Laserfiche WebLink
Sustainability Advisory Board <br />Minutes <br />April 19, 2023 <br />Page 7 of 8 <br />In general, Josh said such an ordinance should be "purposeful and targeted". He <br />summarized the benefits and goals, recognizing that any such ordinance would <br />have to consider definitions of acceptable fixtures, holiday lighting, non- <br />residential lighting, outdoor sports lighting, limits on compliance and <br />enforcement, etc. <br />Public Comment <br />Cindy Bedell: Why would there be any opposition to this ordinance? <br />RJ Harrington: I support the Board in writing such a letter. <br />LSAB Discussion <br />Kayla answered Cindy's question by listing some potential objections: Lessening <br />of a deterrent to crime (even if not realistic) and residents' costs for replacing <br />existing outdoor fixtures. <br />John described a specific case of a local home's backyard spotlight which <br />illuminated a large extent of an adjacent multiuse path — suggesting that the <br />homeowner probably thought he/she was providing a service to nighttime <br />walkers, and would be offended if asked to remove the light. Josh added that <br />such concerns are known to be overcome by choosing well -designed fixtures. <br />Kayla added that police department sources have commented favorably <br />regarding this ordnance. She also said that details regarding this ordinance are <br />available on the city's web site. <br />Todd asked if the ordinance imposed any time constraints on when residents <br />would have to comply. Josh responded that there is no timeline for homeowners <br />replacing existing, non -conforming outdoor fixtures <br />Dan asked if the ordinance would apply to people whose homes are being rebuilt <br />because of the fire. <br />