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

[Califoon]

@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

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 )

[paradise]

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.

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.

[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

[2Bwacco]

...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.

[Veeja]

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.

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

[paradise]

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?

[Barry]

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


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].)