EXPOSING

While the lighting design (consulting) engineer was in my neighborhood, I asked the head of the planning department, Steve Glueck, if measurements of light could be taken from the worst fixtures on the Subaru front display lot in line with my living room windows. His response to me was “No, the engineer is working for me (City of Golden), and I don't want those measurements taken.” I couldn’t argue with him because he was right. The City was paying for the engineer, I wasn't. But I knew at that second I’d have to hire my own consulting engineer to get the measurements of light that I wanted. I could use them in August 2003 at the next scheduled court hearing. The engineer I hired measured the direct light from the front lot and come up with a reading of .7 F.C. of light. The chart used to determine if it’s too bright shows that post curfew brightness, (after 10 pm), shouldn’t be any higher than .1 F.C. to .2 F.C. max.

Picture taken July 2003 showing the amount of direct light inside my home from only 6 poles of unshielded fixtures, shown above. (plaintiffs exhibit 18-B) (Click on photo for larger image.)

Now, I understand why Steve Glueck didn’t want that measurement taken. It would have proven me right all along. Also, between May and August 2003, I called the City building department and asked to speak with someone about what was required to get a final C.O. The person I spoke to didn’t recognize my name or voice, so I was told he would leave a copy of the requirements by the state of Colorado at the front counter. I picked it up, brought it home, and read it. It was the State of Colorado Uniform Building Code, section 109.1. The second paragraph stated: if the business/people who the final C.O. was issued to was in violation of any ordinance of the jurisdiction that issued the C.O., the C.O. would be considered invalid. Well, there was a lighting ordinance violation, nuisance ordinance violation and a parking ordinance violation and I could prove them with written documentation and pictures. I was chomping at the bit! I couldn't wait to take on their attorney whose only piece of defense evidence was the final C.O. and I could blow it right out of the water! The photo evidence is plaintiffs exhibits # 16,17 and 18, and the other pictures showing the parking violations.

2 of 3 auxiliary lights at Elway Chrysler - Jeep (plaintiff exhibit #17A) (Click on photo for larger image.)

Exhibit #17 is a picture of John Elway Chrysler-Jeep West. They had installed auxiliary fixtures in late 1997 or early 1998 and I couldn't find any electrical permit that allowed them to do that. There were only 3 seperate auxiliary fixtures that I wanted fixed by physically turning the fixtures to face downward or by a proper shield being installed. My letter to that dealership, dated November 6, 2002, was ignored and the lights hadn’t been fixed either.