348 CATSKILL VIEW ROAD

HOLLOWVILLE, NEW YORK 12530

August 22, 2003

Dear Chairman Simonsen and Kinderhook Town Planning Board Members:

Concerned citizens of the town of Kinderhook and the citizens' organization, Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth have asked me to review and to comment on the lighting plans submitted by The Widewaters Group, as part of its SDEIS for what these developers are calling "Widewaters Commons Shopping Center."

Widewaters proposes to locate this 20-acre development at the junction of Routes 9 and 9H and opposite State Farm Road in Kinderhook. The following is my professional opinion.

Please allow me to present my credentials. I am a lighting designer, and the founding partner of Brandston Partnership, Inc., an internationally known lighting design firm located in New York City.

Our commissions have included the bicentennial lighting of the Statue of Liberty, the redesign of lighting for the Niagara Mohawk Power Company Headquarters, Syracuse,NY, the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, the Oklahoma Memorial, and many hotels, offices and shopping centers.

I am also past president of the luminating Engineering Society of North America, and one of 25 Honorary Fellows of Britain's Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers, (A brief resume also is attached to this letter.)

I have reviewed the available sections of the Widewaters SDEIS pertinent to lighting. Here are my findings:

Section 1.4.4: Lighting Plan (page 7) of the Widewaters SDEIS describes "the lighting plan that documents the location, mounting, height, and style of the lighting features that will be used on this project."

Figure 1.4-4a, b and c illustrate the designs for light poles on the site.

The lighting portion of this document is deficient and inadequate in numerous specific ways. This is a list of a few of the deficiencies:

The lighting layout as indicated by the document lacks essential information other than what looks like a computer print-out of light levels, generic fixture style, pole location, and mounting height of fixtures. The minimal nature of this information on lighting, provided by Figure 1.2-4-C.7

(Lighting Concepts) casts doubt on the viability of the whole lighting plan. No specific impact of lighting is given when the parking lot is occupied.

The location of lights as illustrated would not provide good lighting for a heavily occupied and trafficked lot.

The fixtures themselves (illustrated in Figure 1.4a, b and c) are described as 1, 2 and 3-header luminaries on 40-foot mounting poles.

No precise fixture type is indicated. The document provides no attached photometry nor does it indicate the specific lamp type and wattage.

SCALE AND DESCRIPTION OF FIXTURES: The fixtures that will be mounted on the 40-foot poles are huge in scale (a fact that Figure 1.4 a, b and c does not make clear to a lay public). When one scales the illustration in the SDEIS at a 3/16" scale, it turns out that each luminaire is 5 feet in diameter. This enormous scale and size is inappropriate for the nature of the community and does not fulfill the goals or respect the intentions of the Kinderhook Town Comprehensive Plan. It is grossly commercial. Further, there is no schedule of how late into the night these lights will be burning, or if there is a reduced lighting level for after hours security. Signage and its lighting are also a consideration and there is no information on this.

Illuminated signage can be a very intrusive on a neighborhood and is usually subject to regulation. With no information it is hard to judge if this has been appropriately designed. The lack of information is not consistent with a good submission and should be a signal of grave concern to the local community.

SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE: The use of 40-foot poles (i.e., please visualize poles that are four stories high) as widely spaced as these are planned will create extreme, deeply shadowed spaces between and around parked cars and in parking areas. This is inappropriate where a perception of security is essential.

In addition, the proposed light levels, with these sharp shadows, may not give a sense of security.

From my experience, the grid of foot-candle lighting levels proposed by the plan does not seem plausible. It goes from high to low in an illogical pattern.

There is also no indication on the schematic plan of what the security lighting on the back of the building is other than indicated locations on the computerized site plan.

The maintenance factor being used in the calculation presented (a maintenance factor of .80 regarding accumulated light loss due to dirt and lumen depreciation) is too optimistic. It is unrealistic in terms of maintaining proposed light levels shown.

CONCLUSION: The lighting layout as indicated lacks essential information and renders further judgment on the proposed lighting plan impossible.

I can certainly understand and am sympathetic with the concern of the citizens of Kinderhook. As presented, the lighting plan is unacceptable and from what information is there, the lighting plan is so inappropriate for the purpose and for the location in Kinderhook that it would cause me to have apprehension on the reliability of the entire Widewaters proposal.

Yours sincerely,

Howard M. Brandston, LC, FIES, Hon. FCIBSE, FIALD