OCPB agenda 010913 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

D R A F T 8 Michael Harvey: I would like to make a recommendation on the package. There are two areas we have discussed. 372 We have added some language to clarify when you have to make improvements to light fixtures, 6.11.2c. We also 373 need comments on the athletic field light issue and if the motion is to approve staff’s recommendation we need you to 374 explain your rationale on why increasing the height of athletic field is reasonable or make a motion to modify what 375 staff has written to propose your own height limit or even delete it in its entirety. 376 377 Larry Wright: What are the feelings regarding height? 378 379 Alan Campbell: I didn’t pick up that much negative sentiment from the BOCC at the meeting. I like what is being 380 proposed because it needs to address things we already have in place that aren’t meeting the requirements. Also, I 381 believe in and agree that the notion of having a higher pole with more direct light will decrease trespass. 382 383 Lisa Stuckey: I would suggest we delete on page 61, c2b, the whole maximum height issue because I think it is 384 addressing the wrong issue. 385 386 Alan Campbell: I don’t think you will get that approved. I’m all about getting something approved. 387 388 Lisa Stuckey: Should we do what we think they will do or what we think is right? 389 390 Alan Campbell: I don’t want to see it bounced around for another year. 391 392 Tony Blake: 100 or 90 feet from ground? 393 394 Michael Harvey: It is intended to be from grade…. 395 396 Johnny Randall: Is 100 feet high enough? 397 398 Michael Harvey: I believe so. We haven’t had a height limit until two years ago so you aren’t going to see anything 399 consistent with this height limit. 400 401 Tony Blake: It’s not really 100 feet in relation to the grade of the person that might complain. It is 100 feet from 402 whatever the topography of the land is. I don’t see how this is a consistent application. 403 404 Larry Wright: I would like to ask the question regarding Lisa’s statement. I would like to hear the argument that the 405 100 feet does not address the issue. Let’s say you have the 100 feet limit. What do we have that addresses the 406 question? 407 408 Lisa Stuckey: The issue is light trespass. 409 410 Larry Wright: What in here takes care of the issue? 411 412 Michael Harvey: You still have to comply with the minimum foot candle at property line which we reduced three 413 years ago. You still have other standards in here. 414 415 Larry Wright: Can I have a motion? 416 417 Herman Staats: I also agree that if the light trespass is addressed by the lumens, height is a separate issue that may 418 or may not be related but I also agree that since this is there that the height is increased that is somewhat of a 419 compromise. 420 421 Michael Harvey: This talks about outdoor sports fields, outdoor performance lighting. 422 423 Buddy Hartley: I agree that the 100 foot is for that purpose. 424 12