Update 11/9/22

---

NVR 11/9/22: Napa County revokes Mountain Peak winery approval
11/8/22 video clip of BOS hearing
The adopted resolution

"When there is this level of community concern and vocal opposition to a project, perhaps it would be a good time to listen to your constituents instead of working so closely with the developer to find some kind of way to move the project through"

- Amber Manfree in public comments to the BOS

About 20 Soda Canyon residents and county-wide stalwarts showed up to witness the revocation of the Mountain Peak use permit, some voicing their appreciation for the Board's action and others admonition for what the saga says about Napa county governance. The comments of those who spoke are here.

The Supervisors seemed anxious to put this whole vexatious affair behind them as quickly as possible. The presentation by county council was brief - the court has required that they do something in response to the court's demand of an EIR for the project, and the "setting aside" or "rescinding" of the use permit (the county seems reluctant to use the term "revoke" despite that being the clear term used in the resolution) accomplishes that. After our comments, Chair Gregory began Board comments by saying "It's that simple; the court is asking us to do this and we are doing it." With no other discussion it fell to Sup. Ramos (who, to our great appreciation, had switched her vote last time to uphold our appeal) to propose the motion to revoke. Our own District 4 Supervisor, in the first effort he has made on our behalf since being appointed, seconded the motion. All members aye - the motion passes. The Mountain Peak winery is dead - 8 years, 8 months, and 6 days after our neighbor's first anguished email.

But is it? As documented in the emails below it is still unclear in my mind what "revoke" or rescind" or "set aside" actually means since none are actually defined in county code. I'm not sure that the county has ever, in fact, revoked a use permit. Is this project now really dead? Or can it rise, zombie-like, with an owner willing to pay for the EIR? If it means a conclusive end to 9 years of anxiety, sleepless nights and obsession, if it means that our remote rural neighborhood will not become, for now, another of the county's growing number of tourist attractions, then I thank the supervisors from the bottom of my heart for the action they have taken.

Over those 9 years similar projects have brought heartbreak and division to many other rural neighborhoods throughout the county, and they continue to do so, with dozens of wineries currently in the planning department. I wish that those communities could take courage or solace from this decision. But for many it is too late. And for others the unique circumstances that compelled the revocation may be too serendipitous to offer such hope. But I do hope that this process will encourage the County to more carefully consider the concerns of residents whose rural lives will be forever changed by these projects, rather than only showing concern for the developers wishing to profit from a commercial venue in a bucolic location.

We know that this will not be the last tourist attraction proposed on Soda Canyon Road. And, of course, even a project on the Mountain Peak property may be tried again. Nothing that we've heard, even after the devastation and hair-raising evacuation of the road during the Atlas fire and the two other fires that have followed it, indicates that the county would be less receptive to those possibilities in the future.

But right now I'm grateful that the Board has taken this action to help preserve this very unique place for the peaceful benefit of its many residents rather than the personal benefit of one investor. A truly rural quality-of-life is one small facet of the agrarian legacy that previous supervisors worked so hard to create and maintain. It's a legacy that we should all continue to treasure and defend.

We all adjourned to celebrate what seemed to be a small ray of sunshine in what has been an otherwise gloomy era in the county's long history of residents trying to protect the county's rural character in the face of ever-present development pressure.

Update 11/3/22

---

On 11/8/22 the County Board of Supervisors will vote on a resolution to revoke or rescind the Mountain peak use permit - it's not clear which. The language of the Resolution is quite clear (my underline):

"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Napa County Board of Supervisors as follows:

1. Resolutions Nos. 2017-130, 2017-131, 2017-132, 2017-133, and 2021-81 are
hereby rescinded and are null and void.

2. Use Permit No. P13-00320-UP, the Exception to the Napa County Road and Street
Standards, and the Negative Declaration are hereby declared invalid, revoked and null and void."

But a couple of emails from Planning DIr. Bordona leave me in doubt about what action is being taken. In the first he says:

"The Board will be 'rescinding' the use permit (by order of the Court), not revoking it.

Use permit 'revocation' of is quasi-judicial act on the part of the planning commission that typically occurs when there’s a violation of an existing use permit, which isn’t the case here.

In terms of future development, I’m unaware of what the current or future owners may decide going forward, but they will be subject to all regulatory requirements."

In the second, when asked why the resolution uses the word "revoked" he replies:

"We are rescinding the approval and revoking the grant of the permit."

Go figure.

Almost 9 years after a neighbor's email alerted us to a proposed tourist attraction next door, the Board of Supervisors has been compelled by the court to take action following the court's decision that the project required an EIR. Their action is to revoke the use permit. Does that mean that the owner must start over, as if the last 9 years hadn't happened? Or does it mean that he can decide to produce the EIR and the project continues where we left off? Unfortunately it is quite unclear what that means. The only reference to revoking a use permit in county code is related to the Planning Commission, in which case revoking means that the use permit is void and that a new application for a similar project may not be begun for a year.

I want to believe that this is the end of the project and that the 9-year threat to turn our community into a tourist attraction has finally abated. But even now, the county presents a lack of specificity seemingly intended to make sure that we don't really know what's going on.

11/8/22 BOS Agenda
Resolution to Revoke the use permit

The whole agonizing saga is documented on this page. The anxiety over the potential loss of our remote haven at the top of Soda Canyon Road has fueled not just this page, but the cathartic need to document, on the rest of this site, the many ways that that the county government works to protect and promote the economic interests of a few entrepreneurs and plutocrats at the expence of the county's rural residents and at the expense of the county's own stated commitment to the preservation of its environment. And as the years have passed, as the climate crisis deepens, as the county's forests disappear to vines and fires, as the water resources dry up, that promotion of ever more development has only become more grotesque. The County currently has 160 development projects under review. Unfortunately, this small win in one community, while of immense relief to its residents, is unlikely to change the trajectory of urbanization the County is following.

In fact, just as one project is removed from the current projects page, another more significant development on the road may be added: the rebirth of the Napa Soda Springs Resort. The impacts to the community would be several orders of magnitude greater than those of Mountain Peak. I am not looking forward to the years ahead.

10/27/22

---

Following the finalization of the judgement of the Napa Superior Court on 7/29/22 that the Mountain Peak use permit be set aside and the project be returned to the county for an EIR, the project will again be an item on the BOS agenda on 11/8/22. The Court has commanded that the county take action on its judgement and the agenda item will consider a resolution to accomplish the actions required.

10/3/22 County receipt of command and scheduled consideration of action
8/3/22 Court Entry of Judgment
7/29/22 Court Command to return project to county

Interestingly, on the day the Court Judgement was finalized, the Mountain Peak property was put up for sale on realtor.com and other realty sites. The unreasonably high asking price of $19,995,000 does raise the possibility that this is just a fallback position at this point.

Napavision 2050's Patricia Damery has interviewed Amber Manfree, environmental scientist, lifetime Soda Canyon Road resident and former supervisorial candidate, about the eight years of community opposition to the proposed Mountain Peak winery project. Amber is speaking in the wake of a court ruling sending the project back to the county planning department to be evaluated with an Environmental Impact Report. That ruling was based principally on Amber's presentation of the impacts to biological resources that the project might create . The ruling may still be appealed, one more step in a very long process undertaken to protect the quality of the natural environment and rural way of life in Napa County.

Mountain Peak Winery: Interview with Amber Manfree

Update 3/23/22

---

NVR 3/27/22: Judge requires EIR for Napa County's Mountain Peak winery

A final judgement has been made in the case of Soda Canyon Group vs. County of Napa et al:

The Court decision is here.

If an expected appeal is denied, the use permit process for the Mountain Peak Winery will begin anew.

Update 1/21/22

---

NVR 1/21/22: Tentative Napa court decision would require Mountain Peak winery EIR
The Tentative Decision is here

1/20/22 The CEQA Court Hearing on Mountain Peak

---

Date: January 20, 2022
Location: Napa Superior Court, 825 Brown St, Napa
Judge: Hon. Cynthia Smith (Department A)

---

On January 20, 2022 residents of Soda Canyon Road will return to the Napa Superior Court for the final hearing to challenge the County's re-approval of the oversized Mountain Peak Winery development located at the remote end of Soda Canyon Road. Prior to approval, the County conducted an in-house, cursory review of the project and its potential impacts on the community and environment, and, ultimately found that the project would have a "less-than-significant" impact. In returning to Court, opponents of the project seek a more thorough assessment of the project, through an Environmental Impact Report, which would be conducted by an independent third-party. Given the size and scope of the project, and what appear to be obvious adverse impacts on the community and environment, such an independent review must be conducted.

The issues raised by the project to be presented in court include the increased traffic that it will bring to an already dangerous road, the environmental danger of moving millions of cubic feet of earth within feet of two blue line creeks, a lack of biologic resource analysis, insufficient and inaccurate analysis of groundwater extraction, a disputed analysis of noise impacts, and insufficient consideration of the fire danger on a long dead-end road in a remote area.



The project is for a 100,000 gal/yr winery, 33,400 sf of caves, 28 parking spaces, 19 full-time employees, and an above ground 8000 sf tasting room. About 3 acres of vines will be permanently removed. Visitation will include 275 visitors/wk, plus 2 - 75 person and 1 - 125 person events/yr. The total amounts to 21,510 tourist/employee users on the site each year (59 people avg per day) and 120 vehicle trips on the road each day, which amounts to ~44,000 trips/yr. The winery is located approximately 6 winding, dead-end miles from the Silverado Trail.

The Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commission on Jan 4, 2017, and an appeal of the Planning Commission decision was denied by the Supervisors on May 23, 2017 (finalized August 17, 2017). A suit against the County to compel an EIR for the project was filed by project opponents Sep 20, 2017.

As part of the lawsuit, residents had already requested that the project be reconsidered by the Board of Supervisors in light of the evidence of the 2017 Atlas Fire which occurred after the project was approved. (On October 8, 2017, the Atlas Fire quickly engulfed lower Soda Canyon Road. A fallen tree blocked traffic coming down the road and fire trucks coming up as the fire burned on all sides. A frantic effort cleared the road just enough to let the line of cars get by. Dozens of residents, unable to make it down through the fire, had to be precariously evacuated by helicopter in 60+ mph crosswinds. 134 of the 163 residences (82%) on Soda Canyon Road were damaged or destroyed, 118 of them a complete loss. Tragically, two lives were lost.) In June 2020 the Judge in the case agreed that fire danger had been unconsidered in light of this evidence and remanded the project back to the BOS for reconsideration.



The Judge on Mountain Peak was not alone in highlighting the ever-increasing fire danger now experienced by wildland development. Courts and the California Attorney General have acted on the increased danger such development brings to existing and new residents in remote and rural areas like upper Soda Canyon, including (1) the luxury Guenoc Valley Development in the wine region of Lake County, (2) a major housing development in a fire prone area of San Diego and (3) another major housing development at the north edge of Los Angeles County.

In the BOS remand hearing on May 18, 2021 (see pg. 19), the Supervisors again found, incredibly given the evidence of a second devastating wildfire season in 2020, that the potential impacts of fire to the safety of a much larger daily population on the road were still less-than-significant, and voted 3-2 to re-approve the Project.

---

The impacts that may be considered under CEQA are primarily quantifiable environmental and public safety-related impacts. And they will be diligently and forcefully presented. But for those of us who live on the road, the introduction of daily tourists and large number of employees at the winery will also be a quantum change to the remote, quiet, and dark isolation that has made this place so special in an urbanized world. The increased traffic and daily presence of visitors will mean the death of another remote rural place. The loss of something so increasingly rare is impossible to quantify.

Soda Canyon residents are not alone in recognizing the threat that development is bringing to agriculture, the environment, the rural and small-town character of Napa County. In the eight years that this project has been contested, numerous community groups have formed to oppose development projects that threaten their community's character and safety. Municipal and county governments have turned a deaf ear to their pleas, anxious for the increased revenues to be made as the hospitality industry slowly eclipses the wine industry in Napa County.

At one point in Napa history, the interests of residents and the wine industry coincided; the growers and vintners that built the industry were also residents with a commitment to preserve the place they wanted to live. But the industry has moved on to corporate and investment ownership with less interest in a preservation ethos that stands in the way of economic expansion and increased profits. Unfortunately, when it comes to land use policy, the county government seems more interested in protecting the economic interests of tourism and real estate developers than the quality-of-life and public safety interests of residents, and in so doing have abandoned the commitment to "the rural character that we treasure" that a previous generation of leaders embraced. Residents must now turn to the courts in an attempt to preserve that legacy.

Update 7/13/21

---

The Board of Supervisors finalized their approval of the project on a 3-1 vote with the addition of Sup. Wageknecht's Red Flag Day prohibition to the Conditions of Approval.
7/13/21 BOS video
Agenda and documents
The redlined COA's

The Supervisors again approved a project in the face of years of community opposition and of the proven danger in locating tourist attractions in remote, fire-prone rural areas of the county, a danger to visitors and employees themselves and increased evacuation danger for residents.

It was a disappointment that Sup. Ramos was not there to cast the "no" vote that she had previewed to dramatic effect in the previous BOS hearing on the project. A 3-2 loss would have been more heartening than a 3-1 loss. Again kudos to Sup. Dillon for remaining true to the belief throughout that this project is not appropriate for this remote location, now with the evidence of the fire to back up that belief. And also for not buckling under the pressure to approve projects just so the county will not face additional lawsuits from disgruntled applicants.

Update 5/26/21

---

Mufson Letter to BOS: Redarding Mountain Peak Development
Akersloot LTE 5/28/21: Appalling lack of concern for environment and safety
NV 2050 5/25/21: Mountain Peak: Location, Location, Location
Wilson LTE 5/22/21: Napa supervisors failed to hear warnings of risky winery project
Caloyannidis LTE 5/23/21: The Napa County supervisors’ disconnect

NVR 2/26/21: Denied property insurance, Napa Valley wineries 'extremely vulnerable' this fire season
Insurance companies do not seem to be as sanguine about the fire dangers facing wineries as most of the Supervisors are.

Update 5/18/21 Remand Hearing Postmortem

---

NVR 5/19/21: Napa County affirms its 2017 Mountain Peak winery decision by 3-2 vote
5/18/21 BOS Video (Remand hearing begins at 3:24:30 on the video)
Agenda and docs for 5/18/21 BOS meeting

It had always seemed inevitable that the project would be reapproved by the BOS on remand. At best we might have the support of two supervisors: Sup. Dillon, who was away for the 4-0 approval in 2017 had expressed concern in retrospect that the visitation was out of line for a winery removed from the valley floor; and Sup. Wagenknech, who a couple of times in county meetings wondered why we needed all these wineries in the watersheds..

Sup. Wagenknecht led the Supe's discussion by immediately proposing the developer's mitigation of rescheduling red flag day visitation, an easy concession now used to bat down fire concerns (and a mitigation that will be on all hillside projects going forward). It seemed an unusually decisive move for a supervisor often circuitous in voicing his opinions and proposals.

Sup. Gregory, noting that the issue of homes as well as wineries in remote areas needed to be considered, advanced the don't-make-policy-with-a-single-project argument, simultaneously supporting an unwise development while suggesting he wants to do something to limit it down the road. Down the road may be coming soon, he noted, with the board scheduled to discuss the development impacts of the State's new Fire Safe Regulations on June 8th. (It is a bit of humorous irony that Sup. Gregeoy's campaign posters featured homes on hilltops.)

Sup. Dillon, with a history of concern over the appropriateness of the project, noted that residents had said in planning commission and appeal hearings what they thought will happen in a fire, and their predictions proved true. She declared her intent to deny and made a motion to that effect.

Next a bit of a shock, at least to opponents of the project: Sup. Ramos simply declared that she had a change of view, particularly after the devastating fire, and would now reverse her original vote and deny. An muted gasp from many and a cheer from one member of the audience.

Sup. Pedroza then soothingly voiced concern for the harrowing residents' fire stories, but, citing Sup Gregory's homes-and-wineries dodge, and Sup. Wagenknecht's red flag mitigation, declared that, logicallly, he would still need to approve the project. The logic of approving a fire-risk project now that might not be allowed in the future, beyond just as a favor to the developer, escaped me. The vote was taken, 3-2 to uphold approval.

Obviously Sup. Ramos was the heroine of the day, and such a contrite, public switch to the preservationist side may do much to soften her pro-development image. Her decision could have just been related to the compelling specifics of this project or to other personal experiences, but I'm sure that many rural residents are hopeful to have a more sympathetic ear in the future.

And, obviously, Sup. Wagenknecht was the HUGE disappointment of the day. In 2017 he stated "I'm very concerned with wineries that are going out in the middle of nowhere. And I'm not seeing a huge reason for them. " In denying the Hard Six Cellars appeal last year he said, "I don’t know if in my conscience, I am willing to approve this application knowing that people could lose their lives". The right moment had suddenly arrived to do something about a winery in the middle of nowhere and the threat to lives in his approval -- and he gave it a pass.

Anthony Arger's presentation of our case was nothing short of stunning, given covid protocols, the amount of material to be covered and the punitively short period of 20 minutes to present it, under the hostile gavel of Chair Pedroza. The remand was the result of two reviews in Superior court and three reviews in Appellate Court, dozens of hours of petition and testamony, all of which backed the significance of returning the project ot the Board. In setting such a short time limit for the presentation of evidence, the Board seemed to be contemptuous of the Court's decision and vindictive toward the residents

23 speakers contributed public comments, all but 1 urging denial. The residents who lived through the fire read their declarations as redacted by the court. Diane Shepp gave a very emotional recount of their harrowing experience that had not been part of the court documents. All of the commenters spoke to a range of issues about fire danger in remote areas, causing frequent interruption by county council with officious reminders to the Board that this hearing was about presenting very specific passages of witness testimony for their consideration.

Some comments stuck with me: Mike Hackett who called out, in normal blunt terms, the "new kids" that have created the "pro-development" board and a staff now "trained" to favor developers over citizens; Harris Nussbaum, who, despite extremely frail health and 3 years away from the chamber, wanted to tell the Board in person that they had a moral responsibility to the health and safety of people using the road; and James Hinton, whose rants at almost every public hearing make one cringe, but here gave a sedate and careful plea to reconsider the wisdom of having "sales floors" in remote areas of the county.

The fact that approval has now gone from 4-0 in 2017 to 3-2 in 2021 is a small but significant step in recognizing the innappropriateness of this project in this location. We now move on to the CEQA litigation against the County for it's abuse of discretion in approving such an environmentally problematic project in 2017.

The final text of the Board's decision will be certifiied on July 11, 2021.

5/15/21

---

NVR 5/14/21: Napa County to further review Mountain Peak, Staglin winery cases
NV2050 5/25/21: Mountain Peak Winery Remand Hearing, May 18, 2021

The Mountain Peak Winery approval has been remanded by the Napa County Superior Court back to the Board of Supervisors to re-evaluate their approval of the remote winery project in light of the evidence of the 2017 Atlas fire. The fire closed access in and out of Soda Canyon Road and required residents in the area surrounding the proposed winery site to be evacuated by helicopter. The BOS approval of the project was contingent on the appeal finding that "In the event of a fire that results in mass evacuations from this area, the road has sufficient capacity and roadway width to accommodate all outgoing traffic while allowing incoming fire response units." (see "Tenth Ground of Appeal...Findings and Decision" on pg. 15 here.) The fire proved them mistaken in this finding.

In justifying the need for the remand, the Court concluded "- the catastrophic nature of the Atlas Fire, and in particulr the mass evacuations, many by helicopter, that resulted from the fire constitute truly new evidence of emergent facts that were not presented to the Board."

The hearing will take place Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 2:00 pm in the BOS Chamber, 1195 3rd St, Napa. The number of seats in the board room will be somewhat limited, but there will be an "overflow" room as well.

The agenda and documents are here (page 19) [oddly no announcement or link for this BOS meeting has been published by the county]
Virtual attendance guidelines are here.
Mike Hackett email reminder (with a good summary of the issues)

The proceedure for the hearing:

1. Board disclosures and staff presentation re 2017 Atlas Fire.
   
2. Soda Canyon Group presentation (Supervisor Pedroza has limited us to 20 minutes; I will plan to handle the presentation, which will include a PowerPoint).
   
3. Public Comment: This is the time when any members of the public, including declarants, can be heard. Time limited to 3 minutes. Again, we strongly encourage everyone to attend and speak in-person, as it is simply more powerful to be able to look your Supervisors in the eye and share your experience from the 2017 Atlas Fire.
   
4. MPV presentation (also limited to 20 minutes).
   
5. Soda Canyon Group rebuttal (time permitting).
   
6. Chair closes public hearing, board deliberations.

Documents:

Superior Court Remand Order
Superior Court reasoning for the Remand
Staff Report for Remand Hearing
PBES documents on the remand
(Harrowing) Fire wItness declarations and fire documentaton
Final (8/22/17) Conditions of Approval of project

Hearing Statements:

Hocker remand statement
Diane and Alan Shepp (also harrowing!) remand statement
Caloyannidis statement on road safety

---

The county and the developer appealed the Superior Court's remand three times in Apellate Court and lost each time, underscoring the importance and credibility of the new evidence Forced to do so, it appears that they are hoping to ignore the intent of the remand, go through a show of due diligence and be done with it.

The Notice already proposes a preemptive finding of sorts: "The Board adopted a Negative Declaration for this Project, which has been certified. The Court’s Order remanding the matter to the Board has no effect on the previous environmental analysis. Therefore, no further environmental review is necessary." The environmental review done by the County was obviously deficient when it came to potential evacuation danger. One wonders what was the point of the Court's remand order if not to reconsider that environment analysis in light of the reality of contrary evidence. What mitigations could be made to counter the increased danger of adding 150 people needing to be protected or evacuated if the road is blocked. None are being proposed. The suggestion in the Staff report that those people might shelter in the project cave or vinyards completely ignores the very real dangers of those solutions or of the chaotic situation that actually happened as people followed their immediate instinct, just as guests and employees at the project would, to drive down the road.

More complete comments on the Remand are here

This hearing comes at the same time that the State Board of Forestry is revising their Fire Safe Regulations for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones like upper Soda Canyon Road. The intention of the change in the State's regulations is to slow the expansion of development -- for example, a project that brings 60 visitors and 19 employees each day -- into high fire hazard areas. More information on the Board of Forestry regulation update process is here. A hearing on the draft of new regulations will take place on June 22, 2021. The county wishes it could ignore that process as well. The County's response letter is here.

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 the Board of Supervisors will reconsider their approval of the Mountain Peak Winery, on the order of the Napa County Superior Court, in light of evidence presented by the 2017 Atlas fire. The Agenda is here.

Concerning the fire

On Aug 22, 2017 the Board approved the use permit for the 19-employee, 14,575-visitor/year Mountain Peak Winery 6 miles up the dead-end Soda Canyon Road. Soda Canyon residents had presented ample first-hand experience and data-based assessments of fire danger on Soda Canyon Road at Planning Commission and BOS appeal hearings for the project. Yet the Board dismissed those concerns in their findings. They found that "In the event of a fire that results in mass evacuations from this area, the road has sufficient capacity and roadway width to accommodate all outgoing traffic while allowing incoming fire response units."

Six weeks later, on Oct 8th, the Atlas fire erupted in fierce winds and quickly engulfed lower Soda Canyon Road. A fallen tree blocked traffic coming down the road and fire trucks coming up as the fire burned on all sides. A frantic effort cleared the road just enough to let the line of cars get by. Fire trucks were unable to continue up the road. Dozens of residents, unable to make it down through the fire, had to be evacuated by helicopter from the top of the road. 134 of the 163 residences on Soda Canyon Road were damaged or destroyed, 118 of them a complete loss. Tragically two lives were lost. Resident declarations vividly present the chaos of the night.

Following the fire, residents petitioned Napa Superior Court to include the new, relevant evidence the fire as part of their CEQA case against the approval of the project. The Court agreed and ordered that the project be sent back to the Board, noting that the possibility of "the complete inaccessibility of Soda Canyon Road during a fire and resulting helicopter evacuations of stranded individuals" had not been considered in approving the project. It was "truly new evidence of emergent facts."

There has been much said in government meetings about the need for evidence-based decision-making. Unfortunately, rather than confront an approval based on findings countered by evidence, the County and the developer challenged the Court's remand order three times in Appellate Court trying to avoid reconsideration of the approval in light of the fire evidence. The Appellate Court rejected all three appeal attempts, underscoring the importance and credibility of the new evidence

Concerning the staff report

In the staff report for this hearing, unfortunately, Staff is apparently recommending that the Board just ignore the remand, and once again dismiss the import of residents harrowing fire experiences that highlight the inadequacy of the original finding. Staff does not address the intent of the remand: to consider project impacts and mitigations in a future fire-related blockage of the road and required evacuation. Staff does not recommend reducing the size and scope of the project or its visitation plan appropriate to the dangers of its constrained access. Instead they suggest, somewhat casually, that 125 guests and 19 employees might shelter in the vineyards or in the cave. Neither is an instinctive or reliably safe response. Caves can become smoke-filled and oxygen-depleted. Vineyards DO burn.

As the declarations of residents fleeing the fire make quite clear, the first instinct in confronting a wildfire would be to drive down the road. As happened in this fire, Cal-Fire helicopters would alredy be blaring a message over loudspeakers to evacuate immediately. Employees and guests would already be in their cars adding to the vehicles of residents and vineyard workers trying to escape. And the escape scenarios that residents so vividly described in their declarations would again play out, only this time with 150 additional people, perhaps 70 vehicles, trying to excape. The one way the project can avoid adding to the dangers of a mass evacuation is to not have people there in the first place, either by not allowing visitation during fire season or not building a tourist attraction in such a high-fire risk area in the first place.

Staff concludes that the road, with fewer trees, some new paving and guardrails, NOW has "sufficient capacity and roadway width". But the road is now no wider, straighter, or flatter than before. The physical conditions and access constraints remain. There are still many hundreds of trees with road blocking potential. And there are now more dead and climate weakened trees and waiting to fall. New underbrush will soon be denser than the old. Fire events seem to be increasing in severity. Power lines can still come down. And, by continuing to add vehicles that need to be evacuated, the danger of a road blocking accident in the fiery, smoky chaos of an evacuation on the blind curves, steep grade and narrow stretches of the road increases.

Staff concludes that "No credible evidence established that the addition of another winery along Soda Canyon Road would significantly increase the risk of fire or significantly hinder rescue efforts". As if the additional thousands of people and vehicles the project will bring into the canyon each year will not statistically increase risk of fire mishap or mischief. As if trying to evacuate several dozen additional vehicles or asking helicopter pilots to risk their lives for an additional 150 people would not exacerbate rescue efforts. This is another finding awaiting contradictory, and perhaps tragic, evidence in a future fire.

Staff also notes the project's compliance with the State Fire Safe Regulations for high fire hazard zones like Soda Canyon Road. Those regulations put severe limits on the length of dead-end "local" roads: 1 mile for existing roads, 1/2 mile for new roads, knowing that both road length and width impact fire safety. But the County has labeled Soda Canyon Road a "collector", thus avoiding a consideration of its 6 mile length. Unfortunately fires do not know the difference between "local" and "collector" roads, particularly in constrained, high fire risk canyons. As the Atlas fire showed, a dead-end collector is still a dead-end road, and the length along which a fire can wreak havoc to block access is a significant factor in its safety. Also, as a "collector", Soda Canyon Road is substandard in width, curve radii and grade slope, measured by the County's own Road and Street Standards. And it even fails the lesser 20' State regulation in some stretches. Being labeled a "collector", as the fire showed, does not mean it's safe.

And finally, Staff analyzes the 19.4% service ramp under the State Fire Safe Regulations, finding that it "nearly" complies but doesn't actually comply. The 400' ramp of 19.4% required an exception under previously used NCRSS standards. It totally fails under the new FSR 300' limit for a 19.4% ramp. Fire trucks may or may not be able to negotiate it. Experts more objective than local officials and consultants, who routinely approve and justify exceptions in deference to wine industy non-compliance, should review the ramp design. (In a personal note: the ramp will tower 20 ft above and 30+ ft away from one of my property lines before its ski-jump descent onto the crush pad. It, and the water tanks and sewage treatment plant pushed up against another property line, is a further indication of a project too big for its site.)

Concerning remote tourism venues

As residents have argued for years now, the scale and scope of this project have never been appropriate for this remote site. The Supervisors recognized, in their guidence to Planning Commissioners in 2010, that they should "consider the remoteness of location" and "ensure a direct relationship between access constraints and on-site marketing and visitation programs". The access constraints on Soda Canyon Road were made painfully clear on the night of Oct 8, 2017.

There are reasons, aside from fire danger, why Mountain Peak is inappropriate in its location: 60 visitors and 19 employees a day and 125-person nighttime events will only add to the traffic dangers of an already dangerous road; and the precedent of this first tourist attraction in the Foss Valley will only encourage more tourism development, more traffic risk, more buildings to be defended in a fire; and, given the project's massive cave, the excavation and movement of millions of cubic feet of earth on the small site within feet of two blue line streams feeding Rector Reservoir will pose potential risks to ecology of the canyon and siltation to the reservoir.

And there are also reasons, aside from fire danger, why tourist attractions in general don't belong in many rural areas of the county: their presence damages the quality of life of residents who treasure the quiet enjoyment of a rural place; their disruptive potential engenders animosity from residents (including vintners and growers) against the tourism-based wine industry, fueling many battles in recent years; building projects and the commercialization of rural areas hasten the urbanization of the county as a whole, diminishing farming as a viable activity - not to mention the vineyard acerage the projects eliminate; and a mass-tourism business model that transports large numbers of people to the remote areas of the county each day (including now apparently to tasting rooms in private homes), and attracts large numbers of tourists to the county each year, will continue to add to Napa's carbon footprint in this age of global warming. (It is also a business model that needs to change for economic reasons, according to Rob McMillan)

But obviously the potential loss of life when concentrating people in fire prone areas, in an age when raging wildfires have become all too common, should be a significant concern to County officias as they make their decisions to sanction these venues. The remand is an opportunity to reconsider the substantial evidence recent fires have presented of the dangers of further building development in the watersheds. It would be unfortunate if the County fails to take this opportunity to begin to reduce their promotion of tourist attractions in the high fire-hazard areas of the county.

Update 6/25/19

---

NBBJ 6/20/19: Judge Orders Napa County Supervisors to Review Mountain Peak Vineyards Project

The Napa Superior Court has reaffirmed its decision to remand the Mountain Peak project back to the supervisors to consider the new evidence that contradicts their finding in approving the project that Soda Canyon Road has the capacity to allow evacuation and emergency response in the event of a fire. In the Atlas fire it did not. The remand order must be presented by County Council to the Supervisors no later than July 8 2019 after which the Supervisors will set a public hearing date to consider the remanded issues. A status hearing on the case in Superior Court will occur on Aug 21 2019.

The Judge's remand order is here

Update 4/23/19

---

Raymond C Martinez LTE 4/23/19: It's a question of life and death

Update 4/16/19

---

The County's appeal of the remand was denied by the First District Appellate Court. Absent a further appeal, the Supervisors will have to reconsider the new evidence of the fire in their approval of the Mountain Peak project. A hearing in Napa Superior Court to set the scope of the remand will be held on May 7, 2019.

Soda Canyon Group Opposition Argument to Appeal
First Appellate District Court's denial of the appeal

4/2/19

---

NVR 4/2/19: Napa County opposes post-Atlas fire rehearing on Mountain Peak winery

On Aug 22, 2017 the Napa County Board of Supervisors approved the use permit for the 14,575-visitor/year Mountain Peak Winery 6 miles up the dead-end Soda Canyon Road.

From the "Findings of Fact" issued by the Supervisors in approving the project:

In fact, supporting factual evidence arrived six weeks later on the night of October 8th, as the Atlas fire erupted in fierce winds and quickly engulfed lower Soda Canyon Road. A fallen tree blocked traffic coming down the road and fire trucks coming up as the fire burned on all sides. Frantic effort cleared the road just enough to let the line of cars get by. Dozens of residents, unable to make it down through the fire, had to be evacuated by helicopter from the top of the road. 134 of the 163 residences on Soda Canyon Road were damaged or destroyed, 118 of them a complete loss. Tragically two lives were lost.

One year later, in BOS meetings to discuss the issues of remote wineries, Supervisor Diane Dillon questioned the use of winery visitation on the valley floor to evaluate that in remote areas of the county. She called out the approval of Mountain Peak's visitation numbers based on comparable 100,000 gal/yr wineries in highly accessible locations. At one meeting, Sup. Dillon recognized that "we would have had a disaster if there would have been a major event happening of any kind..." at Mountain Peak during the fire. She was referring, no doubt, to a human disaster, but I'm sure it would be seen as a political disaster as well. Sup. Dillon was away during the Mountain Peak appeal, but her Planning Commission appointee, Anne Cottrell, had been the only commissioner to vote against approving the project - on the basis of its access constraints.

Soda Canyon residents presented ample first-hand experience and data-based assessments of fire danger on Soda Canyon Road at Planning Commission and BOS appeal hearings for Mountain Peak (beginning at slide 117 here). The Supervisors dismissed the presentation in their findings. Following the fire, residents petitioned Napa Superior Court to include the relevant new substantial evidence it offered as part of their CEQA case against the Supervisor's approval. The Court agreed and ordered that the project be remanded to the Supervisors, noting that the possibility of "the complete inaccessibility of Soda Canyon Road during a fire and resulting helicopter evacuations of stranded individuals" had not been considered by the Supervisors in approving the project. It was "truly new evidence of emergent facts."

There has been a lot of posturing lately in government meetings about the need for evidence-based decision-making. Unfortunately, rather than confronting an approval based on incorrect findings backed by little evidence, the Supervisors are challenging the court order to ensure that substantial, factual evidence of the danger of a fire in Soda Canyon will not require them to reconsider their decision.

There are reasons, aside from fire danger, why Mountain Peak is inappropriate in its location: 60 visitors and 19 employees a day will only add to the dangers of an already dangerous road; the precedent of this first event center on the Rector plateau will only encourage more tourism development and more traffic risk; and the excavation and movement of millions of cubic feet of earth within feet of two blue line streams feeding Rector Reservoir will pose significant risks of siltation;

And there are reasons, aside from fire danger, why event venues in general don't belong in the hillside areas of the county: their presence damages the quality of life of residents who treasure the quiet enjoyment of a rural place; their disruptive potential engenders animosity between residents and the wine industry, fueling many battles in recent years; building projects and the commercialization of rural areas hasten the urbanization of the county that will diminish farming as a viable activity, as it has throughout history; and a mass tourism business model that transports large numbers of people to the remote areas of the county each day, and attracts large numbers of tourists to the county each year, will only add to greenhouse gases in an age of global warming.

But obviously the potential loss of life when concentrating visitors in fire prone areas, in an age when raging wildfires have become all too common, should be a significant concern to Supervisors as they make their decision to sanction these venues. The remand is an opportunity to reconsider the substantial evidence of that danger for Mountain Peak and for other venues in the watersheds. It is unfortunate that the Supervisors wish to ignore it.

NVR LTE version 4/13/19: A decision in the face of evidence

Update 2/27/19

---

Following a hearing at the Napa Superior Court on Feb 1, 2019 Petitioners (Soda Canyon residents) requested the inclusion to their suit's administrative record of some documents not included prior to the final Planning Commission hearing. And they requested that the events of the 2017 fire, which happened after the Appeal hearing, be allowed into the administrative record as significant new evidence concerning the appropriateness of the Mountain Peak winery in its remote location. The Judge ruled that the additional documents could not be included in the administrative record, but also ruled that the evidence of the 2017 fire be remanded to the Board of Supervisors for their reconsideration. Prior to that, attorneys for both sides are required to establish the scope of that evidence. Until that reconsideration takes place, the hearing on the main case (Writ of Mandate), previously scheduled for Mar 7 2019, will be postponed.

The Court's ruling is here

Update 1/24/19

---

After a false start, the Court hearing dates have been rescheduled as follows:

Day 1 will be a hearing on the Motion to Augment the Administrative Record on Fri., Feb. 1, 2019 at 8:30am at Napa County Historic Courthouse, Dept. C, 825 Brown St, Napa, (Your chance to see the restoration in operation!)

Day 2 will be devoted to the principal Petition for Writ of Mandate against the county on Thurs., Mar. 7, 2019 at 8:30pm at Napa County Historic Courthouse, Dept. C

SCR Mountain Peak Page

Update 12/27/18

---

NV2050 blog post on the hearing
NV2050 Email Newsletter for the holidays

11/16/18

---

The lawsuit filed by Soda Canyon residents against the County for its abuse of discretion in approving the Mountain Peak Winery is set for a hearing on Jan 11, 2019 starting at 8:30am in Dept. I of the Napa County Courthouse. A schedule has been established for the submission of documents and the Soda Canyon Group, Petitioner in the lawsuit, has already submitted their opening briefs.

The lawsuit asks that the County conduct a full Environmental Impact Report on the project, as required under California law, rather than relying on the staff's negative declaration of less-than-significant environmental impacts when the Board of Supervisors approved the project. The project is for a 100,000 gal/yr winery with 33,000 sf of caves, 15,000 visitors/yr, 19 employees/day, 100+ vehicle trips/day all 6 miles up a winding dead end road.
The documents are here:

Petition for Writ of Mandate
Superior Court: Stipulation and Order Re Briefing and Hearing Date
Petitioner's Opening Brief
Petitioner's Motion to Augment Administrative Record
The Administrative Record (AR) - 17,500 pages of it

Why is the Mountain Peak case important to the entire county?

The lawsuit comes at an interesting and important time for the County's future. After the contentious Measure C vote, the fires that reemphasized the dangers of building in remote locations, the conflict that is not abating between residents and the wine industry over the intrusion of "event centers" into their rural neighborhoods, and the new emphasis in reducing vehicle miles traveled in development projects, the Board of Supervisors have begun to look at the potential impacts of "remote" winery projects with a more critical eye. (The issue of Remote Wineries was an important aspect of opposition to Mountain Peak.)

The NVR articles on the two recent BOS meetings held earlier this fall are here:

Napa County scrutinizing surge of wineries off the beaten track
Napa County continues remote winery discussion

The remote winery discussion, now expanding into a discussion over the "compatibility" of a winery with its location, is outlined in this recent report by Planning Director Morrison to the Board. Supervisors Dillon and Wagenknecht both had significant comments on the issue. In one meeting, Supervisor Dillon used Mountain Peak as an example of problems with the winery approval process. The effort to define winery compatibility may go on for several months with numerous hearings. (Archived here on sodacanyonroad.org.)

The contentiousness of winery proposals before the planning commission and the Board of Supervisors has shown no signs of letting up. In a sign that attitudes may be changing at the County, two winery projects have recently been denied by the Planning Commission - more than have been denied in the previous decade at least. Both were opposed by the communities in which they are located:

Caldwell winery dispute appears headed to Napa Board of Supervisors
Proposed Napa winery withdraws appeal to supervisors at last second

And there are projects still in the pipeline already receiving pushback from residents:

Napa County needs more time on controversial Anthem Winery requests
Proposed Mondavi family winery generates controversy in Angwin

In addition to the consideration of a winery compatibility ordinance, and following the divided concerns in the county over Measure C, the County Board of Supervisors, has called for a new process to seek consensus on the future of the county. It will continue an effort already begun but interrupted last year, to chart long term development goals and strategies through the development of a Napa Strategic Plan. (Archived here on sodacanyonroad.org)

Since 2010 in the County as a whole, over 140 new wineries and winery expansions have been approved adding over 5 million gallons of winemaking capacity, more than 1.8 million visitor slots, more than 1 million sf of building area, hundreds of new employees, and perhaps 100's of thousands of vehicle trips on Napa's roads each year, all approved under negative declarations, as Mountain Peak was, indicating that such increases will cause less-than-significant environmental impacts to life in Napa County. Many residents, stuck in traffic or losing a favorite wooded hillside or favorite local shop, or unable to find an affordable place to live, know that the impacts of tourism expansion are NOT less-than-significant. Winery development is the leading edge of that expansion and the case for a more thorough assessment of the environmental impacts of this type of project is needed more than ever.

The Mountain Peak project is at the forefront of this type of commercial development in an incompatible location, and the legal proceedings will serve as a bellwether (for better or worse) for future winery development in Napa's remote and rural areas. We must continue the fight and sincerely hope you will join this effort by attending the hearing and by donating to Protect Rural Napa

9/22/17

---

Winebusiness.com 9/25/17: Atlas Peak residents file suit after Napa County Okays Mountain Peak Vineyards construction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOUNTAIN PEAK WINERY -- A Dangerous Precedent

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

WHY SHOULD THE COUNTY'S DECISION ON THE MOUNTAIN PEAK WINERY MATTER TO YOU?

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

JUST HOW BIG IS THE PERMITTED PROJECT?

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

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

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

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

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

For more information on the Project, please visit the Mountain Peak page on SodaCanyonRoad.org

WILL THIS PROJECT AFFECT THE WATER SUPPLY OF ANY LOCAL COMMUNITY?



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

IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO?

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

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

HOW CAN YOU HELP PROTECT RECTOR AND OTHER REMOTE WATERSHEDS IN THE FUTURE?

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

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

You may donate via Paypal by clicking here

You may also send a check to:

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

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

As reflected in an article dated Aug. 14, August was a busy month for the Board of Supervisors, with five appeals scheduled regarding winery issues, one of which concerned the Mountain Peak Winery, a proposed facility at the top of Soda Canyon Road. The facility was initially approved by a 3-1 vote by the Planning Commission on a

Update 8/23/17:

---

On August 22, 2017, with modifications to the Conditions of Approval in place, the Board of Supervisors denied the appeal of each of the four appellants in turn, and the Mountain Peak Winery was officially added to the other 123 wineries created or expanded in the County since 2010.

At the hearing Yeoryios Apallas requested that 2 documents be entered into the administrative record, each of which were material to the Mountain Peak decision and each of which came into being only after the tentative hearing decision in May. They illuminate how Sonoma and Napa county governments are avoiding the legally required review of the environmental impacts of their development approvals, like that of the Mountain Peak. The request was, of course, refused. They are:
Pattern and Practice of failing to Comply with CEQA regarding Winery Approvals
California Riverwatch vs. Sonoma County, et al.

5/29/17

---

Two days after the Mountain Peak BOS appeal hearing on May 23rd, the Register reported that Acumen Wines, Mountain Peak's brand, has just opened their tasting room downtown across from the Archer Hotel. How did we miss this? (We might have looked at their website, of course.) Not only is Mountain Peak successfully producing wine without a winery, but they have an extremely prominent location to sell their wines. (And we learned more about the owner of Mountain Peak in the article than we have in 3 years dealing with his developer. Our attempts to set up a meeting with the owner were ignored.) Napa County obviously had known about the tasting room. Did the Planning Commission, the BOS and the "wine industry" know that Mountain Peak already had a tourism venue to market their wines, rendering their request for out-of-scale visitation at their winery a debatable necessity? It is a better solution to the contentious issue of at-winery marketing, one that the county has lauded in other presentations. Why were they silent on it here? It was certainly an alternative that would have been considered under CEQA in a real EIR, and the exclusion of its existence prior to the county's review is, from our standpoint, equivalent to hiding exculpatory evidence from defendants in a trial. It is a question that perhaps a judge should answer.

A downtown tasting room at the entry to Napa's largest hotel is, of course, a significant bit of knowledge to counter an argument that Mountain Peak needs 14,575 yearly visitors and 19 daily employees coming 6 miles up a dead end road to insure their success in selling their product. Not to mention the benefit to the environment: The tasting room is 11 miles from the winery. At 2.7 visitors per car and say 10 hospitality employees, 199,059 vehicle miles would be saved each year by not using the winery as a tasting room. That's 8 trips around the earth, and 82 metric tons of CO2 (411 gram/mi).

This was the second Mountain Peak surprise in 2 days. At the hearing we learned that Supervisor Dillon, whose commissioner was the dissenting vote at the planning commission hearing, would not be attending the appeal hearing. Chair Ramos reminded us that it is incumbent on citizens to be knowledgable about all publicly published information, and that the documentation indicating that she would be out of the county was to be found in a BOS agenda line item from the previous week. It didn't occur to the county to add that information at the time that the Mountain Peak agenda was published 5 days before the hearing.

We were also surprised a few weeks earlier when, a few days after the planning commission approved an increase in the capacity of The Caves at Soda Canyon and approved their bootlegged portal and patio, the property, increased immeasurably in value due to the approvals, was put up for sale. Did the commissioners know? Residents, who spent enormous amounts of time and money in making a counter argument against the sleazy nature of the project from its inception, were left agog. Did the commissioners and the county and the "wine industry" know of the impending sale?

There is a sense that much of what happens between the county government and members of the wine industry operates sub rosa. The county exercises due diligence to provide open access to documents and public involvement in the planning process, and yet this is a one-industry county and the daily interactions of the dominant industry and its regulators is a bond that mere citizens can never hope to break into. (A couple of Mountain Peak's consultants started their presentations with a bit of jovial banter with the Supes. Toward the appellants the Supes seemed to have only stern looks and words.) In a world in which the dominant industry provides benefits and a sense of well being for the county's citizens, that sort of cronyism is acceptable. But now we find that the development that the industry continues to pursue and that the county continues to approve is having impacts that are definitely not a benefit to the quality of life of the rest of us. And the anger at a government unwilling to protect the interests of its citizens against the monied interests of its major industry is continuing to build.

Over 800 people in the county signed a petition opposing the Mountain Peak project including most of the residents of Soda Canyon Road. Sup. Pedroza's lament during the hearing about decisions being perceived as "either business or residents" is unfortunately not just perception, it has become the reality, with residents on the short end every single time.

There seems to be a sense among some that last November's election was the definitive rejection of the importance of citizen resistance to development projects throughout the county such as Woolls Ranch, Yountville Hill, Walt Ranch, Girard, Syar, the Woodland Initiative, Mountain Peak, and that we are now in the season of elections having consequences (as we are nationally!) And they may be right. Only time will tell. But thus far the injuries to a way of life have not been written off by those immediately impacted and the resistance and anger, at least in this quarter, are more keenly felt than ever.

[Letter drafted, but not, I think, sent prior to the finalization of the BOS vote on 5/23/17]

Board of Supervisors,

On Tuesday, you will finalize the denial of 4 neighbor appeals of the Planning Commission's approval of the Mountain Peak Winery. Mountain Peak, as you know, will be a new winery, 100,000 g/y with 14,600 annual visitors, 19 daily employees, and parking for 28 cars. It is located up a winding dead end road, 6 miles from the Silverado trail, and is surrounded by residential-vineyard properties, our own included. It will be the first tourism-centered facility in this remote area of the county. It will change the rural character of our community.

At this point the appeals have been denied and the event on Tuesday is intended to dot the i's and be done with it. But it is also another opportunity to speak about the significance of the urban development that you continue to promote and approve throughout the county. Ours is just one of numerous projects that represent a wave of development beginning to impact the rural and small-town character of our neighborhoods and the character of the county as a whole. And as have we, other communities have begun to push back. Woolls Ranch, Yountville Hill, Girard, Reverie, Melka, Walt Ranch, Syar, Brehmer, Bell, Raymond. The development wave is extensive: 150 winery projects are approved or in the pipeline, but not yet built. Almost 4 million sf of commercial space has been approved or is proposed, some 2500 hotel rooms, some 3700 homes and apartments.

This winery does not need to exist. Wine from the property's vines is already being made. In fact, as with most new winery projects being approved, the vineyard will be reduced to accommodate the winery. And the wine being made is already being sold in the brand's tasting room across from the Archer Hotel, as well as online. What economic benefit this building will bring to the county as a whole or the survival of the "wine industry" is highly speculative. The change it will make to the character of Soda Canyon Road and its residents sense of community is undeniable.

All of the new wineries that are being approved, at the rate of one a month, are equally unnecessary. The number of producing vineyard acres in the county has increased by 1000 acres since 2007, yet almost 6 million gallons of new production capacity have been approved, needing 10,000 acres of vines. That additional production capacity has hardly moved the Napa wine being produced. But those approvals have also opened up 2.4 million new visitation slots.

Over 150 residents of Soda Canyon Road signed the petition opposing the construction of this winery. Over 800 residents of Napa County signed the petition opposing this winery. As we know, the planning commission and you seem to pay no attention to petitions. All of those signatures are deemed worthless compared to the interests of one wealthy individual wishing to transform community character to their egotistical benefit.

You have one last vote to do the right thing, and find that this project is NOT appropriate for this remote location. I urge you to do so.

Bill Hocker
Soda Canyon Road

NVR 5/25/17: Napa County approves remote, controversial Mountain Peak winery

On May 23, 2017 the Napa County Board of Supervisors denied the 4 appeals of the Planning Commission's use permit approval for the Mountain Peak Winery made in January.

The agenda and documents for the hearing are here
The Staff agenda letter is here
The video of the hearing is here
The community powerpoint is here

The four resident's appeals were each denied in turn 4-0 with the appellant's own supervisor, Sup. Pedroza, making the motion to deny. Sup. Dillon was - unexpectedly, from the standpoint of residents - absent from the proceedings. (She did not mention that she would be absent when we led her on a site visit 5 weeks before the hearing.) While her vote may have been no different than the other supervisors, her insights into the long history of industry-resident relations and intimate knowledge of WDO issues would have been an illuminating part of the discussion. And since it was her commissioner who voted against the project, it was especially important to have her input here. We asked for a continuance based on her absence to no avail.

As they did at the first Planning Commission hearing, a last minute concession was offered up to ease the decision in their favor and provide some cover for the decision-makers. Last time it was the elimination of marketing events. This time it was a "75% estate grape" provision to be added to the conditions of approval linking approved capacity to the amount grapes produced on the "estate". I don't know if the county has an official definition of an estate, but the Napa Valley Vintners provides this definition of "estate-bottled" when used on wine labels.

In the discussion the implication was that the "estate" would include the winery property plus the 180 acre parcel up the road owned outright by Mountain Peak. Selling the larger parcel would mean a proportionate reduction in the approved capacity under the use-permit. Would the approved capacity also increase if Mountain Peak buys another parcel? Would the approved capacity diminish if the winery parcel is sold separately? More importantly, visitation numbers are based on a business plan projection to insure the sale of the yearly production. If the production drops considerably shouldn't the visitation numbers also go down. Does the business model morph into one based solely on serving expensive wine-paired lunches? There were immediate questions about how to work out this provision in a meaningful and enforceable way, in our minds and the minds of supervisors.

It was agreed that the finalization of their denials was contingent on the exact wording of the provision to be worked out by the Aug 15th BOS meeting. It may be a very trend-setting provision for winery development in remote areas in order to avoid the custom-crush fiasco of the Caves at Soda Canyon (that will be making its way to the Board in the future).

The "estate" discussion precipitated an interest by Sup. Wagenknecht to perhaps consider standards for "remote" wineries. While the suggestion seemed a bit off-the-cuff, Dir. Morrison seemed eager to take on the assignment. Given this letter to the planning commission two years ago prior to APAC and his valiant efforts there to create predictable development standards for wineries, I want to believe that the fire for true long term planning consistency regarding winery development was not stamped out by the BOS's "case-by-case" cave-in to the industry after APAC.

The hearing went from 10:00 until 5:30. Our side, led superbly by Anthony Arger, made 8 individual presentations limited to 2 hours total. Chair Ramos, much like Chair Gill at planning commission meetings, was a stern disciplinarian on time limits for us concerned citizens. (The professionals, representing development interests, make their points efficiently. Citizens, often less disciplined, are frequently cut off mid presentation.) That sense of sternness carried over into all interactions with the appellants (despite the fact that the hearing was on their dime). By contrast when the Mountain Peak representatives approached the podium there was often a bit of jovial banter between the rep and the Board prior to the presentation. This has probably always been the case, but it takes on a new ominousness in an era in which the wine industry is making its disdain for the interests of residents more apparent than ever after last year's APAC put downs and the election. One budding developer of an event center on Dry Creek Road, and author of the capitalist manifesto on winery development during the APAC hearing, was there to cheer on the Supes.

Sup. Pedroza lamented the current "business or residents" dichotomy of county relations, and he may have been behind the "estate" condition as an industry-acceptable (evidenced by Michelle Benvenuto's silence on the issue) mitigation of resident concern, but, as has often been the case, the words of concern don't correlate with real constituent support against the interests of the industry. As long as the Planning Commission and the BOS continue to side with the industry in every single decision they render, resident anger at their government will only increase, and the resistance will continue.

Supervisors,

I am Bill Hocker, 3460 Soda Canyon Road. I am a neighbor of the project and an appellant.

The Mountain Peak site is located 6 miles up a winding dead-end road, The road is the only access to the Rector plateau, going up a steep grade and through a narrow pass before reaching the project site near the edge of the gorge that drains the watershed. Although the wilderness has disappeared into vines in the last two decades, it is still, to most all who live there, a very remote place.

Mountain Peak would be the fourth winery built on the plateau. It would also be the first post-WDO winery and the first dependent on tourism to justify its existence. It would host 15000 yearly visitors, up to 60 visitors a day, and have 19 daily employees. Vehicle traffic to and from the site would add about 100 trips per day to the existing 400 or so generated by residents and the extensive vineyard operations. With the daily tourism, the sense and reality of remoteness will be gone.

In January, Mountain Peak was approved with a 3 to 1 vote by the Planning Commission. One Commissioner exercised discretion and did not support the visitation requested, heeding your interpretive guidance appended to the 2010 WDO:

"To insure that the intensity of winery activities is appropriately scaled, the County considers the remoteness of the location and the amount of wine to be produced at a facility when reviewing use permit proposals, and [the county] endeavors to ensure a direct relationship between access constraints and on-site marketing and visitation programs"

This guidance seemed intended as a caution against development in remote areas as a result of the expansion of tourism activities allowed by changes to the WDO at the time. We have felt from the beginning that this guidance was written with a project like Mountain Peak in mind.

At the January hearing both the applicant and the county provides examples of "comparable" hillside wineries to help commissioners evaluate the Mountain Peak visitation numbers.

During the hearing, Rick Marshall, the chief county road engineer, drew a distinction for commissioners to consider when looking at comparable wineries: "I think a tough decision for you today is the distinction between roads that are dead end versus those that are not." He elaborated on the funding difficulties faced in maintaining county roads, indicating that dead-end roads would be low on their repair priorities once funding arrives. He concluded by asking: "Is it appropriate to put this land use on this dead end road?" He left that answer to the commissioners discretion.

In our community presentation at the hearing, we looked at the details of those comparables with emphasis on the dead-end nature of our road. Our analysis at the hearing?

Of the Applicant's 5 examples, 3 were on state highways, and a fourth is at the bottom of the heavily traveled Oakville Grade. The last was on the well-travelled White Cottege Rd in Angwin. The 3 with more visitation than Mountain Peak were all pre-WDO. The other 2 had less than a third the visitation.

Of the County's four 100,000 gal "hillside" wineries, 3, in fact, had their tasting rooms or wineries on the valley floor and one was at the junction of Hwy 121 and 128.

Our conclusion? None of the 9 was comparable to a 15,000 visitor/yr winery 6 miles up a dead-end road.

At the hearing Mr. Marshall also tentatively added this in terms of comparables: "An example to me that's similar is the Diamond Mountain Winery. It's similarly narrow, windy, in mountainous terrain, and it's a dead end." He didn't know its capacity or visitation. We looked it up: 10,000 gal and 1500 visitors per year.

Looking at Diamond Mountain, it seemed that a more appropriate comparison might be made to many other wineries in the county in which "remoteness of location" could be an issue. "Remoteness" I defined as being a mile or more off a state highway or the Trail in the mountainous areas of the county. Using Google maps and correlating with the County's winery database, 70 some "remote" wineries were found.

The result of this effort was an online interactive map and table of those wineries. I sent a link to it in my email submittal to the Board for this hearing. The table can be sorted to make comparisons based on capacity, visitation, distance from highways and distance on dead end roads, pre and post WDO wineries.

To summarize the conclusions that drawn from the exercise: Of all 71 remote wineries currently on the list, Mountain Peak falls almost entirely at or near the top 10% in each category.

---

Capacity
Regarding capacity, it is the 7th on the list.
All remote wineries with a greater capacity than Mountain Peak are pre-WDO.
Mountain Peak has 1.7 x the average capacity.
It has 5 x the median or middle-range capacity, a better benchmark here because 3 large wineries at the top skew the averages.

---

Visitation
in terms of Visitation, it is 6th on the list
It has 3 x the average visitation
and 6 x the median visitation

---

Post-WDO wineries
Of the 45 post WDO wineries in the sample:
It has the largest capacity of any post-WDO winery in these remote areas.
It has the 4th largest visitation
(Note that 2 of the 3 larger, Palmaz and Woolls were also very contentious approvals.)

---

Employees
In employees it is 3rd highest of remote wineries
Also in vehicle trips/day: 3rd highest
with 3 x the average trips per day
and 9 x the median trips per day.

---

Distance to Hwy
in terms of the Distance from state highway or the Trail: not quite a third of the way down the list at number 21.
But of those 20 further, Mountain Peak has the most visitation.
it is 2 miles further from a major highway than average

---

Dead-end roads
Of the 44 wineries on a dead-end road: 8th on the list.
Of the 7 further, it has the most visitation by far (almost 3 x as much as the next closest)
And it is 3 miles further up a dead-end road than average.

---

Soda Canyon Road
Finally of the 8?? Soda Canyon Road Wineries
In Capacity it is 2nd to the 450,000 gal year Pre-WDO Antica winery
In Visitation it is 1st by far on the road
It is almost 3 x the visitation of Antica. (Thankfully Antica uses very little of its allowed 5200 vis/yr. It is a winery built to process grapes not tourists. As such has been a good neighbor.)
Mountain Peak has 6x the average visitation of all other wineries on the road.
And 4 times the average trips.



In summary, while the Mountain Peak applicants argued that their numbers fell in the middle range of the comparable wineries originally presented, the reality is that, compared to a broader range of remote wineries, Mountain Peak's statistics are at the far upper end in every category. Looking at the intensity of production, visitation and remoteness together, Mountain Peak is clearly inappropriately scaled for the remote and rural location of upper Soda Canyon Road where it is being proposed.

Like Mr Marshall, I would like to end with my own comparable, recently approved at the planning commission, and one of the wineries on our list:

In reviewing the Black Sears Winery, the Planning Commission noted the remoteness of location and appropriate scaling of a 20,000 gal winery supplied by 26 acres of vines on a 100 acres of property, with 16 daily visitors and 4 employees. Black Sears is 2 and a half miles up a dead road from Howell Mountain Road in Angwin.

One commissioner said of the project. "It is unusually remote. I mean, literally it's at the end of the road. It's a long road."

A second commissioner felt it was "modest and to scale" and commented on the "great neighbor relations".

A third commissioner summed up the commission's consensus, saying the project "truly introduces modest visitation in a remote location... This is something we are trying to embrace."

All three commissioners voted to approve the Mountain Peak project as well: On a 40 acre site with a similar 25 acres of vines, the project has 5 times the capacity, up to 60 daily visitors, 19 employees, more than twice as far up a dead-end road, with a majority of households on the road having signed an opposition petition.

Unfortunately the inconsistancy in these decisions reflects a system of arbitrary requests and approvals based on speculative business plans in a case-by-case approach to land use planning. I was struck by the 100,000 gal comparables presented by the County for Mountain Peak: visitation ranged from 4400 to 151,000 visitors/year. Marketing plans to sell 100,000 gals of wine may differ, but that difference seems beyond the level of reasonable disparity. More interpretive guidance in making decisions was obviously needed.

The interpretive guidance in the WDO was a tacit recognition that changes made in 2010 would bring a faster shift from an industry devoted to wine making to one devoted to wine tourism, and that there was a value in constraining that transition in the more remote areas of the county where, as with Mountain Peak, tourism is making its first inroads. I think that the planning commission came to the right decision in the Black Sears project: an appropriately scaled project in a remote location can win the backing of the residents that must live with it. On Soda Canyon Road, the pushback by residents through their petitions and their efforts in this room are a better indication of innappropriate scale than all of the number crunching and fact-based analysis we have just gone through. The majority on the planning commission did not make the right decision on Mountain Peak. I appeal to you to right that wrong and require a more appropritately scaled project in this remote locaiton.


Thank you

May 9, 2017

David Morrsison, Director
Napa County Planning, Building & Environmental Services Dept.
1195 Third Street, Suite 210,
Napa, California
Email: David.Morrison@countyofnapa.org

RE: SUPPORTING APPEAL OF NAPA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION APPROVING MOUNTAIN PEAK WINERY-USE PERMIT #P13-00320-UP

Dear Napa County Board of Supervisors,

My name is Steve Chilton and I own property on Soda Canyon Road, Napa, CA 94558.

My wife and I constructed our home on a small acreage that has been in her family for nearly 100 years. While designing the house we worked around the 100+ year old oaks and Soda Creek. No oaks were removed for the house nor was the creek impacted. We practice positive environmental stewardship and expect the County and others on Soda Canyon Road to do the same. I recently retired from a career of 35 years with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. I strongly support the Appeal of the Napa County Planning Commission approval of the Mountain Peak project and request that you uphold the appeal.

The Planning Commission demonstrated an arbitrary decision making process when they considered the Mountain Peak Project and other projects such as the Flynnville Winery Project. The Flynnville Project was a smaller winery (60,000 gallons a year versus 100,000 gallons per year for the Mountain Peak winery), that was bordered on four sides by roads, including Highway 29 and was essentially a redevelopment that was opposed by several neighbors (I believe four neighbors testified in opposition to the project). Mountain Peak is larger, is six plus miles up a narrow, steep dead end road, will have numerous impacts upon the environment and is opposed by over 900 citizens. At the urging of the Planning Commission, the Flynnville applicants reduced the winery to 40,000 gallons per year and the Commission approved it.

What did those four opponents bring to the Commission that caused them to require this reduction in gallons per year that hundreds of opponents to Mountain Peak did not? Or was it merely a matter of clout or personal influence?

Additionally, the Commission abused their discretion when it found that the Mountain Peak Project will not have a significant effect upon the environment and adopted a Negative Declaration. The Board of Supervisors must reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the project or remand it for further consideration.

The size, scope and lack of environmental documentation of the project dictates that an Environmental Impact Report following the requirements of CEQA is mandatory. A negative declaration for a project this large and with its concurrent impacts upon water quality and quantity, wildlife, traffic, public safety, noise and vegetation cannot be supported by the facts. The Initial Study Checklist includes the finding that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. Section IV. A) of the checklist shows that the project will have a less than significant effect (not a no impact determination) upon unnamed species. The Rector Creek Watershed contains yellow-legged frogs and California giant salamanders, both listed species of special concern, but the negative declaration checklist mentions neither. Either county staff did not conduct a thorough survey of the area or they relied on consultants hired by the project proponents who apparently limited their survey to present a report that supported their client and not the facts. Also the California Red-Legged Frog is a federally listed threatened species by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and populations have been identified in Wragg Creek near Capell Valley Road. Similar, if not higher quality habitat occurs in the Rector Creek watershed.

Did county staff conduct or request a survey of possible special concern or threatened populations within the watershed? What is the basis for the statement that the project will have a less than significant effect rather than no impact?

CEQA regulations require that counties acting as lead agencies circulate CEQA documents to all Responsible/Trustee Agencies for comment. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDF&W) is one of those responsible agencies. Apparently the County did not follow that regulation prior to the Planning Commission approving the Mountain Peak Project. The CDF&W was not informed and therefore did not comment on the CEQA document. It is unknown what they would have commented or informed the County of and just maybe would have averted the need for this hearing and additional costs to the County and its citizens.

This apparent violation of CEQA regulations and state law on its own is reason enough for the Board of Supervisors to reverse the Planning Commission decision, require an EIR and rehear the entire project. Continuing to support this project without knowing the full impacts could open the county to challenges from wildlife advocates such as the Center for Biological Diversity and others.

