Wine regulations can get complicated. Federal and state regulations must be followed, but one must also be aware that mandatory local ordinances can vary from county to county and city to city, adding further hurdles to the success of winemakers and wineries. Localized winery ordinances often regulate the size of tasting rooms, the number of events allowed, and other activities. One such ordinance affecting wineries that host events in Placer County is causing a stir.
As it currently exists, Placer County’s Ordinance 17.56.330 of the Planning and Zoning ordinances, adopted in 2008, is designed to “provide for the orderly development of wineries… encourage the economic development of the local agricultural industry, provide for the sampling and sales of value-added products, and protect the agricultural character and long-term agricultural production of agricultural lands.” It includes provisions that keep special events and crowds to a minimum. All wineries are required to have a permit for up to six promotional events per year. Promotional events are limited to those that are related to producing wine at the facility, i.e. barrel tastings or relase parties of the host winery’s wines.
Recently, the Placer County Vintner’s Association has expressed concern that the ordinance is too restrictive, and has requested from the Planning Commission changes that would allow more leeway in holding larger and more diverse events. According to the Association (and a County staff report on the issue), the current ordinance is more restrictive than the ordinances in neighboring Sacramento and Amador counties, and is the only ordinance in these three counties that requires promotional events to be specifically related to promoting the winery or its products. The Association’s goal is to have the ordinance amended to define promotional events more broadly to include private functions such as fundraisers and weddings, and to allow wineries to have more than six promotional events throughout the year. In addition, the Association would have any event with less than 75 people present labeled a “routine activity,” which would need no special permit. The Association argues that the proposed amendment will “help support the 20 wineries located on the Placer County Wine Trail, create local jobs, provide tax revenue to the city and county and keep our landscapes beautiful.”
Not everyone is on board with the potential changes. Some local residents fear that additional events will cause more traffic, which can be especially scary on Placer County’s winding country roads. This fear increases with the idea that people will be consuming wine at the events. Increased traffic also means increased road maintenance, and some residents are not interested in footing that bill. Increased noise from events is also a factor that the opposition wants considered. Marilyn Jasper, who represents the Sierra Club and Public Interest Coalition, said that current protections safeguard against “de facto conversion (of farmlands) to commercial uses,” and opposes the proposed amendments.
At the end of February, the Planning Commission decided to send the proposed amendments to municipal advisory councils for comments before revisiting the issue later in 2015. We will be looking out for final word later in the year.
