The Creation and Preservation of Napa Valley’s Cultural Landscape
by Morgan Gmelch
B.A. June 2005, Union College
A Thesis Submitted to The Faculty of Columbian College of Arts & Sciences of the George Washington University in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
May 16, 2010
Thesis Directed by Marie D. Price Professor of Geography and International Affairs
Abstract
The Creation and Preservation of Napa Valley’s Cultural Landscape
Located northeast of San Francisco, Napa Valley today is a world renowned wine region.
The valley has undergone a unique development process that has preserved its agricultural landscape and way of life at a time of increased urban sprawl. The creation of the first Agricultural Preserve in the United States in the late 1960s was vital to this effort. Now, due in large part to its agricultural protections, Napa Valley attracts millions of tourists a year. This rapid increase in tourism has generated large amounts of income for the valley, yet has also threatened the valley’s highly recognizable and unique cultural landscape through traffic congestion and added pressure to develop vacation housing, resorts, and lavish wineries. Currently, efforts are being made in Napa County to make tourism more sustainable and to mitigate its negative impacts. A non-profit group is working with the County to develop a 44-mile bicycle and pedestrian trail running the length of the valley to allow tourists and locals to experience the valley outside the confines of an automobile. The trail will also feature an interpretative program to educate users about the physical geography and agricultural practices of Napa Valley. However, the educational program should also work to interpret the cultural landscape and create the much sought after idea of ‘sense of place’. An interpretative trail will increase awareness and appreciation of Napa Valley’s heritage and culture for both residents and visitors thereby creating a public that is more likely to fight for future landscape protections and preservation planning.
ii Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………...ii List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………….iv
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………….…………………..1 Natural Landscape………………………………………………………………..6 Cultural Landscape………………………………………………………………10 Central Places…………………………………………………………………….12 Wine Routes……………………………………………………………………...13 Place Names……………………………………………………………………...14 Buildings & Architecture………………………………………………………...15 Methodology……………………………………………………………………..17 Organization of the Thesis……………………………………………………….19
Chapter 2: Development of an Agricultural Landscape…………………………………21 Prohibition……………………………………………………………………….23 The Agricultural Preserve………………………………………………………..26 Winery Definition Ordinance……………………………………………………32
Chapter 3: Rise of a Viticultural Landscape …………………………………………….36 The 1976 Paris Tasting…………………………………………………………..42 Shifting Towns…………………………………………………………………...43 Architecture and Development…………………………………………………..44 The Wine Train…………………………………………………………………..48 Traffic Congestion……………………………………………………………….49
Chapter 4: Trails and Greenways………………………………………………………...55 Current State of Trail Development……………………………………………...58 Obstacles to Trail Development………………………………………………….63 Bay Area Trails…………………………………………………………………..65 San Francisco Bay Trail………………………………………………………….66
Chapter 5: The Vine Trail: A Vehicle for Landscape Interpretation……………………71 The Vine Trail……………………………………………………………………73 Greenway Feasibility Study……………………………………………………...77 Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition………………………………………………..79 Trail Alignment…………………………………………………………………..80 Trail Tourism…………………………………………………………………….84 Interpreting Landscape…………………………………………………………..87 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….93
Appendix A. List of Interviewees……………………………………………………….96 Appendix B. Viewshed Protection Program and Scenic Roads…………………………97 Appendix C. Historic Resources of Napa County…………….…………………………99 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………102
iii List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Map of California
Figure 1.2: Average monthly temperature and rainfall of Napa County
Figure 1.3: American Viticultural Areas of Napa County
Figure 1.4: Common landscape in Napa Valley
Figure 1.5: Iconic Napa Valley welcome sign
Figure 1.6: Chimney Rock winery
Figure 1.7: Castello di Amorosa winery
Figure 2.1: Prohibition – Women’s Holy War
Figure 2.2: Map of Urban Growth in San Francisco Bay Area (1900-1990)
Figure 2.3: Land Use Map for Napa County
Figure 3.1: Napa Valley vineyard landscape
Figure 3.2: Butler’s model of tourism evolution
Figure 3.3: Opus One winery
Figure 3.4: Dominus winery
Figure 3.5: Hillside development
Figure 3.6: Napa Valley Wine Train
Figure 4.1: Map of San Francisco Bay Trail
Figure 5.1: Napa Riverwalk
Figure 5.2: Napa Valley Trails Master Plan
Figure 5.3: Official logo for Napa Valley Vine Trail
Figure 5.4: Groundbreaking of the Vine Trail
Figure 5.5: Wild mustard blooms in the Napa Valley
iv Figure 5.6: Wine Train & abandoned Rutherford Train Station
Figure 5.7: The Rhine House built in 1884
Figure 5.8: Former Christian Brothers Winery built in 1889
Figure 5.9: Bale Grist Mill built in 1846
Figure 5.10: Yountville pioneer cemetery and Indian burial ground
v
Chapter One
Introduction
“A cultural landscape gives identity to a region” - Harm de Blij, 1983
This thesis examines the formation and preservation of the cultural landscape of the Napa Valley. Located northeast of San Francisco, Napa Valley (Figure 1.1) has undergone a unique development process in recent years beginning with a landmark decision in the late 1960s to protect its agricultural landscape and way of life. Since then,
Napa has become a hugely successful, world-renowned wine region. Tourism to the valley has grown rapidly and to such an extent that it threatens the valley’s highly recognizable and unique cultural landscape. In response, a number of new community groups and stakeholders in agriculture, tourism, and transportation are working in different ways to control tourism’s growth and mitigate its effects upon Napa’s landscape. Central to this thesis is the idea of “cultural landscapes” and the factors that have created and now threaten the cultural landscape of the Napa Valley. Addressing some of these threats, as well as providing the opportunity to both enhance and interpret
Napa’s cultural landscape, is the plan to develop a bicycle and pedestrian trail running through the heart of the valley.
1
Figure 1.1 Map of California
Napa Valley is part of Napa County which covers 790 square miles and lies 60 miles north of San Francisco. (Source: Napa Valley Vintners) The word landscape usually evokes thoughts of pleasing vistas or famous paintings; however, the concept of landscape is grounded within geography. The French school of human geography was at the forefront of landscape studies as early as the late
19th century as cultural studies began to co-mingle with a curiosity about the natural world. In America, geographic curiosity about human-shaped landscapes developed at the University of California, Berkeley’s department of geography led by Carl Sauer
(Lewis 2003). Known as “the father of cultural geography,” Sauer introduced the idea of cultural landscapes in his article “The Morphology of Landscape” in 1925. In it he wrote that when a natural landscape is shaped by a cultural group, “[c]ulture is the agent, the
2 natural area is the medium, the cultural (landscape) the result” (1925:26). Most landscapes are a reflection of culture and much historical and cultural information about a region can be gleaned from reading its landscape. As Peirce Lewis, a prominent geographer and landscape theorist, writes “landscape is a historic document that tells a story—actually, multiple stories—about the people who created the landscape and the cultural context in which that landscape was embedded” (Lewis 2003:86).
One type of cultural landscape is the agricultural landscape. Agricultural landscapes vary in look and feel based on the crops grown and the degree of agricultural specialization, especially evident when one crop dominates. This is the case in the Napa
Valley where wine-grapes have become the dominant form of agriculture since the 1970s creating a viticultural landscape; or a winescape. Geographer Harm De Blij (1983:5) writes that “there are few human pursuits that generate as close a relationship between people and the land they cultivate as does viticulture” thus, he writes, viticulture transforms the natural landscape as does no other agricultural industry. De Blij
(1983:150) continues,
“(viticulture’s) impress extends beyond vineyards and terraces to the
homes and buildings of the winegrowers, the artifacts of industry, even the
lifestyles of those who create the wines. Modest houses, ornate chateaux,
even whole villages and towns are dominated, saturated by the imagery of
the vine and its cultural history”.
Wineries are scattered throughout Napa Valley, many clustered along main roads, and are surrounded by acres of trellised grapevines that cover the valley floor and march up the hillsides in regimented lines. The 22 mile distance from the city of Napa to
3 Calistoga, the northernmost town of the valley, is covered by this vineyard landscape
broken only by three small towns (St. Helena, Yountville, and tiny Rutherford).1
Landscape and the importance of place are fundamental aspects of wine regions.
Wine regions, while diverse, share qualities that produce “a certain charm—a warm
ambience, a memorable experience of place—not found in most other agricultural
landscapes” (Peters 1997:124). The threats to Napa’s cultural landscape and efforts to
maintain it are frequent topics of conversation in the Napa Valley. Two of the primary
threats are growing tourist numbers and the increase in traffic congestion. The problems
of congestion and tourism expansion take on a heightened importance in Napa since
maintaining its traditional agricultural landscape is vital to residents, the integrity of the
wine industry, and perhaps, the future of tourism.
Each year thousands of workers and millions of visitors flock to the bucolic Napa
Valley for its scenery, robust wine industry, and accommodations. With minimal public
transit options, a limited road system, and narrow valley configuration (30 miles long by
3 miles wide), traffic congestion is a regular occurrence during many months of the year
inconveniencing locals and tourists alike. The traffic that lines the main road up the Napa
Valley (highway 29) creates noise and air pollution as well as visual blight that degrades
the rural, agricultural nature of the area. In order to preserve Napa’s “traditional”
agricultural landscape many citizens and government officials are focused on mitigating
the negative aspects of tourism. In addition to traffic congestion, the desirability of the
valley--which is closely tied to the tourism industry--has created an elite landscape that
has priced many locals out of the valley. As more outsiders want to buy into Napa, and
1 Oakville is the fifth valley municipality, though it has no community, just a post office and Oakville Grocery built in 1881and listed in the National Registry of Historic Places.
4 have the financial resources to do so, more pressure is exerted on the valley’s stringent land-use regulations. Ironically, it is these stringent land-use regulations that played a key role in creating today’s elite landscape.
Not surprisingly, frequent efforts on the part of individuals and developers to evade or dismantle Napa’s agricultural oriented land-use regulations have resulted in heightened local sensitivity to any proposed development project. One proposal, however, has seen remarkable acceptance among a wide range of stakeholders. Currently in development is a multi-use trail that would run the length of the Napa Valley and accommodate both locals and tourists. Acting as a sustainable tourism amenity and an efficient commuter route, the Vine Trail will potentially ease the transportation problem while increasing local and visitor access to and appreciation for Napa’s unique cultural landscape. Since the planned trail will be exclusively non-motorized, it cannot be expected to put a large dent in the traffic count; however, it will provide a needed alternative and offers numerous additional benefits to the local community and tourists.
The Vine Trail is projected to receive over 3 million uses per year, a tremendous number for a small rural area (Vine Trail Coalition 2010). It will not only be a local trail, but also will become part of a regional network that includes the 500-mile San Francisco Bay
Trail and connects to the Bay Area ferry system.
Before discussing the formation of Napa’s cultural landscape and its transition into a winescape, I will examine the physical properties of the valley that facilitated its emergence as a wine region. Without its unique combination of climate, topography, and soil types, Napa’s cultural landscape would surely be far removed from what it is today.
5 Natural Landscape
The Napa Valley is located 60 miles northeast of San Francisco. Nestled between the Vaca and Mayacamas Mountains, which rise to 2,000 feet, the valley runs 30 miles north to south and varies in width from one mile at its northern end to five miles at its southern base near the city of Napa. Formed by volcanic activity, these mountain ranges enclose a relatively flat valley floor. Residual volcanic activity can still be seen today at the many hot springs, geothermal vents, and the geyser in Calistoga known as the Old
Faithful Geyser of California. The tectonic plate movement and volcanic activity that created the valley also produced a diverse range of soil types. More than 30 different soil types have been identified to date; varying greatly in depth, fertility, and drainage ability
(Napa Valley Vintners).
Bisecting the compact valley is the Napa River which changes from a navigable waterway at its southern end to little more than a creek as it stretches up valley. The northern end of the valley is capped by Mount St. Helena, the tallest mountain in the region at over 4,000 ft. (Swinchatt 2004). At its southern end, the valley is flatter and broadens out; it is here that the Napa River widens and flows into San Pablo Bay, an arm of San Francisco Bay. Being so close to the ocean and its cold currents, the valley floor is moderated from what would otherwise be a scorching climate in the summer.
Topography also moderates Napa’s climate with the Mayacamas and Vaca mountains acting as buffers to surrounding conditions. The Mayacamas on the west protect the valley from an unobstructed flow of offshore fog from the Pacific, while the Vacas to the east protect the valley from California’s searing inland heat: “it’s as if the cool coastal
6 climate and the hot interior have agreed on a buffer zone between them—the Napa
Valley” (Swinchatt 2004:107).
Protected from climactic extremes, the Napa Valley enjoys a Mediterranean climate with two main seasons: a hot, dry summer and a cool, wet winter. Its arid summer is tempered by fog that seeps over the Mayacamas from the west and up from nearby San Pablo Bay and stretches up valley. The mountain ranges act not only as buffers but also as catchments by trapping the fog in the valley until rising daytime temperatures evaporate it. These coastal fogs perform crucial services: cooling the valley floor, protecting it from too many scorching temperatures and direct sun exposure, and providing moisture which is important during the long (typically six months) dry summer. Although the Napa Valley receives an average of 20-30 inches a rain a year, with higher levels in the upper valley and mountain slopes, most rain falls during the winter months (Figure 1.2).
This natural landscape underpins the valley’s cultural landscape and is key to its current viticultural success. The valley’s geologic history, topography, and climate combine to form a diverse landscape that is ideal for growing wine grapes. The wide range of geographic conditions within Napa County is responsible for its 14 American
Viticultural Areas (AVAs), each featuring a unique microclimate and an array of soil profiles (Figure 1.3) (Swinchatt 2004). Napa Valley is not entirely alone in this advantageous combination of natural features; Northern California is home to several wine growing regions which boast a high amount of diversity created by “the confluence of the Pacific, San Francisco Bay, the long valleys, differences in elevation, and exposure to fog and winds [which] create the means by which each valley will have a noticeably
7 different terrior” (Sommers 2008: 125). However, Napa is the highest regarded viticultural region in the state. The valley’s size, shape, history, and culture have also created a unique cultural landscape.
Figure 1.2 Average monthly temperature and rainfall of Napa County.
The Napa Valley sees a long warm, dry summer between the months of April and October (Source: Vine Trail Coalition 2010
8 Figure 1.3 American Viticultural Areas of Napa County
Within the broader Napa Valley AVA exist 15 smaller AVAs (Source: Napa Valley Vintners)
9 Cultural Landscape
When geographers write about cultural landscapes they are referring to the combination of natural landscape and the impact humans have had upon it. In present- day Napa Valley, an area built on wine and sustained by wine, the cultural landscape is dominated by agricultural activities and the manifestation of those activities upon the natural landscape. These elements give the landscape order and meaning and form a place. As geographers John Dickenson and John Salt put it, “Ultimately, the geography of wine is an experience of place” (quoted in Peters 1997:124). The concept of cultural landscapes takes on a heightened importance in viticultural areas; as it is the geographic parallel to the concept of terroir. A nebulous term, terroir is French for ground or soil, but it encompasses far more and describes the specific physical environment and societal features of the area in which grapes are grown. To taste terroir in a wine is the most sought after quality; it is the element that winemakers try so hard to coax out of their grapes. In short, “terroir tells us that place matters” (Sommers 2008:19).
