POD 07-001, Log No. 07-00-001; Boutique Wineries Zoning Ordinance Amendment Revision. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Public Review ends 8-16-07 at 4 p.m.
The Chair called speakers. Steve Pelzer did not want to speak but registered opposition against the revision.
Speaker: Jim Beggs, Ramona Resident
Mr. Beggs said he would like to thank the County for addressing some of the concerns raised during the public review period for the original document that ended on May 18. He believes that the revision is a step in the right direction because it begins to address some of the concerns raised. He felt issues not addressed included: enhanced private road liability by having the wine tasting rooms off of private roads; creation of incompatible land uses with the A-70/A-72 neighborhoods; the MND is flawed opening the County to lawsuits (reference to the letter provided to the County dated 5-18-07 from G. Scott Williams of Seltzer Caplan/McMahon/Vitek for details; and hard to enforce rules. He can’t support the revision and feels the Major Use Permit process should remain in place. Smaller wineries could still prosper in the County by using existing by right Limited Wholesale Winery Operations, forming cooperative wine tasting rooms, and locating them in high traffic areas which are compatible with this type of commercial activity.
Mr. Brean feels the direction of the Boutique Wineries Zoning Ordinance Amendment is good. He doesn’t agree with item 8 of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment revision. He thinks the private road agreement is not feasible and so the Major Use Permit will apply. He would like to see item 8 scratched. He feels the visitor portion of the ordinance is well-defined.
Ms. Dorroh said that the item needs to be brought into CEQA compliance. Drivers influenced by alcohol driving on private roads is not addressed. People want big parcels. They should not receive special favors. Concerning Permanent Road Divisions (PRD), even the folks who are outvoted have to participate in a PRD. Homeowners on fixed incomes will be vulnerable to losing their parcels. People not being able to afford to build roads to today’s standards shouldn’t make others do it at their expense. Paving the road is growth inducing. Ms. Dorroh lives on a dead end road, which does deter some people. She wants the growth inducing aspects of the ordinance addressed per CEQA. There will be a water burden – water units are not addressed. Property owners will still have liability. She feels the Major Use Permit should still apply.
Ms. Osborn asked if one lives on a road, who pays to get it paved?
The Chair said that the funding is done by tax assessment, once there is a group of people involved who are willing to get assessed. The majority of people in an area decide. People who don’t agree who live in the area have to go along with it and be taxed, too. The road will be maintained periodically. A PRD has long term ramifications.
Ms. Dorroh said that the vote for a PRD is a weighted vote. If a person owns 10 acres, they may have 2 votes, while a neighbor with 5 acres may get one vote.
The Chair was not aware of this, and said it must have changed since the last time she reviewed it.
Ms. Osborn said she is shocked the RCPG would entertain doing this.
MOTION: TO ELIMINATE ITEM 8 FROM THE DOCUMENT.
Upon motion made by Torry Brean and seconded by Angus Tobiason, the Motion failed 5-2-3-0-5, with Carolyn Dorroh and Kristi Mansolf voting no, Chris Anderson, Dennis Grimes and Vivian Osborn abstaining, Matt Deskovick, Katherine L. Finley, Andrew Simmons and Luauna Stines absent, and Bill Jenkin resigned.
MOTION: TO SEND COMMENTS.
Upon motion made by Vivian Osborn and seconded by Chris Anderson, the Motion passed 10-0-0-0-5, with Matt Deskovick, Katherine L. Finley, Andrew Simmons and Luauna Stines absent, and Bill Jenkin resigned.
Comments