Efren the Junior and the wine factory

[Larysa]

Greetings!

As probably everyone else, I am appalled, but not surprised at the decision of Efren the Junior and the other County Supervisors regarding the zoning change for the wine factory in our 'hood.

As we know, politicians are elected on their charming personalities, not their smarts - just like high school. However, unlike high school, they are accountable to ALL of us, even those of us who did not vote for them or contribute a penny to their popularity contest. Therefore, I feel it is imperative to take positive action now.

It is possible that these county supervisors (aristocracy) meant well by their decision and are dumb-founded that the villagers (peasants) are up in arms. Sound familiar? I strongly believe that they have faulty or underdeveloped reasoning skills. As a college math instructor, I spent 25 years assisting students on their thinking strategies. Helping them to problem solve, not by giving them the answer, but by coaching them along the way from start to finish. They had to explain their problem-solving process by mapping it out for me step-by-step (slow and detailed) - like a TripTik from AAA.

The smart students welcomed this guidance, the foolish ones resisted.

I propose that a group of locals, give Efren the Junior an opportunity to explain his reasoning for his vote against the will of the residents and local community. Also I genuinely would like to understand his definitions of words, such as 'agriculture', 'environment', 'apple', etc.

Perhaps some of us could gather for an hour or so to brain-connect. When and where would folks like to meet? Thanks!

Larysa

[2Bwacco]

Most of the posts seem to be on this thread: PD: County supervisors rezone land for Graton winery project

One of the things I remember from the PD article is the vote was termed a "straw vote."

Could that mean it was not final and is subject to review?

[hartsook]

Greetings!

As probably everyone else, I am appalled, but not surprised at the decision of Efren the Junior and the other County Supervisors regarding the zoning change for the wine factory in our 'hood.
...
I would like to know how some of you seem to know what the will of the people is????? I know of some long time residents [born here] that support this wine factory in the "hood". Not all Sebastopol residents were carrying signs at that corner! I have lived here too short a time to have an opinion whether this is a good, or "bad" project, but I will not assume that any of you know the will of the people. Grow up! :yinyang:
Fred

[2Bwacco]

To Hartsook: Please take a look at the "main" post to answer some of your queries.

Without a doubt you do not live next door to this proposed project.

Being born in Sonoma County does not afford a person special rights, does it?

The focus is on the supervisors being persuaded to change the zoning from residential to diverse ag. which is just not proper for the neighborhood and will seriously degrade the quality of home life for the people already living there. That is the issue.

It isn't an issue of apples over grapes, except for the people who want to make the zoning change. They want to send the neighborhood on a path that will erode the existing homeowners' quiet enjoyment of their homes by convincing the supervisors the zoning change is a good thing.

In this case, the will of the surrounding neighbors should take precedence over a zoning change.

The neighbors have tried mightily to be heard, to express their opposition; the supervisors do not seem to be listening.

That simply isn't right.

[Larysa]

Greetings!

Please read it again: "As probably everyone else..." acknowledging that some may disagree with me.

Yes, the issue here is the rezoning and water! This is what has happened in Southern California. I lived in San Diego County and saw the beautiful land fall like dominoes and water being increasingly more scarce. Now we (Northern California) will be 'donating' our water to support their unsustainable and greedy development.

For those of you who support this wine factory, please go visit the once beautiful San Diego County, so you can see, smell and hear the pollution of the senses.

Sincerely, Larysa

[Barry]

...
The focus is on the supervisors being persuaded to change the zoning from residential to diverse ag. which is just not proper for the neighborhood and will seriously degrade the quality of home life for the people already living there. That is the issue. ...

I have some comments about this project, and the public process that has surrounded it both here on Wacco and at the county level, that I'll post soon. But for the moment, I just want to clarify the "neighborhood" reference and the water concerns.

Here's an aerial shot (https://www.bestfamilywinery.org/pdf/Distances-to-Homes.pdf) of the "neighborhood" with distances to nearby houses:


https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/ImagesforMembers/2010-03-12_1508.png


First off, while I wouldn't go so far as to say the term "neighborhood" is misleading, I think this is a substantially different setting than what that term congers up for most people. By my reading, the closest house is 222 feet, and that is from edge to edge. From the looks of the map, that house is already impacted by being close to Hwy 116. There are 2 more houses that are 280 feet and 283 feet away. This is further than the "nearly a football field" length that Thomas is fond of characterizing as the size of the 240 foot winery (https://www.bestfamilywinery.org/pdf/plans/A1-Site.pdf))

Regarding the water concerns, an engineering firms prepared a "third party review of the water use and potential impacts to groundwater (https://www.bestfamilywinery.org/pdf/reports/Water-Balance-Review2009.pdf)" of the proposed project. Thanks to the "advanced water conservation and reuse design, the proposed winery will require the same or less groundwater than a theoretical two-home residential development for which the property is already zoned".

[Magick]

I agree it is a good idea to meet. I am available late mornings on weekdays. I have some ideas on strategy.
By the way, I am sure this site is monitored by Carrillo's office so he is aware of our continued concern.
The item will come up on the consent calendar on April 20th although that could change. So we need to stay on top of it.
It is my understanding that citizens can pull an item from the consent calendar, they can in Sebastopol, but I am waiting for a response for the county clerk.
Otherwise it is usually a perfunctory vote.
Any board member can pull and item from the calendar.
Yours in Truth, Magick

[Bryan]

I think the bigger issue is how many parcels either on 116 or very close to it within 1/2 mile of this site could be converted from RR to Diverse Ag. I believe the Sups are opening up a huge potential for other sites to push for similar rezoning. I would think someone could list out a large number of potential zoning conversions once this site is rezoned. Basically the rezoning of any one parcel must be taken into context of other potential requests. I don't know what other rezoning options are available - e.g. other Ag designations that would require a smaller winery, with fewer hours and less commercial hours.

[2Bwacco]

There is a real estate company that lists large parcels considering selling in the Graton area. One is the Christmas tree farm owned by Davis.

Conceptualize a similar tasting room, bottling plant, parking lot, water siphoning, noise producing facility there.

Neighboring homeowners may find their wells dry when the more powerful, deeper wells have drained the aquifer. You have no recourse other than to drill another, deeper well at your own expense.

Interesting point: today's newspaper reported the Gallo tasting room in downtown Healdsburg has closed! The pendulum may be starting to swing in the other direction.

Be very, very careful about venturing out to drive to the market or downtown Sebastopol when Hwy. 116 is lined with tasting room after tasting room.

[paradise]

Have you heard the phrase: "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?
Well, it is.
Taking your comments one step at a time would be wise to clarify to everyone not familiar with this project, and by not familiar, I mean, you've not read the 1st Staff Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Second Staff Report, Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, the reports on water, traffic, GHG, the public's reports, the public comments and concerns, etc.

Please know that the concerned citizens living in this rural neighborhood, a neighborhood that may or may not be your vision of a neighborhood, have done their homework. There are serious concerns. There are serious impacts to the environment. There are serious consequences to setting a presedent and opening the flood gates to commercial endeavors in an area specifically protected from such intrusion. Anyone can argue either side of the problem, but the facts remain the same. There will be an environmental impact to the area, its residents and those who frequent the area. Furthermore, there will be an impact to our wells, our noise level, the amount of traffic, the green house gas emissions, etc. The applicant has, at the last minute, submitted a zero emissions report. The public has not had a chance to review it and won't have that opportunity.

This project is being built on a piece of land that is TOO small for the contents. It does not fit the zoning or the land use. So, the Board of Supes changes that ! What's 2 general plan amendments amongst friends? There is a special permit and special legislation being done specifically for this project ! So what you say, it's not that big a deal right? Some of the neighbors impacted by the sound are already close to Hwy 116 you say...so, what difference does more noise make to them? You mention that the independent water report says that this project would use less than 2 residences....that is what the report says. However, if you read the report you see that it compares apples to grapes....no fair comparison is made. If you want to compare the use of 2 residences vs this project, then the 2 residences should also be built green and have the same features this project claims will save water. That comparison is not made.
Worst or all.....PLEASE MAKE NOTE OF THIS:
No CUMMULATIVE comparison has been made on traffic, water, noise, etc. This project is being treated like it is the ONLY one in this area and does not take into consideration any cummulative impact of others in the area or others that may come.

