By Janene Scully

Noozhawk North County Editor

A proposal to divide a 1.5-acre parcel into four lots in Los Alamos drew support from the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission on Wednesday despite objections from neighbors.

Commissioners unanimously voted to deny an appeal of the zoning administrator’s approval and allow developer Stephan Ruffino to split the lot at 774 Main St.

“I haven’t seen anything really in the project that’s glaring other than it’s ultimately an improvement,” said chairman Larry Ferrini, who represents the Fourth District. “It helps the county accomplish more goals by getting needed housing. He’s not stuffing them in there. They’re large lot sizes. To me, it’s a great project.”

Commissioner Laura Bridley noted that the application involved a lot split, not a development plan, conditional use permit or one of the “bigger juicier cases that we normally wrestle with.”

“It’s a parcel map, and it’s here because it’s an appeal, so it’s an order of magnitude to keep in mind,” Bridley said.

Ruffino applied to divide the parcel into four lots ranging from 12,415 to 19,305 square feet, receiving approval from the zoning administrator for the split.

However, Seth Steiner and the Shaw Street Maintenance Association filed an appeal, citing a number of traffic and other concerns to send the project before the Planning Commission.

The proposed lot split would require use of what Steiner contends, and county counsel disagrees, is a private section of Shaw Street between Wickenden Street and Foxen Lane.

The possibility for as many as 11 new residences on the property — duplexes plus accessory dwelling units — sparked traffic volume and parking concerns on Shaw Street, which narrows and could cause a bottleneck, Steiner said.

“We’re neither against new development in Los Alamos nor are we opposed to affordable housing,” Steiner said. “However, our safety, our home values and our quality of life need to be respected by the county and not undermined.”

Ruffino has agreed to a condition that would require widening Shaw before any development occurs, county staff said.

His representative, Frances Romero, a planning consultant from TW Land Planning and Development, said Ruffino agreed to create an egress to Main Street for the new lots to reduce the traffic on Shaw.

“I’d like to emphasize that the project before you is a lot split,” Romero said. “We are moving lines on paper to create three additional parcels that are consistent with the existing zoning on the site and are actually larger than the minimum requirement of 10,000-square-foot lots.”

Commissioners briefly discussed delaying action to refer the topic to the Los Alamos Planning Committee, although there were questions about whether the LAPAC remained active and should have a role.

The Los Alamos community weighed in on the project earlier this year when Third District Supervisor Joan Hartmann and planning staff hosted a virtual community meeting on the lot split. 

The Planning Commission’s denial can be appealed to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors.

Noozhawk North County editor Janene Scully can be reached at jscully@noozhawk.com.

The post County planning panel backs Los Alamos lot split despite neighbor objections appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.

By Melinda Burns

Contributing Writer

A cannabis operation along the Santa Ynez River in the fabled Sta. Rita Hills got a green light from the county Planning Commission this month with no opposition from surrounding vineyards, including Sanford, Lafond and Sea Smoke, some of the most iconic names in the region.

“We’re getting along fine with all of our neighbors,” John De Friel, the CEO of Central Coast Agriculture at 5645 Santa Rosa Road, told commissioners at a May 12 hearing on the project.

Most notably, those neighbors include the Fiddlestix Vineyard, a 130-acre operation to the west that De Friel reported to the county for a pesticide violation in 2019. Since then, De Friel told the commissioners, he, the winemaker and her sprayer have worked things out. He placed their pesticide agreements in the public record to prove it.

“We’ve been operating side-by-side a couple of years now, and have had no issues,” De Friel said.

In a 3-1 vote, with Commissioner Dan Blough of Santa Maria absent, the commissioners approved a zoning permit for 5645 Santa Rosa Road, lauding De Friel’s peacemaking efforts. More often, they hear from vintners who are blasting the cannabis industry for stinking up their tasting rooms with the stench of pot and allegedly “tainting” their grapes.

“It is to be commended that the applicant worked with all of these vintners and the neighbors are good with it,” said Chair Larry Ferini, who represents part of the Sta. Rita Hills, a federally designated American Viticultural Area between Lompoc and Buellton. “This is refreshing to see.”

Commissioner Michael Cooney, who represents the Carpinteria Valley, a mecca for the cannabis industry, cast the sole vote against De Friel’s project last week, alluding to the depleted groundwater basin in the region.

