← Back to City Council Digest

Meeting concluded — minutes pending. The agenda below is what the City posted; minutes haven't been published yet. Issaquah approves Council minutes at the next meeting and ships them embedded in that next meeting's packet, so they typically land here 1–3 weeks after the meeting. Transcript and recording will appear once the City posts the YouTube video and our pipeline catches it.
Planning Policy Commission Auto captions

Thursday, February 24, 2022

6:30 PM · 1h 46m
Topic tracked across meetings:
Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendments (A) 2/3
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.3
Staff report:
PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION Staff Liaison Christen Leeson, Senior About Planner Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Email policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides guidance and direction for Issaquah's future Regular Members growth through continued review and 2022 – Joy Lewis improvement to the City's Comprehensive Land 2022 – Matt Monahan Use Plan and related land use documents. 2022 – Jason Voiss 2022 – Vacant Membership 2023 – Nina Milligan The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2024 – Ron Faul seven regular members, with four-year terms; 2024 – Sara Bader and several alternates, with two-year terms. All members are appointed by the Mayor and Alternate Members subject to confirmation by the City Council. 2022 - Richard Zaragoza Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For 2023 - Vacant more information, see IMC 18.03 and Rules & Regulations. Meetings Unless…
3. PUBLIC HEARING
3a
Recommendation of Proposed Amendments to Title 18 Natural Environment: Outdoor Lighting, Shoreline Master Program, (A)
Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.5–149
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
This public hearing is the second PPC phase of review and adoption of an updated Land Use Code, Title 18. Outdoor Lighting is part of Bucket 1, Natural Environment. (Title 18’s chapters have been divided into six buckets.) The February 24th meeting will be a joint one of Planning Policy Commission (PPC) and the Environmental Board (EB) to introduce the
4. REPORTS
4a
Council Update
Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.151–152
Staff report:
No. Source Date Commentor Primary Topic Comment Response Notes We are encouraging a delicate balance of current vs. future be kept in mind. In regard to thresholds for the design manual or a neighborhood overlay, code must allow for existing buildings to easily and efficiently be maintained, enhanced, and/or updated. If the codes are too onerous, building owners are discouraged from reinvesting in/updating their properties and blight will happen faster as the buildings age. The updated code should enable an existing building/development to address parcel constraints or opportunities and use; allow for flexibility in design and/or developer obligations; and not be financially burdened.
4b
Title 18 Code Update: Public Comments
Received · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development
Topics: Land Use
5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS
5a
Upcoming Schedule
packet pp.153–155
Staff report:
2022 1/20/22 1/27/22 Joint Meeting with Development Commission  Public Hearing: Proposed 2022 Docket of Education: Title 18 - Building and Design Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map  Neighborhood Overlay Standards Amendments o Olde Town o Central Issaquah Joint Meeting with Development Commission (if January o Issaquah Highlands necessary) o Talus Title 18: Education - Building and Design  Neighborhood Overlay Standards o Olde Town o Central Issaquah o Issaquah Highlands o Talus 2/10/22 2/24/22 Joint Meeting with Development Commission Joint Meeting with Environmental Board
0:21 like to call to order the february 24th
0:24 joint policy and planning commission
0:26 with environmental board
0:27 and we are calling it at 6 31 tonight
0:30 due to the virtual format of tonight's
0:32 meeting i'd like to start by providing
0:35 some guidelines we have participants
0:36 attending by
0:38 computer and others who are attending by
0:40 phone for all meeting attendees who wish
0:42 to speak please speak clearly and pause
0:44 frequently
0:45 state your name each time before
0:47 speaking mutual microphone when not
0:49 speaking and if having technical issues
0:52 try joining the meeting using a
0:53 different device such as a smartphone or
0:55 tablet or use the call-in information in
0:57 the meeting invite to call into the
0:59 meeting
1:01 and for tonight kristen will you please
1:03 call roll for ppc and then lucy you can
1:06 call roll for the environmental board
1:10 yes commissioner lewis
1:14 here
1:15 mr monahan
1:16 here
1:17 vice chair voice
1:20 here
1:21 commissioner milligan
1:24 here commissioner bader
1:27 here
1:27 commissioner zaragoza
1:30 here and chair fall
1:33 all seven members are present
1:37 um i don't think it's actually me i'm
1:39 not the liaison for the environmental
1:41 board i think it would be stacy um
1:44 she just may need a minute to pull up
1:46 the roster
1:48 yep i have it ready thanks
1:50 uh danny maiden
1:54 john mcwilliams
1:57 here
1:59 richie hasra
2:01 here
2:03 cameron fisher
2:08 lara labako
2:12 chair nancy davidson
2:13 here
2:15 uh we have an excused absent from dan
2:18 uh ann newcomb
2:21 here
2:22 uh jamie finch
2:24 yep
2:26 tom anderson
2:28 here
2:30 surya bola bragada
2:34 and janet wahl
2:41 okay and thank you stacy
2:44 so for tonight's structure uh we're
2:46 going for tonight's meeting public
2:48 hearing format
2:50 we will have
2:52 two title 18 presentations by lucy
2:54 sloman
2:56 it will be on public hearing of the
2:58 draft code
2:59 for outdoor lighting and for a shoreline
3:02 master program
3:04 after each topic there will be an
3:06 opportunity for commissioners to ask
3:07 questions followed by a public comment
3:10 based on the topic
3:12 and then tonight's commissioners
3:14 discussions will be different from the
3:15 past and ppc will not be participating
3:17 in the actual discussions and nancy
3:20 davidson will be chairing the
3:21 discussions for the environmental board
3:24 during this time ppc needs to turn off
3:26 their cameras and we will be joining
3:28 back in when the next topic comes up
3:32 okay
3:33 with that
3:36 ron
3:37 careful would you like to open it up for
3:38 just general public comments first yes
3:41 not regarding the topics just about to
3:42 do that so thank you
3:44 okay so let's go ahead and open up with
3:46 general public comment and this is not
3:48 related to the public hearing tonight
3:52 kristen are there any members of the
3:53 public who would like to speak on
3:55 general topics
3:59 no no one is raising their hand i'll
4:01 give it one more second
4:06 or three more seconds
4:09 no there's no one who'd like to speak
4:11 okay very good so we'll go ahead and
4:13 close it out
4:14 and then we will go ahead and continue
4:16 with the presentation so lucy you have
4:18 the floor
4:28 good evening can you see my screen
4:32 yes
4:33 okay thank you
4:35 uh so tonight uh we're here to um
4:39 with our first discussion drafts on
4:42 outdoor lighting and the shoreline
4:44 master program
4:45 so i'm just going to run through the
4:47 schedule just so you have a sense of
4:49 kind of where we are in the process
4:52 last summer we met with you all
4:54 on a gap analysis
4:56 and
4:57 update method
4:58 for bucket one
5:01 in early late january this year early
5:04 this year
5:05 we issued us discussion drafts and then
5:08 we held an open house for the public on
5:11 february 9th
5:13 uh and then here we are at the public
5:16 hearing
5:17 with a deliberation and recommendation
5:19 to staff
5:20 once we get through that then we will
5:23 move into this more general schedule of
5:26 preparing a final consolidated draft
5:29 for title 18
5:31 and a consolidated draft public hearing
5:34 in august and september of this year and
5:37 then it will move on to council review
5:40 and deliberation
5:44 so uh first we're going to talk about
5:46 outdoor lighting
5:48 uh outdoor lighting is consolidating
5:51 three existing codes there's a general
5:53 lighting outdoor lighting section in
5:55 1807
5:57 which was adopted in 2004.
6:00 central issaquah has a lighting section
6:03 that was adopted or lighting chapter
6:05 that was adopted in 2013
6:08 and then in 2018 that became the
6:10 lighting for uh isqua highlands and
6:13 talis
6:14 and then in 2001 um
6:17 old town adopted their
6:20 design standards which included
6:23 sight lighting in cbd zone only
6:28 what we've done the basis for the code
6:30 that you're looking at is the model
6:32 lighting ordinance which was developed
6:34 in partnership between the international
6:36 dark skies association
6:38 and the illuminating engineering society
6:41 of north america which rolls off your
6:42 tongue
6:44 and then we tailored it
6:46 for the city
6:48 so here's a bit of an overview uh first
6:52 of all we are lowering some of the
6:54 thresholds when things need to come into
6:56 compliance
6:57 um it's quite high right now and um that
7:00 makes it harder
7:02 to implement
7:05 we are asking for a broader level of
7:08 compliance single-family homes are
7:10 included for instance in the proposal
7:13 but you don't always have to get permits
7:16 i'll talk a little more about this in a
7:18 minute
7:19 we're using lighting zones there are
7:22 currently lighting zones in the general
7:25 imc chapter on lighting
7:28 but they're based on the comp plan and
7:30 in this case we're
7:32 it's tied to the intensity of the use
7:35 based on land-use zoning
7:37 and that sets lighting levels and
7:39 fixture types
7:42 for non-residential and multi-family
7:44 properties they have to get permits
7:47 small projects small and simple projects
7:50 have fixed lighting levels which we call
7:52 the prescriptive approach
7:54 and complex projects are calculated
7:57 based on the use
7:59 and the iesnas levels
8:02 residential projects with
8:05 less than seven units and no common area
8:09 have to comply but no permit is required
8:12 unless some other permit is triggered so
8:14 for instance if you were doing a new
8:16 home
8:17 we would ask you to show the lighting as
8:19 part of your building permit
8:22 and then a new aspect of this is dark
8:25 sky hours
8:27 uh when lighting is either reduced or
8:29 turned off
8:33 we've also um
8:35 kind of fine-tuned accent lighting
8:38 um it is for flags
8:41 art
8:42 building and landscape below 15 feet and
8:45 contained up lighting and by contained
8:48 up lighting is kind of what's shown in
8:50 the upper right image
8:52 where there is a roof or some element
8:54 that would capture the light
8:57 along i-90
9:00 accent lighting is only allowed for and
9:03 when i say flags it's actually u.s
9:06 federal flags it's not all flags
9:09 and then building and landscape lighting
9:11 below 15 feet
9:14 there were three considerations that
9:17 were in the memo
9:18 that on outdoor lighting and we can come
9:21 back and talk about these
9:23 one was the threshold between the
9:26 residential that doesn't need a pr a
9:28 permit and the non-residential and
9:30 multi-family
9:32 the second
9:33 had to do with the criteria that
9:35 distinguished between small and simple
9:38 versus complex projects
9:40 and the third was
9:42 the dark sky hours
9:45 we've had a number of meetings since
9:48 then we had our open houses i mentioned
9:52 we've had one-on-one meetings with
9:55 any of the commissioners or board
9:57 members who wanted or were able to meet
9:59 with us
10:00 i've also met with police chief schwann
10:03 and so some of the things that we heard
10:06 in those were
10:08 concerned that landscape lighting is not
10:10 allowed in single-family zones
10:12 uh questions about how construction and
10:14 security lighting would be handled
10:18 confirming or concerned that
10:20 right-of-way lighting shows up in there
10:22 and
10:23 that it will be moved into the
10:24 circulation section
10:26 reconciling holiday lighting versus the
10:29 prohibition on building outlining
10:33 compliance with dark skies how can we do
10:35 it sooner or make it an incentive
10:39 should the things the lighting that's
10:40 exempt have to comply with dark sky
10:42 hours
10:44 and when i talked to uh police uh chief
10:46 schwann
10:48 she was not concerned about the specific
10:50 provisions that i talked to her about
10:52 but she did have some questions about
10:54 enforcement and how that would work
10:56 especially for dark sky hours
