Napa County directs staff to revise micro‑winery ordinance, seeks industry input on trade‑visit rules

The Napa County Board of Supervisors on March 11 directed county planning staff to return with a recommended update to the county's micro winery ordinance that would remove the ordinance's May 5, 2025 sunset and bring forward amendments shaped by stakeholders and the Planning Commission. The board made the instruction by unanimous vote: motion by Supervisor Joelle Gallagher, second by Supervisor John Alessio.

The action follows several hours of public comment from small vineyard owners, winemakers and industry groups who said the current micro winery pathway has not eased the regulatory or financial burdens they face. Michael Parker, senior planner in the county's Planning, Building and Environmental Services Department, explained the rules staff built into the ordinance and noted its sunset clause: “No application for a new micro winery use permit . . . shall be considered 3 years after 05/05/2022, unless the provisions . . . are extended, readopted, or amended by the Board of Supervisors.”

Supporters of keeping and improving the ordinance said it was intended to help small family farms keep producing and to provide a smaller, direct‑to‑consumer sales channel. “Microproducers are still in a state of crisis,” Elise Nurlov, vice president of Save the Family Farms, told the board. “We support option 1, but we need a sense of urgency.” Speakers urged changes that would reduce costs, clarify vineyard requirements, and speed approvals.

Some commenters warned that proposed clarifications could unintentionally block new entrants. Rachel Lenahan read a letter from attorney Catherine Filopakis urging the board not to require vineyards be already producing at the time a micro winery application is filed: “If you force vineyard and permitting proceeds to be run sequentially rather than in tandem, it could take almost 10 years for a landowner to have a micro winery approved and built.” Several other growers, including Hannah Ron and Ken Nurlov, described challenges getting through the current application process and said the ordinance should be made permanently available and more usable.

Planning Director Brian Bordona responded to industry concerns raised separately about county interpretation of rules for trade or industry visits at wineries, saying staff is taking the questions seriously and will continue outreach: “It's important to note that on this matter, there have been no changes in staff's interpretation or application of these regulations.” Bordona told the board he has met with speakers and trade groups and will continue that outreach while staff prepares a recommended ordinance update.

Board members pressed staff to focus amendments on items the county can control — for example, the micro winery application process, production and visitation caps, and administrative streamlining — rather than state‑level requirements such as road or fire standards. Supervisors said they wanted the update to be thorough but timely; staff estimated a public outreach and Planning Commission process would take roughly three months and expected to return to the board in the summer with proposed ordinance language.

The board's directive sends staff back to draft a detailed ordinance update, incorporating stakeholder feedback and Planning Commission review, aimed at removing the sunset clause and making county‑level improvements. The motion also included an instruction to prioritize amendments under county jurisdiction.

Votes and next steps: Motion by Supervisor Joelle Gallagher, second by Supervisor John Alessio. Vote tally: 5–0 in favor. Staff said it will hold stakeholder meetings and Planning Commission hearings and return with a proposed ordinance (staff estimated a 3–6 month process).