Thank you for your time,

Steve Chilton

The excavation of 33,000 sf of caves and a crush pad on the Mountain Peak site, and the necessary topsoil clearings, redistribution of the excavated spoils and replacement of topsoil, means that a lot of earth will be moved in the project. The amount is enough to justify a great deal of concern in terms of soil runoff into the watercourses adjacent and bisecting the site, and of the impact of dust on neighbors surrounding the constricted site. How much earth will be moved?

References

Mountain Peak Civil Plans
Mountain Peak Updated Cave Plans
Cave Feasibility Report

Excavation from table on Civil Plan UP4 and Cave Plan

Cave excavation: 21070 cy x 1.4 bulking	29500 cy
Other excavation (crush pad, stormwater basin, parking lot?): 14000 cy x 1.4? bulking	19600 cy
Total excavated spoils to be redistributed:	49,100 cy

Fill from Civil Plan UP1

Spoils fill areas shown on Civil Plan UP1: 10,100 cy + 5,900 cy	16,000 cy
Spoils fill NOT NOTED on plans: 49100-16,000 cy destined for the service driveway and berms at southernmost area of the site	33,100* cy

*Will the service driveway and berms around parking actually absorb twice as much in spoils as the designated spoils areas? This does beg unanswered questions about the ability of the site to accommodate all of the spoils.

Topsoil removal and replacement

Note that the amount of dirt to be excavated and repositioned on the site is much larger than just the cuts that produce spoils. ~ 2 feet of topsoil must be removed in all areas to receive spoils, stored on the site and then recovered over spoils.

From the site plan it appears that about 7 acres (Includes some guessing around the winery) will have to be stripped of their topsoil and replaced after the distribution of spoils.

Removal, storage and replacement of 6.9 acres of topsoil, 2 feet deep	22,300 cy
Total amount of earth being moving around the site 49,100 cy spoils + 22,300 cy topsoil	71,400 cy

In all about 71,400 cy of topsoil and spoils must be moved around the site. To put that into perspective, if the earth being moved around on the site were piled on a football field (including end zones) the height would be 33 feet, the height of a 3 story building.



Football field = 57,600 sf
Dirt piled 33 ft high: ~ 71,400 cy

Another way to put that amount of dirt into perspective: it is a volume equivalent to 3.25 Napa County Buildings.



County Building = ~ 16,500 sf
If 36 ft high: ~ 22,000 cy each

On Jan 4th 2017, the Mountain Peak Winery was approved by a 3 to 1 vote at the Napa County Planning Commission. The location is 6 miles up a winding dead-end road, up a steep grade and pass, the only access to the isolated plateau of the Rector Reservoir watershed. The project is proposed to be a 100,000 gal/y winery with 14575 yearly visitors and 19 employees. One Commissioner decided that she could not support the visitation and marketing requested, heeding the interpretive guidance given by Supervisors in the 2010 WDO Interpretive Guidance(Item III here) to consider the remoteness of location and access constraints in determining marketing and visitation numbers.

In the last year or so, in a reasonable effort to provide some objectivity to the arbitrary requests for capacity and visitation that applicants make in presenting their projects, the Planning Department has begun providing tables to the planning commissioners comparing the applicants requests to wineries of similar capacity, similar siting, and in the same locality. In the case of Mountain Peak, the County provided tables of comparable 100,000 gal. wineries. In addition, the applicant provided several "comparables" of their own on page 14 of their project narrative here.

At the Jan 4th Planning Commission meeting, Deputy Director of Engineering Rick Marshall, the chief county road engineer, drew a distinction in the Mountain Peak decision for Commissioners to consider when looking at comparable wineries: "I think a tough decision for you today is the distinction between roads that are dead end versus those that are not." He elaborated on the funding difficulties that the county faces in maintaining its roads, indicating that dead end roads might be rather low on their repair priorities as funding comes available in the future. (There is more on the road issues raised in the hearing here) He concluded by asking: "Is it appropriate to put this land use on this dead end road?... I hand it back to you at that point."

In our Jan 4th 2017 community presentation to the Planning Commission, we looked at the details of those comparables with particular emphasis on the dead end nature of the road. Soda Canyon Road is one of the longest dead-end roads (along with Atlas Peak road) in the county. Our presentation, below, highlighting the dead end nature of the road, was made by Glenn Schreuder. It is also available here:



The conclusion from this presentation: There are no comparables in these examples to the size and visitation requested by Mountain Peak on dead end roads or even hillside locations.

• Of the Applicant's 5 examples 4 are pre-WDO wineries accessed directly off main roads, 3 with large visitation. 2 of the examples, including the only "remote" example, have less than a third the visitation of Mountain Peak (we like the comparison!).
  
• The 4 "hillside" wineries presented by the County in fact were either directly on a state highway, on the valley floor or had their tasting room on the valley floor.
  
• And on Soda Canyon Road the only winery with more than 30,000 gallons, Antica, had one third the visitation of Mountain Peak. (another good comparison!)
  
  [A side comparison: The County's 100,000g/y comparison tables do highlight the incredible range in visitation (from 4400 to 151,000 vis/yr) approved for that capacity. While business models for marketing 100,000 gallons of wine may vary, it is tempting to see such an enormous difference as simply arbitrariness in the request and approval process. Commissioners were uncomfortable about that arbitrariness when I first attended a commission meeting 3 years ago, and they are still uncomfortable about it today, even with the comparable tables. Dir. Morrison was right to try (unsuccessfully) to find a more rational relationship between parcel size, capacity and visitation at APAC. The issue should be revisited.]

A more extensive comparison of appropriateness

---

Comparables can be used in a couple of ways. They can encourage excessive requests to be scaled back to more "normal" values, the intent if not the result perhaps of the County's comparables. But they can also be used to justify excessive requests based on a few excessive examples, guaranteeing an ever increasing upward trend. This, I would argue, was the intent of the examples used by the applicant.

At the hearing Mr. Marshall added this in terms of comparables: "I was trying to think of - you know as soon as I say it, likely somebody will disagree - an example to me that's similar is Diamond Mountain. It's a similar narrow windy, mountainous terrain, and it's a dead end." He didn't know its capacity or visitation, however. It is 10,000 gal/y and 1500 visitors per year.

While looking up the location of Diamond Mountain Winery I realized that a comparison could be made to many other "remote" wineries in the county. Using the NVV's excellent map here I have made this list of other wineries using data from the County's winery database here. "Remoteness" I defined as being a mile or more off a state highway or the Trail. (The distance between Hwy 29 and the Trail averages 2 miles) I have included all of the applicant's examples here even though all do not fall into that definition of remoteness.

I have created an online interactive list of 70+ wineries in the Napa watersheds to see how Mountain Peak compares to its "remote" brethren.

I ask your indulgence to click here or on the map to view the interactive "Remote Wineries" analysis on the Soda Canyon Road website and to play around with the sorting capabilities on the table. (Such interactivity is unfortunately impossible to do in an email.)

You can also click on "View only SCR wineries" to compare Mountain Peak to other wineries on Soda Canyon Road.

Analysis from the Remote Wineries table:

Mountain Peak, when compared against these 70+ "remote" wineries falls within the upper 10% for capacity and visitation. It has:

• 2 x the average capacity (3 x if the 2 huge pre-WDO wineries are excluded)
  5 x the median capacity
  
• 2.5 x the average visitation
  over 7x the median visitation
  
• is 2 miles further from a major highway than average,
  3 miles further up a dead end road than average.
  
• 3 x the average trips per day
  9 x the median trips per day

Breakdown by ranking when sorting on different columns:

Of all 70+ remote wineries

• Capacity: 6th largest. All larger are pre-WDO.
  
• Visitation: 6th largest.
  
• Employees: 3rd largest
  
• Trips/day: 3rd largest
  
• Distance from hwy: 21st. Of the 20 further, it has the most visitation
  
• Distance on Dead End road: 8th. Of the 8 further, it has the most visitation by far

Of 44 Post-WDO remote wineries

• Capacity : largest
  
• Visitation: 4th largest

Of 8?? Soda Canyon Road Wineries

• Capacity: 2nd
  
• Visitation: 1st by far
  2.5 x the visitation of the much larger Antica Winery.
  5 x the average visitation

In summary, while the applicants on the Mountain Peak project argued that their numbers fell in the middle range of the comparable wineries that they selected and that were presented by the County, the reality is that, as the particulars of selected wineries are looked at and as watershed wineries are looked at as a whole, the Mountain Peak capacity and visitation numbers are at the extreme upper end.


Two other recent comparables:

---

A couple of other wineries that have been reviewed by the Planning Commission since the approval of Mountain Peak also throw some light on the appropriateness of the Mountin Peak decision. They are the Flynnville winery just south of Calistoga and the Black Sears winery outside of Angwin.

NVR 2/15/17: Napa County approves a winery on an 'eyesore' Calistoga site

In the Flynnville case the Planning commission felt that the project, despite its presence directly on Hwy 29, and adjacent to the Castello di Amorosa mega-winery was too intensive a use at 60,000 gal/yr and 25 visitors/day. Compare that to Mountain Peak at 100,000 g/y 60 vis/day 6 miles up a winding dead end road. I would argue that if the decision on Flynnville is correct (which I think it is) then the decision on Mountain Peak is grossly negligent. The Flynnville project was, in fact, approved with a more appropriate reduction in capacity to 40,000 gal/yr.

NVR 2/27/17: Isolated Napa County winery allowed 16 visitors a day

In the Black Sears approval, the Planning Commission noted the remote character and the appropriateness of a 20,000 g/y winery and 16 vis/day, 4 employees on a 60 acre parcel.

"It is unusually remote," one commissioner said [at the hearing] . "I mean, literally it's at the end of the road. It's a long road." While it is 3 miles further from a state highway than Mountain Peak at 9.2 miles, it is only 2.5 miles from the heavily traveled Howell Mountain Road and the town of Angwin that links the Napa Valley to Pope Valley. The same commissioner had no similar concerns about the remoteness of Mountain Peak.

Another commissioner said that the project "truly introduces modest visitation in a remote location... This is something we are trying to embrace." The commissioner was not very interested to embrace modest visitation on Mountain Peak.

A third commissioner approved of a project that was "modest and to scale" and commented on the "great neighbor relations". Neither of those conditions could be applied to Mountain Peak but the commissioner approved it anyway. In fact over half of the households on Soda Canyon Road (and over 800 individuals throughout the county) have signed a petition opposing the project. If such consideration is to be given to the good neighbor relations in the approval of projects, equal consideration should be given to negative neighbor testimony.

A fourth commissioner complimented the "modest level of visitation given the remote location" and the neighborhood support the project received. Having denied the Mountain Peak project over its lack of similar attributes, she remains the one commissioner consistent in her sense of appropriateness when evaluating wineries in remote locations.

Video of the hearing
NVR 1/4/17: Napa County Planning Commission approves Mountain Peak Winery

After almost three years since the fateful day that neighbors on Soda Canyon Road discovered a tourism winery was planned for their remote rural community, the County Planning Commission has approved the project, their first approval of 2017. The vote was 3 to 1 with Heather Phillips' seat still unfilled.

Comm. Cottrell voted to deny, arguing that the level of visitation was inappropriate for the remote location, following the Supervisors direction to planning commissioners to consider the remoteness and access constraints in determining visitation numbers. It was, I think, a courageous vote in support of residents interests and the county's rural legacy in a county government and in an era that is ever more dominated by developers.

There will be an appeal to the Board of Supervisors. Perhaps they can summon a bit of that courage as well.

The approval came despite 900 county-wide signatures of opposition to the project, including the majority of the Soda Canyon Road community. Unfortunately, the interests of many concerned citizens in the preservation their rural communities appear to count for very little against good-life entrepreneurs and a tourism industry pretending to protect agriculture with ever more buildings and parking lots.

In perhaps one of the few unexpected moments of the day, Comm. Basayne asked County Road Engineer Rick Marshall about the comparison made by the planning department between this project and several other 100,000 gal wineries on mountain roads in the county. My thoughts on his very informative responses are related separately here.

A surprise witness

In perhaps one of the few unexpected moments of the Jan 4th, 2017 Planning Commission hearing to consider the Mountain Peak winery project, Comm. Basayne asked County Road Engineer Rick Marshall about the comparison made by the planning department between this project and several other 100,000 gal wineries on mountain roads in the county. His very informative response:

" I think a tough decision for you today is the distinction between roads that are dead end versus those that are not. And so some of the roads that were mentioned in the testimony [on the planning dept's list of similar wineries and the applicant's own list of similar projects] are not dead end roads. They are otherwise very similar, they’re narrow, they’re windy, they’re mountainous terrain, but they’re not dead end. This one is. It’s not the only one. I was trying to think of - you know as soon as I say it, likely somebody will disagree - an example to me that’s similar is Diamond Mountain. It’s a similar narrow windy, mountainous terrain, and it’s a dead end.."

He then concluded by saying "Is it appropriate to put this land use on this dead end road?... I hand it back to you at that point." which drew more than a few laughs in the room. But, of course, he did express his opinion in making the distinction between the two types of mountain roads: this road is different to him, and should probably be treated differently by the planning commissioners.

He didn’t know how big or what the visitation of the Diamond Mountain winery was. We had to look it up: Diamond Mountain Winery is a 10,000 gal/yr winery with 1500 visitors/yr, a tenth the scale of Mountain Peak.

Unfunded impacts

Rick Marshall also provided additional words of discouragement for the project. Some of the commissioners have been trying to push road improvements on Soda Canyon Road to the top of the county's priority list in an effort to dampen residents concerns over the dangers of the road shown in their testimony of opposition to the project.

Mr. Marshall gave no offers of support. The county will not have significant funds until 2019 (from Measure T taxes) to begin major repairs on all of the county's 450 miles of roads, and there are many more significant roads on their priority list before the lightly used mountain roads (particularly dead end roads that serve a very small population).

The lack of funding to maintain the county's roads, an obvious sore spot for Mr. Marshall, raises the issue that I have often mentioned on this site: the unfunded costs of development. (see here as well)

At every planning commission meeting, in the county or in the municipalities, the point almost always comes up that new development, whether buildings or vineyards, will increase the amount of tax revenues flowing to government coffers based on the more productive use of the properties, a good reason to approve the projects.

Unfortunately Mr. Marshall's situation shows what a lie those claims are. An enormous amount of vineyard development has gone on in the county in the last 25 years, a substantial amount on the Rector plateau. 1500 acres of vines and numerous high end homes have been developed here. Taxes on the high-end wines made from those high-end grapes, and the TOT from tourists here to drink the wines, and the increased value of the properties, and the fees charged to permit the developments, should be contributing to a budget surplus in the county used to provide basic services like road maintenance for property access. The reality is that that new tax money flowing in can't keep up with the costs of dealing with the impacts created by the development.

On Soda Canyon Road the (literal) impacts of heavy equipment traversing the road to create and tend all those vines has taken a substantial toll. Yet the county doesn't have the money to repair the road and must depend on tax bonds levied on all of the county's citizens to pay the costs. Everyone living in Napa County is essentially subsidizing the few owners profiting from the vineyards, as they would to provide safe access to Mountain Peak. At the July 20th hearing, Dan McFadden, the road's biggest brain, brutally assessed the issues facing the County in approving a commercial winery at the top of the road.

There is an argument to be made that governments (and the taxpayers that fund them) would be financially better off by not allowing development in their domains and letting nature have its way wherever possible, or at least by charging the substantial fees that would really cover the long term impact costs of development, fees that would make developers much more careful in their development decisions. Of course that is not the American way, a culture built on unencumbered land speculation over the last two centuries. Unfortunately, we must continually pay the price, perhaps especially now in a new era of developers, to subsidize that speculation.

A question of liability

And finally Mr. Marshall addressed the rate of accidents on the road. He indicated that he monitors carefully all accidents on Napa County roads to determine places that need mediation to insure the health and safety of the public. Soda Canyon Road does not stand out in its rate of accidents on the mountain roads in the county. It is different, however, in that most roads have individual accident prone points that the county can focus on in their remediations. Soda Canyon road has a much more even distribution of accidents along the road, and is much more difficult to remediate with a single fix.

After our extensive public campaign to point out the dangers of Soda Canyon Road, with hundreds of pages of testimony and graphic and tabular exhibits in both the Relic winery ABC hearing and the Mountain Peak hearings, one thing is abundantly clear: as an access for a tourism facility like Mountain Peak, and with the county's acknowledged lack of resources to mitigate any dangers, the county will have clear and documented liability in approving this project should a tourbus fall into the canyon on the grade.

[Presentation given to the Planning Commission on Jan 4th, 2017 at hearing for Mountain Peak Use Permit P13-00320

Honorable Commissioners,

My name is Glenn Schreuder and my family has lived in upper Soda Canyon continuously since 1956. I would like to present some comparisons to the Proposed Mountain Peak Project that have been made which give some context to the appropriateness of the size and visitation requested for the project.

Comparison 1: from applicant

---

I wish to respectfully draw your attention to the “Comparative Analysis of Daily Visitation” contained on page 14 of the 18 page applicant’s Project Statement, as revised on March 15th, 2016. Five Wineries are listed in “Comparative Analysis of Daily Visitation”: Chappellet, Ladera,Oakville Grade, Schramsberg and Somerston.

Purportedly selected for their location on “Hillside Roads”, well sort of hillside roads, but I’ll get to that shortly. The analysis also represents that the daily visitation for MPW is 58% of the norm when compared to these five wineries of similar Gallons per Year.

Winery Mountain Peak

Production 100000 g/y

Visitation 14575/yr

Pre WDO No

Road Configuration 6.1 miles, Dead End Road

As shown in the above chart, the analysis clearly cherry picks 100K Gallons per Year (GPY) “hillside” wineries with material visitation entitlements that are not located on dead-end, one way in and one way out rural, residential roads:

1. Chappellet: Located on CA Hwy 128 (aka Sage Canyon Road, NOT on a dead end road and NOT in the heart of a rural neighborhood, it’s actually a driveway on a state highway toward Winters, CA.
   
2. Ladera: Located on two-way in/out White Cottage Road a short distance from Angwin (a census-designated place with a population of ~3,000)
   
3. Oakville Grade: Located on the two-way in/out Oakville Grade, not a dead-end.
   
4. Schramsberg: Located up private Schramsberg Road off of CA Hwy 29 (not a neighborhood, a private road to the winery).
   
5. Somerston: Located again on CA Hwy 128 (Sage Canyon Road) NOT a dead-end road and NOT in the heart of a rural neighborhood).

As a result this analysis is, in essence, comparing five apples to one orange which is misleading.

Comparison 2 from County:

---

Further, in regard to the County-created Exhibit F “Updated Winery Comparison, 100,000 GPY”, of the 18 wineries listed in the comparison, 14 are indicated to be on the “valley floor” and only 4 are indicated to be “hillside” wineries.

Winery Mountain Peak

Production 100000 g/y

Visitation 14575/yr

Pre WDO No

Road Configuration 6.1 miles, Dead End Road

According to Google Maps:

1. Kent Rasmussen Winery has its tasting room in the Napa Valley Corporate Park.
   
2. Pahlmeyer Winery has its tasting room at 811 St Helena Hwy #202, St Helena,CA
   
3. Trinchero Napa Valley also its tasting room at 100 Main St, St Helena, CA, and
   
4. Moss Creek Winery is located at Moskowite Corners, at the corner of Hwy 128 and Steele Canyon Rd

None of these four wineries appear to really be ‘hillside’ wineries at all, like the MPW project is. While some of their vineyards may potentially be somewhere in the hills, three have tasting rooms on the valley floor and Moss Creek, while remote to the valley floor, is right off CA Hwy 128 on the way to Winters and Davis, CA.

While all 18 wineries appear have use permits for 100,000 GPY, and varying levels of annual visitations, none of these 18 wineries are substantially similar to the MPV project in terms of (a) being in a very remote dead-end box canyon location and (b) having very limited access in terms of a safe, properly maintained roadway to serve it. I’m really unclear what conclusion can be drawn from this exhibit other than if MPV were on this list it would be a non-homogenous member by way of its inherently out-sized proportions in comparison to roadway access.

Comparison 3: Atlas Peak

---

A more appropriate comparison would be to compare wineries up the one other long, dead-end road in the county, Atlas Peak Road:

Winery Mountain Peak

Production 100000 g/y

Visitation 14575/yr

Pre WDO No

Road Configuration 6.1 miles, Dead End Road

1. Kongsgaard 9.4 miles up Atlas Peak road, 12,000 GPY, no visitation allowed.
   
2. Alta 9.0 miles up Atlas Peak road, 5,000 GPY, 208 visitors allowed per year.
   
3. Ripe Peak 8.8 miles up Atlas Peak road, 1,500 GPY, 1,456 visitors allowed per year.
   
4. Vin Roc 8.1 miles up Atlas Peak road, 18,000 GPY, 416 visitors allowed per year.
   
5. William Hill 1.4 miles up Atlas Peak road, 720,000 GPY, 13,000 visitors allowed per year.

(Note that William Hill Winery is almost on the valley floor, adjacent to the Silverado Countyr Club, and even then only has only 13K/year visitors allowed. It is almost certainly not by accident that a winery of this scope and scale is not 6+ miles up a dead-end road like Atlas Peak or Soda Canyon).

Comparison 4: Soda Canyon Rd

---

And another more “apples to apples” comparison would be to compare MPW to other wineries on the dead-end Soda Canyon Road itself:

Winery Mountain Peak

Production 100000 g/y

Visitation 14575/yr

Pre WDO No

Road Configuration 6.1 miles, Dead End Road

With the exception of Antica Napa Valley, which owns approximately 1,200 acres of contiguous land at the very end of Soda Canyon Road and therefore can only be compared in terms of its parcel size to production and visitation ratios, all of the wineries on Soda Canyon Road have production levels of between 12,000 and 30,000 gallons. And all, including Antica, have visitation levels from none to about a third of the Applicant's request.


In summation

---

It is clear from this comparison that the wineries selected for comparative analysis in the applicants project statement are only comparable to the extent that they have the same GPY and varying degrees if visitation, otherwise their locations are far away in terms of distance from Upper Soda Canyon and are not remotely comparable in terms of the traffic impacts that Soda Canyon road (as a dead-end road) and its residents would suffer.

[This is my letter to the planning commission in rebuttal to the LEED presentation made by Mountain Peak's architect at the Jul 20th, 2016, hearing. Despite my best efforts, some commissioners still cited the certification while approving the project.]

Commissioners,

A very happy new year to you all. My sympathies for having to start out the year on such a controversial project. And my apologies for the usual last minute letter.

Much has been made of the LEED certification on this project. I very much enjoyed Mr. Wilson's presentation on the nature of the LEED process at the last meeting. And especially his appreciation of the beautiful character of the site and of the need for a low-impact project.

Low-impact is a relative term. In an area that is one of the most remote, quite and, at night, dark places in the county, impacts that may be "low-impact" or "less-than-significant" elsewhere are keenly felt. While burying most of the project is a good start, other aspects fall a bit short from the standpoint of those who must live side by side with it. There is nothing low-impact about the 44000 trips up and down the road each year. Or of the many visitors and employees and the festive commotion they will bring that break the quiet of the place, or the sight of the parking lots and solar panels the water treatment refinery now added to the vineyard landscape. Also not low-impact is the vast amount of dirt to be moved around on virtually every square foot the site, and of the mogul landscape of berms that have disfigured the smooth hillside at the top of the site beyond recognition.



I sensed that the Commission was enthused about the LEED certification and that it might be an influencing factor in your approval. It was an important part of the previous presentation and is referred to often by the applicant including in the first sentence of the project narrative. If you do intend to let the LEED certification weigh in your decision, as the applicant seems to assume, the LEED data need to be a part of the public record for all to discuss before a decision is made.

We should all want energy efficient buildings, but LEED certification seems, in fact, to be a very inconsistant predictor of the actual performance. In my first letter to the planning department, I cited this rather extensive article noting that the rating can translate into tax breaks, marketing or public opinion advantage, or a planning commission approval that justifies the high cost of the certificate. Whether the building actually lives up to its LEED certification is often forgotten after the project is built. There's really no penalty for not meeting the standards. In my email to you this morning I also included links to several research papers (below) that show a wide disparity in actual performance compared to LEED predictions and to non-LEED buildings. We and the county should have the opportunity to review the details on which the certificate was given before you render judgement, just as we would for any other consultant's report.

The LEED scorecard is below. Each of the credits on the scorecard are described on the LEED Credit Library here .



Given an opportunity, one might wish to question the reasoning on points awarded in certain areas.

For example, concerning the topic "Optimize energy performance - 18 points": While the use of cool cave air to condition the tasting room space was mentioned by Mr. Wilson, I might want to see how that compares to the energy needed to keep those cave fans running every day, or the energy expended to compensate for those very large windows facing the setting sun that provide so much daylight. I might also want to be sure that a somewhat modest solar array (from what I can guess from the plans), which probably accounts for most of the points in this category, can provide 70% of the energy needed for an industrial and commercial facility of this scale.



Or on another topic like "Building life-cycle impact reduction - 5 points" which includes historic, abandoned or blighted building reuse, I would wonder why a perfectly good 1992, 4-story "chateau" built and owned by Jan Krupp in his rise to the heights of the wine industry (definitely historic) would be torn down and his impressive cypress-lined driveway bulldozed. The viticulture building probably gets some points but since it is supposed to remain a vitaculture office, that's kind of like GHG credits for not cutting down trees.

The first topic on the scorecard has the most relevance to this project however: "Location and Transportation - 16 points"

It includes sub-topics like :

"Surrounding density and diverse uses - 5 points - Intent: to conserve land and protect farmland and wildlife habitat by encouraging development in areas with existing infrastructure. To promote walkability, and transportation efficiency and reduce vehicle distance traveled. To improve public health by encouraging daily physical activity."

And "Access to Quality transportation - 5 points - Intent: To encourage development in locations shown to have multimodal transportation choices or otherwise reduced motor vehicle use, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and other environmental and public health harms associated with motor vehicle use."

It should be noted that this LEED disinterest in remote locations corresponds nicely with the Supervisors injunction to you in the 2010 WDO addendum to consider the remoteness of location in reviewing on-site marketing and visitation, and in the General Plan's policy CON-65(e) to consider "GHG emissions produced by the traffic expected to be generated by the project".

As I pointed out in my previous letter, the amount of energy to be saved in the building through LEED compliance might be compared to the energy spent on the 44,000 trips up and down the 6 mile road each year, 260,000 miles, 10 trips around the earth each year just to get to the project from the Trail. Remoteness is at the heart of this inappropriately ambitious project and of the very large amount of energy consumed in accessing it.

There is still one energy reduction technique that LEED doesn't give points for: not building the project in the first place. Note that the applicant's grapes are already being made into wine and that wine is already being sold. [From a tasting room located in the center of town.] Why build another unnecessary winery in the county? The applicant may argue that wineries are now necessary marketing tools, or that there is more control over the product. I would counter with the example of the vintner putting in a vineyard just up the road from the project. Dave Phinney, creator of "The Prisoner" wine, has sold two high-end wine brands for a total of $350 million. (an article is here) Both wines were made from contract grapes in custom crush wineries. Were the applicant to spend the millions of dollars earmarked for the construction and overhead of a winery on less impactful marketing of his wines, I suspect he could also build a multi million dollar wine business. One without the environmental and neighborhood problems that tourist venues are bringing to residents throughout the county. It would be a truly low-impact, environmentally praiseworthy solution.

Thank you,

Bill Hocker
3460 Soda Canyon Road
Napa

---

Articles on the value (or lack of value) of LEED certification:

USA Today 6/13/13: In U.S. building industry, is it too easy to be green?
Newsham et al - Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but
Scofield - Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Not really
Scofield - Are U.S. 'Green Buildings' Really Saving Energy? The Facts May Surprise You
Scofield - No Evidence LEED Building Certification is saving Primary Energy
Gifford - A Better Way to Rate Green Buildings
Stephans - Do LEED buildings save energy? Yes, no, it depends
Swearingen LEED-Certified Buildings Are Often Less Energy-Efficient Than Uncertified Ones
Lehrer et al - Occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in green buildings
Diamond et al - Evaluating the Energy Performance of the First Generation of LEED-Certified Commercial Buildings

Update 12/29/16: The second day of the Planning Commission hearing on the Mountain Peak project will take place on Jan 4th 2017, beginning at 9:00am at the County chambers at 1195 3rd St, Napa. Please join us there!

Jan 4th 2017 Meeting Agenda and Documents (w/ revised conditions of approval and even more correspondence)
July 20th Meeting Agenda and Docs (w/ meeting pdfs and correspondence)
County website's Mountain Peak page (Mar 2016) (documents)
Applicant's proposed changes to the marketing plan
Staff Agenda Letter
Anthony Arger letter and dossier (35mb file)
Neighborhood powerpoint presentation at Jul 20th hearing
Video of the Jul 20th hearing
Transcript of the Jul 20th hearing
County Initial Study EIR Checklist

The Planning Commission is to decide on the use permit application for the Mountain Peak Winery on Soda Canyon Road on Wednesday, Jan 4th 2017. IT IS NOT TOO LATE TO ACT TO SAVE the Soda Canyon/Loma Vista Community!

WHAT:
The Planning Commission Hearing to approve or deny the use permit application for the Mountain Peak Winery proposal on Soda Canyon Road.
The Planning Commission Hearing Agenda for the Jan 4th meeting with documents is here
The County staff discussion of the project from the Jul 20th meeting is here

WHERE: County Administration Building, 1195 Third Street, Suite 305, Napa, CA
WHEN: Wednesday, Jan 4th, 2017 starting at 9:00AM

WHY: The use permit sought by Mountain Peak would allow a massive (100,000 gallon) winery event center to be built 6.1 miles up Soda Canyon Road. Developed for the owner by The Reserve Group, this project will attract 18,486 (now 14575) visitors on an annual basis, allow for 78 (now 3!) marketing events per year, add 19-27 employees per day on the road, and construct caves the size of a large Safeway grocery store (more than 33,000 square feet!), making Mountain Peak one of the larger winery projects currently being proposed in the Napa Valley. A project of this size gives unprecedented visitor and event allowances over most other Napa wineries, and especially over all existing Soda Canyon wineries. The community must unite to stop this oversized, aggressive, and unprecedented project that could truly destroy this remote and peaceful neighborhood.

What You Can Do:

---

1. Attend the continued Hearing. Strength in numbers! You don't have to speak - just being there sends a message about your commitment to live in a commercial-free neighborhood.


2. Write and submit a letter to John McDowell preferably 7 days before the hearing to be included in the document package for the meeting. (Letters may be submitted up till the end of the hearing and will be included as documents added after the meeting.)

• Use this factsheet and/or the county staff letter as reference points as well as this editable sample letter to get you started (msword)!
  
• Please Address Your Letter To:
  John McDowell, Deputy Planning Director, Napa County Planning
  Building & Environmental Services Dept.
  1195 Third Street, Suite 210
  Napa, CA 94559
• You can also email your letter to: john.mcdowell@countyofnapa.org ,
  
• You can also fax your letter to: (707) 299-1358

3. Sign and return the Petition of Opposition!

• Click here to sign the online petition
  
• Or Click here to download and print the petition
  
• Encourage your neighbors and family members to sign!
  
• We must present all signed petitions at the hearing, so please promptly return!
  
• Please mail your signed petitions to:
  Protect Rural Napa
  c/o Treasurer
  P.O. Box 2385
  Yountville, CA 94599
• Or scan and email to info@protectruralnapa.org
  

4. Donate to Protect Rural Napa

• Please donate via PayPal online at http://ProtectRuralNapa.org/
  
• Or make a donation check payable to "Protect Rural Napa" with memo line "MPV"
  
• And mail your donation to:
  Protect Rural Napa
  c/o Treasurer
  P.O. Box 2385
  Yountville, CA 94599

For more information on this massive project, visit: http://SodaCanyonRoad.org/forum.php?t=1
If you have any questions, please email, info@sodacanyonroad.org

The future of Soda Canyon Road is up to you!

A complete collection of correspondence to date is among the documents on the County Planning Commission 7/20/16 Agenda item devoted to Mountain peak

11 October 2016

John McDowell, Deputy Planning Director
Napa County Planning, Building & Environmental Services Dept.
1195 Third Street, Suite 210
Napa, CA 94559
John.McDowell@countyofnapa.org

Re: Mountain Peak Vineyard [Winery] application Use Permit #P13-00320-UP Dear

Deputy Planning Director McDowell,

Since the last Planning Commission hearing regarding Mountain Peak Vineyard [Winery] (MPV) of July 20, 2016, several more incidents of note have occurred on Soda Canyon Road that pertain to my request to deny or substantially reduce the scope of the MPV proposal.

A refresher: Soda Canyon Road is a poorly maintained, two lane, dangerous, dead-end road that winds its way up Soda Creek, over a steep grade and ends on a high plateau at the edge of Rector Creek Canyon. The plateau is the watershed of Rector Reservoir on the eastern side of the Napa Valley. There are three ends to Soda Canyon Road [one is paved, the other two are dirt and lead to residences and vineyards].

This area, described in the Napa County General Plan as a dark- sky environment, is remote from the light and noise of the Napa Valley. Until recently, the area has been entirely residential, agricultural or undeveloped watershed. Only two commercial wineries have been on the road in the last half century: the small White Rock Winery on Loma Vista and the large Antica Napa Valley set in its own 1000 acres on the Rector Plateau.

As of today’s date, Soda Canyon Road has eight (8) wineries approved or in the application process. The MPV proposal
brings the total to nine (9).

UPDATE WILDFIRE: July 26, 2016 Soda Canyon Road blocked by emergency vehicles all morning. Thankfully the wildfire was contained quickly, however there was no ingress/egress for the entire morning for anyone [residents, winery personnel, tour buses, visitors or the mailman].

The Soda Canyon Road area has the second highest number of emergency incidents in Napa County. Wildfires are an unfortunate occurrence throughout the year and pose significant safety issues for anyone visiting the area [including proposed MPV visitors].

UPDATE TRAFFIC INCIDENTS: Tour bus breaks down on Soda Canyon Road, while visiting the Beau Vigne vineyards not winery.

Date: September 24, 2016 Three tour buses visiting the vineyards of Beau Vigne Winery (winery approved on September 7, 2016, by the Napa County Planning Commission*) transport their winery visitors to their vineyards located on the dirt portion of Soda Canyon Road in Foss Valley (~7 mile marker). One of the buses broke down on the steepest part of the paved grade (~5 mile marker). The other two buses continued to the vineyard...kicking up a lot of dust. One of the tour buses later returned to the broken-down bus and transported the remainder of visitors to the vineyard.

Breakdowns of this nature are frequent and not limited to tour buses. Many vineyard and delivery trucks likewise breakdown at the steepest part of the paved road, sometimes blocking traffic in both directions.

While Beau Vigne visitation and production may be modest, it is just one of several projects approved or in the pipeline right at the base of Soda Canyon Road that will change the character of the Trail in this location and increase the amount of traffic we have to deal with at the Soda Canyon junction and on the mountain.

This brings up another topic: Was the visitation of Beau Vigne tourists to their vineyards at the top of Soda Canyon also included in the permit? Do winery use permits include vineyard visitation as well? This is very relevant to the MPV application in that they also have vineyards located down the dirt portion of Soda Canyon Road which is not a county maintained and one lane. Not a safe place to be in an emergency.

*Beau Vigne Winery is located at 4057 Silverado Trail, Napa; 625 feet north of its intersection with Soda Canyon Road. Their vineyard is located on Soda Canyon Road (dirt road section).

At the left is one of the other tour buses that did not break down entering the Beau Vigne vineyard. Please note all the DUST.

There is great concern regarding travel on Napa County dirt roads and its negative impact on our water resources, siltation and degradation of our environment.
This practice certainly does not protect our agricultural lands from an invasion of tourists among the vines. Or is this merely marketing and therefore defined as agriculture?

Is this the next phase we are to expect of tourism posing (and imposing) on agriculture in the Napa Valley?

REVELANCE to the MPV proposal:

Safety/Danger: The historic danger of wildland fire on the Soda Canyon Road is a given. Soda Canyon is a dangerous, dead-end road...no place for a huge, industrial strength, visitor center/winery with many employees and thousands of visitors. The recent increase in the number of wineries and related winery traffic on Soda Canyon, increases the potential of putting visitors, residents and wineries at increased risk and having to shelter-in-place during an emergency.

Current road conditions are not going to change: The road has not been improved and has in fact deteriorated at an alarming rate. The County has indicated it is not going to improve the paved road anytime soon, and they are not going to pave the dirt portions of the road probably ever.

Proximity to significant water resources and dirt roads: MPV’s proposed site is located at the junction of the paved and gravel road at the 6.1 mile marker; and sits in proximity to Rector Canyon and Reservoir. MPV’s second vineyard is located down the dirt road another 2-3 miles. If a precedent is set with the Beau Vigne example, then MPV could begin conducting tours down the one-lane, dirt road (not county maintained or owned) which then poses potential significant negative impacts and degradation of the Rector watershed and siltation from dirt-country roads.

The scale of the MPV proposal and its ambitious tourism marketing plan mark the true negative impact of wine tourism in a remote corner of the county. The MPV project promises to change the character of life on Soda Canyon Road and not for the better. If successful, it will not be the last such project to cash in on the bucolic remoteness of the rest of Soda Canyon...and that remoteness will be irreparably destroyed.
The MPV as proposed only adds to an already existing difficult and dangerous situation and adds more risk to anyone ‘visiting’ Soda Canyon Road; risk to our County’s valuable water resources; and the safety of tourists and residents alike. It adds nothing of real value.

The final indignity, the broken down tour bus being hauled away later that night in front of MPV.

The proposed MPV is not a small family winery designed to be consistent with the immediate local environment. In fact, it is quite the opposite. A winery of the proposed size and scope does not belong in a remote area on a dead-end road.
Please protect our fragile environment and homes from unwarranted, industrial strength, mega- wineries in remote locations in Napa County. I’m counting on you to represent and ensure the health and safety of local residents. If you truly wish to create a Napa County where our children and future generations of Napa citizens will live, and raise their families, then the choice is clear.

I respectfully request that you deny the MPV application. Short of that, please significantly reduce the number of allowed public tours, events, winery size and production levels.

Thank you,


Diane Shepp

NVR 7/21/16: Napa County grapples with remote winery proposal

On July 20th the Mountain Peak project was presented to the Planning Commission by the planning department and the applicant. In a surprise move (at least to me), the applicant's representative, Donna Oldford, proffered a reduction in the tourism component of the project. Gone were the 6-per-month evening events. In this subsequent email the exact proposed reductions were itemized to exclude 3911 visitors/year from the previous 18486 bringing visitation down to 14575/yr. The elimination of the frequent evening events were a significant and beneficial change to the marketing plan.

As Chair Basayne opened the meeting to public comments, vintner Stu Smith barged to the front of the line to voice his law-and-order support given to every tourist attraction to come before the county, and then the residents of Soda Canyon Road spent most of the day voicing their concern about the changes to their rural lives that a tourism facility in their midst will bring. The commissioners expressed some displeasure at the amount of material added to the administrative record at the last minute (see the Arger dossier linked below) but agreed that a continuance was needed to insure due process, and their day of decision was continued until Oct 19th.

The word "remote" in the NVR article is the key to understanding what this project really represents. As tourist attractions are being proposed all over the county, promoted as necessary for the survival of the wine industry but really representing just an expansion the tourism industry, with new projects continuously being reviewed (46 at present) and approved (97 since 2010) by the planning commission, this project still raises the question: are there places so untouched by the county's commitment to tourism that we should even ask if maintaining their living community of residents is more important than retooling them as a tourist experiences.

County website's Mountain Peak page (Mar 2016) (documents)
July 20th Meeting Agenda and Docs (w/ meeting pdfs and correspondence)
Staff Agenda Letter
Anthony Arger letter and dossier (35mb file)
Neighborhood powerpoint presentation at hearing
Video of the hearing
Transcript of the hearing
County Initial Study EIR Checklist

Dear Planning Director,

We are property owners adjacent to Mountain Peak Winery and we are appalled that a new entertainment/event winery of such size is proposed next to our house. This 25 employees establishment is not the family owned winery which was characteristic of Napa Valley that we all love, it is big business - the kind of big corporate winery that is crowding out the traditional family owned wineries.

Our major worries are :

1 Noise pollution - the continuing industrial noise from the condensers and exhaust fans etc is not the usual farming noises like harvesting trucks happen during harvest time. It is continuous, 24 hours a day. This humming noise will pollute the whole area all the time and will destroy the serenity of our homes. That is the reason why cities have zoning laws, industries are zoned away from residential areas. Or in the event of highway noise, Cal Trans has 20 feet walls to protect the residents from the continuous traffic noise.

2 Well water - water from our wells have been drying up. With the new anticipated flushing from visitors in the new winery, the usage will be way above normal vineyard need. Our spring already disappeared. The massive earth moving to make the new caves and relocating the dirt will definitely change the natural water flow. The County should bear responsibility to protect the existing neighbors.

3 Car traffic and safety issues - on this windy road, it is dangerous for all residents and their children to have so much more car traffic. Many of us residents have already had a few near missed accidents from workers coming down the hill at end of the day driving at fast speed. This mountain curving road is not designed for so much traffic and for large tourist buses.

Napa will lose its charm and livability if the County continues approving of the construction of these large corporate event wineries. Thank you for your attention.

Mui Ho
3460 Soda Canyon Rd
Napa

[letter sent to Deputy Planning Director McDowell]

July 19, 2016

RE: OPPOSING MOUNTAIN PEAK WINERY-USE PERMIT #P13-00320-UP

Dear Deputy Planning Director McDowell,

My name is Steve Chilton and I reside on Soda Canyon Road, Napa, CA 94558. My wife and I constructed our home on a small acreage that has been in her family for nearly 100 years. While designing the house we worked around the 100+ year old oaks and Soda Creek. No oaks were removed for the house nor was the creek impacted. We practice positive environmental stewardship and expect the County and others on the Road to do the same. I strongly oppose the Mountain Peak project and request that you deny or significantly reduce this use permit for the following reasons.


• The size and scope of the project dictates that an Environmental Impact Report following the requirements of CEQA is mandatory. A negative declaration for a project this large and with its concurrent impacts upon water quality and quantity, wildlife, traffic, public safety, noise and vegetation cannot be supported by the facts. That the proponents have decided to proceed with this environmental disclosure document is an affront to county staff and the public.

• The permit request is for 100,000 gallons, which would require ~700 tons of grapes to satisfy. The project parcel has only 28 acres of planted vines, producing a maximum of ~80 tons of grapes per year (a mere 11% required to produce 100,000 gallons!). The staff report states that the additional tonnage will come from owned or under contract acreages nearby. Unfortunately “nearby” is not defined and could be on Silverado Trail. The County needs to identify where the grapes will come from in order to properly review a valid traffic report.

• As the County is aware of, Soda Canyon Road is narrow, steep in places, wet and foggy at times on the steepest section and used extensively by bicyclists. Deer and other wildlife frequently cross the road, especially at night. A hoard of tasters, leaving the event center at 10:00 PM after one last toast, must navigate this dark, unforgiving road without hitting a deer, a tree or a resident. It is only a matter of time.

• Fire danger is always discussed and seems to be dismissed by the County every time a project like this comes up. The risk of a man-caused fire on Soda Canyon Road is great now and with this project will become much worse. Cal Fire has sent extensive resources to the Canyon when there has been an incident and we applaud their efforts. As each fire season begins and continues through the summer and fall, other fires in the state drain our local resources. Cal Fires’ ability to respond fully becomes more limited and the risk of a small car fire becoming an inescapable inferno becomes greater. Soda Canyon has a history of major fires. Because Soda Canyon Road is a dead-end road, there are significant public safety concerns with regard to fire, and all emergencies. There is essentially zero cell service on Soda Canyon Road, offering the potential of a small incident such as a vehicle accident, a tossed cigarette, or a jackknifed or otherwise stuck truck becoming a disaster that would impact the entire county.

• A routine tactic of developers and their consultants is to present a grossly over stated project and when confronted with opposition, to seemingly, reluctantly, reduce the project to 75 or even 50% of the initial proposal. I fully expect that to happen here, while keeping the visitor numbers high. Your planning department and planning director have seen this before and should not be fooled into believing this was not the proponents’ intent all along. The project in its present form and when reduced will still qualify for the CEQA requirement of an EIR because there are unmitigatable, significant impacts to transportation, public safety and water quality and quantity.

For all of the reasons above, among many others, the County must deny this project and reduce the size to one that fits the rural environment and road conditions. Please protect our community’s safety and preserve the quickly dwindling natural resources that Napa has left, particularly in the remote hillsides.

Sincerely,
Steve Chilton

Mountain Peak Winery, P13-00320-UP Letter from Resident Daniel McFadden

My name is Daniel McFadden. My wife Beverlee and I have lived at 2362 Soda Canyon Road since 1991, where we operate a small vineyard. I am a professor of health economics and policy at USC, and an emeritus professor of economics at UC Berkeley. I have served as President of the American Economics Association, and have testified before the Federal Trade Commission on the economics of direct wine sales. I am the recipient of a Nobel prize for my work in transportation economics.

The MPV proposal includes a visitation program for 18,486 visitors annually, adding more than 2000 nine-passenger tourist bus trips per year, or even more private vehicles, to the traffic on Soda Canyon Road. This 7.8 mile dead-end road is narrow, steep, and winding, without shoulders or guardrails, poorly paved, with crumbling margins and more than 500 filled potholes. Heavy truck and vineyard worker traffic is already degrading the pavement and creating traffic hazards. The additional wine tourist traffic on this road from the MPV proposal would create enormous risks for Soda Canyon residents and for the taxpayers of Napa County. When wine tourist buses accidents on this road inevitably happen, the County will be called to account for gross negligence if it permits this visitation program without requiring safe access. The only prudent way to accommodate the MPV tourist traffic on Soda Canyon road is to widen, regrade, and repave the road to the standards the county currently requires for industrial projects. One can show with a simple economic calculation that property and business taxes from the MPV operation will be insufficient to cover the cost of this road upgrade. MPV should either withdraw their proposed visitor request, or pay for the 7.5 mile road upgrade needed to make their visitor program safe. It is an unreasonable burden on the taxpayers of Napa County to ask them to subsidize MPV operations by paying for the road upgrade and liability for safe access to their plant.

MPV argues that their proposed visitor program is an important element in their business model. However, Peju-Provence Winery located on Highway 29 with easy access and extensive wine tourist facilities says direct wine sales are about 15 percent of total wine sales. The percentage for a remote plant like MPV would certainly be less. Calculation shows the income from direct sales originating in an on-site visitor program at MPV will be far below the cost of upgrading Soda Canyon Road to provide safe access. The MPV visitor proposal makes economic sense for them only if the taxpayers of Napa County subsidize them by assuming the enormous cost of upgrading the road, or assuming the liability for gross negligence if the MPV visitor program is approved without assuring safe access. Napa County government should not impose a massive, unfair burden on Napa County taxpayers to subsidize the business operations of a private industrial plant.

Daniel McFadden, July 20, 2016

7/20/16
Commissioners

My name is Bill Hocker, 3460 Soda Canyon road. My wife and I are next door to the proposed project. We‘ve been there for 22 years.

We have concerns about the impacts of a large event center in our backyard. Ours has been, until now, a remote residential, agricultural community.

We ‘re concerned about the 6-mile road that links us to the outside world. More traffic will only make an already degraded and dangerous road more so. Much is made of the 88 truck trips to be saved. Little is made of the tens of thousands of trips up and down the road each year to bring equipment and goods and employees and tourists to such a remote place.

As immediate neighbors, we’re concerned about water. A second larger well is being added. A 100,000 g winery and a 100 people/day will consume water not consumed before. Efforts to recycle some of that water won’t mean much when our well runs dry.

We’re concerned about the amount of earth to be moved - enough to cover a football field 20 feet high. We’re concerned about dust covering our properties and the grumbling and beeping of construction equipment for a couple of years. And we’re concerned about the spillage and erosion of all that dirt into adjacent creeks on our property and theirs.

We’re concerned about the waste water treatment plant proposed on our property line: 2-100,000 gal, 25 ft high storage tanks and a large treatment machine. We’re concerned about the noise of the motors and pumps operating every day.

We’re concerned about the noise of cave ventilation fans always humming, and the noise of vans and cars coming and going in the parking lot, and the noise of revelry and clinking tableware long into the night. In this remote place there is often absolute silence. Noises are very noticeable here.

We're concerned about the sweep of headlights from the parking lot, and of the outdoor lights needed for a factory and nighttime events, and of the glow from the large tasting room windows. You can still see the milky way and satellites passing overhead here. We’re concerned about a light polluted future.

And we’re concerned about the planet. Much is made of this LEED certified building. LEED, of course, doesn’t measure the energy spent for a couple of years to build this massive project, or that needed for the tens of thousands of trips up and down the 6-mile road each year, or, that needed to build and demolish the relatively new mansion on the property, and probably not even much of the energy needed to keep all those pumps and motors and fans going all year long.

And we’re concerned about the precedent this project sets: about other entrepreneurs building wineries here to make wine that is already being made elsewhere and to sell wine that is already being sold elsewhere whose real purpose is to add profit from the remoteness of our neighborhood as a tourism experience. It will not take many tourists before the remoteness and rural character are gone.

We, of course, have many more concerns - more than we have time for here.
Given all these concerns, we can’t support this project. We respectfully ask that you refuse this application.

Thank You

Not having heard from the neighbors of the Mountain Peak project in the month since the project was resubmitted to the county and a notification of submission sent out, Sheveta Sharma, the planner shepherding the project, was kind enough to send me a note of concern. I did not receive the April 16th notice and will try to find out who did receive it.

In any case here it is: Apr 16th 2015 Mt. Peak resubmission notification

I have included the revised traffic report in the documents listed at the top of the page. The conclusion, surprise, surprise: "The project will result in no significant off-site circulation system operational impacts to Silverado Trail or Soda Canyon Road or to the Silverado Trail/Soda Canyon Road intersection."

My email exchange with Ms. Sharma this morning is here:

On May 15, 2015 9:31:27 AM, Sheveta Sharma wrote:

Bill,

At this time I can only guess as to when it might go before PC. The earliest possible date would be August in my best guess. Staff will have a better estimate once the environmental document is prepared. The only new document in the file is the revised traffic study which is attached. Though I should note that the applicant has also modified the project and is no longer seeking any variances.

As for the notice, it should have been sent to a 1000 foot radius. I checked with our admin staff and it seems the issue was that the notice should have gone out through the Planning staff directly and the notice was not properly mailed. At this time I know that the neighbors are maintain a website regarding the project, so that may be the quickest way to notify all the interested parties.

Thanks,

Shaveta Sharma

---------------------

On May 15, 2015 9:17 AM, Bill Hocker wrote:

Ms. Sharma,

Many thanks for the followup. I did not receive your April 16th notification about Mountain Peak. Although my inbox is full of notifications from the county as well as forwarded alerts about projects from other people around the county, this one, as you might imagine, would have stood out. Anyone within our residential community or the activist community that has formed around the county in the last year would have circulated the notice had they received it. Might I ask who else the notice was sent to?

Is it possible at this point to guess how long your review will last and when the project might come up before the planning commission?
Are electronic copies of the submitted documents available, and if not, a guess as to when they might be available.

Bill Hocker

----------------

On May 15, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Sharma, Shaveta wrote:

Good morning Bill,

I was writing to ask whether you had received the notice that was sent in April regarding Mountain Peak Winery’s resubmittal. I wanted to follow up because I was surprised I hadn’t heard from any of the neighbors.

It is attached for your reference, let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Shaveta Sharma

Sandy Ericson of the SHwindow.org has just included this link in her latest email blast. Sign up for her list here.

Chinese Buyers Invest in Napa Valley Real Estate

Of more than just passing interest to those of us up Soda Canyon Road.

I received this anonymous email today. It is an unusual email and it seemed important to share it.

"Hi, being born and raised in Napa, 1958. My mother went to Mt. Veeder School, and I graduated from Vintage in 1977. We lived at 1076 Soda Cny. Rd. from 1966- 1969. Even then the road was hazardous. I remember riding my pony with my friends, there were four of us who had ponies, and sometimes we would ride over to each others house. We were all seven or eight yrs. old. You could do that then and we were very careful. One day,I think it was 1968, I rode down to the store, where my best friend and another friend were selling vegetables out front. There were gas pumps on the left side of the bldg. they had set up their table in the front of the store. I had left early, but when my parents and I returned, we drove by the store. There we saw a car that had gone thru the bldg. and partway inside the store, taking my best friend with it and my other friend who was thrown towards the gas pumps. The driver was drunk and came flying off Silverado Trl. at 60 m.p.h. He was going to buy gas. My best friend lived for a week, never regaining consciousness, my other friend broke her arm. We were all going to be in the third grade, she was eight yrs. old. I still think of her and what she would be doing if she were alive.

I do hope you win this battle for the sake of all who live; work and play on that dangerous narrow road. Most of my memories were good while I lived there. May all your memories be good too."

Neighbors and Friends

Glenn Schreuder has spoken with Ms. Sheveta Sharma, the planner reviewing Mountain Peak Vineyards project, and she has indicated that the MPV submission is not yet complete and that it may be next March before the planning commission gets it.

Things have slowed down considerably in the planning department since we were first alerted last March about the possibility of a large tourist event center being located on our road. Our own efforts to change the entry configuration on the project meant a resubmission on their part by which time community activism all over the valley had alerted the county, and its new planning director, that the cumulative impact of this type of development needed more thorough public scrutiny. There are currently over 25 of these projects awaiting review. The director has proposed a public forum to discuss the Winery Definition Ordinance that governs the creation of these projects, perhaps in November (now probably January), with a proposal for changes, in the spring, to be made by the wine industry "stakeholders", the 4 organizations that have worked out the previous 2 versions of the WDO. Their proposal will no doubt be influenced by tourism interests and we hope a resident "citizen stakeholder" group as well.

The planning department is also short staffed which has slowed things down and, of course, there is the aftermath of the earthquake to deal with. But things are returning to normal.

On Oct 14th one of our 2 new tourist-venues on the road, Relic Winery, applied for minor changes to its use permit and Diane Shepp, Dan McFadden, Draselle Muscatine, Cindy Grupp and I where there to show our concerns. The modification was approved. And the generator-powered "Caves" winery continues to be an annoyance to its neighbors.

Our community board continues to meet. We have engaged a lawyer, a traffic consultant, a hydrologist and a geotechnical engineer to review the project on our behalf and present findings to the commission when the time comes. Cindy, Dan, Draselle and I met with the traffic consultant after the Relic hearing for his first look at the conditions of the road.

This tuesday, Oct 21st, (see our calendar here) the appeal of the use permit granted to the Woolls Ranch tourism-winery on Mt. Veeder Rd will be heard by the Board of Supervisors. Woolls Ranch is more-or-less a sister project to MPV, a tourism venue proposed up a rural canyon road on the western watershed presenting the same traffic impacts but even more dire aquifer impacts on the Mt. Veeder community. Several of our members, the Halletts, the McFaddens, Anne Palotas and I have submitted letters when the first appeal of the project was heard in May. We encourage you to do so now as well and to show up at the hearing. The many projects that may be proposed on Soda Canyon Road in the future can only be stopped by countywide action to diminish the development trend.

Two groups, both potential allies in our campaign, have been created to oppose the massive vineyard conversion project on the south slope of Atlas Peak, Walt Ranch Vineyard Conversion. The Defenders of the East Napa Watersheds (DENW) has been formed by the Circle Oaks community that will be surrounded by the project, and various affected neighbors on Atlas Peak and Montecello Roads have formed the Watersheds Alliance for Atlas Peak (WAAP). Dan Mufson has been our principal contact. The groups, with several articulate spokespeople, show up at each PC and BOS meeting to voice their concerns during the open comments period.

There are many happenings going on around the valley in which community groups and individuals are beginning to push back against the onslaught of tourism development that will transform the rural character of the county. I have begun to link to them on SodaCanyonRoad.org knowing that the protection of the rural serenity we enjoy here will not just depend on our efforts - it is a commitment that the entire county must make together. To view the many member-only comments posted to the site, and to post comments yourself, you will have to log in (first creating a password if you don't have one already).

Bill Hocker

We attended a meeting of the planning commission today in which the planning director laid out his timetable for addressing the metrics asked for by the commissioners regarding the cumulative impacts of all the projects they have been approving and the ones that are in the pipeline. There are currently 26 major projects being reviewed by 3 or 4 planners and the planning commission agreed that the reviews are going to have to slow down while they do their cumulative impact analysis. Mountain Peak is one of the 26. Shaveta Sharma, the planner on our project, is handling 12 of the 26 so we may be into October.

This email was just received from Sheveta Sharma:

Bill,

At this time the project is still incomplete and the environmental documents have not been prepared. A Notice and the CEQA documents will go out to neighbors well in advance of any hearing date. No hearing date is scheduled at this time.
Thanks,

Shaveta Sharma

A draft of the Phase 2 analysis has been submitted to staff and we are currently reviewing the work. The analysis will be made available when the CEQA document is released to the public.

David Morrison

While at the county building for the Yountville Hill hearing on July 2nd (a farce of a tragedy) I talked to Sheveta Sharma at the planning department and she felt that the project would not go to the planning commission until September but would not speculate on first or third wednesday.

[Response from Sheveta Sharma to my email below]

Good afternoon Bill,

The narrative does discuss a small increase in the caves. I do not have an electronic copy, but can provide one at the County building. The hydrology report would become available the same time as the prepared CEQA document and would be available 20 days prior to the scheduled PC hearing. No date has been determined, nor will be, until the CEQA document is complete.
Thanks,

Shaveta Sharma
Napa County
Planning, Building, & Environmental Services
707.299.1358

------------------------------------------

Ms. Sharma,

Re: Mountain Peak Vineyards submission

1. One of our members had most if not all of the documents from the MPV May 14th submission copied, and I have put them up on our website at https://sodacanyonroad.org/forum.php?t=1 .

One of the drawings not there was the revision of the caves plan. Did we just miss it? If so, do you happen to have an electronic copy of it that you could send? I stopped by last friday to get it but the person at the desk couldn't find the project binder.

2. Mr. Morrison mentioned that a phase 2 water analysis was being done on the project. Is that the same as the hydrology report mentioned in your letter to Mr. Appalas? When might we be able to obtain a copy of that report?

Will there be other additional documents submitted before your review is final? One of our members asked about a geotechnical report. Will that also be a part of the final submission? You mentioned an environmental document in your letter. Is that the report you create just before sending your recommendation to the commission? Or is that document available prior to that time?

Did MPV re-submit a project statement with the revisions to their use permit submission?

3. Do you have any current expectation yet on when your review of the project might be finished and headed to the planning commission?

Thank you

This post is from Gary Margadant of the Mt. Veeder Stewardship Council has applicability to our water issues.

[Letter sent to Napa County Planner Shaveta Sharma in response to the re-submission letter by Donna Oldford with copies sent to the PBES Director Morrison and Deputy Planning Director McDowell]

Ms. Shaveta Sharma
Planner III
Dept of Planning Building & Environmental Services
Napa County
1195 Third St, Suite 210
Napa CA, 94559

Ms. Sharma,

I have received a copy of a letter dated May 27th 2014 addressed to you by Ms. Donna Oldford relating to their resubmission of documents for the Mount Peak Vineyards Project. I have taken the liberty of uploading it here: https://sodacanyonroad.org/docs/oldford5-27-14.pdf . It gave a summary description of the project and included a timeline of meetings held between myself and the Argers and various representatives of the applicant and the county and a list of mitigations proposed by the developer.

While I will be raising questions concerning the specifics of the project proposal once the final submission has passed to public review, I would like to comment on the issues mentioned in the letter here.

Regarding the reduction in grape truck transport

The letter mentions that 88 grape truck trips are saved per year up Soda Canyon Road. Rather than looking at that number in a vacuum, I would ask that you compare it with the numbers for materials, supplies and case goods that must be transported to and from the remote site. If I interpret the county

[Email reply from County Planner Sheveta Sharma to my letter below]

Mr. Apallas,

In your email you correctly note that the well log information for the proposed well is not available because the well has not been drilled. And for the existing well the well log is not available to the public, thought the well permit application is. At the Use Permit stage, which is an entitlement, all that is necessary is an approximate location and number of any proposed new wells. The information you are requesting is not available because staff does not have that information, and while we have requested it from the applicant the applicant is not at the point of submitting for a well permit nor does staff require that information for the project's review and analysis of required information. When the information regarding the new well is required is by Environmental Health prior to the issuance of building permit and again that information would be submitted as a well log and not available to the neighbors, while the well permit itself would be available for inspection.

What the Planning Division looks at in our review is the current and proposed water use levels and in this instance has requested a Hydrology report to further evaluate the ability of the project site to accommodate the proposal. While the Hydrology report itself is proprietary information, portions of that report will be made available due to its incorporation into the environmental document which will pre prepared for the project and made available to the public a minimum of 20 days prior to any public hearing.

I understand the neighbor's concerns and why they are requesting information which the feel is important. And while the size of the well could impact how much groundwater is pumped at one time, the overall groundwater that can be pumped remains the same and is based on the total project site multiplies by the factor of 0.5 AF/YR as noted in the Water Availability Analysis, in this instance that total amount is 20.88 AF/YR. In addition, there are standard conditions of approval placed on the project with respect to wells specifically.

12. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
Please contact (707) 253-4471 with any questions regarding the following.

A. WELLS
The permittee may be required (at the permittee's expense) to provide well monitoring data if the Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services determines that water usage at the winery is affecting, or would potentially affect, groundwater supplies or nearby wells. Data requested could include, but would not necessarily be limited to, water extraction volumes and static well levels. If the applicant is unable to secure monitoring access to neighboring wells, onsite monitoring wells may need to be established to gauge potential impacts on the groundwater resource utilized for the project proposed. Water usage shall be minimized by use of best available control technology and best water management conservation practices.

In the event that changed circumstances or significant new information provide substantial evidence that the groundwater system referenced in the use permit would significantly affect the groundwater basin, the Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services shall be authorized to recommend additional reasonable conditions on the permittee, or revocation of this permit, as necessary to meet the requirements of the Napa County Groundwater Ordinance and protect public health, safety, and welfare. That recommendation shall not become final unless and until the Director has provided notice and the opportunity for hearing in compliance with the Napa County Code §13.15.070 (G-K).

This condition provides staff with discretion to take measures to alleviate any issues that may arise in the future. At this time since the Hydrology report has not been submitted for staff's review nor has any environmental document been prepared I cannot speculate on what the impacts to groundwater will be. Some additional background information for the neighbors on groundwater reports and date can be accessed at the link below:

http://www.countyofnapa.org/BOS/GRAC/

My apologies that the County's protocols are not satisfactory to the neighbors, however they are the standards approved by the Board of Supervisors and by which all projects are analyzed. Perhaps the neighbors will be happy to know that the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission have started a discussion of adding to or revising current standards and if any of them change in the near future perhaps Mountain Peak may be affected by those changes. At this time staff does not have the ability to alter the process of how projects are analyzed and the information that has been provided to the neighbors is all the information staff has available and has the authority to provide to the public.

Thanks,

Shaveta Sharma
Napa County
Planning, Building, & Environmental Services
707.299.1358

[letter sent to Sweveta Sharma regarding proposed new well]

Dear Ms. Sharma:

In regard to my request for information pertaining to the Mountain PeakVineyard/Winery (Project Address 3265 Soda Canyon Road, Napa, CA 94558; APN032-500-0330), I specifically asked for the applicant's plans regarding afuture well to be dug on the above referenced parcel. The proposed well isshown on the Overall Site Plan submitted by the applicant, a Mr. Hua Yuan,and his engineer Bartelt, etc. The well is depicted in schematic UP1 whichis a public document and part of the Use Permit Application which wassubmitted about two weeks ago or so.

When I inquired about the size of the well that will be dug at the site youadvised me that the information is not available to the general public. You, of course, are mistaken. What is not available to the public is thereport prepared, pursuant to Section 13751 of the California Water Code, bythe well driller. I cite to your attention the California Water CodeSections 13751 and 13752 that address this point.

13751. (a) Every person who digs, bores, or drills a water well,cathodic protection well, groundwater monitoring well, or geothermalheat exchange well, abandons or destroys such a well, or deepens orreperforates such a well, shall file with the department a report ofcompletion of that well within 60 days from the date itsconstruction, alteration, abandonment, or destruction is completed. (b) The report shall be made on forms furnished by the departmentand shall contain information as follows: (1) In the case of a water well, cathodic protection well, orgroundwater monitoring well, the report shall contain information asrequired by the department, including, but not limited to all of thefollowing information: (A) A description of the well site sufficiently exact to permitlocation and identification of the well. (B) A detailed log of the well. (C) A description of type of construction. (D) The details of perforation. (E) The methods used for sealing off surface or contaminatedwaters. (F) The methods used for preventing contaminated waters of oneaquifer from mixing with the waters of another aquifer. (G) The signature of the well driller. (2) In the case of a geothermal heat exchange well, the reportshall contain all of the following information: (A) A description of the site that is sufficiently exact to permitthe location and identification of the site and the number ofgeothermal heat exchange wells drilled on the same lot. (B) A description of borehole diameter and depth and the type ofgeothermal heat exchange system installed. (C) The methods and materials used to seal off surface orcontaminated waters. (D) The methods used for preventing contaminated water in oneaquifer from mixing with the water in another aquifer. (E) The signature of the well driller.

13752. Reports made in accordance with paragraph (1) of subdivision(b) of Section 13751 shall not be made available for inspection bythe public, but shall be made available to governmental agencies foruse in making studies, or to any person who obtains a writtenauthorization from the owner of the well. However, a reportassociated with a well located within two miles of an area affectedor potentially affected by a known unauthorized release of acontaminant shall be made available to any person performing anenvironmental cleanup study associated with the unauthorized release,if the study is conducted under the order of a regulatory agency. Areport released to a person conducting an environmental cleanup studyshall not be used for any purpose other than for the purpose ofconducting the study.

The information I seek is not part of a report prepared under Section13751(b)(1). No such report has been prepared because the well has not yetbeen dug. Moreover, to the extent that applicant does have even a colorableclaim to the protection of Section 13752, quoted above, he has waived suchsince he, through his engineers, has voluntarily disclosed portions of hisintent to drill a new well and has identified with some precision, thelocation of said proposed well. See, UP1.

I am seeking this information for the simple purpose of determining theimpact of this well on the surrounding properties and the continuedviability of their wells which for many provide their drinking water.Clearly, the impact of a 4" bore is far less than the impact of a 16" wellwhich we understand is what Mr. Hua Yuan has in mind. If the size of thebore is 16" you can imagine the amount of acre feet per year that such awell will draw. And since the County has no more idea than a goose aboutthe amount of groundwater that exists in the eastern hills--(there exist nocredible reports, indeed the undersigned is aware of none, that have studiedin a scientific and systematic manner through monitoring wells)--where thisproject will be located, the neighbors are very anxious about the impactthat such a well will have on the availability of their water. Finally,from a public policy perspective, if the County continues to cling to itslegally unsupportable position that such information is shielded bySection13751, it can with such artifice, stifle meaningful environmentalanalysis by the impacted neighbors by straight arming their legitimaterequest for information that has, at the very least, been voluntarydisclosed by the applicant in his use permit. I urge you to reconsider yourembargo to my very simple information request.

As you begin your career in the Napa County Planning Department (Iunderstand that you have just come on board in the last several months) Iurge you to read the County's 2008 General Plan and specifically itsConservation Element. Of interest in this matter is Conservation PolicyNos. 52 and 53 which in relevant part state:

"Con-52 'The County encourages responsible use and conservation ofgroundwater resources by way of its groundwater ordinances."

"Con-53 'The County shall ensure that the intensity and timing of newdevelopment are consistent with the capacity of water supplies and protectgroundwater and other water supplies by requiring all applicants fordiscretionary projects to demonstrate the availability of an adequate watersupply prior to approval. ..May include evidence or calculation ofgroundwater availability..." Since the County has never undertaken a studyof groundwater availability in at least atop the Soda Canyon area, how canthe county possibly meet the policy in Conv-53? The hypothetical assumptionthat there is 1/2 acre foot of water for each acre of land, as articulatedin the 2007 Water Availability Analysis (2007 WAA--an update to the 1991WAA) prepared by Napa County's Public Works Department unabashedly admitsthat "...there is limited information available on Napa County groundwaterbasins, in general (with the exception of the MST basin)" and thus forconvenient analysis resorts to the fiction that there exists 1/2 acre footper acre of land in the hills such as Soda Canyon and Atlas Peak. What theneighbors of this project are trying to do through this request andconsequent analysis is bring light where only medieval darkness now exists.

I am renewing my request for a very simple piece of information--thediameter of the new well. I am not asking any information from any reportthat may have been prepared under Section 13751 of the Water Code, forindeed no such report can now possibly exist since the well has not beendug. Consequently the benefit of that information cannot possibly fallwithin the sphere of protection under Section 13752. Your position in thisregard is untenable, without merit, and arbitrary.

I strongly urge you to talk to your principal planner on this project andthe planning director regarding this matter. If the county continues tohold this position, I will seek appropriate relief in a proper venue.

Thank you for your continued consideration of my request. As time is of theessence, I kindly request that you respond to this email by close ofbusiness, Monday, June 9, 2014.

Respectfully,

Yeoryios C. Apallas

"Does Costco-sized winery belong atop Soda Canyon Road?" letter to the editor by Diane and Anthony has just been published in the Napa Register.

[This letter to the editor was sent in response the Peter Jensen's May 21th, 2014 article "Soda Canyon winery project draws neighbors' ire"]

Does a Costco size Tourist Winery Belong atop Soda Canyon Road?

Donna Oldford, a local winery consultant, commented recently in an article for the NV Register (5.25.2014) on Mountain Peak Vineyards (MPV), proposed 100,000 gallon winery, 7 miles up the mountain of Soda Canyon Road. In the article, she states "[the developer's] entire winery is in a cave. If we can't approve this winery, I don't know the kind of winery we can approve."

The obvious answer to this intended rhetorical question, from the perspective of a neighbor and citizen friendly to the preservation of Napa Valley, is a winery that is commensurate with its rural and remote location and drastically smaller than the version currently proposed. It would be a winery that meets the intention of the 1968 Agricultural Preserve, and focuses more on the preservation of vineyards and NOT on marketing and tourism.

As has been made abundantly clear in meetings between the developer and concerned neighbors, the sole focus of the MPV winery will be to maximize direct sales of its wines by attracting as many tourists as possible to the secluded facility. In fact, MPV has recently INCREASED the number of visitors to the winery on an annual basis to 18,858. The original number of 18,496 was already preposterous given the remote location and inevitable challenges that will be faced with the deteriorated condition of Soda Canyon Road. This is particularly alarming to MPV neighbors, who, over the past 8 weeks have met with the developer, Steven Rea, 3 times and specifically requested a significant REDUCTION in the number of visitors to the winery.

Mr. Rea and his consultants deflected questions regarding the size of both the winery and its marketing plan by claiming that the majority of its production facility would be constructed underground in 65,000 square feet of caves (an underground facility that is slightly smaller than a Costco Wholesale store). The developer claimed that building expansive production facilities underground would reduce noise and lower its "footprint" and that the tourism component was absolutely essential to MPV's business plan. After some reflection, it seems that the real reason MPV is building monstrous caves is so they can skate through the approval process at the county level and capitalize on grandiose plans for tourism and marketing.

Napa County regulations require that a winery cannot be larger than 25% of the parcel size on which it is built. By definition, MPV's overall winery square footage meets the requirements of this regulation. However, the manner in which MPV is meeting the requirement by hiding the 65,000 square foot "elephant" underground, may be nothing more than a crafty maneuver to create the façade that MPV will be a "low impact" winery. While this may seem reasonable to developers, this amounts to nothing more than subterfuge of, and an end-run around, the decades-old intent of the 1968 Agricultural Preserve, which is to preserve the incredible agriculture component that has made Napa Valley one of the finest wine regions in the world.

In a 2008 article written by Paul Franson, BEFORE the 2010 amendment to the WDO and resulting onslaught of winery permit approvals, he states "2008 marks the 40th anniversary of the act that protected much of Napa Valley for agriculture. You need only look around the valley to recognize its success: the valley is lush with grapevines, not tract housing and shopping malls. It has maintained a rural character long lost by adjoining counties around San Francisco Bay."

If approved, MPV will set a precedent that could lead to a trend where developers propose massive wineries underground, leaving only tourism and marketing facilities above ground. With grand-scale tourism and marketing, particularly in remote locations like Atlas Peak, the beloved rural character of Napa will be "long lost," as wineries place what are the equivalent of shopping mall sized winery production facilities underground in order to encourage shopping mall sized crowds in the tourism and marketing facilities aboveground.

Is that really the "kind of winery," to use Ms. Oldford's words, the county and the citizens of Napa County want? Wineries that bend the local regulations by going underground, building Costco-sized winery facilities below the surface so that they can increase their overall tourism and marketing plans aboveground? The cumulative impacts of increased traffic, tourism, groundwater depletion and other environmental issues, will prove to be disastrous to all the citizens AND existing wineries in Napa County.

What will developers come up with next? Winery skyscrapers that house both production and tourism functions whose building footprint meets the county requirements, but whose actual size impact is ten times the size of its parcel and towers 50 stories above the Napa landscape? Oh wait, that's the Yountville Hill winery which is pending approval.

When and where will the county draw the line?

[My next letter to the editor has also been published in the register:]

This letter is in response to Peter Jensen's May 22 article "St. Helena winery approved despite objections from neighbors."

The Joint BOS/Planning Commission meeting on May 20 was potentially a milestone in the latest in a long series of battles between the profiteers and purists for the soul of Napa County. The supervisors charged the planning department with analyzing the cumulative impacts that the last couple of years of winery approvals will have on the future of the county so that commissioners would no longer be "flying blind" while trying to make decisions on new proposals.

To those of us NIMBY's who have a winery project proposed in our backyards, or who might shortly if current trends hold, it has offered hope that our voices can be now heard. Collectively we know, because we've been forced to think about it, that our backyards are the future of Napa County, and that future, we think, will be crowded. Used to being dismissed, we find that being mentioned in the same breath with "stakeholders" by the commissioners and the supervisors is, in fact, a breath of fresh air.

Yet, one day later, we return to business-as-usual with the unanimous approval of the 11th new winery by the Planning Commission in the last year. A symbolic "nay" by one of the commissioners, agreed to openly by everyone in advance, would have been a welcome sign that community concerns would be weighed during the five months or so the county has given itself to review the impacts of approved projects. The 4-to-1 approval would still have advanced the project along to its appeal with the Board of Supervisors.

Five months, however, is too long for me. Our project will probably be coming up in the next month. As will two or three new wineries or winery expansions each month for the next five months, a total of perhaps 130,000 new tourism visitation slots (and perhaps four new communities of irate NIMBY's) if the rate remains as it has.

But the rate may not remain the same. The BOS meeting has put developers on alert that things may be different by the end of the year and they'd better get their projects in right now. The planning department may have some technique to prevent spikes -- I don't know. But there is a possibility that the planning staff is going to be burdened with more work than ever just at the moment they (have) been requested to spend time analyzing the impacts of their past work.

Get news headlines sent daily to your inbox
Sign Up!
I think that the county planners are very dedicated and hardworking. They have done their best over the last couple of years to process the projects that the planning commission was anxious to approve. Yet as was noted at the joint meeting, things have changed a lot in two years. The economy is up -- and with it the sale of high-end wines. Advertising to attract tourists has been successful. The incentive to build ever more tourist attractions as a strategy to increase sales is less pressing.

So I would re-propose a solution that was rejected at the joint meeting -- one that works to my ends, one that relieves the burden on staff so that they can have the time to really find out what these last two years of approvals mean, one that relieves commissioners from making decisions in a vacuum, and one that, IMHO, gives the county time to reconnect with the preservation of its soul. We need not use the "m" word. Let's just call it a breather.

NVR LTE version 5/26/14:Let's take breather on winery proposals

Peter Jensen has just published an article in the Napa Valley Register,
Soda Canyon project draws neighbors' ire, relating to the Mountain Peak project and our efforts to curtail it. Please take a look and add your comments at the bottom of the article.

Please RSVP to info@sodacanyonroad.org

[Letter to Supervisor Bill Dodd]

Dear Bill,

I wanted to follow-up on my earlier voice mail regarding the Mountain Peak Winery. As I said, I am contacting you on behalf of a coalition of residents of Soda Canyon, Foss Valley and Loma Vista Rd.

The MPW project, which is currently in the permitting process, could well be the poster child for what's gone wrong with the WDO given the sheer magnitude of the project and in particular given its rural location approximately 6 miles up Soda Canyon Rd.

The scope of the project includes:

Winery production of 100,000 gals of 44,000 cases per year.

Approximately 80,000 square feet of enclosed space, 65,000 square feet of which will be caves.

19 full-time employees, 4 part-time employees year round, 4 seasonal employees during harvest/crush, additional vineyard workers, delivery trucks, etc.

Hours of operation - 6am - 6pm.

Tasting, tours and events which will include a full service Tasting Room open 7 days/week, 10am-6pm. Outdoor Picnic Areas open 7 days/week, 10am-6pm. Marketing Events from 10am-10pm. All to accommodate up to 17,300 visitors/tourists per year.

Specific concerns of the residents include traffic and road safety, fire safety and water impact.

A Winery/Tourist Facility of this size and scope belongs on the Silverado Trail, NOT at the end of a 6 mile, 2 lane, steep , dangerous, dead-end country road. The Board of Supervisors established a precedent by allowing only extremely limited tasting access to Atlas Peak Winery (now Antica Napa Valley) at the end of Soda Canyon Rd. If this project is built it will set a new precedent for future developments of similar size and scale on the Rector Canyon watershed. The long-term consequences of approval are many, with no reasonably positive outcome for the residents of Soda Canyon Rd.

Again, I would like to invite you to meet with members of the Soda Canyon community at a BBQ to be held on Saturday, May 31 at 2:30 pm at 3460 Soda Canyon Rd., the home of Bill Hocker and Mui Ho.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Cindy Grupp

[Letter to Developer Steve Rea and Planning Consultant Donna Oldford in response to their mitigation offers]

Dear Steve & Donna,

We have heard back from all of the neighbors who attended the meeting and everybody has decided they must respectfully decline to sign to proposed agreement, as it simply does not adequately address our major concerns.

As stated at the very top of our list of concerns to MPV, the general concern is that the sheer magnitude of the project is much too large for the rural location approximately 7 miles up Soda Canyon Road. While we appreciate your attempts to meet with representatives of the neighborhood and propose some very modest compromises, only one of which has any true substance, there has been no effort by MPV to reconsider the overall size and scope of the project, meaning that all of the neighborhood

A small group of Soda Canyon/Loma Vista neighbors (the “Developer Committee” - as established at our April 19 neighborhood meeting) met with the developer (Steven Rea), winery consultant (Donna Oldford), and hired civil engineer (Paul Bartelt) for Mountain Peak Vineyards on Thursday, May 15 to voice all of the serious concerns (traffic, water, environmental, fire safety, precedent for future wineries, dust, etc.) that were raised at the April 19 neighborhood meeting.

Our committee repeatedly expressed that the project, as proposed, is far too large for this rural location 7 miles up Soda Canyon Road, and requested that they reconsider the overall size of the project, particularly the large number of winery visitors, which as of now, will be 18,496 persons per year (and remember, this figure of ~ 18,500 annual winery visitors does NOT include the ~25 winery employees, caterers, large number of vineyard workers, delivery trucks, and other farm related personnel that will also be utilizing Soda Canyon Road on a daily basis).

The developer has offered to make very modest changes to the project, which are contained in the attached letter titled “Proposed Compromise Agreement.” The only change of any significance is the movement of the main winery entrance to the paved portion of Soda Canyon Road, which is currently to be located on the gravel road, back to Soda Canyon Road (see attached documents titled “MPV Maps”).

Other than the offer to reduce the number of annual permitted guests by 329 from 18,496 to 18,167, there was no offer to reduce the overall size of the project, which means that none of the neighborhood’s concerns with regards to traffic, road safety, water, fire safety, or environmental impacts will be mitigated.

As a result of MPV’s failure to offer a reduction in the overall size of the project, NONE of the neighbors at the meeting (those listed on the “Proposed Compromise Agreement”) signed the agreement, nor are they going to sign the agreement. This means that MPV may retract their compromise and the project may move forward as originally proposed, with the main winery entrance located on the gravel road. This will significantly impact all neighbors living on the gravel road. It is hoped that MPV will keep the main winery entrance location on the paved portion of Soda Canyon Road, as the county has already approved it, and it is a much more prudent, reasonable, and safe location for ~ 18,500 visitors to enter this massive project. However, we will not know this information until the developer submits its final plans to the county, which is expected during the week of May 19.

I have waded through the Planning Commission agenda minutes for the last year an a half to see what those cumulative effect might be and tabulated them here.

[letter to Peter Jensen, County beat reporter for the Napa Valley Register]

My name is Glenn Schreuder and my family has lived continuously in upper Soda Canyon since ~1956.

I’m not sure if you are aware yet or not but a very large winery facility has been proposed in the heart of rural, remote upper Soda Canyon that includes among other features, a cave complex totaling 65,000 SF.

The proposed vehicular traffic equally impressive totaling ~ 18,500 trips per year on a stretch of road that was last re-paved when I attended Vintage High School in the early 1980s. Now Soda Canyon road is so beat up it’s more like “cobblestones” in many, many spots because the road is, quite literally, in pieces. Unfortunately broken asphalt is somehow just not as pretty as European cobbles are, but that’s a topic for another day.

There is significant and widespread opposition among the neighborhood, all the way from lower Soda Canyon to Middle and Upper Soda Canyon as well as Loma Vista Drive. To be honest, I would be hard-pressed to recall anyone I have spoken to who has said they are in favor of this massivey-scaled winery project as proposed.

Anyway, it’s late so I’ll wrap this email up: Is this the kind of story that would be “up your alley” Peter?

Thanks for your time in reading my email to you. I know I sure enjoy reading your articles so thank you for the work you do, it’s appreciated.

[proposed email to be sent to the planning commission once the neg dec is made]

May 28, 2014

Members of the Napa Planning Commission and the
Napa County Planning Department
1195 Third St., Second Floor
Napa, CA 94559

Re: Mountain Peak Vineyards Use Permit Application
3267 Soda Canyon Road, Napa

My wife and I are adjacent neighbors of the Proposed Mountain Peak project.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak with Sheveta Sharma on a couple of occasions in the last month, and her willingness to respond to my questions

As she has suggested, I have tried to more narrowly focus a few of my questions in the hopes of giving the planning department a more succinct basis for response. Some of my questions may appear naive, but this may be due to my lack of knowledge of the issues involved in such a development. I must rely on conjecture concerning the potential impacts that the project might present to my situation, as a neighbor, and I admit stumbling upon ordinances or policies that seem applicable.

I am certain that some of the answers may be addressed in the developer's engineering report, but it is too dense and technical for me to fully understand and in any case I am sure that engineers make reports that weigh ambiguity and uncertainty to their clients' benefit. I would hope that the County would be making decisions and answering questions based on more objective research that considers the interests of the people who must live next to the project as well as those of the people who intend to profit from it.

Our Concerns are:


1.Unnecessity of Winery

Considering that all of the grapes on the owner's 2 properties are currently being processed into wine at other wineries (some perhaps at the local Antica Winery);

And considering that 4-5 acres of grapes are actually being removed to accommodate the winery and tourism facility;

Why is this winery even necessary for the maintenance of Napa's agricultural economy? Is it the county's position that every piece of property in the County larger than 10 acres is entitled to have a winery? If only half of those owners were to build a winery because the tourism they generate seems to be more profitable than growing grapes, each nibbling away at the vineyard acres, what would the effect be on the notion of the Ag Preserve?

2. Inappropriate Scale:

Considering that this project proposes 65,000 sf of winery+caves plus 15,000 sf of crushpad plus 10,000 sf of tasting rooms plus 3 to 5000 sf of additional above ground structures, all to produce 100,000 gal/yr;

And considering that the other winery currently permitted on the watershed, Antica Napa Valley, has produced 450,000 gals/yr since 1987 in a facility permitted to have a 47,000 sf winery;

And considering that the County just approved a 100,000 gal/yr winery/tasting room/offices, The Corona Winery, on the Silverado Trail at Soda Canyon Rd that is a total of 28,000 sf;

Why should the county permit a project of this scale, producing less than 1/4 the wine of a similar sized winery and the same amount of wine as a winery 1/3 its size?


3. Inappropriate Tourism Location

Given that the County "considers the remoteness of the location and the amount of wine to be produced at a facility when reviewing use permit proposals, and endeavors to ensure a direct relationship between access constraints and on-site marketing and visitation programs" in its Resolution No 2010-48;

And considering that the proposed site is 6 miles up a small and winding and, in places, dangerous country road;

And considering that this is a remote area of only residences and vineyards (and one winery isolated in the center of 700 acres of vines with a much more restricted tasting allocation);

Why should the County permit a 130 trip/day, or 18000 visitors/year, tourism facility at such a remote location?


4. Alcohol on Soda Canyon Road Impacts

Considering that the proposed site is 6 miles up a small and winding and in places dangerous country road, with blind curves, and steep grade aside a ravine, a road that descends over a pass that is quite often buried in thick fog, and must be sanded to counter black ice during frosts;

Considering that wine tasters may leave late-opening and remote tasting rooms (with a great sunset view) as the last stop on their day of wine tasting, having consuming alcohol previously at other venues or after having consumed a bottle or two at the picnic tables;

And considering that, unlike almost all drivers on this dead end road, tourists coming to this project will be unfamiliar with the more dangerous parts of the road;

Why should the County allow tasting room hours for this project to last until 6:00pm

Why should the County allow marketing events, which involve more alcohol consumption than tastings to last until 10:00?

Why should the county allow that consumption of more than just tasting quantities of alcohol in picnic areas?

This road should not be navigated by inebriated drivers especially when they are unfamiliar with its dangers.

5. Road Condition Impacts

Considering that the road is in a marginal state of repair and maintenance, perhaps as befits a small country, with crumbling shoulders and inside curves of its step grade beginning to sink into the adjacent ravine under the already overburdened weight of heavy trucks and daily farmworker commutes;

And considering the volume of traffic that this project will be adding to the road, both during the months or years of construction and then the necessity to move 80+ visitors and 19 employees and up and down the road each day;

And considering that according to the developer's traffic report the junction at Soda Canyon and the Silverado Trail even now has "unacceptable" delays and at times is already over the "signal warrant criteria levels" ;

And considering the almost certain reality that the County will have to give similar tasting/marketing privileges to the Antica winery that has been asking for such privileges since it was built 30 years ago, and thus doubling any employee/visitation numbers generated by this project;

And considering the precedent that this project will set for the development of similar projects along the road;

What steps will the County undertake to improve the condition and safety of the road to accommodate the increased volume of traffic on the road? Note Dan Mcfadden's letter here.

What steps will the County undertake at Soda Canyon Road and the Silverado Trail, an intersection that is already enormously overburdened at certain times of the day? Again people familiar with the road know the rhythm of traffic on the Trail and are more capable of timing that difficult left turn given the right break in the traffic. People unfamiliar with the road may be more cautious, making the backup at the stop sign exponentially longer, or less cautions increasing the potential for accidents with oncoming cars.


6. Non-Compliance with AW provisions

Considering that this parcel is in an AW district but does not comply with the basic 60-40 rule outlined in sec 18.108.027B of Ordinance 1219;

And considering that this property is not just in a watershed area, but has the main fork of rector creek crossing the property with another fork touching the property line:

Why should this project be allowed to remove many acres currently planted in vineyards for the development of parking lots, increased building areas, sculpture gardens, crush pads, maintenance and mechanical buildings, water storage tanks and wastewater treatment systems, large areas for the piling of pulverized rock spoils and a large amount of fill necessary for the Crush pad access road?

If major development of the property is to take place shouldn't the property first be restored to the 60/40 balance before additional development is approved, rather than replacing 4-5 acres of existing vines with facilities?


7. Rector Creek Endangerment

Considering that this project has the main fork of Rector Creek (usgs blue line) crossing its property and has another fork of Rector Creek (also usgs blue line) touching the property line;

And considering the watershed protection goals enumerated in Sec 18-108.010B of Ordinance 1219 to prevent pollution of the creek from earth moving operations;

And considering the extensive excavation and fill projected for this project -- over 1,200,000 cf of cave spoils, 150,000 cf of excavated crushpad, a roadway raised 20 ft above existing grade; 100000 gallon water tanks buried underground, 300,000 cf of vineyard topsoil removed and then replaced to bury the spoils form the caves, which then fills the lowlands of the site to 4 ft above existing grade and other areas adjacent to Rector Creek to a height of 10 ft;

Why should the County allow extensive excavations both above and below ground adjacent to one fork of Rector Creek (the crush pad, which will be the extraction zone for the 1,200,000 cf coming from the caves, will be 75 ft from bank of the creek)

Why should the County allow deposit of spoils to a height of 4 ft surrounding a proscribed wetlands area of the site as well as adjacent to another fork of Rector Creek?

What mitigation has the County required of the developer of this project to make sure that excavations materials, and the dust created by such extensive excavations and gradings will not end up in the Rector Creek forks and ultimately Rector Reservoir?

What mitigation has the County required to insure that the extensive below ground excavations will not upset the hydrology that feeds neighbors springs and wells?


8. Waste Water Treatment

Considering the requirements of sec 18.108.027 of Ordinance 1219 regarding sensitive water supply drainages:

Considering that the proposal anticipates a septic system to accomodate at least 99 people per day plus additional 12-125 people/ week for marketing events:

What requirements has the County asked of the developer to insure that this small public water system and its leach field required for this quantity of people would not have a polluting impact on the adjacent forks of Rector Creek (the edge of the leach field is shown 150' from closest fork).


9. Unknown effect on Groundwater Availability

Considering that the Napa County Groundwater Monitoring Plan has "no data" on the groundwater conditions of the "Eastern Mountains" region of the county but indicates that "one well near the MST shows recent declines similar to those found in the MST";

And considering that a Phase II water analysis in the western mountains showed much lower water availability than the county's allowed .5acft/yr;

and considering that the project proposes to use close to the maximum water allotment for a parcel this size in an AW zone (19.15/ AF/YR vs 20.88 AF/yr allowed);

and considering that a warming climate will almost certainly reduce the amount of water available county wide:

What monitoring has the County or developer done to arrive at the 14.75 acreft currently being used?

What tests or monitoring has the County made to verify that the .5 acreft /acre number is realistic for this area and should a phase II analysis be required?

Shouldn't the county require a phase 2 water analysis of the project that includes a aquifer test of neighbor's wells while project wells are under maximum use?

What mitigation has the County required to insure that the project's increased water usage will not hasten or directly cause the drying up of neighbor's springs and wells?
In a subject as uncertain as underground hydrology, consultants hired by the developer to give optimistic assessments should not be the final arbiters in this decision. The County should require that the Developer pay for independent testing both before a new well is dug and after project completion to insure residents continued access to water.

Shouldn't the county limit the depth of the applicant's new well to the depth of the nearest neighbor's well to insure that depletions affect all water users equally?

What reparations will the County require of the developer in the event that wells do dry after the completion of this project? The time to mitigate such foreseeable consequences is now, under the proposed use permit.

10. Light and Noise, Odor Impacts

Considering that The Napa General Plan specifically recognizes that the eastern part of the county is a dark sky environment, in which the milky way is visible:

And considering that the Napa General Plan goes into substantial detail concerning noise pollution:

What mitigation measures will be imposed upon this project to make certain that the Milky Way remains visible?

What mitigation will the project take to insure that light from the glass tasting pavilions, parking lot lights, visitors cars, walkways and other uses intended for tourists do not spill over the property lines to eliminate this dark sky environment for the neighbors?

What level of background noise pollution will be allowed by this project, recognizing that we are beginning at a level of almost 0db of manmade noise pollution in this area?

What mitigation measures will be required of the project to prevent noise pollution from the tourism vehicle access and parking, picnic areas, tasting room terrace events as well as from the farmworker parking lots from crossing property lines.

Considering that the LYVE wastewater treatment plant and its pumps and 100,000 gal tanks have been placed adjacent to our property line;

What mitigation measures will be required of the project to prevent noise of the pumps of the wastewater treatment plant and any odors it might generate from crossing property lines.


11. Construction Impacts

Considering that enormous amounts of dust will be generated by a construction project requiring the movement of perhaps 1.5 million cf of dirt over a period of perhaps many months or years:

What mitigations will the developer take to insure that the crops of adjacent owners (grapes on two sides and olives on the third side) are not affected by the dust generated? What reparations will the developer be required to make should fruit be damaged?

Considering that a construction project of this size will require dozens of workers, and subcontractors and consultants and inspectors, each with their own vehicles;

And considering that construction projects generate light and noise impacts far beyond the normal impacts of a retail and factory operation;

And considering that these impacts may last for many months if not years on such a large project;

What limits will the county put on the hours of construction and the number of days per week that construction my take place so that at least a portion of the week is free from the noise and dust.

What conditions will the developer be required to abide by to insure that construction vehicles and equipment will not be parked within and will not obstruct the deeded access easemants granted to adjacent neighbors and to others along the road. (in particular around my entrance gate which is at the most constricted part of the developers hourglass-shaped property.


12. Privacy Concerns

Considering that the project anticipates a fill of 4 ft just adjacent to my property line, creating essentially a platform from which to look out over my property;

And considering that their proposal indicates tourist picnic areas on this platform and along the entrance road to my property;

What mitigations will the developer take to insure that my property is insulated from this tourist activity?

Considering that the waste water treatment plant, which includes a container cargo sized processing unit, 2 - 10,000 gal tanks, 2- 100,000 gal tanks (25' dia x 25' high) and pumps connecting everything together, has been placed against my property line (presumably to get it as far away from the tourist center as possible);

What mitigations will the developer make to lessen the visual and noise impact of such an industrial facility next door?

Might the developer consider using the spoils to produce landscaped berms separating our properties rather than filling large areas of the site to a 4 ft depth in order to mitigate these impacts.

13. The Viticulture Office

The existing viticultural office located just adjacent to our front gate "has served as the center for agricultural interests for Stagecoach Vineyards" and "will continue in its present capacity and is not proposed to include winery uses at this time" according to the project statement. Does this mean that Stagecoach Vineyards will continue to use it as a sales office?
On the developer's site plan a picnic area is shown atop the spoils mound just adjacent the viticultural office with a path leading from the office. What is the function of that picnic area?

We would like greater clarification from the developer on how this area of the site, including the entry gate to viticultural office, is to be used since it is immediately adjacent to our front gate and entry road easement.

14. Necessity of EIR

Considering that this project may set a precedent for the 40 or 50 other parcels over 10 acres on the rector watershed resulting in a commutative effect much greater than its individual impacts;

And considering that CEQA regulation 15064 (h)(1) states that
"(h)(1) When assessing whether a cumulative effect requires an EIR, the lead agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. An EIR must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project's incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects."

Why should not the county require an EIR report on the project?

Thank you for your consideration of these matters.

Sincerely,

Bill Hocker and Mui ho

Below is a list of the major concerns we have discussed to include in
communications to the neighborhood and at the neighborhood meeting.

We invite and encourage everyone to please add any additional concerns you may
have, as we would like to formulate a comprehensive list to provide to the
developer PRIOR to the public hearing date. Your input and support is greatly
appreciated!:

1) Overall size/scope of the project is NOT commensurate with the rural location
(i.e. overall project size, gallons permitted, enormous caves, large buildings,
everything must be downsized).

2) Increased worker and visitor traffic to MPV will (a) increase risk for accidents,
(b) cause further deterioration of the already poorly maintained roadway (c)
impede evacuation in the event of a fire.

3) Fire Safety: Increased traffic, tour buses, may cause fires. Is alternate fire
egress through Antica a practical solution in the event of a fire?

4) Tasting Room Hours must be more limited: MPV is currently proposing to be
open until 6pm. Any visitor center in such a remote location should be closing no
later than 4:00pm.

5) Noise from late night marketing events. Limit the marketing events hours. MPV
is currently proposing to stay open until 10pm for these events which is
unacceptably late.

6) Reduce the number of permitted guests. Number of permitted guests and
hours of visitor center operation should align closely with the permit of another
nearby winery operation.

7) Current proposed winery entrance location on the heavily used gravel road is
fundamentally dangerous and should be moved to be on Soda Canyon Road.

8) Water availability and stream pollution concerns. The sheer size of proposed
MPV operation may potentially cause surrounding wells to go dry.

9) Environmental concerns: Removal of dirt and rock to build 65,000 Square Feet
(SF) of underground dirt and placement of said dirt on the MPV property will
create environmental hazards for the creek (i.e. silt into the creek, harm fish and
other wildlife). This could also create water pollution issues for neighbors and the
downstream water supply for the town of Yountville.

10) Dust concerns: Creation of dust during long construction period may adversely
impact neighbors' animals, crops, and health.

11) Precedent: The approval of this project sets a bad precedent that will pave the
way for several other large scale wineries to be established on Soda Canyon Road.
Thank you to all of those who were able to attend the neighborhood meeting to
show your support. We appreciate your efforts and look forward to working with
all of you as this project progresses. For everyone, including those who were not
at the meeting, please do not hesitate to contact us with questions and other
concerns, as we very much encourage the input and support from everyone in our
Soda Canyon community, as well as the greater Napa community, that will be
adversely affected by the MPV project and other, future projects of similar size.

[This email was sent to the Developers by Anthony Arger on April 7th and is a good summary of the concerns]

Dear Steve & Donna,

We first want to say thank you for taking the time to come and meet with us last week at our home on Soda Canyon regarding the Mountain Peak Vineyards (MPV) project. We are glad to have had the opportunity to discuss our many concerns with you regarding the project and hope that in the next few weeks prior to the public hearing you can assist us in getting many of our questions answered and concerns addressed. As mentioned in my initial email to you, we want to build a good relationship with Mountain Peak Vineyards and hope we can find some common ground. Below is a summary of our concerns, along with specific questions/requests as to each.

General Concern
Our general concern with regards to this project is its sheer magnitude, particularly given its rural location approximately 7 miles up Soda Canyon Road, which feeds all of our other concerns. A project with a 100,000 gallon winery, which amounts to over 44,000 cases per year, a full-service tasting room, and 65,000 square feet of caves is not appropriate for the rural and hard to reach location at the end of Soda Canyon Road. Put simply, the size of this project simply does not work for this particular rural location.

Question/Request for MPV
1) Please reconsider the overall size and scope of this project and scale it back to a size that is more commensurate for the rural location and community.

Traffic, Road Safety & Fire Safety Concerns Due to Size of the Winery Operations
The traffic driving up and down the length of Soda Canyon Road is already a problem. From our calculations that we spoke of during the meeting, a total of 18,486 people will be permitted to visit the tasting room on an annual basis. There will also be 19 full-time employees, 4 part-time employees year round, plus an additional 4 during harvest season. There will also be vineyard workers, delivery trucks, etc. All of this means a significant increase in the daily traffic up and down the road, which significantly increases the likelihood for accidents and other incidents. There is also the increased risk of fires in an already high fire danger area. In the event of a fire, the only road out is back down Soda Canyon, which could prove disastrous for everyone with significant increases in traffic.

We understand there was a traffic report conducted that said the increase was acceptable, but as residents and regular users of this road, we strongly disagree with this conclusion and believe the overwhelming increase in traffic will be devastating to the already deteriorating condition on the road, which will of course adversely affect us as residents, and presents serious safety concerns for everyone using the road.

Questions/Requests for MPV
1) Again, please reconsider the overall size and scope of this project in light of the adverse impacts the increased traffic will have on the road.
2) Please provide us with an electronic version of the traffic report ASAP.

Reduce the Number of Permitted Guests
In alignment with the traffic concerns described above is the sheer volume of visitors that will be permitted to visit the tasting room. While we understand that it is not the intention of MPV to use the entire visitor allotment, we also realize the importance of direct sales in tasting rooms, meaning that this full allotment may in fact get realized sooner than anticipated, bringing with it serious effects on public safety along the entire road.

Questions/Requests for MPV
1) Please significantly reduce the number of daily visitors to the winery. Based on the remote location and resulting traffic concerns, 80 visitors per day, 320 per week, along with additional marketing events guests, totaling 18,496 people per year is more than Soda Canyon can handle.


Limit the Tasting Room Hours to 10am to 4pm
The current tasting room hours for MPV are stated to be from 10am-6pm. Through our experience of owning a winery and operating a tasting room, most of the people who visit after 4pm are intoxicated and should no longer be served. If MPV is to remain open until 6pm on a daily basis, this significantly increases the likelihood that there will be intoxicated drivers leaving MPV and traveling down 6.5 miles of very treacherous Soda Canyon Road. This raises serious safety concerns for not only ourselves as your next door neighbors, but also for the entire Soda Canyon community. In addition, the sun sets at approximately 5:00pm during the winter months, which would compel tasting room guests to navigate the road in dim light or even complete darkness.

Questions/Requests for MPV
1) Please limit the hours of the tasting room from 10am-4pm so as to avoid the increased possibility of intoxicated drivers leaving the property and injuring or even killing others driving up/down the road.


Limit the Marketing Events Hours to 9pm or Earlier
At present, the marketing events hours will be allowed to continue until 10pm. We are concerned not only with the potential for late night noise, but also for intoxicated drivers leaving late at night. Ending the marketing events an hour or two earlier may significantly mitigate these potential issues.

Questions/Requests for MPV
1) Please limit the marketing events hours to 9pm or earlier.


Current Winery Entrance Location is Dangerous & Should be Moved Back to Soda Canyon Rd
At present, the visitor/tourist entrance to MPV winery will be approximately 50 feet from the entrance to our home. With such a large volume of tourists, many of whom will likely never have been up Soda Canyon Road before, we have serious personal safety concerns of entering and exiting our driveway in such close proximity to potentially intoxicated drivers entering or exiting your winery. This issue is exacerbated by the fact the gravel road is a one lane road that is already heavily trafficked due to the residents, vineyard workers, and vineyard equipment trucks that use it to access all of the other properties beyond our respective properties.

We realize two “turnouts” have been requested for the creation of the winery entrance on this gravel road, but as residents of this narrow, gravel road for seventeen years, we can assure you that this is not a safe or prudent location to make an entrance to a commercial winery expecting 18,496 visitors per year. If that portion of the road/winery entrance does in fact have to be paved, as Donna indicated it does, that will only encourage vineyard workers and other users of the road to drive faster in front of our gate and in front of your winery entrance, creating a serious safety hazard. If the entrance is moved back to the paved portion of Soda Canyon, people driving down the gravel road must slow down at the curve before getting back on the paved road, meaning that if the commercial entrance was on the paved portion of Soda Canyon, there would be less risk for accidents involving our family, other residents, vineyard workers, and your guests.

In addition to the safety issues, it appears that from our initial investigation our property line extends to the middle of the gravel road. We are still investigating both the property line and the easement issues for all users of the road, but it seems as though it will be more complicated than initially anticipated by MPV.

Questions/Requests for MPV:
1) Please provide all information pertaining to the gravel road easement for MPV at your earliest convenience.
2) Please review the current plans with your engineer and move the location of the winery entrance to Soda Canyon Road. After looking at the map, it seems entirely possible to have both the winery service entrance and tourist entrance in close proximity to one another off of Soda Canyon Road.
3) Please provide an electronic version of the civil engineering report ASAP. We are pleased to be meeting with Paul Bartelt later this week and it would greatly assist us in being prepared for the meeting if we can review the report beforehand.

Water Concerns
We were pleased to learn of the LYVE system being put in place to recycle water on the property. However, this system still does not alleviate our serious concern with regards to the future availability of water not only for us, but also for all of the other residents in the area. In light of the current drought in CA, other wells drying up on other mountain communities in Napa, and the increasing number of vineyards and residents on Soda Canyon Road, we are very concerned that MPV, with its expansive production facilities and vineyard operations will use more than its allotted water amount and literally suck our wells dry.

Questions/Requests:
1) Please provide us with an electronic copy of any Phase 1 environmental reports that have been done on the property ASAP so we can evaluate what has been considered with regards to the water.
2) Please explain how MPV is going to protect our groundwater well and those of other nearby neighbors so that all the wells in the area are not adversely impacted by MPV’s activities that could ultimately deplete the groundwater on all the properties surrounding this project.

Dust Concerns
As mentioned in a prior email, a large portion of our 2013 crop was severely damaged by the dust created from your clearing of the lower section of your vineyard. Based on the proposed size of this construction project, we are deeply concerned over the effects the dust from the clearing of vineyards, digging of caves, and dumping of tailings next to our vineyards will have on our crops for the next several years.

Questions/Requests:
1) Please provide further information from your engineer as to what will be done to mitigate the dust issues.
2) Please evaluate the possibility of moving the tailings pile at the North end of our property to a different location.
3) In the event that neither of the above concerns regarding dust can be mitigated, we would like MPV to purchase the affected portions of our vineyard on an acreage basis (i.e. not grapes by the ton, but grapes by the acre) for a fair market, set dollar amount.

Continuance of Winery Permit Hearing Date
In light of all of the above concerns, we kindly request that the (tentative) permit hearing date of Wednesday, May 7 be pushed back to later in May or even in June. We realize and understand the financial implications for MPV, but in light of all the issues, namely the water issues and engineering/easement issues with the gravel road, we would like additional time to conduct our own research on these issues. Please remember that we have owned our property for seventeen years, have invested significant amounts of our time, money, and energy, and would appreciate additional time to investigate all of the adverse impacts this project will have on our property.

Questions/Requests for MPV
1) As the applicant and only entity that can request a continuance, please make a continuance request with the county to push the date of the hearing back.


Thank you again for taking the time to meet with us last week and we look forward to receiving your responses with regards to all of the questions and concerns we have outlined above. While we believe these issues address most of our concerns, we undoubtedly will have more in the coming weeks and similarly hope you will be able to help us work through them.

Please do not hesitate to let us know of any questions and please confirm our meeting with Steve and Paul for this Thursday, 4/10 at 1pm, as that timing works well for us.

Sincere Regards,
Anthony