Light and Glare Clause Samples

Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in: 1. The production of new light or glare? . . .

Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:

Light and Glare. The City Heights conceptual land use plans do not yet describe a lighting proposal. These would be evaluated during review of site-specific development proposals. The applicant proposes to minimize the amount of glare, light trespass and sky glow generated by lighting from residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, vehicular and pedestrian corridors through a combination of measures. Representative measures may include: • State-of-the-art lighting system components and controls used for maximum efficiency and effect. • Light fixture shielding systems to emit light down to areas intended to be illuminated, and not into surrounding areas of the community. • Use of lighting design principles that focus on appropriate selection of fixtures, levels of lighting, and mounting heights to limit “light spillage” off-site. • Appropriate selection of painted or treated surfaces for standards and fixtures to minimize the amount of reflected light glare generated. • Preserving a perimeter buffer of existing vegetation to the extent practicable and restoring cleared areas with landscape plantings to provide visual screening where needed. City Heights ▇▇▇▇ Chapter 3.13 Aesthetics The proposal under conceptual land use Alternatives 1, 2, or 3A includes preserving an existing natural buffer 20 to 80 feet wide along much of the south boundary of the site. Only single-family detached homes are proposed along this boundary, for the most compatibility in use and scale with established neighborhoods at the base of the slope. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and development standards for the project will include requirements to assure that the proposed development will blend with the natural environment to the extent practicable. These measures will include such things as architectural standards for building character, exterior materials and colors; lighting, restoration plantings and screening requirements; and road standards that include provisions for landscaping and pedestrians. Project CC&Rs would impose measures for the maintenance and upkeep of parks (To the extent that some parks and public amenities within the development are accepted by the City as public areas, the City would maintain these areas.) and common areas, as well as measures that would minimize the visual impacts of construction, upgrades or repairs within the development. The CC&Rs, to be implemented and enforced by the Homeowner’s Association, would therefore help to preserve aesthetically...

Light and Glare. The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR found that the previous project would create new sources of light, which could adversely affect nighttime views of the Plan Area. The EIR analysis concluded that the increase in nighttime lighting, the potential for this lighting to disturb future Plan Area residents, and the potential for glare from light reflecting off commercial and business/professional buildings would be a significant impact. Mitigation was identified to reduce glare and light disturbance impacts to a less-than-significant level (Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 on page 4.4-23 of the 2004 Draft EIR), but impacts associated with the increase in nighttime lighting and changes in the existing nighttime environment were found to be significant and unavoidable. The 2005 Addendum maintained these impact findings and Mitigation Measure 4.4-3. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the development plan or the features to minimize visual effects from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, there would be no change to the previous impact findings related to light and glare, and Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 would be maintained. Mitigation Mitigation Measure 4.4-3, identified on page 4.4-23 of the 2004 Draft EIR to reduce project-related light and glare impacts, would continue to be applicable. No other new mitigation has been identified that would reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts on scenic vistas, visual character, and nighttime lighting. No other new mitigation measures would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Setting Since the 2005 Addendum, a Class I bicycle facility has been constructed along ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Road within and near the study area. In addition, an updated regional transportation plan, Plan Bay Area, was adopted in 2013. Plan Bay Area includes a planned project that affects the study area: implementation of the Interstate 80/Lagoon Valley Road interchange improvements, which entails widening of overcrossing and ramps as well as signalization. Updated traffic operations data is available from the 2015 General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR analyzed ten of the twelve intersections that were studied in the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR. Those intersections and their existing operations are provided in Table 1, along with intersection operations at one additional intersection in the Lagoon Valley vicinity that was not analyzed in the ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ at Interstat...

Light and Glare. ALG-1 The applicant shall submit full design details pursuant to City of Huntington Beach requirements for design review submittals that will specify architectural treatments that minimize visual impacts. The design shall specify the following: For areas visible from adjacent, existing, or proposed residential areas, exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides, and rooftop mechanical Design plan that specifies architectural treatments that minimize visual impacts Review design plan and ensure architectural treatments minimize visual impacts Prior to construction City Planning and Building Dept. and applicant equipment shall be set back 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, duct-work, and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s).

Light and Glare. Increased light and glare may be produced by upgraded lighting at the baseball field, replacement of aging electrical system, enhanced pedestrian lighting, and new pathway lights along the Alhambra Wash. Parks and Recreation Department has chosen new light poles to be constructed for the baseball field that will be more energy conscious but will also improve luminaire efficiency. The new lights may be higher intensity but will have less spillage than existing poles. Any brighter intensity lighting is provided to increase security for the patrons of the park during evening hours. To reduce the impact on adjacent properties any new exterior lighting or security illumination will to be directed away or shielded from adjacent properties as part of the plan check review and construction process. A lighting spread study and evening field test for light spillage will be conducted to address potential concerns. Additionally, new lighting is proposed for the Parks Maintenance Facility which will be limited to shoebox lighting so as to minimize any potential glare. The height of the lighting fixtures will be no higher than existing fixtures.

Light and Glare. Stantec will provide a light and glare analysis. Stantec assumes that visual assessment of light and glare issues would be the focus of this section, and view analyses from up to four (4) key viewpoints for each Alternative will be conducted. Site renderings prepared by the City Team would be used as the basis for the analysis. Stantec will provide the analysis of the No Action and the two Action Alternative sites. They will: • Conduct a daytime site visit at each site to evaluate. • Evaluate existing lighting systems surrounding neighborhoods and development, existing topography, and viewsheds will be evaluated. • Conduct a nighttime analysis of existing illumination systems on site and in surrounding areas. • Take sample light readings of various onsite and offsite lighting systems. • Take representative photographs for both daytime and nighttime conditions. • Evaluate proposed development at each site based on SEPA EIS requirements. • Review proposed stadium, amphitheater, and other site lighting plans, elements, and representative equipment selection. • Evaluate proposed photometric analysis and potential graphic representations. • Evaluate proposed electronic scoreboards and signage. Review existing applicable codes. • Prepare in-house lighting renderings, consisting of (1) for each site for a total of (2) renders. Lighting renderings will be done as a photoshop effort over the top of photographs. • Identify nearby uses that would be considered sensitive to spillover light or glare, • Evaluate elements of the project that could have significant impacts depending on and design • Characterize in broad terms the ability to minimize or mitigate such impacts and provide a qualitative comparison of the relative impacts of each alternative.

Light and Glare. The potential for light and glare affects to surrounding properties and land uses should be minimized through the sensitive location of the systems. Accessibility: The CHP location should be readily accessible for construction and maintenance purposes. Environmental: The location must have few environmental concerns, such as water resources, cultural or biological concerns, or other regulated environmental resource. The site should also be level to facilitate CHP system installation. An initial CHP Feasibility Report conducted in October 2014 identified 3 CHP options for the Manhattan Campus. The proposed action (Option 1) was chosen because it has the best economics, shortest payback period and is able to be installed into the 7th floor Mechanical Room.