Ramona Valley Vineyard Association - Recently Updated Pages

Ramona Valley Vineyard Association - Recently Updated Pageshttp://rvva.wetpaint.com/pageSearch/updatedRecently Updated Pages on http://rvva.wetpaint.comen-usinfo@wetpaint.comThu, 19 Jun 2008 13:30:12 CDTThu, 19 Jun 2008 13:30:12 CDTwetpaint.com60Ramona Valley Vineyard Associationhttp://www.wetpaint.com/img/logo.gifhttp://rvva.wetpaint.comWelcome to the RVVA Libraryhttp://rvva.wetpaint.com/page/Welcome+to+the+RVVA+LibraryRVVACarolynhttp://rvva.wetpaint.com/page/Welcome+to+the+RVVA+LibraryThu, 19 Jun 2008 13:30:12 CDT2008 Lum Eisenman Ramona Valley Wine Competition

_________________________________________________

Welcome to the on-line library of the Ramona Valley Vineyard Association, an unincorporated association of vineyard owners and supporters in the Ramona Valley American Viticulture Area (AVA) in San Diego County, California, USA (www.ramonavalleyvineyards.org).

We are all dedicated to the production of quality wine grapes and the establishment of a quality wine region. We believe that the Ramona Valley has a unique opportunity to start out on the right foot with this project by taking advantage of recent developments in viticulture and enology world-wide. Our goal is to avoid "reinventing the wheel", or repeating previous errors, while at the same time realizing that our region is unique, and past research and experiences in the viticulture world may not apply to us.

All RVVA members are invited and encouraged to post information on this site that they think other members would like to access. While the "whole world" can see this site (as with any other web site) only RVVA members can add or change content.

We pride ourselves in being generous with the information we've individually accumulated and learned so that the Ramona Valley can enjoy accelerated success.
_____________________________________________________________________________

In addition to the viticulture information you find on this site, make sure you read all the articles that have been posted to the Grape Growing page on the San Diego Amateur Winemaking Society web site (www.sdaws.org).
_____________________________________________________________________________

]]>San Diego County Winery Ordinancehttp://rvva.wetpaint.com/page/San+Diego+County+Winery+OrdinanceRVVACarolynhttp://rvva.wetpaint.com/page/San+Diego+County+Winery+OrdinanceThu, 19 Jun 2008 13:28:58 CDT_____________________________________________________________

18 May 2008 - North County Times

Supervisors adopt 'interim' winery ordinance

By EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer

County supervisors on Wednesday adopted an ordinance that gives local winemakers an easier, less expensive way to open tasting rooms.

The measure was the latest development in a nearly two-year effort to ease restrictions on vintners who are eager to sell their wines on their properties.

Under current rules, winemakers can sell their wines on-site only if they get a cumbersome and expensive major use permit, which can cost $15,000.

The new ordinance allows winemakers who produce less than 12,000 gallons of wine a year to open tasting rooms with an administrative use permit, which has a less onerous process and a lower initial fee ---- $5,000.

Those who advocate for fewer restrictions on small wineries to promote the industry said the change was not such a big departure from the current policy.

"I see almost no difference between an administrative use permit and a major use permit," said Carolyn Harris, a member of the Ramona Valley Vineyards Association, which represents about a dozen Ramona area wine makers.

Harris said both permit processes could require wine makers to conduct expensive studies, such as traffic and fire evacuation studies, that could cost business owners tens of thousands of dollars.

Supervisors said the measure was a temporary compromise between those who advocate for the wine industry and those who fear the problems those businesses might cause in rural parts of the county, such as traffic and public safety concerns.

The supervisors also asked administrators to conduct an environmental study of a permanent ordinance, which is expected to take up to two years. That ordinance would establish several categories of wineries varying in size.

The classifications would be: boutique, for those producing no more than 12,000 gallons of wine a year; small, up to 55,999 gallons; medium, no more than 100,000 gallons; and large, at least 100,000 gallons.

Supervisor Dianne Jacob, who supports the winemakers' efforts, asked them to be patient.

"I understand the frustration, but it's important to get it right," Jacob said.

An ordinance passed unanimously on April 23 declared that selling wines on site and offering tasting rooms would not have a negative effect on the environment and therefore did not need an environmental study.

Last month, the county received a notice from an organization called the San Diego Citizenry Group saying it intended to sue the board challenging that ordinance. The group alleged that the ordinance violated the California Environmental Quality Act.

County Counsel John Sansone said the county would likely lose such a lawsuit.

Rather than face the lawsuit, the supervisors voted to repeal the ordinance and decided to conduct the study, which is expected to cost $260,000, according to county documents.

Proponents, including most supervisors, have said that easing restrictions on wineries could help revive San Diego County's once-booming, pre-Prohibition wine industry, add to the county's tax base and attract tourists.

Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com.

_________________________________________________________________
14 May 2008 - North County Times

County repeals boutique winery ordinance
Supporters vow to continue efforts to establish wine industry

By EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer

Local vintners will have to put the cork back in their plans to add tasting rooms to their wineries.

After being threatened with a lawsuit, county supervisors on Wednesday repealed a month-old ordinance that would have allowed some small wineries to open tasting rooms without an environmental impact study.

The ordinance, passed unanimously on April 23, declared that the tasting rooms would not have a negative effect on the environment and therefore did not need an environmental study.

The repeal of the ordinance was inserted into the supervisors' agenda during Wednesday's meeting after a group opposed to the tasting rooms threatened to sue the county. It was repealed without comments from the public or discussion on the dais by the supervisors.

Before the ordinance was approved last month, county administrators, including the county's attorney, advised the supervisors that the ordinance would expose the county to a lawsuit, because they believed an environmental study was required under state law.

County Counsel John Sansone said the move to include the item on the agenda without notice did not violate open meeting laws because the matter came up after the agenda was published on Thursday.

On Thursday afternoon, the county received a notice from an organization called the San Diego Citizenry Group saying it intended to sue the board challenging the ordinance, according to a memo written by Sansone.

The memo said the group would file the lawsuit this week unless the supervisors repealed the ordinance.

Sansone wrote in the memo that the group claims the ordinance violates the California Environmental Quality Act. Sansone said Wednesday the county would likely lose such a lawsuit.

"We thought that this action needed an environmental impact report, so our advice was that there was a real need to take action," Sansone said.

Carolyn Harris, a member of the Ramona Valley Vineyards Association, which represents about a dozen Ramona area winemakers and spearheaded the effort to create the new ordinance, said she did not learn of the repeal until after the vote.

"We're disappointed, but it seems that the California Environmental Quality Act is being used as a weapon against the development of a winery industry in the county," Harris said.

Marco Gonzalez, who was identified in Sansone's memo as the San Diego Citizenry Group's attorney, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Opponents of the ordinance have said they were concerned about the possibility of increased drunken driving on their rural, private roads.

Several Ramona residents who attended last month's meeting spoke against the ordinance, saying the wineries would increase traffic and vandalism in the area.

Proponents, including most supervisors, have said that easing restrictions on wineries could help revive San Diego County's once-booming, pre-Prohibition wine industry, add to the county's tax base and attract tourists.

Supervisor Dianne Jacob said Wednesday that repeal of the ordinance does not end the efforts to boost the wine industry in the county. She called it a "bump on the road" and added that the county will complete an environmental impact study to develop an ordinance that would bolster and regulate the industry.

"We've lost nothing by doing this, and the goal is still to push and create a wine industry in San Diego County that would be a benefit to the region," Jacob said.

Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com.

________________________________________________________________
01 May 2008 - Ramona Sentinel
Boutique wineries clear major hurdle Joe Naiman
All four members of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors who were present for the supervisors' April 23 meeting voted to support a boutique winery ordinance to allow tasting rooms and on-premise wine sales by right for boutique wineries accessed by public roads and with conditions for boutique wineries accessed by private roads.

Supervisor Ron Roberts was representing the county at an airport master plan meeting when the vote was taken, but the positive votes of Greg Cox, Dianne Jacob, Pam Slater-Price, and Bill Horn gave the ordinance one more vote than necessary. The four supervisors also approved the environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration, meaning that, with mitigation measures included in the conditions, no significant environmental effects will result.

"This will help get things off the block, and it will help these people who have been in wine production," Jacob said.

The new ordinance will take effect May 23. It allows wineries accessed by public roads to have tasting rooms and on-premise sales as well as Internet, phone, and mail sales.

On private roads, if fewer than 10 parcels are between the closest public road and the winery, the winery may operate by right if it 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 there are more than 10 parcels between the public road and the winery, an administrative permit will be required.

The administrative permit process will require notification of all property owners within 300 feet of the winery's boundaries and notification of at least 20 property owners and will not require a hearing unless either the applicant or an affected party requests such a hearing. If a hearing is requested, the county's zoning administrator will hold the hearing.

A zoning administrator decision can be appealed by either side to the San Diego County Planning Commission.

Although the supervisors rejected the recommendation of county staff for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for boutique wineries to operate by right on public roads, their vote directed county staff to develop ordinance language for larger wineries and to prepare the necessary environmental documentation for a tiered approach. That could lead to an EIR for a four-tiered system, including an EIR for the boutique wineries, although such an EIR wouldn't delay the ability of the boutique wineries to open tasting rooms and have on-site sales.

