Printable View
While foreign owned corporations can indeed be problematic (but necessarily), this venture is owned by a 5th generation Napa winemaker (https://www.coppercane.com/?age-veri...ea2e483#/about). I imagine some of you may consider Napa a foreign country. :wink:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by dominus:
That is just silly. We live in one of the world's best grape growing areas and Sonoma County produces some of the world's finest wines accordingly. Apples can be grown anywhere, and let's face facts, apples are nowhere near as economically viable a crop as grapes. I see nothing wrong with grape growing, it sure beats the drab suburban sprawl that would be one alternative. We should celebrate living in wine country, I certainly do. And I enjoy local wine very much. So many teetotaleers on wacco, I woulda never thunk....Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by applefan:
Sorry jbox, I would have enjoyed your comment better without this name calling. Lets all try to stick to the problems at hand rather than devolve down into the pits over this issue before us all.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
This is not a black and white, all or nothing issue. I do agree with Shepherd and the folks in the wine industry who he's spoken with, that this is the Napification of Sonoma County. Just look at what happened to Healdsburg, where I grew up. The country folk/bohemian community there was forced into a major transition, as Healdsburg suddenly became the new haven for wine country limo tours, restaurants that many locals themselves can't afford to eat at, and weekend homes for the wealthy. We should be concerned! And we should definitely ask them to get an estimate of the environmental impact!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
Sorry about using poetic license. And, for the record, what was the name-calling exactly?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Timothy Gega:
"So many teetotaleers on wacco"
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
I will try to use politically correct platitudes from now on - NOT!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Timothy Gega:
Calling someone a "Teetotaler" is derogatory? Since when? That accurately captures anyone who does not partake in alcohol. Do you have an alternative nomenclature you feel more comfortable with? Cause on the flip side, I take great offense to posts by numerous folks here who equate the wine industry with catering only to alcoholics who are out of control with their poison that does great harm. There are many of us who not only use alcohol in moderation, but enjoy the numerous science confirmed health benefits that comes from regular use.
Grape juice is a terrific drink!!!
And I'm Totally Teetotaler!!!:wink:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
ROFL - Efren "I took cellphone video but didn't peek" Carillo has been bought and paid for by big business.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Richard Nichols:
He'll spout the same old 'but they make jobs' line, then vote however big business tells him to vote.
In my humble opinion, this "Subject" is about this site development and its impact on (local) society. This "Project" is not about Alcoholics or non-alcoholics and they do not belong in a serious discussion regarding the traffic situation we currently have at hand. (imho) these nomenclatures are nothing more than a distraction, which if continued will divide us all.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sebtown1968:
OOPS!
Seems I made a mistake in my calculations (although I think it was a typo). It seems I did Joe Wagner a favor.
The article I based my calculations on was Mike Dunne's Sacramento Bee article listed above by Shepherd.
In that article, Mike claims that it takes 29 gallons of water to make 1 glass of wine. Let's say 4 glasses per bottle - that's 116 gallons per bottle.
12 bottles per case - 1,392 gallons of water.
500,000 cases - 696,000,000 gallons of water.
Even if they irrigate there crops via manure pond on site, it won't put a dent in the 696,000,000 gallons of water being required by that winery to produce the 500,000 cases of wine.
Oh. BTW, this does not include the 250,000 gallons of distilled spirits they are going to produce.
Sorry for the error. The winery would've thanked me.
B!
Regardless of how we feel about certain individuals, I think that it is best to work with all of them to get results. The last vote of the Board of Sups, including Mr. Carillo, was 5-0 against a winery. It is hard to predict what they will do. But demonizing them and bringing in their dark sides is not likely to get their votes, which is what I want.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Imagery:
Uh, I bet the winery will source grapes from all over the county and probably the state. Plus I bet most of the acreage is already in production. So the argument that producing all 500,000 cases with grapes grown on site as your post suggests will draw down the Laguna aquifer just doesn't hold water. The facility will use water to run the plant but not the zillions of gallons you say, right?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by eeeeeeow:
On the contrary. This is what it would take regardless of where the grapes are grown. Take notice during harvest; no water is used to move grapes around the state and irrigation is only counted on the estate in question. Wineries use HUGE amounts of water from hosing down the crushpad to cleaning bins to watering down Syrah. I have seen estimates above $39 gallons per glass. And, it's not a zillion gallons as you state. It is at least 320,000,000 gallons IF you exclude their irrigation plan, which seems to have used 376,000,000 gallons of water in 2014. THAT'S WITHOUT A WINERY ON PREMISES. So to answer your closing question - Wrong. This project could easily be the end of the Laguna.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
This is not correct. :wink:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by eeeeeeow:
From the article you posted earlier:
and from the PD article:Quote:
As to water that vintners use in their wineries, that total is comparably small, though it also can range widely. Vintners and people who study the trade agree that 2 to 6 gallons of water customarily is used in wineries alone for every gallon of wine that is made, though that total can be as low as half a gallon and as high as 20 per gallon of wine. Much of that water is for cleaning hoses, oak barrels, fermentation tanks and the like, with the variation due to such factors as the kind and number of vessels and the frequency with which wine is moved from one tank to another.
So, using round numbers, let's say a case of wine is 2.25 gallons (calling a 750 ml wine bottle .75 quarts (which is pretty close; so (12 bottles per case x .75 quarts per bottle) is 9 quarts per case. Divide that by 4 quarts by gallon and your 2.25 gallons per case.Quote:
water conservation practices employed in Rutherford that have significantly reduced the volume of water used in wine production to a point well below the industry standard, Wagner said.
So then 500,000 case x 2.25 gallons/case x say 6 gallons of water per case (see quote above) is 6,750,000 or 6.75 million gallons. Clearly more than a drop in bucket, but just 2% of your 320,000,00 (320 million) gallons figure above.
So next round is on you, Bill! :toast:
I totally agree, Jim. I also am a teetotaler by choice. I've never seen the attraction/charm of getting/being loud and stupid, which is what usually happens at alcohol-fueled gatherings. In my less charitable moments, I regard them as ritualized alcoholism.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:
Make mine any Zinfandel by Wine Guerrilla in Forestville. Thanks, Bill!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Well, of course we need a complete, untampered, detailed EIR and time for public digestion and comment before anybody can decide anything based on the TRUTH and not opinions, hopes or fears! I am just wondering how these people expect to get to and from the property with all the bridge construction traffic tieup... are they anticipating a helipad? All those event-goers are not going to just sit in traffic in their limos or tour buses like us poor folk... there must be something up their sleeves that I don't yet know about. There must be some other access to this property either now or planned for the future. Anybody know anything? :hmmm:
Rev. BE :heart:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by norcalredtail:
It seems to me that the true issues here, are the impacts the creation of this huge winery may have:
l.massively increased traffic on Hwy 12 close to Sebastopol
2.more accidents likely with tipsy drivers coming from tastings
3. substantially increased water use at a time when water needs to be conserved
4. Healdburgization of Sebastopol: making our town more elite, expensive, catering to the rich even more than is already happening
5. Upping the land values? isn't this a possibility? Do we ordinary folks who are already struggling with outrageous land values and high rentals really want a pricy new winery just outside town?
Don't we have enough wineries already in Sonoma County? And - this location seems nuts to me.
Very very wrong site, not to mention the need for it at all, which I seriously doubt. And I like wine!
Shuttle service for 300 people to attend tastings and concerts, etc.? How will that shuttle get through the traffic? This just doesn't add up, to me. :hmmm:
Rev. BE :heart:
One good thing: By the time this nightmare could come true, we will have a no-wait ER to process all the accident victims, those having allergic reactions to the products, etc.
And why is it that we Waccovians just learned about this really recently? I really want to know how all these projects (CVS, Multi-Use Trails, The Barlow) all get so far developed before we hear about them? Then the pressure is on to object strenuously within a very short time when all details are not known and there are many questions... it doesn't seem a prudent way of communicating with the populace.
Rev. BE :heart:
Thank you Shepard for your thoughtful inclusion of your community, the notes and your time and energy. Irony indeed about the 5150.
If our community came out so uproariously about responsible bike path planning, and if we slowed the cvs thing, I suspect we can slow down the installment of a project that is just too big for said location. Living by the Laguna de Santa Rosa, (and having lived on the other side of Llano Rd by the Laguna de Rohnert Park) I know for sure the creatures most impacted by this proposed project are the birds.
The sucking of the water by the Casino has already been a huge issue for the family farmers around the south of Sebastopol. There was big money and big power w/ that project. Let's hope the big power is with the people who want to preserve the heritage of farming communities and people who are ecologically concerned with preserving our wild. '
When we go forth, facing the opposition, we must think of the Eagle on the Muppet Show. You know him, right? Putting down "Conservationists" even though he's an endangered species? This is who we are dealing with I'm afraid. For comic relief, see this 6 second clip... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1sWCEHWShw
We need an EIR- that is for certain! Water is THE most crucial element to consider.
Thank you!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:
From re-reading the winery application, some of their events will be up to 600 people! Someone mentioned the option of entering the winery from Llano Rd. That would require making a new road through this vulnerable area, which would be an environmental disaster. The traffic issue alone should be enough to stop this monstrosity, as the North County people were able to stop the Guy Fieri winery, winning last month by a 5-0 vote of the Board of Supervisors. They had 150 people at the hearing. If we had that many people at the Seb. City Council meeting this evening, we could turn this application down.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by AllorrahBe:
In most Commercial Developments such as this there are concessions made (for) the Cities. Some developers are Required to build (X amount) of Low Income Housing, or provide (X amount) of parks as an addendum to their original projects. Does anyone have any info on this requirement?
I'm a transplant! I also like a good cheap red, occasionally. I'm not against - even for - change as long as it's positive, and therein lies the conundrum, as "change" is such a loaded, subjective term.
A very formative lesson in my life regarding change goes back to my years in the 60's and 70's growing up in Lahaina, Maui. Cane fields, quiet beaches and a handful of resorts were beautiful and "quaint", but didn't offer jobs to young people who would leave the island after high school - and never come back. Tourism was the answer, and the 70's saw a development boom like none other. Hotel's and condo's went up at a furious pace. "Designed" hastily by offsite developers who had never even visited the sites, some waterfront developments had windows not facing the ocean or trade winds, but parking lots!
Within a very short time, Maui-land turned into a great example of what not to do. Direct flights to Kahului, a ferry, and road expansion insured a bumper to bumper experience - even to Hana. With an infrastructure bursting at its seams, timeshare salesmen accosting you on the street in between the cheap trinket shops and trendy burger joints, one can decide for ones self if change, in this case, was worth it. And for whom? In my opinion, these are the questions that truly need serious consideration. Because there's no going back.
3 more Points to consider:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Timothy Gega:
1) If we take the (average #s) of concert goers, (approx. 300) per event, and used the (approx. amount) of 2 passengers per vehicle, and multiplied this (loose figure) of one exit and one entrance per vehicle (to this site) that equates to approx. 300 trips over the JR Trail (pathway) and on/off Hwy 12, per day, not including the concert trucks (can have up to 5 big rigs each) for (the bands staging, equipment, etc.,) plus wine production traffic, grapes in, bottles out. In my view, that would be a huge burden on both this Trail and the unmonitored (traffic signal) traffic onto Hwy 12.
2) Remember the Bees? What we need more of is Biodiversity here. Would this owner plant other crops as well to give the Bees this diverse diet they need to survive?
3) Also, would this owner, (as Farmerdan suggest) provide the place for a water holding pond? Would this owner dig a small lake to retain more rainwater to recharge the aquafer there?
The livability of the village of Mendocino was destroyed in the Seventies by the mega-rich coming in, buying up the town to make tons of money. I was there: it was awful. The town was murdered.
The hippies were cleaned off the streets, street musicians were banned, the town was sanitized, commercialized - and became simply a place for pricy boutiques, uber-expensive restaurants and not much else. The library was thrown out, nearly all real stores were closed down: bought up for trinket stores full of plastic sea lions and t-shirts or pricy imported glass junk. Work sites where lovely crafts (pottery, carved wood, candles, painted fabrics) lost their leases and craftspeople were driven away, unable to find, much less afford, the high rents. I lost my massage studio; it was torn down when the owner sold the land for a rich tourist's second home. Lower and middle income folk had to move out due to massive rent increases.
This is already happening in Sebastopol, but it will become much worse if folks don't continue fighting like hell to provent Sebastopol from becoming another phony town as Mendocino has become. It broke my heart when Mendocino was destroyed by greed - I'd hate to see this happen here too. Allowing a giant winery to be created anywhere this fair and lovely town would be a huge step towards destroying it's livability.
It must be stopped!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Victoria Street:
I agree with some others on this post that the key issue that could severely impact our lives--and Sebastopol businesses--is added traffic on this tiny, already congested, two lane road. And create hazards for we humans on our precious Joe Redota Trail.
I am also concerned about waste water and the impact on the laguna, and agree with Farmer Dan that the best solution would be to build this huge winery in "incorporated areas where there is infrastructure for water and waste."
Our local government's legal tools here seem to me to be environmental, traffic, and public licensing to serve liquor.
The first and most litigation proof lever is public liquor licensing. As a first step, Sebastopol's Council can, in its letter to the Supervisors, strongly urge the County not to authorize ANY public tasting room or wine sales or events at this location.
Insist that this be off the table. Because this road is over-trafficked already, with no capacity to mitigate.
This in itself may make the deal economically less feasible and cause the project to fold.
Next, there is the environmental mitigation for waste water and water usage. Protecting the laguna is essential. The County could demand an extensive study on what this looks like and would cost and make this a requirement.
Hold fast to these strategic requirements, and this winery may never be built. And if it is built under these strict mitigating conditions, its negative impact would be severely cut back.