FW: Ramona Sentinel: Boutique wineries squeak through county planners

Possible Wine Beat story for Crush or Joe Deegan:



------ Forwarded Message
From: <char.ayers@att.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:11:00 +0000
To: Charlene Ayers <char.ayers@att.net>
Subject: Ramona Sentinel: Boutique wineries squeak through county planners

 
> -------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
> From: xxxxx
> To: char.ayers@att.net
> Subject: Ramona Sentinel: Boutique wineries squeak through county planners
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:15:34 +0000
>
>
> Article contains inevitable misquotes and out-of-context sound bytes
> characteristic of the local press... but here it is warts and all.
>
> Note: The proposed ordinance draft options to be discussed at the BOS April
> 23 hearing are largely DOA for private road wineries.
>
> XXXXX
>
>
> Boutique wineries squeak through county planners
>
> http://www.ramonasentinel.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=&mad=&sd
> etail=5413&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoptio
> n=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1085&hn=ramo nas
> entinel&he=.com
>
> Joe Naiman 17.APR.08
> A proposed boutique winery ordinance does not need an environmental impact
> report (EIR), county planning commissioners agreed in a 4-3 vote.
>
> San Diego County Board of Supervisors, scheduled to hear the ordinance
> proposal April 23, will have the final decision whether to approve the
> ordinance allowing tasting rooms and on-premise wine sales by right for
> boutique wineries accessed by public roads, with conditions for boutique
> wineries accessed by private roads ˜ or require an EIR to study the impacts
> of by-right tasting rooms and on-premise sales for wineries off public and
> private roads.
>
> The decision not to require an EIR could be challenged in court, which is
> why the county's Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) and county
> counsel recommended an EIR.
>
> Planning commissioners Bryan Woods, David Pallinger, Leon Brooks, and Adam
> Day voted to recommend not re quiring an EIR. Commissioners Michael Beck,
> David Kreitzer, and John Riess recommended requiring an EIR for the
> ordinance and allowing tasting rooms and on-premise sales with an
> administrative permit until the EIR was certified.
>
> "If the board (of supervisors) wants to make changes to our recommendation,
> that's certainly their right," Pallinger said on April 4. "I think this
> body carefully considered this."
>
> On March 7, San Diego County Planning Commission heard the proposed
> boutique winery ordinance and recommended passage of a compromise proposal
> while also voting to approve an environmental mitigated negative
> declaration for the ordinance.
>
> The ordinance was slated to go to the Board of Supervisors on March 26, and
> the March 21 planning commission hearing initially was to have discussed
> minor revisions. As DPLU staff members prepare the board letter for
> supervisors‚ meeting, they believed that additional changes we re needed.
> DPLU also determined that insufficient notice of the March 21 hearing was
> provided, so the planning commission voted unanimously to continue the
> hearing to April 4.
>
> After evaluating all of the information received and conferring with county
> counsel, DPLU determined that an EIR would be needed to address potential
> noise, traffic, and groundwater impacts from by-right on-premise sales and
> tasting rooms at boutique wineries.
>
> "The members were dismayed at the result," said Bill Schweitzer, president
> of the Ramona Valley Vineyard Association.
>
> In February 2007, the board of supervisors directed county staff to return
> with an ordinance that would exempt wineries producing no more than 12,000
> gallons per year and on agriculturally zoned land from discretionary permits.
>
> Existing zoning rules define two types of wineries:
>
>  A Wholesale Limited Winery allows production of up to 7,500 gallons
> annually an d is allowed by right in agricultural zones but does not allow
> retail activities, tasting rooms, or special events.
>
>  A Winery is allowed by right in industrial zones but is required to have
> a major use permit in agricultural zones and in certain residential and
> special purpose zones.
>
> Tasting rooms, special events, and retail sales can be allowed under the
> conditions of a major use permit.
>
> The supervisors' February 2007 recommendation created four new categories
> of wineries in addition to the Wholesale Limited Winery category:
>
>  Boutique wineries˜produce no more than 12,000 gallons per year,
>
>  Small wineries˜produce up to 55,999 gallons annually,
>
>  Medium wineries˜produce under 100,000 gallons, and
>
>  Large wineries˜produce at least 100,000 gallons.
>
> The ordinance under consideration only covers boutique wineries. The only
> winery in San Diego County currently producing more than 12,000 gallons
> annually is Orfila Vineyards, located within the San Diego city limits in
> the San Pasqual Valley.
>
> Various restrictions in the proposed ordinance cover hours of operations,
> local and on-site production minimum percentages, facility size, and other
> aspects. The proposed boutique winery ordinance only applies to properties
> with A70 and A72 agricultural zoning and was specifically designed to avoid
> boutique wineries in areas with residential zoning.
>
> On Sept. 7 the county's Planning Commission unanimously returned the matter
> to the Board of Supervisors without a specific ordinance but recommended
> that wineries accessible by public roads be allowed by right while noting
> that time would be required for a solution to wineries accessed by private
> roads.
>
> Opponents have indicated that all owners of a private road may be liable if
> an accident occurs and that trips to wineries may create a disproportional
> burden on private roa ds for which all owners share maintenance cost
> responsibility.
>
> The supervisors' 5-0 vote Dec. 5 directed county staff to return to the
> supervisors within 120 days with an ordinance which would allow tasting
> rooms and on-premise wine sales by right for boutique wineries accessed by
> public roads while establishing conditions for boutique wineries accessed
> by private roads. The ordinance drafted by county staff provided language
> similar to a Ramona Valley Winery Association compromise proposal. If fewer
> than ten parcels between the closest public road and the winery must be
> accessed, the winery may operate by right if the winery enters into a road
> maintenance agreement, which includes addressing the liability of property
> owners, with all parcel owners between the public road and the winery. If a
> road maintenance agreement cannot be obtained, or if more than 10 parcels
> between the public road and the winery are accessed, an admini strative
> permit will be required.
>
> The alternative recommended April 4 by the Planning Commission is similar
> to the March 7 ordinance other than new language stipulating findings for
> the administrative permit.
>
> Leaders from both sides of previous debates supported the March 7
> compromise while some members from each side expressed opposition to the
> clauses intended to address each other's concerns.
>
> Whether to require an EIR or to accept a negative declaration or mitigated
> negative declaration is a discretionary matter, although a defect in the
> negative declaration ˜ for example omission of an archeological site ˜
> would require an EIR. Opponents had argued that the ordinance would require
> an EIR, but DPLU and county counsel did not make that recommendation until
> after the March 7 hearing.
>
> "We were trying to carefully weigh the evidence that had come in in support
> of the fair argument," said Paul Mehnert, who re presented county counsel at
> the April 4 hearing.
>
> Mehnert indicated that DPLU and county counsel believed that the cumulative
> arguments were not decisive at the time of the March 7 hearing.
>
> "It makes no sense for the county," said Bud Wiederrich of Orrin Vineyards
> and Winery in Warner Springs. "It must be extremely frustrating for the
> board of supervisors."
>
> Harvesting and wholesale sales (with state approval) are already permitted
> in agricultural areas. The state Alcoholic Beverage Commission (ABC) issues
> a Type 2 winegrowers license, which allows for wholesale sales, and a
> letter from ABC district supervisor Robin Van Dyke said that ABC approval
> is necessary for retail sales or on-site tasting rooms.
>
> The ABC process also includes public hearings.
>
> "I should only have to apply to the ABC," Wiederrich said. "There is
> absolutely no reason in duplicating already existing regulations."
>
> "Many of these wine ries are under financial duress right now," said Dennis
> Grimes of Eagle's Nest Winery in Ramona. "We're facing an economic downturn."
>
> Grimes noted that the EIR process covers impacts but also includes
> provisions for overriding considerations.
>
> "There's a balance implied in that intent," he said. "I don't believe there
> are any significant issues here."
>
> Grimes added that promotion of boutique wineries would also help local
> lodging facilities and other retail businesses.
>
> Steve Pelzer, who has opposed the ordinance, submitted a neutral slip for
> the April 4 hearing.
>
> "What I'm trying to get are some answers to some questions and issues," he
> said. "...I'm still unclear about the administrative permit, how it works
> and how it addresses the issues."
>
> The administrative permit process requires notification of all property
> owners within 300 feet of the winery's boundaries and notification of at
> least 20 property owners. The permit will not require a hearing unless the
> applicant or an affected party requests a hearing. If a hearing is
> requested, the county's zoning administrator will hold it. A zoning
> administrator decision can be appealed to the planning commission by either
> side .
>
> "The proponents of this ordinance across the county have worked very hard
> the last two years," said Carolyn Harris of Chuparosa Vineyards in Ramona.
> "Today we are back to where we were two years ago."
>
> Harris, who is also the secretary and general counsel of the Ramona Valley
> Winery Association, said that the only change since the hearings has been a
> change in staff.
>
> "This has been a very abrupt turnaround," she said. "To say that we are
> appalled would be an understatement."
>
> Harris noted that the intent of the proposed ordinance was to obtain relief
> from the major use permit requirement.
>
> "It was onerous," she said. "It was not enabli ng the development of
> wineries in San Diego County."
>
> Two years ago advocates of the proposed ordinance inquired whether an EIR
> process should be started as the ordinance was being developed.
>
> "At this time it would have been accomplished," Harris said. "I believe the
> EIR is being used as a very ugly weapon. I believe it's not justified.
>
> "I'd like to see this planning commission tell the planning staff to stand
> down."
>
> Harris opposes the interim administrative permit requirement.
>
> "We are not happy with that compromise," she said. "It means that in the
> future we will continue to have zero boutique wineries."
>
> Harris, who disputes the need for an EIR, asked that, if it were required,
> it address all four levels of wineries at the same time.
>
> "I think that criteria was wild-eyed, unsubstantiated and over the top,"
> she said. "I'll be glad to argue every single one of those wild-eyed,
> speculative arguments ."
>
> Richard McClellan of Ramona has a vineyard on three acres but does not
> operate a winery.
>
> "Why did we get reset to zero here?" he asked. "Nothing's changed. This is
> all the same thing."
>
> McClellan questioned the pesticide impact of boutique wineries.
>
> "You don't use pesticides in wineries. You do that in growing grapes," he
> said. "This is not an academic exercise. You screwed up and it's costing us
> apparently two years."
>
> Ramona Valley Winery Association member Michael Kopp of Kohill Winery said,
> "Our goal here is to re-establish the wine industry in San Diego County. We
> compromised in good faith with the DPLU. The original structure provided a
> complete framework for winery industry growth."
>
> Eric Larson, the executive director of the San Diego County Farm Bureau,
> noted that pesticides and stormwater runoff are already regulated and that
> the county has strong grading and clearing ordinances to mitigat e those
> impacts.
>
> "These issues are already addressed," he said. "How do you mitigate zero
> impact?"
>
> Larson also noted that the by-right authorization applies only to the
> boutique wineries.
>
> "These are the smallest of farmers," he said. "This was the entry level.
> This was the zero-impact farm we were talking about."
>
> Larson added that the administrative permit requirement would also negate
> by-right mail-order or Internet sales.
>
> "They cannot answer the phone and take an order from someone," he said.
> "That's almost a restraint of trade."
>
> Larson opposes the administrative permit requirement.
>
> "That process could easily be as onerous as a major use permit," he said.
> "I'm fearful of the use permit process in farming. I'm fearful about the
> precedent it sets."
>
> Larson indicated that some farmer would need to be the "sacrificial lamb"
> to determine the ease or lack thereof of obtaining an administr ative use
> permit. He also argued that such permits are not necessarily in perpetuity.
>
> "That could be pulled out from underneath them sometime in the future," he
> said.
>
> "We are not in support of the AUP, MUP, or EIR,‰ said Ramona Chamber of
> Commerce President Carol Fowler. „We are in support of the boutique winery
> ordinance.
>
> "This would be the jump-start to the economy of Ramona. This is the key to
> making Ramona a destination, not just a pass-through community."
>
> Gerardo Cordiano owns a winery in Highland Valley between Ramona and
> Escondido.
>
> "We use very little water," he said. "The pesticides are almost nil."
>
> Beth Edwards of Edwards Cellars in Ramona told the commissioners that she
> may need to explain her low farm sales to the Internal Revenue Service.
>
> "We only get one crop a year," she said. "I can only put it off so long
> before I have to sell."
>
> Edwards noted that the administrative permi t and the major use permit were
> both discretionary.
>
> "It's really a lion named Kitty," she said. "The only difference is the
> starting fee."
>
> The starting fee is a deposit, and more money may later be required.
>
> "I can't afford that," Edwards said. "This is farm land. I'm a farmer."
>
> Bruce Eastwood of Ramona supports the EIR requirement but does not believe
> the county should fund it.
>
> "Developers have to pay for their EIRs," he said. "Why shouldn't these people?
>
> "I do not want intoxicated drivers or pedestrians on the private easement
> road on my property. Harris says we're back to square one. All right, end
> it. Throw it out."
>
> Ramona resident Don Kovacic supports keeping the major use permit
> requirement but with streamlining and subsidies to make the process less
> onerous for wineries while preserving the rights of other community members.
>
> "The CEQA issues are numerous and wide-ranging," he said, ci ting regional
> cumulative impacts such as fire risk and air quality.
>
> Jim Beggs lives on a private road in Ramona and notes that the
> agriculturally zoned areas contain both farms and residences.
>
> "I think we have to accommodate both uses," he said. "I'm for a
> discretionary permit process."
>
> Schwaesdall Winery, Ramona's only boutique winery with a major use permit
> for a tasting room, is one of six wineries in San Diego County have major
> use permits.
>
> "I don't even think the major use permit process was that onerous," he said.
>
> Proponents have noted that John Schwaesdall completed that process in 1996
> at a cost of $7,000. The average major use permit now costs $218,000 with
> some applicants paying below the average and others paying above the average.
>
> Schweitzer notes that the ultimate four-tier process covers wineries that
> grow.
>
> "Boutique wineries have limited size tasting rooms," he said. "If you
> w anted to get bigger, you'd have to go AUP."
>
> The planning commission asked Mehnert whether existing regulations negated
> the need for an EIR. He did not think so, saying "You can't merely defer
> CEQA analysis into the future."
>
> "We don't think that our existing ordinances cover the full spectrum that
> would alleviate all these impacts," said acting DPLU Director Eric Gibson.
>
> "We're going to place this on the heads of a small boutique winery that's
> got three acres of grapes?" Woods said. "The information's been on the table."
>
> The county's "farm stand" ordinance allows for direct sales on or adjacent
> to the property while limiting the farm stand to a maximum of 200 square
> feet.
>
> "We have cottage industries that can draw some traffic to a home," Kreitzer
> said.
>
> Kreitzer supported staff recommendation for an EIR, noting that such a
> study would prove the minimal impacts.
>
> Beck believes that regional issues m ay exist.
>
> Beck also believes that an EIR would stave off a court-ordered EIR in the
> future.
>
> "I think you can add a year to this process with litigation," he said. "The
> most direct expeditious way is staff's recommendation."
>
> Riess also fears the potential of litigation.
>
> "County counsel would not be stepping forward and making this
> recommendation unless there was a serious risk," he said.
>
> "I'm very disappointed that it came to this," Pallinger said. "I think this
> really should go to the board of supervisors as previously approved by this
> body."
>
> Day noted that the arguments had previously been considered.
>
> "This situation is a microcosm of the perception of failed government at
> every level," he said. "This is just a veiled threat. If they are serious,
> let them follow through, but let's at least get to that point."
>
> Day noted that a challenge to the mitigated negative declaration would
> delay t he EIR by about a month.
>
> "Anyone who's going to challenge this is going to have a limited time to
> challenge it," he said. "If we're really serious about this, let's get to
> the bottom line."
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message