That EIR may also find less than expected impacts for larger wineries.

"We may end up with a process that doesn't require a major use permit for everybody else," said San Diego County Farm Bureau Executive Director Eric Larson.

In February 2007 the 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.

The zoning ordinance had defined 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 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.

Because the only winery in San Diego County currently producing more than 12,000 gallons annually is Orfila Vineyards, which is within San Diego city limits in the San Pasqual Valley, the ordinance approved April 23 only covered boutique wineries.

The boutique winery ordinance only applies to properties with A70 and A72 agricultural zoning and is designed to avoid boutique wineries in areas with residential zoning.

One tasting room measuring no more than 30 percent of the total winery structure size will be allowed. Boutique wineries cannot host special events, and tasting room hours are limited to between 10 a.m. and sunset.

At least 75 percent of the wines sold must be from San Diego County grapes, and 25 percent of the wine must be from grapes grown on-site, although the county's Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures could suspend the requirement during adverse environmental circumstances or extreme economic conditions (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 25 percent threshold).

Pre-packaged food can be sold and consumed, and food service is allowed if catered or from a facility approved by the county's Department of Environmental Health. No bus or caravan tours are allowed (the ordinance prohibits vehicles with a capacity of more than 12 passengers), and outdoor eating areas are limited to five tables and no more than 10 people. No amplified sound is allowed, and chip seal or alternative material is required for driveway access and parking areas.

"We had no idea this was going to be this difficult," Larson said. "Little did the winery folks know that they'd be pushing boulders uphill."

In September 2007 the planning commission unanimously 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 roads for which all owners share maintenance cost responsibility.

The supervisors' 5-0 vote Dec. 5 directed county staff to return within 120 days with an ordinance that 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 conditions approved are similar to a Ramona Valley Winery Association compromise proposal. During a March 7 planning commission hearing, leaders from both sides of previous debates supported the compromise while some members from each side expressed opposition to the clauses intended to address each other's concerns.

The planning commission voted March 7 to recommend the compromise ordinance to the supervisors while also voting to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the ordinance. The ordinance was slated to go to the supervisors on March 26, and the March 21 planning commission hearing initially was to have discussed minor revisions.

As county Department of Planning and Land Use staff was preparing the board letter for docketing for the supervisors meeting, they believed that additional changes were warranted. They 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 also 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 planning commission voted 4-3 April 4 not to recommend an EIR for the proposed boutique winery ordinance.

"The arguments that were raised did not reach the level of a fair argument," Planning Commissioner Adam Day told supervisors April 23. "There was no basis in any of the evidence that supported those claims."

During the April 23 hearing, county counsel indicated that liability was not an issue addressed by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA guidelines would address only the on-site sales and tasting and not the wineries already allowed by right on agriculturally zoned areas.

"The EIR was not triggered," said Carolyn Harris, the secretary and general counsel of the Ramona Valley Winery Association. "All they saw was a checklist."

Harris noted that CEQA states that facts, or assumptions and expert opinions backed by facts, would create the evidence to trigger an EIR but that arguments, speculations, and unsubstantiated opinions do not constitute substantial evidence.

Harris and her husband own Chuparosa Vineyards in Ramona.

"If you're going to have a tasting room, the only noise I can envision right now is a little bit of laughter, maybe a tinkling of a glass," she said. "This is an opportunity for the Board of Supervisors to support agriculture."

"You're always going to have naysayers," said Ramona Chamber of Commerce President Carol Fowler. "A boutique winery ordinance would boost our economy and create tourism. It's come just in the nick of time."

In Ramona environmental constraints and the Witch Fire have augmented the current economic woes affecting other communities.

Fowler noted that Ramona's Ace Hardware store recently filed for bankruptcy and shut down after 40 years of operation and that she has seen more vacant stores on Main Street than at any previous time. Fowler noted that a boutique winery ordinance would make Ramona a tourist destination rather than a town on the way to other tourist attractions.

Richard McClellan of Ramona has a vineyard with eight varietals on three acres but does not operate a winery.

"We're talking about agricultural use," he said.

McClellan noted that the requirement that 25 percent of grapes be grown on-site will limit supply and thus the impacts of visits. McClellan is also a partner with a nephew who has a winery in eastern Washington, and he said that county has 110 wineries totaling approximately 1,500 acres.

"The entire economic growth in that county has been due to the wine industry," he said, adding that the demand for wine also increased the price of wine grapes from $500 per ton to between $2,000 and $3,000 per ton.

Ramona Valley Winery Association member Michael Kopp of Kohill Winery said that his winery's 1,450 vines equate to four tons or 250 cases per year and that Chuparosa Vineyards' 1,750 vines equated to five tons or 300 cases per year.

"We're not those huge wineries in Napa," he said.

"We bought ag land and we're allowed to use it for agricultural uses," said Beth Edwards of Edwards Cellars in Ramona. "I'm already a winery. I'm already growing grapes."

Harvesting and wholesale sales (with state approval) are already permitted uses in agricultural areas.

"I'm really not a business that's going to generate a lot of impact," Edwards said.

Schwaesdall Winery is Ramona's only boutique winery with a major use permit for a tasting room. John Schwaesdall completed that process in 1996 at a cost of $7,000. The average major use permit now costs $218,000.

"I'd have to take out a loan, and I don't even qualify for that loan," Edwards said.

Edwards noted that grapes are a low-water crop.

"We're talking about keeping ag in San Diego County," she said. "We need some relief to be able to do it."

Gerardo Cordiano's winery in Highland Valley between Ramona and Escondido has six acres of cabernet franc, merlot, and tempranillo.

"There will be a negligible amount of traffic that will be mitigated by TIF (transportation impact fee) fees," he said. "Noise will not be created because of the limitations."

While several nearby homes were destroyed in the Witch Fire, the vineyard helped spare Cordiano's house.

"When they say there is a fire hazard, they don't know what they are talking about," he said.

Cordiano noted that his land is already farmed.

"There is not one iota of difference," he said of the impacts of on-site sales and tasting rooms.

Larry Escalona recently planted one acre of cabernet franc, petit verdot, and sangiovese on his Ramona property.

"Without this ordinance we do not have an opportunity," he said. "This ordinance will help make that dream possible for all of us."

Escalona also cited a trend away from purchases of large corporate products.

"More people are buying organic from small farms," he said.

"The real issue here is trying to balance the residents' concerns," said Jerry Jolly, a former director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Commission.

The ABC issues a Type 02 winegrowers license which allows for wholesale sales. Jolly noted that the ABC process for retail sales or on-site tasting rooms was similar to the county's administrative use permit process. The ABC can incorporate conditions, including those which are part of the county ordinance, and the ABC can revoke licenses for violations.

"It gives you a lot more enforcement authority," Jolly said. "Those will be investigated and they can work with the county in this process."

The ABC conditions can include road maintenance agreements, including liability resolutions.

"There really is no evidence that boutique wineries have been a problem," Jolly said.

"We can enable a wine industry in this county or not," said Dennis Grimes of Ramona, whose Eagle's Nest Winery in Ramona harvests five acres of primarily sirah, zinfindel, and merlot. "I think it's going to be wonderful for this county. There's huge potential, really positive potential here."

Grimes opposed the 10-parcel threshold, calling it a violation of Constitutional equal protection language.

"Of the three options before us today, none of them are acceptable or perfect in their own right," he said.

DPLU interim deputy director Jeff Murphy noted that the ten-parcel threshold was based on past traffic impact thresholds.

"The threshold of ten lots was not an arbitrary number," he said.

The 10-parcel threshold includes parcels on all roadway access between the public road and the winery. If multiple roads are involved, all parcels on those roads would be counted.

"Private roads are a liability burden," said Jim Beggs of Ramona. "The traffic noise and other noise impacts will be potentially significant. "The burden of proof is on the vintners."

Beggs noted that most roads serving A70 and A72 properties are private roads.

"The administrative permitting process is not appropriate for protecting the public welfare," he said. "It is clearly in the public interest to keep a major use permit."

Steve Pelzer of Ramona told the supervisors that complaints from both sides indicated a problem.

"It seems as though you already have an ordinance on the books that really does cover everything," he said.

"If the county had an agricultural element in its general plan, we might be more clear," said Carol Angus of Ramona. "The liability issue was the number one issue which was to be addressed. I'm not here to be a naysayer. I'm here to protect myself and my property from having lawsuits."

Angus told the supervisors that liability insurance for other users of a private road couldn't be covered under her umbrella policy.

"I don't believe I have to contribute to the economics by accepting liability on my own," she said.

Dave Rueda of Ramona noted that most residents of homes off of private roads bought in that location to control ingress and egress.

"This boutique winery ordinance amendment would negate that," he said. "There is definitely a problem with this amendment which needs to be addressed."

Bruce Eastwood and his wife have lived in Ramona for 22 years.

"I am against boutique wineries on private roads," he said. "Only winery people get benefit of the road and their neighbors get increased liability risk. If there is to be wineries in San Diego County, have them on public roads, not on private roads."

Eastwood echoed proponents' comments that two years have been spent on the process.

"Why throw good money after bad?" Eastwood said. "Discontinue this thing."

Ramona resident Don Kovacic cited a 1993 San Diego County court case in which residents of several private roads in Ramona were named as co-defendants following a two-car traffic accident resulting in broken bones. The local resident did not sue, but the Escondido driver filed a suit which was settled out of court.

"Any private road off another private road, any homeowner on that private road can be held liable," Kovacic said. "I believe a major use permit should be required for boutique wineries."

Bill Schweitzer, president of the Ramona Valley Vineyard Association, told the supervisors that there were no known cases in other counties of such lawsuits resulting from boutique wineries.

"We have anecdotal and actuarial information about liability," he said.

Schweitzer noted that the wineries could list the other private road property owners as additional named insureds.

"The companies would not allow that if it was going to cost them anything," he said. "Let's help these farmers and these small wine growers have a living on their land."

Slater-Price noted that the solution of a road maintenance agreement would alleviate impacts.

"I don't see how anyone would be surprised if they had to sign a road maintenance agreement," she said.

"These are grape-growing areas. This is agriculturally-zoned land," Slater-Price said. "What you're seeing here are very small parcels that have been farmed."

Slater-Price also noted that growing grapes has a positive environmental effect.

"They could be growing other crops that

use a lot more water," she said. "Agricultural operations do generate some noise. They generate some dust. These are choices people make when they buy property in an agricultural zone."

Slater-Price acknowledged the validity of the traffic issue.

"It seems to me that there are ways to manage that," she said.

Slater-Price added that the ABC requires new drawings, if not a new application, when facilities with sales are altered.

Slater-Price noted that the goal of a governing body is to create the greatest benefit with the least amount of harm.

"The purpose of government is really not just to erect constant barriers," she said. “I'm not sure that we need to go down this more tortuous path assuming the traffic issues can be maintained."

Harris indicated that existing Julian wineries with tasting rooms peak at an average daily traffic volume of five vehicles.

Murphy noted that an average single-family home will generate ten to twelve average daily trips.

Horn has lived on land in Valley Center with A70 zoning since 1970 and notes that each time a new neighbor buys nearby property complaints are made about existing agricultural operations.

"I think agriculture has a by-right," he said.

"I just cannot see one trigger," Horn said of an EIR requirement. "I just do not believe this industry should have to wait another two years or another year to make this work."

At the December hearing, Horn had noted that the restriction to agriculturally-zoned land did not allow for such wineries on parcels with S92, or general rural, zoning. A separate Board of Supervisors vote Dec. 5 directed county staff to explore the feasibility of establishing viticultural zones in San Diego County, although that issue was also postponed to focus on the boutique winery operations.

"We're not looking at establishing a vineyard, growing grapes, establishing a winery operation, because that is already allowed by right," Jacob said. "There is absolutely no effect on any biological resources. The vineyard is already there. The grapes are already growing."

A building can already be erected with a ministerial permit.

"We're doing wine tasting. God forbid if there are any pesticides involved," Jacob said.

Jacob noted that the only water impacts would be from washing glasses and flushing toilets.

"All that we're doing is selling the wine," she said. "We're talking an insignificant impact on water supply."

The four-tiered system covers wineries which expand beyond 12,000 gallons per year.

"It enables a stepped approach to growing into a small or medium-sized winery," Harris said.

"I still would like to see us get to the ultimate goal, the tiered approach," Jacob said. "I'd like to continue this process."

That led to Jacob's motion for the development of the full four-tiered system, including the environmental documentation.

Larson is not afraid of an Environmental Impact Report for larger wineries if that is needed.

"Let's get it done, let's get it done right, and let's not continue to hold this industry hostage," he said.

Larson noted that the Board of Supervisors reiterated its past support for agriculture in agriculturally-zoned areas.

"That was quite important," he said.
Copyright Ramona Sentinel www.ramonasentinel.com
_______________________________________________________________

23 April 2008 - North County Times

Supervisors OK boutique winery ordinance
By EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer SAN DIEGO ---- County supervisors on Wednesday made it easier for small wineries to open tasting rooms, but that doesn't necessarily mean that customers will be sipping local wine any time soon.

The supervisors waived a requirement for cumbersome and expensive major-use permits. Instead, they left it up to the neighbors, who must unanimously agree to the wine-tasting rooms, a condition one vintner said could prove nearly as restrictive as the permits.
Supervisors voted 4-0, with Supervisor Ron Roberts absent, to allow boutique wineries to open tasting rooms on private roads with fewer than 10 residences by creating road maintenance agreements with neighbors.

Applicants on private roads with more than 10 residences would need a major-use permit from the county. Major-use permits require costly land-use and environmental reviews.

Carolyn Harris, a member of the Ramona Valley Vineyards Association, which represents about a dozen Ramona area winemakers and spearheaded the effort to create the new ordinance, praised the supervisors' decision.

Harris is co-owner of the Chuparosa Vineyards in Ramona.

However, Harris said her group hopes to change the ordinance because it would be too difficult for most wineries to get unanimous agreements from neighbors.

The ordinance is designed to foster local winemakers and boost the region's once-thriving industry.

It also includes a provision that will allow wineries to sell their products on the property, by mail, by phone and via the Internet.

Under previous regulations, winemakers could sell wholesale to restaurants and markets, but not directly to the public. Opening a tasting room will make it easier for them to market and sell the wines, supporters said.

The ordinance, which takes effect in 30 days, was opposed by neighbors in Ramona who said they were concerned about the possibility of increased drunken driving on their rural, private roads.

To ease neighbors' concerns, the ordinance includes a requirement for the wineries to enter into a road maintenance agreement with their neighbors.

Some neighbors said Wednesday they remain worried about insurance liability and lawsuits stemming from accidents on the roads.

"The cumulative effect of wine tasting can't be ignored," said Jim Beggs, a Ramona resident opposed to the ordinance.

Supervisor Dianne Jacob recommended that county planners work to establish a tiered category of wineries, with each category requiring more regulation. The classifications would be: boutique, for those producing no more than 12,000 gallons of wine a year; small, up to 55,999 gallons; medium, no more than 100,000 gallons; and large, at least 100,000 gallons.

During public comment, about six Ramona residents spoke against the ordinance, including Bruce Eastwood, who said a winery near his property had caused an increase in traffic and vandalism in the area. The ordinance also has created animosity among residents, he said.

"This has pitted neighbor against neighbor," Eastwood said.

Proponents, including most supervisors, have said that easing the restrictions could help revive San Diego County's once-booming, pre-Prohibition wine industry, add to the county's tax-base and attract tourists.

Before Prohibition, when the federal government banned the sale of alcohol in the 1920s, the Ramona area was home to hundreds of acres of vineyards, according to the Ramona Valley Vineyard Association's Web site.

Today, it has 20 vineyards covering 60 acres, according to the group.

"It's a big first step in the right direction," Supervisor Jacob said of the ordinance.

Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com.

_____________________________________________________________
21 April 2008 - North County Times

Decision may be uncorked for 'boutique' wineries

By EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer

County supervisors are scheduled to decide Wednesday whether small wineries that want to offer tasting rooms will be required to pay for expensive building permits and environmental studies.

Winemakers in the Ramona area say that a requirement to pay for the permits and studies to open tasting rooms would dash their hopes of reviving the once-booming industry.
County officials have been struggling to find a compromise between vintners and their neighbors to create an ordinance that will allow "boutique" wineries to open tasting rooms without having to pay more than the $40,000 that some of the permits and studies cost.

In their recommendation to supervisors, county planners said the ordinance should require winery operators who want tasting rooms to conduct environmental impact reports addressing traffic, noise and related issues.

Despite those recommendations, the county Planning Commission, in a split vote April 4, sided with winemakers and ruled the studies weren't necessary.

It will be up to the supervisors to make the final decision.

Carolyn Harris, a member of the Ramona Valley Vineyards Association, said few winemakers could afford to produce such a study.

The association, which has led the fight to create the ordinance, represents about a dozen Ramona-area wineries.

"I don't think you're going to see too many applications for major-use permits" to build tasting rooms, Harris said Friday. "I can guarantee you that."

Ordinance proponents have said that making it easier for boutique wineries to open tasting rooms could help resurrect the industry, attract tourists and increase the county's tax base.

Opponents, including some backcountry residents, say they are worried that the wineries, some of which are on private roads, would create public safety hazards, such as drunken drivers, on poorly maintained roads.

In December, the supervisors asked county planners to address the question of allowing boutique wineries on private roads.

Owners proposed a plan that would allow small wineries with tasting rooms on private roads with fewer than 10 residences to create road maintenance agreements with neighbors.

Applicants on private roads with more than 10 residences would need a permit from the county.

Harris said the county's Department of Planning and Land Use and the county counsel threw wineries a curve ball late in the game, saying last month that if the ordinance is approved without requiring winery owners to conduct environmental studies, it could expose the county to a lawsuit.

Harris said the county should have made that determination two years ago, when the discussion about the ordinance began.

"We just wasted two years of our lives, thank you very much," Harris said.

Ordinance opponents say that requiring wineries to apply for a major-use permit, which includes the environmental study, is only fair to their neighbors.

"I know that some people think that the whole concept of having small wineries is neat, but you don't give up your zoning" requirements, said Jack Phillips, chairman of the Valle del Oro Community Planning Group.

The supervisors are scheduled to meet at 9 a.m. Wednesday at the county administration building in San Diego.

Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/04/21/news/sandiego/92ea0caaca8c4ed08825742f0061a137.txt
_____________________________________________
17 April 2008 - Ramona Sentinel

Boutique wineries squeak through county planners
Joe Naiman

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 roadsor 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 requiring 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 were 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 and 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 roads 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 administrative 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 represented 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 wineries 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 enabling 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 mitigate 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 administrative 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 permit 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, citing 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 wanted 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 may 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 the 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."

Copyright Ramona Sentinel www.ramonasentinel.com
________________________________________________________

3 April 2008 - Ramona Sentinel

Economic development group works to reclaim Main Street
Maureen Robertson

Reclaiming Main Street as the centerpiece of Ramona and bringing all the threads together to make that happen are high on the list of Ramona Revitalization Steering Committee’s Economic Development Subcommittee.

“We really are tired of being a pass-through community,” subcommittee chair and Ramona Chamber of Commerce President Carol Fowler told a group of about 20 last Friday.

The subcommittee has been working hard to identify what Ramona has, said Fowler.

“We have our camel farm, for example,” she said. “We have our wineries. There’s arts, there’s antiques, there’s equine, and so we’re really concentrating on bringing all these elements together and then trying to create how are we going to get that down the hill and to the community —what Ramona has to offer.”

Ramona Valley as an American Viticultural Area “is huge to us,” said Fowler. Recent talks of possibly needing an environmental impact report (EIR) before the county can approve by-right boutique wineries so vintners can open tasting rooms and offer their wines for retail sales “kind of took the tourism wind out of our sails,” said Fowler.

“The vineyards and the boutique winery ordinance...are not just for the vintners,” she said. “It’s for the entire community and the tourism for this town. ... It really is important to the entire community, not just the vintners.

“The wine industry is key to Ramona.”

Add to that the Ramona Grasslands, and Ramona has a budding eco-tourism industry, said San Diego County Supervisor Dianne Jacob, who chaired the revitalization meeting.

A total of 3,400 acres, including new acquisitions, is Ramona Grasslands, Jacob said, referring the group to a county parks and recreation map delineating grassland parcels.

“This has been a priority of the community to purchase as much of this grasslands as possible for riding and hiking trails and preserving the habitat and eagles, and so forth, and the (Santa Maria Creek) greenway project is a big part of that,” she said.

Trails connecting to wineries, cheese shops, landscaped parking areas in town, wine-tasting rooms, and people traveling to Ramona for a weekend of visiting boutique wineries, hiking, horseback riding, and bird watching were among topics discussed.

“We look for Ramona to become a destination place,” said Arvie Degenfelder, chair of the revitalization group’s Health and Human Services Subcommittee. “... What we of course desperately need is the ancillary kind of businesses (such as) motels, good restaurants.”

If the boutique winery ordinance that is proposed is postponed a couple more years, “there will be some marvelous winemakers here in Ramona in particular, but certainly throughout San Diego County, who are already well down the process who may go bankrupt, “because they can’t afford to hang on that thread for very much longer before then can actually sell some of their marvelous product,” said Bill Schweitzer of the Ramona Valley Vineyard Association (RVVA).

“There is a lot of inertia to make it harder, or continue to make it harder, to have boutique wineries in Ramona and San Diego County, and we, I think, have taken a respectful approach to the issue,” said Schweitzer.

Ramona vintners traveled throughout the state to see what makes the vineyard industry in other areas successful, he said.

“Rather than just complain to the board of supervisors, we synthesized a proposal and moved quite a long way on that ordinance with a lot of compromises and the discovery of the private road issue and the compromises that we put in there,” Schweitzer said, adding they are disheartened by the recent setback at the county that may delay an ordinance for years.

RVVA met with an organization in San Diego’s Gaslamp district that may work on wholesale contracts with Ramona vintners, “but, without retail, you can’t really make a business selling wholesale,” he said.

Teri Kerns, an RVVA member and a Ramona Trails Association member, is working with both groups to establish trail connections to wineries, Schweitzer added.

Jacob said she talked with county staff when she heard about the possible need for an EIR. If an EIR is needed, the county should pay for it, she said.

“We will get there,” she said. “We will have an ordinance that will allow retail sales and wine tasting, and we may end up with a tiered system and by right with the boutique wineries, just as the (RVV) association presented originally.

“... In the end it may turn out better for the kind of goals that you’re talking about and to really honor the viticultural designation that Ramona has. ... This is not, as Bill and Carol said, just about the vintners. It’s about the town, and it would be a big part of Ramona.

“From turkeys to wine. Who would ever guess?”

“The turkeys died out,” Ramona chamber director Jo Fox said, referring to Ramona’s reputation in the 1930s and ’40s as a turkey capital. “Now we need the wine.”

Copyright Ramona Sentinel www.ramonasentinel.com
________________________________________________

27 March 2008 – Ramona Sentinel

Supervisors' hearing on boutique winery proposal postponed for environmental report

Joe Naiman 24.MAR.08
In a best-case scenario for those who wish to see the county's proposed boutique winery ordinance take effect, the hearing at the San Diego County Board of Supervisors has been delayed from March 26 to April 23.

The worst-case scenario for proponents is that an environmental impact report (EIR) will be required to address the impacts of the ordinance.

"It was determined that there were some changes that needed to be made to that ordinance," said Glenn Russell of the county's Department of Planning and Land Use at the March 21 hearing of the San Diego County Planning Commission.

On March 7, the planning commission voted 4-0 with three members absent to recommend passage of a compromise proposal to allow wineries producing no more than 12,000 gallons per year and on agriculturally zoned land to operate tasting rooms and have on-premise wine sales without a major use permit.

The proposed ordinance allows tasting rooms and on-premise sales by right for boutique wineries accessed by public roads while establishing conditions for boutique wineries accessed by private roads. If fewer than 10 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 administrative permit will be required. If any homeowners’ association rules or other deed covenants exist, they will continue to the extent the winery property is already bound.

The ordinance was to have been heard March 26 by the county supervisors, and the March 21 Planning Commission hearing initially was to have discussed minor revisions.

As Department of Planning and Land Use staff was preparing the board letter for docketing at the supervisors’ meeting, DPLU workers thought that additional changes were warranted.

"It was determined that there do need to be changes," said Joe Farace of DPLU.

DPLU also determined that insufficient notice of the March 21 hearing was provided, so the planning commission voted 7-0 to continue the hearing to April 4. DPLU did not comment on what the proposed changes would entail.

"We don't feel that it is appropriate to discuss the substance of the issue today," Russell said at the March 21 hearing.

"We're still working on it, so I think it's a bit premature to go into detail on it," Farace said.

"We are totally taken aback," said Carolyn Harris of Chuparosa Vineyards in Ramona.

Harris is the secretary and general counsel of the Ramona Valley Winery Association.

"All this has had a chance for review," she said.

A March 20 memo indicated that 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 planning commission had approved an environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the ordinance.

"They, after two years, are going to do a 180 on this," Harris said.

Harris called an EIR more of a weapon than a process.

"They took a hand grenade and turned it into a nuclear bomb," she said.

Harris noted that the Mitigated Negative Declaration had previously withstood scrutiny during planning commission decisions.

Harvesting and wholesale sales (with state approval) are already permitted uses in agricultural areas, and the county has about 40 bonded wineries.

"This is a small incremental change to an existing winery ordinance," said Bill Schweitzer, president of the Ramona Valley Vineyard Association.

Schweitzer questioned why groundwater impacts would be required to be studied when grapes can be grown and harvested by right.

"What is this, the groundwater it takes to wash a couple of wine glasses a week?" he said.

Planning Commissioner John Riess noted that a defect in the negative declaration, for example omission of an archeological site, would require an EIR. Certification of a negative declaration that addresses impacts is a discretionary matter.

"If they're asking for a two-week continuance, there's no EIR involved," Riess said.

“I'm really dismayed also, disappointed in the process," said Planning Commissioner Bryan Woods. "There's a lot of folks out there who are depending on some sort of resolution on this."

- Copyright Ramona Sentinel www.ramonasentinel.com
_________________________________________________________________

20 March 2008 - Ramona Sentinel

Supervisors to see new winery rules

Joe Naiman
San Diego County Board of Supervisors will review a compromise version of a proposed boutique winery ordinance on Wednesday, March 26. County planning commissioners voted 4-0 this month in favor of recommending the proposed ordinance with Leon Brooks, David Kreitzer, David Pallinger, and John Riess in favor, and Michael Beck, Adam Day, and Bryan Woods not present.

Leaders from both sides of previous debates supported the compromise, while some members from each side expressed opposition to the clauses intended to address each other’s concerns.

“As long as everybody’s pretty much unhappy, we’re really getting close,” said Carolyn Harris of Chuparosa Vineyards in Ramona, which has two acres of zinfindel and brumello.

“I believe this ordinance has compromised and taken into account all our neighbors’ concerns,” said Beth Edwards of Edwards Cellars. “We’ve done everything that we think is above and beyond to accommodate as many people as possible in these ag zone areas that have ultimately become residential.”

Harris is also the secretary and general counsel of the Ramona Valley Winery Association.

“The issues are narrowing; they’re not expanding,” she said. “We understand the issue of accommodating and making sure that this is a fair ordinance.”

During a Dec. 5 hearing of the county board of supervisors, the Ramona Valley Winery Association offered a compromise on the private road issue.

The supervisors’ 5-0 vote Dec. 5 directed county staff to return to the supervisors with an ordinance that 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 the Ramona Valley Winery Association proposal. If fewer than 10 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 administrative permit will be required.

“I believe that this change is the best possible compromise,” said Tom Ramsthaler, who lives on a private road in Ramona that has two wineries and 26 houses and who opposed previous versions of the ordinance. “It encourages neighbors to get together to talk and do the right thing.”

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 administrative permit will not require a hearing unless either the applicant or an affected party requests such a hearing.

“If nobody disagrees, that permit sails right through,” Ramsthaler said.

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 roads for which all owners share maintenance cost responsibility.

“We’re looking for the winery to step up to the road maintenance agreement,” Harris said.

The situation of a lawsuit against all private road owners is theoretical and neither proponents nor opponents are aware of any cases.

“We respect those issues, and I think we will see them reflected in the ultimate ordinance,” Harris said.

“We have tried to reach out to those who oppose this ordinance and come to a model agreement,” said Ramona Valley Winery Association member Michael Kopp of Kohill Winery, who grows various varietals on 2.3 acres in Ramona. “We are very concerned about preserving the character of our region.”

Harris noted that winery owners would still be subject to unilateral blocking of a winery.

“We’re just down to this one issue,” she said. “We’ve come a long way.”

The 10-parcel threshold includes parcels on all roadway access between the public road and the winery.

“If that covers multiple roads, we would count those,” said Lory Nagem of the county’s Department of Planning and Land Use.

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 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 a.m. and sunset.

Retail sales would be allowed seven days a week between 10 a.m. and sunset. At least 75 percent of the wines sold must be from San Diego County grapes, and 25 percent of the wine must be from grapes grown on-site, although the county’s Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures could suspend the requirement during adverse environmental circumstances or extreme economic conditions (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 25 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.

Harvesting and wholesale sales (with state approval) are already permitted uses in agricultural areas. The county currently has more than 40 bonded wineries. Schwaesdall Winery in Ramona is the county’s only boutique winery that has a major use permit for a tasting room, although 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.

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 should be allowed by right while noting that time would be required for a solution to wineries accessed by private roads.

A separate board of supervisors vote Dec. 5 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. The planning commission’s March 7 hearing did not address the establishment of viticultural zones.

Although most of the speakers on both sides live in Ramona, the proposed ordinance drew opposition from the Twin Oaks Valley Sponsor Group.

“No logic is provided to explain why less populated roads deserve a lower level of protection,” said sponsor group representative Henry Palmer.

Palmer also noted that lot splits could lead to higher densities in areas with tasting rooms. Although the ordinance prohibits off-premises parking, Palmer noted that the parking space requirement calculation was based on average rather than worst-case use.

“People will park wherever they can when parking space is full,” he said.

Palmer noted that most of the wine tasting will occur on weekends, outside the normal Code Enforcement hours.

“I don’t think you can rely on Code Enforcement to enforce parking regulations,” he said.

The advantage of on-site tasting rooms is that they introduce customers to wineries for future direct mail or Internet sales, and Harris noted that the goal of tasting rooms is not to sell one bottle at a time on-site.

“We’re talking about the initial introduction,” she said. “What we’re looking for is a way to simply introduce the wine at the source.”

Harris indicated that approximately 24 cases could be produced from a quarter-acre of grapes.

“The entire regulation’s naturally self-limiting,” she said.

“We’re trying to accommodate farmers who are conducting an agricultural enterprise in an agricultural zone,” said San Diego County Farm Bureau executive director Eric Larson. “This is a right we give to all other farming in San Diego County.”

Larson noted that A70 and A72 zoning allow for commercial operations.

“Farms are business,” he said.

Larson was willing to accept the compromise but indicated that the Farm Bureau would seek a review if the administrative permit process was found to be too onerous for growers. He also fears that the liability agreement issue would eventually require all farmers to have such liability agreements.

“We think that’s a mistake to set that precedent,” he said.

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.

The 10-parcel threshold was not acceptable to Eric Metz, who owns 125 acres in Ramona.

“It has to be legally defensible in not being based on an arbitrary figure,” he said of the threshold. “This violates equal rights protection requirements and is not defensible.”

Dennis Grimes of Ramona also opposed the 10-parcel threshold.

“The county has not completed any road studies to substantiate the 10-parcel limit,” he said. “I would like to see a wine ordinance drafted that supports the wine industry.”

Richard McClellan has a Ramona vineyard but not a winery on his San Diego County property. He is a partner with a nephew with a winery in eastern Washington.

“Making good wine doesn’t cut it,” McClellan said. “You have to have a personal connection or it doesn’t succeed.”

Bill Schweitzer’s six-acre Paccielo Vineyard in Ramona sells sangiovese and cabernet sauvignon grapes to local wineries but does not produce wine itself.

“We are standing alone right now

as the only county in California that has the opportunity to grow grapes, grow quality premium wine grapes, and does not support it,” Schweitzer said. “The rest of California supports the largest agricultural business in the state.”

Rosaria Salerno and her husband own Salerno Winery in Ramona, which is accessed from a public road.

“We are ready to go,” Salerno said. “Let us do our business.”

Ramona resident Don Kovacic is one of the past opponents who is not satisfied with the compromise.

“This is not agriculture. This is manufacturing and retail sales,” he said. “The proposed ordinance here does not solve the problem of private road liability. There are major problems with this.”

Kovacic suggested alternatives such as streamlining the permit process or waiving fees rather than eliminating the major use permit requirement.

“The existing structure is the best way to do this,” he said.

Jim Beggs of Ramona noted that nearly one-quarter of the unincorporated county’s land has A70 or A72 zoning.

“There’s a widespread impact,” Beggs said. “Not all A70 and A72 neighborhoods are the same as they were in 1979.”

Copyright Ramona Sentinel www.ramonasentinel.com

_________________________________________________________________

8 March 2008 - North County Times

Local vintners on private roads may get tasting rooms

By: DARRYN BENNETT - Staff Writer

NORTH COUNTY ---- After months of negotiations involving planners, vintners and their disgruntled neighbors, the San Diego County Planning Commission unanimously approved a proposal Friday that allows wineries on private roads to open tasting rooms without having to pay for expensive permits and studies that can cost as much as $200,000.

County officials said they consider the ordinance a compromise between grape growers and backcountry residents.
For more than a year, vineyard owners have asked for an ordinance to let wine enthusiasts travel private roads to sample ---- and hopefully purchase ---- local wines.

To address concerns that wine tasters would wear out rural roads, the ordinance calls for wineries on private roads with fewer than 10 residences to enter into a formal road maintenance agreement with neighbors. Applicants on private roads with more than 10 residences would have to get a permit from the county.

The proposal is set to be voted on by the county Board of Supervisors on March 26, county spokeswoman Tammy Glenn said.

Vineyard owners first asked county supervisors to consider their proposal for "boutique" wineries ---- those producing fewer than 12,000 gallons of wine per year ---- in October 2006.

Last year, supervisors directed county planners create an ordinance that would allow the small wineries to open tasting rooms and sell their wines to the public without obtaining pricey major-use permits.

Proponents, including some county officials and the Ramona Valley Winery Association, a loose coalition of 13 wineries, say easing restrictions could help revive the county's once-booming, pre-Prohibition wine industry, boost the county's tax base and draw tourists to the region. Vintners and growers also have said in testimony to the board that tasting rooms would make it possible for small wineries to become economically feasible.

Opponents, including some Ramona area residents, say most of the proposed wineries are on private roads, and that opening them to the public could invade residents' privacy and spark conflicts over liability issues. Others have opposed the ordinance on the grounds that tasting rooms would mar the rural community's character and put drunken drivers on poorly maintained roads in the backcountry.

Nonsense, said Carolyn Harris, co-owner of Chuparosa Vineyards in Ramona.

She contends drunken driving wouldn't be a problem, even though some winery owners in the region have expressed concerns about inebriated tasters.

"Wine tasters don't have a reputation for being drunken drivers," she said.

Harris said the private road restrictions the association suggested, which didn't include maintenance agreements, were modeled after several other California counties that encourage winemaking, such as Santa Barbara and San Joaquin.

Other resident groups say wineries ---- no matter how small ----- have no place in rural communities.

"What this is allowing by right, no permits of any kind, is to put up a small factory ... and that's wrong," Jack Phillips, chairman of the Valle de Oro Community Planning Group in East County, said Tuesday.

The group voted in January to oppose the ordinance.

Carolyn Dorroh, a member of the Ramona Community Planning Group, has suggested a "co-op" tasting room for private road wineries that would be located in a commercially zoned area and accessible from a publicly maintained road.

Meanwhile, Harris said she was generally pleased with the proposal, but a few adjustments are still needed.

The ordinance approved Friday requires residents to unanimously agree to enter into a road maintenance agreement. Harris said it would be "impossible" to get unanimous consent from neighbors, because some residents will decline to participate in those kinds of contracts.

"We've been at a nonstart and now we're moving forward," she said. "We've listened to the opponents, I mean, we live with these people, and we've respected their objections. Now we're moving forward."

Contact staff writer Darryn Bennett at (760) 740-5420 or dmbennett@nctimes.com.

The road to tasting rooms
· October 2006: At the request of a coalition of vineyard owners, county supervisors order planners to work with the Ramona Valley Winery Association to find a way to allow "boutique" wineries to open tasting rooms without obtaining expensive permits.
· February 2007: Planners return with options for a wineries and tasting room ordinance, but opponents express concerns that wineries on private roads would generate too much traffic and encourage drunken driving in backcountry neighborhoods.
· September 2007: County planners work to find a compromise to allow tasting rooms while addressing private road concerns.
· December 2007: Supervisors order staff to create an ordinance requiring road maintenance agreements or permits based on the number of homes on a private road where a tasting room is located.

March 2008: An ordinance allowing tasting rooms on private roads, with the condition vintners obtain a county permit or neighborhood maintenance agreement, is unanimously approved by the planning commission.

The proposal is slated to go before supervisors for approval later this month.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/03/08/news/top_stories/23_02_683_7_08.txt
_________________________________________________________________

5 March 2008 - North County Times

Boutique' winery ordinance on tap

By: EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer

Plan would allow small winemakers to offer tasting rooms NORTH COUNTY -- Small wineries that would like to offer tasting rooms face another hurdle Friday when the county's planning commission addresses the problem of letting wine tasters onto private roads.

County officials have been struggling to find a compromise between vintners and their neighbors in an attempt to create an ordinance that will allow "boutique" wineries to open tasting rooms without having to pay for expensive permits and studies that can cost more than $40,000.
Supervisors directed county planners to create such an ordinance a year ago.

Proponents, including about a dozen boutique winery owners in Ramona, say that reducing the restrictions could help resurrect the county's once-thriving wine industry, attract tourists and increase the county's tax base.

Opponents, including some Ramona-area residents, say they are worried that the wineries, some of which are on private roads, would create public safety hazards, such as drunken drivers on poorly maintained roads, and community blight problems.

The San Diego Planning Commission meets at 9 a.m. Friday at 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B, in San Diego.

In December, the supervisors asked county planners to address the question of allowing boutique wineries on private roads.

Winery owners proposed a plan that would allow small wineries on private roads with fewer than 10 residences to create road maintenance agreements with their neighbors. Applicants on private roads with more than 10 residences would have to get a permit from the county.

A proposed ordinance that will be discussed at Friday's planning commission meeting incorporates the winemakers' plan.

Carolyn Harris, a member of the Ramona Valley Vineyards Association, the group that made the recommendation, said Tuesday that the proposal is "real close."

"We are really getting down to the final details of this ordinance," Harris said.

The draft ordinance requires residents to unanimously agree to enter into a road maintenance agreement. Harris, who co-owns Chuparosa Vineyards in Ramona, said it would be difficult to get unanimous consent from neighbors because some residents often decline to participate in those kinds of agreements.

However, other residents groups say the wineries are incompatible with their communities. The Valle de Oro Community Planning Group in East County voted in January to oppose the ordinance.

Jack Phillips, the group's chairman, said Tuesday that the ordinance also changes the zoning rules to allow small winemakers to import grapes from other areas, creating more problems without having to get permits from the county.

"What this is allowing by right, no permits of any kind, is to put up a small factory ... and that's wrong," Phillips said.

Phillips wrote in a letter to the county opposing the ordinance that winery operations, "especially low-budget, low-experience operations, can create noxious odors and vector problems from rotting fruit and or processing wastes.

"Even a small-scale boutique winery processing operation that trucks in fruit would not be compatible with the typical neighboring ... estate properties found in Valle de Oro," Phillips wrote.

Phillips could not be reached for comment.

-- Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/03/06/news/top_stories/1_40_213_5_08.txt

_________________________________________________________________

6 December 2007 – San Diego Union-Tribune

Winery Changes Again Put on Hold
Proposal centers on wine-tasting rooms

By Lisa Petrillo
STAFF WRITER

RAMONA – The cork remains in the bottle of an 18-month effort by Ramona's fledgling vineyards to turn the area into a mini-Napa Valley.

A majority of county supervisors said they liked the idea of developing a wine region locally – and especially the potential revenue and tourism influx that presumably would come with dozens of boutique wineries.

But yesterday, the Board of Supervisors delayed for four months its decision on proposed land-use rules that would allow wine-tasting rooms.

Some residential neighbors living in the farming region oppose the boutique winery ordinance. They don't want the public wandering their private rural roads drinking and driving to wine-tasting rooms.

Supervisor Dianne Jacob, who has been championing the wine-region effort, tried to persuade the board to approve the zoning changes.

“We're doing something new. Let's give this a try,” said Jacob, noting that residential opponents are living in agriculturally zoned land, so farm uses should take priority.

County officials have been trying for months to develop new rules to allow wineries to open retail wine-tasting rooms and allow wine and food sales at their vineyards as ways to market and sell their crop.

Although the zoning changes would affect the whole county, the push for developing a wine region is centered I Ramona, where a group of vintners earned the coveted American Viticultural Area designation that classified it as a unique wine-growing region.

The Ramona Valley designation covers 139 square miles, home to more than 20 commercial vineyards, nine bonded wineries and two tasting rooms open to the public.

Most of the vineyards are off rural roads – most of them private – and some neighbors worry about the safety of tourists coming through what in many cases are substandard and even dirt roads.

Ramona resident Carol Angus said she worries about the liability she and fellow homeowners would face if accidents occurred on the private road behind their gated neighborhood.

“It's not agriculture versus residential; it's commercial versus residential,” Angus said. Although she lost her home in October's wildfires, Angus says she plans to rebuild and still opposes the boutique wineries.

Equally frustrated were winery owners such as Rose Salerno, whose vineyard sits off a public road where there is no neighborhood opposition.

But Salerno, like other grape growers, said they will have to wait an additional four months while county officials rewrite the ordinance, and that means lost income and planting next season's crop without knowing for sure whether a market will exist for their grapes or their wine.

Winery proponent Carolyn Harris offered a compromise, which Jacob endorsed, that would allow wineries on private roads with fewer than 10 neighbors to open boutique tasting rooms – if all the neighbors sign an agreement.

“We don't need to reinvent the wheel here; this has worked elsewhere,” said Harris, who researched more than two dozen wine regions throughout California before proposing the boutique winery plan.

Representatives from the San Diego County Farm Bureau endorsed the proposed boutique winery ordinance. They said that farmers were searching for low-water-use crops and that converting to grapes could be the answer.

Lisa Petrillo: (760) 737-7563; lisa.petrillo@uniontrib.com

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071206/news_1mi6wine.html

__________________________________________________

8 November 2007 - San Diego Daily Transcript

Pruning the Challenges of San Diego's Wine Community
San Diego Institute for Policy Research
www.sandiegoinstitute.com

Posted: Thursday, November 8, 2007

Vince Vasquez, Senior Policy Analyst

As San Diego’s backcountry begins to recover from the fires of the past month, viniculture and wine-related tourism can play a role in helping severally impacted communities, including Ramona, Valley Center, and Julian recover.That is why it is so important that, rather than allow opportunities to wither on the vine at this critical juncture, county officials should embrace the success of our local agricultural entrepreneurs and ease regulations that currently are precluding the development of wine-tasting rooms in San Diego’s rural communities.

San Diego’s rich wine heritage reaches back to the 18th century, when Spanish missionary Father Junipero Serra planted wine grapes shortly after founding Mission San Diego de Alcala in 1769. As succeeding growers have learned, the region is blessed with microclimates and terrain which are ideal for wine grape cultivation, especially varietals like syrah, sangiovese, viognier and chardonnay. With new wineries taking root, and improved industry practices and technology, San Diego County’s wine industry has thrived.According to the S.D. Department of Agriculture Weights and Measures, the total acreage of wine grapes harvested has increased 65% from 187 acres in 1996 to 309 in 2006, culling more than 640 tons for processing last growing season.

Recently, much of the interest in winemaking has been focused in the Ramona Valley, an 89,000 acre area that has the unique microclimates that make for fantastic wine.According to the Ramona Valley Vineyard Association, more than twenty wineries call Ramona Valley home, producing an array of blends and varietals that often draw upon the other agricultural strengths of our region. The hard work and tireless efforts of these vintners have not gone unnoticed; in January 2006, Ramona Valley was officially recognized as an American Viticultural Area (AVA) by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau, elevating it to a prized status shared by Sonoma Valley and the Central Coast.

Although San Diego wineries should expect their best days ahead, county zoning laws severely restrict on-site winery tasting rooms and retail sales.Only two types of wineries are allowed, “wholesale limited” wineries and “packing and processing” wineries. Wholesale limited wineries have building size restrictions and are not allowed to have retail activities.Other wineries must have a county-approved major use permits in already agriculturally zoned areas, which may or may not allow them to have tasting rooms, special events and on-site retail sales as part of the permit conditions.

The challenge is that obtaining a major use permit can require small business owners to expend hundreds of thousands of dollars for environmental reviews and other costly hoops, taking years for the process to be completed.Such a system favors the large over the small and those experienced with navigating byzantine County systems.Not surprisingly in an industry dominated by small land holders, only a handful of wineries countywide have worked through the County’s system. A proposal to create a “boutique winery” classification that would treat smaller San Diego wineries similar to other agricultural producer was stalled in September, and future regulatory changes are unclear. A sticking point has been the concerns of property owners on private roads in San Diego County, some of whom fear greater wear and tear and quality of life problems from booming business at nearby wineries.

But as the demand for San Diego wine has increased, and county law continues to level a bureaucratic ceiling on local vintners, some entrepreneurs have taken action. Earlier this year, Country Cellars, an independent wine store and tasting room, opened its doors a short drive away from mining town Julian’s Main Street. As owner Trez Gotfredson describes it, Country Cellars is a “great one-stop-shop” for San Diego wines, which are exclusive to her tasting room. Although it’s clear her business fills a market demand, Gotfredson voiced her support for greater regulatory change, noting that even though there will be more competition from new winery-based tasting rooms, a vino industry free to grow and serve customers in new ways will increase business for all of Ramona Valley.

Current county zoning laws do little but to drive local dollars to nearby Temecula and Santa Barbara competitors, which have built an entire visitors industry from San Diegans and other travelers frequenting their wine tasting rooms, purchasing bottles and staying in new exquisite hotels.It is telling that in the movie “Sideways”, the character played by Paul Giamatti leaves San Diego County to tour the Santa Barbara wine country.Furthermore, allowing San Diego vintners to only compete in the wholesale wine business puts local labels at a disadvantage, as heavyweight Sonoma Valley and European imports are better-equipped to sell their mass-production, well-known labels in a high-volume low-profit margin market.

There are alternatives.Rather than use government regulation to shield themselves from change, private road and property owners should seek out strong contractual road maintenance agreements with neighboring winery owners, who have an economic incentive to keep the pathways to their businesses safe, clean, and attractive. Using covenants and private contracts to achieve positive land use outcomes has been extensively researched by authors such as PJ O’Rourke and found to often be a more effective and efficient way to balance competing objectives and priorities.

The sooner the County gets out of the way and allows this industry to flourish the better.The regional recovery from the wildfires will be long and challenging, even by those who were able to retain their properties unscathed. Greater neighborly cooperation today can speed the recovery of fire-impacted communities, helping preserve the agricultural character of San Diego’s backcountry for years to come.

If all San Diego wineries are free to open their doors and their cash registers to consumers, local labels such as Mahogany Mountain, Schwaesdall, and Salerno may soon be occupying dinner tables across the country. Uncorking the success of the county’s vintners will reap a greater yield for all stakeholders in our region’s future.

http://www.sandiegoinstitute.com/index.cfm/commentary_155.htm

____________________________________________

2 August 2007 - San Diego Reader

Passion vs. Permits

"Almost every winemaker [in Ramona] is either keeping his day job or is retired."

Crush
By Matthew Lickona
San Diego Reader

Published August 2, 2007

[Crush from previous weeks]

Why not wine?

It's one of the oldest saws in the business, but it still cuts: if you want to make a small fortune in wine, start with a large one. Up in Napa, it works because the land commands a mind-boggling premium. Fair enough: Napa is a coveted sandbox, and you have to pay to play. But down in Ramona, where the ink is still wet on the region's designation as an AVA, it's a little more complicated. That is to say, the government is involved. Carolyn Harris, secretary for the Ramona Valley Vineyard Association and one of the major forces behind the push to get Ramona recognized as an AVA, explains the situation -- starting with sales and marketing: "Practically speaking, the best way for a small winery to introduce their product is through direct exposure. A small winery is not going to be able to sell their wine on a restaurant list just by name, without any kind of introduction. Once that introduction is made, then the winery's wine club and Internet sales are where the wine gets sold -- at retail prices. Five years ago, I would say a third to a half of a small winery's sales depended on direct retail. Today, it's more like three quarters" -- especially in a fledgling region. Just seeing "Ramona" on a label isn't going to entice the average consumer, certainly not in the same way that a visit to the vineyards and a stop in the tasting room will do.

That's a problem for the marketing end of things, and it's an even bigger problem for the balance sheet. "Maybe one-third of the retail price can be achieved at wholesale -- no more than half. That means that grape growers/winemakers don't recover their costs, let alone make a profit. I think that almost every winemaker [in Ramona] is either keeping his day job or is retired. What we're talking about here is justifying the capital expenditure -- the equipment, the tractors, the buildings. If you can cover your costs by selling retail, you can justify to your spouse keeping that land under vineyard."

The California government -- at least at the state level -- seems to understand the virtue of onsite introduction to the product. "The state license that the wineries carry -- the 02 Winegrower License -- has as one of its listed liberties retail sales for offsite consumption, and tasting rooms to introduce the product." But: "the state regs defer to county zoning where appropriate. The county is allowed to decide what an ag-zoned parcel can and cannot do. Right now, there are a lot of packing and processing activities that are allowed with ag products" -- and in most cases, retail activities as well. "Whether you have eggs or Christmas trees or fruit, farmers are at liberty to sell directly from their property. But since Prohibition, wine as an ag product has been treated separately." And as things stand now in San Diego County, "there's a liberty to plant vineyards on ag-zoned properties in unincorporated areas of the county, and there's also a liberty to have a winery. But if you don't have a major use permit, you're restricted to wholesale distribution." No onsite retail, and no introduction via the tasting room.

So what's the problem? Just get yourself a major use permit and open up shop. Except, recalls Harris, "I remember 10 years ago, when John Schwaesdall pulled his major use permit for Schwaesdall Winery, listening to him describe how miserable and expensive it was, what a dreadful experience. And it was -- but it cost him something like $6000. Now, because of environmental restrictions and all the other tariffs, it's more like one or two hundred thousand -- and two years and there's no certainty that the permit will be granted at the end of the process."

"There's a Cider/U-Pick farm stand out t on 78, and the owner is looking to expand into another commodity. I think he's already blasted through $200,000. He's told members of our group that the permitting process is a nightmare, because they won't give you a definitive list of things you have to complete before you can get your permit. You go back to them with your completed list, and they add on another half-dozen issues. You never know where the process ends." Or, in some cases, how it ought to begin. "He was told he had to have a traffic study. So, he hired a traffic engineer and got a traffic study. Then they said, 'Oh, no, that traffic engineer is not good enough; you have to have somebody else.' So he hires another and has another study done -- I think he spent over $100K just on traffic studies. They looked at it and said, 'Fine -- no changes required.'"

For him, it's a nightmare; for most, it's an impossibility. "It's become prohibitive for any small family business." And nearly all of the Ramona wineries are just that. "They have this passion that gets them through, and they hand-to-mouth it. They develop their project as the cash allows." But when you're a startup winery in a startup region, "as cash allows" doesn't generally include $200K for a permit.

The Vineyard Association, together with its associated Winery Association, decided that action was called for, and they turned to Harris, who works as a corporate attorney, to spearhead the effort. She, together with a team of volunteers from three local wineries, started talking to San Diego wineries that had managed to pull major use permits -- places like Menghini and Shadow Mountain and J. Jenkins. Then the team started looking at other counties with developing wine regions, places like Mendocino, El Dorado, Amador. What they found: "They're just bending over backwards, because they know it's nothing but good for them. They have either not put up or they are removing huge barriers. Some of them have direct retail sales for a winery as a right of zoning" -- a right that includes a tasting room.

By the time they'd finished their research, Harris and company thought they had enough to propose an ordinance that would, in certain circumstances, eliminate the need for a major use permit. "The Board of Supervisors implemented a policy -- I think it was in March of '05 -- that says that 'it is a policy of the County of San Diego to develop and implement programs designed to support and encourage farming in San Diego County.' This is a chance for them to put their money where their mouth is, to do something to support farming. We're just trying to extend to the ag-product wine similar liberties to those enjoyed by other ag products in the unincorporated areas that are zoned for ag." In July of last year, they took their proposal to Supervisor Dianne Jacob. And Eric Larson, Executive Director for the San Diego County Farm Bureau. They both said this was an excellent idea, and asked what they could do to help.

More next week.

http://www.sdreader.com/published/2007-08-02/crush.html
_________________________________________________

09 August 2007 - San Diego Reader

Backyard Bounty
"[To] buy a bottle of wine from me makes me a bootlegger. That's not right."

Crush
By Matthew Lickona
San Diego Reader

Published August 9, 2007

[Crush from previous weeks]

Ramona

I'm standing in William Holzhauer's hilltop backyard in Ramona, looking out over his soon-to-be-finished winery and surveying the surrounding scene. He points to a nearby lot. "See that big gray rock? The owners are going to put a winery building there." He shifts his gaze to the valley below. "See that new roof going in down there? That's a winery -- you can see the grapes on the right-hand side. There's one more winery two roads over, and back [farther], there's another. We could actually ride our horses to five wineries."

The Ramona Wine Trail seems to be on its way toward fruition -- great news. At least, for the wineries. Not everyone is entirely enthusiastic, and Holzhauer can sympathize with the opposition's concerns. "I don't want to live next to Thornton winery," he says. (It's not that Thornton is given to all-night bacchanals, but they do host jazz concerts.) Even so, he finds it odd that "there are maybe 35 bonded wineries in San Diego County, and maybe eight tasting rooms. I agree that my operation should be limited. If I'm going to have big parties, I should get a major-use permit. But as it is, for you to have a taste of wine at my place and buy a bottle of wine from me makes me a bootlegger. That's not right."

According to Ramona Valley Vineyard Association secretary Carolyn Harris, it's not right because wine is, in the end, an agricultural product, and farmers are generally allowed to sell their products onsite for full retail prices. If it's true for pumpkins and cider, she argues, it ought to be true for wine.

Of course, wine isn't exactly like pumpkins -- odds are, if you like pumpkin, you're going to like most any pumpkin you buy. Wine is a touch more variable, and you can't drink a label. That's why Harris also argues that introducing the product to the customer via a tasting room is crucial for a fledgling winery's success. Because of this, Harris and several other members of the Ramona wine scene have brought a proposal before the San Diego Board of Supervisors. What they're asking: that the County Department of Planning and Land Use allow the smallest of wineries -- under certain conditions -- to sell wine onsite for offsite consumption as a right of zoning, a right that would include a tasting room. (And beyond the question of try-before-you-buy, there's the tourism factor. San Diego is a tourist-heavy region. The way a winery can tap into that is by inviting folks -- including Julian-bound tourists -- out to the vineyards to take in the scenery and, should the mood strike them, buy a bottle or two.)

The proposal has met with a small but vocal measure of public protest, much of it focusing on the proximity of wineries to nearby residences. "San Diego County has specifically designated certain areas of the county for ag," replies Harris. "Some of those areas have fairly small lot sizes -- instead of 100-acre parcels, you might have 3-, 5-, or 10-acre parcels." (Some 60 percent of San Diego County farms are 9 acres or less.) "We're starting to learn about some people who really thought they were on residential property." This may be because there were, well, residences on the properties all around them. Comments Harris, "These are not properties with absent landlords; almost all the ag-zoned properties have a resident in place, with children" and various other residential-type features. "But the fact is, they're A-70 and A-72 parcels, designated as zoned for ag, whether or not they're currently being used for ag. It's kind of like when you move in next to an airport and start complaining about the airplanes."

Still, Harris says that the proposal is not dismissive of neighborhood concerns. "We live here, too," she says of the winery owners. "All of us have been here a long time, and we appreciate that this is as much our home as our business area. We're trying to customize the proposed boutique winery ordinance to be as minimally impactful as possible. We modeled it after San Joaquin County, which has four categories of size and activity level for a given winery, with restrictions applied in an appropriate fashion. The very smallest operation, which we're labeling as a boutique winery, produces only 5000 cases a year." That's the size that would get a tasting room as a right of zoning. Anything larger would have to pull permits -- administrative, minor use, or major use, depending on size and activity. "We took the models used in other counties and dialed it down for our environment -- especially neighborhoods like Holzhauer's, where neighbors can see one another."

Neighborhoods like Holzhauer's also have this consideration: they are accessed by private roads, roads that are neither maintained nor policed by the county. "That's really become a big issue," grants Harris. "And it's an issue in other counties that have wineries along private roads. Some of them have said, 'You can have a winery with a tasting room if you have a road maintenance agreement,' so that there's an understanding among the neighbors regarding the fact that there is a winery with limited public hours along that road. In other words: work it out amongst yourselves how to handle it. Without that, you need to go and get a permit, so we're entertaining that type of restriction. The dilemma is that there is no other ag product for sale in San Diego County that requires a private road agreement. If you have a Christmas tree farm, a pumpkin patch, a cider mill...the county regs don't require a private road agreement to have a farmstand."

Of course, there's another way that wine is different from those other ag products: it's fermented. "Right," says Harris. "It does have alcohol. The license is for onsite sale for offsite consumption. It does contain a liberty for sampling prior to purchase, but a sample is just enough to understand what the wines are. Maybe the neighbors don't understand what this boutique category is all about -- they figure you're going to have a drinkfest. But that would be contrary to the state license. And there are DUI laws in this state, so the responsibility of wine tasters always applies. We've looked at the DUI stats from some of the other wine counties, and it's interesting to find that wine-tasting regions do not have a higher incidence of DUI than any other regions. We've pulled articles where the CHP is being interviewed, people who might have an issue in [wine-tasting] areas. They've said that typically they're dealing with residents of the region, not wine tasters. We're as concerned as any other citizen about DUI, but the statistics, tragic as they are, do not focus on the demographic of the typical wine taster."

http://www.sdreader.com/published/2007-08-09/crush.html

_____________________________________

22 July 2007 - North County Times

Ramona growers seek tasting rooms near vineyards

By: QUINN EASTMAN - Staff Writer

RAMONA ---- Aiming to have Ramona become known as a destination for wine lovers, a group of Ramona winemakers has been pushing to ease the process of opening tasting rooms next to their vineyards.

A proposed ordinance governing small "boutique" wineries and tasting rooms has run into opposition from some Ramona residents, who are concerned about the possibility of increased drunk driving and conflicts between winery operators and neighbors.

Right now, about a dozen Ramona winemakers can sell their creations wholesale to restaurants and markets but not directly to the public. Opening a tasting room requires a major-use permit and environmental studies, which the winemakers say can cost up to $200,000 and take more than a year.

The wholesale-only arrangement isn't sustainable for a start-up business, said Carolyn Harris from the Ramona Valley Vineyard Association.

"It's a show-stopper," said Harris, co-owner of Chuparosa Vineyards in Ramona. "Two-thirds of the price (of a bottle of wine) goes somewhere else."

In February, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors agreed to have county planners draw up an ordinance for boutique wineries producing fewer than 12,000 gallons of wine per year. The boutique category would be allowed to have tasting rooms without applying for a major-use permit.

The proposed ordinance has a number of restrictions on the boutique category, including no cooking for visitors, no amplified sound, no weddings and no vehicles such as buses that carry more than 12 people.

"That's what we drafted," Harris said. "The idea was, a boutique winery would be a small operation so that neighbors are not disturbed."

But several Ramona residents said in phone interviews last week that county officials are ignoring the effects even a small winery can have in a residential area, such as traffic and increased water use that might deplete the groundwater from neighboring properties.

"They should be treated like other commercial enterprises," said Don Kovacic, who lives near Mt. Woodson. "For example, if I wanted to build a gas station, I'd have to get a major-use permit."

Because some fledgling vineyards are on private roads, increased traffic could bring accidents and conflicts between neighbors over liability, said Carol Angus, who lives in a gated community north of Ramona's airport where one of her neighbors recently planted grape vines.

"They are going to create Hatfields and McCoys in the backcountry," she said.

Carolyn Dorroh, a member of the Ramona Community Planning Group, said that the Sheriff's Department should have to study whether more tasting rooms would require more deputies on duty to handle any drunk drivers.

"Drinking and driving are built-in features of having wine-tasting rooms in a rural area," she said. "They're acting like the issue doesn't exist."

Ramona last year had the lowest crime rate in the county. It only has three deputies on duty at a time.

Sgt. Dave Brown at the Ramona Sheriff's Station said he was not especially concerned about an influx of wine enthusiasts consuming alcohol in small amounts. He said he assumed the increase in traffic would come mainly on weekends.

"It is the type of crowd that tends to be more responsible," Brown said. "They're not coming to raise hell. A bar would present more problems."

He added that allowing bus shuttles between wineries might help to prevent drunk driving.

Jeff Murphy, the county's chief of regulatory planning, said the winery ordinance is being brought back for a second round of public review in August because of concerns raised about private roads.

An amendment to the first version requires wineries on private roads to get a major-use permit or form an assessment district to maintain the roads.

The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to make a decision on the ordinance in September, Murphy said. The Ramona planning group will discuss the ordinance Aug. 2.

Developing a reputation

Winery owners say tasting rooms are an essential part of promoting their businesses to tourists as well as locals.

"It's important for (small wineries) to get started on the right foot so that customers form a positive impression," said Ray Falkner, president of the Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association. "I don't see them as competition. Actually, I applaud what they're doing."

Most small wineries in California make the majority of their revenue through tasting rooms, according to the magazine Wine Business Monthly.

Robert Rauch, a professor of tourism and hospitality at San Diego State University and manager of a hotel in Carmel Valley, said San Diego County has the potential to become well known for wine.

"There is plenty of demand for tasting rooms," he said. "But it's important for these start-up wineries to develop a reputation for quality so that they can sell to restaurants."