On 23 August 23 2000, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve
the winery application, but to severely limit the number of guests who
can be at the winery at any one time. Read more about it by clicking
here. Details of that decision were subsequently appealed by the applicant.
26 July 2000
Planning Commission
Santa Cruz County
County Government Center
701 Ocean Street, Room 400
Santa Cruz CA 95060
Re: Redwood Meadows Ranch Winery, Application #97-0787
Dear Commissioners:
The Rural Bonny Doon Association has several very serious concerns
regarding William and Robin Cunningham's proposal for a winery that
would
be rented out for numerous large events which have little to do with
manufacturing or selling wine, setting a precedent for uses far beyond
what
agricultural parcels are supposed to be used for.
First, we do not oppose the establishment of a vineyard as an appropriate
use of the Redwood Meadows Ranch's Open Space Easement. And we
recognize
that, by tradition, wineries have been permitted adjacent to vineyards
as a
convenience to the grower, who does not have to truck his grapes to
a
distant destination. In this case, however, the overwhelming
bulk of the
grapes will be grown elsewhere and trucked to the vineyard/winery over
the
highways and up narrow, twisting and steep Bonny Doon Road. Why
should
such a manufacturing facility be located in Bonny Doon?
Although wineries have been placed traditionally on agricultural parcels,
these lands have not been restricted, as here, by an Open Space Easement.
Buildings of any size, let alone accompanying commercial enterprises,
are
incompatible with an OSE. If, despite these considerations, a
winery is
permitted on this OSE land, we suggest that it be limited to a capacity
of
50,000 gallons: the smaller size would diminish traffic disruption
and be
more in keeping with the spirit of the OSE.
A second, related question is how far from the original agricultural
use
another allowed use should be allowed to go. Is it true
that wineries
must go with vineyards and parties must go with wineries?
The implication
is that the county should approve these additional uses because without
them, the agricultural use would fail. Perhaps the agricultural
use
should not be started if it cannot succeed by itself.
We wonder whether, should the vineyard succumb to disease (a high
probability, at present), the immediate neighbors and Bonny Doon would
be
left with a large commercial plant and events venue, and no agricultural
use whatsoever.
A third concern is land use: the residential parcels surrounding
the
proposed vineyard, and winery and events facility, still require the
same
compensating open space that they required in 1983 when the original
permit
was granted. The Rural Density Matrix at the time identified
54 acres as
over 50% slope and unbuildable, 142 acres as in the Mountain Residential
category, and 73 acres as Rural Residential. Because of
various physical
constraints on the land, the matrix determined that the average parcel
size
should be 10 acres in the Rural Residential areas and 25 acres in the
Mountain Residential areas, resulting in a total of twelve parcels
as we
have today. But instead of parcels of 10 and 25 acres,
a Planned Unit
Development was created, the only PUD in Bonny Doon, with parcels of
only 5
acres.
This is not an underdeveloped subdivision because it has a 68 acre Open
Space Easement and 140 acres of steep timberland.
Rather the clear
conclusion is that the OSE is a compensation for the undersized lots,
and
that any use on that OSE should be as compatible with the residences
as if
it were on their own property.
We do fear these precedents: 1) that in the guise of an agricultural
adjunct, a substantial and disruptive commercial activity can be located
in
an area where it would otherwise be unpermitted, 2) that an events
venue
can be created out of all proportion to any related agricultural use,
3)
that the County's zoning regulations can be set aside, and 4) that
the
neighbors' just refusal to let their land be used without their permission
can be ignored.
Therefore, we do, as noted above, respectfully disagree with Planning
staff
about the size of a winery. In all other matters, however, we
support the
staff conditions and monitoring plans and the staff recommendation
that no
special events or parties be held at Redwood Meadows Ranch.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Miriam Beames, Corresponding Secretary
cc: Mardi Wormhoudt, Supervisor, 3rd District,
Santa Cruz County
Here is the original application. The report accompanying the current
plan weighs in at around 500 pages. This is taken verbatim and in its entirety
from the Environmental Coordinator's Agenda, dated September 28, 1998.
The owner is Bill Cunningham, the applicant is winery manager Jim Weaver