Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRC correspondence - O'Kelly (Pickle Ball) 12-18-20181 From:Brian O'Kelly < Sent:Tuesday, December 18, 2018 4:07 PM To:Advisory Bodies Subject:PRC Communication Attachments:PRC Letter Re Fences.pdf Dear Members of the Parks and Recreation Commission,    The San Luis Obispo Pickleball Club has input for one change on the proposed French Park Pickleball Court Project.  (add  fencing between courts)  Please see the attached letter for details.    If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.    Respectfully Submitted,    Brian O'Kelly, President, SLO Pickleball Club  805 610 5186  losthillsguy@gmail.com  12/17/2018 To: Parks and Recreation Commission Parks and Recreation City Staff From: San Luis Obispo Pickleball Club, Inc. Brian O’Kelly, President Re: French Park permanent court design. We recommend one change, add fencing between courts. We have reviewed the most recent design for the new courts and have been told this is what is going before the PRC for approval in early spring. The Club is very excited for the new courts, and we really appreciate the time and energy staff and the Commission have dedicated to this project. However, there is one minor change we feel is very important that would ​greatly improve​ the functionality of the new courts. We also believe there is time to adjust the design before it comes to the commission in early spring. Recommended change:​ Add fencing between courts with 5.75’ from the sideline to the fence (see attached sheet.) ●On courts without fences games are stopped an average of 6 time per game for balls coming onto the court from other games. ●The middle court at French will get ball interference from both sides. ●Templeton Tennis Ranch and Santa Barbara City have fences 5’ from the court sidelines and they work well without interfering in play. ●The French Park project has room for a fence 5.75’ from the sideline ●The major criticism from permanent court installations without fencing is that fencing should have been installed. During the early design phase we were glad to be a part of the discussion and we appreciate being included. There was some back and forth about fenci​ng, but since August 2018 we have clearly communicated the need for fencing between courts: ● In the early design phase we discussed fencing locations. ●An August 20 letter submitted to Parks and Rec outlined the need for fencing between courts. ●At our September meeting with Parks and Rec we reiterated that fencing between courts was an important design feature. ●On November 15th we received a copy of the court plan that did not include fences. ●The same day we again asked for fencing between courts. We understand that certain small changes to a project can result in the need for many additional staff hours; however, this particular change does not impact the site engineering or the placement of the outer fences/gates. In other words, the project’s footprint and access points would remain the same. We believe the only design features impacted through this change are 1) the court striping (i.e. painting), and 2) showing additional fence posts and fences between courts. Given the proposed change is minor in the scope of the project, will have a huge impact on the playability of the courts, and was communicated as an important feature since August, the Club feels that reintroducing the fences between courts is a reasonable request. We hope that the PRC can give some direction to staff to add fencing between courts before it comes to the commission for final approval. Thank you for your time and consideration, and we look forward to seeing this great community project come to life. Respectfully Submitted, Brian O’Kelly, President SLOPB Club Examples of Court Design Photos from ​Templeton Tennis Ranch​ with fences 5’ off the sidelines. These have proven to be very effective and not an interference to play. Santa Barbara City has the same configuration with fences 5’ from the sidelines. Paso Robles​, balls often roll across multiple courts and stop several games.