Laserfiche WebLink
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL <br />2 <br /> <br />4. Who conducted the lighting study? Why is it not signed? <br /> <br />A. The photometric (lighting) study was provided by “CBright” a lighting design firm <br />based in San Leandro. The study appears to have been developed using <br />DIALux, a lighting design software. In its application requirements, the City does <br />not specify that a photometric plan be signed. Unlike other technical fields such <br />as engineering or architecture, there is no universally accepted licensure for <br />preparation of photometric plans. <br /> <br />5. Were City permits obtained prior to court construction? Dates? <br /> <br />A. Building and Planning Permits are not required for the pouring of concrete (“flat <br />work”) involved in creating the tennis court surface. When it came to the City’s <br />attention that posts for fencing were in the process of being installed, the matter <br />was referred to Code Enforcement, and then to the Planning Division who <br />determined that a PUD development plan was required. With approval of PUD- <br />148, the PUD Development Plan allowed for the tennis court fencing to be <br />installed (as a condition of approval), and following the approval the homeowners <br />obtained the required building permits for the tennis court fencing as allowed by <br />PUD-148. <br /> <br />6. Why isn’t noise a consideration of the application? <br /> <br />A. Noise was taken into consideration as part of PUD-148 to allow for a tennis court. <br />The project site is subject to the City’s Noise ordinance via PMC 9.04 for <br />residential property. <br /> <br />7. How and why was this site selected and approved in disregard of a 20 ft setback <br />requirement? <br /> <br />A. Prior to the submittal of PUD-148 to establish development standards, the <br />homeowners had poured the flatwork slab for the tennis court, which does not <br />require building or planning permits. The PUD application included proposed <br />development standards that would allow for tennis court fencing around the <br />installed playing surface. As is a typical element of a PUD application, the <br />applicant requested site-specific development standards for the proposed tennis <br />court in its entirety, including fencing. The 20-foot side setback noted for the R-1- <br />40 District is applicable to Class 1 accessory structures1; the tennis court is not <br /> <br />1 Per PMC 18.08.540: "Class I accessory structure" means a subordinate structure, the use of <br />which is appropriate, subordinate, and customarily incidental to that of the main structure or the <br />main use of the land, and which is located on the same site with the main structure or use. <br />"Class I accessory structures" shall include those accessory structures designed for possible <br />