City And Winery Reach Eleventh- Hour Agreement On Noise, Traffic
Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts are still 'not through yet'
Supervisors put off decision
By Kara Chalmers
Just in time for its appeal hearing with the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors scheduled for 2 p.m. on June 27, Saratoga finalized an agreement with the Mountain Winery and decided to withdraw its appeal of the winery's use permit.
But the process is still not over, since the supervisors need more time to review the conditions that the two groups agreed to add to the permit. The supervisors continued the hearing until no later than Aug. 15 to allow county staff to review the contract and put together a recommendation.
"We're disappointed with another continuation," said Winery President Nancy Bussani. "But we have a high degree of confidence that in August the permit will be issued."
For the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts--the nonprofit advocacy organization for the city's trails, which also appealed the permit--the process is far from over. The group has not yet reached an agreement with the winery. But representatives from the group say that they feel encouraged because the supervisors postponed the hearing.
Teri Lynn Baron from the Trail Enthusiasts said the supervisors did the right thing. She said she had expected them to rule against her organization on June 27.
The supervisors held a public hearing on the two appeals on June 6, but they postponed the hearing to June 27, since both the city and the Trail Enthusiasts had asked for more time to study new traffic data. The data concerns accidents on Pierce Road, the access road to the winery, and the county released it June 1.
In March, the county planning commission granted the Saratoga facility a use permit, which the county required for the winery to legally hold concerts, weddings and other events. The commission also certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)--prepared by a consultant selected by the county--for the winery's uses.
Immediately, the city and the Trail Enthusiasts both appealed the commission's decision to the supervisors.
While negotiation talks between the city and the winery had broken down around June 6, talks resumed on June 26, according to Mayor Stan Bogosian. The city and the winery finally hammered out an agreement--which addresses noise and traffic, but not trails--at noon on June 27.
The city had originally wanted the winery to grant a trail easement on a portion of the winery located in Saratoga, alongside Pierce Road. But this easement was not part of the final contract.
The easement is what the Trail Enthusiasts still want and hope to get in August. They say it is a necessary mitigation measure since winery traffic on Pierce Road impacts bikers, pedestrians and equestrians that must use the road since no trail runs parallel to it. At the supervisors' hearing on June 27, many residents spoke about the dangerous situation on narrow, windy Pierce Road, and that it would only worsen when the winery expands.
The Trail Enthusiasts had asked for a different trail easement, the De Anza trail, which is on the part of the winery in the county's jurisdiction, not Saratoga's. On June 5, the winery agreed in writing to grant that trail easement.
At the end of the June 27 hearing, Supervisor Joe Simitian, who represents Saratoga, reminded all groups involved that they have accomplished a lot already.
"I know everybody's frustrated with this process and I can tell that tensions are starting to get a little high and people's nerves are a little bit frayed," Simitian said. "But I'm going to ask everybody to hang in. I want to point out that we are extraordinarily close to untangling 42 years worth of noncompliance, which is not the responsibility of the current owner or operator.
"We have already gotten one trail, out of two that were at issue, dedicated voluntarily. We have agreement on noise issues. We have agreement on traffic management issues," he added.
On June 27, the supervisors could have upheld the appeals and thus denied the use permit. They also could have denied the appeals thus allowing the planning commission's holding to stand, or denied the appeals with new conditions on the permit. They also could have rejected the certification of the EIR and sent it back to county staff for more information.
Bogosian called the city's agreement reasonable and good for Saratoga.
"It gives the city of Saratoga a say-so over what's being done with traffic and noise," Bogosian said.
According to the agreement, the winery will hire an acoustical engineer to conduct a sound study, pursuant to a "scope of work" approved by Saratoga, within 20 business days of the permit's approval. The engineer will recommend ways the winery can reduce noise from its events. During at least four concerts chosen by Saratoga, the engineer will evaluate noise, and will hand in a report no later than 15 business days after the fourth concert.
The winery agreed to pay up to $100,000 to implement the engineer's recommendations and to finish all the work recommended by May 15, 2001.
The winery also agreed to end all concerts at 10:30 p.m. When the planning commission approved the permit in March it put a noise limit of 10:30 p.m. on weekdays and 11 p.m. on weekends.
To help control traffic after concerts, the winery agreed to hire three sheriff's deputies, or other law enforcement officers, on a one-year trial basis during the 2001 concert season. While one of the deputies will stand at the main gate, the other two will stand at locations the city will determine.
During the 2001 concert season, the winery will institute an "alternative transportation program," which could be a shuttle service, to reduce the number of parked cars on site by 10 percent of the site's current 700 car maximum.
When the commission approved the winery's use permit in March, it approved, in concept, an expansion of the concert bowl from 1,750 to 2,500 seats. But specific expansion plans will have to come before the commission again when they are finalized. The alternative transportation program is supposed to mitigate the additional traffic that the future expansion will cause, according to the contract.
According to Baron, the winery and the Trail Enthusiasts met last on April 18, at which time the enthusiasts outlined an agreement. She said she has not heard from the winery since.
The winery had submitted an addendum letter to the contract worked out with the city. The letter says the winery realizes that, when the portion of the winery located in Saratoga is subdivided, the city will require the dedication of a trail as a condition. However, the letter does not represent a binding agreement.
"In the future, if the developer decides to subdivide lots in Saratoga, we may get a trail then, but it doesn't mitigate the safety issues now," Baron said.
In addition, the Trail Enthusiasts say that the new traffic data, which county environmental consultants CH2M Hill, who produced the EIR, compiled, is wrong.
"The staff, and consultant's conclusion that no traffic or safety problems exist is simply wrong," said James Baron of the Trails Enthusiasts at the hearing on June 27. "They reached this conclusion because they failed to apply the facts in this case and they didn't do the math right."
According to him, the CH2M Hill conclusion that the road is 108 percent less safe than the average rate for similar facilities, is wrong and the road is actually 378 percent less safe.
"There is a fix for it and the fix is to put in a trail," Baron said. "To provide alternative circulation measures and to move equestrians and pedestrians and bikers off the road."
Baron said the enthusiasts would not make a decision on their next step until after the supervisors' hearing in August.
Saratoga, California Since 1955
