Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the June 3rd meeting of the Napa County Planning Commission. I'd like to call the meeting to order. And Ms. Vega, can you please take roll call?

Commissioner Brooks? Present. Commissioner Dameron? Present. Commissioner Richmond?

Present.

Commissioner Moran-Williams?

Present.

And Chair Brunzel?

Present. Okay, I would now like to ask Commissioner Brooks to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Will everyone please rise for the pledge? 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. And the Commission received some late memoranda and comments, so we are going to need a reading break to review those, and we're going to recess until 9.15. Thank you, everyone. We're restarting the meeting. And we are on number three on our agenda, which is citizen comments and recommendations. At this time, members of the public who wish to make public comment on a matter that is not on the agenda but is within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission, We'll have three minutes to speak, and if there's anyone in the room, you may approach the podium now. Okay. There's no one in the room. Ms. Vega, do we have anyone online?

We do not have any public comment.

Okay. Then we will move on to questions. approval of minutes. The Clerk of the Commission requests approval of minutes from the regular meeting that was held on May 20, 2026. Do I have a motion?

So moved.

Second? Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Minutes are approved. Okay, moving on to agenda review. Is that you, Mr. Parker?

Yes. Good morning, Chair, members of the Commission. Today the Commission has one public hearing item before them for your consideration. It is the AXR Napa Valley Winery Use Permit Major Modification P2200417 Mod Variance P2600045 Variance and Administrative Use Shed Permit P2600044, which was presented by Planner Hannah Spencer. And then after the public hearing, the commission has one administrative item, which is an informational presentation by Supervising Planner Trevor Hawks and Fire Marshal Downs on the county's viewshed protection program and defensible space ordinance. And that'll conclude the day.

Thank you. Okay. So at this time we will do our disclosures. We will start with Commissioner Moran Williams. Do you have any disclosures?

Yes. I have met with the applicant and applicant's representative at AXR for a site visit.

Commissioner Richmond?

I have no disclosures.

No disclosures. Commissioner Brooks?

I also did an on-site visit with the applicant and their representative.

And I exchanged emails with the applicant's representative. Okay. Moving on to our public hearing, item 7A, the AXR Napa Valley Winery, and we will hear our staff presentation, and after the presentation, commissioners can ask questions.

Great. Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. I'm Hannah Spencer, project planner with Planning, Building, and Environmental Services, presenting on the AXR winery use permit application today. My presentation will cover the site's existing setting and history, the scope of the permit modification request, general plan consistency, environmental review, and yesterday's Caltrans memo, public comments, and staff's final recommendation. The project sits on a 7.8-acre parcel about a mile north of the city of St. Helena. with direct access from Highway 29. Zoning for this property is agricultural watershed, and the general plan land use designation is agricultural watershed and open space. The site is currently developed with a winery, a vineyard, a barrel storage building, driveway, three residential cottages, and a dwelling attached to the winery. This site contains the historic pre-prohibition August Hirsch Winery and Residence, which was built in the late 1800s. In 2005, the Planning Commission granted a use permit to reestablish the winery under the county's ghost winery ordinance, which allows exceptions to the winery definition ordinance's minimum parcel size and winery road setbacks. The original use permit was later superseded by a 2008 modification. The site became a designated county landmark in 2007 and was later placed into a Mills Act contract in 2013 to preserve its historic features. And the current owners are now seeking to modify the 2008 use permit. Sorry, there's a lot of text on this slide. I'll just summarize. The use permit modification request is proposing to shift production to a new 17,000 square foot wine cave. They'd like to convert the existing barrel storage building into a hospitality and tasting space. and also convert the attached dwelling into winery office space. The request includes upgraded utilities for water and wastewater systems, a new cave access road, and construction of a new left turn lane on Highway 29, all while maintaining the winery's existing 20,000 gallon per year production volume. The request also includes a variance for the wastewater system within the road setback and an administrative viewshed permit for tanks and cave portals on slopes over 15%. For context, the previously approved 2008 site plan shown on this slide allowed the removal of two cottages from the property to reduce vehicle trips and avoid the left turn lane requirement back then. And today's proposed site plan responds to the requested increase in visitation and new daily trips to the site by adding a left turn lane on Highway 29. And as I mentioned, by shifting production into the caves while allowing the barrel storage building and attached dwelling to be used for accessory space. Widening the highway for the left turn lane will require removing up to 10 oak trees from the Caltrans right of way. Operationally, while production remains unchanged, square footage will increase but remain within the required 40% accessory to production ratio. Requested visitation is capped at 60 daily visitors and a maximum of 17 weekend employees. The marketing program requests 24 small events a year. Those smaller events would have up to 25 guests each. And there would also be seven annual medium to large events consisting of 75 to 150 people each. According to the county winery database, this request does sit above the average size and visitation for 20,000 gallon wineries in the area. The application includes a full water availability analysis with estimates for existing and proposed water demands. And due to a few changes to the site, including the removal of the two cottages years ago, staff provided an adjusted baseline water demand table to better reflect the current conditions. And because production is not changing, the net water demand is estimated to only increase by about 0.12 acre feet per year. A single onsite well constructed in 2018 will serve all the residential and agricultural uses on the property. The Tier 1 analysis shows the project will increase water use to roughly 50% of the property's annual recharge. The Tier 2 and Tier 3 analyses demonstrate a zero drawdown at a 155-foot radius, meaning that there'd be no interference with neighboring wells or the nearby Hirsch Creek, which is a designated significant stream. And because the well is within 1,500 feet of the creek and local springs, staff recommends a condition of approval for routine well monitoring and capping the annual water use to the proposed demand. And moving on to the project findings, staff supports the variance to allow the wastewater system within the Highway 29 setback. The small parcel size, historic landmark layout, and overlapping winery setbacks constitute legal hardships. This variance allows the owner to split and modernize their process and domestic wastewater systems without impacting any sensitive habitats on site. And additionally, the cave portals and water tanks meet all county viewshed program requirements. Staff finds the project consistent with the general plan agricultural and conservation policies, the WDO, the ghost winery ordinance, and the county's landmark ordinance. Under CEQA, staff prepared a subsequent mitigated negative declaration to the original MND prepared for the winery. The applicant has agreed to all updated mitigation measures, which include measures for tree replanting or preservation, biological surveys, historic preservation, adding the left turn lane and tribal monitoring during construction. Yesterday, staff issued a memo addressing comments from Caltrans regarding a more realistic tree root zone impact and the Caltrans encroachment permitting procedures. So I'll speak to that a bit more. Caltrans initially raised a concern regarding the endangered Sebastopol meadow foam plant. However, maps show the nearest population is about 0.4 miles north in a distinct wetland feature, which is shown in the picture on the right in this slide. And that's just a view from the Google Street View from Highway 29 looking out toward the wetland feature there. After further review and a check of the Napa Valley Vine Trails plant surveys, which were done across the street from AXR Winery, both Caltrans and staff confirmed that no suitable habitat exists within the proposed Highway 29 widening zone in front of the winery. Caltrans agreed late yesterday afternoon that no further mitigation or surveys were necessary for this project. And this slide is just sharing Google Street views of the highway in front of AXR Winery. You can see on the top photo, we have the vine trail in construction on the right, and you have the historic rock wall on the left there with some scattered oak trees. And then on the bottom, you have the landscaping in front of AXR's historic rock wall and their exit driveway up there. Public feedback included three neighbor letters in support, one opposed, and a letter from Water Audit regarding water and septic infrastructure. And to clarify for the record, I did want to note that the property's three remaining cottages on the site are legally non-conforming, and they are outside of the scope of this use permit application. I did speak to those cottages and their CLN permit back in 2002 that was issued. It was addressed in the staff report, but we're happy to answer more questions if you have those. And we also have staff from Environmental Health present today if you have questions regarding the septic permit history with those cottages. So that brings us to my conclusion. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the subsequent M&D as modified by yesterday's errata, approve the variance administrative viewshed permit and use permit modification subject to the attached findings and the updated conditions of approval attachment that we sent yesterday. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. We're available for any questions.

Okay. Before we move on to the applicant's presentation, do we have any immediate questions for staff? Okay. Would you mind returning to the slide, the water use slide, and just giving us an additional moment with that? The table here?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. And then you don't have a rendering that you can show us of what the cave portals are going to look like, do you?

I do. I saved, this is kind of a long PowerPoint, so I saved some backup slides at the end here. So, let's see, I think it was, I have some floor plans if you want to look at those on the screen, but then we have the, I guess this is all I have, is the CAVE portal visibility analysis. the graphics package i can check if there's uh renderings of the cave portals okay i see the so the portals face the um they face west they aren't really visible from highway is that right they actually face east the two that you're looking at there okay and um due to the the vineyard the slope the highway being a little lower and then the proposed landscaping the applicant will be installing to help screen the cave portals as well as all of trees along the property's frontage along highway 29 this visibility analysis determined that the caves would not be visible from the highway. Okay, thank you.

Could you go back to the chart that was the winery comparison chart? So I didn't find this in the original package. And I communicated with you, and you said you would bring this forward. And when I was calculating the increases, it looked like there was anywhere from a factor of three to five increase request in visitation. But I didn't have this chart to look at. And this looks even more extreme to me in comparison to other wineries of this size, right? Is it the order of 10 daily visitors versus 60 Weekly visitors in the 60 versus 420 and annual visitation, you know at 21 22,000 versus 3,000 right so really factors of 5 to 7 or something larger than comparable wineries You know it, you know when you when we look at this and do this analysis You know is there I Guess it's been a question for a while What do we do with this when we get a request that's this extreme compared to the norm?

Well, staff is reviewing the merits of the project and what zoning allows, and there's no maximum lot coverage, maximum size for wineries. We do have, of course, the required 40% ratio for accessory uses to production space, which this project meets. So there's no other general plan policy that I'm aware of that speaks to sizing of the wineries other than that accessory to production ratio. And I'm not sure if Sean has any more.

And generally speaking, when we analyze wineries, these tables range over a course of dozens of years, and they're not necessarily apples to apples. So we have different approaches to winery management over the years, pre-WDO. mods all over the place. And then further, we really base our recommendation on the impact analysis that we do through the CEQA process. So as is the case here, there are some mitigation measures, but from kind of an operations standpoint, there's really no significant impacts based on what the request is.

If I could, the winery comparison chart evolved maybe 10 or 12 years ago. It was a request from the planning commission. The commission at the time just wanted to get a sense of what was in the surrounding area. Staff has actually brought the winery comparison chart back to the previous commission for discussion to see if it was something that the commission at that time wanted to keep, wanted to downsize. It was our recommendation at the time to eliminate the winery comparison chart just because of the amount of time and work that it takes for staff to compile that. we feel that it doesn't, as Sean noted, it isn't an apples to apples comparison, especially when you're comparing pre-WDO wineries to new wineries, different site constraints. So for us, we don't, our recommendation of whether we support or project or not isn't rooted in the winery comparison chart. For our intents and purposes, we look at is the request supported by the general plan, the zoning, and our due diligence under CEQA, as well as project specific, the project specific proposal and site constraints. So that's what we're really looking at when recommending is this visitation appropriate or is it not.

So let me ask a theoretical question. If you proposed a visitation that was three times larger than your production, in other words, even if you sold a bottle of wine to every visitor who came up, or three bottles of wine, you're actually asking for more visitors than that. Our definition of accessory use, it seems like we're getting more into an entertainment thing and not really the winery itself if your visitation wildly exceeds the amount of wine you make and your ability to sell wine to that customer base. Would there be a trigger point at which something was so large that it didn't make sense in terms of it being an accessory use?

Well, I mean, I guess if a winery was so successful that they had more visitation than they had wine at a certain point, they wouldn't be able to offer visitation because there would be no ability to taste. We've never encountered that in the time that I've been here. I don't think historically we've encountered that. I'm not aware of a situation where we've had that extreme of an example actually before us in a project application.

Back when we gave free tastings and everything, now you reserve enough wine to do the tasting and you charge $100 or $200 or $300 a tasting, so you've become a profit center based on Tasting wine, not selling wine. And it seems to me there is some upper limit where it really wouldn't make sense to do that if the intent of this is direct to customers and you're tasting as accessory and it's to sell wine.

Yeah, I think that would maybe be more of a question of one's business model that maybe the applicants can speak to. But for us as staff and what we're evaluating is our environmental analysis under CEQA, the general plan and zoning. Neither of those sort of speak to the example that you raised. Okay, thanks.

Just I think if Given the statement around you know the comparison chart not always showing apples to apples if the applicant would be willing during the presentation to just share a little bit about The flow of the visitors and like where they're going to be on the property You know at what times I think that would help with our discussion I

OK, so I think it sounds like we're moving from clarifications to discussion. So I think we should go on to the presentation from the applicant. Mr. Redding, I believe that's you. And then we'll bring it back after public comment for more discussion by the commission. OK, take it away, Mr. Redding.

Good morning, commissioners.

My name is Jeffrey Redding. I continue to live at 2423 Renfrew Street until my mortgage is paid and then who knows what the future holds for me. I would like to answer the question Commissioner Brooks raised when he was at the hearing or the visit and I will do so in the course of my presentation if I might. But first I think it's appropriate to meet the folks who are responsible for this project being before you today. I have to say on their defense or in admiration that they assembled a very good team. You'll see how our constraints that were identified by Hannah have played into our design solution And you'll agree when I'm finished that what we've asked for is very appropriate given several things. Left turn lane, money doesn't grow on trees or on the vine. That is a large project with lots of expense that will improve traffic safety for both us, our winery, our customers, present and future, as well as the public at large. That's a large expenditure. It takes time. As your conditions of approval indicate, some of the programs that we're proposing can't take place until such time as the left turn lane is in. So visitation helps with that. Secondly, as Mr. Parker and Mr. Trippi indicated, Some of the wineries you see on your comparison chart are old. And our mantra, among others, is we want to be transparent with you. We're not trying to say we're going to do 20 and we're doing 60. That's not fair. It's not right. And this is about public disclosure. The CEQA process, as you know, asks for the maximum. We are proposing 40 during the slow time of year, if you will, and 60 when it's more busy. That activity takes place on the weekends primarily, and that's why we need the number of employees that we are requesting. We believe in a very personable tour. People will come to either the tasting room, which is in the main building, the winery building, or the new hospitality center with a walk through the fabulous property that's basically been undisturbed since the 1800s. And that's how we intend to conduct our business. The hospitality center is needed for the larger guests. We've provided parking both for our daily visitors and for our larger events. Some other reasons that make sense to me with regard to visitation, again, I'd like to remind you, as Ms. Spencer did, that 60 is during the height of the season, 40 during the other parts of the season when things are slow. We have a large expense. The caves are not cheap. Our goal in designing this very successful project, we believe to you, is we wanted to keep the historical property and fabric intact and with integrity. And when we looked around for solutions, given the small parcel size relative to what normal wineries are doing, the hillside area, the mature vegetation, as well as the vineyards, and most importantly, the existing historic cottages and the 1880s winery. The best solution for us was a cave, because it doesn't detract from the historic fabric of the property. It's invisible with our careful attention to detail. And I think most importantly, with regard to visitation and our project in general, We have our neighbors' support. And that's unusual, as you know. Oftentimes, we have immediate neighbors. We have neighbors up the hill. We have neighbors to our south. We have neighbors across the way. They're all in favor. They recognize that this historic property needs to be maintained. It takes money to do that. They understand that we're improving traffic safety in the area. We're developing the property in a way that's really, as I've said to those who were able to come out to the property, what you see is what you get, right? That's our goal is to keep the property rustic. We think we've done an excellent job. Ms. Spencer has talked to you about the challenges, which I'll repeat. There aren't any parts of our property that meet the 600-foot setback. And so we are obligated, when we have an above-ground wastewater system, to put it in the viewshed. But again, we've taken care to protect that viewshed because it's important to us as well as to the traveling public and to our neighbors. We did initial studies, as you know, and to Sean or Mr. Trippi and Mr. Parker's comments, we perform those studies at our desired original production at 35,000. Even at that level, traffic, water, sewage, visual are all less than significant and can be reduced to under-significance through the mitigation measures that we agree to. We agree to the conditions of approval. We have the support of our neighbors. I hope you see the benefit. I can talk more about visitation, but I agree. There is no metric. In addition to some sense about what's around us, what's important is how we fit in with the neighbors. Do we meet the county code requirements? Do we have adequate water, sewer, and traffic conditions that warrant that? And where else would you want to put a project with this kind of attributes than where we have it? We want to have people come to see it, but we want to do it in a way that's respectful of both our neighbors and the environment. I'd be happy to answer any questions. We're the only item on the agenda. I've got a few more pages to go through, but I think I'll stand pat and answer any questions that you may have. And before you do, I'd like to introduce you to who's not here. that are available to answer questions. We have our historian, we have our traffic engineer, and we have our groundwater person. If that is needed, they can weigh in by Zoom. I think I can answer questions that you may have. If not, we'll turn to people who know better than I, and I thank you.

Okay. Do we have questions from the Commission for the applicant, Commissioner Moran-Williams?

Yes. So it sounds like the kind of flow of visitors will migrate at times between the historic building, which was the winery and will now just primarily be focused on hospitality, and then with winery production moving towards the caves. Is that correct?

Madam Chairman, Jeffrey Redding again. I'd like to put that question in some context. Right now we're dealing with an 1880s production facility which still is permitted and exists in the bottom floor. And so the primary use for visitors will be on the second floor, as you suggest. I think, Ms. Williams, it depends on the size in particular. Again, part of our personal service is if you want to take a walk around the winery, we'd like to do that. We'd like to show you our hospitality center. But if you want to look at the views from the tasting room in the main residence, that option is available, as you know, associated with the wine industry. These days, you have to offer your clients a variety of experiences, and we intend to do that.

Right. And then the outdoor grove area will also be a hospitality space. And that's not changing. That's correct. That's just kind of a Redwood Grove forested area.

Thank you for asking that question. When we first were permitted in 08, 09, The county didn't require areas where outdoor events could occur. We've identified three and have properly conditioned them so that they're not objectionable. They're either screened from neighboring houses by buildings or vegetation. We end at 10 o'clock. We have restrictions with respect to the Redwood Grove and the maximum number of guests, but you're exactly correct. On days like you visited, who wouldn't want to be outside, and we intend to use that space.

And then I asked this question, and I think it's in the documents, but just confirming, there's no hospitality in the cave. It's a type 1 cave, so it's production only.

That's correct.

Okay.

That's correct.

And then currently, do you have some production off-site? So is this helping to move production entirely on-site?

You're asking about the interim or no?

I guess what's being permitted.

We crush off-site and ferment and barrel storage and blend on-site.

And will that continue to be the flow or the process?

I think that will, in the short term, certainly, while we get ahead of the encroachment permit and things of that nature. But we'll certainly produce wine as the county allows and file the necessary disclosures as required.

Okay.

Probably have more, but I'm going to let some of my other fellow commissioners ask some questions.

Okay. Commissioner Richmond.

Mr. Redding, follow-up to the previous question. So at this time, in the previous years, everything has been produced off-site, crushed off-site, and fermented on-site?

Let me answer that question by a slight digression. the bottom floor basement was approved as a production facility until the barrel storage building was built and fermentation and storage could occur there it occurred on site as projected in 08 with some crush facilities as you know there's no crush there we did crush off-site okay um and was did all that crushing happen within the county or outside the county it's within an ap within the county okay all right thank you for asking

Thank you. Commissioner Brooks.

Yeah. Conditions of approval require the well to be monitored. It's going to be throttled 42 gallons per minute I think based on the tier 2 and tier 3 analysis to be sure we don't have any interference effects. My interest is there's another well that I think is near one of the cabins that I think a permit is going to be applied for, and it's going to be destroyed. But then in the write-up, there's a discussion of a third well that's near the road that is possibly going to be used as a backup well. And one, I was hoping for some clarification, and if it is going to be used as a backup well, then I feel it has to be monitored also. We ran into this problem with a well on another property that was sort of a backup well, and well number two wasn't monitored, and we went to look at it. It turned out it was being used a lot. So if it's in the family of wells and straws we're putting in the property, then I feel like the monitoring on that well has to be as rigorous and as good as what we're doing on the primary well. But it wasn't clear to me whether that's a possibility that it'll be used as a backup well or whether that is the plan.

Let me, if I might, Commissioner Brooks, your conditions of approval speak to that. If we are obligated to destroy one of the wells, as you mentioned, the other cannot be put into service unless a tier two and three is done, in which case monitoring could come as a result of that. So there's another process that we'd have to go through were we to put that well into service.

So does that well not have a pump and it's not plumbed right now? It's just an empty hole?

I'm sure it's not an empty hole, but I can't really tell you the status of it. How it's built, I can ask the client if it's important for sure.

For me, I feel most comfortable if that is the plan, which I understand seems like a good plan. that that well, if it's active, it has pump on it, if it's plumbed, then it needs to be monitored too. So then we're looking at the total draw from the property. And the second one is, and it relates a little bit to Commissioner Richman's and Moran's questions. When I visited the site, I asked to see the winery. And when we were there, enjoying the views, which are fabulous, the basement winery, you said, well, it's not really a basement winery anymore. It's used for storage now. And when I said, well, let's go to the barn and look at the, you said all the barrels are off-site at this point. There aren't any barrels there, which To me, if you're doing a Cabernet vineyard and winery, you would have wines that would be there for two or three years. And they would be aging. They'd be going through . And so the fact that all of the barrels were off-site and not there, it seems like right now, maybe based on constraints and everything, basically all of the wine operations are off-site. And so that leads me to a question I asked Hannah. I'd love to see a condition of approval, because I think this is a ghost winery. We wanted to bring a winery back, and it seems like we have kind of wine making off site and tasting on site now that these new entitlements come into play. Obviously, the left-hand turn lane has to be done, but also that the winery is complete and operational. And we did this once before at another winery that was basically involved in mostly tasting on site, and we said, great, you're asking for these new significant increases in entitlements, but that can occur once you have an operational winery. And that's a condition of approval that I'd like to see in here. And it looked like in one place that you sent, it was in there. But then when I looked at the final COAs, I couldn't find that condition in there. So maybe Hannah's going to address that.

Yes, I will. Thank you. Yes, I did add that condition under 4.20 , which states there shall be no increase in tours and tastings and marketing events as described in the project description until such time as the project area has been fully constructed. I'm sorry, the production area, which are the caves, have been fully constructed. It receives a final certificate of occupancy and production is operational. And then also I just want to add that because this property is subject to the Ghost Winery Ordinance, they are required to maintain production in the basement of the historic winery building. So that building has been used as the basement as barrel storage and other winery storage uses, and it needs to continue being maintained in that use in order to maintain compliance with its use permit. There's also, I could add, there's also a deed restriction that was recorded against the property as part of the, I believe, the 2005 or 2008 use permit for this project requiring that production maintained in the basement.

