Saratoga News Letters Everyone benefits from playfields After reading the letters by Blair Conrad and Steve Kurasch in the Jan 20 issue of the Saratoga News, I felt a response was called for. The task force on playfields has spent a lot of time and energy trying to determine how the limited funds can benefit the majority of the children in the area. The recommendations being proposed are only recommendations. They will still have to be presented to and approved by the City Council. Even if the recommendations are accepted and approved by the City Council as presented, it is not final. At such point the city will request that an environmental impact report, including a traffic study, be completed. A negative report could cause the City Council to suggest changes or even an alternative to the recommendations. Regardless of where sports fields are eventually improved or installed, there is going to be some negative impact on the area, and many residents living in the affected area(s) are going to use many arguments for why it should not be in their back yard. Saratoga has more than its share of NIMBYs (not in my back yard). Many of these same citizens would be some of the first to complain if their children were not able to participate in various community sports activities. This is so troublesome that I have given thought to a policy that if we are unable to utilize one of the selected sites because of the NIMBYs, then we should not allow children from the area to participate in Saratoga youth sports activities. This would be interesting, since it would be a disclosure that would have to be made upon the sale of the affected homes. Of course, we are not going to do this since the ones affected are the children. It is regretful, but our area has changed over the years and as the population continues to grow, the area is going to change more. I often hear the statement, "We went home and it was so nice, nothing has changed." Well, believe it or not there are still a few of us that were born and raised here. As a boy, the population of San Jose was 60,000 and the surrounding communities were all farms and orchards with very little population. Yes, our area has changed a great deal. I have now heard several people state that the Heritage Orchard should be turned into a sports field. There are a couple problems with this. First, that intersection is perhaps one of the busiest in Saratoga, Second, for those few natives left in the area, this Heritage Orchard is very important and as it is, because the area continues to grow, the library and library parking is already going to have to be remodeled and enlarged, taking even more of the Heritage Orchard. The traffic, for sports activities, would not be much different than it is now. As for AYSO, the field would continue to be used for practice, as it has been for years. The only difference is the field would be safe for the children. While I can not speak for Little League, it would most likely be used for practice and perhaps some games. One of the letters stated the Little League games would increase the Saturday traffic by hundreds of cars. Assuming there would be four Little League games on a Saturday, and assuming every player showed up and, further, there were no car pools, this would involve about 90 cars, not hundreds. One letter states that additional traffic creates a hazard for the local children playing in the street. I agree, but this has become the case in almost all neighborhoods; fortunately, your children can play at the school and sports field. This is a luxury that most of us do not have. Yes, times change and we must all change with the times. Over the past several years the traffic in front of my home has increased by several hundred percent, and the quality has gone from the average vehicle going a little over the speed limit to the average vehicle going 10 to 20 mph over the limit. Believe me, even though this is a community with a lot of children, we do not let them play even by the side of the road. Mr. Kurasch states: "The whole impetus for doubling up on school use for sports came from the problem of maintenance costs, which are not covered by the park fund; the school district would be responsible for maintaining the new facilities." It is true that the funds being used to improve and create the fields, which will be used by the schools, sports groups and all citizens, cannot be used for maintenance. I contacted Mary Gardner, SUSD superintendent, and Larry Perlin, Saratoga city manager, a couple of years ago stating that since the schools had some land that could be used for sports, and the city had some money to improve these fields that AYSO would like to work with the schools and the city to see if the fields could be improved and that AYSO would be willing to provide funds for maintaining the fields, or at least contribute a fair portion. This meeting was the first of this process. As it is, the different sports groups will be paying the largest portion of the field maintenance. These groups include Saratoga AYSO, Saratoga Little League, Los Gatos Girls Softball, and Cupertino DeAnza CYSA Soccer league. It should also be noted that even without the field improvements, which all will enjoy, the fields can be used by any and all citizens, when not being used by the school or reserved by a community group. It is interesting that if the schools had the money to improve these fields, they would just be improved; there would be no public hearings, impact reports or traffic studies. It is only since this is city money that hearings even have to take place. AYSO will be paying its fair share for the maintenance of the fields. AYSO has always paid the city, under a written contract, and the different schools, also under written contracts for the use of the fields during the soccer season. Additionally, Saratoga AYSO is in partnership with the Saratoga Schools. We have donated funds each year to the school so that the schools could obtain needed items. Larry Fine Regional Commissioner Saratoga AYSO School's trees are part of community The endangered trees at Oak Street School are not only a part of the school's historic character, but have been a community asset for many generations. Safe? They have never hurt any child and are 50 times safer than a soccer field and 151 times safer than a basketball court (according to National Safety Council statistics). When former Mayor David Moyles called for a neighborhood picnic several years ago, the logical place was under the shade of the trees at the school. When another neighbor had a summer party all the guests walked to the school to play volleyball under the shade of those majestic trees. Yes, the playground area near the trees has long served as a park for the immediate neighborhood. By ignoring input from the immediate neighborhood and from those parents at the school who do not wish the trees cut down, the school board has shown an unfortunate lack of respect for an historic structure that is well-loved (and was retrofitted by the city in the 1970s to make it earthquake safe), for the surrounding neighborhood, and for the community at large. Fortunately, the board can employ alternative plans, and they should be encouraged to do so. Patti Himel Lomita Avenue Consider sacrifices when building This is in response to the article by Larry Fine and Mark Linsky, in the Jan. 6 issue of the Saratoga News. Although I have no disagreements with his comments on the need for additional soccer fields; I think he missed addressing the entire picture. Simply wanting additional athletic fields doesn't mean that we must "do whatever it takes" in order to have them. We must first consider the value of the sacrifice. A similar situation exists at Saratoga School regarding the removal of the eucalyptus trees. The school district wants "improved facilities for the kids." We must first consider the sacrifice: does "for the kids" include being shaded by and enjoying the presence of stately established trees? A reprise of the "improved facilities" theme was heard once again as the justification for removing the trees at the Argonaut Shopping Center. Saratoga has already sacrificed acres of open space and ripped out heritage "messy" trees that "can drop branches." Does that mean we should remove every tree in our city because it might someday injure us or our children? If we convert small neighborhood parks to large athletic fields and remove landmark trees "for the kids," we adults have taught our children that respect for others and nature is irrelevant when we are "improving facilities." We must temper progress and improvements with thoughtful regard for others' wishes, our environment and the future of Saratoga. We must explore all options and be creative in our solutions. We must not dumbly accept the solutions offered by any special interest group. For example, there is still undeveloped land in our city that might be available for use as additional athletic fields; has anyone seriously considered exploring that option? The issue of additional athletic fields and tree removal has already pitted neighbor against neighbor. We cannot allow such problems to divide our city; too many county, state and federal agencies are attempting to do that. We must work together to find viable solutions. We Saratogans have a difficult decision to make: we must decide whether we want top-notch athletic and shopping facilities or whether we want the beauty and majesty of mature trees. Do we want to retain our unique semi-rural ambiance or do we want to sacrifice it? Do we want to look like just another bedroom community? Do we want to be a minimum services city or a provider of comprehensive services? We must carefully evaluate what is ultimately in the best interests of children, ourselves and our city. Marcia Fariss Saratoga Glen Place Clarify the facts on school's trees Here are some facts that need to be clarified about the eucalyptus trees to be removed at Saratoga School: * There are at least 37 trees being removed from the school grounds. * Ten of these trees are historical trees, meaning they're more than 100 years old. In the Jan. 13, 1922, edition of the San Jose Evening News, there is an article about the then 35-year-old eucalyptus trees being removed from behind the school. The town protested and the trees were saved. When Willys Peck, our own historian, attended Saratoga School in 1927, he remembers the eight eucalyptus trees along the side of the school, and the two trees bordering the field, as being "very large" even then. As a letter writer said in the 1922 article, "why remove huge old trees to put in tiny trees that will not shade the children for many years to come?" * To spend a great deal of bond money ($30,000 to $40,000) to remove the 37 trees, and then spend $20,000-plus to replace these same trees is outrageous. It would behoove the school board to review the landscape plan recently drawn by local landscape architect, Rebecca Dye, which utilizes the existing trees, gives parents the playfield they want, and will save the school district a great deal of money. Why create ill will in a community that respects its heritage? Jill Hunter Lomita Avenue [ Back to Contents Page | Saratoga News Home Page | Archives ] This article appeared in the Saratoga News, January 27, 1999. ©1999 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.