Hidden Valley Lake >> A group of Hidden Valley Lake (HVL) residents, styling themselves the “Residents for Responsible Development” appeared before the Lake County Planning Commission on March 26 to appeal the approved application of a grading permit for some 40 acres of rural land to be used agriculturally as a vineyard. After over two and a half hours of comments from the two parties, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the appeal.
Before their turn to address the commission the group had to wait out early agenda items. The hearing was slated to begin at 10:30 a.m. that morning, but due to the unforeseen amount of time needed to address the day’s first agenda item, concerning water access in south Lakeport, the hearing didn’t actually begin until some time after 2 p.m. The unexpected delay prompted many people who had intended to address the commission on the subject to leave.
As part of the initial application for the grading permit, a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review was conducted and a review prepared with mitigations to determine whether there would be a significant environmental impact on the surrounding area, of which none were found. The HVL group vehemently disagreed with this assessment, however, claiming the installation and presence of the vineyard would significantly affect the quality of air, the personal safety of those living near the site of the vineyard, and greatly reduce the quality and quantity of clean and potable water available within the community. They requested that the applicant be required to obtain an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a hydrology report before being allowed to continue development.
The hearing began by addressing a request for a continuance brought by Tina Wallis, counsel for the applicant, Wild Diamond Vineyards. The applicant requested the continuance be withdrawn however because the need for that continuance — to gather additional information for the hearing — was no longer required. Commission Chair Joseph Sullivan asked a representative of the appellate group, Julie Kreis, if they would like to take advantage of a continuance due to the circumstances of the day, explicitly stating that the hearing would be “all or nothing,” and that if they went on there would not be an opportunity for those who left the hearing to return at a later date to make public comments.
Kreis declined the offer.
The residents were given the opportunity to speak first in order to lay out all their objections to the order. It was asserted that the orientation of the vines “up and down” the slopes of the mountain on which the property resides would encourage soil erosion, creating the possibility of toxins and other pollutants draining into Hidden Valley Lake and contaminating the aquifer. Likewise, there was a concern that the vineyard’s water requirements would create a large stress on the local aquifer and would rapidly deplete its water stores. Additionally, they stated the process of clearing out the natural vegetation of the area would encourage wild fires and ruin the pristine wilderness view, as well as create a health hazard through the burning of the materials. Further, they claimed the presence of agricultural machinery in the area would pose a threat to the safety of residence, as well as causing traffic flow problems along Spruce Grove Road, which provides access to the vineyard, as well as for several communities within HVL.
A concern was also expressed that the owners of the property were trying to “piece-meal” together a vineyard much larger than the forty acres, citing the presence of another 68-acre section of the property that had been permitted for grading in 2001 under that property’s previous owners, though never developed.
During the applicant’s turn to address the commission, they took care to try to directly address all of the issues presented by the HVL group. Wallis began by reminding the commission that the intended site met all requirements of the county’s general plan for development, zoning requirements, and all environmental issues, fully qualifying them for the grading permit. With the assistance of Bill Lincoln, the agricultural engineer for the project, she explained that the area that the vineyard pulls its water is north and east of the site in a different water basin, and therefore could have no direct impact on well levels within HVL.
Vineyard Manager Clay Shannon explained planting theory on row orientation and ground cover to both minimize erosion from runoff, as well as planting and maintaining ground cover to help discourage any erosion and to increase ground absorbency rates. Addressing the issue of a potential fire hazard, it was stated that vineyards typically reduce the chance of wildfires due to the nature of the vines and the increased presence of water at the site. It was also mentioned that an adjacent parcel was already under development as a vineyard and that there had been no significant effect on the road traffic in that area. An explanation was also provided on how the project didn’t appear to be piece-meal as claimed, since the 68-acre section predated the current plan, as well as a lack of information indicating intent to further expand the vineyard.
Although the Planning Commission voted 5-0, denying the appeal, two stipulations were added to the original grading permit. The owners of the vineyard were instructed to chip any vegetation removed instead of burning whenever possible, and a 300-foot buffer must be put in place between the project and the nearest portion of the HVL community; both stipulations, the applicants said, they were happy to comply with, as they had already intended to implement them.
Residents of HVL now have the opportunity to appeal the decision to the Board of Supervisors.
