Eternal vigilance is the price of preserving the Napa Valley.
- Former Planning Dir. Jim Hickey 2008.
This website was intended to create an online resource for the residents of Soda Canyon Road located in Napa County, California, born out of the threat of a large tourism-winery project proposed at the top of our remote and winding road. It has evolved into an obsessive archive and blog about the many development projects that, cumulatively, threaten the rural character and the agricultural economy of Napa County that county governments nominally claim to protect but, in fact, further jeopardize with each new building, infrastructure or deforestation plan approved...
Upcoming Events SCR calendar page | County agenda page
| Tue, Dec 3, 2024 9:00am | Board of Supervisors2:00pm Benjamin Ranch Appeal Hearing SCR on Benjamin Ranch |
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.
.jpg)
Pridmore Property Rezoning (Former Cappel Valley School) on: Tourism Issues
Bill Hocker - Sep 13,24 expand... Share
Memo to the wine industry: the system is working on: The Winery Glut
Paul Moser - Sep 12,24 expand... Share
In the last couple of months, you might have noticed the consistent stream of anxious and indignant letters from Napa County wine industry figures on the Napa Valley Register’s opinion page, broadly or specifically suggesting that the Napa County Board of Supervisors has been unfair and/or capricious in dealing with prospective winery and vineyard projects.
The subtext is pretty clear: the Napa Valley wine industry is under serious attack. This is, of course, completely bonkers. It’s a little like certain Christians screaming about Christianity being under assault in the United States. For such a beleaguered group, they certainly seem to wield a huge amount of clout.
You would be hard pressed to find anyone living in the valley who doesn’t understand and appreciate that the wine industry is the engine of the regional economy. No group of citizens - much less elected officials - is gathering in hidden locations to plot the demise of Napa’s grape-growing and winery businesses.
What is actually happening is that the system is working as designed, i.e., elected officials are responding to conditions in a rapidly changing world and to the clear demands of the voters who recognize those changes.
This doesn’t sit well with various wine industry advocacy groups such a Napa Valley Grape Growers and the Napa County Farm Bureau, but that is only because these groups have had overwhelming influence over our elected officials for many years, and are pretty grouchy that their influence should now be balanced by legitimate environmental concerns.
Industry grouchiness displays itself often by characterizing certain County Supervisors as misguided, fuzzy-headed environmentalists who might well forbid any further vineyard or winery projects in the valley.
When a Board decision seems to bear out those worst fears, as when the Le Colline vineyard project was rejected last November, supervisors were accused of ignoring the recommendations of county staff and of making decisions that are “emotional” and “not based in science.” This approach was abandoned when, for example, a controversial project like Vida Valiente Winery, in Deer Park, was recently approved. Whoops. Industry spokespeople then applauded the supervisors for overruling the Planning Commission.
The truth behind all this is that, despite industry advocacy groups’ paranoid complaints, the system is working as designed. It is not up to staff members of the county to make land use decisions. It should be unnecessary to remind industry representatives and everyone else that elected officials have the responsibility and the power to make final decisions.
And there is nothing capricious about their actions. The supervisors are thoughtful and deliberate in considering each proposed project that comes before them. If they might more and more frequently choose to emphasize the notion that an Agricultural Preserve cannot survive without first preserving the environment in which it exists, it is reasonable to assume that is why citizens voted for these supervisors in 2022 and 2024, and not for candidates more free-wheeling in their approach to growth.
In this year’s elections, Peter Mott, a wine industry champion, failed in his quest to become District 4 supervisor, defeated by Amber Manfree, an academic and long-time advocate for the environment.
In the District 5 contest, incumbent Belia Ramos defeated Miriam Aboudamous, even after the Aboudamous campaign took in a jaw-dropping $11,000 donation from the owners of the above-mentioned contentious Le Colline vineyard project, which was rejected by the Board last November.
Sure, it’s revenge politics and not very pretty, but still: it’s proof that the system is working quite well. You either have the support of the majority of voters or you don’t.
The important news is that all parties recognize the need to revise the dangerously outdated 2008 General Plan, the document intended to guide development both private and public throughout the county. The current Board is unanimous in giving this task high priority when it commences work with newly-seated members in January.
The supervisors seem clear that the world is a very different place today than it was in 2008, not to mention in 1968 when the Ag Preserve Ordinance was put in place, so it is reasonable to expect that the well-being of citizens and the environment in which they live will be given proper emphasis in the updated plan.
If industry representatives are unhappy about the process as it unfolds, then by all means: let’s hear from you. Input from all sides will be necessary to produce a realistic new General Plan.
But all should keep in mind that the Ag Preserve is often now viewed in broader terms that give as much weight to the word “preserve” as to the word “agricultural.”
Against the backdrop of extraordinary climate change, supervisors might well insist on further restrictions on development, necessary precisely to ensure that viticulture in Napa Valley survives for future generations.
NVR LTE version 9/12/24: Memo to the wine industry: the system is working
The subtext is pretty clear: the Napa Valley wine industry is under serious attack. This is, of course, completely bonkers. It’s a little like certain Christians screaming about Christianity being under assault in the United States. For such a beleaguered group, they certainly seem to wield a huge amount of clout.
You would be hard pressed to find anyone living in the valley who doesn’t understand and appreciate that the wine industry is the engine of the regional economy. No group of citizens - much less elected officials - is gathering in hidden locations to plot the demise of Napa’s grape-growing and winery businesses.
What is actually happening is that the system is working as designed, i.e., elected officials are responding to conditions in a rapidly changing world and to the clear demands of the voters who recognize those changes.
This doesn’t sit well with various wine industry advocacy groups such a Napa Valley Grape Growers and the Napa County Farm Bureau, but that is only because these groups have had overwhelming influence over our elected officials for many years, and are pretty grouchy that their influence should now be balanced by legitimate environmental concerns.
Industry grouchiness displays itself often by characterizing certain County Supervisors as misguided, fuzzy-headed environmentalists who might well forbid any further vineyard or winery projects in the valley.
When a Board decision seems to bear out those worst fears, as when the Le Colline vineyard project was rejected last November, supervisors were accused of ignoring the recommendations of county staff and of making decisions that are “emotional” and “not based in science.” This approach was abandoned when, for example, a controversial project like Vida Valiente Winery, in Deer Park, was recently approved. Whoops. Industry spokespeople then applauded the supervisors for overruling the Planning Commission.
The truth behind all this is that, despite industry advocacy groups’ paranoid complaints, the system is working as designed. It is not up to staff members of the county to make land use decisions. It should be unnecessary to remind industry representatives and everyone else that elected officials have the responsibility and the power to make final decisions.
And there is nothing capricious about their actions. The supervisors are thoughtful and deliberate in considering each proposed project that comes before them. If they might more and more frequently choose to emphasize the notion that an Agricultural Preserve cannot survive without first preserving the environment in which it exists, it is reasonable to assume that is why citizens voted for these supervisors in 2022 and 2024, and not for candidates more free-wheeling in their approach to growth.
In this year’s elections, Peter Mott, a wine industry champion, failed in his quest to become District 4 supervisor, defeated by Amber Manfree, an academic and long-time advocate for the environment.
In the District 5 contest, incumbent Belia Ramos defeated Miriam Aboudamous, even after the Aboudamous campaign took in a jaw-dropping $11,000 donation from the owners of the above-mentioned contentious Le Colline vineyard project, which was rejected by the Board last November.
Sure, it’s revenge politics and not very pretty, but still: it’s proof that the system is working quite well. You either have the support of the majority of voters or you don’t.
The important news is that all parties recognize the need to revise the dangerously outdated 2008 General Plan, the document intended to guide development both private and public throughout the county. The current Board is unanimous in giving this task high priority when it commences work with newly-seated members in January.
The supervisors seem clear that the world is a very different place today than it was in 2008, not to mention in 1968 when the Ag Preserve Ordinance was put in place, so it is reasonable to expect that the well-being of citizens and the environment in which they live will be given proper emphasis in the updated plan.
If industry representatives are unhappy about the process as it unfolds, then by all means: let’s hear from you. Input from all sides will be necessary to produce a realistic new General Plan.
But all should keep in mind that the Ag Preserve is often now viewed in broader terms that give as much weight to the word “preserve” as to the word “agricultural.”
Against the backdrop of extraordinary climate change, supervisors might well insist on further restrictions on development, necessary precisely to ensure that viticulture in Napa Valley survives for future generations.
NVR LTE version 9/12/24: Memo to the wine industry: the system is working
Hillwaker use permit and gallons/visitor on: The Winery Glut
Bill Hocker - Aug 3,24 expand... Share
Update 8/26/24
NVR 8/26/24: Small Mount Veeder winery gains Napa County approval
8/3/24
Another winery use permit is coming up before the Planning Commission on 8/7/24. The Hillwalker Vineyards WInery is a proposed (quite modest) 7000 gal winery located several winding miles up Mt. Veeder Road.
The hearing notice is here.
Staff agenda letter and documents are here.
I was struck by the proposed request for 113 visitors/wk and a 45-person event once a month, 6146 people/yr for a winery producing only 7000 gal/yr. As I have tried to point on this site, locating tourism attractions on remote rural roads in high fire zones is not optimal. In the case of Mt. Veeder Road there are well known landslide problems as well. But that was not what piqued my interest here. It was the ratio of a little over 1 gallon of wine produced per visitor.
That ratio is normally looked at for a select few comparatively-sized wineries as the projects are reviewed by the Planning Commission. But I though it might be interesting to look at the ratio of wine produced per visitor for all of the post-WDO wineries in the county database. (Pre-WDO wineries have a much more convoluted ratio of gallons to visitors.) The post-WDO gallons/visitor ratio list is here.
A ratio of 1 gallon produced for each visitor entertained is not ususal: wineries with a ratio of less than 2gal/visitor constitute less than 10% of the psot-WDO wineries. The median is about 6 gal/visitor.
Such wineries, if they realize their visitation potential, can be looked at two ways: they are either very efficient, per gallon of wine produced, at generating the tourism income that is increasingly the economic engine of the county; or they are very detrimental, per gallon of wine produced, in generating the impacts of increased traffic, resource and infrastructure stress, employee housing demand, and agriculture-killing urbanizaiton that a tourism economy produces. By comparison wineries with a high ratio of gal/vis, the large wineries with relatively little visitation, boost the continued viability of an agricultural economy in an urban region. It's an interesting ratio.
NVR 8/26/24: Small Mount Veeder winery gains Napa County approval
8/3/24
Another winery use permit is coming up before the Planning Commission on 8/7/24. The Hillwalker Vineyards WInery is a proposed (quite modest) 7000 gal winery located several winding miles up Mt. Veeder Road.
The hearing notice is here.
Staff agenda letter and documents are here.
I was struck by the proposed request for 113 visitors/wk and a 45-person event once a month, 6146 people/yr for a winery producing only 7000 gal/yr. As I have tried to point on this site, locating tourism attractions on remote rural roads in high fire zones is not optimal. In the case of Mt. Veeder Road there are well known landslide problems as well. But that was not what piqued my interest here. It was the ratio of a little over 1 gallon of wine produced per visitor.
That ratio is normally looked at for a select few comparatively-sized wineries as the projects are reviewed by the Planning Commission. But I though it might be interesting to look at the ratio of wine produced per visitor for all of the post-WDO wineries in the county database. (Pre-WDO wineries have a much more convoluted ratio of gallons to visitors.) The post-WDO gallons/visitor ratio list is here.
A ratio of 1 gallon produced for each visitor entertained is not ususal: wineries with a ratio of less than 2gal/visitor constitute less than 10% of the psot-WDO wineries. The median is about 6 gal/visitor.
Such wineries, if they realize their visitation potential, can be looked at two ways: they are either very efficient, per gallon of wine produced, at generating the tourism income that is increasingly the economic engine of the county; or they are very detrimental, per gallon of wine produced, in generating the impacts of increased traffic, resource and infrastructure stress, employee housing demand, and agriculture-killing urbanizaiton that a tourism economy produces. By comparison wineries with a high ratio of gal/vis, the large wineries with relatively little visitation, boost the continued viability of an agricultural economy in an urban region. It's an interesting ratio.
Are our supervisors truly anti-winery? on: The Winery Glut
Christine Tittle - Jun 28,24 expand... Share
The recent denial of the La Colline winery appeal by the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission's disapproval of the Vida Valiente winery application (now on appeal), has triggered an astounding barrage of letters by wine industry spokespersons disparaging both the Board's and the Commission's decisions as "arbitrary and capricious" (Stu Smith), "not evidence based, and bowing to emotional appeals" (Michelle Benvenuto), or bowing to "the environmental-left crowd" (Mott). As usual, they are accompanied by inappropriate name-calling of concerned members of the public who are vested with no lesser rights to this county than the wine industry.
These attacks also accuse our governing bodies of, among other misconduct, violating provisions of the General Plan (attributed to the accusers' limited reading thereof) and that their decisions spell the demise of the wine industry in Napa County, allegedly causing it to move elsewhere, and sabotaging our very economy.
These disproportionate attacks, considering the small scope of these two winery disapprovals, prompted me to ask the County Planning Department for the number of winery production and visitor approvals from 2017 to 2023. Of note is that this period includes two devastating wildfires and the COVID pandemic. They also include what has disenfranchised a large section of the public, the approval of over 50 winery applicants who were forgiven -- even rewarded -- for violating their use permits. This alone is more than enough evidence of a wine-friendly -- many believe scandalously so -- government environment.
Here are the astounding numbers of approvals of the past seven years: additional gallons of production: 6,897,815; additional number of visitors: 1,330,735.
With the reported number of annual visitors in the Napa Valley at 3.85 million, the added visitors comprise an astounding 33% increase in just seven years! Considering what this means to infrastructure deterioration, to all our resources including water, all the above paid for by the public, not wineries, and to the traffic congestion imposed on all, it is gratitude rather than name-calling what the wine industry owes it.
While we are all keenly cognizant and thankful for its great contributions, it is time for the wine industry to return to its role of a good neighbor, respectful of the public's (not the "crowd's") right to a safe and high-quality environment rather than intimidating its way at all costs.
The recent Glass and Crystal fires at essentially the same location with the loss of structures and insurance policies on substandard, one-lane evacuation routes, dictate an "evidence-based" policy which places the safety of residents and visitors above any and all considerations in approving projects in our High Severity Fire Zones. So much so, that earlier this year, the state of California enacted Title 14 into law applicable throughout the state, which prohibits new, not replacement, development in such areas.
There are simply locations where development is inappropriate if it places the environment, or property or lives at increased risk.
NVR version 6/27/24: Are our supervisors truly anti-winery?
These attacks also accuse our governing bodies of, among other misconduct, violating provisions of the General Plan (attributed to the accusers' limited reading thereof) and that their decisions spell the demise of the wine industry in Napa County, allegedly causing it to move elsewhere, and sabotaging our very economy.
These disproportionate attacks, considering the small scope of these two winery disapprovals, prompted me to ask the County Planning Department for the number of winery production and visitor approvals from 2017 to 2023. Of note is that this period includes two devastating wildfires and the COVID pandemic. They also include what has disenfranchised a large section of the public, the approval of over 50 winery applicants who were forgiven -- even rewarded -- for violating their use permits. This alone is more than enough evidence of a wine-friendly -- many believe scandalously so -- government environment.
Here are the astounding numbers of approvals of the past seven years: additional gallons of production: 6,897,815; additional number of visitors: 1,330,735.
With the reported number of annual visitors in the Napa Valley at 3.85 million, the added visitors comprise an astounding 33% increase in just seven years! Considering what this means to infrastructure deterioration, to all our resources including water, all the above paid for by the public, not wineries, and to the traffic congestion imposed on all, it is gratitude rather than name-calling what the wine industry owes it.
While we are all keenly cognizant and thankful for its great contributions, it is time for the wine industry to return to its role of a good neighbor, respectful of the public's (not the "crowd's") right to a safe and high-quality environment rather than intimidating its way at all costs.
The recent Glass and Crystal fires at essentially the same location with the loss of structures and insurance policies on substandard, one-lane evacuation routes, dictate an "evidence-based" policy which places the safety of residents and visitors above any and all considerations in approving projects in our High Severity Fire Zones. So much so, that earlier this year, the state of California enacted Title 14 into law applicable throughout the state, which prohibits new, not replacement, development in such areas.
There are simply locations where development is inappropriate if it places the environment, or property or lives at increased risk.
NVR version 6/27/24: Are our supervisors truly anti-winery?
Recent vineyard decisions good for economy, environment on: Fire Issues
Patricia Damery - Jun 9,24 expand... Share
For the first time, three of our five Napa County supervisors voted to uphold regulations already in place but which, in the past, have been "mitigated" by a system in which the interests of certain factions of the wine industry have too often determined.
In the appeal of the Le Colline Vineyard project by the Center For Biological Diversity, the supervisors upheld the appeal, citing 14 conservation regulations that have always been a part of our General Plan. This is a testament to the power of collective action in environmental advocacy.
The Vida Valiente winery project faced scrutiny by the Planning Commission. Two of the three commissioners, citing safety concerns, voted against the project. The winery's access on a substandard public road, Crystal Springs Road, was a key issue. State Minimum Fire Safe Standards stipulate that public road access to a project must allow an exiting vehicle to pass safety vehicles. This requirement is not met on stretches of Crystal Springs Road, raising significant safety concerns.
These votes are not against agriculture, but rather, they consider the entire situation, especially the pressing issue of climate change. Drought and fire will almost certainly be a growing part of our future. The health of our watersheds, crucial for our groundwater and surface runoff, is at stake.
Residents' safety in these very high-fire areas is also at stake. In Napa County, the mountainous Ag Watershed lands are in high and very high fire-designated regions, making the need for their protection even more urgent.
As our permitting process undergoes changes, it is crucial that our county adheres to those minimum fire-safe regulations. This is especially important for developments in designated high and very high fire areas, which are integral parts of our watersheds. Perhaps we should consider a model where the zoned Ag Watershed lands prioritize watershed protection. Only then, if the soils and the area can safely support vines, should we consider agriculture. Our survival as a premium wine region hinges on our commitment to the environment.
NVR version 6/9/24: Recent vineyard decisions good for economy, environment
In the appeal of the Le Colline Vineyard project by the Center For Biological Diversity, the supervisors upheld the appeal, citing 14 conservation regulations that have always been a part of our General Plan. This is a testament to the power of collective action in environmental advocacy.
The Vida Valiente winery project faced scrutiny by the Planning Commission. Two of the three commissioners, citing safety concerns, voted against the project. The winery's access on a substandard public road, Crystal Springs Road, was a key issue. State Minimum Fire Safe Standards stipulate that public road access to a project must allow an exiting vehicle to pass safety vehicles. This requirement is not met on stretches of Crystal Springs Road, raising significant safety concerns.
These votes are not against agriculture, but rather, they consider the entire situation, especially the pressing issue of climate change. Drought and fire will almost certainly be a growing part of our future. The health of our watersheds, crucial for our groundwater and surface runoff, is at stake.
Residents' safety in these very high-fire areas is also at stake. In Napa County, the mountainous Ag Watershed lands are in high and very high fire-designated regions, making the need for their protection even more urgent.
As our permitting process undergoes changes, it is crucial that our county adheres to those minimum fire-safe regulations. This is especially important for developments in designated high and very high fire areas, which are integral parts of our watersheds. Perhaps we should consider a model where the zoned Ag Watershed lands prioritize watershed protection. Only then, if the soils and the area can safely support vines, should we consider agriculture. Our survival as a premium wine region hinges on our commitment to the environment.
NVR version 6/9/24: Recent vineyard decisions good for economy, environment
Use permit denials in Napa Valley on: Tourism Issues
George Caloyannidis - May 11,24 expand... Share
I feel compelled to address misguided statements made at public hearings and in the press by owners whose new winery applications were recently disapproved by the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission.
Applicants have been arguing that in spite of having been through an admittedly arduous and expensive process, “followed all the rules and checked all the boxes,” and even received a favorable staff recommendation, their applications were not ultimately approved. Such denials, they say, spell the demise of agriculture in the Napa Valley. The logical conclusion of this reasoning is that public input, hearings and the role of these government bodies is meaningless. What they fail to realize is that Use Permits are discretionary and for good reason.
The primary responsibility of those government bodies is to safeguard the health and welfare of its citizens. It is impossible to codify in boxes the tremendous complexity of what this entails. This is why we rely on the judgment of these bodies and the experiences and wisdom of the citizens to assess the cumulative benefits and risks of applications beyond what is in the “boxes.”
There is an inherent risk to all development applications and not exclusively to wineries as the industry portrays it. I have been on this side of the equation on large housing projects in Southern California. You win some and you lose some. Still, wineries and housing continue to be developed. And just because applicants provide “expert” studies and testimony, does not necessarily mean that they are right.
I can cite many cases where they have been wrong to the detriment of the public. One which comes to mind is the “sustainable” Carneros Resort, when in 2001 its water experts checked the box of its wells producing enough water to support its operation. The neighbors had provided evidence that many of their wells were running dry during summer months, but they were dismissed. We know what happened. In 2018, the city of Napa agreed to supply the resort with 11 to 14 million gallons of its own citizens’ water annually to help keep the resort open.
I recall then-Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht saying, “Maybe in the future, we ought to listen more carefully to what neighbors are saying rather than blindly relying on experts.” It takes the collective input of many experiences and points of view to get it right.
Fascinating read: James Surowiecki, "The Wisdom of Crowds," 2021
NVR Version 5/11/24: Use permit denials in Napa Valley
Applicants have been arguing that in spite of having been through an admittedly arduous and expensive process, “followed all the rules and checked all the boxes,” and even received a favorable staff recommendation, their applications were not ultimately approved. Such denials, they say, spell the demise of agriculture in the Napa Valley. The logical conclusion of this reasoning is that public input, hearings and the role of these government bodies is meaningless. What they fail to realize is that Use Permits are discretionary and for good reason.
The primary responsibility of those government bodies is to safeguard the health and welfare of its citizens. It is impossible to codify in boxes the tremendous complexity of what this entails. This is why we rely on the judgment of these bodies and the experiences and wisdom of the citizens to assess the cumulative benefits and risks of applications beyond what is in the “boxes.”
There is an inherent risk to all development applications and not exclusively to wineries as the industry portrays it. I have been on this side of the equation on large housing projects in Southern California. You win some and you lose some. Still, wineries and housing continue to be developed. And just because applicants provide “expert” studies and testimony, does not necessarily mean that they are right.
I can cite many cases where they have been wrong to the detriment of the public. One which comes to mind is the “sustainable” Carneros Resort, when in 2001 its water experts checked the box of its wells producing enough water to support its operation. The neighbors had provided evidence that many of their wells were running dry during summer months, but they were dismissed. We know what happened. In 2018, the city of Napa agreed to supply the resort with 11 to 14 million gallons of its own citizens’ water annually to help keep the resort open.
I recall then-Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht saying, “Maybe in the future, we ought to listen more carefully to what neighbors are saying rather than blindly relying on experts.” It takes the collective input of many experiences and points of view to get it right.
Fascinating read: James Surowiecki, "The Wisdom of Crowds," 2021
NVR Version 5/11/24: Use permit denials in Napa Valley
Napa County Land Trust on: Watershed Issues
Bill Hocker - May 3,24 expand... Share
Land Trust properties adjacent to Mead Ranch (along with private Soda Springs property)
Napa Land Trust MapNVR 5/3/24: Napa Land Trust gains 1,300-acre Mead Ranch on Atlas Peak
Update 10/28/20
NVR 10/28/20: Land Trust of Napa County acquires over 1,200 acres in Pope Valley
NVR 7/8/20: Land Trust of Napa County acquires 320 undeveloped acres above Calistoga
Calistogan 6/18/20: Land Trust acquires easement on 5,384-acre property near Lake Berryessa
Update 11/14/19
NVR 12/14/19: Land conservation around Lake Berryessa grows by 680 acres
Update 11/13/19
NVR 11/13/19: McCormick Ranch overlooking Napa Valley to be preserved as public open space
Two other major properties are currently up for sale in the county, one on Soda Canyon Road. They are profiled (unfortunately as business opportunities) here:
SFChronicle 11/9/19: Wine Country rarity: Vast southern Napa properties go on sale
(more photos are available on the interactive Chronicle article here.)
The Green Valley property is already protected with a conservation easement shown on the Land Trust map. The map in the Chronicle shows 2 internal development zones. The property very sig isnificant given its connection to the Tuteur Ranch conservation easement and the potential for a connection to Skyline Wilderness Park and the proposed Bay Area Ridge Trail.
The Soda Springs property is significant because of its historical heritage ruins and because it touches the large Meade Ranch conservation area shown on the Land Trust map. It is also significant because, given its legacy use, it can still be developed as a resort, dooming our Soda Canyon Road community to life as a tourist attraction. Also at NVR 11/14/19: Historic Soda Springs resort property for sale northeast of Napa
Such major undeveloped properties still remaining in the County should not be allowed to pass into developers' hands without some significant consideration to their value as protected natural heritage for future generations. Hopefully, the Land Trust has their eyes on these properties as well.
Update 9/26/19
NVR 9/26/19: Land Trust of Napa County buys undeveloped 1,000-acre site near Chiles Valley
Update 1/31/19
Calistogan 1/29/19: Easement creates more than 100 acres of protected land in Calistoga
Update 8/27/18
SH Star 8/27/18: Land Trust of Napa County acquires 1,910-acre preserve near Lake Berryessa
Update 6/15/18
NVR 6/15/18: Napa Land Trust protects more Lake Berryessa land from development
Update 2/7/18
NVR 2/7/18: Conservation easement made on historic property outside Yountville
Update 12/16/17
NVR 12/15/17: Napa Land Trust announces large Lake Berryessa ranch preservation
Kudos to vintners willing to protect rather than exploit the remaining natural environment of Napa County! (Location guess for Montecello Ranch is circled on map)
Update 8/1/17
NVR 8/1/17: Napa's Circle R ranch to be permanent part of wildlife corridor
Update 1/20/17
NVR 1/20/17: Large swath of Napa County land near Calistoga protected
9/4/16
NVR 9/4/16: Effort underway to protect 856-acre forest in Angwin
Land Trust CEO Doug Parker is quoted as saying "We're interested in building a corridor of contiguous, protected land across the ridge on the east side of Napa Valley." On the map above it would appear that the stretch from RLS State Park to Lake Hennessy is looking quite promising. From Lake Hennessy to Skyline Park it seems like a much more difficult proposition. A trail down the ridge just below the huge Atlas Peak Sutro Ranch Preserve is blocked by two private estate developments, Circle R and Walt Ranch. The Circle R development has discussed the possibility of a 500+ acre conservation easement. Would that include a public trail? The Walt Ranch developers have yet to weigh in on a conservation easement.
Land Trust of Napa County Website
Greeninfo.org Napa County Land Trust Map
NVR 11/28/15: Land Trust receives 110-acre donation near Chiles Valley
NVR 6/18/14: Land Trust acquires 1,380 acres on Atlas Peak
St Helena continues to convert vineyards to housing on: St. Helena
Bill Hocker - Apr 24,24 expand... Share
Oxbow Tourist Trap on: The Hotel Binge
Bill Hocker - Apr 1,24 expand... Share
Update 4/5/24
NVR 4/4/24: More rooms: Napa City Council approves updated designs for Oxbow hotel
Update 4/1/24 A bad decision made worse
NVR 4/1/124: Updated Oxbow hotel plan to go before Napa City Council
Staff Agenda Letter and Documents
Comments by Napa Housing Coalition , Etc.
Following the City Planning Commission's Feb. 1 approval of the reconfiguration of the hotel, previously called the Foxbow Hotel, to be more salable to a mass-market hotel chain, the project goes before the City Council on Apr 2nd 2024. A project that was an eyesore barrier between downtown and the Oxbow Market becomes an even greater barrier with the elimination of any public serving facilities for two blocks on 1st Street. It is a change made solely to accommodate the bottom-line calculation of a mass-market hotel chain (that may even sell the project to an even lower grade owner, if history is a guide) with no regard to the public service aspect that any building project permitted in the city's commercial center should serve. The planning commission was very unwise to approve this building in the first place and doubly unwise to approve the revision. The city has failed miserably in creating the guidelines for the integration of the Oxbow District with the rest of the town.
Again look at the rendering. Together with the Black Elk Hotel approved in 2017, a wall has been created between the town and the District. It hides both the District and the closest of Napa's few hillides visible from the center of town. Both of these hotels have not been built. It is not too late to rectify very bad planning decisions. City Council, tear down this wall!
Update 1/30/24
NVR 1/30/24: Napa city Planning Commission to review new permits for Oxbow district hotel
At the Napa City Planning Commission on 2/1/24. The agenda is here.
These developers have a lousy track record on their previous developments: Cambria hotels in Napa, Sonoma counties lost in $80 million foreclosure Why should anyone respect or approve their numbers this time?
NVR 3/6/23: New developer of Napa Oxbow hotel asks for more rooms
Update 3/8/22
Friends of the Napa River LTE 3/8/22: Protect Oxbow District's 'unique character'
The previous branding effort of the Oxbow District in 2018 (see below) already had one aproved blot on its unique character: the 5-story tenament-house-like Black Oak hotel. There are now two approved hotels, which, as can be seen from the rendering immediately below (that tries to fade-out the impact of the Black Oak) completely block any view of the district and the hills beyond from downtown and any sense of a downtown from the Oxbow District. Unless the proposal by the Friends of the Napa River includes a revocation of these two permits, and an effort to defeat the monumental 5-story Wine Train Hotel, there is no hope of achieving the goals of "building small and retaining the Oxbow District's unique character." The damage to the character of the district is already entitled.
Update 11/20/20 Foxbow Hotel
NVR 11/20/20: Napa council narrowly approves 4-story hotel for Oxbow District
The rendering shows as clearly as possible the results noted in the discussion of the Black Elk Hotel below: that the development being approved by the city for the Oxbow tourism district is in fact creating an inhospitable barrier between the district and downtown. The walk between the two, perhaps the most heavily touristed route in the city, is already a dispiriting gauntlet of traffic and narrow sidewalks. Now the walker will be confronted by a wall of buildings before reaching the destination.
The lack of overall city planning and the relegation of the future development of the city to the avarice of building developers wishing to maximise their envelopes is just one more example of the failure the governments of Napa County to maintain the rural, small town, agricultural character that made this an enjoyable place to live and a memorable place to visit.
NVR 7/17/20: Napa's Planning Commission declines to recommend Oxbow hotel project
NVR 7/11/20: City to evaluate Napa hotel straddling Wine Train line; two historic homes to be moved
NVR 3/2/18: Napa planners ask is Foxbow too much hotel for the neighborhood
NVR 2/28/18: Napa city planners to take up Foxbow hotel plan in Oxbow District
Oh No! Another over-scaled, over-wrought hotel crammed onto First Street.
This one is more apartment-looking than the previous version, an advantage if the tourism market crashes at the end of this hotel bubble.
Preliminary review at the Napa City Planning Commission Thursday, Mar 1st, 2018 at 5:30pm. Staff report is here.
1/16/19 Oxbow Branding Study
NVR 1/16/19: Study supports branding Napa's Oxbow district, showcasing river
2018 ULI Oxbow Branding study
A well done study, but one that has as its purpose the development and marketing of yet another tourist attraction to further urbanize the Napa Valley, adding to the many impacts that are degrading what was until recently a prized rural, small-town quality of life.
It has come at least one building approval too late. From the article: "city leaders can ...consider zoning that would prevent new construction from blocking views of the river and Napa Valley edges". It was obvious that the Black Elk hotel was a bad idea from an urban planning standpoint when it was proposed (see update 7/14/17 here) and yet it was approved anyway. Coming a year after the Black Elk approval, It could be that this study was a result of that unfortunate event. (Or perhaps it was in reaction to the massive Wine Train Hotel proposed next door. Or the Foxbow Hotel just kitty corner. Or maybe it was simply a reaction to the already built, noisy and tacky "The Studio", the true definition of a tourist trap venue.)
Why do government leaders always take action after the fact - waiting for problems to become insoluble before trying to solve them?
Update 1/6/18 Wine Train Hotel
NVR 1/6/18: Napa planners comment on Wine Train's future hotel, rail depot on McKinstry Street
The Staff report on the project is here. (large file)
NVR 12/23/17: Top 10 of 2017, No. 7: Hotels, tourism continue Napa boom
7/14/17 Black Elk Hotel
NVR 8/18/17: Napa planners approve 5-story Black Elk hotel in Oxbow district
NVR 7/4/17: Proposed four-story Oxbow hotel to receive Napa planners' scrutiny
The Black Elk Hotel had a preliminary review by the Napa City Planning Commission on July 6th 2017. The Staff Report and Documents are here. It is a very innappropriate building for the location, out of scale, a visual barrier to the Oxbow district, of "barnish" shape and materials out of place in its urban setting, a box of a building trying to squeeze as many hotel rooms as possible on the small site, which brought to mind a 19th century tenement house.
What became very apparent here, and in all of the hotel projects in the news recently, is that the city has no master plan for the development of the city, no commitment to integrate housing and real people and businesses into the tourism economy, and no design guidelines to regulate what the character of the place will become. As with the rural areas of the county, the future of Napa City is being irrevocably altered in this developer boom period, and the Planning Commission decisions about Napa's future are being made on an ad hoc basis, one isolated project at a time, without looking at the long term result. Which, of course, will be a hodgepodge of developers' schemes, some with good taste and some without, trying to maximize the money to be made from the tourist trade on every square inch of the city, while the residents are forced out.
NVR 4/4/24: More rooms: Napa City Council approves updated designs for Oxbow hotel
Update 4/1/24 A bad decision made worse
NVR 4/1/124: Updated Oxbow hotel plan to go before Napa City Council
Staff Agenda Letter and Documents
Comments by Napa Housing Coalition , Etc.
Following the City Planning Commission's Feb. 1 approval of the reconfiguration of the hotel, previously called the Foxbow Hotel, to be more salable to a mass-market hotel chain, the project goes before the City Council on Apr 2nd 2024. A project that was an eyesore barrier between downtown and the Oxbow Market becomes an even greater barrier with the elimination of any public serving facilities for two blocks on 1st Street. It is a change made solely to accommodate the bottom-line calculation of a mass-market hotel chain (that may even sell the project to an even lower grade owner, if history is a guide) with no regard to the public service aspect that any building project permitted in the city's commercial center should serve. The planning commission was very unwise to approve this building in the first place and doubly unwise to approve the revision. The city has failed miserably in creating the guidelines for the integration of the Oxbow District with the rest of the town.
Again look at the rendering. Together with the Black Elk Hotel approved in 2017, a wall has been created between the town and the District. It hides both the District and the closest of Napa's few hillides visible from the center of town. Both of these hotels have not been built. It is not too late to rectify very bad planning decisions. City Council, tear down this wall!
Update 1/30/24
NVR 1/30/24: Napa city Planning Commission to review new permits for Oxbow district hotel
At the Napa City Planning Commission on 2/1/24. The agenda is here.
These developers have a lousy track record on their previous developments: Cambria hotels in Napa, Sonoma counties lost in $80 million foreclosure Why should anyone respect or approve their numbers this time?
NVR 3/6/23: New developer of Napa Oxbow hotel asks for more rooms
Update 3/8/22
Friends of the Napa River LTE 3/8/22: Protect Oxbow District's 'unique character'
The previous branding effort of the Oxbow District in 2018 (see below) already had one aproved blot on its unique character: the 5-story tenament-house-like Black Oak hotel. There are now two approved hotels, which, as can be seen from the rendering immediately below (that tries to fade-out the impact of the Black Oak) completely block any view of the district and the hills beyond from downtown and any sense of a downtown from the Oxbow District. Unless the proposal by the Friends of the Napa River includes a revocation of these two permits, and an effort to defeat the monumental 5-story Wine Train Hotel, there is no hope of achieving the goals of "building small and retaining the Oxbow District's unique character." The damage to the character of the district is already entitled.
Update 11/20/20 Foxbow Hotel
The rendering shows as clearly as possible the results noted in the discussion of the Black Elk Hotel below: that the development being approved by the city for the Oxbow tourism district is in fact creating an inhospitable barrier between the district and downtown. The walk between the two, perhaps the most heavily touristed route in the city, is already a dispiriting gauntlet of traffic and narrow sidewalks. Now the walker will be confronted by a wall of buildings before reaching the destination.
The lack of overall city planning and the relegation of the future development of the city to the avarice of building developers wishing to maximise their envelopes is just one more example of the failure the governments of Napa County to maintain the rural, small town, agricultural character that made this an enjoyable place to live and a memorable place to visit.
NVR 7/17/20: Napa's Planning Commission declines to recommend Oxbow hotel project
NVR 7/11/20: City to evaluate Napa hotel straddling Wine Train line; two historic homes to be moved
NVR 2/28/18: Napa city planners to take up Foxbow hotel plan in Oxbow District
Oh No! Another over-scaled, over-wrought hotel crammed onto First Street.
This one is more apartment-looking than the previous version, an advantage if the tourism market crashes at the end of this hotel bubble.
Preliminary review at the Napa City Planning Commission Thursday, Mar 1st, 2018 at 5:30pm. Staff report is here.
1/16/19 Oxbow Branding Study
NVR 1/16/19: Study supports branding Napa's Oxbow district, showcasing river
2018 ULI Oxbow Branding study
A well done study, but one that has as its purpose the development and marketing of yet another tourist attraction to further urbanize the Napa Valley, adding to the many impacts that are degrading what was until recently a prized rural, small-town quality of life.
It has come at least one building approval too late. From the article: "city leaders can ...consider zoning that would prevent new construction from blocking views of the river and Napa Valley edges". It was obvious that the Black Elk hotel was a bad idea from an urban planning standpoint when it was proposed (see update 7/14/17 here) and yet it was approved anyway. Coming a year after the Black Elk approval, It could be that this study was a result of that unfortunate event. (Or perhaps it was in reaction to the massive Wine Train Hotel proposed next door. Or the Foxbow Hotel just kitty corner. Or maybe it was simply a reaction to the already built, noisy and tacky "The Studio", the true definition of a tourist trap venue.)
Why do government leaders always take action after the fact - waiting for problems to become insoluble before trying to solve them?
Update 1/6/18 Wine Train Hotel
The Staff report on the project is here. (large file)
NVR 12/23/17: Top 10 of 2017, No. 7: Hotels, tourism continue Napa boom
7/14/17 Black Elk Hotel
NVR 8/18/17: Napa planners approve 5-story Black Elk hotel in Oxbow district
NVR 7/4/17: Proposed four-story Oxbow hotel to receive Napa planners' scrutiny
What became very apparent here, and in all of the hotel projects in the news recently, is that the city has no master plan for the development of the city, no commitment to integrate housing and real people and businesses into the tourism economy, and no design guidelines to regulate what the character of the place will become. As with the rural areas of the county, the future of Napa City is being irrevocably altered in this developer boom period, and the Planning Commission decisions about Napa's future are being made on an ad hoc basis, one isolated project at a time, without looking at the long term result. Which, of course, will be a hodgepodge of developers' schemes, some with good taste and some without, trying to maximize the money to be made from the tourist trade on every square inch of the city, while the residents are forced out.
.jpg)
The 2024 Campaign on: Campaign 2024
Bill Hocker - Mar 5,24 expand... Share
Update 3/5/24 Preliminary Election Results
NVR 3/5/24: Election 2024 update: Alessio, Manfree, Ramos react to early Napa County election results
Full Napa County Election results are here
Update 2/20/24 KQED Podcast on election issues
Kelli Anderson sends along a link to the KQED Forum podcast on "The future of wine centers on Napa county supervisors election" (1 hr).
The moderator of the podcast, Guy Marzorati, in his questions, seemed to be very knowledgable on the issues at play, but the rambling answers by the panelists tended to obscure those issues. The Register editor, Dan Evans, seemed exceptionally off topic. Mr. Mazorati referenced this Wine-searcher article in one question and it is probably worth reading before listening to the podcast.
The lack of clarity in the participants answers is understandable: every side in Napa's land-use debate wants Napa to remain a rural county that can sustain, both economically and environmentally, the financial benefits desired by businesses (and the county) and the quality of life benefits desired by residents. But how is that achieved?
The business community wants policies that encourage growth, in vineyard acreage, in tourism in more housing and transport projects that induce growth, along with less restrictive and clearer regulation. Residents see the rural, small-town character of the county being eroded by that bottom-line approach and want to see government policies that seek sustainability rather than growth. While sometimes supportive of housing and transport solutions to solve existing problems, they are more concerned about conservation and preservation of the undeveloped environment, more restrictions on future growth in the wine and tourism industries, more attention to the environmental impacts of climate change.
Politics in Napa County has always been a contest between development and conservation interests. Napa is Napa because the conservationists have more often succeeded. But since 2000 the Board of Supervisors has had a development majority and the policies of the 2008 General Plan and subsequent ordinances have reflected that. The 2022 election brought two conservationists on to the board and the majority began to shift. The Le Colline vineyard project, referenced several times in the podcast, represented the first, though perhaps premature, reflection of that shift. The project was turned down on conservation grounds. Premature, because the county is still under the policies of the 2008 general plan and the applicants (and the county staff) felt they had done everything the law required.
That conservationist majority will probably be cemented in this coming election. And they will get to oversee the update to the Napa General Plan. It is for that reason that the pundits see this as such a generational shift and why the wine industry is so nervous. They needn't be. No one wants the wine industry to die.
Update 2/12/24
Press Democrat 2/11/24: Sam Chapman Opinion: Mapping a future for Napa Valley
NVR Sam Chapman LTE 1/16/24: Is Napa County experiencing strategic drift?
Former Supervisor Sam Chapman gives a clear-eyed and comprehensive assessment of the issues at stake for Napa's future as the economy drifts away from wine production and toward good-life tourism and more urban development. Is this the future Napa' s citizens, long protectors of Napa's agrarian heritage, wish for themselves. If not, now is the time to challenge that shifting reality.
11/29/23
NVR 11/29/23: Napa County Supervisor Ryan Gregory won't seek third term in 2024
With the departure of Sup. Gregory from the race, it is assured that a minimum of 4 Supervisors beginning in 2025 will be women. And Amber Manfree running in District 4, after a strong showing against Sup. Pedroza in her first ever election in 2020 ("a potential rising star" in the words of the NVR Editoral Board in 2020) with evermore land use, community and transportation experience since, is in a good position this time around.
Since, as shown in many studies, women seem to be more effective leaders than men, this bodes well for the County as it heads into the important task of updating the General Plan.
NVR 3/5/24: Election 2024 update: Alessio, Manfree, Ramos react to early Napa County election results
Full Napa County Election results are here
Update 2/20/24 KQED Podcast on election issues
Kelli Anderson sends along a link to the KQED Forum podcast on "The future of wine centers on Napa county supervisors election" (1 hr).
The moderator of the podcast, Guy Marzorati, in his questions, seemed to be very knowledgable on the issues at play, but the rambling answers by the panelists tended to obscure those issues. The Register editor, Dan Evans, seemed exceptionally off topic. Mr. Mazorati referenced this Wine-searcher article in one question and it is probably worth reading before listening to the podcast.
The lack of clarity in the participants answers is understandable: every side in Napa's land-use debate wants Napa to remain a rural county that can sustain, both economically and environmentally, the financial benefits desired by businesses (and the county) and the quality of life benefits desired by residents. But how is that achieved?
The business community wants policies that encourage growth, in vineyard acreage, in tourism in more housing and transport projects that induce growth, along with less restrictive and clearer regulation. Residents see the rural, small-town character of the county being eroded by that bottom-line approach and want to see government policies that seek sustainability rather than growth. While sometimes supportive of housing and transport solutions to solve existing problems, they are more concerned about conservation and preservation of the undeveloped environment, more restrictions on future growth in the wine and tourism industries, more attention to the environmental impacts of climate change.
Politics in Napa County has always been a contest between development and conservation interests. Napa is Napa because the conservationists have more often succeeded. But since 2000 the Board of Supervisors has had a development majority and the policies of the 2008 General Plan and subsequent ordinances have reflected that. The 2022 election brought two conservationists on to the board and the majority began to shift. The Le Colline vineyard project, referenced several times in the podcast, represented the first, though perhaps premature, reflection of that shift. The project was turned down on conservation grounds. Premature, because the county is still under the policies of the 2008 general plan and the applicants (and the county staff) felt they had done everything the law required.
That conservationist majority will probably be cemented in this coming election. And they will get to oversee the update to the Napa General Plan. It is for that reason that the pundits see this as such a generational shift and why the wine industry is so nervous. They needn't be. No one wants the wine industry to die.
Update 2/12/24
Press Democrat 2/11/24: Sam Chapman Opinion: Mapping a future for Napa Valley
NVR Sam Chapman LTE 1/16/24: Is Napa County experiencing strategic drift?
Former Supervisor Sam Chapman gives a clear-eyed and comprehensive assessment of the issues at stake for Napa's future as the economy drifts away from wine production and toward good-life tourism and more urban development. Is this the future Napa' s citizens, long protectors of Napa's agrarian heritage, wish for themselves. If not, now is the time to challenge that shifting reality.
11/29/23
NVR 11/29/23: Napa County Supervisor Ryan Gregory won't seek third term in 2024
With the departure of Sup. Gregory from the race, it is assured that a minimum of 4 Supervisors beginning in 2025 will be women. And Amber Manfree running in District 4, after a strong showing against Sup. Pedroza in her first ever election in 2020 ("a potential rising star" in the words of the NVR Editoral Board in 2020) with evermore land use, community and transportation experience since, is in a good position this time around.
Since, as shown in many studies, women seem to be more effective leaders than men, this bodes well for the County as it heads into the important task of updating the General Plan.
The NVR editorial board endorsement on: Campaign 2024
Bill Hocker - Feb 14,24 expand... Share
2/14/24
NVR editorial board 2/14/24: Election 2024: Napa Valley Register county supervisor endorsements
Regarding the endorsement of Pete Mott over Amber Manfree:
Why do they need to choose when one will represent as well as another? The big type face given to their chosen name implies a greater difference than their opinion suggests, and is a disservice to a candidate they consider equally qualified. There is no law that requires the board to pick one of the candidates.
And the reason they chose Mr. Mott?
Manfree property 2017
Manfree property 2020I think few people understand the issues of rural fire protection and the the county's dependence on Cal Fire better than Amber. Her family's property burned in the 1981, 2017 and 2020 fires. Those last two fires provided first hand, on the ground experience (including residents having to do their own firefighting) that will be invaluable in crafting the details of any fire plan the Board will produce.The business community yells the loudest given their losses in the glass fire and the hit on tourism, but residents have just as great a stake in fire protection. It is unlikely that the two candidates will differ in their efforts to maximize fire protection county-wide (unless, of course, the business community claims deforestation for vineyards is a fire protective strategy). Again it is a disservice to elevate one candidate over the other on this issue. It is a thin reed to use to justify appeasing the pro-development bent of the editorial board.
NVR editorial board 2/14/24: Election 2024: Napa Valley Register county supervisor endorsements
Regarding the endorsement of Pete Mott over Amber Manfree:
- "In the end, the board believes whoever wins this race will well represent the district on the board. But it is a choice."
Why do they need to choose when one will represent as well as another? The big type face given to their chosen name implies a greater difference than their opinion suggests, and is a disservice to a candidate they consider equally qualified. There is no law that requires the board to pick one of the candidates.
- "Mott will likely be more open to development and business interests, while Manfree will likely lean toward preserving the area’s natural beauty - perhaps at the expense of those interests. Regardless, we believe both will forcefully protect the limits of the Agricultural Preserve, something voters in Napa County have long demanded of its leaders."
And the reason they chose Mr. Mott?
- "Despite all this, we choose Mott. We particularly liked the specificity of his plans regarding rural fire protection...."
Manfree property 2017Manfree property 2020
Small Winery Ordinance on: The Winery Glut
Bill Hocker - Nov 10,23 expand... Share
Comments
George Caloyannidis - Jul 10, 2017 7:50AM
[Comment submission to Dir. Morrison re limited winery ordinance]
Dear David,
Attached is my revised comment on the Limited Winery Ordinance.
I revised Section "H" with a calculation of visitors this Ordinance would permit which is so staggering that one has to indeed wonder what thought if any is behind it.
George
Small Winery Ordinance Comment
And Divid Morrison's response:
From: Morrison, David [mailto:David.Morrison@countyofnapa.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 1:14 AM
Subject: RE: SMALL WINERY ORDINANCE
George,
With all due respect, I strongly disagree with several of the statements made in your letter.
A. There is a policy reason for the draft ordinance. It says so in the third paragraph of the ordinance recitals, where it states: 'Action Item AG/LU-16.1 directs that consideration be given to amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that define "small wineries," a "small quantity of wine," "small marketing events," and "mostly grown on site," and establishes a streamlined permitting process for small wineries which retains the requirement for a use permit when the winery is in proximity to urban areas. In turn, the Action Item implements Policy AG/LU-16, which states:
In recognition of their limited impacts, the County will consider affording small wineries a streamlined permitting process. For purposes of this policy, small wineries are those that produce a small quantity of wine using grapes mostly grown on site and host a limited number of small marketing events each year.
The County's intent and purpose in considering this ordinance is clear. It is to amend the County Code and create a simpler permit review process that reflects the limited impacts of smaller wineries. You may not agree with the policy, but the basis for this action does not require any surmise.
I would also point out that the proposed ordinance does not minimize either public scrutiny or the CEQA process. Applications considered under the draft ordinance would still be subject to CEQA review. They may obtain a Categorical Exemption, if they qualify, as they may currently do under the adopted Local CEQA Guidelines. If they do not qualify for a Cat Ex, then a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or EIR will be prepared, as is appropriate. The draft ordinance would not change CEQA review in any way. Similarly, applications under the draft ordinance would still be noticed to all neighboring property owners within 1,000 feet of the project, still be noticed in the newspaper, and would be considered in a public hearing, where interested parties may testify, and any resulting decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The draft ordinance would not minimize public scrutiny in any way.
B. There appears to be a misunderstanding. The provisions of the draft ordinance would be available to all wineries that meet the qualifying criteria, whether they are newly established or are already established and want to modify their existing use permit within the constraints of the definition of a limited winery. To do otherwise, would create an unfair advantage for one class of business over another.
C. Why is 30,000 gallons considered a small (or in this case limited) winery? Because that is how they are defined in Napa County's Local Procedures for Implementing CEQA. Appendix B, Class 3, Subsection 10 states:
Construction and operation of small wineries, other agricultural processing facilities, and farm management uses that:
(a) are less than 5,000 square feet in size excluding caves;
(b) will involve either no cave excavation, or excavation sufficient to create no more than 5,000 additional square feet with all of the excavated cave spoils to be used on site;
(c) will produce 30,000 gallons or less per year;
(d) will generate less than 40 vehicle trips per day and 5 peak hour trips except on those days when marketing events are taking place;
(e) will hold no more than 10 marketing events per year, each with no more than 30 attendees, except for one wine auction event with up to 100 persons in attendance; AND
(f) will hold no temporary events.
As for national metrics, wine economists generally categorize wineries as follows:
Large - 500,000 cases and up (1,2 million gallons)
Medium - 50,000 cases to 500,000 cases (120,000 - 1.2 million gallons)
Small - 5,000 cases to 50,000 cases (12,000 - 120,000 gallons)
Very Small - 1,000 cases to 5,000 cases (2,400 - 12,000 gallons)
Limited - less than 1,000 cases (under 2,400 gallons)
By this standard also, 30,000 gallons is considered a small winery.
D. The focus of the draft ordinance is to provide some relief to small and family-owned businesses. If there are many such businesses, should they be denied relief simply because of their number, or should policy instead be based on their circumstances?
For clarification sake, about 1/3 of the wineries listed on the Napa County database would fall within the criteria of the draft ordinance. While there are more wineries that produce under 30,000 gallons, about 70 of those wineries have buildings, caves, visitation levels, or marketing events that exceed the definition of a "limited winery."
E. I don't agree that there is a contradiction. If wineries were to take advantage of the draft ordinance (should it be adopted) to increase production to 30,000 gallons, they would still be small wineries. There is only a contradiction if you define a small winery as having much lower production. I do not share that perspective.
F. Once again, I have to disagree. The cumulative impacts of winery development was already evaluated in the General Plan EIR, which was certified in 2008. Each winery permitted under the draft ordinance would undergo appropriate project-specific CEQA review. The draft ordinance does not allow any additional winery development not already anticipated in the General Plan. In fact, as stated previously, the draft ordinance is a direct implementation of the General Plan. Additional cumulative CEQA review of the draft ordinance is not required, in my opinion.
G. See F above.
H. See F above.
I. With regards to justifying the consideration of the draft ordinance, that was part of the policy debate regarding the General Plan in 2008. The purpose of the General Plan is to provide a set of policies under which the County would operate over the following 25 years. That is why adopting comprehensive General Plan updates is such a lengthy and expensive process. If you believe that circumstances have changed since 2008, you may want to request that the Board amend the General Plan to delete Policy AG/LU-16. Again, you may not agree with the idea, but an adopted policy carries significant legal weight.
If you are suggesting that the production level for limited wineries in the draft ordinance could be reduced to 15,000 or 20,000 gallons annually, I agree. The 30,000 gallon criterion was initially offered as a starting point for public discussion, but one that was consistent with the adopted Local CEQA Guidelines. Others have also suggested a lower threshold. The Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors are free to use an alternate metric.
J. Once again, I have to disagree. Length of time in permit review does not necessarily equate to public benefit. Staff is required to follow State law, which includes the Permit Streamlining Act. There is a balance between the exercise of private property rights and public interest. This ordinance would continue to provide full public review and participation for the review of development applications.
The draft ordinance would not permit any greater level of winery development than is already allowed under the General Plan, which evaluated the cumulative impacts of winery and vineyard development between 2005 and 2030. As this ordinance would not increase that potential, further cumulative analysis is not required.
The Zoning Administrator would not become a "winery czar," any more than the Planning Commission could be described as such. The Zoning Administrator currently makes decisions regarding Use Permit Modifications, Variances, Certificates of Non-Conformance, and other applications. This would be similar to the Administrator's existing duties. The Administrator's decisions may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, who ultimately is responsible for setting policy in the County.
As always, I am happy to discuss these issues and welcome constructive dialogue towards developing a better draft ordinance.
Thank you for you comments.
Respectfully,
David
And George Caloyannidis' response
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 11:37 AM
To: 'Morrison, David'
Subject: FW: SMALL WINERY ORDINANCE
Thank you David.
Your statements are technically correct as they reflect the provisions of the Ordinance which are already known. However, they neither refute or specifically address mine because by their nature, they try to show the shortcomings of the Ordinance. Specifically, your statements do not provide answers to the points I presented.
• They do not explain the rationale for the need of the Ordinance other than to make things easier for applicants.
• They do not explain by what standard (or reason) a 30,000 gallon production winery is a new "small" one when 52% of all existing wineries in the county produce less.
• They fail to explain why potential quantifying data have not been presented to the Planning Commission.
• They do not explain why potential impacts of the Ordinance have not been presented to the Planning Commission or even a suggestion by staff that there may be worthy of consideration.
• They fail to explain which specific provisions of the Ordinance are the ones which facilitates its "streamlining". What specifically has been eliminated from the current process and what is its downside?
Maintaining that the Administrator's decisions may still be appealed to the BOS is correct but let's stop trying to hide the fact that it facilitates a process by which many of his/hers decisions will occur under the public's radar. Unless you can explain otherwise, this is the main instrument behind the "streamlining" of the process.
The 1,000 foot notification radius is grossly insufficient. Has staff tried to put the adequacy of such radius into perspective? For example, how many property owners would be notified if some of the randomly selected wineries below would apply?
Colgin (20,000)
Dalla Valle (20,000)
Diamond Mountain (10,000)
Kongsgaard (12,000)
Mayacamas (5,000)
Saddleback (8,000)
Signorello (20,000)
Titus (25,000)
Does Staff seriously believe that a 1,000 foot radius is sufficient to serve the public interest? Or does this number prove my point?
But the main concerns is the roundabout way by which this Ordinance will have advanced the Napa county CEQA baseline (traffic, water etc.) without CEQA review.
Your response does not address how an Ordinance which has the potential to incrementally add 3,564,277 gallons of production to the EXISTING "small" wineries, add 7,931 acres of vineyards plus 3,248,628 annual visitors is not cause for alarm meriting responsible environmental review. Mind you, this does NOT include special event visits NOR the impacts of NEW "small" winery streamlined applications, the number of which staff has also failed to make a credible effort to quantify.
These are massive numbers with potentially profound cumulative impacts - none of which were presented to the Planning Commission or the BOS for consideration - but obvious to any thinking person. They are so obvious that it is hard to hide the agenda driving this Ordinance by disingenuously hiding it under the innocent clothing of "SMALL".
George
PS: When will the Ordinance be heard by the BOS?
Dear David,
Attached is my revised comment on the Limited Winery Ordinance.
I revised Section "H" with a calculation of visitors this Ordinance would permit which is so staggering that one has to indeed wonder what thought if any is behind it.
George
Small Winery Ordinance Comment
And Divid Morrison's response:
From: Morrison, David [mailto:David.Morrison@countyofnapa.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 1:14 AM
Subject: RE: SMALL WINERY ORDINANCE
George,
With all due respect, I strongly disagree with several of the statements made in your letter.
A. There is a policy reason for the draft ordinance. It says so in the third paragraph of the ordinance recitals, where it states: 'Action Item AG/LU-16.1 directs that consideration be given to amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that define "small wineries," a "small quantity of wine," "small marketing events," and "mostly grown on site," and establishes a streamlined permitting process for small wineries which retains the requirement for a use permit when the winery is in proximity to urban areas. In turn, the Action Item implements Policy AG/LU-16, which states:
In recognition of their limited impacts, the County will consider affording small wineries a streamlined permitting process. For purposes of this policy, small wineries are those that produce a small quantity of wine using grapes mostly grown on site and host a limited number of small marketing events each year.
The County's intent and purpose in considering this ordinance is clear. It is to amend the County Code and create a simpler permit review process that reflects the limited impacts of smaller wineries. You may not agree with the policy, but the basis for this action does not require any surmise.
I would also point out that the proposed ordinance does not minimize either public scrutiny or the CEQA process. Applications considered under the draft ordinance would still be subject to CEQA review. They may obtain a Categorical Exemption, if they qualify, as they may currently do under the adopted Local CEQA Guidelines. If they do not qualify for a Cat Ex, then a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or EIR will be prepared, as is appropriate. The draft ordinance would not change CEQA review in any way. Similarly, applications under the draft ordinance would still be noticed to all neighboring property owners within 1,000 feet of the project, still be noticed in the newspaper, and would be considered in a public hearing, where interested parties may testify, and any resulting decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The draft ordinance would not minimize public scrutiny in any way.
B. There appears to be a misunderstanding. The provisions of the draft ordinance would be available to all wineries that meet the qualifying criteria, whether they are newly established or are already established and want to modify their existing use permit within the constraints of the definition of a limited winery. To do otherwise, would create an unfair advantage for one class of business over another.
C. Why is 30,000 gallons considered a small (or in this case limited) winery? Because that is how they are defined in Napa County's Local Procedures for Implementing CEQA. Appendix B, Class 3, Subsection 10 states:
Construction and operation of small wineries, other agricultural processing facilities, and farm management uses that:
(a) are less than 5,000 square feet in size excluding caves;
(b) will involve either no cave excavation, or excavation sufficient to create no more than 5,000 additional square feet with all of the excavated cave spoils to be used on site;
(c) will produce 30,000 gallons or less per year;
(d) will generate less than 40 vehicle trips per day and 5 peak hour trips except on those days when marketing events are taking place;
(e) will hold no more than 10 marketing events per year, each with no more than 30 attendees, except for one wine auction event with up to 100 persons in attendance; AND
(f) will hold no temporary events.
As for national metrics, wine economists generally categorize wineries as follows:
Large - 500,000 cases and up (1,2 million gallons)
Medium - 50,000 cases to 500,000 cases (120,000 - 1.2 million gallons)
Small - 5,000 cases to 50,000 cases (12,000 - 120,000 gallons)
Very Small - 1,000 cases to 5,000 cases (2,400 - 12,000 gallons)
Limited - less than 1,000 cases (under 2,400 gallons)
By this standard also, 30,000 gallons is considered a small winery.
D. The focus of the draft ordinance is to provide some relief to small and family-owned businesses. If there are many such businesses, should they be denied relief simply because of their number, or should policy instead be based on their circumstances?
For clarification sake, about 1/3 of the wineries listed on the Napa County database would fall within the criteria of the draft ordinance. While there are more wineries that produce under 30,000 gallons, about 70 of those wineries have buildings, caves, visitation levels, or marketing events that exceed the definition of a "limited winery."
E. I don't agree that there is a contradiction. If wineries were to take advantage of the draft ordinance (should it be adopted) to increase production to 30,000 gallons, they would still be small wineries. There is only a contradiction if you define a small winery as having much lower production. I do not share that perspective.
F. Once again, I have to disagree. The cumulative impacts of winery development was already evaluated in the General Plan EIR, which was certified in 2008. Each winery permitted under the draft ordinance would undergo appropriate project-specific CEQA review. The draft ordinance does not allow any additional winery development not already anticipated in the General Plan. In fact, as stated previously, the draft ordinance is a direct implementation of the General Plan. Additional cumulative CEQA review of the draft ordinance is not required, in my opinion.
G. See F above.
H. See F above.
I. With regards to justifying the consideration of the draft ordinance, that was part of the policy debate regarding the General Plan in 2008. The purpose of the General Plan is to provide a set of policies under which the County would operate over the following 25 years. That is why adopting comprehensive General Plan updates is such a lengthy and expensive process. If you believe that circumstances have changed since 2008, you may want to request that the Board amend the General Plan to delete Policy AG/LU-16. Again, you may not agree with the idea, but an adopted policy carries significant legal weight.
If you are suggesting that the production level for limited wineries in the draft ordinance could be reduced to 15,000 or 20,000 gallons annually, I agree. The 30,000 gallon criterion was initially offered as a starting point for public discussion, but one that was consistent with the adopted Local CEQA Guidelines. Others have also suggested a lower threshold. The Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors are free to use an alternate metric.
J. Once again, I have to disagree. Length of time in permit review does not necessarily equate to public benefit. Staff is required to follow State law, which includes the Permit Streamlining Act. There is a balance between the exercise of private property rights and public interest. This ordinance would continue to provide full public review and participation for the review of development applications.
The draft ordinance would not permit any greater level of winery development than is already allowed under the General Plan, which evaluated the cumulative impacts of winery and vineyard development between 2005 and 2030. As this ordinance would not increase that potential, further cumulative analysis is not required.
The Zoning Administrator would not become a "winery czar," any more than the Planning Commission could be described as such. The Zoning Administrator currently makes decisions regarding Use Permit Modifications, Variances, Certificates of Non-Conformance, and other applications. This would be similar to the Administrator's existing duties. The Administrator's decisions may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, who ultimately is responsible for setting policy in the County.
As always, I am happy to discuss these issues and welcome constructive dialogue towards developing a better draft ordinance.
Thank you for you comments.
Respectfully,
David
And George Caloyannidis' response
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 11:37 AM
To: 'Morrison, David'
Subject: FW: SMALL WINERY ORDINANCE
Thank you David.
Your statements are technically correct as they reflect the provisions of the Ordinance which are already known. However, they neither refute or specifically address mine because by their nature, they try to show the shortcomings of the Ordinance. Specifically, your statements do not provide answers to the points I presented.
• They do not explain the rationale for the need of the Ordinance other than to make things easier for applicants.
• They do not explain by what standard (or reason) a 30,000 gallon production winery is a new "small" one when 52% of all existing wineries in the county produce less.
• They fail to explain why potential quantifying data have not been presented to the Planning Commission.
• They do not explain why potential impacts of the Ordinance have not been presented to the Planning Commission or even a suggestion by staff that there may be worthy of consideration.
• They fail to explain which specific provisions of the Ordinance are the ones which facilitates its "streamlining". What specifically has been eliminated from the current process and what is its downside?
Maintaining that the Administrator's decisions may still be appealed to the BOS is correct but let's stop trying to hide the fact that it facilitates a process by which many of his/hers decisions will occur under the public's radar. Unless you can explain otherwise, this is the main instrument behind the "streamlining" of the process.
The 1,000 foot notification radius is grossly insufficient. Has staff tried to put the adequacy of such radius into perspective? For example, how many property owners would be notified if some of the randomly selected wineries below would apply?
Colgin (20,000)
Dalla Valle (20,000)
Diamond Mountain (10,000)
Kongsgaard (12,000)
Mayacamas (5,000)
Saddleback (8,000)
Signorello (20,000)
Titus (25,000)
Does Staff seriously believe that a 1,000 foot radius is sufficient to serve the public interest? Or does this number prove my point?
But the main concerns is the roundabout way by which this Ordinance will have advanced the Napa county CEQA baseline (traffic, water etc.) without CEQA review.
Your response does not address how an Ordinance which has the potential to incrementally add 3,564,277 gallons of production to the EXISTING "small" wineries, add 7,931 acres of vineyards plus 3,248,628 annual visitors is not cause for alarm meriting responsible environmental review. Mind you, this does NOT include special event visits NOR the impacts of NEW "small" winery streamlined applications, the number of which staff has also failed to make a credible effort to quantify.
These are massive numbers with potentially profound cumulative impacts - none of which were presented to the Planning Commission or the BOS for consideration - but obvious to any thinking person. They are so obvious that it is hard to hide the agenda driving this Ordinance by disingenuously hiding it under the innocent clothing of "SMALL".
George
PS: When will the Ordinance be heard by the BOS?
More needs to be done to protect groundwater on: Watershed Issues
Daniel Mufson - Oct 17,23 expand... Share
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all are endowed with certain inalienable rights…among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and, an adequate supply of fresh water.”
Recent articles have described the uncontrolled growth of wine tourism in Napa. The county does not seem to track cumulative impacts of this growth on traffic, greenhouse gas emissions or water usage. There is not a firm understanding of how much groundwater is stored in the valley floor, nor any clear idea about the capacity of the watersheds. However, there is now an understanding that we are currently using groundwater at an unsustainable rate.
To remedy our situation, studies will be called for, new wells dug to judge water levels, but still there is no clear data on how much water is used and by whom. Until recently, the general rule has been that each parcel can use an acre foot (about 326,000 gallons) per acre to irrigate or process wine, but in January 2022, as a part of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan approved the California Department of Water Resources, that rule was modified to limit use of new wells on the valley floor to 0.3 af per acre. Domestic wells are considered de minimis users and are exempt from this ruling.
People are also reading…
Winning ticket for $1.765 billion Powerball jackpot bought in tiny California mountain town
How to (safely) watch the 'ring of fire' solar eclipse in California
Passenger suffers major injuries in Napa County crash
Napa County's new $133 million jail going up
Although this change in law limits the pumping of new wells, it does little to regulate the numerous wells on the valley floor already in operation. One property can use more water than an adjacent property just because of the date its well was drilled, and a property can use so much water that the water table drops, depriving neighbors of water, even if that pumping is allowed by the existing regulations. This is the lesson of “The Tragedy of the Commons.” The tragedy of the commons refers to a situation in which individuals with access to a public resource (also called a common) act in their own interest and, in doing so, ultimately deplete the resource.
A recent New York Times study of the aquifers in United States warns that we are using more water than can be restored, and, as a result, we are running out of water. Agriculture is the main user. In Napa County, agriculture uses up to 72% of the known groundwater.
It is long past due that Napa Country should require water meters on all wells along with an automated meter reading (AMR) and real-time consumption data. Joy Eldredge, manager of the city of Napa's water supply department, stated this two years ago when serving on the Ground Water Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee: “To ensure a sustainable groundwater supply, outflow and recharge must be quantified. It is difficult to comprehend long-term management of the resource so long as the extraction and use of the resource is not understood.” “We simply cannot accurately study what we do not adequately measure.”
Sadly, Ms. Eldredge’s thoughtful, intelligent presentation was moved to the end of several meeting agendas and somehow not gotten to, for several sessions and then shortened. This critical concept seems to be anathema to Napa Country and some in the agricultural community. This attitude is foolish!" it’s akin to having a family checking account without any controls on who is writing checks.
Groundwater agencies in Sonoma, Santa Cruz and others have come to realize the need to meter and report all non-domestic wells:
Collection and reporting of well flow data are integral to enable proactive and adaptive management of groundwater resources and documentation of seasonal fluctuation in water demand. This data is more accurate than evapotranspiration estimates and will provide additional data for model calibration. In addition to providing an estimate of groundwater production, groundwater flow data may be used by the CBGSA in conjunction with groundwater level data to improve understanding of groundwater basin conditions. This is especially important for sustainable regional management of groundwater resources.
That makes sense. Any thinking person knows that metering is necessary to ensure reasonable and fair sharing of this life-giving resource. So when will Napa County do the right thing? Are they really going to wait until 2040?
NVR Version 10/14/23: More needs to be done to protect groundwater
Recent articles have described the uncontrolled growth of wine tourism in Napa. The county does not seem to track cumulative impacts of this growth on traffic, greenhouse gas emissions or water usage. There is not a firm understanding of how much groundwater is stored in the valley floor, nor any clear idea about the capacity of the watersheds. However, there is now an understanding that we are currently using groundwater at an unsustainable rate.
To remedy our situation, studies will be called for, new wells dug to judge water levels, but still there is no clear data on how much water is used and by whom. Until recently, the general rule has been that each parcel can use an acre foot (about 326,000 gallons) per acre to irrigate or process wine, but in January 2022, as a part of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan approved the California Department of Water Resources, that rule was modified to limit use of new wells on the valley floor to 0.3 af per acre. Domestic wells are considered de minimis users and are exempt from this ruling.
People are also reading…
Winning ticket for $1.765 billion Powerball jackpot bought in tiny California mountain town
How to (safely) watch the 'ring of fire' solar eclipse in California
Passenger suffers major injuries in Napa County crash
Napa County's new $133 million jail going up
Although this change in law limits the pumping of new wells, it does little to regulate the numerous wells on the valley floor already in operation. One property can use more water than an adjacent property just because of the date its well was drilled, and a property can use so much water that the water table drops, depriving neighbors of water, even if that pumping is allowed by the existing regulations. This is the lesson of “The Tragedy of the Commons.” The tragedy of the commons refers to a situation in which individuals with access to a public resource (also called a common) act in their own interest and, in doing so, ultimately deplete the resource.
A recent New York Times study of the aquifers in United States warns that we are using more water than can be restored, and, as a result, we are running out of water. Agriculture is the main user. In Napa County, agriculture uses up to 72% of the known groundwater.
It is long past due that Napa Country should require water meters on all wells along with an automated meter reading (AMR) and real-time consumption data. Joy Eldredge, manager of the city of Napa's water supply department, stated this two years ago when serving on the Ground Water Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee: “To ensure a sustainable groundwater supply, outflow and recharge must be quantified. It is difficult to comprehend long-term management of the resource so long as the extraction and use of the resource is not understood.” “We simply cannot accurately study what we do not adequately measure.”
Sadly, Ms. Eldredge’s thoughtful, intelligent presentation was moved to the end of several meeting agendas and somehow not gotten to, for several sessions and then shortened. This critical concept seems to be anathema to Napa Country and some in the agricultural community. This attitude is foolish!" it’s akin to having a family checking account without any controls on who is writing checks.
Groundwater agencies in Sonoma, Santa Cruz and others have come to realize the need to meter and report all non-domestic wells:
Collection and reporting of well flow data are integral to enable proactive and adaptive management of groundwater resources and documentation of seasonal fluctuation in water demand. This data is more accurate than evapotranspiration estimates and will provide additional data for model calibration. In addition to providing an estimate of groundwater production, groundwater flow data may be used by the CBGSA in conjunction with groundwater level data to improve understanding of groundwater basin conditions. This is especially important for sustainable regional management of groundwater resources.
That makes sense. Any thinking person knows that metering is necessary to ensure reasonable and fair sharing of this life-giving resource. So when will Napa County do the right thing? Are they really going to wait until 2040?
NVR Version 10/14/23: More needs to be done to protect groundwater
My First ChatGPT on: Open Comments
Bill Hocker - Aug 23,23 expand... Share
I tried out ChatGPT, and I have to admit that the results sorta lived up to the hype. I can see why authors and consumers of the written word in any form will be impacted by the technology. I tried a couple of simple questions with complex ramifications that I thought might be illuminating.
My first question:
"Tell me about tourism in the Napa Valley" with the followup "What is the best way to reduce tourism to the Napa Valley?"
Link to the ChatGTP response
My next question:
"Should agriculture be limited to protect groundwater and forests?" followed up with "Should vineyards in napa valley hillsides be limited to protect groundwater and forests?" (which should have been my only question)
Link to the ChatGPT response
The responses could have been taken directly from Visit Napa Valley or the Napa County General Plan. The art of writing may now be in knowing what questions to ask. It is pretty obvious with just one try that the technology will drastically change the lives of anyone that writes or does research for a living.
My first question:
"Tell me about tourism in the Napa Valley" with the followup "What is the best way to reduce tourism to the Napa Valley?"
Link to the ChatGTP response
My next question:
"Should agriculture be limited to protect groundwater and forests?" followed up with "Should vineyards in napa valley hillsides be limited to protect groundwater and forests?" (which should have been my only question)
Link to the ChatGPT response
The responses could have been taken directly from Visit Napa Valley or the Napa County General Plan. The art of writing may now be in knowing what questions to ask. It is pretty obvious with just one try that the technology will drastically change the lives of anyone that writes or does research for a living.
Le Colline: one more cumulative impact on: Growth Issues
George Caloyannidis - Apr 19,23 expand... Share
I have been following the Le Colline project application. Two arguments in support by the applicant surprised me as considered relevant by people who want to enter the wine-making business in the Napa Valley. And as they are made again and again, they also seem to resonate with the Planning Commission and our Supervisors.
The first applicants’ argument is that planting a vineyard, building a winery, a home and raising their children in the Napa Valley has been their life-long dream. This sounds very romantic, noble and on its face convincing enough.
The second argument this particular applicant - and others before them - made when asked to minimize the scope of their project, is that such reduction would not economically support their business model.
The problem is that there are appropriate places in the Napa Valley to realize these kinds of dreams and inappropriate places without the environmental impacts Le Colline has. There are plenty of data on file on what these impacts are that I don’t need to repeat here.
But the presumption that this Valley has the obligation to make all kinds of concessions in order to facilitate any business anywhere has been promoted by our local government for so long or these types of arguments wouldn’t be made in the first place.
Over the more than two decades I have been here, I have seen how ineffective the County’s so-called mitigation measures have been as it consistently has failed to consider cumulative impacts of the projects it approves. This failure has created incremental deforestation, river bed siltation, commuters and traffic jams, declining school enrollment, affordable housing shortage, the list is endless. Yet, our government has assured us that all these impacts were mitigated by each project. How can such government by worthy of our trust?
If more proof is needed, it is the increasing contention of winery projects, especially ones in the hillsides for which the County’s taxpayers, the applicants and the public are forced to spend inordinate amounts of time and money better spent on our crumbling infrastructure than in lawsuits. The County has failed miserably to safeguard - in fact has promoted - the incremental degradation of our overall quality of life; its foremost obligation. Undaunted, it keeps at it!
NVR LTE version 4/18/23: Le Colline project not a good fit for the area
The first applicants’ argument is that planting a vineyard, building a winery, a home and raising their children in the Napa Valley has been their life-long dream. This sounds very romantic, noble and on its face convincing enough.
The second argument this particular applicant - and others before them - made when asked to minimize the scope of their project, is that such reduction would not economically support their business model.
The problem is that there are appropriate places in the Napa Valley to realize these kinds of dreams and inappropriate places without the environmental impacts Le Colline has. There are plenty of data on file on what these impacts are that I don’t need to repeat here.
But the presumption that this Valley has the obligation to make all kinds of concessions in order to facilitate any business anywhere has been promoted by our local government for so long or these types of arguments wouldn’t be made in the first place.
Over the more than two decades I have been here, I have seen how ineffective the County’s so-called mitigation measures have been as it consistently has failed to consider cumulative impacts of the projects it approves. This failure has created incremental deforestation, river bed siltation, commuters and traffic jams, declining school enrollment, affordable housing shortage, the list is endless. Yet, our government has assured us that all these impacts were mitigated by each project. How can such government by worthy of our trust?
If more proof is needed, it is the increasing contention of winery projects, especially ones in the hillsides for which the County’s taxpayers, the applicants and the public are forced to spend inordinate amounts of time and money better spent on our crumbling infrastructure than in lawsuits. The County has failed miserably to safeguard - in fact has promoted - the incremental degradation of our overall quality of life; its foremost obligation. Undaunted, it keeps at it!
NVR LTE version 4/18/23: Le Colline project not a good fit for the area
Develop a Napa Wine Online Portal on: Solutions
Bill Hocker - Mar 29,23 expand... Share
Update 3/29/23
NVR 3/29/23: Winemaker Dan Petroski's grapes, marketing stand out
This article highlights one of the (probably) numerous wines made in Napa that don't depend on wine tourism to remain in business. They do so through the effective use of online marketing, just as most of the world's businesses do today. A full description of the Massican wines are to be found on the Napa Wine Project website and on the Massican website.
Update 2/14/22
2/14/22: Sen. Dodd Announces Online Wine Auction Bill
Sothbys.com 2/5/22: Napa Valley Library Wine Auction
SF Chronicle 6/15/21: Napa’s extravagant wine auction ends after 40 years, changing to be less ‘elitist’
This all seems to be going in the right direction, increasing the visibility, market and charity clout of Napa wines without increasing the carbon footprint and other deleterious impacts of wine tourism.
Update 8/29/21
NVR 8/29/21: For some Napa Valley wineries, virtual tastings will persist beyond the pandemic
Update 8/9/21
NVR 8/9/21: Stags’ Leap jumps into the world of digital, augmented reality marketing
Update 8/21/20
Paul Mabray, the online wine sales evangelist, made another presentation to the Napa County Planning Commission on 8/19/20. It is the way forward in creating a viable wine industry that doesn't depend on the environmentally and culturally destructive use of tourism as a marketing vehicle. Will the County or the wine industry listen?
Update 4/18/20
NVR 4/18/20: COVID-19 could permanently reshape the business of wine in Napa Valley
This site was born out of the threat of proposed winery tourist attraction on the vineyard next to us at the very remote end of Soda Canyon Road. It was just one example the impact that tourism is having on all who live in Napa County. The basic argument of all of the articles here over the last 6 years is that tourism is bad for the maintenance of an economy based on agriculture and for the survival of a rural, small town lifestyle. Tourism development is an urbanizing process. More buildings are built for tourism venues, more workers must come to staff them, more housing and commercial buildings must be built to serve the workforce, more restaurants and hotels must be built to cater to the tourists, more road and infrastructure improvements must be made serve the increased population. If the tourism economy is successful, the urbanization will continue. At some point the need to accommodate that larger population outweighs the economic viability of agricultural land, and the fields that remain become merely landscaping to give purpose to the tourism industry. The actual wine industry moves to a more economical locale, and the authenticity of a wine making region leaves with it.
Update 2/7/20
NVR 1/24/20: Napa wineries are beginning to chat up customers online
NVR 12/13/19: Amazon could disrupt direct to consumer sphere for Napa wineries
Update 3/11/19
NVR 1/28/19: Winegrowers instructed on 'future-proofing' Napa wine in the digital age
From the Paul Mabray presentation to the NV Grapegrowers:
PressDemocrat 2/24/19: Rely on the numbers? Respected Napa consultant thinks it’s vital for wineries to survive
Forbes 10/12/18: Wine Industry Digital Leader Paul Mabray Pulls No Punches
SVB on Wine 3/15/17: The Tough Questions Wine Clubs Face
SVB State of the Wine Industry 2019
With visitor counts falling every year for the last 4 years in Napa county Rob McMillan advises that "Your winery needs to find new growth and new consumers, and they aren't going to come from the present tasting room approach". (Chapter 9: "Sales and marketing for family wineries" beginning page 45.)
Update 2/25/15
Amber forwards one website that begins to create the Napa Internet Wine Portal envisioned below: Dave Thompson's very cleanly designed site The Napa Wine Project. It is a tremendous, actually astounding, online catalog of Napa wines and their descriptions and backstories. Just the thing to begin to make the necessity of acually visiting the 770+ small wineries he has been to around the county unnecessary. (Of course transporting people to them is how Dave tries to make ends meet.)
The Napa Wine Project
Internet wine merchants:
invino.com Sonoma
nakedwines.com Sonoma
Wine.com no doubt the largest wine e-tailer.
Original Post 2/10/15
It is important to remember that the one purpose of the land use policies articulated in the Napa General Plan is to encourage a market for Napa grapes, not to create a tourist industry to consume Napa wine. Wine sales to tourists have major negative impacts on the character of the valley, on the lives of the people who live here and, I think, on the viability of continuing an agricultural economy. Alternatives need to be pursued.
Currently, according to to Rob McMillan's SVB statistics, 6% of Napa wine is sold via the Internet. His feeling in his presentation to the Planning Comission was that direct sales at the winery were still important because unlike books or shoes, fine wines didn't lend themselves to Internet sales - they can't be returned after they're opened. There may be hurdles, but a technique to sell high-end wine on the internet will eventually be perfected and the need for in-winery sales, which even now constitute only a small portion of the overall sales of Napa wines but have big environmental impacts, will be over. Internet sales promise greater profits to the vintners without the impacts, hence as much effort should be put into an internet portal for Napa wines as has been spent on Visit Napa Valley trying to lure more customers to its bricks and mortar outlets. We need to make sure that the rural character of the valley is not destroyed in the meantime by preventing the construction of tourist facilities which will remain even after their need to support agriculture is gone.
Each winery has its own internet site, of course, so the process works, and someone will eventually become the Zappos of wine. Which is why it is important now for a Napa-only website to be developed that can compete with a larger site when it comes. Such a site, if developed as a quasi-public company like Visit Napa Valley, would profit vintners more than might be the case in a purely private company. The site should extoll the qualities of Napa wines, the importance of the concept of the Ag Preserve to maintain that quality and the reasons that Napa wine is more than just a bottle of wine - it is a piece of winemaking history.
NVR 3/29/23: Winemaker Dan Petroski's grapes, marketing stand out
This article highlights one of the (probably) numerous wines made in Napa that don't depend on wine tourism to remain in business. They do so through the effective use of online marketing, just as most of the world's businesses do today. A full description of the Massican wines are to be found on the Napa Wine Project website and on the Massican website.
Update 2/14/22
2/14/22: Sen. Dodd Announces Online Wine Auction Bill
Sothbys.com 2/5/22: Napa Valley Library Wine Auction
SF Chronicle 6/15/21: Napa’s extravagant wine auction ends after 40 years, changing to be less ‘elitist’
This all seems to be going in the right direction, increasing the visibility, market and charity clout of Napa wines without increasing the carbon footprint and other deleterious impacts of wine tourism.
Update 8/29/21
NVR 8/29/21: For some Napa Valley wineries, virtual tastings will persist beyond the pandemic
Update 8/9/21
NVR 8/9/21: Stags’ Leap jumps into the world of digital, augmented reality marketing
Update 8/21/20
Update 4/18/20
NVR 4/18/20: COVID-19 could permanently reshape the business of wine in Napa Valley
This site was born out of the threat of proposed winery tourist attraction on the vineyard next to us at the very remote end of Soda Canyon Road. It was just one example the impact that tourism is having on all who live in Napa County. The basic argument of all of the articles here over the last 6 years is that tourism is bad for the maintenance of an economy based on agriculture and for the survival of a rural, small town lifestyle. Tourism development is an urbanizing process. More buildings are built for tourism venues, more workers must come to staff them, more housing and commercial buildings must be built to serve the workforce, more restaurants and hotels must be built to cater to the tourists, more road and infrastructure improvements must be made serve the increased population. If the tourism economy is successful, the urbanization will continue. At some point the need to accommodate that larger population outweighs the economic viability of agricultural land, and the fields that remain become merely landscaping to give purpose to the tourism industry. The actual wine industry moves to a more economical locale, and the authenticity of a wine making region leaves with it.
Update 2/7/20
NVR 1/24/20: Napa wineries are beginning to chat up customers online
NVR 12/13/19: Amazon could disrupt direct to consumer sphere for Napa wineries
Update 3/11/19
NVR 1/28/19: Winegrowers instructed on 'future-proofing' Napa wine in the digital age
From the Paul Mabray presentation to the NV Grapegrowers:
"I fundamentally believe that the only way we're going to survive as an industry is how we can help bring Napa Valley into people's homes, without them coming to Napa Valley."
Hear! Hear!PressDemocrat 2/24/19: Rely on the numbers? Respected Napa consultant thinks it’s vital for wineries to survive
Forbes 10/12/18: Wine Industry Digital Leader Paul Mabray Pulls No Punches
SVB on Wine 3/15/17: The Tough Questions Wine Clubs Face
SVB State of the Wine Industry 2019
With visitor counts falling every year for the last 4 years in Napa county Rob McMillan advises that "Your winery needs to find new growth and new consumers, and they aren't going to come from the present tasting room approach". (Chapter 9: "Sales and marketing for family wineries" beginning page 45.)
Update 2/25/15
Amber forwards one website that begins to create the Napa Internet Wine Portal envisioned below: Dave Thompson's very cleanly designed site The Napa Wine Project. It is a tremendous, actually astounding, online catalog of Napa wines and their descriptions and backstories. Just the thing to begin to make the necessity of acually visiting the 770+ small wineries he has been to around the county unnecessary. (Of course transporting people to them is how Dave tries to make ends meet.)
The Napa Wine Project
Internet wine merchants:
invino.com Sonoma
nakedwines.com Sonoma
Wine.com no doubt the largest wine e-tailer.
Original Post 2/10/15
It is important to remember that the one purpose of the land use policies articulated in the Napa General Plan is to encourage a market for Napa grapes, not to create a tourist industry to consume Napa wine. Wine sales to tourists have major negative impacts on the character of the valley, on the lives of the people who live here and, I think, on the viability of continuing an agricultural economy. Alternatives need to be pursued.
Currently, according to to Rob McMillan's SVB statistics, 6% of Napa wine is sold via the Internet. His feeling in his presentation to the Planning Comission was that direct sales at the winery were still important because unlike books or shoes, fine wines didn't lend themselves to Internet sales - they can't be returned after they're opened. There may be hurdles, but a technique to sell high-end wine on the internet will eventually be perfected and the need for in-winery sales, which even now constitute only a small portion of the overall sales of Napa wines but have big environmental impacts, will be over. Internet sales promise greater profits to the vintners without the impacts, hence as much effort should be put into an internet portal for Napa wines as has been spent on Visit Napa Valley trying to lure more customers to its bricks and mortar outlets. We need to make sure that the rural character of the valley is not destroyed in the meantime by preventing the construction of tourist facilities which will remain even after their need to support agriculture is gone.
Each winery has its own internet site, of course, so the process works, and someone will eventually become the Zappos of wine. Which is why it is important now for a Napa-only website to be developed that can compete with a larger site when it comes. Such a site, if developed as a quasi-public company like Visit Napa Valley, would profit vintners more than might be the case in a purely private company. The site should extoll the qualities of Napa wines, the importance of the concept of the Ag Preserve to maintain that quality and the reasons that Napa wine is more than just a bottle of wine - it is a piece of winemaking history.
Napa Soda Springs, County RSS and the BOF on: Napa Soda Springs
Bill Hocker - Mar 13,23 expand... Share
Board of Forestry Fire Safe Regulations & the NCRSS on: Fire Issues
Bill Hocker - Mar 6,23 expand... Share
General Plan Housing Element Amendments on: Affordable Housing
Bill Hocker - Jan 26,23 expand... Share
Board of Forestry education campaign on: Fire Issues
Bill Hocker - Jan 11,23 expand... Share
The California State Board of Forestry, following a 2 year effort to update their Minimum Fire Safe Regulations for fire safe development in State Responsibility Areas, has rolled out an education process to help governments, fire authorities, developers and residents understand the new normal in building in fire-prone environments. (An announcement was just received for training seminars fo rrelated professionals.) There are links to the national non-profit Community Wildfire Planning Center, a wildfire mitigation think tank, to encourage and illustrate fire safe planning and strategies. Their Wildland-urban Interface (WUI) Planning Guide for California is here. (Including a case study on Napa's Fire Hazard Abatement Ordinance). The Guide is in addition to the State's Fire Planning Technical Advisory
There are now layers of documents relating to design in the WUI such as this one: Building to Coexist with Fire: Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California
I will update this post as I find more information about the program and its implication for planning decisions in Napa County including the General Plan Safety Element.
There are now layers of documents relating to design in the WUI such as this one: Building to Coexist with Fire: Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California
I will update this post as I find more information about the program and its implication for planning decisions in Napa County including the General Plan Safety Element.
Anarchy in the hills on: Conservation Regulations
Bill Hocker - Jan 7,23 expand... Share
NVR 1/7/23: Napa County responds in Hundred Acre vineyard case near Calistoga
In one of the more bizarre examples of the anarchy that citizens are increasingly adopting in dealing with their governments, a vineyard developer has simply said that he doesn't have to play by County rules, that he is above the law. Right-wing tactical politics have arrived in Napa County. There may be some sympathetic judges to the argument government regulation can be an overreach when balanced against public well-being. The California First Appellate District court has expressed some sympathy for the fact that CEQA is exacerbating the state's housing crisis. But it is unlikely that they would conclude that trying to prevent hillsides from washing into creeks by regulating hillside development would be too great a burden to place on the development community.
Our complaint on this site is often that our County government has not done enough enforcement of its own regulations, often providing exemptions, exceptions and forgiveness in order to let developers do what they will. In this case the County has, as they occasionally do against blatent scofflaws, done the right thing. Let's hope that reports of the death of the rule-of-law in America are greatly exagerated..
In one of the more bizarre examples of the anarchy that citizens are increasingly adopting in dealing with their governments, a vineyard developer has simply said that he doesn't have to play by County rules, that he is above the law. Right-wing tactical politics have arrived in Napa County. There may be some sympathetic judges to the argument government regulation can be an overreach when balanced against public well-being. The California First Appellate District court has expressed some sympathy for the fact that CEQA is exacerbating the state's housing crisis. But it is unlikely that they would conclude that trying to prevent hillsides from washing into creeks by regulating hillside development would be too great a burden to place on the development community.
Our complaint on this site is often that our County government has not done enough enforcement of its own regulations, often providing exemptions, exceptions and forgiveness in order to let developers do what they will. In this case the County has, as they occasionally do against blatent scofflaws, done the right thing. Let's hope that reports of the death of the rule-of-law in America are greatly exagerated..
The New Board of Supervisors on: Campaign 2022
Bill Hocker - Jan 3,23 expand... Share
1/3/23
NVR 1/3/23: Napa County Board of Supervisors begins new year with new look
While I have many hopes and expectations that there will be a new emphasis on the sustainability of the ag preserve experiment that the county has been engaged in for the last 50 years, the pressure to facilitate economic growth and continue urbanizing the county is unlikely to recede. I hope that new Board is up to the task of curbing the developers' lust to convert ever more of the county's rural heritage into more profitable use.
NVR 1/3/23: Napa County Board of Supervisors begins new year with new look
While I have many hopes and expectations that there will be a new emphasis on the sustainability of the ag preserve experiment that the county has been engaged in for the last 50 years, the pressure to facilitate economic growth and continue urbanizing the county is unlikely to recede. I hope that new Board is up to the task of curbing the developers' lust to convert ever more of the county's rural heritage into more profitable use.
As warehouses fill the wetlands... on: Growth Issues
Bill Hocker - Dec 29,22 expand... Share
The Guardian 12/28/22: Revealed: how warehouses took over southern California ‘like a slow death’
As we have driven up to Napa each weekend for the last 30 years, none of the many changes have been quite as disheartening as the loss of the vistas over the south county wetlands, now blocked by warehouses. As the master plans of the Airport and American Canyon industrial zones have been realized, the entry to the fabled Napa Valley is becoming an alley of tilt-up boxes filled with the noisy grind of semi tractor-trailers coming and going. As I've written about often on this site (here, for example), it is one of the "growth" elements contributing to the demise of Napa as a rural bastion in the urbanizing bay area.
Given the Guardian article above, the concern over the warehouse proliferation, and the destruction of a rural quality of life they bring, is not mine alone.
As we have driven up to Napa each weekend for the last 30 years, none of the many changes have been quite as disheartening as the loss of the vistas over the south county wetlands, now blocked by warehouses. As the master plans of the Airport and American Canyon industrial zones have been realized, the entry to the fabled Napa Valley is becoming an alley of tilt-up boxes filled with the noisy grind of semi tractor-trailers coming and going. As I've written about often on this site (here, for example), it is one of the "growth" elements contributing to the demise of Napa as a rural bastion in the urbanizing bay area.
Given the Guardian article above, the concern over the warehouse proliferation, and the destruction of a rural quality of life they bring, is not mine alone.
Vote for Cottrell and Gallagher on: Campaign 2022
Bill Hocker - Dec 2,22 expand... Share
Update 12/2/22
Despite the small number of people in Napa County it always seems to take a long time for the votes to be counted. Now, almost a month after the polls have closed, the Register has published the results of the races too close to call earlier. (KQED Napa County election results here). Joelle Gallagher and Anne Cottrell were declared winners shortly after the election, but it is good to know now that Don Williams has been elected mayor of Calistoga, Paul Dohring has been elected mayor of St Helena, and the expansion of the AmCan urban-rural line has failed. It has been a sweep for the races that mattered to me, with the candidates and issues winning that are more resistant to the development industry lust that continues to consume the rural character of the county.
10/1/22
Partisan politics, of the red and blue variety, barely raises its head in Napa County. The real political division is between development interests, who built or tapped into a thriving agriculture-tourism economy over the last 50 years and who feel that it can be expanded indefinitely, and preservation interests, including members of the wine industry, who see the process as beginning to exceed sustainable limits in urban growth and resource depletion that threaten the continuation of the county's rural legacy. That division plays out in the makup of Napa County's Board of Supervisors. Napa is Napa, and not Santa Clara, because a preservationist majority on the Board has more often prevailed.
But since 2000 there has been a shift from the Ag Preserve agenda, begun in 1968 and concerned with the constraint of urban development to allow agriculture to survive, to a Board majority more receptive to the "growth" concerns of most governments - how to create ever more jobs, housing, infrastructure and the illusive goal of more government revenue.
The two Napa County supervisors retiring after the coming 2022 election, District 3 Supervisor Diane Dillon and District 1 Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht, are the vestiges of the preservation agenda. Un-coincidentally their districts contain the vast bulk of vineyard acreage in the county. From the standpoint of the many people concerned about development pressure in the county, and who have shown up at Planning Commission and BOS meetings over the last 9 years, they have become the main voices weighing urban development against the desire to preserve an economy based on agriculture and the desire of residents to protect the county's rural character. That balance is now seldom the highest consideration in land use decisions with the focus now on tourism and industrial projects and the workforce housing and infrastructure needed for a "growth" economy..
Unfortunately, even with the election of "preservationists" to replace the two supervisors, it will only maintain the status quo, and the level of development now being approved will continue. But if their replacements are "growth" minded supervisors, it will probably usher in the end of the Ag Preserve experiment as the new board aggressively pushes more development as a solution to the traffic, housing and tight-budget problems caused by the Board's previous development decisions and more tourism as a solution to the declining value of wine to a younger generation more interested in "experiences" than the quality of the wine. If there is any hope of regaining a majority that will support the low-growth ideals of the Ag Preserve heritage, these two seats must be retained in the preservationist camp.
The planning commissioners appointed by Sups. Dillon and Wagenknecht, Anne Cottrell and Joelle Gallagher are both running in their respective districts, and both have made herculean efforts at moderating the scale of development proposals before them at the commission. Both have solid administrative experience that will allow them to take on the myriad issues that Supervisors must deal with on a day to day basis. But they have also proven themselves in the trenches as protectors of the land use legacy that makes Napa distinct from other Bay Area counties, and that is the core of Napa's economy, character and identity. Vote for Cottrell in District 3 and Gallagher in district 1 to preserve that committment to agriculture and rural protection for the next 50 years.
Anne Cottrell website
Joelle Gallagher website
Despite the small number of people in Napa County it always seems to take a long time for the votes to be counted. Now, almost a month after the polls have closed, the Register has published the results of the races too close to call earlier. (KQED Napa County election results here). Joelle Gallagher and Anne Cottrell were declared winners shortly after the election, but it is good to know now that Don Williams has been elected mayor of Calistoga, Paul Dohring has been elected mayor of St Helena, and the expansion of the AmCan urban-rural line has failed. It has been a sweep for the races that mattered to me, with the candidates and issues winning that are more resistant to the development industry lust that continues to consume the rural character of the county.
10/1/22
Partisan politics, of the red and blue variety, barely raises its head in Napa County. The real political division is between development interests, who built or tapped into a thriving agriculture-tourism economy over the last 50 years and who feel that it can be expanded indefinitely, and preservation interests, including members of the wine industry, who see the process as beginning to exceed sustainable limits in urban growth and resource depletion that threaten the continuation of the county's rural legacy. That division plays out in the makup of Napa County's Board of Supervisors. Napa is Napa, and not Santa Clara, because a preservationist majority on the Board has more often prevailed.
But since 2000 there has been a shift from the Ag Preserve agenda, begun in 1968 and concerned with the constraint of urban development to allow agriculture to survive, to a Board majority more receptive to the "growth" concerns of most governments - how to create ever more jobs, housing, infrastructure and the illusive goal of more government revenue.
The two Napa County supervisors retiring after the coming 2022 election, District 3 Supervisor Diane Dillon and District 1 Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht, are the vestiges of the preservation agenda. Un-coincidentally their districts contain the vast bulk of vineyard acreage in the county. From the standpoint of the many people concerned about development pressure in the county, and who have shown up at Planning Commission and BOS meetings over the last 9 years, they have become the main voices weighing urban development against the desire to preserve an economy based on agriculture and the desire of residents to protect the county's rural character. That balance is now seldom the highest consideration in land use decisions with the focus now on tourism and industrial projects and the workforce housing and infrastructure needed for a "growth" economy..
Unfortunately, even with the election of "preservationists" to replace the two supervisors, it will only maintain the status quo, and the level of development now being approved will continue. But if their replacements are "growth" minded supervisors, it will probably usher in the end of the Ag Preserve experiment as the new board aggressively pushes more development as a solution to the traffic, housing and tight-budget problems caused by the Board's previous development decisions and more tourism as a solution to the declining value of wine to a younger generation more interested in "experiences" than the quality of the wine. If there is any hope of regaining a majority that will support the low-growth ideals of the Ag Preserve heritage, these two seats must be retained in the preservationist camp.
The planning commissioners appointed by Sups. Dillon and Wagenknecht, Anne Cottrell and Joelle Gallagher are both running in their respective districts, and both have made herculean efforts at moderating the scale of development proposals before them at the commission. Both have solid administrative experience that will allow them to take on the myriad issues that Supervisors must deal with on a day to day basis. But they have also proven themselves in the trenches as protectors of the land use legacy that makes Napa distinct from other Bay Area counties, and that is the core of Napa's economy, character and identity. Vote for Cottrell in District 3 and Gallagher in district 1 to preserve that committment to agriculture and rural protection for the next 50 years.
Anne Cottrell website
Joelle Gallagher website
Napa Votes for the Environment on: Campaign 2022
Mike Hackett - Nov 23,22 expand... Share
After the narrow defeat of Measure C, the 2018 watershed and oak woodland protection initiative, the local Farm Bureau spokesman publicly stated that the Farm Bureau would become the lead voice in matters relating to the grape farming industry and land use decisions. Since then, large sums of donations have come into the Farm Bureau’s coffers, the vast majority of it from the extremely rich who are interested in the continued development on our watershed lands and open space.
The Farm Bureau courted candidates for the November 2022 election, and even went to far as to award like-minded elected officials and even the former CEO of Napa County, Minh Tran, who supported their development agenda.
But look what happened on Election Day. It was a veritable referendum on the unbridled growth and development ambitions of those that believe that all Napa land is theirs to develop without regard to environmental consequences. Well, the citizens of the county spoke with a resounding voice and expressed their concerns about our environment, social inequities, and awareness that our shared natural resources are at stake. The developer candidates were resoundingly defeated.
Some may call this a watershed moment, and perhaps a watershed election. But what has happened is a reawakening of our voters that unbridled development in this world renowned fragile valley, has negative impacts on many levels, from water quality and availability, to erosion of our hillsides, and the loss of our heritage oaks. All to what purpose? The continued enrichment of Napa Valley’s super rich and the wine conglomerates bottom lines? Or is it for the vainglorious and frivolous acquisitions of environmentally sensitive hillside lands for its future degradation? Since the super-rich have no terminal capacity to their voracious gobbling up of our hillsides and watershed lands, we, as citizens, showed that enough is enough! Big money will no longer control the lens through which our county land-use decisions are made. The first priority will now be, as it should have been all along, “Is it doing further harm to our Napa Valley?”
We are especially proud of the residents from St. Helena who had to make a clear choice about the future of St. Helena. Eric Hall was a development conscious man who would have liked to have seen St. Helena boom into a Vail or Carmel kind of place. Paul Dohring on the other hand, was a strong proponent of maintaining St. Helena’s small town charm. Another clear example of a referendum on the future, proved their desire to keep its current character, thank you very much!
We have hope for the first time in a long time. Everyone saw through the money smoke screen and voted with a sharing attitude. We came here to support one another, not to extract more than is one’s fair share. We celebrate as the Green Wave envelopes us in its warmth. For those of us who love Napa and what it has to offer us, to our children, grandchildren and residents of the next millennium, we think Napa is a living space for us all?"not just the land barons in our midst. Our Mother Earth pleads: ”please stop” and we have answered at the polls.
Mike Hackett and Yeoryios Apallas
NVR version 11/23/22: Election showed Napa residents concerned about environment
The Farm Bureau courted candidates for the November 2022 election, and even went to far as to award like-minded elected officials and even the former CEO of Napa County, Minh Tran, who supported their development agenda.
But look what happened on Election Day. It was a veritable referendum on the unbridled growth and development ambitions of those that believe that all Napa land is theirs to develop without regard to environmental consequences. Well, the citizens of the county spoke with a resounding voice and expressed their concerns about our environment, social inequities, and awareness that our shared natural resources are at stake. The developer candidates were resoundingly defeated.
Some may call this a watershed moment, and perhaps a watershed election. But what has happened is a reawakening of our voters that unbridled development in this world renowned fragile valley, has negative impacts on many levels, from water quality and availability, to erosion of our hillsides, and the loss of our heritage oaks. All to what purpose? The continued enrichment of Napa Valley’s super rich and the wine conglomerates bottom lines? Or is it for the vainglorious and frivolous acquisitions of environmentally sensitive hillside lands for its future degradation? Since the super-rich have no terminal capacity to their voracious gobbling up of our hillsides and watershed lands, we, as citizens, showed that enough is enough! Big money will no longer control the lens through which our county land-use decisions are made. The first priority will now be, as it should have been all along, “Is it doing further harm to our Napa Valley?”
We are especially proud of the residents from St. Helena who had to make a clear choice about the future of St. Helena. Eric Hall was a development conscious man who would have liked to have seen St. Helena boom into a Vail or Carmel kind of place. Paul Dohring on the other hand, was a strong proponent of maintaining St. Helena’s small town charm. Another clear example of a referendum on the future, proved their desire to keep its current character, thank you very much!
We have hope for the first time in a long time. Everyone saw through the money smoke screen and voted with a sharing attitude. We came here to support one another, not to extract more than is one’s fair share. We celebrate as the Green Wave envelopes us in its warmth. For those of us who love Napa and what it has to offer us, to our children, grandchildren and residents of the next millennium, we think Napa is a living space for us all?"not just the land barons in our midst. Our Mother Earth pleads: ”please stop” and we have answered at the polls.
Mike Hackett and Yeoryios Apallas
NVR version 11/23/22: Election showed Napa residents concerned about environment
BOS Revokes Mountain Peak Use Permit on: Mountain Peak Winery
Bill Hocker - Nov 11,22 expand... Share
Napa Soda Springs Resort omnious rebirth on: Napa Soda Springs
Bill Hocker - Nov 7,22 expand... Share
Donald Williams for Calistoga Mayor on: Campaign 2022
Bill Hocker - Nov 1,22 expand... Share
The division between residents trying to maintain the rural, small-town character that has been the hallmark of living in Napa County and a tourism industry trying to exploit that character with ever more venues and visitors is most acute in its up-valley municipalities, St. Helena and Calistoga. As with town councils everywhere, theirs are usually dominated by proponents of the economic growth that tourism brings. But both have been lucky to have the rare candidate come forward representing a commitment to the interests of residents and local businesses over the desires of the tourism industry. Donald Williams, running fo Mayor of Calistoga, is one.
This interview summarizes both his inclusive attitude and his unique commitment to preserving his community:
Interview with Donald Williams, Mayoral Candidate --- October 13, 2022
Q. How long have you lived in Calistoga?
A. I moved here from San Francisco in 1974. After 48 years living in Calistoga and working throughout the valley, I have a pretty fair sense of the history and values and people of our town.
Q. What prompted you to run for council?
A. Five years ago, with many others, I objected to the council’s process for determining water rates. We felt the rates were imposed without due regard for public input. We decided we needed to change the council to better respond to the public. After all, it’s the public that is in charge?"or at least it should be. I was elected, and really?"it’s been an honor to serve our community.
Q. And now you’re a candidate for mayor?
A. Yes. The mayor is one of five council members, each with one vote on any issue. The mayor also conducts council meetings, has input on council agendas, and nominates applicants to various committees. Besides that, at grand openings the mayor wields the ceremonial scissors.
Q. Do you feel equal to that job?
A. Oh yes. I’m handy with tools! Much of my work was in construction, very blue-collar. I think a council is fortunate to have members from a variety of backgrounds. Our council members don’t have to be professional politicians. But they should be well-grounded in local history and values. My tenure on council has been very educational. I’ve learned to navigate city hall, figure out how to help the public get what it wants.
Q. What other work experience do you bring to the job?
A. For 30 years I operated my flooring business. I also taught mathematics for almost 20 years at Napa Valley College. They are very different experiences and interests: construction, education, and now government. They help me see issues through very different lenses. For recreation I go another direction: 19th century novels. Often they talk about life in small towns.
Q. Bringing us back to Calistoga?"you’ve brought up the small town concept before.
A. Yes. But it didn’t originate with me. Our town’s Vision Statement begins, “Calistoga will remain a small, walkable town…” There are dozens of references to its small-town quality throughout our General Plan. When I talk about it, I’m just being respectful of our guiding document. I’m also reflecting the sentiments of many of our residents.
Q. Then you’re anti-growth?
A. A balance is needed, not a one-dimensional view. I avoid drastic heroic measures, such as a total ban on building, or unrestrained development. Artificially stimulated development seems contrary to the spirit of the General Plan. But if projects satisfy zoning and codes, let them proceed. (I supported the Indian Springs expansion for that reason.) If building is mandated by state laws, let it proceed. At the same time, abide by the council’s own guideline?"show a “preference towards smaller alternatives when feasible.” And be mindful of our limits: water, traffic, emergency evacuation.
Q. What are your thoughts about business in Calistoga?
A. I believe in business; that’s a way we take care of each other’s needs. I want businesses in Calistoga to succeed. I want them to make a lot of money. I have 30 years’ experience running my own business in Calistoga. I know what it’s like in the private sector?"to develop a market, manage employees, monitor a budget, provide a service or product, and hope for a profit?"all while dealing with external vectors like competition and macro-economic forces.
In support of business and residents, four years ago I called for greater relief from high water bills. During the pandemic I advocated for elimination of the business license tax?"a small tax, but hey, dollars were scarce for businesses then. The hospitality industry in particular suffered during the pandemic (as well as during the fires and recession). The city’s budget was in jeopardy. So I developed a plan for diversifying our local economy. The council agreed and now offers funding to Calistogans who provide a service or product not otherwise readily available locally. I also wanted our council to remind the county to enforce its food ordinance at wineries, to protect Calistoga’s and other cities’ restaurants.
But I opposed spending money to market Calistoga, because it’s not prudent to spend money where it won’t make a difference. My analysis of data for the last decade showed no correlation between marketing expenditures and tourist tax revenue. External forces were the bigger factor in tax revenue.
Q. Did the council agree with you?
A. They didn’t. But the discussion was respectful. They heard a credible alternative point of view. And it made a difference. The new marketing contract links payment to performance, meaning, if tax revenue declines, so does the city’s payment to the marketing firm.
Q. You dissented from the council sometimes.
A. In the last four years there were maybe a score of dissenting votes?"mostly mine, but still only about 3% of the time. However, every dissent represented some of the public. Each dissent gave hope to residents who might have felt unheard or unacknowledged. Not everyone in town thinks the same; why should anyone expect the council to always vote the same? Different ideas are a measure of true diversity, and that stimulates new ideas.
Q. Can you work with a council with diverse perspectives?
A. Certainly. I’m grateful for the service of every council member. Their ideas are important. Respectful, open, fair dialogue benefits our community. I look forward to that.
Q. What would you like the council to work on in the future?
A. The fairgrounds. It’s an integral part of Calistoga. The public wants it restored to public use and so do I. Second, as I go door-to-door to voters’ residences, I hear about water bills. Some trade-offs in the budget may be needed to respond to that issue.
Promoting economic diversity is also important. Not that it’ll replace tourism, but it could be a good backup. And I agree with a Chamber report that public art is important and should be
Maybe most important of all is engaging the public with the council. The council can’t very well represent residents if it doesn’t know what they want. To be good leaders we need to be good listeners.
Instagram: @donaldwilliamscalistoga
Facebook:https://tinyurl.com/donaldwilliamscalistoga
Website: www.donaldcalistoga.com
Also of interest:
Erika Pusey LTE 9/23/22: Donald Williams for Calistoga Mayor
Dennis Lang LTE 9/17/22: Vote for Donald Williams
Donald Williams LTE 11/15/21: Inform yourself, speak up early on important issues
Donald Williams LTE 9/29/20: Upvalley hotels and chasing the tourist dollars
This interview summarizes both his inclusive attitude and his unique commitment to preserving his community:
Interview with Donald Williams, Mayoral Candidate --- October 13, 2022
Q. How long have you lived in Calistoga?
A. I moved here from San Francisco in 1974. After 48 years living in Calistoga and working throughout the valley, I have a pretty fair sense of the history and values and people of our town.
Q. What prompted you to run for council?
A. Five years ago, with many others, I objected to the council’s process for determining water rates. We felt the rates were imposed without due regard for public input. We decided we needed to change the council to better respond to the public. After all, it’s the public that is in charge?"or at least it should be. I was elected, and really?"it’s been an honor to serve our community.
Q. And now you’re a candidate for mayor?
A. Yes. The mayor is one of five council members, each with one vote on any issue. The mayor also conducts council meetings, has input on council agendas, and nominates applicants to various committees. Besides that, at grand openings the mayor wields the ceremonial scissors.
Q. Do you feel equal to that job?
A. Oh yes. I’m handy with tools! Much of my work was in construction, very blue-collar. I think a council is fortunate to have members from a variety of backgrounds. Our council members don’t have to be professional politicians. But they should be well-grounded in local history and values. My tenure on council has been very educational. I’ve learned to navigate city hall, figure out how to help the public get what it wants.
Q. What other work experience do you bring to the job?
A. For 30 years I operated my flooring business. I also taught mathematics for almost 20 years at Napa Valley College. They are very different experiences and interests: construction, education, and now government. They help me see issues through very different lenses. For recreation I go another direction: 19th century novels. Often they talk about life in small towns.
Q. Bringing us back to Calistoga?"you’ve brought up the small town concept before.
A. Yes. But it didn’t originate with me. Our town’s Vision Statement begins, “Calistoga will remain a small, walkable town…” There are dozens of references to its small-town quality throughout our General Plan. When I talk about it, I’m just being respectful of our guiding document. I’m also reflecting the sentiments of many of our residents.
Q. Then you’re anti-growth?
A. A balance is needed, not a one-dimensional view. I avoid drastic heroic measures, such as a total ban on building, or unrestrained development. Artificially stimulated development seems contrary to the spirit of the General Plan. But if projects satisfy zoning and codes, let them proceed. (I supported the Indian Springs expansion for that reason.) If building is mandated by state laws, let it proceed. At the same time, abide by the council’s own guideline?"show a “preference towards smaller alternatives when feasible.” And be mindful of our limits: water, traffic, emergency evacuation.
Q. What are your thoughts about business in Calistoga?
A. I believe in business; that’s a way we take care of each other’s needs. I want businesses in Calistoga to succeed. I want them to make a lot of money. I have 30 years’ experience running my own business in Calistoga. I know what it’s like in the private sector?"to develop a market, manage employees, monitor a budget, provide a service or product, and hope for a profit?"all while dealing with external vectors like competition and macro-economic forces.
In support of business and residents, four years ago I called for greater relief from high water bills. During the pandemic I advocated for elimination of the business license tax?"a small tax, but hey, dollars were scarce for businesses then. The hospitality industry in particular suffered during the pandemic (as well as during the fires and recession). The city’s budget was in jeopardy. So I developed a plan for diversifying our local economy. The council agreed and now offers funding to Calistogans who provide a service or product not otherwise readily available locally. I also wanted our council to remind the county to enforce its food ordinance at wineries, to protect Calistoga’s and other cities’ restaurants.
But I opposed spending money to market Calistoga, because it’s not prudent to spend money where it won’t make a difference. My analysis of data for the last decade showed no correlation between marketing expenditures and tourist tax revenue. External forces were the bigger factor in tax revenue.
Q. Did the council agree with you?
A. They didn’t. But the discussion was respectful. They heard a credible alternative point of view. And it made a difference. The new marketing contract links payment to performance, meaning, if tax revenue declines, so does the city’s payment to the marketing firm.
Q. You dissented from the council sometimes.
A. In the last four years there were maybe a score of dissenting votes?"mostly mine, but still only about 3% of the time. However, every dissent represented some of the public. Each dissent gave hope to residents who might have felt unheard or unacknowledged. Not everyone in town thinks the same; why should anyone expect the council to always vote the same? Different ideas are a measure of true diversity, and that stimulates new ideas.
Q. Can you work with a council with diverse perspectives?
A. Certainly. I’m grateful for the service of every council member. Their ideas are important. Respectful, open, fair dialogue benefits our community. I look forward to that.
Q. What would you like the council to work on in the future?
A. The fairgrounds. It’s an integral part of Calistoga. The public wants it restored to public use and so do I. Second, as I go door-to-door to voters’ residences, I hear about water bills. Some trade-offs in the budget may be needed to respond to that issue.
Promoting economic diversity is also important. Not that it’ll replace tourism, but it could be a good backup. And I agree with a Chamber report that public art is important and should be
Maybe most important of all is engaging the public with the council. The council can’t very well represent residents if it doesn’t know what they want. To be good leaders we need to be good listeners.
Instagram: @donaldwilliamscalistoga
Facebook:https://tinyurl.com/donaldwilliamscalistoga
Website: www.donaldcalistoga.com
Also of interest:
Erika Pusey LTE 9/23/22: Donald Williams for Calistoga Mayor
Dennis Lang LTE 9/17/22: Vote for Donald Williams
Donald Williams LTE 11/15/21: Inform yourself, speak up early on important issues
Donald Williams LTE 9/29/20: Upvalley hotels and chasing the tourist dollars
Napa County questions Cal Fire services on: Fire Issues
Bill Hocker - Oct 26,22 expand... Share
NVR 10/25/22: Napa County looking at how to run county fire services
Video of BOS 10/18/22 meeting
For 90 years Cal-Fire has provided fire protection services to Napa County in both the State Responsibility Areas (wildlands) of the county as well as the unincorporated areas of the county not in the SRA. The protection outside the SRA is separately contracted and that contract is up for renewal. The county has done a study to determine how much it would cost for the county to have its own fire department and not rely on Cal Fire. The study determined that there would be over $5 million/yr in extra personnel costs. The costs of additional fire stations and fire equipment was not calculated.
Not addressed in the study or the discussion with the BOS was why the county would be considering the change after 90 years. Is the county miffed that Cal-fire wants to limit future development in much of the county? The change seems to have been supported by the Napa Valley Vintners. Did Cal-fire let them county down in the Glass Fire?
Barry Eberling, in his article, highlights one quote from a report that was not among the documents presented to the BOS in their Oct 18 meeting. The quote was, to me at least, telling: "Recent catastrophic fires in Napa County and the popularity of our community bringing countless visitors to our majestic valley have influenced the need to ensure that our fire protection services are able to provide the highest level of service possible." Tourists, apparently, need more protection than residents. It is, of course, one more specific example of the transition from an agricultural to a tourism economy and, to my mind, from a rural to an urban county as ever more tourist attractions are built needing an ever increasing supply of patrons and workers. The fact that the NVV is supporting the change is also one more indication that it is now as much a lobbying organization for the tourism industry as the wine-making industry.
Video of BOS 10/18/22 meeting
For 90 years Cal-Fire has provided fire protection services to Napa County in both the State Responsibility Areas (wildlands) of the county as well as the unincorporated areas of the county not in the SRA. The protection outside the SRA is separately contracted and that contract is up for renewal. The county has done a study to determine how much it would cost for the county to have its own fire department and not rely on Cal Fire. The study determined that there would be over $5 million/yr in extra personnel costs. The costs of additional fire stations and fire equipment was not calculated.
Not addressed in the study or the discussion with the BOS was why the county would be considering the change after 90 years. Is the county miffed that Cal-fire wants to limit future development in much of the county? The change seems to have been supported by the Napa Valley Vintners. Did Cal-fire let them county down in the Glass Fire?
Barry Eberling, in his article, highlights one quote from a report that was not among the documents presented to the BOS in their Oct 18 meeting. The quote was, to me at least, telling: "Recent catastrophic fires in Napa County and the popularity of our community bringing countless visitors to our majestic valley have influenced the need to ensure that our fire protection services are able to provide the highest level of service possible." Tourists, apparently, need more protection than residents. It is, of course, one more specific example of the transition from an agricultural to a tourism economy and, to my mind, from a rural to an urban county as ever more tourist attractions are built needing an ever increasing supply of patrons and workers. The fact that the NVV is supporting the change is also one more indication that it is now as much a lobbying organization for the tourism industry as the wine-making industry.
Campaign 2022: Following the money on: Campaign 2022
Bill Hocker - Oct 2,22 expand... Share
During this campaign season, Beth Nelson has been following up on her tenacious pursuit of Sup. Alfredo Pedroza's questionable self-dealing over Walt Ranch with a breakdown of the money behind the 2022 Napa election. She has provided financial analysis and 460 funding documents for every candidate in the 2022 campaign here (view the menu):
NapaCountyCash.com
Napa County politics has always centered around the conflict between preservationists and developers. The Napa County Farm Bureau, formerly a bastion of agricultural protection and now promoter of tourism and real estate development in the name of protecting agriculture, recently cast the preservationists as a "small vocal minority". Every political movement has stalwarts leading the charge, but some are easier to see than others. We know where the passion of preservationists come from: they wear their hearts on their sleeves. When it comes to the passion of developers you need to follow the money. The money shows that a small wealthy minority is in fact bankrolling candidates who they know will enable their development plans, and napacountycash.com shows who they are.
NapaCountyCash.com
Napa County politics has always centered around the conflict between preservationists and developers. The Napa County Farm Bureau, formerly a bastion of agricultural protection and now promoter of tourism and real estate development in the name of protecting agriculture, recently cast the preservationists as a "small vocal minority". Every political movement has stalwarts leading the charge, but some are easier to see than others. We know where the passion of preservationists come from: they wear their hearts on their sleeves. When it comes to the passion of developers you need to follow the money. The money shows that a small wealthy minority is in fact bankrolling candidates who they know will enable their development plans, and napacountycash.com shows who they are.
Share this topic