Pleasanton planning commission upholds approval for 15-foot tennis-court lights at 2207 Martin Avenue

The Pleasanton Planning Commission unanimously upheld the zoning administrator’s approval of an administrative design review (case P25-0236) on Sept. 10, allowing six 15-foot tennis-court light poles to be installed in the rear yard of 2207 Martin Avenue, the commission said. The motion to uphold the zoning administrator’s decision passed by roll call vote with all commissioners voting yes.

The commission’s decision follows a revised photometric study and revised planting and shielding measures submitted by the property owners, who sought permission to install six 15-foot poles with 18-inch extension arms and 5,000-K color-temperature fixtures. The application proposes three poles along the north side of the court (closest to the adjoining property at 3520 Dennis Drive) fitted with 12-inch shields. The applicants and staff said the photometric analysis shows no measurable light spillover to the Peterson residence at 3520 Dennis Drive or to the Dennis Drive public right-of-way.

Why this matters: the project revisits a long-running file tied to PUD 148, the development approval that established the court location and site standards for 2207 Martin Avenue. The PUD set a requirement that tennis-court lighting above 8 feet must undergo administrative design review, and neighbors appealed the zoning administrator’s approval after that review. Planning commissioners emphasized they were only reviewing the lighting design and conditions required by the ADR process, not reopening the PUD itself.

Staff presentation and applicant changes: Planning staff opened the hearing by summarizing the project history and the zoning administrator’s July 18, 2025 approval, noting the approval was conditioned on the findings and conditions in Exhibit A of the staff report and that the Petersons had appealed. Staff reminded the commission that the R-1-40 accessory-structure standard calls for a 20-foot side setback for accessory structures but that the PUD established a 6-foot northern side setback and specific tennis-court standards for this site.

The applicant (property owner/representative) told the commission they returned with additional information: a detailed photometric study they said reduces spillover to “absolute 0” on the neighboring property, anti-glare LED fixtures, 18-inch fixture extension arms to aim light inward, and a proposed automatic timer to limit illumination to 7 a.m.–10 p.m. The applicant also described additional landscaping already planted on the site — including existing mature trees and six 24-gallon Ficus retusa plantings roughly 7–9 feet tall — and said they had extended the fence in portions of the property and had sought, but not received, the neighbor’s agreement to split the cost of a 7-foot fence.

Opposition and appeals: The appeal filed Aug. 4, 2025 listed three bases: an alleged staff conflict of interest, a claim that the zoning administrator’s reasoning conflicted with the planning commission’s earlier determination, and broader concerns about the project’s history. The appellants, identified in the record as Ray and Michelle Peterson of 3520 Dennis Drive, did not attend the Sept. 10 hearing; staff said the Petersons provided supplemental material for the record. During the hearing, commissioners and staff clarified that appeals may be filed by any interested party and that the ADR process — not the PUD — was the procedural avenue for the current lighting decision.

Commission discussion and conditions: Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on past proceedings, the relationship between the PUD setback and accessory-structure rules, and the assumptions in the photometric report. Several commissioners said the applicant had followed the city’s photometric standards and improved the proposal relative to what could be installed without ADR review (for example, unshielded fixtures at 8 feet could be installed without the same ADR scrutiny). Commissioners requested and staff confirmed conditions of approval addressing illumination hours and the timer: the approved conditions required that the lights be extinguished between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and that a timer be installed to enforce the schedule; staff also relied on the applicant’s proposed shields, fixture details, and the submitted photometric exhibit as part of the approval.

Decision and next steps: The commission’s roll call recorded aye votes from all attending commissioners and the chair. The zoning administrator’s July 18 approval, including the conditions summarized in Exhibit A of the staff report, will stand. The planning commission did not reopen the PUD or change the site development standards established under PUD 148; rather, it affirmed the ADR approval for lighting design and its conditions. The record includes the applicants’ photometric study and supplemental materials and the appellants’ appeal packet, which will remain part of the public record.

Speakers and presence: Ray and Michelle Peterson (3520 Dennis Drive) were listed as appellants in the record but were not present at the hearing. City staff on the record included planning staff Diego and recording secretary Estella; the applicant and other speakers participated in the hearing and answered commissioners’ questions. The assistant city attorney, Kimberly Seeley, was acknowledged at the meeting as departing the city but did not participate in the lighting decision.

Background: The tennis court and fencing location were established under PUD 148 and approved by the city council in 2024 after prior Planning Commission hearings. That PUD required administrative design review for any court lighting above 8 feet, which is why the current 15-foot proposal went first to the zoning administrator and then to the commission on appeal.