County Supervisors advance Winery Ordinance but Directs Staff to Kick It Up a Notch.
The recent Board of Supervisors meeting provided a clear goal of county leaders to make El Dorado County a Wine Country destination equal to, but unique from, Napa’s Wine region. The Board members unanimously and enthusiastically supported the concept of El Dorado County becoming a major wine “destination” for many reason including retaining the agricultural nature of the county while looking to increase the economies of the county and it’s residents.
The goal was clear, but the path contentious. Although all members wanted to facilitate the passage of an ordinance allowing ranchers to market their goods, it took two votes, both split 3:2, to determine the path for this ordinance. The county staff provided the Board with a report indicating that the path of least resistance, an “Mitigated Negative Declaration” might be insufficient unless several aspects of the ordinance was modified to reduce significant impacts. County staff planner Rodger Trout called the EIR process “Bullet Proofing” the proposed ordinance.
Several other deficiencies in the (MND) approach were stated by Supervisor Jack Sweeny. Additionally, both Supervisors Ron Briggs and Jack Sweeney expressed concern that the current plan failed to adequately protect the property rights of residents that live outside “Agricultural” zones and would face the possibility of new “winery” neighbors that would be allowed up to 88 events per year that could possibly generate 30,000 visitors per year.
Although some Supervisors preferred the “faster” route, the majority favored a more comprehensive approach. Some staff members seemed to be caught up in bureaucratic process stating that the “point is to move this forward”, but several Supervisors believed the point was to make good policy for the county. Supervisor Jack Sweeney strongly supported the area’s wine makers but cautioned against poor policy that overly exposes the County to lawsuits.
Supervisor Jack Sweeney later said, “I want to see the wine industry in El Dorado County to continue to grow and that means good county policies supported by full environmental studies. Anything short of an EIR is likely to be challenged in court and that will stop the process and cost the taxpayers of the county. I have always been a strong supporter of ranch marketing in the county and I want to see this ordinance become an incentive for thoughtful growth rather then a new drama in a court room.”
I write this letter to thank the Supervisors for seeing beyond the bureaucratic myopia of “process” to pursue county policy that is “better” rather then “faster.” Isn’t that why we elected them?
Cris Alarcon.
By Cathy Locke - Bee Staff Writer -- El Dorado County grape growers and winery owners left a more than three-hour hearing angry and frustrated Tuesday after the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to require an environmental impact report on a proposed winery ordinance.
Planning staff members said that means the county might not have a new ordinance for at least 10 months.
The ordinance update has been the subject of numerous hearings since January 2006, and winery industry representatives say the delay in approving new regulations is costing the county millions of dollars in investments.
David Bolster, a real estate agent whose family also owns Bolster's Hilltop Ranch in the Apple Hill area, said a client interested in starting a winery recently decided against an approximately $2 million land purchase in El Dorado County and bought property in Amador County instead because of uncertainty about how a new ordinance would affect the industry.
Vineyard owner Doug Leisz said more wineries are needed to process locally grown grapes. "The future won't continue to be rosy if people don't know what to expect when they make sizable investments in the county," he said.
Planning staff members sought board approval Tuesday to proceed with a less extensive environmental analysis known as a mitigated negative declaration. Staff members said an initial study found that significant environmental effects such as noise and traffic that would result from activities allowed under the draft winery ordinance, but they also concluded that measures could be taken to alleviate the adverse effects.
But in a county where land use decisions frequently lead to lawsuits, Supervisor Jack Sweeney called for an environmental impact report.
"We absolutely have to do this thing correctly, or people will be shot down," he said.
Though the environmental impact report may take longer, it could benefit the wine industry, he said. With the less extensive study, the proposed ordinance, largely drafted by the industry, likely would have to be modified to reduce the identified impacts.
But with an environmental impact report, Sweeney said, the Board of Supervisors could allow some adverse effects if it determined, for example, that they would be outweighed by the economic benefits to the county.
"If you do an EIR, you have somewhat bullet-proofed what you are going to do," he said.
Sweeney, along with fellow Supervisors Ron Briggs and Rusty Dupray, however, called for measures to protect the rights of existing nonagricultural neighbors.
People speaking against the proposed ordinance have consistently said that they do not object to the agricultural operations, but rather to increased traffic on rural roads and particularly to noise from special events, such as weddings and concerts, allowed at wineries.
Though industry representatives have stressed that the proposed ordinance would be more restrictive than the current ordinance, several people complained that it would allow an industry to usurp the property rights of neighboring landowners.
Board chairwoman Helen Baumann and Supervisor Norma Santiago voted against requiring the more extensive and time-consuming environmental study.
"It seems to me that to jump into an EIR may be a little bit premature," Santiago said.
If, in preparing the mitigated negative declaration, staff members determined that some adverse impacts could not be alleviated, the board could proceed with the more extensive study, she said, arguing that it was important to get a new ordinance in place as quickly as possible.
"Unfortunately," Santiago said, "one thing we don't have the luxury of is time."
###
Published 12:02 pm PDT Thursday, October 18, 2007
