TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Brian D. Bordona, Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services
REPORT BY: Kelli Cahill, Planner III
SUBJECT: William Cole Winery Appeal (Use Permit Major Modification No. P19-00101-MOD and Variance P19-00441-VAR)
RECOMMENDATION
title
PUBLIC HEARING 2:00 P.M. - William Cole Winery Appeal (Use Permit Major Modification No. P19-00101-MOD and Variance P19-00441-VAR)
Conduct a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Appellant Water Audit California (WAC or Appellant) concerning the Napa County Planning Commission’s decision on May 1, 2024, to approve the William Cole Winery Use Permit Major Modification No P19-00101-MOD and Variance P19-00441-VAR submitted by William and Jane Ballentine, William Ballentine Jr. and Jane Sorenson TR (Applicant or William Cole). (No Fiscal Impact).
(CONTINUED FROM JULY 23, 2024)
body
BACKGROUND
The matter before the Board involves an appeal filed by Appellant concerning the decisions made by the Napa County Planning Commission on May 1, 2024, to: (1) adopt the Negative Declaration; (2) approve the Variance P19-00441-VAR; and (3) approve the Use Permit Major Modification P19-00101-MOD for the William Cole Winery.
The Planning Commission’s approval of the Use Permit Major Modification recognized components that were out of compliance with the permitted entitlements and for expansion beyond existing entitlements such as marketing activities, on-premises consumption of wine produced on-site, parking, conversion of an existing agricultural barn for winery use, outdoor hospitality areas, and necessary infrastructure improvements and upgrades. Furthermore, the Commission restricted the winery to increase production, number of employees, and weekly visitation upon compliance with the approved entitlements to a time not less than three years from May 1, 2024. As approved, the Variance would allow the existing winery and barn to be located less than 320 feet from Highway 29. Therefore, approval of the Project corrected the code violations identified under the Code Compliance Program.
The Project is an existing winery on a 5.72 acre parcel, located at 2849 N. St. Helena Hwy, St. Helena, CA (APN 022-230-015).
On May 15, 2024, a timely notice of intent to appeal was filed by Appellant and a timely appeal packet was submitted on May 30, 2024 (the Appeal) (Attachment A). Staff responses to the Appeal are in Attachment B.
Documents associated with the Project and this appeal record (No. P24-00137) are available for review on Planning, Building and Environmental Services’ (PBES) Department at: <https://www.pbes.cloud/index.php/s/RbrSABQCbNxELWe> or at the PBES Department located at 1195 Third Street, 2nd Floor, Napa, CA 94559.
Discussion:
On March 26, 2019, this application was submitted to participate in the County’s Code Compliance Program as described in Resolution No. 2018-164. Pursuant to that Resolution, a site inspection was conducted by Code Compliance, Planning, and Environmental Health staff to identify any potential health and safety issues, as well as to review the existing use and proposed changes. Life safety issues included minor Fire and Building Code issues such as repairing illuminated exit signage in the winery and removal of improper exit door hardware. All issues were resolved, and final inspection conducted which found all health and safety issues were addressed. The Project consists of the following:
A. COMPONENTS NECESSARY TO REMEDY EXISTING WINERY USE PERMIT VIOLATIONS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION :
1) Recognition of 22,000 gallons of production per year (approved for 20,000 gallons per year);
2) Recognition of five (5) by-appointment visitors per day for tours and tastings for a maximum of 23 visitors per week (approved for five (5) visitors on the busiest day, 10 on average per week by appointment);
3) Recognition of six (6) additional full-time employees for a total of 8 (approved for two full-time and one part-time employees;
4) Recognition of the existing use of a 3,120 square foot (s.f.) barn built in 2018 (Building Permit No. B16 -01751) used for barrel storage (approved for agricultural use, not for winery related use); and,
5) Recognition of existing parking east of the winery and east of the barn for an additional maximum of eight (8) unstriped parking spaces (approved for six (6) spaces).
B. EXPANSION BEYOND EXISTING WINERY USE PERMIT ENTITLEMENTS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
1) Modification of an existing Marketing Program to increase events as follows: three (3) events per year with 50 people per event and two (2) wine release events per year with 75 people per event;
2) Convert the existing barn to production, fermentation, barrel storage, aging and bottling for the winery;
3) Utilize an existing 100 s.f. office building that is connected to the existing winery structure;
4) Addition of a process wastewater treatment system and a 10,000 gallon wastewater holding tank to be used during the rainy season, with the capacity to accommodate one full week of peak flow. The treated wastewater will be used to irrigate existing vineyard for disposal;
5) Widen a portion of the eastern edge of the existing driveway to 20 feet and 25 feet, and add a second hammerhead turnaround for Fire and Emergency vehicles next to the barn consistent with the County’s Roads and Street Standards;
6) Conversion of the existing temporary 1,650 s.f. (30 ft x 50 ft) concrete patio outdoor hospitality area temporarily allowed during Covid-19 to remain as a permanent outdoor hospitality area, located on the west side of the winery; and,
7) Request on-premises consumption of wines produced on site in outdoor areas in accordance with Business and Professions Code Sections 23358, 23390 and 23396.5. The request also includes a Variance to the road setback requirement of 600 feet from Highway 29, where the existing barn is located less than 320 feet from Highway 29 (Attachment H - Project Graphics).
C. EXPANSION BEYOND EXISTING WINERY USE PERMIT ENTITLEMENTS THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONALLY APPROVED UPON THREE YEARS OF COMPLIANCE FROM MAY 1, 2024:
1) Increase annual wine production from 22,000 gallons to 30,000 gallons; and,
2) Increase by-appointment visitation for daily tours and tastings to a maximum of 18 persons per day, 125 persons per week to occur Monday through Sunday.
On March 13, 2024, the Public Notice for the Planning Commission hearing and Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. It should be noted that the 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 March 14, 2024.
On May 1, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Project and voted (4:0-AYES: Dameron; Brunzell; Whitmer; and Phillips; EXCUSED: Mazotti) to approve the William Cole 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 Negative Declaration prior to taking action on said Negative Declaration and the proposed Project.
2. The Negative Declaration is based on independent judgment exercised by the Board of Supervisors.
3. The Negative Declaration 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.
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.
Variance:
1. That the procedural requirements set forth in Section 18.128.060 have been met.
2. Special circumstances exist applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, because of which strict application of the zoning district regulations deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
3. Grant of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
4. Grant of the variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare of the County of Napa.
5. Grant of the variance in the case of other groundwater basins, or areas which do not overlay an identified groundwater basin, where grant of the variance cannot satisfy the criteria specified for approval or waiver of a groundwater permit under Section 13.15.070 or 13.15.080, substantial evidence has not been presented demonstrating that the grant of the variance might cause a significant adverse effect on any underlying groundwater basin or area which does not overlay an identified groundwater basin.
Use Permit Major Modification:
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. The proposed use would not require a new water system or improvement causing significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on the affected groundwater basin in Napa County, unless that use would satisfy any of the other criteria specified for approval or waiver of a groundwater permit under Sections 13.15.070 or 13.15.080 of the County 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 July 24, 2024, with Appellant’s and Applicant’s counsel, Chair Gallagher 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, an initial submission was received timely on September 5th, a week prior to the September 13th deadline. Upon review, it was discovered that the submission both exceeded the agreed upon 10-page limit and contained impermissible extrinsic evidence for which no good cause determination had been requested. As a professional courtesy, on September 6th, staff notified Appellant of the violations and informed them of their options to re-submit a compliant document by September 13th, and if nothing was received, County would remove the excess pages and redact the impermissible information.
No new submission, or any communication, was received by the deadline and therefore County staff redacted and removed excess pages, resulting in the document contained in Attachment F.
However, on September 20th, a full week past the deadline, County received a new submission from WAC which purported to cure the deficiencies. It did not. Because the new submission was not timely, it is not included with this item, but was received by the Clerk.
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 December 3, 2024, 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 December 3, 2024, 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 time a materials basis as set forth 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 Negative Declaration. According to the proposed Negative Declaration, the proposed project would have any potentially significant environmental impacts. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites enumerated under Government Code Section 65962.5.