Napa County officials have pushed back further against a civil grand jury report scrutinizing the use permit process for winery projects.
Wine is a key county industry, generating $11.7 billion in local economic impact, according to a recently released analysis of 2022 data commissioned by Napa Valley Vintners.
The county’s response, approved by the Board of Supervisors on Aug. 20, addresses this year’s grand jury’s report titled “Behind the Curtain: Napa County Use Permit Process.”
The reply partially or wholly disagrees with all five findings, defending practices like pre-application fees and cost recovery while acknowledging challenges from wildfires and the COVID-19 pandemic. The response had originally been presented to the supervisors in late July. But after multiple supervisors noted that they had questions about the responses, the board voted unanimously for staff to revise the responses to be brought back for consideration and comment at a future meeting.
On the report’s call for random audits for winery compliance, county officials partially disagreed, noting the shift to a complaint-based model after 2015. They referenced the Agricultural Protection Advisory Committee’s (APAC) recommendation for annual self-certification, implemented via the 2018 Winery Code Compliance Program.
This voluntary program enrolled 47 wineries, with 38 compliant and nine pending as of this July. Priorities shifted due to 2017 and 2020 wildfires and COVID-19, delaying full implementation.
This response comes as the Board of Supervisors is set to consider Tuesday (Sept. 23) winding down the Use Permit Compliance Program.
Staff recommends concluding the program by March 29, 2026, noting 37 completions to date and expecting 45 by year’s end.
Incomplete applications must cease non-compliant operations, though processing may continue.
Michelle Novi, counsel and senior director of industry relations with Napa Valley Vintners, said the proposed sunsetting of the code compliance program, which the industry fully supported when APAC had recommended it, balances regulation with economic realities.
“And then 2020 happened, and you had COVID and then we had the fires here, and our priorities as a community needed to be elsewhere,” Novi said.
Another issue the grand jury tackled were the fees for optional pre-application meetings, potentially discouraging the use of this system intended to help proponents anticipate challenges early in the project.
County officials partially disagreed with that assertion, noting that as of July 7 the fee for a one-hour in-office meeting with the Planning Division was $772; Engineering, $453; and Environmental Health, $318. They argued this represents just 2% of the average $37,163 county cost to process a new winery use permit from January 2023 to July of this year.
“The pre-application meetings offer a valuable opportunity to clarify the application process, address potential issues early on, and align expectations; ultimately aiding to reduce the number of resubmittals and potentially lowering overall project costs and the number of application resubmittals,” the response stated.
On the shift from 80% to 100% cost recovery for fees, adopted in November 2024, officials partially or wholly disagreed that it burdens applicants excessively. The update followed a 2023 fee study by MGT Consulting, aimed at aligning fees with inflation and union contracts without overburdening the general fund.
The response notes the study’s goals: “Define what it costs the County to provide the various fee-related services,” identify new fee areas, adjust based on full costs and develop revenue projections.
The winery database drew criticism from the grand jury for being outdated, but the county partially disagreed, clarifying its original purpose under the 2008 General Plan to track cumulative impacts, not serve as a real-time entitlement tool.
“While the Winery Database provides valuable summary context for broad comparisons of winery operations, and though the County strives to maintain its accuracy, it was never intended to serve as a comprehensive record of individual winery entitlements,” the response said.
A disclaimer on the county’s data information website where the database is housed warns users to verify details with official documents.
Finally, the county wholly or partially disagreed with claims of structural inefficiencies in the Planning, Building and Environmental Services Department. The county said the agency has been experiencing leadership transitions and investments in accountability and customer service.