TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Brian D. Bordona - Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services
REPORT BY: Matt Ringel - Planner III
SUBJECT: Inn at the Abbey Use Permit Major Modification; P19-00038-MOD
RECOMMENDATION
title
Conduct a public hearing to consider the Inn at the Abbey Use Permit Modification (P19-00038-MOD), requested by Jackson Family Investments III LLC, and the Planning Commission’s March 4, 2026, advisory recommendations to the Board including: Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (State Clearinghouse #2020079021); adoption of Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); adoption of a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); find the Project consistent with the General Plan; approval of a Use Permit Major Modification and Conditions of Approval that would encompass demolition of existing structures and construction of a 79-room hotel involving 78,500 sq. ft. of new construction split between multiple parcels; and adoption of an ordinance approving a Development Agreement between Napa County and Jackson Family Investments III, LLC. (No Fiscal Impact)
body
BACKGROUND
The Project site is located in unincorporated Napa County, approximately one-half mile north of the city limits of St. Helena. The Project is comprised of a 15.13-acre site composed of six parcels located at Lodi Lane along SR 29. The “North Parcel” is approximately 10.30 acres and consists of the four parcels located north of Lodi Lane. The four contiguous parcels are Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 022-130-027, 022-130-028, 022-130-023, and 022-130-024. The “South Parcel” is approximately 4.83 acres and consists of the two parcels located south of Lodi Lane. The two contiguous parcels are APNs 022-220-028 and 022-220-029. The North Parcel and South Parcel are collectively referred to as the “Project site” throughout project documents and the EIR.
On March 4, 2026, following a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission heard the proposed project and made a unanimous (4-0) advisory recommendation to the Board to approve the proposed Project, certify the FEIR under CEQA and adopt an ordinance approving a Development Agreement between Napa County and the Applicant.
A detailed discussion and staff analysis for the Project components are included in the March 4, 2026, Planning Commission staff report. The staff report and attachments are available on the County’s website at:
<https://napa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7926137&GUID=CD11A20E-48C3-41E2-BA61-563B41F940C3&Options=&Search=>
Proposed Actions
1. Adopt the proposed Resolution (Attachment 1) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopting Findings in accordance with CEQA, adopting the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, finding the Project consistent with the General Plan, and approving Use Permit Major Modification Application No. P19-00038-MOD subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval as set forth in Attachment A through D; and
2. Adopt an ordinance (Attachment 6) approving a Development Agreement between Napa County and Jackson Family Investments III, LLC., as set forth in Attachment 1 to the ordinance.
The ordinance may be introduced, read, and passed at this meeting.
Noticing
Public Notices for the March 4, 2026, Planning Commission hearing to consider an advisory recommendation, and today’s Board of Supervisor’s hearing were mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the project parcels, applicable agencies and entities and published in the Napa Valley Register.
Decision Making Options
After consideration of the analysis in the FEIR, the CEQA Findings, the MMRP, the Project’s consistency with the General Plan, recommended Conditions of Approval, proposed ordinance, Development Agreement, and public testimony, it is requested that the Board of Supervisors act on Use Permit Major Modification Application P19-00038-MOD. Staff have provided below a summary of potential options for the Board.
Option 1: Approve Applicant’s Proposal and Related Actions (Staff recommended option).
This option would adopt the proposed Resolution (Attachment 1) certifying the FEIR, adopting Findings in accordance with CEQA, adopting the MMRP, as set forth in attachment A, finding the Project consistent with the General Plan as set forth in Attachment B, and approving Use Permit Major Modification P19-00038-MOD, pursuant to findings in Attachment C and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment D.
This option would further adopt the ordinance (Attachment 6) approving the Development Agreement as set forth in Attachment 1. The Project has been analyzed for its impacts to the environment and found, with the implementation of mitigation measures for Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise and Vibration and Transportation, potential environmental impacts of the project would be less than significant, and additional Conditions of Approval would be enforced with the intention of preserving public health, safety, welfare and convenience.
Staff recommend this option as the request is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and applicable General Plan policies. The applicant’s request has been reviewed by the Napa County Planning Commission, who unanimously recommended that the Board support the Applicant’s proposal. Since the analysis under CEQA has identified that all impacts either already are, or can be reduced to, less than significant with mitigation, alternatives to the project would not reduce any of the project’s impacts below identified thresholds.
Action Required - Follow the proposed actions listed under Proposed Actions above. If conditions of approval are to be amended, specify conditions to be amended at the time the motion is made.
Option 2: Approve the Reduced Development Alternative.
This alternative would reduce the scale of the Project by approximately 20 percent, which would reduce less than significant VMT-related GHG and transportation impacts.
This alternative would reduce the hotel use on each parcel by approximately 20 percent, resulting in a 40-room hotel on the North Parcel and a 23-room hotel on the South Parcel within the same footprints as were analyzed in the EIR. This alternative would likely result in less overall construction, shorter construction periods, and less development intensity would occur with the smaller scale of the buildings. It is assumed this alternative would result in construction of the same transportation/circulation and utility improvements as with the Project, as well as the on-site employee housing. This alternative was identified as the environmentally superior alternative because it would reduce operational impacts related to VMT and vehicle trips and would result in the greatest potential for energy efficiency and incorporation of green building design features of the built alternatives through new construction, even though the impact conclusions would be the same as the Project. Although this alternative would overall reduce impacts, they would not substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental effects of the Project because the Project itself would not result in significant impacts.
Action Required - For this option, the Board would adopt the Resolution and make the same findings as under Option No. 1, except the motion would be to approve the Reduced Development Alternative (Alternative B of the Draft EIR) instead of the applicant’s proposal. This option would also adopt the ordinance approving the Development Agreement.
Option 3: Denial of the Requested Use Permit Major Modification.
This option would result in the Board’s denial of the Use Permit Major Modification application and the Development Agreement. Under this scenario the hotel and accessory operations would not occur as proposed, though retail and restaurant use could be re-established under existing, previously approved entitlements.
This scenario would result in no change to the existing operational winery and Stone Building restaurant and continued vacancy of derelict commercial structures on the property until either a developer obtained approval of a request to redevelop existing vacant buildings in accordance with existing land use entitlements or a use permit modification application for an alternative commercial use also consistent with the CL zoning district was approved by the Planning Commission.
Action Required - In the event that the Board determines that the required Findings for grant of a Use Permit Major Modification, or consistency with the Project cannot be made, Supervisors must articulate the basis of the conflict with the findings. State Law requires the decision-making body to adopt findings, based on the General Plan and County Code, setting forth why the proposed project is not being approved. The Board may need to continue the item to a later date for Staff to prepare denial findings.
Option 4: Continuance Option.
The Board may continue an item to a future hearing date at this meeting, at the Board’s discretion.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Attachment A- Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
3. Attachment B- General Plan Consistency Analysis
4. Attachment C- Use Permit Modification Findings
5. Attachment D- Conditions of Approval
6. Ordinance
7. Attachment 1 - Development Agreement
8. Draft EIR
9. Draft EIR Appendices
10. Final EIR
11. Use Permit Major Modification Application Packet
FISCAL IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
No |
|
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? |
Discretionary |
|
Discretionary Justification: |
Use Permit and Development Agreement |
|
Is the general fund affected? |
No |
|
Consequences if not approved: |
Uses on the parcels maintain status quo and requested modification does not occur |
|
Additional Information |
County Strategic Initiative: Inclusivity & Community |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Consideration and possible certification of a FEIR prepared and circulated (State Clearinghouse #2020079021). According to the FEIR, the proposed project would not have any significant environmental impacts after implementation of mitigation measures related to potential impacts to: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise and Vibration and Transportation. The FEIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.), and Napa County Local Guidelines Implementing CEQA. This project site is not on any of the lists of hazardous waste sites enumerated under Government Code Section 65962.5.