 |
|
|
|
|
To the Community: Seeking Common Ground
During the past several months, the Saratoga News has published commentaries and many letters about the eucalyptus trees and traffic associated with modernizing Saratoga School. Unfortunately, much of this discussion has been based on incomplete information.
The Saratoga Union School District began discussing a Master Facilities Plan in 1996. With the passage of Measure D, our general obligation bond, the district established facilities site committees at each school to develop individual site plans and designs. Parents, school faculty and administrators, and the district's architects made up these committees.
The facilities site committee for Saratoga School met two to three times each month during the 1997-98 school year. All parents, neighbors, and others interested in planning the school's improvements were welcome to attend. The committee discussed classroom layout, staff needs, and building and playground design. In addition, the district hired arborists and environmental consultants to study the project's impact on the community and its cultural and environmental heritage.
From the beginning, the new playground design called for leveling the field behind the school. Children cannot use the field during the winter months because so much water collects there. But leveling the field necessitates removing the eucalyptus globulus tree at the edge of the field's midline, because a level field will cover the tree's root system with at least two feet of dirt. According to the district' arborists, this plan would jeopardize the tree's health. Another large eucalyptus at the corner of the field could be spared removal, but only if the field dipped down in that corner to avoid burying its roots.
The facilities site committee debated options that might preserve these two trees and presented the options to the governing board at the board's Oct. 12, 1998, meeting. Each of these options required constructing a drainage swale, at least 30 feet away from the trees' trunks and running the length of the field, with a bridge crossing the swale. The large swale posed significant problems for disaster evacuation while severely impinging on student use of the playfield. The committee and the governing board also feared the bridge might become a de facto "play structure" endangering students and increasing the need for playground supervision.
The governing board discussed the committee's options at eight public meetings over four months before voting to approve a plan that included a level field. The board did not reach its decision hastily. It recognizes that these trees have been part of the community landscape for many decades, and many parents and neighbors grew up in their shadow. But today's children need appropriate play areas. Our experts tell us we cannot have both the playfield and the trees. Although the board continues to discuss options with its arborists and the city, we remain committed to providing Saratoga School students with a complete, modern education, which necessarily includes physical exercise and sports.
We also remain committed to student and neighborhood safety. The district and Saratoga School have developed traffic circulation plans with suggested drop-off and pick-up routes and locations. The school continually informs parents about these plans and encourages them to follow the plans or to carpool.
As part of its task, the facilities site committee debated several parking and circulation alternatives. Each alternative comes with a steep price. For example, enlarging the parking lot will threaten the continued viability of the large oak trees at the front and rear of the lot while adding only seven parking spaces. Adding a large turnout lane on Oak Street will require removing two oak trees close to the existing curb. Adding a smaller turnout in front to the main building will eliminate the grass area in front of the school and diminish the importance of the school's formal, historical entrance. Changing traffic patterns and on-street parking to improve circulation near the school are tasks the city, not the district, must undertake.
The district is pleased that the city has recently hired a traffic engineer to study these and other city traffic issues. The district intends to continue its dialogue with the city and with school neighbors to improve circulation and enhance safety in and around Saratoga School.
District representatives also met with the city's heritage preservation and public safety commissions. We are willing to listen to each group's unique interests and, whenever possible, to meet those needs while maintaining a safe and productive learning environment for our children. We want to improve communications with our community and work together to prevent future conflicts. Threats of litigation by any party are counterproductive and divisive and do not build trust or identify solutions.
We have to reach a final decision about the Saratoga School improvements now. Modernization of Redwood Middle School (Phase I) and Saratoga School is scheduled to begin in June. We plan to modernize Foothill and Argonaut schools in 2000 and Redwood Middle School (Phase II) in 2001. If we cannot approve a project for Saratoga School by April 1, we cannot begin construction this year, and the remaining school projects may be pushed back, at an estimated cost increase of 4 percent per year.
We believe in collaboration. Collaboration builds a sense of community and is an integral part of the philosophy we apply to our decision-making process as well as to our educational goals. As the process of modernizing Saratoga School continues, we remain committed to finding common ground that will meet our students' needs and also preserve our community's beauty, safety, and history.
Saratoga Union School District Board of Trustees: Cindy Ruby, Stephanie Petrossi, Bonnie Yamaoka, Aileen Kao, Stan Perry
|
|
|
|
Saratoga, California Since 1975
