Eternal vigilance is the price of preserving the Napa Valley.
 - Former Planning Dir. Jim Hickey 2008
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 wineries proliferate, most too small and inefficient to supply the export distribution chain. 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 ...

Upcoming Events (full calendar here)

Tue, Dec 19, 2017

Board of Supervisors

Palmaz Trust Appeal of Sept 6th 2017 denials by County ALUC and Planning Commission of a use permit for a personal use heliport

Notice of hearing
Wed, Dec 20, 2017

County Planning Commission

[11 new wineries, 17 major mods previously approved this year]

B Cellars Major Mod
Notice of hearing
County B Cellars page
[conflicting capacity and visitation changes in county document]
Thu, Dec 21, 2017

Napa City Planning Commission

Napa Oaks II planned development overlay, use permit, design review permit and tentative subdivision map
[continued from 12/7/17 meeting]

12/7/17 Agenda and Documents
12/7/17 hearing video

City Hall, 955 School Street, Napa

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 prescient letter to the editor on: After The Fire

Bill Hocker - Dec 6,17  expand...  Share

It is worth re-reading this very prescient Register letter-to-the-editor by Yeoryios Apallas published 3 days before the Oct 8th fire in response to a previous fire on Soda Canyon Road:

NVR LTE 10/5/17: Soda Canyon fire was wake-up call

In the first hours of the Oct 8th fire, a fallen tree backed up fleeing traffic on the road, with burning hillsides all around, until a couple of trucks were able to pull the tree enough to allow passage. It could very well have been a major disaster.

Residents know of and accept the dangers of the road as the price of living in such a desirably remote place. The County, however, as we attempted to present in much testimony and many documents during the Planning Commission and BOS Appeal hearings for the Mountain Peak project, has a more substantial responsibility to insure that commercial users of the road are not put in harms way. In that respect the Supervisors, in approving a large tourism facility at the end of the road, with numerous dangers and access constraints, have abrogated that responsibility.

Napa City's Oaks - Once they're gone, they're gone on: City of Napa

Bill Hocker - Dec 5,17  expand...  Share

Napa woodland slated for urban development
Update 12/7/17
After public testimony the 12/7/17 hearing was continued to 12/21/17 at 5:30pm
SNO update
NVR 12/8/17: Foes of Napa Oaks II housing turn out in force; city planners delay verdict

Update 12/5/17
NVR 12/4/17: Battle over Napa Oaks II homes to go before city planners

Napa City Planning Commission meeting on the project, this thursday Dec 7th, 2017. Stop Napa Oaks requests your support and presence here

Update 11/29/17 Meeting Report
NVR 11/28/17: Napa Oaks II developers revise housing plan; neighbors still push back
SNO counterpoints to developer's presentation

Stop Napa Oaks sends this notice after the 11/28/17 presentation hosted by the developers of the 53 unit Napa Oaks housing subdivision slated to replace the oak-covered hillside on the west side of town (pictured). The project will be heard by the Napa City Planning Commission on Dec 7th 2017, with a decision on the project to be rendered in the new year.

The Final EIR describing the project is here (All less-than-significant impacts of course.)

Update 5/4/17
NVR 5/4/17: Possible Truchard winery, Napa Oaks subdivision developers clash
[The Truchard winery was approved on 9/20/17 at this planning commission meeting.]

A clash between tourism urbanization and housing urbanization: The natural landscape of the county loses both ways. The Napa Oaks site should never have been incorporated into the city limits and the housing project is the infinitely more egregious insult to the rural character of the county. The site plan, which shows the tops of the hills being sheared off for building pads, is truly heartbreaking. Let's pray they lose the coming battle with their city neighbors to the east and the Truchards (who seem to be the county ideal of the family farm vintner) to the west. The housing developer's letter does just look like harassment in retaliation for the Truchard's opposition to their project. (The Truchard's opposition letter (at the bottom here), however, is a dead ringer for all of the letters we have written opposing tourism wineries these last 3 years). The best outcome, of course, would be for both to abandon their development plans in order to preserve "the sheer natural beauty of this place".

Napa Oaks II DEIR
Truchard documents Item 8B here

Update 3/1/17: Napa Oaks Development
The Greenbelt Alliance, an organization dedicated to preserving open space in an urbanizing world for 60 years, has just issued a 2017 report At Risk: The Bay Area Green Belt which features the Napa Oaks Project as open space under threat of development. (No mention of Walt Ranch?) More here from the Stop Napa Oaks group.

Stop Napa Oaks petition
Stop Napa Oaks Facebook Page

LTE 6/10/16: Development will have huge impact
LTE 5/4/16; A test of character
LTE 5/3/16: Don't destroy gateway to Napa
LTE 4/18/16: Development would scar the land
NVR 5/3/16: Homebuilder revives plans for rejected Napa development
Napa Oaks II DEIR
NVR 8/1/12: Neighbors demand study of Napa Oaks II hillside subdivision

In true developer fashion this project is named for the environment it destroys. (I grew up in an LA suburb called Sherman Oaks, none of which remained). A part of the oak studded hills that define the rural character of the Napa Valley is to be littered with suburban McMansions. The immediate question when looking at Google maps is why this parcel is within the city limits, surrounded as it is on 3 sides by identical county open space. Not as bad as the absurd Napa gerrymander of Stanly Ranch, but still one of those unfortunate bumps in the urban-rural line that just invites urban expansion into the countryside.

The battles of communities throughout the county these last two years to maintain what is left of Napa's rural character in the face of a resurgence in developer zeal and money has been both heartening, because the desire still exists to retain this place as separate from the rest of the suburban sprawl of the bay area, and discouraging in that governments seem ever more willing to sacrifice that character to developers' interests.

9/4/16: Anderson Ranch Development

Now a second housing project, by the same developer pursuing the Napa Oaks project, is proposed to carve up more of the few remaining Oak Hillsides within the city:
NVR 9/4/16: Planners endorse 37 east Napa homes despite privacy, tree concerns

Protest of Relic Wine Cellars ABC license on: Relic Wine Cellars

Bill Hocker - Dec 4,17  expand...  Share

Update 12/7/17
Due to the absence of one judge, a continuance of the appeal hearing to a date uncertain was asked for and granted.

Update 12/4/17
On Apr 15th 2017 the Judge overseeing the hearings on the ABC licensing of Relic Wine Cellars issued a ruling against the residents protesting the granting of that license. The appeal of that decision will take place by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board on December 7, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. at the Holiday Inn Sacramento Downtown location 300 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

The decision and appeal documents are here:

Update 11/16/15
The continuation of the hearing will take place at 10:00 am on Feb 9th, 10th and 11th, 2016 at the Napa City Hall. NVR 2/12/16: Neighbors appeal to ABC to stop rural wine tastings

Update 9/10/15
The continuation of the hearing will take place at 10:00 am on
Nov 16th and 17th, 2015 at the NCTPA offices, 625 Burnell, 1st floor board room Napa.

Update 7/17/15
After a full day of testimony the hearing was continued to be taken up in the fall. To my discomfort it was conducted more in the manner of a court trail than was the previous hearing attended on the Caves last year. It promises to be an equally lengthly process when it continues.

12 members of the Atlas Peak communities have written protest letters to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control protesting the granting of a winegrower license to Relic Wine Cellars at 2400 Soda Canyon Road. Several are reproduced on the SCR Relic page. The ABC has scheduled a hearing so that the protests may be heard and a decision on their merits may be made. Only those that have submitted protest letters may speak, but all members of the community concerned about the continuing development of wine tasting rooms on Soda Canyon Road are encouraged to attend. The application is for a 02 Winegrower license.

Date: Thurs, July 16th, 2015, 10:00am
Location: Auditor's Conference Room, basement of the Napa County Building at 1195 3rd St

Fire Stories on: After The Fire

Bill Hocker - Dec 4,17  expand...  Share

Update 12/4/17
Napavision2050 12/4/17: After the Fires: Who "first responded" to you?

In response to the less-than-significant safeguards in place to notify and protect people in the recent emergency, Napavision2050 questions the wisdom of the county's desire to develop the fire-hazardous Soda Canyon and Atlas Peak roads for public commercial use. Included is a link to Dan Mufson's own story of his loss in the fire and his invitation to others to share their stories:

SF Chronicle via NVR 12/5/17: Wildfires emphasize need to improve emergency alert systems
SF Chronicle 12/5/17: Unlike in North Bay, Ventura County officials issued wide alert

Stories in the Register
NVR 12/4/17 (Denise Rosselli): Burned out of her house, Napa Valley College professor deals with loss of her old life

NVR 11/3/17 (Chris Malan's Family): Napa family with special needs begins long road to recovery

NVR 10/29/17 (Larry Carr and Lisa Hirayama): One resident helps Napa's besieged Circle Oaks neighborhood survive the Atlas Fire

NVR 10/26/17 (Ed and Kristi Grant): Napa artists cite the 'miracles' that saved them in the fires
Ed Grants' account of his escape from the fire on Soda Canyon is THE cautionary tale that residents have been presenting as the county has endeavored to encourage more tourism up the road with the development of The Caves and Relic wineries and the proposal of the Mountain Peak winery. In the first hours of the fire, a fallen tree blocked the exit down the canyon. What may be an acceptable risk to residents, much like the agricultural hazards we must sign off on when paying property taxes, becomes an unacceptable risk to uninformed tourists and raises ethical and legal questions for the county government that approves such activity.


Shelle Wolfe - Dec 7, 2017 4:31PM

We live 6 miles out Soda Canyon near the mailboxes. Sometime around 9PM the winds started going crazy… the solar panels were crashing up and down on the roof and I was trying to keep the 3 dogs calm. About 10-10:15 we received a call from a friend on Loma Vista (who later lost his house) saying he was evacuating and we should think about it also. I told him the power was probably going to go out soon and to call me back on my landline once he knew something. (Cell phone doesn’t work here without power and WiFi, so I plugged in an old princess phone so we had a line).

And yes, the power did go out and my friend called back about 10:25 telling us to get out! At the same time I could hear a helicopter flying above saying something, but I couldn’t understand what. From my window, I could see it circle around the grape pickers out at Stagecoach and in seconds, I could see their headlights speeding down Soda Canyon, so it was easy to determine what the helicopter was saying. I wonder if they spoke Spanish?

I ran around and woke up my 81 year old dad and got my housemate out of bed. We were all out of the house in 3 cars about 5-6 minutes later with 3 dogs in my car. I was first out of our driveway, then my housemate and then my dad.

This is a photo as we started driving down the hill and it looked like the entire road and canyon were in flames!

Our neighbors from above were stopped along the steep part of the road so I pulled up next to them and asked them if they were going down… he said no, he was going home.

So, I started down the hill… soon there were flames and embers leaping from both sides of the road. The wind was crazy and carrying burning objects through the air in front of us. We had to drive around a downed tree that was on fire too.

I heard we were the last people to come down the hill that night. Everyone else was told to go back. SODA CANYON ROAD DOES NOT HAVE AN EXIT OR OTHER WAY OUT. A few evacuated from Antica Winery and some from the top of Soda Canyon by helicopter.

By the time we got to the Soda Canyon Store… my dad was not behind us any longer. i was going crazy! I should have driven him, but he insisted on taking his car. After about 20-30 minutes we got a call from him saying he turned back. He spent part of the night at the end of our driveway where he had cell service and the rest of the night at Antica winery, whose gates were opened by a local fireman I believe.

My sister and I came back up the next afternoon to get my dad. It was like a war zone… charred remnants of homes, cars … telephone poles and trees on fire, downed power and phone lines, trees in the road, etc.

Another neighbor, two doors down, slept through the entire thing Sunday night and didn’t have a clue anything happened until she got in her car to go to work Monday morning and headed down the road! She sped back home, grabbed her husband and dog and they made the dangerous drive through flames and downed electric wires. No one came to her home and she didn’t hear the helicopter.

The friend who called me to tell me about the fire,heard about it from a friend of his on Dry Creek across the valley… he could see flames in our area. My friend called his landlord (also lost their home on Loma Vista) and they called several people who called other people. A GOOD NUMBER OF THE MIDDLE SODA CANYON ROAD RESIDENTS escaped because of this ONE PHONE CALL from someone on Dry Creek! What happened to our Fire Wise “Call em All”? NIXLE? Emergency alert on a cell phone such as when there are flood warnings? We had NOTHING! There should absolutely be some sort of Tsunami warning type of system in remote areas and where there is no exit other than the way in. There USED to be a road through Antica to Atlas Peak, and there was another road over the hill to Silverado Trail. But neither of these exist any longer. We need an exit plan and we need a warning system.

Hotel explosion rocks Napa on: City of Napa

Bill Hocker - Dec 4,17  expand...  Share

The Big City comes to sleepy Napa
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: 9/06/17
NVR 9/06/17: Napa, developer start talks on new City Hall, housing and hotel

Update: 8/18/17
NVR 8/18/17: Napa planners approve 5-story Black Elk hotel in Oxbow district

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.

AND Black Elk Hotel is up for its use permit on Thursday

On Thursday, Aug 17th at 5:30, the City Planning Commission will take up the Black Elk Hotel Use Permit. The project, a 4 story barnish block of a building cutting off the Oxbow district from the rest of the city, is shown in the rendering below. The staff report and documents are here.
[approved, alas, 4-1 by the Planning Commission 8/17/17]

Update 7/14/17
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

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


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!

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

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.

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.”

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!!

The watersheds after the fire on: After The Fire

Bill Hocker - Dec 4,17  expand...  Share

headed for the ax
Update 12/4/17
Gary Margadant's letter to Supervisors Ryan Gregory and Diane Dillon regarding the removal of redwoods on Mt. Veeder Road:

Ryan and Diane

A huge problem is brewing up here and we need some help from the County Administration to manage the issue and preserve the neighborhood. This subject could get out of hand and result in major problems for PGE and Napa County.

Teams of Tree cutters and arborists from out of state are here to work on the right of way/easements for PG&E power line, and they are increasingly seen as mercenaries who have been designating the Redwoods as hazards to the above ground power lines. They are entering private property and dropping trees without even attempting to speak to the owners of the property. Funny, but the trees of major interest are the Redwoods, the money $$ trees, of high value when hauled in mill lengths off the property. No Oaks, Madrones, Pines and Firs have received such treatment. It is turning into Grand Theft Redwoods. How much is each Redwood worth? $1,000, $2,000, $3,000????

The major headache is the Arborists who have shown up from States that do not have Redwoods in their lexicon. Only California, Oregon, and Nevada have redwoods, so how is an Arborist from outside these states familiar with the FIRE Resistance of the Redwoods. I know that you passed around, with Steve Lederer of Public Works, a criteria list for burned tree evaluation, but the very fact of the Redwood fire resistance and recovery ability does not seem to be considered or paramount in the current decisions being made on the Slopes of Mt Veeder. These wood cutters have $$ signs in their eyes, not the welfare neighborhood and collaboration with residents and property owners. It is simply a rape of our neighborhood.

I will point you two to the Redwood Trees in the City of Napa, especially on Franklin Steet between Pine and Laurel as an example of a neighborhood that has preserved their Redwoods and revier them, protecting them against any attempt by PGE or the City to cut them down where they interfer with the PGE easements. Just have a look at the wires passing through the limbs and branches of the trees. PGE and the Residents have made compromises to keep the trees: PGE has put up insulated wires as they pass through the trees and most of residents have put their Electrical Service connections underground, all to retain the trees in the neighborhood.

Not so on Mt Veeder. Residents have been staying up here, even if PG&E has not recovered power to their homes, staying just to protect the Redwoods and keeping the tree cutters off their's and others property. One resident is in touch with the lawyers who handled the PG&E disaster in San Bruno. Others are experiencing simply high handed logging in the guise of Right of Way protection. Nothing about this is collaborative.

The downed trees are hauled off on flatbed trailers, not logging trucks, the very trailers that transported Excavators to Mt Veeder, which they use to load the large logs. This loading and transport is not completed with logging equipment, so they are not passing any smell test in their efforts to reap the $$ from the Trees. And to add insult to injury, they are using the south end of Mt Veeder to transport their equipment and the recovered logs, all passing over the restricted culvert with a load limit of 12 tons, easily surpassing the load limit for that road section. If that stone culvert collapses and cuts off the south access to Mt Veeder Road, another burden will be placed on the Residents. Steve Lederer knows well about this culvert limits after protests by neighbors when Mayacamas Vineyards transported a 40 ton Tractor, all after the Road Dept gave the hauler permission for access delivery across the culvert: so why the limit and the road signs?? Is this just a Cover Your Ass moment that does not include concern for the Residents?

And Why Now? How come PGE has not tried to cut down these Redwoods in the past 30 years? Why, all of sudden is it imperative to do the cutting now, on trees that have maximum fire resistance and fire resilience and have not been a big bother or danger to the above ground power easements? Other trees are also cut down, Oaks, Madrone, Pine Fir, Laurel but none of these species are being transported out of the area for milling. Most have been cut into small sections and left by the roadside for disposal by local and county residents. Another Smell test.

This situation deserves investigation to make sure the $$ are not clouding the issues of Right of Way rights and resident property rights. You need to document just what is going on. Send some investigators from the DA's office and Sheriff Deputies up there to document the efforts of these tree cutters, PG&E and the Residents.

I do not want this situation to escalate any further. PG&E and their wood cutters are increasingly seen as extremely unwelcome predators. Do something If I was cutting down the trees in your front yards and along the streets as is happening on Mt Veeder, you would not be happy at all and have the same questions I have posed here in.
If assistance from the Napa County is weak and unresponsive, then any attempts by Public Works to manage the trees in their roadway Rights of Way will be imperiled.

Be swift.


Update 11/10/17
NVR 11/10/17: Napa County, PG&E removing trees in wake of wildfires

Gary Margadant takes issue with the desire to fell redwoods that have lived through many previous fires in the era before life on earth revolved around potential litigation.

NV2050 take on the issue: Don’t cut those trees!

NVR 10/19/17: Napa County wildfires bring water quality challenges

The Great Napa Fire of 2017 has changed the landscape of Napa's watersheds. Over 100,000 acres of woodland areas on both sides of the Napa Valley burned in the Napa and Sonoma fires. What impact will that have on the silting of Napa's reservoirs this winter? Will there be an impact from the millions of gallons of fire retardant sprayed on the fires? Will there be enormous pressure to plant vineyards as a way to restore the hillsides? Will the fire encourage or discourage more vineyard estate development? Will the concept of a watershed initiative to protect woodlands be more or less important now that much of the woodlands are gone? Time will tell.

The 10/18/17 aerial of the of the burn areas in Napa and Sonoma Counties is here.

Watershed protection for the long term on: Watershed Initiative 2018

Mike Hackett - Nov 27,17  expand...  Share

NVR 12/1/17: Proponents file signatures for new Napa watershed and oak woodland initiative

Often times, the loudest voices seem to dominate the conversation and coverage in the news media. We are in an age when disinformation and personal attacks drown out rational discussion and collaboration. We trust that the citizens of Napa County can see through and rise above this.

As the authors of The Watershed and Oak Woodland Protection Initiative, Jim Wilson and I are guided by a set of principles, not politics or personal gain. We are focused on sustainability of resources in this valley, and providing a healthy future for residents and winegrowers alike. We are guided by the science and take a long view.

Local voters understand that water affects the quality of life of every resident here. Napa Valley residents understand that we are on the precipice of climate change, and solutions are needed now. The Initiative, slated for inclusion on the June 2018 ballot, represents a step in the right direction. Its purpose is to complement the environmental protections the county wisely established decades ago for agriculture and open space land. It will protect the water quality, biological diversity and economic and environmental health of Napa County’s streams, watersheds and forests and help safeguard the public health, safety and welfare of our residents.

We will be sharing the science, impacts, and stories from our community as we go forward. We have reached out to a broad set of interests in the development of this initiative, working with forestry experts, hydrologists, water experts, government officials, and leading members of the winemaking community to shape the details. While some of the wine grapegrower organizations in the valley might not support our effort to protect the watershed, that does not mean that perspective of the winemaking community is unanimous. Many longstanding farmers in our community, including wine makers, believe that we need to better manage our resources for a sustainable common future, and are in support of this Initiative.

As part of the research that went into writing the Initiative, we listened to the citizens of the valley, and know that the vast majority of residents share our concern for the sustainability of water resources and the need to increase protections of our watershed.

Over the last several weeks, more than 80 supportive volunteers, along with a handful of professionals, have been collecting signatures around the community. Approximately 3,800 valid signatures are required to qualify for the ballot, and in this case more than 7,000 voters energetically stepped forward to sign. The response from our citizens was amazingly supportive. We are optimistic about the success of this Initiative because our residents care about the future of our region. Our residents understand this is about the legacy they want to leave their grandchildren.

We maintain close relations with the winemaking community, and know the majority are concerned for the sustainability of the watershed. They, too, are long-term residents who take the long view about managing our shared resources.

Mike Hackett LTE 11/27/17: Citizens and science take the long view for sustainability of Napa Valley
Nadean Bissiri LTE 12/1/17: The Napa County Oak Woodland Watershed Protection Initiative of 2018

SCR At&T land line update on: After The Fire

Michael & Marieann Perri - Nov 27,17  expand...  Share

Just got off the phone with AT&T to fine out when our land lines will be fixed and they tell me January 2018. Thought you all would want to know.

Consumer Information regarding fire insurance on: After The Fire

Barbara Guggia - Nov 20,17  expand...  Share

A friend gave me information about this consumer group that has a very detailed web site about California homeowners insurance and policy holders’ rights and laws, specifically as it applies to fire losses. If you would like to post it on Soda Canyon Road, it might be helpful for people who are having a less than pleasant experience with their insurance company:

United Policyholders website

The Compliance Ladder of Travesty on: Compliance Issues

George Caloyannidis - Nov 15,17  expand...  Share

For many years now, I have been sounding the alarm of the misguided principles the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors are employing in rewarding winery use permit violators. The latest example in this ongoing practice was the approval of the Reynolds family winery which was caught cheating in its 2014 audit.

On November 1st, the Planning Commission rewarded the winery with an increase in production from 20,000 gallons annually to 40,000, an increase in weekly visitors from 60 to 280 and in annual marketing events from 3 to 54.

The owner, a dentist of some assumed educational level stated that he hadn't noticed the increase in visitors. As shocking this may be, even more so are the statements of the Commissioners who appreciated the winery "owning up to the code violations", whatever owning up means.

Commissioner Basayne stated that the county wants "to work with violators who want to work with the county" another meaningless talking point. Commissioner Scott stated that the county "must support efforts of small family wineries to succeed", in effect sweeping the issue of violations under the rug.

To top it all off, staff developed a comparison chart of 14 wineries producing between 35,000 to 45,000 gallons to serve as a guide for future applications. The chart showed that comparable wineries had 6,213 visitors annually compared to 14,560 granted to Reynolds and 691 marketing visitors while Reynolds was granted 1,901!
Putting all this in perspective and leaving all the ethical and government credibility issues of rewarding violators aside, I want to concentrate on how this affects the state's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) intended to safeguard not the Reynolds' pocket book but our common quality of life including our resources, infrastructure and traffic congestion.

During my appeal on a similar violations reward case of the Reverie winery in 2015, I pointed out to the Supervisors the court decision of that same year in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife holding that "the CEQA baseline must include existing conditions, even when those conditions have never been reviewed and are unlawful". This means that the environmental conditions factored in the Reynolds CEQA analysis included the conditions of the violations, not those which would have been in place had the winery complied with its original conditions and came before the Commission seeking for an increase. In other words, the impact of the increase from 6,213 to 14,560 visitors, the increased production etc. all escaped CEQA review.

This circumvention of the CEQA law by our local government was also pointed out to our Supervisors in letters by the law firms of Abbott & Kindermann representing Beckstoffer Vineyards in April 29, 2015 and by Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger representing Alliance for Responsible Governance in August 11, 2017. Yet the Planning Commission remains undaunted to the fact that its policy of "forgive and reward" which was officially rescinded by Resolution No. 05-229 in December 13, 2005 and signed by then chair Dillon compromises - in fact encourages - the circumvention of CEQA which was designed to protect the health and welfare of communities throughout the state of California.

When the Commissioners and our Supervisors increase the use permit levels of violators such as Reverie, Summers, Reynolds and others one after the other, the comparison chart of "similar wineries" is climbing up the ladder to the benefit of the next violator, all without CEQA review. If one wonders how traffic congestion levels have increased dramatically in recent years even though each project CEQA analysis has assured the public that all impacts have been mitigated to "less than significant levels", one need only look at the ladder of forgiveness.

To be clear, rewarding such violators has nothing to do with helping small family wineries, nothing to do with people who are nice or generous to the community or even those who come forward admitting to violations without having been caught let alone those who have. Unfortunately, our government refuses to get it and many fear corruption. What is the solution?

The county has suspended its auditing program and is examining solutions. No solution will be effective unless violators are caught immediately so the CEQA baseline is not allowed to move forward unexamined. This means a step up in auditing to at least 80 wineries annually, sworn affidavits of winery CEOs that they comply with the terms of their use permits and non-complying wineries having to revert to use permit levels of operation for a minimum of three years so that CEQA conditions have time to reset.

LTE version 11/18/17: Forgiveness for winery violators: The ladder of travesty

Don't blame the trees on: Watershed Issues

Patricia Damery - Nov 13,17  expand...  Share

My husband and I have had vineyards in Napa County for over 35 years. Our Dry Creek Road ranch was one that did not burn, thanks to the many first responders and to the temperamental wind. We are certified biodynamic organic farmers and believe agriculture and the native local ecology can co-exist in healthy balance, but only with active respect for the needs of the larger ecological system.

To this end, I want to address fire in our zoning-designated Ag Watershed Open Space lands. Even though our own ranch did not burn, we know it’s only a matter of time until it does. Fire is an important part of the ecology of Napa County. Our warming planet means we will have even more fire—and we need to plan for it. We need fire, but it needs to move through quickly and with less intensity.

While vineyards acted as firebreaks in a number of circumstances in this last fire, how many of those vineyards were irrigated? In a time of change of climate, water will become increasingly scarce, as it has been these last years. Do we have enough water in our Ag Watershed Open Space lands, which have a different geology from the valley floor and much less ground water, to realistically consider using irrigated vineyards as firebreaks?

Farming with the environment means growing what can co-exist with the facts on the ground of water, soils, and temperature. At least 80 percent of our vines in Napa were dry farmed before the French blind tasting in the 1970s. Pushing vines for production by irrigation is something we need to reconsider into the future. Do dry farmed grapes perform as well as irrigated vines for firebreaks?

Our Ag Watershed Open Space lands are key to the water supply of our cities. Oak woodlands and forests restore ground water; irrigated vineyards use it. The reason we had such a catastrophe was not because we have oak woodlands and forests but because we have not managed our so-called wild lands for two centuries, ever since the white man arrived, allowing underbrush and understory to build up. The health of Napa County environment is dependent on how we manage the forests and oak woodlands.

Oak woodlands and forests do not contaminate our surface and ground water with agricultural fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides. As important organs of the watersheds, they protect the water supply from silt and erosion. Pure, abundant water for our population is dependent on the health of our watersheds.

The fires necessitate that we rethink our approach to the watersheds. There is so much scientific research that says do not cut these burned areas, let them recover — that the best action is no action. This is a time for our governing officials to bow their heads to scientific research, not succumb to political pressure for business as usual.

The health of our beautiful valley begins at the top of the mountains in the Ag Watershed Open Space lands. Our water supply is dependent on this health. Oak woodlands and forests are important components to aquifer recharge, to the health of the Napa River and our reservoirs, and to clean and abundant water for all of us.

Water and Fire remind us of our connection to each other. What we each do on our own land affects us all. Advocate that our county officials pause, allow our burned lands to regenerate, and take steps to manage the understory of our oak woodlands and forests that have not burned. Our population is dependent on it.

Vineyards don’t save lives; water does.

NVR LTE version 11/13/17: Don't blame the trees

After the fire photos on: After The Fire

Bill Hocker - Nov 10,17  expand...  Share

Update 11/10/17
SR Press Democrat 11/101/7: Displaced Sonoma County residents wrestle with rise in post-fire visitors to burned neighborhoods

I have been taking photos after the fire and have been putting them up on my photo website here. I will keep adding them as I take more. Some show burned homes, and may be painful for their owners to look at. I will remove any that owners may object to. Contact me here.

The article in the Press Democrat presents a split opinion by residents to have outsiders view the destruction. A resident next to us on Soda Canyon Road calls it a purient interest. I think of it as witnessing (and recording) a significant historical occurrence. I am a bit of a hypocrit, of course. When it involves tourists coming up the road on a daily basis to view our (normal) homes and lifestyles as part of a Napa winery "experience", I become less philosophical.

Other photos on this site taken of the fire and its aftermath are here and Amber Manfree's here.

Memorial Service for Sally Lewis on: After The Fire

Bill Hocker - Nov 10,17  expand...  Share

Sally Lewis' daughter, Windy Tirados, extends an invitation to a Memorial Celebration of Life to be held for Sally who perished in the fire on Soda Canyon Road.

November 18th , Saturday from 12:00-4:00
At the Paradise Valley Golf Club
Fairfield, Ca

Draft Rebuilding Regulations on: After The Fire

Bill Hocker - Nov 10,17  expand...  Share

The County Planning department has produced a draft "Urgency Ordinance" governing the rebuilding of structures destroyed by the October fires in Napa county. There will be a meeting on Nov. 13th, 2017 to discuss the draft ordinance aimed at the building professionals (including those who will be working for homeowners) that will be governed by its conditions. County Planning Manager Vin Smith's email:

I have reserved the Board of Supervisors Chambers for Monday, November 13th at 10:30 to discuss the recommended Urgency Ordinance we are preparing for the Board’s consideration. We are working on Draft Language that I have attached to this email for your review. Keep in mind this is a work in progress, but it represents a bulk of the changes we are proposing to accommodate efficient and swift building permit processing for those who have suffered loss as a result of the fires.

I have focused this invite on industry professionals (Civil, Architect, Contractors, Planners, Attorneys) not to exclude but to ensure our dialogue is about the Urgency Ordinance itself, as the ordinance provides recommended process changes to streamline building permit issuance and you are the local experts.

For time planning purposes, I anticipate this meeting taking 90-minutes or less. I hope you can free-up a part of you Monday for this meeting.

Draft of the Urgency Ordinance

Also this - NVR 11/10/17: Fire rebuilding challenges availability of Napa area contractors

How To Help a Friend Who Lost Their Home in a Fire on: After The Fire

NV2050 Admin - Nov 7,17  expand...  Share

For all of us who witnessed the devastation of the North Bay Fires last month, it was kindness from those near and far, friends and strangers, that created beauty in the midst of ugliness and healing in the midst of despair.

KQED News shares this insightful piece written by Carolynn Spezza, who lost her home to the 2015 Valley Fire:

How To Help a Friend Who Lost Their Home in a Fire

Carolyn offers 15 tips to those longing to support friends or loved ones navigating the treacherous path of rebuilding a life after home loss.

Among these ideas, we hope you find a way of reaching out that feels meaningful.

Well protected watersheds benefit all on: Watershed Initiative 2018

Yeoryios Apallas - Nov 6,17  expand...  Share

Much has been written about the Watershed and Oak Woodland Protection Initiative of 2018, and the chicanes it has driven through to become an effective tool for the protection of Mother Earth.

I am a grape grower and a member of the board of the Napa County Farm Bureau (NCFB). My comments reflect my personal views and not those of the NCFB.

For too long now, the promiscuous grant of winery permits has made the Napa Valley a difficult place to navigate by car or other transportation means. Tourism has been a priority for the Valley Board of Supervisors and the Napa City Council. Hotel construction and winery event centers have dominated the agendas of our county and city politicians.

It is undeniable that much, if not all, the available AP land has been already planted and some which has been planted (although a small amount) is now being paved over for event centers. It is also undeniable that pressure will continue the AW zone to remove oak woodlands for vineyards and other construction -- a potentially disastrous policy for the long term economic viability of the Valley.

Meanwhile the temperature of the Earth is undeniably getting higher through global mismanagement. The initiative is trying to right this process.

So, what is the goal of initiative? The proponents of the Woodlands Initiative strongly believe (and I agree with them as a farmer, grape grower, and grandfather) that natural areas along streams and wetlands play a critical role in protecting Napa County water resources by reducing erosion, alleviating flooding, and improving water quality. Trees and vegetation along streams and wetlands, filter water for municipal, rural and agricultural use, reduce water pollution, and provide important habitat for fish and wildlife.

The initiative provides enhanced protection for these areas by preserving forest and riparian habitat along stream corridors and wetlands within the AW zoning district.” See, Purpose and Findings of Initiative.

These are important goals for any civilized and balanced agrarian/commercial/industrial society. If Napa County citizens can do their part while balancing the interests of other affected stakeholders, good for us all. Enlightened government would normally attempt to balance various environmental, commercial, and agricultural interests for the advancement of the public health and welfare.

The Napa County Board of Supervisors, and the Napa City Council have failed miserably in meeting their task. Their myopic, exuberant, and single-minded approach to winery and event center development has hurt us and will continue to hurt us all on so many levels. Thus, the citizens had to take matters into their own hands -- not to girdle the healthy growth of agricultural and commercial enterprises, but to provide much-needed balance.

I wanted to provide another perspective to this debate so that my grape grower and farmer friends can understand what the attempt and goals of the authors (and most recently the enlightened leadership of Napa Valley Vintners) are all about when they crafted this initiative. It’s not always about the “Benjamins” --it’s about the health and sustainability of Mother Earth for the current and future inhabitants of the Napa Valley.

NVR version 11/6/17: Not always about the “Benjamins”
[Editor's note: is it intentional that the titles of the LTE's in the Register are always so cryptic or generic that one can't possibly guess what they're about - BH]

Debris Management & Rebuilding Informational Meeting on: After The Fire

Barbara Guggia - Nov 1,17  expand...  Share

Greetings to Soda Canyon Neighbors & Friends:

I attended the meeting at the Silverado Country Club on 10/30 and felt it was a worthwhile, with reps from FEMA, Army Corp of Engineers, EPA, Fire, Bill Dodd, and Napa County Planning Department in attendance. It appeared there were close to 300 people at the meeting and I had to wonder how they were all notified. Without the email from Anne, I would not have known at all about the meeting. Thanks Anne!
Reps from each agency made a brief presentation, with staff from these agencies available to answer individual questions afterwards.
Main points:

  • If you are considering using the the Government Removal program, you need to fill out the paperwork ASAP. Army Corp of Engineers is lining up private contractors to do the work. Whether or not this program is right for you depends on your personal situation and insurance policy. The head FEMA rep said there was confusion regarding the program and explained how it worked. It made more sense to me after he explained it, so if you need clarification, call and ask questions.
  • If you are using a private contractor for debris removal and wondering where the hazardous waste, ash, and other materials will go, this wasn’t answered. FEMA said they are still working with landfills to figure this out.
  • Napa County Planning Department has set-up a Special Building Permit Center dedicated to homeowners who want to rebuild. There will be three full-time staff to help with developing the simplest process and fastest building permit process for rebuilders. The center is in the basement of the admin building at 3rd & Coombs. Phone number: 707.299.1350 Vincent Smith of the Planning Department appears to be the one in charge.
  • Throughout the meeting, all the officials emphasized how supportive and helpful the county and government agencies were going to be regarding rebuilding process. Some of the quotes I heard…"flexible, we will get out the way, we will be your advocate, quick process, simple process, we are here to help you through the process”…etc. David Morrison said “our goal is to move you into your home as quickly as possible” and Bill Dodd offered to “be your advocate” if needed.
  • EPA is inspecting all homes that were damaged and should be done soon. Debris removal permits will be issued within 24 hours of being filed.
  • The fire could have possibly damaged home foundations, the concrete and steel. foundations should be tested.
  • Bob Fenton from FEMA reported that 200 staff members from his department are here to help and said in his presentation that he acknowledges “the need to protect watersheds”, which is very encouraging.
  • After the meeting, AP and his wife Brenda were hosting a wine reception on the deck outside of the ballroom.

County recovery documents updated on: After The Fire

Bill Hocker - Oct 28,17  expand...  Share

Sup. Pedroza sent out a couple of documents about programs that the county is undertaking to help with the recovery process. I will add more at the top of this page when I find them.

Potential property tax-reduction notice
Final Household Hazardous Waste Removal & Debris Removal Program with forms


Dan McFadden - Oct 26, 2017 11:58AM

I have downloaded and read carefully the Right-of-Entry (ROE) form requested by before they will initiate hazardous waste removal. This ROE form does not differentiate between Phase 1 (no-cost hazardous waste removal) and Phase 2 (debris removal). Supervisor Pedrosa circulated the "Hazardous Waste & Debris Removal Fact Sheet, Issued 10/18/17" that states that owners will have two options in Phase 2, either debris removal by the county (Option 1) or by a private contractor (Option 2). However, the ROE appears to give the county an unrestricted right to exercise Option 1 in Phase 2. The ROE under Phase 2, Option 1 seems to give the county virtually full control over what happens to your site, including things like bulldozing retaining walls and foundations of historical buildings, gives them the right to leave behind for you to deal with anything that they choose, and gives them the right to bill you and your insurer for all of their Phase 2 work, with no announced timetable or fees. My reading of the terms is that there is no public subsidy for Phase 2 for owners who have fire insurance, and my claims adjuster stated that charges for debris removal by county-sponsored contractors usually equal or exceed the allowance in your policy for debris removal.

To put it mildly, this legal document does not appear to have been drawn up for the benefit of residents burned out by the fire. I will not sign it, and instead will ask for a ROE document that covers Phase 1 only. I encourage you to read the current ROE carefully before signing.

The End of the Trail (and the Reynolds expansion) on: Soda Canyon Road

Bill Hocker - Oct 27,17  expand...  Share

Update 11/5/17
NVR 11/5/17: Reynolds Family Winery wins Napa County expansion approval

Update 11/3/17
The expansion of the Reynolds winery was approved 4-1 by the planning commission on Nov 1st with Comm. Cottrell (and Comm. Gallagher) concerned about the cumulative impacts of ever-expanding visitation demands by wineries.

Planning Manager Vin Smith (a new county position?) repeated the mantra that the number of new wineries is still within the parameters laid down in the 2008 General Plan EIR - so no problem. The number of new wineries predicted in the 2008 DEIR was 150 from 2005 to 2030. (page 3.0-23 of the DEIR - page 120 of the pdf . This was inexplicably raised to 225 in the "Preferred Plan".) The reality is that 108 new winery permits have been issued since 2006 (88 through 2015 and 20 since) . Continuing at the same rate will mean 245 new wineries by 2030.

Of course the EIR only quantified the number of new wineries, not the expansion of existing wineries. And it said nothing about the impacts of visitation generated by each.

Allowed visitation continues to grow at a much faster rate than the historical trend before 2008. The Reynolds approval is an example of the trend: a 100% increase in capacity and 350% increase in visitation. (The Reguschi modification, approved two weeks after Reynolds, really emphasizes the trend: 100% increase in production, 5000% increase in visitation.) The DEIR does not have one reference to the impacts that the growth of additional winery visitation will have on the environment of Napa County. In that omission, the EIR for the 2008 General Plan was a farce. We are now facing not only the significant and unavoidable impacts recognized in the DEIR, but the significant impacts of the growth of the tourism/visitation/hospitality industry (the most expansive industry in the county) not even mentioned in the DEIR. And our County government, controlled by development interests as local governments always are, is quite content to pretend that as long as tourism is defined as agriculture, the impacts are simply an unregulated and unobjectionable "right-to-farm" issue, beyond the purview of cumulative impact analysis.

The Reynolds Family Winery will be up for a modification at the Planning Commission on Nov 1, 2017 to add 12,500 more tourism slots, 16 more parking spaces, and 5 more employees. (Agenda item 8B here). it is the last of the proposals around the Soda Canyon Junction under review in the last few years. The Krupp Winery was approved in June 2012. The Corona winery was approved in Nov 2013. The expansion of the Beau Vigne was approved in Sep 2016. The Sam Jasper Winery and the Mountain Peak winery were approved in Jan 2017. The Grassi Winery was approved in Feb 2017. And now finally the last of the pending projects, Reynolds, will no doubt also be approved. (Approved 4-1)

It will not be the last. Just north of the Reynolds winery a new "estate" is being constructed for the very un-residential appearing Ellman Family Vineyards brand.

The junction map is a sad predictor of the direction that the rest of the Silverado is headed. Somewhere near 35 wineries have been approved along the Trail since 2010. Most have not yet been built and their tourists and employees and deliveries have not yet arrived to further clog up what is already becoming a continuous stream of traffic at times of the day.

In all of the development projects that the county has continued to approve each year, each project was given a "negative declaration" from the county staff relying on consultants who massage numbers to certify that project impacts, such as the traffic they generate, will be less-than-significant as defined by some arbitrary metric. And yet, can anyone deny that the Trail has become significantly impacted? As long as the wine industry and the Supervisors continue to lust after the money to be made by urbanizing Napa's open spaces those spaces will be urbanized, one lest-than-significant project at a time, until they are all gone.

A similar but more extensive rant on the death of the Silverado Trail is here.


Anthony Arger - Oct 31, 2017 7:28PM

[Statement to County Planning Department re. Reynolds Winery]

Dear Ms. Balcher,

Attached please find my comments on the Reynolds Winery Major Modification (P14-00334) that I would like to be submitted as part of the public record in advance of tomorrow's continued hearing on the matter. Please note that I am including seven (7) exhibits along with the letter, which I will try to attach to this email. However, if they do not fit, I will send in separate emails. Either way, please include them with my letter and confirm receipt once everything is received.

Please do not hesitate to let me know of any questions or concerns and thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincere regards,

Exhibit 1: Wineries at the SCR-Trail junction

Exhibit 2: Traffic at the SCR-Trail junction

Exhibit 3: Incidents at the SCR-Trail junction

Exhibit 4: CHP incident report SCR at the Trail
Exhibit 5: Sheriff Calls for service on SCR 2014-17
Exhibit 6: Calfire Incident Summary 2005-17

Fire feedback to the BOS on: After The Fire

Gary Margadant - Oct 27,17  expand...  Share

Mt Veeder Neighbors

Napa County Planning and Building Dept is organizing a forum for feedback on Building Permits procedures during the Rebuilding Phase after the NAPA FIRES. Essentially to: how the County can adjust the Napa County processes to best address the needs of the property owners while continuing to protect the health and welfare of the community as a whole. (see below)

If you Cannot Attend, Please forward any feedback on your observations and desires for change in the processes, Directly to Vin Smith: .
If you want to forward any of your ideas to me, I will be more than happy to pass them on to Vin and his PBES colleagues.

FUTURE ITEM for the Board of Supervisors (BOS) concerns, but they might be yours also...our FEEDBACK on the Emergency Response, Community Notification, Priorities and Coordination during the Fire Storms by Napa County and their Emergency Services. Many thanks to First Responders who risked their lives to save our homes and forest, thanks to them and extraordinary neighbors who stepped up.

This is a Feedback loop that needs to be discussed in a similar forum or as an Agenda Item on the BOS Agenda.

1. Nixle messages missing during the first 24 hours...Attributable to the loss of Cell phone towers in the initial hours, but a missed scenario by the Emergency Coordinators.

2. No backup for 1, including the use of Social Media: Facebook, Next Door, twitter, Text, etc. Missed opportunities in the emergency scenarios and emergency protocols: SM was not used.

3. Land Use Priorities for Access. Residents were on the bottom of the priority list and this must change. Ag operations were allowed in, with permit, during the Mandatory Evacuation to tend to their investments (vineyards, grapes), but home owners were not allowed to enter to check their water sources, tanks and water lines in preparation for a return. Workers who do not live on the mountain were allowed in, but those who's home was their major investment/wealth were not allowed in to attend to their investment. Granted, some residents were allowed in for Animal Welfare, but all were not accorded the same investment privileges as Ag operations. THIS HAS TO CHANGE. There is more $$ invested in homes on the hill than commercial operations, so why the priority disconnect?

4. Residents watched as Bicyclists were allowed into the area yet they were not. (This is an odd one, but there is no reason strangers w/o Local ID, were allowed in for Recreation??

5. The BOS needs to tackle Feedback from Residents as a positive to adjusting their emergency response protocols for future events. The board recognizes 4 major events in the last 4 years: Earthquake, Fire, Rain Storm and....that needed major emergency response.... I suggested Response Drills after the Earthquake, but these suggestions never materialized into any concerted actions by the Board and Response Agencies.

WRITE your supervisor and request a forum for Feedback and Response Protocol changes in light of recent problems/failures. We have to learn from the past to better the future.

Send me your ideas and I will carry them to the BOS..

Best Regards, Gary

Save Rural Angwin Quarterly Update on: Other Groups

Kellie Anderson - Oct 27,17  expand...  Share

Save Rural Angwin publishes a quarterly update on the progress of development issues there, and now as a member of Napa Vision 2050, focusing on development issues throughout the county. The Aug-Oct 2017 update is here.

The update index is here

County stakeholder fire loss meeting on: After The Fire

Bill Hocker - Oct 26,17  expand...  Share

MEETING CANCELLED - to be rescheduled

County Planning Manager Vin Smith writes:

Good afternoon to all,

The fires were a horrific and unprecedented event and we are truly moved by the devastation but more so the unbelievably strong positive community response. I can say that county staff confronted the events to assist in the immediate emergency needs of the community, and quickly went to work to address the community needs during the rebuilding phase which is ongoing. As such, the Building Official and I are hosting a Stakeholders Meeting next Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2pm in the Board of Supervisors Board Room (where the public meetings take place) to provide an update on our ideas and efforts to simplify the rebuilding process and to exchange ideas about moving forward. We will give a short presentation and have handouts, as well as website links, for your use in communicating with those who have suffered property loss. We will also have draft concepts or “Scenarios” to present to you on how the County can adjust its processes to best address the needs of the property owners while continuing to protect the health and welfare of the community as a whole. We are on a tight schedule to get ordinance changes to the Board of Supervisors on November 21st, so we hope that you can process the contents of these handouts and provide feedback at this meeting.

Thank you to all who have assisted and supported the county efforts since October 8th. I look forward to working with you on rebuilding our community.

Vin Smith
Planning Manager
County of Napa
707-259-5934 direct

Watershed and Oak Woodland Initiative on: Watershed Initiative 2018

Jim Wilson - Oct 26,17  expand...  Share

This is an ephemeral stream (Class 3) bordered by oaks - initiative proposes to protect areas like these by establishing "no-cut" water quality buffer zones
Dear friends and supporters,

I hope you're doing well. My heart goes out to our many friends who lost their homes in the wildfires. With the recovery of our human and natural communities brings the need for caution and science and common sense. As we regroup and refocus, what are the lessons? I think what we're asking for our watershed health is not only important preemptively, but more important than ever post-emergency. Now is the time to let the watershed heal.

Thanks for your help gathering signatures last year. As you know, it ran into a technical snafu and had to be pulled. The good news is that our revised initiative represents real progress, positioned for greater consensus as a result of our collaboration with the NVV. I think it gives people hope to see our unwavering commitment to enhanced watershed protections. Passing the initiative would be a perfectly sane step forward, and a wonderful win for future generations.

We'd like to qualify for the June ballot. To do that, we need to gather signatures over the next few weeks and get them to John Tuteur by December 5. Please let me know if you'd like to pitch in. Since time is short, we're hiring help this time around. But your commitment and passion are as important as ever. Even a few signatures from your friends and family would help with with our public outreach. I appreciate your understanding.

Can I get a petition to you? Email me to request a petition.

Here are some highlights:

This Initiative provides vital environmental protections for Napa’s precious oak woodlands and watersheds. It is the product of years of discussions among a wide variety of stakeholders in Napa County, all of whom were interested in finding a common-sense approach to protecting our important natural resources and ensuring responsible development. Your signature isn’t an endorsement, but will enable us get this initiative on the June ballot in 2018.

Here are the general provisions.
  1. It will establish “no-cut” buffer zones for forests along streams and wetlands.
  2. It will strengthen existing standards to require a 3:1 ratio for replacing or preserving oak trees when oaks are lost to development. This is better for the ecosystems that depend on these trees, and better for the climate, too! (because healthy forests sequester carbon dioxide and lock away carbon in woody biomass.)
  3. It will establish an Oak Removal Limit. The limit takes effect when 795 additional acres of oak woodlands have been removed. This acreage limit takes into consideration the historic rate of local woodland removal associated with new vineyard development, in accordance with the General Plan's projection of 10,000 acres of new vineyards to be developed by 2030.
Please note that tree removal in accordance with federal, state and local agencies is allowed for fire protection and other hazards.

  • Healthy forests support a wide range of wildlife (flora and fauna), including ecological biodiversity “hotspots” that host rare species. Trees in all stages of the life-cycle provide important habitat for this wildlife.
    Healthy forests provide the root structure and leaf-litter needed to hold soils in place and prevent soil erosion and flooding, particularly on steep hillsides.
  • Healthy forests provide shade, which cools the local environment and helps retain moisture in the air and soil. This reduces wildfire danger.
    In addition, the shade zone under an oak tree retards the growth of grasses and shrubs that can carry fire.
  • Trees pull groundwater up and transpire it to the air. At the same time, tree roots loosen the soil and increase its capacity to absorb water.
  • Dead tree roots provide a conduit for surface water to enter the soil and water table. Dead tree trunks lying on the ground act as a sponge, absorbing and purifying water and retaining soil moisture under the log.
  • The presence of trees slows wind and air circulation, thus reducing the drying of soils and fire fuels.
  • The trunks of mature trees don't burn readily and actually pose an impediment to low-lying ground fires. You may have noticed that most of our oak trees survived the firestorm, and their presence will be vital in helping to prevent erosion in the coming rainy months.

Attached you'll find the Title & Summary, the initiative, and pointers for signature gatherers.

Sincere thanks, on behalf of all of those pulling together for the common good,

Initiative title and summary
Initiative text
Instructions for signature gatherers

Post fire assessments and debris removal on: After The Fire

Barbara Guggia - Oct 25,17  expand...  Share

Steve [Chilton] spoke with Kelly Gin of the Natural Resources Conservation Service and in addition to providing online information (brochures also available at their information table @LAC) regarding post fire restoration, her office can do post fire property assessments (free of charge). An assessment would provide information about stabilizing the soil, removing dead material and identifying proper seed mix. The assessment should come in handy for insurance purposes. In addition to information, her agency might also be able to provide grants to agricultural properties impacted by the fire. There may be funding for nonagricultural properties for clean up and rehabilitation. We are hoping to get her out to Soda Canyon this week and if you would like her to visit your property, please call her as soon as possible at:

Kelly Gin-707.252.4189 ext. 3114.

We also spoke with someone at the Planning Department (Neil @ the LAC) and through the county, the California Dept of Emergency Services can provide debris and burnt vegetation removal. We don’t have all the details regarding when or how this would happen but this is something worth looking into.

Stuck on Soda Canyon Road on: Soda Canyon Road

Bill Hocker - Oct 25,17  expand...  Share

Update 10/25/17
Two vehicle accident off into the creek at the McFadden curve on 10/25/17. The first responders arrived in force, not taking any chances.

After the fire, just at harvest, the road is busier than I have ever seen it. There are the grape trucks, repair trucks servicing fire damaged properties, utility trucks, and residents in what amounts to an almost continuous stream (by Soda Canyon standards) of vehicles on the road. It will not end anytime soon. All of this activity will be supplanted first by debris loading and hauling equipment and then by construction vehicles as residents rebuild in the coming years. As in the argument concerning tourism traffic, with each new vehicle on the road the potential for accidents on the blind curves and rises increases.

Lauren Griffith's photos stuck on the road.

Update 4/19/17
Some of the members of the Soda Canyon community on their way to the hearing on the very inaccessible Caves at Soda Canyon winery almost didn't arrive because of a typical example of inaccessibility on our road.

Update 3/27/17
Just another day on the road.

Update 2/15/17
Residents send along these photos of an encounter that may become all too familiar along the grade: stranded tour buses awaiting reinforcements in their assault on the Rector plateau.

And the final indignity below: being towed from in front of the Mountain Peak site (probably the first place they were able to turn around after being hauled up the grade?).

It appears that the van was headed to the Beau Vine vineyard as part of a release party at their nascent winery on the Trail at Soda Canyon Road. Approval of modification to the Beau Vingne winery just happened at the planning commission (the hearing is item 9B here) in what one could only consider as a love-fest about what Napa "family" wineries should be about.

The visit to the vineyard in conjunction to a event at the winery does raise a question that I have always had about visitation to vineyards as opposed to wineries. Visitation to wineries is regulated to the nth degree, implying that unpermitted tourism visitation to vineyards might be illegal. Is that true? Even as an opponent of tourism to remote areas of the county, if the allowance of vineyard visitation defuses the need to build wineries in remote vineyards, that is a much preferable alternative. Provided that visits to vineyards don't become events, with food service and large quantities of people, there should be some codification of the process which does not now exist. (Of course, containing the extent of a privilege once codified has been at the heart of problems now confronting the county.)

It begins again, our first for 2015, overloaded vineyard truck dead on last curve, had to be towed with tractor.

Diane Shepp - Oct 20,17  expand...  Share

Something for current Grand Jury:

SF Chronicle 10/13/17: 3 counties hit by wildfires warned long ago about staffing, infrastructure

Updated satellite image of burn areas on: Fire Issues

Bill Hocker - Oct 20,17  expand...  Share

Satellite image of Napa-Sonoma burn areas as of 10/18/17

Also, the Google Earth application currently has clear, and most sobering, images of the fire damage.

The development rush on: After The Fire

Barbara Guggia - Oct 19,17  expand...  Share

SJ Mercury News 10/18/17: Governor Brown issues order to speed up Wine Country fire recovery efforts

I know we are all focused on survival and just trying to get back to our homes and maintaining some kind of sanity as we address all the problems related to this incident. However, if we do not remain diligent regarding environmental issues, I’m afriad the "powers that be" will try to get back to “business as usual” and sneak through more winery proposals as we just try to get our lives back together. Of particular concern is that the county might put into play “shortcuts” to allegedly help fire victims, which will also help wineries and other ag businesses to shortcut the process and get their proposals approved without proper public notification, vetting, and community input.

Is the Planning Commission is still having meetings? How convient if all the “usual suspects” that show up and voice their opinions are now just trying to figure out how to repair their homes or working with insurance companies to deal with the loss of their burned out home.

What have other counties done regarding planning issues following a major disaster ? Oakland fire…Lake County fire…Santa Rosa...Did they have a moratorium on building/variance/modification permits?

This is such a %#$*!#! mess in so many ways.


Glenn J. Schreuder - Oct 19, 2017 11:22PM

At this point it should be abundantly clear to all that upper Soda Canyon and places like it aren't a really great place for the uninformed, out-of town tourist to be hanging out on a hot, dry, windy day.

Not good place for the tourist, not a good situation for local residents.

Tourists belong on and near the Valley floor where they have ready access to emergency services.

We've been saying this all the while, and it turns out the concerns we raised regarding the issues of access, fire safety and the like were not only 100% valid but painfully accurate.

Anne Palotas - Oct 19, 2017 5:06PM

This is a big concern!

Already in the news (TV- yesterday?) Jerry Brown has made it so that the "Wine Industry" can get immediate and easily granted variances on re-locating tasting rooms and production facilities that have been affected by fire. There was some other very negative things mentioned which escape me right now. Could this have been championed by Bill Dodd?

Glenn J. Schreuder - Oct 19, 2017 4:20PM

Residential rebuilds need to be the top priority for the Planning department for the foreseeable future. Glenn

Toxic waste cleanup on: After The Fire

Gary Margadant - Oct 19,17  expand...  Share

SR Press Democrat 10/17/17: U.S. EPA to oversee toxics cleanup after fires in Sonoma and Napa counties
Household Hazardous Waste Removal & Debris Removal Program

Here is something I put together about Milliken Reservoir and the Runoff from the Sill Winery that was destroyed in the fire. The runoff from the winery will make it into Milliken Creek @ 2929 APR, above the intake to the City of Napa Water System. If the rains come before CalRecycle can clean up the mess, then the Napa River Water Quality and Wildlife is certainly going to suffer.

Sill must not be allowed to try and clean up the mess himself unless he has the approval of State Cleanup Officials. So we need to closely follow his activity at the Winery.

The contamination is not limited to destroyed Wineries, but also Ag Buildings, homes, etc. anything that might store toxic materials (even wine that leaks out into the watersheds).

We need to find and document these structures so we can follow the activity of owners, residents and Lead Cleanup Agencies.

DO YOU KNOW of any such structures???? Send me a note (but do NOT reply to all).

The tourism push on: After The Fire

Shepherd Bliss - Oct 19,17  expand...  Share

[Sent along by Charlotte Williams]

I just posted the following thread on in response to an email about tourism. Please consider joining this discussion. It would be helpful to hear from Napa people and to promote pending events and experiences related to tourism.

Insurance claims on: After The Fire

Yeoryios Apallas - Oct 18,17  expand...  Share

Here is a website that can be useful to our Soda Canyon friends who may have fire insurance claims. It is run by a citizens’ advocacy group and has insider tips on how to handle a claim. Bill you may want to post it on the website. I will also email it to our constituent groups and Napa Vision 2050

SCR photos on: After The Fire

Amber Manfree - Oct 16,17  expand...  Share

Here is a link to a Google Drive folder with photos I've taken this past week. Mainly for reference; if you distribute them to press or post them online please credit me and be considerate if someone's home is depicted. Also some individual photos below.

Fire in the Mayacamas

Fire in the Mayacamas

Post fire issues on: After The Fire

John Regan - Oct 15,17  expand...  Share

I suggest that we either use this page or start a new one related to rebuilding and insurance efforts. We are the family that lost the house on Loma Vista in 2011 and unfortunately are very experienced in the fire insurance claim process, so hopefully this time will be less daunting.
We can all expect that once the road access is granted, we will all be visited by:
1) Looters or spectators
2) Insurance adjusters looking for clients
3) Insurance company representives

We learned a great deal during those two years and it will be invaluable to have a site to share information, problems and recs. Happy to share what we learned and share information as we go through it again; we'll all need a forum (this page or another on to accomplish this. If anyone has specific questions I can be reached at 415-310-3245.

Good luck to everyone with the early stages of recovery!

John Regan
Kim Regan
1029 Loma Vista

The Atlas Fire on Soda Canyon Road on: Fire Issues

Bill Hocker - Oct 13,17  expand...  Share

Fault lines on: After The Fire

Bill Hocker - Oct 12,17  expand...  Share

Steve Schneider sends this post:
It is hard to believe that this tragedy keeps on burning. Our hearts continue to go out to all of you.

Perhaps you may be able to recover some from PG&E?

I don’t know if you saw this news but it appears that the cause of the fire may have been downed power lines or blown transformers.

If PG&E was negligent, like they were in the San Bruno gas explosion disaster, all affected may be able to recover - your group may have another cause to promote, this time with attorneys who undoubtedly would take it on on contingency so you don’t have to pay them upfront.

Just a thought, trying to be helpful.

SF Business Times 10/12/17: PG&E power lines may have provided key spark to North Bay inferno

I will probably end up in the minority opinion on this but PG&E has a lot more potential hazards to deal with than it humanly possible to control, especially given the unwillingness of rate payers to fund the enormous infrastructure costs to build a fail safe system. Every power line in the state has trees growing around it. Pruning them all or cutting them all down is not an option. And even if they did an earthquake might knock them down. I would like to see all the lines underground, but in our neighborhood you can't find anyone willing to spend several thousand dollars each to make it happen. Even that amount of money probably doesn't come close to the actual cost of under-grounding. I think that PG&E does a good job given the amounts of money we are willing to pay. In certain situations they may be negligent, but not making every line in their territory wind and tree-proofed is not negligence


Shelle Wolfe - Oct 17, 2017 11:45PM

I agree Bill... Thanks :)

Bill Hocker - Oct 12, 2017 3:04PM

Roland Dumas writes:
Be careful about making causal attributions at this stage. PG&E may not be the most responsible player, but not enough information to know if a fire took out power or power malfunction caused fire.

With many fires, there may be common cause, independent, chain reaction, etc. We could have an arsonist(s), which is not a remote possibility.

The fires will have an environmental impact, to be sure. While we are waiting for the forensics, we can start contemplating the larger impact, and the impact on the various initiatives. Saving a watershed that just burned down will take some re-thinking. Saving Skyline park from development may be a different game. We have some thinking and re-strategizing to do.

The preservationist community really needs to begin thinking about the new world order in the county that will come from developers wanting to take advantage of every square inch of newly cleared land and of a county desperate for development fees and growth to the economy to offset the loss of tourism money, and the desire to give any concession to get the tourism industry back on track. The vineyard development industry is also newly empowered. Unfortunately, It's just been proven that the carbon sequestered in forests is much more volatile and less justifiable than that sequestered in vines.

George Caloyannidis - Oct 12, 2017 2:57PM

Dear Friends and Supervisors;

I heard a man who lived on Atlas Peak being interviewed some days ago who said that he experienced a momentary power outage. The power came back and then went out. Immediately thereafter the fires began.

There is no doubt in my mind that at least this particular fire was caused by PG&E failure to maintain power lines, power poles and surrounding trees.
The situation on Diamond Mountain Road where we live is equally dismal. Crooked power poles, sagging powers lines - some not being repaired after repeated requests and hundreds of trees threatening power lines. They need to be removed for obvious safety reasons.

About 6 months ago, a large oak tree branch fell and snapped a power line about 200 feet from the intersection to Hwy 29. We were lucky at that time.

To this day, a Comcast cable has been dragged down to the ground by a falling tree for at least 3 months now but has not severed. It is still in this condition and it is dragging the two anchor PG&E power poles in tension and despite notices, no one has cared to repair it. It is a new disaster waiting to happen.

The PG@E electrical infrastructure in the mountains is that of a 3rd world country.

I am sure when the dust settles, we will find that they are the culprit of at least the Atlas Peak fire.

China Syndrome (updated) on: Tourism Issues

Bill Hocker - Oct 7,17  expand...  Share

Update 10/7/17
Wines&Vines 5/15/17: A winery trend stalling? Unfortunately not before leaving some potential damage to the nature of Soda Canyon Road. In all fairness, we can point to the sense of community that opposition to commercial exploitation of the road has fostered.

NVR 4/27/16: Visitors from China: As numbers grow, the search is on for ways to increase their welcome

It appears that Napa is gearing up for true bulk tourism à la Castello di Amorosa and Bunny Foo Foo - with Chinese characteristics. This article makes the wine industry seem actually gleeful at the thought of the money to be made from Chinese masses, an attitude, I suppose, shared by western entrepreneurs since the Treaty of Nanking. (Opium the drug then being peddled). Are Dominus or Harlan really itching to open their gates to the multitudes? Are there any vintners left in the county more interested in making wine than selling wine-pairing experiences with Chinese food?

And what if the dreams are realized? The totality of Napa brand red wine produced each year will now supply 14 days of Chinese wine consumption - and Chinese wine consumption is growing rapidly. How will the Napa vintners keep their Chinese customers happy? The end of the 75% rule is definitely in sight.

Unfortunately, we on Soda Canyon Road seem to be on the front line of the invasion with a winery event center being developed in conjunction with Hong Kong wine tourism interests. Given the stars in the eyes of the good-life impresarios, and a board of supervisors increasingly becoming a hardened tool of development interests, the effort by residents to save Napa county from its rendezvous with a theme-park-tourist-trap destiny seems more quixotic than ever.


Daily Mail (UK) 3/17/15: Chinese rivalling French to buy Bordeaux vineyards
Napa Broadcasting's Jeff Schectman's interview with the author of China's Lust for Bordeux and the Threat to the World's Best Wines.
Financial Times 6/12/15: China’s grape rush
NVR 6/23/15: Thousands of Chinese visitors throng to Napa Valley this spring
Gardian (UK) 1/29/14: China becomes biggest market for red wine, with 1.86bn bottles sold in 2013
Wines&Vines 11/1/12: Fund Seeks $100 Million to Buy Vineyards
Real estate promo: Chinese Buyers Invest in Napa Valley Real Estate
And this from 2010

Woodland Initiative 2018 on: Watershed Initiative 2018

Jim Wilson - Oct 7,17  expand...  Share

Update 10/7/17
Mike Hackett LTE 10/7/17: Let’s let the voters decide
Ross Workman LTE 10/6/17: What do we want to protect?
More Ross Workman here

Update 10/2/17
NVR 10/2/17: Napa Valley Vintners now wants more collaboration on watershed initiative
Robert Pursell LTE 10/2/17: Proposed Napa County oak woodlands initiative hurts property owners
NVR 9/28/17: Napa Farm Bureau will oppose oak woodlands initiatives

Update 9/20/17
Andy Beckstoffer LTE 9/20/17: Vote ‘yes’ for the initiative next June
Stuart Smith LTE 9/20/17: NVV is tone deaf when it comes to land-use politics
Dario Sattui LTE 9/19/17: Adamantly opposed to watershed initiative
NVR 9/10/17: Reborn watershed initiative has Napa Valley Vintner backing

Dear friends and supporters of our watershed and oak woodland protection initiative,

Last year, our grass roots organization gathered 6,300 signatures for an initiative to enhance protections for streams and oak woodlands. It was a phenomenal accomplishment and speaks volumes to the support we received from the community. Voters are increasingly aware that the health of the natural environment and human ecology are integrated. They’re concerned, as they should be, and want to have a voice in the matter.

As it turned out, we weren't able to bring our initiative to the ballot. But earlier this year, when leaders in the NVV suggested we partner in the process, it gave us hope we could strike out on a new path that would ultimately succeed. And now we have a revised initiative that we're confident will meet the needs of the present but also protect the needs of generations to come. It is titled, Napa County Watershed and Oak Woodland Protection Initiative of 2018. A copy is attached. Let me know if you have any questions.

We're grateful for the Vintners' bold leadership and their solidarity with neighbors seeking solutions to pressing needs of the natural environment. Please take a look at their bulletin, below, for more information. We'll be gathering signatures soon for the June ballot. You're welcome to join us if you can.

Sincerely grateful, on behalf of all of those pulling together for the common good,

The bulletin of the Napa Valley Vintners announcing the initiative is here.

Napa County Watershed and Oak Woodland Protection Initiative of 2018

Soda Canyon fire was wake-up call on: Mountain Peak Winery

Yeoryios Apallas - Oct 5,17  expand...  Share

A frightening and potentially dangerous grass fire started one recent afternoon at close to the mouth of Soda Canyon Road and about a mile up this poorly maintained two-lane dead-end road.

But for the very aggressive response by the Cal Fire group (three fixed-wing aircraft and one helicopter response in the air and several fire trucks on the scene) this fire could have spread up the canyon and consumed valuable life, homes, and important trees and other habitat for our earth’s creatures that call the area their home.

This fire once again illustrates rather dramatically why the Mountain Peak Winery project was poorly considered by the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission.

The Soda Canyon community put in the official county record through live testimony and tomes of documents in order to underscore the point that wineries such as MPW do not belong at the end of a pot-holed, shoulderless dead-end road in a box canyon that has a history of raging fires.

One can imagine, therefore, how frustrated we all felt when this project was approved by the Planning Commission and affirmed on appeal by the Board of Supervisors. All for what? A few more bucks for a financial investor who seemingly understands little about the dangers of the canyon?

Our public officials were elected to protect and preserve the community’s safety from latent public dangers such as the MPW project represents. Regrettably they have monumentally failed their constituents in this regard.

Will it take a massive public tragedy to cause them to really examine the dangerous nature of this canyon and how unsuited it is for public, commercial, and hospitality activity? The Board of Supervisors should consider this fire as another wake up call.

I know that the MPW project is now in the hands of the wise judicial branch of our government, and the board cannot do much to affect the outcome of this project (or can it?). But they can at least have this fire (and the previous Soda Canyon fires) as a reason why the public interest trumps the vainglorious financial interests of the few.

NVR LTE version 10/5/17: Soda Canyon fire was wake-up call

A limited focus on uncertainty on: Compliance Issues

George Caloyannidis - Oct 5,17  expand...  Share

NVR Editorial Board 10/1/17: An End to Uncertainty

Two players were missing in the Register's Editorial Board discussion regarding the County's system of granting permits and addressing violations in wineries (and other buildings).

While the interests of business and politics were included, missing were those of the environment and the residents' quality of life. The issue of violators cannot be addressed without its effect on them.

To begin with, bunching building violations and winery violations under the same ordinance would be a serious mistake. An unpermitted room addition is a matter of Building and Safety while unpermitted wine production and visitor numbers impact everyone's quality of life and the environment unless mitigated according to the safeguards mandated by the State (CEQA). Herein lies the broader context within which the issue must be addressed by the County if it is to be effective.

I have written extensively that the way government treats law violators involves inventory keeping and ethical issues of fairness and trust in government. While effectively deterrent punishment is essential, it is secondary in the big scheme of things. Primary is the preservation of the valley's environment and its quality of life. This is where our Supervisors' policies which for decades were solely focused on accommodating business have failed us over the past few decades. One only need look at traffic.
How did traffic congestion get out of hand in such a short period of time? According to the 2014 Fehr & Peers traffic behavior study, only 9% of all Napa traffic is through-traffic. This means that 91% of it is directly controlled by government policies. Without a comprehensive blueprint on growth there can be no criteria by which a permit may be granted to a new winery or for an increase in production or visitations to an existing one whether legal or illegal.

It is time for a fundamental shift in the Supervisors' focus.

We, the residents of Napa valley do not owe any investor in a new winery financial success. Neither do we owe higher profits to investors who in full knowledge of the parameters of their use permits seek to increase them. We do not bail out condo developers from a bad investments but we bend over backwards for winery owners. Why? They tell us that agriculture is the traditional backbone of our economy. Fair enough! But crowded tasting rooms are not agriculture.

Here are the consequences: New wineries and increased visitations at existing ones attract more visitors to the valley because their supply is endless; one need only look at the most popular places in the world - and we are one of them - to be convinced. More visitors to wineries mean more tourists, more hotel rooms, more low paid commuters, more traffic, higher use, demand and deterioration of the infrastructure, more government staff, higher pesticide and pollution levels and the denuding of our forests for more vineyards.

At the heart of the problem is that under the direction of our Supervisors, staff has consistently failed to properly analyze the impacts of new wineries or the increased production and visitations at existing ones. CEQA was mandated by the State to prevent us from reaching the traffic levels we have. Piece by piece the politicians have been assuring us that impacts have been mitigated to "less than significant" and here we are. We are here because the CEQA law has been consistently abused.

While this has escaped the unsuspecting general public, it has not escaped the investor sharks. With the Supervisors' tourist based transformation of our economy, they have descended on our valley utilizing every inch of its resources. The problem is that it is us who bare their costs; short term as they now impact our quality of life and staggeringly fiscal ones some twenty years down the line to be paid by us one Measure after another. Listening to the hundreds who have attended the Napa Vision 2050 forums, the economy model is out of balance. It is irresponsible policy to approve one more visitor to a winery legitimate or not, without analyzing that impact on the residents from American Canyon to Calistoga. If not as mandated by CEQA, out of pure respect for them.

In good faith we approved Measure-T. Its funds as one Supervisor told a small neighborhood gathering, will also be available for "projects". What kind of projects? "Widening roads or installing relief lanes". To understand what this means, one should revisit the Circulation Element of the 2007 County's own Draft EIR: It states that if current growth rates continue, it will require six lanes from American Canyon to Yountville and four lanes at most sections all the way to Calistoga.

Yes, we will see "our dollars at work" and drive easier - only for one to two years as U.C. Davis studies have shown and then get worse than before. Until one day we will wake up wondering where we are.

Without a grip on growth as the overriding criterion, any attempt to address use permit violators will give the false feeling we are solving a problem while the overriding one will be getting worse right under our feet. We may or may not be serving justice, but we will be miserably failing at planning. Until such time as we have it, "uncertainty" may be serving us well.

NVR LTE version 10/5/17: Register editorial on winery compliance missed the big picture

The Trail at Soda Canyon is drying up! on: Soda Canyon Road

Bill Hocker - Oct 4,17  expand...  Share

Two years after the email exchange below laying out the concerns the county was beginning to have with a shrinking water table at the Soda Canyon Junction (and the junction of Soda Creek with the Napa River), the county staff will present their findings thus far to the Board of Supervisors on Oct 10th 2017. (Item 9G here.) Mostly a factor of less rainfall they seem to be saying - Soda Creek just isn't transporting as much water as before. More water conservation requested.

Of course you wouldn't know that the county is interested in water conservation in the area when you consider the number of water-drawing wineries that they have approved within the study area in the last 2 years. The expansion of the Beau Vigne was approved in Sep 2016. The Sam Jasper Winery was approved in Jan 2017. The Grassi Winery was approved in Feb 2017. And now finally the last of the pending projects, Reynolds, is up for review this month. These are added to the as yet unbuilt Krupp winery approved in 2012 and the Corona Winery approved in 2013. (A map of the winery congestion is here.) The total, at 220,000 more gallons of capacity, will probably not run the wells dry, but the additional 59,600 tourists/yr and several dozen employees/day will add to the water draw as well. As a commitment to conservation in the area, adding more wineries with entertainment activities here to process grapes that are currently being processed in less water-challenged areas doesn't set a good example.

If you're not a geologist, the graphics for the presentation are a bit difficult to fathom, but the one shown above did stand out. It seems like a lot of straws in the ground!

[Gary Margadant's email reply to Public Works Director Steve Lederer in response to information supplied about a potential groundwater deficiency in the area of Soda Canyon Road and the Silverado Trail.]

Hi Steve

Thank you for sharing, since it is of great interest to neighbors in the immediate area and beyond. This is especially interesting to those of us who would like to explore different avenues within the information and data held by the County Administration. Your review of the well activity in the Petra Drive area is very informative. It is one avenue, a basic avenue, of groundwater monitoring and research where well activity is a very telling metric.

I am confused by one aspect of your report: The LSCE 2014 report points to groundwater elevation problems in Subarea 75, yet your note refers to well and groundwater elevations problems along Petra Drive which is in Subarea 76. Is this what you mean by the creep of the cone of depression from the MST in 75 into 76? It would be helpful to find out if the Petra Drive wells are a very local subarea or directly influenced by the MST.

Can you enlighten me on the reason for the loss of 1 or the 2 monitoring wells?

And then a question: Do you think some of the wells on Petra Drive and others near by should be fitted with Patricks' new Sonic water elevation measuring devices (real time measurements) with data transmitted to your office via a WiFi connection in the area? This might improve your understanding of the dynamics in this subarea and help with education, mitigation and conservation efforts. And some of the well owners might want them for their own edification.

Please be aware that Yeoryios Apallas owns and lives on property directly across ST from the Petra Drive corner and directly behind the SC Store. He will be receiving a distribution of this note just as Norma Tofanelli, of Dunaweal Lane.

Thanks again for sharing.


On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 Steve Lederer wrote:

I thought you might find this of interest. Please feel free to share.

Groundwater Concerns in the Northeastern corner of Napa Subarea

Napa Moves to Oregon on: Growth Issues

Bill Hocker - Oct 3,17  expand...  Share

NVR 10/3/17: Juliana Inman resigns from Napa City Council

When we first looked at our future home at the very remote end of Soda Canyon Road in 1992, the residents there said that they were moving to Oregon. The nearest house was a half mile away. All you could see was chaparral below the forested ridgeline beyond the gorge at the edge of the house. There are just too many people here, they said.

Last year, one resident on Soda Canyon Road, active in our first year of community organizing, abruptly sold her 250 acres and moved to Oregon. Two years ago Sandy Ericsson, the editor of the St Helena Window (archived here) and daughter of a previous St Helena mayor, moved to Oregon. A year before, a writer for the NY Times recognized that Oregon represents what Napa used to be - a place with some authenticity and a connection to the rural life of an agricultural community. She advised wine tourists to go there instead.

It isn't just Oregon, of course, that is beginning to receive the diaspora of Napa's disenchantment. The photographer Charles O'Rear commented publicly on his decision to leave in Goodbye, Napa Valley. For each of those that we know about, there are no doubt many more who have decided that the character that attracted them to Napa is disappearing as the place is being refashioned by a new generation more interested in the profit to be made from the image of a rural place than in actually living in one.

Juliana Inman's departure is a bigger story than just the decampment of a politician mid-term. Napa is losing its connection to a rural, small-town way of life increasingly rare in the Bay Area. In a period of rampant tourism development in Napa it is significant that she seeks move to a place where there is still the hope of preservation. It is a difficult story for those who remain behind making the effort to retain that character, against all odds at this point, a battle that seems more hopeless with each new event center or hotel or housing project approved.

Paul Hobbs at the Planning Commission on: Paul Hobbs Winery

Bill Hocker - Oct 3,17  expand...  Share

Update 10/4/17
The Paul Hobbs Winery was approved 4-0 (Scott absent), the 10th new winery approved this year.

Some neighbors mentioned the lights and noises and smells of the vineyard operations next door in voicing their concerns about the potential new winery. Chair Gill along with the usual hammering she gives opponents over the 3 minute rule, felt compelled to read out the "Right to Farm" ordinance in response.

She didn't quite get into the "definition of agriculture" reference in the ordinance, which contains the new sub-sub inclusion in the definition that is at the heart of all of the community resistance to winery development (and to much of the other development happening in the county): "H2. Marketing, sales, and other accessory uses that are related, incidental and subordinate to the main agricultural processing use." ("Incidental and subordinate" applies only to square footage, not to economic or environmental impact.)

While the industry and the county have succeeded in defining tourism as agriculture in this modest phrase, few neighbors of proposed projects, who must live with the daily and nightly tourism events and traffic streams of visitors into their community, see restaurant and party activity as an agricultural process. Calling attention to the intermittent impacts of an agricultural economy that they have lived with for years without compliant is just one way to express fear about similar impacts from a tourism economy that will now be a daily occurrence. The county, ever ready to promote more tourism and the speculative interests of a few good-life entrepreneurs at the expense of the county's residents, is unwilling to see a difference.

Another Planning Commission meeting, another winery or
two added to the inventory of event centers catering to an ever increasing tourist population. The Planning Commission has currently approved 9 new wineries this year and 13 major modifications of existing wineries to expand their tourism capacity.

I began a Paul Hobbs page some time ago. Given the controversy that the developer has caused in Sonoma through his less than stellar business practices it seemed like there might be some significant pushback in bringing those practices to Napa. We'll see.

Just a few thousand more cars (updated) on: Traffic Issues

Bill Hocker - Oct 1,17  expand...  Share

Update 10/1/17
NVR 10/1/17: Mystery coalition complains about American Canyon traffic

Is this story about concerned citizens objecting to traffic or the mysteriousness of the concerned citizens? I can't help but think that the writer of the headline had an opinion here, not reflected in the story itself.

The reality, left undiscussed in the article, was the fact that Napa Logistics Park, while generating a lot of traffic, is just a part of the traffic that will be generated by the many other projects approved between American Canyon and Napa. Some of those projects are discussed here. And then there is the enormous number of projects that have been approved in Napa and Up Valley all of which will add to the traffic in American Canyon.


NVR 12/22/15: American Canyon approves new industrial development
NVR 10/1/15: American Canyon planners praise mega business park

This project will add 5800 more workers to the traffic jam known as American Canyon. Does anyone really think that CalTrans or local taxpayers are going to build road extensions and interchanges and highway widenings faster than the developers add projects and jobs and tourist destinations throughout the county? Hundreds of acres of open fields between Am-Can and Napa are slated for industrial development beyond this humongous project, bringing tens of thousands of employee cars and transport trucks. A couple hundred more projects are in the works throughout the county: housing, commercial centers, resorts, event centers, Costco, Napa Pipe and Watson Ranch, all their traffic trying to make their way through the already congested interchanges of American Canyon and South Napa.

And then there's the 388,000 sf warehouse being built at the Jameson Canyon bottleneck:
NVR 10/14/15: Construction begins at new Commerce Center in south Napa

Fast-tracking Napa's urbanization on: City of Napa

Bill Hocker - Sep 26,17  expand...  Share

2300 Soscol, $2179-$2807 /mo
NVR 9/26/17: Napa seeks looser reins on multifamily housing permits in city

With the onslaught of hotel development beginning to become a concern to all who have valued the quality of life in "sleepy Napa" (the NYT's expression), a second tentacle of urban development is rapidly taking shape in this age of the developer. Already over 2000 units of housing are under review, approved and under construction within the Napa city limits. Now, just as developers have demanded that small wineries not have to go through the public review process, they are also demanding that small housing projects also escape the public scrutiny of the impacts that such developments are having on residents' small-town way of life.

The excuse for the fast-tracked approval process is the need for affordable housing, a very real shortage brought on by years of increasing full-time agricultural workers and the ongoing expansion of the tourism workforce. A handful of the new units will be affordable for hotel or vineyard workers, but most will be market rate units being built for whom? Second homes? Short term rentals? Empty nesters? Perhaps for the construction workers needed for Napa's urbanization. Not for the burgeoning number of modest-wage workers needed for the tourism and agricultural industries that make up the bulk of the economy.

Reading the copy promoting the pictured units here, such projects appear to be speculative development intended to cash in on the same image of the good-life extolled by the wine and tourism industries hoping to fill the vineyards with life-style wineries and the cities with hotels. Such projects are not supplying the needs of existing Napa workers - they are inducing an increase in Napa's affluent and tourist populations, who will then need more low-wage commercial development, adding to rather than reducing the housing need of the county's work force.

Unfortunately we are in a speculative development boom happening everywhere, manifested in Napa County by the expansion of the tourism industry and the promotion an opulent life style. Such speculation is how rural places are urbanized out of existence. To developers, the resistance of impacted residents through government review has become a real bottleneck in their effort to wake up sleepy Napa County - and, as we can see in the proposal to drop public review of some housing projects, they are obviously hoping to do something about it.

Mountain Peak goes to court on: Mountain Peak Winery

Bill Hocker - Sep 22,17  expand...  Share

100,000 gal, 33,000 sf of caves, 22,000 yearly occupants, 100 daily trips, 6 miles up the winding, dead-end Soda Canyon Road. 9/25/17: Atlas Peak residents file suit after Napa County Okays Mountain Peak Vineyards construction

As usual with wine industry reporting (much like governmental reviewing), there is no use of the word "tourism" or mention of the impact of tourism on the residential farming and small-town communities of wine country. "I came here to farm", Steven Reh says, as if this were about a "right to farm." This isn't about farming: the property has been a farm since 1992. The resistance to the project is about the invasive nature of tourism and the rural, small-town character of the communities it is in the process of destroying.

NVR 9/22/17: Mountain Peak winery opponents file lawsuit in Napa court

The appellants opposing the approval of the Mountain Peak Winery project contend that county Supervisors, in upholding the Planning Commission decision to approve the project without an Environmental Impact Report, have abused their discretion. The case is made here.

The project was given a negative declaration by staff, supported by consultant's paid for by the developer, indicating that the project would generate less-than-significant environmental impacts. However, there are impacts: noise impacts, light impacts, impacts due to the remoteness and condition of the road, impacts to the water supply of the Rector Reservoir, impacts to the character of a remote uncommercialized community. Corresponding reports from the appellant's equally qualified consultants concluded that the impacts would be significant. Those conclusions were ignored. Also ignored were the signatures of over 150 residents on the sparsely populated road and over 800 residents of Napa County opposing the project.

Since 2010, over 120 new wineries and winery expansions have been approved adding over 4 million gallons of winemaking capacity, more than 1.5 million visitor slots, more than 1 million sf of building area, hundreds of new employees, and perhaps 100's of thousands of vehicle trips on Napa's roads each year, all approved under negative declarations indicating that such increases will cause less-than-significant environmental impacts to life in Napa County. One new winery is being approved each month. Many residents, stuck in traffic or losing a favorite wooded hillside or favorite local shop, or unable to find an affordable place to live, know that the impacts of tourism development are not less-than-significant and that winery development is an inherent part of that urban development trend.

Wineries, at the top of Napa's tourism food chain, should be analyzed to a higher standard of review than just the opinions of wine industry developers and the county staff that they interact with on a daily basis. It is important to ensure that the cumulative urbanizing impacts of the many projects being proposed not destroy an environment not only treasured by residents, but that they not destroy the agricultural heritage at the base of the wine industry as well.

The appellants of the Mountain Peak project are not alone in recognizing the lack of appropriate environmental vetting that winery projects should receive. In a recent letter to the County Supervisors, the attorneys for a new organization have laid out the legal case that the impacts of winery tourism were not adequately analyzed in the EIR for the 2008 General Plan and that the expansion of the tourism industry and its impacts on the quality of life throughout the county are at least partly the result.

The probability is that were it not for the use of the Mountain Peak winery as a tourism center, it is unlikely that the project would have been proposed. It is unquestionably a remote, rural location. The costs of building and staffing the winery are significant. The developer is currently making wine from the property's grapes and is currently selling it in a prominent tasting room in the center of downtown Napa. Like most new wineries and winery expansions being approved, the principal intention is the increase of tourism visitation to boost the more moderate profits to be made in wine sales. The cumulative impact of the County's approval of such projects is to promote a further shift from an economy based the production of an agriculture product to an economy based on tourism. It is an impact that needs more serious vetting than it has heretofore received. With court intervention if necessary.

Napa Vision 2050 and Protect Rural Napa have sent out a mailer urging your help in insuring that the impacts of the Mountain Peak project are properly vetted and in further protecting Napa's rural heritage. A copy of it is here.

The Mountain Peak Lawsuit on: Mountain Peak Winery

NV2050 Admin - Sep 21,17  expand...  Share
MOUNTAIN PEAK WINERY – A Dangerous Precedent

On August 22, 2017, the Board of Supervisors issued their final decision approving Mountain Peak Winery. Mountain Peak Winery is located 6.2 miles up the dilapidated, dead-end Soda Canyon Road on top of Atlas Peak in the rural and pristine Rector Watershed. The Project, which can only be described as a leviathan event center, is the largest ever approved in Napa County when considering the remoteness of the location and access constraints.


Because the Project sets one of the most dangerous winery precedents to date and opens the floodgates to unbridled expansion into all of our remote and rural hillsides and watersheds throughout Napa Valley.


  • 100,000 gallons of wine per year (largest production capacity of all post-WDO, that is, since 1990, hillside wineries)

  • 33,424 square feet of caves ((3rd largest of all hillside wineries, and 5,000 square feet larger than an average Best Buy retailer))

  • 14,575 visitors a year (largest ever by 3x when considering the Project’s location on a dead-end road)

  • Use of about 15,200 gallons of water a day (largest ever by 3x when considering the Project’s location on a dead-end road)

  • Increase of 40,000 car trips a year on the Soda Canyon Road, a road that in the three-year period from 2014-2016 experienced 639 emergency incidents (drunk driving incidents, fires, vehicle collisions, etc.) as reported by the Napa Sheriff’s Department, CHP, and CalFire.

  • For more information on the Project, please visit the Mountain Peak page on


    Yes, very possibly Yountville! The Project will remove nearly two million cubic feet of earth, the entirety of which will be redistributed nearly on top of two blue-line streams that feed directly into Rector Canyon and the Rector Reservoir, which serves as the water supply for the City of Yountville and the State Veteran’s Home. Yet, the County said – unbelievably – that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was not necessary!


    Yes. It is critically important that we act now. Concerned Napa Valley residents who are property and vineyard owners have filed a lawsuit challenging the County’s reckless decision.The lawsuit is going to be expensive and you can help by your financial contribution. The initial lawsuit filing with the county is here.

    This is a pivotal moment for Napa County, and support at this time could make the difference in securing beautiful open space long into the future. When we prevail, a clear message will be sent to the County and developers that these types of event-center-projects do not belong in our watersheds!!


    Join Protect Rural Napa for a fundraising dinner on Friday, October 20, 2017. Space is limited, so we encourage you to inquire soon! Click here for the invitation.

    If you are unable to attend, PLEASE consider giving a donation to Protect Rural Napa.

    You may donate via Paypal by clicking here

    You may also send a check to:

    Protect Rural Napa Education Fund
    P.O. Box 2385
    Yountville, CA 94599

    Help fund the effort to stop this precedent-setting Project and protect all of our rural hillsides and watersheds!

    A Napa Pipe timeline on: South Napa County

    Bill Hocker - Sep 20,17  expand...  Share

    NVR 9/20/17: Napa Pipe and Napa Costco: How did we get here?

    Following this article the previous day in the Register, Bulldozers busy at Napa Pipe, the paper has provided some history on the project for those unfamiliar, and those all too familiar, with the largest, and probably most impactful, urban development project in Napa's history. Billed as a hedge to avoid housing development up valley, it is really just the harbinger of a Napa Valley indistinguishable from the rest of Bay Area urban sprawl. How did we get here?

    The stress of being a county official on: Open Comments

    Bill Hocker - Sep 20,17  expand...  Share

    NVR 9/20/17: Highest Paid Napa County Employees

    Normally this would be an uninteresting news story except that the second highest paid employee in Napa County - after County Council/acting CEO Minh Tran - turns out to be the Staff Psychiatrist. We always suspected that dealing with a demanding clientele and an irate public was horribly stressful on the courageous and hard-working administrators that keep the county government functioning. Now we know how stressful.

    Compliance: For the Times They Are A-changin' on: Napa Vision 2050

    NV2050 Admin - Sep 19,17  expand...  Share

    For almost three years, Napa Vision 2050 has been advocating respect for Napa County’s semi-rural and agricultural heritage, adding the contemporary voice of neighborhood groups to the preservationist guidelines Napans established decades ago.

    The guidelines have since been observed---and also ignored. The county has been lax in monitoring guideline compliance. Moreover, with violations discovered, it’s condoned them. For example, with breathtaking permissiveness the Board of Supervisors forgave Calistoga’s Reverie Winery for carelessly ignoring its visitation and production permits.

    And last month the Board blessed the road-building plans of Raymond Vineyards to prefer, ironically, hospitality events to vineyards. For its ag-to-tourist project, Raymond had applied to the county out of respect for its permit process. The Board seemed untroubled that in Raymond’s previous respect for county guidelines it forgot its legal limit of 26 employees (they have 90).

    By the Board’s disregard for its own land-use principles, we are losing Napa’s semi-rural, small-town identity as an agricultural valley. Where there were just a few score wineries two decades ago, now there are over 500. Where a limited number of visitors sampled wine at tasting rooms for free, now tourists number over 3 million every year. Where residents and visitors enjoyed a tranquil, unhurried drive to and from the Valley, traffic congestion now plagues the highways. Where the county’s commitment to agriculture was to the “highest and best use” of the land, it’s goal now appears to be bringing money into the Valley via tourism.

    But there’s a glimmer of hope. The degradation of that highest-and-best-use ideal is so obvious that the chorus of concern is growing beyond the strained voices of environmentalists to include growers and viticulturalists. For example, in Carneros David Graves of Saintsbury Winery wisely wondered, “How do we safeguard a place without loving it to death?”

    Vintner Michael Honig expressed shock about Bremer Winery’s “disregard for the rules” in Angwin.

    Grape grower Andy Beckstoffer, referring to Raymond Vineyards’ road project in St. Helena, commented to the supervisors, “they want to take land out of ag solely for the purpose of hospitality. . We ask you to reject this application and support an agricultural economy.” He added in a Napa Valley Register letter “Napa County has two choices. One is to have an agricultural economy supported by tourism and the other is to have a tourism economy supported by agriculture.” Raymond, he reminded the supervisors pointedly, has “no sworn commitment to protect the agricultural land and rural character of our county. But you do.”

    Yet another vintner, Robert Trinchero, noted Napa’s popularity and called the problem “encroachment”: “Our customers come from all over . . . That is going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. You can’t move all these people here. We need vineyards.” He acknowledged the growing sense that “enough is enough. There are too many wineries.” Furthermore “some wineries build their wineries and vineyards irrespective of the feelings of their neighbors. This causes a lot of problems, so we have to change that.”

    Trinchero also remarked that “the mentality of some winemakers is that they would rather apologize . . . that they didn’t know they can’t have tourism tasting. We have to draw the line somewhere. The line should be the law. It should be reasonable, in that no neighbors are complaining.”

    The good news continues. The Planning Commission just rejected the Palmaz proposal for helicopter use in Napa. That decision is stunning because this county has heretofore been so agreeable to applications for projects no matter how inappropriate or how inconsiderate of neighbors.

    Clearly, the momentum in Napa County is shifting. Napa Vision 2050’s two recent town halls featured robust attendance and frustrated citizens eager to arrest the degradation of the county.

    It’s increasingly apparent that not only we residents, but also the responsible wine industry, now recognize how destructive indulgence toward tourism (more visitors, more traffic) has been to the county’s heritage. It’s time to make changes.

    Have our Board of Supervisors Gotten Religion? on: Napa Vision 2050

    NV2050 Admin - Sep 13,17  expand...  Share

    NVR 9/13/17: Napa supervisors agree on new winery rule-breaker policies

    Morrison LTE 9/11/17: County takes code compliance seriously

    NVR 8/30/17: Napa County considers clampdown on rule-breakers, including wineries

    “What I see before us is that next step in terms of taking compliance to the next level,” county Supervisor Alfredo Pedroza said.

    Our Board of Supervisors say they are going to set deadlines for after-the-fact applications and get really tough.

    We are not holding our collective breaths.

    Just a few days before this statement, Sup. Pedroza voted for Raymond Vineyards after-the-fact approvals for several structures and tasting areas, more employees, and to take out vines to create a Highway 29 entrance and visitor center.

    What about code compliance there? We have been fighting this behavior over numerous years and numerous projects and in each case the Supervisors have looked the other way while rubber-stamping after-the-fact approvals of code violations: Reverie, Bremmer, Relic, The Caves at Soda Canyon... Who’s next?

    Talk is cheap. Can our Supervisors kick their habit of forgiving code violations by granting permits? We can only say, we will have to wait and see. The proof is in the pudding. Let’s all keep breathing and advocating for meaningful code compliance in the meantime. It could be a long time before we see our supervisors get around to it.

    Napa Vision 2050 email version of this post

    Recap: NV2050 Town Hall Sep 7th on: Napa Vision 2050

    NV2050 Admin - Sep 12,17  expand...  Share

    SH Star 9/12/17: Napa Vision 2050 holds packed town hall meeting in St. Helena

    Nearly 100 Napa County residents, including a few Calistoga and St. Helena city officials, packed the Native Sons Hall in St. Helena Thursday night to discuss the diminishing quality of local life in these troubling, touristy, traffic-filled times. It was a night of genuine community involvement.

    NV2050 President Dan Mufson began with good news. The Palmaz proposal for private helicopter use in Napa has just been denied! The audience received the announcement with tremendous enthusiasm.

    Mufson also announced two exciting initiatives expected to qualify for the ballot: one that would ban permanently most helicopter use in the county, and another that would save local threatened oak woodlands.

    Dan then led discussion and comment about issues such as traffic, tourism, wineries at inappropriate locations, and water, wildlife, and woodlands. He noted how frustration over elected officials’ unresponsiveness about these issues has mobilized citizens up and down the valley. And NV2050 continues to grow, as many of those in attendance asked to join our email list and to volunteer for our outreach activities.

    Mike Hackett lead the discussion as locals’ smart, sensitive comments filled most of the two hour meeting. Besides traffic, they remarked on the county not enforcing its codes; the pernicious effect of quarry dust in Napa; and the lack of worker housing to accompany high-end hotels. We were reminded of the cumulative regional effect of over-commercialization stretching from Calistoga indeed down to Vallejo. These land-use issues affect us all.

    To make a difference, we encourage residents to attend public meetings; connect with others like Napa Vision 2050; and to elect supervisors who listen to their constituents rather than their donors!

    Reconsider Mountain Peak decision on: Mountain Peak Winery

    Stephen J Donoviel - Sep 8,17  expand...  Share

    As reflected in an article dated Aug. 14, August was a busy month for the Board of Supervisors, with five appeals scheduled regarding winery issues, one of which concerned the Mountain Peak Winery, a proposed facility at the top of Soda Canyon Road. The facility was initially approved by a 3-1 vote by the Planning Commission on a “negative declaration,” i.e., without a proper environmental impact report consistent with the California Environment Quality Act.

    Hundreds of people signed petitions against the project and four area residents filed formal appeals to the Board of Supervisors. Following a hearing in May, the board (with one member absent) tentatively voted to reject the appeals with a final vote subsequently scheduled for Aug. 22 The following is modified from a letter I submitted to the Board prior to that hearing but later learned that public input was not considered.

    On Aug. 22, you had the opportunity to rectify what I think was an egregious error in your decision in May to tentatively approve the above facility that, if carried forward, will negatively impact the lives hundreds of citizens living off Soda Canyon Road and present serious risks to the water supply to thousands of others.

    I think that the data, detailed analyses, references (submitted in attachments to appellants' appeals NCC form 2.88.050) and testimony presented by the appellants at hearing was far more convincing than that presented by the applicant and, were it a trial by jury, my bet on the finding would be in favor of the appellants beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    One must sympathize with the residents and others who, on a daily or regular basis, have to drive the narrow, winding roads with only one access point. I fail to understand how you and some members of the Planning Commission and a few others acknowledge these hazardous conditions and yet can rationalize and dismiss the increased danger that will accompany the increased number vehicles that will result from the project.

    Also, from the almost cavalier attitude and minimization of dealing with the issues surrounding the risk of wildfire, I gather those presenters had not witnessed the Atlas Peak fire or interviewed residents who lost homes or otherwise suffered through it.

    The offered "voluntary condition of approval" is certainly in keeping with expectations and requirements for the AVA and Napa Valley branding (and seemed a determining factor for most of you) but, to me, it really offers almost nothing to the conversation of fire danger, road safety, water supply degradation for Rector dam and the host of other environmental problems addressed in detail in the appellants’ presentations and never adequately rebutted by the county.

    I must add that with this project, as well as others I've studied or read about, you (as well as the planning commission and city officials) seem to give little or no consideration to the cumulative impact each approved project adds to the degradation of ecology and quality of life in our county. Residents are complaining about traffic and other aspects of their quality of life, be it at town hall meetings, letters to the editor, testimony at hearings, in the locker room or other social gatherings, and it seems those drums are beating louder and louder the past few years.

    I write to recommend and request that you red tag this project and note that in doing so you will fulfill your responsibilities as supervisors by protecting the environment and not increasing the risk of harm to the citizens living in the area.

    NVR LTE version 9/7/17: Reconsider Mountain Peak decision
    Yeoryios Apallas Motion to Reconsider Letter

    Apocalypse Averted! on: Palmaz Heliport

    Bill Hocker - Sep 6,17  expand...  Share

    Update 9/6/17
    NVR 9/7/17: Palmaz heliport team weighs options after Napa Planning Commission defeat

    The Airport Land Use Commission has turned down the Palmaz Proposal as inconsistent with the ACLU Plan on the basis of noise and safety impacts on surrounding land uses. The vote was 6-1 with Walker, Brod, Gallagher, Cottrell, Basayne and Gill opposed to the proposal and Scott in favor. Four hours later the Planning Commission followed suit voting 4-1 with Gallagher, Cottrell Basayne, and Gill opposed and Scott in favor.

    The decision will probably be appealed, but this is a rare win for the residents that are being impacted by the many development projects being proposed throughout the county. This project may just be an exception - its potential impacts are egregious both in its particulars and in the precedent it sets. But let's hope this is a harbinger of a shift in the county's interest toward balancing the interests of most residents against those of developers and plutocrats and their impactful good-life enterprises.

    Nothing has changed in the proposal since the May 17th hearings. One hopes that Barry Eberling will ask Comms. Gill and Basayne why they reversed their positions. The answers might be of interest. (Comm. Gill's closing comments need to be transcribed.) It also puts a spotlight on Comm. Scott, who did buck fellow commissioners before in support of residents, but continued to support plutocratic desire here over the overwhelming rejection of the project by community and commission alike. The spotlight thus also falls on what can only be interpreted as Sup Pedroza's unique support of the Palmaz project.

    Update 9/3/17:
    NVR 9/3/17: Calistoga resident plans to launch Napa County heliport ballot initiative

    George Caloyannidis has begun the effort to make sure, whether Christian Palmaz is successful or not, that there are no more heliports being proposed in the county. He was instrumental in the original effort to halt helicopter use for winery visitation in 2004. Now is the time to finish the work.

    Update 8/30/17:
    On Tuesday, Sep. 6th 2017, the Airport Land Use Commission and the Napa County Planning Commission will again take up the Cristian Palmaz request for a personal heliport, a precedent-setting decision that will enable the plutocratic entrepreneurs proliferating in the county to escape the traffic that their good-life enterprises are generating. The thump-thump of their disdain for the peace and quiet of Napa's less-well-healed residents just adds to the neighborhood and county-wide impacts of their vanity developments. The two hearings will begin at 9:00am at the County building, 1195 3rd St. Public comments are welcome.

    Update 5/17/17:
    The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has not approved, by a 3 to 3 vote, the Palmaz heliport proposal. Commissioner Walcker (a pilot on the ALUC but not the Planning Commission) and Comm. Cottrell both cited the ALU Compatability Plan's Commission Authority:

      The Commission’s charge expressly stated being: protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.

    Comm. Cottrell felt that the Palmaz project was not an "orderly expansion" of Napa's airports. Comms. Walcker and Cottrell were joined by Comm. Gallagher in denying the project. Comms. Scott, Basayne and Gill voted in favor.

    Just after the vote Dir. Morrison broke the slightly stunned silence by asking "Can staff request a 5 minute break?"

    Not approved is not the same as a denial, it turns out. After the break Ms. Anderson, county council, indicated ALUC by-laws require a full 7 members to review the project in the event that a majority of the commission is not in agreement. This hearing will thus be continued to a date uncertain until all 7 members can be present. Comm Gallagher asked, if those are the by-laws, why a hearing was scheduled without all 7 members. And why at the Planning Commission a split vote meant denial, but not in this case. Ms. Anderson indicated that the by-laws are different. The Planning Commission will go ahead with its public comments, but no vote will be taken and the hearing will be continued until the date of the ALUC hearing.

    As the subsequent Planning Commission began, Brian Russell, the Palmaz attorney, concluded his presentation with: "There are no noise impacts associated with this project." Christian Palmaz and consultants, for the last couple of years, have presented much "fact-based evidence" to prove that his helicopter noise will have a less than significant impact on sensitive receptors (people). The people, however, remain unconvinced and continued to present, during the rest of the hearing, the "anecdotal evidence" that helicopters do make significant noise. The hearing was then continued.

    Update 5/10/17:
    NVR 5/15/17: Palmaz heliport hearing heads toward conclusion

    The second day of the County Planning Commission Hearings on the Palmaz Helipad Project will happen on May 17th, 2017, beginning at 8:00 am at the County Building, 3rd Floor, 1135 3rd St Napa.

    8:00am: Airport Land Use Commission (the ALUC includes Planning Commissioners plus other airport and county officials) will review the Project
    The agenda and documents are here

    After the ALUC hearing (perhaps 10:00-11:00am) the Planning Commission will review the Final Environmental Impact Report FEIR on the project
    Agenda and Documents are here

    Comments may be submitted to project planner Dana Ayres at

    County's Palmaz Heliport page including Final EIR is here
    SCR take on the hearing

    The conclusion of the FEIR: "Project operation would result in helicopter noise associated with approaches and departures occurring at the heliport...This impact would be significant." Duh!

    The SCR Palmaz page is here
    The NapaVision 2050 Palmaz petition page is here
    NapaVision 2050 hearing notice is here

    2/27/17: Day 1 of the FEIR hearing
    NVR 3/1/17: Napa County planners open Palmaz heliport hearing
    NVR 2/27/17:County prefers Mount George site for Palmaz heliport

    The first day of the County Planning Commission Hearing for the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Palmaz Helipad Project happened on Mar 1st, 2017.
    Agenda And documents for Mar 1st, 2017 hearing
    Staff Agenda Letter
    Video of the hearing


    Donald Williams - Apr 24, 2017 4:48PM

    [Email to County Planner Dana Ayres]

    Among bad ideas the proposition of helicopters over Napa County is the worst. One flies directly over my house in Calistoga regularly---circling the neighborhood for about 15 noisy minutes on one occasion. It's a convenience for someone but a horrible quality-of-life degradation for us below.

    You can read this in the quiet of your office; but I could not have spoken it to you at my house, if the copter was overhead, because of the clamor. It's that loud.

    Please do what you can to prohibit this kind of intrusion into the valley.

    Donald Williams

    Stephen P. Rae - Feb 28, 2017 1:01PM

    [Email sent to Planning Commission]

    28 February 2017
    Napa County Planning Commission
    1195 Third St., Suite 305
    Napa CA 94558

    RE: Palmaz Personal Use Heliport Use Permit #P14-00261-UP

    Dear Chairperson and Commission Members:

    I am writing to register my opposition to the granting of this personal use heliport Use Permit (#P014-00261-UP). The permission to establish such an obtrusive use associated with a residential use in rural Napa County displays a willingness to permit additional such uses in the future, and encourages others to consider doing so.

    Currently, the citizens of our County endure frequent helicopter and low level plane traffic over residential and recreational lands. Over the years such traffic has increased. This traffic encroaches on the peace and tranquility that characterizes our valley. The land use assessment of this project fails to reflect the value of the quality of life in our county and disclose how this project may induce its subsequent deterioration.

    I am surprised that the potential for this project to encourage others to do the same has not been assessed. And, I am surprised that reference to future review by the Airport Land Use Commission is understood by County staff to address the air traffic consequences of the use permit. Similarly, do we know whether County limits on frequency of use and air traffic patterns will be enforceable over time?

    I believe that the Use Permit would open the door to increasing use of the site beyond County limitations and the encouragement of others to establish similar uses throughout the county wherever land and funds are available. Therefore, I suggest that the future cumulative effects of this project do not conform to General Plan considerations, violate the spirit and intent of land use limitations reflected in recent votes by residents, and constitute encouragement to proliferate similar uses in the Napa Valley.

    Of course the No Project Alternative does not meet the personal wishes of the applicant. But, when does such a personal convenience outweigh the long-term consequences of further degrading the quality of life in the Napa Valley. Please DENY this use permit application.


    Stephen P. Rae, PhD

    Henni Cohen - Feb 27, 2017 9:36PM

    [Email to County Planner Dana Ayres]

    Dear Ms. Ayers,

    I am writing to express my opposition to the prospect of the approval of a private heliport in Napa County. There is no justification for its approval.

    The issues of noise, even with a "low-noise helicopter," restricted number of flights per week, and 'mitigation measures' as hinted at by the consultants who prepared the EIR, have been addressed by other concerned citizens.

    The crucial question is why such a facility is needed? The individual in question does not live in an inaccessible area where there is no other way to get to his property. He is within an easy drive of the Napa airport and, surely, the drive would not take longer than a helicopter ride. And what about the times when there is bad weather that would prohibit the flying of the helicopter? The individual would have to drive to his residence under those circumstances. The heliport is merely an extension of the individual's sense of entitlement, to the detriment of his neighbors and Napa County, not a necessity.

    If commercial helicopters are banned, shouldn't private ones be as well? They present the same noise, intrusion, and privacy issues that were the basis for the ban on commercial helicopter use.

    I do not live on Hagen Road, nor near the proposed site of the heliport. However, as I live off of Soda Canyon, where the number of wineries seems to be proliferating to the detriment of our rural life and there are a number of large properties, I am very concerned about the slippery slope that will be created if the Palmaz heliport is approved. Once one such place is permitted, how can the County deny the application for other heliports? I would hate to see the skies of Napa become congested by private helicopters. Not a pretty thought. The many balloons one sees, especially during the summer, are bad enough, with their noise and sometimes intrusive positions above our homes.

    I respectfully suggest that the Planning Commission take these points into consideration as it decides whether to approve or deny the application for the Palmaz heliport. And I believe that the only decision is to deny the application for a private heliport in Napa.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Henrietta Cohen

    Appealing for Responsible Governance on: The Winery Glut

    Bill Hocker - Sep 5,17  expand...  Share

    Update 9/5/17
    NVR 9/5/17: Napa County defends its winery review records, asks mystery group to identify itself

    NVR 9/3/17: Mystery group challenges Napa's winery environmental reviews

    Alliance for Responsible Governance Letter
    County Response to the Letter

    In Director Morrison's response to the Shute Mihaly letter he basically highlights the problem with the 2008 General Plan and with the county's governance in its approval of new and expanded wineries. First, because the EIR recognized that there would be significant unmitigated impacts to the agenda promoted by the writers of the General Plan, so what if new projects are creating environmental impacts, it's all legal. Those writers, representatives of stakeholders in the wine industry, accepted the impacts because there was development money to be made in the Plan's projections. Now that the impacts are upon us, residents and perhaps even some stakeholders, have become very concerned about the resultant reality of the devil's bargain.

    Second, he tries to portray the winery approval process as only being about the number of winery permits being given and the production capacity of those wineries, both within the limits quantified in the 2008 EIR. But it is the amount of visitation being approved as the wine industry morphs from agricultural production to more profitable winery tourism that was not quantified in the EIR and hence not vetted under CEQA. And it is the embrace of tourism by the wine industry that is driving the resistance to winery approvals and to the pushback on winery compliance. Yet "tourism" is a word barely mentioned in county discussions. Complaining about the "wine industry" is caged as an attack on "agriculture".

    There is no question that tourism is beginning to have significant impacts on the "agricultural lands and rural character" that the General Plan claims to protect. Yet the county continues to pretend that 40% of winery square footage devoted to tourism, or a consultant's manipulation of atomized traffic, noise or water statistics will result in less-than-significant impacts. Despite the 4300 acres of vineyard approvals, the total producing acreage of vines, and hence the total amount of Napa wine that can be produced, has hardly risen in the last decade. The reality is that most of the new and expanded wineries are not necessary or economical as processing facilities and would not even be proposed without their tourism component. Tourism is not incidental and subordinate to the decision to propose a project, but the reason for the proposal. And the impacts of that tourism are not less-than-significant.

    The promotion of tourism is a much greater problem than just the proposal of event center wineries, and the municipalities need to recognize that their lust for the tourist dollar is also a threat to the character that makes this a desirable place for tourists and residents alike. But the county needs to confront the problem where it can. The county and the wine industry need to acknowledge that tourism is not agriculture, and that the urbanization that tourism brings is a threat to lose in the next generation the agricultural economy and rural environment that previous county governments fought so hard to maintain.

    Residents, who have had to lead the resistance to the rise of a tourism based economy in Napa county, can only hope that the creation of the "Alliance for Responsible Governance" is a sign that some in the wine industry are willing to recognize the threat that Napa's ongoing urban development is beginning to pose to the survival of their own agriculture-based industry and are finally willing, whether anonymously or not, to say so.

    NVR 8/14/17: Winery appeals stacking up before Napa County Board of Supervisors

    The impact of tourism on the residents of Napa County, and the traffic increase and loss of affordable housing that is its most obvious result, has begun to receive pushback in a number of ways in the last three years. The resistance that initially began as opposition to projects coming before the Planning Commission has now progressed into the Supvisiorial realm with appeals to planning commission decisions now becoming routine where they were once exceptional. The number articles and letters to the editor now related to outrage over the number of wineries being approved and the impacts they contribute to, like the appeals, are beginning to stack up. As are questions about how carefully the EIR to the 2008 update of the Napa County General Plan analyzed the impacts of increasing tourism brought about by its changed policies.

    A letter to the Napa Board of Supervisors by attorneys Ellison Folk and Perl Permutter of the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, has stated the case that County Government has neglected to adhere to CEQA requirements by inadequately assessing cumulative impacts in its ongoing approval of winery projects each month:
    Pattern and Practice of failing to Comply with CEQA regarding Winery Approvals

    The EIR Archive for the 2008 General Plan is here
    NV2050 on the Perlmuter letter: When Governing Powers go Rogue.

    And now, a significant court decision to a case brought by attorney Jerry Bernhaut in Sonoma has stressed that GHG's generated by the full extent of winery and tourism activity into and out of Sonoma County has not been properly considered under CEQA in the development of their Climate Action Plan and that alternatives to this form of activity have not been evaluated.

    Wine and Water Watch 7/28/17: Judge Rules Climate Action 2020 Plan Violates CEQA
    The case is here: California Riverwatch vs. Sonoma County, et al.

    In each case county general plans and ordinances sanction development projects that the governments contend have less-than-significance impacts on the environment. The environmental impacts felt by residents in the realization of these projects has not, however, been less than significant. And residents are questioning, more and more how those less-than-significant determinations are made, through comments at hearings and in the press, and in appeals to decisions made by governmental bodies, and finally in court challenges to the governmental processes that allow such significant impacts to occur. It is no longer enough for counties to pretend that impacts are less-than-significant because they say they are. The impacts are just too obvious.

    Visit Napa Valley on: Tourism Issues

    Bill Hocker - Aug 31,17  expand...  Share

    Welcome to Napa County!
    Update 8/31/17
    Clay Gregory LTE 8/31/17: Tourism Matters: the economic benefits of tourism in Napa

    It appears that the Napa hotel lobby is launching a promotional campaign to convince residents of the county that tourism is good for their way of life, despite evidence to the contrary. Visit Napa Valley CEO Clay Gregory extolls the economic benefits that his organization is helping to bring to Napa County. Visit Napa Valley, he says, "is working daily on behalf of the lodging industry with local government officials and partner organizations to help address the collective impacts of tourism on our community."

    There are indeed collective impacts on our community. How is he addressing them? "Attracting visitors during non-peak seasons and mid-week in order to minimize traffic and crowding, as well as working to convert day trips to overnight visits." How exactly does spending $6 mil/yr to attract additional tourists minimize traffic and crowding? The effort is really meant to ensure high occupancy rates and maximum traffic all week and all year around. And to insure that the collective impacts of tourism on our community happen 24 hours a day and that the lodging industry on whose behalf he works can continue to expand, with traffic increases and the loss of affordable housing and local shops, and a once serene landscape littered with building projects, and the disappearance of a rural and small-town quality of life.

    The TOT, touted by Mr. Gregory as the principal benefit to the residents of the county, will never pay for the increased costs of infrastructure and services needed to serve the new development. As they are now, residents will continue to be asked to pay for bond measures, and tax increases to fix potholes and sewer systems and school upgrades each made worse by the ever increasing tourism and hospitality employee populations.

    There is a place for tourism in the Napa economy, as an incidental and subordinate activity to the business of making wine. The amount of wine that can be made from Napa grapes is finite - the number of producing acres in Napa county has barely risen in the last decade. The amount of tourism must also be finite to maintain an appropriate balance. What we need is not a promotional campaign trying to sell residents of the benefits of tourism, or of a promotional campaign to sell Napa county as a tourism destination. If money is to be spent on promotion let it be on a campaign to sell Napa wine to the world beyond the county borders. There are numerous ways to do so other than tourism and many Napa wineries survive quite well in the business without encouraging the urbanization and resident discontent that tourism brings.

    As Andy Beckstoffer has said, Napa is one of the few places on earth in which agriculture can survive the pressure of urban development, but it means a commitment to not let more profitable uses, and tourism is a more profitable use, become the driving force in the economy. The first place to make that commitment is to shut down Visit Napa Valley.

    Update 7/19/17
    NVR 7/19/17: Report says well-heeled Napa Valley tourists love wine and scenery

    Update 5/3/17
    NVR 5/4/17: Napa Valley visitors spent nearly $2 billion last year

    The latest Visit Napa Valley statistical analysis of the tourism industry is out; the numbers are good (oddly better, in fact, than the Visit California numbers outlined here). The number of visitors are increasing but at a slower rate than the previous 2-year cycle, it seems. Revenues from tourist venues are way up, so the amount taken in per visitor is dramatically increased. (The median family income of visitors is $161,000 - a bursting tech-startup bubble may have significant impacts.) The number of employees is way up so perhaps service is good, although the daily commute and need for affordable housing is getting much worse.

    More visitors seem to like the place as it is than they did 2 years ago. Except for the traffic. What will they make of the 140 or so wineries still in the planning/construction pipeline, or of Napa Pipe, Watson Ranch, and the dozens of other projects destined to fill county landscapes and roads. Sup. Pedroza's question from 2015, what is the carrying capacity of the county?, isn't yet answered.

    Tourism taxes are way up as well, but the county still doesn't have enough to repair potholes or bridges, build a jail, upgrade the sanitary system, relieve traffic congestion or build affordable housing, and probably not enough to cover the costs of servicing the 17,000 visitors (12% population increase) driving into the county each day. $6 million of those tourism taxes goes to Visit Napa Valley to encourage more tourism and create more jobs, and to fund the studies.

    The Latest Reports are here:

    Visit Napa Valley 2016 Quick Facts
    Visit Napa Valley 2016 Visitor Profile
    Visit Napa Valley 2016 Economic Impact Report

    NVR 12/26/15: Napa rings up another busy tourism year

    At the Board of Supervisors on Dec 14th, 2015, Visit Napa Valley presented its financial report for fiscal 2015 and an overview for the first half of fiscal 2016. Tourism "shows healthy Napa County growth in all key lodging metrics". No one can accuse VNV of not doing their job.

    Given my now almost manic obsession over the development impacts of ever increasing tourism in the county, VNV director Clay Gregory had some reassuring news: the number of tourists arriving each year is only increasing at about 1.5%. The amount they are spending is rising several times faster, meaning much more money in TID and TOT to deal with a modest increase in impacts. He also made a point of stressing the mandate of VNV to promote off season and weekday events, which seemed a direct link to an answer Sup. Luce gave me several months ago when I asked how the county justified spending $5.6 mil to increase tourism impacts.

    I want to be comforted. But somehow the county pursuit of 130 new or expanded wineries under review or approved but not yet built with their cumulative request for 1.6 mil new visitor slots per year does not speak to a goal of just evening out the tourism flow. Just as with the discussions about wineries, the present is often conflated with the future. There are presently 3.3 mil tourists coming into the county each year who feel overwhelmingly they like things the way they are. In this regard Sup. Pedroza asked the right question of Mr. Gregory:

      "The way tourism grew in our valley was remarkable, but at a certain point our lens should be, how do we live within the means of what we have. More rooms than this will not survive because of traffic and lack of access...That's information we need to know as we grow. How do we know we are within our capacity."

    A question that has been asked before in respect to wineries as well - what is the tourism carrying capacity of the county? We will see if Sup. Pedroza's question finds an answer in Mr. Gregorys' presentation two years hence.

    What is Napa Vision 2050? on: Napa Vision 2050

    Donald Williams - Aug 30,17  expand...  Share

    [Editor’s note: Napa Vision 2050 will contribute an occasional column outlining its activities. This is the first such column in the Weekly Callistogan.]

    What is Napa Vision 2050?

    At least as far back as 1988 a Napa Grand Jury committee affirmed that the intent of the county General Plan “is to preserve agriculture, and concentrate urban uses in existing urban areas.” It noted the growing “number of commercial, promotional, cultural, and entertainment activities occurring in wineries . . . on agriculturally zoned land” including “concerts, cooking classes, art shows, benefits, and non-agricultural meetings and seminars,” and declared that they “are urban uses and by definition not needed for the . . . growing of crops.”

    The Grand Jury then warned, presciently, that “failure to enforce the General Plan can only lead to the… ultimate demise of the Ag Preserve because the uniqueness and international reputation of the Napa Valley will continue to invite development and activities conducive to further blurring of the agricultural/industrial and urban separations.”

    Recent years, of course, have seen precisely the kind of development the 1988 Grand Jury warned against. In response, in the last few years, in neighborhoods throughout the valley, grass-roots groups sprang up to resist the commercialization and diminution of Napa’s rural quality. Mostly they worked in isolation, and against high odds.

    Gradually these disparate neighborhood groups realized: they weren’t alone! In early 2015 they formed a coalition of groups — Napa Vision 2050.

    The neighborhood groups agreed: Napa Vision 2050 advocates for responsible planning and development in Napa County. It works to protect the health, welfare, and safety of our community, because Napa’s finite resources cannot support infinite growth.

    Napa Vision 2050 Activities

    Now, observing the traffic congestion plaguing Napa roads, NV2050 encourages the county to recognize that there are limits to the number of visitors and non-agricultural events that can rationally be permitted in our rural regions. It also encourages the county, when considering applications for additional commercialization in the rural regions of the county, to acknowledge development’s cumulative effects on residents.

    NV2050 supported the “Water, Forest and Oak Woodland Protection Initiative” that would defend municipal water supplies, and easily gathered twice as many signatures as required. NV2050 also has worked to ban residential heliports. Additionally, NV2050 has insisted the county determine why Napa has among the highest cancer rates in California. Recognizing the skyrocketing impact of tourism on our semi-rural county, NV2050 recently sponsored a well-attended forum, “Understanding the Tourism-based Economy—-Benefits and Costs.”

    Who Can Join?

    Napa Vision 2050 welcomes anyone who cares about the quality of life in Napa County. Wherever you live in the county, you can be sure there are supporters of NV2050 nearby.

    How is Napa Vision 2050 Funded?

    NV2050 is entirely volunteer. There is no paid staff. It’s a grass-roots organization. We accept donations to support our efforts to respect the semi-rural character of Napa County. These efforts include: engaging environmental and legal experts regarding land use decisions; supporting advocates respectful of the General Plan; educating the public about dominant local industries and their impact on Napa County.

    How Can I Learn More?

    This column will answer questions about local environmental work, and describe the grass-roots efforts to understand how the county’s land-use decisions affect us all. You can learn more on our website, or write us at P.O. Box 2385, Yountville, CA 94599.

    Grand Jury: Please investigate this! on: Open Comments

    Bill Hocker - Aug 25,17  expand...  Share

    Too much traffic? Too many hotels or wineries? Too much forgiveness-rather-than-permission? Not enough affordable housing? Is the County government failing to serve the interests of Napa citizens?

    This is the time of the year when it is appropriate to submit a ‘complaint’ to the Napa Grand Jury for review and consideration. This is a confidential complaint and the Grand Jury could decide to fully and thoroughly investigate your complaint and issue a report on your topic. The report will help inform the public about the quality of our governmental body in Napa.

    If you have an issue with a specific county/city/town board, council, commission, committee, department, or special district… this is the time to have your voice heard.

    Click here for a complaint form. (An MS-Word version can be downloaded here) It can be printed for snail mailing or saved as a pdf in your printer dialog to be attached to an email.

    You can snail mail your complaint to the address on the form, or email it as an attachment to

    share this page