PD: County supervisors rezone land for Graton winery project [Archive]

Barry

03-03-2010, 09:53 AM

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/images/logo2.gif (https://www.pressdemocrat.com/)

County supervisors rezone land for Graton winery project | Top | PressDemocrat.com (https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100302/articles/100309891?p=1&tc=pg)

County supervisors rezone land for Graton winery project

By BLEYS W. ROSE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 8:35 p.m.

In one of the first tests of Sonoma County’s General Plan 2020, supervisors on Tuesday affirmed support for development of winery processing operations, but the decision left some Graton area residents angry they were unable to block a facility in their neighborhood.

At issue was a proposed amendment to the General Plan by the Best family to convert their apple orchard at the intersection of Highway 116 and Occidental Road into a vineyard with a production building that stands nearly 47 feet high and a separate tasting room.

A four-hour public hearing ended in a rancorous exchange between winery project opponents and supervisors, who struggled through jeering in the audience to explain why the Best proposal seemed like a good fit for the west county.

Thomas Morabito, an Atkinson Road resident, repeatedly yelled “Who speaks for us,” prompting an angry exchange with Supervisor Mike Kerns. And several people called out “Shame on you, Efren, shame,” referring to west county supervisor Efren Carrillo, who presided over the meeting.

About three dozen speakers addressed the issue. Most were critics who said the project was too big for the site and incompatible with their rural residential area.

Graton resident Jane Eagle said wine grapes are “not a food crop, it is a drug crop ... it is a bottling plant in the middle of a residential area.”

However, the project did attract proponents who said it would create jobs in construction and at the winery while promoting wine grapes produced by a local family.

“The county is in dire need of construction jobs,” said Del Norby, a Sebastopol developer who owns a construction company. “There are too many tradesmen sitting at home right now.”

The Best family sought the zone change from a rural residential to a diverse agriculture designation. Haven Best, the 90-year-old patriarch of the family, told supervisors that changes in the apple growing business forced him to switch to wine grapes.

“I have seen others benefit from the sale of their lands for residential subdivisions,” Best said. “Sebastopol used to be an agricultural community. Things have changed since then and I am sorry to see that happen, but that is progress, I guess.”

Carrillo and north county Supervisor Paul Kelley said the new General Plan clearly considers grape processing to be a key component of the wine grape production. And they noted that it would be hard to find a site better situated than on a state highway across from the former VacuDry apple processing plant and a gas station.

“I find it amusing that we are taking land out of rural residential zoning and putting it into agriculture,” Kelley said. “The rancor (from neighbors) is usually aimed the other way.”

Supervisor Shirlee Zane joined Kelley, Carrillo and Kerns in voting in favor of the General Plan amendment. Supervisor Valerie Brown was absent.

2Bwacco

03-03-2010, 10:28 AM

Through studying, re-reading of this Press Democrat article, I wondered: there seems to be "something in this" for the Supervisors to be so overwhelmingly pro-active. Brown, who may have been against this project, dealt with the problem by being absent.

Here I am, living on land purchased in 1970's and quietly, sweetly growing apples (a non-intrusive activity enjoyed by birds, bees, deer, gophers, squirrels, cats, dogs, and humans) I noticed the quote in the article by the 90-year-old patriarch. The Best family may have purchased long ago as well.

What do the Supervisors hope to gain by this approval? It must be the gigantic increases in property tax revenue, business tax revenue; no one seems to care about the quality of life for people.

Isn't the assigned task for the Supervisors to protect this collective asset we call Sonoma County?

tommy

03-04-2010, 08:26 AM

I live nearby, was opposed, and spoke at the hearing, about retaining the beauty of this area, and regard for the residents of Atkinson.

Althought I was not there for the final vote, I believe the 4-0 vote was in support of the business/economics of the winery: the construction jobs, the ongoing jobs, the $85k/yr in additional tax revenue. The applicant depended on those arguments. This was viewed as an "agricultural" project, in support of the wine industry, which County policy obviously supports. Plus the fact that it is on a State Hwy (116).

After hearing the vote, I concluded the County Supervisors could have done nothing other that approve this project because it's "good for business" - they'd face political hell if they stopped a green project like this. It had all the green bells and whistles. The deterioration of living quality for the Atkinson Road residents was clearly less important.

Through studying, re-reading of this Press Democrat article, I wondered: there seems to be "something in this" for the Supervisors to be so overwhelmingly pro-active. Brown, who may have been against this project, dealt with the problem by being absent.

Here I am, living on land purchased in 1970's and quietly, sweetly growing apples (an non-intrusive activity enjoyed by birds, bees, deer, gophers, squirrels, cats, dogs, and humans) I noticed the quote in the article by the 90 year old patriarch. The Best family may have purchased long ago as well.

What do the Supervisors hope to gain by this approval? It must be the gigantic increases in property tax revenue, business tax revenue; no one seems to care about the quality of life for people.

Isn't that the assigned task for the Supervisors, to protect this collective asset we call Sonoma County?

2Bwacco

03-04-2010, 01:05 PM

Goodness, gracious: since the Supe's have "approved" all voices are now silent? Here's wondering how a Supe would react if such a project were to be proposed next to their homes?

It sounds like the Supe's got a teensie-weensie taste of "political hell" and just brushed it off! Their business co-harts showed up and endorsed the project to make it appear like approval was widespread in the community.

...retaining the beauty of this area, and regard for the residents of Atkinson...Supervisors could have done nothing other than approve this project because it's "good for business" - they'd face political hell...

dingo

03-05-2010, 01:16 PM

Best Family Winery v.s. Valuable Farm Land

I attended the hearing of the 3/2 county supervisors and I spoke in opposition of the so-called "green" commercial wine processing facility & wine bottling plant. The hearing was a farce. It seemed the supervisors had already made up their minds to change zoning and recommend construction. Tax revenue money talks. About 30 people spoke in opposition, but the politicians care nothing for the local residents' concerns (the politicians do not have to live next door!!) One supervisor even commented that he was "amused" by the residents' objection to the project! Talk about adding insult to injury.

I see this move by the county officials as a very sad step in the wrong direction for Sebastopol. Now we will have even more uncontrollable noise and pollution from trucks and grape processing, added traffic, the diminishment of property values of neighboring homes, the disruption of wildlife habitat, the desecration of valuable farm land, the tearing out of more apple trees, the obstruction of the majestic view by a huge ugly building, the spoiling of a quaint country-feel area, and general lack of respect for the Earth.

The county supervisors and pro-winery people kept referring to viticulture as "agriculture" as if it were a food crop, when really it is alcohol, pure and simple. Not that I am against drinking wine, (Jesus did,) but I would like to see organic vineyards and wine processing plants placed where they are not going to disrupt residential neighborhoods and make people's daily lives and homes a living hell.

My sincere commiseration to everyone adversely affected by this unanimous poor decision of our county officials.

Diana Taylor
formerly of Graton
and 1 yr. resident of Sonoma County

******

I live nearby, was opposed, and spoke at the hearing, about retaining the beauty of this area, and regard for the residents of Atkinson.

Althought I was not there for the final vote, I believe the 4-0 vote was in support of the business/economics of the winery: the construction jobs, the ongoing jobs, the $85k/yr in additional tax revenue. The applicant depended on those arguments. This was viewed as an "agricultural" project, in support of the wine industry, which County policy obviously supports. Plus the fact that it is on a State Hwy (116).

After hearing the vote, I concluded the County Supervisors could have done nothing other that approve this project because it's "good for business" - they'd face political hell if they stopped a green project like this. It had all the green bells and whistles. The deterioration of living quality for the Atkinson Road residents was clearly less important.

2Bwacco

03-05-2010, 01:55 PM

So glad a pro-active voice has spoken!

Even though the supervisors have voted at the hearing that does NOT mean it is a completely done deal.

Alternatives are still available to the neighborhood, and I for one hope they continue to explore their options. I don't live near the site, but since I drive by the area frequently, I would be affected by increased traffic.

I've seen the handmade signs posted on Occidental Road (east of 116), so I know someone out there cares as well!

I would much rather look at orchard land than rusty metal grape stakes or a four story processing building. Sounds like the site is really too small for that building!

What do they plan to do with the sewage or water used in processing?

I have lived next to an orchard when tree removal took place and vineyard growing aides installed: be forewarned, it's like living next to the county dump -- continuous bulldozers, metal on metal pounding, burning trees, definitely something Jesus would not do, not to His neighbors!

The activity may diminish your property values.

...Best Family Winery v.s. Valuable Farm Land...The hearing was a farce. It seemed the supervisors had already made up their minds to change zoning and recommend construction. Tax revenue money talks...

Zio

03-05-2010, 05:10 PM

Something Wrong

Did you catch that stench in Sonoma County on Tuesday? It was coming from the hubristic behavior of our Board of Supervisors as they rewrote the law to cater to the Best Family Investors LLC's plan to build a wine bottling factory in a rural neighborhood north of Sebastopol.

There is a fundamental flaw in the system when:

1. The people think the tax payer paid staff and planners are employed by the applicants.

2. A supervisor is "amused" by the few hundred people who attended the hearing believing they were welcomed to participate in the process.

3. A supervisor states there was too much material to read or the documents are too heavy to carry around.

4. A supervisor calls a member of the public a "stupid ass" and challenges them to step outside.

5. The public believes the decision was made in a back room long before the public hearing was scheduled.

6. The public is trivialized and dismissed by their elected officials.

7. Pompous elected representatives do not even give the public the courtesy of pretending to "actively" listen and address their concerns.

Something is inherently wrong with the way Sonoma County is doing business. It is the right, responsibility and duty of the people to correct this. If we do not, we end up with giant bottling plants in our neighborhoods and scenic corridors.

2Bwacco

03-05-2010, 05:52 PM

Does anyone know if they make transcripts of these hearings? I'd like to know which supervisor stated he was "amused."

"...2. A supervisor is "amused" by the few hundred people who attended the hearing believing they were welcomed to participate in the process..."

Barry

03-05-2010, 07:34 PM

Does anyone know if they make transcripts of these hearings? I'd like to know which supervisor stated he was "amused." The video is located here: Sonoma County, CA (https://sonoma-county.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=70)

But I couldn't get it to play.

rileysaunders

03-05-2010, 08:58 PM

Hi, I couldn't play it in Safari either. It IS playing in Firefox, leastways on a Mac.

Gratongirl

03-05-2010, 10:54 PM

FYI, there is no video for the afternoon hearing. Granicus videos are available for the morning portion only. I listened to the entire 5 hours of testimony, and find Zio's comments incredibly limited and certifiably inaccurate. (statements 3-7 are completely false)

If you are interested in verifying the discussion which actually took place that day, you can order audio of the entire 5 hour hearing. (565-2241 to order the audio) Perhaps you should skip through most of it to listen to the last portion where the Supervisors attempt to ask questions of the planners while being rudely interrupted with cat calls from the audience-and better yet to the shouts directed at them after the vote. The crowd's behavior was incredibly disrespectful and inappropriate...bordering on mob-like.

