 |
|
|
|
|
County approves permit to legalize Mountain Winery
By Kara Chalmers
The historic Mountain Winery can continue doing what it's been doing for more than 40 years--and from now on, it will be doing it legally.
Previous owners of the winery, which began hosting its summer concert series in 1958, never obtained a permit from Santa Clara County for all the events that take place, from weddings to business meetings to concerts. County zoning laws allow these events at the site, as long as they have a conditional-use permit.
The Santa Clara County Planning Commission granted the winery's applications for such a permit and for architectural and site approval at a public hearing March 2. The use permit will legalize the current activities and buildings on the property, but it will not allow any new uses. If the commission had not approved the use permit, activities such as the concerts might have ended.
The current owners wanted to get through the permit process before they planned for expansion and improvements, according to one of the winery's four owners, Bill Hirschman. He said he was glad that the commission understood the partners' plans for the winery, and said the conditions imposed on the approvals were OK with him.
Although the applications were approved with some strings attached--conditions governing the number of concerts and events, attendees per event and parking places--they are nothing that the owners and winery officials can't handle. The conditions include limiting the number of events at the winery to 75 per season (May through September), keeping other events--like weddings and corporate events--at 450 per year with up to 500 attendees, and 36 more of these events at capacity (1,750). There may be only 844 parking spaces, and the curfew is to remain what it is now--10:30 p.m. on weeknights and 11 p.m. on weekends.
"We're pleased with the decision and we think it's the appropriate one for the community," said Nancy Bussani, president of the Mountain Winery, who was also at the hearing. Bussani and the partners can now begin planning the reconfiguration and expansion of the winery's concert bowl and other improvements, which will take about two years to complete, she said.
Winery officials are proposing an increase in the number of seats in the concert bowl from 1,750 to 2,500. They also want to build new performer bungalows and relocate the site's kitchen, which means expanding the winery building by 1,500 square feet. The owners must go through an architectural and site approval again when they decide on expansion designs, so no changes will happen anytime soon.
Winery officials filed the applications with the county last year. Although part of the winery is in Saratoga, the winery building, parking lot and concert bowl are on unincorporated county land.
A consultant selected by the county prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) last November. The Mountain Winery's Kristine Syskowski, who has been in charge of the permit process, said the document was designed to help inform the decision-makers and the public of any effects that would occur with the approval of a permit. According to the EIR, none of the possible effects are significant.
Mayor Stan Bogosian, speaking on behalf of the City Council at the hearing, said the city supports the concert venue, and believes it is an asset for the community. However, he said he was disappointed that the final EIR, which was completed March 1, did not address the points raised in the city's January letter to the commission--namely traffic, noise, trails and parking. He said he was pleased with the conditions.
In December, when the planning commission first considered the draft EIR, Bogosian said he thought the city should annex the winery, since winery traffic and noise almost exclusively affects Saratoga. The Mountain Winery property totals 580 acres, 75 of which are in Saratoga, but access to the property is by way of Pierce Road, a Saratoga roadway that is affected by winery-associated traffic.
Annexation would allow the city to better regulate and monitor the winery, and allow decisions to be made locally, Bogosian said. Saratoga would also receive revenue from the facility's property taxes and sales taxes generated from the facility's restaurant, the Chateau La Cresta.
Bogosian said during a March 2 interview that he indicated through various channels that the door is always open to discuss annexation with the winery owners. He said the invitation has been extended, but he has heard nothing from them. He thinks they would like to get through the permit process with the county first.
"I think annexation would make a lot of sense for this site," he said. "We remain supportive of the concept of a concert venue up there, but there are concerns that some residents have expressed about its operation."
Two of the seven county planning commissioners, Terry Trumbull and Chuck Reed, voted against the project. Trumbull said he was concerned about the adequacy of the EIR and that the commission would be conceptually approving the winery's expansion. Reed said he had concerns about safety on Pierce Road, since an increase in traffic would impact the pedestrians, horses and cars that already use the road extensively.
Four members of the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts asked if the county could require the winery to dedicate two trail easements on the property, as a condition for approving the use permit. But, according to Hirschman, he and his partners already volunteered to grant the easement for one of the trails--the Juan Bautista deAnza national historic trail--to run through their property. The other trail is on city of Saratoga land, so Hirschman replied that a county planning commission meeting was not the appropriate place to address that trail easement.
Since the EIR became public Nov. 1, many Saratoga city officials and residents responded to it, in writing and in person, at the December hearing. Many expressed concerns about the traffic-impacts section, and the document's failure to address the trails. Others said they thought that the EIR is ambiguous about future expansion.
|
|
|
|
Saratoga, California Since 1955
