[Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution

[Phil Nisbet]

Mark

I would chip in on this one.

Yes.

If the pit is in proximity to other person's dwellings, the operation may 
impact health through excessive noise.  It is not unreasonable for the 
government to control such activity since it creates a number of factors 
that can impact far more than the simply visual.

Hours of operations may also impact safety, in that if the pit works at 
night, it may require movement of traffic at night or at some hour that can 
cause safety conflicts with other uses on public roads.

As one of the regulated on this subject, good regulation is not 
inappropriate, since the activity is commercial in nature and the pit 
operator should be charging sufficiently for his product to see that sound 
practices are carried out.

I would say that if we were talking about commercial lighting, requiring 
commercial enterprise with deep pockets to carry out good lighting practice 
is not a bad idea.  The question is not one of commercial lighting in the 
Ordinance, but is inclusive of all rural use of lighting, including lights 
for folks who may not have the deep pockets that a commercial enterprise 
has.

As a matter of record, the commercial and industrial portions of the code 
that is working its way through have provisions for lighting and for 
carrying out the requirements of the separate lighting ordinance.  All of 
those uses are required to submit lighting plans as part of their CUPs.

I hope that explains mining’s attitude toward the issues you raise, Mark.

Phil Nisbet



>From: Mark Solomon <msolomon at moscow.com>
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] RE: lighting pollution
>Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:43:10 -0800
>
>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.


>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963