Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grand Jury Winery Database topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After public pushback, supervisors send grand jury winery-database response back for further work and referrals
Summary
The board pulled the grand jury report response on winery data, pre-application reviews, fees and audits, heard extensive public comment urging retention of the winery database, and referred multiple follow-ups including a September return on the compliance program and a staff redraft of the response.
The Board of Supervisors on July 29 pulled the county's draft response to a grand jury report that raised questions about the county's winery database, pre-application process, fees and winery audits, and directed staff to return with a revised response and follow-up analysis.
The item drew substantial public comment from winery owners, researchers and community members who urged retaining the public-facing winery database that tracks production, visitation and marketing-event entitlements. "If you had a question and you said, 'I wonder what's going on over there on Silverado Trail,' you would go to the winery database," caller Kelly Anderson told the board. Several speakers said removing the dataset would shift public information requests onto county staff and slow transparency.
Planning director Brian Bordona told the board the winery layer was originally created out of the 2008 general plan to measure buildout and the county converted an older Access database into a GIS layer to enable spatial analyses. He said staff has proposed removing the public-facing layer while retaining internal maintenance because the dataset can be misused or interpreted incorrectly; staff reiterated that definitive entitlement documents remain available through the county's OnBase records or by requesting a formal status determination.
Staff provided workload estimates tied to the question of updating the dataset: Michael (planning staff) reported that the 21 status determinations done as part of code compliance averaged 14.2 staff hours each; extrapolating that rate to roughly 500 wineries would require about 7,100 staff hours (roughly 3.4 staff-years). Planning staff said status determinations are a thorough, department-wide review and that while they will maintain the data internally, a full public update would require dedicated resources.
Board members and multiple public speakers also urged renewed discussion of winery audits and of how pre-application meetings and fee structures affect timelines. Several supervisors asked staff to return with the code-compliance program wrap-up and a recommendation on how to proceed with audits; staff said they are targeting September for a compliance-program item to return to the board.
After extended discussion and public comment, Supervisor Alessio moved and Supervisor Ramos seconded a motion to bring the county's final grand jury response back to the board as an administrative item for further review and to refer staff follow-ups including a review of the compliance program and options for winery audits. The motion carried unanimously.
