TO: Napa County Planning Commission
FROM: Brian D. Bordona; Director of Planning, Building, and Environmental Services
REPORT BY: Sean Trippi, Supervising Planner
SUBJECT: Bremer Family Winery Use Permit Modification; P22-00086-MOD
RECOMMENDATION
title
JOHN BREMER ETAL TRUST / BREMER FAMILY WINERY / USE PERMIT MAJOR MODIFICATION NO. P22-00086-MOD & EXCEPTION TO THE NAPA COUNTY ROAD & STREET STANDARDS
CEQA STATUS: Consideration and possible adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. According to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed project would not have any potentially significant environmental impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources. This project is not on any lists of hazardous waste sites enumerated under Government Code Section 65962.5.
REQUEST: The proposal is to modify an existing winery Use Permit and to increase production, increase annual visitation, establish a marketing plan, increase the number employees, allow on-site consumption, construct an additional driveway connection to Deer Park Road, increase on-site parking, replace the existing wastewater treatment system, and modify the number of water storage tanks, on the vineyard property, for vineyard irrigation. The proposal also includes a request for an Exception to the Napa County Road and Street Standards to allow for an exception from requiring the installation of a left turn lane on Deer Park Road. The project site is comprised of two properties totaling approximately 46.09-acres, located at 975 Deer Park Road, slightly offset from the intersection of Deer Park Road and Sanitarium Road: the 26.65-acre winery property (APN 021-400-002) and the 20.44-acre vineyard property (APN 021-420-027).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Use Permit Modification and Exception to the Road and Street Standards subject to the recommended conditions of approval.
STAFF CONTACT: Sean Trippi, Supervising Planner, (707) 299-1353 or sean.trippi@countyofnapa.org
APPLICANT AGENT CONTACT: Andrea A. Matarazzo, Pioneer Law Group, LLP; (916) 287-9500; andrea@pioneerlawgroup.net
body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROPOSED ACTIONS
That the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration based on Findings 1-7 in Attachment A;
2. Approve the Exception to the Road and Street Standards, based on recommended Findings 8 and 9 in Attachment A and subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment B; and
3. Approve Use Permit Major Modification No. P22-00086-MOD, based on recommended Findings 10-14 in Attachment A and subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment B.
DISCUSSION:
The site was originally developed in the late 1800's and early 1900's with a winery, a farmhouse and associated accessory structures. The first use permit for the winery was approved in 1979. There have been several modifications approved since (see Parcel History, below).
The applicant requests approval of a Use Permit Major Modification to an existing 15,000 gallon per year winery to allow the following:
1. Increase production from 15,000 gallons per year to 50,000 gallons per year.
2. Increase the annual number of visitors from 3,600 people to 12,500 people, with no change to the daily maximum of 70 visitors.
3. Establish marketing events as follows: two (2) annual events with 100 guests, three (3) annual events with 50 guests, and two (2) annual events with 25 guests.
Daily visitors on event days would be as below:
a. On 100 guest event days, 25 daily visitors.
b. On 50 guest event days, 20 daily visitors.
c. On 25 guest event days, 45 daily visitors.
d. During production in the barrel room, there will be no visitation or events in the barrel room.
4. Increase staff from four (4) full-time and two (2) part-time, to eight (8) full-time and two (2) part-time employees.
5. Allow on-site consumption pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 23358, 23390 and 23396.5 in the two tasting rooms and previously approved outdoor tasting areas.
6. Construct a new one-way loop driveway connection to Deer Park Road consistent with the Napa County Road and Street Standards.
7. Nine (9) new parking stalls for a total of 20 spaces.
8. Replacement of the existing conventional commingled wastewater system with separate process and domestic wastewater treatment systems to utilize state-of-the-art environmental processes.
9. Install four water storage tanks for vineyard irrigation each with a capacity of 5,000 gallons in place of the number of water storage tanks previously approved under Erosion Control Plan P11-00317-ECPA.
The proposal also includes a request for an Exception to the Napa County Road and Street Standards to allow for an exception from the requirement to install a left turn lane on Deer Park Road. There are no other proposed modifications.
