Reactions to a recently released draft plan that could change the way Santa Barbara County does rural wine—special events, volume of visitors, tours, food, and tasting rooms—are heated and sharply critical from the wine industry. Morgan McLaughlin, president of the Santa Barbara County Vintners’ Association, is one such opponent.
“Wine and food, they go hand in hand,” she said. “It’s a seamless experience. You have your fresh meats and your olive oil if you go to Italy. We want to replicate that experience. The county of Santa Barbara does not see it that way.”
Moreover, McLaughlin said, the ordinance and proposed changes could unfairly disadvantage newer wineries in unincorporated areas, and in doing so would smother a still-developing industry.
“If you have an existing winery and you had your permit prior to 2004, you have more flexibility as to what you can do for your property,” she explained. “Every development after that comes with the new regulations there are. It’s just not fair. You don’t have an equal playing field. The wineries that came first have built the foundation and have started to build a thriving economy. Why are we trying to shut that down?”
The proposed changes would modify the Winery Ordinance adopted by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in 2004. That ordinance set out three tiers for winery permits: Tier 1 for “ministerial projects,” the little stuff, and Tiers 2 and 3 for big projects that require a “discretionary permit” and a closer look at environmental impacts.
The county’s planning and development department wants to create a new three-tiered system. Permit applicants would land on a particular tier based on proposed uses, such as special events, tours, “winemaker meals,” food service, or tasting rooms. For each tier, permit review requirements would also look at specific development standards, like planted acreage, maximum structural size, or visitor hours.
For Tier A wineries, tasting rooms would be a no-no. The maximum number of people allowed for top-tier tasting rooms would be slashed as well. The frequency of special events and the number of people allowed at those events would also be more tightly managed; events wouldn’t be allowed at all for Tiers A and B and would be carefully restricted for Tier C to 12 events a year and 150 visitors at a time.
Tim Snider with Fess Parker shares many of McLaughlin’s concerns. He’s worried about food, especially, and hopes the changes to the winery ordinance create more eating opportunities.
“For us, on Foxen Canyon wine trail, people can go and taste up and down the trail but they get out here and there is no real food opportunity. I would hope that the county and the ordinance would rethink that and say ‘maybe we should rethink the ability of some of these wineries to offer food service as a part of the tasting experience,’” he said.
David Lackie at the county’s planning department addressed the concern in an email to the Sun. “Most people that participated in the various Winery Ordinance update workshops and meetings were in favor of permitting some level of food service at wineries,” he said. “The Winery Ordinance update includes new provisions that would allow food service at wineries. Food served or sold at a winery would be limited to small, appetizer-like portions, and shall not include menu options or meal service such that the winery functions as a restaurant or café.”
The updated ordinance would also allow for cooking classes.
Project alternatives include a plan focused on local production, which would loosen some restrictions on acreage and allow more events—giving the ability to hold winemaker dinners back to Tier A wineries, for example.
The changes have been in the works since the Board of Supervisors voted for them unanimously in 2011. The draft environmental impact report is just the latest step following years of public workshops and board meetings to outline what the county wants from the new rules. The public comment period for the draft closes on July 13 at 5 p.m. To view it, visit longrange.sbcountyplanning.org.
Santa Barbara’s Winery Ordinance, similar to the one governing Paso Robles, is modeled on Napa Valley’s Wine Definition Ordinance (WDO) adopted in 1990. That ordinance has seen plenty of fights, as well.
“It was adopted as a cornerstone protection measure for the Napa Valley cultural preserve,” explained Rex Stults, government relations director for the Napa Valley Vintners.
He stressed that there is “strong support” for the ordinance in the wine industry generally but that disagreements over specific measures quickly become inflamed.
“There’s practically unanimous support for protecting and sustaining in perpetuity the Napa Valley agricultural preserve,” he said. “The devil is in the details. The WDO is an important component of that protection.”
Napa Valley has restrictions on menu service similar to those under discussion in Santa Barbara County today. When asked whether those restrictions made Napa less competitive, Stults stressed that the region’s ag land had been successfully preserved. Still, he said, enforcing restrictions on food was easier said than done.
“We’re finding it difficult to measure and enforce,” he said. “There are people who are pushing the envelope.”
One strength of Napa’s WDO is it reflects the fact that one regulation doesn’t fit all of the county’s regions. The WDO governs the unincorporated swaths of land in which the county’s historic agriculture is centered. Local cities and towns can pass their own ordinances, reflecting a nuanced vision of what wine looks like in different parts of Napa.
“One size does not fit all,” explained Stults.
Many vintners in Santa Barbara County feel the same. Snider with Fess Parker recognized the need for some rules. Still, he said, the county needed to take care to balance the interests of residents and wineries.
“With anything, you get the vocal minority the county is listening to,” he said. “But having the ability to have events and bring your best customers to your property is very important.”
Contact Staff Writer Sean McNulty at smcnulty@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Jun 25 – Jul 2, 2015.