APAC #5 Report
on the web at: https://sodacanyonroad.org/forum.php?p=847
Bill Hocker | Jun 8, 2015

NVR: Ag protection committee scrutinizes winery accessory uses

At the last meeting Chairman Ted Hall suggested that the committee spend some time at the beginning of this meeting to discuss what are the appropriate accessory uses on agricultural land. Staff responded with a table of the uses that are allowed in the general plan in both AP and AW zones.

The meeting began with open public comments:
    Norma Tofanelli: Need to deal with big picture. cities must be involved
    Ginna Beharry: sustainable growth consultant required.
    Kelly Anderson: auction attracts usustainable developers
    Rex Stults: auction nets $15 mil - for charity!
    Clay Gregory: 12% more tourism in 2014 than 2012, goal; fill in slow periods
    Rudy Von Strausser; Look at the money spent by each winery visitor!
    Rob Mondavi: Ag Preserve is successful. WDO works. No more restraint of trade or property rights needed.

Chair Hall then began the agenda of this meeting by asking (roughly) "What is the problem we are trying to solve? How does each of the policies we propose enhance preservation and protection of agriculture?" It was to be a shift of the discussion away from the predefined topics that had been laid out by the BOS and Dir. Morrison, issues which had so far seemed like they were on the margins of the real problems of protecting agricultural lands.

Members responded in a wide ranging fashion
    Christina Benz: sustainable water use
    Eve Kahn: event centered visitation, enforcement needed
    Charles Hasson: ag must be sustainable
    Jim Dunbar: cities have role, wine tasting in cities works
    Cio Perez?: enforcement, events not to be profit centers
    Dan Mufson: public costs of over-visitation
    Ted Hall: enforcement or compliance, certificate of compliance !!

Director Morrison then gave his report:
    Some revisions to the capacity numbers.
    Unfortunate Labyrinthine winery definitions
    Relatively few variances over 20 years.
    Code enforcement has limitations
    And then he laid out the division of tasks now going on in the county:
    Enforcement issues to be taken up by BOS
    Climate Action Plan to be taken up by Planning Comm.
    Visitation has been taken up by staff.
    and APAC?

The chairman then posed these questions, I thought rhetorically, to Dir. Morrison:
Is a movie night an appropriate winery use? A Wedding? Corporate Meeting? Paid Concert? Sale of Apparel? A meal equivalent?

The director dutifully answered each question: if the movie is relaed to wine eduction. no weddings. if the corporate meeting has a wine education component. concert treated as temporary event with permit. No apparel. Food service if supplied at cost.

Again a wide ranging statement of positions and questions came from the committee and public.
    Cio Perez: sustainable use is not the most profitable use, less focus on economics
    Jim Kridet: is primary use as event center? enforcement and self regulation
    Charles Hasson: clarify accessory uses.
    Eve Kahn: can temp events be WDO non-compliant?
    John Dunbar: self regulation ineffective, neighbor regulation a burden
    Deborah Dhomer: economic viability most important
    Ted Hall: 2010 WDO change created regulatory ambiguity
    Bruce Phillips: 1990 WDO about wine and trade events. 2010 WDO about visitation and public events, other accessory metrics needed than area
    Cio Perez: 40% area too large, move it in town
    Peter McCrea: self regulation can work through NVV
    Dan Mufson: sign compliance document
    Sharon Gardner: 2010 unintended consequencs, weigh impacts, how many wineries can the county bear?
    Geoff Ellsworth: 2010 changed zoning from ag to commercial use.
    Norma Tofanelli: staff should define marketing event, tours & tasting, food and wine paring.
    Yeoryios Apallas: require statement of compliance, reduced visitation as penalty, cities + county needed to solve problems
    Mike Hackett: revoke use permits for non compliance
    Rob Mondavi: accessory use to focus on wine but marketing is required
    Ginna Beharry: winery success cannot be at neighbor's expense


Chair Hall brought the meeting back to the committee to discuss the Setback Variance question, citing 102 issued since 1990 mostly for road setbacks. He indicated that some people had a misunderstanding about variances - that they were not the same as u-p modifications. I don't think that anyone in the room thought they were. He said that the setbacks were created to maintain the vision of wineries in a landscape. But setbacks have unintended consequences- as with Longmeadow Ranch the setback moves the project into the floodplain. Setback variances have become a hot button issue in planning commission hearings. Discussion here revolved around the use of setback variances to deny use-permits. Several preservationists dismissed that notion. (I think he was right). Dan Mufson's "If it doesn't fit you must (a)quit" got a laugh.

Dir. Morrison responded that variances reflect the priority of importance in building loacement. He also made one of the most interesting admissions of the day: 2010 changes to WDO created ambiguity and ambiguity is difficult to enforce.

Committee members and the public had their say
    Cio Perez: if wineries can't comply with setbacks then they shouldn't be there.
    Eve Kahn: setbacks prevent winery strip malls
    Bruce Phillips: use permit is not a property right.
    Cio Perez: 7 points must be met to grant variance.
    Kelly anderson: viewshed oridinance needs clarifiaction
    Ginna Beharry: winery not a property right, denying a winery is not a taking
    Yeoryios Apallas: Topanga decision?
    Norma Tofanelli: Topanga decision? (requires written findings for variances)

Chair Hall gave a 'homework assignment" to members of the committee to come up with their own definitions for accessory use in a format similar to the preamble of the WDO. (Which I took to mean the "findings of fact" in the 1990 WDO, or the "whereas statements" of the 2010 WDO.) Proposals were to be received by Jun 15th when Dir. Morison would attempt to categorize them for the next meeting on the 22nd.

copyright © sodacanyonroad.org