The application proposes operational changes and physical improvements to the existing winery facilities increasing daily visitation, establishing a marketing program, increasing the number of employees, providing additional parking, and access and infrastructure improvements. Staff has reviewed the proposal and found it to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and applicable General Plan policies. Staff has also prepared an Initial Study that evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the proposal as presented by the applicant and has determined that the applicant’s proposal would not have any potentially significant environmental impacts. Staff believes that the necessary findings for the project can be made and recommends approval of the Use Permit Major Modification request as proposed, subject to the recommended conditions and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Consideration and possible adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. According to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration the proposed project would have less than significant environmental impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources. This project is not on any lists of hazardous waste sites enumerated under Government Code Section 65962.5.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Owner: John Bremer ETAL TR, c/o Bremer Family Winery, 1660 Chicago Avenue, Ste M11, Riverside, CA 92507; phone (951) 768-9800; email: John@BremerFamilyWinery.com
Representative: Andrea A. Matarazzo, Pioneer Law Group, LLP; phone: (916) 287-9500; email: andrea@pioneerlawgroup.net
General Plan Land Use Designation: Agriculture, Watershed and Open Space (AWOS)
Zoning District: Agricultural Watershed (AW)
Filed: March 22, 2022
Resubmittals/Additional Information Received: April 9, 2024; July 19, 2024; November 20, 2024; January 31, 2025; May 5, 2025; and November 26, 2025. Application deemed complete: May 15, 2025
Project Site Area: 46.09 acres
Existing Development: The project site is located on the east side of Deer Park slightly offset from the intersection of Deer Park Road and Sanitarium Road. In addition to the existing winery, wine caves, and associated infrastructure, the winery property includes residential uses and vineyards. The vineyard property includes vineyards, water storage tanks and associated infrastructure. Both properties include approved but not yet developed vineyard areas.
WINERY CHARACTERISTICS
Approved and Proposed Winery Characteristics
Winery Development Area Approved: 4,800 s.f.
Winery Development Area Proposed: No change
Winery Coverage Approved: 40,230 s.f. or 0.92 acres, ± 3.4% of the winery property.
Winery Coverage Proposed: 44,939 s.f. or 1.03 acres, ± 3.8% of the winery property
Maximum permitted 25% or approximately 15 acres permitted, whichever is less.
Production Capacity Approved: 15,000 gallons per year
Production Capacity Proposed: 50,000 gallons per year
Accessory/Production Ratio Approved: 3,693 s.f. accessory/22,519 s.f. production - approximately 16.4%.
Accessory/Production Ratio Proposed: 6,302 s.f. accessory/19,910 s.f. production - approximately 31.7% (only during marketing events)
Maximum permitted 40% accessory uses to production uses.
Number of Employees Approved: four full-time and two part-time
Number of Employees Proposed: eight full-time and two part-time
Visitation By-Appointment - Approved: 70/day, 490/week, 3,600/year
Visitation By-Appointment - Proposed: 70/day, 490/week, 12,500/year
Marketing Program - Approved: None
Marketing Program - Proposed: two (2) events per year with 100 guests per event, three (3) events per year with 50 guests per event, and two (2) events per year with 25 guests per event
On 100 guest event days, Visitation By-Appointment - 25/day
On 50 guest event days, Visitation By-Appointment - 20/day
On 100 guest event days, Visitation By-Appointment - 45/day
Days of Operation - Approved: Production - Monday-Friday
Visitation - Monday-Sunday
Days of Operation - Proposed: No change
Hours of Operation - Approved: Production 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Visitation , 10:00 a.m. - 5:00p.m.
