Planning Commission orders more revisions to new rules for Sonoma County winery events

The Sonoma County Planning Commission on Thursday delayed consideration of a proposed ordinance to fully regulate winery events, dealing another setback to a disputed, yearslong bid to balance the interests of neighborhood activists and the county’s politically powerful wine industry.

The panel voted 5-0 during a Zoom meeting to have county planning staff go back and revise the draft measure that had spelled out rules covering parking and traffic management, food service, coordination with neighbors and noise limits for winery events outside city limits.

Commissioners said that they were mostly concerned with language in the draft that they deemed too vague in defining certain activities as a “winery event” and others as “agricultural promotion events.” The definition would would dictate different sets of rules governing event timing, food service and other activities.

Under the draft, a winery event would be activities held on site “for the purpose of promoting and marketing agricultural products” grown or processed in the county and “are secondary and incidental” to agricultural production.

“If this was supposed to achieve clarity, it seems like the mission is not accomplished,” said commission Chair Todd Tamura.

Commissioner Gregg Carr was the most outspoken during the meeting, which featured representatives from the wine industry and neighborhood activists. Both sides have lobbied the county for changes in a prolonged rulemaking process that the county touted as a top priority as far back as 2015.

The county process bogged down while regional efforts centered in several major wine growing areas showed more progress.

Carr represents Sonoma Valley, which has in place a community advisory council that first takes up event applications to streamline permitting and address potential problems early in the process, before any vote by county planning commissioners.

The Sonoma Valley group will finalize its permitting guidelines this summer and Carr suggested to fellow commissioners that the panel use that text as base language to proceed.

“I think the definitions in the Sonoma Valley CAC local guidelines is the kind of definition — or very close to or if not the definition — for events we should have countywide,” Carr said. He also was a proponent of limiting winery events based more on the numbers of overall visitors as opposed the type of an event.

Commissioners also instructed staff to incorporate guidelines from the Dry Creek Valley Citizens Advisory Council, in effect since 2017, in an attempt to get one set of definitions that could be used for the entire county.

Both of those local advisory councils have been lauded for making the permitting process less controversial. That’s in contrast to the Westside Road area outside Healdsburg, where neighbors and wine industry officials have repeatedly squared off over projects, including vintner David Ramey’s vision for a winery on the former Westside Farms property.

The measure would only apply to new permits and wineries seeking to modify their existing permits. Napa County enacted a similar set of rules years ago, seeking to strike a balance between the latitude given to business operations for the region’s signature industry and the demands of rural residents who contend that a deluge of Wine Country visitors has threatened their quality of life.

Sonoma County had 307 wineries approved for visitor tasting rooms as of 2016, with 155 of those permits allowed for events, said Bradley Dunn, policy manager for Permit Sonoma, the county planning agency. Since 2016, the pace of growth has slowed notably as the county has approved use permits for an additional 17 wineries and tasting rooms.

Under the draft language, traditional wine tasting would be limited from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and the food service would have to be a simple food-and-wine pairing and prepackaged food plates. Agricultural promotion activities would be allowed from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. Setbacks for noise would be required, with parking lots having to be placed 450 feet away from adjacent property.

You can reach Staff Writer Bill Swindell at 707-521-5233 or bill.swindell@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @BillSwindell.