 |
|
|
|
|
All parties claim victory in Mountain Winery ruling
Judge says that permit conflicted with ordinance
Too few parking spaces
By Rebecca Ray
When the Santa Clara County Superior Court recently upheld Saratoga residents' challenge of a permit issued to the Mountain Winery, all parties involved in the litigation said they were pleased with the verdict.
The Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts, a nonprofit organization that supports the city's trails, sued the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors after the board issued the winery a conditional-use permit Aug. 15, 2000. The winery had hosted concert series, cultural events, receptions, business meetings and theatrical productions for 40 years without the permit, which violated county ordinances. Winery owners applied for the permit in 2000 so they could begin plans to increase the number of seats in the concert bowl and expand the winery building.
The winery, at 14831 Pierce Road, had obtained a permit from the county, rather than the city of Saratoga, because while 75 or so acres of the property lie within Saratoga city limits, the other 600 or so acres sit on county land.
Judge Mary Jo Levinger ruled Nov. 15 in favor of the Trail Enthusiasts' challenge of the permit because the county board of supervisors required the winery to limit its number of on-site parking spaces to 725 to receive the permit because the county board of supervisors required the winery to limit its number of on-site parking spaces to 725 to receive the permit. This conflicted with a county ordinance that required a venue of the winery's size to have a minimum of 833 on-site parking spaces. The board restricted the number of spaces to 725 to reduce traffic and encourage Mountain Winery patrons to use shuttle buses.
Levinger ruled that the board of supervisors must either amend its ordinance so that it can require venues to have fewer parking spaces in certain situations; allow the winery to have at least 833 parking spaces; or disapprove the winery's application for the permit. County officials have yet to decide which option they will choose.
Winery co-owner Bill Hirschman says the winery is satisfied with the verdict, because the winery had argued that the county not limit its parking to 725 spaces.
County Planning Director Ann Draper described the verdict as favorable toward the county, because the court disagreed with the county on only one count. And even on that count, Draper points out, Levinger says in her Statement of Decision that the county "should be commended" for the "environmentally friendly requirement."
Trail Enthusiasts member James Baron says he feels "very good" that Levinger agreed with at least one argument. However, he says, he hopes to negotiate with winery and county officials on proper compliance.
If that doesn't work, Baron says, he plans to appeal the verdict on the environmental impact report, as well as Levinger's decisions on parcels, noise and traffic.
Levinger also ruled in favor of the Trail Enthusiasts on the issue of the county granting the winery architectural and site approval, which is contingent upon the validity of the permit. However, Levinger ruled that the approval itself contained no flaws.
Levinger ruled in favor of the county on all other counts.
The Trail Enthusiasts argued that the permit applied to individual parcels of land that were of at least 90 acres, and that the areas the permit covered sat on two parcels of land, neither of which were as large as 90 acres. Levinger ruled that the permit applied to the winery's parcels, which are contiguous and total more than 90 acres.
The Trail Enthusiasts further objected to the issuance of the permit, arguing that crowd noise could exceed the county noise ordinance, and that traffic might negatively impact surrounding neighborhoods.
They also argued that the county abused its discretion in certifying the winery's environmental impact report. The California Environmental Quality Act requires venues to submit the report before public agencies approve their projects.
The county is taking the issue far too lightly, Baron says. He says that if he appeals the case, he hopes to receive a more favorable verdict.
Baron says he will ask the county or the developer to pay the Trail Enthusiasts' legal fees, since the money came from funds the group uses to maintain trails.
|
|
|
|
Saratoga, California Since 1955