Look, this is not about any family. It is about this project and its consequences on the environment and the rural residential neighborhood and those that frequent the area. Lastly, it is a consequence on all of Sonoma County residents if they own a parcel zoned Rural Residential. Be careful.....your area could be next. This tornado could land right next door to you in the very near future. This is the door the Board of Supervisors opened when they straw voted this project's approval.
Sonoma County's beauty and environment is open to exploitation by anyone who has the funds to build such a project. It's a sad day when this vote was taken.We now have been told....the Board of Supervisors votes in favor of revenue and not environment.




I have some comments about this project, and the public process that has surrounded it both here on Wacco and at the county level, that I'll post soon. But for the moment, I just want to clarify the "neighborhood" reference and the water concerns.

Here's an aerial shot (https://www.bestfamilywinery.org/pdf/Distances-to-Homes.pdf) of the "neighborhood" with distances to nearby houses:


https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/ImagesforMembers/2010-03-12_1508.png


First off, while I wouldn't go so far as to say the term "neighborhood" is misleading, I think this is a substantially different setting than what that term congers up for most people. By my reading, the closest house is 222 feet, and that is from edge to edge. From the looks of the map, that house is already impacted by being close to Hwy 116. There are 2 more houses that are 280 feet and 283 feet away. This is further than the "nearly a football field" length that Thomas is fond of characterizing as the size of the 240 foot winery (https://www.bestfamilywinery.org/pdf/plans/A1-Site.pdf))

Regarding the water concerns, an engineering firms prepared a "third party review of the water use and potential impacts to groundwater (https://www.bestfamilywinery.org/pdf/reports/Water-Balance-Review2009.pdf)" of the proposed project. Thanks to the "advanced water conservation and reuse design, the proposed winery will require the same or less groundwater than a theoretical two-home residential development for which the property is already zoned".

[Eileen M.]

Well said Paradise!
The vote at the Public Hearing was disappointing to say the least. The General Plan and Zoning laws were tossed aside like yesterday's news. Our supervisors voted to amended the General Pan twice and change the zoning just so they could approve this project. *Our supervisors pounded the proverbial SQUARE PEG through the ROUND HOLE. If this decision stands then no neighborhood or scenic resource in Sonoma County will be safe from the incessant march of profit hungry developers.

This happened in my neighborhood, whose neighborhood is next?

[tommy]

Why would our gov't representatives do this? Why would 5 members of the Planning Commission, and 4 County Supervisors vote in favor of this project? All votes unanimous!

Wake up! Smell the grapes!

The neighbors on Atkinson, and others opposed, do not recognize the priorities of our community. The priorities that the Winery supports are employment, economic development, and an expanded tax base that pays for public amenities such as education, roads, etc. Evidently, by the unanimous votes of our public representatives, those are higher priorities than maintaining a bucolic apple orchard for the benefit of the residents of Atkinson Road. If you don't want the winery, buy the 8 acres yourself, for your own park! This is the way our system works.


Well said Paradise!
The vote at the Public Hearing was disappointing to say the least. The General Plan and Zoning laws were tossed aside like yesterday's news. Our supervisors voted to amended the General Pan twice and change the zoning just so they could approve this project. *Our supervisors pounded the proverbial SQUARE PEG through the ROUND HOLE. If this decision stands then no neighborhood or scenic resource in Sonoma County will be safe from the incessant march of profit hungry developers.

This happened in my neighborhood, whose neighborhood is next?

[paradise]

What a great question you ask ! Why would these public oficials vote unanimously for this project inspite of the numerous environmental impacts and the fact that this project does not fit this site?
Were you at the planning commission hearing when the 5th district planning commissioner admitted he had not had a chance to read the material, but he initiated the vote to approve the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors? Were you at the Board of Supervisors' hearing when supervisor Kelly said "he found it amusing that the residents were fighting to keep the rural residential zoning". He said he had been innundated with information and had not had a chance to read it all. Were you there when Supervisor Kerns called a member of the opposition an "ass" and challenged him to take it outside with him? Kerns is a public official and such behavior from him should have never been permitted. The Board of Supervisors was yawning throughout the hearing with at least 2 of the board members closing their eyes for periods at a time. If this does not indicate that they were not listening, what does? Could you go to your job today and take a nap during work hours? I think not !
Do you still wonder why these officials voted in favor of this project?

Look, we all agree that the county needs revenue, jobs and an extended tax base. WE CAN HAVE ALL OF THAT....NO ONE IS AGAINST THAT. The question to you is: Do we sacrifice the environment, throw out all the rules and forget the General Plan in order to obtain a better tax base, jobs,etc.?
The Investors should find an appropriate site with appropriate land use and zoning, with enough acreage to accomodate their project and buy it. That's where their project should go. We can have jobs, tax revenue and more if they did just that. They have 28 acres with the right zoning and land use why not use that? The problem is they don't want this monstrosity in their own back yard.





Why would our gov't representatives do this? Why would 5 members of the Planning Commission, and 4 County Supervisors vote in favor of this project? All votes unanimous!

Wake up! Smell the grapes!

The neighbors on Atkinson, and others opposed, do not recognize the priorities of our community. The priorities that the Winery supports are employment, economic development, and an expanded tax base that pays for public amenities such as education, roads, etc. Evidently, by the unanimous votes of our public representatives, those are higher priorities than maintaining a bucolic apple orchard for the benefit of the residents of Atkinson Road. If you don't want the winery, buy the 8 acres yourself, for your own park! This is the way our system works.

[Veeja]

I lived in St. Helena for a couple of years. The traffic was bad. small town and it took me forever to go to the grocery store. On the weekends there was so many people everywhere. The amount of out of towners, who could care less about our community, will be driving intoxicated in our towns. I bet the DUI rate will go up (theres some more revenue). I thought that wine sales have come down, and winery's are closing? Sure, there will be some jobs in the beginning. But what about later? They will hire cheaper labor, that can't even afford to live in our community. It just doesn't make sense.:hmmm: We need to vote these people out of office. Maybe we could have had a compromise with the best family. As long as there product was good and reasonably priced, we could have stocked there brand and maybe one other (not from china) in our stores. Anyway, just my two sense. I'm sorry to all the neighbors living close . I know how noisy it will be.


What a great question you ask ! Why would these public oficials vote unanimously for this project inspite of the numerous environmental impacts and the fact that this project does not fit this site?
Were you at the planning commission hearing when the 5th district planning commissioner admitted he had not had a chance to read the material, but he initiated the vote to approve the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors? Were you at the Board of Supervisors' hearing when supervisor Kelly said "he found it amusing that the residents were fighting to keep the rural residential zoning". He said he had been innundated with information and had not had a chance to read it all. Were you there when Supervisor Kerns called a member of the opposition an "ass" and challenged him to take it outside with him? Kerns is a public official and such behavior from him should have never been permitted. The Board of Supervisors was yawning throughout the hearing with at least 2 of the board members closing their eyes for periods at a time. If this does not indicate that they were not listening, what does? Could you go to your job today and take a nap during work hours? I think not !
Do you still wonder why these officials voted in favor of this project?

Look, we all agree that the county needs revenue, jobs and an extended tax base. WE CAN HAVE ALL OF THAT....NO ONE IS AGAINST THAT. The question to you is: Do we sacrifice the environment, throw out all the rules and forget the General Plan in order to obtain a better tax base, jobs,etc.?
The Investors should find an appropriate site with appropriate land use and zoning, with enough acreage to accomodate their project and buy it. That's where their project should go. We can have jobs, tax revenue and more if they did just that. They have 28 acres with the right zoning and land use why not use that? The problem is they don't want this monstrosity in their own back yard.

[Barry]

Greetings!

As probably everyone else, I am appalled, but not surprised at the decision of Efren the Junior and the other County Supervisors regarding the zoning change for the wine factory in our 'hood.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Zen_Mind%2C_Beginner%27s_Mind.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_Mind,_Beginner%27s_Mind)I am not appalled, however I am offended by your reference to "Efren the Junior".

While Efren may be young, I think that is working out to be a service to his (our) district. He brings abundant energy, a genuine good heart, and a "Beginner's Mind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin)" to the many complex issues that face our blessed part of the planet that happens to be populated with a particularly curious "herd of cats" that often have preconceived ideas, such as "development is bad" or how politicians behave.


As we know, politicians are elected on their charming personalities, not their smarts - just like high school.

Ouch! Not exactly an un-biased assessment.