And real quick, if I could, just going back to your earlier question, because this is a ghost winery, they have to comply with the county's ghost winery ordinance, which actually caps them at a maximum of 20,000 gallons. Part of their initial ask was to increase. So if they could increase, I'm sure they would.

I noticed in fact the package we got, the actual package was consistent, but the supporting analysis sometimes water availability was looking at 35,000 and one of the others was looking at 25,000. So obviously over the years what you were asking for, but it didn't bother me because that makes it worse for you because your water use and everything is worse if you're using a higher number. So backing off to the 20,000 seemed fine. I didn't realize that that was limited. I would feel comfortable because I wasn't aware of that, and I wanted to tour the basement there and see the historic winery. I wonder, could we explicitly put in the condition of approval that that basement winery needs to be operational in some way to continue that? Because I didn't know that when I was visiting and didn't get a chance to see if, in fact, that was really going on right now.

I can check exhibit A to the conditions of approval document. That lists all the 2008 use permit conditions, the previous conditions that apply. And that's where we explain which conditions have been superseded by the current use permit. So I believe I just need a moment. I believe that was addressed already. But if not, perhaps we could add that language.

Is that already in the ghost winery permit, the requirement?

I believe it is from 2008. Yes, so Sean points out, so Exhibit A is a part of the conditions of approval being recommended today, and under the first condition on Exhibit A 4.21 Section A1, scope, you have the second bullet point, which discusses that the entire cellar and basement to the historic winery building is dedicated to barrel storage, bottle, and bulk storage. And then, like I said, the deed restriction also mandates that that basement continue to be used for wine production.

Great. Thanks.

Okay. I have a few questions about the historic status of the winery. So I notice that, you know, as I talked yesterday to staff about, there is the consultant has determined or recommended that the the property is not eligible for the national register or the california register but checking the state's built environment resource directory it has been determined previously determined eligible i couldn't find the details but that seems that caltrans must have done a study um and there was a section 106 element of that and there is also you know a discussion in the Caltrans memo which I just noticed during our reading break that the stone wall may be a resource under 5024 which I assume most people in this room don't know what that is but a state So normally, historic resources, they come under CEQA, but the ultimate agency is the local municipality, county. 5024 is special rules for it's still CEQA but it's when when a building or structure is state-owned it needs to go to the office of historic preservation you know the if someone does a you know historic resource evaluation the county can't just sign off on that it's gonna have to go for concurrence to the state and it sounds like the rock wall falls under that. And I am just wondering with the proposal to move the entry, you know, those entry pillars have we i i realized the historic uh report was an evaluation it was not um an impact assessment but do and this may be a question for ms de shazo but um i'm i'd love to hear your thoughts too mr reading but like do do we think that that can somehow conform to the secretary of interior standards because the stonewall is obviously a contributing element and maybe perhaps state-owned it sounds like The road widening is required for fire, and so I would just like to hear, you know, I would hate to go down this path and then there's no way to proceed because it can't meet the Secretary's standards. So what are the thoughts about that?

Thank you, Chairman Brunzel. I have some thoughts. First of all, we did circulate this to the state clearinghouse. SHPO is a contributor. We received no comments from them. Our historian, Evanzen DeShazo, reviewed the records very recently to see if the Caltrans observation, which as you know very well, It's done from the street. It's not done from the property. It's a windshield survey like we used to do in Napa. We've gone back later to see whether the windshield survey resulted in an actual nomination. But Caltrans did their survey, but it was never recorded and did not discuss integrity or any of the other issues that would allow them to make other than in my terms, a back of the napkin recommendation. It was when we had Ms. DeShazo and her company do the work. They were aware of and reviewed the entirety of the project. The wall itself, I mean, in the ideal, we'd like it to be as it is. We'd like to keep the wall. It's not in an historical condition. It's been modified by Caltrans over the years as part of their vine trail. It has no integrity. And so Ms. DeShazo confirmed that. We'll deal with any of the other issues that may come up as they come up. But our opinion is it's not. eligible for the National Register. Our guiding principle, regardless, is the landmark ordinance in the Mills Act. There are things that we can do. There are things that are protected there. And that's a higher level of authority as a local requirement than I would say the windshield survey from Caltrans. So that's what I have to contribute.

Well, I agree with you that the Yeah, the Mills Act, the property owner is receiving a tax benefit to preserve the historic nature of that. So when we're saying, oh, it has no integrity,

The wall, the portion of the wall that we're talking about.

I mean, we need an explicit determination accepted by the county of what the contributing features are to the Mills Act contract. I mean, it seems that the barn was originally contributing to that, and that's been demolished. you know it's that's a a contract that's been voluntarily entered by the property owner or a previous property owner and and tax benefits are being received so we do really need to have an understanding of which buildings and structures are historic it looks like the wall is considered historic. I didn't see anything that said the wall didn't have integrity. I hear you saying that now, but the other issue is You know, Ms. DeShazo can make her recommendations and the report was very strong. I agreed with her analysis. But if something is listed as a 2S2, as this property is, that means that the state has, that it has gone through the Section 106 federal process and that the state has determined that it's eligible. Now, I don't have the underlying reports, so I don't know what has been determined eligible, but that can't be easily overturned by SQL recommendations from a consultant. So I just want to bring that up.

Sure, sure.

And it's not something we can just dismiss. And if Caltrans is sending us these memos, it sounds like they may take the whole thing through a 50-24 process. So I just want to make sure that the applicant has already thought about whether and how this could meet the Secretary of Interior standards vis-a-vis the wall.

appreciate the comment of course and as I've said the guiding principle is restoration of the keeping the property in its historic context not altering any of the buildings very minimal alteration to the site except what the county requires for access we've got historic properties historic structures the cottages and the and the winery. I disagree with you, Commissioner, that the document that you saw from our consultant is not an impact analysis. In fact, it's a CEQA-compliant document. Ms. DeShazo and her company have been historically, if you will, providing those kinds of documents. We think that Caltrans identifying is not the same as SHPO identifying it as an eligible project.

But at the end of the day... SHPO has identified it as a... an eligible resource.

We will do what is necessary from the state. I guess I'm just not convinced, one, that the wall has integrity. It is cobblestone and been replaced over time since 2017. As the rocks fall off, we put them back on there. I believe the report from Ms. DeShazo is not only thorough but definitive. It's a CEQA compliant document. She is an expert in the field, as you are. Experts can disagree, but the question is whether or not the proper forms were submitted to allow the state historic preservation department and commission to render their opinion, and it has not been filed with them. And until further notice, we believe Ms. DeShazo's report is standalone and appropriate.

Thank you.

Thank you for your question.

Chair? Chair?

Sorry.

I have Stacey.

She would like to speak. Okay. Let's hear from Stacey DeShazo. Go ahead, Stacey.

Good morning, Cara. Thank you for having me. It's been a privilege to work on this project, so thanks so much. Cara, just to address our questions, I know that when we came in on this, well, obviously I'm not there and did a nice survey. We can see the understanding of it. Initially, Cara, the documentation in, I think it's 2007, was when Sorgor was out there. And archaeologists documented the rubble, which is fine. But, you know, from their perspective, with DRs, there are no evaluations on them. But, you know, part of CalTrans and then included as part of eligibility and... it's all fine and everything. And, you know, 20 later as, you know,

I'm having trouble understanding. I'm wondering if maybe she has her feed from this meeting on at the same time she's talking or something. There's feedback. There's kind of garbage.

Maybe she can call back. She was just cut off. Okay. Let's give it a moment for her to call back hopefully with a better connection and to and to give us her professional opinion on what's happening out there.

Do you have some other questions? I don't know if this is the right moment for her to call back first.

Do I think, yeah, it would be we maybe should come back to this if she's having trouble. So Commissioner Moran-Williams, do you have some additional questions?

Mr. Edding, were you about to respond?

I was going to. I got an email from Ms. DeShazo while you're reconnecting, and I'd be happy to enter it into the record. And when you get back on, you can, if that's appropriate,

I think that would be helpful. It's fine.

If it would be helpful, I'd be happy to do that. The Caltrans 2021 study was an initial study, and though as standard properties identified as potentially eligible would have been assigned a status quo and received SHPO concurrence, the property was not documented or evaluated by Caltrans. and they also checked to see if that documentation had been subsequently submitted, and they checked with the Northwest Information Center just recently, and that was not on record. That takes nothing away from your comments or your concerns, but I think the question of How the Caltrans windshield survey? Fits into the process. I think is hopefully clearer now. It wasn't clear to me till you asked and mr DeShazo answered so I appreciate that opportunity to Enter that into the record We were able to get her back on the line so if you want to occur Go ahead Stacy

I'm so, so sorry. This is Stacey DeShazo again. My Xfinity is going out. I'm off wifi. Perfect timing. So thank you. I don't know how much you heard. I was addressing a little bit about the rock wall. Obviously, you may have heard that Orger was out there in 2007, documented the rock wall. And that's how I think it ended up on, obviously, and rightly so for a lot of the elements of rock walls in Napa County. They're very important. This one, since the last... almost 20 years has been modified and the integrity isn't there. And it is, as I said, it's disappointing, but it's the way it is. Um, there are elements of it. Some of the pillars, um, on the end are original. So there are elements of sections of it, um, that will be retained. Um, and you were speaking to care, uh, would meet the standards. So, um, The current rock wall in that section is now modern construction. So meaning it's been disassembled, reassembled. Some of those rocks, I don't know where they came from or how they're stacked or what. But that's covered in the , which can be expanded, you know, as needed or added to as needed for the Rockwell. That does have a primary number and is on file at the Northwest Information Center. And the other element I think you were speaking to is the initial study that Caltrans did in 2021. And that was Polly Allen did that. She did a, as Jeffrey puts it, a windshield survey, big reconnaissance survey. There was no documentation. It was just a listing of what appears to be eligible. And my understanding to SHPO, obviously, as required and their programmatic agreement, um and uh received current so they did put it on couch plans suggested that or how that regards to an initial city there's no documentation there's no evaluation and we did check with We've checked with the HP, and we also checked with NWIC, and we checked twice. And sometimes, you know, you're looking and you figure out what a study was called, you can find Cal Grant's documents, initials of these documents online. So this is where we ended up following recently that 2021 official study. And it is listed as, it's listed there as an identified prairie.

Okay. I think I get the general drift. I think we're losing her again. And we've probably spent enough time going over the historic status of the property. So I believe unless we have any more pressing questions from the commission, we should move on to it.

I do have some other questions. Okay, sorry. Yeah, sorry. Just a couple things. One, I noticed in the COAs that there is a requirement for the medium and large events that the fire marshal would come up with a, well, either you have to use shuttles or the fire marshal comes up with a parking plan, just verifying that.

Madam Chairman, Jeffrey Redding again. We have two types of events. The majority is the ones that we prefer. It's easier to sell wine at 25 persons than 75 persons. And as you know, part of our mission and why we're asking for additional visitors, we want future consumers too. Not everyone who visits buys wine. So there really isn't a lot of relationship oftentimes. We're cultivating future buyers as well as present buyers. So I think that's another ingredient when you try to compare how much wine we make versus how many visitors we need to support the infrastructure that we're proposing. But in any case, the larger events, the 75 and 150s, three of each, we have an event parking plan that the county has seen so that we can make sure that all parking is on site. We'll have valet parking to do that. When we have our marketing programs, our employees will park off site at a non-agricultural property that we've been using in the past. Typically, it's brass wood. which is a CL zone portion of the property. So that's how we intend to handle it. For the smaller events, we have plenty of parking. For the larger, we provided an exhibit that shows that we have sufficient event parking to be managed by our valet service.

And through the chair, if I may add, so we did add some language in the conditions of approval regarding having the fire marshal review the event parking plan as kind of just to ensure as a standard part of review that the final event parking plan doesn't end up obstructing any emergency access. So that requirement is, I believe, also covered under the fire marshal's conditions memo as well. But it's just to ensure we make sure that that plan is reviewed and stamped off by the fire marshal.

OK. And then the other question related to fire that I have is, is there a fire management plan requirement? I know that the property has actually done proactive work in working with Firewise on the property, which I always like to see. Since this is an ask for a significant number of people and events, I'm just curious. We've had other projects where we've required a working fire management plan approved by the fire marshal's office. I don't know if that's something that the fire marshal's office wants to take on for too many properties and permits. I think it's maybe a good practice for large visitation, but I would also look to county staff to see if that's something we should discuss.

Hey, good morning, Chair, members of the Commission. Jason Downs, Napa County Fire Marshal. And Commissioner Williams, that's a great question. We've got a presentation coming up to you that's going to provide a lot more context and detail on that topic. But in general, my conditions of approval for any project that comes across includes components of defensible space requirements. That's something that we plan review. that we inspect when we go out and final any project, whether it's a building permit, whether it's a fire permit. One of the things we're looking at is defensible space compliance. And that's listed here in my conditions of approval, condition 26 and 27. So that covers defensible space in general on the property itself and then also defensible space along the access routes as well.

Okay, great, that helps a lot. And then is the, I know that the roads will kind of be, the amount of vineyard coming out will probably be dictated by how large the road will have to be. And so we talked a little bit about this probably going to end up being the standard 22 feet, or will there be kind of a design to mitigate vineyard loss while retaining the safety?

That's just a question. Madam Chairman, Jeffrey Redding, our estimate with our civil engineer, the road that we're proposing to service portals two and three will result in the removal of about 0.12 acres of vineyard. Figures vary for two things. The road hasn't been specifically designed yet. There won't be any more than that. But sometimes figures take into account access roads and things like that. So our range has been 0.12 to 0.18. And that's the number that we have confirmed with our consultants. Thank you.

Okay.

And then my kind of like last bit of questions is I know there's the groundwater, there will be groundwater, there's a cap, and there will be metering. And then it looks like the reporting is based on request. Is that correct versus like required reporting?

So we have a standard condition of approval that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors the last time those conditions went to the Board. If a property is within less than 90% of their parcel specific recharge, we meter monitor and report those conditions. They submit meter readings for the first 12 months. Thereafter, wineries will report they're supposed to record monthly and then report in April and October. And then it's a different set of regulations for wineries that are within 10% of their recharge. So, yes, it would be upon request by the director.

OK.

I mean, I feel like the water availability seems to be ample when you take into account no additional increase in production. But of course, visitation uses water. So I didn't know if I'm comfortable with what's recommended by county staff, but I wanted to bring it up to the commission whether or not we should require reporting on top of that.

OK. Do we have any more questions?

I had one other comment on the caves are a new trending thing. We're seeing them probably in every other one. If I did the calculation right, this 17,000-foot cave is going to result in about 1,200 to 1,500 dump truck loads full of material that I think has to be off-sited based on the site visit. I don't know where you'd put it on those seven acres. Is there any issue associated with these large trucks in going in and out the left-hand turn lane just to access if people Thought they kind of step ahead just that that's that's a lot maybe three trucks a day for a year or whatever Do you need the left-hand turn lane first before you do the caves? How does that work? I?

I think it would be best maybe if we could have Public Works, who reviewed the driveway width and entrance, to speak to that.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is I work for Public Works Department as a senior traffic engineer. Even though I was sitting with the applicant team, but I still work for the county. The reason I sit with Mr. Reading is that he has a good soul and probably that is his last meeting before planning commission, so I'm breaking this news. Regarding the left-hand lane, we did provide a condition that left-hand lane has to be installed before an encouragement permit or building permit can be installed. Further, we also put a condition that their daily visitation plus implied volume cannot be more than 20 trips. So that means that anything below 20, they can still run the business without the left-on-lane. But since the left-on-lane is required or triggered at volume of 20 or more, so we bounded the applicant that they cannot increase their trips unless they install the left-on-lane when the trips will be more than 20 or more, 20 plus. So that could include the number of trips by the trucks. Usually, trucks trips are not that higher. They are like one or two per day the most. And also non-harvest season, there are no trucks movement. Thank you. Sure. Thank you.

Commissioner, if I can add also, we have covered the requirement to ensure that the left turn lane is completed prior to building permit issuance and, as SN mentioned, increasing any daily trips to the site. So that's correct. Before they could build the cave, the left turn lane will have to be installed.

Or they would have to cut back on other traffic? I mean, that would be a strategy they could use. I mean, I'm not saying that's a bad strategy. It's just they've got to stay in the, that's what we've got them limited to is the trips. Correct. Right. Okay. Yeah. It gives them some flexibility, right? Okay. Correct.

Commissioner Brooks, I also like to add that because of this project is a win-win situation for the county, for the community, and for the applicant also. Because when the project came in 2008, even though the county requested the installation of left-turn lane. But at that time, Caltrans did not feel the installation of left-turn lane was needed. So they went ahead and they installed the no left turn from the traffic coming from the south side. But this time, we convinced the that we required the left-hand lane. And because of that left-hand lane, the traffic in the past who was supposed to take the detour through Lodi Lane to Silver Trail to Bell Lane and then come back, which is really not a realistic movement, we are creating the more safety condition by installing the left-hand lane because People will not taking that long route, so there will be reduction in traffic from the neighborhood. And also, people who are making illegal left-on-lane, they will not be making a left-on-lane.

No, I experienced that on my site visit, so I think it's a really good thing.

Right, so I'm very happy that this is happening, and the applicant came for the modification, so we get the opportunity to ask whatever we want to do it. Okay, great. Thank you.

And the last point is a point of clarification, and I asked you this, Hannah, and you answered it. The bio survey was over 20 years old. That was the basic survey we did. And this almost gets to how we look at wells too. Like what's the most recent well pumping we've done? Do we really understand the well? And it seems like using that as the baseline you know habitats change regulations change survey protocols change all that over a 20-year period so i wasn't sure really that should have been a good starting point for doing it but as you pointed out your conditions of approval require that they do all the surveys pre-construction in the areas so i think i think we're covered but i was kind of it was a question of i mean if it was a 40 year old survey is there some point at which we go no we need you to do a more current survey what what would trigger that

And in this case, this site is pretty well built out already. And the primary areas for disturbance are really occurring in the vineyard. There were no proposals to work within the forested areas of the property, near the creek, any of the environmental sensitive areas. So, yes, typically we do require an updated biological resource report, but recognizing this site had a unique circumstance where, again, already built out. It's an active winery. We've consulted with Fish and Wildlife. They didn't have any comments, any further comments on the MND. Okay. And we applied all of the current protocol level surveys that are applicable to the potential species that could be on site or within the area.

Great. Thanks.

okay um it seems like we've had our pressing questions answered uh i think we need a 10-minute comfort break and then we'll come back and and we need we'll need to have public comment and take and take it back to the commission so um i'm adjourning the meeting until um let's say 10 45 sharp I'm going to reopen the public hearing, and it is now time to hear from the actual public if we have any comments. Is there anyone in the room who would like to approach the podium to speak about the project? okay seeing nobody in the room miss vega do we have anyone online no public comment okay so um i will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion uh who would like to start okay commissioner brooks mic on

So first I think I want to say that planning did a great job on this, and Hannah Spencer in particular, this was really well done. In fact, the tier one, tier two, and three analysis, at least initially on, would not have had to be done, but because of different factors associated with the site and the proximity of Hirsch Creek and everything, it looked like we pushed for that, and I'm really happy to see that.

I just think that's a great way to do the analysis.

And I hadn't seen a ghost winery one before either, and so it's a little unusual, and I didn't understand some of the constraints. I like the additional conditions of approval that the applicants agreed to in terms of getting this winery done and operational before the entitlements come into effect. and the only thing I'd like to see added and it might it would just be a minor change would be if we have two active Wells that are plumbed up and can be used that both those Wells should should be in the monitoring program which I think could just be a couple little words in the one thing where you're saying do it for the one well just do it for the active Wells on site and and I'd be totally comfortable with and support it and and this is a big job they're taking on to really keep this thing alive and I think it's a good thing

Okay. Commissioner Dameron. Thank you, Chair. You know, it's been quite some time since this winery has had any changes. And just, you know, looking at the winery comparison chart, you know, although it may look like a lot. I don't feel like it is, you know, an over ask. I feel like it's reasonable. I feel like they've, you know, looked at everything responsibly and I'm overall in support and I'm fine with having both wells monitored as an additional COA. So I would be in support of that as well.

Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Richmond.

Yeah, I'm in support of the project with some hesitations as it relates to just general cost of whether this is an entitlement project or whether this is going to get built. And that's for the applicant to decide, not for us to decide. And I support Commissioner Brooks' approach as well.

Commissioner Moran-Williams?

Yeah, this has been an interesting one. I mean, I think it's a unique property in that it has this sort of historic landmark element and this sort of interesting outdoor space. And so I sort of like the idea that there's a draw to this place that is, in addition to the wine and agro tourism part, the bringing people to a historic place in Napa County. And the preservation of those historic places is kind of a big undertaking. So I appreciate how the planning department has handled that. I think there are some property improvements that come with this project. Improvement of traffic safety, as was mentioned. Because that left-hand turn, as it is, is already a little precarious. And then more efficient wastewater systems. I appreciate that there was documented neighbor support. So overall, I'm in favor of this project, especially with that added condition of approval that this be a functioning built production facility first before it adds the visitation. So those are all my comments.

Okay, I am generally in agreement with everything that's been said about, you know, additional conditions of approval for water wells and production. some issues with the historic report. In general, it was very thorough. Ms. DeShazo is a qualified consultant. She's very experienced with architecture, and she did an excellent job on the buildings. don't agree that our stone walls lose integrity if they've been maintained over time. I think that argument is similar to saying, well, you replaced the porch on the Ingle Nook Mansion with new wood and repainted it. So it's not historic anymore. If the stone walls are going to continue to exist, the rocks are going to be restacked. And because, you know, those are... an essential part of the heritage and identity of this county. They have a strong value for tourism and visitation. They are called out in our general plan as specifically that our stone walls, you know, our cultural resources section of our general plan is very brief, but it specifically calls out stone walls. So, this may require a little back and forth discussion with staff, but I don't want to have to continue this project and go back and do another evaluation, but I also don't want to set a precedent where every applicant that comes in is going to say, well, the rock fell off here. We put it back on in 1998. That's outside the historic period. So Stonewall, it's nothing. We can get rid of it. So I'm wondering if we can. work out a condition of approval that where the applicant agrees to, you know, especially given the Mills Act nature of this property and the fact that it is a local landmark, which is also rather rare, just agrees to maintain the stone wall. and continue having it exist. I think if the pillars have to be moved, I can see from the photos those have lights on them that are not historic. To me, the nature of something like a stone wall is not the Monticello where everything has to be exactly maintained, but there can be some flexibility. I think those posts can be moved, but I'm wondering if we can add a condition about that, and I'd like to hear from whether the applicant is willing to commit to preserving the wall and whether staff can figure out how we can add that.

Thank you, Chair. I do want to call out that we did add some additional language to the mitigation measure for cultural resources that was included in the errata and planning commission memo yesterday. So that was in response to Caltrans comment letter. In the conditions of approval, it's on page 23. under 4.20E is mitigation measure cultural one. Number four in that list is the new language that we added to respond to Caltrans' request to ensure that Caltrans receives a cultural resource study that would be conducted on the stone wall and the pillars and anything else of potential historic resource value within the right-of-way work. And so through that condition, they would have to go through, as you said, the 5024 process of review, which I believe you mentioned that involves obtaining the State Office of Historic Preservation's concurrence on that work. Does that, in part, address your comment?

Yes, I reviewed this very quickly. So, yes, this does address my concerns. But I'm still glad that we discussed this because I do want to publicly state that I don't think these walls should be considered public. you know not historic or to not have integrity because some little part of them has been changed or because they've been basically maintained you know by being restacked and um so yeah with that yes I can I can support the project as conditioned

Okay, great. And I did want to mention there is also a planning condition later on that mentions because of the site changes that have occurred on this property over time since the property was first designated as a county landmark that the applicant applied to the planning division to update our landmark records as well, which would occur after they complete this process with the Caltrans Review and the State Office of Historic Preservation. Okay.

I think that's a great addition to just close the loop and improve our documentation on historic landmarks. So thank you. Okay. Do I have a motion?

I'll take a stab at it if you want me to.

I move that the Commission approve use permit major mod P22-00417 with the variance P26-0045 and the administrative viewshed permit 26-00044 and that we adopt the proposed subsequent mitigated negative declaration and the MMRP. And approve the request for the use permit mods Following findings and conditions of approval and attachment A and B with the additional COA that in Section condition 4.9 be modified to include both of the wells on the site within the monitoring program Was there anything else in conditions that anybody else wanted or is that it? Okay, so that would be it. Laura, did that cover it? Did I get it?

Second. Okay, I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, motion passes.

Congratulations.

Yes, Mr. Redding.

Ms. Spencer did a yeoman's job. She was working her until very late last night. She's been responsive to us. Michael Parker, Sean Trippi, fabulous job. It's a project we believe worth your support. We're glad we have it, but we couldn't be here without the work of the planning staff, and I'm grateful.

Yes, we're all grateful. And if the rumor that this is your last meeting is true, we're grateful to you for your years of service to the county and the public. Okay.

You're here.

I think. Sure.

Hi, I'm Don Van Lake. I'm one of the four founders. I want to thank Jeff because we had no clue what we were getting into five years ago. And this has been quite an experience for myself and for the other partners. But Jeff has been a godsend. And I really, really appreciate his work. You're not leaving yet. You told us you would be with us for a while. All right. Thank you, everybody. This is my first experience. I can't tell you how many goosebumps I have right now. And for an old guy like me. And last. Let me go on record. This is my last experience.

Thank you.

Thank you. Congratulations. Okay. Moving on to our fire marshal and what's your title? Supervising planner?

Supervising planner.

Okay. Let us hear your presentation on the viewshed program.

Chair, thank you very much. I know we've had a long public hearing here. I will. So I'm Trevor Hawks. I'm supervising planner with PBES, the Planning, Building, and Environmental Services Department. I'm joined today at the table with Jason Downs, Fire Marshal Jason Downs, to give you a presentation. of the viewshed protection program and also the county's defensible space policy. I'm going to try to go through this kind of relatively quickly just to warn the commission. I have about 36 slides. Okay, I thought I was going to have, like, everybody was going to groan at the same time. I think Jason next to me is regretting doing this with me at the same time. But I just want to let you know that this is actually a pared-down presentation of an internal training that we did with staff, which I think was, like, around 62 slides. So I've done my best to pare this down to the – to who we're presenting to.

You just better keep hitting that clicker.

Thank you, Chair Brunzel. I'm going to do my best to do that. So with that, I'm going to go ahead and get started. And we'll talk just a little bit about the history of the View Shed Protection Program. The View Shed Protection Program was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2001 through Ordinance 1189. And you can kind of see here, this is from the first page of that ordinance where the board identified the reasons that we needed this ordinance. which centered around how development in the county, which was largely unregulated, the types of structures that can go in there, whether it's single-family residential structures, agricultural structures, they identified it as impacting scenic resources and that those impacts affected the relationship between the natural environment and the manmade environment. So those were the reasons for adopting these regulations for viewshed in the county. I kind of like to think of the viewshed ordinance as this evolution of conservation policy within the county. So you have the 1968 establishment of the agricultural preserve, which was established to protect the rural character of the county, of ag, of open space here in Napa County. And then after that, in 1991, we had the adoption of the conservation regulations, which was YOU KNOW, ANOTHER REGULATORY APPARATUS WHICH WE, YOU KNOW, SOUGHT TO PROTECT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, OUR HILLSIDES, OUR STREAMS, VEGETATION, WATERSHEDS AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY. AND THEN FINALLY IN 2001 WITH THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 1189, THE VIEWSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM, where the county looked at regulating development compatibility with the landscape. And so it's kind of like those first two, I think, are the foundation. They're not necessarily directly related, but I think they set the kind of conservation policy foundation that led to the viewshed ordinance. The purpose of the viewshed ordinance is to – in the chapter – We have several reasons, purposes why the viewshed ordinance exists. It's primarily to provide hillside development standards to minimize impacts to existing landforms, unique geologic features, existing landscape features, and open space from our designated public roads within the county. It's to protect and preserve major and minor ridgelines. And the process also was created to create both a quicker administrative approval for small projects that don't massively impact our visual resources in the county, and then also to provide for a discretionary process for those larger projects, those projects that are impacting ridgelines. And then finally, it's to soften the impact of those projects on the natural environment and to promote architectural design that is compatible with hillside terrain and to minimize visual impacts. This flowchart is going to come up a couple different times because I've kind of organized this presentation on various steps through the viewshed protection program. And we'll talk first about qualifying projects, what qualifies. for the viewshed protection program before talking about, okay, once it qualifies, how do we decide whether it's an impact to viewsheds and it has to meet certain criteria or go to a discretionary hearing? And then we'll talk about the three different levels of approval for a viewshed application. So 18.106.30 of the Code A and B, what the board adopted is very broad, that no building permit, erosion control plan for structural development, grading, or other administrative permits shall be issued for any new structure or improvement to existing structures, and that no permit or administrative or discretionary approval shall be issued to authorize any grading or earth-moving activities until the applicant has complied with the applicable provisions of this chapter. So this applies to building permits. This applies to use permits. Anything that would approve structures or earth moving activity And there's other general provisions around this. Viewshed is we are supposed to, as staff and decision-making bodies, review for viewshed with any of our land division applications. The ordinance also gives exemption to certain types of previously approved entitlements, whether they be under use permit, building permits, or some of our small lot subdivisions within the unincorporated county. As it says in the chapter, view shed protection compliance will go hand in hand with use permits. And we'll get to this in a second. There are obviously administrative view sheds that might be applied to building permits that come through the PBES department and do their size and location. They qualify for administrative approval, and we review those in PBS without bringing them to a hearing body. But if somebody was, you know, applying for a use permit or use permit mod, much like the previous public hearing item, you heard that qualified for viewshed, then you bring that and it's reviewed as part of the use permit application. Talking about exemptions real quick, there is language in the ordinance that structures and activities that are exempt from the conservation regulations are also exempt from the viewshed protection program. So you can't be exempt from the con regs but also have to do a viewshed application for whatever that activity is. Um, and the viewshed requirements also do apply for the fire damage properties under the disaster recovery ordinance. If you look under the disaster recovery ordinance, there's quite a few sections that apply to viewshed. I'm not going to go into those in depth, but they are pretty much, um, similar and identical to just the main viewshed ordinance. And then the last thing I want to talk about is this adverse effects to Ridgeline, which the board gave the director of planning, building and environmental services, the authority to make that determination. OF WHETHER OR NOT A PROJECT WOULD BE AN ADVERSE IMPACT TO RIDGELINES. I'LL KIND OF COME BACK TO THAT ON SOME LATER SLIDES HERE AS WE GO THROUGH THIS. FINALLY, THE VIEWSHED PRODUCTION PROGRAM DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICATION IS GOING TO BE APPROVED THROUGH OUR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA OR WHETHER OR NOT THAT APPLICATION HAD TO COME BEFORE THE ZA AND THE PC FOR A DISCRETIONARY HEARING. Administrative viewsheds are required to issue a notice of tentative decision followed 10 days later by a notice of decision of the director's decision on that viewshed application. And then for an item that needs to go to the ZA or the PC for a public hearing, that notice would need to go out about 10 days prior to the public hearing, although that can obviously, if it's a project that is requiring a CEQA review, be extended beyond the 10 days in order to meet CEQA noticing requirements. And then finally, all viewshed decisions, whether they are under the administrative viewshed or the ZA approval, PC approval, are appealable to the Board of Supervisors. So you are required, if it's determined that the project qualifies and it meets applicability criteria for viewshed, you are required to complete a viewshed application. We have that on the Planning, Building, and Environmental Services website. And like I said, that's going to be whether or not a project is cleared through our visibility determination. It's our administrative criteria, the ZA approval or the PC exception. And this application and the clearance has to be done before any other ministerial permits are approved, although it can be obviously done in conjunction at the same time through a use permit. So if somebody comes in for a building permit And it's determined, this happens quite often, you know, that they don't necessarily apply for viewshed at the same time as building permit. But in reviewing that building permit, it becomes apparent that the project does qualify, meets the applicability criteria for viewshed. Then planning is required to put that application on hold. We can't do concurrent processing. but to have the applicant complete a viewshed application and give us what we need to demonstrate compliance with the provisions. And that has to be approved before any of the other minor ministerial permits can be approved. And the application identifies permit review and the provisions. We usually identify that in permit review, or we can identify that in pre-application conference. Uh, application has a checklist of requirements and it includes also in it, the view shed protection design manual, which was, uh, adopted by the board in the original ordinance 1189, the ordinance that established the view shed production program. It includes also our slope determination methodology, which is important for applicability criteria, and also a page or two on the designated public roads and how they apply to the project. And then finally, I'll just briefly talk about the Viewshed Protection Design Manual, which is appended to the application. It details requirements of the Viewshed Protection Ordinance that includes graphical examples and accompanying texts. The code refers to conformance with this design manual throughout the ordinance, both in the administrative criteria and in the ZA approval findings. SO IT DOES REFER BACK TO THIS, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE MANUAL WAS CREATED WITH ORDINANCE 1189 AND WAS NOT UPDATED IN SUBSEQUENT ORDINANCES THAT APPENDED THE VIEWSHED ORDINANCE, AND SO WHERE THE CODE AND THE MANUAL CONFLICT, THE CODE TAKES PRECEDENCE. SO WE GO NEXT INTO THE APPLICABILITY CRITERIA. We have a permit or an application for entitlement for structures, whether it's a new structure or expansion of existing structures, or we have something that would approve earth moving activity. viewshed applies, so what sort of projects under that fall within the viewshed criteria, or what need to submit an application and demonstrate that they meet the compliance with the viewshed ordinance. For newer expanded structures, that is if the structure or the expansion is on a slope of over 15%, as determined by our slope methodology determination, and based upon the natural slope of the earth, within the area of disturbance, or if that newer expanded structure is located on a major or minor ridgeline. For grading and earth moving activities, those activities only need to be on slopes over 15%. They are not subject to viewshed criteria if they are located on the major or minor ridgeline and it's just earth moving activity. We provide definitions of ridgelines, major and minor, in the ordinance. I'm just going to talk about the definition of a ridgeline here, which is a visually prominent, relatively narrow strip or crest of land which includes the highest points of elevation within a watershed that separate one drainage basin from another. We have a pretty good graphic within the design manual that gives you an idea of what we're looking at when we are trying to identify major and minor ridgelines. That major ridgeline, I think, you know, a duck is a duck. We can go out and drive around the valley and tell what the major ridgelines are. There's just sky behind those. But minor ridgelines can be a little bit more difficult to identify. Usually there's still some sort of topography or vegetation behind them. They're not silhouetted against the sky. Um, and as I mentioned earlier, we have that provision in there that says that the director of PBS hat makes the determination about adverse effects to Ridgeline. So we have a lot of tools. Um, staff has a lot of tools on determining what a Ridgeline is. We have topographic GIS data. Um, we have obviously, um, stream data and, uh, femoral stream data to kind of show us. where those breaks in drainage patterns are and be able to determine whether or not that prominent strip of land should qualify as a ridgeline. Ridgelines were not identified in the original ordinance or any subsequent ordinances amending this section of the code. And so if there is a disagreement or whether or not that qualifies as a ridgeline, the director is the one who can make that call and make that determination. Talk really quickly about designated public roads and the definition of that. Designated public roads shall mean scenic highways as identified in figures 75 and 76 of the scenic highways element of the Napa County General Plan, and such other county roads as may be designated by resolution by the Board of Supervisors. It's really important, I think, to understand that this is not just in the unincorporated county, that designated public roads can go through the incorporated cities as well. So Highway 29 through if something can qualify for viewshed and be viewable from Highway 29 within the city of St. Helena, not just Highway 29 within the unincorporated county. And this is really important because viewshed and impacts to viewshed is not dependent on views from private property. It's dependent upon views from these designated public roads within the county as they've been identified. Okay, so with that, moving along here, we'll talk about, I'm gonna go a little bit more into detail about the different approval criteria for ViewShed, starting first with the administrative approvals. There's two types of administrative approval. A project can be cleared either through what we call the visibility determination, or it can be cleared for approval through the administrative criteria. The visibility determination, this is out of the code. So if the director determines that a project cannot be viewed from any designated public road because of its relationship to surrounding topography or existing vegetation, then the project will be cleared for further processing pursuant to the code. Right underneath that section or that language out of the ordinance, we have, this is a screenshot of the section of the application where it talks about the different ways that an applicant can demonstrate the visual impact analysis to help us determine whether or not a project can meet visibility determination criteria. And they can do that through story polls, computer simulation, a photo montage. Sometimes it can be as much as staff going out and doing a site visit and traveling along designated viewshed roads asking themselves, you know, do we need to see something more here, story polls potentially to make that determination that, yes, we do need to submit a viewshed application and demonstrate compliance with the ordinance. I SHOULD MENTION THAT I DON'T HAVE THE LANGUAGE UP HERE, BUT IF THAT DETERMINATION IS DEPENDENT UPON VEGETATIVE SCREENING, AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THAT'S ON-SITE OF THE PARCEL THAT THE PROJECT IS ON, ON-SITE VEGETATIVE SCREENING, THEN IT'S REQUIRED THAT THE APPLICANT RECORD A USE RESTRICTION PREVENTING REMOVAL OF THAT VEGETATION IN PERPETUITY. OBVIOUSLY, IF IT'S The project is being screened from vegetation that's not part of the property that the applicant owns. We can't do a use restriction on that, and so that wouldn't apply in a visibility determination.

Trevor? That paragraph, though, doesn't say that it's just says existing vegetation. It doesn't say that it's your vegetation.

Well, I think that's kind of apparent maybe in what we can do with use restrictions. We can't have somebody do a use restriction with vegetation that's not on site. It's maybe something that should be considered as an update to the viewshed ordinance, I will admit. But since we couldn't, if you were making a visibility determination from a public road, and you're like, well, it's screened from these trees here, but the project is several parcels further off, that wouldn't that we can't we can't do a use restriction on that vegetation so it wouldn't apply in that in that case so it's basically understood that it applies it's not explicitly in there yeah um and you see that sometimes i put up kind of the the most common thing that we see which is these um cross-sections of a point where somebody has said, okay, this is a designated viewshed road, and here's where the project is. The top left one is kind of an example of when they're saying, okay, yeah, look, it does apply, and I'm going to – I'm demonstrating to you that it applies from this location of the designated public road. And I'm now going to demonstrate compliance with the ordinance. Or maybe they're showing us to demonstrate that we should clear it through a visibility determination that there's some sort of topographic or vegetative break in the line of sight from the designated public road and the project. All right, so that's it for visibility determination. It's, you know, are we going to actually be able to see this? If we can't see it from designated public road, it's not subject, or it's cleared for viewshed. What happens when it can be seen from a designated public road? Well, the next is the administrative criteria. um projects that fall within the administrative criteria are ministerially exempt from sequa under the county's local sequa procedures there's 16 different standards within the administrative criteria many are based upon that conformance with the viewshed design manual that i mentioned earlier and it's kind of like a collection of you know objective measures based on the size location and height of the project that say Okay, this can be cleared administratively. We don't have to go to a public hearing for it. And then other measures that the applicant demonstrates to staff where the intent of that measure is to soften the project's impact on view sheds. I'm going to talk about those ones that are just meant to – that the applicant is demonstrating to staff and that they're meant to soften the impact. You kind of see these with the ones that are on the screen here, which is that we're retaining on-site vegetation. We're making sure that lighting is going to be minimized off-site visibility and glare. There's, you know, non – windows and surfaces are non-reflective, the color treatment is earth tone, and then that we've maybe done some sort of design feature with the exterior walls or the roof that would conform to existing landforms and landscape. Other administrative criteria have that kind of objective measures that are based upon the location, the size, the height of the structure. So, for example, you will fall under the administrative criteria if the highest point of the proposed structure is located more than 25 vertical feet below a major or minor ridge line. We have a really good graphical representation of that in the design manual up on the screen. Applicants show us something like this all the time in their elevation plans for the project. Another one you have is that, and this is based on the size of the project, the maximum floor area, including all floors of the main residence or agricultural structure, is 4,000 square feet or less. And that the maximum floor area, including all floors for accessory structures, are a combined total of 2,500 square feet or less. And this applies both to new structures and to additions to existing structures. So if there's a If the project is becoming quite large, it is subject to view shed. And then another one that's based upon the average height of the structure, where if the height of the structure is 24 feet or less as measured from finished grade along 50% or more of the longest wall as viewed from any designated public road, if it doesn't meet this criteria, then it would not be available to be cleared through the administrative criteria.

So I'm not getting that one. Could you just use that diagram to explain what's happening in the math?

Yeah. So the height of the structure is 24 feet or less as measured from finished grade along 50% or more of the longest wall. So the graphic that you're seeing here, this has been identified as the longest wall of the structure. 80 feet from the left side to the right side. And then what they're demonstrating here is that you've got 56 feet or 70% of the structure is in that area that's 24 feet or less, and that you've got then another 24 feet on the right side, 30% of the structure that is exceeding that 24 feet. So this is kind of just an example. It's not pulled from an actual application of what we kind of would be looking for to make that determination that it meets this criteria. There's also criteria involving landscaping. And I've highlighted a section of the code here and what's a phrase that has a definition to it because you see this section in both the administrative criteria and you see it in the ZA approval findings as well, which is that the improvements, including any required earth moving or grading, associated with the structure shall minimize removal of existing vegetation with an emphasis on preserving mature trees. If the improvements require the removal of any tree with a diameter of six inches or greater, then they're submitting a landscaping plan and replacement of trees and vegetation in a manner which screens the improvements from substantial views from designated public roads and provides for defensible space in conformance with state law. That phrase, substantial views, has an exact definition within the viewshed ordinance, which means that it's views of a structure wherein 51% or more of the area facing the designated roads can be seen. Now, that's different, and I'm going to highlight that when we get to the ZA approval findings, because in the ZA approval findings, it uses a different terminology for the ZA or the PC to approve under a discretionary review. And then finally, one of the last, I think, yeah, the last criteria that I'm going to go over here. The project is cited in design shall be in substantial compliance with the design manual to reduce its visual impacts on the views of major and minor ridgelines as viewed from any designated public road and unique topographic or geologic feature as viewed from any county road. And it's very important, I think, to make the distinction here that in this criteria, we talk about designated public roads when referring to major and minor ridgelines and the impacts to major and minor ridgelines. But when it comes to the unique topographic and geologic features in the county, that is Mount St. Helena, Stag's Leap, Calistoga Palisades, Round Hill, Mount George, and Mount St. John, impacts to those can be interpreted from from county roads, it doesn't say the designated roads, it's from county roads. So that's a lot broader. And it's something that staff, you know, when we're reviewing these decision making bodies, the applicant needs to take into consideration when providing us with the visual impact analysis, that impacts to these features are not just the designated viewshed roads, it's from any county road. Just a couple little last things on the administrative criteria, and then we'll move on here. But still to fit within this administrative criteria, the total grading has to involve one and one-half acres of land or less. If it goes over that, then it doesn't qualify qualified for administrative criteria. You know, future structures, roads, driveways, disposal systems are constructed in a way that it's located to avoid environmentally sensitive areas. We are getting detailed landscape plans prepared by qualified professionals, you know, and they have to incorporate the criteria in the design manual. And then there's that use restriction that you see throughout the ordinance where if there is any existing landscaping that's being used to soften the impacts of the project or landscaping put in to do that, that we have the applicant record a use restriction on that that would maintain that in perpetuity. I'll go now to the zoning administrator approval. as the next level. So if a project does not qualify under that administrative criteria, we couldn't make a visibility determination. The next thing is that it can go to a zoning administrator hearing. Zoning administrator hearings and projects that qualify for that are not ministerially exempt from CEQA. They might be categorically exempt from CEQA. They could also maybe theoretically require Um, preparation of initial study and, and, um, at least initial review under the California environmental quality act. Uh, these are projects where the location design and size elevate the project to a discretionary review. They require a noticed public hearing. And they're usually heard by the zoning administrator, but the zoning administrator can elevate it to the planning commission upon referral. There are seven different findings that the decision maker has to make before approving the project. And like I mentioned, there's those requirements for use restriction for building exteriors, vegetation as part of these approvals as well. So the findings, very somewhat similar, maybe a little broader than the administrative criteria that you saw here. The project's going to be consistent with the con regs. It's being designed in ways that to minimize adverse impacts from designated public roads. That the project overall is being designed in a way that Minimizes grading, earth disturbance, removal of vegetation, benching and shelving of the natural landform, and landscape and vegetation retention is part of it as well as a landscape plan for any landscape that's put into the project. All those findings the decision maker has to make. Come back to another one of those criteria. Like I said, you see similar language between the administrative criteria and the zoning administrator findings except for a different term here. So we still have that. you know, okay, if you're taking out any vegetation, it's the least amount possible. And if you are taking out any, you're putting it back in to potentially screen the project. Although this language also has a stipulation where if you're 25 vertical feet below the major or minor ridgeline, measures have been included to reduce the visual impacts. If you're above that, then... that the existing vegetation, the proposed landscaping, the topographical sighting, the architectural design, and the color tone screen the predominant portion of the proposed structure that's different from the substantial views. Predominant portion shall mean the principal or main part of the structure, including architectural features likely to be silhouetted against the sky.

So that one seems pretty broad and interpretable. Give me an example of how you've used that or what you've done with that in the past.

Well, I mean, staff will house. So, um, the administrative criteria is approved administratively through the PBS department and how we usually look at it. You had that substantial views of 51% or not. We, what we usually do is require, um, some sort of plan somewhat like the graphical you see here, where they're showing us how they're putting in landscaping or some other design feature. that is softening the impact. And what we usually do with the landscaping is say, well, we'd like to see you try to screen 51% or more of the project. That's somewhat related to how you see that substantial view definition within the ordinance. Not to throw it back at you, Commissioner Brooks, but the predominant portion language here is a feature of the zoning administrator or planning commission findings. And so It is a little bit more broad because it's discretionary and a discretionary body can make the determination that what this applicant has done, whether it be through, you know, location of the project in relation to existing topography or landscaping, architectural design and color tone or landscaping that they're adding to the project to screen the project, that those are screening the predominant portion of that project.

You're just reinforcing it's interpretive. It's interpretive, yes.

That's fine. Sorry, maybe I went a long way to basically tell you it's interpretive.

Well, because the other one had the 51%, so you can kind of calculate that. This one's just... when you see it.

Staff has never had to make a determination on predominant portion. So as a decision-making body, you tell me.

It does seem like this interacts with fire standards as well at this point. And maybe it's going to shift how future discretionary decisions are made. And maybe you'll get to that in the second part of this presentation.

Okay. I actually only have three slides left, so we are almost done here. I apologize for if I've taken too much time. We'll talk next about the very last thing, which is the planning commission exception, which is probably kind of, if you think about it, if you look at this section of the code, the hardest to visualize, like, what is going to fall under this exception. Upon application by a property owner of the site, an exception to the requirement contained in subsection B of 18-106-50, which is the ZA findings, may be granted by the commission. Such exemption may be granted if, after conducting a public hearing and reviewing available building sites on the subject property, the commission makes all of the following findings. Those findings that are in this section are primarily based upon COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZA FINDINGS WOULD RESULT IN GREATER VISUAL IMPACTS AND OR IMPACTS TO EXISTING LAND FORMS AND LANDSCAPE THAN PROPOSED PROJECTS. SO I THINK THIS IS, I'M, I'VE TALKED TO SOME OF THE SENIOR PLANNING STAFF BEFORE, AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE ACTUALLY EVER BROUGHT AN EXCEPTION TO THE VIEWSHED REGULATIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BEFORE. SO I DON'T HAVE A GOOD PROJECT WHERE I CAN BE LIKE, OH, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE. BUT WHAT I IMAGINE IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IS, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE A applicant demonstrates to us that the ZA or the commission doesn't feel they can make a finding under subsection 50 of the ZA findings. And then an applicant asks for exception because they demonstrate to the commissioner that there's nowhere else to put this on the property where if we paste it in these other locations, our visual impacts would be greater than the location we're trying to put it in. And we're asking for exemption from that finding or there'd be a greater impact to landforms. I know that might be kind of, I'm seeing Commissioner Williams kind of like, well, what does that look like? Not exactly sure, but that is what the commission has the power to do in this situation. If somebody comes and asks for an exemption to the viewshed criteria or the viewshed findings for the ZA, they still have to take measures to reduce the visual impacts related to screening, low-level lighting, earth tone colors, all of those things you can see on the right hand of the screen. There's still requirements to execute use restrictions for building exteriors and vegetation. And a project that gets exception from the view shed protection program from the commission must still be consistent with the conservation regulations.

Trevor, if you looked at something like Rombauer or Sterling, where all of their screening burned up and they're exposed there, if they came to us now and wanted to make a change to those facilities, it's a cumulative thing, as you explained before, right? Even though it might be a relatively modest change, we would look at the whole area that's now exposed.

is it you know it's going to take a while to build that screening back again there is that something that would come to the commission where you'd say you know they're kind of in a extreme situation um well um okay so let's look sterling's maybe a good example because it kind of does sit alone on a hill on its own um and very likely thinking about you know i'm just kind of imagining in my head is that i don't think they would there's anywhere on the property where um at least on that hill and if they're trying to expand the existing structure where they probably would be on 15% and or if we consider that hill to qualify as a ridgeline. So in that scenario, you have an existing building that probably is in excess of the size requirements we talked about in the administrative criteria. So I could theoretically see one where they're coming to the ZA. And if we felt like the ZA either couldn't make one of those findings, or if upon referral the PC was like, we don't think this finding could be made here, the next thing would be to go to that exception and for them to say, look, here's the reasons. If we try to put it anywhere else, our visual impacts are going to be greater. Maybe that's based upon the location around the existing facility to designated roads. You're going to have them on both sides with Sterling. Or if they're like, well, This is – the location we've picked here, it's over 15 percent, but everywhere else is – I'm not familiar with their parcel, but everywhere else is over 30 percent. That would be a greater impact I would say theoretically to landforms than maybe what they're proposing. Yeah.

But I think, you know, it's worth bringing up that it's natural you think of Sterling because these regulations were all developed as a reaction to the horror of having that. I mean, I think Sterling's one of the most beautiful wineries in the county, but people were really upset that it was white and that it was up high. So this came out of that. So they probably...

if they had to do it over again they they couldn't probably you know i'm um sterling i'm almost certain established before the viewshed ordinance uh so as existing uh the existing structure is not subject to viewshed any expansions to it would be subject to fuchsia but just that expansion would be subject we wouldn't be able to go back and say okay screen the entire winery now at this point um Yeah. So, okay. And that about does it for my presentation of the viewship protection program. I'm going to hand it off to Jason here to talk about defensible space. But before I do, I kind of want to just mention that, you know, probably one of the things that we deal with as staff the most when it comes to viewship applications are the design requirements. the design of the application and how it plays a part with the defensible space. It's very important for the Commission to understand and anybody that the viewshed ordinance and the defensible space is an ordinance or?

Regulations.

Regulations. Neither supersede or exempt provisions of the other. So if you are a qualifying project, you meet the applicability criteria, you have to demonstrate compliance with the viewshed ordinance. You also have to demonstrate compliance with defensible space, and they don't cancel each other, or one doesn't cancel the other out. And we have to pay extra attention to this because Quite often, project design and the intersection between achieving viewshed compliance, which the vast majority of applications we see come through viewshed want to use landscape screening to meet, you know, to soften the impacts of the project to visual resources. Not often that somebody comes in, says, here's the building I was going to design, and we say, okay, you're subject to viewshed, and they go, okay, we're going to change the roofline and the exteriors and all that. I mean, maybe they'll do color, but... 99% of the applications we see, okay, cool, we'll put in some landscaping and we'll try to screen this from the designated public road. And obviously there's an intersection between achieving the view shed compliance through landscape screening and the vegetation management requirements of defensible space policy. And with that...

An example of that, like Paloma that we just looked at where they wanted to build a new tasting room and it had a view shed problem and they wanted to screen it, but they were on kind of a steep slope. So you're going to have to landscape, but further away to respect the defensible space. So you're going to need bigger trees, you know, more growth in order to, that's the kind of thing you're talking about, right? Which we've seen that. Okay.

Yeah. All right. And that's it for my presentation. I'll hand it over to Fire Marshal Jason Downs.

All right. Thank you, Trevor. And good morning, still, chair and members of the commission, Jason Downs, Napa County Fire Marshal. And my presentation today is... The purpose of this presentation is to provide you just with a general overview of defensible space requirements, explain how they work together with home hardening and wildfire mitigation efforts that we hear a lot about here in the county, and discuss how these concepts influence development and planning decisions throughout Napa County. So first I'll start with some of the regulations and codes and standards that influence defensible space. Defensible space requirements are established through multiple layers of state and local regulations. At the state level, public resources code 4291 establishes defensible space requirements around structures, while 4290 provides for fire-safe development. We hear a lot about the minimum fire-safe regulations, and that's where this information comes from. These requirements are further supported by the California Wildlife and Urban Interface Code and our local ordinance, Napa County ordinance, which you see listed here. It's important to note that the California Wildland Urban Interface Code is new as of 2025. It's a new portion. It's called Part 7 of Title 24. The Building Standards Commission put that in place. We adopted that January of 2026. And what that did is that took a number of things, the minimum fire safe regulations, and it also took a number of codes out of the building code and fire code and put it all together into one part. of Title 24 now. So that is a fantastic resource for our industry professionals and also for staff here. Together, these regulations create a framework that address both existing properties and new development to reduce wildfire risk. So next you'll see some definitions here. One I pulled from the California wildland urban interface code, and then also the definition that comes right out of our municipal code. In general, they say the same thing, but defensible space is a buffer between a structure and surrounding vegetation. The goal is not to eliminate vegetation, but to strategically manage it in a way that reduces fire intensity and slows the fire spread. Defensible space helps accomplish three important objectives. First, it reduces the likelihood that a wildfire will ignite a structure. Second, it limits the ability for a structure fire to spread into surrounding vegetation. And third, it provides firefighters with a safer environment to defend homes during a wildfire event. While the standard requirement is generally 100 feet, site-specific conditions such as slope, vegetation density, and fuel types may require greater distances. And that's addressed in our local ordinance and guidelines. Next, I'm sure you've heard a lot about the various zones within defensible space. And what this graphic does is depicts sort of what we're looking at in each one of these zones. So defensible space is divided into three management zones. And the first one you see is zone zero. And zone zero is the zero to five feet from a structure. And this is the most critical area. The focus here is ember resistance. So things like combustible vegetation, wood mulch, and other ignitable materials like wood piles or combustible furniture should be minimized or eliminated. What we would recommend is hardscaping, noncombustible landscaping materials like rock, And then non-combustible vegetation, so things like succulents or evergreen materials. We have a list on our website, and FireWise, Napa Community's FireWise is also a really great resource for different recommendations. Zone 1 extends from the 5 to 30 feet. That's the yellow that you see here on this image. And this is sort of the lean, clean, and green zone. Vegetation should be maintained to reduce fire intensity to prevent flames from reaching the structure. So what does that mean? That means that... We would ask for all annual grass and brush to be cut down to four inches or less. And we would ask that all dead or down vegetation be removed. And that we would ask for all existing trees. Doesn't mean that you can't have trees, which just means that trees within this zone, we would ask that they're maintained so we have canopy separation, and that you limit what we call ladder fields. Ladder fields are from the zero to six, or depending on slope, can extend all the way up to 10 feet in height. And that allows for any of those light, flashy fields like our annual grass and brush to be eliminated and prevent that fire from climbing into the tree canopies and spreading that way. And then moving on, that green zone, the Zone 2, extends from 30 to 100. And the objective is reducing fuel continuity, slowing wildfire spread through vegetation management and spacing. So again, annual grass brush, removing ladder fields, remove anything dead or down, and then really focusing on canopy separation within this zone. It's important to recognize that defensible space is a system. Each zone performs a different function, but together they provide a layer protection for structures. In this slide here, you've got a couple different visuals, but this addresses home hardening. Home hardening is a term that I'm sure you've all heard. So defensible space is one component, but defensible space alone is not enough. Research from recent wildfires has shown that embers are often responsible for structure ignition. Embers can travel miles ahead of the main fire, especially when they are wind-driven or topography-driven. Home hardening focuses on reducing vulnerabilities within the structure itself through measures such as ember-resistant vents, ignition-resistant roofing, tempered glass windows, and non-combustible construction materials, things like hardy-back siding, metal siding, et cetera. Think of defensible space as reducing the fire exposure and home hardening as improving the structure's resistance to that exposure. The most effective wildfire protection occurs when both strategies are implemented. It's also important to note that any new construction, whether commercial or residential, has to meet these requirements. And then we also encourage existing structures when making upgrades to meet these requirements as well. Next, these two images sort of highlight the wildfire risk environment here in Napa. Napa County has experienced multiple significant wildfire events over the past decade, including the Atlas, Glass, and Hennessy fires, and most recently the Pickett fire. The maps shown here illustrate both historic fire perimeters, the map on the left, and then the most recently updated fire hazard severity zone maps, which includes not only the SRA, but also the LRA. LRA is the local responsibility area. It's kind of hard to see, but if you see more of the bolder colors along the valley floor, those are the new areas that have been brought into the state's fire hazard severity zone maps. So the importance of this map is when we're looking at development, when we're looking at defensible space requirements and those home hardening requirements, we're going to look to see if you're in any one of these zones, you have to comply with those requirements. These maps highlight that the reality that much, if not almost all of it, of Napa County exists within a wildfire prone environment. And so as planners, as fire prevention specialists and decision makers, it's important to recognize that wildfire risk is not confined to a single community. It's a countywide issue that requires long-term planning and mitigation. The next image that I have here is just to sort of highlight what we've done here in Napa County. Wildfire resilience is not achieved through a single agency or program. This graphic illustrates the partnership required to create resilient communities. Defensible space is generally the responsibility of the property owner or the homeowner. Individual property owners are responsible for parcel level defensible space and home hardening. And then you see the fire wise and Napa Community Firewise Foundation. So the NCFF, they sort of serve as the organizer and the fundraiser and the educator. And then we have 24 active fire safe councils that are under them representing 24 different geographical areas within Napa County with more planned. And they focus on community education, neighborhood assessments, and community level fuel reduction projects. My office is responsible for defensible space inspections, local enforcement, and ongoing community support. So for the past couple of years, we've had six defensible space inspectors. We bring them on. We just brought them on in May. They usually work through the end of October. And last year, they conducted a little over 5,000 inspections. And this year, we look to conduct a little over 6,000 inspections. And then we also attend fire safe council meetings, different wildfire preparedness fairs and events. And then we've also participated in a number of town halls hosted by our county board of supervisors within their districts. And then last but not least, Cal Fire, who also, you know, serves as our fire department in combination with our volunteers. And they support larger scale vegetation management projects at the state level and also at the state level they provide various grant funding opportunities which we take advantage of here in Napa County. And the key message is that the wildfire resilience depends on collaboration. Each component plays an important role and success requires all of them working together. Okay, so now let's bring this back to, you know, sort of the view shed. My role as county fire marshal and sort of your role here as the planning commission, when we have these different projects come before us, this slide demonstrates how defensible space considerations affect site planning and development design. The location of structures, driveways, existing vegetation, proposed landscape, water supply, and access routes all influence whether adequate defensible space can be achieved. One of the most important questions we at the fire marshal's office evaluate during project review is whether the building footprint can maintain defensible space over time without creating ongoing conflicts with adjacent properties or environmental constraints. In many cases, thoughtful design, early planning process can significantly reduce conflicts. um, the, the future of, of, or future wildfire risk. And, and so you can see here and in particular as it relates to view shed, um, you were going to see a plan, um, that looks something similar to this or based on the previous slide or the, the image that Trevor had on his PowerPoint. Um, and we're going to simply look at, at the slopes. We're going to look at the that they have acknowledged the zones in the landscaping plan. We're going to make sure that the proposed plants and the plant schedule align with our recommended plants to ensure that they're non-pyrophytic or non-flammable. And so all of that is reviewed and looked at at this conceptual planning stage. And then it's also verified in the field later during building construction and site inspection.

The bottom right corner, three times the height of shrub is the minimum vertical clearance. Is that a shrub that's on fire below? So you're looking at the understory shrub height and then how high you should lift the canopy? Is that what's going on?

Correct. Yeah. So that goes back to the ladder field discussion that I was talking about. So, you know, usually six to 10 feet is going to be what we're going to see these existing trees, you know, limbed up to. So, again, this is a balancing act, and one of my next slides will sort of reference this, but Trevor touched on this a little bit as well, is that there's an environmental balance along with the defensible space balance that we have to achieve here. So we want to protect existing vegetation, our existing oak woodlands that's predominant here, a lot of our heavily forested areas. And the conservation regulations and I believe also CEQA protect things like oak trees, redwoods, et cetera. And so we're not saying you need to clear all this stuff out because you're going to develop. We're saying it can be integrated into the landscape. It just needs to be properly maintained per these standards. So this is a good example of what we look at from a fire protection standpoint. So we're looking at access, water supply, and defensible space. And this is a good example of what we're asking to these landscape architects or civil engineers to depict on the plan sets to acknowledge these requirements. And then last but not least, I have this slide here. in conclusion with my presentation and similar fashion in the way Trevor concluded his presentation is that it's a balancing act. Over the last several years, planning and fire have worked closely together because we did realize there were conflicts between view shed and defensible space and it's sort of a simple solution. If you need screening, you just put it right up against the structure. that flies in the face of what we're asking for for a defensible space and that's in large part why a lot of these homes burn due to the ember cast and the proximity to vegetation to these structures and then also the way a lot of these structures were traditionally built. So what we do through early planning and through the coordination between our two departments is to ensure that both objectives can be met and that we're balancing the environmental concerns and the environmental requirements along with the fire safety requirements of defensible space. And so anything that becomes before this commission, you guys will know that we evaluated all of this criteria And that if we're in agreement and we're stating that it meets the V-SHED requirements, it meets the V-SHED requirements, it meets the environmental requirements, and it also meets the fire and life safety requirements. And ViewShed's not the only, I would say, planning project where D-Space is required. There's a lot of planning projects to include cell tower modifications that require various defensible – I require my standard defensible space requirements. There's also noncombustible rock that's required around – the base of these cell towers because we view those as critical infrastructure, and we want to protect that critical infrastructure from burning. Any modification to a commercial project, whether it's a winery or some other commercial facility, we're going to be evaluating that if it applies. Most of our wineries, it does. And then, of course, any residential development where viewshed is triggered, we're looking at that.

Just a question for you. Sure. So in the case of a viewshed application where they're suggesting screening for a building, practically speaking, how close can those screening trees be to...

So that's where we would go back to those zones. So we'd say, first of all, zone 0, 0 to 5 feet needs to be maintained. We're not going to have any trees within that section. That 5 to 30 feet is typically where we see that. But the trees have to – what we want to make sure is that that mature growth, we ask them to show what that – overall mature growth would be and that you place them accordingly so that you have that distance and that separation.

But it doesn't totally render like planting trees for screening impossible.

No, it's a balanced approach. Yeah.

And then from a species standpoint, I know from a defensible space standpoint, you're looking at lower fire risk, lower flammability. Correct. Does that integrate with native species?

It does, yeah. So in general, redwoods and oaks are very fire resilient, whereas some of the pines and the conifers and stuff like that are not. But we know that those aren't necessarily native and they're not protected, whereas oaks and redwoods are. So it works out to protect the natural environment, but they're also more fire resistive. So just to wrap this slide up, some of the key takeaways for your understanding is defensible space is included as a standard requirement in all conditions of approval where defensible space is applicable. The landscape plans must be designed and maintained in full compliance with defensible space requirements, including appropriate plant selection, spacing, and ongoing vegetation management. Projects involving road development, major construction, cell towers, similar large-scale improvements are subject to additional review where defensible space is evaluated and or viewshed. And then to your point, you mentioned fire management strategy plan. That's sort of a newer term. That's something that is mentioned in the Conregs. Fire management strategy plan is something that we are working actively with PBS on developing. And really where a fire management strategy plan would exist is it would It would exist if work was being requested or required outside the defensible space areas. So outside that 100 feet. Now, locally, we can expand that 100 feet as the AHJ, but it has to be justified. And we can go to 200 to 300 feet based on slope, generally. But the fire management strategy is something that we're looking at potentially for some of these larger resort-type developments that are in high-fire severity zone areas where this would be beneficial. But that's something that we'll consider. you know, we're continuing to work on and is still in development.

You know, I'm cognizant when we ask about things like that, it's like adding additional staff time, you know, and whether, you know, asking about whether or not a property, adding a condition of approval might be like a process that's not typical sometimes for But in some of these projects we've seen, we've had, you know, increase of visitation and foothill areas, places that have seen the fire before. So I think that's mostly when the question of can we condition fire management plans has come up.

I would say that it's not something that we've officially established yet as a county process. It's something we're working on. But until we establish that, I'd be cautious not to refer to anything as a fire management strategy plan. What I will say is defensible space, when we talk about development, usually we're talking about new wineries or additions or expansions, etc., Defensible space and our standard condition is usually going to be good enough to protect those structures. And it also is required for the access routes as well. And so we evaluate that on a lot of the road development. We look at that. That's a really critical component when we talk about a lot of the road exceptions that usually come before you guys. Defensible space is a key component to that, especially when they're asking for an exception. What that defensible space does is two things. One, it improves sight lines and visibility. Two, it reduces fire intensity, smoke conditions, et cetera, along those access routes for firefighters or evac routes for the community. That's a key, key component, and those are standard conditions that are applied to all projects. So that's it. In closing, defensible space is one of the most effective tools available to reduce wildfire risk, protect lives and property, and improve firefighter safety. When combined with home hardening, community-level mitigation efforts, and thoughtful land use planning, it becomes a key component of wildfire resilience in Napa County. Thank you for your time and attention, and I'd be happy to answer any further questions.

Thank you, Marshall Downs and Mr. Hawks. I'm going to suggest that we ask further questions by email, given the fact, unless anybody has anything.

I was going to ask, can we get these presentations? Do we have them already, or can we get the presentation? I can export the PDF, yes. That would be great for both of them, and then email questions.

Unless you have anything really pressing because I think there's four of us that have to get to work for at least four of us. Thank you both. So are we comfortable moving on to the director's report? Director's designee?

Well, good afternoon. I'll make this quick. We have a regularly scheduled June 17th Planning Commission meeting. There will be one item before the Commission for your consideration, which will be the Howe Mountain Cemetery New Use Permit, which will be presented by Planner Ricky Torres. Board of Supervisors' actions at yesterday's board meeting at the request of the appellant, the applicant, and staff, the Board of Supervisors opened a public hearing regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Higafen Cellars Winery use permit major modification, and they continued the item to a date certain of August 11th. And since my last report out, there's been no new zoning administrator actions.

Thank you, Mr. Parker. Do we have any commissioner comments or reports? I'll make this very quick. I did attend airport advisory commission. The usual ongoing discussion about noise and the county is working on that. you know rerouting um the approach so that's positive but there was something of interest in relation to the aluc because the the um you know the the waste plant is within the airport land use compatibility zone and they are um proposing two new structures to deal with compost and um Bio, you know, biomass cat. Yeah. And it seems like very positive, positive for the airport. But but something that came out of this that I had not realized that I want to highlight for all do is that. the the napasan existence of that in the aluc zone is not it's not an allowable or compatible use and it cannot be made compatible with the airport so you know it causes problems with birds and things and the these new projects should improve those things but it's just something you know, it's something that exists and a bill that can't be unrung because it's been that way for a long time. But if it were to be developed now, it would not be allowed. No, they're not because it's city projects. But so if you're interested, you might want to look it up. But although it may come before us as ALUC, actually i think it will be come to aluc it will need to come for the compatibility but it does it doesn't make the sanitation plant compatible but it will improve its compatibility they should as it's been explained to me but that's something coming down the line okay with that i'm going to adjourn our meeting thanks everybody