“We ought to have a formal statement on each project on why it’s permissible to continue to draw water from this basin,” Cooney said. “Throughout our state, we’re deep into a condition of drought. If the cannabis industry is sucking up more than is necessary, we have to step in and say we can’t permit this project to go forward.”

Back in 2019, the county agricultural commissioner found that the wind had blown organic pesticides from Fiddlestix toward De Friel’s hoop-house cannabis, posing a hazard to his crop. The sprayer for Fiddlestix, Chalky Ridge Vineyard Management, was ordered to pay a $700 fine.

Kathy Joseph, the vineyard owner and manager, later said she switched to a pesticide that would not harm cannabis; but, she said, it was ineffective on her own crop. Five acres of chardonnay grapes suffered from mildew and she lost $80,000, Joseph said. Last year, she described her relationship with De Friel as “not amiable or pleasant.”

But in February of this year, Joseph and her business partner, Treasury Wine Estates, signed a pesticide agreement with De Friel, similar to one that he previously signed with Chalky Ridge. In return for some restrictions on spraying methods and equipment, De Friel agreed not to sue the sprayer or Joseph and her partners if pesticide drift from Fiddlestix should ever contaminate his plants.

The documents show that the Fiddlestix team tested various spray rigs and, together with De Friel, settled on one that claims to reduce the overall amount of pesticide that is needed. De Friel purchased the equipment and stores it on his property, charging Joseph $1 per month rent. In addition, De Friel will pay for and install a wind-fence along their shared property line whenever pesticides are being sprayed at the vineyard.

The sprayer must give De Friel at least 18 hours’ notice. De Friel can post an observer, and the observer can call off the operation if the wind is carrying the spray toward his cannabis crop.

In an interview this week, Joseph called the agreement a “good solution,” absent any county regulations that would have required a significant buffer zone between her grapes and De Friel’s cannabis. Fiddlestix is located on a windy terrace; De Friel’s operation is downwind on a lower plateau.

“We felt our hands were tied because the county chose not to require any setbacks or restrictions,” Joseph said. “Because of our topography and because our neighbors are very close to the property line, this was a good solution to protect our grapes and likewise their plants.

“It was the best way to coexist.”

In addition, the record shows, De Friel has signed a confidential memorandum of understanding with the Terlato Wine Group, the owners of the Sanford Winery & Vineyards, located 4,500 feet and 1,500 feet to the southwest, respectively.

Well water dispute

De Friel is growing cannabis at two locations on Santa Rosa Road. Earlier this month, the county Board of Supervisors approved a conditional use permit for his operation at 8701 Santa Rosa, including 30 acres of cannabis, mostly under white plastic hoops, and a processing building.

For that project, which lies half a mile from a rural neighborhood, De Friel signed off on a comprehensive odor control plan that was requested by the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis, a countywide group of farmers, vintners and residents from the Cuyama Valley to the Carpinteria Valley. In return, the coalition agreed not to sue De Friel over his conditional use permit.

But Marc Chytilo, a coalition attorney, said this week that the group would appeal to the county supervisors to deny the permit for 5645 Santa Rosa — not because of the smell the project may generate, but because of water supply concerns.

The coalition contends that De Friel’s operation is dependent on wells supplied by subterranean “channels” from the Santa Ynez River — and the state Water Resources Control Board has banned the use of river water for cannabis between April 1 and Oct. 31.

“This is a big new issue,” Chytilo told the commission on May 12. “This project is relying on river water, since river water influences groundwater.”

In March, De Friel canceled his applications to the state board claiming river water rights on both of his Santa Rosa Road properties. He argues that his wells are supplied by groundwater that is not connected to the river. And in any case, his team told the commission, the cannabis operation at 5645 Santa Rosa is using much less water than Tutti Frutti Farms, the vegetable operation that preceded Central Coast Agriculture at that location.

“The state reviewed our wells and they suggested we resubmit based on groundwater,” Matt Allen, De Friel’s attorney, said. “This was done on their advice.”

Nearly 800 acres of cannabis “grows” are in various stages of county review for the Sta. Rita Hills. Nancy Emerson, president of Women’s Environmental Watch, a Santa Ynez Valley group, was the only person from the public speaking in opposition to De Friel’s second project on May 12. She spoke of the smell that pervades Buellton during the cannabis harvests, and she urged the commission to “pause” its vote until the county’s cannabis ordinance can be amended.

“We think no pause means odor problems will be cumulatively concentrated and permanently unsolvable in this corridor,” Emerson said. “If we were you or staff, we would be asking what we could do to head off this impending disaster.”

Melinda Burns volunteers as a freelance journalist in Santa Barbara as a community service; she offers her news reports to multiple local publications, at the same time, for free.

The post Cannabis farm on Santa Rosa Road approved by Planning Commission appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.

publisher@santaynezvalleystar.com

Appeals to a low-income supportive housing project next to the Maverick Saloon in Santa Ynez were denied at the Aug. 12 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. Commissioners stated that because of the state regulations on supportive housing projects and the need for more affordable housing in the county, they decided to move forward on the project. 

“I appreciate the approach from the appellants and compliment that it was not for the fear of the people who would be neighbors, but concern for their welfare,” said Third District Commissioner John Parke. “We have to be realistic and our hands are tied by the state.” 

The Sagunto Place project is proposed to have 23 units with one manager unit, 12 units that target the disabled and homeless populations, and 10 units for qualifying income levels of 80 percent of the Average Median Income which for Santa Ynez is less than $66,750 per year, according to the staff report. The project is owned by Thompson Housing of Santa Barbara and partnered with the Housing Authority of Santa Barbara County, who took ownership July 21. 

“We have done 42 projects and over 2,200 units in Santa Barbara County including 13 communities for people with special needs and nine for homelessness,” said Frank Thompson of Thompson Housing. “This is not our first rodeo. We are still 1,500 units away from alleviating homelessness in our community and each community including Santa Ynez needs to help solve this.” 

Thompson said using the “By Right of Approval” through Assembly Bill 2162, which deals with homeless and at-risk populations like disabilities and streamlines affordable-housing projects. 

“Already we have people calling us to inquire how they can apply,” Thompson said after the meeting to the Star. “There is a need for this project as there are people in Santa Ynez who are struggling to pay high living expenses. This enables young people able to afford staying in their hometowns, or a disabled adult to live near relatives.” 

The planning department analysis of the project said the project is in consistency with the development standards from the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan and land use development code. 

The appeal from the neighboring businesses stated the project adversely affects public health and safety as well as parking issues. 

“My family has dealt with homelessness and substance abuse and I completely agree we need this type of project, but this is the wrong location for it being so close to a saloon and the Chumash Casino,” said Brian Asselstine, who owns the building across the street. 

He continued that putting people at risk and recovering from substance abuse next to a bar is the wrong message to send. He brought up the fact that Recovery Ranch is also located just behind the Maverick Saloon, and there have been issues he has witnessed because of it. 

“I am concerned about the safety of the people who will live there,” Asselstine continued. “I know you will feel good about pushing this project through, but we have to inherit this and deal with it everyday.” 

Several people called into the meeting to voice their support for the project as one person said she loves eating at S.Y. Kitchen down the street, but was sure that her busboy can’t afford to live in Santa Ynez and this would help. 

Others opposed said the noise levels are a concern in addition to people trying to recover from substance abuse being too tempted by the saloon. 

“I am in support of affordable housing and helping homelessness, but just because the county hasn’t met those needs doesn’t mean this project should be put here,” said Demetrios Lozoides, owner of the Maverick Saloon. “I am happy to help find another place and move the needle forward.” 

There was a petition circulating that had more than 2,000 signatures of people who did not support this project. 

“There is a misunderstanding of this commissions ability to move this project,” said First District Commissioner Michael Cooney. “It is serious business we do not have discretion as to the location of the project and if there were litigation, the state would be upheld. Even though we do not feel this is the best location, we can still be supportive and I intend to vote in favor because I see no alternative.” 

Fifth District Commissioner Dan Blough agreed he felt the location wasn’t optimal but glad that Thompson and the Maverick owners are working together. 

“People who don’t want to live there won’t,” Blough said. “If they don’t want to live next to a noisy bar, then they can go somewhere else.” 

“If anyone can make this work it’s him (Frank Thompson),” said Vice Chair Commissioner Larry Ferini. “Even though I don’t think it’s the right location, the legislature is cramming it down, and I want to vote no but it won’t do any good.” 

Housing Authority Director John Polansky said it was agreed to build a sound wall due to noise concerns as an amendment to the approval. The wall is to be at least 8 feet tall and 185 feet wide.  

The appeal was then denied 5-0. 

After the meeting Thompson said that the next step is to get the building plans drawn up and submitted, which will take several months and then through the county plan check for review before any construction can start. He estimated at least nine months before construction fencing will be up. 

The building will have heat and air conditioning and use solar power with LED lighting to reduce light noise, Thompson added. 

“Once it’s all done, I think people will see just how needed this is and it will be a great addition to the valley,” Thompson said. “We will work very hard to serve the community.” 

To watch the meeting click HERE.

The post County planners deny appeals to low-income housing project in Santa Ynez appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.

Neighbors and developers of the Golden Inn and Village were given a month by the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission to sort out issues regarding lighting of the senior and affordable housing project that opened in the fall of 2016 at Highway 246 and Refugio Road.

The project will be brought back before the commission at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 27, at 123 E. Anapamu St. If the neighbors and developers haven’t found a solution, then the commission will.

Mark Brooks, a general contractor who represents his neighbors on Lucky Lane, just south of the Golden Inn and Village, said they agreed with what was planned and the purpose of the property, but not with what was built. They believe that Santa Barbara County allowed construction that did not comply with the project’s conditions of approval.

“I just want them to be accountable and notice more people than just the people that live within 300 feet, because this is a huge project for the valley and more than 20 neighbors should be noticed when changes have to be made,” Brooks said.

The problems cited by Brooks and his neighbors are the height and intensity of the outdoor lights; improperly constructed drainage that allows storm water to flood their properties; and the size of the buildings, which they say are bigger than what was permitted.

For example, the approved plans called for 44 light poles in the parking areas from 8 to 14 feet tall. Instead, the project has 25 pole lights that are 20 feet high, and the developer wants approval for that variation.

“The lighting plan had been changed and approved by the planning department … The shorter lights allowed for gaps in lighting, which especially for senior citizens isn’t appropriate. If we reduced the size of the poles it wouldn’t just be costly, but (would be) not to Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) standards,” said Lisa Plowman of RRM Design Group, the agent for Golden Inn and Villages.

Plowman said in her presentation to the commission that once the landscaping matures in several years that the height of the lights won’t really be an impact on the skyline and blend into the trees. She said she has tried very hard to comply with Brooks’ requests and has changed details of the project several times to accommodate the neighbors to the south.

“We planted pepper trees along the back fencing, and even changed the type of fencing. We feel that once the trees mature, which the pepper trees have already filled in quite a bit, that Mr. Brooks and his neighbors won’t be impacted by lights,” Plowman said.

The project also uses automatic lights that dim to 80 percent capacity at dusk and then 50 percent capacity at 9 p.m. and only come up if there is motion sensed from a car driving by or a person walking. They immediately dim again, according to Heather Grey, lighting engineer for the project.

The Planning Commission also asked Plowman and her team to look at changing the color of the lights to a warmer color, and possibly painting the back of the buildings to a darker color as the current yellow color might have an impact on reflectiveness.

The commission also directed them to heed the advice of Nancy Emerson, a representative of the Save Our Stars group. Emerson presented a letter in which she suggests that the project reduce all of the existing lights to 50 percent while maintaining safety and security and to turn them off in the playground.

“There shouldn’t be children playing after 9 p.m. in the playground, so those are not necessary,” Emerson told the commission.

The project should also install shields on the building side of all the fixtures along the rear of the senior building that faces Lucky Lane and remove non-compliant “up lights” above the senior building’s rear entrance. Emerson also suggested removing the streetlights nearest the neighbors because they significantly “over light” the rural area with their light “trespassing” onto the neighbors’ property.

The commissioners asked Emerson to work with PG&E, which is responsible for the lights along the street.

Regarding the flooding, the commission heard reports from Santa Barbara County Flood Control officials who said they had done above and beyond what was required of the project. They also pointed out that the flooding issues existed before the project was built, and in fact have been lessened by the project.

“It’s unfortunate they (the neighbors) flooded, but it was flooded everywhere. The fact is Lucky Lane only has a 16-inch culvert, and the highway has a 24-inch culvert. Whether or not the Village was there, they would have flooded anyways. We actually installed several areas of energy dissipaters to slow down the water coming through the property, and the drainage basins are larger than requested,” Plowman said.

Plowman said the residents of Lucky Lane need to get together and look at increasing the size of their drainage culvert to avoid flooding in the future.

The size of the project also fluctuated, but according to the developer and the county’s Housing Authority they had to be increased to meet the California Tax Credit funding requirements related to unit size.

There weren’t any additional rooms built or common areas added, but the size of the rooms had to be adjusted to fit under the guidelines of “substantial conformity,” which allows discretion in projects, Plowman added.

Brooks argued that the amendments failed to meet the Substantial Conformity rule, which allows an additional 1,000 square feet or a maximum of 10 percent of the total project, whichever is less. The developer is asking for much more than either of those stipulations, he noted.

“In the scope of projects I see sizing change all the time because some projects have to meet certain requirements and regulations. This is not uncommon,” said Commissioner Dan Blough.

Plowman also noted there was an error in the staff report that said the approved senior building was to be 46,067 square feet, when in actuality it was approved for 48,067 square feet.

To read the entire staff report, log onto http://sbcountyplanning.org/PDF/boards/CntyPC/08-30-2017/17RVP-00000-00046/Staff%20Report.pdf.

The post Golden Inn neighbors, developers told to find solution appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.

Staff report

County Supervisor Joan Hartmann has announced her nomination of Santa Ynez Valley resident Cerene St. John as the next planning commissioner for the 3rd District.

The vacancy was created by the resignation last month of Marell Brooks. St. John’s appointment is pending approval from the County Board of Supervisors.

“I’m very appreciative of all the hard work Marell has done representing the interests of Third District residents on so many diverse land use issues over the past years. She has performed an invaluable service to the Third District,” Hartmann said.

St. John is a practicing attorney and a former city attorney for the city and county of San Francisco. She also served as the city Solid Waste Program Manager for the Sunnyvale.

Most recently, she has run her own firms providing solid waste and recycling consulting and legal services for cities and counties throughout California. In this capacity, she has drafted and negotiated franchise agreements, procurement documents and ordinances for jurisdictions including the county of Santa Clara and the cities of Tustin, Napa, Laguna Niguel, Rancho Mirage, Mission Viejo and Sunnyvale.

“Cerene is a superbly qualified candidate in all ways, and I am so pleased that she has agreed to step into this position,” Hartmann said. “I have the utmost confidence that Cerene St. John’s experience working with local governments and stakeholders will help make her an exceptional commissioner.”

St. John has lived in the Santa Ynez Valley since 2000. She enjoys hiking with her German shepherd, Luna, and gardening.

The post SYV attorney nominated to county planning commission appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.

In a tumultuous meeting before the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday afternoon, dozens of people gathered to protest passionately that the winery ordinance should be rejected or the very least tabled until a task force can be organized, and the Board decided unanimously to continue the issue until they could accept input from the Santa Barbara County Vinters Association.

“Since we aren’t agendized for creating a task force, come back tell us what you want and detail how to fix them,” said Supervisor Steve Lavagnino.

The board decided to come back at a special meeting at 9 a.m. on November 22 at the Santa Maria board room to discuss in detail the concerns the wine industry has with the new ordinance.

“After the planning commission meeting that was when all the information was made public and we organized a town hall meeting and that is why you have all these people before you. The process here not been a transparent one; it was in 2004 it was but then the door was shut. This is peoples livelihoods we are talking about,” said Morgen McLaughlin, executive director for the Santa Barbara County Vinters’ Association as she berated the county staff for not involving the wine industry more into the process.

The proposed ordinance includes updates and changes to the permitting process for winery tasting rooms, the number of daily visitors allowed, and special events rules based on size of the winery and acreage of grapes grown.

“I feel like the wine industry is saying they aren’t being heard and we need to have their input on what they like and don’t like. It’s hard to believe that there isn’t anything you don’t like about this. I need more specifics and details as to how it can be fixed,” said Supervisor Doreen Farr.

In the weeks before the supervisor’s meeting there was a petition that was circulated by the industry and some of those who have spoken said the new draft fails to streamline or clarify the winery permit process, and they are seriously concerned their businesses might close because of it. They said the ordinance is more prohibitive than the current ordinance. There are more than 1,800 signatures gathered currently.

“It took us three years and more than $300,000 and studies after studies to get through the first time we applied for a winery permit, and we honestly don’t know where we would fall if this ordinance goes through,” said Harvey Saarloos, of Saarloos and Sons in Los Olivos.

Once enologist from Sanford Winery in Lompoc said this ordinance is more stifling than France, and they like laws, he said which drew laughs from the crowd.

“The primary use of my land is to make a living, if I cant sell I’m done. I should be poster boy for environmentalist by planting hundreds of oak trees and making a monarch butterfly preserve on my property. I urge your to go back to the drawing board,” said Bryan Babcock of Babcock Winery.

Another winemaker said this ordinance is not respective of the democratic process as it has not even had any input from the winemakers the multiple revisions.

“Look at the reality of what’s going on and what the people are telling you and to input their perspectives,” said David Dascomb of Dascomb Cellars.

“I know nothing about making wine but appreciate fruits of their labors. I do have degree in planning from Stanford and we have a failure of process and product but hearing clearly these people it’s time to go back and make it more collaborative. Especially concerned about the numbers and sent to mentors at Stanford they agreed it’s more of an events ordinance with grapes thrown in,” said Bruce Porter, candidate for Third District Supervisor.

“I am proud of my family’s business and we won Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce small business of year because of the charitable works we do. This ordinance has ability to stranglehold those wineries that support the charities, this ordinance is flawed and will have adverse afffect on charities and the industry as a whole,” said Katie Grassini, of Grassini Family Vineyards.

Planning Director Dr. Glenn Russell commented that while he respects the winemakers and the people who spoke he said it’s wrong to say the ordinance will destroy the wine industry.

“The planning commission decision spent much time and testimony to recommend ordinance and they considered much detail. The one no vote said it wasn’t strict enough. We had extensive public outreach in 27 events from wine industry and citizens to make input, and out of that testimony we crafted the ordiinace that balances interests. We are trying to prevent over commercialization of ag land so it stays in ag production,” Russell said.

Supervisor Peter Adam countered he doesn’t think of agriculture in the right way to prevent over commercialization of ag.

“When you try to preserve something like this ends up in fromaldayhe and it dies. This is not what they are trying to say, just that it’s too narrowly defined, to the literal growing of grapes and not all the things that come from it. It’s just wrong in my mind and I am a farmer I get what they are saying and hope you all heard. I have never been prouder to be in agriculture than to listen to all of you that come up to us,” Adam said.

This issue centered overwhelmingly in third district and no matter what we decide to do such as heed advice of speakers I have a lot of questions as to the impact of the current wineries,” said Supervisor Salud Carbajal.

The new ordinance would have no impact to the current wineries, only to changing use or new permits, said county staff.

Carbajal also asked What would trigger the new requirements, How does this ordinance effect events on ag parcels without wineries, What level of special events and what they can do on winery properties, and What would happen if we took special events out of this ordinance.

“We need a separate ordinance for events that applies to everyone equally. If you push the little guy out it will only breed the big companies that will do away with our quality which we don’t want. We can’t say one size fits all with this ordinance, and we urge you to reject this,” said Shelby Sim, executive director of Visit Santa Ynez Valley.

Staff responded taking special events out would inappropriately be splitting projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and no one that is currently operating would be affected unless they change uses or a new .

Supervisor Doreen Farr stated she won’t throw the winery ordinance out because too many people have been involved.

Supervisor Janet Wolff said she didn’t appreciate the attack on the process and the time and energy that county staff has been involved was a demonstration of the level of quality.

“There was a lot of discussion and you may be unhappy and offer tweaks to the ordinance, but to say to throw out the whole thing, I am not in a position to make those recommendations,” Wolff said.

Adam said this industry sorts itself out the weak from the strong and approving this ordinance will make it winery Disneyland instead of individual creativity.

“We need to go back to the drawing board and focus on the language and you wine industry stand up and tell us how intricately interwoven these things are. We can’t just look at it as just vines with grapes. We see harvest and then wine. God forbid someone makes money on it. The agricultural use is the whole thing none of this secondary and incidental uses because all of agriculture will be affected,” Adam said.

Wolff said the restrictions are in place and very reluctant to spend another cent.

“Just because you spent a lot of money doesn’t mean you should go ahead with it. A bad decision is a bad decision,” Adam retorted.

To view the current Winery Ordinance update click here.

The post Wine industry gets a continuance on the widely criticized Winery Ordinance appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.

By: Gina Potthoff

Over objections from those in the wine industry as well as neighbors irked by existing Santa Ynez Valley tasting rooms, the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission on Monday approved proposed revisions to the county’s decade-old winery ordinance.

The commission voted 4-1 during its Santa Barbara meeting to back county staff recommendations and to certify an environmental impact report, which will be forwarded on to the County Board of Supervisors for final approval.

While planning commissioners touted the rules as a blueprint for orderly development of wineries throughout Santa Barbara County, many winemakers likened the regulations to barriers preventing proliferation of their brands with a one-size-fits-all model.

John Hilliard of Hilliard Bruce vineyards in Lompoc’s Santa Rita Hills tried to paint a proper picture for commissioners, sharing his own by-appointment tasting experiences.

“It’s as if you had friends come over to look at your new home,” Hilliard said. “If we were lucky, we’d have three, four to five cars a day. These little visits are essential for us to survive. We need to be able to explain to people who we are and what makes our product special.”

Speakers on both sides acknowledged by-appointment basis tasting was a compromise to lessen traffic and to keep mom-and-pop wineries from having to deal with profit-eating distributors.

At the conclusion of four heated hearings, winemakers did find one silver lining — commissioners’ willingness to allow conditional use permits for small, rural county vineyards of at least 10 acres to operate wine tasting rooms on a by-appointment only basis.

Tasting rooms were previously only attainable for winemakers with at least 20 rural acres.

As the lone dissenting vote, Commissioner Cecilia Brown called the decision to allow low-intensity tasting rooms a “slippery slope.” She refused to lend support without more mitigations for residents worried about traffic, water and quality of life impacts.

Existing County Land-use and Development Code sets standards for winery use and development, which includes wine-tasting, food service and events. Projects are considered on a case-by-case basis — requiring permits and potential county code amendments — and fall into a three-tier system based on acreage, zoning and wine production.

Commissioner Daniel Blough negotiated the sole modification to approval, which altered the size of low-intensity “Tier A” wine tasting rooms from 200 square feet to 300 square feet.

The new rule would exclude inner rural (Ag-1 zone) properties and limit visitors to 20 at a time.

Local vintners pushed for 400 square-foot tasting rooms and inclusion of rural and inner rural properties near urban areas, according to Morgen McLaughlin, executive director of Santa Barbara County Vintners’ Association.

County planner Jessica Metzger said allowing Tier A wineries with tasting rooms in inner-rural areas would’ve required re-circulation of a final EIR due to significant traffic impacts.

With the changes, the commission eliminated language that would’ve required at least 20 percent of case production from grapes grown on the same lot as the winery.

The ordinance update also adds a “Tier D” winery, which allows the commission to determine limits for the number of winery visitors and special events with a final development plan or conditional use permit.

County planners once again found themselves trying to balance the needs of residents, small business owners and the increasing number of visitors to Santa Barbara County’s wine country.

Twenty-eight public speakers were split on the issue, with many opponents residing along or near Ballard Canyon Road.

Visit Santa Barbara President and CEO Kathy Janega-Dykes said the Santa Ynez Valley stands out from other wine regions because of its small, boutique wineries.

Ballard Canyon Preservation representatives urged for more mitigations, while others suggested wineries were preservers of space and culture. Just as farmers wish to pass on their estates, so do winemakers, said Katie Grassini of Grassini Family Vineyards, who cited years of contributions to local charities.

“We don’t want bachelorette parties or big groups,” she said. “We’ve got grandkids running around out there.”

Michael Larner of Larner Vineyard & Winery in Ballard Canyon said he worried only billionaires will be able to afford tasting rooms in the valley. He said he’s spent six years and every last penny trying to get a wine-tasting permit for his 134-acre ranch.

Commissioners briefly considered trying to limit the future number of wine tasting rooms on the curvy Ballard Canyon Road, but officials backed off when county counsel cited conflicted comments from County Public Works about exactly how dangerous the road is.

To read the complete staff report log onto http://sbcountyplanning.org/PDF/boards/CntyPC/09-19-2016/14ORD-00000-00006/PC%20Memorandum%20September%2019%202016%20hearing.pdf

The post Santa Barbara County Planning Commission Approves Winery Ordinance Update appeared first on Santa Ynez Valley Star.