Committee Report CR-3
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on May 7, 2003, beginning at 6:00 P.M. in the Sullivan Chamber for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to Section 19.33 of the Zoning Ordinance to include outdoor light pollution in the design review of proposed developments. The proposed amendment would include in Section 19.33 of the Zoning Ordinance as a desirable urban design objective the following:
(8) Outdoor lighting which is designed to provide the minimum lighting necessary to ensure adequate safety, night vision, and comfort, while minimizing light pollution.
Present at the hearing were Councillor David P. Maher and Councillor Brian Murphy, Co-Chairs of the Committee, Vice Mayor Henrietta Davis, Councillor E. Denise Simmons, City Clerk D. Margaret Drury and Elaine McGrath, City Clerk’s Office. Also present were John Bolduc, Cambridge Community Development Department (CDD), Les Barber, CDD, Nancy Glowa, Deputy City Solicitor, Vali Buland, Assistant City Solicitor, and George Fernandes, City Electrician. The following Cambridge residents were also present: Michael Ratner, 32 Griswold Street, and Tony Flanders, 61 Sparks Street.
Councillor Maher convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He noted that staff from the City’s Law, Electrical and Community Development Departments were present. He then introduced Mr. Bolduc and asked him to provide an overview of the proposed amendment.
). According to Mr. Bolduc, in response to an order from the City Council last year, staff reviewed what other cities were doing, and those results are included in the report. He notes that some of the other locations have a greater ability to control what goes on in their areas and/or motives to control lighting, such as providing necessary conditions to do astronomy. As for Cambridge, the City has an existing policy and standards regulating lighting on public ways, which require cut-off type fixtures to reduce light pollution, and standards for residential districts. Mr. Bolduc notes that this is a highly technical area in terms of specifications about the amount and types of lighting. He considers the proposed amendment, which adds criterion for outdoor lighting, to be the appropriate approach to control light pollution.
Councillor Maher asked what square footage in a development would trigger the application of the exterior lighting criterion. Mr. Bolduc responded that the exterior lighting standards would apply to those developments subject to the special permit process: new developments of 50,000 square feet or more in both residential and commercial districts.
Mr. Ratner spoke in support of the proposed amendment and urged the City Council to adopt it. His perspective is that the amendment speaks to the quality of city life; nothing is as cheap as bald light shining in people’s eyes, for example, in the Sullivan Chamber, where the lighting criss-crosses the space and is very uncomfortable. He noted that full cut-off lights are available now, which do not allow any projection above horizontal. Mr. Ratner identified himself as a radio astronomer. He asked the Councillors not to underestimate the pleasure of viewing the night sky, and spoke about the views of stars and galaxies that have been lost as lighting has proliferated and become stronger. He also mentioned the threat to safe driving from badly-placed or too strong exterior lights. Referring to the International Dark Sky Association, he noted that other cities and towns have passed ordinances to control exterior lighting.
Mr. Flanders stated that he has several interests in this issue. Based on his experience in a residential area next to Harvard University property, it is his understanding that certain kinds of exterior light are prohibited only in residential areas, but not in borderline areas. He is also concerned about the bright lighting on city property. He notes that much has been lost in terms of views of the night sky since the 1960’s and 1970’s, when you could still see the Milky Way in the Boston sky; there are galaxies up there visible except for city lights. According to Mr. Flanders, the problem is not that the population has increased, it’s that there are more lights. Mr. Flanders is also critical of the quality and quantity of exterior lighting: low-level globes, wattage that is 100 times brighter than gaslight and that blinds walkers. He singled out Harvard and Porter Squares as examples of excessive lighting. At the same time, he believes that exterior lighting can be charming and cited the lights in Cambridge Common as an example of effective, attractive lighting, which lights up the paths without shining in people’s eyes.
Vice Mayor Davis requested a report on full cut-off light fixtures from Mr. Fernandes, the City Electrician. Her understanding is that there are standards for commercial lighting. Commenting on this last point, Mr. Barber stated that there are lighting standards for parking lots, but not for more general areas. There are no lighting regulations currently for spillover light into residential areas. According to Mr. Barber, the primary considerations when the current lighting standards were enacted in 1981 were safety and illumination.
Vice Mayor Davis asked if staff has looked at the issue of spillover lighting from commercial to residential areas. Mr. Fernandes responded that there are Zoning Ordinance standards regarding spillover, but that it’s hard to keep lighting within a building’s footprint. Vice Mayor Davis considers it unfair that residential properties next to commercial properties can be completely lit up inside from spillover light. She made the following Motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide a report on implementing full cut-off lighting in Cambridge and on additional options to control light trespass from commercial to residential properties; and be it further
ORDERED: That the Ordinance Committee refer the proposed Lighting Ordinance amendment to Section 19.33 of the Zoning Ordinance, to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.
Councillor Simmons asked why large commercial sites keep lights on all night and spoke about concerns from people in Area Four who receive continual light in their homes from a recent commercial development. Mr. Fernandes confirmed that zoning currently does not regulate commercial light trespass into a residential zone.