TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Brian D. Bordona, Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services
REPORT BY: Matthew Ringel, Planner III
SUBJECT: Arrow and Branch Winery Appeal
RECOMMENDATION
title
Conduct a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Water Audit California (Appellant) concerning the Arrow and Branch Winery Use Permit Major Modification and the decisions made by the Napa County Planning Commission on December 3, 2025, to approve the Use Permit Major Modification Application No. P23-00057-MOD and adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Appellant, Applicant, and staff request that the Board consider and adopt the revised conditions of approval to resolve the appeal. (No Fiscal Impact.)body
titlebody
BACKGROUND
The matter before the Board involves a joint request by the Appellant and Applicant to resolve the appeal by adopting additional conditions of approval on the Winery Use Permit Major Modification No. P23-00057-MOD and adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Arrow and Branch Winery.
The approval of Use Permit Major Modification authorizes and includes the following:
(1) an increase in wine production from 30,000 gallons per year to 45,000 gallons per year;
(2) increase employment;
(3) increase daily tours and tastings by appointment only;
(4) increase marketing events;
(5) expansion of an existing winery building to create additional production and accessory space construction of an covered terrace with outdoor tasting, installation of an approximately 81,000 gallon process water storage tank; and
(6) reconfiguration of existing parking.
The project is located on an approximately 10.09-acre site within the Agricultural Preserve (AP) zoning district with a General Plan land use designation of Agricultural Resource (AR) at 5215 Solano Ave, Napa, CA 94558; APN: 034-190-040-000.
On December 3, 2025, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project. On December 17, 2025, a timely notice of intent to appeal was filed by Appellant and a timely appeal packet was submitted on January 9, 2026.
Pursuant to the County's appeals ordinance (Napa County Code Chapter 2.88), a public hearing on the appeal was opened on March 10th and the Board of Supervisors voted to continue the item to June 2nd to allow the parties the opportunity to resolve the appeal. On March 27th, the parties informed staff that they had reached a settlement and requested that their joint request for revised conditions of approval be considered by the Board at the next regular meeting rather than waiting until June 2nd. (Attachment C.) The County is not a party to the private settlement agreement. Because the hearing was continued on March 10th to June 2nd, the hearing was re-noticed to April 28th. Public notice of this hearing was mailed and provided to all parties who received notice of the Planning Commission hearing and property owners within 1,000 feet of the Property and published in the Napa Valley Register on April 9, 2026.
The additional conditions of approval agreed upon by the Appellant and Applicant amplify mitigation measures/conditions of approval that were adopted by the Planning Commission, specifically the permittee shall be required to record well monitoring data, which will be provided to the County. The County will provide a public data depository for the well reporting data. (Attachment A.) The mitigation measure and Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan will now require the applicant to avoid impacts to the bed, channel bank and riparian area of the stream. If impacts cannot be avoided, the applicant shall notify CDFW. (Attachment B.)
The Appellant, Applicant, and staff request that the Board adopt the additional conditions of approval in Attachment A to resolve the appeal. Should the Board decline to impose the additional conditions of approval, the parties reserve the right to elect to proceed with a hearing of the pending appeal on its merits at a future date.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Chair invites disclosures.
2. Chair introduces item.
3. Staff report presentation.
4. Chair invites Appellant, Applicant and interested members of the public to comment on the revised conditions of approval.
5. Chair closes the public hearing.
6. Board deliberations. A motion is made and seconded to adopt the revised conditions of approval and adopt the revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. If the motion is to deny, the appeal hearing will need to be continued to a future date for a possible hearing on its merits.
FISCAL IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
No |
|
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? |
Discretionary |
|
Consequences if not approved: |
The parties may elect to proceed to a hearing of the pending appeal on its merits. |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared and circulated. According to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed project would not have any potentially significant environmental impacts after implementation of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are proposed for the following areas: Biological Resources and Noise. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.