Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-25-2014 th whiteREC -ET1f ED Goodwin, Heather RAAQ 91 9nt, From: Carpenter, Dan LSLO CITY CLU,';'_J Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 10:07 AM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: CP Dorm EIR Comments Attachments: Part 1 Recirculated Draft EIR SCH #2013091085.pdf, Part 2 Recirculated Draft EIR SCH # 2013091085.pdf; Part 3 Recirculated Draft EIR SCH #2013091085.pdf; Part 4 Recirculated Draft EIR SCH #2013091085.pdf From: Linda White [ mailto :lindaleewhitel5 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 12:26 AM To: Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Marx, Jan; John Ashbaugh Subject: CP Dorm EIR Comments Thank you for agreeing to hold a Town Hall to hear our concerns regarding the proposed dorm towers on Slack and Grand. I am attaching my comments on the re- circulated draft EIR. However, I am a technological misfit. I bought a ($99) program to convert my Word documents which are quite large to PDF files. I broke the files down into 4 parts so far. I am sending these for you to have before the Town Hall. I hope that they come through. As I complete further sections, I will send these to you also. If these are not readable, please e-mail me and I will make five copies for you and deliver them. Again, thank you for holding this Town Hall. We really appreciate your openness to listening to us. Linda White 2077 Slack St. AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date d Item# `I Recirculated Draft EIR SCH #2013091085 Line by Line Notice is Hereby Given "...and invites comments on the adequacy and completeness of the environmental analyses and mitigation measures described in the Recirculated Draft EIR." Comment: How can this be considered an adequate and complete analysis when President Armstrong is quoted in the January 15, 2014, Mustang Daily (fully one month before the release of the draft) as saying: "Although the two other sites looked at weren't found to be suitable for freshman housing in the future, Cal Poly will likely look at their potential for upperclassman housing... There will be another 45 -day comment period after a review of the two rejected sites has been added to the draft Environmental Report." How can this EIR be considered objective when the alternate sites were "rejected" before being placed into and studied by the Recirculated Draft? How can these alternative sites be rejected today but then be added to the new master plan as housing for upper classmen in a few months? It seems that the sites are either inferior now and in the future or superior now and in the future. It appears that this entire Draft EIR is based on an incorrect foundation leading to inaccurate analysis leading to inaccurate conclusions and an abuse of discretion. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the EIR "...is to identify the potential significant impacts of the proposed project on the environment, indicate the manner in which such significant impacts will be mitigated or avoided, and identify alternatives to the proposed project that avoid or reduce these impacts." Comment: All impacts would be avoided by building on a site further within the campus away from the only R -1 San Luis Obispo city neighborhood composed of single -story homes (circa 1950's). If the purpose of the EIR is to "identify alternatives" how can this be a valid EIR when the alternatives were "rejected" by President Armstrong 9 days before the original EIR comment period closed. B. Project Location pg ES -2 "The University campus occupies over 6,000 acres." Comment: Of this 6000 acres, the 12 acre proposed site is the only border adjacent to a City R -1 neighborhood. Figure ES -2 Project Location Map on page ES -4 Comment: Please note that the proposed site is the ONLY campus border with an R -1 residential neighborhood. B. Project Location Pg. ES -6 "The San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) expects to provide space for approximately six classrooms, or 150 students, on site. San Luis Obispo Classical Academy will remain in operation. In 2018, the school district may either renew existing leases or opt to expand the Teach program on site." Comment: This paragraph fails to mention that the Classical Academy presently serves 300 students, pre -K through 12th grade (according to Amy Calloway of the Classical Academy on 2/19/2014). This brings the school population to 450 students this year. According to Ryan Pinkerton SLCUSD personal communication (on 2/18/2014), the San Luis Coastal Unified School District is studying the enrollment of the Teach program and will be able in future years, if needed, to expand their enrollment to the 10 classrooms presently available. They are also studying the demographics of the city and when the Classical Academy lease is up in 2018 will either take over the remaining classrooms and re -open the original Pacheco facility or continue to share the facility with the Classical Academy. C. Project Background "The 2001 Cal Poly Master Plan is the primary document governing land use and capital improvements on campus through 2020." Comment: There is no mention that this Master Plan will need to be amended to use this site as housing. There is no mention that the Master Plan is now considered outdated, and that it is now in the process or will soon be upgraded, revised, etc. "The Residential Communities element identifies constraints associated with housing on campus and communitywide, outlines principles to guide the housing program on campus and identifies several locations for housing communities (H) on University lands (refer to Figure ES -4)." Where is a copy ofthis Residential Communities element' ? ?? Pg ES -7 "With the completion of the complexes outlined in Table ES -1, Cal Poly offers 6,239 beds in student housing, a significant increase from the 2,838 beds available at the time of Master Plan adoption." Comment: Table ES -1 claims to have 6,239 beds for students. However, it includes the 69 beds of Bella Montana which is supposedly faculty and staff housing. Is it faculty staff or do students live there? Wasn't that a condition of city approval that it would be staff, not students? 2 "Constraints at the remaining housing sites identified in the Master Plan have led to the consideration of the proposed site for residential development." Comment: We have repeatedly asked University Administration to look outside the old, outdated MP. The existing MP is already or will be revised very shortly to accommodate the additional 5,000 students that CP expects to add over the next few years. We ask that they not limit their choices to an outdated MP. We don't ask them to wait to build additional on campus housing until the new MP has been written. We realize that they must "use it or lose it" with the State Funds. We merely ask that they consider using 12 of their 6,000 acres further within the campus. "The current site is further considered because of proximity to other existing freshman housing and existing communal dining facilities." Comment: Have the sociological, cultural, and psychological studies on group psychology, mob psychology, and hazing been refuted? How can you consider adding 1475 17 -& 18- year -olds to an existing 3500 freshman population across Grand Ave? How can you provide for their health, welfare, and safety? Look at what happens when you place 4000 students together at the new recreation center. See Tribune article "14 arrested 6 hospitalized after campus concert ". Obviously, you were unable to control that group despite the fact that you supposedly beefed up security. How do you keep these underage students from migrating into the adjacent neighborhood for underage drinking parties. See Cal Coast SLO Social Seen, house party 2- 10 -14. Justin Wellner in an August 2013, postcard to some neighbors stated: "We believe this project will benefit not only our students but also be helpful in improving overall neighborhood wellness. For example, research strongly suggests a direct correlation between students' academic success and living on campus, particularly in their first and second years. As well, expansion of on- campus living will free up more city residences for workforce housing. Additionally, as we experienced with the completion of Poly Canyon Village, on campus housing reduces vehicle traffic to and from campus and encourages greater student involvement in on- campus activities." We agree that placing students on- campus will improve their academic success. That is why we ask that you place them further into campus, not adjacent to the temptations that you are trying to protect them from. We disagree that expansion of on- campus housing will free up more city residences for workforce housing. The increased 5,000 students proposed over the next few years will take up the housing freed up by students living on campus. Furthermore, the prices of the mini -dorm houses housing 6 or more students are out of reach for workforce wages. We disagree that this project will improve overall neighborhood wellness. City police nor CP administration can control the problems that we now have. Regarding the communal dining facilities, I walked to the campus core and found only one facility that I initially considered a dining facility and this was limited to 216 students. MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY 216 Imagine my surprise when I went around the corner from this sign to see what food 4 Is this what is considered communal dining facilities? The remainder of the core was filled with individual fast -food "dining facilities" mostly with weekday only hours. Is their no facility where students can eat a real meal? These fast food franchises can be built out and rented anywhere on campus to provide student "dining facilities ". 0 8 y, .. '- � =T .... Is this what passes for existing communal dining that we have to have these freshmen within 10 minutes walk? No wonder we are an obese society. You should place this "dining" out on the far 6000 acres and make the students jog and climb an obstacle course to get this cholesterol laden junk food. "Under the current proposal, the bed count identified in the Master Plan for housing sites H -4 through H -7 would be consolidated at the current site and the complexes at sites H4- H7 would not be pursued under the current Master Plan." Comment: You are consolidating four sites of 120 beds, 512 beds, 136 beds, and 612 beds (1380 beds) into one huge tower complex housing 1475 17 - &18 -year olds. And you are placing these vulnerable, impressionable students adjacent to the very temptations that you are trying to protect them from. What psychological, social, or educational studies tell you that this is a wise move? Since you are amending the MP to accommodate this site, again we ask why you can't look outside the outdated MP and look toward the area of future expansion north of H -1. Pg ES -9 "The difference in land use specified for the proposed site in the Guidelines as opposed to the Master Plan indicates an evolution in both the housing program and in the understanding of constraints to development on campus. Comment: Evolution is a good thing. We ask that you not get stuck with a faulty, ill conceived premise and build it out in stubbornness and a desire to show strength and power. We ask that you continue to evolve your vision of the future of the University. Everyone agrees that much more on- campus housing is needed and 10 needed rapidly to house not only present students but the additional 5000 that will be coming to CP in the near future. Please don't be short -sited with your stubborn insistence on this site. Save this site for a state -of -the -art low- profile Welcome Center that transitions from the SLO residential bungalows and ranch style homes of the 50's to the ever advancing University. Build the open space, study areas, and retail that your Land Use Guidelines call for. These are all appropriate for this site - - -not 5 story towers of industrial, warehousing dormitories. Please take time to read the following letter to President Armstrong from Kenneth Schwartz a prominent and knowledgeable Monterey Heights /Alta Vista resident who knows a thing or two about architecture, the university, and city of San Luis Obispo: January 16, 2014 Dr. Jeffrey D. Armstrong President, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Dear Dr. Armstrong: My name is Kenneth Schwartz. I have worn a number of titles in my life including: Professor of Architecture, Associate Dean and Interim Dean of Cal Poly's College of Architecture and Environmental Design an Institution I served from 1952 —1988. 1 am an architect by profession and a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects. I have also been a Planning Commissioner for the City of San Luis Obispo and for the County of San Luis Obispo for eight years each. For ten years, I served as Mayor of San Luis Obispo and later on, another six years as a Council member. While at Cal Poly I served as architect consultant on two Agency for International Development (A. I. D) projects, the last being EARTH UNIVERSITY in Costa Rica where I had a hand in the physical planning of that campus. I provide this long- winded introduction in order to suggest to you that I know a wee bit about community and campus planning and a considerable bit about Cal Poly's physical and academic relationships as well as its relationships with the citizens of the City of San Luis Obispo. My response to your email letter of January 15, 2014 and to today's front page story in the Tribune can be summed up in one word: Hogwash! I attended the second session held on campus to acquaint city residents with Cal Poly's plans for Freshman Dormitories. (You were absent.) This session was designed as if it were a presentation to the CSU Board of Trustees instead of local citizens whose major concerns were not the learning benefits to freshman students but rather to the surrounding neighborhoods in which they lived. While this was a fundamental error of judgment on the part of Cal Poly administrators, the comment that captured my attention 11 was the comment by one of your vice-presidents who said, in essence, "We even considered the demolition of the `concrete dorms' in order to intensify the use of those sites for these Freshman dorms. " I thought to myself, if they are serious about this, that