Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-22-1972 Parks and Recreation recommendation on Park Ordinances ftue MARCH 22, 1972 CITY OF SARATOGA MEMORANDUM TO CITY COUNCIL FROM PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING REVISION OF SARATOGA PARK ORDINANCES I. INTRODUCTION: The Parks & Recreation Commission has undertaken an extensive review of the City' s ordinances governing park use. The Commission compared this City' s park ordinances with those of other municipalities in the area and selected two sets of municipal ordinances as guides for the revision of Saratoga' s Park Ordinance (Attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). The models selected are the park ordinances of Los Gatos (attached hereto as Exhibit "B") and Palo Alto (attached hereto as Exhibit "C"). (Various provisions from each of these sets of ordinances will be cited in the recommendations below). The review was made to determine whether Saratoga' s existing park ordinances were sufficient in scope to apply to the City's developing neighborhood park system. Upon examination, it was evident that the existing park ordinances were drawn to apply primarily to a trail system and campsite parks; and, therefore, new rules are necessary. The Commission' s judgment is that the City' s park ordinances should be broad enough to apply to the entire park program as currently envisioned by the City. Further, the rules of use should be sufficiently precise to be administered without misunderstanding on the part of citizens and park users. This action is taken by the Parks and Recreation Commission with the advice of the Youth Commission on the matters contained in its memorandum of February 3, 1972. The recommendations are divided into the following categories: General Purpose and Definitions; Permits (see CH.11, Art. V, Saratoga Ord.) ; Prohibitory Acts (See CH.11, Art. I, Saratoga Ord.) ; Sanitation (See CH.11, Art. III, Saratoga Ord.) ; and Fire Protection (See CH.11, Art.II, Saratoga Ord. ) At a subsequent time, the Commission will be making recommendations regarding ordinances governing trails and bicycle use throughout the City. The latter are not necessary to the current suggested revisions which should be adopted at the earliest possible date as the rules for use of Kevin Moran, Wildwood Park, and Hakone Japanese Gardens. II. RECOMMENDATIONS A. General Purpose and Definitions An introductory set of sections, declaring the general purpose (see Palo Alto Ord. Sec. 22.04.010) and providing definitions of key terms (see Palo Alto Ord. Sec. 22.04.020 and Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-1) should be provided. Definitions are needed for such terms as : park, garden, (the Commission feels that Hakone Gardens is a park), persons , vehicles, permit, wildlife, amplified sound, parks department, etc. B. Permits Preliminary Considerations: The following is set forth as background to the Commission' s specific recommendations below; it is a synopsis of the Commission's discussion of permit procedures on February 7, 1972. 1. There should be a special Permit Procedure for the use of parks, permitting groups to come in and reserve designated facilities. Palo Alto requires permits for groups of 25 persons or more. - 2 - 2. Parks should not be reserved exclusively for Saratoga residents. But if we consider our parks open to all the public, should we give preference to the people of Saratoga? Should there be a pre-registration period for Saratoga people who want to reserve the parks? There should be some opening and closing dates for permit application. Preference could be given to Saratogans by allow- ing a 90 day advance application period, with all others given a 60 day advance. Groups with predominantly Saratoga residents could have the same priority. Another way of giving preference would be to allow only city residents to sign a group's application. It was generally concluded that all groups should be able to use the parks as long as there is nothing done which would inhibit the people of Saratoga in the use of their parks. However, we could administratively encourage a preferred use by groups within the city or whose membership is made up of people from the city by suggesting to outside groups another place, such as Vasona, which is larger and is the regional park for the area. This approach would be facilitated by declaring through ordinance that the parks of Saratoga are public and open to all but are primarily designed for the recreation of the citizens of the city. It may be advisable to give a preference to public groups within the city. It is incidentally noted that Los Gatos does not have an ordinance restricting use or giving preference to its citizens and Palo Alto has reserved just its Foothills Park for residents and their guests only. Further,neighborhood parks by their design and nature should not attract many users outisde of their immediate service area. 3. Another concern is that a limited number of people may have exclusive use of the parks; for example, they may have 75% of the park so that there will be some space left for other users. Following this criteria, we should not term our permit procedure an "exclusive permit" but rather a "reservation permit" or "special use permit" . We should have a schedule to indicate the number of people which could use the parks at any one time. Thom Ford has talked to Kaz Abey about this and he felt that there would be a constant turnover as people would always be coming and going. The problem, though, would be the parking. There would not be enough parking places so this may discourage many people from even coming to the park. We should try not to go tb`the maximum amount of people at any one time so as to leave some breathing space. 4. In allowing group reservation use of the parks, there may be an additional cost for extra park attendants and for clean-up. Therefore, we should have a fee schedule for reserved park use, similar to Palo Alto. A cleaning deposit should be requested. 5. On what basis can the City Manager deny a permit to people? Per Los Gatos procedure - A permit will not be issued if the use will interfere with the community's health, welfare and recreation; or if the use of the park is likely to lead to misconduct. As per Palo Alto - You can deny a permit if the city finds that there is no park in the city which may accommodate such an activity or a group. We should have a permit application indicating conditions of use and if the people do not wish to follow what the permit states, then we may be able to refuse the groups the use of the park. Specific recommendations regarding City of Saratoga Park Ordinances: 1. Sec. 11-27 of the Saratoga Ord. regarding permits for public demonstrations should be removed from the parks portion of the city ordinance and reconsidered from the standpoint of prior restraint of free speech at any public facility. 2. Sec. 11-28 - Public Facility - should be redrafted to prohibit any excavation of rocks or other articles, etc. , rather than allow the same upon obtaining - 3 - a permit. The city, of course, is understood to be exempt from this prohibition. See Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-2(c). 3. Sec. 11-30. The City Manager, not the Director of Public Works, shall have authority to grant or deny a permit for the filming of television pictures or motion pictures if the need does come about. 4. A special permit procedure ("reservation permit") should be established for group use of parks. See Palo Alto Ord. Sec. 22.04.030. (a) The permit procedure should indicate that parks in Saratoga have been established primarily for the use of residents of Saratoga, and that the city wishes to encourage groups within Saratoga or groups that have memberships largely from Saratoga to use the park facilities. There would be no specific priorities established. City sponsored events would be exempt from permit requirements. (b) Groups of 25 or more should apply for a permit to reserve a park. (c) No parks should be reserved for more than 75% of its people-capacity. Palo Alto's park ordinance has an Exhibit "A" attached showing each park's facilities and capacity. 5. Application Procedure The procedure should follow Palo Alto Ord. Sec. 22.04.050 as a model. Permits should be filed not less than 20 days nor more than 90 days before proposed use. They shall contain the name of applicant or sponsoring group signing for the application, number of persons expected, starting time, etc. These permits will be on a first come, first serve basis. So, if two groups sign up for the same day, the first group would get the priority. It should be stated on the application whether the group intends to use any amplified sound system. The contents of the permit application should be specifically indicated similar to Palo Alto Ord. Sec. 22.04.060. 6. Pre-requisites to Issuance Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-14 establishes pre-requisites for issuance of a permit and Palo Alto Ord. Sec. 22.04.070 specifies reasons for denial. Saratoga should follow the Los Gatos procedure. City Manager should be the person clearly designated to act upon any application until such time as"the Director of Parks" is established. The ordinance could read "City Manager or his authorized designate." 7. Appeal Procedure (See Palo Alto Ord. Sec. 22.04.120) Applicant can appeal denial within 5 days of the notice to City Council. 8. A suggestion was made that fees and deposits be made at the time of issuing the permit. The city should adopt a schedule establishing fees. (Set a fee for an extra park attendant salary. Find out what other parks charge per acre or whatever. Fees could be modeled after Palo Alto Ord. Sec. 22.04.130.) 9. Amplified Sound Amplified sound equipment should not be permitted without prior city approval. The conditions for approval would govern both group use and any less than 25 person use, exempt from the above permit procedure. The conditions of approval could be similar to Palo Alto Ord. Sec. 22.04.180. - 4 - 10. Vending should only be allowed incidental to group use, such as sale of soft drinks. See prohibitory acts section below for further discussion regarding vending. 11. Terms and Conditions and Liability Adopt Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-15 regarding terms and conditions of permit and Palo Alto Ord. .Sec. 22.04.140 regarding hold harmless agreement in favor of city. C. Prohibitory Acts The following action should be taken regarding Saratoga' s existing ordinance sections: 1. 11-1 (custody of park property), 11-2 (control over camping facilities) , 11-3 (scope of regulations), 11-5 (gambling), 11-6 (disorderly conduct) and 11-7 (consumption of alcoholic beverages) should be repealed in that these ordinances are not applicable to the type of parks which the city is currently developing, existing State laws are sufficient to control the prohibitory acts specified in these sections, and new staff functions and designations need to be developed i.e. Parks Dept. 2. 11-4 (wild life) should be preserved with the definition of wildlife (this definition should be in general definition section discussed above) expanded to include "fish". 3. 11-8 (protection of foilage) should be redrafted to provide the following language after the opening words "No person": "except city employees or other authorized personnel; then language similar to Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-2(e), concerning lawns, 18-2(f) concerning damage to trees, and 18-2(g) concerning climbing trees, should be added. 11-9 (disfigurement of park property) should be expanded in favor of Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-2(a) and (d), excepting from the latter "a special permit issued under this Chapter." 11-10 (gathering of weeds and wood) should be redrafted as follows: "No plants or wood shall be cut or gathered in or around any picnic site in any park area." Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-2(c) should replace Saratoga Ord. Sec. 11-28, regarding excavation, discussed above under permits. Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-2(b)' s language prohibiting persons from littering, soiling or defiling restrooms is appropriate; but the last sentence of that subsection is unnecessary. 4. 11-11 (firearms) should be replaced by more explicit language of Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-3(j). 5. 11-12 (leash law) should be retained. However, some commissioners would provide as alternative to leash control: "under control of owner." Also language similar to Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-3(e) regarding control of other animals should be considered. 6. 11-29 (vending) should be included in prohibitory acts section of ordinance. Generally it should be redrafted to prohibit vending, except where approved under the permit procedure. Further, Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-3(k) prohibiting soliciting should be included in the prohibitory acts. The following new prohibitions should be added to Saratoga' s Park Ordinances: 1. Sections prohibiting, except in areas designated for such use: golfing (similar to Palo Alto Ord. Sec. 22.04.10; archery, fishing, swimming (similar to Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-6), model airplane flying (similar to Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-3(1)and camping. - 5 - 2. A catch-all section prohibiting use in violation of posted notices (see Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-3(g)). 3. There should be a section prohibiting sleeping or protracted lounging within city parks, unless designated as a camping facility. (See Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-3(i). • 4. See generally Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-5 concerning vehicles and bicycles in parks. (a) It is recommended that parking be prohibited except in designated areas (refer Palo Alto Ord. Sec. 22.04.210). (b) Bicycling generally should not be prohibited in parks, unless posted otherwise (because of the size, topography and anticipated pedestrian use of Wildwood, bicycling will probably be prohibited there) ; but bicycling should be confined to signed paths, routes or roadways within the parks. (c) No mini-bikes or motorized vehicles except in areas designated. 5. Hours of Use City should adopt language of Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-9 regarding hours of use. But the closing-time should be only between the hours of 2:00 a.m. to sunrise, unless a subsequent resolution of the city specifies to the contrary. The purpose here is to prohibit overnight use of the parks, but allow the Council the flexibility of deciding specific hours for each park by resolution. For example, neighborhood parks without lighting would close on hour after sunset. D. Sanitation Saratoga Park Ordinance Article III, has been revised and the following recommendations are set forth: 1. See generally Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-4 as a model. 2. Sections 11-A (litter), 11-20 (washing), and 11-22 (contamination of waters) are appropriate controls. 3. Section 11-21 should be repealed as unnecessary. E. Fire Protection Saratoga Park Ordinance, Article II has been reviewed and the following recommendations are set forth: 1. Section 11-13 (fire prevention generally) is approved. 2. Section 11-14 (limitations on fire building) needs redrafting and clarification in two particulars: (1) Fireplaces should be expanded to include other burners or BBQ's. (2) Commission would not recommend having to post every area where one could bring in portable cooking implements and generally would favor use of such implements where picnic tables are located. 3. Section 11-15 (removal of combustible materials) should be redrafted to delete "camp" as Saratoga does not have "camp" type parks. 4. Section 11-16 (extinguishing of fires) is approved. 5. Section 11-17 (fireworks) It is suggested that this be redrafted to read like the Los Gatos Ord. Sec. 18-3(c). 6. Section 11-18 (smoking) This should be redrafted to say "Smoking in public parks shall be permitted in all areas in parks unless posted otherwise." - 6 - III. CONCLUSION The Parks and Recreation Commission offers to participate in any Council Committee review of the above. It further asks for an opportunity to see the draft amendments to the Park Ordinance for comment, prior to adoption by the City Council. The Sheriff's office has offered to review the language of ordinance amendments prior to adoption. We wish to be certain that the Sheriff's office which will enforce the ordinance is satisified with the laws proposed. Respectfully submitted, Saratoga ks & Recreation Commission By: Norman E Natteoni, Chai an :r