Dillon: Thumbs down on PUC plan | Napa Valley Register

Home » News » Local

Dillon: Thumbs down on PUC plan

Monday, March 05, 2007

Comment

By JESSE DUARTE
For the Register

If Pacific Union College decides to go forward with its proposal to create a 591-unit housing development in Angwin, it will do so without the support of Supervisor Diane Dillon.

The Upvalley representative on the board told St. Helena Chamber of Commerce members the project is too big and lacks the support of the Angwin community.

“My position on this currently is that 600 housing units is way too many, and I do not support this,” she said.

Dillon said she supports the 200 affordable units planned for Angwin in the current General Plan. “The college already has that ability, but what’s on the table now is too big,” she said.

The college and its development partner, Triad Communities, have not formally submitted a proposal, saying the project will continue to evolve as planners receive input from the community. In its current form, the development requires several rezonings that would have to be approved by the board of supervisors.

Dillon was also concerned that Angwin residents have not wholeheartedly embraced the project.

“I think it’s very important that we all, and especially the supervisor for the district, support that community,” she said. “We don’t want to go down the path where we end up with another community like American Canyon.”

American Canyon has been one of the fastest-growing cities in the state, and is making on-going efforts to address traffic and infrastructure problems related to the growth.

Dillon said there are two current issues affecting Angwin: the adjustments to the “urban bubble” in the new draft General Plan for Napa County and the college’s development proposal.

The draft General Plan contains several options relating to Angwin’s urban bubble, which allows ag land within it to be rezoned without triggering a countywide Measure J vote often needed when land is proposed to be redesignated from agriculture to some other purpose.

In its current form, the project does not require a Measure J vote. But one of the options in the draft General Plan would redraw the bubble in a way that would essentially require the college to redesign the project if it wishes to avoid a Measure J vote.

Though the college and Triad eventually will have to prepare an environmental impact report for the project, Dillon told the audience to watch for the new General Plan’s own EIR, which will examine the potential impacts of Angwin growth on traffic throughout the area.

“There are aspects of the General Plan EIR that will have an impact on what PUC and Triad are able to do with their project,” she said.

The Chamber of Commerce will sponsor a presentation of the draft General Plan by Napa County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman at 6 p.m. on Thursday, March 22, at Vintage Hall.

Dillon added that the county is pursuing funding from the Federal Aviation Administration to help purchase the PUC-owned Angwin Airport. It is within the college’s power to sell the airport to a third party, and Dillon said many in the county would like to see it preserved. PUC officials have said they will consider selling the airport only to those buyers who will continue to put it to its current use, as opposed to redeveloping the site for some other purpose.

28 comment(s)

Oh Please Diane wrote on Mar 5, 2007 10:11 AM:

" Diane, please listen to and represent all sides of your constituents. You are supposed to represent the entire upper valley and it seems that should include listening to and talking with representatives of the largest land owner and one of the largest employers in your district, Pacific Union College. Have you attended the public meetings held in Angwin to present proposals? Have you met with the PUC president to accurately understand PUC's needs and desires? Have you called a district town hall meeting to listen to your constituents? What actual information did you research to base your negative position upon? "

Buzzy wrote on Mar 5, 2007 10:37 AM:

" Too bad Angwinites. You should have Dodd. He can push anything through. Have you seen Napa Pipe? Its a slam dunk. "

To: Oh Please Diane wrote on Mar 5, 2007 11:23 AM:

" Think about the question you ask, " Have you met with the PUC president to accurately understand PUC's needs and desires?" If a business such as a St. Helena restaurant was having financial difficulty, it would not be the responsibility of a supervisor to remedy the situation. Restaurants change hands all the time. If the business wanted to sell the lot they owned next door so that they could finance their operations, even though patrons preferred another restaurant down the road, it's not the supervisor's responsibility to react to emotional pleas of the business. It's not anyone's fault that PUC has been mismanaged to the point that they must sell off their lands. If PUC cannot offer a product which will keep them in business, it's certainly not the responsibility of the politicians or community members to fix. Appealing on an emotional level may have worked in the past but in today's climate, such tactics are no longer effective. This is not just about PUC's needs and desires. PUC will not be exempt from environmental and traffic impact reports or critical analysis just because they are the biggest landowners in the area who are allowed other types of exemptions. "

Tom wrote on Mar 5, 2007 12:29 PM:

" As I see it this is an issue of how does Napa County continue to meet it's housing obligations. In order to recieve certian funds from the State Napa, just like the surrounding Counties, has to build X amount of new housing each year. To date, most all this new development has taken place in American Canyon and Napa. Now Ms. Dillon's upvalley district feeds from the same trough as the rest of the County. If the upvalley district of going to refuse to do it's part to help Napa County meet its housing obligations to recieve State funds the County despirately needs, that's their choice. But if the upvalley district does refuse to do it's part, that district should not expect to benefit even 1 penny from the funds the rest of the County is bearing the burden to obtian. "

Lack of Planning wrote on Mar 5, 2007 2:10 PM:

" This issue is simple. The area is not zoned to accept what the developer wants to do. Therefore, they cannot do it. Simply tell them so. Are we afraid the Planning Commission and Supervisors are going to amend the general plan and the zoning to accomodate this one project? Are we? If so we need to get people on the board of Supervisors and the Planning commssion who have some fortitude. "

Michael H. wrote on Mar 5, 2007 3:54 PM:

" I think this should go further through the planning process to see how it unfolds before anyone turns it down. It may well be too much, but PUC does have a right to use its property. It is not fair to say it was the result of mismangement, they have owned this property and have been planning on using it for decades. For them it is like a savings account that they one day planned to spend, only county rules have prevented it. Can you imagine how you would feel if you had saved decades in a savings account, then in the mean time the rules changed and all of a sudden the government says you can't use it? That is why the restaurant analogy is incorrect, a fair analogy would be if it were the County/Supervisors who caused the restaurant to be losing money to begin with, due to regulations they imposed AFTER the restaurant was open and the owner had put all their savings into it. And it is not a simple decision, nor is it obvious that the land they want to use is zoned agricultural. It is inside the urban bubble which is zoned for development, even though it is in agricultural watershed by general plan designation. ....no wonder it is so hard for people to understand, it is anything but simple. I say let it play out and let people argue about it for a while and try to reach some consensus. Both sides have legitimate concerns. "

191 Units Done Deal wrote on Mar 5, 2007 4:45 PM:

" Please be clear that in the last round of state mandated housing allocations for Napa County, two sites in Angwin were identified and APPROVED for 191 units of affordable housing. These two sites are on land owned by PUC. This appeared to be a good fit which supported PUC's desire to provide housing for faculity and staff, and to help meet the State housing requirements. This is done. 191 units can be built tomorrow by PUC on land they own. These are not being opposed by anyone that I am aware of. Please realize that PUC has this under their belt and no one is attempting to take it away from them. The Triad proposal for industrial park, hotel, 591 units of housing, mixed retail, commercial, underground parking garage, way up here on Howell Mountain is what is being opposed. Creation of a giant home ownres association to handle sewer and water issues (Berryessa Estates)is absurd. The General Plan update process looks at current Angwin maps and address the reality of land use patterns and attempts to protect agriculture while directing housing to appropriate locations. "

Not county's responsibility wrote on Mar 5, 2007 5:45 PM:

" Very few people I have spoken to oppose the 200 affordable homes. This is not the issue at all. It's a done deal and everyone knows it. Now that we have that out of the way, let me remind you that it is not the county's responsibility to change rules/redraw lines, to accomodate a business that is having financial difficulties. The sales of PUC lands is a choice for PUC, but how those lands are used does involve regulation. People should also know that PUC is just buying time. Eventually the money will run out (they have sold land before and they're once again back to where they started). They will inevitably face the same fate as other failed organizations unwilling to adapt to changing times. Undoubtedly, this college will someday be referred to by another name. It's just a matter of time. "

Two faced wrote on Mar 5, 2007 7:36 PM:

" Ms. Dillon and the other BOS members sure did not mind using American Canyon's well planned growth to keep them eligible for Tax Dollars. The BOS sure did not mind expanding the Airport at an enormous rate of growth with no responsibility for where those workers were going to live? They are commuting on Highway 12 or 29, causing the traffic you complain about. Who provides the water? Who provides the sewer? AMERICAN CANYON. Who gets the property tax and sales tax dollars- Napa County. Sure you didn't mind then, because you had none of the responsibilities that came with it. 591 units are not OK in Angwin, but 2800 units at the Napa Pipe property is OK- again with no responsibility for Water or Sewer. The Draft General Pan is a disaster and I strongly urge each city in the Valley to look at it and read it very carefully. The BOS are trying to start a public miss-information campaign by making the false claim that American Canyon is the problem. The BOS want to start a regional "us and them" battle, pitting the up-valley against the "south valley". It is two faced. "

To Not County's Responsibility wrote on Mar 5, 2007 7:46 PM:

" If PUC "inevitably faces the same fate as other failed organizations" they'll do what they've done in the past, and that's not sell to another college. Not when they own the most valuable apellation soil in the valley. They'll sell out to vineyards. Goodbye forests, goodbye trails, goodbye water supply. But at least no houses, right? "

Right decision... wrote on Mar 5, 2007 8:38 PM:

" The affordable low-income housing proposal has been approved. So please PUC supporters, we don't need 591+ homes more on top of that. And Diane Dillon had already met and listened to both sides of the parties- she made the right decision to turn it down. "

mahatma wrote on Mar 5, 2007 8:43 PM:

" what refreshing news! while the public perception is that politicians are generally beholden to special interests , Diane Dillon shows that some care about the majority of their constiuents and actually represent those who live and work in their area. here's hoping other supervisors show the same kind of courage. i'll vote for her again next time and i'm sure most people in angwin will too. "

It's interesting wrote on Mar 5, 2007 9:18 PM:

" Ms. Dillon says no to PUC as the Napa Pipe vision is starting. "

Response "to not..." wrote on Mar 5, 2007 9:46 PM:

" How much of that appellation soil is actually useable? I realize that the college owns quite a bit of acreage but it seems that much of the land is steep. I do not believe that all of PUC lands can be covered by vineyards because regulatory processes such as erosion control will play a role. Also, what's to stop PUC from selling other undeveloped lands to vineyards once the development is in place? Do you think that houses do not have environmental impact? They use water too, and there's a lot less soil permeability in a subdivision than a vineyard. "

Also to not County's responsibility wrote on Mar 5, 2007 10:44 PM:

" Not the county's responsibility wrote "They will inevitably face the same fate as other failed organizations unwilling to adapt to changing times. Undoubtedly, this college will someday be referred to by another name. It's just a matter of time." Actually PUC is proposing to adapt to changing times. The entire idea of an eco village is about moving forward and living responsibly. Also, PUC is proposing to stop being a company town, recognizing that the community is much more diverse. They have talked about relinquishing control of business so that the retail can better serve the entire community. This is definitely a mindset that is looking towards change. And as for the comment about the college no longer being around, even one of the General Plan committee members stated publicly that everyone should recognize the fact that PUC has been around for longer than most institutions in the valley (since 1909). Give it some respect. Not only that, imagine what would happen if PUC did go away. People don't realize that their presence makes major contributions to the upper valley such as in workforce and regular tourism (hundreds of parents, visiting groups, alumni), business to local restaurants--imagine all this and some 1400 students plus faculty/staff families just going away. That's going to hurt. "

To also to.... wrote on Mar 6, 2007 12:14 PM:

" PUC might be relinquishing control of businesses, and that's ok, but people need to be informed that the grocery store will be reduced to the size of a convenience store. I'm not Adventist, but I would rather have a store without meat or alcohol than a convenience store that replaces other essentials with those types of items. The health aspect of the SDA's was never my personal issue. Quite the opposite. In many respects, the Adventists were forward thinking in the areas of health. Parts of the SDA community are, instead, backwards in their company town, elitist, "we're the only one's who matter" type of attitude. Not everyone carries this attitude. But the one's who do appear to be carrying this same attitude into their dealings with the community over this development. If PUC went away (or rather relocated to another area) the facility would be purchased by another organization. The buildings would not remain vacant for long. People in Angwin would maintain their employment with an educational facility of some sort or another. In fact, a new institution might breath new life into the area. "

Face Reality wrote on Mar 6, 2007 1:35 PM:

" PUC is not going anywhere. PUC owns 1,900 acres of land and could sell all but the campus tomorrow for vineyards, which need no approval to be planted. That sale would fund PUC's endowment for the forseeable future. There will be no "new institution". One way or another, PUC is here to stay. "

Good Plan wrote on Mar 8, 2007 11:01 AM:

" Supervisor Dillon jumped the gun. She failed her constituency and the public process that has been shaping the project. There is strong support for the Eco-Village and it is growing. "

Uh... wrote on Mar 8, 2007 11:24 PM:

" ...I think somehow people aren't aware that the 191 is for campus housing development. That's not for sale to open market. Approval for that is great. Yes, indeed. However, that doesn't contribute to an endowment. It would be useful for people on both sides to research the current climate for small liberal arts schools. Don't take PUC's word for it. I'm a PUC grad and employee. Maybe we've somehow managed to get our facts mixed us. Call us on it. Offer us some suggestions. We're not just a small restaurant. We're a huge employer and contributor here in the valley. Give us a hand. The cost of higher ed has exploded over the past decade. Our parents' notion of "working your way through school" is laughable today. You could call it PUC's mismanagement, but you'd have to put UC's, Cal States, and just about every private college in the US in that category then. Maybe none of us college folk around the nation know what we're doing. Anyone willing to lay down some well-thought alternatives? It may take a few weeks or months, but I'm listening. "

To 'Uh' wrote on Mar 9, 2007 10:55 AM:

" Maybe 'Uh' would like to pay for the construction of those 191 campus housing units. Without income from developing some of its property, PUC certainly can't afford to build them. But then people know that, which makes it all the more easier (and insincere)to say that it's fine for PUC to do just that and nothing else. "

Response to Uh wrote on Mar 9, 2007 11:11 PM:

" If any of the 191 units are county authorized affordable housing, they cannot be designated for sale to PUC employees only. If any type of housing is for sale, it must comply with laws that prevent creed discrimination, Creed is defined as a statement or confession of belief. If a person chooses 'not' to believe in something, it is still a type of belief and they too are protected by creed discrimination laws. Because PUC is a religious institution, refusing to sell to people not affiliated with the college would probably be interpreted as a form of creed discrimination in the realm of real estate law. PUC would need to give the housing away to avoid breaking the law. "

Uh Uh Uh wrote on Mar 10, 2007 7:17 PM:

" PUC has already said the affordable campus housing they're building in the project is r-e-n-t-a-l housing, just like they have now, not housing that will be sold. "

response to: uh uh uh wrote on Mar 11, 2007 7:02 PM:

" Are you suggesting that ALL of the affordable housing will be put into the rental market? Is this county authorized affordable housing? What's to stop PUC from defining such housing as 'rentals' for now and then selectively selling it later to whoever they want, like on a lease option or something, basically snatching up all the affordable housing for themselves? I was told by a Triad representative that the affordable housing was going to to be mixed in with the other units and available to anyone. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I really want the truth about where and who this affordable housing is going to. I understand that PUC needs some of the housing for their staff, but is it fair to have the few housing designated as county affordable housing going to a select group? Something's very wrong with this scenario. Will someone give a straight answer? There must be affordable housing elsewhere, besides the 191 units? "

Uh Uh Uh wrote on Mar 11, 2007 8:59 PM:

" At a presentation they said affordable PUC ON-CAMPUS housing will be rental not sold, and the affordable eco-village housing will be for sale to whoever qualifies by county regulations. Both rental and for sale affordable housing available. "

