HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/03/1989, 1 - REZONING R1458, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL USE REGULATIONS MEETING DATE:
j � city of San tins OBISPO 10-3-89
COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT I Nu
Randy Rq� ', nterim Community Development Director; By: David Moran, Associate
Planner C 1
SUBJECT: \ Rezoning R1458, Commercial Residential Use Regulations
CAO RECOMMENDATION
The council should adopt draft ordinance No. I to:
1. Concur with the negative declaration on environmental impact, and
2. Introduce an ordinance adding section 17.93 and section 17.04.075 and amending
section 17.22 of the Zoning Code and section 5.04.230 of the Municipal Code.
INTRODUCTION
At its September 19, 1989 meeting, the City Council considered an ordinance based on the
recommendation of the Planning Commission that would regulate, among other things, adult
occupancy and parking for all dwellings in the R-1 and R-2 zones as a means of
maintaining neighborhood compatibility. After considering the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and after receiving public testimony, the council voted 4-0 (one
stepping down due to conflict of interest) to continue review to the meeting of October
3rd with direction to staff regarding the applicability and enforcement of the proposed
ordinance.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The initial environmental study (attached) identified a number of potential adverse
impacts relating to the displacement of renters, the possible increase in rents and
decreased availability of rental housing in the city which could result from the proposed
regulations. Mitigation that would reduce the identified impacts to insignificance is
included.
FISCAL IMPACTS
The council has authorized $40,000.00 per year for a two-year contract enforcement
position to administer the new regulations, as well as other nuisance abatement
regulations. In addition, there will be revenues generated to the city through business
licenses and use permit fees. The amount of revenue generated is difficult to estimate
but could be as much as $100,000.00 per year. (See also, OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS)
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
The council may adopt the attached ordinance which is based on your prior direction or
with revisions. You may choose not to adopt new regulations and make changes to existing
regulations. If new regulations are not adopted, the city will continue to enforce
existing regulations relating to neighborhood compatibility.
411111pifU city of san tins oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
R 1458
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: Citywide
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo
Environmental Status:.On August 23, 1989, the Director adopted a negative declaration on
environmental impact.
Evaluation
1. Background/Prior Review -- Both the Planning Commission and City Council have
held hearings on a proposed ordinance concept which is intended to mitigate potential
noise, parking and overcrowding issues related to adult households. The Planning
Commission had recommended the Council adopt an ordinance which would apply to all
dwellings in the R-1 and R-2 zones and would require a use permit when adult
occupancy and/or vehicle occupancy exceeded certain thresholds (6 or more adults, 5
or more cars). The use permit was to insure compliance with performance criteria
related to the number and location of required parking and the number of bathrooms
per adult. The use permit process would also provide a public forum through which
neighborhood compatibility of households consisting of large numbers of adults could
be determined on a case by case basis.
The neighborhood groups which first suggested this ordinance concept to the city had
recommended the ordinance apply to rental households only in the R-1 and R-2
zonesandthat minimum performance criteria related to parking, the number of
bathrooms per adult as well as minimum floor area per adult be applied to all of
these households. Under this alternative, occupancy of a rental in the R-1 or R-2
zone by 1 to 5 adults would require a business license and would have to meet the
performance criteria outlined in the ordinance. A use permit would be required when
the adult occupancy exceeded 5 per dwelling, with similar requirements for parking,
floor area per adult, bathrooms, etc..
The council considered these two approaches and directed staff to compose an
ordinance which more closely resembles the concept suggested by the neighborhood
group, which is to treat the rental of all dwellings in the R-1 and R-2 zones as a
commercial residential use subject to minimum performance criteria. The attached
table compares the Planning Commission and Council versions of the proposed
ordinance.
2. Other Issues -- The council also wanted the following questions answered:.
What are the fee structures for a business license? For an administrative use
permit? .
Currently, a business license is required for the rental of four or more
apartments. (The rental of single family dwellings is not listed.) The license
fee is based on gross receipts, as follows:
I
I - ;2L—
MY of San LUIS OBISpo
MaZa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
R1458
Page 3
Gross Annual Receipts Annual License Fee
Less than $25,000.00 $25.00
Between $25,000.00 and $25.00 plus $5.00 for each $5000.00
$75,000.00 of gross receipts in excess of
$25,000.00
Greater than $75,000.00 $75.00 plus $2.50 for each $5000.00
of gross receipts in excess of
$75,000.00
The business license is NOT a regulatory permit but is a revenue generating process.
It could be used, however, to inform the public of the requirements of the new
regulations and to keep track of the number and location of rental households. To be
consistent, the license fee structure should be the same for rentals under the new
regulations. We would administer the license requirement much in the way we now use
the Business License supplement (see attached) to inform the public of the
requirements of the new regulations. However, it should made clear that the business
license is not a regulatory permit and it could not be used as a lever to insure
compliance with these regulations. For this reason, the draft ordinance has been
worded to explain the penalty for non-compliance would be a zoning violation subject
to the usual avenues of abatement. Revocation of a business license would also occur,
but would not be the mechanism for enforcing the ordinance (See also, OTHER
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS).
The application fee for an administrative use permit is $50.00. The fee is
nonrefundable and there is no additional fee for annual review and renewal.
What will the penalty be for noncompliance?
Section 1.12 of the Municipal Code says that a violation of the zoning ordinance is
considered a misdemeanor which carries a maximum penalty of a $1,000.00 fine or one
year in the county jail, or both. Section 1.12.070 says that if the condition which
violates the code persists, it shall be deemed a public nuisance which may be abated
by the city, and each day the violation persists shall constitute a new and separate
offense.
What would be the planning and legal implications of establishing a requirement
that all residential rentals which require a use permit maintain a minimum 200 foot
separation?
This technique has been used by cities to regulate uses such as adult businesses. The
courts have upheld such ordinances when they meet certain tests for reasonableness
and so long as there is a direct relationship (or nexus) between the separation
requirement and the problem it is designed to mitigate. In this case, for example,
the council would need to find that the proposed separation requirement was necessary
to protect the health, safety and welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood by
minimizing the proximity of larger rental households. For a more complete discussion
of the legal implications of this requirement, please refer to the memo from the City
Attorney's office, which has been prepared and distributed separately.
1 -3
�A1 city of san tins oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
R1458
Page 4
This requirement could have adverse implications on the displacement caused by the
regulations by making the opportunities to comply fewer in a given neighborhood. If
the separation is applied in a linear fashion along the street, the 200 foot rule
would allow a use permit rental roughly every third or fourth house on a block. It
would obviously be more restrictive if applied as a 200 foot radius in all directions
around a rental. By making the opportunity to comply more difficult, it could result
in further displacement of renters and more enforcement actions by the city to abate
non-compliance. In addition, knowing that there will be a finite number of use
permits which can be issued on a given block or in a given area could cause a rush of
applications immediately after adoption of the regulations because people will want
to be sure that they are not excluded by the 200 foot rule.
What would 40%, 50% and 60% lot coverage by parking look like on a "typical" 6000
square foot lot, such as the ones in the Laguna Lake area?
The council was interested in seeing an illustration of the implications of the
coverage requirement for parking which was included in the ordinance recommended by
the Planning Commission. The attached illustrations show a rectangular 6,000 square
foot lot with an 2,240 square foot (including a two car garage), single story house
which observes the required street yard and side yard setbacks.
The illustrations show that, although there would be areas of the lot eligible for
additional parking which complies with the new regulations, in most cases it would be
infeasible to utilize all of this potential because of access limitations.
For minimum size lots in the R-2 zone with an existing house, such as in the Old
Town, the coverage requirement for parking could be both detrimental and beneficial.
It could be detrimental in that it could result in reduced building potential or
reduced dwelling size as designers try to balance the building coverage requirement,
which varies, with the parking lot size requirements, which are more or less fixed.
On the other hand, it could have beneficial impacts by moderating the footprint size
of dwellings and increasing the opportunities for open space.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Finance Department wants to make it clear that, pursuant to Section 5.04.020 of the
Municipal Code, the purpose of business licensing is to raise revenue for municipal
purposes and is not intended for regulation. As such, extending the requirement for the
payment of business taxes to rentals with less than 4 units does not provide additional
regulation, only additional revenue. As a tax collector, the Department of Finance cannot
respond to a failure to pay on a "complaint basis"; the Department has a proactive
responsibility to ensure tax compliance.
Currently, there are approximately 10,500 housing units that are exempt from paying
business taxes. Assuming 50% of these are rentals, at least 5,000 units would need to be
identified and associated revenues collected. Based on current staffing limitations, a
major Department of Finance enforcement effort is not anticipated until July 1990 and
temporary staffing and computer resources are estimated to cost $20,000.00 to support
this effort. However, additional revenues of $25,000.00 to $100,000.00 (depending on the
owner's tax bracket as determined by gross annual receipts) should offset this one-time
cost.
1- �
mi q city of San tuts OBIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
R1458
Page 5
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. The council may introduce draft ordinance No. I as written or with revisions as
deemed appropriate.
2. If the council wants to explore other ordinance alternatives, then a continuance
would be appropriate with direction to staff regarding the revised draft ordinance.
3. The council may also decide not to adopt new regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt draft ordinance No. 1 to:
1. Concur with the negative declaration on environmental impact;and
2. Introduce an ordinance adding section 17.93 and section 17.04.075 and amending
section 17.22 of the Zoning Code and section 5.04.230 of the Municipal Code.
Attachments: Draft ordinance No. I
Summary table
Illustrations
Business license supplement
Initial study
memo from City Attorney distributed separately
I
Draft Ordinance No. 1
ORDINANCE NO. (1989 Series)
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL USE REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings to
consider amending the zoning regulations in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the
i
Government Code, and Chapter 17.62 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance
are consistent with the general plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance promote the public health,
safety, and general welfare; and
WHEREAS, the negative declaration on environmental impact is affirmed; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 17.93 is hereby added to the zoning ordinance as follows:
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL USE
REGULATIONS
Sections: i
17.93.010 Purpose
17.93.020 Definition
17.93.030 General Requirements
17.93.040 Performance Standards
17.93.050 Administration
17.93.060 Periodic Review, Enforcement and Violations
17.93.010 Purpose
A. This chapter is intended to promote the quality of life in low density and medium
density residential neighborhoods by ensuring that rental housing provides adequate
support facilities.
r� w
r
Ordinance No. (1989 Series)
R 1458
Page 2
17.93.020 Definitions
A."Commercial residential use" means the business of leasing for any period of time any
dwelling, or part thereof, other than a residential care facility as defined in
section 17.04.340 of this code, in the R-1 or R-2 zones.
B. "Adult" means a person 18 years of age and older.
C. "Tandem parking' means the arrangement of parking where no more than two cars are
arranged in tandem, one in front of the other, and not located within a required yard.
17.93.030 General requirements
A. Applicability. A commercial residential use shall be allowed in the R-I and R-2 zones
subject to the performance' standards set forth in section 17.93.040, below, and shall be
prohibited in all other zone districts.
B. Relation to zone standards. Where this chapter does not contain a particular type of
standard or procedure, conventional zoning standards shall apply.
C. Nothing in this section prohibits applicants-from requesting exceptions or variances
from the strict interpretation of zoning regulations to the extent allowed by said
regulations for any use.
17.93.040 Performance standards
A. A residential rental occupied by five or fewer adult occupants may be established upon
meeting the following standards:
1. A business license is obtained pursuant to Chapter 5.040 of the Municipal Code.
2. The dwelling must contain a minimum 300 square. feet of gross floor area per adult.
3. The parking requirement shall be the greater of: 1) The number of spaces required for
dwellings as described in Section 17.16.060. OR one off-street parking space per adult
occupant, less one.
4. The parking of one vehicle within a required street yard or setback is allowed.
Parking in other yards is prohibited.
5. Each required parking space shall be of an all-weather surface.
6. Upon approval of the Community Development Director, parking may be provided in
tandem.
n 7. A maximum 40% of the area of a site not devoted to buildings may be occupied by
( parking.
1
I
Ordinance No. (1989 Series)
R 1458
Page 3
8. There shall be a minimum of one bathroom provided for every three adult occupants.
9. The dwelling must meet all current health, safety and fire codes.
B. Upon approval of an administrative use permit, as defined by Chapter 17.58, a
commercial residential use may be established with occupancy of six or more adults. The
purpose of the use permit is to ensure compliance with the performance standards
described above, and to ensure the compatibility of the commercial residential use at
particular locations.
17.93.050 Administration
A. Business license required. A business license is required for all commercial
residential uses.
B. Permit requirement. For commercial residential uses with six or more adult occupants,
the applicant shall apply for and obtain an administrative use permit as defined by
zoning regulations. When an administrative use permit is required by this section, the
applicant shall submit and certify the following information:
1. Address of dwelling.
2. A site plan which shows:
a. the entire boundary of the site as well as adjacent structures within 20 feet.
b. the number and location of off-street parking spaces.
C. the gross floor area of the dwelling in square feet.
d. the floor plan for the dwelling with the rooms clearly labeled.
3. The number of proposed adult occupants.
4. Owner's signature.
5. Any other information deemed necessary by the Community Development Director.
17.93.060 Periodic review and enforcement
A. Periodic Review. Commercial residential uses shall be reviewed annually to insure
compliance with the provisions of this section. When a use permit is required by this
section, the use permit shall be reviewed annually for compliance with this chapter. It
shall be the responsibility of the property owner to initiate the review and pay
applicable fees.
B. Violations. Violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be the basis for
enforcement action by the city which may include revocation of a previously approved use
permit.
� I
Ordinance No. (1989 Series)
.R 1458
Page 4
SECTION 2. Section 17.04.075 is added as follows:
17.04.075 Commercial Residential Use
'Commercial residential use' means the business of leasing for any period of time any
dwelling, or part thereof, other than.a residential care facility as defined in
section 17.04.340 of this code, in the R-1 or R-2 zones.
SECTION 3. Section 17.16.060 is amended as follows:
Commercial residential use The parking requirement shall be the greater
of: 1. The number of spaces required for
dwellings. OR, 2. One off-street parking
space per adult occupant, less one.
SECTION 4. Section 17.22.010 is amended as follows:
Insert between Circus. carnival. parades, and Computer services: `
l R-( R-2 R-3 R-d GOS 10111 PFjC-?4jC-CjC-'RjC-Tj(;-Sj Di
Commercial residential use. At A16
16. A commercial residential use which will be occupied by six or more adults requires
approval of an administrative use permit. The purpose of the "use permit is to ensure the
requirements of Section 17.93.040 are satisfied, and to ensure the compatibility of
residential rentals at particular locations.
SECTION 5. Section 5.04.230 A (3) is amended as follows-
Replace the words apartments (four or more units) with commercial residential use.
and all other rental dwellings.
SECTION 6: A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with
the ayes and noes, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage
in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city, and the same
l
/ - 9
Ordinance No. (1989 Series)
R 1458
Page 5
shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its said final passage.
A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the office of the City
Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall be
available to any interested member of the public.
INTRODUCED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on
the day of 1989, on motion of
seconded by and on
the following toll call vote:
AYES:
NOES: v
ABSENT:
- 1
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
i,c�/City Administrative Officer
City Attorney
Community Development Director /�
Summary Of Alternatives
Planning Commission City Council
How It Is 6 or more adults/dwelling 5 or fewer adults requires business
Applied AND/OR 5 or more vehicles/dwelling license AND compliance with
requires administrative use permit. performance standards. 6 or more
adults requires use permit as well
as compliance with performance.
standards.
No business license required.
Parking The greater of: 1) The number (Same)
required in the R-1 or R-2
zone for dwellings OR one
space per adult, less one.
Parking prohibited within A maximum of one space may be
a required yard or setback. located within the streetyard IV
setback.
1
The Director may approve tandem (Same)
parking.
Only 40% of the site not devoted (Same)
to buildings or setback areas
may be used for required parking.
Permanent surface not required. Each space shall be permanently
surfaced.
Floor Area No requirement. 300 square feet per adult_.
Requirement
Bathrooms 1 bathroom per 3 adults. (Same)
C�'�
� - II
r
m
_ y
V v
A
D
C t
a � �
c
- MN
OT
c u�
t!1
N N r
X '
J
Q �O
c�, c
._
w.� R
> m Q a
Oco
w
U o a)
co t
C7 _ c9
f m m o0
t O Q Q CC G
— .a
.. > ire OA
U(D ID --1
o m L
N L q
� r
l
�_ la-
V
L
to
N
Y
N U
q
C t
cr
N
cuj N
6 —L (43 T-o a
�n N L N
N N r 1�
1 +.k
L m ,
E � •,
E i
F- X
f0 I
f '
J
a
LLI r V
\ _ _C
R+ `n Lr' m
O m c a
U �
D
Ue a' O CO
t' � 's � :: _ t9 c0 '� LL•
CC a
`y .. CD /w
> N
O O
CO . Ir
O m L
N L q
N
L
10
r
(D
- y
N V
q _
a (D
C } N
N N
_O N w
(D N Cl) Q
> N
C
W 0
T-
LC)
W
rn N N LC) W
Cl) v ►-- ----------� N N �-
w -
J
a
LU iv
(D 0)
m
> co L
ca
coco
b Lco
L.
co
Q Q i0c• D
sa
a [ � m w
Q'
L-
- o
o
.. > to pp0
O m (D cD
U . to . fL
O m L
N L q
h
►��I�illllll� ' il�l�lll city ocean tuts OBlspo
IIT IIIIII
BUSINESS LICENSE SUPPLEMENT
Department of Community Development • 990 Palm Street/Post:Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100 • (805) 549.7171
Print clearly In ball-point or type only In unshaded area.Attach this form to your completed business license application and return both to
the Finance Department, The City Planning Staff will Help you with the Zoning,Parking and Permit Sections.
APPLICATION FOR: ❑ New Business ❑ Contractor ❑ Change of Mailing Address ❑ Change of Location ❑ Change of Ownership
Applicant Day Phone
Business Name
Business Location —
Mailing Address
Fully describe your business(Include type of goods or services offered, number of employees. hours. etc.)
ZONING INFORMATION
What zone is your business in? Is your business allowed in this zone?❑ Yes-permit not required ❑Yes-with a permit.
II a permit is required,what is the application number?
REQUIRED PARKING
City parking requirements are based on the floor area or tot area of your business.Check the city's Zoning Regulations and the Parking and Driveway Standards to determine
th►^amber, size and type of spaces required.
abr area occupied by your business: square feet.Area devoted to outdoor sales or storage: square feet.
Total number of off-street parking spaces provided exclusively for your business:
Total number of off-street parking spaces required by the city:
HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS
You will need to apply for a Home occupation Permit it your home in a residential zone is the base of operations for your business—serving as a mailing address.office:shop,
or related use—even if you do work in other locations. The property owner must sign the permit application. consenting to your home occupation.
Is this a home occupation? ❑ No ❑Yes It so,has a home occupation permit been granted? ❑No ❑ Yes
SIGN PERMITS
Most new businesses will need new signs.and new signs require a Sign Permit.(Signs for home occupations are not allowed.)Refer to the city's Sign Regulations for specific
requirements in obtaining the appropriate Sign Permits.
Is a Sign Permit required? ❑No ❑Yes If so,has a Sign Permit been granted? ❑ No ❑yes,number
OFFICE USE ONLY
Suppiem tat reviewed by Date
Notes to file
WHITE•ADDRESS FILE
YELLOW-PLANNING PINK•APPLICANT
city of San WIS OBISpo -
i� IIII
BUSINESS LICENSE SUPPLEMENT
MW
Department of Community Development •'990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100 • (805) 549-7171
Print clearly in ball-point or type only in unshaded area.Attach this form to your completed business license application and return both to
the Finance Department. The City Planning Staff will help you with the Zoning,Parking and Permit Sections.
APPLICATION FOR: ❑ New Business ❑ Contractor ❑ Change of Mailing Address ❑ Change of Location ❑ Change of Ownership
Day
ay Phone
Business Name —
Business Location ----- --
Mailing Address -- — --
Fully describe your business(Includetype of goods or services offered, number of employees. hours, etc.)
ZONING INFORMATION
What zone is your business in? Is your business allowed in this zone?❑ Yes-permit not required ❑ Yes-with a permit.
if a permit is required,what is the application number? -
REQUIRED PARKING
City parking requirements are based on the floor area or lot area of your business.Check the city's Zoning Regulations and the Parking and Driveway Standards to determine"'
t"> comber, size and type of spaces required.
door area occupied by your business: square feet.Area devoted to outdoor sales or storage: square feet.
Total number of off-street parking spaces provided exclusively for your business:
Total number of off-street parking spaces required by the city:
HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS
You will need to apply for a Home Occupation Permit if your home in a residential zone is the base of operations for your business—serving as a mailing address.office,shop,
or related use—even it you do work in other locations. The property owner must sign the permit application,consenting to your home occupation.
Is this a home occupation? ❑No ❑Yes If so, has a home occupation permit been granted? ❑ No ❑ Yes
SIGN PERMITS
Most new businesses will need new signs-and new signs require a Sign Permit.(Signs for home occupations are not allowed.)Refer to the city's Sign Regulations for specific
requirements in obtaining the appropriate Sign Permits.
Is a Sign Permit required? ❑No ❑Yes II so,has Sign Permit been granted? ❑No ❑Yes,number
OFFICE USE ONLY
Supplement reviewed by Date
Notes to file
�1
I
WHITE-ADDRESS FILE YELLOW-PLANNING PINK APPLICANT ��
city of San lU1S OBISpo
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
APPLICATION NO. --SITE LOCATION - -'
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICANT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
y NEGATIVE DECLARATION _MITIGATION INCLUDED
_EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED _ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
/�..
=avid 'bran, Associate :-fanner DATE
PREPARED BY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION:, .
DATE
• �V. S; LL" � ••� ti+-CC/✓ 'cZCC/n. /C�� - �ICl�L'L•��.. � -
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS IV
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
II.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW '.avDe. {
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS . ... . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .... . . . . .. . .. . . ..
Yes*
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH .. . . .. . ... . .. .. . . ... . ... . .
+One. �
C. LAND USE ......................... .. . .. .. . . . . . . .. . .
:cne.
D.. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 'Ione.
E. PUBLICSERVICES ........ . . . .. ....... . ... .. . ..
F. UTILITIES... .. .... ... . . . .. .. .
. . .. . . . .... . . . .. . .. .. `I._
..one.
G. NOISE LEVELS ... . .. ........ .. . . . .. . . . . ... . .. . . . . .
'Ione.
H. GEOLOGIC d SEISMIC HAZARDS 3 TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS
':one.
L AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS. . . .
:one.
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY . .. . . . ..... . .
K. PLANT LIFE ..
`:one...
L ANIMAL LIFE... .. ............. .. ..... ... . .. . . . ........ . .....
. . . .
�Iprc
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAUHISTORICAL .. ... . . .
.. . . .. ... . . .. .. .. . ..... . ... .
`:one..
N. AESTHETIC .. ......... .... .....
`Jona.
0. ENERGWRESOURCEUSE . . ... . . .
Hous i nr_ . . . . .. . . .. . .
S.
P. OTHER . - . . ... . .
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
:d�e!
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT
C� Initial Study ER 52-89
Page 2
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of San Luis Obispo wants to promote the quality of life in residential
neighborhoods by ensuring that rental housing provides adequate living space and support
facilities such as on-site parking. To further this goal the City wants to amend the
zoning regulations and other sections of the municipal code to set minimum performance
standards for rental housing in the R-I and R-2 zones. The ordinance would establish the
following requirements and standards:
1. A business license would be required in order to engage in the leasing of'-dwellings
in the R-I and R-2 zones.
2. To qualify for a business license for a residential rental with fewer than 5 adult
occupants, the dwelling would have to satisfy the following performance standards:
The dwelling must contain minimum floor area consistent with the following
schedule:
Minimum Gross Floor Area
Dwelline Size Per Adult Occupant
v
< 3000 sq.ft. 300 sq.ft.
> 3000 sq.ft. 200 sq.ft.
-- A minimum of two offstreet parking spaces must be provided per dwelling OR
one off-street parking space per adult occupant, less one, whichever is
greater.
3. When a residential rental is to be occupied by six or more adult occupants, an
administrative use permit is required. The use permit is to ensure the above
performance standards are satisfied as well as to ensure compatibility of residential
rentals at particular locations.
1. POTENTIAL IMPACT OVERVIEW
A. Community Plans and Goals
Housing Element
The housing element contains programs and policies which are intended to promote the
diversity and affordability of housing opportunities, and points out the need for
additional affordable housing. In that the proposed ordinance would establish new,
more restrictive performance standards for rental housing in the R-1 and. R-2 zones
which may not be attainable by all of the available rental housing stock, the result
could be the displacement of renters as rental opportunitic_s decrease. For this
reason, the proposed ordinance may not be consistent with housing element policies
which favor actions to help alleviate the lack of affordable rental housing because
�,' the supply of rental opportunities in the R-1 and R-2 Zones may be reduced.
CI
ER 52-89
Page 3
Conversely, the application of the ordinance could moderate adult household size in
the R-1 and R-2 zones and reduce the upward pressure on rents caused by overoccupancy
of dwellings. In this broad context, rental units may be more affordable to family
households in that the ability of property owners to achieve high income levels from.
large adult households would be reduced.
Evaluation: May Be Significant
C. Land Use
The proposed ordinance could have beneficial impacts on the quality of rental housing
environments by ensuring minimum floor space and parking for tenants, thus
alleviating existing and potential neighborhood compatibility impacts.
Evaluation: Not Significant
Housing
As outlined above, the regulations could result in less rental housing available in
the R-1 and R-2 zones by reducing the rental capacity of these areas. The ordinance o
would apply to all types of households in these zones. The standards arc designed to
C relate adult occupancy levels to the need for on-site parking and living area within
dwellings.
Given the population composition of San Luis Obispo, however, the regulations would
most likely impact college student rental households in the R-1 and R-2 zones.
.Student household data is instructive because student households are often composed
of adult renters and the proposed ordinance could reduce rental housing opportunities
as a function of the number of adults per dwelling. However, other non-student
households would also be regulated by the proposed ordinance and subject to the same
performance standards.
Based on enrollment data for spring, 1989, for Cal Poly, about 8,862 full and part
time students listed San Luis Obispo as their principal address. (The actual number
of students living in town will be slightly larger because some students use PO
boxes). Of the 8,862 Cal Poly students who lived in the City during the sprirjg
quarter, 2279 lived in the R-1 zone in about 882 households for an average household
size of 2.7 students. For a dwelling to accommodate 2.7 adult tenants under the new
regulations, it would have to have a minimum 810 square feet of gross floor area and
provide 2 offstrect parking spaces. Although an actual housing inventory by dwelling
size and number of parking spaces is unavailable, very few single family residences
in the city are smaller than 810 square feet. In the Old Town, which is predominantly
R-2 zoning and where the dwellings are generally smaller, there could be more
non-conforming dwellings. Nevertheless, it appears that most single family dwellings
could accommodate the average student household size of 2.7.
To estimate the impacts of the more restrictive regulations, an estimate must be made
O of the number of rental dwellings which could not accommodate the average student
household size, and determine the amount of "overflow" renters from each dwelling.
However, not all student households consist of 2.7 students. For reasons of economy,
among others, many student households consist of two students per bedroom.
I - I 'F .
ER 52-89
Page 4
If we assume a worse case in which all students in the R-1 zone in excess of 2.7 per
dwelling arc displaced immediately after adoption of the new regulations, the number
could be significant. For example, the Cal Poly data for spring, 1989, suggests that,
of the 882 Cal Poly student households in the R-1 zone, 197 contained 4 or more
students. The "excess renters" (household size - 2.7) would amount to about 380
students, Which is about 140 households at 2.7 students per household.
The relative impact of the displaced student households on the availability of rental
housing can be obtained by estimating the number of dwellings that would have to be
built in order to satisfy the city's growth management and housing objectives once
the Cal Poly student households in the R-I zone arc displaced by the new regulations.
City growth regulations adopted in 1982 established a schedule for maximum
residential construction rates through the year 1999. Under those regulations during i
the past 5 years, the city has: i
i
added 2,215 dwellings, or 443 per year (new construction minus demolitions)
i
- added 729 people per year, for a growth rate of about 2.4% per year, and a
household size of about 2.4 persons/dwelling.
maintained an average vacancy rate of about 5%, acknowledged by the city's
�^ Housing Element as a desirable level to maintain a variety of choice and
affordability (Source: San Luis Obispo Housing Element, 1987, p. 34, B-11.)
The target number of dwellings to meet the city's housing needs during this same
period, as estimated by the state Department of Housing and Community Development was
1630 dwellings, or about 326 dwellings per year. (Source: California Housing Needs
Plan, California Department of Housing and Community Development, Sacrament,
California, 1985.) Thus, the city has produced more housing during this period than
the state estimated for our needs, while maintaining a desirable vacancy rate of
about 5%- In order to maintain the desirable vacancy rate of about 5% in addition to
absorbing the displaced Cal .Poly student households from the R-1 zone, the city will
have to continue to produce an average of 300 dwellings per year, which would
accommodate a growth rate of about 1.76%. NOTE: This dwelling production rate would
be able to accommodate the displaced renters who are Cal Poly students living in the
R-I zone, only.
When all other adult households are factored in from the R-1 and R-2 zones, the
number would be significantly higher. Furthermore, the university plans to add
another 400 students in the 1990/91 school year and another 400 in 1991/92 for a
total student enrollment (full and part time) of about 17,000. If the proportion of
Cal Poly students living in the city remains constant, an additional 800 students
(296 households at 2.7 students/household) will be seeking housing during the next
two years.
Evaluation: Significant
The displaced renters resulting from the regulations will make it more difficult for
families to find affordable rental housing. This results from the disparity to the
income earning power between a family with one or two incomes versus an adult i
household with three or more income sources. Competition will be greatest for the
't
C� ER 52-89
Page 5
housing preferred by both types of households, which has been predominantly detached,
single family dwellings. As long as the demand for single family rentals exceeds the
supply, we would expect rents to increase, further aggravating the problem of
affordability.
Evaluation: May Be Significant
D. impact Mitigation
Through the displacement of adult tenants, the ordinance could reduce rental housing
opportunities in the R-1 and R-2 zone and increase demand for rental housing. The
city's overall strategy for addressing the community's rental housing needs is to add
to the supply of housing by promoting additional multi-family dwelling construction
and to better manage demand by regulating the creation of new jobs in the city.
The actual impact of the new regulations will also be a function of the enforcement
posture assumed by the city. If all rental properties in the R-1 and R-2 zones were
to comply with the new regulations immediately after adoption, which is assumed in
the worse-case scenario outlined above, it would likely mean a sudden flood of
displaced renters. However, if the pace of conformity is equal to or less than the
additional housing constructed each year, the impact would be lessened. The IV
following mitigation measures would address either the housing supply issue or level
1 of impacts caused by displacement.
1. Mitigation Measures that May Be Enacted by the City
(a) Promote the construction of additional housing within the city.
This would include continued implementation of housing clement and land use
element policies and programs. (Note: the discussion draft of new city Land Use
Element proposes that the land use designation of some commercial/industrial
areas in the city be changed to residential to enable additional housing inside
the urban reserve.)
(b) Apply the regulations to the R-1 zone only.
This would reduce the number of displaced renters.
(c) Apply the regulations primarily on a complaint basis.
This would significantly reduce the number of displaced renters, and would
likely distribute the displacement over a longer period of time.
(d) Enforce the regulations only when the city's residential vacancy rate was
3% or greater.
In this way, choice and opportunity for housing for displaced renters could be
better maintained, as well as minimizing the impact of renter displacement on
�i Gamily households. (Note: the State Department of Finance estimates residential
vacancy rates each year. The last time the city's vacancy rate was at 3% or
below was in the mid 1970's when Cal Poly enrollment outpaced city housing
production.)
� -ate
CER 52-89
Page 6
(e) Allow a grace period for compliance when displacement occurs.
In this way the transition from one housing situation to another would be phased
and the impact on the displaced household would be lessened. The grace period
(cg. 60-90 days) could be part of the city's action on use permit applications
or enforcement proceedings.
(f) Provide relocation assistance.
The city could contract with a local real estate firm specializing in rental
housing and/or work directly with the Cal Poly housing office to help displaced
renters find replacement housing.
2. Mitigation Measures that Would Reouirc the Action of Other Agencies
(a) Have the state university system provide more housing on campus.
Cal Poly already provides more on-campus housing than any other state j
university. Nevertheless. this option would help reduce the demand for housing
by adult households.
r '
(b) Establish enrollment ceilings for Cal Poly and Cuesta college based on the
city's capacity to absorb the additional residents while maintaining growth
management and housing objectives.
If enrollment increases at the two local colleges can be tied to the city's
capacity to provide new housing, the overall impacts from the adult households
generated by the two schools would be diminished.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Negative declaration with the following mitigation (reference paragraph D above for
description):
L(a) Promote the construction of additional housing within the city.
L(c) Apply the regulations primarily on a complaint basis.
L(d) Enforce the regulations only when the city's residential vacancy rate was 3% or
greater as determined by the California Department of Finance.
L(e) Allow a grace period for compliance when displacement occurs.
' -- MEETING AGENDA
DATE G2 iTEM #
249 Longview Lane
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
October 2. 1989 *Denotes action by lead Person
R nd by:
ncil
AO
San Luis Obispo City Council C. Atty.
City Council Office fig'
City Hall j
990 Palm Street T. T
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 fWFC4ir
Dear City Council Members:
Our family has lived in the vicinity of Cal Poly for many,
many years . We have always enjoyed the college students
when they stopped to visit while walking to or from college,
and our home has always been open to them whether they were
visiting us or working for us. We have always had a room
and bath that we've rented to a Cal Poly student (one at a
time) and the relationships have been good.
However, in the past couple of years, there has been a great.
change in our neighborhood. House after house has been sold
to "parents" who fill them to overcapacity with college
students. They don't appear to respect private property re:
noise, trash, or going fast down our streets and through
stop signs. There have been more and more parties, larger
and larger crowds and more littering of the streets with
liquor bottles and empty Styrofoam cups .
The weekend of September 15th and 16th was no different
except that the crowd was so large that the streets were
blocked at the intersection of Bond and Hathway streets and
the littering so bad and widespread that it looked like a
trash dump (see enclosed photos) .
I immediately called some Council members (only one was at
home) , and the Telegram-Tribune; then went to Mr. Warren
Baker's home (President of Cal Poly) and asked him to come
with me to see firsthand the trashed yard. He refused,
saying he would come later; when I told him that the
students were already beginning to clean up, he again
refused.
RECEIVED
OCT 3 1989
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
3 :3 orA,,•I„
This was a big disappointment for it seemed to me that if he
would only see what was happening (in the neighborhood where
he, himself, has bought a house) , he would be more
understanding of what is happening all over San Luis Obispo, .
and then would be better able to work with our City toward a
reasonable solution.
I support the ordinance that the "Residents for Quality
Neighborhoods" have recommended. I urge you to help restore
our city so that everyone may have a better quality of life.
Sincerely yours,
Dorothy E. Rasmussen
cc Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
State Senator Ken Maddy
Assemblyman Eric Seastrand
Mr. Warren Baker
University Regents
2
^ ' ME, JG AGENDA
Denotes action by Lead Person DATE /o �'� ITEM # °
�� C
Respond by:
eGt,ouncil
�/,° RECEIVE ® 2sz avenue
Y iry Am. Son Lui.� CY z400, CA 93401
r18 , ss/ OCT 0 2 1989 Scot. 27, /9b'9
1 -
CITY CLERK
SAN'IUIS CEFISIP0,C
To: Ci;ty Council lflembevd:
lleaae, 9 berg cyou addnea4 .the .c.»ue v4 .4.tuden� 6&a /�v y and Cueata)
.that have .in.va eveV neigAbordwvd .en Ai4 tour/
Aee4 .inveatou have pwwAajed A.vuje4, aj, ' oadandl ah aer t , Aeae6zy,
on y a4�orrdali.Le b -devenaL vccu antes and w' and !Wupirw4j' hrwm
#h t j.tc 4xLr 4 to pay .theoe 4. u4 pn i.ce4. v� the.. .cnf ea tv.1W
aae oat-o4.tvun wi.ez4 .thaf cvnEnct e no i ', � .tv .the can u�ru; ( i. e.
purz.cha.� uti.L14- v L .ouorno2tiruv cuea uz °Jzz � except 6eirud
detnim by cue" iuch 'a .tnemendvud glri.e4 .to pewzanent 2e4ident4
.thaf have Lved A.ete �vz .av maw ryealw.
MxV o� .these ztuden�-4 Aave no Aepect A2 Ae A nztgboles - panti_ea .tiCL
ewz4 zn. Ae moam wi th .Loud and olvwxwuj mujtz b,Lr� caW aming and
routr� aad paahincg becomc19 a b.Lem eazinatcruq on .Lar.�r� out uz pub
70, we ccUvw.t con�iw.L .the 9LYVS o7AI4 1en.e�ntivn but, zyed, e 9LyVS
when. by out eLeeted ci v 3=4 can. 4 a clean me44age to #heae
people that we wiU not e e .thi j norwerwe. 9 , .th.e peamanent ne4.i-
den t� �uvwcea4 decent, and laLs-a.6tdtng ci tLzen.4� have and need
przotecUon .too. lb you want .the aea.identiaL n 1sbvahnvrL.� to di.�in
.cter�zate
n& ,duba andarzd Avu.4.ing and have v.Ld .timeW (a4 weLC as new) move � otAea
oiz.ea4, as marze do. ng? 94 Ai.6 what you want? What .impact tvi U -Al I
Aave on the ?
e
A clads mud.t be p lace° oa tuden t MwJl meni- .unneAat4 and peMnan.er tL< at
both. coUegeA. Two eon .in. one #ix�r ij un
#av' .Lived herze aU my Lt4e X57 yeaqAJ 9 aevet drz.eamed vu2 6�
,1 e �vun. coals be .6v de.�-&w ed. /3ecau4the uzcnea je�
as weU aj inc/z.ea4ea' po a yr 'Juruzv citie.�, vu2 c
ha4 bepa;to de.;==' 54-I'd ever. a chane .tv da.Lve An= �vun, WiA
�PPe7wot
crzz.� auud 6y and vccrr.�ivnal hav' tv b�e�-�avoid.a caaj/z.
kmrhe pedea�ir z anb evert tlwrfz a .�umearz.� �v the cat u+t LL,j.tome, .th.ezy 'Ja.�l': !Ae bi cz�cGi.� bu� A uc the j2oo 4,.i.gu aj .i.4
there weze none. Lhce aAm da.i_ving, ruaa pCea.�wtaLile, now .i t'4 a .Li..4e and
death .e:i uati a wa itrV Pa .the i2evi tnb.le.
Thi j i4 a vel gAa.ve jituati.oa and one .that muj.t be deaG wi th quiciL and
Si aceael 4
U�=Gw �ycinn c.v
i4z�.. 6.iLeea Jarnvn
(A hvmeozznen pa ZJ ye,-&u)
S : CLI ion attended a zd �wm Cal %o1y j x yea/w urw. PYLz
he wa4 blowup .to aejoect othea. peop.Lej /i.� ruin rorwloestr Ze
co.CLeqe ccr�uzicccLum ljfwu,& ZrLcLlzde a cowt de on this 4ub.'ect i.ence .c.t .Lvoh j
a4 -too &'ui-4 yvwv ae-z.e/La4i )a ha6n't been ,jdwo LecL in Aw rlinecti on/
i
MEETING AGENDA
DATE CRL3-"ITEM #
�(IIB6N���18�I�IIu�III��ll�lpll N�
N
city of sAn luis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 934 testes anion by Leaa Ptrson
Respond by -
'�'C�unr;d I
i Vf1Ac�
i.�Fy A!Cy
.�!Cferk-ong i
September 26, 1989 `�/Q.�•s�i i.
�'-B.S fs�Yokllrrf
; TT: «E
TO: Honorable Mayor Dunin and Council Members ,� .-
L
FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorn( yF-
d !/
RE: Residential Rental Regulations SEP 2 6 1989
CITY CLERK
INTRODUCTION SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
At the September 19, 1989 City Council meeting, several
questions were raised regarding the proposed residential
rental regulations, including the following:
1. What is the process and legality of "enforcement by
complaint"?
2 . Who is liable for violations that do occur, and can a
landlord be held liable for relocation costs in the event
of a violation?
3 . Can the City Council require a minimum separation between
units requiring an administrative use permit (200 feet
was suggested) ?
EVALUATION
Enforcement. Upon the . effective date of the proposed
residential rental regulations, if adopted, all regulated
rental units will have an affirmative. legal duty to apply for
a business license, and under certain circumstances an
administrative use permit.. To the extent that the City has
knowledge of a violation of either requirement, it will have a
responsibility to take reasonable steps to. enforce the
regulations. At this point, the City does not have sufficient
procedures or personnel to actively investigate every rental
unit in, the City for compliance. Therefore, it is most likely
that enforcement will be initiated at such time as the City
has received a complaint. City staff would then investigate,
and if a violation is found, a citation could be issued.
Honorable Mayor Dunin and Council Members
September 26, 1989
Page 2
Citations could result in criminal fines for violation of the
use permit requirements, doing business without a business
license, and other action including revocation of the use
permit or nuisance abatement. Such "enforcement by complaint"
is not unconstitutional unless it is done by deliberate or
intentional discriminatory enforcement. (Town of Atherton v.
Templeton (1961) 17 Cal.Rptr. 680, 685. )
With respect to who would be liable for either doing business
without a business license or violation of the use permit
requirements, it is clear that such regulations apply to the
owner/landlord and not the tenant. In a situation where a
tenant is forced to relocate as a result of enforcement
action, the City may be able to require the owner/landlord to
provide tenant relocation costs under certain circumstances.
The City of Los Angeles has been contacted regarding a new
city ordinance which requires owners of illegal substandard
dwellings to pay the relocation costs for those tenants who
are evicted. The focus and rationale for the ordinance are
health, safety, and welfare issues revolving around
substandard units which may have housing and building code
violations. The power to impose such relocation costs on
property owners stems from the municipality's police power to
promote the public welfare. {See Briarwood Properties v_ City
of Los Angeles (1985) 217 Ca1.Rptr. 849 , and Kalaydiian v_
City of Los Angeles (1983) 197 Cal..Rptr. 159. )
It should be noted that the City of Los Angeles regulations,
and similar regulations in other cities, have only been
applied to serious housing and building code violations where
the densities involved are far in excess of the standards (300
square feet per occupant) contemplated by the City of San Luis
Obispo. For example, Uniform Housing Code Section 503 (b)
requires not less than 70 square feet for a bedroom with one
or two occupants, with an additional 50 square feet for each
occupant in excess of two. Obviously, these standards apply
primarily to serious "slumlord" conditions which probably will
not be frequently encountered in the .City.
Therefore, if the City wishes to develop additional ordinances
providing for relocation costs for evicted tenants, care
should be taken in establishing standards which can be
justified on a health and safety basis in relation to the
Uniform Housing and Building Codes. Another area which would
justify examination would be where tenants •are displaced as a
result of illegal conversions.
Honorable Mayor Dunin and Council Members
September 26, 1989
Page 3
Other types of problems, such as unkempt yards, are more
properly addressed by a blight ordinance, which will be coming
before the Council at a later date. Liability can be
addressed at that time by the specific- language of the
ordinance. Likewise, on the issue of noise, which is a common
neighborhood concern, our current ordinance makes the
perpetrator of the noise liable and not the owner/landlord of
the property.
Finally, there may be other enforcement mechanisms which the
City should explore. For example, cities are authorized to
notify the State Franchise Tax Board that a particular rental
housing unit is "substandard" and thereby prevent the building
owner from receiving interest, depreciation, or amortization
deductions for state income tax purposes. Substandard housing
is broadly defined, and it appears to cover not only building
code violations, but also zoning violations (such as the
proposed residential • rental regulations) . (Revenue and
Taxation Code Sections 17299, 24436.5. ) Also, . a city, by
ordinance, may provide that prior to the sale or exchange of
any residential building, the owner shall obtain from the city
a report relative to the residential building showing the
regularly authorized use, occupancy, and zoning classification
of such property. (Government Code Section 38780. ) The
report- is required to be delivered by the owner to the buyer
of the residential building prior to consummation of the sale.
If a zoning violation exists on property subject to such
residential building record report, the report itself would
designate the violation. Such report will frequently result.
in correction of the violation since it may have an inhibiting
effect on consummation of the sale. in addition, it would
provide the City with an opportunity to make prospective
buyers of residential units aware of the City's residential
rental regulations.
Once the proposed residential rental regulations are in place,
and the City has had some experience with enforcement, it
would be my recommendation to review additional. enforcement
mechanisms such as those discussed above for possible
amendment to the ordinance.
Locational Zoning Regulations. With respect to requiring a
200 foot separation between all residential rental uses
requiring an administrative use permit, the courts have
allowed cities to disperse or deconcentrate certain uses
within their boundaries by such regulations. (Strand Property
Honorable Mayor Dunin and Council Members
September 26, 1989
Page 4
Corp. v. Municipal Court, 200 Cal .Rptr. 47, 49 (4th Dist.
1983) . ) The rationale is that in an attempt to preserve
neighborhoods, dispersal or the prevention of a concentration
of certain types of businesses is a valid use of the police
power.. Dispersal is allowed even if there is an adverse
impact on the business being regulated, provided that the real
reason behind the regulation is to promote proper land use and
planning, and not to restrict the particular business
regulated. (Ensign Bickford Realty v. City Council , 137
Cal .Rptr. 304 (3rd Dist. 1977) .
Traditionally, locational zoning requirements have only been
applied to special situations involving problem uses, such as
adult entertainment establishments (Renton v. Playtime
Theaters . Inc. (1985) 106 S.Ct, 925) and gasoline service
stations (Van Sicklen v. Browne, 92 Cal.Rptr. 786 (1st Dist.
1971) . ) The rationale is that certain uses, by their very
nature, create problems which justify dispersal or separation
from residential uses (i.e_ , crime, loitering, fire hazard,
toxic chemicals, etc. ) .
I have been unable to identify any instances where separation
requirements have been applied to residential uses, and
therefore I cannot give a conclusive opinion concerning
whether such regulations would be upheld or invalidated.
However, it is my opinion that an attempt to apply separation
requirements to the proposed residential rental regulations
would raise several significant difficulties. In addition to
the administrative problems discussed in the staff report,
such regulations may result in additional displacement, which
would require further environmental review and reevaluation of
the negative declaration. It would also be extremely
difficult for the City to support a determination that rental
uses which otherwise meet the standards of the proposed
regulations and comply with other city regulations such as
noise are inherently problem uses. Further, it would raise
equal protection arguments as to why similarly situated
residences, both of which can meet the proposed standards, are
treated differently, and why rental occupancies are treated
differently from owner occupancies which may have the same
impacts with respect to density and parking.
Therefore, it is my strong recommendation that the Council
defer consideration of separation requirements as a part of
the proposed residential rental regulations. Once we have had
some experience with the implementation and enforcement of the
Honorable Mayor Dunin and council Members
September 26, 1969
Page S
regulations, further consideration of separation standards may
be warranted if such a need is clearly identified, thoroughly
documented, and carefully analyzed for legal validity.
Respectfully submitted,
r �
frFJ REY' G OR NSEN,
City Atto ney
JGJ : fr
A:MMSL0345
(Vi :ING AGENDA
DATE �0 a F ITEM #
September 30 , 1989
Dear Council Members :
My husband and I have lived at 244 Albert Drive for almost 30
yrs. We built much of the house ourselves . We have enjoyed
living here with friendly neighbors , a grade school nearby
and children of all ages .
Now , with the changing scene we have seriously considered
moving out of town. However, my husband ' s employment takes
him between Cal Poly and Cal Transsoit is a convenient
location, we like our neighbors , the climate and we do not
like being run out of town.
Instead , we are adding on to our home partly to increase our
chances of a good night ' s sleep since homes are being sold
around us. A home sold next to us before an ad could be
placed in the paper. There were families that wanted it but
with realtors who have lists of parents or investors ,. the
families don' t have .a chance .
A top Poly administrator recently purchased a home for a
rental without its even going on the market . Our neighbor-
hood is an "investment" now and the vultures are circling .
It used to be that homes were sold to college faculty for
appraised value. Now, the lack of housing is a deterrent to
professors accepting a position with Poly .
We were recently in Toronto and Montreal ., There residential
neighborhoods have the utmost protection. Residents park in
the garages and driveways. Here, garages become bedrooms and
storage areas. In Canada, if a resident lets his yard go ,
city workers fix it up and send a bill . . Neighborhoods are
lovely, as ours once were.
With our addition we are required to add two more trees to
the front plus landscape a small area in the rear to planners
specs. Half a block away, trees and landscaping have died
long before rationing. For the most part these rental
investments are not kept up and in many instances are
becoming slums. We have been shocked at the condition of
whole blocks since we have been investigating this problem.
We ask you to pass draft ordinance No . 1 without weakening
it , for our neighborhoods are the town and they need to be
saved. Do we want a town. or rental investments?
... Thank you,
yo/
u,
FVnci�l ioMcy Lead PO
by:
Mrs . Henry
( Doreen ) Case
ryAny. RECEIVED
Albert
OCT 2 1989
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBQPO,CA
MEETINu AGENDA
DATE AR" ITEM #
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers September 26, 198. 9
of San Luis Obispo
Councilwoman Pinard would like an environmental impact report on
Cal Poly and Cuesta . May I write one?
But first, where are our priorities? Without- Cal Poly and Cuesta
we would be suburb of one of the largest prisons housing the worst
criminals because Los Angeles can 't stand their proximity .
"San Luis Obispo " would sound like "Folsum" or "San Quentin" .
Our prisons expanded over all protest . Rationing water per capita,
do we cut down our future leaders in favor of letting problem
people go unchecked?
Without Cal Poly and Cuesta we would NOT have the quality life we
enjoy . Our Symphony , concerts, Art Association, Little Theater,
even the Mission Plaza and our restored buildings are the direct
result of Cuesta College and Cal Poly planning .
Now to Environmental Impact: Nothing is for sure but God and change .
If Custa and Cal Poly continue healthy existance they will continue
to expand-- in some areas more than others . Probably some of Cal
Poly 's vacant land will become Fraternity Row . But a blanced town
is a healthy town . Would you really like to live with all senior
citizens? I remember weeping over Hamlin Town whose whole future
was swept away by the vengeful Pied Piper . Sure, it 's hard to talk
or sleep with all that noise and traffic.. But a "good noise" of
happy people is far better than fighting noise or boring silence .
Some towns are silently depressed because all have moved away .
Our stores will keep busy , our vacancy factor low, our streets and
schools interesting. If you need silence and parking move to
Blackwell 's Corners .
Cal Poly was here in the 1800s, long before any of us . Like Cuesta
College, we local people carefully helped nourish it, to grow as
part of our future . Who are our respected citizens, our leaders
here? Most are graduates or have some connection with Cal Poly or
Cuesta. They have built a balanced economy , establishing industries
and businesses which keep us from being artifically supported
by government taxes and fickle tourism as our "dependable" income.
Everyone who wants education or even selected courses has it avail-
able.Educated and more intelligent citizens are and will continue
to be prevelent. We can have faith that intelligent ingenuity of
our Cuesta College and Cal Poly graduates and personell will keep
our town alive and our environment the way we hope it will continue.
1 i
l I /
*Denotes ae6on by Uad Person
Respond by: Rose McKeen, San Luis Obispo
M.Wuncil
O C!rCAO
(Q.Bay Atty.
Ct;7.8t9ik•orig. . .. -
�-R.,Qacsi
0'A.74 9 �/
1%V
ML.IN AGENDA 636 Cu,__ ca Drive
DATE t) 3 ITEM # .n Pl�a Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
San Luis Obispo September, 1989
City Attorney
Subj : Rental Management Agreements and Responibilities
Dear Sir,
I was unable to speak to the City Council on 19 September
on my opinions expressed in enclosed 19 September letter and will
be out of town during the next two scheduled sessions.
I know :zany young renters are inconsiderate of neighbors and
trash surroundings, but there are other serious low income students
who do respect others rights and support our ecology and deserve.:
all the help they can get. . I was once in that position myself.
I believe a good portion of renter misconduct could be allev-
iated if all landlords would have some degree of responsibility for
same and could legally immediately terminate the rental contract,
immediately evict undesire able tennant( s) . If police are called to
a particular address, the landlord should be given a copy of the
report. After the second or third time, the landlord should be
made to accompany officers to the address to immediately assure
positive correction.
Likewise, good but naive young tenants should be protected
somewhat .from UYPROYESSIONAL landlords who squeeze every possible
dollar out of a rental contract and provide almost no maintenance.
I'm quite sure that most young renters are unaware of even the
two items outlined in red on the enclosure #2, common in San Luis
Obispo.
CWith such a large percentage of young renters in our population,
I would like .to see your office compile and distribute a Tenant.
'Landlord GUIDELINES pamphlet, outlining the ethics and responsibilities
of both and listingsonw do ' s and don't' s of contracts and laws such
as Calif "Repair & Deduct" Law. This would provide consumer/tenant
defenses and of course your telephone number listed where complaints
can be directed for resolution or advice. Legit9mate complaints can
then be duly noted for consideration when the business license next
comes up for renewal.
I realize that new actions are being considered by the City
Council to limit future CAL-POKY and Cue;sta College growth, but the
current student population is HERE NOW and we must adjust to live
with the situation. Bitter student experiences here can leave a
lifetime of bad memories of San Luis Obispo.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED oenotas action by d o chardt
Respond by:
SEP 2 8 ,os,q e' owncil
LFMAo Copy to
v CITY CLERK etity Any. City Council Members
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Ieyk_pdg.
Roso�
r—T
636 . esta Drive
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
19 September 1959
San Luis Obispo City Council
SU FJ Proposed ?ise Permit for Vigh
Density Households
I strcn`ly ur; e adoption of the Planning Commission or000Fal ,
but have res=rvations about forcibly oustinL low income students
or other young low-salaried workers who are desperately trying to
"make it -o financially" and are needed to support local businesses.
I have personal experience that I told the Planninc Commission
about, that .-tere are some landlords who, besides abusing reasonable
density standards (new proposal, above) by actions and contract take
advantage of trese younger people . These are :costly landlords NGT
engaged in PROFESSICYAL renting (i.e. -those renting as a sideline) .
a. They don' t provide a RECCRDED joint walk-through inspection
for cleanliness and defects before signing a rental agreement and
upon 'termination of the lease make false accusations or claims to
avoid refunding deposit.
b. Some provide contracts with "cleaning deposit, or 1/2 of
cleaning deposit .is non-refundable". That certainly doesn' t
encourage minimum cleanliness standards or any cleaning at the
end of the lease to get part of a refund.
C. When there are repairs, sometimes ZMERGEN CY, to be made,
there is no answer at the landlords,_-telephone or he is "out of -tovrn",
and no alternate number provided. PROFESSIONAL landlords provide a
contract repair telephone number or that of a local 'handyman for
expedited service.AliD, sometimes when a tenant then purchases a
replacement repair part and has it installed, he/she cannot collect
costs since contract states "Renter needs written permission prior
any alterations" . At times a landlord will 'never respond to a
written request and will never give more than a telephone approval
(too busy) , so he believes he is not abligated to repay costs
involved. I ALSO HAVE A GUT FEEL U. G THAT, FOR LNCOIN1 E TAX PURPCSES,
that all of above normally show as DEDUCTICNS or OPERATING EXPENSE.
rather than IiMU.
There is no RE14T CONTROI proposal and no low cost housing for
these young people who we are now imposing with additional pressure.
They are already here, NOW, and there will be more next year. TIM
LEAST W_] CAi DO is to require and enforce PRC.FESSICNAI: LA iDLUD
renting/contract and -naintene" standards by LICENSING, spot
inspections, and assuring that renters have a current city number
where they can call for disputes.
I expect to present the above .at toni6hts City Council Meeting,
Sincerely,
'ran Vchardt
Cy to City Attorney
110$A a 1,P `7 �� S >J 2 s F 9 a
What to Do If Tenant Doesn't
1111) All Apua Rpm-
By KEVIN POSTEMA soriable cause to suspect that th plumber to fix it.I had advised the three days to fix emergency prob-
is an emergency (water cumin owner in writing of this condition lems and da for others.
QUESTION: I recently took on a from underneath the door, amok three
roommate in the San Fernando pouring out of the windy separate during o �� The remedy is available to ever.
Valley duplex f own.While the rent windows, etc.) whole episode. Now, the owner ers as often as needld. However,
is$350,last month she While
he may enter. doesn't want to pay for the repair the amount you spend is limited to
y paid me Since you don't indicate in your because he says he could have fixed one month's rent per year.
$250, which left me with $100 letter whether or not there was an it himself in five minutes.What can
unpaid. emergency,it's hard to say wheth- Ido, or do I have to bear this part-
I told her that 1 was taking$100 er or not your landlord had a right expense? Ape Magazine,a puWloatioa of
out of her security deposit to pay to enter last night flue Apartment Assn.of(;nater I.os
the balance of the rent, but if she Now, as to A: California's "repair and de- Angeles,an apartment otoners'ser-
didn't plan on paying the rent again you might want to consult a duct" law seems to be tailor-made vice group, blah your questions on
this month,that I would give her a yer. If your landlord is a for your situation.Under the law,a any aspect of apartment ltvenp to
three-day notice to pay rent or entered your apartment with a renter may make repairs on his "R "
quit. disinterested third party aoro�_ own after notifying the sm
owner of a of Apartment 621
Can I evict my tenant on the nying)�as a witness to avoid this problem in writing, as you 'did, Westmoreland Ave., Las Angdw,
grounds that she did not pay the kind of problem. After notification, the owner has Calif.90005-3995.
rent in full for the month or must I
take the $100 out of the security Where to Obtain
deposit to pay the rent?
Also, if I can evict the tenant, Bad-Check Package
must 1 wait until the first of the
month to serve her a three-day n: I read somewhere that there
pay-rent-or-quit notice and where is a California law that allows up to -
do I locate such a notice? triple damages for collection on a ---
Finally,must I legally serve her dishonored check.If so,where can I
a 30-day notice to move,no matter get acopy of that law? -oad—tlaoA►poona aq};o;110 etttoo 1uemAed ;sale;uf a on a
what the circumstances? A:The state law you refer to was op saaAnq 'Aldaegs umo o8 q>?i P P
ANSWER: You may almost al- authored by San ernando Valle Balsa lowalul 119 P O ueo I lop Pat etp JO'OP mowiA.a}
ways evict a renter for nonpay- Assemblyman Y 1N °w °opp �'t ft NO Xpd'
ment of all or a portion of the rent. will be happy to provide you with a Grow a1 Guo golgM Zttmop ao do I ;i A" autos of Ow 92F1vood E
Except and unless there are habits- copy of the law. Katz•s office will sao8 elea.1s9aa1of eq; tt qm Anti '•Ilia► e�39g1 Pt[$1ea�11t1
bility problems. also include a general information I pinog9 yetul 11 s1 •tin ON am" sm
And while the law permits you to "bad check package." which in- ;o saolad `umop OR soler Iowa, o;&=A en paan '
use security deposits to pay for eludes a sample letter on how to u e .000 P ig a 9%•
unpaid rent,it's not the best way to request that the check issuer make -oed AOtQAOq I lrgl AveAss old >;11 t11e I •00p'81$ 1a i�orae ;
MM
go, unless the renter has already good on it and how to's on collect- P q I �� U1 91�Ou %6 Am I;o Aed i
moved out of the premises owing ing. To get the package, write to: \ ' 'elgpmp QOp� 9.of me I 0411P8 ng " .
-ep rcul-awoou}lou ase smnpnard
you rent. That's the time to apply The Honorable Richard Katz, As- • 'AIlI9�Qp9 pas .
security deposit money to unpaid semblyman, 9140 Van Nuys Blvd., aql ematt umo 9 ouo °O .11 plug VIM 1p 8190 9ql 9;°394 sued�.,
rent. No. 109, Panorama City, Calif: Pue Alaedad 9til tlogq )tool sena 3somle aoj alto i}•j11at=1" Pty"". .
First, about serving a 30-day 9 i! It 9901-•isule8e uoptypstfl gni nox *9.M M9"M SmA aAU
notice, you should never serve -Puet s mos RWA 913010ad eouems• °q3 10;'49[11:Jot
such a notice in conjunction with a Tenant May Deduct - peas
111 egeglaem aleAlad ao ,moA 11aaq eAvq eta m soeld affil; `
three-day pay-or-quit notice. y 'S•D'•m-1 gamut. `uOlrnpaa 000V4,400 mie o;
Here's why: Repair From Rent clip 81[11 esuedxo 919ponpep-im loam mob if amp ,mol,.10 glom.,
A three-day pay-or-quit notice a 41 91 PW loauwneut 9BuRaoy;t paeds nal aa9q* Guo eq; 91
gives a renter the options of paying Q: I had a leaky faucet for three Gld}aul3d III Of 3Bgm Ajlouxg smog ta}em amoA ales SM oU -
the rent within three days or months in my Los a rgeles apart- •lyfd aoi 8}luuwAed Apptwm 9141 i yagl magi A" uaAa We 91101191 ,
moving out in three days.Serving a ment when I finally called in a ;o uollrod V •aeaA reel esnoq a -tr)W efts pug 'ApIM -
30-day notice to quit,which says to Pa98gamd u°9 A1n1 0;t1P3 avec A
the tenant she must move within 30 — — do Aed ue Asnatlels oauoo r uo wp ;
days, at the same time as the p
three-day notice, will confuse the ieling eg1 a11q o1 1sn) a9ldmis 9 u01FesPuuq a;o aouasgr atp ao F
000=818 �.dip 301
tenant. :f� Atgegoad Rl!ulq 'aaAmal a of 'lulad peal ;o aounud eq1 a>11t b Vlo 1}8:,Vnoi
q 'aoaApl
Similarly, the two notices used `'weI40 GQ1 alul pm0°n0A lol d , small woAoo Ala;es pus gllvoH I;9uemaagl e emoq
together will confuse a municipal ',9m IV 'Illq 0 aAl9oaa 1,11P1p nod •aallew l,upinom 1ug1 'galla 118411°N a19g1 m19(•J 1nq.9PPU
court judge,should the situation o P. uana WAM'APedoad A elqull -JO08pea PePeou.aptsu}aq;31 -pa of sa9;upv► eqi AVIS ogm 9ldoad
g WOO nOA P1ea1e w.1 :ses►s11w . -;uledaa.oq it 19111 ;sanbea lgg{m ;941 p 4 9Auq I V�$?saQ
as far as an eviction. As 'G dmrxe ao 'e
Now that I've told you what not " 'Z'7 'aW—e'19q I esm�at lr1tA+ magi and eaam 1ti ad amino sq; ��9J 1AOA i,n9aan+ ' -
to do, let's look at how you should ;'s yea of �1l PIROM 1 'aI9�:aced -dad oql;o uopemosead e�ppuePq PIIe
proceed. Serve the tenant with a SIU '000'6$I¢Omlo !A ; 1M 1u1od pinoo n A os•1"s 1}
three-da$100 balance owed) or rent (the 4noql!m
You 'see p edun 1aoi llos Su ePan lnoge sa OO VHA OUPow ���� � 184 (9l fills►
notice to eau G3eo 1183 r
q IPI Sulaq 9l ailgl p,noA uopntrread euttist,.ag1
may serve the notice any time after lo.mD put; "Pl�hs am MoN 'T8 VAIN Pug IN 0,11 -uoplPuoo lnoge lutlma;tgs
the rent is late. Rent c4ie on the - 71 pled ZaoAnq o o! Ucol U Sul>lew ao; a gufulp P101Puel 9q1 gl1m.%g9th
first is late on the second, unless ;snail pinom ani 111q a p0A10091 omoq r. Sulloodsul uogm io; lool -laude ue of 111 S lnour.ampti
the first is a Satu4day, Sunday or Pail am jI 'ssoappe mo Ino puy' VIIJ so°p ingM :gilPH 3984 uopoodsal us omq o1 89�F (o.0
holiday. Then the rent becomes .,ol magi ro; 9lduns uaaq eneq egg. a all! IMP $1119119; pullew oa a."due on the next business day, and p1nom.11 ggnogl '111q e 0 P9A183• anoA Is oleladoaddg aq pints 11 -�moA Supultd u.; acamsW
late the following day. ;-OJ aaeau am 1eg1 JOIN •90x91 It op of Paoiig um pug Jeep put ,1.g.d 7894 Pan,*q
If,after you serve this renter the aAlaedo3d Gql Pled aadol9Aap ear; asnoq anoA SUTAeq AO(ua — •AGuom ono ino we am Wig)
three-day notice, she doesn't pay "'Oq1 '(sa99A 0A1;) 11 ao1 SulAed• P,nOA 11 NaOm a 8,11 :loadsg x81 •;ou ao sem 1;13I UWN ;,uplP t'q
the rentor move out,get yourself a ,.momama11gAt p11e'sate aagloue amooul agl Inge loSiog -pled lea pug aeuMO admaol 94101 Pavel
good eviction attorney. u!lot a lggnoq oM :q1jp$zma . -aaluf egeglaoui lonpop noA emit gM of Par►o eat► usgn► aaagl
Groes Gql Is 'guns 9mos ao CID a gym uanq iggl mouN eM sled
Can Landlord Legally An q olamp POOR 111 AGuom Glgexel Sul°•9m w aget ga of year IIIc+11 lugfm sees aq Ip
e Omlq— Aug Ileo i llpoo ;, 'uegl -uenpe a 0mo tui ou s,eaagy . -an Aaaom Alp g111P1oq s1 aq pus
Enter Apartment? Ing—Anil o1 sell poo8 a 'slgl Imou lggp 'ailll noA aakattatim J81010)us" atp of *mq a Jot
Q The landlord came into m
11B0 At 'II011awlP jotille of gonm 11 laoueo o1 1gglt oql oAvq Arm a odsat apt sAes
Santa Monica a y 8ujulod lou sae pus -POOR
nod aoueansu} ul deaf} lentu alpM IN 'ea ou aadoad�lB
apartment last I was 1u1od ,saaAnq sill moa; poog noS aaglagat aalnbu} `aGPua1 rood ae g
without my nepermission while I was 4149;. gag 801er `mou 1 8 >; 0801 of peAOm OM
out to dinner.First,I don't think he q 1tI Q1F^� Su1>)aegs er,noA eflgMi .per Aaam Gmp uO lyw.
can do that, '$1°qs Gqi Iltp o1 alga saal •3apual otil Aq paltwg0 Alleuad
especially in Santa las-;9>]aew s,aal1es g se nn0m} '.tuautAedGad'a suleluoo age8l3om Geo P19d 'P}9d �mp�se pep
Monica. Can he? Second, now my sl.iegm10 18111 do 119 a �pnaee•a9gtan a ue.
expensive watch is missing. think P M 'sao}ad a sampamog -owl) 1a pg9gr fou W°IP°B1 Aseu 84Z
g .as}ea 1[1m puemap.Paegaao ;;;0 ageglaom a SulAed.ao1 410 •Roos asp►Alsedoad 84l LBB[nI
it stole it.How can I get it back,or, 4.ul 'seaae amos 111 ue:'am
�t least,suehim? P ll -uad Sal ou s,aaagy :AAISUV rn
•1i 'tans IV •salsa gglq 6n0IA9ad luolp :i silt Ail mop
A: In California,a O'BI'S-Z(gluom a Ly$)9um}metd ' -0adsul to 10 epem se.4►1a11tloa
rs are apartment own- -..1r s ngol�(e g8laom ao; A;![enb ,y1191r09t pue A11Ilgegp e�om ON ';1aodep Apanaea e,pao[Puel
required by law.to .give 1,upl ill aeneoeq 9G11118Pl9' ansa of op of etf11 PI°0^� I g014A+ eqi eno8 'ggBL,of i11aag3ede alto
,enters advance notice of their :eql uo Supip uooq aA,ogm old
ntent to enter unless there is an o; ul PaAOu 8M,gi;PB •arra
emergency. The notice must be in - XNd'I H.Licfi
writing and must be served at least
hours prior to entering during
iormal business hours. pews 1noop a p'no e s
The state's definition of "ewer- �
;ency"is nebulous,however. If az -- -- a
)wner,acting reasonably,has rea s1lo 9sn0 H '
gme 9*8Wf"B bAda,58 lV_J 1N3W31ddn $;
�� , - • .. Pal.,
v •
to
k Denotes action by Lead Person Sept loibeA l8, /989
RP.spond by:�—
ouncil
U San Luis Obispo City Council wb"4- try.
City daLL j ott.erk-ori .
veaA Councilmemben, - RpSs
9 have PLLowed the debate abo Ae �stng eLoaequaLity
Aa a
homeawneA with a young. pmcLy S commend youA e�PAIA to pA-"eAve
neighboAhooda. llowev" as a foAmeA cOLLege Atudenf who Lived in o�4-campus
housing 9 am verty Uncom40AtabLe with AemaAka. 4Aom both the pubLic and council
a AbeAa that &Aget Apec4it gAoupa as ob ject.i.onabLe. Student..& V4, uiowni.ea',
young va. OLd, the pAopeAti.ed vA. the AenteA---we aLL heard those di.aUmliOns
being drawn duAing public co ment. 9 wouLd pAe�eA to heaA about oAdinancea
that addAeaa habitA, behavioNA, and pAiviLegea that we ALL may need to mod4.q
to impAove S.L.0. Speeches agacnat moat4 innocent 18 year,-oLd& aAe ufe d"
Jpeec.Ae,&
►-
Speec.Aes against the CaL State UniveAaify yugg.eAmut may be 4utiLe.
S wouLd 'Like to Apeci pWL4• auggt t a ban on OV�RA''SyC on-&;tAeet parking
No pa king. m,i dnigAt (OA /am) till 5 oA 6 am. This woAka in OtheA communiti"
9t AA conatitut i.onal, addAee" p wpeA wne o� Av"d, PubLA4 PROPeAbl' 9t a a
buAeau-
�- a.�iaA ,a,v,epLeA #lu.ng to do than, eatabLi.eloing a dub,e.oud bunkbed-courtt,ing.
cAacy. Let me Liat advantage& to no oveAAight paAking: .
/. 9t will pAce no atudent out o4 an a44mdabLe bed. St wiLL encowwpe
many to Leave the.j.% ca" in yLem&Le, 3Ae no, oA WaLnui CAee/e.
2. UnLike otheA p iopoaalA, it wiLL AoAce a timely end to the LaAge,
ob yecti.onabLe Late night paAtiea in AeaidentiaL neighborhood&.
3, The aesthetica o4 cleaA stneeta aAe pLain.
4. Once in 4oAce a Aign�nt cA,ime p"vention bonus i..a achieved in
Aea,ideau&L neighboAhooda. Ike paLwLm n. can easily spot and ticket the
inapP"oP'.iate 3:00 am vehide, pwvidi.ng a measuAe o4 aecuAi.ty 4o.& all
® Ae.aidenta, and wipe&liy appAeciated by &eni.ot cil4ena.
S- 9t i4 4,brpLe, with just the cost 04 posting and i.nitiaL wa.vu.ng
Y
gnpAcement, the chaAac#eA o4 many neighboAhooda will impAove.
®
co � o bLemA, and
N 0 0 6. 3eweA caAs wiLL help aiA guaLity, tAa it and Pa a"9 PAD
(� CL 3seeded daytime paAki ng wiLL be pored up as the waAehoua,i.ng. o4. LiULe-used
W Cn Jelwc/ea on city
stAeeta is AeducerL
S hope you conaideA. tAia idea as eitheA an aLieAmii.ve oA an adjunct to
the meaauAe undue coAaidemtion,w�
.,,"�A�1oAt o4 the caVLai.nia &ming public
coaanent centeAed aAaund caAA, I^ -,4, conge&Uon, and nighttime noi.ae. Leta
4ocua on Vose pAobLema. Thank You. Ron RobeAts
y� S.L.O. CA 93401
//Lel 543-7W02 /I
Respond by:
Bf4=.1
ZA"t -
Se tember 18, 1989
04MEETING AGENDA
`J TO THE EDITOR OF THE TELEGRAM TRIBUNE �R'Rossi /
San Luis Obispo, CA, 934010'B• 3t.i}d�p„ DATE /o" - ITEM #
We heartily agreed with the Kamm's letter in your tember 9th column
citing "the Students" as bad neighbors. We are surrounded by them and Poly
starts today - alas ! our brief summer .relief is over.
The City Fathers banned parking on streets close to Poly and the property
owners there have to pay for their guests to park. Since Fredericks Street is
the first open street (and we live on it), as of this morning it is parked
solid from Hathaway all the way up hill. Trying to get out of our driveway
is hopeless. You can not see up or down hill with the big trucks and vans
Parked and they drive like they :re on a race track. WHY CAN'T CAL POLY WITH
ALL THEIR ACREAGE BE FORCED TO SUPPLY PARKING STRUCTURES FOR STUDENTS? It is
their fault that the townspeople are so miserable they have to leave town.
We have lived here 45 years and when we bought our property we were outside
the city limits with rural postal delivery. We worked most of those years to
be able to retire in a paid for home. Unlike the Kamm's - I won't move to
Faso Robles (it's too hot) or any place else. We were here first and intend
to stay as we're too old to start over.
We understand there is a noise level limit and if the amplified music
and screaming outside parties could be stopped at 11:00 p.m. instead of lasting
to 2:00 and 3:00 in the morning, perhaps it could be tolerated. We fully
realize the limited police force is unable to patrol every street in town -
because the students have infiltrated every residential neighborhood.
The Rasmussen's 6 Brown's
cc: San Luis OBispo City Council
Chief of Police a
President Baker
Cal Poly University
RECEI1IEp
SEP 95 1989
by Le z,d i:.,aor,
MEETING AGENDA
pr,:W by:
San Luis Obispo
PO.Box bis ` ;,H+JU11CA DATE 10'3' 9 ITEM #
California 93406 '' C
(805) 543-1034 _ ;:y Am.
ii,Clerk-0rig.
i-R.Rossi�/�
SSAN-LUI�S'C S90
ode TO OSA®
September 21, 1989
To: The City Council of San Luis Obispo
From: Rev. Jim Nisbet, Pastor, Old Mission Church
I am writing this letter as a person who rents to students in the
San Luis Obispo area.
In my opinion people often allow something to go on too long before
they do anything about it, and then they overreact. I think the rental
situation with regard to the students is just such a situation. The
people in town are resentful about a situation that must be dealt with.
Neighborhoods are unhappy about the condition of homes and the.
attitudes of the students. But it is a problem that has been allowed
to grow.. Often the conditions of a rental unit are the result of a
landlord interested only in income, not in the condition of the neighborhood.
Often the conditions of the home are due to students who do not care
C) in response to a landlord who does not care.
Perhaps the first step the council should take is a request to the
student body at Cal Poly to form a board to deal with the complaints of
students against landlords, landlords against students, and neighbors
against students or landlords. Then in some way the city council could
monitor such a board to see if it could deal successfully with the problems.
This could -prevent any further development of the "us and them"
attitude between the students and the people of San Luis Obispo, It
would also honor two great principles of our form of government,
subsidiary and judgement by peers.
If it would be of any help I would be willing to speak to you about
this, schedule permitting.
In Mary's Son,
V.
Jim Nisbet
JN/pm
RECEIVED
51989
WN LU.M Case%F!9
MEETING AGENDA
DATE o" ITEM #
LA CANADA VILLAGE
1750 Prefumo Canyon Road
Post Office Box 1735 permtes action by lead Pew!.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 1 Respond by: _--
Kewound
i kCAU
j;*<iy Atty.
September 20, 1989 I &oG"(`on9
%W
— R.Reui
�-
Mayor Ron Dunin 're- T T. !O- xrn.A 1
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo. CA 93401
Honorable Mayor Dunin,
The La Canada Village Homeowner's Association supports the City's proposed
ordinance that would limit student housing in single-family neighborhoods.
Our Village is now 50 percent or more tenant occupied and because of a few
residences which have too many persons living in them, noise and parking
have become an all too common complaint. The police have been called on
too many occasions to quiet late night parties. Because of overcrowding
there is a disregard for the parking rules and the rights of others are being
diminished.
There are 92 condominiums at La Canada and it is our belief that both the
owners and the tenants of all of these units can benefit by the proposed
ordinance.
LA CANADA VILLAGE HOMEOWNER'S ASSN
RECEIVED
CLERK
President Robert Scalise curs PEW
1 �was pauspo,PA
Secretary Ro ert right
i
hlV.[TING AGENDA
DATE �o- ITEM # � '
AIKEN & ASSOCIATES
C' REI-iABILITATiON CONSULTANTS
r 4 .-%.:notes action by Lead Person
ctspond by
ri<ouncil
September 22, 1989
ray Any.
i`,,rierk-prig.
R. Rou i
ter.T.
Mayor Dunin
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, California 93403 -8100
Dear Mayor Dunin:
In light of the proposed City ordinance for maintaining "quality
neighborhoods, " I thought you would appreciate a copy of a letter
that I sent to President Baker over one month ago. Although many
of us feel that President Baker should be taking a more active
role in this issue, I think it is quite clear why he is not.. He
is obviously part of the problem and protecting his own investment
interest Recent news that Cal Poly may increase enrollment to
20, 000 makes his investment appear lucrative indeed and not unlike
C ' "insider trading . " You may also be interested to know that
President Baker never responded to my letter although his
secretary confirmed that he did receive it.
I am aware that you are reconvening on 10/3/89 to hear further
testimony. I hope the information I am providing is helpful in
your continued effort to work with Cal Poly in reaching a solution
to these problems which have existed for too long.
Sincerely,
,' ;!-.`i7'— c.✓„ter
Bat Aiken
CC.: Councilmember Peg Pinard
Councilmember Penny Rappa
Councilmember Alan Settle
Councilmember J. Reiss
C.
1540 Marsh Street. Suite 115 • San Luis Obispo, Cartfornia 93401 • (805) 541-2202
-AEEN & ASSOCIATES
REHABILITATION CONSULTANTS
August 14, 1989
President Warren Baker
Cal Poly State- University
San Luis Obispo, California 93407
Dear President Baker:
On August 1, 1989, I attended a City Council meeting during which
Dean of Students, Hazel Scott, expressed your and the University's
interest for helping to maintain quality neighborhoods. As a
business owner, a resident of San Luis Obispo, a neighbor of the
University, a Cal Poly Alumni, and a- spouse of a Cal Poly staff
member, I applaud your concern.
However, it recently came to may attention that
partners (Professional Data Corporation) have uyou and your
my street, Albert. Drive, and that you may be using rchaethishase aon
n
investment rental and not a personal residence. This is cause for
great concern for my family and our neighbors.
Eight years ago, my husband and I sold our home in an R-2/R-3
neighborhood in contemplation of having children. We were seeking
a neighborhood with more stability, other children for our kids to
play with and grow up with, and the "camaraderie" that is usually
found in an R-1 "Single Family" neighborhood. I believe._this is
the same camaraderie that you said you missed by living on campus
(Cal Poly Today-Alumni Publication) . We found these qualities in
our neighborhood. However, we are now witnessing their decline as
more and more homes become rental units.
As a professional you have demonstrated a strong commitment too -a
"balanced." faculty and student population as evidenced by your I .
minority hiring and recruitment programs. Accordingly, I assume
you have an understanding of the community' s wish to maintain
"balanced" neighborhoods. As was brought out at the City Council
meeting, more and more of our neighborhoods are becoming rental
communities of unrelated people, while apartments and high density
areas zoned for that purpose are experiencing vacancies.
I am sure that you are also aware that very few new Cal Poly
for
utheirrfamili sstaff einers can San Luis Obispo.afford purchase These inflated prices are
. I
1540 MOrsh Street Suite 115 • Son Luis Obispo, COLfornio 93401 • (805) 541.2202 I
' f
1
� 2
caused in part by speculative buying and renting to multiple
unrelated people who can afford higher rents than a single family.
As a highly visible representative of Cal Poly who purports to be
sympathetic to the concerns of the community, I expect you will
set an example. At the very least I would hope that you will rent
to one of your own faculty or staff who cannot find affordable
housing for their family. I am aware of numerous individuals who
work at Cal Poly (and elsewhere) and whose children must attend
school 20-30 miles away where they are able to maintain an
affordable residence. As a parent you know that this is not a
desirable situation, especially in the event of illness or an
emergency.
Please help maintain the R-1 "Single Family" nature of this
neighborhood as it is zoned.
CPat Aiken
253 Albert Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
541-2202 Office
544-7106 Home
C� .
MEETING AGENDA .
DATE 12-"11 ITEM #
*t�3beles action by lead Pe so::
Respond by:
thomas r. pattersoA ina EVtouncil
[4Cno
P.O. 1 b]B A�� _ Atty
San LutLLU e Oblep0.CA 9Siof1 �'(�y
Mal Eet&W Corp. lerk-o '9. .
caos>544-W62LAY R. p �
StAftrw
September 22 , 1989
Peg Pinardv
San Luis Obispo City Council
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Dear Peg:
Your comments Tuesday evening and those of other council -members
about the continuing polarization of our residents were
excellent . The average family is unable to afford SLO because
there aren' t adequate quality jobs . We have become a city for
the wealthy , retirees and students . The reason is obvious -
there is no developing economic_ base in the San Luis Obispo area .
Paso Robles and Santa Maria actively seek quality employers to
locate in their areas . Quality employers provide the
necessary economic ingredient so children use schools ,
neighborhoods remain vibrant and most importantly interaction
between different age and economic groups . A city composed
of expensive homes without children isn'.t healthy .
Responses to employers desiring to locate or expand within our
area is a tragedy and the extent will not be known for several
years. One quality major employer recently re-located to Paso
Robles and another long term quality employer appears headed in
that direction . An economy cannot be based solely on government ,
tourism, financial institutions. and low paying service positions .
Major employers are deterred from considering the San Luis
Obispo area because of the lack of cohesive efforts and combined-
encouragement from the private sector and government officials .
The effect will be to dilute the vitality of our city in all
aspects .
I have substantial experience with issues important to businesses
considering locations and would be pleased to share my
experiences with you. Thank you for taking time to read my
comments . Your comments Tuesday night were obviously from your
heart and' I share the same concerns.
Sincerely , R EC EI_V. ED
arles L Senn CFS
CLS/t s d CITY CLERK
PANµt)8 opsin IRA
cc : City Council Members
&EPMW by.
-M ETING AGENDA /
22, 1989
L%1WWby--
September
DTE n3-89- ITEM #?Mayor Ron Dunin City Council tTembers City of San Luis Obispo, Ca. 9340 �
Gentlemen & Ladies: Re: Houorhoods
':`.'e urge that you include the following, among other provisions, in
the forthcomin,=- ordinance:
3usiness licenses for all rentals
300 sq. ft. minimum living space fcr each cccupar.t
Clearly defines parkin.- spaces ; permit renuired i?' converted
to other use.
`; e feel the :above will curb the conversion of very sr1a11 rouses
into miniature roomin.; houses. h 1,00!', s^ . ft. "doll house" .,.ith
50' lot is now occupied by 44 ager: :.`ho 0 ?i Cars. The shall si:'_pl.e
..-1�1ara -e is beim, used for other purnoses, so that one vehicle sits
in the driveway a.rd 3 others on the -treet. ILC'1 _e _.0 jaCer:v tG It
has miiany occupants with 5 t0 U vehicles. 'hat ;;arae seems to be
Cio`?ed off also . 3lOr1E �'1t ': their '3lsitcrs this street is oecc'li: ,,,-
._.Other ' or_, dre_a'y lire of CC--r` 11C
:a=ds receive no .na.intenance , ever before the arouth Fu: d. water.
rationing. One 3 ' hed -e is out of control, a traffic hazard on
this very busy street.
�)
All of us are responsible , lora -time residents, taxpayers and voters.
Several have very fine houses and others would like to improve our
places , but see no point in doing so if the bloc_t Coes down the
drain. Ve .,.ant to stay here, but we need help,alorg `:+ith enforcement.
lh:-.;n_c you.
Sincerely,
I a,se address Phone No.
fit. 7h• �aZ /� > `� LD :��'3- �qo 6
➢�- ,-� �7111141,�3 Fi SAO
- City motto :ey 53_ �d76
cc - Mr. John. Cotton
P. S. Hedge finally trimmed on afternoon this date. R E C E IV. E D_
SEP 2 5 1989
MY cmc
MEMNG AGENDA
DATE le 389 ITEM #
C'
249 Longview Lane
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
October 2, 1989 Denotes action by Lead person
R nd by:.��
�zmrcjl
EnVAO
San Luis Obispo City Council tvAny,
City Council Office 7cw
.r (
City Hall
990 Palm Street -r
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear City Council Members:
Our family has lived in the vicinity of Cal Poly for many,
many years. We have always enjoyed the college students
when they stopped to visit while walking to or from college,
and our home has always been open to them whether they were
visiting us or working for us. We have always had a room
and bath that we've rented to a Cal Poly student (one at a
time) and the relationships have been good.
However, in the past couple of years, there has been a great
change in our neighborhood. House after house has been sold
to "parents" who fill them to overcapacity with college
students. . They don't appear to respect private property re:
noise, trash, or going fast down our streets and through
stop signs. There have been more and more parties, larger
and larger crowds and more littering of the streets with
liquor bottles and empty Styrofoam cups.
The weekend of September 15th and 16th was no different
except that the crowd was so large that the streets were
blocked at the intersection of Bond and Hathway streets and
the littering so bad and widespread that it looked like a
trash dump (see enclosed photos) .
I immediately called some Council members (only one was at
home) , and the Telegram-Tribune; then went to Mr. Warren
Baker's home (President of Cal Poly) and asked him to come
with me to see firsthand the trashed yard. He refused,
saying he would come later; when I told him that the .
students were already beginning to clean up, he again
refused.
RECEIVED
OCT 3 1999
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
:_�C-)rz,.,,_
CThis was a big disappointment for it seemed to me that if he
would only see what was happening (in the neighborhood where
he, himself, has bought a house) , he would be more
understanding of what is happening all over San Luis Obispo,
and then would be better able to work with our City toward a
reasonable solution.
I support the ordinance that the "Residents for Quality
Neighborhoods" have recommended. I urge you to help restore
our city so that everyone may have a better quality of life.
Sincerely yours,
Dorothy E. Rasmussen
cc Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
State Senator Ken Maddy
Assemblyman Eric Seastrand
Mr. Warren Baker
University Regents
C2
�IIIII SII C Ty
c 1tyo, - sN 7qv3 A
"Perswoni S Bis
- anotas ac
990 Palm Street/Pos -84ee So., to Obispo, CA 93403-8100
al
September ^9 , 1989 CAO
el5ly Atty�p7,
❑Clerke ft
MEMORAND ... B` /
To: -,-' -.y Council, Ce � �e t Director, Assistant
City Admi:.istrative Offic -, orney and Assistant City
Attorney
From: -hn Dunn
Subject: DDcuments on Cal Poly's projected growth
Attached are all the documents which the Mayor and I have in our
separate dies relating to Cal Poly projected enrollment. The two
sets of c;--uments have been combined, and placed in reverse
chronological order for your convenience.
We do not have corresponding documents for Cuesta College. This
week I had an extended conversation with President Grace Mitchell.
�,. While she ::ss very conservative, she was hesitant, in the short-
term, to pt.:- their projections in writing, because the data on
which the-: ;ould be based is still in the process of being
assembled .
Because she has an important Board meeting on October 3, the
college ::ill. be represented by Dr. John Rivers, Dean of Students.
Please give me a call if you have questions or comments.
JD:mp
Attachments
RECEIVED
SEP zq 1989
"CITY CLERK
Mt JNG AGENDA
Denotes action by Lead Person GATE -0 ST ITEM #
Respond by:
06ouncil
Fcl
2$2 Averuce
Atty RECEIVED San Luff Q;( o, CA 9340/
2 1989 Seo .` z7, /9 9
rig.
OCT 0 _
ffYCUFPK
8ANclusmsWQ,CA
To: C'c;�y Coumcil 1�kmbe/w:
%lease, 9 beck you adclire.�.J Ae Lj-due v4 .J.tudentd (Cal %')Ol anal Cuesta)
tt have .in.vade;7 eveV neighbojzhood in. tlw� 4xLni
,nee4 .iavedotolw have puwAa4ed hou4ea, as ' outlandi.eh rrerct�, theae6r�,
V� o aaUe 6 jevewa o ant4 and w' and 4WV4ngCc�, kruau
.that atudent� w� neje .� enclvu.d rriz". o� Aeae imyeato d
ate out-o4 o� thaj co!ute ru ZV Lg #o the co�muoci ty (.i. e.
puuluz.�.cn�. uti li�rreg o2 4up.�orcting #h�.a a2ea a avjuwj except berng
detiri 2 by caU.wug, 4uch a taemendou.4 gri.e4 .to peznanent izeaiden&
#hat have .Ci.ved heae Ton -do maruy ryeal,4.
MxW oi� 4Aeje 4t2ent4 have no �pect (02 ihe.iA n.eig bozo - partied .tLU
wl0y in Ae moan with .Loud and vb'rwxLou j 6.l�, Caird ecr,u:vq.� and
tv azd Potking becomcn� a 61 uzina&v on l u;w out .cn
�, me cruvw't conn wl .the 9QNS �� g enema ti�vrc but, rhea, �h e /.7Q1/S
.fallen by oua selected ai tg v crxzl� can .fiend a cLeaz me j sage .to the e
people Wtat we wi,U aot tv e � rwm4erwe. We, .the pe=rcent �i
dent. (.enrwcen t, decent, and .carrab.idiru. ci&,zerw) have &Lgh t.4 and need
prroteation vv. lbyou wartf the aed dentiril aefgAborrhavrlr to di4 rrteg4ate
.cnto =6-d�andazd hou4xng and have o.d .6imea4 (ae well as nau) move & oAe/L
a4ea4, as man4 ate da.ing,? 94 Azd chat you want? What .impart wLU tkij
have on Ae city?
A avr,b aL6.t be p. ace�on .jh&len t en w)-,6ne,,f .immedia&4 and PewMwL;f4 at
both. coL&ge4. Two to one b nn,
f/avlived heae aU my . i le (57 ryeau) ,9 nevea Aeamed out. bettl
e iam could be .jo de, # ed. Jecau4e o4 the .rnarmeaae o� 4 ,
a j we.0 a7 mace Wed po 2 or 4cvurvureAi CZZLe 4 ouz 4 cepa
has begun 6o detev �e. 9t -d even a chole .to diuve tfricrc faun, wtth.
rppe crura p—op rtg b� and vcca4i_onal ttT, to b�e tv�avo.Fd a c�h.
Syne o the oede.4bLiarz,6 even .t/r inh a Ited'i , mean. gv ( the can wil L
o tvp a me, .they .jagl'� %he 6 'cr�c L j;6 6u z A/za the �top 4u aj
.there welte none. GLce u�.em c'v Lviv i� pYeLL4wuzUe, nvw ct a J-i4e aqd
death ji-!canon wa i.tiny Pa .the iaevi&U-e.
TAiA iA a veruy gaave j.i tuatioa and one khat ma it be dealt wi th. qui.cWy and
S.inceae4�4
b'.i/ �irnnc2/
iu. 6ZLm Damoa
(A homeoune/z. A2 29 yea/L6)
S : Qui wn atteLded a Ld gatluated ,r°wm iYal l o.lg 4i-x gear a o. &ij
he UVA Gaought,up to rejoecf othe2 pevpLe-4 ru�)LtiJ andpnnpezfr�. lYku�be the
coUec�e clvvrecaLum .vzvuld .in.cLude a counde on .this �LZcwt .6,nace i f -Looha
a,j gouruu �eneicatil,n hajn'.t been. ichoo.led in dinecti.an.l
N�_,,I'111i6 AGENDA
�o
DATE �a/89
ITEM #
September 30 , 1989
Dear Council Members:
My husband and I have lived at 244 Albert Drive for almost 30
yrs. We built much of the house ourselves. We have enjoyed
living here with friendly neighbors, a grade school nearby
and children of all ages.
Now, with the changing scene we have seriously considered
moving out of town. However, my husband' s employment takes
him between Cal Poly and Cal Trans so it is a convenient
location, we like our neighbors, the climate and we do not
like being run out of town.
Instead, we are adding on to our home partly to increase our
chances of a good night' s sleep since homes are being sold
around us. A home sold next to us before an ad could be
placed in the paper. There were families that wanted it but
with realtors who have lists of parents or investors, the
families don' t have a chance.
A top Poly administrator recently purchased a home for a
rental without its even going on the market. Our neighbor-
hood is an "investment" now and the vultures are circling.
It used to be that homes were sold to college faculty for
appraised value. Now, the lack of housing is a deterrent to
professors accepting a position with Poly.
We were recently in Toronto and Montreal . There residential
neighborhoods have the utmost protection. Residents park in
the garages and driveways . Here, garages become bedrooms and
storage areas . In Canada, if a resident lets his yard go,
city workers fix it up and send a bill . Neighborhoods are
lovely, as ours once were.
With our addition we are required to add two more trees to
the front plus landscape a small area in the rear to planners
specs. Half a block away, trees and landscaping have died
long before rationing. For the most part these rental
investments are not kept up and in many instances are
becoming slums. We have been shocked at the condition of
whole blocks since we have been investigating this problem.
We ask you to pass draft ordinance No . 1 without weakening
it , for our neighborhoods are the town and they need to be
saved. Do we want a town or rental investments?
* hot� �nbyLeaThank you',�j/�Q�
ft"Wond by:
0 Mrs. Henry ( Doreen ) Case
L�fN�Y• 244 Albert Drive RECEIVED
OCT 2 1989
60 F�G� CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS 0131§120,CA
Hi , I 'm Tim Farrell and I am a resit of San Luis Obispo and
attend Cal Poly . I am here tonight to voice some concerns about the R-1
ordinance proposal and it' s long term effects on the community . My first
request to the city council is to shelve the ordinance plan for an
indeterminante amount of time as it appears that this ordinance is not well
concieved nor well thought out in relation to it' s long term impact to the
community . However , you as well as I . Know that this request will not be
granted. Therefore , I ask that you hear me out on some of the points that
I bring up .
