Napa County upholds William Cole winery ruling allowing more production, visitors

An appeal over the William Cole winery's ability to expand and welcome more visitors ended up being as much about Napa County as the winery itself.

The county Board of Supervisors on Tuesday tentatively denied the appeal and upheld Planning Commission approval of winery requests, with a final vote scheduled for Dec. 3. That will legalize William Cole violations and allow increased wine production and visitation.

Water Audit California filed the appeal to the Board of Supervisors. Attorney William McKinnon showed a slide that summed up the group's concerns.

"It's the process, not the project," the slide said.

That's a claim the group has made in the past regarding other proposed projects in the county. McKinnon said there is a "habitual problem" with the way Napa County processes project applications.

"Your job is as the lead agency is to make sure this process runs fairly. ... Other people are counting on you to do that," McKinnon said.

Among other claims, Water Audit's appeal argued the county didn't require a complete project application, failed to properly circulate the project documents to state and regulatory agencies, failed to document the water source, and failed to incorporate Cal Fire recommendations in the approval.

Napa County planning staff rebutted the claims.

For example, staff said Cal Fire mistakenly thought a barn would be converted to have a second-floor tasting room. The barn has a single floor to be used for production, fermentation, barrel storage, aging and bottling only, not as public space.

The appeal hearing saw several members of the public step to the microphone. Among them was vintner Lee Hudson, who urged supervisors to deny the Water Audit California appeal.

"We need to stop this five-year, $1 million process that happens to so many applicants," he said.

Angwin resident Kellie Anderson said she's had trouble finding details of some proposed projects. She recalled cases when she said state agencies didn't know about local projects to offer comments.

"It's conceivable the process is broken, that steps are aren't always taken," she said.

County Supervisor Alfredo Pedroza focused on whether the Cole winery has adequate water supplies. He was satisfied with staff's answers.

Otherwise, supervisors offered no comments on the Water Audit California appeal and said nothing specifically about the charges that the county process is flawed.

Contacted on Wednesday, Joelle Gallagher, chair of the Board of Supervisors, said she cannot talk about the William Cole case on the advice of county counsel. That's because the quasi-judicial matter is under submission awaiting a final vote.

But Gallagher, who served on the Planning Commission for six years before becoming a supervisor in 2023, fielded a general question. Asked whether she thinks the county staff provides enough information to make informed planning decisions, she replied: "Yes, absolutely."

William and Jane Ballentine operate the William Cole winery, which is based in an 1873 stone building near St. Helena. The winery participated in the county's 2018 program that allowed wineries with violations to step forward voluntarily to try to legalize their situations.

William Cole winery was permitted to produce 20,000 gallons of wine annually and produced 22,000 gallons. It was permitted to host 705 tasting and marketing guests annually and hosted 1,381.

The Planning Commission on May 1 voted to legalize the violations. It also agreed the winery could produce up to 30,000 gallons, host up to 6,800 guests and make other improvements, though it hinged some of those allowances on staying within its newly legalized limits for three years.

PHOTOS: American Canyon defeats Justin-Siena 49-14 in high school football