HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-1990 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTS (2)To:. Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
From: Gene P. Steiger
19186 Gunther Ct.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: UP -547.2 Brookside Swim and Tennis Club,
19127 Cox Avenue
Dear Sirs:
23 April 1990
My wife and I have been residents of Saratoga for 26 Years. We have lived at 19186
Gunther Court since November 1972 as the original owners. Having been members
of the Brookside Club for 10 Years in the past, we recognize that most members are
responsible, conscientious of the rules and of the community. We know also that
some members have abused the ban against drinking alcohol on the premises for
years.
We are concerned that if the ban on alcohol use at the Brookside Club is removed,
the relatively "quiet" atmosphere and minimal use of alcohol will be abused by many
more of the 200+ members and their guests.' Our concern extends beyond the
"excessive noise" concern of our neighbors on the other side of the creek.(We are
awakened every Saturday and Sunday morning between 7:30 and 8:00 A.M. by the
sound of tennis balls and enthusiastic exclamations of tennis players when our
bedroom windows are open). We are concerned that the elimination of the alcohol
consumption ban will cause the club usage to increase. Thus, traffic to and from the
parking lot on Brookglen Drive, and excessive parking on Bookside Drive and
Gunther Court will increase greatly. Excess parking from Brookside already is a
problem in front of our house during swimming and tennis matches. This increased
traffic can have a detrimental impact on safety for adults and children in our court
and surrounding streets due to drivers whose ability has been impaired by alcohol.
Consequently, the harmony in our neighborhood will be adversely affected if the
Brookside. Club continues to expand its use permit.
We have the following concerns and questions regarding this matter:
1)Since the Brookside Club has had a "ban" on alcohol consumption since
1958 (30+ years), why must this state of equilibrium with the neighborhood be
changed now?
2)In this age of environmental consciousness and drug awareness, why
encourage alcohol consumption in a family- oriented, sports - minded, neighborhood
club? Is this a good example to set for the youth? Is drinking alcohol the only way
adults can have a good time?
3)Who assures that only adults consume alcohol on the Brookside premises?
A Brookside Club "Sargent at Arms? A Sheriff's Deputy? During all operating
hours?
4)Who would "police" the member or guest who has had "one too many" -
take the car keys and drive him /her home?
5)Who has the liability if a member /guest drinks too much, has an accident,
and injures /kills someone, or destroys property? Is the Brookside Club willing and
prepared to accept this responsibility?
6)How can the Planning Staff recommend recinding a 30 year old agreement
concerning the consumption of alcohol on the Brookside premises, when they do not
live in the immediate neighborhood - and they are not impacted by this decision?
Safety in the streets and harmony in the neighborhood is our major concern!
7)If the staff finds that the enforcement officers cannot control alcohol
consumption, how can they ever enforce noise complaints? Alcohol use is easy to
determine, while noise control is very subjective because the perpetrators reduce
their noise when the officers arrive. Also, what is irritating and. noisy to one person
may be perfectly "normal" to another e.g. heavy metal or hard rock music.
8)If the Community Service Officer and a Sheriffs Deputy saw members
consuming alcoholic beverages at the Brookside Club on March 23,1990, why wasn't
a summons issued? If the conditions of the use permit were violated, a citation
should have been issued! "Noise." is only the result of alcohol consumption.
Obviously the officers either didn't know the restrictions placed by the Use Permit,
or the officers tolerated the alcohol usage - and didn't do their job.
9)Would the members of the Planning Commission and Staff want a drinking
"social" club in their backyard or immediate neighborhood? A tennis and swim club
that shuts down at dusk is one thing; a nightclub -type atmosphere is another?
Which one affects property values the most negative manner?
10)Are the individuals of the Planning Commission, the Planning Staff, and
the Mayor members of the Brookside Club, or good friends or business associates of
members? Are they thinking of the "good of the neighborhood" surrounding the
Brookside Club, or are they thinking of those members who use the Club, but do
not live along its borders - and have no safety, environmental, and financial stake in
the decision?
11)Are some members wanting to remove the alcohol consumption ban to
increase the monetary value of their membership - and care nothing about the
neighbors, safety, and influence on children?
