title
Consider the request for a continuance; If denied, conduct a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of Use Permit Application No. U-16-04 (Caymus Suisun Winery) for the construction of a large winery and related uses, including tasting, retail sales and special events located at 4991 Suisun Valley Road, approximately 450 feet north of Mankas Corner Road in an "A-SV-20" Agriculture-Suisun Valley Zoning District (APN’s: 0149-060-080 and 0149-060-050); and Consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as recommended by the Solano County Department of Resource Management
body
Published Notice Required? Yes __X__ No _ _
Public Hearing Required? Yes __X__ No _ _
DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION:
DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION ON A REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE:
One of the appellants in this matter, Valerie Dodini, has requesting a continuance of this matter to a future date. The merits of a continuance must first be taken up by the Board.
Procedure
Prior to commencing the public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Use Permit U-16-04, the Board of Supervisors may choose one of the following options to dispense with the request for continuance:
1. Deny the request for a continuance and proceed with the public hearing set for September 26, 2017, or
2. Open the public hearing and take testimony with an understanding that the matter will be then continued to a future date certain, or
3. Approve the request for a continuance to a future date certain without taking any testimony.
Recommendation
The Department of Resource Management recommends that the Board:
1. Consider the Request for Continuance submitted by Valerie Dodini and take one of the three actions described above.
DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION ON the Appeal of the planning commission’s decision:
If the Board decides to deny the request for a continuance, the Department of Resource Management recommends that the Board:
1. Conduct a noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Use Permit Application No. U-16-04 of Caymus Suisun Winery for the construction of a large winery and related uses, including tasting, retail sales and special events located at 4991 Suisun Valley Road, and
2. Adopt a resolution to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Affirm the Planning Commission Approval and Approve Use Permit U-16-04 (Attachment A).
SUMMARY:
In December, 2016, the Department of Resource management received an application for the Caymus Suisun Winery to construct of a large winery with related uses, including tasting, retail sales and special events. The proposed winery would include facilities for the crushing, fermenting, bottling, storage, sales and distribution of wine and spirits as well as a retail sales and special events center (See Project drawings and details in Linked Attachments). A large winery requires a use permit in the A-SV-Zoning District.
On August 3, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and then adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved use permit U-16-04 for the Caymus Suisun Winery (See Planning Commission Record - Linked Attachments).
Subsequent to the Planning Commission action to approve the use permit, an appeal was filed requesting the Board of Supervisors to set aside the Planning Commission’s actions (See Linked Attachments). The appeal raised several points pertaining to the project and the Planning Commission’s approval of the project. In response to the appeal, the Board of Supervisors set a hearing for consideration of the appeal for September 26, 2017 at 7:00 PM.
The Department of Resource Management recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission citing that the project was consistent with the General Plan, the Suisun Valley Strategic Plan and the Suisun Valley zoning regulations.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing with 24 speakers. The majority of the speakers were in support of the project. The Commission also received several letters regarding the MND (See Linked Attachments). At the conclusion, the Commission voted 4-1 to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (See Linked Attachments) and approve the project (See Planning Commission Record - Linked Attachments).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The cost of staff time to administer the appeal process is included in the use permit application fees and the appeal fee.
DISCUSSION:
Proposed Winery
The proposed facility is classified as a large winery, producing up to 200,000 gallons of wine per year. The project (See Site Plan - Linked Attachments) will include phased development of the two parcels for winery production and administration and related tasting and special event facilities. The facility will include retail sales, business administration, tours and tasting, and space for promotional events conducted by the winery. The public area of the facility will be available for rent for special events such as weddings. Wine may be bottled onsite by a mobile bottling service or shipped via tanker truck to the winery owned by Caymus Vineyards located at 2650 Cordelia Road, Fairfield or other designated site.
During Phase 1, the facility will employ up to 25 full‐time, 5 part‐time and 5 seasonal employees.
During Phase 2, the facility will employ up to 35 full‐time, 10 part‐time and 10 seasonal employees.
The undeveloped portions of the project area would be maintained for agricultural uses ‐‐ primarily farming or vineyard. During harvest season (July through October) the facility will operate 24 hours a day and seven days per week. During non‐harvest season (November through June) the facility will operate from 5:00 am until 11:00 pm, seven days per week.
