 |
|
|
|
|
City Concerned Over Mountain Winery Draft EIR, Wants Extension
Some think ambiguity may permit future expansion
Annexation a possibility
By Kara Chalmers
The draft environmental-impact report for the Mountain Winery's conditional-use permit and architectural and site approval (ASA) applications have caused quite a stir in Saratoga and led the city to ask for an extension of the review and comment period, so that it might explore the feasibility of annexing the winery.
Mayor Stan Bogosian on Dec. 2 summarized the council's conclusions on the draft EIR at the report's hearing before the county Planning Commission. The previous night at the City Council meeting, he collected input from residents, community-development director James Walgren and members of the Parks and Recreation, Planning and Public Safety commissions about what to include in his response to the county.
Some City Council members and residents believe the draft EIR is ambiguous, especially where it purports to address current conditions at the winery or future expansion.
The report was prepared by a consultant selected by Santa Clara County. It is intended to outline potential effects of the proposed use permit and ASA and lists mitigation measures for those effects.
The use permit and ASA would legalize the type of events held at the winery for more than 40 years, such as the concert series, and would not allow any new uses. According to the county zoning ordinance, the winery's Hillside zoning allows the uses occurring at the Winery, as long as it has a conditional-use permit from the county. According to the EIR, any environmental impact of the winery can be mitigated to the point that it is insignificant.
"The conditional-use permit, we believe, should cover the current uses of this property," Bogosian told county planning commissioners. "An expansion is the proper subject for an additional conditional-use permit, although expansion and the implications of that were discussed in this EIR."
Bogosian also summarized Saratoga residents' concerns and said that while the city respects and values the concert venue at the Mountain Winery, the uses' impact, such as traffic and noise, almost exclusively affect Saratoga. Only 75 acres of the 580-acre mountain winery property is within Saratoga city limits, but most of the winery's neighbors are Saratogans.
He said council members would like the comment period extended from Dec. 15 to Jan. 15, so they can look into the feasibility of annexing the winery to Saratoga. Also, the council wants to take more testimony on some of the concerns brought up at the council meeting. "I truly believe that annexation may be the best way to go," Bogosian said. "It would more directly meet the needs of the people of the city and more efficiently meet the interests of the developer of the property."
The commission recommended that the comment period be extended one month, as Bogosian had requested. The decision is up to county Planning Director Ann Draper, who could not say when she will make that decision.
At the council meeting Dec. 1., council members and one resident, Rick Denton, commended the owners of the Mountain Winery for being responsive to many concerns of the neighbors since they took over the property. But council members and residents noted shortcomings they saw in the draft EIR, such as in the traffic study section.
"I think their analysis of traffic and staff loading for various events are grossly in error," Council member Evan Baker said, and many residents echoed his sentiments. "And therefore warped traffic circulation impacts, so I can't consider it to be valid."
Kristine Syskowski, project manager for the winery, said she has confidence in the consultant the county chose to prepare the EIR, when asked how she would respond to allegations of the traffic study's inadequacy.
The roads most affected by winery-associated traffic (such as Pierce Road, the main access road to the winery) are in Saratoga.
According to the traffic impact analysis in the EIR, the intersections of roads near the property would not be affected during peak traffic hours by traffic associated with the winery. And the proposed expansion of concert seating would not significantly affect the local roadway system, at least with 1999 conditions, according to the EIR.
Saratoga Planning Commissioner Lisa Kurasch said at the Dec. 1 council meeting that the traffic study was done in the fall, the off-season for the winery.
The traffic study in the EIR is irrelevant, said resident William Brooks. He said the analysis studied not only the wrong season, but also the wrong hour and the wrong day.
Dennis Paboojian of the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts noted the failure of the EIR to address the winery's impact on trails in Saratoga, especially trails that cross Pierce Road. He and other members of the group recommended that development of the trails should be a mitigation measure for the winery's uses.
A common sentiment echoed throughout the night was confusion. While the draft EIR is intended only to legalize current activities, it discusses expansion and improvements initiated by a previous owner, the details of which are not final. Winery owners have no set plans for expansion, but are proposing an increase in the number of seats in the concert bowl from 1,750 to 2,500, new performer bungalows and relocation of the kitchen, which means expanding the winery building by 1,500 square feet. But even if the use permit and site approval applications are approved, winery owners will have to go through an architecture and site approval again for any expansion.
"This document mixed the CUP with the forward-thinking, forward-looking, pre-approving of the architectural and site approval for its increase in usage, and it really disturbed me," Council member Ann Waltonsmith said.
County Planning Director Ann Draper said the next step is to look at state code regarding extensions, and ensure compliance with it. She said that because consideration of annexation is an independent issue, an extended comment period will have no effect on that issue. However, she said that an extension might be worthwhile if Saratoga has other concerns.
|
|
|
|
Saratoga, California Since 1955
