Loading...
02-01-1999 Parks & Recreation agenda packetSaratoga Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Adult Day Care Center 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga Monday, February 1, 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 January 28, 1999 C) Approval of November 2, 1998 & January 4, 1999 Minutes II. Administration A) CPRS Conference - Confirmations and Reminders III. Oral & Written Communication This section is for the public to speak on any item not on the agenda IV. Old Business None V. New Business A. Recommendation from the Playfield Task Force regarding the Playfield Development and Improvement Project (Jaye Beals, of The Beals Group, who was hired by the City as the Project Manager, will present the Task Force's Recommendation to the Commission.) VI. Commissioner & Staff Reports A) Commissioner Reports B) City Hall Update - Irene Jacobs C) Recreation Department Status Report - Joan Pisani VII. Adjournment Meeting Report Date: Meeting Type: Meeting Date: Meeting Time: Meeting Location: From: Copy to: 1.20.99 Task Force #4 1.19.99 4:00- 6:OOpm Saratoga City Offices Jeff Kreps, tbgi ® All Attendees Jay Beals, tbgi thebeaisgroup T 408 287 ,1202 F 108 2B7 0165 F i�r;trls+ihebealsyroup.: Two North Market, Fifth P, San ,Jose. California 951 License Number 1531 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Attendees: City Staff, PRC Representatives, School Dist. Representatives, User Group Representatives, tbgi principal and staff This report, if not corrected within seven (7) days after receipt by any party in attendance, shall be acknowledged as an accurate report of the events that took place at this meeting. Meeting Context: Input for all four of the priority sites has been gathered from the User Groups, neighbors, School Districts and the City. Design proposals and costs as well as projected maintenance costs have been revised to reflect this input. We now need final recommendations to carry forward to PRC and Council. Meeting Purpose: 1) Present and discuss current design proposals for each site 2) Discuss maintenance requirements for respective design proposals 3) Discuss partnering options and accountability for maintenance routines at each site. Intended Results: Final Recommendation consisting of: 1) Consensus on Design Proposals, Costs, and Site Prioritization 2) Consensus on Maintenance Levels and Costs for each site 3) Consensus on Accountability for Maintenance Items 4) Consensus on Lease /Maintenance Language WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION SUMMARY OF PROJECT HISTORY SINCE TASK FORCE MTG. #3 A. Jay Beals gave a brief summary of the project since the last Task Force meeting in August. At that meeting the original 10 study sites were reduced to the current 4 for further study. To accomplish this detailed study several meetings were held for each site which included different groups of representatives (for instance the School Districts met with the City, the Users met with the School District, etc.). In addition, public meetings were held for each site, and the input from neighbors was then distributed to members of the Task Force. Following the public meetings, the proposals were reviewed by the groups representing each site and revisions were made before the final Task Force Mtg. F:Uobs98\98 -12 Saratoga ConsultingWeeting Itern0ask Force #4\Meeting ReportTF#4.doc r M Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Mtg. #4 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: 1.19.1999 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Location: City Offices B. Jay gave a summary of concerns that arose at the public meetings (the primary concern being safety as it relates to increased traffic loads), and indicated that, ultimately, everyone wanted what was best for the community— however that was defined. III. FEE ASSESSMENT DISCUSSION A. In the interest of facilitating smooth relationships between all the potential parties involved in the process Jay spoke briefly about the need for some type of °monitoring agency" to help oversee items such as compliance with established ,maintenance standards, permitting and scheduling (in association with the City and School Districts), collection of fees, fundraising, etc. The structure of such an organization was not discussed, but the Task Force was asked if they felt such an organization was needed. They said they did, but with the following comments: 1. It was suggested that any "agency" should be representative of all school and park sites within the City of Saratoga limits, not just the four sites focused on by the Task Force. 2. The School Districts requested some type of control over the maintenance routines, and some flexibility built into the agreement regarding penalties for "non- compliance." It needs to be understood that "things come up" and the exact program is not always able to be followed to the letter. And from the School's point of view, the needs of the School will always come first; beyond that, they're happy to do what they can to help keep the fields in good shape. 3. This "monitor" would have. to carefully determine the limits of this "flexibility." 4. The organization would have to be very low cost, with very low overhead. 5. School Districts reminded everyone that this "monitoring agency" would have the freedom only to make recommendations to the school districts, but that the District and /or the City would have the final say on what was done and how money was spent. 6. It was agreed that the "monitor" should avoid all political affiliation and potential bureaucratic red tape. IV. PRE_ SENTATION OF CURRENT PROPOSALS A: BLUE HILLS ELEMENTARY —Jay presented the most recent proposal which reflected input from the School District, City, Users, and neighbors. It was explained that one of the primary objectives in developing this site is to help ease the burden at other sites. However, it was pointed out that, though groups or teams might shift location (for instance from Congress Springs to Blue Hills), there is enough need for fields that any space, current or future, would be used to its maximum potential. (For example, CYSA hasn't been playing much in Saratoga because the fields haven't been available. If more fields were to open up, then CYSA would definitely be interested in sharing their use as because many of their kids come from Saratoga.) This doesn't have to be a negative thing if the "monitoring agency" is willing to look closely at scheduling practices and games at the City -wide level, and to adopt a "field rotation" system wherein a given field will get a chance to rest periodically. Other feedback regarding the Blue Hills proposal follows below: 1. It was acknowledged that the proposed development would have to clear some significant hurdles regarding safety and traffic issues before it would gain total support from the neighborhood groups. However, it was also noted that there were neighbors who has expressed interest in working with the F:Uobs98198.12 Saratoga ConsultingWeeting Items\Task Force #41Meeting ReportTF#4.doc 2 .A Meeting Minutes for: Meeting Date: Meeting Location: Task Force Mtg. #4 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. 1.19.1999 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 City Offices Task Force so that a proposal could be reached in which all groups were happy. 2. It should be noted that the cost projection for this site includes neither baseball facilities — permanent, with skinned infields— nor restroom facilities. 3. Regarding baseball, Task Force members were informed that the site would be used for practice only (turf infield areas) and that there were no plans at this time to add a dirt infield facility appropriate for games. 4. It was noted that, within the boundary of the Cupertino American Little League district, there were no dirt infields, which was why this was needed at the Blue Hills site. 5. Having at least practice facilities at this site was very important in light of the fact that both Redwood and Argonaut Elementary School fields would be taken out of service for one year each in the near future. 6. Regarding maintenance of.this facility; the City said they were working on the possibility of being able to take care of the non -turf portions of the site — essentially the "public park" areas. The City is enthusiastic about the project and is trying to do whatever it takes to get the project off the ground. 7. There was some concern that the City, in the past, had said they were unable to do any maintenance, yet, here they were saying they would possibly be able to do so. The City responded by saying they would present the issue to Council phrased in this way:" ...the neighboring public wants a 'park' in order to support this project, and since we want and need their support, we need to do whatever it takes to help accommodate them. And if this means that some money has to be spent on maintenance of landscaped areas, then 'let's try to do it. "' 8. It was reiterated that the whole issue of the User Groups paying extra money for maintenance was supposed to be an interim solution until public support could be generated for a bond (or other) measure that would provide the necessary funds for park maintenance. And, for their part, the Users said they were willing to bear that financial burden provided it was temporary, and that they had some control over both the use and maintenance of the fields they were going to be paying for. (Though, it is unlikely that any one group would be "assigned a specific facility. More likely is that all funds would go into a maintenance "fund" to be distributed City -wide among all the facilities being used for youth athletics.) 9. A final note about maintenance: though the City might be able to take over the maintenance of "landscaped" areas, it was presented that the School District would most likely take over the maintenance of the increased turf area. The District indicated that this would only be possible if they were compensated for the additional area, and if they weren't expected to perform routines above what they currently perform at their school sites. Task Force members were in agreement with these terms. In addition, the Users would be expected to bear the general burden of keeping the fields picked up, etc., as they currently do. B. CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK —The proposal was presented (essentially, turf renovation and minor repairs and upgrades to existing facilities) and was then opened up for discussion. 1. As was noted earlier, it was expected that Congress Springs would still be used to its full potential, even if Blue Hills were developed. This being the F:Uobs9819&12 Saratoga ConsultingWeeting Items\Task Force #41Meeting ReportTF#4.doc 3 Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Mtg. #4 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: 1.19.1999 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Location: City Offices case, it was noted that the maintenance level would have to be increased to prevent the turf areas from declining to the point where they currently are. This increased maintenance would come at a cost to the user groups. 2. Again, User Groups stated a willingness to help with funding for the increase in maintenance. 3. The current proposal would restore the fields to a very good condition from which to start a new maintenance program. 4. Jay talked about the availability of tests capable of determining actual impact to a site after a specific use. This type of testing might be necessary in order to accurately gauge each user group's impact on the turf, and to therefore equitably assess maintenance fees. 5. Again, the idea of rotating fields and giving them a chance to rest was presented — especially if Blue Hills was developed. The "monitoring agency" could oversee this rotation.._ . 6. Little League representatives expressed concern that the soccer groups were taking all the available fields. AYSO representatives countered by saying that they are only trying to meet the needs of a growing soccer community. 7. Maintenance at this site was fairly straightforward. The City would continue to maintain the turf areas, though any requested or required increase in maintenance regimes would necessitate additional monetary compensation from the User groups. In addition, the Little Leagues would continue to be responsible for the maintenance of the infield areas, backstops, etc. C. MARSHALL LANE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL —The presentation of this site began with an acknowledgement that there was significant opposition to any development at Marshall Lane which might increase traffic and, therefore, further decrease the safety of an already unsafe area. It was also stated that in this age of expanding population and youth sports leagues, the days of underutilized school sites such as Marshall Lane were at a close. It was hoped by all present (except those neighbors Who are opposed to any development of this site at all) that some type of compromise could be reached in order to benefit both the children in the leagues as well as the greater Saratoga community. 1. The Mayor of Saratoga asked if it was within the purview of this Task Force to study the effects of increased (if any) traffic at this site. Another City staff member explained that that,. at this time, it was -not within the scope of the Task Force to evaluate traffic impacts, but simply to make the recommendation to Council that the site be considered for development as proposed. However, the City also stated that they will be consulting with a traffic engineer in the near future, and traffic analyses, as well as Environmental Impact Statements —where necessary—would definitely be parts of the process if Council gave the overall project the "OK" to proceed. 2. Task Force members were informed that their recommendation to Council regarding Marshall Lane would have to include a statement to the effect that "any development would have to respect the neighbors' concerns, and that they would be willing to work closely with the neighbors in order to achieve a satisfactory result." 3. It was also noted that there was some neighborhood support for the project as presented. 4. School District representatives reminded everyone that we were still at the "conceptual" stage, and that there were still many more steps in the process F:Uobs98198.12 Saratoga ConsukingWeeting Items\Task Force #41Meeting ReportTF#4.doc 4 Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Mtg. #4 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: 1.19.1999 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Location: City Offices before a "final plan" was developed. (Steps such as presentations to the PRC, School Boards, City Council, etc.) There would be additional opportunities in the future to work out the details and to debate pros and cons. The purpose of the Task Force meeting was for the Groups to simply say, "Yes, we think this site is needed and deserves further study." 