HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/2000, 6 - REVIEW AND COMMENT ON THE DRAFT CAL POLY MASTER PLAN UPDATE council ".Ionn
`°°
(i\ e 6, 2000
acEnba iwpont 1.N.&n
b
C I TY OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director O
SUBJECT: Review and Comment on the Draft Cal Poly Master Plan pdate
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1. Consider the recommendations outlined in the staff report, and any additional
recommendations from Council Members and the public.
2. Direct staff to prepare a letter for signature by the Mayor forwarding recommendations to Cal
Poly for inclusion in the Cal Poly Master Plan, emphasizing achievement of the Plan's policies
and goals through cooperative involvement with the City and its citizens, and minimization of
potential adverse impacts on the City's neighborhoods and on the community resulting from
University growth or operations.
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND
The stated goal of Cal Poly's new Master Plan is to provide principles and guidelines for the
physical development of the University to sustain its distinctive mission as a polytechnic
university into the 21st century. The Plan is designed to meet the educational needs of the
campus, respond to external developments in higher education, and perhaps most importantly for
the residents of San Luis Obispo, address the role of the University as a member of its larger
community.
The current, or 4th, revision to the University Master Plan was adopted in 1970, and established
an enrollment capacity of 15,000 Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES). Subsequent revisions to
add or change building sites resulted from piecemeal planning for new projects - thus a major
review was felt to be long overdue.
The projected increase in college-bound students in California referred to as `Tidal Wave Il '
expands the need for higher education. The high demand for a Cal Poly education, particularly in
programs not generally available at other public universities in California, brings that pressure to
San Luis Obispo. The existing investment in specialized programs, the number and quality of
applications for admission, and the economic and societal contributions of graduates all
contribute to the perception of Cal Poly as a candidate for growth.
The Master Plan update represents the culmination of a three-year planning process at Cal Poly.
During that time the University has involved large numbers of community members, including
City residents, City Council members, City Advisory Body members, and staff, in various Task
6-1
Council Agenda Report—Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 2
Forces and focus groups to assure that community responsibility would be adequately
accommodated in the final document. The Master Plan team applied principles from campus and
community task forces to designate future land uses and develop physical plan elements.
As guidance for approximately the next 20 years, the Master Plan addresses academic program
demand, physical and environmental constraints and opportunities, and capital and operating
budget requirements to support a future enrollment of 17,500 net academic year and 2,500
summer full-time equivalent students (FTES). The Plan also anticipates a modest increase in
technology-supported instruction and enhancements to curricula and advising to accelerate
student progress to degree completion. Together these operational changes designed to increase
summer enrollment, apply technology and facilitate student progress, are expected to increase
college year enrollment by about 9 percent without increasing fall headcount.
The physical development portion of the Master Plan focuses on land use and circulation issues
associated with increasing enrollment during the Academic Year, as this scenario involves the
most extensive change on campus. Enrollment growth projections translate into a Fall headcount
of approximately 20,900 students and about 3,200 regular faculty and staff- an increase of about
17 percent over present capacity,to be accomplished in phases, over approximately 20 years. The
Master Plan redevelops and consolidates academic facilities within an expanded instructional
core south of Brizzolara Creek. At the same time, the Plan is designed to protect natural
environmental features and agricultural lands that form the character of the campus. A central
feature of the plan involves creating new student residential communities accommodating
approximately 3,000 additional students on-campus, and provision of faculty and staff housing,
most likely in the community. Student services, and recreational facilities, would be expanded
commensurate with increased enrollment. Although parking may increase over existing numbers,
the ratio of parking to students is planned to decrease during the planning period.
UNIVERSITY LAND USES
The Master Plan takes a broad approach to the analysis of the most suitable future use of Cal
Poly's lands in both San Luis Obispo and Santa Cruz counties, including management practices
to protect the University's unique natural environment, and integration within the context of the
larger surrounding environment (including the City of San Luis Obispo).
Natural Environment
Environmentally sensitive areas and assets are designated as an overlay, determined by physical
and biological features of the land. Principles focus on stewardship, protection and restoration.
Outdoor Teaching and Learning
"Living laboratories " ((e.g., agricultural fields and units, ecological study areas, and design
village) are central to Cal Poly 's mission and must remain integrated with the campus.
6-2
Council Agenda Report—Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 3
Campus Instructional Core
Additional enrollment requires some expansion of the campus core or instruction and support.
Principles focus on creating a compact, "student-friendly, learner-centered "area with more open
space and better pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
Residential Communities
New student housing complexes are conceived as living/learning communities, directly
accessible to the campus instructional core. New undergraduate student housing on campus will
reduce community impacts by providing housing to accommodate the whole of the projected
student growth.
