TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Brian D. Bordona, Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services
REPORT BY: Charlene Gallina, Supervising Planner
SUBJECT: Hillwalker Vineyards Winery Appeal
RECOMMENDATION
title
PUBLIC HEARING - 2:00 PM Hillwalker Vineyards Winery Appeal
Conduct a public hearing to consider an appeal filed (P24-00237-APL) by Water Audit California (Appellant) to the Napa County Planning Commission’s decision on August 21, 2024 to: 1) Adopt the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 2) Approve Use Permit No. P23‐00101‐UP, Use Permit No. P23-00239-UP (an Exception to the Conservation Regulations), and an Exception to the Napa County Road and Street Standards (RSS) filed by Kevin Morrison (Applicant). (No Fiscal Impact; Mandatory)
(CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 3, 2024)
body
BACKGROUND
The matter before the Board involves an appeal filed by the Appellant concerning the Hillwalker Vineyards Winery and the decisions made by the Napa County Planning Commission on August 21, 2024, to (1) adopt the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and (2) approve Use Permit No. P23‐00101‐UP, Use Permit No. P23-00239-UP (an Exception to the Conservation Regulations), and an Exception to the Napa County Road and Street Standards (RSS) filed by Kevin Morrison (Applicant).
The project is located at 1871 Mount Veeder Road, Napa (APN 034-110-047). Access to the property is through APNs 034-100-020, 034-100-043, and 034-110-059. The property has an AW (Agricultural Watershed) zoning district and Agriculture, Watershed and Open Space (AWOS) general plan designation.
On August 30, 2024, a timely Notice of Intent to Appeal was filed by the Appellant, and a timely appeal packet was submitted on September 16, 2024 (the Appeal) (Attachment A). Staff responses to the Appeal are in Attachment B.
Documents associated with Use Permit No. P23-00101-UP, Use Permit No. P23-00239-UP (Conservation Exception), the RSS Exception and this appeal record (No. P24-00237-APL) are available for review in the Napa County Department of Planning, Building and Environmental Services, and at <https://www.pbes.cloud/index.php/s/Ffktyy5CzSmtRTT> or at the PBES Department located at 1195 Third Street, 2nd Floor, Napa, CA 94558.
DISCUSSION
The approval of the project authorizes a new winery with an annual production capacity of 7,000 gallons which consists of the following:
a) convert a 1,500 sq. ft. residential cave to a commercial cave for wine production and storage;
b) conduct visitation activities in an existing 298 sq. ft. covered patio area and allow on-site consumption in accordance with Business and Professions Code Sections 23358, 23390 and 23396.5 (AB2004-Evans Bill);
c) allow tours and tastings by appointment with a weekly maximum of 113 visitors [47 days with up to 35 visitors maximum, 306 days with up to 19 visitors maximum, and 25 or more people will be allowed at the winery for a maximum of 59 days per year];
d) allow a marketing program of 12 marketing events per year with up to 45 guests per event;
e) up to two (2) full-time and three (3) part-time employees;
f) production and visitation hours between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Sunday;
g) convert the existing pool house restroom (80 sq. ft.) to an accessible restroom;
h) provide on-site parking for seven (7) vehicles including an accessible parking space and an electric vehicle charging station; and,
i) installation of a 2,500-gallon hold and haul tank for winery process wastewater.
The project includes an Exception to the Conservation Regulations that would allow road improvements within a stream setback and an Exception to the RSS for selective reductions in the width of the private access road to the winery.
On July 6, 2024, the Public Notice for the Planning Commission hearing and Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration/MMRP was mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. 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 July 6, 2024.
This item was originally scheduled for the August 7, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting. Due to receipt of public comments and errors found by staff prior to the meeting, the item was continued to August 21, 2024. Given this continuance, staff updated the staff report and some attachments prepared for the item to address missing information and comments received. The changes for these documents had been provided in strike/underline format for ease of Planning Commission and public review.
On August 21, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Project and voted (5:0-AYES: Dameron; Brunzell; Mazotti; Phillips; and Whitmer to approve the Hillwalker Vineyards Winery project as conditioned. The Project’s approval letter with the final adopted conditions of approval (COA) are in Attachment E.
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 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Report Program (MMRP) prior to taking action on said Mitigated Negative Declaration/MMRP and the proposed Project.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP is based on independent judgment exercised by the Board of Supervisors.
3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP 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 provided that the measures to mitigate potentially significant impacts to Biological Resources and Agriculture and Forest Resources are incorporated into the project approval.
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.
7. The Clerk of the Board is the custodian of the records of the proceedings on which this decision is based. Records are located at the Napa County Planning, Building, and Environmental Services Department, 1195 Third Street, Room 210, Napa, California.
Exception to Road & Street Standards:
The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the attached described RSS Exception request in accordance with the RSS Section 3 and makes the following findings:
1. The exception will preserve unique features of the natural environment which includes, but is not limited to, natural water courses, steep slopes, geological features, heritage oak trees, or other trees of least six inches in diameter at breast height and found by the decision-maker to be of significant importance, but does not include human altered environmental features such as vineyards and ornamental or decorative landscaping, or artificial features such as, rock walls, fences or the like.
2. The exception is necessary to accommodate physical site limitations such as grade differentials.
Conservation Regulations Setback Exception:
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. The proposed development does not result in a net increase in soil loss and runoff. [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.
8. The proposed development does not result in a net increase in soil loss and runoff.
Use Permit:
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. That, in the case of other groundwater basins, or areas which do not overlay an identified groundwater basin, substantial evidence has not been presented which demonstrates that the new water system or improvement might cause a significant adverse affect on any underlying groundwater basin, unless that use would satisfy any of the other criteria specified for approval or waiver of a groundwater permit under Section 13.15.070 or 13.15.080 of this 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 November 14, 2024, with Appellant’s and Applicant’s counsel, Chair Cottrell 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.
At the pre-hearing conference, Appellant and Applicant further agreed to provide any supplemental legal argument in advance of the hearing and to comply with page limits. The supplemental information provided by Appellant is attached as Attachment F and as Attachment G from Applicant.
Regarding the supplemental information provided by Appellant, the submission was received timely on January 6, 2025. Upon standard review, staff determined that documents included in the appeal packet and additional information were not part of the documentary record and evidence presented to the Planning Commission. The appeal hearing is based on a review of the documentary record unless the appellant or the applicant asserts, and the Chair finds, “good cause” exists. (Napa County Code § 2.88.090.) No timely good cause requests were received. On January 8th, staff notified Appellant of the discovery of the unapproved extrinsic evidence. While staff did not redact this information, extrinsic information in the appeal packet and the additional information submission include a notation that the information is not part of the record, as shown in Attachment A and Attachment F.
Appeal:
County Counsel has summarized the 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 and/or Conditions of Approval (Attachment E) and uphold the Planning
Commission’s approval of the Project;
• 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. 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 April 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. with the proposed Resolution for adoption.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS:
1. Chair introduces item and invites disclosures regarding any ex-parte communications or new Levine Act disclosures, if any from Board members.
2. No timely requests were submitted by either party for the Chair to consider allowing any extrinsic evidence by making a good cause determination.
3. Staff Report Presentation.
4. Chair opens the public hearing and 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.
5. Chair invites any other interested members of the public to testify regarding the Appeal.
6. 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.
7. Chair invites Appellant to have final rebuttal (time permitting).
8. Chair closes the public hearing.
9. A motion of intent is made and seconded to deny, uphold, and/or remand the Appeal.
10. Chair refers the matter to County Counsel’s office for preparation of a Resolution of Findings and Decision on Appeal. Staff recommends that the Board direct County Counsel’s office to return to the Board on April 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. with the proposed Resolution for the Board’s consideration and adoption.
FISCAL & STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
No |
|
Where is it budgeted? |
All County staff costs associated with this Appeal will be fully reimbursed by the Applicant on a time and materials basis as set in County Fee Policy 80.037(c). |
|
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? |
Mandatory |
|
Consequences if not approved: |
The Applicant and the Appellant will be unable to explore a potential resolution. |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Consideration and possible adoption of a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and the MMRP. According to the proposed revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP, the proposed project would not have any potentially significant environmental impacts after implementation of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are proposed for the following areas: Agriculture and Forest Resources and Biological Resources. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.