I am writing to comment on the Findings of Fact and Decision (FOF) to be considered for approval by the Lake County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 10, 2017 regarding the Wild Diamond Vineyards Project.
The objectives in bringing the appeals were to protect our water, to protect our air, to protect our health and safety, to protect our ecosystems, and to protect our wildlife all from a very dubious development plan. It was not an objective to lay the groundwork for a lawsuit against the County of Lake (County) in the event that things don’t work out the way it hopes with Wild Diamond Vineyards.
The FOF looks to me like an after the fact attempt at damage control, an attempt to reduce the County’s liability for a set of poor decisions reaching back over years. It is a very weak document.
If the objective is to lay the groundwork for a successful lawsuit against the County I would say sign the FOF as it is. It puts in writing the bias, sloppiness, willful ignorance, and attempted trickery that has put the County in such a vulnerable position already.
Having had just days to consider the FOF, it seems I am now writing to protect the County from itself. Suing the County equates to suing ourselves, the taxpayers and residents, the people we were trying to protect in the first place. Such a suit might be a necessary evil in some circumstances, but one which is preferably avoided.
Conspicuous omissions in the FOF include the following:
1) A genuine analysis of why the opinion of the Hydrologist hired by Wild Diamond was favored over the recommendations of Geologist David Adam, Hydrologist Matt Hagemann, and the Community Services District manager, Kirk Cloyd. The absence of the latter three at the Dec. 6, 2016 hearing is not a sufficient justification. Statements implying that the Water Supply Assessment included their recommendations are not accurate.
2) Statements by Biologist Steve Zalusky regarding tampering with his report for the EIR and arguments made by Hidden Valley Lake Watershed and others regarding the implications of his testimony for the reliability and veracity of the entire EIR.
3) Statements made by Wild Diamond Vineyards neighbors Diana Merrill, Jennifer Roldan, and Veed Miller regarding depletion of their wells and ponds, which they believe correlates with increased groundwater pumping by Wild Diamond Vineyards.
4) Criticisms of the County’s process in allowing and abetting piecemeal and secretive development rather than considering the entire new development as a whole, in advance, as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FOF refers, as do previous documents, to an “existing vineyard,” which even now is only partially developed, and for which the environmental document, an Initial Study, has reportedly been lost by the County. The FOF also approximates the acreages involved, which obscures the relationship between the “alreadyapproved” project and the one covered by the EIR.
5) Arguments regarding hydrology mitigation measures being drafted after completion of the Final EIR, containing mandates for future data collection which should have long since been completed as part of a Draft EIR, being reclassified as conditions of the use permit, requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR, and being subject to charges of improperly deferred mitigation under CEQA.
6) An analysis of the decision to accept the opinion of the sound and acoustic consultant hired by Wild Diamond Vineyards and reject that of Dr. Steven Greenberg.
7) Complaints regarding the loss of comments made at the public scoping meeting of March 31, 2016 to the public record. Complaints regarding the failure of the EIR to address comments submitted prior to publication of the Draft EIR, even when they were resubmitted after its publication.
8) Complaints regarding the subversion of testimony on current impacts on neighbors of Wild Diamond Vineyards’ ongoing development for the purpose of defining “baseline conditions” as those of a site under construction, rather than an indication that future development can be expected to have similar, significant impacts.
9) Acknowledgement that records pertaining to development which has taken place since the current owners purchased the Wild Diamond Vineyards property in 2012 (records dating back to 2000) were incorporated by reference into the proceedings for the Dec. 6, 2017 Board of Supervisors hearing.
10) Any justification, other than the Agricultural Commissioner’s blessing, for reducing a previously granted 300 foot buffer to pesticide drift to 200 feet. Claims that no evidence exists on the inadequacy of current state regulation are belied by data on childhood cancer rates in Napa County, presented by the Appellant.
11) Justification for the County’s decision to deny a request from Wild Diamond Vineyards to include enforceable, advance pesticide spray notification on its website as a permit condition.
12) Challenges to the Agricultural Commissioner’s role and reasoning in dictating the size of the buffer zone and denial of the request for advance spray notification.
13) Decision and justification regarding requests made in my letter of Dec. 4, 2015 for refund of two of three appeal fees paid. One of these fees was paid April 2, 2015 for an appeal that was never scheduled.
So what am I asking you as Supervisors to do? First, improve the document. Have it run through a spelling and grammar check program. Don’t let it say “qualitative” when it means “quantitative” (p. 4, l. 17), or “well” when it means “water” (p. 8, l. 3). Don’t let the voice of someone offering an opinion lapse into the voice of the County (p. 8, l. 3). Require that the FOF communicate an awareness and understanding of the arguments and the evidence, even where they are being refuted. Those arguments and evidence are in the record, and distorting or ignoring them are not effective strategies.
Second, and more importantly, I would ask you to do what you can to rectify the situation on the ground rather than the situation on paper at least to the extent possible at this point. Ask the people who could make it happen to voluntarily plant grapevine stock that at least could be dry farmed, to terrace on steep slopes, to plant cover crops, to create wildlife corridors, to plant a green barrier to pesticide drift, to use integrated pest management, whatever you think is realistic. Maybe Wild Diamond could hire a manager that has a track record of genuine concern for the environment. A few greenwashing words from the lips of a slick attorney aren’t fooling anyone. A certified organic approach to production of grapes would make an enormous difference.
Elizabeth Montgomery is a Hidden Valley Lake resident. This commentary was excerpted from a letter she sent to the Lake County Board of Supervisors
