HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-1998 Parks and Recreation CommissionSaratoga Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
Administrative Offices, City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga
Monday, June 1, 1998
7:30pm
AGENDA
I. Organization
A) Roll Call: Clabeaux, Crotty, Friedrich, Ioannou, Olsen, Swan, Whitney
B) Report on Posting of the Agenda
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2 the agenda was properly posted
on May 27, 1998
C) Approval of May 4, 1998 Minutes
II. Administration
A) Update Roster Sheet
B) Task Force Representative - Assign Commissioner
C) Agenda Format Improvements
III. Oral & Written Communication
This section is for the Public to speak on any item Not on the agenda
IV. Old Business
A) Parks and Recreation Development Fund -
1)
2)
3)
4)
Projects Update
Heritage Orchard - New Maintenance Options
Community Center Improvements: New Plan & Focus
Playfield Improvements - Task Force
Hakone Gardens - Resident Rates
V. New Business
A) Skateboard Park - Proposal
B) Trail Grant Program - Establish Format
1.) Trail Center Proposal
2.) Effie Adamson Foundation Grant Request;
(Terri & James Baron- attended 5/4/98)
C) Trail Improvements at 13636 Deer Trail Court
VI. Commissioner & Staff Reports
A) Commissioner Reports
B) City Hall Update - Irene Jacobs
C) Recreation Department Status Report - Joan Pisani
D) Park Maintenance Division Update - David Mooney
VII. Adiournment
Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
Administrative Offices, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga
May 4,1998
7:30 p.m.
Action Minutes
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Clabeaux ,Crotty, Friedrich, Ioannou, Olsen, Swan, Whitney
Commissioners Absent: None
Others Present: James & Terri Baron, Jay Beals, Joan Pisani, Irene Jacobs
III. Report on Posting of the Minutes: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2 the
agenda was properly posted on April 29, 1998.
IV. Approval of Minutes of April 13, 1998 Meeting
Commissioner Ioannou made a motion to approve the minutes of April 13, 1998.
Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion and the motion carried. (6/0)
V. Administration :
Saratoga residents, James and Terri Baron attended the Parks and Recreation Commission
meeting to share their concern of the condition of the existing trials throughout Saratoga.
Mr. and Mrs. Baron are avid horse riders and in the past, they have worked with the city
organizing groups of volunteers to improve certain trials by abating weeds and laying
down sod in addition to other improvements.
They also shared concern that their had been encroachment on some of the existing trails
by new housing developments and existing housing improvements. Although most
residents are eager to cooperate with trail users, there are still those who resist because
they are unaware that a trail has been designated close to or on their property.
The Baron's requested that the Commission consider funding improvements to Saratoga
trials. The Commission explained that the Trail Grant Program had been approved by the
Commission and Council in concept yet, no format has been established. This issue will
be agendized for next month's meeting so that the Commission will be able to consider
how they would like to establish the program so that groups would be able to apply for
trails grant monies funded from the Park Development Fund.
The Commission Chair, Kay Whitney, asked the group if anyone was opposed to
reversing the order of Old Business with New Business in order to better accommodate
Jay Beals who had come to speak to the Commission regarding the Playfield Project
listed under New Business. Commissioner Swam made a motion to reverse the order of
the agendized items. Commissioner Friedrich seconded the motion and the motion
carried. (6/0)
VI. New Business:
Al Playfield Project Manager - Scope of Services
Commissioner Olsen shared with the Commission what had been discussed at the pre-
planning meeting that had taken place on April 23, 1998 with Jay Beals of Beals
Landscape Architecture, who had been selected as the project manager to oversee the
playfield projects. The meeting had been an opportunity to answer questions, share
information and better define the project manager's role in the process.
The Commission had received a detailed proposal by Mr. Beals for consideration. The
Commission took this opportunity to ask questions and share opinions. After the
conclusion of the discussion, Commissioner Olsen made a motion to recommend to the
Council that they approve the proposal submitted by Beals Landscape Architecture
specifying in the contract that a limit of $1,000 would be established for reimbursable
expenses. This recommendation would be presented at the May 12, 1998 Council
Meeting with the date of completion reflected in the "anticipated schedule" outlined by
Mr. Beals. Commissioner Swan seconded the motion and the motion carried. (6/0)
B) Hakone Gardens- Reduced Rates for Residents
The Commission chair explained that she had asked for this item to be placed on the
agenda because she had wanted to approach the Hakone Board to see if they might
consider establishing a special rate for residents since Commissioners have heard
complaints from many residents about having to pay the increased fees. Commissioner
Whitney asked that staff compose a letter to the Hakone Foundation asking that the item
be placed on one of their board meeting agendas for consideration.
VII. Old Business:
A) Contract Negotiations - Playing Field User Groups
Staff member Jacobs updated the Commission to the newest developments regarding the
playfield expansion project in light of the most recent contract negotiations with AYSO
and Little League for the use of Congress Springs Park.
B) Parks & Recreation Development Fund - Protect Update
1) Heritage Orchard: Commissioner Friedrich shared with the Commission that
he had had some informal discussions with several individuals who would be
willing to submit a proposal to the city to maintain and further develop the
Heritage Orchard.. Commissioner Friedrich felt that if the City explored
options other than the current arrangement, it would prove to be more
advantageous to the City.
2) Takahashi Letter: The Commission had received correspondence from Mrs.
Takahashi, a Saratoga resident whose house is located close to Kevin Moran
Park. Mrs. Takahashi asked the Commission to consider adding some park
benches in addition to possibly relocating the play equipment since it is not
easily visible from all areas of the park. Staff was asked to write compose a
letter to Mrs. Takahashi thanking her for her letter and letting her know that
her concerns would be considered when the various play equipment options
were presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
3) Community Center Improvements: In light of the most recent joint meeting
with the City Council and the discussions revolving around Community
Center improvements, the Commission agreed that some new direction needed
to be taken since their had been confusion earlier regarding Council's plans
for the building. Recreation Director, Joan Pisani informed the Commission
that she had already pursued some new leads on consultants would be able to
complete the study that had been requested by Council; renovating the
Community Center versus starting from scratch. The Commission chair asked
staff to agendize this item for the May meeting so that it could be discussed
further.
VIII. Reports:
Commissioner Reports:
Commissioner Crotty reminded the Commission that May 16`h was National River Clean-
Up Day, and she was still looking for assistance from her fellow Commissioners to
volunteer some time to help make this day a success.
City Hall Update: No report at this time
Recreation Department Status Report: Joan Pisani, Recreation Director, proudly shared
with the Commission that the artist whose painting had been selected for the Rotary Art
Show took her very first water color class at the Community Center. She also announced
that the Youth Commission was scheduled to have their joint meeting with the City
Council next week and that they were working hard to raise money for the Teen Center.
Park Maintenance Division Update: No report at this time.
IX. Adjournment
Commissioner Crotty made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Commissioner Clabeaux
seconded the motion. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 9:50
p.m.(6 /0)
Prepared By:
-OW 4-
ene M. Jacobs
City Staff Repre ntative
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 27,1998
To: Parks & Recreation Commi ion
From: Irene - Staff Liaison to PRC
0
RE: Skateboard Park - June 1, 1998 Meeting
In October of 1997, Patrick Burns, Saratoga youth, presented to the City Council
a petition with over 200 signatures requesting that the City consider building a
skateboard park. At that meeting, the Council referred this issue to the Youth
Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission for consideration. The
issue was considered by the Youth Commission and somehow the issue was
never brought before the Parks and Recreation Commission until now.
I have attached the letter from Patrick Burns, the memo from the Youth
Commission supporting the idea, information provided by the City Attorney
regarding liability and additional correspondence supporting the issue. I have
been in contact with Patrick, and from what I understand, he plans on attending
Monday night's meeting.
Just some history on the issue. In the early nineties, city staff constructed a
skateboard park made of wood and it was placed at Congress Springs Park.
From what I understand, the structure lasted a little less than two weeks before
unhappy neighbors, who lived near the structure and complained about the
noise, insisted that the structure be removed. The neighbors were never
informed in advance that the structure was going to be constructed.
There had also been a proposal to erect a skateboard park near the Corporation
Yard and sketches were drawn up along with the drawings that were done for
the Civic Center. I have been informed by the Youth Commission staff
representative that the drawings on file are not what the kids actually want
anymore. I also understand that the idea to use the Corporation Yard was
abandoned since a fueling station has been constructed on the proposed site.
UEU'ff Qq XQ)151sz1 �
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Larry Perlin, Interim City Manager DATE: Oct 17,1997
FROM: Beverly Tucker. Recreation Supervisor
SUBJECT: Youth Commission Response to Skatepark Petition
Patrick Burns, a Redwood Middle School student, presented a petition for building a
combined rollerblade /skateboard park in Saratoga to the Youth Commission on Monday,
October 6. The attached petition has 200 signatures of students, parents, teachers and
school administrators.
The Youth Commission supports the construction of a combined rollerblade /skateboard
facility in Saratoga with the condition that students be involved in the entire process:
architect selection, design, location and operation policies.
The commission discussed the previous attempt of building a skateboard park and felt that
this issue should be considered as completely new. They are recommending a mixed -use
facility which has a dramatically different design from the previous plan of a sunken
skateboard bowl. They feel the new type of facility is much less expensive and will
accommodate far more students. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments
at x234.
cc: Joan Pisani, Recreation Director
Parks & Recreation Commission
We the undersigned are in
43.
Kim Kim
support of a Skate Park to
44.
Patty Fasang
be constructed in Saratoga.
45.
Judy Wang
46.
Sarah Yoo
47.
Jake Brigante
48.
Donald Prolo
49.
Nick Brettner
1.
Patrick Burns
50.
Aris Gregorian
2.
Tom Cummins
51.
Scott Moran
3.
Justin Oliver
52.
Danielle Mederious
4.
Nick Giacome
53.
Brian Vermillion
5.
Bobby Mulkey
54.
Brett Stanger
6.
Matt Delao
55.
- Paul Snider
7.
Dave Foreier
56.
Ashvin Soin
8.
Ian Beaven _
57.
Lara Spang
9.
Scott Eiving
58.
Trevor Lavoi
10.
Monica French
59.
Nick Major
11.
CK Kaplan
60.
Kelly.Buchanan
12.
Philip Cheung
61.
Julie Wilson
13.
Stephen Emami
62.
Andrea Cheng
14.
Adam Walter
63.
Ryan Olsen
15.
Leslie Van Aken
64.
Adam Cook
16.
John Griffin
65.
Anthony Lin
17.
Jonathon Baker
66.
Sean Newmark
18.
Josh Pinel
67.
Tina Cheng
19.
Matt Ashburn
68.
Bryan Kang
20.
Gary Hsia
69.
Joyce Lee
21.
Brett Cowdery
70.
Will Gray
22.
Dan Garrappolo
71.
Kelly Van Aken
23.
Justin Gardner
72.
Salm Lin
24.
Brian Robby
73.
Edward Oh
25.
Chris Barrett
74.
Kim Stellman
26.
Kerchan Ho
75.
Eugene Kimm
27.
Peter Guidotti
76.
Krista Estrada
28.
Oliver Hsu
77.
Ben Morse
29.
Lawrence Hui
78.
Jakie Warden
30.
Nick Pisano
79.
Alex Liu
31.
Chad Usher
80.
Connor Peck
32.
Munisti Bhatnner
81.
Andrew Farina
33.
Chris Engler
82.
Jane Moon
34.
Josh Evan
83.
Lucy Anderson
35.
Kate Lin
84.
Yura Kim
36.
Sang Ho
85.
Eleanor Patrick
37.
Matt Lazares
86.
Andy Swanson
38.
Seth Hartman
87.
Connie Chen
39.
Auria Malek
88.
Teresa Hwang
40.
Kyle Mullin
89.
Moris Clark
41.
Cris Mariani
90.
Aaron Ulrich
42.
Steven Baker
91..Ian Mosley
92.
Michael Reed
141. Jon Laycock
93.
Greg Henderson
142. Jessica Cone
94.
Jen mere
143. Grace Kim
95.
Candis Teealink
144. Stephanie Morrow
96.
Ginny Kaufmann
145. Ed Oh
97.
Sam Smith
146. Catlin B.
98.
Alan Sung
147. Ashley Munro
99.
David Lii
148. Jessica Spears
100.
Kyle Ozawa
149. Ashley Teeple
101.
Stephanie DeKetzer
150. Emily Hopkins
102. Mike Perry
151. Aaron Blair
103.
David Lessic
152. Taj Kawahara
104.
Jacob Anderson
153. Nick Morris
105.
Ana Graziosi
154.- Jenny Jo
106.
Clair Junhbre
155. Bobby Craig
107.
Dena Darya
156. Theron Schaub
108.
Aurthur Liao
157. Craig Blain
109.
Heidi Chen
158. Heather Holdort
110.
Danny Olivares
159. Katie Klobe
111.
Brad Seago
160. Devin Scholck
112.
Milissa Chu
161. Jenna Maryon
113.
Gavin McChesney
162. L. Vennemeyer
114.
Jon Goldman
163. Ken Lin
115.
Jon wyatt
164. Fordy Shoor
116.
Sergio Patterson
165. Clark Hey
117.
Aaron Levin
166. Sarah Gold
118.
John Snow
167. Keri Robinson
119.
Jonathan Anderson
168. Troy Follmar
120.
Mike Laughlin
169. Manuel Arroz
121.
Greg VanHousan
170 Hillary Boller
122.
Jason Muller
171. Kyle MdMullin
123.
Sam Quicke
172. Andrew Brady
124.
Aaron Burk
173. Chris Pram
125.
Doug Schaller
174. Bobby Sampson
126.
Mark Crosby
175. Anne Morrissey
127.
Daniel Vhadic
176. Irene Chu
128.
Alvin Jeng
177. Olivia Tien
129.
Romah Sciahns
178. Tina Chau
130.
Justin Noodleman
179. Grace Chu
131.
Kyle Louderback
180. Jenny Lee
132.
Aaron Kidd
181. Tumoka Sarata
133.
Matt Bromage
182. Audrey Weger
134.
Rachelle Dottery
183. Stephanie Chang
135.
Molly Brown
184. Abby Heerwagen
136.
