On Tuesday, the Oakley City Council took steps that could allow for more wineries and tasting rooms to open within city limits.
The city council discussed rezoning text amendments to its ordinance to allow for smaller properties to potentially apply for proper permits to open a winery—currently, only those in R-20 and R-40 Districts are allowed because they have 20,000 and 40,000 square feet. However, the Oakley Municipal Code does not permit wineries, tasting rooms and processing of agricultural products in any of the single family districts with minimum lot sizes of less than 20,000 square feet.
According to the staff report, the main purpose of the zoning text amendments was to encourage further economic development within the City.
With action Tuesday, this will allow properties with at least 20,00 square feet and an existing vineyard, the option to apply for a conditional use permit for a commercial winery, tasting room, or other processing of their viticulture products, which will result in helping viticulturalists continue their practices by opening new avenues for financial stability and opportunities for more small businesses in the City of Oakley.
Ken Strelo, Community Development Director stated that the way the ordinance was proposed was those who have an existing vineyard in place at the time of submission for the conditional use permit.
Councilmember Shannon Shaw stated she was in support of the section regarding the wine related uses, calling it “great” to allow smaller properties to have the same opportunities as larger properties.
Fuller wanted the item to come back as separate ordinances which included wineries as one, agricultural products as another and car washes.
Councilmember Aaron Meadows supported the ordinance as is.
Mayor Anissa Williams suggested the reason agricultural products was included in the ordinance was because wine was a product of a vineyard—city attorney again stated at the time of an application they must already have a vineyard so someone couldn’t just go straight to production of agricultural products. Williams also added this was envisioned for vineyards, not orchards.
Meadows said over the years many people have wanted to protect the vineyards and agriculture in the area and this was a way to do it–at least for a little while longer.
“I know we have all heard it over the years that we want to protect the vineyards and my comment is they are just sitting there until a developer comes along to redevelop them but if we can allow wineries to go on some of these parcels, it will protect at least those parcels at least for a while,” said Meadows. “It does help the vineyard owners. Allows them to continue to grow. Right now, the state of the grape industry is a disaster. “
Meadows shared he is in the industry and the winery that has bought from him the past three years has cut back and they are not purchasing any grapes in Contra Costa County.
“There is a massive oversupply of grapes and bulk wine. If we can help protect the vineyards we do have, they may stay a little longer,” shared Meadows.
Williams agreed noting the saying goes if you want to make a $1 million in wine, you better have $2 million in the beginning because it’s a losing proposition.
“I want us to stay as true to our agricultural roots as possible,” said Williams.
Shaw motioned to approve zoning text amendments removing car washes from the ordinance. It was seconded by Williams.
Fuller asked clarifying questions which Cole explained, but said he would abstain saying it was “too confusing”.
Approved in 4-0-1 vote with Fuller abstaining.
Car Wash: With it being removed from the ordinance, this will return at a later date.
Fuller Inaccurately Claims Cannabis Part of Winery Ordinance
During the meeting, Councilmember George Fuller suggested he saw cannabis and that he should have printed it or taken a screen shot, suggesting the agendas were switched out and a secret staff report floating around somewhere.
Mayor Anissa Williams asked about the agenda packet and in both agendas there was no mention of cannabis and wanted to confirm with staff that there was no “secret staff report” that no one saw that talked about cannabis.
“It says wineries and car washes, but was there a secret staff report that accidentally got out somehow,” asked Williams.
Strelo replied, “I can say this, there was no draft version that ever-included cannabis. We don’t have secret staff reports or anything. No draft versions, no administrative versions. In fact, cannabis quite frankly is illegal to grow outdoors. You can have up to 6 plants indoors, fully enclosed.”
Councilmember Shannon Shaw confirmed changing the ordinance simply allowed smaller properties to have a winery and changes no rules on cannabis.
Strelo confirmed Shaw’s statement.
“I am in support of this,” said Shaw noting they have this same ordinance on larger properties.
City Manager Josh McMurray stated the reason the winery ordinance was brought forward because they do have interest from at least one property owner and they could have more in the near future.
Here is the video:
CEQA Question
With some commentary by Fuller alleging the staff report would somehow bypass CEQA, city attorney and staff corrected him – noting first they have to change the ordinance and someone would have to apply for a permit before they would take action on CEQA.
City Attorney Derek Cole shared that in the agenda, they provide a special CEQA finding.
“Whenever we have land use matter before the planning commission or you, I work with the city clerk to make sure the CEQA determination we are asking the council to make in that land use matter, CUP, re-zone or anything involving a zoning interpretation that we specifically call that out in the agenda,” stated Cole noting they do this specifically due to court cases and The Brown Act requires that. He said the city has specially called out the CEQA item in the agenda.
Vineyard on Live Oak in Oakley during winter months
Wine Education: Vineyards Do Go Brown in Winter Months
With Fuller stuck on cannabis, he questioned staff on their definition of vineyard and why vineyards are brown and look dead.
Councilmember George Fuller questioned the definition of a vineyard within the ordinance—suggesting a secret staff report that included cannabis but was removed. He also wanted to know if Oakley considered brown vineyards as dead and could be switch out for another agricultural grow.
Strelo confirmed it would mean an agricultural production of grapes.
Councilmember Aaron Meadows offered clarification to Fuller as he owns vineyards.
“I want to clarify I see two things in the ordinance. I see wineries, and I see car washes,” stated Meadows. “Further clarification on vineyards, you don’t have to have irrigation in a vineyard to have a vineyard. I have a non-irrigated vineyard, there are a lot of non-irrigated vineyards in Oakley. They are the old vineyards. My vineyards are brown in the wintertime because there is no leaves on them. But in the spring, they turn green. Just cause you are looking at a vineyards that is brown, doesn’t mean it’s dead.”
Staff Report: click here
Related Content:
- June 14 – TTB Establishes Contra Costa AVA and Expands Central Coast and San Francisco Bay AVAs
- Jan 22 – 2024 San Francisco Chronicle Wine Competition Sweepstakes Winners
