PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 18, 2013

Transcription

1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 18, 2013 The San Joaquin County Planning Commission met in regular session on July 18, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., in the Public Health/Planning Commission Auditorium, 1601 East Hazelton Avenue, Stockton, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Miguel Villapudua. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was given. Roll Call: (present) Commissioners Miguel Villapudua, Chairman Clem Lee, Vice Chairman Stan Morri Randy Hamilton Chris Kontos County Staff Mark Myles, County Counsel Alex Chetley, Department of Public Works Frank Girardi, Environmental Health Department Community Development Department Staff Kerry Sullivan, Director John Funderburg, Principal Planner Mo Hatef, Senior Planner Megan Aguirre, Associate Planner Chuck Farano, Counter Manager Carla Raborn, Account Technician I APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING OF MAY 2, 2013 It was moved, seconded (Morri/Lee) and passed with a vote of 5-0. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING OF JUNE 20, 2013 It was moved, seconded (Lee/Morri) and passed with a vote of 4-0, with Commissioner Hamilton abstaining. ACTION ON REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES OR WITHDRAWALS Commissioner Villapudua asked if there were any request for continuances or withdrawals. Kerry Sullivan, Director stated that there is a request by Brett Jolley, counsel for the appellant on Item No. 5. He is requesting a continuance for one (1) month to work out an agreement with the parties affected by the Minor Subdivision Application. Joe Murphy, representing the owner, stated that they are opposed to the continuance and that if it is granted it will be approximately a year since the appeal was initiated and that the 10 months in which they have tried to resolve the matter is sufficient. He stated his client is trying to refinance his house and they would prefer not to delay the appeal hearing any longer. PC MINUTES

2 Commissioner Kontos asked Joe Murphy, if he did not want the Commission to give them one (1) additional month. Joe Murphy said, every day interest is climbing and this matter is having a significant impact on his client. Brett Jolley, Counsel for the appeallant, stated that the reason for the request is that there is a dispute with regard to access to the property. He stated that the interested parties have met and set out a plan with regard to the road way and access. Brett stated that Mr. Murphy s client agreed to contact all the interested parties and define a way to make the access to the properties equitable to all parties. He stated that although Mr. Murphy s client had tried to reach a consensus they are at an impasse with all the parties involved. Brett stated that the property behind Mr. Murphy s client has been sold or leased and there would be a Site Approval application submitted in the future for an Agricultural Processing facility. He stated that the issue of access needed to be solved for all the properties affected by the access road and not just for a few. He also stated that his client was now in contact with the missing link to the access issue and would be taking responsibility for contacting all parties to create a plan that would suit all. He stated that if granted a continuance they could probably solve the problem and find a way to make it work for all the parties involved. Commissioner Kontos asked if staff had a position with regard to the request. Kerry Sullivan stated, no, staff has no position it is entirely up to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kontos asked if the Commission followed staff s recommendation would this then go to the Board of Supervisors. Kerry Sullivan stated that it would only go to the Board of Supervisors if the Planning Commission s decision was appealed. Commissioner Kontos asked so if we deny the continuance request what happens. Kerry Sullivan stated if you deny the continuance then the Appeal is heard this evening. She stated that if the appeal is denied then there are appeal rights to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Lee stated upon reading staff s report on the agenda item the appeal was supposed to be before us in September 2012, it is now July 2013 and feels we should hear it tonight. MOTION: It was moved, seconded (Lee/Hamilton) and passed with a vote of 3-2 to: 1. Deny the Continuance on Agenda Item No. 5. VOTE: AYES: NOES: Hamilton, Lee, Kontos Morri, Villapudua PC MINUTES

3 1. USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. PA OF JOHN HAMILTON (C/O RICHARD CAVA) to convert a farm equipment repair facility into a facility for sorting, cleaning, and milling of nuts to be constructed in two phases over five years. Phase One includes the conversion of an existing 8,700 square foot farm equipment repair building into an agricultural preparation and storage building. Phase Two includes the conversion of an existing 11,300 square foot agricultural storage building into storage for packaged product. The project site is located on the south side of Lone Tree Road, 3,000 feet east of Escalon-Bellota Road, north of Escalon (Fourth Supervisorial District). CONSENT MOTION: It was moved, seconded (Lee/Kontos) and passed with a vote of 5-0 to: 1. Approve the Negative Declaration; and 2. Approve Use Permit Application No. PA with the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in the Staff Report VOTE: AYES: Lee, Kontos, Morri, Hamilton, Villapudua NOES: PC MINUTES

4 2. REVISION OF APPROVED ACTIONS FOR USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. UP OF HERVE AND COLLETTE CHEVAILLIER (C/O LA BONNE VIE CELLARS WINERY) to revise Condition of Approval 1.c. for a winery to add twenty-two (22) marketing events per year with a maximum attendance of 100 people per marketing event. The previously approved Use Permit application was for the construction of a small winery with a tasting room with no marketing events. The project site is located on the west side of Lehman Road, 2,400 feet south of Linne Road, south of Tracy (Supervisorial District 5). Commissioner Morri stated he would recuse himself. Mo Hatef, Senior Planner, introduced the staff report into the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: PROPONENTS: Herve Chevaillier, owner, stated he had been in business for 15 years. He stated he would like to have jazz concerts for the marketing events. He stated they have six (6) neighbors on the street and practice a good neighbor policy. OPPONENTS: Harpreet Grewal, neighbor, stated that his concerns were regarding noise and traffic. He stated that all the winery events are concentrated in the summer and almost every weekend and, if this project is approved, you would have almost 100 people coming to a country road with noise and music. He went on to say that these events are not accessory to the winery and subordinate to the primary agricultural use and that this is a ten (10) acre parcel with no grapes on it. He said the amount of wine they produce is very minimal and it appears that he wants marketing events before it is a working winery. He requested the Commission require the applicant to produce wine first and then come back to request marketing events. Commissioner Villapudua asked if Mr. Grewal lived at his house. Harpreet Grewal responded that the house is currently being constructed and he will be moving in within the next 2 months. Commissioner Villapudua asked if Mr. Grewal has experienced any problems from the winery. Harpreet Grewal responded that the original request was for a small winery with no marketing events and then the winery began to have marketing events with music and traffic issues. Commissioner Hamilton asked how close Mr. Grewal s residence is to the winery. Harpreet Grewal responded the house is 250 feet from the winery. Hal Robertson, neighbor, stated that he is a local farmer and his concern is they do not produce wine. He went on to say that the winery is never open for tastings and is closed on weekends and the only time it is open is for events. He stated he feels it is solely an events center. He said he was told that there would be only 40 people per event and four (4) events a year which would have 100 people. He said he would first like to see it developed as a winery and then begin marketing events and requested the marketing events be conducted without amplified noise. Commissioner Villapudua asked Mr. Robertson how close his residence is to the winery. Hal Robertson responded his residence is located 1,000 feet south of the winery. Commissioner Villapudua asked Mr. Robertson if he has experienced any problems with the winery. Hal Robertson responded that he can hear the music but he has not complained. He is concerned with the number of events and how the new owners will operate the winery if the winery is sold. PC MINUTES

5 REBUTTAL: Herve Chevaillier said you do not need to have a vineyard to be a winery. He buys the grapes and sells ninetyfive percent of his wine at the events PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Commissioner Lee asked if he is currently having events at the site. Herve Chevaillier responded yes. Commissioner Lee asked if the owner was planning on selling the property. Herve Chevaillier responded he is planning to sell the property. Commissioner Hamilton asked if there were vineyards at the site. Herve Chevaillier said he buys the grapes off site. Commissioner Kontos asked what the causes could be of losing the land use permit other than code violations. Kerry Sullivan stated the use runs with the land. If the zoning were to change, the property could become nonconforming. The permit could also be revoked. MOTION: It was moved, seconded (Hamilton/Lee) and passed with a vote of 4-0 to: 1. Deny Revisions of Approved Actions application No. UP VOTE: AYES: Hamilton, Kontos, Lee, Villapudua NOES: RECUSED: Morri PC MINUTES

6 3. REVISION OF APPROVED ACTIONS APPLICATION NO. PA OF WATTS TRUST (C/O MIKE SMITH ENGINEERING) to revise Condition of Approval 1.c. for a winery to permit indoor and outdoor amplified music at marketing events and increase the number of attendees per marketing event to 145 people per marketing event. The previously approved Use Permit application was for the conversion of a small winery into a large winery to be built in two phases over ten years with thirty marketing events per year with a maximum attendance of 100 people per marketing event with no amplified music. The project site is located at the southeast corner of State Route 12 and Locust Tree Road, east of Lodi (Supervisorial District 4). Mo Hatef, Senior Planner, introduced the staff report into the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: PROPONENTS: Mike Smith, representing the owner, stated he is involved with the winery expansion. The business has grown and needs modifications to the marketing events to continue to promote and sell wine. Commissioner Kontos asked how many marketing events have been conducted since the Planning Commission approved the expansion of the winery in September Kimmberlyn Ogren, representing the winery, said there have been three (3) events. Commissioner Kontos asked where the marketing event attendees park. Kimmberlyn Ogren replied that they have a guest parking area on-site. Commissioner Morri asked what prompted the request for the revisions to the marketing events. Kimmberlyn Ogren said the guests stated they could not hear the speech and music at the events. Commissioner Hamilton asked where the nearest residence to the winery is located. Kimmberlyn Ogren said 600 feet northeast and 80 feet north of the winery but the speakers will be faced in the opposite direction from the residences. Pat Patrick, President of Lodi Chamber of Commerce, stated Watts Winery is a winery first. OPPONENTS: William Schmer, neighbor, said he can hear the music from the property and stated cars are parked along both sides of Locust Tree Road. He stated he is not opposed to having the events but he is opposed to loud music and parking along the street. Gretchen Dobler, neighbor, stated she can hear the noise at the events and also sees cars parked along the street. Carl Elkins, neighbor, stated he is opposed to the amplified music. Bruce Blodgett, San Joaquin County Farm Bureau, stated the Farm Bureau would like to see the wineries established first to ensure marketing events are an accessory and subordinate use. He felt traffic and noise are two areas of concern and the current ordinance does not properly mitigate these two issues. REBUTTAL: Kimmberlyn Ogren stated the music being heard is from another property and not the winery. She stated parking is contained on-site and there is a parking attendant present at marketing events to not prohibit parking along the street. PC MINUTES

7 Commissioner Kontos asked if the wine ordinance contains noise provisions. Kerry Sullivan stated the department looks at the County s noise ordinance and may include noise standards if the winery ordinance is revised. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Commissioner Kontos asked staff if there is a noise ordinance. Kerry Sullivan stated absent something in the wine ordinance, the department looks at the County s noise ordinance. She stated amplified noise is a real issue and it is likely this noise issue will be revisited with the winery ordinance update. MOTION: It was moved, seconded (Lee/Morri) and passed with a vote of 3-2 to: VOTE: 1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 2. Approve the Revisions of Approved Actions for previously approved Use Permit Application No. PA with the revised Findings and revised Conditions of Approval contained in the staff report, with the exception to prohibit outdoor amplified sound. AYES: NOES: Lee, Morri, Villapudua Kontos, Hamilton ABSENT: PC MINUTES

8 4. SITE APPROVAL APPLICATION NO. PA OF ANDREA MALEY (C/O MIKE SMITH ENGINEERING) for a small winery to be built in two phases over a ten year period with twenty marketing events per year with a maximum attendance of 100 people per marketing event. Phase One includes the conversion of an existing 2,710 square foot residence into a winery with a tasting room, commercial kitchen, and bridal suite, the conversion of an existing 456 square foot agricultural building into wine storage, and the construction of a 200 square foot crush pad. Phase Two includes the construction of a 5,000 square foot building for wine storage and processing. The project site is located on the east side of Davis Road, 1,218 feet south of State Route 12, Lodi (Supervisorial District 4). Mo Hatef, Senior Planner, introduced the staff report into the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: PROPONENTS: Mike Smith, representing the owner, stated the owner is a wine maker who has been making wine for 30 years. He stated the commercial kitchen is accessory to the winery and not meant as a restaurant. He stated the owner included marketing events in order to compete with other area wineries. Commissioner Morri asked how many vines are on the property. Mike Smith stated there are no vineyards at the site currently. Commissioner Morri asked to clarify the use of the bridal suite. Mike Smith stated the bedroom will be used for event set up. Robert Lawson, winery owner, stated Andrea Maley is their wine maker and produces wine. Andrea Maley, owner, stated she has been making wine for several years and bought this property due to the location. Kerry Sullivan clarified that only an offsite wine cellar requires vineyards to be contained onsite. She stated it is not uncommon for a winery to buy grapes offsite and then produce the wine onsite. OPPONENTS: Kenneth Warburton, neighbor, stated he is opposed to the project. He believes Finding Number 2 can not be made in the affirmative because there isn t room for parking spaces and a retention pond onsite. He stated Finding Number 4 can not be made in the affirmative because the traffic poses a safety risk. He stated Finding Number 5 can not be made in the affirmative because the potential noise, in addition to traffic, is not compatible with adjoining land uses. If this project is approved, he recommended to add, as conditions of approval, that the sound system will be mounted and a contact number be provided for neighbors during events, events should be held every other weekend with no events during weekdays, a ten foot sound wall should be constructed between his property and the winery along the property line, and the proposed drainage pond should be located in the northeast corner of the property. Bruce Blodgett, San Joaquin County Farm Bureau stated the Farm Bureau supports wineries but said events need to be accessory and subordinate to the main use. He is also concerned with the small parcel size and if this will set a precedent. REBUTTAL: Andrea Maley stated the size of the parcel does not directly relate to the gallons of wine produced and she is an experienced wine maker and plans on producing wine at the site. She stated she hears noise from two nearby wineries but that it is not bothersome and the music ends by 10 p.m. PC MINUTES

9 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Commissioner Lee stated he believes the events are coming before the winery and although he believes the owner is a winemaker, he must oppose the approval. Commissioner Hamilton stated he is also considered that this is an event center and not a winery first. Commissioner Morri stated he can not support the project because he believes the owner will be having events prior to the winery being completed. Commissioner Kontos asked staff if the current ordinance indicates a minimum acreage requirement for wineries. Kerry Sullivan stated the current ordinance does not require a minimum parcel size and indicated there are existing wineries with parcel sizes less than five acres. MOTION: It was moved, seconded (Hamilton/Kontos) and passed with a vote of 4-1 to: 1. Deny Site Approval Application No. PA VOTE: AYES: NOES: Hamilton, Kontos, Lee, Morri Villapudua ABSENT: PC MINUTES

10 5. APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT S APPROVAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NO. PA OF BEVERLY SAMBADO ETAL (C/O RICHARD ATKINS) to subdivide two parcels totaling 69.0 acres into a 2.0 acre home site parcel and a 67.0 acre designated remainder. The project site is located along a private road (De Martini Lane), 1/4 mile north of the access point at Comstock Road, Linden (Supervisorial District 4). John Funderburg, Principal Planner introduced the staff report into the record PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: PROPONENTS: Brett Jolley, for the Appellant (Richard Atkins), stated that he is not seeking resolution by the Commission tonight but that he would again request a continuance on the basis that the access easement that is in place far exceeds the legal access to which the property that s being proposed for this project. In staff s presentation of the picture of the existing access easement you need to imagine that the property line of my client runs along the easterly edge of the existing road and there is a 12 foot easement which provides access to the other parcels and that the 12 foot easement ends about the middle of the existing paved road. If my client fenced off his property the fence would run down the middle of the road. They do not wish to do that but there is concern because over the years De Martini has added paving which encroached a foot or so at a time and now is encroaching into my clients orchard and they cannot allow it to continue. Mr. Jolley stated, because the problem is the access to get fire trucks back to the parcels involved in the Minor Subdivision application and other vehicles it is not legally as wide as the code shows. By approving the application based on the assumption that you have the entire width of road way to be used the Commission is sanctioning the approval of this without taking into consideration the limited access. Mr. Jolley stated we do not wish to see this application denied and, my clients do not want to deny Mr. Costigliolo his ability to split the parcel, however, we do want the ability work out the access issues as the right-of-way has substantially deformed over the years and does not correctly reflect what the legal access is to his parcels. We were not involved with the negotiations other than agreeing to create a document which all interested parties could sign off on and would recognize the legal right of way. Mr. Murphy and his client took that document for six (6) months and were unsuccessful in getting the other neighbors to sign off on it. So in the last month my clients have been working on a resolution to that and are working with the proposed lease holders for the existing agricultural processing facility and who eventually will be coming in to apply for an application. Mr. Jolley stated his clients want all the parties involved to sit down and resolve the access problem rather than have the Commission approve a subdivision where you have less legal access than currently exists. My clients are at their wits end over the excessive use of the right-of -way onto the property, but would like to reach a resolution without going to court or asking the Commission to referee that process. So the basis of our concern is that the access to the site is not adequate as it now stands, but we think we can work to get adequate access out there by working with the new owners who have agreed to lease the processing facility. Commissioner Lee asked Mr. Jolley, what has changed for the site. I am guessing by looking at the road it that it has been the way forever. Brett Jolley, responded no, it is my understanding that over the years De Martini who operated the agricultural processing facility would come out and chip seal and pave over the existing road and each time when he would pave he would extend it a little wider each time. So the access road has morphed over the years because De Martini has exceeded the 12 foot easement and changed the original access road. Commissioner Lee asked are we talking by feet, yards, meters. Brett Jolley responded that at this point it is about 12 feet beyond the 12 foot easement. You have in some areas a 20 foot wide requirement for access and they have doubled their right-of-way by allowing the paving and gravel to go onto my client s property. PC MINUTES

11 Brett Jolley stated, just from a public safety stand point, if you look at the legal access that is out there of 12 feet, is there sufficient clearance to get fire trucks out there and are you meeting the standards that the County requires for public safety and access for parcels. Commissioner Lee stated, in your presentation didn t you state that it is sufficient and the fire department has signed off on that. Brett Jolley responded yes, the fire department has determined the access is sufficient. But my understanding is that the fire department determined that by looking at the road and not what the legal access is. I do not believe an assessment has been done based on the legal easement allowed or the legal right of way. Commissioner Kontos asked Mr. Jolley, this application was approved on September 16, 2012, wasn t the access issue raised prior to that approval and discussed? Brett Jolley responded yes it was discussed with staff, however, I do not believe the applicant had reached out to us, but we had put our objections in prior to the approval. Commissioner Kontos asked Mr. Jolley, if when that objection was made did the Planning Commission vote on it. Brett Jolley, responded that the application was approved at staff level and after we filed an appeal in September the applicant through their engineer Mr. Murphy asked if we can sit down to discuss the access issue. My client met Mr. Murphy and the applicant at my office and we came up with what we felt was a good resolution and gave it to the applicant to run with and received word last month that it was not going to work. Mr. Jolley stated, Mr. Murphy s client felt he was at an impasse with the other people who share the right-ofway. It was at this point we stepped in and now we feel we are making progress on the access issue. Commissioner Hamilton asked, so you believe you can resolve this issue outside of the Commission if granted a continuance? Brett Jolley responded yes that is our goal. We are now in contact with Turkhan Foods, and discussing widening the legal access across my client s property for the agricultural processing facility. Commissioner Hamilton asked are your clients here this evening. Brett Jolley responded no, they are not. OPPONENTS: Joe Murphy, representing the applicant stated this project was approved September 16, 2012 and they met with Mr. Jolley in September of 2012 and tried to work something out and waited until January 2013 for an agreement that he wanted us to take the lead on. The appeal says there is not legal access, the applicant has owned the property since 1922 and the easement has been in place since 1922, and we believe it to be legal access. Of the claim that the paved road is wider than the easement, no one doubts that. If the Atkins family wants to tear out the pavement, up to easement line, it is their property they can do what they want. My client maintains that he did not widen the pavement, Mr. De Martini did so and he is not a player in the agreement. We are here before you saying we have legal access, the County and Fire Department agree. The condition they are contesting says that if there is a home in the future then you must again have County and Fire Department approval and we have no problem with that. We have tried to reach a solution and not all the names and individuals for which we needed signatures from were on the agreement. Commissioner Villapudua asked if there was any way to find resolution in the matter. Joe Murphy responded no, Mr. De Martini is not willing to participate. PC MINUTES

12 Commissioner Villapudua stated that if given additional time and opportunity to reach an agreement it could be worked out. Joe Murphy responded I don t doubt Mr. Jolley s intent, however, I would rather a discussion be made tonight so we all can move forward. Both sides are not going to be happy, I would like the matter decided tonight. Commissioner Villapudua stated I think it is too deep and we do not know the whole story. Commissioner Morri stated he wished all the parties were here so we could ask the appellant questions regarding the access road. Commissioner Villapudua stated I think given the chance to work things out there would be no appeal and given the chance to speak to them in the next thirty days everyone could work something out and avoid an appeal three (3) months from now. Commissioner Morri stated that some of the Commission would not be here 30 days from now. Joe Murphy stated as everyone is here now, I would rather win or lose tonight than wait another month. Commissioner Kontos asked if staff is recommending we deny the appeal. Mark Myles, County Counsel, responded that is correct. Commissioner Kontos asked staff if the next step would be is an appeal to the Board of Supervisors. Mark Myles, responded yes they can do so. Commissioner Kontos asked how long it would take to be heard by the Board of Supervisors. Kerry Sullivan, Director responded it depends on their calendar. We do try to have items heard within a month; however, it all depends of the Board s calendar. Commissioner Kontos asked then it would be about 2 weeks. Kerry Sullivan, Director responded no, it would take at least a month. Commissioner Kontos stated so if we accept staff s recommendation and it is appealed to the Board of Supervisors, thirty days is going to pass anyway. Kerry Sullivan, Director responded yes. MOTION: It was moved, seconded (Hamilton/Kontos) and passed with a vote of 5-0 to: 1. Deny the Appeal VOTE: AYES: Hamilton, Kontos, Lee, Morri, Villapudua NOES: ABSENT: PC MINUTES

13 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Bruce Blodgett, San Joaquin County Farm Bureau, stated he would like to introduce the new Program Director Julianne Phillips. Julianne Phillips stated she looks forward to working with the Planning Commission to protect the agricultural land in the County. OTHER BUSINESS: Planning Commissioners Comments Winery Moratorium Development Title Text Amendment Discussion Commissioner Kontos stated he has seen a number of winery and event center applications and would like staff to give an overview of the moratorium. Kerry Sullivan stated the existing ordinance was adopted in The intent of the ordinance is to establish a winery first and that marketing events are ancillary and subordinate to the winery. Since then, the department has seen several winery land use applications and there is concern that the events are sometimes the primary use and are not accessory to the winery. An Ad Hoc committee was formed consisting of two Board of Supervisor members and they provided direction to the department to prepare a Text Amendment for a moratorium on marketing events for wineries until the update of the Development Title, after completion of the General Plan update. The Text Amendment would permit wineries but not permit marketing events or any revisions to existing approved marketing events of wineries. The Planning Commission denied the Text Amendment and tasked a new group, the Winery Ordinance Task Force, comprised of different stakeholders, with preparing a draft ordinance and reporting back to the Planning Commission. Since that time, the Board also approved an additional planning staff member in this year s budget so the department may be able to work on the winery ordinance sooner if that is the intent of the Board. Ms. Sullivan stated she expects the update of the ordinance to be contentious and will involve various stakeholders. Commissioner Lee stated he would like to reenact the Text Amendment. Kerry Sullivan said if we are redirected to reinitiate the processing of the Text Amendment, she suggests starting the review process from the beginning, including public notice, environmental review, and scheduling the item for the Planning Commission. Mark Myles, County Counsel, stated it would be appropriate for the Commission to have a motion, a second, and a vote on whether or not to reactivate the winery Text Amendment. Commissioner Lee stated he would like to make a motion to reinitiate Text Amendment Application No. PA Commissioner Kontos stated he is in favor of the moratorium and a better ordinance will benefit everyone and is going to second Commissioner Lee s motion. Mark Myles, County Counsel, advised the Commission to open up the Development Title Text Amendment discussion for public comments prior to taking a vote. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Pat Patrick, CEO of Lodi Chamber of Commerce stated the Lodi Chamber of Commerce worked with the Farm Bureau, the Visitors Bureau of Lodi, and the Lodi District Grape Growers Association to draft a winery ordinance document that was delivered to the Commission last year in November. He also stated, we are very proud of the work we did; there are six (6) pages here that can be a litmus test and can be a tool for the Commission to use when making decisions regarding discretionary planning applications. We addressed noise, parking and not allowing wineries to congregate around any given intersection, and we put teeth into it from an enforcement standpoint. PC MINUTES

14 He stated we expected a land slide of wineries coming in to ask for more marketing events; however, we did not see as many as expected as they anticipated a moratorium being put in place. Mr. Patrick stated he is against the moratorium because he believes it will stunt job growth and impact the economy. Dan Durst, winery owner, stated he is against the moratorium and that marketing events are essential to a new winery in order to expand. Nick Bokides, a local grape grower, stated he is on the board of the Farm Bureau and Commissioner of the Lodi Wine Grape Commission. He is against the moratorium because it is the wrong time. The grapes grown in the county are a high quality and have helped boost the economy because the grapes are being marketed worldwide. He believes the document drafted by the Winery Ordinance Task Force is a good guide for updating the winery ordinance. Commissioner Lee stated the moratorium would enable time to develop a new ordinance. He liked the winery document submitted by the task force but the problem is that, at this point, it is only an informal document. He stated he withdraws his motion to reinstate the Text Amendment. Commissioner Kontos stated he would like to renew the motion. He stated he does not believe the moratorium will create a loss of jobs. He stated the moratorium will enable the existing ordinance to be rewritten. Motion died for lack of a second. Kerry Sullivan stated she is working with Supervisor Vogel s office to get direction from the Board on reviewing the winery ordinance now to finish the process sooner then at the conclusion of the General Plan. The hearing was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. MIGUEL VILLAPUDUA, Chairman *** KERRY SULLIVAN, Secretary PC MINUTES