Visitor Serving Uses
A number of visitor serving uses are planned as identified below. Event hours will be up to 11pm.
1. Tours, tasting (including barrel tastings) and retail sales open to the public are planned daily from 9:30 am to 6:00 pm. In addition to traditional wine tasting, hay rides around the property will be offered to provide education and awareness of grape production and agriculture in the Suisun Valley region. Peak visitor numbers are expected to be up to 100 on a weekday and up to 200 people per day on a weekend.
2. Food and wine pairings will be offered daily to reserve tasting guests, in groups up to 25.
3. Amplified music would only occur within enclosed buildings or outdoors for events. Outdoor amplified music would be curtailed prior to 10:00 pm. As conditioned by the Planning Commission, the noise level of amplified music would not exceed 65 dB at the property line.
4. Promotional events such as wine club, winemaker dinners and marketing events with meals will be held up to 25 times per year with 20 to 100 guests per event.
5. Up to 24 weddings or other similar special events are anticipated with attendance of up to 450 guests. Special events with more than 100 attendees would be served by portable toilets and meals would be prepared offsite by caterers. Events with more than 100 attendees could occur only on weekends.
Project Setting
The property is located at 4991 Suisun Valley Road. The parcels are generally flat and are bounded by Suisun Valley Road and Suisun Valley Elementary School to the east, and agriculture to the north, west and south. The parcels were previously used as a dried fruit processing facility and are currently part of existing vineyard operations and equipment storage. The nearest residence is approximately 500 feet to the north. There are two existing driveways to the site and one road on the northern border of the site that is an easement for access to a neighboring parcel.
General Plan Consistency
The property is designated as Agricultural by the 2008 Solano County General Plan which is intended to protect areas devoted to the practice of agriculture. Crop production and agricultural processing activities, including wineries, are consistent with this land use designation. The General Plan also identified this area as within a special study area. As a result, the County subsequently undertook a planning effort for the Suisun Valley.
Suisun Valley Strategic Plan and Zoning Consistency
The Suisun Valley Strategic Plan was adopted by the County in 2010. The Plan designates this property as Agriculture. The Strategic Plan also included new zoning regulations for Suisun Valley. The subject property was rezoned to a newly created Agriculture-Suisun Valley (A-SV-20) District. The A-SV-20 District permits the establishment of large wineries (>100,000 gallons per year) with a use permit. In addition, the zoning permits restaurants and cafes, local products and special events. The proposed winery and retail and events center is consistent with the standards established in the A-SV-20 District.
Williamson Act
The property is under a Williamson Act contract. The establishment of a winery is a compatible use with the Williamson Act.
Development Review Committee
The project was referred to the Development review committee for Solano County. Comments were received from the Environmental Health, Public Works and Building and Safety Divisions. Their requirements have been incorporated into the conditions of approval (Linked Attachment).
Outside Agency Review
The project was also referred to several outside agencies, including:
1. Solano Irrigation District
2. Suisun Fire Protection District
3. Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District
4. Sonoma State University
5. SF Regional Water Quality Control Board
Public Correspondence Received by the Planning Commission
Prior to the Planning Commission’s hearing, the Department received one letter on the use permit from Mary Browning (Linked Attachment) in opposition to the proposed winery. In her letter, Ms. Browning cited several concerns with respect to winery development within the Suisun Valley, including:
1. Inappropriate scale of the proposed development
2. Deficiencies in the County General Plan, Suisun Strategic Plan and Zoning with respect to wineries and agritourism,
3. Inadequate enforcement of existing permits and regulations.
As previously discussed, the zoning was amended to include a new Suisun Valley Agricultural Zoning District (A-SV-20) which was applied to this property. As previously discussed, this project is consistent with the provisions of the A-SV-20 Zoning District.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing with two dozen speakers. At the conclusion, the Commission voted 4-1 to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (See Linked Attachments) and approve the project.
APPEAL
Appellants Issues/Reasons for requesting an Appeal Hearing
The appellant’s have raised several issues in their letter listed below.
1. Expansion of the wine industry will adversely impact Suisun Valley
2. The number of events proposed by Caymus-Suisun is excessive
3. Adequacy of Solano winery regulations versus Napa’s regulatory scheme
4. Weddings are not related to agriculture
5. MND is deficient
6. Insufficient notice
Staff Response to the Issues/Reasons for requesting an Appeal Hearing
Staff has provided responses to each of the points raised in the appeal filed on this matter.
1. Expansion of the wine industry will adversely impact Suisun Valley
The Caymus-Suisun Winery is an example the type of agritourism development that the County sought to attract to the Suisun Valley when the Board approved the Suisun Valley Strategic Plan and zoning. The County has adopted Level of Service C as its standard for movement through intersections. This individual project included a traffic study which indicated that the level of service along Suisun Valley Road would remain in the A and B categories after development of the winery. Even after full development of the Suisun Valley, including the proposed project, Level of Service ranges from A through C.
2. The number of events proposed by Caymus-Suisun is excessive
The number of events approved by the Planning Commission was deemed to be reasonable based on the analysis provided to the Commission, and the conditions of approval imposed on the project by the Commission. The proposed project is able to provide onsite parking for all event guests, and traffic and noise standards imposed on the project reduce the impacts of events to an acceptable level.
3. Adequacy of Solano winery regulations versus Napa’s regulatory scheme
The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) reports that there are more than 1400 wineries in Napa County and 40 in Solano County. There are approximately 4,000 acres of grapes currently in production in Solano County with over 43,000 acres in production in Napa County. As a result, Napa County requires a different approach to regulation of wineries than are required for Solano County. Whereas Napa relies on a legislating exactly what a winery can and cannot conduct, Solano utilizes the use permit to control what type and scale of activities a specific parcel can reasonably support.
4. Weddings are not related to agriculture
The County has historically allowed wineries to use the public portion of their facilities and grounds as special event facilities, which members of the public may rent as a venue to conduct weddings and other similar types of private events. Through the use permit process, the County evaluates the impacts of events at wineries to ensure that proper infrastructure exists to support the increase in visitors during events. In this particular case, the large events are limited to weekends to avoid the traffic congestion during the workday commute pattern. In addition, the Planning Commission added a condition to require a Traffic Control and Parking Management Plan before conducting the large events. The traffic study indicated that the Level of Service would remain at A or B after development of this project, and A,B and C at full build out of the Suisun Valley.
5. MND is deficient
The appellant’s assert that the MND is inadequate with respect to its treatment of traffic, noise and wastewater treatment analysis. Staff responses are provided below.
Traffic Concerns
As previously discussed, the traffic report does not agree with the appellant’s opinion. It concluded that the intersections impacted by the proposed winery maintain a Level of Service of A and B after development of the winery, and A,B and C at full build out under the Suisun Valley Strategic Plan.
Noise Concerns
The noise issue was addressed by the Planning Commission by adding a condition of approval which states:
“Prior to any event with amplified outdoor music, the proposed sound level will be measured by the applicant at the property lines. Amplification levels will be adjusted to ensure noise levels at such property lines do not exceed 65 dB. These sound levels shall not be increased during the event with amplified outdoor music.”
The Planning Commission felt this provision was adequate to address the potential for noise impacts.
Wastewater Processing
The applicant and the Planning Commission agreed that the package treatment alternative was not fully analyzed. As a result the staff recommended an added condition, accepted by the applicant and incorporated into the Commission’s Resolution (Condition (B) (5) (e) limiting the project to a “hold and haul” system only for process wastewater. The process wastewater is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Regional Water Control Board and will be permitted by that agency.
6. Insufficient notice
The appellants are contending that the copy of the application for use permit posted on the County website was deficient because the attached project description was not included for public review.
The application is not a matter of public notice, but is available for public review. The Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, circulated for public review, contained a detailed project description. The staff report also contained a project description. The Notice of Public Hearing contained a project description as did the Planning Commission agenda.
ALTERNATIVES:
As an alternative, the Board could either:
1. Deny this application. This is not recommended because the project as proposed is consistent with the general plan, strategic plan and zoning.
2. Approve the application with modified conditions of approval, or
3. Continue this matter to obtain additional information.
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT:
The State Clearinghouse was referred the MND and no comments were submitted during the public review period.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION