TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Brian D. Bordona, Director Planning, Building and Environmental Services
REPORT BY: Emily Hedge, Planner III
SUBJECT: Rutherford Ranch Winery Appeal (Use Permit Major Modification No. P19-00126-MOD and Use Permit Exception to the Conservation Regulations P23-00145
RECOMMENDATION
title
PUBLIC HEARING 2:00 P.M. - RUTHERFORD RANCH WINERY APPEAL (USE PERMIT MAJOR MODIFICATION NO. P19-00126-MOD AND USE PERMIT EXCEPTION TO THE CONSERVATION REGULATIONS P23-00145)
Conduct a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Appellant Water Audit California (WAC or Appellant) concerning the Napa County Planning Commission’s decision on June 21, 2023, to approve the Rutherford Ranch Winery Use Permit Major Modification No. P19-00126-MOD and Use Permit Exception to the Conservation Regulations P23-00145 submitted by Marko B. and Theo Zaninovich, Round Hill Cellars (Applicant or Rutherford Ranch). (No fiscal impact.)
(CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 10, 2023 AND NOVEMBER 7, 2023)
body
BACKGROUND
The matter before the Board involves an appeal filed by Appellant concerning the decisions made by the Napa County Planning Commission on June 21, 2023, to: (1) adopt the Negative Declaration; (2) approve Use Permit Exception to the Conservation Regulations P23-00145; and (3) approve Use Permit Major Modification No. P19-00126-MOD for the Rutherford Ranch Winery.
The approved Exception to the Conservation Regulations removed various improvements within the stream setback, restoration of the removal area, installation of new improvements in stream setback, and continued use of an existing pumphouse. The Planning Commission approval of the Use Permit Major Modification recognized components that were out of compliance with the approved use permit and also approved further increases in operations, building remodel, and site improvements. The Use Permit Exception and Major Modification are hereafter referred to as the Project. Approval of the Project corrected the code violations identified under the Code Compliance Program.
The Project is an existing winery on a 17.37-acre parcel, at 1680 Silverado Trail South, St. Helena, CA (APN 030-300-030).
On July 5, 2023, a timely notice of intent to appeal was filed by Appellant and a timely appeal packet was submitted on July 18, 2023 (the Appeal) (Attachment A). Staff responses to the Appeal are in Attachment B.
Documents associated with the Project and this appeal record (No. P23-00208) are available for review on Planning, Building and Environmental Services’ (PBES) Department at: <https://www.pbes.cloud/index.php/s/X83SLepGLrHdHcX> or at the PBES Department located at 1195 Third Street, 2nd Floor, Napa, CA 94559.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Chair introduces item and invites Appellant the opportunity to be heard on the Chair’s prior “good cause” determination by asking the Board to overrule the Chair’s determination and invites the Applicant the opportunity to oppose the request.
2. Staff Report presentation.
3. Chair invites testimony from Appellant WAC and WAC’s witnesses as previously disclosed on the witness list and in the order noted on the witness list attached as Attachment C.
4. Chair invites any other interested members of the public to testify regarding the Appeal.
5. Chair invites Applicant and Applicant’s witnesses as previously disclosed on the witness list and in the order noted on the witness list attached as Attachment D.
6. Chair then invites Appellant to have final rebuttal (time permitting).
7. Chair closes the public hearing and invites disclosures from Board members.
8. A motion of intent is made and seconded to deny, uphold, and/or remand the Appeal.
9. Chair refers the matter to County Counsel’s office for preparation of a Resolution of Findings and Decision on Appeal. Because of the current workload, good cause exists for County Counsel’s office to have up to ninety days to prepare the Resolution of Findings and Decision on Appeal. Consequently, Staff recommends that the Board direct County Counsel’s office to return to the Board on March 26th at 9:00 a.m. with the proposed Resolution for the Board’s consideration and adoption.
Discussion:
On March 27, 2019, the Applicant submitted Use Permit Major Modification P19-00126-MOD and is participating in the Code Compliance Program as described in Resolution No. 2018-164 adopted by the Napa County Board of Supervisors on December 4, 2018. The application for an Exception to the Conservation Regulations was formally filed on May 15, 2023, although the stream setback components were evaluated throughout the application process. The Project consists of the following components:
A. COMPONENTS NECESSARY TO REMEDY EXISTING WINERY USE PERMIT VIOLATIONS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
1. Recognition of 43 full-time and two (2) part-time employees. The winery has approval for 28 full-time and three (3) part-time employees;
2. Recognition of average daily visitation of 185 visitors per day (based on Applicant’s peak daily visitation) and average weekly visitation of 540 visitors per week (based on Applicant’s monthly visitation). The winery has approval for 50 visitors per day and 250 visitors per week;
3. Recognition of 36 marketing events per year including 20 events per year with up to 40 guests, 10 events per year with up to 100 guests, and six (6) events per year with up to 150 guests. The winery held 65 events (2017 data) with a range of sizes; the winery is not approved for any marketing events;
4. Recognition of 34 paved parking spaces. The winery is approved for 25 parking spaces;
5. Recognition of days of operation Monday through Sunday. The winery has approval of Production on Monday through Friday and Visitation on Monday through Sunday;
6. Recognition of hours of operation for Production 6:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. and Visitation 10:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. The winery has approval for operations between 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. and operations during crush between 7:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m.;
7. Recognition of on-premises consumption occurring on the outdoor patios and lawn. The winery is not approved for on-premises consumption;
8. Recognition of food, cheese, and chocolates with tastings. The winery is not permitted for any food service; and
9. Recognition and retention of an approximately 1,200 s.f. unpermitted cover attached to the western side of the existing winery building over an outdoor work area.
B. EXPANSION BEYOND EXISTING WINERY USE PERMIT ENTITLEMENTS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
1. Increase employment from 43 full-time and two (2) part-time employees (existing conditions requested to be recognized via the County’s Code Compliance program) to 58 full-time and five (5) part-time employees;
2. Increase visitation from 265 visitors per day and 821 visitors per week (existing conditions requested to be recognized via the County’s Code Compliance program) to 250 visitors per day and 1,500 visitors per week;
3. Annual marketing plan of 36 events, including 20 events per year with up to 40 guests, 10 events per year with up to 100 guests, and six (6) events per year with up to 150 guests;
4. Parking spaces from 34 (existing conditions requested to be recognized via the County’s Code Compliance program) to 81 spaces;
5. Convert the entire 3,000 s.f. residence to winery offices, 1,200 s.f. previously approved for offices;
6. Install a commercial kitchen in the existing winery building for catering, pre-packaged food, and food preparation;
7. Designate the northern portion of the driveway as a one-way loop;
8. Improvements to the existing wastewater system and removal of the residential system;
9. Repave the roadway shoulders along the project’s frontage (TIS recommendation); and
10. Implementation of a Travel Demand Management Plan.
C. COMPONENTS NECESSARY TO REMEDY EXISTING CONSERVATION REGULATIONS VIOLATIONS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
1. Removal of 15 improvements from within the 45-foot stream setback; and
2. Obtain a Use Permit Exception to the Conservation Regulations to retain the existing pump house.
D. NEW PROPOSED WORK IN THE STREAM SETBACK APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
1. Removal of 15 improvements from within the 45-foot stream setback;
2. Install two (2) water tanks (relocated from the current location approximately 1.5 feet from the top of bank); and
3. Restoration and revegetation where improvements are removed within the stream setback.
The components of the Conservation Regulations Exception approved by the Planning Commission are summarized in Attachment E.
On May 22, 2023, the Public Notice for the Planning Commission hearing and Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. It should be noted that the County’s requirements to notice all property owners within 1,000 feet far exceeds the State mandate of noticing all owners within 300 feet. Notice was also provided to those persons on the general CEQA document notification list. The Notice was published in the Napa Valley Register on May 22, 2023.
On June 21, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Project and unanimously (5:0) voted to approve the Rutherford Ranch project. The Project’s approval letter with the final adopted conditions of approval (COA) are in Attachment F).
Public notice of this appeal hearing was mailed and provided to all parties who received notice of the Planning Commission hearing and property owners within 1,000 feet of the Property.
Findings:
When reviewing the proposed Project, the Planning Commission based its decision on a series of Findings, as required under both County Code and State law. The Board of Supervisors must also consider all of the same Findings in reaching its decision. To uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project and denial of the appeal, the Board must determine that the Project is consistent with each of the following Findings. Alternatively, to deny the Project and grant the Appeal, the Board must determine that the Project is not consistent with at least one (or more) of the Findings or the County General Plan.
CEQA:
1. The Board of Supervisors has read and considered the Negative Declaration prior to taking action on said Negative Declaration and the proposed Project.
2. The Negative Declaration is based on independent judgment exercised by the Board of Supervisors.
3. The Negative Declaration was prepared and considered in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
4. There is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment.
5. There is no evidence in the record as a whole that the proposed Project will have a potential adverse effect on wildlife resources or habitat upon which the wildlife depends.
6. The site of this proposed Project is not on any of the lists of hazardous waste sites enumerated under Government Code Section 65962.5 and is not within the boundaries of any airport land use plan.
Use Permit Exception to the Conservation Regulations:
1. Roads, driveways, buildings and other man-made structures have been designed to complement the natural landform and to avoid excessive grading.
2. Primary and accessory structures employ architectural and design elements which in total serve to reduce the amount of grading and earthmoving activity required for the project including the following elements: a) multiple-floor levels which follow existing, natural slopes; b) foundation types such as poles, piles, or stepping levels which minimize cut and fill and the need for retaining walls; c) fence lines, walls, and other features which blend with the existing terrain rather than strike off at an angle against it.
3. The development project minimizes removal of existing vegetation, incorporates existing vegetation into the final design plan, and replacement vegetation of appropriate size, quality and quantity is included to mitigate adverse environmental effects.
4. Adequate fire safety measures have been incorporated into the design of the proposed development.
5. Disturbance to streams and watercourses shall be minimized, and the encroachment if any, is the minimum necessary to implement the Project.
6. The Project does not adversely impact threatened or endangered plant or animal habitats as designated by state or federal agencies with jurisdiction and identified on the County’s environmental sensitivity maps.
7. An erosion control plan, or equivalent NPDES stormwater management plan, has been prepared in accordance with Section 18.108.080 and has been approved by the Director or designee.
8. The proposed development does not result in a net increase in soil loss and runoff.
Use Permit Major Modification:
1. The Board of Supervisors has the power to issue a Use Permit under the Zoning Regulations in effect as applied to the Property.
2. The procedural requirements for a Use Permit set forth in Chapter 18.124 of the County Code (zoning regulations) have been met.
3. The grant of the Use Permit, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare of the County of Napa.
4. The proposed use complies with applicable provisions of the County Code and is consistent with the policies and standards of the Napa County General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
5. The proposed use would not require a new water system or improvement causing significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on the affected groundwater basin in Napa County, unless that use would satisfy any of the other criteria specified for approval or waiver of a groundwater permit under Sections 13.15.070 or 13.15.080 of the County Code.
Pre-Hearing Conference:
To clarify the County's procedural requirements and expectations regarding land use appeals, the Board of Supervisors requires the parties to attend a mandatory pre-hearing conference with a representative of the County Counsel’s office and the Chair of the Board to discuss estimates on presentation lengths, scope of evidence, and testimony to be presented, together with witness lists. Any witness not appearing on a witness list at the pre-hearing conference is treated as an ordinary member of the public and allotted the usual three minutes of speaking time.
A pre-hearing conference was held on October 30, 2023, with Appellant’s and Applicant’s counsel, Chair Gallagher and a Deputy County Counsel. At that time, Appellant and Applicant agreed to provide a list of their respective witnesses along with the subject matter of testimony and time estimates in advance of the hearing. The Chair informed the Appellant and the Applicant that each side is allocated a maximum of 30 minutes for their presentation, allocated at their discretion. A summary of the witness information by name, subject matter of testimony, and time estimates that was provided by Appellant and the Applicant is provided in Attachments C and D.
Appellant and Applicant also agreed to provide the Chair in advance of the hearing with any requests for “good cause” to either supplement the record with new information and/or requests to have the appeal heard de novo (e.g., a fresh hearing). Appellant submitted a “good cause” request to supplement the record on appeal before the Board (Attachment G) which was denied by the Chair (Attachment H).
At the pre-hearing conference, Appellant and Applicant further agreed to provide any supplemental legal argument in advance of the hearing. The supplemental information provided by Appellant is attached as Attachment I and as Attachment J from Applicant. The information is also available for review online at: <https://www.pbes.cloud/index.php/s/X83SLepGLrHdHcX>
Appeal:
Staff has summarized Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal. Staff’s response to the Appeal is in Attachment B. Staff recommends the Board review the actual Appeal for further details.
Options:
The following options are provided for the Board’s consideration regarding possible action on the Appeal:
• Deny the Appeal in its entirety and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project;
• Modify the scope of the Project or Conditions of Approval with or without granting or denying the Appeal;
• Uphold one or more Grounds of the Appeal and reverse the Planning Commission’s decision, thereby denying the Project; or
• Remand the matter to the Planning Commission with direction.
REQUESTED ACTIONS:
1. Conduct a public hearing to consider WAC’s Appeal.
2. Take tentative action to deny the Appeal in its entirety and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.
3. Direct Staff to revise the COA to include a revised cap on the pump rate and volume of groundwater and update other conditions with timelines affected by the appeal process.
4. Refer the matter to County Counsel’s office for preparation of a Resolution of Findings and Decision on Appeal and direct County Counsel to return on March 26, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. with the proposed Resolution for adoption.
FISCAL & STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
No |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Consideration and possible readoption of a Negative Declaration. According to the proposed Negative Declaration, the proposed Project would not have any potentially significant environmental impacts The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.