Tired Commuter wrote on Mar 13, 2007 7:50 PM:

" Do Diane Dillon and Save Rural Angwin care at all about the thousands of commuters who live in cheaper areas to the north and commute daily through Angwin and the upper valley to our jobs in Napa Valley, clogging your roads with traffic and spewing harmful emissions into your air? Gas prices are increasing and straining our budgets. We have less time for our families. We cannot afford the homes that you own and comfortably reside in. Do you believe in social justice, or do you just want to perpetuate indifinitely the property values and lifestyles of affluent home owners? Are we the ones being greedy by simply wanting to live closer to our jobs so we won't have to drive so far? Wouldn't you? We perform essential services in Napa County such as teaching in your schools, laboring in your vineyards, serving food in your restaurants, and working the cash registers in your markets and gas stations. Our labor enriches and empowers you. But you don't pay us enough to live near our jobs and you refuse to provide affordable housing. It's a blatant form of social and economic discrimination! I wish the board of supervisors and the residents of the upper valley were sympathetic to our needs, but who do we have to turn to defend our needs? Pacific Union College and Triad. Who else can we turn to? I embrace their vision of economic and environmental justice. I would love to live in an eco-village with affordable housing closer to my job. If Angwin is already an eco-village as some claim, why would it rather tear down its forests to put in what, more vineyards? Room for new vineyards but none of us less desirable, expendible employees who help make you rich? Give us a break! "

Oh, these things I pray wrote on Mar 13, 2007 11:27 PM:

" Ah, Triad Angwin Pacific LLC..the great savior of the under trodden masses..... Please Dear Triad bring 'social justice' to humanity by building your great urban sprawl of lovely Howell Mountian. Please lift the underpaid workers of Napa Valley and into shiny new homes at subsidized rates. Please require me not to take a week end job or start out by reaching hard to purchase my first fixer home home. Please ask me not to re-evaluate my job skill and career aspirations, let Triad Angwin Pacific LLC, Napa County and the people of the State of California bear the burden of putting a nice NEW roof over my head. Please let environmental justice be done by the construction of desnse condos, apartments, industrial park, reatil complex and hotel in Angwin. Please let me make a few thousand dollars off this deal so I can sit in my third floor apartment and tell my kids they can not play outside because it is dangerous. But let me not forget to tell my children the long ago story of how Howell Mountain was once known for its beautiful trees. Blessings. "

Dear Tired Commuter wrote on Mar 14, 2007 10:39 AM:

" Do you realize just how many people in Angwin commute to Napa everyday? We do it for different jobs/better pay than a company like PUC offers. And yes the commute to Napa would be worth complaining about if it were not for the fact that we make the choice to live in a rural area. Are we complaining? No, we do it because we like the rural environment and the commute is a sacrifice we are willing to make. People also raise the issue of high rent in Angwin but it's as inexpensive here as it is in Napa when you compare apples to apples. Many of the rentals up here have land. Rentals are houses rather than condos or apartments that you might find in Napa. This is the nature of housing in a rural area. If you find comparable housing in Napa, the rental rates are pretty much the same. I know someone who found a 2 bedroom country house rental in Angwin for $900 a month. For Napa county, that's not too bad. And it wasn't run down and falling apart as some people have described rentals in Angwin. Yes I've heard of one landlord in Angwin who does not maintain his rentals. You just need to keep shopping around. Besides, PUC has been given the go ahead to build nearly 200 rentals. Yes it's true you might find fancier rentals in Napa for the same price. But that's your choice to commute so that you can live in a modern style rental. It's not fair for those of us who make the sacrifice to commute to Napa everyday so that we can live in a rural environment to have that taken away so that you don't have to commute anymore By the way, our family is not wealthy. We are a one income family and even after 13 years of living here, our house is unfinished. We worked really hard to make this a reality. Commuting is part of it. "

Sing Along wrote on Mar 17, 2007 11:00 PM:

" Hi Ho, Hi Ho, we commute ev'ry day, you know. There'll be hell to pay if newbies do the same, Hi Ho, Hi Ho. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: