NVR Logo
PUC raises stakes in zoning fight
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Save and Share Share
Pacific Union College is ratcheting up legal pressure on the county in the debate over the Angwin urban bubble, claiming a form of religious discrimination if the county changes the status quo.

In a letter from the Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council to Napa County Counsel Robert Westmeyer, Adventist president Alan Reinach said the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act precludes the county from taking legally safe steps to carve out PUC-owned agricultural land from the Angwin urban bubble.
The law, passed in 2000, was designed to provide stronger religious freedoms both in the prison and land-use arenas. It has been used in numerous lawsuits around the country when religious institutions and planners clash over land-use proposals.

There are 12 urban bubbles — areas in the county’s Agricultural Preserve that have been generally set aside for possible urban uses — peppered throughout the county. But the county is proposing to remove agricultural lands from only two, one in Berryessa Estates and one in Angwin.
The county has proposed changing the name of the bubbles to “study areas.”

The county has said it wants to change the shape of the bubble to conform with current land uses. PUC officials have said the change would strip the college of property rights.
In the letter, Reinach wrote that the county’s failure to address all the bubbles at once amounted to unequal treatment under the Religious Land Use law.

The county, PUC and Angwin agricultural preservationists are expected to take up the issue of changing the Angwin urban bubble at a joint meeting of the Napa County Board of Supervisors and the Napa County Planning Commission at 9 a.m. today at the Lincoln Theater in Yountville.

County Counsel Robert Westmeyer said he would give the county an analysis of the federal law cited by the Adventists.

For the past several days, PUC and opponents of development in Angwin have lobbied residents to come to the meeting and support their causes. In a Feb. 24 letter to the editor, PUC President Richard Osborn predicted Angwin “will be quieter than usual” on the day of the joint meeting.

“Protecting our property rights is so critical to our viability that we are encouraging our faculty, staff and students to attend the meeting,” he wrote. “College-owned businesses and services will be open at 1 p.m. that day so employees of those businesses and services may also attend.”

Save Rural Angwin, the agricultural preservationist group that has opposed PUC’s plans for a 380-home Eco-village, is slated to introduce a new zoning plan to the county that involves allowing PUC roughly 220 acres of land to work with for its endowment, but eliminates agricultural and some open space land from the developable bubble.

In fact, the plan seeks to replace the urban bubble and current land use designations with a combination of “institutional” zoning for the college, commercial land for Angwin businesses and residential zoning to allow for 191 new housing units.

“The college could build any affordable housing it needs on these two parcels and sell the rest,” a document outlining the plan reads.

A PUC proposal to develop parts of Angwin calls for 380 homes. The proposal is not on the agenda of the joint meeting today, as environmental studies and other documents are still in progress.

But in past meetings the Eco-village proposal has been hard to separate from the urban bubble dispute. The county’s current proposal would not preclude the current Eco-village plan, but may preclude further options for the college in the future.
7 comment(s)

musikluvr wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:07 PM:

" Now they finally figured out how to do it. The county will not stand up to a legal attack. "

bcra26 wrote on Feb 26, 2008 5:41 PM:

" I am disappointed that the college is claiming religious discrimination on this matter; it has nothing to do with religion; it is a matter of considering the pros and cons for the whole community. As far and their complaint that the county has not addressed the other bubbles may be due to no development proposals received, as well as the magnitude of the Eco village. I protest this village as much as I would the building of a Wal Mart in the Angwin area; they are both too massive and invasive. In both situations, the property rights of the individual redidents are threatened with overcrowding and devaluation of our properties and lifestyle. "

MikeK wrote on Feb 26, 2008 6:29 PM:

" Although I disagree with the tact the college is taking, you can't seriously say that a decrease in your property values should be the motivating factor behind decisions here.

Did you buy your property after the "Urban Bubble" was formed? If so, you should have known this was a possibility.

Did you buy it before? Then you had a chance to stop it, and it passed anyway.

This has nothing to do with your property "rights". It has to do with your property value. Big difference. "

NoWayJose wrote on Feb 26, 2008 7:03 PM:

" The County would certainly win this one. In order for PUC to make a claim under the RLUIPA it must show that the counties act is an “individualized assessment (which it is not) AND keeping the land “urban” is a religious exercise (which it is not) AND the redesignating of the land substantially burdens this exercise (which it does not) AND the imposition of the redesignation is not in furtherance of a compelling government interst, like dumping the incomprehensible bubbles, (Which it is). “Greater Bible Way Temple v. Jackson”, 733 N.W.2d 734, 478 Mich. 373 (Mich., 2007. This is more than enough, although there are numerous other ways that PUC’s claims fail. PUC is shooting blanks but they are probably scary blanks for a County which does not want unnecessary litigation. Anyone thinking the Adventists are quaint folk on the hill are out of date this is a different animal than we have known. PUC’s willingness to go to this length to simply win a real estate deal is impressive disgusting or ominous, depending on one’s point of view. The traditional voices are gone and in their place is a real estate developer. "

jt wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:15 PM:

" thanks guy. puc has been in angwin since the beginning of the century whether you like to believe it or not. don't get it too mistaken. "

PUC Prof wrote on Feb 27, 2008 8:25 AM:

" NoWayJose, how do you account for the relatively impartial 21-member Steering Committee seeing it differently than you do? "

vocal-de-local wrote on Mar 1, 2008 10:13 AM:

" Prof, before you begin painting a picture of the 21 steering committee as stout Triad/PUC development supporters, only four of them were mentioned in your argument. What about the other 17? Do their voices not count? "

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