New wineries in Santa Barbara County may be subject to new restrictions on special events, volume of visitors, tours, and tasting rooms. Santa Barbara County’s planning department recently released a draft environmental impact report for the proposed changes, which is now open to public comment.
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.
Planning and development 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 carefully restricted for C to 12 events a year and 150 visitors at a time.
Project alternatives include a plan focused on local production, which would loosen some restrictions on acreage and allow more events—giving winemaker dinners back to tier A, for example.
These 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 county wrings about $1.5 billion from agriculture every year, with an estimated local impact of $3 billion. Wine grapes haven’t yet caught up with strawberries in terms of production value. Still, they pulled in $163 million in 2013.
This article appears in Jun 18-25, 2015.