The importance of place to the wine industry is reinforced by labeling practices governed by U.S. law. Wineries must indicate the areas where their grapes are grown on the bottle. The American Viticulture Area (AVA) system is now used and a single AVA can range vastly in size from thousands of square miles to the smallest at 62 acres. In order to use an AVA on a label 85 percent or more of the grapes must be grown in that region (Peters 1997). The labeling of wine has led to many contentious fights worldwide and in 2001 the Napa Valley Vintners launched an international program to police the misuse of the Napa name (Gerien 2007). A case was also heard by the California
Supreme Court in 2006 that upheld Napa’s right to restrict its name from being used on
10 wine not grown in Napa. The Napa Valley name achieved further protection and notoriety when, along with a Brazilian appellation, it became the first non-European appellations to be registered by the EU in 2007 (Gerien 2007).
As geographers de Blij (1983) and Peters (1997) write, the cultural landscape of a viticultural area can be largely read from roads, buildings, central places, and place names. Yet, even without looking at these features the domination of wine on Napa
Valley’s landscape is apparent. According to the Napa County Agricultural Crop Report of 2007, wine grapes dominated agricultural production with 42,338 producing acres versus just 233 acres of olives and 103 of walnuts, the next two largest agricultural crops listed. Wine-grape production has rapidly expanded in Napa Valley, pushing out many other agricultural endeavors. Forty years ago there were 11, 381 acres of vineyard which was more or less balanced by 5,308 acres of prune trees and 1,811 acres of walnuts (Crop
Report 1967). Currently, it is hard to find remnants of other agricultural practices besides small clusters of olive trees (typically used as landscaping), the scattered walnut or prune trees, and the fruit trees found in people’s yards.
The valley floor of Napa is covered by orderly vineyards creating a distinct, unified look. Some vineyards run beyond the valley floor, rising up and following the contour of hillsides, thus accentuating the topography (Figure 1.4). Other vineyards are carved out of nooks atop hills or nestled on shallower mountain slopes. The impact of vineyards upon the landscape is wide-ranging and leaves no question as to the purpose of the valley. Adding to the cohesive and agriculturally purposeful feeling of the valley is the topography that isolates it. The narrow valley is cradled by two mountain ranges which clearly define its boundaries and form a pocket of viticulture.
11 Figure 1.4 Common landscape in Napa Valley
Orderly rows of vine stretch across much of Napa Valley’s floor. (Source: Napa County Department of Conservation, Development & Planning (NCDCDP) 2008)
Central Places
Napa County consists of essentially two parts: The first encompasses the city of
Napa (population of 72,585) at the southern end of the valley. The second area is locally referred to as “up valley” and extends from the tourist town of Yountville (pop. 2,916) 18 miles north to Calistoga (pop. 5,190), passing through the town of St. Helena (pop. 5,950) and small hamlets of Rutherford and Oakville along the way (Census Bureau 2000). It is this ‘up valley’ area that is the true heart of the Napa tourist draw. This is where the majority of wineries, restaurants, and elite resorts and spas lie. Indeed the official tourist welcome sign (Figure 1.5) doesn’t even appear until a couple miles north of Yountville
12 along the main route, Highway 29. As well as being in a different geographic section of the valley these small towns also occupy a different economic and cultural realm.
The city of Napa is often by-passed as tourists seek out the pleasing up-valley vistas of vineyards and wineries. Napa, while once a bustling port town, is now largely a blue-collar town where many low-wage service workers live. It also houses the majority of the county’s Latino population which makes up 35 percent of the city of Napa (Census
Bureau 2000). Long neglected, recent efforts have been made to revitalize the city of
Napa and make it more of a tourist draw.
Wine Routes
Prominent landscape theorist, J.B. Jackson writes that contemporary landscape is largely defined by “the zones of influence and control of roads, streets, highways: arteries which dominate and nourish and hold a landscape together and provide it with instant accessibility” (quoted in Peters 1997:141). This especially holds true in the Napa Valley which is defined by its two north-south routes, along which most of the region’s wineries are to be found. Visitors’ experience of the valley is guided by their travel along these roads. The only alternate way to traverse the valley is the tourist-oriented Wine Train which runs parallel to highway 29 (the main wine route). The Vine Trail will also parallel this route reiterating its importance as the main transportation and tourist destination corridor.
Geographer Harm de Blij refers to highway 29 as “The Wine Road” and suggests that the density of wineries along it and the traffic it creates “may be without parallel in viticulture regions anywhere in the world” (de Blij 1983:157). However, the emergence of a major road artery through wine country is not unique to Napa and, in fact, has
13 become a common aspect of viticultural landscapes around the world. As the major artery, highway 29 is a desirable location for wineries seeking visibility and easy accessibility. Highway 29 has played a central role in Napa’s landscape as it has been the center of numerous controversies over roadway expansion, roadside development, and tourism growth.
Figure 1.5 Iconic Napa Valley welcome sign
Sign welcoming visitors to the Napa Valley along highway 29, the main road in the valley, with quote by Robert Louis Stevenson, an early visitor. (Source: NCDCDP 2008)
Place Names
A sense of place is reflected and reinforced through place-names. The values and identity a community embodies or wishes to demonstrate is reflected in the names of its businesses and streets. The names of businesses, public schools, and even Napa’s bus
14 route all reflect their wine country location. Common names include wine, wine country, vintage, grape, grapevine, and the like. A search for businesses with “Wine Country” in their name in the Napa yellow pages yields 44 businesses, from Wine Country Choppers to Wine Country Realty to Wine Country Nannies. Other popular names include Vintage which yields 31 results, including the Vintage Dog Palace and Vintage Academy of Art
Design. An entire subdivision in St. Helena boasts streets named after grape varietals;
Riesling Way, Columbard Court, Chardonnay Way, Pinot Way, even a Chablis Circle
(Peters 1997). No matter how unconnected many of these businesses are from the growth and production of grapes they still pay homage to the product through their names.
Buildings & Architecture
Buildings and architecture of a region are other key features of a region’s cultural landscape. Wineries are the distinctive building feature of the Napa landscape with 377 according to the Napa Valley Vintners Association, 84 of which boast “unique architecture”. The many architectural styles employed can serve a variety of functions; some are used as tourist draws to beckon people in from the road while others are grandiose displays of the class and wealth of the owners. Napa has a wide range wineries from historic buildings built in the late 19th century, to modernist creations such as Opus
One and Dominus, to wineries that pay homage to old-world wine regions such as the
Cape Dutch (Western Cape of South Africa) inspired Chimney Rock (Figure 1.6), the
Italianate Del Dotto, or least subtle of all, a replica 13th century Tuscan-style castle,
Castello di Amorosa which advertises “the romance of Italy, the wines of Napa” (Figure
1.7). As Napa Valley became more successful and wealthy, newcomers flocked to the
15 area erecting lavish wineries; their “stunning, often jarring new architecture symbolized the remove between new arrivals and locals” (Conaway 2002:37).
Figure 1.6 Chimney Rock winery
Chimney Rock built in the Cape Dutch style of architecture with some hillside homes in the distance off of Silverado Trail. (Source: Author) Figure 1.7 Castello di Amorosa winery
Castello di Amorosa is an expansive replica of a 13th century Italian Castle off of highway 29. (Source: San Francisco Chronicle)
16 Cultural landscape can be identified and monitored by examining these realms.
As we will see, changes to the central places, wine routes, and architecture of a region give clues as to its shifting cultural landscape and priorities. It is changes to these basic building blocks of a landscape which locals often decry. The cultural landscape of the
Napa Valley is currently shifting from a rural, agricultural landscape to an elite, tourist winescape causing many locals to complain about and fear for the future of their valley.
The main wine route, which is also the main transportation route, has become clogged with employees of the ever expanding wine and tourism industry as well as tourists. The central places of the valley have begun to change into tourist villages, losing many locally oriented amenities. Architecture has become more ostentatious in style and scale.
The latter encapsulates the overall feel of the changing landscape of the Napa Valley, one that is becoming less approachable or “real,” as many locals claim, and more elite and
“artificial.”
Methodology
This thesis is based on a multi-method research approach. I obtained important background information while living in the Napa Valley for two years (2006-08). During that time I worked at a small family-owned winery and often informally conducted participant observation which is a research methodology I learned as an undergraduate anthropology major. The winery I worked at was housed in a nondescript, cinderblock barn off the beaten path. Many of the tourists who visited us expressed delight at finding
‘a hidden gem’ -- a decidedly homely winery as compared to many of the large often- visited wineries with elaborate tasting rooms that populate highway 29. Served on picnic
17 tables outside, our visitors were not crowded at the bar of a tasting room and were under no time constraints or pressure to move on. The relaxed pace and disregard for lavish surroundings created a more meaningful experience for many. Many visitors commented on how much they appreciated the unassuming building and the feel of being at “a real winery” as opposed to a glorified gift shop. (Another winery I worked at briefly had a large tasting room that did feel more like a gift shop and was much more overtly sales oriented.) Our small, quaint winery was also one of the few in the Napa Valley that received regular bicycle tourists. The tour company that brought them had relatively limited routes due to the generally poor conditions for cycling (e.g., busy roads, no dedicated bike lanes) throughout Napa County which meant they could only conveniently and safely visit a few wineries. During the course of my work I had many informal conversations with visitors and also overheard many of their conversations which often touched on the valley’s open space, the pleasure yet difficulties of cycling there, the traffic, and the scenery and vegetation of the valley. As a resident, I also dealt directly with the traffic problems and congestion both locals and visitors experience.
The thesis is also based on an extensive review of the academic literature on landscape, greenways, and tourism; census data; published and unpublished studies and reports prepared for Napa County agencies and nonprofits; and local newspapers. Two of the most useful studies were the Napa County Visitor Profile Study (2006) and the
Greenway Feasibility Study (2009). Articles and letters to the editor in local newspapers provided information on how the preservation of Napa’s cultural landscape is locally framed and discussed. They also provided insight into community member’s feelings and gave voice to many people who would not otherwise have been heard from.
18 I also conducted formal and informal interviews, returning to Napa for a month’s thesis research in December 2009. During this period I conducted six unstructured, tape- recorded interviews (Appendix A), most about an hour long, with local planners and officials including John Woodbury, the manager of Napa County Parks and Open Space, and Elliot Hurwitz and Paul Price of the Napa Country Transportation Planning Agency and leaders of the Greenway Feasibility report; major stakeholders in the Vine Trail including Chuck McMinn, the executive director of the Vine Trail Coalition; and involved citizens, such as Lars Bjorkman, a local winemaker and cyclist, and Jim
Lincoln, former president of the Napa County Farm Bureau and vineyard manager. While in Napa, I also attended a board meeting of the Vine Trail Coalition, the non-profit organization created to promote and advance the project, and talked to residents informally about the proposed trail and its planning and potential use.
Organization of Thesis
The second chapter of this thesis examines the creation of Napa’s cultural landscape as an agricultural landscape dominated by grape-growing. A number of important planning decisions, voter initiatives, and activists help shape Napa Valley and protect it from the development that has occurred in many other Bay Area counties. The third chapter of the thesis discusses the growth of tourism, Napa Valley’s change into to an elite landscape, and the threats tourism poses to local residents and communities.
Finally, in chapter four one proposal to nudge Napa down a more sustainable path and help preserve its cultural landscape will be examined in depth, namely, the Vine Trail --
Napa County’s proposed trail system and its integration with the Bay Trail, a 500 mile
19 loop around the San Francisco Bay Area. Before this case study is examined, however, an overview of the literature on greenways and trail systems is presented, including the thorny issues of property rights and access to open space. Finally, the utility of the trail in preserving and interpreting the cultural landscape in the Napa Valley will be discussed in Chapter 5.
20
Chapter 2
Development of an Agricultural Landscape
As with all Bay Area counties, Napa has faced development pressures to become another bedroom community for metropolitan San Francisco, yet it has resisted growth and managed to maintain its traditional landscape through the creation of an “agricultural preserve.” The preeminent wine region in the U.S., “it has been said that the Napa region’s cultural landscape personifies Californian viticulture as does no other” (de Blij
1983:156). This chapter discusses Napa’s history and the key events that have shaped this geographically small, yet economically productive valley.
Today, Napa County is home to 134,444 residents, with the vast majority residing in the southern part of the valley: 76,705 live in the city of Napa and 14,961 in American
Canyon (incorporated in 1992) at the southern border of the county (NCDCDP 2008).
Boasting over 400 wineries, numerous fine restaurants and resorts, and three up-valley towns of between 3,000 and 5,000 residents, the Napa Valley attracts minimally 3.5 million tourists a year, most during the peak tourist season from May to October
(Stonebridge 2008). An economic impact study done by the hospitality center at Purdue
University in 2006 found that tourism helped support 196 different industries and businesses, from cork makers to dry cleaners, and contributed $1.3 billion to Napa
County in 2005. According to a 2008 report by the Stonebridge Research Group, the full
21 economic impact of the wine industry on the county was $10.9 billion in 2006.
Employing 39,862 workers, the wine and tourism industries paid out $725 million in wages in Napa County in 2006. Besides driving the regional economy, Napa’s wine industry also contributed $42.4 billion to the U.S. economy as a whole (Stonebridge
2008). Together, these two industries are the main engines of Napa’s economy.
Despite the income and jobs generated by tourists, some locals see the tourism industry as intrusive and harmful. Geographer Brian Sommers writes “for every instance where the environment has been used to attract tourists there are instances of tourism leading to environmental degradation” (2008:256). However, tourism growth is just the latest threat to face Napa Valley’s landscape. Napa has faced phylloxera outbreaks (a rootstock eating louse) and most recently, the European Grapevine moth (lobesia botrana), prohibition, and threats of suburban sprawl, yet it has managed to survive and eventually prosper. Innovative land use decisions have played an important role in this survival and prosperity. The most important of these was the Agricultural Preserve in
1968 which protected much of the valley’s agricultural land. Its passage was a crucial development in the history of Napa Valley and will be looked at more fully later in the chapter.
Initially inhabited by the Wappo Indians, Napa which means “land of plenty,” teemed with life including grizzly and black bear, elk, cougar, as well as spawning salmon and countless waterfowl. George Yount was the valley’s first Anglo settler; he received a Spanish land grant from General Mariano Vallejo, the governor of Mexico’s
California territory, and settled in the valley in 1836. He was also responsible for planting Napa’s first vines in 1838. Thereafter, vineyards quickly expanded and by 1860,
22 200,000 grape vines had been planted in the Napa Valley (Napa Valley Vintners).
However, grapes were just a part of the agricultural picture, competing for space with ranching and orchards. By 1910, the valley boasted half a million fruit and nut trees, primarily apples, peaches, olives, prunes, and walnuts (Conaway 1990).
Wine making, for which the valley would later become synonymous, took root during the Gold Rush as the influx of new residents increased the demand for wine, eventually outstripping the supply available from Southern California. Many European immigrants by then lived in Napa and they began to plant vineyards and make wine; by the 1860s there were over 1,000 acres of vineyards and 50 winemakers. By the 1870s, as demand for California wine grew, grape-growing and wine making employed more people than any other agricultural enterprise in California. Napa was on a road to viticultural success, when the wine industry suffered a series of setbacks. The first was an outbreak of phylloxera (a louse that feeds on vine rootstocks) in 1893. Phylloxera prompted a number of winemakers to rip out dying vines and replant with walnut and prune trees. Not long after the remaining vineyards recovered, Napa experienced a second major setback with the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment, or Prohibition, in 1920 which put virtually every winery out of business.
Prohibition
America had long debated the morality of alcohol. The temperance movement, as it came to be called, argued that it should be completely banned in order to prevent drunkenness and the social illness it caused. Due to the correlation between alcohol abuse and domestic violence, the temperance movement was largely associated with
23 women and became closely aligned with other women’s rights movements (Figure 2.1).
