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, Sep 25, 2018 | Board of SupervisorsAgenda and documents 10A Policy amendment regarding Municipal annexation of unincorporated land A reminder that Measure P vote requirements for county land use changes don't apply to municipal annexations of county land. Only a negotiated agreement between the municipality and county are required. 10B Direction to PBES on possible Remote Winery Ordinance Hear! Hear! SCR on the issue |
| Wed, Oct 3, 2018 9:00am | County Planning CommissionAnthem Winery Major Mod 20,000 more gal/yr (50,000 tot), new 10,800sf winery bldg + new 1500sf tasting bldg + new 1700sf admin bldg + new 29,000sf cave + 4000sf exterior event areas (this is called a modification?), road exceptions AND setback variances AND viewshed request (a trifecta of ordinance diddling), 15,532 visitors/yr, events until midnight, 22 new parking spaces, a new bridge, 12 employees, 43 more trips/day, 120 trees removed Neg Dec Notice County Anthem Page 3123 Dry Creek Rd, Napa Davis Estates Winery Major Mod 70,000 more gal/yr, 10,000 more sf of caves, 21,700 more visitors/yr, all visitation with food, 62 more parking spaces, 20 more employees. more sewage another left turn bump on the trail. Neg Dec Notice (project not on County's current projects page - a trend) 4060 Silverado Trail, Calistoga Gardena Winery Major Mod a modest 700 more visitors/yr. County's Gardona Page |
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.
A remote winery ordinance? on: Tourism Issues
Bill Hocker - Sep 20,18 expand... Share
"To insure that the intensity of winery activities is appropriately scaled, the County considers the remoteness of the location and the amount of wine to be produced at a facility when reviewing use permit proposals, and endeavors to ensure a direct relationship between access constraints and on-site marketing and visitation programs"
As an addendum to changes made to the Winery Definition Ordinance in 2010 to allow more winery tourism, the BOS adopted some interpretive guidance, including the paragraph above, acknowledging that remote wineries need additional consideration when it comes to tourism activities.
At the BOS meeting on Tues Sep 25, 2018, PBES is requesting direction on a proposed remote winery ordinance which might give more specificity to the meaning of the remote winery guidance.
The BOS Agenda is here.
The staff letter regarding this issue is here.
The issue of remoteness was central to our argument against the Mountain Peak winery proposed for our neighborhood at the end of Soda Canyon Road. Unfortunately, we failed to convince Planning Commissioners and Supervisors that hosting 14,000 people each year for food and drinks was a bad idea 6 miles up a winding dead end road. But as more and more wineries and winery expansions are proposed or approved in the watersheds, adding tens of thousands of visitors to other remote neighborhoods each year, and with some recent insight about the dangers of wildfires in remote areas, there seems to be a renewed desire to put some teeth into the interpretive guidance. Thank Goodness.
The impacts of real agriculture (the "right-to-farm" issues that property owners in Napa County acknowledge) in remote communities is part of living in rural Napa. The impacts of wine tourism, however, are intrusive and destructive of that rural character, and are at the heart of the resistance of residents to the approval of winery construction and the re-definition of "agriculture" to include tourism.
Removing visitation from winery proposals in remote locations will not only remove the conflict between residents and winemakers, but will help insure that wineries are appropriately sized and being built as needed processing facilities rather than expressions of vanity or a desire to create entertainment venues.
I would encourage the Supervisors to severely limit, or outright ban, visitation in any remote winery ordinance.
Taking aim at another issue involving remote wineries (directly applicable to Soda Canyon Road but probably triggered by the denied Oakville Winery), Supervisor Pedroza sent out this email request for input from community members at the meeting:
"The BOS will be discussing Rural Wineries on Tuesday.
Background: In remote areas like Atlas Peak Rd, Soda Canyon Rd, Mt. Veeder, etc, we've had some winery proposals that are completely custom crush facilities, no vineyards on site.
Problem: Wineries in remote, rural areas, that have no fruit, will need to bring in fruit, meaning more traffic, than a normal winery, on a rural road network.
Discussion: require an estate component on wineries in rural/remote (will need to define rural/remote)? For example, if you're going to do a winery on Soda Canyon Road, a requirement might be that you be at minimum 10% estate (requiring you to have some vineyards).
My take: I think if you're going to have a winery, especially in rural areas, you should have some level of vineyards. Also, with the growth of the Corporate Park and Airport Park, that area seems better suited for custom crush activities. I recognize most wineries, if not all, bring in fruit from different vineyards, areas, so there needs to be some flexibility to bring in fruit, which is why I think the % should be on the lower side for rural wineries."
Background: In remote areas like Atlas Peak Rd, Soda Canyon Rd, Mt. Veeder, etc, we've had some winery proposals that are completely custom crush facilities, no vineyards on site.
Problem: Wineries in remote, rural areas, that have no fruit, will need to bring in fruit, meaning more traffic, than a normal winery, on a rural road network.
Discussion: require an estate component on wineries in rural/remote (will need to define rural/remote)? For example, if you're going to do a winery on Soda Canyon Road, a requirement might be that you be at minimum 10% estate (requiring you to have some vineyards).
My take: I think if you're going to have a winery, especially in rural areas, you should have some level of vineyards. Also, with the growth of the Corporate Park and Airport Park, that area seems better suited for custom crush activities. I recognize most wineries, if not all, bring in fruit from different vineyards, areas, so there needs to be some flexibility to bring in fruit, which is why I think the % should be on the lower side for rural wineries."
Soda Canyon has two wineries, Relic and The Caves at Soda Canyon, up steep winding driveways with no grapes on the properties. Despite residents having raised the issue of being a grape-less custom crush facility during their last Planning Commission hearing, The Caves was nonetheless granted a doubling of their capacity in 2017 (in addition to the exoneration of their illegal construction of a viewing portal through the ridgeline).
Grape sourcing has become a bigger issue at Planning Commission meetings of late. Relic and the Caves represent the great pitfall of granting approvals based on a "contracted" source of grapes. While I don't know for sure, it is likely that that Relic and The Caves relied on some of the Stagecoach grapes from the top of Soda Canyon Road. The sale of Stagecoach to Gallo last year will probably mean the end of many contracts leaving smaller wineries competing for alternative, and perhaps more distant, sources. Contracted grapes should not be used to justify use permit approvals. Use permits run with the land forever; grape contracts can disappear overnight.
The Mountain Peak owner purchased another vineyard property on the Rector plateau to help justify the 100,000 gal/yr production capacity they were proposing. While that is a substantial commitment and helped justify such a large production capacity on a 40 acre site, non-estate sources used to justify permit approvals, even if owned by the applicant, are only modestly more secure than a grape contract. Mountain Peak may sell the property at any time (perhaps to finance the winery construction) to another owner wishing to build their own 100,000 gal winery.
In the remote areas of the county wineries should be allowed to process the grapes on the property for which the use permit is given. But production capacity beyond what the property can supply will always open the potential for a custom crush operation. In future approvals for remote wineries, the production limit should be, perhaps, 125% of the amount that the property's grapes can generate to allow for some remote component. Entrepreneurs with production ambitions beyond that limit should be relegated, at this point in the progression of Napa winery development, to the industrial areas of the county.
Comments
Bill Hocker - Sep 24, 2018 7:57PM
Dan Mufson’s comment to the Supervisors:
Alfredo, I think asking for a winery that has no adjacent vineyard in the AWOS is ridiculous and greedy. Why should we allow forcing an industrial operation into the watershed? Why truck grapes up the hill, why truck glass up the hill, why truck wine bottles down the hill, why transport people up and down the hill? What about the climate impact of all of this energy use?
I must say, that cutting down forests in our watersheds to plant grapes is harmful to the citizens of Napa County. These citizens, and especially those who live in cities, made it clear by their support of Measure C, that they want their watersheds protected.
If you were to visit some of the areas where permits are being asked for you would see that these are not Ag lands. They will require massive energy expenditures to blow up rocks. The Best and Highest use of these lands is for watersheds. The municipal water supplies depend upon pure water coming down the hills to the reservoirs.
Others such as George Caloyannidis, have sent you their thoughts about the safety issues that would result from winery-visitation centers on remote mountain roads. Surely after the Atlas Fire where 6 people died we need to seriously consider how to protect our citizens. With more and more wineries promoting their food [pairing] we are seeing the birth of winery-restaurants. We do not need, nor want, these on remote mountain roads.
As you will see when the results of the Strategic Planning are available that most citizens want you to consider changing the definition of AWOS to Watershed/Open Space/Ag.
Patricia Damery’s comment tot the Supervisors:
Dear Supervisor Dillon,
I write in response to the September 25 hearing on a possible Remote Winery Ordinance. I have been increasingly concerned for our environment and the health and safety of our population as remote areas are deforested for vineyards, wineries, and centers for commercial activities— the monetization of our beautiful, fragile hillsides.
I am not against vineyards and wineries; my husband and I grow grapes and we support small winemakers who know their craft and work to live in balance with our watersheds and so-called wild lands. However, Napa Valley’s successes have brought in outside investors, many corporate, who care more about profit than what their efforts are doing to our mountains, water supply, and the citizen base.
To this end, I celebrate a careful look at the carrying capacity of our “remote” areas, those areas that are served by driveways and rural roads designed and built for residential traffic. I want to address particularly Dry Creek Road, one of the roads Mr. Morrison designates as a “local roadway” providing access to homes and businesses and on which there is a great deal of concern about the permitting of more wineries, particularly larger ones in excess of 20,000 gallons, and with visitation.
Our ranch was bisected by Dry Creek Road when the road bed was changed many years ago. Our well on a triangular piece of land is across the road from the rest of the ranch. Crossing the road on foot is a dangerous proposition. You have to listen for any sound of possible oncoming traffic as cars are on you before you see them. We have had accidents in front of the small house at the road, one tragic accident resulting in the death of a next door neighbor riding her horse. (The sad stimulus for the Herman neurology building at the Queen). Bicyclists and walkers frequent the road. The possibility of more traffic from possible winery projects nearby increases this danger. This is not a road to allow large winery projects with visitation and large events.
We know of at least two applications for large gallonage and visitation asking for increased gallonage, visitation, and large events. An ordinance that considers the facts on the ground of Dry Creek Road is one that would save all of us a great deal of time and money, including the applicants. Mr. Morrison’s addressing the needs of various locations is an important one. When an AW application comes in asking for an increase to 50,000 gallons and 15,000 visitors a year, plus several large events, and the median permitted production in the Ag Watershed is 20,000, and 1,800 visitors a year, a lot of work is settled. We need to consider the needs of the environment and location. Applicants can then make their business plan based on this. Perhaps direct marketing belongs on the internet and in our cities.
We also have downtown business property in Napa. Our restaurant space has been vacant a year now, we are told because of labor shortages and because of the “restaurants” in the remote and ,yes, beautiful vistas of our hillsides and Ag watersheds. An ordinance would protect not only our hillside but also perhaps the businesses of our cities.
Thank you for your attention to this.
Alfredo, I think asking for a winery that has no adjacent vineyard in the AWOS is ridiculous and greedy. Why should we allow forcing an industrial operation into the watershed? Why truck grapes up the hill, why truck glass up the hill, why truck wine bottles down the hill, why transport people up and down the hill? What about the climate impact of all of this energy use?
I must say, that cutting down forests in our watersheds to plant grapes is harmful to the citizens of Napa County. These citizens, and especially those who live in cities, made it clear by their support of Measure C, that they want their watersheds protected.
If you were to visit some of the areas where permits are being asked for you would see that these are not Ag lands. They will require massive energy expenditures to blow up rocks. The Best and Highest use of these lands is for watersheds. The municipal water supplies depend upon pure water coming down the hills to the reservoirs.
Others such as George Caloyannidis, have sent you their thoughts about the safety issues that would result from winery-visitation centers on remote mountain roads. Surely after the Atlas Fire where 6 people died we need to seriously consider how to protect our citizens. With more and more wineries promoting their food [pairing] we are seeing the birth of winery-restaurants. We do not need, nor want, these on remote mountain roads.
As you will see when the results of the Strategic Planning are available that most citizens want you to consider changing the definition of AWOS to Watershed/Open Space/Ag.
Patricia Damery’s comment tot the Supervisors:
Dear Supervisor Dillon,
I write in response to the September 25 hearing on a possible Remote Winery Ordinance. I have been increasingly concerned for our environment and the health and safety of our population as remote areas are deforested for vineyards, wineries, and centers for commercial activities— the monetization of our beautiful, fragile hillsides.
I am not against vineyards and wineries; my husband and I grow grapes and we support small winemakers who know their craft and work to live in balance with our watersheds and so-called wild lands. However, Napa Valley’s successes have brought in outside investors, many corporate, who care more about profit than what their efforts are doing to our mountains, water supply, and the citizen base.
To this end, I celebrate a careful look at the carrying capacity of our “remote” areas, those areas that are served by driveways and rural roads designed and built for residential traffic. I want to address particularly Dry Creek Road, one of the roads Mr. Morrison designates as a “local roadway” providing access to homes and businesses and on which there is a great deal of concern about the permitting of more wineries, particularly larger ones in excess of 20,000 gallons, and with visitation.
Our ranch was bisected by Dry Creek Road when the road bed was changed many years ago. Our well on a triangular piece of land is across the road from the rest of the ranch. Crossing the road on foot is a dangerous proposition. You have to listen for any sound of possible oncoming traffic as cars are on you before you see them. We have had accidents in front of the small house at the road, one tragic accident resulting in the death of a next door neighbor riding her horse. (The sad stimulus for the Herman neurology building at the Queen). Bicyclists and walkers frequent the road. The possibility of more traffic from possible winery projects nearby increases this danger. This is not a road to allow large winery projects with visitation and large events.
We know of at least two applications for large gallonage and visitation asking for increased gallonage, visitation, and large events. An ordinance that considers the facts on the ground of Dry Creek Road is one that would save all of us a great deal of time and money, including the applicants. Mr. Morrison’s addressing the needs of various locations is an important one. When an AW application comes in asking for an increase to 50,000 gallons and 15,000 visitors a year, plus several large events, and the median permitted production in the Ag Watershed is 20,000, and 1,800 visitors a year, a lot of work is settled. We need to consider the needs of the environment and location. Applicants can then make their business plan based on this. Perhaps direct marketing belongs on the internet and in our cities.
We also have downtown business property in Napa. Our restaurant space has been vacant a year now, we are told because of labor shortages and because of the “restaurants” in the remote and ,yes, beautiful vistas of our hillsides and Ag watersheds. An ordinance would protect not only our hillside but also perhaps the businesses of our cities.
Thank you for your attention to this.
4900 1100 more trips/day (+cancer) for Bottleneck Junction on: South Napa County
Bill Hocker - Aug 26,18 expand... Share
Hotel explosion rocks Napa on: City of Napa
Bill Hocker - Aug 25,18 expand... Share
Update 8/25/18
SR press Democtat 8/25/18: Healdsburg set to limit future downtown hotels, require affordable housing offsets on new projects
Healdsburg leads the way. Of course, as usual, government has acted to solve problems when the problems are already beyond being solved. The already-approved doubling of hotel rooms will give Healdsburg the feeling of a 24-hour tourist trap, and future affordable housing requirements will not ease the existing or approved shortfalls.
Update 6/1/18
NVR 7/16/18: Future of Napa Marriott hotel lies with City Council
NVR 6/1/18: Napa [City] planners advance hotel-winery plan, despite housing concerns
Comm. Murray said, regarding the number of new workers needing affordable housing: "We can’t be continually punting the ball down the field, but we can’t put the burden all on one project," to which the logical reply is "Why not?" This particular project is increasing the affordable housing shortage by a specific number of units. Why shouldn't the project create those units as a condition of approval or else pay for the difference between affordable and market rate housing for every employee?
More about the traffic impact of this project and other projects around bottleneck junction is here.
Update 6/16/18
Lucretia Marcus LTE 6/16/18: Build housing for your workers
Update 6/2/18
NVR 6/2/18: Napa’s Gasser Foundation proposing 200 apartments and a hotel for Soscol Avenue
The 30 affordable units in the housing project won't quite accommodate the 100-150 new hotel employees, but Gasser is setting a trend by tying actual affordable housing construction, not just token mitigation fees, to tourism development.
That being said, the increase in population and continuing urbanization of the county and shift in the economy from wine to entertainment spells a long term decline for agriculture and the rural character that everyone claims to treasure.
Update 5/24/18
The Trinitas Mixed Use (Marriott Hotel-Winery-Office Bldg) complex is up before the Airport Land Use Commission (County Planning Commission + 2) on June 6, 2018. It is a 253 room hotel, 25,000 sf winery (no capacity or visitation specified but 57 parking spaces allowed), 30,000 sf office bldg, and 441 total parking spaces.
The notice is here
The project documents are here (large file)
Is it compatible next to the airport? No less than the Meritage or the County office buildings, one would assume. Will the current traffic jam at the entrance to the airport, made that much worse by one more huge project up the road, be discussed? Probably not.
NVR 6/2/17: Design of south Napa Marriott hotel leaves city planners cold
NVR 6/1/17: Napa planners to get first a look at a Marriott hotel, winery
NVR 5/18/18: Napa planners grapple with housing demands of 250-room Marriott hotel
Update: 5/15/18
Peter Mott LTE 5/15/18: Peter Mott: Time for a hotel moratorium
It is great to see that even some of those members of our county governments that have been supporters of tourism development have begun to believe that continued expansion of the tourism industry is unsustainable if the goal is to retain the rural small-town character that draws tourists here and makes this a desirable place to live. There needs to be a limit of tourism activity in relation to real life or real life ceases to exist. Many already feel that line has already been crossed, and the vast increase in hotel rooms in the municipalities and wineries in the county already in the pipeline means that the tourism impacts we already feel will only get worse. But If more of our officials, like Mr. Mott, are willing to begin opposing tourism urbanization now, and begin thinking in terms of a sustainable stable economy rather than a unsustainable growth economy, there may still be some hope for the survival of a quality of life treasured by both visitors and residents in the future.
Update: 3/2/18
NVR 3/2/18: Napa planners ask is Foxbow too much hotel for the neighborhood
NVR 2/28/18: Napa city planners to take up Foxbow hotel plan in Oxbow District
Oh No! Another over-scaled, over-wrought hotel crammed onto First Street.
This one is more apartment-looking than the previous version, an advantage if the tourism market crashes at the end of this hotel bubble.
Preliminary review at the Napa City Planning Commission Thursday, Mar 1st, 2018 at 5:30pm. Staff report is here.
Update: 1/6/18
NVR 1/6/18: Napa planners comment on Wine Train’s future hotel, rail depot on McKinstry Street
The Staff report on the project is here. (large file)
NVR 12/23/17: Top 10 of 2017, No. 7: Hotels, tourism continue Napa boom
Update: 12/04/17
Dan Mufson sends this article from the Santa Rosa Press Democrat regarding hotel development in Healdsburg:
SR Press Democrat 12/2/17: Healdsburg City Council to discuss limits on future downtown hotels
While it's hard to compare the nebulous disorganization of Napa's downtown with the iconic organization of Healdsburg's town plaza, the impacts here of rampant tourism development will likewise wipe out any sense of "small town" character that Napa does possess as 5 and 6 story hotels, and the throngs of their patrons, begin to dominate the Napa streetscape.
Update: 11/31/17
NVR 11/28/17: Downtown Napa's newest luxury hotel opens its doors
Kudos to Mr. Johnstone for telling it like it is: "You walk in and you think you're in New York." and "How many hotels does downtown need? I hope we're not overdoing it."
Update: 9/29/17
NVR 9/29/17: Meritage Resort's massive expansion takes shape in south Napa
Update 9/6/17
NVR 9/06/17: Napa, developer start talks on new City Hall, housing and hotel
Update: 8/14/17
City report on the hotel explosion this Tuesday
Napa Vision 2050 has just sent out this notice about a staff report to be presented to the Napa City Council on Aug 15th, 3:00pm about the various hotel projects going on in the city. You are encouraged to attend.
Update 7/14/17
NVR 8/18/17: Napa planners approve 5-story Black Elk hotel in Oxbow district
NVR 7/4/17: Proposed four-story Oxbow hotel to receive Napa planners’ scrutiny
The Black Elk Hotel had a preliminary review by the Napa City Planning Commission on July 6th 2017. The Staff Report and Documents are here. It is a very innappropriate building for the location, out of scale, a visual barrier to the Oxbow district, of "barnish" shape and materials out of place in its urban setting, a box of a building trying to squeeze as many hotel rooms as possible on the small site, which brought to mind a 19th century tenement house.
What became very apparent here, and in all of the hotel projects in the news recently, is that the city has no master plan for the development of the city, no commitment to integrate housing and real people and businesses into the tourism economy, and no design guidelines to regulate what the character of the place will become. As with the rural areas of the county, the future of Napa City is being irrevocably altered in this developer boom period, and the Planning Commission decisions about Napa's future are being made on an ad hoc basis, one isolated project at a time, without looking at the long term result. Which, of course, will be a hodgepodge of developers' schemes, some with good taste and some without, trying to maximize the money to be made from the tourist trade on every square inch of the city, while the residents are forced out.
Update: 7/2/17
NVR 7/2/217: As hotels increase, do Napa residents benefit? Readers, officials weigh in
Howard Yune, Napa city reporter for the Register, had to previously ask readers what they thought about Napa's hotel explosion, and he gives some of the responses in the above article. He had to ask because the Register, in a blow to the free exchange of ideas in a democracy, decided to discontinue the ability to comment online to news articles last year. There were, no doubt, legitimate concerns leading to the discontinuance. But for those seriously interested in issues in Napa county, like the explosion of hotel development, citizen reaction to the news is an important part of the story. The problems that the paper experienced with responses, I think, had much to do with the anonymity of the posts and the freedom that gives to be irresponsible in posting. Require real names and let the comments continue.
Update: 6/20/17
It's hard to keep up with this issue:
NVR 6/25/17: Downtown Napa hotel plan calls for merging Zeller's and former post office sites
NVR 6/22/17: Surging hotel taxes become a larger part of the new Napa city budget
NVR 6/20/17: How many hotels are enough -- or too much? Contact the Register
The hotel explosion raises several issues.
First, the loss of a community. Hotels not only bring in more tourists, but they increase the 24-hour tourist population. At some point, as the ratio of tourists to residents increases, and as jobs, commercial activity and housing continue to shift from resident-serving to tourist-serving, the sense of normal, small-town community life will be lost to the collective endevour of catering to, and being the local color for, the tourism experience. And the real town and its community will disappear. (St. Helena is at the forefront of this phenomenon.)
Second, a financing dependency. TOT revenue and other in-lieu fees are welcomed as a quick fix for the deferred infrastructure and service costs needed to mitigate the impacts of previous urban development. But low wage jobs are created by the hundreds and the money isn't there for affordable housing. Traffic and parking problems explode. The increased tourism and employee population require additional infrastructure and services which then encourage more new project approvals and so on. Ultimately the place becomes a dense tourist trap, devoid of residents, and, much like Oxbow is now, packed with people wondering what's so special about Napa.
Third, the loss of Napa's rural soul. The number of hotel projects, like the amount of traffic, is a symptom of a community losing it's resitance to development pressure. That pressure was was contained in Napa for the last 40 years by a combination of politicians and citizenry with a clear vision of an un-urbanized future, and an industry dependent on an agricultural product. But as the landscape and vineyards are slowly filled with buildings to exploit the expanding tourist population, the vision of a rural enclave in the urban Bay Area is harder for politicians and their citizens to imagine, and the industry is finding that more money is to be made by providing wine-related experiences than from making wine. The importance of agriculture fades beyond its use as a stageset for TOT-paying visitors.
Update: 6/17/17
A neighbor just sent over a link to the latest Napa Life, Paul Fransons's weekly "insiders guide to the Napa Valley." The June 19th, 2017 issue is here. Scroll down to the section on "Lodging News". Below the summaries of the latest hotel projects in the Register he has a list of the projects currently in the approval and proposal pipelines. While I struggle to keep up on this site, as an insider he has a much better handle on these things. And it is a bit freightening.
Most freightening of all is the mention of a Ted Hall 80 room hotel in South St Helena (described in this 2015 NVR article). Ted Hall (recent profile here) is perhaps the most revered grower-vintner in the county, one of the few statesman in an industry filled with entrepreneurs. Each trip to the planning commission to present his winery projects turns into a lovefest (just as the hotel project did). He will probabaly make the most sensitive, ecological integration of agriculture and overnight accommodation it is possible to make. And he will set the precident for lesser lights to follow for the next phase of the "wine" industry in its transition to an entertainment industry. Now that the winery restaurant is firmly established as an acceptable "incidental and subordinate" use allowed at wineries, it is only a matter of time before the winery b&b begins to make its way into the definition of "agriculture" as well. A euphanism will have to be invented - "immersive agricultural experience" perhaps - to make sure no one would mistake a winery for a hotel. But with the precedent set by this most solid citizen of the County, every good-life entrepreneur will now want a hotel-of-their-own to go along with their winery.
Update: 6/8/17
Cohn LTE 6/8/17: Slow the stampede of development and his petition
And the concurrences:
Don and Arlene Townsend LTE 6/16/17: When is enough enough?
Lynn Korn LTE 6/12/17: Enough already
Barbara Cioppone LTE 6/8/17: All for the rich people
A lot of proposed Napa hotel projects in the news:
NVR 6/8/17: Cambria Hotel coming to Napa's Soscol Avenue (And subsequent sale)
NVR 6/5/17: Napa Valley Wine Train owners plan $100 million resort development
NVR 6/2/17: Design of south Napa Marriott hotel leaves city planners cold
NVR 5/17/17: Altamira family reviving plans for a winery/hotel project on Silverado Trail
And other projects:
NVR 6/14/17: Napa approves 4-story building for Bounty Hunter wine bar, restaurant
2/20/17
NVR 2/20/17: Napa asks, How many hotel rooms are enough?
NY Times 2/1/17: A Waking Giant or a Monster? Developers Eye Once-Sleepy Napa
In the Times article Napa Vision 2050 is recognized nationally for its efforts to slow the urbanization of Napa County. Kudos to Harris Nussbaum and Patricia Damery.
Jim Wilson on the Napa Vision 2050 Economic Forum
It's exactly the effect we heard is coming at George Caloyannidis' Tourism Economy Forum in April of last year:
Samuel Mendlinger:
Eben Fodor:
Napa Vision 2050 Economic Forum: Understanding the tourism driven economy
George Caloyannidis' articles on growth and tourism
More on Napa City development here
More on Napa Growth Issues here
SR press Democtat 8/25/18: Healdsburg set to limit future downtown hotels, require affordable housing offsets on new projects
Healdsburg leads the way. Of course, as usual, government has acted to solve problems when the problems are already beyond being solved. The already-approved doubling of hotel rooms will give Healdsburg the feeling of a 24-hour tourist trap, and future affordable housing requirements will not ease the existing or approved shortfalls.
Update 6/1/18
NVR 6/1/18: Napa [City] planners advance hotel-winery plan, despite housing concerns
Comm. Murray said, regarding the number of new workers needing affordable housing: "We can’t be continually punting the ball down the field, but we can’t put the burden all on one project," to which the logical reply is "Why not?" This particular project is increasing the affordable housing shortage by a specific number of units. Why shouldn't the project create those units as a condition of approval or else pay for the difference between affordable and market rate housing for every employee?
More about the traffic impact of this project and other projects around bottleneck junction is here.
Update 6/16/18
Lucretia Marcus LTE 6/16/18: Build housing for your workers
Update 6/2/18
The 30 affordable units in the housing project won't quite accommodate the 100-150 new hotel employees, but Gasser is setting a trend by tying actual affordable housing construction, not just token mitigation fees, to tourism development.
That being said, the increase in population and continuing urbanization of the county and shift in the economy from wine to entertainment spells a long term decline for agriculture and the rural character that everyone claims to treasure.
Update 5/24/18
The Trinitas Mixed Use (Marriott Hotel-Winery-Office Bldg) complex is up before the Airport Land Use Commission (County Planning Commission + 2) on June 6, 2018. It is a 253 room hotel, 25,000 sf winery (no capacity or visitation specified but 57 parking spaces allowed), 30,000 sf office bldg, and 441 total parking spaces.
The notice is here
The project documents are here (large file)
Is it compatible next to the airport? No less than the Meritage or the County office buildings, one would assume. Will the current traffic jam at the entrance to the airport, made that much worse by one more huge project up the road, be discussed? Probably not.
NVR 6/2/17: Design of south Napa Marriott hotel leaves city planners cold
NVR 6/1/17: Napa planners to get first a look at a Marriott hotel, winery
NVR 5/18/18: Napa planners grapple with housing demands of 250-room Marriott hotel
Update: 5/15/18
Peter Mott LTE 5/15/18: Peter Mott: Time for a hotel moratorium
It is great to see that even some of those members of our county governments that have been supporters of tourism development have begun to believe that continued expansion of the tourism industry is unsustainable if the goal is to retain the rural small-town character that draws tourists here and makes this a desirable place to live. There needs to be a limit of tourism activity in relation to real life or real life ceases to exist. Many already feel that line has already been crossed, and the vast increase in hotel rooms in the municipalities and wineries in the county already in the pipeline means that the tourism impacts we already feel will only get worse. But If more of our officials, like Mr. Mott, are willing to begin opposing tourism urbanization now, and begin thinking in terms of a sustainable stable economy rather than a unsustainable growth economy, there may still be some hope for the survival of a quality of life treasured by both visitors and residents in the future.
Update: 3/2/18
NVR 2/28/18: Napa city planners to take up Foxbow hotel plan in Oxbow District
Oh No! Another over-scaled, over-wrought hotel crammed onto First Street.
This one is more apartment-looking than the previous version, an advantage if the tourism market crashes at the end of this hotel bubble.
Preliminary review at the Napa City Planning Commission Thursday, Mar 1st, 2018 at 5:30pm. Staff report is here.
Update: 1/6/18
The Staff report on the project is here. (large file)
NVR 12/23/17: Top 10 of 2017, No. 7: Hotels, tourism continue Napa boom
Update: 12/04/17
Dan Mufson sends this article from the Santa Rosa Press Democrat regarding hotel development in Healdsburg:
SR Press Democrat 12/2/17: Healdsburg City Council to discuss limits on future downtown hotels
While it's hard to compare the nebulous disorganization of Napa's downtown with the iconic organization of Healdsburg's town plaza, the impacts here of rampant tourism development will likewise wipe out any sense of "small town" character that Napa does possess as 5 and 6 story hotels, and the throngs of their patrons, begin to dominate the Napa streetscape.
Update: 11/31/17
Kudos to Mr. Johnstone for telling it like it is: "You walk in and you think you're in New York." and "How many hotels does downtown need? I hope we're not overdoing it."
Update: 9/29/17
Update 9/6/17
Update: 8/14/17
City report on the hotel explosion this Tuesday
Napa Vision 2050 has just sent out this notice about a staff report to be presented to the Napa City Council on Aug 15th, 3:00pm about the various hotel projects going on in the city. You are encouraged to attend.
Update 7/14/17
NVR 8/18/17: Napa planners approve 5-story Black Elk hotel in Oxbow district
NVR 7/4/17: Proposed four-story Oxbow hotel to receive Napa planners’ scrutiny
What became very apparent here, and in all of the hotel projects in the news recently, is that the city has no master plan for the development of the city, no commitment to integrate housing and real people and businesses into the tourism economy, and no design guidelines to regulate what the character of the place will become. As with the rural areas of the county, the future of Napa City is being irrevocably altered in this developer boom period, and the Planning Commission decisions about Napa's future are being made on an ad hoc basis, one isolated project at a time, without looking at the long term result. Which, of course, will be a hodgepodge of developers' schemes, some with good taste and some without, trying to maximize the money to be made from the tourist trade on every square inch of the city, while the residents are forced out.
Update: 7/2/17
NVR 7/2/217: As hotels increase, do Napa residents benefit? Readers, officials weigh in
Howard Yune, Napa city reporter for the Register, had to previously ask readers what they thought about Napa's hotel explosion, and he gives some of the responses in the above article. He had to ask because the Register, in a blow to the free exchange of ideas in a democracy, decided to discontinue the ability to comment online to news articles last year. There were, no doubt, legitimate concerns leading to the discontinuance. But for those seriously interested in issues in Napa county, like the explosion of hotel development, citizen reaction to the news is an important part of the story. The problems that the paper experienced with responses, I think, had much to do with the anonymity of the posts and the freedom that gives to be irresponsible in posting. Require real names and let the comments continue.
Update: 6/20/17
It's hard to keep up with this issue:
NVR 6/25/17: Downtown Napa hotel plan calls for merging Zeller's and former post office sites
NVR 6/22/17: Surging hotel taxes become a larger part of the new Napa city budget
NVR 6/20/17: How many hotels are enough -- or too much? Contact the Register
The hotel explosion raises several issues.
First, the loss of a community. Hotels not only bring in more tourists, but they increase the 24-hour tourist population. At some point, as the ratio of tourists to residents increases, and as jobs, commercial activity and housing continue to shift from resident-serving to tourist-serving, the sense of normal, small-town community life will be lost to the collective endevour of catering to, and being the local color for, the tourism experience. And the real town and its community will disappear. (St. Helena is at the forefront of this phenomenon.)
Second, a financing dependency. TOT revenue and other in-lieu fees are welcomed as a quick fix for the deferred infrastructure and service costs needed to mitigate the impacts of previous urban development. But low wage jobs are created by the hundreds and the money isn't there for affordable housing. Traffic and parking problems explode. The increased tourism and employee population require additional infrastructure and services which then encourage more new project approvals and so on. Ultimately the place becomes a dense tourist trap, devoid of residents, and, much like Oxbow is now, packed with people wondering what's so special about Napa.
Third, the loss of Napa's rural soul. The number of hotel projects, like the amount of traffic, is a symptom of a community losing it's resitance to development pressure. That pressure was was contained in Napa for the last 40 years by a combination of politicians and citizenry with a clear vision of an un-urbanized future, and an industry dependent on an agricultural product. But as the landscape and vineyards are slowly filled with buildings to exploit the expanding tourist population, the vision of a rural enclave in the urban Bay Area is harder for politicians and their citizens to imagine, and the industry is finding that more money is to be made by providing wine-related experiences than from making wine. The importance of agriculture fades beyond its use as a stageset for TOT-paying visitors.
Update: 6/17/17
A neighbor just sent over a link to the latest Napa Life, Paul Fransons's weekly "insiders guide to the Napa Valley." The June 19th, 2017 issue is here. Scroll down to the section on "Lodging News". Below the summaries of the latest hotel projects in the Register he has a list of the projects currently in the approval and proposal pipelines. While I struggle to keep up on this site, as an insider he has a much better handle on these things. And it is a bit freightening.
Most freightening of all is the mention of a Ted Hall 80 room hotel in South St Helena (described in this 2015 NVR article). Ted Hall (recent profile here) is perhaps the most revered grower-vintner in the county, one of the few statesman in an industry filled with entrepreneurs. Each trip to the planning commission to present his winery projects turns into a lovefest (just as the hotel project did). He will probabaly make the most sensitive, ecological integration of agriculture and overnight accommodation it is possible to make. And he will set the precident for lesser lights to follow for the next phase of the "wine" industry in its transition to an entertainment industry. Now that the winery restaurant is firmly established as an acceptable "incidental and subordinate" use allowed at wineries, it is only a matter of time before the winery b&b begins to make its way into the definition of "agriculture" as well. A euphanism will have to be invented - "immersive agricultural experience" perhaps - to make sure no one would mistake a winery for a hotel. But with the precedent set by this most solid citizen of the County, every good-life entrepreneur will now want a hotel-of-their-own to go along with their winery.
Update: 6/8/17
Cohn LTE 6/8/17: Slow the stampede of development and his petition
And the concurrences:
Don and Arlene Townsend LTE 6/16/17: When is enough enough?
Lynn Korn LTE 6/12/17: Enough already
Barbara Cioppone LTE 6/8/17: All for the rich people
A lot of proposed Napa hotel projects in the news:
NVR 6/8/17: Cambria Hotel coming to Napa's Soscol Avenue (And subsequent sale)
NVR 6/5/17: Napa Valley Wine Train owners plan $100 million resort development
NVR 6/2/17: Design of south Napa Marriott hotel leaves city planners cold
NVR 5/17/17: Altamira family reviving plans for a winery/hotel project on Silverado Trail
And other projects:
NVR 6/14/17: Napa approves 4-story building for Bounty Hunter wine bar, restaurant
2/20/17
NVR 2/20/17: Napa asks, How many hotel rooms are enough?
NY Times 2/1/17: A Waking Giant or a Monster? Developers Eye Once-Sleepy Napa
In the Times article Napa Vision 2050 is recognized nationally for its efforts to slow the urbanization of Napa County. Kudos to Harris Nussbaum and Patricia Damery.
Jim Wilson on the Napa Vision 2050 Economic Forum
It's exactly the effect we heard is coming at George Caloyannidis' Tourism Economy Forum in April of last year:
Samuel Mendlinger:
- Tourism accelerates the polarization between the population and the very wealthy.
- Polarization begins when businesses begin to cater to tourists and affluent locals at the expense of townsfolk.
- Now a major social revolution: small group of elderly people and few young people.
Q: Whose town is this anyway? What can community do so the power doesn’t get concentrated in the hands of a few?
A: There are a few only. Locals are usually the last to get a voice in tourism development. Usually money does the talking. Local leaders who are wise enough know that the local people need to be part of the process. Most people don’t really know what their long-term needs are. Community groups need to have experience.
Know what they’re doing, how to get things done, like NV2050. It’s what attracted me to this event in Napa. Hospitality is about cheap labor. Tourism is about value added.
Q: Local schools close and students are sent out of town?
A: Imbalance. Older population crowds out the younger people. Mis-managed tourism.. Petersborough losing its school system,, and its vertical, complete society. Declining school enrollment is a sign that either young adults don’t want to have children, or they don’t see a future in the town.
Q: How do you organize the population?
A: NV2050 is a great example. You’re anxious over the future, you’re organizing through people who can organize, and have the time and abilty to see things through. Then expand! It’s bottom up. Top down is very rare.
Q: How do you recommend citizens get involved in decisions on smart tourism?
A: Mendlinger: What is motivation for County and City political leaders to get involved? Do they want more development or a higher quality of life for citizens? If interested in business they won’t listen. But if you have wise leadership you’ll do the part of the job that improves the quality of life. Especially in Napa you have a great pool of experience and wisdom. It’s cosmopolitan not provincial. Political leadership has to listen to well-organized citizens who understand how real life works. Citizens can go far. Like this meeting where you have political leadership plus informed citizens. I traveled fro Boston to see how Napa is doing, and I am encouraged by the possibilities. Rural areas - resource extraction areas – when industry pulls out there’s not much reason for community to be there.
Q: Advice on blasting open “iron triangle” government/agencies/industry?
A: Mendlinger; How to develop experienced and wise leaders and citizens is the question. I just don’t know how.
Eben Fodor:
- In an economic impact study, costs are just as important as revenues.
- Too much tourism can overwhelm a community.
- Impact studies usually tout all the benefits of a development. Fiscal impacts are often overlooked and no multipliers are used.
- The reports that go out make the development look great but it’s not. There’s no balanced perspective with costs to the community.
Napa Vision 2050 Economic Forum: Understanding the tourism driven economy
George Caloyannidis' articles on growth and tourism
More on Napa City development here
More on Napa Growth Issues here
Comments
Harris Nussbaum - Jul 10, 2017 7:27PM
[Statement to Napa City Planning Commission 7-6-17 Black Elk Hotel ]
Thank you for listening. I have a few questions.
1) How will you know when there are to many hotels downtown and what will be the impact when all the commercial development in progress is completed?
2) What will be the impact as more and more tall buildings are built?
3) When do you think we will have to many cars in, out, and around Napa? (pause)
Almost everyone I talk with who lives here feels we have reached that point and worry about the future of Napa and their quality of life.
We often don’t think about the impact on our schools. Enrollment is declining because many people with children can’t afford to live here. Staff is being significantly reduced, schools are closing, and over 100 teachers are being laid off this year alone and it will continue. How will this affect your children or grand children?
I’m sure it looks good if you can get more occupancy taxes, but it cost more than you are getting. If you haven’t read James Conway’s article in which he says Napa’s current level of development is not economically supportable due to the requirements of infrastructure and on going maintenance, please read it.
You talk about the need for housing, but keep building hotels and other businesses that employ people who can’t afford to live here. Local businesses are closing because they can’t afford the rent.
There is so much to say about the problems being created by traffic, parking, police, fire, and all the other services needed to run a city. Here is a copy of the letter to the editor I recently wrote. Please read it.
I’m not anti business, but I know to much of anything is a problem and will destroy this jewel called Napa. You are our friends. Please do what you are meant to do and protect us. Take a step back and see where we are. Consider the cumulative impact and what infrastructure is needed before any more hotels or large businesses are approved. Work with the County to solve these problems, because what each of you do affects the other.
And finally, create venues where the people feel they are really heard and have equal opportunities to speak.
Thank you!
Thank you for listening. I have a few questions.
1) How will you know when there are to many hotels downtown and what will be the impact when all the commercial development in progress is completed?
2) What will be the impact as more and more tall buildings are built?
3) When do you think we will have to many cars in, out, and around Napa? (pause)
Almost everyone I talk with who lives here feels we have reached that point and worry about the future of Napa and their quality of life.
We often don’t think about the impact on our schools. Enrollment is declining because many people with children can’t afford to live here. Staff is being significantly reduced, schools are closing, and over 100 teachers are being laid off this year alone and it will continue. How will this affect your children or grand children?
I’m sure it looks good if you can get more occupancy taxes, but it cost more than you are getting. If you haven’t read James Conway’s article in which he says Napa’s current level of development is not economically supportable due to the requirements of infrastructure and on going maintenance, please read it.
You talk about the need for housing, but keep building hotels and other businesses that employ people who can’t afford to live here. Local businesses are closing because they can’t afford the rent.
There is so much to say about the problems being created by traffic, parking, police, fire, and all the other services needed to run a city. Here is a copy of the letter to the editor I recently wrote. Please read it.
I’m not anti business, but I know to much of anything is a problem and will destroy this jewel called Napa. You are our friends. Please do what you are meant to do and protect us. Take a step back and see where we are. Consider the cumulative impact and what infrastructure is needed before any more hotels or large businesses are approved. Work with the County to solve these problems, because what each of you do affects the other.
And finally, create venues where the people feel they are really heard and have equal opportunities to speak.
Thank you!
Glenn J. Schreuder - Feb 2, 2017 9:07AM
Add another negative consequence to the list of all this economic progress.
SF already has a very low rate of families with kids. Looks like Napa is headed the same way. Maybe I’ll drive to the
central valley to watch a little league game in my retirement years. All this raises the question if Napa is really a good place to call home anymore. Where did all the little ones go?
Higher housing prices will trigger greater enrollment declines in Napa schools
SF already has a very low rate of families with kids. Looks like Napa is headed the same way. Maybe I’ll drive to the
central valley to watch a little league game in my retirement years. All this raises the question if Napa is really a good place to call home anymore. Where did all the little ones go?
Higher housing prices will trigger greater enrollment declines in Napa schools
Carl Bunch - Feb 1, 2017 5:37PM
Well, for a very limited time in our lives (all to change as a result of the Presidential election) a government agency is treating its citizens fairly and appropriately and a major newspaper is highlighting the work of a citizens' group on the environment. This, to the great advantage to the citizens who reside here.
The St. Helena City Council, by a 3-2 vote (according to the Napa Valley Register) has actually rejected an application by a winery for expansion of its business. This City Council recently seated, due to a majority vote of St. Helena citizens, two new Council members, including Geoff Ellsworth, a leader in the fight to control the rampant approvals of virtually anything having to do with winery uses of Napa Valley land for the profits of its owners and stakeholders.
The New York Times, in a most important article, featured the work of Napa Vision 2050 regarding environmental issues raised by for-profit corporations and others and which seriously affect critical matters pertinent to Napa citizens, including, among others, watersheds, tree deforestation, and various matters tending to make the Napa Valley one of the world's most desirable places to live.
CONGRATULATIONS!! This has been a long time in coming and we can only hope it’s a harbinger of better things to follow.
The St. Helena City Council, by a 3-2 vote (according to the Napa Valley Register) has actually rejected an application by a winery for expansion of its business. This City Council recently seated, due to a majority vote of St. Helena citizens, two new Council members, including Geoff Ellsworth, a leader in the fight to control the rampant approvals of virtually anything having to do with winery uses of Napa Valley land for the profits of its owners and stakeholders.
The New York Times, in a most important article, featured the work of Napa Vision 2050 regarding environmental issues raised by for-profit corporations and others and which seriously affect critical matters pertinent to Napa citizens, including, among others, watersheds, tree deforestation, and various matters tending to make the Napa Valley one of the world's most desirable places to live.
CONGRATULATIONS!! This has been a long time in coming and we can only hope it’s a harbinger of better things to follow.
Shelle Wolfe - Feb 1, 2017 5:36PM
Vision 2050, among others, made the NY Times today. Interesting assessment of our situation. It would have been great if the article mentioned the traffic along with the other issues like parking.
Great comment by Patricia Damery… this is what we need to be communicating.
Ms. Damery said “I’m not anti-development,” she said. “I am for balanced development. Downtown is wonderful and so much better than before, but we have to invest in quality-of-life things like mass transit and housing.”
Great comment by Patricia Damery… this is what we need to be communicating.
Ms. Damery said “I’m not anti-development,” she said. “I am for balanced development. Downtown is wonderful and so much better than before, but we have to invest in quality-of-life things like mass transit and housing.”
Daniel Mufson - Feb 1, 2017 4:04PM
Napa Vision 2050 was asked for perspective on the
state of development in Napa,
as detailed in a story for the New York Times.
Hello Napa Vision 2050 supporters,
Thank you for interest in the mission of Napa Vision 2050.
This past year, Napa Vision 2050 worked for a more effective and organized public voice with wider distribution. We did this to help get the perspective of those who live in our county, to be heard by those who are making decisions on growth and development in Napa County. Well, we are being heard nationally!
I’m attaching an article about Napa downtown just published in the New York Times. Napa Vision 2050's Harris Nussbaum and Patricia Damery are quoted while several more of our coalition members had been interviewed.
It is so satisfying that the article has a link to the Napa Vision 2050 webpage. Please share this with your contacts, and keep our momentum growing!
If only my Mom could see that: A boy from the Bronx makes the Times for doing something good!!
state of development in Napa,
as detailed in a story for the New York Times.
Hello Napa Vision 2050 supporters,
Thank you for interest in the mission of Napa Vision 2050.
This past year, Napa Vision 2050 worked for a more effective and organized public voice with wider distribution. We did this to help get the perspective of those who live in our county, to be heard by those who are making decisions on growth and development in Napa County. Well, we are being heard nationally!
I’m attaching an article about Napa downtown just published in the New York Times. Napa Vision 2050's Harris Nussbaum and Patricia Damery are quoted while several more of our coalition members had been interviewed.
It is so satisfying that the article has a link to the Napa Vision 2050 webpage. Please share this with your contacts, and keep our momentum growing!
If only my Mom could see that: A boy from the Bronx makes the Times for doing something good!!
The exploding hospitality sector on: Growth Issues
Bill Hocker - Aug 21,18 expand... Share
NVR 8/21/18: NapaStat | 14,000: That's the current number of leisure and hospitality jobs in Napa County. That's 700 more jobs than one year ago.
As just pointed out in the news post related to the resurrection of the Stanly Ranch resort and its 500 hospitality employees that will need affordable housing, this NapaStat reinforces what the current tourism boom portends for the problems of traffic and housing that already plague the quality of life in the County. 700 new hospitality workers this year. How many affordable housing units were brought online in the same period? The number of proposed or approved facilities in the County, with employees yet to be added to the EDD database, is vast. Over 150 new or expanded wineries and a few thousand hotel rooms not yet realized will add thousands to the hospitality workforce. In addition are millions of square feet of commercial and industrial facilities. And a Costco. As outlined here, providing affordable housing for this workforce will be excruciatingly difficult. The wisdom of continuing to approve new hospitality and commercial development, with no strategy to provide the thousands of affordable housing units for the workforce required, is irresponsible urban planning.
Coincidentally this same subject was reprised on the PBS Newshour today, the challenge of finding affordable housing for workers in Anaheim, California's most touristed place: PBS 3/27/18: Why Anaheim’s low-wage workers struggle to keep a roof over their heads
The county will, of course make an effort to provide more housing - the state will require it based on the number of new jobs created. And the county will make an effort to mitigate the increase in traffic and population with more infrastructure projects. And this place will be steadily urbanized in the process, eventually crowding out the agriculture that a previous generation fought so hard to preserve.
As just pointed out in the news post related to the resurrection of the Stanly Ranch resort and its 500 hospitality employees that will need affordable housing, this NapaStat reinforces what the current tourism boom portends for the problems of traffic and housing that already plague the quality of life in the County. 700 new hospitality workers this year. How many affordable housing units were brought online in the same period? The number of proposed or approved facilities in the County, with employees yet to be added to the EDD database, is vast. Over 150 new or expanded wineries and a few thousand hotel rooms not yet realized will add thousands to the hospitality workforce. In addition are millions of square feet of commercial and industrial facilities. And a Costco. As outlined here, providing affordable housing for this workforce will be excruciatingly difficult. The wisdom of continuing to approve new hospitality and commercial development, with no strategy to provide the thousands of affordable housing units for the workforce required, is irresponsible urban planning.
Coincidentally this same subject was reprised on the PBS Newshour today, the challenge of finding affordable housing for workers in Anaheim, California's most touristed place: PBS 3/27/18: Why Anaheim’s low-wage workers struggle to keep a roof over their heads
The county will, of course make an effort to provide more housing - the state will require it based on the number of new jobs created. And the county will make an effort to mitigate the increase in traffic and population with more infrastructure projects. And this place will be steadily urbanized in the process, eventually crowding out the agriculture that a previous generation fought so hard to preserve.
