NVR Logo
Bubble meeting bursting at seams
Crowded planning meeting turns into debate on future of Angwin
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Save and Share Share
It was wall to wall — to wall to wall — people at a Wednesday meeting of the Napa County Planning Commission, where the subject was the future of Angwin.

Citizens interested in the Angwin “bubble” — a zoning matter that was on the planning commission’s agenda — and the Pacific Union College plan for 380 new homes and an Eco-Village — which was not on the agenda —  packed the board of supervisors’ chambers and three overflow rooms.
Chambers at the downtown Napa building were so filled the planning commission voted to continue the public hearing to Sept. 5 at a place and time yet to be finalized.

The formal subject Wednesday was the zoning issue surrounding the so-called Angwin urban bubble, a more-or-less oval line on planning maps that carves out part of the rural community for potential development. But formality was overstepped at many points because residents chagrined by the proposed 380-dwelling development often did not distinguish between PUC’s wish to leave the bubble as is and PUC’s proposal for the Eco-Village.
Questions about the Eco-Village and the bubble are on separate tracks before county officials. But since both are arising at the same time, and since there is a chance the county’s decision about the bubble could limit the PUC project, the two issues have become intertwined in the eyes of many.On Wednesday, that was so much the case that an exasperated Planning Commission Chairman Jim King interrupted several speakers to keep them on the subject at hand and not the proposed PUC development.

“I want a jar on that table that everyone has to put in $10 every time they say plan,” he said at one point.
The group Save Rural Angwin wants to pop the Angwin bubble and re-zone the area as mix of institutional, agricultural, commercial and residential uses that would limit college expansion to about 190 affordable homes.

Officials for the college have advocated for leaving the bubble as is.

County staffers have considered redrawing the bubble so that it more accurately reflects the mix or rural and urban uses already in evidence in Angwin.

Bubbles, cars, torpedos

Allen Spence, spokesman for Save Rural Angwin, said the Eco-Village proposal would expand the size of Angwin by 22 percent. SRA members say local roads and water supplies cannot support such growth, and they also have expressed concern the community would lose the quiet, country feel that defines it.

College officials told the planning commission that altering the bubble would infringe on the property rights of the college, which owns vast tracts of forest that have been used for years by the public for biking and hiking. PUC President Richard Osborn told the commissioners that if PUC cannot develop a relatively small portion of its property for homes and commercial uses to bulk up the school’s endowment, it might have to choose grapes over houses.

“Taking land out of the urban bubble will deal a serious blow to PUC,” said Osborn. “If you remove PUC land from the urban bubble then its only value will be as vineyard land.”

In the past, the Seventh-day Adventist institution has sold land that has been converted to vineyards, and Osborn said those transactions have had a negative impact in the Adventist community, whose members do not drink alcohol.

“We’ve sold our land for vineyards before and let me tell you, it did tear our community apart,” he said.

Most speakers Wednesday came out against the PUC plan. However, many supporters spread out through the rooms did not get a chance to speak.

Terrance Ford was with the majority that reached the podium.

“I support bursting the bubble so the community as a whole can decide what their community should be,” he said.

Pat Griffith focussed on the traffic and water impacts that potential development might bring to Howell Mountain Road.

“We’ve just had our 15th wreck near our driveway,” he said. “... We have a neighbor whose well has gone dry and we are now sharing our water with them.”

Olaf Beckmann brought a homemade DVD of trucks rumbling through Deer Park, a small community west of Angwin.

“It never stops, there’s never a peak,” he said, narrating the short movie. “The road was never designed for this and now there’s talk of seven-to-nine years of construction.”

Longtime Angwin resident Virgil Morris was another supporter of the Save Rural Angwin proposal to burst the bubble.

“I chose the community for the peace and quiet that exists,” he said. “The bubble is an arbitrary circle drawn around this community.”

PUC representatives spent time trying to debunk that widespread notion.

Napa attorney and former Napa City Council member Kevin Block, representing PUC, showed minutes from a 1974 planning meeting where Angwin and American Canyon were both labeled as urban areas on purpose.

He said the bubble was meant to allow for inevitable growth in rural areas, and that it remains a valuable planning tool.

He also tried to steer the debate about the bubble away from the specter of PUC’s development proposal.

“It’s inappropriate to pass judgment on the project through the general plan,” he said.

Angwin resident Julie Lee spoke on behalf of herself, though she works in public relations for PUC.

She criticized the mostly gray-haired opponents of the urban bubble and PUC’s development proposal for wanting to shut the door on the younger generation who want to raise children in Angwin.

“For me the urban bubble represents a vision of a future, a future to which I can belong,” she said.

Other supporters were unabashed about the relationship between the Angwin urban bubble staying the way it is and PUC’s proposed development.

