A Thursday night meeting to review Pacific Union College’s proposed 380-home Angwin eco-village turned into a showcase for opponents to criticize the project.

While Angwin has vocal supporters and detractors of the eco-village, the largely procedural nature of the environmental scoping meeting in Yountville offered supporters no chance to say good things about the project — and thus no reason to show up — leaving opponents allied with Save Rural Angwin free to make the case that no amount of environmental mitigation could leave Angwin unhurt by the proposed development.

The eco-village would add 380 dwellings to Angwin, where the population is roughly 3,000.

The proposal calls for 35 percent affordable housing, a Napa County Sheriff’s substation and homes that are so environmentally-advanced that they won’t add to the amount of water Angwin uses now. Developers would also build a central square with local-serving commercial uses to try to reduce the need for trips to St. Helena. PUC officials have said they need to sell college land to developer Triad Communities in order to bolster the college’s endowment.

“Because of our extensive outreach activities with our Angwin neighbors, we are well aware of their concerns and we look forward to addressing these issues through the EIR,” PUC President Dr. Richard Osborn said in a prepared statement.

Unlike past public meetings, there were no elected officials or planning commissioners present. Just Napa County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman, a staff member, consultants hired to perform the review and a court reporter.

The purpose of the meeting was to gauge what the public had to say about potential impacts of building the eco-village.

That necessarily meant encouraging those with concerns to stand up and speak their minds.

That’s exactly what they did.

Save Rural Angwin member Kellie Anderson said she doubted any amount of added public services and other ways to reduce the impact of added population could make up for the damage the project could do to the character of the village.

“The uniqueness of our community is rare and special and important to Napa County,” she said. “I’d like you to address the jewel that Angwin is.”

Laurie Clark, an Angwin resident, scoffed at the idea that Angwin needed a mixed-use development.

“It’s already an amazing place,” she said. “The village is the trees. We don’t need buildings to make an eco-village.”

Others worried that the Friesen Lakes that provide so much of the water in Angwin could burst their dams in an earthquake and cause catastrophic flooding. Or that a wildland fire like those experienced in Southern California could wipe out residents unable to get past fire vehicles to make it down the hill.

If Angwin is spared from disaster, new residents unfamiliar with Angwin’s fog or snow conditions could cause mayhem.

“People are going to move up there and they’re not going to know how to drive in the pea-soup fog,” said Angwin resident Betty Hopperstad.

Roads were a big concern. Already narrow, winding and carrying large winery trucks, the roads are a concern for residents like Hopperstad, who said traffic fatalities already are common near their homes.

So with disaster just a breath away, why would anyone want to live in Angwin? Angwin resident Doug Hamilton said it’s all about clean country living, with the kind of blue skies and starry nights unimagined in the minds of city folk. And now PUC was proposing to change that.

“I would suggest that the rural nature of Angwin is an endangered species,” he said.

If the worst happens for these opponents of development, Gitelman said it will not happen soon. Typically environmental reviews take between a year and 18 months, depending on the complexity of the project, she said.

“The whole (environmental review) process has to be completed before anyone can consider whether the project is worthy of approval or disapproval or modification or any of that,” Gitelman said.