NVR Logo
Home » News » Local
County votes to keep Angwin bubble intact
Supes call for full review of all urban bubbles in coming years
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Save and Share Share
Email
Print
Comment
By DAVID RYAN
Register Staff Writer
The Napa County Board of Supervisors split 3-2 over whether to change the Angwin urban bubble, with the majority voting to maintain the status quo after an hours-long, detailed discussion of the subject.

The decision is a win for Pacific Union College and a defeat for critics of PUC’s plans to add more housing and development to a portion of college-owned property.
The Angwin urban bubble is an oval-shaped county land-use planning area drawn over Pacific Union College and a piece of the village of Angwin. For the most part, it does not follow property lines or zoning borders.

It allows some land inside the bubble to be developed without a countywide vote to rezone the land, called a Measure J vote. Countywide votes to expand uses on agricultural property have been a historically high hurdle for developers to surmount.
Supervisors Bill Dodd, Mark Luce and Harold Moskowite voted to keep the Angwin bubble from being changed, with the county to come back within the next few years and analyze each of the county’s 12 urban bubbles equally.

That would be done along with a county-wide study of housing, a task that would bring together representatives from the cities and the county to address the problem of state-mandated growth.
Supervisors Diane Dillon and Brad Wagenknecht wanted to cut agricultural land out of the Angwin bubble now, rather than leave hundreds of acres of land potentially vulnerable to development.

The 3-2 vote came after a more than six-hour meeting that saw nearly 60 speakers, most seeking to protect the status quo in Angwin. A crowd of several hundred filled the Lincoln Theater in Yountville, including many PUC students who were bused in from the college.

Pacific Union College President Richard Osborn said the college had accomplished its mission for the day: the elimination of a proposal to limit the college’s development options. That plan was floated by Save Rural Angwin, a group of Angwin residents and others considered about growth in the rural parts of the county.

“We’re very pleased our property rights have been retained,” Osborn said after the meeting. “We wanted to make sure the General Plan process was not used to thwart the project.”

Dodd said he didn’t understand why Dillon and Wagenknecht wanted to change the Angwin urban bubble now, rather than wait to review all the bubbles.

“Why the rush?” Dodd said, later saying he wanted to make sure Angwin was treated the same as the other rural areas that may see further development. “I don’t want to do anything that’s going to help PUC with their development and I don’t want to do anything that’s going to hurt PUC’s development. I want to be neutral.”

Alan Reinach, a lawyer and president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council, sent the county a letter late last week warning it that changes to the Angwin urban bubble could be interpreted as a form of religious discrimination under a federal law. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, according to Reinach, protects the college from an otherwise neutral land use planning that infringes on the ability of the Adventist campus to prosper.
33 comment(s)

Lane wrote on Feb 27, 2008 8:05 AM:

" The Board of Supervisors had their first opportunity to make good on what seemed like a general consensus to protect agricultural land in urban bubbles from development yesterday. And they backed away.

The agricultural preserve had opponents too, but it was adopted to protect the entire county. Where is the wisdom and courage of yesteryear?

"

Concerned Citizen wrote on Feb 27, 2008 8:18 AM:

" I'd just love to remove Mr. Dodd, etal. from their precious, 'safe,' uninclusive and hippocritical environments and force them to live among the crowded, dirty and shoddy streets of Napa or force them to travel the unsafe two lane, pocked and overhung mountain roads to go to and from work (HA! work! what's that, you say?). Maybe, just maybe; if removed from their 'gated' type communities, they would see the inconvenience and harm their greedy decisions inflict upon others. The kings sit removed and, therefore, clueless. "

MikeK wrote on Feb 27, 2008 8:34 AM:

" I think they did the right thing. If they're going to address one bubble on philosophical issues, they should be addressing them all. Seems they weren't ready to do that. "

wheee wrote on Feb 27, 2008 9:41 AM:

" MileK. They were being to address one bubble by the residents of that Bubble who want the bubble gone so they can have Measure J protection like the rest of the rural County. Apparently none of the residents of the other bubbles share the sense of peril. If the Board had a sudden need to be inclusive and visit all Bubbles, why did it not have this need 3 years ago? Why didn’t it continue the hearing to address this need? This is the General Plan, by the way, not a Sunday prayer breakfast. By the time the next one comes around this County will be pretty well paved over. "

PUC Prof wrote on Feb 27, 2008 10:14 AM:

