 |
 |
By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously approved an emergency halt to new vineyards and orchards on forested slopes and hilltops.
The four-month freeze was prompted by a wave of new vineyard projects and a need to update 12-year-old farming regulations that don’t deal with tree removal, officials said.
County Agricultural Commissioner Tony Linegar called that loophole a “deficiency” in the current rules.
“We’ve seen proposals that would remove a significant number of trees on steep slopes. I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to know that that is going to affect erosion,” said Linegar, who assumed his post last month.
Grape growers and agriculture leaders provided guarded support for the move, with some saying they recognized the need to revise rules implemented in 2000. Those regulations allow development of hillside vineyards on slopes up to 50 percent, but contain no restrictions on tree removal.
“We understand that even the best rules over time need adjustment,” said John Holdredge, board president of the Russian River Valley Winegrowers.
Still, many wine industry representatives voiced concern over the possibility of tighter regulations, saying they could impact the local economy and be a blow to smaller vineyard operations.
“I ask the process to be cognizant of that specific issue,” said Pete Opatz, vice president of Napa-based Silverado Premium Properties, which manages more than 5,000 acres of grapes in the region and vineyards on the Central Coast.
Environmentalists and others who have questioned the reach of vineyards into previously untilled country welcomed the move.
“I’ve watched the cumulative impact of ridgelines that are stripped of trees and (replaced) by vineyards,” said Bonnie Berkeley, who lives above Dry Creek Valley.
“This is the perfect time to pause and assess the (effect on) forested ridgetops and slopes.”
Tuesday’s decision, before a packed audience, sets up what is likely to be the continuation of a decades-long debate over the proper reach of the region’s world-famous vineyards and how they are regulated.
The results could have far-reaching implications.
Two Annapolis-area proposals call for the conversion of more than 1,900 acres of forest into land for wine grapes.
County officials have suggested those two projects — the 146-acre Artesa Vineyard proposal and the 1,769-acre Preservation Ranch project — would be subject to any updated regulations, as well as existing state and county rules governing timber-to-vineyard conversions.
In the short term, the moratorium would affect seven pending vineyard projects covering 341 acres in western and northern Sonoma County. Artesa’s proposal, which is further along than Preservation Ranch, is the largest in the affected group.
Others include the 122-acre project put forward on Skaggs Springs Road by Healdsburg vintners Ken and Diane Wilson of Wilson Winery and a 40-acre proposal off Bodega Highway outside Sebastopol by Kistler Vineyards.
Ken Wilson, contacted Monday by phone, said he was undecided on his stance on the moratorium. He said his property was mostly open land, with groves of oaks and madrones that would require removal.
“There’s issues on both sides,” Wilson said, adding “slopes have to be looked at carefully.”
Also on the the list of pending projects is the 10.7-acre Pocket Canyon vineyard proposed by vintner Paul Hobbs.
Last year, Hobbs was is the news in connection with tree clearing for vineyards on a trio of properties. The work was permitted in two cases. In the third, the clearing of the Pocket Canyon property, Hobbs did not have the proper permits, a mistake he has acknowledged.
County officials have insisted Hobbs’ actions did not prompt the moratorium and that they were looking instead at the overall number of new projects, especially the larger proposals and some not yet in the application line.
Hobbs, for his part, says he favors some tighter regulations.
“Hopefully it doesn’t put an end to small hillside vineyards because that would be a shame,” he said.
“But massive industrial plantings, those days should be over.”
In 2000, the board implemented what was known as the Vineyard Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, or VESCO. The rules were touted as a hard-won consensus on vineyard development, but the omission of tree removal from the rules immediately led some environmental advocates to question their strength. At least one grape grower at the time said the ordinance amounted to a “shellacking” for the environmental community.
On Tuesday, several board members agreed it was time to update the rules.
Supervisors Mike McGuire, Shirlee Zane and Valerie Brown voiced the strongest support for the moratorium, which would extend through May.
“I do think it is time for a temporary time out,” McGuire said. He cited what he said was a push by vineyards into unfarmed woodlands.
“The reason (for the update) is the landscape has changed,” he said.
Zane echoed his comments. “Bad projects give a good industry a black eye,” she said.
Supervisors David Rabbitt and Efren Carrillo voiced more concern over the pause, with Rabbitt questioning the urgency behind the move.
“You don’t want to change rules midstream,” he said. “It think we could have dealt with this on an ongoing basis.”
Carrillo opposed a suggestion by McGuire to set up a group of growers and environmental representatives to provide input on the rule update. He said he wanted the update to be driven by “science not politics” and that he preferred the agricultural commissioner have flexibility to choose how public comment is gathered.
Linegar told supervisors he planned to hold a series of meetings to solicit public feedback.
The proposed regulations are due back to the board April 24.
Regardless of the moratorium, county rules prevent much grading and vineyard development work in the wet season. Environmental leaders, citing those limits and what they said was a need for more in-depth study, called for a longer moratorium and broader public process.
Supervisors resisted those calls, signaling they would not support any longer freeze on vineyard applications.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
@Jackson – You think farmers want to destroy the environment on which our likelihood depends? Seriously? Fortunately I am protected from your collectivist clap-trap by the Constitution. It will have the last word.
(BTW – if you want to see real environmental destruction, keep on making it harder for farmers to make a living. The developers who will get the land have real power and know how to use it)
The Farm Bureau strikes back.
It’s not hard to recognize the FB “Property Rights” mantra in the responses from Fed-up and Smoke. The FB may be more moderate in their public statements in Sonoma County, but Fed-Smoke attitude prevails in the organization that promotes the “none of your business if I want to cut-down and plow-under” policies natiowide.
Sonoma County is different from Fresno – we actually care about the quality of life here 50 years from now, and know it will be a balance of economic and cultural values. The public supports that balance and the BOS enacts legislation to ensure it. This time-out will help clarify how the balance can be achieved.
The current BOS is a break from the past, it does not take orders from any single industry or pressure group.
The 5-0 vote to support the moratorium is a signal to the property rights groups that times have changed, and you will no longer be getting your way without consideration of other’s rights.
Those of you who would destroy the environment for your own profit are conducting your own “Take” from us. You should not be “shocked” that there is now some pushback towards balance.
Thanks Steve Klausner-you’re absolutely right. I used to drive Bennett Valley Road daily to and from Sonoma State way back when. Even the wettest flooding years it NEVER FLOODED. Now even a minor flooding event floods the road. On the South side of Grange Road they pulled out trees, and rock formations, and vernal pools, put down plastic to fumigate with poison, then planted acres and acres of vines. The beauty of that field in the spring with blue lupine covering it is long gone. It was my pleasure to come over the hill from school to that glorious sight.
We have enough grapevines, we don’t need to put even more in extreme environmental sensitive areas.
@Relax – You’ve turned the notion of Due Process on its head. It protects the landowner from the heavy hand of government, not visa-versa as you seem to think. The Supreme Court has repeated ruled that while land use and zoning restrictions are Constitutional, they must be rational and the least restrictive to accomplish their end. A total ban on clearing for the stated purpose of erosion control does not meet that test. I dare say the total root stock of a vineyard far exceeds that of the sparse oak and madrone that populates most of our hillsides. Terracing and mustard provide improved erosion protection. As LittleOlWinemaker pointed out, landowners are perfectly capable of preventing their soil from washing away.
While we are on the subject of Supreme Court rulings, there is ample case law to protect the landowners from these kind of restrictions. If the County is shown to be abusing their rule making authority as a ruse to preserve an aesthetic value at the expense of the landowners right to beneficial use of his property, it amounts to a Taking as defined by the Constitution and the owner is entitled to just compensation. That, my friend, is Due Process.
FedUp,
You still haven’t answered my question
“the questions at hand just because the “Owner” owns the land can he develop it however he wants”.
For time reasons I’m going to assume that you believe in the “absolute rights” as property owner.(Even to “discriminate”)
At the time you purchased your property or received it by inheritance you signed a “binding agreement” that you would adhere to all local municipalities, (here is the kicker) “Applicable Laws” and future ones. Don’t believe me? Go and read your “Deed of Trust”.
These kinds of agreement have been around longer than the both us which are founded on the 5th amendment (here is the kicker again) “Due process”.
The reason why you haven’t been deprived of life, liberty, or “your” property rights is because your property limitations were “disclosed” to you at signing then the property was being conveyed to you.(which is then recorded with county)
(it seems to me you want to make up your own rules)
Under your ideology of “Property Rights” which cannot be ubiquitous with your neighbor’s because someone is bound to get the short end of the stick.
I hear that the largest democracy on the planet is India were they have a caste system and the mob rules. I would rather be living here in a “Republic” where there is “due process”, liberty and justice for “all”.
I just want to know exactly how many grapes we need, and how much wine we nee?. Especially when “you” tell us to end alcoholism and that should mean we need less alcohol.
Has anyone flown over the County lately? I have to agree that it is disgusting what has happened to our landscape – hills, mountains and valleys. More and more it is vineyards instead of graing land and Redwood trees.
And while having vineyards in place instead of forests may help diminish the illegal pot farms, it really has changed Sonoma County and all the diversity in landscape. It’s really sad.
That being said, I do believe that we should all have a right to do what we want with the property we are paying for and paying taxes on. Unfortunately, a lot of these vineyards are owned by the elitists who create LLC’s and don’t care if they make or lose money on the crops. After all…it’s a tax write off.
I live on Sonoma Creek and what you do upstream can impact me. Used to be it had to rain for a week before the water came up, now it is hours. The spawning gravel is covered with sediment. can’t you all just tread a little lighter?
In my opinion, Berkeley grad.environmental attorney turned politician Efren Carillo did not trash Paul Hobbs sufficiently to appease his radical left supporters who want to control everyone elses property, and lives.
That’s what this is about despite protestations.
Paul Hobbs did not yet own one of the properties when it was being cleared.
It was a Christmas tree farm consisting of trees that were planted to be cut down!
I don’t even know Paul Hobbs, but I find the dog pile on him based on Jenkel’s and Carillo’s opinions and the P.D. articles to be group-think and often inacurate.
@Let’s Relax – Let me make sure I’m reading you. You honestly believe that I should be deprived of the beneficial use of my own property because _you_ prefer views of redwood trees to vineyards? And this from someone who claims to be “huge proponent of owners rights”. I’d hate to hear the views of someone who just moderately believes in property rights. But thanks for saying straight up what this (and a hundred other anti-ag rulings in this county) is really about. Erosion control is just the latest in a long string of smoke screens designed to hide the real agenda which is to make me use my property for your benefit without compensation.
@Smoke and Mirrors,
“I thumbs you up” but it takes a few sour grapes to spoil the bunch, no pun intended.
Paul Hobbs was in the “news in connection with tree clearing for vineyards”. It’s cowboys like him thats ruining it for the rest who are doing it right. Go and look at the property which the article is referencing to and you’ll see he has CLEAR cut all the tree which used to be there. Because of this I know I’ll never drink his wine, I’ll make sure my friends and family do the the same. I support those who managing their land responsibly.
Was the pause button pressed or was it really the panic button? The retired vineyard coordinator didn’t have the tools or the skill set to do an inspection for the VESCO program? Wasn’t this the inspector that retired with a $20,000 bonus, is paid her pension of $78,000 and now is paid a managers salary of up to $98,000 to do inspections of private property for soil erosions? Who is impacted? A long time farmer may loose out on selling his property so he can downsize to the next chapter in his life… due to a mandated freeze? While tree removal and it’s impact on the environment should be evaluated and a concern.. This could have been handled in a more professional way with ongoing meetings with the community instead of this panic stricken dog and pony show…. Was it appropriate to list names and addresses of each grower with an application pending? Will these people now be unnecessarily harrassed?
FedUp,
there’s two sides to every story. Yes you have the right to the enjoyment of your property “which I am huge proponent of owners rights” but just for an example if you had a rural neighbor who wanted to build a high rise condo complex next to yours I believe most rural owners would take offense and not take it lying down in fact they would fight against it. So the questions at hand just because the “Owner” owns the land can he develop it however he wants (sewer pound, dump, etc)? I believe as good neighbors we should all have long term goal for the common good for the community, culture and landscape as a whole not to serve just special interest.
Whats helped sustain Sonoma county’s attributes are the green belt policies that are in place. Sonoma County is such a beautiful getaway for so many people and a wonderful place to rise a family .But over the years driving north as I return home from work on the 101 I see more and more fields being converted into vineyards and once grazing fields. Looking beyond the valley towards Forestville and Healdsburg mountains I can see majestic beauty of the redwoods, Sonoma Counties heritage, generational heritage and hopefully they will be around when my children have children. I will choose redwoods over vineyards any day because you can grow grapes almost anywhere in the world but you can’t with redwoods that takes a special place like Sonoma County.
Supervisors Thank You so much! (Sups? Is a stupid and so uncool abbreviation)
Disclaimer: friends and family are in the wine industry.
As if we landowners just aren’t smart enough to keep our most valuable resource, our soil, from washing away. Gee, how did we ever get along without you slickers all these years? I’m sure glad we now get the benefit of all your years of agricultural experience. Just in the nick of time too. Come on up to the ranch – I got a John Deere and ten foot of chain.
Good Job BOS!
Taking a Timeout to review the development regulations is the right thing to do.
The current 12-year old regulations are inadequate with vineyards now expanding from agricultural land into woodland and watersheds. When vineyard runoff has to be piped off-site and ends-up on a road or silting-up a creek, maybe that is not the best place to plant grapes.
The use of a recognized expert consultant to designate which areas should be left in their natural state is a good solution. The goal is to maintain objectivity based on scientific data, despite the pressures from those with economic or preservation interests. Watch the process and definitions. The validity of the results is the ability for the county to disallow development where it doesn’t belong.
There is still plenty of plantable flat land suitable for agriculture. There is no need to strip ridgelines and watersheds for more acreage.
FedUp :
Careful what you say, friend.
They might send a so called “ranger” out to your house and shoot you in the back with a stun gun tazer like the government did to the man walking his dog a few days ago.
You never know when their self perceived importance might get the best of them.
When you add it all up the Agenda 21 comments are starting to look pretty on target!
The change I’d like to see is for the County Stups to get the hell off my property and out of my life. Last I checked, I owned it and I payed the damned taxes on it. Freedom, that would be quite a change alright.