Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/2000, C1 - MINUTES Akeop bac council 2-05=00 1¢m Numbi AQC- nEpoat CITY OF SAN .LUIS 01149 PO C1. COUNCIL- Minutes to Follow at a Later Date C1-1 MEETING � LRECED AGENDA DATE 'LOT-00 ITEM # l 00 December 3, 2000 NCIL [a;ATTORNEY UNCIL O'CD9 DIR To: Mayor Allen Settle Aff CAD o r: l-I y /�D ❑FI .C'.IIcF City Council Member Ken Schwartz 71 ❑F0 C:R C' Council Member Jan Marx TTEA ❑RELIDE CHF�dT TcA:d ❑REC DIRCity Council Member Christine Mulholland ^Azo-�� ❑UTIL DIRCity Council Member John Ewan T 9 t3uNc ❑PERS DIR.y ✓ ,t. Mav� ed�ll� From: Residents in the upper Bishop's Peak residential neighborhood Subject: City Council Meeting, Tuesday, December 5, 2000. Inadequacy ofNoise and Light Mitigations in Cal Poly's Master Plan Dear Honorable Mayor Settle and Honorable Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council, Our neighborhood,which is directly adjacent to the City's Natural Open Space and trails on Bishop's Peak, overlooks the previously agricultural,western portion of the Cal Poly Campus. Cal Poly is developing this area with a sports complex. As to noise,we support Cal Poly's statement that they will include the 1997 Jones and Stokes Sound Study(which includes recommended noise mitigations)in the Master Plan. We will submit additional comments about noise impacts and mitigations directly to Cal Poly. As to lighting mitigations,we believe that the proposed lighting mitigations in it's new Master Plan for a possible new football stadium, a new basketball arena, and a large new parking structure which would be directly below, and in the direct line of sight,with our neighborhood and the City's natural open space are very inadequate. We ask that you read our attached memorandum about light mitigations and consider including the three statements at the end of the memorandum in your responses to Cal Poly's Master Plan. We look to you, our elected representatives on the City Council,to help us preserve and protect our established residential neighborhood. / Sincerely, INADEQUACY OF LIGHT MITIGATIONS IN CAL POLY'S MASTER PLAN 1. The City's Ferrini natural open space and trails, and the Upper Bishop's Peak Neighborhood Residential neighborhood adjacent to it on the slope of Bishop's Peak,both overlook and have a direct line of sight to Cal Poly's Sports Complex area. What impacts the residential neighborhood, also impacts the City's natural open space. 2. One part of the Cal Poly Sports Complex was recently built and included a baseball stadium, a softball stadium, a group of four"lower multi use fields", and several`upper multi use fields". The 1997 mitigation measures for these are attached. 3. After completing the initial"light bum in period", a prearranged test was held on October 23, 2000 in which all of the sports complex lights were turned on at one time, for the first time, for viewing from the Bishop's Peak area. The test showed that the mitigations were not adequate to reduce the significant impacts to insignificance as promised. The lights overwhelmed an existing view from private residences,they adversely affected the view shed from the public viewing area of the Ferrini Open Space,they diminished the character of the area from the Ferrini Open Space, and added new light and glare sources that substantially altered the night time lighting...all defined as significant impacts by Cal Poly( 1997 Sports Complex FEIR). There was also unintended,tremendous light tresspass off of the project site and onto Bishop's Peak If the lighting test had been continued, other significant impacts may also have become apparent. Cal Poly has made a commitment to come back with solutions to the lighting problem that was revealed that night, especially to the problems of the lights on the four lower multi use fields. (Although the lights on the four lower muhi use fields are only approximately 30 footcandles in brightness, from the city's open space and residential neighborhood on Bishop's Peak they appear to be brighter/as bright as the baseball stadium lights. The baseball stadium lights are approximately 100 footcandles, or 3 times as bright). Although it was disappointing that no Cal Poly administrators came to the test, Councilwoman Jan Marx was there with County Supervisor Peg Pinard and neighborhood residents. 4. Cal Poly is now proposing the same inadequate mitigations in this master plan for a possible future football stadium,basketball arena, and very large parking structure in the same area. Cal Poly's proposed Master Plan mitigations are also attached. THEREFORE: 1.The City Council should state clearly that Cal Poly's proposed Master Plan lighting mitigations appear not to be adequate,and 2.The City Council should strongly urge Cal Poly to consider a broad range of more effective lighting mitigations for the possible football stadium,basketball stadium and large parldng structure proposed for the sports complex area in this master plan. 3. The City Council should strongly support Cal Poly's commitment to "fix"the problem with the current Sports Complex lighting, especially the unintended,tremendous light'and light trespass from the the four lower multi use fields. Sports Cot?