TO: Napa County Planning Commission
FROM: Brian D. Bordona - Director Planning, Building and Environmental Services
REPORT BY: Emily Hedge, Planner III
SUBJECT: Hagafen Cellars Winery Use Permit Major Modification (P19-00121-MOD)
RECOMMENDATION
title
NORMAN WEIR / HAGAFEN CELLARS WINERY / USE PERMIT MAJOR MODIFICATION #P19-00121- MOD
CEQA Status: Consideration and intention to find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It has been determined that this type of project does not have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from CEQA. The project will not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, has no cumulative impact, there is no reasonable possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, will not result in damage to scenic resources, is not located on a list of hazardous waste sites, or cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Based on the proposed project as described below, the project meets the criteria for eligibility as Categorically Exemption from CEQA under Classes 1 and 4. [See Class 1 (“Existing Facilities”) and Class 4 (“Minor Alterations to Land”), which may be found in the guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act at 14 CCR §15301, §15304]. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Request: This application was submitted to participate in the County’s Code Compliance Program as described in Resolution No. 2018-164 adopted by the Napa County Board of Supervisors on December 4, 2018. The proposal is to grant a Use Permit Major Modification to an existing 50,000-gallon winery to remedy existing violations through recognition and approval of existing days of operation, existing days allowing retail sales, and levels of visitation. Approval and recognition of these activities will require improvements to the existing driveway. The proposal includes revisions to prior conditions of approval regarding annual reporting on multiple winery operations and noticing of all marketing events. The project is located on an approximately 12.28-acre parcel within the Agricultural Preserve (AP) zoning district with a General Plan land use designations of Agricultural Resource (AR) at 4160 Silverado Trail, Napa. Assessor’s Parcel Number 039-130-002.
Staff Recommendation: Find the Project Categorically Exempt from CEQA and approve Use Permit Modification P19-00121, as conditioned.
Staff Contact: Emily Hedge, Planner III, (707) 259-8226 or emily.hedge@countyofnapa.org
Applicant Contact: Norman Weir, 4160 Silverado Trail, Napa, ernie@hagafen.com, (707) 252-4562
Applicant Representative Contact: Beth Painter, 10 Canopy Lane, Napa, Beth@bpnapa.com, (707) 337-3385
CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 18, 2026, PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING.
body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed Actions:
That the Planning Commission:
1. Find the project Categorically Exempt from CEQA, based on recommended Findings 1 through 3 of Attachment A; and
2. Approve Use Permit Modification P19-00121 based on Recommended Findings 4 through 8 of Attachment A, and subject to the Revised Recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment B.
Discussion:
The item was presented at the March 18, 2026, Planning Commission hearing. Prior to the hearing, Patricia Curtin, legal counsel for a neighbor requested the item be continued to allow additional time to review the application materials and meet with the applicant. The applicant agreed to the continuance and supported staff’s recommendation of opening the hearing, taking public testimony and Commissioner comments and then continuing the item to the April 1, 2026, hearing for final action. The March 18, 2026, staff report is available on the Planning Commission website: https://napa.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=21
As part of the Code Compliance Program, the applicant is asking for recognition of the operational levels occurring in 2018. As detailed in the Revised Recommended Conditions of Approval, the proposal includes recognition of existing days of operation, existing days allowing retail sales, and levels of visitation, that have been occurring beyond current entitlements. The proposal also includes a request to modify previous conditions of approval to remove the requirement for annual reporting of daily visitation counts, grape source data, and production, and the requirement to notice a specific list of individuals prior to winery events. Finally, the request includes continued use of and existing 720-square foot storage room within the winery building and proposed improvements to the existing driveway to comply with the Napa County Road and Street Standards.
The modification would bring the existing winery operations into compliance with approved entitlements and allow improvements to the road to meet County and State regulations. Staff found the requests to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and applicable General Plan policies. Based on the reasons stated above, staff recommends approval of the project, subject to the Revised Recommended Conditions of Approval included in Attachment B.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Consideration and intention to find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It has been determined that this type of project does not have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from CEQA. The project will not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, has no cumulative impact, there is no reasonable possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, will not result in damage to scenic resources, is not located on a list of hazardous waste sites, or cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Based on the proposed project as described below, the project meets the criteria for eligibility as Categorically Exemption from CEQA under Classes 1 and 4. [See Class 1 (“Existing Facilities”) and Class 4 (“Minor Alterations to Land”), which may be found in the guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act at 14 CCR §15301, §15304]. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The item was presented at the March 18, 2026, Planning Commission hearing. Prior to the hearing, legal counsel for a neighbor requested the item be continued to allow additional time to review the application materials and meet with the applicant. The applicant was agreeable to the continuance and supported staff’s recommendation of opening the hearing, taking public testimony and Commissioner comments and then continuing the item to the April 1, 2026, hearing for final action.
Following the hearing, a letter of opposition was submitted by Patricia Curtain, the neighbor’s counsel (Fennemore letter). The letter is included as Attachment D. In response, staff has provided additional information about the Use Permit Code Compliance Program (Program) and how the proposed Hagafen Cellars Winery Major Modification has been appropriately processed under the Program as described in Resolution No. 2018-adopted by the Napa County Board of Supervisors on December 4, 2018164 (Attachment F). On March 25, 2026, the applicant’s counsel Betsy Strauss submitted a letter in response to the Fennemore letter, included as Attachment E. On March 25, 2026, the applicant’s representative Beth Painter and the neighbor’s representative Patricia Curtin, informed staff that they have spoken multiple times since the March 18th hearing and are continuing to work together. At this time neither party has provided staff with proposed changes.
To address the comments provided in the Fennemore letter and provide clarification on existing conditions, staff is recommending revisions to three (3) of the Recommended Conditions of Approval. A discussion of the revisions to the following conditions are included in the responses below. No other conditions have been revised from the version of the conditions presented at the March 18, 2026, hearing.
• COA 6.15.c Completion of CE19-00128 Code Enforcement items
• Exhibit A Previous Conditions 4.21.D. Modification No: 99477 - COA No. 2 - Marketing
• Exhibit A Previous Conditions 4.21.D. Modification No: 99477 - COA No. 8 - Signs
-Response to Fennemore Letter Section I, II, III, and IV-
The Fennemore letter misinterprets the intent of the Program and how it has been implemented over the last seven (7) plus years for all projects in the Program that have come before the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator. The Program specifically allows an applicant to request to remedy existing violations and to expand existing entitlements. The process to “remedy existing violations” is to recognize and approve the levels of operation that were identified, based on 2018 data provided by the applicant, as being out of compliance. The 2018 application sets the baseline conditions which are then analyzed, and a recommendation is presented by staff. A request to “expand existing entitlements” is a proposal to expand operations beyond the baseline levels identified as out of compliance. The Program allows this to occur through the same application; however, the two requests are “decoupled” and considered and acted upon separately by staff and the Commission. This delineation of the two requests is how the County has processed all other projects within the Program.
Upon entering the Program, the applicant acknowledged violations and provided evidence of 2018 operations. The winery is only asking to remedy the identified violations by obtaining approval for the 2018 baseline levels of operations and is not seeking expansion beyond remedying the unpermitted activities. The letter misconstrues the proposal to remedy existing violations as a request for an expansion of use. The staff report accurately classifies the application request as “Components Necessary to Remedy Existing Violations”. The March 18, 2026, staff report Executive Summary and the attached Recommended Conditions of Approval clearly identify the proposed changes to winery operations and the modifications to existing conditions of approval. Since there is no expansion, there was no need to “decouple” the recommendations.
-Response to Fennemore Letter Section V-
COA No. 2 Events - The applicant states they have been in compliance with the annual number of marketing events permitted in COA No. 2, and no evidence has been provided to staff that the number of events has been exceeded or that events occurred outside the timeframes permitted. The applicant acknowledges that they did not continuously comply with the requirement to notify neighbors, and have included a request to modify the language of COA No. 2 to remove that requirement. See Condition of Approval 1.1.f. “Revise COA No. 2 of Permit No. 99477 to remove the requirement for mailing”.
COA Nos. 3 and 8 Winery sign - As described in the applicant’s response letter, portions of the winery sign were stolen. The applicant will replace the sign in compliance with the COA No. 8. For clarity, staff recommends updating Exhibit A “Previous Conditions” 4.21.D. Modification No: 99477, to include previous COA No. 8 (Signs), which requires the replacement signs to be reviewed by staff prior to installation.
COA No. 14 Screening - The applicant provided photos showing screening of the water tanks, provided by existing trees placed around the tank and the vineyards between the property to the north and the water tank. The photos were taken from the north, to demonstrate the view from the neighboring property. The photos are included in Attachment E.
