SR 05:165 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton, CA - City Council Minutes Page 15 of 16 off-season and the groups can't get into the Sports Park. She believed the two soccer fields at the top of the proposed park would be heavily used because there are no other good soccer fields, because they are being converted to baseball fields. She believed this plan gives a good blend, because if provides lighted fields the groups can use for tournaments and off-season, when the real issues tend to arise. Mr. Sullivan referred to the third draft community park plan alternative, which has ten fields. He agreed with setting a minimum of eight fields, but £elt if there is a proposal for the cultural arts center in the northeast comer with parking, it may significantly change the current plans for where the sports fields will be located. There is an 800-foot setback for lighted sports fields from the neighbors, which needs to be maintained. To put in eight to ten fields, plus an arts center, plus some kind of open feeling will push everything down on the site and he wanted to see what that would look like. Mr. Brozosky liked the idea of multi-use fields. He did not want to see all the lighted fields used at the same time creating a huge glow. He agreed there is a need for sports fields, but also believed there was a large part of the community that did not want this to be just a sports park. If we keep adding fields, there will be no meadow. Ms. Ellgas looked forward to the changing of the sport seasons in a sports park with multi- use fields. She liked going from soccer to baseball to football. She believed multi-use fields were more practical. Mr. Rasmussen confirmed the direction was for a minimum of eight fields. He then referred to item #5, the potential need and location for lighted or unlighted tennis courts. Mayor Hosterman believed Council would be hearing a couple of issues related to tennis courts next week and felt it would make sense to hold off further discussion until after those issues are heard. Mr. Rasmussen said that was not a problem. Mr. Brozosky said he would like the Parks and Recreation Commission to review the status of courts in the entire city. He felt there would not be enough data available next week to consider what should be on the Bemal property. He preferred to give direction to the Commission to do a city survey of needs. Mr. Fialho said the staff recommendation is to direct the Parks and Recreation Commission to have further studies. He felt a recommendation could be developed over the next couple of months and then if there is a need for tennis courts, the Bernal process could include the findings. Ms. McGovern also believed that at next weeks' meeting there should be direction to continue to work with the School District to discover the cost of lighting and resurfacing the two tennis courts to raise them to a high quality. Ms. McGovern asked if that could be accomplished in time for the review of the City's capital improvement projects? Mr. Fialho did not think so. Council would review the CIP and budget at the beginning of June. He believed the Parks and Recreation Commission could fast track the study and if the project were approved, there could be a mid-year budget adjustment to get funding in place. http://www.ci.pleasanton.ca.us/archive/ccminutes050512ws.html 6/9/2005