Temperance organizations viewed the cause as a moral duty or crusade and in January
1920 the Eighteenth Amendment was passed outlawing the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages. This act put most Napa Valley wineries out of business; a handful of wineries were able to remain in business, producing limited amounts of wine for sacramental purposes (De Blij 1983). Some wineries illegally continued production and sold to locals or to racketeers, however, most growers simply ripped out their vineyards and replaced them with fruit and nut trees (Conaway 2002).
Figure 2.1 Prohibition – Woman’s Holy War
Prohibition was seen as a women’s war against immorality, while the main source of disdain was for beer and liquor all alcoholic beverages were swept up in the temperance fervor. (Source: Library of Congress)
24 When Prohibition was finally repealed in 1933, the United States was in the middle of the Great Depression. The Napa wine industry had been largely destroyed.
Many wineries had lost most of their vineyards; some had replanted with hardier yet inferior, thicker skinned varieties of grapes which were more suitable for transportation to East Coast markets. Napa’s wine industry had also lost many of its former customers to cheap liquor (e.g., bathtub gin) and many of its talented winemakers and growers left the industry for other work or left the country altogether.
Napa’s wine industry still had not recovered by the 1950s when grapes ranked fourth in value, after cattle, prunes and poultry, of the agricultural products produced in the Napa Valley (Department of Agriculture 1950). Napa’s major wineries then produced mostly bulk table wines which emphasized quantity over quality. It wasn’t until the late 1960s, and particularly the 1970s, that Napa’s wine industry began to recover its earlier promise and development into the fine wine industry we know today.
This was due in large part to the designation of much of the Napa Valley as an agricultural preserve and the international notoriety gained at the Paris wine tasting competition of 1976 where two Napa Valley wines took first place, shocking Europeans by beating out renowned French wines. A major upset, the Paris tasting heralded a new wave of interest in the Napa Valley and respect for American wines in general. The Paris tasting played a large role in promoting tourism to Napa which will discussed in the following chapter.
25 The Agriculture Preserve
As the Bay Area prospered after World War II, the population grew placing development pressures on agricultural areas such as Napa. The state of California talked of building a four-lane highway though the valley where the two-lane Highway 29 lies today. Planners also envisioned expanding the territorial boundaries of the city of Napa to accommodate a projected half million residents by 2020 (Franson 2008). Additionally, an idea to build the area’s fourth major airport in the marshes at the south end of the county was floated. Fortunately for Napa’s agricultural landscape and wine and tourism industries, all of these proposals failed. Napa residents also showed remarkable grassroots organizing abilities in their fight against the Army Corps of Engineers’ plan to cement the Napa River in the same fashion as the Los Angeles River in order to “control flooding.” Citizens and the corps eventually worked together to create a natural floodplain and retain the natural course of the Napa River. These events demonstrate the local resolve to protect Napa’s cultural landscape from outside development pressures
In 1967, Napa Valley was still agricultural, growing walnuts and prunes along with grapes, when large family-owned holdings began to be broken up into smaller inheritances. Some locals started small real estate ventures, building speculative homes on small lots. This was around the same time that other Bay Area regions, such as the
Santa Clara and Livermore valleys were being developed, transforming former rural landscapes into suburbs (Figure 2.2) (Conaway 1990). Some Napa residents began to see major changes in store for the valley if nothing was done. A few winemakers and locals began a grassroots movement promoting the idea of an agricultural preserve designed to protect what, in their minds, was the true nature of the valley. Land had been set aside in
26 the United States for national parks, historic sites, and recreation areas, but never for agriculture before (Franson 2008). Developers and many landowners did not see the advantages of a preserve and believed Napa’s most prosperous path would be as a bedroom community for San Francisco. They believed an agricultural preserve would ruin the real estate boom, quashing their hopes of selling their land for a decent price
(Conaway 1990).
Figure 2.2 Map of Urban Growth in San Francisco Bay Area (1900-1990)
Urban growth has spread to much of the nine Bay Area counties (Source: NCDCDP 2008) The Napa Valley is not only a geographically unique place--one of the relatively few on earth ideally suited to growing wine grapes-- it is also a politically unique place.
A handful of enlightened County supervisors, with the backing of some influential residents, foresaw the need to protect Napa’s agricultural and rural nature, and enacted legislation to accomplish it. Seeing many nearby counties succumb to development and residential sprawl, these residents recognized the need to protect the valley—despite the lure of quick real-estate profits. Protecting agriculture and the rural character of the valley did not come without a fight. The pro-development lobby was strong, but in the
27 end the collective vision of the valley residents won out over individual interests. In
1968, Napa County passed a landmark land protection scheme known as the agricultural preserve, the first of its kind in the country.
The “Ag Preserve,” as it is locally referred to, would allow land to be taxed according to its agricultural value rather than its developmental value, making land much more affordable for farmers even during a real estate boom (Alden 1968, Conaway
2007). With this knowledge and the word of the county assessor who assured people that their land ultimately would be worth more in agriculture than in housing developments, the Napa County board of supervisors voted unanimously 5 – 0 to enact the Agricultural
Preserve (Franson 2008). The vote enraged opponents who immediately threatened to elect three new supervisors who would vote the preserve down vowing that, “in twenty years nobody will even remember this” (Conaway 1990:92)
Originally the Ag Preserve zoned 26,000 acres on the valley floor and foothills as
“agricultural resource” (AR). This has since been expanded to over 38,000 acres; not a single acre has been lost to rezoning (Franson 2008). A revolutionary plan at the time, it expressed the sentiment that “agriculture is the highest and best use of the land” (Hickey
2008). Designed to protect agricultural lands from development and to limit population growth outside of townships, the original language in the act placed the minimum parcel size for building a residence at 20 acres; 10 years later this was doubled to 40 acres
(Hickey 2008). By preventing the subdivision of large plots for housing developments, the agricultural landscape of the valley was kept intact. As Jim Hickey, former Napa
County planning director says,
28 Keep in mind as you travel around in the unincorporated area of Napa
County that what you don’t see is as important as what you do see. You
don’t see billboards or shopping malls, furniture marts, automobile
dealerships or large residential subdivisions. You don’t see the urban
sprawl that has become a regular part of the landscape in and around other
metropolitan areas around the country (2008:3).
Indeed, the Ag Preserve has been responsible for keeping the Napa’s agricultural landscape uncluttered and free from development. By protecting lands within the unincorporated areas of Napa County, the agricultural preserve defines the urban footprint of the county’s municipalities (Napa Valley Vintners 2008). Beyond protecting the valley floor, an additional designation of “Agriculture, Watershed and Open Space”
(AW) was applied to much of the mountainous eastern portion of the valley where over half the county’s acreage lies. Together the AR and AW zones protect 482,000 of Napa
County’s 505,859 acres, roughly 91 percent of county land (Franson 2008) (Figure 2.3).
James Conaway (1990: 83) notes the Ag Preserve “was destined to alter Napa Valley so profoundly that even the most imaginative of its residents could only dimly perceive its importance.”
It is a testament to the strength and popularity of the preserve that not a single acre of preserved land has been re-zoned for a non-agricultural use. The citizens of Napa
County have over time become converts and strong promoters of the ag preserve by approving measures in 1979 to limit population growth in unincorporated areas of Napa county to one percent (Measure A) and in 1990 to prohibit rezoning any agricultural land for non-agricultural use without a two-thirds vote by residents (Measure J). This citizen
29 support indicates a commitment to Napa’s current cultural landscape. Despite having much public approval, there is nevertheless pressure to amend the regulations and allow development. In the words of County Supervisor Diane Dillon, “there is constant pressure every day from residential and hotel developers who want to build on agricultural land” (Todorov 2008). This wave of tourist development pressure will be looked at more fully in the next chapter.
Another county regulation designed to control tourism and the integrity of the Ag
Preserve was the Winery Definition Ordinance of 1990, which sought to define what a winery is and what activities it -- limiting ancillary activities and the number of visitors allowed. In 1990, the County also adopted a hillside erosion control ordinance that imposed a strict environmental review process on all hillside development (Franson
2008).
30 Figure 2.3 Land Use Map for Napa County
Much of Napa County’s open space and agricultural lands are protected by the County’s General Plan. (Source: NCDCDP 2008)
31 The Winery Definition Ordinance
While development pressures constantly threaten to take land out of Ag Preserve protection, the actions of wineries within the Ag Preserve also threaten the integrity of the land protection scheme. As tourism grew in the 1970s, wineries quickly saw the potential of developing lavish tasting rooms to expand their cellar door sales of wine but also to profit from the sale of gifts, foods, tours, even weddings and corporate events.
Some winery owners and most farmers, however, felt that wineries shouldn’t be in the entertainment and hospitality business and that doing so did not reflect Napa Valley’s traditional agricultural landscape. Furthermore, they felt that allowing such non- agricultural uses in the Ag Preserve would create more pressure for further variances
(Franson 2008). This struggle between the wine business and the tourist business is common within Napa politics.
The issue was eventually resolved in 1990 with the Winery Definition Ordinance
(WDO) that prohibited new wineries from offering hospitality and entertainment amenities. The ordinance restricted activity at wineries within the ag preserve by prohibiting weddings, restaurants, gift shops, and inns and by mandating that wineries allow visitors by appointment only (although this rule is not strictly enforced by many wineries) (St. Helena Star 2009). As James Conaway writes,
That many winery owners push behind the scenes for changes in land-use
regulations to allow them to expand further is an ugly irony, since it is
they who should be protecting the status quo. It was the struggling
winemakers who back in the 1960s got the ag preserve law through the
local board of supervisors, but changes now proposed by the newer
32 wineries would allow more parking lots and related enterprises
capitalizing on tourism. Some wineries are tacit allies of developers and
potential retailers who claim commercial rights in the countryside and
argue that exceptions to the zoning laws are both necessary and inevitable
(2007:257)
Recently, the Winery Definition Ordinance has been called into question by a hospitality industry proposal to loosen restrictions on wineries. The proposal argues that giving wineries more freedom to expand their operations with ancillary activities will help grape growers, while maintaining restrictions will threaten their economic survival
(St. Helena Star 2009). A local event planner related that visitors are amazed that they can’t have the event they want in Napa; “they want a Wine Country experience that they see in the movies and envision in their head” (Napa Valley Register 2009). Other citizens think the proposal is a well-timed move to capitalize on fears associated with the economic downturn which began in 2008 by loosening the territorial restrictions of the
Ag Preserve. A resident asks in a recent editorial, “why the proposed changes to the
Winery Definition Ordinance? Why bring Las Vegas to Napa?...maybe it’s corporate greed attempting to squeeze more profits” (Hyde 2010). Vineyard owner Andy
Beckstoffer writes that seeking activities farther and farther removed from wine making
“threatens the very culture of agricultural preservation itself” and that any modification made must “not weaken the brand “Napa” or violate the culture and the sense of place that is our home” (Beckstoffer 2010). Winery owner Peter McCrea sums up this sentiment in a local editorial,
33 Basically we all made a conscious decision when the WDO was adopted
to surrender some of our individual rights as property owners for the
greater good of protecting the Napa Valley and the Ag Preserve, which
makes it so unique. This trade-off has richly rewarded the winery and
vineyard owners of the Napa Valley and the economy of Napa County as a
whole (McCrea 2009).
Sacrificing individual property rights for the sake of the greater good is indeed a unique characteristic of the Napa Valley landscape. The creation of the Ag Preserve and other land protection policies, such as the hillside erosion control ordinance and stream setback ordinance, which saw widespread support despite reducing landowners’ plantable land, all speak to this phenomenon. The creation of the Land Trust of Napa County in
1976 is another example of Napa landowners’ progressive action to preserve their county and its unique cultural geography. Over 52,000 acres of land or conservation easements have now been acquired by the Land Trust which will forever remain in agriculture or open space (Franson 2008).
The current stream of money and tourists to the valley form the next challenge to
Napa Valley’s landscape. As winery owner Daryl Sattui writes, “Sometimes people seeking beauty in the process destroy it. If I had my way, there would be no growth outside of the (valley’s) urban areas” (Brady-Herndon 2002). Sattui also suggests that tourists and wealthy weekend homeowners have no long-term commitment to preserving the land. However, the many efforts waged by the county and its residents to maintain an agricultural landscape in the face of development pressure and short-sighted interests demonstrate the importance of the landscape and setting to residents. The history of
34 grassroots battles to preserve land and the environment is still evident today and provides hope that Napa can maintain its landscape well into the future.
35
Chapter 3
The Rise of a Wine Region
“The suggestion of agrarian simplicity was just that, and fading.”
- James Conaway, 1990
Some cultural landscape scholars, such as J.B. Jackson and David Lowenthal, have questioned the advisability and practicality of freezing any particular landscape in time (Wilson 2003). Jackson writes that a landscape’s “beauty comes from its having been part of the world, not from having been isolated and protected, but from having known various fortunes” (quoted in Wilson 2003:14). While “knowing various fortunes” may impart more character and richness to a landscape, residents of an area typically have an idea of the type of landscape that they would like to see maintained (and probably what they wouldn’t want to see). An example of the changing of a landscape that many would regard as less than desirable and certainly not beautiful, lies 60 miles to the south of Napa in the Santa Clara Valley which was once one of California’s premier wine-growing regions. Today Santa Clara is known as “Silicon Valley” and is almost completely urbanized with highways, shopping centers, and residential areas covering what were once vineyards and orchards (Peters 1997). Residents of Napa Valley are aware of this transformation and have wondered if “their valley’s fate could be the same in the twenty-first century” (Conaway 2002:23).
36 Despite the agricultural preserve and other legislation that protects Napa’s landscape discussed in Chapter 2, the rise of tourism is having an impact upon the valley’s appearance and identity with increased traffic congestion, created by well-off visitors and the less well-off employees who serve them, multimillionaires building lavish wineries and vacation homes, and corporate buyouts of many vineyards and wineries (Conaway 2002). This has prompted residents and local government to call for limits on tourism, new wineries, and hillside development (i.e., prominent mansions and vineyards). As residents become more inconvenienced by tourists, resentment of their presence grows and the perception of Napa as a playground for the wealthy rather than a peaceful agricultural valley persists. Napa sells an elite brand of tourism and the tourists who visit tend to be affluent; more than 57 percent had household incomes of $100,000 or more in 2005 (Purdue 2006). Many locals and visitors who come frequently lament the “Disney-fication” of Napa which local columnist Matt Pope (2008) defines as “a once-rural area that is quaint for tourists but not livable for locals or the people who work here”.
The change in landscape is more than an inconvenience to residents, as tourism researcher Angela Skinner (2000) writes, “there are concerns that the grape-ification of the region and subsequent tourism development have resulted in the loss of some of the destinational characteristics of the area, such as its scenic beauty, that originally made it desirable” (2000:293). Former city planner and champion of the ag preserve, Jim Hickey says of protecting agricultural land, “if we ever reach the point where tourism, not agriculture, drives the economy, we’ve lost the ballgame” (Conaway 2007: 257).
37 A study on Napa’s tourism industry was done by Purdue University in 2005, published in 2006, which showed that tourists place a high value on Napa Valley’s landscape. Respondents most frequent response when asked to describe Napa as a wine region was “beautiful scenery.” When they were asked to list the best things about Napa,
“scenery” again was a top choice. Indeed many tourists even select the wineries they visit based on the views of the valley they afford. Napa Valley’s tourism industry is based on more than the quality of wine, it is about experiencing a connection to a relaxed, even refined lifestyle that is evoked by its landscape. This makes the landscape of Napa
Valley crucial to its highly profitable tourism industry (Dodd & Beverland 2001).
Visitors to Napa are also loyal, with more than 28 percent visiting the area seven or more times; the total percentage of all repeat visitors was 64.5 percent (Purdue 2006).
