NapaVision 2050: Bremer Family Winery Appeal What does it mean?

Climate, Community Rights, Napa County, News / March 22, 2020

“The fact that we did issue a building permit on “c” and “d”, we knew about that [lack of conservation regulation exception]. …If one of your departments was aware of it, it should have been connected to the other [inaudible].  That’s on us. Government failed. That’s our responsibility…. “a” and “b” were clearly done without permits and [Bremers] knew about the permitting process. I have a hard time supporting those improvements.”
        -Supervisor Pedroza (3:52:00 video)

Bremer Family Winery Appeal What does it mean?

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020, the Board of Supervisors heard the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decisions regarding various alleged code violations of conservation regulations (regs) and building permits of the Bremer Family Winery. The appeal was brought by Mike Hackett, represented by Advocates for the Public Trust. 

Despite the chaotic atmosphere (why didn’t they continue this important, complicated land-use case in the face of the governor’s recent mandate for those over 65 to stay home and for groups to socially isolate?) some decisions were made. The appeal appears to have been remanded to the Planning Commission on four counts, “a”, “b”, “c”, “d”. (See box below for explanation.) The Board of Supervisors denied Mike Hackett’s appeal as to “e” and “f”.  The appeal decision will be finalized by the Board of Supervisors on May 5, 2020.

The hearing raised awareness that there needs to be much more collaboration between the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The fact that the planning department and then Planning Commission wrongfully permitted buildings in the stream setback without conservation regulation exceptions was also discussed.

Although two supervisors and both attorneys representing the appellant, including the appellant himself, could not be physically present and had to rely on faulty internet and iPad and iPhone connections, a step was still made in righting some wrongs. Although not stated as such, the biggest error by the County was its betrayal of the public trust by ignoring conservation regs in the stream setbacks. (See below, “What is the Public Trust”). In an interview, Mike Hackett stated, “We need governance reform. First, our governing bodies need to consider foremost what needs to be done to protect the environment. Only then can we consider if a developer’s plan works in that environment.” 

For appeal documents, click here.
For the video of the hearing, click here. The appeal begins at 1:23. Board of Supervisor deliberations being at 3:15.
For more on the history of the Bremer Family Winery and settlement arrangements with Napa County on code violations, click here.

Bremer Family Winery Appeal revolves around these alleged violations. The Planning Commission approved them all. 

(a) an approximate 2,200 square foot agricultural storage building and associated water tank, unpermitted and built within stream setback without conservations regs exception.

(b) an approximate 800 square foot pad and associated walls attached to the winery, unpermitted and built within stream setback without conservations regs exception.

(c) an approximate 150 square foot ground floor/story addition and second floor/story deck to the farmhouse/office building, permitted by county but built within stream setback without conservations regs exception.

(d) an approximate 100 square foot freestanding restroom, permitted by county but built within stream setback without conservations regs exception.

(e) approximately 1,210 lineal feet of rock walls, existing, but unpermitted and built within stream setback without conservations regs exception.

(f) two pedestrian bridges over a blue-line stream, existing but unpermitted and built within stream setback without conservations regs exception.

“When I read the staff reports… and the transcripts, it was abundantly clear to me that [the Planning Commission] has misapplied the settlement agreement. …We have a large number of applications in the pipeline and I would like the Planning Commission to understand better how to review those.”
       -Supervisor Dillon (begins 3:21:30 video)

“The fact that we did issue a building permit on “c” and “d”, we knew about that [lack of conservation regulation exception]. …If one of your departments was aware of it, it should have been connected to the other [inaudible].  That’s on us. Government failed. That’s our responsibility…. “a” and “b” were clearly done without permits and [Bremers] knew about the permitting process. I have a hard time supporting those improvements.”
        -Supervisor Pedroza (3:52:00 video)

What is the Public Trust Doctrine?

“The public trust doctrine requires the sovereign, or state, to hold in trust designated resources for the benefit of the people. Traditionally, the public trust applied to commerce and fishing in navigable waters, but its uses were expanded in California in 1971 to include fish, wildlife, habitat and recreation.”

What’s Next?

We do our best to bring you in-depth reporting on local issues that matter. This case has the feel of something pivotal, and perhaps will be a turning point for Napa County in land use decision making. Perhaps it will lead to better communication between the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. Our greatest hope is that it will bring to light the necessity and importance of the public trust doctrine. Please follow this closely with us, as we continue into the meetings and decisions ahead, and we report back to you.
– Patricia and Debby

“Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”
 – Arundhati Roy, War Talk