SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
1 Responses to City Council Agenda Items – November 4, 2025
Regular Meeting
Agenda Item #5: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a fourth amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc., for an additional $999,954, for a new total contract amount of $3,995,644, to complete 100 percent design for Phase 2 of the West Las Positas Multimodal Reconstruction Project (Owens Drive to Santa Rita Road, CIP No. 26514)
1. Will there be a lot of utility relocation work?
A. This professional services agreement amendment will design the segment of West Las Positas between Santa Rita Road and Owens Drive. The amendment is for design services only. No utility relocation will be completed as part of this design contract.
2. Do we expect utility relocation to add a lot of time to the schedule or have we planned?
A. No utility relocation will be completed with the design of the project.
Agenda Item #9: Public Hearing - Hear an appeal of the Planning Commission’s determination and adopt a resolution upholding the approval of an application for Administrative Design Review to install six, approximately 15-foot-tall, tennis court lights in the rear yard located at 2207 Martin Avenue, filed under Case No. P25-0236
3. Is there any requirement or need for a sidewalk or road widening on Dennis Drive? Does the tennis court location preclude that in the future?
A. PUD-140 for subdivision of the property at 2207 Martin Avenue into two lots was approved in September 2021 (Ordinance 2223), including a Condition of Approval to install a 5-foot-wide sidewalk along the property’s Dennis Drive frontage as well as dedication of approximately 14 feet for roadway widening.
The approval for PUD-140 has since lapsed. The development plan for the tennis courts and lighting was approved separately under PUD-148, which does not include subdivision of the property. Because the project does not involve subdivision, there is no valid nexus to require construction of the previously required Dennis Drive improvements. If the property is subdivided in the future, a nexus for the sidewalk requirement could be re-established. Given the tennis court’s location—approximately 10 feet from the rear property line along Dennis Drive—the court may need to be removed to accommodate future sidewalk installation and street widening.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
2 4. Who conducted the lighting study? Why is it not signed?
A. The photometric (lighting) study was provided by “CBright” a lighting design firm based in San Leandro. The study appears to have been developed using DIALux, a lighting design software. In its application requirements, the City does not specify that a photometric plan be signed. Unlike other technical fields such as engineering or architecture, there is no universally accepted licensure for preparation of photometric plans.
5. Were City permits obtained prior to court construction? Dates?
A. Building and Planning Permits are not required for the pouring of concrete (“flat work”) involved in creating the tennis court surface. When it came to the City’s attention that posts for fencing were in the process of being installed, the matter was referred to Code Enforcement, and then to the Planning Division who determined that a PUD development plan was required. With approval of PUD- 148, the PUD Development Plan allowed for the tennis court fencing to be installed (as a condition of approval), and following the approval the homeowners obtained the required building permits for the tennis court fencing as allowed by PUD-148.
6. Why isn’t noise a consideration of the application?
A. Noise was taken into consideration as part of PUD-148 to allow for a tennis court.
The project site is subject to the City’s Noise ordinance via PMC 9.04 for residential property.
7. How and why was this site selected and approved in disregard of a 20 ft setback requirement?
A. Prior to the submittal of PUD-148 to establish development standards, the homeowners had poured the flatwork slab for the tennis court, which does not require building or planning permits. The PUD application included proposed development standards that would allow for tennis court fencing around the installed playing surface. As is a typical element of a PUD application, the applicant requested site-specific development standards for the proposed tennis court in its entirety, including fencing. The 20-foot side setback noted for the R-1- 40 District is applicable to Class 1 accessory structures1; the tennis court is not
1 Per PMC 18.08.540: "Class I accessory structure" means a subordinate structure, the use of which is appropriate, subordinate, and customarily incidental to that of the main structure or the main use of the land, and which is located on the same site with the main structure or use. "Class I accessory structures" shall include those accessory structures designed for possible
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
3 subject to these standards, and the PMC is otherwise silent on development standards for sports courts. The Planning Commission considered the location of the tennis court and in approving the PUD, subject to conditions of approval, determined that the setback proposed was acceptable.
8. Did planning staff give misinformation regarding requirements for planning approval?
A. The Planning Commission Agenda Report for August 23, 2023, outlines the sequence of events with respect to the inquiries and responses between staff and the applicant following code enforcement complaints about work to install the court. As a property annexed into the City of Pleasanton as part of a larger 34- acre area, the subject site did not have any established, site-specific development standards for the main house, accessory structures, or for sports courts. And, as noted above, the PMC lacks clear guidance or development standards specific to sports courts. In reviewing applicable standards, staff correctly informed the applicant a) that permits were not required for the flat-work and b) that there were no directly applicable setback standards for the tennis court fencing, but any structures more than 10 feet in height would be subject to City planning and building permit approval.
Staff acknowledges that in initial communication with the applicant in August, 2022, it was suggested that an Administrative Design Review (ADR) application process to consider any elements of the project over 10 feet in height could be appropriate. However, it was ultimately determined that the more exhaustive PUD approval process, requiring Planning Commission and City Council review was appropriate and necessary. PUD-148 was proposed to establish site-specific development standards addressing the main house and any accessory structures (exclusive of the tennis court); and to allow for the tennis court in its current location, including new fencing, and including a condition of approval to allow future lighting of the tennis court, subject to subsequent Administrative Design Review.
9. Did neighbors request a change of Planning Commission meeting date so they could attend? Why wasn’t that done?
A. The appellant (neighbor) did request to postpone the Planning Commission hearing to a later date. The appeal was filed on August 4, 2025. Per the PMC, the appeal must be heard within 40 days of the date when the appeal was filed (no later than September 13, 2025). Given the timing of the appeal, public noticing requirements could not be met for the only scheduled Planning Commission hearing date on August 27th. As such, the next available hearing
habitation and include covered patios, garages and carports, any covered or enclosed area with a height greater than six feet.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
4 date within 40 days was September 10th, 2025. Per PMC 18.144.050, to extend the hearing date beyond 40 days, both parties (applicant and appellant) must agree. The applicant did not agree to extend the hearing date.
10. Why was the request for lighting allowed following previous denials and commitment from tennis court owners that they wouldn’t bring back the request?
A. The Planning Commission explicitly considered the question of whether lighting should be permitted in conjunction with the tennis courts as part of PUD-48. After deliberating on the application, the Planning Commission, and subsequently the City Council, approved the PUD without a prohibition on lighting, and instead making any proposed lighting over 8 feet in height subject to an ADR. To date, there has been no formal denial of the proposed lighting.
Formal Objection to Application P25-0236
Installation of Six 15-Foot, 1,000-Watt LED Light Poles at 2207 Martin Avenue
Date: October 31, 2025
To: Mayor Jack Balch and Members of the Pleasanton City Council From: Alan and Crista Shapiro,
Subject: Formal Objection to Application P25-0236 – Lighting Installation at 2207 Martin Avenue
Dear Mayor Balch and City Councilmembers,
This letter serves as a formal and unequivocal objection to Application P25-0236, which seeks approval to install six (6) 15-foot light poles equipped with high-intensity, 1,000-watt LED fixtures along the side-yard boundary of a single-family residential property.
These poles are proposed within the required side-yard setback areas established by the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC), Title 18 – Zoning, and would introduce a commercial- scale lighting installation into a low-density residential setting, contrary to the intent of City zoning and design standards.
I was notified of this proposal via the City’s Planning Division Public Notice dated October 10, 2025.
Noncompliance with Setback Regulations
The proposed light poles would be located only 6.5 feet from the property line, encroaching substantially into the required side-yard setback. Under PMC §18.84.090, only fences, walls, landscaping, and minor structures of limited height may be located within required yards.
Fifteen-foot light poles are clearly not minor structures and are expressly prohibited within the setback.
Key Points:
• Title 18 prohibits structures such as light poles within required yards unless they qualify as minor landscape features.
• A 15-foot pole greatly exceeds allowable height and therefore constitutes an unlawful encroachment.
• The proposed lighting equipment is industrial in scale, wholly inconsistent with the character of surrounding single-family homes.
• Approval would erode the integrity of the zoning code and set a precedent for disregard of established height and setback standards.
Finding: The project fails to comply with mandatory setback requirements and does not qualify for any exception or administrative deviation.
Lack of Justifiable Hardship for Variance
Under California Government Code §65906 and PMC §18.120.020, a variance may be granted only when strict application of zoning regulations would deprive a property of privileges enjoyed by others due to unique physical conditions. No such physical hardship has been demonstrated. The desire for brighter or taller private tennis-court lighting is a personal preference, not a condition arising from the land itself.
Finding: The applicant has failed to demonstrate any unique physical hardship, and approval would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with other properties in the same zoning district. The variance request does not meet the legal standards required by State law or the Pleasanton Zoning Ordinance.
Improper Reliance on Noncomparable Precedent
The applicant cited two properties on Trenery Drive as precedent. However:
• Both were developed while in unincorporated Alameda County, prior to City annexation, and thus were not subject to Pleasanton’s zoning standards. • Those courts maintain significant setbacks that minimize off-site impacts. • The subject property’s court encroaches into the required side-yard setback, and adding 15-foot poles would exacerbate an existing nonconformity.
