72 replies to this topic

[RLK1]

As the chairperson of the Los Angeles Astronomical Society light pollution committee, I'd like to report on our efforts to prompt the county of Los Angeles to enforce and update an existing light pollution control ordinance known as ROLD. The latter stands for Rural Outdoor Lighting District and it applies to a wide swath of Los Angeles county. It's most significant area of coverage is in the northern part of Los Angeles county and the light pollution it potentially controls affects popular observing sites in SoCal including the Mt Pinos areas and the Mojave. Through my efforts, two major environmental groups, the Center For Biological Diversity and the Los Angeles Audubon Society, have co-partnered with LAAS in our efforts with the county of Los Angeles. Additionally, thousands of citizens/constituents in Los Angeles county have signed onto our efforts.

First a bit of background: The ROLD ordinance was unanimously passed by the board of supervisors in 2011. Here's the gist of it:

 

"The Rural Outdoor Lighting District (ROLD) is established as a supplemental district for the rural areas of the County to promote and maintain dark skies for the health and enjoyment of individuals and wildlife by:

A.Curtailing light pollution and preserving the nighttime environment.B.Permitting reasonable uses of outdoor lighting for nighttime safety, security, productivity, and enjoyment, while protecting the natural environment from the adverse effects of excessive outdoor nighttime lighting from artificial sources.C.Conserving energy and resources.D.Minimizing adverse offsite impacts of outdoor lighting, such as light trespass."

 

"In addition to complying with the applicable provisions of Section 22.80.050 (General Development Standards) outdoor lighting located on a property with a commercial, industrial, or mixed use shall be subject to the following requirements:

A.Building Entrances. All building entrances shall have light fixtures providing light with an accurate color rendition so that persons entering or exiting the building can be easily recognized from the outside of the building.B.Hours of Operation.1.Outdoor lighting shall be turned off between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and sunrise every day, unless the use on the involved property operates past 10:00 p.m., and then the outdoor lighting shall be turned off within one hour after the use's operation ends for the day. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the use on the involved property requires outdoor lighting between 10:00 p.m. and sunrise every day for safety or security reasons, outdoor lighting shall be allowed during these hours, but only if:a.Fully-shielded motion sensors are used to turn the outdoor lighting on after 10:00 p.m., and these sensors turn the outdoor lighting off automatically no more than 10 minutes after the involved area has been vacated; orb.Where the use is commercial or industrial, at least 50 percent of the total lumen levels for the outdoor lighting are reduced, or 50 percent of the total number of outdoor light fixtures are turned off, between 10:00 p.m. and sunrise.2.Exemption from Hours of Operation. Outdoor lighting shall be exempt from the hours of operation requirements of Subsection B.1, above, if such lighting:a.Is required by Title 26 (Building Code) for steps, stairs, walkways, or points of ingress and egress to buildings; orb.Is governed by an approved discretionary permit which specifically provides for different hours of operation.C.Automatic Controls. Outdoor lighting shall use automatic control devices or systems to turn the outdoor lighting off so as to comply with the applicable hours of operation requirements of Subsection B.1, above. These devices or systems shall have backup capabilities so that, if power is interrupted, the schedule programmed into the device or system is maintained for at least seven days.
(Ord. 2019-0004 § 1, 2019.)"

For those who would like to read the ordinance in its entirety,  see:

https://library.muni...CH22.80RUOULIDI

 

Unfortunately, the ordinance has neither been actively enforced or updated since its inception. In discussions with the county, we have presented graphic evidence that light pollution is increasing at a level that can only be described as severe. In our joint discussions with the county, and in addition to the adverse effects of light pollution on human health, we have also identified three sensitive wildlife regions affected by light pollution:

1. Altadena

2. Castaic

3. Malibu

We can take Malibu off the list since the latter has not waited for the county to act and has enacted its own light pollution control ordinance that becomes fully enabled by October of this year.

