Fact-checking the claims of Save Rural Angwin

Home » Opinion » Commentary

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Comment

By Chad Kiltz

Following the lead of news organizations that fact-checked presidential candidate’s claims, here is a review of the facts about the revised Angwin eco-village and the claims made by Save Rural Angwin.

SRA claims to represent the entire Angwin community. It does not. A study group of Angwin residents met with Triad for two months recently and suggested improvements to the eco-village. The changes include a reduction in housing units from 380 to 275, the inclusion of a retirement center, and removal of housing units from the ball fields to preserve open space entering the community. Two community meetings held recently introduced the revised plan. The response from many residents has been positive.

Predictably, SRA opposes the revisions of the citizens’ committee. Let’s fact-check their stated reasons:

SRA claims the project will increase Angwin’s population by 43 percent. Untrue. The revised project is estimated to generate at most 900 residents — a 29 percent increase — over the next six-to-eight years. This increase would be several hundred fewer residents than Angwin’s highest population levels in the late 1970s.

SRA claims present residents will be forced to pay for the eco-village water and sewer systems when they need expansion. False. The eco-village infrastructure will extend to and service only the eco-village and the college. There will be no need for its expansion; the eco-village will not expand.

SRA says PUC will continue to develop after the eco-village. False. PUC will permanently preserve more than 1,500 acres (beyond the core campus) from future development. Upon approval of the eco-village, legal and binding deed restrictions will be prepared, which SRA has been invited to have its attorneys review to ensure that such preservation will occur.

SRA claims a buyer would pay $7,500 in annual homeowner dues for a $750,000 home. True, but only part of the story. Through our Local Preference Housing program, a buyer working outside of Napa County would pay that amount, a purposeful disincentive. A buyer working in Angwin or Deer Park would pay only $750 in annual dues, an incentive for local workers to live near their jobs. Other Napa County workers would likewise receive incentives on homeowner association dues.

SRA claims shuttle buses won’t work. False. SRA dismisses the fact that Angwin is a college town with well more than 1,000 students in residence the majority of the year. Colleges across the nation, both rural and urban, have incorporated shuttles into their transportation programs with successful results. With the addition of a retirement center, there will be even more demand for shuttle service.

SRA claims that the retirement center is a “shell game” that will end up being apartments, and that Triad has stated that local residents won’t be able to afford to live there. All false. Many people have asked for a retirement center to allow aging residents to remain in the community. It would be a natural fit with PUC’s nursing and medical training programs, and with St. Helena Hospital. It would not, however, convert well to an apartment building due to design requirements and the inclusion of specialized amenities for senior living and assisted care.

SRA claims the pre-approved 191-unit low income housing plan is superior to the eco-village, “protecting forest and farms.” False. It requires no EIR, no public hearings, and no traffic, water or any other mitigations. It does not protect the soybean farm it would be sited on, or forests, hiking trails or open space. It provides no community amenities included in the eco-village, such as a new grocery store, organic farm, community center, sheriff’s substation or retirement center. Unlike the eco-village, it would not be built to green standards and would not include permanent preservation of PUC lands, leaving the door open for future development. Because 115 of the 191 units would be required low-income housing, the subdivision would not generate any profit to fund PUC’s endowment or secure its financial future.

Please visit www.angwin-ecovillage.com for additional factual information.

(Kiltz is the Triad project manager.)

20 comment(s)

vocal-de-local wrote on Nov 23, 2008 11:17 AM:

" Chad, you left out one of the most important issues. Increasing population by 900 people is still significant from the perspective of evacuation. How do we get these seniors off the hill from an approaching firestorm? What about all of the extra children whose parents work off the hill? What about the bottleneck from all the extra vehicles?

Also, unless a person is a physician, most hospital workers do not make enough income to afford $750,000. Quite frankly, I think the college and hospital employees would prefer the low income housing option of 191 homes.

Additionally, "green" has now been incorporated in the building code. Developers like to use it as a marketing tool. That's ok. But really, much of the "green" you talk about is already required. "

citizen wrote on Nov 23, 2008 11:20 AM:

" $750,000.00 for a condo or townhouse for local residents and workers? That would require more than a middle class income and I know that even the PUC professors and most health care workers could not afford that. Just who do you envision buying all of these homes?

Those people earning that salary, in this area, already own a home. If people at a lower income level want to buy here then why not buy one of the many homes for sale up here in the $350.000.00 -$550.000.00 range? I've heard that question asked many times but you guys never answer it. So, answer it.

PUC and TRIAD would have you believe that they need affordable homes for their workers. Sorry, PUC and TRIAD, we are not stupid. 99% of your employees cannot afford a $350.00 home, with NO home owners dues.

Your plan will only attact outsiders, which in and of itself is not a bad thing, except for the fact that this proposal is for a money-making-suburban neighborhood on top of a mountain with very poor infastructure, in every sense of the word.

I forgot to mention, for your retirement home to be profitable it would not be affordable to your average elderly on a fixed income.

Puleeese! Next time give us the true facts, not the ones to fill TRIADS deep pockets and PUC's wanna-have deep pockets before they flee the mountain.
Don't believe it? Then just consider the facts, the real ones. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 23, 2008 12:07 PM:

" Quelle surprise. SRA has been manufacturing claims out of thin air since the beginning. Their credibility is zilch. "

HMcritic wrote on Nov 23, 2008 2:02 PM:

" So 1300 members of SRA have no significance. Angwin is truly represented by a Triad-picked group of PUC supplicants with two (2) SRA observers called a “study group”. The “study materials”, of course, courtesy the writer’s employer, who also grades the exam.

29%? Angwin had 874 housing units in the last census. Triad proposes 380 more. 380/874 is .43478. The writer may be confused by PUC’s student body decline. But PUC’s College-employed transient carless students of the ‘60s are hardly equivalent to hundreds of new subdivision dwellers commuting downhill for work. PUC projects student body growth so this is moot. What is 29% and what is “only” about it?

PUC will protect 1500 acres? PUC presently has 1900 acres including a 700 acre “nature preserve” where development is prohibitive. Of the 1200 remaining it proposes to sell 564 and keep a campus of 150. How will PUC “retain 1500 from development”? PUC, who hasn’t recorded a conservation easement in 100 years, will retain land it cannot develop because they are good guys? Ha! What about Triad’s undeveloped acreage? Since most of Triad’s other subdivision projects hit in phases why won’t this one?

Shuttle buses are for students, not commuters? Huh? Perhaps the writer has confused this with his Davis subdivision? Easy to do.

Because residents have been suggesting for decades that a senior center would be appreciated, we should trust Triad to deliver? The same Triad who threatens to build with no concern for “traffic, water, forests, hiking trails or open space.” Hmmm. Perhaps he confused Angwin with Triad’s project in Downtown Vallejo? "

HMcritic wrote on Nov 23, 2008 2:02 PM:

" SRA could not buy better advertising than this. We have learned “facts” from PUC and Triad are not to be trusted. "

angwindeac wrote on Nov 23, 2008 7:14 PM:

" Mr. Kiltz,
As a mouthpiece for Triad/PUC, please answer the following questions in print...What is the average salary of a PUC employee? How can they possibly afford a $750,000 loan? Have you followed the mortgage collapses from over extension? Finally, how will you compensate current residents for ruing the roads over the next 10 years? "

kkjp wrote on Nov 23, 2008 9:01 PM:

" Vocal is misinformed. Napa County has not, unfortunately, incorporated green requirements in its building code. The City of Napa is developing those standards, which we'll probably see next year, but the county, no. "

perceptive wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:47 PM:

" Vocal, Citizen, Angwindeac: The $? Number is just hot air. Thee product will be built and priced at whatever the market will bear. There are a lot of questions Traid won't answer, like why not commit to building the 191 to the same standards they claim will be used for the 380? This was asked several times at the second meeting a few weeks ago and Triad’s representative seemed to simply not understand! It was never answered! Pricing questions have the same response. In fairness, Triad has no way of knowing what the market will be in 3 years and any number is not very meaningful.

Subdivisions normally decline in cost in relation to their distance from employment. People need incentive to drive an hour to work and it is price, not electric buses. These units seem similar to American Canyon and should probably be priced lower, especially considering the assessments. These days that should be something (much) lower than $500,000. The only importance of Triad’s announced price is it is an attempt to convince us that Triad is not going to build product that will undermine the local price structure. But how could it do otherwise? They also want people to believe that they are not going to build low end, but how could it be otherwise? What else are condos in the sticks?

The only thing good from this is the wine estates in Mill Valley. I, for one, hope PUC stays and believe that these offer the basis for a renaissance of PUC’s farm program and offer employment for students as the dairy did. It may take a generation but, at $100 a bottle they will learn wine isn't a mocker for the winemaker. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Nov 24, 2008 12:19 AM:

" Napablogger, perhaps your credibility should be questioned. All of your responses to growth posts have been "pro development". I have not once seen you advocate slower growth. "

Jasper wrote on Nov 24, 2008 12:36 AM:

" Mr. Kiltz repeats the story that Triad created. He says: “SRA claims to represent the entire Angwin community. It does not. A study group of Angwin residents met with Triad for two months recently and suggested improvements in the eco-village.”

What actually happened is that Triad created this group with only two individuals who are opposed to the project. The rest were people either former faculty of the college or sympathetic to it. And Triad people. There was NO “study.” There was NOT two months of study. There were only three meetings in a hotel room in St. Helena. The idea for fewer houses in the ballfield area was suggested by one retired PUC professor. The idea for a retirement center was the suggestion of just one person, also a retired PUC professor.

In short, the so-called Study group did not conduct a two months study. It did not as a group formally vote on these recommendations. The group was too small and biased to be called representative of the Angwin community. Triad unveiled these recommendations in a public meeting, there was almost no support. Still too many numbers and no assurance that the retirement center would really succeed.

These are the facts, based on my questioning the people involved. They would be the last to claim that their ideas were anything more than individual suggestions, not the will of the Angwin community. Only Triad and the College are making that claim.

These are the kind of stories which a Seattle developer and a duplicitous PUC administration float that has brought almost everyone in Angwin to the point where they just cannot trust anything they say. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Nov 24, 2008 3:42 PM:

" Well stated, Jasper! "

bhenery wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:04 AM:

" Chad,

One easy question. Will the eco village waste water and water system service any privately owned parcels out side of the foot print of the development?

Specifically will the sewer and water lines be sized so that future parcels can hook up to these services? This is considered growth inducing, as you know.

Specifically will any sewer and water services be provided to the parcels which are owned by Jeff Vaness and Bryan Breckenridge (who happens to sit on the Board of Trustees of PUC and who want to develop their parcels)?

Can you answer this truthfully with out adding....unless the county of Napa requires us? "

HMcritic wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:18 AM:

" Bhenery, that is very interesting.

This has been a puzzle from the start. It was clearly not about faculty housing. That was to have been addressed with the land sales at the end of the ‘90s. It was not about campus renovation, the excuse given in the early broadsides. Campus renovation was abandoned and became endowment, but then endowment became renovating 110 houses.

Is this really about PUC insider’s conflicts of interest and personal gain? Is Ccbj Properties which owns 3 parcels by the Eco-village totaling 8 acres actually a shell for insiders and their wives?

What do you think, Napablogger, Chad? "

ProAngwinConTriad wrote on Nov 25, 2008 1:40 PM:

" There is nothing wrong with an insider’s self-interest if they disclose it to their board, which I would assume all parties did. There is plenty of self-interest to go around between PUC, Triad and the Board members. Self-interest is what makes things happen. Unfortunately, Angwin’s self-interest seems to not have been considered.

But this is a very curious letter. Chad’s accomplished background with Walmart-scale subdividers like Kaufman Broad etc. is well known and is undoubtedly what interested Triad in his resume. But it is an ill wind for Angwin. Triad did not hire this CV to build small and his riding on the set telegraphs their real intentions.

It is also curious and a little embarrassing that Mr. Kiltz would take it upon himself to manage his own PR. He obviously is impatient to start hammering out his next subdivision. But he has only been in the neighborhood for 4 months and obviously does not know the facts he pretends to check. Hopefully he will go back to his study group get some more information and real answers and write us another letter that is a little more accurate and informative. "

bhenery wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:00 PM:

" Garbanzo Beans Chad, Garbanzo Beans.

But seeing how new you are in town it is understandable that you would not even know what unique little farms we have here in Angwin.

(May I suggest getting out of your car and enjoying some of the pedestrian friendly trails we currently have!)

This garbanzo bean farm, which supports a family quite nicely thank you, would be paved over in either TRIAD vision of Angwin. Angwin residents believe preserving forest, farms and our rural village for families. Of course folks want fewer houses. But actually we believe that agriculture, and we mean diverse agriculture, is the key to a sustainable PUC.

Selling the farm to the Seattle boys is sure to bring heart ach and economic disaster to the already troubled college.

Chad, we do it a bit different in Napa County. We value preservation of openspace and agriculture. And consider these the highest and best use of the land.

You hooked a mighty big fish here Chad. Sure the Good 'ol boys at PUC said this was like shootin' fish in a barrell. And then you found out what a stinking dead whale you signed on to fillet.

We dont roll over for Developers like they do in Modesto and Oakley and Mountain House....We will continue to protect our community charachter and send the fat cat developers back down Howell Mountain. This development Chad is a red herring...... "

bhenery wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:24 PM:

" Here is an example of the leadership at PUC.

• $4.74 million to Bryan Breckenridge

"The largest amount went to Bryan Breckenridge, who received $4.74 million in compensation and lump-sum pay in 1997 [a single year's pay package], when he left his job as president of Adventist HealthCare Inc., the regional nonprofit company that also owns Washington Adventist Hospital in Takoma Park, seven nursing homes and a New Jersey hospital.His top aide, chief financial officer Edmund R. Peters, left soon afterward with $3.1 million.

"Adventist [Healthcare Inc.] officials said it was a recognition of the pair's lengthy service and part of a broader attempt by the hospital system's board to catch up with compensation paid by other health-care organizations in the region.

...
Meanwhile, Breckenridge, Peters, Wisbey, and Chambers refuse to comment.
...
In 1996, Breckenridge, for example, was receiving $416,000 in total [yearly] pay -equal to the highest pay in the surveys- but his compensation for that year was increased to $716,000

We take a deep breath at the audacity, the brazenness of such wickedness.

But the worst part is that officials who are over the nine Adventist Health Systems permit this to continue.They are all General Conference subsidiaries.

Oh, please, please, let us pray that God will clean up the offices of the denomination!
...
In 1996, Breckenridge, for example, was receiving $416,000 in total [yearly] pay-equal to the highest pay in the surveys-but his compensation for that year was increased to $716,000."- Washington Post, December 1, 1999.

This three-page article in the Columbia Union Visitor did not make one comment about the patient left to die in the hallway or the woman who had her one good hip operated on instead of the one which was broken. "

PUC Prof wrote on Nov 27, 2008 10:07 AM:

" Nobody has refuted the claim that Angwin had far more residents (and businesses) in the late 1970s than it does now. Did more residents back then destroy Angwin's roads, schools, water supply, forests or rural nature? "

HMcritic wrote on Nov 28, 2008 12:02 AM:

" Prof: There were only more residents if one counts PUC’s transient students, although PUC is projecting a return to those levels which makes that a wash. The census figures showed fewer homes then, which are the only real objective measure. There were certainly a lot fewer commuters as 90% of the population was affiliated with the College and stayed on the Hill to work and the transient students, who PUC and Triad want to pretend were residents as occupants of a subdivision would be residents, mostly worked on campus. Few of those that did commuted on rush hour. Most of the students did not have children attending Howell Mountain Elementary or commuting to high school in St Helena. Most of the "businesses" were operated in a bedroom or a garage. If you were around in the ‘60s you know that anyone who claims the Eco-village is simply returning to what was in terms of traffic, school use, or any other measure, is either prevaricating or loony.

Quit kidding yourself. If you are really a prof. you have had some education and should see through a scam. Stand at the hairpin in a commuting hour and count two cars for every one you see and see how it is. Nobody has to refute anything. The evidence is as plain as the nose on your face. "

dreamweaver wrote on Nov 28, 2008 8:16 PM:

" Prof, it doesn't matter so much what was. We must focus on what is. And we should not use past mistakes to justify future ones.

That place up in the hills defined as Angwin probably should not have ever had a college built there due to the rural nature and obviously rugged roads. I've heard that the Adventist leader, Ellen White sought isolation. But should the past mistakes of allowing a college and surrounding town to be built in an inappropriate location justify all future growth on rural mountain tops? At some point you must admit that it was probably not a good idea. But we do manage to tolerate our past mistakes. In other words, we don't tear the structures down. Should we use it as justification to build even more structures? At some point we should admit that a decision from our past was a mistake. Let's not keep making them. "

PUC Prof wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:08 AM:

" Dreamweaver, tens of thousands of former and current students and employees of PUC would disagree with you--and would be utterly unhappy if PUC were moved anywhere else. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

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.

Search: