Eco-village would improve sustainability in Angwin

By Richard Osborn

In his Aug. 10 letter, Duane Cronk expressed concerns about the proposed Angwin eco-village (“Questioning the premise of the Angwin eco-village”). However, to judge the legitimacy of his objections, one must compare the eco-village to the county’s pre-approved 191-unit affordable housing plan supported by Mr. Cronk and Save Rural Angwin.

The differences are dramatic and call into question the sincerity of SRA’s mission to “protect and preserve” Angwin.

First, let’s focus on agricultural land. Mr. Cronk’s claims that the eco-village project will result in a loss of ag land are incorrect. In truth, the eco-village will be sited on a wastewater spray field that produces cattle feed, while the 191-unit project would be located on land that is farmed for soybean production. Neither of these sites are ag-zoned, and both have been designated for development for 30 years. However, the eco-village will replace the loss of the land growing cattle feed with a 70-acre organic farm — the Angwin Agricultural Conservancy — producing healthy food for the entire community. The 191-unit project would not replace lost ag-producing land.

What about transportation? The eco-village incorporates a comprehensive transportation program including electric shuttles, bike and battery-operated Global Electric Motorcar-sharing, a system of connected bike and pedestrian paths, traffic calming and other safety features, and other incentives that will encourage college students and the community at large to use alternative transportation to reduce traffic. While Mr. Cronk criticizes the program, it must be noted that the 191-unit project he supports includes no traffic mitigations whatsoever, and no transportation alternatives. As a result, the 191-unit project will actually cause more significant traffic impacts than the eco-village, even though it includes fewer housing units.

Land preservation is a key component of the eco-village. The eco-village project would permanently preserve more than 1,500 acres of PUC’s ag land, forests, trails and open space, precluding any future development of PUC land beyond the core campus. The 191-unit project provides no preservation of land, and requires no environmental review, no reduction of environmental impacts and no public hearings.

The eco-village has a logical jobs and housing element. Mr. Cronk’s letter mentions the eco-village’s Local Preference Housing program, which offers deeply discounted homeowners’ association dues as an incentive to buyers working nearby, while placing significant assessments on buyers who work out of the area. This program was developed specifically to ensure the availability of housing for the local workforce and to reduce traffic. The 191-unit project includes no such incentives or disincentives, making the market rate units of that development much more desirable to commuters or as second homes.

The population rise would be minimal compared to past levels. Contrary to Mr. Cronk’s claim of a 43.5 percent increase in population, experts report that the eco-village will increase the Angwin population by 20 percent to 23 percent, bringing the community’s declining population back up to roughly what it was in the 1970s. While the 191-unit project consists of fewer homes than the 380-unit eco-village, its impacts far outweigh its benefits: no traffic mitigations, no water or energy conservation, no new retail center or grocery store, no parks, no improvements to the private schools, no new community/teen center, no new sheriff’s substation or fire department improvements, no environmental preservation or protection — nothing but fewer housing units.

Why Mr. Cronk and Save Rural Angwin would favor such an inferior project over the eco-village, the most sustainable project ever proposed for Napa County, brings into question their motives. We invite readers to visit our Web site at www.angwin-ecovillage.com to decide for themselves which project makes more sense for the Angwin community.

(Osborn is president of Pacific Union College.)

Napa Valley Register Copyright © 2009