Big vineyard plans for east side of valley
Five sites totaling more than 1,000 acres in planning stages
By MIKE TRELEVEN
Register Business Editor
November 23rd, 2009
November 22nd, 2009
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.
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.
informed wrote on Feb 9, 2009 5:37 AM:
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:
ranchgirl wrote on Feb 9, 2009 8:03 AM:
dominus wrote on Feb 9, 2009 9:02 AM:
Cadence wrote on Feb 9, 2009 10:14 AM:
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:
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:
redtailhawk wrote on Feb 9, 2009 11:53 AM:
DowntownSupporter wrote on Feb 9, 2009 12:13 PM:
reason-ator wrote on Feb 9, 2009 12:46 PM:
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:
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:
msetty wrote on Feb 9, 2009 3:31 PM:
matt68 wrote on Feb 9, 2009 3:40 PM:
outahere wrote on Feb 9, 2009 4:23 PM:
109823 wrote on Feb 9, 2009 5:19 PM:
misfit wrote on Feb 9, 2009 6:39 PM:
delphi wrote on Feb 9, 2009 7:08 PM:
dellasumbrella wrote on Feb 9, 2009 9:49 PM:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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. "