TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Brian D. Bordona, Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services
REPORT BY: Emily Hedge, Planner III
SUBJECT: Castello Di Amorosa Winery Appeal
RECOMMENDATION
title
Consideration and possible action regarding an appeal filed by Water Audit California (Appellant or WAC) concerning the decisions made by the Napa County Planning Commission on April 2, 2025 for to: (1) find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and (2) approve Use Permit Major Modification No. P19-00459, Castello Di Amorosa Winery, to recognize and approve items that are out of compliance with the permitted entitlements and for an expansion beyond existing entitlements. (No Fiscal Impact)
body
BACKGROUND
The matter before the Board involves an appeal filed by WAC concerning the decisions made by the Planning Commission (Commission) on April 2, 2025, to approve Castello di Amorosa’s Use Permit Major Modification No. P19-00459 to recognize and approve items that are out of compliance with the permitted entitlements and for an expansion beyond existing entitlements and find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Project approval included recognition of: an increase in the number of employees to 153 employees; an increase in daily visitation to 427,541 annual guests (including daily and weekly maximums); an increase in annual marketing events for a total of 103 events; and conducting hospitality activities in portions of the building originally approved for production uses (approximately 18,550 s.f. located in numerous rooms throughout the winery buildings). The Project approval also included new requests for: designation of additional areas within the buildings for hospitality uses (approximately 14,000 s.f. converted from entitled production areas); conversion of a portion of the existing Type 1 cave (approximately 8,823 s.f.) to a Type 2 cave, allowing tours; increase the number of parking spaces in two (2) areas by 38 spaces for a total of 177 spaces; and installation of a replacement well, serving as the Project Well to be used for the existing public water system. The Project is located on an approximately 40-acre parcel at 4045 North St. Helena Highway, Calistoga (APN 020-390-012) (the Property).
On April 16, 2025, a timely notice of intent to appeal was filed by WAC and a timely appeal packet was submitted on April 30, 2025 (the Appeal) (Attachment A).
Documents associated with the Project and this appeal record (No. P25-00137) are available for review online at the Planning, Building and Environmental Services (PBES) Department cloud at: https://www.pbes.cloud/index.php/s/NdE8zCSxx7ySdgf or at the PBES Department located at 1195 Third Street, Second Floor, Napa, CA.
For the reasons articulated below, staff requests that the Board of Supervisors remand the Project to the Commission for an advisory report on the topic of groundwater prior to proceeding with the Appeal hearing.
Request for Remand:
The request for remand is the result of discrepancies revealed in the Project’s groundwater use after the Commission heard and considered the Project.
There are two wells (Well#1 and Well #2) on the Property. The Commission considered the Water Availability Analysis (dated August 14, 2024) prepared by Bartelt Engineering (the Applicant’s WAA) which identified Well #1 as the Project Well and Well #2 as the landscape, vineyard irrigation and backup supply for the potable water system. To ensure that existing groundwater levels and the pump rate for the non-project well (Well #2) are maintained at baseline conditions, the Commission imposed a condition of approval requiring that the Applicant submit the prior year and current monthly and annual water usage from Well #2.
Approximately three weeks after the Commission hearing and decision on the Project, the Applicant provided the required monthly water usage for 2024 and for part of 2025 for the two wells and the reservoir on the property (Attachment B). Upon review of this baseline data, staff discovered discrepancies between the information provided and what was disclosed in the Applicant’s WAA that was considered by the Commission. Specifically, the Applicant’s baseline data revealed that groundwater pumped from Well #2 greatly exceeded the total groundwater use disclosed in the Applicant’s WAA by almost double in year 2024 and the total groundwater use from both wells was close to the annual rate of recharge for the property as calculated in the Applicant’s WAA. This data further revealed additional significant discrepancies in the Applicant’s WAA which led staff to conclude that the Applicant’s WAA, relied upon by the Commission, is invalid and needs to be updated to provide accurate information so that potential impacts to groundwater and public trust resources can be properly evaluated.
The parties had previously agreed to a hearing date of July 29th for the Appeal; however, upon learning of the issues with the Applicant’s WAA, County Counsel’s office immediately reached out to counsel for the Appellant and Applicant informing the parties of the invalid Applicant WAA. The parties were further informed that staff would be requesting that the Board remand the Project to the Commission for review of an updated WAA and preparation of an advisory report to the Board on the topic of groundwater prior to the Appeal hearing. A remand will provide an opportunity for the public, Appellant, and Commission to reconsider the groundwater use and any potential impacts resulting from the Project and will ensure that the Board has the most accurate and complete information from which to evaluate the Appeal and the Project. Should the Commission recommend changes to the project resulting from the evaluation of the updated WAA, recommended modifications to the project scope and/or conditions of approval involving groundwater use would be included in the advisory report to the Board. The Applicant has agreed to pay for the cost of the Planning Commission transcript associated with the remand hearing.
Applicant is in the process of updating the WAA. Upon staff’s receipt of the updated WAA and subsequent peer review of the Applicant’s updated WAA by the County’s consulting hydrological engineering firm, if the Board proceeds with remand, a publicly noticed hearing before the Planning Commission would occur. After the Commission has considered the updated WAA and made its advisory recommendations to the Board (likely sometime late fall), the Appeal hearing would be noticed and scheduled for a future date. The Appellant would of course have an opportunity to comment on the updated WAA and groundwater matters at the Commission hearing and would also be allowed to supplement its pending Appeal packet to include any new grounds of appeal related to groundwater resulting from the updated WAA.
Process for Remand:
The purpose of the remand is to allow staff adequate time to analyze the updated WAA prepared by the Applicant, conduct peer-review, evaluate impacts (if any) to public trust resources, determine the appropriate level of CEQA analysis required, and schedule a hearing before the Commission to reconsider groundwater. The Commission action will be limited to providing an advisory report with recommendations to the Board for use in their evaluation of the Appeal. The Commission will not take an action on the Project as a whole. While a remand is somewhat uncommon, the process is authorized under the Appeals ordinance (County Code Chapter 2.88) as one of the options available to the Board. The most recent remand by the Board occurred in 2022 with the Benjamin Ranch Winery appeal. In Benjamin Ranch, the Board requested an advisory report on the Governor’s drought emergency declaration, recent GHG thresholds adopted by the Bay Area Air District, and project revisions proposed by the applicant. That appeal ended up being settled between the parties before the Planning Commission made its advisory report.
Napa County Code Section 2.88.090.C provides that, if applicable, the Board may remand the matter to the decision-maker for preparation of an advisory report prior to the Board’s decision on an appeal. Staff requests a remand to the Planning Commission for preparation of an advisory report on the updated WAA and groundwater related matters. Applicant supports the remand and Appellant objects to the remand (Attachment C). The Appellant along with any other member of the public would have an opportunity to address the Commission on groundwater matters prior to the Commission rendering an advisory report which would then be forwarded to the Board for consideration at the Appeal hearing prior to the Board making a final decision on the Appeal. The appeal hearing would essentially be “on hold” until the advisory report is issued and a new appeal hearing date is agreed upon by the parties.
Alternative Process Option:
Alternatively, the Board could decline staff’s request for a remand, and the Appeal would move forward with a new hearing date and follow the typical appeal procedures including a pre-hearing conference with the Chair. This would include the opportunity for the Applicant to make a good cause request that the record on appeal be supplemented with new information in the form of an updated WAA. Given the importance of having accurate groundwater information and upon the Applicant articulating a good cause basis for not providing the information to the Planning Commission, it is likely that the Chair would find good cause exists to allow the updated WAA to be included as part of the record on appeal before the Board. The benefit of a remand is that it provides the public and Appellant more opportunity and time to review and comment on the updated WAA. It also gives Appellant the ability to supplement its pending appeal with additional grounds and evidence related to the updated WAA and groundwater matters.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Chair introduces item.
2. Chair invites Levine Act and ex parte disclosures from Board members.
3. Chair invites the Staff presentation.
4. Open the public hearing and accept public comment from Appellant, Applicant and members of the public.
5. Close the public hearing.
6. Chair invites Board deliberations.
7. Motion and second to remand the Project to the Planning Commission for preparation of an advisory report on the updated WAA and groundwater related matters.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff requests, with the support of the Applicant, a remand to the Commission for purposes of preparation of an advisory report addressing the updated WAA and groundwater related matters. The Commission’s advisory report will be considered by the Board prior to rendering a decision on the Appeal. Upon issuance of the Commission’s advisory report, the appeal hearing will be publicly noticed at least nineteen days in advance of the hearing before the Board.
FISCAL & STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
No |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Consideration and possible adoption of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11. Article 19 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines) establishes a list of classes of projects that are categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Based on the proposed project as described below, the project meets the criteria for eligibility as Categorically 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. See Class 1 (“Existing Facilities”), Class 2 (“Replacement or Reconstruction”), Class 3 (“New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”), Class 4 (“Minor Alterations to Land”), and Class 11 (“Accessory Structures”) which may be found in the guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act at 14 CCR §15301, §15302, §15303, §15304, and §15311. The project is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.