
Vacant 0.1 72
PUD RES
COMMON
AREA
VacantN0101
MODERATE INCOME
UNDERUTILIZED PARCELS
APN Land Use GPLU Max
Density DTSP DTSP Max Density Zoning Unit Method Acres Use Code Use Vacancy Previous
Site
Inventory
Low Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above-
Moderate
Units
Total Site
Inventory
Units
038-361-042-
000
Medium
Density
Residential
18N1
single family
residential,
minimum lot
size 4,000 sq ft
Buildout 5.1 39
Parcel is a vacant vineyard and
potentially prime residential. The site is
zoned RS4 allowing 4,000 square foot
lots. This site was identified as
"significant but unavoidable" in the GP
EIR with analysis on the importance of
development within the RUL.
N0 730 73
045-072-008-
000
Medium
Density
Residential
18N1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 5,000 sq ft
Buildout 1.7 51
Church. Underutilized parcel in the
moderate-income category identified as
a site that allows significant
redevelopment potential. Trends have
shown interest to develop residential
capacity on church sites like this. N
0 240 24
045-062-008-
000
Medium
Density
Residential
18N1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 5,000 sq ft
Buildout 0.5 11
Single Family Residential. Underutilized
parcel in the moderate-income category
identified as a site that allows
significant redevelopment potential. N
0707
046-061-038-
000
Medium
Density
Residential
18N1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 4,000 sq ft
Buildout 0.9 214
Four single family units. The parcel,
assigned an RI4 zoning designation, is
located in an area notable for recent
development activity, especially around
Saratoga and the eastern cul-de-sac. As
one of the last undeveloped sites amidst
a substantially modernized vicinity, it's
logical to earmark this parcel for
redevelopment to sustain the area's
ongoing transformation. Furthermore,
the accessibility provided by the
adjacent cul-de-sac makes this parcel
an attractive prospect for
redevelopment, offering at least one
additional access point.
N0303
045-062-014-
000
Medium
Density
Residential
18N1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 5,000 sq ft
Buildout 0.9 11
Single Family Residential. Underutilized
parcel in the moderate-income category
identified as a site that allows
significant redevelopment potential.
N0 120 12
046-020-024-
000
Medium
Density
Residential
18N1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 4,000 sq ft
Buildout 0.4 31
Single Family Residential. Underutilized
parcel in the moderate-income category
identified as a site that allows
significant redevelopment potential.
Underutilized - property to the north
just converted to permanent supportive
housing (Valley Lodge)
N0505
038-370-008-
000
Low Density
Residential
8N1
single family
residential,
minimum lot
size 5,000 sq ft
Buildout 2.9 51
Church & Former Community Space.
This parcel is not included in the
pipeline but has a detailed plan to
develop including an exemption under
GC 54221(f)(1)(A), which requires at least
40% of units to be affordable to 75% of
AMI for lower income households (75%
of 80% AMI = 60% AMI). Of the 40%, at
least half shall be affordable to very low-
income households (50% AMI), and the
remaining units will be affordable to
moderate income households (120%
AM).
N9 130 13
ABOVE MODERATE INCOME
VACANT PARCELS
APN Land Use GPLU Max
Density DTSP DTSP Max Density Zoning Unit Method Acres Use Code Use Vacancy Previous Site Inventory Low Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
AboveModerate Units
Total Site
Inventory
Units
050-270-010-
000
Low Density
Residential 8 N 1
single family
residential,
minimum lot
size 40,000 sq
ft
Vacant 5.0 30 VACANT LAND
RURAL Vacant N 0 0 31 31
004-161-020-
000
Low Density
Residential 8 N 1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 5,000 sq ft
Vacant 4.2 81 IMPRVD LAND
NON-TAXABLE Vacant N 0 0 26 26
038-250-035-
000
Low Density
Residential 8 N 1
public or quasi
public schools
and health
facilities
Vacant 3.5 80 VACANT LAND
NON-TAXABLE Vacant N 0 0 22 22
007-282-007-
000
Low Density
Residential 8 N 1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 5,000 sq ft
Vacant 3.0 10 VACANT LOT
RESIDENTIAL Vacant N 0 0 18 18
044-314-008-
000
Low Density
Residential 8 N 1
single family
residential,
minimum lot
size 7,000 sq ft
Vacant 2.9 80 VACANT LAND
NON-TAXABLE Vacant N 0 0 18 18
038-100-018-
000
Low Density
Residential 8 N 1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 5,000 sq ft
Vacant 2.7 341 VINEYARD
LAND < 5 AC Vacant N 0 0 17 17
007-273-015-
000
Low Density
Residential 8 N 1
single family
infill,
minimum lot
size 5,000 sq ft
Vacant 2.4 10 VACANT LOT
RESIDENTIAL Vacant N 0 0 15 15
ABOVE MODERATE INCOME
UNDERUTILIZED PARCELS
APN Land Use GPLU Max
Density DTSP DTSP Max Density Zoning Unit Method Acres Use Code Use Vacancy Previous
Site
Inventory
Low Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
AboveModerate
Units
Total Site
Inventory
Units
003-242-007-
000
Oxbow
Commercial 10 Downtown II 40 oxbow commercial Buildout 3.6 5001 Oxbow Gardens. The owner plans to
transform the property into a
combination of commercial spaces,
hotels, and residential units, with the
inclusion of an affordable housing
component.
N 0 0 117 117
038-250-037-
000
Low Density
Residential 8 N 1
public or quasi
public schools
and health
facilities
Buildout 6.1 80
Property is the old vintage farm. The
city has rezoned the parcel to RI4
allowing 4,000 sq ft lots. There is an
active development application on the
property. The development plan also
includes the property directly adjacent
to the south.
N 0 0 11 11
District, N. S. (2022). Operating and Capital Budget. Retrieved from www.napasan.com:
https://www.napasan.com/DocumentCenter/View/951/FY-2021-22-Operating-and-CapitalBudget-PDF Kirkeby, M. (2022). State Income Limits for 2022. Sacramento, CA: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
In alignment with the housing goals and mandates set forth by the state, the City is dedicated to ensuring that housing units are not only developed but also preserved for the benefit of lower-income households and individuals experiencing homelessness. As part of our commitment to meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and in accordance with the requirements stipulated in the Government Code (§ 65583.1, subd. (c)(2)(D)), the City is presenting the "Alternative Sites Checklists." This checklist is a testament to our dedication to maintaining transparency, adhering to state standards, and ensuring the longevity of housing affordability. It encompasses criteria ranging from the preservation of affordability for a minimum duration to specific requirements for targeted demographics. Detailed information related to each criterion is available in the subsequent section.
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
Revised August 7, 2020
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
Adequate Sites Program Alternative Checklist
Government Code Section 65583.1(c)
As provided for in Government Code Section 65583.1(c), local governments can rely on existing housing units to address up to 25 percent of their adequate sites requirement by counting existing units made available or preserved through the provision of “committed assistance” to low- and very low-income households at affordable housing costs or affordable rents. The following is a checklist intended to provide guidance in determining whether the provisions of Government Code Section 65583.1(c) can be used to address the adequate sites program requirement. Please be aware, all information must be provided in the housing element to demonstrate compliance.
HE Page #
65583.1(c)(4)
Is the local government providing, or will it provide “committed assistance” during the period of time from the beginning of the RHNA projection period to the end of the first 3 years of the housing element planning period? See the definition of “committed assistance” at the end of the checklist.
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(1)(A)
Has the local government identified the specific source of “committed assistance” funds?
If yes: specify the amount and date when funds will be dedicated through a (legally enforceable agreement). $: _________________ Date: _______________
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(3)
Has at least some portion of the regional share housing need for very low-income (VL) or low-income (L) households been met in the current or previous planning period?
Specify the number of affordable units permitted/constructed in the previous period.
Specify the number affordable units permitted/constructed in the current period and document how affordability was established.
Yes
No
_________
_________
65583.1(c)(1)(B) Indicate the total number of units to be assisted with committed assistance funds and specify funding source.
Number of units: __________Funding source:
_________________
65583.1(c)(1)(B)
Will the funds be sufficient to develop the identified units at affordable costs or rents?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(1)(C)
Do the identified units meet the substantial rehabilitation, conversion, or preservation requirements as defined? Which option? _____________
Yes
No
Note: If you cannot answer “yes” to all of the general requirements questions listed above, your jurisdiction is not eligible to utilize the alternate adequate sites program provisions set forth in Government Code Section 65583.1(c).
B10
2,200,000
These are City of Napa funds, there are a series
of grants that also support project.
326
0 Affordability is
established at
the time of the
projects are being
developed and
funding applied
for. All units are
documented
with a covenant
and Regulatory
Agreement.
90 City funds, CDBG-DR, NPLH, County of Napa funds, other funding sources Yes, project
is near
complete.
X
A- Substantial Rehabilitation
B10
June 1, 2022
Yes
Revised August 7, 2020
SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION (65583.1(c)(2)(A))
Include reference to specific program action in housing element.
Program #
_________
Page #
_______
65583.1(c)(2)(A)
Will the rehabilitation result in a net increase in the number of housing units available and affordable to very low- and lowerincome households? No
If so, how many units? # of VLI units:____ # of LI units: ________ 65583.1(c)(2)(A)(i) (I)
Are units at imminent risk of loss to affordable housing stock? For example, are the units at-risk of being demolished or removed from the housing stock without the necessary rehabilitation?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(A)(i) (II)
Is the local government providing relocation assistance consistent with Government code 7260 or Health and Safety Code Section 17975, including rent and moving expenses equivalent to four (4) months, to those occupants permanently or temporary displaced? Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(A)(i) (III)
Will tenants have the right to reoccupy units? Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(A)(i) (IV)
Have the units been determined to be unfit for human habitation due the at least four (4) of the following violations (as listed in Health & Safety Code Section 17995.3 (a) through (g))?
Termination, extended interruption or serious defects of gas, water or electric utility systems provided such interruptions or termination is not caused by the tenant's failure to pay such gas, water or electric bills.
Serious defects or lack of adequate space and water heating. Serious rodent, vermin or insect infestation.
Severe deterioration, rendering significant portions of the structure unsafe or unsanitary.
Inadequate numbers of garbage receptacles or service. Unsanitary conditions affecting a significant portion of the structure as a result of faulty plumbing or sewage disposal. Inoperable hallway lighting.
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(A)(ii)
Will affordability and occupancy restrictions be maintained for at least 55 years?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(A)(iii)
Note: Prior to occupancy of the rehabilitated units, the local government must issue a certificate that finds the units comply with all local and State building and health and safety requirements.
H1-2.2 48
44 44
X
Units are vacant
due to water
damage. If not
rehab, property
could be sold
for other purposes.
N/A-Units are
vacant.
N/A-Units are vacant
The site has
been vacant
for 5+ years
due to water
damage. The
site was
non-operable
until rehab.
Revised August 7, 2020
CONVERSION OF MULTIFAMILY RENTAL AND OWNERSHIP UNITS OF 3 OR MORE OR FORECLOSED PROPERTIES FROM NON-AFFORDABLE TO AFFORDABLE (65583.1(c)(2)(B)) Include reference to specific program action in housing element.
Program #
_________
Page #
_______
65583.1(c)(2)(B)
Specify the number of multifamily rental (3 or more units) to be converted.
Specify the number multifamily ownership units to be converted.
Specify the number of foreclosed properties acquired.
Date Acquired?
Will these units be for rent?
________
________
________
________
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(i)
Will the acquired units be made affordable to low- or very low-income households?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(ii)
For units to be converted to very-low income, were those units affordable to very low-income households at the time they were identified for acquisition?
For units to be converted to low-income, were those units affordable to low-income households at the time they were identified for acquisition?
Yes
No
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(iii)
If the acquisition results in the displacement of very low- or lowincome households, is the local government providing relocation assistance consistent with Government Code Section 7260, including rent and moving expenses equivalent to four (4) months, to those occupants permanently or temporary displaced?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(iv)
Will units be decent, safe, and sanitary upon occupancy? Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(v)
Will affordability and occupancy restrictions be maintained at least 55 years?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(vi)
For conversion of multifamily ownership units:
Has at least an equal share of newly constructed multifamily rental units affordable to lower-income households been constructed within the current planning period or will be constructed by the of program completion as the number of ownership units to be converted? (Note: this could be demonstrated by providing certificates of occupancy)
Specify the number of affordable multifamily rental units constructed in the planning period.
Yes
No
# of lower-income
units: ________
________
Yes No
Revised August 7, 2020
PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS (65583.1(c)(2)(C))
Include reference to specific program action in housing element.
Program #
___________
Page #
_______
65583.1(c)(2)(C)(i)
Will affordability and occupancy restrictions be maintained for at least 55 years?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(C)(ii)
Are the units located within an “assisted housing development” as defined in Government Code Section 65863.10(a)(3)? See definition on page 4.
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(C)(iii)
Did the local government hold a public hearing and make a finding that the units are eligible and are reasonably expected to convert to market rate during the next 8 years, due to termination of subsidies, prepayment, or expiration of use?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(C)(iv)
Will units be decent, safe, and sanitary upon occupancy? Yes No
65583.1(c)(2)(C)(v)
Were the units affordable to very low- and low-income households at the time the units were identified for preservation? Yes
No
HOTEL, MOTEL, OR HOSTEL CONVERSION (65583.1(c)(2)(D))*
Include reference to specific program action in housing element.
Program #
_________
Page #
_______
65583.1(c)(2)(D)(i)
Are the units a part of a long-term recovery response to COVID-19? Yes No
65583.1(c)(2)(D)(ii)
Will the units be made available for people experiencing homelessness as defined in Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(D)(iii)
Will the units be made available for rent at a cost affordable to lowor very low-income households? Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(D)(iv)
Will the units be decent, safe, and sanitary upon occupancy? Yes No
65583.1(c)(2)(D)(v)
Will the affordability covenants and restrictions be maintained for at least 55 years?
Yes
No
*NOTE: 65583.1(c)(2)(D) will remain in effect for only the 6th Cycle Housing Element pursuant to Section 6588
Revised August 7, 2020
MOBILEHOME ACQUISITION WITH COMMITTED ASSISTANCE FROM THE CITY OR COUNTY (65583.1(c)(2)(E))
Include reference to specific program action in housing element.
Program #
_________
Page #
_______
65583.1(c)(2)(E)(i)
Will the mobilehome park be acquired with financing that includes a loan from the department pursuant to Section 50783 or 50784.5 of the Health and Safety Code?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(E)(ii)
Are at least 50% of the current residents in the mobilehome park lower-income households and the entity acquiring the park agrees to enter into a regulatory agreement for a minimum of 55 years that requires the following:
(I) All vacant spaces shall be rented at a space rent that does not exceed 50% of maximum rent limits established
by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee at 60% of the area median income.
(II) The space to rent for existing residents, both during the 12 months preceding the acquisition and during the term of the regulatory agreement, shall not increase more
than 5% in any 12-month period.
Yes
No
NOTE:
x By the end of the fourth year of the planning period, local governments must report on the status of its program implementation for substantial rehabilitation, conversion, and/or preservation (of affordability) as described above (Government Code 65583.1(c)(7)).
x The report must specify and identify those units for which committed assistance has been provided or which have been made available to low- and very low-income households and document how each unit complies with the substantial rehabilitation, conversion, and/or preservation provisions. x If the local government has not entered into an enforceable agreement of committed assistance for all units specified in the identified program(s), it must amend its element to identify additional appropriately zoned and suitable sites, sufficient to accommodate the number of units for which committed assistance was not provided. This follow-up action must be taken by the end of the fourth year of the planning period. x If a local government fails to amend its element to identify adequate sites to address any shortfall, or fails to complete the rehabilitation, acquisition, purchase of affordability covenants, or the preservation of any housing unit within three years after committed assistance was provided to that unit, the local government cannot use the alternate adequate sites program provisions of Government Code Section 65583.1(c)(1) in it next housing element update, beyond the number of units actually provided or preserved due to committed assistance.
Revised August 7, 2020
65583.1(c) Checklist Page 5
DEFINITIONS:
Committed Assistance: When a local government (City or County) has entered into a legally enforceable agreement within a specific timeframe spanning from the beginning of the RHNA projection period through the end of the third year of the housing element planning period, obligating funds or other in-kind services for affordable units available for occupancy within two years of the agreement.
Assisted Housing Development: A multifamily rental housing development that receives governmental assistance under any of the following programs:
(A) New construction, substantial rehabilitation, moderate rehabilitation, property disposition, and loan management set-aside programs, or any other program providing project-based assistance, under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f). (B) The following federal programs:
(i) The Below-Market-Interest-Rate Program under Section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1715l(d)(3) and (5)).
(ii) Section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. Sec.1715z-1). (iii) Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1701q). (C) Programs for rent supplement assistance under Section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, as amended (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1701s).
(D) Programs under Sections 514, 515, 516, 533, and 538 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1485).
(E) Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code.
(F) Section 142(d) of the Internal Revenue Code (tax-exempt private activity mortgage revenue bonds). (G) Section 147 of the Internal Revenue Code (Section 501(c)(3) bonds). (H) Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (Community Development Block Grant Program).
(I) Title II of the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, as amended (HOME Investment Partnership Program).
(J) Titles IV and V of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, as amended, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Supportive Housing Program, Shelter Plus Care program, and surplus federal property disposition program. (K) Grants and loans made by the Department of Housing and Community Development, including the Rental Housing Construction Program, CHRP-R, and other rental housing finance programs. (L) Chapter 1138 of the Statutes of 1987.
(M) The following assistance provided by counties or cities in exchange for restrictions on the maximum rents that may be charged for units within a multifamily rental housing development and on the maximum tenant income as a condition of eligibility for occupancy of the unit subject to the rent restriction, as reflected by a recorded agreement with a county or city:
(i) Loans or grants provided using tax increment financing pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code). (ii) Local housing trust funds, as referred to in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 50843 of the Health and Safety Code.
(iii) The sale or lease of public property at or below market rates. (iv) The granting of density bonuses, or concessions or incentives, including fee waivers, parking variances, or amendments to general plans, zoning, or redevelopment project area plans, pursuant to Chapter 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915).
Assistance pursuant to this subparagraph shall not include the use of tenant-based Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8(o)) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f(o), excluding subparagraph (13) relating to project-based assistance). Restrictions shall not include any rent control or rent stabilization ordinance imposed by a county, city, or city and county.
Revised August 7, 2020
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
Adequate Sites Program Alternative Checklist
Government Code Section 65583.1(c)
As provided for in Government Code Section 65583.1(c), local governments can rely on existing housing units to address up to 25 percent of their adequate sites requirement by counting existing units made available or preserved through the provision of “committed assistance” to low- and very low-income households at affordable housing costs or affordable rents. The following is a checklist intended to provide guidance in determining whether the provisions of Government Code Section 65583.1(c) can be used to address the adequate sites program requirement. Please be aware, all information must be provided in the housing element to demonstrate compliance.
HE Page #
65583.1(c)(4)
Is the local government providing, or will it provide “committed assistance” during the period of time from the beginning of the RHNA projection period to the end of the first 3 years of the housing element planning period? See the definition of “committed assistance” at the end of the checklist.
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(1)(A)
Has the local government identified the specific source of “committed assistance” funds?
If yes: specify the amount and date when funds will be dedicated through a (legally enforceable agreement). $: _________________ Date: _______________
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(3)
Has at least some portion of the regional share housing need for very low-income (VL) or low-income (L) households been met in the current or previous planning period?
Specify the number of affordable units permitted/constructed in the previous period.
Specify the number affordable units permitted/constructed in the current period and document how affordability was established.
Yes
No
_________
_________
65583.1(c)(1)(B) Indicate the total number of units to be assisted with committed assistance funds and specify funding source.
Number of units: __________Funding source:
_________________
65583.1(c)(1)(B)
Will the funds be sufficient to develop the identified units at affordable costs or rents?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(1)(C)
Do the identified units meet the substantial rehabilitation, conversion, or preservation requirements as defined? Which option? _____________
Yes
No
Note: If you cannot answer “yes” to all of the general requirements questions listed above, your jurisdiction is not eligible to utilize the alternate adequate sites program provisions set forth in Government Code Section 65583.1(c).
B16-B17
B16-B17
2,200,000
These are City of Napa funds, there are a series August 1, 2022 of grants that also support project. 326
0 Affordability is
established at
the time of the
projects are being
developed and
funding applied
for. All units are
documented
with a covenant
and Regulatory
Agreement.
54 City funds, CDBG-DR, Project Homekey, County of Napa funds Yes, project
is near
complete.
X
D- Motel/hotel conversion
Yes
Revised August 7, 2020
SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION (65583.1(c)(2)(A))
Include reference to specific program action in housing element.
Program #
_________
Page #
_______
65583.1(c)(2)(A)
Will the rehabilitation result in a net increase in the number of housing units available and affordable to very low- and lowerincome households? No
If so, how many units? # of VLI units:____ # of LI units: ________ 65583.1(c)(2)(A)(i) (I)
Are units at imminent risk of loss to affordable housing stock? For example, are the units at-risk of being demolished or removed from the housing stock without the necessary rehabilitation?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(A)(i) (II)
Is the local government providing relocation assistance consistent with Government code 7260 or Health and Safety Code Section 17975, including rent and moving expenses equivalent to four (4) months, to those occupants permanently or temporary displaced? Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(A)(i) (III)
Will tenants have the right to reoccupy units? Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(A)(i) (IV)
Have the units been determined to be unfit for human habitation due the at least four (4) of the following violations (as listed in Health & Safety Code Section 17995.3 (a) through (g))?
Termination, extended interruption or serious defects of gas, water or electric utility systems provided such interruptions or termination is not caused by the tenant's failure to pay such gas, water or electric bills.
Serious defects or lack of adequate space and water heating. Serious rodent, vermin or insect infestation.
Severe deterioration, rendering significant portions of the structure unsafe or unsanitary.
Inadequate numbers of garbage receptacles or service. Unsanitary conditions affecting a significant portion of the structure as a result of faulty plumbing or sewage disposal. Inoperable hallway lighting.
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(A)(ii)
Will affordability and occupancy restrictions be maintained for at least 55 years?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(A)(iii)
Note: Prior to occupancy of the rehabilitated units, the local government must issue a certificate that finds the units comply with all local and State building and health and safety requirements.
Revised August 7, 2020
CONVERSION OF MULTIFAMILY RENTAL AND OWNERSHIP UNITS OF 3 OR MORE OR FORECLOSED PROPERTIES FROM NON-AFFORDABLE TO AFFORDABLE (65583.1(c)(2)(B)) Include reference to specific program action in housing element.
Program #
_________
Page #
_______
65583.1(c)(2)(B)
Specify the number of multifamily rental (3 or more units) to be converted.
Specify the number multifamily ownership units to be converted.
Specify the number of foreclosed properties acquired.
Date Acquired?
Will these units be for rent?
________
________
________
________
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(i)
Will the acquired units be made affordable to low- or very low-income households?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(ii)
For units to be converted to very-low income, were those units affordable to very low-income households at the time they were identified for acquisition?
For units to be converted to low-income, were those units affordable to low-income households at the time they were identified for acquisition?
Yes
No
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(iii)
If the acquisition results in the displacement of very low- or lowincome households, is the local government providing relocation assistance consistent with Government Code Section 7260, including rent and moving expenses equivalent to four (4) months, to those occupants permanently or temporary displaced?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(iv)
Will units be decent, safe, and sanitary upon occupancy? Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(v)
Will affordability and occupancy restrictions be maintained at least 55 years?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(vi)
For conversion of multifamily ownership units:
Has at least an equal share of newly constructed multifamily rental units affordable to lower-income households been constructed within the current planning period or will be constructed by the of program completion as the number of ownership units to be converted? (Note: this could be demonstrated by providing certificates of occupancy)
Specify the number of affordable multifamily rental units constructed in the planning period.
Yes
No
# of lower-income
units: ________
________
Yes No
Revised August 7, 2020
PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS (65583.1(c)(2)(C))
Include reference to specific program action in housing element.
Program #
___________
Page #
_______
65583.1(c)(2)(C)(i)
Will affordability and occupancy restrictions be maintained for at least 55 years?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(C)(ii)
Are the units located within an “assisted housing development” as defined in Government Code Section 65863.10(a)(3)? See definition on page 4.
