Eternal vigilance is the price of preserving the Napa Valley.
- Former Planning Dir. Jim Hickey 2008 (RIP 2017)
This website is intended to create an online place for the residents of Soda Canyon Road and its tributaries Loma Vista Drive, Soda Springs Road, Ridge Road and Chimney Rock Road, located in Napa County, California.
It was born out of the threat of a large tourism-winery project proposed at the top of our remote and winding road. But this is only one of many development projects now being proposed throughout Napa county and this site has begun to advocate on behalf of those impacted communities as well. And we are not alone. The negative impacts of wine tourism on rural agricultural communities are being contested by residents all over the state and the nation.
While some vineyard acreage has been added in the last 20 years, there is already much more winery capacity than needed to process Napa grapes in the county. Yet more wineries are being approved, not to support Napa agriculture, but to provide venues to bring more tourist dollars into the county. On the valley floor the dominance of tourism over wine making is represented by French and Persian Palaces, Tuscan Castles, Aerial Trams and a vast sculpture garden of ego-fueled modernist statements. The great old wineries have been refurbished to bring a whiff of Disneyland or Planet Hollywood to the Valley. Highway 29 has traffic jams worthy of San Francisco and the Silverado Trail is beginning to resemble a two lane freeway (or worse, Hwy 29!). In the watersheds, clear cutting of forests for the estate-winery fantasies of plutocrats brings good-life enterprise to even the most remote neighborhoods.
County residents have always supported the wine industry for the character of the environment and economy it has produced. But that support is eroding as vanity event centers proliferate and wine corporations move into entertainment. Winery tourism and marketing events have moved from an incidental and subordinate aspect of winery economics to the reason for their being. The impacts of this shift, in traffic, lack of affordable housing and neighborhood commercialization, are no longer palatable, and the pushback of residents hoping to maintain the rural, small-town character that they grew up with or found here is the result. Until the industry adopts a less destructive way of marketing their goods (and the internet age offers other ways in addition to traditional legwork), until it recognizes the enormous difference in community impacts between grape processing and tourist processing, the industry should expect condemnation from those more concerned about the future quality of their lives and their environment than the quality of tourism experiences occurring next door.
But expanding tourism is only one facet of the ongoing urban developement, and this site has also begun to recognize that the loss of the rural character we all treasure is more than just one industry's problem. It is the mentality, a part of the American DNA, promoted by all development interests and enabled by governments controlled by development interests, that growth is good and lack of growth is death. Napa County has made a very strong commitment to protecting its rural environment and economy. As one grapegrower has said, this is one place on earth where agriculture might be able to hold out against urbanization. Yet the growth, in wineries, tourism facilities, industrial projects, housing projects, commercial centers continues.
If the county wishes to maintain its rural environment for the next 50 years, it needs to reject a growth economy based on the unlimited profitability of continued urbanization and commit to a stable economy, based on the limited amount of agricultural land with an appropriate mix of wine, tourism, industry and housing that provides the quality of life worth having and the survival of an industry worth supporting. Unless we act now the rural, small-town life that still exists here, as well as the rural environment that is our home on Soda Canyon Road, will soon be gone.
expand ...
It was born out of the threat of a large tourism-winery project proposed at the top of our remote and winding road. But this is only one of many development projects now being proposed throughout Napa county and this site has begun to advocate on behalf of those impacted communities as well. And we are not alone. The negative impacts of wine tourism on rural agricultural communities are being contested by residents all over the state and the nation.
While some vineyard acreage has been added in the last 20 years, there is already much more winery capacity than needed to process Napa grapes in the county. Yet more wineries are being approved, not to support Napa agriculture, but to provide venues to bring more tourist dollars into the county. On the valley floor the dominance of tourism over wine making is represented by French and Persian Palaces, Tuscan Castles, Aerial Trams and a vast sculpture garden of ego-fueled modernist statements. The great old wineries have been refurbished to bring a whiff of Disneyland or Planet Hollywood to the Valley. Highway 29 has traffic jams worthy of San Francisco and the Silverado Trail is beginning to resemble a two lane freeway (or worse, Hwy 29!). In the watersheds, clear cutting of forests for the estate-winery fantasies of plutocrats brings good-life enterprise to even the most remote neighborhoods.
County residents have always supported the wine industry for the character of the environment and economy it has produced. But that support is eroding as vanity event centers proliferate and wine corporations move into entertainment. Winery tourism and marketing events have moved from an incidental and subordinate aspect of winery economics to the reason for their being. The impacts of this shift, in traffic, lack of affordable housing and neighborhood commercialization, are no longer palatable, and the pushback of residents hoping to maintain the rural, small-town character that they grew up with or found here is the result. Until the industry adopts a less destructive way of marketing their goods (and the internet age offers other ways in addition to traditional legwork), until it recognizes the enormous difference in community impacts between grape processing and tourist processing, the industry should expect condemnation from those more concerned about the future quality of their lives and their environment than the quality of tourism experiences occurring next door.
But expanding tourism is only one facet of the ongoing urban developement, and this site has also begun to recognize that the loss of the rural character we all treasure is more than just one industry's problem. It is the mentality, a part of the American DNA, promoted by all development interests and enabled by governments controlled by development interests, that growth is good and lack of growth is death. Napa County has made a very strong commitment to protecting its rural environment and economy. As one grapegrower has said, this is one place on earth where agriculture might be able to hold out against urbanization. Yet the growth, in wineries, tourism facilities, industrial projects, housing projects, commercial centers continues.
If the county wishes to maintain its rural environment for the next 50 years, it needs to reject a growth economy based on the unlimited profitability of continued urbanization and commit to a stable economy, based on the limited amount of agricultural land with an appropriate mix of wine, tourism, industry and housing that provides the quality of life worth having and the survival of an industry worth supporting. Unless we act now the rural, small-town life that still exists here, as well as the rural environment that is our home on Soda Canyon Road, will soon be gone.
Upcoming Events (full calendar here)
| Tue, May 21, 2019 9:00am | Board of SupervisorsAgenda and documents 10A Winery use permit streamlining discussion "Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services (PBES) requests direction on the preparation of an ordinance regarding the use permit process." (Pretty bland description for such a big issue.) Staff Letter SCR 12/20/18: Save the Family Farm SCR 7/31/17: The Fast Track Proposal NVR LTE 7/28/17: Fast-tracking Napa County wineries isn't the answer SCR 9/25/15: The CEQA small winery |
Latest Posts
Below are the latest posts made to any of the pages of this site with a link to the page in the upper right corner.
County proposes winery fast-track on: The Winery Glut
Bill Hocker - May 17,19 expand... Share
Comments
George Caloyannidis - Jul 10, 2017 7:50PM
[Comment submission to Dir. Morrison re limited winery ordinance]
Dear David,
Attached is my revised comment on the Limited Winery Ordinance.
I revised Section "H" with a calculation of visitors this Ordinance would permit which is so staggering that one has to indeed wonder what thought if any is behind it.
George
Small Winery Ordinance Comment
And Divid Morrison's response:
From: Morrison, David [mailto:David.Morrison@countyofnapa.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 1:14 AM
Subject: RE: SMALL WINERY ORDINANCE
George,
With all due respect, I strongly disagree with several of the statements made in your letter.
A. There is a policy reason for the draft ordinance. It says so in the third paragraph of the ordinance recitals, where it states: “Action Item AG/LU-16.1 directs that consideration be given to amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that define “small wineries,” a “small quantity of wine,” “small marketing events,” and “mostly grown on site,” and establishes a streamlined permitting process for small wineries which retains the requirement for a use permit when the winery is in proximity to urban areas. In turn, the Action Item implements Policy AG/LU-16, which states:
In recognition of their limited impacts, the County will consider affording small wineries a streamlined permitting process. For purposes of this policy, small wineries are those that produce a small quantity of wine using grapes mostly grown on site and host a limited number of small marketing events each year.
The County’s intent and purpose in considering this ordinance is clear. It is to amend the County Code and create a simpler permit review process that reflects the limited impacts of smaller wineries. You may not agree with the policy, but the basis for this action does not require any surmise.
I would also point out that the proposed ordinance does not minimize either public scrutiny or the CEQA process. Applications considered under the draft ordinance would still be subject to CEQA review. They may obtain a Categorical Exemption, if they qualify, as they may currently do under the adopted Local CEQA Guidelines. If they do not qualify for a Cat Ex, then a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or EIR will be prepared, as is appropriate. The draft ordinance would not change CEQA review in any way. Similarly, applications under the draft ordinance would still be noticed to all neighboring property owners within 1,000 feet of the project, still be noticed in the newspaper, and would be considered in a public hearing, where interested parties may testify, and any resulting decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The draft ordinance would not minimize public scrutiny in any way.
B. There appears to be a misunderstanding. The provisions of the draft ordinance would be available to all wineries that meet the qualifying criteria, whether they are newly established or are already established and want to modify their existing use permit within the constraints of the definition of a limited winery. To do otherwise, would create an unfair advantage for one class of business over another.
C. Why is 30,000 gallons considered a small (or in this case limited) winery? Because that is how they are defined in Napa County’s Local Procedures for Implementing CEQA. Appendix B, Class 3, Subsection 10 states:
Construction and operation of small wineries, other agricultural processing facilities, and farm management uses that:
(a) are less than 5,000 square feet in size excluding caves;
(b) will involve either no cave excavation, or excavation sufficient to create no more than 5,000 additional square feet with all of the excavated cave spoils to be used on site;
(c) will produce 30,000 gallons or less per year;
(d) will generate less than 40 vehicle trips per day and 5 peak hour trips except on those days when marketing events are taking place;
(e) will hold no more than 10 marketing events per year, each with no more than 30 attendees, except for one wine auction event with up to 100 persons in attendance; AND
(f) will hold no temporary events.
As for national metrics, wine economists generally categorize wineries as follows:
Large – 500,000 cases and up (1,2 million gallons)
Medium – 50,000 cases to 500,000 cases (120,000 – 1.2 million gallons)
Small – 5,000 cases to 50,000 cases (12,000 – 120,000 gallons)
Very Small – 1,000 cases to 5,000 cases (2,400 – 12,000 gallons)
Limited – less than 1,000 cases (under 2,400 gallons)
By this standard also, 30,000 gallons is considered a small winery.
D. The focus of the draft ordinance is to provide some relief to small and family-owned businesses. If there are many such businesses, should they be denied relief simply because of their number, or should policy instead be based on their circumstances?
For clarification sake, about 1/3 of the wineries listed on the Napa County database would fall within the criteria of the draft ordinance. While there are more wineries that produce under 30,000 gallons, about 70 of those wineries have buildings, caves, visitation levels, or marketing events that exceed the definition of a “limited winery.”
E. I don’t agree that there is a contradiction. If wineries were to take advantage of the draft ordinance (should it be adopted) to increase production to 30,000 gallons, they would still be small wineries. There is only a contradiction if you define a small winery as having much lower production. I do not share that perspective.
F. Once again, I have to disagree. The cumulative impacts of winery development was already evaluated in the General Plan EIR, which was certified in 2008. Each winery permitted under the draft ordinance would undergo appropriate project-specific CEQA review. The draft ordinance does not allow any additional winery development not already anticipated in the General Plan. In fact, as stated previously, the draft ordinance is a direct implementation of the General Plan. Additional cumulative CEQA review of the draft ordinance is not required, in my opinion.
G. See F above.
H. See F above.
I. With regards to justifying the consideration of the draft ordinance, that was part of the policy debate regarding the General Plan in 2008. The purpose of the General Plan is to provide a set of policies under which the County would operate over the following 25 years. That is why adopting comprehensive General Plan updates is such a lengthy and expensive process. If you believe that circumstances have changed since 2008, you may want to request that the Board amend the General Plan to delete Policy AG/LU-16. Again, you may not agree with the idea, but an adopted policy carries significant legal weight.
If you are suggesting that the production level for limited wineries in the draft ordinance could be reduced to 15,000 or 20,000 gallons annually, I agree. The 30,000 gallon criterion was initially offered as a starting point for public discussion, but one that was consistent with the adopted Local CEQA Guidelines. Others have also suggested a lower threshold. The Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors are free to use an alternate metric.
J. Once again, I have to disagree. Length of time in permit review does not necessarily equate to public benefit. Staff is required to follow State law, which includes the Permit Streamlining Act. There is a balance between the exercise of private property rights and public interest. This ordinance would continue to provide full public review and participation for the review of development applications.
The draft ordinance would not permit any greater level of winery development than is already allowed under the General Plan, which evaluated the cumulative impacts of winery and vineyard development between 2005 and 2030. As this ordinance would not increase that potential, further cumulative analysis is not required.
The Zoning Administrator would not become a “winery czar,” any more than the Planning Commission could be described as such. The Zoning Administrator currently makes decisions regarding Use Permit Modifications, Variances, Certificates of Non-Conformance, and other applications. This would be similar to the Administrator’s existing duties. The Administrator’s decisions may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, who ultimately is responsible for setting policy in the County.
As always, I am happy to discuss these issues and welcome constructive dialogue towards developing a better draft ordinance.
Thank you for you comments.
Respectfully,
David
And George Caloyannidis' response
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 11:37 AM
To: 'Morrison, David'
Subject: FW: SMALL WINERY ORDINANCE
Thank you David.
Your statements are technically correct as they reflect the provisions of the Ordinance which are already known. However, they neither refute or specifically address mine because by their nature, they try to show the shortcomings of the Ordinance. Specifically, your statements do not provide answers to the points I presented.
· They do not explain the rationale for the need of the Ordinance other than to make things easier for applicants.
· They do not explain by what standard (or reason) a 30,000 gallon production winery is a new "small" one when 52% of all existing wineries in the county produce less.
· They fail to explain why potential quantifying data have not been presented to the Planning Commission.
· They do not explain why potential impacts of the Ordinance have not been presented to the Planning Commission or even a suggestion by staff that there may be worthy of consideration.
· They fail to explain which specific provisions of the Ordinance are the ones which facilitates its "streamlining". What specifically has been eliminated from the current process and what is its downside?
Maintaining that the Administrator's decisions may still be appealed to the BOS is correct but let's stop trying to hide the fact that it facilitates a process by which many of his/hers decisions will occur under the public's radar. Unless you can explain otherwise, this is the main instrument behind the "streamlining" of the process.
The 1,000 foot notification radius is grossly insufficient. Has staff tried to put the adequacy of such radius into perspective? For example, how many property owners would be notified if some of the randomly selected wineries below would apply?
Colgin (20,000)
Dalla Valle (20,000)
Diamond Mountain (10,000)
Kongsgaard (12,000)
Mayacamas (5,000)
Saddleback (8,000)
Signorello (20,000)
Titus (25,000)
Does Staff seriously believe that a 1,000 foot radius is sufficient to serve the public interest? Or does this number prove my point?
But the main concerns is the roundabout way by which this Ordinance will have advanced the Napa county CEQA baseline (traffic, water etc.) without CEQA review.
Your response does not address how an Ordinance which has the potential to incrementally add 3,564,277 gallons of production to the EXISTING "small" wineries, add 7,931 acres of vineyards plus 3,248,628 annual visitors is not cause for alarm meriting responsible environmental review. Mind you, this does NOT include special event visits NOR the impacts of NEW "small" winery streamlined applications, the number of which staff has also failed to make a credible effort to quantify.
These are massive numbers with potentially profound cumulative impacts - none of which were presented to the Planning Commission or the BOS for consideration - but obvious to any thinking person. They are so obvious that it is hard to hide the agenda driving this Ordinance by disingenuously hiding it under the innocent clothing of "SMALL".
George
PS: When will the Ordinance be heard by the BOS?
Dear David,
Attached is my revised comment on the Limited Winery Ordinance.
I revised Section "H" with a calculation of visitors this Ordinance would permit which is so staggering that one has to indeed wonder what thought if any is behind it.
George
Small Winery Ordinance Comment
And Divid Morrison's response:
From: Morrison, David [mailto:David.Morrison@countyofnapa.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 1:14 AM
Subject: RE: SMALL WINERY ORDINANCE
George,
With all due respect, I strongly disagree with several of the statements made in your letter.
A. There is a policy reason for the draft ordinance. It says so in the third paragraph of the ordinance recitals, where it states: “Action Item AG/LU-16.1 directs that consideration be given to amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that define “small wineries,” a “small quantity of wine,” “small marketing events,” and “mostly grown on site,” and establishes a streamlined permitting process for small wineries which retains the requirement for a use permit when the winery is in proximity to urban areas. In turn, the Action Item implements Policy AG/LU-16, which states:
In recognition of their limited impacts, the County will consider affording small wineries a streamlined permitting process. For purposes of this policy, small wineries are those that produce a small quantity of wine using grapes mostly grown on site and host a limited number of small marketing events each year.
The County’s intent and purpose in considering this ordinance is clear. It is to amend the County Code and create a simpler permit review process that reflects the limited impacts of smaller wineries. You may not agree with the policy, but the basis for this action does not require any surmise.
I would also point out that the proposed ordinance does not minimize either public scrutiny or the CEQA process. Applications considered under the draft ordinance would still be subject to CEQA review. They may obtain a Categorical Exemption, if they qualify, as they may currently do under the adopted Local CEQA Guidelines. If they do not qualify for a Cat Ex, then a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or EIR will be prepared, as is appropriate. The draft ordinance would not change CEQA review in any way. Similarly, applications under the draft ordinance would still be noticed to all neighboring property owners within 1,000 feet of the project, still be noticed in the newspaper, and would be considered in a public hearing, where interested parties may testify, and any resulting decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The draft ordinance would not minimize public scrutiny in any way.
B. There appears to be a misunderstanding. The provisions of the draft ordinance would be available to all wineries that meet the qualifying criteria, whether they are newly established or are already established and want to modify their existing use permit within the constraints of the definition of a limited winery. To do otherwise, would create an unfair advantage for one class of business over another.
C. Why is 30,000 gallons considered a small (or in this case limited) winery? Because that is how they are defined in Napa County’s Local Procedures for Implementing CEQA. Appendix B, Class 3, Subsection 10 states:
Construction and operation of small wineries, other agricultural processing facilities, and farm management uses that:
(a) are less than 5,000 square feet in size excluding caves;
(b) will involve either no cave excavation, or excavation sufficient to create no more than 5,000 additional square feet with all of the excavated cave spoils to be used on site;
(c) will produce 30,000 gallons or less per year;
(d) will generate less than 40 vehicle trips per day and 5 peak hour trips except on those days when marketing events are taking place;
(e) will hold no more than 10 marketing events per year, each with no more than 30 attendees, except for one wine auction event with up to 100 persons in attendance; AND
(f) will hold no temporary events.
As for national metrics, wine economists generally categorize wineries as follows:
Large – 500,000 cases and up (1,2 million gallons)
Medium – 50,000 cases to 500,000 cases (120,000 – 1.2 million gallons)
Small – 5,000 cases to 50,000 cases (12,000 – 120,000 gallons)
Very Small – 1,000 cases to 5,000 cases (2,400 – 12,000 gallons)
Limited – less than 1,000 cases (under 2,400 gallons)
By this standard also, 30,000 gallons is considered a small winery.
D. The focus of the draft ordinance is to provide some relief to small and family-owned businesses. If there are many such businesses, should they be denied relief simply because of their number, or should policy instead be based on their circumstances?
For clarification sake, about 1/3 of the wineries listed on the Napa County database would fall within the criteria of the draft ordinance. While there are more wineries that produce under 30,000 gallons, about 70 of those wineries have buildings, caves, visitation levels, or marketing events that exceed the definition of a “limited winery.”
E. I don’t agree that there is a contradiction. If wineries were to take advantage of the draft ordinance (should it be adopted) to increase production to 30,000 gallons, they would still be small wineries. There is only a contradiction if you define a small winery as having much lower production. I do not share that perspective.
F. Once again, I have to disagree. The cumulative impacts of winery development was already evaluated in the General Plan EIR, which was certified in 2008. Each winery permitted under the draft ordinance would undergo appropriate project-specific CEQA review. The draft ordinance does not allow any additional winery development not already anticipated in the General Plan. In fact, as stated previously, the draft ordinance is a direct implementation of the General Plan. Additional cumulative CEQA review of the draft ordinance is not required, in my opinion.
G. See F above.
H. See F above.
I. With regards to justifying the consideration of the draft ordinance, that was part of the policy debate regarding the General Plan in 2008. The purpose of the General Plan is to provide a set of policies under which the County would operate over the following 25 years. That is why adopting comprehensive General Plan updates is such a lengthy and expensive process. If you believe that circumstances have changed since 2008, you may want to request that the Board amend the General Plan to delete Policy AG/LU-16. Again, you may not agree with the idea, but an adopted policy carries significant legal weight.
If you are suggesting that the production level for limited wineries in the draft ordinance could be reduced to 15,000 or 20,000 gallons annually, I agree. The 30,000 gallon criterion was initially offered as a starting point for public discussion, but one that was consistent with the adopted Local CEQA Guidelines. Others have also suggested a lower threshold. The Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors are free to use an alternate metric.
