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