HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-1988 Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda•
AGENDA
SARA'I'OGA PARKS ANU RECREAT2ON COMMISSION
TIME: MONDAY, June 6, 1988, 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: SARATOGA COMMUNITY CENTER
19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, California
(Senior Day Care Center)
TYPE: Regular Meeting
~_S_F_N_p_&
I . 48581~~~8~~4~I
A. Roll Call
B. Posting of Agenda
I I . 4~g_8ii~~~18~&
(Agenda was posted on City Hall
Kiosk on June 3, 1988)
III . I.38bI_8~i~~1`IB~~
A. Liquor License Application - Kay Chin
Iv. ~4r~a~~a4~_~~g_~~~~~_88848~~
A. Oral Report from Recreation Director - Status of
Recreation Programs
B. Expiration of Commissioner's Terms
v . 44M~ii1~Z4~~I4~I~
• •
NO MEETING IN JULY
NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING
September 12, 1988
• •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
1901 BROADWAY
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95818
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING AND FILING PROTESTS
• AGAINST APPLICATIONS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSES
Protests may be filed with any office of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control WITHIN 30 DAYS of the date on which the Public Notice of Application is
first posted on the premises. The law provides that protests received after
that time cannot be considered.
The protest must set forth the particular ground of objection and also specify
the facts which support these objections. In order that-the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control can identify the particular application, the protest
must. state the name of the applicant and the exact address of the proposed
premises. It must be signed by the protestant. Additionally, the protestant
must sign a declaration, under penalty of perjury, certifying that the state-
ments contained in the protest are true. (See example page 3.)
If the protestant is a public officer, acting in his official capacity, a
declaration under penalty of perjury is not .required.
The California Constitution provides that the selling, purchasing, and con-
sumption of alcoholic beverages in licensed premises is legal in California;
therefore, a license cannot be denied merely because of a protestant's personal
feelings against the use of alcoholic beverages.
Under the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, a hearing must be held on a
valid protest so as to afford the applicant the right to meet the objections
with whatever appropriate evidence he may have available. This means that the
mere submission by you of a protest against issuance of a particular license
does not complete the matter. It will be necessary for you to attend the
hearing to present testimony and/or evidence to substantiate your protest.
A COPY OF YOUR PROTEST WILL BE GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT.
This is done because the law requires that the applicant be furnished with a
statement of issues to be determined at the hearing. The statement of issues is
in the form of the protest you and any other possible protestants have submitted
setting forth the specific objection or objections to the granting of the
license.
Some of the grounds of protest which basically would be concerned with public
welfare and morals are as follows:
1. The premises are located within the immediate vicinity of a school, church,
hospital, or children's playground and the normal operation of the licensed
premises would interfere with their respective functions. It will be
necessary to establish specifically the detrimental factors which would
affect the facility. However, mere proximity to such consideration points
is not sufficient grounds in and of itself to support a denial.
• •
2. The premises are located in a residential area, and the normal operation of
the licensed premises would interfere with the quiet and enjoyment of their
property by the residents of the area. It will be necessary to identify
specifically how the residents will be affected.
3. When the premises have not been operated with the same type license within
90 days of the application, your protest may be based upon Rule 61.4 of
title 4, chapter 1, of the California Administrative Code. The rule
provides a basis for denial of the application if the premises or the
parking lot is within 100 feet of a residence and the applicant fails to
establish that operation of the business would not interfere with the quiet
enjoyment of the residents. The rule is available for your review at any
Department office or may be purchased for a nominal fee.
4. Licensing the premises would create,a public nuisance as defined in Penal
Code Section 370, in that: (the specific facts leading to this conclusion
must be stated).
5. Yssuance of the license to the premises would result in or add to undue
concentration of licenses.
6. The applicant is not the true or sole owner of the business to be licensed.
You must be prepared to present evidence and/or testimony as to the true
ownership.
The following are grounds usually cited by city or county enforcement agencies
only, but can be used by individuals who have independent, adequate evidence of
same:
7. Issuance of the license to the premises would tend to create a law enforce-
ment.problem or aggravate an already existing police problem.
8. Licensing the premises would be contrary to the provisions of a valid
zoning ordinance.
9. The applicant has been convicted of a felony or of a crime involving moral
turpitude or of one of the offenses listed in subdivision (b) of Sect-ion
24200 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.
10. The applicant has a record of chronic insobriety.
11. The applicant has a police record which disqualifies him for a license.
For your protest to be more effective, it should be specific and not merely a
restatement of the above examples.
_2_ Af3C-S10 (2-881
• ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control •
1901 Broadway
Sacramento, CA 95818
Gentlemen:
I hereby protest the issuance of a license under the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Act to -
Name(s) of Applicant(s)
for premises at
Exact address of proposed premises
on the grounds that:
I, , declare under penalty of perjury:
Name of Protestant
That I am the protestant herein; that I have read the above protest and know the
contents thereof; that the same is true of my own knowledge except as to-those
matters which are therein stated on information and belief, and as to those
matters I believe them to be true. '
Executed on at
Name printed
Telephone Number
California.
Signature of Protestant
e1c:~~1~eiS o'I ~'raC~:stari~
~IMC;'~ 1 i3 i ~ -±~s j
NEWS RELEASE
Peopie for Open Spacel~reenbeit congress
116 New Montgomery Suite 640 • San Francisco CA 94105 • (415) 543-4291
FOR RELEASE: March 30, 1988
CONTACT: Judith gunofsky
Associate Director
UPDATE OF DATABASE ON THE BAY AREA'S PDBLICLY O~NID OiPEEI~T 3P9CB
The ublic owns more than ?10 000 acres of o n land in the nine-count
Bay Area, approximately 1 of the total land acreage. That statistic is one
conclusion of the most recent update of the People for Open Space/Greenbelt
Congress (POS/GC) computer database of the publicly owned open lands in the
nine Bay Area counties.
The Bay Area Greenbelt consists of almost four million acres of public
and privately owned open lands. Of all the lands in the Greenbelt, the ones
that the public is the most familiar with are those that are publicly owned
generally by park, open space, water, and other agencies at all levels of
government.
Other highlights of the research:
* Santa Clara County has the largest acreage of publicly awned open
lands (167,203 acres), 24, of the total. This reflects the acreage of Benry
W. Coe State Park, which at 67,029 acres is the largest single unit in the
region.
* Marin Couat~ has the greatest percentage of its acreage in public
ownership, with 4 San Francisco is second, with 22~. Sonoma Coun has
the least, with only 6 Next to the lowest is Solano County, with 8
publicly owned.
* Merin County leads the Bay'Area in the amount of publicly owned
open space in the county per resident, with .64 acres. Second is Napa County,
with .55, reflecting the relatively low population of that-county. The lowest
is San Francisco, with .O1 acres per person, although San Franciscans "own" a
lot more per capita outside the city limits: The San Francisco Water
Department owns 62,375 acres in four counties. Also below the regional
average of .12 acres per person are°Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo
Counties, with .07, .10, and .10, respectively.
* 58°b of the Bay Area's publicly owned open leads are used primarily
for parks and recreation.
* ?8% of the publicly owned open lands are completely open to the
public. 20~ have restricted access, ranging from very easy access to the
virtually impossible. 2~ are closed to the public, with agencies citing such
reasons as water quality and wildlife protection.
The POS/GC Public Lands Database includes information on 130 public
agencies and 21 private non profit groups. Virtually all the information was
•
provided by the agencies themselves.- The attached summary report includes
information on acreage by county, percent of land area in public ownership by
county, ownership by level of government, acreage per person by county,
primary uses, agencies with largest acreage of holdings, largest units, and
public access. More detailed information is available on request.
As the Bay Area's population increases, and as outdoor activities grave in
popularity, the need for parks, for protected watersheds, for secure wildlife
habitat, and for open space buffers between communities expands as well.
POS/GC maintains the Public Lands Database as a tool for charting the region's
progress in meeting these needs and, more generally, progress in protecting
the Bay Area Greenbelt.
Copies of an 83-page set of Database printouts are available to the
public for $14.50,. including tax and 3rd class postage. Add .99 for first
class mail.
A large map of the public open lands, suitable-for public presentations,
may be borrowed from POS/GG. Also available are 11 x 17" posters of the
Greenbelt's public lands.
The first release of POS/GC research on this subject was in September,
1986, with an update in June, 1987.. Prior to this wnrk, the most recent
inventory had been prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments in
1974.
-- 30 --
• Bay Area Public Land~eport -- Page 1
Version 2.0, 3/25/88
BAY ASBA PUBLIC LANDS IIATABASB
SWOtASY FIrIDINGS
TOTAL HOLDINGS
The public owns more than 710,000 acres of open land in the nine~ounty Bay
Area, approximately 16% of the total land acreage.
A(:REAGE BY COUNTY LA(•ATION
Santa Clara County contains more public open lands than any other; this
ranking reflects the acreage of Henry W. Coe State Park, which at 67,029 acres
is the largest single uLit in the region. (The bou~^.daries of the Galden Gate
National Recreation Area include more acreage, but they are divided among
several agencies). The ranking of the counties is as follows:
Publicly owned % of region's
open lands blic lands
Santa Clara 167,203 acres 24,
Marin 144,858 20
Alameda 91,195 13
Contra Costa 75,768 it
San Mateo 64,295 9
Sonoma 61,15? 9
Napa 57,403 8
Solano 43,650 6
San Francisco 6,789 1
?12,318 acres 101% (due to rounding)
PERCENT OF LAND AREA IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP, IN EACH COUNTY
Of the nine counties, Marin County has the greatest percentage of its
acreage in public ownership, with 42%. Sonoma County has the least, with 6%.
Marin County 42%
San Francisco 22
San Mateo 22
Santa Clara 20
Alameda 19
Contra Costa 16
Napa 11
Solaro 8
Sonoma 6
Regional average: 16 of the land is publicly owned open space.
ANERSHIP BY LEVEL OF GOV~1T
26% of the lands in the Public Lands Database are owned by the public at the
federal level, 28% at the state level, 1?% at the county level, and 6% at the
city level. 21% are owned through special districts (park, open space, water,
and sewage districts), and 3% by private nonprofit land conservation groups.
•
ACREAGE PER PERSON, IN EACH Ct~iJNTY
Bay Area Public Lan~Report -- Page 2
Version 2.0, 3/25/88
Merin County leads the Bay Area in the amount of publicly owned open space
in the county per resident, with .64 acres. The lowest of the nine is San
Francisco. As county residents, San Franciscans "awn" a lot more per capita
than .01 acres, but most is outside their county's limits: The San Francisco
Water Department awns 850 acres in San Francisco; 24,622 in Alameda County;
22,863 in San Mateo County; and 14,040 in Santa Clara County.
Merin County
Napa
Sonoma
Solano
Santa Clara
San Mateo
Contra Costa
Alameda
San Francisco
.64 acres per person
.55
.17
.15
.12
.10
.10
.07
.O1
Regional average: .12 acres per person
PSIYARY OSES
58% of the Bay Area's publicly owned open lands are used primarily for parks
and recreation, 18~ primarily for water supply, and 14°b primarily for plant
and animal habitat. Other primary uses include flood control, rangeland,
historical and cultural preservation, and scientific study.
aGSDTCIES WITH LARGEST ACREAGE OF HOLDINGS, AND LARGEST iJNITS
Agencies with largest acreage of holdings:
Calif. Dept. of Parks and Recreation -- 144,132 in all nine counties
National Park Service -- 92,998 acres in four counties
San Francisco Water Department -- 62,375 acres in four counties
East Bay Regional Park District -- 5E,375 acres in two counties
Bureau of Land Management -- 49,956 acres in four cauntiess
Largest units:
Golden Gate National Recreation Area (in Merin, San Mateo, and S.F. cos.)
73,11? acres within Recreation Area boundary of which 27,184 acres
are in federal ownership; National, Park Service
Henry W. Coe State Park. (in Santa Clara county)
67,029 acres; Calif. Dept. of Parks and Recreation
Fbint Reyes National Seashore (in Maria county)
65,21? acres; National Park Service
Bay Area Public Land~eport -- Page 3
Version 2.0, 3/25/88
PUffi~IC ACCESS
Of the region's public open lands, ?8°~ are actually open to public use.
20°6 have restricted access, ranging from the very easy -- hikers must pay a
small annual fee to the East Bay Municipal Utility District -- to the
virtually impossible -- hikers are prohibited from most S.F. Water Department
lands in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties; horseback riders are
allowed on more of those lands. The remaining 2°6 of lands are closed to the
public, with agencies citing such reasons as water quality or species
protection.
The People for Open Space/Greenbelt Congress Publi;~ Lands Database includes
information on 130 public agencies and 21 private non profit groups. Virtually
all the information has been provided by or confirmed by the agencies since
August, 1986. A small amount of the information is from indirect sources.
Additional detail on the methodology is available on request. This Public
Lands Database is revised on an ongoing basis, and POS/GC welcomes inquiries,
suggestions and corrections.
The first release of POS/GC research on this subject was in September,
1986, with an update in June, 198?. Prior to this work, the most recent
inventory had been prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments in
1974. Comparisons of these results with those in previous releases should not
be taken to reflect the acreage of lands acquired during the intervening
period, because the Database is still being developed.
SELDGTID OOUNTY DATA
COUNTY SIZE OF COUNTY PUBLICLY OWNID OPEN LANDS POPULATION
Alameda 488,700 acres 91,195 acres 1,227,400
Contra Costa 480,000 75,758 743,900
Marin 344,300 144,858 227,700
Napa 508,900 57,403 105,200
San Francisco 30,300 6,789 ?41,600
San Mateo 297,600 64,295 623,500
Santa Clara 854,200 167,203 1,421,600
Solano 546,800 43,650 298,000
Sonoma 1,042,500 61,15? 354,500
Region 4,594,300 acres 712,318 acres 5,743,400
Sources: Size of counties -- Association of Bay Area Governments
Population by county, as of 7/1/87 -- California Dept. of Finance,
Population Research Unit
Publicly owned open lands -- People for Open Space/Greenbelt
Congress Public Lands Database, Version 2.0, March 1988
O First Class Mail
®I nter-Office CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA, CA 9`3070
( 408 ~ 887-3438
6:00 p.m.
6:40 p.m.
7:20 p.m.
8:00 p.m.
8:40 p.m.
CONFIRMATION OF CONSULTATION
SCHEDULE - MARCH 21
Mark A. Kenning Creegan & DiAngelo
Gerry De Young Ruth & Going
Robert F. La Rocca La Rocca Associates
Randy Anderson Wilsey & Ham
Janine O'Flaherty Brian Kangas Foulk '" 17=x•
r
f,..,~
•
C~~~ o~ ~ ° ° ~OC~~
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867-3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission DATE: April 28, 1988
FROM: Secretary, Parks & Recreation Commission
SUBJECT: Meeting of May 2, 1988
I will be meeting with the City Manager on Monday, May 2, 1988, in an
effort to formulate a plan to involve others interested in the Trails
Master Plan Update Committee.
At this point in time, a meeting Monday night will not serve any
purpose. We may have to reshedule a meeting some time in May. If
not, the next regularly scheduled meeting will be June 6, 1988.
R ~ .
M E M O R A N D U M
•
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission DATE: April 4, 1988
-FROM: Secretary, Parks & Recreation Commission ~~°
SUBJECT: Meeting of April 4, 1988
II. A. Joan Pisani will have a short report based on her
meeting with Georgina Meehan, president of the West Valley
Aquatics Team. Georgina is .asking for the Commission to support
her request for the City's financial assistance for the team.
Recommended action: Make recommendation to Council.
B. We now have the Trail Maps from the Planning
Department. The maps show fewer trails than the Master Plan
which has apparently been revised. We need to go through the
trail areas and put together a report of what is feasible and
what should be planned for in the future.
Recommended action: Make up a schedule for site review of the
trails. -
III. A. California's share of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Program for the 1988/89 Fiscal Year is $1.2 million.
Approximately $700,000 will be made available to local agency
projects. The local agency allocation will be divided - 40~ to
northern California and 60$ to southern California. These funds
wi 11 be further broken down into 5 0 $ for regi ona 1 and 5 0 $ for
less-than-regional projects. .Deadline for filing applications
will be June 1, 1988.
Recommended Action: Decide if City of .Saratoga should apply for
fends and if so, select a project to submit for consideration.
V. A. No action needed.
Please let Sharon know if you will be unable to attend the
meeting.