[Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution

[Jeff Harkins]

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/20060123/63ab25b3/attachment.htm