11:03 um and i just want you to know as part
11:05 of our conversation that the images that
11:07 were part of the memo that are resources
11:10 about you know how we get a sense of
11:12 what lumens are
11:14 what the color temperatures mean and
11:16 what the lighting zone means i've got
11:18 this slide here for our reference um if
11:21 those topics come up
11:24 and
11:25 now we're ready for
11:27 discussion and comment
11:32 okay thank you very much lucy and so
11:35 commissioners who have questions please
11:37 put your
11:39 please notify me by putting your
11:42 do you want to go and make a comment in
11:43 the chat window
11:47 give it a couple seconds here for people
11:50 question it
11:54 and our first question is from joy lewis
11:58 so joy you have the floor
12:00 thank you chairfall good evening
12:01 commissioner joy lewis lucy i'm hoping
12:04 you can speak a little bit about more
12:05 about the multi-family residential with
12:07 six and fewer lighting um six and fewer
12:10 units being exempt from um from the
12:12 permitting i you know want to clarify
12:14 that from the permitting and i want to
12:15 talk a little bit about the
12:16 consideration that we had discussed
12:19 about why staff settled on that number
12:21 of units if you could kind of talk a
12:22 little bit more about that specifically
12:24 in reference to the fact that we
12:26 are hoping to anticipating of attracting
12:28 more of that missing middle of housing
12:30 which tends to fall around three units
12:32 when we're building kind of smaller more
12:34 dense uh townhomes for instance and so
12:37 why maybe for instance four and up
12:39 wasn't considered
12:40 well i i wouldn't say it wasn't
12:42 considered um what i would say
12:46 the model lighting ordinance
12:48 set that breaking point that we've used
12:51 of the seven dwelling units but i will
12:53 also emphasize that one of the
12:56 components that they included was no
12:58 common spaces and the common space
13:02 relatively broad
13:04 a parking lot would be considered a
13:06 common space an entry court or common
13:09 area would be considered an open space
13:12 um i think that we had initially i had
13:16 had the same
13:17 reaction maybe we should lower this and
13:20 then uh in further discussion um we were
13:23 concerned with exactly what you brought
13:25 up the missing middle um that we want to
13:29 avoid um additional
13:31 costs and burdens
13:34 they there's still compliance as you
13:36 mentioned
13:38 but um there isn't the requirement for
13:41 some of the additional permitting
13:44 um so that was how we said it
13:48 thank you
13:49 my other question is a little bit about
13:51 uh compliance
13:53 specifically for existing lighting um we
13:56 had a lot of specific language that we
13:58 saw about specifically at what threshold
14:00 you need to be able to then upgrade your
14:02 lighting and really the goal um i think
14:05 that we all have is to be able to have
14:07 all lighting fit within the lighting
14:09 code and so i wanted to give you the
14:11 chance to kind of speak a little bit
14:12 more about what kind of what that plan
14:14 is for compliance and how we can kind of
14:16 be able to um help convert existing
14:19 lighting to be more in line with this
14:21 lighting code
14:23 right and this um you know frankly is is
14:26 one of the challenges uh there are a
14:28 couple of different
14:29 methodologies that were proposed within
14:32 the model lighting ordinance
14:34 one of them is to set an amortization
14:38 date
14:39 by which all lighting in the city has to
14:42 come into compliance and while
14:44 that's kind of appealing
14:46 it would require that we have the
14:48 bandwidth to create an inventory of
14:50 everything in the city to know
14:53 whether someone has
14:55 changed out their lighting or not
14:57 and that seemed beyond what we could do
15:00 so what we used was
15:02 again from the model lighting ordinance
15:06 and basically they use a 25
15:08 threshold so if you're adding
15:11 25 percent more parking 25 more uh
15:16 units 25 percent more seating i i
15:19 you've got the code in front of you but
15:21 they had several examples
15:24 and then um also if you're changing
15:28 25 of the lighting in a parking lot or
15:31 your exterior lighting
15:33 and um
15:35 right now the threshold in
15:39 1807 is quite high it's 75 75
15:44 of the value
15:45 uh and it's hard to know what that means
15:47 whether that's of the lighting or the
15:49 overall improvements
15:52 it may very well be the improvements
15:54 because we can uh see that easily on the
15:56 king county side as we've discussed um
15:59 but that's a pretty high threshold at
16:00 which you're supposed to bring things
16:02 into compliance
16:03 and um so that's why we uh proceeded
16:07 with the proposal from the model
16:09 lighting ordinance
16:11 thank you so much lucy
16:17 thank you john
16:18 commissioner lewis and commissioner
16:20 milligan you have the floor
16:24 thank you chair fall this is
16:26 commissioner nina milligan and thank you
16:27 for your presentation lucy i just have a
16:30 question about the public comments that
16:32 you shared on the screen and summarized
16:35 for us and
16:36 i'm not clear when these came in and if
16:39 these have already impacted the material
16:40 that's in our packet or if that is yet
16:43 to be responded to thank you that's a
16:45 great clarification so
16:48 um we have been logging all the comments
16:51 that we've gotten through the ppc
16:53 meetings and public comment prior to the
16:56 discussion draft being issued
16:58 the ones that i was showing are the ones
17:00 that have come in after the discussion
17:02 draft was issued so these have not been
17:04 incorporated
17:06 we've gotten a couple of emails from the
17:09 public
17:10 and then we had the open house we've had
17:13 one on one
17:14 with
17:15 some of the commission and board members
17:17 and then the discussion with uh the
17:20 police chief so as we've been hearing
17:22 this i i it does not represent every
17:25 comment we've gotten so if you didn't
17:27 see your comment there please don't
17:29 think that we're ignoring it um but
17:30 these were sort of the top comments that
17:32 we thought
17:33 would be helpful as part of this
17:35 discussion
17:41 thank you commissioner milligan
17:43 and
17:44 commissioner finch you have the floor
17:47 thank you chairfall jamie finch speaking
17:49 um i had a question just to make sure
17:52 that i was on
17:54 in terms of scope of what is being
17:56 discussed so
17:57 dark hours i think am i correct that the
17:59 goal is for that to apply
18:02 existing and new at some point and that
18:04 the discussion is around how to do that
18:06 is that accurate
18:08 right so anything anything any new
18:11 lighting that's installed
18:13 would have to comply with all of it
18:16 and as things are
18:19 replaced
18:21 they would comply
18:22 i think the one of the questions that
18:25 we've gotten is how can we encourage
18:28 that to happen sooner
18:30 and um i think one of the things um that
18:35 director dolly wall and i have
18:37 recognized is that there's going to be
18:40 with all of title 18 but particularly
18:43 particularly with outdoor lighting and
18:45 education component
18:47 and um you know i think we're hoping to
18:50 encourage people to do it not only does
18:53 it save them money um but it also um you
18:56 know in talking with the police chief
18:59 improves some of the security options so
19:01 um we're i think we're hoping that
19:03 through
19:04 that kind of education we may get people
19:06 to do it sooner
19:09 okay but there's no actual mechanism
19:11 proposed that would
19:13 force anyone to do it's all would be
19:15 voluntary unless you were how to
19:18 meet the threshold or have an entirely
19:19 new project yes
19:22 and that's the same across all the other
19:23 ones okay
19:24 um or across all the different aspects
19:27 one of the other questions i had was
19:30 is it standard for dark hours to be a
19:33 relative target like i think it was a 30
19:35 reduction
19:37 versus a fixed threshold of well i don't
19:40 know what the threshold would be but
19:42 it seems weird to define something as a
19:45 relative to what the
19:47 full brightness would be versus a
19:51 that's threshold interesting
19:53 question um again model lighting
19:55 ordinance um proposed a 30 reduction
19:59 i have looked at a couple of um i've
20:02 looked at more than a couple um but i've
20:04 looked at maybe six to eight lighting
20:06 codes of our pure and neighboring cities
20:09 only two of them have um the dark sky
20:13 hours
20:14 um i think one
20:15 has you turn it off completely
20:18 and the other uh had it again by
20:21 percentage
20:23 but it varied by land use so some land
20:27 uses were 30
20:28 some land uses were 50 percent
20:33 uh the one thing that i did pick up from
20:35 that community was that all light
20:38 fixtures had to be turned down by that
20:41 percentage rather than selectively
20:44 turning down some of the fixtures maybe
20:46 more
20:47 so that your average was 30
20:50 um because i think we want the overall
20:52 lighting to go down not just um
20:55 mathematically the number goes down
20:59 okay thank you lucy
21:05 and thank you commissioner finch uh
21:06 commissioner voice you have the floor
21:11 thank you chair foul
21:13 and lucy one question real quickly this
21:16 i'm pretty sure it's a spelling mistake
21:18 on page 25 of the packet
21:24 c i believe it says
21:26 if indirect lighting is desired the
21:28 light may be beamed upward and then
21:30 reflected one from the underside of the
21:33 canopy it's spelled w-o-n as a victory
21:38 there's the dyslexic brain for the wind
21:41 um okay so
21:43 for the win um
21:45 for the one um i will um
21:49 you know this is uh something that came
21:51 up i am sure there's some other typos i
21:53 know that i noticed something that was
21:55 plural and should have been singular
21:57 uh one of the things that we will do as
21:59 we're preparing the consolidated draft
22:02 is that we have uh someone on staff who
22:05 loves to edit and she goes and makes it
22:08 all bright and shiny and sparkly and all
22:10 uh gets all the punctuation consistent
22:13 with the style guide so thank you for
22:15 pointing that out and i'm i'm sure that
22:18 there's a treasure hunt of other errors
22:20 to be found
22:23 okay that really wasn't my question just
22:25 i figured that was a typo um because i'd
22:28 like to provide a visual a visual for
22:30 everybody that's tuning in right now
22:32 so my understanding of the building
22:34 outlines
22:36 i'm thinking of the veil apartments i'm
22:38 thinking of issaquah commons safeway uh
22:42 bed bath and beyond with the rope
22:43 lighting over the crosswalk would all of
22:45 those be non-compliant
22:48 because there's no shoes above them
22:52 so strings of lights
22:54 are not non-compliant
22:56 building so that some one of the public
22:59 comments that was pointed out was
23:02 we um allow holiday lighting and we said
23:06 don't outline buildings so we definitely
23:08 need to reconcile those two because
23:11 outlining buildings as part of a holiday
23:13 lighting program is not uncommon
23:16 so that's one of the things that i think
23:19 was a really good catch
23:21 i will say that currently we do not
23:23 allow building outlining
23:26 old town
23:27 had that
23:29 as a prohibition
23:32 that was pulled into the sign code
23:36 when we updated it last year and um to
23:40 that you couldn't outline buildings
23:42 so i think that
23:44 that doesn't mean it can't be changed as
23:46 part of this process
23:47 but that's why uh it was pulled in here
23:50 because it was consistent with uh our
23:53 previous discussions around the sign
23:54 code and old town
23:58 okay yeah i just again i mean if you
24:01 look at i mean i personally think it
24:03 beautifies the city but
24:04 uh again front street is another example
24:07 the village theater all those places
24:09 appear to have
24:10 lighting
24:12 building outlining so again i just
24:15 making that clear to everybody i
24:17 appreciate that
24:19 great thank you
24:21 thank you commissioner voice and
24:23 [Music]
24:25 commissioner wall you have the floor
24:33 yes this is uh janet wall
24:36 and uh i wanted to comment about um
24:40 there have been studies that outdoor
24:42 lighting
24:43 can increase predation on salmon fry
24:48 was this taken into account in the
24:51 lighting regulations
24:53 so um
24:56 board member wall
24:58 we do have some restrictions on
25:01 docklighting