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(C)(iii)
Did the local government hold a public hearing and make a finding that the units are eligible and are reasonably expected to convert to market rate during the next 8 years, due to termination of subsidies, prepayment, or expiration of use?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(C)(iv)
Will units be decent, safe, and sanitary upon occupancy? Yes No
65583.1(c)(2)(C)(v)
Were the units affordable to very low- and low-income households at the time the units were identified for preservation? Yes
No
HOTEL, MOTEL, OR HOSTEL CONVERSION (65583.1(c)(2)(D))*
Include reference to specific program action in housing element.
Program #
_________
Page #
_______
65583.1(c)(2)(D)(i)
Are the units a part of a long-term recovery response to COVID-19? Yes No
65583.1(c)(2)(D)(ii)
Will the units be made available for people experiencing homelessness as defined in Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(D)(iii)
Will the units be made available for rent at a cost affordable to lowor very low-income households? Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(D)(iv)
Will the units be decent, safe, and sanitary upon occupancy? Yes No
65583.1(c)(2)(D)(v)
Will the affordability covenants and restrictions be maintained for at least 55 years?
Yes
No
*NOTE: 65583.1(c)(2)(D) will remain in effect for only the 6th Cycle Housing Element pursuant to Section 6588
Revised August 7, 2020
MOBILEHOME ACQUISITION WITH COMMITTED ASSISTANCE FROM THE CITY OR COUNTY (65583.1(c)(2)(E))
Include reference to specific program action in housing element.
Program #
_________
Page #
_______
65583.1(c)(2)(E)(i)
Will the mobilehome park be acquired with financing that includes a loan from the department pursuant to Section 50783 or 50784.5 of the Health and Safety Code?
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(E)(ii)
Are at least 50% of the current residents in the mobilehome park lower-income households and the entity acquiring the park agrees to enter into a regulatory agreement for a minimum of 55 years that requires the following:
(I) All vacant spaces shall be rented at a space rent that does not exceed 50% of maximum rent limits established
by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee at 60% of the area median income.
(II) The space to rent for existing residents, both during the 12 months preceding the acquisition and during the term of the regulatory agreement, shall not increase more
than 5% in any 12-month period.
Yes
No
NOTE:
x By the end of the fourth year of the planning period, local governments must report on the status of its program implementation for substantial rehabilitation, conversion, and/or preservation (of affordability) as described above (Government Code 65583.1(c)(7)).
x The report must specify and identify those units for which committed assistance has been provided or which have been made available to low- and very low-income households and document how each unit complies with the substantial rehabilitation, conversion, and/or preservation provisions. x If the local government has not entered into an enforceable agreement of committed assistance for all units specified in the identified program(s), it must amend its element to identify additional appropriately zoned and suitable sites, sufficient to accommodate the number of units for which committed assistance was not provided. This follow-up action must be taken by the end of the fourth year of the planning period. x If a local government fails to amend its element to identify adequate sites to address any shortfall, or fails to complete the rehabilitation, acquisition, purchase of affordability covenants, or the preservation of any housing unit within three years after committed assistance was provided to that unit, the local government cannot use the alternate adequate sites program provisions of Government Code Section 65583.1(c)(1) in it next housing element update, beyond the number of units actually provided or preserved due to committed assistance.
Revised August 7, 2020
65583.1(c) Checklist Page 5
DEFINITIONS:
Committed Assistance: When a local government (City or County) has entered into a legally enforceable agreement within a specific timeframe spanning from the beginning of the RHNA projection period through the end of the third year of the housing element planning period, obligating funds or other in-kind services for affordable units available for occupancy within two years of the agreement.
Assisted Housing Development: A multifamily rental housing development that receives governmental assistance under any of the following programs:
(A) New construction, substantial rehabilitation, moderate rehabilitation, property disposition, and loan management set-aside programs, or any other program providing project-based assistance, under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f). (B) The following federal programs:
(i) The Below-Market-Interest-Rate Program under Section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1715l(d)(3) and (5)).
(ii) Section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. Sec.1715z-1). (iii) Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1701q). (C) Programs for rent supplement assistance under Section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, as amended (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1701s).
(D) Programs under Sections 514, 515, 516, 533, and 538 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1485).
(E) Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code.
(F) Section 142(d) of the Internal Revenue Code (tax-exempt private activity mortgage revenue bonds). (G) Section 147 of the Internal Revenue Code (Section 501(c)(3) bonds). (H) Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (Community Development Block Grant Program).
(I) Title II of the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, as amended (HOME Investment Partnership Program).
(J) Titles IV and V of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, as amended, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Supportive Housing Program, Shelter Plus Care program, and surplus federal property disposition program. (K) Grants and loans made by the Department of Housing and Community Development, including the Rental Housing Construction Program, CHRP-R, and other rental housing finance programs. (L) Chapter 1138 of the Statutes of 1987.
(M) The following assistance provided by counties or cities in exchange for restrictions on the maximum rents that may be charged for units within a multifamily rental housing development and on the maximum tenant income as a condition of eligibility for occupancy of the unit subject to the rent restriction, as reflected by a recorded agreement with a county or city:
(i) Loans or grants provided using tax increment financing pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code). (ii) Local housing trust funds, as referred to in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 50843 of the Health and Safety Code.
(iii) The sale or lease of public property at or below market rates. (iv) The granting of density bonuses, or concessions or incentives, including fee waivers, parking variances, or amendments to general plans, zoning, or redevelopment project area plans, pursuant to Chapter 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915).
Assistance pursuant to this subparagraph shall not include the use of tenant-based Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8(o)) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f(o), excluding subparagraph (13) relating to project-based assistance). Restrictions shall not include any rent control or rent stabilization ordinance imposed by a county, city, or city and county.
Appendix C
Fair Housing
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Napa | General Plan Housing Element 6th Cycle Update 2023-2031 Cover Image: Adobe Stock, 2022
SECTION C.1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... C-1 SECTION C.2. Community Participation Process................................................................................................................C-5 SECTION C.3. Patterns of Integration and Segregation .....................................................................................................C-6 C.3.1 Understanding Segregation...................................................................................................................................... C-6 C.3.2 Racial Segregation ....................................................................................................................................................... C-8 C.3.2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation.............................................................................................................................C-8 C.3.2.2 Regional Racial Segregation..................................................................................................................................................C-14 C.3.3 Income .............................................................................................................................................................................C-16 C.3.3.1 Neighborhood Income Segregation ....................................................................................................................................C-16 C.3.3.2 Regional Income Segregation...............................................................................................................................................C-23 C.3.4 Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence...............................................................................................C-23 C.3.4.1 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty................................................................................................C-23 C.3.4.2 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence ..................................................................................................................... C-24 C.3.5 Disability Status ..........................................................................................................................................................C-27 C.3.6 Familial Status.............................................................................................................................................................C-29 SECTION C.4. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach .................................................................................................C-32 C.4.1 Fair Housing Laws and City Compliance ..........................................................................................................C-32 C.4.2 Processing Fair Housing Complaints.................................................................................................................C-35 C.4.3 Fair Housing Complaint Data ................................................................................................................................C-35 C.4.4 Community Outreach and Perceptions.............................................................................................................C-37 SECTION C.5. Access to Opportunity....................................................................................................................................C-40 C.5.1 Overall Access to Opportunity ...............................................................................................................................C-40 C.5.2 Educational Opportunity .........................................................................................................................................C-43 C.5.3 Economic Opportunity and Jobs Proximity ....................................................................................................C-45 C.5.4 Access to Transportation........................................................................................................................................C-48 C.5.5 Health and Environmental Opportunity ...........................................................................................................C-52 C.5.6 Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity .........................................................................................C-56 SECTION C.6. Disproportionate Housing Needs ................................................................................................................C-57 C.6.1 Cost Burden...................................................................................................................................................................C-57 C.6.2 Overcrowding...............................................................................................................................................................C-60 C.6.3 Housing Condition.....................................................................................................................................................C-63 C.6.4 Homelessness and At-Risk Housing..................................................................................................................C-65 C.6.4.1 Disabled Persons Experiencing Homelessness.............................................................................................................C-71 C.6.5 Displacement Risk ......................................................................................................................................................C-71 SECTION C.7. Other Relevant Factors ..................................................................................................................................C-76 C.7.1 Rates of Homeownership.........................................................................................................................................C-76 C.7.2 Lending Patterns ........................................................................................................................................................C-78 C.7.3 Land Use and Zoning Patterns..............................................................................................................................C-80 C.7.4 Publicly Supported Housing and City Programming................................................................................... C-81 SECTION C.8. Analysis of Publicly Supported Housing and Sites Inventory to Further Fair Housing................C-84 C.8.1 Publicly Supported Housing ...................................................................................................................................C-84 C.8.2 Potential Impacts on Integration and Segregation Trends .......................................................................C-88 C.8.3 Potential Impacts on Access to Opportunity...................................................................................................C-93 C.8.4 Potential Impacts on Displacement Risk and Disproportionate Housing Needs.............................C-96 SECTION C.9. Fair Housing Summary of Issues, Contributing Factors, and Programs to Address ......................C-99 C.9.1 Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions .............................................................................................C-103 SECTION C.10. Overview of Strategies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing ........................................................C-105 C.10.1 More Equitable Land Use Patterns...................................................................................................................C-105 C.10.2 Targeted Investment in Underserved Communities ...............................................................................C-105 C.10.3 Neighborhood Action Planning ........................................................................................................................C-106 SECTION C.11. Works Cited....................................................................................................................................................C-107 Figure C-1: Census Tracts and Council Districts ..............................................................................................................................C-2 Figure C-2: City of Napa Neighborhoods..............................................................................................................................................C-3 Figure C-3: Site Inventory Areas ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure C-4: Racial Demographics in Napa ........................................................................................................................................C-10 Figure C-5: Diversity Index Comparison, 2010 and 2018..............................................................................................................C-13 Figure C-6: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Napa and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020) ................................14 Figure C-7: Poverty Status by Tract......................................................................................................................................................C-17 Figure C-8: HUD Low to Moderate Income Distribution by Block Group ..............................................................................C-18 Figure C-9: Median Income Levels by Block Group.......................................................................................................................C-19 Figure C-10: HUD Housing Choice Voucher Units..........................................................................................................................C-22 Figure C-11: Regional R/ECAPs...............................................................................................................................................................C-25 Figure C-12: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) by Tract.............................................................................C-26 Figure C-13: Population with a Disability...........................................................................................................................................C-28 Figure C-14: Percent of Children in Married-Couple Households............................................................................................C-30 Figure C-15: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Family Households............................................................................C-31 Figure C-16: TCAC Opportunity Areas in the City of Napa..........................................................................................................C-41 Figure C-17: Regional TCAC Opportunity Zones ............................................................................................................................ C-42 Figure C-18: TCAC Opportunity Areas by Tract: Education Score .......................................................................................... C-44 Figure C-19: TCAC Opportunity Areas: Economic Score............................................................................................................. C-46 Figure C-20: Jobs Proximity Index (HUD)..........................................................................................................................................C-47 Figure C-21: Low Transportation Cost Index................................................................................................................................... C-49 Figure C-22: Population with Disability and Access to Transit................................................................................................C-50 Figure C-23: CalEnviroScreen Composite Environmental Health Score..............................................................................C-54 Figure C-24: TCAC Opportunity Area: Environmental Score.....................................................................................................C-55 Figure C-25: Overpayment by Homeowners by Tract ..................................................................................................................C-58 Figure C-26: Overpayment by Renters by Tract..............................................................................................................................C-59 Figure C-27: Overcrowded Households by Tract............................................................................................................................C-61 Figure C-28: Percent of Households with Severe Housing Problems ................................................................................... C-64 Figure C-29: Point-In-Time Count, Emergency Shelter Housing.............................................................................................C-68 Figure C-30: Point-In-Time Count, Percent Occupied Beds for Emergency Housing.....................................................C-69 Figure C-31: Regional Percent of Occupied Beds for Transitional Housing ........................................................................C-70 Figure C-32: Napa Communities Sensitive to Displacement and Gentrification .............................................................C-73 Figure C-33: Regional Communities Sensitive to Displacement.............................................................................................C-74 Figure C-34: Percent of Households in Renter-Occupied Housing Units.............................................................................C-77 Figure C-35: Subsidized Housing ..........................................................................................................................................................C-83 Figure C-36: Location of Publicly Supported Housing by Program, City of Napa..............................................................C-85 Figure C-37: Location of Publicly Supported Housing by Program, Regional.....................................................................C-86 Figure C-38: City Land Area and Site Inventory Income Level Units by Racial Predominance .................................C-89 Figure C-39: Site Inventory Distribution by Racial Predominance ........................................................................................ C-90 Figure C-40: City Land Area and Site Inventory Income Level Units by Income Levels ...............................................C-91 Figure C-41: Site Inventory Distribution by Household Income...............................................................................................C-92 Figure C-42: City Land and Site Inventory Income Levels Distributed by TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas ........... C-94 Figure C-43: Site Inventory Distribution by TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas .......................................................................C-95 Figure C-44: City Land and Site Inventory Income Levels Distributed by Displacement and Gentrification.......C-97 Figure C-45: Site Inventory Distribution by Displacement and Gentrification..................................................................C-98 Table C-1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Napa ..................................................................................C-11 Table C-2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Napa ........................................................................C-12 Table C-3: Regional Racial Segregation Measures......................................................................................................................... C-15 Table C-4: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Napa ................................................................C-20 Table C-5: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Napa........................................................C-21 Table C-6: Population by Income Group, Napa and the Region................................................................................................C-23 Table C-7: Fair Housing Laws and City Compliance.....................................................................................................................C-32 Table C-8: Fair Housing Complaints by Basis..................................................................................................................................C-36 Table C-9: Fair Housing Napa Valley Complaints by Basis........................................................................................................C-36 Table C-10: Fair Housing Complaints by Issue ................................................................................................................................C-37 Table C-11: Community Access and Fair Housing Survey Responses...................................................................................C-38 Table C-12: Community Issues Related to Fair Housing..............................................................................................................C-39 Table C-13: Jobs Proximity Index, City of Napa...............................................................................................................................C-45 Table C-14: Transit and Low Transportation Cost Indices.......................................................................................................... C-51 Table C-15: School Proficiency Index by Racial Group for the City of Napa and Napa County ...................................C-56 Table C-16: Severe Cost Burden (Renters and Homeowners Combined).............................................................................C-60 Table C-17: Overcrowding in City of Napa and Napa County ....................................................................................................C-62 Table C-18: Severe Overcrowding in City of Napa and Napa County .....................................................................................C-62 Table C-19: Households Experiencing Any of the Four Severe Housing Problems..........................................................C-65 Table C-20: Remaining Need for Homelessness Services in Napa County .........................................................................C-67 Table C-21: Owner-Occupied Units by Racial Group .....................................................................................................................C-76 Table C-22: Loan Denial Rates by Racial Group of Applicant (2008-2017)............................................................................C-78 Table C-23: Loan Application Reason for Denial by Racial Group of Applicant (2008-2017) ........................................C-79 Table C-24: Loan Application Action by Gender of Applicant (2008-2017)..........................................................................C-79 Table C-25: Loan Denial Rates by Income of Applicant...............................................................................................................C-80 Table C-26: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category ...................................................................................C-87 Table C-27: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics.............................................................................................................C-87 Table C-28: Summary of Fair Housing Issues by City Quadrant............................................................................................C-102 Table C-29: Factors that Contribute to Fair Housing Issues ....................................................................................................C-103
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
In developing a Housing Element, local governments are charged with the important work of affirmatively furthering fair housing, defined in the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) guidelines as “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” (HCD, 2021)
This Fair Housing Assessment (FHA) considers the elements and factors that cause, increase, contribute to, maintain, or perpetuate segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, significant disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, consistent with new state requirements in California Government Code Section 65583(c)(10). It examines local existing conditions and demographic patterns including areas of poverty within the city and the social opportunity available for residents. It also provides an analysis from a regional perspective, describing settlement patterns across the region.
Fair Housing Issues: This assessment analyzes the following five issues both regionally and within the City of Napa: 1) patterns of segregation and integration; 2) fair housing enforcement and outreach; 3) access to opportunity; 4) disproportionate housing needs; and 5) other factors relevant to fair housing.
Sites Inventory Impact: A primary goal of the assessment is to ensure that available sites for lower income housing are located equitably with fair access to opportunities and resources. Ensuring that sites for housing, particularly lower income units, are in high resource areas rather than concentrated in areas of high segregation and poverty requires jurisdictions to consider the accessibility of various opportunities when planning for housing, including jobs, transportation, good education, and health services. Each section of this assessment includes an assessment of how the sites inventory impacts fair housing issues and vice versa.
Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions: The final section of this assessment summarizes the primary factors that contribute to the fair housing issues analyzed in this assessment. Those contributing factors are prioritized based on the impacts to fair housing, and meaningful actions in the Housing Element (i.e., programs) are identified to address the factors.
The Napa Housing Element, including this Fair Housing Assessment, considers housing as divided into 12 neighborhoods in Napa, as shown in Figure C-2. Much of the data presented in this FHA is also shown according to City Council Districts and U.S. Census tracts, which are shown on Figure C-1.
Figure C-1: Census Tracts and Council Districts
Source: U.S. Census 2010; City of Napa 2022; Adapted by Dynamic Planning + Science Figure C-2: City of Napa Neighborhoods
Source: City of Napa 2022; Adapted by Dynamic Planning + Science Figure C-3: Site Inventory Areas
Appendix H. of the City of Napa Housing Element discusses community participation efforts and results generally and is incorporated herein by reference. The City hosted a “Housing Week” series of events in July 2022 focused on housing affordability in Napa. Housing Week included extensive public outreach, meetings with affordable housing collaborators in the region, and meetings with Spanishspeaking residents.
The City conducted extensive public outreach focused on fair housing issues identified in the City’s 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, which was publicly vetted and adopted by the City Council in 2019. The outreach process for the 2019 impediments report included the 2019 Fair Housing Survey, two Fair Housing Forums, and a public review meeting. A total of 303 responses were received, with 28 of those completed in Spanish. A Fair Housing Forum occurred on August 19, 2019; the three primary comments from the forum,1 along with the results of the Fair Housing Survey, are integrated into this FHA.
1 The three primary comments from the Forum are 1) Rents have continued to rise in Napa, making it difficult to afford for even middle-class households; 2) Income is not a protected class, and people can be discriminated against based on their perceived income level; and 3) Access to credit is a barrier to accessing housing.
In the decades preceding the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) of 1968, government policies and private market actions, including redlining, racially restrictive covenants, and biased mortgage lending practices, created spatial inequality based on race throughout California. The FHA mandated broad protections prohibiting housing discrimination based upon “race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin.” Although the FHA and other federal mandates prohibited overt forms of discrimination in housing, racially explicit practices were subtly replaced by “race-neutral” methods to exclude people of color from predominately white neighborhoods. Over time, single-family zoning emerged and replaced race-based zoning as a tool for segregating communities. This section analyzes the patterns of integration and segregation in Napa and in the region related to people with protected characteristics (e.g., race and ethnicity, disability status, familial status).
Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. This FHA examines two spatial forms of segregation: 1) neighborhood-level segregation within the City of Napa and 2) regional segregation, comparing Napa to other nearby communities in the Bay Area.
There are many factors that have contributed to the creation and maintenance of segregation.
Historically, racial segregation stemmed from explicit discrimination against people of color, such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and discrimination in mortgage lending. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and local governments. (Rothstein, 2017) Segregation patterns are also affected by policies that appear race-neutral, such as land use decisions and the regulation of housing development.
Segregation has resulted in vastly unequal access to public goods such as quality schools, neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public safety. (Trounstine, Segregation and Inequality in Public Goods, 2015) This generational lack of access for many communities, particularly people of color and lower income residents, has often resulted in poor life outcomes, including lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates. (Chetty & Hendren, 2018) (Ananat, 2011) (Burch, 2014) (Cutler & Glaeser, 1997) (Sampson, 2012) (Sharkey, 2013)
The City of Napa has taken steps to address systemic discrimination and segregation in the city. In September 2020, the Napa City Council unanimously adopted Resolution R2020-116 “affirming that discrimination and systemic racism is a public health crisis that results in disparities in family stability, health and mental wellness, education, employment, economic development, public safety, criminal justice experience and housing.” New, multi-year, mandatory training programs for City staff covering topics including Implicit Bias; Cultural Awareness and Celebrating Diversity; Racial Justice and Equality; Age and Ability; LGBTQ+; and Gender Identity and Equality help support the City to be more accessible, equitable, and inclusive. The City also launched the Equity Initiative, partially funded through a partnership with the National League of Cities’ (NLC) Cities of Opportunity Initiative, to tackle the root causes of social injustice in the community through deep collaboration with community stakeholders and meaningful community engagement. The City of Napa has also participated in the Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) to cement its long-term commitment to achieve racial equity and advance opportunities for all.
It is difficult to address segregation patterns without an analysis of both historical and existing land use policies that impact segregation patterns. Land use regulations influence what kind of housing is built in a city or neighborhood. (Lens & Monkkonen, 2016) (Pendall, 2000) These land use regulations in turn impact demographics; they can be used to affect the number of houses in a community, the number of people who live in the community, the wealth of the people who live in the community, and where residents live within the community. (Trounstine, 2018) Given disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity, the ability to afford housing in different neighborhoods as influenced by land use regulations is highly differentiated across racial and ethnic groups. (Bayer, McMillan, & Rueben, 2004)2 The U.S. Census Bureau classifies racial groups (e.g., White or Black/African American) separately from Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.3 This report combines U.S. Census Bureau definitions for race and ethnicity into the following racial groups:
▪ White: Non-Hispanic White
▪ Latinx: Hispanic or Latino of any race4
▪ Black: Non-Hispanic Black/African American
▪ Asian/Pacific Islander: Non-Hispanic Asian/Asian American, or Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander ▪ Native American: Non-Hispanic Native American
▪ People of Color: All who are not Non-Hispanic White (including people who identify as “some other race” or “two or more races”)5
2 Using a household-weighted median of Bay Area county median household incomes, regional values were $61,050 for Black residents, $122,174 for Asian/Pacific Islander residents, $121,794 for White residents, and $76,306 for Latinx residents. For the source data, see U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B19013B, Table B19013D, B19013H, and B19013I.
3 More information about the Census Bureau’s definitions of racial groups is available here:
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html. 4 The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx to refer to this racial/ethnic group.
5 Given the uncertainty in the data for population size estimates for racial and ethnic groups not included in the Latinx, Black, or Asian/Pacific Islander categories, this report only analyzes these racial groups in the aggregate People of Color category.
Approximately half the city’s population is White while 40 percent of the population is Latinx. Less than 10 percent of the city’s population is Asian/Pacific-Islander, Black, or of other races. There are some geographic differences in the racial demographics of the city, as shown in Figure C-1.
There are many ways to quantitatively measure racial segregation. Each measure captures a different aspect of the ways in which groups are divided within a community. One way to measure segregation is by using an isolation index.
The isolation index compares each neighborhood’s composition to the jurisdiction’s demographics as a whole and ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that a particular group is more isolated from other groups. Isolation indices indicate the potential for contact between different groups, and the index can be interpreted as the experience of the average member of that group. For example, if the isolation index is 0.65 for Latinx residents in a city, then the average Latinx resident in that city lives in a neighborhood that is made up of 65 percent Latinx persons.
Figure C-1: Racial Demographics in Napa
Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); ESRI Demographic Estimates (2018).
Within the City of Napa, the most isolated racial group is White residents. Napa’s isolation index of 0.555 for White residents means that the average White resident lives in a neighborhood that is 55.5 percent White. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values for all racial groups in Napa for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table C-1. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the White population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.
The “Bay Area Average” column in Table C-1 provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different racial groups in 2020.6 The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by racial groups in the City of Napa. For example, Table C-1 indicates the average isolation index value for White residents in 2020 across all Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.491, meaning that, in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a White resident lives in a neighborhood that is 49.1 percent White.
Table C-1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Napa City of Napa Bay Area Average
Racial Group 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.023 0.029 0.029 0.245
Black 0.086 0.090 0.010 0.053
Latinx 0.339 0.432 0.454 0.251
White 0.722 0.628 0.555 0.491
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Another way to measure segregation is by using a dissimilarity index. This index measures how evenly any two groups are distributed across neighborhoods relative to their representation in a city overall.
The dissimilarity index at the city level can be interpreted as the share of one group that would have to move neighborhoods to create an even distribution for these two groups. The dissimilarity index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that groups are more unevenly distributed (i.e., they tend to live in different neighborhoods).