Recreation
Flexible outdoor recreational fields and indoor facilities will serve the changing student
population.
Circulation Alternative Transportation, and Parking
Circulation systems both provide access to the campus and movement within it. The Master Plan
encourages alternative forms of transportation to reduce congestion and parking. Internal
circulation focuses on"user-friendly "pedestrian access.
Public Facilities and Utilities
Essential support facilities can be located outside the campus instructional core unless they
require a central location to function effectively.
Support Activities and Services
A wide array of academic and support activities must be available to serve Cal Poly 's diverse
student, faculty, staff and visitor populations - in both the instructional core and new residential
communities.
Ancillary Activities and Facilities
A number of activities that serve the broader community as well as Cal Poly are complementary
to the University 's instructional mission. However, not all of these facilities need to be provided
within the campus instructional core.
6-3
Council Agenda Report—Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 4
The Plan development process included direct community input via the various Task Forces
established for that purpose, earlier circulation of a Text Preview Draft to Task Force members
and others, and now public review and comment on the Preliminary Draft Plan.
CITY COMMENTS
The Preliminary Draft Master Plan (Plan) is a well-written, logical document that deals with a
number of issue areas associated with operation of the University. It contains proposals for
reorganization, redevelopment and intensification of various land uses that are consistent with
contemporary land use theory. If adopted and implemented, it has the potential for bringing order
and greater efficiency to use of University resources while fulfilling an even larger educational
role than at present. At its heart, the Plan is driven by the educational function of the University,
and thus contains a number of curriculum, organizational structure, and other elements that are of
little direct concern to the city residents. It could be argued that all aspects of Cal Poly activities
and operations have some relationship to the City and its environs, and thus the full Plan is fair
game for comment. While this may be true, most persons in the community are concerned with
those aspects that directly impact them and their daily lives, such as student housing, automobile
traffic and parking, and noise. Thus, the following comments are intended to focus on those parts
of the Plan that deal with the relationships and impacts that are the visible and practical interface
between University and community.
Ch. 2 - Guiding Framework
Pg. 13 Transportation Programs (Question 3, second bullet)
Solving transportation and access issues for the Cal Poly population is equally important
with that of the housing issue. Commitment should be shown for addressing this area by
having the transportation policy read as follows:
a. "Taking actions that cause students, faculty and staff to shift away from
automobiles toward alternative transportation systems..."
Pg. 35, Question 3 –f.
Should include specific mention of resources such as sewer, water, etc. If the Plan is to be
"self mitigating" there needs to be more focus on essential services (particularly water
and sewer), and close coordination with service provider–the City.
Ch.3, Long-Range Enrollment Scenarios
Pg. 25, No More On-Campus Academic Year Enrollment
Cal Poly should give additional consideration to the use of evening programs to increase
student capacity without increasing the Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES) maximum.
6-4
Council Agenda Report—Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 5
A well-planned and administered evening program would provide class availability to
regular students who have employment or similar conflicts during the day, as well as
other community members who might not otherwise be able to take advantage of the
University resource.
Pg. 27, Cal Poly Past and Alternate Future Growth Rates
Cal Poly should work with the City when considering significant growth scenarios,
relative to impacts to services and resource capacity. The City plans its resource
capacities, e.g. sewage treatment upgrades, based upon a 1% planning growth rate. If Cal
Poly accelerates its growth, it may outpace the capacity of shared City services. This
should be recognized and addressed by the Master Plan.
Pg. 27, Enrollment Projections (table of numbers)
Re-title "1999 Baseline — no increase in FTE" to "Current master plan limit: 15,000
FTE" By including the date the reader can confuse the "Base Line" scenario with the
actual 1999 enrollment forecasts.
ChA,Existing Conditions
Pg. 46 Existing Conditions Constraints and Opportunities Analysis: Railroad
Union Pacific is probably not the only constraint to the location or relocation of"at grade
crossings." The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) may also be involved in
approving new locations
Pg. 49 Existing Conditions Constraints and Opportunities Analysis: Traffic
Highland Drive west of the Cal Poly campus is another student-impacted area where
residents have complained about traffic speeds and volumes. The Murray Streetarea and
bridging streets between California Boulevard and Grand Avenue—e.g. Fredericks Street—
would also likely be affected.
Ch. 5,Physical Plan Elements
Pg. 59 Circulation,Alternative Transportation and Parking
The first sentence of this section states, "... most students, faculty and staff continue to
commute by car." This plan section would benefit from a clear policy statement concerning
how people should access the campus, and the purpose of on-campus parking.
6-5
Council Agenda Report--Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 6
Pg. 62,Faculty Housing West of Highway 1 (paragraph 3).
