Webmaster

Facts and Figures

  • PUC Development Application as of Feb 2010
  • PUC development documents at the Napa County Planning Department
    • "Height Diagram" showing buildings over 35' tall in the "Village Square" that would be near the current tennis courts, replacing the hay fields. Is this the view we want in the center of Angwin?
  • Map showing development plan. Why would a nature preserve need a road through its heart? To support future development, of course.
  • PUC claims to be in tough financial shape and have declining enrollment. What they report to the government doesn't bear this out. See tax return summary, and individual tax returns (2005,2004, 2003, 2002,2001, 2000, 1999,1998 see also the 2006 return, which isn't yet included in the summary). Enrollment has been basically flat, net income averages about $1million per year, and net assets have been steadily increasing in the last four years. They reply that some of the income is "restricted" (such as gifts that require the gift only to be used for a particular purpose, like funding the nursing program) and doesn't reflect their financial situation. This is untrue. Just look at the 2003 return. Lines 68 and 69 show that restricted assets increased under $800,000 with profit for the year of over $3,000,000. Even if they want to subtract gifts from their income, PUC is still making a big profit.
  • "Affordable Housing" is not all affordable. It includes market-rate housing that can be used to finance the affordable part. PUC is not being accurate when they claim that the big development is necessary in order to fund the affordable housing. One of the currently approved sites (77 units max) would require about 30% of the units to be low or very-low income, while the second site (max. of 114 units) would require half of them to be in one of those two categories. Or a total of approximately 80 of the 191 units.
    Affordable Housing Overlay in Angwin
    ..Affordable %.
    Parcel A7730%23
    Parcel B11450%57
    Total191.80
  • The Napa County General Plan and EIR drafts have been released (along with the Baseline Data Report). Please comment that you oppose development in Angwin, any enlargement of the "Urban Bubble" and even its existence, state you want the "1% growth" rule included, and that you decry the removal of "viewshed" protection. Your message should include your full name and phone number.
  • Rohnert Park estimates 0.4 elementary school students, 0.1 middle school students, and 0.2 high school students per household p. 3.8-7. Chico estimates 0.52 students per household. Taking a conservative estimate of .3 elementary school students per household would yield 177 new students, tripling the number of students from the current enrollment of less than 80 at the Howell Mountain Elementary School.
  • The Energy Information Administration estimates 1.9 cars per household in our area. If each car just takes one trip a day to and from work or school that's over 2000 trips a day up and down our little road
  • PUC and Triad market this as an "eco-friendly" development, but Triad has a history of environmental destruction, including an "accidental" and illegal clearcut at one development. PUC has similarly been sued for illegal tree cutting when it still owned what would become the Abreu vineyard. Triad at least admits it has never before done an eco-friendly development. Of course, even if they did, it couldn't eliminate the huge negative impacts of traffic, water use etc., only mitigate them.
  • Developers incorporate companies in order to limit liability on each project. If it fails, they just declare bankrupcy and walk away. If it succeeds, they siphon off profits to the parent company. Either way, the community is left with the result. In Washington, for example, they created "Point Edwards LLC" for one develpment. For Angwin, they created "Angwin Pacific LLC".
  • Other groups fighting Triad developments locally include Friends of Lagoon Valley Park and Friends of Allan Whitt Park. As the Friends of Lagoon Valley say "The Developer has deep pockets but we believe we have broad support."
  • PUC Strategic Plan - why did a goal of $25M endowment balloon to $100M, other than to justify a big development? Why did the assumption of about 1600 on-campus students become 2000, other than to justify a new dorm and a big development project to fund it?
  • Help solve the mystery! How big is the development? Triad now claims it's 391 homes (including 191 units of "affordable housing"). But then how can that generate the $100 Million PUC claims? Probably there are additional phases of land sale and development and the 391 units are just a start. Now they admit to 1500 new residents. The average can't be nearly 4 people per unit, when many of the units are apartments and condos. On the other hand, if they do plan on 4 people per unit, then there will clearly be at least 2 children per unit, or 750 children, which contradicts their claims for only a maximum of 180 new students at the elementary school (with a low estimate of 90). The contradictions keep stacking up.
  • Growth statistics
  • PUC's description of their plan. The most amazing claim is of "no loss of agricultural land" when they're putting houses on land that is actively farmed, including the farm next to the town fire station. They say 90% of the land will be protected, but 885 acres is 40% of PUC's total holdings, which are being sold for development. They claim each new home will use 50% less water than existing homes, but even if true that still means a lot more water will be used in Angwin.
  • US Census data for Angwin
  • Napa Zoning laws, zoning code definitions and section 60000 onward of state law are relevant. See also Measure J.
  • Napa county General Plan site Past Steering Committee agendas and minutes
  • Land use codes
  • July 20th presentation with Urban Bubble options from Hiliary Gitelman
  • Traffic study from General Plan documents