CCMIN120385 - Laserfiche WebLink

AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mercer, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Brandes NOES: None ABSENT: None RZ-85-16, Application of the City of Pleasanton to amend the Ordinance Code of the City of Pleasanton ~o ban skateboard ramps in the R-1 (Si'ngleTfamil~ Residential) Districts Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 85:586) dated December 3, 1985, regard- ing this matter. Mayor Brandes declared the public hearing open on this item. Mr. Peter MacDonald, 5258 Crestline Way, speaking as a citizen, stated he was not here to take a position on the ordinance but to share his experience in his neighborhood. He stated there is a skateboard ramp at the residence next to his. He cited mitigation measures taken by the neighbor to satisfy the concerns of the surrounding neighbors; painting the skateboard an olive drab, double plywood wall and masonite floor; and parental supervision. Mr. MacDonald stated that the main concerns of any skateboard ramp are visual im- pact, noise, loss of privacy of surrounding neighbors, safety of children, and impact on property value. He advised these impacts can be mitigated by proper measures. He stated it is Council's decision as to what they want the R-1 Residential Districts to be. He suggested some kind of regulation such an a conditional use permit requirement. He stated there ought to be a time limit for both existing skateboard ramps and future skateboard ramps as to when they will come down. He advised the City's noise ordinance probably would not cover skateboard ramp noise. Mr. Tom Olson, 3758 West Las Positas Boulevard, stated he formerly lived adjacent to the residence with the skateboard ramp referred to by Mr. Mac- Donald. He stated Mr. MacDonald raised some valid concerns, however, he is opposed to the ordinance. He stated there is definitely a noise concern, and that it is reasonable to restrict the hours of usage, but he felt skateboards were no more of a nuisance in a neighborhood than swimming pools and hot tubs, which are often used late at night. He advised that when he sold his house on Northway Road the skateboard ramp did not present a concern to the real estate agent or the potential buyers. He stated the skateboard ramp issue is the result of two families in one neighborhood not being able to solve their prob- lem, and that this is a isolated case. He suggested each skateboard ramp be considered on it own merits and the rights of the property owners. He stated that skate boarding is a healthful sports activity which should be allowed under the proper circumstances. He recommended action against the ordinance but favored a restriction for hours of use. Mr. Roger Manning, 1078 Vintner Way, stated that skateboarding is an ex- cellent sport in which a large number of kids participate, and that the prob- lem being considered tonight is the result of one neighborhood case; one neighbor has asked that the City Council control the rights of another's prop- erty. He stated there are several other skateboard ramps in the City and these do not pose a problem. He cited swimming pools, sports courts, basket- ball courts and other night lighted activities in back yards that are not regulated by City ordinance. He felt that the neighbors should settle their own problems; not ask the City Council to solve them. He stated this is also an erosion of property rights. He stated there is no reason for the ordinance because there is no common good of overriding benefit that can be determined. Mr. Manning stated that from a liability standpoint the City cannot afford to - 4 12-3-85