In conclusion, my wife and I request the Planning Commission to stop this and
future attempts by Brookside Club to modify its Use Permit, to deny the Brookside
Club its petition to legally consume alcohol on its premises, to require the
Brookside Club to abide by the provisions of its Use Permit, and to strive once again
to become a good neighbor.
Z� ;� � Yn �
Gene P.. Steiger
19186 Gunther Ct.
Saratoga, CA 95070
BILL BREITENBACH
20130 BONNIE BRAE WAY
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
March ^_C, 1989
Tc: Council Memb; --rz,
City of Saratoga, Ca.
U
4a A4 %kra
4R R I&D
P4
,q
r,
Re* Public hearing in the matter of Brookside Club
Far Cou.ncilmembers:
W? '-!a.ve been members of Brookside Club for fourteen years.
During this time we have enjoyed the facilities there and the
fri.endships we have made. We have especially appreciated the
safe, healthy, and supervised environment that it has provided
for• our four children.
Our use and enjoyment of the club has been diminished somewhat by
a few minor restrictions that were placed in the Club's use
permit. We respectfully request that you review these
restrictions based cn -a number of factors that we wish to call
to your attention:
1. Brookside Club is the only full facility recreatio rr center• in
the City. It has a membership consisting of many seniors and
younger families with well over two hundred children.
2. It is open to all residents of Saratoga and by choice limits
its membership to Saratogans and residents of the City's sphere
of influence. Its membership fees are modest and well within
the fir:a.ncial means of most if not all-residents..
5. Th= Club over the years has had a fine relationship with the
immeliate neighborhood. Indeed many members live in the very
close surrounding area.
4. It is oftan the first organization that new residents join
and must be considered one of the premier assets in the City.
We thank you for considering our modest requests.
Sincerely,
h " /
/ l / `,_
j /1
2 - Qml-lvrie�
I\
�ti r rl�+a r2, G; C YAP lJ Y� "z
5CA 61, C, A
ax
�clw�7at C11-
v
q 5 7u
6, e�, Z., /1,
APR 1 _ 1990
Mr. Stephen Emslie
Planning Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
E7
April 5, 1990
Re: Brookside Club's Future Variance Requests and Use Permit
Violations
Dear Mr. Emslie:
The neighbors of the Brookside Club would like to propose a
process to be used by the Planning Commission in addressing
future variance requests by The Brookside Club.
We request that no future variance requests of Brookside Club
be submitted to nor considered by the Planning Commission if
there have been any Use Permit violations. We suggest this based
on the 9 (nine) meetings required this past 12 months to address
Use Permit Violations and Brookside's request for an earlier
swim meet start time.
There were:
3 -Planning Commission Meetings: 3/22/89, 5/10/89, 1/24/90
3 - Neighbors /Brookside study meetings mediated by you on:
4/11/89, 4/17/89, 4/25/89
2 - Planning Commission Work /Study meetings on:
9/19/89 and 12/5/89
1 - Planning Commission visit to Brookside and the neighbors'
backyards on 10/7/89.
Before the Planning Commission approved the 9 a.m. swim meet
start time, it required that the unauthorized Sport Court
installed by Brookside be relocated, and that an Action Plan be
written and adhered to that addressed various Use Permit
violations.
This procedure allows for a more efficient use of the Planning
Commission's time as well as for all parties involved.
3
We feel that this procedure is warranted because of
Brookside "s continual violations of its Use Permit ( see our
attached letter dated 5/10/89 ). In addition, there was a recent
Use Permit violation on March 23, 1990. Brookside had a T.G.I.F
Party and served beer and wine. The Use Permit states that
alcohol is not permitted.
We request that this matter be presented to the Planning
Commission.
It. appears that the Brookside Club continues to defy the
Planning Commission "s authority to automatically suspend
Brookside "s Use Permit for repeated violations.
What action will be taken against Brookside to curb their
blatant violations of the Use Permit?
Respectfully submitted by the Neighbor Committee Members:
Ab
P.S. The attached article from the Saratoga News clearly
illustrates why we neighbors of the Brookside Club so strongly
object to the Club's violation of the Use Permit by serving
alcohol.
AP
NE Local fire di.,
MMMMMM�
WS, urge$,-reside
f aces Sara= t Saratoga man - ..�
The Grn►«nor's a
p roseeutio for -- D (o� has �d the � -
to -earthquake
B Kim Malanczuk purpose is to Motivate .Cal
Saratoga News staff and improve their: afety_ darieg�-s
Altmg, with'; he: OM ` thh Sara*
The Santa Clara County Sheriff s Dept- will press H rt Sc g with St. Audrewa
charges for driving under the influeme of ak ohi�i Heart to teach cluldre te►
againt a 22- year -old SaratogW map recently involved ancf Hold" during an: eazthquaiue.
in a one -car accident. A}Zrll< 3, the OF.S a t
After three weeks-o€ im igatioo: d* SI>CrWV $ ( ,.will cow
last week anoocmced Daniel Mute: Jaliana had dn}l.
lbaood aloolsoi feud of -.19_ when his pc - artici oe ;n the
crashed into . tba frost yard of`*,Herr Avt~r "(680 amp:. or K
dence on Feb: 29,: a
f
z d
Juliano's blood, ak�o>aoi 1e m�e 1! Aos;uu v b!
ble the' staW'a- d)g ima WWOMOM
to investigating OMI*
state of California reduced the limit from .10 to .08 s ��
r, y
Jan. 1, 1990..
"He will be prosocUW fot: driving uncbc the t .. x
fluence, of course,, • Goodmatr said.., : s�
However, prosecution wiC be held m ab-qum S
until Juliano is released front ttic hq�rtat 'and reco�- _ '..
ers from injuries sustained in the crash. Juliano is at _
Valley Medical Cente�..whes�� .iS
but in stable condition. Goodman said -
The Sarat gk m
tared hip -. an& lbg;
for severe Giead` t a
i&Jurfes' Herrimm —M tom[ c amw*" sb-fi�mt ,1tiu
a full recovery,. he said.: putt.atAweedof
brick and
oe®eu
Juliano way ' _ . ,,, T7iet- 1 *0 t1 left
around 3:15 a.m. Feb,"2&
tang crossed' i
UAW Air AMMO
Y
yard of tlw.1b j..
from Beam y l c
The ShiiWiff" - 15tW dla ear
Juliano was _ 7 �e dtiaaaax sad. fnootZawa
Zone When the
neigh ., ..�.,, .. a■� =7.7 f
the end of Bea lc� -� in . � Z
y -icrgn ns xts��setluv� n �s -' *oft t It+GW sttl Y "MI,
�Fi1.
W.
OEU� o2 O&M o
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SAR,ATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: DATE:
Planning Commission 4/20/90
FROM:
ephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJEC .
UP- 547.2, Brookside Swim and Tennis Club
19127 Cox Avenue
Overview
On Friday, March 23, 1990, the Community Service Officer respond-
ed to a complaint from a neighbor of the Brookside Club that
members were consuming alcoholic beverages in violation of Use
Permit conditions. Upon investigation by the City,..alcohol was
observed but the officer concluded that no action was necessary
because no noise disturbance was detected. Since the Planning
Commission has jurisdiction over the Use Permit, a review of
conditions was deemed necessary by staff to resolve what could
turn out to be an on -going situation.
Background
As the Planning Commission is well acquainted with the history of
the club, staff will review conditions related to the prohibition
of alcohol.
The original Use Permit, granted in 1958, contained a condition
that prohibited alcohol consumption. Since this time, the origi-
nal Use Permit has been amended several times. Each amendment
has resulted in changes to operating conditions or allowed addi-
tional construction. However, the prohibition against alcohol
has not been modified since its original inception.
The Brookside membership held a social event on Friday, March
23rd. Staff had been advised prior to this date that a neighbor
suspected that alcohol would be served at an event of this na-
ture. The Community Service Office was advised to investigate
the event to insure compliance with the prohibition of alcohol.
During the event, neighbors contacted the Sheriff's Department to
investigate the social event. Both a Deputy and a Community
Services Officer investigated the event and informed the member-
1
L
ship that they wE in violation of their Us 2ermit but did not
notice excessive noise levels. No citation was issued. Enforce-
ment personnel referred the matter to the Planning Department to
suggest appropriate action. Staff concluded that the use of
alcohol is prohibited and Planning Commission modification will
be required to forestall enforcement of the condition in the
future.
The Planning Commission has received testimony regarding the use
of alcohol at its previous hearings. While neighbors testified
that alcohol was consumed, the objections centered on noise
levels seemingly created by members over - indulging. When the
Planning Commission granted permission for the earlier start time
for the three swim meets, all other conditions of the Use Permit
were to remain in effect.
The Planning Commission concluded its last series be granting the
club's request for earlier hours for three inter -club swim meets.
In granting this request, the Planning Commission imposed condi-
tions on the club to repair the property line fencing and to
remove creekside debris. The deadline for repair and cleanup was
March 2, 1990. The club has made significant progress in comply-
ing with this time frame. However, staff is scheduled to inspect
the facilities to determine compliance prior to the Planning
Commission public hearing.
Analysis
Staff feels the purview of the Commission includes regulating
land use to insure compatibility with surrounding uses. The
imposition of the prohibition of alcohol was initially imposed to
promote the compatibility with surrounding neighbors. The Plan-
ning Commission opined when this condition was imposed that the
absence of alcohol will ensure a reduction in noise generated at
the club. Staff feels that in an indirect way the alcohol prohi-
bition establishes a noise standard to ensure the tranquility of
the neighborhood. Staff feels that the present City Code con-
tains adequate noise standards negating the necessity to prohibit
alcohol as a means to maintain compatibility.
Staff does not suggest the continuation of the alcohol prohibi-
tion and cites the following issues supporting this conclusion:
1. The enforcement of the alcohol prohibition is difficult
and time consuming which detracts from staff's ability
to serve the community. The issue is not whether
liquor is being consumed but the noise levels at
adjoining properties. Staff feels that it would be
more productive if enforcement officers would respond
to noise complaints rather than allegations of alcohol
consumption.
2.- The City maintains restrictive residential noise levels
that are appropriate standards to apply to the Brook-
side Club. The City Noise Ordinance is enforceable on
2
the Brc -iide Club. If noise leve_ jut of character
for a residential neighborhood are noted, corrective
action can be taken regardless if alcohol is being
consumed.
3.. The prohibition of alcohol does not ensure noise levels
will remain compatible with the residential neighbor-
hood. The latest incident where alcohol was noted, the
City's Community Service Officer found no noise
violation. Alcohol consumption does not create
excessive noise, it is its irresponsible use by indi-
viduals that results in uninhibited or boisterous
behavior.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept public
testimony and delete condition of UP 574.2 which prohibits alco-
hol consumption on the Brookside facility.
SE:cw
Attachments: Original Use Permit
UP -574
UP -574.1
UP -574.2
3
� r
RESOLUTION NO. UP -547.2
A RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING USE PERMIT
Brookside Swim & Tennis Club - 19127 Cox Avenue
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has
received an application for Use Permit Approval to alter the
starting hour of swim meets three times per year to begin at 9.00
a.m.; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds:
(a) That the proposed is in accord with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site
is located.
(b) That the proposed use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate
conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential
impacts.
(c) That the proposed will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this Chapter.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, and
other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the
application of Brookside Swim and Tennis Club for use permit
approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following
conditions:
1. Upgrade the existing wood fence along the east boundary of the
Club to form a solid, air tight barrier. Repairs shall be
completed by March 2, 1990.
2. Submit a landscaping plan for Planning Director approval using
evergreen shrubs to buffer the impact of the club on the adjacent
residential area to the east. Plan shall be submitted by March 2,
1990 and landscaping installed 30 days following planning approval.
3. Eliminate the tennis rebound wall by March 2, 1990.
4. Eliminate the basketball standard or relocate it to an area
within the club of insignificant impact subject to review and
approval of the Planning Director prior to March 2, 1990.
5• Meet all conditions of previous use permits.
6. The applicants shall remove all debris from the
Water District easement prior to March 2
shall re Santa Clara
regularly monitor and inspect the condition of thispants
to ensure debris does not accumulate.
easement
Section 2. Applicant shall sign the . within 30 days of the passage of this
resolution shall be void. resolution or said
Section 3. Conditions
by the dates in this resoluti of this use
on dated use permit must be
will expire, y 24, 1990 completed
or approval
Section 4. All applicable re l
City and other Governmental entities m st be met. State County,
Section 5. Unless appealed
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga Pursuant to the re
become effective ten g requirements of
(10) days from the date of adoption. shall
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning commis-
sion, State of California, this 24th day of January, 1990, by the
following vote: g mmis-
AYES: Siegfried, Harris, Burger,
Tracker, Moran, Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kolstad
ABSENT:
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
" t-".Ltj °r Applicant
Date
CITY coon w cm (IV SAWft
y
tij
h+riurant to a hw" itt� 0� t1N Ct sil of t� ;
` ' ""
�� t 1
of sarato"S and josd c Ir11a int thstrtllr t !
i
T f, ' ` ;
the City of Sarato0a ;
, . • 3 : �.
right and privilese is to
being bounded on the AMA t f i
! b
Brookview subdivision on '
f
t alnitta tRrae
m1tted by the app11
of SAreLoga and thIS !llON,
r
operating and rAUt&Lh11ft
this permit is i
Council at the City O! S ' 0911i,
June L@ 195` . Pursuant to
per.ru •. is subject to Ift
1
1. Stara Actiont A�
1 I
'
tort and D,•tm3 b•
`
to be fllgd with
2. A h h:. : ec tural h IUt
SM sits CGVtltrl
I
:.•cl•u� �� :olaoaiJ�t '
� � �
' ".�
(a) Lift:. � � ;�
,,,,;ii_
*• -
N Psrtcin;; r ?2w
.
I
exuSipt tide sacs, ftm* ;,awl!*+*
R
p _, 41nb
ro rt„ Vol �l net b-�
north 7e
co�ct�t IL
All
,il. ' op,.I = 1
(10 Pam
36 Nmb.rshif i
:a� mil be lisit� it
10010botts of this totem rJW ! b. rrr�doe,►r. of
aaratooa for replaor■�' i"'
shall be ss yen to�
i. Howes f o � .•�t �
_ �• 1�h�lMi •; �
�'ooldids Club shall ►e i }
after saeow,
5. Rules
ruler and regulations tw
tLricted � � ,,.•;
t0 th0st!
semi I" + r f
semis courts.
noise, A copy 0,'o these I. f • .a
M
iLh the !laming �,o� ;�::, .�!I,' , �'I� '�i �I �. •�
xtenaion of also 0liiil
I
1
1eoMed to building 11M a" ,;I,�'; I' ta;�
• ft=aat lon at .% t
null s void �
ne
at the end of
ustfe• :,n1�as �i�e DrOpitg1011 �a� � � �•:�I, F;y ,! �
that of w ;.
;I
A• T tO' ft &hall .
b• � aalv�ua
Of the Vss NotM t aig}i►t � � AIM
but the okaam Club Or
May lwaL suan a rev ow '
PEW
.�• The olubhousa ag
&laming ftgftNion and 16'
Plan. ar4 &- MIX not be
ells '.� '
r ant no owwr strvo ii
ftr ainlllar
AurpONs sha11
PuM i lout
or t�ii�
10. Ths possession �a ptia of a�ool�it �ri� r
girt
o !' any klM and ,sture OW416 P lAt" tt sU time:
the presdWo.
Oslf
t
t,
r
1
1
'
t'.
. y
I
{
t.il} 1
III, # ►�j
J'F�I�rl �
.'t 1
I
't
t� 44,
j Se
ri ��•C i
I� I
{1.o'
r.liI
Ajq
1
1
k,.
III, # ►�j
J'F�I�rl �
.'t 1
I
't
t� 44,
j Se
ri ��•C i
I� I