Laserfiche WebLink
Installing high-intensity lighting within the setback directly conflicts with these <br />objectives. <br />In contrast, comparable properties cited by the applicant (on Trenery Drive) have greater <br />setbacks between poles and property lines and were developed under Alameda County, not <br />City, jurisdiction. <br />Those examples therefore do not establish valid precedent under Pleasanton’s zoning <br />authority. <br />5. Absence of Certification and Independent Verification <br />The report is unsigned and lacks certification by a licensed lighting professional or electrical <br />engineer. <br />Without a professional stamp or verification of compliance with IES and City standards, the <br />data cannot be considered technically reliable for decision-making. <br />6. Risk of Adverse Impacts Despite “Shielded” Fixtures <br />Even with shielding, high-wattage LEDs at 15 feet produce significant source brightness <br />visible from neighboring properties. <br />According to the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA), fixtures above 12 feet in <br />residential areas typically generate perceptible glare unless advanced optical controls are <br />used. <br />The report includes no evidence that such controls are in place. <br />Summary <br />The submitted lighting report fails to substantiate the applicant’s claim of “no glare or <br />spillover.” <br />Critical modeling data are missing, glare analysis is omitted, receptor-point measurements <br />are absent, and the proposed pole height violates the intent of the City’s setback and <br />compatibility standards. <br />