HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 PARKS AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN
I~'Z a 3 d
PAR5 AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN
City of Saratoga, CA
Wallace Roberts & Todd
November 5, 1991
PARKS AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN
City of Saratoga, CA
Wallace Roberts & Todd
November 5, 1991
LIST OF FIGURES
•
•
1 Regional Location
2 City Parks
3 Existing Trails
4 Regional Parks and Trails
5 Regional Parks and Trails
6 Existing and Proposed Trails
7 Hiking/Biking and Equestrian Path Design Concepts
8 Surface Construction Details
9 Slope Preparation
10 Clearing Limits
11 Fence and Gate Details
12 Trail Identification Post
13 Demountable Wooden Bollard
14 Off Road Vehicle Barrier
15 Trailhead Signage
16 Tree Planting -Double Stake with Deer Guard
17 Bench/Bike Rack and Hitching Rail
LIST OF TABLES
1 Inventory of Open Space Lands
2 Current Land Use by Type of Zoning
3 Population Growth
4 Population Age Structure
5 Household Income
6 Stevens Creek Park Trails Mileage Chart
7 Sanborn County Park Trails Mileage Chart
8 1990-1995 Recommended Parks Capital Improvements Program
9 General Fund Expenditures on Parks and Recreation
10 Projected Quimby In-Lieu Fee Revenues
1 I Protected State Grant Revenue
12 Protected User Fee Revenue
13 Proposed Capital Improvements Program
14 Projected Maintenance Cost Increases
•
SARATOGA PARKS AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 Executive Summary
THE CONTEXT
2.0 Survey/Analysis
2.1 Natural and Cultural Setting
2.2 Planning Context
2.3 Demographic Characteristics
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
2.5 Open Space
2.6 Existing Finance
2.7 Community Concerns
THE PLAN
3.0 The Plan
• 3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
4.0 Iml
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Plan Purpose
Goals and Objectives
Neighborhood Parks
Community Parks
Specialty Parks
Proposed Trail System Improvements
Trail Design Standards and Details
~lementation
Phasing and Capital Improvements Program
Maintenance Costs and Issues
Trails Implementation
Financing and Implementation Options
The Future
Acknowledgements
Appendices
•
1.0 Executive Summary
• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the summer of 1990 the City of Saratoga commissioned a study for the the preparation of a
Parks and Trails Master Plan, intended to define a framework for the City's actions over the
upcoming decade in implementing a recreation system which will serve all sections of the
City's population. This document presents the conclusions of that study. The Plan discusses
the existing recreation provision in the City as well as the planning context which forms a
setting for the subsequent recommendations for future provision and operation of active and
passive parks, pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle trails.
The first section of the Master Plan discusses the existing context of parks planning in the
City, assessing the implications of the planning and growth context, park standards,
recreation needs analysis, a review of existing facilities, and a review of existing
financing, operations and maintenance. Input to the planning process gained in a recreation
needs analysis including a public survey and public meetings is also discussed, identifying
changes and improvements to the system desired by the City's residents in order to continue to
enhance Saratoga's recreational quality of life in the coming decade.
These changes are presented in the second section of the Master Plan, (3.0 The Plan), which
includes a range of goals and objectives, recommendations regarding specific facility
improvements at all the City's park sites, recommended improvements to the City trail system,
phasing, capital improvements cost estimates, operations and maintenance, revenue potential,
and financing options for each of the sites.
• The major improvements projected by this Plan include improvements to currently undeveloped
parkland, upgrades and improvements to facilities in existing improved parks, and completion
of construction and maintenance of existing and future trail easements. Given the almost
built-out context of the City, the Plan has little emphasis on new park sites. Exceptions to
this rule include the projected acquisition of the Nelson Gardens site and a small mini-park
acquisition east of Quito near Ravenwood.
Section 4.0 "Implementation" summarizes the total costs of the recommended improvements and
addresses phasing through the presentation of a ten-year Capital Improvements Program for
parks and recreation in the City. (See Table 13). Section 4.0 also discusses projected
maintenance costs and associated issues, and options for implementation of the parks,
recreation and trails system.
The total capital budget required over the ten-year period for all park and trail acquisition
and improvements is estimated at $5,293,200. It should be noted that not all of these costs
will necessarily be borne by the City as certain improvements will probably be required as a
condition of development approval.
The total annual maintenance budget projected for the entire parks and trails system upon
completion of all improvements is estimated at $450,000 in 1990 dollars. It should be noted
that this cost will not be incurred in total until the full ten-year period of capital
improvements is completed.
•
1.0-1
2.1 Natural and Cultural Setting
•
r~
L
C
NATURAL AND CULTURAL SETTING
NATURAL SETTING
Saratoga is located on an alluvial plain at the base of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The San
Andreas Fault extends through these mountains, which are laced by rift zones and fracture
lines. The surrounding hills and mountains are characterized by their heavy timber and
brush cover. Many creeks, with their headwaters in these mountains, cross the flat plain
of the City and drain in a generally northeasterly direction towards the San Francisco Bay.
See Figure below.
Figure 1
Climate
Regional Location
Summer temperatures in the Santa Clara Valley are typically warm in the day with cool clear
nights. Winter temperatures are mild most of the time with occasional very cool but
generally frontless mornings.
The terrain influences winds in the valley producing a flow which runs parallel to the
northwest-southeast axis of the Santa Cruz mountains. Winds are stronger in summer and
most mild in the winter season. The amount of annual rainfall is modest. The climate is
conducive to year-round outdoor living and recreation.
2.1-1
2.1 Natural and Cultural Setting
Geologic Hazards •
While many areas of Saratoga and throughout the Sphere of Influence are problem free
development sites, hazardous conditions exist in the geology, for example, unstable soil
conditions on steep slopes along much of the Santa Cruz foothills. Another threat is the
location of the San Andreas Fault which crosses through the Sphere of Influence. Many of
the associated hazards -- soil erosion, landslides, subsidence and groundshaking -- make
the area less suitable for development than open space uses.
Flood Control
Saratoga is located in the North Central Zone of the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
The Calabazas, Rodeo, Saratoga, Wildcat and San Tomas creeks are in the City of Saratoga
under the District's jurisdiction. In general the flooding of these creeks is confined to
the creek banks and flood plain immediately adjacent to the creekbed, However, in the
past, damage to residences has occurred as a result of flooding. Between the years of 1955
and 1958 flooding in the Saratoga, Calabazas, and San Tomas creeks caused over 1.5 million
dollars in damage. In response to the flooding danger the City has widened and deepened
some city creeks to improve their capacity. In"the past suggestion of channelizing the
natural watercourse has been heavily disapproved of by community members. Therefore, the
County Valley Water District has proposed the establishment of dike or levee construction
along the creeks to control flooding. Trails access along the creeks is one of the key
recreational opportunities in the City which has not been significantly addressed to date.
Vegetation Resources
An extensive array of flowers, shrubs and tree species exist in the City of Saratoga and
its' Sphere of Influence. In the foothills, the landscape varies from the dry chaparral to
larger woodland such as the Coast Redwood. To date the mountain forests appear to have
survived pollution threats. The development of a trails system by the City will allow
citizen's greater opportunity to enjoy these natural resources. Because of the low
humidity, very dry climate and hot summers Saratoga and the hillsides are in great danger
of wildfire. The threat is even greater because many of the more susceptible locations for
fire are on steep terrain which fire equipment cannot easily reach. In drought periods,
the Fire Marshall may have to close certain sections of the trail system.
Wildlife Resources
Several rare species, along with many common varieties, are known to exist in the Santa
Cruz mountains. Many of the rare species are considered endangered and some, for example
the California Condor, have been placed on a "protected list" by the Federal government.
Additional species are expected to be added in the future. As the San Francisco Bay is
located just north of the city many types of birds, ducks and geese are also seen
throughout the Valley. All detailed plans, designs, and implementing actions for
recreational amenities in the City should be consistent with protection of natural
resources.
2.1-2
2.1 Natural and Cultural Setting
• Water Resources
The California Water Project and the Federal Central Valley Project supply the City of
Saratoga with domestic water. The source depends on water contracts. Additional water can
be purchased from the Oroville Dam via the California Aqueduct. The water surveyor for
imported water is a public agency, the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Water is not
supplied to areas more than 300 hundred feet above the City's service system because the
San Jose Water Company does not extend into these areas. They must depend on a private
water system. The extended period of drought in California stresses the essentially grid
nature of much of the State's climate and places a premium on water. All plantings in the
City's park system will need to utilize drought tolerant species to the greatest extent
possible.
CULTURAL SETTING
The history of the City of Saratoga dates back to 1846 when a sawmill was established on
Quito Creek. Nearby mineral spas reminded some local residents of the resort area of
Saratoga, New York, so in time the town gained a new name, Saratoga, which was formally
adopted by popular vote in 1865.
Saratoga did not begin to experience strong residential growth until the early 1950's when
the County began approving subdivisions on 6,000 and 8,000 square foot lots in Saratoga.
In addition, San Jose began to pursue a policy of strip annexation which caused Saratoga
. residents to fear piecemeal division and annexation of their community. As a result, a
campaign for incorporation was organized. The campaign was based on some clear promises:
restriction of commercial development; no industry; a tax rate not to exceed .133; and one
full-time and two part-time employees. A campaign was waged with incorporation winning by
a 59 vote margin and the City was legally incorporated in October of 1956.
Orchards covered the land of Saratoga until the late 1940's when they began to be replaced
by homes. Because only few historical buildings or sites of buildings with historical
significance remain in Saratoga, these orchards are an important link to the past. The
City has adopted a Historic Preservation Ordinance to protect the heritage resources that
do still exist. A Heritage Preservation Commission was created through the ordinance to
research historic resources and make recommendations to the City Council in terms of the
rewarding of historic designation and mitigating the impact of new development on existing
historic resources. Two archaeological sites have been identified by the State
Archaeological inventory near Saratoga Avenue adjacent to the High School.
•
2.1-3
2.2 Planning Context
CJ
PLANNING CONTEXT
CITY OF SARATOGA
Saratoga General Plan
The General Plan charts the future of the city as expressed by the citizens and consists of
goals, policies, action programs, area plans and basic information regarding the City of
Saratoga. The Plan contains: a Land Use Element; Circulation and Scenic Highway Element;
Open Space Element; Conservation Element; Safety Element; Noise Element; and Housing
Element.
The General Plan Update (revisions were made in 1983) was the product of two years of
community effort to identify major issues facing the City in the next decade. Several of
the ten issue statements developed by the community relate to the provision of parks,
recreation and open space:
Issue 3t2: Possible uses For schools closed to declining enrollment;
Issue #7: Possible uses for remaining parcels of vacant land;
Issue #9: Relationship of character of present development to conservation of open
space, historic features, "heritage lanes" and other community features.
• The General Plan expresses the goals, policies, and specific implementation actions that
guide the City's development and regulate the use of land. It is important for the Parks
and Trails Master Plan to be consistent with the General Plan.
The following sections summarize the components of existing Elements of the General Plan
which are relevant to the development of the Parks and Trails Master Plari.
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element includes open space and community facilities as two of the five broad
land use categories. Open space land use is described by six categories: Natural Resource
Preservation, Managed Resource Production, Outdoor Recreation, Public Health and Safety
Preservation, Hillside Open Space, and Private Ownership. These categories are fully
described in the Open Space Element. The Hillside Open Space category is drawn from the
Santa Clara County General Plan for the Sphere of Influence area, and Private Open Space
describes the Saratoga Country Club Golf Course. Community Facilities include School/Open
Space Resource, Public Facilities, and Quasi-Public facilities. Schools lands are included
as part of the city's open space inventory.
2.2- I
2.2 Planning Contezt
Circulation and Scenic Highway Element
The Element describes trails, pathways and bicycle routes within the City and its Sphere of
Influence, and proposes guidelines for development of proposed routes.
Saratoga adopted a Master Trails and Pathways Plan in 1977 which proposed three major trail
"arterials" within the City: the PGBcE right-of-way from Prospect Road to Quito Road, which
connects to the two other arterials which serve the Pierce Road and Sobey Road equestrian
areas, which ultimately connect with proposed County trails in the Sphere of Influence
Area.
Twenty existing City pathways are described, which connect several areas of the City. The
list identifies several gaps in the existing network.
A Citizen's Committee has suggested providing a demonstration bicycle path system in
Saratoga that can connect with other communities in the County. The bike routes from the
previous system have all been implemented. An expanded system is being proposed as a part
of the comprehensive revision to this element of the General Plan.
•
Saratoga adopted its Scenic Highways Element in 1974. The purpose of the element is to
inventory scenic corridors and to develop plans to protect them. State Scenic Highways,
which may be located in either the City or the Sphere of Influence rely on local zoning and
other measures for maintenance and protection. For this reason, the State Department of
Public Works must be convinced that local government agencies have taken sufficient steps
to protect the scenic corridor. Saratoga contains one designated State Scenic Highway •
along route 9 from Los Gatos to Saratoga (ending at the intersection of 9 and 85).
Open Space/Recreation Element
The City of Saratoga includes land in each of the four major categories -- natural/human
resource preservation, managed resource production, outdoor recreation, public health and
safety preservation -- as well as the category of private ownership. The Element generally
describes outdoor recreation and other private open space; other categories are dealt with
in more detail in the Conservation and Safety Elements. See Table 1.
2.2-2
2.2 Planning Content
•
~~
Open Space
West Valley Freeway
Parkland
School Sites
Private Lands:
Residential
Commercial
Designated Scenic
or Open Space
Easement in W.
Hillsides
Williamson Act
Orchards/ Vineyard
Geologic areas in
W. Hillside
Flood Plain
Villa Montalvo
MROSD (Sphere of
Influence)
Reservoir
Creeks
City-owned lands
(Undeveloped
Parks)
TABLE 1
INVENTORY OF OPEN SPACE LANDS
Natural/Human Resource Public Health, Private
Resource Pres. Production Recreation Safety Ownership
32 8
79
151
9
223
62
I1
90
178
319
14
36
7
242
12
334
Total Acreage 547 317 246 109 588
Source: 1983 General Plan Update
2.2-3
2.2 Planning Context
Park Standards:
The Saratoga General Plan identifies parkland standards as set by the County, which
indicate the City of Saratoga is deficient in provision of parks (about 4096 of what it
should be). The Open Space Element states no specific standards for the city, and
emphasizes that much existing private open space actually provides "both visual and usable
open space," and further, that the schools "provide valuable active recreational areas" for
Saratoga residents. The Element identifies the northern part of the City as particularly
deficient in parkland and open space, due to planning policies in effect when the area was
developed twenty years ago. Private open space includes residential, agricultural and
institutional uses. Residential open space is described as all residential properties one
acre or larger. The Element states that providing the same ratio of open space for areas
with large lots is "less realistic", since those residents are "providing their open
space." Much of the agriculture zoned land is currently designated as Agriculture Preserve
under the Williamson Act. Institutional uses include church properties, the 54 acre Notre
Dame Novitiate, and the 80-acre Odd Fellows property. City parks and park sites comprised
78.5 acres in 1981, including eleven developed parks, covering about 196 of Saratoga's total
area. The Element recognizes that few of the existing parks are provided with sufficient
play equipment. The large triangular Saratoga-Sunnyvale-Cox-Saratoga residential area is
deficient in park acreage, and recreational facilities.
Conservation Element
The Conservation Element identifies a broad range of physical resources including natural •
geologic, water, air, vegetation, wildlife and cultural resources. Several of these
resources require a level of protection from development. Some of the resources, not
suitable for development, may be suitable for other uses, including passive recreation.
The major land resources to conserve in Saratoga are undeveloped and agricultural lands.
About 1596 of the City's total potentially developable land, 1,167 acres, remains vacant.
The agricultural holdings in the City include more than 268 acres of land, of which 223
acres have been designated agricultural preserves under the Williamson Act.
The San Andreas Fault crosses the City's Sphere of influence. Many of the associated
hazards -- soil erosion, landslides, subsidence and groundshaking -- make the area less
suitable for development than open space uses.
Several Saratoga creeks experience periodic flooding, including Calabazas, Rodeo, Saratoga,
Wildcat and San Tomas. Saratoga citizens have resisted efforts at Flood Control that would
destroy the "aesthetic values" of the watercourses. Areas less suitable for development
due to flood hazards should be considered for open space uses.
Vegetation resources include the 178 acre Montalvo Arboretum, with a comprehensive
collection of native plants. Several stands of "heritage" oaks within the urbanized areas
of the City require special efforts for preservation, including careful building placement,
and development setbacks.
The Conservation Element lists several rare species of wildlife which inhabit the Santa
Cruz Mountains, although no particular areas for protection are identified. The only
wildlife preserve in the Saratoga area is the Montalvo Arboretum, which is the official •
Audobon Society sanctuary for birds.
2.2-4
2.2 Planning Context
• Area Plans
Specific area plans are developed for each of the City's twelve planning areas. Parks and
recreation interests addressed in the area plans include:
o Bike paths should be developed on both sides of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Area B -
Congress Springs/Pierce Road);
o The City should investigate use of the PG& E right-of-way as a link in the trails
network (Area F -Quito);
o Large parcel zoning reduces the need for public open space; City might investigate
development of an equestrian and hiking trail (Area G -Fruitvale-Sobey Road);
o Quito Road, Allendale and Fruitvale Avenue should have bicycle areas provided or
improved (Area L - Kentfield);
o Gardiner Park should have no additional services and/or facilities (Area L -
Kentfield).
Zoning
• There are nine general zones in the City of Saratoga designated by the City Zoning
Ordinance. Each zone has a determined type of building allowed within its' area and
exceptions can be made only in two cases: the land use was existing before the ordinance
was established or an exception is granted by the City Council. In some cases the zone may
have a conditional use which is subject to the issuance of a permit by the City Council.
In some cases the zone may have a conditional use which is subject to the issuance of a
permit by the City Council, for example, schools and colleges located in the single family
residential zone. There are very few nonconforming uses within the defined zones of
Saratoga. The zones are broken down as such: R-1, single family residential; R-M,
multifamily residential; PA, Professional-Administrative; CC, Community Commercial; CN,
Neighborhood Commercial; CV, Visitor Commercial; and CH, Historic Commercial. See Table 2
for a breakdown of land use by type of zoning.
•
2.2-5
2.2 Planning Context
TABLE 2
CURRENT LAND USE BY TYPE OF ZONING
Land Use A R-1 R-M PA CC CN CV Total
Residential
Single Family 78.7 5,125.57
Multi-Family 13.86
Offices 0.53
Commercial 4.3
Parking
Schools 10.0 163.23
Private
Institutions 84.45
College 8.7 131.59
Utilities 3.06 30.11
Industry
City and
Public Services 13.54
Parks 9.79 58.41
County Park 43.92
Churches 6.55 47.34
Railway 5.3 21.1
Golf Course 76.36
31.2 4.0 5.8 8.0 11.0
42.27 2.41 9.91
6.15 0.33 2.09 0.54
0.34 11.51 28.87 21.01
2.07
0.3
0.5
1.01
0.8 1.0
5,272.67
68.45
9.64
66.03
2.07
173.23
84.45
140.29
33.17
15.7
14.55
68.5
43.92
53.89
30.5
76.36
Total Developed 122.1 5,765.09 73.97 12.9 21.02 39.76 43.46 6,123.42
Orchards 52.77 297.84 0.0 350.61
Streams 0.7 27.3 8.0 36.0
Vacant 134.5 993.4 0.0 12.8 0.69 12.5 3.80 1,166.7
Total Acreage 310.07 7,083.63 81.97 25.7 21.71 62.51 47.34
Source: 1983 General Plan Update
7,676.85
•
•
2.2-6
2.2 Planning Context
Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan
The Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan was adopted by City Council in June 1981. The plan
addresses the residential development of approximately 2,100 acres in the northwestern
hillside area of Saratoga and adjacent Santa Clara County lands. The plan is intended to
guide subdivisions and development of property within the City and responses by the City to
referrals for development projects in the County. The goal of the plan is to preserve the
City's natural rural character by controlling density in the hill areas and facilitating
environmentally sensitive development.
As a plan which provides general direction for protection of the landscape aesthetic in
Saratoga, and as a plan which addresses specific issues pertaining to recreation and public
access, the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan provides important policy parameters for
the Parks and Trails Master Plans.
Specific policies which relate to future open space, parks, and trails provision include:
Aesthetics/Scenic Qualities
Policy l: Grouping of residential units shall be encouraged to preserve the rural
character and to allow reasonable economics of land use provided there is no
increase in yield.
Policy 3: Predominant ridgelines shall be protected to allow clear views from streets
and roads. Scenic easements shall be established to protect the ridgelines
• which cup the City.
Policy 5: Encourage common recreational areas.
Ecology
Policy 4: Minimize disturbance of creek ecosystems by placing riparian area in open
space.
Conservation
Policy 2: Preserve natural (creekside) vegetation to the greatest extent feasible.
Williamson Act
Policy 2: Encourage renewal of Williamson Act contracts.
Trails and Pathways
Policy l: Develop equestrian/pedestrian trail system for access to County recreation
areas and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District concurrently, or prior
to, the development of each lot.
Policy 2: Encourage trails and pathways along roadways.
• 2.2-7
2.2 Planning Context
Open Space
Policy 1: Preserve the low density and natural character of Saratoga by the inclusion
of permanent open space, landscaping and encouragement of agricultural land
uses.
Policy 2: Conserve natural vegetation and topographic features which exist is
Saratoga's western foothills.
Policy 3: Protect historical and architectural values and significant geographic
landmarks from destruction by development whenever practical.
Policy 4: Require open space be dedicated as easements, (all Md and Mfr areas, quarry
lands shown to be unsuitable for development through detailed geotechnical
analysis as approved by the City Geologist and lands within the setback area
specified by the City Geologist for traces of the Berrocal fault). Consider
open space easements on riparian areas and areas with slopes of over 3096.
Park System
Policy 1: The park site on the Fremont Union High School parcel should be reviewed by
the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Policy 2: Condition maps for development of trail system for access to the County
recreation areas concurrently with development of the subdivision. .
Policy 3: Encourage scenic open space.
Circulation
Policy 5: Require public right-of-way to be offered on all private access roads used
for secondary/emergency access.
Proposed Zoning Restrictions
Policy 2: Promote recreational facilities.
Sphere of Influence
The City of Saratoga's Sphere of Influence includes a section of the eastern slope of the
Santa Cruz Mountains -- 9,480 acres of hillside land south and west of the City. The
Sphere of Influence is defined by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission
as the unincorporated area most likely to be influenced and/or annexed by the City of
Saratoga in the future.
The area currently provides an important backdrop of open space for the City.
Approximately 9,580 acres are essentially vacant in the Sphere of Influence, and over 800
acres are preserved under the Williamson Act. Residential structures are generally widely
dispersed on large acreages. The area includes two County parks, Sanborn, 1000 acres, and •
Montalvo Arboretum, 178 acres, and other open space land maintained by the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District and the San Jose Water Works.
2.2-8
2.2 Planning Context
A Specific Area Plan for the Sphere was developed in May, 1974. The major goal is to
preserve the rural, scenic character of the area, while accommodating development where
geotechnical and safety problems are not prohibitive. Specific objectives focus on
Environmental Resource Management, Community Development and Circulation. Several policies
are proposed to insure safe, regulated development where feasible.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Santa Clara County covers more than 1300 square miles, including the Santa Clara Valley,
the Santa Cruz Mountains, the mountains of the Diablo Range, and the Baylands. The City of
Saratoga is located in the foothills of the Santa Cruz mountains along the western boundary
of the County.
Santa Clara County offers many opportunities to meet the recreation needs countywide. The
General Plan, in its Recreation and Culture Element, focuses on the future of Regional
Parks, Trails and Pathways, and Scenic Highways. A guide for the acquisition and
development in each category has been provided in the Plan as well as policies to guide the
preservation of artifacts and other resources related to the County's historic heritage.
Regional Parks
The Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department, since its creation in 1956, has
acquired 27 regional parks encompassing more than 33,000 acres. Much of the park system
• growth has occurred since 1972 when county voters approved an amendment to the County's
charter. This amendment requires that a specific amount of funding be set -aside each year
for ten years strictly for the purpose of parkland acquisition and development. Parks and
Open Space in the County have also been established through the participation of additional
public agencies, for example, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The District
was created in 1972 and has since acquired more than 8000 acres of open space for public
use within Santa Clara County.
Four goals have been identified by the park system in the last decade and are as follows:
1. To utilize the county's finest natural resources in meeting park and open space needs.
2. To provide a balance of types of regional parks with a balanced geographical
distribution.
3. To provide an integrated park system with maximum continuity and a clear relationship
of elements using scenic roads and trails as important linkages.
4. To use parks to give structure and livability to the urban community.
Trails and Pathways
A countywide system of hiking, bicycling and horseback riding is proposed in the General
Plan. The establishment of a system such as this will help meet the recreation needs as
well as providing an al[ecnative form of transportation. As the County is comprised of
many different cities with individual jurisdictions the coordination and cooperation
between agencies is a significant challenge in the establishment of a Trails and Pathways
Master Plan. An example of successful coordination and cooperation exists along the Los
• 2.2-9
2.2 Planning Context
Gatos Creek. Here the cities of Los Gatos and Campbell, the County and the Santa Clara
Valley Water District coordinated the creation of a continuous hiking and bicycling trail
along the creek linking parks and recreation areas along the way.
Policies for the trails and pathways have been identified and are as follows:
1. Trail linkages are intended to eventually connect all County, State and regional parks
to provide a wilderness trail system encircling the urban area and connecting to trails
of neighboring counties.
2. A countywide system of hiking, bicycling and horseback riding trails should be provided
which includes trails within and between parks and other publicly owned open space
lands, as well as trails providing access from the urban area to these lands.
3. The Master Plan for Trails and Pathways and its elements, adopted by the Planning
Policy Committee, shall be the basis for the countywide trail system.
4. Trails should be located, designed, and developed with sensitivity to the resources and
fire hazards of the area they traverse, as well as their potential impacts on adjacent
lands and private property.
5. The countywide trail system should be linked with major trails in adjacent counties.
6. Trail acquisition and development shall be consistent with the County's General Plan.
7. Trail planning, acquisition, development, and management should be coordinated among •
the various local, regional, state, and federal agencies which provide trails or
funding for trails.
8. The assistance of private individuals, user groups, organizations, businesses and
schools should be sought to aid in the development, patrolling and maintenance of
trails.
9. Trail acquisition, development, patrol, maintenance, and liability responsibilities
should be established on aproject-by-project basis and should be coordinated with all
jurisdictions involved in each trail segment.
10. Transportation improvements, such as road widening and bridge construction, should be
designed to facilitate provision of hiking and bicycling paths. Equestrian paths
should be provided along those roads which link equestrian facilities and parks, and
safe crossings where necessary.
11. All trails should be marked. Trails and appropriate markers should be established
along historically significant trail routes, whenever feasible.
12. Use of off-the-road vehicles on hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding trails should
be prohibited.
2.2-10
C
2.2 Planning Context
Scenic Highways
In 1963 The State Scenic Highway System was created to establish officially designated
scenic routes which provide an important network of recreational driving. Within Santa
Clara County these routes are important in linking various recreational facilities and
parks and in some cases are the only route available for access to portions of the County.
The General Plan provides a guide for the protection of the land alongside the scenic
corridors and advises the use of regulations for signage and billboards.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
There are approximately 320 acres within the City of Saratoga's Sphere of Influence under
the ownership control of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD). The
District is a public agency formed in 1972 which acquires and manages open space land for
public use. Its jurisdiction covers a large area in the Santa Cruz mountains south of San
Francisco and west of Saratoga. The preserves are open to the public free of charge every
day of the year and offer a valuable resource for outdoor passive recreation. Trails for
hiking, bicycling and horseback riding are available which provide opportunity for nature
walks through the various meadows, creeks and mountains. To assure the permanent
preservation of open space lands the District must acquire private land. In most cases the
land purchase transactions have been initiated by the owners although acquisitions are
initiated by the District in order to support previous purchases and improve their
• accessibility or recreational opportunities. There are a number of cases where the
District has purchased land in cooperation with other State, County or local agencies such
as the Edgewood County Park in San Mateo County and St. Josephs Hill Open Space Preserve in
Los Gatos. Cooperative acquisition is something the District is interested in
accomplishing whenever possible.
The land that is most desirable for acquisition by the District is large undeveloped areas
which contribute to the linking of District lands with State, County and local parklands.
It is the goal of the District to create a "regional greenbelt" of open space lands within
the Sphere of Influence. Although land purchases are occasionally remote and difficult to
access it is the undeveloped open space providing quiet passive recreation that guides the
District's purchases. Issues to be considered by the District in acquisition vary
depending in the area location and the cost. In general, though, interests focus on the
potential public use of the land, either for active or passive recreation. These issues
are as follows: for a trail connection, for some special attraction such as a geologic
feature, for a scenic view area, for a link to connect preserves or for a visual backdrop.
There are various sources of revenue for the MROSD with the primary source being the annual
total property tax which is collected within the boundaries of the District. The income
from this source is equivalent to about 1.6 cents to the total one dollar rate per $100 of
assessed value on real property. Federal and State grants provide additional sources of
revenue to the District along with gifts and private donations. The District has benefited
from its efforts to gain additional revenue sources and as a result has strengthened its
land purchasing power by more than a third.
® 2.2-11
n
ICJ
2.3 Demographic Characteristics
TABLE 3
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
POPULATION GROWTH
The City of Saratoga is close to build out, with few remaining undeveloped parcels within
the current City boundaries. The current population is around 28,000 and projections for
population growth over the next fifteen years indicate an increase of only 1,800 to a total
of 29,800 in the year 2005. (See Table 3: Population Growth.) This is in contrast to the
surrounding region. Santa Clara County has projected population growth over the period
1990 to 2005 of 13.29 percent from 1,463,600 to 1,658,100. This surrounding population
growth context will impact Saratoga in as far as development pressure for new homes in the
hillside areas to the west of the current City boundary is likely to persist.
POPULATION GROWTH
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Saratoga 30,046
Santa Clara
County 1,295,071
30,400 28,061 28,600 29,200 29,800
1,384,550 1,463,600 1,539,950 1,614,550 1,658,100
Source: City of Saratoga; Associations of Bay Area Government, Proiections 90
POPULATION AGE STRUCTURE
Table 4 shows the total population numbers and percentages broken down by age for Saratoga,
Santa Clara County and the Bay Area.
The median age has been gradually increasing as the community population stabilizes. The
1980 median age was 36.0, the 1990 median age is 38.5 and for 1995 the median age is
projected at 40.9.
2.3-1
2.3 Demographic Characteristics
TABLE 4
POPULATION AGE STRUCTURE
Area Saratoga Santa Clara Bay Area
County
Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
0 - 4 (Preschool) 1452 4.70 107,700 7.40 402,000 6.80
5 19 (School) 4542 14.7 302,000 20.6 1,159,600 19.5
20 - 24 (College) 3152 10.2 119,600 8.20 448,100 7.50
25 - 54 (Working) 13,596 44.0 682,100 46.6 2,742,800 46.1
55 - 64 (Retirement) 4512 14.6 130,100 8.90 573,000 9.60
65 + (Senior Citizen) ,3~¢ 1~ 122.400 $,~Q 626.000 1~,~
Total 30,900 100.0 1,463,900 100.0 5,951,500 100.0
Source: 1990 CACI
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Saratoga is generally speaking swell-to-do community. Average household income is
approximately twice that of the average for Santa Clara County. (See Table 5: Household
Income.) Combined with the typically large lot size of the single family housing which
dominates residential areas in the City, this presents a picture of a community which is
able to meet some of its recreational needs through individual homeowner facilities such as
private tennis courts and swimming pools, and private clubs providing for particular
recreational activities such as the Country Club. This does not preclude the need for the
City to meet public recreation requirements, but should be born in mind when comparing
levels and types of service in Saratoga with those provided by other communities.
2.3-2
2.3 Demographic Characteristics
TABLE 5
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
1980 1985 1990 1995
Saratoga 77,038 84,800 91,100 95,700
Santa Clara
County 43,370 48,600 52,100 54,800
Source: Associations of Bay Area Government, Proiections 90
•
2000 2005
100,400 105,100
58,000 60,300
2.3-3
n
•
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
~. EXISITNG PARKS AND RECREATION PROVISION
CITY PARKS
Park and recreation facilities include City, school, county and privately owned facilities
within and adjacent to the City of Saratoga.
The Parks/Open Space Division of the Maintenance Services Department is responsible for
parks, trails and open space maintenance while the Recreation Department is responsible for
recreation programing. At this time existing parks include about 93 acres of which 63 have
been developed. The parks are generally well distributed throughout the City. For a
location map, see Figure 2. For the purpose of this Master Plan we have separated the
parks into three different types: Neighborhood, Community and Specialty Parks. In the
following section each site is individually discussed addressing the size, location,
existing facilities and issues.
Neighborhood Parks: There are five neighborhood parks in Saratoga totalling nine
acres.
AZULE PARK
Acreage: 4.3 acres (City owned)
Location: 12777 Goleta Avenue
Azule Park faces south on Goleta Avenue and backs to a portion of the
state-owned transportation corridor. The west side is adjacent to the
property of Blue Hills School and the east side adjacent to private
residences.
Facilities: Site currently unimproved
Issues: Being at present unimproved, the park is primarily used as access for school
children and adults from Goleta Avenue to Scully Avenue and Kevin Moran Park.
The state-owned transportation corridor, which separates Azule and Kevin Moran
Parks, is planned for development as a freeway. Abridge is under
construction at this time to carry the pedestrian traffic between the two
sites.
2.4-1
S ~ I ~ ~ :~ 10. ° ~.~ ~ -
,. `; ~. Beaucham\ s ~ ~" ,iii' ` .Q, r ~`
.~
.. 1 •' ..:.~~.. ~.~, i }` ~.,. ~,.: ~Kevm Moran t :~,~ iry~~` ~. i
t ~ 4 `_ i i ^~t ° _.~ .,_ -~w x .;~. Y ~ F :rte I
~. : ~ - ~ .,' Brook
;i i ,. ..- } _ glen r .~.~ ,,"` ,;~
" ti
a .. ~ Congress!` ~. --EI Quito
~ ~~ ~ - "' ~ S ngs ~ ~ t
pr,
..`a i ~.~. ~, 2 ~ ~,.. a .L w
/'~,=i. ~ U i" ' ~ ~ ~r ' ~ ~ .... .
r
`~ ~ , 1 ,. y .r ~ ~ r®6- 3
~ ~ i
y.. ," .
l ~ ' j.{ `'''~ x Foothill , Ga ._i er
~` { ~ ; ~,~. Central
' T~ ~~Nelson y ~ Ravenwood
..
..
_ ~.
.~..:- Gardens._ -~:~ ti
;~
- .. ,
,',
Wildwood ~ ~,, . "
;..
e; ~' +~ Historical `~ "'
,,
_. ., .
_ _ _ '" - .'San Marcos
Hakone i. ,- .
Japanese Gardens. _
;,.~:
~ .~ < _ :. ~
:....... ~... 4.. m '
'n.\ ....__......~ ~~..
-.. -
•
Figure 2
! ~.i ! ~~ CITY PARKS
CITY OF SARA TOGA
PARKS AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN •
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
BEAUCHAMPS PARK
Acreage: ± 2.0 acres (City owned)
Location: The park faces east on Beauchamps Lane. The southern boundary is Crayside
Lane, and the northern boundary, Bowhill Court. Private residences border on
the west.
Facilities: Site currently unimproved
Issues: This small park site was dedicated as a condition of approval for the
surrounding single family home residential subdivision. The terms of
dedication did not include improvements to the site and it has remained
unimproved although the housing units are now occupied. The issue of
improvements in the short term is key to the surrounding community who has
expressed a clear objective of developing the site as a neighborhood serving
park.
BROOKGLEN PARK
Acreage: 0.7 acres (City owned)
Location: 12734 Brookglen Court
The park faces west on Brookglen Court, and backs to private property which is
currently used as access from Cox Avenue to the private tennis club.
Residential property is developed on the north and south sides
Facilities: Security lighting;
Half-court basketball court, recently resurfaced;
Children's playground;
Climbing equipment, recently installed;
Picnic tables;
Open turf area
Issues: The park was designed and constructed in 1974 as a neighborhood mini park.
A great deal of input on the parks development was received from the area
residents. Community members contributed funds for trees and plant materials
and volunteered to put up fencing and plant the landscaping. The park now
receives use by local residents and school children of all ages. With the
completion of recent improvements the park is felt to be fully developed and
no future additions are intended.
• 2.4-2
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
FOOTHILL PARK
Acreage: 3.0 total acres
(0.8 acres city owned
2.2 acres school district owned)
Location: 20654 Seaton Avenue
Foothill Park fronts on Seaton Avenue facing north. South of the park is
Foothill School. The west boundary is private residential property and the
east currently undeveloped private property.
Facilities: Childrens playground;
Par fitness course;
Open turf area
Issues: The master plan for Foothill Park was prepared in 1976-77 in conjunction
with the master plan for the outdoor education area of Foothill School under
the guidance of the Foothill Family Faculty Club. The park is currently used
as access for school children to the school. Major school equipment, athletic
fields and amphitheatre are located in the Outdoor Education Area and are
available for public use during non-school hours.
GARDINER PARK
Acreage: 1.2 acres (City owned)
Location: 19085 Portos Drive
The park faces west and fronts on Portos Drive. The eastern and northern
boundaries are private residential property, and the southern boundary
parallels Wildcat Creek.
Facilities: Children's playground, recently improved;
Picnic tables ;
Open turf area
Issues: The master plan for Gardiner Park was completed in 1974. Prior to
development being initiated the City worked with the Santa Clara Valley Water
District to determine a solution for their need for access of District
vehicles. The park is presently used predominantly by area residents and
children although on several occasions family group functions have occurred.
The original master plan included a small deck or amphitheatre, pathways and
restrooms but these facilities were never incorporated. At this time, at the
east end of the site, an informal series of bike paths have been worn and are
often used by the local children for their BMX bicycling.
2.4-3
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
Community Parks: There are four community parks in the City of Saratoga all of which
are improved with the exception of Kevin Moran. This site has 4.0 acres of the total 14.3
acres which remain to be developed.
CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK
Acreage: 9.97 acres (City owned)
Location: 12970 Glen Brae Drive
The park boundary on the west is Glen Brae Drive and on the east, Saratoga
Creek. South of the park is the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and
north is the State-owned transportation corridor.
Facilities: Soccer fields, (4);
Baseball diamonds, (3);
Children's playground recently improved;
Parking;
Picnic tables and barbecue;
Open turf practice field;
Concession stand;
Tennis courts, (2);
Basketball court;
Issues: Congress Springs Park is the City's principal active recreation park,
providing a homebase for both the Little League and AYSO. The original master
plan prepared in 1978 had to be revised in 1985 because existing fields were
partially located on State-owned land (the highway 85 corridor). These
changes perpetrated use of the park as an active facility including baseball
diamonds, soccer fields, sports courts and open grass area. Additional
facilities implemented in 1984 include a snack bar, restrooms and more
parking.
Saratoga Little League uses the three baseball diamonds and contributes to the
costs for maintaining the fields. The soccer field and practice turf are
currently used by AYSO and this organization also contributes funds to the
cost of maintenance.
• 2.4-4
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
EL QUITO PARK
Acreage: 6.3 acres (City owned)
Location: 12855 Paseo Presada
The park fronts on Paseo Presada facing east. The western boundary is private
property containing two churches and residences for seniors. The northern
boundary consists of a private primary school and the southern property being
used for private commercial uses.
Facilities: Open turf play fields for soccer;
Softball diamond, recently improved;
Preschool and school age play area;
Volleyball court;
Horseshoe pits;
Picnic areas and barbecue facilities;
Community garden plots;
Par fitness course;
Security lighting;
Equipment storage box;
Restrooms, recently installed
Issues: In 1977, when the Parks and Recreation Commission was preparing for
additional development, the original master plan from 1972 was revised to meet
the current needs of residents, provide areas for senior citizens and reduce
potential costs of development. The park receives a great deal of use by
soccer and softball groups. The Saratoga Soccer League has a contract with
the City for use of El Quito Park for practice on weeknights during the fall
season with games on Saturdays and an occasional Sunday. The softball diamond
is currently being used by the City's softball recreation program. The park
also provides valuable open space to the residents of the senior center at the
southwest corner of the site.
•
2.4-5
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
KEVIN MORAN PARK
Acreage: 10.3 developed
4.0 undeveloped
(City owned)
Location: 12415 Scully Avenue
The park faces east and fronts on Scully Avenue. The west boundary is the
State-owned transportation corridor and the north and south properties abut
private residential properties.
Facilities: Childrens playground;
Picnic tables;
Open turf area;
Semi-productive orchard
Issues: A master plan was designed for the site in 1971-1972. The park is currently
used by a number of joggers and a great deal of school children traffic. This
is a major link between Blue Hills and Hansen Schools. Children are moving to
and from Scully Avenue through the park, across the transportation corridor,
through Azule Park and to Goleta Avenue. A pedestrian bridge is currently
under construction to better link Azule and Kevin Moran. The park receives a
limited amount of group use by organizations and families for specific
functions. The turf area surface is not sufficiently flat for regulation
soccer or baseball games but is frequently used by the youth group for games
and practice. The orchard is not currently under crop agreement and doesn't
appear worthy of it. The city is responsible for pruning and general upkeep.
What fruit the trees do bear is available for the community residents to pick.
• 2.4-6
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
WILDWOOD PARK •
Acreage: 4.0 acres (City owned)
Location: 20764 Fourth Street
Wildwood park entrance faces southwest on Fourth Street and borders on private
residential property at the northwest and southwest sides. The southeast
boundary abuts Saratoga Creek.
Facilities: Picnic tables and barbecue facilities;
Childrens playground;
Horseshoe pits;
Restrooms;
Stage/amphitheatre;
Open turf area;
Volleyball courts;
Group reservations (fee);
Security lighting
Issues: A master plan for this site, completed in 1972, was directed toward overall
community use with the landscape character to remain rural and informal. This
park is one of the most widely used in the city. Community activities such as
the Chamber of Commerce Fall Festival and Parade, and the Rotary Club Barbecue
take place at Wildwood. During the summer the City Day Camp Program regularly
visits the park and the picnic areas are reserved nearly every weekend from
early spring until Fall for picnicking, parties, reunions and weddings.
Reservations are accepted for use by groups of twenty-five or more people.
2.4-7
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
• Specialty Parks: Four parks in the City can be classified as specialty parks totalling
50 acres. Each site is dsscussed individually in the following section.
CENTRAL PARK
Acreage: 14.0 acres (City owned)
Location: The park is bound on the north by Saratoga Avenue, and on the south by
Wildcat Creek and the Civic Center complex. Fruitvale Avenue forms the
eastern boundary.
Facilities: Open space and orchard;
Saratoga Community Library
Issues: No master plan has ever been proposed for improvements to the park which at
this time remains an orchard currently under an annual crop agreement. The
continued operation of the site as an orchard conflicts with other
recreational use in the park. This might be considered as poor use of open
space to some residents yet the orchard has considerable value in preserving a
sense of the rural heritage of Saratoga.
In August of 1984 the park, because of its historical and cultural value, was
designated a Heritage Resource of the City of Saratoga.
• In the 1982 Contingency Plan this land was considered for location of a
research facility or development business. The area was considered suitable
for "professional administrative" development because of the Civic Center's
presence on the site. However, the City no longer has any plans to develop
this site.
The site has very high visual prominence being bounded by two of the most
heavily used roads providing vehicular circulation in the City. Furthermore
it is bound on one side by the Community Library and on another by the Civic
Center. As such, the site holds a symbolic significance which transcends its
consideration merely as a recreational opportunity. Future use of the site
must respect its unique prominence.
• 2.4-8
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
HAKONE JAPANESE GARDENS .
Acreage: 15.5 developed
9.5 undeveloped
Location: 21000 Big Basin Way
The park is located in the foothills of Saratoga. Big Basin Way forms the
northern boundary and private property borders on the southern and eastern
boundaries. The city limit constitutes the western edge.
Facilities: Parking;
Picnic tables;
Restrooms;
Group reservations (required fee);
Guided tours;
Gift shop and Hakone Foundation Office;
Security lighting;
Tea service on the weekends, provided by volunteers
Cultural Exchange Center
Issues: Hakone Garden was originally part of a sixteen acre estate belonging to
Oliver and Isabel Stine of San Francisco. It was Mrs. Stine's visit to Japan
in 1917 that inspired the creation of the gardens. Fuji-Hakone National Park
and the Japanese gardens made such an impression on her that she employed an •
Imperial gardener to landscape her summer residence site in Saratoga. A
Japanese architect was also hired to design the family residence and the guest
house.
The city of Saratoga purchased the property in 1966 for use as a City Park.
Hakone Gardens now consists of the Upper and Lower houses and the four gardens
of Hakone. The Upper House was built on the slope of the Moon-viewing Hill
and was intended to be a place of quiet retreat. As in the traditional
samurai style, it was built without nails, and the exterior treated to give a
look of age. The Lower House was the original Stine family summer residence.
At the outside corner of the house is a sodegaki (sleeve) gate, crafted of
split bamboo and Hagi grass. The four gardens are the essence of the park.
Each one has been maintained as an authentic Japanese garden. The Hill and
Pond Garden was created for strolling, the Tea Garden for tranquility, and the
Zen Garden for meditation. Kizuna-En, the bamboo garden, is the result of a
close friendship with Saratoga's sister city, Muko-shi, Japan. The garden is
comprised of gifts from the city such as stone lanterns and bamboo fences.
The sister city organization was formed in 1982 and a formal relationship now
exists between the two. In 1984 the mayors signed an agreement and this has
initiated annual visits between citizens as well as a summer student exchange
program.
2.4-9 •
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
• The Hakone Foundation Office is also located at the park. It is their mission
to fully implement the Park's Master Plan. A Cultural Exchange Center is
currently under construction which will enable internationally-recognized
artists to take up residence and offer classes and demonstrations in their
specific media. A research facility and office to contain the Bamboo
Horticultural Center and other garden improvements remains to be implemented.
Any decisions or actions that the Foundation wishes to make must be presented
to the Council and then formally approved. The City maintains the gardens and
funds the improvements.
HISTORICAL PARK
Acreage: 1.0 acres (City owned)
Location: 20460 Saratoga/Los Gatos Road
Facilities: Parking, limited;
Security lighting
Friends of the Library
Historical Heritage Museum
Chamber of Commerce
Eucalyptus Grove
Issues: Use of the Historical Park centers around the three institutions and their
central courtyard area.
SAN MARCOS WILDERNESS PARK
Acreage: 10.0 under development
Location: Between Sobey Road and Fruitvale Avenue at Crisp
Facilities: This site is primarily natural open space with a trail around the perimeter.
Issues: The City owns this site which was dedicated as a condition of approval for
the surrounding development. Trail improvements are being completed by the
developer.
2.4-10
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
EXISITING TRAILS
Thirty one existing trail segments have been identified in the City of Saratoga. The
status of the trails varies from well maintained and well used to very poorly maintained
and neglected. In some cases the dedicated easement is all that exists and no trail is
evident in the field. Each segment has been identified by location, status, length, type,
ownership, and surrounding land use. The numbering of the segments can be referenced to a
city map, see Figure 3.
Segment:
Location: This segment is located in the Northwestern Hillside Area
within an open space easement. The northern end of the trail
begins at Prospect Road between Parker Ranch Road and Beauchamps
Lane and then moves directly south, (crossing Burnett Drive), to
meet the midpoint of Farr Ranch Road.
Status: Improved
Length: 1700 L.F.
Type: The segment surface is compact dirt suitable for equestrian,
pedestrian and mountain bike use.
Ownership: Dedicated twenty foot wide pedestrian and equestrian easement.
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property and the City of Cupertino southern boundary
Notes: •
Segment: 2
Location: This segment is located in the Northwestern Hillsides Area just
inside the city's boundary. Its eastern end links with segment
#1 and runs west along Prospect Road to the junction of Maria
Lane. At this point the trail turns south through the middle of
the lots which lie between Parker Ranch Road and Prospect Road.
The trail continues along the east side of Parker Ranch Road to
end at the junction of Prospect Road and segment #3.
Status: Improved
Length: 3800 L.F.
Type: The surface along Maria Lane is asphalt with an area of compact
dirt alongside providing room for equestrian use. The remainder
of the segment is of a compact dirt surface.
Ownership: Dedicated ten foot wide pedestrian and equestrian easement
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property and the City of Cupertino southern
boundary.
Notes:
2.4- I 1
•
U
Figure 3
EXISTING TRAILS
~'...L
'"13
_i
~ EXISTING TRAIL EASEMENT ~~.~.r^LJ
~~~~ PROPOSED TRA2 EASEMENT
CITY OF SA RA TOG A
PARKS AND T RAI LS MA STER
P L A N
WA LLACE ROB E RT S & TODD
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
Segment: 3
Location: This segment is located within a scenic easement in the
Northwestern Hillsides Area. At the northern end, the trail
. links with segment #2 on Parker Ranch Road and then continues
southwest through the scenic easement along the boundary of the
Saratoga Country Club. Once beyond the club property, the
remaining 200 feet are located in a designated open space
~ easement. At the southern end a link is formed with segment #4.
Status: Dedicated but not improved
Length: 1900 L.F.
Type:
Ownership: Pedestrian and equestrian easement.
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property and the Saratoga Country Club
Notes:
Segment: 4
Location: This segment is located in an open space easement in the
Northwestern Hillside Area. The eastern end is located on Star
Ridge Court and then moves southwest along a proposed street
dedication to reach the boundary between the open space easement
and a designated agricultural preserve.
Status: Improved
Length: 1600 L.F.
Type: The surface is compact dirt suitable for pedestrian, equestrian
and mountain bike use.
Ownership: Proposed roadway easement and an Open Space Easement
Surrounding Land Use: The Saratoga Country Club, and to the west, the Stevens Creek
Park and Fremont Older Park in Santa Clara County
Notes:
Segment: $
Location: This segment is located within an open space easement in the
Northwestern Hillside Area. The western trail head is located
on Star Ridge Court to the east of segment #4. It continues
east from there to meet the cul-de-sac of Diamond Oaks Court.
Status: Improved
Length: 600 L.F.
Type: The path is appropriate for pedestrians. The surface is compact
dirt with a clear width of 6-10 feet.
Ownership: Dedicated pedestrian easement
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property
Notes: Good condition and well maintained
~J
2.4-12
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
•
•
Segment: 6
Location: This segment is located within a designated open space easement
in the Northwestern Hillsides Area. It consists of two lengths
one of which travels between the Parker Ranch Road cut-de-sac in
the north and the Diamond Oaks Court cul-de-sac in the south.
At the mid-point an extension breaks to travel directly west and
meet with Star Ridge Court.
Status: Improved
Length: 500 L.F. east-west extension
600 L.F. north-south length
Type: Compact dirt appropriate for pedestrian use, welt-used and in
good condition
Ownership: Private
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property.
Notes: Trail signage and bench at head of segment on Diamond Oaks
Court. Additional signage specifying the land as `private'.
Segment: 7
Location: This segment links with the east-west extension of segment #6 on
Star Ridge Court. It then moves north along the road to the
cul-de-sac. At this point the trail travels along a future
dedicated roadway northeast to reach the Parker Ranch Road
cul-de-sac and then returns to the road. From here it moves
north to meet segment #8 on Continental Circle.
Status: The only section of this segment which has been developed is
that along Parker Ranch Road. The other is simply dedicated.
Length: 800 L.F. along road, developed
800 L.F. undeveloped
Type:
Ownership: Eight to ten foot pedestrian and equestrian easement.
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property, open space easement.
Notes:
Segment: g
Location: This segment is located in the Northwestern Hillsides Area. The
trail continues from link #7 and Continental Circle north for
200 feet within a scenic easement. For the remaining distance
the property is designated as an open space easement. Within
the easement the trail travels north along a property line for
1400 feet and then turns directly east to end on Farr Ranch
Road.
Status: Recently blazed, needs improvements and signage
Length: 2000 L.F.
Type:
Ownership:
~ Fifty foot wide pedestrian and equestrian easement
Surrounding
Land Use: Residential property
Notes:
2.4- 13
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
Segment: 9
Location: This segment is located in the Northwestern Hillsides Area
within a scenic easement. It consists of two lengths one of
which travels east-west from Nina Court at the City's western
boundary line to forma `'P with the other length. This length
is orientated north-south and joins the Agricultural Preserve in
the north to Quarry Road in the south.
Status: Partially improved but suffers from a drainage problem and
requires bridge crossings at two points.
Length: 2500 L.F. east-west length
1500 L.F. north-south length
Type: This trail is suitable for pedestrian and equestrian use.
Ownership: Pedestrian and equestrian easement
Surrounding Land Use: Agricultural Preserve and residential property.
Notes:
Segment: 10
Location: This segment exists within a residential subdivision in the
Northwestern Hillsides Area. Its' route follows Mt. Eden Road
from the northern end of Damon Lane to the midpoint of the
subdivision. It then turns west to cross the property and end
at the cities' boundary line.
Status: Improved but not in conformance with the development agreement. .
There is a drainage problem as well as too steep of a slope in
areas.
Length: 1000 L.F.
Type: 1
Ownership: Dedicated trail easement
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property and the Santa Clara County boundary line.
Notes:
Segment: 11
Location: This segment is located in the Northwestern Hillsides Area. A
subdivision between Chiquita Way and Old Oak Way has an area of
open space which was dedicated during development. Within this
easement a fifteen foot wide pedestrian and equestrian easement
was also dedicated but its location is to be "determined in the
field".
Status: Dedicated but not improved
Length: N/A
Type: I
Ownership: Pedestrian and equestrian easement
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property
Notes:
~J
2.4-14
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
Segment: 12
Location: This segment is located in the Northwestern Hillside Area along
the western side of Mt. Eden Road. Damon Lane forms a half
circle to the west of Mt. Eden and the trail travels for the
length of road between these two points.
Status: Partially improved
Length: 1000 L.F.
Type: The trail is three feet wide with a compact earth surface. It
runs along the road like a sidewalk and is for both pedestrian
and equestrian use. Wooden posts, about two feet high, sit at
the southern trail head.
Ownership: Fifteen foot wide pedestrian and equestrian easement.
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property.
Notes:
Segment: 13
Location: This segment is located in the Northwestern Hillsides Area. The
northern end links with segment #13 at the junction of Mt. Eden
Road and Damon lane. From this point a section moves directly
south through the property and another section moves west to
follow along the roadside of Teerlink Way until the two meet.
Both of these links have a ten foot wide easement. Once joined
the trail continues south up the hill to join Pierce Road. This
• combined section of the trail is located in a designated open
space easement with a trail easement of eight feet.
Status: Dedicated but only partially improved
Length: 1700 L.F. north-south
600 L.F. loop on Teerlink Way
Type: The surface is of trodden earth and is appropriate for
pedestrian, equestrian and mountain bike use. The easement is
now overgrown although signs of some use exists.
Ownership: Pedestrian and equestrian easement
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property
Notes: No maintenance, overgrown
Segment: 14
Location: The northeastern end of this segment is at the end of Canyon
View Drive. From this point, it moves west along a dedicated
roadway, over Deer Springs Court and southwest across an open
space easement until the junction of a property line. The trail
then travels south along this property line to join Saratoga
Heights Drive.
Status: Dedicated but not improved.
Length: 1600 L.F.
Type: I
Ownership: Dedicated trail easement
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property, open space parcels
Notes:
2.4-15
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
Segment: 15 •
Location: This segment consists of two lengths. The north-south section
exists entirely within an open space easement. Its northern end
joins with segment #14 on Saratoga Heights Road and its southern
end meets Congress Springs Road. At the midpoint a length
breaks to the west and links the segment to the cul-de-sac of
Congress Hall Lane.
Status: Dedicated but not improved
Length: 1800 L.F. north-south
500 L.F.east-west
Type: 1
Ownership: Forty foot wide pedestrian and equestrian easement
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property
Notes:
Segment: 16
Location: This segment runs east-west for just 100 feet along the northern
roadside of Congress Springs Road. The boundary of the open
space easement forms the eastern end and the western end joins
with segment # 17.
Status: Dedicated but not improved
Length: 400 L.F. •
Type: The path is about three feet wide with a trampled growth and
compact earth surface
Ownership: Dedicated trail easement
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property and the Saratoga Creek
Notes: A resident has erected a pile of wood at the western end of the
trail to prevent trail users from coming across the bottom of
his property.
Segment: 17
Location: This segment continues from the wood pile of segment #16
southwest along Congress Springs Road. The easement has not
been developed as a trail yet its' route appears to travel along
what is now Congress Spring Lane as well as a private drive.
Status: Dedicated but not improved
Length: 2000 L.F.
Type:
Ownership: Dedicated trail easement
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property, Saratoga Creek, Santa Clara County
Notes:
2.4-16
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
• Segment: 18
Location: This segment spans the highway 85 transportation corridor. The
two parks, Azule and Kevin Moran sit on either side and this
path serves as a connection between the two.
Status: Serves as temporary access across corridor while the pedestrian
bridge is under construction
Length: 200 L.F.
Type: A fence is erected on both sides of the path to separate it from
the bridge construction and the undeveloped corridor. Users
consist of both pedestrians and cyclists. The asphalt surface
is in poor shape but the path will be replaced with the
completion of the bridge.
Ownership: Transportation corridor
Surrounding Land Use: Blue Hills School, Azule and Kevin Moran Parks, residential
property and the highway corridor
Notes:
Segment: 19
Location: This segment travels along the southeast side of Saratoga Avenue
from Central Park to the junction of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road.
Status: Improved
Length: 5600 L.F.
•
Type: The trail varies from a simple sidewalk to a path set back from
the road.
Ownership: Public right-of-way
Surrounding Land Use: Residential, schools, orchard and Central Park.
Notes:
Segment: 20
Location: This segment travels along the southwest side of Saratoga -Los
Gatos Road from the junction of Big Basin Way to Vickery Avenue.
Status: Improved
Length: 2100 L.F.
Type: The trail varies from a simple roadside path to an elevated
section behind a brick wall just southeast of Historical Park.
Ownership; Public right-of-way
Surrounding Land Use: Residential, commercial and Historical Park
Notes:
2.4-17
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
Segment: 21
Location: This segment travels along the northeastern side of Saratoga-Los
Gatos Road from the junction of Fruitvale Avenue northwest until
the Carnelian Glen Drive crossing. The trail is setback from
the road and separated by a landscape strip with the exception
of a few areas where, because of the resident, it has been
forced to the roads edge..
Status: Improved
Length: 5000 L.F.
Type: Pedestrian, equestrian and cyclist users, yet a bike lane exists
along the road as well. Surface is asphalt, varying from three
to five feet wide.
Ownership: Public right-of-way
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property
Notes:
Segment: 22
Location: This segment runs along the eastside of Fruitvale Avenue. The
northern end is located at the junction of Wildcat Creek and
Fruitvale Avenue. From here the path heads directly south to
reach the crossing of Allendale Avenue and segment #23.
Status: Improved
Length: 500 L.F. •
Type: The path is four feet wide with a concrete surface and winds
through a well maintained landscape strip. Users are primarily
pedestrian but as a bike path does not exist on the road,
cyclists may also use the path.
Ownership: Public right of way
Surrounding Land Use: Civic Center, Wildcat Creek, Redwood School, West Valley College
and residential property.
Notes:
Segment: 23
Location: This segment runs along the eastside of Fruitvale Avenue forming
a link between segment #22 and #27. The northern end of the
trail is located at the junction of Allendale Avenue and
Fruitvale Avenue. The path travels south along the west side of
West Valley College continuing across San Marcos Road to end at
the junction of Fruitvale Avenue and Burgendy Way.
Status: Improved
Length: 3600 L.F.
Type: The path consists of a sidewalk four feet wide with an asphalt
surface. Users consist o£ pedestrians and occasional
cyclists.
Ownership: Public right of way
Surrounding Land Use: West Valley College, Redwood School and residential property.
Notes:
2.4- l8
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
Segment: 24
Location: This segment consists of two lengths, one of which runs along
the west side of Fruitvale Avenue and the other which extends
east to meet Okanogan Drive. • The northern end of the trail is
located at the corner of Montauk Drive and Fruitvale Avenue.
From this point the path travels south for 900 feet and then
turns west to travel alongside the orchard. A landscape strip,
about ten feet wide, separates the roadside path from Fruitvale
Avenue.
Status: Improved and very nicely maintained
Length: 900 L.F. along road
300 L.F. extension along orchard
Type: The path surface is compact earth and fine gravel, about four
feet wide. Pedestrian and cyclist use.
Ownership: Public right of way
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property, orchard and West Valley College
Notes: A hedge separates the path from residences to the west.
Segment: 25
Location: This segment consists of two lengths, one of which runs
north-south along the west side of Fruitvale Avenue and the
other an extension to the west. The northern end of the trail
links with segment #36 at the orchard boundary line. From here
. the path moves south to end at the crossing of Douglass Lane.
The extension breaks to the west at the midpoint to link with
Kenosha Court.
Status: Improved
Length: 600 L.F.along the road
100 L.F. extension
Type: The path is four feet wide with a compact earth, wood chip and
fine gravel surface; good condition and maintenance. Primarily
for pedestrian use.
Ownership: Public right of way
Surrounding Land Use: Orchard, West Valley College and private residences
Notes:
Segment: 26
Location: This segment travels along the north side of Douglass Lane from
Fruitvale Avenue to Donna Lane and segment #35.
Status: Proposed
Length: 2000 L.F.
Type: 2
Ownership: Pedestrian and equestrian easement
Surrounding Land Use: Residential
Notes:
2.4-19
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
Segment: 27
Location: This segment runs along the east side of Fruitvale Avenue
continuing south from the Burgendy Way crossing Crisp Avenue to
reach the junction of Three Oaks Way and Fruitvale. This
. segment is located back from the road, separated by a landscape
strip, with the exception of 150 feet in which the path comes
very close to the road and is almost nonexistent. At the
northern end, for about 400 feet, the path splits into two
sections which run alongside each other, one at the roads edge
and the other at the setback point.
Status: Improved
Length: 2200 L.F.
Type: The path is four feet wide with an asphalt surface and wood trim
strips at the edges. A strip of landscape exists between the
path and the road but it is poorly maintained. Users are both
pedestrian and cyclists.
Ownership: Public right of way
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property
Notes:
Segment: 28
Location: This segment continues south on Fruitvale Avenue from Three Oaks
Way and segment #27 until the junction of Valle Vista Drive.
This segment is not setback from the road and resembles a
sidewalk.
Status: Improved
Length: 350 L.F.
Type: This segment consists of a sidewalk running along the roadside
Ownership: Public right of way
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property
Notes:
Segment: 29
Location: This segment travels along the western side of Fruitvale Avenue
from Valle Vista Drive and segment #28 south to the junction of
Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Status: Improved
Length: 1000 L.F.
Type: The path is three feet wide with an asphalt surface. It is
poorly maintained with cracking asphalt and overgrown
landscape. Users consist of pedestrians.
Ownership: Public right of way
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property
Notes:
2.4-20
\~
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
• Segment: 30
Location: This segment is located in the San Marcos subdivision within a
dedicated open space easement.
Status: It is under construction at this time.
Length: 4000 L.F.
Type: The trail will be appropriate for both equestrian and pedestrian
use, trail gates and signage will be incorporated.
Ownership: Open Space Easement
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property
Notes: A cemetery is located in the open space easement.
Segment: 31
Location: This segment consists of two different lengths located just east
of the San Marcos subdivision. The north-south length travels
along the west side of Gypsy Hill Road from the southern
cul-de-sac to the junction of Chester Avenue. The other section
is located on the south side of Chester Avenue from segment #32
to Sobey Road.
Status: Dedicated but not improved
Length: 1500 L.F, north-south length
Type: 1300 L.F. east-west length
Ownership: Ten foot wide pedestrian and equestrian easement.
Surroundings Land Use:
N Residential property
otes: The City is in the process of investigating the possibility of
receiving a grant to fund the development fees.
• 2.4-21
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
RECREATION PROGRAMS
The Saratoga Recreation Department organizes a wide range of programs offering indoor and
outdoor recreation, classes and community group activities. These include nature programs
and day camps, holiday events, adult fitness, sports programs, arts and crafts and teen
activities. The department is located in the City's Community Center. The center provides
for the Recreation Department classrooms, offices, a kitchen, dance studio and large
multipurpose room. As these facilities are not adequate for the extent of the programs
offered other locations in the city are utilized. Congress Springs Park provides two
courts for the tennis lessons and Redwood Middle School provides the cafeteria for use as a
gym in order to house the volleyball and basketball classes offered by the department.
Additional activities include the theatre programming for amateur dramatic societies. The
City's Civic Center is rented year round to support the theatre productions. Occasionally
the' Department will cosponsor a course with another City's department for example, the Los
Gatos Neighborhood Center and the REI co-op in Cupertino.
Needs of the department, identified by the Recreation Director, focused on the lack of
sufficient space both for indoor and outdoor programs. At this time the program is limited
by the lack of available locations.
Outdoor Facility Needs:
The main problem is getting use of park facilities. The Department cannot schedule sports
classes on fields because of other users such as the Little League and AYSO. Only one
adult softball diamond is available in Saratoga at the El Quito Park. From a programming
perspective the Department could use one more diamond at the same or different location.
If a field were available the Department would offer an Adult Soccer League.
/ndoor Facility Needs:
Because of the small existing kitchen, the department is unable to offer a cooking class
although strong interest in such a program exists. There is also a need for additional
classrooms. Conflicts exist now because of the very different functions occurring in the
same room. A space dedicated strictly to the arts and crafts programs would ease this
conflict. Additional needs of the department include expanded office space and storage and
a small conference room.
Programs planned for the future include additional exercise courses, expanded gym programs
for kids and an adult sports league. These desires cannot be fulfilled until more
facilities have been provided.
Senior programming is offered at the Senior Center and is coordinated by the Saratoga Area
Senior Coordinating Council. This nonprofit organization is funded by the City but
operates with relative autonomy. The organization makes effective use of volunteer
workers.
•
2.4-22
2.4 Parks, Facilities and Recreation Programs
• RECREATION FACILITIES
West Valley College:
Location: The college is located at 14,000 Fruitvale Avenue
Facilities: Tennis courts, sixteen;
Sand volleyball courts, four;
Basketball courts;
Large and small gym;
Fields, for baseball, soccer, hockey and softball;
Swimming pool;
Lockers and dressing rooms;
Dance studio;
Theatre performance and rehearsal;
Classrooms, lecture halls and boardrooms
Facility Use: Community groups are permitted to use college facilities when such uses do
not interfere with college programs. Applications for use of the
facilities must be filed and an hourly rate applies, with the exception of
tennis, basketball and volleyball which are available to individuals
whenever classes are not in session.
Notes: Recently ajoint-use agreement between the City and the college has been
discussed. Improvements to the tennis facilities are needed and the City
has proposed to fund these improvements most specifically the resurfacing
of the courts. In exchange for the improvements the City could
potentially use the softball field to establish an Adult League within the
Saratoga Recreation Program.
Saratoga Community Center.
Location: The center shares a building with the Recreation Department on Allendale
Avenue.
Facilities: Numerous rooms
Facility Use: The facilities are available, for a fee, to community, private and public
groups such as the Recreation Department and the senior citizens.
Saratoga Country Club:
Location: The country club is located on a 100-acre site in the western foothills of
town.
Facilities: Nine-hole golf course;
Tennis courts, six;
Swimming pool and sun deck;
Clubhouse with restaurant and lounge;
Banquet Facilities
Facility Use: The facilities are for members only with the exception of the banquet hall
which is available to the public for wedding receptions and parties.
Notes: Saratoga Country Club is owned and operated by its members.
• 2.4-23
2.4 Parks, Facilities and Recreation Programs
Saratoga Tennis Club:
Location:
Facilities:
Facility Use:
Notes:
Brookside Club:
Tennis
Private membership
Location: The Brookside Club rests on the western side of Saratoga Creek at the
junction of Cox Avenue and Saratoga Creek Drive
Facilities: Pool;
Tennis
Facility Use: Private membership
Notes:
Homeowner Association:
Location:
Facilities:
Facility Use:
Notes: Currently eight active associations in the city now.
Saratoga Swim Club
Location:
Facilities:
Facility Use: Private membership
Notes:
Saratoga Woods
Location:
Facilities:
Facility Use: Private membership
Notes:
2.4-24
•
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
SCHOOL FACILITIES
There are seven school districts in the City of Saratoga (five elementary districts and two
high school districts) which include ten school sites totalling 151 acres. Although no
official joint use programs currently exist between the City and the school districts some
of the schools share recreational use and some have potential shared use by city residents
outside of school hours. The schools participating in shared use programs are as follows:
Prospect High School; Campbell Unioo High School District
Location: Located at 18900 Prospect Road. Saratoga Creek runs along the
western boundary.
Facilities: Turf area for soccer and softball ($5.00/day);
Tennis courts ($2.00/hour);
Gymnasium ($10.00/hour);
Football stadium and swimming pool ($120.00/day);
Cafeteria ($6.00/hour)
Use of Facilities: These facilities are available to the community by reservation. An
additional $20.00 processing fee is required.
Undeveloped Acreage:
Notes:
• Saratoga High School; Los Gatos Joint Unified School District
Location: Located at 20300 Herman Drive
Facilities: Gymnasiums;
Tennis;
Athletic fields;
Classrooms
Use of Facilities: The gymnasiums are booked by the Los Gatos-Saratoga recreation
department. The athletic fields are available to groups with
$1,000,000 liability insurance and classrooms are rented out by
arrangement.
Undeveloped Acreage:
Notes:
Marshall Lane Elementary; Campbell Unioo School District
Location: Located on Sobey Road
Facilities: Playing fields
Use of Facilities: The fields may only be used by youth groups comprised of students
from Campbell Schools.
Undeveloped Acreage:
Notes:
•
2.4-25
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
Foothill Elementary; Saratoga Union School District •
Location: Located on Seaton Avenue adjacent to Foothill Park
Facilities: Cafeteria/auditorium;
Classrooms;
Athletic fields;
Par fitness-course;
Play equipment;
Amphitheatre
Use of Facilities: The use of the fields is scheduled by the Los Gatos-Saratoga
Recreation Department. Classrooms are for rent and the par-course
and play equipment are available during non-school hours.
Undeveloped Acreage:
Notes:
Argonaut Elementary; Saratoga Union School District
Location: Located on Shadow Mountain Drive
Facilities: Grass fields;
Playground;
Classrooms;
Cafeteria
Use of Facilities:
Undeveloped Acreage: •
Notes:
Quito Park Elementary; Moreland Union School District
Location: Located at Paseo Presada and Bucknall Road, adjacent to El Quito
Park.
Facilities:
Use of Facilities:
Undeveloped Acreage:
Notes:
Blue Hills Elementary; Cupertino Union School District
Location: Located on Goleta Avenue, adjacent to Azule Park
Facilities: Grass turf fields;
Playground
Use of Facilities: A permit to use the fields is issued by Department of Property and
Records.
Undeveloped Acreage:
Notes:
~J
2.4-26
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
• Hansen, McAuliff School; Cupertino Union School District
Location: Located at Prospect Road and Titus Avenue
Facilities: Turf fields;
Playground
Use of Facilities:
Undeveloped Acreage:
Notes:
Notre Dame Pre-school; Private
Location: Located at Norton and Bohlman Road
Facilities:
Use of Facilities:
Undeveloped Acreage:
Notes:
Redwood Middle School; Saratoga Union School District
Location: Located on Fruitvale Avenue
Facilities: Classrooms;
• Cafeteria
Use of Facilities: The Recreation Department uses the classrooms and cafeteria for its
course offerings.
Undeveloped Acreage:
Notes:
Saint Andrews School; Private
Location: Located on Saratoga Avenue at the corner of Crestbrook Drive.
Central Park and the City's library are across the street.
Facilities:
Use of Facilities:
Undeveloped Acreage:
Notes:
Sacred Heart School; Private
Location: Located on the south side of Saratoga Avenue just northeast of the
towns center.
Facilities:
Use of Facilities:
Undeveloped Acreage:
Notes:
•
2.4-27
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
REGIONAL RECREATION FACILITIES and TRAILS .
There are three major Santa Clara County parks readily accessible to Saratoga residents.
Of the three existing parks, the Montalvo Arboretum is highly specialized. The main
function of the park is as an arboretum and wildlife preserve. The other two parks are
multiple purpose open space and recreation areas. They provide a resource for camping,
hiking and day long excursions, as well as protecting water sheds, wildlife and valuable
timber and ground cover. For the location of parks and trails in the surrounding region
see Figure 4. The County park facilities available to City residents are as follows:
Villa Montalvo Arboretum
Acreage: 178 acres
Location: The park is located at the southern city limits of Saratoga. Montalvo Road
winds south from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road to the park entrance.
Facilities: Plays, concerts and recitals
Artists displays and galleries
Arboretum
Formal garden and lawn
Visitor center & park office
Comfort station •
Parking
Trails: One and one-half mite loop nature trail
Redwood hiking trail
Orchard hiking trail
Issues: The Villa Montalvo Arboretum is an educational and cultural facility. Many
activities are available to the public including concerts and the Merola opera
summer program. The villa offers displays of artists work and gallery
exhibitions. A variety of plant and animal communities exist on the park
site. These can be seen while hiking the nature trail loop which passes
through chaparral, mixed evergreen forest and redwood communities. Local
colleges and the Audobon Society make extensive use of the trails for their
environmental and biological studies. The various trails also offer scenic
view points where one can see the entire Santa Clara Valley floor from the bay
to the Almaden Valley.
Picnicking is prohibited on the grounds as well as dogs and other pets.
2.4-28 •
u
O CITY OF SARATOGA
COUNTY PARKS
MROSD OPEN SPACE LAND
D SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Figure 4
O EXISTING COUNTY TRAILS
F~ PROPOSED COUNTY TRAILS REGIONAL PARKS & TRAILS
CITY OF SARATOGA
PARKS AND TRAILS MASTER P L A N
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
Stevens Creek Park
Acreage: 777 acres total
50 acres water
Location: Stevens Creek Park cuts a canyon in the steep foothills of the Santa Cruz
Mountains just west of the town, Access from Saratoga to the park can be made
by heading northwest out of town on Mt. Eden Road.
Facilities: Steven Creek Reservoir. non-power boating & fishing
Archery
Visitor center & park office
Comfort stations, three
Parking
Trails: Equestrian trails, seven
Hiking trails, three
Nature trail
TABLE 6
TRAIL MILEAGE CHART
Trail Miles •
Canyon 0.9
Creek 0.4
Lookout 0.7
Mt. Eden 0.2
Old Canyon 1.0
Rim 1.2
Nature Trail 0.3
Issues: Acquired in 1927, Stevens Creek is the oldest county park. Between 1872 and
1944 an area of the park was used by the University of Santa Clara for a winery
and remnants of the vineyards and orchards can be explored today. It is
accessible to Saratoga residents by trail and scenic highway. Potential exists
for expanding this park into the Saratoga sphere of influence. Considering the
parks history, the reservoir and the extensive trail system Stevens Creek Park
has a wide range of recreation possibilities.
2.4-29
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
. Sanborn County Park
Acreage: 2856 acres total
1 acre water
•
Location: Sanborn-Skyline Park is located southwest of the city on Castle Rock Ridge. To
reach the park from town one travels west on Congress Springs Road to the
junction of Sanborn Road. Sanborn Road enters the park at the northern
boundary.
Facilities: Family camping,
48 primitive style, walk-in campsites
Youth group camping area
Youth hostel
Family picnic sites, thirty-five
Group picnic sites, three
Comfort stations, two
R.V. camping?
Parking
Trails: Hiking trails
Equestrian trails
Self-guided nature trails
TABLE 7
TRAIL MILEAGE CHART
Trail Miles
Indian Rock 0.2
San Andreas 1.6
Sanborn 1.8
Skyline 3.2
Summit Rock Loop 1.6
Issues: Sanborn County Park is currently part of a larger regional park called "Skyline".
The Skyline Park contains 1000 acres and extends from Sanborn Park to Skyline
Boulevard. Skyline Park is one of a series of multiple purpose parks which
complements Castle Rock State Park and creates an undeveloped corridor along the
scenic mountain highways.
2.4-30
2.4 Existing Parks and Recreation Provision
One of the sources of open space protection is through the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space •
District (MROSD) which is a governmental agency dedicated to the protection of open space
lands. Saratoga has approximately 320 acres within its Sphere of Influence under the
ownership control of the MROSD. This district provides a valuable service by protecting
through purchasing critical open space areas within Saratoga's Urban Service Area and
sphere of influence.
EI Sereno Open Space Preserve
Acreage: 1036 acres
Location: The preserve is part of a prominent ridge south of Saratoga. Access is from
the end of Montevina Road, 3 miles west of Highway 17.
Facilities: Parking spaces, two
Trails: Miles of trail along the ridge for hikers, bicycling and horses. A number of
neighborhood trails ascend to the ridge at various points.
Issues: The preserve is named for Mt. EI Sereno. It is primarily a chaparral community
with some wooded areas near the creeks. Because of El Sereno's remote location
and limited parking one must call the District Office before visiting the
preserve.
n
LJ
Fremont Older Open Space Preserve
Acreage: 734 acres
Location: The park is located on the western fringe of town, extending towards Mt. Eden
Road to the south and Stevens Creek County Park to the west. Visitors can
access the District at the end of Prospect Road.
