Members of the Napa County Planning Commission duked it out Wednesday during a three-hour-long hearing on the Angwin urban bubble, a divisive Upvalley issue that will ultimately land before the Napa County Board of Supervisors later this month.

The commission finally reached a compromise on changing land use designations in the area that defines where homes and businesses can be built in Angwin. Though the commission’s proposal limits Pacific Union College’s ability to develop its land, it would have no bearing on the controversial 380-unit eco-village currently proposed by the college.

The plan would leave the 63 acres where the eco-village is proposed alone until June 2010. At that point, if the eco-village is not approved by the county, those 63 acres would likely be converted from urban residential use to a new designation called “public institutional.”

On the map approved Wednesday, much of the land in Angwin’s so-called “urban bubble” would be changed from urban residential to the more restrictive public institutional designation.

The Planning Commission initially deadlocked 2-2 Wednesday, with Chairman Bob Fiddaman absent. Commissioners Matt Pope and Heather Phillips favored a more restrictive plan proposed by Napa County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman. Commissioners Terry Scott and Mike Basayne supported aspects of an alternative proposal from Pacific Union College that would give the college additional flexibility to develop.

Finally, in a 3-1 vote, the commission reached an agreement that combines the two proposals. Scott voted against it, opposing an element of the plan that would designate a stretch of PUC’s land as agriculture.

Institutional zoning

Under the commission’s proposal, PUC would be able to build homes for students, faculty and staff on the newly designated institutional land — potentially allowing PUC to develop more homes than the 380 units proposed as part of the eco-village. The commission rejected PUC’s proposal to allow the college to build homes for people who work within 20 miles of the site, recommending instead that the homes be used only by PUC students and employees.

Under the commission’s definition, PUC would also be able to develop institutional land for the following uses: agriculture, research, classrooms and other educational uses, meeting rooms, offices, maintenance and utility facilities, the Angwin Airport and commercial, community service, medical, cultural, religious, recreational uses “essential to the needs of students, faculty and staff.”

Another point of debate Wednesday was whether or not to allow PUC to divide its land into smaller parcels for the purpose of selling them off. After noting that the college likely will have to subdivide parcels in order to sell its airport, as is currently being discussed, commissioners agreed to allow the division of parcels “for institutional purposes” only.

They approved the board of supervisors’ recommendation to redesignate a stretch of PUC’s property where ball fields and tennis courts are located as agricultural land. Scott, who said the designation would place too heavy a burden on the college if it wants to add additional recreational facilities, voted against the overall plan Wednesday because of this proposal.

The board of supervisors is scheduled to take a final vote on the bubble on April 28.

Paula Peterson, member of Save Rural Angwin, the group opposed to the eco-village proposal, said she believes Wednesday’s vote was a win for SRA.

“We’re definitely pleased that the Planning Commission had a serious discussion and concurred with (a public institutional designation) as being appropriate,” Peterson said. “I think we continue to hear that they do see Angwin as rural.”

John Collins, vice president of finances for PUC, counts Wednesday’s vote as neither a win nor a loss. “It is a continuation of a journey,” he said. “I think the Planning Commission is committed to making sure that the college has the flexibility it needs to carry out its mission. … I am confident through more clarification and discussion we can come to a solution.”

Another bubble

On April 28, supervisors will also vote on the Planning Commission’s changes to the Pope Creek urban bubble. The commission on Wednesday approved the board’s recommendation to redesignate a 100-acre stretch along Pope Creek as agricultural land, but with a caveat.

The Pope Creek site is the location of the proposed 100-home Villa Berryessa Project. This project is already tentatively approved, and so the redesignation would not prohibit developers from building on the property.

Project representatives, however, worry that the change in land use designation would hurt their ability to finance the project.

Commissioners agreed, and recommended that the county enter into an agreement with the Villa Berryessa developers. If this development agreement cannot be reached, commissioners recommend the site remain designated for urban residential use.