Say NO to Lights, Noise and Traffic in Carmel

---

To CUSD board members and Superintendent Ted Knight:

I am submitting the following comments on the Revised Draft EIR titled “Carmel High School Stadium Improvements”.

I disagree strongly with many aspects of the RDEIR, which are summarized here and discussed in more detail below:

1.       Many of the objectives of the project are off-base and worded specifically to favor this project and disfavor all of the alternatives.

2.       The impact from the lights is “Significant and Unavoidable”, yet it still allows up to 400 practices and 124 games at night, all without performing a cost-benefit analysis that would be needed for the required filing of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for any significant impacts.

3.       The impact from noise and traffic resulting from this project are both incorrectly assessed to be “Less than Significant”, and this is due to major errors/omissions in the analysis, as well as selective bias in the data being used.

4.       The current project violates multiple regulations/ordinances but fails to provide any explanation or justification for why an exception should be granted for this project to circumvent these rules.

5.       Several of the alternatives would meet the core objective of enabling practice with a Late Start class schedule, but the RDEIR fails to properly consider these alternatives due to major errors/omissions in their assessment.

Each of the numbered sections below correspond to the numbered items above.

1.     Flaws in the Objectives

There are many issues with the objectives stated in the RDEIR, many of which are new objectives that have been added since the initial Draft EIR published in August 2021, and these objectives are improperly designed to improperly favor the current project instead of the alternatives.

A.     Project objective 3 stating "host sport events...in the evening when...can more easily attend" is not based in fact and is clearly false for many (e.g. people who work late on weekdays but are available on weekends).

B.     Project objective 4 stating “Improve athlete and spectator safety during evening sports events and games” is nonsensical as there are currently no evening events and is not a valid objective since it’s simply making night events itself an objective.

C.     Project objective 8 stating "replace outmoded athletic lighting fixtures" is completely unrelated to the new stadium lights and should be addressed independently, regardless of whether this project moves forward. In particular, it’s clear this objective was added due to complaints about the pool lights that were installed without following CEQA process, and these should be replaced regardless of whether lights are installed at the football stadium.

2.     Flaws in the Impact of the Lights

The RDEIR is correct to assess that the lights will have a “Significant and Unavoidable” impact on the viewshed in Carmel, yet it fails to provide sufficient mitigations to address these huge “effects on scenic vistas and the visual character” of the entire greater Carmel region.

A.     The RDEIR fails to consider atmospheric moisture assessing the impact of the lights. This has been determined by lighting experts to increase the impact by up to 10x, yet none of the simulated images in the RDEIR analyzed this. The impact of atmospheric moisture has already been demonstrated to be very significant with just the current pool lights, evident in photos taken on 12/7/2021 from the Carmel Views neighborhood.

                                i.           Light expert analysis: https://concernedmontereyhighneighbors.com/Comments-Light-Expert-Benya.pdf

                              ii.           Pool lights photo from Pine Hills Dr on 12/7/2021 at 5:48pm : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mOqqykOWRp60fDM_IrzgQMFtarGEWSS2/view?usp=sharing

                            iii.           Pool lights photo from Outlook Dr on 12/7/2021 at 6:21pm: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UpYMhlQj-5wRbqb38jhOidIuAzZv5plL/view?usp=sharing

B.     Despite such a significant impact, the RDEIR admits there will be 350-400 practices and 74-124 games each year that will use the lights. This is practically every day of the school year, so all of the following additional mitigations are needed and critical to preserving the scenic vistas and visual character of Carmel:

                                i.           Disallow lights usage on weekends for any use, period.

                             ii.           Require a significantly lower intensity lighting level for practice. The RDEIR punts on this by saying “the Illuminating Society of Engineers does not provide lighting standards for reduced levels for practices” but that is not an acceptable excuse, given the significant impact of these lights and the excessive frequency that practice will take place.

                             iii.           Limit lights usage for practice to be only and specifically for addressing Late Start, i.e. allow lights on weekdays for practice to be no more than 1 hour after sunset

C.     The RDEIR proposes a lights usage policy (albeit with minimal limitations that are not sufficient), but school policies are subject to change so there is nothing prescribed to ensure the policy is not changed in the future for the worse, such as by future CUSD board or faculty. At a minimum, the community must have a direct say for, and ability to overrule, any alterations to the lights usage policy in the future.

D.     The RDEIR fails to consider mitigation of the lights with tall trees, which is a common approach to reduce the impact. For example, see these recommendations for Wellesley High School stadium lighting. So, instead of taking down trees, this project should be putting up additional trees for the betterment of Carmel.

                                i.           Lights recommendations for Wellesley HS: https://wellesleyma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/25353/Wellesley-Sports-Lighting-report-8-30-21-BP

3.     Flaws in the Impact of Noise and Traffic

The RDEIR is incorrect in assessing that noise and traffic from this project will be “Less than significant”, due to significant errors/omissions, as well as selective bias in the data used.

A.     The RDEIR claims that football game noise levels would average 50-60 dB (Leq) and peak within 60-70 dB (Lmax). However, there are many studies showing noise levels far exceeding this, with high school football games peaking over 80 dB at Waunakee HS and over 100 dB at college games. The noise analysis in the RDEIR inaccurate due to selective bias of the data, and needs to be redone with additional data from multiple studies, instead of cherry-picking a single questionable data point (from Visalia HS).

                                i.           Waunakee HS noise analysis: https://nonewstadium.org/noise-levels

                              ii.           College game noise analysis: https://www.caohc.org/updatearticles/spring2015.pdf

B.     The RDEIR dismisses noise as a less than significant impact because it states on page 10-3 that "existing traffic noise levels already exceed the County’s noise exposure standards for single family residential (70 Ldn or dB)". However, this is incorrect because the only noise levels measured in the RDEIR that exceed 70 dB are peak noise levels (Lmax). The RDEIR admits that existing average noise levels are between 28.5 (LT-1) and 55.4 dB (LT-4), which is well below the 70 Ldn standard and much less than the likely expected noise levels for games (discussed in item 3A).

C.     The RDEIR fails to provide meaningful mitigations for the noise impact, likely due to its inaccurate assessment that it will be less than significant. It is clear that noise impact will likely be “Significant” per items 3A and 3B, and the RDEIR needs to provide for mitigations given this reasonable probability. The following mitigations are implemented at other stadiums and should be included in this project:

                                i.           Distributed multi-zone PA speaker system

                              ii.           Noise shielding, such as Acoustiblok fencing

                            iii.           Policy to prohibit all noise makers, e.g. air horns, megaphones, etc

D.     The Traffic Management Plan (TMP) fails to provide any solutions that would handle large events where there can be up to 617 cars vying for just 387 parking spaces. There would no space to accommodate an excess of 230 cars, so any reasonable analysis of the CHS access routes would conclude that a large number of excess cars will likely back up onto SR1 or neighboring streets. This creates a serious safety hazard and has been seen already during current Saturday afternoon football games. As a result, it is incorrect for Impact 11-2 to be assessed as “Less than Significant” and should be changed to “Significant and Unavoidable”.

                                i.           Photo of cars backed up on SR1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zvn2zHN0iIR2KCzj3FiXK2F3SGWDCL0g/view?usp=sharing

E.       Mitigation Measure 11-4 (f) states parking will be “residents only during special events”, but this is ambiguous and appears to be limited to only the largest events. Since there won’t be sufficient parking for all possible events (RDEIR admits parking “would be deficient by 230 parking spaces (617 demand - 387 total spaces)”), even with the 2 additional new parking lots, this mitigation must also:

                                i.           Explicitly cover all publicly attended events, to ensure there are never any events that can overflow into the nearby streets and hinder parking by residents or access by emergency vehicles.

                              ii.           Also, to ensure overflow parking does not simply shift to the west side of SR1, the residents-only restriction needs to be expanded to any streets within walking distance of CHS, such as Hatton Rd.

4.     Violations of Regulations/Ordinances

The RDEIR discusses various areas where this project would violate legislation, regulations, local ordinances, etc. These regulations were designed to minimize impact of development projects and it is negligent for the CUSD to circumvent them, even if it has the legal exception to do so.

A.     The RDEIR admits that impact from the lights is “Significant and Unavoidable”, which requires filing of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. However, the RDEIR does not perform a cost-benefit analysis that would be needed to properly justify any significant impact. When can CUSD provide a cost-benefit analysis for this project?

B.     The RDEIR admits that protected trees (“special status plant species”) would likely be damaged or removed for the 18-foot drive aisle that was newly added to this expanded project. These are mature trees so they cannot be replaced with equivalent ones, so the RDEIR is incorrect in assessing Impact 7-6 as “Less than Significant”. Why is this project allowed to harm regulated trees?

C.     The RDEIR admits that it violates GMP 3.3 states "Development shall maintain no less than a 100-foot setback from the scenic route right-of-way". However, the football stadium is within 65 feet of Hwy 1 (see map image here), and the proposed new parking lot and access road (demolition of the tennis courts) is within 60 feet of Hwy 1 (see map image here). Why is this project allowed to violate this Monterey County regulation?

                                i.           Map image of setback for stadium: https://drive.google.com/file/d/114OMryC5EnoCNOvunfRMl09Wq99rBuo7/view?usp=sharing

                              ii.           Map image of setback for tennis court: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1151H1r5-GUCp3GKGAstHtwltAw4g9fPu/view?usp=sharing

D.     The RDEIR admits that the lights will be visible from as far as Point Lobos and Jacks Peak, and many of the affected areas are protected spaces, such as Point Lobos and large stretches within the California Coastal Zone. It also admits that there are endangered species that may be impacted, such as “federally threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), state endangered foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)”, as well as other wildlife, such as the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). Why is this project allowed to potentially violate the Endangered Species Act, or impact protected spaces, such as a state park or the coastal zone?

5.     Flaws in Evaluating Alternatives

The RDEIR analysis of the alternatives is flawed by errors and omissions, resulting in a biased conclusion favoring the proposed project and dismissing the alternatives.

A.     The RDEIR fails to consider the Sunshine Protection Act, which has already passed the US Senate and is expected to also pass the House of Representatives. Including this into "Alternative 2 No Project Alternative - With Late Start" would allow Alternative 2 to be the only alternative that meets all major project objectives while also avoiding all impacts.

B.     Alternative 4 is claimed to "not avoid the significant impacts described in Table 2-1", but this is clearly untrue, for the reasons cited below. So, the assessment of this alternative needs to be redone/corrected to properly compare its impacts, which will likely be significantly lower when properly compared to the CHS location:

                                i.           The number of homes impacted by both lights, traffic and noise will be much higher at CHS than at CMS, due to the much higher density and number of homes. For example, there are about 152 houses within ¼ mile of CHS, versus 29 houses and 58 apartments (Cottages of Carmel) within ¼ mile of CMS. This means the impact of lights/noise/traffic/etc at CHS would affect over 2x as many homes/people than at CMS.

                              ii.           Traffic impact at CHS would be significantly higher due to congestion from proximity with SR1 (many more cars than on Carmel Valley Road) and residential neighborhood (many more homes than around CMS).

                            iii.           CHS stadium is at 335-ft above sea level, so 80-ft light pools will be projecting at a height of >400-ft elevation. This will be significantly more visible/impactful than at CMS which is at 30-ft elevation (i.e. sea level). The RDEIR fails to perform a viewshed analysis for the CMS alternative, which is necessary for a proper comparison to having lights at CHS.

                             a.       Here is a viewshed comparison (via Google Earth) of 80-ft lights at CHS vs CMS: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11XI37IwpARw8VIDjmliXGRGjjLJXG22j/view?usp=sharing

C.     The RDEIR says Alternative 4 “would cost upwards of $72 million dollars” (page 358, 18-18) but this is based upon excessive and unnecessary added construction, including demolishing and moving the track/stadium, tennis courts and baseball field, instead of leveraging the existing ones at CMS. This is a false equivalence and has the appearance that this alternative was intentionally rigged to be unacceptable. Instead, another alternative needs to be defined that leverages the exiting track/stadium, which will have significantly lower costs and impacts.

In summary, all of the above flaws/issues in the RDEIR need to be corrected before an accurate evaluation of the project can be considered by the public. As it currently stands, the proposed mitigations are not sufficient to reduce the many significant impacts of this project, so I strongly oppose allowing this project to move forward.