"winery development...debate" in today's PD
The following article in today’s PD includes quotes from Preserve Rural Sonoma County activists and vintners, such as Joe Wagner of Dairyman. It points toward the important meeting July 12, Tues., now scheduled to start at 2 p.m. at the Board of Supervisors Chambers. If you want a seat, arrive early, as there is likely to be a full room spilling out into the lobby for this important meeting.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...4_15-56-29.png
Sonoma County winery development at issue in debate about events
ANGELA HART, THE PRESS DEMOCRAT | July 9, 2016
Sonoma County has approved more than 300 new wineries and tasting rooms in the past 16 years — a nearly 360 percent increase over the previous three decades — and many of those wineries have decided in recent years to boost business by offering an array of events, from wine-tasting dinners to weddings and harvest parties.
Representatives of the county’s multibillion-dollar wine industry say such events are vital for local vintners to sell their wines and stay competitive.
But the industry’s growth has sparked strong blowback from many rural residents, who say unruly crowds, loud noise and traffic on narrow, winding roads is detracting from the peace and quiet of their neighborhoods.
The expansion has fueled an intense standoff between wine industry supporters and critics over the extent of commercial activity in rural pockets of the county, on properties zoned for agriculture. Supporters say wineries and the county’s 62,135 acres of developed vineyards have protected big swaths of open space, preserved a local farm economy and transformed Sonoma County into a destination for travelers from across the globe.
“There may be some unhappy neighbors, but I think there are a lot of people who are happy with what wineries are doing for the county, economically and philanthropically,” said Jean Arnold Sessions, executive director of Sonoma County Vintners, a local trade organization.
But critics say the industry’s expansion has gone overboard, impacting daily life for winery neighbors while clogging area roads, draining natural resources and fostering what some have described as a year-round party atmosphere, attracting thousands of visitors to the most popular annual events.
“The county needs to evaluate the cumulative impact of this explosive growth,” said Marc Bommersbach, a Healdsburg resident who lives along Westside Road, home to more than 20 wineries. Nine others have been approved but are not yet built. “It’s the traffic and noise for adjacent property owners, but the bigger issue is that all of this development is commercializing our agricultural lands and diminishing the rural character of this county.”
The debate has escalated from small neighborhood disputes into hourslong discussions at packed public meetings. In the last year it has also been inflamed by a county crackdown on two Healdsburg-area wineries for hosting what county officials said were unauthorized events. Added to the mix was celebrity chef Guy Fieri’s proposal to build a new winery on a rural road west of Santa Rosa, a plan rejected 18 months ago by county planning commissioners amid overwhelming opposition from neighbors.
On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors is set to weigh in for the first time publicly in the broader debate. The planned 2 p.m. workshop is meant to decide the county’s approach on a range of potential regulations, including limits on events and curbs on future winery development in some popular grape-growing regions.
“This is an important step to formulate what future legislation may look like,” said Supervisor Efren Carrillo, the board chairman. “We want to ensure the long-term preservation of agriculture and open space in this county, but we also have to manage the impacts of the industry. Events in some cases have gotten out of hand, and I think we’ve seen that in the escalation of concern from various communities.
Wine industry representatives are asking the county to relax its rules on events, while neighborhood groups are pressing county officials to rein in winery development and cap the number of sanctioned events. At present, 291 of the 447 wineries and tasting rooms outside city limits are allowed to hold events, adding up to more than 2,600 event days per year, according to county data.
Industry representatives and local vintners suggested any large-scale effort to restrict the flow of commerce is government overreach. They contend the controversy centers on a few wineries known to break the rules.
“It’s unfortunate that we’ve had one or two bad apples,” said Sessions. “We sustain by selling our wine, and the best way to gain long-term customers — especially for smaller wineries — is to develop those relationships for life. That’s why these activities and events are so important.”
But neighborhood groups and rural residents say winery development has grown too quickly across the county, from Dry Creek Valley in the north to Sonoma Valley in the south. As county officials confront a sharp increase in applications for new tasting rooms and event permits, industry critics say a new wave of activity could add to the problems, increasing traffic, draining water supplies and adding outside noise.
They cite projects such as the Dairyman Winery and Distillery, proposed by Napa vintner Joe Wagner on 68 acres off Highway 12 near Sebastopol. Plans for the large 500,000-case winery have envisioned events with up to 600 guests. Environmentalists and community activists have singled out the project as a symbol of rampant over-development by the wine industry, a sign of what some have dubbed Sonoma County’s “Napafication.”
For his part, Wagner has committed to a full-scale environmental review that he previously said would “allow the community the opportunity to join in and chime in and become part of the process.”
Continues here.
Re: "winery development...debate" in today's PD
Following is one comment on the PD article. Please consider adding yours. This comment raises some of the larger, important issues. Join the conversation, here and/or at the PD.
What is never mentioned and what I find most disturbing is that the land is relegated to either agricultural purposes or subdivisions. Either way, valuable eco-systems which maintain the health of our planet are being destroyed. For example: Redwoods are a very important component to the hydrologic cycle which helps to replenish our aquifers. As old orchards, other trees. shrubs and redwoods are taken out and the land is planted with grapes which consume copious quantities of water, the land becomes a desert. Animals, birds, insects, and reptiles which also aid in maintaining the fragile ecological balance of the land are then forced to compete with dwindling territories for food and water. This is called the island effect.
