Share
Woolls Nov 22nd appeal video and comment
Woolls Nov 22nd appeal video and comment
Bill Hocker | Nov 24, 2014 on: Mount Veeder
Woolls Ranch Nov 22nd Appeal Hearing Video
Supervisor Dillon's summation begins at 3:39:30 into the video (sorry I still haven't figured out embed videos) Her notes are important, not least because she will be presiding over the Supervisor's major review of development policy this year.
Barry Eberling in the NVR: Supervisors approve Woolls Ranch Winery
Needless to say the decision at the appeal did not go in a desirable direction, resulting in a normal unanimous decision in favor of the developer. A presentation by Mrs. Simpson's attorney was overwhelmingly convincing about the dangers of the proposed access drive easement and the misuse by the Woolls of its clearly intended use in the deed, as well as the threat that the project posed to the viability of the Simpson's only source of water. And her revelation that the Woolls had actually bought Mrs. Simpson's mortgage with the potential if not actual threat of coercion caused me, and perhaps others in the room to shudder. It was an incredibly persuasive defense of the appeal, and I certainly hope will be the basis of further litigation. The BOS were not, however, in a mood to be persuaded.
Dorian Greenow sent over the powerpoint that he used for his excellent presentation on the water and tourism impacts of the project. I have rendered it as a pdf here.
I was most impressed with Harris Nussbaum's (see above) and Tony McClimans' comments. Please take a look at the video.
Gary Margadant has given his own summary of the proceeding below - he is a true gentleman, giving the Supes a gentler review than was warranted, IMHO.
No one brought up the Woolls $16,400 in campaign contributions to Bill Dodd, half of which given just days before the original date of this hearing. Nothing illegal, I'm sure, but just like the mortgage purchase it just smells bad. Planning Commissioner Heather Phillips recused herself form the Yountville Hill hearing because her vineyard was too close. This potential conflict is several orders of magnitude greater. Supervisor Dodd undoubtedly would have supported the project in any case, and even if he had recused himself the appeal would have been defeated so it is a moot issue. This was Bill Dodd's final decision as Supervisor.
Supervisor Dillon in closing remarks seemed somewhat upset that the citizenry had come out to express their reservations about the project - agriculture must be profitable to survive she admonished us, the implication being that the tourism revenue represented in this project is necessary for the Woolls' business to survive. It is the conflation of tourism and agriculture that I have spent the last nine months trying to separate on this site, because in the long run the development impacts of that tourism threaten agricultural viability. Were it not for the tourism profits, I suspect that this project would not have been proposed, and the water impacts and the quality-of-life impacts that are being imposed on the residents of Mt. Veeder Road would not occur. The traffic impacts and additional development impacts that the tourists coming to the site will bring to the rest of the county would also not occur. The Woolls would continue to make wine from the grapes on the property and to sell it at a profit, though their bottom line might be somewhat lower. (Although considering development costs of a project like this, I suspect that profits would be considerably higher for quite some time should the project not be built.)
I agree with her that growing grapes needs to be a profitable endeavor for the ag preserve to survive. The question is what level of profitability. (Frankly the growing of grapes in Napa county seems currently quite profitable - it is in the building of wineries and the making of wine that ravages the bottom line.) If the industry becomes dominated by individuals for whom a winery-of-ones-own and maximizing profits is the end-all then the tragedy of the commons will prevail and the vines will disappear. We need to re-commit to sustainable and stable profits based on a limited resource and not succumb to the business man's ethos of ever increasing profits.
As Supervisor Dillon correctly pointed out, many of the issues presented by speakers were of a broader concern than just this project, issues which we will shortly have a chance to address. Also the Supervisors probably feel that the Woolls should not be penalized for playing by the rules as they exist and not as they might be in the future. Still, the water depletion and the access dangers presented by Mrs. Simpson are very real probabilities not recognized by the modest mitigations and the unanimity of the decision.
Woolls Ranch Nov 22nd Appeal Hearing Video
Supervisor Dillon's summation begins at 3:39:30 into the video (sorry I still haven't figured out embed videos) Her notes are important, not least because she will be presiding over the Supervisor's major review of development policy this year.
Barry Eberling in the NVR: Supervisors approve Woolls Ranch Winery
Needless to say the decision at the appeal did not go in a desirable direction, resulting in a normal unanimous decision in favor of the developer. A presentation by Mrs. Simpson's attorney was overwhelmingly convincing about the dangers of the proposed access drive easement and the misuse by the Woolls of its clearly intended use in the deed, as well as the threat that the project posed to the viability of the Simpson's only source of water. And her revelation that the Woolls had actually bought Mrs. Simpson's mortgage with the potential if not actual threat of coercion caused me, and perhaps others in the room to shudder. It was an incredibly persuasive defense of the appeal, and I certainly hope will be the basis of further litigation. The BOS were not, however, in a mood to be persuaded.
Dorian Greenow sent over the powerpoint that he used for his excellent presentation on the water and tourism impacts of the project. I have rendered it as a pdf here.
I was most impressed with Harris Nussbaum's (see above) and Tony McClimans' comments. Please take a look at the video.
Gary Margadant has given his own summary of the proceeding below - he is a true gentleman, giving the Supes a gentler review than was warranted, IMHO.
No one brought up the Woolls $16,400 in campaign contributions to Bill Dodd, half of which given just days before the original date of this hearing. Nothing illegal, I'm sure, but just like the mortgage purchase it just smells bad. Planning Commissioner Heather Phillips recused herself form the Yountville Hill hearing because her vineyard was too close. This potential conflict is several orders of magnitude greater. Supervisor Dodd undoubtedly would have supported the project in any case, and even if he had recused himself the appeal would have been defeated so it is a moot issue. This was Bill Dodd's final decision as Supervisor.
Supervisor Dillon in closing remarks seemed somewhat upset that the citizenry had come out to express their reservations about the project - agriculture must be profitable to survive she admonished us, the implication being that the tourism revenue represented in this project is necessary for the Woolls' business to survive. It is the conflation of tourism and agriculture that I have spent the last nine months trying to separate on this site, because in the long run the development impacts of that tourism threaten agricultural viability. Were it not for the tourism profits, I suspect that this project would not have been proposed, and the water impacts and the quality-of-life impacts that are being imposed on the residents of Mt. Veeder Road would not occur. The traffic impacts and additional development impacts that the tourists coming to the site will bring to the rest of the county would also not occur. The Woolls would continue to make wine from the grapes on the property and to sell it at a profit, though their bottom line might be somewhat lower. (Although considering development costs of a project like this, I suspect that profits would be considerably higher for quite some time should the project not be built.)
I agree with her that growing grapes needs to be a profitable endeavor for the ag preserve to survive. The question is what level of profitability. (Frankly the growing of grapes in Napa county seems currently quite profitable - it is in the building of wineries and the making of wine that ravages the bottom line.) If the industry becomes dominated by individuals for whom a winery-of-ones-own and maximizing profits is the end-all then the tragedy of the commons will prevail and the vines will disappear. We need to re-commit to sustainable and stable profits based on a limited resource and not succumb to the business man's ethos of ever increasing profits.
As Supervisor Dillon correctly pointed out, many of the issues presented by speakers were of a broader concern than just this project, issues which we will shortly have a chance to address. Also the Supervisors probably feel that the Woolls should not be penalized for playing by the rules as they exist and not as they might be in the future. Still, the water depletion and the access dangers presented by Mrs. Simpson are very real probabilities not recognized by the modest mitigations and the unanimity of the decision.