The status quo will remain—for now—for Santa Barbara County vintners, after the Board of Supervisors voted to set aside more than five years of negotiations over the county’s winery ordinance.
The 4-1 vote came as a relief to local winemakers who had spoken out strongly against a proposed amended ordinance, which would have required conditional use permits for tasting rooms and special events at wineries. The proposal stemmed from an increase in noise and odor complaints from winemakers’ neighboring property owners, exposing a divide between community members and highlighting blurry, inconsistent definitions of agriculture.
The supervisors were reluctant to pass the proposed amended ordinance because of pushback from county vintners, but they also didn’t want to stamp out five years’ worth of work. Winemakers and 5th District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino advocated for creating a task force to revise the ordinance, whereas 1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal and 3rd District Supervisor Doreen Farr didn’t want to spend county money on that project.
In the end, the board voted at a special meeting on Nov. 22 to take no action, with Farr being the only dissenter.
Morgen McLaughlin, executive director of the Santa Barbara County Vintners Association, said she was surprised by but happy with a no-action vote.
“We certainly were very nervous about any change,” McLaughlin told the Sun. “We were nervous about the potential approval of the ordinance as written.”
She said the Vintners Association will take a temporary “breather” from the issue, and then work on creating its own task force to collaborate with community members on proposing a different amended winery ordinance in the future.
“We’re going to bring together members of the wine industry and related stakeholders from the tourism side, from neighborhood groups, environmental representatives, to work on crafting a new ordinance that will be good for everybody,” McLaughlin said.
She said work on the new ordinance will begin in January, and the first task will be to focus on creating a consistent, cohesive definition of agricultural activity.
In past years, people in the wine industry have argued that everything from growing grapes to hosting winery events and other marketing activities counts as agriculture. Opponents, however, have said the “agriculture” part of the wine industry ends once the wine is in a bottle.
“We’ll be spending a lot of time on understanding and defining what agricultural activities are,” McLaughlin said, “because that’s the root of this.”
McLaughlin’s suggestion was to have a separate, “fair and equitable” ordinance for all parcels in Santa Barbara County regarding special events. That way, rules wouldn’t be more restrictive for special events on winery parcels than on horse or cattle ranches, for example.
“We were hoping the task force would allow more dialogue and would craft an ordinance that took into consideration neighborhood concerns, as well as providing a framework for wine industry success,” she said.
Farr’s and Carbajal’s main concern with creating a task force on the county’s behalf was that since their terms on the board were coming to an end, they couldn’t justify voting for an expensive operation when they wouldn’t be around to help figure out where to get the money. Lavagnino disagreed.
“As far as cost, I’m always one to not throw good money after bad, but I don’t think that’s the case here,” Lavagnino said at the special meeting.
But his was the minority opinion, and the board never voted on creating a task force. Farr stood with her previous opinion that the county had come too far on the amended ordinance to throw it out, and she instead suggested a series of tweaks to the proposed ordinance to help mitigate winemakers’ expressed concerns.
“I think this proposed ordinance is good,” Farr said at the meeting. “I’m not prepared to throw it out. I think it’s a good balance between the needs of the community and the needs of the industry.”
She suggested creating internal consistency in the ordinance regarding definition of terms, especially those related to winery events. She said the Vintners Association’s request for additional development standards for roads was “appropriate,” as was a delayed implementation of the new ordinance to help finish processing winery applications that had already begun.
But when 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf moved to support Farr’s suggestions, the motion failed 3-2, with Lavagnino, Carbajal, and 4th District Supervisor Peter Adam voting no.
Wolf said that if the board didn’t move forward with implementing or tweaking the amendments, they should stick with the current winery ordinance. She then moved that the board take no action, to which only Farr dissented.
Farr told the Sun that she was disappointed with the outcome, since she felt her suggested changes would have adequately addressed the concerns expressed by the Vintners Association.
“But I think it was better that the rest of the board voted not to do anything, rather than vote it down,” she said, “At least leave the option open later for the future board if they want to take another look at it.”
Farr said she felt the need to represent her constituents who weren’t happy with the current ordinance, even if they weren’t as outspoken in their opinions as the winemakers.
“The vintners are very well organized and vocal and influential,” she said. “It’s more difficult to sit in a room with people, many of whom or most of whom you know aren’t going to agree with what you have to say.”
She said she looks forward to efforts by the vintners to improve the current ordinance.
“It lacks clarity and specificity,” Farr said of the current winery ordinance. “The numbers of complaints and appeals have been gradually escalating, so now, without a new ordinance, that trend could certainly continue. I hope that the vintners will stay involved and help the county act as a mediator between the broader community and the wine industry when these problems come up.”
Staff Writer Brenna Swanston can be reached at bswanston@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Dec 1-8, 2016.
