TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: David Morrison, Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services
REPORT BY: Charlene Gallina, Supervising Planner
SUBJECT: Benjamin Ranch Appeal Hearing
RECOMMENDATION
title
PUBLIC HEARING 2:00 PM - (Benjamin Ranch Winery)
Consideration and possible action regarding an appeal filed by Michael Honig/Keep Rutherford Rural (Appellant) to a decision by the Napa County Planning Commission on May 19, 2021, to approve Use Permit Application No. P13-00371-UP submitted by Frank Family Vineyards, LLC (Applicant) to construct and operate a new 475,000-gallon per year winery known as Benjamin Ranch Winery (the Winery or the Project) as further described in the Board Agenda Letter for this matter. The Project would be located at 8895 Conn Creek Road, St. Helena on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 030-120-016 and 030-120-017 (the Property).
(CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 16, 2021 AND MARCH 8, 2022; STAFF, THE APPLICANT AND APPELLANT REQUEST A REMAND TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION)
body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The matter before the Board involves a neighbor appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a new 475,000-gallon per year winery known as the Benjamin Ranch Winery in approximately 87,292 square feet of building area along with tours and tastings by appointment, a marketing program and related improvements and infrastructure on an approximately 85.1-acre project site. The Project would be located in the AP (Agricultural Preserve) Zoning District and has a General Plan land use designation of AR (Agricultural Resource).
On May 31, 2022, Applicant’s counsel requested that the Board of Supervisors remand aspects of the Benjamin Ranch winery project to the Planning Commission for an advisory report. The purpose of the remand is to pursue design changes for the buildings approved by the Planning Commission and to address other topics. Since Treasury Wine Estates purchased the winery property from the Frank Family six months ago in December 2021, they have been reconsidering components of the project to address Treasury’s business needs which differ from Frank Family’s. Also, the Applicant has heard from neighbors that the winery structures are a concern. In contrast with the operational changes that Treasury has also proposed to the project, design changes would be problematic for the Board to consider in the context of an appeal because they often are merely conceptual, lack architectural drawings and may require additional CEQA analysis.
In addition, staff is aware of two recent important changes in State law that affect how project impacts are evaluated. The first is the change to the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analysis thresholds adopted by the Bay Area Quality Management District (BAAQMD). As a result of the BAAQMD new guidelines adopted on April 20, 2022, the air quality and GHG analysis needs to be updated prior to the Board taking action on the project. Secondly, on March 28, 2022, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order No. N-7-22 (EO) to address worsening drought conditions in California. The order includes modifications to how well permits are evaluated to address the drought. Because of the EO, the hydrology analysis also needs to be updated. A remand will enable Treasury to propose design changes that can be fully evaluated by staff, the Appellant, and the public and will allow staff to address the recent changes in law.
Napa County Code Section 2.88.090.C provides that if applicable, the Board may remand the matter to the decision-maker for preparation of an advisory report prior to the Board’s decision on an appeal. Pursuant to the provision, staff, Applicant and Appellant jointly request a remand to the Planning Commission for preparation of an advisory report on the following three topics: 1) changes proposed by the Applicant to the winery’s design and operational characteristics; (2) consideration of the new BAAQMD Air Quality and GHG Guidelines that took effect in April 2022; and (3) consideration of the Governor’s recent Executive Order pertaining to well permits and the extreme drought. The Planning Commission would consider these three topics at a noticed public hearing. Furthermore, the Mitigated Negative Declaration would be revised and recirculated to reflect changes in the project and in state law. The Appellant along with any other member of the public would have an opportunity to address the Commission on these topics prior to the Commission rendering an advisory report which would then be forwarded to the Board for consideration at the appeal hearing prior to the Board making a final decision on the appeal. The appeal hearing would essentially be “on hold” until the advisory report is issued and a new appeal hearing date is agreed upon by the parties.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS:
1. Chair introduces item.
2. Chair invites disclosures from Board members.
3. Chair invites the Staff presentation regarding the request for remand.
4. Open the public hearing and accept public comment, limited to the issue of remand.
5. Close the public hearing.
6. Chair invites Board deliberations.
7. Motion and second to remand the appeal for P13-00371-UP to the Planning Commission for preparation of an advisory report on the following: 1) changes proposed by the Applicant to the winery’s design and operational characteristics; (2) consideration of the new BAAQMD Air Quality and GHG Guidelines that took effect in April 2022; and (3) consideration of the Governor’s recent Executive Order pertaining to well permits and the extreme drought.
FISCAL & STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
No |
|
County Strategic Plan pillar addressed: |
Effective and Open Government |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: According to the proposed Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration (Revised MND), revised to reflect the amended use permit project scope, the proposed project would not have any potentially significant environmental impacts with incorporation of mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources and Transportation. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
All documents associated with the Benjamin Ranch Winery, including but not limited to the application materials, the Revised MND, Planning Commission Staff Reports, comments and correspondence, the transcripts of the Planning Commission meetings, the Project’s final conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, and the appeal packet, can be accessed at: <https://pbes.cloud/index.php/s/Brqy6Ps3H3wWQk4>
On May 31, 2022, Applicant’s counsel requested that the Board of Supervisors remand aspects of the Benjamin Ranch winery project to the Planning Commission for an advisory report. The purpose of the remand is to pursue design changes for the buildings and operational changes as approved by the Planning Commission and to address other topics.
A remand will enable Treasury to propose design and operational changes that can be fully evaluated by staff, the Appellant, and the public and will allow staff to address the recent changes in law with respect to BAAQMD Air Quality and GHG Guidelines and the Governor’s Executive Order pertaining to well permits and the extreme drought. Napa County Code Section 2.88.090.C provides that if applicable, the Board may remand the matter to the decision-maker for preparation of an advisory report prior to the Board’s decision on an appeal.
Board Consideration and Staff Recommendation:
Staff, Appellant and Applicant jointly request a remand to the Commission for purposes of preparation of an advisory report addressing: 1) changes proposed by the Applicant to the winery’s design and operational characteristics; (2) consideration of the new BAAQMD Air Quality and GHG Guidelines that took effect in April 2022; and (3) consideration of the Governor’s recent Executive Order pertaining to well permits and the extreme drought. The Commission’s advisory report will be considered by the Board prior to rendering a decision on the appeal. Upon issuance of the Commission’s advisory report, the appeal hearing will be publicly noticed at least fifteen days in advance of the hearing before the Board.