5. Quito Little League stated that they are in desperate need of fields within their boundaries, and that this site would serve a large portion of their members and is the only site on that side of town with the opportunity for development. 6. Neighborhood residents read a prepared statement wherein they voiced their opposition to the project in any form, and the fact that they felt discriminated against by not being "allowed " to talk at this meeting. 7. Task Force members were sympathetic to the concerns of the neighbors, but were equally adamant that the needs of the greater community needed to be considered as well. There are very few places left in the City of Saratoga with the potential to accommodate the increasing needs of Saratoga's youth. 8. Maintenance at this site would be split: the School would continue to maintain their turf areas at the current "level;" if built, the infields would be the responsibility of Quito Little League and /or any other groups using the fields. Any restroom facilities, if built —and it appears to be a significant "if" —would also be the responsibility of the User Groups — though the District would want to have access. D..; FOOTHILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL —The proposal for Foothill School was under negotiation between the School District and the primary User —LG /Saratoga Girls Softball —until just before the Task Force meeting started. The results of that negotiation are as follows: The School District's priority for the use of funds at this site was for turf renovation while utilizing the existing irrigation system. The LG /SGS League priorities had been stated to be a restroom /concession facility, covered dugouts, etc. After viewing the current proposal and its associated costs, both parties felt that they could get what they needed most. They would essentially split the allocated amount such that the District got the field renovation, while the LG /SGS would receive the restroom facility, covered dugouts, drinking fountains, and batting /pitching cages. Other items to be worked out: 1. The dying perimeter trees are going to be taken down and removed by the District; what is planted in their place remains to be discussed between the neighbors, District, and the Users. The intent of this planting is to screen the neighbors' view of the site, provide limited protection against balls going over the fences, and to provide some shade for both players and spectators. 2. The exact limits of turf renovation are yet to be decided. One possibility is to simply do the outfield areas; another is to redo the entire turf area with the intent of providing space for warm -up that is further away from the neighbors. The LG /SGS said they didn't need all of the turf completely redone, but if the non - outfield areas could be smoothed out to be more safe and usable, then that would be valuable to them. 3. Maintenance issues were fairly straightforward. The District would continue to provide their current level of maintenance for the turf areas, and any desired increase would necessitate additional compensation. For their part, the LG /SGS would be responsible for the maintenance of the restroom facility and for keeping it stocked. The District stated they had no interest in F:Uobs98198 -12 Saratoga ConsultingWeeting ItemslTask Force #41Meeting ReportTF#4.doc 5 Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Mtg. #4 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: 1.19.1999 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Location: City Offices using the restroom facility for their kids, but that they would need a key to it since it would be on their property. The facility would remain locked at all times when the League wasn't on the premises. Additionally, the League would continue with the responsibility of picking up trash around the field area. 4. As for the lease /maintenance agreement, the League stated an interest in some type of long -term arrangement, such as a "right to first refusal" after five years under the given agreement. This would help to ensure that they would have the priority use of the fields they were paying for when the school was not using them. 5. The utility costs associated with the new facilities on the site would have to be carefully monitored in order to accurately assess an appropriate fee to the Users. The League suggested that, until this can be done, they would be willing to work out a "flat fee" with the District, perhaps monthly. V. PRESENTATION OF A DRAFT LEASE /MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT — A. The draft agreement contains many of the items mentioned in preceding paragraphs. Feedback regarding this agreement follows, and important considerations include: 1. That the School Districts are willing to enter into tentative agreements with the City of Saratoga only, and that any other parties would have to negotiate their agreements solely with the City. 2. That the groups paying for the use of a certain site would have to work out a resolution wherein each group was entitled to "exclusive" or "primary" use of the. site during their season. 3. That there are substantial scheduling issues to be resolved and included in any agreement. 4. That all Users have to be in agreement with the guidelines set forth, in order to maintain equity. 5. Precisely how much extra money will be paid for added maintenance areas, or increases in maintenance levels, will have to be worked out at a later date, if and when precise plans for development go forward. The costs presented are to establish a baseline, and to provide perspective on the magnitude of the expected financial responsibility.. 6. There was concern that too much of a focus on maintenance at new sites would detract from the much - needed maintenance at Congress Springs, and that the existing facilities should be given top priority of funds. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS —At this point the Task Force was asked to enter into discussion about prioritization of the project sites and to make a recommendation to PRC and City Council accordingly. The following are items arising from that dialogue. A. It was felt that the development of Blue Hills should take priority because: It would take currently unused space and put it into service for both the youth groups and the greater Saratoga community; it would increase parking for the school and the additional parking would provide a solution to the traffic problems along Goleta; it would provide a much - needed and desired public park area. B. On the other hand, it was felt that the prioritization of "public park" areas over youth athletic fields was counter to the mission of the Task Force —which was to focus on play -field development. F:Wobs9&9 8-12 Saratoga ConsuftingWeeting Items\Task Force #4Weeting ReportTF#4.doc 6 Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Mtg. #4 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: 1.19.1999 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Location: City Offices VII. C. D. E. F. G H Others argued that if creating a public park would help get additional fields built, then it should be considered. Blue Hills was considered to be a long -term community investment which would pay dividends in the future, and that this opportunity should not be missed. It was felt that, eventually, development is going to come to all of the sites in question, regardless of dissent, and that since the Task Force was made up of representatives from all the major organizations, it should take the time to work through the options carefully to provide a coherent, sane and equitable set of solutions. The City suggested that the Task Force simply prioritize the sites however they wanted at the "full price," and send the recommendation to the Commission who would pare it down if they felt it was necessary. It was suggested that "you might as well ask for what you really want because you never know what might happen." An important point regarding "phasing" of the projects was brought up. It was suggested that, since construction /renovation of a field would render that field unusable for up to a year, the Task Force should consider recommending "phasing" of each project, so that not all the money was spent at one time, and to allow for the accumulation of additional funds overtime. For instance, if a field can't be developed for two or three years, for example, then put that site at the bottom of the list and start with other sites, always planning that the funds will be there for the last project. Another example was at Blue Hills: perhaps the turf expansion could be done first, with the "park area" coming later, and the restroom facility coming still later. With an expensive project such as this, this method would free funds to be used at other sites. It was felt that there should be a disclaimer on the proposal stating that "we want the whole package, in some form; that it cannot be 'one site or nothing. "' FINAL. VOTE—After much debate about ranking the projects vs. simply presenting the whole package for approval, it was decided that a vote would be in order to establish some type of prioritization. Members assigned each site a number from 1-4, with 1 being their choice for the top priority site. One representative from each of the User Groups present, and one member from each of the School Districts were asked for their vote. Note: The Cupertino representative had to leave before the vote but was sent a fax with the opportunity to cast a vote. The collective results from that vote are as follows: A. Blue Hills Elementary— 17 points @ approximately $1,100,000 B. Congress Springs Park— 18 points @ approximately $270,000 C. Foothill Elementary— 22 points @ approximately $260,000 D. Marshall Lane Elementary— 23 points @ approximately $300,000 E. Note: The final recommendation was based on the above, with the following additions: 1. That all four sites are important 2. That they should be phased to the extent possible 3. That "value engineering" be employed to try to cut the costs wherever possible to help free funds for other sites 4. That the proposal should show the "long view" which displayed the phasing and which fields would be down at what times and where money was being spent at any given time. This would help to keep track of funds, keep people focused on the long -term vision, and would facilitate scheduling. F:Wobs98198.12 Saratoga ConsuwngWeeting Items \Task Force #AMeeting ReportTF#4.doc 7 Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Mtg. #4 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: 1.19.1999 Project Ref. No.: 98-12 Meeting Location: City Offices VIII. NEXT STEPS —The Task Force was told what the "path of travel' would be for the proposal, and at what dates they could expect to, participate. All were encouraged to stay active in the project and to support it whenever possible. The estimated schedule follows below. IX. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE PROJECT MEETINGS — A. City Council Study Session — Tuesday, January 26, 1999 B. Parks and Recreation Commission — Monday, February 1, 1999 C. Final presentation to City Council— Tuesday, March 9, 1999 End of Report F:Uobs98198.12 Saratoga ConsutiingWeeGng ItemsUask Force MWeeGng ReportTF#4.doc 8 November 11, 1998 CITY OF SARATOGA PARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES BY "LEVEL" LEVEL "A ": Turf Maintenance Regimes- Non - Athletic: $.0125 /sf, = $544.5 /acre /mo, = $6,534 /acre /vr 1. Mowing - -1 time per week, 46-48 weeks per year 2. Fertilization - -2 times per year - 3. Broadleaf weed control (pre & post- emergent) - -1 -2 times per year 4. Aeration - -2 times per year 5. Renovation (aerate, amend soil, seed, top dressing) -1 time per year 6. Filling in of holes - -as needed 7. Irrigation /drainage system repairs - -as needed 8. Water costs LEVEL "B ": Athletic Turf Maintenance Regimes- Soccer: $.0225/sf, = $980 /acre /mo, = $11,760 /acre /yr. 1. Mowing - -2 times per week during peak season, 1 time /week during winter months 2. Irrigation -3-4 days per week in peak season, two days /week at other times 3. Fertilization -4 times per year (February, May, August, November), high potassium 4. Aeration & Thatching - -2 times per year minimum, remove thatch any time >1/4" 5. Over - seeding - -as needed to entire field; wait 4 weeks before playing, sod goal mouths 6. Slit- seeding - -at least once per year 7. Weed Control- -pre- emergent 2 times /year; herbicides -as needed 8. Fungicide /Insecticide - -as needed 9. Re -paint field markings 10. Install /remove goals (if permanent); rotate goal mouth areas if possible. 11. Irrigation /drainage system repairs as needed 12. Water management, re: user schedules LEVEL "C ": Skinned Infield Maintenance Regimes- Baseball /Softball: $.03 /sf, = $1,300 /acre /mo, = $15,600 /acre /yr 1. Infield edge: re -cut, power broom, power wash, etc. 2. Drag infield "fine" area -4 3. Level infield & replace infield fines 4. Re -chalk field markings, 5. Infield drainage system repairs as needed LEVEL "D ": Turf Infield Maintenance Regimes- Baseball: $.03 /sf, = $1300 /acre /mo, = $15,600 /acre /yr�`� 1. Over -seed infield turf area(s) -- 2. Re -build pitcher's mound 3. Infield irrigation and drainage system repairs as needed 4. Re -cut infield turf area edges (or power broom, power wash) 5. Aerate, de- thatch infield turf area(s) 6. Level infield and replace infield fines. 7. Drag infield "fine area" 8. Repairs to hardware and furnishings ASe"erlprgWMQ00s98196-12 Sam9a ConsutlngVAant.Wds 11.5.98.aoc f. 4% LEVEL "E ": General maintenance regimes at all sites—, 1 Litter clean up and trash removal. 2. Edging and Trimming 3. Pruning of trees and shrubs 4. Repairs and maintenance to concessions /restroom facilities (if applicable) 5. Equipment repairs --as needed M-- Vrq*CW_bOS9 W12SWAD.C"eAMVAWCWwWI1.5.96AW November 11. 