VASCM: [santacruzmountains] SCM/CC [2 Attachments]

[Valerie Ahlgren]

The Ahlgrens agree with Bill. Long and hard study was given during the original
discussions leading to the establishment of the Santa Cruz Mountains appellation.
We could not see a relationship between the soils, climate, etc of the Central Coast
and the SCMTS. We feel that to give up our unique appellation would degrade the
value of the SCMTS as a very special mountain growing region. 
Dexter and Val Ahlgren
On Dec 21, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Bill Cooper wrote:

> [Attachment(s) from Bill Cooper included below]
> 
> The SCMWA President has proposed a working group to study the pros and cons of including the Santa Cruz Mountains in the Central Coast AVA. 
> 
> Unfortunately, the matter is neither that simple nor ours to decide, would consume a great deal of time and money, and could destroy what makes the Santa Cruz Mountains AVA unique.
> 
> Let me explain:
> 
> AVAs designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographic origin. AVAs are established, in part, on the features of the viticultural area that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make it distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the viticultural area boundary. 
> 
> When the 400,000 acre SCM AVA was established in 1981, the petitioner claimed the "Santa Cruz Mountains" possesses a soil type, climate, and protective setting which provides a singular viticultural identity, including “a climate which is greatly influenced in the western portion by the Pacific Ocean breezes and fog movements, and in the eastern portion by the moderating influences of the San Francisco Bay. These two influences tend to produce weather which is generally cool during the growing season. Temperatures in the slopes of the hillsides where most of the vineyards are located appear to vary from that at the lower elevations. This is caused by the marine influence coming off the Pacific Ocean which cools the mountains at night much more than the valley floor.”
> 
> When the 1,000,000 acre Central Coast AVA was established in 1985, the basis of evidence was that the marine climate influence is present throughout the proposed area.  Based on three comments received, the AVA was expanded northward to include the Livermore Valley AVA and “the portion of Santa Clara under the marine climate influence,” i.e., around Sarah’s Vineyard.  The SCM AVA became the western boundary of the northern extension. 
> 
> In 2007, prompted by the Calistoga AVA petition, TTB began a multi-year study of AVA system based, in part, on the premise that “petitions for…changes to existing AVAs…should be expected to dispel any apparent inconsistency or to explain why it is acceptable.”  
> 
> In the final rule (attached), TTB makes several points, including:
> 
> ·         The smaller AVA is, by its very existence, distinct from the AVA that surrounds it, with the result that wine produced within it should not be labeled with the name of the larger AVA.
> 
> ·         When a smaller AVA has name recognition and features that so clearly distinguish it from a larger AVA that surrounds it, TTB may determine in the course of the rulemaking that it is not part of the larger AVA and that wine produced from grapes grown within the smaller AVA would not be entitled to use the name of the larger AVA as an appellation of origin or in a brand name.
> 
> ·         That it would be inappropriate to adopt regulatory language that prohibits future approvals of AVAs that entirely surround or lie entirely within, or that overlap, existing AVAs, provided such approvals are adequately justified through petition evidence and rulemaking procedures.
> 
> ·         The intent of the provisions dealing with AVAs within AVAs is to apply it prospectively to newly established areas only.
> 
> With that background, I note that:
> 
> ·         SCMWA members are divided on the issue.
> 
> ·         The well-funded, multi-year attempts by Kendall Jackson to establish a California Coast AVA evoked an unusually large public response and were denied in 2001.
> 
> ·         The well-funded, three-year effort by Gallo to expand the Russian River by 14,000 acres was approved over a range of objections and took effect last Friday.
> 
> ·         The requirement for substantive arguments (rather than a desire for quality protection and blending options) to realign the AVA would require substantial time and money to devise a position that might be accepted by the TTB.
> 
> If, after reading the attached rule, there are growers or wineries that who want to explore a petition to change AVA boundaries, I suggest they caucus as John originally suggested (attached) and devise arguments that will convince the skeptical members, the public (who will be invited to comment on the petition), and the TTB that, thirty years after the fact, the original AVA was “improperly drawn or that there is no unity or consistency in the features of the existing AVA that give it a unique and distinctive identity in a viticultural sense.”
> 
> For my part, I suggest that we take pride in being "America's Premier Mountain Appellation" and live with the 85% rule. 
> 
> Looking ahead, I believe our annual meeting time will be better spent listening to Allison Jordan, our individual resources better spent improving the sustainability of our individual wineries and vineyards, and our collective resources better spent promoting the existing appellation.
> 
> Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
> 
> Bill Cooper
> 
> Cooper-Garrod Estate Vineyards
> 
> 22645 Garrod Road
> 
> Saratoga, CA 95070
> 
> 408.867.8440
> 
> www.cgv.com
> 
>  
> 
> From: santacruzmountains at yahoogroups.com [mailto:santacruzmountains at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of WFM
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 10:32 AM
> To: santacruzmountains at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [santacruzmountains] SCM/CC
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
> Just a heads up that we are getting a lot of opinions on the Yahoo Group regarding the Santa Cruz Mountains as part of the Central Coast issue that John Bargetto sent out yesterday. Rather than flood everyone's email box with back and forths, I thought this would be an opportunity to put together a working group to discuss the pros and cons of the inclusion of the Santa Cruz Mountains as part of the Central Coast and then to present it to the Board and Membership so we can vote and make a unified decision. This issue needs more in-depth discussion than what the Yahoo Group forum can supply. 
> 
> I have reached out to John Bargetto about getting this together and if you are interested in being a part of it please let me know off the Yahoo Group. I can be reached at cheryl at clos.com. As we continue to develop this group and the Association's stance on the issue, we will look to everyone to submit their opinions one way or the other. Be on the look out for instructions how to do so. 
> 
> This will definitely be a part of the agenda at the Annual Meeting in March, so be sure to attend!
> 
> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
> 
> Cheryl
> 
> 
> 
> __._,_.___
> Attachment(s) from Bill Cooper
> 2 of 2 File(s)
>  TTB-2007-0068-0195.pdf
>  SCM Appellation 2012.pdf
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> Messages in this topic ()
> RECENT ACTIVITY:
> Visit Your Group
> MARKETPLACE
> Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
> 
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
> .
>  
> __,_._,___