June 1, 2017 BZA Hearing, with final vote on resolution to deny the Discretionary Use Permit made of July 6, 2017: Findings include Traffic/Public Safety impacts; large number of events incompatible with the neighborhood and inconsistency with General Plan AR - 6f relative to detrimental concentration. On June 1st, a large number of Westside area residents, along with concerned citizens from all other Supervisor Districts, attended the standing room only hearing. Letters were entered into the administrative record, 8 WCA members spoke (6 against project and 2 for) and the Bicycle Coalition read their letter into the record.
Concerns were raised on May 8-10 relative to the County using the exception for private driveways, a lesser standard for stopping distance, versus the required safe sight distance for intersections per the Guidelines for Traffic Study Impact Studies. And, the County did not provide the May 17, 2017 W-trans response letter to the WCA; a letter that weakened their case by asserting the exemption applied as there was an existing farm driveway; however, they proposed to move the commercial access road 20 feet to the south.)
The WCA submitted a June 1, 2017 letter, re-affirming its documented concerns in the 2014 and 2015 letters, and stating that all three factors for a finding of detrimental concentration are present. Road geometry unresolvable constraints, sight distance mis-measurements and other joint use conflicts with bicycles were not addressed or mitigated to less than significant in the County's Staff Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Technical studies for Traffic Impact with May 17, 2017 memo, Level of Service, Groundwater Availability, Well Interference Analysis with June 1, 2017 memo, Biotic Assessment and Noise Assessment.
WCA raised concerns about process, as the public received two new technical studies the day of the hearing: May 17, 2017 W-Trans letter and a Memo from O'Connor verifying that the June 2015 groundwater study had a neighbor's well in the wrong location. The June 1, 2017 Memo documents the analyses with the well location corrected to less than 400 feet. And, the groundwater expert testified that the well is within the Zone of Influence, and Applicant's wells result in drawdown of water. Note that a required 5th well, for winery and visitor serving uses, with an annular seal, would also have needed to be developed and factored into the impact analyses.
History: On June 10, 2014, the County sent out a Referral for UPE 14 - 0031 for a phased winery, tasting room and event project to define areas that should be studied in the environmental documents for the project. The Applicant was defined as Avila Design, and the Owner is Broken Hill 1 LLC (Colorado) with offices in Napa County. This same owner as the MacRostie winery on the adjacent parcel; however, on June 1, 2017 Applicant stated MacRostie parcel has been sold.
The Application is for a 7,465 square foot winery building and future 1,800 square foot tasting room on a 26.20 parcel in LIA 40 zoning. If approved, a new winery will make the 4,000 block an area of detrimental concentration.
On June 30,2014, the WCA initial study letter identified significant concerns about the project; in July 2015, the Applicant requested a meeting with the WCA Advisory Group. The Advisory Group responded with a letter dated August 21,2015 that raised the additional concern about recommending removal of vegetation in a riparian corridor, and a more complete October 15, 2015 letter, documenting that all 3 factors for a finding of Detrimental Concentration exist, and documenting the 290 feet sight distance assumption was incorrect, a mere 250 feet exists. The Department of Transportation did not verify this fact until the day before the June 1, 2017 hearing.
Likewise, beginning in June 2014, the County Department of Transportation Memos informed the Applicant of an unresolvable constraint, "North of the driveway, sight distance is substandard and can't be improved due to road geometry" and "...close to thresholds...use measured prevailing speed." In 2015, a primary concern was the mis-measurement of sight lines and the fact that the sight lines to the driveway were not the AASHTO safe sight distances. The 2015 Department of Transportation Memo, raised concern that the Prevailing Speed study for 25 vehicles did not meet the minimum standards. Another concern, a traffic report recommending removal of vegetation in a riparian corridor; the Riparian Corridor Ordinance must be addressed for this and other activity near Story Creek or in flood zone.
Refer any concerns or questions as to the process to: Contract Planner Gary Broad at [email protected]