Stanly Ranch on: South Napa County
Bill Hocker - Aug 20,18 expand... Share
NVR 5/9/15: New $45 million investment for a planned Stanly Ranch resort in south Napa
Stanly Ranch returns from funding limbo. The project would add another 500 low wage employees looking for affordable housing. It would also contribute $4.4 million to the city's affordable housing fund. The cost of 50 units of affordable housing in Napa was just pegged at $24 million. By that standard the $4.4 million will be enough for 9 affordable housing units, enough to house perhaps 18 of the 500 employees. The continuing imbalance of jobs and housing in Napa County, increased with each new development project, is not sustainable.
This is also another example of the trend toward the winery hotel that will eventually be demanded in the unincorporated areas just as restaurant wineries are now.
5/7/17
Update 5/7/17: Only recently, after stumbling upon these documents, have I become attuned to the third mega-project that will be urbanizing the agricultural entry to the county just south of the Hwy 29 and 121 junction in Carneros. It is a housing project and resort known as Stanly Ranch. The project was approved by the City of Napa in 2010. Sometimes, until you see a site plan, the numbers representing the project in a table don't have an impact. A big chunk of vineyards at the approach to the Valley is to become suburbanized and another bit of Napa's forlorn effort to maintain a greenbelt separating the city from the sprawl moving up from American Canyon will disappear.
How the parcel became a part of the city needs a bit of research. As a far-removed extension of the urban-rural limit line, it seems to violate every concept of maintaining the separation between existing urban and rural uses that the county and cities have been committed to since the ag preserve and Measure J were enacted.
Articles
NVR 12/20/15: City gives thumbs-up for luxury hotel at Stanly Ranch
NVR 11/2/15: Stanly Ranch receives recycled water go-ahead
NVR 5/9/15: Stanly Ranch resort developer promises 'authenticity'
NVR 11/19/13: Pipeline project to bring water to Carneros area
NVR 11/6/10: Settlement says St. Regis developer must support affordable housing
NVR 1/23/10: Critics blast St. Regis project, but city touts revenues; more hearings ahead
NVR 4/17/05: Merryvale set to begin Stanly Ranch renovation this summer
Documents
2009 Stanly Ranch documents
Bill Dodd and PG&E on: After The Fire
Bill Hocker - Aug 19,18 expand... Share
An epic battle will take place in the courts in the next couple of years between PG&E and the thousands of residents affected by the Sonoma and Napa fires of 2017. Dan Mufson sends along this link to an article about our State Senator, Bill Dodd in action on both sides of the issue. The article and video gives a sense that the Senator knows who he works for.
ConsumerWatchdog.org 8/15/18: Senator Dodd Busted Shutting Down Wildfire Hearings To Rush To Fundraiser With Utility Lobbyists
Dan adds: "Check out the video. At 2:13 our own John Harrington can be seen on the right side of the frame. He went to Sacramento with his family to lobby Dodd, the Governor and others not to let PGE off the hook for liability.
ConsumerWatchdog.org 8/15/18: Senator Dodd Busted Shutting Down Wildfire Hearings To Rush To Fundraiser With Utility Lobbyists
Dan adds: "Check out the video. At 2:13 our own John Harrington can be seen on the right side of the frame. He went to Sacramento with his family to lobby Dodd, the Governor and others not to let PGE off the hook for liability.
We the people have power on: Napa Strategic Plan
Patricia Damery - Aug 10,18 expand... Share
I hope that the Board of Supervisors’ most recent Strategic Plan process does not end up fitting the definition of insanity: To keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
After Measure C almost passed in the June election, the board has decided to “listen” to the citizens through a series of meetings with a neutral facilitator (the one difference). They will then craft a strategic plan to address the watershed and growth issues that Measure C put before the voters, as well as other issues citizens bring to the table.
We the People have already been through an impotent process in which the governing officials “listened” to us. On March 10, 2015, the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission held a joint hearing at which 475 gathered for a day of public comment, most of us protesting the lack of code enforcement and commercialization of our agriculturally zoned protected lands. The result? Not much came of it. The Agricultural Protect Advisory Committee (APAC) formed was stacked with wine and hospitality interests.
Then came the dirty techniques of the No on C campaign. Even some of our governing officials participated in misleading the public with erroneous statements aimed at confusing voters. Trust in our elected and appointed officials is at an all time low.
Although Measure C did not pass (301 more votes of the approximate 36,000 cast and it would have) the vote reflects the growing concern in our county for our water supply which is integrally connected to our watersheds. That is the good news. One has to ask: Would this strategic plan process have occurred without the almost 50/50 vote in a large voter turnout election? I doubt it.
Will this time be different? Citizens, it depends on We the People.
Only because Measure C, a very modest measure, almost won the vote to protect our watersheds from development did the Board of Supervisors embark on developing a strategic plan to be implemented over the next years. We have to stay on board.
Make sure that you attend the proposed upcoming citizen meetings for each district in the next couple of months. Write letters to your district supervisor. Insist this not be another APAC, in which special interest groups neutralize any movement toward real exploration and protection.
Remind our governing officials that We the People elect them and if they don’t represent our interests, we will elect someone who will. Remind them that We the People have the right of the initiative when they are not doing their job in protecting our water supply and our community and that and we will use it again and when we have to.
NVR version 8/12/18: We the People have the power
After Measure C almost passed in the June election, the board has decided to “listen” to the citizens through a series of meetings with a neutral facilitator (the one difference). They will then craft a strategic plan to address the watershed and growth issues that Measure C put before the voters, as well as other issues citizens bring to the table.
We the People have already been through an impotent process in which the governing officials “listened” to us. On March 10, 2015, the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission held a joint hearing at which 475 gathered for a day of public comment, most of us protesting the lack of code enforcement and commercialization of our agriculturally zoned protected lands. The result? Not much came of it. The Agricultural Protect Advisory Committee (APAC) formed was stacked with wine and hospitality interests.
Then came the dirty techniques of the No on C campaign. Even some of our governing officials participated in misleading the public with erroneous statements aimed at confusing voters. Trust in our elected and appointed officials is at an all time low.
Although Measure C did not pass (301 more votes of the approximate 36,000 cast and it would have) the vote reflects the growing concern in our county for our water supply which is integrally connected to our watersheds. That is the good news. One has to ask: Would this strategic plan process have occurred without the almost 50/50 vote in a large voter turnout election? I doubt it.
Will this time be different? Citizens, it depends on We the People.
Only because Measure C, a very modest measure, almost won the vote to protect our watersheds from development did the Board of Supervisors embark on developing a strategic plan to be implemented over the next years. We have to stay on board.
Make sure that you attend the proposed upcoming citizen meetings for each district in the next couple of months. Write letters to your district supervisor. Insist this not be another APAC, in which special interest groups neutralize any movement toward real exploration and protection.
Remind our governing officials that We the People elect them and if they don’t represent our interests, we will elect someone who will. Remind them that We the People have the right of the initiative when they are not doing their job in protecting our water supply and our community and that and we will use it again and when we have to.
NVR version 8/12/18: We the People have the power
Sonoma County Winery Event Ordinance Petition on: Sonoma County
Bill Hocker - Aug 7,18 expand... Share
After Measure C: a strategic plan on: Napa Strategic Plan
Bill Hocker - Jul 31,18 expand... Share
Update 7/31/18
More balloons?NVR 3/31/18: Napa County launches plan to help unite community after Measure C fight
From my standpoint Dario Sattui had the quote of the day: "We need to stop all building in the ag areas." Hear! Hear! A moratorium on future development is the only way that the county will ever have the space to deal with the existing traffic, housing and potential water problems created by past development. Of course he was railing principally about homes in the ag areas, and the complaints of homeowners about "noise, dust, night picking, tourists and tasting", nicely summing up the conflation of real agriculture with tourism that is at the heart of resident hostility to the wine industry as it morphs into an entertainment industry. I wasn't sure if he would agree that wineries are buildings and should also be banned.
Several speakers mentioned the Napa County General Plan's vision statement as a starting point for this process. It's worth repeating the first paragraph:
In recognition of that vision, this process should be about one goal: how best to limit the urban growth of unincorporated Napa County. The point was made by speakers that the county has only limited control over the urbanization and that the municipalities are the principal drivers of increased traffic, housing and infrastructure impacts. The vision that the county is "committed to urban-centered growth" (meaning that growth is the municipalities' problem not the county's problem) is a bit of a fudge unfortunately. Growth in the municipalities is very much a traffic-housing-water problem for the unincorporated areas as well. Without inclusion of representatives from the municipalities this process can only have a modest impact on the county's future.
But the County needs to do what it can. In several meetings, including this one, the point has been made that projections of growth in the 2008 General Plan have actually been greater than actual growth. And yet the problems of that actual growth, in traffic, infrastructure and housing needs are apparent to all right now. This strategic plan process should ask whether or not the projections of growth in the General Plan are appropriate for the future we envision. And if not, what land use strategies can be proposed that will bring those development projections down? Dario Sattui's recommendation to stop building in the ag areas might be a good start.
George Caloyannidis adds this clarification:
"The County's line that growth is driven by our cities is absolutely false. The County is the one which provides the demand and development opportunities in the cities by approving new and enlarged wineries, tasting rooms and event centers. Its policies are what brings in the tourists. The cities simply provide the hotels to accommodate them. If the County stopped creating the market for the hotels, the hotels would stop being built."
Update 7/26/18
BOS Strategic Plan Session 1
Meeting date: 7/31/18, 9:00am
Location: BOS Chambers , 1195 3rd St, Napa
3 Year Strategic Plan presentation to the BOS to look at future development issues in the county and to create a task force for the process.
Agenda Letter
Consultant's Strategic Plan Presentation
Be a contributor: This is the beginning of a process happening through the rest of the year. To participate in the process by receiving notifications and attending meetings, the County requests that you sign up as a participant.
The Sign-up form is here
7/10/18
.jpg)
NVR 7/11/18: In wake of Measure C's defeat, Napa County leaders look for a healing path forward
At the beginning of the BOS’s 7/10/18 meeting, Tax Assessor John Tuteur reported to the Board of Supervisors that since July of 2017 unincorporated Napa County has probably had the largest increase in nonresidential construction in the county's history (or at least since he's been assessor). Although not directly related to the post C discussion over the future direction of Napa development, labeled the Strategic Plan by County CEO Minh Tran, it was an apt "fact" which needs to be brought to the table in a discussion already obsessing over fact-based decision making.
CEO Tran indicated that on July 31st he would begin laying out the parameters of a task force to deal with our post-Measure C trauma and seek consensus on Napa's future development. His outline for the process is here.
The use of the word "stakeholders" in the outline is a bit unsettling since it almost always implies a financial stake in the outcome or in our case the wine and tourism industries and the government. While the citizenry who wish to participate may see some financial impact of new policies, it is, I think, the quality of their lives in Napa County that is at stake and that brings them to the table. As happened in APAC, without significant representation of residents, business stakeholders, and the urbanizing development projects they pursue, will dominate the future of the county.
In public comments:
Vintner Joyce Black Sears criticized the changes made in the definition of agriculture that have encouraged intensification of tourism, traffic and deforestation by catering to the business interests of corporations and the wealthy while ignoring the ordinary people who live here. Reconsider the definition of agriculture, she admonished. Otherwise the continued development will be the final nail in the coffin of Napa's ag heritage.
Former supervisor Ginny Simms described how the agreement between the NVV and the Measure C authors was scuttled after months of cooperative effort: Gallo, Treasury, Hall and others demanded that the agreement end or they would pull out of NVV and not offer wines for the Wine Auction - complete bullying by the major wine corporations. A transcript of her statement is here.
Measure C author Mike Hackett called out Supervisors Pedroza, Ramos, and Gregory for their initial support of Measure C when the NVV supported it and then their vehement opposition to the identical initiative when the NVV, at the insistence of major wine corporations, dropped support. Trust was a casualty of the process. Who do you work for? he asked. In citing the disinformation campaign put out by the No on C campaign and the false campaign arguments signed by Sup. Ramos in the official opposition ballot arguments, Mr. Hackett confronted them. "You lied to the citizens of Napa County. You owe an apology".
More balloons?From my standpoint Dario Sattui had the quote of the day: "We need to stop all building in the ag areas." Hear! Hear! A moratorium on future development is the only way that the county will ever have the space to deal with the existing traffic, housing and potential water problems created by past development. Of course he was railing principally about homes in the ag areas, and the complaints of homeowners about "noise, dust, night picking, tourists and tasting", nicely summing up the conflation of real agriculture with tourism that is at the heart of resident hostility to the wine industry as it morphs into an entertainment industry. I wasn't sure if he would agree that wineries are buildings and should also be banned.
Several speakers mentioned the Napa County General Plan's vision statement as a starting point for this process. It's worth repeating the first paragraph:
"Today and in the future, unincorporated Napa County will be home to world-famous wines and a residential population smaller than most Bay Area cities and towns. The County’s scenic beauty, valuable agricultural resources, and quality of life are reinforced by longstanding commitments to agricultural preservation, resource conservation, and urban-centered growth. While other Bay Area counties have experienced unprecedented development and urban infrastructure expansion over the last four decades, Napa County’s citizens have conscientiously preserved the agricultural lands and rural character that we treasure."
In recognition of that vision, this process should be about one goal: how best to limit the urban growth of unincorporated Napa County. The point was made by speakers that the county has only limited control over the urbanization and that the municipalities are the principal drivers of increased traffic, housing and infrastructure impacts. The vision that the county is "committed to urban-centered growth" (meaning that growth is the municipalities' problem not the county's problem) is a bit of a fudge unfortunately. Growth in the municipalities is very much a traffic-housing-water problem for the unincorporated areas as well. Without inclusion of representatives from the municipalities this process can only have a modest impact on the county's future.
But the County needs to do what it can. In several meetings, including this one, the point has been made that projections of growth in the 2008 General Plan have actually been greater than actual growth. And yet the problems of that actual growth, in traffic, infrastructure and housing needs are apparent to all right now. This strategic plan process should ask whether or not the projections of growth in the General Plan are appropriate for the future we envision. And if not, what land use strategies can be proposed that will bring those development projections down? Dario Sattui's recommendation to stop building in the ag areas might be a good start.
George Caloyannidis adds this clarification:
"The County's line that growth is driven by our cities is absolutely false. The County is the one which provides the demand and development opportunities in the cities by approving new and enlarged wineries, tasting rooms and event centers. Its policies are what brings in the tourists. The cities simply provide the hotels to accommodate them. If the County stopped creating the market for the hotels, the hotels would stop being built."
Update 7/26/18
BOS Strategic Plan Session 1
Meeting date: 7/31/18, 9:00am
Location: BOS Chambers , 1195 3rd St, Napa
3 Year Strategic Plan presentation to the BOS to look at future development issues in the county and to create a task force for the process.
Agenda Letter
Consultant's Strategic Plan Presentation
Be a contributor: This is the beginning of a process happening through the rest of the year. To participate in the process by receiving notifications and attending meetings, the County requests that you sign up as a participant.
The Sign-up form is here
7/10/18
At the beginning of the BOS’s 7/10/18 meeting, Tax Assessor John Tuteur reported to the Board of Supervisors that since July of 2017 unincorporated Napa County has probably had the largest increase in nonresidential construction in the county's history (or at least since he's been assessor). Although not directly related to the post C discussion over the future direction of Napa development, labeled the Strategic Plan by County CEO Minh Tran, it was an apt "fact" which needs to be brought to the table in a discussion already obsessing over fact-based decision making.
CEO Tran indicated that on July 31st he would begin laying out the parameters of a task force to deal with our post-Measure C trauma and seek consensus on Napa's future development. His outline for the process is here.
The use of the word "stakeholders" in the outline is a bit unsettling since it almost always implies a financial stake in the outcome or in our case the wine and tourism industries and the government. While the citizenry who wish to participate may see some financial impact of new policies, it is, I think, the quality of their lives in Napa County that is at stake and that brings them to the table. As happened in APAC, without significant representation of residents, business stakeholders, and the urbanizing development projects they pursue, will dominate the future of the county.
In public comments:
Vintner Joyce Black Sears criticized the changes made in the definition of agriculture that have encouraged intensification of tourism, traffic and deforestation by catering to the business interests of corporations and the wealthy while ignoring the ordinary people who live here. Reconsider the definition of agriculture, she admonished. Otherwise the continued development will be the final nail in the coffin of Napa's ag heritage.
Former supervisor Ginny Simms described how the agreement between the NVV and the Measure C authors was scuttled after months of cooperative effort: Gallo, Treasury, Hall and others demanded that the agreement end or they would pull out of NVV and not offer wines for the Wine Auction - complete bullying by the major wine corporations. A transcript of her statement is here.
Measure C author Mike Hackett called out Supervisors Pedroza, Ramos, and Gregory for their initial support of Measure C when the NVV supported it and then their vehement opposition to the identical initiative when the NVV, at the insistence of major wine corporations, dropped support. Trust was a casualty of the process. Who do you work for? he asked. In citing the disinformation campaign put out by the No on C campaign and the false campaign arguments signed by Sup. Ramos in the official opposition ballot arguments, Mr. Hackett confronted them. "You lied to the citizens of Napa County. You owe an apology".
After Measure C: Land Use policy under review on: Napa Strategic Plan
Bill Hocker - Jul 19,18 expand... Share
What next after Measure C? on: Watershed Initiative 2018
Mike Hackett - Jul 2,18 expand... Share
We know now that Measure C did not pass. However we feel tremendous appreciation for the hundreds of volunteers that helped raise awareness about this defining environmental issue.
We garnered nearly 50 percent of the votes and those approximately 18,000 citizens believe that our water resources are in jeopardy and that we need to curb vineyard development on our hillsides here in the Napa Valley.
We lost a precious opportunity to show the world that growers and vintners here were willing to show leadership with a sustainable vision for the community’s future. This was lost early on when the Napa Valley Vintners, betrayed the trust we had built up during the collaboration of Measure C, and joined forces with the other wine trade groups, and together spent roughly three quarters of a million dollars to oppose the collaborated agreement we had reached together.
The wine industry has done an incredible amount of harm to its own reputation here. Over the years, the Napa Valley Vintners has given millions of dollars for worthy causes here. During the campaign for Measure C, they allowed a Trump-like campaign that used false and misleading information to be spread to our voters. We are deeply disturbed and saddened that this type of nasty campaign would be utilized here.
One has to wonder: at what cost to their reputation and was it worth it? There are no winners here, only losers. The oak woodlands will continue to be clear cut for vineyards and the wine industry has lost the respect not only of Napa’s citizens, but wine lovers from around the world.
Once again, big money got the most votes, but our citizen’s awareness of the negative campaign will leave a bad taste for a very long time.
We look back to the amazing collaboration we had with the NVV, which culminated in a jointly crafted Initiative which we submitted to the County on Sept. 1, 2017. Their Board of Directors voted unanimously on four occasions to support the Watershed and Oak Woodland Protection Measure.
However, almost immediately some short-sighted, powerful and greedy winery owners, joined by the corporate wine interests decided to use fear and intimidation to scare the NVV board into reversing their position. The tactics were simple from big boys: pull your support for this environmental issue or we’ll pull out as members and not participate in the Napa Valley Wine Auction.
Evidently, it worked and these same forces allowed the disinformation campaign to distort the facts and confuse the voters. While campaigning, it became evident that many people thought a “no vote” meant no more cutting of trees. One of their campaign flyers called us “crazy.”
We citizens feel like our moral compasses were broken by organizations utilizing campaign tactics designed to get folks to vote against their own best interests.
Looking ahead is difficult at this time. There’s clearly too much power in too few hands here; and it’s all within the wine industry. This one-industry town can celebrate this initial win at the polls, but the awareness that the majority of elected officials are answering to the industry and ignoring the pleas of the majority of citizens here, will mandate we move forward with another measure as soon as possible.
We all remain committed to protecting Napa County’s water, forests, watersheds and quality of life and will remain active until our lands are protected from over development.
NVR LTE version 9/1/18: What next after Measure C?
We garnered nearly 50 percent of the votes and those approximately 18,000 citizens believe that our water resources are in jeopardy and that we need to curb vineyard development on our hillsides here in the Napa Valley.
We lost a precious opportunity to show the world that growers and vintners here were willing to show leadership with a sustainable vision for the community’s future. This was lost early on when the Napa Valley Vintners, betrayed the trust we had built up during the collaboration of Measure C, and joined forces with the other wine trade groups, and together spent roughly three quarters of a million dollars to oppose the collaborated agreement we had reached together.
The wine industry has done an incredible amount of harm to its own reputation here. Over the years, the Napa Valley Vintners has given millions of dollars for worthy causes here. During the campaign for Measure C, they allowed a Trump-like campaign that used false and misleading information to be spread to our voters. We are deeply disturbed and saddened that this type of nasty campaign would be utilized here.
One has to wonder: at what cost to their reputation and was it worth it? There are no winners here, only losers. The oak woodlands will continue to be clear cut for vineyards and the wine industry has lost the respect not only of Napa’s citizens, but wine lovers from around the world.
Once again, big money got the most votes, but our citizen’s awareness of the negative campaign will leave a bad taste for a very long time.
We look back to the amazing collaboration we had with the NVV, which culminated in a jointly crafted Initiative which we submitted to the County on Sept. 1, 2017. Their Board of Directors voted unanimously on four occasions to support the Watershed and Oak Woodland Protection Measure.
However, almost immediately some short-sighted, powerful and greedy winery owners, joined by the corporate wine interests decided to use fear and intimidation to scare the NVV board into reversing their position. The tactics were simple from big boys: pull your support for this environmental issue or we’ll pull out as members and not participate in the Napa Valley Wine Auction.
Evidently, it worked and these same forces allowed the disinformation campaign to distort the facts and confuse the voters. While campaigning, it became evident that many people thought a “no vote” meant no more cutting of trees. One of their campaign flyers called us “crazy.”
We citizens feel like our moral compasses were broken by organizations utilizing campaign tactics designed to get folks to vote against their own best interests.
Looking ahead is difficult at this time. There’s clearly too much power in too few hands here; and it’s all within the wine industry. This one-industry town can celebrate this initial win at the polls, but the awareness that the majority of elected officials are answering to the industry and ignoring the pleas of the majority of citizens here, will mandate we move forward with another measure as soon as possible.
We all remain committed to protecting Napa County’s water, forests, watersheds and quality of life and will remain active until our lands are protected from over development.
NVR LTE version 9/1/18: What next after Measure C?
NIMBY on: Growth Issues
Bill Hocker - Jun 18,18 expand... Share
Pat Clay LTE regarding Napa Oaks II 6/18/18: Napa Oaks offers many benefits
Pat Clay invokes "NIMBY" in the editorial. Finally I had to look up the etymology. The first printed use of "NIMBY" was made in a 1980 in a lengthly article on hazardous waste disposal sites and the EPA's first regulation of hazardous wastes. (When the EPA was in the business of protecting the environment rather than un-protecting it).
The author's quote:
"The trade" was a reference to the waste disposal industry but might also be seen as any development industry. "NIMBY" is, as I have always assumed, a term invented by developers to pejoratively label those trying to preserve the quality of their lives in the face of a less desirable future. There is no similar pejorative for those wishing to make money by diminishing that quality. Other than "developer".
The intent of a pejorative label, raised to an art form by our current developer president, is to ridicule the target and divide them from the support of their otherwise similar peers. Who wants to be associated with someone who is "crooked" or "crazy". It is the prime weapon of every 10 year old schoolyard bully.
While the term "NIMBY" is usually invoked by developers against those impacted by the project to discount their opposition, it is also used by the non-impacted residents who support, in principle, the concept of “property rights” or else of urban development as a sign of prosperity from which they may benefit. That is until a project is proposed next door to their house.
Pat Clay invokes "NIMBY" in the editorial. Finally I had to look up the etymology. The first printed use of "NIMBY" was made in a 1980 in a lengthly article on hazardous waste disposal sites and the EPA's first regulation of hazardous wastes. (When the EPA was in the business of protecting the environment rather than un-protecting it).
The author's quote:
"People are now thoroughly alert to the dangers of hazardous chemical wastes.The very thought of having even a secure landfill anywhere near them is anathema to most Americans today. It's an attitude referred to in the trade as NIMBY -- "not in my backyard."
"The trade" was a reference to the waste disposal industry but might also be seen as any development industry. "NIMBY" is, as I have always assumed, a term invented by developers to pejoratively label those trying to preserve the quality of their lives in the face of a less desirable future. There is no similar pejorative for those wishing to make money by diminishing that quality. Other than "developer".
The intent of a pejorative label, raised to an art form by our current developer president, is to ridicule the target and divide them from the support of their otherwise similar peers. Who wants to be associated with someone who is "crooked" or "crazy". It is the prime weapon of every 10 year old schoolyard bully.
While the term "NIMBY" is usually invoked by developers against those impacted by the project to discount their opposition, it is also used by the non-impacted residents who support, in principle, the concept of “property rights” or else of urban development as a sign of prosperity from which they may benefit. That is until a project is proposed next door to their house.
Measure C: watershed protections lose on: Watershed Initiative 2018
Bill Hocker - Jun 12,18 expand... Share
6/12/18
County's Election vote-count update page
final tally no: 18,174 no: 17,533
Mike Hackett: “This movement will not be diminished. It will go forward.”
NVR 6/24/18: Napa's final election results make it official - Measure C lost
NVR 6/13/18: Latest vote tally shows Napa's Measure C is unlikely to win, co-author declares
NVR 6/12/18: Napa's Measure C falls further behind in Tuesday's result update
NVR 6/8/18: Napa's Measure C race still close after a new batch of votes is tallied
NVR 6/6/18: Napa's Measure C fate may be unknown for days - or weeks
Yes-on-C post-election update
County's Election vote-count update page
final tally no: 18,174 no: 17,533
Mike Hackett: “This movement will not be diminished. It will go forward.”
NVR 6/24/18: Napa's final election results make it official - Measure C lost
NVR 6/13/18: Latest vote tally shows Napa's Measure C is unlikely to win, co-author declares
NVR 6/12/18: Napa's Measure C falls further behind in Tuesday's result update
NVR 6/8/18: Napa's Measure C race still close after a new batch of votes is tallied
NVR 6/6/18: Napa's Measure C fate may be unknown for days - or weeks
Yes-on-C post-election update
Comments
Bill Hocker - Jun 7, 2018 3:42PM
Sandy Ericsson, former editor of the St. Helena Window and now transplanted to Oregon, sends her appreciation for the C campaign:
Hello to all from Oregon,
To everyone in this next generation of “truth to power” people, I say — Thank you! Thank you!
I had to move on and am now in Eugene, Oregon, as you may know, but in the three years since, I have lectured and written about the Napa Valley experience with big wine — powerpoint, etc. Last month, three of the founders of the core Willamette Valley wine people visited for 3 hours to dissect the problems in Napa Valley. They bluntly stated when they called that they were trying to “avoid what happened in the Napa Valley”. So they and others in Oregon are watching “C” carefully — it is already a lesson for all wine districts. Your work was and is important to every region.
When we met, I recommended a book by César Hildago, at MIT’s Media Lab, called Why Information Grows. The title does not fully identify why it applies to wine countries but it offers a future perspective on what can and will happen to regions whose economic products are anchored the land and why. It’s worth a read and some brainstorming for where to take your momentum.
Know there are a lot of people in Oregon cheering you on too!
Sandy
Hello to all from Oregon,
To everyone in this next generation of “truth to power” people, I say — Thank you! Thank you!
I had to move on and am now in Eugene, Oregon, as you may know, but in the three years since, I have lectured and written about the Napa Valley experience with big wine — powerpoint, etc. Last month, three of the founders of the core Willamette Valley wine people visited for 3 hours to dissect the problems in Napa Valley. They bluntly stated when they called that they were trying to “avoid what happened in the Napa Valley”. So they and others in Oregon are watching “C” carefully — it is already a lesson for all wine districts. Your work was and is important to every region.
When we met, I recommended a book by César Hildago, at MIT’s Media Lab, called Why Information Grows. The title does not fully identify why it applies to wine countries but it offers a future perspective on what can and will happen to regions whose economic products are anchored the land and why. It’s worth a read and some brainstorming for where to take your momentum.
Know there are a lot of people in Oregon cheering you on too!
Sandy
Tired of being ignored by Napa County officials on: Watershed Initiative 2018
Lisa Hirayama - Jun 11,18 expand... Share
Once, I was naive enough to believe that Napa County was concerned about its residents, but my eyes have been glaringly pried wide open. I have attended many Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings and realized that rarely have the boards met a winery development they didn't like.
Former Supervisor Keith Caldwell said at one meeting that Napa County's policy is not to punish violators but to bring them into compliance. That certainly explains why so many permit violators barely get a slap on the hand, i.e. The Caves, Reynolds Family Winery, Reverie, and Summers to name a few.
However, that opens another can of worms because there is little enforcement for code violators, so why shouldn't wineries get away with as much as possible.
I learned that in 2008, Napa County changed the definition of agriculture to include "wine marketing and sales," which, in effect, became a zoning change from agricultural to commercial use. That opened the floodgates and "farming" now includes everything from selling a winery's souvenirs (plates, cups, hats, etc) to hosting a wedding for 300 people.
The "No" side states that if Measure C passes, it will be the end of agriculture and farming. Since they are making so much more money on the new Napa definition of "agriculture," no wonder they aren't interested in protecting the trees and water quality. I admit, I wasn't paying attention to the change being made to zoning because I wasn't personally seeing the effects, but I now realize how detrimental that revision has been.
In October 2016, Supervisor Diane Dillon visited Circle Oaks and I asked what would happen if our wells went dry and we had to truck in water because of the Walt Ranch development (in watershed). She said I'd have to pay for it.
Given what has happened in the Carneros area, I have every reason to believe that it could happen to me. The same consulting firm that said there was plenty of groundwater to support the Carneros Resort and Spa development also said there's plenty of water for Walt Ranch.
The Carneros residents told the county supervisors back then that there wasn't enough groundwater in that area, yet the county approved it. Now, 10-plus years later, the city has been trucking in water to that area and just voted to start the process to connect the resort to city water pipes. Once again, another example of fixing a problem that should never have been given the green light in the first place.
I no longer trust Napa County to protect my property and water supply because I have seen how extremely solicitous they are to the wine industry. Supervisor Belia Ramos said at the Feb. 27 meeting when the supervisors voted to place Measure C on the ballot, that she felt this was the wrong way to initiate change and that the citizens should have come to the government to work out their issues.
I've had a front-row seat for the last four years and the commissioners and supervisors consistently ignore residents' concerns about every new winery and event center that keeps getting approved. The initiative route was the only way citizens felt they could have their voices heard.
Many people believe that the complex matters of protecting the watersheds and oak trees should be left to the county supervisors. With all due respect, have any of these people actually attended a county meeting when winery projects and appeals are being discussed?
I think not, because they would see that the commissioners and supervisors continuously approve every project and appeal before them in favor of the winery. Every concern by residents is mitigated away to a less than significant impact, always by the same environmental consulting service that the county uses for every environmental impact report.
This has been going on for years, which is why citizens have worked hard collecting signatures, not once but twice, to get Measure C on the ballot. They're tired of being ignored by the supervisors and planning commissioners.
Water is a limited resource, and climate change will make droughts more extreme and water sources more scarce. Napa County lost tens, if not hundreds. of thousands of trees in the Atlas Fire, yet Napa County will still allow remaining healthy trees to be cut down in the name of wine.
The effects of losing trees and not protecting the watersheds won't occur overnight---it will takes years or decades, but it will happen. San Francisco is planting 2,000 trees over the next two years to curtail global warming because they absorb carbon dioxide. Napa County will cut down trees instead.
If there was ever a time that a citizen initiative was sorely needed, this is the time. If you're unhappy with the direction that Napa County is heading, vote 'yes' on C.
NVR version 5/28/18: Tired of being ignored by Napa County officials in which Sean Scully adds this editorial note:
Former Supervisor Keith Caldwell said at one meeting that Napa County's policy is not to punish violators but to bring them into compliance. That certainly explains why so many permit violators barely get a slap on the hand, i.e. The Caves, Reynolds Family Winery, Reverie, and Summers to name a few.
However, that opens another can of worms because there is little enforcement for code violators, so why shouldn't wineries get away with as much as possible.
I learned that in 2008, Napa County changed the definition of agriculture to include "wine marketing and sales," which, in effect, became a zoning change from agricultural to commercial use. That opened the floodgates and "farming" now includes everything from selling a winery's souvenirs (plates, cups, hats, etc) to hosting a wedding for 300 people.
The "No" side states that if Measure C passes, it will be the end of agriculture and farming. Since they are making so much more money on the new Napa definition of "agriculture," no wonder they aren't interested in protecting the trees and water quality. I admit, I wasn't paying attention to the change being made to zoning because I wasn't personally seeing the effects, but I now realize how detrimental that revision has been.
In October 2016, Supervisor Diane Dillon visited Circle Oaks and I asked what would happen if our wells went dry and we had to truck in water because of the Walt Ranch development (in watershed). She said I'd have to pay for it.
Given what has happened in the Carneros area, I have every reason to believe that it could happen to me. The same consulting firm that said there was plenty of groundwater to support the Carneros Resort and Spa development also said there's plenty of water for Walt Ranch.
The Carneros residents told the county supervisors back then that there wasn't enough groundwater in that area, yet the county approved it. Now, 10-plus years later, the city has been trucking in water to that area and just voted to start the process to connect the resort to city water pipes. Once again, another example of fixing a problem that should never have been given the green light in the first place.
I no longer trust Napa County to protect my property and water supply because I have seen how extremely solicitous they are to the wine industry. Supervisor Belia Ramos said at the Feb. 27 meeting when the supervisors voted to place Measure C on the ballot, that she felt this was the wrong way to initiate change and that the citizens should have come to the government to work out their issues.
I've had a front-row seat for the last four years and the commissioners and supervisors consistently ignore residents' concerns about every new winery and event center that keeps getting approved. The initiative route was the only way citizens felt they could have their voices heard.
Many people believe that the complex matters of protecting the watersheds and oak trees should be left to the county supervisors. With all due respect, have any of these people actually attended a county meeting when winery projects and appeals are being discussed?
I think not, because they would see that the commissioners and supervisors continuously approve every project and appeal before them in favor of the winery. Every concern by residents is mitigated away to a less than significant impact, always by the same environmental consulting service that the county uses for every environmental impact report.
This has been going on for years, which is why citizens have worked hard collecting signatures, not once but twice, to get Measure C on the ballot. They're tired of being ignored by the supervisors and planning commissioners.
Water is a limited resource, and climate change will make droughts more extreme and water sources more scarce. Napa County lost tens, if not hundreds. of thousands of trees in the Atlas Fire, yet Napa County will still allow remaining healthy trees to be cut down in the name of wine.
The effects of losing trees and not protecting the watersheds won't occur overnight---it will takes years or decades, but it will happen. San Francisco is planting 2,000 trees over the next two years to curtail global warming because they absorb carbon dioxide. Napa County will cut down trees instead.
If there was ever a time that a citizen initiative was sorely needed, this is the time. If you're unhappy with the direction that Napa County is heading, vote 'yes' on C.
NVR version 5/28/18: Tired of being ignored by Napa County officials in which Sean Scully adds this editorial note:
Editor's Note: The Register asked Diane Dillon about the comments attributed to her by the author and she sent this response:
"Thanks for the opportunity to respond. I am not known for short conversations - especially on complex issues like the Walt Ranch - so I’m quite sure there was a larger dialogue than that one statement. My family lived in a rural area, and we relied on a well for our drinking water – so I understand and have compassion for those concerned about how a neighboring property owner’s new well might affect an existing water source.
"I distinctly remember discussing with Circle Oaks residents the challenge of proving that one or more new wells - whether installed by Walt Ranch or anyone else - whether for a vineyard - or a home/landscaping or other allowed use - could be attributed to a reduction in productivity of the Circle Oaks water supply - and the limitations of state water law on holding the new well owner responsible for that reduction. Indeed, if that happens overnight, and water is immediately needed, any property owner in that situation has to pay the cost for trucking water.
"But those conversations with residents informed and reinforced the decision to adopt for the Walt Ranch project mitigation measures that require extensive groundwater monitoring. Groundwater extraction is limited and checked monthly. If the monitoring program produces evidence that the project is having an impact on the groundwater basin, the county retains the authority to impose new conditions of approval. Further, if necessary to protect the basin, the county can revoke the project permit. The county has all the tools required to prevent the Walt Ranch from having an adverse impact on neighboring wells."
"Thanks for the opportunity to respond. I am not known for short conversations - especially on complex issues like the Walt Ranch - so I’m quite sure there was a larger dialogue than that one statement. My family lived in a rural area, and we relied on a well for our drinking water – so I understand and have compassion for those concerned about how a neighboring property owner’s new well might affect an existing water source.
"I distinctly remember discussing with Circle Oaks residents the challenge of proving that one or more new wells - whether installed by Walt Ranch or anyone else - whether for a vineyard - or a home/landscaping or other allowed use - could be attributed to a reduction in productivity of the Circle Oaks water supply - and the limitations of state water law on holding the new well owner responsible for that reduction. Indeed, if that happens overnight, and water is immediately needed, any property owner in that situation has to pay the cost for trucking water.
"But those conversations with residents informed and reinforced the decision to adopt for the Walt Ranch project mitigation measures that require extensive groundwater monitoring. Groundwater extraction is limited and checked monthly. If the monitoring program produces evidence that the project is having an impact on the groundwater basin, the county retains the authority to impose new conditions of approval. Further, if necessary to protect the basin, the county can revoke the project permit. The county has all the tools required to prevent the Walt Ranch from having an adverse impact on neighboring wells."
Comments
Bill Hocker - May 30, 2018 11:28AM
Lisa Hirayama responds to Diane Dillon's comments:
Sean,
Regarding Supervisor Diane Dillon’s response to my letter, “Tired of Being Ignored by Napa County Officials”, I believe her remarks are short-sighted and do not factually comport with the concerns raised in the Writ of Mandate that Circle Oaks’ litigated against Napa County and recently concluded in the Napa Superior Court. The mitigations that Supervisor Dillon is referring to are vague and not enforceable, and they are the subject of a pending appeal before the California Court of Appeals. The extensive monitoring she’s referring to is to be done by Walt Ranch, not by an impartial third party (which Circle Oaks asked for). That is the equivalent of having the fox guarding the henhouse. There will be no one checking to see that the monthly monitoring is being done. The County wouldn’t even put in a baseline level at which pumping would cease should water levels drop. Circle Oaks will only have the word of Walt Ranch that the water levels are fine. Circle Oaks did not receive any actionable safeguards for their water supply as a result of the County's approval of Walt Ranch. Napa County did not provide the same water protection guarantee for Circle Oaks’ residents that they did provide for neighbors of Circle S on Atlas Peak Road.
Yes, Supervisor Dillon had more than a short sentence response to my question, but the bottom line was that I will have to pay for water to be trucked in if the Circle Oaks County Water District’s wells go dry. She states that “if necessary to protect the basin, the county can revoke the project permit. The county has all the tools required to prevent the Walt Ranch from having an adverse impact on neighboring wells.” Please show me an example of where the County has EVER taken that action. And tell me, how well has that protection worked out for the neighbors of Carneros Resort and Spa? So, after all the trees have been cut down and the aquifer drained on Walt Ranch, then Napa County will revoke the project permit? None of that damage could ever be undone. None of what Supervisor Dillon says is enforceable, and even if it were, Napa County’s Code Enforcement Department is terribly understaffed. They provide no assurance that they will be able to respond in a timely manner to any of Circle Oaks’ concerns should our wells go dry while we await County action, if any. The key here is that Circle Oaks must first PROVE that Walt Ranch is the reason our wells went dry before any sort of review/assistance will be undertaken by the County. The onus will be on us, not on Walt Ranch, which is why I don’t trust Napa County to protect my property or water supply.
Lisa Hirayama
NVR LTE version 6/11/18: County offered no guarantees to Circle Oaks
Backup info for response
Sean,
Below are Circle Oaks' contentions concerning groundwater, which in and of themselves, demonstrate that Circle Oaks did not receive any actionable safeguards for their water supply as a result of the County's approval of Walt Ranch. This section is to verify to you my source for my comments:
(GWMMP = Groundwater Monitoring and Mitigation Plan)
1. In its Opening Brief, Circle Oaks demonstrated that while mitigation measure
4.6-4 “refers” to the GWMMP set forth at Appendix R of the Final EIR, it does not incorporate it or require compliance with it. (Opening Brief at 24.) As a result, the GWMMP is just an appendix to the EIR. The County argues the GWMMP is an enforceable mitigation measure but points to no language in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that would make it so. And as stated, regardless of whether the measures are incorporated into the MMRP, neither the MMRP or the GWMMP contain specific performance standards that would prompt the implementation of mitigation measures
2. The County claims that the Conditions of Approval and the GWWMP ensure
that monitoring and implementation of mitigation will take place. (Opp. at 37-38.) The last sentence of this section is telling. The County states “MM 4.6-4 spells out in detail the data to be collected, requires that Walt provide that information to the County, and empowers the County to take corrective action if the County and the hydrologist find it necessary.” (Opp. at 38.) The County does not explain what would prompt the implementation of mitigation, only that the County and Walt would do something if they found it necessary, and only if it is found that Walt Ranch caused the depletion.
3. Mitigation 4.6-4, in and of itself, fails to specify objective performance standards that the Project is required to meet, other than an undefined reference to “County standards” in the column for “Performance Criteria.” (Opening Brief at 26-28.) And as noted, the GWMMP provides for mitigation to occur when the level of drawdown “would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted” and only if it is later determined that Walt caused the drawdown. The County fails to explain what these provisions mean and how that would establish adequate performance standards. These unarticulated performance standards are insufficient to satisfy CEQA’s requirement to set identifiable performance standards at the time of project approval. [see page 12 of Reply Brief attached]
The above issues, and more, are the subject of an Appeal by the Circle Oaks community which is currently pending before the California Court of Appeals.
Lisa Hirayama
Sean,
Regarding Supervisor Diane Dillon’s response to my letter, “Tired of Being Ignored by Napa County Officials”, I believe her remarks are short-sighted and do not factually comport with the concerns raised in the Writ of Mandate that Circle Oaks’ litigated against Napa County and recently concluded in the Napa Superior Court. The mitigations that Supervisor Dillon is referring to are vague and not enforceable, and they are the subject of a pending appeal before the California Court of Appeals. The extensive monitoring she’s referring to is to be done by Walt Ranch, not by an impartial third party (which Circle Oaks asked for). That is the equivalent of having the fox guarding the henhouse. There will be no one checking to see that the monthly monitoring is being done. The County wouldn’t even put in a baseline level at which pumping would cease should water levels drop. Circle Oaks will only have the word of Walt Ranch that the water levels are fine. Circle Oaks did not receive any actionable safeguards for their water supply as a result of the County's approval of Walt Ranch. Napa County did not provide the same water protection guarantee for Circle Oaks’ residents that they did provide for neighbors of Circle S on Atlas Peak Road.
Yes, Supervisor Dillon had more than a short sentence response to my question, but the bottom line was that I will have to pay for water to be trucked in if the Circle Oaks County Water District’s wells go dry. She states that “if necessary to protect the basin, the county can revoke the project permit. The county has all the tools required to prevent the Walt Ranch from having an adverse impact on neighboring wells.” Please show me an example of where the County has EVER taken that action. And tell me, how well has that protection worked out for the neighbors of Carneros Resort and Spa? So, after all the trees have been cut down and the aquifer drained on Walt Ranch, then Napa County will revoke the project permit? None of that damage could ever be undone. None of what Supervisor Dillon says is enforceable, and even if it were, Napa County’s Code Enforcement Department is terribly understaffed. They provide no assurance that they will be able to respond in a timely manner to any of Circle Oaks’ concerns should our wells go dry while we await County action, if any. The key here is that Circle Oaks must first PROVE that Walt Ranch is the reason our wells went dry before any sort of review/assistance will be undertaken by the County. The onus will be on us, not on Walt Ranch, which is why I don’t trust Napa County to protect my property or water supply.
Lisa Hirayama
NVR LTE version 6/11/18: County offered no guarantees to Circle Oaks
Backup info for response
Sean,
Below are Circle Oaks' contentions concerning groundwater, which in and of themselves, demonstrate that Circle Oaks did not receive any actionable safeguards for their water supply as a result of the County's approval of Walt Ranch. This section is to verify to you my source for my comments:
(GWMMP = Groundwater Monitoring and Mitigation Plan)
1. In its Opening Brief, Circle Oaks demonstrated that while mitigation measure
4.6-4 “refers” to the GWMMP set forth at Appendix R of the Final EIR, it does not incorporate it or require compliance with it. (Opening Brief at 24.) As a result, the GWMMP is just an appendix to the EIR. The County argues the GWMMP is an enforceable mitigation measure but points to no language in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that would make it so. And as stated, regardless of whether the measures are incorporated into the MMRP, neither the MMRP or the GWMMP contain specific performance standards that would prompt the implementation of mitigation measures
2. The County claims that the Conditions of Approval and the GWWMP ensure
that monitoring and implementation of mitigation will take place. (Opp. at 37-38.) The last sentence of this section is telling. The County states “MM 4.6-4 spells out in detail the data to be collected, requires that Walt provide that information to the County, and empowers the County to take corrective action if the County and the hydrologist find it necessary.” (Opp. at 38.) The County does not explain what would prompt the implementation of mitigation, only that the County and Walt would do something if they found it necessary, and only if it is found that Walt Ranch caused the depletion.
3. Mitigation 4.6-4, in and of itself, fails to specify objective performance standards that the Project is required to meet, other than an undefined reference to “County standards” in the column for “Performance Criteria.” (Opening Brief at 26-28.) And as noted, the GWMMP provides for mitigation to occur when the level of drawdown “would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted” and only if it is later determined that Walt caused the drawdown. The County fails to explain what these provisions mean and how that would establish adequate performance standards. These unarticulated performance standards are insufficient to satisfy CEQA’s requirement to set identifiable performance standards at the time of project approval. [see page 12 of Reply Brief attached]
The above issues, and more, are the subject of an Appeal by the Circle Oaks community which is currently pending before the California Court of Appeals.
Lisa Hirayama
Measure D: Apocalypse averted! on: Heliport Initiative 2018
Bill Hocker - Jun 6,18 expand... Share
According to Ballotpedia Measure D, the initiative to prevent private use heliports in Napa County, has been approved by 61% to 39%. George Caloyannidis now has now saved the serenity of the Valley two times.
Comments
Bill Hocker - Jun 6, 2018 3:39PM
The Genesee Friends, a group of residents that has been fighting another Palmaz Heliport in Plumas County (already approved but being challenged with a CEQA lawsuit) sent out this notice to their supporters:
Dear Genesee Friends,
Napa County voters yesterday voted (61%) to "amend its municipal code to prohibit personal use of airports and heliports and to place restrictions on helicopter takeoff and landing times…”
Ballotpedia Summary of Measure D
The vote is a significant signal to the owners of Genesee Valley Ranch LLC (limited liability corporation) who contributed more than $126,000 to defeat Yes on Prop. D.
http://napavision2050.org/follow-money-funding-no-measure-d-funding-bill-dodd/
It should also be a signal to Plumas County voters and their elected officials who (with the exception of one supervisor) have helped the owners of the GVR to build their airport (as a barn/storage building) in a place where airports were specifically prohibited by the Plumas County General Plan, and who, represented by Palmaz’ lawyers continue to attempt to block local efforts to appeal the Planning Director’s decision to allow private heliports/airports on ANY lands zoned agriculture, without environmental review processes or public input.
Let’s celebrate with Napa and be encouraged!
Genesee Friends.
Napa County voters yesterday voted (61%) to "amend its municipal code to prohibit personal use of airports and heliports and to place restrictions on helicopter takeoff and landing times…”
Ballotpedia Summary of Measure D
The vote is a significant signal to the owners of Genesee Valley Ranch LLC (limited liability corporation) who contributed more than $126,000 to defeat Yes on Prop. D.
http://napavision2050.org/follow-money-funding-no-measure-d-funding-bill-dodd/
It should also be a signal to Plumas County voters and their elected officials who (with the exception of one supervisor) have helped the owners of the GVR to build their airport (as a barn/storage building) in a place where airports were specifically prohibited by the Plumas County General Plan, and who, represented by Palmaz’ lawyers continue to attempt to block local efforts to appeal the Planning Director’s decision to allow private heliports/airports on ANY lands zoned agriculture, without environmental review processes or public input.
Let’s celebrate with Napa and be encouraged!
Genesee Friends.
Treasury ramps up tourism on: Tourism Issues
Bill Hocker - Jun 4,18 expand... Share
Update 6/8/18
NVR 6/8/18: Napa Valley's Beaulieu Vineyard to do historic remodel, increase visitation
The use permit modification was approved 5-0 by the planning commission.
A last minute letter from Caltrans, adding a myriad of (very expensive sounding) conditions because of the project's potential traffic impacts right at the intersection of State Rtes 29 and 128, caused uncertainty about the final Conditions of Approval which were left - uncertain.
No one seemed too bothered by an additional 45,000 visitors a year, feeling that this was the right place for visitors to the Napa Valley, while still complaining about the amount of traffic on Hwy 29.
Eve Kahn brought up a good point in public comments: 45,000 more visitors/yr with new meal service at tours, tastings and events and yet no more employees? We already have enough employees said the owner's rep. Are they just standing around waiting for the new marketing plan to be realized? Maybe they're planning a shift from wine making to meal service?
The winery-vs-restaurant issue arose from the dead in both the commissioner discussion of this project and in their general comments at the end of meeting. Comm. Cottrell wanted staff to help the commission understand what the difference was between a food service at a winery (to 550 visitors a day and thousands at events throughout the year, for example) and meal service at a restaurant. Does it just come down to a choice of menu items. Is the French Laundry or Chez Panisse not a restaurant then? asked Eve Kahn. Comm Gallagher said that she had visited a winery with a $75 wine pairing lunch that from her standpoint was no different than a restaurant. Comm. Scott brought up the necessity of food being provided at cost . A $75 lunch was at cost? How do you regulate what is at cost? Comm. Whitmer, as a newby (perhaps still struggling with the obfuscating jargon of the WDO), also wanted to find out from staff what was the difference between a winery serving food and a restaurant serving food.
It is encouraging that the commission is willing to take up the food-service-at-wineries issue again, even if it is 4 years after Comm. Phillips hesitantly broached the issue and after it was diagnosed as a critical change of use made in the 2010 WDO (see here and here) and brought up frequently in APAC discussions and in arguments over the definition of agriculture (see here and here). Over 800,000 new visitor slots have been approved at wineries in those 4 years, based in large part on the increased profits to be made by a sit-down dining experience at the winery.
All of these discussions about the conversion of wineries into de-facto restaurants has so far been ignored by the industry and the government, to the extent that Beaulieu can now ask for and receive a modification that will allow them to serve hundreds of very expensive meals each day, and not be considered a restaurant. After 30 years Terra restaurant closed in St. Helena, not for lack of business but for lack of workers. I suspect their previous employees are all now working in wineries.
With this discussion I can't help thinking that had Dir. Morrison been in the planning manager's chair, he would have asked the commission if they wanted him to agendize a report on food service allowed at wineries and there might have been future discussion. Dep. Dir. Smith didn't make such an offer, and this brief blast from the past will probably simply return there.
5/29/18
NVR 6/4/18: Beaulieu Vineyards ask Napa County for visitor cap boost
The Beaulieu Winery is up for a use permit modification before the Planning Commission on June 6th, 2018. 100 more tasting visitors/day with meals and a tripling of event visitation most meal-centric, 49 more parking spaces. It's a complicated request that not only adds quantities of visitation and parking, but tears down somewhat historic buildings on the site and repurposes the more historic parts. It also involves increasing water consumption by 36,000 gal/day (with no increase in wine production).
More tourism with no increase in production, and the use of wineries as de facto restaurants is a trend happening more and more often in use permit requests. It is a clear indication that the wine industry is no longer about making wine; it's about corporate ownership, branding, marketing, and profit to be made from entertainment experiences. It is a change in the industry that has turned the residents of the county, long supportive of the wine industry for the environment it has preserved, into an adversary as the impacts of a tourism economy begin to degrade the quality of life and the environment that an agricultural economy created.
As one of the county's founding wineries, Beaulieu already has an enormous amount of visitation, 450 people a day - no appointments necessary. Not enough, obviously, from Treasury's standpoint. (Beaulieu is a "brand" owned by the Treasury Wine Estates Corporation which includes Beringer, Etude, Stag's Leap and Stirling in its Napa portfolio.) Another 100 people per day are requested. Plus an increase in event visitation from 3500 to 12800 guests/year. The PBES attitude:
"Although the requested maximum visitation exceeds the average and median of similar production capacity pre-WDO wineries, potential environmental impacts were found to be less significant." As usual.
Its 1.8 million gallons of wine each year are sold at retail outlets throughout the world. Making the case that it needs the tourists to survive, as every "family" winery now does at planning commission hearings, would be a bit disingenuous. It's really about developing another, more profitable business on the property than merely making wine. As each new request throughout the county shows, tourism has become the highest and best use of the land.
Planning Commission agenda and docs
Staff letter to Planning Commission
NVR 6/8/18: Napa Valley's Beaulieu Vineyard to do historic remodel, increase visitation
The use permit modification was approved 5-0 by the planning commission.
A last minute letter from Caltrans, adding a myriad of (very expensive sounding) conditions because of the project's potential traffic impacts right at the intersection of State Rtes 29 and 128, caused uncertainty about the final Conditions of Approval which were left - uncertain.
No one seemed too bothered by an additional 45,000 visitors a year, feeling that this was the right place for visitors to the Napa Valley, while still complaining about the amount of traffic on Hwy 29.
Eve Kahn brought up a good point in public comments: 45,000 more visitors/yr with new meal service at tours, tastings and events and yet no more employees? We already have enough employees said the owner's rep. Are they just standing around waiting for the new marketing plan to be realized? Maybe they're planning a shift from wine making to meal service?
The winery-vs-restaurant issue arose from the dead in both the commissioner discussion of this project and in their general comments at the end of meeting. Comm. Cottrell wanted staff to help the commission understand what the difference was between a food service at a winery (to 550 visitors a day and thousands at events throughout the year, for example) and meal service at a restaurant. Does it just come down to a choice of menu items. Is the French Laundry or Chez Panisse not a restaurant then? asked Eve Kahn. Comm Gallagher said that she had visited a winery with a $75 wine pairing lunch that from her standpoint was no different than a restaurant. Comm. Scott brought up the necessity of food being provided at cost . A $75 lunch was at cost? How do you regulate what is at cost? Comm. Whitmer, as a newby (perhaps still struggling with the obfuscating jargon of the WDO), also wanted to find out from staff what was the difference between a winery serving food and a restaurant serving food.
It is encouraging that the commission is willing to take up the food-service-at-wineries issue again, even if it is 4 years after Comm. Phillips hesitantly broached the issue and after it was diagnosed as a critical change of use made in the 2010 WDO (see here and here) and brought up frequently in APAC discussions and in arguments over the definition of agriculture (see here and here). Over 800,000 new visitor slots have been approved at wineries in those 4 years, based in large part on the increased profits to be made by a sit-down dining experience at the winery.
All of these discussions about the conversion of wineries into de-facto restaurants has so far been ignored by the industry and the government, to the extent that Beaulieu can now ask for and receive a modification that will allow them to serve hundreds of very expensive meals each day, and not be considered a restaurant. After 30 years Terra restaurant closed in St. Helena, not for lack of business but for lack of workers. I suspect their previous employees are all now working in wineries.
With this discussion I can't help thinking that had Dir. Morrison been in the planning manager's chair, he would have asked the commission if they wanted him to agendize a report on food service allowed at wineries and there might have been future discussion. Dep. Dir. Smith didn't make such an offer, and this brief blast from the past will probably simply return there.
5/29/18
NVR 6/4/18: Beaulieu Vineyards ask Napa County for visitor cap boost
The Beaulieu Winery is up for a use permit modification before the Planning Commission on June 6th, 2018. 100 more tasting visitors/day with meals and a tripling of event visitation most meal-centric, 49 more parking spaces. It's a complicated request that not only adds quantities of visitation and parking, but tears down somewhat historic buildings on the site and repurposes the more historic parts. It also involves increasing water consumption by 36,000 gal/day (with no increase in wine production).
More tourism with no increase in production, and the use of wineries as de facto restaurants is a trend happening more and more often in use permit requests. It is a clear indication that the wine industry is no longer about making wine; it's about corporate ownership, branding, marketing, and profit to be made from entertainment experiences. It is a change in the industry that has turned the residents of the county, long supportive of the wine industry for the environment it has preserved, into an adversary as the impacts of a tourism economy begin to degrade the quality of life and the environment that an agricultural economy created.
As one of the county's founding wineries, Beaulieu already has an enormous amount of visitation, 450 people a day - no appointments necessary. Not enough, obviously, from Treasury's standpoint. (Beaulieu is a "brand" owned by the Treasury Wine Estates Corporation which includes Beringer, Etude, Stag's Leap and Stirling in its Napa portfolio.) Another 100 people per day are requested. Plus an increase in event visitation from 3500 to 12800 guests/year. The PBES attitude:
"Although the requested maximum visitation exceeds the average and median of similar production capacity pre-WDO wineries, potential environmental impacts were found to be less significant." As usual.
Its 1.8 million gallons of wine each year are sold at retail outlets throughout the world. Making the case that it needs the tourists to survive, as every "family" winery now does at planning commission hearings, would be a bit disingenuous. It's really about developing another, more profitable business on the property than merely making wine. As each new request throughout the county shows, tourism has become the highest and best use of the land.
Planning Commission agenda and docs
Staff letter to Planning Commission
Measure D - legislation or initiative? on: Heliport Initiative 2018
George Caloyannidis - Jun 3,18 expand... Share
Though disappointed that the Napa Valley Register Editorial Board fell short of endorsing Measure D, which I sponsored, I couldn't agree more with the rationale that major changes in the code ought to be made through the legislative rather than the initiative process. But there is theory and there is Napa County reality. Sadly, they have been diverging further and further in the past decade.
What are people to do when faced with a looming problem of private heliport proliferation in the most desirable communities in the country when the legislators fails to recognize it and act?
Our supervisors have not only ignored this national trend but have been fully aware of it locally through the three-year-long process at the Planning Commission during the Palmaz family application for a personal use heliport. These hearings consumed just under 20 percent of the commission's hearings in a single year, and over 1,100 hours of staff time. Not the best use of the county's administrative resources.
Even worse, they have ignored the 70 to 90 neighbors of the Hagen Road community repeatedly attending these all-day hearings, anxious that an approval would destroy their quality of life and require them to disclose the presence of a heliport in their neighborhood when selling their homes. It takes an unusually serious concern for so many people to devote so much of their time fighting an issue.
This should have been enough for the county to pick up on public sentiment of private heliports spreading in our neighborhoods. If this was too much to hope for, it was inexcusable for the county not to accommodate a proposed ordinance by the law firm of Farella, Brown & Martell to address this issue through the legislative process, as the Register would have preferred.
The mere preparation of the proposed ordinance was an estimated $10,000 gift to the county. Instead of a 'thank you', it was rebuffed with an estimated 18-month waiting period and a fee of almost $2,000 before it would be considered. Mr. Farella did what any self-respecting person would do.
In stark contrast, the supervisors allocated time to review a disastrous staff recommendation to redefine a "small" winery to be larger than 53 percent of all existing wineries. And more time on how to "streamline" the hearings process by cutting public testimony from 3 to 2 minutes. They made time to approve 892,000 additional gallons of wine production, more and more winery visitors and events at one winery after another, many of them as rewards to egregious violators.
In answer to the Register's recommendation, if the county increasingly shows contempt to citizens' requests, shuts down or merely tolerates public testimony, when it makes every effort to accommodate scofflaws, all to the benefit of a handful while ignoring issues of wide concern, what options do the people have other than initiatives or replacing those occupying the peoples' chairs?
From personal experience, initiatives take an enormous commitment by dozens of volunteers and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ultimately, they are a gift to the community because they offer it a choice, a choice only because the legislative process was denied them.
Nonetheless, initiatives have legislative benefits as well. They serve as warnings to governments that clouds are gathering in its skies. It is up to the elected officials to take notice to avert the looming storms.
With a state senator as Bill Dodd, who has never once attended a hearing on his major funder Mr. Palmaz' application, obviously uninterested in gauging public sentiment on the wider issue, takes the lead in opposing Measure D, he becomes the poster child of the rapidly evolving crisis in our increasingly incestuous county government.
What are people to do when faced with a looming problem of private heliport proliferation in the most desirable communities in the country when the legislators fails to recognize it and act?
Our supervisors have not only ignored this national trend but have been fully aware of it locally through the three-year-long process at the Planning Commission during the Palmaz family application for a personal use heliport. These hearings consumed just under 20 percent of the commission's hearings in a single year, and over 1,100 hours of staff time. Not the best use of the county's administrative resources.
Even worse, they have ignored the 70 to 90 neighbors of the Hagen Road community repeatedly attending these all-day hearings, anxious that an approval would destroy their quality of life and require them to disclose the presence of a heliport in their neighborhood when selling their homes. It takes an unusually serious concern for so many people to devote so much of their time fighting an issue.
This should have been enough for the county to pick up on public sentiment of private heliports spreading in our neighborhoods. If this was too much to hope for, it was inexcusable for the county not to accommodate a proposed ordinance by the law firm of Farella, Brown & Martell to address this issue through the legislative process, as the Register would have preferred.
The mere preparation of the proposed ordinance was an estimated $10,000 gift to the county. Instead of a 'thank you', it was rebuffed with an estimated 18-month waiting period and a fee of almost $2,000 before it would be considered. Mr. Farella did what any self-respecting person would do.
In stark contrast, the supervisors allocated time to review a disastrous staff recommendation to redefine a "small" winery to be larger than 53 percent of all existing wineries. And more time on how to "streamline" the hearings process by cutting public testimony from 3 to 2 minutes. They made time to approve 892,000 additional gallons of wine production, more and more winery visitors and events at one winery after another, many of them as rewards to egregious violators.
In answer to the Register's recommendation, if the county increasingly shows contempt to citizens' requests, shuts down or merely tolerates public testimony, when it makes every effort to accommodate scofflaws, all to the benefit of a handful while ignoring issues of wide concern, what options do the people have other than initiatives or replacing those occupying the peoples' chairs?
From personal experience, initiatives take an enormous commitment by dozens of volunteers and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ultimately, they are a gift to the community because they offer it a choice, a choice only because the legislative process was denied them.
Nonetheless, initiatives have legislative benefits as well. They serve as warnings to governments that clouds are gathering in its skies. It is up to the elected officials to take notice to avert the looming storms.
With a state senator as Bill Dodd, who has never once attended a hearing on his major funder Mr. Palmaz' application, obviously uninterested in gauging public sentiment on the wider issue, takes the lead in opposing Measure D, he becomes the poster child of the rapidly evolving crisis in our increasingly incestuous county government.
Cio Perez is my choice for supervisor on: Campaign 2018
Charlotte Williams - Jun 3,18 expand... Share
Cio Perez knows you can’t talk your way out of a drought or a hard freeze.
Unlike our current county supervisors, who have allowed and supported the corruption of words essential to this county -- words like “agriculture” and “winery” -- Cio knows what those words truly mean. He’s spent his working life intimately involved with them.
These same supervisors have permitted the over-marketing of the valley to tourists, the massive expansion of wineries-cum-event centers and the ensuing visitor traffic, low-wage jobs and lack of affordable housing, which lead to more traffic as employees must commute from out of county. It is a cycle with negative impacts on the county’s residents, agriculture, and natural environment.
When I met Cio Perez, he introduced himself as “a farmer.” How refreshing. A person aware of and dependent on nature who takes honest pleasure in literally seeing the fruits of his labor; a person devoted to this place.
Because of that devotion to place and reality he supports (Yes) Measure C, the Watershed and Oak Woodland Protection Initiative, guarding a crucial ingredient of life and agriculture – clean water.
He also supports (Yes) Measure D, which bans further private heliports while allowing essential uses of and landings for helicopters, including emergencies, agricultural, and utilities.
He has studied at Stanford University, graduated from UC Davis in viticulture and been on the Farm Bureau board of directors for 30 years, and debated policy and practice with hundreds of Farm Bureau members at the state level.
Over the past several weeks of campaigning for and meeting with Cio, I am impressed by these behaviors: He is consistent in his message and presentation, he listens to all and replies thoughtfully and respectfully, he is knowledgeable about county issues and asks questions when he isn’t.
He is clear in his solutions to problems; knows how to drill down to the deeper problem and find a true solution. He is solid, steady and wise in the way that a farmer learns to be when dealing with the variables of nature. And he has a gentle sense of humor.
I believe Cio is a person of integrity and good character, that he is a person of good word.
That’s why I’m voting for Cio – he understands the difference between the essential and the frivolous.
Donate to Cio Here
NVR version 5/23/18: Cio Perez is my choice for supervisor
Unlike our current county supervisors, who have allowed and supported the corruption of words essential to this county -- words like “agriculture” and “winery” -- Cio knows what those words truly mean. He’s spent his working life intimately involved with them.
These same supervisors have permitted the over-marketing of the valley to tourists, the massive expansion of wineries-cum-event centers and the ensuing visitor traffic, low-wage jobs and lack of affordable housing, which lead to more traffic as employees must commute from out of county. It is a cycle with negative impacts on the county’s residents, agriculture, and natural environment.
When I met Cio Perez, he introduced himself as “a farmer.” How refreshing. A person aware of and dependent on nature who takes honest pleasure in literally seeing the fruits of his labor; a person devoted to this place.
Because of that devotion to place and reality he supports (Yes) Measure C, the Watershed and Oak Woodland Protection Initiative, guarding a crucial ingredient of life and agriculture – clean water.
He also supports (Yes) Measure D, which bans further private heliports while allowing essential uses of and landings for helicopters, including emergencies, agricultural, and utilities.
He has studied at Stanford University, graduated from UC Davis in viticulture and been on the Farm Bureau board of directors for 30 years, and debated policy and practice with hundreds of Farm Bureau members at the state level.
Over the past several weeks of campaigning for and meeting with Cio, I am impressed by these behaviors: He is consistent in his message and presentation, he listens to all and replies thoughtfully and respectfully, he is knowledgeable about county issues and asks questions when he isn’t.
He is clear in his solutions to problems; knows how to drill down to the deeper problem and find a true solution. He is solid, steady and wise in the way that a farmer learns to be when dealing with the variables of nature. And he has a gentle sense of humor.
I believe Cio is a person of integrity and good character, that he is a person of good word.
That’s why I’m voting for Cio – he understands the difference between the essential and the frivolous.
Donate to Cio Here
NVR version 5/23/18: Cio Perez is my choice for supervisor
Your water: Who has your back? on: Watershed Initiative 2018
Gary Margadant - May 27,18 expand... Share
In our county, many homes and businesses use water to stay viable and meet the needs of their owners and renters. If water is to be available to all in disaster, drought and plenty, are all users willing to share responsibility to make sure your water sources are sustainable, clean and drinkable? Can you rely on your neighbors to be good neighbors?
Water passes through all our properties on the way to groundwater, rivers and reservoirs that serve us all, so what must we do to make sure this passing water meets our neighbors needs? Are we good at this sustainable thing? A couple of California water agencies say no and are sending us warnings. The Department of Water Resources says our groundwater basin has problems we need to monitor and fix. The Regional Water Quality Board says our rivers are chocked with high levels of silt that essentially make the native fish homeless, and we need to fix this too.
The DWR says the major problems for the groundwater come from various sources: Population, total wells, public wells, irrigated acres, water quality, salt water intrusion. They require a Sustainable Agency to manage our groundwater with transparency of use, for we know not what we do without a water meter.
The Water Quality Board says the major problems are vineyard development in the hills that expose the soils to erosion that carry the silt to the rivers. They require the vineyard owners fix this with Best Practices.
Good neighbors cannot duck their responsibilities to us all and these agencies will be watching over us to make sure we do the sustainability things that benefits us all. We should do the same.
Measure C is proposing a tried and true good neighbor method of sustainability.
Vote Yes on Measure C.
NVR version 5/27/18: Your water: Who has your back?
Water passes through all our properties on the way to groundwater, rivers and reservoirs that serve us all, so what must we do to make sure this passing water meets our neighbors needs? Are we good at this sustainable thing? A couple of California water agencies say no and are sending us warnings. The Department of Water Resources says our groundwater basin has problems we need to monitor and fix. The Regional Water Quality Board says our rivers are chocked with high levels of silt that essentially make the native fish homeless, and we need to fix this too.
The DWR says the major problems for the groundwater come from various sources: Population, total wells, public wells, irrigated acres, water quality, salt water intrusion. They require a Sustainable Agency to manage our groundwater with transparency of use, for we know not what we do without a water meter.
The Water Quality Board says the major problems are vineyard development in the hills that expose the soils to erosion that carry the silt to the rivers. They require the vineyard owners fix this with Best Practices.
Good neighbors cannot duck their responsibilities to us all and these agencies will be watching over us to make sure we do the sustainability things that benefits us all. We should do the same.
Measure C is proposing a tried and true good neighbor method of sustainability.
Vote Yes on Measure C.
NVR version 5/27/18: Your water: Who has your back?
Oakville Winery appeal - tipping point or same old? on: Tourism Issues
Bill Hocker - May 25,18 expand... Share
Comments
Bill Hocker - Apr 20, 2018 8:45AM
This winery was the 2nd (or 3rd) to be denied a use permit by the planning commission since 2010. Girard was denied on a 2-2 split that was later approved on appeal. Flynnville in 2013 was continued, but denied in all but name. (A greatly reduced Flynnville project was eventually approved.) Yountville Hiill, of course, came famously close to being denied.
In all, some 134 wineries have been approved since 2010, so each of the minuscule number of denials is worth scrutinizing. The event is so rare that the commissioners had to ask county council what happens if they deny - what are the next steps. (The denial can be appealed to the BOS. The applicant can re-apply from scratch after one year.)
The Commission split along predictable lines. Comms. Basayne and Hansen, the development wing, voted to continue. Comms. Cottrell and Gallagher, the preservationist wing, voted to deny. Comm. Scott, appointee of the Dodd-Pedroza development establishment, went rogue here (as he has before) siding with the preservationists.
I want to believe that the denial represents some sort of direction - the tipping point that Gary Margadant referred to in his post. Particularly following on the Caldwell deliberation which generated a discussion about land use planning as something other than an accommodation to developer's business models.
But this was a project easy to criticize. Jammed by topography next to 2 roads and a creek, needing variances, with a huge cave and no place for spoils, and no room or suitability for vines, and no commitment on grape sourcing, the project had little to recommend it to the commissioners. It was, perhaps, a poor precedent to hang a trend on.
And yet, after the Caldwell continuance, which came quite close to a denial, in two projects in a row, this planning commission has delivered on the scrutiny needed to slow the proliferation of winery projects that are commercializing and urbanizing Napa's landscape. Is it a tipping point, a turning tide? Let's hope.
In all, some 134 wineries have been approved since 2010, so each of the minuscule number of denials is worth scrutinizing. The event is so rare that the commissioners had to ask county council what happens if they deny - what are the next steps. (The denial can be appealed to the BOS. The applicant can re-apply from scratch after one year.)
The Commission split along predictable lines. Comms. Basayne and Hansen, the development wing, voted to continue. Comms. Cottrell and Gallagher, the preservationist wing, voted to deny. Comm. Scott, appointee of the Dodd-Pedroza development establishment, went rogue here (as he has before) siding with the preservationists.
I want to believe that the denial represents some sort of direction - the tipping point that Gary Margadant referred to in his post. Particularly following on the Caldwell deliberation which generated a discussion about land use planning as something other than an accommodation to developer's business models.
But this was a project easy to criticize. Jammed by topography next to 2 roads and a creek, needing variances, with a huge cave and no place for spoils, and no room or suitability for vines, and no commitment on grape sourcing, the project had little to recommend it to the commissioners. It was, perhaps, a poor precedent to hang a trend on.
And yet, after the Caldwell continuance, which came quite close to a denial, in two projects in a row, this planning commission has delivered on the scrutiny needed to slow the proliferation of winery projects that are commercializing and urbanizing Napa's landscape. Is it a tipping point, a turning tide? Let's hope.
Ginna Beharry - Apr 18, 2018 9:30PM
Hallelujah!
We’re having the wrong conversation on: Tourism Issues
Bill Hocker - May 22,18 expand... Share
Chuck Wagner LTE 5/19/18: Our key industry also needs preservation
Chuck Wagner, in his opinion piece against Measure C, is right to recognize that "opposing sides desire the same end goal. We all agree it’s a priority to preserve our beauty and natural resources." He makes the point that overregulation of the wine industry in Napa County will eventually lead to its demise. I'm not sure that he is wrong.
We are, as he says, having the wrong conversation. He feels that conversation should be whether more regulation is bad or good for the wine industry. But the real question should be why the citizenry of the county feels that more regulation is continually necessary.
Mr. Wagner talks about the wine industry as if it's "grape growing and winemaking", "growers and vintners", "about farming and making wine". Where is the recognition that the wine industry is no longer about farming and wine making. It's now about entertainment and corporate profits and real estate deals. The wine industry now revolves around and will eventually be subservient to the tourism industry and the good-life housing industry. The difference between the wine industry and the citizenry is not about farming and wine making; it is that the wine industry has not regulated itself to avoid creating objectionable impacts on the lives of the citizenry.
Whatever the technical grounds for opposition, (unfortunately projects are forced to be fought over technical concerns rather than philosophical ones) the real issues are the intrusion of tourism into the residential sphere and the creation of vineyards as a trojan horse for real estate development and population growth.
Until the wine industry recognizes this and that the desire to regulate the industry comes not from concern about growing grapes and wine making but from the impacts of that urban development (just as growers recognized in pushing for the WDO in 1990), the conversation will continue to be the wrong one.
Chuck Wagner, in his opinion piece against Measure C, is right to recognize that "opposing sides desire the same end goal. We all agree it’s a priority to preserve our beauty and natural resources." He makes the point that overregulation of the wine industry in Napa County will eventually lead to its demise. I'm not sure that he is wrong.
We are, as he says, having the wrong conversation. He feels that conversation should be whether more regulation is bad or good for the wine industry. But the real question should be why the citizenry of the county feels that more regulation is continually necessary.
Mr. Wagner talks about the wine industry as if it's "grape growing and winemaking", "growers and vintners", "about farming and making wine". Where is the recognition that the wine industry is no longer about farming and wine making. It's now about entertainment and corporate profits and real estate deals. The wine industry now revolves around and will eventually be subservient to the tourism industry and the good-life housing industry. The difference between the wine industry and the citizenry is not about farming and wine making; it is that the wine industry has not regulated itself to avoid creating objectionable impacts on the lives of the citizenry.
Whatever the technical grounds for opposition, (unfortunately projects are forced to be fought over technical concerns rather than philosophical ones) the real issues are the intrusion of tourism into the residential sphere and the creation of vineyards as a trojan horse for real estate development and population growth.
Until the wine industry recognizes this and that the desire to regulate the industry comes not from concern about growing grapes and wine making but from the impacts of that urban development (just as growers recognized in pushing for the WDO in 1990), the conversation will continue to be the wrong one.
Who's opposing Measure D? on: Heliport Initiative 2018
Bill Hocker - May 22,18 expand... Share
Update 5/22/18
Napavision 2050 has published a great breakdown of the Palmaz no-on-C contributions and the family links to Bill Dodd:
Follow the Money: Who is funding No on Measure D? Who is funding Bill Dodd?
And Norm Manzer’s LTE on the subject is here: Enough is enough on helicopters - vote no on Measure D
5/2/18
Helicopters make a lot of very irritating noise. Who would want to have more of them overhead? Well, our State Senator Bill Dodd for one.
At the end of Patricia Damery's very clear refutation of the falsehoods made by Sen. Dodd in the ballot arguments opposing Measure D (Arguments against Measure D are wrong), the Register's editor reached out to Sen. Dodd to respond: too busy to speak about it, he said; there might be unintended consequences; "the people" and supervisors should be left to handle these matters.
It seemed a bit sheepish. Particularly considering his concern over fake news.
Private use heliports will benefit perhaps less than one tenth of one percent of the county's population. Yet the thump-thump-thump of helicopters will impact everyone, particularly as more and more of the county's plutocrats opt to heli-commute rather than subject themselves to Napa's increasingly congested roads.
Why is the opposition being led by Sen. Dodd? His constituency is now well beyond the parochial issues of Napa County. Why is he willing to sign his name to bogus claims to benefit a small handful of people, while harming the quality of life for the rest of his Napa constituents and the county's visitors?
Well, one might speculate looking at the donor list:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/82641/bill-dodd
Perhaps it's the $17,000 from the Calif. Association of Realtors who know how much value a helipad would add to properties aimed at plutocrats. Or perhaps it’s the $16,800 from the Halls, who might want to assure the future buyers of the remote Walt Ranch estates of their right to a heliport. Or perhaps it’s the same amount from the Woolls who might want a quicker way to get friends and family from home to their remote estates.
Or, just perhaps, it’s the $8,300 from Christian Palmaz. (On top of his $10,000 donation to the No-on-C campaign. And on top of the $116,000 donated to no-on-C from other family members.) If Measure D passes his stalled application for his own heliport is dead.
Members of the Palmaz family are no ordinary Bill Dodd donors. In 2008 the Palmaz family donated $500,000 to Justin Siena school for the "Dodd Stadium" - to honor Sen. Dodd's parents. He might have been thinking about that when decided to oppose the heliport initiative.
Major political donors expect special consideration from their representatives. It’s the American way (unfortunately). But that consideration needs to weigh what donors want against the larger public good.
In the short term, the defeat of Measure D will immediately benefit one very influential family. The appeal to the Supervisors of the Palmaz heliport application is scheduled just after the election. In the longer term it may benefit an increasing number of the uber-rich, some no doubt already Bill Dodd donors, who can afford to heli-commute .
But the impacts will be on us all. In a county that claims to be a bastion against the ills of Bay Area urbanization, an ever increasing din of helicopter traffic diminishes the environmental character for Napa residents and visitors who value the peace and quiet to be found here.
Given his responsibility to represent the entire county, and not just his major contributors, Sen. Dodd’s opposition, and his untruthful opposition ballot arguments, have not been well considered.
Napavision 2050 has published a great breakdown of the Palmaz no-on-C contributions and the family links to Bill Dodd:
Follow the Money: Who is funding No on Measure D? Who is funding Bill Dodd?
And Norm Manzer’s LTE on the subject is here: Enough is enough on helicopters - vote no on Measure D
5/2/18
Helicopters make a lot of very irritating noise. Who would want to have more of them overhead? Well, our State Senator Bill Dodd for one.
At the end of Patricia Damery's very clear refutation of the falsehoods made by Sen. Dodd in the ballot arguments opposing Measure D (Arguments against Measure D are wrong), the Register's editor reached out to Sen. Dodd to respond: too busy to speak about it, he said; there might be unintended consequences; "the people" and supervisors should be left to handle these matters.
It seemed a bit sheepish. Particularly considering his concern over fake news.
Private use heliports will benefit perhaps less than one tenth of one percent of the county's population. Yet the thump-thump-thump of helicopters will impact everyone, particularly as more and more of the county's plutocrats opt to heli-commute rather than subject themselves to Napa's increasingly congested roads.
Why is the opposition being led by Sen. Dodd? His constituency is now well beyond the parochial issues of Napa County. Why is he willing to sign his name to bogus claims to benefit a small handful of people, while harming the quality of life for the rest of his Napa constituents and the county's visitors?
Well, one might speculate looking at the donor list:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/82641/bill-dodd
Perhaps it's the $17,000 from the Calif. Association of Realtors who know how much value a helipad would add to properties aimed at plutocrats. Or perhaps it’s the $16,800 from the Halls, who might want to assure the future buyers of the remote Walt Ranch estates of their right to a heliport. Or perhaps it’s the same amount from the Woolls who might want a quicker way to get friends and family from home to their remote estates.
Or, just perhaps, it’s the $8,300 from Christian Palmaz. (On top of his $10,000 donation to the No-on-C campaign. And on top of the $116,000 donated to no-on-C from other family members.) If Measure D passes his stalled application for his own heliport is dead.
Members of the Palmaz family are no ordinary Bill Dodd donors. In 2008 the Palmaz family donated $500,000 to Justin Siena school for the "Dodd Stadium" - to honor Sen. Dodd's parents. He might have been thinking about that when decided to oppose the heliport initiative.
Major political donors expect special consideration from their representatives. It’s the American way (unfortunately). But that consideration needs to weigh what donors want against the larger public good.
In the short term, the defeat of Measure D will immediately benefit one very influential family. The appeal to the Supervisors of the Palmaz heliport application is scheduled just after the election. In the longer term it may benefit an increasing number of the uber-rich, some no doubt already Bill Dodd donors, who can afford to heli-commute .
But the impacts will be on us all. In a county that claims to be a bastion against the ills of Bay Area urbanization, an ever increasing din of helicopter traffic diminishes the environmental character for Napa residents and visitors who value the peace and quiet to be found here.
Given his responsibility to represent the entire county, and not just his major contributors, Sen. Dodd’s opposition, and his untruthful opposition ballot arguments, have not been well considered.
Napa Groundwater Sustainability Alternative on: Watershed Issues
Bill Hocker - May 21,18 expand... Share
Protect Napa Valley wines, water and communities on: Watershed Initiative 2018
Geoff Ellsworth - May 21,18 expand... Share
Many Napa County residents cherish our scenic hillsides. Many more enjoy drinking our local Napa wines. All should be alarmed by a current trend that is dramatically changing Napa Valley’s character, water security and livability.
The interests of corporate wineries and hospitality businesses – like mega hotels and event centers for weddings and concerts – are taking priority over those of Napa residents. This once-quaint weekend wonder is losing its sense of place, which has appealed to visitors from within and beyond the Bay Area for decades.
Protecting the Napa Valley’s water supply and scenic beauty is critical to sustaining its local economy and way of life. Endless expansion of wineries and hillside deforestation is not sustainable. Nor are the rising health impacts from agricultural chemicals in the Valley. Napa County has one of the highest cancer rates in all of California.
Local decisionmakers could put an end to this unfettered development, but Napa County has a democracy problem. Deep-pocketed wine industry players wield too much influence over elected bodies. Winery event spaces are built first and granted retroactive permits later, even when construction is inconsistent with existing zoning. Bad actors ask for forgiveness rather than permission, which flies in the face of California law.
Fortunately, residents are using the electoral process to create change. Measure C, an initiative on the June ballot, would protect the woodlands that are the main source of Napa Valley’s water supply. The Yes on C campaign is in full swing, fueled by small donations and citizen volunteers. In contrast, the opposition is being fueled mainly by the corporate wine industry, which may spend more than $1 million to spread misinformation and sow confusion about this ballot measure.
The Agricultural Preserve, established 50 years ago, protects agricultural lands from development. The watershed feeding these lands depends on oak woodlands to capture and filter rainwater, replenishing groundwater and streams so that everyone – wineries, residents and tourists – have access to clean, plentiful water. Grapes need a reliable supply of clean water just as surely as people do. Strip the hillsides of trees and you threaten that water supply.
Area residents are also fighting the owners of two proposed vineyards in court that hope to clear-cut woodlands to plant grapes. If built, the vineyards in question would increase flood risk and traffic congestion, and impact local water sources. Both proposed wineries are owned by corporate conglomerates from outside the area.
Wine lovers have a romantic vision of our region as the perfect escape from city life and a source of premium wines. But residents, visitors and distant wine drinkers alike must act if we want to preserve the Napa Valley as a healthy place to live and a beautiful place to visit.
I grew up in the Napa Valley wine business, and I know that many vintners and growers remain committed to sustainability. But their numbers are dwindling in this era of corporate consolidation.
There are actions people can take. Vote Yes on C, become active in local civic activities, and learn about the wineries you visit and the wines you buy. Support small vintners and those working with the community and the environment. The future is the Napa Valley is in our hands. Let’s work together to secure a future that works in balance for all.
Geoff Ellsworth
City Council member, St. Helena
The interests of corporate wineries and hospitality businesses – like mega hotels and event centers for weddings and concerts – are taking priority over those of Napa residents. This once-quaint weekend wonder is losing its sense of place, which has appealed to visitors from within and beyond the Bay Area for decades.
Protecting the Napa Valley’s water supply and scenic beauty is critical to sustaining its local economy and way of life. Endless expansion of wineries and hillside deforestation is not sustainable. Nor are the rising health impacts from agricultural chemicals in the Valley. Napa County has one of the highest cancer rates in all of California.
Local decisionmakers could put an end to this unfettered development, but Napa County has a democracy problem. Deep-pocketed wine industry players wield too much influence over elected bodies. Winery event spaces are built first and granted retroactive permits later, even when construction is inconsistent with existing zoning. Bad actors ask for forgiveness rather than permission, which flies in the face of California law.
Fortunately, residents are using the electoral process to create change. Measure C, an initiative on the June ballot, would protect the woodlands that are the main source of Napa Valley’s water supply. The Yes on C campaign is in full swing, fueled by small donations and citizen volunteers. In contrast, the opposition is being fueled mainly by the corporate wine industry, which may spend more than $1 million to spread misinformation and sow confusion about this ballot measure.
The Agricultural Preserve, established 50 years ago, protects agricultural lands from development. The watershed feeding these lands depends on oak woodlands to capture and filter rainwater, replenishing groundwater and streams so that everyone – wineries, residents and tourists – have access to clean, plentiful water. Grapes need a reliable supply of clean water just as surely as people do. Strip the hillsides of trees and you threaten that water supply.
Area residents are also fighting the owners of two proposed vineyards in court that hope to clear-cut woodlands to plant grapes. If built, the vineyards in question would increase flood risk and traffic congestion, and impact local water sources. Both proposed wineries are owned by corporate conglomerates from outside the area.
Wine lovers have a romantic vision of our region as the perfect escape from city life and a source of premium wines. But residents, visitors and distant wine drinkers alike must act if we want to preserve the Napa Valley as a healthy place to live and a beautiful place to visit.
I grew up in the Napa Valley wine business, and I know that many vintners and growers remain committed to sustainability. But their numbers are dwindling in this era of corporate consolidation.
There are actions people can take. Vote Yes on C, become active in local civic activities, and learn about the wineries you visit and the wines you buy. Support small vintners and those working with the community and the environment. The future is the Napa Valley is in our hands. Let’s work together to secure a future that works in balance for all.
Geoff Ellsworth
City Council member, St. Helena
Sierra Club is for Measure C on: Watershed Initiative 2018
Diane Shepp - May 21,18 expand... Share
Sierra Club officially endorses Measure C.
As a body we decry misrepresentations made by its opponents.
Measure C is a sensible initiative requested by over 7,000 voters. It sets reasonable limits on destruction of oak woodlands in Ag, Watershed & Open Space zones of Napa County. Limits which will:
- Protect shared watersheds for clear naturally filtered water supply,
- Conserve multiple species habitats connected through wildlife corridors,
- Sequester carbon through mature oak canopies and associated vegetation, and
- Set upland buffers at waterway or woodland edges to ease climate change effects.
Sierra Club participates in the grassroots Yes on C campaign which respects community interests that care for the environment and seeks limits on haphazard development in watershed hillsides through Measure C.
Two opponents of Measure C have signed election documents representing themselves as “Sierra Club Member” and “Former Sierra Club Board Member”. We take strong exception to their attempts to mislead voters in the face of approval by the Sierra Club at all levels to endorse Measure C.
More telling is that the elected and appointed officials were sued in a lawsuit over the election documents in Napa Superior Court and they eventually agreed to correct misleading statements and pay proponents’ legal costs by settlement.
Where is their credibility now?
Sierra Club has confidence in Napa County voters and calls upon our membership to join and vote YES on Measure C.
Diane Shepp
Chair of the Napa Group of the Sierra Club
As a body we decry misrepresentations made by its opponents.
Measure C is a sensible initiative requested by over 7,000 voters. It sets reasonable limits on destruction of oak woodlands in Ag, Watershed & Open Space zones of Napa County. Limits which will:
- Protect shared watersheds for clear naturally filtered water supply,
- Conserve multiple species habitats connected through wildlife corridors,
- Sequester carbon through mature oak canopies and associated vegetation, and
- Set upland buffers at waterway or woodland edges to ease climate change effects.
Sierra Club participates in the grassroots Yes on C campaign which respects community interests that care for the environment and seeks limits on haphazard development in watershed hillsides through Measure C.
Two opponents of Measure C have signed election documents representing themselves as “Sierra Club Member” and “Former Sierra Club Board Member”. We take strong exception to their attempts to mislead voters in the face of approval by the Sierra Club at all levels to endorse Measure C.
More telling is that the elected and appointed officials were sued in a lawsuit over the election documents in Napa Superior Court and they eventually agreed to correct misleading statements and pay proponents’ legal costs by settlement.
Where is their credibility now?
Sierra Club has confidence in Napa County voters and calls upon our membership to join and vote YES on Measure C.
Diane Shepp
Chair of the Napa Group of the Sierra Club
Rally for Measure C on: Watershed Initiative 2018
Bill Hocker - May 17,18 expand... Share
Update 5/16/18
Jim Wilson sends this link to to the KPFA interview of demonstrators at the Rally
5/15/18
Measure C Rally
Jim Wilson
Randy Dunn
Geoff Ellsworth
Chris Benz and Gary Margadant
Lisa Hirayama
Eve Kahn and Ginny Simms
Dan Mufson
Political Complication
Xulio Soriano speaks
Yeoryios Apallas at the Rally
The Measure C Rally
Cindy Grupp and Patricia Damery
Mike Hackett's granddaughter Morgann
Kellie Anderson
Jay Golic and Jim Wilson
Measure C crowd
Jim Wilson sends this link to to the KPFA interview of demonstrators at the Rally
Ginna Beharry, Tony McClimans and Joyce Kingery were great!
KPFA webcast: Napa Voters Face Initiative Regulating Vineyard Growth
KPFA webcast: Napa Voters Face Initiative Regulating Vineyard Growth
5/15/18
Measure C RallyJim WilsonRandy DunnGeoff Ellsworth
Chris Benz and Gary MargadantLisa HirayamaEve Kahn and Ginny SimmsDan MufsonPolitical ComplicationXulio Soriano speaksYeoryios Apallas at the RallyThe Measure C RallyCindy Grupp and Patricia DameryMike Hackett's granddaughter MorgannKellie AndersonJay Golic and Jim WilsonMeasure C crowdSupervisors' Unfair Political Practice against C? on: Watershed Initiative 2018
Bill Hocker - May 17,18 expand... Share
Update 6/12/18
I have been told that the complaint was dismissed. Poo.
5/17/18
On May 7th Attorney Robert "Perl" Perlmutter, lead author of the Measure C initiative, filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission alleging that the "9111" Report, commissioned by the Napa Board of Supervisors and written by the law firm Miller Starr Regalia, was not an objective and fair presentation of relevant facts concerning measure C as required by law, but was, in fact, one piece of a political opposition campaign on the part of the Board and Supervisors Pedroza and Ramos against Measure C. As such he is accusing them of illegally using public funds to promote a partisan political position.
Press release of the complaint.
Perlmutter Complaint to the FPPC
9111 Report on Watershed Initiative
I asked Sean Scully why the Register hasn't yet had an article on this issue. He responded:
While I respect his sincerity, and one can get carried away with parallels, this seems a bit like a mini-James Comey dilemma. This is the moment that we are all beginning to fill out our ballots. The insertion of this story at this moment may make a difference to some people [6/6/18: and a difference in the election if the vote remains so close]. If the Supervisors are found in violation after the defeat of Measure C, he risks being accused of suppressing a potential game-changing story.
I have been told that the complaint was dismissed. Poo.
5/17/18
On May 7th Attorney Robert "Perl" Perlmutter, lead author of the Measure C initiative, filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission alleging that the "9111" Report, commissioned by the Napa Board of Supervisors and written by the law firm Miller Starr Regalia, was not an objective and fair presentation of relevant facts concerning measure C as required by law, but was, in fact, one piece of a political opposition campaign on the part of the Board and Supervisors Pedroza and Ramos against Measure C. As such he is accusing them of illegally using public funds to promote a partisan political position.
Press release of the complaint.
Perlmutter Complaint to the FPPC
9111 Report on Watershed Initiative
I asked Sean Scully why the Register hasn't yet had an article on this issue. He responded:
...we're waiting to see what happens with it. Certainly if they find the supervisors in violation, it becomes major news. We rarely report the initial filing of an FPPC complaint simply because they are so easy to file, compared with a lawsuit.
While I respect his sincerity, and one can get carried away with parallels, this seems a bit like a mini-James Comey dilemma. This is the moment that we are all beginning to fill out our ballots. The insertion of this story at this moment may make a difference to some people [6/6/18: and a difference in the election if the vote remains so close]. If the Supervisors are found in violation after the defeat of Measure C, he risks being accused of suppressing a potential game-changing story.
Fact-based reporting on: Watershed Initiative 2018
Bill Hocker - May 16,18 expand... Share
Register photo of the rallyThe real rallyMore of the real rally photos are here
Much is made by the opposition to Measure C about the need for fact-based decisions. But the fact is, as we've found with countless technical reports from developer's consultants over the last few years, facts can be arranged to make whatever point needs to be made, and usually the person with the most money has the most often approved arrangement.
The two photos above are facts. Which shows the reality of the Measure C rally? The Register in their article on the Measure C rally gives a woefully misleading impression about the strength of support for the initiative. Just as one of their articles on the heliport initiative initially showed a fire helicopter, giving the impression that Measure D would affect emergency response flights, this use of a photo that subtly undermines the initiative goes outside the bounds of objective reporting.
Given the editorial board's disdain of citizen initiatives despite agreeing with their intention, it does seem, whether unconsciously or not, that the Register is acting as a political tool for the moneyed establishment interests in this one-company county. Add to that the No-on-C ad banners that appear at the top of every article or LTE about Measure C and it seems to many of us like we've returned to the days of William Randolph Hearst.
Sean Scully responds:
Thanks, Bill. I am aware of the Yes on C's displeasure. I do take vigorous exception to the line " Facts, unfortunately, go to the highest bidder." That is an allegation of the highest possible journalistic misconduct. We would never make such a public assertion about you or anyone else without evidence and a fair chance to comment, and it dismays me you would do so to us.
Bill Hocker responds:
Sean,
OK, I've removed the line. Not being a real journalist, I often let my hyperbole get out of hand, and the comment was intended to be a more general complaint (which I do believe) than Register-specific but in context was pretty accusatory. I have no way of knowing what your intentions are, but all the facts point in one direction: that the Register editorial board, despite agreeing with all of the intentions of measure C and D, decided to adopt the main talking point of the wine industry that these matters are best left up to them and supervisors rather than the people. You are acting as the voice of the industry, whether you see it that way or not. The fact that much of the Register's revenue comes from that industry gives it an unseemly appearance. Tensions are pretty high over these issues, and a very misleading photo provoked a reaction.
OK, I've removed the line. Not being a real journalist, I often let my hyperbole get out of hand, and the comment was intended to be a more general complaint (which I do believe) than Register-specific but in context was pretty accusatory. I have no way of knowing what your intentions are, but all the facts point in one direction: that the Register editorial board, despite agreeing with all of the intentions of measure C and D, decided to adopt the main talking point of the wine industry that these matters are best left up to them and supervisors rather than the people. You are acting as the voice of the industry, whether you see it that way or not. The fact that much of the Register's revenue comes from that industry gives it an unseemly appearance. Tensions are pretty high over these issues, and a very misleading photo provoked a reaction.
Sean Scully responds:
Thanks, Bill.
What's interesting is that you're wrong about "much of the Register's revenue comes from that industry." The wine industry does not advertise with us, by and large. Their target market is far beyond our humble purview - wineries generally don't need to reach Napa County residents. Same, really, with tourist-based business such as hotels and resorts. Our tent-pole advertisers are local businesses such as car dealerships, mattress stores, and realtors. The loss of Vallerga's, for example, was a sad day for us, whereas wineries such as Caymus, V. Sattui, or Alpha Omega could vanish in a puff of smoke and we'd never notice the difference, revenue-wise. Election seasons are a little different, depending on the issue - The No On C campaign is obviously spending money with us this season, but then again, so is Yes on C. I don't believe the No people would have been any less inclined to advertise with us had we endorsed C than the Yes people are now.
And as far as the editorial board - it is a separate matter from the news department. It has no influence on the news coverage. Barry, Kevin and the others in the newsroom do not sit in on the board meetings, they don't participate in the discussion of the editorials. It's no secret I sit on the board, of course, but I take seriously the separation of news and opinion, and most of the base-level planning and editing for news coverage takes place several rungs below me on the management chart anyway. And as an ethical matter, editors and reporters rebel when directed by higher-ups to skew their coverage - it would be as serious an ethics violation for them to obey such an order as it would be for me or anyone above me to issue that order.
I'd be happy to have you come out and see what we do so you have a better sense of how we operate.
What's interesting is that you're wrong about "much of the Register's revenue comes from that industry." The wine industry does not advertise with us, by and large. Their target market is far beyond our humble purview - wineries generally don't need to reach Napa County residents. Same, really, with tourist-based business such as hotels and resorts. Our tent-pole advertisers are local businesses such as car dealerships, mattress stores, and realtors. The loss of Vallerga's, for example, was a sad day for us, whereas wineries such as Caymus, V. Sattui, or Alpha Omega could vanish in a puff of smoke and we'd never notice the difference, revenue-wise. Election seasons are a little different, depending on the issue - The No On C campaign is obviously spending money with us this season, but then again, so is Yes on C. I don't believe the No people would have been any less inclined to advertise with us had we endorsed C than the Yes people are now.
And as far as the editorial board - it is a separate matter from the news department. It has no influence on the news coverage. Barry, Kevin and the others in the newsroom do not sit in on the board meetings, they don't participate in the discussion of the editorials. It's no secret I sit on the board, of course, but I take seriously the separation of news and opinion, and most of the base-level planning and editing for news coverage takes place several rungs below me on the management chart anyway. And as an ethical matter, editors and reporters rebel when directed by higher-ups to skew their coverage - it would be as serious an ethics violation for them to obey such an order as it would be for me or anyone above me to issue that order.
I'd be happy to have you come out and see what we do so you have a better sense of how we operate.
Bill Hocker responds:
Sean,
Thanks for the clarifications. Let me also say that Barry Eberling's reporting over the last few years has been excellent, presenting both sides fairly and going out of his way to make sure the concerns of those of us who often feel disenfranchised in planning decisions are restated in each article. No complaints there.
Thanks for the clarifications. Let me also say that Barry Eberling's reporting over the last few years has been excellent, presenting both sides fairly and going out of his way to make sure the concerns of those of us who often feel disenfranchised in planning decisions are restated in each article. No complaints there.
Wine industry decries winery proliferation on: Watershed Initiative 2018
Bill Hocker - May 14,18 expand... Share
My name was misused on C on: Watershed Initiative 2018
Harris Nussbaum - May 10,18 expand... Share
I was really upset when I saw my name in the four-page front flyer of Sunday's Napa Valley Register as a supporter of No on Measure C. That is so far from the truth as are so many other statements in that and the almost daily flyers we receive from them.
I support the wine and grape industries and appreciate all that so many individuals in those groups have done for this valley. It is unfortunate that a subgroup of those groups are willing to spend well over a million dollars and use so many untruths to defeat it. No on Measure C was not validated by our superior court. They had to withdraw five false items from the ballot and pay over a $50,000 in legal costs.