“This general plan should not be manipulated to torpedo what could be a very good project,” Manny Scrofani said. “They are asking to leave the bubble the way it is so they can finance PUC. Changing the bubble won’t help, it’ll just bury another (educational) institution.”
57 comment(s)

Bury an educational institution? wrote on Aug 16, 2007 10:20 AM:

" No. The college won't be buried. They can develop their land into vineyards and solve their problem. It's their choice. Or the can develop some houses on large parcels already subdivided for such use. But that alone will probably not solve their financial problems. They could create a golf course; But that would require longterm management and it sounds like PUC does not want to be in the field of land management. It's not the problem of the Napa County Planning Commission that PUC's religious beliefs are against vineyards and wine production and that their college just happens to be located in one of the largest wine production areas in the country. PUC cannot expect everyone to walk on eggshells around this issue. If the best use for this land is agriculture, then so be it. Regarding the remark from Julie Lee on grey haired people: not too bright a remark from a PR person. The tone sounds discriminatory to me. This will backfire. "

Tired of it all wrote on Aug 16, 2007 8:21 PM:

" I hope they do build vineyards. Let's see how many hiking trails are maintained if they do that. And traffic? lol! "

To: Bury wrote on Aug 16, 2007 8:44 PM:

" On the contrary, the behavior of older generations in attempting to block the ability for the next generation of young families to have the same opportunity to live in Angwin that they had is what is truly discriminatory. "

You to can live here too! wrote on Aug 16, 2007 9:41 PM:

" Ms. Lee obvoiusly has no love for the small rural community of Angwin. Our modest bungalows and rustic cabins apparently are not of intrest to her. I suggest she check with a local realtor and I am sure she will find some of the mosy reasonable home prices in the Napa Valley are here in Angwin. Spankin' new like thoses ugly boxes in American Canyon? No. But humble and appropriate for our wooded village. Get out you tools and your try Julie....we have plenty of available homes for young families. PUC cant do everyting for everyone...some times you have to do it for yourself! "

To: to Bury wrote on Aug 16, 2007 10:12 PM:

" My children were still young when we moved to Angwin and purchased a home. Previously we lived in a city. We had to fix up two homes and build up equity before making a move to the country. Most people are well aware that country living is typically more expensive than city living in terms of land and energy costs. Yeah, my hair may be turning gray and perhaps it's partly due to the stress of equity building LOL! But my family made sacrifices to get to this place and I don't think it's right for other people to take short cuts to accomplish the same task. We are middle income and if we can do it, you can too. Quit complaining and start searching for an entry level home to fix up. Quit having expectations that the things that are hard to acquire in life are going to be handed to you without a struggle. "

To Bury an educational... wrote on Aug 16, 2007 10:23 PM:

" I agree w/ Julie Lee's assesment. I know many younger families (even physicians) who can't find housing to purchase in Angwin and this plan will allow for them to do so. The "mostly" (if you can read) older generation have had their chance for purchasing their homes and living their dreams. They DO want to shut the door on the future of Angwin. And do you think that if there are vinyards that there will be less traffic? This plan not only solves PUC's problem, but many of Napa County's problems as well. "

Bury the entitlement attitude wrote on Aug 17, 2007 9:09 AM:

" How presumptuous that the "gray haired" generation believes not only that they have the right to dictate the long term future of Angwin, a future they won't be around to see the consequences of, but that young families should have to "struggle" like they did (wasn't the point of struggling to make a better life for their kids?) to attain home ownership. Well, struggle they do. Prices have soared in this valley since the older generation could buy fixer-uppers at true fixer-upper prices. Now a "fixer" costs more than a working couple can afford, forget about money for home improvements. Young families have a bigger stake in the future than oldsters and they should certainly have a bigger voice in decisions that will affect them. "

To: You can live here too on my terms wrote on Aug 17, 2007 9:22 AM:

" "You can live here too" says to make due with the current 'affordable' housing in Angwin, which he/she romantically describes as "humble" and "rustic". My family has viewed some of these sweet, deteriorating cabins & bungalows which are actually money pits that would cost thousands and thousands to rehab to marginally habitable. There is a huge middle ground between dumps and American Canyon boxes. "You can" should get out more and look at all the options, rather than exaggerate to the worst example. "

To: You can live here too wrote on Aug 17, 2007 10:33 AM:

" Ms. Lee has no love for Angwin unless she shares your viewpoint? Such arrogance. "

To: Bury the entitlement attitude wrote on Aug 17, 2007 11:17 AM:

" This comment says it all: "Young families have a bigger stake in the future than oldsters and they should certainly have a bigger voice in decisions that will affect them" Firstly, My hair may be grey but I'm in my fourties and I plan to be around another 40 years. Yes this development and all of the construction will impact my life. And bigger voice? No, we live in a democracy and if there are more grey haired people living in Angwin, their voice will be collectively louder. However, many of the PUC staff who support this development are grey haired so this voice wouldn't be united. Truth is that the affordable part of housing is going to be offered to PUC employees and consequently, SDA members of the community because the 15% of affordable housing is located ON CAMPUS where the college can legally control who's allowed to live there. 20% of the housing will be discounted for those people who WORK IN THIS COMMUNITY. And who is the primary employer in Angwin? Which group will be allowed favoritism in the discounted/affordable housing? This is NOT democracy and this is not about providing housing to young families unless you belong to a certain sect. This development is not about grey haired people versus young families. It's about a business who is attempting to keep all the goodies for itself which will also benefit *some* members of it's religion. County residents should be infuriated by the abuse of affordable housing in such a sneaky, manipulative way. Such favoritism in housing should be illegal. "

