The Winery Ordinance Ruling and Private Roads

Last week we reported that the legal challenge to the Tiered Winery Ordinance by the San Diego Citizenry Group (SDCG) had been rejected by the Superior Court. The group has 60 days to appeal the court’s decision. As of the day following the court’s ruling, their lawyers would say only that they disagreed with the decision and were considering their options.

Carol Angus, president of the citizenry group, has not responded to requests by Ramona Patch for a statement. The group’s website appears to have been taken off the Internet.

One issue that motivated some people to oppose the ordinance was the question of legal liability of the owners of private roads. Many of the Ramona Valley wineries are on private roads or would require traveling on private roads to reach them.

The citizenry group's website had stated that, “We who live on private roads must pay for the upkeep of these roads and are legally liable for anything that happens on them.” It went on to warn of “traffic congestion and potentially dangerous driving conditions” if the ordinance was allowed to stand.

On April 15, Superior Court Judge Timothy Taylor ruled in favor of the county after reviewing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared in support of the ordinance. The 5,000-word document included feedback from groups and individuals representing all sides on the issue of wineries in unincorporated areas of the county.

Taylor’s ruling commented briefly on issues raised in the lawsuit, including private roads.

“The court finds the county adequately addressed road impacts, including private road impacts,” he wrote.

At a hearing the day before his ruling, Judge Taylor noted that the official record on the lawsuit, including the EIR, constituted three boxes of documentation.

The documentation included notes from numerous hearings before the and the Board of Supervisors as well as meetings with county planners.

Private roads are noncounty maintained roads, said Carolyn Harris, legal counsel for Ramona Valley Vineyard Association (RVVA). An individual property owner living on a private road is considered to own the property out to the middle of the road, Harris said. That individual owner is considered to have an “easement” for “ingress and egress,” i.e., to go from his/her property to other places along the road. That easement extends to people who pass through on the way elsewhere.

The private roads affected by the ordinance are on land zoned for agriculture. That zoning includes uses such as growing crops, packing and processing crops and limited sales of crops. The Tiered Winery Ordinance added growing grapes and processing and limited sales of wine.

“Any easement owner owes a duty to those who use the easement to maintain it in a safe condition that serves the purpose for which the easement is granted,”said Harris. Therefore the duty of the owners of such property accessed by a private road is the same without regard for the purpose of the use of the road, “whether it is to deliver a load of hay, attend a yard sale, visit Aunt Amy, make a purchase at a farm stand, or visit a winery,” said Harris.

In discussing numerous hearings and testimony offered by both sides on the question of the ordinance, Harris said, “In fact, neither the San Diego Citizenry Group nor the winery owners have identified a single instance of a situation where owners of properties neighboring wineries have suffered any heightened liability as a result of the winery use of the property.”

She also said the RVVA had surveyed insurance companies and underwriters who handled coverage for agricultural operations and wineries to determine whether there was a heightened liability for wineries on noncounty maintained roads. She said the companies had found no evidence of any.

A “final draft” of the EIR, including appendices for comments and responses, is online at the county website. A hard copy of the report is available at the office of the Department of Planning and Land Use on Ruffin Road.