Update 12/10/18

---

On Dec 19, 2018, the County is presenting their Update to the Circulation Element of the Napa County General Plan. A principal change in the Update is from the use of Level of Service (LOS) as a metric of project traffic impacts to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Vehicle Miles Travelled was one impetus in the development of this "Remote Wineries" page. The actual distance travelled by visitors and employees from the Silverado Trail to the Mountain Peak Winery was, at least to me, one argument against its location at the end of our road. Since then the State, in its concerted efforts to confront climate change, revised its CEQA guidelines to consider miles traveled to a project as an issue worthy of quantification and of mitigation if necessary. The County is now developing its VMT metrics and mitigations. I have updated this page to include VMT of individual remote wineries from the nearest State highways (or the Trail) along with a total. How the county will choose to measure distances travelled is unknown. Arguments can be made that it should be made from the nearest highway, from the center of Napa, from the nearest county border, from the bedroom towns, from the major cities or indeed, as the case has already been made and upheld in court, from the place of origin of the traveler.

Update 10/23/18

---

At the Sep. 16, 2018 Board of Supervisors meeting, Planning Director Morrison, in response to concerns voiced by the Supes, asked them formally for direction in crafting "remote winery" regulations, now being referred to as "winery compatibility" regulations. It is the beginning of a months-long process to try to address the increasing number of wineries being proposed in the watershed areas, like Mountain Peak, and the increasing pushback from residents who feel that the quality of their lives will be diminished as their rural neighborhoods are commercialized for tourism use.

SCR will be following the County's winery compatibility issue here.

Update 12/1/17

---

On October 8th 2017 most of Soda Canyon burned as part of one of the largest wildfire events in California history. Ferocious winds spread the fire at such a rate that residents had only minutes to exit the canyon. In the process a fallen tree backed up traffic on the road with flames all around. Trucks fortunately were able to pull the tree enough to allow passage and avert disaster. But the concept of "access constraints" and "remoteness of location", upon which residents' opposition to the Mountain Peak winery was based, became a very tangible and potentially lethal concept. Residents recognize the dangers of the road and accept them as the price of living in such a bucholic environment. But, as Yeoryios Apallas precient letter-to-the-editor on Oct 5th cautions, this is not an appropriate risk for tourism commercialization. The County government, unfortunately, feels that risk is offset by the need for business promotion and tourism development in the watershed areas.

Update 5/25/17

---

At the 5/23/17 Mountain Peak BOS hearing in which we presented the conclusions to be drawn from this Remote Wineries page, Sup. Wagenknecht suggested that county staff possibly consider standards for "remote" wineries. While the suggestion seemed a bit off-the-cuff, Dir. Morrison seemed eager to take on the assignment. Given this letter to the planning commission two years ago prior to APAC (which anticipates the work done on this page, and which I had completely forgotten about - subconscious plagiarism?) and his valiant efforts during APAC to create predictable development standards for wineries, I want to believe that the fire for true long term planning consistency regarding winery development was not stamped out by the BOS's "case-by-case" cave-in to the industry after APAC.

1/5/17

---

At the Jan 4th 2017 Planning commission hearing for the Mountain Peak Winery, residents presented a critique of the "comparable" wineries proposed by the County and by the Applicant. The Soda Canyon Community has consistently maintained that, given the access constraints, the intensity of winery activities is not appropriately scaled in the the Mountain Peak proposal. In response to the approach of looking at a very small subset of wineries as comparables, we have tried here to take a look at winery development in the watersheds as a whole and see how Mountain Peak might compare.

This is a map and list of "remote" wineries in Napa County, "remote" being those within the hilly areas of the watersheds and more than 1 mile from a major highway. (For comparison, the average distance between Hwy 29 and the Trail is 2 miles). It excludes wineries on the Hwy 12 corridor, outside watershed areas. The map and list of remote wineries have been made using data from the NVV's excellent map here and the County's winery database here. There are, of course many more wineries not shown on the NVV map that become visible when you zoom in close on Google maps. It is probable that the average and median values would fall rather than rise or stay the same as more un-shown wineries are added.

