Napa County backs Duckhorn winery growth proposal
Duckhorn Vineyards’ plans for substantial growth at its Lodi Lane winery north of St. Helena won support from the Napa County Board of Supervisors, despite neighbors’ concerns.
The matter came before supervisors because opponents appealed the winery plan’s approval by the county Planning Commission. But on Tuesday, supervisors unanimously agreed to deny the appeal, with a final vote to come Nov. 12, once a resolution is prepared.
Board chair Joelle Gallagher expressed appreciation that Duckhorn voluntarily waived some of the rights it has held since before Napa County passed the winery definition ordinance. The winery will have all of its wine made from at least 75% Napa grapes and all visitation by-appointment only.
“I think it shows great leadership in the industry. … It shows a real commitment to Napa Valley and Napa Valley fruits and Napa Valley wine,” Gallagher said.
Supervisor Anne Cottrell said the board is guided by zoning and laws. This project is in the county’s agricultural preserve on the Napa Valley floor and isn’t on a dead-end road.
Some have suggested wine production on this scale should be in an industrial area. That idea can be discussed, according to Cottrell.
“But that is a policy question. We don’t have that policy in place now,” she said.
The Planning Commission approved a winery expansion in May 2023. Duckhorn could build a new winery west of the Napa River, expand its Estate House east of the river, nearly double its annual maximum wine production to 300,000 gallons, and raise annual visitation from 37,552 to 88,566 guests.
A bigger winery would allow Duckhorn to process more Napa Valley grapes. No longer would it have to haul up 1,000 tons or more annually to Hopland in Mendocino County, Duckhorn officials said.
Preserve Lodi Lane and Water Audit California filed appeals to the Board of Supervisors. Duckhorn subsequently cut the proposed size of its new winery from 58,042 to 52,237 square feet, while reducing the maximum number of daily guests from 219 to 197, among other revisions.
Preserve Lodi Lane focused on such issues as traffic. Its appeal characterized the Duckhorn expansion as a “transformation from a charming rural winery into (an) industrial monument to the wine industry.”
The neighborhood group depicted Lodi Lane as bookended by growth threats—Duckhorn near Silverado Trail and the proposed Freemark Abbey hotel near Highway 29/128. Together, they have placed residents “under siege,” the appeal said.
Nancy and Dave Yewell asked supervisors to cut the proposed wine production and visitation growth in half, or, better yet, reject them altogether.
“Lodi Lane is exactly that: a lane, just wide enough for two-way traffic—except for the decades-old bridge over the Napa River on the east side of the lane where a sign on the bridge clearly states it’s a one-lane bridge,” they wrote to the county.
Lodi Lane resident John Murphy said Duckhorn tanker trucks and semitrailers would dominate a narrow road used by pedestrians and cyclists. He also expressed concern about the T-intersection at Silverado Trail near a curve. Murphy called Lodi Lane “a treasured, historical rural county road located in the ag preserve.”
A Duckhorn neighbor told supervisors the project is “out of scale” for a narrow part of the Napa Valley.
The appeal by Water Audit California focused on how the use of well water might affect the adjacent Napa River. It questioned whether the county had required the proper groundwater studies.
Water Audit California and the Duckhorn winery reached a settlement before the meeting, leaving the Board of Supervisors to deal with the Preserve Lodi Lane appeal.
Consultant Rob Anglin, speaking on behalf of Duckhorn, said the Planning Commission wasn’t “asleep at the switch” and considered the issues raised in the two appeals. “Duckhorn’s project is the natural 50-year progression of an agricultural processing facility that has been rooted in this part of Napa County for decades,” Anglin wrote to the county.
Duckhorn’s executive vice president Zach Rasmussen said many of the buildings don’t meet current standards. For example, forklifts and other labor-saving devices can’t be used in them, requiring the stacking of barrels by hand.
“The winemaking facility needs to be updated and modernized,” he told supervisors.