Duckhorn Winery Expansion
on the web at: https://sodacanyonroad.org/forum.php?p=2305
Bill Hocker | Oct 8, 2024
Ag Land paved over for the project / permit submittal
Wine Spectator 10/7/24: Private Equity Firm Butterfly Buys Duckhorn Wine Company for $1.95 Billion
Given the timing of the deal, it appears to have been contingent on the County approval of Duckhorn's expanded facilities.
Update 8/20/24
There was a last minute negotiated settlement to Water Audit appeal, leaving only the Neighbors' appeal to be decided. The Supervisors voted 5-0 on an intent to deny the Neighbors' appeal pending changes to project conditions of approval. The denial will be finalized 11/12/24.
Another chunk of Napa's terroir to be paved over, and another hit to the rural character of the valley.
Update 8/1/24
NVR /16/24: Duckhorn winery expansion goes to Napa County supervisors on appeal
The appeal by Lodi Lane neighbors and the Calif Water Audit of the Planning Commission approval will take place before the BOS on 8/20/24.
Appeal hearing notice
Staff agenda letter and documents
The major arguments in the appeal: this project has traffic and water impacts not adequately vetted in the staff mitigated negative declaration nor have the cumulative impacts of neighboring projects in the approval pipeline been factored into the analysis. The project should be evaluated with an Environmental Impact Report under the State's CEQA review process.
As we have argued elsewhere on this site, winery projects, particularly large ones and those in remote areas of the county, have environmental impacts equivalent to or exceeding new large vineyard projects, and yet new vineyards are routinely required to produce an EIR, while winery projects are not. Let's hope the Supes see a need for more careful consideration of this large building expansion into Napa's Agricultural Preserve.
Update 4/10/24
SF Chronicle 4/10/24: How a small rural California road became the latest wine battleground in Napa Valley
We can only hope that there will be enough residents impacted by the barrage of projects like this and The Inn at the Abbey who demand that the county stop permitting tourism buildings on land zoned for agriculture and vote as such. Tourism is not agriculture. The policies that conflate the two need to be reversed.
Update 11/6/23
The Duckhorn Winery Appeal due to be heard on 11/7/23 has been continued to a date uncertain - a change in scope of the project is being considered by the applicant.
Agenda Letter
Update 9/13/23
Sculatti LTE 9/13/23: Duckhorn project threatens the viability of the Ag Preserve
Update 9/1/23
An Appeal of the Planning Commission approval has been made by neighbors and Water Audit California and has been scheduled by the BOS for Nov 7, 2023.
Appeal notice and continuance
John Murphy LTE 9/1/23: The siege of Lodi Lane
5/4/23 Original Post
Adding to the AP urbanization / google earth
Staff Agenda Letter for 5/3/23 presentation
NVR 5/4/23: Big Duckhorn winery growth plans win Napa County approval
140,000 more gal/yr, 51,014 more vis/yr, new 58,000 sf production and storage building, doubling the size of the visitor center, 28 more parking spaces, home demolition, 3.55 acres of vines removed. 44 trees removed, road exception, adding to road setback encroachments, 4 large water tanks, waste water line under the Napa River!
Staff Letter (a long read)
Neighbor Comments
This was the first decision of the post election Planning Commission, and frankly I was stunned. And disappointed. The vote among the three participating commissioners, Dave Whitmer, Megan Dameron and returning Commissioner Heather Phillips was 3-0 to approve with almost no discussion and no interest in reducing the scale of such a behemoth (for Napa Valley) and intrusive project. It seemed like unblinking aquiescense to the power of the corporate conglomerates that have taken over the wine production and wine entertainment industries in the county. This decision bodes ill for Treasury's re-submission of the Benjamin Ranch winery proposal when/if it comes. A new era of mega-wineries dawns as corporations seek to turn the county into the Las Vegas of Wine.
Particularly galling is the paving over of prime agricultural land for a new production building, parking lots and roadways. The urbanization of the ag preserve didn't seem to be on the radar of this Planning Commission in this project, which dispels a lot of the hope I had for a new direction in the maintenance of the county's natural resources in the age of global warming and of a balance between the concerns of residents to maintain their rural heritage and corporate interests to exploit that character into oblivion.
Where to begin on a project that pushes so many negative butttons. The first is that major 58,000sf wine processing and storage facility is being proposed to be built from scratch on an area in the center of the Ag Preserve that is currently planted to vines. With the creation of the new combined parcel, the massive production building and expanded visitor center are 24.8% of the 25% allowable development area under the WDO. Looking at the plot plan of the impermeable surface, it actually apprears that more than 25% of the property is covered. And it should be noted that a part of the 75% is the un-developable bank of the Napa river, so the amount of developable land being covered is well above 25%. The processing facility which will, no doubt, serve the numerous corporate brands well beyond this site should have been built in the airport industrial area. But then, of course, the visitor center wouldn't have been allowed to double in size. And tourism is now the heart of wine industry growth.
As is common now with projects, maintaining existing water usage while expanding production and visitation is achieved by sewage treatment plants and gargantuan water tanks, and by replacing water consumptive vineyards with less water-consumptive buildings. (Note that reducing water consumption by eliminating vines is not a good strategy for maintaining an agricultural economy, yet it is now done in almost every winery project.) But the existing usage is already 50% higher than is allowed under county standards. The project should have been required to reduce water usage to that standard. The intuitive question, however, is can you really process 140,000 more gallons of wine and 51,000 more visitors and not increase water use? Consultants can massage the numbers for an approval, but no one monitors the reality over time which is why more water than allowed is being used now.
copyright © sodacanyonroad.org