|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A neighborhood disagreement over a family’s application to install six, 15-foot-tall tennis court lights in their backyard came to an end last week after a split Pleasanton City Council voted not to uphold the Planning Commission’s previous approval of the project.
The 3-2 council decision came almost three years after the applicant, Ashish Choudhary, and his family took the first steps to build the full tennis court on their property. While lights were not part of the initial project application, when Choudhary went back to the city later to get approvals to install them, some of his neighbors were quick to oppose.
“When it gets to this point and it’s neighbor versus neighbor — on any issue of contention — it’s never great,” Mayor Jack Balch said during the Nov. 4 meeting. “It is the hardest decision we ever make.”
The project dates back to August 2023 when the planning commission originally reviewed an application related to a partially built tennis court located in the backyard area of 2207 Martin Ave.
The construction of the tennis court without lights was approved by the planning commission and the council, with certain conditions and a recognition of intent by the applicant to pursue light installation at a future date.
Following the approval of the tennis court application, Choudhary returned to submit a separate administrative design review (ADR) for the installation of lights over 8 feet tall. Any light fixture 8 feet tall or less does not require going through the city permitting process, according to city staff.
In May of 2024, the planning commission denied Choudhary’s first ADR for lights over 8 feet due to a lack of analysis on the impact of the light fixtures. That decision came after neighbors expressed concerns regarding the height of the light poles and potential traffic hazards, among other issues.
The commission clarified at the time that the applicant could return again with a more detailed analysis on the impact of the lights, which Choudhary ultimately did in June of this year when he submitted a second application.
The city’s zoning administrator conducted a public hearing regarding the matter on July 18 and approved the second application to install the lights. This decision prompted neighbors Ray and Michelle Peterson to submit an appeal.
That appeal made its way to the Planning Commission on Sept. 10 where the commissioners voted to uphold the zoning administrator’s decision to approve the application.
However, the appellants were not present at that meeting to make their case as they were out of town and following the commission’s decision, the Petersons filed another appeal which put the final decision in the hands of the council.
During the Nov. 4 council meeting, one of the complaints centered on Choudhary pouring concrete to construct the tennis court in the first place before notifying the city. The Petersons claimed doing so was in violation of city code, while Choudhary maintained it was not.
“All we have asked for, from the very beginning of this project, is that the planning department acknowledge the circumstances surrounding the construction of this project and then enforce the appropriate development standards,” Ray Peterson said during the meeting.
Choudhary said he was told that initial work did not need to go through the city. Additionally, it was noted during the meeting that the city did not have any codes or design standards to regulate sport courts.
Another point of contention during the meeting had to do with the setbacks on the tennis court, which the appellants said meant the lights would have been much closer to their property.
Choudhary told the council that he and his family had done everything to conform with the city’s permitting process and to minimize the impact to their neighbors by planting vegetation, making sure their light fixtures would have little to no spillover and trying to reach out to their neighbors to find compromise.
“We have complied with all the codes and the standards that the city enforces. We have gone above and beyond … we’ve gone through great details to make sure that this is compliant,” Choudhary said, noting that the lights would have been compliant in other cities that do have standards for sport courts.
“Has this tennis court ever been in a situation where it was built without the approvals? Not a single day,” he added. “Not a single day we have been out of the code or any code violation whatsoever.”
Despite Choudhary and even some of his other neighbors asking for the council’s support in approving the light application, Councilmember Julie Testa made the motion to deny it. Vice Mayor Jeff Nibert seconded the motion.
Balch and Councilmember Craig Eicher were the two dissenting votes as they supported the project moving forward. Councilmember Matt Gaidos ultimately cast the tie-breaking vote.
Gaidos, who had past knowledge of the overall project as a former planning commissioner, said he couldn’t vote to approve the lights given the overall history of the neighbors’ dispute and that the applicant seemingly changed his mind on installing the lights after not including them in the initial project application.
