The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/15/1997, 6 - YOUTH ATHLETIC FIELDS councilJuly1997 j agenda nepont 156 Wul Y OF SAN LU IS O B 1 S P 0 FROM: LeSage, Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: YOUTH ATHLETIC FIELDS CAO RECONS ENIDATION 1. Affirm the CAO recommendation to suspend further discussions concerning a joint project with Cal Poly. 2. Review and amend, if desired, the list of alternate sites outlined by the Parks and Recreation Director. 3. Direct staff to proceed with the study of proposed sites and return to Council on September 16, with a specific recommendation and work plan for completing a project to develop youth athletic fields for the City. DISCUSSION Background 1. The Cal Poll ports Complex As Council is aware, talks related to the City's participation in the Cal Poly Sports Complex have been suspended. The primary reason for this action was a fundamental disagreement on the term of the City's use of the fields. Cal Poly was only able to offer the City a use agreement of 15 years, with three possible 5-year extensions. That is not a sufficient guarantee to justify an investment of $3,000,000. A secondary reason for the suspension was the terms under which the agreement would be governed. In order to protect the City's investment, the use agreement had to give all parties veto power over any changes. Without that veto power, the City could be out voted by the Cal Poly agencies that would have been party to the agreement. Cal Poly's final use agreement proposal contained language that did not give the City sufficient veto authority. 2. Alternate Sites The search for a location for sports fields will concentrate on a single site that could handle a minimlmm of four fields. This is important because it is the clear choice of field users. However, some in the community have suggested that the fields be dispersed and placed in existing neighborhood parks. That is simply not a viable alternative. With the exception of Laguna Lake Park, there is no land available in any City park, or for that matter any joint-use school site, on which to build new athletic fields. At least two of the fields at the proposed site should be capable of being lighted. As Council will recall, much of the public testimony taken while considering the project stated a preference for fields that could be used by adults as well as the youth of the community. Adult use requires night lighting. Further testimony revealed a need for space that could be used for unorganized sports play. To meet that need, the site should contain an area for "pick up" games. The proposed fields must be multi-use, capable of handling sports such as: softball, baseball, soccer, football, and field hockey. Also, the "roller sports" could be considered depending on the final location selected. "Roller Sports" include: skateboarding, roller hockey, and in-line skating. Citp-Owned Sites: In a previous report to Council, staff noted two locations owned by the City as possible field sites: The first, located at the Corporation Yard, is no longer being investigated. Due to the size of the property, it is doubtful that even three fields could be located there. Additionally, the site improvements, such as a restroom, road realignment, and infrastructure, are cost prohibitive. The second site, Laguna Lake Park, will receive an in-depth review. The positives for this site are: location, its accessibility by a major City arterial, infrastructure in place, and the topography of the site will not require extensive grading. Concerns for Laguna Lake Park include: climatic conditions such as the wind, on-site enviromnental issues, neighborhood issues (noise and light), and its acceptance by field users. In addition, this proposed use is not in compliance with the adopted Laguna Lake Master Plan. While turfed play fields are shown in the Master Plan, their use as major community athletic fields was not mentioned. Locating the field in Laguna Lake Park would require an amending of the Master Plan and close communication with the neighborhoods as to its acceptability. As part of the review of any site, staff will meet with all of the stake holders in the project: field users, concerned citizens, environmental groups, and neighborhood residents. Non-City-Owned Sites: Unless the City is very fortunate, any property acquired for field development will have to be purchased. Purchasing land means less funding for the development of fields. However, there may be sites in the community that are far superior to existing City property in their potential as sports field locations. In