NVR Logo
Big vineyard plans for east side of valley
Five sites totaling more than 1,000 acres in planning stages
Monday, February 09, 2009
Save and Share Share
With no new land for vineyard development on the floor of the Napa Valley, growers are looking up — specifically to the east side of the valley.

Five new vineyard development projects totaling more than 1,000 acres, set on land between Lake Hennessey and Soscol Ridge, are on the drawing board before the Napa County Planning Commission.
One new vineyard already has been given the green light and four others are in various stages of the public comment process.

Stagecoach
The one poised to break ground first is Stagecoach Vineyards, 107 acres of vines in the Rector Canyon watershed between Rector Canyon and Sage Canyon. The property is off Soda Canyon Road.

Dr. Jan Krupp, owner of the Stagecoach project, said about half the acreage will be planted to cabernet sauvignon, along with smaller parcels of petit verdot, malbec, cabernet franc, chardonnay, grenache and syrah.
The plan is to break ground on the vineyard development in early April.

Why this site? “There is great sun exposure and it’s above the fog,” said Krupp. “The property is also sheltered from the heat waves that can scorch the valley floor in the summer.”

Krupp said he expects to grow grapes for fragrant wines that taste good when they are young. “The soils are thin and will stress the vines to produce great wines,” he said.

The Stagecoach environmental report prompted some criticism.

The state Department of Fish and Game wrote a letter warning that the vineyard would “further encroach into wildlife corridors and further impair wildlife movement” in the area. A letter from the California Native Plant Society voiced concern that the development would hurt the prospects for many types of native vegetation and that “genetic flow of many plant species may be interrupted.”

Nonetheless, the county found the property owners had properly mitigated the impacts and approved the Environment Impact Report in August 2008.

Foes Valley

The so-called Circle S Ranch project would plant 337 acres of cabernet sauvignon on land that has been a working cattle ranch for more than 100 years. The site is off Atlas Peak Road in Foss Valley.

A draft environmental report for the Circle S Ranch project is being circulated and the comment period ended in early January, according to Tom Adams, consultant to Circle S developers Premier Pacific Vineyards.

Adams said he hopes vineyard development could begin this summer. “But it might be next year. It all depends on a number of things.

“We plan to do a lot of work that will restore Milliken Creek ... we’ll be taking the cattle off the property ... that should have a major positive impact on water quality and improving the riparian habitat on the creek. We will be establishing a 550-acre oak woodland preserve to guarantee (the oak trees’) longevity,” Adams said.

He also said improvements will be made to the existing roads, which will result in “better water quality, because we are taking care of sediment issues that have been addressed in the (environmental review).”

The improved roads will also provide better access for firefighters should they ever have to fight a wildland fire in the area.

In response to the environmental report, the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council and the Napa County Bike Coalition asked if there will be access for a public-use trail through the property.

The Sierra Club expressed concern that 289 acres of native oak trees would be destroyed for the project.

And the Napa Solano Audubon Society said Circle S Ranch provides nesting and foraging habitat for the white-tailed kite. As recently as the 1970s, prior to the conversion of many slopes on the edge of the valley to vineyards, this species nested in Foss Valley.

State Department of Fish and Game wrote it was “concerned that the project could result in impacts to in-stream resources by the diversion of water from sensitive riparian areas.” In particular, the agency is concerned that there would be impact to the rainbow trout, foothill yellow-legged frog and other aquatic species.

Adams said Premier Pacific is taking steps to address the issues.

“We have put a lot of time and energy to come up with a project that balances environmental concerns with our economic interest in the property. We think we have a balance that is good for everyone,” Adams said. “The key is to preserve the open space that people love in the Napa Valley.”

Soscol Creek

Silverado Premium Properties, based in Napa, has purchased about 2,200 acres, including a portion of Kirkland Ranch near Jamieson Canyon Road and slopes north toward the Syar quarry near Napa.

Beth Painter of Balanced Planning, a consultant on the vineyard development, said she does not want to venture a guess at how many acres will be developed for new vineyards. Many acres of vines already are planted on the property.

“Right now everything is in the planning stages. Nothing has been firmed up ... (we) are still doing a lot of site analysis,” Painter said. “The engineering people are looking at it for erosion control. Nothing has been prepared.”

If Painter had a crystal ball, she said, she is hoping the environmental review process could be done by late spring or early summer “if all goes well with the county.”

Silverado Premium Properties has vineyard properties in Napa, Sonoma and Monterey counties and elsewhere in the state.

Sage Canyon

Rodgers Land & Development of Pleasant Hill is looking to plant about 160 acres on the southwest side of Lake Hennessey, near Silverado Trail and Sage Canyon Road.

Currently, cattle graze on the land in the spring and summer.

Napa County officials have determined that the loss of 121 acres of oak woodland would have no significant adverse biological impacts and that “mitigation may include restoration and or replacement or protection of comparable oak woodlands from development at a 2:1 ratio.”

Draft and supplemental environmental impact reports have been completed and the project is now in the comment phase.

“We are now starting to look at the comments,” said Mary Doyle, the county’s project planner on the development.

Walt Ranch

Craig and Kathryn Hall of Hall Winery in St. Helena are looking to develop 397 acres at the Walt Ranch, between the Circle S Ranch off Atlas Peak Road and Monticello Road in Capell Valley. The property is within the Capell Creek and Milliken Creek watersheds.
25 comment(s)

informed wrote on Feb 9, 2009 5:37 AM:

" Last time I checked, the East side of Napa had problems with over-pumping the aquifer. No concerns about drawing more ground water from an already depleted aquifer?

Perhaps we should find a way to tax the little homeowner to pay for some county water program so the vineyards get treated waste water? Maybe a new tax to drill a well for home owners when their well runs dry could ensure that vineyards get all the water they need. I better get a low-flow shower nozzle so the vineyards will have enough water to run their sprinklers all night. "

harald wrote on Feb 9, 2009 7:48 AM:

" Do these people not understand that we are in a drought? We cannot continue to behave as we have been. We do not need another vineyard depleting our water table and polluting the enviornment with pesiticdes and other spays. There are too many vineyards in this valley anyway. Enough is enough. We will need water for the people, and this will only continue to be a growing and more ominous problem as time goes on. "

ranchgirl wrote on Feb 9, 2009 8:03 AM:

" Read the environmental report about the WALT RANCH!!! It is deplorable what will happen to the fauna and flora AND how the usurping of water will affect the ranchers who live near this so-called development. We are living in drought conditions and the Halls plan to put in big reservoirs! This is outrageous that the planning commission fails to understand the impact. Ditto the others. Shame on the supervisors and planning commission! "

dominus wrote on Feb 9, 2009 9:02 AM:

" Once again money talks loud and clear. We're in a drought that comes around every 150 years or so and these individuals want to cut down trees, clear native vegetation, displace wildlife and drain the existing aquifirs. I'm disgusted with this selfish mentality. "

Cadence wrote on Feb 9, 2009 10:14 AM:

" Oh c'mon, you water worriers.
Don't make me laugh so early in the day!
These vineyards will happen. You have been repeatedly warned that without vines and tourists, the Napa Valley will become home to thousands and thousands of new residents. Homes will be built everywhere, and you don't want that.
So, stock up on those low flow toilets and showers and maybe some nicely done framed photos of flowing water to tickle your memories... "

Econut wrote on Feb 9, 2009 10:15 AM:

" TREES NOT VINES!!! Acording to Emily Heaton, doctoral student in the UC Berkeley Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, vineyards in Napa County expanded from 32,715 acres in 1990 to 45,136 acres in 2006. That's 776 new acres of vineyards per year. 776 fewer acres of trees and wildlife habitat. That's 776 more acres per year of irrigation, soil erosion, fertilizers and pesticides. 776 acres of land requiring more workers, more trucks and cars, more traffic--without new homes or roads. Do we really need more?

Agriculture is extremely harsh on the environment. Vintners basically attempt to eradicate all but ONE species from their land--and it's not a staple food item. We should establish a new category of property zoning called "forest" and require the same level of public scrutiny and environmental study that are required from developers. If we're going to limit population growth we must also limit economic growth. SAY NO TO AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION!!! "

kbc wrote on Feb 9, 2009 10:22 AM:

" If you want somone else to not be able to do anything with their land then buy it and do nothing with it! "

redtailhawk wrote on Feb 9, 2009 11:53 AM:

" Let's just hope the economic depression puts these plans on hold indefinatly, so the flora and fauna can live unidisturbed. Don't these winery/vineyard owners get that people aren't going to be buying $100+ bottles of cab anymore - those days are long gone - hello two buck chuck...I like how the supervisors can say that clear cutting and ripping hundreds of acres of native oak forest will have "no adverse effects"?? I guess it doesn't if your a multi-millionaire living in a mansion in the hills, but I'm pretty sure some creatures may depend on this habitat... "

DowntownSupporter wrote on Feb 9, 2009 12:13 PM:

" Vineyards, Longs, and Starbucks: We need more. Trees, creeks, open space, parks, habitat for critters, pave them. Kudos for the planning commision and supervisors. "

reason-ator wrote on Feb 9, 2009 12:46 PM:

" Pesticides and other toxic chemicals in a watershed ?

And that's OK ? We can plan to do that ? Geez, when I was a kid we weren't even allowed to hike in the watershed, and now they can plow and pollute it ?

If there is no more room for vineyards on the valley floor, how about the growers buying some houses and planting there.... "

informed wrote on Feb 9, 2009 3:12 PM:

" Planning commission and Supervisors:
You have a water-war on your hands. The Vineyards VS. the small homeowner. I will not accept ANY water restrictions on the homeowner as long as you continue to allow the vineyards and golf courses unrestricted access to the water table. I feel a local ballot initiative backed by the Sierra Club coming this way. Either fix the problem, or the voter will..... "

misfit wrote on Feb 9, 2009 3:12 PM:

" Gee KBC...do you really think it is okay for these individuals to negatively impact the environment, the water table, the flora and fauna in the area to grow more grapes? It is time for everyone who opposes this BS to DO something about it. Enough already. Just wait 'til that glassy winged sharpshooter decides to make a visit. Maybe, everything will balance out then. I personally, will give a rip. "

msetty wrote on Feb 9, 2009 3:31 PM:

" It might interest most of the people here is that many of these megavineyards have been promised financing from California PERS, e.g., the state and local government retirement system. Assuming that such investments aren't curtailed by the existing Bush economic depression. "

matt68 wrote on Feb 9, 2009 3:40 PM:

" These projects WILL happen. That's because the county planners and supes don't care about the average person, or the environment for that fact, unless it suits their needs. I can't wait to get outta here. "

outahere wrote on Feb 9, 2009 4:23 PM:

" It is ok to clear cut oak forests to plant vineyards, but try to cut down one oak in Yountville and there is a major uproar. I don't get it. "

109823 wrote on Feb 9, 2009 5:19 PM:

" The east side of the valley is already deprived of water and the last time we were low on rainfall the Coomsville area wells were pulling up mud. Makes sense to me to put more vineyards in so we can reap all those benefits again. Our commisions never fail to amaze me it's like nothing matters but wine and tourists. Noboby seems to care about the consequences to homeowners or impact on the environment. "Project is now in the comment phase" OK here's a comment how bout just replacing a winery when one closes down instead of mass producing them until we ruin our eco system, drained all the water out of the ground and poisoned the soil with pesticides. "

misfit wrote on Feb 9, 2009 6:39 PM:

" Might be time for a tree sitting. Maybe now, it hits home and suddenly makes sense. "

delphi wrote on Feb 9, 2009 7:08 PM:

" You bloggers need an education. The Supes and the Planning Commission and the Planning Dept and RCD all need to follow county ordinances and the GENERAL PLAN which states, thanks to the Farm Bureau, that AGRICULTURE IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE LAND. Sierra Club/Farm Bureau already put 160 acre minimum parcel sizes in the hillsides so what else do you expect the land owners to do except plant grapes? Are they going to preserve it for your benefit at their expense? Can you afford to to lose that much money? If you want it your way do what the land owners did, BUY IT. The other thing you people don't understand is riparian rights or "water laws" to those of youthat need an education. There is not enough space to provide an education on this subject but suffice it to say the vineyard owners get to keep their own water. Check out the laws. I'll bet you all voted to extend the "Ag Preserve Ordinance", which is a good thing, so this is the consequence. Quit complaining, understand the General Plan and the water laws, and be happy land owners can only plant grapes. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Feb 9, 2009 9:49 PM:

" The Walt & Circle S properties are actually not on the eastern side of the valley; they are in the eastern hills of Napa County -- as in watershed lands that provide water for Napa. The vineyards would stretch from Atlas Peak down into the canyon past Milliken Reservoir and up to the ridge above Circle Oaks. Since there's not enough water on the Circle Oaks side of the watershed, water will probably have to be pumped from the Milliken watershed side for the vineyards. And I wonder how long it will be before luxury homes are built there as well.

It is unfortunate that forested watershed lands, which are crucial not only to residents but to the very agriculture we're trying to preserve, were not protected and given a designation as important as ag lands. Unfortunately, there is a belief that often drives land use planning that nothing has value unless we can directly make money off it. So those speculators who bought land to make money tend to have more rights than the downstream folk who just need water, unless we keep speaking up, as many are here, about the need for our water and the watershed lands that are needed to provide it. "

zanchin wrote on Feb 9, 2009 10:49 PM:

" Correction:
I believe that Fish and Game is concerned about the impacts on the"California red legged frog" not the "foothill yellow-legged frog." "

delphi wrote on Feb 9, 2009 11:00 PM:

" Della
Building luxury homes is none of your business if done wthin the existing county regulations. As to "watershed" the county designation is Ag Watershed, which can be planted if county regulations are followed. Again, I refer you to the General Plan. No need to speak up, the General Plan is good for 20 years, what you need to do is BUY UP. Put your money where your mouth is and do what the current owners did, buy the property. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Feb 10, 2009 9:21 AM:

" delphi --

I agree with your first post and your suggestion that we need to buy up the properties we want to preserve. I suppose if everyone who opposes rampant vineyard development were to chip in, more properties could be purchased and placed in permanent conservation easements. I'd like like to see that happen.

As for luxury homes, it's ultimately all our business in terms of the impacts on water availability, wildlife habitat & corridors and energy use/carbon emissions. I'm concerned about the proliferation of homes throughout the county which have the potential for disproportionate energy and water consumption, as I'm concerned about fencing, pesticide use and loss of the carbon sink provided by our oak woodlands.

If Napa county can become a showcase for preserving those aspects of nature that sustain us all, we have done a good thing. If we become another Rancho Solano or Altamont, we might have more money in the county. But trees don't grow on money, and we can't sqeeze water out of McMansions. "

delphi wrote on Feb 10, 2009 9:04 PM:

" Della
Your concerns were addressed years ago by the County ordinances. If property is in the County there is a 40 acre minimum parcel size on the valley floor and a 160 acre minimum parcel size on the county hillsides. One residence, consisting of one house and one granny or guest unit is allowed per parcel. We also have a viewshed ordinance in place which requires owners to build their houses below the ridge tops and blend the appearance into the existing landscape. We have lots of regulations to keep us from becoming Rancho Solano or Altamont. Please come up to speed on what has been done to address your concerns and pass this information on to your friends. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Feb 11, 2009 12:04 PM:

" delphi -- Thanks. I appreciate those ordinances and took active part in providing input to the General Plan update and tracking revisions and EIR mitigations. My friends are also pretty closely involved in the process, and most know more about it than I do.

My concern in the county is about long-term, off-paper plans for what are essentially luxury subdivisions not being disclosed when piecemeal requests to the county for development approval are being made. What that boils down to is approval for a segment of a larger project, which larger project would probably not be approved as a whole due to the cumulative impacts on watershed resources, including water and habitat.

It may be a little paranoid, but only a little. And I realize there's little that can be done about it other than buying up property. But that doesn't prevent me from voicing my concerns. "

sasquatch wrote on Feb 16, 2009 10:54 AM:

" To delphi & other "property rights" advocates: you imply that people should be able to develop their land as they choose, telling those with environmental concerns to "buy the land" if they object to uses. But actions taken on private property affect the rest of us. Private landowners can no longer dump toxins into the rivers or pollute the air that others breathe-- at least as much as formerly. But legal gaps remain -- our outmoded California water law doesn't deal effectively with overdrafts on groundwater that leave surrounding properties thirsty; it's not dealing with the damming and diversions of our streams that are destroying the livelihood of commercial fishermnen. This is theft, plain and simple, and our system needs to catch up to it, and effectively manage these resources which transcend individual property lines.
Our water limits are a problem for our community to manage -- it is absurd to suggest that the only way to assure a fair share of groundwater is for an individual to buy up all the property within a 10 mile radius! Or that if salmon fishermen want jobs they need to buy up the entire length of every spawning stream in the State to assure protection. Surely, as a community we have the skills to reach equitable solutions to these problems. "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy