HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-13-1995 Parks Master Plan~~ `~ (~2,~~ •`~
AGENDA ~ j' O -
SARATOGA CITY COIINCIL
• e 13 1995 - 7:00 .m.
TIME. Tuesday, Jun , P
PLACE: City Hall Administration Meeting Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave.
TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting/Jt. Meeting with Parks and
Recreation Commission
A. Roll Call
B. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was
properly posted on June 9. The notice of adjournment from the June
7 Council meeting was properly posted on June 8.
C. Joint Meeting Frith Parks and Recreation Commission
1. PARRB MASTER PLAN DIBCQSBION TOPICS
A. Parks and Trails Master Plaa as a Working document.
B. Discussion of Parks aad Recreation Needs survey.
(bee March Staff Report and backup material)
C. Ravin Moran/A$ule parks development.
1) Joint development of A$ul• ~-ith the Cupertino
school District into as integrated
playground/active park at Blue Hills School.
2) Development options for Rsvin Moran Park.
a. Fully develop in conjunction with Azule/Blue
Hills.
b. Develop on different theme.
c. Leave as is and sell off remainder to help
acquire a park site on a major arterial which
can be devoted to general community use (not
solely active sports areas, e.g. the E1 Quito
Park model).
+/D'. Discussioa of the Open Space Element and the Parks and
Trails Master Pian Implementation Committee report and
ghat has happened to implement the recommendations since
the Dsoembsr 13th Joint Meeting.
U ~ Loaatinq a place for a community garden ~-ithin euistinq
~.,~'~~ ~ park properties.
~"
F~ Loaatinq a dog run area ~-ithin euistinq park properties
or othsraiss dealing Frith the issue of dogs in the
parks . ate, f,~ ~.,~.-~. ~~ ~ ~~~ w~ - ~ ~ ~ ~i... o
2. TRAILB `lJ
City Council Agenda 2 June 13, 1995
A. Ban Juan Bautista De An$a trail.
B. City Trail System.
3. Possible Budget Cuts for Parks and Recreation Programs
4. Consumption of Alooholio Beverages in City parks. EL ~~ P~
5. Status of the Adopt a Park program.
6. status of Creole Beautification program.
7. Rol• of the Commission pith Regard to the City Counoil and
the public.
D. Other Items
i. self-8valuation of Previous Meeting
2. Agenoy Aasignmeat Reports
a. County Cities Assn. Legislative Task Force - Wolfe
b. County Transportation Agency - Wolfe
c. Hakone Foundation - Wolfe
d. HCD Policy Committee - Wolfe
e. Saratoga Business Development Council - Wolfe
f. Water District Commission - Wolfe
g. Emergency Planning Council - Moran
h. School Liaison - Moran
i. Sister City Committee - Moran
j. Traffic Authority Policy Advisory Board - Moran
k. Transit Assist Board - Moran
1. ABAG - Tucker
m. County Cities Association - Tucker/Burger
n. Joint Venture Silicon Valley - Tucker
o. West Valley Sanitation District - Tucker/Burger
p. Cable TV Board - Jacobs
q. Flood Control Advisory Board - Jacobs
r. Local Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Board
Jacobs
s. League of Cities Peninsula Division - Burger
t. Library Joint Powers Agency - Burger
u. Senior Coordinating Committee - Burger
v. Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee
Burger/Jacobs
E.
F.
Authorisation for Submission of Grant Application to Packard
Foundation by Volunteer Coordinator
Bet Deadline for submittal of Final Tree Committee Report
c:
G. Adjournment
•
City Council Minutes 2 December 13, 1994
~~
6. Joint Meetinq with Parks and Recreation Commission
senior Day Care Center - 19655 Allendale Avenue
The city council reconvened in the Adult Day Care Center at 7:30 PM.
Councilmembers Present: Burger, Jacobs, Tucker, Moran, Wolfe
Commissioners Present: Miller, Clark, Swan, Crotty, Dutra, Weiner
Commissioners Absent: Bernard
Staff Present: City Manager Peacock, Public Works Director Perlin,
Recreation Director Pisani
A. Kevin Moran/Asule Park Development Process
The commission stated it believes the two park sites shoul It believes
at together even though they are separated by the freeway.
that the city should start fresh in making decisions about the nature
of the development of the two parks.
A preliminary process for proceeding was outlined by the city manager
for discussion purposes. The steps proposed were:
1. City Council to hold hearing to decide whether parks will be
neighborhood or community oriented. Need to consider the
community's needs and balance them with the desires of the
surrounding neighborhoods where they conflict. Need to perhaps
seek professionaof athe communi ylfortnow and pfor the futuretion
facility needs
2. Retain the services of a park architect to work with the
community and the commission in coming up with a park design
based on needs and budget constraints.
3. Develop a concept plan and have the plan reviewed and revised
by the commission with the assistance of the community.
4. Present the proposed concept plan to the city council for
acceptance to develop the final plan.
5. Have the city council approve the final plan and authorize the
call for bids.
6. .City Council awards contract.
7. Park improvements constructed.
The issue concerning the play equipment at Kevin Moran Park was raised
and the need to replace same before the long range improvement plan
takes place en awares of this problemland willhtry tol take thatcinto
that they ar
consideration as the process unfolds.
Members of the community present indicated they wished to be
communicated with and be told the reasons for the decisions which will
be made regarding development so the people will understand not only.
City Council Minutes 3 December 13, 1994 ~
what is being done but why as well. (A sign up sheet of persons wishing
to be notified of future meetings was passed around and collected by
the city manager at the end of the meeting). .
D. Dogs in the Parks
The city council next took this item up out of order since there were
several people in the audience interested in the discussion. The
Public Works Director presented a report from his department on the
possible creation of a dog exercise area under the PG & E power lines
adjacent to Congress Springs Park. He indicated that an area of
approximately 60 x 300 feet could be fenced in for a cost of
approximately $6,500 and maintained for an annual cost of approximately
$1,000. A number of dog owners expressed their desire to have such a
facility or in the alternative to allow a time for dogs to be off leash
under voice command in one of the parks. The city manager indicated
that before this latter suggestion is pursued the city attorney should
be asked to examine the possible liability exposure such a policy could
be creating for the city. Mrs. Metcalf, one of the dog owners
indicated she had a list of cities which allow such practice. The city
manager asked to be furnished with a list of those cities so staff
could investigate those policies and the city attorney could consult.
with legal counsel for those cities as to the liability consequences
of such a policy.
It was Moved by Tucker, Seconded by Moran to direct staff to examine
these alternatives further on receipt of the required information and
to report its findings to the commission for action in making a policy •
recommendation to the city council and to the city council for
information.
C. Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in City Parks
The commission reported that in their view this is, a clear law
enforcement problem specific to Wildwood Park. They are opposed to a
general prohibition of allowing alcoholic beverages to be consumed in
the city's parks.
Councilmember Jacobs suggests that drinking be prohibited during
weekdays except when the weekday is a legal holiday. Councilmember
Tucker suggests that such a change be modified to allow possession and
consumption by special permit as is now required for large groups.
Both agreed that such a measure should apply only to Wildwood Park.
It was Moved by Jacobs, Seconded by Tucker to direct the city attorney
to prepare a revision to the city code which would limit possession and
consumption of alcoholic beverages in Wildwood Park to weekends and
legal holidays without a permit, such permit to be limited to no more
than one permit per month for the same group of people and that the
standard permit fee be charged. The motion passed 5-0.
B. Role of the Commission With Regard to the City Council and the
Public.
Discussion ensued regarding clarification of the city council's •
cite Council Minutes 4 December 13, 1994
communications policy. The city manager explained in lay terms how the
policy affects commissioner/councilmember communication.
• The commission also discussed to what extent it should be free to
suggest that it be involved in certain items before the city council
which may be in the realm of parks and recreation such as the Nelson
property and the wetlands restoration project at the college. The city
council encouraged the commission to be proactive in terms of
suggesting to the city council the kinds of items it should take up in
which they feel they should be involved. Once an item is brought to
the council's attention it will decide whether it wishes the commission
to be involved in the decision process or whether it is the council
view that the matter is outside the purview of the commission.
E. Master Plan as a Working Document; IIpdatinq the Plan.
The council and commission reviewed the report of the Public Works
Director suggesting how he would revise the current plan to not only
update it 'but to make it a more user friendly document for all
concerned. It was agreed that the commission and the staff should
proceed on the basis of the director's report.
F Discussion o! open Space Element and Parks and Trails Master
Plan Implementation Committee Report.
This item was identified as being part of the Master Plan update
effort. However, the commission wished to consider the :recommendations
• and report to the city council in writing its position on the various
recommendations. Once that is accomplished the city council would
formally consider accepting the recommendations for inclusion into the
revised Master Plan.
7. Other Items
A. City Council Police encouraging Commissioners to provide
telephone, tau, or a-mail contact opportunity !or the press
and general public
The city council agreed that the mayor should prepare a note to all
commissioners encouraging them to provide access ability for the
members of the press. The city manager was directed to include this
policy in the information furnished all future commission candidates
so they will be aware of this expectation.
B. Resolution of Commendation for Benny Pierce
It was Moved by Moran, Seconded by Wolfe to adopt a resolution of
commendation for Benny Pierce the retiring head football coach of
Saratoga High School. The motion passed 5-0.
C. Authorisation to commit to purchase a compressed Natural
Gas-Fueled Vehicle via Sole-Source Vendor
• The Public Works Director reported that as a part of the city's clean
air program it intended to begin to purchase compressed natural gas
i.
_ !
•
c 1D
C~~~~ o~
13?? i FR,UITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070. 1406
COUNCII. w.w...~._
xaxoAA~rDVx
To: Saratoga Citp Council
FROM: Opea space Implementation Committee
DATE: October 18, 1994
8v8JECT: status deport
.1nn ARSne BurCr-
=a~: ~ ~ .x~-r:
.::.:~... ~:,~.;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 Shriver
Paul Curtis
PnnteO on rceyeka paper
•
Policies for Consideratioa
• 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).
•
~ ~
1377? FRUI'f~7ALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 • (40F~ 567-343F
COUNCII.I~:E11iBERS:
MEMORA'iDIIM
TOS Open Space Implementation Committee
FROM: Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director
DATE: September 27, 1994
8II8JECT: Meeting Schedule
Ann Mane Buroe~
ti:.vrr^ A4o ~'
n3!r"' iUCha^'
C; ^:~:~ - Iticre
----------------------------------------------------------------
•
At their September 18 Work Session, the City Council requested that
the Open Space Implementation Committee meet with them on Tuesday,
October 25 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 51.3 million within the next 5 years and
potentially another 51.87 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.
Panted on recycled paper.
~~
open Bpaae Implemeatation Committee
September 27, 199
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 Shriver (ext. 236), Bob Rizzo
(ext.. 246) or myself (ext. 231) at 867-3438.
cc: Patricia Shriver
Bob Rizzo
attachment: Policies for Consideration
•
•
•
~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~~
~~~`~ o~
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORl`'IA 95070 • (4081867-3438
COUNCII. MEMBERS:
M E M O R 71 M D II M
To: open space Zmplemeatation Co~nittse
p w FROM: Paui L. Curtis, Community Development Director
1
DATE: September 9, 1994
BIIB.TECT: Ssakground Material !or September 12 Meetinq
am wane Bume••
Pay _..~axr_
nql;" ..CKf'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Open Bpaae Zmplemeatatioa Committee Meetinq
Monday, September 12, i994 (6:00 PM)
Community Develop:aent Department Confereaae 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.
Recommendatioa:
Staff recommends that the Committee review the information and
forward its recommendation to the City Council.
cc: Patricia Shriver
Bob Rizzo
•
Prmtetl on recycled paper.
•
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 667-3.135
COUNCII. MEMBERS:
• Ann Marie Buroie~
~~~ _ /3c~~as
trs~~- M:;rar
Kd'°" 7LCAP~
TO: Opea Spaoe Implemeatatioa Comoittee
FROM: Paul L. Curtis, commuaitp Develop®ant Director
DATE: September 9, 1994
BIIBJECT: Development Potential
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a discussion .of development potential in the City
in the near future. The purpose of this discussion is to determine
• 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: Itnown Projects, Williamson Act
Properties, Inquiries for Development, Existing Non-Residentially
Zoned Properties and Unknown Potential. ••
mown 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
Pnnted on recycled paper.
f'`
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 ~ lots from Williamson Act properties.
~ncruiries 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 E1 Quito Park if the
District designates the site as surplus. The current zoning is R1-
10,000 which would allow approximately ~4 lots on the site. The
inquiry was made regarding a General Plan amendment and zone change
which would allow multiple-family development (approximately ,3~,
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 44 residential units may be anticipated from
this category.
~x~stinc 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 ~ 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
(_ _.
•
Page 3
Development Potential
September 9, 199
for and the public and Planning Commission must determine that the
alternative use is appropriate. '~
Un *±own 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 detenaine 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.
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.
Known Projects: 160 lots @ $8160/lot $1,305,600
All Other Categories: 219 lots = 1.787.040
Total Potential Reveaues
= $3,092,640
•
-.
.-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~~
C~~ o~
13777 FR ALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • t40S - 86: •3435
• COUNCII.IV~MBERS:
Ann Mane 8ur~7e.
Pac•' E. /a~c~
lst:~31 M^r3"
D:: a7:C ~. t4':N~t•
TO: Open
TffitOUGH: Paul
FROM: Hob Rizzo
Element Implementation Committee
DATE: Saptemberl2, 1994 .
SUBJECT: Park Deve~opmant Fund
*rr~*ae**•w~~***~*~*~f***e*,~ee***ew*e*we~*w*~*********************
The purpose of this memo is to review and discus6 with the Open
Space Implementatio Committee the use of all Park Development
Funds to develop ~axistinq undeveloped park land and trail
easements.
~ C[IRRENT POLICY I,
As stated in the Cily's Park and Trails Master Plan "the planning
for parks and trail in Saratoga is influenced by the surrounding
region. Given the jor park sites and open space just outside the
City, priorities ould primarily focus on the improvements to
existing park sites within the City rather than the search for new
available sites."
In its review of a Park and Trails Master Plan, the Parks and
Recreation Commissi n recommended to City Council the development
of future parks and trails be addressed as separate issues and the
development of the developed sites remaining should receive first
priority for fundi Whenever possible, the development of future
trail easements ould require the developers through the
subdivision approve process to design and implement improvements
to the trails syste~. All trail construction should be completed
prior to issuance o any certificate of occupancy.
Using the Master Plan, the Parks and Recreation Commission
developed a recomm ded project priority list for the future parks
and trails projects (see attached memo project priority list).
~~~ced on rcoycba aaer.
--
•
~. AT ~i~A'!'I~ 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
Kevin 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 Dnion 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
Punted on recycled paper
•
~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~~
~~~~ o~
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (405186?-3436
COUNCII. MEl-iBERS:
ax- Mdne Burr~r
~2c;i r ,13QDD8
iadlk7•^ MJ~ 3^
Cnu~~ ~ vt~Mre
TO; Open Space Implementation Co®mittee
FROM: Bob Rizzo - ~.
~~; September 12, 1994
SIIB.7ECT: 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 the.davelopmant 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 foz 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 era completed.
I estimate that five (5) projects have the potential of increasing
revenues.
•
Pnntetl on recycktl paper.
r-~
~J
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: User fee revenue might be expected from this
site if soccer or playfields are constructed.
3) Hakone Gardens (Imflrovement to Entrance Road)
Cost Estimate: $ 50,000
Annual Maintenance Cost Increase: No increase
Status: Project on hold
Financing: Unknown at this time
Revenue: Improvements have the potential to generate
higher revenue from visitors. Improved road
could allow for bus access to the garden.
4j Concress SDr1nQS 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)
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
•
Pnntetl on recycletl paper
•
6) Gardiner Park
Cost Estimate: $ 28,500
Annual Maintenance Cost: No significant changes are
anticipated.
' Status: Projected C.I.P.. 1995/2000
Financing: Park Dsvalop®ant Fund
Revenue: None
7)
Coat Estimate: $ 30,000
Annual Maintenance Cost: 4,000
Status Projected C.I.P.
Financing: Park Development Fund
Revenue: Nona
8: BrookQien 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
PARE TOTALB
Cost Estimate $1,175,200
Anticipated Increase
Maintenance Cost 38,650
•
Pnntetl on recycleo paper.
1) c~~*~*+ei i 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_~+ern Paci i~ Ra~iroad Richt-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 Dane Network Project funding
source, Transportation Development A~
(T.D.A.) or Park Development Fund.
TRAII~B TOTALB
Cost Estimate $ 417,300
Anticipated Increase
in Maintenance Cost 8,000
r~
jw
Pnntetl on n3cycletl paper
~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~~
~~~ ~~
1377? FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 86?-3438
COUNCII. M~ERS:
September 1, 19 94 axr Mane Bwger
P~r~ E..iaav~s
u'~luen Mprdn
naren 7udcer
• L~orard ~. K'one
Barbara Takahashi
12326 Larchmont Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Ms. Takahashi:
Thank you for writing concerning Ravin 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
finalize 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 sua~er 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,
C,l ,a.r `~Z'~~- ~ ~---~
Ann Marie Burger
Mayor
AMB:HRP:jvg
cc: City Council
Public Works Director
Community Development Directort,'~
•
Panted on recycled paper.
Barbara Takahashi
12326 Larchmont Ave
Saratoga, CA 9 5070
August 26, 19.94
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
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
Loes 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.
CONS
Requires taxpayer support.
Requires additional cost
of issuance & interest.
Mortgnges future income in an
uncertain climate for
predicting future income.
5. Usez Fees
PROS
City could raise funds through
parking & user fees at its
larger parks.
CONS
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 oppeen space.'
e.q. parcel @ Quito/Pollard could
be exchanged for development
concessions.
CONS
Taxpayer support required for
local projects.
•
~~, i_
RECEIVED
!~lO~tAlmDlt
D~ITB: l~lugust 31, 1994, 23, 1994
TO: OP~f 3PACa OIL COlDQ3R'L~
FROK: PL'1'itICIA ~, FIFAI~CE DIItSCTOR
SEP 2 9 1994
rtHwivinl~ UEPT. .
_.~
SOBJBC'P: IDBl1'1'IFICaTIOl~ OAF FOl1DDtG SODRCFS FOR OPBS SPACE
.OS (HITS PROS A11D COBS TBffitB 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 cone of the source and to stimulate
discussion toward a recommendation to the City Council by the Open
Space Implemenation Committee.
CORRSlIT POLICY:
•
Funding for the acquisition and development of Parks and Trails is
limited to Park Dedications, Park Donations, Park Development Fees
and Federnl, 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 .
ALTffitNATTVE POLICIBS:
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.
•
• .. / ~~
•
13777 FltU1TVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALII'ORNIA 95070 • (408)867-3438
Subject: BackQrouad $ots: - itas lto. 13
POLICZ SSSIIB: Should th® City Council consider raising
general taz revenn4 as as option to replace revenue
losses dns to state revenue raids on the City?
a. Aew Construction i'as
b. Business License Z`az
c . IItility users ?az ~ .. - .
d. ?raasieat Occupancy Saz
Over the past several years the state has deliberately diverted
several sources of revenue which have traditionally been earsarked
for cities and used this revenue to fund state progra~es or to
reduce state funding obligations to other branches of local
govermeeat. ?aken 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 invest~snt income. I now estioate these effects
for fiscal 1993-94 gill make the real impact about ;800,000 is 1993
dollars. Bight now the Qovernor proposes, as a part of the 1993-
94 budget solution for the state, to shift another ;2 billion plus
away free cities, counties, and special districts to fund schools.
Depending on how one calculates this impact 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 spade up by increasing locally levied taz seasures.
Saratoga has four local tat sources, the new construction taz, the
business license taz, the utility users taz, and the transient
occupancy (hotel, motel) taz.
• New Construction Taa
The new construction
new construction. This
taz is currently set at ;.57 a square foot of
includes co®ercial as well as residential
Pnnteo on recvcletl oaper
Date: March 5, 1993
~~~~
~~.~r.~-
To : City Council ,~,,,,,,
. vea-INoua
From: City Manager w~r~w
- .: -..~.R;-;~:
~'~.' .
property and additions to existing buildings as xell as new
buildings. In 1990-91 and 1991-92 the tax generated an average
;134,713. This converts to an activity level of 236,339 s
feet of building a year xhich I have rounded to 240,000 for
financial forecasting purposes. As re$orted is my State of the
City message, San Jose, by xay of ''comparison, charges both a per .
unit tax and a percentage of value tax xhich,•depending on the type
of construction, tuna from ;1.22 to ;1.91 per square foot for
residential construction. If Saratoga raised the tax to ;1.00 a
square foot, this xould increase revenue by ;103,200 based on
240,000 square feet of building. l~ln increase to ;1.20 would raise
;136,512 a year on the same basis.
Business License Tan
The business license tax 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 groMtth has been averaging about 49 a year based
on improved enforcement and collection by the staff. To revise
a business license tax can bs complex, 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 xhich
relates to the level of business activity. For example, a flat
rate is usually found for such things as home occupations, vendin
machines, solicitors, peddlers, delivery trucks, and one-t'
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 fixed 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.
Dsing Los Gatos as an example here are their basic fees:
General contractors ;224 year
Professions ;200 pear plus ;15 for each support staff
Services ;100 year
Retail ;100 year for ;0- ;50,000
;112.50 " for ;50-;100,000 gross receipts
gross receipts
plus ;37.50 year for each ;50, 000 in gross.
receipts in excess of ;100,000
Manufacturers ;150 for ;0-;200,000 gross receipts
;187.50 for ;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
Vending Machines based on
;0 - ;20,000
- ;20,001 - ;50,000 -
;50,001 - ;70,000
;70,001 - ;80-,000 -
;80,001 - ;90,000 -
;90,001 - ;100,000
;100,001 and over
has a category
gZ'08s recelpt6
;30 pear
;40 year k
;50 year
;60 yeas
;70 year
;80 year
;90 year
for Amusement Devices -
as follows:
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 ezcess of 1 and. ;5 for any employees in ezcess of
5. General contractors are charged ;150 a gear 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 cbargsd ;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, aparteents).,
• The basic retail rate in Los Gatos is ;.75 per thousand and ;1.50
per thousand for manufacturing. ~lithout 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. Dsing 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 IIsers Tax
The utility users tax was adopted is 1985 and renewed until 3uly
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.G.4E. can program into its billing system currently). In
my State of the Gity report I indicated that if the tax were
extended to water, the 3.5$ would generate about another ;110-;120
` thousand a year based on the Water Company's franchise data filed
with the City. This type of tax, on consumption, does have
3
~--
positive envirm
conservation and
Been if the City
would urge this
continue this tar
source.
tineatal effects since it encourages Ovate
conservation of non-renewable energy source
does not increase or ezpaad this tar source,
City Council and any future City Councils to
after July 1, 1995, as~an essential City revenue
Transient Occu~ancv Taz
The transient occupancy tar was established in 1985 at 8$ of rental
rates. This percentage is a common one but. Cupertino, Los Gatos
and San Jose, for ezample, do levy the tan at-10$. Saratoga's tan
base for this revenue source is small (two establishments. The
yield over the past two years has averaged just under ;100,000.
Raising the tan would potentially bring in another ;25,000 if the
rate were 10$. However, a small loss of business because of higher
rates could be expected to occur:
CONCLUSIONS AND Rl3COI~ISNDATIONS
At the top of this report I indicated the City could expect ~ •its
revenue loss fry prior state actions to total about ;800,000 in
fiscal 1993-94 but if added cuts came from the state the loss could
grow to as much as ;1.2 million. If all the proposals discussed
above were instituted by the City Council, here is how much the
revenue picture would improve.
Tan Source
New Construction
Business Licenses•
Utility Osers
Transient Occupancy
TOTAL
DIFFERENCE _ ;433,000
Current Revenue
;134,713
157,000
672,101
00 0
;1;063,814
cus sed Rev
;240,000
350,000
782,000
• 5 000
;1,497,000
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.
..p
arty Peacock, City Manager
]m •
Attachments:
"" 1. 3!2!93 Current Business License Database by Nature of Business
2. 3/1/93 City Attorney Opinion on City Authority to Raise
Revenues through Various Tan and Fee Measures
4
•
Oi-'1'a: March 2, 1992
TO: ~IRR!
FRD[: Pl~l'1RICI11
SQB.TMC?: C0~' HDSIMESS LICIItSL. Dri1T~1B1l.SE Hll ltPiTURE OF BtJ3IMESS
i have organized the appraociaately 1,500 currently licensed
businesses in Sarato
the lollori
b
t
i
ga
y
nq ca
eg or
es:
HQSIIIESS GTY x0l0~
Oonsaltant 150
Coets'aator ~ 415
General Garden Sei'vicas 72
ManulaCttn'sr 15
Medical Services 57
. I1on-profit O~'ganisations ' 12
Other' 3
Personal Salon services 57
Professional services 148
Real Estate 56
Restaurants 41
Retail Sales 219
Sesvices (General) 285
I have included tt~ State sales Tau ~ (where we have .it) in case
you sight want to relate license tee to level of sales . I have
also included inforsatian on esployees.
... D
I~~YERS, NAVE, RIBACK dt SII.VER CI I ~ .,a• :,.~...:::. °-
s~ ~ A Profisssiartal Law rorponmdorc ~qy a~~~_~~F~. p~•~
K ssh~a Civ...y ll.m, 2220 Hor.rd Avg. Sww~e 2So
s 7r nrs sn•a, S~ioe 300
NieWd F Spa Lrd~or G 91377 . .. '~P~ u 31i-71]0
TiMpYa~c (31~ 351.4300
IGatbiNa Farbiae g~ (sue 151•Mi1 Faaide (41S) 342~f6
w~ ~ "" -mac
n.~a w. s~
s~ ? I~taaac (707) s4e31m
Ot ao~et ~ Repiy to:
Aod~a J. S~les~n Sr Lea~d~o
TOs Harry PeacocJc, City Manager D71TL: March 1, 1993
F8O~t: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
xEs 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?
~: .~=
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
• '1'O: Harry Peacock, City Manager
FitO~[s Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
ltE: City Authority to Raise Revenues Through Various Tax and
Fee Measures
D01?!s March 1, 1993 =_ - "
P~OEs 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 nsw 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 sours of the axsmptions.
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 LI.~I Districts in the
City and creating one new one. Either option would have more or
less the saw effect. An LIa 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, overhsad or underground wires, and structures for
distributing the needed powsr); 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.
DIBCOSSIC)is
1. How may the City increase its Construction Tax. Transient
Occuflancv Tax. Business License Tax. and Utility Users
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'Os Barry Peacock, City Manager
l~t01[s Micheal S. Riback, City Attorney
RE: City Authority to Raise Revenues
Fee Measures
D~i'1'Es Larch 1, 1993 ~~
PAOEz 3
Through Various Tax an~
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•bean expressly construed as allowing general law
cities to impose a IItility Deers Tax to benefit the city's general
fund. (Fenton v. City of Delano (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 400, 407-
08, 208 Cal.Rptr. 486.) Moreover, even in the absence of se~ion
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.
Fres~}g (1971) 6 Cal.3d 132, 13!
charter city's inherent power to 'i.
respect to local imposition of ge;
posed by Proposition 13 applies
property. (Cal. Coast. 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.o., Rivera v. City of
~, 98 Ca1.Rptr. 281 (upholding
pose utility user's tax).) With
Feral taxes, the only limitation
to ad valorem taxes on real
S 1.) Because the construction
.s doubtful that this limitation
1 that Nollan and .similar cases
from developers to those having
o --ji~u~-- wizu zna impacLS or zne aevelopment 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.c. 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
such taxes without voter
enefit of the general fund
The City's Code should br•
is the case. Code Sections
explicit provisions.
to. impose
for the b
purpose).
that this
have such
• 1'O s
~xo~cs
kE s
D011'Es
P~OEs
Harry Peacock, City Manager
Micheal S. Riback, City Attorney
City Authority to Rai:e Revenues
Fes Measures
March 1, 1993
4
Through Various Tax and
"Taxation" S 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 ha: been held unconstitutional at least so far as it
applies to general texas. The court in City of Woodlake v. Loran
(1991) 230 Ca1.App.3d 1058, 282 Cal.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 Wtility veers 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. Aow may the City 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. Coast. art. 13A, S 1) and
cannot assess a special tax without approval of two-thirds of the
electorate (Cal. Coast. 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 era 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 Barry Peacock, City Manager
FAO~ts Michael S. RibacJc, City Attorney
jtEs City Authority to Raise Revenues
Fee Measures
D~iTEs March 1, 1993
P~fiL s 5
Throu h Various Tax an~
q
exemptions in Sections 4-05.160 and 4-05.170. For example, the
City could enact an ordinance aaendinq 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 lsss than four sleeping roams. (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 fs not applicable.
3. How may the City establish a City-wide Landscape and
T.inl~~~wn ~Q~se~waw~ /NT_T_aN\ ni..~..:..~9 Lam.... ._A.~~ -.....5-..
The City can establish a City-wide LLA District either by
consolidating all their present LLA Districts within the City anc•
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 elec.
specify whether the City is consolidating all the present districts
and annexing other territory into those districts or whether the
• ?os Harry Peacock, City Manager
l1t01[s Michael S. RibaCJc, City l-ttorney
Res City ]-uthority to Raise Revenues Through various Tax and
Fee Maasuras
Diis'Es March 1, 1993 =_ - •-
pL03s 6
City is simply dissolving all present districts and forming a new
one. The Citywide LIJ~ District could include charges for the
installation and maintenance of landscaping within the City (e.g.,
tsees,~shsvbs, 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 equipaent, playcourts, and public restrooms); and
appurtenant facilities (including curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks,.
paving, and irrigation and drainage facilitie:). (SS 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. (SS 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 th! improvements, the various areas will
receive differing degrees of benefit from the improvements. A zone
shall consi:t of all territory which will receive substantially the
same degree of benefit from the improvements." (SS 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.) Dpon receipt, the City
Council may modify the Engineer's Report before approving it.
(S 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.)
TOs Harry Peacock, City Manager
!'itolts Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
itEs City Authority to Raise Revenues
Fae Measures
D~iNl'Es March 1, 1993 =_
PAOEs 7 .
Through Various Tax an~
Fourth, the City Council should conduct a public hearing on
the Engineer's Report (s 22590.) Notice 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 508 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 recen
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. (s 22640.)
4:
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
•
._
• sos gars-y Peacock, City Manager
Fjto1[s Michael S. Riback, City attorney
R!: City 1-uthority to Raise Revenues Through Various Tax and
Fes Measures
DA'1'ss March 1, 1993 _ _ - •-
PA6ss 8
deductsd fra® the total iaproveaant costs,"'with the remaining
improvements costs asssssed against individual parcels in pro-
portion to the estimated benefits received pursuant to Section
22573.
.~ ~ f
G
Michael S. Riback
City Attorney -
Z 7 3 \awo \aaz! 3 Masi! w. asz
•
•
•
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867.3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ann Mane Burger
Paul E. Jacobs
Gillian Moran
Karen Tucker
M$ M O R A N D II M Donald L. Wore
•
LJ
To: Saratoga City Council
FROM: Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director
DATE: November 22, 1994
SIIBJECT: Policy Statements for Open Space Implementation
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 ~ ~ 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.
s
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).
•
} .
i
• Ann Mane Burger
Date : Februa 23 1995 _ Paul E. Jacobs
~ ~ Gillian Moran
Karen Tucker
TO : Clty Cauncl I Donald L. Wol/e
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
•
From: Director of Recreation
Subject: Background Note - Item No. 4:
ex~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~~
~~~~ 0~
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 86 7 -3435
POLICY ISSUE: What additional parks and recreational
facilities are needed to satisfy the future needs of
the City?
In December of 1994, the City Council directed staff to begin work
in determining the future parks and recreation needs of the City.
This task was to be completed before any of the remaining open
space was developed or improvements made to current parks.
Originally, city staff was going to prepare an RFP to use an
outside consultant to complete the survey and analysis. Initially,
staff requested and received input from all youth sports
organizations. The Recreation Department completed an outline of
their history and recommendation for expanded programs. Analysis of
the findings pointed to the same conclusion. Saratoga based youth
sports organizations do in fact need additional facilities for
their programs.
Over the past several years girls and boys sport programs in
Saratoga have grown considerably. This is an interesting trend
because comparisons between the 1980 and 1990 Saratoga census shows
a population drop of people under the age of 18 years. ABAG
findings in 1994 reveal that the 1990 figures have remained
constant.
As involvement in sports programs has grown, so have requests to
the City for additional facilities. Participant numbers have
increased and so has the need, not only for games, but team
practice areas. Currently, city owned sports fields are operating
at the maximum.
Congress Springs Park is the primary sports facility for all youth
sports groups in Saratoga. This situation is creating a problem of
Printed on recycled paper.
i
f
•
over-usage of these playfields at this site. The fields are
utilized by agreement with two youth sports groups, AYSO and Little
League, who utilize these fields for approximately eleven (11)
months each year.
At this rate of usage these fields will need to be completely
renovated within the next four to five years.
A review of revenue received from youth organizations revealed that
AYSO pays the City $2,000 per year and Little League $1500 per
year. Little League, as part of their agreement, also helps
maintain Congress Springs Park during their season.
City revenue from the Park Development Fund is projected to be $1.3
million within the next 1-5 years. These fees can only be used for
the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park
facilities.
outdoor Facility Needs:
In review of the data received, it seems as though additional
• outdoor fields use by organized youth groups can be achieved by
working with the schools in Saratoga. All the schools have playing
fields but most are in a state of disrepair because of declining
revenue and the lack of school district maintenance funds. Current
fields could be upgraded and a program established for scheduling.
and maintenance of these fields.
another option would be to develop current City owned open space
such as Azule Park. If Blue Hills School fields were upgraded at
the same time, these two sites would provide an excellent multi-use
athletic fields facility.
Another issue to consider would be the long term maintenance of any
new developed site. The current cost is $6,000 per acre per year.
At a 9 acre site, such as Congress Springs Park, it costs the City
approximately $54,000 per year to maintain. The City cannot afford
to maintain additional athletic fields without increasing staff or
contracting out this service.
Indoor Facility Needs:
Staff analysis from the data collected also suggested a need for a
gymnasium/sports center. All gymnasiums located in Saratoga
including private and public, are utilized to the maximum. Sacred
Heart and St. Andrew's Schools have been willing to let the City
•
•
Recreation Department use their gyms, but their own programs have
precluded our usage until after 9:00 p.m. on weeknights. The
Recreation Department has been fortunate to be able to use West
Valley College, Saratoga High School and Redwood Middle School. Of
course, we have to work around their schedule of activities. We
currently use Redwood School weeknights, but on several occasions
we have been bumped because of band concerts, school plays and
their own sports program.
Matthew Crosby, President of the Redwood School Athletic Boosters
and founder of Saratoga National Junior .Basketball, outlines in his
letter additional community needs for a gymnasium. He proposes that
the City build a facility on the site of the lower softball field
at Redwood School. This location is adjacent to the Post Office and
across the street from the Community Center. Staff thinks his
recommendation has merit and supports this location. A new
gymnasium close to the Recreation Department would be ideal.
Options:
i. Direct staff to explore options of working out joint use
agreements with Saratoga school districts. In recent
conversations with school administrators, they are very
willing to work with the City. There is mutual support for
additional facilities or improvements to existing athletic
fields for the youth of Saratoga. Some options to explore
could include community use of school fields in exchange for
a long term maintenance agreement, long term lease of school
propery by the City, and schools dedicating their fields to
the City to be preserved as parksites. Some nearby cities have
entered into these types of agreements with school districts.
2. Direct staff to retain a landscape architect to update the
City's Park Master Plan and develop existing city-owned
parkland.
3. Direct staff to hire a consultant to complete a more
comprehensive needs assessment. The background data for this
report has been collected and analyzed by staff. The Council
might want to receive greater city-wide input.
~J
n Pisani
•
•
attachments:
Inventory of School District Playfield Sites
Letters from:
AYSO
Saratoga Little League
Los Gatos/Saratoga Girls Softball Association
National Junior Basketball
Recreation Department Program History and Expansion Recommendation
~~
TO: Joan Pisani, Director of Recreation
Bob Rizzo, Parks Superintendent ~h•r
FROM:
DATE: February 21, 1995
SUBJECT: Inventory of School District Playfield Sites
As requested, staff has surveyed the school playfields in the City
of Saratoga and preliminary cost regarding renovations.
Saratoga Union School District (13.4 acres of playfields at four
school sites)
Redwood Middle School 5.6 acres
Foothill School 2.4 acres
Argonaut School 2.3 acres
Saratoga School 3.1 acres
c~~npr*~no Union School District (2 sites)
• Blue Hills 4.6 acres
Christy McCuliffe 2.3 acres
Camubell Union School Dist~~ (1 site)
Marshall Lane School 9.0 acres
camnbell Union Hich School District (1 site)
Prospect High School 11.0_acres
Staff estimates the cost per acre to renovate a playfield similar
to the recent renovation at Redwood Middle School at approximately
$29,000 per acre.
If any additional improvements are added to a project such as
baseball diamonds, additional landscaping, trees or walkways etc,
the cost per acre may range from $65, 000 to as high as $130, 000 per
acre. Any additional improvements such as baseball fields,
additional landscaping or walkways will need to be master plan
designed. Fees for a master plan design are approximately 3$ of
the total project and any construction documents for the project
usually are 6$ of the actual construction project fees.
•
•
NATIONAL JUNIOR BASKETBALL
Matt Crosby, City Director
P.O. i3ox 2472, Saratoga, CA 95070 408-867-3619
January 31, 1995
Ms. Joan Pisani
Recreation Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fnritvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: City of Saratoga and NJB SRRRTOGR;
Needed Recreation Facilities
Dear Ms Pisani:
I am the City Director and founder of NJB SRRRTOGR, a youth basketball league for boys and girls in
Saratoga, California. NJB SRRATOGR is a chapter of National Junior Basketball ('NJB'7. a non-profit organization
founded in 1965.
Our program offers three divisions of competition for boys and girls in 3rd thru 8th grade, plus a Clinic
instructional league for boys and girls in-1st and 2nd grades. In our inaugural season (1994-95), we have over 190
players on 21 teams and 45 participaats in the Clinic program. Our flames are played on Sunday afternoons at
Saratoga High School. We have as many as 12 games being played oa the 2 gyms at Saratoga High School each
Sunday from December 4th thru February 26. This regular season is followed by a Friendship Tournament
involving NJB teams from West San Jose, East San Jose, Los Gatos, Berryessa. Irvington, and Fremont. The
Friendship Tournament is followed by All-Star c~tpetition on both the local and national level.
I am also the President of the Redwood Middle School Sports Boosters. The Sports Boosters organizes and
funds all of the after-school sports at Redwood Middle School. In addition, I am the Player Agent of the Saratoga
Little League and the Vice-President of the Saratoga Pony League. I have 2 sans, Michael (a 7th grader at Redwood)
and Marc (a 4th grader at Argonaut Elementary School). As such, I am intimately familiar with the need for
recreational facilities in Saratoga.
Need for Gvms
•
With respect to basketball, both of my sons play in the NJB SRRRTOGR basketball program and the
Saratoga Recreation Department basketball program. Michael also plays ~ the Redwood Middle School 7th grade
basketball team. There is a great demand by the boys and girls in Saratoga for basketball. As a result, there is a
tremendous need for basketball gym facilities. NJB SRRRTOGR has 21 teams that need to practice once or twice
each week. Redwood Middle School has boys and guts teams for 6th grade, 7th grade, and 8th grade which practice
ahnost every day of the week. In addition, the Recreation Department has 29 youth teams and several adult teams.
All of these teams compete for the very sparse gym facilities in Saratoga.
X;«.
i
CJ
Ms. Joan Pisani
January 31.1995
Page -2-
Saratoga High School has two fine gyms, but both are completely used for school teams and school
activities every Monday through Friday. The Recreation Department uses both of these gyms for its games on
Saturdays, and NJB SRRRTOGR uses both of these gyms far its games as Sundays. There is a possibility that the
high school may want to use its gyms on samraays in the fnaue. The only place to practice the 21 NJB teams, the
29 Recreation teams, and the 3 Redwood teams is the Redwood Middle School cafeteria (which doubles as a
basketball court). Redwood has only 1 court, and this 1 court is not sufficient to handle all of these teams. The
court is also not ideally suited for basketball because it is undersized and does not have a hardwood floor
Provosal• 'The Saratoga Boosts Center"
I propose that the City of Saratogabuild astate-of-the•art double gymnasium and activity center on the site
of the lower softball field at Redwood Middle School. This site is directly adjsacent to the U.S. Post Office. The
gym could be used by (i) the Redwood Middle School basketball, vallyball, and wrestling teams, (ii) the Saratoga
Recreation Department youth and adult basketball teams, (iii) the NJB SRRRTOGR youth basketball teams, and (iv)
the citizens of Saratoga for a variety of activities including basketball, volleyball, badminton, aerobic classes,
martial arts classes, and other exercise and recreation programs. This facility could also contain rooms forping-pong
and similar 2-person games.
A facility of the type described could be used by the Young as well as the old, by men and women, and by
boys and girls. It would be unique. It would not duplicate existing facilities, and it would meet a significant need in
the community.
In the first year of NJB SRRRTOGR, we had such a demand that a waiting list was created for those who
signed up late. Our program cmild maintain more than the existing 21 teams and 4 Clinic groups, however the lack
of facilities prevents us from having a space for aU those who want to play. In addition, I have been asked by Kevin
Skelly, the Principal of Saratoga High School, to develop an NJB SRRRTOGR intramural basketball program for the
9th thru 12th graders. The only thing that limits us is the lack of facilities.
I hereby voluntcer to be a member of any committee established for the purpose of creating a facility to
meet the needs described above.
Very truly
MATT ROBBY
•
i
ao~1N iOCCE' o+~
~ ~ '~
~~
~~
•~
®+
~~vNOED ~9b~
AMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER ORGANIZATION
a nonprofit corporation dedicated to youth soccer
~ P~lV"
14240 Barksdale Court
Saratoga, CA 95070
January 25, 1995
Joan Pisani
Recreation Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Joan,
Per your request, I am submitting information for the City of Saratoga to use in the
formation of their future field requirements and use strategy. The information will include
participation levels, playing field usage, and future expectations for Saratoga AYSO,
Region 27.
• Although Region 27 is open to all cities (per the regulations of the national office of
AYSO), it primarily services Saratoga children. Other cities with some participation are
Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Campbell, and San Jose. From 1994 to 1995, the league grew
by over 25%, from 700+ children to 900+. It is expected that in 1995, the participation
level will be from 900 to 1000 children. The children range in age from 5 to 18. It is
difficult to predict future growth, however, 10% per year would not be unrealistic,
especially with the increase in housing construction in the vicinity and with the increased
interest in soccer.
At present our playing fields consist of the five fields at Congress Springs Park and the
three newly renovated fields at Redwood Middle School. The league has not yet worked
our the arrangements for Redwood, however, Saratoga AYSO did contribute $10,000.00
to the renovation of the fields. Playing fields are those required for our games which are
primarily on Saturdays for the regular season, with some Sunday requirements for
tournament games and player/coaches clinics. The season runs from September through
early December. Since Redwood Middle School was not available last year, due to the
renovation, we negotiated with West Valley College to use their field for a few of our
upper division games. In the past, when we had used Redwood, we contracted for a
portable bathroom during our season.
There is also a great demand for practice fields, which are used Monday through Friday
• afternoons, with some usage on Saturdays and Sundays. Last year we used the following
fields: Congress Springs Park, Saratoga School, Foothill School, Argonaut School, Kevin
.• t r
Moran Park, and the lower field at Redwood Middle School. The safety and usefulness of
• each of these fields varies. To really meet the needs of the children and the coaches, the
fields should be regularly maintained and have access to bathrooms, water, and soccer
goals. Therefore, this past year, we werrt to double shifts at Congress Springs Park,
because of the great increase in the number of teams we had and the fact that Congress
Springs Park is the only one that offers the right level of combined safety, usefulness, and
accessibility. Of course, the early shift was difficult for most of our volunteer coaches to
use due to their work schedules.
As we look to the future, we expect that for 1995, Congress Springs Park and Redwood
Middle School will meet our needs for playing fields. In future years, as we grow, we
would expect to need access to more fields. As for practice fields, we would like to see
improvements in the current school and city fields in the areas of safety and usefulness as
noted earlier. In addition, we have considered forming a spring soccer league, for which
there seems to be strong interest. If this were to occur, our needs for both practice and
playing fields would conflict with the current needs of baseball.
I hope that this information is useful in forming the city's plans for future investment.
Please let me know if there is any additional information that I can provide.
Sincerely,
~~
S. Linsky
Regional Commissioner
Saratoga AYSO, Region 27
•
/ ~
.~/ ~
i'IICON
VAtLE Y
MANAGEMENT
U,.~Sr~ir _,~,.,uh'^^ /d~rE': ~.OIIID9~MP:
February 6, 1995
Ms. Joan Pisani
City of Saratoga
13777 Frufirale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Future needs for fields for Saratoga Little League
Dear Joan:
• With regard to your request on my opinion of future needs for field use for
Saratoga Little League the following in my analysis: At the present time
we have approximately 475 children in Saratoga Little League. We have
now moved our entire program from T-Ball and Farm at Foothill School, to
having the entire program T-Ball, Farm, Minors, Majors and Seniors at
Congress Springs. At the present time, we have three permanent fields
and two temporary fields at Congress Springs. It would be the desire of
the League to have all permanent fields built in one location. At the
present time, because of the shared use of Congress Springs between
Little League and Soccer this is not possible. If we continue to run
approximately 475 children through our program; the fields at the present
time are adequate. In looking to the future, Quito Little League has lost
their fields and there is a possibility of their League not existing in the
future. This would add approximately 150 children to our program who
live in Saratoga, but are in the Quito Little League District. Should this
event come to be, Congress Springs does not provide adequate fields for
Saratoga Little League to operate their program.
851 E. Hamilton Ave.
suite i2o Of a bigger problem is the use of Congress Springs Facility. Though your
Campbell, cA parks and recreation department does an outstanding job, because
baseball uses the field from January through July, and soccer uses the
~~a-os94 field from August through December, there is really no time to repair or
4Utt/559-5909 replace any of the sod or grass properly at Congress Springs. Congress
FAX 408/559-9353
• Ms. Joan Pisani
February 6, 1995
Page Two
Springs is being overused and there will come a time I believe in the next
two or three years when either soccer or baseball will have to find a new
home at least for a season while new sod is allowed to mature. I think it
would be helpful for both programs if new fields were built at an alternative
location providing better field conditions for play and possible recreational
programs or additional uses which presently are not available in Saratoga
because of the lack of facilities.
Should you have any additional questions, please feel free to call. I would
be glad to sit down with yourself or members of the planning
commission/city council and discuss some of the field and athletic facilities
needed for Saratoga and better ways that if there were separate playing
areas these areas could be utilized.
-Sincerely,
David L. Lazares
President, Saratoga Little League
cc: Susie Dymoke
n
U
SLL 95 JPisani
Los Gatos/Saratoga Girls Softball Association
(LGSGSA)
• To: Ms. Joane Pisani 1 / 1 7/ 9 5
Saratoga Recreation Department
From: Ron Lawson
LGSGSA Saratoga Player Representative
Subject : League Facilities Status/Needs
This letter is written in response to your inquiery regarding the present status and needs of LGSGSA as it
relates to the recreational fields and facilities in Saratoga. As you are aware, LGSGSA coordinates a softball
program for the girls of Los Gatos and Saratoga between the ages of seven through eighteen. We administer
three programs including recreational play for all girls and two advanced play programs for players at the
higher skill levels.. Our programs normally provide playing opportunities for 425-450 girls annually.
The Saratoga facilities presently allotted to our program include three fields at Foothill school, and one field
each at Argonaut grade, Redwood middle and Saratoga high schools. Our program has benefited this year by the
decision of the Little League Board to develop two new fields and consolidate their program at the Congress
Springs complex. In a letter received from their board president, they agreed to vacate their use of the upper
two diamonds located at Foothill school including the existing snack shads and storage bin and donate them and
the field use to our program. This will result in providing a more centralized program for the girls program.
In return, Urile League has requested the right to use the Redwood Middle school diamond in the future, should
that need develop due to growth of their program. With the addition of the two fields at Foothill, we believe
that, if the need arises, we could relinquish use of the field at Redwood Middle school without extreme adverse
affects on our program.
Our needs at present include the development of a playing field at Argonaut school and development of rest room
facilities and improvement of the snack shads at Foothill school. We also need to improve the general condition
of the upper two fields at Foothill school. Since we are only in our third year of operation, our funds are
extremely limited. We finished the 1994 playing season with expenses exceeding our revenues. Any support
and cooperation which could be provided by the City of Saratoga is much needed and will be beneficial to our
girls softball program.
.~'
k'
~ /.
r
Ron Lawson
LGSGSA Board Member
C7
•
To: City Manager January 31, 1995
From: Director of Recreation
Subject: Recreation Department Program History &
Recommendation for Expansion
T C1aSSe3
. 150 - 165 classes are held per quarter. This has remained
the same for the past few years
. Staff is always weeding out low enrollment programs and
offering approximately 20 new classes each quarter
. If Community Center space is unavailable we have been able
to utilize rooms at school sites
Recommendation: Reep status quo
II Pre-school
• Began program in the fall of 1991 with 14 families
1994 - 1995 enrollment: 47 families (2 families over
maximum)
. On waiting list now for September, 1995: 44 families
Recommendation: Increase size of room by completing interior
modifications and then register more people
III Summer Camas
# of camps # of campers
. 1st year: 1986 8 160
1990 18 385
1994 32 593
Recommendation: Keep status quo utilizing 3 parks
IV Special Events
. Breakfast with Santa, Fun Run and other special activities
are very popular
. Special events barely break even because they are so labor
intensive
Recommendation: Continue to offer a few special events each
year
•
• V Basketball
Men's over 35 years Saturday league began in 1991 with 6
teams and has continued at this same level with 65 men
participating
. Men's over 45 years week night league began in 1993 with 4
teams playing 2 seasons during the year. In 1994, 6 teams
participated during a 3 season year. The winter 1995 league has 7
teams and 56 participants
. Women's basketball league in 1993 with 4 teams. By the fall
of 1994, 6 teams were participating
Youth basketball began in 1992 with 26 teams and 256
participants. In 1995 we have 30 teams and 290 participants. This
is a drop of 8 teams from the previous year because of the new NJB
league in Saratoga. They have 190 participants in their 1st year
Recommendations: More gym space is needed in Saratoga. All
facilities are currently utilized to their maximum. If more space
was available the Recreation Department would expand programs as ..
listed below:
. Women's basketball league all year
. An 18 yrs & over men's league
. A 35 yrs & over league men's league during the week
. 45 yrs & over: add more teams
. A volleyball league
• Open gym for drop-in play
VI Softball
. A Recreation Department softball league program began in the
Spring/Summer of 1989 with 8 men's and 8 co-ed teams
In 1991 a new 8 team co-ed league was formed utilizing a
field at West Valley College
Recommendation: If an additional softball field is acquired or
improved in Saratoga, an another league could be initiated allowing
for various levels of competition
VII Trip
. 24 - 30 trips are held per year
Recommendation: Keep status quo
VIII Youth Theatre
. 5 shows were held from December 1994 thru December 1995
. In December, 1995 113 children participated in Cinderella
and the Grinch Who Stole Christmas. 2065 tickets were sold for a
total of 10 performances.
Recommendation: Enhance and expand youth theatre program
•
• IX Teens
. The Youth Commission was established in July, 1988
. The Warner Hutton House opened as a teen center June, 1992
. The teen program is in full swing with an after school day
care program, trips, middle school dances, summer and holiday
camps, high school concerts
Recommendation: Continue current program but pursue more
involvement of high school students, a job training program and co-
sponsored activities.
Other Future Proaran Goals _
1. To work with YMCA orr co-sponsoring programs
2. To study the feasibility of establishing camps and programs
with Sky Hawks, Sharks in the Park and San Francisco Giants