Summary

---

The Planning Commision voted unanimously (4-0) to bring a draft winery ordinance to the Board of Supervisors in 12 months with input from stakeholders. The Winery Ordinance Task Force (WOTF), headed by The Lodi Chamber of Commerce, Lodi District Grape Growers Association, San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation, and Visit Lodi! is charged with giving a status report to the Planning Commission in 60 days on proposed ordinance changes.

Meeting Notes

---

Here are my ragged and incomplete meeting notes. I could not catch every word and likely heard some incorrectly. In the comments section below, please feel free to note any corrections that should be made.

The San Joaquin County Planning Commission met on Thursday, July 19, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the Public Health/Planning Auditorium, San Joaquin County Department of Public Health Services, 1601 East Hazelton Avenue, Stockton, California.

The agenda is available here.

Planning Commissioners present included Miguel Villapudua (District 1), Peter Johnson (Chairman, District 3), Randy Hamilton (District 4), and Stan Morri (District 5). Community Development Department staff included Kerry Sullivan (Director), Mo Hatef (Senior Planner), and another planner. In the auditorium were many wine industry members, some neighbors, a couple of reporters and others.

After unanimously approving consent items for an expansion of Delicato Vineyards winery, a user permit for a fertilizer manufacturing and distribution facility for Bancroft Performance Investment, an extention for a use permit for Wat Dhammararam, a use permit for a community center and park for Lockeford Community Services District, and unanimously denying a variance for a property owned by Kevin Wentworth, the discussion regarding the text amendment began at 7:02 pm with consideration of a request for a 90-day continuance in a letter from the WOTF, dated July 17, 2012.

The Commissioners voted 3-1 against a continuance, with Randy Hamilton being the sole vote for continuance. The reasons given against a continuance were that the letter was received too late in the process, and that the Supervisors had initiated the text amendment.

 

Background

---

Kerry Sullivan: I’ll present a background on the winery ordinance in two segments. The existing winery ordinance was the result of 18 months of staff work. We worked closely with the Farm Bureau’s Land Use Committee and stakeholders within the industry. It was 18 months from the beginning to adoption by the Board of Supervisors and took quite a bit of work. It was revised 33 times and a 34th time during a five hour public hearing. It wasn’t easy to put together. We thought we could plagiarize the work of another wine region and everyone thought other counties with a large number of wineries would have a good ordinance, but that wasn’t the case.

Before the existing winery ordinance you could have a winery approved as a food producer. We realized we needed a special ordinance for wineries and off-site wine cellars. We also created a new animal in marketing events. It allowed typical industry-wide normal events like First Sip and Wine and Chocolate and wine release dinners.

The Development Title is specific about a dog and tail. The primary use needed to be a winery. Marketing events must be subordinate to wine production. If a winery wanted events they had to specify the maximum number of events and guests per event.

Somewhere down the road they say, “We’re so successful that we want to add more events.” As of now, there are 58 wineries and off-site wine cellars throughout the county, with the bulk in the Lodi/Woodbridge area. 27 have event plans approved at the staff level or at the Planning Commission. All wineries may have industry-wide, wine club and special events, with the later requiring an improvement plan. Wine is always served at a marketing event.

This ordinance is a result of a whole lot of cooks in the kitchen. After much debate on that final Board meeting, there was the question, “Well, Kerry, are weddings in or out?” Eventually a Board member said, “If you serve wine, it’s a marketing event.”

Over the last several years there has been concern that marketing has become the primary use for some wineries. It may bring a lot of people to the area, but remember this is an agricultural use zone. Music can be heard far away.

This came to a head in February with the Kampiniaris permit. At that hearing the Board directed an ad hoc committee be formed by Supervisors Vogel and Bestolarides, who directed to have a time out. They want no more marketing events. They basically told us to hold the line.

There are three results. If you have an existing winery or off-site wine cellar, what you have is what you get. This text amendment would hold that number. It wouldn’t take any away. People can still submit applications for new wineries. They couldn’t ask for new marketing plans to be approved. How long will this last? We intend to bring out the General Plan update in spring 2013, and we’re on schedule. We fully intend to make modifications to the winery ordinance, but we’re stretched pretty thin. We expect the process to be very involved. We may want to do winery ordinance changes in parallel with the General Plan update. This is not something we see going on year after year.

Peter Johnson: What is estimated?

Kerry Sullivan: It depends on how complicated the process is. I don’t have a crystal ball. We may look for an outside consultant, but it could be 6-18 months. The text amendment contains one correction to the ordinance. Activities and events with distributors, etc. was an oversight and should have been struck as a marketing event 11 years ago. We recommend that the Planning Commission forward changes to the Board of Supervisors for approval.

Stan Morri: Will this happen after the General Plan?

Kerry Sullivan: We found a lot of areas that need to be improved. We knew it would come back for changes. If the board wants us to work on this before the General Plan, we can.

 

Statements in Support

---

The meeting was then opened to public comment.

Peter Johnson: We are now opening to the floor to statements in support of the proposed text amendment. You have three minutes. We’re talking about a text amendment for 12-20 months.

Mike Hakeem, Attorney: I represent Mr. Vern Vierra. St. Jorge has an existing permit. I’m happy as long as we stay away from St. Jorge.

Fred Donald, Resident on N. Davis Road: I live 700 feet from the Kapiniaris site. Wineries. It’s always been about wineries. I have 7 wineries near my home. During the Kapiniaris hearing regarding a 10 acre piece of land, a commissioner said it looks like an event center. There are issues when a sheriff needs to be called due to noise, traffic and things of this nature. My point is the winery came after the events. Build the winery then have events. If you have three bad cops on a police force it makes the whole force look bad. If farmers have the right to farm, residents should have the right to peace and quiet.

Judith Isola, Resident: Neighbors have rights. We moved to the country for peace and quiet.

Another resident: I agree with Judy.

 

Statements in Opposition

---

Peter Johnson: Any more supporters? We’ll move on to those in opposition.

Pat Patrick, President, Lodi Chamber of Commerce: I represent four organizations asking for a continuance. [Referring to wine:] It’s not a commodity. It’s not trucked and sold somewhere else. It’s the fastest growing part of the county’s number one growing industry. These Winery Ordinance Task Force people want to solve this and put balance into the county. There is no ending to a moratorium. It could go three years. Litigation could slow things down. I would much rather have a group of involved people than the Supervisors. There are only a few bad actors.

Peter Johnson: Regardless of what happens tonight, this isn’t a death knell or death sentence for 10 to 20 years.

Kerry Sullivan: Remember that text amendments can be submitted by individuals or groups. The Supervisors let the Farm Bureau know they could pay a fee to have an amendment considered.

Greg Burns, Jessie’s Grove Winery: I’m fifth generation. My family has been at our site since the 1860’s and have hosted marketing events since the 1880’s. I was one of the pioneers working with Kerry in the early days of the winery ordinance. We are allowed eight marketing events. There has been no recorded instance of a problem in 12 years. It’s huge for sales. We host four fundraising events for organizations. These are hosted at gratis. It’s not always about what wineries are doing for themselves. I don’t want to think about my money and survival. My neighbors are always invited to our events.

Peter Johnson: I appreciate what you’re doing for fundraisers. If someone does a wedding or concert and wine is served, I’m not sure where you’re losing by choosing fundraisers over weddings.

Greg Burns: When I’m doing concerts that’s where I make my money. The other side of the coin is for the community. I’m selling my wine at cost. Changing Faces, for example, involves 60 kids each year. Over ten years that’s 600 kids.

Peter Johnson: Those are great things, but I don’t understand why this is an issue.

Greg Burns: I have eight events. That’s it.

Nancy Beckman, President, Visit Lodi!: We hope it’s not a death knell, but in actuality, this is a permanent change to county codes. What guarantee do we have that this will ever be changed? I’m part of the group working on a resolution. Our entire purpose is to bring visitors to Lodi. We bring groups into wineries. One example is that a business group held a corporate retreat and spent $10,000 renting a winery. They had such a good time they came back to us and asked, “Can you set up a group of us to go around to wineries?” That same group would count as an event. A winery is going to take a $25,000 wedding over that group. I respectfully disagree. What is being put forth is a permanent change that we hope will be changed with the General Plan. The Board didn’t come out and talk to us. What is being proposed is permanent.

Ryan Sherman, Realtor, Sherman & Associates: I wear a couple of hats. I’m a partner in Fields Family Winery and I have 30 years of experience as a realtor at my family’s business, Sherman & Associates. I’ve been involved with land use. I’m asking you to vote no. We’re asking for a time out. This has no sunset. A General Plan is a political process. Most think it will take 18 months or longer. It doesn’t solve anything. We already have an excellent implementation of the current ordinance. We need to work out what will happen over the next 18 years.

There was a 5 minute break.

Dan Durst, Riaza Winery: We are a new winery. We applied for four events. We don’t market our wines through distribution. We need marketing events for the wine club. This will certainly impact our business growth. This will severely impact any new winery. They can’t attract new customers. It’s not just having a big concert. It’s small events with guitar for 30-50 people. This moratorium would be taking them away for two to three years.

Kerry Sullivan: If the moratorium goes into effect, he could not increase.

Ted Lauchland, Winegrape Grower: I’m a third generation grape grower. We’ve promoted winemakers. My future’s sitting right here [referring to his son]. He’s an enology student and wants to open a winery at our location. It would prevent us from starting a winery and would force us to look elsewhere. It creates an unfair advantage for existing wineries.

Kerry Sullivan: At a recent Board meeting there was a discussion about enforcement. We’ve used it once to revoke a permit. I was directed by the Chairman of the Board to detail the permit revocation process. I told the Board we can modify or revoke a permit. I was directed to come back with a list of active enforcement issues, to take a stronger enforcement action. We are working on a report back to the Board.

Philip Lauchland, son of Ted Lauchland: This is an unnecessary step putting a damper on expansion. It doesn’t affect just the growers or wineries, but restaurants, hotels and others. How much money will we miss out on?

Amy Blagg, Executive Director, Lodi District Grape Growers Association: I’m Executive Director of Lodi District Grape Growers Association and part of the task force. We believe in wineries first and events second. The current language has no set timeframe. It doesn’t stop a new winery, but does affect their business plan.

Peter Johnson: The Commission has clearly heard about there being no sunset.

Kevin Baysinger, President, Lodi Amateur Vintner’s Association (LAVA): LAVA’s sub-mission is to promote Lodi Appellation wineries. We agree with everyone. If you’re going to make a text amendment, make sure it solves the problem. It doesn’t solve the existing problems. The wineries will continue to have events.

Peter Johnson: We’re not for one side or the other. We need to do something different. Growth brings benefits, but also challenges. I think the Supervisors hope it doesn’t get exponentially worse.

Bill Prioste, President, Tracy Hills Growers and Vintners Association: Somewhere there has to be a solution. Without marketing events we can’t grow. Get a group together and let’s figure out a solution. In Tracy a building moratorium caused schools to not have pencils.

Mike Shinn, Oak Farm Vineyards: We have over 60 acres of grapes, but buy from other growers. Now growers get the most they’ve gotten. Napa can charge a premium for their events. A group from Georgia came to use our property and stayed in Lodi. We turned away a Stockton organization for a New Year’s event because we can’t host that many events. We employ 20 people and half were unemployed.

Mark Chandler, Consultant: From 1991 to 2011, I was Executive Director of the Lodi Winegrape Commission. The principle objective was to increase the number of wineries from eight to what we have today. We had to break out from the dominance of large wineries who suppressed grape prices. We allowed dozens of farm families to create value for their properties. The industry creates lots of jobs and gives young folks a chance for a good job. The moratorium is bad policy and bad politics.

Ramon Rios, Ramon Rios Winery: In Tracy we are only three wineries. We need a couple more so we can survive.

Unidentified woman: Perhaps you could send a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to initiate a look at ordinance review now. When will we be done?

John Gash, Prie (sp?) Winery: We came to Lodi to form a winery two months ago. We don’t want to be shaken out of bed by loud music either. We had to listen to a guy playing loud music from his car stereo. We prayed his battery would die. We have to think of creating an incubator. We have heard about Napa, but they have already established their name. I need the opportunity to compete, but this moratorium mitigates that ability. We do need rebalancing.

 

Discussion by Commissioners

---

Peter Johnson: Any more in opposition? Then we’ll go back to discussion among commission members.

Stan Morri: Lodi is an ag gem. I’m sure neighbors want wineries to be successful. I am personally opposed to the moratorium. Could be one to two years, but legal challenges could delay that. It would send the wrong signal to outside investment. A level playing field would be 24 events. On all new applications I would see a significant filing fee. The first violation should result in a fine. The second should be forfeiture of events. Don’t shut the area off.

Miguel Villapudua: I agree with Mr. Morri. Something needs to be done. It would kill momentum. There’s so much money being generated. We need to increase enforcement.

Randy Hamilton: I’m opposed to the moratorium. When you have growth, you have problems, but we need jobs. Don’t penalize people playing by the rules. There’s got to be a way to put together some rules.

Peter Johnson: I’m opposed to this moratorium. It’s like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Kerry Sullivan: The Farm Bureau was concerned about one or two large facilities out of compliance. There may be others out of compliance, but have not had any complaints. There are two currently under code enforcement.

Peter Johnson: Is it the large wineries causing the problems?

Kerry Sullivan: The level of noise is a problem. Abundance had concerts without permit, but they have come back…

Peter Johnson: I think we’ve heard parking is an issue.

Kerry Sullivan: We look at parking during the permit process.

Peter Johnson: So I think the Commission agrees this is not a good idea.

Kerry Sullivan: We do respond to complaints. We really only have two active cases. The concern expressed by some was that this is ag land and marketing events have become primary use. These are permitted to have a number of large events that should be in commercial zones. The approving entity must determine if the marketing plan is consistent with plans.

Peter Johnson: We don’t want to discourage growth, but we need to solve the music problem.

Kerry Sullivan: Don’t allow outdoor amplified music.

Peter Johnson: I think there are concerns even if not submitted yet. These corporate retreats shouldn’t be shut down.

Kerry Sullivan: Those are the things that we will look at when we revise the General Plan. We’ve had many meetings, particularly with the Farm Bureau on the last ordinance. We want a lot of public participation. I envision a very inclusive process. I am not a winery person. People like Mr. Burns were invaluable in crafting the ordinance. We know governance language. You tell us what a marketing event is. We don’t want to be draconian.

Peter Johnson: I learned I have a different definition of marketing events tonight. I respect that four groups came together and said we want to help. This is a great offer. Let’s move quickly on this. We need to make a recommendation. We need to start working on the ordinance now.

Bruce Fry, President, San Joaquin County Farm Bureau: We have that diverse group. We have all the players in the room. We’ll meet on Monday. We welcome staff to come, so we can keep this ball rolling. It will be a quicker solution. Twenty people.

Stan Morri: I want to see someone working on this. Do you agree you don’t like the moratorium?

Bruce Fry: We want to solve the problem.

Randy Hamilton: You have more players.

Bruce Fry: We have a diverse group. If you can’t bend one way or the other than you’re not a good fit for our group.

Peter Johnson: Oh there aren’t many people in support of the moratorium here tonight. The fact we don’t have a lot of neighbors is they don’t want to sit with these wineries.

Bruce Fry: You need a diverse group with diverse opinions.

Kerry Sullivan: If you deny this [text amendment], the Board can still pick it up. The Board is the only entity that can approve a change, if you outright deny it.

Peter Johnson: I think if we don’t make a recommendation, we haven’t accomplished anything. What I’ve heard is that the moratorium is not good. We’d like to start working on the General Plan now.

Stan Morri: I like the ad hoc committee bringing a solution to the Board in six months.

Randy Hamilton: You have to fund enforcement.

Miguel Villapudua: Why can’t we create a fund from the fees at permitting?

Peter Johnson: We should recommend that the ad hoc committee work on this and come back in six months, and we need to work on enforcement.

Kerry Sullivan: We only have two problems. I question the wisdom of having someone count noses on the weekend. That could be fairly unmanageable.

Peter Johnson: Somehow we hold those accountable. Is there anything we can do?

Kerry Sullivan: I am preparing a report. That’s one tool.

Peter Johnson: People are getting upset because of those not following the rules.

Kerry Sullivan: We would not participate in a committee until approved by the Board. Let me summarize the recommendation of the Commission: “We oppose the moratorium and we are opposed to the text amendment, and that an ad hoc committee be formed to…” Frankly, the Farm Bureau language had a lot of loopholes. One person’s meaning can be completely different than another’s. I can’t be responsible for language from other people.

Peter Johnson: You need to be involved early. I don’t want to make a recommendation that won’t be meaningful.

Kerry Sullivan: If you want language that the group can agree on, that can take time. A group fought four months over a turn of phrase. Sometimes democracy can be laborious and tedious. I have no staff. We are mindful that this is an important process.

Ryan Sherman: We have a group that doesn’t pretend to be policy people. We can help get to a recommendation that can be agreed to in spirit.

Stan Morri: It’s up to you to hit the ground running.

Peter Johnson: All it takes is one more complaint and the Board will run with the text amendment. We need to have a draft ordinance that your department can do some tweaking on. Get their input then we’ll put this into good language.

Miguel Villapudua: Put something together and give it to us.

Peter Johnson: How about in 60 days give us a report on where you are at?

Kerry Sullivan: I hear you’re opposed to the text amendment.

Peter Johnson: I don’t want to wait 6 months. I want to make sure they’re still working together. I want the task force to write a report. Mike Hakeem, as someone who’s been through this process for quite some time, what is your recommendation?

Mike Hakeem: There is no question the group can give a report in 60 days with a buy-in. That could be turned into a draft ordinance.

Peter Johnson: [To all the audience] I would suggest that if you have free time come to the next Board of Supervisors meeting and share your thoughts.

 

Recommendation to Board

---

Kerry Sullivan: To summarize the Commission’s position on this, “We are opposed to the text amendment. We want to bring a draft ordinance to the Board in 12 months with input from stakeholders. The Winery Ordinance Task Force will report back in 60 days.” That report will not be vetted by my staff. The groups that signed the letter to the Board will be considered the Winery Ordinance Task Force group.

Peter Johnson: Let me ask those in favor of the moratorium if this is acceptable.

Fred Donald: I believe it’s a first step.

Peter Johnson: The text amendment is not going to change anything. We want to be more proactive than Napa. If we address issues now things won’t turn divisive in the future.

Fred Donald: What’s to stop a big winery from Madera from buying 10 acres to hold events here?

Kerry Sullivan: We told wineries planning events that we are waiting for direction from the Board. Anyone could come and ask for a permit, but it would come to the Planning Commission first.

Commissioners then voted 4-0 in support of the motion summarized by Kerry above, namely:

– Opposition to the text amendment (moratorium)
– Fast-track draft winery ordinance changes to be ready in 12 months in parallel with General Plan update
– Get a report from Winery Ordinance Task Force on what the entire group buys-into in 6 months.

The meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m.