Parking Lot Lighting - 2003 CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department
CAMPBELL
June 24, 2003
Mr. Wayne Renshaw, Architect
255 North Market Street, #252
San Jose, CA 95110
Re~
Parking Lot Lighting
281 East Hamilton Avenue
Dear Mr. Renshaw:
In response to your letter dated June 12, 2003, please be advised of the following. The City of Campbell
does not have a specific lighting standard for commercial parking lots. Your reference to Section
21.50.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code is correct in that all new parking facilities shall be provided
with appropriate lighting and such lighting shall be reflected away from adjoining properties and public
right-of-ways.
Typically new commercial projects are provided with parking lot lighting for safety and security
purposes.
Reconstruction of the office building at 281 East Hamilton Avenue after the fire damage did not require
that the parking facilities and landscaping associated with this office building to be rebuilt. Consequently,
the imposition of the current parking lot lighting requirement would not be required by the City with the
reconstruction of this building.
However, if the roof mounted lighting was previously approved and installed for parking lot security
purposes, it is reasonable to conclude that a similar level of parking lot lighting needs to be replaced with
the reconstruction of the building. In this case, the lighting needs to be shielded and located to minimize
glare on adjoining properties.
If you should have any questions regarding this determination, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(408) 866- 2144.
Associate Planner
Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner
Kevin Bacon, P.O. Box 5047, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
J:\Correspondence\281 E. Hamilton Parking Lot Lighting.doc
70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008-1436 - TEl. 408.866.2 140 · F^X 408.871.5140 · TI)l) 408.866.2790
Jun 12 03 Ol:08p Wayne Rensha$ 408 29? ?908 p.2
wayne renshaw
architect
255 north morkot st.
suite 252
son jose, co 9,51 i0
408 288 8033 phone
40~ 297 ?908 tax
renshow(~t3e¢, cam
June 12. 2003
architecture
planning
computer
aided design
visualization
rendering
Tim Haley
City of Campbell Planning Deportment
70 N, First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
RE:
Parking Lot Lighting Requirements for C2 Zones.
281 E Hamilton Ave, Campbell
Deor Tim:
Thank you for taking the time to review the city of Campbell's parking lot
lighting requirements with me this morning. There is some confusion regarding
the necessity for lighting in the parking area - the insurance agent's
representative has visited the planning COunter and discussed the
requirements for parking lot lighting and has come away with the impression
that the zoning does not require any lighting within the parking lot at oIL
AS I understand, Section 21.24.080 of the Campbell Municipal code (the
section that refers to C2 zones) requires that parking lots shall be provided as
covered in section 21.50 of the zoning code. A review of Section 21.50.030.
item 'L" states:
All porklng facilities shall toe proviclecl win appropriate lighting, and such
lighting shall be reflected away from 11~e octjoinlng properties oncl putolic
ri,qht~-of-woy.
While this sectiOn does not actually define the type or quantity of lighting
that is necessan/for the parking lot, it clearly states that an 'appropriate'
amount of light Shall be provided. Usually, when a zoning code provk3es on
open ended requirement SuCh OS this the intent is to allow the planning staff
some discretion in defining 'appropriate' based upon the existing
conditions, the surroundings, and Other circumstances, Given that the
parking area is located behind the building and provided with several
enclosures that make perfect hiding places ff is Our opinion that 'no lighting'
would not meet the 'aPpropriate' standard, as it would compromise tl3e
security of the site and the neighborhood, (The arson fire that destroyed a
portion of the building should be COnsidered eviOence that parking lot safety
and security is indeed an issue)
Prior to the fire the owner of the building had secured an insurance policy
that provided for 'code upgrade' of items that do not meet the current
building slandarcls. The existing building was provided with a series Of
parking lot 'flood lamps" that were mounted on a ShOrt pole attached to
the roof. The lights illuminated not only the parking Oreo but also glared over
the tence tO the adjoining residential properties - something that is also
prohibited by the zoning code. Our intent is to provide new parking lot lights
thot conform to the Current requirements of the zoning code.
Would YOU please confirm that the requirements Of chapter 21.50 cio indeed
apply, given that the owner wants to upgrade his parking lot to meet the
current municipal ordinance. We understand that some additional
diSCussiOn may be necessary to define what the 'appropriate' lighting level
might be.
Jun 12 03 Ol:09p Wayne Renshaw 408 29? ?908 p.3
Juno 17~ 2003
PQge :2
I thonk yOU for your ossistonce with this motter ond look fon~orcl tO yOur reply,
rc, n.~h,'l~v(~b~.~t. COnn- rtlTrb://wv,~v.Dos! com/-ron~haw/horn,q.hlrnl