Guest opinion: Why I oppose the Neely wine tasting room plan | February 12, 2020 | Almanac | Almanac Online |

Almanac

Viewpoint - February 12, 2020

Guest opinion: Why I oppose the Neely wine tasting room plan

by Kathleen Bennett

I am writing to express my opposition to the Spring Ridge Conditional Use permit application by the Neely family for expanded use of their property. I oppose the Neely application for two reasons:

This story contains 891 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Subscribe

Comments

96 people like this
Posted by Respect
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Feb 11, 2020 at 10:21 am

Even though more than fifty Town residents have written and/or spoken in thoughtful, even respectful opposition to this plan, the Neely game plan seem to just wear everyone down by endless nitpicking to find some legal language loophole in the Town's general plan.

The property is not zoned for such a retail business open every day to the general public -- period.

There may be a place somewhere in Town for such a business, but this meadow area is definitely not it.

That is what everyone agreed to when the 2013 conditional use permit was granted -- the meadow was allowed to be altered from a hayfield into a vineyard ONLY if the owners agreed to NOT turn the nearby barn building into a wine tasting and public retail space.


12 people like this
Posted by Lucy Neely
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Feb 12, 2020 at 3:16 pm

Hey there. Lucy Neely chiming in here. First in response to the previous/above comment. Thank you for your opinion and for engaging in this conversation. I appreciate. And, I know it can difficult to be fully informed on a subject before speaking to it publicly, so I'll help you out:

You say ' The property is not zoned for such a retail business.' Actually, it is. Portola Valley Municipal Code Chapter 18.12.030 says that a Conditional Use permitted for the RE Zoning District is:

J. Wineries which include all or any combination of the following:
1. Growing of grapes;
2. Importation of grapes for the purpose of establishing and sustaining a winery operated for the purpose of producing wine from grapes grown on the premises;
3. Making of wine;
4. Wholesale and retail trade of wine produced exclusively on the premises;
5. Winery buildings and related structures.

So, there you have it. The property actually is zoned for wholesale and retail trade of wine as well as winery buildings and related structures. That's why we are going through the appropriate process of applying for a Conditional Use Permit.

If anyone has any questions or comments about our proposal, you are welcome to reach out to me at lucy [at] neelywine.com and I'm happy to be in conversation. Thank you.

Best wishes,
Lucy Neely


9 people like this
Posted by Lucy Neely
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Feb 12, 2020 at 3:20 pm

Hey there. Lucy Neely chiming in again, this time in response to Kathleen Bennet's Guest Opinion piece. I won't try and respond to all of it (my to-do list won't afford it) but here's a few points:

1) Thank you, Kathleen for your engagement in this conversation. You're contributing to a robust and dynamic conversation that challenges and motivates my family to craft a responsive proposal that will best serve the community. Thank you!

2) The Portola Valley General Plan is a guiding document that is interpretable. In conversation with appointed and elected officials who are charged with interpreting that document (the Planning Commission and Town Council), I've come to understand that the General Plan is/was designed that way - the GP offers guidance, and it is the responsibility of the PC and TC (mostly) to interpret the document responsibly, intelligently, and with foresight. So, that's the process we're engaged in.

3) You describe that I 'nitpick' the General Plan. I'd like to offer another perspective: I've taken the time to read the Portola Valley General Plan multiple times so that I can make relevant points and refer to relevant language in the document. If you would like to meet with me sometime to discuss this wonderful guiding document that we seem to both appreciate and feel passionately about it, I welcome that. We could go for a walk on a trail in town while we discuss. Email me?

4) And lastly, a question: do you believe the Windy Hill Open Space preserve and it's attendant traffic and visitors 'disrupt the rural character of the town'?

warmly and respectfully,
Lucy Neely


54 people like this
Posted by Respect
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Feb 12, 2020 at 5:39 pm


I appreciate your citing municipal code chapter 18.12.030 regarding a conditional use permit for the RE zoning district.

However, nothing in the code you referenced (the five items you listed) includes permitting a retail wine tasting and event space business.


91 people like this
Posted by surprise!
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Feb 12, 2020 at 10:44 pm

I am in complete support of Kathleen Bennetts analysis and I do not know ms Bennett. I believe when the winery was first approved the town, in its documents, clearly stated that there would be NO WINE TASTING ROOM. The Neely's have systematically inched their way right through this requirement and anything that they promise now will be up for a new CUP once they get their tasting room open. The room will be a permanent addition to the town. For better? or worse it will be permanent: more events, more visitors, more disruption to the serenity of the town and no ability to get rid of it. Yes, the open space is right there, but the Neelys do not need to add to the congestion with intoxicated drivers. They say it will be a minimal addition. They will ask for more in the future. Or a future owner will ask for more. The view is beautiful from both sides of the land to either side of the Neelys--open space and the Town Center-- they offer nothing more than drinking. And a party for the town (another promotional event!) that no one has asked for!
It has been proven by all of their previous actions that they will say one thing and then go for what they want. If the other wineries are so friendly and committed to supporting the Neelys, and the Neelys to them, then might it be nice to have a consortium where all of the local wine makers can promote their wines together? They could pull in Woodside wineries where I understand that NO tasting rooms are allowed by the city--yet surprisingly wine is still grown! Rent a space in a commercial zone away from the town center and have a tasting room. Wine bars have become quite popular in Palo Alto and elsewhere.
Common sense should prevail! If the Neelys cannot afford to keep up the property without a wine tasting room (one of their claims) then perhaps they have made a terrible mistake. The Staff and Planning Commissioners should top talking about cars and noise and access and start thinking about drinking and future requests for wine tasting rooms in the Valley, and what a violation of the bucolic, residential quality of our town this room would be.


45 people like this
Posted by respect
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Feb 15, 2020 at 8:30 am

To help clarify the issues regarding the Neely's proposed retail wine tasting and events space, I have listed the four points made by Lucy Neely -- followed by CLARIFICATIONS:

1) Thank you, Kathleen for your engagement in this conversation. You're contributing to a robust and dynamic conversation that challenges and motivates my family to craft a responsive proposal that will best serve the community. Thank you!"

CLARIFICATION: Not sure how you can “craft” a proposal when Kathleen Bennett is urging the commission to reject all aspects of the Neely application. Actually, the best way to "serve the community" may be to ask the "community" if it wants a retail wine tasting and events space at this location. Would the Neely's support a Town-wide survey?

2) The Portola Valley General Plan is a guiding document that is interpretable. In conversation with appointed and elected officials who are charged with interpreting that document (the Planning Commission and Town Council), I've come to understand that the General Plan is/was designed that way - the GP offers guidance, and it is the responsibility of the PC and TC (mostly) to interpret the document responsibly, intelligently, and with foresight. So, that's the process we're engaged in.

CLARIFICATION: If the General Plan is so “interpretable" why don’t we just put the Neely application up for a Town vote? Seems a reasonable way to deflate all of the contentiousness regarding process and bias. Would the Neely’s support such a vote?

3) You describe that I 'nitpick' the General Plan. I'd like to offer another perspective: I've taken the time to read the Portola Valley General Plan multiple times so that I can make relevant points and refer to relevant language in the document. If you would like to meet with me sometime to discuss this wonderful guiding document that we seem to both appreciate and feel passionately about it, I welcome that. We could go for a walk on a trail in town while we discuss. Email me?

CLARIFICATION I’m sure a walk would be healthy, but why not just start with responding to each of the specific and documented points made in Kathleen Bennett's letter?

4) And lastly, a question: do you believe the Windy Hill Open Space preserve and it's attendant traffic and visitors 'disrupt the rural character of the town’?

CLARIFICATION Your question has already been answered by another reader who commented:

"Windy Hill is a public gift to us all -- a not-for-profit and totally free experience in one of the most spectacular sites in the Bay Area. Because of its valued place in our community, all of us are more than willing to offer our help and support in resolving issues of traffic and safety."

"There is certainly no such obligation for residents to accept traffic and safety issues when they are being created for the benefit of a single for-profit land owner. “


5 people like this
Posted by Sherry
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Feb 17, 2020 at 12:02 pm

As a recent resident of Portola Valley, I am grateful to Kathleen Bennett for laying out the Neely family's history of applying for conditional use permits to expand their wine business. Kathleen Bennett clearly describes the General
Plan and points out that commercial activities be restricted to four existing shopping centers. A commercial wine operation does not belong in open space

Thanks, Kathleen. I hope Town leaders read your letter.


44 people like this
Posted by Appreciative
a resident of Portola Valley: Westridge
on Feb 19, 2020 at 10:07 pm

I want to express my appreciation to Kathleen Bennett for relating her first-hand experience with Portola Valley's General Plan -- and for explaining why the Neely application runs counter to the "mission, goals and intent" of that Plan.

In response, the Neely's have characterized the General Plan as a vague and ambiguous document. According to the Neely's, the General Plan could actually be interpreted to support a wine tasting and events space right next to Windy Hill.

If the General Plan is so vague and wildly "interpretable", it would mean open-season for all kind of misplaced commercial developments in Town.


8 people like this
Posted by Justin
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Feb 26, 2020 at 3:25 pm

Thank you Kathleen Bennett.

The Town's General Plan is an incredible document --

www.portolavalley.net/town-government/general-plan


8 people like this
Posted by Appreciative
a resident of Portola Valley: Westridge
on Mar 8, 2020 at 6:24 pm

Almanac News Online: Thank you for providing such a great format for discussions. We all need to show our appreciation by becoming subscribers.


21 people like this
Posted by POSITIVE
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Mar 11, 2020 at 10:56 am

I'm late to the feedback, but I agree completely with Kathleen Bennett's arguments in defense of the town's fundamental community values.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Get important election coverage sent straight to your inbox daily.

 

Benefiting local non-profits

The 36th annual Moonlight Run and Walk is Friday evening, October 2, wherever you are! Proceeds go to the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund, benefiting local non-profits that serve families and children in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Join us under the light of the full Harvest Moon on a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon.

Register Today!