[Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution

[Mark Solomon]

Jeff,

Let me be more specific then. Would you consider regulating of a 
business operation, such as a rock pit, a matter of public health and 
safety on the issues of hours of operation, noise and lights?

Mark

At 10:33 AM -0800 1/23/06, Jeff Harkins wrote:
>Mark,
>
>I think I answered your question quite clearly:
>
>Yes, there are numerous examples.  But the predominant case for local
>land use planning is the safety and health of the residents.
>
>But you raise one of my major points of concern about our local 
>planning commission and that is their fulfillment of the primary 
>duty to:
>
>to conduct a comprehensive planning process designed to prepare, 
>implement, and review and update a comprehensive plan, hereafter 
>referred to as the plan.. 
>
>The primary components of the planning process are, as you properly cite:
>
>	 a)  Property Rights -- An analysis of provisions which may 
>be necessary
>to insure that land use policies, restrictions, conditions and fees do not
>violate private property rights, adversely impact property values or create
>unnecessary technical limitations on the use of property and analysis as
>prescribed under the declarations of purpose in chapter 80, title 67, Idaho
>Code.
>     (b)  Population -- A population analysis of past, present, and future
>trends in population including such characteristics as total population, age,
>sex, and income.
>     (c)  School Facilities and Transportation -- An analysis of public school
>capacity and transportation considerations associated with future development.
>     (d)  Economic Development -- An analysis of the economic base of the area
>including employment, industries, economies, jobs, and income levels.
>     (e)  Land Use -- An analysis of natural land types, existing land covers
>and uses, and the intrinsic suitability of lands for uses such as agriculture,
>forestry, mineral exploration and extraction, preservation, recreation,
>housing, commerce, industry, and public facilities. A map shall be prepared
>indicating suitable projected land uses for the jurisdiction.
>     (f)  Natural Resource -- An analysis of the uses of rivers and other
>waters, forests, range, soils, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, thermal
>waters, beaches, watersheds, and shorelines.
>     (g)  Hazardous Areas -- An analysis of known hazards as may result from
>susceptibility to surface ruptures from faulting, ground shaking, ground
>failure, landslides or mudslides; avalanche hazards resulting from development
>in the known or probable path of snowslides and avalanches, and floodplain
>hazards.
>     (h)  Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities -- An analysis showing
>general plans for sewage, drainage, power plant sites, utility transmission
>corridors, water supply, fire stations and fire fighting equipment, health and
>welfare facilities, libraries, solid waste disposal sites, schools, public
>safety facilities and related services. The plan may also show locations of
>civic centers and public buildings.
>     (i)  Transportation -- An analysis, prepared in coordination with the
>local jurisdiction(s) having authority over the public highways and streets,
>showing the general locations and widths of a system of major traffic
>thoroughfares and other traffic ways, and of streets and the recommended
>treatment thereof. This component may also make recommendations on building
>line setbacks, control of access, street naming and numbering, and a proposed
>system of public or other transit lines and related facilities including
>rights-of-way, terminals, future corridors, viaducts and grade separations.
>The component may also include port, harbor, aviation, and other related
>transportation facilities.
>     (j)  Recreation -- An analysis showing a system of recreation areas,
>including parks, parkways, trailways, river bank greenbelts, beaches,
>playgrounds, and other recreation areas and programs.
>     (k)  Special Areas or Sites -- An analysis of areas, sites, or structures
>of historical, archeological, architectural, ecological, wildlife, or scenic
>significance.
>     (l)  Housing -- An analysis of housing conditions and needs; plans for
>improvement of housing standards; and plans for the provision of safe,
>sanitary, and adequate housing, including the provision for low-cost
>conventional housing, the siting of manufactured housing and mobile homes in
>subdivisions and parks and on individual lots which are sufficient to maintain
>a competitive market for each of those housing types and to address the needs
>of the community.
>     (m)  Community Design -- An analysis of needs for governing landscaping,
>building design, tree planting, signs, and suggested patterns and standards
>for community design, development, and beautification.
>     (n)  Implementation -- An analysis to determine actions, programs,
>budgets, ordinances, or other methods including scheduling of public
>expenditures to provide for the timely execution of the various components of
>the plan.
>
>I have been attending Planning Commission meetings for over a year 
>now as they have plodded through the proposed changes to the 
>Comprehensive Long Range Plan.  In virtually every meeting, one or 
>more attendees have raised the question - why are you doing this? 
>what is your objective? what is the problem you are trying to 
>resolve.  In not one single meeting has a planning commission member 
>reached into a file, briefcase or drawer to produce a copy of an 
>analysis of any kind.  Not once.  This group has not provided 
>evidence of an analysis that includes any of the required analysis 
>units - despite repeated requests.  This would seem to be in 
>conflict with the requirements of 67.6508.
>
>I think that this is the primary reason that this particular 
>proposed ordinance has met with such resistance.  The Planning 
>Commission has taken several positions on issues, presumably based 
>on their personal knowledge, experience and beliefs, instead of 
>providing an analysis of issues, with the results available in 
>writing for review.  And they have certainly not reduced their 
>findings to writing to allow review or dialogue about their analyses 
>supporting their findings.
>
>Coincidentally, the makeup of the committee did not have a 
>representative for the farming sector for the full year. The group 
>that would be most impacted by the proposed ordinance was not even 
>represented on the Commission.
>
>I would very much like to know what their population analysis is and 
>the assumptions they made about it and drew from it.
>
>I would very much like to know what their assessment of school needs 
>is and what it is based on.
>
>I would very much like to know what their conclusions for economic 
>development are and what they are based on.
>
>I would very much like to know what their conclusions for land use 
>are and what they are based on ....
>
>... and on and on and on.
>
>As an example of how the process has worked, when asked on direct 
>questioning why they took the particular approach they did to 
>regulate an activity, their response was, "Well we received a letter 
>stating that we should do this"  They talked about it and thought it 
>was a "good idea" and drafted that provision of the ordinance.  For 
>example, by their own statements, they acknowledge that the lighting 
>ordinance was the result of input from one citizen - Mr Stu 
>Goldstein.  If there was an analysis of the neede for the lighting 
>ordinance, they have not made it available to the public.
>
>During my participation at the planning commission meetings, there 
>have been no charts, no maps, no population demographics, no 
>economic demographics, no studies or reports of any kind made 
>available to the public.
>
>Mark - Thank you for bringing the elements of the planning process 
>to light.  This may provide a means by which future proposals for 
>changes to the Long-Range Comprehensive Plan are conducted in 
>accordance with all the applicable provisions of the planning 
>process.  It may also help to refocus everyone on the appropriate 
>elements to consider as we conclude consideration of the changes 
>pending now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060123/deaa0e91/attachment-0001.htm