COA No. 17 Use of Winery Facilities - The illegal use of the offices identified during the code inspection that took place on April 23, 2019, was resolved, as demonstrated by Code Compliance officer sign off on item No. 11 of the July 16, 2019, letter (Included in Attachment B). See Attachment E for photographs provided by the applicant on March 27, 2026, showing the rooms do not contain beds. In response to the letter, staff recommends updating Condition of Approval No. 6.15.c. to include the requirement for a follow-up inspection to ensure the resolved violations remain in compliance.
-Response to Fennemore Letter Section VI-
VMM process - The VMM approved on-premises consumption which permits a person to purchase and consume wine on the property. This was approved to occur in the outdoor areas around the tasting room and under the trellises approved to be constructed under the same permit. Approval of the Very Minor Modification should have included a revision to the existing COA No. 2. For clarity, staff recommends revising Recommended Conditions of Approval Exhibit A “Previous Conditions” 4.21.D. Modification No: 99477 - COA No. 2 to remove the restriction on use of the outdoor area. Use of the outdoor areas under the trellises is permitted for on-premises consumption. The restriction on amplified music remains under standard COA 4.10.
Traffic and Parking - As discussed in more detail below, the general rule under CEQA is that the environmental baseline must reflect the physical conditions existing at the time the environmental analysis begins. The applicant is not requesting to increase operations beyond the existing, identified levels of operations in 2018 when the application was submitted. Therefore, there is no increase in trip generation beyond the 2018 levels, and the project would not result in potential impacts related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
Chicken Coop - Code compliance staff confirmed items identified in the code inspection April 23, 2019, have been resolved, as demonstrated by Code Compliance officer sign off on item No. 6 of the July 16, 2019, letter (Included in Attachment B).
-Response to Fennemore Letter Section VI-
CEQA Baseline: As discussed in the Categorical Exemption Memo (Attachment C), the general rule under CEQA is that the environmental baseline must reflect the physical conditions existing at the time the environmental analysis begins, even if the current condition includes unauthorized activities or operations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). Consistent with CEQA Guidelines and caselaw, for applications in the Program the winery’s existing, unpermitted operations is used as the environmental baseline for the CEQA analysis.
- Decision Making Options -
As noted in the Executive Summary Section above, staff is recommending approval of the components of the project necessary to remedy existing violations with conditions of approval as described in Option 1 below. Decision-making options also include a no project alternative and a reduced project alternative.
Option 1 - Approve Applicant’s Proposal (Staff Recommendation)
Disposition - This option would result in approval of visitation, days of operations, use of the existing storage room, and the installation of driveway improvements. This would also revise existing conditions related to annual report and noticing, to be replaced by standard conditions of approval. Staff recommends this option as the request is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and applicable General Plan policies. Furthermore, County divisions and departments have reviewed the proposal and are in support of the applicant’s request.
Action Required - Follow the proposed action listed in the Executive Summary. If conditions of approval are to be amended, specify conditions to be amended at the time the motion is made.
Option 2 - Reduced Project Request
Disposition - This option could require the applicant to reduce their existing maximum daily, weekly, or annual visitation numbers, limit days of operations, or keep existing conditions related to annual reporting and noticing.
Action Required - Follow proposed actions listed in the Executive Summary and amend scope and project specific conditions of approval to reduce operational components. The item will need to be continued to a future date if significant revisions to the recommended conditions of approval are desired.
Option 3 - Deny Applicant’s Proposal
Disposition - This option would deny the applicant’s proposal to remedy existing violations and would require the applicant to operate the winery in compliance with the existing entitlements. In the event the Commission determines that the project does not or cannot meet the required findings for the granting of a Use Permit major modification, Commissioners should identify what aspect or aspects of the project are in conflict with the required findings. State Law requires the Commission to adopt findings, based on the General Plan and County Code, setting forth why the proposed Use Permit Major modification is not being approved.
Action Required - Commission would move to deny the project.
Option 4 - Continuance Option
The Planning Commission may continue an item to a future hearing date at its own discretion.
Supporting Documents
A. Recommended Findings
B. Revised Recommended Conditions of Approval and Final Agency Approval Memos
C. CEQA Categorial Exemption Memorandum
D. Fennemore Letter received after the meeting (March 17, 2026)
E. Applicant response letter (March 23, 2026) and supporting documentation
F. BOS Resolution No. 2018-164