Facilities: Parking spaces, ten
Ranger Residence
Trails: Four and one-half miles of hiking, bicycling, and equestrian trails
Issues: The preserve is named for Fremont Older, a noted San Franciscan newspaper
editor who owned, with his wife, a portion of the preserve for 60 years. Their
house has been leased to a private party and restored and is now listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. It is occasionally open to the public
for scheduled group tours.
u
2.4-31
2.5 Open Space
OPEN SPACE
REGIONAL CONTEXT
The City of Saratoga is located in the Santa Clara Valley with the City's western side in
the foothills of the Santa Cruz mountains. The northern Valley is extensively urbanized
with the City of Cupertino to the north of Saratoga and the City of San Jose to the east.
The Santa Cruz mountains include grasslands and steep slopes covered with brush and milled
hardwoods. The City's Sphere of Influence, located in the mountains is bisected by the San
Andreas Fault. Because of geologic hazards in these areas it is unlikely any development
will occur and the area will remain as open space.
WILLIAMSON ACT
The City of Saratoga General Plan states that 220 acres of land within the City boundary
are under the Williamson Act Contract. An additional 800 acres of agricultural preserve
exists in the City's Sphere of Influence. The Williamson Act, or California Land
Conservation Act, was established in 1965. The intent of the Act is to preserve land in
agricultural use by allowing a property tax of parcels within the preserves to be based on
agricultural use rather than on its development potential. An owner agrees to keep his
land in agricultural use for ten years in exchange for the special tax treatment. Upon
nonrenewal the contract will continue for a minimum of nine years. Contracts can only be
canceled if the cancellation is consistent with the Act or it is in the public's best
• interest.
Within the City of Saratoga land preserves under the Williamson Act are urged to renew
their contracts as these areas are a valuable source of remaining open space in the
hillsides of the city.
• 2.5-1
2.6 Existing Finance
EXISTING FINANCE
The City of Saratoga incurs a variety of costs in providing for parks, trails, and
recreation opportunities for public use. A general review of current financing is
presented below, considering the costs first and the various revenues used to cover those
costs second.
COSTS
The costs to the city in providing for recreation can be divided into three main areas:
land acquisition; capital improvements; and ongoing programming, operations, and
maintenance.
Land Acquisition
The City has no current outstanding debt for land acquisition. Past acquisition of
parkland and trails has been primarily through the use of land dedication requirements as a
condition of subdivision approval and fees in lieu of such dedications. Both the land
dedication and the collection of in-lieu fees have been effected under the authority of a
Quimby Ordinance as enabled by the California Subdivision Map Act, the Quimby Act
• (Government Code 66477) as amended in 1982. State Bond monies have also been used in the
past for land acquisition.
Capital Improvements
The City has generally financed past capital improvements to parks and recreation
facilities through General Fund appropriations and use of Quimby park dedication in-lieu
fees. Roberti Z'Berg funds and State Park Bond monies have been used to finance capital
improvements. The most recent City expenditure for parks improvements involved a $60,987
project at Quito Park which was financed by State Park Bonds. The City's 1990 - 1995
Capital Improvements Program is currently under review and final action from Council is not
expected until early 1991. There are a number of parks improvements projects as shown in
Tabie 8.
•
2.6- I
2.6 Existing Finance
TABLE 8 •
1990-1995 RECOMMENDED PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Projects
By Fuod 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95
Hakone Watering Syst 50,000
Skateboard Ramp 60,000
GENERAL 0,000
Wildwood Park Bridge 110,000
Handicapped Access 10,000
H.C.D.A. 120,000
Quito Park 14,000
Wildwood Park 60,000
Play Equipment 35,000
State Park Bonds 49,000 60,000
•
Kevin Moran Park 500,000
Beauchamps Park 20,000 120,000
Azule Park
Improvements 30,000 200,000
Hakone Entrance
Improvements 50,000
Nelson Gardens 1,300,000
Park Development 35,000 1,470,000 0 30,000 700,000
TOTAL 299,000 1,530,000 0 30,000 700,000
2.6-2
2.6 Existing Finance
A brief description of the capital improvements projects shown in Table 8 is given below.
Wildwood Park Pedestrian Bridge
This project proposes to provide handicap access to Wildwood Park from Parking District No.
1 via a pedestrian bridge over Saratoga Creek. The new bridge will provide better handicap
and safer pedestrian access to Wildwood Park.
Funding Source: Housing and Community Development Act (H.C.D.A.) Fund
1990-91 - $110,000
EI Quito Park Landscaping
This project involves the installation of landscape improvements to complete the final
phase of the development of El Quito Park. The landscape improvements were originally
scheduled to be installed along with other park improvements completed in 1989, but were
deferred due to drought conditions. The project completes the development of El Quito Park
in accordance with the Park Master Plan.
Funding Source: State Park Bonds, Park Development Fund
Prior Years - $60,987
• 1990-91 - $14,000
Wildwood Park Improvements
This project will renovate and expand facilities at Wildwood Park. The project will
correct safety hazards from faulty and deteriorating play equipment and park furniture.
Funding Source: State Park Bonds
1991-92 - $60,000
Kevin Moran Park Improvements
This project is proposed to redevelop Kevin Moran Park into a community sized recreational
facility to serve the northern portion of town. Development of the park will increase
recreational opportunities and reduce liabilities associated with deteriorated park
equipment and illicit use of unimproved park land.
Funding Source: Park Development Fund
1994-95 - $500,000
•
2.6-3
2.6 Existing Finance
Play Equipment Replacement
This project replaces play equipment at EI Quito, Kevin Moran, Congress Springs and
Gardiner Parks. The project reduces liabilities and hazards associated with outdated and
defective play equipment.
Funding Source: State Park Bonds
1990-91 - $35,000
Beauchamps Neighborhood Park
This project proposes to develop a neighborhood park on a 2.5 acre dedicated parcel in the
Beauchamps Subdivision. Development of the park will fill a gap in recreational facilities
in the Beauchamps area and will reduce liabilities associated with illicit use of
undeveloped park land.
Funding Source: Park Development Funds
1990-91 - $20,000
1991-92 - $120,000
Hakone Gardens Water System
LJ
This project proposes to replace the existing domestic water and irrigation system at
Hakone Gardens with a new system supplied from the Bohlman Road water tank. The new system
would service all existing facilities, the new cultural building and a new irrigation
system for the gardens. The project will provide a steady and dependable water supply for
the existing and future facilities at Hakone Gardens.
Funding Source: General Fund
1990-91 - $50,000
Handicap Access Improvements
This project utilizes the City's share of Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA)
funds. Handicap access improvements are proposed at the Wildwood park restroom and at
various intersections. The improvements will enhance handicap access to various City
facilities.
Funding Source: H.C.D.A. Fund
1990-91 - $10,000
•
2.6-4
2.6 Existing Finance
• Azule Park Improvements
Part of the Parks Master Plan, this project would develop the Azule Park property adjacent
to the Blue Hills Elementary School into a public recreational facility. Development of
the park will compliment existing facilities at the elementary school thus enhancing
overall recreational opportunities and will reduce liabilities associated with illicit use
of undeveloped park land.
Funding Source: Park Development Fund
1993-94 - $30,000 -Design
1994-95 - $200,000 -Construction
Hakone Gardens Entrance Road Improvements
This project would improve the entrance road into Hakone Gardens. The project will
eliminate geological and vehicular access problems associated with the existing driveway.
Funding Source: Park Development Fund
1991-92 - $50,000
• Skateboard Ramp
This project involves the construction of a skateboard facility to replace the facility
abandoned at Congress Springs Park. The new facility will eliminate many of the problems
associated with the existing facility relating to noise, aesthetics and durability.
Funding Source: General Fund
1990-91 - $60,000
• 2.6-5
2.6 Existing Finance
Parks Operations and Maintenance
The City's allocated budget for parks and open space operations and maintenance in 1990/91
totals $292,818.68, from the City General Fund. This figure includes staff, equipment,
water and utilities, and other miscellaneous costs. In an attempt to determine how much
the City currently spends per acre per annum for improved parkland maintenance, certain
amounts were subtracted from the total including maintenance costs for unimproved open
space, public landscaped areas and plazas, and onetime professional fees. The resultant
estimated expenditure on public parks and the civic center landscape area combined equals
$203,146. By dividing this reduced total by 37 acres (the total acreage of improved
parkland plus two acres allowed for Civic Center landscaped areas) an estimated annual
expenditure of around $5,500 per acre per annum was determined. Current projections of
annual budget allocations for parks and open space operations and maintenance in the years
1990/91 to 1994/95 are shown in Table 9.
The City does not currently incur significant identifiable costs for trails maintenance
because of the very low priority which has been placed on providing an effective City trail
system. With the current policy emphasis on reinstating trails as an effective area of
recreation provision in the City, trails maintenance costs are inevitably going to rise.
The first such cost is the pending purchase by the Maintenance Department of a trails
maintenance small-loader at an anticipated cost of around $25,000. The present plan for
trails maintenance is to draw funding through the Streets Division Program 3032 "Walkways
and Pathways" fund.
The operations and maintenance costs for Hakone Gardens are accounted for in a separate
budget division from regular parks and open space. This is important as the Gardens •
represent a unique open space resource, but also a significant maintenance expense. The
total budget allocation for maintenance at Hakone in 1990/91 is $114,202, from the City
General Fund. This translates into an average per acre cost of approximately $7,400 per
annum for the 15.5 developed acres. Budget allocations for fiscal years 1990/91 to
1994/ 1995 for operations and maintenance costs at Hakone Gardens are shown in Table 9.
Recreation Programming
The 1990/91 Generai Fund budget allocation for recreation programming totals $460,840,
including staff wages and benefits, supplies and personnel expenses, outside services,
general administrative costs, and other miscellaneous costs. The Recreation Department
provides classes, leagues, cultural activities, youth activities, section activities, and
various day trip excursions. The Department makes very effective use of volunteers,
especially in the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council which operates as a
City-supported nonprofit organization to provide a variety of senior programs at the
City-owned Senior Center. The Recreation Department generates considerable revenue from
new fees for many of its classes and programs. These are discussed below in the Revenues
section. Budget allocations from General Fund for the years 1990/91 to 1994/95 for
recreation programs are shown Table 9.
•
2.6-6
2.6 Existing Finance
• REVENUES
General Fund Appropriations
Revenue to support the ongoing annual operating and maintenance expenses for parks and open
space, Hakone Gardens, and for the provision of recreation programming is primarily derived
from General Fund appropriations. The current years budget allocation and projected
expenditures for these items over fiscal years 1991/92 to 1995/96 are shown in Table 9.
TABLE 9
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ON PARKS AND RECREATION
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96
Allocation Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection
Parks/Open Space 292,819 306,929 322,275 338,389 355,308 373,074
Hakone Gardens 114,202 119,912 125,908 132,203 138,813 145,754
Recreation Programs 460,840 318,775 344,277 371,819 401,565 433,690
In addition to annual ongoing expenses, the General Fund is also occasionally used to
finance parks and recreation related capital improvements. The current projected Capital
Improvements Program includes two such items. In 1990/91 a $50,000 line item is included
for replacement of the domestic water and irrigation system at Hakone Gardens, and also a
$60,000 line item for the construction of a skateboard facility to replace the facility
abandoned at Congress Springs Park. The City is additionally pursuing the purchase of the
Nelson Garden property at the estimated cost of $1,300,000. The funding for this purchase
would be appropriated from the City's General Fund.
Development Impact Fees and In-Lieu Dedications
Revenue to the City's Fund 0031 "Park Development" is generated through in-lieu fees
charged to new residential subdivisions under a Quimby Ordinance. The current fund balance
is $328,393, monies which have to be spent on parks and recreation related acquisitions and
improvements. The fee charged per household is set at $5,814 for new single family homes
and $3,258 per unit for multifamily developments. The City revises the fees periodically.
Anticipated revenues from Quimby in-lieu fees are shown in Table 10.
• 2.6-7
2.6 Existing Finance
TABLE 10
PROJECTED QUIMBY IN-LIEU FEE REVENUES
1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
Park Development 52,500 52,500 55,100 57,900 67,800 63,800
Current projections of growth in the City suggest that a total of 400 new residential units
might be constructed between now and buildout. Of these 200 might be in the hillside areas
and 200 as infill in the flat part of the City.
Benefit Assessment Districts
The City currently has 21 Lighting and Landscaping Benefit Assessment Zones within one
district which cover approximately 25 percent of the City. These are used to finance
sidestreet and back-on landscaping, street lighting maintenance and parking •
districts. The City does not currently use Benefit Assessment Zones for any parks
related financing.
State Park Bond Act/Roberti Z'Berg
The City has a successful track record in gaining state grant funding for parks and
recreation related financing. The fiscal year 1990/91 has two grants. An ROS $88,000
State Park Bond Act grant allocation is marked for improvements to Wildwood park and
playground equipment refurbishment ai Congress Springs, Gardiner, and El Quito Parks.
A $13,000 Roberti Z'Berg grant is marked for improvements at Beauchamps Park.
Projected grant revenues are indicated Table I1.
•
2.6-8
2.6 Existing Finance
TABLE 11
PROJECTED STATE GRANT REVENUE
1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1495/96
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
State Pk Bond Grants 0 100,000 0 0 0
State Urban Parks 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Utility Taz
The City has recently reenacted its Utility Taz for another five year period. This will
generate approximately $600,00 per annum to be used for roads pavement maintenance. It is
possible that this source of revenue could be increased through a majority vote of City
residents to provide financing for parks and open space. The voters of the adjacent City
of Cupertino recently approved a utility tax for open space.
Construction Tax
The City's construction tax currently generates around $250,000 per annum. None of this
money at present goes towards parks, recreation, or open space financing. Currently set at
50 cents per square foot, the tax could be increased with voter approval with the
additional amounts to be used for open space and parks issues.
User Fees and Charges
The Recreation Department generates significant annual revenues through a variety of user
fees and rental charges. Table 12 indicates projected revenues from excursions, class
fees, building rentals, and park's income which includes rental of Wildwood Park and EI
Quito for group picnics, and payments by Little League and AYSO for use of facilities at
Congress Springs Park.
• 2.6-9
2.6 Existing Finance
TABLE 12
PROJECTED USER FEE REVENUE
1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
Excursions 60,197 63,206 66,367 69,685 73,169 76,828
Class Fees 242,067 278,377 320,134 368,154 423,377 486,883
Building Rent 83,200 86,528 89,989 93,589 97,332 101,226
Park Income 16,977 17,656 18,362 19,097 19,860 20,655
Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District
The Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) acquires and manages regional open
space lands for the public use and enjoyment. MROSD's primary source of revenue is a share
of the annual property taxes collected within the District boundaries, which include
Saratoga. The District is interested in optimizing its returns for money invested in open
space acquisition and therefore views collaborative projects with local jurisdictions
favorably. In the hillside areas to the west of the city's boundaries, it is possible that
MROSD may be able to play a partial role in financing some of the City's open space
acquisition objectives.
•
2.6-10
2.7 Community Concerns
COMMUNITY CONCERNS
1990 COMMUNITY SURVEY
During February and March of 1990 the firm, Moore Iacofano Goltsman, conducted a door to
door survey of Saratoga residents. The purpose of the survey was to identify Saratoga
residents current and future open space needs so that open space policies, programs and
services can more closely reflect community values and concerns; assess residents
willingness to pay for open space and parkland acquisition and preservation; and determine
residents receptivity to alternative open space funding strategies. The survey
distribution plan was designed to reach a representative cross-section of the Saratoga
community. Randomly selected addresses in each neighborhood were targeted for potential
participation. The survey team then administered the survey in face-to-face interviews
using a survey sample of 435 residents. The results are summarized below.
When asked to identify, in general, their favorite recreation or leisure activities survey
respondents most frequently mentioned walking and hiking. Biking, swimming, tennis, golf
and running are additional popular activities.
Seventeen percent (1796) of survey respondents indicated that they use parks or open space
in Saratoga two or more times a week and thirteen percent (1396) indicated once a week.
Fourteen percent (1496) indicated that they use these areas a couple times a month, 1296 once
a month, 1896 several times a year and 2696 seldom or never.
There were no questions directed at the use of specific parks.
In order to determine the unmet needs and desired facilities of survey respondents, a
series of questions were directed at the level of support for the provision or improvement
of specific facilities of activities. The facilities or activities supported by over 8096
of the survey sample are as follows:
9496 walking and hiking trails
9396 activities for teens, and children
9196 activities for seniors
9096 activities for the disabled
8996 playgrounds
8796 running and jogging
8796 bicycle trails and paths
8796 family picnic areas
8696 arts and cultural programs
8196 active sports field
In an open ended question, survey respondents most often mentioned the following recreation
improvements as much needed in Saratoga:
facilities for specific activities, activities for children and bike lanes.
• 2.7-1
2.7 Community Concerns
When asked in an open-ended question about what other policies or programs the City should
consider, the most often mentioned items pertained to the acquisition and preservation of
open areas in general and the acquisition and preservation of specific open space areas.
The need for more parks and recreation areas was also mentioned, as was a need to improve
park maintenance.
Regarding potential planning policies for future park and open space areas, questions were
directed to test the desirability of specific policies that could be adopted to improve
open space, parks and recreation service in Saratoga.
Responses to the potential acquisition policies are as follows:
Acquisition of parcels for low usage open space
5496 very desirable
3596 somewhat desirable
Acquisition £or the dedication of scenic preservation areas
6296 very desirable
2696 somewhat desirable
Acquisition for active use parks
3496 very desirable
4896 somewhat desirable
Acquisition for several small parks
3896 very desirable
3896 somewhat desirable
Acquisition for school park sites
3896 very desirable
3596 somewhat desirable
A large majority of respondents (8896) indicated that they would support the acquisition
of open space in and around the City of Saratoga regardless of whether they would use
it frequently.
Responses to the potential policies related to the utilization of available areas are as
follows:
Development of joint-use recreation facilities on school sites:
5596 very desirable
32 % somewhat desirable
Use of existing watercourses for trails:
4596 very desirable
2896 somewhat desirable
Development of railroad lands for trails:
3596 very desirable
34% somewhat desirable
Development o£ easements for trails:
2896 very desirable
34% somewhat desirable
2.7-2
•
2.7 Community Concerns
Concerning the annexation of county lands in the western hillsides survey respondents
considered this very desirable by 3096 and somewhat desirable by 3296.
Over half of the survey sample indicated that each of the potential policies for the
improvement of open space, parks, and recreation service are desirable, signifying that the
community values open space and parks highly and strongly supports related improvements.
The survey also addressed the respondents' level of agreement or disagreement with several
strategies for obtaining additional funds for open space, parks and recreation improvements
and the respondents' willingness to pay certain amounts for acquisition and maintenance of
open space and parks. Each of the four proposed strategies for obtaining additional funds
is supported by at least two-thirds of the sample, either strongly or somewhat. A resident
tax is supported, though not as strongly as the other strategies.
The results are as follows:
Sponsorship of parks by local corporations and organizations:
5996 strongly agree
2596 somewhat agree
Allocation of general fund monies to parks and recreation programs:
3796 strongly agree
3696 somewhat agree
Resident Tax:
2296 strongly agree
4496 somewhat agree
User fees:
3596 strongly agree
3096 somewhat agree
Over half of survey respondents indicated that they would be willing to pay $65 per year
through a special assessment to fund acquisition and maintenance of open space, parks and
recreation facilities. Over a third of the sample indicated that they would be very
willing to pay $65. Though the majority of respondents are also willing to pay $100, 3296
are only somewhat willing to pay this amount. The majority (5596) of respondents are not
willing to pay $150 per year.
Concerning development standards, survey respondents felt the following to be of
importance:
Establishment of stricter controls on private property in order to preserve views and
the feeling of open space:
3996 very desirable
2696 somewhat desirable
When asked in an open-ended question about what other policies or programs the City
should consider, 796 of the survey respondents mentioned the need to enforce current
development or building standards. Five percent (596) mentioned the need to limit
housing densities and another 596 felt the need to limit development.
2.7-3
2.7 Community Concerns
COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
Beauchamps Park
The first community workshop in conjunction with the development of the Saratoga Parks and
Trail Master Plan was held on the 10th of September. Twenty-nine people representing the
Beauchamps neighborhood and seven Parks and Recreation Commissioners were present. The
issue discussed at this meeting was the future improvements of Beauchamps Park. This lot
is located in a residential subdivision in the northwest part of town with Crayside Lane
forming the southern boundary and Bowhill Court, the northern boundary.
The prominent issue discussed in relation to the park, was the need to implement
improvements now. Because of the ongoing unattractive appearance of the site and the
delayed development, residents of the surrounding area are dissatisfied.
In order to gain an idea of what residents desire in the development of the park white
cards were posted on the wall specifying three areas of concern: Issues, Goals, and
Programs. Residents were then asked for their input on the future of Beauchamps Park. As
ideas were generated they were written on additional cards and posted under their
coordinating title. After the lists were established members agreed on priorities within
the three areas. Results of neighborhood input are as follows:
Issues:
'parking control
curfew
'no restroom
cash
drought
noise
maintenance
speed bump
dogs
off street parking
security
no buildings
no lights
no barbecues
Goals:
'neighborhood park
•implementation now
2.7-4
2.7 Community Concerns
• Program:
'trees
'grass
'all-ages playground
'water fountain
'picnic benches
'basketball surface
'tennis
jogging track
paths
par course
blacktop area
theft & vandal proof
sand
horseshoe pit
shade
bike rack
barbecue
backboard
treehouse
' Priorities
In summary, the residents felt that the site should be developed as a neighborhood park. A
priority was to minimize site use by residents of other areas, and therefore not providing
restrooms, barbecues or recreation facilities beyond a simple playground. Important issues
in the program focus on passive use. The needs expressed by the residents included trees,
grass, a playground and picnic tables and benches. Additional popular items mentioned were
tennis, a water fountain, and a basketball sport surface.
Trails and City Parks
On the 1st of October a second public workshop was held in the Saratoga Community Center.
This meeting was intended to address trail user groups and city parks in general. Previous
to this meeting a survey was distributed by city staff to various special interest
recreation user groups in the community. Respondents' were asked to complete the survey
and then offered the opportunity to voice their results at this workshop. Two people, from
a trails organization, in response to the user group surveys, attended the meeting. An
additional three community members with general trail use input and the seven members of
the Parks and Recreation Commission were also present. This meeting was directed in a
similar fashion to the previous one in that community input was recorded on index cards.
The results of the input are as follows:
2.7-5
2.7 Community Concerns
Goals/Objectives: •
connection to Vasona Trail
connection to Montebello and Mt. Eden Road
safe bicycle circulation
develop alternative form of transportation
connections to adjoining resources
school closure acquisitions
open space for Ravenwood neighborhood
preserve orchard
Issues:
one year trait maintenance agreement
trail improvement standards
pocket parks
dedication of land
increased use of Central Park
neighborhood vs. City parks
investigation of creek corridors
Existing Use:
multi-use at El Quito
Program:
improve trails on Fruitvale Avenue
Oak Street school playing fields
Monte Vista Drive
trail signage
Montauk to Herriman
Arts & Cultural programs at Central Park
baseball fields
soccer fields
Attendants at the meeting felt very strongly about the development of trails for
bicycling. The need for access to schools and adjacent recreation facilities was
addressed. Concerns focused on improvement of existing trails, continued maintenance of
trails and safety.
2.7-6
2.7 Community Concerns
• Azule Park and Kevia Moraa Park
On November 5, 1990 a third public workshop was held at which the discussion focused on the
future of Azule and Kevin Moran Parks. These parks are located on opposite sides of the
transportation corridor in the northwest part of town. Kevin Moran faces east with the
transportation corridor forming the western boundary. Residences border on the north and
south. The park covers 14.3 acres of which 10.3 acres are developed at this time. The
remaining 3.0 acres consist of an orchard. Azule Park, on the southern edge of the
transportation corridor, is completely undeveloped. Blue Hills School borders on the west
and the remaining borders are private residences. A pedestrian bridge over the
transportation corridor is currently under construction to connect the two parks. Input
from the community members produced the following comments:
Issues:
'children's play area is dangerous
vandalism
no skateboard ramp
lighting
no tennis, basketball or baseball
lighted bridge
flooding playground
improve maintenance
• reclaim water
resolve dog issue
no barbecue
safety for children
repair lights and benches
maintain orchards
parking -special events
support neighborhood events
restroom -unlocked
restroom -locked
immediate landscaping
remove soccer
limit parking at Azule
Goals:
'improve park aesthetic now
'new name - "Ed Gomersall"
'neighborhood park
serenity
neighborhood events
integrate parks with school
quiet parks
maintain trees
develop parks as a pair
2.7-7
2.7 Community Concerns
Program: .
sand volleyball
barbecue
tennis
sensory garden along path
improve bike racks
young children's playground at Kevin Moran
par course
older children's playground
improved existing playground
games for seniors
maintain walking path
extend path to Azule
fountains to mask noise
In summary, the residents feel most strongly about improved maintenance and improved
safety. If development were to occur the desire for apassive-use neighborhood park
prevails.
Draft Goals and Objectives
•
On April 8, 1991 a public workshop was held at which a conceptual master plan was presented
to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the public for comment and review. The plan
indicated existing and possible locations for the city's trail alignments and also listed
tentative programs for the city's neighborhood, community and specialty parks.
The public response was in support of the plan. They expressed concerns regarding specific
issues for the parks programming. A representative from. AYSO, the local soccer league,
expressed the need for more fields and practice area in the City. He suggested the
establishment of joint use agreements with the various school districts in order to provide
the additional turf. The league is willing to provide equipment and maintain the fields in
the establishment of an agreement.
Questions of funding were raised in terms on the development of Nelson Gardens. The
tentative program suggests the establishment of a museum and series of demonstration
gardens which will all require substantial funding to initiate.
2.7-8
2.7 Community Concerns
• USER GROUP SURVEY
As part of the process of preparing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan a survey was
mailed to various user groups in Saratoga. The responses are summarized below:
Organization:
Number of Members:
Current City Facility Use:
Evaluation of City Facilities:
Future Needs:
U.S. Pony Club
30 (10 members are residents of San Jose)
City horse trails
Good
More trails are needed
2. Organization:
Number of Members:
Current City Facility Use:
Evaluation of City Facilities:
Future Needs:
Saratoga USA CYSA Soccer
200 (2% from Cupertino and Los Gatos)
El Quito Park
Kevin Moran Park
Good to fair
Better maintenance of existing fields and the need
for more fields to accommodate the growing league.
