Group v. Cnty. of Napa

• Decision Date: 16 June 2020
• Docket Number: A158130
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: SODA CANYON GROUP, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF NAPA et al., Defendants and Respondents; MOUNTAIN PEAK VINEYARDS, LLC et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.

SODA CANYON GROUP, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF NAPA et al., Defendants and Respondents;

MOUNTAIN PEAK VINEYARDS, LLC et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.

A158130

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

June 16, 2020

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Napa County Super. Ct. No. 17CV001063)

Mountain Peak Vineyards, LLC (Mountain Peak Vineyards), and Hua "Eric" Yuan (Yuan) purport to appeal from an order in an administrative mandamus proceeding remanding a matter to Napa County to reconsider its adoption of a negative declaration and approval of a use permit allowing Mountain Peak Vineyards to construct and operate a new winery. In its order, the trial court indicated it was retaining jurisdiction in the administrative mandamus proceeding and expressly stated it was remanding "prior to the administrative mandamus hearing." The order directed that "[i]f the County affirms its decision, the matter will return to the trial court for hearing. If not, the matter will proceed accordingly." Because such order contemplates further proceedings and is not a final determination of the issues raised in the administrative mandamus proceeding, it is interlocutory and not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2013, Mountain Peak Vineyards applied to Napa County for a use permit to construct and operate a new winery ("the Project"). As approved, the use permit allowed, among other things: construction of a new 100,000 gallon per year winery, a 33,424 square foot wine cave, an 8,046 square foot tasting room and office building, and a 6,412 square foot covered crush pad and work area; on-premises consumption of wine; installation of a wastewater treatment system and potable water supply sourced from private wells including two 100,000 gallon water tanks and one 20,000 gallon water tank; 26 parking spaces and construction of two new driveways and private access roads with ingress/egress from Soda Canyon Road; and employment of up to 19 full-time employees, 4 part-time employees, and 4 seasonal workers. The use permit also allowed wine tours and tastings for up to 60 visitors every day (limited to 275 visitors per week), plus two annual events for 75 visitors, and another annual event allowing 125 visitors, totaling 14,575 visitors per year. This would lead to roughly 44,000 additional car trips per year on Soda Canyon Road.

The Project site is in a remote and rural area of Napa County known to be at high risk for fires. The only means of accessing the Project site is via Soda Canyon Road. Soda Canyon Road is a dead-end, two-lane road that is poorly paved, narrow, steep, winding, and lacking in shoulders or guardrails. Conditions there can create poor visibility.

The Napa County Planning Commission (the Planning Commission) held public hearings regarding the Project in July 2016 and January 2017.Numerous witnesses voiced concerns about the Project, citing among other things its location, traffic and accidents on Soda Canyon Road, and potential difficulties in evacuating the area in the event of a fire. At the conclusion of the January 2017 public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted a negative declaration and approved the use permit subject to conditions.

Four residents living near the Project site appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the County Board of Supervisors (the Board) as permitted by the Napa County Code. The Board consolidated the appeals and, after a public hearing in mid-2017, adopted a resolution denying the appeals in their entirety, adopting the negative declaration for the Project, and upholding the Planning Committee's approval of the Project subject to revised conditions. Among the claims dismissed by the Board were the claims "that the Planning Commission failed to properly consider the Project's effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the County in light of testimony . . . describing the inherent dangers of Soda Canyon Road . . . . [and] that approval of the Project would increase the risk of fire and significantly impact rescue efforts." In dismissing these claims, the Board stated: "No credible evidence was put forward that the addition of another winery along Soda Canyon Road will significantly increase the risk of fire or significantly hinder rescue efforts. Neighbors' opinion[s] that winery visitors will cause traffic congestion during a fire is not supported by fact. Generalized fears and concerns about a project [do] not constitute substantial evidence. [Citations.] [¶] . . . In the event of a fire that results in mass evacuations from this area, the road has sufficient capacity and roadway width to accommodate all outgoing traffic while allowing incoming fire response units. In addition, most of Foss Valley in the vicinity of the Projectsite is now planted in vineyard, which significantly reduces the extent of wildland fire that can occur in the vicinity."