My first point is in regards to the idea of a business liscence to
be required of all rentals in the P,-11 R-2 zoning districts. If the city
holds all landlords bound by this law then the city will be responsible for
the resultant rent increase required to pay for this inconvienance .
Secondly , the passage of such a law will be in direct contradiction of
Mayor Dunin' =_• campaign promise he made in 1985 stating that city
interference is the cause of San Luis Obispo having such high F�-ts�a costs.
Althouah I realize that Mayor Dunin has stepped aside as a. result of what
he claims to be conflict of interest , I must tell Mr . Dunin that if he .
allows this to pass without voicing any public or private opposition he
will be in violation of the public trust that placed him in office in the
first place . In fact , Mr Dunin , ju=_.t why is it that you are declaring a
conflict of interest when your apartments are in the P.-3 zoning district?
We need positive leadership in a crisis, don ' t shy away from your duty ,lust
because it' s an election year .
My second point is in regards to the requirement of 3140 square feet
of floor area per adult on the pr•e.m i s.es . I d i s.a.gree on this issue on the
grounds that , as a recent refugee from the Cal Poly Dorms , I lived in a 9
by 19 foot dorm room that I shared v.1i th one other room mate . Wi t
allotments made for hallway and bathroom stalls. plus the shovier . I still
come up about 75 square feet short of what thislaud would account for .
While I admit that anything under 300 square feet is not all that great a
living quarters , it is all I had in the dorm . The reason why I am opposed
to this part of the ordinance being passes is that if it goes into effect ,
it will create even more strain on the current housing crisis in San Luis
Obispo. As it stands , upwards of eighty Cal Poly/Cuesta students do not `,
as of yet , have housing. If you were to impliment this ordinance as it
stands, without regard to ASI President Eccheveria' s modifications, you
will increase the severity of the housing crunch not only on students but
even on the younger generation of adults that have grown up in this city .
The result could be that students decide to move off in droves. to Morro
Say , Pismo Leach , and Arroyo Grande and commute to Cal Polyand Cuesta,
thereby turning San Luis Obispo into a ghost town of opportunities
destroyed by the council that reached too far .
My final point is in regards to Councilmember Peg Pinard. Mrs .
Pinard, to be quite honest with you , your stands on decreasing enrollment
would have been much better received by the students if you would have
presented a formal argument to the ASI giving your viewpoint as a city
countilmember . It is because of the way you have presented Yourself as a
zealot , whose sole purpose in life is beating down the students, that most
students consider you the pariah of the city council . You have insinuated
that we students are interlopers in your town , and I must tell you that I
resent your course of action . We are . . . I am a member of the community that
is San Luis Obispo . This us versus them policy that you espouse is only
going to make matters even worse . If you are able to passthis ordinance
as written , you must be able to accept the possibility of a. =student
community moving out of SLO and take it ' s business to a different city
where we will be respected for our contribution as a body and not by that
of a small minority .
I want to end this on a positive note . The only person here who
has demonstrated any form of leadership is ASI President Ri'cr_a.rdo
Eccheveria. I want to personally thank P, iccard0+or showing the mayor ,
city council , President Baker , and the community what real leadership is.
Thank you
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 3 8 ITEM #
cuEsra
RECUESTA COLLEGE P.O. Box 8106 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8106 • (805) 546-3100
O
�
COLLEGE
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY COMMUppN�ITgY COLLEGE DISTRICT
CEU �i7' ED
OCT 3 ,1969
October 3, 1989 0 ""
CITY CLERK
San Luis Obispo City Council SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
Attention: Mayor Ron Dunin
Dear Mayor Dunin and Members of the Council:
Because the Board of Trustees of Cuesta College meets on the same night as the City Council, I
am unable to attend the meeting of October 3. 1 would appreciate your having this letter read into
the record of the meeting.
Although we understand the concerns of the City relative to growth, and would like to express our
sincere interest in continuing to cooperate with you, as we always have, we would also like to
present some information which may assist you in your current discussions and serve as a basis for
future discussions.
As you know, public policy in the state of California calls for community colleges to be part of a
tripartite system of higher education, providing lower division programs for those interested in
transferring to four-year institutions as well as occupational training, retraining, continuing education,
and other offerings. Cuesta was built for the purpose of serving a district which includes all of San
Luis Obispo County, and is governed by a locally elected board. Although our primary function is
to serve students within our district, because community colleges have no attendance boundaries
imposed by the state, most of them, including Cuesta, have some students in attendance whose
primary residence is not within their districts.
A recent review of the mission of community colleges conducted by the State of California has
reaffirmed our primary missions and, once again, emphasized providing access to higher education
for all citizens of California who can benefit from that experience. The 'open door' access to
community colleges is a hallmark of the California system of higher education. This emphasis on
access, however, is accompanied by regulation intended to improve students' chances for success.
Students must be tested and counseled into programs and courses in which they are most likely to
succeed. In other words, not all students qualify for all classes, and some are therefore not able to
enroll.
Other constraints also limit our ability to serve all the students who wish to attend. Those include a
growth °cap' which limits dollars we receive from the state for enrollment, as well as limitations On
the availability of funds for building. For example, Cuesta's original building plans were never
completed, following the passage of Proposition 13, because no funds were available. This fall
semester, based on those limitations, as well as other concerns, we deliberately capped the number
of sections we offered in order to provide for a reasonable, but limited, amount of growth. Many
students were turned away.
In addition to consideration of the short term limitations described above, Cuesta is aggtressively
pursuing the development of a long-range master plan for programs and facilities. This plan is
being developed for the purpose of providing educational opportunities for our entire district and is
being done with input from staff members, community representatives, and with expert assistance.
Our off-campus programs enroll over 1200 students already; there is increasing demand for
programs and services in areas distant from our campus, especially in the northern part of the City
J,
� Council
�) October 3, 1989
Page 2
district Those needs will be considered as we develop our master plan. Community college
facilities planning requirements usually take a minimum of five years between concept and
implementation, and include working with the Chancellor's Office, State Office of Architecture, and
other agencies. Cuesta College will approach any such planning, as it always has, in a considered,
thoughtful, and cooperative manner.
One measure of the growth the college has experienced over the last six years is the ADA (average
daily attendance), which is the basis of our state funding. Because many of our students are
community members with other responsibilities, they are attending classes only part time. (The
average age of our students is 27; the average number of semester units they take is 8.4.) Our
ADA figure, therefore, is an approximate measure of the number of FTE (full-time equivalent)
students enrolled. From Fall, 1982, to Fall, 1988, our first-census ADA increased by approximately
18%, an average of 3% per year. The total number of students enrolled (part-time and full-time)
during that same period increased 27.4%, an average of 4.3% per year.
It may interest you also, that during that period, and preceding the current rationing period, our
water use decreased. Cuesta College has always planned its use of water so as to remain well
below its allotment; and, at this time, we are operating consistently below the allotment provided
under the rationing ordinance. The College has always chosen to operate in a responsible manner
and will continue to do so.
�. We estimate that, over the years, Cuesta has served over a quarter million residents of local
communities. A recently completed economic impact study, which will be released in two weeks,
gives dramatic proof of the positive effect this college has on this area Our goal is to continue to
serve our district well. Our efforts in that area appear to be paying off; this fall the enrollment at
Cuesta of local high school graduates is up over 20%. We plan to intensify those activities which
will provide local residents with priority registration so that we can ensure their access to the
College.
There are many instances in which Cuesta College has worked cooperatively with the City of San
Luis Obispo and the other communities it serves. We continue to do so in many areas including
water, transportation, and traffic. Our students and the college administration are actively involved
in the attempt to find solutions to mutual problems.
The City of San Luis Obispo, has, in tum, supported the College as its 'home college,° and we
appreciate that support. As we proceed to examine Cuesta's future through our planning process,
we will keep you informed and will continue to seek cooperation and support. We look forward to
continuing communication on our mutual concerns.
Sincerely,
Q�
Grace N. Mit ell Laurence L. GBudT Laurent
President/$ erintendent President, Board of Trustees
`J cad/p/cc.103
THE CALIFC ZNIA STATE ,J' NIVERSITY
BAKERSFIELD-CHICO-DOMINGUEZ HILLS-FRESNO-FULLERTON-HAYWARD-.HUMBOLDT
LONG BEACH.-LOS ANGELES-NORTHRIDGE
'Vo
OMONA - SACRAMENTO - SAN BERN ARDlNO - SAN DIEGO - SAN FRANCISCO -SAN JOSE VpX SAN LUIS OBISPO -SONOMA - STANISLAUS
�.1 J VITA
OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR
(113) 590-
August 24, 1989
Mr . John Dunn
City Administrative Officer
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Mr . Dunn:
Several weeks ago, a copy of a letter on City of San Luis
Obispo letterhead, dated May 23, 1989, and addressed to the
Board of Trustees of The California State University was
( forwarded to me. Although the above-mentioned letter was not
officially transmitted to the Trustees, I am nevertheless
responding to it in the hope that this response will lead to a
speedy resolution of issues cited.
While the Board of Trustees is responsible for policy
oversight of the 20 campuses of the CSU system, matters such as
those enumerated in the May 23 letter are brought to the Board
for policy resolution only after they have been thoroughly
reviewed by the campus president and the Chancellor , and if
those issues cannot otherwise be resolved.
I am certain that the campus administration at California
Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo wishes to maintain
and enhance the positive relationships which have existed
between the City of San Luis Obispo and the university. In
this connection, I urge you and the city ' s leadership to work
with President Baker and his staff in order to fashion a
mutually acceptable resolution to the several issues raised in
the May 23, 1989, letter .
400 GOLDEN SHORE,LONG BEACH,CALIFORNIA 90802-4275 INFORMATION: (213)590-5506
John Dunn
8/24/89
UPage 2
We very much appreciate being alerted to the water problems
currently facing the city and the actions which have been
initiated to address these problems . I trust that further
discussion with President Baker will only help to ameliorate
any concerns you may have about the university ' s impact on the
city' s water problems .
Sincerely,
H\ rt L. Carter
Executive Vice Chancellor
HLC:cb
cc: Chancellor W. Ann Reynolds
i
J city�.��� sAn hugs oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
May 23 , 1989
California State University
Board of Trustees
400 Golden Shore
Long Beach, California 90802
Dear Members of the Board of Trustees,
The City Council of the City San Luis Obispo wishes to alert the
Board of Trustees of the California State University to the
current situation in the City with respect to water supply,
growth and development.
our -area is experiencing the third consecutive year of drought.
Salinas Reservoir, the City's major water supply, is down to 27
percent of capacity. In response to the drought, the City
Council has implemented emergency measures including:
* An urgency ordinance to impose mandatory water
conservation.
* An amendment to the Water Allocation Regulation which
will impose a building moratorium while mandatory
water conservation is in effect.
* Appropriations for expedited explorations and development
of new ground water sources.
The California Polytechnic State University and the. City share a
common water source, Whale Rock Reservoir, located approximately
10 miles northwestof the City. At current levels of growth and
development, the City's demand for water exceeds it's safe annual
yield. Presently, the University does not use its full allotment.
The City Council wishes to acknowledge the efforts of the
University in implementing water conservation measures during
this emergency. The Council also appreciates the University's
offer to lend the City 200 acre feet of water.
The University has plans to increase full-time enrollment from
14,300 to 15, 000 by 1990. In light of the emergency being
experienced by the. City of San Luis Obispo, the City Council
wishes to express concern about the impact this increased
O
C�
enrollment will present. The increased demand on housing and
resources would come at a time when citizens are being required
to reduce their water consumption and no new development is being
allowed.
The Council requests that the Board of Trustees consider measures
to mitigate adverse affects on the City which may result from
this increase. These measures could include:
1. Delay of any increase in full time enrollment while
mandatory water conservation is in effect.
2. Grant water to the City (A loan from Cal Poly was
negotiated recently) .
3 . Encouraging use of student housing on campus.
Again, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
appreciates the opportunity to alert the Board of Trustees to our
concerns and to request your cooperation during this emergency.
C' Sincerely,
Ron Dunin
Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
u
—[ cZ
CAL POLY
,AL:FORVIA _ ;7ZZCH.NIC JTATE UNi%'EPS:71'
c CEOF 'FY.E PRESIDENT
x.05) 756.6000
Mav 1989
Mr. John Dunn
San Luis Obispo City administrative Officer
P.O. Eox 8100
San Luis Obispo. C: 93403-.8100
Dear John:
As a follow-up to the meeting which was held on campus on Aprii _26,
please find enclosed a copy of the summary notes from that meeting.
Shouid there be any questions or concerns with regard to the content
of the summary notes, I would appreciate it if you would call them to
my attention. In addition, it would be appreciated .and helpful if you
Ccould distribute to appropriate City personnel copies of these
summary notes for their information.
I would again reiterate the comments which I made near the close of
the meeting to the effect that we would appreciate receiving in
writing from both the Couniy and the City maicr issues which are of
concern and which you feel need to be addressed as the campus
continues to pian for its long-T.erm enrollment increment.
enjoyed the opportunity of meeting to discuss the campus' future
and the relationship of anv �roivzh which auah- occur to the
communities. We will continue to engage in ciiaic,�ue and discussions
with regard to these issues i*a the months ahead.
Sincerely
Men J. ',:Ial;er
ident
Enclosure
cc: Mayor Ron Dunin (w/o enc. )
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
i
.SAL.. �.J;.�iIA POLYTECHNIC s-.=, _.. T_�,l�: s.��s.TY_ . . .,a�; �.��a uses c
C C UNEVIA >: T!S
Ieeianz wir^ gar. :iis C Dispc City and Coan-v ?e^scnrae!
to Discuss ::r.iime::- P'_:_n.^.in= ;ssues
_zr:: 26. 1.989
rtiClp:::1 CS: ::an Luis Obis-.)o Coun-r,: Su=er•.'isor David BlaSeiv:
Bob :iendrix. County Admini_c rive Officer: T m
`less. Assistant. Count- Administrative Officer.
Citi- of Safi pais Obispo: Y(avor Ron Duni-. John
Dunn. City Adrhrusrratit:e t)L:icer; ill Hetland.
Director Of Utilities; ':obv RAss. ASsistant City
Administrative officer.
The University: ?resident ;iarren J. Baiter: Malcolm
."son. Vice ?resident vor Academic A_fairs and
Senior Vice " -eSidenr: James Landreth. 'vice l'res:(ient
Lor Business .-`;=fairs: �l:LZei Scot-. Dean ')f SrUc:e""
Af:::irs. Dou,ias Gerard. Sae:.::`ire Dear:. _a.ci:ites
_.dmiraistration: cwa-d vies. .. __c
'he rresideht.
?resident Baer we:comer, the _roup and reverenced the meeting held
in May L,v 1988 in which the Univ-rsir.7 sharer. •,vitt^ Cir.. and Countv
oersonn.-i attending tie backzro'1nd with r-mard 'C -.he Univers:.v
pian in.� -o mm e 70 the M :stet Plan ceiling en )Um- en-_ of 15.C'.)07-
and discussed some ov r^e to::;-r:gin J—_ n Tann:_^0• t`at t.^.3 v--n:versiry
was ^_oinz in res-oonse 7, reques,,. that it look the potenr.al fcr
'_ncr?asin. i`_s enrolment 1oo:iinfr .`..-ward the ..ime of 2;)05-20i).
The 11'resident '_i1d:C.^-.t.9u tf:it because the l,nivers ..35 now
make :e f1r5t i;:�"e:Sle:1:1: .`.:can nL i^cre-sing fr..... _ •�•
--
FT'-' i^ ':e current year to 14.7. 00 _ TF, in-1990/9_. and because it ..ad
ust submitted a preliminary estimate cf potentia; enrot went increases
for rhe year 2,005-:006 .^.e fel: it was appropriate.. as was agreed at
the meeting a year a.go. -.o meet_ a;aln to review the status of tl-e.
overall planning efforts.
He aiso noted_ that because of the concerns which had been expressed
the prior week by the City Council as it was discussing the current
water shortage, he felt it was i.^portant to matte sure that all
concerned were aware of the actual enrollment plans since the media
reports of the discussion at the Council meerinq significant overstated
the enrollment plans of the University.
He asked Malcolm Wilson to distribute and review tale most recent
information from the Chancellor's Office with re,ard to enrollment
projections for the period 1990/91 through 1995/96. Dr. Wilson
distributed the attachment to coded memorandum AS 89-08/AA 89-11
which displayed for each of the campuses within The California State
*Tniversity the reported enroiunents for 1986/87 and 1987/88. the
J'U.rnmar•: Notes - _ i=erinz iVi" SLO City :;nd CtaP.'.'" ?e:'SC.^.n'1.
:989
ize 2
��nt �st:Wat r:�.UM
_'-:r. e 1983 1,'39 e:.r ✓e sus -,e b onrn
enrol'=el:.. fc. e same .•ear. .,c the fin.:i .:iloc:aic:zs
az_J e:_c:.
esc^ of ti.e years atwe
campu._ _ c e- and _ :95/96. _ his
displa s -,ws that Cai Poly's uudgeted FTE of 11 ,300 for the current
Year �1989/90) _-creases to 1 ,7C0 FTE for 1990/31, to 15,000 FTE ?^r
1991/92 and rem:ins at that :l ure through the ! ._195/96 year. This
planned enrollment is _den:cal to that provider_ ^neviousiv. irc1L di^
the "%Ia: 1988 meetir
Dr, 5G jsoa also d:s`�••cuad a summary r, ,� r� c ,-ear _F _ _^ and
-< zr aca e..�i.:
-umber of 1:di dui students or "head count" -- for the pe^od
1976/'7 through 1987/38 and projected `or 1989/90 through 1.:191/9'_.
A ;lumber of issues :V.11 regard to the::e materials were discussed bF_
Ln_:verSit`: representatives. _nCiud` a- the following:
dor a nLm:C to of reasons it's anricipated -.1,a-i. the 1ncrP.3 70
r,; F _
_..•. , �.) _T _.
_ .vt1l l.r?ase ane a�..ua1 .lu.:moers ... student-- ..
about 500-700 indi.'iduais over -...-. .:umcer
ae area be-:.veen '.ling City on .. e north a:d Lcmnoc
sc::::h Tenerates approx:matei': 11 percent of the total
aonllcants "'ecei`.•ed b.. th— Universit _Eecause Of the ":;cal
preference" 1:: the mulzi-crlteri3 FtdIl71;iS1cn5 Dr0°ram, about 22
Percent c: '? acrual, enroLment comes frcm this ve0graphlC
tDurin 1...e `%er4Md 1.9 3 tnrojl,h 1'33. C '.festa : GLIegP_`S
^oiL:lent .lad increased about :2 percf�:a and v:Wile
:� ecdeta.` it has been r�^C Led by some a' Ctesta Coiiec''� t ?t
b2twP_?n G:, and 65 prC:'nt Gf I, fetal enrcilment is iiU::Sii» o?
the Cuesta Colie_ae district bo undarles.,
�. Cil Poly has not grown during t..l e 1978-1988 perioc..
5. Approximately 200 of the FTE ;and about •350 individuals)
listed for Cal Po1v are actuallv not on campus cr in the are
because of participation in the Cooperative Education
Program, various international overseas study programs, and
other similar activities.
Mayor Dunin indicated that he fully recognized that the planned
growth to the 15.000 FTE by the university is information that is well
known to the Citv, that it has been snared on a number of occasions
previously, and that he fully urderstooc the plans of the University.
However, he also; indicated that at the time the plans for the
Universitv were finalized and shared with the City there were
different circumstances and that there were two major issues
�. confronting the City which resulted in the City's concern about anv
growth on the part of the campus. These two issues relate to the
continuing problems with groups of students living in R-1 housing
i
Summary tioxes - `-Ieetin_ with S;_u Cit-:- ai:d r"oun^: Ptrsonnei
;creas and. :here itpr._t^ntiy asf r s:_ . e imine+,late f_iture is
concerneea-@r hnrtag 3ecause or the ....:r.er si: rtz e ^.a
zhe need .cr the Cit-: eclare s moratcrium on aL buLdin4 and -..e
deed to impiemtn- a mind ar.ory conservation r_,r water raticnin
^ ogram f0r t_e C residents the C_ concerns e
;vslad =eat about rl:
Universivv increasing its erroi'_me.^.t at aL.
3efore -ursuing flsrt :er the short-range aspects. President ?aker
,ndi-catec: .`.hat .- i+:ant::•a to prop:ide ,niormation wit.: re__--:,rd tc• the
Ong-rsnae palming prOCesS. .-_4 reiterated a=ain r.`.e Star2:vide
that is :nein, conducted by the California Postsecond.,,iry Education
Commission which will be presented ro the Legislature in December of
1939. This stud-: is an attemp-.: to determine the enrollment canacit:
ri?e^.S for a l O: higher education. including the three public .
segmenr_:. and to come up wit: some information on where
^.Ar1nC m_ul._ Uc1_ . .., cne mtanzi'me. within T_.e CalifCr' _a _"ate
.'n:Versir; , enrodm-e_}- plann'T efI:;S't IS ;USO ..::der- _y
.ndications are -_.at -::e hea:. cunt en.-iiment cvi-..ir. _ e Ca:"'orrlia
titare _ _ ,,. increase a00u'•. 5n
: )L S f.ae
aar 2095. Or . . �g:,l:% ..L percent. I- iS :�`: ...n r_ar CGnrext -::at
,1P_i-:ersi recenuy submitted CSC1m.:rE'. t0 the sysre ind: a-Li:'�'
-liar withln .'e _r-'Lmewor_{ _:e ObV10L'S n�eC. fcr .Clew oTlVsic0u
master _.lan, considerabie ,%orh :%:ith regard to infrastr'icture. arc: the
need to work with the commu it.' in v3riOLtS issues in tvli_Cn an
�. enroilment -rowan Would moact the colL'.:iLMM"S. -nal the i_Iliversl�:'
_C11C1 possibly grow t0 17.4in ATE iri Lne . Par 20105/20no- which w`7,uid
result In f; heat cnunr approxi-nateiv 2G,O()w) indiyidtla studenr5.
. .._J 'ri...=rea.e .i_-.'.-:'_ze oara-eic the Information provided. last v-ar.
i- was I:Gt?O that t_ie ti._:in.,,- and se ue-Ce of even-s with re_'OarC t0
,he C?E= z-udV and - e system's response to that s-udy. 3'On� SCit
some determina-`�r wirh regard ro %%fha- the r'_ClrOil.'i:en- "'rcwth fi.recaS-
T'V:ii be fen each 0f the campuses as well as olans for additicnal
campuses, would take another 12 to 13 months. I.-Ince that has
occurred it would then be necessary for funds re be allocared for a
complete physical master plan revision and within that maser plan
revision would be cYi? need. for the development of an e-Vironmental
impact report ;aS well as various programs necessary to mitigate the
poteniiai impacts o growth on the surrounding communities. t was
pointed out that this itming, combined with the capital facility
development procedures would mean that the earliest new facilities
would be available is about the year 2000 to 2003.. The President did
request that both t:,e City and the Counry,. in their planning
processes, keep in mind the potential for the University to increase
its enrollment and to identify areas of concern that they wouia lii.e to
have raised and reviewed within the framework of the master plan
revision.
�• Mayor Dunin and members of the City staff asked if they could return
the discussion to the more immediate issue, .and specifically raised the
question as to whether or not there was any way in which the
:r ...., -
.72)
i:..Pt:-Azzal noire Sin,mv..Y. 7f
a
_ r. .. _.... _ ..=....
is
1:... _ ._. AmIrw lnnl. ..
..�' •'.c Out
:'q:'nadl•. rnSpw . m ;CSP -niver. .... i. _ .. . ....
MS chat C:,r_-e:•:-. 720 ,,.erns
QR7 i: has with ve=M m me
rf !que In :,ee if th7cr:. ' -;s •}1;:._ :
Ql::c'.: ent fJilrla'::.::i1::iF 1:': TI..-
help ul. Th-
those
.those uw.eri:'_:5 'Pr i:. Am be sen- it:'
1
w:th �L.O �.itv .a:C ._i:U:1 C`: ersonnel
Aor44
_'age
�l
n lly. t e :resit ent in :"—at :e also •. anted to share wir.if
:p -.:a the c:z lnus '.s ^r=csln. -.. ''.Inbar._ upcn a pilot
-cr .ts sumer '
_ •arrer ,vhic :
1 I
e'
CAL POLY
C
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
JAN LLIs Cmsro,CA 93407
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ,.
71-6000
May 31, 1988
Honorable Ron Dunin
Mayor of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Bcx 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Mayor Dunin:
As a follow-up to our meeting on May 20, I wanted to provide you with some
information on the numbers of additional staff that will result from Cal
Poly increasing its enrollment from its current budgeted 14,200 FTE to the
current. ceiling enrollment of 15,000 FTE.
With regard to additional staff, the budgeting formulas which we use would
generate an additional 120 staff members at the 15,000 FTE level in
1991-92. Of the 120 positions, 54 are faculty and of these 47 are academic
year faculty. The balance are Summer Quarter positions and don't impact
the regular year. Further, our experience has been that about
12 percent of our faculty positions are filled with part-time personnel,
most of whom already reside in the comm pity.
The remaining additional staff are support positions, including 11
custodial positions that would be generated as the result of the additional
facilities already approved for funding. Again, our experience has shown
that the vast majority of these support staff positions would be filled by
individuals already living in the community.
With regard to the students, the highest student population occurs during
the Fall Quarter. In Fall 1987, there were 15,800 individuals enrolled and
living on campus and in the community. We estimate that in the Fall of We (F
1991, with an increase to the 15,000 FTE, there will be 16,950 on campus
and in the ccmn ity. As noted in the naterials distributed at the
meeting, 66 percent reside in the City of San Luis Obispo, with the
mining residing on campus or in other communities. As was noted at our
recent meeting, changes in the show-rate of new students and continuing
students return rate fluctuations resulted in our enrolling 14,558 academic
year FTE (15,856 individuals) in 1980-81 and 14,760 academic year FTE
(16,137 individuals) in 1981-82. The Fall Quarter individuals enrolled in
these two years were 16,048 and 16,392 respectively. These figures are
only slightly lower than the planned enrollment in 1990-91 and 1991-92.
Further, there has been a substantial increase in student housing
constructed and opened since 1981. Additionally, there has been a decline
for the last two years of the applicant demand for our an-caupus housing.
Our Housing Office has recently completed a review of the major off-campus
student housing units. According to this data, there is currently an
. � � D'
t ; .n q
THE CALIFORNIA ST,(rf �`E 1 0 3 1 A 8
I
Mayor Ron Dunin
May 31, 1988
Page 2
overall vacancy factor of about 25 percent, and this has been true most of
the year. This represents space for about two-thirds of the estimated
increase in enrollment. In addition, we have been told by a number of
sources that there is a significant vacancy factor in multiple residence
apartments.
I appreciate the concerns you raised, and I want to again assure you that
we are sensitive to the community's concerns. As we look forward to the
planning process for considering whether the campus should further increase
its enrollment in the 2005 to 2010 time frame, there will be a continuing
dialogue to ensure that we take into consideration the potential impacts on
the City and surrounding unities. Subsequent to our meeting with
Chancellor Reynolds to discuss the long-term enrollment issues on June 10,
I will be distributing summary notes of our meeting on May 20 and providing
additional information on the planning process.
Sincerely,
warreh J. Baker
President
cc: Councilwoman Penny Rappa
Toby Ross, Assistant Administrative Officer
Mike Multari, Director of CanTLmity Development
Cj
�►III�IIIIIull�lll8H11�������� �IIIIIICIII
Cl of sAn luiSoBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
May 24, 1988
To: City Council
From: Toby Rosizz:T�
Subject: Cal Poly Enrollment Planning Meeting
Last Friday President Warren Baker conducted a meeting with
representatives from the city and county to review the status of plans for
Cal Poly's enrollment. -
Participants: County
Supervisor Bill Coy
Bill Briam, Administrative Officer
Paul Crawford, Planning Director
City
Mayor Ron Dunin
Councilwoman Penny Rappa
Toby Ross, Assistant Administrative Officer
Mike Multari, Director of Community Development
University
President Warren J. Baker
Malcolm Wilson, Vice President for Academic Affairs
A. Charles Crabb, Academic Senate Chair
Douglas Gerard, Executive Dean, Facilities
Administration
James R. Landreth, Vice President for Business Affairs
Walter Mark, Director of Institutional Studies and
Planning Resources
Howard West, Executive Assistant to the President
MEETING SUMMARY
Near Term
Since 1975 Cal Poly has been master planned for 15,000 students (Full Time
Equivalent - FTE) . Because facilities for this level of enrollment have
not been available the enrollment has been limited to about 14,200 (FTE) .
1
With the completion of several construction projects now underway (i.e
Agriculture, Business), facilities will be available to increase to the
15,000 PTS. Current plans are to increase by 400 FTE in 1990 —1991 and
another 400 in 1991-1992.
I
Cal Poly Enrollment Planning Meeting
May 24, 1988
Page Two
Long Term
College enrollment statewide is projected to increase significantly in the
next 15 years by as much as 64% according to some estimates. Cal Poly's
size and popularity makes it a good prospect to accommodate some of the
anticipated increase in enrollment. Currently President Baker and the long
term planning committee of the Academic Senate feel that growth of 10 to
12 percent may be possible (about 17,000 FTE) and consistent with Cal
Poly's academic mission. The process for increasing enrollment is quite
involved and could require more than 13 years to accomplish. The decision
to increase the enrollment could be made in the next six months.
Community Impacts
President Baker solicited our comments about impacts and mitigation of the
near and long term expansion. He expressed sympathy with impacts on our
concerns for the housing facilities and resources and a willingness to
work with the city and county to mitigate the impacts. Follow-up meetings
are expected.
Cuesta College
The role and impact of Cuesta College enrollment was also reviewed
briefly. About 60% of Cuesta students are from outside the county. Many •
of these out-of-county students come to Cuesta to improve their chances of
lam, being admitted to Cal Poly. The ties between Cal Poly and Cuesta are very
close. About 1,100 current Cal Poly students came from Cuesta.
Additionally, about 500 Cal Poly students take classes at Cuesta.
Increasing Cal Poly's enrollment will have undetermined impacts on
Cuesta's enrollment and consequently on the City of San Luis Obispo.
Cuesta has about 7,300 students enrolled, about 800 of these in the
off-campus centers in Cambria, Templeton, and Arroyo Grande, Because of
the many part-time students, the average daily attendance (ADA) is about
4,000. As a community college, Cuesta cannot limit its enrollment.
However, Cuesta is funded at the maximum level for only 4,006 ADA. Class
offerings are managed to limit total ADA to around 4,000. Future growth
in funded ADA is expected at the off-campus centers rather than on the
Cuesta campus.
Background Material
Representatives from Cal Poly presented some very interesting information
related to the question of enrollment. A set of the material is attached
for City Council members who did not attend the meeting. I 'll be happy to
expand on the meeting if you have any questions.
TR:bja
c: John Dunn
Attachment
1 . Near Term Issues
a. Enrollment Cap Ceiling
Enrollment of 15,000 FTE vs. Long Time
IFTE
1. FTE enrolled and instructional capacity at Cal Poly
2. Academic Year (AY) FTE taught and budgeted for Cal Poly
3. Summer Quarter (SQ) FTE taught and budgeted for Cal Poly
4. College Year (CY) FTE taught and budgeted for Cal Poly
5. a. AY FTE and number of students
b. AY average load
6. a. SQ FTE and number of students
b. SQ average load
.b. Plans to Move Toward 15,000 FTE Ceiling
O CO ti
0)CO Cc
CD CO tl-
ry
VT-d)aoN ~
Q
0,6
r-0)00 0
LU
F—
t—0) cr LL
<
LLJ
LU r-c)r-aD >-
N--cDr-CC) LL
- j
wmi
[M MEMONIMI—m— M LO
LLI T—0)r`cr)
0) N
LU
0
CD r—0
LO cr)
FTE ENROLLMENT AND C;;PACITY
CAL POLY, SLO, 1970-1987
AY FTE LESS 6.2% FTE PERCENT
YEAR ENROLL EARNED FTE CAPACITY UTILIZATION
1970 11776 11046 11738 94.1
1971 11436 10727 11704 91.7
1972 11566 10849 '11358 95.6
1973 12429 11658 11240 103 .7
1974 13606 12762 . 11000 116. 0
1975 14230 13348 11011 121.2
1976 14067 13195 11535 114.4
1977 14248 13365 11627 114.9
1978 14213 13332 12270 108.7
1979 14500 13601 12310 110.5
1980 14558 13655 12337 110.7
1981 14760 13845 12308 112.5
1982 14099 13225 12072 109. 6
1983 14168 13290 12180 109. 1
1984 14437 13542• 12262 110.4
1985. 14378 13487 12497 107.9
1986 14060 13188 12497 105.5
1987 14290 13404 12924 103 .7
- ------ ----
� - INSTITUTIONAL STUDIES: WRM 05-17-88
SOURCE: QUARTERLY INTERNAL REPORT, SUMMARY OF CAMPUS CAPACITY, FORM PPD1
C
�OOti
�OOCc
�-00LO
0 Q
Q !!^^ r- d)ON �
V V, �
W
CD CO
W c�
Q �a)coO
D m
LL F
Q
r-CO
Q
�0)
w
LL.
O O O O O
O O O t0 O
Lo ql- co c
C
i
ACADEMIC YEAR FTE
CAL POLY, SIA
ACADEMIC BUDGET ACTUAL FTE
YEAR FTE FTE DIFF
76-77 13800 14067 267
77-78 14200 14248 48
78-79 14200 14213 13
79-80 14200 14500 300
80-81 14200 14558 358
81-82 142.00 14760 560
82-83 14200 14099 -101
83-84 14200 14168 -32
84-85 14200 14437 237
85-86 14200 14378 178
86-87 14200 14060 =140
87-88 14300 14290 -10
12 YEAR TOTAL ----1678
Institutional Studiesc WRM: 5-16-88
Source: Quarterly Internal Report
AS-xx Long Range Enrollment Allocations
001`
r0
0r-
(M CD(D
CD CO LO
a a
>7
-1. T77
Ow
C -t:l-
... D 00
0 CO CO
0)CON
L
0 CO F-
LLI
LLI
0)co 0
LL
�mmmmm%mm
CYQ
Ilk
LU
F-
LL
-7'
0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O LO c LO 0 Lo 0 LO C
CO n N N r 0 0
i
SUMMER QUARTER FTE
CAL POLY, SLO
SUMMER BUDGETED ACTUAL
QUARTER FTE FTE DIFF
1976 1250 1241 -9
1977 1300 1349 49
1978 1350 1327 -23
1979 1350 1257 -93
1980 1270 1275 5
1981 1300 1268 -32
1982 1300 1054 -246
1983 1270 1057 -213
1984 1230 1081 -149
1985 1230 1093 -137
1986 1230 1091 -140
1987 1230 1145 -85
12 QUARTER TOTAL -1073
Institutional Studies: WRM: 5-16-88
Source: Quarterly Internal Report
AS-xx Long Range Enrollment Allocations
0)GO
�OCOm
�-03 00 LO
0Lu
>m.
0 ��� d'
rl
. 777
T- CDC0C'O Q
U
� �CON CL
f CO Q
V > (J
� .
C)CO
I—
uj
U'
Q O CO O
L
V
O I`a)
O o 0O LO
NO p
m Lo LO LO LO
COLLEGE YEAR FTE
CAL POLY, SLO
COLLEGE" BUDGETED ACTUAL
YEAR FTE FTE DIFF
76-77 15050 15308 258
77-78 15500 15597 97
78-79 15550 15540 -10
79-80 15550 15757 .207
80-81 15470 15833 363
81-82 15500 16028 528
82-83 15500 15153 -347
83-84 15470 15225 -245
84-85 15430 ' 15518 88
85-86 15430 15471 41
86-87 15430 15151 -279
87-88 155-30 15435 -95
12 YEAR TOTAL 606
Institutional Studies: WRM3 5-16-88
Source: Quarterly Internal Report
AS-xx Long Range Enrollment Allocations
co
00 co
0 co
P,
_ m
w 00 ~
® C
CO
T a0
co
co
rn LO
°D
00
C\jMM m co cr
LL
c*
W �
Clco 0 ) 2
T 1 c
� � Q
oT co >-
ooZ CTc
LUco
u-
�
CO� ,
a
cz
cz
W � Goc M co
F-
amco
LL °
� Q w
L
4 cDL LO LO �-
L6 7-
c
C�
co
0o
coI
0oco
co
Cn
com
® '
LO
® cotO
coJI
co
W
Co c
c o
� N
00 I w
N Q Q
W <
co }- w
W4 � Q
® co
co
I
0
CO
COv �p
I
w 0)
I
® CO
COI
ti
LO L LO LO LO
i
AY FTE VS NUMBER OF STUDENTS
CAL POLY, SLO, 1976-77 TO 1987-88
AVE
YEAR FTE MAJORS LOAD
76-77 14067 14808 14.25
77-78 14248 15220 14. 04
78-79 14213 15339 13.90
79-80 14500 15720 13.84
80-81 14558 15856 13.77
81-82 14760 16137 13 .72
82-83 14099 15293 13.83
83-84 14168 15335 13.86
84-85 14437 15764 13 .74
85-86 14378 15867 13.59
86-87 14060 15545 13.57
87-88 14290 15904 13.48
------------------------------------
INSTITUTIONAL STUDIES: WRM: 05-19-88
SOURCE: QUARTERLY INTERNAL REPORT
f
FIIIIIIIIIIIIIII co
W
Z co
co
LU N-
co
Co W
CIO�
c/o
cc
W
T'
CC)
LO
® co
r� L Lco
n
colqt 122cc CJ)
LL
MT \
0CIO �
vd � Q
o0) Nw
T co
Z
CT � w
C
w im LL
CO \\ �.
w �
P-
C/) 03 003
® m
CIO
co
am C)
OEM
� Q w
LO z LO qll- LO
LO
C�
Co
•1
t!
.•
LO
• CO
- IMP .•
.• .4•-_-� �__ ._.
co
•
LU
co
LLJ
LIJ
•
_ . .
.•
LLI
0 C0
I -
- - .
CY ,.
a.
w H
K �C�
4(
•
SQ FTE VS NUMBER OF STUDENTS
CAL POLY, SLO, 1982-83 TO 1987-88
AVE
YEAR FTE MAJORS LOAD
76 1241 4980 11.21
77 1349 5552 10.93
78 1327 5507 10.84
79 1257 5352 10..57
80 1275 5391 10.64
81 1268 5471 10.43
82 1054 4762 9.96 (1)
83 1057 4625 10.28
84 1081 4725 10.30
85 1093 4988 9.86
86 (2) 1091 5146 9.54
87 (2) 1145 5625 9.16
INSTITUTIONAL STUDIES: WRM: 05-19-88
SOURCE: QUARTERLY INTERNAL REPORT
(1) No new undergraduates admitted for Summer 1982
(2) Summer Arts majors and FTE not included
Cl
2. California State University System Long Range Enrollment
Planning to 2005-2010
a. Projections and Demographic Information
1. Dept of Finance projections of California Public High School
Graduates
2. Western Interstate Commission (WICHE) projections of California
High School Graduates
3. Department of Finance projections of total population in 20-24 year
age group by ethinicity
4. California State University projections and allocations of annual '
full-time equivalent students (FTES)
5. College year applications, space reservations, and enrollments for
Cal Poly
6. Geographic origins of Cal Poly applicants and enrolled students for
FaU 1986
7. Age distribution of Cal Poly students for Fall 1986
8. Local residence area for Cal Poly students for Winter 1988 as
determined by local address zipcode
CD CD cc
C()
CAO
CD
cr 0
< 0
VJ (moo co LLJ
C.)
Cl)
CD
C/)
0)cc)
O
CO
<
Ir I
CID C0 co co m CY)
N ti N P,
N CIJ
\ 1
C v,
W
H
a
a° c
T
cv M
O Q 7 U
C L
Ln IL m
U' CD CND. ) � O � g CL
'V7 C64
U_
J °-
T � �
Q
CO r. CO r CO
A t4
CD
rr
a ? L
C �
a
o
N
CD N
O
O
U) N
s C)
® ccW
O � Q
® c
LUcz
CD
r ' LO
co
V O 2
WO
T C ,
O
co
COcoti
ca
C
co
G7 co
O i
O o
O Q O
G
C6
T
W
S
(n U_
W
I— C)
Q N
O
Q co
J �
O
W65
Z
co LO
C4 0
0 C N r L
U
o CL
� N
C'3 N m
_ <cnC
L6 ca
coo �n L
Q *' N Q co V N
O 0
U N O T CO O L O 0
® T = N N N N CM7 (j � V
.i. cn
W m t
U co co _
W O Q aCOo rn rn 0) o o
o � } coo co m rn rn o 0 0
O .«
a r y 0
�� Cl)°
o
C\j
LU
O
CO
mr
LO
UC()
J rr
LiO
00 a w
<
Lo
CC)
C/D
CD
C\j
rl t
LO
<
O �
0
N 00 CO --t C\j 0
O d d d
�
o ® 7 r- g 3 E o
� (a m m _ m m q \
/ k k k \ N m
cu
c
5
2 J ? N o = ( * # •
CL
u o g c o m co % CD c
E m 1C\r c W n a & * Q
T
3 ^ q Vi c / / »
. 2 » - . , g
. �
I
7 Uqlr ¢ k k / \ k k CO
� . CT ƒ o N 0 N N 0 m =
2 - g q K R A
o
k k p k R k k k k
$ m ? q E $ A d
= m # 0 Q o W = CD o
cna
¥ o = N m o ¥ E k
z Q 2 7- S J A $ 9 N n / f
CM cm K N a a
#
it
>-
m g » 2
0 N k
� o
CL ■ CL
_ ®
o d o LO o LO o n o
« N P- c = c c o o
' \ a
/ T- Tm � � 7 k \ §/
m
0
_
� I
O
- N
N
u N i
C = 4
I
m � L
L
� C
v -
Wo
c L - Q
I
CL
ci = G
O A
L T
Q •.
C -
O C
C'� N N N N N N
co
0 . . . . . .
WW
Cl)
Lu
LU
. . . . . . co
0)
0
Lu
co <cr
C� Q J
wCOU-1
Qv � �
Lu
ca Wrl C13
a-
CO co
Cl) 0 Ljj
LU
cr) .... cr) 0
a)
cr)
CL z o
C\j
a)
LL
CL
Qo Q
cr-
LL,
�„ Q m
CC)
M P�- 0 LO ,4- CO N M n- C Lo --t-
COLLEGE YEAR APPLICATIONS, SPACE RESE.rW TIONS,
AND ENROLLMENT, CAL POLY, SLO
COLLEGE SPACE ENROLLED $ ENROLLED OF
YEAR APPLICATIONS RESERVATIONS STUDENTS RESERVATIONS
81-82 17703 9875 V 5639 `57. 10
82-83 16747 8463 4414 52. 16
83-84 15841 9528 5108 53 . 61
84-85 15006 10768 5745 53. 35
85-86 17733 11382 6301 55.36
86-87 17638 8089 4979 61.55
87-88 18190 8586 5057 58.90
INSTITUTIONAL STUDIES: WRM:05-19-88
SOURCE: QUARTERLY INTERNAL REPORT
APPLICATION DEMAND REPORTS
rn „ . C()
z
zo - 0
w
w p
e —
y
J
0 --------------0
Q
Q mm
= o
-
C U
n
Z � S
CO W W a a }
< ¢ W W n
M
00
O � O
CD W
..... m w
V J �
LLI
LLL I-
b }
< W
W �
a r J
< e s
O < �
O W <
n
O < S
S O W
< W p
a J
a W
2 °
<
0
� O
• 1
C' GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF APPLICANTS
FALL 1986, CAL POLY, SLO
SELECTED CALIFORNIA APPLICATIONS APPLICATIONS TOTAL
COUNTIES & AREAS UNACCOMMODATED ACCOMMODATED APPLICATIONS
LOCAL AREA 477 906 1383
SAN FRANCISCO AREA 2423 1427 3850
LOS ANGELES AREA 2130 1063 3193
CENTRAL VALLEY AREA 692 597 1289
SAN DIEGO COUNTY 414 148 562
ALL OTHER COUNTIES 907 1183 2090
OTHER STATES & POSS 375 191 566
FORIEGN COUNTRIES 60 26 86
--------------------------
TOTAL 7478 5541 13019
INSTITUTIONAL STUDIES: WRM: 05-20-88
--------------------
SOURCE: AIMS FILE, FALL 1986
C GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF STUDENTS
FALL 1986, CAL POLY, SLO
SELECTED CALIFORNIA ENROLLED
COUNTIES & AREAS STUDENTS PERCENT
LOCAL AREA 3731 23 .50
SAN FRANCISCO AREA 3716 23.41
LOS ANGELES AREA 3006 18.94
CENTRAL VALLEY AREA 1828 11.51
SAN DIEGO COUNTY 689 4 .34
ALL OTHER COUNTIES 1893 11.92
OTHER STATES & POSS 174 1.10
FORIEGN COUNTRIES 838 5.28
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 15875 100. 00
INSTITUTIONAL STUDIES: WRM: 05-20=88
--------------------
SOURCE: CSU STATISTICAL REPORTS, NUMBER 8, MAY 1987
r
1
z V
o L �
N
CO O �.
F N + Cl)
LO
c CD
LO
rr
O ......
Q Q RA
N
ui
.J
J CO
F- �i
Q . ., o
f co
z =�
:7 N
LU
Q ^� _
V
r l�
" N
N
GO
rn O
d
LU
CJ
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTC
FALL 1986, CAL POLY
AGE
GROUP NUMBER PERCENT
17 & UNDER 36 0.2
18 1399 8.8
19 1810 11.4
20 2132 13 .4
21 2458 15.5
22 2311 14.6
23 1629 10.3
24 1024 6.4
25-29 1850 11. 6
30-34 675 4.3
35 & OVER 551 3.5
TOTALS 15875 M 100
UNDER 21 5377 33.9
21 & OVER 10498 66. 1
INSTITUTIONAL STUDIES: WRM : 05-17-88
SOURCE: CSU STATISTICAL REPORTS, NO. 4
JUNE, 1987
Ci
CYD
N CV }„ co
Q I— I—
LU Ir Q p 0 OCO
cc :E O
cf) zzp -7
� D O
c
co
co
CID
C� >= w
0 F—
z
co
QD
z O
w
U)
C
Smrr
RESIDENCE DvJmSrSTnc�JCr i nn.w r srll' nnL.
