Guest Column: Winery ordinance should address more than music

This column has been edited for length and clarity. It is from a letter sent to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors concerning proposed changes to the original winery ordinance regulations. 

We understand that San Diego County staff is following a narrow direction as prescribed by the Board of Supervisors, to address only the music issue at wineries in its recent Boutique Winery ordinance revision.

What we consider promotion and marketing to draw people into our tasting rooms to buy wines, the county seems to consider as “illegal events.”  

Those restrictions have damaging consequences for our local wine industry, agricultural economy and rural communities. Many small wineries in the county are already struggling. The number of active tasting rooms has declined and some long-standing family vineyards have ceased production.

Those losses have already been occurring and the lack of help from the county runs counter to the state’s supported agritourism initiatives designed to protect farming.

These comments need to come to the attention of the Board of Supervisors, since they have tied staff’s hands to only one task, allowing music at wineries.

Agencies such as University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, California Grown and California Department of Food and Agriculture actively promote agritourism as a vital tool to keep working farms viable. Their programs support activities such as wine tastings, art classes, farm-to-table dinners, vineyard tours, and seasonal festivals — many of which the county’s ordinance restricts or eliminates. 

The state’s “Experience California Agriculture” initiative showcases these offerings, underscoring that agritourism not only preserves farmland but also draws tourism revenue, creates jobs and fosters public connection to agriculture.

Restricting these activities at the county level undermines years of coordinated state investment and leadership in promoting agritourism as a sustainable economic driver for rural communities.

Limiting seating on winery patios to 20 seats, and prohibiting classes and community meetings at wineries, for example, eliminates low-impact activities that keep rural properties viable. These events are exactly the kinds of experiences UC Agriculture and Natural Resources and the state Department of Food and Agriculture cite as keys to agritourism success and rural economic sustainability and should be allowed by right.

The inability to ticket events or hold private wine club gatherings undermines wineries’ ability to manage attendance, ensure safety and maintain essential loyalty programs. Ticketed wine dinners, tastings and live music are common in California agritourism and align with state promotional efforts.  

Ramona alone has over 45 licensed tasting rooms, many established under earlier “by right” expectations, only to find themselves subject to costly new commercial code requirements and should be grandfathered.  

Wineries are economic anchors for rural San Diego County. They preserve farmland, prevent sprawl, draw visitors and sustain dozens of interconnected small businesses. Limiting winery activities directly contradicts the state’s agritourism framework, which is designed to expand these very benefits.

San Diego’s wine regions have spent decades building a reputation for quality, sustainability and hospitality. Current proposed amendments to the winery ordinance risk dismantling that progress, undermining state-supported agritourism goals, and accelerating the decline of small, family-run wineries.

By aligning county policy with California’s proven agritourism strategies — allowing reasonable outdoor seating, cultural programming and member events while upholding existing county safety and noise standards — we can protect both our rural quality of life and the businesses that make it possible.

Elaine Lyttleton is co-owner of Hatfield Creek Vineyards and Winery in Ramona