HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/2000, 1B - CAL POLY MASTER PLAN UPDATE Council Agenda Report--Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 2
5. Insure that retail and other support activities do not conflict with, or establish inequitable
advantage over, similar facilities and services in the off-campus community.
6. Reinforce the recognition that housing impacts are the major community concern for
additional University growth, and make every effort to provide on-campus housing for
the greatest possible number of students, including fraternities and sororities.
7. Cite the Heery Sports Facilities Master Plan, and the Jones and Stokes Noise Study, and
show their use in the evaluation of the future location of Mustang Stadium.
8. Include documentation on the generation of the 2,000 space parking reduction.
9. Clarify the purpose and potential future uses of the Goldtree site, and assure that any
development there will not conflict with, or inequitably compete with, off-campus
community resources.
10. Include a definitive process for Plan amendment, which assures community involvement
and consultation.
DISCUSSION
Background and Overview
The stated goal of Cal Poly's proposed 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 H '
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 draft is the product of nearly four years, to date, of a joint University-
community 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 Forces and focus groups to assure that
1B-2
council 05-00
j accnba Repoizt '1B
C I T Y OF SAN LUIS O B 1 S P O.
FROM: John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager
BY: Arnold Jonas, Consultant
SUBJECT: Review and Comment on the October 10, 2000, Draft Cal Poly Master
Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1. Consider the recommended comments outlined in the staff report, and any additional
recommendations from Council Members and/or the public.
2. Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter forwarding the City's comments to the University.
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report provides the City Council with its second formal opportunity this year to provide
comments to Cal Poly regarding its proposed Master Plan update. In addition, comments are also
provided on the accompanying Environmental Impact Report.
The first opportunity for the City to comment on the Plan, the "Text Preview Draft", occurred on
June 6, 2000. A number of suggestions were forwarded to University officials at that time. With
few exceptions, City comments have been accommodated by revised text, evaluation in the Draft
EIR, or will be addressed in further,more detailed studies that will follow adoption of the Master
Plan document.
In this report, staff recommends that the University make further effort to accommodate the
suggestions remaining from the June 6 review, in particular those submitted by the Residents for
Quality Neighborhoods. In addition,the following concepts are strongly encouraged.
1. Commitment to neighborhood preservation through redesignation of the remaining
"ancillary activities" area at the Grand Avenue / Slack Street intersection to `natural
environment", and addition of another double-ended arrow indicating potential
neighborhood conflicts.
2. Designate the hill area above the dorms to "natural environment".
3. Incorporate provisions for retaining in open, undeveloped uses the lands shown as
"outdoor teaching and learning".
4. Elevate Stenner Creek to the same level of environmental protection and enhancement as
Brizzolara Creek.
1B-1
Council Agenda Report--Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 4
Natural Environment
Environmentally sensitive areas and assets are designated as an overlay, determined by physical
and biological features of the land.Principle focus is 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 will remain integrated with the campus. Sensitivity
to the operation of these programs within the larger context of the campus ecosystem will be
stressed.
Campus Instructional Core
Additional enrollment requires some expansion of the campus core for instruction and support.
Principles focus on creating a compact, "student-friendly, learner-centered "area with more open
space heavily emphasizing better pedestrian,bicycle, and alternative forms of transportation.
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 Tr@AMortation, 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,bicycle, and public transportation access.
Public Facilities and Utilities
Essential support facilities will be located outside the campus instructional core unless .they
require a central location to function effectively.
Sunnort Activities and Services
A wide array of academic and support activities will be available to serve Cal Poly 's diverse
student, faculty, staff and visitor populations - in both the instructional core and new residential
communities.
1B-4
Council Agenda Report--Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 3
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 physical change on campus. Enrollment growth projections by Cal Poly, which
are significantly below the 30% increase preferred by the Regents of the State University
System, are for a 1.5%growth rate, considered a moderate growth rate by Cal Poly,translate into
a Fall Quarter headcount (at the end of the Plan period) of approximately 20,900 students and
about 3,200 regular faculty and staff- an increase of about 17 percent over present capacity. The
increase is intended 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. Two major components in this regard are the
rehabilitation of a significant stretch of Brizzolara Creek currently used for instructional and
support structures and related facilities, and administration of agricultural activities to minimize,
or eliminate altogether, adverse impacts on sensitive habitat or biological areas on 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, outside the instructional core on University lands west of Highway 1, and
possibly at other sites within the city. 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 and emphasis on alternative forms of transportation to the automobile will be stressed.
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). The following is a
summary of land use concepts included in the Plan.
1B-3
Council Agenda Report—Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 6
1. Additional consideration should be given to making a bolder, action based, statement
promoting alternative transportation.
2. Additional policy language should be added to the Master Plan text to insure that City
design policies and standards are followed to the greatest extent possible for all off-
campus housing developments.
3. Cal Poly should make every effort to amend, or adapt, University System policy so that
fraternal housing can be located on campus, as occurs at other state-funded universities.
4. The Jones and Stokes noise study for the Cal Poly Sports Complex should be referenced
in the Master Plan, and its use in the preparation of the Plan verified.
5. The Plan should include a strong commitment to unified analysis and planning techniques
with the City to facilitate a higher level of awareness and accuracy in both jurisdictions.
6. The proposed Parking Management focused study, included as an implementation effort,
should be given high priority considering the importance of parking impacts, and the
need for strong commitment to effective mitigation measures.
7. Inclusion of the suggested language by the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods relating
to light and glare is appropriate considering the EIR evaluation, an interest in reducing
the need to refer to the EIR as well as the Plan, and for clarity in the Plan text.
8. The Constraints Summary Map should be amended to include designation of the Goldtree
site, and a double-ended arrow should be added at the southeast comer of the Slack
Street/Grand Avenue intersection to indicate potential neighborhood conflicts in that
quadrant of the intersection.
9. The language proposed by the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods relating to
environmental consequences of planned residential uses near existing neighborhoods, and
Highway 1, should be included in the Plan text to insure compatible development in those
areas.
10. The Plan text should be amended to clarify what constitutes a "commercial component",
as well as the nature of anticipated uses in the instructional core and the Goldtree site to
insure avoidance of impacts on residential neighborhoods, and potential competition with
community business interests.
11. Additional environmental review for future projects, as appropriate and necessary, should
be confirmed by additional plan text.
Comments on the October 10,2000,Master Plan and Draft EIR
Analysis of the current draft has generated the following comments in addition to those of the
earlier review. -- -
1B-6
Council Agenda Report—Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 5
Ancillary Activities and Facilities
A number of activities that serve the broader community as well as Cal Poly are considered
complementary to the University's instructional mission. Not all of these facilities need to be
provided within the campus instructional core, such as the applied research park, or conference
center,being suggested for the Goldtree area in the northwest comer of the campus.
Master Plan Development Process
The Plan development process has extended over several years, and included direct community
input via the various Task Forces established for that purpose, a number of public meetings, and
circulation of a Text Preview Draft,the May 1, 2000 Preliminary Master Plan Draft, and now the
October 10, 2000, Master Plan and Draft Environmental Impact report to Task Force members,
interested regulatory agencies, and community organizations, groups and citizens, for review and
comment.
Disposition of Previous City Comments
The May 1, 2000, Preliminary Draft plan was the subject of consideration by the City Council at
their meeting held June 6, 2000. As a result of that meeting, a number of comments by city staff,
Dr. and Mrs. Curtis Collins, and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods were forwarded to Cal
Poly for consideration. Attachment A presents an annotated list of those comments, indicating
their disposition relative to the current draft document. Cal Poly has prepared Attachment B, a
response matrix for all comments received on the Preliminary Master Plan Draft.
With few exceptions the city comments have been accommodated by revised text evaluation in
the Draft EIR, or will be addressed in further, more detailed, studies that will follow adoption of
the Master Plan document. The Circulation and Parking section of the Plan, and the Draft EIR,
addresses the Collins' comments. The RQN comments included a number of specific text
proposals, which for the most part have not been incorporated into the current document. Cal
Poly staff states that the proposed text was not incorporated because the total elimination of
impacts on established residential neighborhoods, a basic precept of the RQN comments, is not
technically possible. As a consequence, the University cannot promise to entirely eliminate
impacts. They do note that the current version of the plan, and the DEIR, contain various sections
that address the underlying issues raised by the RQN, and mitigate related impacts to the greatest
extent possible. University officials also commit to working closely with neighborhoods as actual
projects are developed, as the City has urged, and as fiuther discussed later in this report relative
to Chapter 7 of the Plan.
Cal Poly should continue to positively address the comments on the previous draft plan
(Attachment 1) that were provided to them via the Mayor's June, 2000, letter. Although most of
these earlier City comments have been addressed, as outlined in the analysis in Attachment 1,
some continue to need further attention. Key among these are:
1B-5
Council Agenda Report—Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 8
Page 98, Other Creek Enhancement Activities (re: Protection/Restoration of Stenner
Creek also)
This short paragraph deals with Stenner Creek, which flows in large part through lands
used mainly for agricultural related uses. The text promotes activities to ensure no further
degradation of the creek area. This is in contrast to the preceding discussion of
Brizzolara Creek, its relationship to the campus core, and restorative and/or enhancement
activities proposed for that waterway. The two streams comprise the major waterways on
the heavily used part of the campus, and are shown in the same land use designation on
page 70. Given that, they should be recognized as equivalent resources and be provided
equivalent levels of protection and restoration. This would require a commitment to
activities beyond arresting degradation on Stenner Creek, by extending and reinforcing
the language on page 98 to activity levels afforded Brizzolara Creek.
Page 106,Uses(re: Provision of commercial activities on-campus)
The Plan anticipates provision of a variety of services and activities on-campus of a non-
instructional character in support of the primary educational effort. General retail,
franchised food outlets, personal services, rental of automobiles and recreation
equipment, and entertainment facilities such as movie theaters, are examples listed. Cal
Poly staff has stated that the recent University Union Master Plan was a major resource
for defining the type and extent of the supporting uses, and will be attached to the Master
Plan as an appendix. It would be helpful if the document were more readily available for
community review prior to Plan adoption. The concept of providing such facilities and
services,thus substantially reducing the need for off-campus trips by faculty and students,
is sound. However, it needs to be balanced with community concern regarding
duplication of services already provided off-campus, to assure that an atmosphere of
unfair competition is not created, and that such uses do not draw from the larger
community thus increasing impacts on adjoining residential areas. The provision of these
facilities and services should be sufficiently explored prior to implementation to
*minimize community impact. If they are to be provided, utmost effort should be made for
provision of the desired goods and services through contract, or other arrangements, with
community sources. The potential of these services drawing non-students to the campus
and further impacting the nearby neighborhoods should also be considered.
Page 128, Residential Communities, Feasibility
The Plan incorporates the admirable goal of providing new housing to accommodate any
increase in the student population during the life of the plan. In this respect Plan policies
conform to City General Plan policies (Land Use Element Section 1.4, and Housing
Element Section 10.2.4) requiring mitigation of any additional impacts resulting from
growth. New residential construction now underway (800 student beds) will be available
early in the plan period, and development of the Request for Proposals for the next phases
of student housing (approximately 1300 beds on two sites), as well as faculty and staff
accommodations, is already underway. Given the incremental nature of housing
1B-8
Council Agenda Report—Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 7
Ch.4,Existing Conditions
Page 58, Constraints Summary May
The Constraints Summary Map includes several double-ended arrows showing general
areas of potential neighborhood conflicts. An additional arrow should be added to the east
side of Grand Avenue, south of Slack Street, to indicate that conflict potential will
continue to exist in that area as well.
Ch. 5, Physical Plan Elements
Page 70 Land Use Map, San Luis Creek Watershed
This map includes several land use designations in the "outdoor teaching and learning"
category, which covers the bulk. of the campus property, encompassing all of the
agricultural use and natural habitat areas. The steep hillside area to the east, or rear, of the
residential dorm area is shown in the general outdoor classification, although it is
otherwise surrounded by the "natural environment" category. Given the topography of
this area, which does not appear suitable for agricultural use, and its relation to the
campus core, this area should also be shown as "natural environment".
Page 71, Campus Development Man (re: Grand/Slack Neighborhood Interface)
The Campus Development Map has been modified from earlier versions so that it
provides a diagrammatic indication of the ancillary facilities (additional residential
dorms, and a visitors center, described at pages 194-195)) now anticipated for the Grand
Avenue/Slack Street site. The impression now created is that the remainder of the site,
which is at the campus/community interface, will be left in a natural state. Given the
sensitive nature of this location to the nearby residential neighborhood the area should,
therefore, be shown as permanently in open space. This can be done by removing the
pink shading indicating the possibility of future development, and replacing it with the
Natural Environment land use category.
Page 78, Stewardship (re: Open Space Protection)
The Plan text discusses the concept of "outdoor teaching and learning" and
"environmentally sensitive areas" (fust paragraph, Plan Components — Land Use
Designations, page 67) as designations for the natural and undeveloped open areas of the
campus, setting them apart from the more typical "open space" designation found in most
land use plans. The implication is that the campus lands are potentially more heavily
used, at least in part, than their non-university,`open space"brethren.Regardless of these
distinctions, the Plan should incorporate a commitment to retaining these lands in open,
undeveloped uses in a fashion similar to that of the City of San Luis Obispo open space
lands.. The section at page 78, Natural Environment, Stewardship, would be a logical
location for such a commitment.
1B-7
Council Agenda Report—Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 10
same.creek crossing as the pedestrian path from the H-1, 2, and 3 residential areas to the
campus instructional core to minimi a the number of creek crossings.
Page 168, Campus Shuttle
An enhanced University leadership image, and additional air quality benefits, would
result from employing electric or similar low-emissions vehicles for this service.
Page 170, second para"a h, last sentence
The referenced roadway section does not include an indication of pedestrian crossings.
Page 185, Parking Demand
The Plan proposes a reduction of 2,000 parking spaces at build-out as compared to the
number required if present parking ratios were to continue. There appears to be no
documentation in the Plan, or the Draft EIR, verifying the feasibility of this reduced
number of parking spaces, or the basis of its generation. Inadvertent omission of an
appendix to the traffic study included in the EIR may be the cause. Thus, the reader
cannot confirm the viability of this desirable goal. Additional text clarifying this situation
is very important, as campus generated parking demand is of critical concern to adjoining
residential neighborhoods, and overall community impact.
Page 194, Issues (re: Goldtree Site concerns)
The issues included in this section, Ancillary Activities and Facilities, appear to be only
introspective to the campus environment. However, given the non-specific character of
examples of potential uses for the Goldtree site, there is the unknown potential for
significant community conflicts as well. Competition with community businesses, sprawl
of urban uses into planned rural areas, and generation of urban impacts such as aesthetics,
traffic, noise, and light and glare, as well as impacts to wildlife corridors and habitat,
should be more thoroughly evaluated before committing to this land use on even a
conceptual basis. As with the comments concerning retail and other non-instructional
uses above (Page 106, Uses),there is substantial community concern for establishment by
the University of subsidized competition with off-campus locations and providers of
identical (or at least similar) services and facilities. The Plan should be made explicit
regarding the nature of the proposed development, and that it will be non-competitive
with off-campus community resources.
Chapter 7, Implementation
Paae 333, Communication and Consultation(re: Community and Neighborhoods)
This four-page section is one of the most important to the long run success of the Plan,
relative to the surrounding community. It documents a process of on-going
communication and consultation that is intended to verify University concerns for its
1B-10
Council Agenda Report—Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 9
production, during the early life of the plan this activity could actually result in an
increase in housing supply that will exceed the growth in student population. The
requirement that student housing be self-supporting, however, gives rise to community
concerns that providing additional housing to accommodate all new students might not be
realized under some circumstances. This section should more clearly elaborate on the
source of housing development funds, the nature and operation of `partnerships", the
likelihood of funds being available when needed, and the potential for the California State
University System imposing their preferred 33% student growth rate on Cal Poly, rather
than the locally proposed 17% increase that would be accommodated by planned new
housing.
Page 137, Introduction(re: Heery Sports Facilities Master Plan citation)
Reference is made in the second sentence to the Heery Sports Facilities Master Plan,but a
citation to this document does not appear elsewhere in the campus plan document, or the
Draft EIR. Given the importance of the Heery Plan as a basis for the amount, location and
development of sports facilities on campus, and the sensitivity of the adjoining
community to potential impacts from the operation of the facilities, the availability of this
document for reference should be made clear.
Page 138, third paragraph, last sentence(re: Mustang Stadium location clarification)
The Plan states: "The football program, however, will remain at its present location at
Mustang Stadium during the initial phases of the Master Plan", and the Recreation/Sports
Facilities Map on page 141 shows the stadium at its present location. However,
succeeding discussion of the athletic field house, page 142, Mustang Stadium, page 143,
and Mustang Stadium impacts in the Draft EIR at page 290, result in a concern among
community residents that the "initial phases" of the plan (at least relative to the stadium
location) may not be long-lived. These various sections, and perhaps others pertinent to
this topic, should be better integrated and coordinated so that the adjoining residential
community has a clear understanding of the actual potential for change of the stadium
location. Any relocation of the stadium will likely be strongly opposed.
Page 164, Pedestrian Circulation Man
The designation: "Controls to Inhibit At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing" should also be
shown along the railroad right-of-way bounding the west side of the instructional core.
Page 165, second bullet
The citation should be"Americans With Disabilities Act".
Page 165,third bullet (re: creek side trail)
The pedestrian path along Brizzolara Creek should be located outside the creek itself, or
the adjacent riparian vegetation. The creek side trail should be shown to make use of the
1B-9
Council Agenda Report—Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 12
realization of the University's educational goals can be achieved in the most effective and least
disruptive manor to the larger community in which it is located.
CONCURRENCES
The Police Chief, Neighborhood Services Manager, Transportation Planner, Assistant City
Administrative Officer, Assistant to the CAO, Economia Development Manager, Natural
Resources Manager, and Long Range Planning Manager participated in the preparation of this
report.
ATTACHMENTS
1. June 12, 2000, letter from Mayor Settle
2. Disposition of City Comments from the June 6; 2000; City Council Meeting
3. Response Matrix for all comments received on the Preliminary Draft Master plan, prepared
by Cal Poly
4. Draft letter from the Mayor concerning the current Draft Master Plan
1B-12
Council Agenda Report—Cal Poly Master Plan Update
Page 11
neighbors, and facilitate continuation of the interactive relationship established during
plan preparation. It can be made even stronger through inclusion of a definitive
description of the process that will be followed for Plan amendment.
Page 337, Studies, Standards and Guidelines
This section includes a number of proposals for Design Guidelines and Facility
Standards, Focused Studies, and Area Studies that are intended to facilitate
implementation of the adopted Master Plan. Some are already available, or in production.
The list includes a significant number of items, but may not be comprehensive of all of
the suggestions contained within the body of the plan text. The authors should assure that
the list is comprehensive upon plan adoption.
Conclusion
The Master Plan is a well-written, logical document that deals with a number of issue areas
associated with operation of the University. Once 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. Plan implementation should also reduce the impact of the
University on the surrounding community, even with an expanding student population. The Plan
contains proposals for reorganization, redevelopment and intensification of various land uses that
are consistent with contemporary urban planning theory. Intensification of the instructional core,
relocation and extension of circulation facilities, provision of perimeter parking facilities
convenient to major university entrances, promotion of alternative modes of transportation,
designation of protected natural areas, and an enlightened housing policy exemplify beneficial
design features. 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.
While this may be true, most persons in the community are concerned with those aspects of the
plan that directly impact them and their daily lives, such as student housing, automobile traffic
parking, and noise. The City provides a vital link between the University and the community
and has, therefore, focused its earlier comments, and those proposed in this report, on these
concerns. A continued responsiveness to our comments, along with those offered by RQN, can
go a long way toward addressing long-standing concerns and will usher in a new era of
cooperation regarding campus growth and development issues.
Finally, one of the most significant contributions of the Master Plan is the open and inclusive
process that has been followed during its development. A new paradigm of campus-community
interaction has been established by utilizing community task forces, multiple, progressive draft
document review, and public meetings for comment. University President Baker has stated that
the Plan is intended to be a living document, and that he expects cooperative interaction to
continue into the future. Continuing review and improvement activities could begin as early as
the first quarter of 2001. The City is enthusiastic about participating in this opportunity to jointly
guide the future development of our community and its surroundings. Through such cooperation,
1B-11
ATTACHMENT 2 %es. 1
DISPOSITION OF CITY COMMENTS FROM THE JUNE 69 2000,
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Bold, italicized text relates to the disposition of each comment based on the October 10,
2000, Cal Poly Master Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report
Ch. 2- Guiding Framework
13 Transportation Programs (Question 3 second bullet)
Page 1 of 15
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:
1. "Taking actions that cause students, faculty and staff to shift away
from automobiles toward alternative transportation systems..."
Language unchanged Additional consideration should be given to making a
bolder, action biased, statement promoting alternative transportation.
Pg. 35, Ouestion 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.
The Master Plan includes a listing of current and projected Studies, Standards
and Guidelines, starting at page 337, that are intended to facilitate
implementation of the adopted Master Plan. Included is an item titled "Utility
Capacity and Distribution Studies". which will respond to this comment The
Plan also includes a specific section titled "Communications and
Consultation'; page 333, which defines a commitment to interaction with
appropriate community agencies, groups and individuals during Plan
implementation.
Ch.3, Long-Range Enrollment Scenarios
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. A well-planned and administered evening program would
provide class availability to regular students who have employment or similar-
1B-14
c,x t y 0� SAn
QQATTACHMENT 1
off Cit O �a7 OBISPO
N oy
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
(its 0' 990 Palm Street■San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249■ 8051781-7119■ FAX 805f781-7109
June 12, 2000
Warren Baker,President
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo,CA 93407
Dear Dr. Baker:
First,on behalf of the San Luis Obispo City Council,we wish to thank you for the inclusive and open process that
has been followed in your preparation of the Preliminary Draft of the Cal Poly Master Plan. Allowing the various
stakeholder groups to have early, substantive input has resulted in a document that appears to be very well done
and broadly supported. Everyone associated with production of the document are to be commended for the effort-
As you know,the Preliminary Draft was initially introduced to the City Council in April. Since that time our staff
has had the opportunity to review it in detail. On June 6,2000,the City Council considered our staffs'
recommendations,along with added public input. We now offer our formal comments on the draft,which are
attached. We ask that you incorporate into the final draft as many of our suggestions as possible.
To put our comments into context,we recognize that the Master Plan effort is primarily driven by the University's
educational function,and so it contains several elements that are of little direct concern to our residents(i.e.
curriculum,organization). Therefore, we have focused our comments on what most of residents are concerned
with,which are those plan aspects that directly impact them in their neighborhoods—for example, student housing,
automobile traffic and parking, lighting and noise. In this regard,we are also forwarding suggestions provided by
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods(RQN). RQN represents those most directly affected by on-campus activities
and development,and we ask that you give their suggestions very serious consideration.
Our single, strongest recommendation has to do with implementing the plan. We ask that you assure that the
necessary resources are in place—and accountability appropriately assigned—so that future changes on campus are
managed with a sincere commitment toward protecting existing neighbors. "Keeping the faith"in this regard is
simply essential,if we are to overcome trust and other issues that have surrounded enrollment and campus growth
issues for many years.
In closing, we wish to thank you once again for your diligence and inclusiveness in preparing a plan that not only
addresses the needs of the University, but that is also sensitive to the very legitimate concerns of residents. This
kind of continuing partnership bodes well for the future. We look forward to working with you as the plan is
implemented over the next several years.
Sincerely,
Allen K. ettle `
Mayor
Attachments: 1. City Comments
2. RQN Comments
L❑ The City of San lads Ob+soo is commmed to Include Me disabled in all ol Its services,programs and aalliin-13
(� Telecommunications DeVIM for the Deal(805)781-7410 �',
ATTACHMENT 2
Ch. 5,Physical Plan Elements
Pg. 59,Circulation,Alternative Transportation and Parldn�
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
Ping.
Ident{fied text (now located on page 69) is unchanged However, pages 176
through 180 of the current text accommodate a specific section titled "Alternative
Transportadon". The initial sentence of that section indicates the importance of
alternative transportation concepts to the campus community and the successful
implementation of the plan. It reads: "The need to bring people to campus in a
more efficient and environmentally responsible way is so important that the
subject merits a separate element in the Master Plan':
Pg62 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.
A Master Plan implementation study titled "Highway I Housing Sites Study" is
proposed at page 339, including coordination with CalTrans and the City. The
Draft EIR also notes that consultation will be required Additional policy
language should be added to the Master Plan text to insure that City design
policies and standards are followed to the greatest extent possible.
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.
Rater quality is addressed in the Draft EIR,pages 230—233. The conclusions
are that water quality impacts resulting from plan implementation will be at, or
can be mitigated to less than, significant levels.
1B-16
ATTACHMENT 2a. 2
conflicts during the day, as well as other community members who might not
otherwise be able to take advantage of the University resource.
Reflected in revised text pages 26 and 27.
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.
Utilities Capacity and Distribution Studies, and consultation with the City, are
proposed, pages 333 through 338. Cal Poly staff indicates that the preferred
1.5% growth rate would. not result in deficiencies in water supply when
evaluated using the City's stringent drought analysis criteria.
P¢. 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.
Title changed
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.
Text amended to reference Public Utilities Commission.
-0° 49 Existing Conditions Constraints and Opportunities Analysis: Traffic
Higbland Drive west of the Cal Poly campus is another student-impacted area where
residents have complained about traffic speeds and volumes. The Murray Street
area and bridging streets between California Boulevard and Grand Avenue — e.g.
Fredericks Street—would also likely be affected.
Reference to Highland Drive included in revised text
1B-15
ATTACHMENT 2 %.5 .
The Plan notes at page 136 that State University policy requires non-
discrimination in all on-campus housing. Fraternal and other organizations
having qualified membership must, therefore, be located off-campu& In the
short-run this approach conforms to City General Plan Housing Element Policy
8.3.4. However, that same policy promotes the long-run location of
fraternity/sorority living groups on-campus.
Pg. 130, "Environmental Consequences"boxes
The 1997 EIR for the Cal Poly Sports Complex is referenced in these boxes. In
addition, the August, 1997, Final Sound Study for the Cal Poly Sports Complex,
prepared for the City by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., should be referenced and
utilized during preparation of the environmental impact report for the Plan.
The Draft EIR discusses noise impacts on page 290 through 292 The Jones and
Stokes study is not currently referenced, but should be to indicate and verify its
use in preparing the document
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.
Plan text,page 156, was modified to recognize this comment
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.
1B-18
ATTACHMENT 2 MA
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.
The development of Best Management Practices (BMP) is included in the
Implementation Chapter, page 338. BMPs are referenced in the Outdoor
Teaching and Learning section,pages 86-99, relative to program issues as well
as physical concerns.
Pe 45 Plan Components-Overall Future Land Use(naragxauh 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.
This issue is evaluated in the Draft EIR, with the FoothiU/California intersection
being projected at Level of Service (LOS) D following Master Plan
implementation.LOS D is acceptable by City standards.
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.
Non-student housing needs are recognized in the revised text at page 126.
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.
1B-17
ATTACHMENT 2 PG- 7
The modal split information included in the Plan indicates that almost 40% of the
students are commuting to school by walling. 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.
No change-in current text The Communication and Implementation section,
beginning on page 333,promotes cooperation between the University and the City
in these types of planning activities. University commitment to this type of
cooperation will facilitate a higher level of awareness and accuracy in both
jurisdictions.
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 ratios between the current base year situation and the forecast year of 2021.
The revised text does not include a percentage relationship of the parking demand
numbers. Page 185 does include a statement regarding the production of a
campus access and parking management plan to implement the Master Plan, and
a Parking Management focused study is included in the Implementation section,
page 338. This study should be given high priority considering the importance of
parking impacts, and the need for strong commitment to effective mitigation
measures.
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.
Freshman Parking, and Geographic(parking) Controls are included atpage 185.
COMMUNITY COMMENTS
By telephone message to City staff, 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.
Parking and traffic problems in residential neighborhoods adjacent to campus are
the concern of a number of community residents. The Circulation and Parking
1B-20
ATTACHMENT
Incentives are discussed on page 178, and a Bicycle System study is included as a
Master Plan implementation effort at page 338
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.
Development of a "second use" water system for landscape irrigation is now
included at page 154.
PQ 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-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
term 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.
These and related ideas will be addressed in the focused implementation study
"Access and Alternative Transportation"; noted on page 337, that is now
underway.
Pg. 163,Modal-Split Table
IB-1/
ATTACHMENT � .
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 housing 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 welt as projected future shortages.
Suggested text changes are not included The Plan section Residential
Communities, beginning at page 124, states that with the addition of 3,000 beds
during the plan period approximately one-third of the undergraduate student
population can be housed on-campus. Planned faculty and staff
accommodations would further mitigate the housing impact of enrollment
expansion.Appropriate locations for university related residential development,
and funding to produce such housing, are restraining factors on the total
amount of housing that can be provided
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 ongoing conflicts between the University and established
residential neighborhoods the University shall be proactive in
enforcing its agreements rather than reactive and complaint
driven."
1B-22
ATTACHMENT 2 TG-S
sections of the Master Plan, as well as the Draft EIR analysis pay particular
attention to these issues. A number of policies and mitigations are included in
various sections that aim to alter the use of automobiles by faculty and students,
and thus reduce these impacts to acceptable levels.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM RESIDENTS FOR QUALITY
NEIGHBORHOODS FOR PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODSIN 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.
Recommended text not added to Master Plan. Cal Poly staff feels that the
Master Plan and its associated Draft EIR mitigate the anticipated impacts(on
and off campus) to the greatest extent possible, but that it cannot be promised to
eliminate impacts entirely in either area.
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.
Cal Poly staff states that the Master Plan/EIR process.was structured to
mitigate impacts(on and off campus)as the Plan was developed, through
various appropriate changes to the Plan design. In many cases,future
implementation of the various Plan programs and projects will require
additional environmental evaluation to assure adequate mitigation based on a
more complete understanding of project details.
1B-21
ATTACHMENT 2 ,. tt
Comment noted Response not required
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.
The suggested changes have not been made to this paragraph, now located
on page 59. Cal Poly staff indicates that the Draft EIR evaluates noise
impacts and mitigation on pages 288 through 292.
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
Stack Street in the Monterey Heights Neighborhood. This area is also
identified on Page 179-80 as 'one potential site for ancillary facilities".
The Constraints Summary map remains unchanged,.but should be
amended to include designation of the Goldtree site. The Goldtree area does
appear on other maps,for example the Land Use map on page vi. The
Goldtree site and related constraints are discussed in the text at pages 59-60,
and 195-197. Chapter 7,Implementation, includes a proposed "Goldtree
Area Service Provisions"study. Regarding the potential neighborhood
conflict designation for Slack Street, east of Grand, Cal Poly staff comments
that the map shows general areas of conflict rather than specific blocks or
streets.
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 exisfing
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
1B-24
ATTACHMENT 2 M. 10
Rationale: This is a Task Force recommendation for proactively
eliminating ongoing conflicts between Cal Poly and neighborhoods.
The suggested text is not included in this paragraph, now located at the bottom
of page 57. Cal Poly staff respond that the Master Plan I EIR process itself is
proactive in anticipation of change and inclusion of appropriate mitigation. In
particular, Chapter 7,Implementation, is seen as continuing community dialog
into the future in a proactive fashion.
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
mitigated by appropriate 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.
The suggested text is not included in this paragraph, now located at the top of
page 59. Cal Poly staff indicates that the Draft EIR evaluates light and glare
impacts and mitigation on pages 294 and 295. Inclusion of the proposed text is
appropriate in light of the EIR evaluation and reducing the need to refer to that
document, and for clarity in the.plan text
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.
1B-23
ATTACHMENT 2 tk 1:
The suggested text is not included The area near the Grand/Slack Street
intersection is being proposed for 136 beds of upper division or married
student housing. See pages 130 and 132. Pages 134-136 discuss the
staff'/faculty housing proposed for two sites west of Highway 1, north of
Highland Housing is evaluated at several points in the Draft EIR.
Page 129. First paragraph, last sentence.
Discussion: This is very good. It parallels the Task Force guiding
principle.
Comment noted, response not required
Page 130. "Environmental Consequences" first box
Action: Add last sentence: The 1997 "Sound study for the Cal Poly
worts 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.
Specified text now at page 143. Suggested additional text has not been
included Additional wording which addresses this comment has been
added at pages 143-145, and in the Draft EIR at pages 288-292. Cal Poly
staff notes the need to cite the Jones and Stokes 1997 sound study more
explicitly.
Page 130. "Environmental Consequences" second box
Action: Add a second section,"The 1997 "Sound study for the
Cal Poly Sports 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.
Now located on page 144, the text of the referenced "environmental
consequences"box has been changed, but does not include the suggested
additional language because impactss cannot be "eliminated". but instead
must be mitigated to an insignificant.level. See response to preceding
comment
Page 131. "Environmental Consequences" second box
Action: Add sentence, `This facility will be designed to eliminate -
these impactsn
Rationale: This is the Task Force guiding principle.
1B-26
ATTACHMENT 2. W Q
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.
Cal Poly staff notes that, with the exception of an expanded visitor's center
at the northeast corner of the Grand/Slack Street intersection,page 194,
and an informal recreation field at the northwest corner of the same
intersection,page140-142, no new development is proposed adjacent to
residential neighborhoods.
Page 50. "Satellite Development'
Discussion: The Goldtree site in the Cheda Ranch near Stenner
Creek Road and Hwy. I 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?
Yes. See discussion at pages 59-60, and 193-197.
Page 54. "Issues"
Discussion: This is great and. is incorporated into the "compatibility"
principles on Page 55
Comment noted; response not required
Page 120. "Environmental Consequences" bottom box.
Action: Change this to read: `These two sites are adiacent to single
family neighborhoods. The northeast comer of Slack and Grand is
currently undeveloped and is bisected by a vegetated drainage.
Development will be carefully designed to eliminate visual, noise, traffic,
and light 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 Hwv I and Highland Drive is a gateway entrance
to both Cal Po/y 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 adiacent to and higher than a
neighborhood of single story, single family homes to the west.
Development will be carefully'designed to preserve the panoramic view
of the Morros from the intersection of Highway I and Highland Drive and
to eliminate visual noise. and light impacts on the adjacent single story;
single family neighborhood.
1B-25
ATTACHMENT 2 TG. it
Suggested language not included The text included in the "environmental
consequences" box, now on page 195, has been greatly expanded,
indicating that anticipated impacts will be less than significant.
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 open
Mace on Bishop's 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 impacts
Suggested language not included The text included in the "environmental
consequences"box, now on pages 196-197, has been extensively modified
and expanded, indicating in general that anticipated impacts could be
mitigated to an insignificant level.Additional environmental analysis is
recommended in several subject areas as part of future environmental
review of specific projects-
IB-28
ATTACHMENT
Suggested additional language has not been included The text of the
referenced "environmental consequences"box, now located on page 145,
has been changed to state that anticipated lighting and noise effects can be
mitigated to a less than significant level. See discussion on pages 143-145,
and 288-292.
Page 168. "Environmental Consequences" second to last bullet,
Action: Add, "but will be designed to eliminate these impacts"
Rationale: This is the Task Force guiding principle.
Suggested additional language has not been included Tl:e "environmental
consequences"box on page 184 notes that light and glare impacts from
new parking structures are considered significant, but mitigable Lighting
impacts are discussed in the Draft EIR at pages 293-297.
Page 178. "Ancillary Activities and Facilities"
Discussion: This type of development has tremendous impacts on
neighborhoods.
Comment noted Response not required
Page 179. "Issues"
Action: Add a new, last bullet item: "New developments on campus
which are dependent on both the student population AND a large
commercial draw from non-student populations, may have
.14nificantly 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."
Rationale: This states Cal Polly's commitment to mitigate the impacts
of this type of development on established residential neighborhoods.
This is a Task Force recommendation. Page 6-1 2, #7 of the Staff
Report.
Suggested language not included Cal Poly staff notes that the Master Plan
does not propose ancillary facilities with a commercial component. The
Plan text should be amended to clarify what is intended as a "commercial
component". as well as the nature of the anticipated uses.
Page 180. "Environmental Consequences" top box.
Action:Add: The environmental consequences of ancillary facility
uses can be much greater than residential use impacts. The
environmental consequences of all ancillary facility uses adiacent to
the existing residential neighborhood will be explored. These include
traffic, noise, light, and visual impacts.
1B-27
ATTACHMENT 3 P.2
Plan principles incorporated the 500-plus recommendations from the campus and community
task forces. In the attached matrix,we have prepared a similar analysis showing where and how
the Master Plan and Draft EIR integrated the comments received on the Preliminary Draft. This
matrix shows that the Master Plan fully addressed many of the comments received and partially
addressed others. In about half a dozen cases,the Master Plan team considered,but was not able
to accommodate, a concern raised by a member of the campus or community—usually because
the request asked for consideration of an idea that is not consistent with the Cal Poly academic
mission and its responsibility as a member of the California State University system. Finally, a
number of comments suggested additional detail and refinement that can be accommodated more
appropriately in the follow-up studies and guidelines that will be developed to implement the
Master Plan. It is important to keep the Master Plan itself at the level of principle and policy for
review by the CSU Board of Trustees.
We thank you again for taking the time to contribute to the Cal Poly Master Plan,and welcome
your additional comments and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Linda C. Dalton, Ph.D.,AICP Robert E. Kitamura, AIA
Vice Provost for Institutional Planning Director of Facilities Planning
1B-30
ATTACHMENT 3 %. 1
CAL POLY
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
(805)756.2186 a Fax(805) 756-5292
November 14, 2000
Dear Cal Poly Campus and San Luis Obispo Community:
Some of you have asked why you do not see all of your earlier comments on the Preliminary
Draft Master Plan reflected directly in the Cal Poly Master Plan and Draft Environmental Impact
Report published in October. We hope you do not feel that your ideas have gone unheard or
unread. We have reviewed and discussed all the comments we received and incorporated them
throughout the document. Indeed, you will see major changes in the October release of the
Master Plan as a result of comments and suggestions on the Preliminary Draft.
As you know, Cal Poly has been developing the campus Master Plan through a process involving
extensive participation by the campus and community. In spring 1999 we received over 500
principles recommended by task force members. During fall 1999 and winter 2000 the Master
Plan team met with campus and community groups to discuss preliminary plan concepts. In
spring 2000 we received many pages of comments from about 50 individuals and organizations.
These included the following campus and community organizations and agencies: Cal Poly
Academic Senate, Associated Students, Inc.,Landscape Advisory Committee, Biological
Sciences Department, College of Agriculture Land Use Committee,City of San Luis Obispo,
County of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, the local Air Pollution
Control District, local chapter of the Sierra Club, and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods. We
also received extensive input in the form of student projects from four classes in the College of
Architecture and Environmental Design and the College of Engineering.
In such an interactive process,many groups' and individuals' ideas have.contributed to, and been
incorporated in, the Master Plan. Sometimes this work appears explicitly in the document,but,
more commonly, the text in the Plan represents a synthesis of ideas drawn from many sources.
For example, the Cal Poly Academic Senate, Deans' Enrollment Planning Advisory Committee,
and others expressed concern about operating budget support for the University, so we
incorporated the intent (although not the literal language) of these groups' statements in the
Guiding Framework and Implementation chapters.
This collaborative process contrasts with the formal response to comments that will occur with
the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report. At that point in the process, as required by
law,Cal Poly will respond point-by-point to each comment received.
We did not feel that it was necessary to provide responses in this form during the development of
the Master Plan. Instead, we developed a matrix in spring 2000 that showed how.the Master
1B-29
7b California Seca Udemlq-Bhetsimld•Channel IeLni s•Chita•riummiluat HJIt• Fresno•Fullerton •Hayward•Humboldt•Long Beach•Los Angeles-Mrtorme A.aJem
Mona ae,Ba,• North,iJrle • Pomona Sacramento •San Bernardino•San U,ea.• - Sam Francesco• San lose San Luis OMspo-San Marcor •Sonoma - Sundsus
ATTACHMENT 3 ,q
€fix
LL g m
Q
O
C
E m a € a
fs
m
= a baa " f
�$
W m 9
m O�
c d
N
g ao �b r S a g ai c v �' �' �' U m
Pa
iii U P' 2G R
g ^
m mm V L R Ci m N
g� d d... U fe �
R ,may-
0 6 91 .E -S d 2 R E Q. E
Cc a
N 0 m m U
96 LL e
00
ISO 331
= O C O Eir -E
02 0
ai5 � � m $Cc
ci
J=
ni
CL $
E
R b f_n
t L m
Pa.
OE
E
P § ? a
'm
c
m
5 U p�o Y m 00 c
O Tm 'a S " •g C y C Et
J z
Q Ud V � G
� s
S
@�
JJ $ ffi r
Q �` m F F W W W ^ ^ ^ ^ N N $$O o C
.9 O 00 $aa_c
1B-32
CAL POLY
Long-Range Enrollment Plan and Master Plan Update ATTACHMENT t M.3
Substantial Issues Raised b, Comments on May 2000 Preliminary Draft of the Master Plan
Responsibility for Action
Academic Quality and Character Executive Direction
Implications of enrollment growth in general
Distribution of enrollment growth by discipline(DEPAC findings)
Natural
Direction
Environment
Principle regarding environmental responsibility and environmental education
Full inventory of environmental resources
Brizzolara Creek enhancement area as Outdoor Teaching and Learning lab
Design Refinements,wV.in Campus Instructional Core MP Team Analysis
Building locations,pedestrian routes,access,safety,etc.
Residential Communities MP Team Analysis
Impact of proposed student housing(including parking and circulation)on Brizzolara Creek,EHS
Recreation,Athletics and Physical Education Executive Direction
Potential Mustang Stadium relocation(and reuse of existing stadium site)
Circulation MP Team Analysis
Foothill,RR track and California intersections and circulation
South Perimeter closure and circulation
Clarification of bicycle routes,storage,etc.
Alternative Transportation and Parking Executive Direction
More development of trip reduction policies and programs(without specifying operational measures)
Commitment to transit subsidy
Ancillary Activities and Facilities Executive Direction
Goldtree area proposals
Implementation Phasing and Staging Executive Direction
Concerns about capital and operating budgets,disruption,and follow through MP Team Analysis
Follow-up MP Team Analysis
Processes and procedures for land management
Note: This table focuses on major policy issues and does not include a longer list of items that can be
addressed as refinements to the plan andlor as environmental mitigation measures.
LCD,717100
DRAFT 1B-*1,omments4.xls
ATTACHMENT 3 �G,
a — a
a 0. 0. 4 Q a 6 Q Q d d a
Q V
O � S
IL
E
g � 12ru o its
Mu o g m
€ t1 All� f 9m i cS s �
s
m ¢
m O! N I�fI 1m Ypt YI Ip0 A O
m 6 m
0. C2N ' N
88 m
O m 0
IIVV R p� Ey -aa E
c O S a m c¢ m g E$ c £ $
umi m E nS = Wp 8 o
a 8 0
G � 9 ¢ o EQ GW U9
m tea. O o
v s m ' yCQ CmQ b W mrn sQm� EC o' rd ($9¢ @
m O C C tD C 0E t4 '" y¢ m C
O p LZ G G
CLLD
o ; m c
FE m@ E r t
@ `� L m F$ v+
W O C N Q C0 6 m C216 VJ U O f l V m
4C a eye
Om E ar '� a e v em vii e m
F m - q
E a E
m
(L 3 E
00 mo ZZ
t 2
O C nZ JE
�
YJ
z 6 g 3 a m m S z a
S VE Cc 5 to
¢ 3
Ekg v p m � C Eames
C
m
ray n
m m e r m
$ $ u r a m w E
�a m
C U. c C C U UV as r .
V
m
E 2 o
E? Z mo o 0 0 0 a € mm 0 3 a r�
Q 2 fPl.. N O: w ¢ 0: ¢ ¢
H
66
Z Z ��Im- .
1B-34
ATTACHMENT 3 RG.%T
ay� < 6 0
< 3 a Q y v y a a a U
Q J ^ m
V
E
m
a
w60Ti
m
Sc
g N i3 a�•s -
m = ' V N N
m
IL .9
oCL $
00
s oa
a
o 8 8 m
m e is
Z = p a
o m a o e Q E
�m '0CL
"
Cc
J N mWm m m � a mpp OM
O m m m m N CLm
z
� LLD
51 v
r (N�
cb
qC LL 0^ N ib
m L E N r r oa ao
d a N N N
L m r r >
€ L� m
o $ 5 8 .. 9 ! $
IL e & o T�n m 6 o g E
m
z
° e L 8 m
E c Qv € 3WE 3 : ! s 8 z ma v
m
C
12
CL
CO
m
E �a d v
E m U m ¢ Tii m p ffi � ma
) B 7
UP ¢ a C c3A H U m ¢ m x v2.8
LL
LL
N N N N N N N N N m oa m 1 F
RR P h
Cc � $ 34CL°
1B-33
ATTACHMENT 3 FC-4.e
¢
a 8
� sz � g �
m
g msf
ci
ZE
E V
¢ > E m g
W pp� b m 6 m •K'cc 2 .6
9 - a.8 m C co _ S 33SGSSS ro 5 GS
m re a ae bi
cc C4
LU
dd U%
8 6 �
u� v
0
og� g
S O m @ o
B n U c r
m
bz $ E a
Cc
v o $ we00
o
m m o U m m
u gQc mL m in
OL
3 m o m V T+ y
U Q c 6elf
CP
c o o c
E SE :E m
CL 5
4, � t
om m 33' S .5 0 5 m y LP •6q m g S
O C ,c 3 Z• QQ rm 9 E 8 E L m E; ' $8 cF
e .$i+
c m .� ,g�z py E @ 5 U-300
oCL
C7 m � z a 2255 g'w m o m
m � a.a
n c N •� ffi E m rn E p m
_ 2 c E
E m S m a B c cm o m S p,
V2
m LLLCSSS Tin d i3 U �i c 3 w z fo
U) ;5 W YWO
d
A
m b d
p N C
m
•� m m
C3LL S2
�2$
a C 8 V U U V U U U U U U U G ¢ m Y p
¢ aa=
1B-36
ATTACHMENT 3 tea.'
a
LL my
� E
� E
$ a
o_ mme
s
m
# m � m
g ' �
m �p
C O m m
o 4-
z ma Q E m
25
W .o. ,a '% m 112
m m T$ v mg
ucj
y �' 3 0 8m 8Q 8E $s� 2 � �
Jvol zm � � m il
� fi g � m
S�
vu
smut � � 4
CE
r
U� cIL us
qo o m
m
IL g o o
amE � = E g
�„ N E �Q C•15 O m = o m
p C [ma V YP a O.
E 3 a S
� � •= m a � s g � ao. � � $gf
.21 CC W 8Cs LL 1 SNy mq
s a �8g �
IL w pd. LL 4y3.
88 m & m c m
0
mU ' mn. � m tS EL° .1 _ oull
E 6 m . , m = z o
E
N �77 s
D N uS n ^ m
Cc
$ d d U5 a s
� M � � UV 'chi V � UV za
C
Em m m Ern
as 0 C @ L
t
E _ s s1 �roa.
ci g
LL ¢ r� cg aft$ o H ¢ vi ¢ Ea8u
LL W W W W W W W W m$a~oL
S 860.°C
1B-35
ATTACHMENT 3 .IC
Ms= x
¢ � J
D
� o
5
m .F rn 5554 m m �d
m �
m13
ma E. $ � $ � Sv m gm gm g'W
Q ,so .6 8 � ' �' 38 mfi � m
rD .0 TL
g E E m
� E
egg $ Ofa P, g w
' m m
g B s IT:
m �
m
W a' v I! e
.m m
WE
5 m9 E= o.d c v c
a s gm g E E v b
7'oe w E H t 8rn mm mm
J N cm m O n CT c E E m
4 00
aJ A vii � r v 3 cn 8 a
Qe pp _
O c 4 0 Of l7 m� O g di - r!
m m E lVV vii
c m=
.§ d
i ..r
IL QQ 8' m
5 m n 6
c
¢ E P r$
E o
o + m 8
01 c m 'a di m
U E E E E V m .q E 8 �y S am a m
o V v
v uuSYt m m E A
E
v,v
N g
o
� o
E
c Ln a = 2-CZ
Q =3 3 m - c
.0 y $ W o4
U � Om. c U 0 > V 0 c a
QFE
c fA V o E c
m v c
Td
1 o :Cm . ..$ _ TE E mmC m § O O �' i$Eo �'� S m O O 0 tw wcc a4r � 6 m u
V S U. IFA cA ¢ N S � � mJ c
F
Q
=. W W U V U U V V V U U o d oC
¢ ¢ ¢ j� q ■ ■ i
1B-38
ATTACHMENT 3 FG. �
h _o
LL m�^F_
Q Q g
V
1
c
a
E _
8 t
t 2. 1
LM ` � � 5a m
¢ m = m s
E
C N
W O
cc
¢
0 2 w b
¢
C
d g i rs
s
¢ 0 0 - 6 1 'R
v 7S Ito 0 0 ; v
m mCE CO `m E c .4
2 2
Jio Jio C% c am
J
<o � : g m m
� E a4' m ^_ ab R
4 6
L gs ry
(L F m Y t m =
.e W
m m m v $ `a rn mgq
e C e v O
Y
m d
E ers = $ v v 9 r SQ 3
9 E E E `o m 9 $L21 a
3 m
zC� s
m
E Q
) p T C
C
m
E
c
N EI V C
a rt b LD
s
r cacr covyM c
Q L g W W 6 S S Q Q Q S m y O C
¢ V ¢ ¢ U c a
1B-37
ATTACHMENT 3 '�G. 12
CpCp9
6 •� d - - a d d d - d d a - O,m
� m =
m c $ $ E
9Ct � W g p
`m m
E o
o
t0 j�
� ¢ LhFi n e
CL
m d m m ^ p
8Q20 dQ Oov le`b
N S T.
y � v
U L m c E O m ¢ m E
m
v m O S S
¢ m C m
CE
m
m
c m a c =
a EFE
o.
a m ¢ v w
LE Sm a
t g rd' Gr m o m '!V, m
to 'oZE
U m N 1
`E
E E cli
� g ffi
CL Qg0 L21
�y
CL
E S ' m
o E g 0 'm $ g . m
2@2�.
ts
IL
u) Cl
G ^ h N m
. NNN C
m
c T.2 Z: U Q 5 'vQj ,gym n C
PL i
O moa v v OJ h U U N U m
d U) y U d N a a c
E E m LD
OE E
eCF
(JA ¢ N ¢
F Y Y fn
y
6 6 Q 6 6 1 e a rL K h M $Gqu Y- Cul
1B-40
ATTACHMENT 3 Fes. t
LL _ d a
v
� 9
m
CL : a rZ m
syayPL
95
lea � @
j
Jq
gam = S � .
¢ m $ r2 TL
m j2 ur3 aEi d ig$$ @ Sgg$ dE
O E sS_
o D a
CL
O A m m
R s rL- s
as a
N
E
s m m $
E E m v
Pa m
Q m m
R� E mE E
a i� U m U m f3 $ C
V C
m m E o a v
rnm
E d
CL A
Q � o
N r .ng cW of
WSig
cc
m EE $
E o � bq mm � �.S .� H $ _ � S •n d g t gA r�� m � $; e`S �' S
C 15 2f $m m am 'Cf 2g5 a m�i 0 b@
m ti
N m _
7 T 7+ m
m o C4
m
W G gm C
C-I _ji7 a W T W T j g c
a m o V �o 8 $ ?s ¢ fy a E a ¢ a ¢ a s n
a a ¢�i a o - o acs m � -a mcn ac0 as cm
caic �< �j �a �4a cia � c� V � � c' � CF
G C7 U $o c
E w c d Y @�r
m
g � 21
LL - v v v v v v v v v mat'c
Qcit as=c
1B-39
ATTACHMENT 3 %. 14
r COQ W
E
LL m e
¢ U J
c
L �
L 0
V0
E � e
W $e S a
E E �
1 c IC m
IL
m W W W N
C C
W
IL A $
u
CL
vo : _
E
E d s
m
a`
d o m of U �CC m
m m EO C m N W
U € g rI
8 m '� id s gc �U E
e m a ' _ E m 7f: W •S' c
2 Coe
we b@ W
m E kia .3U � .ra G • ' 10 !t� Rmc
CL
52
VG
� _
m
E o o a.to 2m m Y v 2 m
2
E cc
o
T
� C m
3 C
m
2` w w acc
a m e
ci3 a � aC5 iom ao � m
a o W Qcai z •� c�$ < g'a
W & ofjg
co
E2 � of cc
m
LL �, ooC
R o n n
¢ U R66 bU
1B-42
ATTACHMENT 3 'PC. 13
a a d
• ca E
� E
0 u
$ 8 � .
'� E Sm mrd E � 9
S E m Ed
D 1ErLi
E $ Q E
m ¢^
mm
B
is f3U
CC
� S 5 222iii
o m m s $ a s s
c rs C C D O c
0
j m E 8 s m cd r O
L m of m Yf Yf Uf
Umm
J '1' O s m
y (� 1
UO C d Pf a0 m W W
� d6g n eb
m �
IL o
g mm
�e c E
o S S co n m a3 @ S m E
cc
E cRg" `p� 8 S L_ `. �
9 v m S fc 06 m T
IL
A2
mm > $ a cvm c5� Sra mm o ao
s
rs
E @ c m a cc m 8 $ g a m
c € E m E m £ c3 E E 2
g2 V ? O 3 CS U m cal C7 E a chi a
t
E § >
c § T m y c
y Sf N N ^ b aUS G
C
_
RXX aQi d. S 8 o f a aus n fmc pE�1m
m T Q rp
v U m U U C m
a Uca8vg
0 is c �
CLu 0 Tb 0
10
m
it
a m o C5
a 8 zd
ILL
H
7d' 7d' 7d' n
cc V
1B-41
December 6,2000
DRAFT ATTACHMENT 4 PG 15
Warren Baker,President
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Dear Dr. Baker:
The City of San Luis Obispo is greatly appreciates the opportunity to again review the
evolving Cal Poly Master Plan,now including the Draft Environmental Impact report.
The extensive and inclusive process of community involvement during preparation and
refinement of the plan is evident, and we have been most impressed with your use of
public meetings, the Internet and even CD's.
As you recall,the City provided comments on the earlier draft of the plan, and we are
gratified to see that,with few exceptions,those comments have been incorporated into
the current Master Plan draft through changes to the plan itself, analysis in the Draft EIR,
or by designation for analysis as part of future implementation studies. Our comments on
the current draft are included as an attachment to this letter.
While the University is cognizant of the concerns of its neighbors, and is actively
pursuing solutions to the issues presented,the comments provided by one of our citizen
groups,the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN),were not incorporated to the
same extent as those of the City. We recognize that this may, in part,be due to the
inability of the University to guarantee the desired outcomes. However,the plan and the
EIR deal with many of the issues raised by RQN, and inclusion of the requested language
(or a reasonable modification) appears worthy of additional consideration. In some cases
we even offer specific recommendations.
Notwithstanding the extensive analysis given to housing, traffic and parking,
environmental protection, and other significant issues, our strongest recommendation
continues to be for realistic and sincere implementation, once the plan is adopted. The
closing section of the plan, Communication and Consultation,holds great promise that an
active partnership of the University, the City, and its residents will continue unabated
toward that end.
We look forward to working with you to the conclusion of the planning process, and the
ultimate realization of its goals.
Sincerely,
Allen K. Settle
Mayor
Attachment: City comments on Master Plan draft and EIR
1B-43