HomeMy WebLinkAboutMoriairty Appeal-Planning Directors Use Determination-2128 Mesa DrCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item: 3
April 7, 2005
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3210, icamobell Ccr7city.newgort- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Moriarty Appeal of the Planning Director's Use Determination
2128 Mesa Drive
APPELLANT: Richard Moriarty
ISSUE
Should the Planning Commission permit the processing of grapes grown off site on a
property within the RA (Residential Agriculture) zone as well as allow the retail sale of
wine from the site?
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the appeal and allow the
importation of grapes or juice to be processed into wine provided that the importation
constitutes less than 50% of the total amount of grapes or juice processed at the site.
DISCUSSION
Background
The appellant, Richard Moriarty, owns a property located at 2128 Mesa Drive in the
Santa Ana Heights area. He also has planted wine grapes and presently processes the
grapes into wine. The property is within the RA zone and it permits the planting, raising
and processing of agricultural products.
The appellant requested the ability to process grapes that are grown off -site, and the
Planning Director determined that the activity would be classified as "food processing"
and pursuant to Section 20.10.020 (Residential Permitted Uses), the activity is not
permitted in the RA zone.
The appellant has requested that the Planning Commission review this determination
with the hopes that the Commission will permit the activity. Mr. Moriarty desires to
process the grapes grown on his adjacent neighbor's property as well as he would like
Moriarty Appeal
April 7, 2005
Page 2
to bring in grapes or juice from other off -site sources to augment fluctuating on -site
production to maintain a consistent production levels.
Analysis
Chapter 20.05 establishes use classifications by category and the permitted use section
of any individual zone either permits, permits it subject to limitations or through a use
permit or it does not permit the activity.
The following categories are relevant to this case:
20.05.070 Agriculture and Extractive Use Classifications
B. Crop Production. Raising and harvesting of tree crops, row crops,
greenhouse crops, or field crops on an agricultural or commercial basis,
including packing and processing.
20.05.060 Industrial Use Classifications
A. Food Processing. Establishments primarily engaged in the manufacturing or
processing of food or beverages for human consumption and wholesale
distribution.
As noted above, crop production is permitted in the RA zone and food processing is not
(Section 20.10.020). Retail sales are also not listed as a permitted use within the RA
zone.
Staff made a distinction between processing of on -site grapes and off -site grapes or
juice based upon the description of crop production. It was felt that allowing the
processing of off -site products could give rise to increased activity potentially creating a
nuisance to the neighbors without the ability of the City to curb it. The subject property is
a little over 3 acres and could likely accommodate some higher level of activity, but staff
was concerned about increasing quasi - industrial activity over time in a residential area.
The appellant's request to process grapes grown on his abutting neighbor's property
does not present a significant concern to staff. Importing grapes or juice from other off-
site sources, provided it is limited in quantity might be accommodated so long as it does
not constitute the primary source. In staffs mind, if more than 50% of the source of
grapes or juice processed at the site were imported, the activity would be food
processing and therefore not permitted. Staff did not make this distinction previously as
there is no mechanism to effectively regulate or monitor such a determination.
Moriarty Appeal
April 7, 2005
Page 3
Should the Planning Commission believe that the importation of grapes or juice be
acceptable given the circumstances of this case, staff would suggest that the
importation of grapes or juice be limited to less than 50% of on -site production.
The appellant desires to sell his wine directly to customers at licensed farmer's markets
as well as internet sales. Staff has no objection to these activities and considers these
types of sales, including wholesale distribution of wine produced at the site, reasonable
methods of distribution of the product and otherwise allowable. Mr. Moriarty states in his
e -mail that he does not wish to have on -site retail sales or a wine tasting room where
customers visit the site. This type of retail sales would not be permitted without some
sort of amendment to the permitted uses allowed in the RA zone. Staff would be
concerned about the potential intensity of such an activity within a residential area and
any nuisances that could be created.
Environmental Review
The activity in question and the use determination before the Commission qualifies for a
Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the Implementing Guidelines of the
California Environmental Quality Act. This exemption relates to existing facilities and
allows actions where there is a negligible or no expansion of use. Allowing the
processing of grapes or juice from off site sources will allow the appellant to maintain
existing production levels due to fluctuations in crop yield.
Public Notice
No notice is required for an appeal of the determination of the Director pursuant to the
Municipal Code as the original determination does not require public notice.
Altematives
The Planning Commission can deny the appeal and uphold the determination of the
Director.
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
Ja es W. Mmpbell, Senior Planner Patricia L. Temple, Plafining Director
Exhibits: 1. Use Determination Letter
2. E -mail from Richard Moriarty
PAI PLANCOM120051040nMoriarty _appeal.doc
Exhibit No. 1
Use Determination Letter
I � AA1C11►[ef 17� 7 \;71 Y�51 s1►fl 1
April 19, 2000
Richard Moriarty
20362 Birch Street
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear Mr. Moriarty
I have been in contact with Kim Wymer of the Newport Beach Police Department and Mike Korson ofthe Department
of Alcoholic Beverage Control concerning your application for a Type 2 Winegrower license for your property at 2128
Mesa Drive. Based on the information I have received, it appears that the winery operation differs from the one you
described in your December 13, 1999 letter. Therefore, I asked the Planning Director, Patricia Temple, to review the
application for consistency with the land use regulations of the Residential - Agricultural (R -A) District. ,
The Planning Director has concluded that the RA District permits by right the raising, harvesting, packing, and
processing of crops, including grapes. Processing may include the crushing, fermentation and aging of grapes to
produce wine. However, such processing must be limited to the crops grown on the property. The fermentation and
aging of juice produced elsewhere would constitute a different land use, food processing, which is not permitted in the
RA District. Furthermore, once the crop is packaged and processed, it cannot be returned for additional processing or
for storage because it would run counter to the purpose of the zoning district, which is for residential and light farting
and not for food processing, storage, and distribution. This means that any preservatives or other additives must be
included while the crop is being processed on the property.
The bottling of the wine via a mobile bottling unit is incidental to crop production. Therefore, it is permitted as an
accessory use, but once again, only for the wine produced from grapes grown on the property. Wine tasting and on -sale
or off -sale of wine directly to customers is not permitted.
Decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Should you wish to file an appeal, it
must be made in writing to the Planning Director.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 644 -3235
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Alford
Senior Planner
Cc: Kim Wymer, NBPD
Mike Korson, ABC
9
Exhibit No. 2
Appellant's e-mail
0
Page I of 2
Subj: RE: From Richard Moriarty
Date: 21221200510 :53:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: PTempleacitv.newport- beach.ca.us
To: A BKBAYCUVEE aacs.com
Received from Intemet: click here for more information
We will start work on your appeal upon receipt of the $975 appeal fee. You can make a check out to the City of
Newport Beach and send it to Senior Planner James Campbell, who will oversee preparation of the report to the
Planning Commission.
/ RECEIVED BY
Patricia Temple PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Planning Director CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City of Newport Beach
949 -644 -3228 FEB 2 2 2605 PM
949- 644 -3229 (FAX) AM
ptemple @city.newport- beach.ca.us 71819110111112111213141516
http : / /www.city.newport- bectch.ca,us
- -- -Original Message--- -
From: BKBAYCUVEE @cs.com [mailto:BKBAYCUVEE @cs.com1
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 4:42 PM
To: Temple, Patty
Subject: From Richard Moriarty
December 14,,2,004
Patricia Temple - Planning Director
Newport Beach Planning Commission
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Pat,
I would like to appeal some of the restrictions imposed on the usage of my 2128 Mesa Drive Newport
Beach property.
1. Appeal the restrictions which now limit processing only grapes grown on my property.
2. Appeal the restrictions of direct wine sales to customers.
My state and federal licenses allow a bonded wine cellar, winemaking, and blending of wine. Our
Back Bay Cuv&e is a Bordeaux style "field blend" of the five types of grapes grown on the property.
An annual yield can fluctuate and to maintain my blend I may need to bring in other juice to mix with
our estate harvest. This would be consistent with my licenses and not be considered "food
processing."
I planted a. vineyard for my adjacent neighbors, the Tennison's at 2140 Mesa Drive, and they would
like me to process their grapes during a future harvest.
To my knowledge there have been no complaints about my operations, as the winemaking process is
primarily conducted inside the winery building.
I would also like to appeal the restriction of off -sale of wine directly to customers. My State of
California, ABC license allows me to sell my wine directly to customers at licensed Farmer's Markets
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 CompuServe: BKBAYCUVEE ID
Page 2 of 2
in California and 1 can ship wine through Internet sales directly to customers in most states. I do not
wish to have a tasting room or on site retail facility.
If you have further questions or would like to inspect my facility in person (or with other members of
the planning commission) please contact me:
S'ncerely,
ichard Mor arty
Cell: 949- 400 -9463
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 CompuServe: BKBAYCUVEE it