Tesseron winery backed for former Napa estate of Robin Williams
The Tesseron family filed an application to the county for a winery on Wall Road, at the border of Napa and Sonoma counties. The winery would operated in a yet-to-bebuilt wine cave, produce up to 20,000 gallons annually, and host no guests.
On July 2, the Napa County Planning Commission granted approval on a 4-0 vote.
“Well done,” Commissioner Pete Richmond said. “This is a model project that benefits the environment.”
The Tesserons make Pym-Rae wine from grapes grown on the property in the Mount Veeder appellation. The name comes from the time when Williams, who died in 2014, owned the vineyard and derives from the middle names of his children.
The wine is made in Angwin on the other side of Napa Valley. Commissioner Kara Brunzell said making wine on-site will eliminate the grape hauling.
As it has with many winery applications over the past couple of years, Water Audit California filed a letter alleging that Napa County planning staff failed to do its due diligence. But the group didn’t expect any results.
“Our experience over the last years is that our comments have been disregarded and demeaned,” Water Audit California’s general counsel William McKinnon wrote.
The letter was written for the record “to benefit a later judicial process that may fairly consider its comments,” he added.
There are no tests for a spring or well monitoring data in the agenda packet, the water availability analysis considered only the spring, and the water availability analysis wasn’t peer-reviewed, McKinnon wrote, among other alleged deficiencies.
A water availability analysis observation on the spring that cited the landowner as its source is “a faith-based assertion,” he argued. McKinnon delved into the water history of the property, using documents going back decades.
“The concept of ‘fact’ is unique in Napa,” McKinnon wrote. “Neither the testimony of the applicant’s representatives or witnesses or the submission of documents is made under penalty of perjury. In short, Napa Planning is a version of the game ‘liar’s poker.’”
Water Audit California advocates for the public trust that protects waterways. As a result of its experiences with the county, it has expanded that mission to ensure integrity in governmental processes that affect the environment, according to McKinnon.
In response, the county’s supervising planner Dana Morrison explained to the commission why she believed it had the necessary, accurate information with which to make a decision. For example, she used a map and photos to show why she believed no ephemeral stream exists near the cave site.
Attorney Rob Anglin on behalf of the Tesserons also addressed the Water Audit California letter.
“They find fault where there is none,” he said. “They assert requirements like peer review that aren’t actual requirements.”
Napa County isn’t unique in not requiring testimony under the penalty of perjury for Planning Commission decisions, Anglin said.
“We’re not in court,” he said. “That’s not how things work.”
Richmond took issue with Water Audit California’s claims that the county disregards and demeans the group’s comments.
“This commission takes these hearings very seriously,” he said. “… I am concerned by a comment like that about (commissioners) who are giving their time for public service.”
With that, the disagreement between Water Audit California and Napa County continued. Water Audit California has appealed several Planning Commission decisions to the county Board of Supervisors, though to date the board has denied the appeals.