Supervisors uphold Planning Commission approval of Hill Walker winery permit over appeal

The Napa County Board of Supervisors unanimously denied an appeal Feb. 25 and upheld the Planning Commissions August 2024 approval of the Hill Walker Vineyard winery use permit, an exception to county road-and-street standards and a conservation regulation exception for limited road work within a stream setback.

The appellant, Water Audit California, argued the countys environmental review and application packet were incomplete and that the board should have further analysis of groundwater, springs and potential public-trust impacts. Water Audits representative, John McKinnon, raised concerns about checklist omissions, whether tributaries and springs were fully evaluated and whether conditions requested by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) were correctly incorporated.

County planning staff and planning commission materials document the project as located on a 20.46-acre parcel at 1871 Mount Veeder Road with existing residential structures and approximately 4.5 acres of planted vines. Planning Manager Michael Parker summarized staffs review and said a mitigated negative declaration was prepared and adopted by the Planning Commission; staff also said it consulted CDFW and incorporated additional mitigation measures requested by that agency addressing biological resources. CDFW had commented and asked for specific mitigations; staff attached CDFWs letter and added conditions in the Planning Commission approval.

Applicant Kevin Morrison and counsel Rob Anglin argued the record is complete and that the Planning Commissions unanimous approval properly considered fire safety, road access constraints and biological mitigation. Morrison described his farm operations and his approach to dry farming and low-water winemaking; counsel said mapping and permit materials were in the record and that the project proposed no new wells and no diversion of springs.

After hearing staff, the appellant and the applicant, Supervisor Ramos moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision; Supervisor Alessio seconded and the vote was unanimous. The board directed staff to prepare formal findings and a decision for the board to adopt on April 8, 2025, and directed staff to incorporate a corrected condition referenced in a change memo provided to the board.

The boards action preserves the Planning Commissions mitigated negative declaration and its conditions of approval, including measures addressing tree mitigation, temporary wildlife fencing, limits on visitation and requirements for a hold-and-haul wastewater tank. Staff said future permits for grading or other work would require engineering review and appropriate permits and that the applicant must comply with any CDFW requirements for Lake and Streambed Alteration agreements if CDFW determines they are required.