TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Brian D. Bordona, Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Sciences
REPORT BY: Emily Hedge, Planner III
SUBJECT: Hagafen Cellars Winery Appeal
RECOMMENDATION
title
Conduct a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Appellant Ariane Matschullat and Weathervane Ranch concerning the Napa County Planning Commission’s decision on April 1, 2026, to approve the Hagafen Cellars Winery Use Permit Major Modification No. P19-00121-MOD submitted by Norman Weir. (No Fiscal Impact)
(CONTINUED FROM JUNE 2, 2026)
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 April 1, 2026, to:
(1) Find the project categorically exempt from the CEQA under sections 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 and §15304; and
(2) Approve Use Permit Major Modification No. P19-00121-MOD for the proposed changes to Hagafen Cellars Winery subject to the conditions of approval.
The approved Use Permit Major Modification (P19-00121) allows changes 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. The approval revised prior conditions of approval (COAs) regarding annual reporting on multiple winery operations and noticing of all marketing events and required improvements to the driveway to meet County and State regulations. 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 (APN 039-130-002). The Use Permit Major Modification approval is hereafter referred to as the Project.
On April 15, 2026, a timely notice of intent to appeal was filed by Appellant and a timely appeal packet was submitted on April 29, 2026 (the Appeal) (Attachment A). Staff responses to the Grounds of Appeal are in Attachment B.
Documents associated with the Project and this appeal record (No. P26-00125) are currently available for review online at the Planning, Building and Environmental Services’ (PBES) Department cloud at: https://www.pbes.cloud/index.php/s/NnjzsyomYwciGeo or at the PBES Department located at 1195 Third Street, 2nd Floor, Napa, CA 94559. Following completion of the Appeal hearing, please utilize the County’s Public Records Search to access documents associated with this project: https://www.napacounty.gov/2474/PBES-Public-Records-Search.
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. Staff Report presentation.
3. Chair invites testimony from Appellant.
4. Chair invites any other interested members of the public to testify regarding the Appeal.
5. Chair invites testimony from Applicant.
6. Chair then invites Appellant to have final rebuttal (time permitting).
7. Chair closes the public hearing.
8. A motion of intent is made and seconded to deny, uphold, and/or remand the Appeal.
9. 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 November 3, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. with the proposed Resolution for the Board’s consideration and adoption.
Discussion:
On March 27, 2019, the Applicant submitted a request for a Use Permit Major Modification for Hagafen Cellars winery, established under Use Permit No. 97219-UP, for a 50,000 gallon per year winery with by-appointment tastings. As part of the Code Compliance Program, the applicant asked for recognition of the operational levels occurring in 2018. No increase in operations or new development was requested.
1. Components Necessary to Remedy Existing Violations (based on 2018 records):
a. Recognition of days of operation Monday through Sunday. The winery is currently authorized for operations Monday through Friday and Sunday.
b. Recognition of retail sales occurring Monday through Sunday. The winery is currently permitted for retail sales Monday through Thursday and Sunday.
c. Recognition of a maximum of 60 visitors per day with a maximum of 311 visitors per week, not to exceed an annual total of 9,719 visitors. The winery is currently authorized for 25 visitors per day (six days per week) with up to 150 visitors per week for an annual total of 7,825 visitors.
d. Recognition of use of an approximately 720-square-foot storage room in the winery building. The room was not delineated on the original winery Use Permit plans.
e. Widening the existing driveway to meet Napa County Road and Street Standards.
f. Revise COA No. 2 of Permit No. 99477 to remove the requirement for mailing notice of events to identified individuals.
g. Revise COA No. 3 of Permit No. 99477 to remove the requirement for submitting an annual report of daily visitation counts.
h. Remove COA No. 15 of Permit No. 99477 requiring submittal of an annual report of grape source data.
i. Remove COA No. 16 of Permit No. 99477 requiring submittal of an annual statement certifying compliance with grape sourcing requirements.
j. Revise COA No. 21 of Permit No. 99477 to remove the requirement for submitting an annual report of the number of gallons of wine produced during the year.
The proposal included recognition of existing days of operation, existing days allowing retail sales, and levels of visitation, that have been occurring beyond current entitlements. No intensification of these activities was requested as part of the Project. Additionally, there were no requested changes to the authorized levels of production, employees, marketing events, or other operational components. No new construction or physical improvements are required for continued use of the 720-square foot storage room within the winery building. The proposed improvements to the existing driveway are required to comply with the Napa County Road and Street Standards. The improvements will occur on areas on the site that have previously been disturbed by planting landscaping and vineyards, and grading for winery development. The proposal also included a request to modify previous COAs 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.
The modification would bring the existing winery operations into compliance with approved entitlements and allow improvements to the driveway to meet County and State regulations. Project operations would remain at the 2018 baseline levels and would not result in additional traffic trips, generation of more wastewater, use of groundwater, or use or consumption of additional resources. The revision to existing conditions replaces them with Board of Supervisor’s adopted standard COAs and general winery use permit practices.