Re-center


Remote Wineries List

---

Wineries in watersehds more than 1 mile from a state highway or the Trail. The list can be sorted by clicking on the column title

	All Remote Wineries (Sort by Name) View only post-WDO wineries View only SCR wineries	Pre/ Post WDO	Capacity gal/yr	Visitors/ yr	Emp- loyees	^Trips/ day	dist. from Hwy	dist. on dead-end	VMT/yr from Hwy
1	Kongsgaard WInery	2005	12,000	0	6	19	9.3	9.3	64,496
2	Ripe Winery	2005	1,500	1,856	2	10	9.0	9.0	32,850
3	Alta Vineyard Cellar	1979	5,000	208	4	13	8.9	8.9	42,231
4	Vin Roc Winery	2004	18,000	416	2	7	8.0	8.0	20,440
5	Antica Napa Valley	1987	450,000	5,200	20	80	6.6	6.6	192,720
6	Astrale e Terra	1988	20,000	0	3	10	6.6	6.6	24,090
7	Amizetta Winery	1984	12,000	0	3	9	6.3	6.3	20,696
8	Mountain Peak	2017	100,000	14,575	21	97	6.1	6.1	215,971
9	La Vallette Winery	1988	20,000	0	2	6	5.5	5.5	12,045
10	Buehler Vineyards	1978	50,000	0	3	10	5.3	5.3	19,345
11	Relic Winery	2010	20,000	4,458	4	22	4.2	4.2	33,726
12	Porter Vineyards	2002	12,000	120	1	4	4.1	4.1	5,986
13	The Caves at Soda Canyon	2006	30,000	4,960	4	23	4.0	4.0	33,580
14	Seavey Vineyards	1988	20,000	362	2	7	3.9	3.9	9,965
15	MJA Winery	1988	15,000	4,320	3	19	4.9	3.8	33,982
16	Eeden Vineyards	2006	15,000	546	2	8	3.3	3.3	9,636
17	V-12 Winery	2009	22,500	2,127	3	14	3.2	3.2	16,352
18	Cain Winery	1981	59,000	0	6	19	6.2	2.6	42,997
19	Lodestone Winery	2011	20,000	13,130	10	59	2.5	2.5	53,838
20	Black Sears Winery	2017	20,000	6,200	3	23	9.2	2.5	77,234
21	Continuum Winery	2002	28,000	1,178	16	52	2.5	2.5	47,450
22	David Arthur Vineyards	1984	30,000	3,197	4	19	2.5	2.5	17,338
23	Fontanella Winery	2006	30,000	740	4	14	4.3	2.2	21,973
24	Brand Napa Valley	2009	10,000	7,486	6	34	1.8	1.8	22,338
25	White Rock Vineyards	1987	20,000	0	2	6	1.7	1.7	3,723
26	Stony Hill Vineyard	1964	8,700	208	6	19	1.7	1.7	11,790
27	Kuleto Estate	1998	75,000	450	3	11	1.7	1.7	6,826
28	Rogers Winery	2011	30,000	6,450	2	20	2.7	1.5	19,710
29	Hess Collection Winery	1986	1,000,000	34,940	35	198	5.9	1.3	426,393
30	Mayacamus Winery	1944	50,000	0	11	34	10.8	1.2	134,028
31	Outpost Winery	1987	50,000	9,685	10	52	8.9	1.2	168,922
32	Newton Vineyards	1979	130,000	2,600	8	32	2.1	1.2	24,528
33	Caldwell Winery	2004	25,000	2,350	2	12	3.5	1.0	15,330
34	Keever Vineyard	2003	10,000	2,084	2	11	0.9	0.9	3,614
35	Roy Estates	2002	12,000	2,710	2	12	0.9	0.9	3,942
36	Gardona Winery	2009	20,000	1,061	2	9	0.9	0.9	2,957
37	Behrens Family Winery	1998	10,000	0	0	0	6.2	0.8	0
38	Lagier Meredith Vineyard	2004	5,000	1,040	1	5	7.0	0.7	12,775
39	Palmaz Vineyards	2001	35,000	18,330	3	48	2.7	0.5	47,304
40	3646 SMR Vineyards	2016	20,000	4,950	10	41	4.7	0.5	70,336
41	Schweiger Vineyards	1994	20,000	2,621	1	9	5.7	0.4	18,725
42	The Vineyardist	2006	20,000	1,340	2	9	1.6	0.4	5,256
43	Neal Family Winery	2000	35,000	2,120	2	11	6.0	0.3	24,090
44	Arkenstone Vineyards	2003	60,000	11,628	10	56	5.3	0.3	108,332
45	Dunn Vineyards	1982	20,000	260	5	16	7.7	0.1	44,968
46	Chappellet++	1969	250,000	38,810	30	178	4.1		266,377
47	Diamond Mountain Winery	1994	10,000	1,520	2	9	3.4		11,169
48	Eagle Eye Winery	2011	30,000	7,276	9	43	7.3		114,574
49	Castlevale Winery	2018	30,000	7,387	4	28	4.2		42,924
50	Manville Lake Winery	1998	59,000	11,220	10	55	6.3		126,473
51	Ladera WInery	1985	150,000	4,260	13	51	5.0		93,075
52	William Hill Winery	1987	750,000	13,000	8	65	1.5		35,588
53	Oakville Grade Win (Harlan II)	1981	144,000	36,400	21	143	1.2		62,634
54	Cade Winery	2006	30,000	4,650	6	29	4.6		48,691
55	Fantesca Estate	2000	30,000	6,405	8	38	1.5		20,805
56	Wing Canyon Vineyard	1991	12,500	0	0	0	8.1		0
57	Anthem Winery	1996	30,000	260	0	1	3.5		1,278
58	Kenzo Winery	2005	85,000	5,450	10	44	1.3		20,878
59	Spring Mountain Vineyards	1968	20,000	0	1	3	1.2		1,314
60	Lokoya Vineyards	1965	50,000	4,360	10	41	4.5		67,343
61	Pope Valley Vineyards	1972	20,000	1,040	4	15	13.8		75,555
62	Calla Lily Estate	2008	16,000	4,330	3	19	13.2		91,542
63	Burgess Cellars	1972	60,000	0	5	16	2.5		14,600
64	Volker Eisele Family Estate	1990	20,000	0	0	0	2.8		0
65	Merus Wines	2002	20,000	6,630	4	27	2.1		20,696
66	Vaider Vineyards	1992	32,000	324	4	13	2.9		13,761
67	Adamvs	2003	20,000	8,321	3	27	6.5		64,058
68	Jericho Canyon Winery	2002	2,000	900	2	8	1.1		3,212
69	Wallis Family Estate	2010	30,000	5,841	4	25	0.9		8,213
70	Von Strasser Winery	1979	25,000	1,480	4	16	0.9		5,256
71	Woolls Ranch	2013	50,000	22,840	10	80	4.0		116,800
72	Reverie Winery	1995	9,200	5,640	5	27	0.9		8,870
73	White Cottage Ranch	2013	20,000	13,257	10	59	6.8		146,438
74	Diogenes Ridge Winery	2014	30,000	5,700	10	43	5.8		91,031
75	Vineyard 22	2010	10,000	18,200	2	45	3.1		50,918
			Capacity gal/yr	Visitors/ yr	Emp- loyees	Trips/ day	dist. from Hwy	dist. on dead-end	VMT/yr from Hwy
	Average Average, post-WDO only		62,438 24,930	5,363 5,032	6	30	4.5	* 2.9
	Median		20,000	2,475	4	21	4.1	* 2.5
	Mountain Peak Winery		100,000	14,575	21	97	6.1	6.1	215,971
	Totals		4,720,400	411,407	455	2,337			3,848,889

^ Trips/day calculated from County weekday trip generation formulas
* null values excluded


Of all 70+ remote wineries, Mountain Peak is almost entirely in the top 10%

• Capacity: 7th higest.
  • 1.7 x the average capacity (3 very large wineries skew average)
  • 5 x the median capacity
  • All wineries with a greater capacity than Mountain Peak are pre-WDO.
  • Second most vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
• Visitation: 6th highest
  • 2.5 x the average visitation
  • 6x the median visitation
• Employees: 3rd highest
• Trips/day: 3rd highest
  • 3 x the average trips per day
  • 9 x the median trips per day
• Distance from hwy: 21st
  • 2 miles further from a major highway than average
  • Of those 20 further, it has the most visitation
• Distance on Dead End road: 8th.
  • 3 miles further up a dead end road than average.
  • Of the 7 further, it has the most visitation by far (2.5 x)

Of 44 Post-WDO remote wineries

• Capacity : largest capacity of post-wdo remote wineries
• 3 times the average capacity
• Visitation: 4th largest
• The most vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

Of 9 Soda Canyon Road Wineries

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

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

Notes of Interest:

The Hess Winery jumps out as representing the development extent possible, in capacity, visitation and non-agricultural activity in the watersheds. The William Hill and Antica Winery, built about the same time, are the second and third largest wineries in the watersheds. All 3 were built shortly before the the discussions leading to the 1990 WDO, and they might be seen as examples of the unregulated winery expansion trend that the WDO was meant to address. Antica, then called Whitbred, was met with considerable neighborhood opposition.

The 3 post WDO visitation standouts

Woolls Ranch (approved in 2013) is the visitation leader in post-WDO remote wineries. It was vehemently opposed by the residents of Mt. Veeder Road, and as such is very comparable to Mountain Peak, representing the current discretion of the County in promoting the interests of one good-life entrepreneur over a community of impacted residents in the shift from wineries as production facilities to remote and scenic entertainment venues.

The Palmaz winery is the second highest in post-WDO visitation. Another good life plutocrat (who just can't seem to stop causing grief for his neighbors, the County and the Napa citizenry) also vigorously opposed by the neighborhood when it was proposed.

And Vineyard 22? A 10000 g/y winery with 350 vis/wk visitation? What's with that?

---

Share this topic