CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUPPLEMENTAL

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 3 subject to these standards, and the PMC is otherwise silent on development standards for sports courts. The Planning Commission considered the location of the tennis court and in approving the PUD, subject to conditions of approval, determined that the setback proposed was acceptable. 8. Did planning staff give misinformation regarding requirements for planning approval? A. The Planning Commission Agenda Report for August 23, 2023, outlines the sequence of events with respect to the inquiries and responses between staff and the applicant following code enforcement complaints about work to install the court. As a property annexed into the City of Pleasanton as part of a larger 34- acre area, the subject site did not have any established, site-specific development standards for the main house, accessory structures, or for sports courts. And, as noted above, the PMC lacks clear guidance or development standards specific to sports courts. In reviewing applicable standards, staff correctly informed the applicant a) that permits were not required for the flat-work and b) that there were no directly applicable setback standards for the tennis court fencing, but any structures more than 10 feet in height would be subject to City planning and building permit approval. Staff acknowledges that in initial communication with the applicant in August, 2022, it was suggested that an Administrative Design Review (ADR) application process to consider any elements of the project over 10 feet in height could be appropriate. However, it was ultimately determined that the more exhaustive PUD approval process, requiring Planning Commission and City Council review was appropriate and necessary. PUD-148 was proposed to establish site-specific development standards addressing the main house and any accessory structures (exclusive of the tennis court); and to allow for the tennis court in its current location, including new fencing, and including a condition of approval to allow future lighting of the tennis court, subject to subsequent Administrative Design Review. 9. Did neighbors request a change of Planning Commission meeting date so they could attend? Why wasn’t that done? A. The appellant (neighbor) did request to postpone the Planning Commission hearing to a later date. The appeal was filed on August 4, 2025. Per the PMC, the appeal must be heard within 40 days of the date when the appeal was filed (no later than September 13, 2025). Given the timing of the appeal, public noticing requirements could not be met for the only scheduled Planning Commission hearing date on August 27th. As such, the next available hearing habitation and include covered patios, garages and carports, any covered or enclosed area with a height greater than six feet.