Winery owner David Vanni battles bureaucracy; neck-deep in red
tape
Gilroy – David Vanni has never read “The Castle” – the story of one man’s struggle against an impenetrable maze of bureaucracy – but he’s living out the book’s plot.
Once again, Vanni finds himself face to face with county officials seemingly bent on preventing the construction of a new tasting room at his family’s vineyard.
Vanni, who owns Solis Winery with his wife, Valerie, had expected to start construction this month on the new facility at his Hecker Pass vineyard. But instead of pouring cement, he finds himself neck-deep in red tape.
“We’re still kind of working with the fire marshal to get through some of his requirements,” Vanni explained. “We’ve got Caltrans we have to work with because we’re on the highway. We have a problem on drinking water regulations we have to work on with the state health department.”
Though Vanni has no plans to offer water to the public from the well that services his home, state health officials requiring him to replace the 20-year-old system of pipes so they meet modern standards.
“It’s another one of those nuances that just drives you nuts,” said Vanni, adding that his newest headaches come from the county’s Land Engineering Department, which approves plans to level land to prepare for development. Those plans, in turn, have to pass through the fire marshal’s office before getting final approval from the building department.
“We sent the plans into the building department two months ago,” Vanni said. “They said stuff was missing and sent it back. We went back in for a grading permit last week and they said it would be 60 days before they even look at the permit, and then another 30 days before they approve or disapprove it. That’s what it’s been – 60 days here, 30 days there. It’s been really slow moving.”
Santa Clara County Assistant Fire Marshal Judy Saunders said the length of the review process.
“It depends on the complexity of the project,” she said, “and I suspect each department would have a different answer to that question.”
She added that “our piece is pretty close to the end” of the review process.
For Vanni, it sure doesn’t feel that way. Vanni thought his frustrations had come to an end in February, when the family obtained approval of its development permits from the Santa Clara County Planning Department. The Vannis first petitioned the county in March 2001 with plans to tear down their existing 2,500-square-foot building and replace it with a 4,000-square-foot building with larger tasting facilities and a reception area for wine appreciation and corporate events. They also wanted more office space.
Right away, there were problems. Planners informed the Vannis in August 2001 that the property they bought in a foreclosure sale in 1988 was an illegal parcel. It took two years to correct the problem, but the family was able to submit a use permit application. All of the normal inspections were performed. Almost all of them turned up trouble.
The Vannis needed to make major repairs to their septic system. Caltrans demanded that they remove one of the driveways on the property. Fire officials ordered the family to erect a 250,000-gallon water tank, which was eventually negotiated down to a 46,000-gallon tank.
The family spent more than $250,000 in the process, and every time they thought they were finished, county planners ordered more work. Then in August 2005, on the verge of approval from planning commissioners, the project was hung up on an aesthetic dispute. County planners refused to approve the project unless the design of the new tasting facility was changed to incorporate more horizontal elements to match the squat craftsman style of an historic house on the Vannis’ property. The house is listed in the county’s inventory of “Historical Heritage Resources,” which means that any changes to the property must conform to a variety of federal standards for historic structures.
Vanni thought they would have an easier time once they obtained planning department approvals, but he estimates that he has managed to spend another $200,000 negotiating the latest round of bureaucratic hurdles. He said he is “on the verge of giving up,” though he still holds out hope that he can obtain the necessary permits and start construction by next August.
“Once we got through the planning department, we figured it would take less than a year to get through the building department,” he explained. “But it will be a year in October and now they’re saying that if we don’t get though their department by October 2007, our planning department permit will expire. We definitely don’t want to go through the planning department again.”
