Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05-2000 Agenda Item 6BSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: ~ ~ ~" AGENDA ITEM: ~~ MEETING DATE: January 5, 2000 CITY MANAGER: ~' ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development PREPARED BY: I $~ SUBJECT: Response to Mountain Winery Draft Environmental Impact Report. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review the draft response to the Mountain Winery DEIR and direct staff to submit final response letter to the Santa Clara County Planning Commission. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is the City's preliminary response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the legalization of the Mountain Winery facility and the various visitor-serving activities that occur there. These preliminary comments have been provided to the County, as agreed to with Santa Clara County Planning staff, in advance of the January 15, 1999 City of Saratoga DEIR review deadline for final comments. The County up to January 15 will accept a final response letter from the City. Any additional comments or changes generated from the Council's January 5 meeting will be included in the final response letter for the Mayor's signature. FISCAL IMPACTS: The draft response letter does conclude with the request that the County work with the City to facilitate an annexation of the Mountain Winery property to Saratoga. At the November 3 City Council meeting, Councilmember Mehaffey requested information on the costs and benefits to the City of annexing the property. The following is a brief summary of what City anticipates: • COStS The Mountain Winery is currently served by Cupertino Sanitary District, PG&E, San Jose Water Company, Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Sheriff. While the traffic, noise, visual, etc., impacts are felt by Saratoga residents, all property and sales tax generated by the facility go to the County. If the facility were to annex to Saratoga, services would still be provided by these same agencies. The only significant change would be that the City would be responsible for development permit processing, code enforcement and the cost of any additional County Sheriff staffing needed as a result. Development permit processing and code enforcement will require dedication of staff time„ the costs of which would mostly be reimbursed by service charges, but clearly puts the City in a better position to regulate and monitor the Mountain Winery. Additional Sheriff staffing is not anticipated. ^ Benefits The City would be responsible for regulating and monitoring EIR mitigation measures and the CUP. The City would also receive the financial benefits of property and sales taxes generated by the facility, plus have the opportunity to capture new revenue sources that could be agreed to between the property owner and the City. A more detailed cost/benefit analysis of annexation will be presented at your meeting. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Final response letter will not be sent and the County will respond to preliminary comments already submitted. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Council could direct staff to rescind preliminary comments. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Staff will submit final response letter, or rescind preliminary comments. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notices of this meeting were published in the Saratoga News and mailed to adjacent property owners within 500-foot radius of the Mountain Winery. ATTACHMENT: 1. Draft response letter C~B`2~4 oQ ~~OO C~L~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 December 15, 1999 Don Peterson, Chairman County of Santa Clara Planning Commission County Government Center, East Wing, 7~' Floor 70 West Redding Street San Jose, California 95110 RE: Preliminary Mountain Winery DEIR Comments' Dear Chairman Peterson: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehaffey Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report circulated for the legalization of the Mountain Winery property activities. The Saratoga City Council has been following the progress of the Mountain Winery Environmental Impact Report and Conditional Use Permit application for the past several years. As you know, while the facility is physically located in the County, the traffic, noise, visual and other environmental impacts are felt directly by the City. In general, the City is supportive of the findmgs in the DEIR relative to legalizing current activities that have been occurring at the Mountain Winery for reportedly the last 40 years. However, the City does want to note for the record the following shortcomings of the DEIR: Project Description The scope of the proposed permit is too broad in light of the limited information available concerning the potential noise, traffic and water quality impacts associated with the proposed expansion of the facility. This document should focus on the impacts associated with current operations and bringing those operations into compliance with the County's land use regulations. It is appropriate that the document acknowledges the potential for future expansion, but that expansion should not be included as part of the CUP until more detailed plans have been prepared and the impacts of those plans have been analyzed more carefully than is possible with the current information. ' These preliminazy comments aze being provided as agreed to with Santa Claza County Planning staff in advance of the January 15, 1999 City of Sazatoga DEIR review deadline for final comments. The County up to January 15 will accept a fmal response letter from the City. Printed on recycled paper. Mountain Winery DEIR Page Two The project description does not indicate whether the CUP will propose any restrictions on the number of events, dates of events, or timing or duration of events. Because of the relatively unusual nature of this project, the City and its residents must be informed as to exactly how the . facility will be operated and how the County plans to enforce that mode of operation. This information will go a long way in helping the City clearly understand how the project's design and operation will limit adverse effects to the City. Traffic Traffic generated by the facility is one of the City's primary concerns. The projections provided in the DEIR conclude that the current level of activities do not significantly affect Levels of Service at the identified intersections, nor would they be significantly affected by potential increases in activities. However, the traffic analysis does not adequately address circulation issues at the site entrance and on the immediately adjacent local roads during an actual concert event. A traffic circulation and gate management plan based on field observations during a concert event is needed. The DEIR inaccurately uses the PM peak traffic period as the relevant period for assessing impacts on local roads and intersections. While only 119 traffic trips may be generated through Saratoga during the 4:00 to 6:00 PM peak period timeframe, clearly the approximately 1,150 trips generated through the Village and on local hillside roads one hour before and one hour after the concert event would generate a significantly greater impact than projected in the DEIR. The physical capacity of Pierce Road needs to be analyzed and a plan developed based on this analysis providing recommendations for how to direct exiting vehicles south on Pierce Road to Congress Springs Road rather than north on Pierce Road. Pierce Road is a narrow, winding, hillside residential road that cannot accommodate a significant percentage of Mountain Winery traffic. Aconcert-specific traffic analysis would confirm whether or not the DEIR's assumption is correct that only 25% of the generated traffic travels in this direction. The City anticipates that the study will find that a greater percentage of traffic accesses the facility from the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Pierce Road direction. There is no analysis of the project's effects on traffic when concert events coincide with other visitor-drawing events in Saratoga, such as the annual street dance or events at Villa Montalvo and Hakone Gardens. The DEIR further states that City representatives reported there were no pending development projects within the study area that would contribute to cumulative traffic impacts. In fact, there are several major development applications pending or under construction within vicinity of the studied intersections that need to be included in the Background Conditions analysis. These projects are provided in the attached list. ^ The DEIR indicates that the Winery's reserved seating program has helped reduce traffic impacts but does not indicate whether that program will be required a condition of the CUP. Mountain Winery DEIR Page Three The parking analysis does not seem to be supported by the DEIR's own traffic generation findings. Assuming a 2,500 person concert with 25 employees generates 1,150 cars (at 2.2 persons per car), how can an 844 space parking area accommodate all these vehicles? And this scenario doesn't include other special events occurring simultaneously or an event that would require more than 25 employees. Noise The DEIR notes that the Mountain Winery is currently operating in violation of County and City noise standards. Amplified music is played after 10:00 PM. The County Noise Ordinance prohibits this if it "annoys or disturbs a person of normal sensitivities". The complaints received from past concerts indicate that the noise from the music maybe "annoying" or "disturbing". The DEIlZ's statement that noise levels exceeding County standards were low and would not be expected to be annoying or disturbing is not supported by evidence and is contradicted by the complaints received. Noise levels at three of the four locations measured exceed the County's absolute standards for noise level after 10:00 PM. The concerts also exceed the standards set in the City's noise ordinance for evening noise levels (7:00 to 10:00 PM) at two of the four locations measured and the City's nighttime (after 10:00 PM) standards at three of the four locations. The concerts also exceed the City's standards for increases in ambient noise levels at three of the four locations. The City supports the conclusions of the DEIR to require the concert series events to comply with both the County's and the City's noise ordinances. However, there needs to be a mechanism for verifying this compliance in the future and for making the CUP conditional on this compliance. A monitoring program needs to be developed that can be reviewed annually by the City to gauge compliance. ^ In light of the ongoing noise violations at the facility, it maybe difficult for the County to make the necessary findings to approve the CUP. Conditional Use Permits typically require a finding that the permit will not be injurious to public health, safety or welfare. The code violations documented in the DEIR could be injurious to public health and welfare. The DEIR indicates that noise levels in the surrounding community will vary depending on weather and wind conditions. Because these conditions are out of the control of the County and project operator, noise standards for the facility should be based on reasonable "worst case" weather conditions. The DEIR does not specify future plans for the helicopter-landing site. If the site is used for non-emergency purposes, it could have noise and safety impacts on the surrounding area. The DEIR and the CUP need to specify the extent of uses permitted for the landing pad. Mountain Winery DEIR Page Four The DEIR's conclusion that traffic noise would not constitute a significant impact is inconsistent with the significance threshold set forth in the DEIR. The DEIR states a 3 dBA increase over the ambient condition is significant and that traffic noise will increase noise by approximately 10 dBA. Traffic noise levels are expected to be between 45 to 50 dBA -noise levels above 45 dBA violate the County's noise ordinance. The DEIR discounts these effects on the grounds that most residents can be expected to be indoors in the evenings. Neither the DEIR's significance criteria nor the County's noise ordinance, however, distinguish between noise inside a home or outside a home. In fact, the County's ordinance is described in the DEIR as setting standards for exterior noise levels. Accordingly, the DEIR should be revised to indicate the significance of traffic noise and to propose mitigation for that impact. Trails The City's Parks and Trails Master Plan recommends a pedestrian and equestrian trail link from the existing Teerlink Residential Subdivision trail system in Saratoga through the Mountain Winery property to connect with Sanborn Park and the County trail system. This trail connection needs to be evaluated in the EIR and investigated as a mitigation measure to offset traffic and roadway impacts generated by the facility. The City Council strongly supports using this EIR and CUP process to extend this important trail link through Saratoga to the County. Since the EIR and CUP are necessary to legalize the facility - as if it didn't currently exist -the City does find that there is a sufficient nexus between mitigating traffic impacts on Pierce Road generated by the Mountain Winery and the need to provide safe pedestrian and equestrian access off Pierce Road. Septic System The DEIR defers study on what degree of septic system upgrades will be necessary for the facility. The DEIR should note that the City of Saratoga adopted a septic abatement ordinance in June 1999 that requires all properties within the City and within 200 ft. of a sanitary sewer line to connect to sanitary sewer (ordinance attached). The Mountain Winery property may meet these criteria in that Parcel 5 extends down to the intersection of Highway 9 and Pierce Road and is in Saratoga. Though Parcel 3 contains the developed portion of the site, a sanitary sewer connection should~at least be considered from an environmental standpoint - 7,000 ft. of additional leach field lines would require a significant amount of vegetation removal and exacerbate unstable soils. Abandoned Quarry • City records indicate that the old quarry area has never been reclaimed and rehabilitated to stabilize the quarry and reduce the amount of sedimentation flowing into the Calabazas Creek. This condition of this abandoned quarry needs to be addressed in the EIR. Mountain Winery DEIR Page Five The City accepts the premise of approving the EIR for the purposes of legalizing current activities. However, consideration of the Conditional Use Permit should only define and approve current activities. Tao many of the mitigation measures suggested in the DEIR to cover the proposed expansion of the facility are deferred until a later Architectural and Site Approval is granted. Any proposed future intensification of facilities or activities should require an amended Conditional Use Permit in addition to an Architectural and Site Approval. There should not be any inference that this EIR or CUP endorses any future expansion. A separate focused environmental review should be required for any future expansion. An issue that has not yet been raised is the possibility of working with the County and the property owners to annex the entire 580 acres to the City of Saratoga. While it is my understanding that the City cannot force an annexation since the property is not within Saratoga's Urban Services Boundary, it certainly makes sense to give the City the authority to administer the CUP since, again, the traffic, noise, and other impacts generated by the Mountain Winery activities are felt directly by Saratoga residents. Supporting this position is the fact that the facility has already been annexed to the Saratoga Fire Protection District and the property boundaries do not match City/County boundaries - Parcel s is partially within Saratoga and partially within the County. This same parcel is therefore also subject to Saratoga's sanitary sewer connection ordinance. Lastly, the current use of the Mountain Winery property is clearly as an urban visitor-serving facility, versus an agricultural use, which is why the property is included in the City's pending Urban Growth Boundary. If you have any questions regarding the concerns raised in this letter, please contact Community Development Director James Walgren at (408) 868-1232 to discuss these matters further. Sincerely, D'- ~ ~ tan Bogo ' ,Mayor City of Saratoga enc. c: City Council City Manager City Attorney Community Development Director !