Happy Canyon wine tasting argued
A
proposal to allow the staging of events at a Happy Canyon winery and to add
facilities there brought a substantial turnout Mon., April 7, pro and con, at a
hearing by Zoning Administrator Doug Anthony.
Owners
of the Barrack Winery have asked for permission to construct a new tasting room
at their winery, and to hold four tasting events a year. Under the proposal,
only four events a year would be approved, and any others would have to have a
special event permit. County zoning staff has reviewed the requests and
recommends acceptance, despite vocal opposition from a number of the winery’s
neighbors.
Supporters
of the changes at Barrack winery included T.J. Barrack, son of the facility’s
owner, and Jeremy Roberts, an architect and agent for the family. Opponents of
some aspects of the proposed development included Bob Field, a Santa Ynez
resident speaking on behalf of a number of local homeowners, and Nancy
Crawford-Hall, a local cattle rancher and publisher of the Santa Ynez Valley
Journal.
After
hearing testimony about the proposed additions to the winery, Anthony said he
would not make a determination at once. “I’m asking for information,” Anthony
said.
The
main point of contention at the hearing was whether the winery could conduct
wine tastings strictly within the industry, and not have public wine tastings
like those popular in nearby grape-growing areas.
Speaking
on behalf of the expansion, T.J. Barrack addressed the hearing: “I’m 30 years
old and I’ve lived there all my life. We can take this Ag (agriculture) process
and bring it home. We share a deep love for Happy Canyon and Santa Ynez Valley,
and are making sure the work will not adversely impact the area.”
Also
supporting the proposal was Jeremy Roberts, an architect representing the
Barrack family. “They have 58 acres of
grapes in a very private location,” he said. “The property is in a kind of
bowl, and the nature of this is private. It’s Ag 2
zoning. They have a cottage, barn and a mobile bottling facility. The
entertaining room is for the use of the family, not intended for retail sales,
but buyers from the wine industry.”
Speaking
for 140 neighbors in Happy Canyon, Robert Field first said, “We appreciate the
progress that’s been made with the Barrack family. There is nothing personal.
We hope this can be resolved, and we may be in agreement on wine tasting.
“This
hearing is about conditions, development that is not allowed everywhere.
Because of uses in Happy Canyon, we believe this is appropriate. Any wine
tasting beyond this is not appropriate.
“We
don’t believe the staff report. It could be used as an example of bias. It
provides no argument in favor of any other outcome. It ignores major issues.
Our concern is that the [number of] private tastings have no limit.”
The
county staff recommendation was for acceptance of four private tasting events a
year and any others would have to have special event permits.
Frank
Blundell introduced himself as an attorney and local resident, and a parent of
a teen driver. He discussed his concerns about the additional building and
activity:
“There
are families with young children, folks who ride horses and bikes. The road can
get very foggy. The turns are not well-marked. There’s no room for error.
“I’m
trying to keep my daughter away from wineries and drunk drivers. I’d be very
concerned about teenage drivers and people who’ve had too much to drink.
“As
an attorney, I see liability issues. Two women in Orange County were injured
and they received a settlement of $49 million. There had been complaints for
years (about wineries and drivers). Your staff report is incorrect. The County
and its representatives could be liable. The state has awarded a grant of
$600,000 to deal with drunk drivers in Santa Barbara County.”
Rancher
and publisher Crawford-Hall testified that she had not heard about the hearing
until a neighbor asked her to sign a petition. “I’m concerned about if the
access is Ag related,” she said.
“It
would be the same as me asking to put a meat-packing plant on my property. The
staff reports I found to be a joke. I’m concerned about the noise level.”
Crawford-Hall
called some purported attempts by the Barrack family “commendable.” But, she said, only “one way up Happy Canyon was approved. I think
this could have a serious impact. It’s hostile.
“Big
trucks cannot negotiate those curves using only their own one lane. They (the
county planners) need to notify people who will be impacted. I’m personally
appalled by staff. I think it’s a very shoddy way for the county to treat
people.”
Crawford-Hall
also said she has heard rumors that there may be Native American remains at the
site of the proposed development.
After
hearing all the testimony, Anthony said he would continue the hearing in four
weeks, May 7. He asked County planners to return with further information:
1.
A correct transportation analysis. What the range is, the varied widths of
Happy Canyon road.
2.
Report on the adequacy of the road.
3.
“What about Baseline, we might as well look at that as well.”
4.
Traffic for private tasting special events has been clarified, but he needs
“clear expectations if a wine-tasting club is created. What can we expect the
full amount of traffic to be.”
5.
More information on accidents.
The hearing before Anthony will resume at 9:30 a.m. on
May 7 at the county planning and development hearing room, 123 East Anapamu, Santa Barbara.