 

To mitigate the harmful effects of light pollution, we have proposed the following to the county:

1.    Allocate sufficient resources to ensure both proactive and timely reactive enforcement of the existing ROLD ordinance.

2.    Annual Reminder of the ROLD Ordinance via mailers contained in property tax bills to property-owners covered by the ROLD.

Update and Enhance the ROLD ordinance:

1.    Update ROLD to reflect current IDA technical standards that account for new lighting technologies.

2.    Establishment of a “buffer zone” of a 20-miles from ROLD boundaries to prevent light pollution “spillover” from areas not covered by the ROLD. (The three areas noted above).

3.    Substitution of energy conserving motion detector lighting for all existing non-essential nighttime residential lighting.  Such lighting should be turned off at 10:00 PM unless controlled by motion-sensors with a 10-minute shutoff for both ROLD and non-ROLD areas.

4.    Substitution of IDA approved lighting fixtures for non-conforming outdoor lighting in all areas of Los Angeles County as they are replaced or upgraded.

 

Unfortunately, and despite lengthy zoom meetings and emails with various county departments, the county has thus far shown itself to be refractory in accepting our proposals. Therefore, we are considering the following options at this time:

1. Legal Action: Institute a lawsuit seeking to compel the county to enforce its own ordinance including the establishment of buffer zones to mitigate the years of damage incurred for failing to do so. As it stands now, the county simply enforces the ROLD ordinance as a nuisance law, i.e. someone complains about a neighbor’s light shining on their property and complains to the county for help. But we already have light trespass laws on the books to deal with these types of complaints so it would seem evident the ROLD ordinance was created for a greater purpose of attenuating light pollution in specified rural regions. 
2. Use The Media: Attempt to push/prompt/ embarrass the county into acting by appealing to the viewership of large newspapers and/or media outlets such as CNN or MSNBC. This would likely entail a series of attempts/articles and appeals to the editor for publication.
3. Use our contacts in the county in an effort to create “robust” efforts to inform the public about ROLD. However, it seems evident that the county departments do not communicate with one another so the message is likely to become diluted and ineffective. To put in another way:  not only does one hand at the county not know what the other hand is doing, each digit on each hand doesn’t know what the other digit is doing.
4. Attempt to contact the supervisors directly: I did so on June 28th during the public comments period of the meeting. I read my prepared script but I was cut-off at the one minute mark. Given the futile nature of this sort of interaction, with the latter being echoed by other public officials who also attempted call-ins, it seems evident this approach is a no-go.
5. Work to establish ordinances within the wildlife interface areas:  Given the nature and time-intensive efforts required and the apparent unwillingness and inability of the county to enforce its own ordinances, this option seems unlikely to succeed.

In reference to the above options, all of them are currently on the table and under review. None of them has been adopted at this time. In reference to option #4, the public is given one minute to present their statements to the board of supervisors. Additionally, I listened to a mayor of a city and a councilwoman being required to address the board in the same way. So, unless you're a fast talking Texas cattle auctioneer who can talk at the rate of a mile per minute, your chances of having your message heard by the board is next to nil.

I will post updates in the future regarding our continuing efforts.

[kevin6876]

Wow, your extensive efforts appear futile with local code enforcement officials or supervisors.  One minute and they cut you off!  I'd be out of a job if our local government cut people off like that.  We have to hear it all, just the way it is.

 

Light pollution is not difficult to enforce, it is uncomfortable for code enforcement to do so, because the aggrieved party often reaches out to Council Select or Mayoral constituents, complain and the leaders in turn undermine the efforts of the officials tasked to do a certain function.  Like shoveling chit against the tide unfortunately.

 

This is where code enforcers need to be unique and tactful with approaches towards compliance and that unfortunately is an individual trait that not all code enforcers possess.

 

Sorry for your struggles, keep at it.  It's uphill all the way.

[RLK1]

For those who are following this thread, I have additional updates to report. Please stay with me as it gets a bit detailed...

First, we had another zoom meeting with a deputy from the Treasurer's office regarding our plan to have property owners living in regions covered by the ROLD ordinance to be notified of it by annual reminders included in their property tax bills. We had previously reviewed this idea with the department of regional planning (DRP) wherein a supervisor was stated to have "liked the idea" and considered it to be a "viable and financially prudent option." Later, we were told in zoom meeting noted in the initial post of this thread that the county treasurer's office did not have, in county phraseology, the ability to "drill down" and selectively send the notice to only those residents living in the ROLD regions so the notice would have to go to all 2.4 million county property owners in LA county. We then noted that the Treasurer's office, by its own actions, already does just that by selectively sending and applying different assessments for street lighting, which vary from area to area, as well varying fees from voter indebtedness and the like. Even the county's own sample of a property tax bill includes an example in the "special information" box to the effect of, "you're delinquent in your payment so contact us" and that would be sent to some people in some areas but obviously not all people in all areas.

So the office does, indeed, have the ability to "drill down" and selectively send information to various residents living in the county. We were also told that using the "special information" box for a notification is not something that is "traditionally done". We then had to point out the obvious that "special information" means just that and could not be considered something that is traditionally done as it would no longer be "special information." The county then punted the issue to the deputy of the treasurer's office and we met and discussed the issue again via a zoom meeting. 

The deputy from the treasurer's office was quite nice and very knowledgeable. The problems are, and in contrary to what the county told us above, twofold. First, the treasurer's office uses an antiquated mainframe that is data-supplied by a private contractor. Second, 70% of LA county property owners pay their property tax bill through an impound account from their mortgage company so they never see the bill!!!

In light of the above, we then asked the county what else could be done to inform residents living in ROLD regions about the ordinance. The county stated it would have a "robust" means of informing people about dark skies and ROLD but, to date, the only reported action has been to post about the importance of dark skies at the rate of four times per year on its county social pages. I've never seen those and it's a safe bet that neither have the residents living in ROLD areas. I've subsequently contacted a supervisor in the DRP who is now promising the following actions:

"We are currently preparing a mailing for the Antelope Valley with information on the following policy initiatives: ROLD, SEA Program, Interim and Supportive Housing Ordinance, and a fact sheet from Public Health on wastewater.  We are also working on translating a fact sheet on ROLD into Spanish and Chinese, which will be posted on our web site.  We’ve also started conversations with folks at the County Channel to identify opportunities for collaboration, and possibly develop videos highlighting important policies like ROLD. I can also work with our social media folks to increase the frequency of reminders on ROLD."

In response, I've thanked her for her prompt reply and, on behalf of the light pollution committee, I've asked the following question: "In regards to ROLD, how is the county planning on judging the effectiveness of its messaging?" So far, no response...

Our efforts will continue and I'll post updates as they become available.

[RLK1]

For those who are following this thread, we've received an answer to the question in the above post posed to the county, "In regards to ROLD, how is the county planning on judging the effectiveness of its messaging?"

The response is as follows, "We work with a lot of rural communities and communities in the wildland urban interface, and we often hear requests for dark skies policies, which is an indicator that the ROLD is not widely known. We’ll continue to monitor community awareness of the policy through our planning efforts."

Our light pollution committee meets again next week as we continue to explore our options as noted in the initial post of this thread.

[psandelle]

Any way I can help? I’m in the LA area and the Frazier Park ranger station is my dark site.

 

Paul

[RLK1]

Any way I can help? I’m in the LA area and the Frazier Park ranger station is my dark site.

 

Paul

PM sent.

[RLK1]

Just a brief update for those who have been following the thread:

Communications have been continuing with the county via email, particularly with the regional planning division and focusing on notification/enforcement issues as well as a buffer zone in Castaic. We are pressing the aforementioned issues and we have provided the county with graphic illustrations, including infrared mapping, of the spread of light pollution in areas under the jurisdiction of the ROLD ordinance. The regional planning administrator has acknowledged the latter illustrations are helpful.

This is a slow process but we remain committed in our efforts to reduce light pollution in accordance with the ROLD ordinance and to hopefully mitigate the effects of its spread by establishing a buffer zone in Castaic which is a both a sensitive wildlife interphase area and a gateway to the popular observing site of Mt Pinos in California.

[RLK1]

I have a further update and good news to report for those who are following this thread:  

The county has agreed to accept our invitation to a face to face meeting at our dark-sky location in Lockwood Valley a few weeks from now. At least two directors and five other members of the planning department will be present. 

I have in mind a version of "shock and awe" wherein we awe them with the celestial sights of the evening and shock them a bit by pointing out the obvious combined light domes of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles to the south. The site is located adjacent to the popular Mt Pinos viewing site and is high enough at 5000 feet (+) and flat enough that the lightdome will be an obvious intrusion. The site allows virtually unobstructed viewing to the horizon and I've observed Omega Centauri from there during certain times of the year. Additionally, we will emphasize the known risks of light pollution to humans and wildlife. 

There is a caveat, though, that we have apprised the county about at this time: recent wildfires have crimped access via the I-5 freeway and, of course, weather may potentially interfere but we are more concerned with the former than the latter.  At present, the I-5 freeway has a major bottleneck at the long northbound upgrade near Lake Hughes Rd and Templin Highway. It's probably the worst area for a choke-point in terms of northbound access and the afternoon backup is extreme. There is an alternate route of the 14 to the 138 and then back again on I-5 near Gorman but it's probably slow going due to demand at this time.

We do have an alternate site within the city of Los Angeles but its heavily light polluted although it would at least provide views of Jupiter and Saturn but that's not providing the impact of what we want the directors to see.

While both Lockwood Valley and Mt Pinos and vicinity remain accessible via the I-5 N freeway at this point, suffice it to say an observer would need to leave relatively early, (i.e sometime in the morning) and get up there and spend the day while waiting for it to get dark. All southbound lanes are open so no worries on the return trip. 

Our committee is hoping it all comes together but it's a wait and see at this point for access to the dark sky site...

[GeorgeLiv]

....

I have in mind a version of "shock and awe" wherein we awe them with the celestial sights of the evening and shock them a bit by pointing out the obvious combined light domes of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles to the south. The site is located adjacent to the popular Mt Pinos viewing site and is high enough at 5000 feet (+)  ...

...

 

We do have an alternate site within the city of Los Angeles but its heavily light polluted although it would at least provide views of Jupiter and Saturn but that's not providing the impact of what we want the directors to see.

....

 

suffice it to say an observer would need to leave relatively early, (i.e sometime in the morning) and get up there and spend the day while waiting for it to get dark. All southbound lanes are open so no worries on the return trip. 

 

....

Personally, I believe that taking non-astronomers out of their comfort zone and taking them to "experience" the "celestial delights" that I hold so near & dear could backfire. It's possible that these invited guests will realize how isolated our hobby is, decide that ROLD doesn't need to be enforced or updated since we have the ability to travel far from the offending area. However, I sincerely hope I'm dead wrong and I eagerly look forward in your results. Keep us posted.
 

[alan.dang]

Should have EAA. I am sure OC telescope can lend one if you don’t easily have one.

Should bring Gen3 night vision.

Should talk about tourism opportunities, the types of AirBNB and destination travel to places like Joshua Tree for nature retreats.

The key is tourism opportunities in my opinion. Money speaks. The investment for enforcement is low — better more efficient lights, but the opportunities for simple increased tourism that translates into tax dollars is key.

Can talk about film making opportunities, etc.

[RLK1]

Personally, I believe that taking non-astronomers out of their comfort zone and taking them to "experience" the "celestial delights" that I hold so near & dear could backfire. It's possible that these invited guests will realize how isolated our hobby is, decide that ROLD doesn't need to be enforced or updated since we have the ability to travel far from the offending area. However, I sincerely hope I'm dead wrong and I eagerly look forward in your results. Keep us posted.
 

