"Best" family winery: Picture this: 40 ft. tall building 100 ft. from your front door!

Supes approve Graton winery project

Posted by Ted Appel

Graton-area winery development given initial approval in a fiery March meeting again sparked anger Tuesday as county supervisors gave the project a final go-ahead.
The Best family has proposed converting their apple orchard at the intersection of Highway 116 and Occidental Road to a vineyard with a production building and separate tasting room.
Tuesday’s unanimous vote approved a general plan amendment for the project.
“It’s been a long road,” family representative Casey Costello said after the meeting. “This is one more step in the process.”
About a dozen opponents of the project showed up to voice their displeasure with the board’s decision, saying the project was incompatible with the rural area and would harm water quality.
They also railed against a one-minute limit on public comment, in place because Tuesday’s hearing followed a rancorous four-hour discussion in March.
At that hearing, supervisors struggled through jeering to explain why they thought the project was a good fit for the west county. Tuesday’s meeting also saw shouting from the audience.
“This is being railroaded through,” one opponent yelled.
“Who speaks for us?” yelled another.
Sebastopol resident Liz Quijada said, “We’re seriously upset at this decision.”
Opponents said they are considering a legal challenge.
– Brett Wilkison
The Press Democrat

* * * * * * * *
Non-Professional Reporter's NOTE: "yelled" was more like spoke loudly enough to be heard 20+ ft. away.

DUE PROCESS WAS DENIED to the residents of the neighborhood. This should be of concern to ALL Sonoma County citizens!

The ELECTED officials should do the business of their offices in accordance with the wishes of the residents of the area, promotes quiet enjoyment of HOMES, and in a fashion that protects the environment and land into the future!

I write this with complete contempt for the actions of the Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County:
Their behavior at Tuesday's "Public Hearing- Maybe Hearing- Possible Hearing- Open Hearing, Closed Hearing- Who Knows What's Going on Hearing" was nothing short of disgusting. How dare they treat The People with such distain and disrespect. How can elected representatives and PRMD staff conspire to silence very legitimate issues brought forth by very legitimate members of the public? Furthermore, to have county council hold the release of a new 30 page resolution document until 4:30 on Friday evening before the hearing is shameful, if not criminal.

In light of all this, they think that "yelling" form the audience is disrespectful? You've got to be kidding me. Maybe the reason the people jeered is because they forgot to bring the tar and feathers.

Just for the record, they voted to approve 2 General Plan amendments, a zoning change, a special use permit and much more. They also performed the tidy trick of avoiding an EIR. All this for a group of private investors seeking to maximize their profits. All this with a one- minute limit on public comment.

Due to the highly charged & emotional nature of your post, I sense you are not open & will not listen to any other points of view. If I am not mistaken, you live on Atkinson Road, which is adjacent to the Best Family project. My sense is your opposition is personal, and based on the deterioration of your view, perhaps lowering of the value of your property if you own it, noise & disruption from the construction and ongoing operation of the winery, as opposed to the tranquil nature of the existing apple orchard.

Can you consider the other side of the coin, which is probably why the County Commissioners approved the project: the economic benefit, the jobs, the location on State Hwy 116? If they wouldn't approve this project, what project would they approve? The owners will make a profit, because it provides value, just like Slice of Life makes a profit when they sell you a slice of vegan pizza. This is the way our system works. In my opinoin, your yellling is an immature reaction of your ego to not getting what it wants. I think the County Commissions felt that others would receive benefits greater than those you'll lose.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thomas Morabito:

I write this with complete contempt for the actions of the Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County:
Their behavior at Tuesday's "Public Hearing- Maybe Hearing- Possible Hearing- Open Hearing, Closed Hearing- Who Knows What's Going on Hearing" was nothing short of disgusting. How dare they treat The People with such distain and disrespect. How can elected representatives and PRMD staff conspire to silence very legitimate issues brought forth by very legitimate members of the public? Furthermore, to have county council hold the release of a new 30 page resolution document until 4:30 on Friday evening before the hearing is shameful, if not criminal.

In light of all this, they think that "yelling" form the audience is disrespectful? You've got to be kidding me. Maybe the reason the people jeered is because they forgot to bring the tar and feathers.

Just for the record, they voted to approve 2 General Plan amendments, a zoning change, a special use permit and much more. They also performed the tidy trick of avoiding an EIR. All this for a group of private investors seeking to maximize their profits. All this with a one- minute limit on public comment.

---

So, this presented point of view states, the "...County Commissioners approved..." first, this is incorrect, they are the "County Supervisors" and the project would not have risen to "approved" status without AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN and changing the zoning; and allowing the zoning to be applied to a parcel that is under the minimum lot size for that particular zoning.

Even if an individual knew nothing about the project, that fact alone should be cause for concern to everyone in Sonoma County, but especially those that live in the area.

Why do individuals that do not live in the area have such a cavalier attitude? They are basically saying, "Hey, i don't care if your home and neighborhood is ruined; so what, it's going to bring in more money."

Why does the County enact a General Plan? Well, it seems the General Plan should function as a template, a guideline, for how things should be done.

Zoning that is compatible with current uses is the rule. This parcel is zoned Rural Residential.

In this case The County Supervisors have set aside the rules and created their own.

Do the County Supervisors have the right to do that?

Another cause for concern is the fact this sets a precedent -- so keep in mind, your neighborhood could be next.

A community-minded use could be an affordable housing project.

This parcel is ideal since it is on bus lines and bike paths, walking distance to a food market. The Best Family could be admired for giving to the community instead of taking away.

This parcel could be developed into something that is useful to the community and attractive to people.

Sonoma County is failing in its duty to provide affordable housing to people.

To respond to Tommy's comment on Mr. Morabito's post.....All I can say is.....Tommy, if this monstrosity, 33,000 sq feet building , 46 feet high, the size of a football field, were sitting 100 or 200 or even 300 feet way from your home, YOU TOO WOULD BE A LITTLE EMOTIONAL. You'd be irritated to say the least. We should ALL take this personally.

Listen, the other side of the coin is not so pretty either.
If we are going to look at the other side of the coin we are looking at the Board of Supervisors supporting special interest and big development. We are looking at fattening the county coffers at the expense of the environment and the residents. We are looking at ignoring expert testimony on environmental impact, overriding public opinion, changing the General Plan....basically, making this project fit when it really doesn't. You talk about some construction jobs that will be generated? Well, that's true. But consider how many jobs BP generated and would you like to take a dip in the Gulf, just for fun?
Any way you look at it, Tommy, the coin is tarnished.

This is a project that should have never been approved.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

Due to the highly charged & emotional nature of your post, I sense you are not open & will not listen to any other points of view. If I am not mistaken, you live on Atkinson Road, which is adjacent to the Best Family project. My sense is your opposition is personal, and based on the deterioration of your view, perhaps lowering of the value of your property if you own it, noise & disruption from the construction and ongoing operation of the winery, as opposed to the tranquil nature of the existing apple orchard.

Can you consider the other side of the coin, which is probably why the County Commissioners approved the project: the economic benefit, the jobs, the location on State Hwy 116? If they wouldn't approve this project, what project would they approve? The owners will make a profit, because it provides value, just like Slice of Life makes a profit when they sell you a slice of vegan pizza. This is the way our system works. In my opinoin, your yellling is an immature reaction of your ego to not getting what it wants. I think the County Commissions felt that others would receive benefits greater than those you'll lose.

