Hoopes Vineyard gives its side in legal dispute with Napa County over visitation

Hoopes Vineyard winery and Napa County are locked in a legal dispute about visitation at the winery, with Hoopes getting off some salvos of its own.

The county on Oct. 20 filed a lawsuit against Hoopes in Napa County Superior Court. It alleged the winery south of Yountville allows tours and tastings illegally, and violates county rules in other ways.

Hoopes took a different view in both a response and a cross-complaint, calling the alleged violations "non-existent." It challenged not only whether Napa County is correctly applying the rules, but also whether some of those rules are constitutional.

"At the heart of the controversy is whether Napa County can render valueless a lawful, operating business — a winery — from doing what a winery does through arbitrary, vague and unintelligible rules, leaving no room for compliance," the cross-complaint said.

Elsewhere, the cross-complaint stated it seeks to "put and end to the abuse, harassment and overreach in which the county seeks to apply something — albeit not the law."

Napa County caps the maximum annual wine production and visitation at each winery. It regulates what activities each winery can have, banning such offerings as restaurant-like food service.

The goal as stated in the county lawsuit against Hoopes is to keep agriculture the dominant use in the agricultural preserve.

"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," the county's lawsuit said.

The Hoopes case focuses on the "small winery exemption" permits that the county issued in the 1980s. As the county describes it, those wineries, in return for streamlined approvals, agreed to limit wine production to 20,000 gallons annually and have no tours, tastings or social events of a public nature.

A previous owner established the winery at 6204 Washington St. in 1984 with a small winery exemption. The Hoopes family, which has grown grapes in the county for four decades, bought this former Hopper Creek winery in 2017.

"Hoopes owned vineyards in Napa, but needed a winery to make direct-to-consumer sales to make its business sustainable.... Hoopes searched for an entitled property so that it could lawfully make direct sales," the cross-complaint said.

The small winery exemption allows for selling wine from the winery. According to the cross-complaint, county officials told Hoopes that it could provide samples to encourage purchase, but not charge for the tastings.

Hoopes relied on those statements, complied with them and continued investing in the winery, the cross-complaint said. The business spent $1 million remodeling the winery, mainly for deferred maintenance and to bring it up to current codes.

According to the county lawsuit, Hoopes charges an "experience fee" for guests to spend an hour on the property, as well as an hourly "timed table" fee for each guest, which are then discounted for food and beverages purchased.

To the extent the fees are not "transparent stand-ins for tours and tastings" not permitted with small winery exemptions, they are commercial activities not permitted in the agricultural preserve, the county's lawsuit said.

Hoopes responded it requires a minimum wine purchase to remain on the property for any length of time. It denied this business model is a stand-in for tours and tastings.

At one point, the cross-complaint quoted a section of Napa County code regulating wineries and called it "unconstitutionally vague."

"Hoopes does not understand this rule, which is objectively unintelligible," the cross-complaint said.

Hoopes in its cross-complaint questioned whether certain aspects of Napa County code applies to its situation in the way the county claims. Also, it questioned whether certain rules comply with the United States and California constitutions.

The winery asked the court to keep the county from interfering with what it called its rights to sell wine and allow guests to consume wine. It asked for compensatory damages and attorney fees.

Napa County, in contrast, asked the court to bring the property into compliance with county code and impose a fine of $1,000 per alleged violation per day, as well as additional penalties. The filing didn't total up the requested fines.

An October 2019 report explained the small winery exemption permit situation in general from the county's point of view.

The county issued such permits to 34 wineries in the 1980s. The restrictions cannot accommodate the direct-to-consumer business models that most wineries have been required to adopt, the report said.

As a result, wineries with such exemptions that want to increase production beyond 20,000 gallons annually or allow for tasting room visitation or marketing events must apply for a use permit, it said.

"This can be a lengthy and expensive process, that may require bringing older facilities up to current development standards, all of which can be a significant financial impact to small wineries," the report said.

The Board of Supervisors subsequently voted to include those small winieres under a new streamlining law designed to cut some of the red tape of obtaining use permits.

The county's lawsuit and the Hoopes legal filings delve into other issues. For example, the county alleged Lindsay Hoopes organized Hoopes LLC as a device to illegally avoid individual liability and that the two are "alter egos." Hoopes claimed Lindsay Hoopes is only one managing member of the limited liability company.