



Outdoor Lighting Control Act
Other Southwestern City
Proposed 1997
Las Cruces Sun-News
Guest editorial by |
Proposed Outdoor Lighting Control Ordinance, Las Cruces, New Mexico
Outdoor Lighting Control Ordinance Number xx-xx-xx 1.0 Purpose:
The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate the installation and use of outdoor night lighting fixtures in the City of Las Cruces. Some outdoor lighting is essential for public safety, however, careless use of outdoor night lighting generates unnecessary contention between citizens, prevents full enjoyment of property and destroys the beautiful night skies of New Mexico. Glaring outdoor lights are a hazard to traffic and interfere with area safety. Glare does not enhance area security, it only interferes with neighborhood safety by blinding resident and/or security patrol views of homes and businesses, thereby enabling intruders to operate unobserved. 2.0 Applicability:
2.1 The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to all outdoor lighting within the City of Las Cruces regardless of its use or purpose. 3.0 Exemptions:
3.1 Incandescent fixtures with a total of 100 watts or less per fixture. 4.0 Compliance:
4.1 General provisions: 5.0 Violations and Penalties:
5.1 The provisions of this Outdoor Lighting Control Ordinance are cumulative and supplemental. If any County, State or Federal law, act, ordinance or resolution is adopted with provisions restricting light trespass that are more stringent than those outlined in this ordinance, the more stringent provisions shall apply. 6.0 Definitions:
6.1 "Light Pollution" is any artificial emission of light which causes a detrimental effect on the environment, glare or undesirable illumination of adjacent properties. |
Please press your Reload/Refresh button to insure that you retrieve the most recent comments.
|
Returned Comments & Dialog
To add your comments |
John Gilkison (jgilkiso@nmsu.edu) writes: My comment on the CLC proposed ordinance is as follows: 2.2 Exemption for existing fixtures is the same as the state bill: too open ended and too long. Recommend a definitive cut off date, like 10 years, hopefully less. 3.1 Exemptions should be changed from Incandescent to Residential fixtures with a total of 1,000 lumens or less per fixture not to total over 3,000 lumens. This is the porch light exemptions and it should be lumens capped and not refer to the source but to lumens. 3.6 Outdoor signs constructed of a translucent material provided that they are totally lighted from within should also specify dark backgrounds with lighter colored lettering or signage. 4.2, which talks about building mounted fixtures (i.e., wallpacks), should mention the 15 degrees below the horizontal general requirement again or then the property line whichever is required as long as 15 degrees is the maximum allowable. 4.3.1 Glare to attract attention, the 70,000 lumens cap per acre for businesses could be inserted here. A unshielded lumens cap for businesses may also be here. It could be 3,000 lumens per acre also or less, rather than 1,000 lumens per fixture. 4.3.2 On billboards and sign lighting in general, this language which talks about lighting signs so that all the light is captured by the sign is meaningless. It is meaningless because uplighting even if fully captured makes it directly then back into the sky which contributes to skyglow. It needs to be stated in this provision that all such signs shall be lighted from the top down. Down light signs could only contribute to skyglow by a maximum of 15% times the reflectance of the sign itself. Finally we need to be on the lookout for provisions and situations not covered in this ordinance. One that comes to mind is a shielded lumens cap on residential to control excessive illumination there. Even fully shielded lighting can be annoying if too bright for a small area.
Having read John Gilkison's comments and heard his presentation at
Mesilla, I first of all
would like to second all his comments, with special emphasis on several
things:
2)
the brightness of lighting even if shielded and along with that the
limit on grandfathering, which should be no MORE than 5 years, with City
and ETZ reps going around to encourage compliance even with current
lighting; and
3) the overwhelming importance of his last paragraph which
states we must be on the lookout for things not covered. This
was something that kept coming to mind while reading the main body of
the ordinance. Once the ordinance is passed (assuming that measure of
success) it will be extremely difficult to amend. I have seen this so
many times in the past; commercial interests will scream and holler
enough about what is already there and will never allow addenda without
a bloody battle. Witness the sign ordinance, which has become such a
toothless tiger that they might as well start over. Also everyone gets
variances, which I would hope would not be possible under the lighting
ordinance.
|
