Many of us were shocked when the Planning Commission permitted code violations by Dario Sattui’s Castello di Amorosa on April 2, 2025, under the County’s Winery Code Compliance Program (Resolution 2018-164). Although the Code Compliance Program has sparked controversy on all sides, this case was extreme. Along with several fire code violations, the winery was also in violation of its permitted annual visitation of 26,000 guests. In 2019, it was receiving 400,000 more visitors each year. The Planning Commission granted this increase in visitation, along with some limitations related to fire code issues.
If Water Audit California had not appealed the decision to the Board of Supervisors, citing several unanswered questions in the application, this decision would have remained in effect. However, during preparation for the appeal, the heavy use of a well not included in the Water Availability Analysis was discovered. The Board of Supervisors remanded the case to the Planning Commission for review.
So, how did this happen? Is this case unique? How did we reach this point? And the issue of fairness arises. Most wineries have to fight for years to get approval from the county for even a small increase in visitation.
On Tuesday, July 29, 2025, the Board of Supervisors will review the 2024-2025 Grand Jury’s report on the work of the Planning and Environmental Services Staff (PBES). Please read the following interview with Mike Hackett, Executive Director of the Save Napa Valley Foundation (SNVF), which has supported Water Audit California over the years, where he discusses some of Water Audit’s findings on applications before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
When you have reviewed the Grand Jury report, the response from the County (see links below), and read the following interview, please consider writing your supervisor or making public comment at the BOS meeting on Tuesday.
INTERVIEW WITH MIKE HACKETT
Napa Vision 2050: What is Water Audit California’s mission, and how long has Save Napa Valley Foundation (SNVF) been working with Water Audit California (WA) and in what ways?
Mike Hackett: Water Audit California advocates for the Public Trust Doctrine Our waterways and the aquatic life within belong to all of us, the trustees. Our work with WA began in January 2020 with our Watershed Forum. We have supported WA’s watercourse analyses and proposed remediations, and their environmental white papers. Over the last two years, WA has completed the development review of projects coming before the PC and BoS. SNVF has provided litigation support through donations and lobbying efforts. We successfully persuaded the county to recognize the Public Trust Doctrine. The most significant contribution by WA is their in-depth review of applicant proposals presented to the BOS or PC. Each review requires approximately 8 to 10 hours of analysis.
NV: How has the County responded to these efforts by Water Audit?
MH: Unceasing resistance and stonewalling. Fixing the system is difficult if the problem lies within this resistance.
NV: WA’s letter to the Planning Commission before the hearing highlights 31 “miscellaneous inadequacies” in the county checklist for the winery code compliance application. Some of the missing information is minor, but some is quite serious. What do you consider most serious?
MH: The deliberate and intentional neglect of proper procedures by staff. Standards are applied inconsistently. There is a failure to complete the required checklists, with the county often acting as the regulatory authority (State or Federal Agencies are the regulatory agencies; the County is the lead agency). This has created a chaotic disrespect for process, rendering the process ineffectual and predictably inconsistent.
NV: How did we get here?
MH: In January 2020, poor staff management under then-Director Morrison of the Department of Planning, Building, and Environmental Services (PBES), combined with Deputy Director Bordona’s reluctance to assess necessary process changes, caused problems. Economic self-interest, since the applicant bears the cost of staff time for approval, has made PBES overly focused on project approval without properly considering public interests. There is a clear bias inherent in the land use change processing.
NV: The local government is being questioned from all sides, and it seems that, in this case, it has relinquished its power. Why?
MH: Development interests have well-funded, long-term objectives, while social/environmental interests are fragmented, inconsistent, and underfunded. BoS relies upon staff who produce sub-standard work, with no guidance from the top. The process does not require truthfulness, and there are no consequences for falsehoods, rendering the development process into a game of liar’s poker. An example: Bonny’s was as inadequate an application as Sattui’s, but evidently the staff liked Bonny more than Sattui. Keep in mind, the PC approved both. Had it not been for Water Audit, Sattui would be moving forward now, too. That’s an inequitable application of the law.
NV: The staff recommended that “the project meets the criteria for eligibility as Categorically Exempt from CEQA.” Given the magnitude of the violations and increase in visitation, under what conditions can the county claim “categorical exemptions”?
MH: Take a moment. A facility has increased its visitor count from ~ 26,000 to around 425,000 per year, yet it has no greater impact on the environment. In what world does it make any sense that the larger facility would have no greater impact on the environment? Please …
NV: During the Board of Supervisors meeting on June 25, 2025, all supervisors expressed confusion and shock at the misreporting of water usage and referred the case back to the Planning Commission. Are you satisfied with this decision?
MH: Not just no, but hell no. The decision was intended to and did camouflage the other outrageous aspects of the decision. The terms of the remand were intentionally deceptive.
NV: What can be done to correct this situation, which even the Napa County Grand Jury 2024-2025 Final Report described as lacking “effective management structure” with “structural inefficiencies”?
MH: We need to communicate what specific changes we want the county to make and how they will be implemented. It should be very straightforward, but our objectives must be detailed and aligned with the needs expressed by the Grand Jury and even the wine industry—they’re upset too. Certainly, we need some form of adaptive management committee representing all sides. Or, as one of the PC members said, “the file presented to the BOS/PC must be run through a RED TEAM to ensure completeness and accuracy.” Another emphasized the need to develop a checklist that is completely thorough and strictly followed.
Additionally, when it comes to gaining support, a community gathering is most helpful at this time. We need to secure sponsorships, organize public forums, and start fundraising events. We need new people to join in.
Links: Napa County 2024-2025 Grand Jury Report: https://napavision2050.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/napa-county-use-permit-process-2025.pdf
Board of Supervisor Agenda, July 29, 2025 https://napa.legistar1.com/napa/meetings/2025/7/1893_A_Board_of_Supervisors_25-07-29_Agenda.pdf
County Response to Grand Jury Report https://napavision2050.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/County-Response-to-Grand-Jury.pdf