/~( Cost/Benefit Analysis of Mountain Winery Annexation I. Additional Known Revenue Sources: Property Taxes -Net of additional Secured and Unsecured Property Taxes less TEA offset = $2,500 - $4,500 annually Sales Taxes -Approximately $25,000 annually Franchise Fees - No more than $1,000 annually from allocation of electric, gas, water and solid waste service charges Business License Tax -Estimate at no more than $500 annually II. Additional Potential Revenue Sources: Development Related Fees -Unknown one-time fees associated with future development activity on the property; Planning Fees, Arborist Fees, Geology Review Fees, Building and Grading Permit Fees, Engineering Fees. The fees would be dependent on the type of development applications submitted to the City for review and presumably reimburse the City for the costs of processing the development applications. Park Development In-Lieu Fees -Currently set at $9,315 per new residential lot created via subdivision. Construction Tax -Dependent on the extent of additional construction that may occur on the property. Collected at the time Building Permits are issued. Transient Occupancy Tax -Potential for generating 10% TOT if future visitor serving accommodations are approved. Ticket/Parking Surcharges -Potential for generating additional revenues based on event attendance a la $1 per ticket surcharge collected from Civic Theatre users. III. Additional Costs: Public Safety/Law Enforcement -None anticipated. Existing Sheriff staffing is adequate. Booking fees due to arrests are moot in 2000 due to State bailout. Property owner pays for charges for Reserve Deputies when needed. No additional Fire Service costs anticipated. Code Enforcement -City becomes responsible for enforcing Muni Code violations on the property. Could be burdensome. Public Infrastructure - No direct costs to the City are anticipated as the City does not directly provide urban services (water, sewer, etc.) to the property. No public roads are anticipated. If any are built, a maintenance assessment district can be established so the property owner(s) pay for the ongoing cost of maintenance and repair. IV. Intangibles: Prestige Factor -What is the benefit of having the Mountain Winery within the City limits? Land Use Control ~S~Od Mr. and Mrs. William R. Cooper 22737 Mount Eden Road Saratoga, CA 95070-9711 tel: (408) 867-3616 fax: (408) 867-4426 January 5, 2000 Stan Bogosian, Mayor City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Mountain Winery Environmental Impact Report Dear Mayor Bogosian: Thank you for the excellent letter of December 15, 1999 to the County Planning Commission. C+n behalf of the North Mount Eden Valley Neighborhood Association, I second your observation that noise from the Mountain Winery frequently exceeds acceptable norms. From our perspective, this is especially true of the loud, nighttime parties, parties that appear to feature blaring "Hava Na Gila," "I Did It My Way," and "New York, New York" for everyone to hear. In light of this unacceptable noise, we strongly second your position that a mechanism needs to be established to verify future compliance with noise regulations and that the CUP be conditional on this compliance. In particular, we would like the Mountain Winery to establish a formal noise monitoring program that would operate continuously. The data produced would then enable the city and concerned groups such as ours to work with the Mountain Winery to develop Best Management Practices for their events. These BMP, in turn, would establish rules for how events are managed and their relationship to noise levels, size, height and direction of speakers, staging, etc. ;L~ bl/ lb/ Lf7bn 1 !: nJ 14~7tftlbl141-~ 1JUFt lIY MARLENE QUAYLE DUN Qifd41 CasrTx'olat'V~naa- Dzt. 9r-a~~roo~. (,',srisosnvLa 65070 January 5, 2000 1 would like to support the idea of Saratoga annexing the property of the Mountain Winery, which is presently under Santa Cfara County control. rr~ut nl I feel this would simplify the overseeing of the property by one entity, the city, so that enforcement regulations are monitored and complied with. The additional land would also give the city an increased tax base. My concerns are mainly with traffic on Big Basin Way and the access to that street, Qnce the Mountain Winery is granted a conditional use permit and it continues to operate at capaaty with concerts and everrts the deluge of traffic down Big Basin north towards Saratoga Ave. becomes impossible for residents living off of Fourth St. • The GateHouse Condominiums, lnn of Saratoga, Witdwood Heights Neighborhood as well as many other residents use Fourth St. to access Big Basin Way. The stop sign is loeat®d On top Of a hill, which makes vision difficult and certainty presents a safety hazard. Because there are no stop signs or signals for cars coming north on Big Basin until they reach Saratoga Ave. intersection ,there can be a continuous line of traffic at times when concerts or other everrts are over. It can be almost impossible to tum left on Big Basin. The Mountain vinery Draft EIR does not address this problem and the signal maybe only relevant should the Mountain Winery enlarge their facilities which will require another EIR. I still feet it important to have this concern on record and be noted by the city as well as the county as this use permit is processed. Thank you, ~1"~" • ~~ ~~ CITY OF SARATOGA ECONOMIC FINANCIAL MODEL Commercial Neighborhood Zoning Districts Date: Project Name: Project Numher. ~~ 1 ~ r,/ a t (itq -- { ~ ~ >:~ -- --------Site Altentalives ---------- 3ui1 + Details Fx~stingConfieutation Oua°tily Sx Fmtxae RetaiUCommercial QgaptjiX 5n Footsee etaiVO ce Commercial Ouantitv St~Footaae. Office Commercial SZYa6Sii7E ~ r'~~~ Retail/fltgh natty Sittple Family SZYaHS1tY Sq Fnotnnr Lot Units Per Acre Buildiags/Uaits: Retail O,fJice SmallLetSmgle Family Att¢ked Sixgle Family \\Ntmonsta\mccal-data\CLIENTS\C6y of Saratoga\[Comme<cial Zoning Futancial ModeLx]s}Analysis