In addition to the survey mailing a community workshop was conducted that focused on trail
• use. Recipients of the survey were invited and given an opportunity to discuss various
issues. A summary of the workshops can be referenced in the "Community Workshops" section
of this report.
•
2.7-9
•
3.1 Plan Purpose
PLAN PURPOSE
The purpose of the Parks and Trails Master Plan is to identify and provide for the parks and
recreational needs of all segments of the population of the city. The plan forms a framework
for the future provision and operation of active and passive parks, pedestrian, equestrian and
bicycle trails, recreation and leisure programs, and community service facilities which
physically relate to parks and trails provision.
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. Links with these regional open spaces and parks will enhance their
accessibility to residents of Saratoga, particularly through the proposed trail system
improvements. Figure 5 identifies the locations of County parks, MROSD parkland and major
trail linkages which link the trail system in Saratoga to the parks and trails of adjacent
areas.
The first part of this section of the Master Plan presents a range of general or city-wide
goals, objectives, and recommendations. These are followed by site-specific recommendations
addressing facility changes and additions, phasing, capital cost estimates, operations and
maintenance, revenue potential, and economics and financing. The final section of the Plan
summarizes the capital costs and phasing, operations and maintenance implications, and
economic and financing recommendations for the entire system.
3.1-1
O CITY OF SARATOGA
COUNTY PARKS
MROSD OPEN SPACE LAND
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Figure 5
EXISTING COUNTY TRAILS
® PROPOSED COUNTY TRAILS REGIONAL PARKS & TRAILS
CITY OF SARATOG A
PARKS AND T RAI LS MA STER PLAN
•
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD
3.2 Goals and Objectives
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goal 1: Parks, and Recreation and Community Facilities Provision: Plan for, acquire,
develop, and maintain a system of local parks, recreation facilities, and parks-related
community service facilities which meet the needs of the residents of Saratoga, aiming to
provide five acres of local parkland for each 1,000 residents in the City at buildout.
Plan for, implement, and maintain Neighborhood Parks which will typically be
between one (I) and five (5) acres, including local serving active and passive
recreational improvements. At a minimum all neighborhood parks will include a picnic
area including a drinking fountain, a play area with childrens play structure(s)
and/or a totlot, and an open level area for informal active play. Neighborhood parks
will not typically include restrooms or off-street parking.
Plan for, implement, and maintain Community Parks which will typically be between
five (5) and twenty (20) acres, including active and passive recreational
improvements which serve residents from throughout Saratoga. Community parks will
provide all those facilities required at neighborhood parks but will also include
restrooms and off-street parking. Community parks will also typically include
improved sports fields and courts for both informal and organized league play.
Plan for, implement, and maintain Specialty Parks which will provide unique and
distinctive recreational amenities for the residents of Saratoga, focusing on
aesthetic, historical, cultural and educational resources as opposed to the more
conventional recreational facilities to be provided at neighborhood and community
sites. Because each special park focuses on a specific resource there are no overall
or minimum standards for these site's improvements.
Monitor parks maintenance in the light of development of new technology and
management techniques, and assessing the cost effectiveness of in-house as opposed to
contracted work crews.
Monitor and implement as appropriate the development of water saving technology and
management practices.
All future detailed park design plans and trails landscaping should use drought
tolerant (xeriscape) plantings to the greatest extent possible.
Develop, on an ongoing basis, cooperative ties with any relevant agencies for the
future joint operation of recreation and community service facilities and programs.
Conduct a periodic update of park and recreation needs analysis to ensure parks
provision is responsive to changing recreation patterns in the community.
Establish a regular program for tree pruningjremovaljreplanting in all parks and
along trails where appropriate.
3.2-1
3.2 Goals and Objectives
Monitor irrigation and fertilization schedules to ensure efficient applications.
Ensure adequate access for handicapped persons to parks and recreation facilities.
Maintain and update a phasing plan and associated Capital Improvements Program
prioritizing the improvements to the parks and recreation system.
Where appropriate ensure public involvement in parks planning and design to
facilitate implementation of a program meeting community needs.
Monitor usage of public recreation facilities to ensure appropriate and adequate
provision of a range of recreation opportunities.
Goal 2: Trails System Provision: Plan for, implement, and maintain trails for bicycle,
equestrian and pedestrian use serving both recreational and non-vehicular circulation needs.
Ensure all future developments in the City conform with the trail alignments
indicated in the trails plan of the Parks and Trails Master Plan.
Require dedication, through the subdivision approvals process, from developers of
either the trails right-of-way or a recreational easement to accommodate public use
of the trails.
Require developers through the subdivision approvals process to design and implement
improvements to the trails within the project to the satisfaction of the city
engineer or an appointed representative prior to acceptance of the right-of-way or
easement by the City.
Establish a regular program for tree pruning/removal/replanting in all parks and
along trails where appropriate.
Ensure adequate access for handicapped persons to the trails system where possible.
Maintain and update a phasing plan and associated Capital Improvements Program
prioritizing the improvements to the trails system.
Where appropriate ensure public involvement in trails planning and design to
facilitate implementation of a program meeting community needs.
Monitor usage of trails to ensure appropriate and adequate provision of a range of
trail opportunities and to ensure potential user group conflicts are addressed early
enough to avoid unnecessary problems.
Monitor drought conditions with the assistance as appropriate of the Fire Marshall to
determine if any trails need to be closed for a period of time to mitigate fire
risks.
3.2-2
~ 1
3.2 Goals and Objectives
• Negotiate with appropriate utility companies for implementation of trails along
utility right-of-ways and easements.
Coordinate trail planning with other regional organizations such as the County of
Santa Clara, and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District to ensure
compatibility of planned trail alignments and design details.
Goal 3: Recreation and Community Service Programs: Operate and make available to the
residents of Saratoga a variety of recreation and community service programs which meet the
needs of all sections of the City's population.
Continue to support nonprofit organizations, such as the Little League, in their
efforts to provide recreation related activities in the city.
Consider the operation of active sports leagues by the City where no nonprofit exists
to meet demand. Charge user fees to cover operating costs of such programs.
Operate a range of educational, cultural, and leisure programs on a year round basis,
charging registration fees to cover operating costs.
Address the need to establish community partnerships for setting up and running
programs with groups such as the Boys and Girls Club, the Little League and the
School District.
Monitor usage of public recreation programs to ensure appropriate and adequate
provision of a range of recreation opportunities.
Collaborate with the various school districts in order to establish joint operation
of programs where appropriate.
Publicize the available programs quarterly in a recreation department brochure.
Major changes and improvements to the park and trail system could also be advertized
in the brochure.
Consider the establishment of an Arts in Public Places program to develop inclusion
of art in parks and other public service sites.
Goal 4: Financing and Implementation: Establish equitable and realistic methods of
financing and implementation of acquisition, development and improvement, operation, and
maintenance of parks and recreation opportunities.
Identify and utilize all possible equitable and realistic methods to acquire and
finance the development of parks and recreation opportunities.
Revise the City's Quimby Act parkland dedication requirements to five acres per
thousand residents and/or the appropriate in-lieu fees.
3.2-3
3.2 Goals and Objectives
Utilize Quimby Act dedications and in-lieu fees to acquire and fund local parks ,
facilities; review and revise Quimby Act in-lieu fees annually.
Require new developments to dedicate trail alignments and associated improvements as a
condition of development approval.
Consider implementation of a citywide lighting and landscaping district to include
financing of parks and trails maintenance.
Investigate the use of, implement as appropriate, Mello-Roos community facilities
districts and benefit assessment districts to fund acquisition, development, operation,
and maintenance of local park facilities.
Consider establishment of a new industrial/commercial recreation fee to allow
collection of recreation impact fees from new industrial/commercial developments, such
fees to be used exclusively for the development of recreation facilities available from
the workplace.
Charge user fees as appropriate for city-owned and operated facilities and programs,
and consider charging higher rates to nonresidents.
Review the level of user fees for recreational facilities annually and revise as
appropriate.
Where appropriate, operate recreation opportunities on concession or land lease basis
,
revenues to be used primarily for facility maintenance.
Solicit donations to assist in the financing of parks and recreation facilities and
programs from private individuals, nonprofit organizations, and local business
interests.
Identify and implement opportunities for direct citizen investment in park facilities
through sponsorship programs such as "buy-a-brick" or "plant-a-tree," etc.
Establish and coordinate a program for volunteer help in operating community programs
and developing park facilities.
Permit the development of private recreational facilities as appropriate but do not
allow their provision as credit against the requirements for new developments to'
dedicate land of pay fees.
C~
3.2-4
3.3 Neighborhood Parks
• NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
In the following section each of the neighborhood parks is described in detail. There are
five sites in the City, two of which remain undeveloped. In addition, the City is in the
process of considering one small additional neighborhood park site east of Quito Road where
Ravenwood hits Mont Pierre.
AZULE PARK
No improvements have been made to date at the Azule Park site. A community workshop was
held in order to determine the residents needs and intentions for this park. Issues that
the workshop attendants felt most strongly about were the need for long-term maintenance
and safety issues to be addressed in the plan for the park, and a desire for the site to be
developed as a neighborhood park site complementing the adjacent school and Kevin Moran
Park. The proposed program for the park detailed below includes a level grass play area
for soccer field use combined with the placement of a backstop for informal
softball/baseball play. It also includes an area for passive park use including
picnic/barbeque facilities and a totlot. (There is more need for a totlot to address the
play needs of pre-school age children at this site because the adjacent school already
provides play equipment for school age children.) The City should negotiate agreement over
use of the school property for off-street parking to serve the park site.
Existing Facilities:
Unimproved
Program:
Item Cost
Site plan and construction documents: $30,000
Level field for sports play: 125,000
Soccer goals: 2,200
Backstop: 3,500
Totlot: 20,000
Security lighting - 6 at $2000 each: 12,000
Picnic area - 8 units including
table, benches and raised grill: 6,500
Drinking fountain: 1,500
General improvements including paths,
shade trees, informal grass play
areas and landscaping: 165,000
TOTAL $365,700
3.3-1
3.3 Neighborhood Parks
Financing: •
In the City's current Capital Improvement Program, Park Development Funds have been
allocated for the future development of this site. For the years 1993-94, $30,000 is
listed for design and for 1994-95, $200,000 is listed for construction. (See Table 9,
section 2.6). Based upon the cost estimation for improvements to this site as presented
above, the City should raise the amount allocated for site improvements to $335,700.
Operations and Maintenance:
As long as the site remains unimproved, maintenance costs will be minimal. However once
improved the city should anticipate an annual maintenance cost of $23,650 (in 1990
dollars).
Revenue:
Being undeveloped, the park presently generates no revenue. Some user fee revenue might be
expected from this site if the soccer field is used for organized sports league use by a
group such as AYSO. Otherwise, in being developed as a neighborhood park, it is not likely
that Azule will be capable of significant cost coverage.
BEAUCHAMPS PARK
No improvements have yet been made to the Beauchamps Park site but a detailed design
process for park development is underway at this time. A community workshop focusing on
this site was conducted to determine the surrounding residents needs. Attendants felt,
most importantly, that the park should be developed as a neighborhood park serving the
immediately surrounding residential areas. The proposed program for the site includes both
local servicing active uses such as tennis and ahalf-court surfaced play area as well as
passive-use with a piayground, picnic tables and benches. There is a concern of the
residents about the issue of parking and safety. It is felt that the surrounding roads may
not be suitable for on-street parking. The proposed program accordingly includes a small
number of off-street parking stalls. The issue of whether to use on- or off-street parking
at this site should be resolved during the site design process.
Existing Facilities:
Unimproved
•
3.3-2
3.3 Neighborhood Parks
Program:
Item Cost
Site plan and construction documents: $20,000
Tennis - 2 court battery: 49,000
Playground: 25,000
Picnic tables - 4 at $750 each: 3,000
Benches - 4 at $500 each: 2,000
lj2 court surfaced play area: 10,000
Security lighting - 4 at $2000 each: 8,000
Drinking fountain: 1,500
General improvements including paths,
shade trees, and landscaping: 120,000
TOTAL $238,500
Financing:
In the City's current Capital Improvement Program, Park Development Funds have been
allocated for the development of this park, including the preparation of site plan and
construction documents for $20,000 and $120,000 which has been allocated for the park
improvements. (See Table 8, Section 2.6.) The cost estimate presented above suggests that
improvement costs at this site will total around $218,500. Funding is anticipated
. principally from the Park Development Fund, but a $13,000 Roberti Z'Berg grant has also
been earmarked for improvements at this site.
Operations and Maintenance:
As long as the site is unimproved, only minimal maintenance costs will be incurred.
However, once the site is improved the city should anticipate an annual maintenance cost of
$11,000 (in 1490 dollars).
Revenue:
Being unimproved, the park presently generates no revenue. As the park will be developed
as a neighborhood park, cost recovery opportunities will be limited. There is potential
for some limited user fee revenue from the tennis battery.
3.3-3
3.3 Neighborhood Parks
BROOKGLEN PARK
With the completion of recent improvements this park site is felt to be fully developed. The
only proposed improvement at this time is the addition of a drinking fountain. There is an
opportunity in the long term for acquisition of a lot south of the current park-site
boundary. The City should monitor the status of this site for opportunities for acquisition,
which would roughly double the size of Brookglen Park. If such an opportunity were to arise,
the costs of acquisition and improvements would need to be estimated at that time. No
allowance is made in the cost projections of this Master Plan for this site acquisition as its
achievement is so uncertain at this time. As a rough guide, the costs of improvements (not
including acquisition; in 1990 dollars) might range between $50,000 and $75,000 depending on
the types of facilities to be included.
Existing Facilities:
Security lighting;
Half-court basketball court, recently resurfaced;
Children's playground;
Climbing equipment, recently installed;
Picnic tables;
Open turf area.
Program:
Item Cost
Drinking fountain: $1,500
TOTAL $1,500
Financing:
The source of capital financing for the potential acquisition and improvements of the parcel
adjacent to the existing site would have to be identified at the time that purchase and/or
improvements costs were anticipated. The $1,500 cost of installing the drinking fountain
would be drawn from the Park Development Fund.
Operations and Maintenance:
The average estimated annual maintenance cost for parkland of around $5,500 per acre per annum
(see Finance section 2.6) would suggest that maintenance costs at this site should currently
equal around $4,500 per year (in 1990 dollars). If the city were to acquire and improve the
adjacent parcel annual maintenance costs might rise to around $9,000.
Revenue:
The park presently generates no revenue and is unlikely to do so in the future. •
3.3-4
3.3 Neighborhood Parks
FOOTHILL PARK
This park was planned in conjunction with Foothill School. It serves as access to the school
and the city has an agreement to allow public use of the outdoor school facilities during
non-school hours. The site is only 0.8 acres and there is little opportunity for further
improvements. However there is a need to replace the existing play structures and to add
lighting and a drinking fountain at the site. The City needs to continue monitoring use of
the site and maintaining the park.
Existing Facilities:
Children's playground;
Par fitness course;
Open turf area.
Program:
Item Cost
Update/replace play equipment: $10,000
Security lighting - 4 at $2000 each: 8,000
Drinking fountain: 1,500
TOTAL $19,500
•
Financing:
The source of funds for the minor improvements at this site is likely to be the Park
Development Fund although grant funding could be used if an appropriate allocation can be
secured. The City might be able to negotiate some sharing of the cost with the School
District.
Operations and Maintenance:
At the estimated annual maintenance cost of $5500 per acre (see Finance section 2.6) this
site's annual maintenance costs are estimated at about $4400 (in 1990 dollars). No increase
is anticipated except normal cost of living index increases.
Revenue:
The park presently generates no revenue and is not anticipated to do so in the future.
3.3-5
3.3 Neighborhood Parks
GARDINER PARK •
The original master plan for this park site included a small amphitheater, pathways and a
restroom but these facilities were never incorporated. In respect to the future development
of this site, much discussion focused on possible improvements to the informal area at the
eastern end of the site. This is currently used by children for BMX cycling. Residents feel
the area is positive and provides a distinctive opportunity for children to interact and play
in an informal and unstructured way. Therefore, no changes are proposed to this end of the
park except to add some additional shade trees around the perimeter to provide a buffer
between the park and the adjacent residential units. Proposed minor upgrades in the park
include picnic and seating furniture, security lighting, a new sand play area, and the
construction of steps down into the creek. The total estimated cost for these improvements is
$28,500.
Existing Facilities:
Children's playground, recently improved;
Picnic tables;
Open turf area.
Program:
Item Cost
Drinking fountain: $2,000 •
Benches - 4 at $500 each: 2,000
Picnic tables - 4 at $750 each: 3,000
Barbecue - 4 at $500 each: 2,000
Security lighting - 6 at $2000 each: 12,000
Sand play area: 5,000
Steps down to creek: 2,500
TOTAL $28,500
Financing:
Financing for improvements is likely to derive from the Park Development Fund, from grants for
park improvements, and/or from the city's General Fund.
Operations and Maintenance:
At the $5500 per acre per annum maintenance cost determined through the City's allocated
budget for parks (see section 2.6) this site is currently requiring $6000 annually for
operations and maintenance. No significant change to this maintenance cost is projected above
normal cost of living index increases.
Revenue: The park presently generates no revenue and is not anticipated to do so in the
future.
3.3-6
3.3 Neighborhood Parks
• RAVENWOOD PARK SITE
The City is currently in the process of considering the acquisition and improvements of a
small neighborhood park site east of Quito near Ravenwood. This site would comprise a single
residential unit building lot which might be purchased for around $330,000. The City has
estimated a very minimal improvement budget of $25,000 for this 19,000 sq. ft. site. This
will only allow for basic grass cover and minimal paths and tree planting improvements at
best. Further improvements including a tot lot and site furnishings such as benches and
picnic tables have been projected for the long term additional improvement of this site.
Existing Facilities:
Unimproved
Program:
Item Cost
Site Acquisition $330,000
Site Improvements 25,000
Tot Lot/Furniture 35,000
TOTAL $390,000
Financing:
Current concepts for this site suggest that the Lighting and Landscaping Act might be used to
finance around 7S percent of the acquisition and improvements costs. The City would purchase
and improve the site using funds from the General Fund and possibly also some funding from the
Park Development Fund. Any monies from the General Fund would be reimbursed through the
benefit assessment revenues.
Operations and Maintenance:
It is estimated that this site will add about $3,000 per annum to the City's park maintenance
budget.
Revenue:
This park is not anticipated to generate any revenue.
• 3.3-7
•
3.4 Community Parks
' COMMUNITY PARKS
The park sites discussed in the following section are defined as community parks. The sites
are more intensely developed than the neighborhood parks providing a range of active sports
activities to the whole community.
CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK
This park's site Master Plan was recently revised in order to allow for the development of
Highway 85. The majority of the site is already intensively improved for active recreation
and there are now only two small areas remaining with potential for further development.
One lies at the southeast end of the site where the skateboard facility originally stood and
the other occupies a parcel of land close to the new freeway corridor, just east of the old
concession building (which is now used for storage of Little League equipment).
The recommended improvement for the southeast end involves the construction of a new group
picnic facility which would be designed to interface with the Saratoga Creek channel. (This
idea originated with the city's Park and Recreation Commission.) The Creek channel would be
reconfigured so as to allow for stream water to fill a small shallow pool with a sandy
riverbank edge adjacent to the picnic area. This would provide a "natural" water edge where
children could paddle and play in the water. With careful placement of boulders and river
rocks/pebbles in the main stream corridor adjacent to the pool, during periods when the
Creek runs dry, the sandy bottom of the pool area and the boulder-strewn Creek channel would
both evoke the presence of water and provide an attractive play area. The pool should also
• be designed and configured so that in years when drought conditions do not exist the City
would have the option of keeping the pool filled even when the stream was not flowing. As
with any project altering the configuration of a stream channel, the design of this project
may require the approval and permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Detailed design
of this improvement would have to address agency permitting requirements. With the addition
of some shade trees to form a structural and visual buffer between this area and the active
sports fields, this new passive area would diversify the activities at Congress Springs Park
and be a valuable addition to the City's range of recreational opportunities.
For the small area in between the old concession stand and the freeway corridor, a new sand
volleyball court is proposed. Also related to the new freeway corridor is a need for the
City to address the problem of active ball sports interfering with freeway traffic as a
12'-0".soundwall will not prohibit balls from going over and into the highway. In
particular, the alignment of some of the soccer goals seems to indicate that balls may on
occasion fly over the soundwall presenting a traffic hazard (as well as the loss of sports
equipment). For this reason, the construction of high nets along critical portions of the
freeway edge is recommended. These should be complemented by planting of trees as an
aesthetic buffer between the park and the freeway, in locations where sports fields will
permit.
Existing Facilities:
Soccer fields (4);
Baseball diamonds (3);
• 3.4-1
3.4 Community Parks
Children's playground, recently improved;
Parking;
Picnic tables and barbecue;
Open turf practice field;
Concession stand;
Tennis courts (2);
Basketball court;
Drinking fountain;
Security lighting
Program:
Item Cost
Group picnic area -
350 sq. ft. prefabricated structure over
concrete slab with tables and grills: $20,000
Shade trees buffer to picnic area: 12,000
Creek reconfiguration/pool construction: 60,000
Sand volleyball court: 10,000
Netting along freeway edge: 40,000
Planting 14 000
TOTAL $156,000
Financing:
Funding for improvements at this site will most likely be primarily derived from Park
Development Funds and/or the City's General Fund. It seems likely that the netting and the
freeway buffer planting would qualify for grant funding under the California Transportation
Commission Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (AB471) which was established in
1989.
Operations and Maintenance:
Considering the estimated annual expenditure of around $5500 per acre per annum determined
in the finance section, this site's current operations and maintenance costs are estimated
at about $55,000 annually.
Revenue:
Little League and AYSO use the facilities and pay a rental or field use fee as well as
contributing physically to the facilities' maintenance and providing equipment. The City
should continue to charge appropriate user fees and also establish maintenance agreements
with any other groups which use the site on a regular basis. The group picnic area would
provide revenue through the establishment of a rental fee. These facilities area generally
popular as evidenced by the regular bookings for the picnic sites at Wildwood Park.
3.4-2
3.4 Community Parks
EL QUITO PARK
With the completion of recent improvements this site is felt to be fully developed with the
exception of some additional landscaping which was deferred because of the recent drought
condition.
Existing Facilities:
Open turf play fields for soccer;
Softball diamond, recently improved;
Preschool and school age play area, recently improved;
Volleyball court;
Horseshoe pits;
Picnic areas and barbecue facilities;
Community garden plots;
Par fitness course;
Security lighting;
Equipment storage box;
Restrooms, recently installed;
Drinking fountain.
Program:
Item
Cost
Landscape improvements -
appropriated in current budget $14,000
TOTAL
Financing:
$14,000
The $14,000 cost is appropriated in the City's current CIP which specifies the funding
sources as State Park Bonds and the Park Development Fund.
Operations and Maintenance:
Based upon the system-wide estimated average maintenance cost, the 6.3 acres at El Quito
Park are costing approximately $35,000 per annum to maintain. No significant change to this
cost is anticipated as a result of this Master Plan.
Revenue:
Some user fee revenues are generated at El Quito Park. No increase in the level of fee
revenuers anticipated as a result of this Master Plan. As with all the City's fee
schedules; the fees at EI Quito should be periodically monitored and adjusted to keep pace
with inflation and typical fees charged for recreation uses in the surrounding region.
• 3.4-3
3.4 Community Parks
KEVIN MORAN
A community workshop was held to focus on the future of this park site and to elicit the
needs of surrounding residents. The primary issues raised by the surrounding residents were
the need for a balance of passive and active uses of the site, achievement of adequate
maintenance standards, and improved safety. Specific facilities mentioned by the residents
as desirable included the opportunity to level the central green in order to provide an area
for soccer play/practice, the addition of tennis courts, and the provision of a fenced
dog-run area, possibly within one of the orchards. Residents generally value the orchards
and want them to stay. In response to the need of the City overall to maximize active
recreational opportunities in the face of very limited available level land, the proposed
program for this site includes tennis courts, a combination soccer/softball field, and a
basketball court. It is recommended that the western portion of the north orchard area
(nearest the freeway) be cleared for the tennis and basketball. The softball/soccer play
area would be located approximately in the center of the site. The addition of parking and
restrooms are necessary in order for this park site to meet the standards for community
parks. The eastern portion of the orchard at the north end of the site will be retained as
will the orchard at the southern end of the site. Both orchard areas require some
replanting and the installation of irrigation. The southern area will be fenced to also
serve as a dog run area.
Existing Facilities:
Children's playground;
Picnic tables;
Open turf area;
Semi-productive orchard
Program:
Item Cost
Site plan and construction documents: $50,000
Drinking fountains - 2 at $1500: 3,000
Update the existing play equipment 25,000
Maintain orchard -
4-acre irrigation system: 16,000
New planting 5,000
Barbecue - 4 at $500 each: 2,000
Dog run fencing: 3,500
Parking - 20 stalls at $1,000 each: 20,000
Tennis - 2 court battery: 49,000
Restrooms: 100,000
•
3.4-4
3.4 Community Parks
Level field for sports play: 150,000
Soccer goals: 2,000
Backstop: 3,500
Basketball court. 15,000
General improvements including paths,
shade trees, informal grass play
areas, and landscaping: 80,000
TOTAL $524,000
Financing:
In the Parks Capital Improvements Program $500,000 has been allocated for improvements to
Kevin Moran Park to bring it up to the level of service required for a community
recreational facility to serve the northern portion of the City. Based upon the estimates
above, this amount should be increased to at least $524,000. Part of the funding earmarked
includes the remainder of a State Park Bond allocated for improvements to play equipment.
See Table 9, section 2.6 for more information on finance.
Operations and Maintenance:
Based upon the system-wide estimated average maintenance cost, the 10.3 improved acres at
• the park require an annual maintenance expense of $56,650. Once the full 14 acres at Kevin
Moran Park are improved, the total cost will increase to approximately $77,000 per annum.
