Винодельня Хагафен обжаловала решение совета уполномоченных округа Напа по делу о нарушениях

Hagafen Cellars is the slow-motion finale to Napa County's voluntary code compliance program for wineries, posing questions ranging from fairness to the county's role in settling disputes between neighbors. The winery on the Silverado Trail northeast of the city of Napa hosted up to 9,719 wine tasting guests annually, compared to the 7,825 authorized by its use permit, according to a county report. It had other violations as well. Hagafen participated in the county’s 2019 “amnesty,” a voluntary code compliance program. When the winery's case finally reached the Planning Commission on March 18 and April 1 of this year, the Planning Commission legalized the violations — and Ariane Matschullat and Weathervane Ranch appealed the decision. At the heart of the appeal is the question: Is the county rewarding bad behavior, and doing so without required environmental review at that? On Aug. 11, the matter went to the Board of Supervisors. After about two hours, the board continued the matter until Nov. 3 without ever hearing the essence of the appeal. That's because the two parties said they could settle the matter with the Board of Supervisors' help. They presented negotiated conditions of approval for board approval. For example, they wanted the county to require the winery to create a screen of relocated olive trees. The trees would be placed 15 feet apart, with one location identified in relation to a chicken coop. The winery would promptly replace dead, dying, damaged or missing trees. Supervisor Belia Ramos balked about that proposed provision in particular, saying the two parties could make a private agreement. She didn't want the county policing the terms. "I cannot see myself being in a position of saying that 'You have to plant an olive tree and they need to be 15 feet apart.,'" said Ramos. "... That's borderline telling people what color to paint their house." After a break, the two parties decided they would try to reach a private agreement that doesn't depend on county enforcement. Short of that, the appeal hearing will go forward. The appeal said Hagafen had committed “repeated blatant violations” that shouldn’t be overlooked or continued, and that Planning Commission should have required the winery to cure the violations and show sustained compliance. “It should not reward longstanding noncompliance by granting additional entitlements,” the appeal said. That approach would have required Hagafen to halt the illegal visitation and stick to the 7,825 annual visitors authorized by its use permit. Only after showing it could follow the rules could it seek changes. But a county response said Hagafen was treated the same as 37 other participants over seven years, which had their violations legalized through the Board of Supervisors-approved voluntary code compliance program. “The applicant, like all use permit holders in the compliance program, was not required to revert to entitled operations,” the response said. Supervisors approved the voluntary code compliance program in December 2018. Wineries and businesses with violations that applied by March 29, 2019 could participate. Participating wineries could continue violations not related to health or safety, such as exceeding visitation caps, while waiting for a hearing before the county Planning Commission or zoning administrator. They had no guarantee the violations would be legalized, though that happened in virtually every case. By contrast, non-participating wineries later found to have significant violations must comply with entitled operations for a year before being eligible for changes, the 2018 legislation said. According to the county, 47 businesses, mostly wineries, applied in 2019 for the voluntary code compliance program. Thirty-eight applications were completed and nine abandoned or withdrawn. The Hagafen appeal also objected that the county made the Hagafen violations the baseline for California Environmental Quality Act review. Since the winery didn’t ask for increases beyond the violations, the county issued a CEQA exemption. Napa County cannot use illegal or nonconforming operations as the environmental baseline, the appeal said. It wanted the use permit entitlements to be the baseline. “The project increases visitation, expands operational days and intensifies use in a manner that foreseeably affects traffic, noise and neighborhood conditions,” the appeal said. But a written response from the county disagreed and cited a state Supreme Court case. The unauthorized visitation levels had been going on since at least 2018, the response said. “The governing rule is that the baseline must reflect actual physical conditions on the ground at the time the environmental analysis commences, regardless of whether those conditions resulted from lawful activity,” it said. The project's CEQA exemption said that this rule holds, "even if the current condition includes unauthorized and even environmentally harmful conditions that never received, and, as a result of being incorporated into the baseline, may never receive environmental review." Hagafen's violations resulted in more traffic than anticipated under the use permit. But the appellants provided no evidence that traffic is posing a problem, the county response said. Water Audit California submitted a letter for the appeal hearing. It claimed the county isn't meeting its Public Trust Doctrine responsibility to determine whether pumping from a well is affecting Soda Creek. Napa County acknowledges a public trust duty, but claims it is satisfying the requirements. The dispute has come up in other cases and is in Napa County Superior Court, with Water Audit California filing lawsuits challenging county approvals for Bonny's Vineyard winery and the Inn at the Abbey.