Board of Supervisors denies Water Audit appeal, upholds approval for Bonnie’s Vineyard winery with added conditions

The Napa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on May 6 to deny an appeal by Water Audit California and uphold the Planning Commission’s December 2024 approval of a new winery use permit for the Bonnie’s Vineyard parcel at 155 Schellinger Lane. The board included additional conditions staff proposed during the hearing: a requirement that a fourth, currently unused well on the parcel be destroyed unless it can be shown already destroyed; a condition limiting winery guest access to Schellinger Lane; and enhanced flow‑regulation, metering and monitoring of all three on‑site wells to ensure overall parcel groundwater use remains at or below the approved limit.

The project as approved by the Planning Commission would construct a roughly 10,996-square-foot, 30,000‑gallon winery with seven-day production and visitation, tours and tastings capped at 45 daily visitors, two large events per year (up to 150) and nine smaller events (up to 80). Project materials describe 20 regular parking spaces with on‑site overflow parking outside of stream setbacks and three 10,000‑gallon tanks that will be filled from the winery well. Staff said the parcel’s overall groundwater was limited by condition to 10.16 acre‑feet per year for all uses on the parcel.

Why the board acted: Staff presented a line‑by‑line response to the appellant’s grounds, concluding the project had been reviewed under CEQA with a mitigated negative declaration, that required mitigations and conditions addressed biological and stream setbacks, and that the county’s Water Availability Analysis (WAA) guidance allowed the project’s methods for estimating water use where direct monitoring data were not available. Dana Morrison, supervising planner for the county, told the board "staff at this time recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal in its entirety and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the project," and summarized the revised groundwater‑management conditions staff recommended.

The appeal by Water Audit California alleged multiple procedural and technical deficiencies including: that the application lacked required water feasibility documentation, that the project improperly relied on a single well without adequate drilling records, that county review had treated the application inconsistently, and that the county had not satisfied its public‑trust duties regarding streamflow. William McKinnon, representing Water Audit, argued the county’s process had been inconsistent and that required water system feasibility reports had not been appropriately included in the administrative record; he asked the board to send the project back for further analysis. The applicants — represented by attorney Trina Falaise and consultant Cameron (Cam) Pridmore — and project representative Matt Meyer responded that project materials, including the wastewater feasibility report and a WAA, were part of the administrative record, that the winery was designed to avoid stream setbacks, and that the proposal would result in lower overall groundwater use on the parcel than historical orchard and vineyard uses.

New or clarified conditions and next steps: The board approved staff’s recommendation and amended conditions: (1) require destruction of the potential fourth well if it exists and is not already destroyed; (2) require installation of flow regulation devices and metering and limit pumping time/rates on all three identified wells to ensure no net increase in parcel extraction above the 10.16 acre‑feet per year cap; (3) add an explicit condition that winery access be from Schellinger Lane (not via an adjoining private easement); and (4) include the parcel in the county’s well‑monitoring program with reporting to county planning/environmental staff. County counsel was directed to prepare findings and a resolution reflecting the decision and return to the board on June 24 with the formal decision document. Staff also noted that the project’s building permit submittals must satisfy state requirements for the transient non‑community water system before any building permits are issued.

What it means: The decision preserves the Planning Commission’s environmental findings and project design while strengthening enforceable groundwater protections tied to monitoring and flow control. Board members and staff emphasized monitoring and enforcement mechanisms — including possible code enforcement or revocation procedures if monitoring shows a project exceeds its conditioned water budget — as the principal means to address future noncompliance. The board also voiced interest in broader basin‑wide monitoring and policy work the county and Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) are pursuing to track and reduce pumping county‑wide.

Speakers quoted in this article appear in the transcript and are identified in the speakers list above. The board’s motion to deny the appeal passed unanimously, and the matter will return to the board on June 24 for adoption of the formal resolution of findings.