However, unlike high school, they are accountable to ALL of us, even those of us who did not vote for them or contribute a penny to their popularity contest. Therefore, I feel it is imperative to take positive action now.Taking positive action is good! :thumbsup:


It is possible that these county supervisors (aristocracy) meant well by their decision and are dumb-founded that the villagers (peasants) are up in arms. Sound familiar?Well it is sure sounds like you are looking at the situation from a particular point of view.

Is it not possible these county supervisors (Efren in particular) are actually representatives of their districts, all of their districts, and not certain "special interests"? You realize, of course, that "special interests" refers to certain interests that have outsized influence (or try to) on public policy. It can apply to "neighbors" and a handful of sympathizers as well as corporations.


I strongly believe that they have faulty or underdeveloped reasoning skills. As a college math instructor, I spent 25 years assisting students on their thinking strategies. Helping them to problem solve, not by giving them the answer, but by coaching them along the way from start to finish. They had to explain their problem-solving process by mapping it out for me step-by-step (slow and detailed) - like a TripTik from AAA.

The smart students welcomed this guidance, the foolish ones resisted.

I propose that a group of locals, give Efren the Junior an opportunity to explain his reasoning for his vote against the will of the residents and local community. Also I genuinely would like to understand his definitions of words, such as 'agriculture', 'environment', 'apple', etc.

Perhaps some of us could gather for an hour or so to brain-connect. When and where would folks like to meet? Thanks!

LarysaOK, sounds like a reasonable idea, if, you are also open to approaching the issue with Shoshin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin) or Beginner's Mind. I'd be happy to participate! And I think continuing the dialog here is a good start. The vote on March 2nd was a straw vote. The final vote is approximately 30 days later, or early April. Better move quick!

While my mind is not made up, I found the official reports quite interesting. You can see them here:
https://www.bestfamilywinery.org/reports.htm as well as their response to the concerns here: Best Family Winery | Questions and Answers (https://www.bestfamilywinery.org/concerns.html)

I suggest you read them before forming an opinion.

It's clear that the project will have some level of impact for a few of the immediate neighbors for a rather limited time and duration.

On the other hand, the project seems attractive and designed to meet LEED (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_in_Energy_and_Environmental_Design) standards (green building and design), including solar power, rainwater catchment, a water reuse system and is overall carbon nuetral. It supports local agriculture and tourism (which helps support the local economy in many ways).

The current zoning allows for 2 McMansions. Is that really better for the county?

The typical "good" fight is about preventing conversion of land dedicated to agriculture into more McMansions. That's why this is rather atypical, which is why one supervisor referred to it as "amusing" (though perhaps not the best choice of words).

<a name="also"> </a>
I also want to call attention to this:



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

I Do Not Apologize

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 think Thomas was out of line and disrespectful, essentially acting as a political terrorist. I don't care what the issue is. Having an orderly meeting is called for. The public had plenty of time to speak, and then it was time for the supervisors to discuss it. Interrupting them is bad civic behavior.

[n4rky]

Interesting point: today's newspaper reported the Gallo tasting room in downtown Healdsburg has closed! The pendulum may be starting to swing in the other direction.

I hope you're right, but I wouldn't want to make this argument based on Gallo. Gallo is not comparable to locally produced wines with a somewhat better reputation.

[Larysa]

Greetings!

The issues are complex and any future 'development' needs to be not just sustainable, but regenerative. A wine factory is neither.

Barry, the 'beginner's mind' thing is a cute idea, when there is time and room for a looooooong learning curve.

However, in a time of global environmental and economic crisis, wisdom and extensive research are imperative.

I would like to gather people who have 'done their homework', studied environmental issues and read books such as:

1) Cradle to Cradle by McDonough and Braungart

2) PLAN B 4.0: Mobilizing To Save Civilization by Lester R. Brown
It's been translated into numerous languages and avaiable for free as a PDF download: https://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb4 (https://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb4)

Let me know what you think! Take good care.

Larysa

[n4rky]

However, if you read the report you see that it compares apples to grapes....no fair comparison is made.

If the argument is about apples versus grapes, then what about monoculture concerns?

[n4rky]

If you don't want the winery, buy the 8 acres yourself, for your own park! This is the way our system works.

So you would be assuming 1) that the Best family is willing to sell, and 2) that money should dictate policy.

[n4rky]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Zen_Mind%2C_Beginner%27s_Mind.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_Mind,_Beginner%27s_Mind)I am not appalled, however I am offended by your reference to "Efren the Junior".

While Efren may be young, I think that is working out to be a service to his (our) district. He brings abundant energy, a genuine good heart, and a "Beginner's Mind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin)" to the many complex issues that face our blessed part of the planet that happens to be populated with a particularly curious "herd of cats" that often have preconceived ideas, such as "development is bad" or how politicians behave.

Is it really "beginners mind" to vote for money? Is it really "beginners mind" to attempt to sneak this through as they did before neighbors got wind of it and raised a protest?


Is it not possible these county supervisors (Efren in particular) are actually representatives of their districts, all of their districts, and not certain "special interests"? You realize, of course, that "special interests" refers to certain interests that have outsized influence (or try to) on public policy. It can apply to "neighbors" and a handful of sympathizers as well as corporations.

And how can you reconcile this view with the underhanded attempt to get this through with little public notice, then to utterly disregard neighbors' opinions on the matter, in an utterly disrespectful manner as evidenced at the hearing?

[n4rky]

The current zoning allows for 2 McMansions. Is that really better for the county?

What is the basis for your assumption that two "McMansions" would otherwise be built on this property? Is this a (false) dichotomy between the "McMansions" and the winery?

[n4rky]

One other point I thought I should make about this. No doubt advocates of this project will deny they were in any way underhanded in trying to sneak it through.

But this very afternoon, I drove past a big "Mitigated Negative Declaration" sign for some project some place. I think it was a road project and if an admittedly hazy memory serves, it might have been at the intersection of Fulton Road and West 3rd Street.

I don't recall ever seeing such a sign for the Best Family Winery project. If I'm to understand this as not being underhanded, then why is such a sign required for a routine roadway project and not for something that will change the character of a rural neighborhood?

[paradise]

You are right....there was no big sign for the Best Family Investors project. There was a small, not very visible letter-size sign on the post at the corner of Occidental and Hwy 116. No such big sign was posted!





One other point I thought I should make about this. No doubt advocates of this project will deny they were in any way underhanded in trying to sneak it through.

But this very afternoon, I drove past a big "Mitigated Negative Declaration" sign for some project some place. I think it was a road project and if an admittedly hazy memory serves, it might have been at the intersection of Fulton and Occidental Roads.

I don't recall ever seeing such a sign for the Best Family Winery project. If I'm to understand this as not being underhanded, then why is such a sign required for a routine roadway project and not for something that will change the character of a rural neighborhood?

[2Bwacco]

Project for this Saturday -- the weather should be nice.

Drive through Sebastopol from south to north maybe to River Road area and look for open wineries. Last Sat. I enountered at least 3 in only 5 miles. Attention-getting balloons bob about distracting drivers. Drivers swerve, speed and brake.

Seems like it would be foolish and dangerous to have the highway heart of our community peppered with tasting room after tasting room.

Vine Hill Road at Guerneville Road is one of the most dangerous intersections. Apparently folks heading north/south on Vine Hill "think" the Gnville. Rd. travelers going east/west are supposed to stop.

One woman was killed there and frequently I see Vine Hill drivers not stopping completely at the stop signs... [just a heads-up]

[Barry]

The current rural residential zoning allows for 2 houses on that parcel, and with about 4 acres for each, they are not going to put up small houses. That's the alternative - converting the parcel to yet more high priced housing vs an attractive and well designed winery that will help the local economy.

So let's be real, shall we?

The only real issue here is that some (not all) of the neighbors are afraid they will be negatively impacted by the project.

They are bringing up anything they can think of to stop the project (environmental, traffic, protocol, bad behavior etc.) even though that is not the real issue. It's basic "NIMBY" pure and simple. I can understand why they might not want it there but it doesn't sound like it will be all that bad, and they are certainly doing all they can to be good neighbors. It's part and parcel of living near 2 major thoroughfares.

That area was even further impacted when the old vacu-dry plant was in full swing.

I think this is an appropriate use for this parcel.

Seems like it would be been better to try to get some sort of compensation for the potential impact rather than fighting to stop an otherwise good and appropriate project.

Efren spent a lot of time "listening" to the neighbors concerns. He's just not agreeing with them. There's a difference.


What is the basis for your assumption that two "McMansions" would otherwise be built on this property? Is this a (false) dichotomy between the "McMansions" and the winery?

