TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Brian D. Bordona - Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services
REPORT BY: Brian D. Bordona - Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services
SUBJECT: Direction Regarding Potential Zoning Code (Title 18) Modernization and Process Improvement Amendments
RECOMMENDATION
title
Receive a presentation regarding potential administrative and efficiency-based amendments to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Napa County Code and provide direction regarding preparation of future ordinance amendments for Board consideration. (No Fiscal Impact)
body
BACKGROUND
The Napa County Department of Planning, Building and Environmental Services (PBES) continually evaluates its land use regulations and permitting processes to ensure they remain effective, transparent, and responsive to the needs of applicants, the public, decision-makers, and staff. As part of this ongoing commitment to process improvement, modernization of the Zoning Code, and organizational efficiency, staff has undertaken a preliminary review of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Napa County Code.
Through this effort, staff has identified a series of potential administrative and efficiency-based amendments intended to improve clarity, eliminate inconsistencies, revise or remove outdated provisions, simplify permit administration, and improve implementation of existing Board policies. The concepts are intended to modernize and improve the efficiency and predictability of the County's permitting processes while maintaining the existing land use framework, environmental review requirements, and related protections.
As state laws and regulations continue to evolve, local land use regulations must also be periodically reviewed to ensure they remain current, internally consistent, and effective. In some cases, state requirements have created overlapping, duplicative, or unclear administrative requirements. This review provides an opportunity to clarify and update the County's Zoning Code while continuing to uphold Napa County's longstanding land use objectives.
The timing of this effort is particularly important given current economic challenges facing the wine industry, increasing regulatory complexity, and the growing number of state mandates affecting local land use administration. On April 10, 2026, the Napa County Farm Bureau, Napa Valley Vintners, Napa Valley Grapegrowers, and Winegrowers of Napa County submitted a joint letter to the Board of Supervisors outlining a coordinated set of regulatory policy recommendations intended to support the long-term viability of Napa County's agricultural and wine industry (Attachment A). The recommendations identify both near-term priorities and longer-term General Plan considerations, including streamlining winery permitting and administrative processes, and analyzing the appeals requirements among other initiatives. The Board in response directed staff to analyze the near-term policy initiatives proposed by the industry groups, which have been included in this report. Those initiatives that are not included in this report have been determined to be longer-term General Plan update considerations or otherwise addressed under other ongoing initiatives.
Staff is seeking direction from the Board regarding the recommended potential amendments described below.
A. Administrative Permits for Wineries (NCC Section 18.126.065)
In 2002, the Board of Supervisors established the ministerial Administrative Permit process to facilitate review of permit applications that generally involve limited environmental impacts, little or no controversy, and objective standards that do not require discretionary review. The process allows for streamlined review while maintaining protections for neighboring properties and environmental resources.
Staff have identified potential amendments to NCC Section 18.126.065 intended to improve the efficiency and predictability of winery use permit modification requests, simplify permit administration, and update provisions that no longer effectively support implementation of existing Board policy. The concepts described below are intended to provide greater administrative flexibility while maintaining consistency with approved operational limits.
1. Marketing Plan Flexibility
Provide permittees with greater flexibility in scheduling/hosting approved marketing plans where there is no net increase in overall visitation. For example, a winery could modify an approved visitation plan by converting one 100-person event into ten 10-person events, provided overall visitor levels remain unchanged on a weekly, monthly, or annual basis. This approach would allow wineries to adapt to changing market conditions and consumer preferences without increasing overall operational intensity. Currently, such a request would be subject to a Minor Modification Use Permit.
2. Employee and Visitation Flexibility
Allow adjustments to approved employee counts in exchange for corresponding changes in visitation levels and/or production capacity, provided 1) there is no net increase in groundwater demand; 2) no increase in wastewater generation requiring additional infrastructure; and 3) the change does not result in an increase of more than 40 average daily trips (ADT). This approach would provide operational flexibility while ensuring impacts remain within previously analyzed limits. Currently, such a request would be subject to a Minor Modification Use Permit.
3. Removal of GHG Reduction Barriers
Removal of requirements to obtain an Administrative Winery Permit to install electric vehicle charging stations (Section 18.126.065(C)) and bicycle racks (Section 18.126.065(I)), which could serve as barriers to achieving the County’s climate and GHG reduction goals.
4. Commercial Kitchen Expansions
Allow expansion of existing permitted winery commercial kitchens through the Administrative Permit process, provided there is no net increase in groundwater demand or wastewater generation. Since these requests would not increase approved operational capacities, staff believes they may be appropriately reviewed through an administrative process. Currently, these requests require a Minor Modification despite limited potential for environmental impacts when operational capacities remain unchanged. This concept would improve permit administration while maintaining existing operational limits.
B. Modernize and Streamline Zoning Administrator Hearing Requirements
Napa County Code Section 18.10.010 - General Powers and Duties of the Zoning Administrator
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65901, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) is authorized to review and approve designated land use applications, conduct environmental review, make required findings, impose conditions of approval, approve related plans and time extensions, provide public notice, and administer procedures necessary to implement County land use regulations.
The Board has delegated authority for more than twenty application types to the ZA, many of which are currently reviewed administratively without a public hearing. Applications that are subject to a public hearing include: 1) Certificates of Legal Nonconformity (CLNs), 2) Category 3 Temporary Events (only if requested by an interested party), 3) Category 4 Temporary Events, 4) Small Winery Exemptions, and 5) Micro-Winery Use Permits.
Staff recommends the Board direct staff to analyze the potential for creating a notice of intent process similar to the existing winery Minor Modification procedure for other types of permits as described above. Under this approach (if consistent with state law), public notice would continue to be provided, and any interested party could request a hearing which would then be scheduled accordingly upon request. Applications receiving no hearing requests could be processed administratively consistent with current practices.
This proposal would not alter substantive review standards, findings, environmental review requirements, or opportunities for public participation. Rather, it would eliminate the need for formal hearings when there is no demonstrated public interest, thereby reducing processing times, staff workload, applicant costs, and administrative expenses associated with hearing preparation and support.
C. Eliminate the Requirement for “Tours and Tastings by Prior Appointment Only” Signage
Napa County Code Sections 18.08.620 and 18.116.060(B)
Current County regulations require wineries established after February 22, 1990, to post the words “Tours and Tastings by Prior Appointment Only” on entrance signage identifying the winery from a public roadway.
This requirement originated when appointment-only visitation restrictions were a distinguishing operational characteristic of post-1990 wineries. Today, appointment-based visitation has become standard industry practice, and visitor information is typically communicated through winery websites, reservation systems, digital platforms, and direct customer communications.
Staff has not identified a continuing land use purpose served by this signage requirement and recommends deleting the requirement that wineries include the phrase “Tours and Tastings by Prior Appointment Only” on entrance signs.
Under the proposed amendment, wineries would no longer be required to display the language. Those wineries, choosing to retain the language, could continue to do so, subject to all existing sign standards related to size, placement, design, materials, and maintenance would remain in effect. The proposed amendment would remove an outdated regulatory requirement while preserving the County's existing authority over winery signage.
D. Modernize and Simplify Micro-Winery Ordinance (MWO)
On March 11, 2025, the Board received a status report presentation from staff on the MWO at which time the Board amended the ordinance to remove the sunset date as well as directed staff to return to the Board at a future date with a recommended ordinance update after analyzing and identifying improvement that are under local control. Staff returned to the Board on May 6, 2025, to introduce proposed amendments to the MWO that included: 1) increasing the maximum annual production limit from 5,000 to 10,000 gallons, 2) increasing the allowable average daily trips (ADT) from 20 to 40, 3) allowing no more than 10 marketing events per year each with no more than 30 attendees, 4) revising the approval process to include a Zoning Administrator Notice of Intent to Approve with a public hearing only upon request, and 5) clarifying that vineyards on the same property or contiguous parcels under the same ownership must be established and producing grapes at the time of application.
Following its discussion, the Board directed staff to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission for review and consideration prior to returning to the Board. The Planning Commission subsequently reviewed the proposed amendments on August 25, 2025; however, deliberations focused on state requirements and other regulatory realities outside of the County’s purview, which ran counter to the direction provided to the Commission by the Board. As such, no substantive changes or additional direction were provided for staff to incorporate into the ordinance amendments presented to the Board.
As directed, staff is returning to the Board to present and receive direction on recommend amendments to the MWO, which are summarized as follows:
1. Increase Operational Thresholds (previous recommendation)
Increase annual production limits from 5,000 gallons to 10,000 gallons and increase visitation allowances from 20 ADT to 40 ADT. These thresholds would better reflect current business realities while remaining consistent with current practices related to Small Winery Exemptions, which allowed for up to 20,000 gallons.
2. Remove Estate Grape Requirement (new recommendation)
Delete the requirement that 75 percent of grapes be sourced from the winery estate. This requirement has proven difficult to administer and may unnecessarily limit business flexibility without providing a corresponding land use benefit. It could also unfairly burden new wineries relative to larger wineries seeking a traditional winery use permit.
3. Remove the existing two-year waiting period before a modification request may be submitted. This would allow permit holders to respond more effectively to changing market conditions and operational needs. (new recommendation)
4. Simplify Winery Permit Categories (previous recommendation)
Consider incorporating micro-wineries into the broader winery regulatory framework to reduce the number of winery use permit classifications and simplify administration. Under this approach, new wineries producing between 201 and 10,000 gallons annually and generating no more than 40 ADT could be reviewed by the ZA.
Consistent with the proposed ZA hearing reforms, approval authority would remain with the ZA, with hearings conducted only when requested by an interested party. This approach could simplify the permitting structure while preserving existing levels of review and public participation.
E. AB 720 Pilot Program
Section 18.126.065 of the NCC currently allows wineries to designate areas for on-site outdoor wine consumption, consistent with Section 23358 of the California Business and Professions Code (AB 2004 - Evans, 2008, the "Picnic Bill"), within the existing winery development area, provided the location is at least 500 feet from the nearest off-site residence and does not result in an increase in visitation or marketing activities.
Accordingly, Napa County already provides a regulatory pathway for outdoor wine tasting on winery parcels under specified conditions. The current exclusion of winery parcels from the AB 720 pilot program is primarily due to requirements administered by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), rather than County zoning regulations. If directed by the Board, staff would work with the Fire Marshal to evaluate whether portions of the pilot program could appropriately be extended to winery properties, subject to applicable ABC requirements and any necessary local land use standards.
F. Appeals - Summary of Napa County Appeals Ordinance (Chapter 2.88) and Recent Land Use Appeal Activity
At the Board's direction, staff have prepared the following summary of land use appeals (Attachment B) filed over the past three years. This report provides an overview of the appeal procedures established in NCC Chapter 2.88, and the attached table summarizes appeal activity between May 2023 and May 2026, and places that activity into context by comparing the number of appeals to the overall number of discretionary land use approvals considered by the County during the same period.
NCC Chapter 2.88 establishes the procedures governing appeals of discretionary decisions to the Board of Supervisors. The ordinance provides that any interested person may appeal a discretionary land use decision by filing a timely Notice of Intent to Appeal within ten working days of the decision, followed by submission of a complete appeal packet and payment of all required fees within an additional ten working days. The appeal packet must identify the specific factual and legal determinations being challenged and include all supporting arguments and evidence. Any grounds not included in the appeal packet are deemed waived. Once a complete appeal has been filed, the Board of Supervisors conducts a public hearing based on the record on appeal and any extrinsic evidence allowed. The ordinance is intended to provide a clear, structured, and transparent process while ensuring that an appellant fully identifies the issues to be considered by the Board.
Between May 2023 and May 2026, the County received 15 land use appeals involving discretionary land use decisions, primarily Use Permits for wineries and other development projects, as well as Erosion Control Plan (ECP) applications for the establishment of hillside vineyards. Winery-related projects accounted for 10 of the 15 appeals (67 percent), and Water Audit California was the appellant in nine of those winery appeals.
During the same three-year period, the County approved approximately 129 discretionary land use projects, including approximately 65 discretionary land use applications considered at public hearings by the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator and 64 Erosion Control Plan applications for hillside vineyard development. Accordingly, approximately 12 percent of discretionary land use approvals during this period were appealed to the Board of Supervisors, meaning that nearly 88 percent of approved projects were not appealed.
Of the 15 appeals filed during this period:
• Five appeals were denied by the Board, which upheld the original approval.
• Six appeals were resolved through private settlements or other negotiated resolutions, including one that was settled before the appeal packet was perfected and two that were withdrawn following a private settlement agreement.
• One appeal was upheld in part, resulting in denial of the project.
• One appeal resulted in the Board overturning the Planning Commission's denial and approving the project.
• One appeal was withdrawn after revisions to project requirements eliminated the basis for the appeal.
• One appeal remains pending.
Collectively, these appeals required approximately 2,173 hours of staff time, representing approximately $402,000 in resources over the three-year period. Although appeals comprise a relatively small percentage of the County's discretionary land use approvals, they require a disproportionate amount of staff and legal resources to administer.
G. Other Updates - Winery Use Permit Standard Conditions of Approval (SCOAs)
Since the Board's comprehensive update to the Winery Standard Conditions of Approval in December 2012, the County has relied on the SCOAs to provide a consistent set of operational, environmental, and monitoring requirements applicable to winery use permits. The Board subsequently considered additional revisions in 2017, adopting updates to improve clarity, incorporate changes in County practices, and established a periodic review process to ensure the conditions remain current and effective. Since that time, numerous changes in state law, County ordinances, Board policy, and permitting practices have occurred that are not reflected in the existing SCOAs. These include, among other things, enhanced groundwater evaluation requirements, implementation of groundwater sustainability planning, updated traffic demand management and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) requirements, revised greenhouse gas and climate action policies, changes to water conservation and monitoring practices, updated wildfire preparedness and emergency access standards, evolving best management practices for erosion control and stormwater management, and refinements to permit compliance and reporting procedures.
The update is also intended to improve permit administration by standardizing requirements across projects where appropriate, reducing ambiguity, increasing consistency in permit implementation, and providing applicants, neighbors, and decision-makers with greater predictability during the permitting and compliance process. Staff is currently conducting a comprehensive review of the Winery Standard Conditions of Approval to incorporate these changes, improve clarity and consistency, eliminate outdated provisions, and ensure the conditions continue to reflect current regulatory requirements and Board policy. Staff anticipates returning to the Board during the winter of 2026-2027 to present the proposed updates for discussion and direction.
NEXT STEPS
Following Board discussion and direction, staff will further evaluate the proposed concepts, prepare draft ordinance language, conduct environmental review, conduct stakeholder outreach and required public hearings at the Planning Commission, and return to the Board with specific amendments for further consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
No |
|
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? |
Discretionary |
|
Discretionary Justification: |
Staff will not pursue technical and administrative amendments to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Napa County Code. |
|
Is the general fund affected? |
No |
|
Future fiscal impact: |
There is no future fiscal impact. |
|
Consequences if not approved: |
Technical and administrative amendments to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Napa County Code will not occur. |
|
Additional Information: |
Strategic Initiative: Preserve Napa County’s Agricultural Legacy |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15378 (State CEQA Guidelines) and therefore CEQA is not applicable.