Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Thorne said this is similar to what happened when Fairlands Park was built and <br />asked if there was any concern for consistency. Mr. Kelcourse said that Illumination Engineer <br />Society (IES) standards are different for traffic, park, and security lighting. While the two issues <br />are similar, this pertains more to concerns over streetlights for driving and public safety. <br />Councilmember Thorne noted that in the case of Fairlands Park, residents were made to wait <br />for the normal CIP cycle since they had refused the lights in the first place. <br />Councilmember McGovern referenced the City Council Minutes of July 10, 1990 where the <br />Council voted to remove the lighting; she noted that Mr. Elliot, then Director of Public Works, <br />responded to a question from Councilmember Brandis by saying that although no lighting would <br />be an alternative, it was not a viable one. <br />Mr. Fialho concurred and noted that fortunately when the Council voted to remove the lights, the <br />foundations and electrical infrastructure were left in place. <br />Councilmember Sullivan asked if there was any precedent for this sort of action where residents <br />dictate the installation and removal of public works fixtures and confirmed that 126 residents <br />signed the petition in favor of the light reinstallation. Mr. Kelcourse corrected the number to be <br />162 residents. City Attorney Roush said that while it is not entirely clear what happened in 1990, <br />the issue was certainly raised in a way that resonated with the Council. <br />Councilmember Sullivan said that while this is not likely to be the same set of residents who <br />asked that the lighting be removed, it may be more appropriate to ask them to assume the cost <br />of doing so. He said it seems unfair for all taxpayers to foot the bill for the whims of a few. Mr. <br />Kelcourse clarified that the developer paid for the initial installation. Mr. Fialho added that the <br />City assumed the task of removing them and now, based on the dialogue staff has had with the <br />community, staff is prepared to recommend that the City reinstall them. <br />Mayor Hosterman questioned whether staff has any idea of what the eventual cost of <br />conversion to LED lighting throughout the City will be. Mr. Fialho said staff is currently testing <br />technology and did not know what the cost would be. <br />Mayor Hosterman asked, assuming the Council supports it, if the reinstallation of these lights <br />could be conditioned upon the conversion to LED. Mr. Kelcourse said that the recommendation <br />at this time is to reinstall the lights using their current infrastructure and spacing; LEDs would be <br />unadvisable at this time as they would require extensive analysis and very likely, design <br />changes. <br />Mayor Hosterman noted that incandescent bulbs will be unavailable in the not so distant future <br />and asked staff to attempt to find an LED solution that would provide the same basic <br />illumination. She also asked if the Council supported reinstallation, that it be conditional upon <br />the use of skirts to direct the lighting downward and mitigate loss of the night sky. <br />Mayor Hosterman opened the item for public comment. <br />Lee Arioto stated he lives on the far south end of Foothill Road in one of the two homes with <br />direct frontage onto Foothill Road. He shared concerns that he and his neighbor have--that the <br />lighting would come straight into their homes. He agreed that the road conditions require care <br />and asked that the plan be revised to forgo installation of the last three lights at the southern <br />end of Foothill Road. <br />City Council Minutes Page 5 of 17 April 7, 2009 <br />