1998 Draft Outline of Issues to be Considered in: Lease and Maintenance Agreements between the City of Saratoga, the Union School District, AYSO, and CYSA: I. Summary of Intent: The purpose of this outline is to begin to understand in specific terms the details of a lease/maintenance agreement between various parties concerned with athletic field use and development at Elementary School. Examples - -at the most basic level - -of items to be covered are: •Who are the "permitted" users? •Who provides the land? *Who are the various parties accountable to? *Who will oversee the agreement? *What are the consequences of non - compliance with the agreement? D *Who provides the funding for maintenance? Q v *Who actually performs the maintenance routines? ` YP O II. Location: Elementary School III. Size: Work area: School= acres / Park (if applicable) = acres IV. Usdrs: A. Use of the athletic facilities will be restricted to school activities and to groups holding valid permits. (Table format to facilitate understanding) Permits are obtained through the School District , City of Saratoga , or other "3rd party" (ex. 501 - c(3) . Fee for use has been determined to be $ . This fee is for the following duration: , and is based on agreement to the lease/maintenance terms below, beginning with number V. B. Permit Application Process: Including the provision of proof of acceptable insurance C. Payment of fees is in accordance with the following: 1. It is understood that operating costs will increase from year to year and that the agency granting the permit has the right to adjust the fee schedule in accordance with, for instance, the Consumer Price Index. The proper fee adjustment will be part of the agreement for use. 1. Payment in full, prior to the start of the season or requested date. D. Penalty for default on payment is: 1. I st occurrence = warning 2. 2nd occurrence = fine- -late charge 3. 3rd occurrence = permit suspended E. A system will be put in place to accommodate schedule changes: Users will be subject to a system whereby they are required to notify the permitting agency of a change in schedule within a given amount of time before the scheduled use. The agency will bear the responsibility of posting notice at the site of the change in schedule. Note: the creation of a website to accommodate all of the scheduling information and changes might be very effective. In this situation, users simply need log on to the website to obtain the most recent scheduling information. The maintenance of such a website would be the responsibility of the permitting agency - -which throughout this project has been suggested to be a centralized, third party. \\Fileserver\projects\, bs98\98 -12 Saratoga Consulting \GenericLeaseDraft1.13.99.doc 1 Example of scheduling table: User Facility Duration Time of use Purpose 1. Blue Hills Athletic Fields Year -round Days: School activities Elementary Time(s): School 2. Saratoga Athletic Fields -- August xx -- Days: Soccer practice/games AYSO Blue Hills and December xx Time(s): Azule Park 3. CYSA Athletic Fields -- February xx -- June Days: Soccer practice/games Blue Hills and xx Time(s): Azule Park 4. Little Athletic fields -- xxxxxx Days: Baseball practice League same xxxxxx Time(s): The above table would serve as the "backbone" of the scheduling and use portion of this agreement. It is understood that various parties will need the use of the facilities on specific days and at specific times not covered in the above table. Therefore, within each of the "seasons" the schedule will need to be broken down into smaller segments so that all parties are aware of the needs and requests of the other parties. The complexity of such a scheduling system points out the benefit of having a "third party" handle the negotiations. Note: It is to be understood by all parties that the Elementary School has priority use of the site all year- round. However, every U effort will be made to schedule the School's uses well in advance, and once set, the School will be subject to the same requirements as any other group. V. Maintenance issues to be addressed by all parties: It should be noted that the School District and the City have the right to approve any maintenance performed on "their land" by parties other than their respective staffs. Likewise, each User has the right to determine a suitable level of acceptability for the playing surfaces and the other facilities. Exactly how this level might be met is the primary thrust of this agreement. Financial responsibility and the method of accountability are also discussed for each maintenance level. A. It should be noted at the outset that any maintenance agreement is for maintenance to the specified areas during each month of the agreement, not simply for the "season." Maintenance of the athletic facilities can be broken down into several categories outlined below. (The "BASE" level of maintenance is derived from information provided by Cupertino Union School District and has been adjusted for inflation. Water costs were added to the figure based on avg. monthly water costs provided by the City of Saratoga. It is expected that School Districts will continue to maintain their sites at this level; any increase will require additional compensation, or some other arrangement.) Additional maintenance responsibilities are outlined in "LEVELS A -E" below. "BASE" LEVEL: Turf Maintenance Regimes— Non - Athletic: SD $350 /acre/mo. _ $4,200 /acre /yr. 1. Mowing -- 48 times per year 2. Edging/Trimming -2 times per year 3. Fertilizing -2 times per year 4. Aerating -1 time per year 5. Weekly trash pick -up 6. Lining fields -4 times per year \\Fileserver\projects\Jobs98 \98-12 Saratoga Consulting \GenericLeaseDraft1.13.99.doc 2 ­0 7. Baseball field prep, turf repairs, irrigation repairs, equipment service /repair, repair vandalism —on an as- needed basis. LEVEL "A ": Turf Maintenance Regimes— Non - Athletic: City SD $.0125 /sf, _ $544.5 /acre /mo, _ $6,534 /acre/yr 1. Mowing - -1 time per week, 46 -48 weeks per year 2. Fertilization - -2 times per year - 3. Broadleaf weed control (pre & post- emergent) - -1 -2 times per year 4. Aeration - -2 times per year 5. Renovation (aerate, amend soil, seed, top dressing) - -1 time per year 6. Filling in of holes - -as needed 7. Irrigation/drainage system repairs - -as needed 8. Water costs 9. Watering schedule as it relates to the game and practice schedule (see the enclosed maintenance list for a more detailed list of possible maintenance qualifications). n 10. Turf irrigation system maintenance e \\� H. Required "rest" season for each field (maybe summer at schools, though the v School District would still have the right to use the field during the rest period.) 12. Minimum off-season requirements of the "maintaining "party B. The maintenance regimes required for "LEVEL B" are for athletic turf and are in addition to those outlined above in "LEVEL A." The costs incurred to provide this level of maintenance would have to be paid for by the User Groups. Alternatively, these additional maintenance responsibilities would be performed by the User Group itself (under the approval of the School District), or by an outside contractor paid for by the User Group. LEVEL "B ": Athletic Turf Maintenance Regimes— Soccer: $.0225/sf, _ $980 /acre /mo, _ $11,760 /acre/yr. 1. Mowing - -2 times per week during peak season, I time/week during winter months 2. Irrigation - -3 -4 days per week in peak season, two days /week at other times 3. Fertilization -4 times per year (February, May, August, November), high potassium 4 Aeration & Thatching - -2 times per year minimum, remove thatch any time > 114 5. Over - seeding - -as needed to entire field; wait 4 weeks before playing, sod goal mouths 6. Slit - seeding - -at least once per year 7. Weed Control - -pre- emergent 2 times /year; herbicides - -as needed 8. Fungicide/Insecticide - -as needed 9. Re -paint field markings 10. Install/remove goals (if permanent); rotate goal mouth areas if possible. 11. Irrigation/drainage system repairs as needed 12. Water management, re: user schedules C. The third and fourth levels of maintenance are "LEVELS C & D" which cover maintenance of infield areas for baseball and softball facilities. The costs for maintenance of these areas is to be borne by the User Groups, or is to be performed by them to the satisfaction of the Owner (City of Saratoga or School District). \\Fileservfer\prolects\Jobs98 \98-12 Saratoga Consulting \GenericLeaseDraftl.13.99.doc 3 LEVEL "C ": Skinned Infield Maintenance Regimes— Baseball/Softball: $.03 /sf, _ $1,300 /acre /mo, _ $15,600 /acre/yr Responsibility 1. Infield edge: re -cut, power broom, power wash, etc. CS , SD , UG_ 2. Drag infield "fine" area 3. Level infield & replace infield fines 4. Re -chalk field markings 5. Infield drainage system repairs as needed LEVEL "D ": Turf Infield Maintenance Regimes— Baseball: $.03 /sf, _ $1300 /acre /mo, _ $15,600 /acre/yr Responsibility 1. Over -seed infield turf area(s) CS , SD , UG 2. Re -build pitcher's mound 3. Infield irrigation and drainage system repairs as needed 4. Re -cut infield turf area edges (or power broom, power wash) 5. Aerate, de- thatch infield turf area(s) 6. Level infield and replace infield fines. 7. Drag infield "fine area" 8. s Repairs to hardware and furnishings g D. The final maintenance level is a "catch -all" to account for a number of miscellaneous tasks not directly related to field maintenance, but which are necessary nonetheless. The costs associated with these items are to be the responsibility of one or more of the parties in the agreement. Such "LEVEL E" maintenance items would include: LEVEL "E ": General maintenance regimes at all sites— Responsibility: 1. Litter clean up and trash removal. CS , SD , UG 2. Edging and Trimming CS , SD , UG 3. Pruning of trees and shrubs CS , SD , UG 4. Repairs and maintenance to concessions - restroom facilities (if applicable) 5. Equipment repairs - -as needed CS , SD , UG 6. Other CS , SD , UG Additional questions to be answered include: • Who will monitor each of the groups who are performing the tasks? VI. Penalties and defaults: A. If any party outlined above fails to fulfill all or part of its obligation, either financial or "physical," that party will be subject to one or more of the following penalties: 1. Failure to provide required funds: a. 2. Failure to fulfill maintenance obligation to the satisfaction of the monitoring party: a. City has what recourse? \ \Fileserver\projects Uobs98\98 -12 Saratoga Consulting \GenedcLeaseDraft1.13.99.doc 4 b. School District has what recourse? q �0 C. User Group(s) as/have what recourse? q d p() q d. First occurrence: U e. Second occurrence: f. Third/Final occurrence: B. Re- application process: In the event a permit is suspended, a re- application process must be in place to accommodate these requests in such a way that the overall schedule is not impacted, and in such a way as to secure absolute agreement to the terms of the lease. VII. Creation of a "Third Party" Monitoring Agency A. To facilitate the relationships between all the members of this agreement, and to help ensure the safety of all the children who use this (and other) site(s), it is recommended that an "outside," third -party monitoring agency be established to objectively measure compliance to the stipulations of the contract. Such an agency would be comprised of representatives from each of the parties named in this contract and in the contracts for the other sites in this project. Terms for compliance will have been set forth in the above contract and will relate specifically to financial and physical responsibility for the site in question. It is proposed that this "agency" be a not - for - profit 501 -c(3) organization. In addition to serving as "monitor" at all the sites, this agency will also have the obligation and responsibility to generate funding as it sees fit to help offset costs incurred by the various member parties. The ability of this agency to seek outside funding for desired projects will provide needed flexibility to acquire necessary funds for items such as additional future improvements and increases in maintenance costs (materials, manpower, etc.). In addition, such as objective agency could be charged with the responsibility of ensuring compliance with the terms of each contract, and with the burden of scheduling use of each of the sites within the agency's "jurisdiction." As mentioned in earlier discussions, proper "centralized" scheduling can help maintain safe playing surfaces, and can help eliminate disputes over who has "rights" to a given field at a given time. Contract compliance will go a long way toward providing opportunities for safe play, and toward facilitating communication and continued positive relationships between all interested parties. In this vein, an important additional responsibility of this "agency" would be to act as liaison between the various user groups and the neighbors surrounding the playing field sites. Further, this agency would be responsible for maintaining parity among the various users, particularly when the users are sharing a site. In this instance, responsibilities will need to be relative to each group's size and recorded/anticipated use of the facility. B. Parties which might be included in this organization are: 1. Saratoga AYSO 2. Saratoga L L 3. CYSA 4. Pony League 5. LG /Stga Girls Softball 6. Quito L L 7. Cupertino American L L 8. Saratoga Recreation Dept. 9. School District representative(s) A. Saratoga USD B. Campbell USD C. Cupertino USD 10. City of Saratoga Representative(s) \ \Fileserver\projects\. bs98 \98-12 Saratoga Consulting \GenericLeaseDraft1.13.99.doc 5 .y ri � 1 • Meeting Report Date: October 23, 1998 �J thebealsgroup r 108 287 4202 F W8 287 0165 E beals�dthebealsgroup.�:� Frwo North Warket. Fifth = : i;r,n Jose. California 9511 Number 1534 Meeting Type: Public Meeting Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Devlpmnt Meeting Date: October 22, 1998 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Time: 6:30 - 8:OOpm Meeting Location: Foothill Elementary School From: Jeff Kreps Attendees: Irene M. Jacobs, City of Saratoga Barbara Zeitman - Olsen, City of Stga Jenny Crotty, City of Saratoga Copy to: ® All Attendees Jay Beals, the beats group, inc. File Neighborhood residents This report, if not corrected within seven (7) days after receipt by any party in attendance, shall be acknowledged as an accurate report of the events that took place at this meeting. Meeting Context: Task Force has recommended this site as one of four priority sites. Design proposal from user's standpoint has been developed. Public input is now needed. Meeting Purpose: To present proposed design and to hear concerns from neighbors. Intended Results: 1. An understanding of overall project and Foothill School's part in it 2. An understanding of proposed design elements 3. List of concerns shared by neighborhood residents Note: Please note the schedule change at the end of this report. INTRODUCTION a) Jay Beals gave a brief synopsis of the history and scope of this project. Please see the enclosed sheet for a summary of key points. 2. PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED DESIGN ELEMENTS a) Jay presented the various design elements, which had been requested and prioritized by the primary, non - school user —Los Gatos /Saratoga Girls Softball. Emphasis was placed on the fact that there is no intended increase in use or re- design of any fields. Project focuses on renovation /replacement of existing facilities. b) Key elements according to priority are: i) Restroom /concession /storage building of some type ii) Drinking fountains at each backstop iii) Covered dugouts iv) Batting /pitching cages V) Re -cut infield and replace infield fines vi) Repairs to existing fences /backstops /boards, etc. vii) Renovation of turf areas viii) Re- design of areas behind backstops to increase safety F:Uobs98198 -12 Saratoga ConsultingWeeting ItemsTubtic Meetingsl FoothilMeetingReport10.23.98.doc t 00 't, Meeting Minutes for: Public Meeting, Foothill Elem. Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: October 22, 1998 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Location: Foothill Elementary School It was emphasized that none of the items have been "approved" yet, and that public input will be used to further refine the design proposal. 3. OPEN FORUM FOR DISCUSSION a) The floor was opened for discussion of the proposal, to answer any questions, and to hear any concerns neighbors had. A summary of concerns can be found below: i) Would anything be done about the pine trees which border the play -field area? There is concern that the trees are old and are posing a safety threat; they are also deteriorating and are an eyesore. Neighbors said they have been told that the trees are their responsibility, but they feel the School District should address this issue as a part of this study. ii) A related issue is that of screening the field from view. Since the trees are deteriorating, anything that replaces them should be substantial enough to adequately screen the fields from the adjacent neighbors. Also, the neighbors felt that some type of barrier be put in place to help protect their property from foul balls, trash, etc. iii) There was concern over "non- permitted" use of the fields (for example, adults drinking alcohol and using the fields). Some neighbors felt that making the site any nicer would only make it more attractive to these types of users. iv) Neighbors adjacent to the upper, corner field felt that the backstop was to close to the fence. They, too, wanted better screening. V) What is the cost of the Foothill project, and what is the overall project budget? vi) There was a great deal of concern that there would be an increase in vehicular traffic. Neighbors were unanimously opposed to anything that might increase traffic. (It was explained that there was no planned or anticipated increase in use — therefor, no planned or anticipated increase in traffic.) The related issue of parking was also brought up as a concern. vii) Another concern was the relatively short notice neighbors were given about the meeting. viii) It was felt that any proposed improvements ought to be closely coordinated with any plans the school has for renovation. Neighbors were disappointed that no one from the school district was there to address their concerns from the S.D. point of view. Neighbors wanted to know if any commitments had been given from any party involved (other than the City). ix) Some neighbors felt that the increase in traffic others have noticed in the neighborhood was due to scheduling at the school, itself, and not to the athletic field users. X) Residents wanted to know how high the proposed structures were going to be. There are some details which need to be worked out regarding effectively screening the site while also not blocking anyone's view with an obtrusive structure. A) Would the placement of asphalt or concrete around the backstops increase the noise level? xii) Would there be a written agreement between the School District and the City or Users related to who was going to maintain the site? xiii) What is the timeline for the project? Is there a deadline? xiv) Is it appropriate to take these issues before a new City Council and ask them to vote on them if they don't know the history of the project? Some felt that, no, it wasn't appropriate, and we should put the whole thing off a couple of F:Uobs98198 -12 Saratoga ConsukingWeeting ItemsTubhc Meetingsl FoothillMeetingReport10 .23.98.doc 2 r � Meeting Minutes for: Public Meeting, Foothill Elem. Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: October 22, 1998 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Location: Foothill Elementary School months to allow them to get adjusted to their new positions and to become more familiar with the local community and its issues. xv) Neighbors wanted to know how much "weight" the public really had. b) All of these concerns were addressed and will be taken into consideration as the project goes forward. Regarding the last (xv) point, it was explained that input from the neighbors was very important and carried a lot of weight inasmuch as all the Task Force could do was make an informed recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Commission, who then, upon approval, would make a further recommendation to the City Council and School Boards. Upon approval from all of these governing bodies the project would "begin." The President of the LosGatos /Saratoga Girls Softball League also addressed some of the concerns above. Primarily, he wanted everyone to understand that there was nothing "new" or bigger planned. Simply put, things would go on as they have been, only the facilities would be nicer. He also explained that they do their best to clean up the area when they've finished for the day or weekend, and that a lot of the problems that neighbors were experiencing came not from the girls, but from non - permitted users of the fields, who will be there no matter what condition the fields are in. He stressed that the League was committed to working with the School District and the neighbors to ensure that everyone was happy. IV. CONCLUSION a) The meeting was closed with much appreciation expressed toward the neighbors for taking the time to come and voice their concerns and ideas. All were reminded to check the local paper for information regarding future meetings about this and /or other project sites. V. NEXT MEETINGS — Notice Schedule change! a) Marshall Lane Elementary School— Tuesday, October 27, 6:30- 8:00pm b) *"Blue Hills Elementary School — Thursday, November 19r 6:30- 8:00pm All other meeting dates are up in the air until meetings with the various School Boards can be scheduled. We will keep you informed as we finalize dates. Also, look in the Saratoga Weekly News for announcements regarding meeting dates and times. As always, call me (Jeff Kreps) with any questions about the schedule. I can also be contacted (temporarily, until our name change is in place) via email at: beals @bealslandarch.com —sent to my attention. END OF REPORT F:Uobs98198 -12 Saratoga Consulting \Meeting ItemslPub5c Meetings lFoolhiNeetingReport10.23.98.doc 3 ,.. ►ft Meeting Report Date: Meeting Type: Meeting Date: Meeting Time: Meeting Location: From: Copy to: 10.28.98 Public Meeting 10.27.98 { thebealsgroup T 408 297 4202 F 409 287 0165 E bealsa;?thebe�alsgroup.c� Two North Market. Fifth Flc San Jose. California 9511.; L;cense Number 1534 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Devel. Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 6:30- 8:OOpm Marshall Lane Elementary Jeff Kreps Attendees: ❑ All Attendees All Task Force Members Irene Jacobs, Ciity of Saratoga Jenny Crotty, Park & Rec. Comm. Frank Friedrich, P & R Comm. Lynne Dickerson, Pres., Quito LL Jay Beals, thebealsgroup, inc. Neighbors, Quito LL parents This report, if not corrected within seven (7) days after receipt by any party in attendance, shall be acknowledged as an accurate report of the events that took place at this meeting. Meeting Context: Task Force has recommended this site as one of four priority sites. Design proposal from user's standpoint has been developed. Public input is now needed. Meeting Purpose: To present proposed design and to hear concerns from neighbors. Intended Results: 1. An understanding of overall project and Marshall Lane's part in it 2. An understanding of proposed design elements 3. List of concerns shared by neighborhood residents INTRODUCTION A. Jay Beals gave an overview of the whole project and the steps leading up to the current proposal. He also explained that we were about mid -way through the whole process and that there would be other opportunities for public input. Lynne Dickerson spoke about Quito Little League, and fielded questions about scheduling, age groups expected to play on the fields, number of children expected, etc. She emphasized the responsibility of the League's members and their willingness to work with the School District, Marshall Lane Elementary, and the neighbors to come to a mutually beneficial solution. PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED DESIGN ELEMENTS A. Jay presented the proposal and stressed that it was just that, a proposal, and that plans were not going forth to build what we were presenting; that we were there to gather the input from concerned neighbors and parents. The major elements of the proposed design are: 1. To build two new baseball fields to be used primarily by T -ball and Farm -level teams; items to be included are: a. Dirt infields 11ServeAprojectsUobs98198 -12 Saratoga ConsultingWeeting IternOublic Meetings \MarshagAeetingReport.doc Meeting Minutes for: Public Meeting, Marshall Lane Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: 10.27.98 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Location: Marshall Lane Elementary b. Covered dugouts C. Batting /pitching cages 2. To build a small permanent restroom facility, and to provide room for storage and for concessions; 3. To provide drinking fountains; 4. To renovate the turf area, including irrigation system; 5. To relocate one of the school's hard -court basketball courts; 6. To possibly expand the existing parking area; 7. To possibly relocate the upper playground equipment "box;" Again, it was emphasized that none of the items have been approved yet, and that public input will be used to further refine the design proposal. III. OPEN FORUM FOR DISCUSSION A. Jay then opened the floor up for comments, questions, concerns, etc. A summary of the concerns is as follows: 1. One of the neighbors read a petition that had been signed by many other residents in which they opposed any development of an athletic facility at Marshall Lane. They called for an Environmental Impact Report from the City before any other work was done. (Many of the reasons for their objection are in the list that follows.) 2. Residents wanted to know why they hadn't been included earlier in the process. 3. A primary concern centered around traffic and parking. Residents were vehemently opposed to any increase in traffic because it would tax an already overburdened road system near the school, thereby decreasing the safety of the children and parents walking in the area. Most also felt that the current traffic problem is due primarily to scheduling at the school - -and to open enrollment - -and that nothing could be added into the mix until the City and District worked out some solutions (like speed bumps, wider roads, sidewalks, etc.) Also at issue is the parking situation. Neighbors wanted to see data which would support any increase in parking area. Currently, neighbors said that some users of the school parked in the nearby orchard, which they felt was inappropriate. The school currently has between 55 -65 parking spaces in the main lot, plus additional parking in the new side lot. Added pollution is a related issue. A final traffic - related issue is that of speed; neighbors say that very few people obey the posted speed limit, and something needs to be done! 4. Residents wanted to know if there would be any weekend use /traffic. (Lynne Dickerson explained that there was no "permitted" Sunday use, and that the game season in which the number of children playing would increase was from mid March until the first week in June.) 5. Even though the use for the site is young kids, neighbors felt that these were the "worst" because "many" family members tended to come to the games, which would even further increase traffic. 6. Would soccer continue at this site? (Yes, but no more than it does now.) 7. Because of the recent article in the Saratoga News, some neighbors felt that soccer was going to be removed from Congress Springs and, not knowing about the possible development of a soccer facility at Blue Hills /Azule, felt that those displaced soccer players would come to Marshall Lane. 11 ServeAprojectsWobs98198 -12 Saratoga ConsultingWeeting IternOublic Meetings \MarshaRMeetingReport.doc 2 Meeting Minutes for: Public Meeting, Marshall Lane Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: 10.27.98 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Location: Marshall Lane Elementary 8. Some residents felt that there were other more suitable schools who would love to have some of the City's money and that we should be talking to them. They feel that the City and others know that Marshall Lane is going to be a "problem" site, yet they continue to try to build something here. 9. There was also concern that the soccer community wasn't being considered in this plan; that their available turf- -even for practice - -was shrinking. 10. Why is the government of this wealthy community so short of funds? Why can't they simply pass a bond issue that would create a fund large enough that the City could just purchase new park land and develop that? The residents felt that the leadership for the community and projects like this has been poor. 11. Neighbors stated that they were not "against" kids, but that this was not the . "right" kind of neighborhood in which to have an athletic "facility." B. On the other hand, there were many positive comments about the proposal as well. 1. Jay stressed the accountability of each party that would be included in the written agreements generated out of this project. The rules would then be understood by everyone, and if you "broke" them - -say, parked somewhere you weren't supposed to, or used the field without a permit - -you would be held accountable. This would go a long way toward ensuring a peaceful relationship between the users and the neighbors. 