Eternal vigilance is the price of preserving the Napa Valley.
- Former Planning Dir. Jim Hickey 2008.
This website was intended to create an online resource for the residents of Soda Canyon Road and its tributaries Loma Vista Drive, Soda Springs Road, Ridge Road and Chimney Rock Road, located in Napa County, California.
It was born out of the threat of a large tourism-winery project proposed at the top of our remote and winding road.
But that project is only one of many now being proposed, approved and built throughout Napa county, and this site now documents the efforts of those other impacted residents to protect their communities from similar commercialization. And Napans are not alone. The negative impacts of wine tourism on rural agricultural communities are being contested by residents all over the state and the nation.
While some vineyard acreage has been added in the last 20 years, there is already much more winery capacity than needed to process Napa grapes in the county. Yet more wineries are being approved, not to support Napa agriculture, but to provide venues to bring more tourist dollars into the county. On the valley floor the dominance of tourism over wine making is represented by French and Persian Palaces, Tuscan Castles, Aerial Trams and a vast sculpture garden of ego-fueled modernist statements. The great old wineries have been refurbished to bring a whiff of Disneyland or Planet Hollywood to the Valley. Highway 29 has traffic jams worthy of San Francisco and the Silverado Trail is beginning to resemble a two lane freeway (or worse, Hwy 29!). In the watersheds, clear cutting of forests for the estate-winery fantasies of plutocrats brings good-life enterprise to even the most remote neighborhoods.
County residents have always supported the wine industry for the character of the environment and economy it has produced. But that support is eroding as vanity event centers proliferate and wine corporations move into entertainment. Winery tourism and marketing events have moved from an incidental and subordinate aspect of winery economics to the reason for their being. The impacts of this shift, in traffic, lack of affordable housing and neighborhood commercialization, are no longer palatable, and the pushback of residents hoping to maintain the rural, small-town character that they grew up with or found here is the result. Until the industry adopts a less destructive way of marketing their goods (and the internet age offers other ways in addition to traditional legwork), until it recognizes the enormous difference in community impacts between grape processing and tourist processing, the industry should expect condemnation from those more concerned about the future quality of their lives and their environment than the quality of tourism experiences occurring next door.
But expanding tourism is only one facet of the ongoing urban developement, and this site has also begun to recognize that the loss of the rural character we all treasure is more than just one industry's problem. It is the mentality, a part of the American DNA, promoted by all development interests and enabled by governments controlled by development interests, that growth is good and lack of growth is death. Napa County has made a very strong commitment to protecting its rural environment and economy. As one grapegrower has said, this is one place on earth where agriculture might be able to hold out against urbanization. Yet the growth, in wineries, tourism facilities, industrial projects, housing projects, commercial centers continues.
If the county wishes to maintain its rural environment for the next 50 years, it needs to reject a growth economy based on the unlimited profitability of continued urbanization and commit to a stable economy, based on the limited amount of agricultural land with an appropriate mix of wine, tourism, industry and housing that provides the quality of life worth having and the survival of an industry worth supporting. Unless we act now the rural, small-town life that still exists here, as well as the rural environment that is our home on Soda Canyon Road, will soon be gone.
But that project is only one of many now being proposed, approved and built throughout Napa county, and this site now documents the efforts of those other impacted residents to protect their communities from similar commercialization. And Napans are not alone. The negative impacts of wine tourism on rural agricultural communities are being contested by residents all over the state and the nation.
While some vineyard acreage has been added in the last 20 years, there is already much more winery capacity than needed to process Napa grapes in the county. Yet more wineries are being approved, not to support Napa agriculture, but to provide venues to bring more tourist dollars into the county. On the valley floor the dominance of tourism over wine making is represented by French and Persian Palaces, Tuscan Castles, Aerial Trams and a vast sculpture garden of ego-fueled modernist statements. The great old wineries have been refurbished to bring a whiff of Disneyland or Planet Hollywood to the Valley. Highway 29 has traffic jams worthy of San Francisco and the Silverado Trail is beginning to resemble a two lane freeway (or worse, Hwy 29!). In the watersheds, clear cutting of forests for the estate-winery fantasies of plutocrats brings good-life enterprise to even the most remote neighborhoods.
County residents have always supported the wine industry for the character of the environment and economy it has produced. But that support is eroding as vanity event centers proliferate and wine corporations move into entertainment. Winery tourism and marketing events have moved from an incidental and subordinate aspect of winery economics to the reason for their being. The impacts of this shift, in traffic, lack of affordable housing and neighborhood commercialization, are no longer palatable, and the pushback of residents hoping to maintain the rural, small-town character that they grew up with or found here is the result. Until the industry adopts a less destructive way of marketing their goods (and the internet age offers other ways in addition to traditional legwork), until it recognizes the enormous difference in community impacts between grape processing and tourist processing, the industry should expect condemnation from those more concerned about the future quality of their lives and their environment than the quality of tourism experiences occurring next door.
But expanding tourism is only one facet of the ongoing urban developement, and this site has also begun to recognize that the loss of the rural character we all treasure is more than just one industry's problem. It is the mentality, a part of the American DNA, promoted by all development interests and enabled by governments controlled by development interests, that growth is good and lack of growth is death. Napa County has made a very strong commitment to protecting its rural environment and economy. As one grapegrower has said, this is one place on earth where agriculture might be able to hold out against urbanization. Yet the growth, in wineries, tourism facilities, industrial projects, housing projects, commercial centers continues.
If the county wishes to maintain its rural environment for the next 50 years, it needs to reject a growth economy based on the unlimited profitability of continued urbanization and commit to a stable economy, based on the limited amount of agricultural land with an appropriate mix of wine, tourism, industry and housing that provides the quality of life worth having and the survival of an industry worth supporting. Unless we act now the rural, small-town life that still exists here, as well as the rural environment that is our home on Soda Canyon Road, will soon be gone.
Latest Posts
Below are the latest posts made to any of the pages of this site with a link to the page in the upper right corner.
The Water Wars have begun on: Watershed Issues
Patricia Damery - Jul 17,21 expand... Share
Those of us who attended the city of Napa's Zoom meeting outlining the proposed changes to the hydrant meter usage starting Aug. 1, 2021 (to be voted on at the Napa City Council on July 20), witnessed the beginning of what promises to become a contentious and challenging transition into water rationing.
We agree with the city's clear-eyed attention to the water emergency in our county, planning to meet the needs of city residents. However, we are alarmed at the county's apparent blind eye to the needs of residents outside of the city.
Since 2009, the trucking of water to rural customers from the city of Napa hydrants has increased. Rural wells have become underperforming or dry due to increased development, the drilling of more wells, and climate changes and drought. This year trucking reached an all-time high. Between January and June, the amount of water trucked has doubled from the same period last year, going from 24 acre-feet (AF) in 2020 to 47 AF in 2021.
Napa city gets 59% of its water from the North Bay Aqueduct, reserving Lake Hennessy reservoir for use should the city need this water in coming years. Currently, the lake is at 63% capacity. Last season's low rainfall added only 1,000 AF to the reservoir. The city of Napa has asked city residents to reduce water by 15% voluntarily, but usage has increased. To make up for this, residents must reduce water usage by 20% from August through October or until the rains begin. Irrigation of landscaping will be further restricted. A goal is to keep Lake Hennessy at 54% of capacity by November 2021 as insurance against another dry winter.
But what does the county plan for our water emergency? What about those whose wells have been heavily impacted by the county's addiction to development and the permitting of more and more wells, resulting in the need for trucked water? As of Aug. 1, rural residents will be limited to 4,000 gallons of trucked water a month for indoor purposes only. Outdoor irrigation with trucked water is prohibited. For a family of four, the 4,000 gallon limit per month means 33 gallons a day each. The average person uses 80-100 gallons a day. There is no leeway for farm animals.
When confronted with this situation, Napa County Director of Planning, Building, and Environment David Morrison stated that those living in rural areas must accept that we don't have the amenities of those living within the city limits — like sidewalks — implying access to drinking water is an amenity.
Director Morrison, access to water is not an amenity. It is a right. And the county is culpable. In too many cases, our wells have been dried by the county's refusing to consider the cumulative impact of development and well drilling in areas where neighbors report water problems. These reports are effectively ignored and dismissed as anecdotal. Groundwater is a complex issue, Director Morrison asserts. The lack of it, though, is not complex. Maybe it’s time for a moratorium on development until the complexities of groundwater are figured out.
Rural residents are not the only ones who are impacted. Trucked water may not be used for commercial purposes or for construction on property outside Napa city limits. There will be a cap on the amount of water a trucking company can haul. Those vineyards and wineries receiving "interruptible Ag water" will be required to cut back by 20% of 2020 usage. And while all of this is going on, the Groundwater Sustainability Agency Advisory Committee is trying to prove that there is no overdraft of the Napa County sub-basin.
Please, isn’t it time we look at the larger picture? In the June 9 meeting, Director Morrison stated there are 70-some water providers within Napa County. Napa city and American Canyon both purchase water from the North Bay Aqueduct, which the state has cut back to 5% of the usual allotment. Will there come a time when Napa city also needs to draw on groundwater? Isn't it time we have an agency that coordinates all the water in Napa County? All of us will be making sacrifices and learning to live within our water budget, but let’s get our planners and builders on board as well. Otherwise, we will not all have adequate access to drinking water.
NVR LTE version 7/15/21: The Water Wars have begun
We agree with the city's clear-eyed attention to the water emergency in our county, planning to meet the needs of city residents. However, we are alarmed at the county's apparent blind eye to the needs of residents outside of the city.
Since 2009, the trucking of water to rural customers from the city of Napa hydrants has increased. Rural wells have become underperforming or dry due to increased development, the drilling of more wells, and climate changes and drought. This year trucking reached an all-time high. Between January and June, the amount of water trucked has doubled from the same period last year, going from 24 acre-feet (AF) in 2020 to 47 AF in 2021.
Napa city gets 59% of its water from the North Bay Aqueduct, reserving Lake Hennessy reservoir for use should the city need this water in coming years. Currently, the lake is at 63% capacity. Last season's low rainfall added only 1,000 AF to the reservoir. The city of Napa has asked city residents to reduce water by 15% voluntarily, but usage has increased. To make up for this, residents must reduce water usage by 20% from August through October or until the rains begin. Irrigation of landscaping will be further restricted. A goal is to keep Lake Hennessy at 54% of capacity by November 2021 as insurance against another dry winter.
But what does the county plan for our water emergency? What about those whose wells have been heavily impacted by the county's addiction to development and the permitting of more and more wells, resulting in the need for trucked water? As of Aug. 1, rural residents will be limited to 4,000 gallons of trucked water a month for indoor purposes only. Outdoor irrigation with trucked water is prohibited. For a family of four, the 4,000 gallon limit per month means 33 gallons a day each. The average person uses 80-100 gallons a day. There is no leeway for farm animals.
When confronted with this situation, Napa County Director of Planning, Building, and Environment David Morrison stated that those living in rural areas must accept that we don't have the amenities of those living within the city limits — like sidewalks — implying access to drinking water is an amenity.
Director Morrison, access to water is not an amenity. It is a right. And the county is culpable. In too many cases, our wells have been dried by the county's refusing to consider the cumulative impact of development and well drilling in areas where neighbors report water problems. These reports are effectively ignored and dismissed as anecdotal. Groundwater is a complex issue, Director Morrison asserts. The lack of it, though, is not complex. Maybe it’s time for a moratorium on development until the complexities of groundwater are figured out.
Rural residents are not the only ones who are impacted. Trucked water may not be used for commercial purposes or for construction on property outside Napa city limits. There will be a cap on the amount of water a trucking company can haul. Those vineyards and wineries receiving "interruptible Ag water" will be required to cut back by 20% of 2020 usage. And while all of this is going on, the Groundwater Sustainability Agency Advisory Committee is trying to prove that there is no overdraft of the Napa County sub-basin.
Please, isn’t it time we look at the larger picture? In the June 9 meeting, Director Morrison stated there are 70-some water providers within Napa County. Napa city and American Canyon both purchase water from the North Bay Aqueduct, which the state has cut back to 5% of the usual allotment. Will there come a time when Napa city also needs to draw on groundwater? Isn't it time we have an agency that coordinates all the water in Napa County? All of us will be making sacrifices and learning to live within our water budget, but let’s get our planners and builders on board as well. Otherwise, we will not all have adequate access to drinking water.
NVR LTE version 7/15/21: The Water Wars have begun
'Overtourism' could create consequences for Calistoga on: Calistoga & North Napa Co
Donald Williams - Jul 13,21 expand... Share
Tourism declined in 2020. Now, when tourist destinations are rebuilding their market, it’s not too soon to anticipate: Could the tourist resurgence become a deluge?
I googled “overtourism” to learn more. Overtourism is an excess of tourists. It is a malady to which “world-class” destinations are particularly susceptible. The risk is that they will adversely affect the quality of local life, or of their own experience, and that Calistoga will lose its original intrinsic appeal and exist mainly to attract tourists.
Cornell University issued a sobering report, “Destinations at Risk: The Invisible Burden of Tourism” (2019). It described tourism’s hidden costs (the “invisible burden”), warning that failing to protect and manage destinations “puts ecosystems, cultural wonders, and community life at increasing risk, and places the tourism industry on a weak foundation that could crack under its own weight.” The report cites possible costs such as infrastructure upgrades for water and sewer services; environmental degradation from traffic; higher costs of living; displacement of services for locals; and undermined community values.
Without attention to overtourism, we in Napa County could join company with the mayor in Paris who expressed “deep qualms about having so many visitors directly in their midst. . . Mass tourism is driving away locals with higher prices, higher rents and sheer inconvenience.”
Still, dazzled by the revenue, our local governments approve permits for more visitors and events at rural wineries, and spend still more money to encourage people to come. Perhaps it doesn’t matter, until the winery on your lane wants to triple its visitors, or you’re navigating tiresome traffic in “rural” Napa.
During the pandemic, a becalmed Calistoga reminded some residents of their quieter community of years past. For mature communities, too wise to sacrifice quality by endlessly chasing dollars, inviting ruin by overtourism would be hard to understand.
NVR LTE version 7/12/21: 'Overtourism' could create consequences for Calistoga
I googled “overtourism” to learn more. Overtourism is an excess of tourists. It is a malady to which “world-class” destinations are particularly susceptible. The risk is that they will adversely affect the quality of local life, or of their own experience, and that Calistoga will lose its original intrinsic appeal and exist mainly to attract tourists.
Cornell University issued a sobering report, “Destinations at Risk: The Invisible Burden of Tourism” (2019). It described tourism’s hidden costs (the “invisible burden”), warning that failing to protect and manage destinations “puts ecosystems, cultural wonders, and community life at increasing risk, and places the tourism industry on a weak foundation that could crack under its own weight.” The report cites possible costs such as infrastructure upgrades for water and sewer services; environmental degradation from traffic; higher costs of living; displacement of services for locals; and undermined community values.
Without attention to overtourism, we in Napa County could join company with the mayor in Paris who expressed “deep qualms about having so many visitors directly in their midst. . . Mass tourism is driving away locals with higher prices, higher rents and sheer inconvenience.”
Still, dazzled by the revenue, our local governments approve permits for more visitors and events at rural wineries, and spend still more money to encourage people to come. Perhaps it doesn’t matter, until the winery on your lane wants to triple its visitors, or you’re navigating tiresome traffic in “rural” Napa.
During the pandemic, a becalmed Calistoga reminded some residents of their quieter community of years past. For mature communities, too wise to sacrifice quality by endlessly chasing dollars, inviting ruin by overtourism would be hard to understand.
NVR LTE version 7/12/21: 'Overtourism' could create consequences for Calistoga
Comments
Bill Hocker - Jul 13, 2021 9:56AM
BOS Mountain Peak remand hearing May 18, 2021 on: Mountain Peak Winery
Bill Hocker - Jul 10,21 expand... Share
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)
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
Mountain Peak site after the fireNVR 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:
Documents:
Hearing Statements:
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.
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)
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
Mountain Peak site after the fireNV2050 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:
- Board disclosures and staff presentation re 2017 Atlas Fire.
- Soda Canyon Group presentation (Supervisor Pedroza has limited us to 20 minutes; I will plan to handle the presentation, which will include a PowerPoint).
- 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.
- MPV presentation (also limited to 20 minutes).
- Soda Canyon Group rebuttal (time permitting).
- 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.
Small Winery Ordinance in action on: The Winery Glut
Bill Hocker - Jun 18,21 expand... Share
Since June 2020 many permit issues are be handled by the Napa County Zoning Administrator rather then the Planning Commission. These are administrative approvals done in a public hearing roughly once a month on Wednesdays when the Planning Commission is not in session.
Zoning Administrator Agenda and Hearing page
While many of the zoning administrator decisions involve viewshed or exceptions for private residences, winery projects and modifications are also being reviewed and approved by the zoning administrator under the Small Winery Ordinance approved on 2/4/20.
Projects:
1/27/21 Sodhani WInery (4400 vis/yr, 8000 more gal/yr, 4750sf bldgs) [approved]
6/30/21 White Rock Winery (7300 vis/yr,4 emp)
6/30/21 Melka Winery (4300 more vis/yr)
Zoning Administrator Agenda and Hearing page
While many of the zoning administrator decisions involve viewshed or exceptions for private residences, winery projects and modifications are also being reviewed and approved by the zoning administrator under the Small Winery Ordinance approved on 2/4/20.
Projects:
1/27/21 Sodhani WInery (4400 vis/yr, 8000 more gal/yr, 4750sf bldgs) [approved]
6/30/21 White Rock Winery (7300 vis/yr,4 emp)
6/30/21 Melka Winery (4300 more vis/yr)
Water diversion for Napa County vineyards harm Napa city residents on: Watershed Issues
Kellie Anderson - Jun 8,21 expand... Share
The Supervisor's disconnect on: Growth Issues
George Caloyannidis - May 20,21 expand... Share
The long saga of the Mountain Peak application for a new 100,000-gallon winery with 14,500 annual visitors including mega events at the end of the densely forested, 6.5-mile-long, dead end Soda Canyon Road, a non-conforming Napa County Standards Road, was approved on May 18, 2021.
It was a second review of one previously approved by the Supervisors just before the 2017 Atlas Peak fire. This review ordered by the Napa Superior Court asked the Supervisors to consider the effects of these fires which destroyed 134 of the 163 homes in the immediate area and claimed lives.
In granting their second approval, the Supervisors determined that the fires provided no data compelling them to change their minds in spite of testimony after testimony by residents who could not escape because the single, flame-engulfed escape route was blocked by fallen trees while many more were airlifted by helicopters because they were trapped. If this were not enough, they disregarded the 1-mile-long limit Napa County standard for a cull-de-sac six times over!
The Supervisors were willing to ignore scientific data adopted by the National Academy of Science which show that 84% of all fires are caused by human activity. Common sense would dictate that the more people are introduced in our fire-prone areas, the higher the likelihood of fire. But it didn’t.
A few months ago, these same Supervisors approved the Anthem Winery expansion on Redwood Road, including more visitors and events. They were undeterred by its 8 wells which successively kept running dry as were those of the neighboring residents. If this were not enough, they also granted 16 variances to the long driveway, trumping all Napa County standards for driveways.
By any evidentiary standard, these decisions by the Board, endanger public safety. And while residents are facing mandatory water conservation orders, the BoS increases visitors by the tens of thousands, increases demand for low-wage industry earners for housing by enacting policies which increase water usage and deplete resident’s wells, an indication that our water table is being impaired.
None of these hair-raising actions by the Board make common sense which poses the question: Why do these well-educated people make these kinds of decisions?
Many increasingly angry citizens accuse them of being in the pockets of the “industry”, others have even accused them of being immoral. I refuse to ascribe sinister motives to these people for actions which by all reasonable standards endanger the wellbeing of the public. My explanation is that they are acting under the duress of mounting costs to services and infrastructure which they are compelled to fund through more and more development fees.
Here is why this model puts us deeper and deeper into long term deficits to our infrastructure of water, sewer, emergency services, fire protection, roads, power grid, workforce housing, schools, new personnel, pensions etc.
Eight years ago, I sponsored a public forum on growth. Three experts - two of them university professors - on tourism, traffic and resort development determined that what used to be an agricultural economy has morphed (thanks to our Supervisors) into a tourist economy. As the panel showed (Eben Fodor: The Cost of Growth in Oregon, 1998), each new home or resort unit leaves an uncollected long-term deficit of $ 26,500 -- at least double that today multiplied by the hundreds of new hotel rooms and workforce housing units -- in terms of long-term infrastructure costs.
The development fees collected by the County are means to keep County finances afloat in the short-term while the long-term costs keep mounting exponentially. If we need proof, it is the fact that we keep approving funding propositions for schools and roads one after the other. And they are a drop in the bucket.
Some may characterize the ever-increasing reliance on development fees as; “the Supervisors being in the pockets of the industry”. Who can blame them when they see the Supervisors at first turning a blind eye on violators of their own well-intentioned winery use permit rules, then “bringing them into compliance” by simply legalizing them, when they approve wineries in fire-prone areas where they should not be, when they grant variances on set-backs, road and cul-de-sac standards, allow increased water uses in the face of water shortages and unconscionably disregarding the need for safe evacuation routes, when they see the culture of watering down standards -- even ethical ones - becoming ever more permissive.
On the other hand, just as the starving man who steels a slice of pizza, what else can these five people do once they have boarded the train they built over the past 20 years from which they cannot get off (taking us with them) until it eventually crashes?
Worse, getting off it becomes increasingly difficult by the continuous actions they keep taking.
NVR 5/23/21 LTE: The Napa County supervisors’ disconnect
It was a second review of one previously approved by the Supervisors just before the 2017 Atlas Peak fire. This review ordered by the Napa Superior Court asked the Supervisors to consider the effects of these fires which destroyed 134 of the 163 homes in the immediate area and claimed lives.
In granting their second approval, the Supervisors determined that the fires provided no data compelling them to change their minds in spite of testimony after testimony by residents who could not escape because the single, flame-engulfed escape route was blocked by fallen trees while many more were airlifted by helicopters because they were trapped. If this were not enough, they disregarded the 1-mile-long limit Napa County standard for a cull-de-sac six times over!
The Supervisors were willing to ignore scientific data adopted by the National Academy of Science which show that 84% of all fires are caused by human activity. Common sense would dictate that the more people are introduced in our fire-prone areas, the higher the likelihood of fire. But it didn’t.
A few months ago, these same Supervisors approved the Anthem Winery expansion on Redwood Road, including more visitors and events. They were undeterred by its 8 wells which successively kept running dry as were those of the neighboring residents. If this were not enough, they also granted 16 variances to the long driveway, trumping all Napa County standards for driveways.
By any evidentiary standard, these decisions by the Board, endanger public safety. And while residents are facing mandatory water conservation orders, the BoS increases visitors by the tens of thousands, increases demand for low-wage industry earners for housing by enacting policies which increase water usage and deplete resident’s wells, an indication that our water table is being impaired.
None of these hair-raising actions by the Board make common sense which poses the question: Why do these well-educated people make these kinds of decisions?
Many increasingly angry citizens accuse them of being in the pockets of the “industry”, others have even accused them of being immoral. I refuse to ascribe sinister motives to these people for actions which by all reasonable standards endanger the wellbeing of the public. My explanation is that they are acting under the duress of mounting costs to services and infrastructure which they are compelled to fund through more and more development fees.
Here is why this model puts us deeper and deeper into long term deficits to our infrastructure of water, sewer, emergency services, fire protection, roads, power grid, workforce housing, schools, new personnel, pensions etc.
Eight years ago, I sponsored a public forum on growth. Three experts - two of them university professors - on tourism, traffic and resort development determined that what used to be an agricultural economy has morphed (thanks to our Supervisors) into a tourist economy. As the panel showed (Eben Fodor: The Cost of Growth in Oregon, 1998), each new home or resort unit leaves an uncollected long-term deficit of $ 26,500 -- at least double that today multiplied by the hundreds of new hotel rooms and workforce housing units -- in terms of long-term infrastructure costs.
The development fees collected by the County are means to keep County finances afloat in the short-term while the long-term costs keep mounting exponentially. If we need proof, it is the fact that we keep approving funding propositions for schools and roads one after the other. And they are a drop in the bucket.
Some may characterize the ever-increasing reliance on development fees as; “the Supervisors being in the pockets of the industry”. Who can blame them when they see the Supervisors at first turning a blind eye on violators of their own well-intentioned winery use permit rules, then “bringing them into compliance” by simply legalizing them, when they approve wineries in fire-prone areas where they should not be, when they grant variances on set-backs, road and cul-de-sac standards, allow increased water uses in the face of water shortages and unconscionably disregarding the need for safe evacuation routes, when they see the culture of watering down standards -- even ethical ones - becoming ever more permissive.
On the other hand, just as the starving man who steels a slice of pizza, what else can these five people do once they have boarded the train they built over the past 20 years from which they cannot get off (taking us with them) until it eventually crashes?
Worse, getting off it becomes increasingly difficult by the continuous actions they keep taking.
NVR 5/23/21 LTE: The Napa County supervisors’ disconnect
Planning Comm asked to approve 286,000 more visitors/yr on: The Winery Glut
Bill Hocker - May 19,21 expand... Share
The Mountain Peak Remand on: Mountain Peak Winery
Bill Hocker - May 14,21 expand... Share
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.
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.
Re: Gallo Stagecoach North ECP on: The Rector Watershed
Bill Hocker - Mar 29,21 expand... Share
Response letter, typos and misspellings included, sent regarding the Stagecoach North DEIR
29 Mar 2021
Donald Barrella, Planner III
Napa County Planning, Building, and Environmental Services Department
1195 Third Street Suite 210
Napa, CA 94559
Re: Stagecoach North Vineyard Conversion
Erosion Control Plan Application #P18-00446-ECPA
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Mr. Barrella,
Many thanks of the opportunity to respond to the Stagecoach North DEIR.
The No Project Alternative
I would like to express opposition to the project and ask you to consider accepting the No Project Alternative to the proposal. It is, at least in my mind, the superior environmental alternative.
The DEIR states more clearly than I could why this alternative should be considered. I will take the liberty of repeating some of the conclusions here:
A better case to protect an environment would be hard to make. Additionally, there are a few other impacts the No Project Alternative would avoid:
For all the positive benefits to the environment that the No Project Alternative would sustain, the one negative that it posits is the larger amount of siltation that would occur by not doing anything. Perhaps. But the DEIR seems to assume normal rain events and a retention system that must be maintained in perpetuity. In 1997-8 an exceptionally rainy season caused massive amounts of sediment from the newly begun Stagecoach vineyard to wash down canyon walls into Rector reservoir causing filtration failure and substantial repairs. Despite the DEIR’s many pages of elaborate calculations, the notion that churning up 42-60 inches of topsoil and rock over 100 acres of land, and the ongoing use of farming equipment on miles of new block perimeters, will result in an ultimate decrease of soil erosion seems very hopeful engineering. Forgive me for being skeptical.
Perhaps an alternative could be proposed that would stem the most egregious current erosion, replanting unused roads for example, while retaining the other environmental benefits of the No Project Alternative.
Rector Watershed Development
It is late now to get worked up over another vineyard diminishing the remaining natural landscape in the Rector watershed. The fire that ravished the project site last year even reduces some concern about the potential loss of the natural landscape. And certainly new vineyards are far superior to housing tracts, vineyard estate development or winery tourist attractions. But a look at the amount of acreage developed on the Rector plateau shows that the entire watershed is coming closer to being completely developed. It is already the most heavily developed watershed in the county by far. The Stagecoach North project is the first to push up to the ridge that surrounds the watershed, and a harbinger for further development along the ridge lines.
In that regard the county should again address the potential cumulative impacts of further development of the watershed. It is a shame that developers are forced to spend over $300,000 on a report that is predetermined to conclude that what the developer’s proposal will have less-than-significant impacts.
The money would be better spent on a study of the impacts as a watershed area is maxed out in vines. The Rector watershed, and the Stagecoach vineyard occupying a very hefty portion of it, would be the perfect subject for a case study in changes in water availability, siltation, animal habitat and traffic generation from its inception in 1995 though the present. It would give everyone a data-based view of the continuing efforts throughout the county to convert raw land to more profitable uses.
Suggested project inclusions
Whichever alternative is finally decided upon, I would like to see two issues considered in the final EIR for the project:
Finally
It should be mentioned, with or without this project, that Gallo will remain by far the largest producer of wine in the world. Its revenues, with the acquisition of Constellation, are now over 60 times greater than its next closest competitor. There is a point at which the growth mentality of capitalism begins to defy the logic of maintaining a livable world, indeed of maintaining our species. Oil companies will always want 100 more acres of tundra, cattle companies 100 more acres of rainforest, and in Napa, warehouse builders 100 more acres of wetlands or gravel companies 100 more acres of wooded knolls.
For all of the “less severe impacts” listed in the No Project Alternative, it is beyond time to recognize that the natural world is not just an infinite resource to be consumed for financial growth. And for those same reasons, it is beyond time that governments begin to accept the No Project Alternatives in front of them, and I ask you to do so here.
Again thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Bill Hocker
3460 Soda Canyon Rd
Napa, CA
Donald Barrella, Planner III
Napa County Planning, Building, and Environmental Services Department
1195 Third Street Suite 210
Napa, CA 94559
Re: Stagecoach North Vineyard Conversion
Erosion Control Plan Application #P18-00446-ECPA
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Mr. Barrella,
Many thanks of the opportunity to respond to the Stagecoach North DEIR.
The No Project Alternative
I would like to express opposition to the project and ask you to consider accepting the No Project Alternative to the proposal. It is, at least in my mind, the superior environmental alternative.
The DEIR states more clearly than I could why this alternative should be considered. I will take the liberty of repeating some of the conclusions here:
"Unlike the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not require construction equipment and materials, vehicles, and crews; ground-disturbing construction activities; or operation and maintenance activities. For this reason, the No Project Alternative would result in less severe impacts than the proposed project related to air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, and transportation. Mitigation measures identified for the proposed project also would not apply to the No Project Alternative.
Vegetation removal, implementation of the Erosion Control Plan, and vineyard conversion would not occur under the No Project Alternative. The environmental setting would remain identical to conditions that existed at the time of the Notice of Preparation.
Unlike the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not generate project construction emissions or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants, and this alternative would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not require implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1a through 3.2-1c or the open burning condition of approval, as identified for the proposed project, to reduce impacts on air quality to less-than-significant levels. The No Project Alternative would not include activities that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors), adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
In addition, because this alternative would not involve any construction work or operation and maintenance activities, the No Project Alternative would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for reducing GHGs. No impacts would occur in these areas under the No Project Alternative, compared to the less-than-significant impacts that would result from the proposed project.
Because ground-disturbing activities would not occur under the No Project Alternative, impacts on biological resources, potential impacts on previously unrecorded cultural and tribal cultural resources, and conflicts with applicable sections of the Napa County Code and Napa County General Plan would not occur. The approximately 75.17 acres that provide habitat for approximately 1,912 holly‐leaved ceanothus individuals, consisting of chamise alliance (48.85 acres), mixed manzanita (3.77 acres), and scrub interior live oak (22.55 acres), would remain on the project site. Populations of Franciscan onion, narrow-flowered California brodiaea, small-flowered calycadenia, two-carpellate western flax, nodding harmonia, Napa lomatium, and green monardella on the project site would not be removed and/or replanted. The 31.63 acres of California bay forest and 0.75 acre of black oak forest would remain on the project site. The approximately 2,790 total trees on the project site with a stem diameter at breast height of 5 inches or more would remain undisturbed. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not require implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-1a through 3.3-k, 3.3-2a, 3.3-2b, 3.3-3, 3.3-4, 3.3-5, 3.4-1a, 3.4-1b, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3 as identified for the proposed project to reduce impacts on biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, and land use and planning to less-than-significant levels.
With the No Project Alternative, proposed erosion and runoff control measures would not be implemented. Therefore, unlike the proposed project, this alternative would not cause a reduction in soil loss of approximately 29.78 percent (160.01 tons) or a net decrease in peak- flow rates relative to existing conditions. The No Project Alternative would not affect water quality and groundwater supplies.
Because construction and maintenance activities for the vineyard would not occur, the No Project Alternative would avoid potential impacts of the proposed project related to hazards and the use of hazardous materials on the project site and temporary, less-than-significant impacts associated with noise and transportation-related construction activities."
Vegetation removal, implementation of the Erosion Control Plan, and vineyard conversion would not occur under the No Project Alternative. The environmental setting would remain identical to conditions that existed at the time of the Notice of Preparation.
Unlike the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not generate project construction emissions or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants, and this alternative would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not require implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1a through 3.2-1c or the open burning condition of approval, as identified for the proposed project, to reduce impacts on air quality to less-than-significant levels. The No Project Alternative would not include activities that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors), adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
In addition, because this alternative would not involve any construction work or operation and maintenance activities, the No Project Alternative would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for reducing GHGs. No impacts would occur in these areas under the No Project Alternative, compared to the less-than-significant impacts that would result from the proposed project.
Because ground-disturbing activities would not occur under the No Project Alternative, impacts on biological resources, potential impacts on previously unrecorded cultural and tribal cultural resources, and conflicts with applicable sections of the Napa County Code and Napa County General Plan would not occur. The approximately 75.17 acres that provide habitat for approximately 1,912 holly‐leaved ceanothus individuals, consisting of chamise alliance (48.85 acres), mixed manzanita (3.77 acres), and scrub interior live oak (22.55 acres), would remain on the project site. Populations of Franciscan onion, narrow-flowered California brodiaea, small-flowered calycadenia, two-carpellate western flax, nodding harmonia, Napa lomatium, and green monardella on the project site would not be removed and/or replanted. The 31.63 acres of California bay forest and 0.75 acre of black oak forest would remain on the project site. The approximately 2,790 total trees on the project site with a stem diameter at breast height of 5 inches or more would remain undisturbed. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not require implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-1a through 3.3-k, 3.3-2a, 3.3-2b, 3.3-3, 3.3-4, 3.3-5, 3.4-1a, 3.4-1b, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3 as identified for the proposed project to reduce impacts on biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, and land use and planning to less-than-significant levels.
With the No Project Alternative, proposed erosion and runoff control measures would not be implemented. Therefore, unlike the proposed project, this alternative would not cause a reduction in soil loss of approximately 29.78 percent (160.01 tons) or a net decrease in peak- flow rates relative to existing conditions. The No Project Alternative would not affect water quality and groundwater supplies.
Because construction and maintenance activities for the vineyard would not occur, the No Project Alternative would avoid potential impacts of the proposed project related to hazards and the use of hazardous materials on the project site and temporary, less-than-significant impacts associated with noise and transportation-related construction activities."
A better case to protect an environment would be hard to make. Additionally, there are a few other impacts the No Project Alternative would avoid:
No cars would be added to the 50 or so that caravan up and down the road each day, increasing the danger of its blind curves and backing up the junction at the Trail. Traffic on the road, which has more than doubled since 2014, would not be increased further.
No more service vehicles, large dump trucks, grape trucks, or other large equipment would add to the danger and the maintenance of an already dangerous road and grade. Nor would the No Project Alternative add to the number of large vehicles that tend to get stuck trying to make it up the grade.
In the No Project Alternative, wildfire danger in this high wildfire severity zone would not be increased by the addition of more people and vehicles, (and possibly power lines if other wells are developed). Nor would it add to the number of people needing to evacuated by helicopter in the event of another fire, like that in 2017, blocking the exit down the road.
At the macro scale, the No Project Alternative would not add to the need for more affordable housing and infrastructure to accommodate a larger work force. Nor would it add to the glut of grapes that the industry seems to be experiencing.
No more service vehicles, large dump trucks, grape trucks, or other large equipment would add to the danger and the maintenance of an already dangerous road and grade. Nor would the No Project Alternative add to the number of large vehicles that tend to get stuck trying to make it up the grade.
In the No Project Alternative, wildfire danger in this high wildfire severity zone would not be increased by the addition of more people and vehicles, (and possibly power lines if other wells are developed). Nor would it add to the number of people needing to evacuated by helicopter in the event of another fire, like that in 2017, blocking the exit down the road.
At the macro scale, the No Project Alternative would not add to the need for more affordable housing and infrastructure to accommodate a larger work force. Nor would it add to the glut of grapes that the industry seems to be experiencing.
For all the positive benefits to the environment that the No Project Alternative would sustain, the one negative that it posits is the larger amount of siltation that would occur by not doing anything. Perhaps. But the DEIR seems to assume normal rain events and a retention system that must be maintained in perpetuity. In 1997-8 an exceptionally rainy season caused massive amounts of sediment from the newly begun Stagecoach vineyard to wash down canyon walls into Rector reservoir causing filtration failure and substantial repairs. Despite the DEIR’s many pages of elaborate calculations, the notion that churning up 42-60 inches of topsoil and rock over 100 acres of land, and the ongoing use of farming equipment on miles of new block perimeters, will result in an ultimate decrease of soil erosion seems very hopeful engineering. Forgive me for being skeptical.
Perhaps an alternative could be proposed that would stem the most egregious current erosion, replanting unused roads for example, while retaining the other environmental benefits of the No Project Alternative.
Rector Watershed Development
In that regard the county should again address the potential cumulative impacts of further development of the watershed. It is a shame that developers are forced to spend over $300,000 on a report that is predetermined to conclude that what the developer’s proposal will have less-than-significant impacts.
The money would be better spent on a study of the impacts as a watershed area is maxed out in vines. The Rector watershed, and the Stagecoach vineyard occupying a very hefty portion of it, would be the perfect subject for a case study in changes in water availability, siltation, animal habitat and traffic generation from its inception in 1995 though the present. It would give everyone a data-based view of the continuing efforts throughout the county to convert raw land to more profitable uses.
Suggested project inclusions
Whichever alternative is finally decided upon, I would like to see two issues considered in the final EIR for the project:
First that a vanpool arrangement be included not just for the proposed project but for Stagecoach as a whole, so that it might set a precedent in reducing GHG’s and dangers on the road through a more environmentally-friendly worker transport system.
Second, that an additional northern access road to Stagecoach Vineyards be established connecting it to Hwy. 128, both as a fire security measure and to reduce the traffic load on Soda Canyon Road.
Second, that an additional northern access road to Stagecoach Vineyards be established connecting it to Hwy. 128, both as a fire security measure and to reduce the traffic load on Soda Canyon Road.
Finally
It should be mentioned, with or without this project, that Gallo will remain by far the largest producer of wine in the world. Its revenues, with the acquisition of Constellation, are now over 60 times greater than its next closest competitor. There is a point at which the growth mentality of capitalism begins to defy the logic of maintaining a livable world, indeed of maintaining our species. Oil companies will always want 100 more acres of tundra, cattle companies 100 more acres of rainforest, and in Napa, warehouse builders 100 more acres of wetlands or gravel companies 100 more acres of wooded knolls.
For all of the “less severe impacts” listed in the No Project Alternative, it is beyond time to recognize that the natural world is not just an infinite resource to be consumed for financial growth. And for those same reasons, it is beyond time that governments begin to accept the No Project Alternatives in front of them, and I ask you to do so here.
Again thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Bill Hocker
3460 Soda Canyon Rd
Napa, CA
Stuck on Soda Canyon Road on: Soda Canyon Road
Bill Hocker - Mar 21,21 expand... Share
Update 3/31/21
Shelle Wolfe, in her letter to the Planning Department regarding the Stagecoach North DEIR included a group of photos which, taken together gives a sobering view of the perils of driving on the road:
Update 3/29/21
Across from the fire station.Glenn Schreuder sends along another accident along the road this week (in addition to the blue dump truck and red car at the bridge shown above):
And Amber Manfree adds some of her photos:
Another tourist van stuck on the grade and a car over the edge at Mike's culvert
Update 3/21/21
Glenn Schreuder sends along this tale:
A few minutes ago, I just learned from one of our neighbors exactly what happened on the grade on Soda Canyon Road on Monday March 8th and you won’t believe it:
According to the account I just heard, apparently two trucks from Oaxaca, Mexico carrying finished case goods of Mescal were given an incorrect delivery address in upper Soda Canyon by a large local trucking company that was, in some way, involved in this trucking shipment.
The first tractor/trailer got stuck on the “S” curve just below the Martucci’s driveway around 9am.
That driver tried to radio the driver of the second tractor/trailer to let him know not to come up here but the message was not received or perhaps not heeded (unknown).
The second truck got stuck and rolled backwards into the hill just below the driveway of the property formerly owned by the Dixon family (driveway just before Martucci coming up the grade).
Thankfully by the grace of God he didn’t roll backward and down the steep ravine and into Soda Creek. Probably a heads up play by the driver. must have terrifying for him/her.
The back of the trailer of the second truck was badly damages and, sadly, some bottles of Mescal were lost forever…But at least the driver and anyone else nearby was not injured.
If you need more details we can follow up with the neighbor. Attached are the pictures.
Judy took the one at 9am (first truck that got stuck on the grade). I took the pictures of the second truck at about 11:45am again on Monday, March 8th.
Update 9/6/19
The latest examples of the driving rigors on this most problematic road. One, a narrow escape on a very steep section of the grade; and another, a tourist highlight as wine barrels end up scattered across the landscape near the blind curve beyond the Soda Springs gate. Glen writes about the upper photo:
Update 7/13/18
Shelle Wolfe sends this video of un-notified paving of our gravel road, which given the traffic now on the road, will be a noise mitigation for her and a dust mitigation for those on the road.
But another bit of rural Napa is paved over.
Since we are here only 2 days a week and only have a short stretch of the gravel road to traverse and are removed from the dust thrown up, we have little right to complain. But I will anyway.
As with the loss of the mailboxes, the paving of the road is just one more step in the conversion of a truly rural place into a suburb.
Old man MacCabe talked about the time that neighbors got together to regrade the runoff wash that was the access to houses here, into the gravel road we know. "It was the worst $400 I ever spent." The gentrification continues.
I agree with Yeoryios' email response to the news. Improved access is generally a harbinger of further development.
Update 10/25/17
Lauren Griffiths writes: Two vehicle accident off into the creek at the McFadden curve on 10/25/17. The first responders arrived in force, not taking any chances.
After the fire, just at harvest, the road is busier than I have ever seen it. There are the grape trucks, repair trucks servicing fire damaged properties, utility trucks, and residents in what amounts to an almost continuous stream (by Soda Canyon standards) of vehicles on the road. It will not end anytime soon. All of this activity will be supplanted first by debris loading and hauling equipment and then by construction vehicles as residents rebuild in the coming years. As in the argument concerning tourism traffic, with each new vehicle on the road the potential for accidents on the blind curves and rises increases.
Update 4/19/17
Some of the members of the Soda Canyon community on their way to the hearing on the very inaccessible Caves at Soda Canyon winery almost didn't arrive because of a typical example of inaccessibility on our road.
Update 3/27/17
Just another day on the road.
Update 2/15/17
Residents send along these photos of an encounter that may become all too familiar along the grade: stranded tour buses awaiting reinforcements in their assault on the Rector plateau. And the final indignity: being towed from in front of the Mountain Peak site (probably the first place they were able to turn around after being hauled up the grade?).
It appears that the van was headed to the Beau Vine vineyard as part of a release party at their nascent winery on the Trail at Soda Canyon Road. Approval of modification to the Beau Vingne winery just happened at the planning commission (the hearing is item 9B here) in what one could only consider as a love-fest about what Napa "family" wineries should be about.
The visit to the vineyard in conjunction to a event at the winery does raise a question that I have always had about visitation to vineyards as opposed to wineries. Visitation to wineries is regulated to the nth degree, implying that unpermitted tourism visitation to vineyards might be illegal. Is that true? Even as an opponent of tourism to remote areas of the county, if the allowance of vineyard visitation defuses the need to build wineries in remote vineyards, that is a much preferable alternative. Provided that visits to vineyards don't become events, with food service and large quantities of people, there should be some codification of the process which does not now exist. (Of course, containing the extent of a privilege once codified has been at the heart of problems now confronting the county.)
2/2/15
It begins again, our first for 2015, overloaded vineyard truck dead on last curve, had to be towed with tractor.
Shelle Wolfe, in her letter to the Planning Department regarding the Stagecoach North DEIR included a group of photos which, taken together gives a sobering view of the perils of driving on the road:
Update 3/29/21
Across from the fire station.
And Amber Manfree adds some of her photos:
Another tourist van stuck on the grade and a car over the edge at Mike's culvert
Update 3/21/21
A few minutes ago, I just learned from one of our neighbors exactly what happened on the grade on Soda Canyon Road on Monday March 8th and you won’t believe it:
According to the account I just heard, apparently two trucks from Oaxaca, Mexico carrying finished case goods of Mescal were given an incorrect delivery address in upper Soda Canyon by a large local trucking company that was, in some way, involved in this trucking shipment.
The first tractor/trailer got stuck on the “S” curve just below the Martucci’s driveway around 9am.
That driver tried to radio the driver of the second tractor/trailer to let him know not to come up here but the message was not received or perhaps not heeded (unknown).
The second truck got stuck and rolled backwards into the hill just below the driveway of the property formerly owned by the Dixon family (driveway just before Martucci coming up the grade).
Thankfully by the grace of God he didn’t roll backward and down the steep ravine and into Soda Creek. Probably a heads up play by the driver. must have terrifying for him/her.
The back of the trailer of the second truck was badly damages and, sadly, some bottles of Mescal were lost forever…But at least the driver and anyone else nearby was not injured.
If you need more details we can follow up with the neighbor. Attached are the pictures.
Judy took the one at 9am (first truck that got stuck on the grade). I took the pictures of the second truck at about 11:45am again on Monday, March 8th.
Update 9/6/19
- "took this photo at about 8:30am PDT 09/10/2019. That guy is very lucky. Would like to know how his truck ended up in that position. Could have started a fire, could have rolled down to the creek, could easily have been seriously injured or worse. I keep saying SCR is not a fundamentally safe roadway for increasing traffic loads. Fully pave it and people will start hauling ass increasing the frequency (and severity) of vehicular accidents. Only workable solution: Stop treating Soda Canyon road like it's an appropriate place for more and more commercial development."
Update 7/13/18
Shelle Wolfe sends this video of un-notified paving of our gravel road, which given the traffic now on the road, will be a noise mitigation for her and a dust mitigation for those on the road.
But another bit of rural Napa is paved over.
Since we are here only 2 days a week and only have a short stretch of the gravel road to traverse and are removed from the dust thrown up, we have little right to complain. But I will anyway.
As with the loss of the mailboxes, the paving of the road is just one more step in the conversion of a truly rural place into a suburb.
Old man MacCabe talked about the time that neighbors got together to regrade the runoff wash that was the access to houses here, into the gravel road we know. "It was the worst $400 I ever spent." The gentrification continues.
I agree with Yeoryios' email response to the news. Improved access is generally a harbinger of further development.
Update 10/25/17
After the fire, just at harvest, the road is busier than I have ever seen it. There are the grape trucks, repair trucks servicing fire damaged properties, utility trucks, and residents in what amounts to an almost continuous stream (by Soda Canyon standards) of vehicles on the road. It will not end anytime soon. All of this activity will be supplanted first by debris loading and hauling equipment and then by construction vehicles as residents rebuild in the coming years. As in the argument concerning tourism traffic, with each new vehicle on the road the potential for accidents on the blind curves and rises increases.
Update 4/19/17
Some of the members of the Soda Canyon community on their way to the hearing on the very inaccessible Caves at Soda Canyon winery almost didn't arrive because of a typical example of inaccessibility on our road.
Update 3/27/17
Just another day on the road.
Update 2/15/17
Residents send along these photos of an encounter that may become all too familiar along the grade: stranded tour buses awaiting reinforcements in their assault on the Rector plateau. And the final indignity: being towed from in front of the Mountain Peak site (probably the first place they were able to turn around after being hauled up the grade?).
It appears that the van was headed to the Beau Vine vineyard as part of a release party at their nascent winery on the Trail at Soda Canyon Road. Approval of modification to the Beau Vingne winery just happened at the planning commission (the hearing is item 9B here) in what one could only consider as a love-fest about what Napa "family" wineries should be about.
The visit to the vineyard in conjunction to a event at the winery does raise a question that I have always had about visitation to vineyards as opposed to wineries. Visitation to wineries is regulated to the nth degree, implying that unpermitted tourism visitation to vineyards might be illegal. Is that true? Even as an opponent of tourism to remote areas of the county, if the allowance of vineyard visitation defuses the need to build wineries in remote vineyards, that is a much preferable alternative. Provided that visits to vineyards don't become events, with food service and large quantities of people, there should be some codification of the process which does not now exist. (Of course, containing the extent of a privilege once codified has been at the heart of problems now confronting the county.)
2/2/15
Fire now Ice on: Soda Canyon Road
Lauren Griffiths - Mar 11,21 expand... Share
I thought you might enjoy seeing pictures of upper Soda Canyon yesterday. We had a hail storm that lasted for quite awhile!
End of an era? on: Campaign 2022
Bill Hocker - Mar 4,21 expand... Share
NVR 2/20/21: High stakes 2022 election to shape Napa County wine country
In 2016, the loss by Mark Luce to Ryan Gregory for District 2 Supervisor created a majority on the Napa County Board of Supervisors that marked a shift from the Ag Preserve agenda that began in 1968, concerned with the constraint of urban development to allow agriculture to survive, to a board majority more receptive to the "growth" concerns of most govenments - how to create ever more jobs, housing, infrasturcture and the mirage of more government revenues.
The two Napa County supervisors retiring prior to the coming 2022 election, District 3 Supervisor Diane Dillon and District 1 Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht, are the vestages of the prerservation agenda. Uncoincidentally their districts contain the vast bulk of vineyard acerage in the county. From the standpoint of the many people concerned about development pressure in the county, and who have shown up at Planning Commission and BOS meetings over the last 7 years, they have become the main voices weighing development decisions against the desire to preserve an economy based on agriculture. That concern is now seldom the highest consideration in board decisions.
Unfortunately, even with the election of "preservationists" to replace the two supervisors, it will only maintain the status quo, and the level of development now being approved will continue. But if their replacements are "growth" minded supervisors, it will probably usher in the end of the Ag Preserve experiment as the new board aggressively pushes more development as a solution to the traffic, housing and tight-budget problems caused by the Board's previous development decisions. If there is any hope of regaining a majority that will support the low-growth ideals of the Ag Preserve heritage, these two seats must be retained in the preservationist camp.
The planning commissioners appointed by Sups. Dillon and Wagenknecht, Anne Cottrell and Joelle Gallagher are both running in their respective districts, and both have made herculean efforts at moderating the scale of development proposals before them at the commission. But tourism, real estate and construction interests are now dominant forces in the county, as well as a wine industry that continues to embrace ever increasing tourism as its salvation, and the battle will be hard fought and costly.
In 2016, the loss by Mark Luce to Ryan Gregory for District 2 Supervisor created a majority on the Napa County Board of Supervisors that marked a shift from the Ag Preserve agenda that began in 1968, concerned with the constraint of urban development to allow agriculture to survive, to a board majority more receptive to the "growth" concerns of most govenments - how to create ever more jobs, housing, infrasturcture and the mirage of more government revenues.
The two Napa County supervisors retiring prior to the coming 2022 election, District 3 Supervisor Diane Dillon and District 1 Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht, are the vestages of the prerservation agenda. Uncoincidentally their districts contain the vast bulk of vineyard acerage in the county. From the standpoint of the many people concerned about development pressure in the county, and who have shown up at Planning Commission and BOS meetings over the last 7 years, they have become the main voices weighing development decisions against the desire to preserve an economy based on agriculture. That concern is now seldom the highest consideration in board decisions.
Unfortunately, even with the election of "preservationists" to replace the two supervisors, it will only maintain the status quo, and the level of development now being approved will continue. But if their replacements are "growth" minded supervisors, it will probably usher in the end of the Ag Preserve experiment as the new board aggressively pushes more development as a solution to the traffic, housing and tight-budget problems caused by the Board's previous development decisions. If there is any hope of regaining a majority that will support the low-growth ideals of the Ag Preserve heritage, these two seats must be retained in the preservationist camp.
The planning commissioners appointed by Sups. Dillon and Wagenknecht, Anne Cottrell and Joelle Gallagher are both running in their respective districts, and both have made herculean efforts at moderating the scale of development proposals before them at the commission. But tourism, real estate and construction interests are now dominant forces in the county, as well as a wine industry that continues to embrace ever increasing tourism as its salvation, and the battle will be hard fought and costly.
ABAG RHNA allocations for 2023-2031 on: Affordable Housing
Bill Hocker - Feb 24,21 expand... Share
Update 2/24/21
NVR 2/10/21: ABAG's mandate for new Napa County housing grows
The unincorporated county's share of the RHNA mandate for 2023-2031 will be around 200 additional units, 10% above the 180 units in the last allocation. Let's hope a way is found to build those 200 units that doesn't require the building of another Napa Pipe-sized city on county land to finance them.
NVR 2/24/21: Napa County again tries to sell Old Sonoma Road site for housing
In the meantime the county is putting their Old Sonoma Road property up for sale again after the previous deal fell through because the site isn't yet zoned residential, a complication for a buyer. The City of Napa is about to update their general plan with residential zoning for the site included. Regardless, the County is trying to sell the site at a cut rate because of the current zoning. If they waited they could get more money. If they waited they could use the site for some of the housing they are required to provide under 2023-2031 RHNA. If they were smart they would give the land to a developer willing to do 100% affordable housing on the site.
Update 11/22/20
NVR 11/22/20: Napa County pushes back on possible, big housing mandate
Just below the above article in the Register is a video of the construction ongoing at the Stanly Ranch Resort. The resort will eventually employ 500 people, most needing affordable housing. This is just the population growth that ABAG is trying to house with their mandates. The committment by the cities and the county to continue to approve resorts, hotels, winery entertainment venues, industrial warehouses are all creating the conditions needing more housing. ABAG should be apportioning housing mandates based on the number of jobs communities are creating. And the amount of job-creating development ongoing, much but not all shown here and here, is quite astounding.
At the end of last year the County finally recognized the link between job creation and urban development in refusing to ramp up industrial development in the south county. But much like climate change, the projects already in the pipeline make make modest efforts at mitigation futile. And nothing in the approvals made in the last year, slowed somewhat perhaps by the pandemic, makes one think that a radical rethinking of the problem is in the offing.
The cities and county are trying to hide behind some high minded dedication to agriculture and open space to shirk their duty to provide for the housing need they are creating in their approvals. If they truly were committed to agriculture and open space they would stop, immediately, promoting a tourism/industrial economic base for the county and concentrate on how to make their unique, low urbanizing, agricultural product more viable in a global marketplace. Napa has spent millions promoting Visit Napa Valley and nothing promoting the sale of Napa wines outside the county. Selling wine as a tourist good is more profitable for more people than growing and processing crops for export, but the urbanization needed to achieve that additional profitability will eventually undermine the agriculture and open space that governments hypocritically claim to treasure.
Update 11/6/20
The Board of Supervisors and City of Napa have drafted a response to the ABAG proposed RHNA allocation for 2023-31. It will be presented and discussed at the BOS meeting on 11/10/20 (item 10E here). The county's agenda letter more clearly spells out the thinking than the letter to ABAG (the ABAG unincorporated allocation seems ot have risen to 880 units!). While the letter gets into the weeds of ABAG's "methodology", they are essentially pleading that the unique circumstances of a county devoted to preserving an agricultural economy needs a more flexible approach to affordable home building goals than the rest of the constantly urbanizing Bay Area. Of course the county's promotion of tourism and industrial development in the unincorporated area over the last 20 years are making that argument more difficult with every new (mostly low-paying) job created.
10/28/20
Every 8 years the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) sets an affordable houisng requirement, called Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA), for counties and municipalities with in its jurisdication, for the 8 year period ahead. It is the government's job to make sure those allocations are realized.
On Nov 4, 2020, the County Planning Commission will get an update from the Planning Department on the current 2023-2031 proposed allocation. It is not good news.
In 2012, for the period of 2015-2023 ABAG required Napa County to supply 180 affordable housing units. The result of that allocation was a difficult effort to find sites in the unincorporated county on which to build the units (documented in the Genreal Plan 2014 Housing Element), resulting ultimately in a complex deal with the City of Napa to build them as part of the Napa Pipe Project, the only site beyond one in Angwin, strongly opposed by Angwin Residents, that was remotely suitable. The desire to fulfill the RHNA allotment was a principal reason the Napa Pipe Project was approved. Of course along with the 180 units came an additional massive urban development project. Unfortunately the method of supplying affordable housing in a capitalist society is to fund it with fees and taxes from vast amounts of other, more profitable consturction.
This time around, ABAG is alloting 792 affordable units to be built in the unincorporated county between the years 2023 and 2031, not quite four and a half times the number of units alloted, but still not built, from the 2015 to 2023 requirment. And Napa Pipe is no longer an eligable site. How much additional urban development of Napa's open space, the legacy of a committment to agriculture by a previous generation of citizens and politians, will be necessary to accomodate the next RHNA allotment? Something four and half times the size of Napa Pipe, perhaps.
NVR 2/10/21: ABAG's mandate for new Napa County housing grows
The unincorporated county's share of the RHNA mandate for 2023-2031 will be around 200 additional units, 10% above the 180 units in the last allocation. Let's hope a way is found to build those 200 units that doesn't require the building of another Napa Pipe-sized city on county land to finance them.
NVR 2/24/21: Napa County again tries to sell Old Sonoma Road site for housing
In the meantime the county is putting their Old Sonoma Road property up for sale again after the previous deal fell through because the site isn't yet zoned residential, a complication for a buyer. The City of Napa is about to update their general plan with residential zoning for the site included. Regardless, the County is trying to sell the site at a cut rate because of the current zoning. If they waited they could get more money. If they waited they could use the site for some of the housing they are required to provide under 2023-2031 RHNA. If they were smart they would give the land to a developer willing to do 100% affordable housing on the site.
Update 11/22/20
NVR 11/22/20: Napa County pushes back on possible, big housing mandate
Just below the above article in the Register is a video of the construction ongoing at the Stanly Ranch Resort. The resort will eventually employ 500 people, most needing affordable housing. This is just the population growth that ABAG is trying to house with their mandates. The committment by the cities and the county to continue to approve resorts, hotels, winery entertainment venues, industrial warehouses are all creating the conditions needing more housing. ABAG should be apportioning housing mandates based on the number of jobs communities are creating. And the amount of job-creating development ongoing, much but not all shown here and here, is quite astounding.
At the end of last year the County finally recognized the link between job creation and urban development in refusing to ramp up industrial development in the south county. But much like climate change, the projects already in the pipeline make make modest efforts at mitigation futile. And nothing in the approvals made in the last year, slowed somewhat perhaps by the pandemic, makes one think that a radical rethinking of the problem is in the offing.
The cities and county are trying to hide behind some high minded dedication to agriculture and open space to shirk their duty to provide for the housing need they are creating in their approvals. If they truly were committed to agriculture and open space they would stop, immediately, promoting a tourism/industrial economic base for the county and concentrate on how to make their unique, low urbanizing, agricultural product more viable in a global marketplace. Napa has spent millions promoting Visit Napa Valley and nothing promoting the sale of Napa wines outside the county. Selling wine as a tourist good is more profitable for more people than growing and processing crops for export, but the urbanization needed to achieve that additional profitability will eventually undermine the agriculture and open space that governments hypocritically claim to treasure.
Update 11/6/20
The Board of Supervisors and City of Napa have drafted a response to the ABAG proposed RHNA allocation for 2023-31. It will be presented and discussed at the BOS meeting on 11/10/20 (item 10E here). The county's agenda letter more clearly spells out the thinking than the letter to ABAG (the ABAG unincorporated allocation seems ot have risen to 880 units!). While the letter gets into the weeds of ABAG's "methodology", they are essentially pleading that the unique circumstances of a county devoted to preserving an agricultural economy needs a more flexible approach to affordable home building goals than the rest of the constantly urbanizing Bay Area. Of course the county's promotion of tourism and industrial development in the unincorporated area over the last 20 years are making that argument more difficult with every new (mostly low-paying) job created.
10/28/20
Every 8 years the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) sets an affordable houisng requirement, called Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA), for counties and municipalities with in its jurisdication, for the 8 year period ahead. It is the government's job to make sure those allocations are realized.
On Nov 4, 2020, the County Planning Commission will get an update from the Planning Department on the current 2023-2031 proposed allocation. It is not good news.
In 2012, for the period of 2015-2023 ABAG required Napa County to supply 180 affordable housing units. The result of that allocation was a difficult effort to find sites in the unincorporated county on which to build the units (documented in the Genreal Plan 2014 Housing Element), resulting ultimately in a complex deal with the City of Napa to build them as part of the Napa Pipe Project, the only site beyond one in Angwin, strongly opposed by Angwin Residents, that was remotely suitable. The desire to fulfill the RHNA allotment was a principal reason the Napa Pipe Project was approved. Of course along with the 180 units came an additional massive urban development project. Unfortunately the method of supplying affordable housing in a capitalist society is to fund it with fees and taxes from vast amounts of other, more profitable consturction.
This time around, ABAG is alloting 792 affordable units to be built in the unincorporated county between the years 2023 and 2031, not quite four and a half times the number of units alloted, but still not built, from the 2015 to 2023 requirment. And Napa Pipe is no longer an eligable site. How much additional urban development of Napa's open space, the legacy of a committment to agriculture by a previous generation of citizens and politians, will be necessary to accomodate the next RHNA allotment? Something four and half times the size of Napa Pipe, perhaps.
The Caves at Soda Canyon wants more tourism on: The Caves at Soda Canyon
Bill Hocker - Feb 19,21 expand... Share
Lake Co Project to have major Napa Co impacts on: Growth Issues
Bill Hocker - Feb 4,21 expand... Share
Anthem Appeal letter on: Anthem Winery
Bill Hocker - Jan 24,21 expand... Share
Supervisors,
I would ask you to reconsider the approval of the Anthem Winery project by the Planning Commission and uphold the appeal of neighbors who will be impacted by imposition of this public facility in the midst of their rural community.
There are technical grounds to uphold the appeal; at the end of the Staff letter to you, while recommending support of the Planning Commission decision, Staff also leavened their advice with this contradictory qualification:
"[G]ven the local context of the winery site, site constraints, water supply, the extent the site would need to be manipulated to provide adequate access and accommodate an expanded winery and visitation levels, and the requests and exceptions necessary to accommodate the expanded winery, this site may not be appropriate for a winery of the requested size and visitation level."
For those of us on Soda Canyon Road, the question of access constraints became very real during the 2017 Atlas fire. Just before the fire, the Board approved findings for a similar winery project proposed near the end of road. The findings concluded that emergency ingress and egress on the road would not be a problem in the event of an emergency. A downed tree at the start of the fire quickly gave lie to that finding. Emergency vehicles could not move up the road. Residents could not exit as the fire surrounded the road. It was a near catastrophe.
In the Anthem project, one look at the one-lane bridge and the 17' wide driveway leading to it on the site plan, and at the 20% grade to be surmounted on the route, should be enough to question the wisdom of accommodating dozens of vehicles for events and visitation and for the passage of heavy trucks needed for production and response vehicles needed for emergencies. The narrowness of the driveway, and its steep gradient, is testimony that this access to the site was never intended for commercial and industrial traffic. It is a driveway for a private residential estate.
The findings for the project indicate that the exceptions in road width, road gradient, bridge width, turnout accommodation, are all acceptable because of a fairly elaborate system of electronic and static signs use to direct one-way traffic and to limit road usage in the event of an emergency. Also necessary is the training of employees in how to operate and implement the system.
Can an emergency evacuation really be so predictably choreographed? People fleeing in fear of their lives are unlikely to pay attention to signs. Employees in the midst of a chaotic event may have limited experience, information, time and concentration to implement the optimal evacuation plan. And external events -- a power outage, a stalled vehicle, a downed tree as happened on Soda Canyon Road, may instantly foil any emergency plan.
The findings for the Anthem road exceptions are not a simple as finding the county's RSS's to be an acceptable level of safety, even though those standards proved inadequate in the Atlas fire. In this case, the Board must find that the various exceptions and mitigations -- accommodating a sub-standard road width, accepting a sub-standard road gradient, use of a one-lane bridge, use of an elaborate electronic signage system, the use of staff to make evacuation decisions -- will insure the safety of visitors and staff in an emergency. It is, in fact, taking a leap of faith that all will go as planned in a severe event, and the county will bear some responsibility if things do not go as planned.
As Staff noted in its qualification, it is not just the question of safe ingress and egress that makes this project problematic. There are numerous reasons to question its approval. (Unstated, of course, is the issue at the heart of all projects that eventually end up before you: the impact that tourism -- as opposed to real agriculture -- poses to the quality of life treasured by rural residents.)
But given the increasing frequency of fires, now an inherent part of living and doing business in the county, the issue of fire safety for the general public in the approval of commercial building sites should be of paramount concern. Hopefully, you will begin to revisit your interest in promoting tourism attractions in the fire prone areas of the county. You should start with this project.
Bill Hocker
3460 Soda Canyon Road
I would ask you to reconsider the approval of the Anthem Winery project by the Planning Commission and uphold the appeal of neighbors who will be impacted by imposition of this public facility in the midst of their rural community.
There are technical grounds to uphold the appeal; at the end of the Staff letter to you, while recommending support of the Planning Commission decision, Staff also leavened their advice with this contradictory qualification:
"[G]ven the local context of the winery site, site constraints, water supply, the extent the site would need to be manipulated to provide adequate access and accommodate an expanded winery and visitation levels, and the requests and exceptions necessary to accommodate the expanded winery, this site may not be appropriate for a winery of the requested size and visitation level."
For those of us on Soda Canyon Road, the question of access constraints became very real during the 2017 Atlas fire. Just before the fire, the Board approved findings for a similar winery project proposed near the end of road. The findings concluded that emergency ingress and egress on the road would not be a problem in the event of an emergency. A downed tree at the start of the fire quickly gave lie to that finding. Emergency vehicles could not move up the road. Residents could not exit as the fire surrounded the road. It was a near catastrophe.
In the Anthem project, one look at the one-lane bridge and the 17' wide driveway leading to it on the site plan, and at the 20% grade to be surmounted on the route, should be enough to question the wisdom of accommodating dozens of vehicles for events and visitation and for the passage of heavy trucks needed for production and response vehicles needed for emergencies. The narrowness of the driveway, and its steep gradient, is testimony that this access to the site was never intended for commercial and industrial traffic. It is a driveway for a private residential estate.
The findings for the project indicate that the exceptions in road width, road gradient, bridge width, turnout accommodation, are all acceptable because of a fairly elaborate system of electronic and static signs use to direct one-way traffic and to limit road usage in the event of an emergency. Also necessary is the training of employees in how to operate and implement the system.
Can an emergency evacuation really be so predictably choreographed? People fleeing in fear of their lives are unlikely to pay attention to signs. Employees in the midst of a chaotic event may have limited experience, information, time and concentration to implement the optimal evacuation plan. And external events -- a power outage, a stalled vehicle, a downed tree as happened on Soda Canyon Road, may instantly foil any emergency plan.
The findings for the Anthem road exceptions are not a simple as finding the county's RSS's to be an acceptable level of safety, even though those standards proved inadequate in the Atlas fire. In this case, the Board must find that the various exceptions and mitigations -- accommodating a sub-standard road width, accepting a sub-standard road gradient, use of a one-lane bridge, use of an elaborate electronic signage system, the use of staff to make evacuation decisions -- will insure the safety of visitors and staff in an emergency. It is, in fact, taking a leap of faith that all will go as planned in a severe event, and the county will bear some responsibility if things do not go as planned.
As Staff noted in its qualification, it is not just the question of safe ingress and egress that makes this project problematic. There are numerous reasons to question its approval. (Unstated, of course, is the issue at the heart of all projects that eventually end up before you: the impact that tourism -- as opposed to real agriculture -- poses to the quality of life treasured by rural residents.)
But given the increasing frequency of fires, now an inherent part of living and doing business in the county, the issue of fire safety for the general public in the approval of commercial building sites should be of paramount concern. Hopefully, you will begin to revisit your interest in promoting tourism attractions in the fire prone areas of the county. You should start with this project.
Bill Hocker
3460 Soda Canyon Road
Coalition Napa Valley on: The Winery Glut
Bill Hocker - Dec 10,20 expand... Share
Update 12/18/20
NVR 12/18/20: Napa supervisors won't consider major winery rule changes
NV2050 LTE 12/15/20: Don't use pandemic to erode winery regulations
It seemed as if Sup Pedroza was the only Board member supportive of the effort by Coalition Napa Valley (most of its members having generously supported him for reelection) to gut the winery regulations that have attempted to keep winery tourism from dominating the wine industry for 30 years. Even the traditional "stakeholders", NVV, Winegrowers, Farm Bureau and Grapegrowers, normally not inhibited when it comes to direct-to-consumer marketing, were unwilling to back the suspension of the WDO that they had spent so many years negotiating. Is there a renewed recognition in the industry that there may be a downside to opening the tourism development floodgates on an agriculture based economy? Is it a recognition, as others have suggested, that the industry needs to find a different method of marketing their wares than the boom-and-bust strategy of at-winery sales? Unlikely. Coming out of the pandemic there will be enormous pressue from the industry to loosen the WDO, just as happened after the 2008 recession, to allow more tourism to make up for a lost year of revenues. This seems more like a battle over who will be controlling the process.
In a notable intrusion to the proceeding, Save the Family Farm members phoned in to make their case for winery-less visitation and sales on their properties. A financial mechanism, supported by the government, does need to be found to allow independent small winemakers and their farms to survive. They represent the authenticity that has been lost in the corporate-plutocrat-tourism model that the wine industry has become. Unfortunately, relying on bringing even more tourists each year into the county, and into every private rural neighborhood, should not the answer. The Supes seem reluctant to even listen to their concerns, perhaps a recognition of just how locked in they are to the stakeholder view of the industry.
Update 12/10/20
At their 12/15/20 meeting, the County Board of Supervisors will take up the proposal of Coalitiion Napa Valley to essentially eliminate the regulation of visitation that has been in place since 1990. They seek an unlimited restriction of the Napa's tourism-based marketing model in the future in response to the collapse of the tourism industry today. (Item 10A here) Planning Director Morrison has presented a chart of actions that would be required to change the ordinances and the General Plan to accomodate the group's wish list -- a mere 895 hours of staff time and the decimation of the preservationist soul of the county defined in the battle between agriculture and tourism for the last 5 decades.
It has become fairly obvious that those trying to preserve the rural character of Napa County have been losing the battle as building developments and tourism expansions continue to be approved. Enacting the Coalition Napa Valley wish list would represent one more concession to development interests that have already become the norm from the Planning Commission and the Board. At best it would be an accelation of the evisceration of the county's preservation policies. At worst it might be eventually be seen as the coup de grâce to Napa's rural agricultural protections.
Update 12/2/20
George Caloyannidis LTE 12/1/20: Wineries seeking advantage in a crisis
In a related development, Castello di Amorosa, Dario Sattui's mega-tourist trap, has recently submitted a request for a modification of its use permit that would allow
This has to be the poster child for the "recognize and allow" process established by the BOS after APAC (recommendation 4 here) to legalize production, visitation and construction beyond the limits of existing use permits, with no penalty and often with an approval to expand operations even beyond those being done illegally. The county has for years, apparently, turned a blind eye to the flouting of use permit restrictions, even for wineries as hard to ignore as the Castello di Amorosa.
Update 11/17/20
Patricia Damery LTE 11/17/20: Don't loosen the rules that protect our environment
G/VRA response 11/4/20: Loosening restrictions on hospitality industry would be a mistake
NVR 10/22/20: Hurt by the pandemic and wildfires, some Napa Valley vintners request loosening of winery regulations
Much like the recession of 2008 which decimated the market for $100 bottles of wine, the pandemic and fires of 2020 have decimated the tourism market created to mitigate the recession's losses. In both cases vintners have lobbied to ease restrictions on tourism marketing to improve their profitablility. Oddly the pandemic has caused a spike in retail and online wine sales, but the Napa Wine industry having spent all its energies in the last 12 years trying to promote tourism as their business model rather than promoting a strong retail presence elsewhere, is suffering.
The eternal battle between tourism development and agriculture in Napa Valley has recently produced two wine industry groups specifically to represent each side in the debate. Growers/Vintners for Responsible Agriculture (G/VRA) represents the side of the industry attempting to restrain tourism, woodland conversion and climate change that they feel poses a theat to the rural heritage and agricutural viability of Napa County. Coalition Napa Valley (CNV) sees the future of the wine industry in the unfettered expansion of vineyard acerage and the development of tourism as the means to market wine. The two groups coalesced in the fight over woodland protection vs. vineyard development in Measure C.
But the tourism stances draw on the personal experiences of the founders. Mega-grapegrower Andy Beckstoffer, of the G/VRA, had to confront, just like many residents in the county, the prospect of tourism revelry in his backyard with the expansion of the Raymnond Winery by the bon-vivant wine impresario Jean-Charles Boisette.
Members of the CNV have roots in their own grievances with neighbors over their event center ambitions and with the county over their disinterest in staying within the law. Chuck Wagner was fined by the county for exceeding his production capacitiies. Ryan Waugh was reprimanded by the county over illegal construction. Dario Sattui is quite literally trying to turn Napa Valley into Disneyland, and Stuart Smith just can't bear government meddling in his property rights. A couple of other members have been stalled for years in battles with neighbors over their winery ambitions.
But like Measure C, it is a fight beyond personalities. It is the fight over the future character of Napa County: either a world reknowned wine making region for the ages tightly regulated, as the wine regions of France are, to prevent urban development, or else, in the American style, a Las Vegas of wine where the principal industry is tourism and vineyards survive only as photo backdrops in travel agency brochures. It is a fight, unfortunately, that I am more and more certain has already been won by developers and entrepreneurs seeking a better return on investment from the land than agriculture can provide.
10/11/20
Gary Margadant writes:
NVR 12/18/20: Napa supervisors won't consider major winery rule changes
NV2050 LTE 12/15/20: Don't use pandemic to erode winery regulations
It seemed as if Sup Pedroza was the only Board member supportive of the effort by Coalition Napa Valley (most of its members having generously supported him for reelection) to gut the winery regulations that have attempted to keep winery tourism from dominating the wine industry for 30 years. Even the traditional "stakeholders", NVV, Winegrowers, Farm Bureau and Grapegrowers, normally not inhibited when it comes to direct-to-consumer marketing, were unwilling to back the suspension of the WDO that they had spent so many years negotiating. Is there a renewed recognition in the industry that there may be a downside to opening the tourism development floodgates on an agriculture based economy? Is it a recognition, as others have suggested, that the industry needs to find a different method of marketing their wares than the boom-and-bust strategy of at-winery sales? Unlikely. Coming out of the pandemic there will be enormous pressue from the industry to loosen the WDO, just as happened after the 2008 recession, to allow more tourism to make up for a lost year of revenues. This seems more like a battle over who will be controlling the process.
In a notable intrusion to the proceeding, Save the Family Farm members phoned in to make their case for winery-less visitation and sales on their properties. A financial mechanism, supported by the government, does need to be found to allow independent small winemakers and their farms to survive. They represent the authenticity that has been lost in the corporate-plutocrat-tourism model that the wine industry has become. Unfortunately, relying on bringing even more tourists each year into the county, and into every private rural neighborhood, should not the answer. The Supes seem reluctant to even listen to their concerns, perhaps a recognition of just how locked in they are to the stakeholder view of the industry.
Update 12/10/20
At their 12/15/20 meeting, the County Board of Supervisors will take up the proposal of Coalitiion Napa Valley to essentially eliminate the regulation of visitation that has been in place since 1990. They seek an unlimited restriction of the Napa's tourism-based marketing model in the future in response to the collapse of the tourism industry today. (Item 10A here) Planning Director Morrison has presented a chart of actions that would be required to change the ordinances and the General Plan to accomodate the group's wish list -- a mere 895 hours of staff time and the decimation of the preservationist soul of the county defined in the battle between agriculture and tourism for the last 5 decades.
It has become fairly obvious that those trying to preserve the rural character of Napa County have been losing the battle as building developments and tourism expansions continue to be approved. Enacting the Coalition Napa Valley wish list would represent one more concession to development interests that have already become the norm from the Planning Commission and the Board. At best it would be an accelation of the evisceration of the county's preservation policies. At worst it might be eventually be seen as the coup de grâce to Napa's rural agricultural protections.
Update 12/2/20
George Caloyannidis LTE 12/1/20: Wineries seeking advantage in a crisis
In a related development, Castello di Amorosa, Dario Sattui's mega-tourist trap, has recently submitted a request for a modification of its use permit that would allow
"Recognition of visitation levels exceeding previously permitted levels; recognition of employee levels exceeding previously permitted levels; recognition of conversion of the farm management office and barn for winery use; recognition of conversion of areas of the winery originally approved for production use to hospitality use; recognition of parking spaces exceeding previously permitted levels and add additional parking spaces; permit on-premises consumption."
This has to be the poster child for the "recognize and allow" process established by the BOS after APAC (recommendation 4 here) to legalize production, visitation and construction beyond the limits of existing use permits, with no penalty and often with an approval to expand operations even beyond those being done illegally. The county has for years, apparently, turned a blind eye to the flouting of use permit restrictions, even for wineries as hard to ignore as the Castello di Amorosa.
Update 11/17/20
Patricia Damery LTE 11/17/20: Don't loosen the rules that protect our environment
G/VRA response 11/4/20: Loosening restrictions on hospitality industry would be a mistake
NVR 10/22/20: Hurt by the pandemic and wildfires, some Napa Valley vintners request loosening of winery regulations
Much like the recession of 2008 which decimated the market for $100 bottles of wine, the pandemic and fires of 2020 have decimated the tourism market created to mitigate the recession's losses. In both cases vintners have lobbied to ease restrictions on tourism marketing to improve their profitablility. Oddly the pandemic has caused a spike in retail and online wine sales, but the Napa Wine industry having spent all its energies in the last 12 years trying to promote tourism as their business model rather than promoting a strong retail presence elsewhere, is suffering.
The eternal battle between tourism development and agriculture in Napa Valley has recently produced two wine industry groups specifically to represent each side in the debate. Growers/Vintners for Responsible Agriculture (G/VRA) represents the side of the industry attempting to restrain tourism, woodland conversion and climate change that they feel poses a theat to the rural heritage and agricutural viability of Napa County. Coalition Napa Valley (CNV) sees the future of the wine industry in the unfettered expansion of vineyard acerage and the development of tourism as the means to market wine. The two groups coalesced in the fight over woodland protection vs. vineyard development in Measure C.
But the tourism stances draw on the personal experiences of the founders. Mega-grapegrower Andy Beckstoffer, of the G/VRA, had to confront, just like many residents in the county, the prospect of tourism revelry in his backyard with the expansion of the Raymnond Winery by the bon-vivant wine impresario Jean-Charles Boisette.
Members of the CNV have roots in their own grievances with neighbors over their event center ambitions and with the county over their disinterest in staying within the law. Chuck Wagner was fined by the county for exceeding his production capacitiies. Ryan Waugh was reprimanded by the county over illegal construction. Dario Sattui is quite literally trying to turn Napa Valley into Disneyland, and Stuart Smith just can't bear government meddling in his property rights. A couple of other members have been stalled for years in battles with neighbors over their winery ambitions.
But like Measure C, it is a fight beyond personalities. It is the fight over the future character of Napa County: either a world reknowned wine making region for the ages tightly regulated, as the wine regions of France are, to prevent urban development, or else, in the American style, a Las Vegas of wine where the principal industry is tourism and vineyards survive only as photo backdrops in travel agency brochures. It is a fight, unfortunately, that I am more and more certain has already been won by developers and entrepreneurs seeking a better return on investment from the land than agriculture can provide.
10/11/20
Gary Margadant writes:
Coalition Napa Valley - WHO are they and what do they want?
Last week, the GSA (BOS) had a discussion and action where they realized a problem of membership on the Advisory Committee when Harvest Duhig submitted a resignation letter. Harvest was the sole representative of the Coalition Napa Valley on the Advisory Committee. The letter was not made public, but the contents were recounted in the Staff Report stating that Harvest requested Jeri Hansen (Gill) replace her as the CNV rep.
Some complications quickly boiled to the surface as recounted in the Staff Report, so the Bylaws needed changing in 2 areas, 1) to designate 5 seats specifically earmarked for 5 industry groups, and 2) direct member replacement of an agency or group.
Before the change, the GSA was not required to replace an in kind member of an agency or group. OOPS , we gotta change the rules, to avoid confusing the public with any possibility of their choice coming under consideration.
This Kerfuffle led to questions of CNV ---- Who are they and what are they advocating for? David Morrison said he has met with CNV before but would NOT name the members of the coalition. No responses of clarification from any supervisors, although Diane Dillion later admitted she knew who they were but would not reveal their names.
This is a real muddy pool of transparency. I searched for information on CNV and only found 2 documents. The 2018 white paper to the BOS from CNV following the culmination of the BOS Strategic Plan and their suggestions for issues of the SP. This document lists the membership of the CVN at that time.
The second doc, the CA 461 (Major Donor and Independent Expenditure Committee Campaign Statement) from 6/5/18 show the group listed as an Association (but not a business entity) with no 410 (statement of Organization) filed with the CA SOS office. The responsible Officer of the CNV is Tom Davies, the CEO of V Sattui Winery
So who within the Association doled out the $ to make the $50,000 contribution to the Coalition for Sustainable Agriculture on the 461. The donors are hidden within the Association.
I have spoken with the CA FPPC and been advised that Napa County should receive a courtesy copy of any 410. I need to follow up next week.
CNV White paper summary
GSPAC bylaws changes to accomodate CNV
CNV White paper for the 12/16/18 Napa Strategic Plan
Last week, the GSA (BOS) had a discussion and action where they realized a problem of membership on the Advisory Committee when Harvest Duhig submitted a resignation letter. Harvest was the sole representative of the Coalition Napa Valley on the Advisory Committee. The letter was not made public, but the contents were recounted in the Staff Report stating that Harvest requested Jeri Hansen (Gill) replace her as the CNV rep.
Some complications quickly boiled to the surface as recounted in the Staff Report, so the Bylaws needed changing in 2 areas, 1) to designate 5 seats specifically earmarked for 5 industry groups, and 2) direct member replacement of an agency or group.
Before the change, the GSA was not required to replace an in kind member of an agency or group. OOPS , we gotta change the rules, to avoid confusing the public with any possibility of their choice coming under consideration.
This Kerfuffle led to questions of CNV ---- Who are they and what are they advocating for? David Morrison said he has met with CNV before but would NOT name the members of the coalition. No responses of clarification from any supervisors, although Diane Dillion later admitted she knew who they were but would not reveal their names.
This is a real muddy pool of transparency. I searched for information on CNV and only found 2 documents. The 2018 white paper to the BOS from CNV following the culmination of the BOS Strategic Plan and their suggestions for issues of the SP. This document lists the membership of the CVN at that time.
The second doc, the CA 461 (Major Donor and Independent Expenditure Committee Campaign Statement) from 6/5/18 show the group listed as an Association (but not a business entity) with no 410 (statement of Organization) filed with the CA SOS office. The responsible Officer of the CNV is Tom Davies, the CEO of V Sattui Winery
So who within the Association doled out the $ to make the $50,000 contribution to the Coalition for Sustainable Agriculture on the 461. The donors are hidden within the Association.
I have spoken with the CA FPPC and been advised that Napa County should receive a courtesy copy of any 410. I need to follow up next week.
CNV White paper summary
GSPAC bylaws changes to accomodate CNV
CNV White paper for the 12/16/18 Napa Strategic Plan
AmCan Planning Commission approves Watson Ranch (again) on: Watson Ranch
Bill Hocker - Nov 27,20 expand... Share
Oxbow Hotels on: The Hotel Binge
Bill Hocker - Nov 20,20 expand... Share
Update 11/20/20 Foxbow Hotel
NVR 11/20/20: Napa council narrowly approves 4-story hotel for Oxbow District
The rendering shows as clearly as possible the results noted in the discussion of the Black Elk Hotel below: that the development being approved by the city for the Oxbow tourism district is in fact creating an inhospitable barrier between the district and downtown. The walk between the two, perhaps the most heavily touristed route in the city, is already a dispiriting gauntlet of traffic and narrow sidewalks. Now the walker will be confronted by a wall of buildings before reaching the destination.
The lack of overall city planning and the relegation of the future development of the city to the avarice of building developers wishing to maximise their envelopes is just one more example of the failure the governments of Napa County to maintain the rural, small town, agricultural character that made this an enjoyable place to live and a memorable place to visit.
NVR 7/17/20: Napa's Planning Commission declines to recommend Oxbow hotel project
NVR 7/11/20: City to evaluate Napa hotel straddling Wine Train line; two historic homes to be moved
NVR 3/2/18: Napa planners ask is Foxbow too much hotel for the neighborhood
NVR 2/28/18: Napa city planners to take up Foxbow hotel plan in Oxbow District
Oh No! Another over-scaled, over-wrought hotel crammed onto First Street.
This one is more apartment-looking than the previous version, an advantage if the tourism market crashes at the end of this hotel bubble.
Preliminary review at the Napa City Planning Commission Thursday, Mar 1st, 2018 at 5:30pm. Staff report is here.
Update 1/6/18 Wine Train Hotel
NVR 1/6/18: Napa planners comment on Wine Train's future hotel, rail depot on McKinstry Street
The Staff report on the project is here. (large file)
NVR 12/23/17: Top 10 of 2017, No. 7: Hotels, tourism continue Napa boom
7/14/17 Black Elk Hotel
NVR 8/18/17: Napa planners approve 5-story Black Elk hotel in Oxbow district
NVR 7/4/17: Proposed four-story Oxbow hotel to receive Napa planners' scrutiny
The Black Elk Hotel had a preliminary review by the Napa City Planning Commission on July 6th 2017. The Staff Report and Documents are here. It is a very innappropriate building for the location, out of scale, a visual barrier to the Oxbow district, of "barnish" shape and materials out of place in its urban setting, a box of a building trying to squeeze as many hotel rooms as possible on the small site, which brought to mind a 19th century tenement house.
What became very apparent here, and in all of the hotel projects in the news recently, is that the city has no master plan for the development of the city, no commitment to integrate housing and real people and businesses into the tourism economy, and no design guidelines to regulate what the character of the place will become. As with the rural areas of the county, the future of Napa City is being irrevocably altered in this developer boom period, and the Planning Commission decisions about Napa's future are being made on an ad hoc basis, one isolated project at a time, without looking at the long term result. Which, of course, will be a hodgepodge of developers' schemes, some with good taste and some without, trying to maximize the money to be made from the tourist trade on every square inch of the city, while the residents are forced out.
The rendering shows as clearly as possible the results noted in the discussion of the Black Elk Hotel below: that the development being approved by the city for the Oxbow tourism district is in fact creating an inhospitable barrier between the district and downtown. The walk between the two, perhaps the most heavily touristed route in the city, is already a dispiriting gauntlet of traffic and narrow sidewalks. Now the walker will be confronted by a wall of buildings before reaching the destination.
The lack of overall city planning and the relegation of the future development of the city to the avarice of building developers wishing to maximise their envelopes is just one more example of the failure the governments of Napa County to maintain the rural, small town, agricultural character that made this an enjoyable place to live and a memorable place to visit.
NVR 7/17/20: Napa's Planning Commission declines to recommend Oxbow hotel project
NVR 7/11/20: City to evaluate Napa hotel straddling Wine Train line; two historic homes to be moved
NVR 2/28/18: Napa city planners to take up Foxbow hotel plan in Oxbow District
Oh No! Another over-scaled, over-wrought hotel crammed onto First Street.
This one is more apartment-looking than the previous version, an advantage if the tourism market crashes at the end of this hotel bubble.
Preliminary review at the Napa City Planning Commission Thursday, Mar 1st, 2018 at 5:30pm. Staff report is here.
Update 1/6/18 Wine Train Hotel
The Staff report on the project is here. (large file)
NVR 12/23/17: Top 10 of 2017, No. 7: Hotels, tourism continue Napa boom
7/14/17 Black Elk Hotel
NVR 8/18/17: Napa planners approve 5-story Black Elk hotel in Oxbow district
NVR 7/4/17: Proposed four-story Oxbow hotel to receive Napa planners' scrutiny
What became very apparent here, and in all of the hotel projects in the news recently, is that the city has no master plan for the development of the city, no commitment to integrate housing and real people and businesses into the tourism economy, and no design guidelines to regulate what the character of the place will become. As with the rural areas of the county, the future of Napa City is being irrevocably altered in this developer boom period, and the Planning Commission decisions about Napa's future are being made on an ad hoc basis, one isolated project at a time, without looking at the long term result. Which, of course, will be a hodgepodge of developers' schemes, some with good taste and some without, trying to maximize the money to be made from the tourist trade on every square inch of the city, while the residents are forced out.
Stanly Ranch on: The Hotel Binge
Bill Hocker - Nov 6,20 expand... Share
Update 11/5/20
NVR 11/5/20: Amid rolling vineyards, a new luxury resort is rising in south Napa
There is a difference between agriculture and tourism.
Napa Valley then and now
Update 2/26/20
NVR 2/26/20: Second phase of Stanly Ranch Resort approved by Napa's Planning Commission
NVR 10/3/19: Napa city to review designs for Stanly Ranch resort residences
NVR 9/23/19: Napa's Stanly Ranch resort starts construction
Update 8/16/18
NVR 5/9/15: New $45 million investment for a planned Stanly Ranch resort in south Napa
Stanly Ranch returns from funding limbo. The project would add another 500 low wage employees looking for affordable housing. It would also contribute $4.4 million to the city's affordable housing fund. The cost of 50 units of affordable housing in Napa was just pegged at $24 million. By that standard the $4.4 million will be enough for 9 affordable housing units, enough to house perhaps 18 of the 500 employees. The continuing imbalance of jobs and housing in Napa County, increased with each new development project, is not sustainable.
This is also another example of the trend toward the winery hotel that will eventually be demanded in the unincorporated areas just as restaurant wineries are now.
Original Post 5/7/17
Update 5/7/17: Only recently, after stumbling upon these documents, have I become attuned to the third mega-project that will be urbanizing the agricultural entry to the county just south of the Hwy 29 and 121 junction in Carneros. It is a housing project and resort known as Stanly Ranch. The resort project was approved by the City of Napa in 2010. Sometimes, until you see a site plan, the numbers representing the project in a table don't have an impact. A big chunk of vineyards at the approach to the Valley is to become suburbanized and another bit of Napa's forlorn effort to maintain a greenbelt separating the city from the sprawl moving up from American Canyon will disappear.
The property was annexed to the City of Napa in 1964 for future use, in an age when suburban expansion was the anticipated fate of all Bay Area counties. As a far-removed extension of the subsequently-created urban-rural lines in the county, it can now be seen as a historical artifact, like the property proposed for the Oak Knoll Hotel, that violates the separation between existing urban and rural uses that the county and cities have been committed to since the ag preserve and Measure J were enacted. It could be rezoned back to agricultural use if there was a will, but it is another example that zoning changes only go in one direction - toward urban development.
Articles
NVR 12/20/15: City gives thumbs-up for luxury hotel at Stanly Ranch
NVR 11/2/15: Stanly Ranch receives recycled water go-ahead
NVR 5/9/15: Stanly Ranch resort developer promises 'authenticity'
NVR 11/19/13: Pipeline project to bring water to Carneros area
NVR 11/6/10: Settlement says St. Regis developer must support affordable housing
NVR 1/23/10: Critics blast St. Regis project, but city touts revenues; more hearings ahead
NVR 4/17/05: Merryvale set to begin Stanly Ranch renovation this summer
Documents
2009 City of Napa Stanly Ranch EIR project description
NVR 11/5/20: Amid rolling vineyards, a new luxury resort is rising in south Napa
There is a difference between agriculture and tourism.
Napa Valley then and now
NVR 2/26/20: Second phase of Stanly Ranch Resort approved by Napa's Planning Commission
NVR 10/3/19: Napa city to review designs for Stanly Ranch resort residences
NVR 9/23/19: Napa's Stanly Ranch resort starts construction
Update 8/16/18
NVR 5/9/15: New $45 million investment for a planned Stanly Ranch resort in south Napa
Stanly Ranch returns from funding limbo. The project would add another 500 low wage employees looking for affordable housing. It would also contribute $4.4 million to the city's affordable housing fund. The cost of 50 units of affordable housing in Napa was just pegged at $24 million. By that standard the $4.4 million will be enough for 9 affordable housing units, enough to house perhaps 18 of the 500 employees. The continuing imbalance of jobs and housing in Napa County, increased with each new development project, is not sustainable.
This is also another example of the trend toward the winery hotel that will eventually be demanded in the unincorporated areas just as restaurant wineries are now.
Original Post 5/7/17
Update 5/7/17: Only recently, after stumbling upon these documents, have I become attuned to the third mega-project that will be urbanizing the agricultural entry to the county just south of the Hwy 29 and 121 junction in Carneros. It is a housing project and resort known as Stanly Ranch. The resort project was approved by the City of Napa in 2010. Sometimes, until you see a site plan, the numbers representing the project in a table don't have an impact. A big chunk of vineyards at the approach to the Valley is to become suburbanized and another bit of Napa's forlorn effort to maintain a greenbelt separating the city from the sprawl moving up from American Canyon will disappear.
The property was annexed to the City of Napa in 1964 for future use, in an age when suburban expansion was the anticipated fate of all Bay Area counties. As a far-removed extension of the subsequently-created urban-rural lines in the county, it can now be seen as a historical artifact, like the property proposed for the Oak Knoll Hotel, that violates the separation between existing urban and rural uses that the county and cities have been committed to since the ag preserve and Measure J were enacted. It could be rezoned back to agricultural use if there was a will, but it is another example that zoning changes only go in one direction - toward urban development.
Articles
NVR 12/20/15: City gives thumbs-up for luxury hotel at Stanly Ranch
NVR 11/2/15: Stanly Ranch receives recycled water go-ahead
NVR 5/9/15: Stanly Ranch resort developer promises 'authenticity'
NVR 11/19/13: Pipeline project to bring water to Carneros area
NVR 11/6/10: Settlement says St. Regis developer must support affordable housing
NVR 1/23/10: Critics blast St. Regis project, but city touts revenues; more hearings ahead
NVR 4/17/05: Merryvale set to begin Stanly Ranch renovation this summer
Documents
2009 City of Napa Stanly Ranch EIR project description
The Fire on Monticello Road on: The Hennessey Fire on Soda Canyon Road
Bill Hocker - Sep 3,20 expand... Share
Update 9/16/20
Lenore Wilson poem-to-the-editor: Dark Mountain
And without the ads:
Update 9/12/20
The Economist 9/12/20: Wildfires will be more common in a warming world
The Economist gives a shoutout to the fire preparedness of CIrcle Oaks (with a mention of Larry Carr and crew). Unfortunately the article is buried behind a paywall. In the Sept 12-18 2020 print edition the article is titled "Learning to live with it". (more here)
Update 9/3/20
Dan Mufson forwards this article written and photographed by Hardy Wilson:
The Guardian 9/3/20: My family built our dream home in the woods. It was no match for wildfire
8/21/20 The Fire at Circle Oaks
Circle Oaks, the compact rural community of 180 homes often at the forefront of conservation issues in the County, seems to have resisted the siege of the fire. It was very ominious, but as of the afternoon of 8/21/20 things are looking better.
The Final Caltopo map at Circle Oaks is here
Lenore Wilson poem-to-the-editor: Dark Mountain
And without the ads:
Matter yearning to become spirit; white ash under the trees,
skid marks of the Lord’s breath.
So light where are you after all this --
my house in ruins, none of the past to rake, sift
none of it.
I raised my children here, young mother I was
all trial and error.
Dark mountain now and in the quiet hour
of dusk we left
slept next to the corral
in the sedan loaded with quilts,
bags of photos, memorabilia,
under the three hundred year old oak
that had watched the cattle
for a century
come and go,
and the cowboy that day of the fire
found every cow and calf
even the pair that huddled in the creek bed
as we had huddled in our seats, tried
to sleep
as the flames came nearer
and the next day that giant tree fell
right there after our departure.
Oh oil sheen black the pastures
where tar weed grew indelibly
each August, the golden cloth of it….
Raw-boned god,
you’ve traumatized your daughter--
wasn’t it enough
the friends I lost to suicide,
to cancer?
Do you listen, you there hardened
like the day moon,
twisted beauty of the madrone, the toyon,
short fuse of manzanita?
Leonore Wilson
Former Napa County Poet Laureate
skid marks of the Lord’s breath.
So light where are you after all this --
my house in ruins, none of the past to rake, sift
none of it.
I raised my children here, young mother I was
all trial and error.
Dark mountain now and in the quiet hour
of dusk we left
slept next to the corral
in the sedan loaded with quilts,
bags of photos, memorabilia,
under the three hundred year old oak
that had watched the cattle
for a century
come and go,
and the cowboy that day of the fire
found every cow and calf
even the pair that huddled in the creek bed
as we had huddled in our seats, tried
to sleep
as the flames came nearer
and the next day that giant tree fell
right there after our departure.
Oh oil sheen black the pastures
where tar weed grew indelibly
each August, the golden cloth of it….
Raw-boned god,
you’ve traumatized your daughter--
wasn’t it enough
the friends I lost to suicide,
to cancer?
Do you listen, you there hardened
like the day moon,
twisted beauty of the madrone, the toyon,
short fuse of manzanita?
Leonore Wilson
Former Napa County Poet Laureate
Update 9/12/20
The Economist 9/12/20: Wildfires will be more common in a warming world
The Economist gives a shoutout to the fire preparedness of CIrcle Oaks (with a mention of Larry Carr and crew). Unfortunately the article is buried behind a paywall. In the Sept 12-18 2020 print edition the article is titled "Learning to live with it". (more here)
Update 9/3/20
Photo: Hardy Wilson/The Guardian
The Guardian 9/3/20: My family built our dream home in the woods. It was no match for wildfire
8/21/20 The Fire at Circle Oaks
Circle Oaks, the compact rural community of 180 homes often at the forefront of conservation issues in the County, seems to have resisted the siege of the fire. It was very ominious, but as of the afternoon of 8/21/20 things are looking better.
The Final Caltopo map at Circle Oaks is here
Comments
Cindy Grupp - Aug 21, 2020 5:22PM
I just learned that Jim & Leonore Wilson lost their home on Monticello. The house had been in Leonore’s family for over 100 years. They are safe.
Lisa Hirayama - Aug 21, 2020 1:39PM
CO made it thru the night, but still not out of woods. Winds supposed to come up again and still lots of hot spots everywhere surrounding us. And the forecast Sun-Tues is more lightning storms and winds. We're in for it again....
Sadly, Jim and Leonore Wilson lost their house. I just talked to Jim and he's staying strong. Amazing.
Stay safe,
Lisa
Sadly, Jim and Leonore Wilson lost their house. I just talked to Jim and he's staying strong. Amazing.
Stay safe,
Lisa
Daniel Mufson - Aug 21, 2020 1:01PM
A tragic note from Leonore.
Begin forwarded message:
From: poet707@aol.com
Subject: Fire loss
Date: August 21, 2020 at 1:02:05 PM PDT
Reply-To: poet707@aol.com
Everything lost: our home, 100 YEAR OLD ranch except my mm's little house the cowboy sprayed down.
Sick here. My mom's childhood home, mine, my sons....
Thanks, Leonore p.s. We waited as long as we could, very little equipment ( we begged fire trucks to help us, but they said they had too many fires....) Pray for us please.
Begin forwarded message:
From: poet707@aol.com
Subject: Fire loss
Date: August 21, 2020 at 1:02:05 PM PDT
Reply-To: poet707@aol.com
Everything lost: our home, 100 YEAR OLD ranch except my mm's little house the cowboy sprayed down.
Sick here. My mom's childhood home, mine, my sons....
Thanks, Leonore p.s. We waited as long as we could, very little equipment ( we begged fire trucks to help us, but they said they had too many fires....) Pray for us please.
Lisa Hirayama - Aug 20, 2020 8:39PM
Hi Bill,
Larry stayed behind along with two other neighbor FF's, so I've got the best source 😊. I just talked to him and he said we're surrounded by fire, but the fire breaks are working so far. A strike team arrived today which was a relief because this morning he told me he didn't believe any help was coming. They were sent out into the surrounding area to work the fire but they're supposed to come back if they're needed for structure protection
He said we should be fine tonight as long as the wind doesn't come up. There's no wind right now, but I dread a Vacaville scenario. Are u looking at maps and figuring CO is a goner? Or did someone say something?
I learned in 2017 that none of the maps are very accurate. People were freaking that CO was burning and it wasn't.
Keep your fingers and toes crossed for us tonight.
Lisa
Larry stayed behind along with two other neighbor FF's, so I've got the best source 😊. I just talked to him and he said we're surrounded by fire, but the fire breaks are working so far. A strike team arrived today which was a relief because this morning he told me he didn't believe any help was coming. They were sent out into the surrounding area to work the fire but they're supposed to come back if they're needed for structure protection
He said we should be fine tonight as long as the wind doesn't come up. There's no wind right now, but I dread a Vacaville scenario. Are u looking at maps and figuring CO is a goner? Or did someone say something?
I learned in 2017 that none of the maps are very accurate. People were freaking that CO was burning and it wasn't.
Keep your fingers and toes crossed for us tonight.
Lisa
The fire at the end of the road on: The Hennessey Fire on Soda Canyon Road
Bill Hocker - Sep 1,20 expand... Share
Develop a Napa Wine Online portal on: Solutions
Bill Hocker - Aug 21,20 expand... Share
Update 8/21/20
Paul Mabray, the online wine sales evangelist, made another presentation to the Napa County Planning Commission on 8/19/20. It is the way forward in creating a viable wine industry that doesn't depend on the environmentally and culturally destructive use of tourism as a marketing vehicle. Will the County or the wine industry listen?
Update 4/18/20
NVR 4/18/20: COVID-19 could permanently reshape the business of wine in Napa Valley
This site was born out of the threat of proposed winery tourist attraction on the vineyard next to us at the very remote end of Soda Canyon Road. It was just one example the impact that tourism is having on all who live in Napa County. The basic argument of all of the articles here over the last 6 years is that tourism is bad for the maintenance of an economy based on agriculture and for the survival of a rural, small town lifestyle. Tourism development is an urbanizing process. More buildings are built for tourism venues, more workers must come to staff them, more housing and commercial buildings must be built to serve the workforce, more restaurants and hotels must be built to cater to the tourists, more road and infrastructure improvements must be made serve the increased population. If the tourism economy is successful, the urbanization will continue. At some point the need to accommodate that larger population outweighs the economic viability of agricultural land, and the fields that remain become merely landscaping to give purpose to the tourism industry. The actual wine industry moves to a more economical locale, and the authenticity of a wine making region leaves with it.
Update 2/7/20
NVR 1/24/20: Napa wineries are beginning to chat up customers online
NVR 12/13/19: Amazon could disrupt direct to consumer sphere for Napa wineries
Update 3/11/19
NVR 1/28/19: Winegrowers instructed on 'future-proofing' Napa wine in the digital age
From the Paul Mabray presentation to the NV Grapegrowers:
PressDemocrat 2/24/19: Rely on the numbers? Respected Napa consultant thinks it’s vital for wineries to survive
Forbes 10/12/18: Wine Industry Digital Leader Paul Mabray Pulls No Punches
SVB on Wine 3/15/17: The Tough Questions Wine Clubs Face
SVB State of the Wine Industry 2019
With visitor counts falling every year for the last 4 years in Napa county Rob McMillan advises that "Your winery needs to find new growth and new consumers, and they aren't going to come from the present tasting room approach". (Chapter 9: "Sales and marketing for family wineries" beginning page 45.)
Update 2/25/15
Amber forwards one website that begins to create the Napa Internet Wine Portal envisioned below: Dave Thompson's very cleanly designed site The Napa Wine Project. It is a tremendous, actually astounding, online catalog of Napa wines and their descriptions and backstories. Just the thing to begin to make the necessity of acually visiting the 770+ small wineries he has been to around the county unnecessary. (Of course transporting people to them is how Dave tries to make ends meet.)
The Napa Wine Project
Internet wine merchants:
invino.com Sonoma
nakedwines.com Sonoma
Wine.com no doubt the largest wine e-tailer.
2/10/15
It is important to remember that the one purpose of the land use policies articulated in the Napa General Plan is to encourage a market for Napa grapes, not to create a tourist industry to consume Napa wine. Wine sales to tourists have major negative impacts on the character of the valley, on the lives of the people who live here and, I think, on the viability of continuing an agricultural economy. Alternatives need to be pursued.
Currently, according to to Rob McMillan's SVB statistics, 6% of Napa wine is sold via the Internet. His feeling in his presentation to the Planning Comission was that direct sales at the winery were still important because unlike books or shoes, fine wines didn't lend themselves to Internet sales - they can't be returned after they're opened. There may be hurdles, but a technique to sell high-end wine on the internet will eventually be perfected and the need for in-winery sales, which even now constitute only a small portion of the overall sales of Napa wines but have big environmental impacts, will be over. Internet sales promise greater profits to the vintners without the impacts, hence as much effort should be put into an internet portal for Napa wines as has been spent on Visit Napa Valley trying to lure more customers to its bricks and mortar outlets. We need to make sure that the rural character of the valley is not destroyed in the meantime by preventing the construction of tourist facilities which will remain even after their need to support agriculture is gone.
Each winery has its own internet site, of course, so the process works, and someone will eventually become the Zappos of wine. Which is why it is important now for a Napa-only website to be developed that can compete with a larger site when it comes. Such a site, if developed as a quasi-public company like Visit Napa Valley, would profit vintners more than might be the case in a purely private company. The site should extoll the qualities of Napa wines, the importance of the concept of the Ag Preserve to maintain that quality and the reasons that Napa wine is more than just a bottle of wine - it is a piece of winemaking history.
Paul Mabray, the online wine sales evangelist, made another presentation to the Napa County Planning Commission on 8/19/20. It is the way forward in creating a viable wine industry that doesn't depend on the environmentally and culturally destructive use of tourism as a marketing vehicle. Will the County or the wine industry listen?
Update 4/18/20
NVR 4/18/20: COVID-19 could permanently reshape the business of wine in Napa Valley
This site was born out of the threat of proposed winery tourist attraction on the vineyard next to us at the very remote end of Soda Canyon Road. It was just one example the impact that tourism is having on all who live in Napa County. The basic argument of all of the articles here over the last 6 years is that tourism is bad for the maintenance of an economy based on agriculture and for the survival of a rural, small town lifestyle. Tourism development is an urbanizing process. More buildings are built for tourism venues, more workers must come to staff them, more housing and commercial buildings must be built to serve the workforce, more restaurants and hotels must be built to cater to the tourists, more road and infrastructure improvements must be made serve the increased population. If the tourism economy is successful, the urbanization will continue. At some point the need to accommodate that larger population outweighs the economic viability of agricultural land, and the fields that remain become merely landscaping to give purpose to the tourism industry. The actual wine industry moves to a more economical locale, and the authenticity of a wine making region leaves with it.
Update 2/7/20
NVR 1/24/20: Napa wineries are beginning to chat up customers online
NVR 12/13/19: Amazon could disrupt direct to consumer sphere for Napa wineries
Update 3/11/19
NVR 1/28/19: Winegrowers instructed on 'future-proofing' Napa wine in the digital age
From the Paul Mabray presentation to the NV Grapegrowers:
"I fundamentally believe that the only way we're going to survive as an industry is how we can help bring Napa Valley into people's homes, without them coming to Napa Valley."
Hear! Hear!PressDemocrat 2/24/19: Rely on the numbers? Respected Napa consultant thinks it’s vital for wineries to survive
Forbes 10/12/18: Wine Industry Digital Leader Paul Mabray Pulls No Punches
SVB on Wine 3/15/17: The Tough Questions Wine Clubs Face
SVB State of the Wine Industry 2019
With visitor counts falling every year for the last 4 years in Napa county Rob McMillan advises that "Your winery needs to find new growth and new consumers, and they aren't going to come from the present tasting room approach". (Chapter 9: "Sales and marketing for family wineries" beginning page 45.)
Update 2/25/15
Amber forwards one website that begins to create the Napa Internet Wine Portal envisioned below: Dave Thompson's very cleanly designed site The Napa Wine Project. It is a tremendous, actually astounding, online catalog of Napa wines and their descriptions and backstories. Just the thing to begin to make the necessity of acually visiting the 770+ small wineries he has been to around the county unnecessary. (Of course transporting people to them is how Dave tries to make ends meet.)
The Napa Wine Project
Internet wine merchants:
invino.com Sonoma
nakedwines.com Sonoma
Wine.com no doubt the largest wine e-tailer.
2/10/15
It is important to remember that the one purpose of the land use policies articulated in the Napa General Plan is to encourage a market for Napa grapes, not to create a tourist industry to consume Napa wine. Wine sales to tourists have major negative impacts on the character of the valley, on the lives of the people who live here and, I think, on the viability of continuing an agricultural economy. Alternatives need to be pursued.
Currently, according to to Rob McMillan's SVB statistics, 6% of Napa wine is sold via the Internet. His feeling in his presentation to the Planning Comission was that direct sales at the winery were still important because unlike books or shoes, fine wines didn't lend themselves to Internet sales - they can't be returned after they're opened. There may be hurdles, but a technique to sell high-end wine on the internet will eventually be perfected and the need for in-winery sales, which even now constitute only a small portion of the overall sales of Napa wines but have big environmental impacts, will be over. Internet sales promise greater profits to the vintners without the impacts, hence as much effort should be put into an internet portal for Napa wines as has been spent on Visit Napa Valley trying to lure more customers to its bricks and mortar outlets. We need to make sure that the rural character of the valley is not destroyed in the meantime by preventing the construction of tourist facilities which will remain even after their need to support agriculture is gone.
Each winery has its own internet site, of course, so the process works, and someone will eventually become the Zappos of wine. Which is why it is important now for a Napa-only website to be developed that can compete with a larger site when it comes. Such a site, if developed as a quasi-public company like Visit Napa Valley, would profit vintners more than might be the case in a purely private company. The site should extoll the qualities of Napa wines, the importance of the concept of the Ag Preserve to maintain that quality and the reasons that Napa wine is more than just a bottle of wine - it is a piece of winemaking history.
Streamlining diverted on Whitehall Lane on: The Winery Glut
Bill Hocker - Jul 20,20 expand... Share
NVR 7/19/20: Napa County seeks middle ground in Whitehall winery/neighbor dispute
Agenda and minutes for 7/16/20 PC hearing
The county, in one of their first attempts to implement the new streamlining ordinance to handle winery expansions administratively rather than through a planning commission hearing, illustrates the concern in allowing County staff to decide which winery projects should be public knowledge and which should not.
For a large winery with massive visitation in the heart of the Hwy 29 tourism kill zone, the request was modest: a small building is to be rebuilt to be more visitation friendly. And event hours were to be extend from an old permit allowance of 6:00pm to 10:00pm. The winery has residential neighbors who objected to the extension of hours. Apparently even the heavily trafficked areas of the valley are still quiet and dark after nightfall. In this prime area of the valley the neighbors are well tied into the wine establishment of the valley and the opposition was led by John Williams, the founder and owner of Frog's Leap, one of the iconoic Napa brands established in the 1970's. Mr. Williams initial letter is here.
Mr. Williams concerns are not at all different from the concern over tourism impacts that we voiced in our opposition to the Mountain Peak Winery beginning 6 years ago. And that neighbors of every contentious winery project since have expressed about tourism impacts to their neighborhoods. This is not the first time that founding members of the wine industry have been impacted by the negative impacts of the entertainment model that their industry is adopting. Yountville Hill was torpeoded by the opposition of neighbors like of Dennis Groth and Christian Moueix. Andy Beckstoffer battled mightly with the tourism expansion of the Raymond Winery next door. Winery developer Paul Woolls was pained that B-Cellars across the street from his home was operating like a restaurant. Their are other examples.
No one who lives in the county wants tourism to spoil the quiet enjoyment to be had being in a rural small town community. Yet members of the wine industry continue to push the conversion of the economy from wine making into tourism, in their own economic self-iiterest only recognizing the pernicious, long-term effects of such efforts when the events and parties and traffic come to the property next door to their homes. Until the moguls of the wine industry recognize collectively that something they value personally is being lost by converting to a tourism economy, there is little hope that that Napa will escape the the sad trajectory of urban development that it is on.
Agenda and minutes for 7/16/20 PC hearing
The county, in one of their first attempts to implement the new streamlining ordinance to handle winery expansions administratively rather than through a planning commission hearing, illustrates the concern in allowing County staff to decide which winery projects should be public knowledge and which should not.
For a large winery with massive visitation in the heart of the Hwy 29 tourism kill zone, the request was modest: a small building is to be rebuilt to be more visitation friendly. And event hours were to be extend from an old permit allowance of 6:00pm to 10:00pm. The winery has residential neighbors who objected to the extension of hours. Apparently even the heavily trafficked areas of the valley are still quiet and dark after nightfall. In this prime area of the valley the neighbors are well tied into the wine establishment of the valley and the opposition was led by John Williams, the founder and owner of Frog's Leap, one of the iconoic Napa brands established in the 1970's. Mr. Williams initial letter is here.
Mr. Williams concerns are not at all different from the concern over tourism impacts that we voiced in our opposition to the Mountain Peak Winery beginning 6 years ago. And that neighbors of every contentious winery project since have expressed about tourism impacts to their neighborhoods. This is not the first time that founding members of the wine industry have been impacted by the negative impacts of the entertainment model that their industry is adopting. Yountville Hill was torpeoded by the opposition of neighbors like of Dennis Groth and Christian Moueix. Andy Beckstoffer battled mightly with the tourism expansion of the Raymond Winery next door. Winery developer Paul Woolls was pained that B-Cellars across the street from his home was operating like a restaurant. Their are other examples.
No one who lives in the county wants tourism to spoil the quiet enjoyment to be had being in a rural small town community. Yet members of the wine industry continue to push the conversion of the economy from wine making into tourism, in their own economic self-iiterest only recognizing the pernicious, long-term effects of such efforts when the events and parties and traffic come to the property next door to their homes. Until the moguls of the wine industry recognize collectively that something they value personally is being lost by converting to a tourism economy, there is little hope that that Napa will escape the the sad trajectory of urban development that it is on.
Soda Canyon to receive fire safety funds on: Fire Issues
Bill Hocker - Jul 17,20 expand... Share
[Barbara Guggia, our Soda Canyon Firewise Council point person, has sent along this note about funds available for fire prevention measures on our road.]
GOOD NEWS FROM THE SODA CANYON FIRE SAFE COUNCIL:
The Napa Communities Firewise Foundation received a $130,000 fuel reduction grant from PG&E and $50,000 will be applied to work along Soda Canyon Road. We sincerely thank PG&E for funding this grant. This fuel break project will provide fuel reduction along Soda Canyon Road and will focus on roadside clearance of fuel, fuel spacing, and the removal of potential strike trees which could block access and egress along Soda Canyon Road. The work will be completed by November 2020. This is great news for the residents of the Soda Canyon community and we are extremely grateful to all the individuals from the Napa Communities Firesafe Foundation who worked hard writing this grant. Their support of our community is sincerely appreciated.
GOOD NEWS FROM THE SODA CANYON FIRE SAFE COUNCIL:
The Napa Communities Firewise Foundation received a $130,000 fuel reduction grant from PG&E and $50,000 will be applied to work along Soda Canyon Road. We sincerely thank PG&E for funding this grant. This fuel break project will provide fuel reduction along Soda Canyon Road and will focus on roadside clearance of fuel, fuel spacing, and the removal of potential strike trees which could block access and egress along Soda Canyon Road. The work will be completed by November 2020. This is great news for the residents of the Soda Canyon community and we are extremely grateful to all the individuals from the Napa Communities Firesafe Foundation who worked hard writing this grant. Their support of our community is sincerely appreciated.
Franklin Station Hotel on: The Hotel Binge
Bill Hocker - Jul 12,20 expand... Share
Update 7/12/20
NVR 7/11/20: City planners to review post office-to-hotel conversion in downtown Napa
NVR 9/14/19: Updated design for Napa's Franklin Station hotel
Nicer renderings, and the more solid box on the corner is a better fit with the Post Office. building.
11/14/18
NVR 11/14/18: Napa council grants historic, earthquake-damaged post office new life as a hotel
NVR 10/25/18: City: Hotel plan preserves historic quality of downtown Napa's post office
NVR 10/19/18: Hotel at earthquake-rocked Napa post office wins city planners' backing
Kudos to the developer for taking a financial gamble on this significant restoration project. But still, another 163 rooms added to the thousands in process
NVR 6/7/19: Napa County Landmarks questions design of post office-to-hotel conversion
Napa County Landmarks letter
NVR 6/4/19: Napa planners to get their first look at the Franklin Station hotel project
It's a shame that this hotel building boom is happening during the current revival of the boxy modernism from the 1950's through the 70's that severely dehumanized the Beaux Arts character of most American Cities up to that time. While it is commendable that the developers have made the costly effort to incorporate the historical structures on their sites, the two prewar remnants embedded in the Franklin Station and Archer Hotels will be only forlorn reminders of Napa's lost, small-town environment.
NVR 7/11/20: City planners to review post office-to-hotel conversion in downtown Napa
Nicer renderings, and the more solid box on the corner is a better fit with the Post Office. building.
11/14/18
NVR 11/14/18: Napa council grants historic, earthquake-damaged post office new life as a hotel
NVR 10/25/18: City: Hotel plan preserves historic quality of downtown Napa's post office
NVR 10/19/18: Hotel at earthquake-rocked Napa post office wins city planners' backing
Kudos to the developer for taking a financial gamble on this significant restoration project. But still, another 163 rooms added to the thousands in process
Napa County Landmarks letter
NVR 6/4/19: Napa planners to get their first look at the Franklin Station hotel project
It's a shame that this hotel building boom is happening during the current revival of the boxy modernism from the 1950's through the 70's that severely dehumanized the Beaux Arts character of most American Cities up to that time. While it is commendable that the developers have made the costly effort to incorporate the historical structures on their sites, the two prewar remnants embedded in the Franklin Station and Archer Hotels will be only forlorn reminders of Napa's lost, small-town environment.
Wetlands and entry to the Valley take another hit on: Growth Issues
Bill Hocker - Jul 7,20 expand... Share
2020 Joint BOS/PC meeting on: Growth Issues
Bill Hocker - May 18,20 expand... Share
Update 5/23/20
5/19/20 BOS/PC Joint meeting video
NVR 5/20/20: Napa County looks at wine country growth
5/18/20
NVR 5/18/20: Napa County to tackle wine country growth issues in COVID-19 world
The 5/19/20 meeting of the Napa County Board of Supervsors will include a joint session with the Napa County Planning Commission to discuss planning issues and priorities coming up in the near future. Item 9H here.
The session was added at the last minute in the midst of public-participation Covid constrictions. The input of residents impacted by continuing urbanization will no doubt be muted. The last joint meeting, in 2015, drew hundreds of citizens to the process, and a lengthly, though ultimately unfruitful, airing of concern over the pace of development in the county.
How tourism and the wine industry will rebound from the Covid crisis is still unknown, but the people packing bars in Wisconsin and the pro-tourism legislation in Napa passed after the 2008 downturn indicate that tourism impacts will probably be a bigger issue after the virus than before. The direction toward more urban development projects -- hotels and winery tourism venues, housing, road and warehouse construction, deforestation for vineyard estates -- has solidified in the last years, and the battle to limit that development seems, unfortunately, to be more and more a lost cause.
The emphasis in the Staff letter to the Supervisors for this session seems to be on the next ABAG RHNA affordable housing requirement for 2023 to 2031. The previous requirement for the 2015-2022 cycle was 180 uints which were accomodated after incredibly convoluted negotiations within the Napa Pipe project. In fact the County's desire to develop Napa Pipe was based on the affordable housing it would provide to meet ABAG requirements. Ultimately it will be a counter productive effort. In addition to 180 affordable units the project will have 750 market-rate units, 200,000sf of industrial/commercial space, a hotel, nursing home and a Costco. The number of added employees in the county created by the project and needing affordable housing will no doubt be greater than the affordable units added. Building the project will exaserbate the housing shortage, not reduce it. Probably another developer is currently in the wings with another massive urban project on county land promising to accomodate the 2023-31 allotment.
The only site currently identified as a potential for affordible housing in the unincorporated county is one owned by Pacific Union College in Angwin. Napa's oldest commmunity pushback organization, Save Rural Angwin, challenged the potential use of Angwin sites to meet the 2015-22 RHNA allotment in the 2014 General Plan update. The organization is still quite active in opposing development in Angwin.
5/19/20 BOS/PC Joint meeting video
NVR 5/20/20: Napa County looks at wine country growth
5/18/20
NVR 5/18/20: Napa County to tackle wine country growth issues in COVID-19 world
The 5/19/20 meeting of the Napa County Board of Supervsors will include a joint session with the Napa County Planning Commission to discuss planning issues and priorities coming up in the near future. Item 9H here.
The session was added at the last minute in the midst of public-participation Covid constrictions. The input of residents impacted by continuing urbanization will no doubt be muted. The last joint meeting, in 2015, drew hundreds of citizens to the process, and a lengthly, though ultimately unfruitful, airing of concern over the pace of development in the county.
How tourism and the wine industry will rebound from the Covid crisis is still unknown, but the people packing bars in Wisconsin and the pro-tourism legislation in Napa passed after the 2008 downturn indicate that tourism impacts will probably be a bigger issue after the virus than before. The direction toward more urban development projects -- hotels and winery tourism venues, housing, road and warehouse construction, deforestation for vineyard estates -- has solidified in the last years, and the battle to limit that development seems, unfortunately, to be more and more a lost cause.
The emphasis in the Staff letter to the Supervisors for this session seems to be on the next ABAG RHNA affordable housing requirement for 2023 to 2031. The previous requirement for the 2015-2022 cycle was 180 uints which were accomodated after incredibly convoluted negotiations within the Napa Pipe project. In fact the County's desire to develop Napa Pipe was based on the affordable housing it would provide to meet ABAG requirements. Ultimately it will be a counter productive effort. In addition to 180 affordable units the project will have 750 market-rate units, 200,000sf of industrial/commercial space, a hotel, nursing home and a Costco. The number of added employees in the county created by the project and needing affordable housing will no doubt be greater than the affordable units added. Building the project will exaserbate the housing shortage, not reduce it. Probably another developer is currently in the wings with another massive urban project on county land promising to accomodate the 2023-31 allotment.
The only site currently identified as a potential for affordible housing in the unincorporated county is one owned by Pacific Union College in Angwin. Napa's oldest commmunity pushback organization, Save Rural Angwin, challenged the potential use of Angwin sites to meet the 2015-22 RHNA allotment in the 2014 General Plan update. The organization is still quite active in opposing development in Angwin.
Saving the Bay on: Growth Issues
Bill Hocker - Apr 9,20 expand... Share
PBS has just re-aired the 2011 documentary, Saving the Bay. It covers the history of the bay and the more recent efforts to restore its wetland ecology. But it is the political effort to preserve the bay from landfill development in the 1960's (clips 24 and 25 here) that had the most resonance in the current effort to preserve Napa County from the wave of housing, tourism, industrial and good-life development brought on by the Bay Area tech boom. While the significance of saving the agricultrural and rural character of Napa County perhaps doesn't rise to the same level of importance as preventing the San Francisco Bay from being paved over in the post war development boom, it is inspiring to see an example of a grassroots effort that thwarted the never ending ambitions of developers to fill up open space with buildings.
County Streamlines Winery Use Permits on: The Winery Glut
Bill Hocker - Apr 4,20 expand... Share
Comments
George Caloyannidis - Jul 10, 2017 7:50AM
[Comment submission to Dir. Morrison re limited winery ordinance]
Dear David,
Attached is my revised comment on the Limited Winery Ordinance.
I revised Section "H" with a calculation of visitors this Ordinance would permit which is so staggering that one has to indeed wonder what thought if any is behind it.
George
Small Winery Ordinance Comment
And Divid Morrison's response:
From: Morrison, David [mailto:David.Morrison@countyofnapa.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 1:14 AM
Subject: RE: SMALL WINERY ORDINANCE
George,
With all due respect, I strongly disagree with several of the statements made in your letter.
A. There is a policy reason for the draft ordinance. It says so in the third paragraph of the ordinance recitals, where it states: 'Action Item AG/LU-16.1 directs that consideration be given to amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that define "small wineries," a "small quantity of wine," "small marketing events," and "mostly grown on site," and establishes a streamlined permitting process for small wineries which retains the requirement for a use permit when the winery is in proximity to urban areas. In turn, the Action Item implements Policy AG/LU-16, which states:
In recognition of their limited impacts, the County will consider affording small wineries a streamlined permitting process. For purposes of this policy, small wineries are those that produce a small quantity of wine using grapes mostly grown on site and host a limited number of small marketing events each year.
The County's intent and purpose in considering this ordinance is clear. It is to amend the County Code and create a simpler permit review process that reflects the limited impacts of smaller wineries. You may not agree with the policy, but the basis for this action does not require any surmise.
I would also point out that the proposed ordinance does not minimize either public scrutiny or the CEQA process. Applications considered under the draft ordinance would still be subject to CEQA review. They may obtain a Categorical Exemption, if they qualify, as they may currently do under the adopted Local CEQA Guidelines. If they do not qualify for a Cat Ex, then a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or EIR will be prepared, as is appropriate. The draft ordinance would not change CEQA review in any way. Similarly, applications under the draft ordinance would still be noticed to all neighboring property owners within 1,000 feet of the project, still be noticed in the newspaper, and would be considered in a public hearing, where interested parties may testify, and any resulting decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The draft ordinance would not minimize public scrutiny in any way.
B. There appears to be a misunderstanding. The provisions of the draft ordinance would be available to all wineries that meet the qualifying criteria, whether they are newly established or are already established and want to modify their existing use permit within the constraints of the definition of a limited winery. To do otherwise, would create an unfair advantage for one class of business over another.
C. Why is 30,000 gallons considered a small (or in this case limited) winery? Because that is how they are defined in Napa County's Local Procedures for Implementing CEQA. Appendix B, Class 3, Subsection 10 states:
Construction and operation of small wineries, other agricultural processing facilities, and farm management uses that:
(a) are less than 5,000 square feet in size excluding caves;
(b) will involve either no cave excavation, or excavation sufficient to create no more than 5,000 additional square feet with all of the excavated cave spoils to be used on site;
(c) will produce 30,000 gallons or less per year;
(d) will generate less than 40 vehicle trips per day and 5 peak hour trips except on those days when marketing events are taking place;
(e) will hold no more than 10 marketing events per year, each with no more than 30 attendees, except for one wine auction event with up to 100 persons in attendance; AND
(f) will hold no temporary events.
As for national metrics, wine economists generally categorize wineries as follows:
Large - 500,000 cases and up (1,2 million gallons)
Medium - 50,000 cases to 500,000 cases (120,000 - 1.2 million gallons)
Small - 5,000 cases to 50,000 cases (12,000 - 120,000 gallons)
Very Small - 1,000 cases to 5,000 cases (2,400 - 12,000 gallons)
Limited - less than 1,000 cases (under 2,400 gallons)
By this standard also, 30,000 gallons is considered a small winery.
D. The focus of the draft ordinance is to provide some relief to small and family-owned businesses. If there are many such businesses, should they be denied relief simply because of their number, or should policy instead be based on their circumstances?
For clarification sake, about 1/3 of the wineries listed on the Napa County database would fall within the criteria of the draft ordinance. While there are more wineries that produce under 30,000 gallons, about 70 of those wineries have buildings, caves, visitation levels, or marketing events that exceed the definition of a "limited winery."
E. I don't agree that there is a contradiction. If wineries were to take advantage of the draft ordinance (should it be adopted) to increase production to 30,000 gallons, they would still be small wineries. There is only a contradiction if you define a small winery as having much lower production. I do not share that perspective.
F. Once again, I have to disagree. The cumulative impacts of winery development was already evaluated in the General Plan EIR, which was certified in 2008. Each winery permitted under the draft ordinance would undergo appropriate project-specific CEQA review. The draft ordinance does not allow any additional winery development not already anticipated in the General Plan. In fact, as stated previously, the draft ordinance is a direct implementation of the General Plan. Additional cumulative CEQA review of the draft ordinance is not required, in my opinion.
G. See F above.
H. See F above.
I. With regards to justifying the consideration of the draft ordinance, that was part of the policy debate regarding the General Plan in 2008. The purpose of the General Plan is to provide a set of policies under which the County would operate over the following 25 years. That is why adopting comprehensive General Plan updates is such a lengthy and expensive process. If you believe that circumstances have changed since 2008, you may want to request that the Board amend the General Plan to delete Policy AG/LU-16. Again, you may not agree with the idea, but an adopted policy carries significant legal weight.
If you are suggesting that the production level for limited wineries in the draft ordinance could be reduced to 15,000 or 20,000 gallons annually, I agree. The 30,000 gallon criterion was initially offered as a starting point for public discussion, but one that was consistent with the adopted Local CEQA Guidelines. Others have also suggested a lower threshold. The Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors are free to use an alternate metric.
J. Once again, I have to disagree. Length of time in permit review does not necessarily equate to public benefit. Staff is required to follow State law, which includes the Permit Streamlining Act. There is a balance between the exercise of private property rights and public interest. This ordinance would continue to provide full public review and participation for the review of development applications.
The draft ordinance would not permit any greater level of winery development than is already allowed under the General Plan, which evaluated the cumulative impacts of winery and vineyard development between 2005 and 2030. As this ordinance would not increase that potential, further cumulative analysis is not required.
The Zoning Administrator would not become a "winery czar," any more than the Planning Commission could be described as such. The Zoning Administrator currently makes decisions regarding Use Permit Modifications, Variances, Certificates of Non-Conformance, and other applications. This would be similar to the Administrator's existing duties. The Administrator's decisions may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, who ultimately is responsible for setting policy in the County.
As always, I am happy to discuss these issues and welcome constructive dialogue towards developing a better draft ordinance.
Thank you for you comments.
Respectfully,
David
And George Caloyannidis' response
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 11:37 AM
To: 'Morrison, David'
Subject: FW: SMALL WINERY ORDINANCE
Thank you David.
Your statements are technically correct as they reflect the provisions of the Ordinance which are already known. However, they neither refute or specifically address mine because by their nature, they try to show the shortcomings of the Ordinance. Specifically, your statements do not provide answers to the points I presented.
• They do not explain the rationale for the need of the Ordinance other than to make things easier for applicants.
• They do not explain by what standard (or reason) a 30,000 gallon production winery is a new "small" one when 52% of all existing wineries in the county produce less.
• They fail to explain why potential quantifying data have not been presented to the Planning Commission.
• They do not explain why potential impacts of the Ordinance have not been presented to the Planning Commission or even a suggestion by staff that there may be worthy of consideration.
• They fail to explain which specific provisions of the Ordinance are the ones which facilitates its "streamlining". What specifically has been eliminated from the current process and what is its downside?
Maintaining that the Administrator's decisions may still be appealed to the BOS is correct but let's stop trying to hide the fact that it facilitates a process by which many of his/hers decisions will occur under the public's radar. Unless you can explain otherwise, this is the main instrument behind the "streamlining" of the process.
The 1,000 foot notification radius is grossly insufficient. Has staff tried to put the adequacy of such radius into perspective? For example, how many property owners would be notified if some of the randomly selected wineries below would apply?
Colgin (20,000)
Dalla Valle (20,000)
Diamond Mountain (10,000)
Kongsgaard (12,000)
Mayacamas (5,000)
Saddleback (8,000)
Signorello (20,000)
Titus (25,000)
Does Staff seriously believe that a 1,000 foot radius is sufficient to serve the public interest? Or does this number prove my point?
But the main concerns is the roundabout way by which this Ordinance will have advanced the Napa county CEQA baseline (traffic, water etc.) without CEQA review.
Your response does not address how an Ordinance which has the potential to incrementally add 3,564,277 gallons of production to the EXISTING "small" wineries, add 7,931 acres of vineyards plus 3,248,628 annual visitors is not cause for alarm meriting responsible environmental review. Mind you, this does NOT include special event visits NOR the impacts of NEW "small" winery streamlined applications, the number of which staff has also failed to make a credible effort to quantify.
These are massive numbers with potentially profound cumulative impacts - none of which were presented to the Planning Commission or the BOS for consideration - but obvious to any thinking person. They are so obvious that it is hard to hide the agenda driving this Ordinance by disingenuously hiding it under the innocent clothing of "SMALL".
George
PS: When will the Ordinance be heard by the BOS?
Dear David,
Attached is my revised comment on the Limited Winery Ordinance.
I revised Section "H" with a calculation of visitors this Ordinance would permit which is so staggering that one has to indeed wonder what thought if any is behind it.
George
Small Winery Ordinance Comment
And Divid Morrison's response:
From: Morrison, David [mailto:David.Morrison@countyofnapa.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 1:14 AM
Subject: RE: SMALL WINERY ORDINANCE
George,
With all due respect, I strongly disagree with several of the statements made in your letter.
A. There is a policy reason for the draft ordinance. It says so in the third paragraph of the ordinance recitals, where it states: 'Action Item AG/LU-16.1 directs that consideration be given to amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that define "small wineries," a "small quantity of wine," "small marketing events," and "mostly grown on site," and establishes a streamlined permitting process for small wineries which retains the requirement for a use permit when the winery is in proximity to urban areas. In turn, the Action Item implements Policy AG/LU-16, which states:
In recognition of their limited impacts, the County will consider affording small wineries a streamlined permitting process. For purposes of this policy, small wineries are those that produce a small quantity of wine using grapes mostly grown on site and host a limited number of small marketing events each year.
The County's intent and purpose in considering this ordinance is clear. It is to amend the County Code and create a simpler permit review process that reflects the limited impacts of smaller wineries. You may not agree with the policy, but the basis for this action does not require any surmise.
I would also point out that the proposed ordinance does not minimize either public scrutiny or the CEQA process. Applications considered under the draft ordinance would still be subject to CEQA review. They may obtain a Categorical Exemption, if they qualify, as they may currently do under the adopted Local CEQA Guidelines. If they do not qualify for a Cat Ex, then a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or EIR will be prepared, as is appropriate. The draft ordinance would not change CEQA review in any way. Similarly, applications under the draft ordinance would still be noticed to all neighboring property owners within 1,000 feet of the project, still be noticed in the newspaper, and would be considered in a public hearing, where interested parties may testify, and any resulting decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The draft ordinance would not minimize public scrutiny in any way.
B. There appears to be a misunderstanding. The provisions of the draft ordinance would be available to all wineries that meet the qualifying criteria, whether they are newly established or are already established and want to modify their existing use permit within the constraints of the definition of a limited winery. To do otherwise, would create an unfair advantage for one class of business over another.
C. Why is 30,000 gallons considered a small (or in this case limited) winery? Because that is how they are defined in Napa County's Local Procedures for Implementing CEQA. Appendix B, Class 3, Subsection 10 states:
Construction and operation of small wineries, other agricultural processing facilities, and farm management uses that:
(a) are less than 5,000 square feet in size excluding caves;
(b) will involve either no cave excavation, or excavation sufficient to create no more than 5,000 additional square feet with all of the excavated cave spoils to be used on site;
(c) will produce 30,000 gallons or less per year;
(d) will generate less than 40 vehicle trips per day and 5 peak hour trips except on those days when marketing events are taking place;
(e) will hold no more than 10 marketing events per year, each with no more than 30 attendees, except for one wine auction event with up to 100 persons in attendance; AND
(f) will hold no temporary events.
As for national metrics, wine economists generally categorize wineries as follows:
Large - 500,000 cases and up (1,2 million gallons)
Medium - 50,000 cases to 500,000 cases (120,000 - 1.2 million gallons)
Small - 5,000 cases to 50,000 cases (12,000 - 120,000 gallons)
Very Small - 1,000 cases to 5,000 cases (2,400 - 12,000 gallons)
Limited - less than 1,000 cases (under 2,400 gallons)
By this standard also, 30,000 gallons is considered a small winery.
D. The focus of the draft ordinance is to provide some relief to small and family-owned businesses. If there are many such businesses, should they be denied relief simply because of their number, or should policy instead be based on their circumstances?
For clarification sake, about 1/3 of the wineries listed on the Napa County database would fall within the criteria of the draft ordinance. While there are more wineries that produce under 30,000 gallons, about 70 of those wineries have buildings, caves, visitation levels, or marketing events that exceed the definition of a "limited winery."
E. I don't agree that there is a contradiction. If wineries were to take advantage of the draft ordinance (should it be adopted) to increase production to 30,000 gallons, they would still be small wineries. There is only a contradiction if you define a small winery as having much lower production. I do not share that perspective.
F. Once again, I have to disagree. The cumulative impacts of winery development was already evaluated in the General Plan EIR, which was certified in 2008. Each winery permitted under the draft ordinance would undergo appropriate project-specific CEQA review. The draft ordinance does not allow any additional winery development not already anticipated in the General Plan. In fact, as stated previously, the draft ordinance is a direct implementation of the General Plan. Additional cumulative CEQA review of the draft ordinance is not required, in my opinion.
G. See F above.
H. See F above.
I. With regards to justifying the consideration of the draft ordinance, that was part of the policy debate regarding the General Plan in 2008. The purpose of the General Plan is to provide a set of policies under which the County would operate over the following 25 years. That is why adopting comprehensive General Plan updates is such a lengthy and expensive process. If you believe that circumstances have changed since 2008, you may want to request that the Board amend the General Plan to delete Policy AG/LU-16. Again, you may not agree with the idea, but an adopted policy carries significant legal weight.
If you are suggesting that the production level for limited wineries in the draft ordinance could be reduced to 15,000 or 20,000 gallons annually, I agree. The 30,000 gallon criterion was initially offered as a starting point for public discussion, but one that was consistent with the adopted Local CEQA Guidelines. Others have also suggested a lower threshold. The Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors are free to use an alternate metric.
J. Once again, I have to disagree. Length of time in permit review does not necessarily equate to public benefit. Staff is required to follow State law, which includes the Permit Streamlining Act. There is a balance between the exercise of private property rights and public interest. This ordinance would continue to provide full public review and participation for the review of development applications.
The draft ordinance would not permit any greater level of winery development than is already allowed under the General Plan, which evaluated the cumulative impacts of winery and vineyard development between 2005 and 2030. As this ordinance would not increase that potential, further cumulative analysis is not required.
The Zoning Administrator would not become a "winery czar," any more than the Planning Commission could be described as such. The Zoning Administrator currently makes decisions regarding Use Permit Modifications, Variances, Certificates of Non-Conformance, and other applications. This would be similar to the Administrator's existing duties. The Administrator's decisions may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, who ultimately is responsible for setting policy in the County.
As always, I am happy to discuss these issues and welcome constructive dialogue towards developing a better draft ordinance.
Thank you for you comments.
Respectfully,
David
And George Caloyannidis' response
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 11:37 AM
To: 'Morrison, David'
Subject: FW: SMALL WINERY ORDINANCE
Thank you David.
Your statements are technically correct as they reflect the provisions of the Ordinance which are already known. However, they neither refute or specifically address mine because by their nature, they try to show the shortcomings of the Ordinance. Specifically, your statements do not provide answers to the points I presented.
• They do not explain the rationale for the need of the Ordinance other than to make things easier for applicants.
• They do not explain by what standard (or reason) a 30,000 gallon production winery is a new "small" one when 52% of all existing wineries in the county produce less.
• They fail to explain why potential quantifying data have not been presented to the Planning Commission.
• They do not explain why potential impacts of the Ordinance have not been presented to the Planning Commission or even a suggestion by staff that there may be worthy of consideration.
• They fail to explain which specific provisions of the Ordinance are the ones which facilitates its "streamlining". What specifically has been eliminated from the current process and what is its downside?
Maintaining that the Administrator's decisions may still be appealed to the BOS is correct but let's stop trying to hide the fact that it facilitates a process by which many of his/hers decisions will occur under the public's radar. Unless you can explain otherwise, this is the main instrument behind the "streamlining" of the process.
The 1,000 foot notification radius is grossly insufficient. Has staff tried to put the adequacy of such radius into perspective? For example, how many property owners would be notified if some of the randomly selected wineries below would apply?
Colgin (20,000)
Dalla Valle (20,000)
Diamond Mountain (10,000)
Kongsgaard (12,000)
Mayacamas (5,000)
Saddleback (8,000)
Signorello (20,000)
Titus (25,000)
Does Staff seriously believe that a 1,000 foot radius is sufficient to serve the public interest? Or does this number prove my point?
But the main concerns is the roundabout way by which this Ordinance will have advanced the Napa county CEQA baseline (traffic, water etc.) without CEQA review.
Your response does not address how an Ordinance which has the potential to incrementally add 3,564,277 gallons of production to the EXISTING "small" wineries, add 7,931 acres of vineyards plus 3,248,628 annual visitors is not cause for alarm meriting responsible environmental review. Mind you, this does NOT include special event visits NOR the impacts of NEW "small" winery streamlined applications, the number of which staff has also failed to make a credible effort to quantify.
These are massive numbers with potentially profound cumulative impacts - none of which were presented to the Planning Commission or the BOS for consideration - but obvious to any thinking person. They are so obvious that it is hard to hide the agenda driving this Ordinance by disingenuously hiding it under the innocent clothing of "SMALL".
George
PS: When will the Ordinance be heard by the BOS?
Napa County and Coronavirus on: Open Comments
Bill Hocker - Apr 3,20 expand... Share
Update 4/11/20
George Caloyannidis LTE 4/10/20: County must reassess its public hearings policy
CNPA 3/12/20: Governor suspends some Brown Act provisions to allow teleconferencing
3/18/20
The County sent this notice regarding the 3/17/20 BOS meeting:
Public Participation Notice re: 3/17/20 BOS meeting
The meeting will feature the use of Zoom videoconferencing technology to allow remote public participation as will as a limited number of people to attend the actual meeting.
The meeting will deal with the appeal of the Bremer Winery "recognize and allow" use permit modifications approved by the Planning Commission on 10/16/19. More on the Bremer Winery Saga here.
Bay Area Counties, NOW including Napa County, have announced a complete "Shelter in Place" policy which will prevent all movement, including to public meetings, except for the purchase of necessities, in the affected counties.
George Calyoannidis has just sent a link to the Australian 60 Minutes (very informative) report on the potential of the coronavirus: https://youtu.be/Y7nZ4mw4mXw
NVR 3/18/20: Updated: Napa County orders people to shelter at home because of COVID-19
George Caloyannidis LTE 4/10/20: County must reassess its public hearings policy
CNPA 3/12/20: Governor suspends some Brown Act provisions to allow teleconferencing
3/18/20
The County sent this notice regarding the 3/17/20 BOS meeting:
Public Participation Notice re: 3/17/20 BOS meeting
The meeting will feature the use of Zoom videoconferencing technology to allow remote public participation as will as a limited number of people to attend the actual meeting.
The meeting will deal with the appeal of the Bremer Winery "recognize and allow" use permit modifications approved by the Planning Commission on 10/16/19. More on the Bremer Winery Saga here.
Bay Area Counties, NOW including Napa County, have announced a complete "Shelter in Place" policy which will prevent all movement, including to public meetings, except for the purchase of necessities, in the affected counties.
George Calyoannidis has just sent a link to the Australian 60 Minutes (very informative) report on the potential of the coronavirus: https://youtu.be/Y7nZ4mw4mXw
NVR 3/18/20: Updated: Napa County orders people to shelter at home because of COVID-19
Measure C.2: Watersheds headed back to the ballot? on: Conservation Regulations
Bill Hocker - Mar 29,20 expand... Share
Incumbents remain: more development ahead on: 2020 Campaign
Bill Hocker - Mar 9,20 expand... Share
Update 3/21/20
NVR 4/21/20: Napa County Election Division posts final certified results from primary election
Final 2020 Primary Election Certified Results
3/9/20
County Mar 3, 2020 Election Results as of 3/10/20 ("last" unofficial results?)
NVR 3/4/20: Measure K short of approval threshold; supporters still hopeful
NVR 3/4/20: Pedroza, Ramos lead Napa County Board of Supervisors races
NVR 3/4/20: Incumbents take lead in early Napa County returns
Amber Manfree, in the 3/9 unofficial results, trails Alfredo Pedroza by about 800 votes in the election for District 4 Supervisor. Pedroza has 4449, Manfree 3,672. 6,700 ballots still to tabulate? (I think...the numbers are a bit confusing.).
In the race for District 5, Belia Ramos leads Mariam Aboutdamous 4125 to 3,620. 9,500 votes still to count
In another potential blow for preservationists, Measure K doesn't look like it will reach the 2/3 threshold needed to pass at about 63% yes to 37% no. The lack of a predictable funding source for the purchase of open space in the county by the Park District means that keeping those lands out of the hands of private developers will be much more difficult.
In all, the election seems to be a rout for anyone wishing to protect the county's rural and natural heritage. The majority on the Board remains the same, and so far that majority has been consistent in allowing development of vineyard property into event centers and in encouraging the development of woodlands for vineyard estates and of industrial development of the wetlands in the south county.
Added to these worries are the inducements that the pandemic, stock market crash, short term impact on tourism and long term fall in wine sales, will create for future dilution of rural protections. Following the 2008 recession the wine industry and government made an effort to spur tourism development by loosening the restrictions on winery entertainment, a more profitable business than making wine. Visit Napa Valley was empowered. The municipalities also threw out the welcome mat for hotel development the effects of which we are just beginning to see. Another dose of tourism stimulus is to be expected.
NVR 3/16/20: Amid declining travel, Napa's wine industry braces for coronavirus impact
But already the direction of urban development in the county has shifted away from tourism and is headed in the more traditional directions of housing and roads, the directions explicitly rejected by the founders of Napa's agricultural economy. Mr. Pedroza ran on the basis of encouraging housing and transport projects. Promotion of such projects, by developers and politicians alike, is touted as relieving existing problems. The reality is that, by bringing a larger population into the county, they just induce even more development, urbanization increases and the problems get worse.
Statewide election results: CNN results by county here
NVR 4/21/20: Napa County Election Division posts final certified results from primary election
Final 2020 Primary Election Certified Results
3/9/20
County Mar 3, 2020 Election Results as of 3/10/20 ("last" unofficial results?)
NVR 3/4/20: Measure K short of approval threshold; supporters still hopeful
NVR 3/4/20: Pedroza, Ramos lead Napa County Board of Supervisors races
NVR 3/4/20: Incumbents take lead in early Napa County returns
Amber Manfree, in the 3/9 unofficial results, trails Alfredo Pedroza by about 800 votes in the election for District 4 Supervisor. Pedroza has 4449, Manfree 3,672. 6,700 ballots still to tabulate? (I think...the numbers are a bit confusing.).
In the race for District 5, Belia Ramos leads Mariam Aboutdamous 4125 to 3,620. 9,500 votes still to count
In another potential blow for preservationists, Measure K doesn't look like it will reach the 2/3 threshold needed to pass at about 63% yes to 37% no. The lack of a predictable funding source for the purchase of open space in the county by the Park District means that keeping those lands out of the hands of private developers will be much more difficult.
In all, the election seems to be a rout for anyone wishing to protect the county's rural and natural heritage. The majority on the Board remains the same, and so far that majority has been consistent in allowing development of vineyard property into event centers and in encouraging the development of woodlands for vineyard estates and of industrial development of the wetlands in the south county.
Added to these worries are the inducements that the pandemic, stock market crash, short term impact on tourism and long term fall in wine sales, will create for future dilution of rural protections. Following the 2008 recession the wine industry and government made an effort to spur tourism development by loosening the restrictions on winery entertainment, a more profitable business than making wine. Visit Napa Valley was empowered. The municipalities also threw out the welcome mat for hotel development the effects of which we are just beginning to see. Another dose of tourism stimulus is to be expected.
NVR 3/16/20: Amid declining travel, Napa's wine industry braces for coronavirus impact
But already the direction of urban development in the county has shifted away from tourism and is headed in the more traditional directions of housing and roads, the directions explicitly rejected by the founders of Napa's agricultural economy. Mr. Pedroza ran on the basis of encouraging housing and transport projects. Promotion of such projects, by developers and politicians alike, is touted as relieving existing problems. The reality is that, by bringing a larger population into the county, they just induce even more development, urbanization increases and the problems get worse.
Statewide election results: CNN results by county here
Amber for District 4 Supervisor 2024 on: 2020 Campaign
Bill Hocker - Mar 3,20 expand... Share
.jpg)
Comments
Bill Hocker - Mar 11, 2020 2:58AM
Amber's Campaign Manager, Jim King, has written a thank you note to those involved in the campaign:
Perspective
I have started to reorganize after the campaign. Organizing the signs is especially poignant in that I read each as I put it together with its mates. There is sadness in not reaching our ultimate goal. There is even a bit of emptiness in not interacting with you and Amber on what became a daily basis. I wanted to share a bit but I promise, near the end, will be campaign information that may encourage you.
I honestly do not believe that I was ever a part of a campaign this touching…and this important.
In spite of not winning, people are saying we changed the conversation, that we moved the needle, that there is a new awareness to the issues we brought forward,
and the way we ran the campaign…and its costs.
Here is where perspective comes in. Did we do these things? If the response to our actions was any indication, then a resounding “yes” is the answer. We launched a campaign with 160 days until election. The incumbent had over $300,000 in his campaign fund. We ended with around $50,000. He mailed at least 10 pieces. In our short time frame we dashed-and-dropped 2 pieces, walked and knocked with 1 piece, and did a small mailing of about 4,000. Our first “walking piece” was designed and printed by Amber. Most everything was of Amber design and layout.
Pretty grassrootsy. ...and we came within 770 votes
Back to perspective. What else did we do without the funds and time? We waved. Sometimes it was 1 or 2 folks at a street corner, others it was over 30. First they waved the heck out of Bel Aire with 35 spread on all 4 corners, then it was 38 at Soscol and Lincoln. Soon we witnessed him having wavers of his own. Dan Mufson guided this effort.
What else? Our volunteers sent out over 4,500 post cards. All were handwritten! Lisa Bowers, and husband Paul, (who set up address spreadsheets), kept the folks writing with cards and addresses. Oh, and Amber designed the cards!
Before going too much further, Amber’s designs, especially the “Soda Canyon Blue Quail” (my name, not hers) has found a place in the hearts of many and caught the attention of all.
For a candidate to do all a candidate needs to do and create winning graphic designs and brochures is pretty impressive,
even for a Doctor…
Back to perspective….again. Laura Tinthoff took on Endorsements shortly after joining our crew. As the list grew and the quotes of support started coming in, you could see Laura’s excitement grow, as did ours. She confirmed, organized, and sought and obtained quotes.
In the end the list, the quotes, and the work was impressive.
Our signs were everywhere! Between the large signs and yard signs we had over 500 signs posted. Thanks to Charlotte Williams, with her sometimes sidekick, Don, along with Dan Mufson, Gary Margadant, Mike Hackett, Jim Wilson, Amy Martenson, and Chris Malan
…and others, for their diligence and efforts.
Our video efforts garnered way over 30,000 views (Yay E. Beth Nelson!). Israel Valencia kept catching the right light, right moments, and the real Amber throughout with his camera. Our Facebook page was cracking with Elaine de Man leading the way. Near the end we added texting, with Beth once again the lead. Technology became an important part of the campaign.
We had folks helping with forum preps and platform development. Dan Mufson, Roland Dumas, Greg Matsumoto, and Ron Rhyno all provided their learned guidance and support.
Another waver, walker, and more is Lauren Griffiths. She, not knowing what she might be stepping into, volunteered to be campaign treasurer. For those who have done this I can stop and they will know how hard it is to provide accolades for this role. For the rest of us, well, Lauren’s diligence and care took care of us. She was laser focused and detail oriented. Our sheets balance and reports made on time. She continued to smile throughout!
Shelle Wolfe worked magic, and provided same for all our events. Our kick-off was full of exuberant and excited people. The Art Soiree brought a special crowd for a unique and special evening, and under the guidance of Shelle each was successful and more.
Of course Shelle waved and walked and more.
Jill Thomas Doyle provided our first campaign “home” with cookies and espresso! She continued to do whatever the campaign needed from writing and editing news releases, to waving signs. We have pretty cool photos as Jill walks in front of Mr. Pedroza!
Mike Hacket provided much of the original impetus for there to be a campaign.
His encouragement and faith helped make this a reality. His fellow conspirator,
Jim Wilson, provided the same but he also walked off some real shoe leather
as he spread the word.
His amazing wife, Lenore, wrote around 1,000 post cards on her own!
Guillermo Rosas provided translation assistance, walked with us, and opened doors for Amber to allow us to gain understanding of the needs and visions the Latino community holds. He helped make certain that this important voice was a part of all we did.
Sahoko Yui provided something not all of us could, the depth of caring and understanding one can only get from a long-time friend. In addition she provided input on design, walked with Amber, waved signs, and more…and there were brownies!
Holly Morris, another long-time friend, provided editing, helped our messaging, and provided important guidance as we wrestled with decisions .
Kristina Young created and maintained our website. What an endeavor! Everything we did had to be done NOW…and she accomplished that. Our website grew to be beautiful informative, and engaging.
David Heitzman provided our sound, wherever and whenever we needed it. He helped us connect with Circle Oaks, and provided important input as the campaign grew.
I know I did not name all. I tried to let you know who was here day in and day out. Many more kept going , almost every day, Steve and Sandra Booth, Julia Winiarski, Diane Beere, Nancy McCoy Blotzke, and Charlotte Williams appears again! So many more....
So, I promised encouraging news. We did not win. That is clear now. But what did we accomplish?
We proved that you can run a local campaign, effectively, with $50,000 or less. In 160 days we are only 770 votes short. Time was more important than money.
We introduced the entire county to Amber
and the issues which drove her to challenge the incumbent.
We brought climate change, over development, cumulative impact, watersheds and water supply, all back to the conversation
We were joined in coalition by so many organizations and individuals that I will not take the space to list them here. Two things are important about this, first we have begun to collaborate, and it does not end here, secondly, the strength in numbers thing? It is real and you brought that when not only you but the organizations you are a part of joined this effort. Amber will be the first to say that this effort is and was about something much bigger than
Amber.
Add your thoughts and observations to what was accomplished here.
I know I have not caught it all.
In closing, I simply want to say thank you. What we, you and I, did in 160 days was a miracle of its own. The connections made, the friendships born, will all add strength to our next steps. Yes, there is a touch of sadness but how could that last with the experience of getting to know each of you, watching as the light grew and each of you took part, and having the honor of getting to know and work with Amber.
We have work to do, the tools to do it, and the leaders are emerging to guide us, beginning with Amber.
Thank you
I have started to reorganize after the campaign. Organizing the signs is especially poignant in that I read each as I put it together with its mates. There is sadness in not reaching our ultimate goal. There is even a bit of emptiness in not interacting with you and Amber on what became a daily basis. I wanted to share a bit but I promise, near the end, will be campaign information that may encourage you.
I honestly do not believe that I was ever a part of a campaign this touching…and this important.
In spite of not winning, people are saying we changed the conversation, that we moved the needle, that there is a new awareness to the issues we brought forward,
and the way we ran the campaign…and its costs.
Here is where perspective comes in. Did we do these things? If the response to our actions was any indication, then a resounding “yes” is the answer. We launched a campaign with 160 days until election. The incumbent had over $300,000 in his campaign fund. We ended with around $50,000. He mailed at least 10 pieces. In our short time frame we dashed-and-dropped 2 pieces, walked and knocked with 1 piece, and did a small mailing of about 4,000. Our first “walking piece” was designed and printed by Amber. Most everything was of Amber design and layout.
Pretty grassrootsy. ...and we came within 770 votes
Back to perspective. What else did we do without the funds and time? We waved. Sometimes it was 1 or 2 folks at a street corner, others it was over 30. First they waved the heck out of Bel Aire with 35 spread on all 4 corners, then it was 38 at Soscol and Lincoln. Soon we witnessed him having wavers of his own. Dan Mufson guided this effort.
What else? Our volunteers sent out over 4,500 post cards. All were handwritten! Lisa Bowers, and husband Paul, (who set up address spreadsheets), kept the folks writing with cards and addresses. Oh, and Amber designed the cards!
Before going too much further, Amber’s designs, especially the “Soda Canyon Blue Quail” (my name, not hers) has found a place in the hearts of many and caught the attention of all.
For a candidate to do all a candidate needs to do and create winning graphic designs and brochures is pretty impressive,
even for a Doctor…
Back to perspective….again. Laura Tinthoff took on Endorsements shortly after joining our crew. As the list grew and the quotes of support started coming in, you could see Laura’s excitement grow, as did ours. She confirmed, organized, and sought and obtained quotes.
In the end the list, the quotes, and the work was impressive.
Our signs were everywhere! Between the large signs and yard signs we had over 500 signs posted. Thanks to Charlotte Williams, with her sometimes sidekick, Don, along with Dan Mufson, Gary Margadant, Mike Hackett, Jim Wilson, Amy Martenson, and Chris Malan
…and others, for their diligence and efforts.
Our video efforts garnered way over 30,000 views (Yay E. Beth Nelson!). Israel Valencia kept catching the right light, right moments, and the real Amber throughout with his camera. Our Facebook page was cracking with Elaine de Man leading the way. Near the end we added texting, with Beth once again the lead. Technology became an important part of the campaign.
We had folks helping with forum preps and platform development. Dan Mufson, Roland Dumas, Greg Matsumoto, and Ron Rhyno all provided their learned guidance and support.
Another waver, walker, and more is Lauren Griffiths. She, not knowing what she might be stepping into, volunteered to be campaign treasurer. For those who have done this I can stop and they will know how hard it is to provide accolades for this role. For the rest of us, well, Lauren’s diligence and care took care of us. She was laser focused and detail oriented. Our sheets balance and reports made on time. She continued to smile throughout!
Shelle Wolfe worked magic, and provided same for all our events. Our kick-off was full of exuberant and excited people. The Art Soiree brought a special crowd for a unique and special evening, and under the guidance of Shelle each was successful and more.
Of course Shelle waved and walked and more.
Jill Thomas Doyle provided our first campaign “home” with cookies and espresso! She continued to do whatever the campaign needed from writing and editing news releases, to waving signs. We have pretty cool photos as Jill walks in front of Mr. Pedroza!
Mike Hacket provided much of the original impetus for there to be a campaign.
His encouragement and faith helped make this a reality. His fellow conspirator,
Jim Wilson, provided the same but he also walked off some real shoe leather
as he spread the word.
His amazing wife, Lenore, wrote around 1,000 post cards on her own!
Guillermo Rosas provided translation assistance, walked with us, and opened doors for Amber to allow us to gain understanding of the needs and visions the Latino community holds. He helped make certain that this important voice was a part of all we did.
Sahoko Yui provided something not all of us could, the depth of caring and understanding one can only get from a long-time friend. In addition she provided input on design, walked with Amber, waved signs, and more…and there were brownies!
Holly Morris, another long-time friend, provided editing, helped our messaging, and provided important guidance as we wrestled with decisions .
Kristina Young created and maintained our website. What an endeavor! Everything we did had to be done NOW…and she accomplished that. Our website grew to be beautiful informative, and engaging.
David Heitzman provided our sound, wherever and whenever we needed it. He helped us connect with Circle Oaks, and provided important input as the campaign grew.
I know I did not name all. I tried to let you know who was here day in and day out. Many more kept going , almost every day, Steve and Sandra Booth, Julia Winiarski, Diane Beere, Nancy McCoy Blotzke, and Charlotte Williams appears again! So many more....
So, I promised encouraging news. We did not win. That is clear now. But what did we accomplish?
We proved that you can run a local campaign, effectively, with $50,000 or less. In 160 days we are only 770 votes short. Time was more important than money.
We introduced the entire county to Amber
and the issues which drove her to challenge the incumbent.
We brought climate change, over development, cumulative impact, watersheds and water supply, all back to the conversation
We were joined in coalition by so many organizations and individuals that I will not take the space to list them here. Two things are important about this, first we have begun to collaborate, and it does not end here, secondly, the strength in numbers thing? It is real and you brought that when not only you but the organizations you are a part of joined this effort. Amber will be the first to say that this effort is and was about something much bigger than
Amber.
Add your thoughts and observations to what was accomplished here.
I know I have not caught it all.
In closing, I simply want to say thank you. What we, you and I, did in 160 days was a miracle of its own. The connections made, the friendships born, will all add strength to our next steps. Yes, there is a touch of sadness but how could that last with the experience of getting to know each of you, watching as the light grew and each of you took part, and having the honor of getting to know and work with Amber.
We have work to do, the tools to do it, and the leaders are emerging to guide us, beginning with Amber.
Thank you
share this page