Hours of Operation - Proposed: No change
Parking - Approved: 11
Parking - Proposed: 20
Setbacks
Required Property Line setbacks (side & rear): 20 feet
Existing Property Line setbacks: The existing winery structure exceeds 20 feet from side and rear property lines (approximately 200-feet to the nearest side property line)
Required Road setback: 300 feet from Deer Park Road
Existing Road setback - Winery Building: Approximately 390-feet from the centerline of Deer Park Road
Adjacent General Plan Designation / Zoning / Land Use:
Land uses within the immediate vicinity (i.e. within approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mile) of the subject property predominately consist of semirural residential, scattered agricultural uses (vineyards and wineries), and undeveloped woodlands and shrub-lands. There are a number of approved and/or producing wineries (Broman Cellars, Ink Grade Winery, Vineyard 22, Viader Wines, Woodbridge Winery, Vida Valiente, and Merus Wines) within about a mile of the project site. The St. Helena Hospital is located approximately a half a mile to the southwest of the property and Bell Canyon Reservoir is located approximately a half a mile to the northwest of the property.
Deer Park Road runs along the west side of the two properties and continues north to its apex then runs south before turning towards the east. The northern most portion of the vineyard property adjoins the Deer Park Road right-of-way.
North:
AWOS General Plan designation, AW zoning -
As noted above, the northern most portion of the vineyard property adjoins the Deer Park Road right-of-way. Across Deer Park Road are properties ranging from 1.0 to 22.6 acres and are developed with single-family homes, vineyards and an approved winery (Vineyard 22).
South:
AWOS General Plan designation, AW zoning -
Adjoining the project site to the south of the winery property is a 11.47-acre property developed with a single-family home, the Broman Cellars winery, and vineyards.
East:
AWOS General Plan designation, AW zoning -
To the east of the project site are four properties ranging in size from 3.95 to 43.77 acres. The two northerly most properties are developed with single-family homes, one property is undeveloped, and the fourth and largest property is developed with a single-family home and an accessory dwelling unit (i.e. ADU or second unit). The largest property is owned by the project applicant.
West:
AWOS General Plan designation, AW zoning (north of Sanitarium Road) & RR General Plan designation, RS:B5 zoning (south of Sanitarium Road) -
Deer Park Road borders the west side of the winery property and a portion of the vineyard property. Immediately west of the road adjoining the winery property are three properties ranging in size from 0.66 to 2.46 with three single-family homes and an ADU on the largest property. Across Deer Park Road from the vineyard property are two properties consisting of 1.1 and 2.14 acres. The smaller property is developed with a single-family home; the other property is undeveloped. A 2.52-acre property developed with a single-family home is bordered on its south and east property lines by the vineyard property and by Deer Park Road along its west property line. North of this property and west of the vineyard property is a 19.7- acre property with a single-family home. The northern boundary of this property adjoins Deer Park Road, south of the road’s apex.
Nearby Wineries located within one (1) mile of the project - There are seven wineries within one mile of the project: Broman Cellars, Ink Grade Winery, Vineyard 22, Viader Vineyards, Woodbridge Winery, Vida Valiente, and Merus Wines.
Parcel History:
The site was originally developed in the late 1800's and early 1900's with a winery, a farmhouse and associated accessory structures, such as a barn and other agricultural buildings/sheds and site improvements such as but not limited to access improvements and landscaping.
August 15, 1979, Use Permit #U-697879 (known then as the Clark Winery and/or Deer Park Winery) to reactivate a 6,780 square foot winery on the subject site was approved by the Planning Commission. The approval included provisions for a minimum of five parking spaces and no public tours or tastings. The use permit application indicated that ultimate wine production of 14,400 gallons per year, one visitor per day, six per week, two full-time and one part-time employees, nine existing parking spaces, and hours of operation of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. The plans showed an existing dwelling (farmhouse), a guest house, a garage/shed (tractor shed), winery and barn (Ag storage barn).
August 21, 1979, the Board of Supervisors approved rezoning (#R-57879) the property from RD:B-5 (Residential Double with a Special Building Site Combining) and RD:A:B-5 (Residential Double with an Agricultural / Special Building Site Combining) to AW (Agricultural Watershed).
August 13, 1985, the Board of Supervisors denied an appeal and upheld the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a Bed & Breakfast application (#BB-478485) to bring a one-bedroom detached bed and breakfast under use permit.
October 2002, the Bremer’s purchase Deer Park Winery (APNs 021-400-002 and 021-420-027).
August 2005, a Notice of Violation is issued for construction and/or reconstruction of a deck on the dwelling/farmhouse, remodeling of a barn, and construction of stone wall without building permits (Code Enforcement Case #CE-2686). Building Permit #B05-01249 is issued September 2005, and Building Permit #B06-01434 is issued August 2006 to rectify these matters.
December 13, 2007, Minor Modification application #P07-00654-MM to modify Use Permit #U-697879 to allow an 11,685 square foot cave was approved by the Director. The approval letter referenced an annual production capacity of 15,000 gallons, as well as a 6,780 square foot winery and no public tours and tastings. Building Permit #B08-01030 was issued for the wine storage cave utilities. This building permit also included a freestanding bathroom.
February 26, 2008, application #P08-00088-VMM for a Very Minor Modification to Use Permit #U-697879 was approved by the Director to repair and expand 572 square feet of porch and deck. The building permit for these improvements (B08-00074) was issued in advance of the Very Minor Modification approval.
June 4, 2009, Very Minor Modification #P09-00178-VMM to increase the wine cave to 16,136 square feet was approved by the Director. Building permit #B09-01138 was issued for the west entrance cave portal and associated retaining walls based on #P09-00178-VMM approval.
In September and October 2016, Notices of Violation were issued under Code Enforcement Case #CE16-00251 for the following: construction and use matters: site grading; installation of a sink in the outdoor kitchen; alteration of the dwelling/Farmhouse including use as winery office; wine cave occupancy and use; increased parking; winery visitation and marketing events including food service; rental of winery for events, and use of other site improvements (primarily the bocce court and outdoor kitchen area) for events and tastings.
January 19, 2017, a Use Permit Major Modification application was submitted (#P17-00023), however this application was closed due to a civil complaint being filed by the County in August of 2017 against the Bremer’s as result of the aforementioned violations.
August 2017, a Civil Complaint was filed by the County, and in February of 2019 a Settlement Agreement was entered into between the Bremer’s and the County to rectify, in part, the aforementioned violations. The Settlement Agreement also set forth the following winery operational characteristics: visitation of 3,600 visitors per year with no more than 70 visitors per day; winery visitation between the hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Sunday; no marketing events; no food was to be served at the winery; and the winery cannot be rented for private events. In addition, the winery could not use the main floor of the Farmhouse or the surrounding deck for winery purposes; the winery cave cannot be used in a manner that is inconsistent with a Type II designation; and the bocce ball court, pizza oven, and tractor shed areas cannot be used for winery purposes. However, the Settlement Agreement did allow for subsequent modifications to the winery use permit(s) and stipulations of the Settlement Agreement.
March 2019 through July 2019, building permits were issued by the PBES Department to satisfy some of the Settlement Agreement terms and aforementioned violations. These permits include #B19-00307 for retaining walls, #B19-00339 for work done on the second floor of the winery building, #B19-00460 to install handrails at various locations, and #B19-00513 for the sink in the outdoor kitchen. It should be noted issuance of these building permits did not include areas within required stream setbacks (unless occurring within an existing structure) or authorize any uses, either residential or winery, that had not been previously entitled. Any modification(s) to existing use limitations as identified in the Settlement Agreement, or additional setback encroachments, would require a separate use permit application for an Exception to the Conservation Regulations (see below for a summary of the applications required by the Settlement Agreement.)
October 16, 2019, the Planning Commission approved an Exception to the Conservation Regulations in the form of a Use Permit (P19-00153-UP) legalizing six (6) existing improvements within the County stream setbacks; (a) an approximate 2,200 square foot agricultural storage building and associated water tank: (b) an approximate 800 square foot concrete pad and associated walls attached to the winery; (c) an approximate 150 square foot ground floor/story addition and second floor/story deck to the farmhouse/office building; (d) an approximate 100 square foot freestanding restroom; (e) approximately 1,210 lineal feet of rock walls; and, (f) two pedestrian bridges over a blue-line stream. No operational changes were approved with this permit.
The Planning Commission's October 16, 2019, decision was appealed to the Board of Supervisors (P19-00447). On March 17, 2020, the Board heard the appeal and adopted a motion of intent to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Use Permit #P19-00153, but only as to the approximately 1,210 lineal feet of low decorative rock walls and the two pedestrian bridges. On May 5, 2020, the Board of Supervisors took final action and adopted Resolution No. 2020-65 (Findings of Fact and Decision on Appeal), approving the decorative rock walls and two pedestrian bridges and remanding to the Planning Commission to further consider items (a) through (d) identified above. The Board action also indicated that the physical improvements recognized by this action did not authorize the use of these areas for winery purposes.
July 15, 2020 the Planning Commission considered a request for an Exception to the Conservation Regulations in the form of a use permit (P20-00143-UP) to allow the following four structures or improvements to remain within stream setbacks: (a) an approximate 2,200 square foot agricultural storage building and associated water tank that replaced an approximate 320 square foot barn; (b) an approximate 800 square foot pad located off the east side of the winery building; (c) an approximate 150 square foot ground floor/story addition and second floor/story deck to the main dwelling (a.k.a. farmhouse/office building)(the "farmhouse addition") constructed and completed under Building Permit #B08-00074; and, (d) an approximate 100 square foot freestanding restroom constructed and completed under Building Permit #B08-01030. The Planning Commission granted the request for the approximate 800 square foot concrete pad and associated walls attached to the winery and the approximate 150 square foot ground floor/story addition and second floor/story deck to the farmhouse/office building. However, the Commission denied the request for the approximate 2,200 square foot agricultural storage building and associated water tank and the approximate 100 square foot freestanding restroom.
The Planning Commission's July 15, 2020, decision to deny the 2,200 square foot agricultural storage building and associated water tank and the approximate 100 square foot freestanding restroom was appealed to the Board of Supervisors (P20-00226). On December 8, 2020, the Board heard the appeal and adopted a motion of intent to uphold the grounds of the Appeal in its entirety, reverse the Planning Commission’s denial of the barn and the restroom, and approve the Exception to the Conservation Regulations in the form of Use Permit. On February 2, 2021, the Board of Supervisors took final action and adopted Resolution No. 2021-09 (Findings of Fact and Decision on Appeal), approving the barn and restroom.
October 2021, a Winery Administrative Permit #P21-00038-WADM was approved by the Director to allow the following: (a) the placement and use of a wine press, eleven wine tanks, and associated tank tie downs and catwalk (with no increase in production); (b) reconfiguration of open storage on the second level of the winery building to offices, tasting/visitation areas, employee lounge and restrooms; (c) a change in the occupancy of the existing wine cave to allow visitation (with no increase in visitation or marketing); (d) the use of two outdoor visitation and tasting areas (encompassing approximately 1,132 square feet) located off the south side of the winery building (with no increase in visitation or marketing); and, (e) the change in the number of parking spaces and the alignment of internal roads and driveways as shown in the subject/application site plans, with no increase in impervious area.
There have also been two Erosion Control Plans (P11-00317 & P16-00271) approved by the County for vineyard development on the winery (021-400-002), irrigation (021-420-027), and well (021-400-005) properties.
Code Compliance History:
There are no active winery code violations.
Discussion Points:
Setting - The project site is comprised of two properties totaling approximately 46.09-acres, located at 975 Deer Park Road, slightly offset from the intersection of Deer Park Road and Sanitarium Road: the 26.65-acre winery property (APN 021-400-002) and the 20.44-acre vineyard property (APN 021-420-027). In addition to the existing winery and wine caves, the winery property includes a main residence (the Farmhouse), a second dwelling unit, residential carport, an agricultural barn, water storage tanks, a standalone restroom building, parking areas and access drives, vineyards, and associated infrastructure. An unnamed blue line stream runs along the east side of the developed area, fed by several ephemeral drainage channels northeast of the developed area. The vineyard property, which lies north of the winery property, includes vineyards, an existing Howell Mountain Water System storage tank, an existing intermittent spring collection box established in approximately 1891, and associated transmission lines. In addition to existing vineyards, both properties include approved but not yet developed vineyards.
Winery Proposal - The request is to modify an existing winery to permit an increase in annual production capacity up to 50,000 gallons, increase annual visitation allowances, establish a marketing program, increase the number of employees, allow on-site consumption, provide additional parking and replace the existing wastewater treatment system.
Visitation and Marketing - The winery is currently allowed 3,600 visitors per year with no more than 70 visitors per day and 490 visitors per week. This request would not increase daily or weekly visitation but would increase annual visitation to 12,500. This would be an average of 240 visitors per week.
The applicant’s request also includes establishing a Marketing Plan that includes two annual events with a total of 100 guests per event, three annual events with 50 guests, and two annual events with 25 guests. The applicant also proposes to reduce daily visitation when events are held. During an event with 100 guests, daily visitation would be 25, during an event with 50 guests, daily visitation would be 20, and during an event with 25 guests, daily visitation would be 45.
On-Premises Consumption - The applicant is requesting on-premises consumption in the tasting rooms and two previously approved outdoor tasting areas, one adjoining the winery building and the other adjoining the standalone restroom.
Access / Left Turn Lane / VMT Analysis - The winery is accessed via an existing driveway off Deer Park Road. The applicant proposes to construct an additional driveway connection to Deer Park Road, south of its current driveway, creating a one-way loop providing access to visitor parking and another one-way loop around the winery building. The two one-way loops intersect near the farmhouse building. An existing graveled area preceding the new visitor parking spaces will provide a turnout area.
The County maintains a set of Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (TIS Guidelines) that define situations and project characteristics that trigger the need to prepare a TIS. Per the County’s current TIS Guidelines, a project is required to prepare a TIS if it generates 110 or more net new daily vehicle trips. Based on the County’s winery trip generation assumptions, the proposed project would be expected to generate 16 new daily trips on a Friday during harvest (worst case scenario) with five (5) PM peak hour trips and four (4) net new trips on a Saturday with two (2) midday peak hour trips. Although the project did not meet the threshold requiring preparation of a traffic impact study or VMT analysis, a Traffic Study Report (TSR) was prepared by GHD, dated August 12, 2025, to address left-turn lane warrants at the request of the Department of Public Works. According to the TSR a left-turn lane would be required at the existing driveway. However, the project includes a request for an exception to the Napa County Road and Street Standards to waive the requirement to provide a left-turn lane (LTL).
The applicant has provided information dated November 26, 2025, indicating that granting the exception is necessary to preserve unique features of the natural environment that would be permanently lost by developing a LTL. Construction of a LTL would result in unavoidable adverse impacts to 21 protected trees of significant importance that are part of an oak woodland and are well over 6 inches in diameter at breast height. A LTL would also require substantial grading of two (2) steep, nearly vertical cut slopes immediately adjacent to the narrow roadway shoulder, which consist of natural rock features and are forested with many protected trees. Further, if Deer Park Road is widened to the east, then the Winery’s 100-year stone wall and mailbox would have to be dismantled and reconstructed. The historic mailbox, just off the roadway shoulder is within the relevant construction area. The entire stone wall, part of the Winery’s gate, would require relocation to maintain compliance with the County’s 30-foot driveway setback requirement. According to the applicant, this historic stonework cannot be reproduced and must be protected. In addition, the applicant indicates that the vast majority (>95%) of the traffic accessing the site would be coming from the valley floor via Deer Park or Sanitarium Roads; very few trips would be coming from uphill (the Angwin area) and using the left turn lane. Construction of a LTL that almost no one will use is not advisable. For those cars that do need to make a left turn into the driveway, there is adequate sight distance to allow cars to see a turning vehicle and stop to avoid it. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to participate in the procurement and installation of two radar feedback signs which will be installed on either side of the project driveway to help mitigate driver’s speed near the project. Because of the location of the driveway relative to the intersection formed by Deer Park and Sanitarium roads, the geometry of the LTL would be awkward at best and possibly be less safe than the current configuration.
Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the Director of Public Works determined that the LTL need not be installed for this project. The cumulative impacts as further supported by the very few trips that would benefit by the installation of the LTL leads to the reasonable conclusion that the lane need not be installed.
As noted above, the proposed project would not exceed the 110-trip threshold and is therefore presumed to have a less than significant impact for VMT. Although not required, the TSR includes suggested and/or occurring measures to reduce the demand of vehicles travelling to and from the site. The TSR includes a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Plan memorializing these measures. The TDM Plan includes: maximum daily visitation of 70 people per day including tours and tasting and marketing events of 25-50 guests; limiting tours and tastings to 25 people during days when marketing events host up to 100 guests; shuttle service for the 100 person events and groups of 15 or more people for tours and tastings; staggering employee work hours, and ride share programs.
Parking - The project proposes adding nine (9) parking spaces to the previously approved 11 parking spaces authorized by P21-00038 WADM for a total of 20 spaces. The parking is distributed throughout the site so there will not be a single, large parking lot maintaining the agricultural character of the site. The TIS determined that the proposed parking supply is adequate for the anticipated demand based on an increase to the number of employees and visitors.
Groundwater - A Tier 1 Water Availability Analysis (WAA) was prepared by RSA+, dated July 12, 2024, as directed by the County’s Water Availability Guidelines (May 2015). The Tier 1 analysis considered existing uses onsite which include the existing residences, vineyards, landscaping, as well as winery operations. According to the WAA, the winery and residences use water from the Howell Mountain Mutual Water Company (HMMWC) for domestic and process water. There is an existing Howell Mountain Water System water storage tank on the vineyard property that provides water to the winery property. Domestic water use would increase from 0.70 af/yr to 1.38 af/yr, an increase of 0.68 af/yr. The HMMWC issued a letter indicating that they will continue to provide water service to the property.
|
Usage Type |
Existing Usage (acre-ft.) |
Proposed Usage (acre-ft.) |
|
Vineyard |
|
|
|
Irrigation |
2.73 |
2.34* |
|
Landscaping |
2.80 |
2.80 |
|
Total Well Use |
5.53 |
5.14 |
|
Winery |
|
|
|
Process Water |
0.23 |
0.77 |
|
Domestic Water |
0.11 |
0.25 |
|
Residential |
0.36 |
0.36 |
|
Total Domestic & Process Water Use (from Howell Mountain Mutual Water Company) |
0.70 |
1.38 |
|
Totals (AF/YR) |
6.23 |
6.52 |
|
Estimated Groundwater Recharge (AF/YR) |
23.75 |
23.75 |
*0.35 af/yr of treated process wastewater will be used for irrigation. The estimate of vineyard irrigation included water use for approximately 4.07 acres of vineyards.
As noted above, water for the winery and residences is provided by the HMMWC, therefore a Tier 2 and Tier 3 analysis are not required
Wastewater System - A Wastewater Feasibility Report, dated July 12, 2024, was prepared by RSA+, detailing the existing system and proposed changes to accommodate the changes in production, employees, and hospitality. According to the study, an Engineered septic system is proposed to treat and disperse domestic wastewater from the winery and residences. An existing 1,500-gallon septic tank will be replaced in its same location with a traffic rated tank. Domestic wastewater will flow to this tank and then to a 1,500-gallon recirculation tank and from there to two treatment pods. The treated wastewater will flow to a 3,000-gallon holding tank prior to dispersal to a subsurface drip system. The subsurface drip field is sized to meet the Environmental Health Division’s guidelines. Treatment of production wastewater will be treated using a BioFiltro system or equivalent prior to surface discharge for vineyard irrigation. The Division of Environmental Health reviewed this report and concurred with its findings, conditioning that the selected design and plans shall be designed by a licensed Civil Engineer or Registered Environmental Health Specialist and approved by the Division of Environmental Health.
Green House Gas Emissions - On April 20, 2022, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted new recommended thresholds for determining the significance of individual projects’ greenhouse gas impacts under CEQA. Under the new thresholds, proposed land use projects may be analyzed for consistency with a qualified greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategy in the event one has been adopted. To date, Napa County has not adopted a qualified GHG reduction strategy pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5. Absent an adopted strategy, BAAQMD recommends that a land use project include specified minimum design elements to ensure that the project is contributing its “fair share” toward achieving the state’s key climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. Napa County has not adopted a qualified GHG reduction strategy or an air quality plan, therefore projects will be evaluated per the BAAQMD recommended minimum design elements.
The proposal does not include any additions to the existing winery building and caves. Future construction would be required to comply with the California Building Code, which is currently being updated to include regulations to assist in the reduction of air quality impacts associated with construction. On the GHG Voluntary Best Management Practices (BMP) Checklist submitted with the use permit application, dated February 26, 2021, the applicant identified three GHG reduction BMPs that the operators are currently implementing at the winery. These include the use of energy-conserving lighting (BMP-9); use of water efficient fixtures (BMP-14); and site design that is oriented and designed to optimize conditions for natural heating, cooling, and day-lighting of interior spaces, and to maximize winter sun exposure, which includes the existing cave. As a component of the vineyard operation, the applicant indicated that the operators implement BMPs that include use of 70-80 percent cover crop (BMP-31) and chipping and reuse of pruned biomass, rather than burning the material on-site (BMP-32). The applicant did not indicate on the checklist their intent to introduce new GHG reduction programs into the winery’s current operations. A condition of approval will be included to require continuous operation of the existing operations identified. See Attachment B - COA No. 6.20.b.
Production/Grape Sourcing - Initial wine production on the site was 15,000 gallons per year, approved prior to adoption of the WDO and is not subject to the 75% grape source requirement. Because the current request does not include an increase to the winery development area, the proposed production increase is not subject to the grape source requirement. Although the production increase is not subject to the grape source requirements, the applicant has approval of approximately 24.4 net acres spread across eight properties in the vicinity of the winery property.
Public Comments - Attached are the comments that have been received at the time of publication of this staff report. (Attachment L)
Decision Making Options:
As noted in the Executive Summary Section above, staff is recommending approval of the project with conditions of approval as described in Option 1 below. Decision making options also include a no project alternative and a reduced project alternative.
Option 1 - Applicant's Proposal
Disposition - This option would result in approval of the proposed modifications to the 15,000 gallon per year winery. Staff recommends this option as the request is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and applicable General Plan policies. Potential environmental impacts were found to be less significant. Adequate water is available to implement the project.
Action Required - Follow the proposed action listed in Executive Summary. If conditions of approval are to be amended, specify conditions to be amended at the time the motion is made. This option has been analyzed for its environmental impacts, which were found to be less than significant.
Option 2 - Reduced Project Alternative
Disposition - All potential environmental impacts have been found to be less than significant through a combination of project design and conditions of approval. However, this option provides the Planning Commission at their discretion, the ability to further reduce potential impacts by modifying the proposed scope of the project via a reduced production, visitation and/or employees.
Action Required - Follow the proposed actions listed in the Executive Summary and amend scope and project specific conditions of approval to require a reduction in the requested production, visitation, and/or number of employees. If major revisions of the conditions of approval are required, the item will need to be continued to a future date.
Option 3 - Deny Proposed Project
Disposition - In the event the Commission determines that the project does not, or cannot meet the required findings for the granting of a Use Permit, Commissioners should identify what aspect or aspects of the project are in conflict with the required findings. State Law requires the Commission to adopt findings, based on the General Plan and County Code, setting forth why the proposed Use Permit modification is not being approved.
Action Required - Commission would take tentative motion to deny the project and remand the matter to staff for preparation of required findings to return to the Commission on a specific date.
Option 4 - Continuance Option
The Commission may continue an item to a future hearing date at its own discretion.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
A. Recommended Findings
B. Recommended Conditions of Approval and Final Agency Approval Memos
C. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
D. Previous Conditions of Approval
E. Use Permit Major Modification Application Packet
F. County Road and Street Standards Exception Request
G. Water Availability Analysis & HMMWC Letter
H. Wastewater Feasibility Study
I. Traffic Study
J . Graphics
K . Winery Comparison Analysis & Summary of Changes
L. Public Comments