TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Brian D. Bordona, Director of Planning, Building & Environmental Services
REPORT BY: Dana Morrison, Supervising Planner
SUBJECT: Bonny’s Vineyard Appeal P25-00020-APL
RECOMMENDATION
title
Conduct a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Appellant Water Audit California (WAC or Appellant) concerning the Napa County Planning Commission’s decision on December 18, 2024, to approve the Bonny’s Vineyard New Winery Use Permit No. P22-00002-UP submitted by Barbara Meyer/BJ Meyer Properties, LLC). (No fiscal impact.)
(CONTINUED FROM APRIL 8, 2025)
body
BACKGROUND
The matter before the Board involves an appeal filed by the Appellant concerning the decisions made by the Napa County Planning Commission on December 18, 2025, to: (1) adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and (2) approve New Winery Use Permit No. P22-00002-UP for the proposed Bonny’s Vineyard Winery.
The approved Use Permit (P22-00002) allows development of a new 30,000 gallon per year (gpy) production winery on a 25.54-acre parcel, at 1555 Skellenger Lane, Napa, CA (APN 030-200-080-000). The Use Permit approval is hereafter referred to as the Project.
On January 10, 2025, a timely notice of intent to appeal was filed by Appellant and a timely appeal packet was submitted on January 27, 2025 (the Appeal) (Attachment A). Staff responses to the Ground of Appeal are in Attachment B.
Documents associated with the Project and this appeal record (No. P25-00020) are available for review online at the Planning, Building and Environmental Services’ (PBES) Department cloud at: https://pbes.cloud/index.php/s/nksryc7qTyZPcr8 or at the PBES Department located at 1195 Third Street, 2nd Floor, Napa, CA 94559.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Chair introduces item and requests disclosures from board members regarding any ex parte communications or new Levine Act disclosures, if any.
2. Chair invites Appellant the opportunity to be heard on the Chair’s prior “good cause” determination by asking the Board to overrule the Chair’s determination and invites the Applicant the opportunity to oppose to the request.
3. Staff Report presentation.
4. Chair invites testimony from Appellant WAC and WAC’s witnesses as previously disclosed on the witness list and in the order noted on the witness list attached as Attachment C.
5. Chair invites any other interested members of the public to testify regarding the Appeal.
6. Chair invites Applicant and Applicant’s witnesses as previously disclosed on the witness list and in the order noted on the witness list attached as Attachment D.
7. Chair then invites Appellant to have final rebuttal (time permitting).
8. Chair closes the public hearing and invites disclosures from Board members.
9. A motion of intent is made and seconded to deny, uphold, and/or remand the Appeal.
10. Chair refers the matter to County Counsel’s office for preparation of a Resolution of Findings and Decision on Appeal. Due to current workload, good cause exists for County Counsel’s office to have up to ninety days to prepare the Resolution of Findings and Decision on Appeal. Consequently, Staff recommends that the Board direct County Counsel’s office to return to the Board on June 24th at 9:00 a.m. with the proposed Resolution for the Board’s consideration and adoption.
DISCUSSION:
On January 7, 2022, the Applicant submitted Use Permit for a New Winery (P22-00002-UP). The Project consists of a new winery with an annual production of 30,000 gallons with the following characteristics:
1. A 10,996 square foot (sf) winery building with a 1,426 sf covered crush pad, a 392 sf uncovered mechanical yard and 1,255 sf of covered loggia (patio space);
2. Six (6) full-time employees;
3. By appointment tours and tastings for a maximum of 45 visitors per day with catering provided; catering will be prepared offsite, including outdoors tastings (as set forth in Conditions of Approval (COAs) No. 4.1 and 4.2);
4. A marketing program consisting of two (2) large events per year with a maximum of 150 visitors and nine (9) smaller events per year with a maximum of (eight) 8- visitors, including on-premises consumption of wine as set forth in COA No. 4.3 and 4below;
5. Production seven (7) days per week between 9:00 AM to 5 :00 PM, and visitation seven (7) days per week between 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM;
6. Parking for 20 cars with overflow event parking occurring on-site, and as needed along the existing vineyard avenues for events;
7. On-site landscaping;
8. On-site domestic wastewater treatment system and drip dispersal system, with a 3,616 sf dispersal area;
9. Widening existing driveway to Napa County Road and Street Standards (NCRSS);
10. Three (3) 10,000-gallon water storage tanks; and
11. Use of existing site well #1 for winery uses (with monitoring of all 3 parcel wells).
On November 15, 2024, the Public Notice for the Planning Commission hearing and Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property, see Attachment J. It should be noted that the County’s requirements to notice all property owners within 1,000 feet far exceeds the State mandate of noticing all owners within 300 feet. Notice was also provided to those persons on the general CEQA document notification list. The Notice was published in the Napa Valley Register on November 16, 2024.
On December 18, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Project and unanimously voted (3:0 AYES: Brunzell, Dameron and Whitmer; ABSENT: Phillips and Mazotti) to approve the Bonny’s Vineyards project. The Project’s approval letter with the final adopted conditions of approval (COA) are in Attachment E).
Public notice of this appeal 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.
FINDINGS:
When reviewing the proposed Project, the Planning Commission based its decision on a series of Findings, as required under both County Code and State law. The Board of Supervisors must also consider all of the same Findings in reaching its decision. To uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project and deny the appeal, the Board must determine that the Project is consistent with each of the following Findings. Alternatively, to deny the Project and grant the appeal, the Board must determine that the Project is not consistent with at least one (or more) of the Findings or the County General Plan.
CEQA:
1. The Board of Supervisors has read and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to taking action on said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed Project.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is based on independent judgment exercised by the Board of Supervisors.
