(NVR) - During a marathon five-hour-plus session before a packed chamber, Napa County Supervisors on Tuesday began grappling with need for more winery regulations.

Some residents see a successful industry on the right track, while others see an industry that faces too much growth and overemphasizes hospitality events.

Supervisors liked such ideas as having a fast-track for proposed small wineries that meet certain criteria, and being sparring about issuing variances to county rules for proposed, new wineries.

“I don’t want anyone thinking what we say today will be the last word,” board Chairwoman Diane Dillon said. “What we say today will be giving direction to staff to explore it further.”

All of this took place before a crowd that filled the chamber and spilled out into four viewing areas in other parts of the county administration center. People by the dozens came to see supervisors address 13 recommendations formulated by the Agricultural Protection Advisory Committee and Planning Commission (APAC) over the past eight months.

One reoccurring issue in recent years has been whether wineries are following the rules. APAC recommended that every winery submit a certification report each year saying they are complying with their use permits in such areas as wine production limits. They would also submit data to show they are in compliance.

Supervisors want to further explore some variation of this idea as a way to make certain wineries are looking at their permits. Details must be worked out, such as whether the certification report should be annual or every other year.

Supervisor Alfredo Pedroza said the goal would be to encourage compliance.

“If people are going to agree to sign on the dotted line, I think we do have to give them the opportunity to come in and get their use permit in order,” he said.

Supervisors favored limiting—but not eliminating—the use of variances to county rules to allow some new wineries be built. For example, property owners might ask to construct wineries closer than the 600 feet to a major road that county law allows.

“There are parcels, and there are areas that wineries for public visitation don’t work and they don’t fit,” Supervisor Keith Caldwell said. “The attitude that is, ‘10 acres, you get a winery.’ I’m sorry, I don’t buy into that. I just think we have over the years gone the extra step and approved wineries that, in my opinion, it didn’t make sense on that parcel.”

Supervisor Mark Luce said he’d like the county to take a different approach on visitation. The county limits how many visitors are allowed at most wineries each day, week and year based on a variety of factors.

“I think we’re hurting ourselves thinking we’re going to control traffic by controlling visitors,” Luce said.

Caldwell said the board is not talking about imposing onerous regulations that close wineries, as some of the public speakers feared. The board is talking about changing policies and hopefully in some ways making things easier for wineries. Then it can move onto other issues.

“The issues I’m really passionate about are traffic, housing and water,” Caldwell said.

More than 70 people addressed the Board of Supervisors during public comments. Many were vintners and wine industry employees, from cashiers to field workers, who warned the industry could be hurt by further regulations.

Planning, Building and Environmental Services Director David Morrison began the proceedings by correcting the staff report for the meeting. That report—cited in Sunday’s Napa Valley Register—incorrectly said that Napa County’s winery growth is outstripping general plan forecasts.

Planning staff mistakenly used information from the general plan’s draft environmental report calling for 150 new wineries between 2005 and 2030. But the number used in the final environmental report is 225 new wineries. That puts the 87 new wineries approved over the last decade in a different light.

“We’re almost exactly on schedule in terms of the number of new wineries,” Morrison said.

Winemakers of Napa County shared a survey it commissioned based on 399 telephone interviews in which 85 percent of respondents said they think vineyards and wineries have a positive impact on the county’s quality of life, with 53 percent saying “very positive” and 32 percent saying “somewhat positive.”

The survey asked respondents what type of winery events they find acceptable. Ninety-five percent said charitable events, 89 percent said outdoor concerts, 89 percent said wine pick-up and tasting weekends, 87 percent said winemaker dinners 84 percent said weddings and 72 percent said political fundraisers.

Asked the most pressing problems facing Napa County, 78 percent of respondents said the drought, 63 percent said high housing prices and 52 percent said deteriorating roads.

Michelle Benvenuto, executive director of the group, said supervisors need to hear from this “silent majority” of people who don’t come to board meetings. The firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates did the survey in July and said it has a 5 percentage point margin of error.

Chuck Wagner of Caymus Vineyards called on Supervisors to put any further winery regulations on the ballot. Regulations are strangling vintners, he said.

“Vintners built the wine industry,” Wagner said. “It wasn’t built by county administrators and it certainly wasn’t built by the naysayers and Vision 2050.”

Vision 2050 is a coalition of local environmental and neighborhood groups.

Local resident Diane Shepp, a member of Vision 2050, supported the APAC recommendations and the way the group arrived at them. APAC had 17 representatives appointed by the Board of Supervisors from the wine industry, farmers and businesspeople, neighborhood and environmental groups and the cities.

“This represents a new era in the democratic process in Napa County,” Shepp told Supervisors.