In September 2017, Soda Canyon Group (SCG)—an unincorporated association of Napa County residents and property owners, including the four individuals who appealed the Planning Commission's decision—filed a petition for writ of mandate in superior court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5¹ and Public Resources Code sections 21168 and 21168.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The petition named Napa County and the Board (collectively, the County) as respondents, and Mountain Peak Vineyards, Hua Yuan, and Eric Yuan² (collectively, Mountain Peak) as real parties in interest.

The petition raised three claims. First, SCG alleged the County failed to prepare an environmental impact report as required by Public Resources Code section 21067 of CEQA and thereby abused its discretion in adopting the negative declaration. Second, SCG argued the County's actions violated state planning and zoning laws (Gov. Code, § 65000 et seq.) because there was substantial evidence the Project was inconsistent and incompatible with numerous goals, policies, programs, and regulations contained in the County's general plan and Zoning Code. Third, SCG claimed the County's approval of the Project violated county planning and zoning laws (Napa County Code, § 18.124.070) because there was substantial evidence the Project's operation would adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare of County residents. SCG's prayer for relief sought a peremptory writ directingthe County to set aside its adoption of the negative declaration and approval of the use permit, and to fully comply with CEQA, state planning and zoning laws, and the Napa County Code before taking subsequent action to approve the Project.

On October 8, 2017, prior to a hearing on the merits, Napa County was beset by the Atlas Fire, which burned tens of thousands of acres including Soda Canyon Road and surrounding properties including portions of the Mountain Peak parcel. Shortly after, SCG filed a motion requesting, in part, that the trial court augment the administrative record with new evidence pertaining to the Atlas Fire (§ 1094.5, subd. (e)) and remand the matter to the County for reconsideration in light thereof.

In brief, the proffered Atlas Fire evidence concerned the difficulties that residents living in the vicinity of Soda Canyon Road experienced when trying to evacuate during the fire, as well as the harm the fire caused to the people and property in that area. For example, the evidence showed that during the Atlas Fire, a tree fell on lower Soda Canyon Road and blocked 15 to 20 people fleeing the fire in their cars. On upper Soda Canyon Road, fire blocked the only escape route down Soda Canyon Road, and there was a chaotic traffic jam at the intersection of the Project site as residents and vineyard workers tried to get out. People retreated to nearby vineyards and property for safety, and a helicopter evacuated dozens of people. In the end, the Atlas Fire destroyed 118 of the 163 residences on Soda Canyon Road and damaged 16 others. SCG argued this new evidence showed the Project's proposed location was inappropriate given the danger of fire in the area and access constraints. SCG asked the trial court to remand the matter to the County or Board to reconsider its decision approving the use permit in light of such evidence.

Without deciding the merits of the petition, and over opposition by both the County and Mountain Peak, the trial court granted SCG's motion to augment the administrative record with some of the Atlas Fire evidence, indicating it would remand the matter to the Board to reconsider its earlier decision.³ After a separate hearing, the court determined which specific pieces of evidence were to supplement the administrative record for consideration by the Board. In its order, the court stated "it would be most efficient to remand the matter to the County prior to the administrative mandamus hearing. If the County affirms its decision, the matter will return to the trial court for hearing. If not, the matter will proceed accordingly." Mountain Peak and the County filed separate writ petitions challenging the remand order (case nos. A158071 & A158076), which this court summarily denied. Mountain Peak also filed a notice of appeal from the remand order.

Prior to the filing of any appellate briefs or the record, SCG moved to dismiss the appeal. We deferred ruling on SCG's motion pending our consideration of the merits of the appeal, and we instructed the parties to address in their appellate briefs whether the order challenged on appeal is a final, appealable order under the holding in Dhillon v. John Muir Health (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1109,...