[BoulderCouncilHotline] Re: Item 5A: lighting questions

[Ferro, Charles]

Councilmember Morzel,

Thank you for your questions. Please find my responses below.

1.	Would staff please provide the public comment that was supposed to be in our packet for this item? I cannot find it

The public comments received on this project are attached. Comments were attached to the Planning Board memo (as Attachment B).

2.	What is the actual compliance of the existing lighting ordinance? Is it only 20% or is it closer to say 80%?

We don't have an exact percentage at this point however, all new developments constructed since 2003 are compliant with the outdoor lighting regulations. Steps toward full compliance has also been required for additions or redevelopments that exceed between 25-75% of the value of the existing structure. 

3.	What percentage of the city's buildings and lighting fixtures are in compliance?  How much is not in compliance currently? And how much would it cost to bring the city in compliance in the next few months?

As indicated in staff's Nov. 2017 Information Packet item (attached), a vast majority of the city's facilities are complaint with the exception of a few ballfields that are lit according to industry standards and used seasonally (Scott Carpenter, Stazio & Mapleton). Each of the fields have been inspected by a lighting consultant retained by Parks and Recreation. Per the consultant, compliance cannot be achieved without affecting the safety and playability associated with the amount of lighting required for the fields.  In addition, it is estimated is that it would cost approximately $2M to bring the fields into compliance (unfunded) and the fields would reduce playability, impact revenues and impact community users. These field lights are only used temporarily during certain times of year and aren't immediately adjacent to residential areas. 

4.  On page 203 of 1314 pages, it states "since lighting plans are not reviewed required for projects relating to single-family homes city staff assist compliant in response to complaint in that practice will continue." My question is there anywhere in the permit application that mentions the current city requirements for lighting for the applicant so that the applicant is not caught unaware when complaints start coming in?  I would hope our policy is not to be dependent upon people complaining about their neighbors lights in order to enact this ordinance. This does not create good relations amongst neighbors. This is the city's job, not the neighbors job, to enforce. 

Yes, we advise applicants for new single-family homes of the outdoor lighting regulations at the time of building permit. Applicants are advised that outdoor lighting is not required for single family homes however, if it is provided, it must be compliant with the city's ordinance and that detailed photometric plans are required. That said, all enforcement in the city is complaint based. 


5.	Is there any reason why the current ordinance could not be implemented now with an eye on making the lighting upgrades required in the building performance ordinance in 2021? Can they not be treated separately?

They could be addressed separately however, as stated in staff's Nov. 2017 Informational Packet item to council, the primary goal of this proposal is to ensure an efficient, customer friendly transition between the Outdoor Lighting Regs and the Building Performance Ordinance, and to put both implementation efforts onto similar timelines to ensure consistency between the two programs. 

If the amortization period is not extended, full compliance with the lighting code would be required for every building permit after July 15, 2018. This would either be done through the requirement of a lighting plan or a lighting certification from a lighting engineer attesting that the property meets the outdoor lighting regulations. Staff recommends the extension of the amortization period so that amendments can be made to both the outdoor lighting regulations and the building performance ordinance (BPO) making it clear that both regulations need to be met at the same time. At present, there is no reference in the outdoor lighting regulations to the recently adopted BPO. If council so desired, a reference could be added to the outdoor lighting regulations that alerts owners to the requirements of the BPO in the next version of the ordinance if the 3-year extension is not supported. Similarly, the BPO could be updated with more explicit references to the outdoor lighting ordinance. 

Should you have any additional questions, please let me know.

Best, 

Charles

Charles Ferro, AICP
Development Review Manager / Interim Comprehensive Planning Manager 						

O: 303-441-4012
ferroc at bouldercolorado.gov

Planning, Housing + Sustainability
1739 Broadway | Boulder, CO 80306
Bouldercolorado.gov




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: public comments.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 168199 bytes
Desc: public comments.pdf
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20180619/2d99681c/attachment.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1A - Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Status and Proposed Code Changes.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1149951 bytes
Desc: 1A - Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Status and Proposed Code
 Changes.pdf
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20180619/2d99681c/attachment-0001.pdf