Proposed ordinance would restrict outdoor lighting in rural areas

A proposed Baker County ordinance that would impose restrictions on

outdoor lighting in rural areas drew criticism from ranchers attending

the Baker County Livestock Association’s August meeting last week.

Deryl Leggett, who works at the Old West Federal Credit Union in

Baker City, alerted members of the Livestock Association to what he

called a “rural lights out ordinance” currently before the Baker County

Planning Commission.

Leggett said the proposed ordinance would establish outdoor lighting standards designed to reduce light “trespass” onto neighboring properties, and into the night sky.

“What it amounts to is turning out the lights on rural America,” Leggett said.

The proposed ordinance was suggested by Paul Wares, who lives near Medical Springs and is the son of an astronomer.

His proposal reads, in part: “The rural living experience shouldn’t end each evening when the sun goes down. Unregulated outdoor lighting in our area has degraded one of the valuable amenities of Baker County.

“The purpose of the ordinance is to establish outdoor lighting standards that reduce the impacts of glare, light trespass, over lighting, disruption of migratory patterns of birds, and poorly shielded or inappropriately directed lighting fixtures, and to promote safety and encourage energy conservation.”

The proposed ordinance would prohibit the installation or use of mercury vapor lights, as well as use of laser source light or similar high intensity light when projected beyond property boundaries or into the sky.

The draft proposal that Wares submitted to the planning commission also calls for banning use of searchlights for purposes other than public safety or emergencies.

“They want to put a stop to ranchers using spotlights to check on their livestock,” Leggett said.

The ordinance would not immediately affect outdoor lighting that’s already in place at the time the ordinance takes effect.

Property owners who have non-conforming lights would have five years in which to comply with the new ordinance.

The new rules would, however, be enforced as soon as the ordinance took effect on property owners who either replace existing fixtures or who apply for a building or use permit for a project that includes installing outdoor lighting fixtures.

Jan Kerns, a BCLA member who also serves on the Oregon Board of Agriculture, said after a recent loss of thousands of dollars in metal stolen off equipment at her family’s ranch in the Baker Valley, she is concerned that limiting farmers’ ability to install outdoor mercury vapor lights could trigger an increase in thefts and other crimes in rural areas.

“With less light it will make it easier for the bad guys to slink around and steal stuff,” Kerns said.

The proposed ordinance exempts lights used for holiday decorations, so long as the lights are less than 15 watts and in place for less than 45 days.

The ordinance also exempts certain airport lights, temporary lighting for carnivals and fairs, lights that illuminate “U.S. flags properly displayed,” and individual fixtures with lamps of less than 40 watts.

The ordinance also would allow temporary exemptions of up to five days per calendar year.

“When I first heard about the proposed light ordinance, I laughed,” Leggett said. “I thought it couldn’t be for real; but it is for real. It’s already gone through a first reading and passed (in the planning commission).

“In these tough economic times, how much money is this going to cost to enforce?” Leggett said. “When things like this come up, it’s best to nip it in the bud as soon as you can.”

If the Planning Commission approves two more readings of the ordinance, it would advance to the County Board of Commissioners, which has the final say, Leggett said.

“Unless you want to be stuck with that ordinance, you need to be the squeaky wheel,” Leggett said.

“That one’s so ridiculous it should be easy to kill if we get on it,” said Roy Anderson, a member of the BCLA.

Martin Arritola, BCLA vice president, suggested the BCLA write a letter to the Planning Commission expressing concerns about the lighting ordinance.

“I think it would be good to have individual letters from cattlemen too,” said Dan Forsea, BCLA president.

The planning commission originally discussed the ordinance at a June 18 work session. It came up again during public comments at the Aug. 18 commission meeting when written testimony was submitted by David and Karen Yeakley of Baker City, who oppose the proposed ordinance.

“In rural areas of the county where police patrols are scarce to non-existent due to budget concerns, much of the security depends on area lighting provided by mercury vapor lights and motion detector activated flood lighting,” the Yeakleys wrote.

The Yeakleys’ written comment goes on to say a 40-watt light bulb won’t cut it when farmers and ranchers have to fix a broken piece of equipment before daylight, or when they need to find newborn calves before they freeze.

Holly Kerns of the county planning department said the outdoor lighting ordinance is likely to be on the agenda when the Planning Commission meets next month; a date for that meeting hasn’t been set.