Cassandra Keyse

Research Paper

March 5, 2008

Cal Poly’s Master Plan for Success

Sustainability, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, is “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (“Sustainability”). This term refers to the active effort of changing our negative behavior towards the environment today so that the environment is preserved for future generations to live and thrive in. At Cal Poly, sustainability has become a major theme campus-wide. Evidence of sustainability is present in campus clubs such as the Empower Poly Coalition, the campus recycling program, the organic farm, and the building projects that have been ever-present on campus. Because of its huge presence in California, the CSU system has taken on “the responsibility to be a wise steward of scarce resources by reducing the use of non-renewable resources and increasing energy efficiency” (Klemm). Cal Poly has taken it upon itself to become a leader and an example of university sustainable development by following the example set by the California State University system. In accordance with Cal Poly’s and the CSU’s commitment to sustainability, Cal Poly’s Master Building Plan is designed to accommodate increasing attendance rates in an environmentally friendly manner.

The Master Plan originated in 1938 as a plan to develop parts of the campus during World War II. From this early edition came the construction of buildings such as the Walter F. Dexter building which was completed in 1949 (“Campus Architecture”). The following installment of the Master Plan was in 1949 and was dubbed the “horseshoe plan.” This portion of the plan includes agriculture units such as the slaughter house, the steer unit, the horse and beef pavilion, as well as the science building located at the center of campus. In 1962, the current model of the Master Plan was created. This base plan has experienced seventeen revisions since 1962, each expanding the campus further and further in order to accommodate a continually expanding attendance rate (Master Plan History”). The current plan “focuses on redeveloping and consolidating academic facilities within an expanded core, protecting natural environmental features, and sustaining outdoor teaching and learning lands” (“Cal Poly’s Preliminary”). RRM Design Group designed Cal Poly’s current Master Plan. “The Plan addresses academic program demand; physical constraints; environmental protection; development of new residential communities and recreation areas; and capital and operating budget requirements necessary to support an increase in future student enrollment” (RRM Design Group).

Sustainability has played a major role in the current enactment of the Master Plan. One major aspect of the plan currently under construction is Poly Canyon Village, formerly known as Student Housing North. Details of this housing project include: 20 acres of land, 867 apartments, two parking structures, 16,500 square feet of retail space within the total 1.4 million square feet of the project, and just over 2,500 additional on-campus beds. Sustainability of this project has been a top priority (“Building for Sustainability”). The project qualifies for LEED Certification, which stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. LEED has a rating system in which construction projects are given a score that classifies the project as “green” or not. “It aims to improve occupant well-being, environmental performance and economic returns of buildings using established and innovative practices, standards and technologies” (“Green Building”). The sustainable aspects of Poly Canyon Village include: providing more beds on campus, reducing daily commuting to and from campus, preserving Brizzolara Creek by relocating animal units and other facilities surrounding the creek, central heating plants, the use of certified wood products and low emitting materials, as well as some other sustainable benefits (“Building for Sustainability”).

Some aspects of the Master Plan have caused controversy, however. The proposed expansion of the current Recreation Center was approved by the student body after a campus-wide vote on Wednesday and Thursday, February 27^th and 28^th, 2008. According to ASI President Brandon Souza in an article that appeared in the February 27^th issue of the Mustang Daily on the first day of voting, "‘ASI has a commitment to sustainability and is serving as a model to CSU system, but by tearing into a 15-year-old building, it is going to be hard for us to be sustainable and it might not be cost effective.’" According to Souza, building for sustainability would be more expensive than not, but this option has not been out-ruled entirely (Carlson). There are those who oppose the increase in fees that future students would have to pay in order to cover the cost of sustainable construction. As student body president, Souza wants to do what is good for the students, which in this case is expanding the Recreation Center, but he also has to keep in mind the costs of doing so The argument is between how much money building for sustainability would cost versus the benefits of using sustainable construction techniques in the future.