3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and considered in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
4. There is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment as mitigated.
5. There is no evidence in the record as a whole that the proposed Project will have a potential adverse effect on wildlife resources or habitat upon which the wildlife depends as mitigated.
6. The site of this proposed Project is not on any of the lists of hazardous waste sites enumerated under Government Code Section 65962.5 and is not within the boundaries of any airport land use plan.
7. The Secretary of the Commission is the custodian of the records of the proceedings on which this decision is based. Records are located at the Napa County Planning, Building, and Environmental Services Department, 1195 Third Street, Room 210, Napa, California
NEW WINERY USE PERMIT:
1. The Board of Supervisors has the power to issue a Use Permit under the Zoning Regulations in effect as applied to the property.
2. The procedural requirements for a Use Permit set forth in Chapter 18.124 of the County Code (zoning regulations) have been met.
3. The grant of the Use Permit, as conditioned and mitigated, will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare of the County of Napa.
4. The proposed use complies with applicable provisions of the County Code and is consistent with the policies and standards of the Napa County General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
5. The proposed use would not require improvements causing significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on the affected groundwater basin in Napa County, unless that use would satisfy any of the other criteria specified for approval or waiver of a groundwater permit under Sections 13.15.070 or 13.15.080 of the County Code.
PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE:
To clarify the County's procedural requirements and expectations regarding land use appeals, the Board of Supervisors requires the parties to attend a mandatory pre-hearing conference with a representative of the County Counsel’s office and the Chair of the Board to discuss estimates on presentation lengths, scope of evidence, and testimony to be presented, together with witness lists. Any witness not appearing on a witness list at the pre-hearing conference is treated as an ordinary member of the public and allotted the usual three minutes of speaking time.
A pre-hearing conference was held on February 24, 2025, with Appellant’s counsel, Applicant’s counsel, Chair Cottrell and a Deputy County Counsel. At that time, Appellant and Applicant agreed to provide a list of their respective witnesses along with the subject matter of testimony and time estimates in advance of the hearing. The Chair informed the Appellant and the Applicant that each side is allocated a maximum of 30 minutes for their presentation, allocated at their discretion. A summary of the witness information by name, subject matter of testimony, and time estimates that was provided by Appellant and the Applicant is provided in Attachments C and D.
Appellant and Applicant also agreed to provide the Chair in advance of the hearing with any requests for “good cause” to either supplement the record with new information and/or requests to have the appeal heard de novo (e.g., a fresh hearing). Appellant submitted a “good cause” request to supplement the record on appeal before the Board (Attachment F) which was denied by the Chair (Attachment G). Appellant has requested the full Board overrule the Chair’s determination.
At the pre-hearing conference, Appellant and Applicant further agreed to provide any supplemental legal argument in advance of the hearing. The supplemental information provided by Appellant is attached as Attachment H and as Attachment I from Applicant. The information is also available for review online at:
https://pbes.cloud/index.php/s/nksryc7qTyZPcr8
Appeal:
Staff has summarized Appellant’s grounds of Appeal. Staff’s response to the Appeal is in Attachment B. Staff recommends the Board review the actual Appeal for further details.
OPTIONS:
The following options are provided for the Board’s consideration regarding possible action on the Appeal:
• Option 1 (Staff’s Recommendation): Deny the appeal in its entirety and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project and adopt revised conditions of approval;
• Option 2: Modify the scope of the Project or Conditions of Approval with or without granting or denying the Appeal;
• Option 3: Uphold one or more grounds of the Appeal and reverse the Planning Commission’s decision, thereby denying the Project; or
• Option 4: Remand the matter to the Planning Commission with direction.
REQUESTED ACTIONS:
1) Conduct a public hearing to consider WAC’s Appeal.
2) Take tentative action to deny the Appeal in its entirety and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.
3) Direct staff to revise the COA to include destruction of the unused well and other limitations on the parcel wells, and update other conditions with timelines affected by the appeal process.
4) Refer the matter to County Counsel’s office for preparation of a Resolution of Findings and Decision on Appeal and direct County Counsel to return on June 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. with the proposed Resolution for adoption.
FISCAL & STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
No |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Consideration and possible adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. According to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed project would not have any potentially significant environmental impacts. Mitigation Measures are proposed for the following areas: Biological Resources. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A - Notice of Intent to Appeal and Appeal Packet
• Attachment B - Staff Responses to Grounds of Appeal
• Attachment C - Appellant WAC Testimony and WAC’s witnesses list Testimony.
• Attachment D - Applicant Testimony and Applicant’s witnesses list Testimony
• Attachment E - Project Approval Letter and Final Conditions of Approval
• Attachment F - Appellant WAC Good Cause Request
• Attachment G - Chair’s Denial of Good Cause Request
• Attachment H - Appellant WAC Supplemental Information
• Attachment I - Applicant Supplemental Information
• Attachment J - Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice
• Attachment K - Planning Commission Staff Report
• Attachment L - Environmental Well Permit E11-00266
• Attachment M - Preliminary Water System Technical Report
• Attachment N - Existing and Historic Conditions Aerial Images
• Attachment O - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Attachment P - Bonny’s Vineyard Project Description
• Attachment Q - Water Availability Analysis
• Attachment R - Interim Napa County Well Permit Standards and WAA Requirements - January 2024
• Attachment S - Plan Set and Exterior Colors
• Attachment T - Wastewater Feasibility Report
• Attachment U - Building plan set for B11-01347
• Attachment V - Building plan set for B16-01016
• Attachment W - Use Permit/Major Modification Application Winery Uses