6 This average only includes the 104 jurisdictions that have more than one census tract, which is true for all comparisons of Bay Area jurisdictions’ segregation measures in this report. The segregation measures in this report are calculated by comparing the demographics of a jurisdiction’s census tracts to the jurisdiction’s demographics, and such calculations cannot be made for the five jurisdictions with only one census tract (Brisbane, Calistoga, Portola Valley, Rio Vista, and Yountville).
Table C-2 provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Napa between White residents and residents who are Black, Latinx, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The table also provides the dissimilarity index between White residents and all residents of color in the City. All dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods: 2000, 2010, and 2020.
In Napa, the highest segregation is between Black and White residents (see Table C-2). Napa’s Black vs.
White dissimilarity index of 0.261 means that 26.1 percent of Black (or White) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create even distribution between the two racial groups. However, this dissimilarity index value is not a reliable data point due to a small Black population size in Napa.
See Table C-2 notes.
The “Bay Area Average” column in Table C-2 provides the average dissimilarity index values for these racial group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation between communities of color and White residents in Napa.
For example, Table C-2 indicates that the average Latinx vs. White dissimilarity index for a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.207, so on average 20.7 percent of Latinx (or White) residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create an even distribution between the two racial groups in that jurisdiction.
Notably, diversity in Napa has increased over the past decade, as captured in ESRI’s Diversity Index from the span of 2010 to 2018 in Figure C-2.
Table C-2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Napa City of Napa Bay Area Average
Racial Group 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.160* 0.166* 0.103* 0.185 Black vs. White 0.419* 0.425* 0.261* 0.244
Latinx vs. White 0.331 0.286 0.247 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.290 0.256 0.215 0.168
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
NOTE: Asterisk (*) indicates index is based on a racial group making up less than five percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.
Figure C-2: Diversity Index Comparison, 2010 and 2018
Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool, 2022; ESRI Diversity Index (2010; 2018) The map in Figure C-3 illustrates regional racial segregation, demonstrating how the percentage of People of Color in Napa and surrounding jurisdictions compares to the Bay Area as a whole, including:
▪ Orange-Shaded Jurisdictions: Have a share of People of Color that is less than the Bay Area as a whole, and the degree of difference is greater than five percentage points. ▪ White-Shaded Jurisdictions: Have a share of People of Color comparable to the regional percentage of People of Color (within five percentage points). ▪ Grey-Shaded Jurisdictions: Have a share of People of Color that is more than five percentage points greater than the regional percentage of People of Color.
Source: MTC/ABAG (2022); U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
Note: People of Color refer to persons not identifying as non-Hispanic White. The nine-county Bay Area is the reference region for this map.
Figure C-3: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Napa and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020) Segregation among jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating regional values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Table C-3 presents dissimilarity index, isolation index, and Theil’s H multi-racial index values for racial segregation for the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2010 and 2020. The previous section of this report focused on neighborhood level racial segregation.
These indices were calculated by comparing the racial demographics of the census tracts within a jurisdiction to the demographics of the jurisdiction as a whole. In Table C-3, these measures are calculated by comparing the racial demographics of local jurisdictions to the region’s racial makeup.
In looking at the 2020 data, for example, Table C-3 shows the White isolation index value for the region is 0.429, meaning that on average White Bay Area residents lived in a jurisdiction that is 42.9 percent White in 2020. An example of regional dissimilarity index values in Table C-3 is the Black vs. White dissimilarity index value of 0.459, which means that across the region 45.9 percent of Black (or White) residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to evenly distribute the two racial groups across Bay Area jurisdictions. The dissimilarity index values in Table C-3 reflect recommendations made in HCD’s AFFH guidance for calculating dissimilarity at the region level.7 The regional value for the Theil’s H index measures how diverse each Bay Area jurisdiction is compared to the racial diversity of the whole region. A Theil’s H Index value of zero would mean all jurisdictions within the Bay Area have the same racial demographics as the entire region, while a value of one would mean each racial group lives exclusively in their own separate jurisdiction. The regional Theil’s H index value for racial segregation decreased slightly between 2010 and 2020, meaning that racial groups in the Bay Area are now slightly less separated by the borders between jurisdictions.
Table C-3: Regional Racial Segregation Measures
Index Racial Group 2010 2020
Isolation Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.317 0.378
Black 0.144 0.118
Latinx 0.283 0.291
White 0.496 0.429
People of Color 0.629 0.682
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.384 0.369
Black vs. White 0.475 0.459
Latinx vs. White 0.301 0.297
People of Color vs. White 0.296 0.293
Theil's H Multi-Racial All Racial Groups 0.103 0.097
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. 7 For more information on HCD’s recommendations regarding data considerations for analyzing integration and segregation patterns, see page 31 of the AFFH Guidance Memo.
Cost of housing compared to income is a particular challenge in Napa. Residents feel that rents have continued to rise, making the city difficult to afford for even middle-class households. This sentiment was captured in a Fair Housing Forum in 2019 and is confirmed with the Fair Housing Survey and outreach for this Housing Element. Residents are understandably frustrated because income is not a protected class for whom housing discrimination is legally prohibited; landlords and realtors may treat residents differently because of perceived income status.
Income segregation can be measured using similar indices as racial segregation. Income maps, similar to the racial segregation maps shown in Figure C-1, are useful for visualizing segregation between multiple income groups at the same time. Figure C-4, Figure C-5, and Figure C-6 offer visual representations of the spatial distribution of poverty and income groups within Napa.
Poverty levels are low through much of the City of Napa, with increased instances in parts of the Central Napa, Pueblo, and Westwood neighborhoods, as shown in Figure C-4 (see Figure C-2 for a map of neighborhoods). The highest concentrations of those living in poverty are in the southeast portions of the city; this may be because the Napa State Hospital, which houses civilly committed individuals is located there, as well as the Napa Valley College, which may draw students with little to no income to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Figure C-5 shows the percentage of low- and moderate-income populations living in census block groups within Napa. It confirms that there are very low percentages of low- to moderate-income persons living in the Browns Valley and Linda Vista neighborhoods. Low- to moderate-income populations are gathered more in the center of the city. Similarly, mapping of median incomes in Figure C-6 confirms the highest median incomes are on the north, east, and west boundaries of the city, while lower incomes are concentrated towards the center of the city. Again, the highest concentration of very low-income households are in the River East neighborhood (southeast portion of the city); this can also be explained by concentrations of civilly committed individuals associated with the Napa State Hospital and students attending Napa Valley College.
Figure C-4: Poverty Status by Tract
Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); ACS (2015-2019)
Figure C-5: HUD Low to Moderate Income Distribution by Block Group Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool, 2022; ACS (2011-2015) compiled by HUD.
Figure C-6: Median Income Levels by Block Group
Source: AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); ACS (2015-2019)
The isolation index values for all income groups in Napa for the years 2010 and 2015 are shown in Table C-4.
8 Above moderate-income residents are the most isolated income group in Napa. Napa’s isolation index of 0.404 for these residents means that the average above moderate-income resident in Napa lives in a neighborhood that is 40.4 percent above moderate-income. Among all income groups, the very low-income population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.
Like the tables presented earlier for neighborhood racial segregation, the “Bay Area Average” column in Table C-4 provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different income groups in 2015. The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by income groups in Napa. For example, Table C-4 indicates the average isolation index value for very low-income residents across Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.269, meaning that, in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a very low-income resident lives in a neighborhood that is 26.9 percent very low-income.
Table C-4: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Napa City of Napa Bay Area Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.327 0.295 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.221 0.215 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.219 0.218 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.428 0.404 0.507
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
Table C-5 provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Napa between residents who are lower income (earning less than 80 percent of area median income (AMI)) and those who are not lower income (earning above 80 percent of AMI). This data aligns with the requirements described in HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo for identifying dissimilarity for lower income households.9 Segregation in Napa between lower income residents and residents who are not lower income decreased between 2010 and 2015. Additionally, Table C-5 shows dissimilarity index values for the level of segregation in Napa between residents who are very low-income (earning less than 50 percent of AMI) and those who are above moderate-income (earning above 120 percent of AMI). This supplementary data point provides additional nuance to an analysis of income segregation, as this 8 This report presents data for income segregation for the years 2010 and 2015, which is different than the time periods used for racial segregation. This deviation stems from the data source recommended for income segregation calculations in HCD’s AFFH Guidelines. This data source most recently updated with data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. For more information on HCD’s recommendations for calculating income segregation, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidelines.
9 For more information, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo. index value indicates the extent to which a jurisdiction’s lowest and highest income residents live in separate neighborhoods.
Similar to other tables in this report, the “Bay Area Average” column shows the average dissimilarity index values for these income group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2015. For example, Table C-5 indicates that the average dissimilarity index between lower income residents and other residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.198, so on average 19.8 percent of lower income residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create an even distribution of these income groups.
In 2015, the income segregation in Napa between lower income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions (see Table C-5). This means that the lower income residents are more segregated from other residents within Napa compared to other jurisdictions in the region.
Table C-5: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Napa City of Napa Bay Area Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.291 0.234 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.369 0.287 0.253
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
Finally, examining the use of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) housing choice program paints a slightly different picture of where residents live who need federal income support in the city. The HUD housing choice voucher program is the federal government's major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants can find their own housing, including single-family homes, townhouses, or apartments. (HUD, 2022) Figure C-7 shows that the highest numbers of housing choice vouchers are being utilized in the northeast portion of the city, with high numbers in the center of the city as well.
Figure C-7: HUD Housing Choice Voucher Units
Source: 2022 HUD
At the regional level, segregation is measured between jurisdictions instead of between neighborhoods.
When looking at income segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area, one can examine how Napa differs from the region. The income demographics in Napa for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table C-6. The table also provides the income composition of the nine-county Bay Area in 2015. As of that year, compared to the Bay Area as a whole, Napa had a lower share of very low-income residents, a higher share of low-income residents, a higher share of moderate-income residents, and a lower share of above moderate-income residents.
Table C-6: Population by Income Group, Napa and the Region City of Napa Bay Area Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 27.77% 26.4% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 18.61% 18.82% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 19.04% 20.53% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 34.58% 34.25% 39.4%
Source: Data for 2015 is from Housing U.S. Department of and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) are neighborhoods in which there are both racial concentrations and high poverty rates. HUD defines R/ECAPs one of two ways, as census tracts with whichever measure is lower:
▪ A non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) for urban areas or 20 percent for non-urban areas, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; or ▪ A non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate for the county.
Households within R/ECAP tracts frequently represent the most disadvantaged households within a community and often face a multitude of housing challenges. R/ECAPs are also meant to identify where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity.
There are no areas in Napa that meet the criteria to be considered a R/ECAP. There are no R/ECAPs in Sonoma or Napa Counties, but they are present in Solano County (Fairfield and Vallejo) and in Contra Costa County (Pleasant Hill), as shown in Figure C-13.
Conversely, affluence is most typically defined as an abundance of wealth or money. A spatial analysis of affluence by race or ethnicity can be used to determine a Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Area of Affluence (RCAA). Although HCD and HUD have not established standard definitions for RCAAs, they are generally understood to be neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of White households and high household incomes.
Napa contains RCAA areas in the northwest portion of the city, approximately in the neighborhoods of Browns Valley and Linda Vista, as shown in Figure C-9 (see Figure C-2 for a map of neighborhoods).
Figure C-8: Regional R/ECAPs
Source: HCD AHHF Mapping Tool (2022); HUD (2022)
Figure C-9: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) by Tract Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool; ACS, 2015-2019.
The U.S. Census Bureau defines disability as having one or more of the following: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and/or independent living difficulty. Eleven percent of residents in Napa have a disability of some kind and may require accessible housing that is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 10 The Community
Profile, Appendix A, shows a more specific breakdown of disability by type.
Residents living with a disability are found throughout Napa and do not align with areas of higher poverty rates or higher segregation rates. Figure C-10 illustrates population percentage rates living with disabilities. The area in the southeast portion of town, shown in red as more than 40 percent of the population living with a disability, is a very low population area of the city which includes the Napa State Hospital, with approximately 1,255 beds for civilly committed patients with disabilities.
There are no adult residential facilities in Napa County for those 18 and older living with a disability.
There are eight facilities listed with the California Department of Social Services in Sonoma County and two listed in Solano County. There are several day services available in Napa County for adults with disabilities, including Napa Valley Support Services in the city. There are more assisted living and services available for elderly populations who often also have a disability.
Napa residents experiencing homelessness are disproportionately disabled; those obstacles to housing choice and opportunity are discussed in Section C.6.4.1.
The City of Napa continues to work towards providing additional housing choices for persons with disabilities. The City administers a rehabilitation program that works in part to make accessibility upgrades to affordable housing in the city. Since the previous Housing Element, the Housing Division provided ADA improvements to 10 units as part of its Emergency Grant and Rehabilitation program.
The City of Napa’s Municipal Code does not contain any known barriers for housing for those with a disability; group homes are allowed by right and residential zoning does not include a definition of “family” that could exclude other patterns of living. While Napa’s Municipal Code does not serve as a barrier to accessible housing, the City will continue to encourage additional accessible accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and multi-family housing that includes more accessible units than required by law when feasible.
10 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.
Figure C-10: Population with a Disability
Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); ACS (2015-2019)
The Fair Housing Act bans housing discrimination based on "familial status," which means the presence of at least one child under 18 years old. Housing discrimination based on familial status can occur when a landlord, property manager, real estate agent, or property owner treats someone or a group of people differently because they have a family with children under the age of 18. Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female-headed households who may be supporting children or a family with only one source of income. Femaleheaded households with children may face housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for paid childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.
As discussed in more detail in the Housing Needs Assessment of the Community Profile, Appendix A, more than half of the households in Napa have residents who are married. Geographically, most of those households are in the north, northeast, and northwest parts of the city but also found throughout central Napa, as shown in Figure C-11. This geographic location somewhat aligns with the areas of highest median income (Figure C-6).
Ten percent of households in Napa are female-headed, and 19.8 percent of female-headed households fall below the federal poverty line. There is a high concentration of female-headed households in the southeast region of the city, in the River East and Terrace/Shurtleff neighborhoods (Figure C-12) (see Figure C-2 for a map of neighborhoods). The rest of the city does not contain concentrations of femaleheaded households. The high concentration of female-headed households in the southeast portion of the city may be because the Napa State Hospital for civilly committed individuals is located there as well as Napa Valley College which could have higher instances of females living alone in the surrounding neighborhoods. However, other factors may include that the housing stock in this area is also older, smaller, and less expensive, and there are also a high number of multifamily housing complexes.
From January 1, 2008, through the end of 2018, the City of Napa received a total of 16 complaints of discrimination based on familial status. In a city with over 28,000 households, this probably does not indicate a pattern of housing discrimination based on familial status.
Figure C-11: Percent of Children in Married-Couple Households Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); ACS (2015-2019)
Figure C-12: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Family Households Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); ACS (2015-2019)
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, genetic information, or any other basis prohibited by Section 51 of the Civil Code.” (Cal. Gov’t.
Code § 12921(a)) Similarly, the Federal Fair Housing Act prohibits such actions federally.
Examining fair housing enforcement and outreach in the City can help inform the City’s efforts to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to assure community members are aware of fair housing laws and rights. The City of Napa made great strides in fair housing outreach and assessing community fair housing understanding in 2019 when the City completed its Impediments to Fair Housing Choice assessment. This section contains valuable feedback received through that 2019 effort.
The City of Napa complies with most applicable fair housing laws. For the few laws for which the City is currently out of compliance, the CIty has included a policy or program within the Housing Element to achieve compliance as soon as feasible. Table C-1 lists applicable laws and describes the methods of compliance.
Table C-1: Fair Housing Laws and City Compliance
California Fair Housing Laws Napa Activities and Actions Cal. Fair Employment and
Housing Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §
12900 et seq.) and Regulations
(Cal. Code of Regs. § 12005 et
seq.)
The City of Napa does not engage in any discrimination of a protected class in housing (or employment) decisionmaking.
Cal. Gov’t Code § 65008. Equal
treatment in local decisionmaking.
City decision-making, in particular development approvals, are conducted with objective standards that do not treat affordable housing adversely. The City does provide
incentives and other preferential treatment to affordable housing consistent with CA Gov’t Code 65008(e).
Cal. Gov’t Code § 8899.50.
Administer programs and
activities relating to housing
The City of Napa administers all related programs and
activities in a manner consistent with this provision. The City is conducting this FHA within its Housing Element
California Fair Housing Laws Napa Activities and Actions and community development
in a manner to affirmatively
further fair housing.
Update to further this provision, and the City also completed the 2019 Impediments to Fair Housing Choice assessment.
Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135 et seq.
Equal access to all city
programs and activities.
The City of Napa provides full access to all programs and activities, regardless of actual or perceived membership in a protected class.
Density Bonus Law (Gov.
Code § 65915)
The City of Napa provides a density bonus in Napa Municipal Code Section 17.52.130 et seq. Legislation approved in 2020 increased the maximum density bonus and concession
amounts for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income housing.
The city has a policy in its Housing Element to update its density bonus for consistency with current state law.
Housing Accountability Act
(Gov. Code, § 65589.5.)
The City of Napa will not disapprove, or condition approval, in a manner than renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless specified written findings are made. In addition, the City does not deny or reduce the density of housing development projects that are consistent with the City’s objective standards, unless specified written findings are made.
No-Net-Loss/Least Cost Law
(Gov. Code § § 65913.1; 65863)
The City of Napa is designating and will maintain sufficient land to maintain adequate sites for its assigned RHNA
allocation with appropriate standards and will periodically review its land inventory to ensure site availability.
Objective Design Standards
(Gov. Code § 65913.2-.4)
The development of objective design standards is currently ongoing . The City recently adopted a new General Plan, which sets the foundation for this work. The Housing
Element contains a policy to complete this effort soon.
Limits on growth controls
(Gov. Code § 65302.8)
The City of Napa does not have any intention of “limiting the number of housing units which may be constructed on an
annual basis” but would only do so (1) after making findings consistent with this state law provision, and (2) if
Government code 66300’s prohibition on adopting new
growth control measures expires..
Housing Element Law (Gov.
Code § 65583)
This Housing Element update complies with all related state requirements, as indicated by HCD certification.
California Fair Housing Laws Napa Activities and Actions Homeless Accommodation
(Gov. Code §§ 65582, 65583,
and 65660 et seq)
The city’s zoning code allows for emergency shelters in two zoning districts (NMC Sections17.32.150 and 17.32.070) and transitional and supportive housing (NMC Section 17.52.505) in all residential zones. The City will amend its Zoning Code to allow for low-barrier navigation centers as a by-right land use. Emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use, either explicitly in the Public, Quasi-Public (PQ-P) Zoning District or as “community care facilities” in other districts according to the definition, which is also planned to be updated.
Farmworker and Employee
Housing (Cal. Health & Safety
Code §§ 17021.5-6)
City code allows for employee housing as a permitted
residential use (NMC Section 17.52.505). Agricultural worker housing is allowed as a type of “small employee housing.” Streamlined Affordable
Housing Applications (Gov.
Code § 65589.5)
The City of Napa follows state law for processing
preliminary applications for housing development projects, conducting no more than five hearings for housing projects that comply with objective General Plan and development standards and making a decision on a project within 90 days after certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) or 60 days after adoption of a mitigated negative declaration (MND) or EIR for affordable housing projects.
The City conducts outreach and complies with fair housing laws and regulations through the following:
1. Conducting outreach and education regarding fair housing;
2. Displaying fair housing and complaint information WHERE; a. The city website also displays information on fair housing OR The city also has a policy in this Housing Element to update the city’s website to include fair housing information.
3. Reviewing City code and policies for compliance with state and federal housing laws; and
4. Referring discrimination complaints to the appropriate agencies, primarily the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).
The City refers discrimination complaints to DFEH. Fair housing complaints can also be submitted directly through HUD or Fair Housing Napa Valley (FHNV). Complaints filed with HUD will either be subsequently filed with DFEH or FHNV or investigated by HUD. Both the FHNV and DFEH may file signed complaints with HUD since they are considered substantially equivalent agencies.
If FHNV investigates the complaint and determines that there is sufficient evidence to file a formal complaint, the complainant has three options:
1. Negotiate with the housing provider to restore the Fair Housing Right and educate the provider about the discriminatory act(s) in question;
2. File an administrative complaint with HUD or DFEH; or
3. With assistance from FHNV, file a federal or state case on behalf of the complainant.
In the City of Napa, approximately half of the 51 complaints filed between 2008 and 2018 obtained successful conciliation or settlement, while about 10 percent had a no cause determination. The rest of the complaints were withdrawn, left open, or dismissed for various reasons. (City of Napa, 2019) From 2008 to 2018, 51 fair housing complaints were made in the City of Napa on 73 different bases. Most bases for fair housing complaints were disability followed by familial status. Those bases are shown in detail in Table C-2. In 2018, there were 169 fair housing complaints submitted to FHNV, as shown in Table C-3. The most common complaints to FHNV were due to disability, national origin, and familial status. Fair housing complaints sorted by issue reveal that the most common issue cited was beingHispanic, followed by a physical disability, then a mental disability.
Table C-2: Fair Housing Complaints by Basis
Basis 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Disability 2 3 1 1 1 8 0 3 1 2 9 31
Familial Status 0 2 2 0 2 0 8 0 0 2 0 16
Retaliation 0 0 1 1 0 5 0 3 1 0 2 13
National Origin 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 7
Race 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 4
Sex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Total Basis 2 5 4 2 6 13 8 10 2 7 14 73
Total Complaints 2 5 3 1 4 8 8 6 1 3 10 51
Source: HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2008-2018); Napa Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2019) Table C-3: Fair Housing Napa Valley Complaints by Basis Basis 2018
Disability 82
National Origin 60
Familial Status 18
Sex 8
Race 7
State Classes 7
Source of Income 4
Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity 1
Total Basis 187
Total Complaints 169
Source: HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2008-2018); Napa Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2019) Table C-4 shows fair housing complaints to HUD by issue. The most common issues were:
▪ Discriminatory acts under section 818 of the Fair Housing Act, which is essentially retaliation for making a fair housing claim or assisting someone with a claim; ▪ Discriminatory refusal to rent;
▪ Discriminatory advertising;
▪ Discrimination in terms, conditions, or privileges relating to rental; and ▪ Failure to make reasonable accommodation.
Table C-4: Fair Housing Complaints by Issue
Issue 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Discrimination in the
terms /conditions for
making loans
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Discrimination in
terms/conditions for
making loans
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Discriminatory refusal to
rent and negotiate for rental 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Discriminatory refusal to
negotiate for rental 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Discriminatory refusal to
sell 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 4
Discriminatory financing
(includes real estate
transactions)
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 4
Discriminatory terms,
conditions, privileges, or
services and facilities
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 5 13
Failure to make reasonable
accommodation 2 1 0 1 0 5 0 3 0 2 5 19
Discrimination in
terms/conditions/privileges
relating to rental
0 0 0 0 0 7 8 0 1 0 4 20
Discriminatory advertising,
statements, and notices 0 1 1 0 0 6 8 1 1 3 2 23
Discriminatory refusal to
rent
0 2 3 0 3 3 8 2 1 2 2 26
Discriminatory acts under
section 818 (coercion, etc.) 0 0 0 1 0 6 8 6 1 1 5 28
Total Issues 2 5 4 3 4 30 32 23 4 12 24 143
Total Complaints 2 5 3 1 4 8 8 6 1 3 10 51
Source: HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2008-2018); Napa Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2019) The City of Napa conducted a fair housing survey in 2019 to better understand fair housing impacts on the community and community perceptions of fair housing, with 303 total respondents and 28 surveys completed in Spanish. More than half of respondents were renters (172 respondents).
Overall, respondents had a moderate to low understanding of Fair Housing laws:
▪ Almost a quarter of respondents were unfamiliar with Fair Housing laws, while only 30% of respondents rated their familiarity a 4/5 or 5/5 (most familiar). (City of Napa, 2019, p. 99) ▪ Of the 247 respondents that answered the question, “how easy Fair Housing laws are to understand,” some 41% said it was difficult or moderately difficult (1/5 or 2/5) and 11% said it was easy to understand (5/5).
▪ When asked “how familiar are you with your options if your Fair Housing rights have been violated,” some 50% were unfamiliar or moderately unfamiliar with their options (1/5 or 2/5), while 27% were familiar or moderately familiar (5/5 or 4/5).
Respondents were asked if they or their community faced a lack of access to any factors in the city, as shown in Table C-5. Respondents identified lack of access to affordable housing as the most significant factor and access for acceptance of housing choice vouchers as the second factor. Notably for this FHA, access for persons with disabilities and access to public transportation also scored high.
Table C-5: Community Access and Fair Housing Survey Responses Survey Question: Are you and/or your community affected by lack of access to any of these factors listed below?
Factors Not at All Slightly Moderately Significantly Don’t Know Access for acceptance of housing
choice vouchers 28 8 17 53 31
Access to mental health care 27 19 26 34 15
Access for seniors and/or people
with disabilities to public
transportation
35 22 27 29 23
Access to public transportation to
schools, work, health care,
services
43 17 35 27 17
Access to education about Fair
Housing laws 31 22 34 27 25
Collaboration between agencies 32 18 19 25 41
Access to school choice 52 17 21 22 25
Access to health care 46 28 29 22 12
Access to proficient public schools 53 14 27 19 24
Access to good nutrition, healthy
food, fresh vegetables, etc. 52 22 31 18 15
Access to parks, libraries, other
public facilities 76 16 15 13 18
Other 24 2 1 5 37
Source: Napa Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, Table IV.61 (2019) Respondents were also asked to identify issues related to fair housing that they believed were happening in the City of Napa, as shown in Table C-6. Respondents identified the lack of affordable rental and single-family housing as top issues occurring in the city, while respondents also believed a greater share of housing problems were faced by those at lower incomes and those of a specific race, ethnicity, or national origin; sexual orientation; gender, gender identity, or gender expression; disability; or family status.
Table C-6: Community Issues Related to Fair Housing
Survey Question: Do you believe these issues are happening in the City of Napa? If so, how much are the issues impacting your community?
Issue Not at All Slightly Moderately Significantly Don’t Know Lack of affordable rental housing 10 1 10 108 9
Lack of affordable single-family houses 10 4 12 100 10
Greater share of housing problems for
those at lower incomes, of a specific
race or ethnicity or national origin,
sexual orientation, gender identity,
gender expression, disability, gender,
or family status.
16 10 27 70 17
Lack of acceptance of housing choice
vouchers 12 7 9 69 42
Gentrification and displacement due to
economic pressures 14 10 19 67 25
Concentrations of poverty 12 15 26 62 18
Differences in access to housing
opportunities for people of various
incomes, of a specific race or ethnicity,
or national origin, sexual orientation,
gender identity, gender expression,
disability, gender, or family status
14 13 27 62 19
Concentrations of racial or ethnic
minorities 17 22 26 55 15
Challenges for persons with disabilities 16 23 23 45 33 Lack of housing discrimination
enforcement 24 11 18 43 43
Segregation 22 18 26 42 17
No or limited education about Fair
Housing laws 21 13 30 38 36
Other 9 0 1 10 31
Source: Napa Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, Table IV.62 (2019) One important aspect of fair housing is whether housing provides residents access to opportunities within the community. Access to opportunity means housing is located such that residents have access to critical life resources by improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities and supporting mobility and access to “high resource”neighborhoods. This encompasses education, transportation, economic development, environmental factors (e.g., air, water, neighborhood safety, safety from environmental hazards), social services, cultural institutions, and other important opportunities based on socio-economic characteristics such as race, income, familial status, or disability.
HUD and HCD, in coordination with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), have developed a series of indices to analyze access to opportunity. The primary role of TCAC is to oversee the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program, which funds affordable rental housing. The opportunity maps influence the future distribution of affordable housing in areas with the highest opportunity. High resource areas are those areas, according to research, that offer low-income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health.
The indices are combined to provide an overall access to opportunity score according to U.S. Census tract. The composite scoring considers TCAC scores for economic, job proximity, educational, transportation, and health/environmental opportunities.
The City of Napa is comprised of low resource areas through much of central and southern Napa with moderate resource areas further north, as shown in Figure C-1. There are a few portions of larger unincorporated census tracts that are highest resource areas, but negligible portions of those tracts are located in the city.
Regionally, Napa has a range of low to moderate resources fairly comparable to nearby cities such as Sonoma, Fairfield, and Vacaville. Vallejo and American Canyon are notably lower resource areas, while Yountville has a significant area of high resources. Unincorporated Napa and Sonoma Counties have a large percentage of highest resource areas that typically correspond to high median incomes and concentrated areas of affluence as well. Regional opportunity areas are shown in Figure C-2.
Figure C-1: TCAC Opportunity Areas in the City of Napa
Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); TCAC Opportunity Areas Mapping Analysis (2021).
Figure C-2: Regional TCAC Opportunity Zones
Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); TCAC Opportunity Areas Mapping Analysis (2021).
HCD/TCAC quantifies educational opportunity through a series of indicators measuring math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates. Educational opportunity scores for Napa are shown in Figure C-3.
Southern and central portions of Napa have the lowest education scores, meaning that children in these areas receive less positive educational outcomes. Lower education scores, unfortunately, roughly align with lower median incomes (Figure C-6) and higher percentages of People of Color populations (Figure C-1). The best opportunities for positive educational outcomes are in northwestern parts of the city, in the Browns Valley, Alta Heights, and Pueblo neighborhoods (see Figure C-2 for a map of neighborhoods).
All Napa schools are within the Napa Valley Unified School District (NVUSD or the District), which is the largest district in Napa County. District enrollment was 16,971 in 2021, with 53 percent of those enrolled categorized as economically disadvantaged, 22 percent English learners, and 13 percent students with disabilities. (Cal Dep't of Education, 2021) The district is 57 percent Latinx, 27 percent White, seven percent Filipino, and various other races for the remainder. (Id.) The District has adopted an equity policy that provides “a framework for guiding decision-making around instilling equity in our district” so that the district can “focus on closing the opportunity and achievement gaps our students undoubtedly face.” (NVUSD, 2022) The policy states:
Valuing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
▪ Promote equity by increasing institutional access to historically underserved groups.
▪ Promote diversity and actively create a community of inclusion for all students, families and staff.
▪ Create systems across all departments and schools that intentionally ensure everyone is respected and feels that they are part of an inclusive organization. (Id.)
The policy includes measures like routine assessments disaggregated by race and ethnicity, equitable expenditures, and inclusive curriculum, to name a few. Despite these policies, however, schools within the District tend to perform worse than those in surrounding districts.
Educational opportunity is a primary issue for fair housing in Napa; policies to address this issue and contributing factors are discussed in Table C-2.
Figure C-3: TCAC Opportunity Areas by Tract: Education Score Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); TCAC Opportunity Areas Mapping Analysis (2021).
The vast majority of census tracts in Napa receive the bottom half of economic opportunity scores, as shown in Figure C-4. The lowest economic opportunity scores roughly mirror the overall access to opportunity in Napa, as well and median incomes and racial diversity in the central and southern parts of the city. The most positive economic outcomes are on the northwestern outskirts of Napa, parts of census tracts located primarily outside of city limits.
Access to employment at a livable wage is an integral component of broader access to opportunity.
Where one lives can affect one’s access to and the quality of employment opportunities. This can happen both through proximity of residential areas to places with high concentrations (or low concentrations) of jobs and through barriers to residents of particular neighborhoods in accessing jobs, even when they are close by.
The HUD Jobs Proximity Index quantifies the accessibility of a given neighborhood to all jobs within a core-based statistical area (CBSA). CBSAs tend to be larger in size and do not follow city boundaries.
CBSAs are anchored by at least one urban center with a population of 10,000 or more along with adjacent counties that are socioeconomically tied to the urban center by commuting. Accessibility to jobs is measured by distance “as the crow flies” to employment centers and does not integrate transportation and commuter data. Moreover, this index positively weighs larger employment centers as opposed to small neighborhood commercial centers, inversely weighs the labor supply or competition in a location and does not account for agricultural job centers.
As shown in Figure C-5 , jobs proximity index values are lowest in the northwest part of the city, meaning residents are the farthest distances to jobs. The eastern and central parts of the city have the highest index values, which makes sense as those areas are closest to the city’s job centers. These parts of the city also have high population density. In Napa, Latinx and Black populations have the highest jobs proximity index values (i.e., they are the closest to job locations). Latinx immigrants are the largest immigrant population in the City of Napa. These residents tend to live in the central and eastern portions of the city, which have high index values. White populations are the farthest away from jobs (see Table C-1).
Table C-1: Jobs Proximity Index, City of Napa
Racial Group Jobs Proximity Index
White 37.03
Black 43.00
Latinx 43.46
Asian/Pacific Islander 39.43
Native American 40.95
Source: HUD Jobs Proximity Index (2014-2017)
Figure C-4: TCAC Opportunity Areas: Economic Score
Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); TCAC Opportunity Areas Mapping Analysis (2021).
Figure C-5: Jobs Proximity Index (HUD)
Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); HUD (2014-2017).
HUD has developed the Low Transportation Cost Index, which is based on estimates of transportation expenses for a three-person, single-parent family earning 50 percent of the median income for renters in the surrounding region. The higher an area’s index score, the lower the cost of transportation, which can be influenced by factors such as access to public transportation, housing density, and proximity of employment centers and other services.
As shown in Figure C-6, all census tracts in the City of Napa score in the top 25 percent of the low-cost transportation index (75 or better), which demonstrates a low cost of transportation throughout the city. Most of the central and southern parts of Napa score into the 80s, while those that pay the most for transportation are the more affluent areas in the north and northwest. Income levels generally match these results, with lower income households living in areas with better transportation cost scores. Familial status and disability do not have clear geographic patterns, and thus cost of transportation should not impact affordability for these groups. Likewise, transportation costs by race and ethnicity do not show any clear clustering or disadvantages for any ethnicity or race, as shown in Table C-2.
Regional transportation planning and services are coordinated by the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA), a joint powers authority. NVTA manages the Vine Transit system, which serves over one million passengers each year, providing fixed-route service in the city and regional express bus service throughout the Napa Valley. Vine Transit offers eight local routes within the City of Napa and four regional routes to locations in Napa County and the greater Bay Area. (NVTA, 2022) Roughly 65 percent of the trips within Napa County originate in the City of Napa, and 40 percent of weekday trips originate and end in the city. (NVTA, 2020, p. 4)
NVTA also provides a paratransit service called VineGo to persons with disabilities and elderly riders, providing them with curb to curb drop off service at a cost ranging from $3.20 to $6.40 per trip depending on distance traveled, with discounts available for individuals who meet certain income limits. (NVTA, 2022) The success of the NVTA contributes to lower transportation costs within the city.
Moreover, NVTA public transportation services are available in most areas with higher percentages of persons with disabilities, as shown in Figure C-7.
Figure C-6: Low Transportation Cost Index
Source: HUD Low Transportation Cost Index Mapping Tool (2021) Figure C-7: Population with Disability and Access to Transit Source: HUD Low Transportation Cost Index Mapping Tool; ACS (2015-2019) Table C-2: Transit and Low Transportation Cost Indices
Racial Group Low Transportation Cost Index
Total Population
White 79.16
Black 80.97
Latinx 82.02
Asian/Pacific Islander 79.73
Native American 80.49
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White 82.24
Black 89.00
Latinx 83.16
Asian/Pacific Islander 86.03
Native American 81.88
Source: HUD Low Transportation Cost Index (2020).
Environmental health, or lack thereof, can impact a person’s health and wellbeing which can in turn impact their job prospects, income levels, and ability to afford housing. Less affluent areas have historically borne a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, residential, governmental, and commercial operations and policies. Affording all people equal access to environmental health opportunities, regardless of protected class, is a key component of furthering fair and affordable housing.
The California Office for Environmental Health Hazard Assessment maintains a tool that uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators to map and compare community environmental scores, known as CalEnviroScreen. Higher scores on a scale of one to 100 indicate increased amounts of environmental adversity while lower scores indicate higher environmental health. The composite environmental scores for a census tract are calculated from a host of factors related to pollution burden and population characteristics. Pollution amounts are considered for the following pollutants:
▪ Ozone ▪ Drinking water contaminants ▪ Toxic release from facilities ▪ Particulates (diesel) ▪ Pesticide use ▪ Traffic impacts ▪ Hazardous waste ▪ Impaired waters ▪ Groundwater threats ▪ Particulates (at 2.5
parts per million)
▪ Children’s lead risk from
housing
▪ Cleanup sites
Population characteristics considered include:
▪ Asthma ▪ Cardiovascular disease ▪ Low birth weight
▪ Education ▪ Housing burden ▪ Linguistic isolation
▪ Poverty ▪ Unemployment
Overall, environmental scores in the City of Napa range from a lower-mid score of 69 to a low score of six. The lowest scores are concentrated in the northwest portion of town, which aligns with the highest income levels and concentrations of affluence. Six census tracts in the city have a CalEnviroScreen Pollution Burden score above 50 percent. These tracts are primarily located east of the Napa River but also include the southern Downtown Napa area.
The issues that contribute most to these high-ranking scores include proximity to solid waste, hazardous waste, and cleanup sites. Issues with a citywide median percentile score above 50 include the potential for groundwater threats and exposure to cleanup sites, hazardous waste, and toxic releases. Lead from housing scored more than 80 in several tracts. Air quality exposures were highest for diesel particulates, particulates over 2.5 parts per million, and traffic more generally. Population characteristics of concern were education, linguistic isolation, and housing burden.
The City of Napa has a Public Health and Equity Element of its recently adopted General Plan, which has important overlaps with ensuring environmental health as part of fair housing choice. The Public Health and Equity Element focuses in part on “reducing the effects of pollution and encouraging environmental sustainability,” “developing and supporting a comprehensive community food system,” and “promoting the development of high-quality, affordable housing.” The policies in this element are consistent with the Housing Element in identification of issues and policies to address such issues.
Figure C-8: CalEnviroScreen Composite Environmental Health Score Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (2021).
Figure C-9: TCAC Opportunity Area: Environmental Score
Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); TCAC Opportunity Areas Mapping Analysis (2021).
Generally, low resource opportunity areas identified in Figure C-1 overlap with areas of the city with the highest populations of non-White residents (Figure C-1), indicating a measure of unequal access to opportunity based on race or ethnicity. Likewise, there is overlap between low opportunity areas and areas of low- to medium-income populations (Figure C-5). There are no R/ECAPs in Napa to compare to opportunity areas, but racially concentrated areas of affluence (Figure C-9) align with higher opportunity areas generally. These patterns play out for each of the specific topics examined in this section (education, economic, health and environmental) with one exception: access to transportation.
Because lower income, racially diverse populations are clustered close to the center of Napa, access to transportation is more available for those populations.
Latinx residents have the least access to proficient schools in the City of Napa (Table C-3), though the overall range of school proficiency values for all racial and ethnic groups is fairly small. When narrowing in on just the population living below the poverty line, these disparities become more pronounced. White residents still have the highest access among all racial groups, with Black, Latinx, and Native American residents living below the poverty line lagging significantly. The most notable drop, however, is among Asian/Pacific Islander residents living below the poverty line, whose school proficiency value is less than half of what it is for the total population of Asians/Pacific Islanders.
Table C-3: School Proficiency Index by Racial Group for the City of Napa and Napa County Racial Group City of Napa Napa County
Total Population
White 35.03 47.23
Black 32.32 47.18
Latinx 27.12 37.17
Asian/Pacific Islander 33.24 50.42
Native American 31.57 43.6
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White 30.18 38.46
Black 23.11 33.72
Latinx 22.84 28.38
Asian/Pacific Islander 12.29 34.07
Native American 23.2 23.97
Source: Great Schools proficiency data, 2016-17.
Housing cost burden is defined as households paying more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing-related expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities. Those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Both homeowners and renters may be cost-burdened or severely cost-burdened. In Napa, homeowners are not as cost burdened as renters (Figure C-1 vs. Figure C-2).
In the City of Napa, the typical home value has increased by 138.1 percent from $319,050 to $759,760 since 2001. During this time, rents within the city increased between 20 and 50 percent in many areas. (City of Napa, 2019) The 2019 Fair Housing Forum confirmed these statistics, with one of the key takeaways being that rents have continued to rise, making it difficult to afford to live in Napa for even middle-class households.
While 20 to 40 percent of homeowners are cost-burdened throughout Napa, 40 to 60 percent of homeowners located in central Napa are cost-burdened. In almost the entire city, 40 to 60 percent of renters are cost-burdened while renters in census tracts in the northwest and southeast parts of the city are more than 60 percent cost-burdened. However, the southeast tracts of the city include the Napa State Hospital, and Napa Valley College, which likely accounts for some of the cost burdening in that area. Homeowners and renters are both burdened substantially, especially in the center of the city, despite good regional transportation and close proximity to jobs that often help reduce such burdens.
Latinx households face the highest percentage of severe cost burdens in Napa, but only by a small percentage (Table C-1). When considering family size, those households that are considered “nonfamily,” or a single occupant, are significantly more cost-burdened than other family sizes, likely because of the lack of dual incomes and the lack of social support for persons living alone.
The high cost-burden of housing is a primary issue for fair housing in Napa; policies to address this issue and contributing factors are discussed in Table C-2.
Figure C-1: Overpayment by Homeowners by Tract
Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); ACS (2015-2019)
Figure C-2: Overpayment by Renters by Tract
Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); ACS (2015-2019). Note: ACS defines overpayment as the percent of renter households for whom Gross Rent (contract rent plus tenant-paid utilities) is 30% or more of household income.
Table C-1: Severe Cost Burden (Renters and Homeowners Combined) No. of Households with
Severe Cost Burden
Total No. of
Households
% of Households with
Severe Cost Burden
Racial Group
White 3,030 19,452 16%
Black 31 170 17%
Latinx 1,350 7,538 18 %
Asian/Pacific Islander 117 698 16%
Native American 0 92 0%
Other, Non-Hispanic 80 494 16%
Total 4,608 28,444 16%
Household Type and Size
Family Households, <5 people 2,050 15,879 13%
Family Households, 5+ people 395 3,325 12%
Non-Family Households 2,163 9,240 23%
Total 4,608 28,444 16%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2012-2016.
Overcrowding of residential units, in which there is more than one person per room (>1.0 persons per room), can be a potential indicator that households are experiencing economic hardship and are struggling to afford housing. Much of the City of Napa includes areas that are on par with the rest of the state with about eight percent of households overcrowded, as shown in Figure C-3. Small portions of the downtown and central parts of Napa approach 20 percent overcrowded households. One central western census tract has over 20 percent overcrowding, which may be explained by a low residential population and the presence of the Napa State Hospital, and Napa Valley College which may skew calculations.
Figure C-3: Overcrowded Households by Tract
Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); California Health and Human Services (CHHS) (2021). NOTE “overcrowding” is more than one person per room (>1.0 persons per room). While the CHHS maintains some data on “severe overcrowding,” which is more than 1.5 persons per room, this data is not available for the City of Napa.
In both the City of Napa and Napa County, Latinx households have the highest instance of overcrowding and severe overcrowding (Table C-2 and Table C-3, respectively). Severe overcrowding is defined as more than one and one-half persons per room (>1.5 persons per room). The overall number of overcrowded and severely overcrowded households is consistent between Napa County and the city.
Table C-2: Overcrowding in City of Napa and Napa County Racial Group
City of Napa % Overcrowded
Households (#)
Napa County % Overcrowded
Households (#)
White 1% (19,446) 1% (33,557)
Black 0 1% (748)
Latinx 23% (7,539) 18% (11,591)
Asian/Pacific Islander 7% (639) 8% (2,741)
Multiple 1.3% (461) 7% (775)
Total 7% (28,356) 6% (49,494)
Source: California Health and Human Services (CHHS) (2011-2015) Overcrowding is more than one person per room (>1.0/room).
Table C-3: Severe Overcrowding in City of Napa and Napa County Racial Group
City of Napa % Severely
Overcrowded Households (#)
Napa County % Severely
Overcrowded Households (#)
White 0.7% (19,446) 0.6% (33,557)
Black 0% 0%
Latinx 6% (5,730) 5% (10,301)
Asian/Pacific Islander 3% (639) 3% (2,741)
Multiple 0% 0%
Total 2% (28,356) 2% (49,494)
Source: California Health and Human Services (CHHS) (2011-2015) Severe Overcrowding is more than 1.5 person per room (>1.5/room).
As home and rental prices increase in a community, renters living in substandard housing can rise.
The four HUD-designated severe housing problems include:
▪ Lacking complete kitchen facilities;
▪ Lacking complete plumbing facilities;
▪ A household is severely overcrowded; and
▪ A household is severely cost-burdened.
Households are considered to have a housing problem if they experience at least one of the above. The HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) calculates severe housing problems on a city-wide basis. In Napa, 20 to 40 percent of households experience at least one of the severe housing problems, as shown in Figure C-4.
Latinx households are more than twice as likely than White households to experience severe housing problems; over 37 percent of all Latinx households live with severe housing problems, compared to 17 percent of White households. See Table C-1. Almost one-quarter of Asian/Pacific Islander households also have severe housing problems.
In 2017, there were a total of 82 households in the City of Napa with incomplete plumbing facilities, representing 0.3 percent of households. This is compared to 0.2 percent of households lacking complete plumbing facilities in 2010. There were 506 households lacking complete kitchen facilities in 2017, compared to 275 households in 2010. This was a change from one percent of households in 2010 to 1.8 percent in 2017. (City of Napa, 2019)
Figure C-4: Percent of Households with Severe Housing Problems Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS 2021). Note: If any of the identified four severe housing problems are present (lacks complete kitchen, lacks complete plumbing, severely overcrowded, severely cost-burdened) then the household is counted in this dataset.
Table C-4: Households Experiencing Any of the Four Severe Housing Problems Racial Group
No. of Households with
Severe Problems
Total No. of
Households
% of Households with
Severe Problems
White 3,390 19,450 17.43%
Black 29 168 17.26%
Latinx 2,805 7,534 37.23%
Asian/Pacific Islander 163 698 23.35%
Native American 4 85 4.71%
Other, Non-Hispanic 110 494 22.27%
Total 6,505 28,445 22.87%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2012-2016.
As is described in the Housing Needs Assessment of the Community Profile, Appendix A, the 2020 Napa County point-in-time (PIT) count found 464 homeless persons countywide on January 24, 2020, with most of those individuals within the City of Napa, likely because it is the largest service provider for homeless resources in the county and is the largest city in the county with the most access to public transit. Of those persons, 65 percent were living unsheltered (e.g., on streets, in cars, or in encampments). In 2021, 759 individuals were served by the homeless system of care in shelter and housing projects. (Napa CoC, 2022, p. 15)
In 2018 and 2019, the Napa PIT count total remained relatively consistent with only some shifts among demographic groups and subpopulations. Most notably, the number of people reporting a serious mental illness increased 15 percent between the years and the number of transition-aged youth, those who are ages 18 to 24 years, increased to 25 from 16. In 2020, the PIT total increased 44 percent, in part due to changes in the way Napa conducts its count, resulting in a more comprehensive and accurate count that more closely aligns with system of care data. In total, 464 people were counted in sheltered and unsheltered living conditions in 2020 as compared to 322 in 2019, with continued increases in the number of people reporting chronically homeless status (40 percent increase) and serious mental illness (62 percent increase). The most significant increase in the 2020 Napa count was the increase of unsheltered individuals, representing a 102 percent increase from 2019. (Napa CoC, 2022) When respondents were asked what was keeping them from getting permanent housing during the 2020 PIT count, 72 percent said they cannot afford rent, 65 percent said they do not have enough income for housing, and 52 percent said there is no housing available. For those on fixed incomes or where a subsidy requires that the unit rent is at or below fair market rent, there are even fewer available units.
Many noted that, even for those with income or housing subsidies that could theoretically make rent more affordable, the highly competitive rental market makes it extremely difficult to exit homelessness.
In 2022, Napa County Continuum of Care, which is a consortium of agencies and nonprofits focused on services for the continuum of homeless needs, partnered with the city and Napa County to develop a new Strategic Plan to Address Homelessness.
Services available to people experiencing homelessness in Napa include:
▪ Prevention and referral services ▪ Emergency shelter
▪ Housing navigation ▪ Outreach and drop-in services
▪ Transitional housing ▪ Permanent supportive housing
▪ Rapid rehousing ▪ Care coordination and case management ▪ Healthcare ▪ Behavioral healthcare
▪ Housing dedicated to people experiencing
homelessness
▪ Employment services
▪ Criminal justice diversion and reentry
services
Emergency Shelters: Emergency shelters are allowed “by right,” or without a discretionary use permit, throughout the city and explicitly in the Public, Quasi-Public (PQ-P) Zoning District or as “community care facilities” in other districts according to the definition in city’s zoning code. New emergency shelters are subject to the same development standards as other development projects in the same zone. Figure C-5 shows the locations of four emergency shelters in Napa. These are concentrated primarily in the central, downtown core where there are public transit opportunities and other resources. The current emergency shelter capacity in the Napa community ranges from 140 to 200 beds, depending on the time of year. A 2019 point-in-time count found these shelters had between 40 and 60 percent occupancy, rates as shown in Figure C-6. Emergency shelters in Napa include:
▪ South Napa Shelter: Funded jointly by Napa County andthe City of Napa , operated by Adobe Services, a 102-bed facility for individuals aged 18 years or older that includes the South Napa Day Center. Day services include showers, mail delivery, laundry, lunch, medical clinic, social services, and housing navigation.
▪ Winter Shelter: Season-limited shelter funded by Napa County , operated by Adobe Services, a 5\0-bed facility at Napa Valley Expo for individuals aged 18 years or older. ▪ Rainbow House Family Shelter: Operated by Catholic Charites of the Diocese of Santa Rosa. ▪ NEWS Domestic Violence Shelter: Operated by Napa NEWS.
Abode Services provides regional housing and homelessness services in the Bay Area, including in Napa County and the City of Napa.
Transitional Housing: Regionally, there is a high rate of occupancy for transitional housing. Many surrounding counties, like Napa, do not have transitional housing available. Those that do, namely Solano and Sonoma Counties, had occupancy rates above 80 percent in the most recent point-in-time counts, as shown in Figure C-7.
Permanent Supportive Housing: The City of Napa is currently working with Burbank Housing and Abode Services to build Heritage House Apartments/Valle Verde Apartments, which will provide a combined 90 units of affordable multi-family housing, including 44 permanent supportive housing units for low-income families and formerly homeless individuals living with developmental or mental health disabilities The City of Napa is also working with the Burbank Housing and Abode Services to develop Valley Lodge, a 54 unit permanent supportive housing Project Homekey project.
Although the number of people served by the system has been growing, a gaps analysis completed by Napa County in 2020, based on 2019 data, suggests an ongoing need for subsidized, supportive housing options. The number of people who were identified in 2019 as needing rental assistance or supportive housing and services exceeded the availability of those resources, as shown in Table C-5.
The City of Napa also helps administer the Shelter Plus Care Program in partnership with the Napa County Continuum of Care. This is a rental assistance program available to homeless, disabled individuals. Shelter Plus Care requires supportive services be provided to the clients by a referring supportive service agency. The program is a component of the Napa County Continuum of Care Strategy for the Homeless and assists approximately 10 households at a time.
Table C-5: Remaining Need for Homelessness Services in Napa County Type of Assistance
Total No. Needing
Service
Total No. Receiving
Service Remaining Need
Rental Assistance 357 107 250
Permanent Supportive Housing 60 29 40
Outreach 174 129 45
Prevention/Diversion 60 16 44
Source: Napa Continuum of Care Strategic Plan to Address Homelessness at 24.
Figure C-5: Point-In-Time Count, Emergency Shelter Housing Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); HUD (2020).
Figure C-6: Point-In-Time Count, Percent Occupied Beds for Emergency Housing Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); HUD CoC Level (2019).
Figure C-7: Regional Percent of Occupied Beds for Transitional Housing Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); HUD CoC Level (2019).
Section C.6.4 discusses homelessness more broadly, but persons with a disability are particularly vulnerable to homelessness. In 2021, 64 percent of those served by the Napa system of care had some disabling condition, a rate 21 percent higher than the state average. The most frequently reported conditions include a psychiatric or emotional condition (73 percent), drug or alcohol abuse (62 percent), and post-traumatic stress disorder (51 percent). (Napa CoC, 2022, p. 35) Only 25 percent of households experiencing homelessness with a disabled person exited homelessness to permanent destinations, compared to 33 percent of other households. Those interviewed reported that their disability conditions often prevented them from obtaining stable housing. This is a testament to the challenge those with disabilities face to find affordable permanent housing. (Id. p. 27)
As the Napa Continuum of Care reports, even though many homeless and formerly homeless individuals are eligible for Medi-Cal-funded in-home supportive services (IHSS) that could assist with basic care, there are not enough IHSS workers in Napa to meet community demands. County-funded residential program beds for those with serious mental illness are assigned through a different process.
Napa Continuum of Care identifies opportunities for increased system-level coordination to help streamline and synergize these processes.
Loss of affordable housing has long been a contributing factor to fair housing issues in Napa and can lead to the displacement of low-income populations. The City of Napa was for many decades a “haven” of affordability when contrasted with the rest of Napa County. However, rents and home prices have continued to rise, creating potential displacement of lower and even middle-income households. In the City of Napa, rental costs have nearly doubled since 2009. The 2019 Fair Housing Forum confirmed this trend; attendees pointed out that even middle-class households are unable to afford home prices in Napa.
Affordable housing stock can be lost when federal subsidies or regulatory agreements expire or when owners opt out of a government-subsidized program or elect to convert their properties to market rate housing. Access to affordable housing can also diminish because of increasing housing costs, which leads to the displacement of middle- and low-income residents who are no longer able to afford housing in the area.
The California Housing Partnership provides a catalogue of subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market rate. These properties are then categorized by severity of risk. According to the organization’s most recent report, from 1997 to 2021, more than 20,000 housing units lost their affordable status in California. Napa County does not have any affordable units facing high or extremely high risks of loss; however, 84 of its 1,586 affordable units are at moderate risk of loss. (California Housing Partnership, 2022)
The University of California at Berkley’s (UC Berkley) Urban Displacement Project ranks the sensitivity of communities to displacement. The majority of Napa’s population lives in areas experiencing some level of gentrification, primarily as a result of rising housing costs and increased redevelopment, as shown in Figure C-8. While some areas of the city are categorized as stable with moderate incomes, these areas on the northern edges of Napa consist of higher-income populations. Areas of Napa’s core downtown, into the southwestern neighborhoods and a Census tract north of downtown, are experiencing advanced gentrification while the majority of central Napa is currently facing displacement to some degree.
While the City of Napa contains the only areas in Napa County sensitive to displacement, Figure C-9 also shows significant sensitivity to displacement in Sonoma and Solano Counties, especially in areas near cities such as Vallejo.
Lower income households may also be displaced through natural disasters. Fires in Napa County in October of 2017 had a detrimental impact on the availability and cost of housing in Napa. While the impact of the fires has not yet been realized in much of the data presented in this study, city officials assert that there has been increased pressure on the housing stock in Napa and assume that more households than indicated are facing housing problems, pushing many households out of the Napa housing market.
Napa County had over $1.2 billion in insurance claims following the destructive fires in 2017. (HCD, 2019) In addition, Napa reported that low-income workers were disproportionately impacted by wage losses due to existing financial burdens and lack of reserves. (Id.) This will continue to have a severe impact on housing access in Napa, especially for lower income households with fewer resources. Napa recently updated its Hazard Mitigation Plan, which in part focuses on mitigating wildfire impacts on the residents of Napa.
The City of Napa is, without a doubt, impacted by displacement as housing costs rise. In this Housing Element, the City has instituted policies to address displacement which are summarized in Table C-2.
Figure C-8: Napa Communities Sensitive to Displacement and Gentrification Source: Urban Displacement Project (2018).
Figure C-9: Regional Communities Sensitive to Displacement Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); Urban Displacement Project (2017).
NOTE: Communities were designated sensitive if they currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as 1) above 20% very low-income residents and 2) the tract meets two of the following criteria: a) share of renters above 70%; b) share of people of color is above 50%; 3) share over very-low income households that are severely rent burdened is above the county median; or 4) the area or those in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures. Displacement pressure is defined as either a percent change in rent above the county median for rent increases or the different between the tract median rent and the median rent for surrounding tracts is above the median for all tracts in the county.
Homeownership is a powerful vehicle for counteracting rising housing prices and the effects of gentrification and displacement, especially for lower income households. The lowest rates of homeownership in the City of Napa are among Black and Native American households. Approximately one-quarter of these populations occupy homes they also own, leaving them most vulnerable to displacement. Slightly more than one-half of White households, and one-third of Latinx and Asian/Pacific Islander households, own their homes.
Approximately 60 to 80 percent of residents reside in rental units within the central downtown core of Napa and the southeastern portion of the city that includes the college, and state hospital, as shown in Figure C-1. In most of the remainder of the city, renters comprise between 40 and 60 percent of households.
The City of Napa currently runs a First Time Homebuyers Program, which offers down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers funded by grants received from HCD. The program assists an average of eight families per year.
Table C-1: Owner-Occupied Units by Racial Group
Racial Group
City of Napa % of Population in
Owner-Occupied Units (no. of persons)
Napa County % of Population in
Owner-Occupied Units (no. of persons)
White 52% (34,062) 56% (22,179)
Latinx 33% (3,148) 25% (1,877)
Black 26% (1,970) 20% (2,478)
Native American 27% (107) N/A
Asian/Pacific Islander 33% (2,723) 36% (1,286)
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2012-2016.
Figure C-1: Percent of Households in Renter-Occupied Housing Units Source: HCD AFFH Mapping Tool (2022); ACS (2012-2016).
Patterns of inequality in receiving home mortgage loans continue to persist both nationally and in the City of Napa. Residents cited access to credit as a significant barrier to accessing housing. During public outreach, respondents in the public forum and via the community survey confirmed that the private sector is a significant barrier to housing affordability, including the rental housing market, the real estate industry, and the mortgage and home lending industry. More specifically, attendees at the public forum cited access to credit as an overarching barrier to affordability.
Data collected under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) confirms racial and ethnic disparities in denial rates. Nationally, in 2019, loan applicants of color were 40 to 80 percent more likely to be denied than White counterparts. (Martinez, 2021) In some metro areas, the disparity was greater than 250 percent. Since 2017, data collected by HMDA began to include financial factors that led to loan denials. Studies have shown those metrics did not fully explain the racial and ethnic disparities in lending denials, and newer metrics revealed that lenders gave fewer loans to Black applicants than White applicants, even when all applicants’ incomes were $100,000 or more. (Id.) Loan denial rates for Napa, available in HMDA’s most current data package from 2008 to 2017, also show higher loan denial rates for applicants of color across the board when compared to White applicants (Table C-2). Similarly, Latinx applicants are seven percent more likely to be denied for a loan than nonLatinx applicants. Remarkably, 95 percent of loan denials for those applicants identifying as Latinx are denied because of missing application materials, suggesting a lack of education and financial expertise and an unwillingness within the mortgage lending community to support Latinx applicants (Table C3). In contrast, loan denials by gender do not indicate any significant disparities (Table C-5).
Disparities in loan denial rates is a high priority issue affecting fair housing in Napa, and policies to address these issues are included in Table C-2.
Table C-2: Loan Denial Rates by Racial Group of Applicant (2008-2017) Racial Group 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average Native American 100% 100% N/A N/A 75% 33% 0% N/A 0% 0% 33% Asian 0% 0% 55% 0% 21% 10% 10% 9% 29% 9% 16%
Black N/A N/A N/A N/A 40% 0% 0% 75% 0% 0% 21%
Pacific Islander N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 0% 20% 17% 12% White 15% 15% 17% 13% 18% 11% 12% 11% 8% 8% 12%
Not Available 26% 21% 19% 17% 12% 20% 15% 10% 11% 8% 14% Not Applicable N/A N/A N/A 0% N/A 0% 0% 0% N/A 0% 0%
Average 17% 15% 19% 13% 18% 12% 12% 11% 9% 8% 12%
Hispanic 38% 27% 22% 25% 32% 12% 15% 18% 11% 7% 18%
Non-Hispanic 12% 14% 17% 10% 16% 11% 11% 10% 8% 8% 11%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Dataset; City of Napa Analysis of Impediments (2019).
Table C-3: Loan Application Reason for Denial by Racial Group of Applicant (2008-2017) Denial Reason
Native
American Asian Black
Pacific
Islander White
Not
Available
Not
Applicable Total
Hispanic
(Ethnicity)
Debt-to-Income Ratio 1 6 2 0 101 20 0 130 1
Credit Application
Incomplete 1 3 2 1 79 8 0 94 1
Credit History 1 3 0 0 75 8 0 87 1
Other 1 2 0 1 71 6 0 81 1
Collateral 1 6 0 0 56 12 0 75 1
Missing 0 2 1 0 61 8 0 72 124
Unverifiable
Information 0 2 0 0 25 3 0 30 0
Insufficient Cash 1 0 0 0 17 1 0 19 1
Employment History 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 10 0
Mortgage Insurance
Denied 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0
Total 6 24 5 2 495 68 0 600 130
% Denied for “Missing” 0% 8% 20% 0% 12% 12% N/A 12% 95% Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Dataset; City of Napa Analysis of Impediments (2019).
Table C-4: Loan Application Action by Gender of Applicant (2008-2017) Gender 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Male Originated 85 105 92 97 383 419 349 402 400 390 2722 Denied 20 14 19 17 91 59 48 53 37 28 386
Denial Rate 19% 12% 17% 15% 19% 12% 12% 12% 9% 7% 12%
Female Originated 46 52 55 59 171 175 183 187 213 209 1350 Denied 5 14 16 7 35 15 21 20 19 25 177
Denial Rate 10% 21% 23% 11% 17% 8% 10% 10% 8% 11% 12%
Not
Available Originated 5 9 7 6 33 31 13 39 34 43 220
Denied 2 2 1 0 5 9 2 8 6 2 37
Denial Rate 29% 18% 13% 0% 13% 23% 13% 17% 15% 4% 14%
Not
Applicable Originated 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 2 8
Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Denial Rate N/A N/A N/A 0% % 0% 0% 0% N/A 0% 0%
Total Originated 136 166 154 163 587 626 547 630 647 644 4300 Denied 27 30 36 24 131 83 71 81 62 55 600
Denial Rate 17% 15% 19% 13% 18% 12% 12% 11% 9% 8% 12%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Dataset; City of Napa Analysis of Impediments (2019).
Table C-5: Loan Denial Rates by Income of Applicant
Income 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total $30,000 or
Below N/A 33% 50% 25% 53% 59% 21% 25% 40% 17% 40%
$30,001–
$50,000 33% 6% 12% 8% 32% 20% 24% 15% 33% 36% 23%
$50,001–
$75,000 14% 16% 19% 8% 20% 13% 7% 16% 17% 18% 16%
$75,001–
$100,000 21% 18% 26% 17% 17% 7% 14% 11% 7% 5% 12%
$100,001–
$150,000 16% 8% 24% 19% 14% 12% 12% 11% 9% 9% 11%
Above
$150,000 12% 18% 9% 11% 7% 7% 10% 10% 5% 4% 8%
Data
Missing N/A 10% 0% N/A 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 13%
Average 17% 15% 19% 13% 18% 12% 12% 11% 9% 8% 12%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Dataset; City of Napa Analysis of Impediments (2019).
Historically, land use and zoning practices served to enshrine segregation and limit housing choice for persons of color across the nation. In the 1930’s, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation "graded" neighborhoods into four categories, based primarily on their racial makeup. Neighborhoods with minority occupants were marked in red and considered high-risk for mortgage lenders, hence the term “redlining” for this practice. (Domonoske, 2016)
Municipal codes can still contain regulations that limit fair housing choice. For example, codes may contain restrictive definitions of dwelling unit, disability, and family. Simply using the term “family” to describe those persons sharing a dwelling unit can be limiting, as can including a strict definition of family or limiting the number of people in family. In the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Napa, the definition of dwelling unit does not contain the phrase for “for one family” or mention use by a family.
Additionally, the definition of family falls under the term household and does not limit the number of persons, nor does it include the phrase “related by blood, marriage, or adoption.” (City of Napa, 2019, p. 104)
The City of Napa encourages the development of mixed-use and affordable housing through the Affordable Housing Overlay District and density bonus provisions. The city’s General Plan also encourages the creation of sustainable, inclusive, and mixed-use communities, especially in downtown and in infill locations. Napa Municipal Code Chapter 17.65 allows for persons with disabilities to request reasonable accommodations, including modifications or waivers of the City’s zoning regulations, in order to eliminate barriers to housing opportunities, which is distinct from the City’s standard variance process. Group homes are permitted in residential areas, and housing designated for seniors is allowed to have lower on-site parking space requirements as long as the facility is located near services, shopping, and public transportation or provides shuttle services.
Furthermore, the City hasa policy in place to affirmatively further fair housing along with following the state and federal guidelines for a fair housing ordinance.
The 2019 Napa Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice similarly found no barriers to fair housing choice in the City of Napa’s Municipal Code.
Public support for fair and affordable housing is a key factor in fair housing choice. The City of Napa administers programs to increase and preserve affordability and housing choice in Napa.
Additionally, subsidized housing continues to play an important role in housing choice.
There are a variety of types and locations of subsidized housing units within the city. According to HCD’s AFFH data as of October 2021, there were 1,616 total subsidized housing units in the city with 1,472 of those considered affordable. These units are subsidized through HUD, the California Fair Housing Agency, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, and some HCD funding. These subsidized units are shown geographically in Figure C-2. Publicly supported housing is an important piece in furthering fair housing, and the City of Napa continues to prioritize investments in these types of projects; policies to further publicly supported housing are included in Table C-2.
The City continues to fund affordable housing developments through programs to increase and preserve affordable housing in the city. The following are examples of programs the City of Napa oversees:
▪ Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, which provide rental assistance to approximately 1,100 households a year.
▪ First Time Home Buyers Program, which provides Down Payment Assistance to first-time homebuyers to purchase their first home.
▪ Housing Rehabilitation programs, which provide loans to rehabilitate homes for lowincome households. ▪ Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund, which contains impact fees paid both by residential and commercial development in Napa to mitigate the impacts that development projects have on the need for affordable housing. The fund is then used by the City to create additional affordable housing in the City of Napa by providing low interest loans to developers for the creation of affordable housing and leveraging funding from other sources.
▪ Land Banking Program, which allows the City of Napa to purchase land for development of future affordable housing.
▪ Transient Occupancy Special Tax (TOT) for Affordable and Workforce Housing, which is levied on transient lodging (e.g., hotel) visitors and funds the development of affordable and workforce housing.
▪ , to encourage the creation of junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) and conversion ADUs. JADUs are separate units carved out from one or more bedrooms in a single-family home and conversion ADUs are created from the conversion of an accessory structure, including a garage, into an ADU. The City provides financing in the form of forgivable and deferred loans to homeowners who create JADUs or conversion ADUs through this program and agree to rent either the accessory unit or the primary unit at affordable rents to low income households.
▪ CDBG Nonprofit Capital Improvement Program, which provides CDBG funding and project oversight to local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to rehabilitate facilities and housing units that serve low-income households.
The City continues to support and provide funding for Fair Housing Napa Valley. The Housing Authority of the City of Napa continues to operate the Laurel Manor Senior Rental Complex, with 50 units for low-income seniors.
Figure C-2: Subsidized Housing
Source: CHPC (2021).
Government Code Section 65583(c)(10) requires the sites analysis to be analyzed with respect to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) to ensure that affordable housing is dispersed equitably throughout the city rather than concentrated in areas of high segregation and poverty or low resource areas that have historically been underserved. First, this assessment examines publicly supported housing in relation to race/ethnicity and, second, compares the sites inventory to the fair housing indicators. These analyses determine whether the City’s future selected sites included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element improve or exacerbate fair housing conditions, patterns of segregation, and access to opportunity throughout the city.
The geographic distribution of existing publicly supported housing is an important factor in examining fair housing choice and patterns of segregation by income and race/ethnicity. Figure C-1 shows information provided by HUD on the location of publicly supported housing in and around the City of Napa relative to areas where residents of different races and ethnicities live. The icons represent different types of publicly supported housing, including:
▪ Blue icons, which indicate housing that is owned and operated by a public housing authority. ▪ Orange icons, which represent housing units that participate in the Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs)/Section 8 program.
▪ Purple icons, which represent Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program developments. ▪ Green icons, which show other types of publicly supported rental housing.
Throughout the City of Napa, units of publicly supported housing are relatively evenly distributed.
However, there are some areas of concentrated Housing Choice Voucher holders around the periphery of the city, with lower concentrations in the center. There is no consistent pattern to the racial and ethnic demographics of Census tracts with concentrated voucher usage, as they include both predominantly White and predominantly Latinx areas.
In Napa County, all categories of publicly supported housing are concentrated in the City of Napa, which is more heavily Latinx than the county as a whole. Additionally, there are smaller concentrations of LIHTC developments in Calistoga and St. Helena, areas that have similar demographics to the county.
In general, St. Helena is more heavily White and less heavily Latinx than the rest of Napa County, but publicly supported housing in St. Helena is concentrated in the most heavily Latinx part of town.
Figure C-1: Location of Publicly Supported Housing by Program, City of Napa Figure C-2: Location of Publicly Supported Housing by Program, Regional The demographics of publicly supported housing in the City of Napa are very similar to those for Napa County. Latinx households are more likely to reside in project-based Section 8 housing while White households are more likely to live in other multi-family housing or to utilize Housing Choice Vouchers.
Unlike at the county level, Black households are not disproportionately likely to use vouchers, which suggests that voucher utilization by Black households in Napa County is concentrated outside of the City of Napa. See Table C-1 and Table C-2 for total units and demographics for publicly supported housing in the City of Napa.
Table C-1: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category Housing Unit Programs No. of Units % of Total Units
Total Housing Units 29,810 100%
Public Housing N/A N/A
Project-Based Section 8 246 0.83%
Other Multifamily 83 0.28%
HCV Program 1,041 3.49%
Sources: Inventory Management System (IMS)/ PIH Information Center (PIC), 2019; Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS), 2019.
Table C-2: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics
City of Napa White Black Latinx
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Housing Type No. % No. % No. % No. %
Total Households 19,450 68.38% 168 0.59% 7,534 26.49% 698 2.45% Public Housing N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Project-Based Section 8 97 45.75% 4 1.89% 99 46.70% 6 2.83% Other Multifamily 44 57.14% 1 1.30% 29 37.66% 3 3.90%
HCV Program 541 65.20% 16 1.87% 249 30.06% 11 1.35%
0-30% of AMI 2,085 64.55% 55 1.70% 949 29.38% 100 3.10% 0-50% of AMI 3,915 56.99% 55 0.80% 2,539 36.96% 224 3.26% 0-80% of AMI 6,765 58.07% 98 0.84% 4,299 36.90% 314 2.70% Sources: Inventory Management System (IMS)/ PIH Information Center (PIC), 2019; Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS), 2019.
This section evaluates whether sites planned for future development in the City of Napa’s housing sites inventory could further impact patterns of residential segregation based on race and ethnicity or income. As previously discussed, approximately half the city’s population is White, while 40 percent of the population is Latinx. Less than 10 percent of the population is Asian/Pacific Islander or of other racial groups.
Most of the available lower income sites identified in the Housing Element are spread evenly across the city. Lower income capacity is identified as being evenly distributed among Census tracts with both Latinx (Hispanic) and White predominance (Figure C-3 and Figure C-4. Although only 22.9 percent of the land area in the city is occupied by predominately Latinx populations (Figure C-3), 49.8 percent of the low income sites inventory is located within these areas. The city concludes that the inventory is well dispersed among areas of racial predominance and segregation. However, the distribution of lower income sites could continue the settlement trends of low- to moderate-income households.
Figure C-5 and Figure C-6 show that lower income sites tend to be located in areas with lower median incomes. Similarly, above moderate-income sites identified in the Housing Element could continue patterns of affluence, specifically in single-family residential communities. As shown in Figure C-5 and Figure C-6, 62 percent of the above moderate income site capacity is located in areas identified as having median incomes higher than the State Median Income of $100,000.
Figure C-3: City Land Area and Site Inventory Income Level Units by Racial Predominance
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Hispanic
Predominance
White
Predominance Asian
City Area 22.8% 77.2% 0.0%
Low Income Units 54.0% 46.0% 0.0%
Moderate Income Units 39.0% 61.0% 0.0%
Above-Moderate Units 55.7% 44.3% 0.0%
Racial Predominance
City Land Area (% Total) and
Income Unit Distribution
(% within class)
by Racial Predominance
Figure C-4: Site Inventory Distribution by Racial Predominance Figure C-5: City Land Area and Site Inventory Income Level Units by Income Levels 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
<$40,000 $40-60,000 $60-80,000 $80-100,000 >$100000
City Area 6% 11% 28% 17% 38%
Low Income Units 3% 29% 26% 24% 17%
Moderate Income Units 0% 4% 8% 71% 17%
Above-Moderate Units 0% 10% 18% 10% 62%
Median Income
City Land Area (% Total) and
Income Unit Distribution (% within class)
by Median Income
Figure C-6: Site Inventory Distribution by Household Income As the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps shown in Figure C-7 indicate, 49 percent of the City of Napa’s land area is classified as low resource or as areas of high segregation and poverty, and there are currently many affordable housing projects that are located in these areas because they are undeveloped and lack amenities. However, these projects are planned to include a variety of new amenities for residents and, once built, will be considered high resource areas.
The Housing Element sites inventory shows a total capacity for 3,529 housing units, including projects for which a development application has been submitted or entitlements have been approved (i.e., pipeline units), vacant and underutilized sites, and ADUs. Figure C-7 displays the percentage of the capacity for all sites in the inventory by income level within the various TCAC opportunity areas in comparison to the total city land area within each TCAC area. Figure C-8 shows the location of projects and sites in relation to the opportunity areas.
Due to the high proportion of the city’s land area being located in low resource areas or areas of high segregation and poverty, there is significantly higher capacity for housing units in these areas.
Approximately 67 percent of the total lower income capacity and 84 percent of the above moderate income capacity are estimated to be within these areas compared to 49 percent of the land area within city limits. While this ratio is disproportionate, it is due to the larger capacity for high density housing near the center of the city where densities are higher. However, the capacity for all sites is distributed within high or low resource areas in relatively the same proportion as the total land area within the city limits. As shown in Figure C-7, four percent of the area within city limits is classified as high resource or highest resource and zero percent of the housing capacity is within these areas. The reason for this is that moderate resource areas, such as the Browns Valley neighborhood, tend to be stable single-family neighborhoods with very limited available land for larger affordable housing developments (see Figure C-2 for a map of neighborhoods). Therefore, there are limited opportunities to rezone large sites in moderate to high resource areas.
The City of Napa has included strategies in the Housing Element to diversify the housing stock and allow smaller-scale, more affordable housing dispersed throughout the city to address disproportionate access to opportunity and patterns of segregation. Additionally, the City has included policies and programs to direct investments to low resource areas and areas of concentrated poverty to improve the amenities available for residents (Programs H2-2.3, H3-2.1, H4-2.1, H4-2.3, H4-4.1). The City also plans to take actions to increase capacity for housing in high resource areas (Programs H2-2.3, H2-2.4, and H5-2.3). The solution is not to limit the potential for affordable housing in areas of high segregation and poverty, but to identify additional opportunities for affordable housing in moderate to high resource areas.
Figure C-7: City Land and Site Inventory Income Levels Distributed by TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
No Data Low Resource Moderate
Resource High Resource HighestResource
City Area 6% 48% 43% 0% 4%
Low Income Units 3% 69% 28% 0% 0%
Moderate Income Units 0% 75% 25% 0% 0%
Above-Moderate Units 0% 84% 16% 0% 0%
TCAC OpportunityAreas
City Land Area (% Total) and
Income Unit Distribution (% within class)
by Opportunity Area
Figure C-8: Site Inventory Distribution by TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas As discussed previously, renters are disproportionately affected by housing needs, including overpayment, overcrowding, and displacement risk. Future development has the potential to exacerbate cost-burden for Napa residents. The greatest challenge over the Housing Element planning period will be that of residential displacement and the disproportionate risk facing Latinx households.
Using data from the UC Berkeley Displacement Project, as of 2021, approximately 53 percent of the land area in city limits is experiencing advanced gentrification or considered vulnerable to displacement primarily due to increases in rents in recent years (Figure C-8). There is a consistent pattern of lowincome families who are disproportionately Latinx being priced out of neighborhoods, and with the demand for luxury apartments and limited funding for affordable housing development, it is likely that new above moderate-income development in areas already at-risk of displacement will result in higher rents, an inability for residents to pay, and the eventual displacement of those residents. Because of this threat, it is important to provide affordable housing in these at-risk areas to reduce the potential for displacement of lower income residents and to implement other strategies to prevent displacement.
Approximately 14 percent of the above moderate income site capacity is distributed in areas vulnerable to displacement (Figure C-9). As shown in Figure C-10, the capacities for moderate and above moderate sites are mostly scattered throughout the Alta, Linda Vista, Vintage and Terrace/Shurtliff, neighborhoods (see Figure C-2 for a map of neighborhoods). While this has the potential to add to the intensity of the issue in these areas, 52 percent of the lower income site capacity is identified in areas in stable moderate / mixed income areas. This has a greater potential to protect vulnerable residents from being displaced under changing market pressures.
The City of Napa has included several programs to protect vulnerable residents from displacement, including developing neighborhood specific anti-displacement strategies and prioritizing affordable housing financing in areas at risk of gentrification (see Programs listed under Goal H5, Section 5 of the Housing Element).
Figure C-9: City Land and Site Inventory Income Levels Distributed by Displacement and Gentrification 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Advanced
Gentrificati
on
At Risk of
Gentrificati
on
Ongoing
Displaceme
nt
Susceptible
to
Displaceme
nt
Becoming
Exclusive
Stable
Moderate/
Mixed
Income
Stable/
Advanced
Exclusive
City Area 23% 6% 4% 19% 4% 44% 0%
Low Income Units 25% 3% 0% 25% 0% 48% 0%
Moderate Income Units 8% 0% 5% 4% 0% 84% 0%
Above-Moderate Units 24% 0% 3% 14% 0% 58% 0%
Displacement Risk
City Land Area (% Total) and
Income Unit Distribution (% within class)
by Displacement Risk
Figure C-10: Site Inventory Distribution by Displacement and Gentrification This Fair Housing Assessment explores a range of potential issues that impact fair housing regionally and in the City of Napa. Some of these issues more clearly influence housing fairness in the city, especially when the data collected herein is paired with local input and perceptions.
Table C-1 breaks down fair housing issues by geographic location within the city limits, including the four quadrants of North, West, Central, and South East (Figure C-3). Visual representations of the site inventory distribution across these quadrants are provided for primary fair housing issues in Section SECTION C.8, including Figure C-4: Site Inventory Distribution by Racial Predominance; Figure C-6: Site Inventory Distribution by Household Income; Figure C-8: Site Inventory Distribution by TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas; and Figure C-10: Site Inventory Distribution by Displacement and Gentrification.
North Quadrant
The City of Napa’s North Quadrant, consisting of the Linda Vista and Vintage neighborhoods, contains the smallest portion of the site inventory at 11 percent (349 units), as well as the smallest portion of land area in the city (19 percent). The sites within this quadrant are in a Moderate Resource area (Figure C8) with a predominantly White population (Figure C-4). Although some of the sites are located in an area of lower income that is susceptible to displacement, overall, the quadrant hosts a mix of income levels, and the sites are well-distributed among income levels between $40,000 and over $100,000 (Figure C-7). The North Quadrant has moderate-to-high access to educational opportunities compared to other areas of the city (Figure C-3) and has about the same level of economic access as other quadrants, if slightly higher (Figure C-4), but scores lower on jobs proximity (Figure C-5). However, considering the positive environmental ratings for this quadrant (Figure C-9) and that most of its portion of the site inventory is located within a quarter-mile of a bus stop and experiences lower transportation costs (Figure C-7 and Figure C-6), this quadrant is a good location for future affordable housing units.
West Quadrant
Napa’s West Quadrant consists of the Browns Valley, Pueblo, and Westwood neighborhoods and contains 19 percent of the site inventory (595 units). The population in this quadrant is predominantly White and, consequently, most sites are located in predominantly White neighborhoods (Figure C-4).
Though there is a large area of higher-income households, the quadrant is generally made up of a mix of income groups, and the assumed income levels of its housing sites are close to evenly split between low and above moderate located in existing areas of household income levels exceeding $60,000 (Figure C-6). The displacement risk rating for the neighborhoods where sites are located include susceptible low-income for 123 units in the inventory, stable moderate/mixed-income for 198 units, and advanced gentrification for 274 units (Figure C-10).
Some sites in the West Quadrant are in a Moderate Resource area, but more are located in an area of Low Resource (Figure C-8). Access to educational opportunities ranges from low-to-high (Figure C-3), and it has about the same level of economic access as other quadrants, if slightly higher (Figure C-4).
The quadrant scores lower on jobs proximity (Figure C-5); however, the majority of sites are located within a quarter-mile of a bus stop and much of the area experiences lower transportation costs (Figure C-7 and Figure C-6). In addition, the West Quadrant sees the most positive environmental outcomes city-wide (Figure C-9), making it a good location for future affordable housing.
Central Quadrant
The Central Quadrant in Napa consists of the Central Napa and Beard neighborhoods and contains 22 percent of the site inventory (682 units). The population in this quadrant is relatively evenly split between areas with Hispanic/Latinx and White majorities, and the locations of inventory sites are closely matched to the overall racial predominance with a slightly higher number in White majority areas (Figure C-4). The quadrant hosts a mix of household income groups, and its portion of sites are distributed among areas of income levels between $40,000 and $100,000 (Figure C-7). Inventory sites are mostly located in areas of either advanced gentrification (333 units) or low-income susceptible to displacement (285 units), with few in the one area of ongoing displacement (64 units) (Figure C-10).
Protections from further displacement in this quadrant, as well as other areas of the city, will be implemented through multiple Housing Element Programs under Goal H5, Protect Community from Displacement.
The majority of sites within the Central Quadrant are located in a Low Resource area while there a few within an area of Moderate Resource (Figure C-8). Environmental outcomes in the quadrant are mostly moderate with a small area of higher outcomes in the northeast portion where there are several inventory sites (Figure C-9). Access to educational opportunities in the quadrant is low-to-moderate compared to other areas of the city (Figure C-3), and access to economic opportunities is about the same as other quadrants, if slightly lower (Figure C-4). However, the Central Quadrant scores high on jobs proximity (Figure C-5), experiences low transportation costs (Figure C-6), and all of its portion of the site inventory is located within a quarter-mile of a bus stop (Figure C-7), making this quadrant is a good location for future affordable housing units.
South East Quadrant
The city’s South East Quadrant consists of the Alta Heights, Soscol, Terrace/Shurtliff, River East, and Stanly Ranch neighborhoods and contains the largest portion of the site inventory at 48 percent (1,525 units) and also the largest land area of the four quadrants (33 percent of the city). This quadrant is an outlier compared to the rest of the City of Napa, which is explained by two characteristics: 1) its very low population, and 2) being the location of the Napa State Hospital. As such, there is a disproportionately large population of persons with a disability in this area, including Census Tract No. 00900 with 40 to 100 percent of the population living with a disability (Figure C-10), and a higher rate of poverty than the rest of the city (Figure C-4). However, the quadrant is, overall, considered moderate/mixed income and stable against displacement risk, and the majority of sites in the inventory fall into these locations (Figure C-10). The quadrant’s portion of the inventory is also mostly located in areas of higher income and includes a significant number of sites for both low- and above moderate-income households (Figure C-7).
Although the site inventory city-wide is almost evenly split between areas of Hispanic/Latinx and White predominance, the South East’s portion of sites are located primarily in areas with majority Hispanic/Latinx populations (Figure C-4). This is partially explained by the overall population mix in the city being approximately 50 percent White and 40 percent Latinx and by this quadrant containing the most land area and inventory sites, but it also speaks to historic patterns of segregation in Napa (see Section C.3.2). The City of Napa recognizes these patterns and has embraced its role in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, resulting in slow but positive changes over the past decade (Figure C2).
A few inventory sites in the South East Quadrant are located in a Moderate Resource area, but most are in an area of Low Resource (Figure C-8), and access to both educational and economic opportunities scores low (Figure C-3 and Figure C-4). Even so, a significant portion of the quadrant has a high or very high jobs proximity rating, including many of its inventory sites (Figure C-5). In addition, the majority of this quadrant’s sites, especially those intended to develop for lower-income housing, are located within a quarter-mile of a bus stop and much of the area experiences lower transportation costs (Figure C-7 and Figure C-6). Although roughly half of the land area in this quadrant rates low for environmental outcomes, the rest is rated moderate and there is also a small area rated high (Figure C-9). The Census Tract containing the Napa State Hospital is not rated, but the South East, overall, has a good CalEnviroScreen composite environmental health score (Figure C-8). Considering the balance of these factors and the Housing Element Programs that aim to increase community investment in this quadrant, such as Program H4-4.2, the South East is, and will continue to be, a good location for future affordable housing.
Table C-1: Summary of Fair Housing Issues by City Quadrant North West Central South East Total
count % count % count % count % count %
Total Site Inventory Units 349 11% 595 19% 682 22% 1,525 48% 3,151 100% Site Inventory Income Level Units
Lower 97 3% 251 8% 296 9% 474 15% 1,118 35%
Moderate 86 3% 1 0% 55 2% 204 6% 346 11%
Above Moderate 166 5% 343 11% 331 11% 847 27% 1,687 54% Racial Predominance (site inventory
units within category)
Hispanic Predominance 0 0% 111 4% 292 9% 1,276 40% 1,679 53% White Predominance 349 11% 484 15% 390 12% 249 8% 1,472 47% Median Income (site inventory units
within category)
<$40,000 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 35 1% 35 1%
$40-60,000 123 4% 0 0% 250 8% 135 4% 508 16%
$60-80,000 0 0% 200 6% 351 11% 70 2% 621 20%
$80-100,000 144 5% 72 2% 81 3% 387 12% 684 22%
>$100000 82 3% 323 10% 0 0% 898 28% 1,303 41%
TCAC Opportunity Areas (site
inventory units within category)
Low Resource 0 0% 385 12% 565 18% 1,490 47% 2,440 77%
Missing/Insufficient Data 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 35 1% 35 1%
Moderate Resource 349 11% 210 7% 117 4% 0 0% 676 21%
Displacement Risk (site inventory
units within category)
Advanced Gentrification 0 0% 274 38% 333 11% 107 3% 714 23% At Risk of Gentrification 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 35 1% 35 1%
Low-Inc./Susc. to Displacement 123 4% 123 23% 285 9% 0 0% 531 17% Ongoing Displacement 0 0% 0 0% 64 2% 0 0% 64 2%
Stable Moderate/Mixed Income 226 7% 198 11% 0 0% 1,383 44% 1,807 57% Table C-2 presents priority fair housing issues for Napa, identifies primary factors contributing to housing fairness issues in the city (“contributing factors”), and cross-references policies in this Housing Element to address each issue and contributing factor pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(v). A contributing factor is a factor that creates, contributes to, perpetuates, or increases the severity of one or more fair housing issue. Contributing factors in this section are prioritized based on those that most limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance. (HCD, 2021) Prioritized contributing factors are bolded.
Each policy referenced in this section includes targets and timelines which are incorporated herein by reference.
Table C-2: Factors that Contribute to Fair Housing Issues AFFH Identified
Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factor Meaningful Action(s)
Issue 1:
Segregation with
persons of color and
lower-income
residents centered
in downtown,
central, and south
east areas of city
A. Moderate levels of income and racial
segregation.
H2-2.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
B. Disproportionate presence of Hispanicidentifying persons in low-resource areas.
H2-2.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
C. Past practices of nationwide redlining. H2-4.1, H2-4.2 D. Discriminatory patterns in lending. H2-4.1, H2-4.2
E. Patterns of public and private
investments including redevelopment
programs.
H2-1.1, H2-2.6, H2-2.7, H2-3.1
F. Limited affordable housing available for
low-income residents throughout the City.
H2-1.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
G. Low vacancy rates with demand for
housing outpacing supply.
H2-1.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
H. Displacement of residents due to
economic pressures.
H2-4.4, H5-1.1, H5-1.2, H5-2.3
I. Limited location and type(s) of
affordable housing.
H2-2.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
AFFH Identified
Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factor Meaningful Action(s)
Issue 2:
Disparities in
Access to
Opportunities,
especially in the
downtown core and
south east parts of
Napa
J. Limited access to proficient schools. H2-2.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5 K. Racial/ethnic/income-based disparities
in access to proficient schools.
H2-2.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
B. Disproportionate presence of Hispanicidentifying persons in low-resource areas.
H2-2.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
D. Discriminatory patterns in lending. H2-4.1, H2-4.2
G. Low vacancy rates with demand for
housing outpacing supply.
H2-2.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
Issue 3:
Disproportionate
Housing Needs
L. Hispanic Households tend to have
higher rates of cost burdens and housing
problems.
H2-2.1, H2-2.3, H2-2.4, H2-4.5
M. Insufficient affordable housing in a
range of unit sizes.
H2-2.4
D. Discriminatory patterns in lending. H2-4.1, H2-4.2
N. High risk of displacement throughout
Napa.
H2-2.1, H2-2.3
O. Lack of Publicly Supported Housing. H2-4.4, H5-1.1, H5-1.2, H5-2.3 G. Low vacancy rates with demand for
housing outpacing supply.
H2-2.2, H2-2.6
P. Elevated displacement risk for lowerincome households due to natural disasters, especially wildfires.
H2-1.1, H2-2.1
L. Hispanic Households tend to have
higher rates of cost burdens and housing
problems.
H2-4.4
Issue 4:
Fair Housing
Enforcement and
Outreach
Q. Limited resources for fair housing
outreach and enforcement.
H2-4.4
R. Insufficient Fair Housing education,
especially for households that are most
vulnerable to housing insecurity.
H2-4.1, H2-4.2, H2-4.3
D. Discriminatory patterns in lending. H2-4.1, H2-4.2
The City of Napa is committed to creating more opportunities for affordable housing that are dispersed more equitably throughout the city and, as neighborhood investments increase, protecting existing residents from displacement. The following strategies guided development of the Housing Element policies and implementation programs, shown in Table C-2 and more specifically discussed in Sections 4 and 5 of the Housing Element, to affirmatively further fair housing in the city.
Many of the City of Napa’s highest resource neighborhoods have remained segregated in their racial composition partly because they are almost exclusively zoned for single-family homes. As part of Napa’s 2040 General Plan, which was adopted in October 2022, and planned updates to the Municipal Code to be consistent with the General Plan, the City is looking to allow more affordable housing types in historically single-family zoning districts, including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Removing zoning restrictions to allow a greater variety of housing throughout the city can lead to more equitable and inclusive neighborhoods.
While allowing duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes within traditionally single-family neighborhoods will go a long way to expanding housing choices, larger sites that allow for higher density multi-family housing are needed to build subsidized affordable housing. As described earlier, a majority of the higher-density, lower income housing capacity identified in the sites inventory is in areas of high segregation and poverty or low resource areas; less than 20 percent of the capacity is in the high or highest resource areas. To address this, the Housing Element includes a program to rezone sites to create more opportunities for higher-density, multi-family housing in high resource areas (Program H12).
The City of Napa has demonstrated its commitment to prioritizing and implementing strategies, programs, and projects that promote inclusive economic and community development throughout the city, with a specific focus on neighborhoods that have historically been denied access to high-quality services. The Napa City Council has adopted a framework and guiding principles for inclusive economic development that will guide decisions to invest city dollars in projects and programs that advance inclusive economic development and reduce inequities by improving the health, stability, and economic security of residents and neighborhoods; fostering business and job growth; increasing household wealth; encouraging productivity; and supporting people, places, and actions that promote economic growth throughout the city’s diverse communities. Several policies and programs in the Housing Element reflect the City of Napa’s commitment to investing in historically underserved communities to transform areas of poverty into areas of opportunity including developing specific plans and action plans for areas that have been historically underserved including disinvestment and disenfranchisement (Program H9); and, providing critical infrastructure, amenities, and services in areas targeted for inclusive economic and community development (Program H10);.
To affirmatively further fair housing on all fronts, the City of Napa is integrating more neighborhood specific action planning within the city’s overall development efforts. Recently, the City established the Neighborhood Development Action Team as a resource to determine specific neighborhood priority strategies based on input from residents and businesses, as well as to facilitate stronger coordination with neighborhood stakeholders. The City of Napa has also included policies to continue to work with neighborhood-specific teams, including non-English speakers, to identify housing needs at the neighborhood level (Policy H-4.5), determine customized anti-displacement strategies, and implement place-based solutions, particularly in areas targeted for inclusive and economic development (Policy H-5.3).
Ananat, E. (2011). The wrong side(s) of the tracks: The causal effects of racial segregation on urban poverty and inequality. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3, 34-66.
Bayer, P., McMillan, R., & Rueben, K. (2004). What Drives Racial Segregation? New Evidence using Census Microdata. Journal of Urban Economics, 56(3), 514-535.
Burch, T. (2014). The Old Jim Crow: Racial Residential Segregation and Imprisonment. Law and Policy, 36(3), 223-255.
Cal Dep't of Education. (2021). DISTRICT PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW: NVUSD. Retrieved from California School Dashboard:
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/28662660000000/2021 California Housing Partnership. (2022). Affordable Homes as Risk Report. Retrieved from https://1p08d91kd0c03rlxhmhtydpr-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2022/02/Affordable-Homes-At-Risk-Report-2022.pdf Chetty, R., & Hendren, N. (2018). The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility I:
Childhood Exposure Effects. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(3), 1107-1162.
City of Napa. (2019). Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. Retrieved from https://www.cityofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/6146/2019-Analysis-of-Impediments-toFair-Housing-ChoiceCutler, D., & Glaeser, E. (1997). Are ghettos good or bad? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 827-872.
Domonoske, C. (2016, Oct. 19). Interactive Redlining Map Zooms In On America's History Of Discrimination. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwoway/2016/10/19/498536077/interactive-redlining-map-zooms-in-on-americas-history-ofdiscrimination HCD. (2019). CDBG/HCD Disaster Recovery Action Plan. Retrieved from http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/disaster-recovery-programs/cdbgdr/docs/March-2019-HCD-CDBG-DR-ActionPlan-APPROVED.pdf HCD. (2021, April). Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Retrieved from https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/docs/AFFH_Document_Final_4-27-2021.pdf HUD. (2022). Housing Choice Voucher Program. Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8#hcv01 Lens, M., & Monkkonen, P. (2016). Do Strict Land Use Regulations Make Metropolitan Areas More Segregated by Income? Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(1), 6-21.
Martinez, E. a. (2021). The Secret Bias Hidden In Mortgage- Approval Algorithms. The Markup; Associated Press. Retrieved from https://themarkup.org/denied/2021/08/25/the-secret-biashidden-in-mortgage-approval-algorithms Napa CoC. (2022). Strategic Plan to Address Homelessness. Napa City-County Continuum of Care (Napa CoC). Retrieved from
https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/24961/Napa-CoC-Strategic-Plan-toAddress-Homelessness-PDF?bidId= NVTA. (2020). Transportation Behavior Study. Retrieved from https://www.nvta.ca.gov/sites/default/files/NapaValley_TBS_Document_final%20May%202020 .pdf
NVTA. (2022). About NVTA. Retrieved from https://www.nvta.ca.gov/about-us-page NVUSD. (2022). Equity and Accountability. Retrieved from Napa Valley Unified School District:
https://www.nvusd.k12.ca.us/successforall
Pendall, R. (2000). Local Land-Use Regulation and the Chain of Exclusion. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(2), 125-142.
Rothstein, R. (2017). The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. New York: Liveright Publishing.
Sampson, R. (2012). Great American City: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Sharkey, P. (2013). Stuck in Place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Trounstine, J. (2015). Segregation and Inequality in Public Goods. American Hournal of Political Science, 60(3), 709-725.
Trounstine, J. (2018). Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Appendix D
Housing Program Resources
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Napa | General Plan Housing Element 6th Cycle Update 2023-2031 Cover Image: Adobe Stock, 2022
SECTION D.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ D-1 SECTION D.2. InstitutionalResources .................................................................................................................................... D-1 SECTION D.3. City Departments ..............................................................................................................................................D-2 D.3.1 Community Development Department................................................................................................................D-2 D.3.1.1 Housing Division...........................................................................................................................................................................D-2 D.3.1.2 Economic Development Division ..........................................................................................................................................D-4 D.3.1.3 Planning Division.........................................................................................................................................................................D-4 D.3.1.4 Public Works Department.........................................................................................................................................................D-4 SECTION D.4. County and Regional Housing Resources ...................................................................................................D-5 D.4.1 Napa County Housing and Homeless Services Division...............................................................................D-5 D.4.2 Napa Valley Community Housing.........................................................................................................................D-5 D.4.3 Abode Services..............................................................................................................................................................D-6 D.4.4 Fair Housing Napa Valley .........................................................................................................................................D-6 SECTION D.5. Affordable Housing Developers.....................................................................................................................D-7 D.5.1 Allied Housing................................................................................................................................................................D-7 D.5.2 Burbank Housing..........................................................................................................................................................D-7 D.5.3 EAH Housing ..................................................................................................................................................................D-8 D.5.4 Gasser Foundation.......................................................................................................................................................D-8 D.5.5 Heritage Housing Partners .......................................................................................................................................D-8 D.5.6 Satellite Affordable Housing Associates.............................................................................................................D-9 SECTION D.6. Funding Sources .............................................................................................................................................D-10 D.6.1 State and Federal Sources of Funding................................................................................................................D-10 D.6.2 CDBG Entitlement Funds ........................................................................................................................................ D-17 D.6.3 CDBG Disaster Relief Fund (CDBG-DR).............................................................................................................. D-18 D.6.4 Local Sources of Funding........................................................................................................................................ D-18 D.6.4.1 City of Napa HOME GRANT....................................................................................................................................................D-19 D.6.4.2 City of Napa Impact Fee Ordinance ...................................................................................................................................D-19 Table D-1: Federal and State Funding Programs ............................................................................................................................D-10 This appendix chapter presents information on staff resources and funding available to support the City of Napa housing programs.
A variety of City of Napa departments, agencies, and outside organizations work together to coordinate housing activities under the same vision for the city. Together, their collective resources and expertise are directed toward promoting housing stability and providing equitable housing opportunities citywide. A description of the primary departments and agencies, as well as their roles, is provided below.
The Housing Division of the City Manager’s Office is the primary housing resource within the city for the development, rehabilitation, and promotion of affordable housing. The Housing Division and Community Development Department are the primary branches assisting the development and maintenance of housing within the city. The Economic Development Division and Public Works Department also plays an important role in the planning and delivery of infrastructure and in project development review of off-site improvements.
The Community Development Department (CDD) oversees the long-range planning efforts of the city, including for the Building, Planning, and Economic Development Divisions of the department. CDD also has oversight of the General Plan, Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, and Community Plans as well as neighborhood and area-specific planning projects. CDD ensures that development is consistent with the vision of the city and prioritizes public infrastructure investment to facilitate such development.
In 2022, CDD finalized the new 2040 General Plan. The updated General Plan considers Napa’s rich history and vibrant present as a foundation to build an even more livable, sustainable, and inclusive future. It outlines the city’s plan for land use, housing, transportation, climate change, community facilities, parks and recreation, historic resources, health and safety, economic development, and more through the year 2040.
CDD also includes the Code Enforcement Division, which promotes and maintains a safe and desirable living and working environment. Code Enforcement maintains and improves the quality of the community by administering a fair and unbiased enforcement program to correct violations of the Municipal Code, including those pertaining to public nuisances, land use, signage, and building code.
The Code Enforcement Division administers the vacant building ordinance, dangerous building inspections, and the blight reduction program, ensuring proper upkeep of residential units throughout the city.
The Housing Division of the City Manager’s Office operates a variety of affordable housing programs in the city, including first-time homebuyer and rehab loan programs. The Housing Division also administers the City of Napa’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and provides financing for the development of affordable housing. The Housing Division also staffs the Housing Authority of the City of Napa (HACN). HACN provides Section 8 rental assistance countywide. The Housing Division administers various federal, state, and local programs to assist the community by providing affordable housing and supportive services at all levels of affordability. These programs include but are not limited to:
▪ Affordable Housing Development: City staff promotes the development of affordable housing by working with housing developers interested in providing affordable housing within the City of Napa. Staff members discuss project proposals with developers in the early planning stages of a development to assist in creating viable and innovative solutions to providing affordable housing. Additionally, the Housing Division assists both non-profit housing developers and forprofit developers with obtaining necessary funding for affordable housing developments. ▪ Rental Assistance (Section 8): The Housing Authority of the City of Napa (HACN) administers rental assistance programs throughout the city for low-income seniors, families, and persons with disabilities.
▪ Homeownership / Compradores de Casa: The City of Napa has a Down Payment Assistance Program funded through grant funds received from the California’s Department of Housing and Community Development.
▪ Housing Rehabilitation: The Housing Authority currently administers housing rehabilitation programs for the Cities of Napa, American Canyon, Calistoga, and St. Helena. These programs provide low and no interest loans and grants to assist in home repairs for low-income residents. ▪ Junior Unit Initiative Program: The Junior Unit Initiative Program provides participating homeowners with technical assistance and below-market, forgivable financing of up to $40,000 to create junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) and to convert existing accessory structures to accessory dwelling units.
▪ Home Sharing Matchup Program: The Housing Authority provides funding for Napa Valley Community Housing’s Home Share Match up Program, which facilitates home shares for homeowners with extra space and renters seeking an affordable place to live in Napa County. ▪ Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): The Housing Division manages the CDBG Entitlement Program, which provides annual grants on a formula basis to entitled cities and counties to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderateincome persons. The City of Napa receives approximately $600,000 in CDBG funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annually that it allocates through an application process. Requests for CDBG funding typically total approximately two times the amount available each year. This means that is impossible to fund all proposals each year, particularly in categories with funding caps.
▪ Homeless Services and Continuum of Care Participation: The Housing Division is responsible for coordinating all City services related to those experiencing homelessness and the impacts of homelessness on the community. Staff participates as a CoC Board Member and works regularly with the County of Napa to coordinate all sheltering, outreach, and housing activities.
Information about additional resources in Napa Valley is available on the City of Napa webpage for other housing assistance resources.
City of Napa’s Economic Development Division (EDD) is central to supporting businesses, spurring development, and improving the quality of life for residents. The Division’s mission is to create community-driven solutions for city-wide prosperity.
EDD staff is committed to supporting small businesses, facilitating developer opportunities, and working with other city departments and divisions to support Napa's economy and housing development. EDD staff do this by:
▪ Providing access to business resources;
▪ Finding suitable real estate sites and developer incentives for those wishing to develop within the city; and
▪ Making connections among established companies, development partners, and other organizations.
The Planning Division is responsible for long range plans, specific area plans, mapping, design guidelines, environmental documentation and coordination and review of building plans. The Planning Division coordinates the City's review and regulation of building plans from private property owners and developers, which includes services from City staff from five different City departments:
CDD, Public Works, Utilities, Parks and Recreation Services, and Fire.
The Public Works Department (PWD) facilitates the maintenance and improvement of city infrastructure and services that are essential to the welfare of the community. Divisions of the PWD include Development Engineering, Transportation Engineering, Construction, and Maintenance (responsible for street infrastructure) among others. The Development Engineering Division reviews development plans and performs inspections to ensure that streets, sidewalks, and other public infrastructure aspects of a project are properly designed.
The Napa County Housing and Homeless Services Division coordinates county initiatives and activities with the cities and other jurisdictions located within the county limits. The Division oversees Napa County’s housing programs and provides staff to the Board of Supervisors, including constituent relations and community liaison activities. The Division also manages the following programs:
▪ Homeless Services: Napa County offers a variety of services for people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Services are coordinated by The Mayors' Housing and Homeless Services Policy Council and the Napa Continuum of Care. ▪ Affordable Housing Fund: Provides notice of funding availability (NOFA) for affordable housing projects in Napa County.
▪ Housing Fund Projects: Oversees affordable housing projects funded by the Affordable Housing Fund.
▪ Napa County Housing Authority: The Napa County Housing Authority (NCHA) is focused primarily on addressing the need for safe and affordable housing for farm workers, particularly those in the migrant/seasonal category who, in turn, support the agricultural industry of Napa County.
▪ Proximity Housing Loan Program: This down payment assistance program is intended to promote local housing opportunities to members of the workforce to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from commuting. ▪ Chronicle Season of Sharing Fund: This private, non-profit fund has raised over $120 million to provide temporary financial assistance to individuals and families in crisis to pay for housing and emergency needs that cannot be met through other resources.
The mission of Napa Valley Community Housing is to develop, preserve, and manage affordable homes through a Resident Services Program. Along with providing affordable housing, NVCH staff teach life and leadership skills to promote stability and to help meet family and individual financial needs.
Presently, they manage 506 homes on 19 properties, with a resident population of nearly 1,900 children, families, agricultural workers, seniors, and veterans. Two of their properties are for supportive housing:
one provides permanent housing for persons with mental disabilities (Madison Street) and the other provides transitional housing for persons who have successfully completed a substance abuse program (Parkwood Recovery Home). The remaining 17 properties are affordable housing for lowincome residents as well as the VonBrandt Family Center and the NVCH office. Napa Valley Community Housing is currently working on the development of Monarch Landing project in the City of Napa.
Website: Napa Valley Community Housing
Abode Services is a 501(c)(3) corporation and the largest homeless housing and services provider in the Bay Area. As part of the response to the region’s housing and homelessness crisis, they operate nearly 60 programs that aim to rehouse people in need as quickly as possible. The combination of housing programs and wraparound social services is Abode Services’ dual approach to ending homelessness.
Abode Services has been working in Napa County since 2017. Their local efforts include operating an emergency shelter and providing outreach, housing support, and rental assistance. They also develop and manage affordable housing. Abode Services is the service provider to the City’s two Project Homekey projects.
Website: Abode Services
Fair Housing Napa Valley’s primary programs include fair housing enforcement and investigation, landlord/tenant counseling and mediation, education and outreach, disaster-related housing counseling, and related assistance to mobile home parks.
All agency programs are available to their clients free of charge and are available to persons of all income levels. Fair Housing Napa Valley does not limit their services to just citizens or legal residents; all persons can receive assistance from them, regardless of their immigration status. All programs are available in person in English and Spanish, and interpretive services are available for other languages.
Special accommodations are available for mobility, visual, or hearing impairments.
Website: Fair Housing Napa Valley
Allied Housing is the housing development arm of Abode Services discussed under Subsection D.4.3.
Abode Services works to end homelessness by assisting low-income, un-housed people, including those with special needs, to secure stable and supportive housing. Allied Housing is part of the partnership known as Heritage House Partners L.P., described in detail in Subsection D.5.5.
Website: Allied Housing / Abode Services
Burbank Housing is a local non-profit dedicated to building quality affordable housing in the North Bay.
They create vibrant local communities that are carefully designed, professionally managed, and both financially and environmentally sustainable to foster opportunities for people with limited income of all ages, backgrounds, and special needs.
In June of 2022, leadership from Burbank Housing, the Gasser Foundation, and Abode Services were joined by state agencies, officials from the City of Napa and Napa County, and financial partners to celebrate the groundbreaking of two affordable housing developments in northeast Napa. Once completed, the communities of Heritage House and Valle Verde Apartments at 3700 and 3710 Valle Verde Drive will bring a total of 90 homes to families, agricultural workers, and formerly homeless individuals in need of permanent supportive housing.
Both Heritage House and the Valle Verde Apartments offer affordable housing options for households earning less than 60 percent of area median income (AMI). The property was previously owned by the Gasser Foundation which spearheaded early efforts to get the project started and donated the land to Burbank Housing. The property is owned by Heritage House Partners L.P., a partnership that includes Burbank Housing and Allied Housing, Inc., an affiliate of Abode Services.
Burbank Housing is also the developer for the City of Napa’s two Project Homekey Projects. Adrian Court, 14 units, opened in 2021. Valley Lodge, 54 units scheduled to open in Spring 2023.
Website: Burbank Housing
EAH Housing is a non-profit corporation founded with the belief that attractive, affordable rental housing is the cornerstone to sustainable, healthy, and livable communities. EAH Housing was founded in 1968 to address the needs of low-income families and older adults living in Marin County, California. The organization has developed 106 properties with an estimated aggregate development cost of $2.2 billion (in 2022 dollars), and manages over 13,000 unit leases in 92 municipalities in California and Hawai‘i. In the City of Napa, EAH Housing developed and manages Rohlffs Manor II & III, a senior apartment community.
Website: EAH Housing
The Gasser Foundation was established by Peter and Vernice “Pat” Gasser, Napa locals who had a strong civic loyalty. Gasser contributes between $1.5 and $2 million annually to Napa hospitals, hospices, homeless shelters, and cultural organizations and has a workforce training initiative operating in conjunction with the local community college. As a long-standing leader in and a steward of the community, Gasser recently appended its mission to include environmental sustainability as a principal factor in all its activities.
Website: The Gasser Foundation
Heritage Housing Partners (HHP) was founded in 1998 as a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Their mission is to promote long-term affordable homeownership through the preservation of existing historic homes and the construction of new, contextual single-family residences. HHP believes that providing low-, moderate-, and workforce-income first-time homebuyers with affordable ownership opportunities results in overall neighborhood revitalization. HHP will manage the development of the Old Sonoma Road site into approximately 140-units of affordable housing, including single-family homes, townhouses, and stacked flat units.
Website: Heritage Housing Partners
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA) provides quality affordable homes and services that empower people and strengthen neighborhoods. SAHA’s properties provide more than 4,000 residents in seven counties in northern California with affordable housing and services. In autumn of 2015, the City of Napa selected SAHA through a competitive request for proposal (RFP) process to develop a 100 percent affordable rental housing development and, in May of 2016, the City approved a formal development agreement with SAHA. The Manzanita Family Apartments were completed in November of 2021, which include 51 units that serve families with incomes between 30 and 60 percent of AMI.
Website: SAHA Homes
The City of Napa’s housing programs are funded through a variety of local, state, and federal sources.
These funds actively support the construction of new affordable housing and rehabilitation of existing housing and provide various other housing services to low- and moderate-income households. This section offers a summary of funding sources that are currently used by the city and HACN, as well as additional funding sources that are potentially available to support housing programs.
There are several state and federal funding programs available to build affordable housing, assist firsttime homebuyers, support persons experiencing homelessness, and help special needs groups such as seniors and farmworkers. In most cases, entities other than the City of Napa or Napa County, including for-profit and non-profit developers, apply for funds directly to the state or federal agencies that administer them. For example, developers apply directly to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee for low-income housing tax credits, to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for Section 515 loans, and to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for Section 202 and Section 811 loans. Table D-1 summarizes the state and federal funding programs that are available to fund affordable housing opportunities.
Table D-1: Federal and State Funding Programs
Federal and State Funding Programs
Funding Program Description
FEDERAL
EPA Brownfields Program To facilitate the reuse and redevelopment of contaminated brownfield sites, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Brownfields Program provides direct funding resources for the assessment and cleanup of eligible publicly- or privately-held properties.
HUD Choice Neighborhoods
Implementation Grant Program
HUD’s Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grants support the implementation of comprehensive plans expected to
revitalize public and assisted housing and initiate
neighborhood improvements.
USDA Community Facilities
Direct Loan & Grant Program
USDA’s Community Facilities Direct Loan & Grant Program provides affordable funding to develop essential community facilities in rural areas.
Federal and State Funding Programs
Funding Program Description
HUD Continuum of Care
Program (CoC)
Funding is available on an annual basis through HUD to
quickly rehouse homeless individuals and families through the CoC Program.
HUD Community Development
Block Grant Program (CDBG)
HUD’s CDBG Program makes funds available to support livable communities by partnering with local governments to provide decent housing and a suitable living environment and through expanding economic opportunities, principally, for persons of low- and moderate-income.
HUD Emergency Solutions
Grants Program (ESG)
HUD’s ESG Program makes grant funds available for projects serving homeless individuals and families through eligible non-profit organizations or local governments.
USDA Farm Labor Housing
Direct Loans & Grants Program
(Section 514)
USDA’s Farm Labor Housing Direct Loans & Grants Program provides affordable financing to develop housing for yearround and migrant or seasonal domestic farm laborers.
HUD Housing Choice Vouchers
Program (HCV)
HUD’s HCV Program is the federal government's major
program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities to afford housing.
HUD HOME Investment
Partnerships Program (HOME)
HUD HOME Program funds are available as loans for housing rehabilitation, new construction, and acquisition and
rehabilitation of single- and multi-family projects and as grants for tenant-based rental assistance.
HUD Home Ownership for
People Everywhere Program
(HOPE)
HUD’s HOPE Program provides grants to low-income people to achieve homeownership through two main branches: HOPE I (Public Housing Homeownership Program) and HOPE IV (Hope for Elderly Independence).
HUD Housing Opportunities for
Persons with AIDS Program
(HOPWA)
HUD HOPWA Program funds are made available countywide
for supportive social services, affordable housing
development, and rental assistance to persons living with HIV/AIDS.
USDA Housing Preservation
Grants Program
USDA’s Housing Preservation Grants Program provides grants to sponsoring organizations for the repair or rehabilitation of housing owned or occupied by low- and very-low-income rural citizens.
Federal and State Funding Programs
Funding Program Description
HUD Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit Program (LIHTC)
HUD’s LIHTC Program gives state and local agencies the
authority to issue tax credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing for lower-income
households.
USDA Multi-Family Housing
Direct Loans Program
USDA’s Multi-Family Housing Direct Loans Program provides direct loans to developers of affordable multi-family rental housing in rural areas and may be used for new construction or rehabilitation.
HUD Section 108 Loan
Guarantee Program (Section
108)
HUD’s Section 108 Program provides loans to CDBG
entitlement jurisdictions for capital improvement projects that benefit low- and moderate-income persons.
HUD Section 202 Supportive
Housing for the Elderly
Program (Section 202)
HUD’s Section 202 Program provides an interest-free capital advance to cover the costs of construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition of very low-income senior housing. The program is available to private, non-profit sponsors; public sponsors are not eligible for the program.
HUD 203(k) Rehabilitation
Mortgage Insurance Program
(203(k))
HUD’s 203(k) Program provides financing into homebuyers’ or homeowners’ mortgages to rehabilitate and repair singlefamily housing.
HUD Section 207 Mortgage
Insurance for Manufactured
Home Parks Program (Section
207)
HUD’s Section 207 Program insures mortgage loans to
facilitate the construction or substantial rehabilitation of multi-family manufactured home parks.
HUD Section 221(d)(4) Mortgage
Insurance for Rental and
Cooperative Housing Program
(Section 221(d)(4))
HUD’s Section 221(d)(4) Program insures loans for construction or substantial rehabilitation of multi-family rental and cooperative housing, including single room occupancy
projects.
USDA Section 502 Direct Loan
Program
USDA’s Section 502 Direct Loan Program provides
homeownership opportunities for low- and very low-income families living in rural areas.
HUD Section 811 Supportive
Housing for Persons with
Disabilities Program (Section
811)
HUD’s Section 811 Program offers long-term, project-based rental assistance funding. Opportunities to apply for this project-based assistance are through a NOFA published by the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA).
Federal and State Funding Programs
Funding Program Description
STATE
HCD Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities
Program (AHSC)
The California Department of Housing and Community
Development’s (HCD) AHSC Program funds land use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects that support infill and compact development and that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and benefit disadvantaged communities.
HCD CalHome Program HCD’s CalHOME Program makes grants to local public agencies and non-profits to assist first-time homebuyers in becoming or remaining homeowners through deferredpayment loans. Funds can also be used to assist in the development of multiple-unit ownership projects.
DTSC Cleanup Loans &
Environmental Assistance to
Neighborhoods Program
(CLEAN)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control's (DTSC) CLEAN Program provides low-interest loans to investigate, cleanup, and redevelop abandoned and underutilized urban properties.
HCD California Emergency
Solutions and Housing
Program (CESH)
HCD’s CESH Program provides grant funds to eligible
applicants for activities to assist persons experiencing or atrisk of homelessness.
HCD Community Development
Block Grant Program (CDBG)
HCD CDBG Program funds are available in rural California communities that do not receive federal CDBG funding
directly from HUD. There is an annual competitive funding cycle which has an over-the-counter NOFA process.
HCD Community Development
Block Grant Program: Coronavirus Response Round 1
(CDBG-CV1) (CARES Act
Funding)
HCD’s CDBG-CV1 is a subsidiary of the CDBG program to
provide relief to eligible entities due to hardships caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Funding is made available pursuant to the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
HCD Emergency Solutions
Grants Program (ESG)
ESG Program funds are available through HCD in California communities that do not receive federal ESG funding directly from HUD.
Golden State Acquisition Fund
(GSAF)
The GSAF is a lending partnership fund seeded by HCD that makes up to five-year loans to developers for acquisition or preservation of affordable housing.
HCD HOME Investment
Partnerships Program (HOME)
HCD HOME Program funds are available in communities that do not receive federal HOME funding directly from HUD.
Federal and State Funding Programs
Funding Program Description
HCD Homekey Program HCD’s Homekey Program provides grants to acquire and rehabilitate a variety of housing types — such as hotels, motels, vacant apartment buildings, and residential care facilities — to serve people experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness.
BCSH Homeless Emergency
Aid Program (HEAP)
The California Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency’s (BCSH) HEAP is a $500 million block grant program designed to provide direct assistance to California cities, counties, and homeless Continuums of Care (CoCs) to address the homelessness crisis.
BCSH Homeless Housing,
Assistance, and Prevention
Grant Program (HHAP)
BCSH’s HHAP Program Round 1 is a $650 million grant that provides local jurisdictions with funds to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address their immediate homelessness challenges. Round 2 is a $300 million grant that provides support to continue building on regional collaboration to develop a unified regional response to homelessness.
HCD Housing for a Healthy
California Program (HHC)
HCD’s HHC Program provides funding to deliver supportive housing opportunities to developers using federal National Housing Trust Funds allocations for operating reserve grants and capital loans. HHC is intended to create supportive housing for individuals who are recipients of, or eligible for, health provided through Medi-Cal.
HCD Housing Navigators
Program (HNP)
HCD’s HNP allocates $5 million in funding to counties for the support of housing navigators to help young adults aged 18 to 21 years secure and maintain housing, with priority given to young adults in the foster care system.
HCD Infill Infrastructure Grant
Program (IIG)
HCD’s IIG Program provides grant funding for infrastructure improvements for new infill housing in residential and mixeduse projects.
HCD Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker
Housing Grant Program
(FWHG)
HCD’s FWHG Program makes grants and loans for development, rehabilitation, and acquisition of rental and owner-occupied housing units for agricultural workers, with priority for lowerincome households.
Federal and State Funding Programs
Funding Program Description
HCD Local Early Action
Planning Grants Program
(LEAP)
HCD’s LEAP Program assists cities and counties in planning for housing through one-time, over-the-counter, non-competitive planning grants and technical assistance.
HCD Local Housing Trust Fund
Program (LHTF)
HCD's LHTF Program lends money for construction of rental housing projects with units restricted for at least 55 years to households earning less than 60 percent AMI. State funds can also match local housing trust funds as down-payment
assistance to first-time homebuyers.
HCD Mobile Home Park
Rehabilitation and Resident
Ownership Program (MPRROP)
HCD’s MPRROP makes low-interest loans for the preservation of affordable mobile home parks. MPRROP also makes longterm loans to individuals to ensure continued affordability.
Mortgage Credit Certificate
Program (MCC)
The MCC Program, authorized by the state legislature and allowing local jurisdictions to administer MCCs, provides income tax credits to first-time homebuyers to buy new or existing homes.
HCD Multi-Family Housing
Program (MHP)
HCD’s MHP makes low-interest, long-term deferred-payment permanent loans for new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional rental housing for lower-income households.
HCD National Housing Trust
Fund Program (NHTF)
HCD’s NHTF Program is a formula grant program used to
increase and preserve the supply of affordable housing, with an emphasis on rental housing for extremely low-income
households with incomes of 30 percent AMI or less. Funds are made available through a competitive process.
HCD No Place Like Home
Program
HCD’s No Place Like Home Program invests in the development of permanent supportive housing for persons who are in need of mental health services and are experiencing homelessness, chronic homelessness, or who are at risk of chronic
homelessness.
HCD Office of Migrant Services
(OMS)
HCD’s OMS provides grants to local government agencies that contract with HCD to operate OMS centers located throughout the state for the construction, rehabilitation, maintenance, and operation of seasonal rental housing for migrant farmworkers.
