SSU Master Plan Revision

Parking and Vehicular Circulation Comments and Responses

1. Have the handicapped parking spaces been planned yet? People tended to like Lot D for handicapped parking. I anticipate that there will need to be more van handicapped parking (these van spaces are twice as wide as a regular parking space). There is a formula for number of handicapped spaces per number of regular spaces, but where the spaces are located is important, too. When it comes time to decide where these spaces will be located, the Disability Resource Center knows of students who would like to express their opinion.

2. The North Entrance, as currently proposed, violates current main entrance design standards (the classic boulevard with a park-lawn separator).

• Response: There are currently no "main entrance design standards." Design of the North Entrance will be determined through this Master Plan Revision.

3. The North Entrance is inadequate to the peak demand for ingress and egress when we are projecting as many as 10,000 people attending an open-air concert at the Music Center.

4. The proposal for a reserve lot and two open lots consumes an incredible amount of land; a multi-level parking structure should be considered both here and where lots J and F now exist on either side of the South Entrance. The first bullet-point of Issue 10 really needs rethinking!

• Response: "Rethinking" in what regard? Anything other than considering a parking structure?

5. The plan should address parking, vehicular, and pedestrian issues related to the development of the land north of Copeland Creek and west of the proposed new north parking lot -- especially the relationship of housing (student, faculty & staff), commercial and other uses.

• Response: The Master Plan is precluded from addressing property not currently owned by the University. The University does not own the property north of Copeland Creek and west of the proposed new north parking lot.

6. In Issue 9 ("Ensure that new North Entry is appropriately integrated into campus"), landscaping should be consistent both with the existing landscaping of the South Entrance, as should the design, and with indigenous species and introduced species consistent with the area. In particular, the use of California & Live Oak, Toyon, Buckeye, Madrone, Manzanita, Redwood, California Bay, etc.. Also in particular, NOT Eucalyptus, English Laurel, etc.

7. I strongly support the second & third points in issue 9 ("Site new classroom/laboratory/office buildings along continuation of North Entry road to reinforce academic image of campus"; "Pay careful attention to design of future physical education facilities, to ensure that their design will support the continuation of North Entry Road").

8. Regarding Issue 10, bullet-point 2 ("Eliminate most parking from the central campus core, supporting central campus core as a pedestrian-oriented area.") -- should maintain Lots A and D for Reserve, Visitor, and Disabled parking, as well as for parking associated with the Information Center and the University Center. Put the Student Housing presently proposed for Lot D on land North of campus and immediately north of existing student housing.

9. Regarding Issue 10, bullet-point 3 ("Reduce width of roadways and provide a turnaround for general traffic at entry plaza to Sauvignon Village. Provide only restricted parking beyond this point.") -- since, with the exception of the now gone Construction Road, there is neither pedestrian nor vehicle access, I'm not sure what's being reduced. However, I would maintain a reconfigured Construction Road in an east-west direction along the south side of Sauvignon Village to the west end of Lot J, at a width the same as current Redwood Circle. This should be adequate both for Student Housing and for General Parking in Lot J.

10. Support relocation of Athletic Fields to the area south of Redwood Circle.

11. What is the possibility of a parking garage? This would eliminate issues of space used for ground level parking and keep parking centralized to a designated area.

• Response: The cost of constructing a parking space in a parking structure is approximately six times that of providing a space in a surface lot. Thus, parking structures are typically used only when there is no surface area left.
  (Open Space Comment #6)

12. Are the new lots on the north side of campus really as close to the campus center as the lots on the south, as claimed in the Master Plan Revision proposal?

• Response: The new north parking lot is 1,400 to 1,600 feet from Stevenson Hall. The lots planned for the south are 1,600 TO 2,400 feet from Stevenson Hall.

13. How many total parking spaces would there be under the proposed Master Plan Revision compared to what there was before the start of the current construction? From the map it looks like the total parking is not even as large as it has been, and if the campus grows there will be a need for even more.

• Response: The number of parking spaces has been 5,000 on all approved versions of the SSU Campus Master Plan, and remains the same in this proposed Master Plan Revision. This is one half of the campus' ceiling population of 10,000 FTE. Currently, the campus has 3,470 parking spaces. Prior to construction of the Information Center, there were 3,335 spaces. Expansion of Lot F and construction of Lot J resulted in the increase.

14. If much of the campus parking will migrate to the north side, will there be traffic lights on Petaluma Hill Road where commuters will turn to go to those lots?

• Response: There is currently a traffic signal at Petaluma Hill Road and Rohnert Park Expressway. A new signal will be added on Expressway at the new North Entrance.

15. Where will the handicapped parking be located? The current handicapped parking in Lots A and D is creating serious problems for several students and faculty members. DRC is providing more regularly scheduled on-campus Cart rides than ever. Handicapped parking in the Special/Reserve lots may not meet the Access Compliance requirements.

16. Will there be enough parking for the students that live on campus and will there be convenient access from parking to student housing?

• Response: All student housing is designed with nearby dedicated parking.

17. Is there a plan to decrease the traffic congestion on Rohnert Park Expressway that will be associated with the new music center and new student parking? Is there or will there be coordination with Rohnert Park on this issue?

• Response: The environmental impact report for the Master Plan Revision will address traffic impacts and their "mitigation" in detail. Discussions with Rohnert Park regarding this issue have begun and will continue through the environmental review process.

18. Will the proposed new north parking lot accommodate the attendance at Music Center events?

• Response: The proposed new north parking lot will have 1,200 parking spaces. Assuming three people per car, the lot will accommodate 3,600 people before cars would need to overflow to other SSU lots.

19. Does the proposed Master Plan Revision include convenient disabled parking? Will it be close enough? Will there be enough? Will there be convenient access to the Information Center?

• Response: Twelve disabled spaces are planned closest to the Information Center, along with 17 drop-off and short term spaces.

20. Is there a plan to implement a shuttle system for the disabled? For all students and staff at night?

21. Will there still be reserved parking in Lot A? If so, can there be a way to get there from the North entrance that does not involve circling the entire campus?

22. Although maintenance vehicle access to the central campus should be minimized both at Information Center and University Center (along with existing Housing, Health, and classroom buildings -- which are not mentioned), must provide needed access for Disabled, Visitors (particularly Seniors and others with limited, but non-Disabled, mobility, and for those who need Reserve parking because of time- or materials-demands (those who have to lug a lot of stuff to and from the buildings or who have to rush off and on campus for employment).

23. With construction going on all over campus for the next ten years, or so, I doubt the traffic and parking problems will ever improve. So, for the duration of campus construction, I'd like to see the continuation of free rides on public transportation for students, staff and faculty with appropriate I.D. Or, if that is not possible, then at least arrange for SSU staff and faculty to receive a discount as students do.

24. Regarding Comment/Response #18. How many of the cars currently parked on campus actually brought three people in them? I've observed that the majority of cars coming onto campus have only one person in each - the driver. Will it be required that cars parking in the lots closest to campus buildings have three or more people in them? Carpool lots, for instance?

25. The Response to #5 is inadequate. Efforts are NOW in progress to acquire this land, indeed they should be successful before the EIR goes to the CSU.

26. Provide stoplights at vehicle entrances to campus.

27. Consider reopening the Petaluma Hill Rd. exit.

28. Consider a stoplight to allow a left turn from Cypress to East Cotati.

29. Provide more short term parking.

30. Provide shelters for disabled parking.

31. Make the new north entrance the main entrance to campus.

32. Change Laurel Drive from one-way traffic back to two-way and only allow right hand turns onto Petaluma Hill Road. This can easily be accomplished by removing planters and installing a curb at Petaluma Hill Road so traffic is only able to turn right onto Petaluma Hill Road.

33. Suggest a shuttle system that operates in the immediate vicinity of the campus and that circulates on campus. It would reduce the need for parking and it could reduce the potential number of footbridges that are planned to cross Copeland Creek. Copeland Creek has the potential of a beautiful greenway with natural elements such as native vegetation that encourage birds and that provides a sound barrier and even acts as a conduit for wildlife from the areas upland of the campus. Cars are a huge drain on resources -- for the students that maintain and operate them, for the resources to park them, for the public security personnel who must patrol, issue parking tickets, direct traffic, etc. and they add to air pollution and global warming. Taken all together, a shuttle system that addressed campus and immediate communities, as Berkeley does might be a good thing.

34. Should the pedestrian creek crossings be able to accommodate emergency vehicles? Will they?

35. Consolidate the access to the north parking lot in order to alleviate traffic problems on RP Expressway.

36. Take into account the effect the proposal will have on traffic congestion in neighboring communities, especially at peak commute hours.

37. Make adequate plans for public transit to the music center and campus housing.

38. Take steps to promote carpooling.

39. Establish a pricing structure to encourage parking at the periphery of campus -- the price for less convenient parking would be lower.

40. Please remember that not all students have the capacity to be "pedestrian oriented". I was very upset when you took away the B, C and north D parking lots to build the new library, because I have difficulty walking distances. It's not enough to have flat pathways that accommodate wheelchairs. Not all disabled people have wheelchairs. Some of us need close-in parking. Don't get rid of the central parking lots!!! Not all students are PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED.

41. I am concerned that the lack of parking lots on the northwest corner of campus forces employees that work in this area of campus to purchase reserved spots. It is my understanding that the lots closest to us and near the new concert hall will not be built until 2002. As an Admistrative Support Assistant I am living pay check to pay check. $18 more a month will be very hard on me and my family. I also am required to run errands for the office. Please think of the implications of this.

Return to the Comments and Responses to Comments page.

Return to the Parking and Vehicular Circulation page.