The family which applied for the project has owned and farmed that land since 1929. The project passed the planning commission with a 5-0 vote, and the Board listened to testimony from both sides for more than 4 hours before they had an opportunity to (attempt over the disruptions) to discuss the project and make modifications. It is a project with all the green bells and whistles as one person commented. I have lived here long enough to remember how much the (much bigger and uglier) VacuDry plant less than a football field distance across the road impacted my environment in Graton with its foul odor, and how bad the truck traffic was at a time when there wasn't even a stop sign at that intersection. Someone living in Rohnert Park recently was allowed to develop a gas station on the opposite corner and is at work on a mini-mall/UHaul operation. Google earth the intersection and get an idea of what the area looks like!!!!

The apple trees are beautiful, but haven't produced an income for the family in decades. They are trying to keep the land in the family and not sell it off for a couple of mini mansions.

You may disagree with the decision...it's a democracy. But to allege that this project did not receive attention and adequate consideration is patently false. PS: I live one block from a much larger facility, and the impacts to our town are negligible...other than providing vibrancy and local employment.

Barry

03-06-2010, 01:26 AM

Thank you so much, Susan, for chiming in with that perspective!

Here's a more detailed article from the Sonoma West.

Barry

Sonoma West > Sonoma West Times & News > News (https://www.sonomawest.com/articles/2010/03/05/sonoma_west_times_and_news/news/doc4b8ec38d610bd311761644.txt)
Sonoma West Times & News > News

County Supes allow Best Winery to move forward

https://o.imm.io/8oU.jpg
The Best property on Highway 116 between Occidental
and Atkinson roads will soon be the sight of a 33,000
square-foot winery with a 6,800 square-foot tasting room.
- Photo by David Abbott

Opponents frustrated at board approval

by George Snyder
Sonoma West Staff Writer

Published: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 1:05 PM PST
SANTA ROSA — The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on a 4-0 straw vote Tuesday approved the controversial Best Family Investors winery project just north of Sebastopol.

First District Supervisor Valerie Brown was absent during the packed hearing, which heard at least two-dozen speakers during the more than 4-hours of comment and deliberation.

The matter will be taken up again on April 20 when the item, according to county officials, will most likely come before it, and pass, as a consent item.

The supervisors, in agreeing to accept the staff report with some small changes to the operation’s crush and wine tasting hours to accommodate noise and other impacts, praised the project for its promised job creation potential, it’s promised green construction, water conservation design and its “sustainable” connection to the area’s agricultural wine industry.

“I have driven by the parcel,” said supervisor Paul Kelley and have received an inordinate amount of documents from both sides. I really can understand the issues of traffic, zoning and water. But in the end, though, the planners have done a good job and I find it amazing to take something out of residential for ag … usually it’s the other way around.”

“Processing a grown product,” he said, “is a key part of agriculture … it is a significant investment in the community, an economic necessity with construction and on-going jobs.”

Board Supervisor Efren Carrillo, within whose district the project lies, also agreed with the board’s sentiment.

“Whenever a project comes before the board on recommendation from staff and the planning commission, the board doesn’t take it lightly,” he said. “There is no question this has not been easy for the applicants or the neighbors.”

“This is one of the most difficult decisions,” he said, adding that it is “very clear that the prime use of agricultural land is indeed processing. I think the facility as a winery and tasting room really is a model for other wineries coming before the board.”

Members of the Best family, naturally, applauded the board straw vote.

“We’re excited, just as we are excited by the project,” said Casey Costello, a member of the Best family, long time area farming and landowning family. “We’ve always believed in the future of the project and the merits of the project. We believe, of course, that the supervisors made the correct choice.”

Opponents, several of whom were angry enough to shout comments from the audience as it appeared the supervisors were going to back their own staff report to approve the project following the lengthy, four and a half-hour public hearing, said they were going to regroup and figure out what to do next.

“We have thirty days to sit down and plan what to do next,” said Kerry McCauley, a next-door neighbor on Atkinson Road to the proposed winery operation.

McCauley and a large number of winery critics said the proposed 26,500 case winery and tasting room will bring increased traffic, water demands, noise and threatens zoning regulations.

They also said the size of the project is much too large for the 7.6-acre site located between Atkinson Road, Highway 116 and Occidental Road.

The winery, to be located on orchard land already owned by the Best family, will consist of a 3-acre vineyard, a 33,000 square-foot production facility, a 6,800 square-foot tasting room and storage area and would be the site of a dozen marketing dinners or luncheons annually.

The board did limit hours in the tasting room, to be open seven days a week, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., down from 6 p.m., and limited crush operations, which will be conducted inside the plant, to 30 days in eight weeks from the beginning of the annual harvest crush.

The Sonoma County Planning Commission approved the project last August and two hearings on the matter before the Board of Supervisors were continued from last October until Tuesday at the request of the applicants in order to re-circulate the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration document.

The document includes a greenhouse gas analysis, which the applicants say provides the project with a carbon-neutral designation, as well as information on ag resources, air quality, land use, traffic and two mitigation measures for at least two wildlife species, the Pallid bat and the American badger.

The board staff report, meanwhile, supported the rezoning of the area from rural residential to diverse agriculture because of the land’s historic use as an orchard

In addition, in tentatively approving the project, the board also approved some 87 mitigation conditions involving waste water and clean water systems, health regulations, noise reduction, grading and storm water issues, traffic, wildlife habitat, lighting and green building standards among other items.

Copyright © 2010 - Sonoma West

Thomas Morabito

03-06-2010, 07:05 AM

I Do Not Apologize

Re: Best Family Investors Winery LLC proposed bottling plant:

I want to be clear. I apologize to no one for the way I chose to participate at the Board of Supervisors Public Hearing March 2, 2010. I do admit that my attempt to force my elected officials to address the public's concerns was clumsy. I do not regret repeatedly shouting out "Who speaks for us?" It is the people's right and responsibility to correct their government when government subverts due process.

I foolishly thought that my supervisors would be the voice of the people. I was foolishly surprised when they tossed The General Plan and Zoning Policies aside like yesterday's news. My hope was that they would at least protect our environment by following CEQA law and require an EIR.

I will never apologize for attempting to prevent my elected officials from usurping the public's rights. "THE PEOPLE DO NOT YIELD THEIR SOVEREIGNTY TO THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS." (Brown Act- ca. code section 5495 )

Thomas Morabito

bakerchic

03-06-2010, 09:22 AM

"In addition, in tentatively approving the project, the board also approved some 87 mitigation conditions involving waste water and clean water systems, health regulations, noise reduction, grading and storm water issues, traffic, wildlife habitat, lighting and green building standards among other items."

This last quote from the article speaks volumes about why the neighborhood opposed the project. It did not seem to fit into the rural residential neighborhood. This is why it required rezoning. Zoning regulations are in place for a reason. No one wants certain types of manufacturing activities close by because of the noise, traffic, fumes and other health and safety concerns. The fact that this project had to make 87 mitigating concessions means that it should have been placed elsewhere. The back entrance of the processing facility will be very close to several family's front door.

2Bwacco

03-06-2010, 01:15 PM

Curious to know what improvements exist NOW on the 1929 land -- just a home/barn?

Sounds like the younger generations of the family ("Costello") are the ones pushing for the changes. They will benefit from the stepped-up basis of the newly-improved land (by having the improvements installed NOW).

There are other ways to generate income from apple farmland besides converting to grape growing, grape processing, tasting room, retail sales and party headquarters.

"The Best family" should direct considerable effort to appeasing their neighborhood and the community at large. With such vocal opposition to the project (with seemingly good grounds for objections! -- rezoning in violation of the general plan --) the neighbors can take the next step and file a lawsuit to stop the project.

I believe a time will come when carefully-farmed apple trees will be a valuable commodity; such is the nature of real estate investment.

[By the way, that gas station/Uhaul op. is extremely unsightly. Someone put in a LOT of money into the residence across the highway to the east; look at the view THEY have!! Must be a spec. house.]

...The family which applied for the project has owned and farmed that land since 1929...develop a gas station on the opposite corner and is at work on a mini-mall/UHaul operation...apple trees are beautiful, but haven't produced an income for the family in decades. They are trying to keep the land in the family and not sell it off for a couple of mini mansions...

Gatorgal

03-07-2010, 11:37 AM

In addition to all of the questions, concerns and objections that have been made over the past 7 months; I have another question.

While the Best family insist that they are being good neighbors, will the company they sell their winery to in a few years be "good neighbors" as well?

tommy

03-07-2010, 01:12 PM

It's the economy, stupid!

This is the United States of Capital.

This is California, where development can never stop!

True Nature lies somewhere else.

The video is located here: Sonoma County, CA (https://sonoma-county.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=70)

But I couldn't get it to play.

Thomas Morabito

03-08-2010, 09:03 AM

It may make dollars but it does not make sense to:

1. Approve a General Plan amendment despite the fact that this is inconsistent with the newly revised 2020 General Plan Which designates these parcels Rural Residential. This amendment will create a conflicting land use situation.

2. Approve a second General Plan amendment to create a special policy for these two parcels so they do not have to meet the minimum county required 10 acres. This amendment clears the way to build a giant wine bottling plant in a rural residential neighborhood.

3. Combine and rezone two parcels despite the fact that this creates an island of Diverse Ag. zoning that does not border and is not adjacent to any other Diverse Ag. parcel. This creates frustration and resentment from the surrounding neighbors. As a matter of fact it produces the same unwanted results as Spot Zoning which is illegal.

4. Make the claim there is "No potentially significant visual impact" in a State and County Scenic Corridor that can not be mitigated with new plantings and paint. (This is one of my favorites.) The Board of Supervisors and the Planning Department indicate that it is possible to replace a small apple orchard with a building 240' x 140' x 46' high set back approx. 100' from the road without having a POTENTIALLY significant visual impact. This does not even consider a 5000 sqft tasting room, 3 parking lots and a two lane service road nearly a 1/4 mile long.

5. Make the claim that there is "No potentially significant impact on traffic".
a. According to the traffic study the new driveway will be approximately 300 feet east of Hwy. 116 near one of the busiest intersections in West County. This number is disputed and the dispute is unresolved. The number may be as little as 240 feet. Regardless, a crucial number such as this should be accurate not an estimate.
b. The project will not include a turn lane for westbound traffic to gain entrance to the winery on Occidental Road. Vehicles must cross on-coming traffic to enter.
c. According to the traffic study the safe minimum site distance for backed up west bound traffic at the light on Occidental Road is based on a line up of 7 cars. This means a safe minimum sight distance is not maintained during morning and evening rush hour when traffic routinely backs up double that number. The situation grows worse when you add grape trucks to the line.

Don't it always seem to go
you don't know what you got till it's gone,
They're going to pave an apple orchard
and put up a factory.