J. Once again, I have to disagree. Length of time in permit review does not necessarily equate to public benefit. Staff is required to follow State law, which includes the Permit Streamlining Act. There is a balance between the exercise of private property rights and public interest. This ordinance would continue to provide full public review and participation for the review of development applications.
The draft ordinance would not permit any greater level of winery development than is already allowed under the General Plan, which evaluated the cumulative impacts of winery and vineyard development between 2005 and 2030. As this ordinance would not increase that potential, further cumulative analysis is not required.
The Zoning Administrator would not become a “winery czar,” any more than the Planning Commission could be described as such. The Zoning Administrator currently makes decisions regarding Use Permit Modifications, Variances, Certificates of Non-Conformance, and other applications. This would be similar to the Administrator’s existing duties. The Administrator’s decisions may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, who ultimately is responsible for setting policy in the County.
As always, I am happy to discuss these issues and welcome constructive dialogue towards developing a better draft ordinance.
Thank you for you comments.
Respectfully,
David
And George Caloyannidis' response
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 11:37 AM
To: 'Morrison, David'
Subject: FW: SMALL WINERY ORDINANCE
Thank you David.
Your statements are technically correct as they reflect the provisions of the Ordinance which are already known. However, they neither refute or specifically address mine because by their nature, they try to show the shortcomings of the Ordinance. Specifically, your statements do not provide answers to the points I presented.
· They do not explain the rationale for the need of the Ordinance other than to make things easier for applicants.
· They do not explain by what standard (or reason) a 30,000 gallon production winery is a new "small" one when 52% of all existing wineries in the county produce less.
· They fail to explain why potential quantifying data have not been presented to the Planning Commission.
· They do not explain why potential impacts of the Ordinance have not been presented to the Planning Commission or even a suggestion by staff that there may be worthy of consideration.
· They fail to explain which specific provisions of the Ordinance are the ones which facilitates its "streamlining". What specifically has been eliminated from the current process and what is its downside?
Maintaining that the Administrator's decisions may still be appealed to the BOS is correct but let's stop trying to hide the fact that it facilitates a process by which many of his/hers decisions will occur under the public's radar. Unless you can explain otherwise, this is the main instrument behind the "streamlining" of the process.
The 1,000 foot notification radius is grossly insufficient. Has staff tried to put the adequacy of such radius into perspective? For example, how many property owners would be notified if some of the randomly selected wineries below would apply?
Colgin (20,000)
Dalla Valle (20,000)
Diamond Mountain (10,000)
Kongsgaard (12,000)
Mayacamas (5,000)
Saddleback (8,000)
Signorello (20,000)
Titus (25,000)
Does Staff seriously believe that a 1,000 foot radius is sufficient to serve the public interest? Or does this number prove my point?
But the main concerns is the roundabout way by which this Ordinance will have advanced the Napa county CEQA baseline (traffic, water etc.) without CEQA review.
Your response does not address how an Ordinance which has the potential to incrementally add 3,564,277 gallons of production to the EXISTING "small" wineries, add 7,931 acres of vineyards plus 3,248,628 annual visitors is not cause for alarm meriting responsible environmental review. Mind you, this does NOT include special event visits NOR the impacts of NEW "small" winery streamlined applications, the number of which staff has also failed to make a credible effort to quantify.
These are massive numbers with potentially profound cumulative impacts - none of which were presented to the Planning Commission or the BOS for consideration - but obvious to any thinking person. They are so obvious that it is hard to hide the agenda driving this Ordinance by disingenuously hiding it under the innocent clothing of "SMALL".
George
PS: When will the Ordinance be heard by the BOS?
The unrelenting pursuit of economic growth on: Growth Issues
Bill Hocker - May 6,19 expand... Share
BBC News 5/6/19: Nature crisis: Humans 'threaten 1m species with extinction'
An agency of the UN has just issued a report projecting the extinction of one million species in the next decades due to human expansion and consumption and the resultant effects of global warming.
From the press release: "...a key element of more sustainable future policies is the evolution of global financial and economic systems to build a global sustainable economy, steering away from the current limited paradigm of economic growth." The IPBES press release is here. (The actual Report is hard to locate.)
Much of the loss is attributable to the conversion of natural lands into agriculture and the loss of species habitat. That conversion is the subject of current battles going on in Napa county between the economic motivation of developers (wine makers wanting new vineyards for their business expansion and homebuilders wanting to tap into the high end estate market) and the moral motivation of conservationists (activists, rural residents and growers and vintners that see benefits in retaining the natural environment).
The economic motive is easy to see - it is age old. The moral motive less so: how moral is it to risk Napa's water quantity and quality to encourage the expansion of its luxury product. How moral is it to continue the removal of carbon-sequestering woodlands for that product. And how moral is it to bulldoze and fence off the woodlands and shrublands needed for the movement and survival of a diverse group of wild species- and the point of the ISPEB report - that will be moved ever closer to extinction.
The amount of wine to be made from Napa grapes is finite in this small county. A successful wine industry exists despite this limited supply. (Some might see the limited quantity is part of the success.) While the wine industry may complain that the quantity must continuously expand to maintain that success, the reality is that much of the passion around the new conservation regulations seemed to have more to do with real estate speculation than wine making.
Pandering to the growth mentality of those who stand to profit from growth is a moral failure on the part of government to acknowledge the enormity of the damage to the natural world that growth is bringing. Unfortunately, the notion of limitless economic growth, upon which the American economy and self-mage were founded, has left governments unable to sustainably regulate natural resources to the benefit of all species, not just one, and to sustainably maintain our collective environment into the future without profit-induced calamity.
An agency of the UN has just issued a report projecting the extinction of one million species in the next decades due to human expansion and consumption and the resultant effects of global warming.
From the press release: "...a key element of more sustainable future policies is the evolution of global financial and economic systems to build a global sustainable economy, steering away from the current limited paradigm of economic growth." The IPBES press release is here. (The actual Report is hard to locate.)
Much of the loss is attributable to the conversion of natural lands into agriculture and the loss of species habitat. That conversion is the subject of current battles going on in Napa county between the economic motivation of developers (wine makers wanting new vineyards for their business expansion and homebuilders wanting to tap into the high end estate market) and the moral motivation of conservationists (activists, rural residents and growers and vintners that see benefits in retaining the natural environment).
The economic motive is easy to see - it is age old. The moral motive less so: how moral is it to risk Napa's water quantity and quality to encourage the expansion of its luxury product. How moral is it to continue the removal of carbon-sequestering woodlands for that product. And how moral is it to bulldoze and fence off the woodlands and shrublands needed for the movement and survival of a diverse group of wild species- and the point of the ISPEB report - that will be moved ever closer to extinction.
The amount of wine to be made from Napa grapes is finite in this small county. A successful wine industry exists despite this limited supply. (Some might see the limited quantity is part of the success.) While the wine industry may complain that the quantity must continuously expand to maintain that success, the reality is that much of the passion around the new conservation regulations seemed to have more to do with real estate speculation than wine making.
Pandering to the growth mentality of those who stand to profit from growth is a moral failure on the part of government to acknowledge the enormity of the damage to the natural world that growth is bringing. Unfortunately, the notion of limitless economic growth, upon which the American economy and self-mage were founded, has left governments unable to sustainably regulate natural resources to the benefit of all species, not just one, and to sustainably maintain our collective environment into the future without profit-induced calamity.
A good first step, but not enough on: Conservation Regulations
Mike Hackett - May 6,19 expand... Share
As part of Growers/Vintners for Responsible Agriculture’s discussions related to Napa County’s recently passed Water Quality and Tree Protection Ordinance, this Op-Ed provides perspectives and specifics related to new rules. Amendments recently adopted by the Board of Supervisors will go into effect on May 9.
A study by Amber Manfree, PhD in geography and GIS mapping, determined that newly adopted rules will reduce total developable area by a mere 3 percent, leaving over 28,000 acres of trees on developable land open to deforestation in Napa County.
During the ordinance adoption process, Napa County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commissioners received comments from stakeholders, property rights advocates, subject area experts, and the general public. Numerous calls were made for science-based decision-making. Commenters including Ross Middlemiss on behalf of The Center for Biological Diversity, the California Wildlife Foundation and California Oaks, biologist Jake Ruygt, and others pointed to scientific research that shows conserving Napa’s wildlands has tremendous benefits for biodiversity, climate change buffering and adaptation, and water security. Essentially we need to preserve a minimum of 90 percent of our wildlands to maintain a healthy eco-system.
In the late 1900s, Napa Valley saw a shift from prunes, walnuts, and other crops to wine grapes. With the Napa Valley floor effectively planted out, large-scale vineyard developments now typically require removal of forested wildlands. In a time of increasing awareness of the related threats of climate change and biodiversity loss, bulldozing of wildlands is far less socially acceptable than it once was. At the same time, wildland conversion is often the only realistic way for new wine grapegrowers to enter the Napa market. But how much land are we really talking about, and what may the effects of newly adopted rules be?
Most remaining undeveloped land is in the 442,200-acre Agricultural Watershed Zoning District, which encompasses mountainous areas surrounding Napa Valley. There are a total of about 199,300 forested acres in the Agricultural Watershed. About 50 percent of the Agricultural Watershed has slopes over 30 percent, which are rarely permitted for development due to Napa County’s Hillside Ordinance and concerns about erosion. Prior to recent amendments, there were about 69,000 acres available for development in the Agricultural Watershed. About half of this developable area, or 34,400 acres, is forested. Over 70 percent of those trees are oaks. The remainder of the non-forested area is covered in grasslands, chaparral, and other land cover types. Changes to existing protections may reduce at-risk forest to 28,700 acres in the Agricultural Watershed. These rules may yield an overall increase of 5,700 acres, or three percent, in protection of Agricultural Watershed forests beyond existing rules. Will a two to three percent reduction in development potential meaningfully slow or prevent wildland conversion in Napa County? It will not.
NVR version 5/6/19: Your Turn: A good first step, but not enough
A study by Amber Manfree, PhD in geography and GIS mapping, determined that newly adopted rules will reduce total developable area by a mere 3 percent, leaving over 28,000 acres of trees on developable land open to deforestation in Napa County.
During the ordinance adoption process, Napa County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commissioners received comments from stakeholders, property rights advocates, subject area experts, and the general public. Numerous calls were made for science-based decision-making. Commenters including Ross Middlemiss on behalf of The Center for Biological Diversity, the California Wildlife Foundation and California Oaks, biologist Jake Ruygt, and others pointed to scientific research that shows conserving Napa’s wildlands has tremendous benefits for biodiversity, climate change buffering and adaptation, and water security. Essentially we need to preserve a minimum of 90 percent of our wildlands to maintain a healthy eco-system.
In the late 1900s, Napa Valley saw a shift from prunes, walnuts, and other crops to wine grapes. With the Napa Valley floor effectively planted out, large-scale vineyard developments now typically require removal of forested wildlands. In a time of increasing awareness of the related threats of climate change and biodiversity loss, bulldozing of wildlands is far less socially acceptable than it once was. At the same time, wildland conversion is often the only realistic way for new wine grapegrowers to enter the Napa market. But how much land are we really talking about, and what may the effects of newly adopted rules be?
Most remaining undeveloped land is in the 442,200-acre Agricultural Watershed Zoning District, which encompasses mountainous areas surrounding Napa Valley. There are a total of about 199,300 forested acres in the Agricultural Watershed. About 50 percent of the Agricultural Watershed has slopes over 30 percent, which are rarely permitted for development due to Napa County’s Hillside Ordinance and concerns about erosion. Prior to recent amendments, there were about 69,000 acres available for development in the Agricultural Watershed. About half of this developable area, or 34,400 acres, is forested. Over 70 percent of those trees are oaks. The remainder of the non-forested area is covered in grasslands, chaparral, and other land cover types. Changes to existing protections may reduce at-risk forest to 28,700 acres in the Agricultural Watershed. These rules may yield an overall increase of 5,700 acres, or three percent, in protection of Agricultural Watershed forests beyond existing rules. Will a two to three percent reduction in development potential meaningfully slow or prevent wildland conversion in Napa County? It will not.
NVR version 5/6/19: Your Turn: A good first step, but not enough
Con Reg changes may have little impact on: Conservation Regulations
Bill Hocker - Apr 30,19 expand... Share
The silting of Rector Creek on: The Rector Watershed
Bill Hocker - Apr 29,19 expand... Share
4/29/19
Another episode of siltation in the Rector Reservoir water system is reported in the Sun this week
This last year following the fire, a neighbor just uphill from us cleared off the area surrounding the creek that then goes through our property on its way to Rector Reservoir. Removing the dead trees and brush was the right thing to do but there were consequences.
This year, after one of the large storms, an area of our creek, with a three-foot-deep channel, silted up, sending silt overflowing into an adjacent meadow. I was happy to have the additional topsoil but not so happy to have to re-establish the flow-line of the channel. After another storm, the silt was completely gone from the channel, ending up, doubt at the bottom of Rector Reservoir.
It was a demonstration, albeit small, of the relationship between land clearing, heavy storms and the quality of Yountville's drinking water.
There is continuous replanting going on in the Rector watershed, often with deep ripping to remove Smart-car sized boulders that was not done in the old days. There are two major ECP's in process in the watershed totaling 200 acres of new vineyards. And there is still almost a thousand acres of land on which new vineyards are possible in this already most heavily developed of Napa's watersheds.
There is only so much that Best Management Practices, straw and retention basins can do to prevent siltation from newly cleared land in the event of major storms. The runoff from one replanting done two years ago is shown below.
In this era of global warming the types of storms we experienced this last year, and worse, are predicted to become more frequent. The modest proposals made by the Supervisors following Measure C concerns over the development of the watersheds will do very little to reduce the siltation that earthmoving operations in the watersheds are likely to produce. The best protection against siltation, and the best protection for the global warming future that has become all too apparent, is to leave natural vegetation and its soil undisturbed.
The amount land that can be developed into grapes in this small county is finite, and the quantity of wine that can be produced with Napa grapes is likewise limited. (Some might see the rarity as a valuable attribute.) The continued development of the watersheds for vineyards is an attempt to ignore the limits just a few more years to squeeze a little more profit out of the land before the wine industry must really confront its limited resource. But, as the silting at Rector shows, it a gamble with the quality of drinking water of the people of the county as the wager.
Unfortunately, absent a more rigorous protection of Napa's watersheds, Yountville residents and the residents of the rest of the county that depend on watershed water should probably be looking at home water filtration systems.
Original post 3/22/17
At the Yountville City Council on Mar 21st, 2017, the residents of Soda Canyon Road presented a white paper on the dangers of the potential pollution of Rector Creek and Rector Reservoir caused by the construction of the Mountain Peak project. The project envisions moving massive amounts of earth around on a constrained site bordering one blue line tributary to the reservoir and bisected by another.
The construction calls for 29,500 cubic yards of cave spoils, another 19,000 cy of other excavation, the removal of approx 7 acres of topsoil so that the excavated spoils can be distributed on the site and then the recovering of the spoils with the topsoil (calculations here). The excavated crushpad, through which all of the cave excavation must be moved, is within 100 ft of Rector tributary. A major fill area, comprising 2 acres of soil removal, placement of spoils and redistribution of topsoil, is just adjacent the tributary that bisects the site. A second area of fill surrounds a wetlands area of the site that also drains within a few hundred feet into the canyon.
The environmental concerns are obvious. Silting from vineyard development in the Rector watershed in the 1990's caused damage to the Rector Reservoir filtration system resulting in millions of dollars in repairs. The county should be requiring Environmental Impact Reports (EIR's) to assess similar impacts on this project and other land clearing projects now going on in the watershed. The Mountain Peak project, with only a negative declaration of environmental impacts, was approved by the Napa County Planning Commission on a 3-1 vote at the beginning of 2017 and an appeal of the decision to the Napa Board of Supervisors was later denied. The BOS decision will now be challenged in court. An EIR should be required.
Rector Watershed White Paper
This last year following the fire, a neighbor just uphill from us cleared off the area surrounding the creek that then goes through our property on its way to Rector Reservoir. Removing the dead trees and brush was the right thing to do but there were consequences.
This year, after one of the large storms, an area of our creek, with a three-foot-deep channel, silted up, sending silt overflowing into an adjacent meadow. I was happy to have the additional topsoil but not so happy to have to re-establish the flow-line of the channel. After another storm, the silt was completely gone from the channel, ending up, doubt at the bottom of Rector Reservoir.
It was a demonstration, albeit small, of the relationship between land clearing, heavy storms and the quality of Yountville's drinking water.
There is continuous replanting going on in the Rector watershed, often with deep ripping to remove Smart-car sized boulders that was not done in the old days. There are two major ECP's in process in the watershed totaling 200 acres of new vineyards. And there is still almost a thousand acres of land on which new vineyards are possible in this already most heavily developed of Napa's watersheds.
There is only so much that Best Management Practices, straw and retention basins can do to prevent siltation from newly cleared land in the event of major storms. The runoff from one replanting done two years ago is shown below.
In this era of global warming the types of storms we experienced this last year, and worse, are predicted to become more frequent. The modest proposals made by the Supervisors following Measure C concerns over the development of the watersheds will do very little to reduce the siltation that earthmoving operations in the watersheds are likely to produce. The best protection against siltation, and the best protection for the global warming future that has become all too apparent, is to leave natural vegetation and its soil undisturbed.
The amount land that can be developed into grapes in this small county is finite, and the quantity of wine that can be produced with Napa grapes is likewise limited. (Some might see the rarity as a valuable attribute.) The continued development of the watersheds for vineyards is an attempt to ignore the limits just a few more years to squeeze a little more profit out of the land before the wine industry must really confront its limited resource. But, as the silting at Rector shows, it a gamble with the quality of drinking water of the people of the county as the wager.
Unfortunately, absent a more rigorous protection of Napa's watersheds, Yountville residents and the residents of the rest of the county that depend on watershed water should probably be looking at home water filtration systems.
Original post 3/22/17
The construction calls for 29,500 cubic yards of cave spoils, another 19,000 cy of other excavation, the removal of approx 7 acres of topsoil so that the excavated spoils can be distributed on the site and then the recovering of the spoils with the topsoil (calculations here). The excavated crushpad, through which all of the cave excavation must be moved, is within 100 ft of Rector tributary. A major fill area, comprising 2 acres of soil removal, placement of spoils and redistribution of topsoil, is just adjacent the tributary that bisects the site. A second area of fill surrounds a wetlands area of the site that also drains within a few hundred feet into the canyon.
The environmental concerns are obvious. Silting from vineyard development in the Rector watershed in the 1990's caused damage to the Rector Reservoir filtration system resulting in millions of dollars in repairs. The county should be requiring Environmental Impact Reports (EIR's) to assess similar impacts on this project and other land clearing projects now going on in the watershed. The Mountain Peak project, with only a negative declaration of environmental impacts, was approved by the Napa County Planning Commission on a 3-1 vote at the beginning of 2017 and an appeal of the decision to the Napa Board of Supervisors was later denied. The BOS decision will now be challenged in court. An EIR should be required.
Rector Watershed White Paper
BOS begins solar farm regulation discussion on: Solar Farming
Bill Hocker - Apr 23,19 expand... Share
County shuns evidence-based decision on Mountain Peak on: Mountain Peak Winery
Bill Hocker - Apr 23,19 expand... Share
Mare Island is the Napa Valley! on: Solutions
Geoff Ellsworth - Apr 20,19 expand... Share
Update 4/20/19
NVR 4/20/19: Dave Phinney and Co. are on a spirited mission to transform Mare Island
SF Chronicle 1/7/18: wine mogul Dave Phinney poised to transform Mare Island with distillery
MBBJ 3/5/18: Vallejo’s Mare Island builds buzz with influx of wineries, distilleries, filmmakers
Update 5/15/16
This is a short and cheerful slide show I put together with my Mother after the request from Vallejo friends who want to see alternative proposals for Vallejo other than a heavily polluting cement factory and other impactful industrial uses slated to come up for review in June. Right around the corner.
As a Napa Valley resident I believe it is important for alternative solutions to be found, as the pollution from the industrial uses there will come up the Napa River and Napa Valley with the tides, the fog and the winds and will impact us here.
I also believe that redevelopment of Vallejo/Mare Island, integrated with the wine hospitality industry, could help reduce development pressure on our up valley farming lands and forest/watershed lands, allowing for a better long term balance.
4/21/16
As crazy as this sounds I believe it's worth seriously thinking about the Greater Napa Valley region as our upvalley farming/growing lands are under greater pressure for hospitality development and the situation in Vallejo is under time pressure as a large industrial cement factory is trying to move in.
I think it's important to remember that actual Napa Valley growing lands are limited and we must protect as much as possible for the future. I believe that stripping the hillsides for further vineyard planting will degrade our water sources and microclimate and alternative models for the overall situation must be sought.
The Vallejo residents would much rather be involved with wine country tourism than heavy industry (which would also impact the Napa River watershed) and the Vallejo/Mare Island area has the infrastructure capacity to handle the large scale visitation that causes upvalley concern with encroachment on farming land.