Why should Angwin be cheap wrote on Aug 17, 2007 11:39 AM:

" Why is it that some of you seem to think that Angwin should be cheap? We are only fifteen minutes away from St. Helena (a very expensive place to live)and our lots are quite a bit larger. In California, no matter where you go, housing is almost always more expensive in the rural hills, especially in Napa County. Talk about entitlement. People think that just because a college is located in a rural area that they are entitled to cheap housing? My family does not have the luxury of working for PUC and guess what? We commute to Napa to work. And for those who cannot afford to live here, Napa is more affordable. Move there or to Hidden Valley (there are people living there who commute to Santa Rosa). Hidden Valley is one of those California exceptions where rural housing is affordable. Yes you will need to commute to Angwin but you will be no different than the rest of of us who commute the other direction from Angwin. "

No free lunch here wrote on Aug 17, 2007 1:36 PM:

" . . .or anywhere else. You want to own a house? You want to afford to live in the country? Earn it! Are you aware that many of the grey haired folks worked for 30 years and owned homes in less desirable places BEFORE buying their home in Angwin? This isn't about young or old it is about common sense, hard work, preservation of history and the land, and about not "selling the farm" for a quick fix. Somebody said in the meeting the other day that water bills in Angwin are $200.00 mo. No affordable homes here either. "

Educational Apathy wrote on Aug 17, 2007 3:33 PM:

" As a resident from another county, it appears to me that many residents of Napa County would rather have vineyards than a college, and would rather have vintners as neighbors than professors and students. Eat, drink and be merry, with little concern about the destruction of forests, public spaces with hiking and cycling trails, the teaching of moral values, and the education of future generations. What a pitiful state your county is heading toward. I hope cooler heads will prevail. "

In response to Educational Apathy wrote on Aug 17, 2007 7:14 PM:

" I'm not crazy about vintners. Most of them are self absorbed, inconsiderate, wanna be gentleman farmers who pretend they care about their community but are more preoccupied with their own needs than anything else(exception-Randy Dunn, a truly humble farmer). Most modern grape farmers don't know the meaning of the word "humble" and they don't come close to being the old farmer from the past who was integrated into the community because he wanted to be, out of choice. Contemporary Napa grape farmers throw their money at the community from a distance in the name of tax deductible charities, but that's as close as they choose to be. The miss out on the rich (not money rich) human diversity which is worth it's weight in gold. Oh if they only knew what they were missing! On the other hand, in Angwin we live in an environment where elitism of another kind is deeply rooted in the soil. It's religious elitism (we love you if follow OUR moral values and do not question OUR authority). It's a place where they, too, pretend to care about their community but apparently this is just a facade. They hide behind their walls and claim good deeds similar to the way wealthy vintners hide behind their tax deductible gifts. Neither one of them seeks to have any real connection to their communities unless that community is "them" (either Seventh Day Adventists or those standing in a high place within the wine industry). The way I see it, their face is pretty much the same face. As a community, we cannot win no matter which direction we travel. However, I would still choose grapes over homes. The occasional interaction with an arrogant vintner doesn't compare to the traffic and noise woes of an inappropriately sized development(much louder than tractors tilling soil). Grape farming is the lesser of two evils. And if this means I cannot hike the hills behind the college, I'll find another woodsy spot in Napa Valley such as Bothe State Park. "

To: Ed. Apathy wrote on Aug 17, 2007 8:00 PM:

" Pleassse! Obviously you have no idea. No one opposing development has encouraged vineyards. Go get educated yourself before posting. "

To: To Ed Apathy wrote on Aug 18, 2007 12:47 AM:

" You don't get it. If PUC is denied approval for its project, it will sell hundreds of acres to wine industry for vineyards to save the college. Nobody cares whether you're encouraging it or not. That's what'll happen. Get educated. "

To: In response to... wrote on Aug 18, 2007 12:50 AM:

" Interesting that you'll take vineyards over housing to avoid traffic. Did you see SRA's traffic video? Had to laugh. Majority of big rigs on Howell Mtn. Rd. were vineyard and winery trucks!! "

Traffic wrote on Aug 18, 2007 10:06 AM:

" Another problem is PUC student driving. I suppose because they are young they think that driving 60 mph up Deer Park is acceptable. The existing speed limit is already too high. These areas are not patrolled often and young people know it. They violate speed limit laws all the time. some of the delivery trucks to the Angwin market/gas station must be on the last leg of their route, because they also drive as though they are heading home after a long day at work. They just want the day to be over but they do not realize that their large vehicles are lethal weapons to our small gas preserving vehicles. Everyone with a large vehicle needs to realize how frightening it is to be in a small car and have a large car pass by or get on the tail. Off to the side of both Deer Park and Sanitarium Roads are cliffs without barriers. I wish the college would address the issue of speeding at the beginning of the school semester and at their church. These roads cannot handle such high speeds. Development or not, we need to deal with the existing traffic issues and encourage the county traffic division to lower our speed limits. "

Re: Traffic wrote on Aug 18, 2007 10:43 AM:

" It's puzzling why someone would live in an area that they view as so horribly dangerous; where they feel they're taking their life in their hands every time they get in their car. Rather than wringing hands and obsessing about others' behavior beyond their control, why not just move to a more remote area where the sight of vehicles is an occasional novelty, and reduce the anxiety? "

To Traffic wrote on Aug 18, 2007 10:59 PM:

" If the project is approved, the county will require it to make significant safety improvements to area roads that you will probably welcome. "

Scary traffic wrote on Aug 18, 2007 11:19 PM:

" Just what I thought. You people do not want to really solve problems. Are you aware of how many wrecks there are per month on Deer Park/Howell Mt. Roads? Be careful about complacency. You might be the next victim. "

Get A clue! wrote on Aug 19, 2007 8:18 AM:

" Dear 'To Traffic' (Triad mouthpiece) Here is the big problem with your so called 'signinicant safety improvemants' Our rural winding, narrow, tree lined roads are something we love. They are part of the sences of place that makes Deer Park and Angwin so wonderfully special. Also I believe they have view shed protection to protect them from disturbing their unique features. So plowing a straight four lane down to Silverado even if Triad paid for it is not what us locals consider a fix. The problem is the additional traffic that your so Called Eco Village will generate. Even if we are all driving one of those spiffy little electric cars to St Helena (your providing them free to everybody correct?), Id be afraid to be heading down the hill followed by one of those empty gravel trucks making it's 10th run of the day! You can't solve this road problem by making roads bigger, but you can keep it at a steady minimum by pulling out of this rural location as residents of the area are requestion! No Eco Pillage! "

Be informed; help not criticize wrote on Aug 19, 2007 10:55 AM:

" Improved roads, power lines, water system, schools, etc. are NOT part of the proposed development. These improvement costs, if even done, will fall on the residents in the form of increased water & PG&E bills and your taxes. Those of us who live here now do NOT feel higher cost of living to be here. With a doubling of the population, however, it will be dangerous and more expensive for all of us. The cost of living up here is greater than on the valley floor and cancels out the idea of affordable housing. There are many thousands of private educational institutions in this country and they sustain themselves without owning land. Why doesn't PUC make it's land word for them? There are countless ways, such as viticulture (make grape juice), organic farming and sustainable agriculture, environmental engineering, sustainable forestry; or a medical school. SRA FOLKS, ADD TO THIS LIST AND LET'S HELP PUC DISCOVER A MUCH BETTER USE FOR THEIR LAND; ONE THAT WILLASSIST TO INCREASE THEIR ENDOWMENTS. "

Where's community connection? wrote on Aug 19, 2007 2:31 PM:

" Firstly, Angwinites should get to know each other regardless of religious affiliation or career choices. I would have more empathy for the college and it's employees if I actually had some kind of connection with them. How about a once or twice a year, just for fun, community event for everyone? This is much better PR than separating people according to age and hair color and accusing the older generation of not caring. Further division of the community is not the way to go. And responding to the previous post; PUC has a strong nursing program which is quite successful I think. Another program PUC might consider is radiology technician certification which has a long waiting list in community colleges. What other highly competitive niches could be filled? Medical school sounds good and we do have a hospital close by, but I really do not know enough about the complexities of what is required for a college to offer a medical degree program. I'm sure PUC has considered these options. Nevertheless, students are still seeking a scholarship funded education and I suppose one way to deal with it would be to fill niches which are highly competitive elsewhere so that students are willing to make greater financial sacrifices. Liberal Arts education is fairly easy to find just about anywhere nowadays and perhaps this is not the best way to go? I think the idea of environmental engineering is great. I've heard that it's a hot field right now. But another challenge for the college is attracting highly qualified instructors who are willing to settle in such an expensive place. The college is caught between a rock and a hard place in this respect. how do they fund living facilities for these people who want to teach, settle down, and create their own roots in a community? what's the incentive? The answers are not easy. Another possibility is allowing the production of high quality, low or zero alcohol wines on their lands. This would provide a good contrast to the high alcohol wine fad which presently exists. "

Re: Traffic wrote on Aug 20, 2007 3:20 PM:

" I was in the Angwin gas station the other day getting coffee and a CHP officer was in there. He said that this last year was the worst student-driver year that CHP has seen; and they anticipate it to worsen this year. PUC needs to hold students accountable for their driving if they are recruiting young students to a mountain top college. "

Lawsuit endowment? wrote on Aug 20, 2007 3:34 PM:

" If PUC's property is rezoned to exclude development, maybe, just maybe, PUC can successfully sue the county for blocking its long-term right to develop its land, use the money to achieve its endowment goals, and then PUC's long-term success would be assured along with Angwin's long-term rural nature. A win-win situation for all! Except tax-payers. "

Business Opportunity for PUC wrote on Aug 20, 2007 3:38 PM:

" Ironically many opponents of PUC's proposed eco-village project benefit from its generosity in allowing the public to freely hike and cycle the enormous network of trails on its property. I think PUC's administration should seriously consider charging a fee of $10 to every non-PUC student or employee who enters its private property and a fee of $100 for an annual pass. We all have to pay a fee to enter most state and federal parks, monuments and beaches, even though they are funded by our taxes. So why should PUC be more generous than our own government? By charging a fee PUC can raise a considerable sum for its endowment. In my opinion PUC should be more greedy and less generous with its most coveted asset. "

To: Business Opportunity for PUC wrote on Aug 20, 2007 3:52 PM:

" Not a bad idea, honestly. But I would hope that you and PUC would see this idea as good business sense vs. retaliatory greed. Greed is what this land sale is all about and greed was the premise of your e-mail. I wish folks would dialog ideas (yours was not a bad one) without attacking one another. "

Regarding business opportunity wrote on Aug 21, 2007 10:04 PM:

" When PUC ranks near the bottom of the barrel in endowments out of about 750+ similar colleges, I don't understand how selling $10 hiking day passes will get their endowment up $60 million or so to the average. Not a criticism, just doesn't seem like it would raise enough money. "

Our road wrote on Aug 21, 2007 10:14 PM:

" ITs a dangerous road but its our dangerous road and we dont want any safty improvements thank you. "

Roads, Greed,and Park Fees wrote on Aug 22, 2007 8:14 AM:

" A few comments on three points. 1. Young and old drivers are the two age categories that have the greatest number of accidents. One solution would be to close PUC taking these at risk drivers off the road and not allow drivers above a certain age drive but be required to use public transportation. Any of us who have watched our children begin their driving experience just wait for the first accident because it's not a matter of whether but when for most of them. I'm sure PUC encourages their students to drive responsibly and has articles in their student newspaper encouraging safe driving but national statistics indicate that young drivers will have more accidents due to inexperience and a certain invulnerability that this age group experiences. 2. Greed -- Since when is it greed to try and get more money so that students can attend college in order to keep their student loans at a reasonable level? An endowment's income will help today's young people afford a college education and be able to go into service professions that don't pay very much rather than having to worry about paying off big debts. 3. If it's such a good idea that PUC could make a lot of money off of charging fees to use its lands, why does the state of California have to subsidize our state parks even though they charge fees? You'd have to hire people to collect the fees. I believe PUC chooses to make this treasure available to the community as part of giving back. "

Dangerous road? wrote on Aug 22, 2007 10:04 AM:

" Highway 29 has a lot of accidents where it winds over Mt. St. Helena. Maybe the residents of Napa County should turn their wrath on the residents of Lake County for overburdening their roads and emergency response personnel, demand that all urban bubbles are popped, and protest all new developments because they are inherently unsafe. "

To: Dangerous Roads? wrote on Aug 22, 2007 11:19 AM:

" You do not see a large development on the windy Hwy 29 Mt. St. Helena Road to Lake County do you. Why? because planners are aware of the environmental impact as it already exists; roads which exceed their capacity. We cannot easily alter the mistakes of the past (allowing development in Lake County without consideration for impacts on access roads); And the last thing we want to do is to use past mistakes to justify future mistakes. Planners today would not be foolish enough to add more development to an existing problem as they did in the past; At least I hope not. Allowing a large development in Angwin is comparable to approving an entire town on the windy Hwy. 29 Mt. St. Helena Roads. And in response to the comment about "Our Roads": Who's the "we" you speak of? Angwin Roads need improvement with or without a development. There is no way the roads can be fully widened all the way down to the Trail. But we need a rail to prevent falling over the edge on rainy days when the roads are slick or when a tire blows. We need some type of barrier between the Trail and Foothills School which prevents traffic from crossing into the other lane. There is NO ROOM FOR ERROR here. We could use a double bump strip which warns vehicles who are crossing over and provides greater distance between lanes all the way from Foothills School to Angwin. I recently dealt with a vehicle breakdown heading toward Angwin-right around the corner before the Deer Park passing lane. We had to pass on the left to avoid hitting the car. Luckily a car wasn't driving the other direction. Veering to the right would have landed us over the cliff. We need more barriers. Deer Park Road has been neglected far too long and the roads need improvement. These roads are not just "your" roads or PUC/Triad roads. They belong to all of us. Some of us are more interested in safety than politics. "

Dangerous road? wrote on Aug 22, 2007 12:04 PM:

" Large future developments ARE planned for the Middletown area at the base of Mt. St. Helena, and many new home buyers will be commuting over Mt. St. Helena to jobs in Sonoma Valley or Napa Valley. And some will drive through Angwin. Where, oh where are the protestors? "

Alternative uses of PUC's land wrote on Aug 22, 2007 12:11 PM:

" I'll consider some. SRA members may prefer #8, but if so it merely delays the inevitable change likely to occur. (1) Casino: relatively small environmental footprint; increased greed and vice within community; increased traffic and water consumption; jobs for students; would require PUC and constituency to reverse their policy on gambling and serving alcohol, even if land is leased or sold. (2) Vineyards: relatively large environmental footprint; bye bye forests, trails and wildlife; welcome fertilizers, pesticides and erosion; increased traffic (especially trucks) and water consumption; jobs for students; would require PUC and constituency to reverse their policy on alcohol, even if land is leased or sold to vintners. (3) Golfcourse: relatively large environmental footprint; bye bye forests, trails and wildlife; welcome pesticides and erosion; increased traffic and water consumption; jobs for students; potential objections from PUC’s constituency if alcohol is served at the 19th hole. (4) Hotel/resort: relatively small environmental footprint; increased traffic (including trucks) and water consumption; jobs for students; potential objections from PUC’s constituency if alcohol is served in the restaurant. (5) Nature preserve: best alternative for environment; forests, trails and wildlife preserved; no adverse impacts on Angwin community; no jobs for students; consistent with PUC’s mission, but unlikely to generate much revenue for endowment. (6) Organic gardening: relatively large environmental footprint; bye bye forests, trails and wildlife; welcome fertilizers, limited pesticides and erosion; increased traffic (especially trucks) and water consumption; jobs for students; viable option consistent with PUC’s mission. (7) Retirement home(s): relatively small environmental footprint; increased traffic and water consumption; jobs for students; viable option consistent with PUC’s mission. (8) Status quo: no change to environment or community; gradual decline in PUC’s competitiveness, probably resulting in eventual closure; if PUC closes, new owners may resort to any of the above options. "

Retirement Home? wrote on Aug 22, 2007 9:59 PM:

" This is the best option of all. It's potentially win win. Students can be employed at a retirement home so that fewer out of area employees are needed. The wages will help them pay their tuition. California will most definitely need such places for the aging baby boomers. The retirement homes can be simple (not extravagant), and leave a smaller footprint. We could create a beautiful environment up here for our aging population with meandering pathways, gardens and community gathering areas. Another possibility is having a convalescent hospital for spouses who need transitional care-another employment/training opportunity for students enrolled in nursing and other medically oriented curriculum at PUC. This retirement home could focus on health which is popular among aging baby boomer's. I doubt there would be any vacancies if it was done right and it could be very profitable without really changing the community that much. I hope the suggestion on retirement homes in the previous post was not the type you see in Arizona and elsewhere such as Dell Webb. This is just another exclusive development except it's for older people only. We do not need another Oakmont like you see in Santa Rosa either. But if your talking about smaller, interconnected units where older couples live (there's a place in Santa Rosa off of Summerfield Road like this) and a convalescent facility within the complex, that would be a great idea. I'll be first in line to support it. "

Retirement home + wrote on Aug 23, 2007 8:03 AM:

" Just like $10 day hiking fees, a retirement home won't increase PUC's endowment to anywhere near the national average for a college its size, about $80 million+. But you're right about a focus on the aging population. It's happening nationally. A retirement/skilled nursing/rehab facility together with maybe a research center on aging might get the college closer to its goal and be a benefit to locals and who knows, perhaps the aging population at large. "

Retirement Home? wrote on Aug 24, 2007 10:39 AM:

" I think a retirement/nursing/rehab program could solve PUC's financial problems. First of all, Geriatrics is going to be a hot field in the future due to the aging (and spoiled I might add) baby boomers. PUC could also develop a specialized geriatrics program and instead of offering full scholarships, they could offer a 'pay back' program; a contract between prospective students to work twenty hours a week at the facility and give 80% of their wages back to PUC. Students would be gaining work experience while concurrently paying their college loans off and PUC wouldn't have to give scholarships away. Another idea somebody suggested was a hotel in Angwin but this would not be the type of employment facility which could actually tie into PUC's curriculum unless they chose hospitality as a focus; something Napa Community College is already doing. A retirement facility fits very well into the health principals of the SDA's and it isn't nearly as disruptive to the Angwin community. It also fills a niche whose gap will only widen in the future. "

Retirement Home? wrote on Aug 24, 2007 11:17 AM:

" Oh, I forgot to mention other PUC programs which would fit in very well with such a facility; dietitian and physical/occupational therapy programs where the students could gain work experience. And yes, a research facility on aging/nutrition/diet and maybe cancer prevention would be a really unique. PUC could end out being a world class research facility with health/exercise/diet and their impact on aging as a focus. Alternative health certifications could be offered too. And yes, the commercial area would need a small hotel to accommodate visitors. This would be a necessity that we would have to accept because families visiting relatives would need places to stay. The downtown area could have a health food store, pharmacy such as Pharmaca, juice, bar, bookstore, hair salon, and health oriented restaurant within strolling distance to the Retirement facility which offered room service. Baby Boomers are not going to be limping around all that much in their older years. Many of them will be active and seeking a healthy lifestyle to make up for all the damage some of them did to themselves during the sixties! The commercial area can accommodate them and offer greater employment opportunities for students/residents of Angwin. We would need public transportation up here in Angwin, though, otherwise things will fall apart. The last thing we need are a population of older people navigating their way down these hills, especially Baby Boomers who will forget how old they REALLY are! PUC could title their program "Longevity Institute of Angwin" - LIA for short, and the retirement home could be called "Habitat Methuselah" (Never mind-too hard to pronounce). OK, soon I will be criticized for getting carried away so I'll stop now! "

housing woes? wrote on Aug 24, 2007 9:03 PM:

" Two methods with immediate results: 1)For all those commuters who live here but don't work here, get out. Move to the bay area or Sacramento, closer to your jobs. Stop congesting our roads and our air quality so you can drive 50+ miles one way to your jobs. Let those who work here have housing priority first. 2)Why not get rid of people who were fired and/or should be fired from the college out of their homes so more housing would be available for currently displaced faculty and staff? If that were to happen, at least 10+ homes would be available immediately for starters... "

To Housing Woes wrote on Aug 25, 2007 1:21 PM:

" I really hope you're joking. First of all, my husband and I built our home in Angwin and it was a labor of love. We sacrificed a great deal to be here and I'm not about to give it away to someone just because they do not commute to Napa weekdays like we do. My husband used to work upvalley for awhile BTW before being transferred to Napa. You're assuming that someone could afford to pay for our home and property and that a non commuter was financial capable of such a transaction. Kicking 'fired' employees out of their homes to make 10 homes available is not solving problems either. If the college seriously considered some of the other options (besides residential housing development), they could use profits to build housing for their employees. I posted about the retirement home option below and I was serious about it. Anyone notice that there isn't any objections to the idea? Not yet. It's a feasible option. "

To retirement home wrote on Aug 25, 2007 5:38 PM:

" Come on, you really can't be serious about that? A retirement home, like NVARE? PUC students to work there? Do you know what hoops, regulations, and red tape it takes to run a home? You can't just hire a PUC student fresh out of high school... Also, the last thing this Valley needs is more incompetent drivers on the road because of the retirement home since the DMV is so lax on pulling their driver's licenses... Nothing like driving behind a person who's wearing a hearing aid that can't hear the honking, is too tunnelled vision to notice the 10+ cars trailing behind in addition to the tourists and won't pull over, and is slow to respond/react to a situation on the road, not to mention driving 10 miles under the speed limit. "

Curious wrote on Aug 25, 2007 5:48 PM:

" Does the college take money from wineries or not? The Adventist hospital takes gobs of it, without a blink. If no, why not? If yes, can't that go to the endowment without selling the land? Consider renting out the land to the wineries to satisfy the SRA fans who would prefer construction traffic caused by the local wineries rather than Triad. SRA: please look up the definition of "rural," it's been years since Angwin has been rural technically. Mr. Pease, why are you so fixated on the college's tax statements and arguing their finances? Rather, why don't you expend your youthful brilliance and expertise with providing alternatives or constructive possibilities to the issue which is increasing the endowment and providing housing enough for current staff and faculty. "

Retirement Home wrote on Aug 25, 2007 6:05 PM:

" I've heard that PUC has actually pursued many options in the past such as a retirement center. Several experienced owners have done their studies and concluded the economic viability in a place with a small population such as the Napa Valley with many already existing retirement centers could not be supported so withdrew. The most serious proposal would have involved PUC giving the land and sharing the profits. Interestingly the plans I saw basically covered the same foot print as the proposed eco village with the center being built on lands SRA wants taken out of the urban bubble and placed into ag land. In other words, a retirement center large enough to be financially viable would not meet SRA's proposd redesignation. Many of these ideas being suggested are wonderful but do they meet the need of the college to build its endowment to $100+ million in order to provide adequate scholarships to attend the college? Most of what is being proposed would actually cost the college money and not provide the needed endowment funds. "

Retirement home questions? wrote on Aug 25, 2007 7:04 PM:

" Do any of the existing retirement homes in Napa County have waiting lists? How do those facilities compare to one that could be proposed for Angwin? Has anyone ever seen Spring Lake Village (a retirement facility in Santa Rosa on Montgomery Drive)? I can see a facility in Angwin similar to this, except maybe even nicer. I value older people and I have a philosophy that they have made their contribution to society and deserve a high quality of living in their elderly years. I'm not talking extravagant BTW. I visualize small cottages, gardens with trees in a natural setting; access to resources etc. This would be a special place, different from others in that it would be beautiful and focus on longevity and a healthy lifestyle and high quality care. If it was done right, there would be a long waiting list from out of area. This would not be like "Silverado Orchards" in St. Helena. This facility would not be at the same competitive level. People as young as say 55 yrs old could purchase these units, retire here, and remain here the rest of their lives. They could build equity too which would be very desirable. What kind of competition for this type of facility is there in Napa County? And if the units are kept small-less than 1000 square feet, there's no reason that it would need to cover the same footprint as the Triad proposal. However, a small convalescent hospital might be necessary within the complex and St. Helena Hospital might want to consider converting areas to higher level geriatric care. Anyway, this idea would undoubtedly have it's critics, but it would be positively embraced much more strongly than the Triad development. "

Options wrote on Aug 26, 2007 2:46 PM:

" As I understand it the County of Napa is very close to obtaining the needed grant funding to purchase the Angwin airport from PUC. I have heard this is near $25 million (American dollars). It seems like this is a good way for PUC to raise those salaries, do a little spiffing up and get back to the mission of educating students. No one opposes the commercial market place being sold! This could bring additional millions. It is the wholesale ruination of this village, don't forget that all important proposed underground parking garage, that is opposed by the residents of Angwin. Also no one is requiring that the 191 units of housing now approved by the county be developed by PUC. I suggest putting up a for sale sign in front of these parcels and test the marketplace. Lets look at some conservation banks, forest preservation programs and give up that the idea that PUC an make millions on a real estste scheme. How much money did they make on running the grocery store in the last 10 years? "

Strange wrote on Aug 27, 2007 2:38 PM:

" This is so strange, people trying to decide what to do with someone else's property after a project application has already been submitted to the county. Wishful thinking, I guess. No harm in that. "

What about a cemetery? wrote on Aug 27, 2007 4:39 PM:

" That's right, an eco-friendly cemetery, which might even benefit all the aging home-owning members of SAR. Might even be consistent with agricultural zoning. Hey, open spaces would be preserved, it would hardly add to traffic, and Angwinites wouldn't have to commute so far to pay respects to their deceased loved ones. Think Forest Lawn! "

Finished wrote on Aug 27, 2007 9:29 PM:

" That's it. I'm done trying to support PUC with other options. Cemetery? How rude a suggestion. I'm jumping with both feet into the SRA arena and I'm not leaving even a toe to support PUC. I am no longer willing to have an open mind about these matters, none at all. Someone who supports the PUC/Triad development and posts here carries a tone of sarcasm which is extremely distasteful. Whoever you are, you have made the college look very bad in the eyes of the public. I feel sorry for all the dedicated PUC staff who will probably face a low enrollment this year due to the public display of sarcasm/rudeness. It's not their fault but it is yours. "

What sarcasm? wrote on Aug 28, 2007 9:46 AM:

" Maybe the author was serious. Cemeteries are an important and respectable institution in western culture. Which would you prefer in Angwin, an ecovillage or a cemetery? I suspect many would prefer the latter. After all, people are just dying to get into one. "

To Finished wrote on Aug 28, 2007 2:38 PM:

" Are you having a tantrum and throwing down your toys because you can't handle expressed opinions or suggestions? You don't even have the guts to post your real name, so your withdrawing support of the eco project is not crucial. It is already evident you didn't have an open mind to begin with so, claiming you will now be "closed minded" is no new discovery. BTW, the enrollment goes in cycles if you look at academic trends across the nation, so your unqualified and inaccurate perception that enrollment is down this year due to "sarcasm" is simply unfounded. Have you signed up on the SRA website to have your name listed to the public, or have you hidden behind your somewhat clever moniker of "Finished" in Angwin? "

Why assume? wrote on Aug 29, 2007 9:17 PM:

" How can "Finished" assume to know who is posting blogs he/she doesn't like? I've looked at comments about other Register stories and opinions are pro and con all over the board and some people using the same name comment on several stories. Why blame "PUC/Triad"? "

To Why Assume? wrote on Aug 30, 2007 6:24 PM:

" The statement "Someone who supports the PUC/Triad development and posts here carries a tone of sarcasm..." suggests a reference to a "supporter" of PUC/Triad. Such poster was responding to the cemetery posting which stated "That's right, an eco-friendly cemetery, which might even benefit all the aging home-owning members of SAR". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the poster is a "supporter" of Triad/PUC. And there is someone who has been consistently posting about the "aging" group of people in Angwin who oppose the development. The tone of the post most definitely suggests a "supporter". Interesting that PUC's public relations person made a comment at the planning commission meeting about grey haired people. It's deductive reasoning which leads me to the conclusion that the people posting about grey hair and old SRA members must be PUC/Triad supporters. "

To: To Why Assume? wrote on Aug 30, 2007 9:04 PM:

" Maybe it's just somebody who is tired of hearing the term "eco-pillage" or "ego-village" or any of the other terms in the year-long string of insults. Sometimes people just get tired of insults. "

Or maybe wrote on Aug 30, 2007 10:10 PM:

" Or maybe its because people should be SHARING their ideas with PUC versus TELLING PUC what to do with its property? "

to: or maybe wrote on Aug 31, 2007 9:53 AM:

" That's exactly what I was attempting to do when I posted about retirement homes as an option. I was *sharing* an idea; I wasn't telling PUC what to do. Read my posts again and it will be obvious that I'm sharing rather than dictating. Someone managed to jump all over my case for sharing an idea. I won't do it again. Speaking of sharing; PUC's early mistake was not sharing ideas with the community. If they had communicated with their neighbors about their financial struggles and various option they were considering, right from the get go this debate would have been more diplomatic. As of now, I'm guessing that it's too late to make good. "

skeptical wrote on Aug 31, 2007 9:54 AM:

" "In the past, the Seventh-day Adventist institution has sold land that has been converted to vineyards, and Osborn said those transactions have had a negative impact in the Adventist community, whose members do not drink alcohol." so it was said. in fact, by their own survey, over half of puc students drink alcohol on a regular basis. while not all are sdas, it is known as an sda school and officially the rules of the church are to support prohibition, like in the catholic church, where birth control is a mortal sin yet over half practice it anyway. the reality is that ,maybe even if most sdas are "teatotalers", there is a significant minority that occasionally indulge in moderate alcohol use.one student at a triad meeting even reassured the community that puc would not interfere if alcohol were sold in the new store.( i took this to mean that "we are not intolerant", which, i agree, is a good thing) no names are used here but anyone who attended these meetings knows this is true. i only bring up these issues so puc can clarify their position.against selling the store when we know the new owners will sell alcohol and even maybe meat? or for it? seems like a simple question for a reporter to ask. "

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