---

Paradise, you can't make good wine from sour grapes. You are just blackwashing the whole project in tired quasi-green concerns. Look to the greater good. This is not BP, this is not huge, this is not bad. It just happened to land next to you. Suck it up, stop warping the vibe. You are free to move.
~Cal

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by paradise:

To respond to Tommy's comment on Mr. Morabito's post.....All I can say is.....Tommy, if this monstrosity, 33,000 sq feet building , 46 feet high, the size of a football field, were sitting 100 or 200 or even 300 feet way from your home, YOU TOO WOULD BE A LITTLE EMOTIONAL. You'd be irritated to say the least. We should ALL take this personally.

Listen, the other side of the coin is not so pretty either.
If we are going to look at the other side of the coin we are looking at the Board of Supervisors supporting special interest and big development. We are looking at fattening the county coffers at the expense of the environment and the residents. We are looking at ignoring expert testimony on environmental impact, overriding public opinion, changing the General Plan....basically, making this project fit when it really doesn't. You talk about some construction jobs that will be generated? Well, that's true. But consider how many jobs BP generated and would you like to take a dip in the Gulf, just for fun?
Any way you look at it, Tommy, the coin is tarnished.

This is a project that should have never been approved.

---

Califoon, do you know the facts of this project? Or are you just going by what you have heard? If you have not read the two MND's (70 pgs + each), the Revised MND (another 70+ pages), the individual reports, researched the General Plan, the West Sebastopol Plan, and talked to experts, then I would think your opinion is not based on fact but rather "emotional" reaction.
You suggest this is "not bad, not huge" : Do you consider a building the size of a football field (33,000 sq feet) not huge? Add to that another 5,000 sq foot tasting room building. Still not huge? Think again neighbor. "It's not bad" you say.... if you have not read the reports on the impacts, how can you make that comment? Well, let me answer my own question....it's easy to say anything. It's responsible to comment with knowledge of the project. You don't have it.

Listen, putting such a large commercial facility that will produce 25,600 cases of wine on such a small lot wouldn't make sense even to Bart Simpson, unless it was his own project. The fact of the matter is that 7.61 acres do not equal 10. Changing the land use of a Rural Residential parcel in a Rural Residential area does not make sense. (I know, you'll say, VacuDry is across the street.) Hwy 116 is the designated buffer for this area of Rural Residential parcels. Presenting a project with bogus water saving features is not right. Showing beautiful plantings that will supposedly cover the effects of a 33,000 sq ft building don't work, especially when some of these are not on your property. Ignoring expert opinion regarding water and noise is ludicrous. The list goes on.

If you were talking about "mom and pop" making their wine in a nice little building near their home....in my opinion, that is not disturbing.
Why don't the applicants put this commercial project on their owner-occupied 20-25+ acre property up the road, which is already zoned AG. No ammendments to the General Plan would be needed. No special permits either. No objections from the public because their zoning and land use permit such a project. In my opinion, they don't want this where they live. Who cares if others are affected by the environmental impacts of this endeavor. They'll make money, right? Tommy says this is the way the system works. WELL, IT SHOULDN'T !
You don't like my vibe.....suck it up you say.....we can move you say ! GIVE ME A BREAK !!!!!
This is not for the greater good. In my opinion, this is for the good of one family.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Califoon:

Paradise, you can't make good wine from sour grapes. You are just blackwashing the whole project in tired quasi-green concerns. Look to the greater good. This is not BP, this is not huge, this is not bad. It just happened to land next to you. Suck it up, stop warping the vibe. You are free to move.
~Cal

---

The costs of building this project seem huge -- my sense is the funding is not solely from the family but investors are underwriting the project.

The family is probably ONLY providing the land, free and clear of liens or other encumbrances. For this, they are promised a cash flow.

The other investors are faceless, nameless, and want, nay, intend to have a positive cash flow from investing in the project so they can continue to kick back and watch the dollar signs in their bank accounts grow.

They care nothing about the neighborhood, the land or the people.

Do we want to have a corridor of tasting rooms through the heart of West Sonoma County?

Right now there is Russian River Vineyards in Forestville, head south you'll pass Dutton (which has one of those HUGE buildings -- set tastefully away from the street ! -- next major cross street has a "Graton" tasting room on the east side -- and soon the "Davis" Tree Farm will be converted to a fire station.

Ace Cider and Sebastopol Tractor have been booted from the building at the corner of Graton Rd. and Hwy. 116 and now there is a Dutton Tasting Room there (man-O-man is that a reduction in cash flow for Dutton!)

Continue on, the east side another tasting room (huge building) and mushroom farming operation.

So we see the value of commercial highway-fronting property.

Look's like it's time to vote out these elected representatives. They obviously do not represent the public. are there pockets being lined with some kind of bonus if this goes through. And when the project is complete, maybe it will be time to picked the winery.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thomas Morabito:

I write this with complete contempt for the actions of the Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County:
Their behavior at Tuesday's "Public Hearing- Maybe Hearing- Possible Hearing- Open Hearing, Closed Hearing- Who Knows What's Going on Hearing" was nothing short of disgusting. How dare they treat The People with such distain and disrespect. How can elected representatives and PRMD staff conspire to silence very legitimate issues brought forth by very legitimate members of the public? Furthermore, to have county council hold the release of a new 30 page resolution document until 4:30 on Friday evening before the hearing is shameful, if not criminal.

In light of all this, they think that "yelling" form the audience is disrespectful? You've got to be kidding me. Maybe the reason the people jeered is because they forgot to bring the tar and feathers.

Just for the record, they voted to approve 2 General Plan amendments, a zoning change, a special use permit and much more. They also performed the tidy trick of avoiding an EIR. All this for a group of private investors seeking to maximize their profits. All this with a one- minute limit on public comment.

---

You are right 2Bwacco....Hwy 116 will be winery row of Sonoma County. With other projects on the side lines waiting for approval after this BOS precedent setting vote, it's only a matter of time.
What people don't seem to get is that the CUMMULATIVE impact of these projects will be detrimental to the environment. Most people, including the BOS, micro manage big development and they should be looking at the "big picture". When all the water is sucked out of the Russian River for winery irrigation, wells start to go dry, or worse, water is contaminated, THEN we will all scream! What good does it do to protest when it's too late? Why speak up when the damage is done?
It may be true that this one winery ( I use that word loosely because this is a commercial facility) will not be the culprit of all the damage to come. It will be a local contributor to the bigger problem of cummulative environmental impacts.
The worst part is to know that our representatives are willing to massage the rules, laws and guidelines to make a project fit. The General Plan means nothing if it's not adhered to. Why have a General Plan at all?

Someone may wish to look into why applicants have at their disposal a county planner who will do whatever it takes to make the project fit. Applicants have counsel answering questions on behalf of their project. NO ONE helps the public and residents in preparation of a protest. Let me say that NO ONE helps the public and residents unless they get paid. It's a lopsided system that is tilted in favor of the developer and special interest.

We have planning commissioners who don't read the material, yet they proceed to vote in favor of a project. We need to elect representatives who will protect our environment and represent the majority and vote out those that don't.
Anybody listening? I hope so.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 2Bwacco:

The costs of building this project seem huge -- my sense is the funding is not solely from the family but investors are underwriting the project.

The family is probably ONLY providing the land, free and clear of liens or other encumbrances. For this, they are promised a cash flow.

The other investors are faceless, nameless, and want, nay, intend to have a positive cash flow from investing in the project so they can continue to kick back and watch the dollar signs in their bank accounts grow.

They care nothing about the neighborhood, the land or the people.

Do we want to have a corridor of tasting rooms through the heart of West Sonoma County?

Right now there is Russian River Vineyards in Forestville, head south you'll pass Dutton (which has one of those HUGE buildings -- set tastefully away from the street ! -- next major cross street has a "Graton" tasting room on the east side -- and soon the "Davis" Tree Farm will be converted to a fire station.

Ace Cider and Sebastopol Tractor have been booted from the building at the corner of Graton Rd. and Hwy. 116 and now there is a Dutton Tasting Room there (man-O-man is that a reduction in cash flow for Dutton!)

Continue on, the east side another tasting room (huge building) and mushroom farming operation.

So we see the value of commercial highway-fronting property.

---

Hmmmm! a protest. Now were talkin.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by paradise:

You are right 2Bwacco....Hwy 116 will be winery row of Sonoma County. With other projects on the side lines waiting for approval after this BOS precedent setting vote, it's only a matter of time.
What people don't seem to get is that the CUMMULATIVE impact of these projects will be detrimental to the environment. Most people, including the BOS, micro manage big development and they should be looking at the "big picture". When all the water is sucked out of the Russian River for winery irrigation, wells start to go dry, or worse, water is contaminated, THEN we will all scream! What good does it do to protest when it's too late? Why speak up when the damage is done?
It may be true that this one winery ( I use that word loosely because this is a commercial facility) will not be the culprit of all the damage to come. It will be a local contributor to the bigger problem of cummulative environmental impacts.
The worst part is to know that our representatives are willing to massage the rules, laws and guidelines to make a project fit. The General Plan means nothing if it's not adhered to. Why have a General Plan at all?

Someone may wish to look into why applicants have at their disposal a county planner who will do whatever it takes to make the project fit. Applicants have counsel answering questions on behalf of their project. NO ONE helps the public and residents in preparation of a protest. Let me say that NO ONE helps the public and residents unless they get paid. It's a lopsided system that is tilted in favor of the developer and special interest.

We have planning commissioners who don't read the material, yet they proceed to vote in favor of a project. We need to elect representatives who will protect our environment and represent the majority and vote out those that don't.
Anybody listening? I hope so.

---

I think that those of you who are trying to reduce the opposition to this project as being a nimby issue are missing the point. I live in very close proximity to this project, and I have sucked it up. If my well runs dry, that's okay; I can run down to Andy's to get my organic veggies, rather than growing them. If it takes me 10 minutes to pull out of my street onto 116, that's only five minutes more than it takes me now. And, if I wanted quiet country living, I shouldn't be living so close to this intersection.

The thing that I'm not able to suck up is that my county government is willing to cut corners and be out of compliance with industry standards, by not ordering an EIR on such a massive project. This may not be BP, but it follows the same operating principle, placing corporate profits and political contributions ahead of the safety of the environment and the well-being of the populace.

How many times must we learn the lesson that for a few to get rich in the short run may ultimately result in many more people suffering in the long run. Cutting corners, especially when it relates to the environment, usually doesn't turn out so well. Just ask BP.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Califoon:

Paradise, you can't make good wine from sour grapes. You are just blackwashing the whole project in tired quasi-green concerns. Look to the greater good. This is not BP, this is not huge, this is not bad. It just happened to land next to you. Suck it up, stop warping the vibe. You are free to move.
~Cal

---

why is that obvious? "the public" isn't particularly monolithic. I wasn't at the meeting, but it does sound like they didn't allow for much interaction (if any) with those who attended. But those who showed up to speak obviously do not represent the public either. They merely represent themselves. And actually, by definition the elected representatives do "represent the public". You may not think they're doing it well, or as you say, you suspect they're acting against the interests of those they represent because they're corrupt. I've yet to see any evidence. It's awfully easy to sling around that kind of accusation, but it's corrosive. What information do you have that supports it?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Veeja:

Look's like it's time to vote out these elected representatives. They obviously do not represent the public. are there pockets being lined with some kind of bonus if this goes through. And when the project is complete, maybe it will be time to picked the winery.

---

Getting to the bottom line. This measure has been opposed, since it's inception, by a consensus of the community. Our local politicians have violated the trust empowered to them, by the people who voted them into office, by refusing to listen to their voice. This is not Gold, but wine, a greed oriented commodity. It's not as though we're short of vineyards, which are encroaching more and more into local communities. It's becoming more and more obvious that our politicians aren't listening, and, just like the legislators in Washington, special interest is winning the day. Another sad day for people who only have the best interests of their community at heart.

It is NOT OK for homeowners' wells to run DRY!!! NO!!!

Homeowners' rights to water DO NOT-- SHALL NOT fall behind irrigation!

To me, this is a fundamental issue that must be addressed -- positively.

* * * * * * *

The surveyor, Mr. Phelps, has succintly hit the nail on the head as he wrote this statement:

"...Our local politicians have violated the trust
empowered to them, by the people who voted them into office,
by refusing to listen to their voice..."

Supervisor E. Carillo seems to be more concerned with events in Arizona than this neighborhood dilemma happening NOW to his constituency.

I wonder what Rue Furch and Ernie Carpenter think of this project?

This is not a project of concern to just the folks that live "in the neighborhood" i.e. next door or across the street. The question is, do we want the Board of Supervisors to be able to tinker with the General Plan at will?

My family has a Diverse Ag parcel that is larger than 10 acres. I'd venture to say should we decide to denude the landscape of every living thing, put in a super well, suck all the water for ourselves, plant grapes, put up a processing facility, pave a parking lot, invite all the other grapes harvested with their giant trucks over for a crush, the neighbors would have a fit.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by boB Phelps:

Getting to the bottom line. This measure has been opposed, since its inception, by a consensus of the community. Our local politicians have violated the trust empowered to them, by the people who voted them into office, by refusing to listen to their voice. This is not Gold, but wine, a greed oriented commodity. It's not as though we're short of vineyards, which are encroaching more and more into local communities. It's becoming more and more obvious that our politicians aren't listening, and, just like the legislators in Washington, special interest is winning the day. Another sad day for people who only have the best interests of their community at heart.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 2Bwacco:

... The question is, do we want the Board of Supervisors to be able to tinker with the General Plan at will?
...

---

Yes! Being able to issue a variance to the General Plan is an important part of effective and appropriate government. That is not to say that all variances should be approved, nor similarly that all variances should be denied.

A general plan variance should be reviewed carefully and approved or denied on its merits.

Just because the Best Family Winery required General Plan variances does not mean it is not a good project nor an inappropriate project. It does mean that it is/will be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny to see if a variance is warranted, which is what is happening.

Regarding whether this is an issue for just the neighborhood or the county in general, it sure seems like the vast majority of the people opposed live rather near the project. That speaks for itself.

The Best Family Investors LLC project did not required variances. They required General Plan Amendments....not one, but TWO ! Making a General Plan amendment requires legislative action. One was required to make the 7.61 acres 10 so that the AG designation could be granted and the other to change the land use to AG.
From now on, if you have a 7 acre, Rural Residential parcel, you too can apply for such a project and technically you would also be approved. The General Plan has been changed.

Two Amendments along with 87 mitigations were needed to make this project quasi fit for approval. These investors and their project have not been held to a "higher standard of scrutiny". If that were the case, an Environmental Impact Report would have been part of the due diligence the Board of Supervisors would have required. The Board of Supervisors did no such thing....no EIR they determined. Let's vote to approve !

Barry, you think this is a neighborhood issue? Well, it's not. There are people in Graton, Forrestville , Sebastopol and as far as Jenner that are against this monstrosity of a commercial project in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It's not a nimby issue. It's an environmental issue. It's a land use issue.

PRMD Staff and the Board of Supervisors moved heaven and earth and performed a few legislative actions along with some mitigation tricks to pull this "unanimous approval" out of the hat.

I don't know what we can do....I think whatever we do doesn't matter ! The control and power to make the right decisions is in the wrong hands.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Yes! Being able to issue a variance to the General Plan is an important part of effective and appropriate government. That is not to say that all variances should be approved, nor similarly that all variances should be denied.

A general plan variance should be reviewed carefully and approved or denied on its merits.

Just because the Best Family Winery required General Plan variances does not mean it is not a good project nor an inappropriate project. It does mean that it is/will be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny to see if a variance is warranted, which is what is happening.

Regarding whether this is an issue for just the neighborhood or the county in general, it sure seems like the vast majority of the people opposed live rather near the project. That speaks for itself.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by paradise:

You are right 2Bwacco....Hwy 116 will be winery row of Sonoma County. With other projects on the side lines waiting for approval after this BOS precedent setting vote, it's only a matter of time.
What people don't seem to get is that the CUMMULATIVE impact of these projects will be detrimental to the environment. Most people, including the BOS, micro manage big development and they should be looking at the "big picture". When all the water is sucked out of the Russian River for winery irrigation, wells start to go dry, or worse, water is contaminated, THEN we will all scream! What good does it do to protest when it's too late? Why speak up when the damage is done?
It may be true that this one winery ( I use that word loosely because this is a commercial facility) will not be the culprit of all the damage to come. It will be a local contributor to the bigger problem of cummulative environmental impacts.
The worst part is to know that our representatives are willing to massage the rules, laws and guidelines to make a project fit. The General Plan means nothing if it's not adhered to. Why have a General Plan at all?

Someone may wish to look into why applicants have at their disposal a county planner who will do whatever it takes to make the project fit. Applicants have counsel answering questions on behalf of their project. NO ONE helps the public and residents in preparation of a protest. Let me say that NO ONE helps the public and residents unless they get paid. It's a lopsided system that is tilted in favor of the developer and special interest.

We have planning commissioners who don't read the material, yet they proceed to vote in favor of a project. We need to elect representatives who will protect our environment and represent the majority and vote out those that don't.
Anybody listening? I hope so.

---

Things like this happen because we continually vote in bean counters... people who see everything through the eyes of an economist... business is what they understand best, business funds them til they are pretty much invincible when they run for office and we all get to rail away at the back of the Council Chamber when we find they are representing those interests.
AGAIN! You don't have to look as far away as the Gulf of Mexico to see the limits of this kind of thinking... it all makes perfect sense when you're looking at a model on a screen or a diagram on a piece of paper. But when they go and BUILD something... whatever habitat was there before is gone forever and it sets a precedent so others can come along and build another one, and another until you have Rohnert Park. Once the richest ag land in northern California... now dead, paved over and toxic from decades of minor oil and household chemical spills and the detritus of suburban life. Don't think there are people out there who would do that to the 116 corridor and all the way to Occidental if they could? Just let this thing go through. Things are changing fast on this planet and for a bunch of suits who spend their lives in the already paved over parts of the county to decide what we need is fool hardy. We will be thankful we have open areas in the decades ahead. This whole "We need endless growth" is so what was wrong with the 20th century and I for none do NOT wish it to describe this one as well. So Ronald Reagan. Endless growth perfectly describes a malignancy. Once Santa Clara County was as lush and life filled as this one but they got sold out by people that look at a field or an orchard or a forest and see wasteland "needing" to have something done to it.
Sure, people need jobs the way our system is set up but just because you learn, say, carpentry, doesn't mean we have to always provide carpentry work... you are human beings, not drill presses or something designed to do one thing. We could build light rail lines from Santa Rosa out to Sebastopol and the other way out to Sonoma, we could solarize the roofs of the entire county and give PG&E the bums rush. We can do any number of things if we could just overide that conditioning that has us needing to be told what to do. A good purpose for government might be to pay you while you adapted to some new skills... but that might actually HELP some folks so we can't do that... someone might call that socialism.... but I digress... The choice is always ours, we've just all been indoctrinated to think we have no power. Trouble is, most of us believe it.

Excuse me, point of reality here: at the hearing 6-8 weeks ago, about half of the public spoke in favor of the project. Paradise, your comments below do not reflect the local support for the project. As I recall, people who spoke in favor of it at the hearing, thought it was in alignment with the "agricultural" nature of the County, and supported it because it would supply 85 new jobs and generate new funding for the County thru property and sales taxes.

I await your rebuttal to this reality of facts...;-)...

---------------------------------------------.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by paradise:

...
Barry, you think this is a neighborhood issue? Well, it's not. There are people in Graton, Forrestville , Sebastopol and as far as Jenner that are against this monstrosity of a commercial project in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It's not a nimby issue. It's an environmental issue. It's a land use issue.

PRMD Staff and the Board of Supervisors moved heaven and earth and performed a few legislative actions along with some mitigation tricks to pull this "unanimous approval" out of the hat.

I don't know what we can do....I think whatever we do doesn't matter ! The control and power to make the right decisions is in the wrong hands.

---

Wow...you assume quite a lot about the individuals involved here...while "forgetting" that the family has farmed this land for nearly a century.

Your speculative non"sense" about who has money in this project is ridiculous. You don't know that this is funded by anyone but the pioneering family who has spent their LIVES in this community. You know that this is a local family, and yet you perpetuate this bedraggled argument that these people don't care about the community and they are nameless and faceless.

Sorry, but THEIR track record speaks for itself. Mr. Best and his family have been consistent community volunteers for their entire lives.

But then, you see your POV and scew all the facts to fit your version of events, the project, the people...as usual.

As for my moniker, it is inspired by half the people posting to these BFW threads...either false information on their profiles (paradise) or nothing at all (2bwacco)...back at you!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 2Bwacco:

The costs of building this project seem huge -- my sense is the funding is not solely from the family but investors are underwriting the project.

The family is probably ONLY providing the land, free and clear of liens or other encumbrances. For this, they are promised a cash flow.

The other investors are faceless, nameless, and want, nay, intend to have a positive cash flow from investing in the project so they can continue to kick back and watch the dollar signs in their bank accounts grow.

They care nothing about the neighborhood, the land or the people.

---

Some of you all continue to try and diminish the voices of concern over the project by stating that it's only those who live close to the proposed factory who are concerned about it and how it's been handled by the PRMD and BOS.

This is far from the case. At this point, it would be hard to find an environmentalist or environmental agency in the county who is not familiar with and concerned about this project, all the way from the Sierra Club down to Ernie Carpenter and Rue Furch, none of them nimby's.

I think it's safe to predict that, if the BOS continues to cut corners, there will be a lot of people in this county who will not vote for any of them when they are up for re-election. There may be more of us out there than they realize.

There are a lot of people throughout the county against this and similar projects, and we are not going away! We will continue to speak out when we see our local government compromising standards to fill their campaign coffers and make a few developers a lot richer, while taking questionable risks to the land and resources by not imposing the industry review standard of an EIR on this project.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Yes! Being able to issue a variance to the General Plan is an important part of effective and appropriate government. That is not to say that all variances should be approved, nor similarly that all variances should be denied.

A general plan variance should be reviewed carefully and approved or denied on its merits.

Just because the Best Family Winery required General Plan variances does not mean it is not a good project nor an inappropriate project. It does mean that it is/will be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny to see if a variance is warranted, which is what is happening.

Regarding whether this is an issue for just the neighborhood or the county in general, it sure seems like the vast majority of the people opposed live rather near the project. That speaks for itself.

---

You bring up good points, Ann.
Let's clear up your confusion....the oposition to this project has nothing to do with the patriarch of this family. YOUR CONFUSION IS YOUR RATIONALITATION THAT BECAUSE A FAMILY HAS BEEN IN THE AREA A LONG TIME, THEY MAY HAVE DONE VOLUNTEER WORK, AND FARMED THE LAND, NOW WHATEVER THEY DO IS WONDERFUL! THIS IS AN INVESTMENT LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION.
The project should be evaluated on its merits, not on the merits of the family. This is not in any way a detrimental commentary on any individual or a family. The information provided to the public by Staff at PRMD to the Board of Supervisors IS ON THE PROJECT. Introducing the long standing residence and the individual and family is meant to confuse and mislead the public and to make the residents look bad. Many families have been in the area and farmed the land for a long time. Does that give anyone the right to put up a huge commercial facility to produce 26,500 cases of wine in a Rural Residential neighborhood? Oh well you say....but that's where they have a parcel of land and they want to build there. THEN WHY don't they build what the General Plan allows? Why does the General Plan have to be changed with TWO AMendments, 87 mitigations, special permits,etc. IS THAT CONTRIBUTING TO THE COMMUNITY? How does that follow a "track record" or have the community in mind? How is that being a good resident of the area? Well, Ann, as I say, this is not about about an individual or his/her family. This is about the Best Family INVESTORS LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION. "Best Family" is part of the name to help with the perception of the project and promote exactly your position.
The main goal of an investment group is to make money. Whoever is part of the Investors LLC ....their plans are set on turning a profit. That's the reality of the facts. Don't be fooled.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Ann Onimus:

Wow...you assume quite a lot about the individuals involved here...while "forgetting" that the family has farmed this land for nearly a century.

Your speculative non"sense" about who has money in this project is ridiculous. You don't know that this is funded by anyone but the pioneering family who has spent their LIVES in this community. You know that this is a local family, and yet you perpetuate this bedraggled argument that these people don't care about the community and they are nameless and faceless.

Sorry, but THEIR track record speaks for itself. Mr. Best and his family have been consistent community volunteers for their entire lives.

But then, you see your POV and scew all the facts to fit your version of events, the project, the people...as usual.

As for my moniker, it is inspired by half the people posting to these BFW threads...either false information on their profiles (paradise) or nothing at all (2bwacco)...back at you!

---

What can we do to get this project pulled off track?

It appears, without commencing a lawsuit, this project has been given a green light.

Those interested in participating in the legislative process attended the Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, June 8, 2010.

Their reward for attending and trying to participate? The Board of Supervisors said, "Be Quiet. We do not want to hear your comments."

Outrageous! Outrageous!

Sonoma County's Board of Supervisors, acting in this fashion, seems to be gesturing, inviting "...bring it on! Don't like it? So, sue us!"

That does not seem to be a good path for an economically-challenged county. It costs more in public resources, the County Counsel will have to reply to the pleadings, discovery, etc.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by drjeffk:

...This is far from the case. At this point, it would be hard to find an environmentalist or environmental agency in the county who is not familiar with and concerned about this project, all the way from the Sierra Club down to Ernie Carpenter and Rue Furch, none of them nimby's ....

...There are a lot of people throughout the county against this and similar projects, and we are not going away! We will continue to speak out when we see our local government compromising standards to fill their campaign coffers and make a few developers a lot richer, while taking questionable risks to the land and resources by not imposing the industry review standard of an EIR on this project...

---

Ok so as we know,and naturally they know
everyone is "right" in this debate..
I am "against" the winery or any new winery in principal, although I live no where near it.

I am all for private people being able to do what they want with their land
HUH?
total discrepancy, right?
THAT's why its time for everyone to take more responsability for what is done here.
ever since Graton was Borrowed,stolen weaseled away from Graton Rancheria (Native american land grant) people have been cutting it up and "Using it" like it was candy or cheese. It is NOT.
the land around here is a living organism, and deserves a year of study and careful consideration before any blade of grass it disturbed.

THEN its time to call in a native shamen, a group like R.D.I.
(look it up on line) Institute of noetic sciences..Consider the entire neighborhood. Check out every aspect go door to door. Demand..

get an E.I .R!! This could bring the neighborhood together
ALLOW the winery possibly, but make it a giant environmental demonstration neighborhood .. take down the fences and make a huge beautiful garden around all the way to Andy's
Set up a giant composting facility at Andy's that transforms all their considerable foodwaste into soil that increases the water table for the entire neighborhood .( soon composting will be mandatory,"Waste management cannot, and willnot handle it all)mrk m wrds
will all the buildings have roof water harvest systems? Will they provide info and monetary help for the entire neighborhood to install roof-water,and graywater harvest systems?? that one little valley could TRIPLE it's ground water!!! winery or no WHINERY in 8 months.
ALL this technology is available, there are grants available, there are designers all over this county(permaculture artisans)...But NO the money has to go to PAVING contractors to destroy soil, compact nature, and take crap to the dump.Because we won't do things this way till people get their heads out of their *utts 20 or 30 years from now,if we survive that long.(the code says blah blah blah)
If we keep following money, there's a cliff in there steep enough for all of us lemmings to fall off.
Look up the "Village Homes" community in Davis.
Look up "Bill Molison /permaculture" "Global Gardener" etc.
'We have to find a way,to bring some lovin' here today'
I really feel for these people wanting to keep their little valley simple and nice. Its SHOULD retain that atmosphere, even if they have to plant timber bamboo all around the big barn dealie.

Someday soon Roads need to GO AROUND, or OVER Sebastopol
you choose,unless they invent safe flying cars, or install a monorail...
the google map thing says to get to the beach from 101,go through Sebastopol
SO we better bet good at letting GO of some of our sweet serene to
benefit the larger community...do you want full time traffic jamb all summer?
or bigger more modern roads going out around the High School, and up Todd road to Bloomfield....whooo boy would a lot of people hate THAT idea
and yet, Somethings needs to be done? eh? a freeway through town>yuk?
We could look like Walnut Creek in a decade or two.
We better get Good at these compromises and make them try to work for everybody, like cell towers that look like redwood trees.'

Personally, I hate cell towers, and yet, if there must be, let more of them look like trees
at least we can have an imaginative Lego village where Sebastopol used to be!
So how about it land owners, willing to help the"enemy" improve their neighborhood?
How about it doctor's lawyers,and Indian chiefs and rebels and pirates? willing to work WITH these folks
to deepen ALL the SOIL, plant food forests ? get more goats and chickens? keep your organic matter in your soil? grow more worms?
do more work at home and less"Out there?"

YES the links are all fakes just blue paint,to imagine a better world
Use GOOGLE to look up those phrases, oh and while we're at it
let's stop flushing away water and nutrients, look up
composting toilets, and throw vitriol in there while we're at it!

Easy for me to say, I'm only trying to bring an abandoned winery,and lumber mill back to life!
Nico




The County just want their favorite contractors,plumbers and electrical hook up folks to make their big bucks mucho concrete,mucho asphault yum yum.. It's time to stop thinking that way
Build the giant building out of CLAY( that is super abundant in that neighborhood) redwood grove thinnings with a living roof,make it look
like the "Roundbarn" It could be a tourist attraction and benefit the neighborhood like Local Jamm and Jelly makers..

can people learn to work together, are they REALLY going to hire locals,or bring in more illegal foreign help? I have no problem with that, just lets tell the truth,Hiring a giant construction contractor is not "creating jobs"
In case some of you don't get it,Sebastopol is the WORLD CAPITOL of concerned environmentalists,"Transition Sebastopol" Transition Sebastopol | building community resilience just moved here to headquarter Transition towns U. S. A.
Many great minds are concerning themselves with these issues the wildlife around you, and humans,will be facing as weather patterns continue to change,and change they will.. Grapes might make pretty boring food
and even raisins get old when that's all you have to eat.
So lets DRINK UP THE WINE, and come to a good plan together
or go down trying.
Nico

Califoon;
so which side of YOUR Bread is buttered by the good ol' boys here?
Developer money,Real estate? Contractor?
Grower? distributor? merchant?
show your colors,at least she is
and you probably WOULDN't mind the thing in your back yard,as long as you get a cut of the profits right?
Nico ( a real name )

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Califoon:

Paradise, you can't make good wine from sour grapes. You are just blackwashing the whole project in tired quasi-green concerns. Look to the greater good. This is not BP, this is not huge, this is not bad. It just happened to land next to you. Suck it up, stop warping the vibe. You are free to move.
~Cal

---

Wow! Nicofrog! amazing response. Praise God that you are living here in the county to protect us from these nameless, faceless, wine merchants!

I know that you will have your rightful place in heaven. Bless you.:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nicofrog:

Califoon;
so which side of YOUR Bread is buttered by the good ol' boys here?
Developer money,Real estate? Contractor?
Grower? distributor? merchant?
show your colors,at least she is
and you probably WOULDN't mind the thing in your back yard,as long as you get a cut of the profits right?
Nico ( a real name )

---

I own Sonoma Wine Shop which has our wine club open on Hwy 116 south of town.

I believe there is a lot to be said about how this project was approved. If the Board is willing to rezone the parcel into Diverse Ag, then the project must meet the zoning requirements. If an EIR is required, that work must be done before any Board approval.

If the people against this project want to protest the way the project was approved, they will need to talk with a lawyer at this point to see what their options are if the Board made a final approval.

I understand that some people are strongly against this project for a wide range of reasons: the size of the project, the amount of water usage and how this opens the door to more zoning changes, and the need for a full EIR. Environmental issues such as water table usage and mitigation of existing water conditions were raised by experts.

Thank goodness I didn't become a lawyer.

I just don't support any need to question why anyone is for or against this project. The reasons for supporting or opposing are generally clear and we should all respect each others' position. I think both sides are trying to do what they feel is best for the community.

Bryan, welcome to our community! My prior post was laden with sarcasm, but this is not - THRIVE. & when BFW opens...you might notice their enviro slanted project attributes...which enjoyed positive comments by many at the lengthy public hearing...you're very fortunate that Pierre&Rosemarie LaGourge paved the way for your use permit:2cents:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Bryan:

I own Sonoma Wine Shop which has our wine club open on Hwy 116 south of town.

I believe there is a lot to be said about how this project was approved. If the Board is willing to rezone the parcel into Diverse Ag, then the project must meet the zoning requirements. If an EIR is required, that work must be done before any Board approval.

If the people against this project want to protest the way the project was approved, they will need to talk with a lawyer at this point to see what their options are if the Board made a final approval.

I understand that some people are strongly against this project for a wide range of reasons: the size of the project, the amount of water usage and how this opens the door to more zoning changes, and the need for a full EIR. Environmental issues such as water table usage and mitigation of existing water conditions were raised by experts.

Thank goodness I didn't become a lawyer.

I just don't support any need to question why anyone is for or against this project. The reasons for supporting or opposing are generally clear and we should all respect each others' position. I think both sides are trying to do what they feel is best for the community.

---

Your point about the support for agriculture in Sonoma County was certainly one brought up at the 3.5 hour hearing on March 2nd.
Let's understand that Sonoma County has land zoned for agriculture, rural residential, commercial, etc.
Do we need to take Rural Residential land and convert to AG? This was the point Supervisor Kelly found "so amusing", an insult to anyone in a rural residential parcel. Kelly thought it "was amusing" that residents and objectors of this project were fighting to keep the parcels zoning Rural Residential. It is normally Ag land that get converted into Residential parcels for the development of homes. Why do we need to turn RR land into AG? Just like AG land should be protected, so should RR land be.

In this case, the land should remain Rural Residential; it is surrounded by Rural Residential parcels. HWY116 is designated as a buffer protecting this RR area from further encroachment of AG or Commercial development. The Board of Supervisors ignored this and approved the GP Amendment granting the AG designation to 7.61 acres in an area which should be protected RR.

To address the issue of 85 jobs....well, these are temporary jobs. The project only has 20 employee parking spaces perhaps for 20 jobs. And how much of a contribution does this make to the high unemployment rate? Please, let's compare apples to apples....no pun intended.
The only thing you are right on, Tommy, is that the county will be the recipient of higher property taxes and sales taxes.
This at the cost of the environment.... noise pollution, potential water problems (contamination,shortage) increased traffic, neighborhood instability, etc.
By the way, the proponents of the project at the hearing appeared to be in the business...planners, developers, contractors, winery workers, etc. They were there in support of the hand that feeds them.

Anyway you look at this, it just isn't right.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

Excuse me, point of reality here: at the hearing 6-8 weeks ago, about half of the public spoke in favor of the project. Paradise, your comments below do not reflect the local support for the project. As I recall, people who spoke in favor of it at the hearing, thought it was in alignment with the "agricultural" nature of the County, and supported it because it would supply 85 new jobs and generate new funding for the County thru property and sales taxes.

I await your rebuttal to this reality of facts...;-)...

---------------------------------------------.

---

The "Best' Family had every opportunity to ask for the changes in the General Plan during the update review. They did not do this most likely because there were too many people watching and it would not have been able to be framed as a nimby issue.
The people of that neighborhood had every reason to trust that the county would protect them from this football field sized project in a rural residential zone.
Furthermore, this is not going to only effect the folks in this neighborhood. If it had been put under a "higher level of scrutiny" then there would've been an Environmental Impact Report EIR. If the Winery wasn't concerned about this they would not have done everything in their power to block this California Environmental Quality Act procedure.
If there had been an EIR then the issues that were raised by the Water Board about the wetlands would have become a legal issue subject to a lawsuit that government officials would have had to defend.
There are wetlands on the land.
The EIR would've revealed a dangerous traffic situation as well. The traffic, especially during harvest can, if this goes forward, become very dangerous without a proper turning lane, huge trucks, crossing a bike path, not to speak of all the traffic created by events with possibly intoxicated people driving. There are also biking events that go through here. How will they be safeguarded?
We were spared our own disaster here in Sebastopol by fighting to protect our General Plan from being undermined by the Northeast Plan.
Barney Aldridge the main land owner in the Northeast area recently thanked me for my work in stopping this plan. He said, and I quote, 'I have no idea how I would sell over 300 market rate homes now".
It took an election to stop the NE Plan and the people can do this again, when necessary.
Prop 16 and the Insurance proposition were both corporate backed initiatives that the intelligent electorate were able to defeat. People are waking up.
Defending this puts the responsibility of conscience on any one who supports it. Think carefully about what you are supporting here. I pray there will be no tragedy that proves the mistake.
This is not agriculture this is a wine factory. There are 3 acres of propsed vineyards that will be used as a parking lot. The water use is questionalble to say the least. Toilets that use 3 ounces of water to flush?
There are other projects like this popping up along 116 and the accumulative impacts would also have been covered in an EIR where the public's concerns would have had to be addressed one by one in the Final EIR.
You think this is a good project?
Over and over again, General Plans have been amended to allow corporations to make profits that mainly leave the local economy.
We have processing plants already and what we really need is to turn the wine back into water to use for food-based agriculture as we face a real challenge in feeding people as weather changes and crops become less dependable.
Transporting food over long distances will not be feasible in the coming years.
There is no need for more emphasis on wine profiteering. Lets not forget that most of the work in the wine industry is done by our Latino brothers and sisters and no one is going to tell me it is of great benefit for those members of our community who are used by industry and disrespected by law enforcement. Arizona is just the tip of the iceberg.
We, as a community need to focus on food, shelter, health care and the respect and love of each other and all life to move through the challenging transition we are in.
Permaculture not Agro-business will bring us back to a sense of community, communion with all life.
All vineyards could allot at least 25% of their land for food, if they want to be in service to life and not profit.
General Plans are the constitutions of towns and counties and the first thing that Best should've been told was they had their chance during the GP update, not doing it then suggests they wanted to wait until only a few eyes would be on this and they could frame it as just a few disgruntled neighbors.
Although there are larger issues those neighbors have every right to be outraged. Would you want to be living in that situation during the construction and operation of this stadium sized factory?
May we create a culture and end this debacle where governments are mainly protecting profits. Need I state the obvious? If regulations had been enforced we would not be witnessing the biggest disaster ever in the Gulf of Mexico.
What is the truth of a situation? When the truth is based on a loving intiention for all our relations. Yours in truth, Magick

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Yes! Being able to issue a variance to the General Plan is an important part of effective and appropriate government. That is not to say that all variances should be approved, nor similarly that all variances should be denied.

A general plan variance should be reviewed carefully and approved or denied on its merits.

Just because the Best Family Winery required General Plan variances does not mean it is not a good project nor an inappropriate project. It does mean that it is/will be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny to see if a variance is warranted, which is what is happening.

Regarding whether this is an issue for just the neighborhood or the county in general, it sure seems like the vast majority of the people opposed live rather near the project. That speaks for itself.

---

@Nico, you are way off base here. I've just barely got bread much less butter. Certainly I have nothing to do with this project, which I am dead tired of hearing about. For the record, I'm an audio/visual artist doing community work related to sustainable farming and agriculture. I don't get paid for this work at all.

I agree with Bryan who just said if people have legal concerns they should speak with a lawyer. All this SHOUTING and vilifying is fruitless and pointless. No change will occur unless the talk moves into the real political world as action. Trying to express the love and nurturing we want to have in our culture and families into the shpere of business/politics does both a disservice I think. You have to speak the language and use the methods of the venue. It's just as bad as having business/politics take over social networking. The motives are not appropriate to the venue IMHO.

Our economic system is currently Capitalism. Work with it or change it, I don't care, just understand that it has no feelings. You cannot appeal to it's decency and get anywhere at all. You can appeal to OUR decency but you're still not getting anywhere, just filling up my inbox.

When something needs doing, it is not enough to talk to your friends about it. All I'm saying is take an adult approach and get effective. Then maybe post a haiku or something pleasant.
~Cal

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nicofrog:

Califoon;
so which side of YOUR Bread is buttered by the good ol' boys here?
Developer money,Real estate? Contractor?
Grower? distributor? merchant?
show your colors,at least she is
and you probably WOULDN't mind the thing in your back yard,as long as you get a cut of the profits right?
Nico ( a real name )

---

Bryan ....
The parcels (2 of them...joined into one...7.61 acres in total...Not 10 as required) don't meet requirements to be rezoned. That's why a General Plan Amendment was needed. Legislative action was needed to rezone this parcel.
An EIR is required. Some experts feel this project will impact the wetlands on the property; the septic system has a very high potential of failure with such commercial usage; groundwater may be contaminated; traffic will certainly be a problem when 150 people are trying to get in and out of Occidental Road and cross the traffic coming from the opposite direction; noise from the project may exceed the noise levels allowed in the applicant's own reports. (once the applicants open the roll up door at the Atkinson Rd side of the commercial building, the noise levels on applicant's report get thrown out the window.) The reasons you state only add to the others. An EIR is definitely required......But, the Board of Supervisors has approved this project with only a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

We should all be upset at this decision. You can respect the right for others to express their opinion until we all turn blue...it really does not matter.

E-mail the your supervisor and let him know you want an EIR.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Bryan:

I own Sonoma Wine Shop which has our wine club open on Hwy 116 south of town.

I believe there is a lot to be said about how this project was approved. If the Board is willing to rezone the parcel into Diverse Ag, then the project must meet the zoning requirements. If an EIR is required, that work must be done before any Board approval.

If the people against this project want to protest the way the project was approved, they will need to talk with a lawyer at this point to see what their options are if the Board made a final approval.

I understand that some people are strongly against this project for a wide range of reasons: the size of the project, the amount of water usage and how this opens the door to more zoning changes, and the need for a full EIR. Environmental issues such as water table usage and mitigation of existing water conditions were raised by experts.

Thank goodness I didn't become a lawyer.

I just don't support any need to question why anyone is for or against this project. The reasons for supporting or opposing are generally clear and we should all respect each others' position. I think both sides are trying to do what they feel is best for the community.

---

The Board of Supervisors have the duty to invite public participation in their decision- making process. Instead they chose to stifle The People with unreasonable restrictions during the public hearing on June 8th.
It appears that Supervisors Brown, Kelley, Kerns, Zane, and our very own Supervisor Carrillo violated the public hearing process, and surely trampled to death the Brown Act. Not one supervisor, not even our very own Supervisor Carrillo, spoke up to say that it is wrong to place severe restrictions on public comment and public participation. Again I ask: Who speaks for us?

Califoon and others are correct. It is now clear that our voice will only be heard if we pay a lot of money to lawyers to represent The People in a law suit. A legal order is what it will take to get the Best Family Investors LLC to do a an Environmental Impact Review. Why is the county helping a private investment group avoid a proper Environmental Impact Review? An EIR would settle the obvious controversy surrounding this project.

CEQA law states that it is not just the right but the responsibility, the duty, the obligation of every California citizen to protect our environment, to take seriously public participation: not just to complain, not just to criticize after decisions are made, but to participate and assist decision-makers by providing testimony.

Have you been to this site?
Concerned Citizens for Responsible Land Use

...why stop with Graton, didn't the western european nations take over these "north american" continents from the native peoples?

Step back and look at what has happened since explorers first sailed this way only 500 years ago.

We've only had electrification of cities for about 100 years!

We've only been drilling for oil for 100 years (look at how that technology has progressed to be dangerous and polluting to small areas -- maybe less than an acre of land) to potentially a tenth of the planet's water surfaces.

Thank you for reminding me of my alma mater UCDavis...fond memories of fragrant alfalfa fields and deserted quad greens in summertime. How it has changed too these past decades with massive development. Picnic Day may be cancelled/eliminated due to bad behaviors!

Those that do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it...we have a chance to avoid repeating past mistakes.

VacuDry's massive industrial complex looks to me to be a mistake - but it was an attempt by farmers/processors to put processing "downtown" probably closest to reliable electricity. We do not have those constraints today. We can put high electricity amperages where needed.

It is more important to preserve the character and comfort of neighborhoods that people use for living.

It is more important to preserve the natural landscape and water table.

This parcel could be a lovely transition from historic apple orchard to community garden/affordable housing.

The more i think about it, the more i'm offended by taking 1-5 gallons of water to send human waste away in a toilet. Let's use that water like the necessity of life that it is and keep human contaminants out of the water tables.

Let's be smart about permanent development like this!

If considerations for the neighborhood, the people living nearby, the environment, the wildlife are truly heeded, this project is a baaaaad idea.

Maybe, we all should put on a fundraiser to raise money for a lawyer. I'm all about action. I would definitely help out getting something together. We would need a place to have it. Maybe outside on someones beautiful land. I could get together musicians and some volunteers. Like a mini festival. And, I have had some experience in getting together a class action suit before. I was class representative. I had to read and sign off on all the documents. Anyway just a thought.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thomas Morabito:

The Board of Supervisors have the duty to invite public participation in their decision- making process. Instead they chose to stifle The People with unreasonable restrictions during the public hearing on June 8th.
It appears that Supervisors Brown, Kelley, Kerns, Zane, and our very own Supervisor Carrillo violated the public hearing process, and surely trampled to death the Brown Act. Not one supervisor, not even our very own Supervisor Carrillo, spoke up to say that it is wrong to place severe restrictions on public comment and public participation. Again I ask: Who speaks for us?

Califoon and others are correct. It is now clear that our voice will only be heard if we pay a lot of money to lawyers to represent The People in a law suit. A legal order is what it will take to get the Best Family Investors LLC to do a an Environmental Impact Review. Why is the county helping a private investment group avoid a proper Environmental Impact Review? An EIR would settle the obvious controversy surrounding this project.

CEQA law states that it is not just the right but the responsibility, the duty, the obligation of every California citizen to protect our environment, to take seriously public participation: not just to complain, not just to criticize after decisions are made, but to participate and assist decision-makers by providing testimony.

Have you been to this site?
Concerned Citizens for Responsible Land Use

---

One last point, Tommy, regarding your comments about the AG designation...

This is really a commercial project. Of the 7.61 acres in total, 3 will be planted with ORNAMENTAL grapes, as per the planner. The rest of the land will be occupied by the 33,000 sq ft crush building, 5,000 sq ft wine tasting building, road, crush pad, primary leachfield, secondary leachfield, etc.
This is not farming! This is a commercial project.
This apple orchard, farmland, is being converted into AG for the purpose of building a commercial wine production factory, host 17 yearly events with food, music, etc, and do retail sales.

Still think it makes sense?

The Best Family Winery has been granted final approval. I'm glad to see that the winery has come to agreement with the neighbors in order to further mitigate the effects of the project.

I think this well designed project will be both an economic and visual upgrade to the area!

Barry

https://img194.imageshack.us/img194/...1206081330.png
Disputed Graton winery wins county approval
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20121024/articles/121029782?p=all&tc=pgall&tc=ar
By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 at 5:52 p.m.

A disputed Graton-area winery development has for the second time earned final approval from Sonoma County supervisors, marking the end of a two-year legal battle.

The decision this week follows a deal reached with neighbors and others who had fought to stop the Best Family Winery, proposed on eight acres near the intersection of Highway 116 and Occidental Road.

The opponents agreed to end their lawsuit against the project and the county as part of a settlement that ensured many of the changes they had sought. Both sides have since hailed the agreement as a rare compromise in the often protracted legal fights around winery development in the county.

Tuesday’s vote by the Board of Supervisors formalized many of those changes, including limits on wine production, operating hours and events. It also incorporated revisions sought by state regulators, including relocation of a production building to protect a wetland.

The unanimous decision gave the Best family a hard-won go-ahead to build their project, first proposed in 2009 and approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2010.

In addition to the production building, it calls for a small vineyard and tasting room on what is now an apple orchard, one of the few remaining on a highway named for the once-prevalent local crop, the Gravenstein.

Through their attorney, the family declined to comment on the project’s approval.

But the attorney, Clay Clement of Santa Rosa, said they were “pleased to have the controversy behind them” and were “looking forward to building the winery.”

He said he expected construction to start next year.

The original plans drew heavy fire from neighbors and other opponents who said the project was incompatible with the rural area.

They took aim especially at the board’s vote to grant an amendment to the county’s General Plan for the winery. That issue alone dogged west county Supervisor Efren Carrillo throughout his first term and in his recent race for re-election. He voted in favor of the amendment along with three other board members present in a March 2010 meeting, three months before the winery’s first unanimous approval. Carrillo has continued to defend the original project as appropriate for the location.

Winery opponents have battled against that contention and the claim they were forced into an unnecessary lawsuit. It resulted in changes that should have been required at the outset, they said.

“This was not a frivolous lawsuit,” said Thomas Morabito, a neighbor on Atkinson Road and a member of Concerned Citizens for Responsible Land Use, the group behind the court challenge. “This lawsuit resulted in not only good changes for the neighborhood but also for the community at large.”

The revisions incorporated in Tuesday’s final approval include:

• Until the end of 2027, a cap on annual production of 26,500 cases and 16 special events per year. After 2027, the owners can apply for higher limits.

• A 4 p.m. closing time for the tasting room, instead of 5 p.m.

• A prohibition on Sunday operations at the production facility, except during crush.

• Relocation of the production building to protect a wetland and limit scenic impacts. The building roofline is to be lowered, from 42 feet to 35 feet.

(You can reach Staff Writer Brett Wilkison at 521-5295 or [email protected].)