Report on Board of Supervisors actions on Winery Definition Ordinance
On February 2, 2010 the Board of Supervisors spent 2.5 hours hearing testimony on potential changes to the Winery Definition Ordinance (WDO) and deliberating the next steps and options for economic stimulus. Farm Bureau presented strong testimony to defend the integrity of the WDO yet provide modest changes to address the current and long-term economic health of the county, agriculture and the winegrape sector.
After months of winegrape industry stakeholder meetings (Napa Valley Vintners, Napa Valley Grapegrowers, Winegrowers of Napa Valley and Farm Bureau), our industry groups were able to present a unified position on a Statement of Principles related to changes within the Winery Definition Ordinance.
Additionally, NCFB, NVV & NVG agreed to a few specific changes to the WDO to promote economic stimulus without jeopardizing the Ag Preserve or conflicting with the General Plan. Both of those documents are attached for your review.
With major legal issues related to constitutional rights and General Plan consistency, we did not find agreement on the option to use Special Event Permits as a means to allow cultural/social events on ag parcels.
At the hearing, the four winegrape industry groups spoke first followed by fifteen more speakers. Seven
advocated for relaxing the WDO and allowing weddings/cultural/social events at wineries. Eight spoke in favor of retaining the WDO restrictions on events and preventing further commercialization of ag parcels. Attorney Kay Phillipakis presented a letter stating that any changes to allow social/cultural events on ag parcels would require a Measure P vote. Past County Planning Director Jim Hickey stated, “No matter how you craft it, opening more commercial activities on ag parcels will ultimately undermine ag. It’s a one-way door – you can give it away but can never get it back.”
The outcome of the Supervisors deliberations is a bit unclear. Supervisors Luce & Dodd strongly support changing the WDO and definition of marketing to allow weddings & social events at wineries. Supervisors Dillon, Caldwell & Wagenknecht supported economic stimulus, but were cautious about whether changing the WDO would actually create economic benefit and considered the long-term impacts/risk to agriculture. They acknowledged our longstanding policies that promote commercial activities in urban areas and the primacy of agriculture in the county.
County staff was directed to do further research and provide more options at the March 2nd Supervisors meeting. Additionally, the issue will be discussed with the Planning Commissioners on Feb. 17th. County staff said they would:
1) Analyze the WDO changes recommended by the winegrape industry groups
2) Clarify what type of business meetings at wineries are now allowed under the current WDO
3) Try to define the differences between cultural/social events and marketing events
4) Further explain the constitutional rights and General Plan consistency issues with the Special Event Permit option
We will have a detailed discussion on these developments at next Monday’s Land Use Committee meeting. Please let us know your thoughts on these issues.
Many thanks to Jon-Mark Chappellet & Volker Eisele for serving as our NCFB representatives in the winegrape industry group meetings and for speaking eloquently at today’s hearing.
|