- '� rte � 2.0 Summary FE' R" Table 2-1. (Continued)' Residusl p StgnitieanueMltgatlar► impact .. Atter' lYTttgatlun; 5.11 Visual Resources(Continued) VR-2: The proposed project would Class III VR-2. Formal Design. .A formal design theme for the Class III introduce additional development proposed project should be established that is consistent into a semi-rural area of the Cal Poly with the fiinge area of Cal Poly. These should be campus, and would be visible to incorporated into the final design for approval by the Cal surrounding land uses. The project Poly administration and CSU Chancellors office,so as to would comprise an extension of the ensure unity with the natural and architectural character existing campus core. Overall,visual of the surrounding area, impacts are considered less than significant. VR-3: The proposed development Class II VR-3(a). Erterior Lighting. All exterior lighting Class III would introduce light and glare associated with the proposed parking lot shall be within a semi-nnal area of the Cal hooded No unobstructed beam of light shall be directed Poly campus,and would be visible to toward sensitive uses (e.g., horse unit and reservoirs) surrounding land uses. Light and and shall not interfere with vehicular traffic on any glare impacts are considered signifi- portion of any strea cant but mitigable. VR-3(b). Exterior Lighting. To reduce impacts from light and glare associated with the proposed project,Cal �j Poly should incorporate awl mitigation measures for exterior lighting into the final project design. Examples of specifications for minimizing light and glare include the following: • All lights must be shielded to avoid glare and light spill-over onto adjacent areas and onto public right- of-way areas. • Landscape illumination should be done with low level,unobtrusive fixtures. • Parking lot lighting should be designed to comple- ment the architecture of any structures onsite, and provide the minimum safe lighting levels. • The use of reflective materials in all structures shall be minimized. I 71 •1(. � ewOCLOMWawnvem23aCPNENnNtA%64UWMLJM 2-23 E +r � m Ir Cal Poly Master Plan '"'��i'.J .: .........:.r....7:ii sm z ... ;•ar..r.i_!' E.,.,..r: o•,:�ir..• t.:'. ..A.......�^, `� _ . �TtOp(C::;: •15 IIR n x r ��,..;•..�...,�a°eisiei3y°:�`!l5�'y., � 1 ,`� +' -' t .` :::'' .T.I.-...: . .•. v:. perimeter to block light spillage from headlights on cars within the structure;and All roof light fixtures shall be located on the interior columns to keep light from spilling out on to adjacent areas,and will include "cutoff"shields. Lighting from Mustang Stadium If this project were to occur,final design Class 111 / may adversely affect views from shall include measures to reduce light and Varea residences(Class II). glare visible to area residents. Examples of specifications include the following: All lights must be shielded to avoid glare and spillover onto adjacent areas and.onto public rieht of way areas The use of reflective materials will be minimized Landscape illumination will be accomplished with low-level,unobtrusive fixtures Minimum safe lighting levels will be used in adjacent parking and other facilities. Further environmental analysis of the E lighting and glare impacts would be required as part of future environmental review for this Proiect. Projects potentially impacting City Consultation. Prior to design Class III views from Highway 1 include finalization,the University shall consult with off-campus housing north of the City regarding the visual impact of the Highland,the Goldtree facility, proposed off-campus housing on the City and the Bull Test. Impacts are gateway. significant,but mitigable(Class II). Compliance with County Guidelines. If the proposed facilities lie within 100 feet of Highway 1,the Bull Test and the Goldtree facilities will comply with County Guidelines for&%tion near scenic hi hwa Cumulative visual impacts are No additional Class lII less than significant(Class III). Public The use of reclaimed water and None Class N Services the continuation of the campus recycling program will have beneficial impacts on public services(Class M. The Plan specifically addresses None Class III emergency access;the completion and expansion of the Utilidor will address fire flow deficiencies. Impacts to T ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Summary MEETING AGENDA rE19-5-00 ITEM # gan,u1p1u1i1fp1lll�'°1 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM December 5, 2000 To: Mayor Settle and City Council O-CIVNCIL O CDD DIP Via: John Dunn, City Administrative IEF Offi� OpG FINN DIP MACKIKen Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer [1g33 �FEKNI EY DPW DIRH G G POLICE CHF DIR From: John E. Moss,Utilities Direct C3 NTT t�'UTIL DIR//// . O PERS DIR Subject: Cal Poly Master Plan comments relative to water. /� �d n%ZG At the request of Council member Mulholland I have provided an additional review of the Cal Poly Master Plan and DEIR relative to their discussion of Utilities impacts,particularly water. The Master Plan and DEIR identifies that Cal Poly at full implementation of the Master Plan will have some class II, significant but mitigable, impacts. Table 6.23 on page 302 of the DEIR shows that at buildout, Cal Poly will have a deficit of 165 acre feet per year of available water supply, based on their safe annual yield from Whale rock of 1,384 acre feet per year, and a combined domestic and agricultural demand of 1,549 acre feet per year at buildout. The mitigations proposed for this deficit are to implement a water conservation program, develop a drought contingency plan, and to investigate the availability of additional supplies over the next 20 years. Suggested DEIR Comments: 1. It does appear that at least some information is lacking from Table 6.23 on page 302 of the DEIR and should be addressed in the FEIR. In the discussion of the Physical Plan Elements on page 147 and 148 of the Master Plan and DEIR, the discussion of the available water resources for the University includes two deep-water agricultural wells 'J north of Brizzolara Creek which supply an additional 450 acre feet per year for p o a agricultural irrigation. The supply of water available from these two wells and any ULU C=Ln U corresponding demand being satisfied by these two wells should be included in table 6.23 u for clarity. Once properly included, there may or may not be the identified deficit in Uo 1 - available yield. W W U 2. In Table 6.1 summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, on Page 213, the DEIR cc c 0identifies that"The University should develop a program designed to reduce overall water consumption on campus." It has been the experience of the City and other agencies in California, that domestic water consumption may be reduced by as much as 10 to 14% through the installation of water-saving fixtures alone. The University should consider as a policy statement in.the Master Plan that the University will develop and implement a water demand management program which at a minimum, will retrofit the existing campus with water-saving fixtures and ensure that all new development includes the installation of water-saving fixtures only. Council Memorandum Cal Poly Master Plan and DEIR Page 2 of 2 3. The City is pleased to see that the University is proposing to prepare a drought contingency plan as a proposed mitigation. The University should be aware that water shortage contingency planning is one of the required best management practices (BMP"S) for all signatories to the California Urban Water Conservation Council's (CUWCC) MOA, and while the University may not be a member of the CUWCC, the City appreciates the University's consideration of developing a drought contingency plan and recommends that the University consider adoption of all BMP's identified by the CUWCC. The City is signatory to the CUWCC MOA and does comply with the BMP's. The City would appreciate the University's consideration of adoption of the BMP's in this Master Plan, regardless of required mitigation. As a matter of information for the Council, Pg. 300 of the DEIR under Water, identifies that the City and University are currently worldng on a project to recycle water for irrigation of the sports complex. In previous comments on the draft Master Plan, the City Utilities Department had requested that the University include reference to the possible cooperation between the City and Cal Poly for the use of reclaimed water on Campus, and in particular for use on the sports complex. Council recently approved design of the Phase 1 water reuse system, which does not include extension of a line to Cal Poly. However, reclaimed water service to Cal Poly is identified as an alternative future project and staff feels it is appropriate for this citing in the DEIR to remain. If you have any questions regarding this memorandum please feel free to contact me at 781-7205. c: John Mandeville (TING AGENDA DATE ITEM #.Lim_ From: Richard Kranzdorf<rkranzdo@calpoly.edu> To: <sstendah@slocity.org>, Kranzdorf Richard<rkranzdo @ calpoly.edu> Date: 12/5/0012:26PM Subject: Cal Poly Master Plan Sherry, Thanks for making copies for the City Council members and others who may be interested. Richard Kranzdorf> RECEIVED - > C CDD DIR DEC 0' 5 2000 FF 0 FIN DIR > �HT NEY Fl DIR IEF > SLO CITY COUNCIL WERKIORIG O POUCE CHF > OMG T o REC DIR > 160 Graves D UfIL DIR >San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 D PERS DIR >December 4, 2000 v� > ✓`vl � >California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo >c%Crawford Multari Clark and Mohr >641 Higuera Street, Suite 302 >San Luis Obispo, CA 93402 >Attention: Nicole Phillips Faxed to: 541-5512 > Re: Cal Poly State University > Dear Ms. Phillips: > I am hereby submitting my comments on the Cal Poly Master Plan & Draft Environmental Impact Report. The comments are in four parts. Part I are general in nature. Part 11 concentrate on one particular aspect of the Plan,the proposal for a Visitors' Center and other ancillary projects on the west side of Grand Avenue between a line of trees and Slack Street. The third part are comments on other aspects of the Plan. Finally,there is a brief concluding statement. >General Comments >As a long-time faculty member at Cal Poly who is interested in the environmental dimension of projects involving the University, I am pleased to note that far more attention has been paid to environmental issues in the Master Plan than in other recent efforts including the Cal Poly Sports Complex. I applaud those responsible for the shift in emphasis. For instance, efforts to make the campus less auto-centric is to be commended and,to some extent, so are the constraints on additional parking spaces commensurate with planned new student housing. > I am distressed, however, at the time-line for review of the Draft EIR. I understand the desire by this campus to move with all due speed so that the Final EIR can be sent to the Chancellor's office early in 2001. One of.the pleasures in serving on the Land Use Task Force in the spring of 1999 was having the time to think about and then discuss proposals regarding land use matters on the campus. At the present critical stage of the process, however,those-who are interested in our campus and community do not have the same opportunity. This is a major shortcoming. > >Comments on the Proposed Ancillary Activities and Facilities Abutting Slack Street East of Grand Avenue > In the interest of openness, I want to first be clear that my house at 160 Graves is only a stone's throw from where the proposed Visitors' Center and possibly other structures would be located according to the Master Plan. As one who may retire from full-time teaching in a year or two and possibly move, my comments are directed towards the future of the neighborhood where I have lived since 1983 rather than simply catering to my own wants. > >The neighborhood is amazingly quiet given its proximity to the University and the fact that 50 percent or more of the houses are student rentals. One of the reasons for this happy state of affairs, I submit, is the buffer between the neighborhood and campus residence halls in particular and University structures in general. A second reason, already mentioned, is the mix of occupants in the immediate area. > I wish I had been on campus last spring when, according to the DER,the proposal was first made to house a Visitors' Center adjacent to this quiet, residential neighborhood. Alas, I was teaching overseas and was thus not"in the loop"during the formative stages of the proposal. I realize I am submitting my comments at the 11th hour but that is, by itself, insufficient reason to have the proposal go forward if there are serious problems as I believe there are. >When one talks about environmental considerations,you must be concerned both with natural habitat and human habitat. The maps and text of the DER designates the area in question as"Suitable for Facilities Expansion." In other words, it is not just a proposed Visitors'Center that is at issue but basically the reconstitution of the entire area. For instance, on page 195 one reads that the relatively small area may also be suitable for"additional conference facilities" >What is particular disappointing is that those who put the DER together, I am told, refused to designate the ancillary structures as even leading to the possibility of"Potential Neighborhood Conflicts" (see map on page 58). Given that the map on page 61, for instance,shows the entire area in question as"Suitable for Facilities Expansion," it is hard to know how such a designation could escape being listed as one of Potential Neighborhood Confrict. > In page A of the Executive Summary it is stated that"the team [working on the DEIR], in most instances, [chose]the environmentally superior approach." I can only conclude that the word"most"was used because this case (and perhaps others) could not be classified as"environmentally superior." The Land Use Task Force, on which, as previously stated, I was a member, had a list of guiding principles. I'll quote six: > 1. Strive for compact development of buildings and sites. New development should be concentrated in the campus core (There may be a difference in classification but I certainly question the proposal under discussion as being within the campus core.); >2. Campus land uses should be located so that adjacent uses are compatible with respect to their activities and environmental impacts; >3. Campus facilities, land use patterns, support facilities, signage, etc. should be compatible with their surroundings; >4.The concerns of neighbors regarding traffic, noise, lighting, viewsheds, etc. need to be considered in conjunction with educational and facility needs of the campus; >5. Effective buffers should be established and maintained between campus lands and activities and natural or build environments of both campus &surrounding community; > >6. Buffers should be provided to offer protection from dust, pesticide drift, odors, noise, visual,traffic and w � public safety. >The proposed ancillary projects will surely result in the destruction of a buffer between the campus and the adjacent community. The cumulative impacts including noise, lighting,traffic, aesthetics, and ambiance will change this neighborhood forever. We often hear the phrase"urban sprawl." The proposed activities represent"campus sprawl" >You will note that I have not uttered a single word about new housing south of Yosemite Hall. Development between Yosemite and the last line of trees before Slack Street is appropriate and still leaves the campus-neighborhood buffer. Perhaps the Visitors' Center or some other ancillary structure could be placed in that same general location. In other words, I understand the need for such a structure or even ancillary structures. The question is location,.location, location. The DEIR location and the designation adjacent to Grand Avenue and Slack Street is simply wrong, wrong, wrong. >Other Aspects of the Plan >Others are commenting on the future student housing plans (designated as H-2 and H-3 on DEIR maps) near the north bank of Brizzolara Creek and the mouth of Poly Canyon. Again,as with Slack Street,there is the lack of adequate buffers. Similarly,the quarry south of Poly Canyon Road is an eyesore and an embarrassment. I shudder to think what close monitoring might discover. > > In order to lessen the"footprint"for future student housing, the planned parking component should be reconsidered. By building multilevel parking structures (either below-or above-surface),the land necessary for such structures can be reduced. In short, additional consideration should be given to building up or down, not out, when necessary. > I am also unaware that provisions have been considered as to how students in the planned Brizzolara housing area will be fed. It's true that the new housing structures will consist of apartments with kitchens but I'm dubious how often they will be used. The last thing this campus needs are students driving off-campus for their meals or even driving to on-campus locations. This is an issue that needs to be confronted now, not later. >Concluding Statement >As mentioned at the outset, those steering the three-year Master Plan process are to be commended. Compared to other projects instituted during my almost three decades at Cal Poly,the Master Plan is a giant leap forward. >But as the Plan enters the crucial endgame, much remains to be done. Again, getting the job done quickly should not be the major goal; getting it done right is far more important. I know others have spent many hours in studying the Master Plan DEIR. So have I. We are talking about the next 20 years at least. Important matters have yet to be fully thought out. Having come this far we all need to make the extra effort to intelligently and with environmental-sensitivity deal with the remaining issues: As I wrote earlier, the remaining issues include both natural and human habitat. >Sincerely, > Dr. Richard Kranzdorf >cc: San Luis Obispo Mayor Allen Settle > Councilmember John Ewan > Councilmember Jan Marx > Councilmember Christine Mulholland > Councilmember Ken Schwartz > Sydney Holcomb, Chairperson, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods > J SING AGENDA ITEM # 18 v� Q INN Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604• San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 ■'A T. ...._., ❑I , ', p� (a1kLEti(^i ❑UT'L Cil p! t2t0VNi ❑FEASDIR ,y December 4, 2000 ✓ J.Havi okt U,ale. Re: Comments on the Cal Poly Master Plan and Draft EIR Meeting Date: 12/05/00 Item Number: 1 B Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to present to you our written comments on the Cal Poly Master Plan. They are attached and include the following documents: 1 . Response to the City Staff report with suggested actions. (Page 1 - 3) 2. Response to Cal Poly Master Plan Draft EIR with suggested actions.( Page 4 - 6) 3. RON's previous Master Plan Comments. (Page 7) As you know RON has been actively involved with this process from the beginning. After digesting three versions of the plan, we still have very serious concerns regarding the impacts this plan will have on our neighborhoods and community as a whole. We, therefore; ask the council to consider our recommendations and incorporate them into the City's response to the Cal Poly Master Plan. Sincerely yours, Cydney Holcomb Chairperson-, RON RECEIVED UEC 0 4 2000 SLO CITY COUNCIL R.Q.N 12/04/00 page 1 10,. COMMENTS ON THE CAL POLY MASTER PLAN AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (October 10, 2000) 1. RON RESPONSE TO : City of San Luis Obispo - Staff Report- 12/05/00 Pages 1 B-1 & 1 B-2 Report in Brief. Concepts 1-10 1. We agree. 2. We agree. 3. We agree. 4. We agree. 5. We agree. 6. We agree. Add sentence: Housing should be provided prior to increases in enrollment 7. Heery Sports Facilities Master Plan. We disagree with citing the Heery Plan. Please refer to our comments to Page 1 &9. Jones and Stokes Noise Study. A sound study for the Cal Poly Sports complex was done in 1997 through a joint effort of Cal Poly and the City of San Luis Obispo. It included specific mitigations for noise from the Sports Complex The City has previously asked Cal Poly to use these mitigations in it's Sports Complex. We agree with citing the 1997 Jones & Stokes Sound Study and its recommended mitigations. Action: Change #7 to read: "Cite the Jones and Stokes Sound Study and its recommended mWgmtyons and show their use in the evaluation and design of a new Mustang Stadium. Also, list the Jones and Stokes recommender' mitigations as feasible mitigations in the EIR for Mustang Stadium." R.Q.N 12/04/00 page 2 B. We agree. 9. We agree. 10. Change to read: " Include a definitive process for Plan development and Plan amendment, which assures ear/ community notification, involvement and consultation". Rationale: This is especially important as Cal Poly is proposing to defer identification of impacts until such time as specific projects are considered for development Pane 1 B-6 Items 1 through 11 We Agree. Pane 1 B-6 & 1 B-7 Comments on the October 10, 2000, Master Plan and Draft EIR Page 71, Campus Development Map (re: Grand/Slack Neighborhood Interface) Action: We suggest that the removal of pink shading indicating "possibility of future development" apply to any and all other maps on which it may appear throughout the Master Plan. Pane 1 B-9 Page 137, Introduction (re: Heery Sports Facilities Master Plan citation) Note: The 1995 Heery Sports Facility Master Plan proposes and includes drawings for a new and larger football stadium in the Sports Complex This stadium would cover four (4) of the brand new multi-use playing fields and proposes large vertical light towers which will face the Bishop's Peak Neighborhood as well as the City's open space area. This plan was done by Cal Poly without an EIR, without a sound study and without input from neighborhoods and the general public, therefore, because the council and general public have probably never read the -Heery Plan it should not be endorsed or used as a basis for future design of the football stadium. Action: Add the following sentences: (1) The City Council does not endorse the Heery Plan as a basis for future deve%pment of a new Mustang Stadium. (2) if Ca/Poly should build a new football stadium, it is the expectation of the City RA.N 12/04/00 page 3 Council that it will be designed to avoid noise and light impacts on established neighborhoods and the City's open space areas to the greatest extent possible. (For example: rather than designing a stadium with vertical light poles facing the Bishop's Peak Neighborhood, Cal Poly should design a stadium which more effectively avoids lighting impacts by utilizing horizontal arms of lights that extend over the field and aim down on the field rather than towards an existing neighborhood.) Page 138, third paragraph, last sentence (re: Mustang Stadium location clarification) The Master Plan presumes phasing of Mustang Stadium from its present location to the Sports Complex. The Master Plan does not discuss remodeling of the existing Mustang Stadium,-which is probably the environmentally superior alternative. Action: Remodeling should be discussed as an alternative and be subject to the Environmental Review Process. Pane 1&10 Page 333, Communication and Consultation (re: Community and Neighborhoods) See our comments to page 1 B-2 concept #10. R.o.N 12/04/00 page 4 ,� :. t 3., `' s ; '"eg�''r" a""t s. w.S t >- .::..`S , 2. RGN RESPONSE TO: Cal Poly Master Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report Pane 210.Cal Poly Master Plan f10/10/001 Noise Movement of Mustang Stadium Action: Include the recommended mitigations from the 1997 Jones and Stokes Sound Study as feasible mitigations. Action: Add the following statement: "Cal Poly will meet with neighbors eaiYy in protect planning and design about pro%ects that may affect them and have cooperative discussions on ways to relieve possible impacts" (Cal Poly Master Plan, Page 334). Rationale: Cal Poly has stated it will do this, but it does not appear in the mitigation. Action: Consider other feasible mitigations that have been used for other stadiums, such as: berms, acoustical barriers, enclosing or partially enclosing the stadium and sinking the stadium significantly below ground level. Pane 211 Aesthetics Third box (question: Cal Poly is proposing Class II (significant). residual impacts. Certainly, Cal Poly is not proposing light impacts so great that they will "interfere with a persons ability to sleep, overwhelm existing views, adversely affect the view shed from the Ferrini natural open space or other public viewing areas, diminish the character of the area from the Ferrini natural open space or other publicly accessible properties or parks, or pose safety hazards which interfere with a persons ability to walk, drive, or from using or enjoying their property? (Class II, Significant Impacts) Action: City Council should state that these Class II significant residual impacts are not acceptable. R.Q.N 12/04/00 page 5 Third & Fourth Box Action: Add the following statement: 'Ca/Poly vi//meet with neighbors ear/y in Pm tect planning and design about projects that may affect them and have cooperative discussions on ways to relieve possible impacts" (Cal Poly Master Plan, Page 334). Rationale: Cal Poly has stated it will do this but it does not appear in the mitigations. Action: Add statement: "All light fixtures must be fully shielded, or have internal and external louvers [which ever is most effective/ to avoid 4/are and light spill- over onto adiacent and non-adiacent areas and onto public rights of way, Light trespass shall be avoided to all extent feasible" Rationale: Fully shielded lights or lights with internal and external louvers avoid impacts on established neighborhoods and the City s open space to a greater extent than "hooded lights". City open space and some neighborhoods are not adjacent to Cal Poly. Page 212 Mustang Stadium - second box Action: Change first sentence to read: "if this project were to occur, final design shall include all feasible mitigation measures possible to avoid light trespass, and light and glare visible to area residents'. Action: Add statement: "All light fixtures must have interna/and external louvers or be fully shielded rwhich ever is most effective) to avoidg/are and light spill- over onto adiacent and non adiacent areas and onto pub/ic rights of way,. Light trespass sha//be avoided to a//extent feasible" Rationale: Fully shielded lights or lights with internal and external louvers avoid impacts on established neighborhoods and the City's open space to a greater extent than "shielded lights". City open space and some neighborhoods are not adjacent to Cal Poly. Action: For new parking structures, new Mustang Stadium, the Slack and Grand area and the Goldtree area, add other feasible lighting mitigations such as: fully shielded lighting, internal and external louvered lighting, landscaping, enclosing or partially enclosing structures, lighting fixtures of non-reflective materials and horizontal lighting arms which are aimed in a downward direction. R.O.N 12/04/00 page b Rationale: Cal Poly seems to be offering minimal mitigations rather than more effective ones that would go further to avoid impacts on established neighborhoods. Page 210 through 212 Noise and Light Impacts Action: The Council should request that the mitigation measures should be tied to performance standards and standards of enforceability. There should be post construction mitigation monitoring plans for noise and light impacts. R.Q.N 12/04/00 Page 7 0, 6611,441. �h. }arAK` +^FE9Y tet ` 3. RCN's PREVIOUS MASTER PLAN COMMENTS On June 6, 2000, the City Council forwarded RQN's comments on the Master Plan along with their own to Cal Poly. RQN's comments frequently incorporated the adopted Guiding Principles of Cal Poly's own Neighborhood Relations Task Force. They are as follows: • It shall be a guiding principle that negative impacts of new development, and/or redevelopment such as: noise, glare, traffic, and parking shall not be borne by residents of the established residential neighborhoods of San Luis Obispo. • New development on campus shall be designed to eliminate impacts on established neighborhoods, rather than to create designs that generate ongoing conflicts between the University and residential neighborhoods. Cal Poly responded positively to the City's comments, but for the most part RQN's comments were not incorporated into the current document. Cal Poly staff indicated to the City Staff that they have not adopted many of RQN's previous recommendations ( page 1 B-21 through 1 B-213 of the City Staff Report (12/05/00) because Cal Poly believes "that the total elimination of impacts on established neighborhoods is not technically possible'. Environmental law supports avoidance of impacts, rather than creating impacts and then attempting to mitigate them. This seems very similar and in the same spirit as "designing new developments on campus to eliminate impacts on established neighborhoods". Since our original language seems to be controversial, we suggest that Cal Poly re-consider RQN's recommendations, substituting the word "avoid" or "minimize to all extent feasible" in place of the word "eliminate'. Action: City Staff has suggested that Cal Poly re-consider RQN's previous (6/6/00) comments We agree. Council should request that Cal Poly re- consider RQN's previous (6/6/00) recommendations.