The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-07-1999 Parks and Recreation CommissionSaratoga Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting City Hall Administrative Offices 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Monday, June 7, 1999 7:30pm AGENDA Organization A) Roll Call: Alberts, Clabeaux, Friedrich, Ioannou, Olsen, Swan, Whitney B) Report on Posting of the Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2 the agenda was properly posted on June 4, 1999 C) Approval of April 12, 1999 & May 3, 1999 Minutes II. Administration A) Public Works Department Report - Follow -up items B) Park Development Fund - Finance Department Report III. Oral & Written Communication This section is for the public to speak on any item not on the agenda IV. Old Business A) Kevin Moran /Gardiner Park Play Equipment - Vendor Selection B) Restrooms at Wildwood Park - Status Report V. New Business A) Joint Meeting with Council (June 8th) 1. Playfield Project 2. Community Civic Center B) Trails: Mount Eden Estates - Correspondence VI. Commissioner & Staff Reports A) Commissioner Reports B) City Hall Update - Irene Jacobs C) Recreation Department Status Report - Joan Pisani VII. Adjournment JUN. 7.1999 2:18PM ANDERSON BRULE NO.835 P.2/7 1 11 'i A 1 Opinion of Probable Cost for the �;iratnna Community Center June 7, 1999 IDIN Q. V. yyeppl Anderson BruI6 Architects, Inc. Davis Langdon Adamson Slach Construction an n Escalation assumed for one year 4% JUN. 7. 1999 2 :19PM ANDERSON BRULE 45,481 $ 140,924 N0.e35 P.3i7 Total Design Fees 16% Saratoga Community Center 181,925 S 563,696 $ 1,080,784 Opinion of Probable Cost: Summa itF Needs Assessment $ 105,693 S 202,647 TOTAL SOFT COSTS June 7, 1999 375,220 S 1,161,624 S 2,229,118 . Area Summary Option A Option 8 Option C C With Adds Non renovated Building Area 849 if 849 sf 0 sf 0 sf :a Renovated 8ullding Area 9,743 sf 840 if 9,743 sf 2,716 if o if 16,292 sf 0 sf 32,692 sf New Building Area TOTAL ASSIGNABLE BUILDING AREA 11 432 if � 13,308 it 116, 292 sf 32,69Z if } Construction Costs Likely Bid Cost (see attached) S 580,642 (1,033,665 $3,202,821 56,140,821 10% Design Contingency S 58,064 $ 103,367 S 320,282 f 614,082 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST S 638,706 S 1,137,032 S 3,523,103 S 6,754,903 r,. soft COSTS Bid d Co structlon Contingency )0% $ 63,811 f 113,703 S 352,310 S 675,490 an n Escalation assumed for one year 4% S 25,548 S 45,481 $ 140,924 S 270,196 Total Design Fees 16% s 102,193 E 181,925 S 563,696 $ 1,080,784 Permit fees 3% S 19,161 S 34,111 $ 105,693 S 202,647 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 210,773 S 375,220 S 1,161,624 S 2,229,118 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS ' $ 849,479 S 1,512,257 S T685,727 $ 84,021c note: See "Definitions and Exclusions' for a list of specific exdusionS to this Opinion of Probable Cos( Anderson Brulf Archltects, Inc. - Davis Langdon Adamson • Blach Construction Page T of 5 r JUN. 7.1999 2 :19PM ANDERSON BRULE NO. 835 P.4/7 Saratoga Community Center 135 if 516 151' opinion of Probable Construction Cost: 01500TIA Needs Assessment IS Director of Recreation Office rvnrL Ira nm.R RoomNonte _._„ Hee Cos rt�. Corr .. ..- subwrol•„ (�hcnte.... .._._ _....^- ----._ No Work 12 Preschool Storage 103 if SO/$I f0 No Work 26 Recreation Depelbm ent Storage 167 if SO /st $O No Wort $O Now«► 27.31 Ancillary Storage 579 sf SO/sf s0 Point Only 21 Patio Room 798 5( S5 1sl 13,990 pocd Onre 53.990 Minor General Fodlhy Scopo 135 if 516 151' S2,160 Set below iarmmar addition to VW IS Director of Recreation Office 200 sf 5200 13f $40,000 s0 Nc+, constnKllon Nor m Scope Work 16 Recreation Supervisor Office 15031 S' NO 12,400 sehimice SWO srre, rrplaa Roor4rg with VCr. P drApallR 19 Multi- purpose Aoom 4,038$f S16 151 164,608 Not in Scope A wort 22 Supervisor Office 120 if $16 /sf 11,920 Not ii Scope AWork 23 Conference Room (8 people) 16031 S16 /sf $2,S60 NcwConrtrvcrlon 573,648 Central Facility SCOpt 833 if S31/if 125,823 a hiamolroe 11 Preschool Room 200 if S31 /sf $6,200 l tccwponeolormcamdranod<I Rccwp ffle 13 14 Lobby Social Area 482 st $31/sf S 31 /sf 516,942 $3,255 Nr++meo rrom Lobby 17 Facility COOrdlnator Office 105 sf 300 sr 331/sf f9,300 N,, oreo from lobby, bwhrt rnunhn 18 Information Office 244 if S31151 57,564 General aemodrr to abt qq krtdser 20 Kitchen 955 sf 131/5f S30,535 Mcch,SOwudcolonN(norplaVN 24 DanceSusdlo 1205! 131 sf S3,7Z0 RdoroVdhom "et 11rdloplocerian 25 Custodian Closet 5101,339 Ra n0del Scope 15 Addition to Dl rector of Recreation Offico 15 It 551 /sf $765 New wro Gam odjvMl Pretdlod rrmodd 17 Addition to Facility Coordinator Oftice 45 sf $51 /sf $51 /sf sz,29s $2,550 Nn oleo hor+ tabb y hm #na front I.abby, btih -In caunlos 18 Addhlon to information Office 50 if 156 if $51 /Sf S7,956 Provide naw ooramoric p>« stocw d7,10-9f, 900W QPF"da 20 Addition to Kitchen 30 5f 151 /Sf S 1, 530 New olio nun lntaral tOAOdel 22 Addition to supef%lsor Office 33 if $51 /sf $1,683` Nrvopro, fromwerrWwnodd 26 Addition to Recreation Dept. Storage 111 sf $51 /sf S8,721 Newts 27 -31 Addition to Ancillary Storage $25,300 Restroom Upgrades Nepportiliau• 11FEUras, dlc Poor a walrrlco�, puinc 1191111119 A5 Community Area Restloom3, M 223 if 5105 /sf A23,625 116 Communl1rArea Restroom%, W 348 if 5105 /sl S36,540 Newpothlonr Gawns dlydWrfrwelnscotpol "t h9htksp $60,165 mew Construction Addition to Preschool Room 600 sf 52001sf. 580,000 Nrw canteocuoe • New Small Work Roam 200 sf 5200 13f $40,000 s0 Nc+, constnKllon Nor m Scope Work • New Class Room O if 0 sf 5200/3[ I200 1Sf SO Not in Scope A work New Small Gymnoslum 0 sf $Z00 /s[ SO Not in Scope A wort • New Com-Unity Meeting Room New Small pallroom (250 people) O if $200/51 s0 Not ii Scope AWork Grossing Factor (A) for New Area 240 if 5200 /Sf S48,000 NcwConrtrvcrlon S 168.000 Lump Sum Items 110,000 lndusrrlol grodc AutomeUCPON frv"c fil000010 a New Kitchen Stove Atrum? mrre color ,chant b Paint Elrtetior of Building $15.000 513.000 uklMence for 2 new uraior debts and e new exhridrlh,lntn . n e NewfirteflorpoarsandWindows L%terierentirefacility $52,000 e» ornelItWInfro7trucwre *110WO for d3V&t'on d Fire $36.000 No twornope Improvmcnrs. Mir h po ding due to conswcciod e Site Work Allowance 520.000 Lump sum tor gxning artvier "14 090rh49 Woos, P0909, C"- f Modify pullding at New Additions $148.000 LIKELY IsID COST FOR DESIGN OPTION A S x0,64 Add AltdrnafeS 1 New Conference ROOM 196 sf S2001S1 539,200 14o sf with GmWnp Foccor to r16rr 2 New Art ROOM / Classroom 840 51 1200 /sf $168,000 1207,200 600 st with G,osrinp r4nor to 9e0si Anderson arul6 Architects, Inc. • Davh5 Longdon Adamson - Bloch Construction Page 2 of 5 r -. y; Raclin No-, A rn O Work 12 Praclsoo( Storage 26 Recreation Department Storage 27,31 Anclilary Storage point Oak • none Minor Central Fatilify Scope 21 Patio Room general Facility Scope 11 Preschool Room 13 lobby 14 Social Area 15 Director Of Recreation Office 16 RjXreation Supervisor Office 17 Fadlfty Coordinator Office 18 Information OfGCC 19 Multipurpose Room 10 Kitchen 22 Supervisor Office 23 Conference ROOM (B People) 24 Dance Studio 25 Custodian Closet '* Remodel Scope a 15 Addition to Director of Recreation Office New Small Work Room 17 Addition to Facility Coordinator Office }� 18 Addition to 1pforn"Ption Office S t 20 Addition to Kitchen rV: 22 Addition to Supervisor Office New Small Ballroom (250 people) Factor (.4) for New Area 26 Addition to Reemetlon Dept. Storage A R 27 -31 Addition to Ancillary storage . Restroom Upgrades R5 Community Area Restmoms, M s R6 Community Area Restrooms, W LIKELY BID COST FOR DESIGN OPTION B 103s( 5013t $o No work 167 sf SON $0 No Wort 579 sf . SO /sf SO No wort s0 0 if S513f SO f0 798 St 116 /st $12.768 $12,768 833 it LUMP Sum Items J. ts. NCw ConsfrucUon Addition to Preschool Room f New Small Work Room ' New Conference ROOT }� New AR Room New Exterior Doors and Windows New Class Room d New Small Gymnasium , ;L�• New Community Meeting Room tryi. New Small Ballroom (250 people) Factor (.4) for New Area ?� • Crossing 4" 4,036 sf LIKELY BID COST FOR DESIGN OPTION B 103s( 5013t $o No work 167 sf SON $0 No Wort 579 sf . SO /sf SO No wort s0 0 if S513f SO f0 798 St 116 /st $12.768 $12,768 833 it LUMP Sum Items 125,823 a New Kitchen Stove 36,200 b Paint Exterior of Budding 114.942 c New Exterior Doors and Windows x d Fire Sprinkler entire facility gig, a Site worts Allowance 13,155 300 st Modify Building at New Additions $9,300 4,036 sf S31 /3f LIKELY BID COST FOR DESIGN OPTION B 103s( 5013t $o No work 167 sf SON $0 No Wort 579 sf . SO /sf SO No wort s0 0 if S513f SO f0 798 St 116 /st $12.768 $12,768 833 it S311sf 125,823 200 5( 531Isf 36,200 462 sf $31/31 114.942 135 sf S311sf $4,185 150 st S31 /sf S4,650 105 if 331 /sf 13,155 300 st 131 /sf $9,300 4,036 sf S31 /3f S125,178 244st 131 /5f $7,564 120 sf W/O 13,720 160 s S31 /Sf 14,960 985 sf 131 15f S30,535 120 sf 131/sf 13,720 5244,032 Movc entronw away "M potPdrg Recoup area for mtomd rcinodd See below for mincroddition to spaea New aren from Lobby Ndw area hssm LOW, giant -in "ou"t"s Mlnlmue Ropy slre rtpbee Haodnp widl VCi, preside App rift Gmeml Aemodel to edsiing Ahchm 15 Si 151 /sf $765 45 sf 1510 $2,295 50 5f 551 1sf 12,550 156 sf 351 /sf $7,956 30 sf S51 /st 111530 31 sf $51 /5f 11,683 111 sf 151 /sf $8,721 0 5f 1200 /3f 125,500 Moen. & oceustkof ort(r (no stpyhtt) Relocated 1wm formerliMehen locoaas Net area from ad/acort Ptefchool nunodd New arse From lobby New otao ham Lobor b�ydtn [aunLsrf PM"de new aucomope pilot'tout, drysaarogf. Per'er'r uppmoto NM alga tom IrWM7l mmodel New area (mm interrd mtiodd doses 225 s 31051sf $23,615 Narpon itions, fl# urrmeRoaandwoMscot,paintlighnng 348 sf 51 05/$f $36,540 Nawpanruons, fumes, ilk floororsd wainrmr, point Ilghdng 560,165 400 st 1100 /sf $80,000 20051 5200 /5f 140,000 140 St 5200/5f 126,000 6005f S200 /s( 1120,000 600 sf 1100 /st 1120,000 051 1200 /st $0 0 st 1200 /st s0 0 5f 1200 /3f $0 776 Sf s200 /st 1155,200 $543,200 510,000 $15,000 515,000 552,000 136,000 $20,000 $146,000 S1,031 "S New conitmccion N?w tonnnlcrtan New construction New constructl0n New eomiruRion Not in Scope a Wart Not in Stop? Y War* Not in scope a wait Nov Consuunion Indirrtrial grad? Auamrotic Pilot 5fOW (P osonabie) Assume thfcccom?Khome Allowance W2 nrrrexiertordoors and 6 now exrerlor wiedowr Assume 1 I K for Infpstmcture one 1415f For dntrlbution No Londsropa Impcvenrenu, this ft pordring duo to comlructian L.rep sum for opelMg ?xtarier wall, bearipg walls, potchln9, ate: Mderson Bruit Architects, Inc. - Davis langdon Adamson • pi6ch Construction page 3 of 5 JUN. 7.1999 2 :20PM Saratoga Community Center Needs Assessment ANDERSON BRULE NO. 835 P.5 /7 of Probable Construction CosC on a Am 7, 1V99 10-,: JUN. 7.1999 2:20PM ANDERSON BRULE Saratoga community Center NeepS A55e»inenc 41 Am* cost/V Rai. 0 N0.835 P.6/7 onc of Probable Construdiayso_�� julic 7. 1999 Page 4 of 5 Anderson Bruli Architects, 1,jr. • Dads Landon don Adamson • alach Construction Or;, New Two StOrY Fac;111Y 1,233 if s 88/sf $231,904 New 01`13tri,10011 Al, 11 oreschool ROOM 103 if S1 86/5f $19,364 12 Preschool Storage 200 if 5188 /sf $37 ,600 .V Stxtiop NEwri 13 Lobby 482 sf 51881sl 590,616 New construction 14 social Area 13S sf S 1 88/st S25,180 New co"ImX60P 15 Director of Recreation Office Director of Recreation Office 15 if $108/sf 52,820 New 0PASITUC110n NJW Cunlri-01911 t 15 Addition to 16 Recreation Supervisor Office 150 $1 $1 88/if $188151 $28,200 S19,740 New CorISIS1010 ;4 . 17 Facility Coordinator Office 105 sf 45 if $1 8815f $9,460 New construerfal, 17 Addition to Facility Coordinator 0 ff ice 300 if 5188 /sf S56,400 N1W 9051TYCM 18 information Office InformaV on office $0 sf S188/sf $9,400 New cc p5tivalDn New onservcUen &F, 18 Addition to 4,038 if $188/5f $759,144 19 Multipurpose Room - 244 if $18815( $45,872 New mativcdon Yy 2o Kitchen 156 $1 SIBB/s( 329,328 New constniciiiia 20 kddition to Kitchen 798 s S188/sf $150,024 Now eamrrul;fim 21 Patio Room 120 if $198/sf $22,560 = New constr100 22 Supervisor Oftice 30 if $188/sl S5,640 Newcorimicdon 22 Addition to Supervisor Office 160 if S188 /sf $30,080 NCW constrijeft) 23 Conference Room (5 People) 985 if SIS81st $185180 , New wtisvudion 24 Dance Studio 120 sf $188/3, $22,560 New caiistrualon zP" 25 Custodian Closet 167 sf $I go/st $31,396 New canwinoft 26 Recreation Department Store it 33 $1 98ist $6,204 New a;r1UVCV0q 2 Addition to Recreation Dept. Storage IS 3f 750 $188 /sf S141,000 New consinK*ft 27-31 Ancillary Storage 5f 725 51 S188/3f S42,300 New conw ucdan R$ community Area Restroorns, M 3 48 if S1 88/sf $6$,424 Ncw consfrucoon RiS Community Arta Restrooms, W 200 if $188/sf $37,600 Now cansUVC11101`1 New Small Work Room 140 sf 1118815f s26,320 NtwCanstructiO New Conference ROOrn 600st $1881st $112,800 New co"nrualall New Art Room 600$1 S1681sf $112,800 r4.w tenstrumari New Class ROO- 50 $1 NjwCoosumdon Grossing Factor (.3) for New Area $3062,82 Lump Sum Ittins Facility 550,000 w. a Demolition of Etisting $90,000 b Site W ork Allowance $140,000 ,202,8 1 LIKELY BID COST FOR DESIGN OPTION C VA10, Addition of Program Items 9,000 5f $200/51' $1,800,000 Indwes; criasmg ringo, New small Gymnasium 4,800 sf $150/3f S720,000 jr1rJudes Foctot withh) Orce New Community Meeting Room 11800 if S1 50/sf. S270,000 indudas crosilng rector MOO OT, people) New Small Ballroom (250 pec 00 sf $1 95/sf S1181000 indudej Qrassing FodOf w1thiP Orm Kitchen Facility for Above functions Page 4 of 5 Anderson Bruli Architects, 1,jr. • Dads Landon don Adamson • alach Construction Or;, JUN. 7.1999 2:21PM ANDERSON BRULE NO.835 P.7/7 Saratoga Community Center Definitions and Exclusions g Needs Assessment line 7,7999 SCOPE DEFINITIONS No Work: Area left as-is paint Only, Paint interior of room Paint interior space Minor General Facility Scope Relamp light fixtures in A, Replace light fixtures in B Replace all carpet and resilient flooring General Facility Scope. Same as Minor General Facility Scope Add rezoning mechanical system reusing (e) mechanical units '411 Remodel Scope: Some as General Facility Scope, but add moving of walls, doors, ceilings, etc. Toilet Room Upgrade. Replace fixtures partitions, the le floor, wainscot. in same location, provide new pa V, %k, New Construction: New building area on existing grounds, attached to existing building. Page 5 of 5 w. Anderson Bruld Architects, Inc. • Davis Langdon Adamson - Blach Construction v. EXCLUSIONS: The following list is extuded from the Opinion of Probable Cost W I Hazardous Materials Roofing work.(all roofing currently being upgraded as separate deferred maintena Moving or Relocation Costs Temporary Space during Construction W, Seismic Upgrade Skylights Senior Center Work Furniture Fixtures and Equipment Land Acquisition Page 5 of 5 w. Anderson Bruld Architects, Inc. • Davis Langdon Adamson - Blach Construction v. POURED IN PL -C-1E *`C-TE: P,- -.AS, V R'=Y A_! S J R FAA I N' = L,56 DINENSICNS OF F'_A'' AREA r �t o1: �C63�3CP. S,ZE, OR'ENTATION. 0,0 S UA;A E F = =T LOCA IONS CAF ALL :X'- 1\13 -- —___ JTII_ITIES. rOUIPPE`!T. AND SITE FJRfvIS' 4VCS, PIOR TO CRC• =R t`C. All Alm" r Mil ' �Ii The Cor%Wc-Ks shoo I• the Pic. we xM1 ce- C'iec. Ike I" oi6 cyo,l :! these ccmp,^ ,-.s can(arrn •e 7e .eq. ro•nerfs of Aslu FI4E7 -45. w 'i=- 4 29 0 - 06-3388 d' �Z �f i ACCESS El: LOOS FU WA;_RIAI- !Fn KEVIN MORAN PARK CITY OF SARATOGA RCSS iiCREI ICN Ce1C MON Ta FLW .e,\ . mown s I l axxir.�, -uWAM 6 N YMMlR�1O6 >'A7. 1M' K R1\SI�ICrJe mayLgG :) ,inn KJ�.WIOrM1 Cr t4 �♦ reelAleR .re aeNUlc a'. � we iraerrar a+e,a, an..c�ar xT.� m .rs,iwroa m.ac At Tilorsoa �erorwr•- SiMC aRra 9a �lerwt «p ...�r1�1 rrwiarc I. IT•ar rt . �cr. Ka+ r\ur a AI WLL7 It -JOr 71 OC W9[fl n0691iy M ;TU AOR � k eY,e>1,r tilrOrl ID. �,eirte g6u4 SJPP '.�7Nr.Pe:'. PuIER;'SRAPE9 pool +c /: 1063336A/B e -A -44 CM010 0 ::G OSC� AWMfeft JlmMW— ► R' '. 910.1 Ylurw - •e rQ ,r 0I W;0 .- •s -y►xrs rv: �.o,- rn -91e1 D W O 1 �o f-+ N N O O ca AOP gill . AOP POURED IN PLACE SURFACING = 456 SQUARE FEET ED The components shown in this pion ore IPEMA certified. The use and layout of these components conform to the requirements of ASTM F1487 -95. QUOTE #106333 *NOTE: PLEASE VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS OF PLAY AREA: SIZE, ORIENTATION, AND LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING - UTILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND ' SITE FURNISHINGS, ® , - - -j CAM PRIOR TO ORDERING. m ,' : m 1UW I .' ./so Y IRYQ �° 48 56 I `\ / m Me �� ♦ J" .` PM I1 , >7oil.n "U" \�` y POURED IN \� u w \ \ rol m >, a Nm omo \ ♦ : ' PUKE ♦ r' \ 1 - -- 16 2 32 40.- 48 I 1 `\ • 1 -£ . VIII "�'a `; ; '6 s POURED IN' I e 7,r Illlm ) / PLACE 1 n,a s ro I nlal �1 m - Nm .. ` jr Sam" W roe \ , — CA on cu� � w.ac 1 Lm 17011 ' Pw 111 "=a "ilwo ® I t 6 W" 1 em u® , 1117p O mSM 7i' 1 Mon MOW 48 N>. \\ �' 40 4B 72 72 96 I aasd / pips 13111 flow _I- 'r{ :AM V Alm > 1117 / ,.®.1.ROMN 1303 .olm O1M moo Iii r• C= am \ IM 4 POURED IN PUCE um p1►.11 at NSI ACCESSIBLE' LOOS FILL MATERIAL - 43' -10' I_ ROSS RECREATION E UIPMENT CO„ INC. \ \\ 555 5th St eet, #210 ® Santa Rosa, CA 95401 QUOTE # 10633388 _ (707) 526 -0812 - : -- - s ae • lm 1 , v KEVIN MORAN PARK CITY OF SARATOGA ROSS RECREATION EWING PHILBIN THIS PLAY AREA k EOUIPMEM 6 DESIGNED FOR AGES 2 -12 YEARS R IS THE MANUFACTURERS OPINION THAT THIS PLAYSTRUCTURE CONFORMS TO ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE AAA (AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT)., THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN WAS BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE -TO US. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. DETAILED SITE INFORMATION INCLUDING SITE DIMENSIONS. TOPOGRAPHY DUSTING UTILITIES. SOIL CONDITIONS. AND ORANAGE SOLUTIONS SHOULD BE OBTAINED. EVALUATED. k UTILIZED IN.THE FINAL DESIGN. CHOOSE A PROTECTIVE SURFACING MATERIAL THAT HAS A CRITICAL HEIGHT VALUE OF AT LEAST THE HEIGHT OF THE HIGHEST ACCESSIBLE PART/FALL HEIGHT OF THE ADJACENT EQUIPMENT. (REF. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION (CPSC) GUIDELINES. SECTION 10: SURFACING) PLAYBOOSTER /SHAPER DRAWING y: 1063338A/B 4 -26 -99 DESIGNED BY: GDW LANDSCAPE i5 alp is MOW NT>mfnwe 601 7D1 STREET SOUTH - P.O. BOX 198 DELANO. MINNESOTA 55328 PH: 1 -BW- 328 -0035 FAX: 1- 612 - 972 -6091 MON CwtINM ' 1 KEVIN MORAN PARK riTV nr cnenTnrn Mc Anything else is cutting corners' MENT CO., INC. #210 95401 707) 526-0812 1 1. ": 601 7th STREET SOUTH • P.O. BOX 198 • DELANO, MINNESOTA 5;5328 • (612) 972 -3391 • 1- 800 - 328 -0035 • FAX: 1- 612 - 972 -6091 KEVIN MOR AN PARK CITY OF SARATOGA OPT-110A It (3lf o t &\j R oosr E-k a RECREATION EQUIPNIEN Cu.; II : 555 5th Street, #210 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 (7 07) 526 -4800 / Fax: (707) 526 -081? 1062564D By Amm I . . RECREATION EQiiIPMENI CO., INC: 555 5th Street, #21T Santa Rosa, CA 95401 (707) 526 -4800 / Fax: (707) 526 -0812 PW The components shown in this plan are IPEMA certified. The use and layout of these components conform to the requirements of ASTM F1487 -95. \ v.m 11 1 / a IL u® 0 I 1 EXISTING 1 OAK TREE 1 1 I I 1 I 1 \ / / ACCESSIBLE LOOSE FILL MATERIAL TOTAL POURED IN PLACE= 170 SQUARE FEET I I I I I SEPARATE AREA I 1 -------- - - - - -- I i \ / 1 1 1 I I - u 1 .l I I I POURED IN 'r PLACE � I •I I ----------------- r- I I I I s+a 1 I I I rOi � 's I I111>a 0 >. ll I 1 ` I , 1 � � I i I \ a/a» \ = a 1 1 I 1 ' 1 1 , I . , GARDINER PARK TOWN OF SARATOGA ROSS RECREATION EWING PHILBIN THIS PLAY AREA k EOUIPMENT IS DESIGNED FOR AGES 5 -12 YEARS IT IS THE-MANUFACTURERS OPINION THAT THIS PLAYSTRUCTURE CONFORMS TO ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE A.OA (AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT). THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN WAS BASED ON .INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US.. -PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, DETAILED SITE INFORMATION INCLUDING SITE DIMENSIONS, TOPOGRAPHY EXISTING: UTILITIES, SOIL CONDITIONS, AND DRAINAGE SOLUTIONS SHOULD BE'OBTAINED, EVALUATED, h UTILIZED IN THE FINAL DESIGN. CHOOSE A PROTECTIVE SURFACING MATERIAL THAT HAS A CRITICAL HEIGHT VALUE OF AT LEAST THE HEIGHT OF THE HIGHEST ACCESSIBLE PART /FALL HEIGHT OF THE ADJACENT EQUIPMENT. (REF. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION (CPSC) GUIDELINES, SECTION 10: SURFACING.) PLAYBOOSTER DRAWING #: 1062565B 4 -12 -99 DESIGNED BY: GDW LAND CAPS �_ MOft 7th STREET SOUTH - P.O. BOX 198 DELANO. MINNESOTA 55328 PH: 1 -800- 328 -0035 FAX: 1- 612 - 972 -6091 no •NOTE: PLEASE VERIFY ALL r "mI" „ DIMENSIONS OF PLAY AREA y.°° SIZE, ORIENTATION, AND LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING am or t UTILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND SITE FURNISHINGS, PRIOR TO ORDERING. POURED IN PLACE NX an 4 b 1 lJ�m IM 1 ' m .r / 16 11 - -- 40 148 m V mum l so= no ow i"a fti, An \ Cam• Lim; 1 1 :.al.+� .48:.�acu® P-ft L I I lase 1 721 72 / am law ma 1 p 72 \ la sink . MT M a, + ► r ® / am= 1 q1� 1 rs�r \ "Will 9i 1 PW The components shown in this plan are IPEMA certified. The use and layout of these components conform to the requirements of ASTM F1487 -95. \ v.m 11 1 / a IL u® 0 I 1 EXISTING 1 OAK TREE 1 1 I I 1 I 1 \ / / ACCESSIBLE LOOSE FILL MATERIAL TOTAL POURED IN PLACE= 170 SQUARE FEET I I I I I SEPARATE AREA I 1 -------- - - - - -- I i \ / 1 1 1 I I - u 1 .l I I I POURED IN 'r PLACE � I •I I ----------------- r- I I I I s+a 1 I I I rOi � 's I I111>a 0 >. ll I 1 ` I , 1 � � I i I \ a/a» \ = a 1 1 I 1 ' 1 1 , I . , GARDINER PARK TOWN OF SARATOGA ROSS RECREATION EWING PHILBIN THIS PLAY AREA k EOUIPMENT IS DESIGNED FOR AGES 5 -12 YEARS IT IS THE-MANUFACTURERS OPINION THAT THIS PLAYSTRUCTURE CONFORMS TO ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE A.OA (AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT). THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN WAS BASED ON .INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US.. -PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, DETAILED SITE INFORMATION INCLUDING SITE DIMENSIONS, TOPOGRAPHY EXISTING: UTILITIES, SOIL CONDITIONS, AND DRAINAGE SOLUTIONS SHOULD BE'OBTAINED, EVALUATED, h UTILIZED IN THE FINAL DESIGN. CHOOSE A PROTECTIVE SURFACING MATERIAL THAT HAS A CRITICAL HEIGHT VALUE OF AT LEAST THE HEIGHT OF THE HIGHEST ACCESSIBLE PART /FALL HEIGHT OF THE ADJACENT EQUIPMENT. (REF. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION (CPSC) GUIDELINES, SECTION 10: SURFACING.) PLAYBOOSTER DRAWING #: 1062565B 4 -12 -99 DESIGNED BY: GDW LAND CAPS �_ MOft 7th STREET SOUTH - P.O. BOX 198 DELANO. MINNESOTA 55328 PH: 1 -800- 328 -0035 FAX: 1- 612 - 972 -6091 no GARDINER PARK TOWN OF SARATOGA Down srRuciuRESitrc Anything else is cutting corners" ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT CO., INC. 555 5th Street, #210 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 (707) 526 -4800 / Fax: (707) 526 -0812 1. BY ": 601 7th STREET SOUTH • P.O. BOX 198 • DELANO, MINNESOTA 55328 • (612) 972 -3391 1- 800 - 328 -0035 •FAX: 1 -612 - 972'6091 POURED IN PLACE NEW PATH 123832 SUPER SCOOP (ACCESSIBLE) I 111297 SAND &;:WATER PANEL Co.. C� 111296 ' SAND CHUTE PANEL C 111291 STORE PANEL I 111288 DRIVER PANEL 115409 � 56' CRAWII TUNNEL I *NOTE: PLEASE VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS OF PLAY AREA: SIZE, ORIENTATION, AND LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND SITE FURNISHINGS, PRIOR TO ORDERING. I 123831 SUPER SCOOP SAND AREA i 100121 CLUB HOUSE W /POLY ROOF SCALE: IN FEET 0' 1' 5' 10' ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT CO., INC,, 555 5th Street, #210 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 (707) 526 -4800 /Fax: (707) 526 -0812 �IN, -J --- - - - - - � 117962 TODDLER SWING DOUBLE Y/ 2 HALF BUCKET I . I - v I I I \ \ ., / Ewa►►. ��°Y�o CERTIFIED The play components identified on this plan are IPEMA certified The use and layout of these components conform to the requirements of ASTM F1487. GARDINER PARK CITY OF SARATOGA ROSS RECREATION EWING PHILBIN THIS PLAY AREA "EQUIPMENT IS DESIGNED FOR AGES 2 -12 YEARS IT IS THE MANUFACTURERS OPINION THAT THIS PLAYSTRUCTURE CONFORMS TO ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF -THE A.DA (AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT). THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN WAS BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. DETAILED SITE INFORMATION INCLUDING SITE DIMENSIONS, TOPOGRAPHY EXISTING UTILITIES. SOIL CONDITIONS. AND DRAINAGE SOLUTIONS SHOULD BE OBTAINED. EVALUATED. d UTILIZED IN THE FINAL DESIGN. CHOOSE A PROTECTIVE SURFACING MATERIAL THAT HAS A CRITICAL HEIGHT VALUE OF AT LEAST THE HEIGHT OF THE HIGHEST ACCESSIBLE PART /FALL HEIGHT OF THE ADJACENT EOUIPMENT. (REF. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION (CPSC) GUIDELINES. SECTION 10: SURFACING.) NO— STRUCTURE DRAWING #: 1063339 4 -26 -99 DESIGNED BY: GDW LANDSCAPE �SC s oft 9r Oak* ownwe 601 71h STREET SOUTH - P.O. BOX 198 DELAND. MINNESOTA 55328 PH: 1- 800 - 328 -0035 FAX: 1- 612 - 972 -6091 dim Aso 14M r� T8 Agenda Memorandum To: The Parks and Recreation Department From: The Homeowners of Mt. Eden Estates Regarding: Horse Trails Easements through Mt. Eden Estates Issues of concern: 1. Has the City of Saratoga accepted the horse trail easements through Mt. Eden Estates? 2. What liability issues exist and who is ultimately responsible? 3. The esthetic appearance of the two portions of the trail recently mandated by the Parks and Recreation Department is unacceptable in a natural hillside environment. Trails, if they must exist through our neighborhood, should be natural dirt pathways such as you would find at Garrod Farms. 4. Should there not be better coordination of the placement of the horse trail easements with regard to the placement of homes? S. Who will be responsible for future maintenance of the horse trail system? 6. In weighing the issue of cost to the City as well as the individual homeowners of Mt. Eden Estates and the issues of privacy and esthetic appearance, how many residents of the City of Saratoga does this planned elaborate "sidewalk" type horse trail truly serve? Apr -15 -99 02:02P P.01 S TATE OF CALIFORNIA - RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION r A P 0 SOX 94289E f SACRAMENTO. CA 34236.0001 (916) 653 -7423 April 5, 1999 To: Local Officials and Interested Parties Subject: Application Deadline for the Habitat Conservation Fund Program Applications for the next cycle of the Habitat Conservation Fund Program (HCF) must be received no later than October 1, 1999. There are $2 million available under the program. Local units of government are eligible to apply, The program requires a dollar for dollar match, which must come from a non -state source. The following four categories will be funded during the Fiscal Year 2000101 grart cycle. Trails, Programs, Urbar Access 2. Anadremous SalmonidslTrout Habitat 3. Deer /Mountain Lion Habitat 4. Rare, Threatened, Endangered or Fully Protected Species The procedural guide, with application forms and program information, is available at our web page at ( http :! /www.cal- parks.ca,gov */htm). You may also write ate_ t�_ic %__ n_.__��- _t r1__I._ and n„ ...�; -.- Planning 1 ,.I [�.. to the tail a�tid ueuaf -Um nt ul Park's and neC,e2tiu� Planni �g 2 ;u X0021 SEI V C6" Section, P. 0. Box 942896, Sacramento, California 94296 -0001 or call us at (916) 653 -7423. T he current procedural guide is dated May 1997. Project selection will occur by the erd of January. Only projects with complete applications will be selected for funding. In the past, some projects lacked evidence of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). You may wish to initiate the CECA process early. If you have any questions about the Habitat Conservation Fund Program, olease call us at (916) 653 -7423_ Sincerely Odel T King, Jr., Manager Planning and Local Services Section Apr -15 -99 02:03P P.02 31ATE Of CAUPORNIA - RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY 9AV15, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION �- ,. P.G. BOX 942898 SACRAMENTO, CA 94296 -0001 (916) 653 -7423 April 5, 1999 Prospective Applicant: Subject: Application Deadline — Recreational Trails Program (RTP) The next application deadline for grants from the RTP is October 1, 1999. Califonnia's allocation for this grant cycle will be approximately $3.5 million. About $2.5 million will be available for non - motorized trails projects and $1.0 million for motorized trails projects. Cities, counties, districts, state agencies: and nonprofit organizations with management responsibilities over public lands are eligible to apply. The RTP is a matching program that provides up to 80% of the project costs. The Recreational Trails Program, formerly the National Recreational Trails Fund Act Program, is funded under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21"` Century (TEA -21). The Califomia Department of Parks and Recreation's Planning and Local Services Section administers the non- motorized projects and its Off- Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division administers the motcrized projects. If you would like a procedural guide, which has program information and �pplication forms, you may access our web page at ( htto :ilwww.cal- oarks.ca.aovihtm) or write or call the California Department of Parks and Recreation, P.O. Box 942896, Sacramento, California 94296 -0001. For non - motorized projects, address your request to the Planning and Local Section, or, call (916) 653 -7423. For motorized projectts, address your request to the Off - Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division, or call (916) 324 -1573. The same procedural guide may be used to apply for both non - motorized or motorized projects. Project selection will occur by the end of January. Only projects with complete applications will be selected for funning. In the past, some projects lacked evidence of compliance with the California Environmental quality Act (CEQA). You may wish to initiate the CEQA process early. If you have questions, please Contact the Planning and Local Services Section or the Off - Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. Sincerely, Odel T. King, Jr., Manager Planning and Local Services Section llay 1C 99 11:15p James Baron 408 867 -6100 p.l Memotm&m i %; Marianne c&. Sipe:ilw, Parks and Rec. Conunission, Trail M. James Walerel From: Teri Lynn Baron, Saratcga Trail Enthusiasts Date: 6-03 -99 Re: Lot 2:3, Mt_ Eiden l -,utes While riding this trail segment last week, I noticed that the howcowncr put in some' z" base type rock to finish the tray work requested on his final occupancy cerificate. This rock was not the type of rock that the homeowner was requested m put in per the memorandum dated November 17, 1598. This memorandurn requests that `ite homeowner prov ?dc either asphaltic chips OR decomposes! uranitc. The rock piGt in Iasi wee!: is not either of these types. It does notmeet tile instructions provided it, th,- i i -17 -48 r;emt). In rnv Opinion, it is about the wore' type of rock the honneoNvner could have put it 11 does not compact, and may wash out with any substantial rain as it is on the si e of a 1141. it is hard for hikers to walk on as well. Teri PS: I have attached the 11 -17 -98 rt+.emo for your reference tj I 1-�W rA Memo To: Park and Recreation Commissioners From: David Mooney, Parks Division Leadworker CC: Irene Jacobs Date: June 4, 1999 Re: Parks Division update I wanted to update all of you on issues that came up during your meeting held on May 3. First is the re- prioritized " State of E)dsting Parks" draft, please find copies attached that reflect the changes you requested. Second was the desire of the Berkeley Cricket Club to establish an agreement for the use of a City park to conduct practices and home games. After thoroughly checking on the needs of the group it is my feeling that Saratoga's park system curren does not have an area capable of providing those needs. I believe that as future park development is realized consideration should be given to creating areas for new groups such as B.C.C. Lastly I wanted to make the Commission aware of a potential safety concern at Wildwood Park It seems as though one of the two sets of swings has deteriorated to the point that repairs can no longer be made. Due to its age, eye bolts that once secured the swing chains are now beginning to pull through the wooden cross beam. Staff feels that the remaining set should be enough to accommodate the parks users. The removal of this older wooden set would eliminate the hazard as well as open up space. in the event that newer equipment needs relocating. As always your hard work is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, David Mooney • Page 1 To: Park and Recreation Commission Members From: David Mooney, Public Works Leadworker Date: May 4, 1999 Re: Prioritizing Park Improvements As asked I have taken the list of needed improvements you were shown at your meeting May 3 and prioritized them according to there potential for being unsafe. Obviously not all these improvements are meant to remedy an existing hazard, so those not posing such were given a lower priority. While it was mentioned that all the listed improvements met the criteria for use of park development funds as a means of paying for them, I have included an asterisk next to the items that could be funded from alternative sources such as ADA money. I hope this helps, Sincerely, David Mooney cc: John Cherbone Irene Jacobs State of Existing Parks Within the Saratoga System. This report is intended to update you on the current condition of the infrastructure of Saratoga Parks, and to relay to you the need to make repairs and or improvements to that infrastructure in order for those auras to remain a safe and enjoyable place for residents, employees, and other users. Following is a site by site summary that includes a brief history of original development, recent projects and improvements, followed by a project/costs breakdown listing repairs necessary to maintain those sites in the aforementioned condition. Consequences of not addressing these areas of concern, would be the continued degeneration of parks infrastructure, increased staff man -hours to maintain those areas, and possible litigation against the City. Wildwood Park, 20764 Fourth St. The 4.1 acres that is now Wildwood Park were acquired in 1968 at a cost of $81,400.00. Four years later in 1972, three of those acres were developed at a cost of $61,250.00. That original development included a stage/ amphitheater, restroom with adjoining storage area, play area and equipment, paved pathways with minimum security lighting, picnic areas with barbecues and tables, as well as a turf on the flat open, and sloping areas. Later development added group picnic areas, volleyball court, and horseshoe pits, The most recent projects and improvements were the constriction of the pedestrian footbridge, and replacement of decking on the stagetamphitheater in 1992. As well as improvements made to the play, and picnic areas during Capital Improvement Project No. 955 in 1995/96. Needed improvements. Estimated Costs. 1). Pathways 1,800@ $3.25 per S.F. $5,850.00 2). Tree work 2 days @ $1,200.00 ea. $2,400.00 3). Pathway Lights 5@ $2,500.00 ea. $12,500.00 4). River rock walls (caps, 205') 5). Drainage (6" perff) closed system 275@ $8.00 per L.F. $2,200.00 6). Garbage enclosures 13 @ $850.00 ea. $11,050.00 7). Redwood retaining wall (4X108) 8). Restroom* 1@ $100,000.00 ea. $100,000.00 9). Park sign 1 @ $2,800.00 ea. $2,800.00 10). Drinking fountain* 2@ $2,500.00 ea. $5,000.00 11). Irrigation upgrades 16,500@ $2.00 per L.F. $33,000.00 12). Mow strips 485@ $14.00 per L.F, $6,790.00 13). Bike rack I @ $650.00 ea. $650.00 Kevin Moran Park, 12415 Scully Avenue. In 1970, the City purchased 10.3 acres for $236,572.00 and in 1973, developed 4.0 of those acres at a cost of $70,642.00 into what is now Kevin Moran Park Original development consisted of an open turf area encircled by paved walkways with lighting, play area, and general landscaping. Plans to develop the remaining 6.3 acres were part of the master plan but were never completed In 1974, the pathway lights were vandalized and it was decided that they would not be repaired at that time. Recent improvements were the 1991 reinstallation of pathway lighting, and the removal and replacement of elements of the play area done in 1995. Needed improvement& Estimated costs. 1). Play area (demo old / poor new) ** 1,200@ $8.00.00 per S.F. $9,600.00 2). Planters (14' diameter) 3). Garbage enclosures 9@ $850.00 ea. $7,600.00 4). Benches 6@ $600.00 ea. $3,600.00 5). Picnic tables* 6@ $900.00 ea. $5,400.00 6). BBQ's 2@ $200.00 ea. $400.00 7). Drinking fountain* 1 @ $2,500.00 ea. $2,500.00 8). Irrigation upgrades (w /controller) 177,898@ $2.00 per S.F. $356,200.00 9). Bike rack 1 @ $650.00 ea. $650.00 10). Mow strips 2973@ $14.00 per L.F. $41,622.00 11). Bathrooms* 1 @ $100,000.00 ea. $100,000.00 12) Exercise station 1 @ $3,000.00 ea. $3,000.00 El Quito Park, 12855 Paseo Presada In 1973, the City developed 4.0 of the 6.3 acres leased from the Moreland School District one year earlier. That initial development included grading, irrigation and drainage systems, turf and minimal landscaping. In 1978, after some revisions to the master plan, the final 2.3 acres were developed. These involved additional grading, irrigation and drainage systems, a play area, paved pathway, group seating area (partial), one experimental light and limited landscaping. Later, as per the master plan the group sitting area was completed, along with picnic areas, horseshoe pits, a volleyball court, game area and baseball diamond. Soon after these were completed, the community gardens were constructed, and in 1986 bathrooms were installed Most recent improvements include the 1989 upgrades to the baseball diamond, installation of a new "El Quito Park" sign, metal fencing along the parks perimeter with Paseo Presada, and the 1990 removal and replacement of existing play equipment. 