Efren the Junior and the wine factory

[Larysa]

Greetings!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Larysa

[2Bwacco]

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

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

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

[hartsook]

Greetings!

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

I would like to know how some of you seem to know what the will of the people is????? I know of some long time residents [born here] that support this wine factory in the "hood". Not all Sebastopol residents were carrying signs at that corner! I have lived here too short a time to have an opinion whether this is a good, or "bad" project, but I will not assume that any of you know the will of the people. Grow up!
Fred

[2Bwacco]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That simply isn't right.

[Larysa]

Greetings!

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

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

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

Sincerely, Larysa

[Barry]

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

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

Here's an aerial shot of the "neighborhood" with distances to nearby houses:

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

Regarding the water concerns, an engineering firms prepared a "third party review of the water use and potential impacts to groundwater" of the proposed project. Thanks to the "advanced water conservation and reuse design, the proposed winery will require the same or less groundwater than a theoretical two-home residential development for which the property is already zoned".

[Magick]

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

[Bryan]

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

[2Bwacco]

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

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

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

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

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

[paradise]

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

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

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

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

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

Here's an aerial shot of the "neighborhood" with distances to nearby houses:

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

Regarding the water concerns, an engineering firms prepared a "third party review of the water use and potential impacts to groundwater" of the proposed project. Thanks to the "advanced water conservation and reuse design, the proposed winery will require the same or less groundwater than a theoretical two-home residential development for which the property is already zoned".

[Eileen M.]

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

This happened in my neighborhood, whose neighborhood is next?

[tommy]

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

Wake up! Smell the grapes!

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

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

This happened in my neighborhood, whose neighborhood is next?

[paradise]

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

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

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

Wake up! Smell the grapes!

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

[Veeja]

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

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

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

[Barry]

Greetings!

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

I am not appalled, however I am offended by your reference to "Efren the Junior".

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

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

Ouch! Not exactly an un-biased assessment.

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

Taking positive action is good!

It is possible that these county supervisors (aristocracy) meant well by their decision and are dumb-founded that the villagers (peasants) are up in arms. Sound familiar?

Well it is sure sounds like you are looking at the situation from a particular point of view.

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

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

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

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

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

Larysa

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

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

I suggest you read them before forming an opinion.

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

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

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

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


I also want to call attention to this:

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

and Thomas' response here on WaccoBB:

I Do Not Apologize

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

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

[n4rky]

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

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

[Larysa]

Greetings!

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

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

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

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

1) Cradle to Cradle by McDonough and Braungart

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

Let me know what you think! Take good care.

Larysa

[n4rky]

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

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

[n4rky]

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

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

[n4rky]

I am not appalled, however I am offended by your reference to "Efren the Junior".

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

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

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

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

[n4rky]

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

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

[n4rky]

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

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

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

[paradise]

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

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

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

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

[2Bwacco]

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

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

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

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

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

[Barry]

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

So let's be real, shall we?

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

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

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

I think this is an appropriate use for this parcel.

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

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

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

[Larysa]

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

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

Larysa

[paradise]

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

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

So let's be real, shall we?

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

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

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

I think this is an appropriate use for this parcel.

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

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

[n4rky]

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

...

I think this is an appropriate use for this parcel.

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[joybird]

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

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

So let's be real, shall we?

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

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

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

I think this is an appropriate use for this parcel.

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

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

[paradise]

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

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