2. The increase in scheduling because of the proposed agreements would also lighten the use of the fields (and therefor lessen the impact on neighbors) because it would be regulated and monitored. 3. It was felt that the community shouldn't turn down the opportunity to do something good, and that would be of benefit to all of Saratoga, with money that the City would be providing. 4. It was stressed that what was really being proposed was to make the existing uses safer. There is very little anticipated increase in traffic. 5. It was felt that this was an opportunity for the community to come together to work something positive out for the children of Saratoga. IV. CONCLUSION A. Though there were very definite and well- informed opposing opinions, the meeting was a great success because it hammered out all the potential stumbling blocks that will need to be smoothed out if the project is to go forth. The meeting was concluded with thanks to all the participants and with the assurance that all the input, both positive and negative, would be closely considered as the project went forward. V. MEETING SCHEDULE A. Public meeting: Blue Hills Elementary, Thursday, November 19, from 6:30- 8:OOpm. B. Meeting with City, School District Representatives, and User Group representatives to review revised plans /costs for Foothill & Marshall Lane Schools: Saratoga City Offices, Tuesday, November 10, from 4:00 -4:45 Foothill, and 4:45 -5:30 Marshall. End of Report 11ServerlprojectMJobs98198 -12 Saratoga Consulting \Meeting ItemslPub6c Meetings\MarshalUeetingReport .doc 3 Meeting Report Date: 11.23.98 thebealsgroup V 108 287 1202 F •108 _87 0165 F benis l?' ihr;bealsgroup.c . Two iPlorth Market, Fifth Fr_ San Jose. California 9511:; License Number 1534 Meeting Type: Public Meeting Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Devel. Meeting Date: 11.19.98 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Time: 6:30- 8:OOpm Meeting Location: Blue Hills Elementary From: Jeff Kreps Attendees: Irene Jacobs, City of Stga. Barbara Zeitman - Olsen, PRC Jenny Crotty, PRC AYSO representatives Little League Representatives Blue Hills neighbors /parents Copy to: ® All Attendees Jay Beals This report, if not corrected within seven (7) days after receipt by any party in attendance, shall be acknowledged as an accurate report of the events that took place at this meeting. Meeting Context: Task Force has recommended this site as one of four priority sites. Design proposal from user's standpoint has been developed. Public input is now needed. Meeting Purpose: To present proposed design and to hear concerns from neighbors. Intended Results: 1. An understanding of overall project and Blue Hills Elementary's part in it 2. An understanding of proposed design elements 3. List of concerns shared by neighborhood residents INTRODUCTION A. Jay Beals gave an introduction to the overall project and the process by which Blue Hills had been selected to receive detailed design development. It was stressed that the designs to be shown were in no way an "accepted" project at this point; neighbors were told that there were to be several opportunities for their concerns and ideas to be heard before the proposal became "final." B. Both Irene and Jenny stated that the reason athletic fields were being given such a strong consideration was because in public decision - making meetings in recent years, the need and desire for increased youth athletic fields was voted to be the top priority —this coming from members of the community, not just from the City. In fact, the two highest priorities were the creation of new athletic fields and the renovation of existing facilities . PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED DESIGN ELEMENTS A. Jay presented the design proposals and stressed that they were just that, proposals, and that plans were not going forth to build what we were presenting; that we were F:Wobs98198 -12 Saratoga ConsultinglMeeting ItemsTublic Meetings\BlueHiRsMeeting Report.doc Opp Is Meeting Minutes for: Blue Hills Public Meeting Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Devel. Meeting Date: Thursday, November 19, 1998 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Location: Blue Hills Elementary School there to gather the input from concerned neighbors and parents. These concerns would then be used to help refine the designs as the process went further. The major elements of the three proposed designs were: 1. Option 1: a. Renovation of the turf at the school site, including irrigation. b. Renovation of the Azule Park site to a turf area. C. Planting of trees around the site for shade and screening purposes. d. Construction of a permanent restroo m/co n cess io n/sto rage facility. e. Construction' of picnic and play areas f. Construction of a perimeter walking /jogging path g. Re- grading the southeast corner to facilitate access to the overpass. h. Expand the on -site parking directly to the east of existing lot (+ 67) i. Relocate three modular bldgs., storage area, and electric panel. j. Relocate displaced asphalt hard -court k. Relocate displaced tanbark play area 2. Option 2: a —g. Same as above, except field layout is different, thereby requiring no replacement of displaced hard - court. h. Expand the on -site parking parallel to Goleta Ave. ( +63); 2 -way flow. 3. Option 3: a -k. Same as above, but with a different field layout and a different approach to the replacement of the displaced asphalt. The storage /restroom /concession facility was also moved further toward the highway, in an attempt to decrease the noise and the proximity to the school's property. B. Issues which were being considered when the designs were done: 1. That safety for children and neighbors was a primary concern. 2. That any asphalt hard -court displaced must be replaced in a useable manner 3. Any on -site storage areas disturbed by the plans would have to be replaced 4. That the School District may be expanding in the future, creating a need for more modular buildings. III. OPEN FORUM FOR DISCUSSION A. Jay then opened the floor up for comments, questions, concerns, etc. These concerns have been categorized and are listed below: 1. Traffic: there was concern over any increase in traffic that a new athletic facility might generate. It was felt that, already, the school had inadequate facilities for pick -up and drop -off, and the resulting U -turns and car back -ups were already creating an unsafe environment for the kids in the area. 2. Parking lot parallel to Goleta Ave.: Again, the safety of residents and children walking along Goleta was felt to be impaired by the proposed parking lot along Goleta. The YMCA facility has a lot of kids in the area also. Neighbors also felt that the lot would lead to more noise. On the other hand, some residents felt that a parking lot in this location would discourage the U- turns currently being practiced by providing parents with an off - street location where they could drive in, drop off their children, and then drive out without impacting the neighbors. It was also felt that this might be safer for the kids being dropped off. In addition, it was felt that this configuration would put users of the fields closer to the turf area, thereby encouraging them to park in the lot instead of in front of the neighbors' houses and driveways. F:Wobs%0-12 Saratoga ConsultingWeeting ItemsTubic Meetings\BlueHiRsMeeting Report.doc 2 Meeting Minutes for: Blue Hills Public Meeting Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Devel. Meeting Date: Thursday, November 19, 1998 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Location: Blue Hills Elementary School 3. Expansion of the school's parking lot (to the east): While most agreed that an expansion of the existing lot would alleviate some of the traffic concerns, the issues of noise and proximity were still in debate. It was felt that the expanded lot would still be too far from the fields and that users would continue to park in front of the neighbors along Goleta. It was also felt that an expanded lot would prove to be irresistible to teenagers who wanted to hang out there after school hours and make noise, and loiter, etc. There was also the concern that there were people who were parking and "watching" the children, and that, somehow, any proposal needed to take safety and visibility of the children into consideration. 4. The overall, proposed "park" facility: Members of the local Greenbriar Homeowner's Association made several points relating to the design. First, they made it clear that they were willing to work with the Task Force and PRC in order to come to an equitable solution. They, too, want to see the Azule site developed, but are concerned that the whole site might be devoted exclusively to soccer. They would like to see more "park" area, that would be unsuitable for soccer. They felt that the current proposals were too heavy on the side of athletics. They also felt that the "mini- park" in the southeast corner was too small. The members also mentioned that there was a kind of agreement made between the City and the residents that the Azule site would be developed into a neighborhood park, not a soccer field. It was also felt that more trees were desirable within the turf area to make it seem more park -like. On the other hand, other residents asked why people couldn't simply walk across the overpass to Kevin Moran Park and use its facilities for recreation, since it was likely not going to be developed. Another request came from a Cupertino American Little League representative who requested a dirt infield be cut on this site. 5. Access to and within the proposed site: Neighbors wanted to know if there would be a fence around the perimeter to keep people out. School District - representatives stated that, yes, there would have to be some kind of fence. Residents then asked if they would be allowed to use the "park" during school hours, and if so, how would they gain access if there was a fence? (Though the residents seemed to be in support of restricting access to the site off Goleta.) There was also much concern over whether there would be a fence down the middle of the field which would separate the "park" from the school property. It was suggested that if there were no fence the children would run, unsupervised, into unobservable areas of the site, creating a safety hazard. Who would monitor this? Some felt that simply telling the kids not to go beyond a certain point would be sufficient. Others felt that the kids should be kept closer to the monitored school play area. Another concern was that kids might find their way to the overpass and get too far away. Still others said that the proposal was simply "flat grass" which was completely observable from the current play areas, and that children really couldn't get out of sight. It was also stated that, in an ideal situation, the school would have an increased amount of turf on its site anyway, and the only reason they didn't have more space was because there wasn't any more available, except the City's Azule park site. F:Uobs98198 -12 Saratoga ConsultinglMeeting IternOubic MeetingsfteHiLLsMeeting Report.doc ,k3 �t Meeting Minutes for: Blue Hills Public Meeting Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Devel. Meeting Date: Thursday, November 19, 1998 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Location: Blue Hills Elementary School IV. CONCLUSION A. The meeting was brought to a close by Jay Beals, who thanked everyone for their concerns and their willingness to be part of the process. Though some residents were decidedly against any kind of development other than a "residential neighborhood park," there were positive statements which affirmed everyone's belief in - -and support of - -this process. It was stated that most present felt a solution could be reached which would accommodate the needs and concerns of both sides. V. MEETING SCHEDULE A. What: Blue Hills follow -up meeting (to include Congress Springs): When: Tuesday, December 8, 1998, 9:30- 11:00am Where: thebealsgroup, 2 N. Market St., Fifth Floor, San Jose Why: To review design refinements & to focus on lease /maint. agreements Who: City, School District, AYSO, CYSA, Cupertino Little League B. What: Task Force Meeting #4 When: Tuesday, December 15, 1998, 4:00- 6:OOpm Where: Saratoga City Offices Why: To present final design proposals for all study sites, and to finalize lease agreements for the four primary sites. Who: All Task Force Members End of Report F:Uobs98198 -12 Saratoga ConsuftinglMeeting ItemsTublic Meetings\BlueHilsMeeting Report.doc 4 it Meeting Report Date: 1.15.99 Meeting Type: Blue Hills Follow Up Meeting Date: 1.12.99 Meeting Time: 4:00- 6:OOpm Meeting Location: Saratoga City Offices From: Jeff Kreps, tbgi Copy to: ® All Attendees Jay Beals, tbgi thebealsgroup r 108 287 1202 F 108 287 n1h5 L i)r): Is n!Ihr:bealsyroup . c:; Fwo North M,,arket, Fifth Flo. San Jose. California 9511:. License dumber 1534 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Attendees: Irene Jacobs, City Judy Alberts, PRC Sonja Shurr, CUSD Sally Calvert, Cup. LL Bob Joyce, CYSA Bob Kong, Stga. LL Mark Linsky, AYSO David Mighdoll, CYSA This report, if not corrected within seven (7) days after receipt by any party in attendance, shall be acknowledged as an accurate report of the events that took place at this meeting. Meeting Context: Preliminary meetings with School District representatives, City staff, and User Group representatives have been completed and feedback on design proposals has been received. Public meetings have been held for this site to gather information from neighbors regarding their concerns. Proposal is close to being finalized, but we have design revisions and details of the lease and maintenance agreement to work out. Meeting Purpose: 1) Review how we got here and discuss next steps 2) Review design proposals and associated costs 3) Discuss elements of a draft lease /maintenance agreement Intended Results: 1) Reach consensus on: Design, Lease language, Maintenance Costs, Construction Costs. I. INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME Il. PROJECT REVIEW A. Jay Beals introduced the project by revisiting the events leading up to the present. Briefly: the Task Force had recommended Blue Hills as a primary study site; design proposals were drawn up and presented to the City, School District for comments, revised before a public meeting, and then further revised to include feedback from the public. The present meeting would be to review those revised proposals,- arrive at consensus regarding one of the alternatives, and recommend that plan to the Task Force with any modifications. Jay stressed the importance of this meeting because the Task Force would be asked to make a final recommendation to the PRC and City Council based on input from this meeting. F:Wobs98198 -12 Saratoga ConsuftingWeeting ItemsTolbw up meetings\MtgRptBH2- 1.12.99.doc s Meeting Minutes for: Blue Hills Follow Up Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: 1/12/99 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Location: City Offices B. Jay reviewed the primary motivators for developing the Blue Hills site: The Community is in desperate need of athletic fields for its children; the current field system is overused and this site would, help lessen the burden at the other sites, which, in turn, would help keep maintenance issues under control; it was a tremendous opportunity for the City to partner with the School District to provide space for recreation, as well as to provide some type of joint maintenance agreement wherein the burden would not be placed on any one entity. C. Jay spoke briefly about maintenance issues and costs, outlining the various "levels" that could be provided at different costs. All present were reminded that a key issue was not simply getting the facility built, but keeping it maintained to the level desired by the various groups involved. Put bluntly, if maintenance money was not available through some combination of the involved groups, then the facility would not be built and money would be spent on existing fields. All agreed that the need for more fields was sufficient reason to find a way to pay for maintenance — provided they were assured of getting what they were paying for. D. For comparison, Mark Linsky asked what "level" of maintenance Congress Springs was currently receiving. He was told that maintenance probably fell into the "base" category, which is a "minimum." III. SITE REVIEW A. A review of the previous Blue Hills proposals was given. Four alternatives had been presented to the public for comment. A very brief summary of public comment on the four previous design proposals revealed that the major concern was for the safety of children /parents in the area —which relates to the issues of traffic patterns, speeding, volume, etc. It was also felt that the existing traffic situation was terrible, and any increase would not only make it worse during school hours, but also carry over into after - school hours and weekends. Another major complaint was that they felt if the space was going to be developed, then there should be more of an effort to provide park space for them that was not "flat grass." Some neighbors also were concerned about noise. B. After review, the four plans were refocused into the two current proposals. Major competing elements were: safety at the school site, location of increased parking, traffic patterns, field layout, design and size of the expanded "public park ", cost, etc. In summary: 1. Proposal 2A provided for: An additional parking lot parallel to Goleta Ave. (63 spaces); an east/west field layout which was less than ideal from a player's standpoint, but which was positive in terms of helping to prevent balls from going into neighbors' yards or into the freeway corridor; a restroom /concession facility, and a large public park area. Turf displaced by the new parking lot would be regained by converting the current mulch /tree border on the school site primarily into turf. 2. Proposal 3A provided for: Additional parking (67 spaces) to be extended into the school property from the existing lot (this parking lot configuration would necessitate relocating several modular classrooms and relocating displaced school hard -court and tanbark areas); a north /south field layout which allowed for the possibility of conflict with the north neighbors and for balls to possibly enter the freeway corridor; a restroom /concession facility; a large public park area. F:Uobs98198 -12 Saratoga ConsultingWeeting ItemsTolbw up meetingslMtgRptBH2- 1.12.99.doc 2 Meeting Minutes for: Blue Hills Follow Up Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: 1/12/99 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Location: City Offices C. Fencing options for both proposals were discussed. Key points were: the ability of the school to restrict who has access to their property during school hours; being able to monitor the children visually from the hard -court area; allowing the public maximum space for school -hour use; providing fencing such that it doesn't encroach on the field areas. D. The forum was then opened for discussion about the two proposals. 1. Sonja Shurr stated that, from the School's point of view, Option 2A provided them with more flexibility to rearrange the modular classrooms in the future to maximize the safety and visibility of the children. She felt that extending the parking lot into the school property (as in 3A) would restrict their options. She also felt that the extended parking lot would be an invitation for people to speed through it, since it was the policy of the School District not to use speed bumps. 2. Bob Kong asked if the facility would be soccer only. It was presented that the site would be grass only, with no cut infields, but that practice backstops were certainly planned —since the School uses them for their activities anyway. 3. It was also mentioned that the hope was to provide large fields at this site so that the older kids could play there, and that this would help reduce the traffic during non - school hours. This would also lessen the burden at other sites— which would, in turn, reduce maintenance requirements an costs. 4. Judy Alberts voiced concern for the safety of the children as they traveled from the proposed parking lot along Goleta Ave. to the School or the YMCA facility. She felt that circulation issues would definitely need to be worked out, and that access to the parking lot might have to be restricted and /or monitored during the day. In addition, fencing would need to be put up between the parking lot and the field area. 5 It was agreed by all that the proposed parking lot along Goleta Ave. would be in better proximity to the fields and that it would definitely lessen the problems with parking on- street and U- turning. It would also provide an opportunity for parents to pull into a "safe" area off the street to pickup and drop off their kids. However, it was also agreed that the parking lot would be directly across from neighbors and would need to be designed so as to minimize conflicts, both functionally and aesthetically. 6. The cost and need for a restroom facility was brought up. Bob Joyce said that simply providing portable toilets was dramatically cheaper.and had worked well at other sites. Mark Linsky stated that they really didn't need a concessions facility— restrooms would suffice. It was proposed that a concrete pad and minimal structure be constructed to house the portables. It was agreed that, though portables were less expensive, there tended to be resistance to them from an aesthetic standpoint. It was agreed that if the "portable" option was chosen, then the utilities should be provided and "capped" so that future construction of a formal restroom facility could be undertaken, if desired. 7. Ultimately, when asked to choose between the two proposals, everyone agreed that while both plans had many things to be worked out, proposal "2A" seemed to accommodate the needs of each of the concerned parties the best, though representatives from both Little League groups re- stated F:Uobs98198 -12 Saratoga ConsultingWeeting ItemsTobw up meetingslMtgRpt8H2- 1.12.99.doc 3 Meeting Minutes for: Blue Hills Follow Up Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: 1/12/99 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Location: City Offices their opinion that a "skinned" infield was also needed in this part of town. Therefore it is the plan in proposal 2A (with minor modifications) which will be taken forward to the Task Force for final "approval." IV. POTENTIAL MAINTENANCE COSTS A. Costs for maintenance of turf areas at various "levels" were presented. Jay stated that the numbers were general, and were based on information provided by the School District, City, and private landscape contractors. The costs for similar service varied from group to group, which made direct comparison difficult, but "orders of magnitude" were at least evident. In this way, members were able to see how much "extra" it would cost per acre of turf to increase the maintenance standards. The costs also gave a general idea of how much money the user groups would have to come up with to make the project possible. B. Regarding who would perform the maintenance, Sonja Shurr stated that the School District would not allow an outside contractor to perform the work (because of union issues). And since the City cannot bear the burden of any increased maintenance, it was suggested that the school maintenance staff could takeover the additional turf areas provided they were compensated, and provided they were able to perform the chosen "regime" to the satisfaction of the various user groups. C. Mark Linsky expressed concern about entering into an agreement with a union who might have their own "agenda " — meaning: How would the groups be sure that they were going to get what they were paying for? This concern was echoed by Bob Joyce and others. D. Jay said the easiest way to maintain control over quality is to make everything as easy as possible for the School District; let them do what they can and then have the users and the City pick up the rest (if an agreement can be reached with the School District). E. It was asked whether the maintenance fees were "seasonal" or "yearly." Jay explained that any maintenance agreement would be yearly, and would include monthly work to be accomplished to set standards (accounting for weather, etc.) F. Several user group representatives asked whether they would have any control over who used the site? It was explained that no one could be excluded from using the site, but that the fee - paying, "permitted" users would have set rights to times and locations that would be "inviolable." Essentially, this boils down to a significant scheduling situation. All users who are paying want to feel like they're able to use the fields they're paying for. On the other hand, users felt they should be able to impose certain restrictions on field use since they were going to be paying for maintenance. G. David Mighdoll asked what mechanism the City had to generate funds for this type of thing and stated that he felt, since the park was public, the City should find some way to absorb the cost of maintenance. Irene Jacobs, with the City, agreed, but stated that for a number of financial reasons, the City was currently unable to do that. However, she pointed out that the solution of having "someone else" pay for maintenance should be considered an "interim" solution, and that the users and others should take it upon themselves to try to create awareness in the public eye such that it might be possible to pass another tax or bond measure which would provide the necessary funds for park maintenance in the future. Everyone present agreed that it would take strong leadership in the community and a huge Brass -roots effort to pass such a measure. F:Wobs98198 -12 Saratoga Consulting \Meeting ItemsTolow up meetings\MtgRptBH2- 1.12.99.doc 4 ,N# Meeting Minutes for: Blue Hills Follow Up Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev. Meeting Date: 1/12/99 Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Meeting Location: City Offices V. LEASE /MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT A. When asked if they were willing to enter into discussion about jointly paying the maintenance fees indicated in the maintenance projections, representatives from each of the groups present stated that they were at least willing to discuss the situation, though there was much debate about how each group would be charged, and how the fees would be split —for instance, Little League felt that the fees should be tied to their usage. B. CYSA stated that they were willing to enter into some type of agreement provided they had some control over the "quality" of both the construction and maintenance of the site. C. AYSO felt that the fees should not be assessed on a "per- person" basis, but rather on a site -by -site basis according to projected maintenance costs and according to the "type" and "amount" of use for each of the various groups. D. CYSA and LL representatives felt that a per - person fee was better, or perhaps a fee charged "by- the - hour." E. Jay suggested that there be a central "body" which would handle the scheduling, permitting, fee collection, fee distribution, etc. He also suggested that this same "body" would be responsible for setting forth and monitoring the maintenance regime. F. At the end of the discussion, the most important issue had been agreed to —that all groups were willing to come up with a portion of the projected maintenance fees. This agreement. provides that the Blue Hills project site can go forward to the Task Force for approval. However, the mechanics and specifics of fee assessment, monitoring, etc. are still to be decided —we hope at the Task Force meeting on Tuesday, January 19. VI. NEXT STEPS A. As of this writing, a "pre- meeting packet" has been sent to all Task Force members in preparation for the final Task Force meeting. VII. SCHEDULE A.: Task Force Meeting #4 Tuesday, January 19, 1999 Saratoga City Offices 4:00- 6:OOpm End of Report F:Uobs98198 -12 Saratoga ConsultingWeeting Items\FoUow up meetings\MtgRpt8H2- 1.12.99.doc 5 W i W W W i i V i i WVW W i W W i W \ W O HI&MAY 85 CORRIDOR i i V i W i W i i W W i i V i i i W i i W 16=0 V i W i i i i i i iW���i� i i i i i W i i V i i W i i i W i i i i V i i W i i i i W i W W O W W ' b TENNIS COURTS/ i W W i W i W W W W W W i W W W W W W W i i i i V i W V i i i i W i i i i i W W i i V T—m" TURF AREA O— �iBiOVATION OF 2 E� rN6 TueF AREk Mo#o%E FEW LAYOJTi O—FOnmo L R040VAIM OP INFO.0 A WZAG ® -4EYAM TO RA4MTOPS. w-swA "s, ETC. CITY OF SARATOGA PARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY PLANmmCONGRESS SPRINGS , SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA agr I" YY �� avq� 1 s 1 s J�T W W i • W W W W i i y W W W i W i i i i i B W i i i i W W i i i i i i i i i i i i i W W 1 LIMIT OF V40KK — PROPERTY LINE 1 1 i W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W i W W W W W Bi W i W i i W i i e W i i W i i i i W i i CITY OF SARATOGA PARK DEVELOPMENT FOOTHILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA FOOTHILL ELEMENTARY SGHOOL PRO twos= IMPROVEMENTS 1A TROOM FACILITY W/ IONS AREA AND STORAGE I - DRINKIN6 FOUNTAINS 1O�OVERED mxpovrs �D ES rTTMANITCoHIN6 t=1E AIRS TO EKISTIN6 TOPS/AMENME5 -C.UT INFIELDS i LACE FINES ATE TURF AREAS, lNCUVN6PM&ATkM -*m AREA BEHNO BACACSTOP OVE 4 R PLACE AND INSTALL NETTIN6 AT Sovn4ERN PR WMTY LINE. &-mOVE Ye5TERN -MOST coNP 40 FELT NORTH. lNr P! p4 iIs mw - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ---------------- -------------- 'VIA, I %%% /rid �. �i --- --- -- --- --- MARSHALL LANE ELEMENTARY FqRoposw IMPROVEMENTS: BACKSTOP FACILITIES (�TH=IELVS GUT FOR llFjA~ll AND T-BALL LEVELS OF PLAY— INCLUDES BATTING AND PITCHING GA61!5, AND COVERED DUCPOUTS. t1 TRZ)OM FACILITY N/ ZVENIMICTURE 4 STOKA61E (��-VKINKIN6 FOUNTAINS (2) 10 - RENOVATION OF TURF AREAS, 153 tctL.UVINi5 IRK16ATION SYSTEM. le .11ON OF SCHOOL 1: t z=T AREA IMPACTED t — POSSIBLE RZI—OCAMON, OF Y AREA. CITY OF SARATOGA PARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MARSHALL LANEomPRELIMINARY PLAN SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Mona WNW �� .. - �� �� /� l -_ - =fit � ►�. r ����� "•— WMA •I• .CL... .4A. ..9r AgA.. G�.I; I DPTION CITY a BLUE 4aRAT0[ ILRATOUA PARK o I I C Ia71 ii C L31H •I_ J=l• a 1 -29 -1999 6:54PM FROM THE BEALS GROUP 408 287 0165 P.2 01/29/99 City of Saratoga Park Development Project Summary of Projected Construction and Maintenance Costs Please use this information to supplement the site designs provided. NOTES: 1) While the paragraphs below name certain parties as being responsible for various maintenance activities, these assignments are merely based on past agreements and/or a logical course of action. All maintenance responsibilities and the method of accountability are to be determined at Task Force meeting #4! 2) Also, it should be noted that all construction and maintenance costs are preliminary and subject to revision. 3) Field renovation costs given for Marshall Lane, Foothill, and Congress Springs are based on a "Level 2b' or "moderate" field renovation program which includes irrigation system replacement. To move up to the next "Level' —which is field "upgrade =the costs would increase by roughly 3.5 times. (Construction at the higher "upgrade" level would also necessitate an increase in maintenance routines to "level B. ") I. BLUE HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL — A. Preliminary estimate of probable construction costs: 1) Total cost (including complete field /irrigation renovation, parking lot along Goleta Ave., drinking fountain, paths and play /picnic areas): $1,100,000 2) Potential cost of adding a permanent restroom facility: $100,000 B. Estimated maintenance costs at "base" level (for descriptions of each of the maintenance "levels,' please see the draft lease /maintenance agreement): 1) School District Property: (3.36 acres @ $4218 /acre) i) Turf areas: $14,170/yr. ii) *Landscaped areas: 2) Azule Property: (2.46 acres) i) Turf areas: $10,370 /yr. ii) *Landscaped areas: C. Estimated turf maintenance costs at "Level A:' 1) Additional cost to maintain School District Property: $7,780 /yr 2) Azule property: $16,0701yr D. Estimated turf maintenance costs at "Level B:" 1) Additional cost to maintain School Dist. Prop.: $25,340/yr 2) Azule Property: $28,930/yr. E. Party responsible for maintenance: 1) Turf areas: School District 2) Landscaped areas: City of Saratoga 3) Restroom facility (if constructed): City of Saratoga *The costs for maintaining non -turf areas will be determined by the City and the School District. \\Fi1eser,wWgjectsUobs98\98 -12 Saratoga ConsukingNaeting ItemsWask Force #4\Cost9ummaryPreTF4.doc 1 -29 -1999 6:55PM FROM THE BEALS GROUP 408 287 0165 P.3 01/2.9/99 II. MARSHALL LANE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL — A. Preliminary estimate of probable construction costs: 1) Total cost (including two backstop facilities, restroom facility with a shade structure, drinking fountains, turf/irrigation renovation, relocation of impacted School hard -court area): $220,000 2) Potential cost of relocating the existing play area: $11,250 3) Potential cost of simply renovating existing turf area: $140,000 B. Estimated maintenance costs at "base" level (for descriptions of each of the maintenance "levels," please see the draft lease /maintenance agreement): 1) School District Property: (2.96 acres @ $4218 /acre) i) Turf areas: $12,480/yr. ii) *Infield areas. C. Estimated turf maintenance costs at "Level A:" 1) Additional cost to maintain School District Property: $6,860/yr 2) *Infield areas: D. Estimated turf maintenance costs at "Level B:" 3) Additional cost to maintain School Dist. Prop.: $22,330/yr 4) *Infield areas: E. Party responsible for maintenance: 1) Turf areas: Campbell School District 2) Infield areas: Quito Little League and other "Permitted Users" 3) • Restroom facility (if constructed): Quito LL & other Users *The costs for maintaining infield areas and the restroom facility will be borne by the User Groups, under agreement with the School District as to "acceptable standards." Ill. FOOTHILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL — A. Preliminary estimate of probable construction costs: 1) Total cost (including restroom /concession /storage area, drinking fountains, covered dugouts, batting /pitching cages): $145,000 and /or: 2) Potential cost of simply renovating the existing turf : $120,000 B. Estimated maintenance costs at "base" level (for descriptions of each of the maintenance "levels," please see the draft lease /maintenance agreement): 1) School District Property: (2.5 acres @ $4218 /acre) i) Turf areas: $10,545/yr. ii) *Infield areas: C. Estimated turf maintenance costs at "Level A:" 1) Additional cost to maintain School Dist. Prop.: $5,800 /yr 2) *Infield areas: D. Estimated turf maintenance costs at "Level B :" 3) Additional cost to maintain School Dist. Prop.: $18,855/yr 4) *Infield areas: 11F3eseave"ects\Jdx9819&12 Saratoga CoriaAngWeeting 44ms\Task Force *41Co$tSummWRreTF4,doC 1 -29 -1999 6:55PM FROM THE BEALS GROUP 408 287 0165 P.4 01/29/99 E. Party responsible for maintenance: 1) Turf areas: Saratoga Union School District 2) Infield areas: LG /S Girls Softball and other "Permitted Users" 3) Restroom facility (if constructed): LG /S Girls Softball & other Users *The costs for maintaining infield areas and the restroom facility will be borne by the User Groups, under agreement with the School District as to "acceptable standards." IV. CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK- A) Preliminary estimate of probable construction costs: 1) Field renovation: $270,000 2) Misc. upgrades and repairs to existing facilities: $75,000 B. Estimated maintenance costs at `base" level (base costs for the City are higher than those given for the School District): 1) City Property: $10,600 /acre /yr. (including indirect costs) i) Turf areas: $61,700 /yr. ii) Infield areas: C. Estimated turf maintenance costs at "Level B 1) Additional cost to maintain City Property: $6,7451yr 2) *Infield areas: D. Party responsible for maintenance: 3) Turf areas: City of Saratoga 4) Infield areas: Saratoga Little League "The costs for maintaining infield areas and the restroom facility will be borne by the User Groups, under agreement with the School District as to "acceptable standards." \\Fhwerver\p *ft\jobsM6 -12 Saratoga Consur6ngWoming Items \Task Foroe *4\CostsumnwyPreTF4.doc 1 -27 -1999 6:36PM FROM THE BEALS GROUP 408 287 0165 P. 1 T 408 287 4202 F dog 267 0165 E bears @lnebealsgroup.corn Memorandum thebealsgroup Two North Market, Filth Fluur Date; 1.27.99 San Jose, California 35113 License Number 1534 To: City of Saratoga From: Jeff Kreps Attn: Irene Jacobs Subject: Revised Costs Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Development CC: Lynne Dickerson Project Ref. No.: 98 -12 Irene, I spoke with Lynne Dickerson regarding the projected costs for the Marshall Lane field renovation, and she felt that the price quoted at last night's meeting (roughly $621,000) was indicative of a "formal" and very nice set of fields, but was beyond the need of the kids who would be playing on these fields. Accordingly, she asked if there was any way we could reduce the cost in the hope of making the project even more attractive. I told her that we could --the rough cost projection adjustments are shown below: Baseball Fields: $60,000 1each x2 = $120,000 Turf Renovation: one lump sum Restroom Facility; one lump sum Relocate play area: one lump sum Please call me with any questions. Jeff Kreps $140,000 _ $100,000 $11,250 Total = $371.250 End of Memorandum or / I q *P%9,041tol �4 To be updaledWemolreoeCosts1 .27.99.doc 1 F_ Vol. 45, No. ednesday, Decem6er23; 1998 /MARSHALL LANE ' RESIDENTS MOUNT OPPOSITION TO PLAYFIELDS PLAN - -,-Residents tell City Council " ................ :........................... ...................:........... Debate heats -u� over issue ............. .........................:......... ............................... By SARAH LOMBARDO Marshall Lane -area residents opposed to playfields at Marshall Lane School were out in full force attheSaratogaCity Council meetingDec .lfi:: . The group .voiced opposition to pro- posed plans for the school playfields and gave councilmembers information pack- ets that included letters from residents and a petition signed by almost 65 Marshall Lane neighbors opposed to the plan. Residents said the city's proposal to make improvements and construct sports fields on the grassy playground behind Marshall Lane School would"add to an already dan- gerous situation in the neighborhood. "We already have a traffic problem," one woman said. "That needsto be addressed." Marshall Lane dead -ends at Marshall Lane School. Streets leading into the area are narrow and do not have sidewalks. As it . is, another neighbor said, thestreets are too small to accommodate. the traffic alreadyin ., the neighborhood, much less more. The protest comes two weeks after a small group of sports league volunteers and parents sought support from. the City Council for the construction of the fields. Those parents.pointed out the desperate- need for more and improved playing fields - Initial ideas - proposed for the site by the city Parks Development -.Task Force include reconfiguring the present infields, adding restrooms and a concession stand, Plea# tum to page 11 Sri jn Marshall Lane Continued from page 1 replacing a dirt area with a hard court and planting trees. The plans for Marshall Lane School, which is one of three school sites pro- p osed to get new fields, touched'on an ongoing—and often bitter— debate between sports league officials who need more fields Jo accommodate ever - increasing rosters and residents in the Marshall Lane area who say the school can't take any increase in use._ In-.March 1997, neighbors mounted strong opposition to a- proposal from Quito Little League and the Campbell Union School District to build two base- ball fields at Marshall Lane School. 'Now, residents told councilmembers last week, the idea for sports facilities at - Marshall Lane has returned, albeit from. the city. The neighbors; one woman said, . feel betrayed. Proposals for all three school sites — Marshall Lane, Foothill and Blue Hills have yet to go back before the Parks and Recreation Commission. Once revised, the plans in concept must win the - approval of the commission and ulti- mately the City Council. Vol. 45, No. 49 Wednesday, December 9,1998 . PARENTS, SPORTS LEAGUERS VOICE SUPPORT FOR PLAYFIELD PLANS Marshall Lane residents seek support for the site Council stays out of battle .By Six LOMBARDO group of about 15 Marshall Lane= area residents sought support from the Saratoga City Council Dec. 2 for proposed plans to make improvements to playfields at the school site. The council stopped short of entering the debate between residents 'regarding the playfield plans. Newly elected mayor Jim Shaw did offer words of encouragement: "I appreciate the fact that people came and spoke [on the issue], and really hope every- one is listening," Shaw said. "If we work together, I'm certain that we can bring together something -the residents and the city can be proud of." The groups of parents and Little League . volunteers said they had heard that a peti- tion from neighbors against the plan was in the works and asked councilmembers to back plans put forth by the city's Park Development Task Force, made up of members of area sports leagues, schools, and Parks and Recreation commissioners. Initial ideas for the_ school fields put forth at a public meeting Oct. 27 included changing the configuration of the current infields, adding restrooms and a conces- sion stand, replacing a dirt area with hard court, and planting trees along the perime- ter of the site. Jay Beals, of Beals Land- scape Architecture, told residents the new fields would be used for farm-and:T ball: Please turn to page 9 MEX News ..............9 Dining ............. 30 Speak Out ... .16 Calendar ........ .32 Education .........20 . Sports .........37 Style ...........23 Legal Notices .....41 Community0lassifieds An affordable alternative to high-priced classifieds 0 o o ° rr a CD 0 n 171 Cpmw�fD �..�. w m C cai r in M W C- rn 2. R� ceo°_ CD W�_ I F°o Elly O c9 cD O rn yy� Q7 p, `►r Q. 0 y �. y b n �..a'y'�•w ='w oo �b.ti�..• Q.g 0 ° " R, O w o :? �+ O o n dA� CD �'L7.", .F � N QrH ��N O H . V1y ° c�D " ° 0 CD ' aa� MCCD - a. a :� .• � �'G G: rJ' Al O C cD G wo .'7 gr G o C17coD .; .�„ y .Cam' '» ^ 0 ° 0 MCI n N CD G cr ooi 0 w '� �v CD a� ci =­ 6'000 �a0S w yr c. =- p o fD cD a -. - :; � 0 -W-11 ' � a x ;; 0 14 rD C17 .'" `< 0 G O fD CD n ° .n . d's Km N-V'kTrP A DV 'I A�kwA i Dee�t., IkI If Ig Not all Marshall Lane residents want - fields The misleading headline "Parents, sports leaguers voice support for play field plans," in the Dec. 9 issue of the .SARATO- GA NEWS is biased. The people who spoke at the Dec. 2 City Council meeting were mostly from other cities, not Saratoga. Yourstory neglected to mention that 60 immediate neighbors_ to Marshall Lane School signed a petition against sports fields at Marshall Lane for good reasons. Your reporter was at the. Marshall Lane meeting and knew the facts: Good reporting demands. that you state all sides of the issue.. ELL6N.MARSHALL_ Saratoga LE MRS 1 RS Heritage Park would make. good playfield If we can't look back to the good old. days when we picked prunes and such, as the editorial in the Dec. 9 issue of the SARATOGA NEWS points out, then we should be able to take a_ portion of . Heritage Orchard and make it into playing fields. According to the editorial, we must act - in today's world. $o, if playing fields are a greater need, put them at that site, not into an already congested neighborhood such as Marshall Lane. . GERRY. BARRETP Marilyn Lane ?4W� �Yyy Fields will threaten neighborhood safety I am a resident of Saratoga and live on Ravenwood Drive, near the Marshall Lane School. I am deeply concerned and troubled over the. proposed redesign, development and usage of the athletic fields at Marshall Lane. I have lived on Ravenwood Drive for close to six years and planned to stay many more. The problems that I see with this proposal are as follows: Safety/Traffic: I have two young daugh- ters and a third child on the way. This neighborhood, consisting of Ravenwood Drive (Marshall Lane side of-Quito), Mar- shall Lane and Marilyn, has more than 32 young children who like to play outside and in the street. The number of children is increasing as more young couples move in. This area has limited access to Marshall Lane School, narrow streets and no side- walks. We already have a significant traf- fic problem during the week during peak . school hours. Adding more vehicle traffic during the week throughout each day exacerbates this problem. I have heard that there may be four dif- ferent Little League games proposed for each Saturday which would add poten- tially hundreds of cars traveling down our streets. There would also be AYSO soccer games as well. This poses a hazard to our children who are on in -line skates, skate boarding, riding bicycles, throwing base- 12 SARATOGA NEWS 1ANUARY20, 1999 balls and footballs, etc. This is completely unacceptable. All it takes is one accident! Quality of Life: I and many neighbors didn't move to Saratoga tone deluged with traffic during the week and weekend. The traffic is dangerous, noisy and a nuisance. Many neighbors have problems backing out of driveways because traffic backs up at Ravenwood and Marshall Lane by Quito. Increased Use: If this proposal were to take effect, Marshall Lane's field would be sought by more groups wishing to use the facilities. We would not be able to stop the increased use. We would face further traf- fic and safety problems and further degra- dation to our quality of life. While improving playing fields for kids is a good cause, it cannot be at the expense of our neighborhood. I have heard that this plan would be for the greater good of the community. Proponents say that this plan would be serving far more children than the neighborhood families affected by the decision. This would be a grave injustice. Our country was founded on the principles of respecting and protecting the rights of the individual, and of the minority. A similar proposal was rejected a few years back because of traffic and safety issues. This proposal must be stopped again. BLAIR CONRAD Ravenwood Drive Many options to consider for fields Mywife and I live in thoimmediate neigh- borhood of Marshall Lane School. We, like most of our neighbors, are very concerned about the field use expansion proposed by the city's Fields Task Force and how it will change the character of our neighborhood. The task force of "user groups" selected Marshall Lane.as . one of the priority sites to fill the need for organized sportsfieldsinour area, although no onefrom our neighbor- hood was represented in that process. Initially, we.couldn't believe that Mar- shall Lane was even being considered. Here is a small school with.verylittle.on- street parking and limited access on two narrow, dead -end residential streets. The school, traffic has already been growing steadily over the past few years to a ridiculously dan gerous level. Now, instead of traffic confined to schoolday mornings and afternoons [it will be] all day every Saturday from car trips, personnel and service vehicles for conces- sion stands, restrooms and fields. No men- tion yet has been made by any of the "user groups" about the many children in our neighborhood who use the streets and school to ride bikes, skate, play and walk. As we understand, most of the park fund to pay for the proposals came from a few large developments, notably Greenbri- arBelgrove on Saratoga Avenue. Devel- opments of this size are not likely to occur many more times in the future, so it is unlikely that the city will have this amount of funds to develop park land again. Why not use the fund to develop a sports -ori- ented park that has the space, location and access that these activities require? The suggestion of using part of the city's Heritage Orchard Park adjacent to the library is an excellent one. The whole impetus for doubling up on school use for sports came from the prob- lem of maintenance costs, which are not covered by the park fund; the school dis- tricts would . be responsible for maintain- ing the new facilities. This does not allow logic to be the first consideration in choos- ing where the fields go in. The decisions are made based on where they will be main- tained, although trying to patch in to schools' already strained resources does not seem realistic. Instead, supporting a bond to fund maintenance costs at an ath- letic park would be a realistic and achiev- able solution. And finally, the city should not discount user fees, perhaps on a.slid- ing scale, to help defray costs and assure the continuous quality of our facilities. We believe there are many long -term solutions that make sense, and that can achieve the goals of more sports fields without sacrificing people's homes to do it. If the city and the council are really com- mitted to providing all its residents with a high quality of life, they will be committed to finding the best, long -term solution, not a short -term one that will compromise so much. I hope they have the courage to try. STEVE KURASCH Ravenwood Drive PlUfield Development & Renovation Project Blue Hills School /Azule - Proposed Site In November of 1998, a Public Input Meeting was held to discuss possible playfield improvements at Blue Hills School /Azule site. A representative of Beals Landscape Architecture, hired by the city as the project manager, explained to residents in attendance the plan that had been proposed by the Playfield Task Force. Since that time, the project manager has tried to incorporate concerns raised by the residents at the November meeting into the proposed design. Attached please find a copy of the revised plan for the Blue Hills School /Azule site that was supported by the Task Force and will be recommended to the Parks and Recreation Commission for initial consideration at their regularly scheduled Commission Meeting. This meeting will be held on Monday, February 1, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the Adult Day Care Center located at 19655 Allendale Avenue in Saratoga. The Commission will hear from members of the community at this meeting and then forward a recommendation to the City Council concerning this issue in March. Please note that a traffic study will be conducted if and when the City Council approves the improvements to the proposed school sites and before any development occurs. The results of the study would be accessible to the public and open to comment. Below, please find a list of several meeting dates and times that have been scheduled concerning the Playfield Project. You are encouraged to share your ideas, concerns or comments with the Parks and Recreation Commission and /or the City Council. Please send any written correspondence to Saratoga City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, 95070. Your participation in this process is appreciated. Please feel free to contact city staff to answer any questions or to confirm meeting locations and times (408) 868 -1200. City Council Study Session Adult Day Care Center 19655 Allendale Avenue January 26, 1999 @ 7:30 p.m. (City staff and the Project Manager will brief the City Council on the status of the project and answer any relevant questions the City Council might have at this point in the process. There will be no recommendation before the Council and no action will be requested of the Council this evening.) Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting Adult Day Care Center 19655 Allendale Avenue February 1, 1999 @ 7:30 p.m. (I'he Commission will consider the recommendation from the Playfield Task Force and determine whether to move the recommendation forward as is or make modifications to the proposal before meeting with the City Council in March. Please note that additional meetings may be scheduled with the Parks and Recreation Commission depending upon the input that is received by the public that evening.) School Board MeednLys: Each school board will be asked to conceptually agree to the proposed field renovation or project development on their existing playfield site. A joint -use agreement, outlining the specifics of the project, including maintenance details, will come before the school boards at a later date if and when the project is approved for development. Saratoga Union School District Board Meeting Redwood Middle School, Library 13925 Fruitvale, Saratoga February 23, 1999 @ 7:30 p.m. Campbell Union School District Board Meeting District Offices 155 North Third Street, Campbell February 25, 1999 @ 7:30 p.m. Cupertino Union School District Board Meeting District Offices 10301 Vista Drive, Cupertino February 23,1999 @ 7:30 p.m. Joint City Council and Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting Council Chambers /Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga March 9, 1998 @ 7:30 p.m. At this meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission will make a formal recommendation to the City Council concerning the playfield project. If the recommendation is approved, staff will then be directed to retain services to prepare an environmental impact report for the proposed sites. This process is lengthy and allows for public input throughout the process. adz -J r OPTION CITY C BLUE SARATOC or I I1 s_ 1• .Gt .4F.. . F� _ nA... SARATOGA PARK D Jii 1 0 Z A VI 11 W W •l: J_1• Playfield Development & Renovation Project Marshall Lane School - Proposed Site In October of 1998, a Public Input Meeting was held to discuss possible playfield improvements at Marshall Lane School. A representative of Beals Landscape Architecture, hired by the city as the project manager, explained to residents in attendance the plan that had been proposed by the Playfield Task Force. Attached please find a copy of the proposed plan for Marshall Lane School playfield improvements. The proposed plan was supported by the Task Force and will be recommended to the Parks and Recreation Commission for initial consideration at their regularly scheduled Commission Meeting. This meeting will be held on Monday, February 1, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the Adult Day Care Center located at 19655 Allendale Avenue in Saratoga. The Commission will hear from interested members of the community at this meeting and then forward a recommendation to the City Council concerning this issue in March. Please note that a traffic study will be conducted if and when the City Council approves the improvements to the proposed school sites and before any development occurs. The results of the study would be accessible to the public and open to comment. Below, please find a list of several meeting dates and times that have been scheduled concerning the Playfield Project. You are encouraged to share your ideas, concerns or comments with the Parks and Recreation Commission and /or the City Council. Please send any written correspondence to Saratoga City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, 95070. Your participation in this process is appreciated. Please feel free to contact city staff to answer any questions or to confirm meeting locations and times (408) 868 -1200. City Council Study Session Adult Day Care Center 19655 Allendale Avenue January 26, 1999 @ 7:30 p.m. (City staff and the Project Manager will brief the City Council on the status of the project and answer any relevant questions the City Council might have at this point in the process. There will be no recommendation before the Council and no action will be requested of the Council this evening.) Parks & Recreation Commission Meetin Adult Day Care Center 19655 Allendale Avenue February 1, 1999 @ 7:30 p.m. (The Commission will consider the recommendation from the Playfield Task Force and determine whether to move the recommendation forward as is or make modifications to the proposal before meeting with the City Council in March. Please note that additional meetings may be scheduled with the Parks and Recreation Commission depending upon the input that is received by the public that evening.) School Board Meetings: Each school board will be asked to conceptually agree to the proposed field renovation or project development on their existing playfield site. A joint -use agreement, outlining the specifics of the project, including maintenance details, will come before the school boards at a later date if and when the project is approved for development. Saratoga Union School District Board Meeting Redwood Middle School, Library 13925 Fruitvale, Saratoga February 23, 1999 @ 7:30 p.m. Campbell Union School District Board Meeting District Offices 155 North Third Street, Campbell February 25, 1999 @ 7:30 p.m. Cupertino Union School District Board Meeting District Offices 10301 Vista Drive, Cupertino February 23,1999 @ 7:30 p.m. Joint City Council and Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting Council Chambers /Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga March 9, 1998 @ 7:30 p.m. At this meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission will make a formal recommendation to the City Council concerning the playfield project. If the recommendation is approved, staff will then be directed to retain services to prepare an environmental impact report for the proposed sites. This process is lengthy and allows for public input throughout the process. ............ .. ... .. .. . WZA / rte► 'a VIA VAIM. MARSHALL LANE ELEMENTARY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: 1A TWO BACKSTOP FACILITIES INFIELDS GUT FOR "FARM" AND T-BALL LEVELS OF PLAY. INCLUDES BATTIN6 AND PITGHIN6 GA6ES, AND COVERLEP DUGOUT'S. 1B TROOM FACILITY W/ t6NCZ5510N AREA 4 5TORASE z)- DRINKING FOUNTAINS (2) ,�, -�- - -- -- -J 1 tct - RENOVATON OF TURF ARFA5, y y y B LUD IN6 IRRIGATION 5Y517EM. �, .i. .v_ _ •� t=,TMON OF S CHOOL AREA IMPACTED BY FIELD. 1 i , •v � w � � A � w w � •v � tYA 055 1BLE RELAGATION OF REA. �41 CITY OF SARATOGA PARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT lNr MARSHALL LANEPmPRELIMINARY PLAN .� 4 pMMTOGAI CALIFORNIA