Also serving the communities of De Luz, Rainbow, Camp Pendleton, Pala and Pauma

Supes tell staff to draft boutique winery ordinance

Winery owners in unincorporated San Diego County are one step closer to a zoning ordinance amendment which would allow boutique wineries to operate without use permits.

A 5-0 San Diego County Board of Supervisors vote December 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. Wineries on a private road where no more than ten parcels within 1,000 feet of the winery parcel’s boundaries are accessed by the private road will be allowed to operate by right contingent upon satisfactory road width and a formal road maintenance agreement.

A separate 5-0 vote directed county staff to explore the feasibility of establishing viticultural zones in San Diego County. 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, but grapes are also grown on properties with S92, or general rural, zoning. S92 zoning allows for residential and agricultural use and is intended to provide controls for land with rugged terrain, watersheds, dependence on groundwater, susceptibility to fire and erosion, or subject to other environmental constraints. Grapes have been touted as a low-water crop suitable for water-restricted situations.

“It sounds like this might be a reasonable solution,” said Supervisor Dianne Jacob. “This looks to me like a pretty good compromise.”

On February 28 the Board of Supervisors directed county staff to return to the supervisors with an ordinance which would exempt wineries producing no more than 12,000 gallons per year and on agriculturally-zoned land from discretionary permits. The existing zoning ordinance defines two types of wineries. A Wholesale Limited Winery allows production of up to 7,500 gallons annually and is allowed by right in agricultural zones, but the zoning ordinance 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 28 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, which is located within the San Diego city limits in the San Pasqual Valley.

Sales, tasting, and special events were proposed to be allowed by right at boutique wineries, with an administrative permit for small wineries, with a minor use permit for medium wineries, and with a major use permit for large wineries. One tasting room of up to 30 percent of the production facility’s area or 2,000 square feet (whichever is greater) would be allowed for all wineries, and up to 30 percent of the tasting room area would be allowed for non-wine retail sales.

Boutique wineries would not be allowed to host special events and could hold up to four marketing events per year. The marketing events would be limited to between 10:00 a.m. and sunset. Retail sales would be allowed seven days a week between 10:00 a.m. and sunset; 75 percent of the wines sold must be from San Diego County grapes and 35 percent of the wine must be from the winery operating the tasting room, although there is an exemption for new wineries and the county’s Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures could suspend the requirement (one potential solution to the private road issue is allowing co-op tasting rooms in which wineries off private roads would send wine to facilities accessible by public roads; that is permissible under wineries’ state licenses but may require a waiver of the 35 percent threshold). Pre-packaged food could be sold and consumed, and food service would be allowed if catered or from a facility approved by the county’s Department of Environmental Health. No bus or caravan tours would be allowed for boutique wineries, and outdoor eating areas would be limited to five tables and no more than ten people. No amplified sound would be allowed, and chip seal or alternative material would be required for access and parking areas (a condition which could address concerns about access by dirt roads).

On September 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 should be allowed by right while noting that time will be required for a solution to wineries accessible by private roads. Possible solutions to protect occupants and property owners sharing private road access with a winery include administrative permits for such wineries, co-op tasting rooms, and road maintenance agreements. “That’s still going to require some work on our behalf,” said Planning Commissioner John Riess at the December 5 Board of Supervisors meeting.

Harvesting and wholesale sales (with state approval) are already permitted uses in agricultural areas. The county currently has more than 40 bonded wineries. “It’s time to remove the prohibition of direct sales,” said Carolyn Harris of Chupa Rosa Vineyards in Ramona, which has two acres of zinfindel and brumello. “Right now a major use permit is required, which is a barrier.”

Schwaesdall Winery in Ramona is the county’s only boutique winery which has a major use permit for a tasting room, although John Schwaesdall completed that process 11 years ago at the 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. “We’re looking forward to removing those major use permit barriers,” Harris said.

Harris noted that most wineries produce fewer than 1,000 cases annually and that 5,000 cases might be sufficient to support a family for a year. “These are the tiniest of wineries,” she said. “Production is tied to the land.”

Harris cited multiple-tier ordinances in other counties to allow for small wineries. “I’m confident that San Diego can also restrict their regulations appropriately,” she said. “We’ve got our issues narrowed, I believe, to public versus private roads.”

Harris is also the secretary of the Ramona Valley Winery Association, which offered a compromise on the private road issue. If access to the winery uses any portion of a private road, an administrative permit (which includes public review) would be required if more than ten parcels are accessed by the private road and within 1,000 feet of the winery parcel’s boundaries. If ten or fewer parcels are accessed, a road maintenance agreement must be in place. The road must be paved to a width of 14 feet or greater, and any unpaved road must be at least 14 feet wide at its narrowest point and have a maximum grade of no more than four percent. If any homeowners’ association rules or other deed covenants exist, they will continue to the extent the winery property is already bound.

“We want to work with our neighbors,” said Ramona Valley Winery Association member Michael Kopp of Kohill Winery, who grows various varietals on 2.3 acres in Ramona.

Richard McClellan, who lives in Ramona, notes that most wineries are between two and four acres and that each cultivated acre produces approximately 200 cases. “I think the ordinance as drafted is very responsive in general,” he said.

McClellan fears that a road maintenance agreement will not obtain the necessary support of all parties. “There won’t be any wineries on private roads,” he said.

Even with the ability to use grapes not grown on the property, Bill Schweitzer noted that no more than 3,000 cases will likely be produced for most small wineries. Some of those will be sold to retailers or by the direct sales the tasting rooms are intended to generate, and if a winery runs out of a year’s bottles they cannot be replenished until the next harvest. “There’s just not enough room on any small piece of land to have a great amount of production,” said Schweitzer, whose six-acre Paccielo Vineyard sells sangiovese and cabernet sauvignon grapes to local wineries but does not produce wine itself.

“They’re not going to see traffic,” Schweitzer said of the neighbors. “There’s not going to be an impact.”

Eric Metz owns 125 acres in Ramona, although much of the land was burned in the Witch Fire. “San Diego is a tourist and a vacation area. It has a big draw,” he said. “I think that San Diego County can benefit by supporting a winery ordinance that works for the winemakers.”

Metz noted that winemakers’ needs include making a profit and reasons for customers to purchase the wine. “Key to these are a business-friendly winery ordinance,” he said.

“The tasting rooms are absolutely critical from a profit standpoint,” said Dennis Grimes of Ramona.

“Nothing happens without the business aspects being adequately addressed,” Grimes said. “We need some ordinance relief. We need relief from fees.”

Members of the Farm Bureau are on both sides of the private road issue, so the Farm Bureau has taken no position on private road restrictions. Al Stehly of Valley Center represented the Farm Bureau at the hearing.

“The Farm Bureau is firmly in support of anything that moves agriculture ahead in San Diego County,” Stehly said. “I think you have created a road to success, so to speak.”

Although Stehly does not grow grapes himself, his daughter is currently studying viticulture and oenology at the University of California, Davis.

Opponents fear intoxicated drivers returning from - or traveling between - tasting rooms on private roads and hazardous public roads such as State Route 67 in Ramona. They also noted that in addition to increased traffic concerns, property owners usually share equally in the cost and labor of maintaining a private road and owners of a private road may be liable if a visitor from the tasting room has an accident while driving on that road.

“The county is shifting their responsibilities to the public,” said Ramona resident Don Kovacic.

Kovacic suggested alternatives such as streamlining the permit process while retaining public review or subsidizing the costs of major use permits. “Instead the county has decided to shift the burden of increasing tourism through wineries to the general public. It’s a bad idea,” he said.

Kovacic also noted that the California Environmental Quality Act is intended to address impacts. “You don’t just get to do it and think about it later,” he said.

“It’s not ag versus residential,” said Carol Angus, who lived in Ramona before her home burned in the Witch Fire. “It’s commercial versus residential.”

Angus plans to return to her property, which includes a private road easement, after her house is rebuilt. “I have a liability if there were an accident there,” she said. “This is another layer of liability that’s being laid on us.”

Angus noted that property owners with private road easements are liable regardless of whether homes exist. “Density should have no bearing on this,” she said.

Steve Pelzer of Ramona noted that private roads include children playing, horseback riders, and often little signage or lighting. “It is inappropriate. It is a bad mix,” he said. “Let’s get something that is on a solid foundation for success, not for failure.”

Linda Eastwood, who lives on Highway 78 in Ramona, told the supervisors that the ordinance would have adverse effects on peace and privacy as well as safety. “It will bring in strangers,” she said.

Access to Eastwood’s home is by private road. “If my property were for sale, its value may be reduced,” she said, noting that any buyers would incur the liability.

Jim Beggs of Ramona noted that when the county approved its bed and breakfast ordinance such facilities were not allowed on private roads.

“It affects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of our county,” said Vivian Osborn of Ramona. “I feel that is completely unfair.”

Kevin Dorst of Ramona noted that some private roads are less than ten feet wide at certain points. “The drinking of alcohol in these tasting rooms is not in the best interest of the public,” he said.

“I like wine. I like vineyards,” said David Rueda of Ramona. “The problem I have is retail sales in our neighborhood.”

Rueda grows avocados on his property and has been the victim of vandalism and trespassing. “There are a number of ways to sell retail without selling from your home,” he said. “I think you ought to re-look at this situation.”

Rueda sells his avocados through a broker and noted that if he sold one or two avocados at a time from his home he would have constant customers.

Tom Ramsthaler lives on a private road in Ramona which has two wineries and 26 houses. He noted that representatives of 20 of those homes expressed opposition to the proposed ordinance. “There’s a fundamental problem with this proposal,” he said. “The rights of 20 out of 26 houses are being compromised to the advantage of a few.”

Ramsthaler lives two miles from Schwaesdall Winery and cited Schwaesdall’s traffic as 25 trips on Saturdays and 25 trips on Sundays. “Those neighbors are subjected to 50 trips of probably intoxicated drivers every Saturday and Sunday,” he said. “We have got to address the private road issue.”

Jacob sought to give county staff specific direction on drafting and ordinance and incorporated the Ramona Valley Winery Association compromise. “Anything we do in terms of an ordinance is not in concrete forever,” she said.

 

Reader Comments(0)