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