[Larysa]

Barry, you said: "an otherwise good and appropriate project".

I'm curious: Is your girlfriend working on or hoping to work on this or similar projects by any chance? And is this why you are so supportive of a project based on money and disregarding the neighbors' concerns and the environmental impact?

Larysa

[paradise]

Barry, you "think this is an appropriate use of this parcel"? Fortunately for Sonoma County residents, there are zoning and land use laws. So, we don't have to go with someone's guess that this is an appropriate use. We are talking about 2 separate parcels. These were 1 and the owners divided it into 2 parcels. Now the investors want to join them again. They need to do this in order to build their huge winery /bottling plant/ wine tasting room/ event project. The land is zoned
Rural Residential/Agricultural which does not permit a commercial project or winery such as the one the applicants have in mind. So, they want the Diverse Ag designation which also requires a minimum of 10 acres. They only have 7.61 acres. For that reason, they need to change the land use to Diverse Agricultural which would then allow them to have the bottling plant and wine tasting room. A special permit must be issued for events (17 a year; 12 with up to 40 guests and 5 with up to 150 persons is anticipated ) 87 mitigations must be made to make this project compatible with present legislation, general plan, etc.
Your point: "it doesn't sound all that bad" is an interesting one ! And the one that gets me is your comment: "they are certainly doing all they can to be good neighbors" ! How about you find them a place near you?
If they were being good neighbors, they would reduce the size of the project and make the wine bottling building considerably smaller (by the way, the design committee asked them to do that. The applicant refused).
They could plant a vineyard, have a small wine tasting room and bottle their wine at Vacu-Dry....now that might be an effort towards being good neighbors. There is plenty of space at Vacu-Dry for them to bottle their wine, all 26,500 cases....100,000 vacant square feet as per the sign on Hwy 116.
And, How do you know how much time Efren spent listening to the neighbors' concerns? Listening implies you are engaged and comprehend the issues. And he should be listening....that is his job. To agree or disagree...that is not the question.
Better questions would be: does this project meet the zoning guidelines? Does this project meet the land use? Does this project follow the newly adopted General Plan? Are there environmental concerns even after reports have been submitted? If so, an Environmental Impact Report is called for. Does this project create disharmony in the area? These are questions that need to be addressed.
We don't need to change the General Plan twice, rezone and make special policy and issue special permits plus approve 87 mitigations for this project alone. The project should conform to the rules not the other way around.
You think the only "real issue here is that some (not all) of the neighbors are afraid they will be negatively impacted by the project". In your words, Barry, "Let's be real". While I respect your right to express your opinion, it is difficult for me to believe you might be that naive.
It is a fact: this project will impact the neighborhood, the residents, the environment, water demand,(don't be fooled by their water capturing cisterns), increase traffic, create noise, increase Green house gas emissions (they may buy credits somewhere else, but the ghg will remain in the area) and more.
Where do you live? In the land of Oz? Sorry to burst your bubble....












The current rural residential zoning allows for 2 houses on that parcel, and with about 4 acres for each, they are not going to put up small houses. That's the alternative - converting the parcel to yet more high priced housing vs an attractive and well designed winery that will help the local economy.

So let's be real, shall we?

The only real issue here is that some (not all) of the neighbors are afraid they will be negatively impacted by the project.

They are bringing up anything they can think of to stop the project (environmental, traffic, protocol, bad behavior etc.) even though that is not the real issue. It's basic "NIMBY" pure and simple. I can understand why they might not want it there but it doesn't sound like it will be all that bad, and they are certainly doing all they can to be good neighbors. It's part and parcel of living near 2 major thoroughfares.

That area was even further impacted when the old vacu-dry plant was in full swing.

I think this is an appropriate use for this parcel.

Seems like it would be been better to try to get some sort of compensation for the potential impact rather than fighting to stop an otherwise good and appropriate project.

Efren spent a lot of time "listening" to the neighbors concerns. He's just not agreeing with them. There's a difference.

[n4rky]

The only real issue here is that some (not all) of the neighbors are afraid they will be negatively impacted by the project.

...

I think this is an appropriate use for this parcel.

...

Efren spent a lot of time "listening" to the neighbors concerns. He's just not agreeing with them. There's a difference.

You know Barry, I've actually heard of NIMBYism before. I'm far to the left of even your average progressive, so I know all about liberal hypocrisy in which projects that benefit some under-served population are wonderful except if they're "in my backyard."

I'm having a really hard time visualizing the Best Family as an under-served population.

From the sound of things here, Efren hasn't listened one bit to neighbors. And while it is naive to expect politicians to actually be accountable to their electorate, he doesn't seem to be answering any questions at all. He's just voting for the money and you're just supporting him.

I don't know why that is. But for some reason, your ego is wrapped up in this. And for you to claim to invoke a beginner's mind suggests you have a real blind spot.

Your claim that the only objection is NIMBYism neglects--if no other point at all--my (and others' arguments) about monoculture. We're getting an awful lot of vineyards in this part of Sonoma County and this project will encourage yet more of them. If you're so sure monoculture is a good thing, if you're so sure it's good for the economy, how about actually addressing the damage that will be created when some blight comes along and kills all these vines?

Neither you nor your politician pal say anything about the need to encourage actual local food production in the county. This project will rip out apple trees, but you and your politician pal aren't saying anything at all about the sustainability of trucking food from everywhere else. You and your politician pal must really like yet more of the same kind of wine that everybody else is already growing to think this is a good project.

You want to talk about McMansions. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the sort of people who can afford such places in Sonoma County either. They get rich by undervaluing everybody else; it is a form of theft not recognized in law (passed by rich folks) that's been going on for millennia. And with this project, I see some people who think they're going to get richer in a glutted market for wine (https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35108346/ns/business-success_in_hard_times/).

I actually live close enough to this intersection that I drive through it a lot. Your aerial photo was nice, but it covered a very small area. It doesn't even cover Occidental Road where the entrance would be. There are actually a lot of homes in the neighborhood. And when you suggest otherwise, all you're revealing is either ignorance or that you're in denial. I really think you need to take a step back.

[joybird]

Barry,
I drive through there almost every day. I live about 2-3 miles away. I went to the hearings. I have since been really looking at the site and other buildings along that stretch of road. Have you been there? Have you really looked? What they are proposing is huge compared to anything else nearby. It will impact the area in a way you are not allowing yourself to see. The Best family are not being good neighbors. Why don't they use the facility across the street that is sitting empty? Because it is LEED designed does not equate to well designed for that parcel. It does not fit.
Joy


The current rural residential zoning allows for 2 houses on that parcel, and with about 4 acres for each, they are not going to put up small houses. That's the alternative - converting the parcel to yet more high priced housing vs an attractive and well designed winery that will help the local economy.

So let's be real, shall we?

The only real issue here is that some (not all) of the neighbors are afraid they will be negatively impacted by the project.

They are bringing up anything they can think of to stop the project (environmental, traffic, protocol, bad behavior etc.) even though that is not the real issue. It's basic "NIMBY" pure and simple. I can understand why they might not want it there but it doesn't sound like it will be all that bad, and they are certainly doing all they can to be good neighbors. It's part and parcel of living near 2 major thoroughfares.

That area was even further impacted when the old vacu-dry plant was in full swing.

I think this is an appropriate use for this parcel.

Seems like it would be been better to try to get some sort of compensation for the potential impact rather than fighting to stop an otherwise good and appropriate project.

Efren spent a lot of time "listening" to the neighbors concerns. He's just not agreeing with them. There's a difference.

