TO: Napa County Planning Commission
FROM: Brian D. Bordona; Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services
REPORT BY: Trevor Hawkes; Supervising Planner
SUBJECT: Silverado Resort & Spa Project; P24-00141-MM
RECOMMENDATION
title
TODD SHALLAN / SILVERADO RESORT & SPA PROJECT / USE PERMIT MINOR MODIFICATION NO. P24-00141-MM
CEQA status: Consideration and possible adoption of Categorical Exemptions Classes 1 and 4: It has been determined that this type of project does not have a significant effect on the environmental and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). [See Class 1 (“Existing Facilities”) and Class 4 (“Minor Alterations to Land”) which may be found in the guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act at 14 CCR §15301, §15304(a), §15304(b), and §15304(f); as well as Napa County’s Local Procedures for Implementing the California Quality Act, Appendix B, Class 1: Existing Facilities, Subsection 3]. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Request: Approval of a Use Permit Minor Modification to construct an event pavilion and an event lounge. An Exception to the Road and Street Standards is also requested to permit a firetruck turnaround and emergency vehicle access road to be located greater than 50 feet from the event lounge.
Staff Recommendation: Find the project categorically exempt from CEQA and approve the Minor Modification to Use Permit as conditioned.
Staff Contact: Trevor Hawkes, Supervising Planner, 1195 Third St, Suite 210, Napa, CA 94559; (707) 253-4388; trevor.hawkes@countyofnapa.org
Applicant Contact: Todd Shallan, Vice President , 1600 Atlas Peak Rd, Napa, CA 94598; (707) 257-5430; todd.shallan@silveradoresort.com
Applicant Agent: Scott Greenwood-Meinert, 700 Main Street, Suite 301, Napa, CA, 94558; (415) 772-5741; sgreenwood-meinert@coblentzlaw.com
Other Representative Contact: Christina Nicholson, P.E., 1665 2nd Street, Napa, 94559; (707) 773-7829; cnicholson@sherwoodengineers.com
body
CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 15, 2025, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROPOSED ACTIONS:
That the Planning Commission:
1. Find the project categorically exempt based on the recommended Findings 1-4 in Attachment A;
2. Approve the Napa County Road and Street Standards Exception Request based on the recommended Findings 5-6 in Attachment A, and subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment B.
3. Approve Use Permit Minor Modification Application No. P24-00141-MM, based on recommended Findings 7-14 in Attachment A, and subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment B.
Discussion: On October 15, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to consider approval of Minor Modification to Use Permit; P24-00141-MM. Staff presented to the Commission the proposal by the applicant to construct a 9,308 sq. ft. event pavilion and 1,750 sq. ft. event lounge in the area within Silverado Resort and Spa commonly referred as ‘The Grove’. After the applicant’s presentation the Commission opened the public hearing and received public testimony. At the conclusion of public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing, deliberated and then a motion was made, seconded and voted on to continue the hearing to the November 5th, 2025, Planning Commission agenda, in order for Staff and the applicant to address specific concerns of the commission and to allow the public more time to review requested revisions to the request.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: It has been determined that this type of project does not have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act [See Class 1 (“Existing Facilities”) and Class 4 (“Minor Alterations to Land”), which may be found in the guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act at 14 CCR §15301, §15304(a), §15304(b), and §15304(f).
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On October 15, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider approval of a Minor Modification to Use Permit for an event pavilion and lounge at the area commonly referred to as the Grove at Silverado Resort and Spa. A copy of the full Staff report and supporting documents can be found at: <https://napa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7691240&GUID=5D4C209C-A46E-4FEF-86CA-8B227BE27B8C&Options=&Search=>
A video of the public hearing is available here: <https://napa.granicus.com/player/clip/5712?meta_id=541246>
Prior to the public hearing comments were received from neighbors and the general public with project concerns about the following topics; processing procedures, the environmental determination, noise, oak tree removal, stream impacts and flooding. Comments were also received in support of the project. Similar comments were made by members of the public in attendance at the hearing and by Planning Commissioners during deliberations on the request. Prior to the hearing the Commission had also received a Change Memo from Staff, requesting revisions to the recommended Conditions of Approval and identifying issues with the uploading of supporting technical documents in the application packet. Ultimately the Commission voted on continuing the public hearing to November 5, 2025, to allow the Commission, neighbors and the general public further opportunity to review the revisions to the associated documents and to allow Staff and the applicant time to respond to some of the issues raised by the Commission.
Technical Documents
At the October 15, 2025, public hearing for P24-00141, Staff identified that an older review copy of the application’s Water Availability Analysis (WAA) had been attached to the agenda (May 2024). Staff review of the WAA versions on file determined that the only discrepancy between the current and older copy of the WAA was a more robust explanation of how the proposed landscape plan would reduce groundwater use compared to existing conditions. This was detailed in the Change Memo received by the Commission just prior to the hearing. The Revised WAA (September 2024), is included in Attachment C. As also mentioned in the Change Memo to the October 15, 2025, public hearing, a Wastewater Feasibility Report from an earlier version of the project when the applicant was proposing onsite septic was erroneously attached to the Staff Report. The project as currently proposed will connect to Napa Sanitation sewer lines for the project’s wastewater needs.
Oak Tree Removal and Landscaping
Many of the comments received prior to the October 15, 2025, public hearing, including comments by Commissioners during deliberations, centered around the project’s planned removal of eight (8) oak trees. Attached to this Staff Report in Attachment D the applicant has included a supplemental letter from an Arborist providing additional rational for the proposed oak tree removal and mitigation.
Additionally, the applicant, in response to comments that were received, is proposing to revise their proposed landscape plan with additional tree plantings. Included in Attachment E that applicant has provided Staff with a Tree Diagram. The exhibit identifies, with an area around the Grove, that there will be approximately 96 trees remaining after removal of the eight (8) oak trees that are proposed for removal. The applicant proposes then to supplement the draft landscaping plan they provided in the Water Availability Analysis with 32 tree plantings, including 12 Ray Hartman Wild Lilacs, nine (9) Western Rosebuds and 11 Valley Oaks.
Staff has included project specific conditions committing the applicant to designing the eventual submitted Grove landscape plan with these 32 trees. Since these trees were not part of the landscape package analyzed in the WAA to determine that groundwater demand for landscaping could be maintained at ‘no net increase’, a condition has also been added that the eventual landscape package submitted for approval under COA No. 6.4 shall demonstrate a no net increase in groundwater demand for permit issuance.
Processing Procedures and Environmental Determination
Comments were also received from the public and commissioners concerning the processing procedure and determination by Staff that the project as proposed qualifies for categorical exemption from the CEQA. The Commission asked questions surrounding conditions applied to the project by Napa Sanitation and noted potential discrepancy between Staff determination and project analysis statements in approval memos from Napa Sanitation and the Department of Public Works.
Pursuant to Napa County Code 18.124.130(B) the holder of a non-winery use permit may process a minor modification to said use permit if the result of the request would result in any structure or the aggregate of all approved structures being increased more than 25 percent in size of one story in height based on the size allowed under the approved use permit. The minor modification may be approved in regard to project design or permit conditions which ‘do not affect the overall concept, density, intensity or environmental impact of, or substantially alter or delete any environmental mitigation measure for the project’.
Regarding the determination by Staff that the project qualifies for a categorical exemption; Cal Code of Regulations Title 14, §15300 requires that the CEQA guidelines include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which shall, therefore, be exempt from the provisions of the CEQA. In the course of establishing their own procedures, public agencies shall list those specific activities which fall within each of the exempt classes. Public agencies may omit from their implementing procedures classes and examples that do not apply to their activities, but they may not require EIRs for projects described in the classes (Cal Code of Regulations Title 14, §15300.4)
Appendix B of Napa County’s Local Procedures for Implementing the CEQA (Revised February 2020) includes a list of local project types which, in addition to the exemptions contained in the State CEQA Guidelines, the Board has found do not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore qualify for a categorical exemption. Item #3 under Class 1: Existing Facilities includes; ‘Very Minor and Minor Modifications of existing use permits in conformance with Section 18.124.130(B) and (F) of the County Code.’ Therefore, if the project request is determined to meet the qualifications for processing of a minor modification to a non-winery use permit (NCC §18.124.130(B)), then the project is categorically exempt from the CEQA, pursuant to the County’s local procedures.
Subsequent to the October 15, 2025, public hearing on this item Staff held meetings with Napa Sanitation and the Department of Public Works for information on how those agencies approach their analysis of the project. Provided in Attachment F, Staff has included Napa Sanitation’s Board of Directors Resolution 21-006, which applies to this project because the sewer main that serves Silverado Resort and Spa lacks wet weather capacity. On review of the project the district determined that wastewater flows from the development would be feasible to mitigate with a contribution to a planned Inflow/Infiltration project (first bullet beneath the Developer Options of Attachment F). It’s important to note that the district’s determination that the project would increase flows is not impacted by operational conditions of a project’s use permit; a cap on visitation or events would not have changed the calculation since the determination is based on whether a project connects to the system, the square footage of the project and the likely occupancy type.
The Department of Public Works provided the following excerpt regarding their review of the project;
Based on a detailed review of the project description and supporting documentation, the proposed improvements to the Grove at Silverado Resort are not expected to generate additional daily or peak-hour vehicle trips. While the project will allow the facility to operate year-round-potentially increasing the total number of events and annual trip activity-these trips will be spread throughout the year and will not exceed the resort’s existing operational capacity on any given day. The facility will continue to serve the existing guest and member population, with no increase in the approved number of employees, guests, or visitors. The proposed improvements do not introduce new land uses or intensify resort operations beyond what has already been approved. Historical traffic and parking studies analyzed the resort at full operational capacity, including event use at the Grove, and those conditions remain unchanged. Therefore, the project does not result in any new traffic impacts and no additional analysis or conditions are warranted.
Given the above Staff believe the project meets the requirements for processing as a minor modification to a non-winery use permit, however a decision-making option has been added below should the Commission disagree with this determination.
Noise
In response to comments received from the public and the Commission, the applicant has submitted a revised Noise Study, along with revised proposed Conditions of Approval in order to further prevent the potential for amplified sound from outdoor events at the Grove to exceed the County’s Noise Ordinance at nearby sensitive receptors. The conditions as currently proposed would require outdoor events held at the Grove to orient their sound equipment away from sensitive receptors. The applicant proposes to procure their own sound measurement devices and have them stationed at the easterly property line adjacent to sensitive receptors and monitor events taking place, including having permittee staff intervene should the monitors demonstrate that the event is exceeding the noise standard.
Staff has also proposed additional Noise conditions from what was brought to the Commission on October 15th. These conditions would require the applicant to hire an acoustical engineer to monitor a minimum of three (3) events held at the Grove after building occupancy. The engineer would collect readings of events and send their findings in a report to PBES staff at the conclusion of the third event, with the intent of the Planning Commission holding a publicly noticed Noise Monitoring hearing for the Grove within 6 months of receiving the report.
Decision Making Options:
As noted in the Executive Summary Section above, staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the project as proposed, subject to the recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval in Attachments A & B. Decision making options include the following:
Option 1 - Applicant’s Proposal (Staff Recommendation)
Disposition - This action would result in the adoption of the Categorical Exemptions, approval of the Napa County Road and Street Standards Exception, and approval of a Minor Modification to Use Permit for the Silverado Resort and Spa to approve a 9,308 square-foot pavilion and a 1,750 square-foot lounge to be used for events. Staff recommends this option as the request is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, applicable General Plan policies, and other County regulations as presented in the Recommended Findings (Attachment A).
Action Required - Follow the proposed action listed in the Executive Summary. If conditions of approval are to be amended, specify conditions to be amended at time motion is made. This option has been analyzed for its environmental impacts, and the project was found to be categorically exempt from CEQA.
Option 2 - Modify the Applicant’s Proposal
Disposition - This option would result in modification of the proposed project and use to address concerns of the Planning Commission and/or public comments if solicited.
Action Required - Follow proposed actions listed in the Executive Summary and recommend amended scope and applicable conditions of approval. The item may need to be continued to a future date if significant revisions to the recommended conditions of approval are desired.
Option 3 - Process the Application as a Major Modification to Use Permit
Disposition - In the event the Planning Commission determines that the project does not, or cannot, meet the requirements to process a Minor Modification pursuant to NCC §18.124.130(B), the Commission should articulate what aspects of the project are in conflict with the required non-winery minor modification to use permit processing requirements. Should the Commission come to this decision the project would not qualify for categorical exemption under the County’s local procedures. The Commission should continue the hearing to a date uncertain to allow Staff time to prepare and distribute a CEQA Initial Study prior to returning to the Commission.
Action Required - Commissioners should move to continue the item to a date uncertain while articulating what aspects of the project do not, or cannot, meet the processing requirements for a non-winery Minor Modification.
Option 4 - Deny Proposed Project
Disposition - In the event the Planning Commission determines that the project does not, or cannot, meet the required findings for the granting of the Minor Modification to Use Permit, the Commission should articulate what 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 Minor Modification to Use Permit is not being approved.
Action Required - The Commission would move to deny the project.
Attachments:
A. Recommended Findings
B. Recommended Conditions of Approval and Final Agency Memos
C. Water Availability Analysis
D. Arborist Letter concerning oak tree removal and mitigation
E. The Grove Tree Planting Exhibit
F. Napa Sanitation Board of Directors Resolution No. 21-006
G. Revised Noise Study