COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Inter-Departmental Correspondence
County Counsel
DATE:
July 14, 2006
BOARD MEETING DATE:
August 15, 2006
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:
None
VOTE REQUIRED:
Majority
TO:
Honorable Board of Supervisors
FROM:
County Counsel
SUBJECT:
Proposal to Consider Hillside Vineyard Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Supervisors adopt an approach and a process for consideration of issues related to a vineyard ordinance. The recommended approach is to develop a watershed protection ordinance and the recommended process is to direct staff to continue and complete work on such an ordinance.
VISION ALIGNMENT:
Commitment: Preserve and provide people access to our natural environment
Goal(s): Important natural resources are preserved and enhanced through environmental stewardship
BACKGROUND:
On March 20, 2006, Supervisor Richard Gordon asked County staff to research issues related to a potential vineyard ordinance. This request was in response to correspondence that all Board members had received from the Committee for Green Foothills and others on the topic and on discussions that had occurred at the Planning Commission and the Agricultural Advisory Committee.
This memo is intended to respond to Supervisor Gordon’s request and to provide information for possible direction from the Board of Supervisors.
DISCUSSION
STATUS OF PAST AND CURRENT PROJECTS:
The letters written to you on this topic cited three projects as examples of a need for a vineyard ordinance.
Based on the information provided in the correspondence, the first project is the Alpine Road Vineyards located in the La Honda area. This vineyard is located at 7620 Alpine Road, east of La Honda. In 2002, this vineyard was the subject of enforcement action by San Mateo County and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The site was graded without permits. Grading began in the fall of 2001. The site was not appropriately winterized, and according to the letters received, there was significant erosion with major sedimentation occurring downstream the following year. The owners were required to remediate the site and pay for off-site mitigation in Memorial Park, at a total cost of approximately $500,000.
The second project is the Rhys Vineyard. This project is actually located in Santa Clara County (on the east side of Skyline Boulevard). Drainage from this project flows under Skyline Blvd. and then west into the upper watershed of Pescadero Creek in San Mateo County. Concerned neighbors threatened a lawsuit over their concerns about the impact on their groundwater sources by the vineyards wells, but were eventually able to reach an agreement with the Rhys Vineyard.
The final project is Clos de la Tech. Currently, approximately 20.6 acres are in vineyard production. Three caves have been installed as future locations for wine production and storage. These caves were constructed under permits. The use of the caves for production and storage is subject to the issuance of a use permit. Currently, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared for this project. This report is not expected to be final until next year at which time the process of consideration will begin with the Planning Commission. At the conclusion of this memo there will be some additional comments about the Clos de la Tech project as it relates to a vineyard ordinance.
Parties supporting adoption of a vineyard ordinance cite these three projects as contentious and/or controversial. These proponents believe that an ordinance would bring clarity and assurance to applicants and the community that the projects have been implemented in a manner that provides environmental and community protections.
REGULATION IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS:
Staff has completed preliminary research on this issue. Sonoma and Napa Counties have adopted ordinances addressing vineyard development. Both counties prohibit vineyard grading and planting on slopes greater than 30 degrees subject to a few exemptions and a stringent exception process. These ordinances were put in place to address the environmental concerns over erosion and sediment control.
Other counties polled to date do not have a vineyard ordinance, but some regulate vineyards through the County’s general grading and erosion control measures.
POSSIBLE APPROACHES FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY:
If there is interest in considering a vineyard ordinance in some form or another, there are a number of possible approaches that could be taken.
1. Using a Business Regulation Approach that Regulates Vineyards
One approach would be to use a business regulation. A business regulation is based on the County’s inherent police powers and seeks to regulate an activity in order to maintain the peace, order, health, welfare and safety of the local community. Examples of business regulations include the County’s ordinances on taxi cabs, fireworks and massage establishments.
2. Using a Watershed Protection Model
Another possible idea would be to focus on the particular issues concerning watershed protection. The ordinance could apply generally or be structured as a pilot ordinance for a specific watershed of concern. A watershed ordinance could address a range of issues such as erosion and sediment control, water quality, water quantity, adjacent or nearby development, habitat management and habitat restoration. A Board Subcommittee including Supervisor Gordon and Supervisor Hill have been meeting with County staff to develop a possible watershed protection ordinance under the FishNet 4C Program.
3. Using a Winery Regulation
Another idea would be to adopt an ordinance specific to wineries, possibly addressing the impacts of both winery operations and adjacent vineyard plantings. This could include issues such as traffic, parking, location, hours of operation and other potential physical impacts of a winery and vineyard operation.
4. Amending the Existing Grading Ordinance
A fourth approach would be to amend the County’s existing Grading Ordinance to eliminate the agricultural exemption for vineyards. This could be vineyards generally or those in specific areas or with significant slopes. Many counties have addressed vineyard plantings in this manner.
5. Using a Traditional Land Use Regulation
Under a traditional land use approach, an ordinance would focus on the development aspects of a vineyard such as its size, location, scope of activity and potential impacts on other land uses and the physical environment. The Planning Division would study the issues, gather sample ordinances and develop a project definition. Planners would meet with community groups and interested parties. They would then develop an ordinance and undertake environmental review.
PROCESS OPTIONS:
For each of the five possible approaches, there are different process options.
1. Use of Short-Term Task Force
A task force could be created to examine the issues, within the context of one of the approaches summarized above, and prepare a report for the Board of Supervisors to adopt.
2. Direct Staff to Prepare an Ordinance
Appropriate staff could be directed to develop an ordinance based on one of the approaches summarized above. A recommended course of action would be made to the Board of Supervisors.
3. Use of Existing Advisory Groups
Using one of the approaches above, appropriate existing advisory groups could discuss a possible ordinance, with recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.
If the approach selected involves a Land Use or zoning change, it will require a review and vote by the Planning Commission. Some of the above approaches may require an environmental review and/or a review by the Coastal Commission.
STATUS OF CLOS DE LA TECH:
It is our opinion that any option for approach and process would not impact the Clos de la Tech project. The Board of Supervisors has traditionally “grandfathered” projects and activities that are in the pipeline when a new or revised ordinance or regulation is implemented. Also, because Clos de la Tech is the subject of an environmental review, there are legal issues that would need to be addressed. The EIR process would also be a way for the County to address specific environmental issues raised by this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD:
The concerns shared with the County by interested parties have primarily been in regards to potential impacts that the lack of effective sediment and erosion control could have on watersheds. Given these concerns, we believe that the best approach to develop an ordinance would be by using the watershed protection model. As County staff is currently meeting to discuss watershed protection issues, a useful process is already in place. We believe that this issue could be folded into that discussion, allowing for the creation of a comprehensive watershed protection ordinance to address these concerns.
Concerns regarding adequate water supply have also been shared with the County, primarily in relation to the Clos de la Tech project. However, we believe that these concerns will be addressed in the EIR process currently underway for that project.
Any additional concerns that are not addressed by the new watershed protection ordinance could potentially be addressed by amending the current grading ordinance.