Loading...
06-01-1998 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