By Barry Eberling | Napa Valley Register | Sep 6, 2024 |
Napa County winery clashes in local and federal courts this past week raised the same question — are the rules legitimate attempts to protect agriculture from over-commercialization or illegal business-busters?
One case is in Napa County Superior Court. The county sued Hoopes winery in 2022 for allegedly hosting visitors illegally and other violations. On Friday, Judge Mark Boessenecker heard an attempt by Hoopes to have the case dismissed, though he hadn’t announced a decision by the time the courthouse closed to the public.
The other case is new and is in federal court. Hoopes and two other wineries filed suit Thursday to try to overturn county restrictions on how many visitors they can host for tastings and events, the county’s 75% grape rule and other restrictions.
Here is what happened on both fronts:
Hoopes case in Napa County Superior Court
The Hoopes trial took place in February and Boessenecker has yet to announce a verdict. On Friday, Boessenecker heard Hoopes’ attempt to have him dismiss the case.
Lindsay Hoopes of the winery is an attorney and presented her own case. She described how new information has arisen since the trial.
Residents submitted to Hoopes versions of the county’s winery database from 2012 and 2015. These charts of all county wineries and their entitlements show the Hoopes winery as being able to have tastings by appointment. Subsequent versions show no tastings allowed.
According to Lindsay Hoopes, the county should have submitted this information before the trial.
In addition, Lindsay Hoopes said, her side suspected from testimony during the trial that the county hadn’t submitted all requested, relevant information during discovery. The winery submitted a public records request to the county in February and this summer the county provided more than 4,000 pages of information.
“Why the county opted to produce them after the trial, only the county can answer,” Lindsay Hoopes said.
Lindsay Hoopes claimed the new information casts doubts on county assertions that the winery cannot have by-appointment visitors. Rather, she said, it suggests the county’s interpretation has changed over the years and raises the question of which interpretation is correct.
Attorney Geoffrey Spellberg on behalf of the county said there is no legal basis for the court to dismiss the case before a verdict is delivered. He also said the databases have errors and don’t create winery entitlements.
A court filing by the county accuses Hoopes winery of making a “backdoor effort” to augment the trial record. Spellberg during the hearing also accused the Hoopes side of trying to garner media attention for the new, federal lawsuit.
The county’s position is Hoopes winery, which was established under a small winery exemption program, would have to obtain a use permit to host visitors. That could prove costly if Hoopes had to upgrade its wastewater system.
The federal lawsuit
Hoopes is also involved in the newly filed federal lawsuit, along with Summit Lake and Smith-Madrone wineries.
County laws are based on an “ever-changing patchwork of undocumented ‘polices’ and procedures.” Wineries can’t decipher what is and is not allowed, the filing said.
“Napa County’s actions have violated numerous Constitutional rights of county wineries, including plaintiffs, and it is time they end,” the filing said.
Among the regulations being challenged are the visitation restrictions and the requirement that wine production entitled after 1990 must use at least 75% county grapes. The lawsuit considers the grape restriction to be unlawful economic protectionism.
Napa County officials early Thursday afternoon said they can’t comment on the lawsuit, as the county had yet to be formally served with the complaint. But the county stated its position on its rules in the 2022 lawsuit it filed against Hoopes winery for allegedly hosting visitors illegally.
The county seeks to protect the Agricultural Preserve where farming is to be the dominant use, the county said in that lawsuit.
“Because most commercial uses and services are directly at odds with this agricultural purpose, permissible land use in the agricultural preserve district, even at Napa County’s most famous wineries, are quite limited and are carefully spelled out in the county’s zoning code,” it said.
Attorney Joseph Infante of Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone is representing the three wineries in the federal lawsuit.
“We have seen the same sort of restrictions Napa County has put in place in other jurisdictions around the country and those wineries who have finally had enough with the government overreach have been very successful in having federal courts strike down unconstitutional ordinances,” Infante said in a news release.
Infante has represented wineries in Peninsula Township, Michigan, that are trying to overturn winery regulations there. The township has said the rules are designed to protect agriculture.
There had been talk in Napa Valley for several months that the Michigan attorneys had approached Napa County wineries about filing a similar lawsuit. One vintner mentioned this at a county Board of Supervisors meeting during public comments.
Napa County’s winery world is highly regulated. Wineries obtain use permits, usually after Planning Commission hearings, that stipulate how much wine they can produce, how many visitors they can host and how many events they can hold.
But the rules have changed over several decades. That leaves some wineries with rights grandfathered in that other wineries don’t have, depending on when the winery was established.
A landmark came with the 1990 winery definition ordinance. It does such things as require tasting room visitation to be by appointment-only and 75% of wine production to use Napa County grapes. This applies only to rights granted subsequent to the ordinance.
The three wineries in the lawsuit are all in different situations.
Smith-Madrone was established by a use permit in the early 1970s at 4022 Spring Mountain Road near St. Helena. The lawsuit says the use permit allows for no drop-in visitation, but allows by-appointment tasting and event visitation with no restrictions mentioned.
However, vintner Stuart Smith last fall said he looked at the county’s winery database and found it stated his winery is limited to zero visitors daily but 10 visitors weekly.
“This is insane government overreach. Kafka would be pleased,” Smith said in the news release.
The Summit Lake and Hoopes cases are different. Both were established in the 1980s under the county’s now-defunct small winery exemption program. According to Napa County, applicants in the program in return for streamlining agreed to such limits as 20,000 gallons of annual wine production and no visitors.
But both wineries have had visitors for years and don’t concede they are barred from by-appointment only visitation. Napa County says they must obtain use permits to do so legally.
Summit Lake winery is located at 2000 Summit Lake Drive near Angwin. It owners say to obtain a use permit, the winery would be required to improve a private road at a cost of $1 million. That is due to the county’s interpretation of state-imposed road standards in fire-prone areas.
If Summit Lake had visitor rights dating back to the 1980s, it would not have to make road improvements.
“We are a small family-owned business trying to protect our constitutional rights,” said Heather Brakesman-Griffin of the winery in the news release.
Hoopes winery is located at 6204 Washington St. near Yountville.