It will not increase traffic on Highway 29. It does not encourage development of luxury homes It is not vague and was written by the attorneys who wrote Measures J and P and with the help of members of the wine and grape industries. Yes on C is funded by small contributions from a significant number of caring individuals, not large corporations.
The initiative process is an important tool for the people to protect themselves. It is sad that our leaders failed to do that. In 2015, because of concerns expressed by many individuals, our board of supervisors formed the Agricultural Protection Advisory Committee to take care of the problems that exist, but stacked it with one-sided industry representatives, so very little was accomplished.
Our leaders could have done what Measure C will do, but didn't. Walt Ranch wanted to take out 26,000 trees, but with pressure from the public reduced it. But it will still be removing 14,000. How many young birds and baby animals will be destroyed?
If left to our leaders and certain business people, our hills will be completely bare. Trees are important. They absorb carbon dioxide, help the ground absorb and filter needed water, house animals and birds, stabilize the soil and create beauty.
I find it sad that for some, the only beauty they can see is the bottom line and they will use anything necessary to increase that, no matter how it will affect the well-being of our citizens. We have almost no current limitations on deforestation of hillsides. And with legislation through fear, who is looking out for our best interest?
Yes on C is far more important than people realize. It is time to say money and using distortions of the truth can't control our political processes. It is time to stand up and be heard.
It is appalling for the No on C to use mine and other names they used without our permission. I urge you to please vote Yes on Measure C-it is the right thing to do. Like with the Ag Preserve and in the words of Warren Winiarski, "Napa will be better because of it." Thank you.
NVR version 5/10/18: My name was misused on advertisement
I support the wine and grape industries and appreciate all that so many individuals in those groups have done for this valley. It is unfortunate that a subgroup of those groups are willing to spend well over a million dollars and use so many untruths to defeat it. No on Measure C was not validated by our superior court. They had to withdraw five false items from the ballot and pay over a $50,000 in legal costs.
It will not increase traffic on Highway 29. It does not encourage development of luxury homes It is not vague and was written by the attorneys who wrote Measures J and P and with the help of members of the wine and grape industries. Yes on C is funded by small contributions from a significant number of caring individuals, not large corporations.
The initiative process is an important tool for the people to protect themselves. It is sad that our leaders failed to do that. In 2015, because of concerns expressed by many individuals, our board of supervisors formed the Agricultural Protection Advisory Committee to take care of the problems that exist, but stacked it with one-sided industry representatives, so very little was accomplished.
Our leaders could have done what Measure C will do, but didn't. Walt Ranch wanted to take out 26,000 trees, but with pressure from the public reduced it. But it will still be removing 14,000. How many young birds and baby animals will be destroyed?
If left to our leaders and certain business people, our hills will be completely bare. Trees are important. They absorb carbon dioxide, help the ground absorb and filter needed water, house animals and birds, stabilize the soil and create beauty.
I find it sad that for some, the only beauty they can see is the bottom line and they will use anything necessary to increase that, no matter how it will affect the well-being of our citizens. We have almost no current limitations on deforestation of hillsides. And with legislation through fear, who is looking out for our best interest?
Yes on C is far more important than people realize. It is time to say money and using distortions of the truth can't control our political processes. It is time to stand up and be heard.
It is appalling for the No on C to use mine and other names they used without our permission. I urge you to please vote Yes on Measure C-it is the right thing to do. Like with the Ag Preserve and in the words of Warren Winiarski, "Napa will be better because of it." Thank you.
NVR version 5/10/18: My name was misused on advertisement
Bill Dodd on C and D on: Campaign 2018
Bill Hocker - May 10,18 expand... Share
Bill Dodd NVR LTE 5/101/8: Thoughtful, good-hearted people can disagree
He will vote no on both measures. He feels that the initiatives bypass the deliberative public process and will have unintended consequences. The deliberative public process in Napa County, unfortunately, consists of a deliberation between "the stakeholders", i.e. the major county corporations and plutocratic entrepreneurs, and the government, who (it appears after attending 4 years of public hearings) represents their interests rather than the majority of the citizenry.
APAC was the county's big test when it came to public deliberations between the government, the stakeholders and the residents of the county. Following demands by residents for action on the proliferation of tourism oriented wineries, the flaunting of use permit limits to increase winery tourism, and the impact that tourism development was having on traffic, housing, and rural character in the county, the Supervisors called for a deliberative process to address the concerns, the APAC committee. The Planning department made a good faith effort to propose methods of reducing the number of wineries being proposed and of reducing the amount of tourism they generate, and a system for policing use permits. Those proposals were rejected or severely diluted by the committee which was heavily populated by industry insiders. Then even those diluted proposals were rejected out of hand by the Board of Supervisors who proposed instead a system to recognize and allow the wineries illegal activities and formalize vested rights, before the whole process seemed to peter out. Wineries got a promise to help legalize their illegal or ambiguous operations. The residents got nothing. New winery approvals and increased visitation at existing wineries have continued apace. Tourism development in the municipalities, the "big picture" issue that the Supervisors proposed to confront after APAC, has since exploded, unconfronted.
Citizen initiative Measure C was a direct result of the failure of an extensive deliberative process over Walt Ranch with the government unable to halt, despite enormous resistance from the county's citizens, a vineyard estate housing project that will endanger water resources needed by the Circle Oaks community and the city of Napa and allow further urbanization of the watershed areas of the county, all to the benefit of one plutocratic real estate developer.
Bill Dodd's out-front opposition to Citizen Initiative Measure D, based clearly on contributions made on his behalf by the Palmaz family, points to the difficulty of the deliberative process in which elected government officials give preferred treatment to those with money to spend, over the interests of the majority of the citizens they nominally serve. The Palmaz heliport was vehemently opposed by a vast section of the citizenry that will be impacted, all to benefit one plutocrat. Without the intervention of Measure D, the elected officials of the County would probably have already approved the project. The deliberative public process in action.
In a world with ever more money moving from business interests to government officials' campaigns, residents have less and less real say in the public deliberative process. The initiative process, as it was intended to do, is a check on that dynamic.
He will vote no on both measures. He feels that the initiatives bypass the deliberative public process and will have unintended consequences. The deliberative public process in Napa County, unfortunately, consists of a deliberation between "the stakeholders", i.e. the major county corporations and plutocratic entrepreneurs, and the government, who (it appears after attending 4 years of public hearings) represents their interests rather than the majority of the citizenry.
APAC was the county's big test when it came to public deliberations between the government, the stakeholders and the residents of the county. Following demands by residents for action on the proliferation of tourism oriented wineries, the flaunting of use permit limits to increase winery tourism, and the impact that tourism development was having on traffic, housing, and rural character in the county, the Supervisors called for a deliberative process to address the concerns, the APAC committee. The Planning department made a good faith effort to propose methods of reducing the number of wineries being proposed and of reducing the amount of tourism they generate, and a system for policing use permits. Those proposals were rejected or severely diluted by the committee which was heavily populated by industry insiders. Then even those diluted proposals were rejected out of hand by the Board of Supervisors who proposed instead a system to recognize and allow the wineries illegal activities and formalize vested rights, before the whole process seemed to peter out. Wineries got a promise to help legalize their illegal or ambiguous operations. The residents got nothing. New winery approvals and increased visitation at existing wineries have continued apace. Tourism development in the municipalities, the "big picture" issue that the Supervisors proposed to confront after APAC, has since exploded, unconfronted.
Citizen initiative Measure C was a direct result of the failure of an extensive deliberative process over Walt Ranch with the government unable to halt, despite enormous resistance from the county's citizens, a vineyard estate housing project that will endanger water resources needed by the Circle Oaks community and the city of Napa and allow further urbanization of the watershed areas of the county, all to the benefit of one plutocratic real estate developer.
Bill Dodd's out-front opposition to Citizen Initiative Measure D, based clearly on contributions made on his behalf by the Palmaz family, points to the difficulty of the deliberative process in which elected government officials give preferred treatment to those with money to spend, over the interests of the majority of the citizens they nominally serve. The Palmaz heliport was vehemently opposed by a vast section of the citizenry that will be impacted, all to benefit one plutocrat. Without the intervention of Measure D, the elected officials of the County would probably have already approved the project. The deliberative public process in action.
In a world with ever more money moving from business interests to government officials' campaigns, residents have less and less real say in the public deliberative process. The initiative process, as it was intended to do, is a check on that dynamic.
Time’s Up: To protect local water supplies, Napa County voters must approve Measure C on: Watershed Initiative 2018
Mike Hackett - May 10,18 expand... Share
The Napa Valley Register’s recent editorial had a lot of good things to say about Measure C, and for good reason ("The measures on the June Ballot," April 29). Napa County’s water security is in jeopardy and protecting our oak woodlands would go a long way toward improving the situation.
As stated in the editorial, it’s time to “take a hard look at the current regulations protecting the streams and trees in the hills surrounding the valley.” The facts are clear that, “Those forests and streams feed the Napa River and recharge the reservoirs and aquifers that supply the cities and vineyards on the Valley floor. Those trees are not just scenic treasures, but also a line of defense against the looming menace of climate change.”
We agree that we must act proactively to protect Napa County’s water supply, just as we protected the land best suited to farming by establishing the Ag Preserve in 1968. As the editorial noted, “we should not wait until there is a tree-clearing gold rush in our back country, or until our aquifers begin to fail, before protecting the national treasure that is Napa County.”
Where we part ways with the newspaper is in its faith that our Board of Supervisors will improve protections for our watershed lands. Experience proves that the only way to increase protections of our watershed lands is through a citizens’ initiative.
Everyone in the county has known that this initiative was coming for at least three years. We first gathered signatures to place a very similar measure on the 2016 ballot. After signatures were gathered, county counsel identified a legal procedural flaw at the 11th hour, forcing our team to collect a new set of signatures to qualify for the current ballot. That means proponents successfully collected more than 6,000 signatures twice in support of this measure in the past few years.
Once signatures were gathered, the Board of Supervisors had a chance to adopt the measure outright. But did they choose to do so? No. Because the corporate wine industry enjoys an outsized influence over our elected officials.
People who have been tracking the journey of Measure C know, that after we failed to get this initiative onto the 2016 ballot, we worked with leaders from the Napa Valley Vintners to develop the initiative that is now before you. (The NVV has since caved to pressure from some of its largest members, many of which are large corporations without local roots.)
NVV’s leaders knew Measure C was coming. Rather than wait and see what it would include, they actively collaborated to shape the details of the measure. That 795-acre cap for oak woodland clearing in the Ag Watershed for agricultural purposes? NVV suggested that number as a reasonable compromise.
NVV was so involved in drafting this measure, they paid for more than half of the legal bills associated with putting it together. Their leaders had private meetings with every supervisor and our team to introduce the new initiative and ask for support from each of them.
In private, we had firm commitments from at least three of the supervisors that they would support Measure C. All of them made clear that they were supportive because wine industry leaders provided the cover they needed. It was a natural: super-influential wine industry group representing over 500 vintners, aligned in a compromise agreement to save our water supply and oak woodlands into the future. One supervisor even signaled the board would likely adopt the measure outright once signatures were collected and suggested the county have a party to celebrate its adoption in conjunction with 50th anniversary celebrations for the Ag Preserve.
We remember these details clearly because we took detailed contemporaneous notes at and after all of these meetings.
When the major wine industry groups later opted to oppose the initiative, our elected officials lost their nerve. They realized they would have to risk alienating major campaign contributors by taking a stand that might upset a handful of extremely rich and powerful wine industry interests. Rather than take that risk, they caved.
So, Napa County voters should understand why we’re not going to wait and see if our elected officials will take the urgent action needed to protect Napa County’s water supplies. We already know they won’t.
Climate change is not waiting for the supervisors to wake up to the reality of what another harsh and extended drought would mean for our water supplies. Farmers – including grapegrowers – are not waiting for the new regulations to cut down oaks as quickly as possible from our Ag Watershed.
To borrow a phrase from another urgent movement of our era, Time’s Up: The time to protect local water supplies is now, and the citizens can make it happen. Yes on C.
Mike Hackett and Jim Wilson
NVR LTE version 5/10/18: Time’s Up: To protect local water supplies, Napa County voters must approve Measure C
As stated in the editorial, it’s time to “take a hard look at the current regulations protecting the streams and trees in the hills surrounding the valley.” The facts are clear that, “Those forests and streams feed the Napa River and recharge the reservoirs and aquifers that supply the cities and vineyards on the Valley floor. Those trees are not just scenic treasures, but also a line of defense against the looming menace of climate change.”
We agree that we must act proactively to protect Napa County’s water supply, just as we protected the land best suited to farming by establishing the Ag Preserve in 1968. As the editorial noted, “we should not wait until there is a tree-clearing gold rush in our back country, or until our aquifers begin to fail, before protecting the national treasure that is Napa County.”
Where we part ways with the newspaper is in its faith that our Board of Supervisors will improve protections for our watershed lands. Experience proves that the only way to increase protections of our watershed lands is through a citizens’ initiative.
Everyone in the county has known that this initiative was coming for at least three years. We first gathered signatures to place a very similar measure on the 2016 ballot. After signatures were gathered, county counsel identified a legal procedural flaw at the 11th hour, forcing our team to collect a new set of signatures to qualify for the current ballot. That means proponents successfully collected more than 6,000 signatures twice in support of this measure in the past few years.
Once signatures were gathered, the Board of Supervisors had a chance to adopt the measure outright. But did they choose to do so? No. Because the corporate wine industry enjoys an outsized influence over our elected officials.
People who have been tracking the journey of Measure C know, that after we failed to get this initiative onto the 2016 ballot, we worked with leaders from the Napa Valley Vintners to develop the initiative that is now before you. (The NVV has since caved to pressure from some of its largest members, many of which are large corporations without local roots.)
NVV’s leaders knew Measure C was coming. Rather than wait and see what it would include, they actively collaborated to shape the details of the measure. That 795-acre cap for oak woodland clearing in the Ag Watershed for agricultural purposes? NVV suggested that number as a reasonable compromise.
NVV was so involved in drafting this measure, they paid for more than half of the legal bills associated with putting it together. Their leaders had private meetings with every supervisor and our team to introduce the new initiative and ask for support from each of them.
In private, we had firm commitments from at least three of the supervisors that they would support Measure C. All of them made clear that they were supportive because wine industry leaders provided the cover they needed. It was a natural: super-influential wine industry group representing over 500 vintners, aligned in a compromise agreement to save our water supply and oak woodlands into the future. One supervisor even signaled the board would likely adopt the measure outright once signatures were collected and suggested the county have a party to celebrate its adoption in conjunction with 50th anniversary celebrations for the Ag Preserve.
We remember these details clearly because we took detailed contemporaneous notes at and after all of these meetings.
When the major wine industry groups later opted to oppose the initiative, our elected officials lost their nerve. They realized they would have to risk alienating major campaign contributors by taking a stand that might upset a handful of extremely rich and powerful wine industry interests. Rather than take that risk, they caved.
So, Napa County voters should understand why we’re not going to wait and see if our elected officials will take the urgent action needed to protect Napa County’s water supplies. We already know they won’t.
Climate change is not waiting for the supervisors to wake up to the reality of what another harsh and extended drought would mean for our water supplies. Farmers – including grapegrowers – are not waiting for the new regulations to cut down oaks as quickly as possible from our Ag Watershed.
To borrow a phrase from another urgent movement of our era, Time’s Up: The time to protect local water supplies is now, and the citizens can make it happen. Yes on C.
Mike Hackett and Jim Wilson
NVR LTE version 5/10/18: Time’s Up: To protect local water supplies, Napa County voters must approve Measure C
Traffic Jam Sessions on: Traffic Issues
Bill Hocker - May 9,18 expand... Share
NVR 5/9/18: Imagining a Napa County future of uncluttered roadways? Think again.
The County Planning Commission was given an introduction to the first draft of the new Circulation Element that will eventually replace the current one in the General Plan. Public comments may be submitted to the county staff through June 1st after which the staff will address the comments and produce another draft of the element by this summer. And then there will be planning commission hearings on that draft.
Video and docs of 5/2/18 PC meeting
Existing Circulation Element (2008)
The new Draft Circulation Element
NCTPA Vision2040 Report (2015) with Fehr & Peers study
From the staff presentation it seems that the new circulation element will emphasize policy aimed at reducing Greenhouse gas emissions, and as such will work in tandem with the county's stalled Climate Action Plan which may be taken up by the commission in June.
Commission discussion ranged from more electric charging stations to public transport to more affordable housing and the need for regional solutions. The discussion seemed focused at mitigations for problems we already experience or that can be expected in the future. No one talked about reducing the root cause of traffic increases, i.e. the amount and type of tourism and industrial development occurring in the county that generates more traffic and encourages visitor and employee travel. No one ever discusses the possibility of moving from a growth mentality that assumes an ever larger economy with ever more development to the consideration of policies for a stable economy with a finite limit on growth that gives the opportunity to stabilize emissions and then perhaps find ways to reduce them. Reductions in existing GHGs are hard, production of new GHGs from more development and population importation are way too easy, and a net reduction in GHG production will never be achieved as long as "growth" rather than stability is the goal.
In public comments after the discussion Dave Whitmir, who will shortly be replacing Comm. Basayne on the planning commission, spoke about some initial suggestions in looking at the new policies. Despite a concern over his opposition to measure C, one issue he brought up made caught my attention:
The wording doesn’t quite make clear whether he is calling for re-thinking further commercial development on problematic rural roads, or for improving the roads so that these rural areas can be further urbanized. I want to believe the former.
The County Planning Commission was given an introduction to the first draft of the new Circulation Element that will eventually replace the current one in the General Plan. Public comments may be submitted to the county staff through June 1st after which the staff will address the comments and produce another draft of the element by this summer. And then there will be planning commission hearings on that draft.
Video and docs of 5/2/18 PC meeting
Existing Circulation Element (2008)
The new Draft Circulation Element
NCTPA Vision2040 Report (2015) with Fehr & Peers study
From the staff presentation it seems that the new circulation element will emphasize policy aimed at reducing Greenhouse gas emissions, and as such will work in tandem with the county's stalled Climate Action Plan which may be taken up by the commission in June.
Commission discussion ranged from more electric charging stations to public transport to more affordable housing and the need for regional solutions. The discussion seemed focused at mitigations for problems we already experience or that can be expected in the future. No one talked about reducing the root cause of traffic increases, i.e. the amount and type of tourism and industrial development occurring in the county that generates more traffic and encourages visitor and employee travel. No one ever discusses the possibility of moving from a growth mentality that assumes an ever larger economy with ever more development to the consideration of policies for a stable economy with a finite limit on growth that gives the opportunity to stabilize emissions and then perhaps find ways to reduce them. Reductions in existing GHGs are hard, production of new GHGs from more development and population importation are way too easy, and a net reduction in GHG production will never be achieved as long as "growth" rather than stability is the goal.
In public comments after the discussion Dave Whitmir, who will shortly be replacing Comm. Basayne on the planning commission, spoke about some initial suggestions in looking at the new policies. Despite a concern over his opposition to measure C, one issue he brought up made caught my attention:
"Regarding Circulation policy CIR 36 (pg 20 here): Should there be an action item for this policy to review the new development approvals and insure that roads are adequate for the demands placed upon them? And I would specifically call out some recent approvals on Soda Canyon and Atlas Peak and the concerns of resident in those areas about whether or not those roads are safe to handle that kind of traffic."
The wording doesn’t quite make clear whether he is calling for re-thinking further commercial development on problematic rural roads, or for improving the roads so that these rural areas can be further urbanized. I want to believe the former.
Enough is enough on helicopters - vote for Measure D on: Heliport Initiative 2018
Norm Manzer - May 9,18 expand... Share
Why is Measure D on the June ballot? Unless you are new to town, everyone is well aware of the two-year drawn out procedure to process the application by 33-year-old Christian Palmaz for a private heliport on his property in Coombsville.
Palmaz doesn’t like the 15 minute drive from his home to the Napa County Airport where he parks his personal copter. Regardless of the impact upon his many neighbors; four public hearings listening to his hired guns explain how his personal helicopter won’t bother anyone; and the county Planning Commission’s ultimate denial of his application, Palmaz is appealing that decision to the Board of Supervisors to be heard after the election.
Most commercial use of helicopters has been outlawed for many years now, but the loophole for personal use and abuse has been left wide open. More than 1,000 hours of county staff time have already been spent processing the Palmaz application, and yet no effort has been put forth by our Board of Supervisors to preclude a repeat of such a request by our new billionaire residents. None, nada.
Should Measure D by some chance be defeated, it will be the lead argument by Palmaz before the Board of Supervisors that “the citizens of Napa County are in favor of private heliports.”
When you receive your voter information booklet in the mail you will be surprised to see that our own Sen. Bill Dodd is the lead opponent to Measure D. And why, you might ask? Dodd urges everyone to vote no on D because it is unnecessary and is only “in search of a non-existent problem.”
Personally, I liken it to getting an immunization shot before I get a disease instead of after the disease, provided I survive the disease.
And so it comes to mind, just why would Sen. Dodd take such a position that is so contrary to the peace and quiet of our Napa Valley? It is quite obvious that the extremely wealthy carry a great deal of political clout, and once the county approves one such private heliport, our new neighbors in their $15 million homes will not be satisfied driving their cars to reach their new third home in Napa County.
Let’s follow the money. Step back almost 10 years when then Supervisor Bill Dodd was leading the private-public partnership for the renovation of the Justin-Sienna athletic stadium. Supervisor Dodd was following in the footsteps of his parents who were ardent supporters of Justin-Sienna, and for whom the new stadium was going to be named Dodd Stadium. While the renovation totaled $2.5 million, the only substantial contribution mentioned in the Napa Valley Register was “The Palmaz family of Napa made a $500,000 donation.”
According to the April 28 Napa Valley Register, the No on D campaign has received $11,000 in donations, $10,000 of which is from Christian Palmaz. I don’t know about you, but somehow the definition of “coincidence” doesn’t fit here.
Ten years ago Palmaz donates half a million dollars to a campaign for naming the stadium after the Dodd family, and today we have Sen. Dodd carrying the ball for the No on D campaign with possible benefit to Palmaz.
Please join me and everyone else in voting Yes on D. Enough is enough.
NVR version with editors note 5/09/18: Enough is enough on helicopters - vote for Measure D
Palmaz doesn’t like the 15 minute drive from his home to the Napa County Airport where he parks his personal copter. Regardless of the impact upon his many neighbors; four public hearings listening to his hired guns explain how his personal helicopter won’t bother anyone; and the county Planning Commission’s ultimate denial of his application, Palmaz is appealing that decision to the Board of Supervisors to be heard after the election.
Most commercial use of helicopters has been outlawed for many years now, but the loophole for personal use and abuse has been left wide open. More than 1,000 hours of county staff time have already been spent processing the Palmaz application, and yet no effort has been put forth by our Board of Supervisors to preclude a repeat of such a request by our new billionaire residents. None, nada.
Should Measure D by some chance be defeated, it will be the lead argument by Palmaz before the Board of Supervisors that “the citizens of Napa County are in favor of private heliports.”
When you receive your voter information booklet in the mail you will be surprised to see that our own Sen. Bill Dodd is the lead opponent to Measure D. And why, you might ask? Dodd urges everyone to vote no on D because it is unnecessary and is only “in search of a non-existent problem.”
Personally, I liken it to getting an immunization shot before I get a disease instead of after the disease, provided I survive the disease.
And so it comes to mind, just why would Sen. Dodd take such a position that is so contrary to the peace and quiet of our Napa Valley? It is quite obvious that the extremely wealthy carry a great deal of political clout, and once the county approves one such private heliport, our new neighbors in their $15 million homes will not be satisfied driving their cars to reach their new third home in Napa County.
Let’s follow the money. Step back almost 10 years when then Supervisor Bill Dodd was leading the private-public partnership for the renovation of the Justin-Sienna athletic stadium. Supervisor Dodd was following in the footsteps of his parents who were ardent supporters of Justin-Sienna, and for whom the new stadium was going to be named Dodd Stadium. While the renovation totaled $2.5 million, the only substantial contribution mentioned in the Napa Valley Register was “The Palmaz family of Napa made a $500,000 donation.”
According to the April 28 Napa Valley Register, the No on D campaign has received $11,000 in donations, $10,000 of which is from Christian Palmaz. I don’t know about you, but somehow the definition of “coincidence” doesn’t fit here.
Ten years ago Palmaz donates half a million dollars to a campaign for naming the stadium after the Dodd family, and today we have Sen. Dodd carrying the ball for the No on D campaign with possible benefit to Palmaz.
Please join me and everyone else in voting Yes on D. Enough is enough.
NVR version with editors note 5/09/18: Enough is enough on helicopters - vote for Measure D
Yes on D! on: Heliport Initiative 2018
NV2050 Admin - May 8,18 expand... Share
Comments
George Caloyannidis - May 8, 2018 4:09PM
Tuesday, May 08, 2018 2:18 PM Tittel/Caloyannidis wrote:
Sorry we will miss you again Bill.
You state that "those organizing the NO campaign listed me first on the ballot arguments".
The ballot arguments are signed by yourself and cosigned by Peter White, Brian Bottari and Matthew Higginbotham. I have a hard time understanding who is the one who "listed" you without them signing the arguments.
If you can clarify this, I will add it in reading your statement at tomorrow's forum as to why you are unable to attend.
Best,
George
On 5/3/18 10:44 AM (GMT-08:00) Bill Dodd wrote:
George
I regret that the event conflicts with my legislative schedule in Sacramento.
While I don’t apologize for my opposition of Measure D, I regret that those organizing the NO campaign listed me first on the ballot arguments and somehow thrusting me as a de facto leader of the opposition, which I am not.
I bear no ill will towards you or the Yes on D supporters. I believe you are doing this with goodwill and good intention. I simply have a different viewpoint on the initiative process and their negative consequences to our County and it’s processes.
Best wishes,
Bill
On May 2, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Tittel/Caloyannidis wrote:
Dear Senator Dodd and Vice Mayor White,
Napa Vision 2050 has organized a forum to discuss Measure D.
Following a brief presentation by me, you may make your own presentation and we will both be given equal opportunity to answer questions by the public.
The forum will be held at the Native Sons hall from 6:30 to 7:30 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2018.
We would be honored if you would attend.
Sorry we will miss you again Bill.
You state that "those organizing the NO campaign listed me first on the ballot arguments".
The ballot arguments are signed by yourself and cosigned by Peter White, Brian Bottari and Matthew Higginbotham. I have a hard time understanding who is the one who "listed" you without them signing the arguments.
If you can clarify this, I will add it in reading your statement at tomorrow's forum as to why you are unable to attend.
Best,
George
On 5/3/18 10:44 AM (GMT-08:00) Bill Dodd
George
I regret that the event conflicts with my legislative schedule in Sacramento.
While I don’t apologize for my opposition of Measure D, I regret that those organizing the NO campaign listed me first on the ballot arguments and somehow thrusting me as a de facto leader of the opposition, which I am not.
I bear no ill will towards you or the Yes on D supporters. I believe you are doing this with goodwill and good intention. I simply have a different viewpoint on the initiative process and their negative consequences to our County and it’s processes.
Best wishes,
Bill
On May 2, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Tittel/Caloyannidis
Dear Senator Dodd and Vice Mayor White,
Napa Vision 2050 has organized a forum to discuss Measure D.
Following a brief presentation by me, you may make your own presentation and we will both be given equal opportunity to answer questions by the public.
The forum will be held at the Native Sons hall from 6:30 to 7:30 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2018.
We would be honored if you would attend.
Wine Spectator seems to see the light on: Tourism Issues
George Caloyannidis - May 8,18 expand... Share
Initiative process is healthy for democracy on: Campaign 2018
Kathy Felch - May 7,18 expand... Share
Article II, section 1 of our California Constitution provides “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”
Section II goes on to describe the initiative process as one of the principle methods of alteration or reform at the county level when our government refuses, fails or neglects to provide for the public good. Less than half of the states in our union recognize the right of its citizens to use the initiative process.
We have two county-wide initiatives on our June ballot. Getting on the ballot is a rigorous process requiring the signatures of thousands of Napa County’s citizens so all may vote on the citizen-proposed laws.
Recently, numerous elected and appointed officials, as well as those aspiring to public office, denigrate this precious constitutional right we enjoy here in California -- Belia Ramos (an attorney, no less), Alfredo Pedroza, Mary Luros (also an attorney) and Dave Whitmer.
Now the Napa Valley Register editorializes on Measures C (“right idea in the wrong vehicle”) and D (“the initiative process will lock in whatever unintended consequences there may be . . .”) parroting the same, public relations party line that law is better made by our elected officials with input from stakeholders, that we cannot control the unintended consequences of an initiative without another expensive election, and that these initiatives are just too complicated to have the voters make law.
The initiative process is a healthy one and must be used when our government does not provide for the public good. Our local government’s lack of respect for welfare of the citizens of this county has led in large part to the emergence of these two initiatives.
Lack of respect for citizens is one thing. However, lack of respect for our constitution is a quality unworthy of any government official here in Napa County.
NVR version 5/6/18: Initiative process is healthy for democracy
Section II goes on to describe the initiative process as one of the principle methods of alteration or reform at the county level when our government refuses, fails or neglects to provide for the public good. Less than half of the states in our union recognize the right of its citizens to use the initiative process.
We have two county-wide initiatives on our June ballot. Getting on the ballot is a rigorous process requiring the signatures of thousands of Napa County’s citizens so all may vote on the citizen-proposed laws.
Recently, numerous elected and appointed officials, as well as those aspiring to public office, denigrate this precious constitutional right we enjoy here in California -- Belia Ramos (an attorney, no less), Alfredo Pedroza, Mary Luros (also an attorney) and Dave Whitmer.
Now the Napa Valley Register editorializes on Measures C (“right idea in the wrong vehicle”) and D (“the initiative process will lock in whatever unintended consequences there may be . . .”) parroting the same, public relations party line that law is better made by our elected officials with input from stakeholders, that we cannot control the unintended consequences of an initiative without another expensive election, and that these initiatives are just too complicated to have the voters make law.
The initiative process is a healthy one and must be used when our government does not provide for the public good. Our local government’s lack of respect for welfare of the citizens of this county has led in large part to the emergence of these two initiatives.
Lack of respect for citizens is one thing. However, lack of respect for our constitution is a quality unworthy of any government official here in Napa County.
NVR version 5/6/18: Initiative process is healthy for democracy
Don't be mislead by mailers on: Watershed Initiative 2018
Yeoryios Apallas - May 7,18 expand... Share
For several weeks now, the opposition to Measure C has spent a great deal of money spreading, what in my opinion is, materially misleading information about Measure C and its impacts on the watershed and the wine industry’s ability to plant vineyards into our precious agricultural watersheds.
Armed with a million-plus in wine and tourist industry dollars, the No On C folks have excoriated the provisions of Measure C and its proponents to the point of mass hysteria. This unrelenting attack on Measure C’s common sense-watershed protection has, in my opinion, brought out the darkest of forces in these industries that seek to continue their irresponsible and heretofore unchecked winery developments.
Make no mistake about it. This war chest is only the beginning. They are prepared to spend millions more, I think, to defeat Measure C.
The sponsors of Measure C are a group of right-thinking Napa citizens that span the entire spectrum of industries, from farmers, grape growers like me, scientists, environmentalists and just plain folks that are trying to preserve our watershed and the oak trees that act like sponges in absorbing surface water and releasing it slowly back into the watershed.
They are in it for the long game to preserve a sustainable Napa Valley and its thriving wine industry.
The wine and tourist industry, however, buffeted by quarterly and annual financial returns are slightly more myopic—seeing only as far as the next 90-day financial statements.
We, who are playing the long game, will never be able to match their barrage off glossy mailers that are riddled with hysterical, colorful, and alarming prose.
So, what are we to do?
First, we must, and will rely on the common sense of our Napa Valley residents to read, evaluate, and assess the veracity of the wine industry claims and come to some enlightened decisions about which way they should cast their votes.
Second, they must assess and weigh the motivation behind the wine and tourist industries’ spend of a million-plus dollars to defeat Measure C. The industries’ jejune suggestion that Measure C, if enacted, will dot our hills with mega-mansions and will bring unbearable traffic increases, elides the fact that these consequences have already visited our picturesque valley thanks to the unchecked development of wineries and event centers and other tourist venues and hotels that service tourism.
Finally, we ask the voters of Napa Valley to take a sober view of what the glossy industry mailers contain and ask themselves whether these representations pass the “clear eye” test. In my view, they do not and the glossy wine industry advertisements should be tossed in the recycle bin.
Facts are a stubborn thing and cannot be suborned by industry hyperbole and questionable analyses. Visit the Yes on Measure C’s website, protectnapawatersheds.org, and read the scientific and government documents and, as we know, you will cast an informed vote.
In sum, do not be misled by the glossy mailers of the wine and tourist industries. They have an economic axe to grind. Measure C proponents do not. They simply want to safeguard and promote the health of the watershed and the oak trees that replenish this precious water source.
After reading all of the facts, you will reach the ineluctable conclusion, as I did, that a Yes on Measure C is a vote for sustainability of Napa Valley’s water resources. Thank you for your time and your vote for Measure C and a sustainable water source for our children’s children and their grandchildren.
NVR version 5/6/18: Don't be mislead by mailers
Armed with a million-plus in wine and tourist industry dollars, the No On C folks have excoriated the provisions of Measure C and its proponents to the point of mass hysteria. This unrelenting attack on Measure C’s common sense-watershed protection has, in my opinion, brought out the darkest of forces in these industries that seek to continue their irresponsible and heretofore unchecked winery developments.
Make no mistake about it. This war chest is only the beginning. They are prepared to spend millions more, I think, to defeat Measure C.
The sponsors of Measure C are a group of right-thinking Napa citizens that span the entire spectrum of industries, from farmers, grape growers like me, scientists, environmentalists and just plain folks that are trying to preserve our watershed and the oak trees that act like sponges in absorbing surface water and releasing it slowly back into the watershed.
They are in it for the long game to preserve a sustainable Napa Valley and its thriving wine industry.
The wine and tourist industry, however, buffeted by quarterly and annual financial returns are slightly more myopic—seeing only as far as the next 90-day financial statements.
We, who are playing the long game, will never be able to match their barrage off glossy mailers that are riddled with hysterical, colorful, and alarming prose.
So, what are we to do?
First, we must, and will rely on the common sense of our Napa Valley residents to read, evaluate, and assess the veracity of the wine industry claims and come to some enlightened decisions about which way they should cast their votes.
Second, they must assess and weigh the motivation behind the wine and tourist industries’ spend of a million-plus dollars to defeat Measure C. The industries’ jejune suggestion that Measure C, if enacted, will dot our hills with mega-mansions and will bring unbearable traffic increases, elides the fact that these consequences have already visited our picturesque valley thanks to the unchecked development of wineries and event centers and other tourist venues and hotels that service tourism.
Finally, we ask the voters of Napa Valley to take a sober view of what the glossy industry mailers contain and ask themselves whether these representations pass the “clear eye” test. In my view, they do not and the glossy wine industry advertisements should be tossed in the recycle bin.
Facts are a stubborn thing and cannot be suborned by industry hyperbole and questionable analyses. Visit the Yes on Measure C’s website, protectnapawatersheds.org, and read the scientific and government documents and, as we know, you will cast an informed vote.
In sum, do not be misled by the glossy mailers of the wine and tourist industries. They have an economic axe to grind. Measure C proponents do not. They simply want to safeguard and promote the health of the watershed and the oak trees that replenish this precious water source.
After reading all of the facts, you will reach the ineluctable conclusion, as I did, that a Yes on Measure C is a vote for sustainability of Napa Valley’s water resources. Thank you for your time and your vote for Measure C and a sustainable water source for our children’s children and their grandchildren.
NVR version 5/6/18: Don't be mislead by mailers
County removes false 'No on C' ballot arguments on: Watershed Initiative 2018
Bill Hocker - May 6,18 expand... Share
Comments
Bill Hocker - Mar 30, 2018 10:48PM
As if John Teuter didn't have enough on his plate, attorney Yeoryios Apallas has filed a lawsuit alleging false and misleading statements in the ballot arguments against Measure C. It is not hard to see why:
From the ballot opposition statement:
(This statement is an interesting, perhaps first, example of supporters of the "wine industry” embracing "event center" to describe a winery. Thank you.)
Such overt fear-mongering in an opposition statement would normally be easy to dismiss, but in the age of Trumpian fake-everything and fact-free discourse there can be very real-world consequences to phony claims. Of particular concern to me?: the opponents’ ingenuous concern that winery and housing development in the watersheds will increase as vineyards are reduced.
The concept that plutocrats and corporations will be more likely to build event centers and mansions on remote properties without vines than they already do on properties with vines makes no sense. How many would want to buy one of the 35 inaccessible Walt Ranch properties without the vines, roads, water system and cachet that vineyard development provides? Once the vines are in, the buildings will arrive. And not before.
Perhaps there is the implication that the watersheds, providing the water needed for the Napa’s real agricultural economy and its municipalities, and providing the beauty that is the pride of residents and tourists alike, may be rezoned to residential-commercial use because you can’t farm there. Let's put it to the vote.
It is, of course, always possible to redefine “agriculture” to encourage more commercial building in ag zones. The conversion of mere wineries into event enters has been a successful objective of many in the wine industry - codified with increasing force in 1990, 2008, 2010 and 2018 - and it is always possible the hypocritical event center prediction in the opposition statement may be fulfilled by the industry itself - a danger whether the vines are allowed or not. Napa's peculiar definition of "agriculture" should also be put to the vote.
The conversion of the natural watersheds into agriculture is just the initial step in an urbanization process. Vineyard creation is the main impetus for continuing real estate development there. Contrary to the prevention of new construction in the watersheds, the opponents of Measure C really seek to insure that woodland properties can continue to be sold off to buyers wishing to tap into Napa’s vineyard-themed good life. Vineyard development, they know, is the essential precursor for more event centers and luxury homes to be built. One of the signatories to the opposition statement highlighted this reality himself in a 2013 editorial.
While the main reason to vote Yes on Measure C is to protect the water resources that our county's existing farmers and residents will need in the future in an age of global warming, restricting building projects that further urbanize our hillsides and add to our traffic woes will be a very predictable additional benefit. Don't be fooled by ballot arguments.
From the ballot opposition statement:
“Measure C will outlaw future farming in the Ag Watershed and encourage other types of development, while still allowing 795 acres of oak woodlands to be removed - opening the door for event centers and more luxury homes to be developed across our agricultural watershed; destroying our viewshed and hillsides; and increasing traffic on our already congested rural roads and Highway 29”
(This statement is an interesting, perhaps first, example of supporters of the "wine industry” embracing "event center" to describe a winery. Thank you.)
Such overt fear-mongering in an opposition statement would normally be easy to dismiss, but in the age of Trumpian fake-everything and fact-free discourse there can be very real-world consequences to phony claims. Of particular concern to me?: the opponents’ ingenuous concern that winery and housing development in the watersheds will increase as vineyards are reduced.
The concept that plutocrats and corporations will be more likely to build event centers and mansions on remote properties without vines than they already do on properties with vines makes no sense. How many would want to buy one of the 35 inaccessible Walt Ranch properties without the vines, roads, water system and cachet that vineyard development provides? Once the vines are in, the buildings will arrive. And not before.
Perhaps there is the implication that the watersheds, providing the water needed for the Napa’s real agricultural economy and its municipalities, and providing the beauty that is the pride of residents and tourists alike, may be rezoned to residential-commercial use because you can’t farm there. Let's put it to the vote.
It is, of course, always possible to redefine “agriculture” to encourage more commercial building in ag zones. The conversion of mere wineries into event enters has been a successful objective of many in the wine industry - codified with increasing force in 1990, 2008, 2010 and 2018 - and it is always possible the hypocritical event center prediction in the opposition statement may be fulfilled by the industry itself - a danger whether the vines are allowed or not. Napa's peculiar definition of "agriculture" should also be put to the vote.
The conversion of the natural watersheds into agriculture is just the initial step in an urbanization process. Vineyard creation is the main impetus for continuing real estate development there. Contrary to the prevention of new construction in the watersheds, the opponents of Measure C really seek to insure that woodland properties can continue to be sold off to buyers wishing to tap into Napa’s vineyard-themed good life. Vineyard development, they know, is the essential precursor for more event centers and luxury homes to be built. One of the signatories to the opposition statement highlighted this reality himself in a 2013 editorial.
While the main reason to vote Yes on Measure C is to protect the water resources that our county's existing farmers and residents will need in the future in an age of global warming, restricting building projects that further urbanize our hillsides and add to our traffic woes will be a very predictable additional benefit. Don't be fooled by ballot arguments.
NVR Eds: the time has come - just not now on: Campaign 2018
Bill Hocker - May 4,18 expand... Share
Update 5/4/18
The Yes-on-C campaign has labeled the Editorial Board's "the-time-has-come-just-not-now" approach as absurd, which it is. It is the same approach Sup. Ramos, one of the opponents of Measure C, used on the Raymond decision concerning use permit violations. It is obvious that the time will never come for reform in Napa county if left up to the establishment.
4/30/18
NVR Editorial Board 4/28/18: Our view: The measures on the June Ballot
The Register's Editorial Board opinion on Measures C, D and 3 is a bit disappointing. It seemed that in all three cases they voted, reluctantly, against the ideas that they lavished their praise on. What kind of decision making is that.
On Measure C
Actually the Walt Ranch hearings and appeals and court case over a four-year period were a thoroughly exhaustive attempt to protect the watersheds through normal political avenues. Yet it was not enough to save them from substantial deforestation for the development of 35 new vineyard estate sites.
As Nancy Tamarisk of the Sierra Club has recently written: "Initiatives are filed as a last resort when people have lost faith that their government bodies represent them, often when people believe that officials are captive to special interests."
As Tony McClimans has written in a recent editorial about previous efforts to pass more comprehensive watershed protections: "Confronted by staunch industry opposition, decades of board majorities declined to take action."
And Katy Felch writes: "Our local government’s lack of respect for welfare of the citizens of this county has led in large part to the emergence of these two initiatives."
After Barry Eberlings's excellent reporting over the last 4 years, the Editors know that the Supervisors have had numerous opportunities to address "the legitimate cry of frustration" by county residents. The Supes have sided with the moneyed interests every time - just as the Editors have.
Given the effort and the money that it takes to get an initiative on the ballot, by residents that will see no financial benefit from its enactment, it only happens after first exhausting public forum solutions.
If C wins, there will be complicated issues to be worked out. And the courts, the county and the authors will eventually craft a solution. But the incentive will be there to find a solution because the voters have spoken. If measure C fails, the Supes will have no incentive whatsoever to support further protection the watersheds. The voters have spoken. Elections have consequences. The watersheds will be open for development.
On Measure D
Frankly, there will be no issues if Measure D is passed. It will add a few words to existing code bringing private heliports under the same prohibition that now applies to commercial heliports. Where does the Editors' concern for "deeper scrutiny" come from? "Personal use" is pretty easy to define compared to "commercial use", yet the prohibition of "commercial use" heliports has held up without issue. And not supporting it because it will be the first heliport ban? Was the Register also so weak-kneed when the first Ag Preserve in the nation was proposed?
The Editor's stance again seems like a complete cave to the county's monied interests.
On Diane Dillon
It's entirely appropriate that the Editorial Board's support-but-can't-support opinion is paired with the Image of Diane Dillon and the headline "Experience Counts". The Register has taken Diane Dillon's governance style to heart. Sympathy for the preservationists' viewpoint, a few acknowledgements of the grand success that is the Ag Preserve and then approval of the latest development project or industry-crafted legislation.
She has unfortunately voted wth the "growth" majority in most of the damaging development issues in the county during her tenure: 2008 revisions to the general plan to equate tourism with agriculture, revisions to the WDO in 2010 to allow more tourism at wineries, Napa Pipe to allow the largest single urban expansion in Napa history, the Syar Expansion to increase construction materials needed for development, Walt Ranch to allow vineyard estate development on 2300 acres of undeveloped woodland, the denial of the APAC recommendations that sought to curtail winery-event center proliferation, the addition of winery tourism to the County's definition of agriculture, as well as numerous contested winery projects like Woolls Ranch, Girard, Bell and Caymus, being proposed to increase tourism development. All of these projects were opposed by concerned citizens on the basis of the damage they, and the urbanization they will induce, will do to rural character, resources and environment of the county.
APAC, Walt Ranch, Syar and Palmaz in particular, with intense community participation in each and no tangible accommodation of community concerns beyond modest technical "mitigations", set the stage for the Initiatives. The Editorial Board calls the initiative a blunt instrument to create policy, and wants a more inclusive process. For the residents who have spent four years and tens of thousands of dollars in the traditional development process with nothing to show for it, the initiative is the only instrument still available.
To repeat Nancy Tamarisk:
"Initiatives are filed as a last resort when people have lost faith that their government bodies represent them." Such is the case in Napa County, and it will probably continue to be so as long as corporate and plutocratic developers have more say over the future of the county than the preservation-minded citizens who live here and are driven by the desire to retain something special rather than mine it for profit.
And On Measure 3
Such decisiveness!
The Yes-on-C campaign has labeled the Editorial Board's "the-time-has-come-just-not-now" approach as absurd, which it is. It is the same approach Sup. Ramos, one of the opponents of Measure C, used on the Raymond decision concerning use permit violations. It is obvious that the time will never come for reform in Napa county if left up to the establishment.
4/30/18
NVR Editorial Board 4/28/18: Our view: The measures on the June Ballot
The Register's Editorial Board opinion on Measures C, D and 3 is a bit disappointing. It seemed that in all three cases they voted, reluctantly, against the ideas that they lavished their praise on. What kind of decision making is that.
On Measure C
"We agree with almost all of what the backers of Measure C say....Where we do disagree with the backers of Measure C is in the notion that we have exhausted all possible avenues to protect the watersheds before reaching for the dangerously blunt and inflexible weapon of a ballot measure."
Actually the Walt Ranch hearings and appeals and court case over a four-year period were a thoroughly exhaustive attempt to protect the watersheds through normal political avenues. Yet it was not enough to save them from substantial deforestation for the development of 35 new vineyard estate sites.
As Nancy Tamarisk of the Sierra Club has recently written: "Initiatives are filed as a last resort when people have lost faith that their government bodies represent them, often when people believe that officials are captive to special interests."
As Tony McClimans has written in a recent editorial about previous efforts to pass more comprehensive watershed protections: "Confronted by staunch industry opposition, decades of board majorities declined to take action."
And Katy Felch writes: "Our local government’s lack of respect for welfare of the citizens of this county has led in large part to the emergence of these two initiatives."
After Barry Eberlings's excellent reporting over the last 4 years, the Editors know that the Supervisors have had numerous opportunities to address "the legitimate cry of frustration" by county residents. The Supes have sided with the moneyed interests every time - just as the Editors have.
Given the effort and the money that it takes to get an initiative on the ballot, by residents that will see no financial benefit from its enactment, it only happens after first exhausting public forum solutions.
If C wins, there will be complicated issues to be worked out. And the courts, the county and the authors will eventually craft a solution. But the incentive will be there to find a solution because the voters have spoken. If measure C fails, the Supes will have no incentive whatsoever to support further protection the watersheds. The voters have spoken. Elections have consequences. The watersheds will be open for development.
On Measure D
"We are not adverse to the change proposed in Measure D, but aviation is a complicated legal area, and this would be, as far as we know, the first such ban in the state, possibly in the whole country...We believe the idea of banning heliports, as simple and appealing as it is, deserves deeper scrutiny through the regular legislative process."
Frankly, there will be no issues if Measure D is passed. It will add a few words to existing code bringing private heliports under the same prohibition that now applies to commercial heliports. Where does the Editors' concern for "deeper scrutiny" come from? "Personal use" is pretty easy to define compared to "commercial use", yet the prohibition of "commercial use" heliports has held up without issue. And not supporting it because it will be the first heliport ban? Was the Register also so weak-kneed when the first Ag Preserve in the nation was proposed?
The Editor's stance again seems like a complete cave to the county's monied interests.
On Diane Dillon
It's entirely appropriate that the Editorial Board's support-but-can't-support opinion is paired with the Image of Diane Dillon and the headline "Experience Counts". The Register has taken Diane Dillon's governance style to heart. Sympathy for the preservationists' viewpoint, a few acknowledgements of the grand success that is the Ag Preserve and then approval of the latest development project or industry-crafted legislation.
She has unfortunately voted wth the "growth" majority in most of the damaging development issues in the county during her tenure: 2008 revisions to the general plan to equate tourism with agriculture, revisions to the WDO in 2010 to allow more tourism at wineries, Napa Pipe to allow the largest single urban expansion in Napa history, the Syar Expansion to increase construction materials needed for development, Walt Ranch to allow vineyard estate development on 2300 acres of undeveloped woodland, the denial of the APAC recommendations that sought to curtail winery-event center proliferation, the addition of winery tourism to the County's definition of agriculture, as well as numerous contested winery projects like Woolls Ranch, Girard, Bell and Caymus, being proposed to increase tourism development. All of these projects were opposed by concerned citizens on the basis of the damage they, and the urbanization they will induce, will do to rural character, resources and environment of the county.
APAC, Walt Ranch, Syar and Palmaz in particular, with intense community participation in each and no tangible accommodation of community concerns beyond modest technical "mitigations", set the stage for the Initiatives. The Editorial Board calls the initiative a blunt instrument to create policy, and wants a more inclusive process. For the residents who have spent four years and tens of thousands of dollars in the traditional development process with nothing to show for it, the initiative is the only instrument still available.
To repeat Nancy Tamarisk:
"Initiatives are filed as a last resort when people have lost faith that their government bodies represent them." Such is the case in Napa County, and it will probably continue to be so as long as corporate and plutocratic developers have more say over the future of the county than the preservation-minded citizens who live here and are driven by the desire to retain something special rather than mine it for profit.
And On Measure 3
"We urge a yes vote on RM 3, though we don’t feel good about it."
Such decisiveness!
share this page