Personally, I believe that if the university and ASI want to uphold their commitment to sustainability, then the only way to construct any building on campus is to use sustainable practices. By having the Recreation Center be remodeled by LEED standards, the quality of the building itself will be greatly improved. “Although the emphasis [of LEED] is on reducing a building's carbon emissions, other measures include providing views, implementing water conservation and reduction strategies to the building and exterior landscaping, and ensuring indoor air quality by prohibiting the use of chemicals (typically VOCs and formaldehyde) for indoor products, such as paints, furniture and carpets” (Castello). Contrary to the belief that making the project LEED certified will cost students more than the proposed fee increase of $65 once the center opens in the Fall of 2011, there will not be any further increase in the fee. Although the project is projected to cost $72 million, “it is necessary to point out that case studies of LEED-certified buildings show long-term cost benefits, which will be beneficial for future ASI needs” (Castello). The project would expand the building from 65,000 to 130,000 square feet, a reasonable size for the ever-expanding student population living both on and off campus (Wilson).

The master plan was put in place as a guideline to improving on-campus life. It is more than a set of blueprints for a construction site. The incorporation of sustainable building practices with LEED certification in projects such as Poly Canyon Village and the proposed Recreation Center expansion have made the master plan one to be imitated by other universities, within and outside of the California State University System. Under the student leadership of the Empower Poly Coalition and the Associated Students, Inc., Cal Poly students are making a statement that will positively affect current and future Mustang students.

Works Cited

“Building for Sustainability.” Cal Poly Sustainability Website. 25 Jan 2008. 25 Feb 2008 <http://www.facilities.calpoly.edu/campusprojects/projects/sustainability/photoshop/shn_points.pdf >.

“Cal Poly's Preliminary Master Plan Draft Available for Public Review.” CSU Newsline. 1 May 2000. 29 Feb 2008 <http://www.calstate.edu/newsline/Archive/99-00/000501-SLO.shtml>.

“Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Campus Master Plan.” RRM Design Group. 2008. 25 Feb 2008 <http://www.rrmdesign.com/?s=5projects&c=architecture&id=54>.

“Campus Architecture Index.” Cal Poly Facilities and Planning Website. 2005. 25 Feb 2008 <http://facilities.calpoly.edu/bldg_archive/archiveIndex.htm>.

Carlson, Cassandra. “A Platform in Progress.” Mustang Daily Online. 27 Feb 2008. 29 Feb 2008 <http://www.mustangdaily.net/home/index.cfm?event=display

ArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=7af4341a-3eff-464e-9621-ab7678a904c9>.

Castello, Lucia. “Vote to make Cal Poly LEED-er.” Mustang Daily Online. 22 Feb 2008. 12 Mar 2008 <http://media.www.mustangdaily.net/media/storage/paper860/news

/2008/02/22/Columns/Vote-To.Make.Cal.Poly.LeedEr-3227937.shtml>.

Faler, Brian. “Census Details Voter Turnout for 2004.” The Washington Post Online. 26 May 2005. 29 Feb 2008 < http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501965.html>.

“Green Building Rating System.” U.S. Green Building Council. 14 Mar 2003. 29 Feb 2008 <http://www.facilities.calpoly.edu/campusprojects/projects/sustainability/

photoshop/LEEDCertDoc.pdf>.

Klemm, Aaron. “Protecting California’s Environment and Economy.” The California State University. 28 Feb 2008. 29 Feb 2008 <http://www.calstate.edu/cpdc/sustainability/>.

“Master Plan History.” Cal Poly Facilities and Planning Website. 29 Feb 2008 <http://www.facilities.calpoly.edu/masterplan/archive/history/master.htm>.

“Rec Center Expansion Plan FAQ.” Recreation Center Expansion Website. 2007. 29 Feb 2008 <http://www.recexpansion.com/faq.php#faq15>.

“Sustainability.” Environmental Protection Agency Website. 15 Jan 2008. 29 Feb 2008 <http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/>.

Wilson, Nick. “Cal Poly students will be asked to pay more if they want rec center upgrade.” San Luis Obispo Tribune Online. 4 Dec 2007. 12 March 2008 < http://www.sanluisobispo.com/calpoly/story/210292.html>.

---