Laserfiche WebLink
at specific examples. He suggested that language be added to address maintenance of existing <br />fixtures. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson raised concern that the University was going to be counted under the same <br />lighting definition as a residential area, when the amount of night activity on campus would seem <br />to call for a higher level of lighting, and that high school, college, and university campuses were <br />activity centers more like commercial than residential areas. She stressed that her intent was to <br />increase the level of safety on campus during evening hours. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that others had communicated with him on the issue. He noted that Ms. <br />Nathanson's addressed only the University, and not other campus type areas. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> ensure that the outdoor lighting classification for public activity areas such <br /> as school and college campuses be classified as high ambient light areas to <br /> better reflect the mix of uses on the campus and the high level of nighttime <br /> activity. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he would not support the motion. He acknowledged Ms. Nathanson's <br />safety concerns but commented that every square foot of the campus should not be a high <br />ambient light area because it did border on residential areas. He added that he could understand <br />high activity area lighting for portions of the University campus. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr was in favor of the motion. He said that he would trust the discretion of the operators of <br />the facilities to know which areas needed higher light. He remarked that it did not make <br />economic sense to put up more lighting than was necessary. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he would support a more narrowly crafted motion. He reiterated Mr. Meisner's <br />concerns and would not support a blanket change from Iow ambient to high ambient lighting for <br />schools and colleges. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding what existing rules there were for <br />preventing light pollution on to adjacent properties, Ms. Bishow said that the current code reacted <br />to development on a complaint basis to ensure that glare was not caused on adjoining <br />properties. She added that it was difficult to enforce lighting standards and that there was no <br />review of building plans for lighting fixtures. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer said that it was very easy in the planning process to see if lighting did or did not meet <br />the code requirements. He went on, however, to say that it was very difficult to do "after the fact <br />enforcement." <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said he would vote against the motion because of the way it was worded. He <br />suggested adding language to the motion to specify high activity corridors. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor commented that too much light could be a nuisance and said that she would vote <br />against the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs commented that there was a clear need for a light provision in public land zones. She <br />said that staff would come back with a proposal for how to address lighting in those areas. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />