 |
|
|
|
|
Supervisors Put Off Hearing For Two Appeals Of Mountain Winery
City might sue the county if supervisors certify EIR
Talks break down
By Kara Chalmers
Officials from the Mountain Winery and from the city of Saratoga met in the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisor's chambers on June 6, since negotiations on the winery's use permit and environmental impact report broke down during the past few weeks.
In March, after the county Planning Commission legalized the Saratoga facility with a use permit and certified the EIR for the winery's uses as a venue for concerts, weddings and other events, the city and the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts--a nonprofit advocacy organization for the city's trails--appealed the commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors. Before March, the Saratoga facility was operating without a use permit.
But the supervisors postponed the June 6 scheduled hearing on the two appeals, because both the city and the Trail Enthusiasts asked for more time to study new traffic data released by the county on June 1, according to Saratoga Mayor Stan Bogosian and Trail Enthusiasts.
The board took public testimony, but then continued the hearing to June 27. Some citizens who showed up to speak publicly at the hearing said they would hold their comments until June 27.
"There's a lot of new information," said Teri Lynn Baron from the Trail Enthusiasts. "There's a whole new traffic study that should have been included in the EIR in the first place."
Baron said she would study the new data so that the Trail Enthusiasts can make a comprehensive presentation at the next hearing. She said that a couple days was not enough time for the group to become familiar with the new information. City officials cited the same reason.
Ever since the county released the winery's draft EIR in October, city officials and neighbors of the winery have complained that it was inadequate, incomplete and, in some parts, flawed. They took issue with the sections on traffic specifically. A consultant selected by the county prepared the EIR.
The EIR studied the winery's impact on traffic during the weekday hours of 4 and 6 p.m. since, according to the county, this represents the worst-case scenario. Traffic impacts during winery event times, such as weekends, were not analyzed, because the counts would be smaller. The EIR found that traffic impacts, even with the proposed expansion, would not be significant enough to warrant mitigating measures.
When the final EIR came before the county Planning Commission for certification in March, the city lodged a formal complaint. The commission certified the EIR anyway, and granted the winery its use permit, which the county required so that the winery could legally hold events.
The use-permit application included a proposal that the planning commission approve, in concept, an expansion of the concert bowl from 1,750 to 2,500 seats. In the future, the planning commission will study more detailed environmental impacts of an expansion before making a decision. According to the city, the use-permit application should not have addressed any future expansion.
The commission placed some conditions on the permit, such as limits on the number of events and people attending them, a noise time limit of 10:30 p.m. on weekdays and 11 p.m. on weekends, and developing a gate and traffic management plan.
These conditions did not go far enough for the city and for the Trail Enthusiasts. In March, the city appealed the commission's decision on the grounds that the use permit should only pertain to current conditions at the winery, not future expansion. The Trails Enthusiasts appealed on the grounds that the EIR's traffic study was flawed. The EIR did not discuss how winery-associated traffic on Pierce Road adversely affects the bikers and equestrians who use the road. There is no trail that runs parallel to the road on winery property.
In its appeal, the city held that a trail easement on the property is warranted and asked that the noise limit be 10 p.m. for every concert, even weekend ones.
The new traffic data, with accident statistics, was compiled in time for the June 6 hearing by CH2M Hill, the county's environmental consultants who produced the EIR. The consultants examined whether the accidents on Pierce Road that occurred from 1996 through 1998 coincided with a winery event that 500 or more people attended. The study examined if there was a pattern.
During the three-year period, there have been 47 accidents on Pierce Road, but none resulted in a death, according to the data. Five of the accidents involved bicyclists and one a pedestrian. None involved an equestrian. The remaining 41 accidents involved either one or two cars.
According to the data, one of the accidents occurred when traffic from a concert would have been leaving the winery. Three accidents occurred in the mid-afternoon on concert days, but before the entrance gate opened, and one occurred the night of a concert, but an hour or so after cars had left the winery.
Interim city manager Bill Norton said that the data might be inaccurate and that the city's traffic engineer needs to examine the study and enumerate the mistakes he may find.
Norton, who has worked directly with winery president Nancy Bussani since the city filed the appeal, said he had hoped that the two sides would reach a settlement agreement before the June 6 hearing. Talks between the two groups broke down days before the hearing. Norton sent the city's final offer to the winery in a letter dated June 1. According to Norton, the letter contained specific suggestions concerning traffic, trails and noise and how the winery could mollify the city.
The city wants the winery to grant trail easements on the part of the property located in the city, as mitigation for the traffic that it says will increase because of the additional 750 seats for concerts. The city also wants the winery to consider not adding the extra seats.
"I think they're extremely reasonable proposals that they could implement very easily," Norton said of the city's suggestions.
According to him, the response from the winery was that they could not agree. Norton said that he hopes the winery has a change of heart. Then, the city would withdraw its appeal, he said.
"What we are seeking is for them to be good neighbors to the surrounding community, which is mostly the city of Saratoga," Norton said.
On June 27, the supervisors could uphold the appeals and thus deny the use permit; deny the appeals and allow the planning commission's holding to stand; reject certification of the EIR and send it back to county staff to add information; deny the appeals but place new conditions on the permit; or continue the hearing to the future to allow county staff to gather new information.
Norton said he met with Supervisor Joe Simitian, whose district includes Saratoga, and asked for his help.
According to Norton, the city would consider suing the county if the board upholds the planning commission's decision to certify the EIR, or if the board does not modify the EIR sufficiently that the city considers it complete.
Bussani, who said the winery sent its final compromise to the city on May 23, said the city's June 1 letter only served to put more distance between the city and the winery.
"I think we feel the ability to reach consensus is unlikely," Bussani said. She said she doesn't think the city and the winery will try to negotiate between now and June 27.
She said she would like the Board of Supervisors to deny the appeals and implement the Planning Commission's recommendations from March. The city and the Trail Enthusiasts had asked the county to force the winery to grant an easement on the De Anza trail, on the part of the winery located in the county's jurisdiction, not Saratoga's.
In March, the county planning commission held that the county could not legally do that. However, according to a contract dated June 5 that the winery sent to the county counsel's office, the winery has offered to grant the trail easement anyway. The next step is for the supervisors to accept the offer publicly. A date has not yet been set for a hearing, according to assistant county counsel, Debbie Cauble.
There are still trail easements in Saratoga that the Trail Enthusiasts and the city want the winery to grant. According to Bussani, because the winery could not reach an agreement with the Trail Enthusiasts and the city, the winery could not offer those trails.
Some of the Saratoga residents who spoke at the hearing expressed the need for more trails in Saratoga so that pedestrians and horses wouldn't have to use narrow Pierce Road, which can be dangerous when there are a lot of cars traveling on it.
|
|
|
|
Saratoga, California Since 1955