Magick

03-09-2010, 10:19 AM

I read your assessment and was at the board meeting. I can't find the webpage for the people opposing it although I looked at it before. Will anyone be pursuing other ways to stop this invasive project? With 87 mitigations needed it seems an EIR could be demanded. Is Rose Zoia being engaged to go any further on this?
Yours in truth. Magick

2Bwacco

03-09-2010, 10:59 AM

Open Letter to Opposing Neighbors:

There are many of us who might not live "right there" in your neighborhood, but are interested in opposing the dangerous turn this move of approval by the Supervisors is taking. Please keep us updated or let us know how we can help?

It appears the Supervisor for the district, E. Carillo, is NOT heeding the wishes of his constituency? Why is this happening??

"...I read your assessment and was at the board meeting. I can't find the webpage for the people opposing it although I looked at it before. Will anyone be pursuing other ways to stop this invasive project? With 87 mitigations needed it seems an EIR could be demanded. Is Rose Zoia being engaged to go any further on this?
Yours in truth. Magick..."

Califoon

03-10-2010, 08:34 AM

Let's talk about invasive. Magick, how long have you lived in Sebastopol? I have only been here 5 years. The Best/Hallberg family has been on that property continuously since the 1880s or 90s. With 42% of our apple juice coming in from China as concentrate now, how is this farm family supposed to make a living and keep that property viable for their kids by growing apples? They can't. Americans won't pay enough to support Americans anymore, just corporations.

This is not Monsanto or Standard Oil coming in with bulldozers to strip-mine the countryside. This is one of the areas oldest families trying to keep small farming alive by switching to the most profitable crop this area has EVER seen. Trust the small farmer who lives with her own decisions, not the mega farm where the administrators are thousands of miles away and do not live with the results of their decisions.

Look around, the property is within a mile or two of 8-10 wineries, across the street is the biggest industrial processing facility in the area and next to that is a gas station. Frankly Pinot Noir and Chardonnay are this areas best bet for a worldwide market which cannot be outsourced as the crop is dependent on our climate and soils. Markets are how we generate taxes to keep schools, parks and hospitals open. This is not a video game, these good folks are trying to survive. It may inconvenience some who think they live in a park, but that idyllic scene will not paint the crosswalks or keep the emergency rooms open.
Thanks for listening, ~Cal

I read your assessment and was at the board meeting. I can't find the webpage for the people opposing it although I looked at it before. Will anyone be pursuing other ways to stop this invasive project? With 87 mitigations needed it seems an EIR could be demanded. Is Rose Zoia being engaged to go any further on this?
Yours in truth. Magick

Califoon

03-10-2010, 09:05 AM

I'm sorry, did you say "our agricultural land"??? What does that mean?
Why don't you try to make a decent living off of horse pasture, sheep or cows for a few years and then come back and talk about it. Our current system makes it almost impossible for a small farm or dairy to survive. I've been interviewing small farmers for a while now and I realize most people have no idea what is involved in competeing with BigAG or China. Fed regulation favors large interests that hide cost and consequence. This is very different than a family starting a new business. Let's get a little perspective. these are our neighbors.

Did you read not long ago about the oldest dairy in Marin that went bust? The state sets milk prices, the state buys your cows at discount for slaughter when you go bust. Nice racket.
~Cal

Totally agree!! Our agricultural land should not be growing only one crop. Plus there are other ag. uses that can be profitable, for instance horse pasture, or sheep, or cows. I think folks want to do "wineries" so they can put in tasting rooms and sell retail wines, etc. That appears to be where the real profit is, selling wines through the tasting rooms...

2Bwacco

03-10-2010, 12:27 PM

According to one post ownership by Best family started ~1929. This means the property taxes are extremely LOW. That is one concession to affordability-in-farming.

One glance at the property reveals nothing has been done to improve the property -- another concession to affordability -- not putting any money into the property.

Driving by one day within the last two years, I saw kids riding dirt bikes through the property. Unimproved dirt paths criscross the property so there is LONG TIME PUBLIC USE that will be blocked by the bottling plant improvements.

Bottom line: the proposed "improvements" will dramatically destroy the residential neighborhood enjoyed by the people who have lived there longer than your stated "5 years."

Even though there is a processing facility across the highway -- the neighbors could not request that facility be removed -- but they can demand another one not be built!

The only way this project can proceed is through the cooperation from the Supervisors approving a zone change. When the people who live in the neighborhood object to the zone change, why do the Supervisors find it amusing?

"...I have only been here 5 years. The Best/Hallberg family has been on that property continuously since the 1880s or 90s. With 42% of our apple juice coming in from China as concentrate now, how is this farm family supposed to make a living and keep that property viable for their kids by growing apples? They can't. Americans won't pay enough to support Americans anymore, just corporations.

This is not Monsanto or Standard Oil coming in with bulldozers to strip-mine the countryside. This is one of the areas oldest families trying to keep small farming alive by switching to the most profitable crop this area has EVER seen. Trust the small farmer who lives with her own decisions, not the mega farm where the administrators are thousands of miles away and do not live with the results of their decisions.

Look around, the property is within a mile or two of 8-10 wineries, across the street is the biggest industrial processing facility in the area and next to that is a gas station. Frankly Pinot Noir and Chardonnay are this areas best bet for a worldwide market which cannot be outsourced as the crop is dependent on our climate and soils. Markets are how we generate taxes to keep schools, parks and hospitals open. This is not a video game, these good folks are trying to survive. It may inconvenience some who think they live in a park, but that idyllic scene will not paint the crosswalks or keep the emergency rooms open.
Thanks for listening, ~Cal

Califoon

03-10-2010, 01:04 PM

It was the Hallberg family that originally acquired the land in the late 1800s. Best married into the family and ended up with a parcel, a very common occurrence in farm families. No point in splitting hairs here- They've got more claim than most in this respect, either way.

You assume they've made no improvements, are you a farmer? Did you talk to them?
You assume they don't know the kids riding there, perhaps riding w/ permission. Did you talk to them?
You infer that any land the public can access is there for the trespassing. Good luck on that one.
You put your aesthetic requirements above the economic survival of others. How very modern.

The pursuit of happiness is a little different than requiring other people to provide it for you, even if you can get government to help.
~Cal

According to one post ownership by Best family started ~1929. This means the property taxes are extremely LOW. That is one concession to affordability-in-farming.

One glance at the property reveals nothing has been done to improve the property -- another concession to affordability -- not putting any money into the property.

Driving by one day within the last two years, I saw kids riding dirt bikes through the property. Unimproved dirt paths criscross the property so there is LONG TIME PUBLIC USE that will be blocked by the bottling plant improvements.

Bottom line: the proposed "improvements" will dramatically destroy the residential neighborhood enjoyed by the people who have lived there longer than your stated "5 years."

Even though there is a processing facility across the highway -- the neighbors could not request that facility be removed -- but they can demand another one not be built!

The only way this project can proceed is through the cooperation from the Supervisors approving a zone change. When the people who live in the neighborhood object to the zone change, why do the Supervisors find it amusing?

bakerchic

03-10-2010, 02:19 PM

Your repeated references to the Best family's economic survival makes me think that maybe you know something about the Best family and their economic situation that the rest of us don't know. The amount of time they've owned the land or their financial situation seems irrelevant to what the locals were opposing. A grape crushing and manufacturing plant, which would be hauling in grapes from all over the county- not growing them on the land they own. The project would be increasing the water use, traffic, noise, and pollution in the area. This is not the idyllic "small farm" scenario that you depict.

It's true that there are businesses across the highway, but the objecting homes are buffered from those businesses by acres of land, trees and the highway. The Best lot directly borders several residential properties housing at least fifteen families. That is the problem and that is why they had to rezone the parcel in addition to making 87 concessions in mitigation. There's a reason for zoning- we don't want certain kinds of businesses in particular areas, especially residential areas. Regardless of how long a family has owned the land, they should think about the impact of their decisions on the neighborhood and community.

It was the Hallberg family that originally acquired the land in the late 1800s. Best married into the family and ended up with a parcel, a very common occurrence in farm families. No point in splitting hairs here- They've got more claim than most in this respect, either way.

You assume they've made no improvements, are you a farmer? Did you talk to them?
You assume they don't know the kids riding there, perhaps riding w/ permission. Did you talk to them?
You infer that any land the public can access is there for the trespassing. Good luck on that one.
You put your aesthetic requirements above the economic survival of others. How very modern.

The pursuit of happiness is a little different than requiring other people to provide it for you, even if you can get government to help.
~Cal

2Bwacco

03-10-2010, 02:41 PM

By public inspection of the land, without entering, one can see there are very limited improvements. There appears to be only one dwelling which in its past life may have been a fruit stand.

Yes, I'm a "farmer" but more importantly, I'm a custodian of the land.

I made no assumptions about "the kids." By past experience I know that any land the public can access IS THERE FOR THE TRESPASSING. The parcel is not fenced, as best as I can see, ANYWHERE.

The obvious paths indicate a lot of transverse access, which over the 100 year history you speak of, could constitute a permanent easement right by the public.

The County of Sonoma is the entity that has instituted aesthetic requirements, if you read the zoning law, case in point: scenic corridor.

The scenic corridor setbacks may not be implemented or incorporated into the proposed project.

In speaking only from the existing neighbors' perspectives, the proposed zone change and grape processing/bottling plant constitutes an onerous nuisance.

You assume they've made no improvements, are you a farmer? Did you talk to them?
You assume they don't know the kids riding there, perhaps riding w/ permission. Did you talk to them?
You infer that any land the public can access is there for the trespassing. Good luck on that one.
You put your aesthetic requirements above the economic survival of others. How very modern.

The pursuit of happiness is a little different than requiring other people to provide it for you, even if you can get government to help.
~Cal

paradise

03-10-2010, 02:44 PM

Califoon has an interesting perspective....

If a family has been in the area for a long time, does it mean they should get special treatment? Does it mean everyone else sacrifices their property value loss, quiet enjoyment of their homes and deterioration of their surroundings for a "long-time" family to make more money? Does this mean that the rules don't apply to this family? Should the consequences and repercutions to the environment be overlooked because this family has been in the area for a long time? Does West Sonoma County have an obligation to amend the General Plan 2 times, issue special policy, give special permit to these investors because the Best Family has been residing here for a long time?

Listen, this is not about the Best Family. That is just the front and marketing campaign for this project. The fact is, the wine bottling plant, the size of a football field, is a commercial project which an investment group has put together, the Best Family is part of that group. Maybe all their family is the investment group or maybe they are part of a larger group. This investment group calls themselves: The Best Family Investors LLC

The Best family made Kosta Brown their investment project until just recently when they sold their holdings and Kosta Brown netted $42.5 MILLION. It was bought out by a group of Texas investors. Do you get the picture? Can you see where this is going? These Texas investors want to purchase another 5 wineries in Sonoma County in the near future. Can you read the writing on the wall?

There is nothing about this winery that can be attributed to farming. 100% of their grapes are imported to produce 26,500 cases of wine in a building that would be 33,000 square feet. The 3 acres of grapes that will be planted are "ornamental only" according to the project planner, Mr.Olmstead. Guess where the parking will be for their 150 guests...in the ornamental vineyard which serves as secondary leach fields and will be used because 42 parking spaces have been squeezed tight into this small lot along with the rest of a project that cannot accommodate one more square inch of anything.