such a case, staff could recommend the expenditure to acquire the property. Staff will do an extensive search of potential sites in, and adjacent to, the City. There will, though, be some limits to this search: • Only properties that are for sale by willing landowners will be considered. • With the exception of the Margarita Area, because existing plans foresee fields there, property conditioned upon annexations will not be considered unless so directed by Council. The selection of a field site will be difficult enough without making it an issue in a potential annexation. In the category of properties for sale by willing landlords, staff has received one proposal. At least three other parcels may become available, but the owners have asked that they not be made public at this time. The,Martinelli R==, located on Prado Road east of Higuera, is a 20-acre portion of a larger parcel. The owners are currently asking for $1,000,000 as a sale price. The site is outside the current City limits. When staff last reviewed the proposed Margarita Area plan, four athletic fields were to be included. Two of those would have met neighborhood needs, leaving two for use by the entire community. This area is worthy of a review to see if that plan can be modified to develop four community fields. 3. Recommendation of a Specific Site: Outlined in Attachment 3 is a list of the various sites which have been suggested and staff's recommendations as to follow up. Council should review and amend the list as appropriate. Staff will next return to Council on September 16 with a recommendation on a specific site on which to construct the fields. Depending on the location, it is conceivable that the fields could be ready for play at about the same time that Cal Poly fields would have been available. The development of a timeline is critical as construction of City fields will require a greater commitment of staff time, from a number of departments, than simply funding the Cal Poly project. It will also require direction from the City Council as to the priority that the construction of athletic fields will receive. CONCURRENCES: The field project will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their August 6 meeting. Commissioners, as part of their annual parks tour, will have visited several of the sites on July 9. The Joint Use Committee will also be consulted. FISCAL IMPACT The research for the selection of the best site for City athletic fields will be done by staff. There are no additional costs. The fiscal impacts associated with the development of athletic fields will be discussed as part of the September 16 report to the City Council. Staff and the City Council are sure to hear from a number of groups and individuals wishing to secure a portion of the sports field funding for other projects. Staff recommends to Council that the focus of the funding remain the provision of athletic fields for the community, plus any mitigations necessary for the project. Other projects should stand on their own and be considered as part of the City's established budget process. ATTACHMENT 1. Schedule of meetings related to the Sports Fields Project. 2. Recent correspondence related to the Cal Poly Project(2 letters and 1 memo) 3. List of proposed sites aoYourNnTHFm.Ds.DM �-3 PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS RELATED TO THE SPORTS FIELDS (ALL MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC) "T L 77�7- T -.,,0SEi!,2� Field Users Task Force 07-28-97 12:00 noon City Rec. Center Discuss possible field (Santa Rosa8W locations E. La ph nei 66d j g Parks and Rec. Commission 08-06-97 7:00 p.m. City-County Library Discuss possible field locations ........... 16ffIt-seCommittee 5 j-g 0 Rb Ceder posszble` field ............. ...... .............. ....... Environmental Groups TBA TBA Proposed Field Sites Review environmental effects of proposed field locations Nehborhood Meeting' '7� -1, . ........... �- ----- :q-4 67, dz "to K:j ATTACHMENT' TTACHMENT 1 V/-r-q1 SITES RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATIOIN LOCTI _iIOi . ...... Laguna Lake Park 375-Acre City Park Location, accessibility, infrastructure in place, relativelyeasy to develop. Margarita Area Annexation Proposed Annexation to the Plans for the area include City park sites capable of including multiple athletic fields. Martinelli Property 20-Acre Site on Prado Road Owners of the property have East of Hi era offered it for sale to the Ci Sites not recommended for further investigation includes all sites proposed in the January status report to the City Council regarding the Cal Poly Sports Complex, and all other existing neighborhood and community parks located in the City. The list also includes other sites that have recently surfaced. Bishop Peak School/Field Highland Avenue Insufficient room to develop 4 fields. Broad Street Site Site of the former Vons Store on Property is not for sale. It is Broad Street in the best interest of the City for this property to remain commercial. C. L. Smith School 4.8 Acre Site at 1375 Balboa Site is fully developed. Joint-Use Site City Corporation Yard 8 - 10 acres South of Prado Too small, infrastructure costs Road Adjacent to Highway 101 are prohibitive. Cuesta College Highway 1 Too far from the City to effectively serve youth programs. Dalidio Annexation Potential City Annexation Area Annexation issue needs to be resolved. Duval Development L.O.V.R. and Madonna Road Proposed park site is less than 5 acres. Emerson Park 3-Acre Site at 1341 Ni omo St. Site is My developed. French Park 10-Acre Site at Morning Site is fully developed. Glory/Fuller Froom Annexation L.O.V.R. Annexation issue needs to be resolved. Hawthorne School/Fields Sto and Branch Streets Site is fully developed. Islay Hills Park 5-Acre Site at Tank Farm and Site is fully developed. Orcutt Roads ATTACHMENT 3 49ki!r SITE:_ DESCRlPTI01V/LOCATLON IE9:S011? :" _ Johnson Park 4.5-Acre Site at 1020 Site is fully developed. Southwood Laguna Hills Park 3.5-Acre Site at Diablo Drive Site is fully developed. and Miranda Drive Laguna Middle School 11050 L.O.V.R. Site is fully developed. Meadow Park 14-Acre Site at Meadow and Site is fully developed. South Streets Mitchell Park 3-Acre Site at Santa Rosa and Site is fully developed. Buchan Streets Nativity School 2-Acre Site at Daly and Jeffrey Too small, not for sale. Pacheco School/Field Grand Avenue and Slack Street Site is My developed. Pacific Beach High School L.O.V.R. Too small a site on which to develop fields. Santa Rosa Park 11-Acre Site at Santa Rosa and Site is fully developed. Oak Streets Sinsheimer Park 23.5-Acre Site at 900 Laurel Approved Master Plan does Lane not have room for any additional fields. Sinsheimer School August Street Site is fully developed. Taylor Field Old San Luis Obispo Jr. High Site is due for redevelopment. School Site Teach School/Throop Park 6-Acre Site at Cuesta Dr. and Site is fully developed. Cerro Romauldo Avenue Unocal Property A portion of the property off Until oil spill issues are Tank Farm Road could be resolved, this site is not donated to the City available. Vacant Lot 4-Acre Site at 700 Block of Too small, not for sale. Foothill CAOYOWRATFM�AWAM.00C 6-6 CAL POLY CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY SAN Luis OBISPO, CA 93407 June 26, 1997 ADMINISTRATION 6,1 FINANCE DIVISION (805) 756.2171 FAx: (805) 756-7560 John Dunn ` City Administrative Officer JUN City of San Luis Obispo 3 0 1997 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Addy �' n?1Pti jCEF c::�.E,.•y Dear John: In recent months, staff from Cal Poly and the City of San Luis Obispo have devoted substantial effort in an attempt to address the elements that would constitute an agreement between the City and the University to provide access for City Parks and Recreation programs to new University recreational fields. The University position has . been that access would be provided to the community through the City Parks and Recreation Department through a use agreement. The University agreed that it would provide all maintenance and utilities at no cost to the City and that a binding access schedule would be mutually agreed to, and in our latest offer the University would provide use for 15 years with provisions for three 5-year renewal options. At the request of City staff, we continued to explore a.longer term use agreement with the California State University (CSU) system. Negotiations with CSU staff have determined that an extension beyond a 15-year agreement with renewal terms would not be supported by the CSU Board of Trustees. In addition to achieving resolution on the term of the agreement, the use schedule, and the maintenance and utilities provisions, the expectation would be that the City of San Luis Obispo would have proportional participation in addressing capital replacement and repair costs during the term of the use agreement. This commitment is expected to be a relatively minor cost but is felt necessary to preserve the asset in a useable state. There remain a number of lesser issues yet unresolved to which we have given some consideration since staff last met. Some of these have not received the detailed discussion that has been devoted to the issues of term, use, maintenance, and capital expenses. As discussions have evolved, we reached tentative agreement on a joint use schedule. We have, however, become concerned that the expectations of the City regarding term and capital expenses and the ability of the University to meet these expectations may not be consistent. In order to proceed further, we need to reach closure on the acceptability regarding the term of the agreement, as well as the capital repair and THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY 41 / replacement responsibilities outlined in this letter. Furthermore, beginning this academic year, because we will be constructing facilities on existing recreational fields, we are. faced with time constraints in moving ahead with our replacement fields. Therefore, we would like to resolve the issue of whether or not the proposed joint venture can proceed. It is our hope that we would have your reaction as to whether you can accept the points of the proposed agreement as presented above. We would appreciate your reaction by July 15, 1997. I believe that it is important that we recognize the sincere efforts to date on the part of both the City of San Luis Obispo and the University in exploring and attempting to achieve a joint project with substantial mutual benefits. As you know, the University will proceed with the project in any case. Nonetheless, we are sensitive to the recreational needs of the community and particularly those involving youth groups. Regardless of the outcome of our joint venture proposal, it is our intention to cooperate with the community and particularly the youth groups by accommodating some level of access to the new facilities on a time available basis with an associated use fee. We look forward to hearing from you regarding a decision by the City on this particular project. Sincerely, Frank Lebens Vice President for Administration& Finance cc: W. Baker J. McCutcheon R. Kitamura W. Boldt �p'8 r a I�►►��iiiiii��►��i��Il►III��IIIIIh��'��«iii► III II city of sAn luis OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 June 26, 1997 Mr. Frank Lebens Vice President, Administration and Finance Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Dear Frank: Thank you for your letter of today's date regarding Cal Poly's position and latest offer regarding the Cal Poly playing fields. While it is unfortunate, given the hard work that has gone into it, that we have been unable to reach agreement, we want you to know that we understand the constraints imposed by the CSU system that may not have been anticipated at the outset. As you know through our discussions, the basic reason that City staff is unable to agree with your proposal is because of the differences between your earlier proposal and your present offering. Under the circumstances, I am unable to recommend the City's participation in the project to the City Council. My belief is that the City Council will accept the staff conclusion that, considering all factors, it is timely and appropriate to suspend further discussions. They may make this determination at a future time, respecting your July 151 schedule. I will subsequently inform you of the process and date. Thank you for the courtesy and professionalism that you and other Cal Poly representatives have extended to us throughout this process. Sincerely, John unn gministrative Officer /rCO, The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. �-9 MEMORANDUM June 26, 1997 TO: City Council FROM: John De�g� SUBJECT: Attached Letter from Cal Poly We have just received a faxed letter from Frank Lebens, Vice President for Administration and Finance for Cal Poly,setting forth the University's position on the Cal Poly playing fields. I will let his letter speak for itself. From my perspective, Cal Poly and the City"gave it the old college tty'but, in the end, we were not able to successfully negotiate the type of agreement which would best serve the interests of our citizens for the long term. We were not earlier aware that the California State University System would be unable to preserve the use of this land for a long enough period to justify a major investment on the part of the City. Inasmuch as presently proposed terms and conditions are substantially different from those earlier proposed, I am not able to recommend this joint participation project to the City Council. In the earliest discussions and presentations, the offer was that the City would not have to pay for maintenance, and there was no indication that the term was limited. Besides the issues mentioned above