Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-1990 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTSU,8 July 17, 1990 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Road Saratoga, CA. 95070 To Whom It May Concern: I am a homeowner near the proposed condominium development (19472 Riesling Ct.). I am concerned that the new wider road with its increased traffic will be a danger to my children who walk to school. Fruitvale is dangerous enough as it is - -and many children walk to Redwood School even in the summer. Come during rush hours and see for yourself how more traffic can't be handled safely. I am also convinced that the increased noise and traffic plus a three story building in the midst of private residential homes will lower the neighborhood property values. I invested our savings before this proposal. It is not fair they should be allowed to make huge profits selling high density housing at the expense of a pre- existing neighborhood. Furthermore, as our property values decrease so will our property taxes upon which the city depends in these lean budgetary times to fund schools, police, emergency services, etc. The city planning commission has reported that the condominiums had "inadequate open space buffers between the neighbors and the independent units ", "is not adequately setback from neighbors' property lines" and "the traffic would not be acceptable." I resent that you have not followed the advice of your own planning commission. It isn't fair for the taxpayer to pay for expert advice that is ignored especially when the taxpayer is being harmed as a result. I have no intention of voting for any council member who supports this ill considered measure. They obviously don't represent my interests. The proposed plan is being defended as being "for seniors ". Yet when 34 homes were proposed for building on one acre lots, the Oddfellows complained of the traffic and noise that those few homes would create and how it would adversely affect seniors currently living at the Oddfellows. Now the Oddfellows are proposing a three story 250 unit expansion in addition to 88 condominiums with the access road would going right through the congregate care and assisted living facilities! Obviously private homes generate less noise and traffic than condominiums and huge nursing centers! The quiet and peace of this neighborhood, already being compromised with the new Route 85 interchange, would be lost forever. I support building a senior housing facility at the Masson site on Saratoga Ave as originally planned not a Page 2 three story structure in a earthquake area for people who can't manage stairs. As a former public health nurse I know that seniors on second and third floors become prisoners in their rooms because they simply can't face the struggle with the stairs. Any one really serious about building quality senior housing where seniors can have a full life with as much independence as possible knows it needs to be a ground level building with handicapped access facilities. Is the goal quality senior living or maximum quantity nursing beds generating maximum profits? I understood when I invested in my home that the Oddfellows had promised not to expand. I am dismayed they are ignoring their promise. I think you should hold them accountable. Therefore I also support the resolution that any new facilities constructed on the Oddfellows property be approved only if the old facilities are eliminated or remodeled (not built on top of) in order to prevent "disguised" expansion. This is a quiet family neighborhood and I want to keep it that way. If you lived here, you would too. Sincerely Yours, Mrs. a Jones 19472 Riesling Court Saratoga, CA 95070 Printed on recycled a Y cled P Pe CORRESPONDENCE r. i l!'!L July 19, 1990 City of Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Appeal of modification of use permit (UP- 574 -1) Appellant Dee Askew, Applicant Brookside Club To the Honorable Saratoga City Council: This letter is submitted by the Brookside Swim and Racquet club to assist the Council in its public hearing on the above appeal. BACKGROUND The Brookside Club was. established in 1958 and has since provided valuable recreational facilities to Saratogans. In addition to providing tennis, swimming and social facilities to its members, the club has opened its facilities on special occasions to use by local public schools and other Saratoga swim clubs. The Club is in compliance with all Use Permits adopted by the City to date. Brookside has made sincere efforts to mitigate and impact on the surrounding neighborhood and has made every effort to be responsive to neighborhood concerns. ISSUES This appeal is from the Planning Commission's adoption of UP- 574.1 revoking the ban on alcohol consumption at the Brookside Club. As the Planning Commission has noted, the issue is not the consumption of alcohol at the club, but is rather an issue of noise potential from the