Click your heels 3 times, Califoon, and say "there's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place like home" and when you land in the middle of the Best Family Investors LLC commercial bottling plant, you'll understand what is trully wrong with this picture.

Let's talk about invasive. Magick, how long have you lived in Sebastopol? I have only been here 5 years. The Best/Hallberg family has been on that property continuously since the 1880s or 90s. With 42% of our apple juice coming in from China as concentrate now, how is this farm family supposed to make a living and keep that property viable for their kids by growing apples? They can't. Americans won't pay enough to support Americans anymore, just corporations.

This is not Monsanto or Standard Oil coming in with bulldozers to strip-mine the countryside. This is one of the areas oldest families trying to keep small farming alive by switching to the most profitable crop this area has EVER seen. Trust the small farmer who lives with her own decisions, not the mega farm where the administrators are thousands of miles away and do not live with the results of their decisions.

Look around, the property is within a mile or two of 8-10 wineries, across the street is the biggest industrial processing facility in the area and next to that is a gas station. Frankly Pinot Noir and Chardonnay are this areas best bet for a worldwide market which cannot be outsourced as the crop is dependent on our climate and soils. Markets are how we generate taxes to keep schools, parks and hospitals open. This is not a video game, these good folks are trying to survive. It may inconvenience some who think they live in a park, but that idyllic scene will not paint the crosswalks or keep the emergency rooms open.
Thanks for listening, ~Cal

Califoon

03-10-2010, 03:28 PM

Hey, many good points and thanks for the civil tone, I was starting to lose it :thumbsup:

No, I don't know anything about them except what I've read on their website. What is shaping my outlook here is time spent recently interviewing local farmers, Reading about the food system and watching politics self destruct. Most recently I read Joel Salatin's "Everything I want to do is illegal" which is an insiders look at facing federal, state and local regulatory bodies from a small producer/farmer. He is beyond organic as a farmer and is also (I believe) a libertarian, and a good speaker and author. He details the regulatory forces that are crushing small independent producers, stifling eco-innovation, and making it nearly impossible to have a traditional farm family succession of generations on the same property.

So this has framed my thinking on the subject, this and 5 years of watching my landlord farm the apple orchard I live in. I did not have the slightest idea what farming was about when I moved here. we never know what we don't know, ya know? Slowly I'm learning.

Personally I would never trade an orchard for a vineyard if I had to live in it (though I thought 'I would' before I got here) At the same time I would never forbid my neighbor the right to make that choice for herself. Any of us may find that we live in the wrong place one day and we're free to correct that and pursue our happiness. That's whats great about this place.

Another way to say GRAPE CRUSHING and MANUFACTURING PLANT in common english is Winery:thumbsup: (unless you're really manufacturing grapes) Seriously, you make it sound like a Ford plant! I am not aware of any mass of complaints about:
Paul Hobbs
Merry Edwards
Dutton Estates
Emeritus
Dutton/Goldfield
Scherrer
Radio Coteau
Chasseur
Graton Ridge
Occidental cellars
Kistler
coming soon, Red Car and Kosta Browne (tasting room only, right across occidental rd from Best fam.)
People go to wineries to have FUN for Goodness sake, they are usually beautiful places, famously so. The owners work hard to keep it that way. The work buildings are insulated for Temp but it insulates the sound as well. They bottle twice a year, harvest once. Fire up a forklift every couple of days or weeks. Go walk around Merry Edwards place and tell me it's an industrial nightmare. It's nothing like the Vacu-dry plant.

Hwy 116 is on it's way to being a major tourism center for wine, hopefully wine and food. Nothing short of immediate climate disaster will change that. We make some of the best Burgundian wine in the world right here and it took many many people and many many years to get there. It is not a small thing. Nor is it a monoculture, only a very successful value-add for agriculture. Used to be everybody was growing bluelake green beans and apples here, now it's grapes and they're worth more, feeding the local economy more... If we discourage the smaller players we'll just wind up with larger players who can push us aside one way or another. I'd rather it be in the hands of locals and in the local economy. Bring money from outside, keep it here.

(like I have time to be doing this!)
All the best, Cal

Your repeated references to the Best family's economic survival makes me think that maybe you know something about the Best family and their economic situation that the rest of us don't know. The amount of time they've owned the land or their financial situation seems irrelevant to what the locals were opposing. A grape crushing and manufacturing plant, which would be hauling in grapes from all over the county- not growing them on the land they own. The project would be increasing the water use, traffic, noise, and pollution in the area. This is not the idyllic "small farm" scenario that you depict.

It's true that there are businesses across the highway, but the objecting homes are buffered from those businesses by acres of land, trees and the highway. The Best lot directly borders several residential properties housing at least fifteen families. That is the problem and that is why they had to rezone the parcel in addition to making 87 concessions in mitigation. There's a reason for zoning- we don't want certain kinds of businesses in particular areas, especially residential areas. Regardless of how long a family has owned the land, they should think about the impact of their decisions on the neighborhood and community.

Barry

03-10-2010, 04:11 PM

I want to echo Califoon's comment: "Thanks for the civil tone!"