25:03 that are is included in the
25:06 shoreline master program which we'll
25:09 talk about in a minute
25:11 but we have
25:13 proposed
25:14 within the general lighting
25:18 set color lighting so that on private
25:21 property
25:22 it's 3000 k
25:25 which is a warmer light and i think
25:29 is better is consistent with
25:32 the direction that's come out of king
25:34 county
25:35 and wyra8 in terms of reducing impacts
25:39 on fish
25:40 um street lighting remains at 4 000 k
25:45 there's not
25:47 as much consistency in terms of safety
25:52 with the 3000k and the city had already
25:56 made a change
25:58 to 4000k
26:00 and so
26:01 we didn't propose any adjustment for
26:04 that color
26:10 does that help
26:12 yes
26:13 somewhat
26:15 i just wondered whether uh yeah you did
26:18 take into account the location of the
26:21 streams
26:25 oh that's a very good point um
26:27 so the outdoor lighting
26:30 previous as it's currently regulated now
26:34 and um and we carried this forward that
26:38 critical areas lighting at its edge is
26:41 limited to
26:43 0.3 foot candles which is a pretty a
26:47 very low level
26:49 and
26:51 the purpose of that is to try with
26:54 streams wetlands
26:55 um you know etc to limit the amount of
27:00 artificial light that is going into
27:02 those areas in addition to any color
27:04 adjustments
27:12 okay thank you very much commissioner
27:13 wall and commissioner chair
27:16 davidson you have the floor
27:19 thank you ron this is nancy davidson
27:21 from the environmental board lucy my
27:23 question for you is how did you take
27:26 into account security issues
27:27 particularly given the significant
27:29 increase in theft
27:31 and
27:32 at homes in businesses and apartment
27:35 buildings um how
27:37 will this lighting ordinance
27:39 affect those and the cameras that people
27:42 are trying to do to protect their
27:43 investments
27:45 i i saw that question i think we're
27:47 going to have to do more um
27:50 research on the camera question i um
27:53 don't know
27:54 technically about that aspect of it
27:57 in terms of security um there
28:01 is the ability to have security lighting
28:03 that comes on
28:05 uh when motion is detected
28:08 and um
28:10 and the reduction in uh lighting for the
28:14 dark sky hours was actually endorsed
28:17 um by the
28:19 police chief and we've heard um that
28:22 from others
28:23 that it's um advantageous because the
28:26 lights pop up when the motion um takes
28:30 place and it both notifies neighbors and
28:33 law enforcement that there's activities
28:35 in areas where you might not expect it
28:40 so i guess that's that's where that's
28:43 where the code is at this time
28:45 i have a second question for you lucy um
28:49 so as we look at this lighting ordinance
28:51 it would apply to the city and the
28:54 school district as well as the residents
28:56 and commercial areas so this is going to
28:58 apply across all sectors correct correct
29:01 so there's no exemptions for city or
29:03 school district right
29:05 dark sky hours will have
29:07 for public properties has a different
29:11 it is not at given
29:13 the same across the board dark sky hour
29:17 and uh in talking with
29:21 other departments
29:24 there is i think there were a couple of
29:26 reasons
29:27 uh one we want to make the most of
29:30 public investments
29:32 and two there is a more direct feedback
29:35 loop with private property we have to
29:38 have something in code that establishes
29:40 when those dark sky hours would be
29:44 with
29:45 public projects we are able to
29:53 that we don't get into um
29:58 long um
30:00 sorry i'm getting messages um
30:04 that we don't um
30:06 that we can get a feedback from the
30:09 public that helps us um
30:12 adjust things if it's not working sorry
30:16 and i just have one last question since
30:18 we're not part environmental board
30:19 doesn't really look at projects
30:21 specifically but this is a project
30:23 so if this was adopted this year let's
30:25 just say it is it will not affect the
30:27 new high school correct because the new
30:28 high schools under is already being
30:30 approved correct correct
30:33 okay just checking thank you
30:39 thank you chair davidson
30:41 uh okay the next question i have is for
30:45 sarah bader
30:47 and before you go sarah just a quick
30:49 reminder please keep the comments to for
30:52 the questions more of clarifying
30:54 questions than deliberation
30:56 um and sarah you have the floor
30:59 great thanks um chair this is sarah
31:01 bader i have a question that is similar
31:03 to chair davidson's first question about
31:06 safety and how the code kind of allows
31:09 for safety and the example i'll give is
31:12 um that kind of security camera that's
31:15 been installed in the target parking lot
31:17 that has like a blue flashing light on
31:19 the top of it i'm assuming i don't know
31:21 if it's because it's a temporary
31:23 structure if it doesn't apply or what
31:24 but i know that there's language in the
31:26 code that kind of says that
31:28 lighting shouldn't be like easily
31:30 confused with you know police lights or
31:32 fire lights or um
31:34 kind of public officer lights
31:37 and the first time i drove past that
31:39 camera i thought that that's what it was
31:40 um and didn't realize until like a
31:42 couple of visits later that it was like
31:43 a security camera and i'm assuming that
31:45 you know
31:46 that camera's there for a reason to
31:48 deter you know a lot of the stuff that's
31:49 been happening in that target parking
31:51 lot but i'm wondering just kind of how
31:52 the code allows for
31:55 you know those kind of like niche
31:56 security issues um that might not
31:59 necessarily comply with how it's written
32:01 so i you know remember this is our first
32:04 uh discussion draft so we're getting a
32:06 lot of great things to follow up on and
32:08 i think those security lights with the
32:11 blue
32:12 that i've heard that were included in a
32:14 comment today will require more research
32:18 in general where you have
32:21 doors entrances certain kinds of
32:25 loading docks certain
32:26 areas that may need lighting and off
32:29 hours
32:30 the code sets up a um
32:36 allows for motion activated lighting
32:39 that will stay on for five minutes
32:41 following the end of activity so
32:45 that's the way it's written now
32:51 okay thank you very much commissioner
32:53 bader and i also have a question i think
32:55 i'm the last person here to have a
32:56 question
32:58 uh at least that has already posted in
33:00 the chat so if you still have questions
33:01 please post it in the chat
33:03 um going back to
33:06 i have two questions actually going back
33:07 to kind of what janet wahl had asked
33:10 about in terms of the calvin because i
33:13 was asking i was thinking of asking
33:15 something similar
33:17 how does calvin of lighting affect birds
33:19 and fish and other wildlife and is there
33:22 a difference between fish or how calvin
33:25 affects fish and
33:27 birds and so do we need to have
33:31 code that
33:33 specifies
33:35 certain calvins for locations like maybe
33:38 a certain kelvin that's over water
33:40 versus a certain a different kelvin that
33:43 might be for businesses inland
33:46 and then my next question is what's more
33:49 important kelvin or lumens to protect
33:51 wildlife
33:54 okay i'm not an expert but i'll give it
33:56 a try um
34:00 some of the studies um
34:03 have that have focused on on humans and
34:06 animals have focused on circadian
34:09 rhythms
34:10 and uh
34:13 said that 3000 k has less impact
34:19 when king county issued their guidance
34:22 for um
34:24 docklighting it was to be below 3000k
34:28 so um
34:32 i'm just going to go back up here and
34:34 point out so this is 3000k
34:38 and
34:39 for the dock lighting which we'll talk
34:41 about in a minute we propose
34:43 2700k
34:45 um so
34:46 3000k is warm
34:50 2700k is quite amber so that's why we
34:53 were not proposing anything below 3000
34:57 um on sites um and and 3000k
35:03 feels pretty sunny and warm
35:05 um 4000k there have been mixtures of
35:09 studies
35:10 about whether the that's somewhat bluer
35:13 light i mean yeah bluer light is better
35:16 for um clarity and therefore better for
35:20 preventing accidents
35:22 um i think that's why the city when they
35:24 began switching uh in 2018
35:28 to um uh
35:31 convert their street lights to leds went
35:34 with 4 000. so it's it you know but
35:38 it's still kind of early days in some
35:39 ways with lighting but that's i think
35:42 where the science is right now that in
35:45 terms of animals including humans you
35:48 want to be
35:49 3000k
35:50 but there may be some benefit to
35:53 visual rendition at 4000 k
35:57 and in terms of lighting levels versus
36:00 lighting color
36:01 i i i don't know enough to answer that
36:04 question i assume it's both but i i i
36:07 don't know that
36:09 okay thank you and i am not seeing any
36:13 additional questions so we will go ahead
36:15 and close this out and open it up for
36:17 public comment on this topic
36:21 i cheerfully if i may just try and
36:24 answer your question um two i think um
36:26 i'll give it a shot too in terms of
36:29 the
36:30 the impact i think is if if there's
36:33 bright light say for instance on a
36:35 bridge
36:36 um that shines directly onto the fish
36:40 and that blinds them so they become more
36:42 of a you know uh
36:44 the predators can get to them a little
36:46 bit more so
36:47 that's sort of the the link i believe
36:49 what you were getting at in terms of
36:52 distinguishing the light for
36:54 critical areas versus the
36:58 you know if if there's a lower lighting
37:00 level uh where it's directly shining on
37:02 to a
37:03 to say a stream or something like that
37:06 so yes those studies have shown
37:08 that lighting levels play a big role in
37:11 terms of hum you know the the fish
37:13 counts and things of that nature
37:16 okay
37:16 so it sounds like you
37:18 you are looking into it
37:20 then correct
37:22 all right
37:24 okay so let's go ahead and open up for a
37:26 public comment christian are there any
37:28 members of the public that would like to
37:29 speak tonight on this topic
37:31 yes christy triple has signed up to
37:33 speak
37:34 christie i am making you a panelist
37:37 and you should be able you should be
37:39 unmuted and able to turn on your camera
37:41 if you would like right now
37:44 wonderful thank you
37:46 can you hear me
37:48 yes thank you hi everyone i'm christy
37:51 triple and tonight i'm speaking on
37:53 behalf of rally properties and
37:54 businesses in our neighborhood regarding
37:57 the draft lighting code my address is
37:59 1595 northwest gilman boulevard suite
38:02 one here in iscope
38:04 i sent along written comments earlier
38:07 but wanted to take a moment to speak in
38:08 person
38:10 more generally regarding lighting i'll
38:12 caveat
38:14 our input from rally properties
38:17 with this is one of those topics that's
38:19 complex challenging and
38:21 ever so important on many facets it's
38:24 probably right up there with the topic
38:26 of signage so
38:28 when it comes to lighting as a community
38:31 it's important that we balance public
38:33 safety and aesthetics with our
38:35 environment
38:36 absolutely important so with that lens
38:39 comes our comment
38:41 lights serve an important psycho
38:44 psychological as well as economic
38:46 function
38:47 especially during our dark northwest
38:49 winters it provides an opportunity for
38:52 beautification and aids in geographic
38:55 orientation as well
38:57 and better lighting makes safer spaces
38:59 and create spaces for interaction
39:02 and wayfinding whether it be car bike or
39:04 movement is imperative as well signage
39:07 visibility and lighting play into that
39:10 i did want to note that i thought the
39:12 design guidelines were really well
39:15 written as part of the code um
39:18 and then just wanted to share a little
39:19 bit more about when it comes to
39:22 buildings
39:23 not allowing accent lighting higher than
39:25 15 feet really does deprive
39:28 some of the
39:29 whimsy and delight that could make
39:31 buildings art um as lisa picard who
39:36 served on the city's centralist club
39:37 plan task force way back
39:40 but 2007-2000
39:42 she um she said you know building is one
39:45 of the largest art forms a person
39:47 interacts with it influences if people
39:50 want to be there how they feel when they
39:52 are there and when done right can add an
39:55 element of beauty and interest to the
39:56 fabric of the built environment
39:59 which i think we're all hoping for as we
40:01 see our community evolve and change
40:05 an example is rally properties 2005
40:08 popular office building with its
40:10 internally lit stairs
40:12 um eliminating this type of lighting
40:14 won't create a black black canvas or
40:17 serene setting
40:19 um our hope is that the updated code
40:22 will provide a more nuanced approach
40:24 that allows buildings to have some soul
40:26 in a tasteful way that inspires
40:30 and in an existing scenario which
40:34 was discussed earlier
40:37 rooftop lighting or building outline
40:39 were not allowed or time limited i can't
40:42 imagine gilman village not having their
40:44 festive lighting along its roof lines i
40:47 feel like the collective of buildings
40:49 would kind of feel sad and dark without
40:51 them
40:52 and
40:54 we all know lighting is a critical
40:56 factor in crime deterrent and prevention
40:59 both in public and private spaces
41:02 in the 16 years i've worked here in this
41:04 community the isquad police department
41:06 has always advocated for crime
41:08 prevention through design
41:10 and i'm glad to hear that that will
41:12 continue to be a consideration in the
41:14 updated code as our public needs to feel
41:17 safe and for buildings and property to
41:19 that end as well so i was really glad to
41:22 hear that chief shawn has been engaged
41:24 and finally
41:26 we just asked that the maintenance
41:27 section of the code be reviewed further
41:29 regarding the threshold and expectation
41:31 of existing properties
41:33 and thank you for the opportunity to
41:35 comment tonight
41:39 thank you christy uh honey marsh would
41:41 like to speak next just for a moment
41:48 connie you're a panelist and should be
41:50 unmuted you can turn on your camera
41:55 all right i am back now i am now visible
41:58 and
42:00 and everything so connie marsh i live up
42:02 on squawk so
42:03 um the conversation
42:06 functional
42:08 function of light versus light pollution
42:14 we want light to function
42:16 but we don't want pollution i can name
42:21 my favorite polluted areas and that
42:24 would be all of isqua islands along the
42:25 ridge
42:27 because it gleams at night in an
42:30 unfortunate way it's uh the car
42:32 dealerships that are very bright because
42:34 of course they want to be seen and at
42:36 night and things look good that
42:38 way
42:41 and then i sort of go well
42:45 i find places
42:48 oh and sporting field lighting that
42:51 impacts the neighbors and shines into
42:53 their windows and and uh
42:56 but that doesn't sound like it's gonna
42:58 be addressed
42:59 much more than it already is
43:02 so i find municipal lighting in many
43:06 places is not enough
43:08 so a lighting code to me
43:11 would
43:12 add appropriate lighting in cut off
43:15 areas
43:18 i mean so so it would go down
43:21 for security not up into the sky
43:25 then as you walk around at a foot level
43:29 which is the scariest way to be walk
43:31 going around when you have no light
43:34 um you aren't in the puddles you aren't
43:36 tripping over the curbs
43:38 okay so we want that
43:40 as you walk down the street what you
43:43 don't want is you don't want those
43:45 unfortunate lights
43:47 shining out from inside of buildings
43:50 and gleaming all over everything in all
43:53 their fluorescent splendor
43:55 so in an individual building i think you
43:58 can have light pollution and so i think
44:00 you should require screening of
44:04 like interior lights jackson shell
44:06 station at the corner of front and
44:08 sunset had that issue and still does
44:11 where it leaks out the side and then the
44:14 other area which i wrote in about
44:17 is this
44:19 construction lighting and of course we
44:22 know costco
44:24 is like one big nine story times two
44:28 bundle of lighting leakage
44:31 and that needs to be addressed or they
44:33 could screen it they can do something
44:36 but that's
44:37 that is that is like pollution
44:40 the
44:41 other issue with
44:43 buffer edges is we allow a 15 foot
44:46 setback at the edge of critical area
44:49 buffers and but you can't put building
44:51 in it so what do people do they put
44:53 their asphalt right next to
44:56 the critical area buffers and usually
44:58 it's parking and so the first thing that
45:00 happens is people
45:02 turn in at night and their headlights
45:04 are going on and on and on into the
45:06 critical area buffer all the time which
45:08 is not measured and that is in almost
45:10 every critical area buffer in our town
45:14 has that situation so we
45:17 and then of course people want to light
45:18 it because then they want to be able to
45:21 walk from where they parked over to the
45:24 building that they're going into and so
45:26 many of these these
45:29 uh buffers have way more light than the
45:33 standard that lucy was talking about so
45:36 i don't know who really measures
45:39 because i don't think that's true
45:42 so i'm looking at a little
45:45 maybe more holistically on things that i
45:47 would like to
45:49 uh never see again
45:51 and
45:52 like regal cinema isn't that the cinema
45:55 kiosk that i can i can see from very
45:58 very very far afar
46:01 and
46:03 can you screen it
46:04 does it have to have lower lumens i
46:07 don't know it's just it should be fixed
46:11 oh but christy i agree with christie's
46:14 maybe our our darkest months of the year
46:16 are created for holiday lighting and
46:18 they can just go till february until it
46:20 gets light and then and and then they
46:23 have to come off
46:25 thanks
46:29 thank you
46:34 there is no one else who has signed up
46:36 to speak right now
46:39 okay and thank you kristin so i'm going
46:41 to leave public comment
46:43 open
46:44 and we're going to move on to
46:46 commissioner discussions or and what
46:48 we're going to do is uh chair uh
46:51 davidson is going to go ahead and take
46:52 over for chairing the environmental
46:55 board and ppc will
46:57 please turn off your cameras and we will
46:59 turn them back on
47:00 when nancy is complete
47:03 nancy it's uh floor is yours
47:06 thank you ron so the purpose for the
47:08 environmental board
47:10 just wanted to point out now is our
47:12 opportunity to provide comments to ppc
47:16 that we have on the lighting portion of
47:19 the code at this point and so what i'm
47:22 looking for is any feedback the
47:24 environmental board has and with that
47:27 we're really looking for comments and
47:29 does anybody have any comments for ppc
47:32 on lighting
47:44 any comments
47:45 oh i have comments um
47:49 well i see that tommy sorry i missed you
47:51 i guess i didn't see you come in so go
47:53 ahead tom i'm anderson please
47:56 uh thank you tom anderson speaking um
48:00 one one question i have is about what
48:03 sort of a measurement
48:05 is going to be coupled with this if
48:07 we're going to make a big deal about
48:08 lighting and lighting pollution in the
48:10 air well we need to couple that with a
48:12 program to monitor well where are we
48:15 where are we in that regard and are we
48:17 making progress uh forward or backward
48:21 so i know that's not what the code is
48:24 about the code is about what uh people
48:26 who live in the city have to do but the
48:29 city needs to provide a
48:31 measurement
48:32 to track progress on that just as we've
48:35 talked about for other other things that
48:38 we've worked on on
48:41 environmental board
48:44 and i'm wondering how we align with uh
48:47 our sister cities in in the area king
48:50 county i know there was a little mention
48:52 there about well some of the others do
48:54 have some uh recent updates to
48:57 lighting and they're not all aligned
48:59 well this
49:00 model lighting ordinance um
49:03 this sounds wonderful the dark sky
49:06 organization and all
49:09 is our municipality is taking this
49:12 seriously and is this is this like the
49:14 new the new thing that everybody's going
49:16 to align with or
49:18 or where uh
49:20 where do we stand as a region on
49:22 aligning with those sort of things or is
49:24 every municipality going off in a
49:27 different direction
49:29 uh let's see what else i also i just
49:31 wanted to re uh kind of uh
49:34 agree with the statements before about
49:36 how education of the public
49:39 is an important part of such a program
49:43 you know the commercial
49:45 areas are one thing but if you really
49:46 want to make some progress with the
49:49 relatively unregulated single-family
49:51 residence communities and all that
49:54 i think a lot of progress can be made
49:55 but the key is in education of of people
50:00 as to why we want to do this and what
50:02 what when you're designing your pathway
50:05 lighting etc
50:06 how to go about that
50:09 i like to vacation in sun river oregon
50:12 which is really big on on the keeping
50:14 the skies dark because there's a little
50:17 observatory there and so everybody can
50:20 take it seriously because we all like to
50:21 go to the observatory and see that that
50:24 star show at night and uh by golly you
50:27 can tell the difference you can tell
50:29 those skies are dark and so when we look
50:31 at the the down lighting that is uh
50:34 required and characteristic of all the
50:36 paths and in sun river uh we
50:40 oh yeah that's because we like to look
50:42 at the stars and it seems to work
50:45 public education is a
50:47 important part
50:49 of getting uh making some progress in
50:51 this area uh thank you that's all i had
50:54 to say
50:56 thank you tom great comments and now
50:58 i'll turn it over to don mcwilliams don
51:00 please go ahead
51:01 thank you nancy dawn mcwilliams here so
51:03 i'll keep my comments focused on the
51:05 environmental aspect
51:07 so as i understand it and i'm not an
51:09 expert on nocturnal animals but as i
51:11 understand it
51:12 bright lights that are shined into their
51:15 eyes can blind them for short periods of
51:17 time making them
51:19 open to predators and including fish
51:22 so i would just ask that the city do a
51:24 little more research around critical
51:26 areas streams riparian zones
51:29 on how this lighting code would affect
51:30 those areas to try to protect the
51:32 critters at night that are in there
51:34 trying to survive
51:38 thank you don i assume that's all of
51:40 your comments don
51:42 okay
51:43 uh jamie finch please go ahead
51:46 thank you nancy jamie finch speaking
51:49 um one of my kind of high level comments
51:52 is that it would just be really helpful
51:54 to understand and this is kind of i
51:56 think we're probably past this part of
51:58 the process but
51:59 in my mind it's hard for me now because
52:01 i don't know that we have a really
52:03 specific problem statement of like this
52:05 is where our existing light pollution
52:07 comes from
52:08 and so i do think that for us to really
52:11 evaluate policies related to lighting i
52:14 do think and i know it's not easy to do
52:17 an inventory or i'm not sure what the
52:19 right approach to that would be but i do
52:21 think for us to really feel confident in
52:24 the recommendations that we're making
52:26 that is a part of the process that that
52:28 if there is a way to incorporate a
52:30 brilliant encourage because i think it's
52:32 really difficult now to
52:34 not know what are the biggest
52:36 contributors to know where we should be
52:38 focusing
52:39 i think in the same vein
52:42 i'm also interested in
52:44 the biggest gaps currently for
52:47 between the needs of public and and
52:50 other
52:52 other uses of lighting and the actual
52:55 current levels like where do we have the
52:57 biggest deltas between the actual needs
53:00 and maybe it's to connie's point or that
53:02 where are those big
53:04 big light centers that might be
53:07 diff like where and where are those
53:08 light centers that are are not the
53:10 result of a public need so i do think
53:13 that that piece that i really would love
53:15 to understand and see how that applies
53:17 to this update um the last the last two
53:21 comments that i have one
53:23 um i do wonder how we can connect the
53:25 dark sky hours to the icap cap
53:28 i was just thinking before is if it's
53:31 unnecessary light at night it's also
53:33 unnecessary energy use at night and so i
53:36 do wonder how
53:38 as we think about incentivizing as well
53:40 as public education i do think that
53:42 there's opportunities to position this
53:44 in multiple ways and and
53:46 encourage the city to uh encourage to
53:50 get creative on how those two things
53:51 might come together
53:53 and then the last piece which is related
53:55 to that is
53:57 ins how do we make sure that we're we're
53:59 pushing to find ways to incentivize all
54:02 of these different aspects for existing
54:04 buildings because i think
54:06 we all know that there's going to be
54:07 it's obviously great to have this going
54:09 forward but a lot of the a lot of the
54:12 impact is already
54:14 being felt and will continue to be
54:16 felt from existing structures and so
54:19 that i would just it sounds like city's
54:21 already looking at that and considering
54:22 that but just would be something that i
54:23 would encourage
54:25 uh them to continue to uh to pursue and
54:28 evaluate
54:29 thank you
54:31 thanks jamie and newcome go ahead
54:38 thanks everyone and you come here um i
54:41 like what you're doing with the lighting
54:44 and i just want to add one more
54:46 idea for educating people of why
54:50 why it's a good idea and um
54:53 that is the the bugs i know i said it
54:56 the other day but i was really serious
54:58 um bugs
54:59 as everybody probably knows um
55:02 have decreased drastically
55:05 and
55:06 that can have a lot of
55:08 replications
55:10 but but they're food they're food to a
55:12 lot of species
55:15 so bugs are important and one of the
55:17 ways they get killed what people think
55:19 is because of night lighting
55:23 it's not just about stars
55:25 but the stars are important
55:27 um the fish um
55:29 i think about the bugs
55:31 thanks
55:32 and a lot of people i mean if we
55:34 advertise that some people will be like
55:36 well
55:37 that's great i could use less bugs
55:41 but maybe if we remind them that bugs
55:43 are food for birds
55:45 they'll
55:46 be more motivated thank you
55:49 thanks ann this is nancy davidson and i
55:51 did have a couple of comments
55:53 uh the first one is i would agree with
55:55 don in terms of trying to protect and
55:57 reduce the amount of lighting that gets
55:59 into our critical areas
56:01 to reduce those impacts and i think
56:02 connie had a good point in terms of
56:04 where the parking lots lie and where the
56:06 lights from our cars all go in so it's
56:08 something to think about potentially
56:10 even as we look further into title 18
56:14 and how we might want to screen those
56:15 critical areas to protect those areas
56:18 but maybe fencing or something uh the
56:20 second thing i point out is that i
56:22 think's missing from this
56:24 code is indoor lighting
56:26 at night time many of our gas stations
56:29 and others are lit up inside quite
56:31 brightly i get the security concerns but
56:34 does have a lot of light that comes out
56:36 and shines out from those buildings and
56:38 while we're focused on outdoor lighting
56:40 i think we also need to consider what's
56:42 happening with our indoor lighting
56:44 that's now reflecting outdoors
56:46 and i think that's a piece that's
56:48 missing here it may be addressed
56:49 somewhere else in the code i don't know
56:52 but i think we need to be thinking about
56:54 particularly at night time how much
56:56 light we want
56:58 to come from the indoors and show up
57:00 outdoors and how long that should go i
57:02 know it's different for different kinds
57:04 of businesses but i think it's a big gap
57:08 in this outdoor lighting standard that
57:09 should be considered
57:12 are there any other comments from the
57:13 environmental board
57:20 lucy i hope you got what you needed i
57:22 hope that the ppc did as well and with
57:25 this i'm going to turn the meeting back
57:26 over to ron to move on to the next place
57:29 and thank you very much for the
57:30 opportunity to provide our feedback
57:33 thank you uh chair nancy or charlie
57:35 davidson sorry
57:37 so go ahead ppc can turn your cameras
57:39 back on and uh
57:42 lucy you can go ahead and continue on
57:44 with topic number two
57:48 great do you see my screen
57:51 okay yes thank you
57:53 so second um
57:56 discussion draft we're reviewing tonight
57:58 is the shoreline master program uh also
58:01 called smp and i tend to speak in code
58:03 so i wanted to give you the code word up
58:05 front
58:08 in 2019 uh washington state mandated
58:12 that many cities
58:14 update their smp to
58:17 ensure that it was compliant with any
58:19 changes that had taken place
58:21 in recent years
58:23 with the state laws
58:25 and uh while the council
58:27 this came to ppc and then it went on to
58:30 the council and the council's request
58:32 when they were approving this
58:35 was that we go
58:36 not just comply with the state law
58:39 changes but that we go above and beyond
58:42 for three particular components um
58:45 we discussed whether we could do it at
58:47 the time that we were updating the these
58:49 mandated uh changes
58:51 and we needed to do additional research
58:54 or get consultant dollars
58:57 so we asked to incorporate these into
58:59 title 18 which is what we're doing now
59:05 snp is kind of unusual for
59:08 compared to many of our other
59:09 regulations that it's not just adopted
59:12 by the city but it's also adopted by doe
59:17 and so when the council approves it it
59:20 has to go on to um the state and be
59:23 reviewed by them and approved by them so
59:26 our 2019 um
59:29 adoption or mandated update didn't
59:33 actually get finalized until october
59:35 2001
59:37 last year
59:39 when we got some of the mapping changes
59:41 that the state had asked for
59:44 so what we're bringing to you is that
59:46 code that was finalized last october the
59:49 three proposed revisions that the
59:51 council asked us to incorporate
59:54 and some minor edits that were
59:57 identified by the new city attorney
1:00:01 and now i'm going to review the three um
1:00:04 elements that they the council asked us
1:00:06 to look at
1:00:08 uh first was docklighting
1:00:10 the illustration on the right
1:00:13 came from king county's outreach
1:00:15 document it's guidance
1:00:18 but we feel we were developing our code
1:00:20 at the same time but they actually line
1:00:23 up quite nicely
1:00:26 new docs
1:00:27 replacement of docks or major repairs
1:00:30 will have to come into compliance
1:00:33 lighting cannot be more than 30 inches
1:00:35 above the dock or grade the lighting
1:00:38 will have to be shielded or designed to
1:00:40 only lock light the dock and not the
1:00:43 water
1:00:44 it will need to have motion detection or
1:00:47 some kind of automatic shut off
1:00:50 it would be
1:00:51 would use leds in a warm color 2 2700k
1:00:56 as i mentioned and no blue light
1:01:01 uh the second thing that we were asked
1:01:04 to look at was
1:01:05 eliminating the common line setback
1:01:08 um in our current code
1:01:11 when a home is being remodeled or
1:01:15 rebuilt or new
1:01:17 it's allowed to use the houses on either
1:01:20 side of it to determine what the setback
1:01:25 and if existing homes are closer than
1:01:29 the required buffer and building setback
1:01:32 then and that average line allows the
1:01:36 homes to be built into the buffer or
1:01:39 into the setback
1:01:41 so um
1:01:42 as i mentioned we needed to do research
1:01:44 we hired um
1:01:46 a consultant to study the lots and
1:01:49 houses along the lake so that we
1:01:51 understood
1:01:52 the existing situation
1:01:55 we are proposing to eliminate the common
1:01:59 line setback exception so that
1:02:01 everything that's built
1:02:04 either has the 35-foot buffer and the
1:02:07 15-foot building set back for a total of
1:02:10 50 feet from the shoreline
1:02:15 in terms of bulkhead removal
1:02:17 the current code uses an incentive to
1:02:20 encourage people to remove the bulkhead
1:02:23 by allowing a reduction in the required
1:02:26 buffer in recent years we've only had
1:02:29 two homes that took advantage of the
1:02:32 incentive and they were actually the
1:02:35 same person on two different lots
1:02:38 um so we didn't feel that the incentive
1:02:41 was effective and so um the proposal the
1:02:44 request from council and what we're
1:02:46 proposing
1:02:47 is to replace that with a requirement
1:02:50 that you remove the bulkhead except
1:02:52 where
1:02:53 peer-reviewed study
1:02:56 shows that it's meeting certain criteria
1:02:58 that indicate that it is not feasible to
1:03:01 remove the bulkhead so the little
1:03:04 illustration at the bottom is from the
1:03:06 existing code it's the one that had the
1:03:08 big x through it
1:03:09 in the draft and it shows that yellow
1:03:13 portion would be
1:03:14 the example where you are removing the
1:03:17 bulkhead and you're allowed to build
1:03:19 into the um
1:03:21 setback and buffer
1:03:24 essentially having the 50 feet to
1:03:28 25. uh there were two consideration
1:03:31 topics in the memo one was about the
1:03:34 threshold for removing bulkheads
1:03:36 uh the other was the threshold for uh
1:03:39 docklighting
1:03:40 which again we can come back to if you
1:03:42 want to discuss
1:03:45 some of the top comments
1:03:47 just to let you know again we had an
1:03:50 open house
1:03:51 we met with many commissioners and board
1:03:54 members who wanted to talk with us
1:03:57 we also went to the kokanee group and
1:04:00 did a presentation um on just the dock
1:04:03 lighting so uh we've had feedback from a
1:04:05 number of different groups
1:04:07 and we've
1:04:08 received a few um direct comments um
1:04:12 there was a conflict identified on page
1:04:14 59 where we missed some language that
1:04:17 should be removed to ensure um that were
1:04:21 taking out all the cross references
1:04:23 um there was some questions about how
1:04:26 this will be consistent um with critical
1:04:28 area standards and other chapters and
1:04:30 titles
1:04:32 there was some concern around
1:04:34 electrocution with flooding on the lake
1:04:37 and a suggestion that we use low voltage
1:04:40 lighting um rather than regular uh
1:04:43 voltage lighting to reduce the chance of
1:04:47 several people
1:04:49 suggested that the criteria for um
1:04:54 indicating that removal of a bulkhead
1:04:57 was infeasible needed some clarifying
1:05:00 language
1:05:01 and then there were some requests to
1:05:04 more wide-ranging
1:05:06 wide ranging changes to the smp
1:05:12 and that's the end of my presentation
1:05:18 and thank you very much
1:05:20 lucy so we'll go ahead and open this up
1:05:22 for commissioner questions
1:05:25 and if you have a question please put it
1:05:26 in the chat
1:05:34 window give it a moment here
1:05:37 first commissioner is commissioner
1:05:39 milligan you have the floor
1:05:41 thank you commissioner milligan here
1:05:43 thanks lucy i'm i'm sorry i'm going to
1:05:45 make you repeat yourself and maybe you
1:05:47 know i know how artful you are in
1:05:49 rephrasing but when we're talking about
1:05:52 um the bulkhead removal
1:05:54 requirement
1:05:56 and the uh how that changes the buffer
1:06:00 i'm i'd just like you to tell me that
1:06:02 again in just a different way so i can
1:06:04 understand it better thank you sir so
1:06:06 right now there is an incentive to
1:06:08 remove bulkheads
1:06:10 that the incentive is to allow you to
1:06:12 reduce the buffer
1:06:14 and what we're saying is the incentive
1:06:16 hasn't been effective in getting more
1:06:18 people to remove their bulkheads
1:06:20 so we're going to eliminate the
1:06:22 incentive
1:06:23 not allow you to reduce the buffer and
1:06:26 just require it in certain circumstances
1:06:29 unless you demonstrate it's infeasible
1:06:32 is that clear
1:06:40 all right thank you very much
1:06:42 commissioner milligan and
1:06:44 chair uh davidson you have the floor
1:06:48 okay lucy i have a couple of questions
1:06:49 for you as i looked at your cover memo
1:06:52 um you identified that one of the
1:06:55 criteria for the council was to develop
1:06:58 a more robust buffer enhancement and
1:07:00 monitoring provisions
1:07:02 can you describe for me how the changes
1:07:04 that you've made in this address
1:07:07 the need for enhancement and monitoring
1:07:10 i didn't see that anywhere in the
1:07:12 changes here it only just talks about
1:07:15 to get rid of one provision so where is
1:07:17 the enhancement and monitoring
1:07:19 well uh you know that's a great point uh
1:07:23 chair davidson um
1:07:25 that item was more broadly targeted at
1:07:29 all critical areas
1:07:31 and so i think more of the enhancement
1:07:35 shows up in the critical area code which
1:07:38 you're
1:07:39 going to be reviewing soon
1:07:41 really i think that in terms of the
1:07:44 shoreline
1:07:45 master program
1:07:48 eliminating the common line and the
1:07:52 bulkhead removal incentive really
1:07:55 ensures that we have the full
1:07:57 dimensional buffer
1:08:00 that the shoreline master program has
1:08:02 established for lake washington so
1:08:05 there's already
1:08:06 enhancement and other provisions that
1:08:09 are in the shoreline master program
1:08:11 please don't make me name them off the
1:08:13 top of my head i don't think i can do
1:08:17 the goal here was
1:08:22 in as many cases as possible have the
1:08:24 full depth of the buffer uh present
1:08:28 so if this goes back to council they're
1:08:30 not going to be asking if we are going
1:08:32 to provide why this doesn't provide that
1:08:34 enhancement i'm just kind of curious
1:08:36 along the way well you think
1:08:39 i guess i'm not sure that the
1:08:40 enhancement isn't already there i think
1:08:43 the main thing um in the shoreline in
1:08:45 the existing shoreline management
1:08:46 program i think the biggest concern was
1:08:50 that we had all these means for reducing
1:08:52 the buffer and that was the biggest
1:08:55 concern that we were hearing
1:08:57 and asked to address for the shoreline
1:08:59 master program in particular
1:09:02 right and i have another question for
1:09:03 you so in administering this um let's
1:09:07 just say someone
1:09:09 has a native growth buffer of 40 feet in
1:09:12 one area and then another it's down to
1:09:15 15 feet is there any buffer averaging
1:09:17 that goes along the way when you
1:09:19 administer this or is it you know the 50
1:09:22 feet from the shoreline all the way down
1:09:24 um how does that work
1:09:27 so a great question um i don't know that
1:09:31 there is averaging uh in the code
1:09:36 i did notice that as a public comment
1:09:38 and i think that would be something we
1:09:40 need to do more research on
1:09:42 not if you are building something new or
1:09:45 redeveloping
1:09:47 i think we would want the full 50. i
1:09:49 think the question is if you
1:09:52 have an existing structure and you're
1:09:56 adding on to it for instance
1:09:59 and for instance if part of the building
1:10:00 is too close should we be averaging and
1:10:04 getting a deeper buffer on part of the
1:10:06 lot and that i don't i don't think we've
1:10:08 studied that yet i think that's a
1:10:10 follow-up task
1:10:12 and that's one thing that it would be
1:10:13 helpful to understand to make sure that
1:10:16 you're clear about
1:10:17 particularly on existing homes you know
1:10:20 if there's any averaging going to occur
1:10:23 or you know if you if i give you a
1:10:24 little more here can i take more away
1:10:26 there that type of thing which is really
1:10:28 easy to do when it's not spelled out
1:10:30 that it's allowed or not a lot that's
1:10:32 sorry i added a comment into my
1:10:34 questions and i'm sorry
1:10:36 um and nancy
1:10:38 i i think uh director dollywood may want
1:10:41 to um phone a friend for me
1:10:45 thank you lucy i'll try and answer your
1:10:46 question i think the the setback along
1:10:49 the lake is where this common line
1:10:51 setback approach was done and so
1:10:54 the the draft code takes away the
1:10:57 averaging or figuring anything out in
1:10:59 terms of reducing that so the 50 foot
1:11:01 would apply to the entire stretch i
1:11:04 think the other question relates to
1:11:06 the buffer reduction for streams
1:11:09 that was in the critical areas code
1:11:11 where you could reduce the buffer for 25
1:11:14 that in the critical areas code is no
1:11:17 longer an option
1:11:18 however we've left the buffer averaging
1:11:21 for streams in the draft code um and so
1:11:24 there's some inconsistency in um that
1:11:27 will need to correct in the smp
1:11:30 uh depending on what decisions are made
1:11:32 on the critical areas code as it relates
1:11:34 to buffer averaging
1:11:36 for the stream so
1:11:37 as you all know the shoreline applies to
1:11:39 the lake and the two streams it's aqua
1:11:42 creek in the north fork
1:11:43 so there's a little bit of distinction i
1:11:45 think for the lake versus the streams
1:11:50 okay that covers my questions thank you
1:11:51 very much
1:11:54 thank you chair davidson and the next
1:11:56 question is from
1:11:58 commissioner lewis you have the floor
1:12:01 thank you chairfall commissioner joy
1:12:03 lewis here um
1:12:06 am going to start with a
1:12:09 relevant question because i know how you
1:12:11 like those regarding doc lighting um i
1:12:14 think that i have a concern still about
1:12:16 spread i appreciate that we're
1:12:19 specifically calling out that light
1:12:21 should not be directed down towards the
1:12:23 water
1:12:24 but as most people are familiar dock
1:12:26 lighting can tend to not have any type
1:12:28 of restriction and i'm curious why there
1:12:31 wasn't a choice to use some type of hood
1:12:34 some type of regulation to be able to
1:12:36 really limit how the spread of a large
1:12:39 dome light would end up impacting
1:12:41 natural environment
1:12:44 well we worked with our lighting
1:12:46 consultant here as well
1:12:48 and i think they identified a couple of
1:12:50 different uh aspects
1:12:53 uh one was um
1:12:55 [Music]
1:12:57 you know not having backlighting and uh
1:13:00 or a board or some kind of bollard to
1:13:03 keep the light on the dock
1:13:06 i wonder uh i'm hypothesizing a little
1:13:09 bit here
1:13:10 that because you're trying to light the
1:13:12 dock surface having some degree of
1:13:15 spread reduces the number of fixtures
1:13:18 that you have because you're trying to
1:13:20 light the dock so uh i think the
1:13:23 question becomes
1:13:24 you know if you have your
1:13:26 can you see my hand out there i can you
1:13:29 have the bollard and you know you have
1:13:31 some kind of hood that's throwing light
1:13:33 this way
1:13:35 i don't know if there's some kind of
1:13:37 evaluation that we can or should do to
1:13:39 make sure it's not coming off this side
1:13:41 of the dock edge
1:13:43 and that's a question i just don't know
1:13:45 the answer to i would need to check with
1:13:47 our consultant
1:13:49 i would just wonder and if it may just
1:13:51 be my particular experience but
1:13:53 generally dog lighting is to the side of
1:13:55 the dock it's not down the center right
1:13:56 so you're not getting a benefit from the
1:13:58 spread and instead being able to narrow
1:14:01 it to the usable walkways rather than
1:14:04 having that spread fall out seems like a
1:14:06 natural way to be able to limit the
1:14:08 exposure to the water
1:14:11 right um i
1:14:13 i think we'll just that's a great
1:14:14 question that we'll need to have to do a
1:14:16 little more research on
1:14:18 especially because i get to go like this
1:14:20 when i ask my question
1:14:23 you know frankly
1:14:25 most doc
1:14:26 surfaces um are going to be some kind of
1:14:29 expanded material that allow light
1:14:31 through during the day
1:14:33 and so the reality is that as much as
1:14:36 we're trying to contain it to the the
1:14:38 dock surface
1:14:40 the other component that's equally
1:14:42 important is that it has the automatic
1:14:44 shutoff and the motion detector because
1:14:47 there's going to be light that's going
1:14:48 to go through that deck even if you've
1:14:50 perfectly contained it to the surface
1:14:53 and you want it on for the shortest
1:14:55 period of time possible
1:14:58 not only just for the overall light but
1:15:01 because some of it will get through the
1:15:02 deck surface
1:15:04 i do appreciate that my next question
1:15:08 i'm curious the staff believe that all
1:15:10 inconsistencies have been addressed and
1:15:12 this is kind of particular for where the
1:15:16 may fall short of implementing our
1:15:18 updated environmental policies
1:15:20 i know that this is outside of the
1:15:21 purview a little bit but
1:15:24 it is a good opportunity to be able to
1:15:26 look at our shoreline master program
1:15:28 with fresh eyes
1:15:29 and i'm curious if staff feels that
1:15:31 we've been able to incorporate the
1:15:34 policies that we've implemented here
1:15:36 the s p
1:15:40 would you help me out and um are you
1:15:42 talking about like comp plan policies or
1:15:45 are um are you thinking of policies
1:15:47 within the smp
1:15:50 yeah i mean specifically in the last
1:15:52 year we've implemented new environmental
1:15:54 policies that have been strongly backed
1:15:56 by the community that have happened
1:15:57 since bef since the 2019 last overhaul
1:16:01 of the shoreline master program i would
1:16:03 have to imagine that you guys are
1:16:04 sending this out to multiple departments
1:16:07 and uh looking at hey how have we how
1:16:10 can we get more in line with our current
1:16:12 policies i'm curious if staff feels that
1:16:14 they've done that
1:16:15 and that this draft code reflects the
1:16:17 most updated
1:16:19 use of those policies
1:16:21 so i think that in terms of other plans
1:16:25 that were already in place like um comp
1:16:30 the shoreline master plans own policies
1:16:33 and um
1:16:36 probably the strategic plan i think that
1:16:39 are probably okay
1:16:42 i think that um
1:16:44 i i'm sure that we have not evaluated
1:16:47 this against for instance the icap
1:16:51 because uh we were really given such a
1:16:54 narrow focus
1:16:55 for the changes that we were asked to
1:17:00 yes which gets me to my next question i
1:17:03 i probably have about three subset
1:17:05 questions that i'm going to hold off on
1:17:07 because i will i will give everyone a
1:17:10 spoiler that i fall into the
1:17:12 the last bucket that lucy presented a
1:17:14 feedback that staff had gotten of saying
1:17:15 that i think that there's some more
1:17:17 details that need to be looked at in a
1:17:18 broader sense to the shoreline master
1:17:21 uh program i do want to respect that we
1:17:23 are focusing on the three revisions
1:17:25 requested by council so the next time
1:17:26 that this comes to us
1:17:28 it would be nice if staff had gone to
1:17:31 council said that there was maybe some
1:17:33 concerns about
1:17:35 being able to have some more
1:17:36 encompassing
1:17:38 direction
1:17:39 being provided if so then i would be
1:17:41 have three other questions but because
1:17:43 they're not to our scope tonight i'm
1:17:45 just gonna put a little caveat in there
1:17:46 so thank you
1:17:50 thank you commissioner lewis
1:17:51 and commissioner voice you have the
1:17:53 floor
1:17:57 thank you chairfell commissioner jason
1:17:59 voice so because commissioner lewis
1:18:01 already did this i don't get to do it
1:18:04 my question is uh real simple so
1:18:07 going to page 113 of the packet
1:18:10 basically dealing with the bulkhead
1:18:13 specifically c so it talks about
1:18:15 different alternatives
1:18:17 um having someone come out and assess
1:18:20 engineer
1:18:21 possibly replaced to replace or upgrade
1:18:25 and the question i have is for a
1:18:27 residential build a single family lot
1:18:30 is that a hardship or is that something
1:18:32 the city plans on taking
1:18:34 those costs and rolling it up into the
1:18:37 basic building permit or is this
1:18:40 something that they're going to have to
1:18:41 finance on their own
1:18:45 so this would definitely be the
1:18:46 responsibility of the property owner
1:18:50 the page that you're referring to 113 is
1:18:54 where we need a little better
1:18:55 introductory where we got comments that
1:18:57 we need a little better introductory
1:18:59 information to be clear
1:19:01 what the roman numerals uh the
1:19:04 romanettes is what one person called
1:19:06 them which i love that term
1:19:11 introducing what those are a little more
1:19:13 clearly
1:19:15 but the uh
1:19:17 yes that would be the responsibility of
1:19:20 the property owner
1:19:22 there are these criteria that if there
1:19:25 are impacts that make the project
1:19:28 infeasible
1:19:29 um i do think that one of the things
1:19:32 about the threshold though for the
1:19:35 bulkhead program is
1:19:37 um there probably has to be some level
1:19:39 of proportionality between the cost of
1:19:42 the bulkhead removal and the cost of the
1:19:45 project and i imagine that's one thing
1:19:48 that we'll continue to talk to um our
1:19:50 legal counsel on to make sure that what
1:19:53 we're doing is um
1:19:56 you know in line
1:19:59 so that would be a separate expense lucy
1:20:01 that wouldn't be something as far as the
1:20:03 initial inspection
1:20:05 as far as staking lot
1:20:07 setting things back as far as setbacks
1:20:09 that couldn't be something included
1:20:10 because again they're having to
1:20:13 engineer or possibly assess
1:20:15 again it kind of sounds like a
1:20:17 specialist would have to come and do
1:20:18 that not necessarily a city planner
1:20:21 oh yeah now this this assessment
1:20:25 would um be a technical expert and we
1:20:27 would also require a peer review and
1:20:30 that would not be staff either
1:20:32 that would uh require a level of
1:20:35 expertise that yes the applicant would
1:20:37 be asked to pay for
1:20:39 um so that is you're right an additional
1:20:43 great thank
1:20:44 you thank you commissioner voice and
1:20:48 commissioner
1:20:49 mcwilliams you have the floor
1:20:53 oh i withdrew my question thank you
1:20:55 though i got my answer i was looking
1:20:56 forward
1:20:57 excellent thank you
1:20:58 uh so moving forward here uh
1:21:00 commissioner finch you have the floor
1:21:03 thank you cheerful jamie finch speaking
1:21:06 i had a question on the
1:21:08 section related to native plantings in
1:21:10 the buffer
1:21:12 i didn't notice
1:21:13 any like specific timelines for
1:21:15 monitoring is that
1:21:18 is that mandated somewhere else or can
1:21:20 you help me understand what the standard
1:21:22 for monitoring around
1:21:24 plantings in a buffer would
1:21:26 be um
1:21:29 i'm gonna ask if minnie happens to know
1:21:32 that i will try and check it while we're
1:21:34 sitting here um because it's not a
1:21:35 section
1:21:37 that um we were changing i don't know it
1:21:40 off the top of my head
1:21:44 so you know um are you asking about the
1:21:46 length of the time for the monitoring
1:21:48 yeah because at least as i read it it
1:21:50 said i think it was 80 20
1:21:53 if i'm remembering correctly but it
1:21:54 didn't have any other specifications
1:21:56 around it i just don't know if that
1:21:57 lives somewhere else and it's defined or
1:21:59 if there is no timeline for them like
1:22:01 how long that would be monitored
1:22:04 well i'm seeing one um set let's see
1:22:07 shoreline vegetation preservation
1:22:12 requires a five year five years of
1:22:14 maintenance and monitoring at least in
1:22:17 one place
1:22:20 okay so maybe i just missed it
1:22:22 um it's on page 57 of the actual
1:22:25 document not the packet
1:22:31 one other question i had related to
1:22:33 timelines uh was around pruning in the i
1:22:37 think it was pruning in the buffer which
1:22:39 uh i think it says that you can prune 25
1:22:41 percent of the branches and any it
1:22:44 doesn't set a timeline so
1:22:46 i i'm just not sure is that like i can
1:22:48 prune 25 today i come out tomorrow i
1:22:51 prune more 25
1:22:53 in four days i have no tree left
1:22:55 is there any standards around that
1:22:58 because it just seemed like it was right
1:23:00 for uh
1:23:01 for uh
1:23:02 someone taking advantage
1:23:06 yeah good point we will look at that you
1:23:08 know of course we
1:23:09 we don't want
1:23:10 people will look at code creatively to
1:23:13 see what you can do um to do that but
1:23:16 the idea with the 25 is because the the
1:23:19 trees will die if you butcher them more
1:23:21 than 25 and so that's where that
1:23:23 provision comes from but from uh
1:23:27 from a science perspective how long you
1:23:29 know do you need to
1:23:30 how often you need to prune
1:23:33 um sort of thing so we'll look at that
1:23:36 thank you
1:23:41 okay and thank you very much
1:23:43 commissioner finch and commissioner
1:23:44 milligan you have the floor
1:23:47 nina milligan again
1:23:50 lucy uh i wanted to ask
1:23:53 and i'm going by um
1:23:55 packet numbers what's the page of the
1:23:57 document uh 22 of the document
1:23:59 56 of 155 in the packet
1:24:03 i wanted to ask do we have salt water
1:24:08 because there's in the revision there
1:24:10 talks about salt water that's my first
1:24:11 question
1:24:13 i don't think we do have any salt water
1:24:16 okay i'll just point that out for kicks
1:24:19 and then i want to look at page
1:24:24 27 of the document 61 of the packet
1:24:27 water quality definition and it looks to
1:24:30 me that there's a copy and paste error
1:24:32 so that's a question is that a copy and
1:24:34 paste error
1:24:40 so i wasn't the lead author but i would
1:24:42 say that seems like maybe it was yeah it
1:24:46 came from somewhere else so i'll give
1:24:47 you that little heads up for your editor
1:24:50 thank you we'll find it probably
1:24:53 and then um
1:24:55 we're only talking about those three
1:24:57 topics from the council and the changes
1:25:00 that we've made to the
1:25:02 s p but i i wish we were talking about
1:25:05 all the shoulds
1:25:06 and that i started really noticing
1:25:08 racking up as i read that document you
1:25:11 should do this you should do that and
1:25:12 the inability to enforce a should
1:25:16 and the confusion that it causes the
1:25:17 community so i won't ask that question
1:25:20 i'll save it for later but don't forget
1:25:23 it okay lucy
1:25:24 right the one thing i will say that's a
1:25:26 tricky thing about s p and because i
1:25:29 haven't looked at locations of shoulds
1:25:32 uh i mean this may not be accurate but
1:25:36 um the s p is a combination both of the
1:25:39 policy documents
1:25:41 and or the policies and the standards or
1:25:44 regulations
1:25:46 so um i think the question would be are
1:25:48 the shoulds in the regulations or the
1:25:50 shoulds in the policies
1:25:53 and that i don't know off the top of my
1:26:01 all right thank you very much
1:26:02 commissioner milligan i am not seeing
1:26:03 any additional questions
1:26:06 so we're going to go ahead and open it
1:26:07 up for public comment
1:26:12 is there any members
1:26:13 of the
1:26:14 public that would like to make a comment
1:26:16 yes i apologize yes connie marsh would
1:26:18 like to comment
1:26:20 connie you are now a panelist
1:26:28 and you can turn your camera on i did
1:26:30 there you go thank you uh so connie
1:26:33 marsh again on uh squawk
1:26:36 mountain
1:26:38 so i actually called department of
1:26:40 ecology on this
1:26:45 because
1:26:46 i was reading the new draft code and the
1:26:49 new draft code
1:26:51 called out
1:26:52 wetlands and so i said what wetlands it
1:26:55 never says wetlands in our smps
1:26:58 even though our new code says
1:27:01 wetlands and she says yes it is not just
1:27:05 your streams it is the associated
1:27:07 wetlands and the floodways and the smp
1:27:11 rules anything
1:27:13 with 300 feet from the outer edge of
1:27:17 those
1:27:19 areas and she said we don't really care
1:27:21 if you're
1:27:22 if your
1:27:26 talks about it it is state law so you
1:27:28 have to do it anyway
1:27:30 um our smp
1:27:32 is very unclear
1:27:34 uh in in this so that is a state law
1:27:38 that somehow has sort of slithered
1:27:40 through you all updated the maps in
1:27:43 what is it the 2019 updates right but i
1:27:46 was looking at the maps and i don't i
1:27:48 don't see the wetlands and flood ways
1:27:51 mapped out
1:27:53 the maps one of the maps doesn't show
1:27:55 anything even remotely close the other
1:27:56 one maybe nudges at it a little bit but
1:28:00 the maps um
1:28:03 don't show the actual critical area and
1:28:06 then the associated other
1:28:10 water bodies and i
1:28:12 i think for clarity i think they
1:28:15 actually have to do that
1:28:18 uh in order to be able to use them
1:28:20 and she just sort of laughed at me
1:28:22 because she says well
1:28:25 you have to so um then the other thing
1:28:30 the state law has made us uh put habitat
1:28:35 and habitat protections
1:28:37 in not in all of our codes and plants
1:28:40 right this is a new segment it can't
1:28:43 just be you're protecting a stream you
1:28:45 have to be protecting the habitat in and
1:28:48 around the stream
1:28:49 so when you say that you're updating for
1:28:52 legal purposes
1:28:54 well that is a clear and identified
1:28:55 legal purpose that is missing
1:28:59 the smp so i'm curious as to how
1:29:03 how we're updating the smp and not
1:29:06 bringing it up to state law in that
1:29:09 situation
1:29:10 so this
1:29:12 this brought me to the
1:29:14 well what are we really trying to do
1:29:16 with the the shoreline master program
1:29:19 and so i came up with my own idea which
1:29:21 is these are considered to be the
1:29:24 shorelines of statewide significance
1:29:26 they're supposed to be our our most
1:29:29 significant water bodies
1:29:32 but we must allow access to the public
1:29:35 for these shorelines and that's one of
1:29:37 the differences it's also one of the
1:29:38 very few ways that we can control wash
1:29:41 dot it is basically our only little edge
1:29:44 to make wash dot do good things
1:29:46 that's an aside so
1:29:49 in my brain because these are extra
1:29:52 special their buffers should be showing
1:29:54 via best available science how we are
1:29:57 protecting
1:29:59 the habitat areas to the largest extent
1:30:03 possible
1:30:04 in these areas using best available
1:30:07 science
1:30:09 real forward and we have this code that
1:30:12 i have just spent a lot of time reading
1:30:14 our new code
1:30:19 it has now
1:30:20 uh adding in this this
1:30:23 thing
1:30:24 that is a fish and wildlife conservation
1:30:28 habitat areas and if you look at the
1:30:30 maps of those the maps of those entirely
1:30:33 echo are shoreline master plan maps and
1:30:36 they also include
1:30:38 wetlands and the flood i don't know if
1:30:41 they do flood plains or flood waves but
1:30:43 they also do the small ones so it's an
1:30:46 overlay
1:30:47 my concept is
1:30:51 if we
1:30:54 use best available science in our code
1:30:57 then we might be able to easily update
1:30:59 the regulations in this in the shoreline
1:31:03 master program by referencing the new
1:31:07 and best available science in theory
1:31:10 though i don't know if this is actually
1:31:12 will get us the buffers and habitat
1:31:15 protections that we desire for our
1:31:17 wetlands floodways etc
1:31:20 now the policies need to stay
1:31:23 in the
1:31:24 shoreline master
1:31:26 program
1:31:27 and those are all those shoulds and
1:31:30 there's a lot of shoulds
1:31:33 and then there's going to be a few
1:31:34 regulations that are very specific to
1:31:37 the shoreline master program because
1:31:39 they live entirely
1:31:41 there
1:31:42 but i i think
1:31:44 the idea that you could actually have a
1:31:47 functional shoreline master program use
1:31:50 the fish and wildlife conservation
1:31:52 habitat areas and the code
1:31:56 they right now i do not see how they are
1:32:00 going to mesh in any way where someone
1:32:02 couldn't just point and say well i want
1:32:04 to choose that rule and you're never
1:32:06 going to figure out
1:32:08 that they can't use that rule they're
1:32:09 supposed to use the other rule because
1:32:12 they're not they are not elegantly
1:32:14 intertwined so i've tried to solve the
1:32:18 problem of having to redo the entire smp
1:32:21 by instead just
1:32:23 using references to a potential new code
1:32:26 so my suggestion is that this
1:32:32 with the changes that will elegantly
1:32:35 connect it with the
1:32:38 new critical area
1:32:40 codes and then see what it looks like
1:32:43 then because i agree with these people
1:32:45 that say the snp will not function how
1:32:47 it currently exists i don't care what
1:32:49 the council said they only said that
1:32:51 they could only do three things because
1:32:54 staff came at them and said
1:32:56 we don't want to we don't have time to
1:32:58 do more than three things and so we
1:33:00 didn't and that was not a happy place i
1:33:03 lived that so i i remember
1:33:06 we can do it i know we can thank you
1:33:16 thank you there's no one else who has
1:33:18 signed up to speak
1:33:20 all right thank you kristen so we're
1:33:21 going to go ahead and officially close
1:33:23 out public comment at 804
1:33:26 and i'm going to go ahead and turn this
1:33:27 over to
1:33:29 chair davidson to go ahead and
1:33:33 conduct the commission
1:33:35 comments for the environmental board and
1:33:38 ppc can go ahead and turn off their
1:33:39 cameras
1:33:42 thank you ron we appreciate
1:33:44 that and with that i'm open to any
1:33:46 comments from the environmental board on
1:33:50 the smp
1:33:58 well i'll start this off i have several
1:34:00 comments associated with this and
1:34:02 usually sometimes i go first sometimes i
1:34:05 don't but
1:34:06 i am troubled by the smp and its lack of
1:34:09 connection to the critical areas
1:34:11 ordinance
1:34:12 first of all the council asked for a
1:34:15 robust buffer enhancement
1:34:17 and i don't think it referenced just
1:34:19 critical areas but it also should be
1:34:21 looking at you know the areas along our
1:34:23 creek particularly it's quite creek and
1:34:24 east fork of issaquah creek
1:34:26 in addition to the shoreline um the lake
1:34:29 shoreline and i don't think the snp has
1:34:31 addressed those areas the second point
1:34:34 i'd like to make is that there are
1:34:36 several inconsistencies in terms of
1:34:38 buffers between the snp and the title 18
1:34:41 critical areas draft part a
1:34:44 i'm also concerned that it will also i
1:34:46 haven't seen the storm water code but
1:34:48 that's coming to us next month
1:34:50 and um i think that too we will see
1:34:53 inconsistencies with the requirements in
1:34:56 thirdly there's several opportunities in
1:34:59 the stormwater master program that
1:35:01 provides opportunities for variances
1:35:03 they can be with done with the
1:35:05 director's approval
1:35:08 i also see that you can get three
1:35:10 different permits
1:35:11 i don't see
1:35:13 not being familiar with all of these
1:35:15 processes since i we don't do those
1:35:17 often
1:35:20 need to figure out how to get the public
1:35:22 involved to make sure that there are
1:35:24 rules when variances it's not just how
1:35:26 you feel about a piece of property on a
1:35:28 certain day and that we're treating
1:35:30 people in the public consistently and in
1:35:33 some cases that hasn't necessarily
1:35:35 happened in the city all the time and i
1:35:37 think that's something we should look
1:35:40 i think connie's point to um including
1:35:43 the wetlands which are part of the
1:35:44 buffers around the creeks is very
1:35:46 important and it's not included in this
1:35:49 sorry i had several comments written up
1:35:51 as you can probably tell
1:35:52 i'm concerned about the um
1:35:56 shells
1:35:58 shoulds
1:35:59 maize and where feasibles that are
1:36:01 included in the document sprinkled
1:36:03 throughout and i would encourage us to
1:36:05 be more thoughtful about what is a shell
1:36:08 and get rid of the wear feasibles
1:36:11 um and then my last few comments there
1:36:14 are many references to
1:36:16 title 18 critical areas that are not
1:36:18 going to be accurate anymore if you go
1:36:20 look at the critical areas piece that is
1:36:23 coming to us next month all those
1:36:25 references are no longer accurate
1:36:27 and then my last point to make to this
1:36:29 is there's um
1:36:30 [Music]
1:36:32 there are
1:36:33 um words used in here that are not
1:36:35 defined
1:36:36 and i found two that really troubled me
1:36:38 trying to figure out what they meant
1:36:40 because i haven't really looked at this
1:36:41 before the first one is the average
1:36:44 grade level on the shoreline i don't
1:36:46 know what that means
1:36:48 it's not defined anywhere in the
1:36:49 document and it's therefore subject to
1:36:51 interpretation the second one is upland
1:36:54 lot area
1:36:55 wow i'm not sure what that one means
1:36:57 either but i think there are places
1:36:58 where there are opportunities for people
1:37:00 to take advantage of this
1:37:02 and that too troubles me so in my
1:37:05 personal opinion to pass on to ppc is
1:37:08 that we really need to
1:37:09 move forward and do a more rigorous
1:37:11 update of the shoreline master program
1:37:13 because the particularly the differences
1:37:16 between this and the critical areas
1:37:18 piece of title 18 are
1:37:20 very different and we need to make sure
1:37:23 that we have consistency because when we
1:37:25 don't have it that's when developers or
1:37:27 land developers take advantage of it
1:37:30 with that that concludes my comments on
1:37:32 it so far um and with that i'll turn it
1:37:34 over to jamie
1:37:37 thank you nancy jamie finch speaking
1:37:40 i think first i would just echo what
1:37:43 nancy and a few others have said around
1:37:45 making sure that
1:37:46 um this plan is consistent with the
1:37:49 critical areas portion
1:37:51 i think one of the areas i appreciate
1:37:54 some of the changes that were made
1:37:56 that seem to be more specific to
1:37:59 lake sammamish
1:38:02 the common line setback
1:38:04 um the removal of the bulkhead incentive
1:38:06 i think those are good changes i do
1:38:09 wonder
1:38:10 a lot of the changes seem to be very
1:38:12 specific to only lakes of amish and and
1:38:15 i don't know that might not be the case
1:38:17 i just wonder are we leaving out changes
1:38:20 that should be made for isquad creek and
1:38:22 east fork because it seems like we don't
1:38:25 have and i'm not totally clear on the
1:38:27 problems that we feel we have there but
1:38:30 it doesn't seem like we have changes
1:38:31 specific to those waterways which
1:38:34 again probably is more surface area than
1:38:36 than the like cement shoreline combined
1:38:40 um and arguably more important so i i
1:38:42 think
1:38:43 that would be my one piece of feedback
1:38:46 have we gone in and really made sure
1:38:48 that that we have addressed problems on
1:38:51 on isquad creek and the east fork
1:38:53 because it feels like the changes the
1:38:54 most substantive changes are are mostly
1:38:56 very specific to
1:38:58 lake sammamish thank you
1:39:07 thank you jamie is anybody else from the
1:39:08 environmental bird board have comments
1:39:10 on the smp
1:39:22 mails
1:39:23 gone once
1:39:25 going twice
1:39:27 all right i think that concludes our
1:39:29 comments for the um ppc
1:39:33 all right thank you very much sure
1:39:34 davidson and so i'm going to turn this
1:39:36 back over to kristen kristen do we have
1:39:39 any additional reports or
1:39:42 city council updates or other business
1:39:44 announcements
1:39:46 i do actually i have two
1:39:48 um can i answer a couple of comments
1:39:52 that came through and cheerful if you
1:39:53 may allow um just a little bit of
1:39:55 clarification on the critical area piece
1:39:57 and the interplay with a shoreline
1:40:00 master program
1:40:01 okay great
1:40:03 so um
1:40:05 really good comments and excellent
1:40:07 feedback so appreciate everyone's uh
1:40:09 thoughtful readings and and and bringing
1:40:12 all these issues forward
1:40:15 i wanted to address quickly in terms of
1:40:18 the shoreline master program that is
1:40:21 formally approved by department of
1:40:23 ecology i wasn't here in 2019 but
1:40:26 at the time there were some changes made
1:40:29 to the critical areas code that is
1:40:31 separate from here so if you look on
1:40:34 your page i believe it's
1:40:36 44 of the packet
1:40:38 it'll reference an ordinance number for
1:40:41 a critical area that's specifically
1:40:43 adopted there
1:40:46 and then it has these exemptions that
1:40:48 are in critical area don't really apply
1:40:50 in the shoreline management
1:40:52 area so you may need a shoreline
1:40:54 permit even though it may be exempt
1:40:57 under the critical areas so the role of
1:40:59 department of ecology and their concern
1:41:01 usually
1:41:02 with having separate critical areas
1:41:05 court or ordinances um they want to be
1:41:08 very clear about what's adopted with the
1:41:10 smp that the jurisdictions don't go back
1:41:14 and you know they're if they're making
1:41:15 changes to the critical areas code it's
1:41:18 within the legislative authority of the
1:41:19 jurisdictions but the smp is formally
1:41:23 adopted uh and approved by ecology for
1:41:26 before we can implement it so therefore
1:41:30 we will be having those conversations
1:41:32 with department of ecology uh um
1:41:35 as you all work on the critical areas
1:41:37 chapter of how that will get folded into
1:41:40 this uh otherwise you're correct there
1:41:43 we would have a different critical areas
1:41:45 ordinance under the shoreline
1:41:48 so we need to work on the critical areas
1:41:49 piece and then come back and close the
1:41:51 loop with uh the shoreline
1:41:53 um so i just wanted to kind of um
1:41:56 you know close the loop on that yes that
1:41:58 is that will happen uh as we work
1:42:01 through the critical area piece and work
1:42:03 with department of ecology
1:42:06 so back over to you kristin
1:42:10 thank you and actually
1:42:12 something um i know that a lot of you
1:42:14 came in as attendees tonight
1:42:17 and uh
1:42:18 nancy had asked me to maybe explain
1:42:21 um apparently i do it differently than
1:42:23 uh stacy does it the invitations so when
1:42:26 i send them out um through webex the
1:42:29 invitations come to you
1:42:31 as panelists so i am i i set up a
1:42:33 panelist list
1:42:35 and you are included as panelists and i
1:42:37 send it out so
1:42:39 it should be that you accept the meeting
1:42:41 and once you do that you should be able
1:42:43 to hop right into the panelist list and
1:42:44 not be an attendee i shouldn't have to
1:42:46 bring you in however i know a lot of you
1:42:48 have gmail too and that works
1:42:50 differently than outlook so if there is
1:42:52 a ppc member
1:42:54 who could explain how they do it in
1:42:56 gmail if anybody'd like to raise their
1:42:58 hand and volunteer that would be really
1:43:00 helpful
1:43:06 uh nina
1:43:08 of all people who i know but you just
1:43:11 went through this you had some
1:43:12 difficulties yeah and i just i just
1:43:14 accepted your invitation for march 9th
1:43:17 so i just saw it so it comes to me
1:43:20 in my calendar
1:43:22 as a you know showing as a hatched
1:43:27 tended to
1:43:28 invitation and within the invitation you
1:43:31 have the accept or decline down uh drop
1:43:34 down menus and
1:43:36 uh that's that just worked for me i
1:43:38 think kristin should have gotten in i
1:43:40 accept uh for the ninth
1:43:42 uh but i didn't get an email
1:43:46 it was just a
1:43:48 uh draft piece in the calendar i don't
1:43:51 think i got an email about it it just
1:43:53 showed up in my calendar had to go to my
1:43:55 calendar and see it and say accept
1:43:58 that's gmail and then
1:44:01 so it was on your calendar and you just
1:44:02 came in and yeah and let me clarify it's
1:44:05 gmail for the
1:44:06 receiving email but i'm using
1:44:09 outlook not
1:44:11 google calendar that would be
1:44:13 yet again different
1:44:15 that's that's the best i can do you guys
1:44:17 are good
1:44:21 i just don't want environmental board
1:44:22 members to feel like i'm not letting you
1:44:24 in as panelists i do invite you as
1:44:26 panelists i can't always explain the
1:44:28 other end of it though and why it
1:44:29 doesn't always i thought i'd try and
1:44:30 give that a shot
1:44:34 moving on um
1:44:37 on tuesday night there was a regular
1:44:39 council meeting
1:44:40 council approved the allocation of 3.1
1:44:42 million dollars in arch
1:44:45 general funds for four different
1:44:46 projects but one of those included
1:44:49 five leo affordable units in the transit
1:44:52 oriented development project that is
1:44:55 being worked on right now
1:44:57 council also
1:44:58 voted to go ahead and move all three
1:45:01 items that were on the docket
1:45:03 forward in 2022 so we will you all will
1:45:06 be seeing those at the end of this year
1:45:09 they did want to
1:45:10 they recognized your work and thank you
1:45:12 for what you had done and for the
1:45:13 considerations that you had made
1:45:15 they just felt like the applications had
1:45:17 been submitted they were complete so
1:45:19 we're just going to go ahead and move
1:45:20 forward with those this year i think
1:45:22 minnie had her hand raised
1:45:25 yeah you covered it right kristen so uh
1:45:27 council really wanted to
1:45:29 appreciate the work planning and policy
1:45:31 commission does uh for this year
1:45:34 you know those three rezone requests
1:45:36 that came in
1:45:38 without having any criteria in the code
1:45:41 to say yes or no for those uh and other
1:45:44 reasons um they they ended up adding it
1:45:48 to the docket but they wanted to send
1:45:49 special appreciation and thanks for all
1:45:51 the work that uh planning policy
1:45:53 commission does and on all all the
1:45:55 different uh items that come before you
1:46:00 um and
1:46:01 lastly i wanted to remind you and it's
1:46:05 come up a couple of times tonight that
1:46:07 you all your next meeting is actually on
1:46:09 march 9th and you will be attending at
1:46:11 this regular environmental board meeting
1:46:13 so you've received invitations for that
1:46:14 and then we'll be together again the
1:46:16 following night all of us uh for march
1:46:18 10th for another public hearing on
1:46:21 natural environment so
1:46:24 eat lots of good veggies and stuff and
1:46:26 use your energy
1:46:28 and that's all i have thank you
1:46:32 okay and with that we will go ahead and
1:46:34 conclude our meeting tonight at 8 17.
Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.