On March 5, 2026, the Public Notice for the Planning Commission hearing and Notice of Intent to adopt various categorical exemptions was mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property, see Attachment E. 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. Additionally, staff mailed the Notice to a supplemental list of individuals identified in Permit No. 99477 COA No. 2 for notification of events. Notice was also provided to those persons on the general CEQA document notification (“Interested Parties”) list. The Notice was published in the Napa Valley Register on March 5, 2026.
On April 1, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Project and unanimously voted (4:0 AYES: Brooks, Brunzell, Dameron, and Richmond; ABSENT: Moran-Williams) to approve the Hagafen Cellars’ project. The Project’s adopted COAs are in Attachment D.
Public notice of the June 2, 2026, appeal hearing was mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Property and provided to those persons on the general CEQA document notification list.
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 Categorical Exemption Memorandum prior to taking action on said Categorical Exemptions and the proposed Project.
2. The Categorical Exemptions are based on independent judgment exercised by the Board of Supervisors.
3. The Categorical Exemptions were prepared and considered in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
4. The project is categorically exempt from the CEQA under sections 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 and §15304.
5. 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.
6. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 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, Second Floor, Napa, California.
Winery Use Permit Major Modification:
1. The Board of Supervisors has the power to approve a Winery Use Permit Major Modification 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 granting 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 May 18, 2026, with Appellant’s counsel, Applicant’s counsel, Chair Manfree, 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. Both parties confirmed that they have no witnesses and only their respective counsel will testify.
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). No timely good cause requests were received.
Appellant and Applicant further agreed to provide any supplemental legal argument in advance of the hearing. The additional legal argument provided by Applicant is attached as Attachment C. Appellant did not submit supplemental legal argument.
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.
In the Applicant’s additional legal argument, the Applicant proposed revisions to seven (7) commission-approved conditions to address appellant concerns and improve neighbor relations (Attachment C). The proposed revisions to the COA include restricting outdoor dining and outdoor tasting to the trellis area, noticing events, visitor and wine production reports, notice of spraying, new lighting requirements, and closing the eastern gate to routine access.
Staff does not recommend adopting the Applicant’s offered COA limiting picnicking, outdoor dining and outdoor wine tasting to the existing trellis area. Instead, Staff recommends reverting back to the original language in Modification No: 99477 COA No. 2. which states “Except for the "harvest" event and events as may specifically be authorized pursuant to the Temporary Event Ordinance, no picnicking, outdoor dining, or outdoor wine tasting shall be permitted and no outside marketing activities shall involve amplified music”. The Final COAs adopted by the Commission (Attachment D) struck through this portion of the COA in order to avoid a conflict with the approved on-premises consumption in the outdoor trellis area, permitted under Very Minor Mod P18-00081. Upon further review Staff believes it is appropriate to consider the approved on-premises consumption, which permits a person to purchase and consume wine on the property, as a separate and distinct activity from outdoor wine tasting. Reverting back to the original language does not create a conflict with approved uses and accomplishes Applicant’s offer to limit outdoor activities.
Staff does not recommend adopting the Applicant’s offered COAs requiring noticing events. As approved, the Commission felt it was unnecessary for the County to be party to an arrangement between the Applicant and specific individuals with an interest in the winery. Further details are provided in Staff’s Response to Ground No. 2. Staff has no objection to the Applicant privately notifying the Appellant of events.
Staff does not recommend adopting the Applicant’s offered COAs requiring visitor and wine production reports, notice of spraying, and new lighting requirements, as the adopted standard COAs and County policies regarding agricultural practices (Chapter 2.94 - Agriculture and Right to Farm) adequately achieve the intent of the conditions. Further details are provided in Staff’s Response to Ground No. 2. Staff has no objection to the Applicant providing these reports to and notifying the Appellant of spraying.
Staff is supportive of the added condition related to locking the Eastern gate to make it non-operative for winery uses. Wording shall be reviewed with the Fire Marshal’s office to confirm minimum access requirements are maintained.
Additionally, staff recommends revisions to update conditions with timelines affected by the appeal process.
Public Comments:
One public comment was received after the April 1, 2026, Planning Commission Hearing. (See Attachment I.)
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 Staff Recommended Revisions to Conditions of Approval;
Option 2: Modify the scope of the Project and/or Conditions of Approval (Attachment D) and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project;
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 Ariane Matschullat and Weathervane Ranch’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 conditions of approval to include staff’s recommended revisions 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 November 3, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. with the proposed Resolution for adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
No |
|
|
|
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
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. As proposed the project meets the criteria for eligibility as Categorically Exempt 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.
Attachments:
• Attachment A - Appeal Packet
• Attachment B - Staff Responses to Grounds of Appeal
• Attachment C - Applicant Additional Legal Argument
• Attachment D - Final Conditions of Approval
• Attachment E - Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice March 18, 2026
• Attachment F - Comparison of Project-Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval
• Attachment G - Graphics
• Attachment H - Categorical Exemption Determination Memorandum
• Attachment I - Public Comments Received After April 1, 2026, Planning Commission Hearing