Finding: The Trenery Drive examples do not constitute valid precedents under City jurisdiction. Granting this request would create inconsistent and inequitable application of City standards and undermine Pleasanton’s commitment to residential compatibility and responsible lighting design.
Adverse Impacts on Adjacent Properties
High-intensity, 1,000-watt LED lighting produces significant glare and spill, even when marketed as “fully shielded.” Light at this height and output level will intrude into neighboring yards and windows, violating PMC §18.40.010 (Nuisance and Performance Standards). Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), glare and night-lighting constitute potential environmental impacts, especially in residential areas. Residents have a reasonable expectation of nighttime privacy and darkness, both of which would be materially diminished.
Finding: Even with shielding, fixtures of this wattage and elevation would produce measurable glare and light trespass, adversely affecting adjacent homes and degrading neighborhood character.
Deficiencies in the Submitted Lighting Study
The applicant’s Lighting Report (Exhibit B – Project Plans) is incomplete and unreliable for determining compliance with City standards (see Exhibit A).
1. Incomplete Methodology – Missing photometric data (IES files, BUG ratings, reflectance assumptions, receptor plane height).
2. No Glare or Luminance Analysis – Only horizontal foot-candles shown; glare not addressed.
3. No Receptor Measurements – No readings several feet beyond property lines or at window height.
4. Lack of Certification – Report is unsigned and not certified by a licensed lighting engineer.
5. Inconsistent with Setback Standards – The plan intensifies, rather than mitigates, a setback violation.
6. Risk of Visual Glare – Even with shields, 15-foot, high-output LEDs create visible brightness from neighboring homes.
Finding: The report does not substantiate the claim of “no glare or spillover.” Its omissions prevent any credible finding of compliance with Pleasanton’s zoning, lighting, or design review standards.
Summary
The project, as proposed, violates Pleasanton’s zoning regulations, fails the legal test for variance, relies on invalid precedent, and poses clear visual and privacy impacts on adjacent properties. The submitted lighting study does not meet professional or municipal standards for demonstrating compliance.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Application P25-0236 must be denied. The proposal:
• Violates PMC §18.84.090 governing permitted structures within setbacks; • Fails to meet State and City variance criteria;
• Introduces commercial-scale lighting incompatible with residential zoning; and • Lacks a technically valid lighting analysis demonstrating compliance.
Approval would undermine the City’s long-standing principles of neighborhood compatibility, fairness, and consistent code enforcement.
Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the City Council deny the application in its entirety.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan and Crista Shapiro
EXHIBIT A
The lighting report provided with the application P25-0236 (Exhibit B – Project Plans), does not demonstrate compliance with Pleasanton’s zoning, lighting, and design standards. While the report includes fixture layouts, cut sheets, and photometric diagrams, several critical deficiencies and omissions prevent it from supporting a finding of “no glare or light spill.”
1. Incomplete Photometric Methodology and Missing Technical Data The report does not identify the photometric inputs used to generate its “0.00 foot-candle” claims at property lines.
Key information is missing, including:
• the IES photometric files (.ies) for each luminaire,
• BUG (Backlight–Uplight–Glare) ratings required under IES TM-15, • ground reflectance and measurement plane height assumptions, and • whether obstructions such as fences or trees were included in the model.
Without these parameters, the reported “zero foot-candle” values cannot be independently verified and may result from incomplete or unrealistic modeling.
2. No Analysis of Glare or Luminance
The report evaluates horizontal illuminance (foot-candles) only.
However, glare—light intensity visible directly from the luminaire—is governed by luminance and the viewer’s line of sight, not by ground-plane foot-candles.
The Illuminating Engineering Society (IES TM-15) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Lighting Handbook both recognize that high-output LEDs mounted at elevated heights can cause perceptible glare even when measured spillover is low.
Because the fixtures are 15 feet tall and each produces roughly 37,000 lumens, the report’s omission of a luminance/glare analysis is a significant deficiency.
3. No Verification at Sensitive Receptor Points
Pleasanton’s Design Review Submittal Requirements mandate that photometric drawings show foot-candle measurements several feet beyond property lines to demonstrate compliance.
The report does not provide measurements at realistic receptor locations, such as adjacent patios or window heights on neighboring properties.
The absence of these data means the City cannot verify that lighting levels remain below the typical residential threshold of 0.1–0.5 foot-candles at property boundaries adopted in comparable California jurisdictions.
4. Inconsistent with Setback and Compatibility Standards The subject tennis court encroaches into the required side-yard setback, and the proposed 15-foot poles would intensify that nonconformity.
Pleasanton’s zoning code (PMC §18.32.010 and §18.84.090) is intended to preserve adequate light, air, and privacy between residences.
Installing high-intensity lighting within the setback directly conflicts with these objectives.
In contrast, comparable properties cited by the applicant (on Trenery Drive) have greater setbacks between poles and property lines and were developed under Alameda County, not City, jurisdiction.
Those examples therefore do not establish valid precedent under Pleasanton’s zoning authority.
5. Absence of Certification and Independent Verification The report is unsigned and lacks certification by a licensed lighting professional or electrical engineer.
Without a professional stamp or verification of compliance with IES and City standards, the data cannot be considered technically reliable for decision-making.
6. Risk of Adverse Impacts Despite “Shielded” Fixtures
Even with shielding, high-wattage LEDs at 15 feet produce significant source brightness visible from neighboring properties.
According to the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA), fixtures above 12 feet in residential areas typically generate perceptible glare unless advanced optical controls are used.
The report includes no evidence that such controls are in place.
Summary
The submitted lighting report fails to substantiate the applicant’s claim of “no glare or spillover.”
Critical modeling data are missing, glare analysis is omitted, receptor-point measurements are absent, and the proposed pole height violates the intent of the City’s setback and compatibility standards.
1 From: Jack Balch
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 2:48 PM
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Cc: Gerry Beaudin
Subject: FW: P25-0236 Tennis Court Lights, 2207 Martin Avene FYI - for Record.
Jack Balch
Mayor
Cell:
[email protected]
Need Assistance?
Find City Services | Report a Concern | Contact City Departments City Council Meetings - Public Comment Form
From:
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 at 1:05 PM
To: Jack Balch <[email protected]>, Jeff Nibert <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Matt Gaidos <[email protected]>, Julie Testa <[email protected]> Cc:
Subject: P25-0236 Tennis Court Lights, 2207 Martin Avene Mayor and Councilmembers,
Prior to the November 4th City Councill meeting, it is essential for each of you to understand the background surrounding the current request for tennis-court lighting at 2207 Martin Avenue.
At the initial Planning Commission hearing on August 23, 2023, the homeowner made multiple assurances—both to neighboring residents and to the Commission—that no lighting would be installed. In exchange for those assurances, the Commission and community were willing to support approval of chain-link fencing around the tennis courts.
However, due to an oversight in the Commission’s final motion, the explicit prohibition on lighting was inadvertently omitted from the formal conditions of approval. Following that omission, the homeowner reversed his prior commitment and subsequently filed a request to add lighting—contradicting the clear intent and understanding expressed during the original hearing.
From: Jack Balch
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Cc: Gerry Beaudin
Subject: FW: 2207 Martin Ave - Tennis Court Lights
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 2:54:18 PM
FYI - For Record.
Jack Balch
Mayor
Cell:
[email protected]
Need Assistance?
Find City Services | Report a Concern | Contact City Departments City Council Meetings - Public Comment Form
From: Harish Vijendran < >
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 at 11:08 AM
To: Jack Balch <[email protected]>
Subject: 2207 Martin Ave - Tennis Court Lights
Dear Jack,
I'm Harish Vijendran, from property, we moved from
Fremont over a year ago and we are proud to be part of the community here in the Martin neighborhood and would like to write to voice my support to our 2207 Martin Neighbor's Tennis Court Lights Project.
Our neighborhood is known for its spacious lots that support responsible recreational use. The plan for the 2207 Martin Ave property follows this spirit while meeting all City lighting standards, including screening and curfew provisions.
It’s a balanced project that reflects care for both the property and the community. I encourage you to affirm the Planning Commission’s decision.
Thanks
Harish
From: Jack Balch
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Cc: Gerry Beaudin
Subject: FW: 2207 Martin Avenue Tennis Court
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 10:33:01 AM
FYI - For the Record.
Jack Balch
Mayor
Cell:
[email protected]
Need Assistance?
Find City Services | Report a Concern | Contact City Departments City Council Meetings - Public Comment Form
From: satish surapaneni < >
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 at 6:32 PM
To: Jack Balch <[email protected]>
Subject: 2207 Martin Avenue Tennis Court
Dear Council member Balch ,
I am a resident of , Pleasanton 94588, and live near Ashish and Meenu at 2207 Martin Avenue. I want to clearly express my support for their tennis court and lighting installation, which has no negative impact on nearby residents.
The lighting plan was properly reviewed and approved by the City after meeting all code and design requirements. Despite this, the immediate neighbor continues to file repeated appeals without any legitimate grounds. These actions appear to exploit the city’s lenient appeal process and unnecessarily consume staff and commission time.
Pleasanton already has numerous private and community tennis courts—many with lighting— that coexist harmoniously within residential neighborhoods. The ongoing opposition in this case seems rooted in personal disagreement rather than any real inconvenience.
I urge the City to uphold the Planning Commission’s prior approvals and bring an end to these repetitive, unfounded appeals.
Thanks
Satish Surapaneni
From: Jack Balch
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Cc: Gerry Beaudin
Subject: FW: Please support Tennis Court Lighting at 2207 Martin Ave Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 3:46:33 PM
FYI - For the Record.
Jack Balch
Mayor
Cell:
[email protected]
Need Assistance?
Find City Services | Report a Concern | Contact City Departments City Council Meetings - Public Comment Form
From: >
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 at 3:31 PM
To: Jack Balch <[email protected]>
Subject: Please support Tennis Court Lighting at 2207 Martin Ave Dear Jack,
I support the lighting application at 2207 Martin Ave. The owners followed the correct process and provided technical proof of no impact.
Continued appeals and complaints without evidence divert valuable City staff time. This family did everything correctly — the process should be honored.
Respectfully,
Anand Rajagopalan
Jayashree Anand
From: Jack Balch
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Cc: Gerry Beaudin
Subject: FW: Fully support 2207 Martin Ave
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 2:55:02 PM
FYI - For Record.
Jack Balch
Mayor
Cell:
[email protected]
Need Assistance?
Find City Services | Report a Concern | Contact City Departments City Council Meetings - Public Comment Form
From: mady groovy < >
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 at 11:40 AM
To: Jack Balch <[email protected]>
Subject: Fully support 2207 Martin Ave
Dear Jack Balch,
I have been following the back and forth on 2207 Martin Ave for many years and it is unfortunate how much valuable time it has consumed away from the critical activities. We stay in the Ironwood community across the property.
I fully support the application at 2207 Martin Ave. To my understanding, the family has followed every city requirement and demonstrated zero off-property light impact.
It is also concerning that the opposing neighbors appear to have raised repeated complaints unrelated to actual code issues. Their yard is itself not very well maintained and is a sore eyesight for everyone walking on Martin avenue.
This has created unnecessary tension and avoidable use of City time. The applicants have shown willingness to communicate; the opposition has not.
Please uphold the Planning Commission decision and let the city prosper by having the residents invest in making the properties better and removing unnecessary hurdles.
Thank you,
Madhur and Sumeera Grover
From: Jack Balch
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Cc: Gerry Beaudin
Subject: FW: Support for 2207 Martin Ave tennis court lights Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 2:55:29 PM
FYI - For Record
Jack Balch
Mayor
Cell:
[email protected]
Need Assistance?
Find City Services | Report a Concern | Contact City Departments City Council Meetings - Public Comment Form
From: Ramprasad Srirama < >
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 at 12:11 PM
To: Jack Balch <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for 2207 Martin Ave tennis court lights Dear Jack Balch,
As a Pleasanton resident I support the approval of tennis court lighting at 2207 Martin Ave. This project is consistent with the neighborhood and complies fully with city guidelines.
Families deserve to enjoy their properties when projects are designed responsibly and have zero impact — which this one does.
Thank you for considering community support in your decision.
Warm regards,
Ram
From: Jack Balch
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Cc: Gerry Beaudin
Subject: Re: Uphold Planning Commission Decision for 2207 Martin Avenue Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 2:53:34 PM
FYI - For Record.
Jack Balch
Mayor
Cell:
[email protected]
Need Assistance?
Find City Services | Report a Concern | Contact City Departments City Council Meetings - Public Comment Form
From: Chendra Garikipati < >
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 at 10:41 AM
To: Jack Balch <[email protected]>
Subject: Uphold Planning Commission Decision for 2207 Martin Avenue Dear Jack Balch,
Subject: Uphold Planning Commission Decision for 2207 Martin Avenue The family at 2207 Martin Avenue has diligently followed every step of the City’s process — completing all required studies, meeting every technical standard, and agreeing to every condition set forth. Both City staff and the Planning Commission independently determined that the project meets all applicable criteria and poses no adverse impacts.
Upholding this approval will reaffirm the City’s commitment to fairness, transparency, and predictability for residents who engage in good faith and follow established procedures.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Chendra Garikipati
11/4/25, 8:44 AM Mail - Diego Mora - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADU4YzE1MDI1LWJjYjEtNGUwNi04MGM0LWRmNjhlM2QzYmMzYwAQAGJaCSxT%2BORKs3ORUgO… 3/3