Loading...
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.