means they have opened their minds to a whole spectrum of site possibilities; the slate must be clean. They truly mean to select the best possible site and want to be intellectually honest about this project. And then came this morning's Tribune. How wrong I was! Dr. Armstrong, the Grand Avenue site you and your advisors have selected for dormitory construction is not the best site for freshman students or any students for that matter. Any simple flow and relationship diagrams (graphic tools used by architects and planners) to determine the best relationships between buildings (or spaces) based on the circulation expected to take place between those buildings on a University campus would show conclusively that this proposed site is not the best site for freshmen, The very best site is the site of Cal Poly's administration building in which your office is located. A good planner would have put that site into the mix even though the idea of moving /converting an administration building to a Freshman Dormitory might seem daunting. The best place for a new low -level architecturally subdued administration building is on Grand Avenue where the dorms are proposed. Consider the location of the present administration building: it is immediately adjacent to the Student Union; It is just a few steps from the main student cafeteria and dining rooms; the student health center is close by as well as is the new student recreation facilities; the Kennedy Library is within easy reach as are the principal academic classrooms and laboratories Including the new Baker Science Building; Mott Gym is a half block away. An Administration Building has little need to be adjacent to any of these facilities, but these are the facilities student housing needs to be close to. This site is the very best location for new Freshmen Dorms and architects should be set to work sketching how this building could be converted to a new purpose; should this site and adjacent parking be too small, one or more or the nearby brick dorms should be enlarged accordingly. The closer student housing is to the center of the campus, the greater the opportunity for peace and quiet in adjacent City residential neighborhoods. You have publically announced plans for Cal Poly to grow by another 4 — 5, 000 students. The citizens of San Luis Obispo want to know where these additional students are to be housed; 1 dare say citizens would love to see that entire number located on campus. Is Cal Poly prepared to not only provide new classrooms, laboratories and ancillary facilities, but on- campus student housing as well? Any institution, private or public, that envisions a 25% increase in size has a responsibility, no, an obligation, to amend its master plan of land use and circulation to show how this growth is to be accommodated — well before specific plans are prepared to carry out the objectives of that amended Master Plan. 12 I detect no movement on the part of Cal Poly's administration to share its thinking about its proposed growth. While 1 do not represent the City of San Luis Obispo in any official capacity, I am a concerned citizen knowledgeable in these matters. I urge you to become a better neighbor. Notwithstanding Cal Poly's enviable record as an educational institution and its unique learn by doing philosophy, Cal Poly's record and standing as a neighbor leave much to be desired. Sincerely, Kenneth E. Schwartz, FAIR Cal Poly Faculty Emeritus, Architecture 201 Buena Vista San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Let me tell you a little about the City of San Luis Obispo and particularly about its citizens which do not fit the mold associated with most Californians. San Luis Obispo is a Charter City; does your staff know the difference between a General Law City and a Charter City? Almost immediately, San Luis Obispians desired a distinctive style to their local government. San Luis Obispo does not have any significant natural resources necessary to generate `primary industries. " The most significant natural resources are a benign climate and a beautiful natural setting. San Luis Obispo has a very limited water supply; it sits on a constricted water aquifer which limits safe annual water withdrawal to 2, 000 acre feet; consequently the City has entered into agreements to obtain water off -site from the Whale Rock Reservoir, the Salinas Reservoir, and the Naciemento Reservoir. San Luis Obispo was one of the first cities to recognize the importance of air quality and do something about it by banning backyard burning of trash and to require mandatory trash collection including green waste. San Luis Obispo generated its first General Plan in 1961 and initiated a street tree program and required the undergrounding of overhead utilities long before most California cities of similar size. In the late 1960's the City did away with patronage and called on citizens to volunteer for service on the City's numerous citizens' advisory commissions and committees (now 14) a condition in which volunteerism was encouraged to the point that National Geographic researcher Dan Buettner in his book, "Trive, " called San Luis Obispo, the "Friendliest City in all of North America. " San Luis Obispo was friendly enough in 1971 to elect a Cal Poly City and Regional Planning student, T. Keith Gurnee to its City council; Keith served approximately six years. But here, Dr. Armstrong, is the kicker. In 1978 when the infamous Prop 13 was on the ballot which most Californians swallowed hook line and sinker, not one single voting precinct in the City of San Luis Obispo voted in favor. If you have done any personal research in the basic causes for the financial difficulties in financing public higher education in California, you will find the passage of Prop 13 to be one of the root causes for our problems. San Luis Obispians think differently and progressively. 13 Pg ES -8 "Additional, approved parking structures have not been built in part because of declining use of existing parking facilities..." Etc. etc, etc. to pg ES -11 where it concludes "...parking facilities on campus generally provide excess capacity." Comment: If there is so much excess available parking on campus, have you thought to ask why the adjacent City neighborhoods and retail parking lots are so heavily and negatively impacted with Cal Poly students who park and then unload their bikes, or skateboards to get onto campus. n - Slack St. and Longview Lane looking toward the new Recreation Center and Parking structure. 14 Slack Street from Pacheco Way to Grand Ave. Looking East. Slack St. from Grand Ave. looking West to the rise at Longview Lane. Picturing the North side of Slack St. E Slack St. from Grand Ave. looking west to the rise at Longview Lane. Picturing the South side of Slack St. Loomis Street from Grand Ave. looking east. South side is non- restricted parking. 16 One of the Loomis Street Regular patrons to our neighborhood parking lot is so enterprising that he locks his commute -to- campus bike to the Eucalyptus tree nroving that Cal Poly does accent only the "Best of the Best ". Grand Ave. 101 Underpass west side unrestricted parking looking north toward the Campus Main Entrance. 17 Grand Ave. 101 Underpass east side unrestricted parking looking toward the Campus Main Entrance. These City streets, maintained by the City have turned into parking lots for Poly students. On the day the pictures were taken 93 spaces were used out of approximately 103 possible for a 90% occupancy of the city maintained street parking. The City has also implemented City Parking Districts so that residents can park near their own homes. The City sells Parking Placards for $10.00 each and each homeowner is allowed to purchase only two. The staff necessary to implement and manage this program are paid by the City. The parking enforcement officers are provided by the City. Call to find if this is shared by CP or 100% by City. You are making incorrect assumptions on the reasons for your excess parking on campus and as a result are coming to an erroneous conclusion. Pg ES -1 I D. Project Objectives Comments: All seven of these project objectives are great and no one disagrees with any of them. However, these objectives can also be realized at a site within the campus that doesn't adversely affect the City of San Luis Obispo and its residents. 18 This is Slack St. looking northeast toward the proposed dorm site. Please note the beautiful view of the Santa Lucia foothills available to all who walk, bike, skateboard, park, or drive along Slack St. Note the white light standard left of center in the existing parking lot. How high is the light standard? flow much higher will the dorm towers be? The photos on the next page are copied from the draft EIR page 4.1 -21 and consist of Figures 4.1 -4 and 4.1 -5. Please compare the above photo with the EIR photos and note the cropping on the EIR photos that crops the view of the Santa Lucia foothills. Most of the pictures in the EIR are taken at an angle or cropped to reduce the visual impact of the dorm project on the adjacent neighborhood. Also note the difference in the parking situation between the photos taken by the EIR and those taken by an amateur on a normal parking day. ILA Environmental Imneots Anat 6, Aasth ©tic Resources Figure 4.1-4. Existing View of the Student Housing South Slte, Looking Northeast from Slack Street Figure 4.1.5. Photo - simulation of Student Housing South Project, Looking Northeast from Slack Street sludonr Housing south Recirculated Draft Envimn monter Irnpact RaprA 20 4.1 -21 The seventh objective is to utilize campus lands for "highest and best use ". The highest and best use for this site is not for dorms. It would be for a true Welcome Center, retail store selling CP goods, coffee shop, student study areas both indoors and out, classrooms and offices. The Welcome Center is stressed in this project. However, the plans show a Welcome Center the size of the Coffee Shop. A true welcome center would inform the visiting public of the importance of this university. It would include the history of CP and its "Learn by Doing Philosophy ", starting with the lobbying efforts of Myron Angel in 1894, the 1903 visit of President Theodore Roosevelt, and culminating with classes opening in 1903. It would show the growth and advancement of the various schools, the embracing of new technologies with new times, the transformation of a vocational high school into a world -class university. Aesthetically and architecturally, it is inappropriate to slam the Visitor entering the Main Entrance with 5 -story industrial warehouse towers housing their children and blocking the view of the surrounding hills for which San Luis is noted. museum, LW This is a copy of the announcement of local photographer and Cal Poly professor Brian Lawler's recent show. This is what we are attempting to preserve. This is our only natural resource. This is part of why Cal Poly is one of the most popular of State Universities. This is part of what makes us, "The Happiest City in America ". 21 E. Proposed Project 1. Grading and Site preparation Comment: This the same bank in ES -1 B Project Location paragraph 3 sentence 2 that is supposedly providing "topographical separation ". Again, has the proximity of the 450 student Pacheco /Teach Elementary been taken into account in removing all of this 2.6 million cubic feet of "topographical separation" in regard to the dust, noise, and diesel fuel? "The project will result in disturbance of the entire 12 -acre site." Comment: Please keep this in mind when evaluating the alternative sites and the grading that makes the alternatives less desirable. Here disturbing 12 acres or 2.6 million cubic feet is determined to be a less than significant impact. However, on alternatives, grade is considered to be a significant and unavoidable adverse impact. 2. Structures "The project will provide approximately 1,475 beds in seven four -to five -story towers totaling 450,000 gross square feet. Comment: This sentence suggests that the housing towers could be just 4- stories when in fact a few sentences further it states: "The preliminary site design includes seven residential structures... Residential structures will be five stories." Comment: In fact, all seven of the residential towers will in fact be 5 -story towers. It is only the garage that will be a maximum of 4 stories. This massive project is like putting 6 Wal -Marts next to an R -1 residential neighborhood. "...Preliminary axonometric projections and renderings are provided in Figures ES -6 and ES -7. Comment: These two lovely axonometric projections and renderings do not include the adjacent single -story neighborhood that this massive 6 -Wal -Mart equivalent project overwhelms. This is one of the main reasons that this site is so out of place. ES -15 Figure ES -8 Preliminary Floor Plan, Parking Garage and Ancillary Services Comment: The Coffee House is larger than the Welcome Center. See upper left corner and enlarge the miniscule print. The Coffee House is the pink corner and the Welcome Center is the blue block next door. The Community Lounge (peach block) is larger than the Welcome Center. The Welcome Center is stressed in this project. However, the plans show a Welcome Center the size of the Coffee Shop. A true welcome center would inform the visiting public of the importance of this university. It would include the history of CP and its "Learn by Doing Philosophy ", starting with the lobbying efforts of Myron Angel in 1894, the 1903 visit of President Theodore Roosevelt, and culminating with classes opening in 1903. It would show the growth and advancement of the various schools, the embracing of new technologies with new times, the transformation of a vocational high school into a world -class university. 22 Pg ES -17 For the Purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the project will require entirely new on -site water infrastructure, wastewater infrastructure, and gas and electrical power infrastructure, as well as substantive new on -site stormwater facilities. Comment: Would this be needed at alternative sites? "...improvements to existing water mains at Grand Avenue are not required." Comment: Not required by whom, CP or City? Why not? "The project may also include roof -top solar energy systems to supplement climate control and power demand." Comment: Why is this optional? Why is this being left so late in the planning process to decide. Pg ES -17 4 Access and Parking "Vehicle parking will be provided in a four -story parking structure comprising 300 to 500 spaces." What happens to the 1324 displaced parking capacity with an average occupancy of 857? Von are 557 to 357 short. Pg ES -18 F. Scoping and Notice of Preparation Process "During the environmental determination process, an effort was made to contact various federal, state, regional, and local governmental agencies and other interested parties to solicit comments and inform the public of the proposed project." Comment: How do we get a list of these interested parties? How were they notified? I pay taxes on five properties in the immediate neighborhood and received no notice. Can we challenge from a lack of notice standpoint? Pg. ES -19 "For the purpose of this EIR, a significant impact is a substantial or potentially substantial change to resources in the local proposed project area or the area adjacent to the proposed project." Comment: Aren't we the "area adjacent to the proposed project "? Pg. ES -20 H. Areas of Controversy Known to Lead Agency Parking. The analysis focuses on whether sufficient capacity exists within the campus parking system to accommodate redistributed commuters and residents and the environmental impacts associated with trip reduction. Comment: Same as earlier with photos of parking on city streets. Shouldn't Cal Poly have to mitigate this expense of the City? What about the neighbors who have to pay $20 dollars to secure 2 placards to park in front of their own homes? 23 Recirculated Draft EIR Part 2 Begin at page ES -20 Nuisances Associated ES -21 3. Location Alternative -H -12 and H -16 Parking lot "...suggested by a community member." "This alternative may require additional components such as a new common dining facility." Comment: Unless there is a hidden cafeteria that I missed please refer to prior statements and pictures of present "common dining facilities ". J. "Based on the analysis in Chapter 5, the H -12 and H -16 Parking Lot Alternative, No Parking Garage Alternative, and Reduced Scale Alternative ar3e considered environmentally superior. Comment: If the Alternative suggested by a community member, is environmentally superior what other superior sites might be available if the Poly Planning and Facilities departments got together and opened their visions and outdated Master Plan consideration. The EIR evaluates only the outdated Master Plan suggestions. ES -24 AES Impact 4 "The project's prominent location and building heights could increase noticeability of light sources. Comment: It was my understanding that the EIR cannot defer potential project Mitigation Measures to a later date. Yet, AES /mm -3 does exactly that. Below are photos of the previously mitigated Recreation Center project. As you see from the photos below, the mitigations measures are NOT working. We expect better mitigation than to defer to a comprehensive lighting plan for review and of the State Architect. Wasn't the Rec Center reviewed by and approved by the State Architect? IT's NOT WORKING! The pictures below were taken on Thanksgiving weekend from 125 Longview Lane. In order to enjoy the holiday meals, the blinds were drawn at night due to the glare into the dining and living room. m dr • Ir ».1 • • : w oA -,* • t 490 1p os , C ' � *,T �r r- °'* •�"#IfIT•wwl�ar+��1r;` -l'�Il�a. �• V � ,� . .� Ir ES -25 Impacts "However, as seen from public viewpoints and neighborhoods immediately adjacent to it, the project would appear out -of -scale and would reduce views to identified scenic resources. Although the project is technically considered in -fill, the interface between the large buildings along the perimeter would not have a harmonious visual transition to the surrounding community." Comment: This paragraph says it all. It is just too massive to be adjacent to the only R -1 City neighborhood with the entire campus. We agree that this parking lot must be developed but not with seven five -story towers. A low profile buffer between the neighborhood and campus is all that we ask. ES -34 Public Safety. Pursuant to CEQA, impacts are considered significant if the project would result in environmental impacts associated with the provision of additional structures or facilities to support police and other public services. Incremental changes associated with the location of nuisance activity in the community will not result in the need for such facilities; alteration in police may include redistribution of patrols and additional personnel. Comment: The present status of the neighborhood public safety for both off - campus students and City residents is not acceptable. There are too few police patrols, too much underage drinking, too many assaults, drug deals gone bad, irresponsible and ultimately dangerous behavior, eg. Office chair races down Frederick's St. hill to Grand Ave. If this had occurred on a campus street rather than on a neighborhood street toward a busy city street it would have been a cute college prank. Please see list and dates of news reports. ES -35 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Mitigation Measure TC /mm -1 What about the south side of the street (d; Longview to I lathway? What about feeder streets? ES -36 Pedestrian and Cycling Facilities. "Off- campus pedestrian and bicycle trips associated with the project would be concentrated along Grand Avenue and via internal campus roads." "The project would result in a reduction in peak hour vehicle trips through the Grand Avenue campus gateway. The reduction in commuter trips would ultimately provide a more comfortable travel environment in the local area as the number of potential conflicts during the periods of heaviest vehicle travel would be reduced." "The Student Housing South project has a net effect of reducing vehicle traffic in the vicinity of Grand Avenue and Slack St." "Substantial bicycle facilities exist in the project vicinity as described in Section 4.6.1.2, above and would provide adequate connection to areas where trips are likely to occur..." Hoer do you know all of this when this intersection was never studied? What about Slack St.? It has no bicycle facilities. ES -37 TC Impact 4 The project will have significant impacts when considered along with cumulative development. Residual Impacts: Significant and unavoidable So what is proposed? is this just ignored? Cumulative Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit "The project is not expected to result in a substantial contribution to cumulative impacts to pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities in the project area." Comment: The EIR cannot be speculative. This is very speculative considering that this intersection was never studied. Why? What is the University afraid of in studying this intersection? Chapter 1 1.1 "...identify alternatives to the proposed project that avoid or reduce these impacts." Comment: So why is the only reasonable alternative the one suggested by a community member and none from the University. Why were alternative sites rejected by the University? 