Originally posted in the SF Chronicle
Jess Lander | Sep. 8, 2023 |
Napa winery Hoopes Vineyard has been locked in a four-year legal battle with Napa County over its right to host wine tastings. Now, two additional Napa Valley wineries — Smith-Madrone and Summit Lake Vineyards — have joined Hoopes in a lawsuit that calls the county’s enforcement of winery regulations into question.
The new motions, filed in Napa County Superior Court on Thursday, illustrate mounting frustration against the county, which has notably increased its winery code enforcement efforts in recent years.
Napa County did not immediately respond to the San Francisco Chronicle’s request for comment.
Hoopes, Smith-Madrone and Summit Lake all fit into a small category of wineries established before 1990, the year that Napa County enacted sweeping winery regulations as part of the Winery Definition Ordinance. These wineries believe their right to offer tastings by appointment is grandfathered in and claim that they have hosted visitors for decades without issue. But recently, Napa County has stated that it’s illegal for them to do so.
The county claims that tastings and tours are not, in fact, entitled under the small winery exemption permits issued before 1990 — and in order to offer them, wineries need to apply for a new use permit. This can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and take years to get approved.
In addition, the wineries say Napa County’s enforcement of this issue has been inconsistent, as only some pre-1990 wineries have been cited.
Napa County sued Hoopes last October after sending the winery multiple code violation notices related to wine tastings and other alleged wrongdoings, such as hanging string lights and having an animal sanctuary.
Hoopes owner Lindsay Hoopes filed a cross-complaint against the county in May, stating that its claims of violations “do not exist, are not lawful, constitutional, or valid.” Hoopes alleged that Napa County has a history of serving wineries unlawful violations that push owners into applying for expensive permits that may not be necessary. She was alone on her soapbox, but not anymore.
Napa’s Hoopes Vineyard is embroiled in a four-year dispute with Napa County over alleged permit violations.
Located in Angwin on Napa Valley’s Howell Mountain, Summit Lake Vineyards claims it hosted tastings for nearly 40 years under its small winery use permit exemption issued in 1984. According to the lawsuit, Summit Lake never received a violation notice from Napa County until 2019, when the winery pursued a use permit modification in order to increase its wine production. Napa County informed Summit Lake that it had been “out of compliance … in operating to receive guests for wine consumption and tastings,” the lawsuit said.
After discovering that a permit modification approval would cost upwards of $1 million, Summit Lake ultimately pulled its application. But according to the claim, the county told the winery that regardless of maintaining its production volume, it still needed to apply for a new permit — or cease tasting operations.
Four year later, the issue remains unresolved. In the lawsuit, Summit Lake states that the current permit application requirement will “shutter the business.”
Spring Mountain’s Smith-Madrone, meanwhile, is seeking clarity. Over the course of 50-plus years, the winery said it has never received a notice of violation for hosting tastings or marketing events, despite recent public statements that both are prohibited under the small winery exemption. Napa County is also well aware of Smith-Madrone’s operations, the lawsuit said, because past marketing events “have been reported in the news and attended by Napa Valley politicians, including members of the Board of Supervisors.”
In the lawsuit, Smith-Madrone co-owner Stu Smith points to inconsistencies in the county’s enforcement of the issue. Some pre-1990 wineries have been cited — and even sued — by the county, but not others; he also recently discovered that the county’s public winery database states that Smith-Madrone is limited to hosting 10 visitors per week and is not permitted to put on marketing events. (The database states that Summit Lake can’t host visitors or events at all.)
Smith has not sought clarity from the county “out of fear,” according to the lawsuit, as the winery “may not survive as a business” if its ability to host tastings and events is revoked.
Thursday’s filing comes two days after another Napa winery, cult Cabernet Sauvignon brand Hundred Acre, sued Napa County over water rights. Hundred Acre owner Jayson Woodbridge also sued the county last year after receiving a code violation for planting an experimental vineyard; at the time, Woodbridge spoke to the Chronicle about “a rising tide of anger” against the county among Napa’s wine industry.
Small wineries established after 1990 have battled the county for years, advocating for a streamlined and affordable permitting process that would allow them to host tastings and sell their wines. While the Micro-Winery Definition Ordinance was established in 2022, not a single permit has been issued since, according to a VinePair article.
“We’re joining this lawsuit because we have hit a dead end and have no other viable options,” said Summit Lake co-owner Heather Griffin in a press release. The county is “putting an undue burden on the small family-owned-and-operated wineries that the Napa Valley was built on, and it’s killing us off one by one.”