Napa County supervisors agreed to legalize Rutherford Ranch’s code violations, touting compliance system success

Napa County commissioners touted the success of the county’s code compliance system as they upheld a previous decision to allow Napa County’s Rutherford Ranch winery to increase visitation and correct various code violations, tentatively denying an environmental appeal.

The Napa County Board of Supervisors voted this week in support of the matter, but a final decision — which will involve the board approving a resolution crafted by county staff — is scheduled for March 26.

The winery, located at 1680 Silverado Trail, had far outstripped the 250 weekly visitors it was allowed and had hired more employees than the 28 permitted. And some of its structures were too close to a stream.

But the county planning commission on June 21, 2023, agreed to legalize those violations and, at the request of the winery, allow for a substantially increased number of employees and weekly visitors — ranging from 1,190 to 1,500 depending on the season.

That commission approval came about through the county’s voluntary code compliance program, which allows winery owners to apply for permit modifications in order to correct code violations.

The approval also included several conditions, including an annual cap on well water use, well monitoring and that the winery remove 15 structures from a stream setback.

But water use of the project became a point of contention. Water Audit California — a group that previously sued Napa County jurisdictions over water concerns — on July 18, 2023, filed an appeal of the decision, asserting that the county hadn’t done enough to assess groundwater impacts to the nearby Conn Creek, which feeds into the Napa River, among other concerns.

County staff had previously concluded that the winery additions wouldn’t result in an increase to groundwater use by the winery — and would indeed reduce groundwater use — because of various methods of offsetting that use.

In a response to the appeal, staff said it was unlikely the well was hydraulically connected to the Napa River, Conn Creek and an unnamed tributary stream.

But William McKinnon, attorney for Water Audit, contended at the Feb. 6 meeting that the county still needed to make sure the winery well on the property isn’t linked to Conn Creek — which Water Audit California identified as a home for the federally protected steelhead trout.

“The only thing I care about is the environment,” McKinnon said. “I care about Conn Creek because Conn Creek had steelhead in it and (now) it doesn’t have steelhead in it, and it’d be nice to have them back again because they’re a federally protected species.”

McKinnon suggested the county look into the people who are pumping out “thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of gallons of water, and see if maybe, maybe they have an impact on that.”

The water audit appeal also made reference to the public trust doctrine, which makes it so the government is responsible for protecting public resources such as waterways.

The group claimed there had been an inquiry into potential injury to the public trust as a result of the project, which the county denied in their response.

But Katherine Philippakis, a contractor who represented the winery at the board hearing, said the proper steps to analyze the possible groundwater connections had been carried out.

“Step one is for a qualified professional to analyze whether connectivity exists,” she said. “And if not, the analysis is complete and no further analysis is needed. That’s what happened here.”

Philippakis also said the public trust doctrine boils down to requiring two-part analysis when looking at potential impacts to a navigable waterway, such as the Napa River, that includes examining both evidence of connectivity and evidence of harm.

“Here you have our experts who opine with a lot of data behind them that there is no connectivity,” Philippakis said. “And second, you have no harm, because this project is an improvement over the baseline condition.”

The supervisors voted unanimously at the meeting to deny the appeal, arguing that the code compliance program was working as intended. But the supervisors also added on a tighter cap on well water use and required a preconstruction survey to figure out project impacts to the Swainson’s hawk.

Supervisor Alfredo Pedroza noted that he was on the board in 2019 when the county started up the compliance program. He said the purpose of it was to acknowledge there might be businesses and homeowners out of compliance with code, and the program helps bring people into compliance.

“If we want a process to bring people into compliance, we have to stand by it,” Pedroza said.

Supervisor Ryan Gregory agreed, saying the “system has worked” and that the planning commission had gotten their decision right. He said the compliance program implicitly recognized the county’s regulatory framework hadn’t been nimble enough to keep pace with business needs.

Supervisor Belia Ramos said, having conducted a site visit, she has confidence the project will leave the site in better condition than it currently is.

But she added that the county should do more to make sure the public trust doctrine and its implications are understood.

“Whether you like it or you don’t, we’re stuck with it,” Ramos said.

You can reach Staff Writer Edward Booth at 707-521-5281 or edward.booth@pressdemocrat.com.