Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-07-1995 Parks and Recreation Agenda
AGENDA SARATOGA PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING TIME: Monday, August 7, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Administrative Conference Room City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A) Roll Call B) Minutes (Meeting of July 10, 1995) C) Posting of Agenda Pursuant of Government Code 54954.2 the agenda for this meeting was posted on the City Hall Kiosk on August 2, 1995. II. OLD BUSINESS None III. NEW BUSINESS A) Review Alcoholic Beverage Policy at E1 Quito Park B) Open Space Implementation Committee Report Review of Policies Conclusions. IV. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A) Memorandum From City Attorney Regarding Dog Park. V. COMMISSION AND STAFF REPORTS A) Commissioner's Reports B) Previous Month Council Meeting Report C) Recreation Department Status Report-Joan Pisani D) Park Maintenance Division Update-Bob Rizzo In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Parks Superintendent, Bob Rizzo,'at (408) 867-3438. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure . accessibility to this meeting. • M E M O R A N D II M TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Secretary, Parks and Recreation Commission SUBJECT: MEETING OF MONDAY AUGUST 7, 1995 **************************************************************** III. NEW BUSINESS A) Review Alcoholic Beverage Policy at E1 Ouito Park At their July 25th meeting, Council reviewed and discussed the enclosed memo regarding consumption of alcoholic beverages at E1 Quito Park. At this time, Council stated that they have no interest in the Commission pursuing any further changes in the City's • Alcoholic Beverage Policy at any of the City Parks. B) Open Space Implementation Committee Report Review of Policies Conclusions. At the recent joint meeting, Council requested the Commission prepare a recommendation of the conclusions of the Open Space Implementation Committee which could be folded into the Parks and Trails Master Plan. I have enclosed the complete committee report with the policies for consideration. Please let Janice know if you will be unable to attend this meeting (867-3438 Ext. 245) Bob Riz , Secretary jw Z T~rr- `~' - A TO: City Council THROUGH: Larry Perlin FROM: Bob Rizzo ~~~ DATE: July 19, 1995 SUBJECT: Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages at E1 Quito Park At the recent Joint City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting, Council instructed staff to.make direct contact with the users of the park, that according to the neighbors, are consuming significant quantities of alcoholic beverages. On the two proceeding Monday's after the meeting, staff discussed with this group, the concerns that were raised by the neighbors: (A) The consumption of large amounts of alcoholic beverages (B) On-street parking problems and speeding (C) Playing of loud music both from the cars and radios they bring into the park Staff reported that this group understood the situation and would try to modify their behavior. They stated that they did not want to have any difficulties with the neighborhood and enjoy using the facilities at E1 Quito Park. This group has been regularly using the E1 Quito Park picnic and volleyball areas every Monday for the last five (5) years and this is the only complaint staff has received regarding these individuals. Staff reported that this group has always been cooperative and has never been a problem to the staff while they are using the facility. On July 10, Kathy McGoldrich and Dhiren Unadkot, neighbors of E1 Quito Park who addressed council at the joint meeting regarding the issues at the park, attended the Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting. They informed the Commission, the weekend of July 1 and 2, there were a number of problems in the park with alcohol and residents had to call a sheriff's deputy to handle the problems in and around the park. The deputy was called out regarding a parking problem of someone parking into a residents driveway. Mr. Unadkat informed the Commission that they had addressed the parking concerns with the Public Safety Committee and that the Committee would investigate the possibility of "no parking" along Paseo Presada across from the park. After listening to Ms. McGoldrick, Mr Unadkot and staff regarding these issues, the Commission requested that the issue of consumption of alcohol .at City parks be placed on the Commission's August agenda. The Commission would be discussing a restriction on the consumption of alcoholic beverages in all City parks similar to the recent restriction placed at Wildwood Park. n,,~~.~ ~ido Mfl vu~'~-lo'~ wt ~T~ ~ - ~~ • Policies for Consideration • There is no present need to institute new revenue sources to complete implementation of Parks and Trails Master Plan. • No new park sites should be acquired (i.e. dedication/gift) without funding mechanism for development and maintenance. • No new park sites should be acquired with development funds r . Park development funds shall be used to develop parks. • Trails should be acquired and developed as part of development approvals (i.e. paid for by the developer). • Development funds should be spent to design Revin Moran and Azule Parks at one time; development of individual parks (i.e. previously designed) will occur as .funds become available. • Staff is encouraged to negotiate with project applicants to achieve the objectives of the Open Space Element as long as the result is consistent with the overall objectives of the • General Plan. • Priority of park development shall be per adopted Parks and ~~ Recreation Commission priorities and implementation plan. (Note: The Open Space and Implementation Committee recognizes that unique situations arise from time to time that may necessitate varying the Park and Recreation Commission's priorities.) • Park/Trails development shall occur only as funds become available. •~ All aspects of the Open Space Element should be taken into consideration to ensure timely implementation in addition to park and trail development (e.g. land use decisions, design review approvals, cooperative legislation with other agencies, etc. to ensure open space preservation). n U • ~~~~ ~~ ~ D ~ ~O 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • c 408 ~ ` COUNCII. r......__ REldOR71NDIIM To: saratoga City Council FROM: open space Implementation Committee DATE: October 18, 1994 SIIBJECT: Status Report Ann Mane BUICP' a~:!..L4:'oC ~.;.:.a- n r. ;.~ ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Open Space Implementation Committee was created by the City Council to evaluate methods and establish priorities for the • implementation of the Open Space Element. The Committee consists of Leo Barnard and John Clark of the Parks and Recreation Commission and Robert Hilton and Peter Raiswell of the Finance Advisory Committee. The Committee met on a somewhat monthly schedule to review the Open Space Element, the Parks and Trails Master Plan and general policies regarding open space in the City. Revenue sources were evaluated for best ways to pay for acquisition, development and maintenance of open space areas. Attached is a statement of policies developed by the Committee to guide in the implementation of the Element. The "Policies for Consideration" are the Committee's recommendation to the City Council for future decisions regarding budget, priorities and revenue sources. Also attached is a report presented to the Committee by staff which was used in the formulation of the policies. The Committee will be present at the October 25 City Council Work Session to discuss the recommendations and to answer any questions. OSIC/plc cc: Bob Rizzo • Patricia Shriven Paul Curtis .~ Prmteo on recyCleO paper. • C~ ~~~ o~ ~, OC~~ 13777 FR.UITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 950 7 0 • (408 ~ Sfi i -3-38 COUNCII. MEMBERS: Ann Mane Buroer ~aC~ r .. J3GCCr c3::r,i^:1t0 w M E M O R A N D II M ~'~`~~~ -uc~r ~: ~~~.: _ Choi;e To: Open Bpace Implementation Committee FROM: Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director DATE: September 27, 1994 SIIBJECT: Meeting Schedule • At their September 18 Work Session, the City Council requested that the Open Space Implementation Committee meet with them on Tuesday, October 2S to discuss priorities for implementation of the Open Space Element. In order to wrap up our work on the issues of financing park, recreation facilities and open space, a final (?) meeting of the Committee will be held on Monday, October 3 from 5:00 PM - 7:00 PM, in the Community Development Department Conference Room. I realize that the early start time may be an imposition, but I feel that it is necessary to complete our work and to formulate a recommendation to the City Council. The Finance Advisory Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission meet later that evening. I have attached another copy of the last information package distributed to the Committee. It consists of: • Projected revenues from potential development anticipating approximately $1.3 million within the next 5 years and potentially another $1.87 million with ultimate buildout; • Specific recommendations regarding which parks should be improved first and that parks should be improved with development funds while trails should be developed as part of site development approvals; • • A copy of the March 5, 1993, staff report for the City Council Policy Development Conference discussing revenue sources. Printed on recycletl paper. open Space Implementation Committee September 2?, 1994 . Page 2 The objective of the October 3 Committee meeting is to formulate a final recommendation to the City Council. For example, if the Committee feels that certain parks should be developed first or new revenue sources should be considered, these recommendations should be made to the Council on October 25. Staff will make suggestions at the October 3 Committee meeting regarding how anticipated revenues can be spent. For example, park development funds should be used for design of "several parks" at one time while actual development of the parks will occur as revenues become available. Attached is a list of "Policies for Consideration." The purpose of the list is to guide discussion at the meeting. I would anticipate a similiar (expanded?) list to be forwarded to the City Council as the Committee's recommendation. If you have any questions regarding the meeting or the objectives, please feel free to call Patricia Shriven (ext. 236), Bob Rizzo (ext.. 246) or myself (ext. 231) at 867-3438. cc: Patricia Shriven Bob Rizzo attachment: Policies for Consideration • • • • 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408186; -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ann Mane BurOe alai=^ .1',.r,3~ M E M O RAND O M h3r°'' ~,;Ch'f' 1 TO: open Space Implementation Committee p w FROM,: Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director Y DATE: September 9, 1994 BIIBJECT: Background Material for September 12 Meeting • • Open Space Implementation Committee Meeting Monday, Beptember 12, 1994 (6:00 PM) Community Development Department Conference Room Attached are Staff Reports addressing parks and trails priorities, revenue projections from potential development and potential revenue sources. At the last Committee meeting, staff was requested to provide the information to allow the Committee to formulate policy recommendations to the City Council. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee review the information and forward its recommendation to the City Council. cc: Patricia Shriven Bob Rizzo Printed on recycletl paper. • C~ ~~~ o~ ° ~OC~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • t40S) 867-3-I3S COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ann Marie 8uroe~ Paui~ J3C^~~ udli;~^ Mcrar. M E M O R A N D O M Ka'°'- JLChP.' D.~na'C~. VL,~'+r I' To: open Space Implementation Committee ~c~'ROM: Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director DATE: September 9, 1994 SIIBJECT: Development Potential The following is a discussion of development potential in the City in the near future. The purpose of this discussion is to detenaine • approximate park fund revenues that may be anticipated from residential development activity. Park funds are collected at the time of recording of the final map for a subdivision of land. The current fee is $8160 per residential unit. This fee is•evaluated each July 1 and is subject to City Council approval. For purposes of discussion, development potential is being considered in several categories: Known Projects, Williamson Act Properties, Inquiries for Development, Existing Non-Residentially Zoned Properties and Unknown Potential. •• Known Projects: These are projects that have either been approved and are awaiting filing of final subdivision maps or are currently in public hearing review and are anticipated for approval. Any revenues from these projects can be anticipated within the next 5 years (tentative maps expire and become void if final maps are not filed within 5 years). • Peninsula Townhomes - 26 units • Greenbrier Development - 94 lots • Audrey Smith Subdivision - 6 lots • Sisters of Mercy Subdivision - 8 lots • Kerwin Ranch Subdivision - 16 lots • Oden Property - 5 lots • Cox Ave. Subdivision - 5 lots Printed on recycled paper. Page 2 • Development Potential September 9, 1994 Williamson Act Properties: These are properties that are committed to "agricultural purposes" for a 10 year period. Tax relief is provided as long as the property remains undeveloped. Upon expiration of the Williamson Act contract or at the request of the property owner, the property may be developed. It is difficult.to determine an exact number of residential lots that would be created on these properties because they are typically located in the HR Zoning District where the size of the lot is determined by the average slope. Without detailed surveys, a "good guess" is all that is possible at this time. There may be a potential of ~5 lots from Williamson Act properties. Inquiries for Development: These are properties where staff has been asked about development potential if an application was filed. They are located throughout the City and consist primarily of larger, undeveloped sites. There is the potential of ~Q lots on these properties. However, there is no way to determine when, or if, development will proceed and revenues could be anticipated. The Moreland School District has questioned the development • potential on the school site adjacent to El Quito Park if the District designates the site as surplus. The current zoning is R1- 10,000 which would allow approximately ~, lots on the site. The inquiry was made regarding a General Plan amendment and zone change which would allow multiple-family development (approximately units would be possible) . This would require a major policy change (i.e. General Plan amendment) in an existing single-family neighborhood. I would anticipate a major "political battle" in that a decision would have to be made to allow condominiums or townhouses to "intrude" into the existing neighborhood even if existing multiple-family is located adjacent to the school site (Saratoga Parkside and Chardonay developments). Therefore, I do not feel it is appropriate to include the higher density as a feasible density at this time. Therefore, a total of ~ residential units may be anticipated from this category. Existing Non-Residential Zoned Properties: Current zoning regulations allow certain commercially zoned properties to be developed with residential uses upon approval of a conditional use permit following a public hearing by the Planning Commission. There are approximately 18 acres in this category which would create a total of 15o residential units. This is highly • speculative in that the property owners must request a different kind of land use other than what their property is zoned CJ • Page 3 Development Potential 8eptembe=' 9, 1994 for and the public and Planning Commission must determine that the alternative use is appropriate. IInknown Potential: This category recognizes that there are properties located throughout the City that contain sufficient lot area to allow the lot to be subdivided. For example, a lot containing 40,000 sq.ft. which is zoned R1-20,000 could be divided into 2 lots. However, this is highly speculative in that there is no way to determine exactly where these lots are located, if there is an existing residence in the middle of the site which would not allow subdivision without demolition of the residence, etc. This category is listed only to indicate that there is a possibility of some undeterminable number of new residential development. Summary of Development Potential: Known Projects 160 Williamson Act Properties 25 Inquiries for Development 44 Existing Non-residential Properties 150 Unknown Potential 0 Total Potential Lots 379 Lots It must. be understood that any development other than Known Projects should be considered highly speculative in that timing of development requests is entirely at the discretion of property owners. Summary of Revenue Potential: Known Projects: 160 lots @ $8160/lot = $1,305,600 All Other Categories: 219 lots = 1,787,040 Total Potential Revenues $3,092,640 r 1 U • C~ ~~~ o~ ° ~~~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408 ~ 867-3435 COUNCIL AMBERS: Ann Mane BurOe' PaL~' ~ /acc~ h,vip.. )Ufnt,. i^ :3.L ~ LtiL~ltr' TO: Open Space Element Implementation Committee THROUGH: Paul Curtis FROM: Bob Rizzo -~~ DATE: September 12, 1994 SUBJECT: Park Development Fund ***********************e*************,~,~************************** The purpose of this memo is to review and discuss with the Open • Space Implementation Committee the use of all Park Development Funds to develop existing undeveloped park land and trail easements. ~ CURRENT POLICY As stated in the City's Park and Trails Master Plan "the planning for parks and trails in Saratoga is influenced by the surrounding region. Given the major park sites and open space just outside the City, priorities should primarily focus on the improvements to existing park sites within the City rather than the search for new available sites." In its review of the Park and Trails Master Plan, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended to City Council the development of future parks and trails be addressed as separate issues and the development of the undeveloped sites remaining should receive first priority for funding. Whenever possible, the development of future trail easements would require the developers through the subdivision approval process to design and implement improvements to the trails system. All trail construction should be completed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. Using the Master Plan, the Parks and Recreation Commission developed a recommended project priority list for the future parks and trails projects (see attached memo project priority list). Printed on recycletl paper. • ~z ALTERNATIVE POLICY The following is for discussion of an alternative policy regarding the development of Parks and Trails in Saratoga. Should the Park Development Funds be separately applied to trail development over development of undeveloped park sites currently held by the City? As stated in the current policy, all undeveloped park land should have first priority over trail development when the only funding source is the Park Development Fund for the following reasons: A) The remaining undeveloped park land has been held and designated for development for almost twenty (20) years by the City. B) Development of the remaining undeveloped sites will effect a greater number of residents. The combining of the Azule and Revin Moran sites into a large community park which would serve the entire City. C) As part of the Parks Master Planning process the communit~ expressed concerns regarding specific issues for the parks programming. They stated the need for more athletic fields and practice areas for both baseball, softball and soccer in the City. D) The Cupertino Union School District has stated to the City that it would welcome any proposals for partnership as related to the adjoining school property to the Azule site. E) Development of trails may have to wait until all undeveloped park land is developed but should proceed whenever possible to be concurrent with land development construction in properties that have designated trail easements. F) Trail easements not developed in conjunction with construction has historically met with objections from the neighboring community. • jw Printed on recycled paper C~B~4 0~ ~~° ° ~OC~L~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 567-3435 COUNCII. MEAiBERS: Ann Mane Bur~• °aui ~ /a~oC~ ui!ud^ Mora^ h~'P" 1UCtiP' L'O.93.C: V1'Oi:e? TO: Open Space Implementation Committee FROM: Bob Rizzo - ~" DATE: September 12, 1994 SUBJECT: Parks and Trails Master Plan Project Priority List . Staff has listed the priority list for future park and trail projects identified in the City's Parks and Trails Master Plan. The development of future parks and trails are addressed as ' separate issues and ths_development of the undeveloped park sites should receive first priority. Each project listed includes: 1) A cost estimate for construction and/or the improvement 2) An annual maintenance cost 3) Current status which states the year the project is projected for construction and/or the improvement 4) Description of possible funding 5) Identification of any potential revenue From these projects, staff has estimated that they will increase the park maintenance cost by $46,650 annually, once all ten (10) projects are completed. I estimate that five (5) projects have the potential of increasing revenues. Pnnteo on recycletl paper. 5~ 1) Revin Moran Park (14 acres) Cost Estimate: $524,000 Annual Maintenance Cost: 77,000 annually (an increase of $11,000) Status: Scheduled for site planning in FY 94/95 as Park Development Funds become available. Financing: Park Development Fund Revenue: User fee revenue might be expected from this site if soccer or playfields are constructed. 2) Azule Park (4.3 acres) Cost Estimate: $365,700 Annual Maintenance Cost: 23,650 Status: Scheduled for site planning in FY 94/95 as Park Development Funds become available, possible construction 95/96. Financing: Park Development Fund Revenue: IIser fee revenue might be expected from this site if soccer or playfields are constructed. 3) Hakone Gardens (Improvement to Entrance Road) Cost Estimate: $ 50,000 • Annual Maintenance Cost Increase: No increase Status: Project on hold Financing: IInknown at this time Revenue: Improvements have the potential to generate higher revenue from visitors. Improved road could allow for bus access to the garden. 4) Coneress Sprints Park Improvements Cost Estimate: $156,000 Annual Maintenance Cost Increase: No significant changes are anticipated. Status: Project Capital Improvement Project (C.I.P.) 1995/2000 Financing: Park Development Fund Revenue: Group picnic area could provide revenue through the establishment of a rental fee. 5) F9othill Park Improvements Cost Estimate: $ 19,500 Annual Maintenance Cost Increase: No changes are anticipated. Status: Projected C.I.P. 1995/2000 Financing: Park Development Fund Revenue: None • Panted on recycled paper • 6) Gardiner Park Cost Estimate: $ 28,500 Annual Maintenance Cost: No signs"ficant changes are anticipated. Status: Projected C.I.P. 1995/2000 Financing: Park Development Fund Revenue: None 7) Cost Estimate: $ 30,000 Annual Maintenance Cost: 4,000 Status Projected C.I.P. Financing: Park Development Fund Revenue: None 8: Brookalen Park Cost Estimate: $ 1,500 Annual Maintenance Cost: No significant change to annual maintenance cost. Status: Projected C.I.P. 1995/2000 Financing: General Fund or Park Development Fund Revenue: None PARK T0~'1'AL8 Cost Estimate $1,175,200 Anticipated Increase Maintenance Cost 38,650 • Printed on recycled paper • 1) ~arnel~an Glen Court/Pedestrian Walkway (900 LF) Cost Estimate: $ 16,500 ($18 per linear foot Annual Maintenance Cost: 500 Status: Need to accrue small easement to complete - public hearing 1994 Financing: Possible Bicycle Lane Project funding through Transportation Development Act or Park Development Fund. Revenue: None 2) Sout_her*+ Pacific Railro~_d Right-of Wav Trail (16,700 LF) Cost Estimate: $400,800 ($24 per linear ft) Annual Maintenance Cost: 7,500 Status: Projected C.I.P. 1995/2000 Financing: Possible Bicycle Lane Network Project funding source, .Transportation Development Ac~ (T.D.A.) or Park Development Fund. TRAILS TOTALS Cost Estimate $ 417,300 Anticipated Increase in Maintenance Cost 8,000 jw • Punted on recycled paper .7 C~ ~~~ o~ ° ~OC~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867-3435 COUNCIL MEMBERS: September 1, 1994 Ann ManeBuroer Paui E. /acoos C>rman Morar Karen IucFer Doraid ~. Moire Barbara Takahashi 12326 Larchmont Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Takahashi: Thank, you for writing concerning Kevin Moran Park. The City has a group working right now to recommend to the City Council future park project priorities. We expect they will complete their work sometime this month and then the City Council will review and f ina 1 i z e the projects for future funding . I have asked that a copy of your letter be given to the group. As for when we will get started, well, you put your finger on the key problem. Currently the park fund is over spent but new development is coming in. We expect $163,200 will come in between now and next summer and another $767,040 the year after that. If the money does come in as expected, then the capital improvement plan for next year could include money to begin to design our next one or two park projects. However, we don't want to design projects we can not afford to build right away because we often end up having to make major revisions which drives the price up, reducing the dollars available for other needed projects. Once we do start our planning process, I hope we can count on you to support the City's efforts. Sincerely, Ann Marie Burger Mayor AMB:HRP:jvg cc: City Council Public~Works Director Community Development Director L%~ • Panted on recycled paper Barbara Takahashi 12326 Larchmont Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 August 26, 1994 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Kevin Moran Park Renovations Dear Council Members: Other citizens and I have been before you and the Parks Commission to address the need for improvements at Kevin Moran Park, specifically in the children's play area. We have been pleased by the apparent agreement that the park is overdue for improvement and needs to be at the top of the list. The lack of money seems to be the only roadblock; fortunately some new housing developments will be bringing in new funds. My request to all of you is to begin the design stage as soon as funds are available for that stage. We understand the lengthy process involved in redesigning a park and feel that we should not wait until all funding is available before we proceed. We would like to be as helpful and as involved as possible in determining the future of our park. What we don't want to see is another long wait for action, as our kids grow up without a fun and safe play area at our beautiful Kevin Moran Park. The nearby neighborhoods are filled with children and more are moving in every week. Thank you to the City Council and Bob Rizzo for recognizing that the play structure needed immediate replacement and budgeting maintenance funds for that.. We're headed in the right direction. We are excited that the park may reach its great potential in the near future. Sincerely, Barbara Takahashi cc: Parks Commission; B. Rizzo • • RECEIVED SEP 2 9 1994 ~oRANDUx ruiivwnV(; UfPT. . - ~ ~ .~. DATE. August 31, 1994, September 23, 1994 - TO: OPEN SPACE Il~LElSENR'ATION COl~ITTEE FROM: PATRICIA SBRIVER, FINANCE DIRECl'OR • SUBJECT: IDENTIFICATION OF FUNDING SOURCES FOR OPEN SPACE T~.j~~'ATIOI~ (f~PITS PROS AND CONS THERE FOR) This document is meant to identify possible sources of funds for acquisition and development of parks and open space projects, to identify the pros and cons of the source and to stimulate discussion toward a recommendation to the City Council by the Open Space Implemenation Committee. CURRENT POLICY: Funding for the acquisition and development of Parks and Trails is limited to Park Dedications, Park Donations, Park Development Fees and Federal, State and other Park Grants. In addition, City is pro-active in arranging for joint use of school property for park and recreation purposes. PROS CONS Park expenditures are directly. Acquisition and development are related to availability of funds. limited by availability of funds . ALTE1tNATIVE POLICIES: 1. City-wide Assessment District: An assessment of $50/year/parcel could yield approximately $500,000 annually for Park Acquisition and Development. PROS Provides a predictable source of Park funding. CONS Requires taxpayer support. • • • 2. Private Donations & Dedications, Land Trusts: City could encourage private donations and dedications of suitable park and open space properties. PROS No Capital Outlay CONS Loss of tax revenue. Not readily predictable as a revenue source. 3. Public Agency Bonds City could finance 20-year costs for park development & maintenance. PROS Raises money NOW for future estimated costs. 5. User Fees PROS CONS Requires tax~axer support. Requires additional cost of issuance & interest. Mortgages future income in an uncertain climate for predicting future income. CONS City could raise funds through parking & user fees at its larger parks. Taxpayers would be "paying twice" (through taxes & fees). Income would be rather limited. 6. Public/Private Joint Ventures PROS CONS City could "share" the cost of Unpredictable opportunities. acquisition and development. Relies on availability of city resources at "opportune" times .. 7. Conversion of currently owned parks and open space PROS Unusable parcels could be used as a resource in the purchase or maintenance of other parks or open space.' e.g. parcel @ Quito/Pollard could be exchanged for development concessions. CONS Taxpayer support required for local projects. To: From: Subject: ,~ ,~t--,,,~ :, yes 3 ,, ~, ~,.~1ps~.-~ t„~f, '" --,~ ~ _ _ /- ~~ cS O~ d ~ A ~ Q e O~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CAI.IF'OR,NIA 95070 • (408) 867-3438 March 5, 1993 ~~ _ - covrrca. .s: City Council City Manager Backcround Note ; - hem I~io . 13 a. New Construction Ta= b. Business License Taz - c. Otility Deers ?az - d. Transient Occupancy Taz .. Kamen Anonaon ~~~ Nr„y~n, Kwrr vr~w Abv,;. Kam turner POLICY iSSIIB: Should the City Council consider raising general tas revenue as an option to replace revenue losses due to state revenue raids on the City? BACKGROIIND: • Over the past several years the state has deliberately diverted several sources of revenue which have traditionally been earmarked for cities and used this revenue to fund state programs or to reduce state funding obligations to other branches of local government. Taken together these losses now represent an annual loss of ;626,000 in 1992 dollars. Certain decisions have a multiplier effect by artificially freezing assessed value growth and by a loss of investment income. I now estimate these effects for fiscal 1993-94 will make the real impact about ;800,000 in 1993 dollars. Right now the Governor proposes, as a part of the 1993- 94 budget solution for the state, to shift another ;2 billion plus away from cities, counties, and special districts to fund schools. Depending oa how one calculates this i-mpact if passed by the . legislature, the City could face another taz revenue loss of between ;200 and ;400 thousand on top of the ;800,000 the City has currently lost. This policy question report attempts to show how this shortfall could be made up by increasing locally levied tan measures. Saratoga has four local taz sources, the new construction taz, the business license tan, the utility users taz, and the transient .occupancy (hotel, motel) tan. ANALYSI AND OPTIONS: • New Construction Taa The new construction taz is currently set at ;.57 a square foot of new construction. This includes commercial as well as residential ...~ Wintetl on recvcletl paper Date: Property and additions to ezisting buildings as well as new buildings. In 1990-91 and 1991-92 the taz generated an average o~ ;134,713. This converts to an activity level of 236,339 squar feet of building a year which I have rounded to 240,000 for financial forecasting purposes. As reRorted in my State of the City message, San Jose, by way of ''comparison, charges both a per . unit taz and a percentage of value taz which, -depending on the type of construction, runs from ;1.22 to ;1.91 per square foot for residential construction. If Saratoga raised the tax to #.1.00 a square foot, this would increase revenue by ;103,200 based on 240,000 square feet of building. An increase to ;1.20 would raise $136,512 a year on the same basis. Business License Tan ' The business license taz in Saratoga is~a•flat ;75.00 per year per business, large or small. Prior to 1986 the amount was ;35.00. Business license revenue in fiscal 1990-91 and 1991-92 averaged ;157,000 a year. This works out to about 2,000 business licenses per year. Revenue growth has been averaging about 4$ a year based on improved enforcement and collection by the staff. To revise a business license tan can be c~plea, since the structure used by cities varies greatly, as do the rates. But basically there are three main methods, flat rate, per employee, gross receipts. Different types of businesses tend to have a certain method which relates to the level of business activity. For example, a flat rate is usually found for such things as home occupations, vending machines, solicitors, peddlers, delivery trucks, and one-tim~ events such as circuses, carnivals, special sales, etc. A pe employee or unit is generally found in the services businesses, doctors, lawyers, barber shops, etc., and rental of residential property (apartments, for example) . There is usually a set fee for each professional on premises, or for the business location and then a smaller fee for each additional employee or business unit. Gross sales or receipts is usually applied to retail and wholesale businesses, shops, restaurants, markets and the like. An effort must be made to establish a base levy which can then be used to set rates for various types of businesses. The structure can then be simple or complex depending on the• variety of businesses in a particular city. As of March 2nd, there were approximately 1,500 currently licensed businesses, not all of which have fined places of business in Saratoga. Our records break these licenses down into 13 categories. A copy of the summary of licenses by category is attached. Using Los Gatos as an example here are their basic fees: General contractors ;224 year Professions ;200 year plus ;15 for each support staff Services ;100 year Retail ;100 year for ~0- ;50,000 gross receipts ;112.50 " for ;50-;100,000 gross receipts plus ;37.50 year for each X50, 000 in gros~ receipts in excess of ;100,000 Manufacturers ;150_for ;0-;200,000 gross receipts ;187.50 foz ;200-;300,000 gross receipts plus •;75.00 year for each ;50, 000 in gross receipts in excess of ;300,000 2 • The City of Campbell also has a category for amusement Devices - Vending Machines based on gross receipts as follows: ;0 - ;20,000 - ;30 year - ;20,001 - ;50,000 - ;40 year ~~ -~~ ;50,001 - ;70,000 - ;50 year ;70,001 - ;80,000 - ;60 year ;80,001 - ;90,000 - ;70 year ;90,001 - ;100,000 - ;80 year ;100,001 and over - ;90 year The City of Los Altos charges for retail sales, services, manufacturers and wholesalers ;75 per year plus ;5 per employee. Business or professions pay ;180 plus $75 for each practicing professional in excess of 1 and.;5 for any employees in excess of 5. General contractors are charged ;150 a year and subcontractors $75 per year. Real estate offices are charged like professionals except the fee for. employees over 5 is ;10 each instead of ;5. Delivery companies are charged ;75 for the first vehicle and $25 for each additional vehicle. Personal care salons (barber, beauty, nails, spas) are charged ;75 for the first chair and $25 for each additional chair or station on the premises. Rental units are charged $75 plus ;5 for each unit over 5 in number (.including hotels, motels, inns, B~Bs, apartments)., The basic retail rate in Los Gatos is ;.75 per thousand and ;1.50 . per thousand for manufacturing. without gross sales data for each retailer, it is difficult to project a revenue number for the some 260 retail establishments in the City, but based on our sales tax • revenue an approximation is possible. Using the Los Gatos rate of $.75 per thousand would yield about $72,000 this year. If services were charged $100 each, that would total $41,400. If consultants; realtors, doctors, dentists, attorneys were charged $200 each,. that would total $82,200. If contractors were charged $150, that would total ;62,250. Licenses for vending machines, video games, rental of property, etc., could add another several thousand dollars a year. This structure would increase business license revenue to about $350,000 a year, double what it is now. It could go higher with a more detailed analysis of factors such as number of employees. However, further analysis will be quite time consuming and yield only some marginal information. Should Council agree to pursue this course of action, a new ordinance would have to be adopted by early November to give staff time to redo forms for the end of the year renewal notification process. Utility Users Tax The utility users tan was adopted in 1985 and renewed until July 1, 1995 in 1990. The rate is 3.5~ on P.G.E. bills with a low income exemption. In this fiscal year the revenue generated is expected to be $672,101, or $96,000 per .5$ (the minimum change • which P.~.~E. can program into its billing system currently). In my State of the City report I indicated that if the tax were extended to water, the 3.5~t would generate about another $110-$IZO thousand a year based on the Water Company's franchise data filed with the City. This type of tan, on consumption, does have 3 positive enviro~ conservation and Even if the City would urge this continue this tai source. nmental effects since it encourages water conservation of non-renewable energy sources does not increase or expand this taz source, City Council and any future City Councils to after July 1, 1995, as~an Essential City revenue Transient Occuoanev Tax The transient occupancy taz was established in 1985 at 8$ of rental rates. This percentage is a cannon one but. Cupertino, Los Gatos and San Jose, for example, do levy the tax at~108. Saratoga's tax base for this revenue source is small (two establishments). The yield over the past two years has averaged just under 5100,000. Raising the tax would potentially bring in another 525,000 if the rate were 10$. However, a small loss of business because of higher rates could be expected to occur: CONCLUSIONS AND CO~II~IfiNDATIONS: At the top of this report I indicated the City could expect Fits revenue loss from prior state actions to total about 5800,000 in fiscal 1993-94 but if added cuts came from the state the loss could grow to as much as 51.2 million. If all the proposals discussed above were instituted by the City Council, here is how much the revenue picture would improve. • Taa Source New Construction Business Licenses Utility Osers Transient Occupancy TOTAL DIFFERENCE = 5433,000 Current Revenue ;134,713 157,000 672,101 100.000 51,063,814 Disca~ssed Reverai~ 5240,000 350,000 782,000 125.000 51,497,000 This would bring in about half of the expected revenue loss from the state. The City Council's legal authority to raise, expand or alter these four taxes is clear as long as the revenues raised go for general purposes which each of these currently does. They are all reported and accounted for as a part of the City's general fund and can be used for any legitimate City expenditure. No vote by the electorate is required. An opinion from the City Attorney dated March 1, 1993, which sets forth the extent of City Council authority at present is attached. . ~~ arty Peacock, City Manager jm • Attachments: ' "~' 1. 3/ZJ93 Current Business License Database by Nature of Business 2. 3/1/93 City Attorney Opinion on City Authority to Raise Revenues through Various Taa and Fee Measures 4 • Qi~ITE: March 2, 1993 TO: BURRY FROx: Pl~1TRIC?.!l SUB.TMC'!': CQRRF.NT BUSINESS LICENSE D~iTABi~i.SE BY NPiTURE OF BUSINESS I have organized the. apprwcisataly 1,500 currently licensed businesses in Saratoga by the following categories: BUSINESS Cl1TFGG~tY NOMBER Consultant 150 Contractor 415 General Garden Servicxs 72 Manufacturer 15 Medical Services 57 Non-profit ~rganizations~ 12 Other 3 Personal Salon Services 57 • Professional Services 148 Real Estate 56 Restaurants 41 Retail Sales 219 Services (General) 285 I have included the State Sales Tax ~ (where we have ~it) in case you might Want to relate license fee to level of sales. I have also included information on employees. .... ~~~~~d~~ u~~ ~~ ~~~ Michael R Nle~+e Steven R Melts HQabeth H. Stlver Michael S 11ba~ Clitfaed F. C~mpbdl Michael F. iLodtigttes ICathkea Faubioo Fte+detiet S. EtheMpe Weedy A. lRobem D.Yid W. s~ Steven T. Mattas Of couttel: Aodtea J. Salesman MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK & SII,VER A Professional Law Corporation ~ lPlas 77y Dnrit Sweet, Sttite 300 Sas laaedte, G 9LSTf Takp~anc (310) 351.4300 Fad (S10) 331-4181 D~ CITY MdN_A cFll!LC pF~E 1220 Howard Avenue. Suite 250 Bu:impme. G 91010.4211 Telephone: (4L5) 348-7130 Faaimik: (415) 342-0886 (70'n 34b3126 ~PIY to: Sae l.eandty TOs Harry Peacock, City Manager DATE: March 1, 1993 FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: City Authority to Raise Revenues Through Various Tax and Fee Measures 1. How may the City increase its Construction Tax, Transient. Occupancy Tax, Business License Tax, and Utility Users Tax? 2. How may the City add new categories of taxes to its Business License Tax? 3. How may the City establish a City-wide Landscape and Lighting Assessment ("LLA°) District? For what services may such an LLA District charge? 4. May the City make contributions to an LLA District fund and designate how the contributions are credited to individual properties? CONCLIISIONB: 1. It appears that the City has the authority to increase each of these taxes by enacting legislation to that effect. Proposition 13 does not appear to limit this authority, as it applies only to special taxes. (To be on the safe side, the City should consider enacting an ordinance specifying that the proceeds from the Business License Tax shall be placed in the City's general fund for the usual and current expenses of the City. The code sections providing for the other taxes already have such provisions.) Proposition 62 has been declared unconstitutional. • TO: Harry Peacock, City Manager FROI[: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney jtL: City Authority to Raise Revenues Through Various Tax and Fee Measures D71TE: March 1, 1993 :: . -- PARE: 2 insofar as it restricts a City's authority to impose general taxes, and thus should not pose an obstacle to the imposition of any of these taxes. 2. In absence of conflicting state law, the City retains broad authority to impose new general (as opposed to special) taxes (other than property taxes). The City thus may expand the application of its Business License Tax by enacting an ordinance deleting some of the exemptions. 3. The City's may establish a City-wide LLA District either by consolidating all of the present districts into one and annexing territory not presently in a district into the consolidated district or by dissolving all of the present LLA Districts in the City and creating one new one. Either option would have more or less the same effect. An LLA District can include charges for the • installation and maintenance of landscaping (trees, shrubs, grass, or other ornamental vegetation); statuary, fountains, and other ornamental structures and facilities; public lighting facilities (Lights, poles, overhead or underground wires, and structures for distributing the needed power); park and recreational improvements (including land preparation, lights, playground equipment, play courts, and public restrooms); and appurtenant facilities (including curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, paving, and irrigation and drainage facilities). 4. While the City may make contributions to the LLA fund, it does not appear to have the authority to control how those contributions are distributed once made. DISCIISSIOld: 1. Tax? Although the City of Saratoga is a general law city, under recent statutory law it nonetheless retains the same broad power to impose taxes as do charter cities. Government Code section 37100.5 provides that "[e]xcept as provided in Section 7282 of the Revenue and • Taxation Code [prohibiting taxation of the privilege of occupying a campsite in a state park], the legislative ' ..- '1'O: Harry Peacock, City Manager lftCl[: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RZs City Authority to Raise Revenues Fee Measures Dl-TE: March 1, 1993 P,GE: 3 Through Various Tax and• body of any city may levy any tax which may be levied by a charter city, subject to the voters' approval pursuant to Article XIII A of the Constitution of California [imposing a voter approval requirement on special taxes]." This section has~been expressly construed as allowing general law cities to impose a IItility IIsers Tax to benefit the city's general fund. (Fenton v. City of Delano (1984) 162 Ca1.App.3d 400, 407- 08, 208 Cal.Rptr. 486.) Moreover, even in the absence of section 37100.5, cities are expressly authorized to impose Business License Taxes for revenue purposes upon "every kind of lawful business transacted in the city, including shows, exhibitions, and games." (Government Code section 37101.) Likewise, Revenue and Taxation Code sections 7280 and 7281 authorize cities to impose Transient occupancy Taxes on the privilege of temporarily (i.e. of no more than 30 days) occupying hotels, inns, houses, or mobilehomes. • Research has turned up nc addressing whether a city has the construction, but it appears that City already has). Charter cities general law cities as well) retai raise revenue for local purposes. Fresno (1971) 6 Ca1.3d 132, 13! charter city's inherent power to ' is respect to local imposition of qe; posed by Proposition 13 applies property. (Cal. Const. Art. 13A, tax is not an ad valorem tax, it applies. Likewise, it is doubtfu limiting fees and other exactions cases or statutes expressly authority to impose a tax on new a city does (and of course this (and now, under section 37100.5, i broad power to impose taxes to (See. e.c., Rivera v. City of ~, 98 Ca1.Rptr. 281 (upholding spose utility user's tax).) With Feral taxes, the only limitation to ad valorem taxes on real § 1.j Because the construction .s doubtful that this limitation 1 that Nollan and similar cases from developers to those having a ~-ne~cuS" wltu Lne impacts o= Lne development apply to a straight forward tax on construction. Moreover, research has turned up no authority for finding the tax to violate equal protection. Cities have broad. authority to classify different types of activities for different tax treatment (see. e.g. 9 Witkin (9th ed. 1989) 1 However, in order approval, they should be (rather than for a special amended to explicitly state for the other taxes already s to_ impose such taxes without voter for the benefit of the general fund purpose). The City's Code should that this is the case. Code Sectio{~ have such explicit provisions. C K'O: Harry Peacock, City Manager FROI[: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: City Authority to Raise Revenues Fee Measures D]1TE: March 1, 1993 PARE: 4 Through Various Tax and "Taxation" § 45, pp. 65 et seq.), and classifying new construction differently from other activities does not seem arbitrary While Proposition 62 on its face imposes a voter-approval requirement on the imposition of all local taxes, general and specific, it has been held unconstitutional at least so far as it applies to general taxes. The court in City of Woodlake v. Loran (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1058, 282 Ca1.Rptr. 27 held that the voter approval requirement was invalid because voter referendums on the taxing power are prohibited by the California Constitution, Article 2, sections 9 and 11. Thus, Proposition 62 does not appear to impose any limits on the City's power to increase these taxes. Thus, the City may raise these taxes simply by enacting legislation so providing. ' • We note that the City's Utility Users Tax Ordinance purports to limit the City's ability to raise that tax. Section 5-30.140 provides that the tax rate "may be reduced by the adoption of an ordinance amending this Article, but shall not be increased above three and one-half percent." Nonetheless, the City Council retains the authority to amend this section and to raise the tax. Ordinances passed by previous members of the City Council cannot limit the authority of the present Council. 2. How may t_he Citv add new categories of taxes to its Business License Tax? As noted above, under Government Code Section 37100.5, the City retains broad authority to enact new taxes, subject only to limitations in the Constitution or other state statutes. The main limitations in the state Constitution are those imposed by Proposition 13: The City cannot assess ad valorem taxes on real property in excess of one percent (Cal. Const. art. 13A, § 1) and cannot assess a special tax without approval of two-thirds of the electorate (Cal. Const. art. 13A, § 4). In addition, there are a number of specific areas (e.g. taxes on use of state campsites, license taxes on banks and other financial institutions) where localities are preempted by state law (either Constitutional or statutory) from imposing taxes. We do not enumerate all of these areas here. • In any event, it is clear that the City may amend the Business License Tax to increase its scope by deleting some of the specific TOs Harry Peacock, City Manager ljtolt: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney jtEs City Authority to Raise Revenues Fee Measures D~-TEs March 1, 1993 P7-GE s 5 Through Various Tax and• exemptions in Sections 4-05.160 and 4-05.170. For example, the City could enact an ordinance amending the code to delete the license fee exemption in section 4-05.170, ~~subdivision (b) , for the business of conduction an apartment or other lodging house containing less than four sleeping rooms. (We have found no provision of state law preventing the City from taxing such businesses.) Again, so long as the Business License Tax is a general tax Proposition 62 is not applicable. 3. The City can establish a City-wide LLA District either .by consolidating all their present LLA Districts within the City and• annexing all areas not presently within an LLA District or by dissolving all present LLA Districts and forming a new one. (Streets and Highways Code S 22605). The procedure for following either of these two courses is essentially the same. The only technical difference between the two approaches is that, upon dissolution, any monies in the improvement fund for an ~ LLA District would be transferred to the City's General Fund (s 22610), while upon consolidation, the single remaining assessment district would automatically assume all assets and liabilities of the former districts (s 22611). However, the dissolution approach would be essentially the same as the consolidation approach were the City to contribute to the improvement fund of the City-wide LLA District any monies received from the dissolution of the separate districts. Such a contribution is authorized by Section 22658. As to procedure, the City could establish a City-wide LLA District by following these five steps: First, the City Council would need to adopt a resolution initiating proceedings pursuant to Section 22585. The resolution should propose the formation of the City-wide district, describe what improvements would be made or maintained by the district, describe the area to be covered by the district (which we understand to be the entire City), and order the City Engineer to prepare and file the Engineer's Report. The resolution should also • specify whether the City is consolidating all the present districts and annexing other territory into those districts or whether 'the • s'O: Harry Peacock, City Manager lROI[: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: City Authority to Raise Revenues Through Various Tax and Fee Measures D7-'1'L-: March 1, 1993 ~_ . -- P]1GE: 6 City is simply dissolving all present districts and forming a new one. The City-wide LLA District could include charges for the installation and maintenance of landscaping within the City (e.g., trees,' shrubs, grass, or other ornamental vegetation); statuary, fountains, and other ornamental structures and facilities; public lighting facilities (lights, poles, overhead or underground wires, and structures for distributing the needed power); park and recreational improvements (including land preparation, lights, playground equipment, playcourts, and public restrooms); and appurtenant facilities (including curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, paving, and irrigation and drainage facilities). (S$ 22525, 22528.) Second, the City Council would receive the Engineer's Report, -which should contain plans and specifications for the improvements to be installed or maintained, an estimate of the cost of the improvements, a diagram for the assessment district, an assessment roll, and, if bonds and notes are to be issued, an estimate of their principle amount. ($S 22567, g,~ sec•) "The diagram and assessment roll may classify various areas within [the district] into different zones where, by reason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive differing degrees of benefit from the improvements. A zone shall consist of all territory which will receive substantially the same degree of benefit from the improvements." (S$ 22574.) The Act does not provide a formula for determining to what degree any parcel of land benefits from the improvements, but requires that "the net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment - district may be apportioned by_any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each lot or - parcel from the improvements." (S 22573.) Upon receipt, the City Council may modify the Engineer's Report before approving it. ($ 22586.) Third, the City should adopt a resolution of intention to form the City-wide LLA District. This resolution should declare the City Council's intention to form the assessment district and to levy and collect assessments, generally describe the improvements to be installed or maintained, refer to the report of the engineer (which should be on file with the clerk), and give notice of a time and place for a hearing by the City Council on the question of the • formation of the district and a levy of the proposed assessment. (S 22587.) TO: Sarzy Peacock, City Manager Fitox: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney BE: City Authority to Raise Revenues Fee Measures D11TEs March 1, 1993 =_ P71GE: 7 Through Various Tax and• Fourth, the City Council should conduct a public hearing on the Engineer's Report (S 22590.) Notica of the hearing should be mailed to all property owners within the proposed district (i.e., within the City) not less than 45 days before the hearing. The Notice should include the amount of the proposed assessment per parcel, a statement that the property owner may protest the proposed assessment, the address to which the property owner may send a written protest, and a statement that a majority protest will cause the proceedings for the formation of the district to be abandoned. (SS 22556, 22588.) "If, at the hearing, the City Council finds a majority protest to exist, it must abandon the proceedings. A majority protest exists if, upon conclusion of the hearing, written protests filed and not withdrawn represent property owners- owning more than 50~ of the area of assessable lands within the proposed district." (S 22593.) Although the City Council used to have the authority to override a majority protes by a four-fifths vote, that authority has been removed by recent statutory enactment. Finally, if a majority protest has not been filed, the City Council will be able to adopt a resolution ordering the formation of the City-wide LLA District. The resolution must be adopted by July 1st of the fiscal year in which it will take effect, unless the county auditor extends the time, but in any .case not later than the third Monday in August. ($ 22640.) 4: Mav the City make contributions to an LLA District fund Sections 22657 and 22658 authorize the City Council to make contributions toward the LLA District fund. However, Section 22659 requires that the contributions must be applied to reduce the next annual assessment. The Landscape and Lighting Act does not appear to authorize the City to control how the contributions are credited to individual landowners. Rather, the contributions may only "be r: To: Aarry Peacock, City Manager FAO![: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: City Authority to Raise Revenues Through Various Tax and Fee Measures DATE: March 1, 1993 =: .•- P7-~iE 2 8 deducted from the total improvement costs," with the remaining improvements costs assessed against individual parcels in pro- portion to the estimated benefits received pursuant to Section 22573. ~ ~ • ~~G Michael S. Riback City Attorney 273 \abo \aar93 \ta~ti~N .ass • • • 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867-3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: • TO: FROM: DATE: SOBJECT: M E M O RAN D II M Saratoga City Council Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director November 22, 1994 Policy Statemeats for Open Space Implementation Ann Mane Burger Paul E. Jacobs Gillran Moran haven 7ucke~ Donald ~. Wolfe On October 25, the City Council met with the Open Space Implementation Committee to discuss the Committee's work on implementation measures for the recently adopted Open Space Element. The ~d hoc Committee consisted of Leo Barnard and John Clark of the Parks and Recreation Commission and Robert Hilton and Peter Raiswell of the Finance Advisory Committee. At that meeting, the City Council reviewed the "Policies for Consideration" prepared by the Committee. The attached policies reflect comments made at the October 25 meeting, specifically addressing Policy #8. The policies have been numbered for review purposes. cc: Patricia Shriver Bob Rizzo Printed on recycled paper. • Policies for Consideration 1. There is no present need to institute new revenue sources to complete implementation of the Parks and Trails Master Plan. 2.. No new park sites should be acquired (i.e. dedication/gift) without a funding mechanism for development and maintenance. 3. No new park sites should be acquired with development funds. 4. Park development funds shall be used to develop parks. 5. Trails should be acquired and developed as part of development approvals (i.e. paid for by the developer). 6. Development funds should be spent to design Kevin Moran and Azule Parks at one time; development of individual parks (i.e. previously designed) will occur as funds become available. 7. Staff is encouraged to negotiate with project applicants to achieve the objectives of the Open Space Element as long as the result is consistent with the overall objectives of the • General Plan. 8. Priority of park development should be per the adopted Parks and Recreation Commission priorities and implementation plan. Unique situations may arise from time to time that may necessitate varying the Park and Recreation Commission's priorities. 9. Park/Trails development shall occur only as funds become available. 10. All aspects of the Open Space Element should be taken into . consideration to ensure timely implementation in addition to park and trail development (e.g. land use decisions, design . review approvals, cooperative legislation with other agencies, etc. to ensure open space preservation). • .F MICHAEL R. NAVE • STEVEN R. MEYERS ELIZABETH H. SILVER MICHAEL S. RIBACK KENNETH A. WILSON CLIFFORD F. CAMPBELL MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ KATHLEEN FAUBION, AICP WENOY A. ROBERTS DAVID W. SKINNER STEVEN T. MATTAS RICK W. JARVIS VERONICA A. F. NEBB OF COUNSEL ANDREA J. SALTZMAN SANTA ROSH OFFlCE 555 FlFTH STREET, SUITE 230 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 `~ TELEPHONE: (707) 645-6009 FACSIMILE: (7071 546-6617 ~~ T~~..- __ MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SII.VER & WII,SON~ A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION GATEWAY PLAZA 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 TELEPHONE: (510) 351-4300 FACSIMILE: (510) 351-4481 MEMORANDUM TO: Harry Peacock City Manager FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: "Dog Park" ISSUE PRESENTED DATE: July I2, 1995 Whether the City would be exposing itself to potential liability if it were to affirmatively allow owners to train their dogs in the park without a leash? SHORT ANSWER The City could be held to have created a dangerous condition on public land resulting in potential liability to the City for an injury caused by an unleashed dog in the park. EACKGROUIVD Dog owners in Saratoga have asked the City whether Congress Springs Park could be opened for dogs to be taken and allowed to roam on certain dates and times, without a leash. The City seeks advice as to any potential liability it may incur by affirmatively dedicating Congress Springs Park to unleashed dog use. Congress Springs Park is a large park used by several members of the community. Given the size and diverse use of the park the City does not want to restrict the use of the • park to just dogs and their owners. Additionally, the park does not have any fenced enclosures that would divide the park between dog owners and their dogs and other , ~~~~n~~~ ~~~, ~,~, CITY MANAGL~R'S ©F1~ICE TO: Harry Peacock, City Manager FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney i RE: "Dog Park" DATE: July 12, 1995 PAGE: 2 community members. As a result, the proposal is to allow dogs to use the park without a leash while other, non-dog owners, use the Park. The risk created by such a situation is that anon-dog owner using the park may be injured by an unleashed dog. First, a person could be tripped or run over by a dog allowed to run freely in the park. Such an occurrence could result in severe injury to elderly or young persons using the park Secondly, a person could be bit by a dog who is not constrained by a leash. A dog allowed to run free is further from the watchful eyes and constraints of its master and may react to a threat differently than if the dog was leashed. Therefore, a dog may be more likely to bite a person than it would if it were constrained by a leash with its owner nearby. • DISCUSSION In his letter in response to the City's request for advice regarding this issue, Albert T. Fierro of the ABAG Plan Corporation stated that the city would not be increasing its liability by approving a "dog park." Mr. Fierro cites California Civil Code § 3342 which states: "The owner of a dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person. who is bitten by the dog while in a public place..." As Mr. Fierro stated in his letter, this statute generally makes the owner of a dog exclusively liable for any injury resulting from his dog biting another person on public or private property. This statute may not, however, insulate the City from liability for any injury, including dog bites, when the City creates a park where dogs are permitted to roam free of a leash. The issue shifts from a normal "dog bite" covered by the statute to a potential claim that the City is responsible for a dangerous condition in the park for which it may be liable - Allowing dogs to run free of a leash may result in a "dangerous condition" on public property that could result in the City being • liable for injury to persons that occur as a result of that dangerous condition. TO: • FROM: RE: DATE: PAGE: Harry Peacock, City Manager Michael S. Riback, City Attorney "Dog Park" July 12, 1995 3 At first blush creating a park where dogs can chase balls without a leash may seem harmless. California law, however, may convert the act into a creation of a dangerous condition for which the City could be liable if injury were to result. Due to the potential injury of non-dog owners using Congress Spring Park at the time the dogs are permitted to run free, a City ordinance allowing unleashed dogs could impose statutory liability on the City for any resulting injury. A public entity may be liable for any property in which the entity has ownership or control where a "dangerous condition" exists. A "dangerous condition" in which a public entity may be found liable is defined by statute to include: "a condition of property that creates a substantial (as distinguished from a • minor, trivial or insignificant) risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used." (California Civil Code § 830(a).) A condition is sufficiently dangerous to result in liability when a person is using the property in a way that it would normally be expected to be used yet the person is injured. Such liability especially exists when the City affirmatively creates or allows a dangerous condition. Liability also exists if the injury results from "dangerous conditions" of which the City had actual or constructive notice and for which it had failed to provide adequate safeguards to prevent the injury. City liability could even exist if a reasonable user sustains an injury as a result of a combination of a dangerous condition and negligent or criminal conduct by others on or about the property. "...[I]f the third party's negligence is foreseeable, such third party conduct may be the very risk which makes the public property dangerous when considered in conjunction with some particular feature of the property, viz. the lack of a fence or barrier." (Swaney v. City of Santa Monica, 198 Cal.Rptr. 208, 217 (1984).) Many California cases have recognized that a "dangerous condition" exists for purposes of City liability when.a City permits dangerous activity on public property that results in injury to others. Those that might be deemed analogous to the City creating a • park where dogs can roam without leashes include: TO: Harry Peacock, City Manager FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: "Dog Park" DATE: July 12, 1995 PAGE: 4 An injured person's allegations that a City "created and maintained" an easy means of access by golf carts to the City sidewalks without warnings was sufficient to state a claim against the City for maintaining a dangerous condition on the property. (Quelvog v. City of Long Beach, 86 Ca1.Rptr. 27, 132 (Cal App. 2 Dist. 1970).) * A City which knew racing of vehicles occurred on the beach, that the offending vehicles were entering from the parking lot, and that people were being injured yet failed to warn or implement adequate safety features to prevent such conduct resulted in liability for the City due to the dangerous condition of the beach. (Swaner v. City of Santa Monica, 198 Ca1.Rptr. 208, 218 (Ca1.App. 2 Dist 1984).) • City-owned parking lot where lighting was poor and fact that muggers thrive in such dark private places was sufficient to state a claim against the City for injuries resulting from a mugging in the parking lot due to the dangerous condition. (Slapin v. Los Angeles International Airport, 135 Cal.Rptr. 296 (1976).) The above cases are just a few illustrating a broad reading of the statute imposing liability upon a public entity for either creating, or knowing and failing to take precautions to protect persons, from harmful conditions at property owned by the public entity. Following the above line of cases, liability against the City could be increased if a person using the park in a foreseeable manner is harmed by a dog at the park as a result of the City policy allowing unleashed dogs at the park while knowing that such conduct could result in harm to others. Liability could be found against the City regardless of whether the owner of the dog was negligent. Therefore, a court could find that the City created and knew of a potentially dangerous condition and failed to protect foreseeable users from resulting injury. ~,. TO: Harry Peacock, City Manager FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney • RE: "Dog Park" DATE: July 12, 1995 PAGE: 5 CONCLUSION The primary factor that leads to the potential liability discussed above is that the City wants to maintain the park equally available to the entire community. With persons using the park for reasons besides dog recreation the chance that they could be injured from the dogs while trying to use the park in a park like manner is potentially high. Alternatives reducing the risk of liability do exist. The City could reduce this risk by fencing off a portion of the park designated for dog recreation. The City could also find an alternative park to dedicate entirely to dog and master recreation. Of course thirdly, the City can elect to do nothing and maintain leash restrictions in place for dogs in public. As an aside, it is interesting to note that an article in the July 7, 1995 San Francisco Chronicle discussed a "dog park" permitted in the east bay. The topic of the article was of neighbors to the park filing a claim against the City for the nuisance effect of the park on their property. Apparently, despite unanimous approval by the City Council and no objections by the community at the public hearing, non-dog owning neighbors disapprove of the park "in their back yard." As a result, a claim is being filed because of the property owners loss of quiet enjoyment of their property caused by the park. ', i Michael S. Riback City Attorney MSR:dsp 1:\WPD\MNRSW\273\MEMOVULY95WOGPARK. W61 • • 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • S.~RATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • 1405) 86 7 -3438 COUNCII. JIE.ILBERS: arr, 'v'ane Bu~oe; =aui E Jacobs a~'~an Mean ~.,a~ ,`:,c.~:e~ ~_ ~:dL..1~!fE ' ~ O `~ J b~i .~G~ ~~~~ 0 ° ~ O~ ~ ~ 0 o~~ TO: Harry Peacock FROM: Bob Rizzo ~,~ j~ DATE: November 8, 1994 SUBJECT: Dogs in Parks ***************************************************************** At the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting on November 7, 1994 the Commission discussed and reviewed the City ordinance regarding • permitting dogs in City parks. After discussion, the Commission moved that the current ordinance of allowing dogs that are leashed to be permitted in the parks, is sufficient. The Commission stated that the current ordinances regarding permitting leashed dogs and the responsibility of the owners to clean up all excrement should be vigorously enforced. c/ Larry Perlin • jw a~~~~~~~ -~ ,P~~~~z~ ~,oe. }} ~{ G~ G ~~ C~~~~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~C~~~ 13 ~ ~ "r FRUIT~':~LE ~~'ENUE • S aRaTOG~, C:~LIFOR\'I_~ 950 r 0 • ~ -~0~ ~ ~6--3-~3.~ COI:tiCIL JLE.l1I3ERS: October 13, 1994 ~ ~~: - ~~-=-~ ..,.,--- Burt Stepanek _ ' 13238 Paseo Presada _ _ Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Dogs in Parks Dear Mr. Stepanek: The city shares your concern about irresponsible dog owners who believe that city parks are, in reality, dog toilets. Currently there is no ordinance which prohibits dogs in parks. Our current ordinance is enforced and a number of people were warned just this week at Congress Springs Park for letting dogs run loose and not cleaning up after them. They were told that the next time they would be cited by the city's community services officer. We will try to spend more time at Quito Park in the near future to see what we can do to get people to obey the law. As history I know that seven or eight years ago the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council considered banning dogs from city parks but were persuaded by dog owners it was not necessary and that they could effectively police themselves. Apparently, from what you say about Quito Park and what we have seen a Congress Springs Park this pledge has now been forgotten or is being ignored by at least some dog owners. Perhaps it is time for the city to reconsider its former stance on this issue. I will be asking the Parks and Recreation Commission to consider your letter and take up the matter of whether the city should prohibit dogs in parks altogether. While this will still leave the city with an enforcement responsibility, it will be a much more straightforward one for our code enforcement and sheriff's personnel to deal with. Sin erely, .. Harry Peacock City anager cc: Mayor Burger • iSecretary to the Parks and Recreation Commission - ~ 1-~95.d30 • • C7 (f) Go upon any lawn or grass plot, where legible signs prohibiting the same are posted in a conspicuous location on or near such plot of lawn or grass. (g) Use, carry or possess any fu~earm of any descrip- tion, or air rifle, spring gun, bow and arrow, sling shot, sling or other form of weapon potentially dangerous to wildlife or to human safety, nor hunt, molest, harm, frighten, kill, trap, chase, tease, shoot or throw missiles az any animal, bird or reptile, with the exception of snakes known to be deadly poisonous such as rattlesnakes, which may be killed upon sight; nor shall any person remove or have in his possession the young of any wild animal, or the eggs or nest of any young of any reptile or bird. (b) Use or attempt to use or interfere with the use of any fireplace, barbeque, table, space or facility which at the time is reserved for any other person or group of persons which has received a permit from the Director therefor in accord with Article 11-10. (i) Be under the influence of intoxicating beverage or any drug so as to be a threat to the safety of himself or any other person or property in such park. (j) Have in his possession, or set off, or otherwise cause to explode or bum any firecrackers, torpedoes, rockets or other fireworks or explosives of inflammable material, or discharge them or throw them into any park area from land or any other property or highway adjacent thereto. (k) Permit or allow any dog owned by such person, or under the custody or control of such person, to enter or remain in the park or any part thereof unless securely held and lead by a leash of not more than six feet in length, securely attached to a harness or collar on such ~ dog. Should any dog defecate on any park premises or property, the person who owns said dog, or has custody or control of said dog, shall immediately remove any and all excrement from the park. (I) Use or occupy any area or facility in any manner contrary to any posted notice, including without limitation the entering of any area posted as being closed to the public. (m) Throw, discharge or otherwise place or cause to be placed in the waters of any pond, lake, stream, creek. natural waterway, fountain, storm sewer or drain, swim- ming pool or any other body of water in or adjacent to any park, any substance, matter or thing, solid or liquid, which would cause or result in the contamination or pollution of such waters, or which would in any way clog or jam or interfere with the drainage, recycling, filtering or flow of such body of water. (n) Place, dump, deposit or leave any garbage, refuse, rubbish or other trash, including without limitation any boales, broken glass, ashes, paper boxes. cans and similar items in any of the buildings or grounds of any park. except in proper receptacles or containers as are provided for the purpose of such disposal. (o) Ride or propell a skateboard upon any driveway, roadway, piirking area or tennis court within such park. (p) Any act which is in violation of any other provision of this Code or other ordinance of the City, or in violation of any County or State law. The above prohibitions shall not be applicable to any officer or employee of the Citv acting in the course and scope of his employment. 11-05.040 Acts prohibited except in designated areas. No person shall do any of the following acts within the limits of any park in the City except in such areas of the park where specifically permitted: (a) Make, build, light, kindle or maintain any fire for any purpose, except at the specific picnic places provided for such purpose, and then only in a camp stove, or a fireplace or barbecue facility provided therefor. All such fires shall az all times be attended by az least one responsi- ble person, and before leaving the area of such fire, the same shall be completely extinguished. (b) Stop, stand or park any motor vehicle or bicvcle in other than a designated parking area, which use shall be in accord with all posted directions, and with instruc- tions of any parking attendant in the employ of the City. (c) Ride on or in, or drive, any motor vehicle in any park area other than a designated parking area. except such area as is specifically signposted to permit such operation, except thaz, unless otherwise designated, motor vehicles may be operated at a speed of not to exceed fifteen miles per hour on all paved roads in any park area. (d) Operate or ride as a passenger on any bicycle on other than a paved road or bicycle path designated for tbat purpose. (e) Ride or lead any Gorse on other than paved roads or equestrian pathways designated for that purpose, or cause, permit or allow any horse or other domestic animal to be untethered or otherwise to be loose or to roam upon any park area. (f) Urinate or defecate other than in the receptacles provided therefor in restrooms provided for such purpose. (g) Practice or play golf, or operate any motor-driven model airplanes, boats or cars, or swim or bathe, or engage in any archery or target practice or fishing, except in such areas as are specifically signposted and designated therefor. (h) Lunch or picnic in any place other than as signposted and designated for such purpose, and in such regard, fu-eplaces, barbecue facilities, benches and tables shall be used on a first-come, fast-serve basis and no 210 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867-3438 COUNCIL l'LEb'[BERS: Ann ~'Narie Burger Paui E Jacobs Gillian Moran .Karen Tucker Danard L. Wolfe • Sue A. Tippets P.E. Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118-3686 Re: Adopt-A-Creek Program Dear Ms. Tippets, The purpose of this letter is to inform the District that the City of Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission would very much like to continue participation in the Adopt-A-Creek program. The Commission has enjoyed participation in this program and through the efforts of a number of volunteers have greatly improved the creek area in and around Wildwood Park. Through this program, we have scheduled on August 26 and September 23, clean-up days starting in Wildwood Park. Thank you for your assistance. 867-3438 ext. 247. Sincerely, ~~J ~-~, ~~ v Bob Rizzo, Secretary Parks and Recreation Commission 7w Please feel free to contact me at c/ Parks and Recreation Commission Larry Perlin • ='IntaC cn recvciee pa ^.e~ lLINDT88 ~j" ~ ~^ SARATOGA CITY COIINCIL _~ TIME: Saturday, July 8, 1995 - 10:00 a.m. . PLACE: Community Center Multi-Purpose Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting/Town Hall Meeting 1. Roll Call Councilmembers Jacobs, Moran, Tucker and Mayor Burger were present. Councilmember Wolfe was absent. 2. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 7. The notice of adjournment from the July 5 Council meeting was properly posted on July 6. 3. Need for Further Parks and Recreation Facilities in the City, rith Special Emphasis on Hevin Moran Park and Azule Park Following is a summary of comments made by the public: Quiet, Passive Park Space. Focus Groups to design Revin Moran and Azule parks. one City - one Commission - one Revin Moran - one Azule - one general community At least 25 focus groups. ~ • Play structure for age 5-12 at Revin Moran Park. No alcohol if adult sports teams use Revin Moran park, police protection provided, too. Parking problem at E1 Quito Park. - No parking on residence side - Need better parking at E1 Quito - Limit activities to no more than two at once at E1 Quito People in park (Revin Moran) after hours - especially in summer, cars racing up and down street - an annoyance. Refer to Public Safety Commission. Need more soccer fields - goal posts. - portable equipment for practice fields so they can be multipurpose. Look at areas which are more accessible for recreational facilities. Keep neighborhood parks local. Kevin Moran should not be developed as Sports complex (Not AYSO, it's okay?). Lights, adult fields are examples of sports complex. What's more important--recreational facilities or orchard land? If • former, then there is flat land at other locations. Use Blue Hills/Azule for AYSO - share facilities. Kevin Moran - left area for more playground equipment; right area more open area for low intensity play - par course. City council Minutes 2 July 8, 1995 Kevin Moran - Community garden, play area, soccer practice area - larger playground area -focus on neighborhood needs. • Jointly develop Azule with Blue Hills for sports needs. - Cupertino schools say "yes" to Coop. Neighbors in E1 Quito want meeting on their park. Little League says Kevin Moran not a good locale for formal field - just practice. Orchard good place for more fields. Need to look at alternatives to Kevin Moran - another meeting or committee. Focus on Kevin Moran should remain as set out 20+ years ago. Look elsewhere. Develop overall grand plan with schools for all recreation needs - arts, theatre, etc. as well as sports. Campbell, High schools, Cupertino. Infrastructure - location - limit Kevin Moran to a neighborhood role - size limits possibilities. • Kevin Moran - allow area for creative play - trees, bushes, build forts, etc. Kevin Moran not right for girls softball. City should develop a sports complex someplace in City. Softball, girls, work to develop Foothill & Argonaut Schools for their program. Greenbrier Homeowners Association in 10/90 says develop Azule as neighborhood park - have same concerns as Kevin Moran neighbors. Seniors use Kevin Moran because of current character. Kevin Moran is actively used by all ages groups. Kevin Moran - Trees and ivy along freeway wall - beautify - improve playground. Doq folks look at Kevin Moran and Azule -feel not suitable - would like solution - pay license fee perhaps? Need gym at Redwood Middle School or expanded gym at Saratoga High School. Orchard part of Kevin Moran needs to be properly maintained - homeless using overpass - cut through fence. 4. Items from the Community 5. Other 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 noon. ~~ Respectfully submitted, • ~~ -_~ ~~a~!~ Ha R. Peacock City Manager ~~z Need Directions? Use the blue code Be°~1d ~'`°m°" c°"'"'°"'" "°~°''"° ~'°°9"A "1o1°'`k° "`"" "°° "N9"und "°~'°°"~ ~"°"'"'~ ~""° "'' numbers ttrith the map on page 2 to ~~ ~ T~~ ~ ~ „ pinpoint the location. ~ '1, ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ -~ ~ ~®~ ~ 1~ Special Features Campbell Community Center ea 5 © ~ ~ ® ~ ® ® ® Track Dance Studio 866-210 Z Gyms with Locker W. Campbell Ave. and Winchester Blvd. Campbell Park Ba ® ~ ® ~ Turf Area Parcourse 866-2105 Los Gatos Creek Gilman and E. Campbell Aver. John D. Morgan Park es © © ® ~ ® ~ ® ® Turf Area 2 Sand Volleyball Cc 866-2105 W. Rincon and Dot Aver. Blossom Nill Park ca Turf Area 3546808 Blossom-Hill Rd. east of Cherry Blossom Ln. La Rinconada Park cs ® ~ ~ ~ Turf Area Parcourse 3546808 Nature Trail Wedgevvood Ave. and Granada Way Live Oak Manor Park c3 Turf Area 3546808 Carlton Ave. and Gateway Dr. Oak Meadow Park t:a ~ ~ Bocce Courts, Turf Steam Railroad, Car 3546808 Display Aircraft and Blossom Hill Rd. and University Ave. ~~ Congress Springs Park 83 ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Turf Area Bicycle Paths 867-3438, ext. 245 Glen Brae Dr. and Cox Ave. EI Quito Park B3 245 38 ® © ® ~ ~ ~ ® ~ Bicycle Paths Community Garden , ext. 867-34 Parcourse, Turf Aree Paseo Presada and Paseo Pueblo Foothill Park and School sz 245 ® ® ® ~ ~ Turf Area Parcourse 867-3438, ext. Bicycle Paths Seaton and Tamworth Aves. Kevin Moran Park Bz Q Turf Areas Bicycle Paths 867-3438, ext. 245 Scully Ave. and Saraglen Dr. Wildwood ~~ Cy ® ® ~ ~ ~ Turf Areas Amphitheater 867-3438, ext. 245 Bicycle Paths 4th St. near Big Basin Way (Hwy. 91 OZ Number of lighted facilities ~ Number of unlighted facilities Available feature ~ Barbecue ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i Please turn to the following Archery Ranges ................ .. 25 Hearth Clubs ................... .323 SMART YeIIOW PegeS SCCtIOn: Athletic Fields, Stadiums & Arenas ... Baseball Batting Ranges ......... .. 27 ..122 Picnic Grounds ................. Playgrounds & Parks ............ .492 ..498 Bowling ..................... ..143 Recreation Centers ............. ..538 Card Playing Rooms ............ ..166 Riding Academies ............... .559 GoNcourses-Miniature .......... ..314 Rifle & Pistol Ranges ............. . 5B0 Golf Courses-Public ............. ..314 Skating Rinks .................. .590 Golf Practice Ranges ............ ..315 Swimming Pools-Public ........... .820 Gymnasiums ................. ..319