Napa County to rule on Le Colline vineyard controversy
Barry Eberling • Napa Valley Register
Napa County supervisors have another wine country growth controversy to resolve — whether to allow Le Colline, a vineyard proposed near the Linda Falls preserve in the mountainous Angwin area.
It’s the latest dispute over removing forest or woodlands and planting vines in the Napa Valley watershed. The question is how to balance agriculture — the primary rural land use under county policy — with the environment.
County Planning, Building and Environmental Services approved the Le Colline erosion control plan on March 24. The Center for Biological Diversity appealed the decision.
At 9 a.m. Tuesday, the county Board of Supervisors will hold the appeal hearing in its chamber at 1195 Third St. in Napa.
“When this is all over, we hope the economics of Le Colline will allow my wife and I to make a living growing grapes and produce a site-specific wine on our property,” applicant Dave DiCesaris told the Napa Valley Register earlier this year.
But the Center for Biological Diversity says the project's environmental impact report is inadequate.
“This is the latest in a long line of vineyard conversions that are seriously damaging Napa's biodiversity,” Frances Tinney of the nonprofit group said earlier this year.
Here is a summary of the dispute.
What is Le Colline?
As approved by the Napa County, Le Colline would be a 20.55-acre vineyard, which is an 18% reduction from the original request. Altogether, about 28 acres would be disturbed, counting access roads. Forest, oak woodland and shrubs would be removed.
Dave and Kathleen DiCesaris proposed the vineyard for their 90-acre property at 300 Cold Springs Road in 2014. The site is in the mountains northeast of St. Helena.
Napa County in 2019 released a 280-page draft environmental impact report for Le Colline and in late 2022 published a 730-page final report. The final study responded to 100 comment letters.
These environmental reports by the consultant Analytical Environmental Services concluded the vineyard creation would result in "less than significant impacts" with mitigations.
What is the controversy?
New vineyards proposed in the Napa Valley watershed are often controversial. But Le Colline has a twist.
Among the issues raised by opponents is the proximity of the Linda Falls preserve on an abutting property. Linda Falls preserve comprises 177 acres where people can hike forested land owned by the Land Trust of Napa County and see Conn Creek tumble over volcanic rocks.
A few dozen emails, letters and postcards received by the county in recent weeks regarding Le Colline show the nature of the objections.
“The significant impacts of this development to the Conn Creek watershed, Linda Falls and Lake Hennessey simply cannot be mitigated,” wrote Beth Novak Milliken of Spottswoode winery. “Once removed, forest and all its benefits to the natural environment are gone forever, irreplaceable.”
Briana Forgie struck a similar tone.
“I have lived in Angwin most of my life and this pristine environment is like nowhere else in the valley,” she wrote. “This project negatively affects many while only one person benefits.”
The appeal by the Center for Biological Diversity is more technical. For example, it said the environmental report incorrectly concluded that the property has no suitable habitat for foothill yellow-legged frogs, California red-legged frogs and California giant salamanders.
What do the proponents say?
In May, Dave and Kathleen DiCesaris sent a letter to Angwin residents giving their side.
Le Colline is a quarter mile upslope from Linda Falls and is not visible from Linda Falls or Linda Falls Trail. Seventy percent of Le Colline's property will remain in its natural state. They will implement water quality monitoring for Conn Creek, they wrote.
“I am a retired commercial lender and all we want to do is settle in the valley to make a living growing grapes on our property,” Dave DiCesaris wrote.
Points of contention
Both the applicants and appellants recently submitted letters to the county. The letters at times form a kind of point-counterpoint.
Tinney of the Center for Biological Diversity was skeptical that the vineyard would reduce wildfire risk, as the final environmental impact report said. In fact, numerous scientific studies show development in highly fire-prone areas increases fire risk, she wrote.
Napa County fails to consider that placing more people, trucks and traffic in this area on a single-lane road would increase the chance of a fire igniting. Such a fire would impair evacuation routes for residents, she continued.
Attorney Thomas Adams, speaking on behalf of Le Colline, wrote that the project doesn’t claim to mitigate fire risk. Nevertheless, that will likely be the case for the project area and Angwin.
“Vineyard development will result in fire risk reduction by decreasing fuel loads and replacing unmanaged wildlands with maintained, irrigated crops,” Adams wrote.
Plus, vineyard avenues will provide firefighters with increased firefighting access, he wrote.
Tinney questioned Dave DiCesaris' claim that vineyard operations will generate net zero greenhouse gas emissions. It isn't substantiated by science and relies on voluntary commitments, such as using electric tractors and an electric van to transport workers and planting 650 trees, she wrote.
Environmental impact report estimates of carbon released from destroying forests and woodlands are too low, according to Tinney. The "misguided" tree-planting program lacks enough detail to determine if it will be effective, with appropriate tree species planted in appropriate places, she wrote.
"If the county is truly committed to implementing projects that effectively mitigate (greenhouse gas emission) impacts," wrote Tinney, "deeper analyses using the best available science and a clearly disclosed plan are needed."
Adams disagreed that greenhouse gas emissions are being lowballed and explained why in technical terms. Among other factors, the project calculations didn’t include credit for greenhouse gases sequestered by the planned vines, he wrote.
The owners voluntarily decided to operate the vineyard with net zero greenhouse gas emissions. This decision is made mandatory through a county condition of approval, Adams wrote.
All of this and more information is before the Board of Supervisors for the appeal hearing. The board packet listed online runs to more than 450 pages, and there are hundreds of more pages available on Le Colline beyond that, if supervisors want to delve yet deeper.