It took some time for it to sink in but is pretty extraordinary. For example, I was born in Vallejo at the Kaiser hospital and it was only months ago that I learned I was actually born in the Napa Valley. Not Napa County, but the Napa Valley.
It would be a longterm redevelopment plan (the best kind in my view) and would take some kind of revenue sharing but I think it bears consideration.
This is a Google map link of the Napa Valley as it connects to the SF/San Pablo Bay and a letter I've shown to a few people about a Mare Island/Vallejo idea presented to me . When you look at it as a whole and disregard the county line it is maybe a natural part of the solution to hospitality/tourism issues that could overwhelm our farming/growing lands.
The really staggering part of this is that I don't think any counties or governments really have to agree on anything, it just IS the Napa Valley.
With the definition of a natural valley and the precedent of places like the Shenendoah Valley that contain many counties, the way I see it somebody could go down there tomorrow and start calling it the Napa Valley and have a pretty good argument in doing so.
I've had recent meetings in American Canyon and Vallejo to try to better understand the south county/region issues.
I believe this area may carry many of the solutions to the issues of development and protection of our fragile upvalley growing regions.
There is ferry/rail connectivity from San Francisco and the Bay Area and Mare Island is a National Historic site reminiscent of the Presidio with historic buildings and beautiful SF Bay views ( if some of the old industrial buildings were dealt with.)
I was taken on a tour by a woman who is a historical architect retired the National Parks and recently worked with the transition team on the SF Presidio and a UN division on historical monuments and sites
Another critical aspect of this that she helped me to understand is the natural and geographic Napa Valley extends through American Canyon to Vallejo and Mare Island where the Napa River and Napa Valley watershed exit into the San Pablo/SF Bay.
If we look at a map and disregard the manmade county line, it is clear that Vallejo and Mare Island are the southern tip of the geographic Napa Valley.
(And we can define valleys geographically and naturally, rather than politically as in the example of the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia/West Virginia that has nine counties. The natural valley is something bigger than the counties.)
Might that change perception of the VALUE of such an area as Mare Island/Vallejo for re-development if it were acknowledged as part of the NAPA VALLEY?
And seen not just as a pass through/embarkation point for the upper valley but rather as an area worthy in it's own right of care and re-development that would carry the Napa Valley Brand? Because it is the Napa Valley.
The architect who took me on the tour pointed out the spot where Jack London got off the ferry, she pointed out the true beginning of the Silverado Trail, the actual spot where Native Americans would come down the valley to the Bay at the southern end of the natural and geographic Napa Valley.
This is deeply connected to the history we already know of the Napa Valley and I believe could be tied in.
Vallejo has serious problems but many other cities such as Cincinnati and Portland Oregon have been able to resurrect themselves from industrial pasts, and we're already seeing re-development of other SF Bay waterfront areas like Alameda and Emeryville.
The other interesting aspect is that because of the separation by the river, Mare Island has the potential of being re-developed separately without having to take on the larger issues of Vallejo at the same time.
I believe it is just a matter of a few years before people see the value of re-developing Vallejo and Mare Island, as places like Emeryville and Alameda are being re-developed. If it's going to happen anyway I believe it would make sense to try and engage now to work on solutions that would benefit both that part of the region and our delicate upvalley as well.
Takes a big vision but I believe this is the area that has the capacity and infrastructure to accommodate much of the large scale tourism being promoted for Napa Valley. And it would still be an authentic Napa Valley experience because it is actually in Napa Valley.
The alternative proposal for Mare Island and Vallejo is a heavier industrialization that I believe will negatively impact the whole region, culturally and environmentally.
The alternative upvalley is to lose more Napa Valley growing/farming land to heavy commercial tourism use,
so I think this is an important discussion.
NVR 4/20/19: Dave Phinney and Co. are on a spirited mission to transform Mare Island
SF Chronicle 1/7/18: wine mogul Dave Phinney poised to transform Mare Island with distillery
MBBJ 3/5/18: Vallejo’s Mare Island builds buzz with influx of wineries, distilleries, filmmakers
Update 5/15/16
This is a short and cheerful slide show I put together with my Mother after the request from Vallejo friends who want to see alternative proposals for Vallejo other than a heavily polluting cement factory and other impactful industrial uses slated to come up for review in June. Right around the corner.
As a Napa Valley resident I believe it is important for alternative solutions to be found, as the pollution from the industrial uses there will come up the Napa River and Napa Valley with the tides, the fog and the winds and will impact us here.
I also believe that redevelopment of Vallejo/Mare Island, integrated with the wine hospitality industry, could help reduce development pressure on our up valley farming lands and forest/watershed lands, allowing for a better long term balance.
4/21/16
As crazy as this sounds I believe it's worth seriously thinking about the Greater Napa Valley region as our upvalley farming/growing lands are under greater pressure for hospitality development and the situation in Vallejo is under time pressure as a large industrial cement factory is trying to move in.
I think it's important to remember that actual Napa Valley growing lands are limited and we must protect as much as possible for the future. I believe that stripping the hillsides for further vineyard planting will degrade our water sources and microclimate and alternative models for the overall situation must be sought.
The Vallejo residents would much rather be involved with wine country tourism than heavy industry (which would also impact the Napa River watershed) and the Vallejo/Mare Island area has the infrastructure capacity to handle the large scale visitation that causes upvalley concern with encroachment on farming land.
It took some time for it to sink in but is pretty extraordinary. For example, I was born in Vallejo at the Kaiser hospital and it was only months ago that I learned I was actually born in the Napa Valley. Not Napa County, but the Napa Valley.
It would be a longterm redevelopment plan (the best kind in my view) and would take some kind of revenue sharing but I think it bears consideration.
The really staggering part of this is that I don't think any counties or governments really have to agree on anything, it just IS the Napa Valley.
With the definition of a natural valley and the precedent of places like the Shenendoah Valley that contain many counties, the way I see it somebody could go down there tomorrow and start calling it the Napa Valley and have a pretty good argument in doing so.
I've had recent meetings in American Canyon and Vallejo to try to better understand the south county/region issues.
I believe this area may carry many of the solutions to the issues of development and protection of our fragile upvalley growing regions.
There is ferry/rail connectivity from San Francisco and the Bay Area and Mare Island is a National Historic site reminiscent of the Presidio with historic buildings and beautiful SF Bay views ( if some of the old industrial buildings were dealt with.)
I was taken on a tour by a woman who is a historical architect retired the National Parks and recently worked with the transition team on the SF Presidio and a UN division on historical monuments and sites
Another critical aspect of this that she helped me to understand is the natural and geographic Napa Valley extends through American Canyon to Vallejo and Mare Island where the Napa River and Napa Valley watershed exit into the San Pablo/SF Bay.
If we look at a map and disregard the manmade county line, it is clear that Vallejo and Mare Island are the southern tip of the geographic Napa Valley.
(And we can define valleys geographically and naturally, rather than politically as in the example of the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia/West Virginia that has nine counties. The natural valley is something bigger than the counties.)
Might that change perception of the VALUE of such an area as Mare Island/Vallejo for re-development if it were acknowledged as part of the NAPA VALLEY?
And seen not just as a pass through/embarkation point for the upper valley but rather as an area worthy in it's own right of care and re-development that would carry the Napa Valley Brand? Because it is the Napa Valley.
The architect who took me on the tour pointed out the spot where Jack London got off the ferry, she pointed out the true beginning of the Silverado Trail, the actual spot where Native Americans would come down the valley to the Bay at the southern end of the natural and geographic Napa Valley.
This is deeply connected to the history we already know of the Napa Valley and I believe could be tied in.
Vallejo has serious problems but many other cities such as Cincinnati and Portland Oregon have been able to resurrect themselves from industrial pasts, and we're already seeing re-development of other SF Bay waterfront areas like Alameda and Emeryville.
The other interesting aspect is that because of the separation by the river, Mare Island has the potential of being re-developed separately without having to take on the larger issues of Vallejo at the same time.
I believe it is just a matter of a few years before people see the value of re-developing Vallejo and Mare Island, as places like Emeryville and Alameda are being re-developed. If it's going to happen anyway I believe it would make sense to try and engage now to work on solutions that would benefit both that part of the region and our delicate upvalley as well.
Takes a big vision but I believe this is the area that has the capacity and infrastructure to accommodate much of the large scale tourism being promoted for Napa Valley. And it would still be an authentic Napa Valley experience because it is actually in Napa Valley.
The alternative proposal for Mare Island and Vallejo is a heavier industrialization that I believe will negatively impact the whole region, culturally and environmentally.
The alternative upvalley is to lose more Napa Valley growing/farming land to heavy commercial tourism use,
so I think this is an important discussion.
Growers/Vintners for Responsible Agriculture on: Conservation Regulations
Bill Hocker - Apr 14,19 expand... Share
AmCan solar farm on: Solar Farming
Bill Hocker - Apr 10,19 expand... Share
Citizen Tribune 4/9/19: Renewable Properties Breaks Ground on American Canyon Solar Project
Update 12/6/18
NVR 12/6/18: Napa County approves what could be its first commercial solar farm
With the return of Comm Hansen, the project was approved 3-2, Hansen, Whitmer, Mazotti for, Cottrell, Gallagher no.
Video of the 12/5/18 hearing
Update 12/3/18
Aston Pereira LTE 12/4/18: Solar Projects in the Napa County Ag Watershed/Ag Preserve
Patricia Tuck LTE 12/4/18 Cui Bono?
Tina Norman LTE 12/3/18: We need rules for solar farms
On 12/5/18 the Planning Commission returns to render their verdict with a full contingent after the 2-2 split decision on 11/28/18. The property is currently generating income for its owners as a horse and animal farm. Will Comm. Hansen vote for the further urban development of working ag lands? Or will the county decide in its wisdom direct staff to propose regulations for this new land use before rather than after the fact?
Update 11/28/18
NVR 11/28/18: Proposed American Canyon commercial solar farm awaits a tie-breaker
At the 11/28/18 Planning Commission meeting, the motion to approve the AmCan Solar project was split with Comms. Whitmer, and Mazotti for, and Comms. Gallagher and Cottrell against. Comm Hansen was absent. County Council indicated that given the tie the project must be agendized for the next meeting when the 5th member will be present. The project has been put on the Dec 5th agenda.
I'm a bit confused by the policy regarding a tie. In the Girard project, a 2-2 tie was interpreted as a loss of the motion. In the first ALUC hearing on the Palmaz heliport, the ALUC board split 3-3 and the hearing was renoticed for a future meeting. There had to be some clarification on this because the ALUC policy was different than the Planning Commission policy. Perhaps the Planning Commission policy changed? Comm Gallagher asked at the time, why would a hearing be scheduled if the members present are potentially not capable to make a binding decision. Good question.
Update 11/20/18
Planning Commission hearing on project 11/28/18
Agenda and documents
Staff letter for hearing
County's AmCan Solar Project page
Sonoma Co. renewable energy standards
Eve Kahn statement
Lisa Hirayama statement
NRSP/NCFB/NV2050 'quasi-utility' comments
Update 10/20/18
NVR 10/20/18: Napa County commercial solar proposal raises larger questions
The hearing has been continued to Nov 28, 2018
10/10/18
The second solar farm currently being proposed in the county will be up before the planning commission on Oct. 17th 2018. The agenda and documents are here.
The neg-dec notice is here. Less-than-significant impacts as usual. It will cover a hillside in the bucolic, actual American Canyon between Hwy 80 and the AmCan High School. Given the route, a viable alternative connection between Hwys 80 and 29, remaining a piece of the county’s unpretentious ranch landscape was not in the cards. It might have become another vanity vineyard, but in this corner of the county closer to a freeway, the most profitable crop seems to be the guiding principle. If the County is willing to consider solar power plants as an acceptable use on ag lands, there are 45000 acres of land in the county already cleared with the intention of soaking up the sun waiting to be developed into more profitable use.
According to one website, leasing farmland for solar collectors might produce a net profit of "somewhere between $21,250 and $42,500 per acre on an annual basis". Compare that to the $7000/ton x 4 ton/acre = $28,000/acre gross revenue from vines in Napa County. With costs of perhaps $16000/acre that would leave $12000/acre/yr net profit, far below the money to be made from a solar farm. While not every farmer would be interested in doubling their income by converting to solar power, there is definitely an incentive to do so.
There is a real need for the County to develop a policy and ordinances for solar development before any projects are considered for approval. Sonoma County already has an ordinance. This question needs to to be answered first: why should agriculturally zoned land, the "highest and best use of the land" in the County's oft-touted phrase, be used for power plants rather than relegating such an expansive industrial use to industrially zoned land?
The NFRSP group has published a statement opposing the project on the NV2050 website here:
Planning Commission: Wait! We need a plan on solar before we set any precedents!
Beyond Measure C: revised Con Regs on: Conservation Regulations
Bill Hocker - Apr 8,19 expand... Share
Rector Reservoir drying up? (probably not yet) on: The Rector Watershed
Bill Hocker - Mar 28,19 expand... Share
Update 3/28/19
The initial scare last year over a water shortage was probably related to this 2017 lawsuit brought by lawyer William McKinnon representing Water Audit California against the administrators of the Rector Reservoir for failing to provide enough water release to Rector Creek below the dam to maintain fish populations. It is one of numerous efforts Water Audit California has pursued with dam regulators, including Bell Canyon, Kimball, Milliken, and Hennessy to insure release enough water for fish habitat protected by California law.
The lawsuit contains some of the most extensive documentation and analysis of the conditions of the Rector water system.
Update 2/26/18
The subsequent article in the Yountville Sun notes that siltation has decreased the volume of Rector Reservoir from 4500 to 3100 acre feet in the last 70 years. Which means that in addition to the potential loss of spring water into the reservoir from groundwater pumping for vineyards, that siltation from the creation of those vineyards since the 1980's (1500 acres) is reducing the capacity of the reservoir and the water available for use. Which also means that it takes an ever diminishing amount of water to fill the reservoir each year, giving a false sense that agricultural development and a warming climate have not had an impact on water levels. The siltation shown in the photo in this post from last year is from a vineyard re-planting a bit up from the road crossing.
Again Rector Reservoir, given the high ratio of vineyard acerage to watershed area is proving to be an interesting indicator of the potential effects of ongoing vineyard development in the other watersheds of the county. This story just keeps getting more interesting.
2/21/18
NVR 2/21/18: As Yountville reservoir falls, state studies supply – and possible water purchases from Napa
An article in this week's Yountville Sun was pretty arresting: "Rector Dam water could Run out in Aug". I was both surprised, and, given concerns over climate change and the enormous amount of ground water being sucked out of the Rector watershed for vineyard development in the last 25 years, not surprised.
The prospect of Rector going dry, if indeed that is the case, will raise a couple of questions: What impact is vineyard development in the watersheds going to have on water availability, both surface and groundwater, as climate change happens. When it comes to apportioning water for residents, agriculture or tourism who gets preference?
Rector water level and watershed development
The Rector watershed is the most heavily cultivated of Napa's 5 watersheds with approximately 21% of its surface area in vines. The amount of ground water being pumped must be enormous. Does that pumping result in lower levels in the Rector Reservoir? Ground water and surface water are an integrated system, each impacting the other. The Rector Reservoir is over 1000' below the vineyards on the watershed and is undoubtedly augmented with the water of numerous springs from the sides of its steep canyon. While vineyard developer's consultants may try to make a case otherwise, the decreasing water table created by groundwater pumping undoubtedly contributes to a reduction in water reaching the reservoir. The water table is falling on the Rector plateau - I know that from changes in the water level of our spring-fed pond which no longer overflows into the canyon each winter and now dries up completely in the summer. Whether from less rainfall or from increased ground water pumping is impossible to say. Both have been happening since we moved there 25 years ago.
I have always felt that the Rector watershed, given the acerage of vines that cover it, should be a test case for all of Napa's watersheds, illustrating how continued development of the watershed for vineyard use will ultimately impact the water all Napans rely on. The fact that it is the first water supply experiencing the possibility of drying up, should be of concern to all.
Rector water level and tourism development
On the same page of the Yountville Sun, there is an article about a proposed rate hike for water and sewer services in the town. (The city of Yountville gets its water from Rector Reservoir, under contract from the State Dept of Veterans Affairs which owns it and the Veterans Home.) In the article and in LTE's in the same issue, there is a great deal of consternation among city residents that they should be asked to pay for the infrastructure costs of water and sewer systems when, as they rightly surmise, it is the continual increase in the tourism population that necessitates the upgrades. The resident population of Yountville has decreased slightly in the last 30 years from 3200 to 3000. By contrast, the hotel population, 460 rooms or so, has increased the daily population by 900 people, almost all since 1990. In addition, the day-tripper population has grown considerably as the valley has exploded into a good-life mass-tourism destination. The amount of water used and sewage generated has increased proportionately. In fact, high-end hotels and restaurants are high water users compared to residences. Residents are right to ask why they should pay. One frustrated resident recommended raising the TOT instead, stoking a huffy response from Visit Napa Valley's Clay Gregory, Napa's official tourism promoter, saying that the costs are fairly prorated based on water use. Which, of course, still means that residents are paying a portion of the costs necessary to accommodate the tourist population.
The problems of a drying Rector Reservoir highlight the tradeoffs that all Napans may eventually have to make between residents, growers, wine makers and tourists (as well as fish). In reading an article on the drying up of Cape Town's water one comment struck me: "Letting a well-heeled German tourist use some [water] to rinse beach sand off his bottom probably does more good for the economy than spraying it on a wheat field." At what point will the TOT be prioritized over the vines on the basis of the most profit for the available water? Perhaps not soon. But tourism is definitely a more profitable use of land than agriculture, and a water shortage will only accelerate the transfer from an agriculture to tourism economy. At some point, as I tried to bring out in my bit on Bali's water shortage, tourism and agriculture will be on a collision course over water as they are now over the county’s economic soul.
The lawsuit contains some of the most extensive documentation and analysis of the conditions of the Rector water system.
Update 2/26/18
Again Rector Reservoir, given the high ratio of vineyard acerage to watershed area is proving to be an interesting indicator of the potential effects of ongoing vineyard development in the other watersheds of the county. This story just keeps getting more interesting.
2/21/18
An article in this week's Yountville Sun was pretty arresting: "Rector Dam water could Run out in Aug". I was both surprised, and, given concerns over climate change and the enormous amount of ground water being sucked out of the Rector watershed for vineyard development in the last 25 years, not surprised.
The prospect of Rector going dry, if indeed that is the case, will raise a couple of questions: What impact is vineyard development in the watersheds going to have on water availability, both surface and groundwater, as climate change happens. When it comes to apportioning water for residents, agriculture or tourism who gets preference?
Rector water level and watershed development
The Rector watershed is the most heavily cultivated of Napa's 5 watersheds with approximately 21% of its surface area in vines. The amount of ground water being pumped must be enormous. Does that pumping result in lower levels in the Rector Reservoir? Ground water and surface water are an integrated system, each impacting the other. The Rector Reservoir is over 1000' below the vineyards on the watershed and is undoubtedly augmented with the water of numerous springs from the sides of its steep canyon. While vineyard developer's consultants may try to make a case otherwise, the decreasing water table created by groundwater pumping undoubtedly contributes to a reduction in water reaching the reservoir. The water table is falling on the Rector plateau - I know that from changes in the water level of our spring-fed pond which no longer overflows into the canyon each winter and now dries up completely in the summer. Whether from less rainfall or from increased ground water pumping is impossible to say. Both have been happening since we moved there 25 years ago.
I have always felt that the Rector watershed, given the acerage of vines that cover it, should be a test case for all of Napa's watersheds, illustrating how continued development of the watershed for vineyard use will ultimately impact the water all Napans rely on. The fact that it is the first water supply experiencing the possibility of drying up, should be of concern to all.
Rector water level and tourism development
On the same page of the Yountville Sun, there is an article about a proposed rate hike for water and sewer services in the town. (The city of Yountville gets its water from Rector Reservoir, under contract from the State Dept of Veterans Affairs which owns it and the Veterans Home.) In the article and in LTE's in the same issue, there is a great deal of consternation among city residents that they should be asked to pay for the infrastructure costs of water and sewer systems when, as they rightly surmise, it is the continual increase in the tourism population that necessitates the upgrades. The resident population of Yountville has decreased slightly in the last 30 years from 3200 to 3000. By contrast, the hotel population, 460 rooms or so, has increased the daily population by 900 people, almost all since 1990. In addition, the day-tripper population has grown considerably as the valley has exploded into a good-life mass-tourism destination. The amount of water used and sewage generated has increased proportionately. In fact, high-end hotels and restaurants are high water users compared to residences. Residents are right to ask why they should pay. One frustrated resident recommended raising the TOT instead, stoking a huffy response from Visit Napa Valley's Clay Gregory, Napa's official tourism promoter, saying that the costs are fairly prorated based on water use. Which, of course, still means that residents are paying a portion of the costs necessary to accommodate the tourist population.