Jordan Hendrixson
185. Crystal Akimoto
137. John Wirt
186. Allen Fang
138.
Sasha D.
187. Kathy Saye
139.
Courtney Lippard
188. Hannah Sim
140. Julia Desmond
189. Marc Muniz
190.
Alina Shah
191.
Jennifer Liu
192.
Jennifer Lee
193.
Nick Matson
194.
Calum Best
195.
Emily Murrey
196.
Jonny Bonyl
197.
Judy Wang
198.
Josh Ferrari
199.
Meltra Payne
200.
Brae McMullin
l- r��53
� 1 �
Ir
�incl rev Fini) G
/ alg(,\/) V -)C" -)C,
LVI
tl
P"
.r
I
i
I
VA
0
A
( / / /A(
0 7
6 y",
L �-4
4_,a(Jt
17
1
ti
LAJ G
YE) c�
of
'7 � -.. rye ...• ..
S v
r h•
e'
'r
ori
4sk
IJ)Gave
• e
I- oj
cj- d
�. p, .ti„
Tom euwi toi
3 r,� «,G
q �cK
5
Vve
1
ti __A
,z
t
t C*tw
S6
4 � o� e
Y
0
9z
�. -fir-- �� -ti . ./V, � � - ,
- _ _ _ Yr.
-- _
Z)a
- Y.3 r - -.
-4
O%r
_wd
r4 Ile
r4 ah Rat
M,l oaf �s .
Se1�, /f�t�tarl
5
MA �
MICHAEL R. NAVE
STEVEN R. MEYERS
ELIZABETH H' SILVER
MICHAEL S. RIBACK
KENNETH A WILSON
DAVID W. SKINNER
STEVEN T. MATTAS
CLIFFORD F. CAMPBELL
MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ
KATHLEEN FAUBION, AICP
RICK W. JARVIS
LARISSA M. SETO
DEBBIE F. LATHAM
WAYNE K SNODGRASS
ARNEB.SANDBERG
BENJAMIN P. FAY
DANIEL A MULLER
LIANE M. RANDOLPH
PATRICK WHITNELL
KATHARINE G. WELLMAN
OF COUNSEL
ANDREA J. SALTZMAN
CERTIFIED APPELLATE SPECIALIST
MEYERS, NAVE, RMACK, SILVER & WILSON
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
GATEWAY PLAZA
777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300
SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577
TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -4300
FACSIMILE: (510) 351 -4481
TO: Joan Pisani
Recreation Director
City of Saratoga
FROM: Michael S. Riback
City Attorney
C
MEMORANDUM
1 J � I.1•l �'.l' �I( �F I'i.L�
! 1
�,1;�.1t�r��
NORTH BAY OFFICE
555 FIFTH STREET, SUITE 230
SANTA ROSA, CA 95401
TELEPHONE: 1707) 545 -8009
FACSIMILE: (707) 545 -6617
!'� • -•
GENWIA44ALEY FFICE
5250 CLA'RP49NT AVENUE
STOCKTON,,ICA 95207
i TELEPHONE: (209) 951.4080
FAOSIMI6&E 09) 951 -3009
DATE: October 10, 1997
RE: AB 1296 - Skateboarding Defined As Hazardous Recreational Activity
Periodically, cities are asked to consider whether or not to construct a public
skateboarding facility for its youth. The most common question asked in this regard is
what is the city's potential liability for providing this facility.
This memorandum is to bring to your attention AB 1296, which was recently signed
into law by the Governor. This law defines skateboarding as a "hazardous recreational
activity" if the person skateboarding is 14 years of age or older, if the skateboarding
activity is stunt, trick or luge skateboarding, and the skateboarding is at a skateboard park
on public property.
As you may be aware, under Government Code Section 831.7, cities and their
employees have a qualified immunity from damages for injuries to persons caused while
engaging in a hazardous recreational activity. Prior to this bill skateboarding was not
defined as a hazardous recreational activity. Now, therefore, this bill has extended the
Section 831.7 immunity to skateboarding activities. Please be aware that this bill takes
effect January '1, 1998.
In addition, this bill mandates that the City maintain a record of all known
skateboarding injuries incurred in a public skateboard facility and report this annually to
the State's Judicial Council.
ti
TO: Joan Pisani, Recreation Director
FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
RE: AB 1296 - Skateboarding Defined As Hazardous Recreational Activity
DATE: October 10, 1997
PAGE: 2
I have enclosed a copy of AB 1296 for your information. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
i / `C
Michael S. Riback
City Attorney
MSR:rja
Enclosure
c: Larry I. Perlin, Interim City Manager
J:\WPD\MNRSW\273\01\MEMO\OCT97\SKATEBOA-10
Ad 1296 h4:// www .sen.ca.gov/htbin/ca- htm...O.AB 1296]CURRVER.TXT; Ubill /AB 1296
AB 1296 Liability.
BILL NUMBER: AB 1296 CHAPTERED 09/30/97
CHAPTER 573
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR SEPTEMBER 29, 1997
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 11, 1997
PASSED THE SENATE SEPTEMBER 4, 1997
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 29, 1997
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 22, 1997
- -INTRODUCED BY Assembly Members Morrow, Mazzoni, and Strom - Martin
(Coauthor: Senator Thompson)
FEBRUARY 28, 1997
An act to amend, repeal, and add Section 115800 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to liability.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1296, Morrow. Liability.
Existing law provides that neither public entities nor public employees are liable to any person who
participates in a hazardous recreational activity. Existing law defines "hazardous recreational activities"
for these purposes to include various activities.
This bill would provide that skateboarding at a public skateboard park is a hazardous recreational
activity for purposes of those provisions if the person skateboarding is 14 years of age or older, the
skateboarding activity was stunt, trick, or luge skateboarding, and the skateboard park is on public
property, as specified. The bill would require appropriate local public agencies to maintain a record of
all known or reported injuries incurred by skateboarders in a public skateboard park or facility, and other
information regarding those incidents, as specified, and would require copies of these records to be filed
with the Judicial Council annually, beginning in 1999. By imposing additional duties on local public
agencies, the bill would create a state - mandated local program. The bill would require the Judicial
Council to submit a report to the Legislature regarding this information on or before March 31, 2000, as
specified.
The bill would provide for the repeal of these provisions on January 1, 2003.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain
costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement,
including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed
$1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs
mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory
provisions.
SECTION 1. Section 115800 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
115800. (a) No operator of a skateboard park shall permit any person to ride a skateboard therein, unless
that person is wearing a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads.
(b) With respect to any facility, owned or operated by a local public agency, that is designed and
maintained for the purpose of recreational skateboard use, and that is not supervised on a regular basis,
1 of 3 10/8/97 11:57 AM
AB 1296 _
http:// www .sen.ca.�ov/htbin /ca- htm...O.AB 1296]CURRVER.TXT;1/bill /AB 1290
the requirements of subdivision (a) may be satisfied by compliance with the following:
(1) Adoption by the local public agency of an ordinance requiring any person riding a skateboard at the
facility to wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads.
(2) The posting of signs at the facility affording reasonable notice that any person riding a skateboard in
the facility must wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads, and that any person failing to do so will be
subject to citation under the ordinance required by paragraph (1).
(c) "Local public agency" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, a city, county, or
city and county.
_(d) (1) Skateboarding at any facility or park owned or operated by a public entity as a public skateboard
park, as provided in paragraph (3), shall be deemed a hazardous recreational activity within the meaning
of Section 831.7 of the Government Code if all of the following conditions are met:
(A) The person skateboarding is 14 years of age or older.
(B) The skateboarding activity that caused the injury was stunt, trick, or luge skateboarding.
(C) The skateboard park is on public property that complies with subdivision (a) or (b).
(2) In addition to the provisions of subdivision (c) of Section 831.7 of the Government Code, nothing in
this section is intended to limit the liability of a public entity with respect to any other duty imposed
pursuant to existing law, including the duty to protect against dangerous conditions of public property
pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 830) of Part 2 of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the
Government Code.
(3) For public skateboard parks that were constructed on or before January 1, 1998, this subdivision shall
apply to hazardous recreational activity injuries incurred on or after January 1, 1998, and before January
1, 2001. For public skateboard parks that are constructed after January 1, 1998, this subdivision shall
apply to hazardous recreational activity injuries incurred on or after January 1, 1998, and before January
1, 2003. For purposes of this subdivision, any skateboard facility that is a movable facility shall be
deemed constructed on the first date it is initially made available for use at any location by the local
public agency.
(4) The appropriate local public agency shall maintain a record of all known or reported injuries incurred
by a skateboarder in a public skateboard park or facility. The local public agency shall also maintain a
record of all claims, paid and not paid, including any lawsuits and their results, arising from those
incidents that were filed against the public agency. Beginning in 1999, copies of these records shall be
filed annually, no later than January 30 each year, with the Judicial Council, which shall submit a report
to the Legislature on or before March 31, 2000, on the incidences of injuries incurred, claims asserted,
and the results of any lawsuit filed, by persons injured while skateboarding in public skateboard parks or
facilities.
(5) This subdivision shall not apply on or after January 1, 2001, to public skateboard parks that were
constructed on or before January 1, 1998, but shall continue to apply to public skateboard parks that are
constructed after January 1, 1998.
(e) This section shall remain in effect until January 1, 2003, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later
enacted statute, enacted before January 1, 2003, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 2. Section 115800 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
115 800. (a) No operator of a skateboard park shall permit any person to ride a skateboard therein, unless
that person is wearing a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads.
2 of 3 10/8/97 11:57 A?V
131296 http:// www .sen.ca.aov/htbin/ca- htm...O.AB 1296]CURRVER.TXT;1/bilUAB 129E
(b) With respect to any facility, owned or operated by a local public agency, that is designed and
maintained for the purpose of recreational skateboard use, and that is not supervised on a regular basis,
the requirements of subdivision (a) may be satisfied by compliance with the following:
(1) Adoption by the local public agency of an ordinance requiring any person riding a skateboard at the
facility to wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads.
(2) The posting of signs at the facility affording reasonable notice that any person riding a skateboard in
the facility must wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads, and that any person failing to do so will be
subject to citation.under the ordinance required by paragraph (1).
(c) "Local public agency" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, a city, county, or
. city and county.
(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 200' ).
SEC. 3. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school
districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4
of Title 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for reimbursement does not exceed
one million dollars ($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.
Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise specified, the provisions of
this act shall become operative on the same date that the act takes effect pursuant to the California
Constitution.
Senate Home Page . Search Bill Text
Senate Rules Committee / California State Senate / WebMaster@sen. ca.gov
3 of 3 10/8/97 11:57 AM
�O
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868 -1200
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Stan B000siar.
Pau! E. Jacoos
Giliia %7 Aloran
Jrm Shay,
Donald L. Wolfe
March 10, 1998
Jonathan Oh
14700 Vickery Place
Saratoga Ca 95070
Dear Mr. Oh:
Thank you for your letter dated March 3 concerning a skateboard
park:
This letter has been referred to the Parks and Recreation
Commission and the Youth Commission. They will be pleased to have
your views on a skateboard park. By copy of this letter, I am also
informing the City Council and City Manager of your views.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk
cc: City Council
City Manager
Beverly Tucker, Youth Commission
Irene Jacobs, Parks and Recreation Commission
Primea on recvcle�- oaoer.
0
V
i
Jonathan Oh
14700 Vickery Pl.
Saratoga, CA 95070
March 3, 1998
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Council Members:
All of you have probably been presented with a plan to build a
skatepark in Saratoga. I have lived in this community for twelve
years, and every year I have had a friend or someone I knew try to
go to a council meeting and get a skatepark for our community. Our
last skatepark in Congress Springs was torn down before anyone my
age really had a chance to enjoy it.
Now that Skateboarding is considered a dangerous sport, the
city of Saratoga can now build a park without the threat of having
kids suing. There are tons of basketball courts, baseball diamonds,
soccer feilds, and jungle jims for kids, but not one skatepark for the
skaters. If you go to Redwood or Saratoga High School, then you will
see that there are many skateboarders who would welcome a park.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I have
enclosed a couple of pictures so you will know just what I am talking
about. I know my friends and I are willing to help construct a , park
(maybe a wooden one could be built as a test run, then if that works
out we could have a permanent concrete park).
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Oh
7Z ' T
�
• r,�C�'
L
i
?LP, Lu.
- —�. C,o,N(.JZLrrZF- Wk
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 27,1998
To: Parks & Recreation Commission
From: Irene - Staff Liaison to PRC
RE: Trial Issues - June 1, 1998 Meeting
I have attached several items to help us all out with the various issues that you
will be asked to respond to at the PRC meeting on Monday. Rather than just
including them in your packet, I wanted to try and explain what the items were
so that there would not be too much confusion.
Effie Adamson Foundation Grant Request
As you remember from last month's meeting, James and Terri Baron attended
the PRC meeting requesting assistance from the Commission with trail
improvements. They were asked to submit a proposal to the Commission and it
would then.be considered. They have submitted a very draft version to me and
they may have a more finalized version ready for the meeting Monday night.
The Trial Grant Program issue has been placed on the agenda since the
Commission has not yet had the opportunity to decide how it wanted to set up
the program and proposals can not really be considered until this issue is
addressed.
Trail Center Proposal
Since last month's meeting, another group, The Trail Center, has also
approached the City and they too have requested funding to make
improvements to trails (their proposal is included in your packet). These
individuals met with the City Manager so, I really don't have any more
information than what is included in the packet on this particular group.
They are planning on attending the meeting and they are one more reason why it
is important to consider how you would like to establish this trail program and
how you plan to following -up on any other trail related issues
( i.e. trails maps) since they are interrelated. I have attached portions of the
City's Parks & Trials Master Plan that refer to Trials and the options that were
proposed in 1991. I thought that this might help to get the wheels spinning for
Monday night's discussion.
Trails Improvements at 13636 Deer Trail Court
The other issue that related to trails that has been agendized for Monday night's
meeting is a request from the Community Development Director that the
Commission consider the improvements to the property located at 13636 Deer
Trail Court. I have attached for your review information that I thought could be
helpful. After speaking to the Community Development Director, the trail in
question does not seem to be in use nor does it seem to lead anywhere. I
personally have not seen the site but, I encourage you to view the site in question
if you have time before Monday's meeting.