In addition to the comments posted on this thread, I suggest you check out the pro and con websites:

Best Family Winery | Home (https://www.bestfamilywinery.org/) ( Note that this site includes all the various studies about the project)

and

Concerned Citizens for Responsible Land Use (CCRLU) (https://c4rlu.wordpress.com/)

Califoon

03-10-2010, 04:56 PM

Aww shoot, I was hoping you were right about them and Kosta Browne because I never heard that before, but that's not what it says here New Owners for California Pinot Noir Star Kosta Browne | News | News & Features | Wine Spectator (https://www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show/id/40638)

Are they leaving something out? I'm just trying to learn more about it.

The Best family made Kosta Brown their investment project until just recently when they sold their holdings and Kosta Brown netted $42.5 MILLION. It was bought out by a group of Texas investors. Do you get the picture? Can you see where this is going? These Texas investors want to purchase another 5 wineries in Sonoma County in the near future. Can you read the writing on the wall?

Califoon

03-10-2010, 05:39 PM

Paradise, my only reason to mention their long-time status was to point out that they're not sudden invaders from the hinterlands or maybe Texas. I do not propose rewriting the constitution to give them superpowers. 8>)

Califoon has an interesting perspective....

If a family has been in the area for a long time, does it mean they should get special treatment?

Califoon

03-11-2010, 07:14 AM

The small red building was a fish market in the 1950s and then a potter used it for production until the 90s. This is on their website.

By public inspection of the land, without entering, one can see there are very limited improvements. There appears to be only one dwelling which in its past life may have been a fruit stand.

2Bwacco

03-11-2010, 08:48 AM

The general plan designated this land's zoning Rural Residential (Ag.).

The current owners, in an effort to capitalize on the current winery fads intoxicating the County, have requested a zone change from RR to Diverse Ag. They probably wouldn't be allowed to go directly to commercial zoning (which those past uses were and violations of the zoning).

The parcel is too small to meet the minimum acreage for Diverse Ag.

Without the token micro-mini 3 acre hobby vineyard, I doubt the processing building would be allowed. That appears to be the thing the Supervisors are "hanging their hats on" the processing building is necessary to process the grapes. The processing building is being overbuilt. Three acres will not produce 26,000 cases of wine.

Seems to me the neighborhood could be preserved, the neighbors could continue to enjoy their homes, the land could stay Rural Residential, Ag.

The "Best" family (with their investors they need in order to develop the processing building) would not make as much money.

The Sonoma County Supervisors need to follow the desires of the homeowners that live in the neighborhood. Deny the project and requisite zoning changes.

Califoon

03-11-2010, 08:59 AM

Thanks for expressing your opinions. I think the more we know, the better off we are and the more our opinions are worth. 8>)

The general plan designated this land's zoning Rural Residential (Ag.).

The current owners, in an effort to capitalize on the current winery fads intoxicating the County, have requested a zone change from RR to Diverse Ag. They probably wouldn't be allowed to go directly to commercial zoning (which those past uses were and violations of the zoning).

The parcel is too small to meet the minimum acreage for Diverse Ag.

Without the token micro-mini 3 acre hobby vineyard, I doubt the processing building would be allowed. That appears to be the thing the Supervisors are "hanging their hats on" the processing building is necessary to process the grapes. The processing building is being overbuilt. Three acres will not produce 26,000 cases of wine.

Seems to me the neighborhood could be preserved, the neighbors could continue to enjoy their homes, the land could stay Rural Residential, Ag.

The "Best" family (with their investors they need in order to develop the processing building) would not make as much money.

The Sonoma County Supervisors need to follow the desires of the homeowners that live in the neighborhood. Deny the project and requisite zoning changes.

Thomas Morabito

03-12-2010, 08:34 AM

Letter published in Sonoma County Gazette 2/4/10

To the people of Sonoma County,
The Best Family Investment Group LLC would like to become my new neighbor. They want to move in across the narrow country lane from my home of the past 20 years and build a winery complex that would include a building that is nearly a football field long, 1/2 football field wide, and 4 1/2 stories tall. Further ingratiating themselves to me they intend to host parties with up to 150 guests, 17 times a year and serve 100 guests daily in a separate 5,000 square foot wine tasting room. If that's not enough to have me quivering in anticipation of their arrival, they are even going to truck in enough grapes to crank out 26,500 cases of wine AND they'll have operations going 24/7 for several months of the year. What more can I possible hope for? I can't wait till they're in so we can have each other over for tea, borrow a cup of sugar, you know, just do the kinds of things that good neighbors do for each other. I hope my tears of joy don't get the welcome cake soggy when my new neighbors rip out the apple orchard that has been growing here in the scenic corridor since 1925. Good riddance to those pesky old apple trees. Welcome to my new neighbors, the kind that most people only get to dream about.

Just think of it, a wine bottling plant right next door operating all night long. How lucky can one get?

What must I do to become the recipient of all this good fortune?
I must hope and pray that the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors will vote to amend the General Plan twice, rezone 2 parcels and throw in some special policy voodoo so my special neighbors can build a winery complex on an undersized lot outside my bedroom window. Oh, I almost forgot, I also need the Board of Supervisors to accept the MND instead of requiring an Environmental Impact Report. I certainly wouldn't want to delay move-in day just to do a silly study to see if this project could in some remote way have a potentially significant impact on the environment and surrounding area. If this precedent is set any resident of Sonoma County can look forward to the day when they too can have a neighbor like this.

Seriously folks, this project does not belong here. This project does not fit here. This project is not wanted here. Creating an island of Diverse Agriculture land-use with no buffer to the surrounding residential properties would create an area of conflicting land use which is the exact opposite of the goal of our General Plan and zoning laws.

Can you say: Square Peg, Round Hole!

Contact your Board of Supervisors. Tell them to VOTE NO.

Sincerely,
Thomas Morabito