The reality of our experience thus far shows your own opinion to be incorrect. One of our committee members has done this kind of outreach before with another official in a similar but not directly related circumstance with a positive outcome. Additionally, one of the county officials  who will be present helped craft the ROLD ordinance and lives in a dark sky community. Given the relatively high level of curiosity by non-amateurs on a Saturday night at Mt Pinos, I think we have reason for optimism. Now, if they can only get that freeway open...

PS: The seven members of the county department who decided to accept our invitation did so on their own accord and since the event is happening on a Saturday evening, they are there on their personal time and interest so we're delighted with their response in doing so...

Edited by RLK1, 08 September 2022 - 10:52 AM.

[psandelle]

Hoping it’s only going to be an extra 30 minutes up during the day.

 

Paul

[RLK1]

I have very good news to report. Several members of the LA county planning team, including two directors, met with us at our dark sky site for an on-site viewing experience and discussion of light pollution mitigation efforts. The interactions were very positive and the county members were awed by views of DSOs  through my 16". I don't how but the daughter of one of the directors even managed to record an image and video of Saturn through my scope equipped with a 10mm Ethos eyepiece in the focuser with a HAND-HELD Iphone!

The bottom line:

1. The county will now consider implementing a carve-out for Castaic to act as a buffer zone.

2. Collaborative efforts with LAAS to enforce the ROLD ordinance.

3. Periodic zoom meetings with the LAAS and the county to implement action steps and assess results.

The above represents the lion's share of our efforts with the county.

One of the directors also had an outstanding suggestion of notification of the ROLD ordinance by going into the local school districts and discussing light pollution and astronomy with the student body with take-home information packets to parents.

[psandelle]

Fantastic!!!

 

It's Monday, and I'm slow, but what does "implementing a carve-out for Castaic to act as a buffer zone" mean?

 

Paul

[RLK1]

Fantastic!!!

 

It's Monday, and I'm slow, but what does "implementing a carve-out for Castaic to act as a buffer zone" mean?

 

Paul

It means the county will give serious consideration to adding ROLD aspects to Castaic. 

[psandelle]

Great!

 

Paul

[RLK1]

After another meeting with county yesterday, I am pleased to report the following:

1. Any new subdivisions going forward in Los Angeles county will now be required to meet the ROLD standard prior to approval. This, in of itself, is a major win.

2.  Further discussions are occuring in regards to the "buffer zone" in Castaic as a pilot project and the talks are now occurring at several levels. We are optimistic that it will be implemented and we should know in about six weeks when we have another meeting with the county.  The county department is checking with public works to determine the applicability of additionally dimming every third street light in the area and then perhaps every other and that should give an you an idea of the "tone" of the discussions.

3. We also discussed, in concept, the feasibility of creating and implementing an online learning module for introduction into the school districts in areas covered by ROLD. This would include a discussion of light pollution and a description of the ROLD ordinance that would require an acknowledgement by the parent or guardian upon completion. Thus, it would serve as both education and notification in these regions.

Our light pollution committee feels like we are developing a partnership with the county and we hope it will continue to progress as we move forward in our discussions. I'll update again when I have further information to share.

Clear, dark and steady skies,

RLK1

[psandelle]

Fantastic! Great work!

 

Paul

[Kim K]

Great!

Paul

[RLK1]

I have a new update from the county for those who are following this thread.

I have more positive news to report. It appears the county will be moving forward with the proposed buffer zone in Castaic and we understand we will be informed of additional steps in this effort in January. We anticipate if the buffer zone is actually implemented and enforced, the forward progression of the light dome from the northern end of the county will be halted and, indeed, partially reversed at approximately 25% as seen from the popular observing sites at Mt Pinos and vicinity. Additionally, the county has informed us that a video production crew will be contacting myself and others in the Los Angeles Astronomical Society in order to produce a combined effort on public education about light pollution and the ROLD standard including on-site filming atop Mt Pinos and/or at the LAAS site in Lockwood valley as well as at other LAAS-affiliated observing sites. 

As noted above, I anticipate being contacted for meeting(s) regarding these important developments in January and I will update this thread as more details become available.

[RLK1]

I have a  brief update for those who are following this thread.

As noted in post #20, a video crew from the county visited our dark sky site last night, Jan 21, and filmed our activities with an additional visitation scheduled for our public outreach event upcoming at Griffith observatory. I'll have more details as they become available.

Our light pollution committee is scheduled for a zoom meeting with the county near the end of February and we hope to be able to confirm the pilot project in Castaic at that time. Stay tuned...

[RLK1]

I have another brief update for those who are following this thread. Our light pollution committee met again last week with the county planning department and we have submitted a response to several items discussed during the meeting and we are awaiting a response from the planning department to our concerns. We also have an additional meeting tentatively scheduled near the end of March. I'll update when I have more information.

Additionally, those following this thread probably know the governor had vetoed the state light pollution bill last year. The bill has now been revised for reconsideration:

https://www.almanacn...ias-night-skies

[RLK1]

For those who are following the thread:

Just completed another meeting with the county and I can report the following:

A. The county is continuing to work with us in developing in developing short term, intermediate and long term plans to help attenuate light pollution in the northern end of the county. 

    Castaic: Mailers to residents living within ROLD boundaries notifying them of the ordinance.

                  Mailers to residents living adjacent to ROLD areas but not covered by the ordinance advising them of problems attendant with light pollution and asking for voluntary cooperation.

B. Proposed subdivisions in LA county: Will be required to meet ROLD lighting requirements.

                  Massive planned 1.5 million acre commercial industrial park at Castaic/SCV area: to be required to meet ROLD lighting criteria.

C. Partnering for educational materials on light pollution for distribution.

D. Upcoming meetings: Likely: monthly.

E. Unsettled issue: enforcement.

Whew! Stay tuned!...

[RLK1]

For those who are following the thread:

Just completed another meeting with the county and I can report the following:

A. The county is continuing to work with us in developing in developing short term, intermediate and long term plans to help attenuate light pollution in the northern end of the county. 

    Castaic: Mailers to residents living within ROLD boundaries notifying them of the ordinance.

                  Mailers to residents living adjacent to ROLD areas but not covered by the ordinance advising them of problems attendant with light pollution and asking for voluntary cooperation.

B. Proposed subdivisions in LA county: Will be required to meet ROLD lighting requirements.

                  Massive planned 1.5 million acre commercial industrial park at Castaic/SCV area: to be required to meet ROLD lighting criteria.

C. Partnering for educational materials on light pollution for distribution.

D. Upcoming meetings: Likely: monthly.

E. Unsettled issue: enforcement.

Whew! Stay tuned!...

We had another follow up meeting with the county today in order to discuss the content of the county notifications via mailers informing residents in the areas about ROLD. I'm pleased to note the direct mailers should go out within 60 days and I have asked for periodic notifications to follow to reach newly planned subdivisions and/or residents moving in or out of the area. This informational outreach to the public is, of course, a very important portion of the effort to reduce the forward advance of the lightdome into the sensitive region of Mt Pinos and related areas. 

I anticipate another update in a few weeks or so...

[RLK1]

For those who are following the thread, I have an important and positive update to report after our most recent meeting with the county:

A) We are in the final steps of preparing the county notifications regarding the ROLD ordinance that will be directed to residences and businesses in the target area. Approximately 10,500 notifications will be mailed by the county, tentatively scheduled in July. 

B) Once the notifications, which will incorporate our images of the milky way and other attention grabbing features as well as the stipulations of the ROLD ordinance, are completed, I'll post a copy here for viewing.

C) The street lighting conversion project from LA county will incorporate the more desirable 2700 Kelvin rating versus the 4000 or thereabouts level previously under consideration by the county:

     https://pw.lacounty....LED-Conversion/

D) Another update to follow in about a week or so.