Winery Ordinance Update

Here’s the latest on the status of San Diego Citizenry Group vs. County of San Diego, the lawsuit challenging the county’s Tiered Winery Ordinance.  

On March 1, I spoke with James O’Day, Senior Deputy County Counsel, who is representing the county in the suit, which is being heard in San Diego County Superior Court. In a previous column I’d mentioned that a hearing had been scheduled in the suit on April 14.

While warning of the limits on discussing pending litigation O’Day told me the hearing is still on for the 14th. He also told me that it was possible the court could issue what’s called a “tentative ruling” the day before the hearing, indicating in effect  how the bench was leaning on the subject. O’Day said this is “a way for the court to focus the issues for the two parties.”  Then 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 could issue a final ruling at the end of the hearing,  O’Day said, or he could take the two parties’ arguments “under submission” to consider for a ruling on a later date.  

Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is one of the main issues in the lawsuit. O’Day said CEQA cases are always complex, with each party differing over how much has been done under the act to lay out environmental risks and possible mitigation of those risks.

CEQA also requires efforts toward possible settlement.  O’Day said, “There have been settlement discussions and at least one meeting” between the parties  but no agreement was reached. “I’m not anticipating a settlement at this time,” he said.

O’Day said that CEQA also provides what he called “an accelerated schedule for resolution” to allow parties in such suits “some degree of certainty in a reasonable time.” So he hoped the case would move reasonably quickly.

On March 2  I contacted the Coast Law Group (CLG), which is representing the plaintiffs, San Diego Citizenry Group. Chris Polychron, who is handling the case for CLG, was  away for the week. I spoke instead to Marco Gonzalez, who, like Polychron, is a managing partner at CLG, who is also familiar with the case.

Gonzalez agreed that a tentative ruling is a possibility. On whether a final ruling would be issued the day of the hearing, Gonzalez said, “It’s hard to say. It depends on how much effort they put into the tentative.”

Regarding settlement discussions, Gonzalez said, “We believe the issues we are focusing on are precedent for how the county may do things in the future.” So they were not willing to budge much in discussions. The other side felt the same way, he said.

I asked for an example of those kinds of precedent issues, and Gonzalez said, “Other types of uses they [the county] may approve as a right” in the future, as they have approved of winemaking in the Tiered Winery Ordinance.

Gonzalez also said he thought a final ruling would come within no more than two weeks following the hearing, citing the CEQA requirements for resolution.