Federal and State Funding Programs
Funding Program Description
HCD Permanent Local Housing
Allocation Program (PLHA)
There are two types of assistance under HCD’s PLHA Program:
▪ Formula grants to entitlement and non-entitlement
jurisdictions based on the formula prescribed under
federal law for the CDBG Program.
▪ Competitive grants to non-entitlement jurisdictions,
which prioritizes assistance to persons experiencing
homelessness or at risk of homelessness and prioritizes investments that increase the supply of housing to
households with incomes of 60 percent or less AMI.
HCD Predevelopment Loan
Program (PDLP)
HCD’s PDLP makes short-term loans for activities and expenses necessary for the preservation, construction, rehabilitation, or conversion of assisted housing primarily for low-income households.
HCD Regional Early Action
Planning Grants Program
(REAP)
HCD’s REAP Program helps Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs), other eligible non-MPO regional entities, and tribal entities collaborate on projects that have a broader regional impact on housing goals and climate commitments.
Grant funding is intended to help regional entities facilitate local housing production that will assist local governments in meeting their Regional Housing Need Allocation and reduce VMT.
HCD Senate Bill 2 (SB 2)
Planning Grants Program
HCD’s SB 2 Planning Grants Program provides one-time
funding and technical assistance to all eligible local
governments to prepare, adopt, and implement plans and
process improvements that streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production.
SGC Transformative Climate
Communities Program (TCC)
The California Strategic Growth Council’s (SGC) TCC Program is part of California’s Climate Investments cap-and-trade dollars at work. TCC funds community-led development and infrastructure projects that achieve major environmental, health, and economic benefits in the state’s most
disadvantaged communities. There are two types of grants available, Implementation Grants and Planning Grants, which are both awarded on a competitive basis.
Federal and State Funding Programs
Funding Program Description
HCD Transitional Housing
Program (THP)
HCD’s THP provides funding to counties for child welfare services agencies to help young adults aged 18 to 25 years find and maintain housing, with priority given to those formerly in the foster care or probation systems.
HCD Veterans Housing and
Homelessness Prevention
Program (VHHP)
HCD’s VHHP makes long-term loans for development or
preservation of rental housing for very low- and low-income veterans and their families.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; CA Department of Housing and Community Development; U.S.
Department of Agriculture; CA Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency; CA Department of Toxic Substances Control; CA Strategic Growth Council; and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2022.
Under HUD regulations, the City of Napa is an entitlement jurisdiction, meaning that Napa receives federal Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). However, the City of Napa is not an entitlement jurisdiction for other HUD programs, such as HOME, ESG, or HOPWA, and therefore must apply for funds that are awarded on a competitive basis to receive funding from these programs.
There are three major funding categories for the CDBG program:
▪ Public Service: This category is allocated a maximum of 15 percent of City of Napa’s annual allocation, plus 15 percent of the program income for the previous fiscal year. These funds can be used to carry out programs that enhance public services in areas such as housing, food, health, safety, and education. Examples of projects that have received previous funding include dental care for children, emergency shelter services, and senior support services. ▪ Planning and Administration: This category is allocated a maximum of 20 percent of the city’s annual allocation, plus 20 percent of the estimated program income for the coming fiscal year.
These funds are utilized for City of Napa CDBG Program administration. ▪ Community Development Improvements: This category receives the remainder of the annual allocation and any reprogrammed funds from the prior program years. There is no maximum funding cap in this category. These funds can be used for physical improvement projects, housing rehabilitation, property acquisition, and economic development activities that will either further the city's efforts to prevent slums and blight or to serve low- and moderateincome residents.
CDBG Program allocations to housing, non-housing community development, public services, and administrative activities vary from year to year, depending upon current priorities as well as other funding resources. For example, since the end of redevelopment in 2012, there is an increased need for funding of affordable multi-family projects. Allocations to non-housing community development activities range from one-third to one-half of the annual entitlement, and housing activities allocations range from approximately 10 to 30 percent. The city receives approximately $600,000 in CDBG funding from HUD annually, which it allocates through an application process. Requests for CDBG funds typically total approximately two times the amount available each year. This means that is impossible to fund all proposals in a given year, particularly in categories with funding caps.
The City of Napa operates a housing rehabilitation loan and grant program which is funded with CDBG, CalHome, and HOME funding. CDBG Program funds are typically allocated annually, however CalHome and HOME funds are limited. The CalHome and HOME grant funds are also used as first-time homebuyer assistance. HOME grant funds are received competitively from the state and are limited to the funds available under the most recent HOME grant award.
The City of Napa is currently providing CDBG-DR funding to two multi-family housing projects that will primarily target homeless populations. The two projects, Heritage House/Valle Verde and Valley Lodge Apartments, will collectively provide 144 new rental units. The Heritage House/Valle Verde project uses multiple funding sources, including CDBG-DR, local funds, tax credit allocations, conventional mortgage, and HCD funds. The Valley Lodge Apartments project is leveraging CDBG-DR, local funds, and Homekey Program funds.
Local funding sources available to address housing and community development needs in Napa include the city’s Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund and Transient Occupancy Special Tax for Affordable and Workforce Housing funds, as well as locally allocated HOME funds, Section 8 HCVs, State Permanent Local Housing Allocation, and financing from other various state and federal sources.
The City of Napa also contributes staff time and General Fund revenue to support community development activities. However, despite the wide range of potential resources to serve local needs, funding is not expected to be sufficient to address all needs identified. Funding shortages are consistently the most significant barrier to fully addressing Napa’s housing and community development needs.
The City of Napa has two primary sources of funding to create affordable housing:
▪ Affordable Housing Impact Fee Funds: This funding comes from impact fees paid by residential and non-residential developers. The impact fee funds must be used to create affordable housing for households earning up to 80 percent AMI, and projects using this funding source must comply with the 2020 joint City/County of Napa Underwriting Guidelines. ▪ Transient Occupancy Special Tax for Affordable and Workforce Housing: This funding comes from a one percent special transient occupancy tax (TOT) paid by visitors staying in hotels and other short-term, transient lodging accommodations. This funding must be used for affordable housing for households earning up to 120 percent AMI.
The City of Napa plans to support affordable housing development, acquisition, and preservation activities during this housing cycle using the Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund, Special Transient Occupancy Tax for Affordable and Workforce Housing Fund, and the state Permanent Local Housing Allocation Fund. Because affordable housing projects typically require several funding sources, these impact fee and tax fund revenues help to leverage other sources of funding, including federal sources that are assembled by affordable housing developers. The Special Transient Occupancy Tax for Affordable and Workforce Housing Fund is intended to be used for households earning up to 120 percent AMI, so while not all funds will be used to assist HUD's target groups, funding could assist lowincome persons.
In early 2020, the City of Napa deployed a $1,000,000 HOME grant for first-time homebuyer assistance and tenant based rental assistance. These funds are partially expended, but HOME loans are frequently repaid and the resulting program income is used to assist additional eligible low-income homebuyers and leveraged with private mortgage loans and homebuyer down payments.
In 1999, the City of Napa adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, requiring that affordable housing be included in new housing development. The ordinance also required payment of an impact fee on most non-residential or commercial development. In 2012, the City replaced the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance with an Affordable Housing Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires both residential and commercial developers to pay an affordable housing impact fee. Fees collected are placed in the City of Napa’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund and then used to further the goal of providing affordable housing by leveraging other local, state and federal funding sources.
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Appendix E
Constraints
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Napa | General Plan Housing Element 6th Cycle Update 2023-2031 Cover Image: Brendan Hurley, City of Napa, 2021
SECTION E.1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................E-1 SECTION E.2. Potential Governmental Constraints.............................................................................................................E-1 E.2.1 Land Use Controls..........................................................................................................................................................E-1 E.2.1.1 General Plan .....................................................................................................................................................................................E-1 E.2.1.2 Zoning Ordinance.........................................................................................................................................................................E-4 E.2.2 Building and Fire Codes...........................................................................................................................................E-28 E.2.2.1 Code Enforcement......................................................................................................................................................................E-29 E.2.3 Processing and Permit Procedures .....................................................................................................................E-29 E.2.3.1 Discretionary Review Procedure..........................................................................................................................................E-30 E.2.3.2 Environmental Analysis .........................................................................................................................................................E-35 E.2.3.3 Expedited Review of Affordable Housing Projects.......................................................................................................E-36 E.2.4 Growth Management................................................................................................................................................E-37 E.2.5 Development Fees and Exactions........................................................................................................................E-37 SECTION E.3. Potential Non-Governmental Constraints ................................................................................................E-49 E.3.1 Land and Construction Costs.................................................................................................................................E-49 E.3.2 Availability of Financing.........................................................................................................................................E-52 E.3.3 Infrastructure Capacity ............................................................................................................................................E-54 E.3.4 Community Concerns...............................................................................................................................................E-56 E.3.5 Environmental Considerations.............................................................................................................................E-56 SECTION E.4. Works Cited.......................................................................................................................................................E-59 Table E-1: General Plan Residential Land Use Classifications ...................................................................................................E-2 Table E-2: Summary of Zoning Districts and Allowed Residential Uses................................................................................E-7 Table E-3: Summary of Development Standards for Base Zoning Districts........................................................................E-10 Table E-4: Summary of Development Standards for Overlay Zoning Districts ................................................................. E-12 Table E-5: Residential Parking Standards ......................................................................................................................................... E-19 Table E-6: Example Project Procedures and Processing Times...............................................................................................E-34 Table E-7: Example Project Fees and Other Exactions................................................................................................................E-38 Figure E-1: California Construction Cost Index (CCI), 2016-2020 ............................................................................................. E-51 Governmental and nongovernmental factors can constrain housing growth, maintenance, improvement, or affordability for all income levels. Consequently, state law requires housing elements to “address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing...” (Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(3)) Understanding the potential constraints on housing growth can help create appropriate policy responses to mitigate those constraints and make it easier and more affordable to develop housing. This appendix considers both governmental and nongovernmental constraints on housing growth.
Local, state, and federal governmental regulations can constrain housing growth if the regulations increase costs or limit opportunities for housing development. Potential constraints to housing production in the City of Napa vary by area, but generally could include land use controls, building and fire codes, processing and permit procedures, growth management, and fees and other exactions. This section discusses these requirements and standards to assesses whether any serve as a constraint to housing development for all income levels.
Residential land use control mechanisms are primarily imposed by the City of Napa on housing development through the city’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Napa Municipal Code Title 17).
Such mechanisms include property development standards, on- and off-site improvement requirements, density bonuses, and regulations for senior housing, housing for persons with disabilities, and emergency housing.
The Land Use Element of the City of Napa 2040 General Plan sets forth the policies for guiding local development, including residential development. Table E-2-1 lists the General Plan land use classifications by type that allow residential development, as well as allowed density in dwelling units (du) per acre (ac), allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and a description of the types of residential and other development that are permitted. Examples of residential unit types include attached and detached single-family, multi-family, single room occupancy (SRO) facilities, accessory dwelling units (ADU), and “live-work” units where living spaces and work spaces are combined together into one unit.
Table E-2-1: General Plan Residential Land Use Classifications Classification Description
Density
(du / ac)
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Residential
Traditional
Residential
This designation provides for detached and attached single-family homes, livework housing, and group quarters (e.g., residential facilities and nursing homes).
Bed-and-breakfast inns, artist studios, and public and quasi-public uses may be permitted at appropriate locations at the city’s discretion. Traditional Residential areas consist of the older neighborhoods of Napa which have developed over time with a variety of residential building types and densities. A variety of housing types and styles may be permitted so long as they are compatible with the design characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and within the permitted density range. Flexibility in street setbacks, yards, and other zoning standards may be permitted to ensure compatible design. The overall combined maximum residential and non-residential FAR is 0.6.
2-12 0.6
Very Low Density
Residential
This designation is mainly for detached single-family homes in rural edges of the city. The intent is that existing parcels remain sparsely built. When new development is proposed, buildings should be clustered together to preserve natural features and resources. Vineyards, low-intensity agricultural uses (e.g., community or household farms), and open space preservation are permitted.
Non-residential commercial uses (such as wineries) require discretionary review and approval.
2 max. -
Low Density
Residential
This designation consists of single-family residential development and is mainly intended for detached single-family dwellings, but attached singlefamily units may be permitted, provided each unit has ground-floor living area and private outdoor open space. Mobile homes, and compatible uses such as residential care facilities are permitted.
3-8 -
Medium Density
Residential
This designation provides for housing types that would typically encompass single-family detached and attached, but multi-family housing types may be permitted where maximum permitted density is otherwise not attainable due to lot configuration or development constraints.
8-18 -
High Density
Residential
This designation permits the full range of housing types, including multi-family, single-family attached, SRO facilities, live-work housing, and group quarters (e.g., residential facilities and nursing homes). Community-oriented non-residential uses, such as markets, restaurants, or other commercial uses that provide goods and services, are permitted. The maximum allowable non-residential FAR is 0.3 and may be increased up to a maximum of 0.6 with discretionary review and approval. Mixed-use projects shall not exceed a combined maximum residential and non-residential FAR of 1.0.
18-40 1.0
Mixed Use
Residential
Mixed Use
This designation prioritizes residential development with associated neighborhood-scale retail and office space. In addition to a mix of housing types, other uses like live-work units, artist studios, and businesses that are less than 10,000 square feet are permitted.
16-40 1.0
Corridor Mixed
Use Low
This designation provides for developments that integrate residential and compatible commercial and office uses. It is intended for a mixture of uses in a single building; however, if a mixture of uses is infeasible due to site constraints or costs, single uses are allowed, provided they meet the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
- 1.5
Classification Description
Density
(du / ac)
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Corridor Mixed
Use High
This designation is intended to promote a vibrant and walkable environment with mid-rise mixed-use development and allows for more intensive development than Corridor Mixed Use Low. Permitted uses include neighborhood and community retail; eating and drinking establishments; commercial recreation; hotels and visitor services; residential; financial, business, and personal services; educational and social services; and office. For developments along Soscol, Lincoln, and Imola avenues, a minimum 0.15 FAR non-residential use is required.
- 2.0
Napa Pipe Nixed
Use
This designation applies solely to the Napa Pipe site. A range of housing types, retail, hotel, office, other commercial, and R&D/light industrial/warehouse uses are allowed, with development intensities in accordance with the more detailed City-approved plans for this site.
- -
Foster Road
Mixed Use
This designation is specifically for the area located in the southwest portion of the city in between Foster Road and Golden Gate Drive. These parcels are presently (2022) in unincorporated Napa County and are within the city’s RUL and SOI. Residential density is anticipated to be up to 10 units per acre with a maximum of 0.5 FAR for non-residential uses.
10 max. -
Conservation
Agriculture This designation is primarily for private open space uses and low-intensity agriculture for properties along the periphery of the city limits. A maximum of one housing unit per existing parcel as of 2021 is permitted, provided sensitive resources and habitats, and viewsheds are not impacted. 1 unit /
existing
parcel max.
-
Greenbelt This designation is applied to specific sites at edges of the city that are to remain in open space, agricultural, or resource conservation use. A maximum of one housing unit per existing parcel as of 2021 is permitted, provided sensitive resources and habitats, and viewsheds are not impacted. Rural residential up to one unit per 20 acres or added low-intensity agriculture (e.g., small vineyards or community or household farms) may be considered at the discretion of the City to ensure adequate protection of underlying resources, or natural or scenic features.
1 unit /
existing
parcel*
-
Commercial
Business
Professional
This designation allows commercial office, including general business, nonnuisance production, professional services, and health and wellness uses. Office areas near the Queen of the Valley Hospital are reserved for medical and dental offices, medical laboratories, pharmacies, and similar related uses. Intensive residential uses may be allowed only as adjunct to the health or medical-related use (such as assisted living, rehabilitation, or hospice facilities). 40 max. 1.2
Industrial
Flex Industrial This designation permits a variety of small-scale industrial uses that do not generate off-site noise, light/glare, and air-quality impacts. Additional production-oriented uses are permitted, including creative uses and maker spaces; food production; tech start-ups; research and development facilities; light industrial uses; and public and quasi-public uses. New residential uses, including live-work units, are permitted while recognizing that these would be part of a blended residential and industrial district. The maximum total (residential and non-residential combined) FAR is 0.7. Up to a 20 percent increase in density or FAR is permitted with discretionary review and approval. 20^ 0.7^
Classification Description
Density
(du / ac)
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Downtown
Specific Plan
Downtown
Neighborhood
The Downtown Neighborhood land use designation (and zoning district) applies to the blocks along the northern, southern, and western edges of Downtown and creates a transition between the more intensive, commercially oriented uses in the center of Downtown and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. This designation provides for a compatible mix of residential uses; limited services; offices oriented to the provision of business and professional services; live-work units; limited mixed residential/service and residential/office developments; and limited use of bed-and-breakfast inns to encourage people to reside Downtown and create “eyes on the street.”
- -
Downtown Mixed
Use
The Downtown Mixed Use land use designation (and zoning district) generally includes properties on the blocks surrounding the Downtown Core Commercial area from Clay and Pearl streets to the northern boundary of Downtown, and from Seminary and Church streets east to the Napa River and south to Third Street. This designation allows a broad mix of uses that is less intensive than in the Downtown Core Commercial area and more oriented to residents’ daily needs that strengthen Downtown’s role as the community’s center. The Downtown Mixed Use designation also encourages residential uses primarily as part of a mixed-use development. Stand-alone residential development may be permitted where it does not conflict with other land use policies relating to Downtown.
- -
Oxbow
Commercial
The Oxbow Commercial land use designation (and zoning district) applies to the eastern portion of Downtown generally between Soscol Avenue and the Napa River and north to River Terrace Drive. This designation allows for uses oriented to tourists such as hotels and their related amenities; recreational facilities; community and visitor-serving retail, commercial, entertainment, and restaurants; and similar compatible uses in addition to live-work opportunities. - -
Public Serving
Public Serving This designation provides for public and quasi-public sites dedicated to community-serving purposes, such as government offices and related community service facilities, all public schools, private schools with a significant enrollment, public health facilities, and conference, exhibition, entertainment, and other gathering uses. Residential or residential mixed-use development may also be conditionally permitted, with the final density being determined based on the density of surrounding land use designations. The maximum FAR for all uses is 1.0, with no specific FAR limitation for City-owned public-service and safety uses.
Based on
Surrounding
Uses
1.0 Notes: Density is provided in dwelling units (du) per acre (ac). *Up to 1 unit per 20 acres may be considered at the discretion of the City in Greenbelt. ^Density and FAR bonuses up to a 20% increase may be allowed through discretionary review in Flex Industrial.
Source: City of Napa 2040 General Plan Land Use Element (2022) The City of Napa Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan and contains most of the land use control standards for housing and other development in the city. The Zoning Ordinance includes the greatest potential for constraints on housing, as it regulates where residential development can occur and establishes processing procedures and development standards for building construction. It describes the type of residential uses allowed in each zoning district, consistent with the General Plan land use designations listed in Table E-2-1, as well as development standards, such as required setbacks, maximum height, and parking requirements (see Table E-2-3 and Table E-2-6). In addition to the underlying zoning designations, the Zoning Ordinance also contains a number of Overlay Districts that include development standards for designated areas that apply in addition to the requirements of the underlying zone (Table E-2-4).
Table E-2-2 summarizes allowed residential uses in residential and primarily nonresidential zoning districts, including those permitted by right (P), permitted by conditional use permit (C), or permitted subject to additional standards (S). Out of more than 40 districts in the city, only 11 do not generally allow residential uses, except for emergency shelters or caretaker’s residences on a limited basis, including:
▪ PQ-P Public, Quasi-Public
▪ PQ Public, Quasi-Public School and Health Facilities
▪ POS Parks and Open Space
▪ DP Downtown Public
▪ DPOS Downtown Parks and Open Space
▪ OM Medical Office
▪ IP-A, IP-B, and IP-C Industrial
▪ MP-NP-IBP and MP-NP-IBP-W Napa Pipe Industrial/Business Park (Waterfront) Consistent with California Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1) related to transparency requirements, zoning, density or FAR, and development standards for all parcels within the city are available through the city’s website (cityofnapa.org). All current development fees are also available to the public on the city’s website. Further, the City has significantly improved public information dissemination over the past decade by posting plans, ordinances, agendas, reports, and other city information online as well as in weekly newsletters. In addition, an online customer response system has been implemented.
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table E-2-2: Summary of Zoning Districts and Allowed Residential Uses Zoning Districts RS RI RT RM RO OC MU-G MU-T CC CL CT DCC DMU DN OBC AR MP-G1 MP-G2 MP-G3 MP-G4 MPNP-ILMP-NPMUR-W
MP-S IL
Allowed Uses
Single-Family Detached
(1 unit per lot)
P P P P P C X C C P P P+ P P+ P+
Single-Family Detached
(>1 unit per lot)
C C P P C C C X C C P C P+ P P+ P+
Single-Family Attached
(incl. condominiums) C P P CS CS C P+ X CS CS CS PS CS PS+ PS P+ P+ Condominium
Conversion of Rentals
CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS+ CS CS CS
Multi-family (1-3 units
per lot)
C P P P C C P+ X C P P P C C C P/C+ P P+
Multi-family (>3 units per
lot) P P C C P+ X C P P P C C C P/C+ P P+
Mixed Use Residential P/C P/C P/C P+ P/C P/C C^ PS/CS PS/CS P/C PS/CS C+ C+ C+ C^ C^ Group Residential (incl.
SROs)
C C CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS P+
Intermediate Care
Facility (0-6 residents)
P P P P P* P* P+
Intermediate Care
Facility (>6 residents) C C C C P+
Live-Work Units C C C C C P/C+ C C CS CS PS/CS** PS C C C C C C Mobile Home Park (incl.
conversion)
C C E/C E/C
Residential Care Facility
(0-6 residents)
P P P P P* P* P* P*+ P* P* C C C C P* P* P* P P+
Residential Care Facility
(>6 residents) C C C C C* C*+ C* C* C C C C C* C* C* C P+ ADU/JADU (or living
quarters)
PS PS PS PS PS
Rooming or Boarding (1-2
guests)
P P P P P
Rooming or Boarding (3-
5 guests) C C C ~ ~
Caretaker’s Residence C C C
Farm Labor Housing
(large, >6 residents)
C
Employee Housing (large,
>6 residents)
P
Emergency Shelter/
Community Care Facility
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P C
Notes: See Table E-2-3 for more specific development standards and full name of zoning districts. Per Section 17.52.505, transitional, supportive, and small employee (6 or fewer residents) housing projects are allowed in the same districts and under the same provisions as the type of housing they most closely resemble. Table symbology: P = Permitted use, C = Conditional use, S = Specific standards apply, Blank = Not allowed, X = Allowed as part of mixed use developments only, E = Allows existing uses only, *In residential units only, **Only when adding residential (not conversion of existing residential), ^Allowed when applied in areas designated as Mixed Use in the General Plan, +Limited by specific area plan requirements, ~Becomes group residential use.
Source: City of Napa 2040 General Plan Land Use Element (2022)
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
For mixed use developments that include residential components, if all uses are permitted by right (P) and no density bonus or conversion of residential use is proposed, then such developments are a permitted use. Otherwise, mixed use residential developments are conditional uses (C) at this time; however, the Housing Element includes a program (H2-2.1) to update Section 17.52.130 of the Zoning Ordinance to align with state law and increase use of density bonuses. In some districts, mixed use residential is only allowed when the General Plan designation for the specific site is Mixed Use.
Zoning districts within the Downtown Specific Plan Area (DCC, DMU, DN, and OBC) also restrict uses based on which floor level they occupy. Allowed uses on the ground levels of buildings or sites are mostly restricted to those that are active and visitor-oriented, such as entertainment venues, galleries, restaurants, and retail. Less active uses, like offices and residential units, are encouraged to occupy the upper floors of buildings and only allowed on the ground level under limited circumstances.
For most zoning districts, allowed residential density and FAR ranges are dictated by the General Plan (GP) designation for the specific property. Table E-2-3 summarizes the city’s property development standards in residential and nonresidential base zoning districts that allow residential uses (as identified in Table E-2-2). Impacts on density and development standards for overlay zoning districts are summarized in Table E-2-4. For projects that include specified amounts of affordable housing, the City awards additional residential density, reduces parking standards, waives development standards that would physically preclude the project, and provides other incentives or concessions that reduce development costs to provide for affordable housing, in accordance with State Density Bonus Law.