[paradise]

Thank you, Joy, for pointing out the incredible size of this building, let alone this project. The processing building where the crushing and bottling are to take place is 33,000 square feet and 46 feet high. That equals nearly 3/4 of an acre in size and approximately 4.5 stories high. Have you seen the O'Reilley building in town? That is only 3 feet taller.
The wine tasting room is proposed to be 5,000 square feet. The entire land area is only 7.61 acres. Three (3) acres will be ornamental vines. The applicant's planner stated this. Because the Best Family Investors plan on producing 26,500 cases of wine , 75% of the grapes will come from Sonoma County and the remainder 25% will come from outside the county. Their 3 acres of grapes will be planted to look pretty and to make the winery experience for the visitors more believable. The project proposes to have 17 yearly events; 12 of these will accomodate 40 guests and the other 5 industry wide events will have up to 150 persons there. There will only 42 parking spaces on site. The overflow parking is to be in between the grape vines. In their landscaping design, the shrubbery on the side of Hwy 116 appears to be placed on the bike trail. That is not the applicant's property, yet the design shows the plantings there. There is more that is wrong with their design and their landscaping, but I'll let it go at that. Everything about this project pushes the limits. The processing building will be such an enormous intrusion on (designated scenic) Hwy 116, not to mention the intrusion on the neighborhood, residents, visitors to the area, travellers along that portion of the road, cyclists, and pedestrians. According to the mitigation that should make this intrusion acceptable, the building will be painted earth tones or green (I don't recall which at the moment). and trees will be planted to camouflage the structure. However, the building will be 46 feet high. How long will it take their trees to hide this monstrosity? It will be years before the landscaping grows into the land and even then, there is no hiding this intrusion from those who travel on Hwy 116 by car, foot or bike. The building will be so close to the bike trail and Hwy 116, that it will stand out like a sore thumb ! There will be no missing it now or in the future.
I urge you to call, write or e-mail our supervisor, Efren Carrillo and express your opposition to this project and ask that an EIR (environmental impact report) be done.





Barry,
I drive through there almost every day. I live about 2-3 miles away. I went to the hearings. I have since been really looking at the site and other buildings along that stretch of road. Have you been there? Have you really looked? What they are proposing is huge compared to anything else nearby. It will impact the area in a way you are not allowing yourself to see. The Best family are not being good neighbors. Why don't they use the facility across the street that is sitting empty? Because it is LEED designed does not equate to well designed for that parcel. It does not fit.
Joy

[Veeja]

People should get out there and start picketing. Not only now, but if this thing gets built picket every time they have an event.

[Gratongirl]

Excuse me, Joy...

...but this project is completely and utterly dwarfed by the complex directly accross the street! What are you talking about? It's also attractive, not a visual blight like VacuDry or the gas station/mini mall/UHaul lot diagonal.


What they are proposing is huge compared to anything else nearby. It will impact the area in a way you are not allowing yourself to see. Joy

And to all of you who suggest that they should just move to VacuDry...I don't think that facility is exactly in line with their vision...plus they don't own THAT property...and additionally it is NOT VACANT...many small businesses operate there, including Redwood Hill Goat Cheese.:2cents:

[paradise]

Gratongirl misses the point completely !

The facility across the street, Vacu-Dry and the gas station were grandfathered in when the General Plan was adopted. While Vacu-Dry is ugly, it is below grade and not at the same visual level as the proposed project would be, in my opinion. Again, it is grandfathered into the General Plan and we cannot change that. The General Plan protects Rural Residential land from precisely such commercial intrusion. NOT COMMERCIAL you say? But it is.... the project is a commercial facility designed to crush the grapes, produce the wine, have a tasting room and events. The 3 token acres of grapes are not being grown to produce 26,500 cases of wine ! 100% of the grapes will be brought in from outside this plot of land. The 33,000 square foot building is a monstrosity that will be hard to miss by anyone. ! It will certainly be a significant visual impact on anyone travelling on Hwy 116, the residents, the cyclists using the trail, the pedestrians and anyone who uses that route to go to and from work.

The site the Best Family Investors want to build their out of proportion winery/bottling plant/ wine tasting and events project is zoned Rural Residential/Agricultural. In order to permit such a project, the newly adopted General Plan in being amended, not once but twice. You say crushing the grapes and processing their wine in Vacu-Dry "is not in line with their vision" ! Give me a break. This project is not in line with the vision of the General Plan, the residents, the neighborhood and those who enjoy scenic Hwy 116 ! Since when should the county fall in line with the applicants vision if it violates the General Plan? Shouldn't the applicant conform to the General Plan, rules, zoning and land use guidelines, and not the other way around?

When Gratongirl mentions that Vacu-Dry is not vacant, she is only half right. I have always had a problem with half-truths. While there are some businesses using the facilities, there is a big sign that cannot be missed posted on Vacu-Dry's property on Hwy 116 which advertises up to "100,000 square feet of available space." It is true that the Best Family Investors do not own that property, but it is also true that the Best Family owns 28 acres, zoned Diverse Ag in Graton (that's a property that fits into the vision of the General Plan for a project such as this).

Gratongirl, since you work for Efren Carrillo, you must certainly know the rules better than the normal everyday individual who only comes across them when there is a problem such as this. "Not in line with their vision" is not a reason to permit such a project.


Excuse me, Joy...

...but this project is completely and utterly dwarfed by the complex directly accross the street! What are you talking about? It's also attractive, not a visual blight like VacuDry or the gas station/mini mall/UHaul lot diagonal.

And to all of you who suggest that they should just move to VacuDry...I don't think that facility is exactly in line with their vision...plus they don't own THAT property...and additionally it is NOT VACANT...many small businesses operate there, including Redwood Hill Goat Cheese.:2cents:

[n4rky]

While Vacu-Dry is ugly, it is below grade and not at the same visual level as the proposed project would be, in my opinion.... the project is a commercial facility designed to crush the grapes, produce the wine, have a tasting room and events.

I have to confess that I probably wouldn't want to host a tasting room and events at Vacu-Dry.

But is there any shortage of tasting rooms around here now? I notice that yet another tasting room has moved into the space that Ace Hard Cider vacated. Do we really need more? And what exactly are the plans for keeping all these wine tasters hopping from one tasting room to the next from driving?

[drjeffk]

The proponents of the Best Family Investors' project on Hwy 116 and Occidental seem to be suggesting that those of us who oppose this project are just "nimby's" who want to maintain the peaceful neighborhoods we moved into 20-30 years ago.

They're missing the bigger picture by making it an emotional argument, rather than a scientific one. There are significant elements in the proposal that were not carefully examined by the developer's experts. Many professionals in the community have provided scientifically-based challenges to the environmental claims of the developer's experts.

Do the proponents think that a traffic study performed in the middle of winter by the developer's experts should be considered representative of what the average, typical traffic in the area would be? Do they think that approval should be given to a project that is designed with toilets that may be in violation of county codes?

All we're asking is that the Board of Supervisors, despite their enthusiasm to push this project through, step back and get all the facts.

Let's turn this discussion away from an emotional one and into a scientific, fact-based one. When there are so many unanswered factual questions about such a large project, it is often considered the professional standard to order an EIR.

The Board of Supervisors should want to get the facts right on this one. It's not like there's any huge hurry to place another industrial facility along the Highway 116 Scenic Corridor. They need more factual data. They should order an EIR.

[n4rky]

Do the proponents think that a traffic study performed in the middle of winter by the developer's experts should be considered representative of what the average, typical traffic in the area would be? Do they think that approval should be given to a project that is designed with toilets that may be in violation of county codes?

These are good points, but....


Let's turn this discussion away from an emotional one and into a scientific, fact-based one.

It is a mistake to devalue emotional responses. The fact is that human beings are not merely logical machines. And the people who have to live with this project will have to live with it in all aspects of their lives. That actually supports rather than detracts from your call for an EIR.


When there are so many unanswered factual questions about such a large project, it is often considered the professional standard to order an EIR.

I'd have to say my experience is that EIRs are, as the developers claim, routinely avoided.

But the strength of your argument is that you criticize the emotional charge of "NIMBY" lodged against opponents while factual issues such as those you, I, and others have highlighted are dismissed. And of course, what's really going on here has nothing to do with these arguments but the influence of money in the political process.

I'm not as well informed about this project as perhaps I should be, but I suspect that the Best family is not in this by themselves. Rather, they have assistance from some company who stands to make money from this project whether or not the proposal is in fact financially or otherwise viable. They'll grease the political wheels, bring in professional web site developers who have indeed produced a very slick web site (https://bestfamilywinery.com/), build it, take their money, leave, and then the Best family and everyone who lives here will be stuck with the consequences, for better or for worse.

The fact is that planning processes are supposed to consider ill-advised projects and to reject them on whatever grounds. This project is an immensely stupid idea which should be rejected on several grounds. Instead, we have a board of supervisors voting unanimously to support it.

This frankly is already well beyond the point of fact or even emotion based argument. This project is being approved for the lowest of motives.

[Eileen M.]

I was talking with a friend about this project and she asked "What's the difference between a tasting room and a bar?" I wonder about that too.



But is there any shortage of tasting rooms around here now? I notice that yet another tasting room has moved into the space that Ace Hard Cider vacated. Do we really need more? And what exactly are the plans for keeping all these wine tasters hopping from one tasting room to the next from driving?

[2Bwacco]

A tasting room visitor probably does more driving: the focus is on going from place to place.

Second weekend coming up of the barrel tasting (Let's be careful out there!).


I was talking with a friend about this project and she asked "What's the difference between a tasting room and a bar?" I wonder about that too.

The building vacated by Ace Hard Cider (due to lease denial I believe) is owned by Dutton who are also in the biz of acquiring apple farms then bulldozing the trees for grapes.

Folks, the only way the Best Family winery could get a tasting room in at the location is 1) to get the zoning changed; 2) plant a token vineyard; 3) put up a manufacturing plant for the grapes. Remember just a few years back? All the acres of grapes north of Occidental Road used to be Hallberg apple trees.

The neighbor's wishes for their neighborhood should prevail over the business interest. After all, the neighbors are already living in their homes!

[joybird]

You are right VacuDry is a visual blight. And because it is below street level is perceived very differently.This new facility will be much closer to the street. It will be in our faces. At he hearings there were images of how this building will fit in the space and the views it will block, and a comparison of the plant in size to the houses nearby. Also as our Mothers used to say " 2 (or 3 counting the u-haul) wrongs don't make a right".
Joy



Excuse me, Joy...

...but this project is completely and utterly dwarfed by the complex directly accross the street! What are you talking about? It's also attractive, not a visual blight like VacuDry or the gas station/mini mall/UHaul lot diagonal.



And to all of you who suggest that they should just move to VacuDry...I don't think that facility is exactly in line with their vision...plus they don't own THAT property...and additionally it is NOT VACANT...many small businesses operate there, including Redwood Hill Goat Cheese.:2cents:

[maeve]

People are asking how this project got this far. Good question. Perhaps if the Public Comment period actually addressed concerns raised and submitted, we wouldn't be here. It is unbelievable that legitimate concerns were submitted repeatedly and never answered. Even at the hearing they were ignored. Of the more than 80 mitigations required for this project, only two were put in place based on concerns raised to limit the intursion of this project on the neighbors. Those two mitigations merely took 2 hours off events! It seems the allegiance of Sonoma County does not lie with its voting residents, but rather with its County Ag. Seal. The supervisors made that clear and we should remember were we fall in the pecking order of priorities.

[Barry]

Here's a few more comments about why, given what I know (which is far from all the information), this seems like an appropriate project for the site and worthy of a variance from the General Plan.

First, I have some limited experience with civic planning, having served the General Plan Advisory committee for the very progressive 1990 Sebastopol General Plan, and then later served on the Sebastopol Planning Commission.


Barry, you said: "an otherwise good and appropriate project".

I'm curious: Is your girlfriend working on or hoping to work on this or similar projects by any chance?
Linda, aka Mrs. Wacco, is not currently involved in the project. She does manage large commercial projects (and recently became the project manager for the Barlow project in Sebastopol after it was approved by the Sebastopol Design Review Board), though she has not worked on a winery before.

Since I've disclosed my relationship to the project, I think everybody else who as commented on this should disclose their real name (if not in their profile) their proximity to the project and any other financial, social (friends) or practical impact that the project may have their lives.

My opinion about the project is not affected by Linda's work. In fact my first take on this project was resistance. I, like many of you, reacted by the change from a sweet (abandoned) apple orchard into a large commercial use. But then, as I looked into it further and considered that apple orchard is going away in any case, and the real choice was between 2 McMansions (the current zoning) or winery/tasting room on major highway. My take was that overall the county was better off with the winery tasting room and the impact on neighborhood was reasonable. The fact that it is being proposed by long standing county families and not by an external business also helped sway me. The care that they put into this project shows their commitment to being responsible citizens.

Yes, it may impact the neighbors , but less than when VacuDry (directly opposite the site) was in full swing.

If this project was on some quiet county lane, I wouldn't support it. But its not. It's on 116 at Occidental road with a major industrial project across the street and a gas station and an additional commercial development kitty-corner to it.

Unlike some of you, I don't have a problem with grapes, wineries or tourists at reasonable levels. Let's face it: if you do just about anything, besides sitting in the corner in the dark, some negative impact is going to happen. Yes, there are some monoculture concerns with grapes. But did you have the same concerns with apples? And is the scale of the monoculture anywhere near what it is in other parts of the country? I am heartened to see that the use of organic farming practices continues to increase in the county. While I would not support the conversion of natural habitat into more vineyards in most instances, I do not have a problem with changing from one crop to the next (i.e. apples to grapes). And in my opinion, it's the vineyards that make that stretch of 116 a scenic highway!

Wineries are also generally fine by me. They are typically attractive and create jobs both directly and indirectly (OK, and I like wine!) The money that comes into the county from shipping wine out of the county and the money that tourists bring in and leave here are an important part of our economy. Whereas there is great support for "shopping local" and the economic advantage of spending our dollars locally, it's even more advantageous to us if those dollars originate from outside the county! They cycle through all parts of the local economy and eventually help us all afford more massages and energy readings! :wink:

It's that effect vs. 2 more McMansions. Which do you think benefits the county more?

Does this affect the neighbors? I would imagine so. I would hope the 87(?) mitigation measures do just that, mitigate the impact. The reason that the building footprint is so large is to allow for most processing activities to take place indoors and reduce the impact on neighbors. Will there still be impact? Probably so. Is it out of line with appropriate use for that parcel and neighborhood? I don't think so.

I'm not a politician, developer or a lawyer (much to my Mom's disappointment!). But again it seems like the issue here is weighing the impact to a very small number of neighbors who live quite close to a major highway and large scale industrial plant with an overall benefit to the county. On one hand it might seem appropriate to compensate the neighbors. But who do you compensate? The owner? The renter? I would support any kind of visual or auditory buffering the neighbors requested, not to mention tickets to any events!

Variances to the general plan are not unusual. Sometimes they are granted sometimes they are not. It puts an extra level of scrutiny on a project that wants the variance but that is still allowed and is an important part of the process. Just because it doesn't meet the current zoning doesn't mean its not appropriate. This property should have probably always been zoned DA because of it's historical use. It does mean that it is worth taking a close look at the specific project on the specific parcel - which was not and could not be done at the time of the general plan.

Over 80% of DA zoned parcels in a 5 mile radius of the project are under 10 acres.

I drive by the site often, coming from both Occidental Rd and 116. There are many commercial/industrial uses near by the proposed project,

And of course, Vacu Dry and the gas station are across the street:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/ImagesforMembers/2010-03-20_2101.png

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/ImagesforMembers/2010-03-20_2102.png

There is also a large commercial building just north of site:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/ImagesforMembers/2010-03-20_2031.png


So that area seems quite suitable for the proposed buildings. They also don't look bad to me:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/ImagesforMembers/2010-03-20_2035.png


https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/ImagesforMembers/2010-03-20_2036.png

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/ImagesforMembers/2010-03-20_2037.png


https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/ImagesforMembers/2010-03-20_2135.png



Granted, this shows somewhat mature vegetation (which is what it will be for the majority of the building's life). One mitigation measure the neighbors should have asked for was for the landscaping to use mature trees and other vegetation.

Whether the bottling plant could be located in the Vacudry project (and the tasting room be located in the Barlow project as Mrs. Wacco proposes) is not really an appropriate question for the Board of Supes. That's precisely the kind of meddling in private affairs that the government should stay out of. The question to them, is whether overall is this an appropriate use for the site.

Regarding listening to the neighbors concerns, it sounds to me like Efren went out of his way to do this. I'm hoping Susan or somebody can actually give us some hard info about that. I can't comment on whether concerns that were expressed in public hearing were not addressed. What concerns? Is there a public record of the hearing and a response to the concerns? And again, just because Efren and the rest of the Supes are poised to approve this project, it doesn't mean the concerns were not heard and considered.

Let me add here that I did not support Efren during his campaign. I was more comfortable with Rue and her experience. However I have been impressed so far with Efren's openness to both issues and his constituents.

From my cursory look at the documents, I don't see anything that raises a red flag that would trigger the need for an EIR. On the other hand, it may have been politically, socially and financially wise to do one in order to facilitate the public process so there is further proof that all issues are fully considered. I don't know if its still possible to do and EIR but that sounds like a good (if expensive) idea to me. Like many other projects, the reason to do an EIR is to help defend a lawsuit even if there are no significant environmental impacts.

Regarding the "difference between a tasting room and a bar", one key difference is that bars are open late into the evening, when most DUI's occur (I presume), an a tasting room isn't. There have been many mentions of the many tasting rooms along 116, however I am not aware of any higher DUI or accident rate on that part of 116. Yes, the tasting room/winery will be open for a limited number of events in the evening. But so is the community center, vets center, and many other fine public buildings.

I think it is important for Efren to support appropriate projects so he can vote against the truly deleterious ones. Remember, he needs to represent the whole district, not just the neighbors in this case, or the anti-development contingent.

[Barry]

P.S. I hear rumors that this project has been discussed on the Graton area bulletin board/email list. Would someone care to summarize the discussion there for us (if it's any different than the discussion here) and give us a sense of the level of support/acceptance and opposition to the project?

Thanks!

[Larysa]

Greetings!

For those concerned citizens regarding the proposed wine factory.

INFORMATIONAL GATHERING:

WHEN : Thursday, March 25th, 2010

TIME : 7pm to 8pm

WHERE : Sebastopol Seventh-day Adventists Church
1655 Gravenstein Highway, Sebastopol
(It's the church by Andy's Market)
Please Visit our Blog atConcerned Citizens for Responsible Land Use (https://c4rlu.wordpress.com/)

Hope to see my neighbors there! I will attend, but need to slip out early for another committment. I have been suggesting an organic vegetable garden and orchard instead of a wine factory. Right across the street there are warehouses and processing plants avaiable for rent! (707) 289-4612. Therefore, the Best Family can do their wine processing in an already built facility on the West side on 116 and make use of the rich soil on the East side.

Also please read a great article: https://www.odemagazine.com/doc/69/dirt/ (https://www.odemagazine.com/doc/69/dirt/) : The Joy of Dirt
"Books like Jared Diamond’s Collapse (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143036556?ie=UTF8&tag=odemaga-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0143036556) and David Montgomery’s Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520258061?ie=UTF8&tag=odemaga-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0520258061) lay out in painful detail the historic connections between soil depletion and the demise of those societies that undermined the ground beneath their feet."

From Sustainable Landscape Construction by Thompson And Sorvig (Page #89): "Franklin Roosevelt once said that 'a nation that destroys its soil destroys itself'. In the United States, where agriculture has lost more than 40% (more today) of its soil nutrients since 1860, this is not idle rhetoric. The good news is that the region that invests in maintaining its soil reaps comprehensive environmental dividends, at less cost (in money, resources, and energy) than conventional methods of landscape 'care'."

In other words, the Best Family needs to comprehend the enormous value of the land they already possess - an agricultural goldmine!

Sincerely,

Larysa

Larysa T. Shmorhay
Educational Consultant

www.ResilientEducation.com (https://www.resilienteducation.com/)
Member of the USGBC – Redwood Empire Chapter
Member of the Mark West Chamber of Commerce

[Larysa]

Some of us are opposed to the "Family Winery" for very valid reasons. Please read the following from the Marin Institute:

https://www.marininstitute.org/site/images/stories/pdfs/winemythreport.pdf (https://www.marininstitute.org/site/images/stories/pdfs/winemythreport.pdf)

The Myth of the Family Winery: Global Corporations Behind California Wine

Executive Summary

Despite the industry-promoted image of mom-and-pop wineries in California, nearly all of the leading wine producers in the state are multinational corporations with offices worldwide. Moreover, wine is just merely one aspect of these global operations, having become integrated into massive product portfolios along with spirits and beer brands.

Hiding behind a narrative of local, family-owned wineries, the global corporations that own California wine are steadily working to deregulate alcohol in every state through: 1) diminishing the three-tier alcohol system in the U.S.; 2) consolidating distribution to a single entity per state; 3) undue influence on the political process that includes undermining efforts to increase alcohol taxes and fees at the state and federal levels.

For example, as Governor Schwarzenegger’s nickel-a-drink increase on alcohol excise taxes in California was removed from the final 2009-2010 budget, wine corporations and trade organizations funded 72 percent of alcohol-related contributions to “Budget Reform Now,” the California PAC supporting the final budget proposal and related propositions.

This report details how California wine is an illusion because:
• Six of the seven producers that own 82 percent of U.S. wine are global corporations.
• Six of the ten top wine producers also own spirits and beer brands.
• The Wine Institute, despite its tag line of the “Voice of California Wine,” is controlled by executives from Diageo, Constellation Brands, Foster’s, and Brown-Forman, multinational conglomerates all based outside of California and with product portfolios that also include major spirits and beer brands.

Thanks, Larysa

[Barry]

Some of us are opposed to the "Family Winery" for very valid reasons. Please read the following from the Marin Institute:

https://www.marininstitute.org/site/images/stories/pdfs/winemythreport.pdf (https://www.marininstitute.org/site/images/stories/pdfs/winemythreport.pdf)

The Myth of the Family Winery: Global Corporations Behind California Wine

Executive Summary

Despite the industry-promoted image of mom-and-pop wineries in California, nearly all of the leading wine producers in the state are multinational corporations with offices worldwide. ...
That's all fine, but the winery in question is owned by one of the oldest families in the county (https://www.bestfamilywinery.org/history.html)! And that isn't a myth!

BTW, what's the status of project? Did the Supes hold their final vote? Has a lawsuit been filed?

[Califoon]

I have to agree with Barry here. While it's true that the industry has a few VERY big players, we live in an area where small players actually compete for and win those booze dollars. Go to a winery website and look for the "about us" page. If they don't have one, odds are that there's no real people involved as principals who actually make the product.

I also learned at the World Ag Expo that almost all farming families in CA become corporations to handle taxes and liabilities. A corporation is not an automatically bad thing.
~Cal


That's all fine, but the winery in question is owned by one of the oldest families in the county (https://www.bestfamilywinery.org/history.html)! And that isn't a myth!

[bakerchic]

It is not a winery yet. It is still an abandoned apple orchard with plans to build a bottling plant and tasting room. Because the family is also a corporation, you do not know who has an interest in the business. In other words, you do not know if there are other entities or other persons besides "one of the oldest families in the county" who own part of the business. Furthermore, once it becomes a winery, nothing stops them from selling it to whomever offers the highest price -- even a foreign corporation.


That's all fine, but the winery in question is owned by one of the oldest families in the county (https://www.bestfamilywinery.org/history.html)! And that isn't a myth!

BTW, what's the status of project? Did the Supes hold their final vote? Has a lawsuit been filed?

[Gratongirl]

and that is why....they called it Best FAMILY Winery...so they could sell it! Get real...maybe you don't like it, but this is just silly subjective suggestive projective nonsense.


It is not a winery yet. It is still an abandoned apple orchard with plans to build a bottling plant and tasting room. Because the family is also a corporation, you do not know who has an interest in the business. In other words, you do not know if there are other entities or other persons besides "one of the oldest families in the county" who own part of the business. Furthermore, once it becomes a winery, nothing stops them from selling it to whomever offers the highest price -- even a foreign corporation.

[bakerchic]

They are registered with the California Secretary of State as the "Best Family Investors, LLC." Again, it is not yet a winery, so you don't know what they will call it.


and that is why....they called it Best FAMILY Winery...so they could sell it! Get real...maybe you don't like it, but this is just silly subjective suggestive projective nonsense.

[n4rky]

and that is why....they called it Best FAMILY Winery...so they could sell it! Get real...maybe you don't like it, but this is just silly subjective suggestive projective nonsense.

How much of an obstacle would it be to change the name once (if) it is sold?

How many large corporations appeal to "family values" in their marketing efforts or retain the word "family" in division and subsidiary names?

[n4rky]

I also learned at the World Ag Expo that almost all farming families in CA become corporations to handle taxes and liabilities. A corporation is not an automatically bad thing.
~Cal

My understanding is a little different. What I heard most recently is that nearly all agriculture in California is controlled by large corporations that have managed to gain subsidies by passing their holdings off as if they were family farms.

[LenInSebastopol]

They are registered with the California Secretary of State as the "Best Family Investors, LLC." Again, it is not yet a winery, so you don't know what they will call it.

Barry's link, which is put up by them, calls it Best Family Winery and the piece is put out by Best Family Investors, so.....
But they write they want to keep the land IN their family AND preserve the agricultural history. Otherwise if they want to do the right thing they will donate back to Pomo.

[n4rky]

But they write they want to keep the land IN their family AND preserve the agricultural history. Otherwise if they want to do the right thing they will donate back to Pomo.

I agree entirely about the Pomo.

But if they want to "preserve the agricultural history," wouldn't that involve 1) taking care of the apple orchard rather than ripping it out, and 2) maybe restoring some hops plants which I gather prevailed before the apples? And if that undermines the one clause, what are we to think of the other, i.e. the claim they want to keep the land in their family?

[LenInSebastopol]

Well, I guess you spotted the old golden rule: they have the gold, they make the rule.


I agree entirely about othe Pomo.

But if they want to "preserve the agricultural history," wouldn't that involve 1) taking care of the apple orchard rather than ripping it out, and 2) maybe restoring some hops plants which I gather prevailed before the apples? And if that undermines the one clause, what are we to think of the other, i.e. the claim they want to keep the land in their family?

[Geni Houston]

I am sure glad you don't know where I live and nobody is telling me what I can do on my property now or in the future. I plan to never move, be buried on the property (yes, I know...) and give to my children. But who knows? Maybe business and economic vitality will die in Sebastopol and I will be forced to move to the Ozarks to survive.

[Eileen M.]

It's not about telling people what to do with their property. We have zoning regulations and land use regulations so that we can all live together without conflict. Residential Neighborhoods are for people and Commercially Zoned properties are for commercial projects. It's that simple. The problem here is that the Best Family Investors LLC want to change the Zoning and the Land Use designation so they can build this project. It's not an appropriate project for this site, in this Rural Residential neighborhood. If the county grants these same privelages to your next door neighbors and they decide to put a wine bottling plant 176 feet from your bedroom window you may indeed be forced to move to the "Ozarks". I sincerely hope that does not happen to you. I hope you live long on your property and pass it to your children if you wish.

[Geni Houston]

Thank you, Eileen, for the kindness in your response. Appreciated.
But my original post still stands. Yes you are obviously correct about the zoning and regulations, but if there were not the ability to change that, it would not be before the supervisors. The owners are going through the correct steps.

My post was in reference to several post regarding what it should be used for, including turning it back over to native americans. That could certainly be the topic of a broader thread, but certainly not singled out for one specific parcel because of personal disapproval.
Thanks
G.

[edie]

...My post was in reference to several post regarding what it should be used for, including turning it back over to native americans. That could certainly be the topic of a broader thread, but certainly not singled out for one specific parcel because of personal disapproval.
Thanks
G.

...turn it back to the native Americans and you will get a casino...

[n4rky]

...turn it back to the native Americans and you will get a casino...

First, this is rather blatant racism. It discounts all of the other things that American Indians do with land besides trying to escape the poverty that being consigned to the least productive lands under genocidal policies left them.

Second, if Indians were to build a casino on that property, I could at least take comfort that people we sought to exterminate from the face of the earth were getting some benefit. What I see with the Best Family Winery proposal is avarice that would impose considerable costs on the rest of society while offering us zero benefit.

[edie]

First, this is rather blatant racism. It discounts all of the other things that American Indians do with land besides trying to escape the poverty that being consigned to the least productive lands under genocidal policies left them.

Second, if Indians were to build a casino on that property, I could at least take comfort that people we sought to exterminate from the face of the earth were getting some benefit. What I see with the Best Family Winery proposal is avarice that would impose considerable costs on the rest of society while offering us zero benefit.

1.- don't see how this can be racism, 2. why would anybody take some one else's property away in the first place... 3. this thread is getting boring, 4. the architects layout of the proposed "Winery" would be the best looking corner on that intersection, 5. I would worry more about the spraying of grapes, 6. I am getting sooo tired of grapes and the wired landscape specially in winter time- it's getting over board..., 7. It's all about money, so, have it and get it and who cares about the thereafter?

[LenInSebastopol]

First, this is rather blatant racism. It discounts all of the other things that American Indians do with land besides trying to escape the poverty that being consigned to the least productive lands under genocidal policies left them.

OK, you're a blatant racist. That does not make you a bad guy, necessarily. I suppose we've nothing better to do than escape the poverty? You are a 'moniest' and think that 'success' or favor is only in terms of poverty? Or is it you think all Indians are poor? or that is what we all think about all the time? Or that we think of land as 'ours'? OK, you got me there. We think that 'reservations' are ours only because we are told. And as far as genocide, true, you didn't do the same job as done in Mexico where intermarriage was the norm, but then you didn't do a good job at killing all of us either.
I know being a 'racist' is about as bad as it can get, but don't be so hard on others, first.


Second, if Indians were to build a casino on that property, I could at least take comfort that people we sought to exterminate from the face of the earth were getting some benefit. What I see with the Best Family Winery proposal is avarice that would impose considerable costs on the rest of society while offering us zero benefit.

You really want to see it going on, try looking at who 'owns', who really benefits and how much from an Indian casino. The mafia will give us a better deal, IMO.
At least BF will give anyone a fair deal, or die in the process. And they will not "impose" a cost on anyone that does not want their stuff. It's not like a reservation!

[n4rky]

OK, you're a blatant racist. That does not make you a bad guy, necessarily. I suppose we've nothing better to do than escape the poverty?

It is remarkable how you must be twisting my words to derive this interpretation.


You are a 'moniest' and think that 'success' or favor is only in terms of poverty? Or is it you think all Indians are poor? or that is what we all think about all the time? Or that we think of land as 'ours'? OK, you got me there. We think that 'reservations' are ours only because we are told.

Again, you seem to be twisting my words. It is a fact that following the genocidal "removal" of Indians to reservations and rancherias and whatever else, Indians were often left without sufficient food and never received the compensation they were due from the federal government. It is a fact that the U.S. government has broken every treaty it ever made with Indians. Further, the lands that Indians were allowed to remain on were the least productive lands available. And if minerals or some other value were found to the land, efforts were made to remove the Indians again.

These facts are all a matter of historical record. And it is also a fact that casinos have provided the first opportunities for many Indians to find a way out of dire poverty. And on at least some reservations, life expectancy is no better than the early 50s.

Acknowledging these facts does not make me a racist or a "moniest." And I'm unhappy that the only recompense we seem able to offer Indians is an opportunity to build casinos and participate in a rather ugly side of capitalism. But that is not the point of this thread.


And as far as genocide, true, you didn't do the same job as done in Mexico where intermarriage was the norm, but then you didn't do a good job at killing all of us either.

I think you're missing the part about how Spanish soldiers systematically raped Indian women to stigmatize them within their own cultures, introducing hierarchy, and thus making it easier to subjugate the tribes. Of course, the missionaries expressed disapproval. But the rapes continued.


I know being a 'racist' is about as bad as it can get, but don't be so hard on others, first.

You really want to see it going on, try looking at who 'owns', who really benefits and how much from an Indian casino. The mafia will give us a better deal, IMO.

I'll keep an eye out for more on this. I voted against a proposition endorsed by some southern California tribes who had made a deal with the state government because I suspected it was screwing the rest of the tribes over.


At least BF will give anyone a fair deal, or die in the process. And they will not "impose" a cost on anyone that does not want their stuff. It's not like a reservation!

Really now? Have you read at all what the neighbors of this proposed project think of it? Did you see the story in the Press Democrat just the other day about wine tasting rooms and drunk driving? Given all this, how can you suggest it "will not 'impose' a cost on anyone that does not want their stuff?"

[2Bwacco]

SPRING TIME JOY flooded over me as I looked at the pretty little orchard south of Andy's on the east side. Fully in bloom, the trees look to be Gravensteins. A few of my Gravenstein trees exhibit similar large abundant white petals. When the breeze comes up, it looks like a sudden snow shower!

There is none of that in a vineyard. Inanimate sticks, barren trunks, grapes do not need insect pollinators.

A dead landscape.

Apples are much healthier for the environment, cost less in terms of diesel, gasoline, and labor.

The trees have more "square footage" of leaves, manufacture more oxygen, provide nectar for the bees to process into honey benefiting we humans!

Driving on Frei Road, admid vineyards on either side, my vehicle startled a blue heron probably trying to catch a frog in the ditch next to the road. I felt sorry for disrupting his meal, but that's where the road is!


"...6. I am getting sooo tired of grapes and the wired landscape specially in winter time- it's getting over board..."

[justme]

Hey n4rky,

What did your professors come up with about the Graton siren thread? Haven't heard yet from you about their opinion.. Any word yet?


How much of an obstacle would it be to change the name once (if) it is sold?

How many large corporations appeal to "family values" in their marketing efforts or retain the word "family" in division and subsidiary names?