" Perhaps the supervisors listened to their consciences and voted for what they felt was right, not necessarily what they personally or others wanted. The first four speakers were members of the 21-member General Plan Update Steering Committee, all relatively independent and impartial volunteers (with nothing to gain or lose) who had donated 2 years of their time to studying the General Plan. There was a strong consensus among them that private land rights were already heavily restricted by the government and imposing further restrictions on one private land owner was an attack on all. They believed the purpose of government--represented by the elected supervisors--was to protect private land rights, and to protect the minority from the majority. In this case a political activist group (SRA) had asked the county to down-zone PUC's parcels of land currently zoned as "planned development" to "institutional" (a category that doesn't exist), which would have limited PUC's future options for generating an endowment. One of the Steering Committee members pointed out that PUC's legal right to develop land existed before the Agricultural Preserve was created. The chairman of the Steering Committee quoted an unknown author (often but incorrectly attributed to Benjamin Franklin) as saying something like "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting for dinner." He then declared the lamb to be PUC. "

Rob C wrote on Feb 27, 2008 10:37 AM:

" The right decision. Period. "

AngwinMom wrote on Feb 27, 2008 10:52 AM:

" I attended the meeting yesterday and feel the three supervisors made the right decision. You can't take away land or create land designations on a whim (or because of pressure from special interest groups). The county needs to develop a systemmatic and clear method to address land and housing issues with all of the urban bubbles, and it appears that's what they intend to do now. "

ProAngwinConTriad wrote on Feb 27, 2008 11:16 AM:

" There was no decision. This was just left for another day. This was a very curious meeting which cost the county 10s of thousands and accomplished nothing. The only “decision” was Luce’s decision that he was going to be mislead by PUC’s religious liberty claim. Meanwhile, we still have a bubble and developers circling the Mountain. As a representative from the Sierra Club succinctly put it is this farmland where we want to put houses? Apparently it is. "

jimmie wrote on Feb 27, 2008 11:19 AM:

" Isn't a bubble just an RUL? "Bubble?" Can't they do better than that? "

skeptic wrote on Feb 27, 2008 12:26 PM:

" congratulations to puc on their win. no hard feelings. i'm glad to see the prof admit that puc people who want the big growth are in the minority and oppose the majority who do not want it.since democracy seems so bad to you, what do you propose to replace it? i'm all for protecting minority rights but trashing the idea of democracy seems a bit much. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Feb 27, 2008 1:17 PM:

" PUC used the religion card and won this time. This does not give them carte blanche to develop this land. There will be other obstacles, believe me, beginning with the EIR. I also attended that meeting yesterday and what appears to be indecisiveness on the surface may just be different perspectives on how to deal with a complex situation. I actually think Mark Luce is a good guy who doesn't typically make impulsive decisions. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, for now. Maybe he truly believes that dealing with all the bubbles at once is the way to go. I'm hoping our representatives do not neglect the Angwin community, though, in favor of what's easiest and initially what appears less costly in terms of surrendering to lawsuit threats. Perhaps our representatives just do not care about a small, out of sight community. Losing prime Upper Valley agricultural lands to development is irreversible, though. These lands may grow wine grapes today but tomorrow they may become protein producing crops. Ironically, the more populated we become, the greater the need for fertile farmland. Yet we fill the space up with people, all of the things they've collected and all of the things they want more of. We take our future, our soils, out of production in the process. It's downright crazy. I think it was Dodd who made the comment about the small percentage of land, percentage wise, being used for the development. Have these guys taken a walk down the steep side of PUC land? Most of their acreage is unusable and unproductive. They are paving over the most agriculturally productive lands available up here. Angwin will look like a bowl filled up with concrete, asphalt and roofs. Some of our representatives are out of touch with reality. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Feb 27, 2008 1:53 PM:

" I also want to respond to a comment made by one of the representatives yesterday, who suggested we have a meeting of the minds in Angwin, to work through it ourselves. Unless you have lived up here awhile, you just do not realize how difficult that would be. Many of these people are very set in their ways. Their attitude is "our way or the highway". They do not know the meaning of the word 'give' except when it relates to their boxed in world. They tend to view outsiders suspiciously. It's like negotiating with some very orthodox Muslims. Not everyone in Angwin behaves like this but many of the self proclaimed leaders do. Decisions are made on their turf and they intimidate when you disagree. I find it interesting that NOT ONE student stood up yesterday to oppose this project. Statistically speaking, some students should have questioned the project. This speaks for itself. Do our representatives actually believe the Angwin community can negotiate with a college who bussed 500 students to a meeting where not one of them offered contrary views? And our county representatives, most who live nearly an hour away from here, think the solution is to sit down and have a little talk to solve our differences? That shows just how out of touch with reality some of our representatives are. We pay for decisiveness and leadership. Is
Angwin just too small for anyone, except a few, to really care about? In response to the comment about two wolves and a lamb: the Angwin community is the lamb and the steering committee appears to only care about their own self perceived issues. Business interests matter more than people. They're steering us into the wrong direction and the people of Napa ounty should be infuriated. "

PUC Prof wrote on Feb 27, 2008 2:37 PM:

" Skeptic, nobody at PUC wants "big growth." We want carefully planned growth. And I firmly believe democracy is the best form of government on this planet, as long as the fundamental rights of individuals and minorities are protected. "

DoseOfReality wrote on Feb 27, 2008 3:16 PM:

" Vocal-de-Local, I think 500 students is a grossly exaggerated number. Regardless, I did see PUC students sitting with SRA in the front rows and they were wearing the SRA stickers instead of the PUC stickers. Perhaps they did not have more to say than had already been said--and we thank them for it. The meeting would not have dragged as long as it did if everyone didn't repeat the same sentiments as previous speakers.

It doesn't matter what card PUC played and won with--religious, equality, etc. They did what they needed to do to protect their land. I heard several community members with no affiliation to PUC speak in support of maintaining land rights, so it wasn't just a "PUC" thing. "

ProAngwinConTriad wrote on Feb 27, 2008 4:27 PM:

" I see you are acquainted with John Stuart Mill. and approve of rule by the majority. Good. Isn’t this what Measure J is? Shouldn’t the people, rather than you, me, or certainly Osborn decide what “carefully planned growth” and “big growth” are? Shouldn’t we include Measure J protection for people in rural Napa County? Isn’t this what bursting the bubble does? I know that PUC is not the most democratic of institutions, but why would any school have such contempt for rights that they would try to spike the political process by sending their Religious “Liberty” (now there is a fundamental right for you) guy to poison the political process with bogus threats of suit? If there was a religious liberty issue, why did they wait until it was too late for discussion? What inference do you draw from this? Since you know Mill, you no doubt know Oliver Wendell Holmes. Unfortunately, the blog censor will not approve the operative word in his famous quote but wouldn’t you agree that is what has happened here? "

skeptic wrote on Feb 27, 2008 5:27 PM:

" if i got a 40% raise, i would consider that a big raise. if anyone suggested 40% more homes for st. helena, i'm sure they would consider that big too. was everyone but me already aware that all eco-villages are a part of u.n. agenda 21? i didn't until i searched . "

PUC Prof wrote on Feb 27, 2008 6:52 PM:

" During the last year and a half PUC has been repeatedly and harshly criticized by some of you in the media and at public hearings. Nearly every week one or more letters, subsequently accompanied by a barrage of online comments, is published in the press accusing PUC's leadership of incompetence, mismanagement, arrogance, greed, manipulation, intolerance, bullying, despotism, bending the rules, destroying a village, punishing dissent within its ranks, and even bribing students with lunches and bus rides. Some of you appear to agree with every word of criticism (feel free to add to the list). PUC's alumni were written to and asked not to support their alma mater. Protestors stood outside PUC's market and along Howell Mountain Road, passing out flyers critical of PUC's leadership to students, employees, alumni and local residents. A flyer with a cartoon mocking PUC's leadership was mailed out to the residents of Angwin. An attempt was made to rezone PUC's private property against its wishes. Now then, has the thought ever occurred to those of you engaged in such tactics that maybe, just maybe, there are some members of the general public who actually sympathize with PUC? People are reading about this stuff all over Napa County. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Feb 27, 2008 6:58 PM:

" To ProAngwinConTriad: Good. I hope students were supporting BOTH sides of the issue as this indicates a healthier student body. But in a publicly funded college setting, I guarantee students on both sides of the debate would say something, anything, even if it was redundant. I would have gladly listened to yet another voice if it had been from even one PUC student expressing a contrary point of view. I am not upset with students. I am critical of an administration that has created a climate of fear. PUC must feel quite frustrated from the lack of control over the community nowadays, with the exception of their village employees and students. Regarding the comment the Steering Committee made about 2 wolves and a lamb; seems to me that PUC has collected a whole lot of sheep. Anyone who rounds that many sheep up must be either a sheep dog or a wolf; take your pick. Either one of them has a motive of using the sheep for privileges or sustenance. It deduces down to using living things who have been programmed to follow orders. Please don't tell me it's not possible. That's how both military and cults operate. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Feb 27, 2008 7:02 PM:

" Sorry, but my last email was directed at doseofreality not proangwincontriad "

vocal-de-local wrote on Feb 27, 2008 7:16 PM:

" To DoseOfReality: You're right. There were probably a total of 500 people present at the meeting and maybe half? were students. "

MikeK wrote on Feb 27, 2008 7:55 PM:

" I'm sorry. What's wrong with UN agenda 21? Last time I checked, a good idea is a good idea, regardless of the source. "

jasper wrote on Feb 27, 2008 8:17 PM:

" There does not seem to be a clear idea of what the Board actually did. Their decision was to place a moratorium on development on agricultural lands in all the bubbles. They will now study all the bubbles and change the designations as needed and then come back to the Angwin Bubble. So this was just a delaying tactic to clear the decks of this ridiculous PUC charge that it was singled out for treatment first while other bubbles were postponed. This decision will cost many thousands of dollars and wear the planning staff to the bone. That will be the political climate in which the Triad project come onto the table. Now you guess how many planners and supervisors will be in the mood to favor PUC. Another stupid PUC mistake that will come back to haunt Osborn. "

Serve Angwin wrote on Feb 27, 2008 9:36 PM:

" The supervisors did their best to be public servants and do what's right. I believe they did. However, two of them caved to "special interests" who used the general plan as a their "tactic." I suggest that those two get out of bed with SRA and maintain being true public servants. This issue is has become too big for them to take sides and try to stop the eco-village project before it has a chance to pass on its own merits. When you play with people's property rights, you play unfair, and the three that voted to keep the bubble realized that. It was all summed up with the first three/four speakers who were from the steering committee, and all though we could have left it there, the public echoed their statements many times. What came out of this meeting is that protecting property rights and protecting PUC's future is the most important thing to Angwin and Napa County. "

skeptic wrote on Feb 27, 2008 10:35 PM:

" according to the man who wrote the template for agenda 21, the following practices are not sustainable, fossil fuel cars, air conditioning for homes and workplace, private garages or parking places, eating meat, refrigeration in private homes, frozen or convenience foods, having more than 2 children or commuting in private transportation. don't forget the problem of monotheism. pantheists and polytheists tread more lightly upon the earth than do those who wrongly construe genesis to say mankind should dominate nature. so we are talking really big changes here. are you a change agent? a stakeholder? then the eco village with no private parking or backyards will make perfect sense. i'm not a right winger who hates the u.n either but the idea of a one world government and loosing our national sovereignity no longer appeals to me. "

PUC Prof wrote on Feb 28, 2008 8:13 AM:

" PUC is more open to discussion than many of you think. A professor here says a representative of SRA is invited each quarter to speak to the students in his class for a full lecture period, and with the full support of PUC's administration, who is also given the opportunity to speak to the class for a full lecture period. Students hear both sides of the issue and then write an essay on whether they think the ecovillage is a good idea or a bad idea. I don't know the exact figures but the professor says something like 85% of the students think it's a good idea and something like 5% think it's a bad idea, with the rest sitting on the fence. Furthermore, support has increased dramatically since last year. Hopefully we'll hear more details from the professor at some point in the future. "

PUC Prof wrote on Feb 28, 2008 8:25 AM:

" Vocal-de-local, you wrote that talking with SDAs is "like negotiating with some very orthodox Muslims." Were you intentionally insulting two different religions? You also compared "cults" with the "military." I wonder how many SRA supporters would approve of your repetitive attacks on religion. We respect your personal faith or lack thereof. Please show some respect for others. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:48 AM:

" PUC Prof, I'm open minded to ALL religions as long as they don't squelch free speech. Sadly, the Muslim faith has been hijacked by a radical group and the Muslim leaders have not risen up in a very strong way to oppose their directive. Collectively, the Muslim religion needs to take some responsibility for their behavior. It's like a group of gang members who end out with a bad reputation. Some of them might be good kids just wanting to associate with something, anything; but their reputation becomes fused with the bad guys. And regarding the military: it teaches people to think and react in a systematic way and to not question authority. It's brainwashing. That's also how cults get a foothold. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also, PUC buses students to a meeting and not one of them speaks an opposing word. What am I to think? I am my own person. I do question authority; your authority, PUC's authority and anyone else who raises an issue that doesn't make sense. Even though I agree with some of the SRA views, I believe they are much too tolerant of the 191 homes allowed. I also question SRA's authority too. SRA does not own me and I am not SRA. So even though you would like SRA to lasso me in, it's not going to work. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:59 AM:

" Prof, I also want to comment, and I think I made it clear on a previous post, that I didn't think ALL Adventists were like Orthodox Muslims. I said "many" of them are like that. That's not everyone. I've met some very nice and open minded Adventists, who question before following. I stand strong on my concerns about a student population who do not verbally express opposing points of view on the Angwin development, though. "

PUC Prof wrote on Feb 28, 2008 12:46 PM:

" Valley-de-local, I appreciate your open mindedness to ALL religions. If you have any evidence that someone here at PUC ever pressured a student not to speak out publicly against PUC, I would like to know about it. PUC students are not sheep who passively obey the orders of sheep dogs, and neither are we faculty members. Before the meeting I urged students in my classroom to feel free to speak out publicly for either side. I even privately urged a particular student who I knew was opposed to the ecovillage to speak up at the meeting, but unfortunately the student was more interested in working on a research paper and did not even attend. I would have been delighted had a student been brave enough to speak out against PUC. I am but one professor here at PUC and I am certain I am not the only one who would defend a student's right to speak their opinion on PUC's property rights, even if unfavorable to PUC. "

PUC Prof wrote on Feb 28, 2008 1:12 PM:

" By the way, PUC students and employees arguably enjoy MORE freedom of speech than their peers in any publicly funded college or university. For example, our biology professors teach the strengths and weaknesses of both evolution and intelligent design, and allow students to make up their own minds, whereas students are exposed to only one side of the issue (and are often told there is only one side) in a publicly funded institution. Nobody forces students to believe in a Creator, although the vast majority do. Students can learn about the tenets of a variety of faiths in their religion courses, although the courses for obvious reasons have a strong Christian emphasis, yet all students are free to pick and choose whatever they want to believe or not believe, and indeed many different faiths are represented by students at PUC. Finally, students and employees are free to pray openly anywhere at any time, even in the classroom, in contrast to publicly funded institutions. "

threepines wrote on Feb 29, 2008 5:14 AM:

" This story was read by persons far away from California and many of us marvel at the idea that a Country founded on the idea that there are certain rights that are given to mankind are now up for sale to the majority.

Hardely ever in the couce of human history has the majority ever been right. Many times the majority has comitted crimes against individuals and races of persons as well as whole countries.

Our founding Fathers and their wives all knew that Democracy, mob rule, is a very dangerous form of govenment, and so our Constitution as well as all af the State Constitutions that I have read call for a representative government. One where individuals have a right to vote persons who do not represent their ideas are voted out of office.

Our news organazations of the last 30 years have been promoting polling as a means of telling repreetatives how to vote and that is a good idea, however when those polled feel that h majority rule that is mobe rule and has always been dangerous.

Pete Resz
Collinsville Ok. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:26 PM:

" I found this quote on the internet by Pete Resz, "New believers need to focus on their relationship with God and non-believers really don't care who wears what, when or how". This is the problem we face up here; people who think like that (yes I know you're from out of state but this type of thinking is prevalent here) assuming if we do not follow your religion we don't care about anything. How arrogant. Have you ever considered that the Angwin community members consider the college and all of it's followers "mob rule"? You need to take a look at your own discriminatory views before dishing out advice. "

Angwinite wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:41 AM:

" To "Vocal de Local" and your question about why PUC students did not speak out against the project at the Feb 26 meeting. I think you are confusing issues. I would like to remind you that the meeting was NOT about the project. It was about the proposal for institutional zoning. Very few students and employees would argue against the notion that PUC deserves to maintain their property rights over land that they have owned for nearly 100 years. You can be against a specific project but still support basic land rights. So please refrain from insulting the students and consider the facts. The fact is that students may not like the idea of an ecovillage in Angwin, but this was not the meeting to oppose a specific project. Students have questioned the ecovillage before, and I have no doubt they'll do it again when the time is appropriate. "

Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
Search:
Advanced searchWeb Search Powered By Yahoo! Search
Back to top
Contact: News | Advertising | Subscriber Services | Work for us | Buy photos
More local news: American Canyon Eagle | St. Helena Star | Weekly Calistogan
Local tourism: Inside Napa Valley
Copyright © 2008 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy