County may pop urban 'bubbles'
Land-use change would affect 12 sites, including Angwin
By KERANA TODOROV
Napa Valley Register
November 7th, 2009
November 6th, 2009
November 4th, 2009
Napa County will update its land-use maps by removing hundreds of acres of land zoned for agriculture out of areas designated for residential use — from Angwin to Lake Berryessa and Napa.
On Wednesday, the Napa County Planning Commission took a preliminary look at the county’s planning staff proposal to remove about 1,800 acres of land zoned agricultural from Napa County’s 12 “urban bubbles” — circles and ovals on planning maps that delineate areas for potential residential development in unincorporated parts of Napa County.
Napa County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman said the planning Commission could vote on the new land-use maps in October. The agricultural zoning designation of the properties taken out of the urban bubbles will not change, she stressed.
Planning commissioners support removing agricultural land from the urban bubbles so that the county’s zoning maps better match land-use maps of Napa County’s updated General Plan, the document that will guide development in Napa County over the next two decades. The Napa County Board of Supervisors approved the updated General Plan on June 3.
Angwin plans
One of the urban bubbles is a 530-acre area in Angwin. Pacific Union College plans to build a 380-home Eco-village on part of that land, and has drawn opposition from Save Rural Angwin, a group of Angwin residents and environmental advocates.
The group wants changes to the area that would effectively kill the project and limit the college to building about 190 homes on campus.
The county’s staff’s recommendation is more modest, carving about 130 acres of agriculturally-zoned land from Angwin’s 530-acre urban bubble north from where the proposed Eco-Village could be built one day.
Terry Scott, chairman of the Napa County Planning Commission, said “Save Rural Angwin’s proposal would eliminate the Eco-Village proposal — which the majority of the planning commission does not favor.
“First of all, we haven’t even seen the proposal,” he said.
Chad Kiltz, project manager for Triad Communities, on Friday said he noted Save Rural Angwin had proposed to rezone Angwin’s urban bubble during the General Plan review process.
“We do oppose the SRA plan,” he said.
The county’s proposal to remove agriculturally-zoned land from urban bubbles will not affect Triad’s project, Kiltz said.
“It does not impact us either way,” he said.
Allen Spence, spokesman for Save Rural Angwin, said he supports the removal of agricultural land from all urban bubbles.
“We also agree with having the bubbles reflect what’s on the ground,” he added.
Planning Commissioner Jim King said he hopes the commission will look at each of the 12 bubbles individually, adding each urban bubble is different. Others are at Moskowite Corners, near Big Ranch Road, Pope Valley and elsewhere.
But he is not sure the Planning Commission supports looking at each urban bubble individually, he said, adding SRA’s proposal to re-designate land in the Angwin urban bubble as “public institution,” does not seem to have support from the majority of the Planning Commission.
The ultimate decision on land use will be up to the Napa County Board of Supervisors.
Napa County Supervisor Chairman Brad Wagenknecht on Friday said everybody will be heard over time.
Gitelman said the agriculturally-zoned land taken out of urban bubbles will not be subject to Measure J. The measure, which requires voters to approve any proposed change in zoning in the county’s agricultural preserve, does not apply to urban bubbles.
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.
interested wrote on Aug 24, 2008 11:16 AM:
boots wrote on Aug 25, 2008 8:55 AM:
Under the broken 'leadership' of Planning Director Hilary Gitelman, Triad/PUC has been allowed to push this pig up Howell Mountain.
Triad/PUC continues to apply liberal doses of lipstick to this hawg
claiming eco sprawl as the solution to curing a quite, rural farming community of its low key lazy existance. (actually we kind of think of it as near perfect up here).
While no one would argue PUC is in a financial mess, and all would love to help the college, until PUC turns the reins over to progressive thinkers, this campus is doomed. Angwin will be ruined, the college will have lost the land, the enrolment will continue to flounder and the college will be broke again in 10 years.
This time however a few key members of the administration and the Board of Trustees will be very rich men and Ms. Gitelman will be long gone....leaving the residents of Napa County to see what a hornswagel this really is!
Wake up Napa County! "
kkjp wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:40 AM:
The only problem with the Angwin project is that it's the only one in Napa County proposing such high standards of sustainability, green building and preservation of natural resources. All local developments should be required to meet the same standards. "
PUC Prof wrote on Aug 25, 2008 12:01 PM:
Because the remuneration of the administrators and board members of PUC is available for public scrutiny (including the constituents of PUC) on PUC's tax returns (posted on SRA's website), and all currently earn under 70K, in what manner do you think they will become "very rich"? Do you think it will be done transparently or dishonestly? What kind of income do you regard as "very rich"? "
vocal-de-local wrote on Aug 25, 2008 12:45 PM:
Truth is, Angwin was NEVER a good location for a college or the town which built up around it as PUC sold off land. Hey, notice how selling off land in the past didn't REALLY buy PUC higher enrollment?
I'm not sure why early 20th century planners allowed a college to be built in such a rural area. It wouldn't be allowed today. And that is what you must look at. You cannot take early 20th century guidelines and apply them to the present. For one thing, we are now recognized to be in the highest level fire risk area that exists in California. They didn't even think about this in the early 20th century. And now with the existing droughts and their projected longevity combined with all the dead brush an heavy forestland up here; if planners approve this development, it borders on criminal. "
jt wrote on Aug 25, 2008 1:08 PM:
Pacific Union College doesn't need to build any more then 10 homes over the next 5 years, and to put any sort of large scale development in that area is irrational.
Sorry, I'm not going to fall for the sustainability pitch either. "
kkjp wrote on Aug 25, 2008 1:59 PM:
My point was, in response to jt's very mean-spirited and personal attack against a developer, that just about every building we enter in the course of our daily lives is built by a developer.
Some are good, some are bad, just like any other profession. Developers are not all evil any more than any other profession is evil. That's all I was saying on that point. "
Econut wrote on Aug 25, 2008 2:12 PM:
msinformd wrote on Aug 25, 2008 3:04 PM:
jt wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:23 PM:
mrs. cronk (duane's wife) was a very kind person. she was a secretary at the elementary school i attended. she was the only kind face i'd see everyday between the classroom and the principles office.
for osborn to write anything about cronk shows how uncapable he is at relating publicly, and how far he has taken that college away from where it should be.
in response to the guys comment above about how everything i live in was developed by developers... actually the college i went to was 150 years old so no i don't exactly know who the original builders were. "
kkjp wrote on Aug 25, 2008 10:46 PM:
interested wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:26 AM:
This raises several questions. 1. Why is the Planning Commission bothering and the Board? Who do they think they are fooling? 2. If Measure J does not shape these lands, how can we trust the Planners and Supes to maintain the will of the people? It seems perhaps not. 3. If we can’t trust them, what recourse do we have? Must we return to initiatives or recalls? 3. The question is how will this County look and work in 30 years, not who wants to build an endowment or who is the greenest developer in the land. What can we do to focus developers, who are just doing their jobs, do them in appropriate places which will benefit the future of Napa County? "
Econut wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:38 AM:
jt wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:50 AM:
but the facts stick... 10-15 in 10 years... anything else will be a disaster and everybody knows it. "
Econut wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:51 PM:
vocal-de-local wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:36 PM:
A developer did not build my home. We hired a contractor and an architect. My land is not on a small lot. It's on a lot which is about the size you see while traveling over Calistoga Rd. heading toward Santa Rosa. The size of my lot is what you would expect here if PUC didn't exist (in comparison to similar Napa County areas). PUC never owned my land. It's been in the family awhile.
"interested" said it best. Developers are just doing their job, but they do need to be kept in check. "
msinformd wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:37 AM:
Landshark wrote on Aug 28, 2008 10:18 PM:
It took several decades for innovative people such as Robert Mondovi, the Sebastiani Family and others that invested hundreds of millions of dollars to create the Napa most people recall.
Eco villages, little Yosemite at Lake Berryessa when does reality set in for the left with ill found visions with tax payer money? The economy of Lake Berryessa has been destroyed by a select few lobbying for many years and now after forcibly removing long term Permitee’s, Reclamation has yet to execute a contract with Pensus and has generated several short term (3-6 month) contracts with FOREVER Resorts. Failure after failure with a poor business plan.
I challenge the NVR to ask real questions of BOR’s press man Pedro Lucero and look beyond their rhetoric to find the truth and lead to the termination of the ill found disaster Reclamation has created. It’s our tax dollars being wasted year after year by Reclamation’s shell game. "
PUC Prof wrote on Aug 29, 2008 8:58 AM:
boots wrote on Sep 2, 2008 4:04 PM:
This is a city in the making. "
vocal-de-local wrote on Sep 7, 2008 2:58 PM: