Napa County explains controversial Le Colline vineyard rejection
Berry Eberling • 11.07.23
The Napa County Board of Supervisors is explaining in depth its controversial decision to overturn administrative approval of the proposed Le Colline vineyards in the mountains near Angwin.
On Aug. 15, the board, by a 3-2 vote, said it intended to uphold an appeal against the project filed by the Center for Biological Diversity. On Tuesday, it made the decision official by a similar vote.
Supervisors Anne Cottrell, Joelle Gallagher and Belia Ramos voted to overturn the Le Colline approval made by the Planning, Building and Environmental Services department. Supervisors Ryan Gregory and Alfredo Pedroza dissented.
Various environmental groups and local environmentalists welcomed the board's decision as a rare win for tougher watershed protections that they favor and perhaps the start of a new direction. The Napa County Farm Bureau and Winegrowers of Napa County questioned whether the county is following its agriculture-protecting policies.
Signs have appeared at some locations in recent weeks accusing Cottrell, Ramos and Gallagher as being anti-farming and, in at least one case, corrupt. It's unclear who posted the signs.
For their part, supervisors tried to ease any angry feelings that might be lingering in the community.
Cottrell thanked Gregory and Pedroza for their thoughtful and respectful comments during the August deliberations. Pedroza said that, while he disagrees with the board majority's Le Colline decision, he respects it.
"At this level behind this dais, this decision has remained respectful and courteous and professional. ... That isn't the case necessarily in other spaces," Ramos said.
The board adopted a 23-page resolution. It decertified the Le Colline project's environmental impact report by Analytical Environmental Services — which found no significant impacts with mitigations — and rescinded the project’s erosion control plan.
Le Colline was to include 20 acres of vineyards that, with such features as vineyard roads, required 28 acres of grading on 88 acres in the mountains near Angwin. It became the second erosion control plan appealed in a decade and the first during that period to be overturned by the Board of Supervisors.
It remains to be seen if rejecting Le Colline has implications for future vineyard projects in the watershed, or if it proves a special case.
"The board affirms the importance of agriculture and its foundational significance toward maintaining the county's rural character and economic vitality," the resolution said.
However, the board found a need to balance agriculture with the preservation of open spaces. To back up the board's decision, the resolution cited 14 county conservation policies and goals that it said the environmental impact report failed to identify.
The resolution mentioned the "unique setting and particular features" of the site.
“It is not about whether vineyards are a good or bad use of land,” the resolution said. “It’s about a project’s location and about what is an appropriate use of land when a project is located in proximity to important and sensitive resources.”
Unique features cited include the adjacent Linda Falls Preserve and nearby headwaters of Conn Creek that drain to the city of Napa’s Lake Hennessey reservoir, five miles away.
Also, the Le Colline property on Cold Springs Road is near the town of Angwin at the north end of Douglas fir forest, a vegetation type that covers only 3% of the county, the resolution said.
“The general plan recognizes that a large part of Angwin’s community character is derived from its rural woody setting and the importance of retaining the special features of this geographic area when reviewing development projects,” it said.
This area is a wildlife corridor and has bears, deer, bobcats, foxes and other creatures. The vineyard project would “punch an approximately 27-acre hole" in an important ecosystem, it said.
“At the appeal hearing, local biologist Jake Rugyt opined that vineyards are a monoculture that provides habitat for invasive plant species which further threatens biodiversity," the resolution said.
Le Colline owner Dave DiCesaris previously said vineyard operations would generate net zero greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed project included using electric tractors and an electric van to transport workers and planting 650 trees.
But the resolution said Gallagher at the Aug. 15 hearing asked the applicant's representatives whether vegetation cleared to develop the vineyard could be burned. The answer was “yes.”
The environmental impact report is inadequate in part because it failed to consider greenhouse gas emissions from burning up to 27 acres of vegetation, the resolution said.
Erosion is another issue, even though an erosion control plan is designed to curb the problem through such features as diversion ditches and basins.
The resolution cited a public statement from Marty Ralph of the Scripps Institution's Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes that climate change will likely result in stronger storms. Stronger storms mean more runoff.
Fifteen watercourses flow through the Le Colline property, including Conn Creek, which feeds Lake Hennessey reservoir, the resolution said.
“Concerns regarding the potentially devastating effects from a potential failure of erosion control measures were expressed in numerous comments from members of the public, including residents of Napa,” it said, citing the local Sierra Club, climate change activist Jim Wilson, vintner Elizabeth Novak and others.
The resolution noted that Napa Mayor Scott Sedgley and City Councilmembers Mary Luros and Liz Alessio wrote a letter expressing concerns that Le Colline could harm Lake Hennessey water quality. The city withdrew the letter after Farm Bureau accused them of violating state open meeting laws.
That retraction doesn’t affect the Board of Supervisor’s decision, given others expressed the same concerns, the resolution said.
Ryan Klobas, CEO of the Napa County Farm Bureau, on Monday told the Napa Valley Register that he read the Board of Supervisors resolution, and that it does nothing to alleviate the Farm Bureau's concerns.
Napa County had in Le Colline a project that had been in the works for more than a decade, met county standards and was approved by county staff, until three supervisors moved the goalposts at the last minute, Klobas said.
He wasn’t satisfied by the resolution’s argument that Le Colline is a unique site. The decision has implications that go beyond the site — there are elected officials who don’t understand agriculture, according to Klobas.
Le Colline owner DiCesaris didn't attend Tuesday's hearing. The Register contacted him by email on Monday.
"I am on the East Coast for most of this week and have no comment on the board’s resolution or it’s pending action denying our project," he said.
Erosion control plans at a glance
What are they?
Napa County requires erosion control plans for vineyards that need grading and earthmoving on slopes steeper than 5%.
How many are being sought?
Numbers are ever-changing, but the Napa County current project data base lists 35.
How big are the projects?
The biggest is the KJS & Sorrento vineyards, recently approved for 81 acres of vineyards within a 112-acre total development area. But most are in the 1- to 20-acre range.
What is the total acreage?
About 370 acres of vineyards and a total development area of about 475 acres, though information is not available for a few listings.
How many trees would be cut down?
Several thousand oaks and conifers on at least 119 acres. Applicants would have to mitigate for lost trees through plantings and preservation of other trees.