Supes take middle road in Angwin

Compromise bubble vote allows PUC to proceed with proposal

By JILLIAN JONES
Register Staff Writer

Even as the hard-fought battle over land use rules in Angwin came to an end on Tuesday, the real work on the proposed Angwin eco-village is only just beginning.

The Napa County Board of Supervisors voted on Tuesday to make what may be the last in a long series of changes to 12 urban bubbles scattered throughout the county. In Angwin, where Pacific Union College plans to propose a 380-unit residential development, attempts to resolve land use inconsistencies related to the urban bubble have proven especially contentious.

In a move viewed largely as a compromise between environmentalists and developers, supervisors voted to place new restrictions on the development potential in Angwin’s urban bubble without killing PUC’s eco-village proposal.

The plan would leave alone until June 2010 the 63 acres where the eco-village is proposed, allowing PUC to have its proposal heard once an environmental study of the project is released later this year. If the eco-village is not approved by the county at that time, supervisors will consider designating the land for specified institutional uses.

County officials have been debating for months what should be permitted under this new public institutional designation.

Under the compromise reached Tuesday, PUC will be allowed to build homes for students, faculty and staff on institutional land. A previous proposal by Supervisor Mark Luce that would have allowed the college to build homes for employees who work within 20 miles of the site died with the Napa County Planning Commission earlier this month.

PUC will also be able to build other facilities on institutional land — including classrooms, offices and limited commercial buildings — as long as they are deemed “essential to the needs of students, faculty or staff.”

Similarly, supervisors voted to allow PUC to divide its land into smaller parcels only when doing so supports the college’s educational mission. PUC will be allowed to reorganize parcels at Parrett Field in order to sell its airport to the county, as is currently being discussed.

Supervisors split Tuesday over what to do with a piece of the college’s land where several ball fields are currently located. The majority of supervisors voted to designate the land as agriculture, placing significant restrictions on the college’s ability to expand recreational uses on the site.

Supervisors Luce and Bill Dodd voted against the changes Tuesday because of this provision, saying it infringed on the college’s property rights.

“This just smacks to me of absolutely taking all the property rights away from the owner of this property,” Dodd said, noting that PUC will have to apply for a permit just to switch from one recreational facility to another.

Luce said it sets up a situation in which the college is already out of compliance with the new land use designations.

Luce also opposed a density provision that limits PUC’s students population to “approximately” 2,300. While PUC has never had more than 2,300 students, Luce said he worries that the condition places an unfair cap on PUC’s student population.

Supervisor Diane Dillon, meanwhile, felt the board went too far out of its way for PUC. While she voted in favor of the overall plan on Tuesday, Dillon opposed leaving the 63 acres where the eco-village is being proposed open for potential development.

“The college can come in with a General Plan amendment” application, she said, rather than ask the county to plan the area around a specific project.

Luce, however, said he supports a plan that “allows the project to be considered,” and “gives us the ability to visit those issues over the next year and make a more informed decision.”

“That doesn’t guarantee anything … but it does afford them their express desire to leave this (land) open so they can bring a project forward,” he said.

Both developers and environmentalists agree there is something to celebrate in Tuesday’s compromise, but neither are fully satisfied.

“It was a fair compromise, and PUC was always looking to be treated fairly,” developer Curt Johansen from Triad Communities said. But Johansen points out that supervisors have significantly limited what is allowed on institutional land — a point he hopes will relieve critics’ fears that PUC may have larger development plans in mind than the 380 units currently on the table.

Though SRA lobbied Tuesday against leaving the 63 acres open until the eco-village proposal is heard, SRA’s Donna Morgan said “there are positive factors in this.”

In particular, Morgan said she is pleased with the redesignation of land where PUC’s ball fields are located to agriculture. She said she also takes comfort in the knowledge that leaving those 63 acres open until the project is heard “does not guarantee (PUC) anything.”

As part of PUC’s project application, the college must complete an extensive environmental impact review of the proposed eco-village. The EIR, undertaken last year, was suspended in January pending the outcome of the bubble decision.

Calls to Triad and PUC officials about whether or when the college will resume the EIR were not immediately returned.

Supervisors also voted Tuesday to make final changes to the Pope Creek urban bubble. The board approved the Planning Commission’s recommendation to redesignate a 100-acre stretch along Pope Creek as agricultural land, but rejected the commission’s suggestion that the county enter into an agreement with the developer before the redesignation can take place.

The Pope Creek site is the location of the proposed 100-home Villa Berryessa Project. This project is already tentatively approved, so the redesignation would not prohibit developers from building on the site. Still, representatives worry that the change in land use designation will hurt their ability to finance the project.

Napa Valley Register Copyright © 2009