The Commission will need to decide whether or not the residents of this
property will be required to make any trail improvements as a result of their new
construction.
If you have any questions please give me a call at (408) 868 -1215. If I'm not in
leave me a message and I will get back to you. As always, you are welcome to
call me at home (408) 972 -0888. Hope this helped.
D
CITY OF SARATOGA
COUNTY PARKS
MROSD OPEN SPACE LAND
`
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 5 t
`
EXISTING COUNTY TRAILS
t
��-
PROPOSED COUNTY TRAILS
REGIONAL PARKS & TRAILS
t
CITY
OF SARATOG A t
t
PARKS
AND TRAILS
MASTER PLAN 4
4
4
WALLACE
ROBERTS & TODD
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
;onstruction cost of $24 per linear foot was used. Cost estimates for each segment are
)resented 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
3 most of the new trails will be required to be dedicated as a condition of subdivision
Ipproval. The estimated cost to the City (excluding new trails segments that may be dedicated
Ls a condition of subdivision approval) will be $1,119,000.
3.6 -1
"i
0
Figure 6
EXISTING TRAIL EASEMENT
PROPOSED TRAIL EASEMENT EXISTING & PROPOSED TRAILS
CITY OF SARATOGA
PARKS A N D T R A I L S MASTER P L A N
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD
Segment:
1
V
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
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: N/A
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
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
1
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
lr
IF
M
1l
v
M
11
r
r
r
1i
r
r
r
r
r
r
Segment:
19
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
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 trail
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
4
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: 29
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 Cost: $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:
Force Report, 1979.
Action:
There exists along the roadside sufficient room to develop a
Type:
trail. The City should investigate the development of a segment as
Ownership:
it will serve as an important connection between segment #31 and
Surrounding Land Use:
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
Segment: 35
Location:
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
Segment:
34
Location:
This segment serves as a connection between Fruitvale Avenue and
Length
Quito Road. From the west end the trail travels along Monte Vista
Type:
Drive to cross an orchard and link with Monte Wood Drive. At this
Ownership:
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:
Lane the City should be consider it for establishment as an
Action:
This trail alignment was proposed by a community member attending
Cost Estimate:
the Trails Community Workshop. The City should negotiate with
Maintenance Cost
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:
I
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
V
Segment:
36
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
Location:
This segment travels along az} orchard on the western side of
Fruitvale Avenue linking segment #24 and #25.
Status:
Unofficial
Length:
250 L.F.
Type:
2
Ownership:
Orchard property
Surrounding Land Use:
Orchard, residential property and West Valley College.
Notes:
I
Action:
A length of trodden earth already exists along the roadside and is
Surrounding Land Use:
used unofficially by trail users to travel between the two existing
Action:
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:
I
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
Segment: 39
Location:
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
Status:
junction of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road the trail will have to travel
Length:
north for one hundred feet to establish a safe crossing at Sea Gull
Type:
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:
Sunnyvale Road must be provided which will include warning signs
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
Cost Estimate:
consideration should be given to their development of a trail as
Maintenance Cost
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. A bridge 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
Segment: 41
Location:
3.6 Proposed Trail System Improvements
Segment:
40
Location:
This segment travels along the south side of the Southern Pacific
Status:
Railroad from Cox Avenue to the junction of Saratoga Avenue. At
Length:
the midpoint the trail crosses Saratoga Creek and forms a
Type:
connection with the segment proposed to travel along it.
Status:
Proposed
Length:
4500 L.F.
Type:
1
Ownership:
PG&E land and easements, San Jose Water Works, and the railroad
Surrounding Land Use:
Congress Springs School and residential property.
Notes:
trail design, road crossings at Saratoga Avenue and Quito Road must
Action:
The City needs to negotiate with land owners for easements. When
constructing the trail the City should incorporate Congress Springs
Park. A bridge will be needed at the crossing of Saratoga Creek
and a safe road crossing at Cox 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
Cost Estimate:
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. A bridge 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 Cost:
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: l
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 #44.
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:
3.6 -14
Segment: 46
Location:
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
Status:
trail per City standards and post the appropriate signage. As the
Length:
easement is already dedicated and the land available for
Type:
development this route is a more feasible alternative to connect
Ownership:
the City's trail system to the County parkland in the West.
Cost Estimate:
$36,000
Maintenance Cost:
$675
Segment:
45
Location:
This segment travels along the eastern property line of Garrod
Stables from trail segment #4 south to segment 09 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 #I I 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
Status:
the Garrod property.
Status:
Proposed
Length:
N/A
Type:
I
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
Cost Estimate:
with the County.
Cost Estimate:
N/A
Maintenance Cost
Segment: 48
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: 49
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 -16
s
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
Status:
path could travel along an existing fire road and connect the
Length:
Hillsides to the surrounding County parkland and the Skyline Ridge.
Status:
Proposed
Length:
N/A
Type:
I
Ownership:
County land
Surrounding Land Use:
County parks, stables, and private residences.
Notes:
provide an important link between the two existing segments. Trail
Action:
The City will have to negotiate with Santa Clara County for the
development of a trail.
Cost Estimate:
N/A
Maintenance Cost:
$45
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. x
Cost Estimate:
$2400
Maintenance Cost:
$45
3.6 -17
�y..; 3.6 -18
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 100' 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 land 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
�y..; 3.6 -18
I
3.6 -19
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 *15 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
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 plant material unless otherwise specified.
4.3 -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
s
s
s
•
•
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
y
TRAIL CENTER
Trail Information and Trail Volunteers for
Santa Clara, San Mateo, Santa Cruz & San Francisco Counties
Larry Perlin, City Manager May 13,1998
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Trails at Parker Ranch
Dear Larry,
There are a number of issues to be confronted as regards the trails we've walked. So as not to
confuse any of us, I'd like to approach the solutions to your various problems in several
different letters. The first part of this proposal will deal with the highest priority areas, which
have earned their rank by virtue of either land "movement ", public safety issues, erosion,
poor design, or a variety of other sins. In any case, these are the places that need to be fixed
"asap ". Trail work that we consider Priority 2, will follow.
Priority 1.....
The highest priority trail work and that which poses a significant public safety hazard is
located south of Prospect, west of Parker Ranch Court and also west of the terminus of Star
Ridge Court. Let's use the water tank as the major landmark in describing the location of
work. The tank almost exactly divides - in half - the trail in question.
1. "Tank "trail.... total length: 2,200 linear feet; variable slope: 0 - 33%
A. Northern 1,100'... slope: 0 - 10 %..... Cost: $4,680.
The northerly half of the trail is that part which has experienced
considerable movement, exposing the large San Jose Water line. (This break is
located approximately 425" south - southwest from the triple intersection of Prospect,
Parker Ranch Road, and Parker Ranch Court.) As of 2/4/98, this pipe has suffered
additional damage and was observed actively leaking (an almost continual stream) at
... Please Go To Next Page ...
3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 . (650) 968 -7065
y
Parker Ranch, cont'd 5. 13. 98.....
the joint. We do not intend to fix the pipe or the landslide. The existing trail forms a
drainage channel for water. It will continue to be muddy, unstable, and probably slide
in other areas. We propose a re -route for a major portion of this section of trail.
Approximately 50' north of the slide, we will build a switchback to route the trail
farther up the slope, away from areas prone to movement. We anticipate the re -route
will be, variably, 20' to 40' uphill from where the trail now exists. This may or may not
necessitate changing the easement. Twenty feet on the map (provided by the Planning
Dept.) measures a whopping 1 /32nd of 'an inch. Forty feet = 1/16th inch. (This = sign
measures 3 /32nds of an inch) The re -route could be well within current easements, but
I am not the authority to make that pronouncement. A re -route averaging 25' uphill
doesn't appear to cause any "visual intrusion" to the residents. The property owners'
will need to be supportive of this project.
B. Southern 1,100'... slope: 10 - 33 %..... Cost: $4,670.
The southerly half of the trail is steep and eroded. It does not follow natural
contours, but makes a straight path down the hill, and a steep one at that. Again, we
suggest a re -route which will work with existing contours in order to avoid erosion
and make the trail- more "user- friendly" as regards the degree of slope. Straight,
steep trails can be more like rock climbing than hiking.
C. Estimated number of workdays for 2,200 lin. ft. = 8 workdays (approximate)
The work for the northern section, (A., above) and the southern section, (B. above) of 2,200
feet, includes:
1. the re -route and switchbacks
2. crosslope grading for drainage
3. graded drainage features (drain dips, water bars as needed)
4. tread width of 3' (overall width, approx. 3' -6" to 4' -0 ")
TOTAL COST OF TANK TRAIL, I.A. and B., (2,200 L.F.) ........... ............................... $ 9,350.00
2. "Star Ridge/ Diamond Oaks" Trail .... total length: 410 linear feet; variable slope: 0 - 15%,
This is the trail that meanders east - southeast from the intersection of Star Ridge
Court and Picea Court. The trail winds its way to the trail near the terminus of
Diamond Oaks Court. We are offering three .alternatives for your consideration.
... Please Go To Next Page ...
lP
Parker Ranch, cont'd 5. 13. 98.....
Each will have its own advantages and its own price. The lowest cost alternative
will make the existing trail usable. The two higher cost options will result in a trail
that will last longer with less repair and maintenance. (Need I say that the highest
cost option equals the longest lasting and least amount of annual maintenance ?.....)
"Star Ridge/ Diamond Oaks" Trail .... cont'd...
Option A. (estimated # of workdays: 1/2 day) Cost: $ 450.
1. Remove downed trees from trail
2. Provide a 50' inside ditch to aid drainage
3. Provide 6 drain dips (shallow drainage swales)
Option B. (estimated # of workdays: 1.5 days) Cost: $1,025.
1. All work in Option A., plus ...
2. Widen tread to .3' -0" overall width
3. Re -grade tread to improve drainage
Option C. (estimated # of workdays: 2 days) Cost: $1,475.
1. All work in Option A., plus ...
2. All work in Option B. not affected by re- route...
3. Re -route 300'of 410' total length away from
natural drainage
4. "Close" abandoned portion of trail with brush, limbs
Before anyone decides that Option A for $450 is the best value, please understand that Option
A represents the very minimum amount of work and that, depending on the rains and
erosion, you may be faced with the same amount of work every year. This is why we feel
Option A is NOT the "best value ". We want you to have a good understanding that the
quality and longevity of our projects is a direct function of informed decisions, good planning,
and consistent execution.
This concludes the Priority 1 work that we consider most severe or important based on public
safety, erosion, amount of use, etc., etc.
... Please Go To Next Page...
I
Parker Ranch, cont'd 5. 13. 98.....
Priority 2 .....
This work involves trail issues that either pose public safety problems of a moderate or lesser
degree than Priority 1s, or have to do with making repairs so as to reduce future maintenance
costs. One of the Priority 2 issues is trail signage which is in disrepair, missing, in need of
additional units, or in some cases, in need of removal. Additional mitigation issues include
closure of old trails by shrub plantings whose location invites erosion, non -use, or even an
attractive hazard; bicycle trail barriers- a 2 x 8 installed across the trail- low enough to step
over, too high to ride over; "brushing" - the trimming of brush interfering with the use of the
trail- in several areas.
We estimate the following Priority 2 items to be necessary....
1.) Signage ..... signs will be supplied by client Cost: $ 220.
a.) Install approx. 5 (five) trail signs.
b.) Relocate approx. 7 (seven) trail signs.
c.) Remove two signs on metal posts.
2.) Trail Closures.... two locations... planting. Cost: $ 850.
a.) Install 10, five gallon shrubs (5 each location) to camouflage
old trail entrances. Includes fertilizer tablets and
monthly watering through Oct. 1, 1998. Suggest native,
drought tolerant, match existing species in area,
if applicable.
b.) Approx. 5 cubic yards of topsoil, seeded - one location
3.) Bicycle barriers ... two locations... lumber supplied by client Cost: $ 200.
a.) Replace one barrier
b.) Raise, relocate two barriers
4.) Brushing ... five locations in varying degrees; Labor Cost: $ 200.
estimated at 3 hours for a four person crew.
Priority 2 total ......................... $ 1,470.
... Please Go To Next Page ...
Parker Ranch, cont'd 5. 13. 98.....
Additionally, we need to inform you as tostandard conditions under which we operate:
Items furnished by the Trail Center:
a) Supervision by trained crew leaders and workday supervisors.
b) Trail building tools, and gloves.
C) Slope of trails typically does not exceed 10%
d) Publicity to solicit volunteer trail workers
e) Beverages and snacks for volunteers at end of work days
Items furnished by client/ agency:
a) Access to the worksite during daylight hours for the duration of the project.
Workdays are Saturdays, from 8 am until 4 pm.
b) Construction materials as may be needed. Although we do not
foresee any building materials or manufactured drainage structures to be
needed, any such materials are to be furnished, purchased, or generally
provided by client /agency.
Larry, I appreciate this opportunity to work with you. Let's get together to review this
proposal, answer questions, and plan.
Sincerely,
Sandy Nichols
Executive Director
Interoffice Memo
To: Irene Jacobs, Secretary to Parks and Recreation Commission
From: James Walgren, Community Development Director
Date: May 4, 1998
Subject: Trail Improvements at 13636 Deer Trail Court
As a requirement of Tentative Map approval, an open space /pedestrian- equestrian
trail easement was recorded across several lots within the Mt. Eden Estates
subdivision. This 23 lot subdivision is located off Mt. Eden Road and is now almost
entirely built out. A new home was recently approved by the Planning Commission for
lot 23 of this subdivision, with a condition that the Parks and Recreation Commission
review the proposal to determine if trail improvements are needed within this
easement. Trail improvements have been required at the lower end of the subdivision
- which I believe connect Via Regina with the Garrod Ranch property. No trail
improvements have been required to date at the upper end of the subdivision, where
this lot is located.
The applicants have submitted the attached site plan and letter requesting that the
PRC consider their proposal at the next available meeting. Please let me know if you
have any questions. Thanks!
15927 Viewfield Road
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
April 30,1998
City of Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: File No. DR -95 -011 13636 Deer Trail Court: "Trail Improvement Plan"
In compliance with the design review approval for the subject property, we hereby
commit to appear before the City of Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission to
review the need for trail improvements in the open space sector of Lot #23. Once
determined, it is our understanding that either we will either submit the agreed to plan on
a timely basis or will be issued a waiver of trail improvements by the PRC.
Thank you for your continued support in the planning for our newly acquired property
now being developed for our new home.
Very truly yours,
EJQ;a4 P
Edward P. Cornell
Carol S. Cornell
V�
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
-Application No. /Location: DR -95 -011; 13626 Deer Trail Ct.
Applicant/ Owner: WANG
Staff Planner: James Walgren, AICP
Date: November 26, 19 9 6 �V(/
APN: 503 -78 -23 Director Approval:
13626 Deer Trail C;t.
N 68+ 49' 00+
N91'O4'OO "E 86.14
750
N
740
4/! 730
el 04
/0"
l(
4
k OAK rOAlt
e
• 19'• 1^
O4K 1� PER TIt4OT
DR
_ 720
a •/9. •
OAK gyp. 4K
(- Q
T 23
r
q t
el G 3
l .0 a *lN
1� �Z�
►� �'t
'� t 1 � •' , 'j, , t
Q f. Try
raft
z
w 4�
CA 104
�eR�apTM 1�oglw got _t ,..
So
R I `: RAC 81Y 1
it
730
y r.
910 e
0 ,
Tic
m O
,Hai �l �
x:04
i� -'' �' '�4 t - r moo. ■�O!
J �'�.1 &
aFT
Grant Request
City of Saratoga
Trail Project
June 1998
Fiscal Year 98 -99
Submitted by: The Effie Adamson Foundation, a Non - profit Corp. (501 c 3)
19830 Via Escuela Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 867 -6100
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Mission Statement
III. General Information
IV. History Statement
V. Goals and Objectives
VI. Narrative Description
VII. Evaluation Methods
VIII. Key Personnel
IX. Cooperation with other Organization
X. Summary of Benefits
XI. Budgets
XII. Attachments
1. Articles of Incorporation
2. Bank references
3. Key Personnel
Executive Summary
Activate the long fallow Saratoga trails program by using the existing resources, coupled
with an extensive volunteer effort to maximize the return to the citizens of Saratoga. The
Trail Project will focus on immediate use of the existing trail system and the development
of future needs
Mission Statement
Although Saratoga is close to "build out," there are still significant opportunities in the
City to enhance the existing trail system and to develop new trails that link the existing
trails together and to the county parks and open space districts. Initial emphasis would be
place on the northwest hillside area.
Our mission is to:
1. Increase citizens' awareness of trails.
2. Enhance and improve existing trails.
3. Identify and locate existing easements that could be developed as trail
segments.
4. Develop new trail segments to link existing trails.
5. Develop new trail segments to link existing trails to the County Parks and
open space districts.
6. Locate additional grant monies from other sources to complete trail projects.
7. Coordinate with City of Saratoga to assist in acquiring easements.
8. Communicate with private property owners to request easements or rights -of-
way.
9. Coordinate with PG &E and other utilities to acquire use over their easements.
10. Coordinate Volunteer efforts.
11. When applicable, comply with the goals of the Northwestern Hillside Specific
Plan, 1981 and Parks and Trails Master Plan, 1991
An active trail program will provide a quality trail experience for the residents of
Saratoga.
General Information
Name of applicant: Effie Adamson Foundation
Contact Names: Teri Baron
James Baron
Address: 19830 Via Escuela Dr.
City: Saratoga, CA 95070
Phone: 408 867 -6100
Fax: (408) 867 -6100
Amount of Request: To be Determined
Type Request: Operational
Purpose: Saratoga Trail Project
History Statement
Saratoga has a long history of trail use. Only xx feet of the existin xx feet of trails are
open and available for use.
In June of 1981, the City of Saratoga adopted The Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan.
The plan addresses the residential development in this area. 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. This plan provides general direction
for protection of the landscape aesthetic in Saratoga and addresses specific issues
pertaining to recreation and public access.
Specific policies which relate to trail provisions include:
Develop equestrian/pedestrian trail system for access to County
recreation areas and Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District
concurrently, or prior to, the development of each lot.
Encourage trails and pathways along roadways.
In November of 1991, the City of Saratoga developed a document called the Parks and
Trails Master Plan. This document defines 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. To date, very little has been done to implement this document
The Parks and Trail Master provided for the "completion of construction and
maintenance of existing and future trail easements.
Thirty -one existing trial segments have been identified in the City of Saratoga. The
status of the trails varies from well maintained (this was in 1991) and well used to very
poorly maintained and neglected (the current status of almost all the trails). In some
cases the dedicated easement is all that exists and no trail is evident in the field.
There are many trails that exist because of use, that may or may not be dedicated
easements. These trails have been used in some cases for thirty or more years. As
development increases, these must be preserved and dedicated at this time.
In 1990, a community survey was done by the firm of Moore Iacofano & Goltsman. It
was determined that, "the community values open space and parks highly and strongly
supports related improvements.
Goals and Objectives
Plan, implement and maintain trails for equestrian and hiking use.
Evaluate existing trails.
Clear and repair existing trails (xx feet).
Ensure all future developments in the City conform to the trail alignments indicated in the
trails plan of the Parks and Trails Master Plan.
Require dedication, through the subdivision approval process, from developers of either
the trials right of way or a recreational easement to accommodate public use.
Establish a regular program for maintenance of trails.
Ensure public involvement in trails planning and maintenance process by providing all
residents of the City timely information about the trail project
Negotiate with appropriate utility companies and private owners for implementation of
trails along utility right -of -ways and easements. Request new easements.
Solicit donations to assist in the financing of trails acquisitions and maintenance from
private individuals, nonprofit organizations and local business interests.
Develop alternative (state, county, federal, private) funding sources.
Develop parks and trails volunteer program.
Narrative Description
[To Be Completed]
Evaluation Methods
Grant performance would be evaluated on the following:
1. Public communications
2. Volunteer hours
3. Clearing and cleaning of trails
4. Work product on easement requests
Key Personnel
James H. Baron
See Resume attached
Teri Lynn Baron
See Resume attached
Cooperation with Other Organizations
Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Pony Club of America
4 -H Club of America
Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development
Trail Center (trail building, maintenance and information)
3921 E. Bayshore Blvd.
Palo Alto, CA
Santa Clara County Parks Dept.
298 Garden Hill Dr.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Scouting
Fire Department
City of Saratoga
Summary of Benefits
The residents of Saratoga should have access to the trails that provide scenic enjoyment
of this beautiful City while still maintaining its rural atmosphere. A functional trails
system will access to scenic areas within the city as well as provide access to the County
Park systems and open space districts.
The trails are features of the City's landscape which preserves and enhances the aesthetic
quality of the City for residents and visitors alike.
Saratoga Trail Project
BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR: 7/1 to 6/30
Current Fiscal
Year Budget
Next Fiscal
Last Fiscal
(Projected)
Year Budget
Year Budget
FYE 6 -30 -99
FYE 6 -30 -00
FYE 6 -30 -01
INCOME
Government
$0
99- detail
$0.00
00- detail
$0.00
01- detail
Federal
$0
$0.00
$0.00
State
0
$0.00
$0.00
Local
0
$0.00
$0.00
Private Grants
0
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Corporate
$0
$0.00
$0.00
Foundations
0
$0.00
$0.00
Other
0
$0.00
$0.00
Individual Gifts
0
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Gifts and Bequests
$0
$0.00
$0.00
Other
0
$0.00
$0.00
Self- Generated
0
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Sales of Goods /Services
0
$0.00
$0.00
Special Events
0
$0.00
$0.00
Interest Income
0
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Bank Accounts
$0
$0.00
$0.00
Other Investments
0
$0.00
$0.00
Miscellaneous
0
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
TOTAL INCOME
$0
1
$0.00
$0.00
EXPENSES
99- detail
00- detail
01- detail
Personnel
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Salary
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Benefits, Taxes
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Office and Operating
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Utilities
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Supplies
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Printing /Copying
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Postage
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Telephone /FAX/E -mail
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
P.R., Advertising, Gifts
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Dues, Subscriptions
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Bank Charges
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Insurance
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Liability
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Director /Officer
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Property, Vehicle
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Contract and Prof Fees
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Sub - Contracts
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Accounting
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Legal
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Volunteer Costs
Food
Reimbursable expense
Training
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Travel, Mileage
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Miscellaneous Expense
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Construction
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Acquisitions
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Maintenance
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Equipment
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Facilities
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Equipment, Furniture & Fixtures
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
TOTAL EXPENSES
1 $0.00
1
$0.00
1
1 $0.00
List of attachments
1. Articles of incorporation
2. Insurance
3. Bank references
4. Key personnel
JAMES H. BARON
Curriculum Vitae
EMPLOYMENT PROFILE:
1990 - Present
• Development of Intellectual Properties; Specializes in the design of
financial models, device physics, computer systems and financial products.
Court - appointed Receiver; Specializes in large real estate and corporate
projects. Extensive experience in the areas of environmental evaluation,
lender liability, complex litigation, foreclosure, loan fraud, loan sales and
property disposal.
W
IZI 1'011
• Vice President, General Counsel; Pacific Loan Management. Complete
loan- servicing company. Specialized in the servicing of delinquent trust
deeds, receiverships, REO disposal, build -outs, and foreclosure services.
1981- 1988
1974-1981
President, Chief Executive Officer; Cal -Star Financial Services.
Diversified financial services company including loan servicing, loan
origination, receiverships, and mortgage banking; succeeded in taking the
company public (NASDAQ) after a period of three years; attained average
mortgage funding of $100 million per year. Developed software for
foreclosure, loan servicing, law office management, litigation support,
accounting, investor relations and customer service.
• Managing Partner and General Counsel; Aleta Pacific Financial.
Responsible for acquisition, refurbishment, and resale of foreclosure
property throughout California.
1972-1974
• Executive Vice - President and Chief Executive Officer; American
Security Systems, Inc. Responsible for start-up and development of
industrial security firm to 200 employees; sold company to a Fortune 500
1967-1972
Prior
company.
• Vice - President; American Savings and Loan Association. Responsible
for real estate owned, receiverships, construction, foreclosure, and branch
acquisition.
• Price Waterhouse & Company
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:
• State and Federal Court appointed Receiver for real property including such
diverse projects as high -rise buildings, multifamily projects, hotels, resorts,
senior care facilities, marinas, and shopping centers, with an aggregate value in
excess of $500 million.
• Testified in over 200 cases as an expert witness in the area of foreclosure and
fraudulent loans.
• Thirty years experience in the mortgage, foreclosure, and receiver business.
• Federal Bankruptcy Examiner for mortgage companies.
• Former savings and loan executive, specializing in delinquent loan service,
foreclosures and non - performing assets.
• Active in drafting legislation and testifying before the California legislature
regarding foreclosure law and public policy issues.
• Past instructor with California Continuing Education for the Bar.
• Certified Data Processing Manager.
AFFILIATIONS:
• Past President of the Independent Trustees Association
• Past Director of the California Trustees Association
• Certified Protection Professional
• Licensed Sports Agent
• Licensed Security Agent
• Director, Effie Adamson Foundation
• Former President and Director of Scholarship Associates
• Former Director of Big Brothers of America
OTHER:
U.S. citizen. Served in the U.S. Air Force, cleared through top secret, honorably
discharged. Possesses current Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) license. Also maintains
commercial helicopter and sea plane ratings. Type rated to fly Cessna Citation Jets.
Team gold medal recipient in the 1985 World Barefoot Water Ski Championships.
Teri Lynn Baron
Resume
5 -15 -98
1992- present
Member of Board of Directors:
• North Course Estates Owners Association, Sunriver, OR
• Responsibilities include:
• Maintenance of all common area for the benefit of the owners
• Effie Adamson Foundation, Saratoga, CA
• Responsibilities include: Scholarship fundings and screening recipients
Secretary /Treasurer:
• North Course Estates Owners Association, Sunriver, OR
• Responsibilities include: Developing yearly budget, keeping and maintaining all
financial records, filing of tax returns, paying all bills, maintaining and accounting of all
bank accounts
1983 -1992
Homemaker
1975 -1983
Branch Manager, Escrow officer, Title Company
Affiliations:
• California State Horseman's Association, Trail Trials program
• 4 -H instructor
• Girl Scout leader
• Volunteer for Saratoga Union School District
Other:
Long time Saratoga resident. Horse Owner. Participated as an equestrian entry in the Saratoga
Parade three times. Avid quilter and seamstress. Licensed private pilot. Gardener.
Fie f9
l
Saratoga Trail Project
Paae 1 of 1
5/18/98
1998
1999
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
TFeb
Mar
Apr
I May
Jun
Rough Draft
Communications to the Public
Trails publication
7/29
♦
9/6
10/18 ♦
11/21
1/22
♦ 4/23
3/15— 6/7
Press Story
-
Evaluate Trails
CMC>
7/17 -8/10
Am:>
10/2C11 /7
3/7 4/11
- -
Cleaning
7/18
--
9/14
4/17 6/2
Right of Way requests
7/31
9/9 -10/7
11 /11-
12/151 /17
2/17 3/30 5/1
Volunteers
7/30
5/30
Accountablitly
•
9/30
•
12/31
•
3/31
Grant Research
■
-8/2
■
10/21
12/7 1 /6
Saratoga Trails Project
A community effort to provide
quality trails in the City of Saratoga
History
Equestrian and hiking trails are a historical
part of the rural character of this City
1991 Parks and Trails Master Plan:
"Links with regional open spaces and parks will enhance their accessibility to
residents, particularly through the proposed trail system improvements "
1994 Hillside Plan:
"Develop equestrian /pedestrian trail system for access to County recreation areas
and Mid - Peninsula Regional Open Space District..."
Where we are today...
Neglected trails
Where we are today...
Overgrown easements
Where we are today...
Blocked access
VIP-
�
Where we are today...
Access Discouraged
Where we could be...
Maintaining trails
Developing volunteers
Opening trails
Securing new links
Saratoga Trails Project
Something for everyone...
Saratoga Trails
Saratoga Trails Project
Next Steps
Determine available financial resources
Finalize grant proposal
Fund grant
Execute grant plan
A community effort to provide
quality trails in the City of Saratoga
Saratoga Trails Project
A community effort to provide
quality trails in the City of Saratoga