The problems of a drying Rector Reservoir highlight the tradeoffs that all Napans may eventually have to make between residents, growers, wine makers and tourists (as well as fish). In reading an article on the drying up of Cape Town's water one comment struck me: "Letting a well-heeled German tourist use some [water] to rinse beach sand off his bottom probably does more good for the economy than spraying it on a wheat field." At what point will the TOT be prioritized over the vines on the basis of the most profit for the available water? Perhaps not soon. But tourism is definitely a more profitable use of land than agriculture, and a water shortage will only accelerate the transfer from an agriculture to tourism economy. At some point, as I tried to bring out in my bit on Bali's water shortage, tourism and agriculture will be on a collision course over water as they are now over the county’s economic soul.
Comments
Bill Hocker - Feb 20, 2018 1:59PM
There may be other issues to this story. Amber Manfree reminded me that there have been a series of lawsuits against Napa water districts forcing compliance with state environmental law regarding fish habitat protection which may play a part here. The suit against the State Dept of Veterans Affairs over the Rector dam is reported on here. She also warns there may also be issues with the accuracy of the data used to calculate the rates of inflow and outflow of the reservoir. More info is obviously needed from the State engineer that issued the advisory, and a report on the meeting of concerned parties mentioned in the NVR article. [see updated NVR article at top of post]
Cindy Grupp - Feb 20, 2018 10:31AM
Let see . . . we told the county that Soda Canyon has a long history of devastating wild land fires and that the canyon was over due to burn. And it did. We told the county (and the town of Yountville) that the Rector Watershed was over developed and the continued development threatened the water supply for the town of Yountville and the Vet's Home. And it has. We've also told the county that Soda Canyon Road is dangerous, over burdened, in deplorable condition and that increased tourist/wine visitor traffic on the road makes deadly traffic accidents (i.e. tourist bus plunges into the ravine) much more likely.
There is no satisfaction in "I told you so" when the consequences are deadly.
There is no satisfaction in "I told you so" when the consequences are deadly.
The Caldwell deliberation on: Tourism Issues
Bill Hocker - Mar 20,19 expand... Share
Comments
Bill Hocker - Mar 13, 2019 10:55AM
[Email sent to Dir. Morrison to clarify the County use of case law to defend PC's decision to deny Cadwell. No response received as of 4/12/19]
Subject: Neighbors' concerns vs the "Right to Farm"
Date: March 13, 2019 at 4:21:56 PM PDT
To: "Morrison, David"
Director Morrison,
My apologies for bringing this up. I know you are busy.
In the staff letter on the Caldwell Appeal, Staff made a defense of the Planning Commission's decision based on case law:
“Additionally, concern of neighbors is sufficient to constitute substantial evidence that a contemplated use is detrimental to the welfare of the community. Expert testimony on these issues is not necessary. It is appropriate and even necessary for the [planning commission] to consider the interest of neighboring property owners in reaching a decision whether to grant or deny a land use entitlement and the opinions of neighbors may constitute substantial evidence of this issue.” (SP Star Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 459, 460.)
The Appellant's lawyer then cited the County's "Right to Farm" ordinance which states that the County will not consider the inconveniences or discomforts arising from agricultural operations to be a nuisance. The General Plan also recognizes that “Right to Farm” provisions ensure that agriculture remains the primary land use in Napa County and is not threatened by potentially competing uses or neighbor complaints.
As you know, the "concern of neighbors" and "neighbor complaints" (particularly over visitation) are at the center of most battles over new and expanded wineries that come before the Commission.
As you also know, the revision of the definition of "agriculture" in 2008 and 2017, and by extension "agricultural operations" was about the inclusion of marketing, as defined by the 2010 WDO revisions, in the definition. The "Right to Farm" ordinance makes several references to 18.08.040. It seems hard to avoid the conclusion, which the Caldwell lawyer posited, that tours and tastings, wine pairings and event hosting now fall under the "Right to Farm" and that such activities are not to be threatened by neighbor complaints.
In light of the County's defense of the Planning Commission, it is now a bit unclear what position the County will take on the link between winery tourism impacts (and all farming impacts for that matter) and the rights of impacted neighbors to present substantial evidence in their complaints that a project is a detriment to the welfare of their communities. Projects like Caldwell will continue to come up before the Commission (Darms Lane, Anthem, O'Connell, Aloft are all on the horizon), and knowing whether or not the case law will be a part of the presentation made to Commissioners in future Staff letters would be helpful.
Bill Hocker
Subject: Neighbors' concerns vs the "Right to Farm"
Date: March 13, 2019 at 4:21:56 PM PDT
To: "Morrison, David"
Director Morrison,
My apologies for bringing this up. I know you are busy.
In the staff letter on the Caldwell Appeal, Staff made a defense of the Planning Commission's decision based on case law:
“Additionally, concern of neighbors is sufficient to constitute substantial evidence that a contemplated use is detrimental to the welfare of the community. Expert testimony on these issues is not necessary. It is appropriate and even necessary for the [planning commission] to consider the interest of neighboring property owners in reaching a decision whether to grant or deny a land use entitlement and the opinions of neighbors may constitute substantial evidence of this issue.” (SP Star Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 459, 460.)
The Appellant's lawyer then cited the County's "Right to Farm" ordinance which states that the County will not consider the inconveniences or discomforts arising from agricultural operations to be a nuisance. The General Plan also recognizes that “Right to Farm” provisions ensure that agriculture remains the primary land use in Napa County and is not threatened by potentially competing uses or neighbor complaints.
As you know, the "concern of neighbors" and "neighbor complaints" (particularly over visitation) are at the center of most battles over new and expanded wineries that come before the Commission.
As you also know, the revision of the definition of "agriculture" in 2008 and 2017, and by extension "agricultural operations" was about the inclusion of marketing, as defined by the 2010 WDO revisions, in the definition. The "Right to Farm" ordinance makes several references to 18.08.040. It seems hard to avoid the conclusion, which the Caldwell lawyer posited, that tours and tastings, wine pairings and event hosting now fall under the "Right to Farm" and that such activities are not to be threatened by neighbor complaints.
In light of the County's defense of the Planning Commission, it is now a bit unclear what position the County will take on the link between winery tourism impacts (and all farming impacts for that matter) and the rights of impacted neighbors to present substantial evidence in their complaints that a project is a detriment to the welfare of their communities. Projects like Caldwell will continue to come up before the Commission (Darms Lane, Anthem, O'Connell, Aloft are all on the horizon), and knowing whether or not the case law will be a part of the presentation made to Commissioners in future Staff letters would be helpful.
Bill Hocker
Bill Hocker - Mar 12, 2019 5:57AM
[Email sent on 3/11/19 to Dir. Morrison, Planner Wyntress Balcher. and the Supervisors for the BOS Caldwell appeal hearing]
Supervisors,
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
In the last five years you have probably noticed a heightened level of community participation in land use policy. While there are numerous causes for that participation in each project that comes before you, at root is a changing relationship between the residents and the dominant industry of the county. The influence of the resident farmer-vintners that created the Ag Preserve as a place in which they wished to work and live, and created the environment that all residents are privileged to enjoy, has given way to corporate and plutocratic ownership which seems to pursue a desire to expand production, marketing potential and personal expression regardless of the impacts on that rural environment. These changes have fostered a loss of faith among many residents that the government and the wine industry are fully interested of protecting the rural character that residents identify with and that the county has nominally pledged itself to preserve.
In the case of new and expanded wineries, the adoption by the wine industry of an ever increasing reliance on at-winery tourism to boost profits has created pushback from residents who accept the occasional right-to-farm impacts inherent in living in an agricultural economy but resent that right being expanded to the every-day impacts of commercial entertainment venues in their residential-farming neighborhoods.
The Planning Commission, in denying this proposal has, at along last, recognized that there is a difference between agriculture and the marketing of wine, and that wine tourism creates impacts that can be incompatible with life in a rural community. Each application needs to be judged on its own merits. And there are, no doubt, places where a tourism venues may be appropriate in the agricultural areas of the county. But when the residents of a potentially impacted community rise up in significant opposition, that should be an indication, in and of itself, that such a use is not appropriate for that location.
Rural residents are no less interested in the survival of wine industry and the unique and beautiful rural environment that is its product as are most members of the industry. But at-winery tourism is driving a wedge between the industry and those residents. There are other ways to market wine and those need to be looked at, for the sake of maintaining Napa's rural community character and, as some have suggested, for the sake of the Napa wine industry's survival as well.
A denial of this appeal might begin to restore faith between residents and their government, and hopefully be the start of a process of healing the rift between residents and the industry that better reflects the founding vision of an environment in which we wish to live, now and for future generations.
Bill Hocker
Supervisors,
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
"I feel that enactment of this ordinance reflects the wishes of the people of Napa County. I believe that these people wish to create for themselves the environment in which they wish to live and for future generations."
- Jack L. Ferguson, Napa Supervisor in approving the Ag Preserve, 1968
- Jack L. Ferguson, Napa Supervisor in approving the Ag Preserve, 1968
In the last five years you have probably noticed a heightened level of community participation in land use policy. While there are numerous causes for that participation in each project that comes before you, at root is a changing relationship between the residents and the dominant industry of the county. The influence of the resident farmer-vintners that created the Ag Preserve as a place in which they wished to work and live, and created the environment that all residents are privileged to enjoy, has given way to corporate and plutocratic ownership which seems to pursue a desire to expand production, marketing potential and personal expression regardless of the impacts on that rural environment. These changes have fostered a loss of faith among many residents that the government and the wine industry are fully interested of protecting the rural character that residents identify with and that the county has nominally pledged itself to preserve.
In the case of new and expanded wineries, the adoption by the wine industry of an ever increasing reliance on at-winery tourism to boost profits has created pushback from residents who accept the occasional right-to-farm impacts inherent in living in an agricultural economy but resent that right being expanded to the every-day impacts of commercial entertainment venues in their residential-farming neighborhoods.
The Planning Commission, in denying this proposal has, at along last, recognized that there is a difference between agriculture and the marketing of wine, and that wine tourism creates impacts that can be incompatible with life in a rural community. Each application needs to be judged on its own merits. And there are, no doubt, places where a tourism venues may be appropriate in the agricultural areas of the county. But when the residents of a potentially impacted community rise up in significant opposition, that should be an indication, in and of itself, that such a use is not appropriate for that location.
Rural residents are no less interested in the survival of wine industry and the unique and beautiful rural environment that is its product as are most members of the industry. But at-winery tourism is driving a wedge between the industry and those residents. There are other ways to market wine and those need to be looked at, for the sake of maintaining Napa's rural community character and, as some have suggested, for the sake of the Napa wine industry's survival as well.
A denial of this appeal might begin to restore faith between residents and their government, and hopefully be the start of a process of healing the rift between residents and the industry that better reflects the founding vision of an environment in which we wish to live, now and for future generations.
Bill Hocker
Napa Groundwater Sustainability Alternative on: Watershed Issues
Bill Hocker - Mar 14,19 expand... Share
Solution 11. Develop a Napa Wine Online portal on: Solutions
Bill Hocker - Mar 11,19 expand... Share
Update 3/11/19
NVR 1/28/19: Winegrowers instructed on 'future-proofing' Napa wine in the digital age
From the Paul Mabray presentation to the NV Grapegrowers:
Forbes 10/12/18: Wine Industry Digital Leader Paul Mabray Pulls No Punches
SVB on Wine 3/15/17: The Tough Questions Wine Clubs Face
SVB State of the Wine Industry 2019
With visitor counts falling every year for the last 4 years in Napa county Rob McMillan advises that "Your winery needs to find new growth and new consumers, and they aren’t going to come from the present tasting room approach". (Chapter 9: "Sales and marketing for family wineries" beginning page 45.)
Update 2/25/15
Amber forwards one website that begins to create the Napa Internet Wine Portal envisioned below: Dave Thompson's very cleanly designed site The Napa Wine Project. It is a tremendous, actually astounding, online catalog of Napa wines and their descriptions and backstories. Just the thing to begin to make the necessity of acually visiting the 770+ small wineries he has been to around the county unnecessary. (Of course transporting people to them is how Dave tries to make ends meet.)
The Napa Wine Project
Internet wine merchants:
invino.com Sonoma
nakedwines.com Sonoma
Wine.com no doubt the largest wine e-tailer.
2/10/15
It is important to remember that the one purpose of the land use policies articulated in the Napa General Plan is to encourage a market for Napa grapes, not to create a tourist industry to consume Napa wine. Wine sales to tourists have major negative impacts on the character of the valley, on the lives of the people who live here and, I think, on the viability of continuing an agricultural economy. Alternatives need to be pursued.
Currently, according to to Rob McMillan's SVB statistics, 6% of Napa wine is sold via the Internet. His feeling in his presentation to the Planning Comission was that direct sales at the winery were still important because unlike books or shoes, fine wines didn't lend themselves to Internet sales - they can't be returned after they're opened. There may be hurdles, but a technique to sell high-end wine on the internet will eventually be perfected and the need for in-winery sales, which even now constitute only a small portion of the overall sales of Napa wines but have big environmental impacts, will be over. Internet sales promise greater profits to the vintners without the impacts, hence as much effort should be put into an internet portal for Napa wines as has been spent on Visit Napa Valley trying to lure more customers to its bricks and mortar outlets. We need to make sure that the rural character of the valley is not destroyed in the meantime by preventing the construction of tourist facilities which will remain even after their need to support agriculture is gone.
Each winery has its own internet site, of course, so the process works, and someone will eventually become the Zappos of wine. Which is why it is important now for a Napa-only website to be developed that can compete with a larger site when it comes. Such a site, if developed as a quasi-public company like Visit Napa Valley, would profit vintners more than might be the case in a purely private company. The site should extoll the qualities of Napa wines, the importance of the concept of the Ag Preserve to maintain that quality and the reasons that Napa wine is more than just a bottle of wine - it is a piece of winemaking history.
NVR 1/28/19: Winegrowers instructed on 'future-proofing' Napa wine in the digital age
From the Paul Mabray presentation to the NV Grapegrowers:
"I fundamentally believe that the only way we’re going to survive as an industry is how we can help bring Napa Valley into people’s homes, without them coming to Napa Valley."
Hear! Hear!Forbes 10/12/18: Wine Industry Digital Leader Paul Mabray Pulls No Punches
SVB on Wine 3/15/17: The Tough Questions Wine Clubs Face
SVB State of the Wine Industry 2019
With visitor counts falling every year for the last 4 years in Napa county Rob McMillan advises that "Your winery needs to find new growth and new consumers, and they aren’t going to come from the present tasting room approach". (Chapter 9: "Sales and marketing for family wineries" beginning page 45.)
Update 2/25/15
Amber forwards one website that begins to create the Napa Internet Wine Portal envisioned below: Dave Thompson's very cleanly designed site The Napa Wine Project. It is a tremendous, actually astounding, online catalog of Napa wines and their descriptions and backstories. Just the thing to begin to make the necessity of acually visiting the 770+ small wineries he has been to around the county unnecessary. (Of course transporting people to them is how Dave tries to make ends meet.)
The Napa Wine Project
Internet wine merchants:
invino.com Sonoma
nakedwines.com Sonoma
Wine.com no doubt the largest wine e-tailer.
2/10/15
It is important to remember that the one purpose of the land use policies articulated in the Napa General Plan is to encourage a market for Napa grapes, not to create a tourist industry to consume Napa wine. Wine sales to tourists have major negative impacts on the character of the valley, on the lives of the people who live here and, I think, on the viability of continuing an agricultural economy. Alternatives need to be pursued.
Currently, according to to Rob McMillan's SVB statistics, 6% of Napa wine is sold via the Internet. His feeling in his presentation to the Planning Comission was that direct sales at the winery were still important because unlike books or shoes, fine wines didn't lend themselves to Internet sales - they can't be returned after they're opened. There may be hurdles, but a technique to sell high-end wine on the internet will eventually be perfected and the need for in-winery sales, which even now constitute only a small portion of the overall sales of Napa wines but have big environmental impacts, will be over. Internet sales promise greater profits to the vintners without the impacts, hence as much effort should be put into an internet portal for Napa wines as has been spent on Visit Napa Valley trying to lure more customers to its bricks and mortar outlets. We need to make sure that the rural character of the valley is not destroyed in the meantime by preventing the construction of tourist facilities which will remain even after their need to support agriculture is gone.
Each winery has its own internet site, of course, so the process works, and someone will eventually become the Zappos of wine. Which is why it is important now for a Napa-only website to be developed that can compete with a larger site when it comes. Such a site, if developed as a quasi-public company like Visit Napa Valley, would profit vintners more than might be the case in a purely private company. The site should extoll the qualities of Napa wines, the importance of the concept of the Ag Preserve to maintain that quality and the reasons that Napa wine is more than just a bottle of wine - it is a piece of winemaking history.
Open letter to voters regarding post-Measure C: clarifications on: Conservation Regulations
Mike Hackett - Mar 6,19 expand... Share
I would like the opportunity to set the record straight about oppositional distortions from those interested in further development on our hillsides. They say:
1. It’s a solution looking for a problem. Measure C was anti-ag.
2. Measure C and the current proposal for a water and tree protection ordinance proposed by the county will be the demise of agriculture here in Napa County.
3. There’s no science behind the environmentalist’s claims.
4. Enhanced watershed protections take away property rights.
5. This idea for more water protections will kill the small farmer.
6. These ideas come from a small minority who have theirs and have deep pockets with selfish motivations.
7. It’s too much to protect 70 percent of our forests.
8. Measure C would have allowed removing 795 acres of forest.
9. The Napa River is much cleaner than it was in the ‘60s.
Response: I call BS on all of that.
1. There’s a much greater threat to agriculture in Napa Valley than sparing our hillsides from deforestation, and that’s running out of water. It’s a finite resource we all share as a community. Two-thirds of the water used for ag on the valley floor comes from our hills.
2. There is a misconception that growth is mandatory if we want a strong wine economy. Absolutely untrue. Most longtime successful wineries are interested in quality (the brand ) not in growth. Growth is necessary only for those needing share prices to rise.
3. If only these people would open a book. It’s ludicrous to think we don’t have a climate crisis. All science points to the need for changing the way we take care of our home.
4. Property rights are limited by the effect on our neighbors. This is a community problem. Our community shares our water. It’s not just for ag, but for the fish in the river, the water in our reservoirs, the habitat in our woodlands and ag.
5. The idea of a small farmer is not real. It’s $200,000 per acre at a minimum to go from bare ground to a producing vineyard; that’s if you already own the land. Actually the vast majority of successful wineries today have no interest in supporting the fantasy of small farmers.
6. The Yes on C constituency is made up of nearly 18,000 voters; that is no small minority. The Growers/Vintners for Responsible Agriculture are selfless individuals from the wine grape growing industry who feel their mission in this is to protect this treasured Napa Valley. They and all the others promoting enhanced protections only care about our future here. They speak from their hearts, not from their wallets.
7. We can take no pride in allowing 30 percent of our forests to be clearcut. The services the trees provide are far reaching: soil retention, certainty for water quality, carbon sequestration, species protections, and water, water, water for all. Let’s take back our water from the self-interested, greedy segment who hide behind distortions of reality.
8. The 795 acres agreed upon after collaboration with the Napa Valley Vintners, was designed to be a “soft landing” for those with projects in the pipeline. It was a compromise that was used against us. If the current proposed ordinance were to pass, there would be nearly 30,000 acres open to deforest in Napa County. The voters didn’t like 795. We cannot take any pride in allowing that level of clearcutting here at home.
9. It’s true, we are not dumping pollutants from the likes of tanneries any more. But our Napa River is listed as impaired by federal standards that are regulated by the state. The river is in a critical stage where way too much sediment and nutrients are pouring in from increasing development. The fish that used to be abundant have left. That is indisputable. Coho salmon and steelhead are tiny in numbers. They are prevented from spawning because the river bottom that should be lined with gravel is covered with sediment. The river is too warm and negatively affected by negative nutrients.
Please write and call your local county representative and tell them we need the very strongest protections available that will help keep our Napa Valley, our community, our forests and streams, and our shared water supply plentiful and for all.
NVR Version 3/6/18: Open letter to voters regarding post-Measure C: clarifications
1. It’s a solution looking for a problem. Measure C was anti-ag.
2. Measure C and the current proposal for a water and tree protection ordinance proposed by the county will be the demise of agriculture here in Napa County.
3. There’s no science behind the environmentalist’s claims.
4. Enhanced watershed protections take away property rights.
5. This idea for more water protections will kill the small farmer.
6. These ideas come from a small minority who have theirs and have deep pockets with selfish motivations.
7. It’s too much to protect 70 percent of our forests.
8. Measure C would have allowed removing 795 acres of forest.
9. The Napa River is much cleaner than it was in the ‘60s.
Response: I call BS on all of that.
1. There’s a much greater threat to agriculture in Napa Valley than sparing our hillsides from deforestation, and that’s running out of water. It’s a finite resource we all share as a community. Two-thirds of the water used for ag on the valley floor comes from our hills.
2. There is a misconception that growth is mandatory if we want a strong wine economy. Absolutely untrue. Most longtime successful wineries are interested in quality (the brand ) not in growth. Growth is necessary only for those needing share prices to rise.
3. If only these people would open a book. It’s ludicrous to think we don’t have a climate crisis. All science points to the need for changing the way we take care of our home.
4. Property rights are limited by the effect on our neighbors. This is a community problem. Our community shares our water. It’s not just for ag, but for the fish in the river, the water in our reservoirs, the habitat in our woodlands and ag.
5. The idea of a small farmer is not real. It’s $200,000 per acre at a minimum to go from bare ground to a producing vineyard; that’s if you already own the land. Actually the vast majority of successful wineries today have no interest in supporting the fantasy of small farmers.
6. The Yes on C constituency is made up of nearly 18,000 voters; that is no small minority. The Growers/Vintners for Responsible Agriculture are selfless individuals from the wine grape growing industry who feel their mission in this is to protect this treasured Napa Valley. They and all the others promoting enhanced protections only care about our future here. They speak from their hearts, not from their wallets.
7. We can take no pride in allowing 30 percent of our forests to be clearcut. The services the trees provide are far reaching: soil retention, certainty for water quality, carbon sequestration, species protections, and water, water, water for all. Let’s take back our water from the self-interested, greedy segment who hide behind distortions of reality.
8. The 795 acres agreed upon after collaboration with the Napa Valley Vintners, was designed to be a “soft landing” for those with projects in the pipeline. It was a compromise that was used against us. If the current proposed ordinance were to pass, there would be nearly 30,000 acres open to deforest in Napa County. The voters didn’t like 795. We cannot take any pride in allowing that level of clearcutting here at home.
9. It’s true, we are not dumping pollutants from the likes of tanneries any more. But our Napa River is listed as impaired by federal standards that are regulated by the state. The river is in a critical stage where way too much sediment and nutrients are pouring in from increasing development. The fish that used to be abundant have left. That is indisputable. Coho salmon and steelhead are tiny in numbers. They are prevented from spawning because the river bottom that should be lined with gravel is covered with sediment. The river is too warm and negatively affected by negative nutrients.
Please write and call your local county representative and tell them we need the very strongest protections available that will help keep our Napa Valley, our community, our forests and streams, and our shared water supply plentiful and for all.
NVR Version 3/6/18: Open letter to voters regarding post-Measure C: clarifications
Some science behind the watershed ordinance on: Conservation Regulations
George Caloyannidis - Feb 26,19 expand... Share
How interesting that all commentators -- whether in the press or during the public hearings -- who blame the lack of science for the proposed watershed regulations come from the wine and farming industry.
By all standards, this is a self interested, conflicted group that has submitted no science itself to support its arguments that existing regulations are sufficient to prevent the downward spiral of all aspects of our environment. It is the all familiar model of financial interests denying the degradation they are inflicting upon it.
But those who have no financial interests to protect, see clearly what actual science tells us about current conditions and on what lies ahead for us all, including them and the very industry's survival. The scientific record submitted in the county file is comprehensive and voluminous on all aspects of the environment. This writing concentrates only on water quality.
Only deniers would argue that the findings of the 2009 San Francisco Bay Are Water Quality Control Board on the alarming degradation of the Napa River water quality are not based on science. Enough so, that the river has been listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of the U.S. Clean Water Act due to pathogens (RWQCB 2008), nutrients (RWCB 2003) and excessive sedimentation (RWCB 2007). This water in the river is our drinking water from stream runoff primarily from the watershed and spilling into and from our reservoirs in the winter.
Any doubters can look at Lake Hennessey's brown water that supplies the city of Napa. Our other reservoirs are in the same sad condition. The steadily declining fish population -- the pitiful few hundred Coho -- knows what the conflicted refuse to acknowledge.
Of the 170,000 tons per year of all man-made river sedimentation, 67,000 tons are directly attributed to vineyards and grazing land, even though they comply with the county's current erosion control measures. According to the 2012 San Francisco Estuary Institute's Napa River Watershed Profile report, these erosion control practices have the "unintended effect of increased runoff without a compensating increase in course sediment supply." The steady increase in fine river (and reservoir) slimy sediment is choking its oxygen regeneration, vital to a healthy fish population and our water quality.
In 2009, the Water Quality Board recognized that we are past the tipping point and set a goal of a 50 percent – yes, a full one half - reduction in fine river sedimentation and 51 percent for one generated by vineyards. The report, was revised in 2018 and found that nine years later we had made no progress. Reasonable people would agree that based on our available science something drastic needs to be done.
The conflicted deniers are guided by an additional motivation to resist change: The Water Board estimated that the goals it has set for Napa County will cost the wine industry $800,000-1.7 million per year for the next 20 years for a total of $16 million-$34 million. And as usual, the bulk of the cost, a staggering $34 million-$68 million to correct the development sins of the past will be borne by the public in the form of grants, meaning taxes.
Sadly, the proposed ordinance, while it will slow the rate of increases, will not even begin to reverse the trajectory towards what is an impending crisis.
LTE version 2/26/19: Some science behind the watershed ordinance
By all standards, this is a self interested, conflicted group that has submitted no science itself to support its arguments that existing regulations are sufficient to prevent the downward spiral of all aspects of our environment. It is the all familiar model of financial interests denying the degradation they are inflicting upon it.
But those who have no financial interests to protect, see clearly what actual science tells us about current conditions and on what lies ahead for us all, including them and the very industry's survival. The scientific record submitted in the county file is comprehensive and voluminous on all aspects of the environment. This writing concentrates only on water quality.
Only deniers would argue that the findings of the 2009 San Francisco Bay Are Water Quality Control Board on the alarming degradation of the Napa River water quality are not based on science. Enough so, that the river has been listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of the U.S. Clean Water Act due to pathogens (RWQCB 2008), nutrients (RWCB 2003) and excessive sedimentation (RWCB 2007). This water in the river is our drinking water from stream runoff primarily from the watershed and spilling into and from our reservoirs in the winter.
Any doubters can look at Lake Hennessey's brown water that supplies the city of Napa. Our other reservoirs are in the same sad condition. The steadily declining fish population -- the pitiful few hundred Coho -- knows what the conflicted refuse to acknowledge.
Of the 170,000 tons per year of all man-made river sedimentation, 67,000 tons are directly attributed to vineyards and grazing land, even though they comply with the county's current erosion control measures. According to the 2012 San Francisco Estuary Institute's Napa River Watershed Profile report, these erosion control practices have the "unintended effect of increased runoff without a compensating increase in course sediment supply." The steady increase in fine river (and reservoir) slimy sediment is choking its oxygen regeneration, vital to a healthy fish population and our water quality.
In 2009, the Water Quality Board recognized that we are past the tipping point and set a goal of a 50 percent – yes, a full one half - reduction in fine river sedimentation and 51 percent for one generated by vineyards. The report, was revised in 2018 and found that nine years later we had made no progress. Reasonable people would agree that based on our available science something drastic needs to be done.
The conflicted deniers are guided by an additional motivation to resist change: The Water Board estimated that the goals it has set for Napa County will cost the wine industry $800,000-1.7 million per year for the next 20 years for a total of $16 million-$34 million. And as usual, the bulk of the cost, a staggering $34 million-$68 million to correct the development sins of the past will be borne by the public in the form of grants, meaning taxes.
Sadly, the proposed ordinance, while it will slow the rate of increases, will not even begin to reverse the trajectory towards what is an impending crisis.
LTE version 2/26/19: Some science behind the watershed ordinance
Talk about Chicken Little on: Conservation Regulations
Patricia Damery - Feb 26,19 expand... Share
On March 6, the Napa County Planning Commission will meet again to take more public comment and make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on a watershed and tree protection ordinance. This is the result of Measure C’s (Watershed and Oak Woodland Protection Initiative) almost passing.
The wine industry showed up in force at the Feb. 20 Planning Commission meeting, asserting that protecting our hillsides and watersheds any further would result in the demise of the wine industry.
Talk about Chicken Little. The truth is, if further protective measures are not put in place, our environment and water supply will suffer, and with it, the wine industry as well.
The wine industry is robust. Limiting its ability of develop our hillsides and watersheds is not going to be the death of it. However, there is a conflict of interest when any industry insists that a governmental body protect its financial interests at the cost of the environment and water supply.
This is why the Environmental Protection Agency was formed in 1970: to separate out the interests of agriculture’s use of pesticides from the needs of the environment. Until then, pesticide usage was governed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), described by Rachel Carson of Silent Spring as a financial “conflict of interest.”
We need the planning commissioners and the Board of Supervisors to act on behalf of the citizens of Napa County in protecting our water supply and our environment.
The assertion from some in the wine industry that only a few individuals are pushing watershed protections similar to those of Measure C is absolutely false. A growing number of citizens, vintners and growers are leading the push to protect our natural resource;. 49.1 percent voted for Measure C in a dirty campaign too often based on the opposition’s false assertions and efforts to confuse the voters.
This current effort for the Board of Supervisors to pass an ordinance to protect our hillsides, oak woodlands, forests and watersheds was spearheaded by U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson. Hopefully another initiative will not be needed, but when a governing body does not govern, in California, we the people have that right.
Please contact your supervisor and planning commissioner to encourage them to act on behalf of the environment, not special interest groups.
LTE version 2/26/19: Talk about Chicken Little
The wine industry showed up in force at the Feb. 20 Planning Commission meeting, asserting that protecting our hillsides and watersheds any further would result in the demise of the wine industry.
Talk about Chicken Little. The truth is, if further protective measures are not put in place, our environment and water supply will suffer, and with it, the wine industry as well.
The wine industry is robust. Limiting its ability of develop our hillsides and watersheds is not going to be the death of it. However, there is a conflict of interest when any industry insists that a governmental body protect its financial interests at the cost of the environment and water supply.
This is why the Environmental Protection Agency was formed in 1970: to separate out the interests of agriculture’s use of pesticides from the needs of the environment. Until then, pesticide usage was governed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), described by Rachel Carson of Silent Spring as a financial “conflict of interest.”
We need the planning commissioners and the Board of Supervisors to act on behalf of the citizens of Napa County in protecting our water supply and our environment.
The assertion from some in the wine industry that only a few individuals are pushing watershed protections similar to those of Measure C is absolutely false. A growing number of citizens, vintners and growers are leading the push to protect our natural resource;. 49.1 percent voted for Measure C in a dirty campaign too often based on the opposition’s false assertions and efforts to confuse the voters.
This current effort for the Board of Supervisors to pass an ordinance to protect our hillsides, oak woodlands, forests and watersheds was spearheaded by U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson. Hopefully another initiative will not be needed, but when a governing body does not govern, in California, we the people have that right.
Please contact your supervisor and planning commissioner to encourage them to act on behalf of the environment, not special interest groups.
LTE version 2/26/19: Talk about Chicken Little
Le Colline Vineyard DEIR: comments requested on: Watershed Issues
Bill Hocker - Feb 19,19 expand... Share
Fire Rebuilding Update on: After The Fire
Bill Hocker - Feb 6,19 expand... Share
At the Feb 6th, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, Planning Director Morrison went over the statistics of the rebuilding process after the Oct 2017 and Sep 2018 fires.
He reiterated that rebuilding from the fire will be a long process.
- 662 homes were burned in the fires
- To date 200 permit applications have been submitted for home rebuilding (30% of total)
- 150 permits have been issued
- 5 houses have been rebuilt
- The assessors valuation of all fire property damage: $750,000,000
- 1000 permit applications have been received for all types of fire reconstruction (including homes) which represent $200,000,000 in valuation (under 20% of total lost)
- 32% of the building fees were waived for fire rebuilding applications representing $1,100,000 in fees.
He reiterated that rebuilding from the fire will be a long process.
The restaurant coming to a vineyard near you on: The WDO
Bill Hocker - Feb 4,19 expand... Share
Update 2/4/19
NVR 2/4/19: Napa County hits B Cellars with code notice over food service
This yelp review gives a good idea of the B Cellars experience (use firefox if safari bombs)
It is great that the County is making good on its post-APAC resolve to enforce the provisions of its ordinances. Kudos to the community activists and recent press that have encouraged them to do so.
Planning Dir. Morrison indicated at the Feb. 6, 2019 Planning Commission meeting that review of winery application marketing plans and facilities will be much more closely scrutinized in future to insure compliance with 2010 WDO limitations. While that alone is not enough to curtail the rise of winery restaurants allowed under the code (given the ambiguity of the provisions), it is a welcome commitment. Hear! Hear!
Fortunately it sounds like B Cellars will contest the citation, which means that there will be an opportunity to begin defining what is "food service" (allowed) and what is "meal service" (forbidden) under the WDO (see here). At the same time the County needs to vet another provision of the WDO: is the food at an $80, $125 or $185 wine pairing, each of which would be an expensive lunch at most any restaurant, being provided "without charge except to the extent of cost recovery"? What data is required, in a government now obsessed with data-based decisions, to decide if it is? It is an important data number if it shows that boutique wineries are being proposed and built, as I believe, solely because the profit made from wine pairings and events makes up for the more modest profits, or losses, from vanity wine making. Much of the wine industry has become instead an entertainment industry based on a wine-making image, filling up the vineyards with buildings and parking lots and filling up the roads with visitors and employees while claiming to protect agriculture by such urbanization.
Original post 9/9/14
You know there were some compromises made that probably shouldn’t have been made... It had to do with food services and basically turning these places, some of them, into restaurants.
- Mel Varrelman 2008 (Supervisor 1983-2002) on the passage of the 1990 WDO
The back page of the Yountville Sun on 9/1/14 offered an article on the just opened B Cellars winery on Oakville Crossroad developed by Duffy Keys. An earlier article appeared in the Register here:
NVR 8/28/14: B Cellars builds winery for the luxury traveler
The winery is one of the 33 new wineries (B Cellars is technically an addition to the never-built Miller Winery) so far approved under the 2010 modifications to the Winery Definition Ordinance (WDO). Those modifications allow food to be served as part of winery "tours and tastings" and allow business meetings to be considered as "marketing events". The two modifications, following the 2008 state law allowing wine purchased at the winery to be consumed on site, tipped a profitability point resulting not only in the 33 new winery approvals but in approvals for expansions and use permit modifications to 38 existing wineries. There are currently 24 additional projects in the planning department awaiting approval including the Mountain Peak project next door to me on Soda Canyon Road.
A debate is now going on in the county regarding the pace of development brought on by these changes in the WDO and by the county's intent to boost tourism following the 2008 meltdown of the high-end wine industry. The essence of those changes was to allow more food service at wineries, edging ever closer to that so-far taboo entity: the restaurant-winery. The euphemisms abound to create a false distinction: a lunch or dinner is called a "wine pairing"; banquets are referred to as events in the "marketing of wine". There are 3 distinctions that the WDO uses to differentiate a winery from a restaurant: 1. menu options are not allowed. 2. "food service" is allowed while "meal service" is not. 3. food service must be charged at cost. These are meaningless and disingenuous. Meaningless because many restaurants (like Chez Panisse in Berkeley) have one daily fixed menu, and also because "meal" vs "food" is undefined in the WDO providing no enforceable difference. (The Mondavi Winery offers 3- and 4- course "wine pairing dinners" for $150 to $350. B Cellars offers a $125 Chef's Garden Pairing). Disingenuous because a $125 lunch isn't profitable? If the food service were not profitable no changes to the WDO would have been requested in 2010.
Why is the food-meal distinction necessary? Under the WDO, wineries are allowed tours, tastings and marketing events with their 'food service' as accessory, incidental and subordinate uses to the winemaking process. In contrast, restaurants are commercial enterprises offering 'meal service' quite able to stand on their own. Food service is important in these applications because it is an effective profit booster. (At Raymond, if only half of their 400 allowed daily visitors went for a $100 wine pairing instead of a $50 tasting that would mean an additional $3.65 million/yr in revenue) With food service the wineries are becoming the subordinate element, the crush pads and caves, as shown in the B Cellars renderings and video as backdrops to the "hospitality experience".
The result of allowing these commercial enterprises in the vineyards, nominally forbidden under the county's 45 year old year commitment to protect agricultural lands, is a direct challenge to the Napa General Plan's intent to maintain agriculture as the county's economic engine. The transfer from an agricultural economy to a tourism economy is directly embodied in the restaurant-winery. Food service is at the heart of all new use-permit applications, like the high profile Yountville Hill Winery or the remote Woolls Ranch Winery on water-starved Mt Veeder Road, currently making their way through the county meat grinder. Food service is especially important to the tourism experiences in the contentions Raymond Winery application.
The new tourist facilities that will be springing up in the next few years present other impacts besides just the vineyard land that they consume. The many well-lit al fresco events lasting until 10pm will eclipse the serenity of dark and quite rural nights, and a late night rush hour of limos will traverse the valley. In-town restaurants may see a drop in their clientele, unless the wineries succeed in attracting the hundreds of thousands of new tourists necessary to fill their tourist slots, in which case residents may look back to the traffic of 2014 as the good old days. In either case in-town restaurants may begin to find their top chefs and experienced staff moving to the vineyards. Also, restaurants and their many patrons may present sanitary waste problems not well suited to rural leach field solutions. And the expanding, labor-intensive tourist industry will need housing, schools, shopping centers and municipal infrastructure for its workforce, an ever consuming municipal and county concern with ever more work for the development industry promoting the tourism wineries.
This rant is not specific to B Cellars. Mr. Keys has done a low-key, handsome, and modestly-sized project (comparing it to Yountville Hill and Raymond). His is just an early example of a construction boom that will be played out in the next few years. The 70 or so approved projects now in the construction pipeline will unfortunately be built, and we will bear their impacts. But the many projects in the planning department and the vast number that can be built on the 10 acre+ properties in the county (perhaps on the one next to you) can be stopped with a commitment from residents and the county and anyone else who sees the importance of protecting the agricultural base and the rural character that makes the county special. Sometime in November [now in Mar 2015] the county is convening a community forum to discuss possible changes to the WDO. I would urge everyone concerned about the future of the county to participate.
[A subsequent SCR post on was made on the meaning of the B Cellars expansion in 2017]
NVR 2/4/19: Napa County hits B Cellars with code notice over food service
This yelp review gives a good idea of the B Cellars experience (use firefox if safari bombs)
It is great that the County is making good on its post-APAC resolve to enforce the provisions of its ordinances. Kudos to the community activists and recent press that have encouraged them to do so.
Planning Dir. Morrison indicated at the Feb. 6, 2019 Planning Commission meeting that review of winery application marketing plans and facilities will be much more closely scrutinized in future to insure compliance with 2010 WDO limitations. While that alone is not enough to curtail the rise of winery restaurants allowed under the code (given the ambiguity of the provisions), it is a welcome commitment. Hear! Hear!
Fortunately it sounds like B Cellars will contest the citation, which means that there will be an opportunity to begin defining what is "food service" (allowed) and what is "meal service" (forbidden) under the WDO (see here). At the same time the County needs to vet another provision of the WDO: is the food at an $80, $125 or $185 wine pairing, each of which would be an expensive lunch at most any restaurant, being provided "without charge except to the extent of cost recovery"? What data is required, in a government now obsessed with data-based decisions, to decide if it is? It is an important data number if it shows that boutique wineries are being proposed and built, as I believe, solely because the profit made from wine pairings and events makes up for the more modest profits, or losses, from vanity wine making. Much of the wine industry has become instead an entertainment industry based on a wine-making image, filling up the vineyards with buildings and parking lots and filling up the roads with visitors and employees while claiming to protect agriculture by such urbanization.
Original post 9/9/14
- Mel Varrelman 2008 (Supervisor 1983-2002) on the passage of the 1990 WDO
The back page of the Yountville Sun on 9/1/14 offered an article on the just opened B Cellars winery on Oakville Crossroad developed by Duffy Keys. An earlier article appeared in the Register here:
NVR 8/28/14: B Cellars builds winery for the luxury traveler
The winery is one of the 33 new wineries (B Cellars is technically an addition to the never-built Miller Winery) so far approved under the 2010 modifications to the Winery Definition Ordinance (WDO). Those modifications allow food to be served as part of winery "tours and tastings" and allow business meetings to be considered as "marketing events". The two modifications, following the 2008 state law allowing wine purchased at the winery to be consumed on site, tipped a profitability point resulting not only in the 33 new winery approvals but in approvals for expansions and use permit modifications to 38 existing wineries. There are currently 24 additional projects in the planning department awaiting approval including the Mountain Peak project next door to me on Soda Canyon Road.
A debate is now going on in the county regarding the pace of development brought on by these changes in the WDO and by the county's intent to boost tourism following the 2008 meltdown of the high-end wine industry. The essence of those changes was to allow more food service at wineries, edging ever closer to that so-far taboo entity: the restaurant-winery. The euphemisms abound to create a false distinction: a lunch or dinner is called a "wine pairing"; banquets are referred to as events in the "marketing of wine". There are 3 distinctions that the WDO uses to differentiate a winery from a restaurant: 1. menu options are not allowed. 2. "food service" is allowed while "meal service" is not. 3. food service must be charged at cost. These are meaningless and disingenuous. Meaningless because many restaurants (like Chez Panisse in Berkeley) have one daily fixed menu, and also because "meal" vs "food" is undefined in the WDO providing no enforceable difference. (The Mondavi Winery offers 3- and 4- course "wine pairing dinners" for $150 to $350. B Cellars offers a $125 Chef's Garden Pairing). Disingenuous because a $125 lunch isn't profitable? If the food service were not profitable no changes to the WDO would have been requested in 2010.
