Minutes for July 20, 2017

Call to Order
Acting chairperson Ruth Wilson called to order the regular meeting of the Dry Creek Valley Citizens Advisory Council at 6:00 pm.

Present Councilmembers: Ruth Wilson, Bill Smith, Vicky Farrow, Mike Tierney. Jenny Gomez was absent.

There were corrections received from Jennifer Barrett from the County of the Sonoma on the already approved minutes of 3‐16‐17. Secretary Sharon Pillsbury had made those corrections and was seeking approval of the Corrected Minutes. Also, Councilmember Vicky Farrow and Council Chair Ruth Wilson had several corrections to the minutes from 4‐20‐17.

On a motion by Councilmember Bill Smith, seconded by Councilmember Mike Tierney, the minutes of the regular Dry Creek Valley Citizens Advisory Council meeting from April 20, 2017, were approved with corrections.  The motion carried on a voice vote. (4‐0).

On a motion by Councilmember Vicky Farrow, seconded by Councilmember Mike Tierney, the minutes of the regular Dry Creek Valley Citizens Advisory Council meeting from March 16, 2017, with additional corrections from Jennifer Barrett, were approved as corrected. The motion carried on a voice vote. (4‐0).

Public Comments on Non‐Agenda Items

Richard Kagel—President of the Dry Creek Valley Association commented on procedure. He asked that after the motion and 2nd there be a time for comments from the public before the vote. He also acknowledged that the council has a job that is often thankless, and thanked them for the time and energy they put in and their efforts.

Email from Jennifer Barrett with additional corrections to the 3‐16‐17 Minutes as discussed above. Emails from Charlee Schanzer and Eric Dicke regarding UPE17‐0028 Dry Creek Store.

Councilmember Farrow spoke with Chuck Conner the Project Manager and a neighbor regarding the Dry Creek Store.

Councilmember Tierney stated that he had spoken with Captain Palacio from the CHP regarding traffic on Dry Creek Road near the Dry Creek Store.

Councilmember Wilson also spoke with Mr. Conner regarding the Dry Creek Store referral. She also spoke with Dean Parsons and Hannah Spencer regarding the Nordahl Brue referral at 2642 Westside Road.

There were no further announcements or disclosures.

File Number: UPE17‐0028
Applicant Name: Dry Creek General Store c/o Gina Gallo
Owner Name: Mary Gallo E TR ET AL
Site Address: 3485 & 3495 Dry Creek Road, Healdsburg
APN: 090‐160‐029

Project Description: Request for a Use Permit for a small alcoholic beverage establishment at an existing legal, non‐conforming general store on .38 acre parcel.

Demae Rubins, Project Manager at Summit Engineering, gave the presentation on behalf of the Dry Creek Store. She said they are aware and sympathetic to the concerns that have been expressed. She explained that the county was going to waive the public hearing for this permit, but they chose not to waive it to give them the opportunity to address the community.  A delay in presenting corrections for their ABC license triggered a little‐known law that required the store to obtain a Use Permit. When they found they were required to get a Use Permit, there were two conditions they did not meet:  Staff Training on Alcohol Sales, and the display of their Use Permit on the premises.

They also wanted to present on some other issues. She explained that they have addressed parking concerns in a pending Design Review Application that was filed with the county on 6‐30‐2017. She also clarified that she understood the council had not yet received this document from the county, so they would be unable to vote on the information in this application. They are seeking to better define their driveway area, make the driveway run one‐way to the north, plus increase the area for parking on the east side of Dry Creek Road nearest the store and add a bike lane.  They will also be adding additional ADA restrooms.

There are currently restrooms inside the store.

Councilmember Vicky Farrow asked for clarification on the site map from the Design Review package. Demae explained that the dark areas indicate the neighbor’s driveway to the south of the store.

Councilmember Bill Smith asked about parking violations. He referenced a No Parking sign at their driveway. Is it illegal to park on Dry Creek Road? He also asked about problems with turning from Lambert Bridge Road onto Dry Creek Road. The response from the applicants indicated that enforcement for parking on Dry Creek Road is left up to the Sherriff’s department and California Highway Patrol. She clarified that they are proposing to cover drainage to widen the road and add a bike lane—these improvements will be along the east side of the road.  Bill also asked about employee parking and suggested shuttling from Gallo or sharing parking with Teldeschi Winery. Ms. Rubins said they are continued to look for solutions to provide additional parking for employees. Bill asked how many spaces would be added.  Chuck Connors stated they are not adding parking, but seeking to better define it.

There will be 22 spaces total, including 2 ADA spaces on‐site.

Councilmember Ruth Wilson asked how many employee cars are generally in the area. Chuck responded that he drives by every morning and believes there are usually 6 to 8 employee cars. He feels confident that they will find a solution to park those cars off‐site. She asked about alternatives for more customer parking. He stated they look forward to addressing all concerns, but they were trying to address immediate issues for their Design Review Application and get some positive action going. They will continue to look for additional parking solutions.

John Morso asked if parking was prohibited. Chuck Conner clarified that it is not prohibited. He thinks they may be able to improve by adding gravel and making it a soft shoulder on the property on the west side of Dry Creek Road. Mr. Morso proposed that leaving one or two spots nearest the stop sign would allow trucks with trailers to safely make the turn from Lambert Bridge Road to Dry Creek Road.   Mr. Morso also mentioned that he had an employee who very much looking forward to the reopening of the bar at the Dry Creek Store. Mr. Morso likes that the bar closes early. He appealed to the Council on the basis of the historical and cultural aspects of the Dry Creek Store that the Use Permit be approved.

Richard Kagle—from DCVA—asked if the permit was in place for the sale of alcohol. He asked if the Use Permit is for the Bar. Demae Rubins clarified that the county has an old regulation that requires a use permit (specifically around operation—intended for mini‐marts, etc.). She emphasized they have a legal non‐conforming use. The Liquor License is with the state and that is in full compliance. Suspension of the license went past the 45 days (49 days) and that triggered the county ordinance.  If you lose your liquor license for more than 45 days you must apply for a Use Permit. Richard stated that from the DCVA perspective, they are looking for “good neighbors” which is hard to define, and also for safety. He was encouraged by the improvements he has seen on the east side of the road. He asked about Dry Creek Vineyards and asked if there was room to make similar improvements on the west side of the road.

Chuck Conner says they have spoken with the folks at Dry Creek Vineyard and may be able to do some of that in the future. Richard asked about the Gallo hospitality center on Dry Creek Road (near Unti) and if foods are being prepared there for use at the store. He asked  how they ended up in this position—how did the delay happen with the ABC license? Chuck responded that he came in on the project at day 54—violation was with ABC. Investigators came out in summer of 2016. They determined that January 2017 of this year the license would be suspended. The store turned in their paperwork on January 5th. Store management had not been clear on who the information needed to go to, so a wrong number and a lengthy amount of time before they received a call back, led them to get their documents in on day 49. Richard mentioned the value of maintaining the bait shop. He stated that rural character is also a key concern of the DCVA. He thinks the bait shop would be missed. Chuck emphasized they do not want to change the outside look of the building. Richard expressed concern about crossing the road to reach the proposed stairs and about adding a crosswalk.

He is concerned drivers will not slow down enough by the time they reach the area of the staircase. He also asked about the parking issues with Teldeschi. Chuck assured that they spent a couple of evenings talking about the issues. He explained they are somewhat limited in what they can do there. They are working to keep the driveway to the winery clear. This was how they came up with the idea of having an attendant for busy times. Events can be an issue.  Richard asked about BBQs.  Demae addressed this—it is currently not limited because of the legal non‐conforming use status of the store. They have talked with the county of the event and there is no plan to limit them. They like that it can be a gathering place for neighbors and also for the financial viability of the store. They like doing the BBQs because it provides a cultural gathering place.  Richard expressed that because there is no limit, there is a limit—either an accident or it being a nuisance to neighbors may limit them.  DCVA has fears for the future. He wondered if they have plans to control the BBQs for the future.  He is a fan of the cultural aspects but does not like getting phone calls or complaints.

Charlee Schanzer, neighbor from 8690 West Dry Creek Road, asked that DCVCAC Secretary, Sharon Pillsbury, read the email from Eric Dicke.

Secretary Sharon Pillsbury read the email from Eric Dicke. Here is a summary of the email: Eric Dicke, neighbor at 4197 West Dry Creek Road and Dry Creek Valley resident since 1961, wrote in an email that he agreed with Charlee’s comments. He went on to say that he had approached the store asking them to mitigate parking at intersection of Lambert Bridge Road and Dry Creek. He is unable to make the turn at times from Lambert Bridge onto Dry Creek with his truck and trailer. The store owners don’t seem to care about the inconvenience it is causing local residents. He said according to his old photos, the county easement goes up to the edge of the store. He believes that if the county continues to allow the county easement to be used for parking purposes, they should allow all wineries and commercial applications to do the same. Tourist events and BBQs at the store have increased the volume of parking compared to what it was in the past.

Charlee Schanzer, neighbor from 8690 West Dry Creek Road believes that the current problems are caused by the lack of on‐site parking. All of the employees and most of the customers park on Dry Creek Road. She believes this creates a highly dangerous traffic and safety situation for which there is no mitigation. Drivers must open car doors over the white line and into oncoming traffic.  The speed limit is 50 mph. The applicant claims exemption from CEQA because it is a class one existing facility.  Minor alterations are allowed with little or no negligible change of use beyond what exists.  In a newspaper article she quoted Jim Gallo who said they are making changes to the driveway, parking, and restrooms.  She believes this requires CEQA. She stated that the exemption to which they refer covers minor changes to the building. She believes conversion of house, remodel of bar, and parking changes are not minor.  While the parking issues may not trigger CEQA, she believes traffic and safety make this an environmental issue. She is fine with them getting the liquor license, but thinks the Use Permit should require on‐site parking. She no one else has ever been allowed to use Dry Creek Road for their guest parking. The only example she could think of was Wilson Winery.

Councilmember Mike Tierney questioned what could possibly be an environmental issue. He that he had spoken with Captain Palacio with the California Highway Patrol regarding traffic and safety issues. The CHP did not have issues with that location. He was assured that in the past 11 years they had 6 incidents. The incidents occurring at the location were related to property damage, not traffic accidents.  Captain Palacio further stated that site lines were not a problem, and the traffic was mitigated by the stop sign at this location. Charlee said that under CEQA traffic and safety needed to be evaluated. Mitigation for the west side of Dry Creek Road had not been adequately addressed.  She also commented that they were called in on a violation for doing the BBQs—they cannot be a restaurant. Demae clarified that they had spoken with the county and Thursday BBQs would be allowed.  That violation was repealed.

Brady Phenicie, neighbor at 3475 Dry Creek Road, recommended that council speak with Officer Slope. He emails them at least once a week and deals with the parking issues everyday. He has no site lines when trying to exit his driveway because of the on‐road parking. He wants to be able to enjoy his property. It seems that the owners of the store do not care.  He was concerned that they made plans without consulting him and his wife.

Kim Phenicie, neighbor at 3475 Dry Creek Road, commented that there had been some very good ideas mentioned tonight. She believes they have 6‐10 employees. Would approval of the Use Permit trigger action on some of these mitigation projects. She would like to see some of the safety concerns mitigated immediately and not wait for the Use Permit to be approved. She thinks getting employee cars off of the road would go a long way to mitigate the problems.

Jennifer Barrett, County of Sonoma PRMD, clarified that the discussion and vote tonight is only on the Use Permit. There were some questions from the council on what the county would consider on approval of the Use Permit. Jennifer clarified that they would look at the entire project including parking, and traffic and safety issues. She explained they had other ways to review the project without doing a CEQA study.

Demae Rubins commented that they have tried to respond in‐line to each issue.

Discussion
Councilmember Mike Tierney commented that it was confusing. He expressed appreciation for everyone’s comments.

Councilmember Vicky Farrow said that she liked that everyone was talking. She lives close to the store and it does not cause issues. She likes that it is a cultural gathering place and even the BBQs, those they are a little busy. The struggle she has is the many changes in the valley. It is busier—more cars, bicycles, houses, wineries, etc.  She would really like to see the parking addressed. She would like continued work on long‐term solutions and some work on short‐term solutions. She believes they are amenable to finding these solutions. She would like to see them back in business and the parking issues resolved. It sounds like that is going to happen.

Councilmember Bill Smith also likes the store and the cultural status. He would like to see the council approve with conditions. His conditions would be: 1) No onsite employee parking 2) Attendant at peak times 3) County approval of improvements on store side  4) No Parking Zone enforcement—currently sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t 5) No Parking nearest intersection  6)  Additional parking arrangements, and 7)  Safe access

Councilmember Ruth Wilson shared that her concerns had been covered by the other council members.  She agrees the store is a cultural icon and that parking is an issue.

Councilmember Vicky Farrow expressed concern that even if all these conditions were met, the problems may not be solved. She is wary of telling a business how to conduct their business.

Jennifer Barrett clarified that making parking enforceable would require an ordinance. It is usually conditioned on having the applicant apply for the ordinance, then have the applicant pay for signage.  They cannot require any of this from an applicant.

Councilmember Ruth Wilson asked for Jennifer’s input on correcting the parking problems. Jennifer agreed the applicant has made great strides and their proposed improvements would be effective.

Councilmember Vicky Farrow asked that the council add a condition that no neighbors’ driveways be blocked.

Statement of motion:
On a motion from Councilmember Bill Smith and a second from Councilmember Mike Tierney, the Dry Creek Citizens Advisory Council moved to recommend to approve UPE17‐0028 for the Dry Creek General Store at 3485 and 3495 Dry Creek Road, Healdsburg, with conditions.  Conditions are as follows:

• Access and Parking issues must be addressed—specifically that PRMD and the Department of Public Works are consulted prior to county approval
• No onsite employee parking
• Parking attendant provided during peak times
• County approval of any improvements on store side of Dry Creek Road
• Enforcement of No Parking zones
  • No Parking on west side of Dry Creek Road to allow for safe turns from Lambert Bridge Road
• Acquisition of additional off‐site parking
• Neighbors’ driveway access must not be blocked

Councilmember Bill Smith: aye
Councilmember Ruth Wilson: aye
Councilmember Vicky Farrow: aye
Councilmember Mike Tierney: aye

Site Address: 2642 Westside Road
APN: 110‐13‐024
Project Description: Zone change to remove Z Overlay on subject property

Cort Munselle of Munselle Engineering made the presentations for this referral for the Bruhe’s. He explained that there is currently one residence and outlined the property site with a visual presentation. The zoning is currently LIA—20 acre minimum. It has a Z overlay that restricts a 2nd unit. He said they had been dealing with planner Hannah Spencer at the county who assured them that there is a policy at the county to allow removal of the Z overlay. It is allowed based on HE3C. Findings: typically in the Z overlays are in areas where there is limited groundwater (not applicable to this referral); groundwater contamination risk—this referrals has passed septic; burden on traffic—Cort explained that with the Z overlay they are limited to a Guest House of only 640 sq. ft. and a kitchen would not be allowed and without the Z overlay they would be allowed a 1,000 sq. ft. secondary unit with a kitchen—so there would be no overall impact to traffic.

Public Comments

Nord Bruhe, the applicant, introduced himself and his wife. They are the last folks in the Dry Creek Valley before the Russian River Valley designation begins. He said there is the possibility that the 2nd house would be used as a rental unit, but they have not yet decided. They are currently living in the existing house that was built to suit needs in the 50s. He believes their barns are in better shape than the house. The property is not large enough to qualify for the Williamson Act.  They have spoken with neighbors.

Bernie and Steve Zornak, neighbors at 2580 Westside Road, introduced themselves. Bernie asked about the location of the new house, then agreed they are fine with the proposal.

Discussion
Councilmember Ruth Wilson asked the purpose of the Z overlay. Jennifer Barrett clarified it was originally intended for farm worker housing, but lots are often not large enough to be viable farming operations. For parcels in the areas with less than 10 acres, the county does allow removal of the Z overlay, if there are not additional units.

Councilmember Bill Smith mentioned a county staff draft review that had been emailed to council.

On a motion from Councilmember Bill Smith and a second from Councilmember Vicky Farrow, the Dry Creek Citizens Advisory Council moved to recommend to approve removal of the Z overlay for ZCE17‐0007 for Nordahl Bruhe at 2642 Westside Road, Healdsburg.

The motion carried on a roll call vote (4‐0).

Councilmember Bill Smith: aye
Councilmember Ruth Wilson: aye
Councilmember Vicky Farrow: aye
Councilmember Mike Tierney: aye

Discussion Items
Council Chair Ruth Wilson spoke with representatives of the Winegrowers of Dry Creek Valley and the DCVA on getting their numbers for the Guidelines document.  They agreed it would be best to wait until August, so it will be added to next month’s agenda.

Frank Darien of Bertolone Brokerageintroduced himself and explained that he is representing the property for sale at the Ahman Ranch, 3319 Dry Creek Road. He asked to be added to DCVCAC communications. He explained that the family is now selling the property.  The council provided him with the Guidelines that they will be using for approval of future projects.  He spoke with Vicky and went over some of the Guidelines. 

He specifically addressed Section 4 which deals with Access and Traffic. He believes they have infrastructure in place that meets the recommendations in the Guidelines. He explained that there are 2 acres that would be set aside for adding botanicals (the wish of the buyer), grape processing, and a tasting room. He went over the Guidelines and believes they will meet many of them. He addressed the neighboring Gallo Rental Unit, a neighboring private residence, and some farmworker housing that is on the fringes of the property. He commented on production and admitted there were some variables in some areas. If 70‐80 tons of grapes were harvested, that could produce 5,000 cases of wines, which would be quite the catalog. He asked about concentration.  He mentioned recent newspaper articles about 10 wineries within a mile and a half. He mentioned state highway guidelines that are used by the county, and the 50 mph speed limit. Those guidelines recommend 350 ft. site lines for stopping and 800 ft. site lines for passing. He said the property has 1,000 ft. site lines. He explained he has notes from his meeting with Vicky and asked about local wineries that have done the best job of fitting the guidelines.

Councilmember Ruth Wilson addressed the issue clarifying that the council adapted these Guidelines in April, so they have not yet been put to the test.

Councilmember Vicky Farrow congratulated him on doing more, currently, than anyone else.

Update presentations from the Winegrowers of Dry Creek Valley and the DCVA for input on numbers for the Guidelines document.

There being no other Council business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:03 pm, on a motion by Councilmember Mike Tierney, seconded by Councilmember Bill Smith. The motion carried on a voice vote. (4‐0).

Ruth Wilson, Chair: