NVR Logo
Bubble battlelines
Pacific Union College supporters Plerm and Michael Sample, right, listen to a speaker as Save Rural Angwin supporter E.G. Blackburn, left, looks on. Angwin residents came together in Yountville Wednesday night to discuss the future of their village in the county’s new general plan. Lianne Milton/Register | Buy photos
Sides square off, again, over PUC eco-village plans
Friday, September 07, 2007
Save and Share Share
Cars passing the Yountville Community Hall Wednesday were treated to a sight only residents of the mountain community of Angwin could offer: Dueling protests over whether land in and around the mountain community and its cornerstone — Pacific Union College — should remain in a so-called urban bubble.

Yountville was the chosen site for part two of a public meeting over how the county’s new General Plan should cover Angwin. An Aug. 15 filled the Napa County Board of Supervisors chambers to overflowing.
The bubble in question is a oval-shaped line drawn on a planning map that defines the area considered potentially appropriate for urban development. But Wednesday there were bubbles on signs, bubbles blown over the street by a member of the community group called Save Rural Angwin and bubbles on the minds of the speakers who later filled the hall.

County planners are considering redrawing the bubble so that it more accurately reflects existing land uses in Angwin. PUC officials — who separately are proposing creation of an Angwin “Eco-village” with 380 environmentally friendly homes, a village green and increased commercial activity — would prefer to see the bubble left as it is. Opponents of PUC’s planned Eco-village, mainly members of a group called Save Rural Angwin, would like to see the bubble wiped out or reduced in size.
For months, the General Plan update process has been used to argue both sides. On Wednesday, PUC supporters turned out in force, composing nearly two-thirds of the 200 or so people who filled the hall.

One was Ethiopian immigrant and PUC faculty member Abdul Worku, who told the story of his family losing its farm to a communist government. He did not want Napa County government to take land use rights away from PUC.
“When I came to this country and found out it considers private property rights sacred ... I was delighted,” he said.

David Lowenstein, a retired Oregon State Trooper and native Angwinite, urged the commission to let the bubble be.

“The college property that lies within the bubble was theirs to develop any time,” he said.

College officials say they want to create the Eco-village to support the school’s endowment and long-term financial stability.

Save Rural Angwin supporters hammered home points about the Eco-village project — too much traffic, change and dwindling water resources — that were brought up at the Aug. 15 meeting.

“Our water table is apparently lower now than it has ever been,” said E.G. Blackburn, another Angwin resident who supports Save Rural Angwin.

“Can we concentrate more people in a rural area where the roads and the infrastructure can’t accommodate it?” asked Gail Hamilton, an Angwin resident.

But the Eco-village proposal is not before the Napa County Planning Commission. It will come before the county when an environmental impact report is completed, perhaps next year.

Wednesday’s meeting was designed to address only the urban bubble, but the two issues have become intertwined as controversy has arisen over the college’s plans.

In all, some 74 speakers over the course of the two meetings told the commission what they thought about the future of Angwin, causing two commissioners — Heather Phillips and Rich Jager — to ask for more time to absorb all comments before offering their opinions.

Other commissioners gave glimpses of their views, agreeing that whatever changes are made, PUC should have a chance to have its development proposal considered on its own merits.

Commissioner Terry Scott said taking land away from PUC through zoning changes would be wrong.

“To some degree it would be immoral to do that and it could be illegal to do that,” he said.

At the same time Planning Commissioners Scott, Bob Fiddaman and Jim King said the community needed to come together for some sort of compromise.

“I do not believe I have seen a proposal that takes into account everyone in that community,” King said, later adding Napa County Supervisor Diane Dillon could take a leadership role and organize a community group that could forge some sort of compromise.

Fiddaman brushed aside PUC supporters’ criticism that some Save Rural Angwin speakers were from places outside Angwin.

“This is a countywide issue,” he said. “It’s not about college endowments. It’s not project specific.”

Scott said both sides cared about the same water, traffic and fire danger issues in different ways.

“I think there’s a lot more commonality than both sides realize,” he said.
8 comment(s)

vocal-de-local wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:00 AM:

" I'm sorry to say that any development that takes place in Angwin, regardless of the grandiose promises of eco-maintenance, will slowly deteriorate into a mess. The question of who will maintain the eco part of the village, the planned water reclamation system, the sewer system (check county records for bacteria levels on existing sewer system), the promised amenities to the community such as a skate park, is being dumped on a proposed homeowners association. How expensive will that be? Liability costs for the skate park alone will certainly shut it down, especially if there is a lawsuit. Here's one way PUC could compromise. Angwin community needs some of the land set aside for a PUBLIC park and a PUBLIC community center so that existing and future populations have a free voice right here in the town of Angwin which cannot be silenced by church politics. This donated plot of land should be owned and managed by local government, not the local church. And for those who argue that county taxpayers will not want to pay for Angwin amenities; keep in mind that Angwin residents pay taxes too. With the exception of road maintenance, there are few other amenities in Angwin paid for by county taxpayers. Why should PUC/Triad be exempt from offering PUBLIC lands in return for development? Other communities the size of Angwin have parks and community centers. As the community presently exists, we need a public park. Any proposed development in Angwin of say, more than ten houses, should require a portion of funds or lands to be donated for public use. "

livesinangwin wrote on Sep 7, 2007 12:17 PM:

" What an incredible series if meetings held by the Planning Commission. The Napa County Planning staff also did a great job. Now, comes the work on the planning and zoning lines in Angwin and in all the other "bubbles" in the county. I suspect that reducing the size of the bubble in Angwin will result in far more trees being cut then if things are left just the way they are. "

puc prof wrote on Sep 7, 2007 3:36 PM:

" Vocal-de-local, I agree that a public park in Angwin would be useful, but hasn't PUC more or less been operating a de facto public park? Has anybody ever asked you to leave one of the trails or tennis courts or ballfields or picnic areas? "

vocal-de-local wrote on Sep 7, 2007 6:31 PM:

" To puc prof: your idea of 'public' differs greatly from mine. PUC public lands are not PUBLIC space because there is nothing to stop PUC from defining land as 'private' anytime they want. Even if they have never in their history kicked a non SDA student off their public lands, the point is that they could choose to take such action whenever they please. Has anyone ever considered that some of us feel like trespassers in our own community? If this development is approved, even on a diminished level, we need to have a public park with tables and playground equipment available for use every day of the week. If PUC is going to open it's doors to an entirely new population of people, presumably from all walks of life, then it's only fair that they open doors to publicly designated areas, including a community center, available to everyone. Tell me a location in Angwin where people can presently meet and discuss, in an unbiased manner, issues involving this community? Is there a playground where children can meet each other and socialize? As a Non Adventist who raised kids in Angwin, the unavailability of a public place for kids to hang out and get to know each other was isolating. If PUC proceeds with this development, I plan to stay on top of this issue through consistent communication with County Planners. PUC/Triad are wise to prepare themselves for the possiblity rather than denying the necessity of government owned public space. "

PUC Prof wrote on Sep 10, 2007 8:15 AM:

" Vocal-de-local, I'm all in favor of a truly public park and I'm glad it is an issue of importance to you, though I cannot fathom why you would think you were trespassing if you took children to the playground and picnic tables at PUC Elementary School. It is not fenced in and there are no "No Trespassing" signs. I often see parents with their children there. It's intended to be available to the public. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Sep 10, 2007 9:28 AM:

" PUC prof: The elementary school playground is on a campus which is occupied five days a week until late afternoon. And then they have a daycare program after school. Do you really think they want strangers on their campus even if they are accompanied by toddlers? It's a playground intended to serve a select population. It certainly doesn't count as a public playground. And the school picnic tables hardly suffice as public picnic grounds. Besides, I heard that the two elementary schools might be combining into one school. Will it be relocated? We need a public park and community center in Angwin, even if the existing population remains unchanged. Is there a valid reason that PUC might object to an Angwin public picnic and playground area? If any portion of this development is approved, PUC will inevitably lose some control. "

PUC Prof wrote on Sep 10, 2007 4:45 PM:

" You've made some very good points. I cannot think of any valid reason why PUC might object to a public picnic and playground area in Angwin. "

mominapa wrote on Sep 12, 2007 8:40 AM:

" Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble. "

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