Approved Minutes for September 19, 2019
- Call
to Order
Chairperson Jenny Gomez called to order the regular meeting of the Dry Creek Valley Citizens Advisory Council at 6:00 pm. - Introduction
of Councilmembers and Roll Call
Present Councilmembers: Jenny Gomez, Bill Smith, Vicky Farrow, Ruth Wilson and Bengt Akerlind. - Approval of Minutes
- On a motion by Councilmember Bill Smith, seconded by Councilmember Ruth Wilson, the May 18, 2019, Dry Creek Valley Citizens Advisory Council meeting Minutes were approved. The motion carried on a voice vote, (5‐0).
- Public Comments on Non‐Agenda Items ‐ None
- Correspondence ‐ None
- Councilmember
Announcements and Disclosures:
Councilmember Bill Smith indicated that both he and Ruth had met with ZO Winery owner David Eckert and Munselle Engineering Consultant, Gillian Hayes, on the Winery site. Council Chair Jenny Gomez also reported visiting with Gillian on the site. Councilmember Vicky Farrow reported meeting with applicants last week on the site, and going over proposed plans. - Referrals
from Sonoma County PRMD:
File Number: UPE18‐0032
Applicant Name: David Eckert/ZO Wines
Owner Name: David Eckert/ZO Wines
Site Address: 3232 and 3280 Dry Creek Road, Healdsburg
APN: 090‐150‐056 & 090‐150‐060
Project Description: Request for a Use Permit to modify and existing winery use permit, File NO. UPE98‐ 0087, by increasing annual production capacity from 600 cases to 5,000 cases, expanding the wine processing facility building, increasing the number of employees from one to 8 full‐time employees and 2 seasonal employees, constructing a tasting room and allowing public wine tasting with food and wine pairings, and retail pre‐packaged food sales seven days a week, during the hours of 10AM to 6PM, and hosting 34 agricultural promotional events per year with outdoor amplified music and sound. Agricultural promotional events will end by 10:00pm and include: 8 events for direct sales activities involving 100 people per event; 4 event days for industry‐wide events involving 200 people per event; and 2 agricultural promotional cultural events per year involving 100 people per event. Parking for event attendees will be located on the project site – APN 090‐150‐056 while parking for event employees will be located on adjacent parcel – APN 090‐150‐060, a property owned by ZO Wines LLC.
ZO Wines LLCis also in the process of completing Lot Line Adjustment File No. LLA18‐0047 for the purpose of expanding the project site to include the adjacent 13‐acre vineyard and area for the proposed winery/tasting room septic system. Recordation of LLA18‐0047 will result in expanding the project site from 1.35 acres to 15.26 acres in size.
Councilmember Vicky Farrow recused herself from the discussion and vote on the ZO Wines referral, as she and her family winery are neighbors.
The Presentation for ZO Wines was handled by Gillian Hayes of Munselle Engineering. She addressed the Lot Lind Adjustment (LLA) that is still in progress: Since David Eckert purchased the property, they have merged the property from three lots to two, and are keeping the house and winery lots separate. They have over 11 acres planted onsite. They are using the existing project (Use Permit) and plan to build up the winery and add square footage, and to build a small 1,400 sq. ft. tasting room. They are proposing tasting room hours of 10:30 am to 5:00 pm daily (which has changed from the original proposal to the County). They would like to offer small intimate tastings. They propose a maximum of 30 tasters per day.
Another addition to the application would be their agreement with the Guidelines to source 80% of their grapes from Sonoma County and most of the grapes from their own estate. They are willing to add the 75% Sonoma County Grapes requirement in their amended application.
She explained that this project started a year and a half ago. They had wanted to ask for the maximum number of events. The Guidelines have helped them to make adjustments, including paring down their request for events, including a change to no weddings, and no amplified music. They have also cut the total number of events requested.
They are agreeing to provide parking attendants at any large events to prevent over-crowding. They heard concerns from some of the neighbors regarding the Tasting Room and are willing to work with them to mitigate any effects. Currently they have a Farm Stay permit allowing 3‐ day visits. The Tasting Room would be separate. The architecture is planned to blend in with landscaping and existing structures. They do not want to expand into the vineyards. Looking at the site, the new structure should not stand out too much, due to the design.
Addressing Activities and Events, Gillian stated that the Guidelines allow 15 per year. There are 4 they are interested in, for a total of 10 days. They anticipate 200 people may flow in and out for each day of the events. Currently this is allowed in their permit. Regarding Ag Promotional events, they have pared Club Pick‐Up Parties from 100 people, down to 75 people. Only two of the events per year would be outside of regular business hours. They have deleted the request for 2 weddings per year.
David added that the distinction between business activities versus events was a new concept to him. He explained that the first two Event categories are for business purposes, allowing industry people and marketing that can happen outside of business hours. For Events—there would be up to 12 per year with two possible outside of business hours. They propose 6 Ag Events, all within business hours; Industry‐Wide Events would also be within business hours. - Questions
from Council
Councilmember Bengt Akerlind asked about neighbors present. He expressed his confusion about events and the different categories and hours. Gillian reviewed events:
Direct Sales and Trade Marketing—for industry partners. David further explained these are for Direct Sales and there would be no more than 2 per month and 12 per year. A customer or industry person, or buyer of wine, or club member, could come when the Tasting Room is closed. Again the maximum would be 30 people. His Business Model is for 6, 8 or 10 people for tasting. These would be private events, with no music. Gillian continued her explanation:
Trade Marketing Events—are similar, but to a different person, for example a distributor, buyer, sommelier, etc. These would usually happen during the business day, but could also be allowed after hours. She emphasized that David has never had a meeting of this type with more than 3 or 4 people. They used 30 as their number because that is their current capacity. She emphasized there would be no music. Gillian reminded everyone that they need to allow for future growth in their requested numbers, and that they are trying to look at 10 to 20 years down the road.
Association Sponsored Events—they are already participating and will continue to do that. They share traffic flow with a neighboring winery for these events. The parking flow should not disturb neighbors. This arrangement is mostly for the Passport and Barrel Tasting events.
Ag Promotional Events—they are requesting 8 per year (2 could be outside of business hours). These would be events that do not fall into the previous categories, or events just for his business or club members, etc. There would be 2 per quarter max. They propose that any outdoor music for events would stop at 10:00 pm. She mentioned that they found using the Guidelines to be very helpful, and understood that they were the first Winery to apply for a permit since the final version of the Guidelines were adopted.
Council Chair Jenny Gomez explained the evolution of the Guidelines document. They were developed to help both our Council and applicants with the process. She found it to be very interesting to work with the applicants using the Guidelines.
Councilmember Vicky Farrow mentioned from the audience that most music is requested to stop at 9:00 pm (per the Guidelines). - Questions
from the Audience
Tim Kennedy—neighbor of ZO Wines at 3256 Dry Creek Road—stated that his largest concern is that this has basically been a residential area with 5 parcels of about an acre to an acre and a half. They have enjoyed this enclave. He hates to see the commercialization of this area due to the size of the project and the access from Dry Creek Road. He does not own a winery, but has volunteered. He mentioned that new wineries often volunteer to sing‐in folks for events, which can mean 100 people in the first hour. He read somewhere that typically 100 people equal 65 cars. He said that ZO has 45 parking spaces and wonders how that would work. He also wanted to know about egress and ingress.
Heather and John Elder—neighbor at 3270 Dry Creek Road—She expressed her nervousness, and thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak. She and her husband plan to retire to their property here. They received a notice from the county regarding this project and the Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) that is in process. They understand why David Eckert is doing this, but they are heartbroken. She believes the increased acreage from the LLA would pave the way for the increase from 600 to 5,000 cases. They feel he is exchanging his dream for theirs. She mentioned the current mix of agricultural and residential, and that neighbors share the landscape, wine, and views. They are opposed to the increases in production, the lot line changes, and the facilities. They view it all as a major change. They have spoken with David, but this is the first time they have heard the full scope of his plans. They did not feel he has a concern for the neighbors, the cars, the traffic, or the views with this event center. They are concerned about property values. They recognize that a certain amount of growth and change is possible. Even with his proposed changes to the application, they strongly oppose this project.
