Kirkland Ranch appeal

Attorney for the appellant argued the approved use is illegal under the Williamson Act and zoning code, the categorical exemption was improper CEQA review, and the farmworker unit lacked evidentiary support.

Described the ranch's 60-year family history of hosting the community and outlined guest programs including story hour and an adopt-a-vine program.

Representing the Foothill Conservancy, argued this is really an RV park that would set precedent on Williamson Act land and required full environmental review, not a categorical exemption.

Ranch partner described the investments made, permitted improvements, fire-safety infrastructure, and the economic pressures facing Shenandoah Valley growers.

Amador Wine Grape Growers Association president said the board unanimously opposes the project, arguing only about 6% of the ranch is farmed and warning of RV parks becoming permanent trailer parks.

Former grape growers association president argued proliferation fears are speculation, defended the permitting process the Kirklands followed, and criticized the 11th-hour appeal.

Questioned whether the appellant did due diligence before buying and urged the Board to consider character and the pattern of bullying and lawsuit threats.

Seventh-generation rancher described the appellant's history of conflicts over marijuana grows in Washington counties and urged the Board to be cautious.

By Zoom, argued the only issue before the Board is the incremental impact of adding a few RV spaces to already-permitted uses, which she characterized as de minimis.

Environmental consultant for the ranch detailed the permitting history, disputed ground-disturbance and income claims, and asked the Board to deny the appeal.