PD: County supervisors rezone land for Graton winery project

[wildflower]

Here is the address on the web for the folks who are facing the proposed wine processing plant in their neighborhood...
https://c4rlu.wordpress.com/
It's a really well done site.
It contains pertinent information for ALL Sonoma County citizens and
especially us locals!
It also has a link to a petition on the proposed wine processing
facility on 116 and Occidental Rd.
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/c4rlu/
There is a hearing on March 2, time and location TBD
Remember...this a a proposal for a commercial wine processing facility,
not an organic vineyard with butterflies like some (those who seek to profit) would like you to believe.
THANKS!
wildflower

[Ted Pole]

Who are the Best Family? Are they a family named Best? Are they the best family? Compared to who? They sure do think highly of themselves. And why would they call themselves the Best Family Investors? And if they're the "best" why do they feel the need to limit their liability?

Already I don't trust them.

Plus, maybe it's just me, but isn't there enough wine around here as it is? How bout a bowling alley or something for a change?
:elephant:

[2Bwacco]

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

...Who are the Best Family? ... Plus, maybe it's just me, but isn't there enough wine around here as it is? How bout a bowling alley or something for a change?...

[Eileen M.]

Do you know about the proposed winery project for the corner of Hwy 116 and Occidential Road? The Best Family Investors LLC want to put up 2 huge buildings: a 5,000 sq. ft. tasting room and a 33,000 sq. ft wine bottling production building. In order to do this they need 2 amendments to the Genreal Plan, Re zoning, special use permit, and much more. Please visit our blogg to learn more. You would never believe that something like this could happen in West County just North of Sebastopol, Concerned Citizens for Responsible Land Use
Please e-mail our Board of Supervisors.

The Board of Supervisors will hold a Public Hearing and vote this Tuesday March 2nd at 2 pm.
575 Administration Drive
Santa Rosa
Please come! Be Heard!
Thank you.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I am opposed to this rezoning, amending our General Plan.

Apart from the environmental concerns (we should stop putting more and more straws into that aquifer: it's already in danger of being overused and overuse will lead to permanent damage to the aquifer's capacity to soak up rainwater) I think that a rezoning should only happen when there is a clear and important public interest.

This proposal is not a public interest, but a limited private interest. Beyond that, a rezoning will hurt other private interest, the interests of the people who bought property in that area assuming the present zoning restrictions.

Zoning should only be changed if there is an overriding and clear public interest.

[Zio]

Don't it always see to go
That we don't know what we've got till it's gone
They're gonna pave the apple orchard
And put up a factory

Don't be fooled, this is not a family farm. This is a 33,000 sq ft. factory.
This behemoth will dominate the scenic corridor North of Sebastopol for generations to comes.

[Barry]

County supervisors rezone land for Graton winery project | Top | PressDemocrat.com

County supervisors rezone land for Graton winery project

By BLEYS W. ROSE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2Bwacco]

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

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

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

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

[tommy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2Bwacco]

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

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

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

[dingo]

Best Family Winery v.s. Valuable Farm Land

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

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

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

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

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

******

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

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

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

[2Bwacco]

So glad a pro-active voice has spoken!

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

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

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

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

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

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

The activity may diminish your property values.

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

[Zio]

Something Wrong

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

There is a fundamental flaw in the system when:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2Bwacco]

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

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

[Barry]

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

The video is located here: Sonoma County, CA

But I couldn't get it to play.

[rileysaunders]

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

[Gratongirl]

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

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

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

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

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

[Barry]

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

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

Barry


Sonoma West > Sonoma West Times & News > News
Sonoma West Times & News > News

County Supes allow Best Winery to move forward

The Best property on Highway 116 between Occidental
and Atkinson roads will soon be the sight of a 33,000
square-foot winery with a 6,800 square-foot tasting room.
- Photo by David Abbott

Opponents frustrated at board approval

by George Snyder
Sonoma West Staff Writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2010 - Sonoma West

[Thomas Morabito]

I Do Not Apologize

Re: Best Family Investors Winery LLC proposed bottling plant:

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

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

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

Thomas Morabito

[bakerchic]

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

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

[2Bwacco]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gatorgal]

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

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

[tommy]

It's the economy, stupid!

This is the United States of Capital.

This is California, where development can never stop!

True Nature lies somewhere else.

The video is located here: Sonoma County, CA

But I couldn't get it to play.

[Thomas Morabito]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Magick]

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

[2Bwacco]

Open Letter to Opposing Neighbors:

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

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

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

[Califoon]

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

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

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

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

[Califoon]

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

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

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

[2Bwacco]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Califoon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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