To reduce everything to economics is not the definition of true sustainability. My concern with the thinking which dominates the wine industry growth and policy is rooted in a lack of consideration for the health and well being of our eco-systems which support all of life not just human life. Unfortunately, this thinking is at the helm of our government policy. Climate change, pollution and habitat destruction will result in a catastrophic price because these systems which are finely tuned to maintain balance and health can and may spiral out of control.
Anne Tedder
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:
Re: "winery development...debate" in today's PD
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:
...What is never mentioned and what I find most disturbing is that the land is relegated to either agricultural purposes or subdivisions. Either way, valuable eco-systems which maintain the health of our planet are being destroyed. ...
This speaks to what I consider the most important priority in guiding development: very strict controls on any natural land being converted to either agricultural or other development.
Re: "winery development...debate" in today's PD
from The Press Democrat,Letters, Sunday 7/10:
Wineries face difficulties marketing their wines, and I would like to suggest that we consider incentivizing wineries to develop their tasting rooms, event centers and other retail activities in already established retail areas in our towns and cities. This way, we could more reasonably deal with the added traffic, noise and water use from wells. Customers could easily travel from one tasting room to another without having to navigate narrow, winding roads from one rural location to the next. Locating winery retail activities in commercial zones would reduce mileage driven by visitors, utilize public transit, increase road safety and preserve rural neighborhoods.
Sonoma County’s general plan established clear goals to reduce vehicle traffic, direct traffic to major roads, reduce noise and pollution related to individual vehicle traffic and promote use of public transit. These goals are essential to maintain the natural beauty and rural integrity of the county we all cherish. Thank you.
KIRSTEN CUTLER
Santa Rosa
Re: "winery development...debate" in today's PD
and another letter, from today's Press Democrat:
Preserve rural lifestyle
EDITOR: Further development of the winery/event center industry in Sonoma County should be curtailed, and regulations need to be passed to protect property owners and the public from negative environmental and social impacts.
In the past 10 years, 48 use permits have been granted in the Sonoma Valley, bringing 200,000 visitors, causing severe traffic congestion and reduced quality of life. Limits need to be set to stop such unchecked development.
Use studies need to be required before event facilities are allowed. No events should be allowed on parcels without a winery or on raw agricultural production-only parcels. All facilities serving visitors should be required to have a permit that limits the number, intensity, duration and scale.
The county needs to define and limit all hospitality activities by their impacts on adjacent properties and access roads with respect to rural character and safety. Business shouldn’t take priority over the preservation of the unique character of this area, and we shouldn’t sacrifice it to big business greed.
I urge all those interested in keeping large business interests from destroying the quality of life that we still have here to attend the Board of Supervisors meeting at 3 p.m. Tuesday at 575 Administration Drive in Santa Rosa. This serious issue will have an impact on generations to come.
DIANA BADGER
Sebastopol
Re: "winery development...debate" in today's PD
Although giving public comment at the meeting may be more effective, if you are unable to do that you can also email the Supervisors here- https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/_templat...?id=2147492151
Re: "winery development...debate" in today's PD
Ernie Carpenter speaks out against Winery Event Centers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqBBTJ5-LNs&sns=em
Re: "winery development...debate" in today's PD
Regarding one aspect of this issue, which is the expansion of winery events, a somewhat reasonable argument is that the small, local wineries that don't have national distribution need other ways to survive such as holding events. And, to be honest, I have more sympathy for the truly small, independent, and locally owned wineries.
However, it should be hard coated into to any policy that if a small, local winery is sold off to some conglomerate or non-local ownership, as so many eventually are, then their event permits should be automatically sacrificed.
Scott
Re: "winery development...debate" in today's PD
I agree with Scott regarding the small, local wineries. An important issue is that around 70% of wine sold from Sonoma is done so by the large corporate wineries. "The Myth of the Family Winery," was published by the Marin Institute in 2009, which is available on the net. There has been more consolidation since then. Wine and Water Watch has published a flyer on the small wineries that we support, because they are organic, dry farm, or truly sustainable. It is available at www.winewaterwatch.org and will be handed out at the important meeting tomorrow at the Sups Chambers, which now starts at 2 p.m.
Re: "winery development...debate" in today's PD
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:
...Wine and Water Watch has published a flyer on the small wineries that we support, because they are organic, dry farm, or truly sustainable. ...
Shepherd, you add a really good point. If Sonoma County is to be serious about promoting sustainable agriculture then winery event permits should be given out at least partially based on their sustainable agriculture practices. We as a county should be rewarding local wineries that contribute to the sustainability of our local environment, as well as rewarding the wineries that re-circulate most of their profit within our community (activating the local economic multiplier effect) rather than rewarding wineries that suck much of their profit out of our community to non-local conglomerates.
Let's hope our local representatives have the courage and common sense to advocate for such an obvious approach.
