My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2024
>
011624 REGULAR
>
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2024 9:54:49 AM
Creation date
1/11/2024 9:52:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/16/2024
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
201
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Statement for 23 August 2023 Planning Agenda Item 6, <br />2107 Martin Ave <br />Hello, my name is Jay Galvin. I live at Torrey Court, Pleasanton, which is a <br />property 200 yards away from the PUD parcel and the sports court fence under <br />discussion. In other cities. I have served eight years as a Planning Commissioner/ <br />Zoning Board of Appeals chair, subsequently in Pleasanton I have served 16 years on <br />the Housing Commission, Economic Vitality Committee, and various task forces. I am <br />also a board member of the Stoneridge Park Homeowners Association, which has ve <br />houses abutting the Martin Ave complainant property adjacent to the one with <br />the sports court. <br />I have known the PUD applicants Ashish and Meenu for seven years, they lived next- <br />door to me for four years, were very good neighbors, sociable, and friendly to other <br />members of our Association. I was surprised to receive the Notice of this hearing <br />regarding a PUD for Development Standards on this property. I was aware Ashish had <br />talked to Planning Staff in the past regarding his plans. I thought everything would <br />work out. <br />I knew these 30+ parcels were annexed in the 1990s under special conditions but was <br />not aware of the lack of PUD Development Standards. It is amazing how many dozens <br />of sports courts, garages, and ancillary structures, have been built before this became <br />an issue. <br />I do understand why Planning Staff recommended that Ashish and Meenu request the <br />Development Standards for this property at R 1–40,000 be established to cover any <br />future development. <br />What I do not understand is how a complaint to the City’s Code Enforcement turned <br />into a project with so much effort. <br />Sports courts can include tennis courts, pickle ball, basketball hoops, batting cages, <br />soccer practice areas, chid jumping structures, and a variety of other uses that have <br />varying needs of shielding the sport from surrounding properties. Pleasanton has not <br />undertaken the responsibility for creating standards for any of these uses. <br />Pleasanton does have PMC specications for setbacks for residential properties, <br />ancillary units, lighting over ten feet, and fences between property lines. <br />Ashish wanted to build a tennis sports court with a fence and at one time have lights <br />on the fence. He initially contacted the Building Department in August of 2022 and was <br />told that as long as the fence was not over 10 feet high and the lights were not higher <br />Page 99 of 201
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.