NVR Logo
Group wants development limited in area near Pacific Union College
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Save and Share Share
A slow-growth Angwin group wants to burst the so-called Angwin urban bubble, a decades-old zoning area at the center of a controversy over the future of Angwin.

Save Rural Angwin, an opposition group to Pacific Union College’s proposal to develop 391 housing units in what it calls its Eco-Village to provide money for an endowment, wants the county to carve up the bubble into planning zones designed to protect agricultural land, limiting acreage the college can develop to less than 200 affordable units.
The group made the proposal on June 15 as a comment on the county’s draft general plan update.

Under the Save Rural Angwin Plan, much of the old Angwin urban bubble would be placed under an “institutional” designation, with chunks to the north, east, northwest, and southwest designated for agriculture. The Angwin market area would be dubbed commercial, while a peninsula of land to the north and a parcel of land at the southern end of PUC would be zoned “rural residential” to provide land for faculty and staff housing.
“This is a very positive proposal,” said group spokesman Allen Spence in a statement. “We value the college as a major community asset, and we want to see it succeed. From the first day of our organization, we have declared that we will support PUC’s need for faculty and staff housing. This proposal makes that possible.”

PUC officials disagree, stressing that the urban bubble is key to the Seventh Day Adventist college’s future in Napa County. Without the endowment, they have said there will be a dire future for the college.
“SRA’s efforts could result in depriving thousands of faculty, students, staff and their families of a vibrant, healthy institution on which they depend,” PUC President Dick Osborn said in a statement. “If we are unable to grow our endowment in response to trends that threaten our financial future, our long-term ability to function is jeopardized by SRA’s plan. This plan condemns PUC and Angwin to slow, agonizing and inevitable decline.”

PUC officials point out it takes a certain number of market rate housing to subsidize affordable units. In the college’s current plan, about 15 percent of the housing would be so-called affordable and 20 percent would be “workforce”, less expensive than market rate homes but more expensive than affordable homes.

Spence said Save Rural Angwin’s zoning plan would avoid major traffic problems he believes PUC’s development proposal would cause.

“The negative impacts of a development such as envisioned by (PUC-hired developer) Triad (Communities) would significantly increase the population of Angwin,” Spence said. It would create a heavy and dangerous traffic load on Howell Mountain Road and Deer Park Road leading the Valley. It would convert land that has been in agricultural use for nearly 100 years into residential, commercial and industrial use in the heart of Angwin.”

In April, Triad Communities executive Curt Johansen said Jay Smith, owner of St. Helena’s upscale Sunshine Foods supermarket, is interested in opening a 15,000-square-foot organic food supermarket in Angwin. PUC officials reasoned the supermarket would cut traffic along Howell Mountain Road traveling to St. Helena because the market would offer a variety of goods and services.

In the meantime, PUC officials will oppose any changes to the Angwin urban bubble.

Hillary Gitelman, director of county planning, said the Save Rural Angwin proposal will be considered “just like all the other comments” received concerning the new draft general plan. Gitelman said public comments will go online sometime this week, while county public officials will receive hard copies next month.
21 comment(s)

Hard to believe wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:27 PM:

" PUC is part of a church with 16 million members and billions in assets. For it to claim that it needs to urbanize Angwin in order to survive is cynical and deceptive at best. The land in question could be sold for $50 million. PUC is trying to squeeze $35 million plus more though a development scheme with Triad at the expense of the citizens of Angwin. If selling its land is crucial to its endowment, then it has a $50 million endowment. It is not entitled (regardless of Osborn's visioneering over the Bubble) to make $35 million more by destroying Angwin. "

confused in Angwin wrote on Jun 26, 2007 3:42 PM:

" If PUC sold "all" this land for $50 million, then much or most of it would be cleared for vineyards just like other parcels have been on Howell Mountain. The PUC proposal places change and development on a smaller footprint then any other proposal and saves far more trees then an agriculture conversion plan. "

to confused wrote on Jun 26, 2007 4:28 PM:

" Sorry you have a problem with agriculture. Vineyards don't commute to Napa to work. They don't commit crime. They don't pollute. If you seriously consider that PUC is doing Angwin a favor with its land liquidation you might ask Triad why they never have more than 4 people in their "Angwin in springtime" pictorials rather than the thousands that will arrive. "

Farm Out wrote on Jun 26, 2007 6:31 PM:

" Agriculture can be more than winegrapes. America has a current shortage of hay and alfalfa due to so many farmers switching to corn production for bio deisel production. The current price of a bale of good horse hay is up to $12 per bale. PUC has an active haying operation with irrigation and harvest equipment in place. All they need to do is rachet up the program, get an ag business/marketing program going, include a program in environmental studies and sustainable agriculture. Promote the heck out of this wonderful resource. Watch it! Students may actually choose to attend and even pay tuition. (no more subsidizing foregin students to keep the place looking occupied). Why in the world would PUC's leadership choose to squander such a fantastic opportunity to generate income? Why not perpetuate the founding ideas of the college (sustainable, agriculture and self sufficiency)and preserve the rural charachter of the community? Follow the money to Brian Breckenridge who sits on the PUC Board of Trustees and has personal real estate holdings immedaitely adjacient to Triad ground zero, that will be worth millions should the Triad plan go through. Breckenridge's parcels will have immediate access to newly installed utilities including water & sewer. Mr. Breckenridge is waving the flag promoting this land liquidation. He should disclose his financial involvement, and remove himself at once from the Board of Trustees. Outsiders running the PUC Board, administrators acting as 'consultants' carpetbagging subdividers from out of state......you have got to be kidding. "

Kudos wrote on Jun 26, 2007 7:18 PM:

" Kudos to whoever put their time into this project. I saw the proposed map a couple of days ago and it carefully corrects the bizarre Urban Bubble that has hung over Angwin for decades. Originally, it was a meaningless aberration but recently it seems to have caught the eye of developers and speculators who thought it a loophole to be exploited regardless of the reality of Howell Mountain. Thank you for doing this. "

To: to confused wrote on Jun 27, 2007 7:50 AM:

" Vineyards may not commute, but they absolutely cause pollution of air and water through spraying of pesticides and erosion of land causing pollution of waterways with silt & run-off. They destroy natural wildlife habitat and corridors. And they are notorious for sucking up huge amounts of water, drawing down the aquifer and causing neighbors wells to run dry. If you doubt this, ask Coombsville residents about their critical water shortage and moratorium following the planting of hundreds of acres of vineyards in that area, and the studies proving serious depletion of the aquifer as a result. And while vineyards may not commit crimes, there is well documented history of their owners and managers violating various land use protection laws in the name of profit, and the resulting destruction caused by their actions. "

Farm Out and More wrote on Jun 27, 2007 8:10 AM:

" While a sustainable hay growing program isn't going to send students flocking to PUC or fund PUC's endowment, a comprehensive sustainability curriculum that includes all the attributes of the ecovillage as a thriving, working model -- sustainable farming of organic produce, state of the art tertiary wastewater treatment including 100% recycling, collection and conservation, natural solar & heat pump heating & cooling, comprehensive traffic & transportation mitigations, preservation of forests, open space & ag land and more -- will put PUC on the map & draw students and endowment funds just as sustainability programs, associated curriculum and effective marketing has done with progressive, environmentally conscious colleges across the nation. "

Econut wrote on Jun 27, 2007 8:58 AM:

" I agree with Farm Out and More. Napa County already has enough agriculture--why do we need more? Clearing more trees for agriculture will be more destructive to Angwin than building environmentally friendly homes. "

Cone on wrote on Jun 27, 2007 9:46 AM:

" While PUC started as a rural college, it has been a marionette manipulted by ministers from Los Angeles for decades. There is not one amongst them who cares about farming or Angwin. Sorry, Triad's gothca. "

Econut wrote on Jun 27, 2007 10:11 AM:

" Don't know about your environmentally friendly homes, whatever these are, but its the 1,000 new residents who would inhabit them who are the issue. Triad can pump out spin and claims all day with its eco-village marketing hype but this village will be filled with people who are no more eco than the rest of us. "

Support PUC's Plan wrote on Jun 27, 2007 11:40 AM:

" Whatever happened to private property rights? Whatever happened to supporting PUC? The SRA plan sets a dangerous precedent for all of Napa County. I support PUC and their plan, not SRA's radical alternative. "

Angwin forest fire concerns wrote on Jun 28, 2007 10:21 AM:

" More importantly, the recent fire in South Lake Tahoe is a wake up call to anyone who thinks it's a good idea to locate more housing in Angwin. At least in Tahoe, trapped residents have a lake to escape to. Angwin's limited escape routes pose a serious threat to the existing population. I cannot imagine adding a thousande more people up here fleeing an Oakland Hills type fire. It's crazy for the planning department to even consider 200 homes in Angwin "

The Big Lie wrote on Jun 28, 2007 10:25 PM:

" SRA's plan would not fund PUC's endowment by a penny. In fact it would put PUC further into debt to build college housing with nothing to offset that expense. Everyone can see through SRA's insincere claims of "supporting PUC" while the group tries to take away development rights on PUC's private land. Who do they think they're fooling? These are some of the same people who have said PUC should close & move somewhere else. And they now claim to "support" PUC? What a big lie. "

To Angwin forest fire concerns wrote on Jun 28, 2007 10:34 PM:

" Gee, I watched the news reports of people evacuating the Tahoe fire & didn't see anybody having to jump into the lake to escape it. Maybe Lake Tahoe should prohibit anybody else from moving there so they don't create more of a fire danger. Will more people living in Angwin, concentrated across the street from the college create more of a fire danger? No. But since this writer feels so obviously threatened by the "serious threat to the existing population" perhaps he/she should consider moving. "

Response to Jun 28, 2007 10:34 PM wrote on Jun 29, 2007 10:47 AM:

" Firstly, I care deeply about my family and friends in this community and their welfare should a forest fire occur in Angwin. The more houses built, the decreased number of resources available to help save people and existing homes. Angwin is in a HIGH fire risk zone, equivalent to the Oakland Hills. We do not live in an area as large as the Tahoe Basin where there are a number of escape and access routes. Rather, our escape routes are extremely limited. Due to the high risk fire issue, Angwin should be subjected to SLOW growth. And on a personal level, I have taken a few extraordinary measures to protect my home from fire. My home is built with fire resistant materials and I built my undereaves with Hardie Board. We built a concrete wall to the side of our home and we are going to remove most of our wooden deck and replace it with fire proof material. Last year we took advantage of the chipping program and we had someone evaluate our property for fire risk. I had to evacuate a home during a forest fire as a child. I know how it feels and when I moved here, I knew that the risks justified preventative measures. If you have any sense of concern for Angwin residents, you will not promote more housing which will be clustered together and increase danger for those living up here. It's just plain selfish. People safety is by far more important than the welfare of a struggling institution. Today, such an institution wouldn't even be allowed to be built in such a rural location. We are paying the price for decisions made a hundred years ago and at some point someone has got to have the guts to step forward and say 'enough'. "

a safer community wrote on Jun 29, 2007 7:26 PM:

" I look forward to the increase in residents since it will also mean a welcome increase in our volunteer safety personnel, firefighters and ambulance staff. That will make our community safer. "

To: a safer community wrote on Jun 30, 2007 11:55 AM:

" You are not looking at the bigger picture. More people equals a greater necessity for resources. Those resources are only as valuable as their capacity to gain access to a location. Thousands of people (including college and elementary school children and the elderly - without vehicles) fleeing firestorm conditions where access is blocked could be catastrophic in Angwin. I have made this argument before and I will make it again. Would Alameda County approve a large, clustered subdivision in the Oakland Hills today? I think not. Napa planners need to use common sense and not give in to the pressures of an institution unable to attract enough students and a developer who has moved in like a cancer to take advantage of their weakness. What we really need is a vineyard belt or golf course (perhaps with sparce housing) surrounding our community. Forest fires are naturally occuring events in California and we have done ourselves a great disservice by discouraging forest thinning. Replacing space, open or not, with clustered housing is not equivalent to 'thinning'. "

Save Rural Angwin wrote on Jul 2, 2007 11:53 AM:

" Swift Boat Veterans. Same thing. "

PUC Thins its Forests wrote on Jul 2, 2007 4:01 PM:

" PUC has spent tens of thousands of dollars thinning the forest understory in much of its property during the past few years. A casual stroll through its publicly accessible property will confirm this. All Angwin residents benefit from this service which they pay nothing for, plus Angwinites benefit from the numerous students, faculty and staff who serve on Angwin's Volunteer Fire Department. I think some gratitude and respect are due to an institution that cares more for its neighbors than its neighbors care for it. "

To Save Rural Angwin wrote on Jul 2, 2007 11:48 PM:

" First of all, I support the Rural Angwin Organization. Forgive me for my confusion, but what exactly do you mean by " Swift Boat Veterans. Same thing."?? I hold the organization in high esteem and I hope there is something truly meaningful about this comment. What does it mean? "

Econut wrote on Jul 3, 2007 8:23 AM:

" I wrote the first comment on June 27 but not the second, which was written by someone else who apparently knows little about "environmentally friendly homes." Such homes can be designed and built to minimize the impact on the environment, and I applaud any developer who aspires to build an eco-village using environmentally friendly building materials. "

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:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy