NAPA COUNTY, Calif. (CN) — Napa County supervisors on Tuesday tentatively blocked a 9-year-old vineyard project after the Center for Biological Diversity argued it violated state environmental laws.
Supervisors in a 3-2 vote agreed with the appeal brought by the environmental advocacy group, calling the location of the proposed Le Colline Vineyard inappropriate. Supervisors Anne Cottrell, Joelle Gallagher and Belia Ramos pointed to the project being situated at the headwaters of Conn Creek.
“We live in an age of climate change,” Cottrell said.
“I just don’t feel that this site is an appropriate venue for this project,” she added later.
Supervisors Ryan Gregory and Alfredo Pedroza voted to deny the appeal and approve the project submitted by Dave and Kathleen DiCesaris.
Tuesday’s vote was tentative, as county counsel must now pen a resolution stating the supervisors’ findings. That resolution is set for a Nov. 7 vote.
Formal findings made by supervisors include biological resource issues, as well as erosion and water concerns. Climate change was cited as an additional factor, as it could impact erosion.
“We were so happy that the community really came out to support this really special site,” said Frances Tinney, an attorney for the center.
The Le Colline Vineyard project — about 20.55 acres on an 88.3-acre property — is located south of Angwin in Napa County. The city of Napa is about 27 miles south of Angwin. The project site is zoned as agricultural watershed.
The project dates to 2014, when an agricultural erosion control plan application was submitted for a 25-acre vineyard within 32.8 acres. In January 2019, a draft environmental impact report was released. That was followed in December 2022 by the final report. In March 2023, county staff approved an impact report with a modified project of 20.55 acres of vines.
The Center for Biological Diversity then appealed to the Board of Supervisors, saying the project violated the California Environmental Quality Act, which brought the issue before Napa County supervisors on Tuesday.
A large contingent of people spoke against the project, many of them wearing light blue shirts with the phrase “Protect Angwin” on them. They urged supervisors to uphold the appeal from the Center for Biological Diversity and deny the vineyard project.
Opponents cited wildfire threats, noise and blocked views from Linda Falls, among other concerns.
Russell Laird said he feared other wells would go dry when a large well for the vineyard is tapped.
“Let’s not rape another section of the forest to satisfy greed and pride,” Laird said.
Mike Hackett told supervisors his main concern was safety, arguing that a majority of wildfires are caused by humans. He added that vehicles must drive past 40 homes along a winding road to reach the project area.
Beth Huning called the environmental impact report inadequate, pointing to the call for electric vehicles and tree plantings as mitigating factors that couldn’t be enforced.
“This is all just hypothetical mitigation that’s unenforceable,” she added.
Scott Butler, a consulting forester, was one of the few people speaking in favor of the vineyard. He said the DiCesaris want to be part of the community.
“We met all the requirements put before us and exceeded most of them,” Butler said.
Attorney Tom Adams, representing the DiCesaris, told supervisors he wanted to refocus the conversation. The project takes up 20 acres of 88 acres and retains 70% of the forestland.
“We believe the opponents have lost perspective,” Adams said.
“This county is about agriculture,” he added.
According to Adams, the project would retain 50% of scrubland, in addition to the forestland. There is a 200-foot minimum setback from streams and an average setback of 335 feet.
Adams said that the changes made to the project incorporate some of the center’s feedback, like the 200-foot setback.
“Well, they got it,” he added. “But that’s not good enough, though.”
Adams said the project is not remote or a “biodiversity hotspot,” but instead in the town of Angwin. It wouldn’t negatively affect protected species. No data shows it would cause water quality issues.
Additionally, Adams said, 9% of greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. Buildings and transportation account for 61%.
“Now they call us green-washers and not sincere people and are trying to pull the wool over our eyes,” he added.
Tinney, speaking earlier that day, said the developer had failed to mitigate the project’s impacts.
“Land like this is part of Napa’s birthright,” she said. “We can’t get natural resources like this back once we lose them.”
According to Tinney, the environmental impact report provided an incomplete biological analysis, understating the amount of emissions from the project and ignored the effect on the view from Linda Falls. The report also incorrectly claimed that converting wild lands to agricultural use would improve runoff and reduce erosion, Tinney added.
“We need erosion protection measures that are robust and resilient,” Tinney said.
The attorney also disputed a claim that planting 650 conifer trees would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Money would be required for their longterm management, as well as a plan for their survival.
County counsel will now compose a resolution including the supervisors' findings of fact. A vote on that resolution is set for Nov. 7, 2023.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. secures spot on California ballot April 29, 2024 -
