Letter from Bruce Johnson

9/21/2015
There was a nice piece in the Press Democrat on Saturday 9/12 by Patrick Campbell titled "When
greens and growers were allies." Campbell discusses the efforts in the mid eighties to hammer
out the General Plan and farmers and environmentalists ended up with a planning document
stipulating that ag lands should serve as buffers between cities thereby reinforcing urban
boundaries. He also states vineyards have become far better stewards of our county's
resources than urban development and, I would add; far better stewards than the avarice of land
speculators. Patrick Campbell reminds us that "Acre for acre, people pollute and exploit
resources far more intensively than do vineyards."
I think we need to encourage alliances between greens and growers. Many of my neighbors
are model growers and model foresters and model ranchers. We need ag and timber and
livestock and of course open space and we need our Coastal Commission to keep our coastal
areas vibrant and healthy.
Regarding the new coastal plan, it has been suggested by some concerned citizens that
vineyards should be banned in the coastal zone largely because we all fear the adverse effects
terroir tourism which includes industrial wineries, proliferating tasting rooms and perpetual
special events.
In my opinion, grape growing is an agricultural activity and growers can be responsible stewards
of their land. The agricultural land use policy that allows ag producers to process their locally
grown products is reasonable but harkens from a time when farmers moved their products by
horse and wagon. The argument that huge wineries which import most of their grapes from
elsewhere should be allowed this same privilege is not reasonable. Importing raw materials and
exporting finished products on a large scale is industrial manufacturing and should be confined to
industrial zoning. Wineries on ag land should be processing locally grown grapes.
The County policy that wineries be allowed tasting rooms to promote direct sales also seems like
a reasonable economic policy but it is not an agricultural use. While this policy helps promote
agriculture it is a commercial activity and it should not be considered an agriculture use. As
such, allowing tasting rooms at wineries is a privilege but not a right. All wineries are given the
option to have one tasting room in a commercial area rather than on site and rural wineries far
from arterial roadways should be required make use of that option or forgo a tasting room.
The proliferation of tasting rooms has created competition. With so many tasting rooms how do
consumers decide which tasting room to visit? To attract consumers wineries and tasting rooms
create special events to promote themselves. This is a commercial activity that may indirectly
promote grape growing but it should not be permitted as an agricultural use. While special
events have their place they should be carefully limited in number and regulated as a commercial
activity.
Before grapes Western Sonoma County was apple country and there were cooperative
canneries, every farmer did not need their own canning plant and juice label to market their fruit.
Many grape growers do the same today. Currently organic farmers create CSAs and farmers
markets because it makes more sense to bring one truck to 100 consumers rather than bringing
100 consumers to many distant farms. We want farmers to succeed and as consumers we are
willing to pay for higher quality local products produced by hard working conscientious farmers.
We want our local grape growers to prosper as well. And they seem to be doing quite well.
The intrusion of mega wineries, endless tasting rooms and continuous special events on
agricultural land is not efficient agriculture but rather economic speculation. "Terroir Tourism" is
not an agricultural land use but a commercial activiy and should be regulated as such. Direct
sales of wine to consumers is a $1.9 billion enterprise. The aspiration for the speculators is not

to grow quality grapes but to grow a wine label that can be sold to a mega investor. If the rules
allow and encourage this practice then this is what will happen. It appears that we are converting
ag land to "start up boutique wineries that can be sold to wine conglomerate investors.
.
Those with dollars in their eyes call this progress. Those with dollars in their eyes try to sell this
scheme to the public by arguing that they are promoting farmers and agriculture when they are
actually replacing farmers with speculators and replacing agriculture with "Terroir Tourism". This
scheme will work for the few but it will require extracting the wealth from the commons and it will
destroy rural Sonoma County. Rural Sonoma County is the heart of our collective well being.
Handing rural Sonoma County over to speculators and investment bankers is killing the goose
that lays the golden egg. The cost of this scheme is to convert Ag land to speculative real estate
and rural land to a playground for the wealthy. There should be room for all of us. I am willing to
share but I am not willing to capitulate. Protect Rural Sonoma County.
Bruce Johnson