SARATOGA — A bid by the city to annex the bucolic and regionally popular Mountain Winery — potentially paving the way to build a massive hotel on the land — is coming under fire from environmental groups who say the site is “the wrong place for a hotel of any size.”
Alice Kaufman, Legislative Advocacy Director for Palo Alto-based environmental group Green Foothills, said in a letter to the Saratoga City Council that the annexation would make it possible for a 300-room hotel to be built “on a narrow winding road” in a “very high fire hazard severity zone” in the Santa Cruz Mountains — something not currently allowed under county rules.
The annexation would see the winery — which has been under county control since its inception — become part of the city of Saratoga, a move that would add millions to the city’s revenues while also giving the city council oversight over its expansion plans.
Kaufman joins more than a hundred Saratoga residents who have pressured city officials in letters and public comments to strike down the annexation proposal, including dozens who wrote the planning commission in February asking them to recommend that the council not allow it to move forward.
She says that any expansion of the winery, including the construction of a hotel and the addition of a new water tank and sewer connections, would “impact the surrounding native plant species and wildlife” including the sensitive dusky-footed woodrat.
She added that the impact from the number of new visitors will be stark.
“Instead of the traffic, lights, noise and disturbance of human activity being limited to summer concert nights, with a large hotel on site the disturbance to wildlife would be continuous throughout the year,” Kaufman said.
But Saratoga Mayor Howard Miller doesn’t agree with the way advocates like Kaufman are framing the conversation around the annexation proposal.
He said in an interview Tuesday that there are no plans to build a hotel, let alone one that would be 300 rooms, and he would fervently oppose such a proposal if it was brought forward to the council.
Instead, Miller said the 300-room hotel was a hypothetical scenario in the environmental impact report setting a limit for the number of rooms the city would allow if the annexation agreement is struck.
Miller said the city is simply asking residents what they are willing to give up in order to take control of the winery, a facility that has been a thorn on the side of the hillside community for about 50 years.
Open since 1878 at the top of the windy Pierce Road, the winery has gone through major expansions over the years including the addition of an amphitheater in the 1950s and other amenities that have made the site a mainstay for retreats, weddings, business meetings and special events attracting thousands.
The current county permit allows the winery to host up to 75 concerts a year, about 450 weddings, receptions and corporate banquets, 36 special events and has enough parking for about 933 cars. However, the county permit does not allow the winery to expand further than its current footprint.
It’s the maximum capacity of 2,500 people on the winery site that has kept it from increasing revenue despite demand for its venues, making it an attractive site for development.
At one time, the winery did consider adding hotel rooms: In 1993 it asked the county to approve a 150-room hotel. The vote failed.
But despite the winery’s desire to expand, Miller said it has been an eye-sore for him and other residents. He said the time has come for Saratoga — a city that has grown in the shadow of the ever-expanding winery — to take control.
“In the last 20 years, we’ve seen the doubling of the usage of the hillside and doubled of the size of the concert venues. They’ve added wine tastings, weddings, corporate events, all of them impacting Saratoga residents,” Miller said. “With no control, we have no say and we get no benefit but we get all the impact. I think there is a case to be made that Saratoga should be in control of the winery and its future.”
Still, it was the strong advocacy by residents for keeping the winery under county control that led the commission to decide unanimously to recommend that the city council terminate the annexation project, a decision members could make Wednesday evening.
The city and winery on April 17 approved a cost-share agreement that would see the two divide the cost of third party consultants to prepare maps, surveys and other environmental documents required for annexation.
But with public pressure and uncertainty about the council’s decision, Chateau Masson, LLC, owner and operator of the Mountain Winery, said in a letter to the council dated May 14 that they want their money back — about half of the $247,000 already spend on consultants.
After learning that the council could halt the annexation process, Managing Member of Chateau Masson William Hirschman said he’s encouraging the council to proceed forward despite public outcries to stop “what has been a long and involved process.”
Hirschman said the company “feels strongly that there is no basis for the council to not proceed as a result of the EIR studies and any termination of the process would be for no reason other than the council having changed their minds.”
For Glenda Aune, who has lived on Pierce Road for 35 years, the annexation will open the doors to further commercial development on the hillside that will make getting the mail even more difficult than it already is.
Aune said in an interview she already fears for her life every time she crosses the road as cars zoom down the windy road from winery events and conferences. Adding a hotel, or anything else up there will only make it worse.
“Mayor Miller may have good intentions, but he cannot control what’s going to happen up there,” Aune said. “They’re gonna come to us and tell the residents they’re just going to annex it and not okay the hotel. But there’s nothing to stop a future council from okaying something because the big fish came to the little council and said ‘we’re gonna bring you millions in hotel tax.’ I’ll take my chances with the county.”
The Saratoga city council is set to hold a public hearing on the proposed annexation agreement at its Wednesday evening virtual meeting starting at 7 p.m.
