Item 18. - City of St. Helena

Item No:
Report to the City Council
Council Meeting October 28, 2014
Agenda Section:
Public Hearings
Subject:
Appeal of the September 16, 2014 Planning Commission decision
approving a request by Davies Family for a Use Permit Amendment to
expand the existing production capacity/facilities and to allow hospitality
functions including tours, tastings and events at the existing facility, and
Design Review to remodel and expand the existing production facilities to
include crush pad areas, an outdoor tasting area, a rooftop terrace and a
hospitality building. The parcel is located at 555 Main Street.
CEQAStatus
or Action:
The Planning Commission on September 16, 2014 voted to find the
Mitigated Negative Declaration adequate to address the environmental
impacts of the project
Prepared By:
Victor Carniglia, Interim Planning Director
Approved By,
Jennifer Phillips, City Manager
BACKGROUND
In May 2012 the Planning Commission approved a use permit and design review request by the
Davies family to convert the vacant Epps Chevrolet Dealership to a winery with a maximum
production capacity of 20,000 gallons per year. Wine tasting and other hospitality functions
were not requested by the applicant at the time and therefore were not included in the Planning
Commission May 2012 approval.
In October 2013 the Davies family submitted a request to amend their previously approved use
permit to increase the maximum production to 75,000 gallons per year and to allow wine tasting,
related special events and other hospitality functions. Attached to this report (see Attachment 2)
is an updated summary of the proposed hospitality related activities. It should be noted that
these numbers are reduced from what was evaluated in the other traffic studies and water
analysis. As a result the traffic and other studies were conservative and overstated project
impacts.
The Planning Commission in July 2014 first considered the use permit and design review
application. The Commission continued the item due to the need to update and revise the traffic
analysis. With the completion of the updated traffic analysis, the Planning Commission on
September 16, 2014 heard and approved the use permit and design review for the planned
l~
Item No:
expansion to the Davies Winery, along with wine tasting and related hospitality functions. This
approval was then appealed to City Council on September 29, 2014 (see appeal letter and
supporting documentation, Attachment 1).
Also attached to this report are letters from the public that were received by the City for both the
Planning Commission hearing process and the Council appeal hearing (Attachment 3). Letters
from the public are also included in the attached staff report from the Planning Commission
hearing on September 16, 2014 (Attachment 4).
CEQA COMPLIANCE:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project and a copy is included with the
attached Planning Commission staff report. The Planning Commission on September 16, 2014,
voted to find the Mitigated Negative Declaration adequate to address the environmental impacts
of the project. The traffic analysis is contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, along
with extensive environmental analysis of the project. A copy of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program is included as Attachment 5 to this report.
DISCUSSION
As previously mentioned, a copy of the Planning Commission staff report from September 16,
2014, is attached to this report (Attachment 4). This attached Planning Commission staff report
provides a detailed description of the proposed expansion to the Davies facility and contains all
the various supporting studies including a copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Water
Use Report prepared by Delta Consulting, a septic feasibility report prepared by Delta
Consulting and letters of support and opposition for that hearing.
It is not staffs intention to duplicate the information already contained in the attached Planning
Commission report. Instead, it is staffs intention in this report to provide relevant information
concerning the various issues and concerns raised in the attached appeal letter (Attachment 1).
The Commission report is referred to as appropriate.
•
Negative Visual Impact: The appeal documentation raises a number of concerns about
possible visual impacts of the project. While the expansion of the winery will increase the
building massing on the property, the proposal meets the height and setback parameters. The
most visible building on the site from the highway, the existing production building that was
the Epps dealership, will be greatly enhanced architecturally and from a landscape
perspective, as can be seem in the II x I7 renderings contained in the Council packet. The
end result will be a major visual upgrade, which will transform the existing facility from a
winery that could perhaps be mistaken for an industrial use, to a winery that looks like a
winery. Given the current configuration of the buildings on the property, the largest
proposed building (the new production building) will be located over 150 feet from Hwy 29,
and will be largely screened from view by the existing production building (the former Epps
dealership building). A sense of this screening by the existing building can be understood by
a review of the site plan.
Item No:
•
Public Safety Concerns: The appellant raises the issue of the close proximity of the St.
Helena High School as being extremely dangerous because of alcohol consumption. Prior to
the Planning Commission hearings, planning staff discussed this question of safety with City
Public Safety staff. The Public Safety response was that the close proximity alone was not a
significant concern. Public Safety felt there was no intrinsic difference between a winery
that was across the street from the high school or a winery down the road. In discussing the
issue with State ABC licensing, they indicated they did not have a concern about the
proximity of the high school.
•
Traffic Concerns: The appellant letter (Attachment 1) contains a calculation of the
projected number of visitors to the site and assumed number of cars. This is an overstated
analysis because it assumes that the Davies Winery will be operating at maximum capacity
365 days per year. As previously noted, traffic studies were completed for the Davies project
and are contained in the environmental documentation. These studies show that the added
traffic generated by tasting and related hospitality activities at Davies would not exceed the
capacity of the surrounding street system. The one exception is that the Grayson!Hwy 29
intersection will fail without the planned traffic signal being in place, with or without the
Davies project. Given this, the City Council may want to consider adding a condition that
ties the development of the Davies facility to the Grayson!Hwy 29 signal being operational.
This will likely occur regardless of the funding approval of the Hwy 29/Grayson signal. A
condition was included in the Planning Commission resolution requiring that Davies pay
their fair share of that signal, determined on their relative traffic generation.
It is important to review how traffic information is reported. The appeal letter characterizes
traffic in terms of number of cars per year, such as the "22,400 additional cars at the
intersection." Typically, traffic impacts are described in terms of average daily traffic, not
yearly traffic. A potential effect of using yearly numbers is that any incremental increase in
traffic that might otherwise not be considered substantial is now perceived as significant. For
example, based on standard traffic generation rates, a cul-de-sac with five homes would have
a projected yearly traffic generation of over 18,000 cars. This high number is likely much
larger than residents on such a hypothetical cul-de-sac would have guessed and likely could
be attributed to using yearly projections as the metric to describe traffic volumes.
Parking: The issue of adequate parking is raised in the appeal, along with concerns about the
use of off-site parking for special events. While there is adequate parking and space on
Davies site to address the day to day winery and tasting operation, the special events at the
Davies Winery will depend on off-site parking being available long term. The Council may
want to consider a condition explicitly allowing special events only if the winery has secured
adequate off-site parking. This would avoid impacts being created in the future if the winery
lost access to off-site parking, but still held special events.
l<g
(7
Item No: 1 0
•
Citv Water Use: The appellant letter asserts that the proposed water use is not sufficient to
meet demand, particularly during the peak hours. While reasonable individuals may disagree
on assumptions used in the water analysis, no data is provided by the appellant disputing the
projections. The studies done concerning projected water use attached to the Planning
Commission report were performed by experts in the field and document a projected water
use of 442 gallons/day, which is less than the historic water use on the site when it was an
auto dealership.
•
Zoning: It is asserted in the appellant letter that the Davies Winery does not fit the definition
of any winery within the City limits and that the project does not meet a number of City
Zoning Standards including a minimum lot area of 20 acres, minimum lot width of 300 feet,
front setback of 100 feet, etc. While the preceding Zoning requirements would be applicable
if the Davies Winery was located within the Winery Zoning District that is not the case. The
Davies site is located in the Service Commercial Zoning District, which allows wineries with
a use permit approved by the Planning Commission. The Davies project meets the various
zoning requirements of the Service Commercial Zoning District, which are significantly
different from the standards of the Winery District. It should be also noted that the Small
Winery Ordinance, which is referenced in the appeal letter, is not applicable to the Davies
project. The confusion over zoning requirements is likely created by the assumption that
wineries are only allowed in St. Helena in the Winery Zoning designation.
•
General Plan Consistency: A number of General Plan policies are quoted in the appeal
documentation. The attached Planning Commission staff report also references several
General Policies. The Council needs to consider and weigh the relevant General Plan
policies and make a decision based on what is being proposed, considering the project's
context. Context is important, as it should be kept in mind that the Davies property already
has a General Plan and Zoning Designation of Service Commercial in place. With this
Service Commercial designation, there is a list of uses, including such things as auto repair,
medical offices, sporting goods store, pet shop, etc., that could occupy the Davies site by
right as a permitted use without Planning Commission or Council approval, other than
Design Review. In short, decisions have already been made concerning this property from a
General Plan and Zoning perspective as it is clearly not vacant, unzoned land.
Given this current land use context and the fact that many of the various claims made by the
appellant lack validity, as documented in this staff report, staff opinion is that a General Plan
consistency finding for the Davies project can clearly be made. Aside from General Plan
issues, the focus of the Council's decision needs to be on the required Use Permit and Design
Review finding, which are listed in the attached resolution. A number of these findings
relate to the General Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project would have a positive fiscal impact on the City, as the proposed improvements to the
Davies property would increase the assessed value of the site, with a minor increase in property
Item No:
tax to the City. By allowing tasting and marketing on site, the City would also benefit from the
sales tax generated.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission
approval of the Davies project. As part of this action the City Council may want to consider
adding the conditions mentioned in this staff report to the conditions contained in the attached
September 16, 2014 Planning Commission staff report. Whether City Council opts to either
deny or uphold the appeal, staff recommends that Council discuss the rationale for either course
of action and direct staff to return at the next Council meeting with a resolution containing
appropriate findings.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Appeal letter and related documentation
2. Winery Visitation Scenarios and Numbers provided by Davies
3. Letters from public concerning Davies project
4. September 16, 2014 Planning Commission Staff report containing the various supporting
studies, environmental documentation, and letters of support and opposition received to
that date.
5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(<6