Court Upholds Tiered Winery Ordinance

The Superior Court on Friday threw out the lawsuit challenging San Diego County’s Tiered Winery Ordinance.

The Board of Supervisors passed the ordinance in August 2010, creating new categories of wineries with graded rights and limits, such as boutique and small wineries. The goal was to help small, predominantly family-owned operations such as those in the Ramona Valley.

In September 2010, Coast Legal Group (CLG) brought a lawsuit on behalf of the San Diego Citizenry Group (SDCG), whose president is a Ramona resident, Carol Angus. The lawsuit claimed the ordinance violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

In his ruling Friday, Judge Timothy Taylor wrote: “The court finds that the case lacks merit, and therefore denies same. The court also orders petitioner to pay the cost of preparation of the extensive administrative record.”

A hearing on the issue took place Thursday in Taylor’s courtroom, Department C-72 of the Superior Court on East Broadway in downtown San Diego.

Readers may recall a previous column in which I quoted both sides in the suit indicating that the court might possibly issue a “tentative ruling” the day before the hearing. Lawyers on both sides explained that a tentative ruling indicates how the bench is leaning on the subject. This is a way for the court to “focus the issues for the two parties,” in the words of one lawyer.  At the hearing, the attorneys for the two sides would then seek to present cases either supporting the tentative ruling or trying to convince the court to reconsider.

The judge did indeed issue a tentative ruling in favor of the county.

At the Friday hearing, both parties were given time to plead their cases, based on the points laid out in the tentative ruling, which covered six pages.

Attorney Chris Polychron of Coast Legal Group, representing San Diego Citizenry Group, led the presentation for the petitioners. Deputy County Counsel James O’Day then presented the case for the county of San Diego, followed by a rebuttal time for the citizenry group.

After the rebuttal, Judge Taylor announced he was taking both parties’ arguments under submission, thanking them both “for all the thoughtful arguments offered today.” He said he would issue a ruling as soon as possible.

He issued the final ruling Friday in favor of the county.

At the heart of the case was the question of the county’s compliance with CEQA, which involved preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In his ruling, Judge Taylor cited established case law to show that the county had complied with CEQA guidelines.

“Having reviewed the EIR,” wrote Taylor in his ruling,” the court finds that it suffices as an informational document. The Board of Supervisors was, by the EIR, adequately informed about the consequences of its decisions. The public (including petitioner) was provided with adequate information regarding the decisions of their elected leaders. That is where the judicial inquiry under CEQA ends; any further remedy for petitioner (or those who share its views regarding wineries in the backcountry of San Diego County) lies at the ballot box when the Supervisors stand for re-election.”

“We’re pleased,” said Carolyn Harris, lawyer and general counsel for Ramona Valley Vineyard Association (RVVA). “We look forward to opening more tasting rooms and hosting our neighbors in San Diego County for sampling our wines.”

Chris Polychron of CLG said, “We’re obviously disappointed with the judge’s decision. We think he got it wrong. We’re considering our options.”

Harris noted that SDCG has 30 days to appeal the decision. It could happen, she said, but she didn’t want to speculate. She didn’t expect the RVVA to issue a formal statement.

“We’re just going to move on,” Harris said.

Still, she said that the wine community realized that the ruling was “a big deal. The ordinance has survived judicial review.”