TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Thomas Zeleny - Interim County Counsel
REPORT BY: Jason M. Dooley - Deputy County Counsel
SUBJECT: Walt Ranch Appeal Findings of Fact
RECOMMENDATION
title
SET MATTER - 2:00 PM (Walt Ranch)
County Counsel requests consideration and adoption of a Resolution of Findings of Fact and Decision on Appeal regarding an appeal filed by Center for Biological Diversity (Appellant) to a decision by the Director of the Napa County Department of Planning, Building and Environmental Services on October 6, 2021, to approve a revision to Mitigation Measure 6-1 and to incorporate the revised mitigation measure into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan applicable to the Walt Ranch Vineyards Agricultural Erosion Control Plan - File No. P11-00205-ECPA submitted by Hall Brambletree Associates, LP (Applicant) to allow earthmoving associated with the development of approximately 209 net acres of vineyard (±316 gross acres)(the Project).
body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the appeal hearing on April 19, 2022, the Board heard and considered evidence submitted from Appellant, the Applicant, Staff and members of the public regarding the appeal. After considering all of the evidence presented, the Board closed the public hearing and continued the matter requesting an advisory report from the Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services addressing three issues raised during the appeal hearing: (1) contiguity of the preserved area and potential impacts of edge effects on the viability of conserved woodland for GHG mitigation; (2) the qualifications for a biologist required to assist in identifying the specific boundaries of the conservation areas; and (3) the specific requirements for monetary security needed to ensure the management and protection of the conserved areas. On May 17, 2022, the Board reopened the public hearing to consider the advisory report and testimony from the parties and the public. After considering the additional evidence, the Board closed the public hearing and adopted a motion of intent to deny the Appeal in its entirety and to adopt the revised Mitigation Measure 6-1 presented by Staff. The Board directed Staff to return on July 12, 2022, with a Resolution of Findings of Fact and Decision on Appeal that reflects the Board’s intent as expressed on May 17, 2022. Staff has prepared a proposed Resolution that accurately reflects the Board’s intent as expressed on May 17, 2022. The public hearing is closed and public comment is limited to whether or not the proposed Resolution accurately reflects the Board’s intent as expressed on May 17, 2022.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS:
1. Staff Report.
2. Chair invites public comment.
3. Motion, second, discussion, and vote on the Resolution.
FISCAL & STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
No |
|
County Strategic Plan pillar addressed: |
Effective and Open Government |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Final Environmental Impact Report was certified on August 1, 2016 (State Clearinghouse No. 2012-02046); the Board’s tentative action adopting revisions to Mitigation Measure 6-1 substantiates the mitigation measure described in the certified Final EIR.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
At the appeal hearing on April 19, 2022, the Board heard and considered evidence submitted from Appellant, the Applicant, Staff and members of the public regarding the appeal. After considering all of the evidence presented, the Board closed the public hearing and continued the matter, requesting an Advisory Report from the Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services. Specifically, the Board requested input regarding three issues raised by the Appellant and the public:
1. Contiguity of the preserved area and potential impacts of edge effects on the viability of the preserved area for GHG mitigation;
2. Qualifications for a biologist required to assist in identifying the specific boundaries of the conservation easement areas; and
3. Requirements for the monetary security necessary to ensure the management and protection of the easement areas in perpetuity.
Per the Board’s direction, on May 17, 2022, the Director addressed the three issues in an Advisory Report, recommending revisions to Mitigation Measure 6-1 and additional conditions of approval. The Director recommended adding a 30-foot buffer from borders of approved clearing limits that abutted woodland habitat that was otherwise eligible to be preserved for GHG mitigation. This requirement added 19.7 acres of woodland habitat to the required minimum of 248. The first additional condition of approval defined the qualifications required for a biologist, retained by the County at the applicant’s expense, to identify the boundaries of the conservation easement, in consultation with the accredited land trust that will hold the easement. Lastly, the second additional condition of approval set forth a standard for calculating the monetary security required to ensure the management and defense of the easement would be secure in perpetuity.
The Board reopened the public hearing to allow new evidence and testimony from the Appellant, the Applicant, and members of the public relating to the Advisory Report. After considering the Advisory Report and additional evidence and testimony, the Board closed the public hearing and adopted a motion of intent to deny the appeal in its entirety and to adopt the revised Mitigation Measure 6-1, as presented by Staff in the Advisory Report, as well as the new conditions of approval.
The Board directed Staff to return on July 12, 2022, with a Resolution of Findings of Fact and Decision on Appeal that reflects the Board’s intent as expressed on May 17, 2022.
Staff has prepared a proposed Resolution, which was shared with Appellant’s and Applicant’s respective counsel on July 1, 2022, as a courtesy and in accordance with County practice on appeals. After sending the draft to the parties, Staff was informed that counsel for the Appellant was unavailable to review the draft and would be returning on July 11, 2022.
On July 5, 2022, the Appellant requested a continuance to the next regular meeting of the Board, to allow more time for their counsel to review the draft Resolution. The Applicant opposed the request, stating that the date of the meeting has been set for nearly two months and that the purpose of the meeting is to memorialize the decision that the Board has already made.
Staff does not support a continuance and recommends that the Board adopt the proposed Resolution and render its final decision in this matter. As stated above, the Board set this matter for consideration at the May 17, 2022, hearing, after taking tentative action. The parties were informed of the date well in advance of the May 17, 2022, hearing, as the Staff Report was disclosed to the parties one week before the hearing. Secondly, the purpose of the present action is to determine whether the proposed Resolution accurately reflects the Board’s intent as expressed on May 17, 2022. The public hearing is closed and no new evidence or substantive argument will be considered. The Appellant will have the opportunity to comment during the public comment period, along with the Applicant and members of the public. The Appellant has had sufficient time to prepare to participate in this way. Staff recommends that the Board deny the request for continuance and proceed with consideration of the proposed Resolution.
The public hearing is closed. Public comment on this item is limited to whether the proposed Resolution accurately reflects the Board’s intent as expressed on May 17, 2022. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the Resolution and instruct the Clerk of the Board to serve the Resolution in compliance with Napa County Code Section 2.88.090(D).