A technical glitch in legal posting requirements forced the continuance for an additional week on voting to adopt Ordinance No. 915, a measure to regulate outdoor lighting in the unincorporated areas of Riverside County.
The ordinance primarily would provide fines for light that falls across a property line onto another lot or invades a public right-of-way.
Proponents Ken MacLeod, John Garrett and Bill Larsen have urged passage of an outdoor lighting regulation for more than a year.(Rich Linton/SWRNN)
During the public hearing session, several proponents of the ordinance were on hand to address the supervisors, some armed with slide presentations to help make their case.
Bill Larsen, the man behind the measure who lives in an unincorporated area of Corona, brought to the meeting a new way to think about the proposed ordinance.
“More is not better,” he said. “We need to start thinking about light as being like a sprinkler system. You wouldn’t want to water your neighbors’ yard, so why light it up?”
Larsen also supplied a chart detailing the cost — $540 per year — of operating a single 500-watt outdoor light bulb for 12 hours nightly.
As a member of the International Dark Sky Association and the Temecula Valley Astronomers, Wildomar resident John Garrett returned again to speak to the board.
“I hear from school children who tell me that they want to be astronomers. I still support the measure protecting the night sky,” Garrett said.
No opponents spoke at Tuesday’s meeting.
While the proposed ordinance would exempt specific luminaries such as holiday decorations and lighting used for publicly-owned properties, Supervisor Jeff Stone suggested that more comprehensive thought may be required.
“Right now, shopping centers would not be in compliance. And I’ve heard from constituents living in homeowners’ associations who are concerned about parking lot safety for women,” Stone said.
He then showed a slide to the board depicting pickers harvesting grapes, working under harvest lights in the fields.
“Considering our commitment to the Vineyard Zone, we need to look at agricultural exceptions, so there aren’t unintentional consequences that defy logic,” Stone said.
The County of Riverside previously created the Citrus/Vineyard Zone, which is designed to preserve the agricultural and rural lifestyle within the heart of Temecula Valley Wine Country. The law encourages wineries and ancillary commercial activities designed to support wineries.
Winemaker Doug Wiens, of Wiens Family Cellars in Temecula Wine Country, said: “We are all for light control. I believe we follow all the guidelines. There is no reason for (the wineries) not to be to code.”
Wiens said that while some of the wineries exclusively harvest during evening hours, many would not be affected by the ordinance.
“I am not sure that the harvest lights would be a big issue,” he said. “They are small and not terribly bright. They are normally pointed downward.”
Public hearings will resume on Nov. 22 at the Board Chambers, 4800 Lemon Street, in Riverside.
Loading ...
Why? Why do we need yet another ordinance to limit rights. Who is this ordinance aimed at? Who will enforce this ordinance? What will enforcement cost?
We already have 100s of laws that we don’t bother to enforce. At least not until someone wants to annoy another person and then they start calling the police and code enforcement to enforce this law.
Does anyone know where Common Sense went and if they will be back soon?
Nasus: This ordinance does not limit YOUR rights. You can still put up all the obnoxious lights you want as long as they are confined to YOUR property. YOU never had the “right” to invade another’s home with lights, noise, or smells. Unfortunately some people do it. And other than taking them to court individually, they get away with it. So in answer to your question about who it is aimed at … it is aimed at the obnoxious few that bully their neighbors and make viewing the dark skies impossible.
The easy way to understand this ordinance is by replacing the term “security light” with “sprinkler system”. We all use our sprinkler systems to appropriately irrigate our property. But I don’t know anyone that wastes their money watering their neighbor’s yards. After all, watering our neighbor’s property doesn’t make ours any greener. And it wastes money. Lighting up our neighbor’s bedroom does not improve YOUR security!
So why should anyone want (or be able) to flood their neighbor’s yard / house / second story bedroom with light? It wastes their money and upsets the neighbors … but it is currently legal to do so in the unincorporated areas of Riverside County.
While we’re at it, don’t ask me to put up black out shades to fix the problem YOU create. Why don’t you tell me to get earplugs to block out your noise while you’re at it?
Relative to lights deterring criminals, I generally agree. But studies have shown that too much lighting actually produces glare that reduces our ability to see. Have you ever been blinded by oncoming cars with their headlights on high? Too much “security lighting” causes problems too.
This is a very good ordinance and one that is far overdue. It is thoughtfully written and provides consistency with at least a half dozen other ordinances or zoning laws that currently exist in the County of Riverside. But I would agree that it is unfortunate that sometimes laws have to be written to enforce what should be common sense.
Thank God the Supervisors had the Common Sense and backbone to do it.
Most outdoor lighting, except maybe some advertising, should be full cutoff. Period. Otherwise, the environmental glare increases so much that it encourages even brighter lights, ad nauseum.
LT2you, I completely understand your point and I cannot disagree with your point.
My point is we have so many laws/ordinances that are not enforced, would cost a fortune to enforce AND are typically only pulled for enforcement when we want to annoy or harass someone.
It is not that I want to flood the area with artificial lights. I want to live in a place where people have common sense and common courtesy for each other.
The ordinance is not specific enough in regards to what constitutes light spill. No measurable limit is provided, it appears to be a judgement call. That’s not a great way to determine compliance. The model lighting ordinance from dark sky association has measurable limits that ought to be incorporated into the ordinance.
The analogy to paying to water your neighbors lawn is a bit silly though. The reason annoying lights get used is because they are cheap and throw out enough light. To get good compliant lamps that block glare and provide enough light where you need will probably require considerably more expensive lights. So in this case it is cheaper to light up your neighbors yard. You have to pay more to do less if you want good dark sky lighting.
Nasus, my apologies for misreading you. It’s unfortunate that some people use alternate weapons (enormous lights in this case) to harass another … in this case one neighbor against another. I think it will only be “the obnoxious few” that will need Code Enforcement or the Sheriff’s involvement.
Boxman, my senses tell me you understand and agree with that it is a problem but only disagree on how it is measured or how the solution is implemented. As written the Ordinance says that the (direct) light must stay on the property of the person that has the light. I think you understand that spill light is anything that (directly) goes beyond one’s own property. For whatever reason, Riverside County decided not to use some of the International Dark Sky Organization’s verbage. The County of San Bernardino’s ordinance measures it as a shadow off a standard yardstick ruler 5 feet away from the offending person’s property line.
Whatever way, it certainly does not allow BRILLIANT, WHITE HOUSE-LIKE lights invading your second story bedroom at 2AM …!
If offended, I would expect the offended party to directly approach the light’s owner and respectfully request the light to be aimed downward. And I think most reasonable people would understand and comply.
But for those few obnoxious bullies, this new Ordinance will force them to accept that which should be common sense.
Once again Supervisor Stone is trying to “Stonewall” any ordinance
that might possibly impose any possible restrictions on the wineries
which he so fervently supports. The agricultural lighting for harvest
is temporary as is the harvest and could be exempted very easily as the agricultural noise is excepted under the noise ordinance. More likely Stone is opposing the ordinance as it might affect the ability
of the wineries to put a light on every building, sign, banner, plant
or whatever else they want illuminated at night. Stone wants the wine
country to become like Disneyland so the more lights the better…the
suggestion that the ordinance might prevent lighting for women’s safety is complete hogwash and a red herring.