Frank Darien—of Bertolone Real Estate—realizes there is no County staff here, but wants it clarified, if in the original proposal, this can be declared a Use Permit Modification. He mentioned that when the small winery permits were issued, they were Zoning Permits, not Use Permits. They are considered a small winery in the database. Gillian stated that the County had them pay for the UPE as if it was new, but it was classified as a Use Permit modification. David does not believe they were zoned as a small winery. Those were ZPE permits originally.
John Elder—neighbor at 3270 Dry Creek Road—read a letter from neighbors Keith Bruce and Kimberly de Jardin of 3214 Dry Creek Road. (He mentioned that they are located kitty‐corner from the backyard of ZO). The letter was in opposition to this proposal. The neighbors who wrote the letter have a vacation rental business. They are concerned about visual interference, and change in their lifestyle, as well as loss of business.
Nancy Bevill—neighbor at 4724 Dry Creek Road—stated that she is concerned about noise. Even though they are not close, noise travels in the valley. She stressed that there are residents living in the valley. Noise, traffic level, number of people, along with the farming aspects, all have an impact. She speaks as a long‐time resident of the valley.
Heather Elder—asked about overflow parking.
Gillian and David addressed all of these questions. She explained that for Passport, they were told what their capacity for check‐in would be. Wineries can request to have fewer check‐ins, but Winegrowers (of Dry Creek Valley) usually divide up to spread traffic throughout the valley. They have an attendant for these events. Once the parking area is full, they direct them down the driveway, through the roll up doors of the new winery, into the vineyard at the back and around the barn to the edge of the vineyard and into the rows—there is no blockage of the road. They would also send traffic through the vineyards to Amista. They block the use of the road shared with the Elders. They did this for Passport this year. Gillian asked if they had noticed problems during this year’s Passport event. They did not. That is the size and scale they are hoping for, but also providing a parking plan is required by the County. 200 divided by 2.5 equals 80 spaces maximum. Employees would park in the back areas first, so there would not be as much in and out. There will be 16 feet of pave driveway to the winery. There will be a gravel mix all the way around to make driving easier in wet months. People will self‐park. There is pace to pull in between vines. No one parks in the road. When those rows are full, there is an avenue where there is room for two cars to pass and park an additional 5‐10 cars. This plan could be used up to 4 times per year.
Gillian also addressed sign‐in. She mentioned David may be willing to opt out of the sign‐in process. She emphasized there would be no parking on Dry Creek Road, and that this will be added to the permit application. She clarified that Lot Line Adjustments are not discretionary. The purpose was for the LLA was to preserve the agricultural aspects of the property. She stated that 1,400 sq. ft. is relatively small for a Tasting Room. The property is all zoned LIA. Zoning allows for all their requested uses. They have made changes in respect of the neighborhood. Events are already allowed with their current Farm‐Stay permit. They will work with their landscape architect to help mitigate neighbors’ concerns. She understands their concerns. - Council
Discussion
Council Chair Jenny Gomez emphasized that the Council members are all your neighbors, too. Most of the Council were able to go to the site to see and understand what is being proposed.
Councilmember Bill Smith thanked the neighbors for coming out. He clarified that the Council’s overriding concern for making a recommendation to the County is the zoning of the land. He also mentioned that Sonoma County has a Right to Farm Ordinance that mentions odors, noise, and disruption due to agriculture activities. He acknowledged the applicants willingness to cut back on the number in their requests. All are allowable uses. The size of the neighboring lots might allow the neighbors to request a change in zoning of the area, since most of the lots are 1 to 1.5 acres.
Councilmember Ruth Wilson agreed with Bill. She also suggested that the applicants had suggested they had spoken with neighbors, but there seems to be some disagreement. She mentioned that the Council could continue this referral to give them a chance to continue discussion with neighbors.
Council Chair Jenny Gomez disagreed. She visited the winery at Passport and saw no problems. She also mentioned their willingness to compromise and adjust their project to meet the requirements and adjust their numbers. She believes they will work with neighbors. While she completely understands the neighbors’ concerns, she acknowledges that we also have to deal with agricultural noise because of where we live. She also acknowledged Ruth’s point, that if it would help the process, the Council could postpone making a recommendation on the referral. She asked for thoughts of other Council members.
Councilmember Bengt Akerlind stated that he has not yet visited the site. He will make it a point to stop by. He agreed the land is zoned LIA and that what they are doing is within the Guidelines. He mentioned the property is only 16 acres, and the County askes for 20 acres for Wineries. He also mentioned there is only one Passport event per year, with 2 or 3 other events of equal importance. These dates are set, so neighbors are not unprepared. He asked about the huge increase from 600 to 5,000 cases. He asked about water. He mentioned that the production facility looks large. Gillian explained the photos, stating that the roof peak on the production facility is below the peak of the residence roof, and that the photos are deceiving. Bengt is still concerned about the production number. He suggested that if the production number was reduced, the building could be smaller.
David commented that the building is to enclose the activity of production. He does not want this to impact his own retirement and dream. He acknowledges it may not be possible to get everyone to agree on a production number. He also knows this is an ongoing process and he is willing to postpone a month. He had received a lot of feedback tonight and will continue to do that. He wants to make the proposal as good as possible.
Council Chair Jenny Gomez asked once more about the production amount—stating that they have to think into the future in this request. She indicated that the Council is here to find the middle ground.
On a motion from Councilmember Ruth Wilson, and a second from Councilmember Bengt Akerlind, it was agreed that this item would be continued until the October meeting. The motion passed on a voice vote (4‐0).
File Number: LLA19‐0036
Applicant Name: Lambert Bridge Winery
Owner Name: Lambert Bridge Investments
Site Address: 4085 and 4095 West Dry Creek Road, Healdsburg
APN: 090‐130‐022
Project Description: Lot Line adjustment between four ACC parcels, 85.96 acres in size, 5. Acres in size,
2.44 acres in size, and 0.99 acres in size, resulting in four lots, 78.84, 4.68, 2.83, and 8.69 acres in size.
Brian Curtis of Curtis & Associates, Land Surveyors, was the representative for Lambert Bridge Winery. They have applied for a lot line adjustment to separate their residential and business structures. The outside perimeter will remain the same. They are eliminating one very small parcel. They can only do 4 adjustments in the request, so one lot will stay the same.
The council members had no questions or discussion on this request.
On a motion from Council Chair Jenny Gomez, and a second by Councilmember Bill Smith, it was agreed to recommend approval. The motion passed on a voice vote (5‐0). - Discussion
Items
It was mentioned that the LLA referral for ZO Wines was heard by the DCVA according to Supervisor Gore’s office. There was some confusion on why we were not allowed to hear this referral, and why the DCVA is now involved in hearing referrals.
Secretary Sharon Pillsbury checked in with Jennifer Mendoza in James Gore’s office, and she did not have any information on the potential B&B in the Lytton & Chiquita area. Sharon also asked the County to add Bengt Akerlind and remove Mike Tierney from email distribution lists.
Councilmembers mentioned their surprised pleasure that neighbors had received notice on the ZO Wines referral prior to our meeting. - Agenda
Items for future meetings
Continued ZO Wines referral.
Asked Sharon to remind County, and Winegrowers and DCVA, that there will be two openings on the Council at the end of the year, as Ruth and Vicky will both be timed out by term limits in December - Adjournment
There being no other Council business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 7:26 pm; on a motion by Councilmember Vicky Farrow, seconded by Councilmember Bill Smith. The motion carried on a voice vote, (5‐0).