###

After two hours of extensive deliberation, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors today narrowly passed an Outdoor Lighting Ordinance that sets new design standards to reduce light pollution — excessive or inappropriate artificial lighting — in unincorporated areas of the county.

The ordinance, which was approved in a 3-2 vote, with Board Chair Michelle Bushnell and First District Supervisor Rex Bohn dissenting, loosely follows the “Five Lighting Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting” issued by the International Dark-Sky Association that require all nighttime outdoor lighting to be useful, targeted, low-level, controlled and warm-colored. 

The county-issued guidelines limit light intensity, reducing the temperature of light sources to lower temperature bulbs that emit warm, orange light rather than cool, blue light. The new rules also restrict “light trespass” — any artificial light that spills over onto neighboring properties that “eliminates the ability to have darkness on the adjacent property, or shines into or onto neighboring windows, properties or structures” — and encourage light fixtures that point downward to restrict the direction of the beam. Under the ordinance, motion lights would be restricted to a five-minute time limit and cannot be triggered by movement outside of the subject property.

“We are not trying to prohibit [outdoor] lighting,” Associate Planner Reanne Meighan said at today’s meeting. “We are simply trying to minimize unnecessary lighting of areas that transpires onto neighboring properties.”

Why limit outdoor lighting? Meighan explained that light pollution not only limits our view of the night sky, but said it also has “destructive effects” on the circadian rhythms of both humans and animals, especially nocturnal creatures that are active at night and sleep during the day. Warm light, which has a lower lumen output and Kelvin (K) temperature, as seen in the graphic below, has a lesser effect on light pollution.

The original ordinance that was approved by the Humboldt County Planning Commission in May set a 1000-lumen maximum for residential uses and a 3000-lumen maximum for agricultural, commercial and industrial uses. However, after visiting local hardware stores, staff determined the limits should be set at 1100 and 3200 lumens, which are more commercially available. 

Most residents who spoke during the public comment section of the meeting were in favor of the ordinance, with several speakers sharing their own stories about neighbors or local businesses with extremely bright outdoor lights. One woman, who did not identify herself, called out an automotive business in Myrtletown that has “blinding” security lights that threaten pedestrian safety.

“If you are driving east on Myrtle Avenue and are turning left onto Park Street, there is an extremely bright security light that blinds the driver to any foot traffic crossing Park Street or bicyclists traveling westbound on Myrtle Avenue,” she said. “We are very much concerned that someone will be hit by a vehicle where drivers cannot see them because of the serious glare caused by this extremely bright security light.”

Mark Wilson, vice president of Astronomers of Humboldt, also spoke in favor of the ordinance, noting that it would “put Humboldt County in the forefront of protecting the night skies, not only in the state, but nationally and internationally.” 

The board’s discussion largely focused on how the ordinance would be enforced. Planning and Building Director John Ford said the enforcement would largely be complaint-driven, though new construction projects would also be subject to review during the normal application process. 

“If there are violations of the ordinance, then it’s going to be like any other code enforcement matter,” Ford explained. “We are going to have to spend some time talking to the property owner, finding out what they have, letting them know what the solution is and, hopefully, they will voluntarily just make the change to stop the violation.”

Still, Bushnell expressed concern that outdoor lighting complaints would overwhelm code enforcement staff who already have a lot on their plate. “I think it’s really important that we recognize that sometimes complaint-driven can be a pissed off neighbor that wants to deal with something that isn’t even related to a light ordinance,” she said. “How are we going to address that?”

Ford reiterated the process, adding that complaint recipients are generally compliant. “We’ll have a conversation with them, and they’ll say, ‘Yeah, you know, I didn’t adjust that down, I’ll go turn my light down and make sure that it’s focused down, rather than shining out into my neighbor’s yard.’ And if that happens, [the issue] can be resolved that easily. These shouldn’t be hard to resolve.”

Bushnell was also concerned that the ordinance would target the wrong group of people. “I don’t want to make things so much harder for people in unincorporated areas when you have the municipalities that are glowing like a light bulb, per se,” she said. 

The other big point of contention was whether or not athletic fields should be included in the ordinance, even though there is an exemption for such lighting as long as there isn’t any light trespass onto neighboring properties. Bohn felt the athletic fields should be subject to a time limit rather than a lumen limit.

Bohn | Screenshot

“Redwood Acres has a time limit … and if it goes after 10 o’clock, there’s complaints,” he said. “I’ve been involved with youth sports for over 50 years, and there is no reason in the world that a child should be out after 10 o’clock at night playing in an athletic sport. I don’t care if dad thinks he’s going to go pro and makes him stay. … I think we should look at timing [because] timing is a lot easier to enforce. … I do not want to dim it down for a kid having to catch a line drive off a bat.”

Wilson agreed, and asked staff to amend the ordinance to include a 10 p.m. time limit for athletic fields. “I do want to emphasize this isn’t about dimming the field,” Wilson added. “When people are playing ball on those fields, they should be well-lit, and that’s really important.”

Fifth District Supervisor Steve Madrone and Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo both spoke in favor of the ordinance, with Arroyo noting that the new standards give staff the tools to address longstanding lighting issues. “If there is a persistent problem … it gives people the sideboards for future development and for, frankly, just being a considerate neighbor, whether it’s a residential use or something else,” she said.  

As the board prepared to take a vote, Bohn indicated he would vote against the ordinance. “Is this workable? It … looks good on paper, but there’s a lot of holes in this that I don’t know if it’s actually applicable,” he said. “I don’t think we can pass this right now, because there’s so many holes in it.”

After a bit of additional discussion, the board passed the ordinance in a 3-2 vote, with Bohn and Bushnell dissenting. The board directed staff to look into additional standards for street lighting and bring back an amendment to the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance in the near future.