An additional $I 1,000 per annum should be added to the annual maintenance budget for these
increases.
Revenue:
CYSA currently contributes a rental fee for use of facilities at the park. It is suggested
that once the City has effected the recommended improvements, user fees be charged for any
organized sports league use of the site. As with all the City's fee schedules, the fees at
Kevin Moran should be periodically monitored and adjusted to keep pace with inflation and
typical fees charged for recreation uses in the surrounding region.
3.4-5
3.4 Community Parks
WILDWOOD PARK •
This park is one of the most widely used parks in the City. Its upkeep and maintenance are
important. Although no significant facility changes are projected at this site there are a
number of ongoing and future improvements which are required to ensure that the site
continues to function as a succesful component o£ the parks and recreation provision of the
City with access for all members of the community. Major improvements include the
renovation and addition of seating to the existing amphitheatre, upgrades to the play
equipment and park furniture to correct safety hazards and genera! wear and tear, the
construction of a pedestrian bridge over Saratoga Creek to provide handicap access to the
park from Parking District No. 1, and the construction of a handicap restroom. Also
proposed are the addition of a new group picnic site and improving the condition of the
existing volleyball court.
Existing Facilities:
Picnic tables and barbecue facilities;
Children's playground;
Horseshoe pits;
Restrooms;
Stage/amphitheatre;
Open turf area;
Volleyball court; .
Group reservations;
Security lighting;
Drinking fountain.
Program:
Item Cost
Improvements to park furniture
and play equipment: $51,000
Handicap access improvements -
Restroom: 10,000
Pedestrian bridge: 110,000
Renovate/upgrade amphitheatre: 40,000
Upgrade volleyball: 5,000
Group picnic area -
picnic tables, benches, and grills: 7,000
Drinking fountain: 1,500
Shade Trees: 2,000
TOTAL $226,500
r ~
LJ
3.4-6
3.4 Community Parks
Financing:
The City Capital Improvements Program indicates a current allocation of $51,000 from State
Park Bonds grant money in the 1991-92 fiscal year to fund the play equipment and furniture
improvements at Wildwood Park. Funding for the bridge is provided through the Housing and
Community Development Act (H.C.D.A.) for the amount of $110,000. In addition, the plans
underway for the construction of a handicap restroom are also utilizing the H.C.D.A. for
funding. Remaining amounts required for improvements will need to be drawn from future
grant funding, the Park Development Fund or the General Fund.
Operations and Maintenance:
The site's 4.0 acres at $5500 each require $22,000 annually in operations and maintenance
costs. No significant changes are anticipated as a result of this Master Plan.
Revenue:
•
Some revenue could be anticipated from amphitheater bookings. Additional revenue may be
anticipated from the new group picnic area.
3.4-7
3.5 Specialty Parks
SPECIALTY PARKS
There are four Specialty Parks in the City of Saratoga that provide distinctive recreation
opportunities to the local residents and surrounding communities as well. Detailed
descriptions of the improvements proposed at each site are as follows:
CENTRAL PARK
This park consists primarily of an orchard with the City's library at the northeast end of
the site. The orchard is important as an aesthetic landscape feature and as a symbolic
representation of the City's agricultural heritage. The proposed improvements for this site
involve the removal of a few trees to create a linear trail connection to link the library
to the historic house (which is being converted for use as a youth/community center) and the
City Hall complex which lie to the south of the orchard. The trail would be combined with a
seating area for reading or picnicking, which would serve users of the library, City
employees and others who work in and around City Hall, as well as surrounding residents. In
making this improvement a continuous pedestrian link would be effected connecting the
college, a school, the City's civic center, the future youth/community center, and the
library. The pathway and seating area must be designed so as to preserve the integrity of
the visual impact of the orchard as seen from the surrounding roads. In the trail design
consideration will have to be given to the need for continued maintenance of the orchard.
Close to the City Hall site, the pathway from the library would have to cross Wildcat
Creek. Two options exist for this crossing: either the use of the existing road bridge
which has sidewalks, or the addition of a pedestrian bridge set back from the road which
would provide a more direct connection between City Hall and the librazy as well as a more
enjoyable pathway experience. The cost of this bridge construction is included in the cost
estimates presented below, phased for the latter five years of the implementation phasing
for the park system improvements.
Existing Facilities:
Open space and orchard;
Saratoga community library.
Program:
Item Cost
Clear part of orchard: $5,000
Benches -eight at $S00 each: 4,000
Trail - 1,600 L.F. at $24: 38,400
Picnic tables - 4 at $750 each: 3,000
Pedestrian bridge: 30,000
TOTAL $80,400
C
3.5-1
3.5 Specialty Parks
FlnanCing:
Funding for improvements at Central Park could be drawn from a variety of sources, the State
Grants, the Park Development Fund, and/or the City's General Fund.
Operations and Maintenance:
Estimated annual maintenance costs at this site include 14 acres at $5500 per acre per annum
for a total of $77,000. It should be noted that the maintenance costs at this site are in
theory mitigated to a certain extent by the value of the fruit which the maintenance
contractor collects from the site. The City should monitor this component of the maintenance
cost contract to ensure it is receiving appropriate compensation.
Revenue:
No revenue is anticipated as a result of the proposed improvements.
HAKONE GARDENS
The Hakone Gardens Foundation is responsible for determining the plans and implementation
requirements for a Master Plan for the Hakone Gardens. The primary aspects of the Plan
currently under consideration are the erection of a Bamboo Research Center, a Tea Flower •
Garden and a replica of the Shrine of Saratoga's sister city Muko-shi. Two specific projects
are currently being undertaken to improve facilities at the Gardens. The first involves the
replacement of the existing domestic water and irrigation system with a new system supplied
from the Bohlman Road water tank. This new system will serve all the facilities, the new
cultural building and a new irrigation system for the gardens. The second project involves
improvements to remedy the access problems associated with the existing driveway.
Existing Facilities:
Parking;
Picnic tables;
Restrooms;
Group reservations (fee);
Guided [ours;
Gift shop and Hakone Foundation office;
Security lighting;
Tea service on the weekends;
Cultural Exchange Center.
Program:
Item Cost
Improvement to the entrance road: $50,000
Replace the existing garden water system: 50,000
TOTAL $100,000
3.5-2
3.5 Specialty Parks
• Financing:
Whenever the Foundation wishes to secure City assistance in financing capital improvements,
details of the proposed changes must be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission and
to the Council for discussion, negotiation, and possible approval. Because City funding for
such improvements is not guaranteed, and because the City is concerned to encourage the
Foundation to seek funding sources outside of the City, no improvement costs beyond those
already allocated have been included in this plan. Current appropriations from the City Park
Development Fund of $50,000 have been allotted for the improvements to the entrance road into
Hakone Gardens. In the City's Capital Improvements Program $50,000 has been appropriated from
the General Fund for the new water system's installation.
Operatlons and Maintenance:
The City maintains and funds operations at the Hakone Site. The costs of this are comparable
with the costs incurred by the City for maintenance and operations of the whole park system;
the appropriation for 1990/91 totals around $115,000 to maintain 15.5 developed acres and 9.5
undeveloped.
Revenue:
Within the Bay Area, Hakone Gardens is a unique site and has the potential to generate higher
revenues from visitors than at present. The Foundation could be charging for parking,
entrance, tours, group reservations, and tea room use, as well as generating revenue through
the development of a gift shop or similar outlet, and through the solicitation of grants and
donations.
HISTORICAL PARK
This park consists primarily of three existing built facilities and their central courtyard.
It is proposed that the City prepare and implement a plan for upgrading this courtyard which
faces onto Saratoga-Los Gatos Road near the center of the City in a very prominent location.
The design could include a grid of flowering fruit trees, possibly of a number of different
species typical of the region. Below the trees would be a simple gravel courtyard with
benches. Any landscaping would be limited to simple drought tolerant ground level planting
beds.
Existing Facilities:
Parking, limited;
Security lighting;
Friends of Library;
Historical Heritage;
Chamber of Commerce.
3.5-3
3.5 Specialty Parks
Program: •
Item Cost
Improvement to the front landscaping -
Removal of existing landscaping: $2,500
Trees 8,000
Gravel court 2,000
Park benches - 4 at $500 each: 2,000
Landscaping: 4,000
Irrigation: 4,000
Security/night lighting: 8,000
TOTAL $30,500
Financing:
Funding for improvements at Central Park could be drawn from a variety of sources, but State
Grants, the Park Development Fund, and/or the City's General Fund.
Operations and Maintenance:
Costs of maintenance at this site would rise with completion of the suggested improvements. •
It is suggested that the annual maintenance allocation for parks maintenance be increased by
$4,000 (in 1990 dollars) to accommodate this increase.
Revenue:
No revenue is anticipated from the improvements recommended above.
NELSON GARDENS
The City has considered the purchase of a 5.1-acre site located between Saratoga Hills Road
and Trinity Avenue just north of the City's downtown. The site is on the edge of a hillside
and includes both flat and sloping terrain. It includes an old orchard area of around two
acres, an unused residence and a visitor's cottage, also unused at present. The property was
placed on the market with an asking price of $1.8 million. However it was subsequently
removed from the market before any sale was arranged. If the property were to come back on
the market and the City could secure financing for an acquisition of this magnitude, the site
could provide a valuable addition to the range of parkland in the City. If the City were to
acquire this site, development would probably focus on a passive-use park incorporating
cultural activities, outdoor lectures, facilities for school and other groups educational use,
and garden demonstration areas. Given the significance of this site as a residual open space
representative of the rural past of Saratoga, it seems appropriate that the plan developed for
3.5-4
3.5 Specialty Parks
• this site should focus on regional agricultural and natural history. As such the site would
function, for school children as well as adults, as a place to learn and to appreciate
components of the landscape which defined the region's natural landscape, pre-settlement
Indian life, early settlement and agricultural life, as well as appropriate plants for
ornamental use in todays residential landscape which are drought tolerant and serve to enhance
the suburban wildlife and birdlife of a City such as Saratoga. This site would then function
as a distinctive and recreational and educational place for the community. Primary
improvements for the site to function in this way include the need to renovate and adapt the
structures on site, provide adequate parking, and implement the various demonstration garden
areas. It is also suggested that the site improvements might include a small amphitheater
which could be molded into the existing hillside slope of the site. The amphitheater would
serve as an outdoor education/lecture site. It would also be useful for the production of
local musical and/or dramatic events.
Existing Facilities:
Visitor's cottage;
Residence;
Orchard (2 acres)
Program: Because of the uncertainty of the City's acquiring this site, a detailed breakdown
of capital improvement costs are not included below. However in the proposed Capital
Improvements Program (see Table 13) a figure of two million dollars is included as a guide to
. the possible acquisition and improvements costs.
Item Cost
Acquisitson and Improvements $2,000,000
TOTAL $2,000,000
Financing:
The purchase of this site would represent a significant expense for the City. Given the
limited amount of financing available through the General Fund and the Park Development Fund
it is unlikely that acquisition of this site would go ahead unless the City could find a
special source of funding.
3.5-5
3.5 Specialty Parks
Operations and Maintenance: •
Although the acquisition and improvement of this site is uncertain, a figure of $27,500 per
annum has been included in the long term projections of operations and maintenance costs to
cover the potential impact of this site on the City's budgets.
Revenue:
If this site is developed for educational purposes, it would seem likely that some form of
user group fee revenue could be generated. The use of the amphitheatre as well as the
buildings could generate user revenues, as could the picnic area. If use of the site was
concentrated, the City could consider operation of a concession outlet to provide
refreshments. This would generate additional revenue potential. Parking fees could be used
to collect revenue from site visitors.
3.5-6
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
• PROPOSED TRAIL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
The trail system illustrated in Figure 6 identifies the dedicated trails, both improved and
unimproved, and the proposed trails. The rationale for development of the trail system
includes consideration of a number of issues:
o The desire to interconnect the neighborhoods, school sites, parks, public open space
and activity centers;
o The objective of providing loops in the trail system permitting a continuous and
nonrepetitive walk or ride from the start point;
o The opportunity for a trail running along the existing Southern Pacific Railroad
right-of-way which cuts across the City from the northeast to the southwest;
o The opportunity to link to the wider regional system.
An additional issue explored was the potential for creekside trails in the City along both
Saratoga and Wildcat Creek. This consideration has been previously addressed by local trails
groups and organizations and again researched during the preparation of this plan but need not
be revisited as the trail system has been considered to be infeasible. The negative impacts
on the bordering properties and the existing natural state of the creek are too severe. In
addition, environmental hazards such as flooding and fire pose a potential safety threat to
users of the trail.
Section 3.7 indicates design standards for the multi-use trail types which will be for hiking,
mountain bicycles and equestrian use. There are two types: 1) An unpaved trail type which is
intended to be only minimally improved in order to allow a more rural trail aesthetic; 2)
and a few trail linkages which would use the sidewalk and bike lanes in the road
right-of-way This last type is to be used only where aligning the trail in a separate
right-of-way is not possible.
Figure 5, in section 3.1, identifies County trails surrounding the City. These trails can
provide potential linkages by which the trails network in Saratoga can be tied into the wider
regional system.
Each of the segments has been explored for future considerations and potential improvements.
The cost of each of the segments has been calculated using the following per linear foot cost
estimates. For existing trail easements which have not yet been improved an estimated cost of
$12 per linear was used. For new trails segments in open space corridors an estimated
construction cost of $24 per linear foot was used. Cost estimates for each segment are
presented below. The total projected improvements costs of the trails system are estimated at
$1,767,000. It should be noted that the City is not likely to bear all of the projected costs
as most of the new trails will be required to be dedicated as a condition of subdivision
approval. The estimated cost to the City (excluding new trails segments that may be dedicated
as a condition of subdivision approval) will be $1,119,000.
3.6-1
42
~",?47
r~~
~.:..
, ~ ~ ~: t ~ ~ c d"~ ~ l ~ i E ~ ~ :,;
I n1 •'••~`I t~t ~ ~r ~ ;
2 -.
._< < Y
_~
~ ~.- ~6 ifs r a 3 ~ . ~ ^-
t.. ~
,._..:44 .. . ,
P -.:~'
45.•• i ;;
9 ...
s
e,
i1
50
12
,1
_....: 5
J
B ~ I l, _ r f 3` ;,
r
~`; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ,w p e ~, /as ~.
L T .. , r r~ ~ ~ _.
.i
I ~. ._..~ `---i..
~ a ~;~ ,~!.~~ , -~ , ~ ` ~ ;
~ Y '~` •~ a fi
a ~ I
,,. ,
~ ~.
~ f 1 •~
11
Y
+>
...: ..:. l'22.
~~
.1 .
-.... ~ _
r:-;: _:. -
r
Figure 6
EXISTING TRAIL EwSEMENT
~~~~ PROPOSED 7'RwIL EwSEMENr LM. ...R EXISTING & PROPOSED TRAILS
CITY OF SARATOGA
PARKS AND TRAILS MASTER P L A N
WA LLACE ROB E RT S & TODD
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
Segment: 1 ~
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: This segment is maintained and appears well used. The City needs
to continue monitoring and maintaining the trail.
Cost Estimate: N/A
Maintenance Cost: $765
Segment:
2
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: The City needs to continue monitoring and maintaining the trail.
Cost Estimate: N/A
Maintenance Cost: $1710
Segment: 3
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: The easement has been dedicated but no trail exists. The City
needs to clear the easement and construct the trail to City
standards.
Cost Estimate: $22,800
Maintenance Cost: $855
Segment: 4
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: The City needs to continue maintaining the trail and monitoring the
status of the proposed roadway. If it is to be developed
consideration should be given to realigning the trail.
Cost Estimate: NjA
Maintenance Cost: $720
Segment: 5
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: This segment is in good condition and appears well maintained. The
City needs to continue monitoring and maintaining the trail.
Cost Estimate: N/A
Maintenance Cost: $270
Segment: 6
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: The trail is in good condition and signage is posted at both trail
ends. The City needs to continue monitoring and maintaining the
trail
Cost Estimate: N/A
Maintenance Cost: $495
L~
3.6-2
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
Segment: 7
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: At this time only the length along Parker Ranch Road appears to be
improved. The City needs to clear the additional lengths and
construct the trail per City standards.
Cost Estimate: $9600 for 800 L.F. of undeveloped trail
Maintenance Cost $720
Segment: 8
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: This segment was recently blazed but the City needs to improve the
surface and post signage per City standards.
Cost Estimate: $24,000
Maintenance Cost: $900
Segment: 9
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: This trail segment has been neglected by the City and suffers a
drainage problem as well as the need for bridge crossings at two
points along the easement. The City should explore the opportunity
to negotiate trail improvements with the land developer. As the
existing easement running on the west side of Quarry Road is not
needed to complete the trail loop it could be returned to the
developer in exchange for trail improvements. The City will then
need to post signage and monitor and maintain the trail.
Cost Estimate: $48,000
Maintenance Cost $1800
Segment: 10
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: This segment has been developed but is nonconforming with
construction requirements. Proper drainage has not been provided
and with every rainfall the path is flooded and the surface washes
away. In addition the trail slope is too steep for equestrian
use. The City should negotiate with the subdivision developer for
the improvement of this trail.
Cost Estimate: $12,000
Maintenance Cost: $450
3.6-3
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
• Segment: 11
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: This trail will be developed as the subdivision undergoes
construction. Its location has not yet been defined. The City
needs to insure the trail is constructed per City standards and
that signage is posted.
Cost Estimate: $18,000
Maintenance Cost: $675
Segment: 12
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: This segment has been developed but little maintenance is evident.
The surface width varies and in places the bordering property owner
has encroached on the easement. Because the drainage was
improperly installed, with every rainfall the path floods and the
surface washes away. The City needs to clear the area, improve the
drainage and post signage.
Cost Estimate: $12,000
Maintenance Cost: $450
Segment: 13
Location: See Section 2.4 'for existing conditions
Action: This trail is overgrown and has received very little maintenance.
At the northern end a bordering resident has infringed on the
easement thereby blocking the passage. The City shall have to
regain the easement at this location prior to clearing the growth
and generally improving the trail.
Cost Estimate: $27,600
Maintenance Cost: $1035
Segment: 14
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: An easement has been dedicated for the length of this trail but no
path is evident in the field. Since the time of the dedication
surrounding property owners have encroached on the easement and the
opportunity for development appears lost. The City should
investigate the opportunity for regaining the easement.
Cost Estimate: $19,200
Maintenance Cost: $720
3.6-4
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
Segment: 15
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: A forty foot wide pedestrian and equestrian easement has been
dedicated for this trail but nothing is evident in the field. The
City will need to grade the hillside and construct switchbacks per
City standards.
Cost Estimate: $27,600
Maintenance Cost $1035
Segment: 16
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: This section of trail has been dedicated but is not maintained.
The path is overgrown and at the west end the bordering resident
has piled some wood to stop trail users from traveling along the
base of his property. The City needs to regain possession of the
easement prior to clearing and posting signage.
Cost Estimate: $4800
Maintenance Cost $180
Segment: 17
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: The easement originally dedicated for this trail appears to now be
lost to the development of Congress Springs Lane and a private
drive. The City should investigate the opportunity to develop a
trail alongside the road on the south side. The right-of-way could
accommodate a trail.
Cost Estimate: $24,000
Maintenance Cost $900
Segment: 18
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: This path serves as temporary access from Azule Park to Kevin Moran
Park, across the Highway 85 corridor. Although the trail condition
is poor, improvements are not needed as a pedestrian bridge is
under construction to replace this segment.
Cost Estimate: N/A
Maintenance Cost $90
3.6-5
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
i Segment:
19
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: The City should explore the opportunities for improving this trail
by providing a fence or landscape strip between it and the road.
Cost Estimate: $67,200 ,
Maintenance Cost: $2520
Segment: 20
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: This trail serves to connect segment #21 to Big Basin Way and the
center of town. Its location varies from along the roadside to an
elevated area behind a brick wall southeast of Historical Park.
The City should explore the opportunity to better define the trait
especially northwest of the Park, where the segment is nothing more
than a City sidewalk.
Cost Estimate: $25,200
Maintenance Cost: $945
Segment: 21
• Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: The condition of this segment varies with some areas requiring
improved pavement and clearing of overgrown landscape and other
sections requiring little or no improvements. The City needs to
better monitor this trail and maintain accordingly.
Cost Estimate: $60,000
Maintenance Cost $2250
Segment: 22
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: This segment is very well maintained and requires no further
improvement. The City should continue monitoring and maintaining
the trail,
Cost Estimate: N/A
Maintenance Cost: $225
•
3.6-6
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
Segment: 23 •
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions.
Action: This segment is well maintained and requires no further
improvement. The City should continue monitoring and maintaining
the trail.
Cost Estimate: N/A
Maintenance Cost $1620
Segment: 24
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions.
Action: This segment is well maintained and requires no further
improvement. The City should continue monitoring and maintaining
the trail.
Cost Estimate: N/A
Maintenance Cost $540
Segment: 25
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions.
Action: This segment is very well maintained and does not require any •
further improvements at this time. The City should continue
monitoring and maintaining the trail.
Cost Estimate: N/A
Maintenance Cost $315
Segment: 26
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions
Action: An easement has been dedicated along the north side of Douglass
Lane but no trail has been developed. The City needs to clear the
easement and construct a trail per City standards.
Cost Estimate: $24,000
Maintenance Cost $900
•
3.6-7
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
Segment: 27
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions.
Action: This segment is well used but maintenance is poor. The asphalt
surface is uneven and cracked and the landscape buffer separating
the road and trail is neglected and overgrown. The City needs to
improve the surface and maintain the landscape strip.
Cost Estimate: $26,400
Maintenance Cost: $990
Segment: 28
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions.
Action: Concerning the series of connections along Fruitvale Avenue, this
segment is the most in need of improvements. The path travels very
near to the road and is in poor condition: The asphalt surface is
cracked and at times slopes sharply toward the road. The City
needs to level the trail and improve its surface.
Cost Estimate: $4200
Maintenance Cost: $160
Segment: 29
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions.
Action: The surface of this segment is damaged and uneven. The City needs
to make improvements and maintain the landscape strip running
alongside.
Cost Estimate: $12,000
Maintenance Cost: $450
Segment: 30
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions.
Action: This segment is located within the San Marcos subdivision which is
now under construction. An open space easement was dedicated
through development approval. The City needs to insure the trail
is constructed per standards and signage posted accordingly. Once
developed the trail must be monitored to insure property owners do
not encroach on the trail easement.
Cost Estimate: $48,000
Maintenance Cosr $1800
3.6-8
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
Segment: 31 .
Location: See Section 2.4 for existing conditions.
Action: A pedestrian and equestrian easement has been dedicated for the
development of this segment but no trail is evident. The City has
researched the opportunity to receive grant money for the
improvements to this segment. If granted the trail will need to be
constructed and signage posted per City standards.
Cost Estimate: $33,600
Maintenance Cost $1260
Segment: 32
Location: This segment travels along the south side of Chester Avenue
connecting segments #31 and #33.
Status: Proposed
Length: 900 L.F.
Type: 2
Ownership: Public right-of-way
Surrounding Land Use: Private residential, West Valley College
Notes:
Action: There exists along the roadside sufficient room to develop a
trail. The City should investigate the development of a segment as
it will serve as an important connection between segment #31 and
Fruitvale Avenue.
Cost Estimate: $21,600 _
Maintenance Cost: $405
Segment: 33
Location: This segment serves as a connection between Fruitvale Avenue and
Quito Road. From the west end, the trail travels along San Marcos
Road to the junction of Chester Avenue. At this point the path
travels northeast to meet Ten Acres Road. From here the trail
turns east and then northeast along Sobey Road until the crossing
of Quito Road.
Status: Proposed, was previously proposed in the Trails and Pathways Task
Force Report, 1979.
Length: 7500 L.F.
Type: 2
Ownership: Public right of way, West Valley College, and private lots
Surrounding Land Use: West Valley College, residential property and the Odd Fellows Home.
Notes:
Action: The City needs to negotiate with the surrounding property owners
for trail easements. This segment, if developed, could potentially
link the City to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. By continuing east
along Pollard Road through Los Gatos, trail users could reach this
very popular creek trail.
Cost Estimate: $180,000
Maintenance Cost $3,375
3.6-9
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
Segment: 34 ~
Location: This segment serves as a connection between Fruitvale Avenue and
Quito Road. From the west end the trail travels along Monte Vista
Drive to cross an orchard and link with Monte Wood Drive. At this
point the path turns directly east to reach Quito Road.
Status: Proposed
Length: 5600 L.F.
Type: 2
Ownership: Public right-of-way, orchard and private lots.
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property
Notes:
Action: This trail alignment was proposed by a community member attending
the Trails Community Workshop. The City should negotiate with
private property owners and the orchard to establish a trail
easement. This segment is important to serve as a connection with
the Los Gatos Creek Trail and Vasona Lake County Park. In the
Santa Clara County Trails and Pathways Plan a trail has been
proposed along Los Gatos Road from Saratoga Avenue to the creek.
If developed it would connect these two trail systems.
Cost Estimate: $134,400
Maintenance Cost: $2520
Segment: 35
Location: This segment travels along the dedicated roadway easement that
joins the north-south and east-west lengths of Douglass Lane.
Status: Unofficial
Length: 800 L.F.
Type: 1
Ownership: Dedicated roadway, private driveway
Surrounding Land Use: Orchard and residential property
Action: This segment appears to run along a private drive and at the
eastern end a locked gate crosses the entrance. It appears to not
be maintained but there are signs of use. As it serves as an
important pedestrian connection between the two lengths of Douglass
Lane the City should be consider it for establishment as an
official trail.
Cost Estimate: $19,200
Maintenance Cost: $360
3.6-10
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
Segment:
36
Location: This segment travels along an orchard on the western side of
Fruitvale Avenue linking segment #24 and at25.
Status: Unofficial
Length: 250 L.F.
Type: 2
Ownership: Orchard property
Surrounding Land Use: Orchard, residential property and West Valley College.
Notes:
Action: A length of trodden earth already exists along the roadside and is
used unofficially by trail users to travel between the two existing
paths. The City should negotiate the establishment of an easement
and then only need to provide minimal improvements and signage.
Cost Estimate: $6000
Maintenance Cost: $110
Segment: 37
Location: This segment connects Saratoga Avenue to the Redwood School at
Montauk Avenue. From the western cul-de-sac of Montauk the path
travels northwest and crosses Wildcat Creek with a wooden
footbridge. From this point it moves directly west across Shadow
Oaks Way, past an orchard and out onto Saratoga Avenue.
Status: Unofficial
Length: 1150 L.F.
Type: 1
Ownership: Private property, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Redwood School
Surrounding Land Use: Redwood Middle School, residential property and an orchard.
Action: This segment appears in quite good condition with the exception of
a few feet along the northeast boundary of the orchard where the
path slopes sharply toward the fence. No trail easement exists but
as the path serves as an important connection between Redwood
School and Saratoga Avenue, it should be considered for
establishment as an official trail and signage posted accordingly.
Cost Estimate: $27,600
Maintenance Cost: $520
•
3.6-11
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
Segment: 38
Location: This segment runs along the south side of the Southern Pacific
Railroad from Prospect Road to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. At the
junction of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road the trail will have to travel
north for one hundred feet to establish a safe crossing at Sea Gull
way.
Status: Proposed
Length: 3000 L.F.
Type: 1
Ownership: County Flood Control Land, PG&E easement and private property.
Surrounding Land Use: Residential property and the railroad
Notes:
Action: The City needs to negotiate with owners to provide trail easements
and then construct the trail and signage to City standards. As the
railroad easement continues north through the City of Cupertino
consideration should be given to their development of a trail as
well. This would then serve to connect both cities to the San
Francisco Bay and Shoreline Trail.
Cost Estimate: $72,000
Maintenance Cost: $1350
Segment: 39
Location: This segment runs along the south side of the Southern Pacific
Railroad from Saratoga Sunnyvale Road to Cox Avenue, crossing Rodeo
Creek at the midpoint. At the northwest end a road crossing will
be established at Sea Gull Way to connect to segment #38.
Status: Proposed
Length: 3600 L.F.
Type: 1
Ownership: PG&E land and Flood Control Land
Surrounding Land Use: The railroad and private residential lots.
Notes:
Action: The City needs to negotiate with the Flood Control District and
PG&E for easements across their land. A safe crossing at Saratoga
Sunnyvale Road must be provided which will include warning signs
` and other safety features. Abridge must also be provided at the
crossing of Rodeo Creek. Construct the trail and signage to City
standards.
Cost Estimate: $86,400
Maintenance Cost: $1620
•
3.6- 12
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
Segment: q0
Location: This segment travels along the south side of the Southern Pacific
Railroad from Coz Avenue to the junction of Saratoga Avenue. At
the midpoint the trail crosses Saratoga Creek and forms a
connection with the segment proposed to travel along it.
Status: Proposed
Length: 4500 L.F.
Type: l
Ownership: PG&E land and easements, San Jose Water Works, and the railroad
Surrounding Land Use: Congress Springs School and residential property.
Notes:
Action: The City needs to negotiate with land owners for easements. When
constructing the trail the City should incorporate Congress Springs
Park. Abridge will be needed at the crossing of Saratoga Creek
and a safe road crossing at Coz Avenue and Saratoga Avenue. By
extending the segment southwest along Saratoga Avenue a crossing
could be established at Dagmar Drive thereby safely connecting to
segment #41. Construction of the trail should comply with City
standards.
Cost Estimate: $108,000
Maintenance Cost: $2025
Segment: 41
Location; This segment runs along the south side of the Southern Pacific
Railroad from Saratoga Avenue to the Cities eastern boundary at San
Tomas Acquino Creek.
Status: Proposed
Length: 5600 L.F.
Type: 1
Ownership: Ten foot wide easement for 2800 L.F. at the western end, private
residential lots, PG&E land and the County Flood Control.
Surrounding Land Use: The railroad, Paul Masson Vineyards and residential property
Notes:
Action: The City needs to negotiate with land owners for easements. In the
trail design, road crossings at Saratoga Avenue and Quito Road must
be addressed as these are both busy roads and appropriate safety
features will be necessary. A safe crossing could be established
by extending the trail southwest along Saratoga Avenue to Dagmar
Drive. Abridge crossing is also needed at Wildcat Creek.
Negotiations should be made with the City of Los Gatos and the
County to continue east along the railroad and link with the
existing Los Gatos Creek Trail.
Cost Estimate: $134,400
Maintenance Cost: $2520
•
3.6-13
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
• Segment: •
42
Location: This segment travels west of the city from the junction of Prospect
Road and Maria Lane. The trail could run along the city's northern
boundary line between residential lots and serve as a connection to
Fremont Older Park.
Status: Proposed
Length: N/A
Type:
Ownership: Private
Surrounding Land Use: Residential
Notes:
Action: The City needs to investigate the ownership along this route and
then negotiate the establishment of trail easements with the owners
and Santa Clara County.
Cost Estimate:
Maintenance Cosh
Segment: 43
Location: This segment travels along Prospect Road from trail #2, west to the
city's boundary.
Status: Proposed
Length: 2500 L.F.
• TYPe~ 1
Ownership: Saratoga Country Club
Surrounding Land Use: Saratoga Country Club, MROSD-Fremont Older, private residential and
the Garrod Stables.
Notes:
Action: This segment serves as one of the alternatives in establishing a
connection to the County parkland to the west of Saratoga. The
City needs to investigate the likelihood of trail development along
this route in contrast to segment tt44.
Cost Estimate: $60,000
Maintenance Cost: $1125
Segment: 44
Location: This segment travels along the southern boundary of the Saratoga
Country Club from segment #3 to the city's western limits.
Status: Proposed
Length: 1500 L.F.
Type: 1
Ownership: Saratoga Country Club
Surrounding Land Use: Stables, residential and the country club
Notes:
i
3.6-14
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
Action: This segment has been identified by the property owners during •
development as a trail easement. Negotiations should be made with
the County to extend this segment west thereby making a connection
with Fremont Older Park. The City would then need to construct the
trail per City standards and post the appropriate signage. As the
easement is already dedicated and the land available for
development this route is a more feasible alternative to connect
the City's trail system to the County parkland in the West.
Cost Estimate: $36,000
Maintenance Cosa: $675
Segment: q$
Location: This segment travels along the eastern property line of Garrod
Stables from trail segment #4 south to segment #9 and Quarry Road.
Status: Proposed
Length: 1800 L.F.
Type: 1
Ownership: Garrod Stables, Agricultural Preserve
Surrounding Land Use: Horse stables, Saratoga Country Club and residential property.
Notes:
Action: The establishment of a trail easement should be negotiated with the
owners. If the property is to undergo development the trails could
be constructed as a condition of development approval.
Cost Estimate: •
$43,200
Maintenance Cost: $810
Segment: 46
Location: This segments north end sits at the cul-de-sac of Chiquita Court.
From here it travels directly south to potentially link with the
proposed segment #I1 and then turns southwest along the property
line to Old Oak Way. The path continues west until a connection is
made with segment #45 and the Garrod Stables.
Status: Proposed
Length: 2600 L.F.
Type: 1
Ownership: Vacant, Open Space Easement, Private residential and Agricultural
Preserve.
Surrounding Land Use: Residential, orchards, stables
Notes:
Action: The City needs to negotiate with surrounding land owners for the
establishment of this trail. It should then be constructed per
City standards and signage posted. Consideration will have to
given to the rather steep terrain in this area.
Cost Estimate: $62,400
Maintenance Cost: $1170
3.6-15
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
• Segment: 47
Location: This segment is located at the western boundary of town. The trail
is proposed to travel west from link #9 across the northern edge of
the Garrod property.
Status: Proposed
Length: N/A
Type: 1
Ownership: Garrod Stables
Surrounding Land Use: Horse stables, orchard, residential, and the Sphere of Influence.
Notes:
Action: The City should consider the negotiation of a trail in the future
as a potential link to the County parkland in the West. This
proposal is located in the Sphere of Influence outside of the
city's jurisdiction therefore negotiations will have to be made
with the County.
Cost Estimate: N/A
Maintenance CosC
Segment: 4$
Location: This segment is located on the west side of Mt. Eden Road from Nina
Court in the north to the junction of segment #10.
Status: Proposed
• Length: 2500 L.F.
Type: 2
Ownership: Private stables, the southern end is located on what the City
classifies as "undeveloped land".
Surrounding Land Use: Stables, Sphere of Influence.
Notes:
Action: In the future the City should consider this as a potential
connector in the trail loop. This could serve as an alternative to
the proposed segments #47 and #49. Negotiations would have to be
made with the stable owners along the western side of the road.
Cost Estimate: $60,000
Maintenance Cost: $1125
Segment: q9
Location: This trail is located within the Thomas Stable property traveling
northwest from the junction of segment #48 and Mt. Eden Road.
Status: Proposed
Length: N/A
TYPe: 1
Ownership: Private property
Surrounding Land Use: Stables, Sphere of Influence
Notes:
3.6- l6
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
Action: This link could serve as a connection between the stables and .
County parkland to the city's trail system. The City should
consider this segment. for potential development pending
negotiations with surrounding landowners.
Cost Estimate: N/A
Maintenance Cost:
Segment: 50
Location: This proposed connection is located within the City's Sphere of
Influence west of the City. From the west end of segment #10, the
path could travel along an existing fire road and connect the
Hillsides to the surrounding County parkland and the Skyline Ridge.
Status: Proposed
Length: N/A
Type: 1
Ownership: County land
Surrounding Land Use: County parks, stables, and private residences.
Notes:
Action: The City will have to negotiate with Santa Clara County for the
development of a trail.
Cost Estimate: N/A
Maintenance Cost:
Segment: 51 •
Location: This segment is proposed for the west side of Mt. Eden Road to link
segment #10 at the north to segment #12 at the south end.
Status: Proposed
Length: 100 L.F.
Type: 2
Ownership: Private
Surrounding Land Use: Residential
Notes:
Action: The City should negotiate an easement along the property here to
provide an important link between the two existing segments. Trail
users are forced to move onto the road for the length of this
segment.
Cost Estimate: $2400
Maintenance Cost: $45
3.6-17
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
• Segment: 52 ~
Location: ,This segment is a proposed link to connect the existing segments #9
and #12. From the north end the trail travels south between
properties to the junction of Via Regina Road. At this point it
begins to travel along side the road until about L00' previous to
reaching Pierce Road. From here the path moves west between lots
until it reaches Mt. Eden Road. Continuing a few hundred feet west
will connect this link to segment #12 and #13.
Status: Proposed
Length: 3400 L.F.
Type: 1
Ownership: Public right-of-way, private
Surrounding Land Use: Residential
Notes:
Action: The City should negotiate with !and owners in order to gain
easements for the development of this trail. It serves as an
important connection and appears to already be used unofficially at
this time.
Cost Estimate: $81,600
Maintenance Cost: $1530
Segment: 53
• Location: This segment is proposed to connect link #13 through the vineyards
and west into the surrounding County parkland.
Status: Proposed
Length: 1400 L.F.
Type: 1
Ownership: Vacant land.
Surrounding Land Use: Sphere of Influence, private residential, and the Paul Masson
Vineyards
Notes:
Action: The City should negotiate with Paul Masson for the establishment of
a trail. The vineyards may need, in the future, to establish a
utility easement through this property and the City could then
potentially form a development agreement for the shared use of the
easement.
Cost Estimate: $33,600
Maintenance Cost: $630
•
3.6-18
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
Segment: 54 •
Location: This segment is located on the north side of Saratoga Heights Drive
from Pierce Road at the western end to the junction of segments #14
and #IS at the southeast end.
Status: Proposed
Length: 2000 L.F.
Type: 2
Ownership: Public right-of-way
Surrounding Land Use: Paul Masson Vineyards, dedicated open space and private residential
Notes:
Action: The opportunity to plan a trail along this road is good as the City
already has the public right-of-way for development. This link
would serve to connect all the series of trails planned in the
hillsides.
Cost Estimate: $48,000
Maintenance Cost: $900
3.6-19
3.7 Trail Design Standards and Details
Figure 7
TRAIL DESIGN STANDARDS AND DETAILS
Hiking/Biking and Equestrian
Path Design Concepts
,. ,.
8'-0' min.
f0'-0' preferre
~-..o~ ~
•
GradienC
Q-596 Optimum
5-1596 Acceptable
15-2596 For short distances, to
be approved on a site
specific basis
Use switchbacks on steeper grades.
Siting:
Signage at hazards and
intersections; directional Signage;
"Trail Etiquette" Signage for
bikes/hiking and equestrian. Based
on topography include picnic tables
and shade trees.
Fencing at hazards; fencing or
planting to prevent cutoffs at
switchbacks.
10'-0" minimum clearance necessary
over trail.
Materials:
Trail: compacted dirt;
decomposed granite,
compacted gravel,
woodchips/barkchips,
and asphalt where heavy
use or erosion problem
or as required by city
engineer.
Landscape: drought tolerant,
native, low maintenance
species that provide
barriers, shade and
screening.
Right of Way:
14'-0" Preferred, 12'-0" Minimum
3.7-1
cros~on con>iro~ mecnan~sms I g•_o~ min.
required on steep slopes. ,F-r,-
3.7 Trail Design Standards and Details
Figure S
Surface Construction Details
4" layer decomposed granite
2 z 4 redwood header at trail edges
where required
2 x 4 x 18 "stakes, 16" o.c.
9096 compacted subgrade
Decomposed Granite/Wood Chips
•
i
a
~~ 1
Materials:
2" asphalt concrete
2% slope to drain
4" compacted decomposed granite.
Use native soil where it is
determined by soil engineer that it
can support load at 90% relative
compaction.
9096 compacted subgrade
Asphalt Concrete
•
Materials:
296 slope to drain
3.7-2
3.7 Trail Design Standards and Details
Figure 9
Slope Preparation
~`
~~~`~
-- 124" 'Cradbcd~
Remove loose rock and stone on the
trailbed surface over 3" in the
smallest dimension.
Remove roots over 2" in diameter
that protrude from cut slopes
Figure 10
Clearing Limits
i~/,/"~
~~
~ 1
~" ~,~ i a
,, ~ ~
'~~
j ~
~;
~~
~~
~,.
\~ ~\ ~ ` / -
~~ ` ~/ ~'~
`~_.,_.~
Cut Slope Ratio:
Rock 1:1 Max.
Common 1 1 /2:1 Max.
Fill Slope Ratio:
2:1 Max.
Rock 1:1 Max.
Common 2:1 Max.
All slopes in excess of 2:1 ratio
must be certified by a registered
civil/soil engineer for stability.
Remove embedded rock and stone that
protrude more than 2" above the
trailbed and recompact to 90°5
relative compaction.
All trees 3" or less in diameter
shall be cut if they are within
3'-0" of trail edge.
Do not cut trees over 3" in
diameter if they are over 3'-0"
from trail edge.
Brush extending into the clearing
limits that is over 12" in height
and 1/2" in diameter shall be cut
flush with main stem at a branch
fork.
Saw branches flush with trunk
rather than cut tree.
CJ
3.7-3
3.7 Trail Design Standards and Details
Figure 11
Fence and Gate Details
L PIPE
Note: All exposed pipe shall be painted with rust resistant paint.
Maintenance Access Gate with Equestrian Stepover
' POST' SHALL HE 6' j
1• CHAMFER i MIN. DIAMETER LODGE- I
~~ ~-~ ,1. ALL SIDES ( POLE P[NE
~ ~~
O
1 c
~ ~ / b_
O
`o , i b FiNI$H-
~ ~.. , ~I r / GRADE
_ I
- I 1 ~1 pla Slit= I ~__
11 '~11 111 =11 I~_
1IIIK m' -~N
VI'
Q 11-11 1-~
`~ III ;., ~I il~~j~r-90% COMPACT
IL I u. -~~IIII SUBGRADE
IW i~ a /~~I-q.
) ~i= _i
BUTT JOINTS SECURE RAIL WIYH /~'
i 20P GALVANIZED NAILS /
/
% /'/
-_ ___ __ ~___. - _~ /
tir
.~
3'-0 3'-0'~-RAILS SHALL HE 3'
~ /
TYP ~ MIN. DIAMETER LODGEPOLE
TYP ~ ~•
~~
/ ~. ~.ti
'
1
v
' tp_II=11=.1 =1N n_I1 -1
°I1nll-I -11 ` ICI°
III =11'
r~~
III
~ _
X11'= JI~?111=111° _
Mi Ililll IIIS 111 III CI11Hin= III-illll111-1
\
\
_
;
~1u-111
P=~I % I ~11= 3 ~ 111 rJli.m -ITI IU ~
iD al
Jn
~i ~
/
nh_ Oi`
'1~IE =
11
I \ <
In-
LI
_ VI ~ , u
11'111 11 _~I i q
x111=
J~.<,11 =
_. ._.,, - .1. TYP.
Ilr _
uu. DOUBLE AAB. -
PRESSURE TREATED WOOD
WITH WATERPROOF
COATING FOR
POSTS/RAILS
-,1 _,,,.
-111=111
Note: As an option to lodge pole fencing the use of 6" x 6" posts and 2" x 6" rails may
be acceptable per approval from the city engineer.
Lodge Pole Fencing
3.7-4
3.7 Trail Design Standards and Details
Figure 12
Trail Identification Post
•
~I .o
I I~ ~ .~'~ Vii:,
Unl D_ I i
U =IIIU ~ 1
!ll~~ : a. 1
_ II ~'
_O ~ f ~ ~ p
~ ~ ~ •I I0.
`r+ n _a ~ lid
a" 1 a" L 3"
r~
Trail name and City logo
~- Information plaques
Distance
Direction
Activities
Regulations
8 z 8 redwood post
- Slope to drain
o Finish grade
,~~~_
~. Concrete footing
Compacted subgrade
1/2 cy. par grade
Front Section/Elevation
45 degree bevel cut
Side Elevation
•
3.7-5
3.7 Trail Design Standards and Details
Figure 13
Demountable Wooden Bollard
_o
b
3.7-6
45 degree bevel cut
8" x 8" redwood post demountable
bollard
2 1/2" diameter reflector
Finish surface
1/2" expansion joint
Notes:
Chain to be 1/4" proof coil chain
galvinized steel weld four links to
post eye bolt and three links to
steel pipe sleeve.
All metal to be hot dip galvinized •
after fabrication.
Side Section/Elevation
Galvinized steel shoulder eye bolt
with nut and washer.
Make bowl shaped recess in concrete
to accomodate links of chain
9" x 9" steel pipe sleeve
1" diameter PVC drain pipe
1/2 c.y. pea gravel
Base Detail
Figure 14
Off Road Vehicle Barrier
•
Plate
lo'-o" o.c
M0.Y.
J
elava#~ on
•
3.7 Trail Design Standards and Details
3.7-7
Removable bollards, 2'-8" apart
Fence
Paved Trail Surface
6" x 6" lodge pole pine posts
Pipe hinge 1 I/2" diameter
3" diameter rail
Pipe lock bar, 1 1/2" diameter
secure I/4" metal plate to end and
allow for lock at other end.
6" x 6" lodge pole pine gate
Metal pin to secure pipe hinge,
typical each post
.--- Pipe lock bar
O.R.V. Barrier Section
3.7 Trail Design Standards and Details
Figure 15
Trailhead Slgnage
rnvER
~~ ~ -- ~
-- - =-. /
~~ __ .
a
~l 0 '
,! -
IJ I
AIL MAP DESCRIPTIONS-
~ TRIAL SAFETY RULES AND
f~i~'+„, / INTERPRETIVE INFORMATIO
~. ~ l~
ix=L=1~~s~~1= ?jYgm
T _ s`
NOTE ALL SIGNS SHALL BE
DESIGNED AND BUILT W[TH
HIGH QUALCiY MATERIALS,
VANDAL RESLSTA NT AND RESISTANT
TO DAMAGE BY WEATHER.
~J
WOOD SHINGLE ROOF
2'z6' FASCIA
7 TIES/BOLTS
/ Z
I:
I- 6'z6' TREATED WOOD POST
oz
~ ~
Figure 16 •
Tree Planting -Double Stake with Deer Guard 2" x 2" square, welded wire mesh,
attach to lodge pole stakes with
' staples
"
'
4 - 2
diam. x 10
lodge pole pine
~ s
E stake
's ' 4 -figure-8 rubber hose nail to
stake
S
F
Rootball -set 1/2" above finish
grade
s
0
_~ 4" compacted berm
~
- Finish grade
~ _
I I
I''
.I~YI
I
~u~ ~ ~
I~II^'. I
Prepared backfill -see specs.
a
~ ~°
Ilfi! •. ~ ,,~
1~
Fertilizer tabs, see specs.
lUU IC~~~~ I(-~(
~ Specify native soil at sides and
_ ~~lu bottom of planting pit
2 z I-all Nld~ •
3.7-8
3.7 Trail Design Standards and Details
Figure 17
Bench/Bike Rack and Hitching Rail
Beach and Bicycle Rack
Hitching Rail
3.7-9
i o•-o•
I
l__J
4,1 Phasing and Capital Improvements Program
•
PHASING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
This Master Plan includes a wide variety of projects which will require capital improvements
financing. Given the constrained financial resources of the City it has been important to
phase these commitments out over a long period of time. It must be recognized that
implementation of all these projects is not possible in the short term. Each of the proposed
improvements and the costs and financing associated with them is discussed in detail in
Sections 3.3 through 3.b of the Plan. The table below provides a summary of the capital costs
phased over aten-year time frame.
TABLE 13
PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/2000
•
•
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARKS
Azule Park
Design
Construction
Totlot
Beauchamps Park
Design 20,000
Construction
Brookglen Park
Drink Ftn.
Foothill Park
Play Equip.
Lighting/Drink Ftn.
Gardiner Park
General Imp.
Ravenwood Park
Acquisition
Improvements
Tot lot/Furniture
Neighborhood
Parks
30,000
20,000
218,500
1,500
10,000
9,500
28,500
330,000
Subtotal 20,000 548,500
25,000
315,700
55,000 315,700
35,000
30,000 74,500
•
4.1-1
4.1 Phasing and Capital Improvements Program
1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/2000
COMMUNITY
PARKS
Congress Springs
Safety Netting 40,000
Sand Volleyball 10,000
Picnic Area/Cre ek 92,000
Planting 14 000
El Quito Park
Landscape Imp. 14,000
Kevin Moran Park
Play Equip. 25,000
Design 50,000
Tennis 49,000
General Imp. 400,000
Wildwood Park
Bridge 110,000
R'room Access 10,000
PI. Equip/Furn. 51,000
Amphitheater 40,000
General Imp. 15,500
Community
Parks
Subtotal 159,000 51,000 90,000 49,000 10,000 561,500
i
•
4.1-2
4.1 Phasing and Capital Improvements Program
•
SPECIALTY
PARKS
Central Park
Landscape Imp.
Hakone Gardens
Entry Road
Water System
Historical Park
Landscape Imp.
Nelson Gardens
General Imp.
Special
Parks
Subtotal
TRAILS
Trail System
Trails
Subtotal
TOTAL
1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/2000
80,400
50,000
50,000
30,500
2,000,000
50,000 50,000 0.
0 0 100,000
0 0 100,000
0 0 2,110,900
0 100,000 919,000
0 100,000 919,000
229,000 649,500 245,000 364,700 140,000 3,665,000
1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/2000
4.1-3
r~
U
4.2 Maintenance Costs and Issues
MAINTENANCE COSTS AND ISSUES ~
Parks Maintenance Costs
The current annual budget (FY1990/91) includes $293,000 for parks maintenance. As the City
continues to add improvements and new parks to the park system it is inevitable that annual
parks maintenance costs will increase. Based upon the increases in parks maintenance cosu
(discussed in Sections 3.3 through 3.5 inclusive) the total parks maintenance budget upon
completion of all the improvements projected by this citywide Master Plan will be increased by
around $105,000 to nearly $400,000. The anticipated increases in maintenance costs are
summarized below:
Park Site Cost Increase
Azule Park $23,650
Beauchamps 11,000
Ravenwood 3,000
San Marcos 25,000
Kevin Moran 11,000
Historical 4,000
Nelson Gardens 27,500
TOTAL $105,150
• Trails Maintenance Responsibility and Financing
Trails maintenance in Saratoga will currently have to be financed through the General Fund.
It is suggested that the City consider the potential for the trails to be maintained through
the establishment of a city wide Lighting and Landscaping District which would include trails
maintenance.
It is recommended that the City actively explore and implement as appropriate local
opportunities for volunteer labor in trails maintenance. Assistance with trash pickup and
other routine maintenance tasks is accomplished through volunteers in many jurisdictions.
Another opportunity is the use of work-release program labor: juveniles or adults who are on
remand for minor offenses.
A number of ongoing maintenance tasks need to be undertaken to ensure adequate trail safety
and thus to limit the risk of claims being filed against the city:
Use employees and/or volunteers to control the growth of trees, scrub, and weeds.
•
4.2-1
4.2 Maintenance Costs and Issues
Use employees and/or volunteers to regularly clear the trail of dangerous debris such .
as rocks or broken glass.
Post signage warning of hazards such as poison oak, rattlesnakes, etc. It is
recommended that the signage at trail heads and staging areas include a concise
general description of potential trail hazards and recommended trail use guidelines
for items such as appropriate footwear and clothing, the need to carry water, etc.
Erect and regularly maintain fencing to preclude easy access to unsafe areas such as
steep bluffs, deep water, etc.
Patrol trails on a regular basis.
Sweep any paved paths every month or as needed
Trails Maintenance Cost Estimates
The establishment of maintenance cost estimates for the Saratoga trail system was achieved
through a review of other jurisdictions trails maintenance costs, and a review of the trails
maintenance cost estimates prepared by Economics Reseazch Associates (ERA). Variations are
based on the method of cost accounting, the type of trail being maintained, and the extent to
which volunteer and/or work release labor are used for maintenance activities. Based upon
this research an estimate of $0.45 per linear foot per annum was determined for annual
maintenance costs.
The total estimated annual cost for maintenance of the trails system is $50,560. It should be •
noted that this total annual cost will not be required until the whole trail system is
completed. The annual maintenance cost will be incrementally arrived at.
It is recommended that the City keep careful records of labor and materials maintenance costs
for each separate trail segment. Over the years this will allow for more detailed cost
estimating of future trails maintenance requirements.
Cumulative Maintenance Cost Increase Projections
By adding together the parks and trails maintenence cost projections and phasing according to
the proposed Capital Improvements Program (see Table 13) it is possible to project cumulative
increases to annual maintenance costs which would accrue in Saratoga if the improvements to
the parks system were accomplished in the proposed time frame. Table 14 indicates the
estimated increases in maintenance costs for both trails and parks. The figures given are all
in 1990 dollars; the table does not make any allowance for cost of living increases.
•
4.2-2
4.2 Maintenance Costs and Issues
TABLE 14
PROJECTED MAINTENANCE COST INCREASES
1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/2000
Park Cost
Increases 25,000 11,000 3,000 26,000 41,000
Trail Cost
Increases 5,000 2,000 59,000
ANNUAL TOTAL
COST 293,000 318,000 329,000 337,000 365,000 465,000
The maintenance costs projections suggest that by 1994/95 the City may be spending an extra 25
percent in real terms over its current (1990/91) expenditures for parks maintenance. The
• total maintenance cost by the year 2000 represents an increase of around 60 percent over
1990/91 levels.
4.2-3
s
•
4.3 Trails Implementation
TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION
Ownership
The trails within Saratoga will be held under a number of alternative ownership arrangements.
These may include city in fee simple ownership, permanent dedicated easements held by the city
to allow for public recreational access to land for which the underlying ownership remains
private, and permanent secondary recreational easements along utility easements. Land
dedication for required trails will be a condition of development. Development plans will not
be approved until trail ownership issues are resolved.
•
Generally, implementation of trails within future developments will be activated when a
property owner submits improvement plans. Any project which increases the intensity of usage
will be reviewed on an individual basis to select a compatible trail alignment.
In order to implement critical connective trail segments, the City may negotiate for a trail
easement/access over property that has not yet submitted plans for development.
For trails already developed and owned by a private interest (i.e., homeowners association),
and for which the City desires a property interest, the City should research the feasibility
and need to gain a property interest based on benefit to the City.
As needed by the City, the developer shall provide access to open space areas for maintenance
and fire protection. As a requirement of the development permitting process, prior to site
plan or Tentative Map adoption, adequacy and placement of such access shall be approved by the
• City. In some instances the trail may serve as the required access for open space areas. As
a product of the development permitting process, the open space trail system and adjacent
landscaping shall be mapped, and subject to the approval of the City.
Improvements Responsibility
As a general rule all improvements for the implementation of the trail system will be the
responsibility of new development through which each trail segment passes. A precise
alignment and elevations for the trail must be included in any development permitting process
at the time of submittals. When existing approved Tentative Maps which do not conform
to the trails alignments shown in this Master Plan are brought before the city for any
extensions and/or amendments, the city will require the map to be brought into conformance
with the city's trail requirements.
Prior to Final Map, approved landscape and irrigation plans, erosion control plans, and
detailed water management guidelines for all landscape irrigation including trails shall be
submitted and subject to review and approval of the City and the appropriate water/sewer
district servicing that area. The landscaping format within the project shall be to emphasize
native, drought-resistant plan[ material unless otherwise specified.
d.3-1
4.3 Trails Implementation
Public financing may be used for trail improvements on existing single family, .
non-subdividable residential lots. Lot splits and/or special requests for city ordinance
variances may require participation by the property owner in the trail improvements. Public
financing may also be used where the property is already developed or where a new development
would not produce a viable trail segment.
Liability
Liability problems associated with trails implementation are often assumed to be a more
significant issue than has been borne out in reality. Surveys of California jurisdictions with
implemented trail systems have revealed very few suits resulting from trails use. Never the
less, the City's risk manager and attorney should review the existing terms of the City's
liability policy to ensure coverage of trail related incidents.
State law limits the liability to landowners who make their land available, through easements,
to the public. The Recreational Use Statute (California Civic Code Section 846), protects
landowners from financial responsibility in the event of injury. Immunity only applies,
however, if the landowner does not charge a fee for the recreational use of the land other
than the fee paid by the government or another entity to use the property, and if the
landowner does not expressly invite the person onto the property. A property owner who gives
permission to enter and use the property (such as on a trail easement) is not expressly
inviting use of the property and does not assume responsibility or incur liability for injury.
The public enters at its own risk. Thus this measure protects landowners from claims by
people who stray off the public trail onto the adjacent private open space or property as well •
as users of the easement. However, the landowner must warn or guard against a dangerous
condition, use, structure, or activity. While this law protects the landowner, it does not
preclude a suit from being filed, and the landowner may still have to invest time and
resources in the legal process.
The State of California has protected itself (Government Code Section 831.2 and 831.4) from
liability for injuries resulting from natural conditions of a state park area where the only
improvements are recreational access road and hiking, riding, fishing, and hunting trails".
Section 831.2 states that a public entity is not liable for injuries caused by a natural
condition of unimproved public land. Therefore, liability increases as improvements to the
property are made. Exposure to liability diminishes if the trail is in a natural state.
Security Concerns:
Concerns with regard to security focus on the prevention of illegal activities both on the
trail system and adjacent to the trail system -for example using trails as a mean of access
to private property. Some of the larger trail systems in California operate an independent
security force, but given the relatively small size of the Saratoga trails system (it is a
citywide but not a regional system) a separate security force seems unlikely to be cost
effective. One possibility in Saratoga would be to work cooperatively with the various trail
user groups to organize an informal volunteer patrol to keep watch over the trails.
4.3-2
4.3 Trails Implementation
The majority of law enforcement problems are likely to occur close to the road system. The
design of trail sections close to the road system should be designed to facilitate
surveillance by police patrol units. With regard to security generally it should be noted
that frequent levels of trail use for legitimate recreational purposes will serve to provide
. informal monitoring, and discourage inappropriate or illegal activities. Encouragement of
trails use through making people aware of the resource, scheduling hiking tours and school use
etc. will not only optimize use of the system but will also serve to preserve the safety of
the system. It should be noted that many communities throughout California and the
United States have existing trail systems and have not found them to be an undue security
problem.
Fire Risk
The presence of the trail leading to increased public use of natural areas may increase the
risk of fires. It may be necessary for the Fire Chief to have the authority to close certain
trail sections when fire hazard is especially high -even if this means closing linkages for
the whole summer.
Vehicular Access
It is not intended that the Saratoga trails system should be used for vehicular traffic with
the exception of vehicles for safety, security, or maintenance purposes. A number of
different barriers may be used to discourage motorized use of the trails system. Suggested
• alternatives are shown in the trails design guidelines drawings.
Demonstration Project
It is suggested that the City consider implementing a demonstration trail to initiate the
development of the citywide trail system. A suitable segment or loop of significance which is
to be implemented early in the development of the system could be selected and identified as a
pilot linkage to be advertized widely to herald the start of trails system implementation and
to give an example for future trails design. Implementation of a portion of trail along one of
the creeks could be particulrly effective.
4.3-3
4.4 Financing and Implementation Options
FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS ~
The City of Saratoga incurs a variety of costs in providing for parks, trails, and recreation
opportunities for public use. A review of current financing is presented in Section 2.6. The
following section discusses a range of options with which the City of Saratoga could proceed
in future financing and implementation of the parks and trails system described in this Master
Plan.
General Fuud Appropriations
The City currently uses General Fund to finance ongoing operations and maintenance as well as
financing certain capital improvements. General Funds may well continue to be a primary
funding source for ongoing operations and maintenance costs as well as contributing towards a
portion of the park and recreation system capital improvement costs. Reduction of reliance on
General Fund to fund the maintenance of parks and trails is possible, for example through the
use of an expansion to the Lighting and Landscaping District. (See below.) However, unless
alternative funding sources are secured, operations and maintenance of both parks and trails,
as well as the operations costs of recreation and community service programs will continue to
be drawn from the General Fund.
Development Impact Fees and In-Lieu Dedications
• The City currently uses a Quimby parkland dedication ordinance to require dedication of
parkland and to raise alternative in-lieu fees from new developments. These fees must
continue to be updated regularly to reflect increases in land values. In addition to these
land-value related increases the City would appear to have a significant opportunity to
increase dedication requirements under the Quimby ordinance from the current level of three
acres per thousand residents to five acres per thousand residents. This can be achieved under
the state enabling Act provided that the City can show that the provision of parkland exceeded
three acres per thousand at the time of the last census.
In addition to the Quimby impact fee, the City could enact a park development impact fee
through its municipal code to be collected for the issuance of building permits. For example,
the City of Napa uses a park development fee (Municipal Code Sections 16 - 70) in addition to
its Quimby ordinance, and believes they have demonstrated adequate nexus between the issuance
of a residential building permit and impacts on recreation facilities. The City of Napa has
set the development fee based upon average parkland development costs of $93,312 per acre.
The adoption of such a development fee could significantly increase revenue for park
improvements, possibly raising in excess of $250,000 between now and buildout. (If 400 new
residential units are constructed between now and buildout, this would add around 1,000 new
residents. If the Quimby ordinance requires three acres per thousand of land dedication, then
the development fee could require three acres per thousand of improvements costs.
Supposing the improvements costs were set at $85,000 per acre, this would raise $255,000.)
4.4-1
4.4 Financing and Implementation Options
Development Agreements
The City has the option of using development agreements to negotiate the acquisition and/or
improvement of park land, park and recreation facilities, and trails easements or
right-of-ways and related improvements. This strategy will be primarily applicable in
development proposals of significant value, typically in larger landholdings subject to
subdivision approval.
Subdivision Map Act
The City may use its authority under the Subdivision Map Act to require the dedication of
trails and bicycle ways. In Section 66475.0 there is provision for enactment of a local
ordinance requiring such dedications from subdivision developments. The City should ensure
that provision of trails is referenced in the General Plan to provide legal backing for the
dedication requirement.
User Fees and Charges
Revenues from recreation fees are placed into the City General Fund. The current projections
of revenue in Saratoga indicate that such revenue covers over 7596 of recreation program
expenditures. The degree of cost coverage in programming in the
future should be recognized as a policy issue as much as an efficiency issue. If the City
pursues increased operation of free programs, such as increased free or low cost senior
programming, then percentage cost coverage will inevitably decline. A key policy issue is to
continually define the balance between the fiscal objective of enhanced cost coverage and the
broader social service objectives of the Department.
Corporate Support
Communities are sometimes able to generate contributions towards park system development costs
from corporate donations.
The City should certainly pursue corporate support but it should be recognized that such
support will most likely only form a small component of an overall financing package for the
park system.
Benefit Assessments
Benefit assessment districts are used to fund public improvements that benefit private
beneficiaries. Properties within the benefit area pay a proportional share based on their
proximity to the improvement, assessed valuation, the size or frontage of the parcel, or some
other measure proportional to the benefit received. Bonds may be issued secured by the
assessments. Maintenance assessment districts are established to maintain the public
improvements installed. Special assessment districts are not limited by Propositions 13 and 4
(the Gann Initiatives). Special assessment financing is applicable when the value or benefit
of the improvement can be assigned to a particular set of properties, and should not be used
if the project is a public good for an entire community. The City has considered expanding
its current use of the Landscape and Lighting District (see Section 2.6) to include the
maintenance of parks, trails, and medians. The future of this action is uncertain but it does
represent a very effective means of generating revenue for maintenance costs.
4.4-2
4.4 Financing and Implementation Options
It should also be noted that the 1974 Landscape and Lighting Act (as amended in 1988) does
allow for use of the assessment district to finance acquisition and improvements as well as
maintenance. The City is currently considering use of this provision to finance 7596 of the
acquisition costs associated with the Ravenwood park site.
Bond Financing
A city may issue general obligation bonds to acquire open space or park land and to build
facilities. Proceeds may not be used for maintenance and operations. Investors consider
general obligation bonds as the most secure form of tax-exempt bonds since they are secured by
an ad valorem tax on all taxable property (including commercial, industrial, and residential)
at any rate necessary to amortize the bonds; consequently, interest rates are lowest for these
types of bonds. The major difficulty of issuing general obligation bonds is the ability to
get the required 2/3rds voter approval.
Limited obligation bonds are similar to general obligation bonds except that the bonds are
secured by a specified source of revenues a city already receives, including property and
sales tax. Taxes are not increased; consequently, funds that might be used for other city
functions are dedicated to these bonds. Limited obligation bonds also require approval by
2/3rds of the voters.
The Community Rehabilitation District Law of 1985 permits a city to rehabilitate capital
facilities, such as parks, by forming a community rehabilitation district in every area except
a redevelopment project area. The city may issue senior obligation bonds to finance these
improvements with only a simple majority approval of the voters. To secure payment, a portion
of property tax is dedicated to amortize the bonds.
Utility Users Excise Taz
Saratoga has a current utility tax which will generate $753,000 in 1991/92 to finance roads
maintenance. The city could expand the remit of the utility users excise tax, the proceeds of
the increased revenue being used for purchase and/or improvement of parks, trails, and
recreational open space. This would require a vote of the citizens. In 1990 the City of
Cupertino placed an ordinance on the ballot as Measure "T" and in November received a 68.4
percent voter approval for the imposition of a 2.4 percent utility tax to finance open space
to be levied on local telephone charges and gas and electric bills. Measure "T" was a response
to growing citizen concern over development pressure on limited remaining open spaces in the
city. It was intended entirely for the acquisition of two parcels of open space: the
Blackberry Farm and the Fremont Older School at an estimated cost of $25 million. The
potential City purchase of Nelson Gardens has similarity to the properties in Cupertino; if
similar public interest were present in Saratoga then passage of a voter approved tax for open
space could be achieved. One problem with this financing source for the next five years is
that placing an increase on the ballot might jeopardize the existing tax. It may be most
appropriate to wait until the existing tax has to be renewed before considering use of a
utility tax to finance open space.
• 4.4-3
4.4 Financing and Implementation Options
Industrial, Office, and Commercial Recreation Fee .
The most common types of development impact fees for parks and/or open space in California are
those levied on new residential development. However it is also possible to levy
park/recreation impact fees on industrial, office, and commercial development. A statewide
survey of cities in California indicates a current trend of providing recreation facilities in
industrial/commercial areas and levying impact fees on new development to finance those
facilities. The statewide survey revealed a range of fees from $0.02 to $3.00 per square
foot. Reasons stated for establishment of the fee include:
The fact that exercise tends to increase employee productivity;
Recreational facilities can also act as a selling point for developers of large
industrial lots/buildings;
Industrial areas are usually a good location for lighted ballfields as there are no
homes which would be impacted;
Recreational facilities can reduce the number of traffic trips at peak hours as many
employees will remain later to utilize the facilities;
They would provide greater recreational safety than current activities, such as
jogging or biking on industrial streets.
Where clear nexus can be defined between industrial/commercial development, the labor force,
and a specific recreation or park amenity, then establishment of a commercial recreation fee
may be appropriate. Given the limited amount of commercial development in Saratoga, this
strategy would have only minimal benefit although it could be of partial assistance to some
improvements in the downtown area.
Tax Increment Financing
Used within a redevelopment project area, tax increment financing is based upon ad valorem
property taxes generated from the increase in assessed valuation created by new development
and property turnover that occurs in the redevelopment project area. The assessed valuation
of the project is set at a base level during the year of plan adoption. Each fiscal year
following adoption of a redevelopment plan, a negotiated portion of the taxes generated by the
assessed valuation that exceeds the base year level -- the tax increment -- is paid to the
redevelopment agency and can be used for eligible redevelopment activities. A city may use
tax increment financing to develop parks or acquired open space elements. Funds used for
these purposes, however, do not directly increase tax increment in the redevelopment project
area, and would reduce the amount of funds available for other redevelopment improvements.
•
4.4-4
4.4 Financing and Implementation Options
• Sales and Use Tax Increment '
A redevelopment agency can impose a sales and use tax of 1 percent or less on retail sales and
use of personal property, if the redevelopment agency operates in a city that will give credit
against its own sales and use tax for any taxes paid to the redevelopment agency.
Consequently, the imposition of this tax will not increase the taz burden on the local
community. This tax revenue can be used to develop park space or acquire open space in a
redevelopment project area; however, bonds supported by sales taxes are considered more risky
than bonds supported by property tax increment. It seems unlikely that this represents a
significant opportunity in Saratoga.
Other Tax Revenue
Revenue may be acquired by raising taxes as the Transient Occupancy Tax, Business License,
construction tax, or an excise tax on certain items, and dedicating this revenue to the
acquisition and maintenance of parks. Any special taxes dedicated to a special use such as
parks currently require atwo-thirds voter approval. (The State legislature is anticipated to
consider reducing this requirement to a simple majority vote in the future but this is
uncertain at this time.) If the taxes were raised for general purposes only a majority vote
would be required. It should be recognized that competition amongst a variety of city
projects is normally intense for these sources of financing and parks may not be viewed by
Council as a high enough priority in Saratoga for such funding.
• Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
A community facilities district may be formed to provide for the purchase, construction,
expansion or rehabilitation of any property necessary to meet increased demands resulting from
development or rehabilitation occurring within the district. Facilities financed by Mello-Roos
include parks. Maintenance costs may also be funded by a Mello-Roos District. Revenues are
acquired through a special tax, and the district may issue bonds secured by the proceeds of
the special tax, subject to atwo-thirds approval of voters in the district. If the district
contains less than 12 owners, such as a district conterminous with a few large ownerships,
votes are by acreage. Consequently, Mello-Roos Districts normally are formed to finance
improvements associated with new communities. Mello-Roos may be an opportunity for financing
of park and recreation facilities in significant new residential subdivisions in Saratoga.
Revenue Bonds
Revenue bonds can be used to finance certain open space or recreation areas which generate a
revenue stream that is sufficient to secure a bond issue. Debt service payments are met from
charges placed on the users of the facility. For open space or recreation facilities, a lease
revenue bond may be more appropriate. This instrument is typically issued by non-profit
corporations or authorities to construct a public facility that is leased to another public
entity, such as a city, which holds a security position to make lease payments that in turn
cover debt service payments on the bond. A city may also issue a lease revenue bond supported
by lease payments made .by a private entity, such as a golf course operator or perhaps even an
agricultural operation using public land acquired in part by the proceeds from the revenue
bond. A revenue bond requires a simple majority approval of the voters, while a lease revenue
• 4.4-5
4.4 Financing and Implementation Options
bond, which does not constitute indebtedness, can be authorized by a resolution of the issuer •
governing board. Future use of revenue bonds will be contingent upon ability to confidently
predict significant revenue from a specific facility.
Certificates of Participation
Similar to lease revenue bonds, Certificates of Participation (COPs) are financed by lease
payments (with an option to purchase or a conditional sale agreement) to finance major public
projects including recreational facilities such as parks and golf courses. The city leases
the facility from a lessor such as a private leasing corporation, anon-profit corporation, or
another public agency. A financial institution pays the lessor cash for the present value of
future lease payments. The lessor uses the cash to finance development of the facility.
Investors purchase certificates of participation in the lease; a trustee holds security, and
an escrow agent collects the lease payments and distributes them to the holders of the
certificates of participation. A city may use general funds, dedicated funds, or reimbursed
revenue to make lease payments. COPs do not constitute indebtedness under
the state constitutional debt limitation and do not require voter approval. An example of the
use of this financing strategy has occurred in the City of Carlsbad which used COPS to finance
the purchase of a significant parcel of woodland, and is using the General Fund to make the
lease payments.
Concessions
Revenues from private concessions, such as restaurants, food outlets, private recreation •
operations, etc., may be used to help finance maintenance and improvement costs elsewhere in a
park. Concessions are most applicable to active-recreation parks. Significant future active
recreation nodes should be carefully considered for potential establishment of concession
operations.
Grants Programs
Several state and federal grant programs exist which provide funds for park acquisitions or
improvement, including the following:
Fish and Game: Public Access Program
Established to acquire lands and develop facilities suitable for recreational purposes, and
that are adaptable for conservation, propagation and utilization of the state's fish and game
resources.
This is not a grant program, but instead facilitates state projects developed in cooperation
with local government. Examples include lake and stream improvements, artificial marine
reefs, trails, land and water acquisition for habitat preservation, or wildlife protection and
conservation.
Environmental License Plate Fund:
Established to support a variety of projects which help preserve California's environment.
For example, Oceanside received a $165,000 grant for the Buena Vista Lagoon Nature Center.
•
4.4-6
4.4 Financing and Implementation Options
• Proposition 70: Parks and Wildlife Initiative
Passed in 1988 by statewide referendum, this initiative provides funds, supported by bonds, tQ
finance habitat restoration, park development, and wildlife preservation.
Water Resources: Davis-Grunsky Act
There are seven types of assistance available to local agencies under this act for
construction projects related to dams and reservoirs, including grants for the part of
construction cost allocated to recreation and the enhancement of fish and wildlife.
Proposition 99: Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Benefit Fund
About 596 of Proposition 99 funds are dedicated to natural resource projects; split 50/50
between parks projects and habitat projects. The habitat money is subdivided into thirds,
with 1/3 for wildlife, 1/3 for fisheries, and 1/3 for waterfowl. Project sponsors apply for
funding through a state agency such as Parks and Recreation or fish and game. In FY 1990-91,
an estimated $30 million was available for Proposition 99 programs.
Land and Water Conservation Fund
This fund is a block grant with a 5096 matching provision. Funding level for FY 1990-91 was
$20 million. Application deadline is usually February IS for the following fiscal year but
can vary. The fund is for the acquisition, development, or rehabilitation of neighborhood,
community, or regional parks, or facilities supporting outdoor recreation activities.
Federal-Aid Highway Program
The Federal-Aid Highway Program may provide up to 10096 of costs associated with bicycle and
pedestrian facilities improvements. Projects must have a transportation component but
• recreational use is by no means excluded. It appears that the Federal Highway Administration
is taking an increasingly broad definition of what constitutes a transportation function.
Projects most be identified by local governments who then must coordinate with the State
transportation agency in applying for federal aid. As "independent facilities" (those not in
road right-of-way) are eligible for 10096 funding through the Federal-Aid Highway Program, this
could be an important funding source for Saratoga.
Private Land Trusts
There is currently no local land trust in the City. The establishment of a trust is under
consideration. A local land trust would be a private nonprofit organization generating
individual donations and foundation grants, and possibly some public funds, to acquire and
maintain open space. The most important activity of local trusts is in the acquisition of
land facing development pressure. Trusts often purchase only a conservation easement rather
than a fee title. Under such an arrangement, the Trust acquires the development rights to a
property, while the developer holds rights for continued farming. In this way local
governments, through the Trust, can achieve open space protection without assuming
responsibility for maintenance. The property owner also retains the right to sell the land
for open space uses. Trusts are often successful in attracting both monetary and land gifts
because of their nonprofit status which renders the gift tax deductible.
• 4.4-7
4.4 Financing and Implementation Options
Joint Use Agreements
The City has made use of joint use of school and college facilities for the provision of
recreation service to the public in the past. This is an efficient means of providing certain
programming opportunities such as for sports league use, use of specific facilities such as
tennis, and use of playground equipment out of school hours. This kind of use should be
continued wherever possible to augment the range and distribution of recreational opportunity
in the City.
\~
4.4-8
4.5 The Future
THE FUTURE
Although Saratoga is close to build out, there are still significant opportunities in the City
to enhance the parks system and in particular to develop a trails system as an important new
recreational feature of the community. This Parks and Trails Master Plan is a clear
embodiment of the City's continued commitment to best realize quality of life for its
residents and visitors. Its initiation and the process of preparation have involved all
sections of the City and the result reflects the input of City staff, the citizens, and their
political representatives. The Plan itself is, of course only a beginning. It represents a
vision for the future in which residents will have increased access to a wider diversity of
recreational opportunity. The parks and open space are also features of the City's landscape
which preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of the City for residents and visitors
alike. It is in the implementation of the plan that real effect will be made. The City must
show the same determination in achieving the goals and objectives of the plan as it showed in
the Plan's preparation.
L_
4.5-1
Acknowledgements
•
THE CITY OF SARATOGA
City Council Members
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
F. L. Stutzman, Mayor
Willem Kohler, Vice Mayor
Martha Clevenger
Victor Monia
Karen Anderson
Parks and Recreation Commission
Terence Ward, Chair
Marianne Swan
Jennifer Crotty
Fran Franklin
Ann Marie Gilman
Mark Pierce
Donna Miller
City Manager
Harry Peacock
City Departments
Planning Department
Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
Tsvia Adar, Associate Planner
Maintenance Department
Dan Trinidad, Director of Parks
Bob Rizzo, Superintendent
Recreation Department
Joan Pisani, Director of Recreation
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Department of Planning and Development
Hugh H. Graham, Senior Planner
~J
Acknowledgements
Prepared by:
Wallace Roberts & Todd
Landscape Architects, Urban and
Environmental Planners
121 Second Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 541-0830
1133 Columbia Street, Suite 205
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 696-9303
Donald Gibson, Associate-in-Charge
Paul Rookwood, Project Manager
Catherine Ramsden, Project Planner
2
i
Acknowledgements
REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments, "Projections - 90",Oakland, 1988
"California Cities, Towns and Counties", 1989
City of Rolling Hills, "Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan", as
amended, 1990
City of Saratoga Planning Department, "General Plan", as amended, 1983
City of Saratoga, "Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan", 1981
City of Walnut Creek, "General Plan", as amended, 1990
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, "Land Acquisition Policies and Procedures",
1988.
Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman, "1990 Community Survey Results", March 1990
Santa Clara County, "General Plan", as amended, 1981
Santa Clara County, "Trails and Pathways Plan", as amended, 1982
Tools for the Greenbelt, "A Citizens Guide to Protecting Open Space", People for Open
Space Greenbelt Action Program, 1988
• 3