Advertisement

Planners hear pros, cons of winery rules

Share

After listening to winery owners’ different viewpoints on the county’s draft amendments to the Tiered Winery Ordinance, Ramona planning group members decided at their Dec. 3 meeting that they needed more time to review the proposed changes before voting to accept or reject them.

Time, however, is an issue. Public review of the draft zoning ordinance amendment ended Nov. 23. Planning group secretary Kristi Mansolf said the county had given the group additional time for a recommendation because Ramona has the most wineries in the county. Chair Jim Piva suggested they form an ad hoc committee and request from the county a 30-day extension.

The meeting room was filled with winery owners and others who have a stake in the winery ordinance, including caterers and chamber of commerce members, with a few in support of the draft amendments and others opposed or voicing concerns over specific points, such as bringing in premade bulk wine and use of existing buildings for production.

“There’s not that many modifications to the ordinance. Most are clarifications,” said Andy Harris, co-owner of Chuparosa Vineyards, who asked the planners to support the changes.

Dennis Sprong, a former planning group member, said the main point of the ordinance was not to promote wineries.

“It was to promote farming and agriculture,” he said.

Adopted by the county Board of Supervisors in August 2010, the ordinance allows boutique wineries, which make less than 12,000 gallons of wine per year, to open tasting rooms or patios by right, without having to invest in a $250,000 major use permit, but with restrictions. The ordinance is crafted with tiers so as a winery operation grows, it can move into the small winery tier, which requires an administrative permit, or the large tier with a major use permit.

As the number of boutique tasting rooms in Ramona continues to expand — there are about 30 now — so have offerings with some adding acoustic music, events and catered food.

Teri Kerns, co-owner of Ramona Ranch Winery, said she was concerned that limiting commercial activities at wineries will have a ripple effect on other businesses.

Kerns, who owns Ramona Ranch with Micole Moore, president of the Ramona Valley Vineyard Association, recommends to the county that wineries have the by right ability to host a maximum of 24 events per year, not to exceed 100 guests, without a special permit. She also said prohibiting advertising and promotions of events, as stated in the draft, is not in line with promoting agritourism.

Another concern regarded the wording in the draft for limiting use of tasting room outdoor areas to specified hours. Kerns said for many of the wineries those areas are their personal patio at their home.

Some winery owners and planners sought clarification on a draft revision that no barns, agricultural storage buildings and/or other accessory structures shall be used as a production facility or tasting/retail sales area for a boutique winery. That limits the ability for many to enter the market, said Kerns, and another winery owner questioned if that also pertains to storage.

Moore said prohibiting wine that was produced outside San Diego County from being sold or used in production at a boutique winery can limit an operation when the vineyard has been adversely affected by weather.

“Mother Nature is not always friendly,” he said.

Although some have said the Ramona region is not conducive to growing white wine grapes, making a case for bringing in outside white wines, Moore said he agreed with a statement by Sprong that white grapes have been successful in areas of the valley.

Beth Edwards, co-owner of Edwards Vineyard and Cellars, said the boutique tier was never based on ordering wine.

“If you want to do that, there’s a tier for that,” she said.

References were made to Ramona being more in line with the Temecula Wine Country, however Edwards said the winery tasting rooms there are not by right, and have a 10-acre minimum.

Planner Paul Stykel questioned whether the planning group would vote on each revision or the draft amendments as a whole. When Piva said it would be one vote, Stykel made a motion to reject the draft amended ordinance, which was seconded by Eb Hogervorst.

Torry Brean said to vote no was shortsighted, but added, “I’m not entirely comfortable with what’s here.”

Piva said he was against the motion because it doesn’t best serve the community.

“We close the door and now we’re not a player in the game,” he said.

Stykel retracted his motion after Piva suggested an ad hoc be formed. Brean made a motion to form an ad hoc committee to review the changes with participation from county staff, and plans to vote on the draft amendments at the planning group’s Jan. 7 meeting, which passed unanimously.

Piva appointed Stykel to chair the committee and asked Sprong and Moore to be on it. Also serving on it from the planning group are Hogervorst, Brean and Frank Lucio.

The committee scheduled a meeting for Dec. 7 to review the proposed changes and organize questions and comments to go over with county staff at a subsequent meeting. Stykel said Mansolf and Charlie Koehler from La Finquita Winery and Vineyard had planned to attend the meeting. Piva said the meetings are open to the public.

Advertisement

At a time when local news is more important than ever, support from our readers is essential. If you are able to, please support the Ramona Sentinel today.