Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome, everyone. I would like to call to order the, what is it, May 20 meeting of the Napa County Planning Commission. And Mr. Trippi, would you be so kind as to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Time for citizen comments and recommendations. Members of the public who wish to make public comment on a matter not on the agenda, but oh, I'm sorry. We need to do roll call, which I forgot. Clerk.

Okay. Chair Damron? Present. Excuse me. Commissioner Damron. Commissioner Brooks? Present. Commissioner Moran Williams?

Present.

Vice Chair Richmond?

Present.

And Chair Brunzel?

Present. Thank you. JULIETTE Okay. Now we will move on to citizen comments and recommendations. This is for members of the public who wish to make public comment on a matter that is not on our agenda but is within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission. And if there's anyone in the room, you will have three minutes per speaker. And you may proceed to the podium. Okay. I don't see anyone in the room. Angie, is there anyone

online? There is no public comment online.

Okay. So we will move on to approval of minutes. The clerk of the commission requests approval of minutes from the regular meeting held on 05/06/2026. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Minutes are approved. Okay, on to agenda review. That's you, Mr. Parker.

Correct. Good morning, Chair, members of the Commission. There's one public hearing item before you for your consideration today. That is item seven a, Sheldon Richards Paloma Vineyard Use Permit, major modification number P19386, an exception to the Napa County Roads and Street Standards. This item will be presented by supervising planner Sean Trippi. And that will be the only thing before you today.

Thank you. Okay. We will move on to disclosures from commissioners. Do we have any disclosures? Commissioner Brooks?

Only the same one I did for the last time. I haven't had any subsequent meetings, but I did initially meet with the applicant and a good site visit.

Okay.

Good morning, chair. For item 7A, I have no additional disclosures.

Good morning. I spoke to the applicant's representative last week and then this week spoke to Mr. Parker regarding the project.

And in addition to my previous disclosures, I spoke with the applicant representative last week as well.

Thank you. And I have no disclosures. Okay. We will move on to item seven a, Sheldon Richards Paloma Vineyard use permit major modification. And I believe Mr. Trippi will present that to us.

I'll do something. Thank you, Chair Brinzel, Commissioner Sean Trippi on behalf of the Planning Division. As you're aware, this item was originally heard on March 18. At the conclusion of that hearing, it was continued to allow staff and the applicant to work towards a resolution regarding driveway improvements. So today, we're gonna talk about the Road and Street Standards exception.

They have submitted a revised WA associated with vineyard replanting, and then we'll conclude with our recommendation. Over the course of the last month or so, the applicant and engineering and fire staff worked together to propose some road improvements that were acceptable to the county. There's a few spots where there will be some minor exceptions. One is at the front entry gate. It'll be widened about 20 feet.

The next one is at the hairpin turn, kind of up to the left of the screen. That radius will be, improved to the extent possible. And then there's some other spots along the rest of the driveway. As the driveway dips into Sonoma County, there'll be some turnouts that are acceptable to that property owner. I believe that property, although, wasn't responsive to widening the easement outright, but did agree to these turnouts.

As mentioned so along with the driveway turnouts, we're recommending something similar to last time where we're recommending that they complete these improvements by 10/15/2028. Prior to that, we would recommend that they're proposing or submit their grading permit by the end of this year. So that gives them about almost two years to complete the improvements. As I mentioned, they and as was brought up last time, they had started some vineyard replanting. They have revised their WAA, which is in your packet, to account for the additional water use that they would need for establishing those vines.

They would then taper that water back down to a lower level. I did do some math first time in years where I just played out the entire ten year period at the higher water use and it still falls under their existing water use and well under their recharge rate. Their recharge rate is almost 13 acre feet. And their water use is a little over seven. And then this is just a table outlining.

In parentheses here, you see what their previous WA showed. And then their new is where it's changed. It's not in parentheses. As I mentioned last time, I believe, we did do an initial study. And we are recommending some preconstruction surveys for protective plants, nesting birds, and bats in case any of the construction activities could potentially create abandonment issues for nests and hollows for the bats.

And with that, we're recommending approval based on the findings and attachment the conditions in attachment B. I don't have much more to say, but if you want me to take up the next hour or so, I could try. This is your only reason to be here.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Trippi. Unless we have any pressing clarifications, I think we can hear from the applicant now before we come back to the commission for discussion. Does the applicant have a presentation?

I will do my best to take up the next hour. Scott Greenwood Miner and Elena Niger for the applicant, Cobblins Patch, Duffy and Bass right across the street over there. Just go right past the jail and up above the coffee shop. Yeah. We don't have a whole lot to say at this point other than to thank mister Downs and Alexi and Bruce Fenton in particular for getting together and working through on-site with Sheldon and his son, Kasten, to get the road exception request nailed down.

That was some tremendous work by everybody involved and we're very grateful for that and grateful for your guidance as commission on doing that. And with that, thank you and please approve this project.

Thank you. Do we have anyone in the room who would like to comment? Angie, is there anyone online?

There's no public comment online.

Okay. Then I'm going to close the public hearing, bring it back to the commission for discussion. Commissioner Brooks, do you have anything?

I'm possibly going over your math. So I was happy to see that they recognized the replant and the water demand for the replant would place over the next ten years. And if understood your math right, in the RSA report, it didn't seem to have that in there, which is maybe why you did the math you did. It looked like they were only using the 0.33 or three five acre feet per year, not the half an acre foot for bringing the new vines along. And it looks like it gets the bottom line point being they've avoided tier two and tier three analysis based on using less water.

And it looks like your analysis also says even with the replant, they'll be very close to the amount water they're using now, but they still would be slightly under. Is that the right way to read the way you've analyzed it?

That is correct. And to clarify on the Tier three, their well is outside the 59 foot buffer area.

Okay. Did So we resolve the issue that Water Auto brought up that there were two or three blue line streams that they identified that they thought were inconsistent between two different documents that we're using and that, in fact, they seem to be asserting that there in fact might have been a blue line stream that was within 1,500 feet?

Well, there's a difference between just a blue line stream and a significant stream. There are some streams within that 1,500 foot buffer, but the nearest Blue Line stream and I could be wrong, it's over I think 1,800 to 2,000 feet away.

Okay. And then the last thing and I think you have it in there were two wells. And there was a well, if I understood it in discussions with the applicant, that they weren't using currently, but maybe they were allowing and able to use some of that wasn't included in the analysis. If I read it properly, that well now is going to be shut down and destroyed using county guidelines for how you shut down a well. Is that how I read that condition of approval?

Correct.

Thanks.

Commissioner Dameron, do you have

Just to say I'm pleased overall with the application,

and I'm in support. Okay. Commissioner Richmond.

Similar comments. Nice to see the county and the applicant work together to get this move forward in the right direction. So thank you to everybody.

Commissioner Moran Williams.

Yeah. Just one question. I believe the well metering was added in the COA since the last meeting as well. Is that correct?

It's the standard well metering Okay, and

great. Perfect. And that was something I think we had talked about last time. And yeah, just echo, I really appreciate Fire Marshal Downs and Alexis' collaborative work with the applicant to kind of come up with this new proposal for the roads. And I think it kind of explains, it'll help get to a place that I think works with the steepness of the slopes and also brought clarity to the easement question we had last time with the neighbor parcel. So just really good model for collaboration and good outcome, I think. I appreciate that work.

Yeah, I don't really have anything to add. I just also agree with what the last two commissioners said. Really appreciate the work from the fire marshal's office and the collaboration with the applicant to get win win on the road. So yeah, I'm very happy to move this forward. Okay. It seems like we have done our discussion. Do I have a motion?

I would like to move that the Planning Commission adopt the mitigated negative declaration based on findings one through seven in attachment A, approve the exception to the road and street standards based on recommended findings eight and nine in Attachment A and subject to the recommended conditions of approval in Attachment B, and approve use permit modification number P19-three86 mod based on revised recommended findings 10 through 14 in Attachment A and subject to the revised recommended conditions of approval in attachment B.

The second? Second. All those in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Item passes and is approved. Congratulations. Okay. It looks like we have no administrative items on our agenda, so we can move on to the director's report.

Yes. So for the 06/03/2026 regularly scheduled planning commission meeting, there will be one public hearing item, which is P twenty two zero zero four one seven which is the AXR winery modification. That item will be presented by planner Hannah Spencer. There will also be one admin item that day for the commission which will be a defensible space and view shed workshop which will be presented by supervising planner Trevor Hawks and fire marshal Downs. Those are the only two items that will be before the commission on June 3.

Board of Supervisors actions. Yesterday, Chair Manfrey, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, presented a proclamation recognizing May 2026 as Water Awareness Month in Napa County to representatives of Planning, Building and Environmental Services and the flood control district. That was a nice feel good moment. Code compliance report. So today's approval of Paloma was the last pending application in the wineries code compliance program officially bringing the program to a close.

This represents years of hard work by both applicants and staff which enabled 38 applications to officially come into compliance and nine were abandoned or withdrawn since the establishment of the program in March 2019. And there have been no new zoning administrator actions since my last report out, and that concludes my report.

Thank you. I have a question about the code compliance program. I can't remember what the date was. Does the Hagofan item still have to go before the Board of Supervisors?

It does, but that's on appeal.

Yeah. So program is done.

Program is done. Yeah.

Castillo Amoroso, which also got kicked back to us but hasn't appeared and is part of that program, is that now out of the program?

No. The Planning Commission approved the item and it's going through the appeal process. So it's no longer part of the code compliance program, but it's in the appeal process.

Okay, thank you. Do we have any commissioner comments or committee reports?

I had another Wildlife Conservation Commission meeting this past Monday and I think I mentioned last time we were updating some of the criteria around the grant process. We operate with around $75,000 of grant funding that's distributed across lots of different organizations across Napa County to do wildlife conservation work. And at this last meeting, we made a motion to approve adopting a new criteria for scoring to create more transparency and ease of process of doing the grant making. So it will not change this cycle. It'll be for next year.

Thank you. Does anyone else have any reports or comments? Okay, then the May 20 Planning Commission meeting is adjourned at 09:17. I believe that's a personal record for me.