Why is the food-meal distinction necessary? Under the WDO, wineries are allowed tours, tastings and marketing events with their 'food service' as accessory, incidental and subordinate uses to the winemaking process. In contrast, restaurants are commercial enterprises offering 'meal service' quite able to stand on their own. Food service is important in these applications because it is an effective profit booster. (At Raymond, if only half of their 400 allowed daily visitors went for a $100 wine pairing instead of a $50 tasting that would mean an additional $3.65 million/yr in revenue) With food service the wineries are becoming the subordinate element, the crush pads and caves, as shown in the B Cellars renderings and video as backdrops to the "hospitality experience".
The result of allowing these commercial enterprises in the vineyards, nominally forbidden under the county's 45 year old year commitment to protect agricultural lands, is a direct challenge to the Napa General Plan's intent to maintain agriculture as the county's economic engine. The transfer from an agricultural economy to a tourism economy is directly embodied in the restaurant-winery. Food service is at the heart of all new use-permit applications, like the high profile Yountville Hill Winery or the remote Woolls Ranch Winery on water-starved Mt Veeder Road, currently making their way through the county meat grinder. Food service is especially important to the tourism experiences in the contentions Raymond Winery application.
The new tourist facilities that will be springing up in the next few years present other impacts besides just the vineyard land that they consume. The many well-lit al fresco events lasting until 10pm will eclipse the serenity of dark and quite rural nights, and a late night rush hour of limos will traverse the valley. In-town restaurants may see a drop in their clientele, unless the wineries succeed in attracting the hundreds of thousands of new tourists necessary to fill their tourist slots, in which case residents may look back to the traffic of 2014 as the good old days. In either case in-town restaurants may begin to find their top chefs and experienced staff moving to the vineyards. Also, restaurants and their many patrons may present sanitary waste problems not well suited to rural leach field solutions. And the expanding, labor-intensive tourist industry will need housing, schools, shopping centers and municipal infrastructure for its workforce, an ever consuming municipal and county concern with ever more work for the development industry promoting the tourism wineries.
This rant is not specific to B Cellars. Mr. Keys has done a low-key, handsome, and modestly-sized project (comparing it to Yountville Hill and Raymond). His is just an early example of a construction boom that will be played out in the next few years. The 70 or so approved projects now in the construction pipeline will unfortunately be built, and we will bear their impacts. But the many projects in the planning department and the vast number that can be built on the 10 acre+ properties in the county (perhaps on the one next to you) can be stopped with a commitment from residents and the county and anyone else who sees the importance of protecting the agricultural base and the rural character that makes the county special. Sometime in November [now in Mar 2015] the county is convening a community forum to discuss possible changes to the WDO. I would urge everyone concerned about the future of the county to participate.
[A subsequent SCR post on was made on the meaning of the B Cellars expansion in 2017]
County General Plan Circulation Element Update on: Traffic Issues
Bill Hocker - Feb 3,19 expand... Share
Response to the Bloodlines DEIR on: The Rector Watershed
Bill Hocker - Jan 30,19 expand... Share
Response letter sent regarding the Bloodlines Vineyards Draft EIR
30 Jan, 2019
Mr. Bordona, Ms. Whiteford, Mr. Phinney,
Many thanks of the opportunity to respond to the Bloodlines Draft EIR. After Mr. Phinney's initial presentation of the project to neighbors, I was impressed with the stated commitment to conservation easements, worker van-pooling, urban tasting rooms, a winery in Vallejo, alternative marketing and branding techniques, a desire to reach out to residents and to develop a charitable purpose to the business model - all which point to an approach that is looking for success that is sustainable and beneficial with a minimal impact to the agricultural land and open space that is our home.
The personal encouragement to neighbors to participate in commenting on the Draft EIR, and the extension in time to do so, was also welcome (even though I have procrastinated to the last minute to comment and find the mind-numbing detail of the EIR impenetrable.)
I was interested to see the map in the EIR showing the ECP's within a 3 mile radius of the project. Most all of the purple blocks within the Rector Watershed, and more, have been created around us since we moved here in 1993. It was the undeveloped remoteness of this place that made it a desirable place to be. That remoteness shrank one block at a time over the years, and, as the vineyards replaced the chaparral (and some woodlands), we took it as one beautiful landscape replacing another with the small comfort of knowing that vineyards are better than housing tracts.
It is late now to get worked up over another vineyard infilling the remaining natural landscape on the Rector plateau, and the knowledge that the grapes are exceptional here lets us accept that vineyards are probably the highest and best use of this particular land at this particular time. Cumulatively, the impacts of the extensive development of the Rector watershed, affecting water availability and quality, wildlife habitat destruction, flora and woodland loss, or road maintenance, may be scrutinized at some point down the line with conclusions drawn and actions taken, but it doesn't seem like it's within the applicant's ability to rectify those problems with mitigations on this one project alone at this point. (Although I might have some concerns about water availability were I a neighbor with a well near a new project well.)
There are some issues that I would ask you to considered however:
The first is traffic. As traffic reports invariably show, the additional traffic will always be less than significant, and an additional 6-12 cars a day may indeed be insignificant. But the traffic begins to add up, and we now can have a caravan of 50 or 60 cars on the one lane gravel road which then speeds down the paved road. My request to you is to make a good faith effort to reduce the traffic by beginning to talk to the other growers on the plateau with the aim of creating some sort of van-pooling arrangement. I'm not sure that one van is better than several cars in terms of damage to the roads or the danger to residents driving on the road, but the County is looking for ways to reduce vehicle miles travelled, and worker transport is one solution often discussed. The confined dead end destination of the Rector plateau seems like one place where van-pooling might be successful. I can only guess that the major vineyard operators on the Rector watershed occasionally get together to talk over common interests and that this is a subject that might be brought up. Even if Bloodlines had a van for its 12 workers, it might show the viability of the concept to others. I recognize that it might also require some commitment on the part of the county to insure that there are parking lots that the vans can work out of.
The second concern is the development that may take place after the vineyards are in. The Mountain Peak project has brought home to all of us living here that the County's definition of agriculture allows for the construction of public entertainment venues in what are residential farm communities. Such commercial development is an immediate degradation in the rural quality of life that most residents have sought out in living here, particularly on such a remote dead end road. Again, I was impressed by Mr. Phinney's commitment, in his presentation to the community, to process grapes and to retain marketing activities in Vallejo.
But Mr. Phinney may not always be the owner of the land, and this is an opportunity to insure that future owners are as committed to protecting the rural and natural character of Napa County as he is. In the EIR a commendable commitment has been made to an 8.2 acre conservation easement. But with 103 gross acres of vineyard development on the 287 [278] acres of property, there remains 176 acres of land that can be developed. It is, of course, a big ask, but one that I feel should be made in the context of this application: Could the owner not place the entire extent of the property into a conservation easement, one that would allow vineyard development where appropriate, but would prevent the development of future building projects that would further urbanize the Rector plateau? If I'm not mistaken, the northern properties abut the Sutro Ranc, and the ridge above the Bloodline vineyards would be a significant addition to the Land Trust holdings. Protecting this area from further urbanization is the greatest mitigation that could be given to neighbors and to the county as a whole in its effort to maintain Napa County as a rural enclave into the future.
I have one other niggling question. In the map of previous ECP's, a definite break line has been established between the existing vineyards and the undeveloped ridgeline on the northern boundary of vineyard development in the Rector watershed. The majority of the Bloodlines vineyard follows that break line but a few of the vineyard blocks, 1A,1B,4,5A,5B extend well beyond that line and involve bridges and steep slopes. I ask for some clarification on the reason for their creation because those small expansions of the historic development line may only encourage future extension of vineyard development further up the ridge for all properties along the line. [Added 3/6/19: These comments seem to coincide with some proposals in the "Multiple Resource Protection Alternative" and I would strongly support that alternative to reduce tree removal and stream crossings.]
Again thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Bill Hocker
3460 Soda Canyon Rd
Napa, CA 94558
Mr. Bordona, Ms. Whiteford, Mr. Phinney,
Many thanks of the opportunity to respond to the Bloodlines Draft EIR. After Mr. Phinney's initial presentation of the project to neighbors, I was impressed with the stated commitment to conservation easements, worker van-pooling, urban tasting rooms, a winery in Vallejo, alternative marketing and branding techniques, a desire to reach out to residents and to develop a charitable purpose to the business model - all which point to an approach that is looking for success that is sustainable and beneficial with a minimal impact to the agricultural land and open space that is our home.
The personal encouragement to neighbors to participate in commenting on the Draft EIR, and the extension in time to do so, was also welcome (even though I have procrastinated to the last minute to comment and find the mind-numbing detail of the EIR impenetrable.)
It is late now to get worked up over another vineyard infilling the remaining natural landscape on the Rector plateau, and the knowledge that the grapes are exceptional here lets us accept that vineyards are probably the highest and best use of this particular land at this particular time. Cumulatively, the impacts of the extensive development of the Rector watershed, affecting water availability and quality, wildlife habitat destruction, flora and woodland loss, or road maintenance, may be scrutinized at some point down the line with conclusions drawn and actions taken, but it doesn't seem like it's within the applicant's ability to rectify those problems with mitigations on this one project alone at this point. (Although I might have some concerns about water availability were I a neighbor with a well near a new project well.)
There are some issues that I would ask you to considered however:
The first is traffic. As traffic reports invariably show, the additional traffic will always be less than significant, and an additional 6-12 cars a day may indeed be insignificant. But the traffic begins to add up, and we now can have a caravan of 50 or 60 cars on the one lane gravel road which then speeds down the paved road. My request to you is to make a good faith effort to reduce the traffic by beginning to talk to the other growers on the plateau with the aim of creating some sort of van-pooling arrangement. I'm not sure that one van is better than several cars in terms of damage to the roads or the danger to residents driving on the road, but the County is looking for ways to reduce vehicle miles travelled, and worker transport is one solution often discussed. The confined dead end destination of the Rector plateau seems like one place where van-pooling might be successful. I can only guess that the major vineyard operators on the Rector watershed occasionally get together to talk over common interests and that this is a subject that might be brought up. Even if Bloodlines had a van for its 12 workers, it might show the viability of the concept to others. I recognize that it might also require some commitment on the part of the county to insure that there are parking lots that the vans can work out of.
The second concern is the development that may take place after the vineyards are in. The Mountain Peak project has brought home to all of us living here that the County's definition of agriculture allows for the construction of public entertainment venues in what are residential farm communities. Such commercial development is an immediate degradation in the rural quality of life that most residents have sought out in living here, particularly on such a remote dead end road. Again, I was impressed by Mr. Phinney's commitment, in his presentation to the community, to process grapes and to retain marketing activities in Vallejo.
But Mr. Phinney may not always be the owner of the land, and this is an opportunity to insure that future owners are as committed to protecting the rural and natural character of Napa County as he is. In the EIR a commendable commitment has been made to an 8.2 acre conservation easement. But with 103 gross acres of vineyard development on the 287 [278] acres of property, there remains 176 acres of land that can be developed. It is, of course, a big ask, but one that I feel should be made in the context of this application: Could the owner not place the entire extent of the property into a conservation easement, one that would allow vineyard development where appropriate, but would prevent the development of future building projects that would further urbanize the Rector plateau? If I'm not mistaken, the northern properties abut the Sutro Ranc, and the ridge above the Bloodline vineyards would be a significant addition to the Land Trust holdings. Protecting this area from further urbanization is the greatest mitigation that could be given to neighbors and to the county as a whole in its effort to maintain Napa County as a rural enclave into the future.
I have one other niggling question. In the map of previous ECP's, a definite break line has been established between the existing vineyards and the undeveloped ridgeline on the northern boundary of vineyard development in the Rector watershed. The majority of the Bloodlines vineyard follows that break line but a few of the vineyard blocks, 1A,1B,4,5A,5B extend well beyond that line and involve bridges and steep slopes. I ask for some clarification on the reason for their creation because those small expansions of the historic development line may only encourage future extension of vineyard development further up the ridge for all properties along the line. [Added 3/6/19: These comments seem to coincide with some proposals in the "Multiple Resource Protection Alternative" and I would strongly support that alternative to reduce tree removal and stream crossings.]
Again thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Bill Hocker
3460 Soda Canyon Rd
Napa, CA 94558
Comments
Bill Hocker - Feb 4, 2019 9:35AM
Amy Whiteford sent this email in response to my comments ( including a somewhat clairvoyant response by Mr. Phinney) :
Hello Mr. Hocker,
Thank you very much for taking the time to offer your thoughtful, thorough, and respectful comments on our vineyard application. We share many of your concerns, and have proactively listed some solutions for issues including traffic and water usage in Dave Phinney’s and PPI Engineering’s public comment letters. In the engineer’s letter, we propose to remove Block 4 from our application. Please find Dave Phinney’s comment below, and the engineer’s comment is uploaded (along with all of the submitted public comments) here:
As you suggested, Dave and I will discuss the possibility of an even greater conservation easement. I hope to continue to work together throughout this process. We are waiting for the proposal from RSA+ Civil Engineers regarding traffic improvements, and I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss these suggestions with you. Again, thank you for your interest and input on the design of this project.
Sincerely,
Amy Whiteford
January 29, 2019
Brian Bordona
Napa County Planning, Building & Environmental Services
1195 Third Street, Room 210
Napa, CA 94559
Dear Brian,
I am writing in regard to our proposed Bloodlines LLC Soda Canyon Vineyard Development (Project P16-00323). As you know, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes scientific evaluations to determine that this project has less than significant, or less than significant with mitigation measures, impacts on the environment. I appreciate the expertise of the scientists that conducted these studies, and respect and strictly followed the regulatory process in place to apply for a vineyard development permit set by Napa County. I will leave the technical analysis to the scientists, but I would like to present a more personal outreach of how our project could contribute to the well-being of our community.
From day one, we have met with neighbors and asked what issues are most important to them regarding development on Soda Canyon Road. We heard loud and clear that traffic, water, and more recently climate change are top priorities for local residents. We share the same priorities.
Traffic is an issue on Soda Canyon Road. I personalize this by imagining my children driving this road to our family vineyard, and that image has led me to a few ideas of how to minimize our impact on and improve the safety of the road.
One neighbor asked if our well water usage might impact his well water availability. According to our Water Availability Analysis included in the EIR, we will not impact neighbors’ water supply as with our deficit irrigation strategy we will use less water than is annually recharged. However, as detailed in the EIR we will monitor neighboring well levels and adjust our well use if we cause impacts to neighbors’ wells. The EIR actually determined that water quality will be improved after our project is developed, as we will take engineered measures to prevent sediment runoff. Please reference Section 4.6 Hydrology and Water Quality in the EIR to read details of our mitigation measures to ensure that there are no significant effects on water quality or neighboring water quantity.
The EIR has declared that our Project has a less-than-significant impact to climate change. My team and I agree that climate change is something that we all need to actively work to halt if not reverse.
As we were all reminded of in 2017, fire is threat to our families, properties, and livelihoods.
My brother-in-law was a volunteer firefighter for 13 years, and I can’t thank him enough. My team worked with the Fire Chief of the Soda Canyon Volunteer Fire Department and we provided much needed upgrades to their fire station, including repairing dry rot, replacing the garage doors, repainting the firehouse, and repaving the driveway. If the Department decides that it would benefit from a well and a water storage tank on site, we will set up a timeline to pay for these improvements. We commit to maintaining the building as needed, it is the least that we can do in return for their service.
From the beginning of this application process we have engaged our neighbors, listened to their concerns, and incorporated these into the design of our project wherever possible. We will continue to do so from this day forward and look forward to contributing to the Soda Canyon neighborhood.
Respectfully,
Dave S. Phinney
Hello Mr. Hocker,
Thank you very much for taking the time to offer your thoughtful, thorough, and respectful comments on our vineyard application. We share many of your concerns, and have proactively listed some solutions for issues including traffic and water usage in Dave Phinney’s and PPI Engineering’s public comment letters. In the engineer’s letter, we propose to remove Block 4 from our application. Please find Dave Phinney’s comment below, and the engineer’s comment is uploaded (along with all of the submitted public comments) here:
As you suggested, Dave and I will discuss the possibility of an even greater conservation easement. I hope to continue to work together throughout this process. We are waiting for the proposal from RSA+ Civil Engineers regarding traffic improvements, and I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss these suggestions with you. Again, thank you for your interest and input on the design of this project.
Sincerely,
Amy Whiteford
January 29, 2019
Brian Bordona
Napa County Planning, Building & Environmental Services
1195 Third Street, Room 210
Napa, CA 94559
Dear Brian,
I am writing in regard to our proposed Bloodlines LLC Soda Canyon Vineyard Development (Project P16-00323). As you know, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes scientific evaluations to determine that this project has less than significant, or less than significant with mitigation measures, impacts on the environment. I appreciate the expertise of the scientists that conducted these studies, and respect and strictly followed the regulatory process in place to apply for a vineyard development permit set by Napa County. I will leave the technical analysis to the scientists, but I would like to present a more personal outreach of how our project could contribute to the well-being of our community.
From day one, we have met with neighbors and asked what issues are most important to them regarding development on Soda Canyon Road. We heard loud and clear that traffic, water, and more recently climate change are top priorities for local residents. We share the same priorities.
Traffic is an issue on Soda Canyon Road. I personalize this by imagining my children driving this road to our family vineyard, and that image has led me to a few ideas of how to minimize our impact on and improve the safety of the road.
- One measure included in the EIR project description to address travel hazard is to provide pilot cars before heavy equipment is moved up the road. A neighbor had requested this, so I am glad that it was incorporated into the EIR.
- To reiterate, we are not applying for a winery nor a tasting room permit that would lead to additional tourist traffic on the road.
- Our employees will meet offsite and travel together in a van rather than in individual cars. This will result in fewer cars traveling the road, as well as decreased emissions.
- We will reach out to neighboring vineyards and invite them to participate in a similar program, with the hope of starting an employer-funded network of Vanpools.
- We have consulted with the Department of Public Works and RSA+ Civil Engineers to determine how to increase the safety of the travel and infrastructure of the road. How can we slow down traffic? One idea is to install, at our cost, a blinking sign or signs that show each driver the speed at which they are travelling. According to the Department of Public Works, these signs do effectively slow drivers down. Another idea is to install, at our cost, reflective signs to warn of upcoming hazardous curves.
- A suggestion that was offered by a concerned neighbor was the installation of a guard rail or rails at especially dangerous parts of the road. We of course would hope that these would never have to be used, but if it increases the potential for safety, we are for it and will pay for the design and installation.
One neighbor asked if our well water usage might impact his well water availability. According to our Water Availability Analysis included in the EIR, we will not impact neighbors’ water supply as with our deficit irrigation strategy we will use less water than is annually recharged. However, as detailed in the EIR we will monitor neighboring well levels and adjust our well use if we cause impacts to neighbors’ wells. The EIR actually determined that water quality will be improved after our project is developed, as we will take engineered measures to prevent sediment runoff. Please reference Section 4.6 Hydrology and Water Quality in the EIR to read details of our mitigation measures to ensure that there are no significant effects on water quality or neighboring water quantity.
The EIR has declared that our Project has a less-than-significant impact to climate change. My team and I agree that climate change is something that we all need to actively work to halt if not reverse.
- The calculations used to determine our impact were based on pre-Atlas Fire conditions. Since then, most of the property and its ground cover burned. Planting vineyard and covercrops should greatly increase the carbon sequestration from current conditions.
- We support the inclusion of the oak stand in Block 3G in the Multiple Resources Protection Alternative to ensure that the mature oak trees are avoided.
- Although the mitigation measure calls for an 8.2-acre area of oak woodland outside of the proposed clearing limits be preserved through a conservation easement, we commit to preserving at least ten times that acreage.
- Mitigation measures request 0.24 acres of Ceanothus purpureus (CEPU) be transplanted at a 1:1 ratio outside of the clearing limits. We are willing to plant an additional 0.24 acres of CEPU outside of the clearing limits to bring the ratio up to 2:1.
- Although as currently written the EIR does not require any planting of oak trees, we will be voluntarily replanting oaks on our property outside of the clearing limits in the appropriate habitats. We will consult with a qualified biologist to determine placement and species.
As we were all reminded of in 2017, fire is threat to our families, properties, and livelihoods.
My brother-in-law was a volunteer firefighter for 13 years, and I can’t thank him enough. My team worked with the Fire Chief of the Soda Canyon Volunteer Fire Department and we provided much needed upgrades to their fire station, including repairing dry rot, replacing the garage doors, repainting the firehouse, and repaving the driveway. If the Department decides that it would benefit from a well and a water storage tank on site, we will set up a timeline to pay for these improvements. We commit to maintaining the building as needed, it is the least that we can do in return for their service.
From the beginning of this application process we have engaged our neighbors, listened to their concerns, and incorporated these into the design of our project wherever possible. We will continue to do so from this day forward and look forward to contributing to the Soda Canyon neighborhood.
Respectfully,
Dave S. Phinney
More on science and vineyards on: Conservation Regulations
George Caloyannidis - Jan 25,19 expand... Share
Stuart Smith's letter (“Accusations without evidence,” Jan. 18) is a perfect example on how "science" is tossed around to make points that have nothing to do with science.
Mr. Smith disputes Mr. Smithers' assertions (“Climate and environmental downside of vineyards,” Jan. 10) that assigned blame to the proliferation of hillside vineyards for the degradation of our environment.
Mr. Smith cites the improved water quality in the Napa River as scientific proof that the concurrent proliferation of hillside vineyards is the cause of this improvement. Quite a leap in scientific reasoning, let alone proof.
Second, while Mr. Smith's advantageous comparison of vineyards to Napa Valley forests in terms of propensity to fire is correct, it is unfair because it is one to ill managed - not well managed - forests as Napa's are. Given all the other scientifically proven environmental advantages forests have over hillside vineyards (superior erosion control and carbon sequestration, slower runoff and water table replenishment), the logical course of action is not to replace them with vineyards but rather manage them properly.
In comparison, forest fires in Western Europe, where forests are properly managed are extremely rare.
Third, properly designed firebreaks do not even remotely resemble a patch work of vineyards as Mr. Smith suggests. Their standards include firefighting equipment access roads at prescribed intervals along with accesses to them. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Practice Code 394 and the Fuel Break Guidelines of the Tasmania Fire Service Bushfire Policy are good information starting points. And let's not ignore the visual blight of such deforested patchwork.
The scientific community established that 84 percent of all wildfires are caused by human activity. Vineyards and wineries with their tasting rooms and events in the hillsides invite such activity. The cigarette butts along Soda Canyon Road are enough to convince any doubter how inappropriately dangerous such development is. Mr. Smith failed to include this parameter in his science.
Fourth, Mr. Smith argues that the absence of pesticides in the Napa River (if true) is scientific proof that pesticide use at hillside vineyards is harmless. Yet, scientific inquiry would ask the question that if they are being used, how do they simply disappear? The truth is that they end up in the water table, and from there, in all of us.
Mr. Smithers is being castigated by Mr. Smith as irresponsible -- even demanding that he issue an apology to the wine industry -- for suggesting that the use of pesticides such as Roundup (containing Glyphosate) is responsible for Napa Valley's highest cancer incidents for children and second in adults in California.
I hope Mr. Smith did not hold Bayer AG (Monsanto's parent company) stock. Its price plummeted more that 10 percent in August 2018 following the California Superior Court in San Francisco County $289 million award to a former school groundskeeper for developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma due to his exposure to Roundup.
If Mr. Smith is waiting for chemical cause and effect proof to the link of Glyphosates to cancer, he ought to consider that such chemical link of the use of tobacco to cancer has yet to be established. The link is a statistical one, enough for an eventual call to action -- but only after millions died.
Sadly, proving a chemical link between the use of Roundup and cancer enough to satisfy Mr. Smith will be just as imAccusations without evidencepossible. While we are waiting for the eventual statistical evidence, hundreds of Napa Valley children - millions around the globe - will have their lives shortened. This is what is irresponsible.
But the noose is closing ever tighter around Bayer AG's neck since 2005. The European Union has rescinded its usual 15-year extension to the use of Glyphosates and limited it to three. France has pledged its outright ban in three years, Germany and Italy are considering similar action.
But the Napa Valley remains hostage to the wine industry in spite of all the evidence. Shockingly, Napa is one of the few counties in the state that has no mandated pesticide-free zones around our schools. Shame on it.
Stuart Smith LTE 2/12/19: Please partner with us, instead of attacking us
Richard Cannon LTE 2/2/19: Objective truth or blind spot?
George Caloyannidis LTE 1/25/19: More on science and vineyards
Stuart Smith LTE 1/19/19 : Accusations without evidence
Smithers LTE 1/10/19: Climate and environmental downside of vineyards
Garrett Buckland LTE 12/12/18: Facts about the Environmental Benefits of Ag Land
Mr. Smith disputes Mr. Smithers' assertions (“Climate and environmental downside of vineyards,” Jan. 10) that assigned blame to the proliferation of hillside vineyards for the degradation of our environment.
Mr. Smith cites the improved water quality in the Napa River as scientific proof that the concurrent proliferation of hillside vineyards is the cause of this improvement. Quite a leap in scientific reasoning, let alone proof.
Second, while Mr. Smith's advantageous comparison of vineyards to Napa Valley forests in terms of propensity to fire is correct, it is unfair because it is one to ill managed - not well managed - forests as Napa's are. Given all the other scientifically proven environmental advantages forests have over hillside vineyards (superior erosion control and carbon sequestration, slower runoff and water table replenishment), the logical course of action is not to replace them with vineyards but rather manage them properly.
In comparison, forest fires in Western Europe, where forests are properly managed are extremely rare.
Third, properly designed firebreaks do not even remotely resemble a patch work of vineyards as Mr. Smith suggests. Their standards include firefighting equipment access roads at prescribed intervals along with accesses to them. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Practice Code 394 and the Fuel Break Guidelines of the Tasmania Fire Service Bushfire Policy are good information starting points. And let's not ignore the visual blight of such deforested patchwork.
The scientific community established that 84 percent of all wildfires are caused by human activity. Vineyards and wineries with their tasting rooms and events in the hillsides invite such activity. The cigarette butts along Soda Canyon Road are enough to convince any doubter how inappropriately dangerous such development is. Mr. Smith failed to include this parameter in his science.
Fourth, Mr. Smith argues that the absence of pesticides in the Napa River (if true) is scientific proof that pesticide use at hillside vineyards is harmless. Yet, scientific inquiry would ask the question that if they are being used, how do they simply disappear? The truth is that they end up in the water table, and from there, in all of us.
Mr. Smithers is being castigated by Mr. Smith as irresponsible -- even demanding that he issue an apology to the wine industry -- for suggesting that the use of pesticides such as Roundup (containing Glyphosate) is responsible for Napa Valley's highest cancer incidents for children and second in adults in California.
I hope Mr. Smith did not hold Bayer AG (Monsanto's parent company) stock. Its price plummeted more that 10 percent in August 2018 following the California Superior Court in San Francisco County $289 million award to a former school groundskeeper for developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma due to his exposure to Roundup.
If Mr. Smith is waiting for chemical cause and effect proof to the link of Glyphosates to cancer, he ought to consider that such chemical link of the use of tobacco to cancer has yet to be established. The link is a statistical one, enough for an eventual call to action -- but only after millions died.
Sadly, proving a chemical link between the use of Roundup and cancer enough to satisfy Mr. Smith will be just as imAccusations without evidencepossible. While we are waiting for the eventual statistical evidence, hundreds of Napa Valley children - millions around the globe - will have their lives shortened. This is what is irresponsible.
But the noose is closing ever tighter around Bayer AG's neck since 2005. The European Union has rescinded its usual 15-year extension to the use of Glyphosates and limited it to three. France has pledged its outright ban in three years, Germany and Italy are considering similar action.
But the Napa Valley remains hostage to the wine industry in spite of all the evidence. Shockingly, Napa is one of the few counties in the state that has no mandated pesticide-free zones around our schools. Shame on it.
Stuart Smith LTE 2/12/19: Please partner with us, instead of attacking us
Richard Cannon LTE 2/2/19: Objective truth or blind spot?
George Caloyannidis LTE 1/25/19: More on science and vineyards
Stuart Smith LTE 1/19/19 : Accusations without evidence
Smithers LTE 1/10/19: Climate and environmental downside of vineyards
Garrett Buckland LTE 12/12/18: Facts about the Environmental Benefits of Ag Land
Jobs versus housing on: Napa Strategic Plan
Bill Hocker - Jan 24,19 expand... Share
Although she didn't propose what the County should do to address the imbalance, and her purpose might be just to show that the imbalance is a problem everywhere (or that Napa's problem is comparatively small in absolute numbers), I had the uneasy feeling that she might be making the case that housing needs to be ramped up to meet the demand. One of the main takeaways from the Strategic Plan questionnaire and from the comments of other Supervisors is the need to increase housing construction ("remove barriers to maximize housing opportunities." in the words of Strategic Plan action item 10.), a concept anathema to the original ag preserve zoning, and that both the wine industry and the Supervisors have heretofore seen as the greatest danger to an agricultural economy.
As was discussed elsewhere on this site, some might have the opposite response to this imbalance: reduce the jobs numbers, or at least put a moratorium on job creation until the housing units already in the pipeline (some 4000 of them) begin to make a dent on the imbalance. With the number of jobs increasing at the current rate, no amount of home building will catch up and the entire county will eventually become a bedroom community trying to accommodate the demand, just as the rest of the Bay Area has.
Sup. Dillon recognizes that it's the municipalities that are creating the bulk of the new jobs in the county and it's up to the County to work with them and encourage them to deal with the problem. But the county has a unilateral responsibility as well. The Mountain Peak Winery project next to me will add 19 new (mostly hospitality) employees for a vanity project in the remote hillsides. Building the project will bring an additional few dozen workers for a couple of years to the county. (Construction, as befits the change from a rural to urban county, is Napa's fastest-growing job creator with hospitality next). Each of the projects being approved every month at the planning commission is adding ever more employees to the top of the white bar in the graph. The number of homes being built will be pitifully small by comparison, and the imbalance and commuter traffic will only increase. The County has the discretion to stop building ever more projects that bring ever more employees needing housing and related development that will only create more pressure to turn its agricultural lands to more profitable use. They should exercise it.
Strategic Plan White Papers on: Napa Strategic Plan
Bill Hocker - Dec 21,18 expand... Share
The one aspect of the Strategic Plan that is bothersome is its focus on the next 3 years. The significant outreach to solicit and document input from such wide variety of county "stakeholders" is an effort worthy of loftier goals than just prioritizing the County's short term agenda. The problems of traffic and affordable housing, and the infrastructure and social strains of an expanding population, when looked at in a 3-year time frame, become merely exercises in trying to mitigate the existing impacts of the previous 20 years of urban growth. The 3 year strategic plan lets stakeholders vent about existing problems and lets government commit to do something about them (whether it can or not). The Strategic Plan doesn't, unfortunately, embody proposals that might challenge the trajectory of growth that has created our current problems and will continue to compound them into the future.
The comments of some of the participants do reflect an interest in the bigger picture of land use policy - how does the vision at the heart of the Strategic Plan, the same vision at the heart of the Ag Preserve 50 years ago to retain a small-town, rural place in the midst of an urbanizing world, remain relevant for another 50 years. When looked at in the longer term bolder solutions need to be looked at. And some of the Participants in the Strategic Plan have done that.
So far there are three proposals that have been submitted outlining long term land use strategies:
Coalition Napa Valley white paper
Napa Vision 2050 Strategic Plan outline
Growers/Vintners for Responsible Agriculture outline
NVR 2/24/19: Need a scorecard of key players in Napa's land use battles? Here it is
The comments of some of the participants do reflect an interest in the bigger picture of land use policy - how does the vision at the heart of the Strategic Plan, the same vision at the heart of the Ag Preserve 50 years ago to retain a small-town, rural place in the midst of an urbanizing world, remain relevant for another 50 years. When looked at in the longer term bolder solutions need to be looked at. And some of the Participants in the Strategic Plan have done that.
So far there are three proposals that have been submitted outlining long term land use strategies:
Coalition Napa Valley white paper
Napa Vision 2050 Strategic Plan outline
Growers/Vintners for Responsible Agriculture outline
NVR 2/24/19: Need a scorecard of key players in Napa's land use battles? Here it is
The Compliance Ladder of Travesty on: Compliance Issues
George Caloyannidis - Dec 4,18 expand... Share
Soda Canyon before and after on: After The Fire
Anthony Arger - Dec 3,18 expand... Share
Looking north
Looking east
Looking south
Rector plateau
Watson Ranch Referendum on: Watson Ranch
Bill Hocker - Nov 30,18 expand... Share
Residents and labor union members are backing a referendum to put the approval of Watson Ranch on the ballot. While Mayor García tries to portray supporters of the referendum as labor unions angling for a bigger piece of the project and as outside Green party radicals opposed to development, it doesn't take much to realize that there isn't anything in this project for the residents of American Canyon except more traffic, pollution, school crowding, job competition and increasing infrastructure and service taxes.
As noted in the EIR: "significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to: air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation and traffic." This project doesn't need outside agitators to oppose it. It just needs informed residents. Hopefully the referendum will do that.
Unfortunately the referendum will not be countywide. The traffic increase in American Canyon will impact everyone traveling to and from the Napa Valley, and some of the infrastructure needs of the expanding American Canyon population will, no doubt, be borne by the rest of the county as well.
Lewis and Grapes LTE 11/30/18: Sign the petition = A better American Canyon – not another Vallejo
Leon García LTE 11/20/18: Do not sign the Watson Ranch petition
NVR 11/20/18: Unions launch referendum campaign to stop Watson Ranch in American Canyon
As noted in the EIR: "significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to: air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation and traffic." This project doesn't need outside agitators to oppose it. It just needs informed residents. Hopefully the referendum will do that.
Unfortunately the referendum will not be countywide. The traffic increase in American Canyon will impact everyone traveling to and from the Napa Valley, and some of the infrastructure needs of the expanding American Canyon population will, no doubt, be borne by the rest of the county as well.
Lewis and Grapes LTE 11/30/18: Sign the petition = A better American Canyon – not another Vallejo
Leon García LTE 11/20/18: Do not sign the Watson Ranch petition
NVR 11/20/18: Unions launch referendum campaign to stop Watson Ranch in American Canyon
County Supervisors, Khashoggi and the Angwin cookie jar on: Compliance Issues
George Caloyannidis - Nov 29,18 expand... Share
Editor:
On December 4, the Supervisors are scheduled to adopt the so called Winery Compliance Resolution. If this sounds reassuring, think again.
The way the County defines winery compliance is far from what the common man understands under this label. When wineries exceed wine production, visitations and numbers of events above their use permit levels, this is when they are out of compliance. One would expect that when the County proposes to bringing them into compliance, it would compel them to operate under their use permits for at least some substantial period of time. That would not only be respect for the law, restore unfair competition towards law abiding wineries and rectify their escape from environmental review thus adding to our traffic without mitigations.
Regretfully, the way the County proposes to treat "compliance" is to legalize violations with revised use permits, in essence adjusting the law to fit the crime; even better, it brings the County rather the wineries into compliance.
"Words matter" as president to be Barak Obama once said in 2007. Words can inspire and can fool the public.
And since I am quoting presidents, most peoples' moral sense was offended when President Trump decided against placing sanctions on Saudi Arabia for the horrific dismembering of Jamal Khashoggi by risking a $100 barrel of oil. "This is not who we are" reverberated throughout the country. But here we are in Napa County.
Without claiming a moral equivalency to a horrific crime or national interests, if there is any doubt how corrosive this loose play with our collective moral values is even beginning at the local level, one can look back to the Summer of 2015 when I unsuccessfully appealed the County's decision to forgive numerous egregious violations at the Reverie winery with a new use permit by bringing it into "compliance" (it sold a few weeks later with several millions of ill gotten gains added to its value). At the time we asked Mr. Rothman, teacher at Angwin Elementary School to pose the following question to his 7th and 8th graders: "If I passed around a cookie jar and asked each of you to take no more than three cookies but some of you took six, should they be allowed to keep them?". We can still celebrate; not one single child said they should.
At least in 2015 these children understood morality, but if we continue down this path from a small county to the entire nation where money trumps it, we will end up in the kind of society which we will have deserved.
On December 4, the small children at Angwin Elementary will be looking down at the Supervisors' desk.
George Caloyannidis
Calistoga
On December 4, the Supervisors are scheduled to adopt the so called Winery Compliance Resolution. If this sounds reassuring, think again.
The way the County defines winery compliance is far from what the common man understands under this label. When wineries exceed wine production, visitations and numbers of events above their use permit levels, this is when they are out of compliance. One would expect that when the County proposes to bringing them into compliance, it would compel them to operate under their use permits for at least some substantial period of time. That would not only be respect for the law, restore unfair competition towards law abiding wineries and rectify their escape from environmental review thus adding to our traffic without mitigations.
Regretfully, the way the County proposes to treat "compliance" is to legalize violations with revised use permits, in essence adjusting the law to fit the crime; even better, it brings the County rather the wineries into compliance.
"Words matter" as president to be Barak Obama once said in 2007. Words can inspire and can fool the public.
And since I am quoting presidents, most peoples' moral sense was offended when President Trump decided against placing sanctions on Saudi Arabia for the horrific dismembering of Jamal Khashoggi by risking a $100 barrel of oil. "This is not who we are" reverberated throughout the country. But here we are in Napa County.
Without claiming a moral equivalency to a horrific crime or national interests, if there is any doubt how corrosive this loose play with our collective moral values is even beginning at the local level, one can look back to the Summer of 2015 when I unsuccessfully appealed the County's decision to forgive numerous egregious violations at the Reverie winery with a new use permit by bringing it into "compliance" (it sold a few weeks later with several millions of ill gotten gains added to its value). At the time we asked Mr. Rothman, teacher at Angwin Elementary School to pose the following question to his 7th and 8th graders: "If I passed around a cookie jar and asked each of you to take no more than three cookies but some of you took six, should they be allowed to keep them?". We can still celebrate; not one single child said they should.
At least in 2015 these children understood morality, but if we continue down this path from a small county to the entire nation where money trumps it, we will end up in the kind of society which we will have deserved.
On December 4, the small children at Angwin Elementary will be looking down at the Supervisors' desk.
George Caloyannidis
Calistoga
Comments
Bill Hocker - Nov 29, 2018 11:25AM
Mr. Caloyannidis has sent along these more specific comments:
Below I distill the main issues with the proposed Winery Compliance Resolution.
1) It increases the discretionary power of the PBES Director (Morrison) to determine which of the violating wineries' applications require a public hearing and which do not. If he decides they do not, he grants new use permits. This limits public comment at the Planning Commission level.
2) It gives a penalty pass towards new winery use permits which recognize their violations if they submit a "substantially conforming" application by March 29, 2019. But the deadline can be extended for "extenuating circumstances" for up to 120 days but that can again be extended for extenuating circumstances, both at the "Director's sole discretion".
3) It also grants these violators the right to apply for additional increases in use permits over and above the violation ones.
4) Such ministerial approvals will be almost impossible to appeal to the BoS because the public will have to rely on the County website postings in order to submit a comment in order to acquire legal standing for an appeal.
5) The only penalty wineries which miss that (flexible) deadline will be to undergo CEQA under the original use permit baseline (which they need to consent to) and be required to operate for one year under their original use permit.
6) There are no provisions of how repeat offenders will be handled.
7) No provisions on how wineries who do not apply at all will be handled.
8) No provisions for a County auditing program so as to prevent violators in the future.
9) While these wineries will be required to submit annual reports on production, they are not required to do so for their marketing activities.
The more general concerns at issue here are:
1) According to the last winery audit in 2013, 40% of all audited wineries were out of compliance. We have about 500 wineries now.
2) The proliferation of use permit violators on traffic, visitations, events, production has had profound impacts throughout the valley in terms of advancing these increases without mitigations by escaping CEQA review. As per recent court rulings, the CEQA baseline on applications must recognize existing conditions even if they have been caused by unpermitted operations.
3) These illegal increases in winery marketing and production have had deleterious effects on the commercial activities in the cities. The unmitigated increases on traffic have also had an equally negative effect on accessibility and the commercial activities in the cities from American Canyon to Calistoga resulting in store and restaurants closures as they complete in a short labor market and food service.
1) It increases the discretionary power of the PBES Director (Morrison) to determine which of the violating wineries' applications require a public hearing and which do not. If he decides they do not, he grants new use permits. This limits public comment at the Planning Commission level.
2) It gives a penalty pass towards new winery use permits which recognize their violations if they submit a "substantially conforming" application by March 29, 2019. But the deadline can be extended for "extenuating circumstances" for up to 120 days but that can again be extended for extenuating circumstances, both at the "Director's sole discretion".
3) It also grants these violators the right to apply for additional increases in use permits over and above the violation ones.
4) Such ministerial approvals will be almost impossible to appeal to the BoS because the public will have to rely on the County website postings in order to submit a comment in order to acquire legal standing for an appeal.
5) The only penalty wineries which miss that (flexible) deadline will be to undergo CEQA under the original use permit baseline (which they need to consent to) and be required to operate for one year under their original use permit.
6) There are no provisions of how repeat offenders will be handled.
7) No provisions on how wineries who do not apply at all will be handled.
8) No provisions for a County auditing program so as to prevent violators in the future.
9) While these wineries will be required to submit annual reports on production, they are not required to do so for their marketing activities.
The more general concerns at issue here are:
1) According to the last winery audit in 2013, 40% of all audited wineries were out of compliance. We have about 500 wineries now.
2) The proliferation of use permit violators on traffic, visitations, events, production has had profound impacts throughout the valley in terms of advancing these increases without mitigations by escaping CEQA review. As per recent court rulings, the CEQA baseline on applications must recognize existing conditions even if they have been caused by unpermitted operations.
3) These illegal increases in winery marketing and production have had deleterious effects on the commercial activities in the cities. The unmitigated increases on traffic have also had an equally negative effect on accessibility and the commercial activities in the cities from American Canyon to Calistoga resulting in store and restaurants closures as they complete in a short labor market and food service.
No on Palm Drive solar on: Solar Farming
Bill Hocker - Nov 28,18 expand... Share
At the 11/28/18 hearing on the American Canyon Solar Project, the developer indicated that they have withdrawn their application for the Palm Drive Solar Project. Temporary or permanent?
Update 9/30/18
Laura TInthoff LTE 9/30/18: Keep our valley bucolic: No on Palm Drive solar
9/20/18
Another community group has formed to oppose the urbanization of the "agricultural lands and rural character that we treasure", this time to prevent a wooded hillside in Coombsville from becoming a power plant.
It is Napa Residents for Smart Planning…No on Palm Drive Solar.
Their very well done website does a good job of showing how inappropriate such an industrial project can be to a rural landscape.
The red splotches are stands of oak woodlands to be removed. Given the concerns raised by the Measure C campaign over the last year it is a bit shocking that a company would have the hubris to push forward such an industrial use of Napa's oak woodlands. The plan is one of the documents on the County's Palm Drive Solar page.
Sonoma County Ag+Open Space on: Sonoma County
Bill Hocker - Nov 21,18 expand... Share
Napa Vision 2050 has just sent out an email which among other concerns cites this article from the Sonoma Press Democrat: Report: Sonoma County’s natural resources worth billions
The report was a product of the Sonoma County Agricultural Preserve + Open Space District.The Ag+Open Space District webpage devoted to the report is here
The report itself is here
As usual, I was quite unaware of the situation in the county next door. It was a revelation that Sonoma's Ag+Open Space District, created by voters in 1990, seems to represent a wholistic approach to natural resource value and protection that has eluded Napa with its company-town mentality toward the wine industry. By comparison to the lofty and often ignored visions of the Napa County General Plan, and the feeble efforts of the County to mitigate but not challenge the development goals of the wine/tourism industries in the face of public resistance and potential resource depletion, Sonoma's Ag+Open Space District seems to place a "highest and best" value on Sonoma's "natural capital" beyond just its use as cropland or a scenic stage set for tourism.
While the District seems to embody the characteristics and purposes of Napa's Land Trust in its effort to preserve the natural character of the county through acquisition and conservation easements, the Ag+Open Space District is, in fact, an agency of the Sonoma County Government, with a substantial staff, overseen by the Board of Supervisors, giving the County a broader view when advancing the regulation of agricultural and tourism development. Unlike the Napa Land Trust, which pointedly refrains from any political controversy over land use (particularly over Measure C), the Ag+Open Space District is an adjunct to that political process and its concern in maintaining the natural character of the county should act as a counterweight to the desire for unregulated agricultural and tourism development.
As other posts on the SCR Sonoma County page attest, Sonoma also has its share of community resistance to the aggressive expansion of the wine/tourism industries parallel to that happening in Napa. The Ag+Open Space District isn't a panacea. But as this report shows, the county has the means through the District to concern itself with bigger issues than just the success of one industry - unlike the focused concern on the health of the wine industry which so occupies the Napa County government.
The report itself, which places a monetary value on things intrinsically hard to value, natural beauty, carbon sequestration, water quality, pollination (a lot!) and of course recreation and tourism, seems like it would be open to claims of biased discretion in making an economic case for natural land protection. There are case studies tied to the report with the numerical analyses used to produce expert opinions as to the valuations. As I have ranted about elsewhere, reality and expert opinion are not the same thing. But, hopefully, the valuations that this report has produced will stand the test of competition from experts with even more money to tout the economic benefits of urbanization. It is a shame that no government body and its citizenry, in this capitalist nation, is simply willing to decide that protecting the natural environment of a place is simply a moral imperative, a blessing to the human soul, regardless of the economic loss or benefit. A report with a dollar value is necessary.
What was illuminating to me about the report is that Sonoma County has a governmental body that looks at land use beyond just the economic interest of particular industries, and that agriculture is not defined as the highest and best use of the land, but that instead the natural capital of the county, God’s own creation unspoiled by human exploitation, may have a higher value. The report is a collaboration with two other Bay Area Counties, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz. Napa County should endeavor to be a partner in the next update.
The report was a product of the Sonoma County Agricultural Preserve + Open Space District.The Ag+Open Space District webpage devoted to the report is here
The report itself is here
As usual, I was quite unaware of the situation in the county next door. It was a revelation that Sonoma's Ag+Open Space District, created by voters in 1990, seems to represent a wholistic approach to natural resource value and protection that has eluded Napa with its company-town mentality toward the wine industry. By comparison to the lofty and often ignored visions of the Napa County General Plan, and the feeble efforts of the County to mitigate but not challenge the development goals of the wine/tourism industries in the face of public resistance and potential resource depletion, Sonoma's Ag+Open Space District seems to place a "highest and best" value on Sonoma's "natural capital" beyond just its use as cropland or a scenic stage set for tourism.
While the District seems to embody the characteristics and purposes of Napa's Land Trust in its effort to preserve the natural character of the county through acquisition and conservation easements, the Ag+Open Space District is, in fact, an agency of the Sonoma County Government, with a substantial staff, overseen by the Board of Supervisors, giving the County a broader view when advancing the regulation of agricultural and tourism development. Unlike the Napa Land Trust, which pointedly refrains from any political controversy over land use (particularly over Measure C), the Ag+Open Space District is an adjunct to that political process and its concern in maintaining the natural character of the county should act as a counterweight to the desire for unregulated agricultural and tourism development.
As other posts on the SCR Sonoma County page attest, Sonoma also has its share of community resistance to the aggressive expansion of the wine/tourism industries parallel to that happening in Napa. The Ag+Open Space District isn't a panacea. But as this report shows, the county has the means through the District to concern itself with bigger issues than just the success of one industry - unlike the focused concern on the health of the wine industry which so occupies the Napa County government.
The report itself, which places a monetary value on things intrinsically hard to value, natural beauty, carbon sequestration, water quality, pollination (a lot!) and of course recreation and tourism, seems like it would be open to claims of biased discretion in making an economic case for natural land protection. There are case studies tied to the report with the numerical analyses used to produce expert opinions as to the valuations. As I have ranted about elsewhere, reality and expert opinion are not the same thing. But, hopefully, the valuations that this report has produced will stand the test of competition from experts with even more money to tout the economic benefits of urbanization. It is a shame that no government body and its citizenry, in this capitalist nation, is simply willing to decide that protecting the natural environment of a place is simply a moral imperative, a blessing to the human soul, regardless of the economic loss or benefit. A report with a dollar value is necessary.
What was illuminating to me about the report is that Sonoma County has a governmental body that looks at land use beyond just the economic interest of particular industries, and that agriculture is not defined as the highest and best use of the land, but that instead the natural capital of the county, God’s own creation unspoiled by human exploitation, may have a higher value. The report is a collaboration with two other Bay Area Counties, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz. Napa County should endeavor to be a partner in the next update.
"Compatible winery" Session 2 recap on: Remote Winery Ordinance
Bill Hocker - Oct 21,18 expand... Share
NVR 10/21/18: Napa County continues remote winery discussion
Video of 9/18/18 BOS meeting
Video of 10/16/18 BOS meeting
Transcript of 9/18/18 BOS discussion on remote wineries
Transcript of 10/16/18 BOS discussion on compatible wineries
At the Oct 16, 2018 BOS meeting, Dir. Morrison produced an agenda letter that identified 7 constraint criteria around which the compatibility of a winery with its site might be evaluated: traffic, custom crush, hold and haul, topography, fire safety, visitation, variances and exception. It was a first stab at itemizing the issues which an ordinance might concern itself.
After public comments (including Eve Kahn's comments on food, and threats from the wine industry lobbyists about the can of worms this discussion was opening), it didn't seem like any of the Supervisors were completely happy with the approach. Sup Dillon led off with the initial salvo, and since it highlighted an 'incompatible' winery on Soda Canyon Road (and my potential next door neighbor), it is worth quoting in its entirety:
Sup. Wagenknecht also had some interesting comments perhaps also worth quoting to know where one supervisor stands on remote wineries:
(Sup. Luce expressed similar concerns at the Mar 10, 2015 joint BOS/PC meeting and it probably cost him his re-election. Let's hope that three more years of winery and visitation slot approvals and community pushback, and knowledge of the real dangers of tourism development in fire-prone hills, have altered some perceptions.)
Each of the other Supes had their own preferences or disinterests about the 7 point list. Sups. Pedroza and Gregory were all about prohibiting custom crush in remote areas; too bad they did nothing to stop the expansion of The Caves. And I really appreciate Sups. Dillon and Wagenknecht championing this issue; I wish that their concerns had been as clear during the Mountain Peak appeal.
I couldn't help but feel some sympathy for Dir. Morrison as the discussion careened from one issue to another, especially after he had made a concerted proposal to get at winery proliferation issues 3 years before with little success. It had been a long day and he finally held up a white flag and claimed to have been given enough direction. It will be interesting to see his responses to the Supervisors own internal divisions and lack clarity in their demands, and how the process, which may require modifications to the WDO, unfolds over the months that it will take to play out.
As happened 3 years ago with APAC going on, this scrutiny of winery issues is happening in tandem with another significant public planning process, this time the Napa Strategic Plan which will also be covering some the same community concerns, At the end of the meeting there was some consensus around melding the winery growth concerns raised in the Strategic Plan with these proposals on compatible wineries as part of the joint meeting with the Planning Commission.
Video of 9/18/18 BOS meeting
Video of 10/16/18 BOS meeting
Transcript of 9/18/18 BOS discussion on remote wineries
Transcript of 10/16/18 BOS discussion on compatible wineries
At the Oct 16, 2018 BOS meeting, Dir. Morrison produced an agenda letter that identified 7 constraint criteria around which the compatibility of a winery with its site might be evaluated: traffic, custom crush, hold and haul, topography, fire safety, visitation, variances and exception. It was a first stab at itemizing the issues which an ordinance might concern itself.
After public comments (including Eve Kahn's comments on food, and threats from the wine industry lobbyists about the can of worms this discussion was opening), it didn't seem like any of the Supervisors were completely happy with the approach. Sup Dillon led off with the initial salvo, and since it highlighted an 'incompatible' winery on Soda Canyon Road (and my potential next door neighbor), it is worth quoting in its entirety:
"First of all, I don't think this [Dir. Morrisons compatibility issue list] is ready to be put into an ordinance or any other document. I really think in general that we're focused on these details when what should happen is a common sense application of "does this proposal fit into this place?"
I can remember a year and half ago when I thought, "oh-oh, I think we're in a little bit of trouble" because I looked at the Mountain Peak winery comparison chart - this is compatibility but compatibility is a comparison - that had been prepared by the planning staff and it was for Mountain Peak at the top of the canyon [Soda Canyon]. And it was compared to Ashes and Diamonds, Round Pond, Black Stallion, Tinter, Alpha Omega. Why on earth was it compared to those things?
I remember thinking this is not a good thing because we're not comparing apples to apples. And the essence of what we're talking about today, the reason this started with "remote" is we're supposed to be talking - not comparing a winery at the top of Soda Canyon to a winery on the Silverado Trail. You just can't make that comparison. And yet that's where we are right here and we're talking about these details, and what I'm really concerned about is going through each of these things - one, two, three, four, five, six, seven - and deciding on each of these factors and then you are going to have some proposal come before the planning commission that might technically fit into each of these, but it's not a good fit at this location where it is.
And I realize that this is land use planning and so it's a little difficult to use - I don't know if it was a metaphor - in the discussion of pornography there was a judge who said at one point "I'll know it when I see it"? Well the flip of that is "I'll know when this is not a good fit" at this location based on what neighbors say, based on many factors.
And that was the way the winery definition ordinance was designed. It didn't have all these details in it. If you look at the legislative history, which I wish staff would bring to us, it said we're going to look at these on a case by case basis. So I don't think this is the way for us to solve the problem which we have, which is we have had a planning commission that has approved wineries that are not compatible with the neighborhood or the physical situation where they're located. Then we have a lot of community consternation and/or we have an appeal to here.
One of the things that is missing from this process is a meeting between the planning commission and this board - it's been at least a couple of years - and we used to have that regularly and we would have some interaction and they'd get informal direction, and that informal direction solidified that decision making that was based on a common sense approach of what was the appropriate thing to do.
Going through each of these [7 points] and having these as decision points - to me its not the answer to the challenge that we do have before us. I question, for instance, on number seven, variances and exceptions: " strictly construe the regulations to protect health and safety". Does that mean that there's another case where we're going to loosely construe? I just don't think this is ready for prime time.
I think we should be looking at other things.I think we should be looking at the bigger picture. We just had out Strategic plan folks say - what was the number one thing people appreciated about Napa valley in the slide show that had no building in it [holds up photos in report] by the way. I think it's very interesting that we always show vineyards without wineries in them and I think we should show wineries in them because they are part of the landscape and part of the context. But what we cherish is natural beauty and environment.
I think we should go look as some other solutions that were previously proposed. For instance, instead of thinking about the minimum parcel size of a winery - I not saying we should reduce the 10 acres - think about how close they should be in appearance. If you have a place where you have a whole bunch of 10 acre parcels you're going to have whole bunch of wineries and I think it creates something that is adverse to what we cherish about this place. So either increasing the minimum parcel size in certain areas, talking about the developable area including of the residence. One of the things that was left over at APAC was the residential coverage. We have got to get to that because all those things we are saying about wineries? - residents could do far more - a mini-mansion of mega-mansion. Talking about the distance between wineries. And talking about the safety issues. Those are the things I think we should focus on."
I can remember a year and half ago when I thought, "oh-oh, I think we're in a little bit of trouble" because I looked at the Mountain Peak winery comparison chart - this is compatibility but compatibility is a comparison - that had been prepared by the planning staff and it was for Mountain Peak at the top of the canyon [Soda Canyon]. And it was compared to Ashes and Diamonds, Round Pond, Black Stallion, Tinter, Alpha Omega. Why on earth was it compared to those things?
I remember thinking this is not a good thing because we're not comparing apples to apples. And the essence of what we're talking about today, the reason this started with "remote" is we're supposed to be talking - not comparing a winery at the top of Soda Canyon to a winery on the Silverado Trail. You just can't make that comparison. And yet that's where we are right here and we're talking about these details, and what I'm really concerned about is going through each of these things - one, two, three, four, five, six, seven - and deciding on each of these factors and then you are going to have some proposal come before the planning commission that might technically fit into each of these, but it's not a good fit at this location where it is.
And I realize that this is land use planning and so it's a little difficult to use - I don't know if it was a metaphor - in the discussion of pornography there was a judge who said at one point "I'll know it when I see it"? Well the flip of that is "I'll know when this is not a good fit" at this location based on what neighbors say, based on many factors.
And that was the way the winery definition ordinance was designed. It didn't have all these details in it. If you look at the legislative history, which I wish staff would bring to us, it said we're going to look at these on a case by case basis. So I don't think this is the way for us to solve the problem which we have, which is we have had a planning commission that has approved wineries that are not compatible with the neighborhood or the physical situation where they're located. Then we have a lot of community consternation and/or we have an appeal to here.
One of the things that is missing from this process is a meeting between the planning commission and this board - it's been at least a couple of years - and we used to have that regularly and we would have some interaction and they'd get informal direction, and that informal direction solidified that decision making that was based on a common sense approach of what was the appropriate thing to do.
Going through each of these [7 points] and having these as decision points - to me its not the answer to the challenge that we do have before us. I question, for instance, on number seven, variances and exceptions: " strictly construe the regulations to protect health and safety". Does that mean that there's another case where we're going to loosely construe? I just don't think this is ready for prime time.
I think we should be looking at other things.I think we should be looking at the bigger picture. We just had out Strategic plan folks say - what was the number one thing people appreciated about Napa valley in the slide show that had no building in it [holds up photos in report] by the way. I think it's very interesting that we always show vineyards without wineries in them and I think we should show wineries in them because they are part of the landscape and part of the context. But what we cherish is natural beauty and environment.
I think we should go look as some other solutions that were previously proposed. For instance, instead of thinking about the minimum parcel size of a winery - I not saying we should reduce the 10 acres - think about how close they should be in appearance. If you have a place where you have a whole bunch of 10 acre parcels you're going to have whole bunch of wineries and I think it creates something that is adverse to what we cherish about this place. So either increasing the minimum parcel size in certain areas, talking about the developable area including of the residence. One of the things that was left over at APAC was the residential coverage. We have got to get to that because all those things we are saying about wineries? - residents could do far more - a mini-mansion of mega-mansion. Talking about the distance between wineries. And talking about the safety issues. Those are the things I think we should focus on."
Sup. Wagenknecht also had some interesting comments perhaps also worth quoting to know where one supervisor stands on remote wineries:
"This discussion was far beyond what I was anticipating. I still ...when we talked about it what we were talking about was a "remote" winery. I was concerned about the remoteness. And in the work product we have today [Dir. Morrisons's 7 points] there is no mention the remoteness of the ... what a remote winery, remote site would be.
I think it could be a lot of things. The remoteness of the road. The narrowness of the road. The accessibility of the parcel. How far the parcel was from arterials. Most of the things that you have in here would help address a remote winery very nicely. I guess I'm kinda in the mindset, in my mind, that I'm not seeing a real need for more wineries in the far hinterlands of Napa County. I'm seeing that we have plenty of them out there. So I liked having these things to look at remote wineries.
To me the remote winery was my access point to this discussion. There would need to be a traffic benefit from the winery coming in, the traffic for the overall neighborhood coming in. There would need to be a fire safety and a safety benefit for that winery coming in. Emergency benefit. The water... we kinda talked about this that the water was... sometimes they're going to get/move[?] the winery, they say that we'll put in the grapes now that we have a winery. The grapes should be the reason that you're having the winery up there not the other way around.
A lot of these questions help me answer the remote winery question. And I've appreciated the discussion we've had more broadly, but I don't want to lose that I'm very concerned with wineries that are going out in the middle of nowhere. And I'm not seeing a huge reason for them. And maybe in the discussion with the Planning Commission I'll see that but I don't see it right at the moment. That was my access point to this discussion."
I think it could be a lot of things. The remoteness of the road. The narrowness of the road. The accessibility of the parcel. How far the parcel was from arterials. Most of the things that you have in here would help address a remote winery very nicely. I guess I'm kinda in the mindset, in my mind, that I'm not seeing a real need for more wineries in the far hinterlands of Napa County. I'm seeing that we have plenty of them out there. So I liked having these things to look at remote wineries.
To me the remote winery was my access point to this discussion. There would need to be a traffic benefit from the winery coming in, the traffic for the overall neighborhood coming in. There would need to be a fire safety and a safety benefit for that winery coming in. Emergency benefit. The water... we kinda talked about this that the water was... sometimes they're going to get/move[?] the winery, they say that we'll put in the grapes now that we have a winery. The grapes should be the reason that you're having the winery up there not the other way around.
A lot of these questions help me answer the remote winery question. And I've appreciated the discussion we've had more broadly, but I don't want to lose that I'm very concerned with wineries that are going out in the middle of nowhere. And I'm not seeing a huge reason for them. And maybe in the discussion with the Planning Commission I'll see that but I don't see it right at the moment. That was my access point to this discussion."
(Sup. Luce expressed similar concerns at the Mar 10, 2015 joint BOS/PC meeting and it probably cost him his re-election. Let's hope that three more years of winery and visitation slot approvals and community pushback, and knowledge of the real dangers of tourism development in fire-prone hills, have altered some perceptions.)
Each of the other Supes had their own preferences or disinterests about the 7 point list. Sups. Pedroza and Gregory were all about prohibiting custom crush in remote areas; too bad they did nothing to stop the expansion of The Caves. And I really appreciate Sups. Dillon and Wagenknecht championing this issue; I wish that their concerns had been as clear during the Mountain Peak appeal.
I couldn't help but feel some sympathy for Dir. Morrison as the discussion careened from one issue to another, especially after he had made a concerted proposal to get at winery proliferation issues 3 years before with little success. It had been a long day and he finally held up a white flag and claimed to have been given enough direction. It will be interesting to see his responses to the Supervisors own internal divisions and lack clarity in their demands, and how the process, which may require modifications to the WDO, unfolds over the months that it will take to play out.
As happened 3 years ago with APAC going on, this scrutiny of winery issues is happening in tandem with another significant public planning process, this time the Napa Strategic Plan which will also be covering some the same community concerns, At the end of the meeting there was some consensus around melding the winery growth concerns raised in the Strategic Plan with these proposals on compatible wineries as part of the joint meeting with the Planning Commission.
share this page