72 replies to this topic

[kevin6876]

^^Nice work!  Congrats and stick with it.  Sounds like a very worthwhile effort.

[RLK1]

I have another update for those who are following the thread:

As noted in my prior post (#25), we are working with the county in preparing notifications of the ROLD ordinance to be mailed on or about July 15. The aforementioned date isn't carved in stone but we feel it is realistic at this point in time.  We have purchased a Getty image and licensure to use it of a beautiful image of the milky way with a family in the foreground pointing upwards at it. The family orientation of the notification is important as the target area is composed primarily of single family homes and the businesses that sell and provide services to them.  In addition to the pleasing and eye-catching image, the county notification pamphlet will have the title of, "Eyes On The Skies" along with easily read and understood font with corresponding images and/or diagrams of proper lighting necessary to fulfill the criteria of the ROLD ordinance. 

Once the final notification pamphlet is approved and sent to the vendor for production, I'll post it in the thread. 

I should have another update in one to two weeks but this aspect of the process of notifications is proceeding quite well. So, all in all, more good news to report as we continue to work closely with the county on our efforts to both stop and hopefully attenuate the progression of the light dome that affects the sensitive observation areas of Mt Pinos and vicinity as well as the wildlife interphase area in Castaic. 

[RLK1]

I have the following update for those who are following the thread:

First, the ROLD notifications are in the process of being finalized and is on track at this time for a mid July mailing date. 

Second, I did a night time drive-thru in the Castaic/SVC area with a county video-recorder specialist who is currently working on a public education video on light pollution. We documented examples of good and bad night time lighting practices in the area. I have a follow-up interview this month at the Griffith observatory specific to the ROLD ordinance, immediately following an interview between the county video specialist and the director of the observatory on the topic of light pollution. This will eventually be aired on the county cable channel and on youtube. When I get the links, I'll post them here although that's going to take awhile. 

Third, there's good news/bad news. First the good news: some of you may recall I had posted a separate thread about a large "light tower" in the Castaic/SCV border-area last year. It turned out to be a large gas well that was illuminated from top to bottom with exceedingly bright LED lights and I likened the appearance to that of an Apollo moonshot lift-off at night. Fortunately, after communicating with a PR representative of the company, the well was tarped-over and essentially 90% cloaked relative to the LED lighting. As it happened, SoCal was battered over the winter with a number rainstorms from the so-called "atmospheric river" above the region. Basically the tarp was tattered and torn, necessitating removal. So, the LEDs re-appeared but follow-up messaging to the PR rep has now resulted in new tarping with the rocket-launch appearance at night being defused. That tower, being placed high upon a hilltop and as brightly illuminated as it was, would have contributed to the lightdome visible from the Mt Pinos/Lockwood Valley viewing areas. 

Now for the bad news: I've noticed a small night time LED light dome recently to the north of me. I tracked it down and found it was being caused by a large number of LED panel lights on poles at an RV park near Castaic road. I thought stadium lighting was bright but this seemed even worse. I had the county video specialist record both the lightdome as well as the source and both of us had the same thoughts out loud: "How in the world did something like this get permitted?" The lights themselves illuminate a large empty field and there was exactly one RV trailer parked nearby. I think if you had an RV in the vicinity, you'd need blackout curtains to sleep at night unless you enjoy sleeping with a floodlight in your RV. IF that area happens to fill up with RVs, which I doubt based upon what I've seen thus far, RVs, generally being painted white, would probably reflect the overhead lighting even further into the sky. I'm keeping an eye on it, and perhaps the place will fold and the lights will go out.

Additionally, an old establishment of some historical significance in the area and near the RV park and known as the country girl saloon has been bulldozed to make way for a Kenworth truck dealership. If there was email contact available at the Kenworth headquarters which is located in another state, I would have contacted them about the type of lighting they plan on using but I could not find any email address listed and I'm not about to contact corporate headquarters by phone and go through an unknown number of people to explain and re-explain issues attendant with light pollution. It's just isn't practical to do by phone. I can say that I have checked the Kenworth truck dealership websites elsewhere in SoCal and the lighting they appear to use seems to be reasonably decent. The new big rigs generally tend to be quite expensive and I doubt they're going to be lined up like cars in a used car lot with all the garish lighting that goes with it but I won't know until it happens. 

I anticipate another update in two weeks.

[RLK1]

I have another update those who are following the thread:

 

1.The ROLD notifications continue to be on track for the mid-July mailings. Just as soon as I get the word from the county that's it's ok to post reproductions of the mailings, I'll do so. They've asked me to hold off from doing so until they've finalized the printings/distributions with the contracting vendor.

 

2. I've completed my interview at Griffith observatory on light pollution as noted in the prior post and all seemed to go well.

 

3. LAAS will be hosting a principal member of the county department involved in the ROLD effort at an upcoming event at the Mt Wilson observatory in July. The county video-recorder specialist will be at the event to interview the official on the progress on our efforts on ROLD.

 

4. I've reached out to the city of Santa Clarita recently and included minutes from an old city council meeting wherein it was stated the city is aware of the need to reduce ambient lighting by directing light downward, etc.  However, as I've noted in my query, those efforts seem to have fallen short in doing so. As an example, I'd suspect it's a fair guess that if you happened to have gotten lost in the hills overlooking the city at night, you'd probably be able to just look up and walk towards the blue glow and you'd find the city before the city's search and rescue finds you.  I'll let you know where this one all goes...

 

5. I'll post another update in 3 weeks or so.

[George N]

Good luck with the efforts! Most impressive!

[RLK1]

For those who are following the thread:

My latest update from the county is that the mailing of the ROLD notifications should occur this week but I do not have a precise date. There were some last minute checks that delayed it a bit but the word that it will go out as planned remains positive. As I've stated in prior emails, as soon as I get the ok from the county, I'll post images of it.

Additionally, I have had further communications with the city of Santa Clarita. This, being a city,  is neighboring unincorporated areas targeted by the ROLD notifications but is not a part of it. However, the light pollution emanating from it is quite significant. Here's an intro to the issue that I had sent to the appropriate city officials:

As the chairperson of the light pollution committee of the Los Angeles Astronomical Society, I had submitted the following email to ------- several weeks ago and he replied by noting some of the steps the city has taken to reduce light pollution including your email address for further information. The salient portions of my email to -------- are as follows:
I note that while the city of Santa Clarita has, in the past, acknowledged the issue of light pollution as evidenced by city council minutes that stated, "the City is cognizant of ambient light pollution and strives to direct night lighting downward", little or nothing has been done to accomplish this simple but effective step in reducing light pollution.

Indeed, the opposite appears to be occurring  with the advent of high intensity LED field lighting of various parks and high school playing fields with the latter being announced frequently on the Signal news website. For example, yesterday's online edition reported, "The Farm SCV is seeking a permit to add an outdoor soccer field, parking improvements, and four 33 foot tall outdoor lights for a field..." The latter will likely be approved soon.

The aforementioned example appears to be more or less weekly or monthly reporting on the Signal news website of duplications of the same types of projects already occurring in the City of Santa Clarita. Multiple city parks now have or will have the same playing fields with the same high intensity LED lighting as will all the Hart high school district's playing fields. Duplication after duplication with redundant purposes and high intensity lighting along with the light pollution it will inculcate into the environment since such lighting is generally unshielded and nearly omni-directional in ambience.

It is likely that the high intensity LED lighting being deployed will exceed the recommendation of the American Medical Association of a maximum of 3000K for night time lighting applications.
Additionally, it should be noted that light pollution has been implicated as a risk factor in obesity and in carcinoma of the breast in females due to regulatory hormone imbalance. The health and well being of wildlife is also adversely affected which is of consequence since the Santa Clarita Valley borders a sensitive wildlife interface area at the Castaic/SCV area.

Finally, we at the Los Angeles Astronomical Society are highly concerned about the loss of our night time skies for our present and future generations. Many SCV residents will never know the splendors of our own galaxy, the milky way, because of the high ambient light pollution being generated by the city of Santa Clarita and surrounding areas.

It is for all of the above reasons that we have partnered with two major environmental groups, the Center of Biological Diversity and the Los Angeles Audubon Society, in a petition effort to advance a little known dark sky ordinance called ROLD (Rural Outdoor Lighting District) that had been unanimously passed by the LA county board of supervisors. Although the ordinance does not affect the city of Santa Clarita proper, it does apply to some of the unincorporated areas around SCV. Here is a link to the ordinance for your perusal:
https://library.muni...CH22.80RUOULIDI
We have been working closely with the county to inform residents/commercial interests in the ROLD regions of its existence and we anticipate notifications via mail by mid July.  It should be emphasized that, as per the ordinance, the purpose is "to promote and maintain dark skies for the health and enjoyment of individuals and wildlife." In other words, it essentially captures the concerns regarding the effects of light pollution that I have just described to you.
In conclusion, is there any way the city of Santa Clarita can take similar measures to curb light pollution by proper shielding, conserving energy by limiting hours of operation of night time lighting versus lighting all night long, and proper directional orientation of said lighting?

Our committee has reviewed the response from -------- of which you were copied and we have some additional questions regarding recreational lighting of the multitude of redundant playing fields in the city designated areas. While we understand the need for shielded ground lighting for safety/security, we are questioning whether or not "standard dusk to dawn" operation necessarily pertains to sports lighting of soccer fields and the like when such such fields are not occupied, for example, at 2:00am in the morning. Since these types of lighting fixtures tend to be significantly elevated above ground level, the light pollution from them appears to be nearly omni-directional.

In my email to --------, I noted that from past city council minutes it had been stated that the city is cognizant of ambient lighting and is taking measures to direct light downward, etc. Those minutes are quite old and it appears from the response from -------- that only "now" is the city purportedly doing something about it. In addition, all one has to do is drive around the city at night or along the I-5 freeway and obvious examples of unshielded and glaringly bright lights affixed to tall poles or large walls are quite evident.

As a somewhat jovial and hypothetical example, someone could get lost at night in the hills/forested areas in regions surrounding the city and he or she could look up and follow the blue glow on the horizon and they would likely find the city before the city's search and rescue could find them.

In conclusion, can reasonable steps be taken to assess the need for all-night long sports lighting to be necessary if, in fact, it's not actually necessary? Can the city take any steps to curb unshielded and omni-directional lighting presently in place and/or require replacement with compliant fixtures when a replacement becomes necessary?

Thank you for your consideration of the above.

 

Now for the response from the city:

"Thank you for reaching out regarding lighting in the City. The Unified Development Code does not permit omnidirectional lighting all hours of the night as you note below. Each project that includes lighting must provide plans that demonstrate that lighting is directed down and shielded from neighboring properties. You can find the code language here. Projects must demonstrate their lighting will comply with these standards prior to obtaining their building permits."

 

"Regarding City lighting facilities, while there are exemptions to certain lighting standards for City facilities, the City uses industry leading equipment and techniques to ensure that lighting is directed to fields where it is meant to be used. This eliminates the spill-over of lighting onto neighboring properties. As facilities age, the City monitors their efficiency and evaluates the appropriate time to upgrade to the most current lighting standards. Field lights at City facilities are costly, and are only turned on for City programs or specific reservations. All reservations end at 10:00 p.m. and may remain on for a few additional minutes for the safety of participants leaving the field. Properly directed and shielded safety lighting may remain on at each facility throughout the night, however sports field lighting remains off unless reserved for a specific use. If you have identified a City of Santa Clarita facility where the lighting operates different than I have described, please let me know so I can look into the issue and have it corrected as appropriate."

 

"I hope this helps address your concerns. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance."

 

So, I'll need to do a drive through in the near future and assess the lighting practices. If someone lives in the SCV area and is willing to assist me, PM me.

[RLK1]

For those following the thread,  I have good news:

I am very pleased to report the ROLD notifications have been finalized at the vendor, greenlighted for printing, and are anticipated to be sent to the post office for mailing on August 15th. Additional translations in Spanish and Chinese have now been included in the final versions. I've asked for permission to share the final versions and am awaiting a reply. As soon as I get the ok for sharing I'll do so although that may have to wait until the public mailing. I can tell you that they are very nice, high quality stock reproductions and they look great!

[RLK1]

For those following the thread,  I have good news:

I am very pleased to report the ROLD notifications have been finalized at the vendor, greenlighted for printing, and are anticipated to be sent to the post office for mailing on August 15th. Additional translations in Spanish and Chinese have now been included in the final versions. I've asked for permission to share the final versions and am awaiting a reply. As soon as I get the ok for sharing I'll do so although that may have to wait until the public mailing. I can tell you that they are very nice, high quality stock reproductions and they look great!

A brief update for those who are following the thread:

1. I'll be able to post images of the official ROLD notifications after mailing which will occur next week.

2.  I received notification today from the county regarding their LED streetlight conversion project taking place in my and other unincorporated areas in Los Angeles county touting the following:

    a. "Dark Sky Friendly"

    b. "Reduced light pollution"

   As previously noted in this thread, these should be reduced K temperature rated fixtures of around 2400K to the 2700K instead of the 4000K fixtures used in various cities. 

[RLK1]

A brief update for those who are following the thread:

1. I'll be able to post images of the official ROLD notifications after mailing which will occur next week.

2.  I received notification today from the county regarding their LED streetlight conversion project taking place in my and other unincorporated areas in Los Angeles county touting the following:

    a. "Dark Sky Friendly"

    b. "Reduced light pollution"

   As previously noted in this thread, these should be reduced K temperature rated fixtures of around 2400K to the 2700K instead of the 4000K fixtures used in various cities. 

I have additional positive and important information for those following the thread:

There are two providers, LA County Public Works & Southern California Edison, that are responsible for the street light replacement project noted in the above post. I have confirmed with the civil engineer in charge that both providers will use dark sky friendly lighting and fixtures that specifically meet IDA requirements and he sent me the links to prove it. While each provider uses a different LED lighting head and fixture, both have the same attenuated 2700K rating and have appropriate cutoff features that target the light beam downward and, per the technical links, have a more limited spectral spread in the light being produced by the fixture. These appear to be far superior to the 4000K blazers used in cities.

[LAStargazer]

I think this is great what you are doing and if there is anything I can do to get the word out, please let me know.  

 

I was wondering if anyone have the answer to my questions below:

 

1.  Who is the agency that enforces this ordinance?  Regional Planning, Building and Safety?

2.  What are the penalties for violating this ordinance?

3.  Is this ordinance include unincorporated LA?

4.  Is there a website to report potential violaters? 311 is a joke.  I can't get anyone to talk to me!

5.  Is this ordinance in combination with Section 93.0117 (Outdoor Lighting Affecting Residential Property)? How does it enhance this ordinance?

 

[RLK1]

I think this is great what you are doing and if there is anything I can do to get the word out, please let me know.  

 

I was wondering if anyone have the answer to my questions below:

 

1.  Who is the agency that enforces this ordinance?  Regional Planning, Building and Safety?

2.  What are the penalties for violating this ordinance?

3.  Is this ordinance include unincorporated LA?

4.  Is there a website to report potential violaters? 311 is a joke.  I can't get anyone to talk to me!

5.  Is this ordinance in combination with Section 93.0117 (Outdoor Lighting Affecting Residential Property)? How does it enhance this ordinance?

PM sent.

[RLK1]

A quick update for those who are following the thread:

1. I have received confirmation that the ROLD notifications have been sent to the post office today by the vendor so I anticipate receiving mine in the mail in the next few days. When I do, I'll finally be able to post images of them.

2. Based upon my preliminary read on the spectral flux graph of the LED street light replacement/conversion in and near the ROLD areas and/or in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles county , the visual UHC and 0111 filters should be effective in evading 85-90% of the LED spectrum from these particular models. Additionally, broader bandwidth filters should also provide a measure of improvement because the actual light signature of these units that makes it into the sky should be a faint echo of the LED emission due to the lensing and cutoffs of these models.

[RLK1]

THE important update for those who are following the thread:

The ROLD notifications have arrived in the mail!

I've tried, unsuccessfully, to attach images but I keep getting an error message that the file(s) are too big. I've encountered this before on CN but the usual fixes aren't working. 

I'll hopefully be getting some help so I can post the images soon. 

In the meantime, I've contacted the local newspaper in SCV and they are presently considering doing a story on the ROLD roll-out in the target area. They've asked for images of the notifications which I've subsequently forwarded to them.

Stay tuned...

[RLK1]

Hopefully this will work...

Attached is the image of the cover sheet of "EYES ON THE SKIES" notification sent to 10,500 residents/businesses in the target area. 

In addition to the cover sheet, the remaining pages of the notification brochure are as follows: "Why Are Dark Skies Important"/ "Did You Know You Live In (or adjacent to) the Rural Outdoor Lighting District)"/ "Dark Skies Best Practices"/ "Contacts"/ "Quote From 5th District Supervisor". 

 

Note there are three logos on the bottom of the cover page: 1. Supervisors Barger's Office. 2. LA County Planning 3. Los Angeles Astronomical Society logo (look closely to see diagram of a telescope).

 

Additional images of remaining pages to follow. 

 

To my knowledge, this is the first direct mailing of an official notification regarding light pollution on a scale of the targeted area.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[RLK1]

Here are additional pages of the ROLD notification as described in the above post (#39).

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[RLK1]

In order to further publicize the ROLD ordinance, the county of Los Angeles just put out a video on the county channel and youtube, including yours truly, that was shot at Griffith observatory overlooking greater Los Angeles:

https://www.youtube....h?v=XV8lLQjkBAQ

[RLK1]

In addition to the above youtube video, The Signal Newspaper, a leading source of news for the city of Santa Clarita and the Santa Clarita Valley, just published an article publicizing our collaborative effort with the county of Los Angeles:

https://signalscv.co...ight-pollution/

[RLK1]

I have an important update for those who are following the thread:

The sensitive dark sky region in the Mt Pinos viewing area is a vast region that includes Chuchupate and Lockwood Valley. Depending on where one is in these areas, one of the following counties has jurisdiction: Los Angeles, Kern or Ventura county. The dominant player, however, for most of the region is Kern county. 

I've been in contact with Kern county regarding use of 2700k dark sky friendly street lights in the conversion program to these units by Los Angeles county. I just received a response from Kern that gives me cause for optimism in this regard. It seems their provider, PG&E, can supply these units upon their request and the county will consider replacement of some of their street lights with these preferred units as well as for new development. My county contacts at Kern have stated they will keep me in the loop so I'll update further on this positive development as I obtain more information. Meanwhile, Ventura county appears to be moving in this direction based upon initial information available to me at this time.

[psandelle]

Wow! That would be big! Great job.

 

Paul

[Fabricius]

Well done!

 

This is worth following.

Is a digital version of the "EYES ON THE SKIES" brochure available for download?

 

 

EDIT - already found it:

 

https://planning.lac...ure-English.pdf

Edited by Fabricius, 31 August 2023 - 12:22 PM.

[RLK1]

KCal news, a Los Angeles TV news station, carried our message last night together with a feature on Mt Wilson and light pollution in Los Angeles. My LAAS light pollution partner in our effort, Spencer Soohoo, is interviewed in the feature:

 

https://www.cbsnews....in-los-angeles/

Edited by RLK1, 08 September 2023 - 11:28 AM.

[Pyxus]

Fantastic effort, RLK1!

I am new to astrophotography/EAA, in the LA/Pasadena area and will be following this.

Thanks for doing this.

[RLK1]

I have the following update those who are following the thread:

 

1. I have a zoom meeting scheduled on Wed Sep 20th with a councilman and other members of a dark sky organization. I intend to push for the conversion of existing non-IDA compliant street lights with IDA approved 2700k units. This would be in tandem for a county program that intends to do the same in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles county. I'm hoping to do the same in Kern county. 

2. The county video recorder notes he will soon be completing an extended video of that seen in post #41. This should be a deep dive into the problem of light pollution in general and in LA county in particular.

3. The IDA compliant 2700k units have a spectral flux graph similar to the unit in this image. As can be seen, both visual UHC and 0111 filters should be effective in filtering out most of it. The crossmark areas for the UHC filter and the shaded area of the 0111 filter are approximately centered on their greatest transmission levels at around 500 nm. Although this is only an approximation, it should be more than adequate for visual observations.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Ron359]

Your earlier post says they will consider replacing "some of their streetlights."

 

 So these will only be installed in some selected areas and not county or city wide?  Anything helps,  but if its not a large area I wouldn't expect an overall big reduction in L.A. LP  Everything comes down to money.  Do you know if these IDA 'approved' lights cost more than the existing LED lights?     Good luck and congrats for at least getting it 'on the agenda.'   Will be interested to hear what happens.  

[RLK1]

Your earlier post says they will consider replacing "some of their streetlights."

 

 So these will only be installed in some selected areas and not county or city wide?  Anything helps,  but if its not a large area I wouldn't expect an overall big reduction in L.A. LP  Everything comes down to money.  Do you know if these IDA 'approved' lights cost more than the existing LED lights?     Good luck and congrats for at least getting it 'on the agenda.'   Will be interested to hear what happens.  

These are good questions and I have asked and just received an answer for them. From my morning email from the county project manager:

 

"There are approximately 60,000 streetlights in the unincorporated communities of LA County.  Approximately 30,000 (or 50%) are owned and operated by LA County and the other 30,000 are owned and operated by SCE.  The County has converted approximately 27,000 streetlights to date and SCE has converted approximately 14,000 streetlights to date for a total conversion of 41,000 streetlights in unincorporated LA County."

 

So the total number that will be converted, and likely before the end of this year, will be 60,000. That, in itself, is nothing to sneeze at, and since most of these exist in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles county, I expect the effect to be significant because most of these areas are located at the outskirts of the county and adjacent to dark sky areas such as the Mt Pinos and related observational areas in the Los Padres national forest.

As far as an actuarial breakdown in the costs of the conversions, I do not have access this this information. However, I don't believe the county would have undertaken the project unless it was cost effective to do so.

Additionally, in my discussions with Kern county, their provider, PG&E, stated these 2700k units are "available upon request" from the county. So, they appear to be readily available and not subject to supply line shortages and attendant markups the latter would entail.