Figure 3.1 Bucolic vineyard setting.
Carneros, in Southern part of Napa County, features a rolling terrain in contrast to the flatter areas up-valley. (Source: Flickr.com)
38 Growing grapes and making wine are no more than agricultural and industrial production processes; however, geographer Brian J. Sommers writes that wine tourism differs from other agricultural or industrial heritage tourism; “even though it is a factory, a winery is a place that stresses our link to nature and encourages us to learn about it”
(2008:255). Perhaps passing a dairy farm or corn field does not excite the imagination in the way that orderly rows of vines do (Figure 3.1). Wine tourism also differs from many other forms due to its connection to place and history and culture. Current tourism industry trends indicate that these are becoming increasingly desired, writes Maria Furlan
(2004), a professor of tourism policy, as tourism moves away from “predatory” experiences or superficial, isolated tourist vacations and towards experience and discovery of local environments.
A tourism growth model was developed by geographer R.W. Butler (1980) outlining five distinct stages of development most tourism destinations experience: exploration, involvement, development, consolidation, and stagnation (Figure 3.2).
Beginning with the “exploration” stage, a destination is relatively unknown and attracts few visitors. As the destination grows in popularity, the “involvement” stage is ushered in and tourism infrastructure is expanded (e.g., tasting rooms and upscale accommodations) attracting even more tourists. In these early stages locals eagerly welcome tourists but become increasingly frustrated as their numbers grow and they become a nuisance and drain on local resources. During the “development” stage, marketing to tourists grows and the changes to the physical landscape that have been made to accommodate them become noticeable. Eventually, at the “consolidation” stage the tourism infrastructure reaches capacity and locals become frustrated with traffic,
39 noise, pollution, and crowding. From here the destination can fall to the “stagnation”
stage; in Napa’s case this would occur when viticulture loses ground to urban
development and more locals begin to move away to escape sprawl. At this point, many
popular tourist destinations fall into decline as travelers seek new and more attractive
places to visit.
Figure 3.2 Butler's model of tourism evolution
Napa lies in the consolidation stage of Butler’s curve, a ‘critical range’ from which tourism could decline or rejuvenate. (Source: Skinner 2000) Presently, wine tourism in the Napa Valley is healthy and growing, but there are signs that it has reached the “consolidation” stage as “tourists crawl along the two-lane roads from winery to winery, through bumper-to-bumper traffic on summer weekends”
(Skinner 2000:294). Signs of wine tourism abound: businesses and streets take wine country names and the number of guidebooks published on the area increase every year.
Neighboring Sonoma Valley is trying to promote and capitalize on the perception of an overcrowded Napa by advertising itself as the wine region that is more down-home and less congested. However, Napa has taken action to avoid reaching the “stagnation” stage
40 and secure the future of its tourism industry, notably by creating an agricultural preserve and by implementing slow-growth regulations. Skinner (2000) writes that to combat the expansion of the tourism industry, wineries need to adopt a collective plan to limit the negative effects of tourism on the region’s environment and social structure. Solutions also need to be devised to address the traffic congestion in the valley. However, she also writes that “the idea that wineries and tour operators can regulate their own tourism activities is naïve” and more often than not, there is a focus on short-term profits at the expense of long-term goals (Skinner 2000:295). The concern over the impacts of tourism growth has led many residents to take grassroots action to defeat development proposals and seek stricter zoning requirements and environmental impact statements for development projects. Some wineries in the 1980s became so concerned about tourists and residents’ reactions to them that they began cutting back on tasting room hours, declining tour buses, and charging for wine tastings in the hopes of limiting the influx of tourists (Dodd & Beverland 2001). This idea reinforces the need for the government of
Napa County to remain vigilant on land use and planning issues and tourism growth.
With tourism providing many jobs and generating so much revenue for the county, it is important to sustain the industry. However, Skinner (2000:286) writes that there is a “distinction between sustaining the wine tourism industry itself and developing wine tourism according to sustainable development principles.” In the former, tourism is developed to ensure its own success. In the latter, it is developed along with the goal of sustaining all the elements of the destination.
The boom in tourism to the Napa Valley began in the 1970s and 1980s. One of the most significant events that generated a huge tourism boost and brought much
41 international attention to the Napa Valley was a 1976 Paris wine tasting during which two
Napa wines beat renowned French wines. With tourism on the rise and money flowing in, the valley’s landscape began to change as can be seen today in the changing demographics and main streets in its small towns (e.g., with rising real estate prices and up-scale shops), bustling roads, and increase in the number of lavish vacation homes and wineries.
The 1976 Paris Tasting
A major turning point for the Napa Valley occurred in 1976 when British-born wine expert Steven Spurrier came up with the idea of organizing a blind tasting in Paris of California and French wines during the bicentennial of the American Revolution.
Pitting the Old World winemaking against the “New,” he matched the finest wines of
Burgundy and Bordeaux with California Chardonnays and Cabernet Sauvignons. Most
Europeans at the time thought very little of American wines, so the results of the blind tasting by French wine experts came as a shock; a 1973 Napa Valley Chardonnay from
Chateau Montelena edged out the best French whites, and a 1973 Napa Valley Cabernet
Sauvignon from Stag’s Leap finished first among the reds. Time magazine trumpeted the results in a full-page story headlined “Judgment of Paris” (Conaway 1990). Recently the event was the subject of a major motion picture entitled Bottle Shock (2008). The main character, a Napa winemaker, opens the movie with the narration, “it wasn't always like this. Before Paris, people didn't drink our wine.” Additionally, the Smithsonian
Institution has recognized the historic significance of the event and has collected soil samples along with oral histories from the wineries and winemakers involved.
42 The effects of the tasting were immediate as consumers on both coasts of the U.S. clamored for the award-winning wines, with one wine shop in New York City receiving
400 telephone calls in a single day (Conaway 1990). Napa’s success against the world’s renowned French wines convinced consumers that fine wine was not limited to the historic vineyards of Europe. In the Napa Valley, tourists streamed in to taste and purchase. Wine prices rose and wealthy businessmen arrived seeking to build wineries and second homes and speculators began buying up-valley real estate. A new era of investment and tourism interest in the valley was ushered in.
Shifting Towns
The arrival of large numbers of well-off tourists with money to spend has transformed the up-valley towns of Yountville, St. Helena, and Calistoga. All three towns have populations below 6,000 yet boast lavish restaurants, hotels, spas, and other tourist amenities. These towns have also undergone shifts in their residential and commercial makeup as the influx of wealthy people capable of paying top dollar for a home in the valley has driven up the cost of housing forcing many residents out of the local housing market. It isn’t just the housing market that has been affected, but the overall cost of living as new types of businesses have sprung up to cater to high-end tourists.
The main streets of these towns, particularly St. Helena, have shifted from family- owned shops that served local needs (e.g. groceries, auto parts, and hardware) to specialty shops catering to tourists and to the valley’s newer wealthy residents (e.g. art galleries, boutique clothing stores, and olive oil or artisan food companies). The increased demand
43 for retail space has driven up rents to the point that they are no longer affordable for most of the traditional businesses geared towards locals. As a result of these changes and the traffic congestion leading into these bustling tourist towns there has been a reorientation for many locals away from St. Helena and Yountville and toward the city of Napa, especially for shopping.
Yountville, named after the first pioneer settler of the valley, George Yount, has perhaps seen the largest transformation as it changed from a backwater town with few amenities in the late 1960s to a tourist mecca. Prior to the rise of tourism in the late
1970s, Yountville was a downtrodden agricultural town known only for its large residential institution for military veterans -- the Veterans Home of California. At the time it had a couple general stores, a restaurant, some rundown housing for agricultural workers, and several dingy bars that catered to the nearby vets. Now, Yountville is seen as a premier resort town with high-end hotels and resorts, a golf course, and a bustling main street filled with gourmet restaurants owned by celebrity chefs (including Thomas
Keller’s French Laundry), art galleries, and tasting rooms.
Architecture and Development
As the status of Napa Valley grew, many wealthy Californians acquired real estate there for second homes and, in some cases, wineries they could call their own. Author James Conaway, a preservationist and vocal critic of threats to
Napa Valley’s landscape suggests that the undoing of Napa may come in part from the sprawl of boutique wineries built by rich newcomers, sacrificing Napa’s natural and architectural heritage in the name of showing off (Courtney 2008).
44 His book, The Far Side of Eden, deals in part with the battles between these newcomers and local residents who wanted to preserve the valley’s landscape and open space. Conaway makes a distinction between these recent winery owners who are more interested in the social aspect of wine and the traditional owners who value the art of wine production. He writes that the pioneering spirit of the
1960s has been replaced “by a desire for notoriety and a style of life unrelated to the land as anything more than a backdrop, and in many cases the architecture is clearly more important than the wine. Function follows fashion” (2007:256).
Architectural writer Michael Webb seems to agree, writing that “some wineries are intended to make an instant impression, like billboards erected to grab the attention of people passing by” (Paulsen 2006). Opus One winery falls into this category as an eye-catching monument alongside Highway 29 and gives off an elite feel as its architecture invokes an expansive ancient American temple
(Figure 3.3). Another example is the large, totalitarian design for Dominus
Estates which also happens to exclude visitors “symbolizing the unapproachable
‘vintner’ elite” (Figure 3.4) (Conaway 2005:3). More often than not new Napa wineries look to the future of winemaking in their design, eschewing the past, as
Harm De Blij writes,
“Modernization, however, and not tradition, forms the dominant
impression in Napa’s cultural landscape….the Napa Valley represents all
that is new, efficient, hygienic, and innovative in viticulture” (1983:157).
In the drive for the best views and prominent locations, the hillsides of the valley are increasingly under development pressure (Figure 3.5). Critics argue that such highly
45 visible hillside homes, along with designer wineries, threaten the valley’s natural beauty and identity as a pastoral landscape. In response to hillside development, the county adopted a viewshed protection program in 2001 to preserve the view from the valley floor of the Vaca and Mayacamas ridgelines (Appendix B). The program enacts additional environmental reviews for hillsides and promotes architecture that is less evident on the landscape (NCDCDP 2008).
Figure 3.3 Opus One Winery
Built as a partnership between renowned French and American wineries Opus One’s temple-like architecture sprawls out along highway 29. (Source: panoramio.com)
46 Figure 3.4 Dominus winery
Designed by internationally acclaimed architecture firm Herzog and de Meuron, Dominus winery lies off of highway 29. Its architecture has been criticized as cold and unapproachable. (Source: Flickr.com) Figure 3.5 Hillside development
Visible development on the hillsides of Napa Valley is a blight on the landscape and a contentious issue amongst residents and planners. (Source: Flickr.com)
47 The Wine Train
The Wine Train is a tourist railway that runs from the City of Napa up-valley alongside Highway 29 terminating in the small mid-valley town of St. Helena.
Originally called the Napa Valley Railroad, the line was built in 1864 by resort owner
Samuel Brannon to bring tourists to the spa and resort town of Calistoga, which he had founded. From Calistoga the line stretched 42 miles south to Vallejo where a ferry connected passengers to San Francisco. Through many changes in ownership the line continued to carry passengers until 1930, when it became a freight line that over the years saw diminishing financial returns and was finally sold in 1984. The sale of the railroad piqued the interest of a group of local investors who were initially interested in creating a commuter line serving the valley and neighboring counties. There were even some grumblings from local residents suggesting the county purchase the line and turn it into a bicycle and pedestrian path; unfortunately they would have to wait 25 years for a similar proposal to come to fruition (Conaway 1990). However, the dismal financial prospects of short run commuter lines soon became apparent and so the investors began to look at
(re)creating a tourist railway with an historic feeling -- eight early-1900s era Pullman coaches. The Wine Train invested a lot of money to evoke the feel of luxury rail travel at the beginning of the twentieth century. The train cars were extensively restored and
“furnished with Honduran mahogany paneling, brass accents, etched glass partitions, and velveteen fabric armchairs” (Wine Train 2010).
The Wine Train planned to stop in the small towns of Yountville and St. Helena and allow tourists to disembark but residents protested vigorously, dreading the inevitable tourist overrun of their towns. The mayor of St. Helena even threatened to lay down on
48 the tracks in protest (Conaway 1990). St. Helena’s city council filed a formal complaint and was joined by the cities of Napa and Yountville, the Napa Valley Vintners
Association, the Napa Valley Grape Growers Association, and the Napa County Farm
Bureau in addition to a number of wineries. Compromises were eventually reached and the Wine Train’s owners agreed to forgo disembarking passengers and cut down on the number of daily trips the train made. Now “marketed to tourists as an alternative to suffering traffic congestion, the Napa Valley Wine Train carries passengers from one end of the Valley to the other, serving wine and meals along the way, without passengers ever alighting to actually experience the Valley” (Figure 3.6) (Skinner 2000:294).
Figure 3.6 Napa Valley Wine Train
The Napa Valley Wine Train parallels highway 29 and will share much of its right of way with the eventual Vine Trail. (Source: San Francisco Chronicle)
Traffic Congestion
Traffic congestion is the most serious consequence of tourism for valley residents’ quality of life. As tourism researchers Tim Dodd and Michael Beverland
(2001:258) write, “the local people who once welcomed wineries may have a growing
49 resentment towards them as traffic problems and prices increase in the area.” This sentiment is reflected in a letter to the local paper, “if we do not address the problems and issues of vehicular crowding as a community, we fear Napa Valley’s future will be as increasingly bloody [accident-wise] as it will be unsightly” (Ames 2007).
Napa County’s transportation system follows the basic geography of the land as the main roads follow the north-south axis of the valley enclosed by hillsides on either side, opening up at the southern end. Traffic movement is shaped by this geography as south of the city of Napa has easy connections to the east and west and sees much cross- county travel. Enclosed by hillsides, the up-valley area acts as an “island” which influences congestion patterns and places constraints on transportation system design.
The roadways, primarily two-lane roads, reflect the agricultural nature of the valley with no direct access to an interstate in Napa County (Napa General Plan 2008).
Roughly 90 percent of visitors arrive in Napa by private or rented vehicle and have little transportation options once in the valley (Purdue 2006). With a very limited bus service as the only public transit in the valley, most of the visitors tour in their cars or hire limousines. As most of these visitors come to tour wineries, the resulting traffic is concentrated along the roads that provide access to these sights. The compact geography further exacerbates the problem as only two roads (Silverado Trail and Highway 29) provide north-south access north of the city of Napa. “If you really want to get from one place to the other, you have to travel one of those two roads,” says Eliot Hurwitz (2009) manager of Napa County Transportation Planning Agency (NCTPA). All but ten miles on Highway 29 are two-lane highway and are frequently clogged during rush hours and much of the weekend during tourist season.
50 Concerned with the future of Napa County’s transportation system, an 18-month study entitled Napa’s Transportation Future was commissioned in 2009 by the Napa
County Transportation Authority (NCTPA) that lays out goals, values, and the challenges facing the valleys transportation system. Local and regional traffic is projected to increase 36 percent over the next 20 years (Courtney 2009). The report suggests further study of public transportation such as bus rapid transit and commuter rail; however, even with dense housing near transit, increased gas prices, higher costs of parking, more regular buses and better biking facilities locals will still end up driving more miles, says
Elliot Hurwitz of the NCTPA (Courtney 2009). Other members of the community seem to echo the pessimism calling the traffic predictions “very troubling,” and a member of the Napa Valley Taxpayers Alliance saying, “we’re going to have a lot of traffic no matter what we do” (Courtney 2009).
The NCTPA report (2009) lists five goals the county will strive to reach by 2035.
They include reducing the number of automobile vehicle miles traveled, improving the safety of street infrastructure, and shifting travel from single-occupancy vehicles to other modes. The report also calls for increasing the percent of trips made by bicycling to 10 percent. These goals were influenced by the core values of the Napa County League of
Governments Principles, a document created with input from all six of Napa’s jurisdictions. The preservation of the agricultural character of the county exists as the primary value and to that end the document calls for increasing housing density and walkable communities around transit nodes, expanding alternative transportation modes and developing active, cultural and recreational attractions to distribute visitor activity throughout the year (Hurwitz 2009).
51 As well as offering alternative transportations the county is trying to disperse tourists including the long running effort to reinvigorate the city of Napa. Tourists have historically eschewed the city for the up valley towns of Yountville, St. Helena, and
Calistoga home to the majority of the fine restaurants, resorts and wineries. These towns are small, quaint and set amongst vineyards, embodying the rural ideal. Copia, the
American Center for Wine, Food and the Arts, a museum partially funded by Robert
Mondavi, opened in the city of Napa in 2001. Never meeting expectations, it lost millions a year until it closed in 2008, $78 million in debt (Carson 2008). Its failure was due in part to its location in downtown Napa and the lack of interest in exploring a large indoor museum while in wine country. However, the city of Napa has seen some recent success in attracting tourists as it has restored some of its historic downtown and redeveloped its riverfront, however, it will never have the allure of the up-valley towns and wineries.
As Napa’s Transportation Future looks ahead, the goals outlined are designed to answer the critical transportation challenges over the next 30 years. A primary challenge to reducing traffic congestion throughout the country is the entrenched automobile culture in American society. Some 91 percent of all American households own a car and often two, three or even four (Kay 1997). Napa is not immune to this trend, with 2.6 vehicles per housing unit it has a robust car culture despite the majority of the counties population living in the city of Napa and its anti-sprawl efforts (Hurwitz 2009).
Some typical solutions to mitigate traffic congestion are not appropriate to Napa
Valley because it is a rural, agricultural valley with strict zoning laws that won’t abide new or expanded roadways. Additionally, the valley’s population density is too low to
52 support a workable public transit system. The one transit option serving the whole county, the Vine bus system, suffers from a lack of ridership and can’t afford to make frequent runs further decreasing its utility. In light of these community principles, goals, and challenges “..there is clearly no single, big project solution to Napa’s future transportation needs” (Hurwitz 2009).
Among the remaining solutions is the promotion of non-motorized transportation options. Currently, Napa County is one of the least bicycle friendly counties in the Bay
Area despite its flat valley floor and warm, dry climate. Many tourists imagine (rightly so) that Napa would be a wonderful place to tour by bike, but once they see the roadway conditions they are deterred (Woodbury 2009). Riding on the shoulder of a two-lane highway with a 50 mile speed limit is not a comfortable ride for even an avid cyclist let alone a novice or sight-seeing tourist. The lack of bicycle infrastructure is a determent to tourists and locals alike. Not only would an adequate bicycle infrastructure promote non- motorized commuting but it would also offer an attractive recreational alternative to many tourists who wish to see the valley at a slower and more intimate pace.
In some respects, the traffic issue in the Napa Valley resembles that seen in many
National Parks which are driven through to take in natural beauty and to experience the entirety of the park. Interestingly, there was a discussion in the 1980s over the feasibility of turning Napa Valley into a National Park. The local approach which instituted the agriculture preserve was believed to be inadequate by some because the regulation could be easily overturned. With just five county supervisors often breaking down 3-2 in favor of land protection, it would take just one shift on the board to undo much of the agricultural preserve’s protections. A campaign to get the federal government involved
53 to declare the entire valley a national park or federal preserve was started (Cannon 1980).
However, the proposal was fraught with difficulties and the idea ultimately went nowhere. The natural environment, scenery, and a sense of escape into nature is a key reason people visit National Parks and lines of noise and air-polluting private vehicles degrade these qualities. Many parks have recognized this problem and have mandated that people leave their cars behind and ride shuttle buses. However, in Napa, tourists cannot be forced out of their cars, they must have an incentive to do so, either with a more attractive or efficient option.
In order to provide more transit options within a somewhat rigid transportation system an off-road bicycle and pedestrian path running from north to south through the valley was proposed by the NCTPA in their Greenway Feasibility Study (2008). The study “emerged in response to Napa Valley’s commitment to providing transportation options, tourism opportunities, and a strong desire to enhance the quality of life for residents throughout the valley” (Alta Planning + Design 2008:i). The project has now taken the name The Vine Trail and is projected to attract 3 million uses a year (Vine Trail
Coalition 2010). Not only does the trail provide non-motorized transportation options but it allows its users to actively experience Napa Valley’s landscape as opposed to passively viewing it through a car’s window. The trail has the potential to build support for the landscape and its protection as well as communicating the cultural landscape of the Napa
Valley through the usage of interpretive displays. Interpretative displays are often located alongside historic landmarks of which Napa has many, including wine caves dug by Chinese laborers; a water-powered grist mill; barns, wineries, bridges and even remnants of Pony Express trails.
54
Chapter 4
Trails and Greenways
In 1968, Congress passed the National Trails System Act creating a framework for the development of trails to promote the preservation of and public access to outdoor areas and historic resources. The act created three categories of trails: National Scenic
Trails, National Recreational Trails, and National Historic Trails. The most well-known long distance trails in the country, the Appalachian and Pacific Crest Trails, were created by the act as National Scenic Trails. The passage of the bill signified the importance of trails as recreational amenities for the public and the role they could play in preserving scenic areas and historic landscapes. While the trails created by this act tend to cover long distances, spanning multiple counties and states, there are also many more local- level trail projects that are not covered by the act.
Foremost in the development of community-level trails is the organization Rails- to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) which works with communities to transform abandoned railways into multi-use trails. Since its founding in 1986, the number of rail-trails has jumped from 200 to 1,600; there are now 19,000 miles of rail-trails in the country (RTC
2010). The first rail-to-trail conversion was initiated by naturalist and landscape writer
May Thielgaard Watts near her Illinois home in 1963. She argued that a trail would have restorative properties for the community and allow community members to experience
55 and reconnect with the landscape. The Illinois Prairie Path now stretches 61 miles following the abandoned Chicago, Aurora, and Elgin electric railroad line which provided passenger service between the suburbs and downtown Chicago (RTC 2010).
The rails to trails movement has seen an increase in trail projects due in large part to the many railways that are being abandoned in the U.S. However, the trail movement has a much longer history in this country and can trace its roots to early landscape architects and city planners.
Frederick Law Olmstead and Calvert Vaux are credited with originating the idea of greenways, essentially parkland trails, in the late 1800s. Influenced by the City
Beautiful Movement which took a much more expansive view of city planning, including recreational and cultural amenities and planning for quality of life, Olmstead and Vaux designed many urban parks including Central Park in New York City and Prospect Park in Brooklyn. Greenways were featured in many of their park plans. Historian David
Schuyler notes that, “the Prospect Park assignment led Vaux and Olmsted to a full realization that no single park, no matter how large and how well designed, would provide the citizens with the beneficial influences of nature” (Little 1990: 11). Instead, they realized that parks needed to be linked to one another and to their surrounding neighborhoods giving people a chance to stroll through an uninterrupted environment.
Perhaps Olmsted’s best-known greenway park plan is the Emerald Necklace in Boston.
Also known as the Olmsted Parkway, it connects Boston Common with Franklin Park along the Back Bay Fens and Muddy River to create a four and a half-mile arc around the city (Little 1990).
56 While today we think of trails and greenways as being exclusively non-motorized; the greenway model was used for scenic roads in the early 1900s. With the increase in automobile ownership a need for roads and recreation routes grew and many scenic routes for pleasure cruising began to be built. These roads took inspiration from historic carriage routes that wound through natural settings. Usually referred to as “parkways” the first to be designed for recreational motor use was the Bronx River Parkway connecting New York City to Westchester County (Little 1990). The New York City area was a leader in parkway implementation thanks to Olmsted’s ideas which Robert
Moses, known at the time as the “master builder,” expanded on; he built more “parkways than any other single person in the history of the world” (Little 1990: 13). However, as cars transitioned from recreational vehicles to commonplace transportation modes these parkways became inundated with traffic turning them into commuter routes.
Similarly, as more people become involved in active transportation, such as biking and jogging, a need for safe and attractive routes becomes more pronounced. The number of respondents to the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment who walked for recreation increased from 85.4 million in 1982 to 179 million in 2002 – more than doubling while the U.S. population increased by just 20 percent during the same period. The number of people who rode a bicycle for recreation increased even more, from 27.4 million to 83.9 million — more than tripling in the same 20-year period
(Moore 2001). The rising interest in active transportation is a catalyst for trail development throughout the country.
57 Current State of Trail Development
Trail projects are attractive for many municipalities due to the health, recreation, and economic benefits they provide and their efficient use of land. As open-space options—in contrast to single-parcel spaces—they provide access to more people and allow for greater transportation and recreation uses. A small pocket park, for example, is primarily used by people living within a relatively small radius, while a trail corridor encompasses many more users and allows for active recreation and transportation such as jogging and bicycling. Trails can also be much cheaper to develop than parks by taking advantage of existing rights of way within cities and towns such as former railway lines and utility corridors (Platt 2001). Rail beds are ideal for trail development as they tend to have a low grade, are separated from roadways and often cut through scenic areas that the public would not normally be able to access. Rail-trails, as these conversions are called, can also be funded by selling utility easements that run underneath the trail surface. An important step for the rail-trail movement was the creation of the federal railbanking program, part of the National Trail Systems Improvement Act, which allows railroads to abandon their lines while keeping their corridors intact for future use. Previously, the railroad’s right of way easements would have reverted to the nearest landowners dividing the corridor up amongst many individuals and effectively destroying it.
The linear nature of trails creates an “edge effect” that makes them seem much more expansive than they actually are. “From the edge, a wooded park that might be a mile across looks the same as one that is two hundred feet in width. Clearly, therefore, a long, thin greenway can provide a great deal more apparent open space per acre than a consolidated parcel of land” (Little 1990:35). Trails are also useful alternative
58 transportation routes, especially in urban areas as many cities are trying to bolster their bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Recently, the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy teamed up with Google Maps to offer bicycling directions in addition to the driving and walking directions already provided (Kaleba 2010).
In addition to the desire for recreational facilities, communities view trails as a conservation technique to preserve land and provide access to diminishing open space
(Furuseth 1991, Little 1990). Trails, often referred to in more environmentally-friendly language as greenways, are most simply defined as linear open spaces that follow natural or man-made features (Moore 2001, Lindsay 2003, Nicholls 2005, Little 1990). By following man-made features such as canals or railroads, trails offer users a chance to move through the cultural landscape of an area along routes that often played an important role in shaping the landscape of the area. Frequently these old transportation corridors also contain historic features providing an opportunity for heritage preservation and interpretation. In one of the more comprehensive texts on the subject, Charles E.
Little, a conservation scholar, identifies five major types of greenways:
x Urban riverside greenways, usually created as part of (or instead of) a redevelopment program along neglected, often run-down city waterfronts.
x Recreational greenways, featuring paths and trails of various kinds, often of relatively long distance based on natural corridors as well as canals, abandoned rail beds…, and other public rights of way.
x Ecologically significant natural corridors, usually along rivers and streams and (less often) ridgelines, to provide for wildlife migration and ‘species interchange’, nature study and hiking.
x Scenic and historic routes, usually along a road or highway (or less often a waterway).
x Comprehensive greenway systems or networks, usually based on natural landforms such as valleys and ridges but sometimes simply an
59 opportunistic assemblage of greenways and open spaces of various kinds to create an alternative municipal or regional green infrastructure (1990:4- 5).
Trails serve to connect communities, increase recreational opportunities, encourage non-motorized transportation, and are “used as one tool to achieve sustainable growth and design livable communities” (Erickson 2006: 27). In addition, trails provide many economic benefits to local residents through reduced transportation costs, improved property values, better health and therefore, fewer health care costs, and drawing in tourists (Platt 2000, Little 1990, Shafer 2000, Moore 2001).
Trails are built on the local and regional level with some serving as a “district” or
“neighborhood” recreational facility while others become regional attractions that draw visitors from far afield (Furuseth 1991). Length, design, and setting or location all play a role in how the public views and uses greenways. With Napa Valley’s prized landscape, agreeable climate, and flat valley floor it would make for a very attractive trail experience, similar to the many wine trails that exist in Europe. The diversity of greenway styles and uses means that “there is no one simple definition of the concept, since it is intimately related to the history and culture (and to features) of the regions concerned” (Furlan 2004: 272). For example, a recent trail development is the concept of heritage corridors. These designated areas attempt to communicate the history of an area and connect people with a region’s identity. Many aspects of trails make them uniquely suited to interpreting a cultural landscape. Trail users travel at slower speeds and are able to utilize all their senses compared to a driver whose only experience of the landscape is visual. This allows for more observation and reflection creating a more holistic
60 experience within the landscape. In this way trails have a unique ability to create a sense of place.
Connectivity is a key to the use and popularity of trails. Connecting neighborhoods with open space and other neighborhoods results in many benefits and increases the sustainability of a community. According to Scott Shafer, professor of
Environmental Planning, a sustainable community “can be defined broadly as one that seeks to provide and maintain good quality of life for all its members” (2000:165).
Indeed many residents have come to view trails as vital community resources. A national survey in 1994 found that homebuyers ranked “lots of natural open space” and “walking and biking paths” as the second and third most important features of a prospective neighborhood out of a list of 39 characteristics (Erickson 2006:5). A study in Oakland showed that residents perceived the opportunities for exercise and recreation that trails provide, as well as the preservation of open space and creation of community pride, as their greatest benefits (Shafer 2000).
Trails can increase the health of a community by encouraging outdoor activity and contact with nature. Dr. Howard Frumkin (2003), a professor of environmental and occupational health, writes that contact with nature enhances emotional and cognitive development in children, lowers blood pressure, decreases mortality among senior citizens, and reduces stress and enhances work performance. Additionally, as mentioned, studies show that walkable neighborhoods increase a sense of community by allowing for more social interaction among residents. Trails provide a place where social interaction is common, “residents are much more likely to witness neighbors—wave, smile, and talk to each other – while they are taking a walk or a bike ride” (Shafer 2000). Landscape
61 architect Paul Hellmund and environmental studies professor Daniel Smith write that greenways can help build social capital by fostering “networks of social ties and interactions that provide a crucial basis for trust, cooperation, and successful social, economic, and political activity” (2006:178). These networks are created not only through social interactions on the trail but at organizational levels as greenways are often supported by local, grassroots organizations and volunteers. The high degree of public involvement in greenway developments indicates that the communities they serve and the social benefits they provide span urban-suburban interests and race and class divisions.
The spectrum of public support greenways have generated is in marked contrast to “the open space activists of the 1960s who tended to be white, middle class and suburban”
(Little 1990: 33).
Besides their benefits to residents, trails, if sited in particularly scenic or historic areas can attract outside visitors. As tourism shifts more and more towards activity and experience (rather than more passive consumption), trail experiences are an increasingly sought after tourist attraction (Furlan 2004). Among the emerging niche tourism markets is bicycle tourism which presents an opportunity to diversify traditional tourist attractions and areas and spread the flow of tourists into less visited areas (Furlan 2004). Rather than the traditional view of transportation as a movement from point to point, mobility along a trail becomes a tourist attraction in and of itself and provides an alternative way to experience a locale’s cultural landscape. By having a trail facility in Napa Valley the hope is to allow tourists to experience the landscape without having a large impact upon it.
62 Obstacles to Trail Development
Like any infrastructure project, the implementation of greenways faces a number of challenges. The linear nature of greenways often means there is jurisdictional overlap between local municipalities and even between state and federal areas (Platt 2000).
Using abandoned rail or utility corridors can also pose problems of ownership or easement rights. Another hindrance to greenway development is adjacent property owners’ concerns over vandalism, crime, and loss of privacy and property value.
However, the primary hurdle to trail development has been a lack of funding. Many municipalities lack money for large land acquisitions or else it is not a priority when compared to other budgetary items (Platt 2001). However, growing environmental concerns in the early 1990’s about the impact of urban sprawl and the pollution of urban waterways shifted federal management ideas to a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between people and their environment (Shafer 2000). As a result, the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) began to fund transportation alternatives to the car to promote sustainability and in order to create a higher quality of life. Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure were among these transportation alternatives and were recognized as potentially contributing to “mobility and access, reliability, social equity, the environment and ultimately to quality of life in a community” (Shafer 2000: 164).
The greenway movement boom in recent years has been aided by this shift in federal transportation policy.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), passed in 1991, made hundreds of millions of federal transportation dollars available to build bicycle and pedestrian facilities for the first time (Moore 2001). This legislation also created the
63 National Recreational Trails Grant Program which has funded projects that encourage public-private partnerships. When ISTEA was renewed in 1998 as the Transportation
Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), federal funding was renewed and 10 percent of surface transportation funds were set aside to create “transportation enhancements, including trails and greenways” (Platt 2001: 19). While greenway projects must still compete with other transportation enhancements for a share of this 10 percent, a rider to the bill—known as the Symms Act Funds—targeted $270 million specifically to trail programs (Platt 2001). In addition to the federal funding now available, many states (including Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, and California) fund greenways as do a number of charitable organizations and private foundations.
California passed a $2.1 billion Parks and Open Space bond referendum in 2000, $7.5 million of which went directly to the Bay Trail project (Thompson 2001).
Another stumbling block occurs when affected landowners object to greenways because they believe that crime will increase, their privacy will be compromised, and their property values will fall. However, the research overwhelmingly shows that concerns over noise, litter, vandalism, loss of privacy, crime, and reduced real estate prices are seldom an issue once a greenway has been established (Platt 2000, Nicholls
20005, Thompson 2001, Erickson 2006). The Joe Redota bicycle trail in Sonoma,
California prompted such fears when it was proposed that adjacent property owners insisted that fences be built along their property lines. Not long after the fences were finished, several of the property owners cut holes in them so they could gain access to the trail, and a number of wineries along the trail petitioned for openings so that trail users could access their businesses (Woodbury 2009).
64 Researchers in Seattle, home to the much used Burke-Gilman Trail, interviewed three groups of people capable of judging the economic impact of the trail; real estate agents in the area, police who patrolled the trail, and the homeowners who lived along it.
Real estate agents found that properties near the trail were “significantly easier to sell,” while the police noted that there was no greater incidence of burglaries and vandalism of homes along the trail than in comparable neighborhoods elsewhere. Finally, two-thirds of residents themselves thought that the trail increased the quality of life in the neighborhood and not a single one thought it should be closed. In contrast to expressed concerns, the study showed that “trails are an amenity that helps sell homes, increase property values, and improve the quality of life” (Little 1990:187). Not surprisingly, then, greenways and open-space networks can greatly boost real estate values.
Frequently, property values adjacent to or near greenways increase; one greenbelt in
Boulder, Colorado increased aggregate property values in a single neighborhood by $5.4 million and resulted in $500,000 in additional tax revenues (Platt 2001:19).
Bay Area Trails
The San Francisco Bay Area is well known for its progressive political and social leanings and environmental policies. Steeped in environmental history, it is perhaps no surprise that the area has implemented a number of ambitious greenway projects. The regional greenways in the Bay Area have many of the same goals as all greenways – preserving ecology, providing recreation, enabling and encouraging non-motorized transportation, and enhancing community, all of which develop people’s appreciation for the natural and cultural landscape.
65 The San Francisco Bay Trail is focused on restoring the ecology of the Bay
Area’s wetlands and on reconnecting its citizens to the physical environment of the San
Francisco and San Pablo Bays. It encompasses two of the five types of greenways identified by Little (1990) cited at the beginning of the chapter: ecologically-significant corridors and recreational trails. Another Bay Area greenway in development, the Ridge
Trail, will provide a 500-mile loop of hiking trails around the Bay Area but also serves as an informal greenbelt that raises citizens’ awareness of the need to limit urban sprawl and protect open space on the urban fringe (Little 1990). Finally, the Vine Trail in the Napa
Valley, which will be discussed in depth in chapter 5, can be categorized as a recreational trail and also a scenic and historic route which will play an important role in the area’s transportation and tourism infrastructure. In an area in which most of the land and open space is already protected as an agricultural preserve, the proposed trail is intended to provide non-motorized access to the valley for its many tourists and workers as well as recreation.
San Francisco Bay Trail
The idea of creating a continuous recreational corridor that will extend around the perimeter of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays had long been considered but never thought to be feasible at close to 500 miles. The bays’ shorelines were historically considered by most people to be a place for landfills, factories, and port facilities. But as the Bay Area communities grew, some residents began to understand how important the shoreline is to people – with great potential for recreation, active transportation and as a connection to the Bay Area’s identity and sense of place (Little 1990).
66 Figure 4.8 Map of the San Francisco Bay Trail
The San Francisco Bay Trail is currently about 50 percent complete and will eventually span some 500 miles (Source: Association of Bay Area Governments)
67 The history of the San Francisco Bay is one of robust industrial and commercial growth along its shorelines. By the 1950s, 85 percent of the Bay’s wetlands had been destroyed and large areas of the Bay were being filled in to create more land to build upon (ABAG). The Bay was treated--as many water bodies were at the time--as a convenient place to dump refuse and sewage. After years of neglect and inaccessibility to the public, enough people became alarmed over the Bay’s condition that in 1965 the state legislature passed the McAteer-Petris Act which created a commission to plan for the future protection of the bay and to regulate development on and around it. Only four miles of shoreline were accessible to the public at the time the legislation was passed.
“The only time we really get to see the bay is when we cross the bridges,” lamented one
Bay Area resident (quoted in Little 1990: 155). The Bay Trail is an example of many communities’ desire to protect local natural landscapes in the face of development and to better connect with nature through the implementation of greenways (Figure 4.1).
In 1987, California state senator Bill Lockyer introduced legislation to direct the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to develop a continuous bicycle and pedestrian trail corridor around San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. The planning process was extensive and wide-ranging, drawing in environmental organizations, community groups, government representatives, and regional agencies (Thompson 2001, ABAG
1999). The final product, the Bay Trail Plan, was adopted by ABAG in 1989 and a non- profit organization was created to further plan and promote the trail. The plan is large in scope, crossing through nine different counties, 47 cities, and covering some 500 miles.
However, it has gained widespread political support as “it touches the home district of a large group of legislators, giving it a broad base of elected officials who appreciate local
68 ribbon cuttings and whose districts benefit from a completed regional trail” (Thompson
2001: 6). It will connect the urban waterfronts of San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose and encompass over 130 parks and open space preserves, while following the edge of the
West Coast’s largest estuary (Thompson 2001). To date, some 296 miles are complete
(Jones 2009).
As we can see in the example of the Bay Area there is a growing trail movement which has been prompted by environmental degradation, urban sprawl and a growing interest in sustainability and outdoor recreation. Communities and officials have begun to realize the diverse benefits of reconnecting with nature and the many social, economic, environmental, and recreational benefits that preserving and providing access to open space provides. The creation of trails is a cost effective way to achieve these goals.
Greenway projects come in many sizes and have many foci from large, continuous greenbelts such as the Ridge Trail to localized transportation and recreation routes such as the Vine Trail now being implemented in Napa Valley.
The northern section of the Vine Trail will act as a branch of the Bay Trail while the southern section will be the same trail as the Bay Trail; connecting Napa County to
Vallejo, with ferry service to San Francisco. Being located in one of the most popular tourist locations in California and expected to see three million users a year upon completion the Vine Trail while be one of the more traveled sections of the Bay Trail.
The Vine Trail will be much used for local transportation and recreation, however, its connection with the Bay Trail also gives the user the option for regional transportation.
Other than transportation and recreation the Vine Trail has the ability to educate the user about the landscape through which they are traveling with a well-planned interpretative
69 program. A trails ability to communicate information on the history, geography, and culture of an area will be looked at more in Chapter 5.
70
Chapter 5
The Vine Trail: A Vehicle for Landscape Interpretation
Preservationists recognize that change is inherent in cultural landscapes; yet, a balance must be maintained between retaining a cultural landscape’s distinctive qualities and the inevitable changes that come with time. Sometimes the pace of change reaches an unacceptable level, such as is the current case in the Napa Valley, prompting calls to preserve its unique qualities. Many efforts in the Napa Valley to control landscape change focus on reducing the flow of tourists into the valley and mitigating outsiders’ impact on the valley by enacting regulations and restrictions on wineries, tour operators, and real-estate development. Another approach has been to develop alternative attractions to lessen the strain on the most popular tourist destinations, particularly the congested roads and wineries up-valley. The Napa County League of Governments prepared a report in 2005 on the existing problems and future of tourism in the County entitled “Towards a Countywide Visitor-Serving Strategy.” Among the recommendations the report put forward, was targeting specific regions for “visitor- serving” uses, such as the city of Napa, and to explore alternative transportation methods linking the regions of the county (Goetting 2005). Two projects are directly to this end: efforts to revitalize the downtown of Napa city and the development of a multi-use trail running the length of the valley, called the Vine Trail.
The city of Napa was once a bustling port town but now is generally passed through by tourists and wealthy newcomers who prefer to settle up-valley. Long
71 neglected, the recent revitalization efforts in the city of Napa include a museum dedicated to wine, food and the arts (Copia), the renovation of an historic opera house, and the redevelopment of the city’s riverfront with retail, condos and a riverfront trail which will become part of the Vine Trail (Figure 5.1). Several large-scale hotel complexes have also been built in Napa. Many of these have been necessitated by the development restrictions that exist in up-valley towns. However, these hotels seem to act primarily as jumping off points for visitors who tour up-valley rather than as a base from which to explore the city of Napa itself.
Figure 5.9 Napa Riverwalk
The Riverwalk goes alongside the Napa River in downtown Napa as part of a recently developed promenade of shops and condos. (Source: Flickr.com) Copia, financed by one of the most important winery figures in Napa, Robert
Mondavi, opened in 2001 as “a celebration of the Napa wine world, as well as the culinary, visual and musical arts” (Carson 2008). Yet ever since its opening it has
72 struggled, losing millions of dollars a year until it finally shuttered its doors in 2008.
Part of the reason for its failure may have been visitors’ hesitance to spend a large chunk of their day milling around indoors while in such a picturesque area. However, judging by the amount of time tourists spend inside wineries perusing interpretive displays on winemaking and growing, the failure of the museum was probably based more on its location in Napa than lack of tourist interest.
The Vine Trail
The Vine Trail was proposed in order to reduce traffic congestion, provide recreation for residents and to serve as a new tourism attraction -- a multi-use trail that runs the length of the valley. The trail would also provide an amenity for locals who wish to have a safe and comfortable route for active transportation. It could also serve to educate residents and visitors alike about the history of Napa’s landscape and create a framework for the interpretation of its cultural landscape.
The idea for a trail running the length of the Napa Valley is not a new one; it had been discussed in the late 1980s when the Southern Pacific railroad abandoned the line and sold the corridor. But the recent the death of a well-known vintner in a bicycle- automobile accident reignited these efforts. The accident crystallized the need for a trail for many people, and they began to actively promote one (McMinn 2009). The transportation agency of Napa County had commissioned a report, called the Greenway
Feasibility Study, which detailed a proposed off-road trail running the length of the valley. The study identified three potential off-road north-south routes from Calistoga to
Vallejo, a city located on San Pablo Bay with a ferry terminal serving San Francisco, the
73 route originally covered by the Napa Valley Railroad. Around the same time as the county’s study, another non-profit organization, the Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition was forming with the same goal in mind -- an off-road trail spanning the length of the valley.
Not only will the trail run from Calistoga to Vallejo but it will connect and fill gaps in two other large greenway projects in the Bay Area, the Ridge and Bay Trails. All told the proposed trails will eventually run 156 miles on three interconnected trails
(Figure 5.2) (Vine Trail Coalition 2010). The regional connection to Vallejo will provide access via the Baylink Ferry Terminal to downtown San Francisco. In addition to serving locals, the connections to other large-scale greenways and ferries will allow regional visitors to travel to Napa without the aide of a private vehicle. The Vine Trail will also serve as a tourist draw and induce visitors to get out of their cars and use non-motorized transportation. Encouraging non-motorized transportation is important to Napa Valley’s tourism industry as congested roads and frequent traffic jams mar the scenic and rural qualities that characterize Napa’s cultural landscape and the reason many visitors come to the valley. The increasing numbers of tourists and tourist-oriented development and bumper-to-bumper traffic during peak season and peak hours of the day have resulted in the degradation of the rural environment and Napa’s scenic beauty (Skinner 2000).
Figure 5.2 Napa Valley Trails Master Plan
74
The trail system plan for Napa County featuring the Vine Trail and sections of the Bay and Ridge Trails. (Source: Vine Trail Coalition 2010)
75 At the moment, there are a few bike tour and rental companies advertising an alternative way to see the valley, with one brochure boasting, “the view is so much better from the seat of a bicycle!” However, the routes offered by these companies are limited as Napa Valley is generally considered a poor place for cycling since the only two north- south thoroughfares are congested and see high speed traffic (Vine Trail Coalition 2010).
Chuck McMinn, director of the Vine Trail Coalition, commented that many bike tour companies stay away from Napa Valley for this very reason. Napa has been ranked second or third in the past three years in bicycle accidents per capita out of the nine Bay
Area counties, despite being a rural county. At present, Napa County only has seven miles of designated off-road bike path located in a less traveled area. Its only north-south bike lanes run alongside a winding two-lane highway (Silverado Trail) that sees 55 mph traffic and its fair share of automobile accidents. (There was a fatal two-car wreck on the road about ten minutes after I drove down it to conduct an interview for this thesis.) By providing a safe off-road path, it is hoped that the off-road Vine Trail will coax many more people out of their cars and onto their feet or bicycles and serve to reignite active transportation throughout the valley. Winemaker Lars Bjorkman commented in an interview
I can’t wait to commute on the Vine Trail, primarily due to safety
concerns with biking on the Silverado Trail. You have to hold your breath
riding your bike around all the curves not knowing if a car is out of its lane
around the corner. Especially when you know some of the drivers of these
vehicles have been wine tasting all day you’d like to see a trail off the
highway for use only by bikes (2009).
76 With Napa Valley’s scenery, agreeable climate, and flat valley floor it is an ideal area for active transportation.
Greenway Feasibility Study
In 2007, the Napa County Transportation Planning Agency (NCTPA) commissioned a Greenway Feasibility Study to examine the potential for a trail in Napa
County. As mentioned above, currently the valley’s two north-south roads are both congested and dangerous places for cyclists. The NCTPA believes that a trail will ease the strain on Napa Valley’s roadways and increase the quality of life for residents.
Running the length of the valley, the trail would connect all five communities of Napa
County as well as link to the Bay and Ridge Trails. The trail project is divided into two sections. The northern section runs 22 miles from Calistoga, the northernmost town in the valley, to the city of Napa in the south. The southern portion would run approximately 20 miles through Napa City and connect to Vallejo, using either an inland route or following the river. While the unstated yet widely acknowledged goal of the trail is to reduce traffic in the valley and lessen tourist impact, the five specific goals listed in the initial greenway plan are as follows:
x Improve north-south access for bicyclists and pedestrians in Napa County
x Improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety
x Maximize benefits to the public
x Minimize negative impacts on the environment and local communities
77 x Minimize trail impacts to private lands and operations including agricultural,
residential, transportation, and other land uses (Alta Planning + Design
2008:ii)
The study estimates the trail will see three million uses per year and will eliminate over 150,000 vehicle trips a year (Alta Planning + Design 2008). Increasing the number of bicyclists is a high priority for Napa County and each town is renewing their bicycle plans as the multi-use trail proposal moves forward. Paul Price, president of the NCTPA, said in an interview, “we want to adopt what was done in Amsterdam. We want to be more like the Dutch where bicycling is treated as a viable means of transportation. We need to break that logjam of thought that it’s highways and streets first and everything else is not even secondary, but tertiary” (2009). In part, due to this “logjam of thought,” the county was only able to take the project so far. The project only began to seem inevitable when a non-profit organization took control of its implementation. Says Elliot
Hurwitz, program manager for the NCTPA, and organizer of the Greenway Feasibility
Study in an interview,
About a month or so before we completed the feasibility study, we became
aware of another group of people who wanted to do something similar.
They were organizing what they called the Napa Valley Vine Trail. So we
began to coordinate our efforts. We knew that once we had completed the
feasibility study, the more difficult task was going to be actually
implementing the plan and organizing for it. The Vine Trail Coalition has
been a tremendous organizer in bringing together a coalition of people in
the community. The feasibility study acted as a spring board, we got some
78 ballpark figures for the cost of creating the trail, but a strong trail coalition
was integral to the process. We would not be at the place we are today
without the Vine Trail Coalition. The degree of organization they brought
to the table was impressive (Hurwitz 2009).
Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition
The non-profit Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition was formed in 2008 to advocate for a bike trail through the Napa Valley. It was started with $15,000 in seed money donated by the Land Trust of Napa County, the Napa Valley Vintners and the
Napa Valley Grapegrowers, and is headed by Chuck McMinn, a businessman who came to Napa County after starting high-tech companies in Silicon Valley. The Coalition adopted the Greenway Feasibility Plan and began working to fund and implement it. The board of the Coalition consists of representatives from 19 public and private organizations representing different interests within the Napa Valley. It is made up of five agricultural interests (Napa Valley Vintners, Napa Valley Grapegrowers, Napa
Valley Wine Growers, Napa Valley Farm Bureau, Napa Valley Land Trust), six public agencies (Napa Valley Transportation and Planning Agency, Bicycle Advisory
Committee, Napa County Regional Parks and Open Space District, Napa County
Sheriff’s Department, Caltrans, California Department of Fish and Game), four commercial interest groups (Napa Valley Chambers of Commerce, Napa Valley
Destination Council, Calistoga Vitality Group, Napa Valley Taxpayers Alliance), and four environmental interest groups (Sustainable Napa County, Friends of the Napa River,
Sierra Club, Napa County Bicycle Coalition) (Vine Trail Coalition 2010). The Vine Trail
79 Coalition has also gone to lengths to get the community involved and active. They have created a Flickr page, a Facebook page, and a sleek, well-designed (and funded) website
(vinetrail.org). The Coalition also created a logo design contest, awarding $1,000 to the winner (Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.3 Official logo for the Napa Valley Vine Trail
(Source: vinetrail.org)
Trail Alignment
In the initial Greenway Study three alignments were proposed: one that followed the Napa River up the middle of the valley; one that ran along Highway
29, the main road in the valley; and one that paralleled the Silverado Trail, the other north-south road in the valley. Depending on one’s opinion of the ideal usage of the trail (recreation vs. transportation), certain alignments seemed most attractive. Executive director of the NCTPA, Paul Price, summed up the discussion in an interview,
Two distinct types of paths were looked at. On one hand we have the most
gorgeous valley in the world here and if we could give people an
alternative way to enjoy the valley and increase their appreciation for the
80 landscape it would be a win all around. The epitome of such a path would
be winding through the vineyards maybe along the river. The other
alignment was based on simple transportation needs as we are feeling a
real shift in people’s attitudes towards bicycling (Price 2009).
From a recreational standpoint, having a trail running through vineyards and along the Napa River away from the congested main roads is ideal. Being out of sight and practically out of ear shot from the main roads and immersed in the landscape would be the obvious choice for tourists who wish to take in the natural beauty and peacefulness of what is essentially an agricultural area. John Woodbury, Manager of Napa County
Parks and Open Space District, said in an interview, “there was constant debate from the beginning about the alignment. Aesthetically and emotionally the proponents would like to go right down the middle of the valley” (Woodbury 2009).
The route along Highway 29 is more attractive from a transportation standpoint since the three up-valley towns and many of the region’s wineries lie along the road. It makes sense to build additional transportation infrastructure along an already oft-used corridor that connects towns and places of employment. Chuck McMinn said in an interview “we always knew we needed a trail near highway 29 because that’s where all the populations line up”. However, he kept the idea of an alternate parallel route open, saying “we don’t have money for two trails anyway so lets not push the issue…we can worry about the next trail in five or ten years” (2009). It is also much easier to create a trail corridor on along highway 29 route as much of the right of way needed is owned by the Wine Train and California’s transportation agency (Caltrans). McMinn commented that the wine train has been helpful and is now headed by an avid cyclist who is keen on
81 the trail project. The other alignment along Silverado Trail provides more interesting terrain than that along the flat expanse of Highway 29 as it follows the base of the Vaca
Mountains and features many curves and dips. However, given the terrain, a trail corridor would have been very difficult to create along this route.
Ultimately, there was not much of a fight over alignments. Highway 29 was quickly recognized as the most logical choice. The Napa River route, while being the most scenic and bucolic, encountered much opposition from land-owners, primarily vineyard owners who were not keen to provide an easement on their properties for something completely unrelated to agriculture. Many viewed the construction of a trail along their vineyards and in some cases encroaching slightly on agricultural land as anathema and contrary to the purpose of the Agricultural Preserve. Recreational uses were not included in the original Ag Preserve language and for the trail to be legally constructed on this land, the wording of the law would have to be changed. Land-owners and residents alike are skeptical of any changes to the Ag Preserve as it has faced a number of challenges in the past all designed to weaken its rules and allow for more diverse land uses, primarily by profit-minded business owners and developers. Farmers are also worried that giving the public access to their land could impede some agricultural practices like spraying pesticides or using wind turbines and promote trespassing. John
Woodbury expressed their concerns in an interview, saying “what if I need to spray sulfur and there’s people going by on the trail, they are going to complain and shut me down”.
Despite the alignment along highway 29 being chosen there are still some concerns from the agricultural community. To assuage their concerns the Vine Trail
Coalition has asserted that they would not take any agricultural land out of production.
82 The agricultural interest groups on the Vine Trail Coalition board then released a statement indicating their support “of a trail along the existing major transportation routes that does not require any modification of the Agricultural Preserve” (Waters Jr 2009).
To answer some of the vineyard owners concerns, the NCTPA conducted interviews with winery owners and managers in neighboring Sonoma County whose property has abutted a multi-use trail for years. All seven of the respondents mentioned the use of fencing as preventing potential problems. One owner would like to see a gate to allow direct access from the trail to the tasting room and is unconcerned about trespassing saying, “if someone eats a grape or two, who cares” (Alta Planning + Design
2008). One owner who has had a trail alongside his vineyard for over 30 years would like to see trails put through agricultural land for the educational value saying it would be an opportunity for both grape growers and trail users. An owner of an organic farm who has had a bike trail along her property mentioned the occasional beer can as the only negative, “the bike path is a great thing. It increases business at the vegetable stand and people are thrilled to come by (on the bike path) and have ‘on the farm’ experiences”
(Alta Planning + Design 2008, Appendix A, 13).
The official groundbreaking of the Napa Valley Vine Trail occurred on
April 14, 2010 in the town of Yountville. The 4,000 foot section of the trail was funded with a Federal Stimulus grant and should be complete by July, 2010.
While this is the first official groundbreaking for the trail, other sections of off- road paths that will be included in the trail are already complete. This includes a couple miles in the city of Napa, including the Napa Riverwalk, and a seven mile stretch in Calistoga. There is no official timeline for the completion of the entire
83 trail, however, sections of the trail will open as they are completed. Through casual conversations with some of the stakeholders it seems that trail completion is at the very least five years away and most likely closer to ten.
Figure 5.4 Groundbreaking of the Vine Trail
Groundbreaking of the Vine Trail in Yountville, starting with a one mile segment funded by a Federal Stimulus Grant. (Source: Flickr.com)
Trail Tourism
Tourism is currently worth about $500 million a year to the county, “but tourism depends upon agriculture,” says Jim Hickey, the county’s former planning director, “and agriculture depends upon land. If you destroy ag
[agriculture], there’s no reason for the tourist to come here” (Conaway 2007:
257). John Woodbury , thinks the Vine Trail could help build support for protecting agricultural land by “having people outdoors and interacting with the land” (Woodbury 2009). Chuck McMinn, seems to agree saying, “we can give tourists a lot better education about the vineyards with a bike trail. It is going to
84 help the Ag Preserve, not hurt it, because it’s going to get more people out closer to the land” (2009).
According to tourism researcher, Maria Carla Furlan, trails can have a number of important effects on local tourism systems, including:
x Differentiation and development of tourism supply (creation of new
products)
x Attraction and satisfaction of new segments of tourist demand (green
tourism, bike tourism, etc.), in order to be more competitive in the tourism
market
x Diffusion of tourist flows from the most famous traditional yet
overcrowded destinations to other lesser-known centers
x Lengthening of the tourist season
x Restyling of “old” tourism products (not only sun and beach or traditional
art cities) and the linkages with other products (e.g., food)
x Creation of conditions for economic prosperity based on the sustainable
use of local resources leading to improved access to the countryside:
greenways lead citizens, local governments, public and private
organizations to work together to plan and improve their communities
(2004: 276).
Of particular note in this list is the lengthening of the tourist season and the diffusion of tourist flows. Napa Valley currently sees the majority of tourists between the months of
May and October. The winter season can be relatively slow and other efforts have been made to boost tourism during this slack season. The Napa Valley Mustard Festival was
85 created for this very reason with their website claiming the festival is, “a perfect reason to visit The Legendary Napa Valley during winter” (www.mustardfestival.org). The festival runs throughout ‘mustard season’ (when wild mustard sprouts in the vineyards)
(Figure 5.5) from January through March, featuring a number of musical events, dinners and contests.
Spreading tourist flows out over the county is another important aspect as rural areas have a limited tourist capacity and can quickly grow overcrowded. Maria Furlan writes that sustainable tourism “contributes to the protection and safeguarding of rural areas. A way to obtain this kind of tourist experience and to develop a nontraditional approach to tourism is the creation and the use of greenways” (Furlan 2004: 271).
Figure 5.5 Wild mustard blooms in the Napa Valley.
Wild mustard blooms bright yellow in the winter contrasting with the dormant vines. This picturesque occurrence has been used to attract tourists to the valley during its off- season, the winter months. (Source: Flickr.com)
86
Landscape Interpretation
The Vine Trail corridor has a lot of potential for landscape interpretation due to the valley’s compactness (an average three miles wide) and the wealth of historic buildings and interesting landscape and cultural features along the corridor. Along the trail are opportunities to educate users on the geology of Napa, its agricultural history, grape growing techniques, and its cultural history, from the Wappo Indians to Chinese laborers to the more recent role of Mexicans in the valley. The Vine Trail Coalition has sought the help of a local geologist, John Livingston, who has agreed to head the educational component of the trail. At the time of this writing his selection was just made and an educational program had yet to be formulated. However, judging from
Livingston’s geology background and the abundance of agricultural interests on the Vine
Trail board it seems likely that the educational program will focus on the physical geography of the valley and intricacies of grape-growing. These two areas are important aspects for residents and tourists to learn about in addition, the cultural history of the
Napa Valley should be given much attention as it is the best way to communicate the story of Napa Valley.
The valley has an abundance of impressive 19th Century buildings and agricultural artifacts including historic wineries, such as Robert Mondavi, Beringer and Charles Krug that lie along the trail corridor. The corridor also passes through three towns, two hamlets, and six American Viticultural Areas (AVAs). It passes by dozens of wineries, a historic rail depot in Rutherford (Figure 5.6), as well as Bothe State Park, and the historic
Bale Grist Mill. Exploring such places and structures would give visitors a sense of
Napa’s broader history about which little information is currently available. The St.
87 Helena and Yountville visitor centers say they get requests from visitors for maps of the valley’s historic places, but none are available. The entire length of the corridor can be experienced in a full-day’s bike ride, even a significant chunk can be experienced on foot or by stop-and-look bicyclists. “Slower modes of transportation…allow more time for absorbing and reflecting upon the nature of landscapes and more opportunities to talk with those who have created them” (Peters 1997:127).
Geographer Harm de Blij (1983:154) writes “the links with Napa’s nineteenth- century prosperity still are part of the cultural landscape.” He goes on to mention four wineries that lie within the trail corridor: Charles Krug which was built in the 1861 and is a National Historic Landmark, Inglenook’s great Gothic stone house built in 1887 (later bought and controversially remodeled by filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola); the Rhine
House built for the Beringer family in 1884 (Figure 5.7), and the expansive stone
Greystone Cellar for the Christian Brothers winery also a National Historic Landmark and now a Culinary Institute of America campus (Figure 5.8). The Bale Grist Mill, built in 1846, played an important part in the settlement of Napa Valley where the economy at the time was centered on growing wheat and milling it into flour (Figure 5.9). Now a
State Historic Park, the mills buildings once served as community gathering places (Kyle
2002). All in all Napa Valley has 82 federally or state listed historic resources (Appendix
C). Even though many of the pioneering wineries have since been sold and resold, their names have been retained to remind visitors of their historic origins. Many have been bought by large beverage distributors or other corporations; yet, the corporate takeover of wineries is also a part of the region’s cultural landscape and a story that should be told.
88 Figure 5.6 Napa Valley wine train and abandoned Rutherford Train Station
The Wine Train approaches the abandoned Rutherford Train Station alongside highway 29 and Vine Trail corridor. (Source: Flickr.com)
Figure 5.7 The Rhine House
Built in 1884 this historic home lies on the property of Beringer winery alongside highway 29 and the Vine Trail corridor. (Source: Flickr.com)
89
Figure 5.8 Former Christian Brothers Winery
Built in 1889 this building is now the site of a Culinary Institute of America, it also lies alongside highway 29 and the Vine Trail corridor. (Source: Harvard Health Newsletter)
Figure 5.9 Bale Grist Mill
Built in 1846 the Bale Grist Mill is now a State Historic Park and lies alongside highway 29 and the Vine Trail corridor. (Source: Library of Congress)
90 The Wappo Indians were the original inhabitants of Napa Valley and had four main settlements along the Napa River near the present day towns of St. Helena,
Calistoga, and Yountville. These towns and their settlement histories can communicate the history of the valley and how it has changed over time. Calistoga was formed as a spa resort town due to its geothermal hot springs and it still boasts a number of hot springs, spas, and even a geyser dubbed the Old Faithful Geyser of California. St. Helena has a similar history; one of California’s first resorts was built there in 1852 named The
White Sulpher Springs. Not far from the Bale Grist Mill the area soon attracted more settlers, most of whom were farmers. The town of Yountville was the site of the first land grant in Napa, when George Yount was given 11,814 acres in 1836 (Kyle 2002).
Yountville is also the site of a pioneer cemetery and ancient Indian burial ground (Figure
5.10) as well as the Veterans Home of California built in 1884 on a sprawling campus.
All along the corridor are opportunities to educate the user about the agricultural preserve and other land-use regulations that have preserved the majority of the valley floor in agricultural lands as well as information about grape growing (e.g., the purpose of trellising, changes in frost protection technology) and past land uses (e.g., prune and walnut orchards). The distinct qualities of AVAs can also be discussed giving tourists and residents alike an education on the effect microclimates, soil types, elevation, and sun exposure has on vineyards. It is said that great wine is grown rather than made, and by allowing visitors and residents to fully experience the vineyards an appreciation for land and the wine it produces can be developed. In this way loyalty to Napa wines could also be bolstered.
91 The story of Napa Valley should also include the contributions immigrants have made to the valley. A number of wineries still use caves for cellaring wine that were hand dug by Chinese laborers who arrived during the 1860s including the Beringer
Winery, a Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. Chinese immigrants played a large role in constructing Napa Valley’s infrastructure building many stone bridges and fences that still dot the landscape today. The passage of the
Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 cleared the Chinese population from Napa Valley.
Currently, Mexicans have replaced Chinese as the areas main labor force. Virtually all of the agricultural field workers and an increasing number of cellar workers and vineyard managers are of Mexican descent. Prior to the 1970s most of the migrant workforce was seasonal, returning to Mexico in the winter, but an increasing number are now settling in
Napa County and now nearly one-quarter of the county’s population speaks Spanish as their primary language (NCDCDP 2008).
Figure 5.10 Historic Cemetery in Yountville
Pioneer cemetery and ancient Indian burial grounds is site of George Yount’s grave. (Source: Flickr.com)
92
Conclusion
The Napa Valley serves as one example of the potential of trails to interpret cultural landscapes and create the much sought after idea of ‘sense of place’. The story unfolding in the Napa Valley today is not a new one; many tourist destinations have been overdeveloped, forever altering their landscapes. Sometimes the landscapes that attracted the visitors in the first place undergo such vast changes that they are no longer recognizable. At other times, such as the current case in Napa, groups in a region recognize that a shift in landscape is undesirable and they act to protect the cultural landscape.
Napa Valley has already taken major steps in that regard, foremost is the creation of the Agricultural Preserve in 1968. This act signaled the importance of agriculture to the valley’s identity and future. The Ag Preserve is one of a number of efforts to preserve Napa Valley’s landscape, from the viewshed ordinance to the winery definition ordinance, to the Vine Trail. Along with the development of the Vine Trail is an opportunity to create a comprehensive interpretative program along the corridor. The
Vine Trail Coalition has appointed someone to head this effort, however, it is too early to gauge the programs scope and focus. By interpreting the landscape and educating trail users of the history of the valley, including the importance of land-use protections that have thus far preserved Napa Valley’s landscape, support for such protections as the
Agricultural Preserve will be bolstered. Additionally, the trail provides an amenity to residents and tourists in the form of a healthy and environmentally friendly transportation and recreation corridor. The Vine Trail provides a new piece to the landscape of Napa
Valley and its development and resulting issues reveal the way in which cultural
93 landscapes are not just preserved but actively created. The Napa Valley will continue to see debates over its future and there will always be pressure to alter the landscape in a way that can generate more income. However, Napa Valley has a number of powerful, wealthy residents who have the means to fight development pressures. This can be the success of the Land Trust in acquiring conservation easements on large tracts of land, the continued support and success of the Agricultural Preserve, and in the creation of the
Vine Trail.
Linking the Vine Trail (estimated at 3 million uses per year when it opens (Vine
Trail Coalition 2010)) with landscape interpretation can increase landscape awareness, a fundamental goal for preservationists. An aware public can make more thoughtful decisions about preservation planning. With the wealth of historical information, sites, and organizations in the Napa Valley it is quite feasible to create an in-depth interpretive program for the trail through brochures and trail signage. Groups such as Preservation
Napa Valley, the Land Trust of Napa County and Napa County Landmarks as well as local historical societies and museums such as the Sharpsteen Museum of Calistoga
History, the Napa Valley Museum, and the Silverado Museum have many archival resources including oral histories, photographs, and documents as well as living members who could help develop such interpretation. A fundamental obstacle to most preservation programs is usually money, but this is less an issue in the Napa Valley. As director of the
Vine Trail Coalition, Chuck McMinn, commented in a personal conversation, “the Napa
Valley is very unique for its willingness to support charitable causes, the wine auction alone raises tens of millions of dollars.” With many charities, and fundraisers held throughout the year and the presence of many individual philanthropists as well as the
94 proven abilities of the Vine Trail Coalition to raise funds, acquiring proper interpretative materials should not be a challenge. An interpretative trail will increase awareness of
Napa Valley’s heritage and cultural landscape for both residents and visitors. An aware public is perhaps the best asset for future landscape protections and preservation planning.
95 Appendix A
List of Interviewees*
John Woodbury – Manager, Napa County Parks and Open Space District
Chuck McMinn – Executive Director, The Vine Trail Coalition and owner of high-end winery Vineyard 29
Lou Penning – President, Napa County Bicycle Coalition
Paul Price – Executive Director, Napa County Transportation Planning Agency
Elliot Hurwitz – Program Manager, Napa County Transportation Planning Agency
Greg Desmond – Senior Planner, City of St. Helena
Jim Lincoln – former President, Napa County Farm Bureau and vineyard manager for Beckstoffer Vineyards (largest landowner in Napa County)
Lars Bjorkman – Winemaker, Saddleback Cellars
*All interviewed during the month of December, 2009.
96 Appendix B
Viewshed Protection Program
The purpose and intent of these regulations is to protect the public health, safety, and community welfare and to otherwise protect the scenic quality of the County both for visitors to the County as well as for its residents by ensuring that future improvements are compatible with existing land forms, particularly County ridgelines and that views of the County’s many unique geologic features and the existing landscape fabric of the County’s hillside areas are protected and preserved. x Provide hillside development standards to minimize the impact of man-made structures and grading on views of existing landforms, unique geologic features, existing landscape features and open space as seen from designated public roads within the County; x Protect and preserve views of major and minor ridgelines from designated public roads; x Minimize cut and fill, earthmoving, grading operations and other such man-made effects on the natural terrain to ensure that finished slopes are compatible with existing land character; and x Promote architecture and designs that are compatible with hillside terrain and minimize visual impacts.”
97
Map of roads listed under the Viewshed Protection Program
The Viewshed Protection Program aims to protect the scenic beauty of Napa Valley, primarily from hillside development (Source: Napa County Conservation, Planning and Development Department. 2006. “Viewshed Protection Program Application Packet.”)
98 Appendix III
State and Federally listed historic resources in Napa County as of 2006.
Napa County Department of Conservation, Development & Planning. 2008. “Napa County General Plan; Community Character,” p. 5-8.
99
100
101 Bibliography
Alden, Richard F., Michael J. Shockro. 1968. “Preferential Assessment of Agricultural Lands: Preservation or Discrimination.” Southern California Law Review 42: 59-69.
Alta Planning + Design. 2009. “Napa Greenway Feasibility Study.”
Ames, Patrick & Elizabeth. 2007. “Find an Answer to Grave Traffic Woes.” Napa Valley Register April 11.
Association of Bay Area Governments. “History of the Bay Trail,” Association of Bay Area Governments, http://www.abag.org/bayarea/baytrail/history.html
Beckstoffer, Andy. 2010. “Saving Agriculture to Maintain Balance.” Napa Valley Register February 21.
Bonne, Jon. 2007. “Frank Gehry designs new Hall.” San Francisco Chronicle, July 27, 2007.
Brady-Herndon, Gary. 2002. “Land Trust preserving Napa’s Open Space.” Napa Valley Register February 10.
Brodwater, Mike. 2009. “Lacking Drive: Shuttle Service Makes Glacier National Parks Breathtaking Views Accessible to Hikers without Cars.” The Spokesman-Review, August 9.
Butler, R.W. 1980. “The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution.” Canadian Geographer. 24: 5–12.
Cannon, Carl. 1980. “The World on Its Doorstep.” The Washington Post, March 2.
Carson, Pierce L. and Sasha Paulsen. 2008. “Copia Closes without Warning.” Napa Valley Register, November 23.
Chapman, Ginette. 2001. “The Intersection of Environmental Planning and Social Justice: Denver’s Platte River Greenway.” MA Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Conaway, James. 1990. Napa: The Story of an American Eden. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Conaway, James. 2002. The Far Side of Eden: New Money, Old Land, and the Battle for Napa Valley. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Conaway, James. 2007. Vanishing America: In Pursuit of Our Elusive Landscapes. Berkeley: Counterpoint.
102
Courtney, Kevin. 2009. “Study: Traffic to Worsen in Napa County.” Napa Valley Register, May 5. de Blij, Harm Jan. 1983. Wine: A Geographic Appreciation. Totowa, NJ: Rowaman and Allanheld, Publishers.
Department of Agriculture Weights and Measures. 1950. “Agricultural Crop Report,” Napa County, http://www.countyofnapa.org/pages/departmentcontent.aspx?id=4294969777
Dodd, Tim and Michael Beverland. 2001. “Winery Tourism Life-cycle Development: A Proposed Model.” Tourism Recreation Research 26(2): 11-21.
Erickson, Donna. 2006. MetroGreen: Connecting Open Space in North American Cities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Ernst, Doug. 2005. “Will ‘Property Rights’ Kill Agriculture?” Napa Valley Register July 14.
Hyde, Beta. 2010. “Don’t Endanger the Valley’s Magic.” Napa Valley Register January 14.
Federal Transit Administration. “Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program,” Federal Transit Administration, http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_6106.html
Fabos, G.J. “Greenway Planning in the United States: Its Origins and Recent Case Studies.” Landscape and Urban Planning 68 (2004): 321-342.
Finz, Stacy. 2007. “Chugging Along in Napa Valley.” San Francisco Chronicle, June 29.
Furlan, Maria Carla, Sabrina Meneghello and Valeria Minghetti. 2004. “From ‘Predatory’ to ‘Experience’ Tourism: Estimating Tourist Fruition for a Greenway.” In The Tourism & Leisure Industry, edited by Klaus Weiermair, 271-282. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Hospitality Press.
Furuseth, Owen J. and Robert E. Altman. 1991. “Who’se on the Greenway: Socioeconomic, Demographic, and Locational Characteristics of Greenways Users.” Environmental Management 15(3): 329-336.
Gerien, J. Scott. 2007. “Napa Valley is first non-European geographical indication for wine registered by EU.” Practical Winery and Vineyard. July/August: 43.
Gobster, Paul H. 1995. “Perception and use of a metropolitan greenway system for recreation.” Landscape and Urban Planning. 33: 401-413.
103
Hart, John Fraser. 1975. The Look of the Land. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hurwitz, Elliot, et al. 2009. Napa’s Transportation Future. Napa, California: Napa County Transportation Planning Agency, http://sites.google.com/site/napastransportationfuture/
Jones, Carolyn. 2009. “Bay Trail Gains Two More Scenic Shoreline Miles.” San Francisco Chronicle, November 28.
Kaleba, Jennifer. 2010. “Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Teams with Google for Biking Directions”, the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, http://www.railstotrails.org/news/newsroom/pressReleases/archives/20100310_DC_RTC _Google_Bike_Directions.html
Kay, Jane Holtz. 2007. Asphalt Nation: How the Automobile Took Over America and How We Can Take It Back. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc.
Kyle, Douglass, Hero Rensch, Ethel Rensch, and Mildred Hoover. 2002. Historic Spots in California. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lewis, Peirce F. 1982. “Axioms for Reading the Landscape.” In Material Culture Studies in America, edited by Thomas J. Schlereth, 175-182. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History.
Lewis, Peirce F. 2003. “The Monument and the Bungalow: The Intellectual Legacy of J.B. Jackson.” In Everyday America, edited by Chris Wilson and Paul Groth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lindsey, Greg, Maltie Maraj and Son Cheong Kuan. 2001. “Access, Equity, and Urban Greenways: An Exploratory Investigation.” The Professional Geographer. 53(3): 332- 346.
Little, Charles E. 1990. Greenways for America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
McCrea, Peter. 2009. “Winery Definition Ordinance does not need fixing.” St Helena Star, December 10.
Moore, Roger L. and C. Scott Shafer. 2001. “Introduction to Special Issue Trails and Greenways: Opportunities for Planners, Managers, and Scholars.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 19(3): 1-16.
Napa County Department of Conservation, Development & Planning. 2008. “Napa County General Plan,”
104 Napa Valley Register Editorial. 2009. “Weighing in on winery law.” Napa Valley Register November 24.
Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition. 2010. “2010 Campaign for Active Transportation, Napa Valley Vine Trail Case Statement,” http://www.countyofnapa.org/GeneralPlan/
Napa Valley Vintners Association. 2010. “Geography,” http://www.napavintners.com/about/ab_3_geog.aspx
Napa Valley Vintners Association. 2010. “History and Timeline,” http://www.napavintners.com/about/ab_2_overview.aspx
Napa Valley Vintners Association. 2010. “Soils and Geology,” http://www.napavintners.com/about/ab_3_soil.aspx
National Park Service (NPS) News Release. 2003. “National Park Transportation Scholars Tackle Congestion” National Park Service, http://home.nps.gov/applications/release/print.cfm?id=378
Nicholls, Sarah and John L. Crompton. 2005. “The Impact of Greenways on Property Values: Evidence from Austin, Texas.” Journal of Leisure Research 37(3): 321-41.
Paulsen, Sasha. 2006. “’Adventurous Wine Architecture’ captures the explosion of creativity in the international wine world.” Napa Valley Register January 12.
Peters, Gary L. 1997. American Winescapes: The Cultural Landscapes of America’s Wine Country. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Platt, Kalvin. 2000. “Going Green.” Planning 68(8): 18-22.
Pope, Matt. 2008. “Napa and the Aspen Effect” Napa Valley Register June 27.
Poitras, Lisa and Donald Getz. 2006. “Sustainable Wine Tourism: The Host Community Perspective.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 14(5): 425-448.
Purdue Tourism and Hospitality Research Center. 2006. “Napa County Visitor Profile Study and Economic Impact Study.” West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University.
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy – Trail of the Month. 2008. “The Illinois Prairie Path” Rails- to-Trails Conservancy, http://www.railstotrails.org/news/recurringfeatures/trailmonth/archives/0808.html
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. “Our Work” Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, http://www.railstotrails.org/ourWork/index.html
105 Sauer, Carl O. 1925. “The Morphology of Landscape.” University of California Publications in Geography. 2(2): 19-53.
Schafer, Scott C., Bong Koo Lee and Shawn Turner. 2000. “A tale of three greenway trails: user perceptions related to quality of life.” Landscape and Urban Planning 49: 163-178.
Skinner, Angela M. 2000. “Napa Valley, California: A Model of Wine Region Development." In Wine Tourism Around the World, edited by Michael Hall and Liz Sharples, 282-296. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000.
St. Helena Star. 2009. “Winery Definition Affects All of Us.” St. Helena Star November 12.
Stonebridge Research. 2008. “Economic Impact of the Napa Valley Wine Industry.” Napa, CA: Stonebridge Research.
Swinchatt, Jonathon and David G. Howell. 2004. The Winemaker’s Dance: Exploring Terroir in the Napa Valley. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thompson, Laura. 2001. “The Long Good Buy.” Planning 69: 4-9.
Todorov, Kerena. 2008. “Looking back on the Ag Preserve.” Napa Valley Register April 26.
Waters Jr, John. 2009. “Napa-to-Calistoga bike path hops hurdle with Ag groups.” Napa Valley Register May 16.
106