Committee weighs adding 'light trespass' to disturbing‑the‑peace instead of a standalone ordinance

The committee discussed possible regulations for residential outdoor lighting during the Aug. 6 meeting, weighing a standalone residential lighting ordinance against amending the city's disturbing‑the‑peace code.

City legal staff reviewed earlier efforts (2006 and 2019) and explained enforcement concerns: a residential lighting ordinance would require nighttime complaint investigations that would burden limited code‑compliance staff. As an alternative, staff proposed adding a subsection to article 24 (disturbing the peace) that would make it an offense to create or maintain light trespass that "substantially interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment of neighboring property," while exempting temporary emergency lighting and lawful safety lighting.

Staff said the process could mirror noise enforcement: police or the complaining witness would generate a citation; the municipal court mediation program would attempt voluntary resolution before prosecution. The city attorney noted mediation can produce practical remedies (e.g., shielding, scheduling) that avoid adversarial prosecutions and preserve neighbor relations.

Councilors questioned scope — whether HOAs, apartment buildings or mixed‑use developments would be covered — and staff said a draft limited to R‑1 and R‑2 zones would focus on single‑ and multi‑family residential areas while many apartments remain under commercial standards. Members also asked staff to include public‑safety language that addresses lights that impair drivers or create roadway hazards.

Why it matters: Councilors said the pictures from a resident complaint (W 500 Grand Canyon Drive) show lighting severe enough to merit action; staff favored an enforcement model that emphasizes mediation and limits the need for nightly code inspections. Staff will research model language used by peer cities and prepare draft ordinance language for committee review.