PUC drops 200 homes from Angwin plan

Affordable housing element reduced, critics remain opposed

By DAVID RYAN
Register Staff Writer

Pacific Union College officials announced Tuesday they have reduced their planned development in Angwin by 200 homes, but opponents made it known they still believe PUC’s plans to add homes in the Upvalley college town are a mistake.

PUC originally unveiled plans for a 591-home “eco-village,” including a new park in town and new stores. The proposal is driven by the college’s effort to increase its endowment fund and pay for operating expenses, financial needs that college officials say have become increasingly serious.

Much of the cuts in the college’s development plans come from eliminating the proposed “farm” neighborhood, where 145 homes were to be built along a stretch of open land parallel to the Angwin airport.

The college has also reduced proposed affordable housing, from 35 percent of the total housing of the previous plan to 15 percent of the current plan. About 20 percent of the housing in the current plan would be “workforce” housing, more expensive than affordable housing but less costly than market rate homes.

PUC President Richard Osborn told a crowd of more than 120 people at a community meeting Tuesday night that officials made changes to their plan “not because there has been opposition to it, but because some of the objections made sense to us.”

In recent months the town had split between vocal opponents and tacit supporters, while Napa County Supervisor Diane Dillon announced the original plan was too big for her to support.

In a statement issued by PUC officials, Thomas Mostert, Jr., chairman of Pacific Union College Board of Trustees, said the college was “listening to the community and sharing information about the Eco-Village freely.”

Tuesday night was the first time the college held an open mike forum, allowing the public to ask questions of PUC officials and criticize the plan. But it also allowed PUC officials to respond to pointed attacks.

Angwin resident John Tully told the audience PUC’s plan was just the beginning of a land grab, and the college — a Seventh-day Adventist institution — should try its hand at Napa Valley agriculture if it wanted to make money to survive.

“They will play Angwin like an ATM machine, selling pieces of land,” he said to applause.

Allen Spence, spokesman for the opposition group Save Rural Angwin, mocked the “eco-village” moniker, saying the college’s plans to build solar panels on roofs and use recycled wastewater will not make up — environmentally — for the damage done by commuters forced to drive to drive from Angwin to other cities to earn enough money to pay for their homes.

“This development is very environmentally unsound,” he said.

One man told the audience recent tax returns made available to the public showed PUC made millions in profits some years, and has averaged more than $1 million in profit for the past eight years.

John Collins, PUC vice president of finance, countered that money shown as profit on the tax returns was not as it seemed. “The college cannot use permanently restricted or temporarily restricted money for operations,” he said.

Supporters also made their way to the microphone Tuesday night.

Matthew Reeves, a junior at PUC, said his teachers have talked of leaving because of financial problems.

“I think we need to agree that there’s problems in the community and this (development) will fix that,” he said.

Pam Saddler, a PUC employee, said the college’s financial problems are real and the development needed to go forward for the institution to survive.

“I have every confidence that PUC is taking (steps) to ensure its future,” she said.

The crowd applauded for both supporters and detractors of the plan. Kevin Block, a PUC consultant and former Napa City Councilman, remarked on the civility of the debate.

“I think we all agree that it’s OK to disagree, but the way we disagree is important,” he said.

PUC will hold another open mike community meeting April 24, when officials pledge to reveal what they learned from Tuesday’s meeting.

Napa Valley Register Copyright © 2009