HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 Final Report --Saratoga Paths and Trails Task Force7
1
city of SARATOGA
INCORPORATED 1956 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
May, ,1976
Honorable Colman M. Bridges
Mayor of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
r Dear Mayor Bridges,
We are happy to present you herewith the Final Report of the Saratoga Paths
and Trails Task Force as requested by the City Council through Mayor Jerome
Smith in-his letter of June 18, 1974.
As indicated in the Preface to the Report, we have restructured the General
Plan for Trails and Pathways for hikers and equestrians. Bicycles have been
intentionally omitted, per our charge.
We believe that the proposed Plan provides the City with a firm starting base,
and a means to restructure and modify the Plan as the City grows and changes.
We do not pretend to foretell the future, but we have tried to anticipate it.
l We are willing and anxious to provide additional time and assistance to the
F Council, Commission's, City Staff and interested community groups in reviewing
and clarifying this Report.
We recommend expeditious approval of this Report so that a functional trail
system will become a reality in the near future.
L
Patricia Knapp
n
Delapl ne MCDani 1
Louise Schaefer
an Woodward
RECOMMENDED REVISION
SARATOGA GENERAL, PLAN
FOR
TRAILS AND PATHWAYS
Submitted by: The Trails and Pathways Task Force
May, 1976
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
Letter from Mayor Smith
1
Preface
4
Part I
1
Summary of Major Recommendations
5
2
General Considerations
7
3
Criteria for Route Selection
8
4
Trail Property
9
5
Trail Construction
11
6
Trail Maintenance
14
7
Trail Safety
16
8
Public. Safety
18
9
Proposed Ordinances
20
10
Education of Trail Users
23
11
Funding the Trails System
24
12
Construction and Maintenance Costs
27
Glossary
34
Bibliography
37
Minority Report
i
Part II
Maps
38
AreaI
40
AreaII
64
AreaIII
88
Sphere of Influence ............................106
INCOkDOpG1ED I956
k�
r
ti
1 i P
MAYOR JEROME A SMITH
city of SARATO
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
June 18, 1974
Mr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear
Thank you for your willingness to serve on the Trails and Pathways Task
Force.
Please be advised that on June 5th, the City Council approved your appoint-
ment to the Trails and Pathways Task Force. Attached is a list of the other
persons who have accepted the challenge and responsibility to serve on this
very important committee.
The charge of the Task Force is.as follows:
1) To review the present Master Plan for trails and determine which trails
are proposed trails and still available for development. This would
include an inventory of existing public trails and existing private trails.
2) To develop a trail map outlining existing and proposed public trails.
3) To develop and recommend a set of general criteria and standards for
development of equestrian paths, i.e. setbacks from private property
for paths, etc.
4 To develop a program and recommendations pertaining to maintenance of
such trails, once established, and an approximate annual cost of such
L a maintenance program.
5) To develop a program and recommendations for patrol and protection of
such trails and annual cost for such a program.
6) To develop recommendations in areas where additional ordinances would
be necessary for adoption by the City Council to implement the recommenda-
tions of the above maintenance items.
It is hoped that as a result of your deliberations The Task Force will develop
a set of recommendations for the development of an excellent trails and path-
ways program for the City of Saratoga.
CITY HALL 867 -3438 OFFICE: 998 -1717 HOME. 867 -2412
1
Mr. Joseph T. Hootman
June 18, 1974
Page 2
E The City Council would like to receive the Task Force's report and nd recommenda-
tions within a six month period. This would enable adequate review and consi-
deration of the report so that any recommendations where appropriate might be
included in the 1975 -76 Annual Budget.
The first meeting for the Trails and Pathways Task Force has been scheduled
for July 8, at 7:30 P.M. in the Crisp Conference Room,
I look forward to meeting with you on the 8th and again thank you for accept-
s ing this appointment.
Ve y truly yours,
r
Je ome A. S ith
Ma or
JAS /bh
cc: City Manager
Preceding letter etter sent to:
Col. E. T. Barco, Camino de Los Barcos
Joseph T. Hootman, Hickory Hill Way
R. E. Kaufmann, Fourth Street
Patricia Knapp, Wardell Road
Delaplaine McDaniel, Hilltop Way
Louise Schaefer, Park Drive
John Terry, Woodbank Way
Jean Woodward, Lanark Lane
Also invited but unable to complete service because of moves, etc.:
Mrs. Terrance Kelly
Kenneth Rose
-2-
TRAILS AND PATHWAYS
TASK FORCE
John Terry, 18675 Woodbank Way
Delaplaine McDaniel, 14253 Hilltop Way
Ken Rose, 13973 Quito Oaks Road
Col. Ernest T. Barco, 18873 Dundee Ave.
Mrs. Jean Woodward, 19761 Lanark Lane
R. E. Kaufmann, 20700 Fourth Street
Joseph T. Hootman, 20335 Hickory Hill Way
Mrs. Ronald Knapp, 20885 Wardell Road
Mrs. Terrance Kelly, 19354 Brookview Drive
Mrs. Louise Schaefer, 19874 Park Drive
-3-
PREFACE
This document is the final report of the Trails and Pathways Task Force, completing
the request of the City Council for a review of the City's'1968 Master Plan for Trails.
The first action of the Task Force was to study the 1968 Master Plan for Trails and
Pathways developed by the Parks and Recreation Commission in 1969. The Committee then
covered all the trails being considered for inclusion, on foot, at least once, and many
C sections were covered several times. This provided us with a firsthand look to deter-
mine which routes were still available and practical. We strongly recommend to any
group doing trail work that there is no substitute for many hours spent on the trail
observing the routes, noting the trail conditions and meeting the many and varied trail
users.
many qroups (see Appendix) concerned with trails were contacted. Ideas were exchanged
and experiences shared, making it possible to coordinate our plans with others and to
E build upon their experience.
A final plan was developed based on the following categories of trail types:
E 1) A single arterial route which would connect with trails outside the
City limits.
2) Collector and feeder trails which would provide access to the arterial
route from such places as schools, parks, and from other parts of the
community.
3) Loop or circulation trails in the Equestrian Zones.
During the formulation of the trail plan and its routes, constant consideration was
given to:
1) The rights of property owners.
2) The deterrence of vandalism.
3) The safety of both trail users and property owners.
4) The need for clear policies and definitive plans.
-S) The minimization of cost.
6) The use of existing easements wherever possible.
The Task Force wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Randy Anderson of the City
Planning Department, whose help, especially in the preparation of the many maps and
the problems associated therewith, was invaluable.
L
Of
Richard E. Kaufmann
P tricia Knapp n
Delapl ne McDanie
Louise Schaefer
A an Woodwar
SECTION 1
SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The text of the following Report contains several hundred recommendations, ranging
from areas of broad City policy to such details as the best method to surface a
ford across a stream.
To facilitate reading and evaluation by the Council and other City officials, as
well as concerned citizens who will read and wish to understand it, we present
below a summary of the MAJOR recommendations contained in the Report.
The Task Force recommends:
1. Adoption of the Trails System delineated in the maps contained in Part 2 of
this report, Map sections I, II, and III, and the pertinent parts of the
Sphere of Influence Map. The adoption should signify the acceptance of the
System as the new Master Plan for Trails, subject to the same reviews and
hearings as any other part of the Master Plan.
2. Since construction of all the recommended trails will take several years,
the Task Force has established a table of route priorities which it
recommends to the Council. If we fail to secure and develop these links,
we face possible destruction of the integrity of the whole Trail System.
a. Area III, Sections A, B, C and D
These Sections cover the entire length of the PG &E easement, are
homogeneous,as to their nature and requirements for development,
are highly visible, and represent the "backbone" of the main
arterial route.
b. Area I, Section J
This portion of the trail is a part of the only direct link between
Equestrian Area I and the Sphere of Influence. It currently passes
through two tracts now being developed, so that the trail should be
located and established as a formal part of the system as soon•as
possible.
C. Area I, Section D
That portion of this trail which connects Sobey Road and Chester
Avenue is the final link in a badly- needed loop trail formed by
Section D -I together with Sections A -I and B -I, which are already
in use.
d. Area I,.Sections G and H
These sections form part of an important link between Equestrian
Area I and the Sphere of Influence.
3. Public Hearings should be held on this Report, in accordance with the usual
General Plan Procedure.
4. The Parks and Recreation Department should be made solely responsible for
determining when a section of trail should be closed for reasons of inutility,
public safety, repairs, etc.
-5-
I
5. Hours of trail usage should be established.
6. The comments of the Fire District should be solicited for views as to
potential modifications in the construction of such sections of the trails
r system as might be of use in firefighting activities.
7. Land use and acquisition should be given the following priorities:
a. Land already under public ownership.
b. Purchased land.
C. Land acquired as a condition of approval of a new building or
subdivision site.
d. Land leased on behalf of the City for an extended period of time.
B. The City A resp onsible for the general ov ersight of the Trails System
i
L
QsM
sho uTEF be the Par s_; and -Recreation; _Commission, with direct input from` the
s a e..responsibilities should include;
a. Implementing the trail plans a s recommended herein and approved
by the Council.
b. Delineating new trails for review and ultimate inclusion in the
Trails System, subject to the safeguard reviews set forth hereinafter.
C. Conducting preliminary public hearings on changes to the approved
Master Plan,. for recommendations to the Council.
d. Following approval of the Trails Plan, a review should be conducted
by the Parks and Recreation Commission of easements obtained for the
1968 Master Trail Plan. Those easements clearly not needed for inclu-
sion in the current trail plan, based upon criteria proposed in the
f
body of this Report, should be recommended for release through sale,
trade or return.
e. There should be an annual review of the Trails Plan by the Parks
and Recreation Commission to recommend the addition o new r i 1
se,cti_o _,.,an eas ements and the release of un- needed easements.
Upon comp etion of trail sections, easements held for alternative
routes to those sections should be recommended for release based
upon the same criteria as those referred to in "d" above.
i
L
QsM
SECTION 2
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Following the orientation period involving the study of the 1968 Master Plan,
other documentation, etc. meetings were held with several outside organizations
(listed in Appendix) to assure appropriate coordination and understanding among
their plans and those we might develop.
The City was then divided into three sections;
I. Equestrian Area I, comprising the easterly half of the City from
Quito Road to Wildcat Creek.
II. Equestrian Area II,. including the westerly half of the City between
Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and the western City limit.
III. The central section laid out around the PG&E easement running parallel
to the SP railroad tracks, and, when expedient, the Transportation
Corridor.
Both the Sobey Road (Area I) and Pierce Road (Area II) equestrian areas are similar
in nature, both having large horse populations, internal pedestrian equestrian
traffic, and transit traffic to and from trails in the Sphere of Influence. The
Central Section, in an area of high pedestrian use, provides access to several
schools, two parks and two future park sites, as well as a general corridor
across the City and access to other City and Sphere trails.
Three types of trails were established as the basis for route selection:
1. The Arterial Trail
A primary route which accepts pedestrian- equestrian traffic between
sections of the City and which inter connects with trails of the County
and neighboring cities. There are 10.9 miles of Arterial Trail in the
recommended Plan.
2. Connecting or Feeder Trails
A series of secondary routes connecting with the Arterial Route and
giving access to and from schools, parks, points of special interest,
vista locations etc. Some of the secondary trails are unsuitable for
equestrian use, and are so characterized in the trail detail. These,
and perhaps others may occasionally require closure to all traffic
because of weather or other safety related problems.
3. Loop or Circulation Trails
Internal trails which permit movement and circulation within the Zone,
in both Equestrian Zones.
There are 7.6 miles of Connecting and Loop Trails in the Plan. There are also
1.2 miles of future trail lines recommended when property becomes available or
demand warrants.
50
r
SECTION 4
TRAIL PROPERTY
Procedures for Acquisition, Return and Release
1. Establishment of Status of this Report.
It is recommended that the Trails System shown on the maps appearing in
Part 2 of this Report, together with the Recommendations enbodied in the
text of Part 1 be adopted as the Official General Plan for Trails and
Pathways.
2. Proposed Changes in the 1976 General Plan for Trails and Pathways.
It is inevitable that with the passage of time, new developments, population
shifts, legislation, etc., some revisions will be required in the General
Plan.
Changes in the Plan,- reguested.by'Fcitizens, citizen or the like may
be submitted to the Council or the appropriate Commission for referral to
the Parks .,and.- Recreation.Commisiion. These 'Commissions will be responsible
for screening, the �.requestgi and making' recommendations to the Council prior
to the holding of public hearings.
Changes to the Plan may also be initiated by any City agency having an
interest therein for referral to the Parks and Recreation Commission and
for action as above described.
Changes to the 1976 General Plan for Trails and Pathways will be made only
in accordance with the General Plan Change Procedure.
3. Return of Easements.
It is recommended that a policy be established with respect to the return
of easements relating to trails, as follows:
a. Following approval to this proposed General Plan for Trails and
Pathways, the Parks and Recreation Commission shall conduct an
annual review of all easements held by the City relating to the-
1976 General Plan for Trails. Those easements which are not in
use, and are not included in the 1976 Trail Plan should be
evaluated against the easement retention criteria outlined below.
Easements that do not meet the criteria should be recommended
for release.
While it is the intention of the Task Force that the City "bank"
or retain easements which appear to be currently or potentially
usable, it is not intended that easements be retained which
clearly and reasonably violate privacy or safety, or have no
reasonable probability of future use.
b. Criteria for Retention of Easements
1) Connecting or currently in use,
2) An alternative trail has not yet been constructed which would
satisfactorily serve the same purpose and which would void the
need for the easement,
3) Included as part of the 1976 General Plan Revision or an amend-
ment thereto,
SECTION 3
CRITERIA FOR ROUTE SELECTION
The general considerations having been established, the development of criteria
for route selection was next undertaken. The following eight factors were
selected as being of major significance:
1. The utilization of existing or former trails, whenever possible.
2. 'The availability of terminal points (linkages to other trails or
points of interest) which made a given route part of the whole
trail system.
3. The suitability of the section under scrutiny for trail use: the
angle of climb, the availability of enough width for a full use trail,
the complexity of conversion to trail use (brush clearing, structures
required, etc.) possible future maintenance problems.
4. The availability of the land for public use: was it already an easement
for water, sewer, utility or streets, was it privately owned, was it raw
or developed land, etc.?
5. Privacy proximity of the route to developed property, the additional
fencing or screening required to assure against encroachment of abutting
properties.
6. The inherent safety of the route, whether it crossed busy streets or
highways, the existence of seasonal hazards due to weather or other
natural conditions.
7. Definable costs, requirements for trail preparation, potential maintenance
costs, surveillance problems, and the possible costs of leasing part of
owned property or purchasing easements or fee title.
8. The aesthetic value of the route from the standpoint of scenic value and
historical interest.
The second section of this Report contains maps detailing each recommended route.
As indicated in the preceding Section, the Maps are divided into three City areas
and one comprising the Sphere of Influence. Each City area is subdivided into
sections, and each of these sections is shown as a separate, relatively large
scale map, showing the Assessor's Book Page and Parcel Number, lot numbers, creek
and road crossings, and names of and proximity to adjacent streets.
Opposite each individual map the reader will find a description of the route,
existing or potential problems discernible, a list of requirements for the
development of the route, and photographs taken at key points along it.
0
-8-
3 5. Undetermined Trail Routes.
In cases where this Report shows both recommended routes and alternate
routes, and final determination has not been made, the easements should
be retained until the final route is constructed, or unless released under
the preceding review.
z
L
-10-
4) An alternative to an uncompleted link or segment of:--t-he 1976
General Plan for Trails or an amendment thereto,
5) Part of a trail plan of any other government agency, Federal,
State or local,
6) A connecting route with an adjoining community, organization
i
or governmental agency trail plan, including Park and Transit
Districts,
7) A connecting route to a school, park, recreation area, open
1
space area, point of special interest or vista location, or
to public transportation,
8) An alternative for an unsafe or hazardous route,
9) Required by public safety agencies for access,
10) Dedicated by individuals or organizations to be part of the
Saratoga Trail System.
4. Addition of Easements.
It
is recommended that a policy be established with respect to the addition
of
easements for the Trail Plan, as follows:
a.
Proposed additions of easements shall be approved by the Parks and
Recreation Commission and thereafter handled as normal changes to the
General Plan.
b.
Proposed gifts or dedications of easements should be handled in the
same manner.
3 5. Undetermined Trail Routes.
In cases where this Report shows both recommended routes and alternate
routes, and final determination has not been made, the easements should
be retained until the final route is constructed, or unless released under
the preceding review.
z
L
-10-
SECTION 5
TRAIL CONSTRUC
1. Basic characteristics and standards:
The construction of a trail system in the City of Saratoga for use by.its
citizens and to share with citizens of adjoining communities must be under-
taken with some basic criteria. Among those considered essential are:
a. The trail must be in keeping with the interests, objectives, and
general atmosphere of the community.
b. The trail system must be natural and as harmonious with its use
and environment as is possible.
c. The trail construction must be simple and low cost.
d. Safety is a primary consideration particularly in that the trail
will be in an urban area and used for utilitarian purposes such
as going to school as well as for recreation.
e. The trail must be easily maintained in terms of both facility
renewal and repair, and cleanliness.
f. Privacy for adjacent landowners, and containment to the trail of
trail users, are of primary importance.
g. Continuation of the trail system to link with other trails and to
lead to points of access and interest is essential.
h. Continuity within the trail system as to signing, construction, etc.,
along with connecting trail systems of other cities and the county,
is essential.
2. Trail Construction
a. Types
There are four general types of trail construction to be considered in
the Saratoga Trail System:
1) Hillside. These are foothill trails primarily used by hikers
and equestrians. The hillside areas present problems in con-
struction relative to width, grade, drainage, clearing, routing,
and prevention of motorized access.
2) Residential. These are trails primarily through the residential
areas of the City. Key problems are privacy, containment, appearance
and access control.
3) Arterial Trail. This is the trail route based on the SP /PG&E lines.
Primary problems relate to safety- highways, trains, power lines,
creeks, etc.
4) Transportation Corridor. This is the trail route which might be
co- located with the 85 Freeway if it is completed. Primary problems
relate to safety, interconnection points and routing.
b. Surfacing
There are several important factors related to surfacing:
1) Surfaces wherever possible should be raw, unpaved land. A path
scraped with tractor blade to clear it of rocks and weeds is
recommended, except in narrow spots, areas with drainage problems,
and areas where appearance or containment requires other treatment.
-11=
2) Cutting and soil removal is generally not desirable Filling
preferred, but both are less desirable than using natural groi
j d. Access
Ease of access must be provided where appropriate as well as control of
or barrier to access where private property is involved. Fence openings,
r parking areas, bridges and fords require adequate signing to indicate trail
t_ access and route.
-12-
3) ,•Drainage--::and. erosion dontrol vital. In both hillside and
areas of ^piping,"gravel drains,'and water barriers may be necessary.
4) Headers, cribs, steps and other man -made improvements should be
avoided wherever possible.
c. Width
The recommended minimum trail widths are for one person 24 inches;
for one horse, 34 inches; for two horses_, 6 inches; for a maintenance
vehicle, 8 feet. The'.recommended width of easement is' feet where
available (such as the arterial) 10 feet otherwise,' a 6-foot minimum.
d. Grade
In the hillside areas grading becomes significant. Trails should follow
natural contours with qreat concern for erosion. The recommen grad
s percent w ith a. of 15% for any trail for horse use Short
ections o g -only' trail may be steeper, with heavy use of switch-
backs.
e. Height
Hiking trails should have a ground clearance of 8 feet; combined trails
for equestrian use should have a minimum of 10'
f. Clearing
All brush should be cleared 1 foot on either side of the trail. Special
care may be taken to remove or clear back farther poison oak.
3. Privacy and Containment
There are several factors to be considered in maintaining the privacy of
adjacent properties and containing users to the trail system:
a. Appearance
It must be clear to the user where the trail is and where it goes. The
trail should be well- marked, cleared and dragged, filled and'surfaced
where needed, bounded by fencing and natural vegetation.
b. Fencing
Fencing should be used where appropriate to protect private property or
eliminate safety hazards. Several types of fencing are available. Cost
and appearance are key factors in selection.
C. Plantings
Natural plants and bushes are an ideal means of providing privacy and
containment. Native plants can be used, perhaps citizens will donate
and plant, for low cost with low maintenance. Thistles and berry vines
are effective fences. Height must also be considered in some areas used
by equestrians to ensure privacy.
j d. Access
Ease of access must be provided where appropriate as well as control of
or barrier to access where private property is involved. Fence openings,
r parking areas, bridges and fords require adequate signing to indicate trail
t_ access and route.
-12-
e. Public conveniences
Conveniences must eventually be provided along the trail for drinking
water (people and horses), horse hitches, litter collection, rest and
picnic areas, and lavatories where possible. These conveniences will
add to cost and maintenance, but will tend to reduce intrusion on
private property.
4. Bridges and Structures
Bridges and other structures are required on the trail system. These
should be primarily designed for safety and costs should be held to
minimums. See trail descriptions for specific places and details.
a. Bridges
There are several small bridges and one large bridge (40 foot)
across Saratoga Creek on the Arterial Trail. These should be made
of natural material and should be designed at least for use by a
three -wheel patrol vehicle.
b. Fords
There are a number of ford areas. Those along the Arterial Trail
should be ramped and have a concrete pad on the creek bottom with
stepping stones for bikers. Those in the residential and hillside
areas should be left as natural as possible.
-13-
1
�i
r
i
n
SECTION 6
TRAIL MAINTENANCE
The trail system is intended to be primarily natural trails, requiring minimum
maintenance to remain serviceable. A small number of segments may be constructed
of crushed gravel, or receive other special treatment. In general, it is
recommended the maintenance activities be limited to semi annual (spring and fall)
cleanup and surface scraping where needed. Trails in the hillside areas should
require only minor weed abatement and repair, depending on their degree of usage.
A heavy participation by service organizations and special interest groups should
be solicited in the general upkeep, cleanliness and maintenance of the trail
system. For example, horse owner associations in equestrian areas should plan
routine trail cleanup programs. The City would supply grading and filling as
needed. The current efforts of Boy Scout and 4 -H groups and equestrian organiza-
tions could be extended within the city. The award of participation patches to
such groups has been successful in promoting these activities for mountainside
trail clearing in the past.
The general problem of weed abatement is to a large extent a function of trail
use. In urban areas the trails will tend to remain weed free by usage or by
the nature of the trail surface, which may be roadside or a gravel surface, as
along the PG &E easement. Hillside trails may present a greater problem, with
brush cutting and weed spraying required periodically. The usable width of
these trails will be reduced, by growth of underbrush, to that required for
passage of traffic. This is satisfactory so long as poison oak is kept under
control.
Trail signs, even though they have been constructed for durability and resistance
to vandalism and defacement, will nevertheless require occasional repair or replace-
ment. It is hoped that this will be minimized by citizen awareness and support
programs, discussed elsewhere in this report, but we must recognize, realistically,
that there is no low cost solution for the "instant elimination" of vandalism.
Areas of the trail which cross water courses, traverse steep hillsides and other
difficult terrain will require annual spring repair and possibly trail redirection
from or too temporary bypass routes. It may be necessary to close sections of a
trail for repair during these periods.
On equestrian trails which traverse paved roads in urban areas, or pass near
residences, the removal of horse manure may become a local issue or concern.
This problem needs to be addressed directly with using equestrian groups, since
an awareness of the problem may stimulate a little extra care on the part of the
rider. Trouble spots on longer stretches of paved road (as at Sobey -Quito Road
corner) should be handled by routine cleanup efforts of user groups. In addition,
the City must be prepared to respond to an occasional call for cleanup from a
particular homeowner who is concerned by a problem in his area.
Littering of trails is a special concern, to be addressed by user groups during
the education of their members, by trail use literature available to citizens,
and lastly to be corrected as necessary by cleanup programs. Signs which encourage
the avoidance of littering are also recommended.
-14-
L
s
It should be the objective of the maintenance program to minimize expenditures
and to limit the formal effort to about one week of active work (by a grading
team for trail repair and filling of pot holes in the spring, after the winter
rains). A truck and tractor with blade are the normally required equipment.
With successful participation by users of the trails, this objective may be
achieved.
-15-
r
f",
SECTION 7
TRAIL SAFETY
As was pointed out in the section on "Trail Construction safety for trail users
is a prime factor. Areas of particular concern are:
1. Road crossings
The Saratoga Trail System will have a number of users hikers, walkers,
horsemen, bicycles, patrol vehicles, corporation vehicles along the corridor,
and (though clearly not desired!) two- wheeled motorized vehicles. The
Saratoga Trail System will cross a number of roads and protection of both
trail users and vehicles at these points is imperative. There are three
basic types of road crossings:
1) Lighttraffic (Glen Brae, etc.). These should be signed and crossings
painted.
2) Connector streets (Cox, etc.). These should be signed, painted, and
equipped with trail barriers to call attention of users to the crossing.
(Such barriers may also be used for access control.)
3) Highways (Sunnyvale- Saratoga, etc.). These crossings should have all
the above features plus special signing or devices to additionally
warn vehicles, probably selected in conjunction with Cal Trans.
f
I
L
2. General hazards
There are a number of other safety hazards:
1) The S.P. railroad tracks and the trains which run on them. Trail
users should be encouraged to stay off the tracks.
2) The PG&E power lines. Barriers and fencing should be erected to
prevent tower climbing.
3) Water in creeks, particularly in rainy season. Bridges, fords,
signing must be used to warn of water hazards and to divert or
route trail users away from or around such hazards. This may
include closing the trail if necessary to prevent use of the S.P.
tracks, or intrusion on private property, or hazardous crossing.
4) Bridges. Bridges must be signed, safely constructed, properly
ramped and railed, and adequate visibility provided.
5) Difficult terrain. There will be trail sections which are steep,
narrow, slippery. There may be obstacles (natural, or barriers
to prevent motorized access), and junctions with sections also
used by horses or bicycles. These need signing.
6) vehicles. There are sections where bicycles or corporate or
emergency vehicles may be on the trail, which should be signed.
7) Animal hazards. There may be sections where hazards such as
animals, ranges, etc., should be signed.
S) Other hazards. Stable entrances, "hiker only sewer or storm
drain locations, etc. may need signing. We consider poison oak
to be a hazard, but not for signing. The trail booklet should
cover this hazard. Fire hazard signs, however, are appropriate.
-16-
3. Visibility and hearing
At crossings and other hazards proper visibility must be provided. Hearing
may be impaired by cars, trains, running water, or clothing. Some key
points:
1) Signs must be clearly visible in both directions. It may be
appropriate to change the trail surface or use barriers.
2) Crossings should be at a right angle, at least ten feet before
a crossing, and for horses should be visible for 400 feet.
3) Crossing should not be screened.
4) Crossings should be clearly delineated and as short as possible.
4. Signing
The basic approach should include:
1) Signs should be pictorial rather than all lettered.
2) They should be durable, easy to replace,. and difficult to
1 vandalize (high and hard)
3) They should be as natural as possible.
i 4) Signs should stress positive instructions rather than emphasize
"NO "DO NOT
5) Signing should be reasonable consistent with that of adjoining
trail systems.
5. Vehicle exclusion
It is considered important to discourage the use of the Saratoga Trail System
by any unauthorized motor vehicle. This requires proper ordinance and enforce-
ment. It also requires installation of barriers and obstacles which horses,
hikers and the patrol vehicle can get around. Appropriate education as referred
to in Section 10 is also strongly recommended.
Several devices to deter motor vehicle use will be found in the State Department
of Parks and Recreation Trail Manual. These include trail surface modifications,
obstacles, barriers. We recommend continued study and examination of this vital
construction area.
-17-
SECTION 8
PUBLIC SAFETY
Trail Patrol and Surveillance
Trail users should feel secure from the possibility of unwanted personal contacts,
and adjoining property owners should have equal assurance that their privacy will
not be invaded or their property vandalized., Inherent in these desirable charac-
teristics is a reduction in operating costs to the taxpayer.
Although the general function of law enforcement (in all its ramifications) has
been contracted to the Sheriff's Department, discussions with representatives of
the Sheriff have elicited a series of "desirable characteristics" of the trail
system which are not entirely compatible with our objectives. It is a fact of
life that a Deputy, patrolling from a motor vehicle, has a different set of needs
from a hiker or an equestrian; for example, he would like a roadway which would
accomodate his patrol car, straight lines along which he could direct his spot-
light, etc. These are not precisely suitable to a "natural" trail.
We must also face the fact that the Sheriff's rates for service have escalated
significantly, as well as the fact that by using his services for trail patrol
we would also be subject to normal add -on charges for administration, jail costs,
etc., many of which we might not require.
In reviewing the problem, the Committee decided that the primary solution to
trail management was surveillance as opposed to conventional "Law Enforcement
Vandalism and petty criminals are not anxious to ply their trade when there is
some chance of their being observed and reported.
We therefore recommend that the City establish its own trail patrol, to be
staffed by Law Enforcement and Park Management students from San Jose State
University and West Valley College. These individuals should be uniformed, to
identify them as City employees, and should be used as observers rather than
enforcers They must be supplied with County- approved mobile radio equipment
which will permit immediate two -way communication with County Communications
Control, and will provide for assistance during incidents requiring action by
Sheriff's Deputies. Park Department inspection tours may also be of assistance
in this area.
a. Transportation
Five modes of transportation were considered by the Task Force.
1) Three wheeled motorcycle preferred mode, as being
suitable for most of the terrain and for pursuit in
most situations.
i
F 2) Horse secondary mode, recommended for use on hillside
terrain, especially in Equestrian Zone 2.
3) Electric or gasoline "golf cart" vehicles; two wheeled
motorcycles; and foot patrol; also reviewed and found
suitable for special applications, but not recommended
because of limitations.
L
-18-
b. Patrol Hours
Duty hours of the partrol should coincide in general with the
legal hours of trail use. After -hours problems are properly
the concern of the Sheriff. Personnel should be assigned on
f the basis of activity and need, not simply on a fixed schedule.
c. Citizen Concern and Communication
�i The Task Force recommends that the Code Enforcement Officer and the
Director of Community Services be designated as normal contacts
between citizens and the City. It should be expected that emer-
gency situations requiring action by Sheriff's Deputies will be
communicated directly to the Sheriff's offices by affected
citizens or trail patrol personnel.
-19-
SECTION 9
I. PROPOSED ORDINANCES
The Task Force, in the review of the 1968 Master Plan and the related City
ordinances, found that the existing City Code does not adequately cover trail
and pathway use as contemplated by the revised Plan contained in this report.
Many of the terms used, and regulations proposed by the Task Force should be
fl added to the appropriate Sections of the Code, and defined.
We therefore recommend to the Council that they make the following additions,
alterations or deletions in the City Code, subject to the recommendation of the
City Attorney:
I 1. General
The following terms and definitions should be included, where applicable,
in the Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Ordinance, Health and Sanitation,
Motor Vehicle and Traffic, and Park and Recreation Ordinances:
a. TRAIL A public way permanently reserved for hiking and
horseback riding.
b. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL A public way permanently reserved for
foot traffic only, and so designated.
c. EQUESTRIAN TRAIL (BRIDLE PATH) A public way permanently
reserved for horses and riders only, and so designated.
d. BICYCLE LANE A designated public area on or adjacent to
streets and roadways, reserved for bicycle traffic
only, and so designated.
2. Zoning Regulations, and Subdivision Ordinance
a. The Zoning Regulation should state that there are two Equestrian Zones,
Zone 1 encompassing the Sobey Road Area, and Zone 2, the Pierce Road
Mt. Eden Road area, rather than combining them into one zone as at
present. (Art. 1, Secs. 1.2 -1 and 1.8 -1.) The zoning map Should
show each area and properly designate them as Equestrian Area 1 and
b Equestrian 2.
U b. It should be stated as a Re uirement, in both the Ordinance and Regula-
tions, that on all tentative and ina site maps or plans, for all sing
lots; Eour or less hi s; five or more lot subdiv and in the Hillside
Conservation Zone single lot; four or less lots; five or more lot sub
division maps or plans, the following should be shown clearly
Location "of' existing of Wo a uture trails (as designated on the
aaapfe� 975•General"Plan Trail and Pathway Map)
3. Health and Sanitation Ordinance
Our interpretation of Division 5, "Horse and Stable Licenses" is that it is
intended primarily for controlling the number of horses, and even more,
insuring that the owner has supplied adequate fencing, met the requirements
of the setback provisions, and insured sanitary conditions.
We recommend that the entire content of Division 5 be reviewed with the idea
of licensing the Horse Facility instead of the horse. We further suggest
that the fee for a Stable License be fixed at $10.00, to be renewed tri-
ennially, for each horse facility in use. This is not intended to replace
the stable building permit required by the City Code.
-20-
We identify a "horse facility" as any stall, stable, or shelter in which
horses are kept. Thus, a two -horse shelter or lean -to would be considered
a two -horse facility.
We further recommend, that Division 5 of Subdivision II, Licenses Generally
of the Health and Sanitation Ordinance be reviewed in terms of the Code
provisions and the manpower needed for enforcement.
4. Motor Vehicles and Traffic Section, City Code
The following language should be added to the MVT Code, (and perhaps,
where applicable, the Parks and Recreation Sections).
a. No motorized vehicle shall be allowed on trails except for
authorized fire, maintenance, and patrol (including police)
vehicles.
b. Add a section, "Operation of Horses Generally" to the effect
that:
(1) No person shall ride or maneuver a horse within the
City in such a way as to endanger any hiker, pedes-
trian, or other horse rider.
(2) All persons using a trail shall obey the instructions
conveyed by official trail control signs or other
control devices applicable to horse riders or hikers
unless otherwise directed by City personnel or Sheriff's
Deputies.
c. Add "Establishment of Trails; Obedience to Signs, Markings,
etc." similar to Section 9 -71, 15 of the MVT Section.
5. Parks and Recreation Section, City Code
Add to this section, and wherever else in the City Ordinances may be
applicable:
a. "Hours of operation of off road trails; temporary closing of
trails, etc."
"Unless otherwise designated by Minute Order or resolution of -the
City Council, all trails shall be closed to the public from one
hour after sunset until one hour before sunrise on the next
day following, and no person other than an officer or employee of
the City shall be or- remain on any trail during such hours of
closure. In addition the Director of Public Works shall have power
to close all or any portion of a public trail for other and
times of day as may be reasonable or necessary in order to protect
the public health, safety, or welfare, and shall have further power
to close all`or any section of any trail to the public at any time,
for any interval of time, either temporarily or at regularly stated
intervals, (daily or otherwise), either entirely, or to close the
same to certain particular uses, as may be reasonable or necessary
*.ender circumstances to protect the health, safety and welfare of
the City or its inhabitants."
b. "Acts Prohibited on Trails Generally"
"(1) Ride on or in, or drive any motorized vehicle other than
while on official business as an officer or employee of
the City."
"(2) Be under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any
drug so as to be a threat to the safety of himself or
of any person or property while riding or hiking on
public trails."
-21-
L
-22-
L
"(3)
Cut, carve, paint......." as in Sec. 11 -3 (a).
11 (4)
Dig, remove, destroy......." as in Sec. 11 -3 (b).
11 (5)
Excavate, dig up......." as in Sec. 11 -3 (c).
11 (6)
Erect or construct or move onto any trail any building
i
or structure......." as in Sec. 11 -3 (d).
11 (7)
Walk, stand, or sit upon any railing, fence or other
structure as in Sec. 11 -3 (e).
11 (8)
Not to leave a trail, nor to enter other trails not
designated for trail use by legible signs. (Citation
not available.)"
11 (9)
Use, carry, or possess any firearm......." as in Sec.
11 -3 (g)
11 (10)
Have in his possession or set off or otherwise cause
to explode or burn fire crackers......." as in Sec.
11 -3 (j).
"(11)
Permit or allow any dog to run loose without a leash....."
as in Sec. 11 -3 (k).
"(12)
Use or occupy any area in any manner contrary to any
posted notice......." as in Sec. 11 -3 (1).
Throw; discharge or otherwise place or cause to be
placed in waters of pond......." as in Sec. 11 -3 (m).
"(14)
Place, dump, deposit or leave any garbage......." as
in Sec. 11 -3 (n).
"(15)
Make, build, light, kindle or maintain any fire for any
purpose, except in enclosures specifically designated
for such use."
"(16)
Cause or permit or allow any horse to be untethered or
otherwise loose or to roam unattended on trail."
"(17)
Stop to picnic in any place along trail other than as
designated for such purpose by legible signs."
"(18)
No person or persons shall obstruct or cause to be ob-
structed any public trail by means of fences, barricades
or debris."
C. In Article III, Section 11 8, after the words, "On Park Property" add:
"or Public
Trails
6. Definitions in General
In the Appendix, Part 3, will be found a Glossary of terms used in this Report
or applicable
to it, including definitions as stated in the City Ordinances,
as they appear in dictionaries, and as seen by or recommended for adoption by
the Task
Force.
L
-22-
L
SECTION 10
1 EDUCATION OF TRAIL USERS
The Task Force feels that the education of trail users is vital to the ultimate
success of the Saratoga Trails System. The Parks and Recreation Commission and
the Director of Community Services should endeavor to maintain active liaison
with user groups, equestrian clubs, schools, environmental groups, homeowner
�I associations and community service groups such as the Scouts, 4 -H clubs, etc.
Such contact, and the input from it, will give the City a focus in assisting
and coordinating a varieties of activities such as:
(1) Nature hikes for school children,
(2) Equestrian trail rides led by an informed trail guide,
(3) Arranging for discussion of trail
problems with concerned
groups, informational talks at schools and in community
groups and the like,
(4) Organizing trail cleanup task forces and days Of work,
(5) Possible fund raising programs to supplement City appropriations.
1. Trail Users' Guide
Above all, we recommend the careful preparation and publication of a "Trail
1J
Users' Guide" which should contain at least the following information:
a. A trail map showing existing trails, trail connections with other
trail systems, points of interest, mileage from point to point and
approximate travel time, and possibly planned future trails.
b. Rules governing trail use, including hours, prohibited acts and
vehicles, etc.
i
C. A guide to the meaning of the pictorial signs used for trail
demarcation and control, e.g.: U equestrian trail.
d. Trail etiquette what each party may expect of the other when.an
equestrian and a pedestrian meet on a trail; "rules of the road" etc.
e. Locations of poison oak /ivy areas.
f. Guide to proper use of fires for cooking (when permitted) warning
against fire hazards, especially hazardous locations.
g. Location of emergency telephone, how to summon help.
h. A short section on basic first aid, with information on where to
C secure additional information on this subject.
2. Availability of Trail Guide
The Guide should be placed in preparation immediately following approval of
the revised General Plan for Trails, and should be issued and updated
periodically to show trails currently in use and those proposed for the
future.-
The Guide should be made available to users at its cost to the City.
It should not be used as a money making vehicle.
-23-
SECTION 11
4
FUNDING THE TRAIL SYSTEM
1 1. Cost Elements
The ultimate cost of constructing and maintaining the Saratoga Trails System
will depend, to a considerable extent, on the validity of the objectives in-
cluded in this Report, and to some extent., on the availability of external
funding from Federal and State sources. It seems appropriate to restate the
cost- related objectives here, for the convenience of the reader:
a. Simple, low -cost construction, designed with an eye to low -cost
continuing maintenance.
b.
Maximum use of sources of outside funding, including Federal,
i
State, and County assistance.
c.
Minimum expenditures for land acquisition.
d.
Progressive construction, emphasizing key properties which may
be lost through delay, and the priority list previously recommended.
It may be anticipated that negotiations'with corporations and public
agencies will normally progress slowly, permitting a "stretch- out
e.
Maximum community participation, encouraged, utilized, and recognized.
f.
Emphasis on the Saratoga Trails System as part of the overall State/
Federal /County'Plari, and'as providing key link -ups thereto, thus
supporting our efforts to obtain external assistance.
g.
Elimination of surfacing except where absolutely needed.
h.
Use of "on- hand" City -owned construction equipment, with no purchase
of new equipment needed.
i.
Reduction of costs of surveillance and patrol of trails through the
use of City designated personnel.
2. Sources of Funds
The
known sources of funds are relatively ew and easily ly definable. The
unknown or doubtful sources are many, and must be carefully researched.
a. Local Appropriations
Park and Recreation moneys, designated for acquisition and development.
b.
Local Fees
The stable license fee, previously recommended, is an example of
potential fee income.
c.
Donations'and Contributions
A "Trail Fund" already exists containing over $1000.00. The community
should be advised of the existence of this fund and its needs for
development and improvement. Private funds, such as the'Sempervirens
Fund should also be actively solicited.
d.
Outright Grants
A careful search for sources of grants should be a significant effort
in funding the Trails System. Some idea of the breadth of potential
of these sources may be gathered by examining the following listing
of some of these many sources.
-24-
L
1) References
a) "Outdoor Recreation Grants -in Aid Manual"
U.S. Superintendent of Documents, USGPO,
Washington D.C. 20402 $9.75
b) "Establishing Trails on Rights -of -Way"
Same source $1.00
c) Copies of specific State of California Legislative Bills
Legislative Bill Room, Room 1149, State Capitol,
Sacramento, Ca. 95814
d) "Outdoor Recreation Action"
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
2) Sources of grants and /or information
a) U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Stabilization and Conservation Service
Washington, D.C. 20250
b) U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
Assistant Secretary for Commercial Development
451 7th St., SW, Washington D.C. 20410
c) State of California
Dept.. of Parks Recreation Resources Bldg., Room 1149
1416 9th St., Sacramento, Ca. 95814
Attn: Merrick Chaffee, Coordinator Trail Hostel Planning
d) Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Box 36062, 450 Golden Gate Ave., S.F. 94102
e) Mr. Tony Look, Executive Director
Sempervirens Fund
1075 E1 Monte Ave., Mt. View, Ca.
f) Mr. Larry Naake, Executive Director
California Park Recreation Society
1225 8th St., Suite 102
Sacramento, Ca. 95814
3) Specific funding programs as of summer 1975
a)
AB
609
(Keene) California Urban Recreation Fund
b)
SB
174
(Roberti) Parks in Urban Impacted Areas
c)
AB
378
(Chappie) Public Paths Trails
d)
SB
244
(Petris) California Bikeways Act
e)
AB
120
(MacDonald) Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Bonds
f)
AB
361
(Brown) State Highway Lands
g)
AB
170
(Chel) Senior Citizens (part -time employment; patrol
h)
SB
159
(Behr) Outdoor Environmental Education Centers
i)
AB
997
W berg) California Local Government Recreation Program
j)
SB
969
(Collier) name unknown ($10 million from MV reg.)
(part is
to develop trail from Castle Rock to East hills)
k)
SB
36 (Mills)
name unknown ($360 K from CalTran)
1)
AB
325,
funds for non vehicular transportation
m)
Abandoned
vehicle fund appropriation (Collier /Keene)
(Oversubscribed now, should be monitored)
-25-
n) Federal Land and Water Conservation Act (50/50 matching
funds administered by State Dept. Parks Rec.)
o) County Parks and Recreation
P) Mid Peninsula Regional Park District
4) Educational funding. The committee recommends consideration of
application under SB 159 or other sources to establish an educational
program in our elementary school system regarding the use, care,
protection and maintenance of recreational parks and trail systems.
Staff could come from West Valley College or U.C. Santa Cruz Park
Management and Environmental Studies Programs. Children could help
design signs, develop trail ideas, work on trail construction and
maintenance, plant trees and bushes, take hikes, participate in
nature and environmental study programs, etc. We recommend coor-
dination of this plan with the Saratoga School District.
3. Conclusions Recommendations
The interest and progress in developing trail systems is currently quite high.
The program in the City of Saratoga is timely. Significant efforts are being
made at Federal, State, County, other City, and private levels to develop
trails and to provide funding for them.
It is essential that the City develop active programs to seek out and develop
sources of funds; to seek out private funds and donations; to encourage and
support active citizen participation; and to provide local staff and funding
support for all local trail programs.
r
1
L
L
L
L
W1:C
L
r SECTION 12
1 CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
In accordance with our mission directive, considerable time was devoted to
developing cost data which would be of use to the Council. This turned out
to be a most complex job, because of the variation in trail terrain; the
absence of input relative to the type of trails and a schedule for their
construction; the fact that there is a significant difference between City
constructed and contractor constructed projects; and the almost total absence
of hard data with respect to trail construction and maintenance. We found
that major construction jobs tended to be let out for bid, while small jobs
were handled by cities, (not only Saratoga), and thrown into the "Miscellaneous
R. M." type of account from which detail cannot be easily reconstructed.
All of the estimated costs given in this Section, therefore, are based on the
best opinions of our sources and tempered by our own judgement as to their
I applicability.
Material costs were secured primarily from suppliers on their catalogs, and
secondarily from City sources. When only retail costs were available, they
were reduced by a factor of 20 We freely grant that in the event of a
tight competitive bidding situation, costs might well be lowered, but we
prefer to_err on the'side of conservatism in this era of rising prices.
Y Estimates of the amount of each type of construction required are based upon
a concensus of the Task Force members, with full recognition of the fact
that much of the material we would have liked to use in making these estimates
is lacking.
With this as a preamble, we offer the following gross dollar costs for considera-
tion, recognizing that these must be tempered by City Council plans for scheduling
the construction of new trails or improvements to old ones; the availability of
funds; and actual dollar estimates of designed and engineered facilities put out
L to bid. Such information was simply not available to the Task Force.
On the positive side, it must be remembered that while the total costs seem
L high, actual construction may be spread out over a period of time; that no such
time element has been introduced into the data; and that such scheduling is
exactly what should be added to the data herein presented to make it a functional
part of the General Plan.
In summary, we find that actual construction of the trails proper will range from
$125,000 to $200,000.
To which must be added some unknown costs of bridges, fords, and public facilities;
That maintenance costs of the completed trails system will amount to about $12,000-
$13,000 per year;
That maintenance of proper surveillance and patrol of the trails system, as we
recommend, will cost about $14,000 per year.
L
Or that annual operating costs will amount to about $26,000 per year to which
must be added the pay -as- you -go or bonded costs of the actual-construction
itself.
L -27-
t
L
Q►4 D
L
1. Unit Costs Used for Estimating
(The details relative to the development
of these unit costs will be found
at the end of this Section in Par. 12.)
Labor Rate City Personnel
$6.00 per hour (now $4.50)
Cost per hour of City -owned truck or
$26.00
dozer /scraper with operator
Contracted cost of vehicular brige
$80.00 per sq. foot
r
Contracted cost of people /motorcycle
$40.00 per sq. foot
I bridge
Contracted cost of footbridge only
$20.00 per sq. foot
Contracted cost of chain link fence,
$6.00 per lineal foot
6" high, erected
Contracted cost of chain link privacy
$12.00 per lineal foot
fence, 10' high
i Cost
of post and 2 -rail fence,
$1.54 per lineal foot
city labor
Cost of 3- strand wire fence, barbed
$.68 per lineal foot
or smooth wire, city labor
Cost of six foot high privacy fence,
$5.11 per lineal foot
redwood planking
Cost of base rock, when required for
$3.20 per ton
fill
Truck and driver for delivering and
$26.00 per hour
spreading base rock at construction
site
Progress rates
Scraping /Dozing 1 mile per hour
Fencing post and 2 rail
16' per hour*
post and wire
32' per hour*
6' plank
8' per hour*
Assumes two men and post -hole drill, or
post driver (for wire fence only).
Signs: based on special signs vs.
present cost and life of "STOP"
signs at $59.00 life cost.
$100.00 each (No main.)
t
L
Q►4 D
L
2. Fencing Requirements
Area
Two rail
Wire, Barbed
Chain
Screen
Post
or smooth
Link
Chain Link
Equestrian
Area 1 (West)
1200'
4300'
Equestrian
Area II (East)
2000'
4300'
4700'
1400'
Arterial Trail
4000'
1000'
TOTAL DISTANCE
3200'
8600'
8700'
2400'
Cost per foot
$1.54
$0.68
$6.00
$12.00
Total Costs
$4,928
$5,848
$52,200
$28,800
TOTAL COST, ALL
FENCING
91,776
3. Other Construction
Drag and scrape:_ Area I 3.0 miles
Arterial- 9.5 miles
Total 12.5 miles at $26.00 $325
Construct special drain on Chester Avenue
cut 6" and grade
Build retaining crib, and fill, 6' wide by
50' long, and provide culvert overpass 10'
deep by 30' long, also Chester Avenue
Construct asphalt berm, 800' on Sobey Road
Construct sidewalk, Portos Drive, 1000 feet
No allowance is made for brush clearing on
mountain trails at this time
No cost estimates are made for these items in
the absence of specific examination by City
personnel or consultants
4. Signs
41 street crossings, each using four signs, or $16,400
164 signs for crossings
An average of 3 additional signs per mile for 6,000
20 miles, or 60 signs at $100
TOTAL COST FOR SIGNS ........................$22,400
-29-
5. Bridges and Fords
Four bridges will be required, including the one major structure at the
crossing of Saratoga Creek and the S.P. easement.
In the absence of any engineering, or decisions by the Council as to the
type of traffic to be accomodated by each bridge, we cannot effectively
estimate the cost of these structures.
We can rough out the following:
TOTAL COST OF BRIDGES, RANGE FROM $10,000 TO $80,000
Seven fords will be required, and since these do not require the level of
engineering that a weight bearing structure does, they may be estimated by
averaging, to arrive at a ballpark figure.
Using a round figure of $1,000 per ford, the total cost of fords for the
whole system as proposed would be ........................$7,000.
r
u
L
L
L
L
L
6. Summary of Construction Costs
The available approximate construction costs may be summarized as follows:
Fencing 91,776
Other miscellaneous construction Unknown
Signs 22,400
Bridges and fords $10,000 to 80,000
or, as a ballpark figure, from $125,000 to $200,000 for everything
assuming no public assistance.
7. Maintenance Costs, Trail Surfaces
We estimate that an annual scraping and brush clearing of the flatland and
hillside trails will not exceed $325.00 for scraping and $650.00 for clearing
brush on the hillside trails.
8. Maintenance Costs, Fencing
Chain link fence requires essentially no calculable maintenance.
Post and two rail fence is estimated at a 10% maintenance factor or $525.00
per year.
Wire fence is estimated at a 20% maintenance factor because of damage due to
climbers, etc., or a total of $1170.00 per year.
Screen chain link fence may be damaged by breakage in the screen material,
but is considered to be very low, 10% or $4,000 per year.
-30-
Vehicular
People /Patrol V
People /Horses
Calabasas Creek
200
sq.
ft.
16,000
8
2,000
Rodeo Creek
200
sq.
ft.
16,000
8,000
2,000
Wildcat Creek
200
sq.
ft.
16,000
8
2,000
Saratoga Creek
400
sq.
ft.
32,000
16,000
4,000
TOTAL COST OF BRIDGES, RANGE FROM $10,000 TO $80,000
Seven fords will be required, and since these do not require the level of
engineering that a weight bearing structure does, they may be estimated by
averaging, to arrive at a ballpark figure.
Using a round figure of $1,000 per ford, the total cost of fords for the
whole system as proposed would be ........................$7,000.
r
u
L
L
L
L
L
6. Summary of Construction Costs
The available approximate construction costs may be summarized as follows:
Fencing 91,776
Other miscellaneous construction Unknown
Signs 22,400
Bridges and fords $10,000 to 80,000
or, as a ballpark figure, from $125,000 to $200,000 for everything
assuming no public assistance.
7. Maintenance Costs, Trail Surfaces
We estimate that an annual scraping and brush clearing of the flatland and
hillside trails will not exceed $325.00 for scraping and $650.00 for clearing
brush on the hillside trails.
8. Maintenance Costs, Fencing
Chain link fence requires essentially no calculable maintenance.
Post and two rail fence is estimated at a 10% maintenance factor or $525.00
per year.
Wire fence is estimated at a 20% maintenance factor because of damage due to
climbers, etc., or a total of $1170.00 per year.
Screen chain link fence may be damaged by breakage in the screen material,
but is considered to be very low, 10% or $4,000 per year.
-30-
9. Maintenance Costs, Signs
The Saratoga Parks Department has estimated that the cost of a sign is also
the cost of maintenance for its life, since signs require no maintenance as
such, but do require replacement when vandalized.
The Parks and Community Relations Departments have both suggested that we
use a 30% factor, or an annual maintenance cost of $6,720.
10. Summary of Maintenance Costs
Trail Surfaces 975 Per year
Fencing 5,695
Signs 6,720
Total Maintenance Costs, estimated $13,290 per year.
11. C osts of Surveillance and Patrol
Assumptions:
a. Law enforcement students may be hired
for $3.00 per hour
b. Total patrol time is equal to one man
for 12 hours daily, 365 days per year
(this may require 8 or 9 people for
reasons of scheduling and State Labor
Laws);
C. Vehicle costs are equal to a purchase
price of $5,000 and five year life, for
two or three vehicles;
12 x 365 x $3.00
13,140 Per year
$5,000 x 20% 1 it
Total Costs of Surveillance and Patrol 14,140 per year.
12. Basis for Unit Cos
Labor rates and vehicle rates by Parks Department.
Bridge costs from estimate of $140,000 for Pollard Road bridge,
48' wide by 36' long or 1750 sq. ft., for heavy traffic $80.00 per sq. foot.
Lower use, smaller size bridges by derivation.
NOTE: Neither of these costs represent engineered, formally estimated
data. They are presented strictly to provide a feel for the magnitude
of the dollar amounts to be dealt with.
a. Chain link fence, 6' high By San Jose Steel Co.
b. Screen chain link fence, 10' high By San Jose Steel Co.
-31-
1
r
r
r
i
i
1
L
L
I
L
L
c. Post and Rail Fence
Posts, rdwd, 4" x 4" x 6' 3.50
Rails, 2" x 4" x 8' 1.42
Posts, per mile, 660 at $3.50 $2,310
Rails, per mile, 1320 at $1.42 1,874
Material, per mile $4,184
Per foot .79
Labor, $12.00 per Hr. (2 men)
16 feetper hour, per foot .75
Total cost, per foot $1.54
d. 3 -Wire, metal post fence, 10 foot panels
Posts, 6' long 2.39
Wire, stranded or barbed, 0.025 per foot
both abour the same unit cost
Posts per mile, 528 at $2.39 $1,262
3 miles of wire at $.025 per ft. 396
Material, per mile $1,658
Per foot .31
Labor, $12.00 per hr. (2 men)
32 feet per hour, per foot .37
Total cost, per foot .68 triple strand
e. 6 -Foot planked privacy
fence
Posts, rdwd, 4" x 4" x
10'
5.60
Rails, 2 x 4 x 8'
1.42
Planks, 1 x 12 x 6'
2.56
Posts per mile, 660 at
$5.60
3,696
Rails per mile, 1320 at $1.42
1,874
Planks per mile, 5280 at $2.56
13,516
Material per mile
$19,086
Per foot
3.61
Labor, $12.00 per hr.,
8' per
hour, per foot
1.50
Total cost, per foot
5.11
All of the above have been calculated with the assumption that City employed
labor will be used to erect the fencing, (except for chain link and screened
chain link fence).
If it is contracted out, the prices will undoubtedly be higher.
-32-
t�
If the 'City were to use highly sophisticated materials handling and construc-
tion equipment, some of which it does not now possess, progress rates might be
r higher, with correspondingly lower unit costs, but it must be remembered that
there is a significant difference between a homeowner, who is highly motivated
to work hard for short period of time, and a full time laborer who must pace
himself to continue working at a pace satisfactory to his employer for an 8-
hour day, five days a week.
In the absence of architectual designs, plans or policies, with respect to
location of latrines, picnic spots, or other public conveniences, these have
been omitted from the costing of the program.
�1 12. Sources of Inf ormation
City of Saratoga
Roy Swanson, Park Maintenance Foreman
Louis Lemos, Maintenance Foreman
Barbara Sampson, Director of Community Services
Alameda County
Richard E. Hanson, Jr., Landscape Architect
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
399 Elmhurst Ave., Hayward, CA. 415: 881 -6606
Santa Clara County
David H. Culbertson, Superintendent of Parks
300 Garden Hill Drive
Los Gatos, CA. 356 -7151
San Jose Steel Co., Fence Division
Minton's Lumber Co.
Sears Roebuck and Co.
-33-
D
Ride To sit on, control, and be conveyed by an animal.....; a path
made for riding on horseback, especially through woodlands. (Other
meanings omitted.)
D
Road An open way, generally public, for the passage of vehicles,
persons and animals; a course or path.
D
Roadside The area bordering on the side of a road.
D
Roadway A road, especially that part of a road over which vehicles
or other users travel.
D
Route A road, course, or way of travel from one place to another; a
highway; a customary line of travel.
CC
Sidewalk A walk or raised path along the side of a road for pedestrians.
CC
Site A parcel of land, subdivided or unsubdivided, occupied or to be
occupied by a use or structure.
CC
Site Area The total horizontal area included within the property
lines of a site, in a single ownership, including area subject to
easements but not including private streets or other rights -of -way
over which the public has a right of access and not including area
within the precise plans of a future street.
CC
Street A "street" is any thoroughfare for motor vehicle travel which
affords the principal means of access to abutting property, including
public and private rights of way and easements.
D
A public way or thoroughfare in a city or town, usually including
the sidewalks and buildings lining one or both sides. Such a roadway
for vehicles, apart from the buildings and sidewalks.
CC
Street, private A "private" street is a street in private ownership,
not dedicated as a public street and not an alley, which affords the
principal means of access to one or more lots which do not have
frontage on a public street.
CC
Street, public A "public" street is a street owned and maintained by
the City, the County, or the State, including streets offered for
dedication to the City which have been improved, or for which a
bonded improvement is in effect to improve the same. The term in-
cludes "City Street "Accepted Street "Accepted Public Street
and "Dedicated Street
TF
Trail A public way permanently reserved for hiking and horseback
riding.
D
A mark, trace, course, or path left by a moving body; a blazed path
or beaten track as through woods or wilderness.
CC
Use The purpose for which a site or structure is arranged, designed,
intended, constructed, erected, moved, altered or enlarged, or for
j which
either a site or a structure is or may be occupied or maintained.
-35-
D Walk, Walkway 4. A place on which one may walk, as a sidewalk or
promenade;
5. An enclosed area designated for the exercise or
pasture of livestock;
6. An arrangement of, or space between trees or shrubs
planted in widely spaced rows.
i
i
l
-36-
r
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cupertino, City of Planning Department
Scenic Roads and Trails (Map)
Los Gatos, Town of Parks Department
j Midpeninsula Regional Park District Policy Statement and Map October 1974.
Text to Accompany the Corridor Map for Hiking and Equestrian
Trails, October 1975.
San Mateo County A Charter for Parks 1973.
Santa Clara County
General Report, Preliminary to Plan Draft, "Trails /Pathways"
Revised Version, August 1974.
Parks Department
Planning Policy Committee, Trails Subcommittee
Sheriff's Department
Trails and Pathways Status of Planning by Jurisdictions in
Santa Clara County November 1974.
Saratoga, City of
General Plan Policies and Objectives Saratoga Planning
Commission, Revised Version, Williams and Mocine, April 1974.
General Plan Trail Map 1968.
Master Plan 1968.
Office of the City Attorney
Proposed Master Plan for Trails and Pathways
Parks and Recreation Commission, November 1969.
Saratoga Interim Vehicular Circulation Report
Williams and Mocine, October 1973.
State of California
California State Park System, Trails Handbook
December 1974.
Utilities Utility
Districts:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
San Jose Water Company
Santa Clara Valley Water District
L
1
L
-37-
L
12 July 1976
Honorable Colman M. Bridges
Mayor, City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Sir:
i Herewith is the minority report of the Saratoga Trails and Pathways
Task Force.
The undersigned concurs in most of the task force report. However,
portions of the report in my opinion are so nebulously worded as to
leave it open to wide variations of interpretation. There are also
some areas of omission, and a few with which I strongly disagree.
The attached minority report covers these areas.
The creation of the task force two years ago was the result of public
objections to the manner in which trails had been selected in the past,
the methods by which easements were being acquired, and activities
on the existing trails, both legal and illegal.
In the opinion of the undersigned the task forc e report should solve
the first problem, that of selection. The trail network as outlined in
the report is with few exceptions an excellent one, and is the result
of a year of concentrated and detailed work by the members of the
task force. Every trail was walked at least once by all members of
the task force, and certain critical trails were walked several times,
and discussed and debated in great detail. While not always the ideal
solution, most of the trail routes selected are good to excellent solutions.
I recommend early implementation upon approval.
Regarding activities on trails, the task force report offers solutions,
but I am sure all members of the task force recognize these solutions
are far from complete or being conclusive. I, for one, do not know of
any better solutions without extraordinary monetary expenditures. I do
believe that the education features as proposed in the task force report
may offer the best solution in the long run.
It is in the area of acquisition and disposition of easements for trails
that I strongly disagree with the task force report for in essence there
is little or no change. This is what the minority report deals with primarily.
i
In the opinion of the undersigned it is of the greatest importance that
the discussion and final decision on this report be by the City Council
at a public hearing held by the Clty Council. Furthur, that in the future
once this trail system is approved by the council, there should be no
additional trails or segments of trails added, or acquired, without public
hearings, and approval by the council. It is also very important these
hearings should be on the specific subject trail, and not buried in
hearings on site plans, subdivisions, or the general plan.
In the interest of brevity, I have refrained from discussion of the pros
and cons, and whys and wherefores in the minority report. I shall make
them verbally on the formal presentation of this report.
l
L
Respectfully,
ERNEST T. BARCO JR.
Encl: Minority Report
ii
19101 Camino Barco
Saratoga, CA. 95070
TRAILS AND .PATHWAYS TASK FORCE MINORITY REPORT
Recommend the following be included in the Trails and Pathways Plan.
1 The trails system as 'proposed by the task force should, on final
approval by the City Council be designated The General Plan for Trails
and Pathways. Wherever the Task Force Report refers to The General
Plan by year (ie.1975, 1976,197 it should be changed to show The
General Plan. It should then supercede and replace all previous plans.
2. No trails, portions, or segments of trails should be acquired that
are not specifically shown in this approved plan, and no new trails,
portions, or segments should be added to the plan, or acquired, without
full and proper public hearings by the Parks and Recreation Commission,
and approval by the City Council. This should be a specific hearing for
the specific subject with all property owners within the area affected,
directly or indirectly as delineated by the city ordinances, notified in
writing. It should be seperate from the General Plan Review or other
Public Hearings. The hearing should be on the entire trail from a designated
beginning and ending, and not on a section or portion therof. No future
trail should be approved that has not been walked by at least two thirds
of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
3. Any easements held by the city for purpose of trails that are not a
part of a specific trail shown on this plan should be released to the proper
owners without delay. The Parks and Recreation Commission should annually
review all easements for this purpose. All property owners affected should
be notified in writing of the review and given the opportunity to present their view.
4. The subdivision ordinance should be amended to provide that when
land or easements are obtained for the purpose of trails, the owner will be
credited the value of the land towards the parks and recreation fee.
5. The closest of scrutiny should be given to trail section C -1. This trail
provides a much needed link, however it does contitute an invasion of privacy
to homes on both sides of the creek even with a fence, and it should be
noted the opposite side of the creek is in the jurisdiction of another city.
Possible early action on the Quito Road problem might solve this.
6. There are some areas where the city does not have an easement or
direct control, nor is there a trail planned, but motorcycles and /or other
vehicles are operated causing a considerable problem to local residents.
It is recommended the city request the appropriate owner or agency to take
action to post or create barriers which would at least deter such usage.
An example of this is the flood control easement immediately East of Gardiner
Park. There are others on Saratoga and Calabazos Creeks.
7. It is recommended the City Council hold a special and seperate Public
Hearing on the Trails and Pathways Task Force Report, that appropriate notice
be published, and that all previous petitioners and known homeowner or
neighborhood groups and associations in the city be notified by letter.
END
iii e-
1 I r�� r�r� jr.""� l"""r. I�r^• ivy I►�� jr�.y�f ►+r�S sW� /�r� �r�
I
PART II
TRAIL SECTIONS
h\_ m
DETAIL MAPS
-38-
To Cupertino SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM— SARATOGA TRAIL PLAN
Tra i 15 11
To Cupertino
Trails
I 1
Z
To Upper Stevens o c I
Creek Co. Park
Stevens Crk. 0 o
To Portola Sr. Park Co. Park o %o
Upper Stevens Crk. b I
o
o
40 o
Equestrian Area 2- n 0 0
Pi erce Road Area
Hwy 9
5andborn Canyon
Co. Park
K
ro Castle Rock,
Big Basin Ocean
OD
r
x
P. G.tE•
,Easement
r
Vasona, Los
Gatos Trails
ID
o
E %uestrian Area One
—L Sober Road Area
Hakone. Gardens
Villa Montalvo
Co. Park.
TRAIL TYPES
Order 1
poO.Pu000 Order Z
Order 3
I 00—OR
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
AREA 1 TRAIL SECTIONS
EQUESTRIAN AREA ONE
Gc!�
West Valley College
Arterial Trails 4.5 Miles
Feeder Trails 3.5 Miles
Future Trails 1.2 Miles
4 4 SECTION
E'er m j POTENTIAL
FUTURE TRAIL
Vi I la L
nontal vo
Co. Park
GITV LIMITS I
Ln. I
F
V
1
1
1
fi
u
-39-
i� •40-
I
I I II 103
Trail Section A -I 397 2`
30
10
Z, I I 5` 3
I
u Si 1 32 t m
ir 61
55 YL
•w. D
v
56 L a
41 30
23
H
U 6oaa �c
39 7
r
(¢I 19
J
Q X0
2 0 •i
9 Route of trail
N
End of section
......Boundary of Assessors
�c�c.. Parcel Book Page
44 I'D woo RD.
II
SECTION A -I Ten Acres Road at Sobey to Chester, Chester to Lot 397 -2 -103
This is the most well established trail section
in Saratoga, with existing signs and a well- defined
i route. This is primarily because of an extremely
high percentage of horse owners in the area: The
trail will begin at Section B on Sobey Road and run
along the south side of Ten Acres Road, running in
the City -owned right -of -way. As Ten Acres Road
curves to the north, the trail will cross the street
and run on that side to Chester Avenue. Along Chester
there is room for the trail on both sides of the
road. Though signs indicate it runs on the west side,
the most logical side for the trail would be on the
east, where it would be running behind Lots 52 through
56, rather than across the driveways of lots fronting
on Chester. At Lot 10 the trail will have to cross
Chester to avoid a culvert and some heavily landscaped
lots. At Lot 7 there is steep bank next to the road
that will have to be graded to allow room for the
trail. The trail will end at a point opposite
Arcadia Palms Drive.
Requirements for establishment of Section in order
of priority:
1. Grade bank along road at 397 -1 -7 to provide
room for trail.
;try•
It,
ry M T V
Fig. 1
2. Provide 2 crossings at Chester Avenue and Ten
Acres Road.
3. Construct trail and signing to City standards.
-4?.-
-42-
Trail Section B -I
I
e7 I eo
CAH80CLL U.1ION SCHOOL 015r.. I
(HARSHALL LAWC SCHOOL V
L I G
.J
I 3 9 7
'CO I A
so 00
v
YOGK
C
1-
J
1
FiG.2
rEi %�s cs- T RACT
s� 4569
49 o R�
U OJK !`AG 9 7]
`FO
8
Route of trail
End of section N
Boundary of Assessors
Pa: cel Book Page
t"`—. r r r'n'p r""""'` r-r- r'r"� �i wWM. �•�1 ,�..ti, �M�M,
SECTION B -I 'Sobey Road at Ten Acres to Quito Road, Order 2
This trail will run in the right -of -way of Sobey Road.
One problem occurring in this section is the portion
of trail along Tract 4569. A trail easement was to
have been provided by the developer of this tract, but
the easement was mistakenly included in the roadway.
At present there is a white line painted on the street
to define the trail, (see figure 2), and an asphalt
curb. Another curb should be placed on the top of
the white line to better separate the trail from the
roadway. After this portion the trail will cross to
the north side of Sobey Road where it will continue
on the wide unpaved shoulder of the road to the latter
half of Lot 397 -2 -80, where a bank will have to be cut
to provide for a 10 -foot wide trail easement along the
road, (see figure 3). The trail will then cross Quito
Road to connect with Trail Section C. Site*and details
of this crossing are to be selected by the Public iVorks
Department to provide the greatest degree of safety.
Requirements for establishment of Section in order
of priority:
1..Construct new asphalt curb adjacent to Tract
4569 to separate the trail from the roadway.
2. Grade bank near intersection of Sobey and
Quito to allow room for trail.
3. Provide crossings at Sobey and at Quito Road.
Construct trail and signing to City standards.
+t
s
Fig. 3
Trail Section C -I
v I
R
`q
I l
m
o
LLEAIDALC AV,!
o `ZI�M
4 23 I
Oq
A.
I. YI O
r: w
I QI
r. Q
I Zvi
e
i
�r
i�
1
-44-
A
G
Ef
Route of trail
>k End of section N
of Assessors
Parcel Book Page
f r ,--.-q r r�+-A '...r.� r r .�1.r, 1 �w .y.�
SECTION C -I San Tomas Aquino Creek from Quito at'Sobey to Southern Pacific Railroad, Order 1
This section will run from the end of Section B at Quito
and Sobey Roads to San Tomas Aquino Creek. From there
it will continue down the Santa Clara Flood Control
owned road, (see figure 4), which runs along the creek
till it reaches the PG&E land adjacent to the Southern
Pacific Railroad Line. This will require negotiation
with the County Flood Control for use of the road and
the installation of pedestrian equestrian gates at
either end of the road where there are now locked
vehicle access gates. In addition to this pedestrian
equestrian route, a pedestrian sidewalk should be
constructed along the paralleling section of Quito
Road. This should be included in the Quito plan line
and be constructed in conjunction with any widening
or realigning of Quito Road.
Requirements for establishment of Section in order
of priority:
I. Negotiation of agreement between County Flood
Control and the City for use of their land
for trails.
2. Installation of pedestrian equestrian gates
at either end of the Flood Control road.
3. Provide crossing at Pollard Road. (This can be
done in conjunction with the proposed improve-
ment of the intersection of Quito and Pollard).
Ai 1.cil�
Fig. 4
The site and details of this crossing are to
be selected by the Public Works Department to
provide the greatest degree of safety.
4. Construct trail and signing to City standards.
5. Construct pedestrian walk along Quito Road at
time of widening or realignment. Since the pro-
bability of an alternate route along Quito Road
is remote, the Council should be aware that the
Proposed route along San Tomas Aquino Creek adjoins
the property of homeowners whose interests should
be protected by appropriate screening as an integral
part of the design of this section of the trail.
45-
16-
J
R
E
P
GARDINrR
PAR
Tmi i 1 Cnf- tits,
r r. Y.. t.,,, r.....,.. r.r...,,, tf'"'"' r...., r..,,r,, 1 0.ft" 06ft" owo r 0"Oft oft-on PON".,
SECTION D -I From Section B, Sobey Road at Sobey Meadows Court to Gardiner Park, Order 2 and 3
The trail will begin where Section B crosses Sobey Road.
The trail will run in an existing easement along the
i west edge of Tract 5164. The trail along this easement
should be screened with landscaping and clearly delineated
as to its route, to protect the privacy of these homeowners.
At the southern end or Lot 99, the trail will turn west and
cross a small creek to reach Arcadia Palms Drive. Though
this creek is small, some formal type of crossing should be
provided. This can consist of as little as fill over a
short section of culvert.
The trail will run north in the 7 -foot public right -of -way
of Arcadia Palms Drive to Lot 38. Here the trail may run
in the roadway to avoid this landscaped lot. Future traffic
may require parking regulations along this section to avoid
conflict with the trail. The trail will then cross Chester
Avenue to connect with Section A. From this point it is
felt that a pedestrian only trail connecting to Gardiner
Park is necessary. This trail will run on the west side
of Chester Avenue to Allendale Avenue. Here it will run
on the north side of Allendale to Portos Drive, where it
will run on the east side to Gardiner Park. The Committee
expressed no preference as to the use of the street right
of -way or the roadway itself in the construction of this
trail.
t...i•_.�,,
r
1. Negotiate with owner of Lot 397 -2 -103 for foot-
path along Chester Avenue, which is a private
road at this point.
2. Provide screening plants to separate trail from
homes along Sobey Meadows Court.
3. Provide crossing at Allendale Avenue.
4. Provide crossing at Chester Avenue.
S. Construct trail and signing to City standards.
47-
Fig. S
Requirements for establishment of Section in order of
priority:
Em
Trail Section E I
Yp01( IAGf
397 5
pooK Iwcc�
397
000E I
397 g
II
Route of trail N
End of section
Boundary of Assessors
Parcel Book Page
,....r ...r..� ......._j .___j
j _i
f-"" r..,...., r" r-- r-- r--" P 0 ofto" 1b1rMy oftw fir. Mm" "pry,,,
SECTION E -I Quito Road from Sobey South to Sobey North, Order 3
This section would run in the right -of -way of Quito
Road from Section C at the north intersection with
Sobey Road to the south intersection-with Sobey.
Construction of this trail is not feasible with the
existing conditions on Quito; narrow bridges, steep
banks, trees and poles, (see figure 6). Construction
of a trail along Quito Road can only be accomplished
in conjunction with a major road widening and re-
aligning project. This would have to be a joint
project between Saratoga, Los Gatos, and Monte Sereno
as portions of the road lie within each of these
municipalities. This project should be initiated
in the near future because the obstacles that prevent
the construction of a trail along Quito also make it
hazardous for horsemen, pedestrians and bicyclists,
as well as auto traffic. A suggested trail route is
shown. The feasibility of this route will depend
on the details of the actual widening plans.
Requirements for establishment of Section in order
of priority:
1. See that a trial is included in any future
plans for improvement-of Quito Road.
2. -Take whatever action is necessary to initiate
such a project.
-49-
Fig. 6
3. Construct trail and signing to City standards.
Trail Section F I
J
ODD
FELLOWS
HOME
COMMUNITY
GARDE
j
12 1-3
:z
1-
At
36 1 37
:F 7
W
N
27
L
+2 L
I
39 7
7,Sr .Route of trail End of section
Boundary of Assessors
10 Parcel Book Page
,4,
see.
ao.
397 C i
i
44
i
r- r r---- f.,"" J r r- r— r-- r--- r• .".w ow" 0-n
SECTION F -I Sobey Road from Sperry Lane to Ten Acres Road, Order 3
This!.feeder trail will allow the large number of horse
owners along this section of Sobey Road access to the
c rest of the.trail system. The trail will run on the
west side of Sobey Road, in the approximately 9 feet
r
of public land adjacent to the roadway. The crossing
of the creek at Lot 397 -4 -2 will require the construc-
tion of a bridge, and the close proximity of the creek
i
to the road in some places may require fill or retaining
walls, (see figure 7). Continuation of this section y
beyond Sperry Lane is not practical because of deve-
lopment and planting close to the roadway.
Jr
Requirements for establishment of Section in order
of priority:
Fig. 7
1. Construction of a bridge over creek at Lot
397 -4 -2.
2. Fill or construction of retaining wall.along
portions of creek to allow room for trail
adjacent to roadway.
3. Construct trail and signing to City standards.
(Footnote 1) In the event that the property west of
Sobey Road in the vicinity of Sperry Lane is developed
and /or a connector route is established to Fruitvale
Avenue, a trail through this area providing access to
Saratoga Community Gardens should be considered by the
body dealing with trails and pathways.
(Footnote 2) Though it is not feasible at the present
time, Equestrian traffic indicates that a trail along
the southern portion of Sobey Road to Quito may be
necessary for safety purposes. This trail would cross
Sobey at Sperry Lane and continue along the north side
to Quito Road.
-51
52-
J
Trail Section G I
0
397 14
�9 20
WEST VALLEY COLLEGE O
an
3 2 L5
Tr couRTS
w
Q
EME 46
_F 8
.VT r
I
12
BoOK /AG4
I 397 12 I
13
i
i
pooK n+aE
397
51
50
49
BOOK //�4t
397 3
ODD FELLOWS HOME
Route of trail
N
End of section
Boundary of Assessors
Parcel Book Page
own" on" min—
SECTION G -I Section A at Chester Avenue on West Valley College Property and San Marcos Road to Fruitvale Avenue, Order
The feasibility of this route depends almost entirely
on the cooperation of West Valley College. Though it
orginally had agreed to provide room for a trail in its
Master Plan, the College has not allowed for this con
tingency in their recent development. For this reason,
the trail would have to travel around the edges of the
West Valley property.
The trail would proceed from Chester Avenue along the
south side of Short Hill Court in the right -of -way to
the West Valley College property. Here the trail con-
tinues through an existing gate in a chainlink fence
and turns south along the property line to the extreme
southeast corner of the property. This portion may re-
quire some regrading and installation of one or more
gates, in areas of steep slope or tight clearance. At
the southeast corner of the property a gate would have
to be installed to allow access onto Lot 397 -13 -3, on
which the trail would run to San Marcos Road. The trail
would turn west and run down the strip of land between
San Marcos Road andthe Odd Fellows Road to Fruitvale
Avenue. The upper half of this portion of the trail
presents a problem in that the two roads are separated
by a retaining wall and there is not room for a full
width trail on either side, (see figure 8). This prob-
lem can be solved by dividing the trail at this point
and running the equestrian portion on the Odd Fellows
..4 s•` te r'..
�����ta• F arr
joc
l ie
Fig. 8
side of the wall and the pedestrian traffic on the San
Marcos side.
Requirements for establishment of Section in order of
priority:
1. Negotiate with West Valley College District for
easement across their property
2. Negotiate with owner of Lot 397 -13 -3 for easement
across this property.
3. Negotiate with Odd Fellows Home and owners of San
Marcos Road for easements along these roads.
4. Provide necessary grading and gates.
S. Provide crossing at Chester Avenue.
6. Construct trailand signing to City stanr' 'is.
—53
-54-
Trail Section G I Alternative
V
397 14
I
WEST VALLEY COLLEGE
Rn
3
T6uu15 COURTS
W
Q
w
J
F-
5
t�
39 7 v i 3
S
L I
I
19 20
DaOK ►AGE
397
v 2 L5
51
6a
49
Mot
397 3
46
13
ODD FELLOWS HOME
I
Route of trail
End of section
Boundary of Assessors
Parcel ,Book Page
SECTION G -I Alternative From Section A at Chester Avenue on West Valley College Property to Fruitvale Avenue, Order
The feasibility of this route depends almost entirely
on the cooperation of West Valley College. Though it
originally had agreed to provide room for a trail in
its Master Plan, the College has not allowed for this
contingency in their recent development. For this rea-
son, the trail would have to travel around the edges
of the West Valley property.
The trail would proceed from Chester Avenue along
the south side of Short Hill Court in the right -of-
way to the {Vest Valley College property. Here the
trail continues through an existing gate in a chain
link fence and turns south along the property line
to the extreme southeast corner of the property.
This portion may require some regrading and installa-
tion of one or more gates, in areas of steep slope
or tight clearance. The trail would turn west, fol-
lowing the access road past the tennis courts. At
this point the trail may have to run in the roadway
itself, (see figure 9). The trail would continue
to follow the access road to Fruitvale Avenue.
Requirements for establishment of Section in order
of priority:
1. Negotiate with West Valley College District for
Fig. 9
easement across their property.
2. Provide necessary grading and gates.
3. Provide crossing at Chester Avenue.
4. Construct trail and signing to City standards.
-56-
Trail Section H- I
397 14
20
W
W
a
j
1--j 19
397
32 37
J
E 38
33 36
WEST VALLEY 3 2 25
COLLEGE 35 51
34
5o
49
.00K �qF
397. u
397 13
♦8
IG,III
►2
J5OOK /AGE
397 i2
�3
ODD FELLOWS NOME
Route of trail
End of section N
Boundary of Assessors
Parcel Book Page
r r i"'°"` f""" 1"�"" r""""" r"'� r�•r rWl -'�'A Y''wrq .WY..q ....Ii.M, Y..rr.., rn..r..
SECTION H -I Ten Acres Road to Fruitvale Avenue via San Marcos Road, Order 2
This trail will provide access from the Sobey Road
area to the Community Gardens, and also a loop trail
for this area. In the event that trail Section G
is unobtainable, this section could serve as an
alternate route. This section would begin at Sec-
tion A -I on Ten Acres Road at Chester Avenue. The
next portion of the trail is contingent upon the
development of Lots 397 -13 -2, 397 -13 -3 and 397 -13-
25. These lots have been proposed for development
as a single subdivision. The trail should be con
ditioned as part of the subdivision approval of
this development and the route should be worked out
as an element of the design of the development.
The trail would connect to San Marcos Road at its
upper end, (see Figure ID, which will probably be
used as an emergency access for the subdivision.
The trail would continue along San Marcos Road to
Fruitvale Avenue. The equestrian portion of the
trail will run on the south side of the retaining
wall which separates San Marcos Road from the Odd
Fellows Road, while the pedestrian portion runs
on the north side of the wall.
Requirements for establishment of Section in order
of priority:
1. Condition trail easement as part of building
Fig. 11
site or subdivision approval for Lots 397 -13 -2,
397 -13 -3 and 397- 13 -25.
2. Negotiate with Odd Fellows Home for easement along
their road.
3. Negotiate with owners of San Marcos Road for ease-
ment along their road.
4. Construct trail and signing to City standards.
57-
58—
Trail Section J I
397 24
397 2i ,y
i f
4~� `1.2 r
JI
s
10
77 a Y�
it eoo w��
w 41 y l 34 7 zo
r ss o e�
I I BOOK ►K.�
397 16
L
I e2 90 a i
FIG 12.
J.SS •LADE -s.
l'.7T.1 n 1 v F !Tf f
3 t f S
B 23 1
TRACT 15583 j
OOOIf ►K[
I
Route of trail N
Boundary section
Boundary of Assessors
Parcel Book Page
SECTION J -I Fruitvale Avenue at San Marcos Road to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Order 1
This route will cross Fruitvale Avenue at San Marcos
Road and run north in the right -of -way to Douglass,
i
where it would turn west and run in the right -of -way
to the end of Tract 5583, (see figure 12). Then it
runs in the right -of -way of Lots 397 -17 -23 and crosses
Douglass to the right -of -way of Lots 397 -16 -5 and 6.
At the west end of Lot 397 -16 -5 the trail will have to
cross a narrow bridge over Wildcat Creek. Douglass Lane
after this point is a private road, and an easement
will have to be obtained from the owner of Lot 397 -17-
1 to run the trail across this property. At the bend in
Douglass Lane the trail turns south and crosses a short
section of Lot 397 -24 -39 to reach Tract 5575, where a
trail easement has been secured that will bring the
trail to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. The first portion
of this easement runs concurrently with a sanitary
sewer easement till it reaches Carnelian Glen Road.
There the trail will cross the cul -de -sac and run
along the southeast side of the road to reach Saratoga
Los Gatos Road. Care should be taken along this portion
to see that the trail is well delineated and adequately
screened to protect the privacy and property of adjacent
property owners. The trail will then head east till it
reached a point opposite Mendelsohn Lane.
w
1. Contact owners of Lots 397 -17- 5,6,7,8 and 23 prior
to developing trail on right -of -way of these lots.
2. Contact State concerning construction of trail on
Saratoga -Los Gatos Road right -of -way.
3. Provide crossings at Fruitvale Avenue and Douglass
Lane.
4. Construct trail and signing to City standards.
f�
Fig. 12
Requirements for establishment of Section in order of
priority:
SECTION J -I Fruitvale Avenue at San Marcos Road to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Order 1
This route will cross Fruitvale Avenue at San Marcos
Road and run north in the right -of -way to Douglass,
where it would turn west and run in the right -of -way
to the end of Tract 5583, (see figure 12). Then it
runs in the right -of -way of Lots 397 -17 -23 and crosses
Douglass to the right -of -way of Lots 397 -16 -5 and 6.
At the west end of Lot 397 -16 -5 the trail will have to
cross a narrow bridge over Wildcat Creek. Douglass Lane
after this point is a private road, and an easement
will have to be obtained from the owner of Lot 397 -17-
1 to run the trail across this property. At the bend in
Douglass Lane the trail turns south and crosses a short
section of Lot 397 -24 -39 to reach Tract 5575, where -a
trail easement has been secured that will bring the
trail to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. The first portion
of this easement runs concurrently with a sanitary
sewer easement till it reaches Carnelian Glen Road.
There the trail will cross the cul -de -sac and run
along the southeast side of the road to reach Saratoga
Los Gatos Road. Care should be taken along this portion
to see that the trail is well delineated and adequately
screened to protect the privacy and property of adjacent
property owners. The trail will then head east till it
reached a point opposite Mendelsohn Lane.
Fig. 12
Requirements for establishment of Section in order of
priority:
I. Contact owners of Lots 397 -17- 5,6,7,8 and 23 prior
to developing trail on right -of -way of these lots.
2. Contact State concerning construction of trail on
Saratoga -Los Gatos Road right -of -way.
3. Provide crossings at Fruitvale Avenue and DouglaO
Lane.
4. Construct trail and signing to City standards.
-59-
FIG. 13
77
41 i��
S
0
Trail Section K I 38
G•9 T
s,
oy 3 9 1�
c,
01 b.
FIG. 14
GOOK
517 20
0
BONNIE BRAE ►yy
Route
of trail N
�k End of section
Boundary of Assessors
Parcel Book Page
1
m m
.MENDELSOH
5 7 22
ANE
CIS
1 .1 r r r-- r r-- r--. r--. W. oftllm 0"- I
SECTION K -I Saratoga -Los Gatos Road at Horseshoe Drive to Mendelsohn Lane at Piedmont Avenue, Order 1
This trail section will begin at Saratoga -Los Gatos
Road at its northwest intersection with Horseshoe
i Drive opposite Mendelsohn Lane, (see'figure 13).
The trail will cross the highway at this point,
for which the City will have to obtain permission
from the State, and give careful consideration to
safety factors. The trail will then run along
the east side of Mendelsohn Lane in the City -owned
right -of -way. There is an existing asphalt path
along this section which can serve the pedestrian
traffic along this route, (see figure 14).
A horse trail should be provided next to this path.
At the bend in Mendelsohn Lane, however, there is
a bank that will have to be graded to allow room
for the horse trail. The section would end at a
point opposite Mendelsohn's intersection with
Piedmont Road.
Requirements for establishment of Section in order
of priority:
1. Contact State to obtain permission to
establish crossing of Saratoga -Los Gatos
Road at Mendelsohn Lane. (There is an
existing pedestrian crossing nearby and the
speed limit at this point is 35 mph.)
2. Negotiate with owner of Lot 517 -21 -1, to
obtain permission to grade bank.
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
m
.7] z
0
m
0
NILL �E AJ LN
Trail Section L -I
Y00�( MGC
517 15
CITY LIMITS
<15 TO SAMMORm
SKYLIAIE,P
VILLA MONTALVO
COUNTY PARK
4
r l; �5
2 A`4 i7
f 5 r`
35
17 FIG 16►�
r
J m
Q
Ll
d
2 2
7--]
I
-62-
Route
of trail
End of section
Boundary of Assessors
Parcel Book Page
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
AREA 11 TRAIL SECTIONS
EQUESTRIAN AREA TWO
F m
L4
E"� SECTION
0000 POTENTIAL
FUTURE TRAIL
Arterial Trails 3.3 Miles
Feeder Trails 1.0 Miles
Possible Future Trails
To I
STEVENS
CREEK
PAR K
I I
U �I l
i
�r
0
0
X
c
Q
0
0
-64
_,._J _J
r—, r f r r-- r— r--w r— r a k r---ti r---
SECTION L -I Piedmont Road at Mendelsohn Lane to City Limits at Villa Montalvo, Order 1
The trail will cross Mendelsohn Lane and run down
the east side of Piedmont Road. At this point,
(Lot 39), the road is built on a high crown, with
steep, heavily planted banks on either side. This
problem can be circumvented initially by running
the trail in the roadway itself, but eventually a
retaining wall should be built to allow room for
the trail on the east side of the road. At Lot 38
a culvert will have to be extended to allow the
trail to pass, (see figure 15). At Lot 94, the
trail will cross Piedmont and run down the unbuilt
right -of -way of Wildcat Road, (see figure 16) which
runs from Piedmont Road to Montalvo Road in Villa
Montalvo County Park. Here the trail will stay as
far away from Park installations as possible,
running along the north side of an orchard to meet
an existing trail which originates at Norton Road
and will take it to the City limits.
Requirements for establishment of Section in order
of priority:
1. Negotiate with County to construct trail
through Villa Montalvo property.
2. Extend culvert to allow trail to cross
creek at Piedmont Road.
3. Provide crossings at Piedmont Road and Montalvo
Road.
4. Construct trail and signing to City standards.
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
C TO PGtE
E5MT. TRAIL
-66-
Trail Section A-11 PR EMONT UN I O N
SCHOOL DISTRICT
�A PROPERTY
G�
FIG I r:
�r
V
y
BLACKWELL HOMES
Q
PARKER RANCH DEVEL.
w
a
0
a
a
5ARATOGA COUNTRY O FIG 2
CLUB
N
MARIDOu
••:e FIG3
Route of trail
End of section
o T
GARROD S
SECTION
-I �T O PIERCE RD.
T
L
VIA COMER DR.
AREA II TRAILS IN EQUESTRIAN AREA TWO
The establishment of trails in Equestrian Area II pre-
sents a different set of problems and criteria than those
found in Equestrian Area I. Since the topography here
is steeper and there is more vegetation, the roads are
narrow and winding and there is little room for trails
beside them. Because of this, the trail system in this
area will depend much more heavily upon easements across
private land than in the Sobey Road area.
Trails in the proposed Parker Ranch development consti-
tute a large portion of the trails in this area. The
development of this property will be a great aid in the
establishment of trails in Equestrian Area Two. It
will allow connection of the PG &E easement trail to the
Sphere of Influence and to the Pierce Road area. Working
with the developer, trails have been laid out that run
from the northern boundary of the property Prospect
Road to the southern boundary at the Garrod property
where trails could connect to.Mt. Eden Road and even-
tually Stevens Creek Park. Concerns in planning trails
in this development have been to avoid the built -up
areas as much as possible by keeping to the perimeters
of the site, while also utilizing the unique features
of the site such as views and varied terrain and vegetation.
-65-
SECTION A -II PROSPECT AT STELLING TO COMER DRIVE, ORDER 2
This trail will start at the northeast corner of the
Parker Ranch property at Section A of the PG &E easement
trail. From-this point it will run along the eastern
boundary of the Ranch, where it adjoins the Fremont
Union High School District property, (see figure 1),
running on an existing dirt road.
Fig. 1
A short distance past the boundary of the high school
property the trail will leave the road and head west.
The trail will run uphill through brush and grassland
to detour around the Maridon property, (see figure 2).
Fig. 2
-67-
-68-
The trail then enters a more heavily wooded area, where
it will generally follow the contours around a canyon
and some small washes, (see figure 3).
I
P:
Fig. 4
::AEI
tj, I 4
The trail will then run parallel to the property
line for a short distance to reach the proposed
extension of Comer Drive near the southeastern
corner of the property, (see figure 4). This route
is proposed because it utilizes existing features
of the site such as the dirt road, and existing
trails. It is also the most direct available route
from the PG &E easement trail to Equestrian Area Two.
Requirements for establishment of Section in order of
priority:
This trail section will run entirely on the Parker
Ranch property, on which Blackwell Homes, Inc. has
proposed to build a Planned Community development.
Contingent upon the approval of this development,
the trail would be constructed by the developer to
City specifications as part of the conditions of
approval or in lieu of Parks and Recreation fees.
mil'
-10—
Trail Section B I I
C
u
PROSPE
RD.
TQ PC, �E
ESMT. TRAIL
1=1REMONT UNION
SCHOOL DISTRICT
PROPERTY
F
_F
J
Route of trail
AN
$p End of section
TO GARRODS I PIERCE D
STEVENS CRK. V IA COME OR
�y PARK D
r..... ,r... mono.« w all"A ft4woo.d �J 1
BLACKWELL HOMES
PARKER RANCH DEVEL
rte... 0-00
SECTION B -II PROSPECT ROAD AT STELLING TO PARKER RANCH AT SECTION C
This trail will begin at the same location as Section
A -II, the northeast corner of the Parker Ranch property.
the trail will then head west along Prospect Road to
Prospect Creek, where it will run along the south bank
and the east bank as the stream curves to the south,
(see figure 5).
Fig. 5
A short distance after the creek makes the turn to the
south the trail will leave the creek to run along the
west side of the proposed road through the property,
(see figure 6). At this point the trail will be running
opposite several houses that will be built on the east
side of the road. The trail then crosses the road and
runs on a bank above the road opposite some homes that
are to be built on the west side.
Fig. 6
-71-
k
Requirements for establishment of Section in order
of priority:
1. Condition trail as part of approval of development
as outlined in requirements for Section A.
2. Negotiate with San Jose Water Works for use of
their land for the trail.
3. Construct trail on San Jose Water Works property
to City standards.
C
MrsE
Trail Section C -II
5ARAT O GA
TO STEVEN5
CREEK TA
PARK
H
='1
F-
V
6
MIDPEN-
I W5UL.A
REGIONAL
PARK
DISTRICT
P ROS
F'ECT
r 1
1 R
i', O A O
I 9
1
To OSPECT
COUNTRY CLUB RD. IASE'CTIO
11-- B
r ROOK PAGE ROOK PAGC
366 29 FIG 9 966
TO COMER DR.
7 VIA SECTION D
WATER
U
TANK :O PARKER RANCH
I
8
ALTERNATE B
ALTERNATE A
,AFIGIO
ROOK rnG
503 i2
1 24
GARROD STABLES
PROPERTY
D.
A� j/
�...p�i fi i....� ►n.�. r+.w+v —J ter..
17
-74-
Trail Section E-11
TO PARKER RANCH
F m
®R 41 1 )k
VIA SECTION C
TO CITY LIMIT
VIA 5ECTIOM C aU
Gcurrod Stc4ble5
Pro Perc
FIG.
1 13
-v
Route of trail
503 13
li End of section
Boundary of Assessors
Parcel Book Page
-78-
J
____j
r 'r r r"'° rr.,,r r om*, r r.r.w �w rir.n
SECTION D -II, PARKER RANCH AT SECTIONS B AND C TO.COMER DRIVE AT PIERCE ROAD, ORDER 2
The trail will begin at the point where Section B and
C meet. The trail will cross the proposed road near its
intersection with the road giving access to the small
water tank, (see figure 11).
The trail will then run along the north side of the
proposed extension of Comer Drive, where it must cross t y •,Y -.:fix Aft
several private eyebrow drives. The trail will then
leave the Parker Ranch property and run in the right
of -way of Comer Drive adjacent to several private lots,
till it reaches Pierce Road, (see figure 12). At Cala-
bazas Creek, some method of crossing will have to be
provided
11
Requirements for establishment of Section in order Fig.
of priority:
1. Condition trail as part of approval of development
as outlined in requirements for Section A.
2. Construct trail and signing in Comer Drive right-
of -way to City standards.
3. Construct bridge or ford at Calabazas Creek.
r
f
Fig. 12
-76-
Trail Section D -II
O PROSPECT
V ^A SECTIONS
TO CITY
LI 11T VIA
SECTION C
O
WATER
TANK
BLACKWELL HOMES
D PARKER RANCH Route of trail
DEVELOPMEN.IT
End of section
Boundary of Assessors
FIG II Parcel Book Page
21 O
17 I 26 M E 7=
BOOK P.•. E
366 J 27
72 K 77 70
2 FIG. 12 47
25 Z7
=M
Q 79 V
3 11 16
SECTION C -II PARKER RAi1C11 AT SECTIONS B AND D 1 o CITY LIMITS
This trail will begin at the point where Section C ends near the
proposed extension of Comer Drive. The trail will continue to
the road that will run to the existing small water tank, (see
figure 9). Here the trail will be running behind and below
several proposed homes. The trail will continue up the ridge
out of the Parker Ranch property onto the Garrod Stables pro-
perty, (see figure 10).
From this point there are two alternative routes. The prefer-
able route, labeled A on the map, would parallel the north
property line of the Garrod Stables'to the City limits. Alter-
nate "B" would run opposite the Garrod property on land owned
by the Saratoga Country Club and by Mid- Peninsula Regional
Park District. This alternative would not be as desirable as
"A" because it is on County land and the City would not have
the power to negotiate an easement here.
In utilizing either alternative, the City should try to acquire
an easement of approximately 10 feet and construct a new fence
along the easement to separate the trail from the.property.
Requirements for establishment of Section in order of priority:
1. Condition trail as part of approval of development of Parker
Ranch as outlined in requirements for Section A.
2. Negotiate with Garrod Stables for easement across this pro-
perty..
OR
Negotiate, through County, with Saratoga Country Club and
Mid Peninsula Regional Park District for easement
Fig. 9
ow
across this property. Fig. 10
3. Construct fence inside property line to separate
trail from property.
4. Construct trail and signing to City standards.
j� 44
A A
Trail Section F -II
F- I
UI
O SECTION
E IL
503 P 3
Route
>IC End o
A trail
sectie
MID
SECTION F -II SECTION E -II AT QUARRY ROAD TO NIT. EDEN ROAD, ORDER 3
This trail will run entirely on private land, and
will require the negotiation of easements or dona-
ted land to allow construction.
The route shown oil the adjacent map was chosen by
the Trail Task Force as the most logical in light
of the physical terrain, existing development,
and property boundaries. The most important
determinant in the location of the trail, however,
will be the owners of the land on which the trail
must run.
The trail will begin at Lot 503 -13 -73 and continue
down the private road that gives this lot and
others access to Via Regina. This route is already
in use informally as a trail. The trail will cross
Via Regina, (See Figure 15) and continue along the
access road for Lot 503 -13 -86 and along the southern
portion of the lot. The trail will then run along
the eastern boundary of Lot 503 -13 -67 a short dis-
tance to avoid an existing house and turn west to
run along Vista Regina. The trail will continue
-.p. ;i. cF r,yv... �..T.y.r -l.'G _�..f:..,- -mow- �i ';h.l %�r \�i. 't.
�t:�,' 6 "r "s_ J •`y� 1 Y.r At: J• ♦'j y S
3'y.' Si::� :Sr `l, .�_4 7 y. y. �y�,, �oS "':.�:s j i
e
A.
Ir
along the southerly portion of Lots 63 and 33 and across
a short section of 23 to reach Mt. Eden Road. Near Mt.
Eden some type of crossing must be provided over a small
ravine and creek.
This later portion may be re- routed at the time of the
development of the concerned properties due to steep
terrain.
Requirements for establishment of Section in order of 11
priorities:
1. Begin negotiations with various property owners along
the route to acquire easements.
2. Provide crossing at creek near Mt. Eden Road.
3. Construct trail and signing to City standards.
-81-
Trail Section G-11
t'
i
COUNTI'
rRAILS
�TO QUARRY RD.
VIA SECTION
�7 FII
23
-82-
68
K PAGE
503 13
FIG 16
iC:�) TOPIKE RD.
VIA SECTIOM
HII
-4
1
I- 22 2/ 2 6
V 2
M7- OEN RD.
I
00 PAGE
So 3 31
Q
1.
4
Route of trail
�k End of section
Boundary of Assessors
Parcel Book Page
m
".;T
Inn
"Trail Section H-11
58
Route of trail
End of section
Boundary of Assessors
Parcel Book Page
0 1 0 CANYON
D VIEW DRIVE
C7
.....1 .....J _1 I r
20
3
30
19
29
42
PRO
IG. I9
i j 54
Cou
TO c-iry
43
$5
LIMITS VIA
31
32
46
REC NT
SECTION
G II
suBOI sloe
M EDE
G
40 IS
eooK
PAGE
35 34
32
23
22
503
3I
23
33
Iz :i 31 30
�r.
so
41
22
0
34
35
,p
0
Z1
S
57
D 49
43
42
w
0
PAL
1
S3 S2
56
0
27
0
ORTH
44
26
i�
503 30
0 POSS 113LE
U FUTURE
2 7
3,
0 ROUTE ALONG
I O
0 EMERGENCY
20
15
3$
0 ACCESS RD.
Route of trail
End of section
Boundary of Assessors
Parcel Book Page
0 1 0 CANYON
D VIEW DRIVE
C7
.....1 .....J _1 I r
:'iii:'i i0;: li I1 PIKE ROAD TO PIERCE ROAD AT SECTION G,
ORD1:R a
tr:►; 1 iii 11 a l lov. residents of the Pile Road
ar::a access to the• trail system without having to
L
gavel along narrow and dangerous Pike and fierce
Roads. The trail would begin at the urger end of
PiVo Road and run along the south side, (See Figure
J
1FO to Lot 42. Pike is it private road, so easements
have to be negotiated from the property owners
along the route. At some points, such as at Lot 12,
z
the trail maY have to leave the road fcr a short
dista::ce to avoid banks, trees, and other obstruc-
K
tioi:s. At Let 42 the trail will cross the souther;
14
P i01- of this lot to a recent subdivision on Mt.
Eder: Court. The trail will cross the norther por-
tion of the first lot and run around the lower side
of it tennis c:);irt that is proposed on the second
lot, (See Fil;ure 19). The trail will continue along
i:e±er. Court to Pierce Road running across the
southern portion of Lots 31, 31 and 46, where an
easement froei tl property ot%mers will also be
necessary.
Requirements for establishment of Section in order
of priority:
1. Negotiate with property owners along the route
to acquire necessary easements.
2. Condition any undeveloped land along route
A". l
for trail at time of development.
3. Construct trail and signing to City standards.
-86-
Trail Section J -II
Route of trail
�k End of section Cl
�J
Boundary of Assessors
Parcel Book Page r
BO
PAGE
PARKER RANCH 503 17 0
GARROD cOM DR
RANG H SEC. D
25
BOOK PAGE 73 76 49
503 15 28
BOOK PAGE 27 FIG 6 0
10 85 5/
4" 52
V 28 27 25
SEC. EME L M7
EII
d FIG. 20 0•'•. 2
8 1 3 53
9 8 6 2 55 GF' ¢0P
17
3 Q` �4
UST
10 II l2
PAG E
503 66
`....r �.•.ri l �rw,r +w.++� �►o+�•... Ir..,...w ...�.�e -.,J ..�.....1 ....�.J .,..r.a� I I I 1
r r""" /"+.r'+ stir r �"1 r►.r r..r� rl.r�i w�...� 1.�.r� n..,.l wyr,,,i
TRAIL SECTION J -II SECTION E -II AT GARROD RANCH TO SECTION D -II AT COMER DRIVE, ORDER 2
This trail forms part of a loop between the Parker
Ranch, the Garrod Ranch and Comer Drive. The trail
runs entirely on private land over roads and trails
which are again already in use informally as a trail.
The trail will start at Section E -II along the east
property line of the Garrod Ranch and follow an
existing road across Lot 503 -12 -24 to Lot 503 -15-
17. At Lot 17 the road continues down the face
of a steep ridge, (See Figure 20). In order to
avoid the steepest part of this ridge, the trail
must detour onto Lots 503 -15 -28 and 27. The trail
continues along the south property lines of Lots
27 and 25 and then runs north utilizing an exis-
ting road to reach Comer Drive and Section D -II.
Requirements for establishment of Section in order
of priority:
1. Negotiate with property owners along route
to acquire easement for trail.
2. Condition any undeveloped land'at time of
development for trail.
3. Construct trail and signing to City stan-
dards.
See QA on map:
It would be highly desirable for safety and access
reasons to connect at this point to Pierce Road,
A.
K
r.;, 1)
1
►1'.
fir.
A.
K
r.;, 1)
-88-
PARKER
RAMCH
1l—
s
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM TRAILS IN AREA III
PG E POWER LINE EASEMENT
Arterial Trails 3.3 Miles
Feeder Trails 1.0 Miles
I N No future trails
gor
B
r
MF R,
G I
K
W
J
J
H
0
�NERRinAU l_..lU
�JLC� ox AVE.
S.J, C PR1"CS 5
w.w. SPRINCyS
PARk
4"
I L
7L
0
t
0
a
u
r..o.�.
AREA III Trails in the PG &E Powerline Easement
The proposed trail along the PG &E powerline easement
presents an unusual opportunity as well as some unique
trail, at several points the lard is owned by private
parties or other utilities such as San. Jose Water Works
problems. In no other instance in the City is there
such a long, wide strip of unoccupied land. This is
the result of the proximity of the land owned by the
Southern Pacific Railroad, PG &E, and the State for the
proposed West Valley Freeway. This strip is now desig-
nated in the General Plan as a public use corridor, and
is already widely used by the community for access and
various forms of recreation. The strip runs from the
northwest boundary of the City at the Parker Ranch site
to the east boundary at San Tomas Aquino Creek. The
freeway route runs adjacent to three City parks, anO the
PG &E casement runs north of one proposed park at the
Fremont Union School District lands on Prospect !toad.
One problers.. that would be encountered in developing
_this section is the fact that the 1'G &E owned land is
not a continuous strip the length of the trail. I%t:ile
PG &E is quite agreeable to the use of its pan,: for
and County Flood Control; and PG&E has only a powerli.ne
easement. At these Places, the City would have to
negotiate to gain access across the property or detour
around. The difficulty onccur.tered in doing this will
depend on the cooperation: of organizations such as
Southern Pacific Railroad and the State. Departrient. of
Transportation.
Other problems with this trail would occur at creek
crossings. Here the City would have to provide some
sate method of crossing. Also, the points i;L•ere the
trail crosses roads, especially major routes such as
Saratoga At-erue and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, will
present a problem in trying tc provide a safe cress;nb
for trail users. li
In sl;ite of these few logistics problems, this tra'_l,,
overall, is the siml lest anal pi the most important
in Saratoga.
-89-
_90_
Trail Section A-111
P 0 P T Rp PROSPECT RD. J
�IMItS''
W
J
O
u
2
U _Q
r
PARKER
RAUCH F� Co. o
S FLOOD Conlr. v
O lt
CT
FIG 1�.
Q PG S 4
I 8"
X366 I�� 4 I CO. FL CONTRO w
FREHONT U►JION 2
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTI A9c,��c a
i z 2
No AIA Cr. F I�2'•
V)
11 Rp I
BOOK PAVE W
366 27
Q G,•• 0
K lDo N 0
'per F
7< m Q
CowEUA CT. O 4. C-4 K
u N
O
Route of trail ST. iov CT. 32 FIG
N 4
End of section MA1JOlt DRIVE
X001( OA6G
Boundary of Assessors I 366 Zo
Parcel Book Page
r r r r "r" r'--� �-M�► rte-. r
SECTION A III PG&E Easement from Parker Ranch to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Order 1
This section of proposed trail begins at the Parker Ranch
property, where trails are currently being planned to
connect it Equestrian Area Two. The trail runs
along the south edge of Prospect Road and next to the
Southern Pacific Railroad on the land owned by the
Fremont Union High School District, (see figure 1).
This land may be sold by the School District in the
near future. The City has considered buying this par-
cel or a portion of it for a park, but if the northern
parcel is not purchased, the City will have to nego-
tiate with the new owner for a trail easement. If the
property is developed, the City could condition the
trail as part of subdivision approval.
Fig, 2
w
7.
Fig. 1
The trail then crosses a section of County Flood
Control land, a triangle of PG &E land and a small
piece of Flood Control land to reach Arroyo de
Arguello, (see figure 2), where it crosses to
another small piece of Flood Control land. The
trail then crosses Lot 366- 20 -12, where PG&E only
has an easement. A trail easement would have to be i
I
negotiated over this property. The fence at this
point is set back approximately 15 feet from the
property line, so.the owner may be agreeable to
granting an easement.
-91-
-92
Permission would then have to be obtained from Flood
Control to build a bridge or ford at Calabazas Creek,
(see figure 3). The trail then proceeds down the PG&E
owned land to Lot 366- 20 -32. Here the Lyngso Rocker
has obtained an encroachment permit from PG &E and has
extended their fence to within 2 feet of the Southern
Pacific land, effectively blocking the trail, (see
figure 4). This means that the City will either have
to persuade Lyngso to move the fence, or Southern
Pacific to grant at least a 10 -foot easement.
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Requirements for establishment of Section in order of
priority:
I. Purchase Fremont Union High School District land.
or
Negotiate with or condition new owners to pro-
vide trail easement.
2. Negotiate with owner of Lot 366 -28 -12 for trail
easement across this property.
3. Negotiate with Lyngso Rockery and PG&E for ease-
ment across this section of land.
4. Negotiate with County Flood Control to
their land and provide a ford or bridge at
Calabazas Creek.
S. Negotiate with PG&E for the use of their land
and easements.
6. Provide crossing at Arroyo de Arguello and
bridge or ford at Calabazas Creek.
7. Construct trail and signing to City standards.
-93-
L
3n
tig•., and xo:>
o�
3!V b 7
p
uoi13as 3o pug
Peii ;o ainoH
S
d
Ab'M 11nE) was
III g uoilaaS IiE.z,L
aOv
U�
bZ 98£
love Hood
E
U)
D
D
O
D
c
z
Z
D
r
m
SECTION B- III PG &E Easement from Saratoga Sunnyvale Road to Cox Avenue, Order 1
This is the most trouble -free section along the power
line route. The trail crosses from the west side of
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and continues down PG &E land
to Rodeo Creek,(see figure S). A bridge or ford would
have to be constructed here. The trail then continues
along PG &E land to Lot 386- 23 -17, where it crosses a
short section of Flood Control land, (see figure 6),
and a small triangle of PG &E land to reach Cox Avenue.
Requirements for establishment of Section in order of
priority:
I. Negotiate with County Flood Control for easement
across their land.
2. Negotiate with PG &E for use of their land for a
trail.
3. Provide crossing at Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road,.•
including warning signs for pedestrians and
autos, painted crossings, and any other recom-
mended safety features. Coordinate with State
to conform with State requirements on this
crossing.
4. Provide bridge or ford at Rodeo Creek.
5. Construct trail and signing to City standards.
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
FICs 7
Trail Section C;-111
FI69 1 r COX AVE
A
G
R�
8 RA E
R.
•p G
SAW ,JOSE
WATER Co. <q
,IVU I PE•Ro
Wq y
INGRESS
RIWGS
SGHOOL
-96-
1p �J
O�
ti
O PARK
A 9�,�CLq ND
RK dR
Q
(FUT(JR e S
CXPANSION) X
L '9
W
L EA 1
W
.............Route of trail
End of section N
It.
__j
G A G
�F.
•,C�tio. j i
P
�P
O
r r_•.
r....
r
r-
r r...... r
4
Pw-1 1A-- W%W-, ,r.,.., .r.... i„r.,' P.i..•.
SECTION
C III-
PGtE
Easement
from Cox Avenue to
Saratoga
Avenue, Order 1
This section would cross Cox Avenue and a short stretch
of PGF,E land before it reached a Parcel owned by San
Jose 1%.ater Works, through which, PG &E has an easement,
(see figure There is a chain link fence surrounding
this property. for t;iis reason negotiations With Soutl:-
err: Pacific may have to be rude to acquire an easement
tyr_i.ssing the Water {corks land. An alternative woUld be
to �_s:. lfater Piorl:� for �:n easement and offer to move
t III- Fence for their,.
Fig. 7
At Congress Springs School, an encroachment permit
was obtained that allowed the school to put their
fence across PG&E land, blocking the trail, (see
figure S Here tl:c City should offer to move the
fence if the school will allow a trail on the property.
Because of this rrohlem area, an easement, may he
Miuired fror:: the Railroad. i
97
Fig. 8
W WIM
After this, the trail is uneventful, running on PG&E
land to Saratoga Avenue, except where a bridge would
have-to be constructed at Saratoga Creek, as the
channel is wide and deer at this point, and the stream
Often flows very swiftly, (see figure 10).
Fig. g
i
4
ig 10
Requirements for establishment of Section in order of
priority:
1. Negotiate with Southern Pacific to provide ease-
ment around obstructions at San Jose Water Works
property and Congress Springs School.
or
Negotiate with School and Water Works for ease-
ment through their property and move fences to
accomodate trail.
2. Negotiate with PG&E for use of their land for
trail.
3. Negotiate with County Flood Control to provide a
pedestrian and equestrian bridge over Saratoga
Creek.
4. Provide crossing at Cox Avenue.
5. Construct trail and signing to City standards.
-100•-
Trail Section D-111
J
PAUL. HASSON
VIWYARDS
Route of trail
End of section N
Boundary of Assessors
Parcel Book Page
600K -A(
403 24
N
CC] FLOOD
CONTROL
1 1
r...... f r......, r'rr+� 1""`�` i r� rr..q rw..� .r...y
SECTION D- III- PG &E Easement from Saratoga Avenue to San Tomas Aquino Creek, Order 1
The trail crosses Saratoga Avenue, (see figure 11), and
runs south in the right -of -way to the point where Tract
#5462 adjoins Saratoga Avenue. Here a 10 -foot trail
easement has been secured which runs along the north
edge all the way to the eastern tip of the property.
Portions of this easement narrow to 7.5 feet and a
section runs on the right- of- way_of Bonnet Way.
Fig. 11
At the end of the Tract #5462 easement, the property
narrows to a sliver that is too narrow for a trail.
Here the trail will have to enter State land and run
on a narrow strip that lies between the railroad and
Parcels A through J, which are owned by adjacent pro-
perty owners in the Aspesi Drive area, (see figure
12). At Parcels I and J, the State land becomes too 11
narrow to accomodate a trail, so an easement should be
obtained across these parcels from the property owners
who live on Metler Court, or a portion of the property
will have to be purchased.
Fig. 12
-101-
-102-
The trail then runs in a strip of PG&E owned lane? to
Quito Road, where it Would cross and continue in the
PGO'.,casement, (see figure 13). The easement at this
point is bn private lard; Lots 40a -24 -1 and 4, so an
easement would have to be granted by these property
owners for the trail, or some land would have to be
purchased. At Lot 4, the owner has built a fence for
a corral up to the property line, so this would have to
he moved to allow room for the trail. Where the trail
c"osses Wildcat Creek at Lot 1, a bridge will have to
be constructed, (see figure 14). The trail would then
Join Section C of Equestrian Area One at the Flood
Controi lands at San Tomas Aquino Creek.
Fig: 13
�g. 14
rte^ r....n P"' r i ---n '""'1 r"'^. 01 °'�1
Requirements for establishment of Section in order of
priority:
1. Negotiate with owners of Lots I and J, 403 -24 -1,
and 403 -24 -4, to provide easement on their pro
per
2. Negotiate with State of California for the use
of their land for trail.
3. Negotiate with County Flood Control for use of
their'land for trail.
4. Negotiate with PG&E for the use of their land
for trail.
S. Provide crossing at Saratoga Avenue and Quito
Road.
6. Provide bridge at Wildcat Creek.
Construct trail and signing to City standards.
-103-
111
rr f
Route of trail
End of section
I
J __.J
SECTION E III West Valley Freeway Land from Congress Springs Park to A and Kevin Moran Parks, Order 3
This trail would be for pedestrian traffic only.
The trail would begin at Section C near Glen Brae
Drive and continue along Glen Brae in front of Congress
Springs Park. The trail runs the rest of the way on
State Lands which are part of the proposed West Valley
Freeway route. The trail should have a 10 -foot ease
ment that is a minimum of 10 feet away from the fence
on the porth side of the property. The City should have
control of the property between the trail and the fence
for a community landscaping project. At the south end
of Kevin Moran Park, the trail would have to cross a
triangle of State land that has been leased to a whole-
sale nursery, so permission will also have to be ob-
tained from the owners of this establishment to gain
access to Kevin Moran Park. To allow access from Kevin
Moran Park to Azule Park, a corridor has been required
from the lessor of the State land as a conditions of
the granting of a water main easement for his estab-
lishment.
Requirements for establishment of Section in order of
priority:
1. Negotiate with State to provide trail on their
land.
2. Negotiate with owner of nursery to cross this
property.
3. Prcvide crossing at Cox Avenue.
Fig. 15
r.;,. 1 r�
-106-
SECTION IV TRAILS IN THE SARATOGA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
I
UPPER
STEVENS I
CREEK CO.
PARK
#o- 4... view
F
I CUPERTI NO
SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE
S, ri l
'••'F 1 VILLA
M I u—
I
I PROSPECT RD.
I CUPER- I
I TINO�
I I
I
I
S EVEW5 I I
G EK
Co. IP AR I A I 0
PAR
T�
I
CO PAUL
B MASSON I
C
s �'o
SA RATOGA
SPHERE OF GS RD. C t 1
INFLUENCE
SAWDSORN
CO. PARK I
ALVO
CO PARK I
I— I do 8 L__1
---I O
STLE SANDBORN CO. PARK L ST C HP
ROCK PAR ftr* 00
To BIG J
9A
SIN
ORT
�SUUUY- I I TO EL
VALE I J SERENO CITY PROPOSED TRAILS
KODUTAIUI'
PARK mosses EXISTING TRAILS
COUNTY PROPOSED
TRAILS
TO
1.�, l..rr r..wr LEXINGTON
There are three points at which Saratoga trails neet
the City boundary at the Sphere of Influence. These
are.: Section L -I at Villa Montalvo, Section C -11
at the Garrod Ranch, and Section G -II at W. fader.
Road.
The City must take ►+hatever steps are necessary to
initiate County action to provide connections from
the County trail system at these points. Some sul;-
gested routes for these connections are shown on
the adjacent ma)).
r S 11..
at Sanborn to Pohlman Road on land owned by San .Jose Hater
Works, Santa Clara County Goy Scout Council and several
private owners. At the Bohlmar. Road intersection the trail
sl :culd continue southeast. to con!,ect to the Mid Peninsula
P rl:. District property at Fl Scieno, and ultimatelX' to the
Los Gatos trail sy stem. Betweei, Gol►lman and
Montalvo, tPe
first section of trail lyc"Id Have to he constructed across
private lard. The trail Cet:ld then foilo►, an existing
fire r( which runs on seed Ll 1 :rirate p.;rcels as ►+011
'he Montalvo Park rrc�l crr�
-107-
AREA IV TRAILS IN THE SARATOGA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Trails in the Sphere of Influence are in a different
Section A connects to the City trail system at Sections
situation than those within the City. Here the City
C -Ir and G -II. This trail would para hit. Eden Road
must work with the County to establish trails, having
to provide access to Stevens Creek Park.
no real power to negotiate on its own. Many trails
are being developed or are proposed by the County
Section B is comprised of two trails, both of which can
that will connect the system of County Parks to State
run on an existing PG &E tower access road for the Metcalf
Parks and other areas. Long range proposals in this
Mo Vista lin e. T se provides an alternate
area include a trail along Skyline Boulevard connect-
route to Pi t. E Road from Equestrian Area II to Stevens
ing Upper Skyline County Park to Sanborn County- Park
Cr Park The trail could also provide more direct
and Lexington Reservoir. Also a trail is proposed
connection from Lower Stevens Creek Park and from Eques-
that will connect Upper Stevens Creek Park to Lower
trian Area II to Sanborn County Park.
Stevens Creek Park. There is a trail, scheduled to
Route C is intended to provide connection of trails from
be completed in summer of 1975 that will connect
Equestrian Area I at Villa Montalvo County Pat-1 tr trails
Sanborn Road to Castle Rock State Park, where trails
in Sanborn County Park. This trail could run most of the
now exist that connect to Big Basin and eventually
distance on a combination Count,- fire, road and PG•I' tcwer
the Ocean.
:'L cc zs road. This road run•- fi i%m Crrgress
There are three points at which Saratoga trails neet
the City boundary at the Sphere of Influence. These
are.: Section L -I at Villa Montalvo, Section C -11
at the Garrod Ranch, and Section G -II at W. fader.
Road.
The City must take ►+hatever steps are necessary to
initiate County action to provide connections from
the County trail system at these points. Some sul;-
gested routes for these connections are shown on
the adjacent ma)).
r S 11..
at Sanborn to Pohlman Road on land owned by San .Jose Hater
Works, Santa Clara County Goy Scout Council and several
private owners. At the Bohlmar. Road intersection the trail
sl :culd continue southeast. to con!,ect to the Mid Peninsula
P rl:. District property at Fl Scieno, and ultimatelX' to the
Los Gatos trail sy stem. Betweei, Gol►lman and
Montalvo, tPe
first section of trail lyc"Id Have to he constructed across
private lard. The trail Cet:ld then foilo►, an existing
fire r( which runs on seed Ll 1 :rirate p.;rcels as ►+011
'he Montalvo Park rrc�l crr�
-107-