The plan states that faculty and staff housing may be built west of Route 1. One the
physical challenges in developing this site is the potential visual impact of multi-story
housing at this location. The City's Scenic Highway Section of its Circulation Element
shows the adjoining highway section as having high value and the panoramic views of the
Morros, with the City in the foreground. Therefore, lower scale structures should be
considered—regardless of the type of urban land use that is established there.
Pg. 71 Riparian Corridor Protection and Restoration.
This section should mention recognition of Cal Poly's responsibility for `watershed
protection" as well, to ensure that on campus activities, e.g. agricultural operations, don't
negatively impact water quality. Riparian buffers may be insufficient on their own to
ensure water quality protection. Nowhere in this chapter is water quality mentioned as
either an issue, or as a plan component.
Pg. 73, Best Management Practices.
Best Management Practices should extend beyond physical features, e.g. slope banks and
riparian corridors, and include greater emphasis on operational programs, such as
agricultural practices, dairy operations, farm waste disposal/management, and hazardous
waste management.
Pg. 45 Plan Components- Overall Future Land Use(paragraph 4)
Presumably, the environmental impact report being prepared will evaluate the traffic
impacts on the parking garage planned near the California-Foothill intersection. The EIR
needs to look at alternative designs for the intersection including the western leg of Foothill
Boulevard where it crosses the railroad. Under current conditions, the presence of the
railroad complicates this intersection's operation. And, it is especially unfriendly for
bicycle and pedestrian access.
Pg. 112 Residential Communities, Existing Conditions and Issues, Issues (Off Campus
Student Housing)
The plan mentions competition between Cal Poly and Cuesta students for off-campus
housing. From the community's perspective, another issue that must be addressed is
competition of non-student households for rental housing with both Cal Poly and Cuesta
students, and the cost disadvantage that they face. Maybe this could be identified as a
positive effect of accommodating enrollment increases through the expansion of on-campus
housing and through mandatory Freshman residency.
6-6
Council Agenda Report—Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 7
Pg. 121,Off-Campus Student Housing Programs
There will be continued interest in cooperative efforts between the City and Cal Poly to
explore on-campus options for locating fraternities. If it has not already been done, this
factor could be explored as part of the residential communities component of the Plan.
Pg. 141 (paragraph 4), Circulation
The plan seems to imply that off-campus bikeways are discontinuous. While this statement
may apply to east-west pedestrian travel (which is complicated by the railroad), the City has
installed continuous bike lanes leading to campus on Foothill and California Boulevards
and on Grand Avenue. Bike lanes are also provided by the State on Route 1. Bike lanes
may also be considered on Slack Street west of Grand Avenue (an active study item of the
City's Bicycle Committee). In any case, the coordination and integration of bicycle routes
on and off campus is critical to achieving the greatest level of success from this
transportation mode. Also, the City has provided bicycle lanes and sidewalks that connect
adjoining neighborhoods to the south of the Cal Poly Campus, thereby helping facilitate
two additional alternative modes. In fact, installing bike lanes on all streets leading to the
campus was our top priority.
Pg. 143,Bicycle Friendly
Based on random-sample surveys conducted by the City of San Luis Obispo in 1990, 1997
and 1999, Cal Poly students have steadily reduced their use of bicycles while vehicle usage
has increased. Improving bikeways on campus and reducing conflicts with motor vehicle
traffic can help to reverse this trend. Cal Poly should also look at other incentives that
might be provided such as the "Trip Reduction Incentive Program" established by the City
for its employees – which might be adapted to address student and Cal Poly employee
modal choices.
Pg. 158, Principles
Cal Poly should provide for specific consideration of the future use of recycled water as a
component or principal of this Master Plan. Cooperation with the City in the
development of its water reuse program where feasible, would fit nicely with many of the
principals for sustainability, resource conservation and integration of the campus with the
community that already contained in the Plan.
Pg. 162 Alternative Transportation,Plan Components
Here are a few additional thoughts:
o Involve the Transportation Engineering, Architecture, City and Regional Planning,
Natural Resources Management Departments, and others, in integrating multi-
6-7
Council Agenda Report—Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 8
modal concepts into their curricula and sponsoring demonstration projects and
activities.
o Ensure that all new student housing projects include conveniently located and
secure enclosed storage space for overnight bicycle parking, and short tern bike
racks for daytime access.
o Include in the Plan modal split objectives that allow for measuring the performance
of transportation and parking programs, as recommended by the Circulation Task
Force. Including them will allow translation of the associated goals into measurable
targets that then can be tied to monitoring programs.
o Prepare and adopt an Alternative Transportation Enhancement Plan (ATEP) that
spells out exactly how the broad programs described on page 123 will be
implemented. This plan would also address mechanisms for reducing parking
demand referenced on page 126.
Pg. 163,Modal Split Table
The modal split information included in the Plan indicates that almost 40% of the students
are commuting to school by walking. The City's own random sample of households with
San Luis Obispo show significantly different results, although both show a significant
decline in the use of bicycles. Cal Poly and the City should work together to develop a
unified approach that provides the best information.
Pg. 170, Parking,Parking Demand
It is difficult to evaluate the significance of the 2,000 parking space reduction without
understanding what percentage of the new parking demand this figure represents. This
percentage would better illustrate Cal Poly's commitment to demand reduction strategies.
Also, it would be helpful to present the change in parking rations between the current base
year situation and the forecast year of 2021.
Pg. 170,Parking,Freshman Parking
Strict controls on the use of automobiles by Freshmen, and all students who live within a
specified distance from campus (say one mile), are especially attractive and are strongly
supported by the City. Combined with other measures, they represent a proactive method
for Cal Poly to address an important part of the parking and traffic congestion issues.
6-8
Council Agenda Report—Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 9
OTHER COMMENTS
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) has submitted a letter to Council (Attachment
A) urging City review of the Plan and associated documents with specific emphasis on
possible impacts to neighborhoods. During follow-up conversations with City staff, it became
apparent that RQN holds a concern that there will not be a complete and thorough
implementation of the Plan, and that not all Task Force recommendations are incorporated
into the current Draft Plan.
Staff understands that the Plan development process included the expectation that not all
of the proposals coming out of the various Task Force groups would necessarily be
included in the Plan. Thus, there may be Neighborhood Relations Task Force
recommendations, along with those of other task force groups, which are not in the Draft
Plan. However, many City recommendations address the concerns advanced by RQN,
and through a combination of supportive suggestions for addition or change in Plan
components, should address the same overall issues.
Carla Saunders, a resident of the Ferrini Heights neighborhood, has expressed concern for the
possible future relocation of Mustang Stadium to the new sports fields complex north of
Brizzolara Creek. She feels that noise associated with the stadium use will have an adverse
effect on her neighborhood, and that environmental review of the Plan should include
required mitigation measures to avoid that possibility.
Dr. and Mrs. Curtis Collins, residents of Fredericks Street, expressed concern for
exacerbation of parking and traffic problems in their neighborhood, particularly if the student
population increases.
ATTACHMENTS
A: Letter from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
NOTE: The Cal Poly Master Plan has been previouly distributed
to the Council and is available for review in the City
Clerk's Office.
6-9
ATTAHMENT A, PAGE 1
- � - 5 RQIN t 1"Now
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604• San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
May 19, 2000
Jan Howell Marx, Council Member C>�.,VSD 134 n MAYucZa�•b�.mrc�.CouNc�l.)
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Re: Cal Poly Master Plan Preliminary Draft
Dear Council Member Marx,
As you might expect, RON has been following the development of the Cal Poly Master
Plan very carefully. It is no secret that what Cal Poly does on and off the campus can
affect our community 's quality of life in both positive and negative ways. Accordingly,
many members of the community as well as members of RON participated in the
Master Plan process by being on various task forces and attending the community
input meetings.
The RON Board voted to endorse the recommendations adopted by Cal Poly's
Neighborhood Relations Task Force. A copy of that document is attached for your
consideration.
We understand that you have received copies of the Preliminary Draft. Since this draft
is also the Initial Environmental Study it is imperative that the City respond at this stage
of the Master Plan process to give our neighborhoods the full protection they deserve.
We have been told by a university spokesperson that: "comments on the grey boxes"
appearing throughout the plan titled Environmental Consequences "will shape the
EIR".
We, therefore, urge the council to:
• Insure that the various city departments and their staff review the Cal Poly Master
Plan Preliminary Draft and Initial Environmental Study for all possible impacts to
neighborhoods, such as noise, traffic, glare, etc.
• Submit your comments pertaining to this review by the June 12, 2000, deadline.
Sincerely yours,
Cydney Holcomb RECEIVED
Chairperson, RON
MbY 2 2 2000
SLO CIT 6-101L
ATMOMENT A, PAGE 2
NEIGHBORHOOD RELATIONS TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATIONS
In recognition that Cal Poly is an `ongoing" entity in San Luis Obispo: new
development, changes, and other activities of the University should address
community concerns using the following principles as they relate to
Neighborhood Relations.
1 .
FOR PLANNING NEW DEVELOPMENT ON CAMPUS
GUIDING PRINCIPLES:
Because there are established residential neighborhoods in the City of San Luis
Obispo, and because new developments on campus may negatively impact
these established, residential neighborhoods:
• It shall be a guiding principle that negative impacts of new development,
and/or re-development 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.
SUPPORTING PLANNING AND POLICY PRINCIPLES' *
1 . There shall be a new, ongoing process by which representatives of
residential neighborhoods, neighborhood associations, and the University
regularly discuss issues which may impact University/neighborhood
relations. Existing University, City and Public Advisory Committees should be
continued. (Pationale: Direct, regular communication between
representatives of residential neighborhoods, neighborhood associations,
and the University is the basis for positive University/neighborhood
relations.]
1 6-11
ATTAIIMENT A, PAGE 3
2. Early in the process of conceptualizing and proposing new development on
campus, any possible impacts on the established residential neighborhoods
shall be identified through a cooperative effort between the University and
those neighborhoods possibly impacted. [Pationale: Historically,
neighborhoods have been key in identifying possible impacts to
neighborhoods The earlier that the neighborhoods are involved in the
process the more possibilities there will be for positive, successful
solutions.]
3. The University's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for new developments
shall focus on the possible negative impacts on the existing residential
neighborhoods.
4. The University and the affected neighbors shall work together to reach
agreements on specific ways that potential impacts can be avoided.
Agreements should list and memorialize specific design aspects,
operational conditions, and meaningful enforcement methods.
5. Design aspects and agreements with neighborhoods, which are for the
purpose of eliminating or mitigating impacts of campus developments, shall
be rigorously enforced by the University. To eliminate ongoing conflicts
between the University and established residential neighborhoods, the
University shall be proactive in enforcing its agreements, rather than
.reactive and complaint-driven.
6. The University should coordinate its neighborhood relations efforts among
its various departments so that responsibility for operational issues,
agreement enforcement, communications with neighborhoods, and other
issues affecting neighborhoods are coordinated.
7. It should be recognized that large, new developments on campus which are
dependant on both the student population and a large commercial draw
from non-student populations, may have significantly larger impacts on
residential neighborhoods than those developments which depend upon the
student population alone. Developments with a commercial component
may also require proportionately larger efforts and costs to eliminate
negative impacts on established residential neighborhoods.
B. The University should develop or maintain adequate natural or physical
buffers between established residential neighborhoods and existing and
future developments on the campus to avoid negative impacts.
2 6-12
ATTA(OMENT A, PAGE 4
2.
FOR CONSIDERING INCREASED ENROLLMENT
GUIDING PRINCIPLES:
Because Cal Poly is a residential campus of more than 6000 acres adjacent to
one relatively small city of approximately 45,000 people:
• It shall be a guiding principle that negative ;impacts resulting from
increased enrollment such as: traffic, parking problems, overcrowding,
noise, deterioration of residential properties and increased rental
housing costs for all, shall not . be borne by the residents of the
established residential neighborhoods of San Luis Obispo.
SUPPORTING PLANNING AND POLICY PRINCIPLES: *
1 . There is an existing shortage of affordable, desirable housing on the
campus. This should be corrected. When the University further increases
enrollment, there must be a corresponding increase of affordable,
desirable housing on the campus to accommodate that increase. (The
university's goal of having only 25% of its students living on campus, as
stated in the DEPAC "more" enrollment on campus scenario, is very
inadequate).
2. The University should provide the location for a Greek Row on campus
where Greek activities can take place.
3. The University should research the local feasibility of programs which have
been successful at other universities, such as; multi-generation housing on
campus, on-campus living for first time freshmen, and the development of
a transitional living plan.
4. The University should strive to develop a social and physical environment
on campus that is attractive to students and faculty that promotes on
campus living and a sense of community.
5. To reduce traffic problems on and near the campus, the University shall
continue to contribute to the City's transit services and encourage
increased use of these services. Circulation systems on the campus
6-13
3
ATTA04WNT A, PAGE 5
should be improved with particular focus on alternative forms of
transportation, campus transit systems, bicycling and walking.
6. New parking on the campus shall not impact established residential
neighborhoods.
7. The University should work proactively with the City and residential
neighborhood associations to review existing "good neighbor" guidelines,
develop additional guidelines where necessary, educate students about
these guidelines, and enforce and implement these guidelines on an
ongoing basis.
B. The University should make existing campus educational activities more
accessible to the residents of San Luis Obispo.
9. The University should provide funding to help the City communicate with
landlords and absentee owners regarding property upkeep, tenant
relations, and identify and correct violations of overcrowding, noise, and
other neighborhood enhancement ordinances.
10. The University shall better integrate neighborhood issues throughout the
Master Plan and related documents, including the enrollment scenarios.
As this is "the primary conduit for participation" by neighborhoods, and there is
no neighborhood representative on the Master Plan Committee (see
background materials), we appreciate this opportunity to offer a more
complete task force recommendation. We would also appreciate the
opportunity for a neighborhood representative from this committee, to attend
at least one meeting of the University's Master Plan Committee for the purpose
of providing background and answering questions about these
recommendations.
Dated: May 24, 1999
*Task Force Charge: `To suggest broad policy or planning principles
regarding the assigned topics to help guide the development of the
administrative draft of the Master Plan". (Cal Poly Master Plan.)
6�1�
4
MEti1NG AGENDA
DATE �- 6 -00 ITEM #
Date: June 4, 2000
To: Honorable Mayor Allen Settle
Honorable Members of the City Council 0cni `;rid
❑
Subject: Cal Poly Master Plan ❑..:,.:..r,EF:,I ❑SE'Dffl
Sports Complex Mitigations Comments B 1216 UtitF ❑UEIL DIR
❑- folk?�rr� ❑PERS DIR
There are two documents which help identify and mitigate environmental impacts from the
Sports Complex;
1.The February 1997 Final EIR for the Cal Poly Sports Complex. This EIR did not
include sound tests.
2. The June 1997"Sound Study for the Cal Poly Sports complex"' This included sound
tests done on the Cal Poly Campus by Jones and Stokes, Inc.
Both`Environmental Consequences"boxes on page 130 refer to the 1997 EIR for the Sports
Complex,but not the 1997 Jones and Stokes Sound Study.
As the City paid for the Jones and Stokes Sound Study and is now being asked to comment on
the completeness of the Master Plan, it seems logical that the City would ask that the 1997
"Sound Study For the Cal Poly Sports Complex"by Jones and Stokes be referenced in both
"Environmental Consequences"Boxes on page 130.
For clarification of my comments to Mr. Jonas,my only concern was that the City might
overlook this omission.
Cal Poly is to be commended for stating clearly in this Master Plan that, "any additional
sports facilities, Gke any other facdity on campus,will be designed so as to mitigate environmental
impacts."
Sincerely,
CA cl. Sau-,S&�
RECEIVED Carla Saunders RECEIVED
JUN 6 - 2000 j U N 0 G 2000
SLG k:.. ',LERK SLO CITY COUNCIL
Jun 05 00 04: 11p C"gNEY HOLCOMB Bn5-594-0365 p. 1
..._EYING AGENDA
1 1 ATE A L.�..0°ITEM #"0""--
^IL DD DIR
all 0 FIN DIR
�Q 0 FIRE CHIEF
Residents for QualityNei hborh VORIG 0 POLICE CHF
T TEAM 0 REC DIR
P.O. Box 12604 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 &agi0 AJ I- O UTIL DIR
June 5, 2000 m•&ArlLIM OPERS DIR
Re: Comments to the Cal Poly Master Plan Preliminary Draft
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
As you know the RQN Board endorsed the Task Force recommendations
for preserving and protecting established residential neighborhoods in the
Cal Poly Master Plan. After our review of the Preliminary Draft, we felt
that the recommendations were not incorporated as clearly as they could
have been.. We, therefore, asked the council to direct staff to review the
Plan with regard to potential impacts on neighborhoods and to consider
incorporating the Task Force recommendations in their comments.
Once again, we are extremely disappointed. The staff report, which we
received late on June 1, 2000, is essentially lacking in any discussion of
neighborhood protection. It is inaccurate, in that there are comments
that do not relate to the page numbers cited. It stops short of any
discussion on "Ancillary Activities and Facilities" although mentions it in the
introduction. Finally, the staff report misrepresents RON's concerns by
stating that we are merely worried about the "implementation" of the Plan.
Clearly, implementation is an important aspect, however, it only becomes
relevant to us if the Plan itself is sufficient. We believe that the Plan does
not adequately address potential impacts to our neighborhoods, especially
in regards to future "Ancillary Facilities" being considered by the University.
Therefore, RON has prepared the attached recommendations that we
believe will give our neighborhoods the protection they deserve. We ask
the council to make a commitment to the future of our neighborhoods by
insuring that these recommendations become a permanent part
Cal Poly Master Plan. CEIVED
Sincerely yours, JUN 6 - 2000
SLO CITY CLERK
Hearing Date: 6-&00
Qydney Holcomb, RECEIVED # of Pages: 6
Chairperson, RON Faxed to: 781-7109
JUN 0 5 2000
SILO CITY COUNCIL
Jun 05 00 04: 11p CYDNEY HOLCOMB 805-594-0365 p. 2
RON 06/05/00 1
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
IN THE CAL POLY MASTER PLAN (AND INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
1. RECOMMENDATION:
The Cal Poly Neighborhood Relations Task Force, hereinafter referred to as the 'Task
Force" contains the following simple "Guiding Principle for Planning New Development
on Campus":
'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"
Action: Add this guiding principle directly in the text of the master plan.
Rationale: This demonstrates a real commitment to neighborhoods.
2. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS: [ additions are in underlined italics)
Page 13, Question 3, last bullet
Action: Change to read: "Planning future campus facilities so as to mitigate
environmental impacts on and off campus as part of the project design"
Rationale: Question 3 deals with impacts of enrollment growth on the
character and resource capacity of the surrounding communities. This answer
makes that clearer.
Page 28. Paragraph 4
Action: Add the following, so that the paragraph reads:
"First, campus policy regarding the number or proportion of students to be
housed on campus contributes directly to the continuation and reinforcement of
Cal Poly's character as a residential university. There is an existing shortage of
affordable, desirable housinq on campus This should be corrected The
assumption guiding the Master Plan is the principle that Cal Poly should provide
housing on campus for as much of this existing shortage as possible and for all
additional undergraduate students. This principle includes provision of
appropriate housing types, support services and amenities to enhance the
residential environment as a place for learning."
Rationale: This is Task Force recommendation # 1, page 6-13 of the staff
report. It acknowledges the EXISTING, large backlog of housing shortage on
campus which has resulted from not building housing for many years, as well as
projected future shortages.
Jun 05 00 04: 12p CvnNEY HOLCOMB 805-594-0365 p. 3
RON 06/05/00 2
Page 47. Last paragraph, continuing on Page 49
"Policy Constraints"; (This is under the "Existing Conditions", section of the Master Plan
and it describes the four impacts of new campus development on neighborhoods. It
also contains the only discussion of "Neighborhood Disputes"- and neighborhood
agreements in the Master Plan.)
Action: add a final sentence so that the paragraph now reads,
"This category includes areas where campus or California State University policy
differs from city and county regulations and practices, neighborhood disputes,
and issues of concern to students, staff and faculty. Dealing with these issues on
the sports complex and parking structure has resulted in agreements between
Cal Poly and adjacent neighborhoods to mitigate impacts. " To eliminate ondoinq
conflicts between the University and established residential neighborhoods the
University shall be proactive in enforcingagreements rather than reactive
and comvlaint driven."
Rationale: This is a Task Force recommendation for proactively eliminating
ongoing conflicts between Cal Poly and neighborhoods.
Background:
Both the Sports Complex and the Performing Arts Center parking structure mentioned
above are defined in the Master Plan as "Facilities Ancillary Activities". The Task Force
also addressed this type of campus facility:
It should be recognized that large, new developments on campus which are
dependent on both the student population AND a large commercial draw from
non-student populations, may have significantly larger impacts on residential
neighborhoods than those developments which depend upon the student population
alone. Developments with a commercial component may also require proportionately
larger efforts and costs to eliminate negative impacts on established residential
neighborhoods" Task Force recommendation #7, Page 6-12 of the staff report.
Page 49. "Light and Glare"
Action: Change sentence to read, 'This issue was important with the sports
complex and parking structure, but _these impacts will be midgated by
aporoprrate design
Rationale: This is the one sentence in the Master Plan which proactively
addresses light and glare impacts generated by campus development. This
more clearly incorporates Task Force guiding Principle #2.
Jun 05 00 04: 12p CYDNEY HOLCOMB 805-594-0365 p. 4
RON 06/05/00 3
Page 49. `Traffic"
More detailed mitigations are on pages 140 -164 in 'The Circulation Chapter", "The
Alternative Transportation Chapter", and 'The Parking Chapter". The city staff report
also contains many comments on traffic impacts.
Page 49. "Noise"
Action: Delete existing sentence and replace with the following:
`This issue was important with the sports complex but these impacts will be
mitigated by appropriate design "
Rationale: The first sentence makes this consistent with the "Light and Glare'
section above. It also incorporates the guiding principle of the Task Force, that
new development on campus shall be designed to eliminate impacts on
established neighborhoods.
Page 48, Constraints Summary Map.
Action: This map should be expanded to show the Goldtree site in the Cheda
Ranch to the North. The Goldtree site is shown on page vi as an "area suitable
for ancillary activities and facilities" and described on Page 180 as having 35
acres with potential for development of "ancillary activities and facilities".
There should also be a "red arrow" signifying a "potential neighborhood conflict'
placed on the east side of Grand Avenue at Slack Street in the Monterey Heights
Neighborhood. This area is also identified on Page 179-80 as "one potential site
for ancillary facilities".
Page 49. "Development of New Areas"
Action: Add the following sentences to the end of the paragraph: The university
should develop or maintain adequate natural or physical buffers between
established residential neighborhoods and existing and future developments on
the campus to avoid negative impacts Because these are adjacent to existing
residential neighborhoods the uses will be compatible and new development will
be designed to eliminate impacts on the neighborhoods
Rationale: This is a recommendation of the Task Force to eliminate potential
conflicts with neighborhoods. Page 6-12, #8 of the Staff Report.
Page 50. "Satellite Development"
Discussion: The Goldtree site in the Cheda Ranch near Stenner Creek Road and
Hwy. 1 is identified on the map on page vi as one of two areas "suitable for
ancillary activities and facilities". Is this the site being discussed?
Page 54. "Issues"
Discussion: This is great and is incorporated into the "compatibility" principle on
Page 55.
Jun 05 00 04: 12p C"9NEY HOLCOMB 805-594-0365 p.. 5
RON 06/05/00 4
Page 120. "Environmental Consequences" bottom box
Action: Change this to read: 'These two sites are adiacent to single family
neighborhoods The northeast corner of Slack and Grand is currently
undeveloped and is bisected by a vegetated drainage. Development will be
carefully designed to eliminate visual, noise, traft and fight impacts and to
protect both natural features and the integrity of the nearby neighborhood. (It
should be identified on the Constraints Summary on Page 48 as having visual,
noise, traffic, and light impacts).
The parcel to the west of Santa Rosa is currently undeveloped. This intersection
of Scenic Hwy 1 and Highland Drive is a_gateway entrance to both Cal Polv and
the City of San Luis Obispo. The City's Scenic Highway section of its circulation
element shows the adjoining highway section as having high value and a
panoramic view of the Morros, with the City in the foreground. It is adjacent to,
and higher than a neighborhood of single story single fami/y homes to the west
Development will be carefully designed to preserve the Panoramic view of the
Morros from the intersection of Highway 1 and Highland Drive and to eliminate
visual,, noise, and light impacts on the adiacent single story, single family
neighborhood.
Page 129. First paragraph, last sentence.
Discussion: This is very good. It parallels the Task Force guiding principle.
Page 130. "Environmental Consequences' first box
Action: Add last sentence: The 1997 'Sound study for the Ca/ Poly Sports
Complex" was also done. This facility shall be designed to eliminate noise, light
and visual impacts on and off campus
Rationale: Internally consistent and it incorporates the guiding principle of the
Task Force.
Page 130. "Environmental Consequences" second box
Action: Add a second section, " The 1997 'S6/5/00ound study for the Cal Polv
Snorts Complex"was also done. This facility shall be designed to eliminate noise,
light, and visual impacts on and off campus.
Rationale: Internally more consistent and incorporates the Task Force guiding
principle.
Page 131. "Environmental Consequences" second box
Action: Add sentence, 'This facility will be designed to eliminate these impacts"
Rationale:This is the Task Force guiding principle.
Jun 05 00 04: 13p CYDMEY HOLCOMB 805-594-0365 p. 6 '
RON 06/05/00 5
Page 168. "Environmental Consequences" second to last bullet,
Action: Add, "but will be designed to eliminate these iMgactd'.
Rationale: This is the Task Force guiding principle.
Page 178. "Ancillary Activities and Facilities"
Discussion: This type of development has tremendous impacts on
neighorhoods.
Page 179. "Issues"
Action: Add a new, last bullet item: 'New developments on campus which are
dependent on both the student population AND a/arae commercial draw from
non student pooch-tions may have si nificantly larger impacts on residential
neighborhoods than those deve%pments which depend upon the student
population alone. Develgoments with a commercial component may also require
grcport✓onately larger efforts and costs to eliminate negative impacts gn
established residential neighborhoods"
Rationale: This states Cal Poly's commitment to mitigate the impacts of this type
of development on established residential neighborhoods. This is a Task Force
recommendation. Page 6-12, #7 of the Staff Report
Page 180. 'Environmental Consequences" top box.
Action: Add: The environmental consequences of ancillary facility uses can be
much oreater than residential use impacts The environmental consequences of
all ancillary fagibty uses adjacent to the existing residential neighborhood w//be
explored. These include trafb�- noise light and visual impacts
Page 180. "Environmental Consequences" bottom box
Action: change the second last sentence to read, "Some of the area is visible
from Highway 1 and the neighborhoods and the city's poen space on Bishops
Peak The environmental consequences of all ancillary facility uses in this remote
site will be explored. These include traffic noise light visual and growth inducing
im acts --