1.5.1 Background "Cal Poly has also prepared additional visual simulations for the project." Comment: Either the simulations are incorrect or the verbiage in the EIR. They do not match. See details in 2.3.2 Chapter 2 2. 1.1 Project Location Comment: The underlined addition finally updates the fact that the San Luis Coastal Unified School District will reopen the original Pacheco School with the Teach elementary program of 150 students in Fall 2014. However, the EIR fails to mention that the Existing San Luis Obispo Classical Academy that will remain in operation has an enrollment of 350 bringing the Fall 2014 student population to 500 students. The EIR quotes Ryan Pinkerton, SLCUSD, as either renewing the Classical Academy lease in 2018, or opt to expand the Teach program. Again the EIR stops the quote at the point where Ryan Pinkerton states that demographic studies are presently being conducted by the district. Current elementary schools are becoming overcrowded and the District will possibly take over the entire campus in 2018 when the Classical Academy lease expires. 2.3.2 Structures Pgs. 2 -10 -11 "The project will provide approximately 1,475 beds in seven four -to five story towers totaling approximately 450,000 gross square feet." "The preliminary site design includes seven residential structures,..." Comment: Figure 2 -6 Rendering of Building shows a four -story tower and yet all of the written statements clearly state that the residential towers will be five stories. See page ES -12 2. Structures "The project will provide approximately 1,475 beds in SEVEN FOUR - FIVE -STORY TOWERS totaling approximately 450,000 gross square feet. The preliminary site design includes SEVEN RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. This project is the equivalent of 6 Walmarts being built across from a City R -1 neighborhood. NONE of the renderings or axonometric drawings show the buildings to be 5 stories -- -only 4. 2.3.4 Access and Parking "Vehicle parking will be provided in a four -story parking structure, comprising approximately 300 to 500 spaces." Comment: Who parks here? What of the 800 to 1000 lost parking spaces? Where do the 857 average occupants of this present lot park? If parking spaces are so underutilized on campus, why build a parking structure at all? See Table ES -3 on pg ES -9. Figure 2 -8 Axonometric Projection of Proposed Project Comment: This projection does not portray the words of the EIR. All buildings are represented as four stories high not the five stories as stated on page ES -12 Section 2. Structures "The project will provide approximately 1,475 beds in SEVEN FOUR - FIVE -STORY TOWERS totaling approximately 450,000 gross square feet. The preliminary site design includes SEVEN RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. Figure 2 -9 Comment: Same as above. Figure 2 -10 Comment: As stated earlier, the Welcome Center is the same size as the coffee shop. Since being close to communal dining is so important, do away with this plan and use this entire ground floor for fast food franchises. This whole project could then be moved and built anywhere on campus. Part 3 Recirculated Draft EIR 3.1.1 Physical Setting Comment: Again the number of students (500) attending the original Pacheco campus is being minimized. This draft EIR has not made a good faith effort at full disclosure on this issue, parking, and intersection studies. Fig 3 -6 Table 3 -2 Consistency with Plans and Policies Cal Poly Master Plan Compatibility- Establish and maintain buffers between the campus and neighborhoods. Comment: This is all we ask. There is no buffer. The wall of dorms is right on Slack St. adjacent to our city neighborhood blocking not only our view of the Santa Lucias but also anyone riding, biking, walking, driving down our street. Envirunmedal Impurts knnlysis: Aesthenr, Res wu o Figure 4,1.4. Existing View of the Student Housing South Site, Looking Northeast from Slack Street Figure 4.1.5. Photo- simulatlon of Student Housing South Project, Looking Northeast from Slack Street SYUdwnl Haurkrig Srndh .... 4.1 -21 Rndm W,d (kart Environmental krrrW Rar O Pg 3 -6 Table 3 -2 Consistency with Plans and Policies Cal Poly Master Plan Proposed Action "The project provides housing proximate to other, existing freshman housing and existing support services such as dining halls." Comment: See photos in ES section of the existing dining halls. These fast food franchises could be replicated anywhere on campus. Residential Communities. "External Community Impact - Housing on campus should mitigate immediate impacts on the local housing market." Comment: This is a speculative statement with no basis in fact or studies to support it. Proposed Action "The project includes student learning components and addresses needs of freshmen with modern amenities. The project includes support services including small -scale retail and recreational facilities, and is ADA compatible." Comment: This can be replicated anywhere on campus. Table 3 -2 Consistency with Plans and Policies Parking Comment: Why is parking decreased on campus? You make assumptions that are false. You don't take into account the negative impact on the neighborhood parking. See photos of City streets used for Cal Poly parking in the ES section. Why can't the city require the University to provide enough parking on campus for each student? If the excess parking on campus was free -- -part of tuition, the city street parking would disappear immediately. The city needs to red curb all of the north side of Slack St., both sides of Grand under the freeway, and south side of Loomis. 4.1 The Campus "From the more elevated portions of campus, including the project site, distant views include Cerro San Luis and Bishop Peak (part of the Morros chain of mountains) to the west and the Santa Lucia Mountain foothills to the east." Comment: From the standpoint of the campus, the views have been preserved. What about the residents of the City who are being deprived of their views of the same peaks and foothills? Section 15021 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines states that, "In determining whether a project should be approved, a public agency must balance a variety of project objectives including economic, environmental, and social factors and in particular, the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian." This statement holds true for many of the sections in this draft EIR and the EIR does not take this into consideration. "Two- and three -story student housing complexes are located immediately across Grand Avenue from the project site. Larger -scale on- campus housing is found northeast of the campus core in and near Poly Canyon." Comment: These towers even dwarfs the existing on- campus housing complex buildings immediately across the street. A buffer is provided between these existing housing complexes and the neighborhood. This new project does not provide a buffer. Photo 4.1 -5 View of the site from the intersection of Grand Avenue and Slack Street. Comment: It amazes me that in all pictures taken for the EIR, the angle and cropping of the photos minimizes the existing views, and diminishes the impact of the project. Below is an un- cropped amateur photo taken of the same intersection of Grand and Slack Street. Pg.4.1 -5 Surrounding Neighborhoods "...single- family detached homes are predominant to the south and southeast..." "The section of Grand Avenue approaching campus is designated as a Scenic Roadway in the City's Circulation Element." Comment: This is true but doesn't seem to have been taken into account when placing seven five -story towers the equivalent of six Walmarts directly across the` street from our homes and on a Scenic Roadway. Pg 4.1 -8 to 4.1 -9 2001 Cal Poly Master Plan Land Use 3) Compatibility: be considerate of impacts on neighborhoods near campus. Comment: This is all we ask. We have said from the beginning that this project is not compatible with the neighborhood. This would be a terrific project if it were further into the campus and not immediately adjacent to an R -1 neighborhood. We who live in this neighborhood are here because of CP. We are among the most ardent supporters of CP because we have been affiliated with the University for generations. Natural Environment 8) Stewardship: develop and use management practices that protect and enhance natural resources; permanently protect especially sensitive areas; be an example to the greater community." Comment: Protection of the natural resources is what we want. Our views of the morros and foothills are the only natural resources we have in SLO. We want to protect this sensitive area. We would like Cal Poly to be an example of good stewardship and partnership with the community. 14) Aesthetics: protect scenic resources and take advantage of them in new designs. Comment: We want our scenic resources protected. This is why we don't want a five story wall blocking the views of the foothills to anyone traveling on Slack Street. 70) Beautification: gateways and corridors should be attractive. Comment: We agree that this gateway to the University should be attractive. Five story warehouse towers is not our idea of beautification of the University gateway. Parking 81) Neighborhoods: be sensitive to impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. Comment: This is all we ask, that the University be sensitive not only to our parking but views, peace and quiet enjoyment of our homes. Pg. 4.1 -9 4.1.2.2 City of San Luis O)bispo Planning Documents San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element 15.0.3 Development along Scenic Routes. B. Development projects should not wall off scenic roadways and block views. Comment: Please look one more time at page 4.1 -21 of the Recirculated draft EIR. This project violates all of the principals stated above. Even with the foliage grown to matu rity(th rough Photoshop) to camouflage the building, it still violates the principles. Environmental. Impacts Analysis; Aesthetic Re ,ouruas Figure 4,14. Existing View of the Student Housing South Site, Looking Northeast from Slack Street Figure 4.1-5. Photo-simulation of Student Housing South Project, Looking Northeast from Slack Street . .... ...... Sludent Mousing South 4,1-21 Recirculated Draft Erwitomwntal Impact Report Pg4.1 -10 4.1.3 Thresholds of Significance "If a change in visual criteria was identified, this change was analyzed for its potential effect on the existing scenic character. This analysis was combined with the potential number of viewers, their sensitivities, and viewing duration in order to determine the overall level of impacts." 4.1.3.1 CEQA Guidelines 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Comment: This project would do both of the above. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. If the proposed project could significantly degrade the scenic landscape as viewed from public roads, or in particular designated Scenic Roadways, or from other public areas, this would be considered a potentially significant impact on the scenic vista. Comment: This project would do all of the above. Create a new source of substantial light glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. "The project would result in a significant impact if it subjected public viewing locations or adjacent residents to a substantial amount of point- source lighting visibility at night, or if the collective lumination of the project resulted in a noticeable spillover effect into the nighttime sky, increasing the ambient light over the region." Comment: There is no way that this project would not result in spillover into the surrounding neighborhood and more importantly into the nighttime sky, increasing the ambient light over the region. Below are photos taken of the recently built recreation center at the end of Slack and Hathway. This project was supposedly mitigated to avoid spillover to adjacent neighborhoods and into the nighttime sky. As you can see, it's not working. These amateur photos were taken over the Thanksgiving weekend from 125 Longview Lane. D { Y 4 AN r • 0, lot ':Mir Pg 4.1 -11 4.1.4.1 Analysis Methodology The analysis considers the existing development as part of the visual baseline. This includes the neighborhoods immediately surrounding the project as well as the developed campus, ... The visual quality of the community has as much to do with the built environment as the natural setting. Patterns of development, architecture, scale, massing and vegetation define how the campus and community are perceived by residents and visitors. Pg 4.1 -11 to 4.1 -13 4.1.4.1 Analysis Methodology "The analysis considers the existing development as part of the visual baseline. This includes the neighborhoods immediately surrounding the project as well as the developed campus, ... The visual quality of the community has as much to do with the built environment as the natural setting. Patterns of development, architecture, scale, massing and vegetation define how the campus and community are perceived by residents and visitors. "...Existing visual resources and site conditions were photographed and recorded. Comment: The photos produced are cropped to minimize the effects of the project or taken at such an angle as to distort the view. Many of the photo exhibits are of the asphalt roadways rather than the adjacent houses. Below are photos of the neighborhood that give a better representation of the true nature of the neighborhood. Please note that in most of these photos, the homeowner or tenant has kept foliage away from the windows that give view to the surrounding hills. Later in the EIR it is stated that the residents wouldn't be affected by the construction because of the mature screening foliage obstructing their view. "...Representative photo simulations were prepared which would best illustrate the visual changes proposed by the project (refer to 4.1.5..." Comment: The referenced photo is copied here. It says it all, despite cropping and addition of photo shopped mature foliage. This photo does not, however photo shop the loss of sunlight that will be experienced with this project. This photo is reminiscent of the Berlin Wall. Enwnmmnntlil 6u�acU Analysis Aasl4CLC Ruauun.ov Figure 4.1-4, Existing View of the Student Housing South Site, Looking Northeast from Slack Street Figure 4.9.6. Photo simulation of Student Housing South Project, Looking Northeast from Slack Street (a�k•in:u+afvd OW1 Fnvlmu' -w imnao R,{--t "... the analysis defines the visual environment of the project area, quantifies the visual resources, and considers expected viewer response to those resources. The analysis identifies the resource change that would be introduced by the project and the corresponding viewer response to that change." Comment: How can this report quantify our response to the change in our viewshed? It is apparent from the public outcry that this report has diminished the public response. "To understand and predict viewer response to the appearance of a project, the viewers who may see the project are identified, along with the aspects of the visual environment to which they are likely to respond. ...The receptivity of different viewer groups to the visual environment is not equal. " Viewer response assumptions include consideration of viewing proximity, duration of views, activity while viewing, and overall viewing context. Local values based on visual preferences historical associations, and community aspirations and goals are important indices of predicting viewer sensitivity and response to change." Comment: An EIR cannot be speculative. An EIR must be objective. However, this statement calls for speculation and subjectivity. Pg. 4.1 -14 Surrounding Community "The project would be seen to varying degrees from the surrounding residential neighborhoods. "Topography, residential development, and mature vegetation limit much of the views to the project site from the surrounding neighborhoods." Comment: This is simply not true as demonstrated in the pictures shown before of the neighborhood. Vegetation was planted carefully to preserve the views and this vegetation has matured but not obstructed the view. "Currently, the project site includes mature trees around much of its perimeter along Grand Ave and Slack Street. The existing trees along Slack St. combined with the parking lot's elevated position screen much of the view of the project site. Comment: Later in the report when grading is discussed, these mature screening trees are removed. Five feet of this screening elevation is to be removed to build the project. Pg 4.1 -15 The local topography causes portions of the adjacent residential neighborhoods to be somewhat elevated above the campus and the project site. As a result, some of these areas can have broader views of the surrounding landscape. The surrounding hills are also often part of the overall viewshed from these locations. Because of the mature trees and landscaping throughout these established neighborhoods, views of the campus and the project are often filtered or blocked. Comment: Please refer once again to the pictures of the established neighborhood and the care that was taken to not obstruct or filter the view of the viewshed. Photos 4.1 -20 through 4.1 -26 Comment: As mentioned before, the photos used in the EIR are cropped or taken at an angle or focused down toward the street minimizing the effects of the project. An EIR must provide a good faith effort at full disclosure. These photos appear to diminish full disclosure. Pg. 4.1 -17 4.1.5.1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. "... The section of Grand Avenue that approaches campus from the south and extends north along the project site for approximately 150 feet is a designated Scenic Roadway (City of San Luis Obispo 2006). ...From the designated Scenic Roadway section of Grand Avenue (refer to Photo 4.1 -27), views of the Morros are substantially blocked by intervening vegetation and development. Comment: Photo 4.1 -27 is not a photo of the City's portion of the Scenic Highway but taken on campus and of the existing parking lot. As for the intervening mature vegetation that blocks the view, this will be removed during the five feet of soil removal and grading for the proposed dorms. Pg. 4.1 -19 to 4.1 -24 Figure 4.1 -2 Photo simulation of the student housing project, as seen from the Corner of Grand Avenue and Slack. Comment: This simulation, as with all other simulations (4.1 -5, 4.1 -7, 4.1 -9) has only 4 stories rather than the proposed 5 stories for all residential towers. Furthermore, this photo does not provide a wide angle view that includes the one -story original Pacheco School and the neighborhood of 1 -story homes. Pg. 4.1 -21 Figures 4.1 -4 and 4.1 -5 so vividly displays the scale, dominance, incompatibility of this project with the residential neighborhood that I will include it once again. Remember the simulation shows the tower only 4- stories high, not the 5- stories. Imagine how one more story will adversely affect this neighborhood. Environmental Inspects Analysls: Aesthotic Resourcea Figure 4.1-4. Existing View of the Student Housing South Site, Looking Northeast from Slack Street Figure 4.1 -5. Photo - simulation of Student Housing South Project, Looking Northeast from Slack Street Sludant Housing Swth 4.1 -21 Recirmialod Draf[ Erivin)nmpnial ImpaU Rafxxt Pg.4.1 -25 AES Impact 1 The height and location of the proposed housing structures would block existing quality views of Bishop Peak, Cerro San Luis and the Santa Lucia foothills. ...resulting in a direct long -term impact to the scenic vistas. Residual Impacts The project would have an adverse effect on scenic vistas as seen from portions of Grand Avenue and Slack Street. ...impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. Comment: Moving the location of this project to the environmentally superior H -12 H -16 parking site would mitigate this significant and unavoidable impact. Pg 4.1 -25 to 4.1. -27 4.1.5.2 Substantially degrades the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. "...The proposed structures would be visually compatible with the somewhat modern, institutional architecture of campus development constructed over the last several years. Proposed buildings would generally include articulated exterior walls and would be angled away ffrom the axes of adjacent roadways, which would add visual interest and reduce the project's spatial dominance on the surrounding area." Comment: How can the spatial dominance of 6 Walmarts be reduced to fit in a single -story 1950's style residential neighborhood? Furthermore, the dorm building along Slack Street is not angled away from the axes of the adjacent roadway. It appears as a solid concrete wall with windows towering over and peeping into our houses. Again refer to Figures 4.1 -4 and 4.1 -5 and keep in mind that the photo simulation simulates only 4- stories not 5 as described on pg ES -12 2. Structures "...seven residential structures... Residential structures will be five stories." "As seen from the neighborhood immediately to the south along the Slack Street frontage, the project would appear out -of -scale with the residential character and low - profile institutional buildings of the existing neighborhood. The perception of height of the proposed buildings along the southern perimeter of the project would be exaggerated by the elevated building site above the adjacent roadway and neighborhood (refer to Figure 4.1 -5)." Comment: In this paragraph, the EIR states in one paragraph and one photo what we, the neighbors have been stressing from the first forum when the public was first invited to participate in this process, November 6, 2013.