The Pleasanton City Council on Nov. 4 voted to overturn a Planning Commission and zoning administrator approval and denied an administrative design review for six 15-foot tennis-court lights at 2207 Martin Avenue.

Ray and Michelle Peterson, residents immediately north of the property, appealed the approval and told the council the court was poured without adequate notice and that the proposed lights should have been treated as part of an accessory-structure package subject to a 20-foot setback. "The whole complete package was an accessory structure," Ray Peterson said, asking the council to deny the lighting application and enforce the larger setback standard.

The property owners, represented by Ashish Chodahan, said they had negotiated through the PUD process, reserved the right to apply for lighting later, and submitted a photometric study and mitigation measures including shields, 18-inch offset arms and new vegetation. Chodahan said the fixtures include an automatic timer with a proposed 10 p.m. shutoff and that "we went above and beyond" to avoid spillover.

Staff planner Diego Mora explained the sequence of approvals: the PUD established that lighting above 8 feet requires administrative design review (ADR); the zoning administrator processed the ADR and a hearing was held. Mora told council that the revised photometric study showed no spillover to the adjacent residence and that a condition limiting light spill to 0.1 foot-candle at the property line was part of the recommended approval.

Neighbors and technical commenters disputed the adequacy of the lighting report, noting missing photometric inputs, lack of receptor-point glare analysis and no professional stamp in the packet. Alan Shapiro told council the vendor’s report was "incomplete and unreliable" and argued the application failed to meet state and municipal findings for a variance (as described in his materials).

Councilmembers asked detailed questions about the record, earlier emails and oral statements from 2023 in which applicants and staff had described lighting as "not proposed" for the PUD application. Councilmember Julie Testa, who moved to deny the ADR application, said she was persuaded by the record that neighbors had reasonably relied on assurances and that the planning record had not made the future-lighting allowance sufficiently explicit for those neighbors.

After debate, the council voted to deny the ADR lighting approval and overturned the prior approvals. The council directed staff to record the decision in the project file. The denial leaves the court without authorized 15-foot lighting; applicants may revise proposals or pursue other lawful remedies limited by the city code and the council’s decision.

What happens next: the council’s decision concludes the appeal on lighting. Any future proposal for illumination will need to address the issues identified tonight — setbacks, a more robust certified photometric and glare analysis and clear communications to impacted neighbors — before returning to the City for review.