winery ordinance correspondence received by

WINERY ORDINANCECORRESPONDENCE

RECEIVED BYClerk of the Board·

RECEIVED

JUL 02 2008CLERK OFTHE

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

GOLD FINANCIAL SERVICES13555 Bowman Road #150, Auburn CA 95603

Toll Free Voice and Fax (888) 332-6150info(il)gofico.com \\7ww.gofico.com

Placer CountyRe Wine Ordinance July 8, 2008 set for 10:30am

July 2,2008

To Whom It May Concern:

Please find the petitions signed from the Sierra Gateway Business Association, that are insupport of the New Wine ordinance which will be heard on this date.

__~Sin.,.--cfel?~

i:,'- ,"0' -••,·_--:"-~,;,="."._"t=,:.,."~·c,·,-=t;='.,$.:..;::~_,,,;.:·>:::: .• ..;~,:;,-=:;-,,..,.,.~--.~:-,

rl f'.,..:.·.........X.X"""'.;.,-,,.-,:;.=.....-=.....;o"'-...L"O===-·.....·-<="O'·----"'--i_ ~

.~' AGENDA rrEM II

I!.' DATE:.,7'i-o! 1.•.. 1

: . I X (3(J M ~I~ 1 TfM.R:. JL:::__L-_ 1\-; r :'1 ......"'... ---...--.......~.,., ~"""-- ••- -_.- -,...- .. , .....: ~I.. _.. ._.., ..• ~', .•,....".~.L......, .• _"••.' ••"","..." • .,••, • .,.'V"¥_"""-,.,. ~, p"_•. _._'. __• "'_.' .• "

Placer County Winery Tasting Room Petition

We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural and agriculturallife in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and samplingtheir products guides our purchasing decisions. As they consider regulations regarding winerysampling activities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to strike an appropriate balancebetween the county's regulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth inagriculture and related tourism, including vineyards and wineries.

Name Address I Email

CA- CZS7,oL2- - LO~SL~~N

3.

9.

8.

6.

5.

4.

7.

12.

11.

_2_·-+---+=':....:....:.-~~~L...-__-L--!;7~O~O--=6:....:....v;=-{j/n-=--..:~....£C:.-~f----L-2-=~~~~!....-.....:::o1-~~~oL-

(O.~ 3D L·b/"l '1'1 e;..) LYI 9')G03

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

',";.c-'-,"


We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural and agriculturallife in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and samplingtheir products guides our purchasing decisions. As they consider regulations regarding winerysampling activities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to strike an appropriate balancebetween the county's regulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth inagriculture and related tourism, including vineyards and wineries.

Name

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Address I Email


W~ the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural and agriculturalliie in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and samplingtheir products guides our purchasing decisions. As they consider regulations regarding winerysampling activities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to strike an appropriate balancebetween the county's regulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth inagriculture and related tourism, including vineyards and wineries.

Name

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Address I Email

From: [email protected]

Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 20082:39 PM

To: Placer County Board of Supervisors

Subject: Winery ordinance support

Dear Placer County Board of Supervisors,

We are writing this letter in support of th.e proposed new winery ordinance.

RECEIVED

JUL 02 2008CLERK OFTHE


We have lived on Fawnridge Road in Auburn for eight years and watched Stewart and Stephanie Perry, owners ofFawnridge Winery, work so very hard in clearing the land, planting grapes and developing their wonderful wines.It has been a JOY to observe them reach for their dream.

During this time we have not noticed any significant increase in traffic, noise, drunk drivers etc, and feel thatFawnridge Winery is operating at a very professional level and provides an ever friendly atmosphere for thoseliving near and those visiting the area. The Perrys are very gracious to welcome and include the neighbors intheir fun events such as hand picking the harvest last Fall. .. it was so much fun and a real family affair!

We feel that having the Vineyard on Fawnridge has actually enhanced our own property as the grapevines arebeautiful to look at all year round. The winery and Vineyard are maintained well an~ it just adds a certainambiance to the area. .

We have nothing but confidence that this positive addition to our neighborhood will continue into the future andactually inspire other neighbors to improve and maintain their properties as well.

We hope that you will assist in allowing this agirculture endeavor to move forward in our county.

Thank you.

Sincerely,Judy and Bill Faust, homeowners5805 Fawnridge RoadAuburn, California 95602

----_._------_._--_.._------------------------Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - C.bs:gls.._Q!J_tI.Q!Jrlm~~E;lL<:::QIn!

37D

of 1

Ann Holman

From: Teri Sayad on behalf of Placer County Board of Supervisors

Sent: Wednesday, July 02,20084:26 PM

To: Ann Holman

Subject: Winery ordinance support

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 2:39 PMTo: Placer County Board of SupervisorsSubject: Winery ordinance support

Dear Placer County Board of Supervisors,

We are writing this letter in support of the proposed new winery ordinance.

RECE I' "--,..,," , ~ ..,,·.f .

JUL 02 2008CLEk'':' l,

BOARD OF ~':lt

We have lived on Fawnridge Road in Auburn for eight years and watched Stewart and Stephanie Perry, owners ofFawnridge Winery, work.so very hard in clearing the land, planting grapes and developing their wonderful wines.It has been a JOY to observe them reach for their dream.

During this time we have not noticed any significant increase in traffic, noise, drunk drivers etc, and feel thatFawnridge Winery is operating at a very professional level and provides an ever friendly atmosphere for thoseliving near and those visiting the area. The Perrys are very gracious to welcome and include the neighbors intheir funevents such as hand picking the harvest last FalLit was so much fun and a real family affair!

We feel that having the vineyard on Fawnridge has actually enhanced our own property as the grapevines arebeautiful to look at all year round. The winery and vineyard are maintained well and it just adds a certainambiance to the area.

We have nothing but confidence that this positive addition to our neighborhood will continue into the future andactually inspire other neighbors to improve and maintain their properties as well.

We hope that you will assist in allowing this agirculture endeavor to move forward in our county.

Thank you.

Sincerely,Judy and Bill Faust, homeowners5805 Fawnridge RoadAuburn, California 95602

Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - ~heck out TourTracker.com!

el P1PJJ1)j tJ~7/212008 37/

Open letter to Placer County Agriculture Commission, Board of Supervisors, and others:

RE: Ag Industry's Potential Self Destruct and Loss of Favorable Public Perception

Our family has lived and farmed i_n Placer County for over 50 years; we havesupported Placer Grown, agricultural and rural lifestyles, and with others have lamentedthe shrinking of operational ag acreage as more development or nefarious land splitserode our true agricultural landscape.

We support "Right to Farm" concepts, but now see a distinct, qUickly moving effortby essentially special-interest "hobby" farmers and profiteering individuals (looking for taxwrite off opportunities after they've moved into Farm or Ag zones) that are depreciatingand marginalizing the public's opinion of ag operations as we know them.

From the weakening of the Williamson Act (both with acceptance of questionableproperties into the program that become merely tax-break speculative holdings for futuredevelopment, to the current speed up of development application before the ten-yearexpiration-from one to three years early-at the bequest of the building industry) tobending and stretching of regulations (wine grapes brought in from elsewhere butdesignated as "Placer Grown"), ag is becoming the rogue elephant in Placer County. Weused to fear encroaching development; now we shudder at the onslaught of "hobby farms"as well as the bastardization of "Placer Grown" concepts.

Placer County's proposed wine ordinance is just one more nail in our ag coffin.How did Placer County officials allow the well-established integrity of true ag operations toreach such a low standard and pander to the lowest common denominator?

I and my still-farming friends are ashamed at the apparent collusion between thePlacer County Wine Growers and the Ag Commission to avoid transparency with what canonly be defined as disingenuous changes in the wine ordinance. We could start a wineryor generate public traffic on our private road and cause a lot of angst, but that is not howgood neighbors behave. For once, I agree with citizens who believe you folks steppedover the edge.

From now on, you will operate as usual, but the Ag Commission does not have mysupport, has lost its integrity, and is unknowingly promoting the demise of ag in PlacerCounty by bringing us a step closer to losing our "right to farm" altogether (see Iowa infobelow). Meanwhile, some of us have to sell our produce knowing there is now a riftbetween former allies in adjacent stands, so we keep our opinions to ourselves. We're allbeing tarnished and no longer trusted by our neighbors. Look at what greed has wrought.

In one successful challenge, Iowa's right to farm law was overturned inGacke v. Pork Xtra, 684 N.W.2d 168 (Iowa 2004)

This decision, by the Iowa Supreme Court that the state's Right To Farm Law,limiting nuisance actions against agricultural operations, violated Iowa'sConstitution. The Court held that the Law, Iowa Code § 657.11(2), resultedin the unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation, andcreated an unduly oppressive burden on property owners affected byagricultural operations. Plaintiffs in the case had filed a nuisance actionbased on offensive odors from defendant's adjacent pork operation, seekinginjunctive relief and damages. The trial court ruled that the operation wasa nuisance, awarding monetary damages but declining to impose punitivedamages or an injunction. Defendants appealed, citing as error the court'sfailure to disallow the litigation per the Right to Farm Law. The IowaSupreme Court ruled that the Law effectively created an easement over theplaintiffs' property and that protections from nuisance actions were per setakings of a property interest. The Court also held that the barrier tonuisance actions, in defense of one's right to enjoy one's property, was anunreasonable use of the state's police power that created an onerous burdennot offset by any particular benefit to the suffering landowner.

See also the Iowa Supreme Court's earlier, related decision in Bormann v.Board of Supervisors in and for Kossuth County, 584 N.W.2d 309 (Iowa 1998) 0

June 30, 2008

Supervisor Rocky Rockholm175 Fulweiler Ave.Auburn CA 95603

Dear Rocky:

RECEIVED

JUL 02 2008CLERK OF THE


We urge you to support passage of the new rural winery ordinance on July 8. It is anexcellent instrument for promoting rural diversity and supporting agriculture in PlacerCounty.

Thanks, ~

~.~"', \. 1/

" ;·1 . Z'- .,.;/ i .,/.i ··( ··i/L.... " J/{\j!_. (.<:/?~"7rUA--

~. d

Jon EngellennerDarlene Engellenner

1408 Tiffany CircleRoseville CA 95661916782-2909j engelle@hotmail. com

"==========--,....,tllr" .".".-=~ ~'-.r

AGENDA. ITEM II

DATE: '7 .. J>6 fI

m~~/Q."6Da,tt~ rll:::::".=::......-::::.:::=:::·.:::::..--:::.==::~:=.:.=:.:~J

cc ;f/iJ!7t1)~

9

PLACER COUNTY WINERY TASTING ROOM PETITIONWe the undersigned think: that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural and agricultural lifein Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and sampling theirproducts guides our purchasing decisions. As they consider regulations regarding winery samplingactivities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to strike an appropriate balance between the county'sregulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism,including vineyards and wineries.

NAME ADDRESSk~* l-ArnY L/1,4Jrr.lI{J!- 1'1'1,;1.· Oil. b,r,v<- Or I&J~IItt/tJ (jf t:Jf)£f/

2~cSuJ~ ciwdajJf2/Jtl1D'\ ~~L,n6~iv),lS''t&3 6>f'I<U':> -----:0-.-"J\IN' \., '4- L'L G"","- r 0..\.A.~~ e.-\c\ "- ct. Ck?]

4Jeannu6J~ f20-:/:::YUAJ~6-(~&-vC19'1:>7165h ro~0 1J ~LJ)~!:.!J/ m.J),t . C!.a1't4t • O:z. 9SZo~61ily-f Ni(J/ItJ/,5 . .~ f()~ & /73a#u?aE ~4 7'6-9/7/

73ahJ......jJr:r·~:t'I$)D ~J-J.....",. 'txb& Ya.ev:J!rJ8 7'5]=n8 AtA\.{ ~(e.e<" 1-51 CtI\tr&U pt11'k.DrL-W. 1f 3S/,+ ~JU{I& I CA- t:t~~T8 .

L-lLOt 82:::> CT'f:tr~ 4f-?~ ~ CA-. 95Bt.4l$ M~ 5Vtc q~

RECEIVED



(' PETITION SUPPORTING WINERIES IN PLACER COUNTY(

We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural andagricultural life in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers andproducers, and sampling their products guides our purchasing decisions. As they considerregulations regarding winery sampling activities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors tostrike an appropriate balance between the county's regulatory responsibility and its commitmentto encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism, including vineyards and wineries.

Name: Address:

37~

//6~' c~ /~'-e: /&1'\

C·cJ 3 - 1('1::,;-17 t L' V(lr1n-t'/'#T"

CLERK OF THEBOARD OF SUPERVISORS

18. RECEIVED

JUL 03 2008

1O'~..lJ:C:3C:=.-U(...,l.d~~~¥::::-oir---..::u2...!.!:..::.L-~~q...w~~~~~~....i...Ll~~-L::LJ:b)O

, /\.Cc.'''}J'Iff' C2lL<>C; Ik CJSlf;(!.;t 95~I'f-

c~, -6 'if'

fA 7St;;~Z

11. '

PLACER COUNTY WINERY TASTING ROOM PETITIONWe the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural and agricultural lifein Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and sampling theirproducts guides our purchasing decisions. As they consider regulations regarding winery samplingactivities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to strike an appropriate balance between the county'sregulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism,including vineyards and wineries.

NAME ADDRESS

I

2

14

RECEiVED



3t;'2 eWe{ D~ 15":7'5

r /? > ~6>~

(b';Y;}CO?hj\6~ ~O'JCV ttl? Cvt C\;\)Li71

~Sd- LtJ-l Id£i~ S) t-.. ~~~lltv c:A S?st-;'l B

~6 f.\e~v... 6\.. lZ..o'Se.\J\\\€- U. Cl'S&7Y;

fullotAf'- V\ 9S,603

:l.0~JVv~"0 C;'--s:0CT)

tlG"6S"'?

37fo

PETITION SUPPORTING WINERIES IN PLACER COUNTY

We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural andagricultural life in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers andproducers, and sampling their products guides our purchasing decisions. As they considerregulations regarding winery sampling activities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors tostrike an appropriate balance between the county's regulatory responsibility and its commitmentto encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism, including vineyards and wineries.

Name: Address:

( (( (

CZ553) L(Jc,AJ 57/2D r=LiJ~1G'm-~7.-----;'--I----"oL-rr--------:---------------------:.:.

11.

3'-r'-r-.l:...~-+_--l---":"':"":'-;'':''- --l....:lO..-~_----:---:-'':''''-~~+-+--t~.:..:::L~I!..!../\~-

. ({e6LiJ

,31490 dv,gC/~~ E'.I2LS/h,1 j.~/J

2 I1q' C""'--L-+~~---{,tU-.l-!-l.:::l-..:..::....~....;::... ~J~---l::::W~--I:::::::.:.a-.:....--u~~_-I--=:::'.:....::.J~:"':""'-

4.

8.

1.

12. _

13. -=-- _

14. ---'- ~---------

15. ..,..-- _

16. ....:--.. _

17. -'-- _

18·-~RrtE"1C:-;t-ETI'~'f-r+p~.-----------------------

JUL 03 2008CLERK 0;:: 'f .

BOARD OF SUPUlVi'; . 'is


w~ the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural andagricultural life in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers andproducers, and sampling their products guides our purchasing decisions~ As they considerregulations regarding winery sampling activities, we encourage the Board of SupervisQrs tostrike an appropriate balance between the county's regulatory responsibility and its commitmenttoeneo~e~i_Bted tonrism, inclnding vineyards and wineries.

Name: .... - Address:

1. :S0('66 8 yrJ (?! 0. 13~ Iq~ j(td(;~/ C/f 'l:50 7:1

2.~ • 'iIZS Co/l;Sh:,: 11k 'Arbr-9~.n 9~'6?y3.~fidti111{(~ ~ ii.?j q5!l.-'---I----~Lf~~""---4:~~ 5ltl-4MclfA1-~_~\\vJ1r ~£7b5sjd4d!J~ j2/f Ifz~.;-/P &11111 M 7"3?tJ')6. Pc~Q .YJQ..\~ e N -_.__-31k-"1_tbf~ce1-c~~_-k\J-:.\l-e.-\-_CJl\ <q5].D

7. ~~I :k4.;.J'h~ '17, « ()~v, cl e+... fLo C.e 1(_ Cj J-' ,-.S.~~__ 9'~ CJIle>Sve",'Fl err (;...;~ <t:>1«il _

lO'~~r--~~"i::::8\;~_-.>"'~QL)~:r lJiW/lb.,."~ rdUlI.6'lA~~" 7,v11.--V-~~4==__~~~_--=3~~~O'-\Lj) -J..M.J.<4~Ml4Wdt 7);<.. 1crft.lJ4 95(;50

_~~_~_~0,-",-·~~..~d' ._-fa:w-4I- 9S6Q).Po 16(j,/1tS- ~~VJ LIP: crSfR 1%

~~~~=---__~~~~_I2vBe2tf?AJ9o~2

15.~~~~~~~~~~__~_o~_~~/(~B~~~d~rL~~~~~b~ ~Sl~~~9~~

16. ~ .

17.~-----------------------.

18. _-=-:;;;..-=~RECEIV~



PETITION SUPPOR1'ING WINERIES IN PLACER COlTNTY

We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural andagricultural life in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers andproducers, and sampling their products guides our purchasing decisions. As they considerregulations regarding winery sampling activities, we encouragetbe Board of Supervisors tostrike an appropriate balance between the county's regulatory responsibility and its commitment

. toeneo~g~~e::Sl_~ted tonrism, inclnding vineyards and wineries.

Name: f"W~ • Address:

I. ,¥~rl1r( ~~,' </17~/{)/,k>-Ir~~/~/!l(/furf\2.1Ut-~Jt;:rW9-----JlqtC6d~14~&b~S:~3.-d--t::"J.'v .. ._ /1;/ /IZY,J/sr;. lJi-tgLlI2I'S" 'ls -bbj /4. "Sa'4-.-~~-. .._.2.~'21~ __JJ:r~tll0 qJ7~J5.~\CVN-:L. ltt\d~, __I2-~1te<- '--~])\1.-- Q&J1L-. QQo0 {6.~j/u _; .. _~[~stu~ f»~vt< LA 1su:<7/ V ... ,SO, (~. . l9d~_. ~ha~/-cLSf02f1~lLilLg q\-~) ~

q~~ , . II

::- ~-----_ --P;;-S;; ~~---~9~'707710._b-~ ~{;/C05i/FNd~- ~r 0-6 rJ7~

11.~~t_· __3~qL~. q~8-12. ;l~~I1/~ y{".ta-tA.k CJ:J-71i ,4·u;;·~WS-o-v-, GvrIA?tC'/§;/l ~. '91:57<.(,--. ..__.. . ._...__..__..L ... ._.__.---.----;----r---

13. ;11ct.;/!L ::rtLt4.bt c/f/' /:I'.s-;;L r1jJ/!E 07/l·c)VE !/J (///v'C.-e)tJV l' J""6 ~J/

14. rLr-4 D~ 'f~~_~\\-~~~~~(l DA /10C1z.q)7~~IS. It; 4-1t~1j 0 .ILri J)C C-o"Lr L,JIIJ~'~ C:l tL~J-o_N... (>1 crrtt'!

17. _

18,__ -----rR"HEBCblrE1-lv.EO--e----------.-...--..-------.---..-----


BOARD OF SUPER\I\SOf-lS


We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural apdagricultural life in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers andproducers, and sampling their products guides our purchasing decisions. As they considerregulations regarding winery sampling activities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors tostrike an appropriate balance between the county's regulatory responsibility and its commitmentto encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism, including vineyards and wineries.

( ,/

Address:

i I

24-~{ ;j; at£' ((Jd ff/- ,iItk ~9~cJo?~.PJ $/d r >c co"e: /CC{ // t-G,?v ~f"L:-u~

SLAD Smol'le.- P\" \=-(lv~ f 0 O--~~ ,CJ\ q S"i02.S:

11//,1 /?- /Nfl'~ ~~&fl?-~9?~-5" ;S, ).J2.e C~. C~ ~~~ 0"

, ~7P'fc

173 ~ VY\vVL-UZ.iT t(."C/~t'~,,\.~ (7'is Crt{~:'t ,{fa ~/£·ft"- f Cq -

I

1°:> f~ JUc -Sf I -!bJ,ki"- Cf5:bv3C(, ~ f?---M e ~o~ cw"

j fl1

/ /""" /? h-.. C·A. Ie/ a(t~L CA./'(? ~~

C'£'~4~:f L?1( ((!-Y; (1_

~) \0 \) 0,d Q C''-\\-L. C/-\Q\f ~

RECEIVED



PLACER COUNTY WINERY TASTING ROOM PETITIONWe the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural and agricultural lifein Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers~ and sampling theirproducts gUides our purchasing decisions. As they consider regulations regarding winery sampling

,> activities~ we encourage the Board ofSupervisors to strike an appropriate balance between the county'sregulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism,including vineyards and wineries.

NAME ADDRESS

1 f3vB~ f];!»~ /Ivy ~=& .~g1J-rf2 ;;:::~ 'Q.-/'f;b =~'47>rO t.AU:: ~=~U <J'to'i~3 J1bbcnS., 12a..fit .4A) Hc..rl 01'1 ~. f~J<:> fJ1fo, LA '=fA 30 (

4 . A)Eft-- C{1ANC7[ rb50 .,Ab~le. LAL Cuf'EJe'(IAlS c.Ao;JO/Cj

5 ~.,~ 872S- (~,RA. A~ qS'(9er~

:~~ 11~r!r::52~r;;CIW/t8~~7.f?-J~ [Of HAIN<;-f;1AJ4wUt+/~(/4 9>'9L9 t:~ Ii J1..</ It....:}:}-J i1S~c.,.) 'S'~ J11 fIt /v~&;2/ J~ "5~~~\ U 9 ~'(7

/ J

10 ~::J.D~$br.· 11'13 ·CA~ a>-J( ~I~ ,Q1- 9Q1,36

11 !3;J c~___ 1113(j.B<1:eJfu-"J C~~liQMf 4a ~?j"=";0~ 13o'r1tV: Jr. Bt&~ J CA- q'J-{oX)

13 L. IS 0Jccd.~~9l ~~+ ,·(j(i~Jb0-...14 170'f'f€r';l(J€-&{lv.- ct-~ 6to,V\~ &11.~15 ~ (litH, Dr (} VI . 'J... . C S662..16 . u r.lfUJ- ~slrocJ-17 ---,- ~~ _

18 .

RECEIVED


BOARD OF S.UPERVISORS


\Ve the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural andagricultural life in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers andproducers, and sampling their products guides our purchasing.decisions. As they considerregulations regarding winery sampling activities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors tostrike an appropriate balance between the county's regulatory responsibility and its commitmentto encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism, including vineyards and wineries.

\h'JOvq ( Cit, CI}{13iJ ([' ,'Jf(;~!

\'V\;-\vt \;\Ja1

Address:

S\OI>Name:

4. _, .

5. _

6, -.,.--'-- _

7, '--- _

8, _

9, _

10, ---:-__

11, _

12.. ---:..- _

13. _

14,--:- _

15. ---------------------

16. --'- _

17. ~ ___'_

18·---lRHtE:bCrl:E~'\\J_Ji::E*"'P~------------------

JUl 03 2008. CLERK OF Tir"

BOARD OF SUFEFWISORS

90{()

10-+- ----_--------------

11'---------------------------------12 ----------

13 _

14 _

15__~ _

16 _

17 -

18 ----------------

RECE'\fF~')

JUL 03 2008CLERK OF \ ,H:

BOARD OF SlJP(:nVISO\

PETITION TO SUPPORT PLACER COUNTYCOMMERCIAL TASTING ROOMS

I am in support of the establishment and operation of agricultural wine tasting rooms locatedin Placer County, California.

Printed name: ;, '\/1A(tf)'1 r:tlftl rlit Address: __bt_'_D_3_(_.L..../~_t"--:'{,_?_~_-~_~u..----"-<J__

Signature (%~lJw;vdx ?oQ1ji~ ell ?5b7f

LO{)Wl'IS

Address:----"'-L--..L--+--t~~~~I'_+_--Mt1r.jO(i e O}SoV\

vi/l) thQeXL~-Signature:

Printed name:

RECEIVED

JUl 03 2008CLERK OF THE




Printed name Cawn h el3atrt!f

Signature h!&1I/~

Address: CIPcfCj MI'IfJr.~ C~ft

RoCfL&n CIt qS;-&:r:I

Printed name: f{A71¥ /11 C&rYfaddress: I:;JG, C/1={dt/f. ;//J=<o p ~/

Signature L0L1J~ /.;:lb}f fa '7's 7-'"- L

Address: dUS to.{\.+LU f CI-

(\ \Printed name r\L}'m~~Cb~~:JAddress

1.\ ~. d\~~~Signature \JA~~L~~ ~

RECEIVED





Printed name:_---:--~~....\t-IOo.~~--

Signature:

Address: qll t; (trfa 'S-{reOvK}j 2R_AlJ.~UVVl eft lY:GrJ~

\ L' ,

Printed name: Gu""1l-u:::....'..l..L1)-'!j!!lf\--..:., _ Address: _-----",J.f----JclL-3.L+I--..lL{/l1<~tj:::.,~g.J_z_"_A:l..__---

Signature:

Primed name: '~~~~~'~, _

Signature:

Address: ---,---_

Printed name: ~t).e<,

Signature:

RECEIVED

JUL 03 2008CLERK OF T;-lF

BOARD OF SUPERVISOF;S

~-=-o _

~~,(-

Address:



Printed nameLllura 1J1¥itJ/

Signature lJimrzi ll)eMAddress: lour: (jl/liiirb5Ji? Jd~/. 7

J3t»tJJl/~ If/) YSZ¥/

Printed name: ~I..<~. Address: 14-') "'. -

. tf i7./J/l;J(;) 1...,- fJLiL~ UU:{L.

1f~1L C; S-&1:1

05"Y(/uJ i /L /?cdl(

C'- {-(, Oft 7'-tZ Zx(

Address:

RECEIVED

JUL 03 2008

Signature:

Signature:

Printed name:----"'->~~~---lbL ...

Signature: (




Printed name: KCrl h\ Q Qo Cs \b b1::> Address: S 'S i 5 S,.v'r $j"( jL ;;.;t

, Signature: CA)0' 5 '~JIIt)

Printed name: ,jD':\ct~n'-l> V\o!\-\c:f\'UbO(\

Signature: _+-@-\-I.-:...I'-..J-=.. _

Printed name: .....\t-!~--..:...-.,+=~:...::...!--'------_

Signature:

Printed name: r\J\..~ v,,~Z: \i'IA U"/r~ Address: Sl '1 ~ fJ(\ t oVL v2 ('>c.<-

Signature: vt\N'\. //Y(j

RECEIVED

JUl 03 2008CLERK Of-' n'L




Signature:

\00,Address:~St~s (2+ (1)vvIf

Q~Ct'{u1 O/'l~ qr1{P~

Printed name:

Signature:

Signature:

Address: eft?s (;) (t/,da~~tf-~i ~/

f Gt (J()(f1 elf r;((~ o~~~,

Printed name: --------

Signature:

RECEIVED


BOARD OF SUPEmllSORS

Address: -----------

PETITJON SlJPPORTING WIN~ERIESIN PLA(~ERCOUNTY


We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural andagricultural life in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers andproducers, and sampling their products guides our purchasing decisions. As they considerregulations regarding winery sampling activities, we eltlcourage the Board of Supervisors tostrike an appropriate balance between the county's regulatory responsibility and its commitmenttoeneo~e~i" rcl' ted tourism, inclndiug vineyards and wineries.

Name: Address:~ . ~ ,

::~..;;~~5~..~~~R;~~~~&s-~~~-'.--'_...-"-~~ (~'iSh'E~~_I'1 ~~d~~_~_~~~......-----'_~,., ,C, --<. "6~ L"}I - f) f) ") A '''~ f\~ \:.0..

-. ----~-._,~~,,<"'L.. --'---01 s-I: 0'3

------'<'f-=---=-"""-"--t;)~=· '_~_ a I 0'~~ -Eft9Sl;3/7. ..~~ "&7<{ LI.Jrc>UV~ /l.<:ih-42i/..7~

8·~~/~it~~ '.9.~ ~A IU!il~d ))(~ rl/il$c;w;lU4!f+ ----iJ2LLfJL~-cfJ' fffi~~%~iill-_.ll.~_~ J,63f$J~VlWY~~~ 7tJ1.,?Jj

12. I '- tAA/ ) 3 d.21- _Rd_i2u1. 1'- au4.-, (£ (!Jl; 0.l.-

13..~~~~~~1~~~0~G~~~~_-V~..~~{~~~..·~~~~ ~~14.~/~~~1ff--.__-,-~-,--'4f;_~lfi/7CF PI t~~ {p ;:)7!Y15.~--= .~~~~_~Jbs:12_~-J;L~ff~ ~I LA CZ:illf16.~...:~-,-----,==-=-:...........:Uh-+-=w::::....>..~"'--'-('k~' /8~ b .i1fl1lYJ/. 6JoJ::, ~, rei~ ,fsvj<f~17 ... C7< 1~5 ( S, f3lv-" ( O£:' r4> bee; diu-- 0'\-- '7Q~7¥, Y

"""--I--T'=---I-""<-~-

~~~~~._.__ifp20 1Lfd5~~_.~ ..-:zgR-

\

ADDRESS _/ l c;"-('I /<""',/-- /1 77 t:::- LL/~ ":/. I .. I ,....._

1__"_"'_'__'_/~_'_<_'__--=-~'____l-'_/_,i.._,:,__'_'_' :~_r/,__<·~_'J_')_{~_'_/_,,---./,_.:~_/ _/ c_/_..:..\...··_i_/_/l_'~/:,;/


NA,ME '-)",_I.~.- ~/->

RECEiVED

JUL 03 2008CLERK OF THE r

BOARD OF SUPERVISOR.-.

PETITION SUPP()RTIN(; WINERIES IN PLAC:ER COUNTY

We the undersigned think that winer"ies and vineyards are valuable pat't ofthe rural andagricultural life in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers an'dpr'oducers, and sampling their products guides our purchasing decisions. As they considerregulations regarding winery sampling activities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors tostrike an appropriate balance between the county's regulatory responsibility and its commitmentto encol~.lit'.,'lg~ro~wthin.~rliculture .n~~Irtcd tourism, includ.ing vineyards and wineries.

. .~~~t4!"J:: . .Name: eo"'- Address:

).~\WJ ~kb \:&'D ~~ .~.~lw~ I~ /v~ ~,S2~22.__~~_b\aSl~\\ ~~_~J5J'~JJ_) \ Jr,V\ -----M~~yvj iC~ l)&~~3.~#2-C?nJ-ruf0>:r_-~~~ tFSPA1JiS1.1.Llf'LLL)L~C:OL_iJ4£J1 CZ5-c.;{f(~4,~_ic'b 5i~._&rco iilJ~--4-L(f-t1ts.1 fli2S~LivE:J/!1g_&tS jf&l2'~ C/f

:~}0\~~L~~~~~~~;7'~'1Jjff. iLJ, /)~9{J htl':" "3Y-O~-&Jverdttle Q&JLu (140!ie, (!<f 0>(;g

~/,t': ;('k.~~YO~.L.SJS-'-:lecvw~ QA. 1(,!4'L\ J -,,-" ~ ~r9:"- -" -." ...... _.:~....- ~~C)~ ~_._1o:\Acy0:e"-- CA- c.lGI-O J

10. ':Wli--I . =cnq~~ -tiYl COIM UlqUffJ

II. tc.:-6v~ 'Lj-~..0 ~KOL__ lRuCkb~_c'7&/{'-1

12. LJi.c\:GL-~\JVY\~~ \?-1_'5" .JVJj \C\!'C: J A\l~~.. ST "eI\- (.1 S-l '2- 'S-

13. JiJ.i J)£§£\lAAh... (ok~k f<[) C'o qS:-tLJ).14. '\, ~. I0'72..I~ /;' I {)&f():L/dk.l1,.e.4 C)57 /g L-

15.' J~iUEjjut£.a:;;t',~J//a'['iA 9R.,M16.£U r!Jbl1ttlJ:.1-lL:4~ lIb {~tVi4= c( -£~JiL~ /('11 i5T61

17. 1)1tt/~' lli:b:t~!)'l .y~2/DV,tLttz;;&!)? a J.:LJ2ML~_;rl!JL._q.S=-",-",(...,.L:.""",,2..:...)__

18. I Af'i! -+ 'lv1/Lt l,(c ZLil·· (LlU'-iflC~/ it·l.-j./~ f!d".. J.?;"uL/Yl 11.111R~~'~__~~L _~... iL O·_-)~~--1LL-1LrL--zrG'r;;I')f)


RGARD OF SUPERVISORS

. .

k I ~Cc l....;::.,/)

i:'~tu-'(,'"'t~-----

J80\

'J~~_?

l ..ll5"' ~"c.&ouJ L~h(~±>-l\lU c(JtJ~r' .'...·.,'11.,_

3-¥~L.a£..\,~~or=---:--w~{4-_~6~· ~.£L...L.lLJ..£::I.do!..l.u):.....lL.4~~~g:(...<'-4L:L--:----

4to .~~daL

'\~~ ~\'~\:j~~..2_---::;~--~.---__*J~-------:;:--------------'----'----------

5 ,J L~.f,t.ce{-----r-+-----if-..,.,.....,.-h~7_-r--------_H----_,__------.,4_--

PLACER COUNTY WINERY TASTING ROOM PETITIONWe the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural and agricultural lifein Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and sampling theirproducts guides our purchasing decisions. As they consider regulations regarding winery samplingactivities, we encourage the Board ofSupervisors to strike an appropriate balance between the county'sregulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism,including vineyards and wineries.

;g~~~

RECEIVED

JUl 03 2008CLERK OFTHE


RECEIVED

JUL 03 2008CLERK or' f.

PETITl(~ffPPO\/RTINGWINERIES IN PI)AC:ER COUNTY

We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are a valuable part of the rural and agriculturallife in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and sampling.their products guides our purchasing decisions. As the county considers regulations regarding winerysampling activities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to strike an appropriate balance betweenthe county's regulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth in agriculture andrelated tourism, including vineyards and wineries.

Thank you,Wineries of Placer County

Cit.~ 0.5 '~.1\.Dck It (J-

2- r) S- 15 Y' <'1 {'~.4_ .;yI,~.t.t, "-PLee f enJ~[)5c;>{CS

Name Address (Optional)

I<tttGol 1-(\cc\-l r'1J'6~ fhft% Ros.~ LrJ~~ ~~ex,ot(/VLiCA

LCfIJIJ 1'1/tS-6/U 23/2.. s-t,r/lY? 1//6tu LIt~fi C/'f/

L I it,/{: 0 /... rJ)Do IV l~ WH {P P LIS d.-Lf 0 ~ S(,"-. t y ~It VI to (4,( A.flj (1/4

=Uid.4J- !4flflttr ( r ~ r 'r /r

{.!L,cyXJPit" (" e;1 ,

[.LA t~1f

'?!d(!)UIJ

County

\ PLnc.l(~l,

2 I- It\~ AND li/..1

3 }JL/1GEe..

46'

. ERK OF THEBOAH~OFSUPERVISORS

C1 nl~ii'P-'

/0 ;2; Alj j, )

II lldlCQ (L" n(2- /, l Cf ~ ? '

,'J., ,1}'1 '" '//,1'f J '(..t/( 'it '--"

Jt.f

17 ~J~'-"-"'C"""-'''''-'-'''---f.-_-=-::'~~~~~~~'-=-'=+-=:''':::::''-'-'----r''''''~'''----'''''~J£-:.~''''''-,>,,--,---''JL._--'---

~{p I~~''~~~~~~~~~~~=="~~~~~~~~~

C~ 6Itf-":---);Ii ~

t(1 ((.J:- c ev ,1-(tf.. r Ie.

Q-OP(e1- U'v 'p·e ·thtt 'J RECEiVED I

JUl 03 2008

We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are a valuable part ofthe rural and agriculturallife in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and samplingtheir products guides our purchasing decisions. As the county considers regulations regarding winerysampling activities, we encourage the Board ofSupervisors to strike an appropriate ,balance betweenthe county's regulatory responsibility and its cQmmitment to encourage growth in agriculture andrelated tourism, including vineyards and wineries.

Thank you,Wineries ofPlacer County

County

, f}C:1O

:'t~t'

Address (Optional)


Pl"c€r- LlStt~_rs:-_~l--\.q--:~~..../£--1h.........' -1<-' 17_'r_''\;~cQ_~~;;;...-.e7~..::..-),_L_co_wt........./S'

PlA(~1L ~f~~~vlt1\>Kf\ {(fo~( 5r~ PA5'1t- CK.. i(o$oA.-..J, Ct1 7:f-)t'j

~;;..:'··=--:=:·--'--__----=-K~\!.L.:.·M-'----=1:~~\j=="'2'--V~:....:.') .--::.5"-"='0:::-,c_\.{"-----!.-PepflP?r\'~ &JJ~ 1'5&'-l3f\~L.UAr-

(~

We the undersigned think: that wineries and vineyards are a valuable part ofthe rural and agriculturallife in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and samplingtheir products guides our purchasing decisions. As the county considers regulations regarding winerysampling activities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to strike an appropriate balance betweenthe county's regulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth in agriculture andrelated tourism, including vineyards and wineries.

Thank you,Wineries of Placer County

4lW \)e~':1 iv ) hl".1. ~64~" :f't\");k l3.yL~ "7S;y.

[1 ~~ullk CfS7Lf

3. LfL, L, D/i-,14( f e. /G. {}Oi/do Va, q Sf., 7 iJ·

1:30.5' L\~(-~ C~ '(c&cv ,\\.c., eA 957'-/7

SOlo uL \""UM5 S 1 tl='z \jc"C'<\Y.\\", Cl\ 10<O~'b

12--1o't pi) ~ (" IZJ A-ubur~ C <15bt.>2-

't-~7c? /-1a J'Lft /.,.... j (,; ~n"l /

, "t J"q S' u

q b4 ~0\ JlA. L\NC.O\ tJ ~ '\'5""6 'f~~soy~

-- . CA.-.-i:> . ._/ ~

f-"O"'2~- v ....oV'-I- (

, '9S&'P

Z eplA L-c>-S;; err;er-c.

N\\~\"\Ct(\ $\lA

I-/~uf h H-D I ( L.<jaL!v :>

·0~50r-. '(8\*-'

'Ssil\~

1" tJ./r'

') . -Or.c\....tLc\.c(J/'("

County Name Address (Optional)

~~_~Q---\-l(c-ua.,.!....JD~dQ4,-,lteiPe..rn vifl£.d \3040 hidb M £k( t Aubw'" YJ

~Jt U ~ (~·"~'--tG L(.J~<zr «.J#-bAvk~u ('~

J ;'1\1\ ~'M) V'l't~ $0£ L,'ber~t Ct RcseVll!kJ 9r;7<[7


We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are a valuable part ofthe rural and agriculturallife in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and samplingtheir products guides our purchasing decisions. As the county considers regulations regarding winerysampling activities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to strike an appropriate balance betweenthe county's regulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth in agriculture andrelated tourism, including vineyards and wineries.

Thank you,Wineries ofPlacer County

t205eVI f{<:

LiI1C~/11

£512IJVlYCTlff]2t< 0 P(·00.'1'1't j

['~ lJ4t 9~ I0

~Iv\..-~)

Address (Optional)

~

(V\ £) C1 i..s..

County

yl~ '5/Bue' f)Gi1~' C{-, 'E7C{LLV\J C,%77

(It ) ~0 cQo5<i1f.{f &{7 mOLl/err Cf{ II) ( "jS {<-_G---:.. It:.=...-rtt" r.5 \.If 12al11ltl

~. E4 ~'~~ Sd.v..l1--

({,-f)cXlrL '-tt VI/'- ~ T~~) \ &L-l ".-..mcC:r 'j(~ -d ....j~P1 u- e Hal'? <$411""'-

PI4c~r &fjllfl Gbfr~e-~OJ<M;:\ ::1Qao £?1lfuo ' ~ C-Ql ?

?I~ --r;vY\W) 9: SuE (!LvbbA..'fIU~~ i) 11. "~_~ K-e~ c; f-kU~ c91Jtd

~j <Ae i.C ~\k-- ~ ~\J,- ~=hc.Pov ~\.v'"l='

t: ~;;:hii:~/ks,.-::---.

- 1;.h epV7U " J ceo',--

RECEl\fED

JUl 03 2008

PETITION S'UPPORfING VVINEIUES IN PLACER COUNTY

._~._-----------------------------,--

7._ I. B~\ DDttt\-J .._L~dJ~ r~~.AZ1~'v\)Tc; ~~_2~W~\,LlL ~ (.~1~1·) _

L~~~~£~l~ ,aYP9. _~(JAa fa6fro-_~!l?peGed<j} ~Jlle. ,04 fS{;7<6

10._~~GA1~ l-LD[)1a :. 1M ~_cr..C6iJ.?lL~J(k'(\tLW'q{61i/ I t-QjtA 'e: ~__~_--LV\ (lt~ 1S1oD?2

12. ~JtOc4fr 1L~f:~B~ ~~/Q 0 q5Zo313. ~'fA~l ~ __:e.Jl. f I tV JJ. 7 . .~. :r- !4- t{j'bO?:'

14.-iJcd-b5S~rJ-,-~~ >R= 4u iJi\ {/I- 7 ',,&02-

Is..1oho He> \hY"' -( 'll k-e.- ~D t3 0"" .z.S 3 ~ 'L ''''C.D\Vl C" c=t Sb '"'~

16. ~L.ti.- ~2AC-4fH~ ~065..__~51J-v/-ifL 7<J:J UNC-O[1v- Q5(,vt

17.h~· l\Su.,lI\ J ,?'LS ~. ttLct l.'!A!C?<..0C/~:l"lf 9 r-0S(f

18. c:5\'\~Y\r~J Ltvvf5 __ 7 'i),~S- FLy Hi t.L L~LT'i-.Q rl £WCLt:~Jt{{) c/5'&5"-0RECEiVED

JUL 03 2008

We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural andagricultural life in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers andproducers, and sampling their products guides our purchasing decisions. As they considerregulations rega.-ding winery sampling activities, we (~ncourage the Board of Supervisors tostrike an appropriate balance between the county's regulatory responsibility and its commitmentto enco~g~~~~ic.i_rCIted tourism, including vineyards a,nd wineries.

Name: f'W~ Address:

--\' ? ~v.r d r-P o.,~ E50)( IqLfg .oo·cj:J/;J / C!d' 9 s--&) 1 ,11. -....../ollC.J- l ' r J r - /\ (,. /

2. /IL c1i~ ~. CoLR2~~~ ?:iblNk( 9-S6623. ~ C~ Ul~'l~04i::,fLV{(~ evA '10"1<f-74._j~_f~o/-e _:JJ2j_{p-L!2_~().~_o-. '4~l.~ 1~?~cfL1:lb'7?

5.~,""<if )G~f,-'I~, Lj( 10 I ,bi,' flL.Y] /Jt 1:1 ~: ZJ {fcJ~' If€, . C( 9 )"& 7<f." '. ~l v'-""\"·~ /. A I

6.. '.t=,.. 1--- .. /1,\01 1//1 1<:::;'5-j- ;- «{'oJ' RJ '1/(,!::>....,rl'1 I (II 9S-~D3---

ClEP,KOF THE...... """' ... nn ,-'\1.': C:IIOl;:~~\.'lsr,ns


l(6._-ts;;::::""'::::"'><~:--"-~~=="""",_=-=.,--------------------

7'-..JL~:-u...._-----"-~~=-...:::......:..-:=--- q~··/....:..1_0...:....jrp-.!.7--=-f-..!-V/.:....:(hr....:..;V::,,,:0:,:,::,V:..-'~.:..../"_';;'~....:...-f-I-~=---_-':......:·r:....::6:..-C..:::..l'3

Co"; ck> 1--1, //b2/06.A-J 4)/3CJ~ ?~~~

We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural andagricultural life in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers andproducers, and sampling their products guides our purchasing decisions. As they considerregulations regarding winery sampling activities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors tostrike an appropriate balance between the county's regulatory responsibility and its commitmentto enco~urowthin a riculture and .rel ted tourism, including vineyards and wineries,

" .,.,Name: Address:

1. {Y)fit-V-CMD • I 'Z '30 f!r,. S£() f.,",Poe. {(t>5i<Jd).e2. S~'C~~ ~<i'Y' L ell ~.~ (,? 0 S', e-fT {, C~ I , t>':1e f20 ,5,(~U\' Ie...

3. /:::}7l/k' e::-z/(J s-t/q ~.. >~" ~ /-z-::;:::s-· '-~ "'-g' C I."""l .

17·41Adm'l \~('-VVJ s18_~J u..L,J." ~~.u)U. ...

RECEiVED

JUl 03 2008CLERK OFTHE__ ............. ...-n\IICf"'\Oc:.

PETITION' SUP.PORTINGWINERIES IN PLACER COIJNTY

We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural andagricultural life in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers andpl'oducers, and sampling their products guides our purchasing decisions. As they considerregulations regarding winery sampling activities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors tostrikc an appropriate balance between the county's rc_gulatory responsibility and its commitmentto enco~g~::'~~ic.i_rei ted tourism, including vineyards and wineries.

Name: f'W~ Address:

1. ~At<'-/K l!~' 1L15Culd~Aa1 &46llff1.

2. j£~ If"£()~ ._____ $0 qUtlU. ;L~~ITW'J/!~ ,Lj/I?J,~.?"3.~-M,eh..L . S/b7· L~~lt4-__~J2<X...W\ ... (A- lfJ7(

4.~~_RLt'wov0 __~__ '529"LWJ~~ C?o~CjS'765. fAl Il£ 1)u.gE..) .f7l1 CtJ~/£L f£~.(,'II-# )1<JJiuC.L}Y5"ZtL

6. 71t~~t3V)BJ~ 3r( S-'-IJQItr~hC,f . !?oclc/'11 7~777. ~f!!4/JQ .__~2-e-o SllNS(.{-.Ul\l (/: ~"kl;....J (,45JZ,77

8.~(,jk . ~ ?~ S-v,~s{ ~JJ,n (-I __f!:tf)L(A/ C4 1J~'/7

9. fl1J,-r It. b~ _Jsg;_T"1 (w I(J~P<-l:s 9S7,Sf)

lo.S,:~~_rlL,~ . 'JS-{.;.__~LAtu:- 'TCllJtObG~ ~tYQltE-qSh~

I t.j! ,_. __..EQ/3 wJ<l I7l !lf 0 kI~l1L,-Lo IJ7tf!4 tj5 C. 5012. ",,)/VI IhfY11$!-tJ- '?> ~S- WU<- u-.L ~"'14· s q b ~ s-ol~Ad ~t?6n . f6/5 12~5 CJ2/{(<£~!!s..Zd14.~l~v~ G.-51J 3~~~~'0 ~~U q~~115. J 1M A"'-#.1':1f.IL~QQX 76t a~es+6IU ClSG)/16. GCA.crOj.L ~~1..-~--j?};V~ 2..;)~1--.L1I ~~L7n,~

17.~_-+--,---_~ lf...:...-hSO_ fM~;4 ~U 75tsol~'E-C~W~~/!f"lI ()£JlfyLUe ~~]O<_;j~12!£J!l6(1.£;(1_-35!R'fR_

JUL 03 2008

8 ,4erdIJlitt~ a;fs I3wdL M, 12u~.(k-, 9sU:'39 ~'V ~'\.LQ..: I JQ I J ~~t \L/ JkA... c:~_ (15 to0"5

PLACER COUNTY WINERY TASTING ROOM PETITIONWe the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part ofthe rural and agncultural1ifein Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and sampling theirproducts guides our purchasing decisions. As they consider regulations regarding winery samplingactivities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to strike an appropriate balance between the county'sregulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism,including vineyards arid wineries.

NAME ADDRESS

iiiOUl '71 OS ColJau(S7MtJ!L (7-. 6M-A.J(iJi.&y ~ -~

\..\ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ 90£1"-

'itt,,:;: §Iur;kt<;S-0I ;/e~f 9S"~;z~o ~& 9S-~3

&. C;5Z,CJ;. -)/l o/i)~~ S .t4!<6 -, j~

nEceiVEDjUL 031008

ADDRESS

5

I

6--"'--"'--+-1L'--I-->--=----""-"----''-=;P~~~''"''-----'---=-----'(,t.:::...J=(9-''"'(~--'),-~)---"""--""-'=-""'''---''=='-'-7-'--'''-'~~~~=~5It, FR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~)~7·-1

8-=~~"--t--~~~~~~~~~~P_f::,Ac~~~~=+__..!...LI-L...:-.CL.::1,S-blQ-.

13_b'-!....-.->-'--_-"-'----'-__-'>.L....-.:-~-~~~.IL--=---'-- ____!__:..::::...::.....L '-'-.L-J---+.J..L:.~

14 ,)1'\:{) \J O\t\/)'ttlJ\,

15 "'11 {I..-1"-. Dt' . r

PLACER COUNTY WINERY TASTING ROOM PETITIONWe the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part ofthe rural and agricultural lifein Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and sampling theirproducts guides our purchasing decisions. As they consider regulations regarding winery samplingactivities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to strike an appropriate balance between the county'sregulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism,including vineyards and wineries.

NAME

.-7-a fl!\e r

1'" :.J

16 ·~!2.+-.7J.t¥fJ L.gc.4'1ft.c"V ~-o i. 6-it5)J." vvL.- *1.3 '\ \

17 !·Ltrt¥i r4r=u..fL. 2c/C·u l.J~\/A /Z.-r.0r;:::- '=FZiD

18 ERI (:, BUTD~V J80J· fURE:I</\ tZD #475

t,()'~,f;\Atl.6 C(;\ qS\;;-r~I

/2, Vicu::: {j,l- C)5-(P '(P I

/<056//(.Lt CA CjS-laf,i

RECEIVED

JUL 03 2008CLEqK OF THE

nO'\f"U :~::r SUPERVISORS

ADDRESS


NAME

~ j If\ .L!l.-J~1 1'./,i\~ '-~I\J \\~l2 ILEp{:J:.;J t,\"b;J LfmJ (~.. 'LW <.::.0 LjU • ~tt qr-b,'f~

C'(')\-t. (2 {y\ \ t i,-p \ I.Q ",J LY-¥t ~V\l; '( ( ;;>4' C; 6.t)1£,1i(0S ~Ko.J·C~L):5bz:.).3

6--''''''<--:--~--''----'--------_---'.J'---=-'''--+-~f----'-------'------'-----'~- _

7, . \M..<J. ~~o.~·~~.....r- .. /~L7 l

3-.:-Ll-+1-'---'-In D,-,--r.=~::>-,-7b-=-"St.>o.o.~}'-'-{)-=-- --'-ILJ-,-,C1J,-,-\Or;;;l-'---'[=->.~(~)~t-"--'-l,\-",,-g '"-,-,,,-"1JC4LJ D. OSv~), C)'\ f) LJ+

4--'>".......,JQ'-4---t'=--"I)\C><-=-!\..-,\V-'-iY\-"--~-,,=,,S,---- --<dtl~"L( \?()( c.\R ML1' '~~vJl!e f ,o/;L)( ?"800'\")'"\\ (AVs. ;+ \ ~ ;' G::" " -, {f-\ qE:<P~

?/ Q5'6'c:. (Y,r./e.iJc;1S Ie U1 I ,-,,0

REG, lVED



-If<' PLACER COUNTY WINERY TASTING ROOM PETITIONWe the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural and agricultural lifein Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and sampling theirproducts guides our purchasing decisions. As they consider regulations regarding winery samplingactivities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to strike an appropriate balance between the county'sregulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism,including vineyards and wineries

NAME ADDRESS

1~~~~~~~"tfIff7I~~~~'c1fJf~..bM...",.i_V._E.;;...~='N......~IJ..;;,..,,:..;.R,;:;;.,l)_=AtA~8U;.;.;.K...:.;,tJ=+==~~~- 60=:3SM.S~~ (/?d. C2J-. 25'(03

4

9

18

RECEIVED. JUL 03 2008


407

14

1

J JJtO\A1 H-<..1f.> a c). I s.e /of<:..r r:;-1()~jJ , Cd'

· V, 60 / 3)0 ~[~qs7J:Po &BlC- 3/0 c~I£'p:- , is?! 3 -

/Ilfss &0/& Ci ,Aub 95rdJ2//!f,~ j(pjlDx d. Av/:;. 9~w~

o i(J), V. 95~:Z.

Tf ,. 1(; :S-;.' 1

-~ L{ A~tt-\{Yl/~

~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~W.·:~q~~! S-2 -rg l.j; J Ie, \': A",,! i~-<-' I ~-~62

roo Pzu-{. ~10 ~u.: ,.) G5b0415---:....~=+--~~~~~ f-'--'-'.D~j3~q.L-'J~(0~~-I-/~A-v-~G.::...-{;l®_·_~t _Ct--L.::~=.J~W,-,,=-l(

16--4--=~-",--~-=---,---,-,:::--:::,-=--=- 1-,--9_/-'--=--~~~....=.j,.--f-,IL-~f---J_' s="-"Z1,--,,,o,--3

d- '-4 "0tY t~II~': '

18-r-+_-+- --'-\-L..c-v)~~~~~~____I.,__~_rfL",.

4

PLACER COUNTY WINERY TASTING ROOM PETITIONWe the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural and agricultural lifein Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and sampling theirproducts guides our purchasing decisions. As they c}>nsider regulations regarding winery samplingactivities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to strike an appropriate balance between the county'sregulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism,including vineyards and wineries.

(\ NAME

'\\ b,...-....-· *' <) .

~···I~~~·~'2--~)~ [ii.A_~~/~ .()\inA/V,- )

/ ~'1()/ 'I

3 i / t!..-t,1 (;" "~rx r .

RECEI ED

JUL 03 2008


NAME ADDRESS

\

-A-fu....:-~P..- .' >ee:::..-~..{,

., ,.~~ ~\

(J:S \~. '··i, c\ \." (0/!;::' ( --..~ \I- j ,,( ..:.~; ,~:J ()-\:~ v\ \. \. \,.:; ,I-J,

. '/1Z7fViJIztzV@C!54I17b1t·zs~o~

!CJ,t..u.:,--cJ'L ~'"I!-1 ~ res. ;'"$;. c~~

(/ j ~)L(f ','ei!1JIYible, ,cOM....I

( J, '/RECEIVED

JUL 03 2008

18

_.--113 .;.,::---J ..£:..)\..~r~ \ .._t-:;· .... ;. :\~s...:-~.,)-~..~

14 c\ (l{>ii{ <~;;~?:;S~+t-e/f"-'

15

6~e~v-Q-~--

8~~~C----.:-C(.J.L-J.b-~ --'--'-'="---_--+- _

4-L2J;$LjZ;f U ,3 !.-frJ5 ~ /l;vuv---Vl~e-I--


/

I po 5'"p/i~S L;A-. /I/~t--Gt.(T-r: I rA--. ?f{JY~ r I

L { ( I

%1>1.R W \S'lfvV\-'W~. \k>ettl'vJ7Jpju . . '. 4.

l~~ ~~N 7(

16 t-S 'c- '1' Ir- e." "('

17 '-A4EJ Itt'!l /lrw€tc, Sr,_ 'l/~)

l-AI~S.~ r J./ .

7~9t-~~____l....:~~~~----'-~~,r:_:~='_ul:.v_h~~~l::\,__£:::..v'--"-.1.-/!.~~--f-::=,:.~'rI_

J ~f' S'f.Q/' . G l~ '- r t~

~ -0 .~/~ S'134 , A)\0 i 0\-, 9 S \eDt- . '.tOO eJ% lvl. Na0Utdri~ C&CJ~

3--:.=:.:::.-::-~:::.;..\'-_..:;::r--!..!::-....:....=:=---,--_CiD~/_..:-r;-=-D--=I:...::t~.~.:.::::!L_cJ::::::::'=--.!:{LLL:::.=:.::;·*{.:J:.-i----=::~~,:..:.( -----I.~!::::£.!i~_qSC? 0"I t.f't '/' .E?u..ckca· 11'/1 T'S'(6Q3

--'--\zt-=-"'-.::.L.---=-=.!=<\--=--.!----=-~L------=-------:.:=---==-=-~.y=_--==:J.-----L...~.t:r::..::.~~

PLACER COUNTY WINERY TASTING ROOM PETITIONWe the undersigned think: that wineries and vineyards are valuable part ofthe rural and agricultural lifein Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and sampling theirproducts guides our pUrchasing decisions. As they consider regulation~!egarding winery samplingactivities, we encolJr.~get~e Board of Supervisorsto strike an appropri#te qalance between the county'sregulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism,including vineyards and wineries. .

NAME /'" ADDRESSt )I ,£~'" G~~'V\{'-~2 . h~ fAA- 7<: .~ IjAi-¢GOvJ

RECEIVED

JUL 032008CU:RK OF THE

1'<'(2~f\D elF SUPERVISORS

4/0

PLACER COUNTY WINERY TASTING ROOM PETITIONWe the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural and agricultural lifein Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and sampling theirproducts guides our purchasing decisions. As they consider regulations regarding winery samplingactiviti~s, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to strike an appropriate balance between the county'sregulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism,including vineyards and wineries.

NAME ADDRESS

\.j .

"Mfa ~6\-aqe o\lDI·~'c<)b4e«b"\ 2-

C \.

~ ' .-~" '

4,J'D S c' ) 1+ -Ii C·Cltt ~'2.<.; "J [-

5 f I \['i ~y\ rl; ;\-\/l " \ \ ;,\ l'........-J ".k... U \ ,'Z....\, ,_\

,-lQ j) 't7' -"'..J7 _ I. 4 r} ()-+10 V , .. -".._".<,.......-1(._ "'<d -)/-•.\'---~-.

')

13~~;jHL-+"7bL...:~..J....:>.-k.~~'"-6~~~=......./--J-I~~~~4-I.~~.........;~~~~~.......~~~·")

15_~....,pJ~rl-1----=--"-'"":..-...;~;.L."-_"+_~'--~--------------------


ieif.'\~s .~\q\S- \\::M'i\RJr~~- LlnLO(r) '1SW+p(J()hlL ()JLcllJ.ASCkh W? Ict06c" Nwcdt<.~ t1<-u'l-tL( 15"3 Gr~ic1

CJ APjps lA, {lcIArJ.&6cY.-r 7/f1f 0M/{rc!f/"/c'CLJ J!J/2, /I cJhcJ~"y j?5co

'\ ...• "'\ {" (' i \ (,I. 2 c:,_, ({ I\./~ I.' J,I/ < t.'.'.'.) "..) . ,~'... ~. ,.',' '." ,<:.,.( .:,' I I .. ' .. ( .,·\t" vrc'/..,J:. \":1., ~ \ '. ',...... \,.". (, "1.- ,. "\ ',- ,,,-, ,l \; "'. ," trc 1 '''........... C\.· ll-lt.. :1 (.J /,

; I --c,' " I " )

D~ltnJ lvC"f...cll""'S W"J v4-ob to{/1... 96-;5tJ '7--- '

1V175 ~~lX. Au'~1.AfV\ cA q~o

q () 6 0LAJ W(...) C<... V; ;Lf-ct t:3 en 9 ~(J" j

~ f?{l{/ t./}J~/., tJ~ #t1h ~jj tfJ-6o:.s~~~ &J,.Lf{) T~..,. ;Jr, /)J (2e- '7 s'Zo L-


7-SSo ,+ cA- . <:?S-631

SZ5l.P ~Cl~ ~1otl In. 'faIr [)a~i C1}~1()

5~6 k ~(I LaM€- £,'tt::k/(r Uf-, . I '9"~

, ~o Q ;\\l q.

8.

20.

9.

4.

5. '

17.

16.

14.

15.

12.

13.

10.

11.

We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural and agriculturallife in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producecs, and S..aIDplillg=n~ --

their products guides oU,r purchasing decisions. As they consider regulati,ons r~,ar$f~r;im :ITE~-sampling activities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to strike an appro~" at fgnc~7··" Q, ,(),llbetween the county's regulatory responsibility and its commitment to encourag' gm~: in ,,.:.£L:"'~,"~=,agriculture and related tourism, including vineyards and wineries.' ~I',

Name) Address I Email i~~

, 6.

· Placer County Winery Tasting Room Petition

We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural and agriculturallife in Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and samplingtheir products guides our purchasing decisions. As they consider regulations regarding winerysampling activities, we encourage the Board of Supervisors to strike an·appropriate balancebetween the county's regulatory responsibility and its commitment to enoourage growth inagriculture and related tourism, including vineyards and wineries.

Name

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Address I Email

PLACER COUNTY WINERY TASTING ROOM PETITIONWe the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part.ofthe rural and agricultural lifein Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and sampling theirproducts guides our purchasing decisions. .As they consider regulations regarding winery samplingactivities, we encourage the Board ofSupervisors to strike an appropriate balance between the county'sregulatory responsibility and its commitinent to encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism,including vineyards and wineries.

NAME ADDRESS.

9t/{~ 1;-5'65 m~ Gb~ 95003

10 V, rJJCv.~ <;. 4 () 0 <y' Uerf?V\,· er~ e4-wh~ q a,,~,

11~~ ~)QR tte- J[3' L~~~ k l' (/

12~atk~)C :J.iI'lCIll~}fiV~;rJ., !Le.k.:l'vfsf;< t£U 7-

13 \)"~~ ± ~ J\.flR\h U.if i~7~(;Ih--'j! f:tot\. ( Oxb -e. ,Sa.cr-o.~k>( {) <i 5 8-36

14J.4\a. \1)kl~ ~b3~ ~~~"'-k. ~w~ t G!\ ..~<OOL-

15~~~ 615/ ~. L.. ~~(CAc.}5'Z(

16~(O!r te~ 'i«l2V~~ Rd 10&1 An+clDfe- a Qw'317t\~ ~~!(,J\'" lo~ fkl1 fA Sic/< MO(t\, r (A '('7601

5 ~ ~~~

6,~~~~u...&t::.~~~~~7~5~S:.!...!!/l':JL:1.-L!::.=:S...JC...-.J-.!::::.'1-~~'~1.d.LJ.L~~....d..L~~71b

7&i~ 'BLed!:- 470 I/,~ J1 ~,en 9Ft()]

8])l1fJfP 1£l- teAL I ;)..sts MI1R.t£l.I'1t.S .& /!V8uR4{'){ttYtJ J

41b

16

PLACER COUNTY WINERY TASTING ROOM PETITION'We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part of the rural and agricultural lifein Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and sampling theirproducts guides our purchasing decisions. As they consider regulations regarding winery samplingactivities, we encourage the Board ofSupervisors to strike an appropriate balance between the county'sre~atory responsibility and its commitmentto encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism,

c;~ .. .eyaros~ '?66ADl;W ~J3t (

4 (It~W'VJL¥t A-. Ulll~~ J~L~ cY- 12odLltk. _~ cts;;-·~

5 ?Ci/i fI21oitdili-~ ,Ch Cjrf;sf6~k\f" 6o-r---t G2}fS fl£\f( ~(<NYh L't: 6fC\~~I~ ~y CA 9'5 ? K,7 :..fq/J'l~I/drt?vz .L({Jo j2/'~ie. pi q«httrL/l cd 7..Jc;O":;8 l U{6l \;JlSb\;)<b. 34bD lOR-AY LA;JF- .M'l6iJt'LNJ CA Of':> &D"""2-

lO~VI~'J S~":IH\ \\<?;\o~3c-e%'td~! \4vi~r'\ C4

t4 qS~~11 ret\(€.;.... 1-' /<,yvtyl-> ---) II I '-I La~ +(kj'V Vf..f.'-.J Dv lIl.A-bvtVY CA 9.5."h[) J

12A~~ /?-o.~ 7'-/ i.L/j\C~'-.t CIt . rs-b '{£'-CJ0 1113~~ Delma., 43/0 Cm.ulnf~~~~ qr;g<fJ

14G1w22±im:i tUli'~~~=det Q5..f.cu315 4\ia~~I6\- t.:i9D G0J1{iMl»-- t1Jow~ C~ <t:ili ("~

. .~ ;h- \rrG ~. 'V\ . . lli fLD.. bu..' V\ q~6.0

17 ' . b 11300 . Av6Jrv\ C· °1 S-f,OL (

~ .-?7'l( J!tb7iid. 1'l1~ ,eJl::".;;{f;Ci. ;t.ru.J

PLACER COUNTY WINERY TASTING ROOM PETITIONWe the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are valuable part ofthe rural and agricultural lifein Placer County. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers and producers, and sampling theirproducts guides our purchasing decisions. As they consider regulations regarding winery samplingactivities, we encourage the Board ofSupervisors to strike an appropriate balance between the county'sre~atory responsibility and its commitment to encourage growth in agriculture and related tourism,including vineyards and wineries.

NAME ADDRESS

PETITION TO SUPPORT PLACER COUNTYWINERIES

We the undersigned think that wineries and vineyards are avaluable part of the rural and agricultural lifestyle in PlacerCounty. We enjoy the opportunity to visit local growers andproducers and sampling their products guides our purchasingdecisions.

As they consider regulations regarding winery tasting activities, weencourage the Placer County Planning Deparbnent, the PlanningCommission and the Board ofSupervisors to strike an appropriatebalance between the County's regulatory responsibility and thecommitment to encourage growth and prosperity in agriculture andrelated tourism, including vineyards and wineries.

NAME

LR

~~~~(lthG,)'J)lfC-=>iV-V

RESIDENCE ADDRESS

.24-.;J.s~~«7~

5tR2.5' !A.fpRr K; dse "'-~ I4v h.

.40 3s CfffK:\AevJ (," KJY·iC:l iN I LIt- .

f 6(,\ P i/' 1i.'"lT fhtV; V'lJJ.' \.~ .t1-CIL4 M(,..j))~ ('fJ-

5d.D~~~~~C'/,j/I/vh/?":./rl"'"//l~~bl ,£11/' tlt-j/2,,;,rf)

if >_c.~t

~. .,..,,-tA .;~- 4;' ~" ,fZ.s €&,. ~ t /<. (4-/

If II

II 7

"

~:

I . !/;~U-.-

~ Yrazftlil 13'!{)~()s771d~(!hIl ~ I A,;A 11. j.~ fJ6J3 4

~~~uutu~ 1tJ!l0~. ~dAI~ ~~/ r!-/l-956C,

~Ji;= ~dta.u4'--.-< 968oJ~'~. ~I~.;Q.J,CA 9-;:;093

1ff-z,.. ~G { 0- A Q5&'SU

2

RECEIVED



County ofPlacer

RE: Fawnridge Winery5560 Fawnridge RoadAubum,CA


Application for modification ofMUP

As residents in the vicinity ofFawnridge Road, we wish to state that theactivities ofFawnridge Winery have not resultedin any significant negativeimpact to our neighborhood. As such, we are in support of approval of theirrequest for modification to their Minor Use Permit to clarify conditionswhich allow visitors, sales and related activiti~s in the continued operationofthe winery.. ~L·S. 1$ ?ih ~L;'ls;;t-/;H~h1 ,J:u/SI'ne:.-SS.r

Z whIPI e ~e.a )rT&:/~7 40 ~ £-/J?/ .d'r l' J f- t I, /, IYours T.?J.ly,

~~~

Address O'£~ a-(J Be.?/ &, '&~/.U'4 t::!-# ~1tt7c:1..

. Dated: r f/tP7

. ~ " .. '~,. ".-. ,.,.-.... --.."-,.~.. ~~", "'''---

RECEIVED

JUL 07 2008Cl FRK OF THE

BOARD'OF SUPERVISORS

County ofPlacer

RE: Fawnridge Winery5560 Fawnridge RoadAubum,CA


Application for modification of MUP

As residents in the vicinity ofFawnridge Road, we wish to state that theactivities ofFawnridge Winery have not resulted in any significant negativeimpact to our neighborhood. As such, we are in support ofapproval of theirrequest for modification to their Minor Use Permit to clarify conditionswhich allow visitors, sales and related activities in the continued operationof the winery. '

Yours Truly,

Dated:£2iTJ,?

RECEIVED

JUL 07 2008CLEHK OF THE


County ofPlacer

RE: Fawnridge Winery5560 Fawnridge RoadAubUrn, CA


Application for modification ofMOP

As residents in the vicinity ofFawnridge Road, we wish to state that theactivities ofFawnridgt( Winery have not resulted in any significant negativeimpact to our neighborhood. As such, we are in support ofapproval of theirrequest for modification to their Minor Use Permit to clarify conditionswhich allow visitors, sales and related activities in the continued operationofthe winery.

Yours Truly,~ ..

RECEIVED

JUL 07 2008 .CLEFn< or- T~..~r:

BOARD OF SUPEnVISORS

County ofPlacer

RE: Fawnridge Winery .5560 FawnridgeRoadAuburn,CA



As residents ofFawnridge Road we wish to state that the activities ofFawnridge, Winery have not resulted in any significant negative impact to.our neighborhood. As such, we are in support ofapproval oftheir requestfor modification to their Minor Use Permit to clarify conditions which allowvisitors, sales·and·reIated activities in the continued operation ofthe winery.

YoursTruly,

?~r~Address 650<1 ~~/O /ktdlj-e i2.dDated: S-<2 7 ~o 7

RECEIVED

JUL 07 2008CLFt'" C"_· ,.. ' E

BOARD OF~ISl./P[RVISORS

County ofPlacer

RE: Fawnridge Winery5560 Fawnridge RoadAuburn, CA ..



As residents ofFawnridge Road we wish to state that the activities of, .Fawnridge Winery have not resulted in any significant negative impact to

our neighborhood. As such, we are in support ofapproval oftheir requestfor modification to their Minor Use Permit to clarify conditions which allowvisitors, sales and related activities in the continued operation ofthe winery.

Yours Truly, 1~ -:ft~~-f!lr t/()J ~11,1vl9t/~

Address :J S 5'S F0 c;<J 17 If,dre ;fcIDated: ~/J8(0 7

CCnan/1 Ino

RECEIVED

JUL 07 2008CU-Yi< (;I' :' lE

BOARD OF SUPUlVlSORS

County ofPlacer

RE: Fawnridge Winery5560 Fawnridge RoadAuburn, CA



As residents in the vicinity ofFawnridge Road, we wish to state that theactivities ofFawnridge Winery have not resulted in any significant negativeimpact to our neighborhood. As such, we are in support ofapproval oftheirrequest for modification to their Minor Use Permit to clarify conditionswhich allow visitors, sales and related activiti~s in the continued operationofthe winery.

Yours Truly,

Address /0';727 tfoffi~ Oo£s~4w6~hDated: a:f:z7P 7 .

41,7

RECEIVED

JUL 07 2008~, '.';: ,if-' iHE

BOARD Of SUPERVISORS

County ofPlacer

RE: Fawnridge Winery5560 Fawnridge RoadAuburn, CA



As residents in the vicinity ofFawnridge Roa~we wish to state that theactivities ofFawnridge Winery have not resulted in any significant negativeimpact to our neighborhood. As such, we are in support ofapproval oftheirrequest for modification to their Minor Use Permit to clarify conditionswhich allow visitors, sales and related activiti~s in the continued operationof the winery.

Yours Truly,

M,ike--\ \kirov>(

Address !lf7'27 folLh%ill, 0-. Aubvr ..-.-.:.Dated:' &-~-S-()7 s»WL.-

County ofPlacerRURAL LINCOLN MUNICiPAL ADVISORY COUNCILP. O. Box 716Lincoln, CA 95648 .County Contact: Administrative Aide (530) 889-4010

May 25,2008

Supervisor Robert WeygandtPlacer County Board of Supervisors175 Fulweiler AvenueAuburn, CA 95603

Dear Supervisor Weygandt and Members of the Board:

RECf;/VED

JUL 072008ClEm< OF :r;,,:

BOARD OF SUPLii"/iSOHS

On May 19, 2008, the Rural Lincoln Municipal Advisory Council voted unanimously to supportthe current draft winery ordinance approved by the Placer County Planning Commission, asrecommended to the Placer County Board of Supervisors

The Lincoln MAC appreciates your efforts in this important matter.

Mark Fowler, Chairr~:~~~::;:~-::::::::.:=~~,,~-=u

!I AG~~D7 ~Er I,; I {i)·ATE: J.~._ ..._. .. . -, !ii! . I

H~" ')' )0 -3D CL~!~I; I' )J!l~]f" ------..~'--.-.•.----.".! r,..~ ..,,,~, '". ,- ""''''''. ~.~, ..,.....,_ ,~-, " ,--"~ " ..,, '.,._.. ,,~.,_." ",;...., .~.,_.-.-.,•. , ".. ..,.-.».".-,._,......"-,.~...~-""' ..,.,,..,.,......"'.-~"' , ...• ,.-, •.• ,;.. :

RECEIVEOBOARD O!:lIPERVISO~S5 IlUS \{<.'C'll MIl_DW_Other TS _ COI\_

, A'I.\l\ AideD4_S 'Ol Supl)'l_"HC - '~,.up -' '1'1)1 Alue_5 \)1 Sup D5 _ AlL< --,

up • - Aillc \)~ *SupD3_

.c'( f/&1111 /no

Affiliated with the California Farm Bureau Federation and the American Farm Bureau Federation

PLACER COUNTY FARM BUREAU

July 2,2008

Supervisor, Jim HolmesPlacer County Board of Supervisors175 Fulweiler AvenueAuburn, CA 95603 (

RECEIVED

JUL 03 2008

SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to the Placer County Code for the Creation ofa Winery Ordinance - (ZTA 20050609)

Dear Supervisor Holmes

Placer County Farm Bureau Board ofDirectors urges you to support the proposedamendment ofthe Placer County Code for the creation ofa Winery Ordinance. Webelieve that wineries and vineyards are a valuable part of the rural and agricultural life inPlacer County.

The Placer County Board of Supervisors has supported agriculture in the County over theyears. The County's General Plan has numerous references regarding the unique role ofagriculture to the County's economy. Specifically, the County has a goal identified in theGeneral Plan, "To provide for the long-term conservation and use ofagriculturallydesignated lands." To accomplish this, and support long-term viability, the Plan furtherstates, "The County shall encourage continued and, where possible, increased agriculturalactivities on lands suited for agricultural uses." For family farmers and ranchers toremain on their land, they have to be able to make a profit. One effective way to do thatis to increase the sales of farm products, including wine, directly to the consumer.

Placer County Fann Bureau supports the direct sales of wine, and associated winesampling, from county wineries in a manner that is more consistent with the direct salesof other value-added commodities from local farms and ranches. Other counties haveseen the value in doing this and reap the economic benefit of a healthy agri-tourismrelated industry that supports family owned vineyards and wineries. We trust that PlacerCounty will see the value too.

Sincerely,

~cy~~~Carol Scheiber, PresidentPlacer County Farm Bureau

:=

10120 Ophir Rd. 0 Newcastle, California 95658 0 (916) 663-2929Fax (530) 885-6645 0 E-mail: [email protected]

July 1, 2008.

Supervisors of Placer County

RECEIVED

JUL 03 2008CllHK vi- THE


Forty years ago we bought our home on a shared private rural roadbelieving maintenance expense was worth the guaranteed privacy. Now ourprivate roads are about to be thrown open to public commercial traffic for winetasting operations. Except for public hearings held mostly during working hours,we were not invited to give any serious input, as the wineries were.

The wineries initiated this change by asking county staff to create a newordinance, and that first draft had requirements for operation. Under the spin of"regulatory relief," vintners and the Ag Commission bullied the county intoabandoning all meaningful regulations. Why weren't citizens Jiving on privateroads consulted? We have just as much a right to privacy as the special interestgroup that wants more profit at our expense.

The result is an ordinance that allows wine tasting and sales with only oneacre of grapes "planted" on 4.6 acres. Grapes and bottles of wine can bebrought in from anywhere (along with food and merchandise sales). Supervisorswill hear a lot of whining from vintners that they need the wine tasting and retailsales in residential neighborhoods for profit. Where does this land grab stop? Alot of citizens will be outraged that what is supposed to be Ag zoning has movedfrom growing (and a little processing) to all-out retail shopping using ourneighborhood (private) streets.

If supervisors vote to approve what amounts to neighborhood bars, food 'service and retail stores, then greed supercedes the entire Placer Grownprogram. Try to imagine always having to wonder if/when your neighbor willplant an acre of grapes and then generate hundreds of cars or more a week ontoyour private drive for you to contend with.

In addition to bringing commercial business to quiet neighborhoods wheremy children and pets play, this outrageous ordinance allows private roads tohave public traffic of "had been drinking" vehicle operators as they travel fromone wine tasting facility to another. Law enforcement does not patrol privatedrives!

The county and the Ag Commission have become pawns to benefitwineries over neighborhood concerns of health and safety. Everyone likes Ag,and there probably wouldn't be opposition to wine tasting off public roads, butthis ordinance ignores reason. Ag zoning should be confined to plants andanimals-not processing to outrageous levels. Next we'll have vegetable pizzaparlors on our private roads.

If small, hobby vintners cannot make it, they shouldn't have started. Thecounty should not be guaranteeing profits for marginal operations. It's prettyobvious that the real motive for this nonsensical ordinance is for the nice tax writeoff that building a party room will provide.

Supervisors must vote NO on July 8-keep private roads private. A NOvote will restore some semblance of sanity to a process gone sour. At the veryleast, this ordinance should be voted on by the public, or an EIR must beprepared.

Randall ClevelandP.O. Box 846Newcastle, CA 95658

$1

Newcastle Community Association

.__._--,--_.--------_._----~._._--_._._-------_._-----~-. ------_._._------_._-----_._------~--:----

NCAPost Office Box 777Newcastle, CA 95658

RECEIVED

JUl 07 2008

Officers:

Diane RossPresident663-4818

Kevin OdellVice President663-9546

Jerry MohlenbrokTreasurer663-4822

Placer County Planning Commission3091 County Center DriveAuburn, CA 95603

November 10, 2007

Dear Planning Commission Members,

CLERK or- I HiBOARD OF SUPEfWiSOFS

Cathie CordovaSecretary The Newcastle Community Association (NCA) Mission Statement includes the directive, .

"to take action as needed in order to preserve the rural flavor, pride, and safety of thecommunity." Pursuing this part of our mission, the Board of the NCA submits thefollowing comments regarding the Placer County Draft Winery Ordinance.

The stated intent of the Winery Ordinance is to encourage local agricultllre and to protectagricultural lands. We believe that the proposed ordinance fails to achieve these statedpurposes and suggest several significant changes that enable the ordinance to achieve itsgoals while also enhancing compatibility with adjacent land uses.

The Winery Ordimmce, as proposed, requires a winery to have only one acre ofp/antedvineyard. That requirement is unrealistically low. One acre wiIJ produce no more than350 cases of wine and can produce as little as 250 cases. But the; ordinance permits smallwineries to sell as many as 20,000 cases of wine. Even the more restricted boutiquewineries referred to in the ordinance are permitted to sell up to 3,000 cases of wine. ft isobvious that wineries with even a few acres in grape production will be l()[ced to buygrapes, grape juice, or finished wine from other sources (all of which are permitted by theproposed ordinance). We bel icve virtually all of these products will be purchased outsideof Placer County.

According to the 2006 Agricultural Crop Production Report, Placer County has lIN acresplanted in grapes producing 485 tons of grapes. 485 tons of grapes produce. at most,only 28,500 cases of wine. Placer County vineyards will not be the source of grapes fornumerous wineries permitted to sell 20,000 cases of wine. This means that grapes will bepurchased from Lodi, Napa, and Sonoma Couf1ties. While such purchases will promoteagricullure in those other counties, they will do nothing to promote ,md encourageLlgriculturc in Placer County. A one acre minimum vineyard simply introduces


commercial winery activity into rural, residential neighborhoods while doing little or nothing to protectagricultural lands.

If the Winery Ordinance is to fulfill its stated intent, the minimum number of acres required to becommitted to viticulture must be signiticantly increased. Five acres of planted vineyard, while stillvery low, sh()uld be the minimum number of acres required for wineries located in Residential,Resource, and Agricultural zoning districts. Fifteen to twenty acres (which would produce no morethan 7,000 cases) would be more appropriate for wineries permitted to sell 20,000 cases of wineannually.

We also propose that wineries lmable or unwilling to grow their own grapes or use Placer Countygrown grapes need to he more strictly limited in the on-premise sale of wine. Selling wines that are inno way a product of Placer County agriculture is simply commercial activity in rural, residentialneighborhoods. Such activity, which does not protect or encourage agriculture, and which mayadversely impact residential neighbors, needs to be more rigorously regulated. Wineries that cancertify they arc growing their own grapes or using grapes grown in Placer County would be permittedto sell more cases of wine. Wineries not able to so certify would be required to sell fewer cases.Wineries using very little or no Placer product should be disqualified under this ordinance; suchvcndors can usc the more traditional outlets for selling their product.

Finally, the potential for noise complaints originating from winery events will be very high in whathave always been very quiet rural neighborhoods. To minimize conflict hom excessive noise, wineryowners should he meticulously apprised of the requirements of Placer County Code Article 9.36(referred to hut not included in the Draft Ordinance). Additionally, enforcement of noise regulationsmust be resolute with violators being justly penalized.

While wineries may have a place in rural residential neighborhoods, they must he regulated and theemphasis must be on supporting agriculture. Our association doesn't support introducing commercialoperations into these neighborhoods. .

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,/,

(It ((1'1" )

Diane RossPresident, Newcustle Community Association

cc: Ruth AlvL'sMichael I.cydonClerk of the Board of Supervisors

From: [email protected]

Sent: Monday, July 07,200810:48 AM


Subject: Wineries

-REG Et-V-EO

JUL 07 2008CLERK OF.fHE

BOARD OF SUPEJIVISORS

I support all the wineries in Placer County. I feel strongly that they have the right to have wine tastingson their property. If we allow Mandarin farms to sell directly to the public, wineries should have thatright. I think we have made the wineries jump through way too many hoops...pretty soon what interestpeople have in wines of Placer County will no longer off set all the problems the wineries are having toremain established. We need to support wineries so they remain in Placer County. I.don't support theNeighborhood rescue group of a few loud members to disrupt great family businesses of PlacerWineries. Amy Phillips Newcastle Ca 95658

The Famous, the infamous, the lame - in your browser. g~lthe IMZ ToolI;>..§lCNow!

From: Harry Cowan [[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, July 07,2008 10:07 AM


Subject: wineries

we love to visit the small local wine makers and tast their wares.thank youHarry & Sue Cowan

JUL 07 2008-----'--_._-_.-------------

CLEHK uF ("HEBOARD OF SUfJERVISORS

-;ro~~-;~~~' Jolene Wolf [[email protected]]'·-'----------'--,----,- JUL"- 0.7 2008-Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 8:26 AM §~Ml~b~~~8t~r;V~SORS


SUbject: Placer County Winery Tasting Rooms

As residents of Placer County, we enjoy the locally grown and produced wines. Not only do we purchase thesewines for ourselves, but we often take visitors from out of state to sample (and quite often purchase) the fineproducts produced right here in our home county. '

Removing Placer Winery tasting rooms would remove the Placer County Wineries' ability to compete in themarketplace - forcing consumers to travel into EI Dorado County or the Napa Valley for tasting and purchases,Local wineries need a tasting room to allow consumers to sample and appreciate their products beforepurchasing.

Please join us in support of the Placer County wineries and their ability to locally market their products, Maintainthe Placer County Wineries right to provide tasting rooms.

Thankyou,

Brad and Jolene Wolf909 Fitzroy CourtRoseville, CA 95747916.771.0191

From: Trudi S. Riley-Quinn [[email protected])

Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11 :59AM


Subject: Winery Ordinance, Tues July 8, 2008

RECEiVED

JUl 07 2008CLEr-H<. OF THE


First, we sincerely thank you for all that you do for Placer County and the residents youserve.

Although we are unable to attend the hearing on the 8th relating to the WineryOrdinance, we heartily urge and hope that you will vote in favor of the ordinance. Theordinance should solve the tasting room and winery visit issues AND support our localwineries.

The Placer County wineries and wine industry ventures constitute positive, promisingand viable additions to our Placer Grown persona, convivial environment and personaland professional economic community. For the most part the owner/operators are"Placer Grown," responsible and community minded entrepreneurs who add so much toour community. We should not be afraid of Placer becoming too commercial.

Please embrace this enhancement to PlacerGrown and to our community by voting infavor of the Winery Ordinance.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and again for your continuing service toothers.

Cordially,

Tim Quinn and Trudi Riley-Quinn4040 Dawn DriveLoomis, CA 956509166526373

Trudi S. Riley-Quinn, CELA*

2390 Professional Drive

Roseville, California 95661

Telephone: 916.782.8212

Fax: 916.782.8833

email: lCl,lQi@J?J:..tLe.v,,-c_o_l1}*Certified Elder Law Attorney by the National

Dear Supervisor Holmes,

RECEIVED



I voted for you but I am greatly disturbed by rumors of businesses like wineries,

Bed and Breakfasts and others being allowed on private roads in Placer County. As as

guardian of the citizens ofPlacer County I am sure you will vote against allowing such

nonsence in Newcastle.

y~:~~10235 Indian Hill RdNewcastle, Ca 95658

---.-----,------.-.---_._--From: Sheila Strong [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, June 3D, 2008 9:25 PM


Subject: Wineries in Placer

I would like to express my support in allowing our Placer County Wineries to sell theproduct from their wineries. Having locally made wine is something we should be proudof and not being able to seel at their facility will surely devastate most the thesmall wineries.

Sheila StrongGranite bay Resident

. IDA.TE .

M-'. i Board of Supervisors - gI vr-r~' ,..- . '. - '" ""I"\'e 0 11<1",.\. . ." .. l!1C~

~c,·· I; - '\.i., . ,:.:ie,

fiJ1ll1i:7!i!Z;1t:::.'I f/~IJI1!J1?rY1

From: Karin Koons [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 12:30 PMTo: Placer County Board of SupervisorsSUbject: Wineries

June 30, 2008

Board of Supervisors:

It was just recently brought to my attention that there is an ordinance that might be passedthat would prohibit tasting wil~eat wineries.'

Who thought this one up? Placer County is surrounded by counties that welcome visitorsto taste their wine, Nevada County, Amador County, El Dorado County to name a few.These are tourist dollars. The cleanest dollars you can get. And usually requiring anovernight stay.

I am in the hospitality industry and here in Auburn, I find it difficult enough to bringpeople to Auburn. We are not a destination. We have wonderful outdoor activities tooffer tourists, but not everyone wants to do that.

Please reconsider this. It will not only hurt our tourist dollars but hurt the wineries thatare trying very hard to compete in the ever popular Napa and Sonoma Wineries.

Sincerely,

Karin Koons

From: Jake O'Rourke [[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, June 26,20089:17 AM

To: Placer County Board of Supervisors; Placer County County Counsel

Cc: . [email protected]

Subject: CEQA Violations--Vote NO on wine tasting ordinance

nATE

i]:~ .-. "0.. ;~d-;f.--S·upe..~./1. :;'.0.rs·l5

Coun,::' :';\':j Oifl-t.;e~.' GOL'''- > • ':.< ~

June 26, 2008 r~

To the Placer County Board of Supervisors: ~~Subject: Proposed Wine Tasting Ordinance ~ICJnn1.JtL '

The proposed wine tasting ordinance/zoning change requires the preparation of an DEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) or a vote to deny the changes. To try to use a Negative Declaration(Neg Dec) is a blatant violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Impacts that were identified in numerous citizen comments have been routinely ignored anddismissed as insignificant. The County has failed to measure the impact of all the boutique winerieslikely to open as a result of the wine tasting zoning ordinance change. Traffic, health and safety,biological and other enyironmental resources throughout the entir~ county will be impacted. Theseimpacts are not properly analyzed in the winery-initiated' and county-supported rush give regulatoryrelief to wineries (at the expense of citizens), with private roads throughout the entire county beingespecially impacted. We know in EI Dorado County, an estimated 50,000 people can descend on smallback county roads. Although studies should be conducted to assess the environmental traffic impactsof even modest increases in the number of wineries, none of the traffic impacts is addressed in detail.The magnitude of this zoning change is Placer County-wide-not just one or two "boutique wineries"wide.

Placer County's private roads often branch off of narrow, public roads that have no shoulders,bike lanes, or sidewalks. These private branching private roads (also lacking shoulders, bike lanes, orsidewalks) then branch again into additional private roads and drives. Any increased traffic on puplic,and especially private, roads must be studied. Yet there is no discussion or analysis of such potentiallymonumental traffic impacts on such sub- or minimally-standard roads.

The public might be agreeable to wine tasting facilities that come off public roads, or winetasting facilities on private roads when gJj the residents/property owners/neighbors on the drive(unanimously) consent to allow wine tasting facilities. However, such alternatives or mitigationmeasures are not even on the table. Thus, all the public has is uncertainty and all the county has isCEQA violations.

One area that is totally ignored is iii addressing gated roads. Although neighborhoodassociations may have rules governing commercial access, a wine tasting event or a promotional eventneeds only to be advertised with the gate code included (or instruct customers how t6 call to have thegate opened). Experience has shown that by the time a Homeowner Association hasa chance toreact, the event or tasting is over. This must be addressed.

CEQA must be followed and an EIR must be prepared. In this Negative Declaration (Neg Dec)proposal, no mitigation measures are even offered. The following two paragraphs from another publiccomment letter articulate the situation Placer County's situation and support the preparation of an EIR:

It is well settled that CEQA establishes a "low threshold" for initial preparation of an EIR,especially in the face of conflicting assertions concerning the possible effects of a proposedproject. The Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2005) 124 CalApp.4th 903, 928. An EIR isrequired whenever substantial evidence in the administrative record supports a "fair argument'that significant impacts may occur, even if other substantial evidence supports the oppositeconclusion. CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064(a)(1), (f)(1) (emphasis added). An impact need not be

#J

marnen-fa·us or at along enduring nafure; fhe word "significant" "covers aspedrurnrangingfrOm'not trivial' through 'appreciable' to 'important' and even 'momentous.'" No Oil, Inc. v. City of LosAngeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83 n. 16. The fair argument test thus reflects a "low thresholdrequirement for initial preparation of an EIR" and expresses "a preference for resolving doubts infavor of environmental review." Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995)33 Cal.AppAth 144, 151.

Further, where the agency fails to study an entire area of environmental impacts, deficiencies inthe record "enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range ofinferences." Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311. In marginalcases, where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have asignificant impact and there is a disagreement among experts over the significance of the effecton the environment, the agency "must treat the effect as significant" and prepare an EIR.Guidelines § 15064(g); City of Carme/~By~The-Sea v, Board of Supervisors (1986) 183Cal.App.3d 229, 245. IJ]

The Placer County impacts from this proposed wine ordinance are ~ou1llY. wide, yet the NegDec does not look "at the whole of the action" (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a» nor does it assess bothdirectand reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental effects (CEQA § 15064(d». The Neg Decmust look at the combined impacts of .all the wineries that are likely to be constructed and build winetasting facilities with the stated intent of "regulatory relief' and encouragement of expansion of wineriesand wine tasting that this proposed wine ordinance zoning amendment provides. The zoningamendment does not study or inform the public of the impacts (traffic, air quality, noise, etc.) that mayresult from that relieve or expansion.

The proposed ordinance allows wine tasting on 4.6 acres with the planting of only one acre ofgrapes. No mention is made of viability, production minimums, maintenance, etc., as is the case withEI Dorado County's ordinance. Instead, the door is opened for anyone to only "plant" that acre butprocess grapes from anywhere, as well as bring in bottles of wine ("cellared") from anywhere along withmerchandise and food, to sell on site. Thus any hobbyist is strongly encouraged to start a winery. Yetnone of the impacts are analyzed as to increased use of pesticides, herbicides, and other hazards(wineries located adjacentto homes with children), water quality impacts (surface water runoff), orbiological impacts that hundreds of fragmented acres of increased vineyards may create. To rely on"self-regulation" for moderation in winery operations is grossly unreasonable and unacceptable.

One of the larger, overlooked impacts is with public services. Law enforcement does not patrolprivate roads, so any vehicle code violations will have to come from residents or citizens filingcomplaints. Similarly, the County conveniently tries to avoid assessing noise impacts by erroneouslyrelegating the impact as insignificant because of an existing county noise ordinance. Existing countyordinances do not minimize or lessen the noise impact as far as CEQA is concerned. An impact is animpact is an impact and must be analyzed. Citizens will be impacted by the noise coming from both thetasting traffic and the promotional events which triggers the necessity to prepare an EIR with this·amendment. The fact that a noise ordinance exists, or that the Sheriff can be called, is irrelevant withregard to CEQA.

Additionally, with the increase in construction of wine tasting facilities, there will be noise, dustand possibly erosion from construction of tasting rooms and increased vineyards. Yet the public is notinformed as they would be with the preparation and circulation of an EIR.

Another huge ignored impact relates to water supply. Again, no study and no information areforthcoming as to groundwater supplies and/or non-treated water deliveries (currently, if not already ona "waiting list," 1/2 miner's inch is all that is allowed per parcel, per current PCWAcanal policy; this maychange if draught conditions materialize). If boutique wineries spring up in areas where only well wateris available, what will be the impact on the water table? Will neighboring wells be impacted? We donot know because no studies were conducted, as they should be in an EIR.

Wineries want one acre of "planted" grapes to meet the minimum requirement to allow winetasting and promotional events on private roadways. They claim they need the public tasting on theprivate road access to sustain their commercial industry. However, one acre of grapes will yield at themost from 250 to 350 bottles of wine. Is that sustainable? (EI Dorado County requires 20 acres and 5

36()0 CloverValleyRdLoomis, CA 95650jQkeorQl,JLk?~@tb_Qtm~lL~9JJJ.

cc Neighborhood Rescue GroupPlacer County Counsel

[JJ G. Scott Williams, Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek, A Law Corporation re San Diego Wine Ordinance, May 18,2007

Earn cashback on your purchases with Live Search - the search that pays you back! 1-J=_grn MQll;

From:Sent:To:Subject:

Board of SupervisorsPlacer County

Peter Willcox [[email protected]]Wednesday, June 25,20084:08 PMPlacer County Board of Supervisorssupport wine ordinance

I~~+ -.==0 ,."~,,,,""-,.":::....-~-=~-~'"..-::-r~. AGENDA ITE1VI II DATE:'-U _. 0£ i

II TI?$: / 0<~~ - J\l::::~.::::,·~-::::=::::,::::::=:-,=·_··--..::::::;:::~J

I'm supporting your proposed wine ordinance. It looks like a well thought out piece ofwork. Going to small wineries is one of life's pleasures.

Peter WillcoxGrass Valley

We wanted to state our SUPPORT for the wineries. As long as they comply with all the county and state. regulations, they should be allowed to farm their land, and sell their grapes and wine. In turn it is a benefit to the

county in many ways. It brings people to other business, for tax revenue and many more benefits to all involved.

Permits should have never been issued, to get the wineries in the position they are in now. It was know by theboard all a long what the wineries intentions were to make and sell wine.

. Now to tell them they cant go forward, after collecting taxes and fees, is not right.

If for some reason this does not go through, the wineries should receive some kind of compensation back for alltheir efforts, and expenses.

Thanks in advance for your support

Maria and Lou Rego

From: stacy taylor [[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 9:58 AM


Subject: wine ordinance

Please contnue to allow public wine tasting in your area. As a resident of Truckee I enjoy touring the area andsupporting local wine and other agriculture. Keeping the tasing and annual events is important to visitors to yourarea.

Stacy TaylorTruckee Ca

~~:~~---St-e~:~iIIe-b-r-ew-·[email protected]·----·-------·----~-- D~~~~~1rl\

Sent: Thursday, June 26,20089:57 AM . /6;gv JI

To: Placer County Board of Supervisors ". ~:.. ~.._-'"-. IIt.::::::::.::::::.-==:=:~===::::::.:::::::::::.:=.::__::!jSubject: Winery Ordinance

BOSups: I support the new wine ordinance to favor Placer County agriculture and the fledgling Placer wineries. Ibelieve that wineries are fUlly supported by every other CA county that I know about, near and far, and all theseother counties are quite proud of their wineries. I suspect the few angry people in opposition to the proposedordinance would probably be in favor of Placer being the only "dry" county in CA. LasIU9JL1Q..J)lease-h~l2suJ2Rort

Q\J.L_E!~tcer _Count}'~loeriEl~_~ndE.!~cer a9Iic\Jltyr~. We have some great ones here that have worked very hard tomake us all proud.

Thanks!

Steve KillebrewP.O. Box 147Applegate, CA 95703

#7

Dear Board of Supervisors:


Mia Rice Stone [[email protected]]Wednesday, June 25, 2008 2:29 PMPlacer County Board of Supervisorssupport of winery ordinance

;"::~1~ri~1/tnm: Io:~ -11~"::':':.==,:-':::-::=_-::::::=--:::::;:=::::::.::::::.=:'.j

This letter is to inform you of our support of the upcoming winery ordinance. My husbandand I have been land owners in Placer County for 10 years, and last year finished buildingour "dream home" here.We work hard to support our community by shopping locally as much as possible, supportingthe arts, wildlife rescue services, paying high dollars to purchase food at the farmersmarket in Auburn, hiring all local sub-contractors, buying building and landscapingsupplies in our county and donating to the local school sports teams. Another words, weare your ideal citizens!

We are aware that there is a small, vocal minority who strongly object to having folksvisit our local Placer County wineries and allowing these wineries to have some eventsthroughout the year to promote their business. I don't hear these same people objectingto the mandarin, apple, iris or other growers! It seems as though they are driven by anunrealistic fear of a bunch of drunk drivers fueled by free local wine, tearing throughthe countryside wreaking havoc and running over children and pets. We have tasted wineallover California and in several other states and have never encountered these problemsor such anti-local agricultural sentiment. '

I would put money on the bet that these same fearful citizens have not spent any time atthese wineries. If they had, they couldn't help but see mostly older folks, mixed withthe moie affluent and educated younger set (26 - 40 years old) out with family andfriends, sipping some local wine, having picnics and making purchases for theircollections/cellars. I know that when we go out, we rarely spend less than $80 andsometimes rnore than $150 per couple. That is money going directly into our local economy.And guess what, we don't drink a bunch, in fact, we end up pouring out as much as we sip.It takes a heck of a lot of tastes to equal a glass of wine. While out exploring localwineries, we usually go out to lunch or dinner, adding even more to the local coffers.Not to mention gas!

I know how a few angry, vociferous folks in this community can get a lot of attention andappear to represent more of the demographic than they do. All that takes is to read theletters to the editor in the Auburn Journal. That is part and parcel of a small town.

Please don't bend to these few unrealistic, fearful folks, instead try to understand theiragenda. Then let me know what the heck it is!Personally, I feel we have many "true" concerns in our community that need our energy andattention. Like the increasing number of people who are showing the obvious signs of methaddiction that I see walking around town. Now there is a problem that effects us all!Perhaps you can engage the anti-wine activists to put their energies towards that problem.That way, they can still have a common fear to bind them and a project that will benefitthe community.

Thank you for your time and I hope, your support.

Mia Rice-StoneTom Stone1463 Dog Bar RoadColfax, CA [email protected]

IiJATE .....----_~ Board of SuperlJ!soliS - C

~ (:0'." E~C8cutiveOfficet;5K CountY coum;el. .

fW~~'U#y


Mali at Garden Fare [[email protected]]Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:40 PMPlacer County Board of SupervisorsWinery Ordinance

Please pass the up coming ordinance allowing wineries to serve their products at theirproperties. As a local ag producer, I know how financially challenging an ag operation isin this neck of the woods.Having to operate an off-site tasting room is not feasible for mostsmall, family wineries. I often bring family and friends from out oftown to the local wineries to experience this unique and special part of our culture herein the Sierra Foothills. Taking them to town just wouldn't be the same. In this age ofdisconnect between consumer and producer I think forbidding consumers from experiencingwhere .theirfood or wine is grown is a great disservice to us all.Thank you for your consideration,Mali Dyck

--_._------,_._-------._-------'.From: Lisa Gubbels [[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, June 25,2008 9:02 PM


Subject: Placer County Wine Ordinance

To the Placer County Board of Supervisors:

I am a resident of Newcastle and a native of Placer County. I am also a wine drinker, a neighbor of several smallwineries, and a registered voter. I believe that the growing wine industry in Placer County is a good thing, muchas I think my neighbor's mandarin orchard and participation in agricultural special events is a good thing! Isupport the budding wine industry in our county and I urge you to do the same. Please do not impose unfairrestrictions on wineries - they are simply an agricultural concern that wants to share their products with ourcommunity. ' '

Regards,Lisa Gubbels

~r:m~- Ly~n LOmb~rd [,Ynn_':;:d@wor'd~eLatt~~-----------------f~mT=~ilSent: Wednesday, June 25,20089:22 PM II DATE. , !To: Placer County Board of Supervisors ,\ _.... / D~. 31) .1\Subject: Winery Ordinance !I TfwiE: . ---._-- II

t~:,~~:.~~::·::·~::='::~=:=::==::::'::::;:::::'::_-:·:···;

We are adamently opposed to any winery ordinance which would allow passage of winery customers acrossprivate roads. As our representatives, we urge you to protect our property rights and property value by opposingthe passage of such an ordinance.

SincerelyBob and Lynn Lombard790 Ridgecrest DriveColfax, CA 95713

~~om: -;-~i~tine Sindoni [Chrl~~~~es~d:ni@g~aiI.CO;------'--~_._-- !I,~~:t~~~fi:j J:)Jot:fE: . - I

Sent: Wednesday, June 25,20086:01 PM :1, .,I. r

To: Placer County Board of Supervisors \ \ '1' . / 6~6V.Subject: Placer County Wine Tasting i! T,}'J...1n·: . _~ ..~'.;

-~ ~~-'"~ -""-'-'--;:-''-:~'::=:.:::::==;::--~. ,,~...._~..~.-~--

One of the wonderful things about living in a rural area like Placer County is the ability to visit with andpurchase farmers' products. Having grown up in a big city, I treasure being able to visit wineries, talk tothe growers about their farming endeavors, taste their wine and purchase it. Don't take that away fromme and others who live here or come to visit. It is one of those special opportunities that we are gratefulto have. Please don't let the unrealistic concernsof a few misguided individuals ruin the experience forthe rest of us who are certainly the majority!

Thank you!

Christine SindoniAuburn

-;~o~~-Darlene Engellenner [dengelienner@hot~aiI.C~~l--·----------- if·~~~;07~~3r-llSent: Wednesday, June 25,20087:48 PM [i r"A'-,.;{'E: ._..-._.••_...•_.•.._. !To: Placer County Board of Supervisors !! J()~_ ISUbject: please support the winery industry. !\ -rrJ'4flE; - -_. II

! .~_~~ :::' _'.":.~~..~..'::.'.:::.."'::.:::,:':::::-.-::::==-==:_~:::": ...-.~J

I think it give our area a touch of class and interest in tourism to have such an industry here. Please continue tosupport themDarl:en&E~

From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:

ART MALLO [[email protected]]Wednesday, June 25,20084:20 PMPlacer County Board of Supervisors'Stewart Perry'tasting at the wineries in placer county

..~=:!~,II DATE: 2:-'1::/) IIlima: l023Q_11I :~::,:~:::::=:...=:::~:::::~:,:~:;,:::~:-~" -.:::::-'::::::,:::'.i

I cannot even believe that there is still discussion on whither or not to allow tasting atthe wineries in placer county. How can all the adjacent counties be able to haveordnances to allow tasting at the wineries?

I think if the county is trying to grow tourism and tax dollars for placer county thenthis is a no brainer. The state has dui's in place, are you going to enact newlegislation to ensure safe driving????

The few additional cars that the tasting rooms would add on the roads is really a nonfactor in my opinion.

Please call if you would like additional information from me.

Art Mallo916 759 0888

From: Joanne [email protected]]

Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:39 PM


Cc: [email protected]

Subject: Winery Ordinance, 10:30AM item, July 8

Gentlemen:

Please accept this email as my opportunity to show support for local agriculture and keeping options that makesmall scale agriculture viable in Placer County.

Grape growing as a single product is not economically viable on the small scale of Placer County's familyvineyards. Like many other growers who need to create value-added products in order to keep their farmingoperations afloat financially, grape growers need value-added prOducts, namely wine, to give their small scalevineyards and winery a reasonable chance of succeeding. Unless Placer County farms and family ranches canprovide a decent living for farmers, they will not survive, and more agricultural land will be lost to rooftops andpavement. Let's not forget that Placer's heritage is family farming and ranching.

The ordinance you are considering is a reasonable and fair winery ordinance that will allow a small number ofPlacer County wineries to continue to contribute to local agriculture. Let's keep all small scale agriculture alive inPlacer County inclUding wineries, agricultural processing, agritourism, farmstands, and other activities that areessential to our local small-scale family agriculture and rural quality of life. .

Thank you.

Joanne Nett326 Aeolia DriveAuburn, CA 95603916663-9126

"i'__~., '.' .~.,.~ ,.,...~,,~,., ..,._.....,.. , '.'i,. ~.~ •• ~"<~_."."..,-,",..• ,, ..,",,-,_ .. , _,.-,

6/30/2008

-------------------------From: Ted Sorensen [[email protected]]

Sent: Sunday, June 29,20089:34 PM


Subject: Positive support for Wine making and Wine tasting

This email is in support for Placer County Wine makers and their endeavor to be permitted to have events including tastingand selling wine at their agricultural properties.

The people that are trying to ban winemaking and wine tasting in Placer County are attempting to lead the public to believethat their "way of life" is about to be destroyed. Their selfish, not in my back yard, attitude is their attempt to control thefreedom of neighbors to use their property to pursue Agricultural and Farming business in Placer County. If they succeed atpreventing the wine makers from growing grapes and legally selling their wine on site, next they may try to prevent Veggie,Mandarin, and Flower growers from special on site events in order to keep people off of their streets and out of theirneighborhood. After that, they will move onto Artists, Open Houses, Barn and Garden Tours in an effort to keep folks fromenjoying the "Fruits" of Placer County that lured most of ~s"out of towners" to this beautiful County.

We fully support winemaking, grape growing and one site wine tasting and selling and encourage the Boards support on thisissue.

Ted and Dona Sorensen, 1420 Shadow Rock Drive, Auburn.

()/10/200R

From: Christy Sandhoff [[email protected]]

Sent: Saturday, June 28,20086:00 PM

To: Christy Sandhoff

Subject: Placer County Wine Ordinance

Your Board of Supervisors is considering the upcoming Wine Ordinance for Placer County.Please support all of our local businesses by attending this informative meeting andlending your support to its passage.This is a reminder to attend the Board of Supervisors meeting scheduled for lO:30am,Tuesday, July 8,2008 at175 Fulweiler Avenue, Auburn, CA 95603.Thank you for your support.


I am in favorannual eventsbe a shame toto our area.

Candee Stafford [[email protected]]Friday, June 27,20084:02 PMPlacer County Board of SupervisorsWine Ordinance

of the current Wine Ordinance allowing wineries to remain open and have 6a year. I enjoy the countryside, the wineries and agricultural. It wouldhurt Placer County with the closing of these wineries, they ad~ such a charm

,----------------,-----------------_._-~From: Patricia Calabrese ([email protected]]

Sent: Friday, June 27,20088:59 AM


Subject: Placer Co wineries

We support Placer County wineries selling their products onsite. Thank you.

Dan and Patricia Calabrese

3622 Clover Valley Road

Rocklin

----------_._-------From: Eleanor Mogler [[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, June 26,20083:39 PM


Subject: WINE

Dear BoardI wish to express my full support for the wineries - old and new, in Placer County.

It is my belief that much good can come from having the opportunity of providing more activities of interest for ourtourism bureau to include in things to do In Placer County plus the beauty the vineyards provide.

I also feel that when a person goes to wine tastings they receive a sip of wines of interest, and that it is not aconcern regarding DRIVING DRUNK.I am certain the proprietors of the wineries are also not anxious to deplete their offerings.

With sincere appreciation for your consideration in this matter.Ellie, Granite Bay, CA.

-----,.._--From: Craig Wilson [[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, June 26, 20082:45 PM


Subject: Placer County Wineries

As a resident of Placer County I think wineries should be allowed to offer wine tasting on their premises. I think this fitswith the rural and agrarian lifestyle that Placer County is becoming famous for.

Craig Wilson2580 Burl LaneNewcastle

4-&/

Placer County Supervisors:


,

Doug and Dianne Jones [[email protected]]Monday, July 02,20077:14 PMPlacer County Board of Supervisorswineries

I am writing to you about the ordinances that the Plac~r County Supervisors areconsidering concerning family owned wineries and tasting rooms of Placer County.I am a 30 year resident of Roseville, and a board member and officer of the Placer CareCoalition, Inc. Over the past 7 years, our organization has raised over $300,000 for theelderly, the poor, the abused, and the homeless of Placer County. We do this bysponsoring an annual wine and food tasting and auction. The primary contributors of thisevent are the family owned wineries and restaurants of Placer County. The wineries aresmall farm operations that need to sell direct to the consumer. The wineries promotetourism, and the wine industry is a key contributor to the local economy.I sincerly hope that you will keep in mind that placer County wineries need to besustainable, as you consider ordinances and restrictions that may hamper the wineries'ability to market themselves and their products in Placer County. . Further regulatingsmall family owned wineries in Placer County would most likely eliminate theirparticipation in events such as ours. Please consider the negative impact any commercialregulations of these small wineries would have on local charities, as well as tourism inour county.I look forward to the swift and just resolutions of these concerns.

Sincerely,Marilyn Knox, V.P.Placer Care Coalition

--,

From:Sent:To:SUbject:

Richard D. Knox [[email protected]]Monday, July 02, 2007 7:40 PMPlacer County Board of SupervisorsWinery Ordinances

Placer County Supervisors:

I am writing to you about the ordinances that the Placer County Supervisors areconsidering concerning family owned wineries and tasting rooms of Placer County.I am a 30 year resident of Roseville, and a board member and officer of the Placer CareCoalition,Inc. Over the past 7 years, our organization has raised over $300,000 for theelderly, the poor, the abused, and the homeless of Placer County. We do this bysponsoring an annual wine and food tasting and auction. The primary contributors of this.event are the family owned wineries and,restaurants of Placer County. The wineries 'aresmall farm operations that need to sell direct to the consumer. The wineries promotetourism, and the wine industry is a key contributor to the local economy.I sincerlyhope that you will keep in mind that placer County wineries need to besustainable, as you consider ordinances and restrictions that may hamper the wineries'ability to market themselves and their products in Placer County.. Further regulatingsmall family owned wineries in Placer County would most likely eliminate theirparticipation in events such as ours.' Please consider the negative impact any commercialregulations of these small wineries would have on local charities, as well as tourism inour county.I look forward to the swift and just resolutions of these concerns.

Sincerely,Marilyn Knox, V.P.Placer Care Coalition, 604 Widgeon Ct. Roseville Ca. 95661

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:07 AMTo: Placer County Board of SupervisorsSubject: County Wine Ordinance

RECEIVED

JUN 252008CLERK OF THE


I'd like to register my strong support for the proposed wine ordinance. I feel that vineyards are tothis generation what the·orchards have been to Placer County historically. I take pride inknowing that we have exceptional & conscientious winemakers in our area, and I don't believethat the fears of adjacent property owners will come to pass.

Dennis Freidig

Resident of Shadow Rock Estates & Attorney at Law

AGENDAttEMDA'JiE: \-il~10 'B

Dl\TE.is\O510 ~:.----~Board of Supervisors - 5

_.-8 county Executive Office

. U County Counsel

. -0 Mike Boyle--0 Planning 3J <00

From: [email protected] [mailto :[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:00 AMTo: Placer County Board of SupervisorsCc: [email protected];[email protected]: support winery tastings for private roads

Honorable Supervisors:

RECEIVED

JUN' 252008CLERK OF THE


I'm writing in support of a winery ordinance allowing tasting rooms, sales, andlimited events located on private roads, for the followingreasons:

,', Placer has a right to farm, and sales of farm products is a very importantcomponent of that right regardless whether some portion of grapes or juice isobtained elsewhere. An anti-winery ordinance could set precedent for additionallandowners Wishing to prevent farm sales of other local produce on their privateroads. Were the Honorable Supervisors to enact an ordinance limiting the right togrow, distill, and sell wine, a direct effect could ensue toward stifling farming andagritourism in general;

,', Landowners opposing wineries on private roads purchased their properties outsidemunicipal boundaries knowing full-well that agriculturally-based businesses arelegal and encouraged within the county jurisdiction they bought into. In effect,winery opponents are attempting to re-zone and restrict land uses near their ownholdings, for their own private benefit. Please do not sacrifice wine tasting for theprivate benefit of a few vocal landowners. .

," Taxes accrue from wine sales on the subject properties. No sales taxes accruefrom wine tasting on those properties if onsite sales are prevented.

Please note that although I serve on the Board of Directors of Placer Land Trust, I'mwriting my concerns as a private individual. .

Very truly yours-- Mark Perry; 376 Aeolia Drive; Auburn.

AGENDA ITEMDATE: '-( \..q tc) q;

" I \ /) c.\ 0 't:,D.c\TE$~O'-c / i. •

~E-3oard of Supervisors - 5~ County Executive Office--G County Counsel

~ ~!~~n::3.0S{1j.;£;~i

-------,---' -_._----------------------------- ._--------,---From: Janet Riley [[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, June 25,200812:36 AM


Subject: wineries

To The Board, I enjoy visiting wineriesBut I do Not think that they should be in residentialneighbors rural or not. The potential for an accident ifjust waiting to happen. Right of freeways or in Nonresidential areas are fine. Restaurants that servealcohol are Not allowed in these areas ,so neithershould wineries. If their Vineyards are in a residentialarea then they should have to sell the wineselsewhere. Janet Riley 17264 Franchi PlaceG.V.

[),i\TEWc9-S l,-=Q::.-l!~\l__.~ Board of Supervisors - 5

D' County Executive Office

-S County Counsel

---EJ Mike Boyle--8 Planning 30~L\

· From: Diane Mills [[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, June 25,20086:39 AM


Subject: winetasting realities

.Ii

RECEiVED

JUN 25 2008CLERK OF THE


l=:i\TE:~ldst b 2(---f-J Soard of Supervisors - 5~ ("r)'J'lty rv~cut'lveOffi~_.~) ......... .,.. l ! l CAe ce----cr--County Counsel

B Mike Boyie- B Planning 30 W

Please read what I sent to Robert Weygandt's office. You may want to hear this opinion before the July 8meeting.

----- Original Message --~-

From: Di.an~Ml.!l§

To: jRerei@@~cer.ciL.901i:'Cc: Ang~~TahtiSent: Saturday, June 21, 20088:33 AMSubject: winetasting

Robert Weygandt,I have seen many letters in local newspapers lately about the small vineyards in Placer County: They are allrehashes, sometimes in the same wording, probably obtained from a church or blog, of someone's original gripe. Ibelieve this was all started by a resident on Ridge Rd. in Newcastle, who tried to shut down the widely publicizedAutumn Art Tour/Wine Tour/Cowboy Poetry event for our county last November. This event was a huge,coordinated one (talk to Angie Tahti at PlacerArts) to introduce the county's entertainment, arts,produce and scenery to readers of Sunset Magazine and other publications in this era of economic hardship.

I went to a few of the wineries on that tour, and let me tell you ... the maximum I ever saw at anyone site was 10people, some of whom were guests or family members who drank nothing at aiL This includes those just arrivingand those just leaving ...very small groups. Many rode together in one car because it was a social outing·, and I amsure those cars inclUded designated drivers. I even ran into other (retired) teachers I have known for 10 years,who live in Loomis and were showing off our county to visiting friends. The people who tasted had, all told, theequivalent of one glass of wine, due to small pourings of very limited stock. This is surely less than anyone woulddrink at a dinner in Roseville, Auburn, or Sacramento, where there would be many more cars and pedestrians topass on the way home. Some people didn't even taste more than three types...so their intake, along with theoffered crackers, cheese, dips, chocolates, etc., was perhaps half a glass. For the most part I saw...and this isimportant...people buying unopened bottles to take home for drinking later or to give as gifts. I bought wine tosave for a future dinner party, where I could brag to Sacramento friends about Placer wineries rather than Napaor Sonoma ones...wine that has, by the way, remained unopened since November and when served, will be in thestyle of a Wine Flight, which is a sampling of wine from one region. Surely this will be good advertising for Placer.

People are saving gas and wanting to find cool local places to visit, inhale, view, socialize. Buying on site andlearning from owners, seeing the hills and growing plants, discussing process and awards, getting food pairingideas are all more fun than just throwing any mystery boUle into a grocery bag at the market. Don't let the "sourgrapes" of Placer County ruin marketing, socializing, touring, and fun for everyone else. Their energy would bebetter spent ragging on the beer-guzzling teens, farm/construction workers and motorcycle riders speeding downthose back roads daily. Oh, is that a stereotype? Hm. And what stereotypes do the letter writers have aboutvineyards? .

Diane Mills, Lincoln, who drinks only one or two glasses of red wine a month, for heart health

Eoyage 1 ot 1

RECEIV "

JUN 25 2008CLERK OFTHE

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS._--

._-_.__._._-------_.__....__._-_._---------_._.--From: Big Auntie [mailto:[email protected]]sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:58 AMTo: Placer County Board of SupervisorsSubject: Placer Wineries

I think it is a great privilege to visit wineries in my county. I would detest any ordinance to stop visitingmy local wineries. Why would you even consider this ordinance? Are Napa and Amador countiesfinancing this effort?

Sincerely,Doris ShererRosevill~, CA 95747

AGJEN ITEMDAm: ::I (f; l:> 1)

6/25/2008

'(~/') r~c'.r/DArE~. (/"-J } ~

'NE3Dafd of Supervisors - 5~~ Counly Executive Office.::t="} County Counselb, 1v1ike Boyle

'tJ Planning 0"J_~,,_:30%0

-- ._-_._--------_._-_._._-----...__.- .._--.--------- --------

RECEIVED



AGENDA ITEM~ I"LS1Dcg

Dear Board of Supervisors,

From: Mark and Janet Thew [[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, June 23,2008 5:01 PM


Cc: Placer County County Counsel

Subject: wine tasting ordinance concerns

n~\''iCr -A.9.. I'I·\l) ~S........ \ I L_ \ ....L,

\

-t:fLcardDi Supervisors = 5~ G:) unly Executive Office

3u" '·R Counhl Counsel\D~' '-' '1-----.-:-. 'I S MikeBoyla. ~. -1SI PlanningVi A 3,ot.~d:~,

~

I am asking you to look more carefully at the proposed ordinance that would allow the public to . .use private roads for commercial wine tasting and sales. It needs to be created with input from citizenswho share private roads with wineries, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) needs to beprepared. Folks who have written and spoken out against this ordinance have repeatedly shown that itmore than meets CEQA's threshold for preparation of an EIR with traffic, health and safety, and otherimpacts. Please do not subject the county to depletion of resources by inviting still another lawsuit.

Large/Small Winery Breakdown:

The threshold in this ordinance has been set so high that probably no new wineries will ever comeunder the "large" winery designation and the requisite Minor Use Permit (MUP) requirements. Hasanyone really evaluated what a 20,000-case threshold means? Loomis is looking at allowing wineriesdowntown, and we had the owner of the downtown Nevada City winery speak to us at the Planning.Commission this month. He stated that 20,000 cases is an enormous number. He felt that the facilitiesand storage areas necessary for 20,000 cases would be far too large for rural areas, and I agree.

With no definition of what constitutes a "case," we could be referring to a case of one-gallonjugs, Assuming a case may mean twelve 750 liter bottles, then 3,000 cases is almost 100 bottles per dayper year. Thus, how can a 20,000-case threshold (240,000 bottles) be justified? Who set the 20,000case threshold? What research was conducted to justify a Negative Declaration? Even a 3,000-casethreshold could create significant impacts to the neighbors and the community.

The spokesperson from the Wine Institute stated that approx 50% of all the wineries inCalifornia produce fewer than 2,000 cases, and that 90% of the wineries produce under 10,000 cases.He implied that any above that were "mega wineries." A much more realistic and"meaningful thresholdwould be that any winery producing over 3,000 cases (equivalent to a 10-acre vineyard production) mustobtain a MUP.

I don't think it's the wine tasting that the public opposes. It's the use ofprivate drives, lanes,and roads that is and should continue to be illegal. One winery owner stated that as a taxpayer, hethought they were "extremely regulated," and wanted the county to make it easy for them to operate at asustainable level. This attitude neglects to consider the negative impacts to unsuspecting neighbors whopurchased their country homes in good faith that Placer County would not tum a private road into apublic, commercial access road.

Vintners stated that the tasting is necessary for survival. No bne has proven that point, butassuming for the sake of this discussion it may be true, no one wants public wine-tasting traffic (andcommercial stores) on their private roads. Wineries should reasonably be expected to conduct thetastings and merchandise sales from public road operations andJor hold them in a centralized cooperative venue.

Vintners have tried to plead that they have a great deal invested in their winery operation. Theyfail to recognize that their neighbors have even more invested in their homes, in maintaining the serenityof their rural lifestyles, and in protecting their families and pets on their private drives. When citizenslive on private roads, they know that commercial endeavors will NOT be allowed. The vintners knewwhat the ordinances were when they started their operations, just as the home-owning neighbors knewwhat the zoning was when they purchased. How can the county even consider this ordinance changewhen it has the potential for what one vintner stated-that one Apple Hill wine region gets 50,000visitors a weekend? .

Please vote NO on this ordinance as it is currently drafted and then prepare an EIR to inform all. the citizens who live on private roads what is coming their way..

Cordially,

Janet Thew

5572 St Francis Cir W

Loomis CA 95650

U/\Tfie' \(1 tQ ~_,,=._====-. a- Bocud of Supervisms .. 5June 15,2008

Placer Co Board of Supervlsorsr:;;:/ County Executive (jffk.'i.~175 Fulweiler Ave ,;;~ C ty r~ ""I

L:.J Dun vvuns'QlAuburn, CA 95603 'tSJ Mike Boyte

T h B d f S. . B Planning~'45c.;.': .

o t e oar 0 upervlsors. \-'i\-\-,...

1

RECEIVED



RE: Proposed Winery Ordinance ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT

When the fIrst draft of this proposal was introduced, we thought surely no one intheir right mind would consider opening private driveways for public coinmercial traffIc,let alone "had been drinkjng" traffic. We read the compelling comments submitted byMr. Barber, the Smiths, and Mr. Jay, which apparently fell on deaf ears. We've listenedto many citizens express concerns only to be dismissed with every new draft.

Alas, we now see that as citizens we cannot rely on public officials to followexisting zoning ordinances and do what is best for the majority. Instead, because a smallgroup of special-interest commercial vintners want to make money at the expense of theirneighbors' plivacy, health, and safety, that once again, we, the taxpaying public have tooppose another absurd proposal. We urge you to vote NO on this ridiculous zoningchange amendment-leave things as they are; and/or listen to your constituents who havepointed.out the plethora of CEQA violations in the Negative Declaration and prepare afull Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Also we strongly urge you to listen to your/our own County Counsel's advice.They certainly know that this Negative Declaration will not stand under even minimalscrutiny with regard to CEQA. Supervisors should not be voting to approve such an illadvised zoning change amendment that so blatantly violates CEQA and, after litigation,will cost the county when ordered to pay/reimburse attorney fees. Vote NO and preparethe proper CEQA document--an EIR.

Just a few of the bothersome aspects of this ordinance will be mentioned here.However, you can be assured that there isn't enough time to express all the consistentdismay at the many negative impacts expressed by fellow citizens whenever they areinformed and realize what this ordinfu'lce will bring. Don't take our word for it; reach outand survey your own constituents who live on neighborhood, privately-maintained,and/or gated roads; you will hear a much different story than you are hearing from thegroup that has asked for this nasty zoning amendment. Ask residents who live onCreekside Lane, Ridge Park, etc., how pleased they will be when the gates have to be leftopen or when the public is given the gate codes. None of this has been addressed.

A staff document from the May 8, 2008, Planning Dept Hearing states that thisamendment will affect more than 1,000 people. Who conducted that study? How manyprivate roads were studied? On our Y2 mile private drive alone there are 35 residentsusing and/or adjacent to our road. On the public {oad where our private road gainsaccess, there are over 30 other private roads that come off a 3-mile stretch of the county'stwo-lane rural public road. These private roads are extended even further by even moreprivate road branches off the other private roads and public "spurs."

How was the "affect more than 1,000 people" fIgure determined? The truth isthat in all of Placer County, which this proposed zoning change will cover, possibly morethan 20,000 or more citizens will come under its umbrella and be impacted-always

if70

2

worrying as to when the neighbors will plant the cursory one acre to start commercialwine tasting operations and hold "promotional" events.

Roadside stands are allowed for agricultural products grown on-site. Thisprovision already allows vintners to sell their ag product, which, in this case, is GRAPES.However, wine tasting, a far stretch from grape growing, belongs in "restaurants andbars" definition, which is where it rightfully is now, and should be confmed to existingcommercial and industrial zoning districts. Can anyone honestly say they would like tohave a bar in their rural neighborhood, using their private lanes and drives? We urge youto not allow commercial wine tasting in any establishment that must use privatelymaintained roadways.

At one hearing, an argument was presented to equate other roadside sales(busloads ofkids coming in for pumpkin farms, mandarins, etc.) to wine tasting. Talkabout apples and oranges! Those events (mandarins, pumpkins, etc.) are SEASONAL.Neighbors might be impacted for a week or so, but not day-in, day-out, in perpetuity.Wineries, by definition, have already impacted neighborhoods because they are allowedthe "value-added" advantage. If there is any zoning change amendment to be made, weurge you to revisit and remove "wineries" from ag zoning and definition; put them incommerciaVindustrial zoning where they belong.

Conflicting information does not instill a sense of confidence in this proposedamendlpent: "There are currently 13 approved wineries ...." (May 8,2008 Hearing, page2), although on page 8 of the same document, it states, "Currently there are only 14approved wineries ...." If this zoning amendment proposal is passed, there will be manymore wineries and wine tasting facilities as commercial interests realize they can buildthe tasting structure and write it all off their taxes as a business expense, compliments ofthe county. We cannot be certain of this growth impact because we see no evidence ofany surveys or studies. But even with ·13 wineries, if the public (customers) must use aprivate neighborhood drive for access, with no specified hour restrictions, no limit on thenumber of customer,s, and no road requirements, there will be many more complaintsthan what is mentioned on page 3 of the May 8 document.

The May 8 hearing document states that winery owners indicated they need to beable to market their wines on site tlrroughtasting, direct sales, and promotional events.Does this mean that the standard to change zoning and start any commercial endeavor onprivate property is merely an "indication" to county planning that it is needed for profit?If one raises sheep/spins wool, then would an "indication" of the need for clothing storesto sell to the public for economic gain be sufficient to grant a retail outlet on a privateroad? If one grows zucchini, can one start a vegetable pizza parlor and sell ancillaryproducts on a private road? Doesn't this ordinance automatically open the door to allcommercial endeavors as long as the feeblest agricultural connection can be made? Arerestaurants and/or snack bars next on private roads? The need for a profit should not bethe concern of the planning department; its objective should be to regulate activities toconform to residential or other zoning, and not to make special-interest amendments tothe detriment of neighbors. "

Yes, Placer Counry via the Board of Supervisors can promote agriculture (grapegrowing), and Yes, it can also protect rural neighborhoods.

This proposed zoning amendment runs contrary (if not violates) the county'sGeneral Plan which states:

47/

3

J.D.3. The County shall require that new, urban, community commercial centers locateactjacent to major activity nodes and major transportation corridors. Communitycommercial centers shouldprovide goods and services that residents have historicallyhad to travel outside ofthe area to obtain. [Land Use, page 39] The intent is for"public" transportation corridors (not private) and makes the case that wine tasting wouldbe suitable for co-ops coming off public roads near transportation corridors-not at theend ofprivate lanes.

The County's non compliance with the General Plan, by allowing parcel splitsand thereby enticing the boutiquewinery/tax-write off schemes must not be exacerbatedby further non compliance. The General Plan states:

7.A.7. The County shall maintain agricultural lands in large parcel sizes to retain viable farmingunits. The General Plan also states [7.A.I0] that the county win facilitate ag production to allowag service uses" .. .to locate in agriculturally-designatedareas ifthey relate to the primaryagricultural activity in the area." Boutique wineries are NOT a primary agricultural activity.The added guidelines include [c.] "It is compatible with existing agricultural activities andresidential uses in the area;" Wine tasting and promotional events on private roads in privateneighborhoods are incompatible and thus violate the Gcneral Plan.

The General Plan clearly states that the County shall support County-grown orprocessed products, yet this tasting ordinance completely disregards and weakens thatintention with loopholes.

The Board of Supervisors should not be in the profit-insurance business. Anyprofit-oriented operation must know what its limitations and restrictions are BEFOREstarting the business, rather than impose cockamamie proposals on tens of thousands ofunsuspecting residentsjust so a profit can be made. The county should be trying to keeplegitimate agricultural operations whole, the ones that feed the nation,and not besubsidizing marginal bolltique wineries that not oIlly may not even grow grapes on site oreven process them there,. but also may merely "cellar" wines from any other region.

For a winery todaim.that it can't stay in business if it cannot market on site isabsurd. There are many wineries that do NOT market on site and are doing quite well.We see local wines in supermarkets, in specialty shops, at farmers' markets, etc. Weread oflocal wines being sold across tlJe U.S. The vintners would do well to establish acoop if their market is so tight. Again, didthey not know what they were going intowhen they started? It is NOT the responsibility of the county to guarantee a profit at theexpense of family neighborhoods. When property values drop because there is constantwine-tasting or promotional-event activity (traffic, noise, dust, blocked driveways, etc.)on the private access roads, will the county step up and help re-cover home sale losses?

If a winery is producing a quality, competitive product, it will sell anywhere. Ifthe wine is marginal and overpriced, then the winery will and should fail. Ifwineriesneed this zoning amendment to show aprofit, which'is akin to a subsidy at the expense ofneighbors, then their product does not belong in a competitive market. The county has nobusiness sending good money after bad. Stay the course and promote true, bona fideAGRICULT~RE and PLACER GROWN. This amendment was concocted by a fewspecial interests and places others at risk so that they can make money and enjoy taxwrite offs.

We read where the Planning Department was asked to provide more certainty andregulatory relief in terms of the permit process. The "certainty" could just as easily be

47Z

4

provided to vintners with more stringent requirements for any permitting activities; thiswould protect neighborhoods as well. The county should vote for NO wine tastingfacilities or wine tasting activities on any private roadways. Wouldn't we all like moreregulatory relief! However, laws are not arbitrary; they are made to be followed, notignored or changed at the whim of special interests that find them inconvenient.

In addition, we read that county staff met with wine industry representatives to"get a better idea about concerns and objectives." Did county staff also meet withcitizens living on private roads to get a better idea oftheir concerns and objectives forliving in a rural area on a private road? Did county staff talk to citizens who live onprivate gated rural roads and discuss the potential conflicts and impacts?

After a self-appointed four-member subcommittee from the Ag Commissionmade recommendations, we learn that" .. .most ofthe suggestions were incorporated intothe Draft Ordinance." Is there any court in the land that would fmd this fair and just?Every previous restriction :was deleted or made more lenient, and parking requirementswere eliminated. To fall back on existing parking space regulations is inappropriate."Land use" parking space requirements are inadequate for wine tasting or promotionalevents as omitted in this zoning change amendment. Requiring one parking space per1,500 square feet, or for 100 or 300 square feet, in no way restricts the number of carsthat may tum up at tastings or at events. Thus private driveways and roads are at risk forbeing blocked or rendered impassable.

In addition, a convenient new definition was created for "promotional events"associated with wineries. But now the wine can be produced elsewhere, so a vineyardneed not even be involved in wine processing, which was the link, the stretching of theconnection, if you will, between theAg zoning/growing of the grapes and the winetasting. How will any enforcement agency determine whether the wines sold at theseevents were indeed produced from grapes grown on site? What will be the cost to thetaxpayer for enforcement? Theoretically, the winery can disappear from the scene; justhave 4.6 acres with one acre planted. The processing of grapes grown any where can beprocessed elsewhere as well, and wines from any other wineries can be "cellared" for thewine tasting. This effectively removes the legitimate PLACER GROWN connection andremoves all regulatory authority.

Currently, the county allows the wine "processing," which is a value-addedactivity that creates a"winery" category, but is now one step further away from thelegitimate agricultural activity of the actual growing of the grapes. From there, thewinery declares that it needs to market via wine tasting. This ordinance says, "OK, and,oh, by the way, you can cut out the winery-the processing part-you can produce the"wine elsewhere; cellar anything you want."

Also, we constantly read that six promo events will be allowed; yet in thedefinition of "Temporary Outdoor Events," it is stated that these events will be "in

-addition' to the promotional event authorized by this Section. Therefore, a facility couldhold eight events per year or possibly more ifthey try for other permits.

Who will pay for the inspection of the "Road Standards"? Who will pay for treetrimming when vertical clearance is not in compliance?

The amendment in Section 17.56.330 is contradictory. It states, " ..,to protect theagricultural character and long-term agricultural production ofagricultural lands."How can traffic and drinking drivers on private roads "protect ag character"?

.':;t,

',;'

-"s,

5

Who will pay for the auditingofthe wineries to determine the 20,000 cases"breaking" point? What constitutes a "case"?

Under Section 17.56.330, "Part D. Development and Operational Standards," Subsection 1, Part A states in part that the minimum requirement of"one acre o/plantedvineyard on site, unless ..." [loophole defmed]. Supervisors should note that one acre"planted" means nothing-the crop could be useless, diseased, dead, but as long as it isplanted, it qualifies. At least EI Dorado County requires 20-acre parcels or more with" .. .a minimum offive (5) acres ofplanted wine grapes that are properly maintainedand caredfor to produce a commercial crop. Should the proper maintenance and careofthe required minimum wine grapes acreage cease...the right to operate the winerybecomes void. The operation ofthe winery shall be conducted concurrently with the )sale ofwines produced/rom wine grapes grown 011 the same parcel." This ordinancewording is much more realistic and reasonable to all concerned. Placer County shouldfollow this example and also incorporate access via public road only.

Part B provides every other loophole remaining to sell any wine produced anywhere under the wine-tasting amendment. All that is required is that the wine be cellaredor bottled by the winery operator.

Under Sub section 5, Tasting Facilities, Part A, incidental. sales will allow ,merchandise and food. Thus, anything goes because the manner in which this .amendment can be stretched can and will be applied to all kinds of "ancillary"merchandise. Wine tasting illegally converts ag/res zoning into a department storecommercial serving food.

Under Sub section 6, Promotional Events, Part B, Standards, the fact is there are!!Q standards for how may days per week tasting may occur, !!Q standards for hours ofoperation, noproced:urefor enforcement (which will burden neighboring residents to filecomplaints for compliance or to file civil lawsuits), and !!Q definition of penalties andfines for non-compliance. Worse, many issues are dismissed with a cavalier attitude of"let the citizen file a complaint." For example, noise was mentioned and dismissed byreference to Placer County's Noise Ordinance. Thus, in the event of excessive noise, aneighbor will have to file a complaint--everyone knows how futile that is, especiallyafter office hours.

This is a situation where a very few commercial interests (apparently marginal)are changing county policy and zoning that will impact private homeowners andneighbors. It's a "business" being granted preferential treatment and infringing onprivacy rights. Traffic will be bad enough, but drinking and driving is over the edge.How can any reasonable official believe in his/her heart that this is an amendment thatshould be passed?

The argument that consumers need to come and taste wine to build brand loyaltyis poppycock. Whether wine is tasted in a co-operative facility or on ag land is moot. Brand loyalty can be generated in many venues and does NOT need to endangerneighborhoods.

The argument that because this zoning amendment/ordinance has been a "longprocess" in creating a number ofdrafts, that somehow makes it more passable or viable.This is nonsensical and illogical; the very opposite is true: The longer a plan or processtakes, the more indicative it is that there are major problems. "Working hard on it" is

6

meaningless ifit's a bad (or in this case, very bad) proposed amendment to begin with.It's a difficult birth because it wasn't meant to be.

Many wine growing regions that have been in the business a lot longer than PlacerCOWlty are now pursuing cooperative options (Co-ops) where multi-winery tasting roomsbring the area's best to one spot. Co-ops such as Vintner's Collective (Napa), SuisunValley Wine Cooperative, Wineries ofNapa County, as well as others are being fonnedthroughout the U.S. and the world. As a viable alternative, a wine-tasting cooperativewould solve the problem.

We urge you to: .

1. Vote NOon this ordinance; it is not justifiable in,any way. It does not allowfor county or publi-c review or regnlation and as such is unacceptable. As COWlty staffstated in a hearing (November 15,2007), it will be more difficult to regulate.

2. Require an EIR and publicize it widely since EVERY homeowner thataccesses a private roadway in Placer County will be subject to many of its negativeimpacts. This is a cOWlty-wide zoning change that is attempting to avoid publicdisclosure.

3. Support Agriculture by. creating more and tougher restrictions for ag land useconversions to development-land/parcel splits contributing to the problem. Whenzoning changes are bent or yield to allow development, ag operations are pinched, andboutique wineries germinate. They may not be viable, but that is no excuse for grantingthem entitlements that impact others so significantly.

4. Take the braver high.road: Remove "winery" from Agricultural designation.Go back to the true intent of Agricultural zoning: Growing plants or animals as anindustry. If a vintner wants to be in Ag, then let them grow grapes to sell or to take forprocessing to commercial zones where they belong. YES, Placer County citizens supportAgriculture and the right to farm. However, processing takes Ag over the edge, and now"wine-tasting" will drive the nail in its coffin.

Ag already receives a leg up by allowing roadside stands; vineyards have thesame right. Stay true to ag: Grow, taste, and sell the grapes, but not value-addedprocessed products. Otherwise, the door is opened to all kinds of expansive abuse.Revisit the zoning for "wineries" and make only the growing of the grapes the bona fideactivity. Remove the "value-added" or "processing" allowances. If a vineyard isproducing good Placer Grown grapes of any variety, it should be economicallysustainable. If the ag activity is marginal, then it needs to consider planting/marketing adifferent crop and stop the winery operations along with all the nuisances it/theygenerate,

Sincerely,

Katie CatherP.O. Box 2052Loomis, CA 95650

Cc Placer Co Counsel

13 June 2008

TO: Placer County Boar'd of Supervisors:

RECEIVED


BOARD Of SUPERVISORS

First Placer Co was primarily agriculture, with relatively lar'ge parcels,growing sustainable plants and/or raising animals. Then developers convincedthe county board and city councils that splitting up those parcels and rezoning for their development(s) was best.

Creeping sprawl is a constant reminder of those mistaken approvalvotes. A parallel can be drawn to what the developers are asking now withthe proposal to weaken the current Williamson Act contracts. Staying in agisn't reaping them great wealth so they want to end the contract early andbegin the parcel divisions before the contract is even up! Thus Ag land isagain made vulnerable to sprawl.

,The same thing happens with vintners. Growing sustainable grapevarieties was not Placer County's niche, but some who bought thosepreviously split or developed parcels are pushing the envelope even further.for tax breaks. First they said they needed processing in the form ofwineries, so Placer Co allowed wineries. But that wasn't enough. Now theywant wine tasting and promotional events. Where does this madness stop?Who knows what they will want to bring in next?

Tasting wine is NOT an ag event, any more than a coo151ng contest is.They are fine events, in and of themselves, but they aretg~iculture; theyare NOT hands in the dirt activities.

Second, because cl few potential problems are being forecasted forNapa Co vintners (temps too hot due to removal of oaks for vineyards; winetasting facilities becoming problematic), cooperatives are being utilized.This is what Placer Co should be promoting.

Leave the neighborhoods and private driveways alone. Vote NO on thewine tasting zoning change amendment. Or else, do an E.I.R. for theproposed change and inform everyone who lives on a private drive.

Cordially,

J~Mike FinchP.O. Box 713Loomis, CA 95650

NCAPost Office Box 777'Newcastle, CA 95658

Officers:


IftECEQVED

NO~ "19 2001Diane RossPresident663·4818

Kevin OdellVice President663-9546

Jerry MohlenbrokTreasurer663-4822

Cathie CordovaSecretary

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors175 Fulweiler AvenueAuburn, CA 95603

DATE~L\ la,lo? .CJ Board of SuperJisors - 5)( ,J!Jrlty Executive OfficeX C';ounly CounselX [ilike Boyle~ F'ianning ~)c

Please distribute the enclosed letter from the Newcastle CommunityAssociation to the each Supervisor at your earliest convenience.

Thank you,

Diane RossPresidentNewcastle Community Association

RECEIVED~OARD0X~LJPERVISORS) BOS Rec'd NIB OW ' ,Other TS - COI~

NOV 19

Sup OJ _ Sup D4 _ Aide 01 _ Aide D4_Sup D2_ SliP D5 _ Aide D1, 'Aid~Sup DJ_ Aide D3 =;l.. * -

4-71

RECE ..·-IVEDBOA.RD, RI;:"g'lJPERVISORS ..---"51l0S RecJ_ MI3_ DW---..,...Other TS _ COil"'::::'::"

'RECEIVED

AUG 04 2008HAND DEUVERED

~itltUht~".ttm-H~3_ AideD3~~onyPublisher Editor/

General Manager

• •InionServing Auburn, the Endurance Capital of the World

l?ua!d~~

P/~ ~ M/ ~el( od'~~o

rf ~ ~hfued> 6W~ he~tl/r t:V'V""~~ .£tu1~.

~ -;t4-~ buol/~ ~

F¥1J I~~ teP/ t#'MI!f~~~ ~ ftJ tUL~~

hI ~+m::~

@~{POD h!5~~· ~Nl»JCMII-e-/ elf 9Sb~t: 473

Ruth DalrympleWeimar

Wineries endangerprivate road· residents

As is, Placer County's WInery__ ordinance will allow future wineries

to sell 20,000 cases cilwlne per year,have wine tasting 365 days a yeair andhave prolll(jtiomH events lasting: twodays.. Under the new state wiheryordinance, (they could also) establishan eating a~ea and sell beers, wines,and brandies, regardless of source,for consumption on the premises andallow removal of any partially con.sumed bottle from the premises.

No one notified all pIjv;;lt,e .t;.9adowners.that this Jegislati011'potentially affects them;;nor did a1).yone publicize the dangers that this ordinancecould force onto them. The winerieswould not have to pay road maintenance costs based on their increasedtraffic. The road does not have to bewide enough for two cars to passeach other easily. If a person drinkstoo much, and then causes an accident, every private road owner islegally and financially liable.

Placer County, please replace theminimal protections provided towineries' neighbors on private roads.Do not exercise eminent domain tostrip us of our road rights for a neighbor's commercial gain. Do not allowwineries to create unmonitored traffic on private roads, which are notcontrolled by law enforcement, thusendangering residents' lives.

Concerned private road residentsmay want to call their supervisor at(530) 889-4010 to request that theymodify the winery ordinance to protect private roads.

From: Charles Richards [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, August 08,20083:11 PMTo: Placer County Board of SupervisorsSubject: Winery Ordinance, Placer County

As a 35 year resident of Loomis I wish to register my displeasure with the recent Winery Ordinance. Idon't want our private road/driveway to become a thoroughfare for wine-tasting inebriates. Change theordinance to keep "had been drinking" drivers off our private roads.

Charles & Sandy Richards3940 Dawn DriveLoomis, Ca [email protected]

RECfJ~EO

~UG 1\ 2\108

aoAR~L6~~~~J~~sORS

From: Peter Kessler [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, August 08,2008 5:21 PMTo: Placer County Board of SupervisorsSubject: Winery Ordinance

Dear Board of Supervisors,

RECEiVED

AUG 11 2008CLERK OF THE

.BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

1. Please notify me when the next meeting on the wine ordinance willtake place.

2. The following changes in the Draft Winery Ordinance is requested:

New Paragraph C-2

2. If a private road is covered by recorded CC&R, the provisions ofthe CC&R will prevail, and are not superseded by this ordinance.Consequently Tasting activities defined in Paragraph 6, and the Promotional Eventscovered in Paragraph 7, are not allowed in this case.

Peter Kessler916652 9416

Neighborhood Rescue Group ,P,O, Box 394, Newcastle, CA 95658

[email protected]

August 6,2008

Supervisor F.C. "Rocky" RockholmPlacer County Board of Supervisors175 Fulweiler Avenue'Auburn, CA 95603

Dear Supervisor Rockholm:

RECEIVEDBOAR!) OF SCPERVISORS5 IIOS Rec'd _ ivlLl_ DW~Olh"! 'IS C( )Il'~

AUG - 7

SliP DI'2. SliP 1),1 AA;de 1)1_ Aide D4_

SliP 111_."SliP US _ Aid" l,n, ','\itk',\(5::--:Sup D.1~ I\id"m~, .. ---"I-"lS>-"""-----

We would like to thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to meet withmembers of our Neighborhood Rescue Group Steering Committee. We reallyappreciate your attention to our concerns about the proposed Winery Ordinance,as'revised in 2008.

As we discussed, we have no complaint about wineries and their ancillaryactivities on public roads, where the existing infrastructure will deal with traffic,vehicle code enforcement, road maintenance, noise, and liability issues.

Our primary concerns are• Protection of private roads (no wineries on private roads without 100%

agreement of a road's residents, and provisions defined in the ordinanceto assure safety, traffic enforcement, liability and maintenance, shouldsuch agreement be reached)

• Impact of AB 2004, recently signed by Governor Schwarzenegger (PlacerCounty needs to add restrictions into its proposed winery ordinance toprotect the consumption limits as intended by the county)

Thank you again for your time and for your willingness to consider our concerns.We hope you will refer the proposed Winery Ordinance back to the PlanningDepartment so that the democratic process may proceed to a satisfactorysolution.

Respectfully yours,

Neighborhood Rescue GroupMike Giles, Steering Committee Chairman

Neighborhood Rescue GroupP.O. Box 394, Newcastle, CA 95658

neigj·[email protected]:oni

August6,2008

Supervisor Jim HolmesPlacer County Board of Supervisors175 Fulweiler AvenueA~burn, CA 95603

Dear Supervisor Holmes:

RECEIVEDBOARD OF SUPE"''',SORS '5 nos Rcc'd _ ,\113 _ ['"W~Oillel' , 'f S COll..A

AUG ~ 7

StiP 01 Y SliP 1),1 ~Aitlc III _ Aide 04_SliP IJ~:::e:SIlP 1)5 _ !\Ilk [)~. . t\idC)(:=SliP D.' ~_ Altle f ),)~...,*

We would like to thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to meet withmembers ofour Neighborhood Rescue Group Steering Committee. We reallyappreciate your attention to our concerns about the proposed Winery Ordinance,as revised in 2008.

As we discussed, we have no complaint about wineries and their ancillaryactivities on public roads,' where the existing infrastructure will deal with traffic,vehicle code enforcement, road maintenance, noise, and liability issues.

Our primary concerns are• Protection of private roads (no wineries on private roads without 100%


• Impact of AS 2004, recently signed by Governor Schwarzenegger (PlacerCounty needs to add restrictions into its proposed winery ordinance toprotect the consumption limits as intended by the county)

,Thank you again for your time and for your willingness to consider our concerns.We hope you will refer the proposed Winery Ordinance back to the PlanningDepartment so that the democratic process may proceed to a satisfactorysolution.

Respectfully yours,


Neighborhood Rescue GroupP.O. Box 394, Newcastle, CA 95658

[email protected]

August 6, 2008

Supervisor Kirk UhlerPlacer County Board of Supervisors175 Fulweiler AvenueAuburn, CA 95603

Dear Supervisor Uhler:

RECEIYFD~OARDOF SUPERVIS()RS) Ih)S Rcc'd_ 1\IH_ DWOilicr 'IS COI~

Sup DIL sup D4 XAidc DI _ Aide D4Sup m"" Sup D5 _ !Iick D2 TJ"-,' i\i'Q~Sup D.J.."L=:; Aidc D.1 A * -

We \ll{ould like to thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to meet withmembers of our Neighborhood Rescue Group Steering Committee. We reallyappreciate your attention to our concerns about the proposed Winery Ordinance,as revised in 2008.

As we discussed, we have no complaint about wineries and their ancillaryactivities on public roads, where the existing infrastructure will deal with traffic,vehicle code enforcement, road maintenance, noise, and liability issues.

Our primary concerns are• Protection of private roads (no wineries on private roads without 100%,

agreement of a road's residents, and provisions defined in the ordinanceto assure safety, traffic enforcement, liability and maintenance, shouldsuch agreement be reached) ,

• Impact of AB 2004, recently signed by Governor Schwarzenegger (PlacerCounty needs to add restrictions into its proposed winery ordinance toprotect the consumption limits as intended by the county) ,

Thank you again for your time and for your willingness to consider our concerns.We hope you will refer the proposed Winery Ordinance back to the PlanningDepartment so that the democratic process may proceed to a satisfactorysolution.

Respectfully yours,


Rf;:CEIVEDJUL 28'2008

RECEIVEDBOARD OF SUPERVISORS5130S Rec'd_ ivIl3_ DW •Ollicl__ 'IS COil

Sup DI_' Sup Det _ Aide D! _ Aide D4_SliP 1)2V- SliP D) _ Aide 02'''''''-:7'' Ailili,P5rSup D,1""" Aide III --A...*~

·_-----------_._--_.__._--From: Breeding, John [[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:20 PM


Subject: Winery Ordinance

Importance: High

RECEIVED

AUG f 12008CLERK OF THE


".~, .• Po'

Re: Pending Winey Ordinance

To: The Placer County Board. Of Supervisors

.., F TE- <Z \:s t' 0 C'6LJ A _ ~ f .~.~...~.-'-'..;....;..;=-"-'-'--

-,~f3oarc.j aT Superiisors - 5

~} County Executive 0000'!i:S County Couns.o!

I am writing in regards to your impeding Wine Ordinance. ~".Mike BoyleI am appalled at the fact that you would consider a sweeping ordinance of this manner. ~I Planning 3<%U

From: A registered voter

Recently it seems to have become common place where our elected officials attempt to yieldto a few vocal, and probably wealthy constituents. And in this case this has to be what'sHappening. The wine industry is expensive and takes big money to do it even at a "Boutique" level.

However it only takes a few not so rich people to recall the entire Board of Supervisors. Only a few folks with amission.

And I promise, I will provide all the support I possibly can to make that recall a reality if you as the board ofsupervisors yield

to special interests and allow this ordinance to pass.Placer County is a beautiful county that mayor may not effectively support commercial grape growing in the longterm. However your passing of this ordinance .

will reek havoc on property owners who came to Placer county to live.

I plead with you to not pass this ordinance. If any individual property owner wants to plant grapes and install atasting room, Great L However it should be done

on a case-by-cases basis with a majority of adjacent landowners and effected individuals buying in. To "wililyNellie" allow private roads, maintained by private parities

mandated to support a commercial endeavor is simply undemocratic!

Please don't allow this to happen!

John "Pat" Breeding2250 Bradley LaneNewcastle Ca. 95658

8/12/2008

AGENDA n.ftl~~\ilc\\)\3

~~' .():) f-\\"\. __

__::,::::::::::::=::==._=.._=..::.==-~,J4gb

.-,. ~ \'- ~,"-: 1,..~, <'n.tlTf:: ~il2) '-.-·C)t.,.~ , "\ • ..... __

iCJ Ek;i]((j 01 Supervisors. 5--:;;0' r'-" 'r'TV E'Jec'u~;'ue ~"'.f:A./ __'2-i VU\.J I'J ~, ~ u.. VUA~

xl County Counsel~~ ~vlike Boyie(~Planninri:50'~()- u

REceIVED/,UG 122008CLERKOFTHE

aOARO OF SIJPERVlSORS

qE7

August 13,2008

I received a call from Don Gardner. He called regarding the alert to opening up roadslike in Hidden Valley to be used for distribution of people who want to sell wine. Hethinks that is a ridiculous proposal and wants to make sure his position is he votes No toany changes to private road usage.

Phone #791-0885

Robin N. Yonash [email protected]. Box 1152, Colfax, CA 95713 (530)346-6037

August 12, 2008


RECEIVED

AUG 14 2008Placer County Board of Supervisors:175 Fulweiler Ave.Auburn, CA 95603

Supervisor Jim Holmes, District 3, ChairSupervisor F. C. "Rocky" Rockholm, District 1, Vice ChairSupervisor Robert Weygandt, District 2Supervisor Kirk Uhler, District 4Supervisor Bruce Kranz, District 5

RE: Draft Winery Ordinance

Dear Placer County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to implore you to not pass the draft Winery Ordinance unless access on non-countymaintained roads; i.e., private roads, is disallowed.

I live on a private road. Based on the experience of a friend of mine, who also lives on a private roadwhere a Bed & Breakfast was granted a CUP over the objections of the local Fire Chief, if the WineryOrdinance passes I face the following consequences should a winery be allowed to develop oil my road.These are shared by all property owners on private roads.

• Decline in property values-My friend's realtor told her that if she lists her house for sale, she willhave to disclose the B&B and "If there are 10 possible buyers and you disclose the B&B, 5 won'tconsider the house. If you tell them they have a liquor license, 9 of the 10 won't consider the house."That's a serious threat to resale value, and hits property owners in the pocketbook. And lowerproperty values mean less property tax revenues.

e Inequitable road maintenance 'costs----my private road does not have a formal maintenanceagreement. We have a handshake deal under which each property owner pays a percentage basedon distance from the top of the road to their driveway. This percentage does not take into accounthow many cars an owner has or how many trips they make. So if a winery, or any other smallbusiness, were granted a CUP on my road the additional traffic generated would create wear and tearon the road far beyond that of any other property owner; yet the winery owner would only have to payas if they had single car usage. Further, the road 'would have to be resurfaced more frequentlybecause of the increased traffic. Many private roads in Placer County are in this situation.

--fL--;;""':ec:::rcJ UT Supervisors q 5

~~ Sourlty Executive Office---0- County Counssl-5 Mike Boy1e .

---u Planning~f(\:~!ii

Robin N. Yonash

• Insurance concerns--If a customer of the winery sues due to a claim about the road, that lawsuitcould name every property owner on the road.

e Risk to public safety--ln every day usage the residents along the road would face increased risk ofaccidents due to additional traffic generated by the winery. Another concern: the draft WineryOrdinance stipulates that the road shall meet "State and local Fire Safe Standards as determined bythe serving fire agency." In my friend's case, her road does not meet fire safe standards, yet the B&BCUP was approved over the vociferous objections of the Chief of the local Fire Protection District.Even if a private road was brought up to code, that might only mean adding turnouts, which could beinadequate to allow evacuation of winery guests and residents while firefighting apparatus wasresponding to the fire.

Please don't pass this ordinance as it stands.

Sincerely,

From: Kathy Rogers [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, August 14, 20089:40 AMTo: Placer County Board of SupervisorsSubject: wine ordinance

As a (fairly new) property owner on a private road, I do not like the thought of any businesssetting up shop on our private road; the private road that is paid for and maintained by theowners of the property on the road. Ifbusinesses want to set up on public access road, that is adifferent story. I urge the board to reconsider this ordinance and do not allow business on privateroads.

Kathy Rogers

i .

1 "'""' I"J"' (.~-- ~. -:- ..-. c-' i .(, i ( (·"l,l.,;f\ : L::_:::J)~? \\ . j: _

~--a.. Board of Supervisors - 5

-frCounty Executive Office

"-n County Counsele Mike Boyle "B Planning.3,U~(Q

From: Lorraine Sexton [naturelvr@infostations,com]

Sent: Friday, August 15, 20086:16 AM


Subject: No to the Wine Ordinance that would open Private Roads to Retail Sales

. Gl ' i,0 ;,",)DA fE_'::'\ ~ \ - ._'__

-B Board or Supervisors - 5 RECerVED'-f':::~_ County Executive Oif1ceis County Counsel AUG 15 2008

_._' ..__~ ." .. . ,__.,_._,_=8:-,-~i k~_8~J,?,_.,_, ..__C.LEaJ:lOF THE--Q Planning3, ly':25'ij BOARD OF SUPERVISOR

County Supervisors175 Fulweiler AvenueAuburn, CA 95603

The ordinance which would open up retail sales of wine as an option for anyone owning a minimum of one acre of land thatis serviced by & on a Private Road that is owned, maintained and the responsibility of other private property owners is justWRONG.

Wineries have long been a revenue staple in California; however entrance to same, from all that I have visited have beenentered, upon the wineries own private road and driveway.

People who live on Private Roads-especially in rural areas-endure the burden of many exp~nses urban dwellers do notface. We do so, because we want privacy, peace and tranquility. We paid for acreage and live on a Private Road becausewe want a certain QUALITY of life., We moved away from urban settings to be rid of traffic, noise, populations of peopleand overcrowding & pollution from vehicles. We have wells to maintain, propane gas to pay for, wood to gather or buy,satellite or cable TV to pay for (since antennas render few TV stations) and hopefully, with neighbors who can AGREE-PRIVATE ROADS & Ditches to maintain.

It is bad enough that land owners come in under the guise of some plan other than what they actually are going to do, split,land, put in driveways without culverts, never maintain the ditches and block water flows so that the Private Road is used astheir own personal ditch-destroying the road. By the way, County Inspectors did not inspect the development of sameand by the time it was reported years later, when the road was failing-w~ were told that the correction could not be made"retro-active". Now, it is a Civil matter-another burden to the rest orus property owners on a Private Road to endure.

My point being, is that to expect other private land owner's on Private Roads to endure giving up the right to their peaceand privacy & having to pay for additional road maintenance by those who create increased expenses to repair, maintain orrebuild private roads should NOT be LEGAL

As far as the revenues to be gained, think outside the box for a moment-putting the proposed money to be made, aside:

• Soaring fuel prices are not going to enable the general populations to be driving around on Wine Tour Tastings;therefore Wine Tasting bars should be centrally located whereby access can be done by a mass transit situationwith use of shuttles and/or buses to & from. It is doubtful that the proposed revenue $$ expected, will come froma retail setting on a private road.

• Environmentally, we do not need more frivolous Carbon Footprints by individual vehicles. The planet is in diredistress, as it is.

• Further encroachment upon what few spaces wildlife has left, is yet, another concern.

Please vote NO on the Winery Ordinance which opens up private roads -paid for & maintained by other private propertyowners who live there.

Sincerely,

Mr. & Mrs. Michael J. Sexton -1000 Easy Lane- Colfax, CA 95713

P.S. Our signed letter has been mailed to the Neighborhood Rescue Group in New Castle, CA. *J)

rr·"A~EN~-Ua1_ J1)~ Y?\}li~ D <C.RECEIVED

,i:,UG 19 2008Dear Sirs:

'--J, it=: -\.> \\" ,C)'c)'.." \, . I_...:....-C_. _

)2 E30arcJ of SupHrvisors

[;} County EXGcutive Offic',bJ County Counsel

'~\ f -, cJ Mike Boyle4'llrn,.lI"IlI.'. '_..1,,;\.;..;;l..-'1C'..;;;2~';;.,bjt~C\.:..-._ V1 F'I . ", -....CLERK OF THE 11~ _. - ·i..J • ~nnlng_~l)8'LJ

30ARD OF SUPERVISORS,l!::============::::J

Those of us asking that the Winery Ordinance be re-evaluated, especially regarding the new state ordinance, arenot against wine tasting. We just want it done safely, for all concerned.

Placer County Board of Supervisors175 Fulweiler AvenueAuburn, California, 95603

Placer County has roughly 50,000 residents living on private roads. The Winery Ordinance sets a precedent forallowing commercialization on private roads. You really cannot call selling wine and brandy, regardless ofsource, by the glass or bottle, agriculture. And that is what your ordinance and the new state law will allow. Sothose businesses already set up as wineries, and any in the future, will essentially be able to set up a bar on aprivate road, and bring in traffic, but in your stripped ordinance, will no longer be required to pay a -fair share ofroad maintenance based on traffic. Your Negative Declaration says that there will be less than significantimpact to road maintenance. Unless the wineries are planning on having no wine tasters in their tasting rooms,then the County may have no significant road maintenance impact, but the private roads certainly will. It alsosays that, due to the limit to number and size of wine samples, impact to sheriff service will be less thansignificant. That may have been true before AB2004, but that statement of impact is now invalid. The oneounce taste rule is gone. This all needs to be addressed in your ordinance before you pass it.

The state just announced a drop in deaths due to drunk driving as a result of increased enforcement of drunkdriving laws, but the CHP does not patrol private roads. That certainly seems to reduce the safety of privateroad residents who live on narrow winding roads that may in the future house a winery tasting room. Thecounty experts in protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public evaluate each applicant site and set inplace requirements for each individual property to establish a winery or tasting room. In order to provide"regulatory relief" to those winery owners, your website for Community Development says those conditionswould be null and void. So the safety requirements as yet unmet go away. Wasn't there some charge aboutprotection of the public health, safety and welfare? If wineries get an exemption from the health and safetyrequirements, what type of business is next? Without the protections that were removed from this ordinance,and some limitations on the new state AB2004, this winery ordinance potentially harms thousands of people asthe winery business grows, and over time probably gets a few killed by drunk drivers.

The increase in tourism from becoming a wine tasting venue will certainly benefit our county. But would fairroad maintenance agreements really hamper that? If the winery has no customers, there would be no increase inmaintenance. If they are wildly popular, they will benefit financially, and be able to pay more in maintenance.They also need to be required to handle liability insurance in such a way that it exempts their neighbors fromresponsibility when an alcohol impaired driver causes an accident on a private road. If the driving force isPlacer County's economic improvement, and compromise between wineries and those objecting is a goal, thenhave the county upgrade, maintain and vigilantly patrol any private road with a winery. But don't put theprivate road owners at financial and legal risk for the profit increase of a group of vintners.

Compromise is possible to allow safe conditions for wine tasting. Let's compromise. This time make sure allthe private road owners are aware of their future risks, not just the neighbors of current wineries. And allowthe public to sit at the table while this is finalized.

I do not, and may never, have a winery on my road. But my friends' beautiful daughter was hit by a drunkdriver on March 6. This once vibrant young woman is now scarred and disabled. She has to walk with a walker,cannot get out of a chair without help, has no short term memory, and has to wear diapers. She has spent thelast five months hospitalized, is now in a care home, and it is doubtful she will ever be able to liveindependently again, let alone work. Her medical bills were over $500,000 after the first two days, so they mustbe in the millions by now. She has no insurance. The legal bills will also be astronomical. We don't need atragedy like this to show us why wine tasting rooms on private roads are a bad idea. Please protect privateroads, and set some limits to AB2004 before you pass the Winery Ordinance. Sincerely,

~.tdIt~2-


August 16, 2008 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Board of Supervisors175 Fulweiler AvenueAuburn, CA 95603

Supervisors:

Before the proposed Aug 26 vote on the revised Winery Ordinance, I ask thatyou read it with particular attention to the traffic, maintenance, and liabilityprotections for private roads -they're totally missing. That's just wrong.

The May "streamlining" totally stripped the ordinance of any protections for yourconstituents.

I'm sure that you wish to be viewed a~ protective of all of your constituents, andthorough in your evaluation of the ordinance.

The other thing that is missing from the ordinance is any attempt to restrict statebill AB 2004 - just signed in the last few weeks. It allows counties to restrict, butnot eliminate, its provisions. We must do so. Here's why:

AB2004, unless Placer County restricts it, additionally allows brandy and beerfrom any source to be sold by the bottle or the glass, for drinking right at thewinery. That potentially creates a bar environment that would just add to therisks for neighbors, and does nothing to help wineries, agriculture, or tourism inPlacer County. In fact faux wineries could be created just to take advantage ofthe huge loopholes thus created.

The proposed winery ordinance must be modified to address these concerns - agood start would be some of the 13 protections that were removed in May'srevision.

Since~ours

Robert M. Dalrympler","j \ ".. c_t~~.L~~1D_(_(.._; _

UcaicJ c.d Supervisors - 5

.-~J County Executive Office,..EJ County Counsel

,..0 Mike Boyle ) JII :J..J:?J Plannin~a) ~() ~

August 15, 2008

Placer County Board of Supervisors175 Fulweiler AvenueAuburn, CA 95603

Dear Sir:

RECEBVED



As a private road property owner in Placer County, I am very concerned aboutthe proposed Winery Ordinance.

While I have no complaint about wineries and their ancillary activities on publicroads, where the existing infrastructure will deal with traffic, vehicle codeenforcement, road maintenance, noise, and liability issues, I have two veryserious concerns about such activities on private roads such as mine.

My primary concerns are '• Protection of private roads (no wineries on private roads without 100%


• Impact of AB 2004, recently signed by Governor Schwarzenegger (PlacerCounty needs to add restrictions into its proposed winery ordinance toprotect the consumption limits)

I would like you to refer the proposed winery ordinance back to the PlanningDepartment so that protection of private roads from commercial activities andrestrictions on AB 2004 may be incorporated into the winery ordinance.

Sincerely yours,

Weimar, CA 95736

,3eJ 6.a7 £Io3~

( " ,\ f', L~ c~,., ";.' - , 1"I C\ ('":./\ 1 r=:_ ~~_",_':-'- ...L. ,=-'_''''-) _

-rS""E3GarrJ c:f Supervisors - 5-{J County Executive Office-B County Counsel-Et IIi ike Boyle~B Planning Sf: bU

4Ll4

Placer County Board of Supervisors175 Fulweiler Ave. 'Auburn, CA 95603

Dear Sirs:

ReceIVED

AUG 19 2008CLEAKOFTHE


I am reading about budget cuts in Placer County, and I see that we need touristmoney. I think wine tasting rooms could help. But I don't think rushing to pass aWinery Ordinance before all the problems are worked through is a good idea.

I arn retired and live on a meager fixed income. I knO\Af a lot of people in the sameboat who live on private roads. Everybody on a private road has to chip in to doroad maintenance. But you don't have anything in your ordinance that says thewine tasting rooms should pay a fair share because of the traffic. We retired folkcannot afford to support the wineries because of the traffic caused by theircustomers.

People are acting as though wine tasting rooms serve grape juice. Alcohol is notmentioned. I know the state has a new law that lets wineries serve wine and

, brandy. Brandy is a lot stronger than grape juice! We have horses, dogs, and kidson our private roads who do not need to share space with drunk drivers. If weallow wine tasting on private roads, who is going to patrol them? I know CHPdoesn't, so will the Sheriff? I have heard that if a private roadis not safe enough, theowners could get sued by someone hit by a DUI driver. If the road was safe enough,it wouldn't be a private road! The nice wide safe roads are county roads and countymaintained. Can't you put something in the ordinance to make the Winery assume

liability? Otherwise, you should not even put wine tasting rooms on private roadsunless everyone of the road owners agrees.

Sincerely,

~aJ. ,.)faJttio..Gail Garcia

r- ==----':.=.;lI AGENDA iTJ&H ;I DATS:ct~.'\9.\:\0 «:\~

~ T'T'IlA"fi'.. \'\ ,CYJ\~\'-\\ ~,~ -j :':-::-.:::.._=.:::::::::=========::J.

Dl~TECC<l\ C\\ C_,c-,,'c:_;__.

'['j-'SDarcJ at Supervisors ~ 5

,-r::r County Executive Office__-Q County Counsel-[j' Mik(:J Boyle

ri p"-'nning ,,3'C"C'" J / /It::.'-'-~ ,,,", , ',_..J ,,,) '-..'~

Placer County Board of Supervisors175 Fulweiler Avenue,Auburn, CA. 95603

Dear Sirs,

18 August, 2008

RECEHVED



We are private road property owners in Placer County. The proposed Winery Ordinanceis of great concern to us.

The following are our concerns:

Protection of private roads (no wineries on private roads without 100% agreement of theroad's residents)The provisions in the ordinance should be defined to assure safety, traffic enforcement,

, "liability and maintenance, should such an agreement be reached.Governor Schwarzenegger recently signed AB 2004. Placer County needs to addrestrictions into its proposed winery ordinance to protect the consumption limits. Ourroad follows the contour of the mountain and in some places has steep drop offs. A littleover consumption and a car could go off the road and land on a home or get out ofcontrol and hit a child and/or adult pedestrian. .

We would like you to refer the proposed winery ordinance back to the PlanningDepartment to address our concerns. Private roads need protection from commercialactivities.

We thank you in advance for your consideration ofour concerns.

Sincerely,

iZ:< ..} J -1- ~-:ll- <"\'¥-.rr:t.o.lo/4'i'l./l--. .':(F~~--Bettie Hunt and Bil~ unt .861 Coyote Hill Rd.,Colfax, Ca. 95713530-637-4508

r".o ,,-G\ Hl\Cn~..~.\.)f\ t t: __D_\BN..)".'v:....----

-F't'fJD,liCJ of Super",isors - 5

-8 County EXGcutive Offica

-~=3- county Counsel...g rJ1ike Boyle

-8 Planning :;0£'0

RECEIVED

AUG 20 2008---:--.-----.----------------------.-----.------.-.------------------,,--.-------,,---- ---------·----Ca:RXOF THE-From: Chuck-Muriel Davis [[email protected]] BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Sent: Monday, August 18, 200810:50 AM


Subject: Winery Ordinance - letter to the BOS

RE: Winery Ordinance - PZTA-20050609, Hearing date: 8/26/2008

TO: Supervisor Holmes, Supervisor Rockholm, Supervisor Weygandt, Supervisor Uhler, SupervisorKranz

Gentlemen:

Because this new Winery Ordinance is of such magnitude in its impact to Placer County residents, thisordinance should be decided at the ballot box, not at the Board of Supervisors hearing.

This Winery Ordinance will negatively impact the safety, security, privacy, and the quiet countrylife for THOUSANDS of families, in order to benefit only a few winery businesses!

The public has not been sufficiently notified of the changes to the winery ordinance, specifically withregard to the ease by which wineries can have promotional events and wine tasting on private roads.There has been NO report of the final conditions of this winery ordinance to the MACs!

PLEASE reject this Winery Ordinance, as it stands, and require more evening workshops and requiremore public information about this ordinance in local newspapers and at the county MACs.

Sincerely,Muriel Davis8/18/08916-663-4123Penryn

-... -,~ .. Cc.\=:J-G\lS..\L,: I~'\ 1 ~= :-~..--:...- _Et-eDard of Supervisors 8 5

Ccunty Executive Offios

--E3- County Counsel-tJ f,l,ike Boyie-D Planning --~~': ~)<.-;~ ..

8/20/2008

Request to Speak Regarding the Placer County Winery Ordinance

Represe ntingAddressName City, State, and Zip'~~-'-----I~----------I--"-'

,

SIZ.':::::p.j-.fliV)C Ru";r/~J /3/3 )-:::r-UIY/;-RG"L;: I-:/:) /~_~/2)yA.J 7.::'5664 H''';;lC:/p,.,;:,

Request to Speak Regarding the Placer County Winery Ordinance

·Name Address City, State, and Zip Representing

Supervisor F. C. "Rocky" RockholmPlacer County Board of Supervisors175 Fulweiler AvenueAuburn, CA 95603

Dear Mr. Rockholm:

790 Ridgecrest DriveColfax, CA 95713August18,2008

RECEIVED

AUG 20 2008CLERK OFTHE


Our concern for the Draft Winery Ordinance focuses on private road protection,protection stripped out of the revised draft on which you'll be voting August 26, 2008.

This is your opportunity to fulfill what we feel is your moral obligation to protect the tensof thousands of us Placer County private road residents whose way of life and whosefinancial security rests in your hands. We are your constituents.

You're aware of our concerns: financial liability, road maintenance costs, privacy, qualityof life, safety and property values. Combined with the recent passage of AB 2004,revision of the Draft Winery Ordinance is imperative.

Commercial use of private roads is a disclosure issue. With the passage of this DraftWinery Ordinance, a realtor will have to disclose the potential for a winery, tasting room,and the unlimited sale of alcohol, which will decrease marketability and the propertyvalues of all homes and land in Residential AgriCUltural areas. Not only will the value ofour property be diminished further (we already have the B&B to disclose), PlacerCounty will lose, too. With reduced property values, property taxes will fall, and PlacerCounty will have more budget problems.

Passage of the Draft Winery Ordinance in its current form is taking our land, reducingthe value of our biggest asset for our retirement, and giving us increased liability andpersonal danger in exchange - all to benefit to a neighbor.

Avoid having your legacy in Placer County lumped with the infamous legacy of BruceKranz. Avoid having Placer County face expensive litigation over this badly flawed DraftWinery Ordinance. Vote to send this back to the Planning Department to amend itsterms to protect the more than 50,000 Placer County residents who live on private roads- your constituents.

Sincerely yours,

From: Michael Gowring [[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 9:52 PM


Subject: Winery Ordinance

For the attention of Supervisor Bruce Kranz

As a resident on a private road in Place County I am very concerned about the proposed ordinance allowinggrape growers on an acre or more, the right to invite prospective buyers for wine tasting and sale of theirproduce. This would very much impact the insurance that we have to pay for users of our private road. We try tocover the liability of normal use, but a commercial enterprise with its traffic will increase our liability for accidentsand ultimately mean increased premiums for us to pay. I speak for my neighbors as well as myself, in protestingthe fairness of this ordinance. I ask you to represent the justice of my case when this ordinance is tabled fordiscussion. In fact please inform me when this matter will next be brought before the supervisors. PennyGowring

8/21/2008501

winery ordinance correspondence received by

Documents