Club, an issue more properly controlled by the City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance. City of Saratoga July 19, 1990 Page 3 during the rest of the year and terminates one hour after sunset. The clubhouse grounds contain two barbecue pits and the clubhouse itself is used for a swim club breakfast, swim award dinners, a tennis dinner and smaller functions. It is not rented out for non - club activities. IMPACT MITIGATION .Brookside has taken every reasonable and-practical measure to mitigate its impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and act as a good neighbor in the community. The Club has seriously considered the input of the neighbors and the Planning Staff. Since its opening the Club's membership was reduced from 350 members to 250 members and the Club's hours of operation have been curtailed from the original 7:00 a.m. opening to later hours, depending on the function. It has constructed wooden fences and landscaped its grounds to reduce noise generated by the Club's activities. In 1989 the Club submitted a Proposed Action Plan calling for retaining a Sound Engineer to conduct a sound study to evaluate existing noise levels and determine how the Club might reduce any noise level that was in excess of public standards. The Club has furthermore obtained an electronic starter for swim meets to replace the starting pistol. The Club provides the neighbors with a monthly calendar of events, and provides notice of the summer swim meets. The Club's Board of Directors has created a permanent agenda item on the Board of Director's monthly meetings to provide neighbors with a forum to communicate their concerns, comments and suggestions. A copy of the action plan is attached. The plan was a compromise of the Club's original position based upon input from the City Staff and meetings with neighbors. SOUND STUDY To evaluate the Club's impact on the neighborhood and to investigate measures to mitigate its impact, the Club retained an independent sound engineer to conduct a survey of the noise level at the Club on weekdays and weekends. The three summer swim meets, which have previously been approved by the Planning Commission and which are not opposed by appellant, are exempt from the City's Noise Ordinance. A final report was prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates and its attached for the Council's review. In summary, the study indicates that on weekdays the Club is in compliance with the noise ordinance at all points along the Club's boundary. On a typical weekend, only one residence along the northeast corner of the club is impacted by tennis activities. The impact is minimal as the noise level is just two decibels above the noise City of Saratoga July 19, 1990 Page 4 limit. A difference of three decibels is "just perceptible" to the ear. Noise from the use of the basketball hoop does not exceed the ordinance limit. The study found that the noise levels at the east side of the club, where appellant resides, do not exceed the noise ordinance limit and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The few opponents to the Club's activities have suggested requiring the Club to construct a sound wall to reduce noise levels from the Club. The sound study indicates that a sound wall would result in only a two decibel reduction in noise, which is imperceptible. The minimal reduction does not warrant such a costly improvement. The Club has closely supervised opening times, obtained an electronic starter for swim meets, limited Club activities, and fenced and landscaped the Club to mitigate noise levels at the Club as much as practicable. THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE RESTRICTION The Club infrequently holds functions where alcoholic beverages might be served. Originally, the use permit had no such restriction. In a vote by the City Council in 1958, the restriction was added as well as the deletion of the clubhouse from the plan. At the automatic review of the permit in 1960, the clubhouse was re- introduced to the plan and approved, thereafter no restriction on either the clubhouse or the serving of alcoholic beverages appears in any subsequent use permit. There is a significant question, therefore as to whether there ever was a beverage restriction after 1960. Nevertheless, after careful review, the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission have determined that alcohol consumption is not a viable issue unless its use effects the noise level at the club. This issue has been previously addressed. BASKETBALL STANDARD /PATIO As indicated by the sound study, any noise from the use of the basketball goal is minimal. The cement patio that it is adjacent to is not a "sports court ", unless the tennis wall were to be used. By agreement with the City, the wall will not be used. The layout of the patio is as ideally suited for picnic lunch activities as well as half -court basketball and can serve that dual function. There are no other areas of the club facilities on which to locate the basketball goal which are any further away from the easterly property line. The City's double goals at Brookglen Park are approximately the same distance from Saratoga Creek and that park's City of Saratoga July 19, 1990 Page 2 REQUESTED ACTION The Brookside Club respectfully requests that the City Council deny the subject appeal and allow consumption of alcohol at the Brookside Club and allow use of the basketball standard during regular club hours. THE NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING Members of the Brookside Board of Directors have contacted the Council members and urged them to go to the Club and tour the facility. Without a personal review, it will be difficult to view this appeal in the proper factual setting. Brookside was developed in 1958, at or about the same time as the residences across Saratoga Creek along Saratoga Drive. The appellant purchased her newly constructed property several months after the initial use permits were approved for Brookside. The club is composed of approximately 5.25 acres of property accessed by a driveway on Cox Avenue. The driveway passes by the basketball court of Brookglens Park, owned by the City of Saratoga. The eastern boundary is formed by Saratoga Creek. The northern boundary is formed partially by the creek and one residence on Brookglen Drive. The western boundary is formed by Brookglen Drive and another residence at 12646 Brookglen Drive. The Club fence is approximately 150 feet from the closest neighbor across Saratoga Creek. A number of the neighbors across the creek either have low fences or no solid fences at all. In the 1970's Brookside erected a wooden grapestake fence adjacent to its cyclone fence along the creek. Previously this grapestake fence had formed only the western boundary along Brookside Drive. Today the Club is completely fenced from its neighbors and surrounded by pine trees. Approximately 1,500 feet to the north of appellant, along Saratoga Drive, is the Saratoga Woods swim facility which was built along with the development of Appellant's tract. It too is adjacent to Saratoga Creek. However, the City did not require a conditional use permit in connection with this establishment. Currently one of the three swim meets conducted at Brookside is in conjunction with the Saratoga Woods Swim Team (their pool is too small). Except for the months of June and July, the club is not extensively used. Pursuant to the conditional use permit three summer swim meets are allowed during the summer. Their hours are generally 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The tennis activity is light City of Saratoga July 19, 1990 Page 5 neighbors as the single goal of Brookside. The Club has heard of no complaints from neighbors about basketball activity at Brookglen Park. The appellant has alleged that the basketball hoop and the patio were constructed in violation of applicable Use Permits. The Club constructed the patio, basketball standard and rebound wall with City approval. Before construction proceeded Brookside was advised by the Building Department that no building permit was necessary for the construction of the patio and basketball standard. The Club obtained a building permit for the construction of the rebound wall. The Club was not advised by the City, and was unaware, that Planning Department approval would be required for the construction. As stated above the use of the patio and the basketball hoop do not exceed the noise ordinance limits. Furthermore, there exist two basketball courts in the City Park adjacent to the club which are closer to residences. Also a basketball court exists at the Saratoga Woods Club, much closer to residences_ than the one at Brookside. APPELLANTIS COMPLAINTS This appeal was filed in June of 1990 by Dee Askew. No supporting position statement or list of grievances accompanied this appeal. Therefore we have had to assume that she will present the same objections previously made to the Planning Commission. The Club has made every attempt to reasonably accommodate appellant including petitioning the swim league in 1985 to reschedule a swim meet at the Club to provide appellant with a more quiet atmosphere for a wedding celebration at appellant's home. The rescheduling of the meet entailed the rescheduling and relocation of several other league swim meets scheduled for other swim clubs. In order to document the history of the Club's use permit, the attached chart was prepared to aid the Council. Also included are copies of the original permit, the findings and the modifications. Please note that only on one occasion, in 1978, did any complaints from neighbors result in the City taking the initiative to reconsider the use permit. Although we were unable to review the actual complaints at the City Zoning Compliance Office (due to the confidential nature of the complaints) Brookside suspects that the vast majority were leveled by appellant. Not unexpectedly, these complaints generally come around the time when Brookside itself has sought a modification of its own use permit. The complaints City of Saratoga July 19, 1990 Page 6 generally involve noise, either related to club activities or hours. We feel that these accusations are adequately answered either by the sound study or by the history of the various use permits, which shows that no punitive action was ever required or taken by the City regarding past complaints. It is unfortunate that the use permit was ever required. First, there is a real legal question regarding whether the City should have required a conditional use permit in the first place. "Country Clubs" were included in allowed uses in an "R" zone in 1958. However, rather than correct this error, the Club reached an accord with the City in 1959 that the clubhouse be allowed. In light of this allowance, the club did not chose to make an issue of the permit issue. It should have. Second, the City has not required clubs of a similar nature to obtain use permits. Third, by requiring a use permit, disgruntled neighbors have a tool to place the very existence and nature of the .club in peril any time they chose to invent or overstate complaints, no matter how small their numbers. This has in fact caused unnecessary grief for the club and its members, and headaches for ' the City Staff investigating what have been, for the most part, unfounded complaints. Finally, every time the use permit has been considered, a new Council must be re- educated and old accusations once more put to rest. The zoning and code enforcement regulations of the City are more than adequate to deal with real or imagined violations of its ordinances regarding noise. The real purpose of appellant is literally to deny any use of the club and return the property to orchard. Appellant has privately stated this position to members of the Club. CONCLUSION The Brookside Club provides Saratoga with a much needed recreational resource. Other swim clubs in Saratoga offer a similar service to the community, but to our knowledge none are subject to restrictive Use Permits. Saratoga Woods Swim Club, of which appellant is a member, is situated in appellant's own neighborhood and provides similar facilities to its members including a basketball standard. The Brookside Club has allowed Saratoga Woods to use its facilities for a swim meet. Appellant supports the Brookside club swim meets, but opposes the continued operation of the Club because it is located near'her residence, not because the Club is incompatible with the neighborhood. The sound study demonstrates that the Club's activities do not negatively impact appellant's use of her property. ffi CITY OF SARAIOCA Jr 1*0 26 JUNE 1972 SUBDIVISION CDM ITTEE REPORT UP -207 - Brookside Club of Saratoga, Cox Avenue - Request for Use Permit to Allow Two (2) Additional Tennis Courts on 10 April 1972, the Saratoga Planning Commission granted a Use Permit for two (2) additional tennis courts on land inmediately adjacent to the Club, and fronting on the new extension of Brookglen Drive. Since then, the Brookside Club has had an opportunity to purchase more land for two (2) additional tennis courts. The original Use Permit is, therefore, reactivated to consider the current appli- cation. The request for two (2) more courts is virtually the same as before, except that no variance is needed as the courts will be not back with some fifteen (15) new parking spaces between the courts and the street (Rxhibit "Z" of 6 June 1972). We understand the Design Review Committee has studied the new proposal, and world require the continuation of the decorative fencing and landscaping along Brookglen Drive, as approved on 10 April 1972 (Rxhibit "Y"). Unfortunately, it appears the applicant must be reminded that the Planning Commission has continuing jurisdiction over all Use Permits (Section 16.6 -1 of Ordinance NS -3), and that any violations of the conditions ender wbicb the Use Permit is granted result in an automatic suspension of the Use Permit (Section 16.11 of Ordinance NS -3). It is the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee. with coacurtem e, of the Planning Staff, that the Use Permit be granted, since the findings of Section 16.6 of Zoning Ordinance NS -3 can be made, subject . to all conditions one (1) throw eight (8) listed in the Staff Report of 10 April 1972 in file UP -207 and with the following amendments: a) Add the following sentence to Condition ♦. . . "Any advertising for tennis or swim lesam for the general public is prohibited." Subdivision Com ittee jpport re UP -207 - 26 Jane 1972 - SSM tnasd 'Me 10 April 1972 Staff Report shall be Wade a part of this report, with copies of both reports mailed to the Board of Directors of the Brookside Club for their information and guidance. CHS /j ate CHARLES H. SMTH, CWJMM N RUSSEL R. BALM GERALD S. MAR UM ui ANNING COMMISSION MEETING :PTEMBER 13, 1989 JBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 10 Commissioner Burger agreed it was an unfortunate situation; however, the reason was that the Commission had tried so hard to come to some conclusion that made sense for the City of Saratoga. Passed 4 -3, Commissioners Burger, Harris and Tucker dissenting. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE SD -88 -008 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 5 -2, Commissioners Harris, Tucker dissenting. Break: 9:15 - 9:20 P.M. ' 14. UP -547.1 Brookside Swim Club - 19127 Cox Avenue, Planning Commission review of a sound study that the Brookside -Club was directed to prepare as a condition of approval; of an Action Plan Agreement between the City and the club. The site is located in the R -1- 10,000 zone district. Continued from May 10, 1989. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie stated that a Report Re: Noise Assessment Study of the Brookside Swim and Racquet Club Saratoga, Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., dated September 7, 1989, had been received last Friday; in addition, the neighbors had submitted a video tape. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:20 P.M. Mr. Bob Salutric, 12635 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, asked that the Commission view the tape submitted, at their convenience; he cited the on -going noise violations. Ms. Susan Windus, 12681 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, called attention to the documentation submitted to the Planning Department listing times and occurrences of noise violations. Ms. Dee Askew, 12651 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, appreciated Brookside's initial attempts to lower the noise level; however, noise abatement and privacy screening were required. She con- tended that the date the noise study was conducted, the swim teams had a meet in Palo Alto. MORAN/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:25 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Planning Director Emslie confirmed that a prohibition of use of the Sport Court had been imposed until the Noise Study was completed, per Commissioner Burger's question. Community Services Officers had been asked to enforce this prohibition upon complaints being received by the City. BURGER /HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE UP -574.1 TO OCTOBER 11, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD SEPTEMBER 19TH. Passed 7 -0. 15. DR -89 -055 Cashin, 12029 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, request for design review ap- proval for exterior remodel of the Blue Hills Shopping Center at the comer of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road, in the C -N zoning district pursuant to Chapter 16 of the City Code. A sign program approval is also requested for a freestanding sign and individual signs. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Installation of a gate would not solve the problem and raised the question of enforcemem:` Mr. Art Mandell, 14950 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, was concerned about any alternative that opcncij a residential street to through access; such would be an invitation to crime. He concurred with Mr. Swanson's remark that those who were benefiting from the sale ought to bear some of the impacts, He favored Alternative D. Ms. Marydee Urbano, 14520 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, noted that the Odd Fellows was obliged to sell some property to maintain the existing facilities which served the elderly; she did not under- stand why neighbors felt the Odd Fellows had to accept noise and traffic impacts resulting from the development of part of the site. The Odd Fellows were not making a profit from the sale. The City Attorney, responding to Chairperson Siegfried's inquiry, noted that instead of having the comments attached to the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as usually done, the Con- sultant incorporated public comments into the document; such was now being characterized as a new document, rather than an aid to reviewing the report. His concern with such an argument was the implication that responding to public comment, unless such comments were trivial, any re- sponse would require a new EIR and recirculation. Further review of the issue could be done. KOLSTADBURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING THE ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) AND CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION ON THE SUBDIVISION TO THE NEXT MEETING OF MAY 24, 1989. Passed 4 -0. Break: 8:40 - 8:55 P.M. 11. UP -574.1 Brookside Swim Club, 19127 Cox Ave., review of an action plan prepared at the direction of the Planning Commission to address compatibility con- cerns between the club and its surrounding neighbors in the R -1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from March 22, .1989. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated May 10, 1989. Letters from the following individuals were received: - Brookside Club of Saratoga Re: Action Plan, dated May 10, 1989 - Mr. Randy Schneider, President, Saratoga Woods Community Association, Re: May 10th Review of Brookside Club - Neighborhood Committee Members, dated May 10, 1989 The Public Hearing was opened at 9:05 P.M. Mr. Bob Bennett, Brookside Swim Club, stated they were in agreement with the Staff Report; he deferred to other speakers. Ms. Dee Askew, Neighborhood Committee Member, reviewed their letter of May 10, 1989. Mr. Bob Salutric, 12635 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, contended that no real compromise was being offered by the Brookside Club in the Action Order submitted; several items listed were already required by the Use Permit. Furthermore, some items, such as their offer to halt "sleep overs for the swim team did not address the noise impact, which was the neighbors concern. In addition, there were no enforcement measures "(financial penalties) listed in the Action Order. In summary, Brookside Club would be allowed an extended time for swim meets and use of the Sport Court six hours per day, while the benefits to the neighbors included the Club's use of an electronic starting device for swim meets and removal of trash bags from the Creek area. Residents lost the use of their back yards every day of the week from 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M.; such was not a fair compromise. While the original application dealt with an extended starting time for swim meets, now the emphasis had shifted to the Sport Court- -so much so, that the Club was willing to withdraw their original request, if there were any amendments to the Action Plan. CLTY OF SARATOCA 10 APRIL 1972 STAFF REPORT UP -207 - Brookside Club of Saratoga, Cox Avenue - Request for Use Permit to Allow Two (2) Additional Tennis Courts The Subdivision Comittee has carefully considered the subject application. It is substantially the same as one approved some two (2) years ago. The Committee has, also, considered information brought out at the public hearings, which indicates that some terms of the original Use Permit UP -SS have not been observed. In this regard we point out that Use Permits are a scatter of grace, not right. It is the recommendation of the Staff, with concurrence of the Subdivision Committee, that the findings of Section 16.6 of Zoning Ordinance NS -3 can be snide and that the Use Permit be granted subject to all conditions of the original Use Permit as set forth below with the understanding that any future violations will automatically revoke said permit as stated in Ordinance NS -3, Section 16. 1. FENCING AND LANDSCAPING: A solid wood fence the height of the present partial fonts shall be erected along the entire north side of the property. A solid wood_ fence six (6) feet in height shall be erected along the east and south sides of the property (including the new parking area), except that the fence now installed in the area of the swimming pool shall be considered to meet this requirement. Landscaping as shown on Exhibit "Y" shall be installed no later than ninety (90) days from date of approval 2. NOISE: No outdoor noise making devices, such as phonographs, shall be permitted at any ties. Starting pistols and megaphones shall be used only as required for swimming instruction and swim meets, and the time of such activities shall be -1- r - A i Staff Report re OP -20, - 10 April 1972 - Continued 2. NOISE: - Continued definitely specified by the Directors of the Club. Both pistols and megaphones, if used, shall be of the least noise making types. Power megaphones are prohibited. 3. PARKING: Off- street parking for seventy -five (75) cars shall be provided. 4. MEMBERSHIP: Membership of the Club shall be limited to two- hundred -and fifty (250) members. 5. OPERATION: Since the primary purpose of the Brookside Club is outdoor recreation, the Club House shall be liminted in operation to that of an suziliary function. HOURS OF OPERATION The hours of operation for outdoor activities shall be no longer than: Tennis--- - - - - -- Daily ........ . . . . ... .......8:00 A.M. to one hour after sunset. Swimming- - - - - -- Weekdays------------ - - - - -- -9:00 A.M. to one hour after sunset Saturdays and Holidays - -- -10:00 A.M. to one hour after sunset Sundays------------- - - - - -- 11:00 A.M. to one hour after sunset Club Swiss Teo------ - - - - -- -7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. on wekdajs during June 15 through September 15. Club House - - - -- The hours of operation for the Club House shall be as approved by the Board of Directors and shall be reasonable. 6. DESIGN REVIEW: Design Review Will be required for new structures and construction and any fuT:ther landscaping and for fence design and location. .Z.