TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Brian D. Bordona, Director of Planning, Building & Environmental Services
REPORT BY: Trevor Hawkes, Supervising Planner
SUBJECT: Duckhorn Vineyards Winery Use Permit Major Modification Appeal
RECOMMENDATION
title
PUBLIC HEARING 2:00 PM - Duckhorn Vineyards Winery Appeal (Use Permit Major Modification No. P19-00097-MOD)
Conduct a public hearing to consider the appeals filed by Appellant John Murphy on behalf of Preserve Lodi Lane and Appellant Water Audit California concerning Napa County Planning Commission’s decision on May 3, 2023, to approve the Duckhorn Vineyards Winery Use Permit Major Modification Application No. P19-00097 and adopt the Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (No Fiscal Impact) (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 7, 2023)
body
BACKGROUND
The matter before the Board involves an appeal filed by Appellant John Murphy on behalf of Preserve Lodi Lane (Appellant PLL or PLL) (Attachment A) and an appeal filed by Appellant Water Audit California (Appellant WAC or WAC) (Attachment B) to the Planning Commission’s approval of the Duckhorn Vineyards Winery expansion (the Project, Duckhorn or Winery) submitted by Duckhorn Wine Company, DBA Duckhorn Vineyards (Applicant or DVW). The Commission’s approval authorized an expansion to Duckhorn’s existing pre-WDO winery to allow construction of new production and hospitality facilities, a modification to the Winery’s visitation and marketing program, an increase in annual wine production from 160,000 gallons to 300,000 gallons per year, and related infrastructure and winery facilities. No changes were approved to the existing number of employees or hours of operation.
The pre-WDO Winery is located on a 30.34-acre parcel, at the corner of Lodi Lane and Silverado Trail, located at 1000 Lodi Lane, St. Helena (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 022-130-010, 022-100-033, 022-100-034 and 022-100-035).
On May 17, 2023, timely notices of intent to appeal were filed by Appellant PLL and Appellant WAC and timely appeal packets were submitted on June 1, 2023. (Please see Attachments A and B). The Appeal hearing was opened on July 25, 2023, and continued to November 7, 2023, at which time it was continued to a date uncertain. The hearing was re-noticed for August 20, 2024. Documents associated with the Project and this appeal record (No. P23-00163), technical studies, the Appeal packets submitted by PLL and WAC, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and revised MND, the Planning Commission transcript, correspondence and related documents are available for review on the Planning, Building and Environmental Services’ (PBES) Current Projects Explorer page at: <https://pbes.cloud/index.php/s/NPMqspgZ9HKSBir> or at the PBES Department located at 1195 Third Street, 2nd Floor, Napa, CA 94559.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Chair introduces item and invites any ex parte communications or new Levine Act disclosures, if any, from Board members. No timely requests were received to overturn the Chair’s previous “good cause” ruling so it stands.
2. Staff Report presentation.
3. Chair opens the public hearing and invites testimony from Appellant PLL and PLL’s witnesses as previously disclosed on the witness list and in the order noted on the witness list attached as Attachment C.
4. Chair then 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 D.
5. Chair invites any other interested members of the public to testify regarding the Appeals.
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 E.
7. Chair then invites each of the Appellants 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 Appeals. Staff recommends that the Board adopt separate motions of intent for each appeal.
10. Chair refers the matter to County Counsel’s office for preparation of a Resolution of Findings and Decision on Appeal. Because of the current workload, good cause exists for County Counsel’s office to have up to ninety days to prepare the Resolution of Findings and Decision on Appeal. Consequently, Staff recommends that the Board direct County Counsel’s office to return to the Board on November 12, 2024, with the proposed Resolution for the Board’s consideration and adoption.
Discussion:
On or about March 26 2019, Applicant applied for a Use Permit Major Modification to an existing 160,000 gallon a year pre-WDO winery to establish the majority of wine production activities on the West Property through the construction of a 58,042 sq. ft. facility, referred to as the West Winery, including a 90,000-gallon fire protection water tank, two (2) 158,000-gallon irrigation water storage tanks, a 24,000-gallon domestic water tank, landscaping, driveways and other winery improvements. The existing winery’s domestic water system and newly developed and expanded process and sanitary wastewater systems on the East Property would be connected to the new development on the West Property through Directional Boring of utility pipes underneath the Napa River.
There are 18 other existing wineries located on the Napa Valley floor within a one-mile radius of the subject property. (Refer to Attachment L - Winery Comparison Analysis of the Planning Commission Staff Report of May 3, 2023).
On April 3, 2023, the Public Notice for the Planning Commission hearing and Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property as well as any other persons who had requested notice. 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 and the City of St. Helena. The Notice was published in the Napa Valley Register on April 3, 2023.
On May 3, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider approval of the Project. Several letters and emails were received prior to the hearing and comments at the hearing focused on the following issues: 1) Size of the proposed building, 2) Removal of trees, 3) Groundwater, 4) Biological Resources, 5) Noise, 6) Light, 7) Boring under the Napa River, 8) Aesthetics, 9) Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 10) Flooding and 11) Stormwater.
Planning Commissioners Phillips, Whitmer and Mazotti unanimously (3:0) voted to approve the Duckhorn project.
The Project’s approval letter with the final adopted conditions of approval (COA) was forwarded to the Applicant on May 4, 2023 (the adopted COA are in Attachment F).
The appeal hearing was originally scheduled for November 7, 2023, however on October 23, 2023, Applicant requested that the hearing be continued to a date uncertain to allow Applicant to consider Project revisions based on comments received from neighbors. Appellants PLL and WAC and staff supported Applicant’s request for a continuance.
On November 7, 2023, the Board granted Applicant’s request and continued the hearing to a date uncertain to allow Applicant to revise the Project.
On February 27, 2024, Applicant submitted the following Project revisions to staff, Appellant PLL and Appellant WAC:
(1) a 10% reduction in daily visitation from a maximum of 219 visitors per day to a maximum of 197 visitors per day;
(2) a 10% reduction in the total square footage of the West Winery building, from 58,042 sq. ft. to 52,237 sq. ft.;
(3) drilling of a new groundwater well, located and designed in a manner that it will satisfy the County’s Well & Spring Interference Evaluation Criteria (Tier 2) and Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Criteria (Tier 3) of the County’s 2015 Water Availability Analysis (WAA) Guidelines and;
(4) a 10% reduction in annual draw volume and pumping rate for the existing project well (Well #1). DVW also submitted an updated WAA to reflect the new well and reduced groundwater use.
Staff reviewed the revised Project description, updated WAA, and determined that because the project is being reduced, there are no new or different environmental impacts and that the requirements for recirculation under CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5 are not triggered. For clarity purposes only, staff prepared the attached revised the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to reflect the limited project revisions and information in the updated WAA (Attachment G).
On May 29, 2024, the revised MND was circulated to PLL and WAC for review and comment and an opportunity to provide additional evidence and/or legal arguments related only on the topics that have been revised which are: (1) reduced visitation; (2) reduced size of the West building; (3) drilling of a new well; and (4) the updated WAA. Comments submitted by PLL are attached as Attachment H and WAC’s comments are attached as Attachment I.
Public notices of this appeal hearing were mailed and provided to all parties who received notice of the Planning Commission hearing on July 31, 2024. The notice ran in the newspaper on July 31, 2024.
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 Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to taking action on said Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed Project.
2. The Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration is based on independent judgment exercised by the Board of Supervisors.
3. The Revised Mitigated 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 as mitigated 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.
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. 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.
Exception to the Road and Street Standards:
1. The exception will preserve unique features of the natural environment which include, but are not limited to, steep slopes, heritage oak trees, or other trees of at least 6”dbh and found by the decision-maker to be of significant importance, but do not include man-made environmental features such as vineyards, rock walls, ornamental or decorative landscaping, fences or the like.
2. Grant of the Road and Street Standards Exception will provide the same overall practical effect as the Standards do in providing defensible space, and does not adversely affect the life, safety, and welfare of the public or persons coming to the property.
Pre-Hearing Conference:
To clarify the County's procedural requirements and expectations regarding land use appeals, the Board of Supervisors requires the parties 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 is treated as a member of the public and allotted the usual three minutes of speaking time.
A pre-hearing conference was held on July 11, 2023, with Appellant WAC, Appellant PLL, Applicant’s counsel, then Chair Ramos and a Deputy County Counsel. At that time, Appellants 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 Appellants that each Appellant is allocated a maximum of 30 minutes per Appellant and the Applicant is allocated a maximum of 60 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 Appellants and the Applicant is provided in Attachments C, D, and E.
Appellants and Applicant also agreed to provide the Chair in advance of the hearing with any requests for “good cause” to either supplement the record with new information and/or requests to have the Appeal heard de novo (e.g., a fresh hearing). Appellant PLL’s “good cause” request is attached as Attachment J. Appellant WAC’s “good cause” request is attached as Attachment K. Applicant submitted an opposition to the requests in Attachment L.
A copy of the Determination of Good Cause decision issued by the Chair is attached as Attachment M. Pursuant to County Code Section 2.88.090 (B), the Chair’s decision is final unless a party requests that a majority of the Board overrule the decision. None of the parties made a timely request to overrule the Chair’s decision so it stands.
At the pre-hearing conference, Appellants further agreed to provide any supplemental information, not to exceed five pages per Appellant, and Applicant agreed to a limit of twenty pages for any additional information. The supplemental information provided by Appellant PLL is attached as Attachment N, from Appellant WAC as Attachment O and as Attachment P from Applicant. The information is also available for review online at: <https://pbes.cloud/index.php/s/NPMqspgZ9HKSBir>. Correspondence received since the Planning Commission hearing and through August 8, 2024, is also available for review online at that same link and is attached as Attachment Q. Any additional correspondence received after August 8th (the date this report was finalized) will also be uploaded to that link.
Appeal:
Staff has summarized Appellant PLL’s grounds of Appeal, Staff’s response to PLL’s Appeal is in Attachment R. Appellant WAC’s grounds of appeal along with Staff’s responses is in Attachment S. Staff recommends the Board review the actual Appeal for further details.
REQUESTED ACTIONS:
1) Conduct a public hearing to consider the Appeals.
2) Take tentative action to deny the PLL and WAC Appeals in their entirety and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.
3) Direct staff to revise the COA to include a revised cap on the daily visitation, new production building size, rate of groundwater extraction and volume of groundwater, and the construction of a new project groundwater well.
4) Refer the matter to County Counsel’s office for preparation of a Resolution of Findings and Decision on Appeals and direct County Counsel to return on November 12, 2024, with the proposed Resolution for adoption.
FISCAL & STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
No |
|
Is it currently budgeted? |
Yes |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Consideration and possible adoption of a Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration. According to the proposed Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed project would not have any potentially significant environmental impacts after implementation of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are proposed for the following areas: Biological Resources and Cultural Resources. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.