and in Mr. Lebens' letter,there were other points of discussion which have not been resolved to this point. While these issues are important, they were not as thoroughly discussed as use, tern,maintenance and"capital replacement and repair costs,"which became the more critical issues. However,two of these other issues—City representation on governing body and field replacement(if displaced)— were quite problematic as of the last negotiation session several weeks ago. For the above reasons,I am not able to recommend that the City be a participant in this project, and I will be responding on this date to Vice President Lebens to this effect. While, in many ways, it is unfortunate that Cal Poly and City representatives were not able to come to agreement on this particular matter,this should not obscure the fact that there has been and will continue to be a creative partnership-of cooperation and joint effort between the City and the University. As a reminder, I have attached some of these areas of mutual support and cooperation to this report. Overall, as a University community, the City and the University have collectively provided an outstanding example of cooperation and the shared uses of public resources. 6-/d So where to from here? The City Council in 1995 adopted the new Parks and Recreation Element which clearly identified the lack of adequate youth sports fields as the major deficiency in the City's Parks and Recreation program. In the new budget, adopted by the City Council for the next two years, $3 million has been allocated for youth athletic fields,consistent with the adopted Council Goal work program. The next step in the process, given our inability to negotiate a satisfactory agreement with the University,is for the Parks and Recreation Director and other staff to re-examine all the potential playing field sites in the City and to prepare a report as a basis for subsequent City Council decision making. Mr. LeSage informs me that he will be able to have his preliminary report on alternate site possibilities before the City Council by the July 15d meeting. Is there any good news in all this? The great news is that the City of San Luis Obispo, for the first time in its history,has money set aside to address the issue that many have lamented over the years,the lack of a sufficient number of sports playing fields for the youth of our community. From the City Council to the Parks and Recreation Director, the City is committed to develop the best solution to this long-standing issue. At this point, it appears that a reasonable course of action would be to place a staff report on the July 15'b agenda to (1) affirm the staff conclusion that it is not appropriate under present circumstances to enter into a joint facility agreement with Cal Poly on the baseball complex/youth playing fields, and(2)give initial consideration to alternative locations within the community for the development of youth sport fields. Attachment cc: Department Heads Some Areas of Cooperation and Mutual Support Between the City and University 1. The City provides fire service to the University under contract. 2. The City, the University and the State are partners in the creation and operation of the Whale Rock Reservoir, a major water supply source for the City. 3. The University has been a participant and a major contributor to the City's development of our water supply,treatment, and distribution system and our sewer collector and water reclamation system. 4. Cal Poly makes a major contribution toward the operation and maintenance of the City's transit system. 5. The City and University Administration jointly participate in the Student-Community Liaison Committee. 6. The University provides full support and assistance in the Student-Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP). 7. The two agencies and others have created the Inter-Agency Task Force on Student Housing. 8. Cal Poly provides technical support assistance to the City,under contract, for the City's Geographic Information System. 9. Cal Poly,the City, and the Foundation for the Performing Arts Center have jointly created and operated the Performing Arts Center. 10. There are numerous other areas of cooperation and mutual support. rp'�e'- JAMES T. FICKES A .I .A. MEETI G AGENDA 6 ARCHITECT PLANNER DATE 97ffEM # 4 VISTA DEL COL.LADOS SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA 805.783.2800 934015- CAO 3409CAO JU(Y 14-.) .1917 Oufoie: civ c lam Lul e Ob(sp::) iAuno, Lai Pert�, C►+Y H a I R231 rrn Strc9et' a, -dtvra°. pars- Sem furs obl&pc CA q-34CU-447ACT 1 OrCOUMCIL CDD DIR dCAOFIN DIR tY CAO p FIRE CHIEF RECEIVED 0 (`(rt ay01I': A I(M Ge+ii e r! ATTORNEY [3PW DIR IrCLERKlORIG OUCE CHF Li ' J U L 1 5 1997 ccunC( (: fj(t l Rcal('7YIa z, 'i ❑ MGMT TEAM VRFC DIR vane T2onero GIR y SLO ^.,11 CLERK pcd(e ujiIliams Tha La una. Lada ,ParK was planned for Q. Nature ter am,�0, ylagsiuv Plan. was C.ppZLyed by tb-a Fhn KC az Comrm iss�c�n urac( �� arad cam. ih Is ura,5 . aooepted by 4w people or� co xvRun ily. 7hIs Na+uo( park was &d fed in ifr- ►1&nd plann( "t(Crl- in u�- 26 +(v phi (ooh y c f' Ifs charac-fer- a rd fu tcvre ex Stfe ,wife its written -text fo✓ctjcen+al(y locateS,non- ( n'f-err-.7(L)E%emfUr,%D( rescurci° ). This Udoptan IhclUda � i'&'nd Irinper p -COPA RerveforNafiure, Pfa„15-for expams,Gh c�(- ft lu-efb7if93Q. .Tni-erpre-Ave Wefure O(sOay cem-k-c,r% I& more traits for hi Liavid nature fnfErprefaticnv& F70r+als7 (5)' a s a icfuary-For Nature s`tULY, t A c.vl (d I iFe FreSerVe. �f- Is ea"-ror 5coma pew +c (oxoKcut fhi5 beacti{ul In�runz. Lak'a Farr.kau a. pa Sive p1-eseWe amid par# -pr-C&m;liEs in +1vir9oGia� -d-ofh�,a�o -d or�am zatl'cn panics,h rer5, mss,�.0 i Id-l if observat�s� a-(� and Sa.i la's youn ch-ldrens play , ad` u�-f e�c�rcr'ae and �aYra¢e.. and see -Hna+ fhls isavailab for �or-FS telds,� Wc) LOAMi s- Sam LIS abIsFO Cock( replW2 '�'l15 parfC-{or - jr cDm munnKl. amore- not- a l(ow d�fnUcTf6j-L a f fhr.7par t(- o anc.,:er am ftb _. rRad our C(fy I Thus pariK Lul Il be neem In � w i-Oh Aar PI-anf r fFLe future. aaae2. July 14, ,q4-r L and La<c parr- Let us se arch f-Or a4,'J -Ci hd, offLQrr, poen He P(� s, . {or put-her� r-ts -ells Ind balldfamznds 1 tynaybe er nna)cbe hof ( f'e . pIanot - ,,uerf Seenr� �f they cow Wgo ou Tank "rrm P.ead, or i in -f-hQ li -rncfust�r'a( ccrnvrrer�e�a� hC-ar U. P. S, or fPv G,r., 8 , jin (Ow aC fhe 1�( nearer o.irp r+ .- or) Y:* d 5f nea.ror} hirx� Maarl::rdS 9�Shcppir � er- ]GrL7f -�r07Y1 tkevb1le .k�rcmS on L..Q1/R Th= cn;w- rnr1ar�( nbne�7 +0 'rr1VE c ai-e why t-WAI:f' LofiS, `I12 is not scum -(raUe.ls (ovd s� ' - rc5s, arr,d. r 1 w t !( not be at prtdemL. Pceep r� very igax), were our ear+Er r 8w-a,ama pf3m51 -fes cream -th,s Set--a-srda r m Lalea- (-IwK. As 4-Le c,tyTroc,,, *kis parg ay.,d aw, !l becon're priael� , 2 � md i rm �r�e -{Q r�lace F� i-et-u5 i:f�p ika Natural Parti 35 planned _ a,qu,ef peop(e Sanctcay. uery -truly r5 ccp,eo to • city mom ga, I/C A ParK5av+%d Recreattar, Comcmissiar +Viacio . Sarn Luie Obisfc • Directer -cOraxMW6%+y�6prmemk - Audubon 9=ie,+Y Note e *ate re-fer to wn, ant,cte ,n 5ierm Club Sam Lv,s Magazka July M7, paep 50 . . i=re,b usttar blcle*efi-Kre, ja QMLA ir) rm ustayg Rai ly for July 3,Pose I. . 1.44 Una, Labe f rc -rc� cn 5por"-Pelf' um rK. s0mv reskC6 n V; aesee WY �1n,�-'e �tarmos Lou sr-hiobobra7 N2rney Reynolds Glenn car{son*s c. mn�I I holland yZ• 2 crd.'S L. C�ISPJI'( R.Fir2ys Iv�c�oWP�S • -rele8.ram -Tri bur)e. M, .ING AGENDA DATE�ITEM # 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Parks and Recreation Department Public Works Department PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1993-1999 Completed Projects/Approved Projects New Neighborhood Parks Emerson' 3 acres Athletic field,picnic tables,hard court,playground, garden French 10 acres Athletic field,BBQ area,hard court,playground Islay Hill 5 acres Athletic field,picnic tables,hard court,RR, playground Priolo-Martin .5 acres Green space,benches Las Praderas .S acres Landscaping,playground, hard court Facility Improvements and Equipment Replacements A.nhohn Playground equipment French Restrooms Jack House Garden renovations,fencing, Carriage Barn improvements Johnson Playground equipment Laguna Lake Playground equipment, master plan implementation Meadow Playground equipment, Sand VB courts, hard court Mission Plaza Expansion,upgrades S.L.O. Swim Ctr. Landscaping, interior improvements Santa Rosa Skatepark,playground equipment, restrooms Stoneridge Hard court,benches,picnic tables Throop Playground equipment,restrooms Laguna Hills Playground area improvements Mitchell Playground equipment Sinsheimer Master Plan implementation COUNCIL O CDD]DIRGymnasiums p FIN DSinsheimer School N/H Gym j(6CA0 13 FIREC.L. Smith School N/H Gym ��''/�TTORNEY dPW DTa for �CLEWORIG 0 POLIY Sport Court Flooring p G TEAM p RECHawthorne School N/H Gym D UTILp PER Los Ranchos School NIH Gym Teach School NIH Gym Joint Use Sites Laguna Middle School 2 softball fields Los Ranchos School Baseball field Mission School existing field upgraded Pacheco School existing field upgraded Sinsheimer School existing field upgraded C.L. Smith existing field upgraded RECEIVED JUL 1 o 1997 SLO CITY CLERK