1 (El Quito Park, cont.) Needed improvements Estimated costs 1). Pathway lights 4 @ $2,500.00 ea. $10,000.00 2). Continuation of metal fence 3). Garbage enclosures 10 @ $850.00 ea. $4,750.00 4). Turf renovation 199,140@ $1.50 per S.F. $298,710.00 5). Benches 3 @ $600.00 ea. $1,800.00 6). Picnic tables* 3 @ $900.00 ea. $2,700.00 7). Bathroom (partitions) $6,000.00 L.S. $6,000.00 8). Irrigation upgrades 199,140@ $2.00 per S.F. $398,280.00 9) Drinking fountain* 2 @ $2,500.00 ea. $5,000.00 10) Tables (game area) 2 @ $800.00 ea. $1,600.00 11) Mow strip 675@ $14.00 per L.F. $9,450.00 12) Exercise station 1 @ $3,000.00 ea. $3,000.00 Congress Springs Park, 12970 Glen Brae Drive Over a seven year period, beginning in 1969, the City acquired 9.8 acres of land on Glen Brae Dr. that was adjacent to the State owned transportation corridor for a price of $187,000.00. In 1974, development began with the construction of a baseball diamond by Saratoga Little League on 3.2 acres of that land, the City then entered into an agreement which allowed Little League to have the exclusive use of that field from April to July of each year. For their part little league and all other user groups would pay a portion of incurred maintenance costs. In 1976, due in part to the demand for additional playing fields, the City leased from the State approximately 10 acres of transportation corridor land on the Parks northern boundary. This was a renewable five -year lease for $200.00 per year, with a clause allowing for cancellation with a 90-day notice. This would allow for the accommodation of two additional baseball fields and four soccer fields, thus meeting public needs of the time. 1979 saw the completion of a Master Plan that was the combined efforts of area residents, representatives from baseball and soccer leagues, and the Parks and Recreation Commission. In 1986, approval was given to go to bid on the revised plans for Congress Springs Park These included the construction of a restroom/concession stand structure, tennis and basketball courts, field improvements i.e. (fences, dugouts, bleachers), landscaping and additional parking. More recently, in 1989, the lease the City had with the State for use of land located within the freeway corridor expired making it necessary to reconfigure the athletic fields. New play equipment was installed in 1990. In 1994, Saratoga Little League was given permission to make additional improvements to their fields that included construction of a cinder block scorekeepers building, a grass infield, covered dugouts, bleacher expansions and bullpens. Later new elements had to be added to the play area after vandals set fire to the existing ones. J (Congress Springs, cont.) Needed improvements 1). Complete turf renovation 2). Repairs to backstop fencing 3). Garbage enclosures 4). Irrigation upgrades 5). AC pathway (tennis courts) 6). Benches 7). Picnic tables* 8). Bathrooms (partitions) 9). Slurry seal basketball courts (90X90) Brookglen Park, 12734 Brookglen Ct. Estimated costs 272;000@ $1.50 per S.F. $408,000.00 3@ $650.00 ea. $1,950.00 19@ $850.00 ea. $16,150.00 272,000@ $2.00 per S.F. $544,000.00 1,680@ $3.25 per S.F. $5,460.00 14@ $600.00 ea. $8,400.00 1@ $900.00 ea. $900.00 $4,900.00 L.S. $4,900.00 Acquired in 1972, for a price of $38,000.00, the park shares boundaries with an access road to Brookside Tennis Club on the east, and private residences to the north and south. Development was completed in 1975 and included a turf area, picnic table, play area with equipment, automatic irrigation system, landscaping and decomposed granite pathways leading to a half basketball court. In 1978, with the cooperation of P.G.&E. additional lighting was installed Since that time, the basketball court surface was paved, play equipment was replaced and a new irrigation controller was installed. Needed improvements Estimated costs 1). Resurface basketball court (Asphalt) 3,024@ $3.25 per S.F. $9,828.00 2). Paved pathways (Asphalt) 3,690@ $3.25 per S.F. $11,992.50 3). Garbage enclosures 3@ $850.00 ea. $2,550.00 4). Benches 2 @ $600.00 ea. $1,200.00 5). Picnic tables* 2 @ $900.00 ea. $1,800,00 6). Irrigation upgrades 11,761@ $2.00 per S.F. $23,522.00 7). Drinking fountain* 1 @ $2,500.00 ea. $2,500.00 8). Mow strips 290@ $14.00 per L.F. $4,060.00 Gardiner Park, 19085 Portos Drive The site for this park was acquired over the course of six years in two phases, the first being 1.8 acres donated by the Gardiner family in 1965, then the purchase of an additional .4 acres in 1970/71. A master plan was completed and development began in 1974. That development included grading, drainage and irrigation systems, play area (without equipment), turf areas, paved pathways and landscaping. A year later $2,000.00 donated by the Saratoga Rotary, was used to purchase and install play equipment. Over time, a small picnic area was added, and elements of the play area were replaced Needed improvements 1). Pathway lights 2). Tree work 3). Garbage enclosures 4). Benches 5). Irrigation upgrades 6). Mow strips 7). Drinking fountain* 8). Restroom* Estimated costs 5@ $2,500.00 ea. $12,500.00 2@ $1,200.00 per day $2,400.00 4@ $850.00 ea. $3,400.00 3 @ $600.00 ea. $1,800.00 23,087@ $2.00 per S.F. $46,174.00 735@ $14.00 per L.F. $10,290.00 1 @ $ 2,500.00 ea. $2,500.00 I @ $100,000.00 ea. $100,000.00 Historical Park, 20450 -20460 Saratoga/Los Gatos Road Development of Historical Park began in 1973, when members of the Saratoga Historical Foundation were given permission to relocate the James McWilliams House onto the existing site of the village library. In 1975, Saratoga Planning Department staff finished the master plan and the Swanee Building (another historical building scheduled for demolition) was brought to the property. Initial development began in 1976 and involved, redirecting a natural creek that ran through the area, grading and drainage, limited parking area with entrance and exit driveways, foundations for both the McWilliams and Swanee Buildings and landscaping. In 1977, the irrigation system was completed, and the courtyard area with landscaping was finished one year later. More recently, brickwork in front of the museum was continued up to the front entrance of the McWilliams house, the handicap ramp was completed on the museum, and both buildings were repainted and had their roofs repaired or replaced. Needed improvements Estimated costs 1). Tree work 3@ $1,200.00 per day $3,600.00 2). Replace arbor $4,800.00 L.S. $4,800.00 3). Garbage enclosures 2@ $850.00 ea. $1,700.00 4). Replace fence $2,200 L.S. $2,200.00 5). Pathway headers 800@ $6.50 per L.F. $5,200.00 Blaney Plaza and Memorial Park, Hwy. 9 and Saratoga/Los Gatos Rd. Little information could be found in either the Saratoga Park history files or within the parks and trails master plan regarding the acquisition and early development of these two sites. It is known that in 1982, the lighting was changed over from gas to electric, and that in 1993, after being alerted to the dangerous condition of one of the existing pine trees, it became necessary to devise a means of bracing that tree to eliminate any continued leaning. This was accomplished with the cooperation of Saratoga Tree Service and Lou Leto Construction, who along with City staff, developed and erected a brace made with two 12 "X 12 "X 16' redwood timbers. These timbers were joined together at the top using threaded rod, this was then attached to the tree itself with 12" lag screws. At the bottom the timbers were secured with plates to a 10'X 4 %z' footing that in turn was joined to piers sunk 8' deep. At that time it was determined that this would be sufficient to keep the tree from listing any further if a regular pruning program were initiated to continually reduce end weight on larger branches. Needed improvements Estimated costs 1). Tree work 2 @ $1,200.00 per day $2,400.00 2). Garbage enclosures 2 @ $850.00 ea. $1,700.00 3). Benches 10@ $600,00 ea. $6,000.00 4). Drinking fountain* 1@ $2,500.00 ea. $2,500.00 5). Automated irrigation system 10,890@ $2,00 per S.F. $21,780.00 Itw jrcp, CITY OF SARATOGA PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1999 2,424,519 641,717 (1,306,211) 503,085 NOTES (1) Transferred from General Fund for Senior Center (2) Transferred from (to) General Fund (3) State grant (4) Exaction from Nelson Gardens. Not development fees subject to Quimby Act. (5) To State Park Bond fund RECAP 6/30/99 Estimated Fund Balance Less Other Revenues Less Operating Transfers in form the General Fund Net Park Development Fees in Estimated 6/30/99 Fund Balance Less Appropriations in FY 1999 -00 budget Less Appropriations in FY 2000 -01 budget Unappropriated Park Development Fees in Estimated 6/30/99 Fund Balance 2,204,323 (641,717) (503,085) 1,059,521 (567,000) (567.000) ( 14,4 t J) MJW /ParkDev 6/4/99 Beginning Revenues Transfers Ending FY Ended Fund Bal Dev Fees Other Expenses In Out Fund Bal 6/30/89 (58,787) 49,400 (88,570) 80,000 (1) (17,957) 6/30/90 (17,957) 83,578 (27,512) 313,815 (2) 351,924 6/30/91 351,924 72,982 (401,075) 371,677 (2) 395,508 6/30/92 395,508 117,710 (27,282) 485,936 6/30/93 485,936 40,800 (273,522) (258,067) (2) (4,853) 6/30/94 (4,853) 81,588 8,000 (3) (151,310) (66,575) 6/30/95 (66,575) 438,205 585,300 (4) (16,540) 940,390 6/30/96 940,390 357,577 48,417 (3) (65,005) 1,281,379 6/30/97 1,281,379 905,554 (4,000) (4,340) (5) 2,178,593 6/30/98 2,178,593 166,380 (125,695) 2,219,278 6/30/99 2,219,278 110,745 (125,700) 2,204,323 (Estimated) 2,424,519 641,717 (1,306,211) 503,085 NOTES (1) Transferred from General Fund for Senior Center (2) Transferred from (to) General Fund (3) State grant (4) Exaction from Nelson Gardens. Not development fees subject to Quimby Act. (5) To State Park Bond fund RECAP 6/30/99 Estimated Fund Balance Less Other Revenues Less Operating Transfers in form the General Fund Net Park Development Fees in Estimated 6/30/99 Fund Balance Less Appropriations in FY 1999 -00 budget Less Appropriations in FY 2000 -01 budget Unappropriated Park Development Fees in Estimated 6/30/99 Fund Balance 2,204,323 (641,717) (503,085) 1,059,521 (567,000) (567.000) ( 14,4 t J) MJW /ParkDev 6/4/99 Project Community Center Kevin Moran /Gardiner Park Wildwood Park Restroom Heritage Orchard Warren Hutton House Play-fields - Existing Schools Trails Hakone Restroom Hakone Handrail Playfields Project - (Task Force Proposal) Recommended 1997 $500,000.00 $160,000.00 $100,000.00 $50,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $4,000.00 Total $2,019,000.00 Current Balance 1�,'.,U,;L� Balance * Blue Hills - $1,200.000.00 Marshall Lane - 371,250.00 Foothill - 268,000.00 Congress - 300,000.00 Revised (Current) $500,000.00 $160,000.00 $100,000.00 $50,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $100,000.00 Completed Completed Feb -99 Proposed by Task Force $500,000.00 $160,000.00 $100,000.00 $50,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,139,250.00 $100,000.00 Completed Completed $1,915,000.00 $3,054,250.00 $2,242,433.00 <$811,817.00> 'n&Vj ' t0tj4V4164�� yu/Kt 5) Opposition exists to fields at Foothill The SARATOGA NEWS continues to report that there is no opposition to the development and improvement of the playfields at Foothill School. The city has said that residents surrounding the pro- posed sites would be invited to discussion groups in the various neighborhoods affected by the proposed improvements. We, on the south side of Foothill School have yet to be invited to such a meeting. Yet, there is voting going on by the City Council, and the SARATOGA NEWS reports that there is little opposition from us. We are very much in opposition to any reno- vation of the Foothill playfield until such time that the traffic and parking problems are addressed and mitigated. Apparently, the SARATOGA NEws is unaware of this opposition from Foothill neighbors. Is that because ourletter was not circulated to the council and.our position not told to the SARATOGA NEWS reporter? When are the small group discussions going to take place? Surely, someone from our neighborhood should have been invit- ed. We have an older neighborhood and have no homeowner's association any- more. Does that make us less important or our opinions less significant? - Apparently so, since I have had no response from any member of the city staff or City Council. ELLEN S. DWYER . Trinity Avenue /999 Nick Streit wants to hear from citizens Do we as Saratogans have the passion, desire and vision to be part of something great for all of Saratoga, for all our citizens, for generations to come'? I believe we do and as your city councilman it is not only my desire but my duty to take another look at a vision the citizens of Saratoga had over three years ago. So what am I talking about'? In 1996 the Parks and Recreation Commission con- vened a community -wide workshop that a diverse group of citizens participated in. The goal of this workshop was to discuss the park development funds and how they should be spent. The consensus, number -one priority was a "Saratoga Central Hub." A Central 'Please turn to page 15 LETTERS Con tin tied from page 14 Hub for all the residents of Saratoga to enjoy, included items such as a new com- munity /senior /teen center, a renovated community theatre, a Heritage Orchard Central Park and so on. The possibilities are endless. A cultural place tosee a play, watch ourchildren dance and play ball, enable out- seniors to learn the Internet, enjoy a good book or just have quiet picnic under the Heritage Orchard trees. A central hub avail- able to all the residents of Saratoga, without regard to any artificial boundaries. This was how a group of citizens of Sarat6- ga wanted to spend the park development funds! However, in 1997, the economics of the city caused the then —City Council to abandon this option and opt for another option on the list, additional playfields. I believe today both the de►nographics of Saratoga and the financial condition of the city and its residents have changed. It's time we reevaluate the Saratoga Central Hub option and review the restrictions placed on the Parks and Rec Commission and the use of the funds regarding the play - fields..I have asked my fellow coun- cilmembers to place these items on out- agenda for the City Council adjourned meeting on Tuesday, June 8. We live in a fractured city, divided by numerous artifcial boundaries. Our children attend 43 public schools in six school districts,. numerous private schools, play in three lit- tle league districts. We are divided by two fire districts and two sanitation districts. - Now is our chance to bring all of Sarato- ga together under a common goal, a com- mon place, to share, with each other the beauty and community spirit that is unique to Saratoga. Join my fellow councilmembers and myself on June 8 and let us know if the central hub is your vision for Saratoga. The Saratoga City Council is here to serve the people of Saratoga. It was you who placed us in office and it is your voice that makes the difference. If you can't attend the meeting on June 8, please write to Saratoga City Council, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA. 95070, or email me at nstreit@cpa- online.com.. Your voice and opinion are important for all of Saratoga for generations to come. NICK STREIT Saratoga City Council 3> .y ie .:; C C= O ti C �y ►: O 0 0 0 UmW Noogoa v�`�H c° 'a , as .�a @ .ah co 0 0 CO e0 t-. .� C".. "" Q) .'—'^i eC U �''_ ..D Q. —O '� Q.yw,a r°. O y' U O °�� U r+ C _O w 0 .0 O Z O O LL .d 3 w y cc q -_[ y -[ L� 3 C M v' co c0o y y + h r. C h O r. '� �„ b N 0 M 00�. 0 N O �"" J C", C ... 'C D 0 �' t.. >, `- >' o. �. rw f. S cc ►r 0 > 3 v a� °' o >,a�� a�.0 y �. 3 p 0 � �, � 0 . o.. alb U..� 00 O ° O ="3 coo Z =4 �a- w o o o q o i � � ' m q V cc =(n 41 0 C13 �c C H d aa � 0 —= 'o a v 0 0 v > Cc d� :� ° ° o o 'y =_= ° o. -dU.S W o � Q. po a . it a 9 to 0.2 0 di co, to 0y U y _$ 0 I � O N y y - C 0 O 0. C ° $ ,0 o X M_M F -py 0 0 a) .O �r018� = > O 0 O C , M 0 Q c0 o a a a�oU�ny O°� co .0, 20 i304 i �E y . ^C° J -NeWS. Council.- deadlock'§) o*n: vote to eliminate two la yfield-s- By STEvg.ENDERS left the auditorium after her speech and Months of tough negotiations, hours of.: forgot to take her daughter with her.,She . returned for her immediately. long meetings and the sweat'ofneighbor= Three hours later, and after about 25 peo- hood mobilization almost weat.down the ple had given famil- drain as.the.Saratoga City Council nearly, ; :a;a. =.€ . N;x�Kr�. iar testimony about derailed the entire city playfields renova= -�. ',�'< <;� >;7 << their.feelings on the tion process when it considered taking two playfields; Bogosian of the proposals off the docket:. ..made two separate Instead, however, it simply decided to motions to take pause, take a breath and schedule a joint Blue Hills and Mar - meeting for June with the city's Parks and .<�,«;.<... shall Lane out of Recreation Commission to get the process <; ' '' :: consideration. back on track. The move to ditch the sites sent a shiver %M Both motions split the council up the spines of the city's parks commis- sioners; some of whom have worked since evenly at 2 -2; with Stan Bogosian 1995 to bring the issue to where it stands' ° °"' ° '• •` ••'• Mayor Jim Shaw ° ° ° ° " ' and Councilmem- today.•Somehow, the commission will still need to spend $2 million that's been ear - ' ber John Mehaffey dissenting on both. marked for fields. Since Streit was not able to vote, the coun- At its May 5'meeting, the council was cil's non - decision highlighted the growing rift that exists amongst Saratogans over supposed to have simply talked about the the contentious issue. matter as an item to place for further dis- cussion on a future agenda and to schedule "We're deadlocked," Bogosian said "As a jointmeeting with the Parks Commission. after the meeting. long as Nick [Stre- it] has to recluse himself, we're locked up. Insteadjhe council arrived to a crowd - One of the four of US will have to move." ed auditorium of playfields supporters and Before the night was over, Mehaffey neighborhood groups demanding to speak made a third .motion to schedule a joint and who are pushing totake the Marshall meeting in June with the parks commission- Lane and Blue Hills sites out as options. ers to figure out a wayto keep the process The discussion turned into a heated, moving. The motion was unanimously,- emotion -filled public hearing which the approved, in the hopes that all involved with council started as Vice Mayor Stan Bogosian read an impassioned, prepared the project can pause to take 9 breath before statement about how badly the process resuming further discussions. The move comes just -as the: city was has failed and that the Marshall Lane and preparing to hire a mediator, who would Blue Hills school sites should be dropped meet with representatives from all sides of from consideration as feasible sites. the issue for small meetings in the neigh - Bogosian said that he wouldn't endorse borhoods to be affected. any-project that would destroy the quality The proposal still is to build or repair the of life for the neighbors ofthe two schools. fields at Marshall Lane school, Blue Hills He then encouraged city staff to redefine School/Azule Park, Congress Springs Park the process and select other sites. and Foothill Elementary School. 3> .y ie .:; C C= O ti C �y ►: O 0 0 0 UmW Noogoa v�`�H c° 'a , as .�a @ .ah co 0 0 CO e0 t-. .� C".. "" Q) .'—'^i eC U �''_ ..D Q. —O '� Q.yw,a r°. O y' U O °�� U r+ C _O w 0 .0 O Z O O LL .d 3 w y cc q -_[ y -[ L� 3 C M v' co c0o y y + h r. C h O r. '� �„ b N 0 M 00�. 0 N O �"" J C", C ... 'C D 0 �' t.. >, `- >' o. �. rw f. S cc ►r 0 > 3 v a� °' o >,a�� a�.0 y �. 3 p 0 � �, � 0 . o.. alb U..� 00 O ° O ="3 coo Z =4 �a- w o o o q o i � � ' m q V cc =(n 41 0 C13 �c C H d aa � 0 —= 'o a v 0 0 v > Cc d� :� ° ° o o 'y =_= ° o. -dU.S W o � Q. po a . it a 9 to 0.2 0 di co, to 0y U y _$ 0 I � O N y y - C 0 O 0. C ° $ ,0 o X M_M F -py 0 0 a) .O �r018� = > O 0 O C , M 0 Q c0 o a a a�oU�ny O°� co .0, 20 i304 i �E y . ^C° J Neighborhoods rally against playfieldc- By STEVE ENDERS he first true spring evenings have descended upon Saratoga, creating an idyllic setting around one of the city's many well -used parks. The sudden warm weather brings tee -ball coaches out in shorts, and a young family runs with their golden retriever on the field at Blue Hills Elementary School. In adjacent Azule Park, a narrow stretch of unkempt orchard separates the houses from Highway 85 below. Cars there stream past, creating a false sound of breakers crashing on a beach. The scene couldn't be better for an urban area, and residents there want to keep it that way. They're also not alone in this corner of town. On the opposite side of Saratoga, many of the neighbors around Marshall Lane Elemen- tary School feel the same way. They want their little neighborhood school to stay small —no renovated playfields, they say, because they'll attract too many people for the quaint area. They scoff at being called "NIMBYs" because many have children playing sports in and around the city already. Other parents serve as coaches and can appreciate a good patch of grass to play on. They j ust don't think the proposed locations are sensible ones. Sometimes it takes a crisis to get a group to organize, and that's what's happened in these two Saratoga neighborhoods in response to the city's plan to build new fields so more chil- dren can play sports. And in a few weeks, it's all going to come to a head when the city's parks and recreation commissioners and a mediator attempt to solve a seemingly unsolvable problem. In those meetings —dates are still being hashed out —the city's representatives and a yet - to -be -named mediator will bring the opposition face to face with supporters and user groups to try and reach some sort of compromise. Citing the long - completed Parks and Recre- ation Task Force decisions, the city argues that the rest of the city wants playfields, and the sites that have been chosen are the best ones avail- able. The school districts which own the sites, the city maintains, have verbally pledged support in maintaining the fields once they're installed. The neighborhood groups say they're adamantly opposed to any such renovation, and they're willing to fight to the finish, they say. "We feel [the meetings] are a redundancy," says Marshall Lane neighborhood leader Lisa Kurasch. "We've expressed our views. It's like we're going through another hoop, but we're hoping the City Council will hear it." Councilmembers probably will, eventually. If the Parks and Recreation Commission votes to approve the playfields plan, the City Coun- cil will have final say. Playfields Continued front page 9 Kurasch says that the neighborhood, while opposed to the school being used by more base- ball teams, is willing to work with the city to find a solution. Unexplored options include, she says, a bond initiative to buy suitable land, work- ing with other nearby cities to use their parks or finding an alternative site within Saratoga. In the Blue Hills / Azule Park area, about 150 residents on many streets have signed their names to petitions asking the city not to proceed with the fields. About 40 families have rallied around a newly- formed neighborhood organi- zation there as well, which holds regular meetings to keep residents updated on the plan's status. Kurasch says about 80 people are against the plans around Marshall Lane. Eddie Sweeney, who says golf balls often end up in his back yard from duffers illegally practicing their chip shots, will likely represent the neighborhood at its meeting with the city. "There's no compromise," he says, "we would've liked to have been consulted at an earlier stage. The ideal outcome for the soccer organizations and for us is seeing Central Park [the Heritage Orchard] used." In two other neighborhoods, vocal opposi- tion has been relatively silent. Plans to build fields at Foothill Elementary School have gone mostly unopposed, as have plans for Please turn to page 11 APRIL 21, 1999 SARATOGA NEWS 9 fields at Congress Springs, already a site of a large sports complex. Traffic, parking and safety are the major concerns. Besides that, Marshall Lane res- idents worry that Saratoga money will be used on school fields that aren't in the Saratoga school district. In the Blue Hills neighborhood, resi- dents think the city can get a better bang for its buck by building the fields in it cen- tral location, like the Heritage Orchard, where there would also be plenty of room for parking and vehicle access in and out of the area. Neighbors say they sympathize with parks commissioners, who have toiled as long as the residents have over the present situation. They are despite that sympathy, sticking to their guns. "We've got 34 kids now — that's pretty new," Kurasch says. "We do block parties, we know each others' lives and watch each others' houses. We've had a good com- munity but what this has done is brought it out more acutely." Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 23:11:21 -0700 From: Robert Kahn <kahn @jps.net> To: saratoga @statenet.com Subject: Playfields Inappropriate for Marshall Lane Dear Stan Begosian, Thank you tremendously for working to preserve our neighborhood and for responding to our appeals. The proposed playfields would destroy our neighborhood; we would be very relieved to have this threat removed. We have already as much traffic as our tiny streets can bear. We love our neighborhood for its safety and rural beauty - -we appeal to you and all the city council to safeguard it, so that our children, all our families, will keep our quality of life, and continue to enjoy the peaceful atmosphere for which Saratoga is so admired. Since I will not be able to attend the meeting on Wednesday, May 5, I am expressing myself in this e-mail. Thank you again, Jocelyn Kahn 18471 Ravenwood Drive (408) 378 -4214 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 99 14:22:58 -0700 From: david you <yau @apple.com> To: Saratoga @statenet.com Subject: Oppose any developments in Azule /Blue Hills To whom it may concern, My name is David Yau and I live in the 20302 Blauer Drive. Saratoga. I read the Saratoga News regarding the Azule Park Neighbourhood Assocation(APNA) against any sport fields devleopment in the Azule /Blue Hills recently. I strong support those neighbourhoods reaction although I am not live in that neighbourhood. I strongly believe the child's safety and keep the quite neighbourhood should always be the number one priority. I remember the reason I vote for you guys in board is to support the main idea that you all present to keep a Saratoga as a quite residential neighbourhood. However, I feel the city counsils are shifting position regarding this issue. I guess you may consider this issue differently, but you should not give up the bases that you promise to all Saratoga residents. I will be very appreciated if could keep your promise and make the right decision based on the fact not special interest group. Thanks. Best Regards, David Yau , `L,�. April 30. 1999 Saratoga Cite Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga_ CA 95070 Dear Saratoga City Council Members. The purpose of this letter is to express the collective ideas from members of the Azule Park Neighborhood Association (APNA) for development of the Azule Property. Currently. the property consists of 4.3 acres of inactive orchard. A park development committee was formed to collect pertinent information in order to assist in development of a Park Improvement Plan. Sources of information include the 1996 neighborhood survey of more than 200 residents. current members opinions, maintenance cost from city staff. and discussions with a landscape architect. The following is a summary of the collected information: Acceptable Items Establish a park that will be maintained within current maintenance budget for the Azule property Educational development areas to be available to Blue Hills students Children's play areas Walking paths/par course Community garden area Low maintenance ground cover Park Benches Picnic tables Shade trees — low maintenance variety Unacceptable Items Organized Sports Field(s) Additional parking Sand box(es) Lights Rest Rooms Concession stands The quality of the neighborhood and benefit to the city would be enhanced by the development of the Azule Property into a community park based. on the criteria listed. The APNA is looking forward to working with the city staff and administrators to develop a mutually acceptable plan for property improvement. Sincerely. Norbert R. Fronczak Chairman. Park Development Committee Azule Neighborhood Park Association KENT BOSSANGE / 19866 SEAGULL WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 -3940 May 3, 1999 Mr. James Shaw Mayor, City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Jim: I am writing to you about Saratoga's opportunity to create more play fields for its youth. Specifically, a rumor is circulating that Stan B. will make a recommendation at the next city council meeting to remove Blue Hills and Marshall Lane from the list of potential locations for the Parks and Rec Dept. to consider for field expansion. Should this happen, it will be a prime example of NUvIBYism of which you and I dealt with some years ago in our own neighborhoods. I live on Seagull Way and am concerned about increasing the traffic. However, I am more concerned about our children having a safe place to play sports, and about having a community that values safe activities for our children. The Parks and Rec Dept has been given the direction to look for the best solution within the budget available. To take any potential location "off the table" because of a vocal minority would be a display of "intellectual dishonesty ": on the one hand saying we support our youth, and on the other, so long as it is not in our neighborhood! From our experience of working together, I know you have an eye on the big picture while paying attention to details. I ask of you to please do what is best for Saratoga's youth. Do not start down that slippery slope of responding to special interests before the Parks and Rec Dept. has officially proposed its plan. Until then, all options should remain on the table. On a personal note, I am pleased with your dedication to our town and your even handedness at the council meetings. Keep up the good work. And please stay on the council. Sincerely, Kent A. Bossange tj rl C. Zi-aA4-to-rr, C-A 19-0 rT 0 KLZ-) a-, 414,t.-44 tC� C-C� Aze -1 /R44, (q q � 71 te (P sv-/� C- r?t> FOOTHILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Larry Perlin, City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 OJC to Z.S, The FOOTHILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ( "FNA ") supports the revision and upgrading of the ball fields at Foothill School. The FNA believes that adequate funds should be budgeted to assure a quality project. However, the FNA recognizes it is premature to implement any development at the school site. The Saratoga Elementary School District has not yet defined the physical layout of the remodeled school or how they plan to provide additional on -sight parking to eliminate current on street parking plus make arrangements for student drop -off and pick -up traffic. Land use for these functions may compete with the existing or planned ball field locations. It is recommended that the City of Saratoga develop a site use plan, once the school land use requirements are determined, that is integrated with the school district needs. At that time, the city should bring a revised plan back to the Foothill School neighbors for review. The City's plan should not only describe the physical details of the ball fields, but also details for the ball fields' maintenance and operations; specifically: A single agency should be identified as responsible for the maintenance of the ball fields, the intervening land (the areas that abut private property on three sides surrounding the ball fields) and rest room maintenance. This agency should have the necessary funding for the task and also be responsible for overseeing the actions of the using organizations. 2. Ball fields should be used only for girls' softball, as is the current practice, on a seasonal basis, i.e. no year -round usage. 3. No public address system should be employed by the using sports organizations. 4. No organized team play or practices should be permitted on Sundays. Using organizations shall be required to encourage the participating parents to park on the school sites that arc available instead of the nearby neighborhood streets. The FNA trusts that the City would respond positively to these very logical requests. The Association comprises neighbors who are very willing to work with the City and the School for the benefit of the youth of the community. jo�o (hill Ncighborho s e lion Contacts: James Ousley, 867 -5144 Felix Rosengarten, 867 -4523 r Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 16:09:09 -0700 From: Mark Chu < markchu @cisco.com> To: Saratoga @statenet.com Cc: markchu @cisco.com Subject: soccer fields To whom it may concern, My name is Mark Chu and I live in 20305 Clifden Way, Cupertino. I have a five yeards old kid and I plan to send my kid to the Blue Hills Elementary school this fall. I found out the city of Saratoga tried to build soccer fields on the back yard of Blue Hills. To build the soccer fields into the elementary school is definitely NOT a good idea. It will cause a lot of traffic and risk our children's safety. Although I am not a Saratoga resident, but I still want to express my feeling. Please keep the Blue Hills Elementary school be a safe and quite place. Thanks. Regards, Mark Chu �cc,-C, Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 23:04:30 -0700 From: Dale Leuthold <dleuthold @prodigy.net> To: saratoga @statenet.com Subject: Playfields Development at Mashall Lane School [The following text is in the "Windows- 1252" character set] [Your display is set for the "US- ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] May 4, 1999 To: The Saratoga City Council I am a homeowner on Ravenwood Drive, and would like to request that the Marshall Lane School site be removed from consideration as a site for athletic field development. The neighborhood is united in opposition to this use, and we have submitted petitions to you expressing this. I understand that Mr. Bogosian is receptive to this idea, and I welcome his support. The Marshall Lane School site is not suitable because the surrounding narrow streets can not handle the traffic that would result from the proposed uses. Parking on the site is inadequate and would inevitably spill over onto our streets, which have no sidewalks. The combination of parked cars and heavy traffic would be a safety hazard for pedestrians and children living on the street. The Marshall Lane School site is a resource that is enjoyed by surrounding residents, but athletic field development would make it less available for our recreational uses. Development of athletic fields is a regional problem, made more difficult due to the loss of sites formerly used for these purposes. Saratoga may be able to contribute in some way, but preserving the quality of life of Saratoga residents should be the first priority. Thank you. Dale H. Leuthold 18522 Ravenwood Drive Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 23:04:30 -0700 From: Dale Leuthold <dleuthold @prodigy.net> To: saratoga @statenet.'com Subject: Playfields Development at Mashall Lane School [The following text is in the "Windows- 1252" character set]'. [Your display is set for the "US- ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] May 4, 1999 To: The'Saratoga City Council I am a homeowner on Ravenwood Drive, and would like to request that the Marshall Lane School site be removed from consideration as a site for athletic field development. The neighborhood is united in opposition to this use, and we have submitted petitions to you expressing this. I understand that Mr. Bogosian is receptive to this idea, and. I welcome his support. The Marshall Lane School site is 'not. suitable because the surrounding narrow streets can not handle the traffic that would result from the proposed uses. Parking on the site is inadequate and would inevitably spill over _ onto our streets, which have no sidewalks. The combination of parked cars and heavy traffic would be a safety hazard for pedestrians and children living on the street. The Marshall Lane School site is a resource that is enjoyed by surrounding residents, but athletic field development would make it less available for our recreational uses. Development of athletic fields is a regional problem, made more difficult due to the loss of sites formerly used for these purposes. Saratoga may be able to contribute in some way; but preserving the quality of life of Saratoga residents should be the first priority. Thank you. Dale H. Leuthold 18522 Ravenwood Drive J i. Date:'Wed, 05 May.1999 16:57:36 -0700 From: Brenda Westcott <brenda @Synopsys.COM> To: SARATOGA @statenet.com Cc: brenda@Synopsys.COM Subject: May 5th City Council Agenda Item #10 B.1 To Saratoga City Council Members: Stan-Bogosian, Jim Shaw, Evan Baker, John Mehaffey As a member, of the community and a resident of 18640 Ravenwood. Drive, I would like to address you regarding the Playfield issue listed as Agenda Item #10 B. 1 for tonight's City Council Meeting. First of all I'd like to thank Mr. Bogosian for asking to reconsider the Playfields issue for Marshall Lane._It is of course in everyone's interest to find the BEST solution for what is trying to be accomplished, and not just the easiest or most convenient one. Better alternatives can be found.. This goes.for all'the locations being considered for playfields. I urge you to seriously examine the facts on an individual basis and to listen to those who would be most affected by your decisions -- we must be able to have our concerns addressed. My quiet little neighborhood of� 45 homes has one street that dead -ends into Marshall Lane School - this means that twice a day we get..a heavy stream of "school Moms" in their SUVs and Minivans that come screaming around the corner. You just don't back, out of your driveway at those particular times because it can take up to 5 -10 minutes AND you risk getting hit. On the weekends and after school there are many people from the surrounding community who also use the school facilities. Where will they go if the site is taken up with organized sports teams- -- made up of kids that aren't even from.our immediate community? The school itself isn't the issue, but the traffic and parking related to the school are very REAL issues in my neighborhood. The school doesn't have enough parking, which means that 'it would spill over onto the f� surrounding streets that are very narrow and have no sidewalks or streetlights. I can't even imagine how dangerous it would be to have traffic and parking increased significantly (and on a continual- basis) by the installation of a large sports complex in my neighborhood! My neighbors and I keep raising this major red flag, and so far I haven't heard any alternatives or solutions being offered from the opposition or the School District. With no resolution or compromise regarding Marshall Lane playfields, I would have to believe that you will ultimately strike Marshall Lane from the playfields site list. This issue involves MY neighborhood, MY community, MY property values, and MY quality of life. Please act accordingly and responsibly. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Brenda Westcott 18640 Ravenwood Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 374 -5964 Date: Wed,.5 May 1999 18:15:16 EDT From: DrewBread @aol.com To: saratoga @statenet.com Subject: (no subject) Dear Honorable Vice Mayor Bosogian I write to urge you to.remove Marshal Lane School from you list of proposed playfield sites. I am concerned that the requirement of finding a sight that provides free. maintenance. has overshadowed the', fact that,, logisitically, this sight just does not work. 1) Roads leading to the playfield are already too congested, and the increased traffic will, upset. the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood. 2) Additional traffic will lead to'increased accidents. 3) Outside traffic (those going to and from the school) already'. ignore posted speed limits. Increased. traffic.in a hurry,to get their kids to their- game will result in more.dangerous'and reckless speeding on small streets. I find it'discouraging that this "sight has been on the "list" for. so long _ when it is obviously.not a viable option for use as a playfield.. Thank you for your time, and thank you in' advance for removing. Marshall Lane School for the list of proposed playfield sites. Drew.Westcott 18640 Ravenwood Drive (200 yards from Marshal Lane school entrance) Saratoga,,CA 95070 I t '1%. Thursday, May 06, 1999 Jim Shaw Saratoga Mayor City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Shaw, After attending the 5/5/99 Council meeting, I wish to make the following observations regarding the play fields discussion: 1) I believe that Marshall Lane is not a realistic candidate for increased use of play fields. Increased traffic in this already congested neighborhood is the most obvious, and one of many, reason why increased use should not be pursued. Stuffing additional play fields into this already congested space would create a traffic aneurysm. 2) 1 believe that Marshal Lane is a candidate for having the existing fields improved. Spend available funds to improve field conditions. Do not increase use. 3) It appears that the Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission and the Saratoga City Council do not maintain a regular dialogue. With all due respect, the Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission needs better direction from the people that have been elected to direct the growth of Saratoga. Why are so many sites still being considered, anyway? Who is managing this project? 4) 1 would like to suggest that the Saratoga City Council receives regular updates from the Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission, and that the public is notified and invited to attend these updates to insure that everyone is kept informed about activities in their neighborhoods. 5) It also appears that, with respect to this issue, the Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission has formed a tight bond with local user groups that are not based in Saratoga. For whom were the Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission created to serve — Saratoga residents or West Valley user groups? Just because Los Gatos has a soccer field does not mean that Saratoga needs to force one into an unwilling and inappropriate neighborhood. 6) 1 respect and admire that both Council Members Bogosian and Baker were in favor of removing Marshall Lane from play field consideration. I agree with them that this issue is careening out of control, and that time and money will be wasted in performing an investigation about what is already obvious — Marshall Lane cannot accommodate additional traffic. 7) 1 think that the issue of additional play fields is clouded by such factors as "It's for the children,' and "The traffic around Marshall Lane is not currently good, and the play fields will force a traffic study.' These arguments do not change the fact that this site is not appropriate. 8) So, please have a public meeting with the Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission to that you can understand their current status. Then, explain that it is just not feasible to increase the street usage at Marshall Lane, and direct them to a better use of the funds available 9) 1 empathize with your having to deal with the play field mess that was handed to you by the past Saratoga City Council, and I hope to see this current playground situation managed with authority and clear direction. By the way, I am for additional playgrounds, IF THEY ARE FEASIBLE. Regafds Drew Westcott cc: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehaffey 1119 Date: May 8,1999 To: The Saratoga City Council Fr: The Azule Park Neighbors Association Cc: The Parks and Recreation Commission, Ms. Debbie Lillo, Mr. Mark Linsky Dear City Councilmen, We, the members of the Azule Park Neighborhood Association, were obviously disappointed with the failure of the motion that Stan Bogosian put forth at the City Council meeting on Wednesday May 5, 1999. We believe that Councilman Bogosian was wisely attempting to refocus the efforts of the Parks and Recreation Commission on projects that will ensure the Park Development fund moneys are spent before the time limit is reached However, we understand that some City Council members felt that they could not yet redirect the Parks and Recreation Commission. We respect that decision although we do not agree with it and feel that it puts the Park Development fund moneys at risk The proposal is to have a joint meeting with City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commissioners in June. This is too long to wait as the next step. This process has been stalled since February and therefore we propose the following actions in order to move this process forward in the meantime. Stop vilifying the neighborhood - The proponents of building the fields in Azule Park have engaged in a smear campaign against this neighborhood They claim that APNA is a vocal minority trying to harm the youth of this community. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We have gathered over 260 signatures against this proposal. This makes us the majority. We are also pro-kid Most of us have families with children, some of those children play soccer and their parents are volunteers with AYSO. We do believe that soccer and organized sports in general do have merit, but not at the expense of any neighborhood's safety and tranquility. Open the lines of Communication - There is a lot of misinformation being passed around Public meetings such as the Parks and Recreation meeting and the City Council meeting are fine but they do not present a meaningful way to discuss these issues or resolve this situation. We want to encourage members of Parks and Recreation and Debbie Lillo and Mark Linsky to meet with us. If they are uncomfortable in meeting with the large group, we will gladly set up a meeting with a smaller representative body to talk with us. We need to share information. However, do not bring some vague platitudes about youth needing to be served in this community to this meeting. Bring your facts including actual concrete data showing why more soccer fields are needed when we already have 24 within the city of Saratoga and why Azule Park is the best location for this project. This should include accurate field statistics of the number of actual players who show up, the number of games, and the schedules of practices and games by location.- To date we have only heard it needs to happen and "sorry but we could not include you in the process". e do not have blinders on but we will not be railroaded, either. Put forth a credible proposal - We all know that there is only $1 million for the entire Playfield development process. Azule Park (with everything included) is estimated at $1.2 million so everything cannot be done. It is time to show the neighborhood (and the soccer organizations) what is actually planned The parks and Recreation Commission needs to put forth a credible proposal. If concession stands are not planned than the plan should be updated so all parties know. If they cannot put together a firm credible proposal because they do not have the final amount to be applied to Blue Hills than they should put together an alternate proposal as well. Get the neighborhood meetings moving forward — In February we were told that we would be having meetings with Parks and Recreation, the user groups and a facilitator. This process is dead in the water. We have been ready to start since mid February. City Staff was requested to find a facilitator but due to significant resource constraints in the City Offices they have been unable to present a candidate. If the city wishes to continue then City Council needs to direct City Staff to make this a priority so that these meetings can occur in a timely manner. In addition, one of the Parks and Recreation Commissioners during her talk at the City Council meeting referred to the hiring of an arbitrator. It may have been an inadvertent error but there is a difference between an arbitrator and a facilitator and this neighborhood will not accept an arbitrator because we do not believe that there is anything to arbitrate but we will accept a facilitator. The biggest crime in this whole process would be to fail to spend the money collected for the development of recreational facilities in a way that will benefit all Saratogans. This process has been flawed and is leading our town into divisiveness which benefits no one. Our neighborhood wants the same things everyone in Saratoga wants, a quiet and safe place to live and raise their kids. To date we do not believe that this proposal serves that purpose. We look forward to discussing this issue with the user organizations and the Parks and Recreation Commission It is time for the process to be fixed and to move forward It is time to begin the discussion. It is time to end the divisiveness and draw everyone back together. Sincerely, Katie Alexander, Chairperson, APNA 12340 Goleta Ave. 257 -6692 'U59- lv�� Hugh Wright, Vice Chairperson in charge of Communications, APNA 12243 Goleta Ave. 343 -1365 Saratoga Parks and Recreation It has come to our attention that some users feel that since a number of Saratoga sports players play in other cities, Saratoga should provide fields for the other cities to play here in Saratoga. In the case of Marshall Lane, Saratoga would not be providing the fields; our neighborhood would be providing the fields, reaping the ensuing traffic after school and on weekends. It is very easy to be generous with someone else's neighborhood. Sincerely, Geraldine Barrett . Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 11:19:42 -0700 From: "Jeannie C. Apostole- Holden" <jeannie @best.com> To: Saratoga City Council < Saratoga @statenet.com> Subject: FW: my letter to City Council - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jeannie C. Apostole- Holden (mailto:jeannie @ best.com] Sent: Monday, May 10, 1999 11:10 AM Dear City Council, I waited several days before writing this letter because I wanted to let time elapse so that I could distance myself from the emotion of the last meeting. I live on Knollwood Drive and have been relatively passive about the soccer field issues at Azule. I thought that maybe I would feel less violated by this city if I stepped back after that meeting and tried to become more objective. The opposite has happened. I am only one citizen of this city, but I would venture to say that many, many citizens of these two neighborhoods feel the way I do. First of all, let me say that I am opposed to the development of the soccer fields at the two proposed grade school sites. I believe, like most of the neighborhood, that we are being railroaded into this. It is a mixmatch for the neighborhoods. I researched and listened to ALL sides and cannot for the life of me find a reason to build these soccer fields. I applaud Stan and Evan for realizing that the damage done to this city (in the hurt that the people in these neighborhoods feel inside their hearts) by prolonging something the taxpayers feel so strongly opposed to, is not worth it. I feel betrayed by Saratoga. I can tell you that the anger and feeling of betrayal by many, many of my neighbors after that meeting is severe. First of all, let me say that it was wrong, without a.doubt, that the people who are voting for you and who are paying the taxes in this city were not included in such a major decision. Fine ... process flawed, change gears ..... NOW include them? Even THAT has not happened. The word "compromise" was used again and agin as a weapon against us ..... I put THIS to you.... The "compromise" came when the citizens of this community didn't protest in the first place that the money was to be earmarked for soccer and NOT for something else MORE people may need.... tennis? swimming? teen activities? senior citizens? What? I don't know, but I am insulted that the PRC would over and over again ridicule me and try to shame me(by virture of my being in this neighborhood) - - -by trying to make it look like I was selfish and didn't care about the kids. If, in fact, it IS a fact that more soccer fields are needed and NOT rennovation of the existing fields, than I would bet that most of us would have helped you figure out where the best sites were that would benefit communities and not raise up in despair entire neighborhoods. I have to tell you it feels like I am in the Twilight Zone when I hear city people saying they have user groups who will maintain the new fields and yet AREN'T maintaining the current fields. I feel like this is a manipulation of the truth in order to get something new built. What is that all about? Why AREN'T these user groups with.all of these promises doing it NOW? I also feel that this is a misuse of my taxpayer dollars in that none of us has been able to get the facts as to what the cost of rennovating the current fields is and why that money is not being used to do that. This is NOT about soccer per se, and I resent bitterly the PRC people and ANYONE else trying to make it seem like we are narrowminded and impeding inevitable progress etc. etc. etc .... we should be shamed for not caring about the kids ...... how DARE they? WHY, I would like to know, is this money being used to create ANOTHER soccer field, when supposedly we have 24 soccer fields in this city which are in such disrepair that they can't be used? IS THIS TRUE? WE were called "special interest groups" by the PRC. How DARE them? WE ARE THE TAXPAYERS< THE HOMEOWNERS!!!!!A small percentage of the people in this city use soccer. Do you REALLY want us to be so upset that we have to resort to that kind of name calling back? I do not want that. I, for one, have tremendous gratitude to all of you, incuding the PRC, for your tireless efforts. The whole project just needs to change direction. I understand that people have devoted their lives to this project, and I understand that they may "cry" in their frustration that WE DO NOT WANT IT. _ I have devoted my whole life to a project too ..... to work SO hard that I could buy a home in a community which was beautiful and safe and relatively quiet and which I could become a viable part of .... where the children and the adults were taken care of in a loving way .... where it mattered what I and my neighbors cared about .... where it mattered when the real special interest groups got ahold of an idea and tried to push it through when the majority of people were against it. I am appalled and enraged that we are constantly being told we don't care about "the greater good." ...betrayed by this city council and the prc....-disempowered as a citizen of Saratoga... THAT is the damage this has done to this community and will continue to do to this community if this continues to be pushed into our lives and if we are still treated like WE are an irritation. You have a captive in helping the city ... We are chance to turn all of this ei do more good for the city. audiance now .... we all should be more involved mobilized now .... you are missing the perfect aergy and interest in Saratoga into helping you We want to help do that._ Jeannie Apostole- Holden Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 14:14:58 -0700 From: Katie Alexander <katie @alexander.org> To: Saratoga @statenet.com, katie @alexander.org Subject: To: City Council Re: Mis- statements at 5 May meeting - Playfields (I've attached this as a word document too, if it is easier to print.) 12 May 1999 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Mis- statements at the City Council meeting of 5 May 1999 - Playfields Dear City Councilmen, I would like to briefly point out some erroneous statements from the oral communications regarding playfields at the May 5, 1999 City Council meeting. 1) Commissioner Judy Alberts stated that the concession stand /rest room was no longer in the plan. The plan of record for Blue Hills -Azule is plan 2A, which clearly has a concession stand /rest room. 2) Commissioner Alberts stated that PRC wished to continue with an arbitration process for the neighborhoods. Our neighborhood has never agreed to arbitration process (i.e. an external party listening to both sides and making a judgement). We have gladly agreed to a facilitation process (i.e. an external party promoting discussion so both sides may find a common solution). 3) Commissioner Sheila Ioannou mentioned discussions of one -way streets, as a solution to traffic issues. The plans for both Marshal Lane and Blue Hills -Azule have no one way streets indicated. There have not been any discussions of one -way streets at PRC meetings since February. I apologize for the gasps from the audience, but this was clearly a shock for us all. I wonder if private meetings were occurring where these items were discussed. 4) Commissioner Kay Whitney spoke as a private citizen and mentioned that the participants in the 196 Workshop clearly placed a high priority on youth activities. That is correct. However, she neglected to mention that the 196 Workshop participants also placed a higher priority on developing the 'City Center -Hub' concept. We could easily have youth activities at the city center to accommodate both priorities. 5) Ms. Crotty, a former PRC Commissioner, stated that there was neighborhood conflict over the creation of Ravenswood Park. My understanding is that there was no disagreement over the creation of the park. Rather there was a disagreement over the parcel tax for paying for the land. Some homeowners were taxed who lived further away and could not readily access the park. Sincerely, Katie Alexander 12340 Goleta Ave. Saratoga, Ca 95070 257 -6692 [Part 2, Application /MSWORD 31KB] [Unable to print this part] a Lori -Ann Tarter 20198 Knollwood Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 May 17, 1999 Mayor Jim Shaw Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Shaw: The purpose of this letter is to express my disappointment in the outcome of the playfield discussion held during the Saratoga City Council meeting on May 5, 1999. After over 2 1/2 hours of testimony by neighbors, members of the Parks & Recreation Commission and various other people concerned with the building of the playfields, absolutely no progress was made in terms of finalizing this issue. This is extremely frustrating to me because it could have easily been resolved had you not voted to have yet another meeting to discuss the "process" and other alternatives. Given the fact that Councilman Strait removed himself form the vote thereby creating the standoff, I feel that as the Mayor, the responsibility was yours to resolve this issue once and for all. Part of your justification for not voting to remove Blue Hills from the list of potential playfield sites was that you were not willing to "cut the Parks and Recreation Department off at the knees." That was, in my opinion, a very poor excuse. It is the job of the commission to find alternative ways to solve the problem, and by simply deciding to eliminate Blue Hills from the list of potential playfield sites you would not be "cutting the Parks and Recreation Department off at the knees." Vice Mayor Bogosian and Councilman Baker supported their positions very well, and sought to end the controversy the night of the meeting. Councilman Baker had the insight and the courage to state that there was no foreseeable compromise for this situation, and stated that if it hadn't been resolved in the past five months it wasn't going to be. Another issue that I find objectionable was your statement that councilmembers would be traveling or otherwise unavailable thereby further prolonging the resolution of this problem until June. If anything, that should have been the impetus for resolving the situation the night of the meeting. This would have allowed the neighborhood to begin focusing on finding other uses for the development funds rather than having to continue putting time and resources into opposing this proposition. As a resident of the Blue Hills school area, a parent of a student at Blue Hills and a property owner, I am strongly opposed to the building of playfields at the Blue Hills site. It is the mission of the Parks & Recreation Dept. to find alternative sites at which to begin this development. One of the comments raised by you at the meeting was that there would be the constant problem of having this controversy again and again with other neighbors who surround the other potential sites for this playfield. That may well be the case, however if that is what needs to happen, so be it. If other sites are proposed and are continuously met with opposition, you must listen to our community and consider other uses for the funds. • Page 2 May 17, 1999 Please do not put off this decision any longer by adding meeting after meeting to the city's agenda. This situation deserves resolution now. You have a petition with over 250 signatures, you have heard testimony from the community; you have met with strong opposition. What more needs to happen? If you need more protests from the neighborhood that will happen without question. It is my desire to get involved in searching for an alternative solution to this problem, and would much rather spend my time doing so— instead of having to concentrate on the next steps that need to be taken in order to continue the opposition to the playfields at Blue Hills. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ate- jCtA� Lori -Ann Tarter May 17,1999 To Mr. Stan Bogosian and Mr.Evan Baker: My name is Rosemary Woodward, 18620 Ravenwood Dr., Saratoga. My husband and I moved here before Saratoga was an incorporated city. Our address was Los Gatos for a short time because Saratoga didn't have a postoffice. I worked very hard to achieve incorporation. The vote was close, passing by only a few votes .I think now, all citizens are glad out city is incorporated. Unfortunately, our city became divided almost as soon as our city government was formed. It became very clear the majority of interest didn't extend to our side of town. The Quito Park area was looked down upon and our area was only considered at election time. We have had to fight for our rights and now we are fighting again for what should be rightfully ours to expect. The Master Plan puts citizens and neighborhoods first. Not one of us is against children. In our fight to keep our neighborhood free of the invasion by traffic and noise, the Little league and Soccer Leagues would inflict upon us, we are concerned for our children's safety. They ride bikes, skate, and yes, play ball in the streets. How would we all feel if one of them should be injured by a speeding car running late for a game or a practice ? ?? To say I told you so would be no solace. Neighborhood children enjoy the school play fields to fly kites, climb on the monkey bars, shoot baskets and etc. I have been told by the business manager of the Campbell district that the Leagues want to have total control over who may or may not use the campus. Are we expected to accept this? Mr. Bogosian, Mr. Baker, I fail to see how spending more money to hire a mediator is going to benefit anyone but the mediator. The Parks commission wants a compromise. They want us to say its O.K. to clog our streets and risk our children's safety. We will never agree. Mr, Bogosian, and Mr.Baker, thank you for hearing us. Thank you for taking the time to look for yourself. Thank you for speaking in our behalf. I promise we will not forget. I have enclosed photographs taken on opening day at Rolling Hills School for the Quito Little League. Please note the cars on Pollard Rd. and parking lot and side streets. The tent for child entertainment I believe charged admission. Can you picture yourself trying to entertain in your own home and yard under these conditions? We do appreciate your efforts in our behalf. Sincerely Yours, 1 - 6n. Fl 0 'A Jr- �lx 77 Lim -!m.' 71 . iwb i. � - J r � wewl� "•• ' %c ^�^ . r ��f is �,'1.�`�: a. :•_ _' 74_ FOOTHILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Larry Perlin, City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 t)i� CJC to Z.V The FOOTHILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ( "FNA ") supports the revision and upgrading of the ball fields at Foothill School. The FNA believes that adequate funds should be budgeted to assure a quality project. However, the FNA recognizes it is premature to implement any development at the school site. The Saratoga Elementary School District has not yet defined the physical layout of the remodeled school or how they plan to provide additional on -sight parking to eliminate current on street parking plus make arrangements for student drop -off and pick -up traffic. Land use for these functions may compete with the existing or planned ball field locations. It is recommended that the City of Saratoga develop a site use plan, once the school land use requirements are determined, that is integrated with the school district needs. At that time, the city should bring a revised plan back to the Foothill School neighbors for review. The City's plan should not only describe the physical details of the ball fields, but also details for the ball fields' maintenance and operations; specifically: 1. A single agency should be identified as responsible for the maintenance of the ball fields, the intervening land (the areas that abut private property on three sides surrounding the ball fields) and rest room maintenance. This agency should have the necessary funding for the task and also be responsible for overseeing the actions of the using organizations. 2. Ball fields should be used only for girls' softball, as is the current practice, on a seasonal basis, i.e. no year -round usage. 3. No public address system should be employed by the using sports organizations. 4. No organized team play or practices should be permitted on Sundays. 5. Using organizations shall be required to encourage the participating parents to park on the school sites that are available instead of the nearby neighborhood streets. The FNA trusts that the City would respond positively to these very logical requests. The Association comprises neighbors who are very willing to work with the City and the School for the benefit of the youth of the community. oothill Ncighborho ss c' tion Contacts: James Ousley, 867 -5144 Felix Rosengarten, 867 -4523