The slow-simmering process to determine the future of Santa Barbara’s wine country was tossed in the frying pan on Thursday night at the Marriott in Buellton, when about 200 people gathered to learn about and comment on the County of Santa Barbara’s plan to overhaul the winery ordinance. Though many expected yet another feisty affair in what has become a testy relationship between the wine industry and a few of its neighbors — the county even planned for as much, with “ground rules” that included “no personal attacks” as one of many guidelines — there was very little rancor and name-calling.
Matt Kettmann
A woman puts her suggestion on the wall during the winery ordinance update hearing on August 23.
Instead, amidst a who’s who of the county’s wine scene — from pioneers like Brooks Firestone to up-and-comers such as Brandon Sparks-Gillis of Dragonette Cellars — the hearing was more of a love-fest for the wine industry. Industry proponents, including numerous nonprofit directors, hotel representatives, and civic/business leaders from Lompoc, Buellton, and Solvang, dominated the meeting room, with the vast majority of those in attendance sporting “Wine = Jobs” stickers. Of the 43 people who spoke, more than 90 percent were in favor of existing or less regulations on the wine industry, with only three people expressing any desire for tighter permitting rules.
Matt Kettmann
In addition to public comments, attendees at the August 23 winery ordinance hearing were invited to submit suggestions via Post-it notes.
Although already discussed in smaller, private meetings held over the past year with various stakeholders, Thursday night was the first public hearing of the controversial update. In front of the room were six of the County Planning Department’s top brass, who explained that the update is likely to address six main issues: ordinance structure, tasting rooms, food service, special events, neighborhood compatibility, and enforcement/monitoring. In addition to those who spoke aloud, the county invited people to write their suggestions on Post-It notes and paste them on the walls under one of the six categories. Dozens did so.
Matt Kettmann
About 200 people packed the Buellton Marriott’s ballroom to learn more about the winery ordinance.
Though some are interested in improving the ordinance to respond to changes in the business, most winemakers fear that any tightening of the rules could do significant damage to the still emerging industry. Many argued that the existing ordinance, which was drafted less than a decade ago, still works well and that this process will only serve to cost the cash-strapped county a lot of unnecessary time and money.
Those in favor of stricter regulations, meanwhile, say that the rise in tasting rooms and special events throughout the Santa Ynez Valley could lead to traffic problems, drunk drivers, and noise and light pollution at night, among other impacts.
After the hearing’s comments are collected and made public, the next step is for a series of topic-based meetings, scheduled to occur in November. The hope is that a new ordinance would be drafted by summer of 2013.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace






Previous Month



Comments
Follow the money.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2012 at 2:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cirrohsis.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2012 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ken! Santa Ynez can adopt a mascot--a big grape (or a person dressed as one) and call him "Sir Osis".
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2012 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Did the winemakers pack the meeting?
Hey, billclausen, keep your day job. :-)
SezMe (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2012 at 1 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwould you like to go out and have a drink?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2012 at 5:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The wine industry owns this area completely. There is no question ever, that what the alcohol industry wants, the alcohol industry gets, and ANYBODY who dares to object on any level is immediately branded a prohibitionist who needs to "lighten up" and "get over it".
It's like living in a coal mining town; the mine owns everything and if you don't like it, then leave. It's that simple.
The Valley in particular, has slid down the toilet from an area of world-famous horses, flowers and unparalleled natural beauty to what it is now: a giant bar, casino, bus depot and bicycle racetrack. That's it, period. The tourist and moreover the drunk tourist, is God. Factor in the surrey pedal cart people and the Segway people noodling through private neighborhoods staring into people's yards and homes and there you have it; a once-spectacular paradise lost.
Will the last person staggering out the swinging saloon doors please shut the lights off?
Holly (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2012 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Holly, I think there should be a Prohibition: on -- crabby, sanctimonious, teetotalling Scolds.
"Factor in the surrey pedal cart people and the Segway people noodling through private neighborhoods staring into people's yards and homes and there you have it;" indeed.
Ah yes, I remember when people used to smile and wave to visitors, neighbors and bike riders. My guess is they (mostly) still are -- except you and your Anti-Saloon League confederate BillClausen are most likely waving an extended middle finger at them.
Chester_Arthur_Burnett (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2012 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CAB, they waved to people who stayed off their property!
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2012 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Holly, I think there should be a Prohibition: on -- crabby, sanctimonious, teetotalling Scolds."
Not to worry; "Hank" has been banned for his views, and we may be next. Diversity in thought isn't well tolerated 'round these parts.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2012 at 1:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All joking, sarcasm, insults aside, it truly is a joke to have a debate on the issue of alcohol because we know that the booze industry (like developers) gets almost everything it wants. Two words: "done deal" and don't forget: "follow the money".
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2012 at 1:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bill, Holly and Ken,
You know who apparently never "gets almost anything" they wan't?
People who write comments in this space.
If you dedicated yourselves to fighting any of the things you don't like in the same way that you dedicate yourselves to commenting here you might achieve something wonderful.
Then people would most certainly complain about what you accomplished in the comments whenever the Independent wrote a story about you...
Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2012 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well since I'm included, I write comments while I'm waiting for my computer to catch up with me- I work on my own projects and for the most part have everything I could want- and everything that's essential.
Thank you for your concern.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2012 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I work on my own projects"-Ken
Finding a cure for "cirrohsis" [sic], perhaps? Brewing a potion to combat hyperbole?
You were listed last intentionally as you seem to be the least prone to exaggeration and conspiratorial rhetoric.
Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2012 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Making movies, final editing stage :)
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2012 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's amazing how much time editing takes when I make little videos with Sony Vegas. Rendering too. Maybe some wine would make the time go faster.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2012 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That makes total sense based on your previous comments here.
Good on ya. I hope that in your lifetime you are able to edit many films that change the world in a positive way.
Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2012 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you very very much King Prawn :)
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2012 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kingprawn: I don't think what we do is in vain. (Although it might be) My goal is the hope that younger people who haven't been exposed to alternate types of thinking may read our various cogitations and realize there is more out there than just the conventional polemics.
This is a good example. We don't like the booze culture yet we are staunch anti-prohibitionists. (Which includes drugs) We love America but don't like our government. Love, hate, agree, or disagree with us, we really don't fit into any category. We also welcome such criticism and if you have any specific suggestions, we're open to them. Moreover, Ken, Hank, Holly and I occasionally have dinner on given Saturday nights, and if you wan't you can join us if you wish further discussion.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2012 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Bill,
IMO comments like, "follow the money" aren't unconventional and don't really add much to the conversation. That "saying" was probably uttered for the first time mere minutes after the invention of currency.
Holly's comments are composed in such an emotionally charged way that it's clear there isn't going to be much of a conversation. She tells people how it is and that's that. There's clearly no room for discussion or other views, which is unreasonable IMO. Hank's style was very similar to Holly's with a little more humor.
To address you're last point, most people and groups of people contradict themselves on a regular basis, myself included. That's fine. I think people can have more than one opinion about a topic and the two opinions don't have to be reconcilable. What's really interesting to me is when people try to figure out how they feel about something within a dialogue. Flexibility of thought is interesting. That doesn't happen here very often. Taking the hard line is much easier and, frankly, boring.
Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
August 29, 2012 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kingprawn: Sometimes one has to take a hard line. Forgive me for being so obviously rhetorical, but is taking anything other than a hard line against--let's say--bigotry--a sign of reasonable compromise?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 31, 2012 at 3:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"...is taking anything other than a hard line against--let's say--bigotry--a sign of reasonable compromise?"-Bill Clausen
That's an interesting question and a complete response would take up too much space here...so here's a brief reply.
In short, I say...it depends. If taking the hard line is effective and bigotry is reduced as a direct result than, by all means, carry on. Carry on. But, as is the more likely scenario based on the current general nature of discourse on this site, taking the hard line increases the distance between conversation partners or effectively alienates those you are attempting to persuade and an opportunity has been lost to further the cause.
Asking questions is good. You ask questions. Many folks here do not ask questions or they don't want to answer those posed by others in a mature way (or they ask them sarcastically as I did above) :-). Many here should question whether or not something adds to the discussion because, more often than not, it doesn't. What they should have said was...well, nothing. They should have said nothing. analyzing the arguments posed is often more interesting than taking sides or responding in anger because you disagree with (or don't understand) something someone has said or done.
Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
August 31, 2012 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)