13 - Laserfiche WebLink

BACKGROUND In 2014, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update identified a need for additional tennis courts within the City, and more specifically recommended that the long-planned final two lighted tennis courts at the Pleasanton Tennis and Community Park be constructed in the location shown in the 1985 Tennis and Community Park Master Plan Subsequently funds were budgeted in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project, CIP No 147031 In March 2016 City staff began preparation of plans and specifications for the courts, followed by project advertisement for construction bid On June 21, 2016, the City Council awarded the construction contract in the amount of $494,353 to the low bidder Goodland Construction On August 9, 2016, the City Council heard from many area residents that the location that two courts were being constructed was a heavily used grass area At the meeting City Council directed that the construction be halted, the contract with Goodland be canceled, and that the Parks and Recreation Commission work with the community to determine the best alternative location for the two additional courts within the park At the Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting on September 8, 2016 eight alternative locations to construct two additional tennis courts at the Tennis and Community Park were presented by staff for consideration The alternatives were consistent with the direction provided by City Council at the August 9, 2016 Council meeting Each location was shown graphically, and the pros and cons of each location were discussed Staff requested that the Commission consider the eight locations, as well as consider other locations if the Commission thought it appropriate The goal of the September 8 presentation was to review all possible locations to construct the courts, then narrow the number of alternatives considered in detail to a manageable number After significant public testimony, the Commission found three alternatives were worthy of further consideration This report will call these locations the "finalist" locations Staff then had a topographical survey prepared and conducted utility record research for the three "finalist" locations The required grading, parking impacts, tree removals, storm drainage, and utility connection points for each alternative was determined utilizing this information Preliminary plans and detailed cost estimates were prepared for all three alternatives The three alternatives are similar in that they all consider a tennis court to be constructed in the grass area between the two parking lots that is currently delineated by a "horseshoe" shaped sidewalk The basic difference between the alternatives is the proposed location of the second court and how it impacts the park and parking lots On November 10, 2016 the three alternatives were presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review At the meeting, the Commission chose Alternative Three as their preferred alternative to be presented to City Council Page 2 of 5