LV Yi v Y1I1KJ�1 Yir C./ /Y
WINTER 1988, CAL POLY
AREA NUMBER PERCENT
C SAN LUIS OBISPO� 10520 65. 6
CAL POLY CAMPUS 3057 19
LOS OSOS 423 2. 6
SANTA MARIA 267 1.7
NORTH COAST 318 2
NORTH COUNTY 405 2.5
SOUTH COUNTY 558 3.5
OTHER 499 3.1
TOTALS 16047 100
INSTITUTIONAL STUDIES: WRM: 05-17-88
SOURCE: IRR 5161 REPORT
G'
r
U -
CAL POLY
CCALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN Luis Owsro,CA 93407
Facilities Administration
FACILITY PLANNING FOR ENROLLMENT GROWTH
Task Time Cumulative Time
in Months in Months Event
6 6 Establish new target for enrollment master plan.
12 18 Establish the general distribution of enrollment
growth by discipline, mode, and level .
9 27 Develop revised campus master plan to reflect
facility implications of growth increment
including:
instructional facilities
--faculty offices
-admi'nistrative and support space
--on-campus housing
--parking and transportation circulation
--utility services
--assessment of 'off-campus housing and
transportation issues
15 42 Environmental Assessment:
--Develop environmental assessment document
for review with appropriate agencies
Public hearings on Environmental Assessment
--Final deci.si'on on Environmental Assessment
12 54 Develop Five-Year Capital Improvement Program
for state and non-state projects. All new
state-funded projects inserted in year five
in conformance with Trustee policy.
60 114 First state funds available to begin planning
for design of facilities to accommodate
enrollment growth
48 162 Facility development:
--Architect appointment
--Trustee approval of schematic plans
--Public Works Board approval of preliminary
plans
--development of construction documents
--project bidding and contract award
--project construction ( 12-18 mos. )
--project completed
EDG
5/20/88
.,.q
:SIG -
p DATE ^REMM�._ _
MISSION STATEMENT
00A 5 1 California Polytechnic state University. San Luis Obispo
CtYGLE•Fm GP
His Background
Cal Poly Additionally has emphasised diad- Orafessions, tne&&v the teachingProfession,
p1mes and teaching methods that enable graduates which constitutes the primary function of The
to succeed in the professional"world of urork.Of California State University, Cal poly is authorised by
Particular concern for the development of the indi- the Education Code to emphasise the applied fields
Cvidual student is given a high priority on the campus
in an environment which encourages students to of agriculture,meas engineering, home economics, busi-
learn do' and other occupational and professional fRelds
•• by doing••through internships,cooperative (Title 5. Section 40o61,Education Code, 9004,State
education, enterprise projects, and numerous co, California).Cal Poly's emphasis is further clari-
rkular activities.An equally important manifestation fied'by a set of guidelines approved by the
of the emphasis at Cal Poly is that many of the Chancellor in 1961 These guidelines exempt Cal
academic and professional Program+of the univer. Poly from being required to offer all the
sity are imbued with a sense o the rt n+as hs in the
f applied and the basic complement of liberal arta offerings as listed in
Procdeci, without diminishing the importance of the master curricular plan for The California State
Principle and theory.Asa polytechnic University, Cal University;establish the definition and
Poly recognises the fundamental role of the arts, measurement of emphasis to the end that a sub-
hrwnanitiea,and sciences which must be harnessed stantial majority of all rhe students Sought will be in
to rechnalogy it technology is to be eyed creatively Sha applied Aside of Agriculture,Engineerrng,Buai-
and sensitively to meet society s needs. The univer. ness,Home Economies,and the necessary closely
My therefore strives to help students develop intel-
)crelated aupportingflobls of physical sciences,
anal awareness,direct their concerns n major natural sciences and mathematics;and establish Cal
issues seed questions of humane living,and acquire sensitivity through studies in the arta, Poly as a primarily undergraduate institution
aesthetic (April$4, 1963 letter to President Julian A.McPhee
hunrarrities,and sciences in guff•relent depth to from Chancellor Glenn S.Dumhe).
Provide a foundation for continual laarmng and Over the 20 ears
productive citizenship. Over from 1964 to 19M when the
university grew to its current size,architecture and
s�r+g�development,Cal poly today related environmental design disciplines have been
position in the CaWarrda edu- added as important areas of emphasis consistent
C&%t Malsystem.Founded in 1901 as a vocational with the mandate to stress occupational, aPP&d,
high sehooiand Qaak*W into a modernpolytechnic and professional fields of study.Historically. Cal
Cat poly has kept a teen sense of Poly has maintained adherence to the
db�ection and purpose.la distinctive mission is so- subatantlol Principle that a
o vkdpd h a special section in the Edueatlon �o^h'o jstudents to be admitted to
..ode ojMe State o/California.and by:pedal guide.
them molds�'although not all liberal arts mgiors j
linea aPP�by the-Chancellor of no California offered at Cal Poly. selected majors with appro-
prlote student populations we offered as an integral
State University,,Jfn addition to instruction in the aspect of achieving the special mission of Cal Poly.
liberal arts and sciences, in applied felds,and in the
>iopte ..
FUNDAMENTAL OBM- CTIVES
Cdhraia Polytechnic State University,San Luis Emphasis on Selected Applied Fields
Obispo,is committed to the following fundamental Within the Polytechnic Spectrum Of-
objectives: fered at the University
1. Emphasis on Undergraduate Education -
that it riots for come institutions Itis recognized that all degree programs have a •.
Believing appropriate common base in the arts,humanities,and sciences.
to emphasize undergraduate education and that Cal The polytechnic programs emphasized at Cal Poly
Poly by virtue of its historical development and are based on the sciences and involve the application
present resources is especially capable of doing so, of knowledge fro®the ecienoe9 and other areas to
this university chooses to give Primary attention to the solution of contemporary problems.While Cal
tmdergiadude programs.Selected graduate Poly emphasizes certain polytechnic programs,it at
programs are offered to enrich and supplement the firms the importance of offering and sustaining
undergraduate experience and to further the mission programs of high quality in the arts,humanities,and
of the university. sciences.
2. Excellence in Academic and 4. Intellectual, Professional, and Personal
Professional Endeavors Growth Among Faculty and Students
A commitment to excellence is the hallmark of a Cal Poly is committed to establishing and maintain-
great university.Cal Poly affirms its commitment to ing an environment that fosters the complete growth
excellent instructional programs and to the fostering of the individual—student and faculty member alike.
of an ambiance that brings out the best in its faculty, Commitment to inquiry and the search for truth is a
students,and staff. foundation for intellectual and personal growth. Cal
Poly strives to instill among its students intellectual
maturity,an appreciation of learning,and a dynamic
professionalism.To foster professional development
among faculty,it strives to stimulate faculty
members to challenge themselves—to develop pro-
fessionally through organizations,creative activity,
consulting,professional leaves in business and
industry,or applied or basic research.
kr
71
f
r
1w •
_J `
.f
CAUFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY TABLE 7
San Luis Obispo
Estimates of High School Graduates from Major Feeder Areas
Data from Department of Finance Projections
Not
County 1984 1990 1991 1994 Change
LOCAL AREA-provided o 0 o ly enrollment in——a—If 1985
San Luis Obispo 1624 1840 1965 2255
Monterey 3021 3201 3285 3522
Santa Barbara 3716 3439 3446 3638
TO FALS 1
— 8480 �aS96 9415
Change (+116) (+216) (+719) +1054
LOS ANGELES AREA-provided 17.9 % of Cal Poly enrollment In Fa111985
Los Angeles 95652 98796 100968 105705
Orange 30513 28963 2910 29605
Riverside 8597 10373 10826 12529
San Bernardino 11960 14019 14452 16612
TOT—ALS 146722 15 151 155396 1
64451
Change (+5429) (+3245) (+9055) +17729
SAN FRANCISCO AREA-provided 23.2 a of Cal Poly enrollment in Fall 1985
Alameda 14502 13332 13299 14125
Contra Costa 10136 9235 9255 10004
Marin 3282 2471 2467 2409
San Francisco 7921 7741 7818 8415
San Mateo 7225 6016 6035 6358
Santa Clara 18788 16757 16513 17086
61854 555527__ 58391
Change (-6302) (-165) (+3010) -3457
VENTURA AREA- provided 3.9 % of Cal Poly enrollment in Fall 1985
Ventura 8206 7994 8161 8626
Change (-212) (+167) (+465) +420
NOTE: The estimates for eighteen year-olds are more reliable than the estimates for-
high-school graduates according to Department of Finance personnel.
nstiutional Studies. WRM/EMD: 7-10-87
q
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC.STATE UNIVERSITY TABLE 8
San Luis Obispo
4
Estimates of Eighteen Year Olds from Major Feeder Areas
Data from Department of Finance Projections
Net
County 1986 1990 1991 1994 Change
LOCAL AREA-provided ,o of CalPoly enrollment n Fall 1985
San Luis Obispo 3548 3508 3423 3879
Monterey 5401 5569 5642 5737
Santa Barbara 6535 6151 6166 6345
TOTALS 15484 15228 15231 15961
Change (-256) (+3) (+730) +477
LOS ANGELES AREA-provided 17.9 as of Cal Poly enrollment in Fall 1985
Los Angeles 120677 106481 106932 112651
Orange 32672 30709 30000 28831
Riverside 11271 11905 11855 13408
San Bernardino 16933 18323 18323 19289
TOTALS 181553 167418 167110 17417
Change (-14135) (-308) (+7069) -7374
SAN FRANCISCO AREA- provided 23.2°0 of Cal Poly enrollment In Fail 1985
Alameda 18075 16440 16533 16503
Contra Costa 9089 9103 8727 8284
Marin 2262 1908 1743 1403
San Francisco 7527 6348 6358 6358
San Mateo 7036 6010 5668 5663
Santa Clara 22156 20045 19644 19306
TOTALS 66145 59854 58673 57517
Change (-6291) (-1181) (-1156) -8628
VENTURA AREA-provided 3.9 % of Cal Poly enrollment in Fall 1985
Ventura 9205 9450 9269 10042
Change (+245) (-181) (+773) +837
NOTE: The estimates for eighteen year-olds are more reliable than the estimates for
high-school graduates according to Department of Finance personnel.
nstitutiona tudies: WRM/EMD: 7-10-87
.P7W UNDERGRADI� 'EAPPLlCATIONS, SPACE:RESE ATIONS -AND ENROLLMENT,':
SCHOOL, CAL POLY SLO, FALL-1981 - FALL 1986
1982
Agriculture Q
1. Applications 1,468 1,416 1,439 1,432 1,264 1,273`-
2. Space Res 1,223 1,227 1,331 1,360 1,213 1,254
3. New Enrolled 630 796 836 898 758 765
4. %2 of 1 83.3 86.7 92.5 95.0 96.0 98.5
5. Total Enrollment 3,964 3,669 3.717 3,697 3,484 3,399
Arch&Env Des an
1. Applications 1,527 1,343 1,007 1,117 1,239 1,385
2. Space Res 329 310 481 489 474 417
3. New Enrolled 271 252 308 311 321 264.
4. %2 of 1 21.6 23.1 47.8 43.8 38.3 30.1
5. Total Enrollment 1,456 1,396 1,490 1;516 1,565 1,499
Business
1. Applications 1,753 1,675 1,547 1,669 1,976 2,122
2. Space Res 481 348 517 476 447 396
3. New enrolled 316 206 313 289 259 212
4. %2 of 1 27.4 20.8 33.4 28.5 22.6 18.7
5. Total Enrollment 1,539 1,409 1,513 1,571 1,623 1,550
Liberal Arts
1. Applications 1,062 1,162 1,134 1,293 1,604 1,640
2. Space Res 572 483 631 662 525 449
3. New Enrolled 347 278 324 367 283 242
4. %2 of 1 53.9 41.6 55.6 51.2 32.7 27.4
5. Total Enrollment 1,578 1,498 1,486 1,559 1,575 1,602
Enaineeriny
1. Applications 2,950 3,115 3,170 3,221 3,436 3,295
2. Space Res 1,207 841 1,223 1,380 1,269 1,230
3. New Enrolled 793 522 679 801 728 '663
4. %2 of 1 40.9 27.0 38.6 42.8 36.9 37.3
5. Total Enrollment 3,741 3,576 3,539 3,672 3,703 3,712
Prof Studies&Educ
1. Applications 1,104 1,013 964 1,110 1,176 1,374
2. Space Res 794 622 776 890 710 533
3. New Enrolled 537 416 464 499 471 355
4. %2 of 1 71.9 61.4 80.5 80.2 60.4 38.8
5.Total Enrollment 2,799 2,630 2.549 2,652 2,772 2,793
Science&Math
1. Applications 760 919 963 1,016 1,197 1,209
2. Space Res 582 552 742 815 776 637
3. New Enrolled 284 269 310 315 334 232
4. %2 of 1 76.6 60.1 77.1 80.2 64.8 52.7
5. Total Enrollment 1,315 1,288 1,329 1,300 1,408 1,320
Campus Totals
1. Applications 10,624 10,643 10,224 10,858 11,892 12,298
2. Space Res 5,188 4,383 5,701 6,072 5,414 4,916
3. New Enrolled 3,378 2,739 3,234 3,480 3,154 2,753
4. %2 of 1 48.8 41.2 55.8 55.9 45.5 39.9
5. Unaccommodated 5,436 6,260 4,523 4,786 6,478 7,382
.6. Total Enrollment 16,392 15.486 15,624 15,967 16,130 15,675
Note: Applications include initial plus late filing period. 2nd Baccalaureates are excluded.
Source: SIMSOI,ADMS0141,Ouarterly Internal Report-Table 4A.
Institutional Studies: EMD 07-17-87 UGAPPS.67
- ' TABLE 12
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
Q San Luls.Obispo
Summary of Heavily Impacted Programs 1984-1.987
V V..
Unaccommodated FallApplicants by major and Year
Major 1987 1986 1985 1984
• ARCE 163 147 120 100
•ARCH 659 739 582 495
BUS 1743 1625 1451 1123
ART 320 300 300 209
ENGL 221 168 139 31
HIST 166 42 31 14
JOUR 312 246 216 137
POLS 335 239 233 148
-AERO 578 395 427 254
CSC 150 192 346 452.
EE 303 358 317 230
- EL. 326 420 443 358
-ME 309 307 337 348
HD 333 235 120 28
LS 351 316 121 68
C
BIO 287 284 211 30
TUTALS 6556 6013 4 4625
eavi y impacted programs were defined as having at least 150
unaccommodated applicants for Fall 1987_
nstitution to ies: WRM/EMD: 7-9-87
TABLE 13
ACCOMMODATION OF LOCAL AREA APPLICANTS
Counties of San Luis Obispo, Monterey, and Santa Barbara
1300
A000m
Cn
Unoceam
0 ® TOW
V1000
a
�d
0
W soo
z
0
CAL POLY LOCAL APPLICANTS
Source: Fall 1986 Admissions Files
Cal Poly has always had a statewide mission in the CSU System but still attempts to serve its local area.
The above chart shows that nearly two-thirds of the local area applicants currently are accommodated.
Some growth should be possible out of the local pool without causing any negative Impact on other
CSU campuses; however, the numbers are small and most of the excess is in areas which are
laboratory intensive,such as engineering, architecture.art,and graphic communication.
+.J;r
.....uvv.vvavv
•.as u.as��o.......as .l
............r
JEOGRAPHIC -OKIGIN OF ENROLLED STUDENTS TABLE 14
Load Am
4X) Lm Angm1w Am
CenW.Valley Am
u�u•
•v.• Sanmaga, y
vvvulvuvuuvv•va•
AN 00m C.
v.���.vavv vvvvuu.uv.
Rw Forelp Orfg
■/I • .
■■I
Non—Res_�
l
FXL
. _
GEOGRAPHIC -ORIGIN OF APPLICAN
TS
Local Area
....
Son Fruncl3co Area
—fit H Los Angeles Arm
....................................
u uvvuvvuovvv ovvavv vvaavvav•vs v.
......vs va vsvvs••••uvo••vvaav.vvvvvv
u vsouuvasuvvwvouvvv vvvv vvvvvw- Iljli
i��iu v�o�o:o:v:u:u�ouo����w 'll ltl
�•vaovsovavvsvvuvuvvsvvvvvsu v.
..�.............u.a o..
wrvsysvvsvwvvvu.vvv�
_uuuuvwvvuvo. SanDiego
�wvvv�wv►wu wuu opo- I ..
vv�.vauvuo.
Other
.f////
,
Em
■/1■/1 Other States
i2X) Non—Ras Foreign OrigFALL
116j
1986
TABLE 16
4 �
CAL POLY GROWTH RELATED TO CITY
20000
Growth from 1960 -- 1986
0
010000-
z 100002
O
5000
L s
0
TOTAL CP SMT CP F&S OTHER
Sources: Faculty and staff from CSU Final Budgets,All Funds. Population estimates for City of San Luis
Obispo from Population Research Unit, Department of Finance, Sacramento, California. Student
residence determined from ZIP Code of local mailing address on Student-Master-File. Faculty and staff
residence determined by mailing address ZIP Code on personnel tiles.
As the above chart shows, growth in the City of San Luis Obispo from 1960 to 1986 has been
substantially-influenced by the growth in the university student/faculty and staff components. Because
the city is relatively small (38,500) the university still exercises an extraordinary influence on the
community in virtually any of its activities. The City staff and elected officials are well aware of the
impact of the university, both positively and negatively, and would push for a full Environmental Impact
,Report prior to the time any change in the target enrollment for this campus was accepted. Of most
critical concern will be housing and traffic. Community housing for students has improved in recent
years,particularly with high density housing close to the campus. There is however still a significant
problem witli students renting single-family homes in a variety of neighborhoods causing great
concerns for the City Council. Since the university owns capital share of both the water and sewage
treatment plants, and that capacity appears to be adequate for some degree of expansion, utility
services are not anticipated to be a rn-vjor concern.
TABLE 17
CAL POLY GROWTH TO 15,000 FTE
C; As the campus considers moving upward from the long established plateau of 14,200
FTE taught on the Cal Poly campus (n 1986-87 100 non-capacity FTE were added for
Cooperative Education), the commitments made for previously proposed programs
must be considered. The total number of students added in the growth of 800 FTE from
14,300 to 15,100 will be approximately 890, based on current average student load.
There are currently many programs which are in various stages of review, have been
approved and implemented at reduced levels, or are approved but have not been
implemented. The following list provides information on the commitments Cal Poly has
to proposed programs.
Proaram Additional nr llm nt1
B.A. in Music2 120
M.S. in Aeronautical Engineering3 18
M.S. in Architecture4 16
Business MincrS 111
M.S. in Civil and Environmental Engineering3 13
Computer Based Education Specializaticn6 25
B.S. in Computer Engineering? 333 (original proposal, modified
M.S. in Electrical/Electronic Engineering3 36 to 120 for first three years)
M.S. in Engineering3 42
M.S. in Environmental Designs �
M.S. in Structural Engineerings 16
TOTAL = (provably 517 with CPE
modification)
These commitments leave approximately 470 students available for growth in other
areas. There are many things to consider when (coking at how these students might be
cistrnbuted among various existing programs and what new programs might become
available.
1;
The enrollments for the programs were taken from program proposals reviewed
and approved by the Academic Senate and submitted to the Chancellor's Office,
except in the case of the M.S. in Architecture, M.S. in Environmental Design, and
the M.S. in Structural Engineering where the numbers come from the materials
submitted to update the Academic Master Plan or the proposals on file in the
academic Programs Cffice. All proposals and follow-up documentation are on file
_i in Academic Programs.
The proposal for the Music Major was endorsed by the Academic Senate in
resolution.AS-150-83. The proposal for a degree was included in the material
submitted to update the Academic Master Plan in October, 1987. _
These programs were proposed and approved pproved by the Academic Senate for
inclusion in the 1986-88 Catalog; however, the review by the Chancellor's Office
and CPEC did not allow for their inclusion. The program approvals from the
Chancellor's Office was received in December, 1987 and January, 1988.
J The MS in Architecture is a proposal to change the M. Arch. to an MS program
and increase the enrollment level in that program. This was included in the
material to update the Academic Master Plan in October, 1987.
The Minor in Business was approved for inclusion in the 1986-88 catalog by the
Academic Senate. This has not been implemented pending identification and
allocation of the faculty resources needed to implement. The majors shown
would not be in business, but rather in other degree programs and represent an
addition to the university because the minor would have to be an add-on minor for
most majors.
The Computer Based Education Specialization under the M.A. in Education was
approved by the Chancellor's Office in May 1985. The additional students will
bring the enrollment to the level proposed.
J The B.S. in Computer Engineering was proposed and approved by the Academic
Senate with an enrollment level of 333 majors for inclusion in the 1984-86 catalog.
The Chancellor's Office approval for the program was received in May of 1987.
The original enrollment targets have undergone some revisions and currently
stand at 115-120 majors in the third year of the program with a review to take
place at that time to determine future targets.
$� The M.S. in Environmental Design and the M.S. in Structural Engineering were
included in the material to update the Academic Master Plan in October, 1987.
The number of majors for these programs is yet to be determined. The proposals
for implementation have not been developed and reviewed by the campus.
nstitunonai atucies: : -2-19-88
C.1
-- � � `s+.-��..� )� a c s►p C fF p
f r a
Academic Senate Office
State of California California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, California 93407
C805/756-1258
MEMORANDUM
To: Dr. Warren J. Baker Date: March 11, 1988
President
Copies: . L Dalton
From: A. Charles Crabb, Char M Wilson:(ivTaff)
Academic Senate -
Subject: Resolution on Enrollment Growth to 15,000 FTE and Beyond
(AS-279-88/LRPC)
Attached for your consideration is a resolution and report on.Enrollment Growth to
15.000 FTE and Beyond. The resolution and report brought forward by the Long-Range
Planning Committee was approved unanimously by the Academic Senate on March 8,
1988.
I want to point out that credit for completion of this report goes to Linda Dalton and the
other members of the Long-Range Planning Committee. The committee has met
frequently and, as you can see from the report, considered a wide variety of aspects
relating to campus growth.
The resolution and report are a result of the committee responding in a very positive
way to concerns expressed by members of the Academic Senate during the first reading
of the document. As a result of the committee's responsiveness to the concerns raised
by senators, the final resolution and report received only minor changes during the
second.reading.
I am sure that the faculty appreciate the opportunity to express their concerns about
growth at Cal Poly.
Attachment
Adopted: March 8, 1988
ACADEMIC SENATE
OF .
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
San Luis Obispo, California
Ba koro rnd stat m nt:
During the summer of 1987, Chancellor Reynolds requested Cal Poly(as well as other CSU
schools) to consider how to expand student enrollment to meet the growing need for higher
education in the state. The Chancellor asked for a report by April 1, 1988. President Baker
sought the advice of the Academic Senate (through its Long-Range Planning Committee) and the
Deans' Council regarding growth to the current Master Plan limit of 15,000 and possibly
beyond in the future.
The Long-Range Planning Committee and Deans'Council held some joint meetings, shared
information, and consulted individuals outside Cal Poly for their expertise (such as
demographer Harold Hodgkinson). However, no time was available to collect new primary data
nor to conduct special.studies. The attached report summarizes the findings and
recommendations of the Long-Range Planning Committee. In addition, a complete set of the
background paper;prepared by the committee is on file in the Academic Senate Office.
The following resolution is based on the premises that some growth in enrollment is appropriate
to Cal Poly, but that program addition or expansion should be carefully planned so as to respond
to external pressures, to take advantage of academic opportunities, and to assure that necessary
instructional and non-instructional facilities and services are available to support the increase
in numbers.
AS-279-88/LRPC
RESOLUTION ON
FNROLLMENT GROWTH T115.0 00 FTt= AND BEYOND
WHEREAS Cal Poly has been asked to consider when and how it might accommodate an
increase in enrollment at two levels — to 15,000 FTE and beyond 15,000 FTE;
THEREFORE,BE IT
RESOLVED. That the Academic Senate of California Polytechnic State University adopt the
attached report prepared by the Academia Senate Long-Range Planning Committee
specifying criteria and conditions for educational equity, composition of the
student body, and program addition and expansion; and be it further
RESCUED. That Cal Poly enter a first phase of growth in enrollment toward 15,000 FTE no
sooner than the.1991-1992 academic year to allow time for the completion of
approved facilities and for the approval of funds to alleviate other shortages ( in
both instructional,and non-instructional facilities and services), as specified in
the attached report prepared by the Academic Senate Long=Range Planning
Committee;and.be it further
RESOLVED That CaFPoly prepare a comprehensive plan, in consultation with the Academic
Senate, covering demographic projections, composition of the student body,
Program addition and expansion, facility location and timing,and community
Iimpact to determine whether and how Cal Poly could accommodate an increase in
enrollment to a range of 16;600 to 17,400 FTE over the next fifteen years, as
specified in the attached report prepared by the Academic Senate.Long-Range
Planning Committee.
Proposed By:
Academic Senate Long-Range
Planning Committee
February 16, 1988
Revised: February 23, 1988
Revised: March 8, 1988
O
Academic Senate
Long-Range Planning Committee
Report on
ENROLLMENT GROWTH TO 15,000 FTE AND BEYOND
The following report summarizes the information used, issues raised, and, in some instances,
the reasoning followed during Long-Range Planning.Committee deliberations about future
enrollment growth. This report builds on AS-220-86/LRPC, passed two years ago,which also
addressed enrollment issues. Key excerpts from that Senate Resolution are attached. More
complete information is available in a set of working papers on file at the Academic Senate office
and from the sources cited in the Reference list attached to this report.
The report and recommendations are based on the following premises:
1. Some growth in enrollment is appropriate to Cal Poly, but the numbers depend upon
the nature of the growth that would occur. In other words, growth cannot be thought
of as simply expanding what we currently have. Instead, the Committee sought to
consider the condidons under which Cal Poly could grow.
2. Enrollment growth at Cal Poly should respond to extemal demographic changes and
pressures that affect higher education, especially in California.
3. Enrollment growth at Cal Poly must also recognize state expectations regarding CSU
schools, particularly with respect to the enrollment of transfer students and
support for the Community College system.
4. Plans for enrollment growth at Cal Poly should acknowledge Cal Poly's special role
as a polytechnic university and the adopted mission statement of the University.
5. The conditions necessary to accommodate programmatic growth to 15,000 FTE
include the provision of non-instructional facilities and services as well as
instructional facilities and staff. (This basically reinforces and further specifies
AS-220-86/LRPC.)
6. Finally, the conditions necessary to consider any programmatic growth beyond
15,000 FTE involve a rate of growth which is sensitive to Cal Poly's impact on
surrounding communities;a rate of growth that could be assessed in stages;and a
total amount of growth that could be handled by the campus. The Committee was
reluctant to indicate a maximum number for future enmilment,because it will take
further study to determine how well the conditions for growth beyond 15,000 can
be satisfied. To assure that the conditions which must be met in order to
accommodate growth would not be overshadowed by the number itself, the Committee
was willing to "refer only to a range,with the understanding that it must be tied to a
1
plan that would show how the list of conditions in the recommendations which follow
could be met.
I Demoaraohv and Educational Equity
8.
Discussion and Findings
The committee examined data on nationwide trends in higher education, on high school.graduation'
and matriculation by ethnic group,on demographic change in California, and on enrollment
characteristics of Cal Poly. The committee also met with demographer Harold Hodgkinson to
discuss some of the ramifications of change in California for Cal Poly. From this, several key
factors emerge:
1. The absolute number of high school graduates is currently declining,but will tum
around (in California in 1990);
2. College students are becoming older, on average, and less-likely to enroll full-time
and/or complete a degree within 4-5 years. At Cal Poly this decrease in the average
student load means that the total number of students enrolled is about 10 percent
more than the FTE they generate (i.e., it takes about 15,620 students to generate
14,200 FTE);
3. The increasing non-white population in California is not being reflected to the same
extent in college enrollments. (Asians participate at a higher rate; Blacks and
l` Latinos at a lower rate than whites.) Cal Poly enrolls even fewer non-white
students than most other CSU schools;
4. Ethnic groups vary significantly according to their choice of major or occupation
and their college preferences;
S. Overall, the changing demography in California means that Cal Poly will not be able
to continue to draw so many of its students from its traditional pool of
predominantly white applicants;
6. The concept of educational equity requires that Cal Poly increase its proportion of
under-represented students;yet:attaining educational equity requires
extraordinary efforts by colleges and universities and special attention to high
school preparation and recruiting,
B. Recommendations
1. That any increase in enrollment at Cal Poly take account of the beneficial effects of
diversity which might arise from the admission of CSU qualified under-represented
students and be consistent with educational equity plans already approved.by the
schools and the University;
,- 2. That Cal Poly support, expand or create the following kinds of programs (with
2
sufficient funding) to draw and retain more ethnic minority students: (1)To
1,— increase eligibility and recruitment through high school counseling, and "feeder" or
"farm"programs at specified community colleges for certain major;to effectively
guarantee transfer to Cal Poly as juniors; (2) To increase community support
through residential choice on and off campus, and appropriate social opportunities,
(3)To increase retention through.faculty and staff models and mentors, academic
advising and personal counseling, easing procedure for changing majors and
providing students with financial aid
3. That Cal Poly expandstudent support services, including record keeping, food
service and book storesupplies to accommodate the needs of students with different
cultural backgrounds and of part-time students and others who do not progress at a
"normal" rate or enroll continuously from quarter to quarter.
II Comcosition of the Student Bossy
A. Discussion and Findings
The committee found a need for clarification of the current percentages of undergraduate
transfers vs. first-time freshmen. While common knowledge holds that Cal Poly's enrollment
represents the reverse of the CSU system in general, the committee found that this is only true
of Fall Quarter (which ranges from 42 to 49 percent transfer students). Indeed, data for
enrollment across the entire academic year revealed that the percentage of undergraduate
transfers has ranged in recent years between 54 and 60 percent-- not far off the state mandate
U of a minimum of 60 percent.
Further, the Master Plan Renewed calls for four-year institutions to "maintain lower-division
enrollment systemwide at.no more than 40 percent of total undergraduate enrollment" (p. 15).
For Fall Quarter 1987 enrollment at Cal Poly consisted of 36.2 percent freshmen and
sophomores and 63.8 percent upper division students. The only school which enrolled more than
40 percent in the lower division was Science and Math (at 46.7°/x).
Discussion of any need to increase the relative percentages of undergraduate transfer students
vs. first-time freshmen reflects countervailing forces at Cal Poly.
On the one hand, the state legislature and Master Plan Renewed.report insist that CSU schools
enroll at least 60 percent upper division students. Reasons are partly financial— it is
significantly less costly for students to attend community colleges than CSU or UC schools. In
addition, under-represented minority students are more likely to attend community colleges
initially, so increasing the proportion of transfer students can also increase the prospects for
achieving educational equity goals. Finally,fulfillment of General Education and Breadth
requirements at the community colleges relieves CSU schools of much of this burden (both on
facilities and faculty),allowing more attention to advanced study(upper division courses) in
the CSU.
On the other hand, Cal Poly's practice of requiring students to declare a major upon admission as
freshmen means that most majors are designed.for a four-five year sequence. Further, many of
3
the polytechnic majors require careful course sequencing to ensure that students have completed
pre-requisites before.entering advanced courses. Such sequencing has been difficult to
coordinate with community colleges, especially in specialized fields where the community
colleges cannot reasonably be expected to,provide all of the necessary pre-requisites to allow
students to transfer to Cal Poly as juniors,.
A further complication at Cal Poly is that many students who maybe considered upper division
students based on accumulated quarter units have not completed their lower division General
Education and Breadth courses either prior to entering Cal Poly nor during their first two years
at Cal Poly(if they enter as first-time freshmen).
The role of graduate education has received'less attention. While acceptable according to the Cal
Poly mission, "to enrich . . .the undergraduate experience,"graduate programs are small
(currently constituting less than 10 percent of all Cal Poly students) and unevenly distributed
in the University. (For example, they range from only 2.5 percent in liberal arts to neary 19
percent in Professional Studies and Education.)
The mission statement does not address Cal Poly's relative responsibility to education in the
state versus a more local population. Cal Poly occupies a unique position in the CSU system as a
university with nationwide, even worldwide, recognition in some fields.Yet, there is a demand
from students who graduate from high school and attend community colleges in the Central Coast
region to attend Cal Poly.
B. Recommendation
_ 1. That schools or programs which enroll less than 60 percent upper division students
attempt to redesign their curricula (especially pre-requisites and sequencing of
courses) to articulate with appropriate preparation at community colleges so as to
facifdate the admission of more transfer students;
2. That graduate programs be allowed to expand and new graduate programs be added
that fit the polytechnic character of Cal Poly and support existing undergraduate
programs.-
3.
rograms:3. That Cal Poly provide support services appropriate to the educational, financial and
social needs of graduate students to the extent that they differ from undergraduates;
4. That Cal Poly continue to give some admission priority to the student population
from the Central Coast.
III. Program Characteristics
8, Discussion and Findings
The committee looked primarily to Cal Poly's mission statement to discuss what kinds of
programs might be expanded or added in the future. Thus, the committee was concerned with
maintaining, indeed capitalizing on, the special polytechnic character of Cal Poly.
4
In addition, future employment prospects for graduates are critical. However, projection of
future demand for specific programs depends upon reliable economic forecasting,which was not
available to the committee. (The committee plans to submit a supplementary forecasting
report.) Further, individual members lacked sufficient expertise to assess the prospects for
specific areas. The committee discussed a few possibilities for the future, such as
biotechnology, but conciuded:that it would be more responsible to establish some criteria for
evaluating future program proposals. Thus, proponents of a particular program could be asked
to conduct a market analysis and provide the evidence of.future demand for the field at the time
that they submit a proposal This approach provides flexibility for the University--both to -
avoid remaining committed to programs which are currently popular but may decline in the
future as well as to take advantage of new opportunities as they arise.
Key findings include the following:
1. Recent employment trends and projections for the future show that not all currently
impacted programs will continue to be in high demand;
2. The Cal Poly mission statement emphasizes polytechnic education and the application
of scientific knowledge to contemporary problems;
3. There are opportunities for an interdisciplinary approach to instruction between -
schools to take advantage of the polytechnic character of Cal Poly.
)�
Recommendations
That enrollment increases in programs at Cal Poly be considered when there is a
demonstrated demand for employment in that field continuing to and beyond the year
2000.
IV. Growth to 15,000 ETE
A. Discussion and Finding
Although Cal Poly has been budgeted at 14,200 FTE since 1977-78, enrollment has been
projected to increase to 14,600 in 1990-91 and to 15,000 in 1991-92. The committee felt
that this schedule should be delayed one year, to wait out the decline in high school graduates
which reaches the bottom of the trough in 1990. With respect to programs, the increment from
14,200 to 14,600 has already been allocated to programs which have been approved but not yet
implemented.
Facility planning has proceeded accordingly with recent approval by the CSU trustees of key
instructional facilities. However,the committee found no assurance that non-instructional
facilities and support services would keep pace with the instructional facilities. For example,
both the Administration Building and University Union were built for fewer than the current
number of students (13,000 and 12,000 respectively). Also,certain computing services and
the lbrary budget for periodicals and new acquisitions are insufficient to support current
5
enrollment. Further, outdoor recreation space is at a premium and students lack indoor space
for studying and socializing. On the other hand, parking is more than sufficient -- complaints
stem from inconvenience rather than lack of space. . .
Key findings include the following:
1. A number of new programs which would generate additional FTE have been approved
but not implemented;
2. The number of high school graduates in California is expected to reach a low point in
1990 and then begin to increase again;
3. Some facilities,such as the Recreation Center, Dairy Science Instruction Center;
addition to Business Administration and Education, and new Faculty Office Building,
designed to meet current deficits and/or to support enrollment growth to 15,000
have been approved by the Trustees, but remain subject to continued funding as part
of a state-wide bond issue;
4. Other facilities, such as the University Union,Administration Building, Kennedy
Library, outdoor recreation space, and student services (even after the new Student
Services Building is completed) are inadequate to meet current enrollment levels
and/or are inadequate to support an increase to 151000 FTE,.and no specific plans
have been approved to expand them;
5. Academic Senate Resolution AS-220-86/LRPC (approved by the President, July
23, 1986) states that facility deficits must be met before any enrollment expansion
be considered.
B Recommendation
1. That the first phase of growth toward 15,000 FTE accommodate programs which
have been approved but not yet implemented;
2. That Cal Poly enter the first phase of growth in enrollment toward 15,000 FTE no
sooner than the 1991-1992 academic year to allow time for recruiting and
counseling efforts to reach students who will be at the forefront of the new increase
in high school graduates;
3. That Cal Poly consider entering a second phase of growth toward 15,000 after the
approved facilities have been completed and funds have been approved to alleviate
other shortages (including non-instructional facilities and services).
V. Extent and Phasing of Growth Beyond 15,000 IFTG
Growth beyond 15,000 is complicated by many factors. A state-wide increase in high school
graduates after 1990 creates a need for additional capacity in the CSU system. Indeed, some
enrollment growth can be beneficial to individual schools. Increases in enrollment can bring
6
more resources to the University and permit program expansion or addition without
_jeopardizing existing programs. Further, departments which have been unable to hire any new
faculty because of lack of turnover would benefit from an increase in enrollment that would
generate new tenure-track positions.
However, because growth beyond 15,000 FTE goes beyond the existing Master Plan for Higher
Education and would create a number of impacts, an Environmental Impact Reportwould have to
be prepared. To do so, Cal Poly would need to address how rapidly it would grow,what facilities
and other resources would be required, how students would be housed, and how traffic congestion
would be handled. The rate and extent of growth would affect the image and character of Cal Poly,
both visually and educationally. Basic infrastructure is apparently sufficient (water and
sewer); but the campus has very limited space for new buildings within a ten-minute walking
radius without giving up open space. Further, internal circulation (of cars, bicycles and
pedestrians) becomes more difficult to manage as numbers increase. Just.as importantly,
unless Cal Poly provides more housing on campus, all new enrollment would lead to a greater
demand for student (and faculty and staff) housing in San Luis Obispo and other nearby
communities. Already, many of these face constraints on growth due to limits on water supply,
sewage treatment and/or buildable land. More commuting would mean more cars, more traffic
congestion and more need for parking. Thus, a careful plan to address these issues would be
essential.
Key findings include the following:
1. The number of high school graduates in California is expected to increase steadily
after 1990 (at about 3.7 percent per year);
2. Cal Poly's polytechnic emphasis is especially suited to prepare students for future
jobs in the state;
3. Some growth in enrollment can create opportunities for educational diversity;
4. Some growth in enrollment can create opportunities for new faculty positions in
departments which do not expect to experience any turnover;
5. Some growth in enrollment can bring new resources to the University;
6. The campus infrastructure (utility systems) have excess capacity(the most
limiting of which are sewage transmission lines);
7. Cal Poly's campus has a limited amount of space remaining to construct buildings
within a 10-minute walking radius;
8. New structures increase the density of development and supplant open space on the
campus;whereas development in the surrounding area places prime agricultural
land at risk;
9. Students rate the geographic setting and appearance of the campus second only to its
academic reputation as reasons for selecting Cal Poly;
7
10. Vehicular ingress and.egress from Cal Poly is already inadequate (especially in the
event of any areawide emergency);
11. Cal Poly has a significant impact on overall population growth, housing and traffic
congestion in the surrounding community, at the same time as it contributes to the
area's economy';'
12. The growth of the City of San Luis Obispo and surrounding communities is
constrained by limitations on water supply,sewage treatment capacity; and
buildable land;
13. Population in San Luis Obispo County is expected to grow at about 2.3 percent per
year through the year 2000;
14. The communities in San Luis Obispo County which have the greatest capacities for
growth are in the southern and northern parts of the County, farthest removed from
Cal Poly and least well-served by public transportation;
15. Academic Senate Resolution AS-220-86/LRPC (Approved by the President, July
23, 1986) states that"expansion should only occur after a detailed expansion plan
is developed."
B
Recommendations
�. 1. That Cal Poly consider a modest expansion in enrollment beyond the 15,000 FTE in
the current Master Plan for Higher Education;'
2. That such growth must fit within the parameters of community growth policies and
constraints;
3. That the first phase of growth beyond 15,000 FTE be considered no sooner than two
to three years after enrollment reaches 15,000 FTE;
4. That such growth occur in increments,whereby two to three years of growth (of
400 FTE per year) are followed by two to three years of stabilization to permit
time for catching up and for assessment of the impacts of growth before considering
a new phase;
5. That Cal Poly consider each new phase of growth after facilities have been completed
and funds have been approved to alleviate any shortages in instructional space,
non-instructional space, and.supporting services;
6. That Cal Poly maintain its visual image of smallness and rural setting, by limiting
the size (height and bulk) of new structures, by sensitive placement and
landscaping of new buildings, by preserving open space within the campus, and by
maintaining open land around the campus;
8
7. That any growth which required the conversion of University agriculture land
from its present use be done so after consultation and adherence to University land
use policy recommendations;.
8. That Cal Poly maintain its ambience of smallness and intimacy by retaining small
class sizes, early affiliation of students with a specific program or department,
participation in student activities and access to student services;
9. That Cal Poly consider reducing its,impact on community housing and traffic
congestion by adding an attractive variety o€residential facilities on campus
(including necessary infrastructure and supporting services);
10. That Cal Poly consider limiting vehicular access to the campus;create more
incentives to encourage commuting by means other than the automobile; and provide
more facilities for non-auto-users;
11. That Cal Poly assign a full-time professional staff position to campus planning to
work with the Academic Senate Long-Range Planning Committee and coordinate a
comprehensive plan, covering demographic projections, composition of the student
body,program addition and expansion,facility location and timing, and community
impact to determine whether and how Cal Poly could accommodate an increase in
enrollment to a range of 16,600 to 17,400 over the next fifteen years.
Attachments
Selected excerpts from AS-220-86/LRPC, "Revised Enrollment Recommendations"
List of Long-Range Planning Committee Working Papers on Enrollment Growth
References
9
Selected Excerpts
from
California Polytechnic State University Academic Senate Resolution on
"Revised Enrollment Recommendations"
AS-220-86/LR PC
(approved by President Baker, July 23, 1986)
'There is strong consensus . . . to hold the size of Cal Poly at 14,200 FTE until such time as the
current shortages of facilities (e.g.,classrooms, laboratories, faculty offices) are corrected.'
Data for 1985-1986 showed.that Cal Poly only had sufficient facilities to support an enrollment
of 11,900 FTE (or a facility deficit of 2300 FTE). "This would suggest that any increase in
enrollment beyond our authorized 14,200 should only occur when currently planned physical
plant expansion projects are completed in 1990-91. . . .
The Senate approved the Long-Range Planning Committee recommendation that the following
issues must be addressed before an increase of 800 FTE could be supported: "(1) How will these
additional 800 students be distributed among new and existing programs: (2) How and when
C
will the whole range of additional staff and facilities be added to handle these new students? . . .
[Ajny such expansion should only occur after detailed expansion plan is developed. Such a plan
would address the number and timing of new students, their level (freshman, transfer, or
graduate) and their school or area. It would also address the timing and Icoation of facilities to
serve these students. Such facilities would include not only classrooms and laboratories, but
also faculty offices (at least 50 at present student-teacher ratio on campus), parking,
recreation (land and facilities), housing and support staff. . . . [S)uch facilities should be in
place before students."
lam,
10
Academic Senate
Long-Range Planning Committee, 1987-1988
List of Working Papers on Enrollment.Growth to 15,000 FTE and Beyond
(Complete set on file in Academic Senate office)
_1. Model for considering enrollment:options
2. Demographic factors affecting Cal Poly enrollment
3. Selective summary: Master Plan Renewed
4. Selective summary:.California Master Plan for Economic Development and
Competitiveness
5. Potentials for future programs
6. Cal Poly growth to 15,000 FTE
7. How to handle planned growth beyond 15,000 FTE
8. Some thoughts on numbers beyond 15,000 FTE
9. Image/character of Cal Poly
10. City and community consequences of enrollment growth at Cal Poly
11. References
NOTE: These papers are in various states of refinement, and sometimes include personal
recommendations or viewpoints held by individual members of the committee which were
refined during subsequent discussions.
11
- - 12 -
CReferences
Academic Senate. ASS- - L , R vi nr Ilm n
Recommendations. San Luis Obispo: California Polytechnic
State University;. May 1986.
Baker, Warren J. (President). ] P.9-1xand lif rnia in g
Next Decade. San Luis Obispo; October 10, 1985.
California Engineering Foundation. LaLifQrnia Master Plan
fQ Economic Development and Competitiveness.
California Polytechnic State University. Mission Statement.
San Luis Obispo.
California Department of Finance, Population Research Unit.
Sacramento, CA; 1987.
California State University. Student Needs Priorities
Survey.
Commission for the Review of the Master Plan for Higher
Education. Master. Plan Renewed: jjn[ty., EEc itv, Quality,
and Efficiency in California Postsecondary Education.
Sacramento, CA; July 1987.
Doyle, Elaine (Institutional Studies). Annual R p r p_n
Enrollment Trends_ and Student Characteristics. San Luis
Obispo: California Polytechnic State University; February
1987.
Dunigan, L. H. (Director of Institutional Research).
SelectediEnrollment Trends ical Data_gn EnrollmTr n and Student
Characteristics. San Luis Obispo: California Polytechnic
State University; November 10, 1983.
1
13
Enrollment Management Considerations. San Luis Obispo:
California Polytechnic State University; 1984.
Enrollment Planning Data: Summary Pack_. San Luis Obispo:
California Polytechnic State University; 1987.
Equinoa, Richard. Employment Pro9c i njaj�tTrends: A
.Brief BaMmjrX. San Luis Obispo: California Polytechnic
State University; December 6, 1984.
High School Graduate Pool IQ Change Dramatically by 1994.
Activity; May 1986; 24(2): 1-2.
Hodgkinson, Harold L. lif rni The State ndi Its
E0uc� System. Washington, D.C.: Institute for
Educational Leadership, 1986.
Hodgkinson, Harold L. Seminar with Deans' Qouncil and
L-own -Ranee Planning Co_. San Luis Obispo: California
' Polytechnic State University; January 7, 1988.
U
Mark, Walter R. (Institutional Studies). Quarterly Internal
Repot on Enrollment_ — Fall 1987. San Luis Obispo:
California Polytechnic State University; November 3, 1987.
Walters, Dan. The. New lif rni : Facing thg1st fg-alur .
Sacramento: California Journal Press; 1986.
i
CAL POLE'
7-/ l. . _
OYTECH'vii:JTATE `:!%FR:i`T`
CA 9 34C.7
`..-::E OF T-- PRESIDENT ,
January 15 , 1988
tREC _ I v E0
Honorable Ron Dunin JAN 2 0 i988
Mayor of San Luis Obispo
Pw
P.O. Box 8100 LUI��081Sp
S.:N LUIS OBISR7..7A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Mayor Dunin:
I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you on January 5 to
review a number of issues relating to Cal Poly and the City of
San Luis Obispo. I felt that our meeting was very positive,
and I trust that I was able to clarify a number of rumors and
concerns. Additionally, I hope I was able to assure you that
we want to be cooperative with the City, that we are sensitive
to the City' s concerns as they relate to Cal Polv and that we
w no uni a ra ma e _ ecisions that will ave a
51gni scant 1m act on t e City without an o ortunit for
ap a e aiscussions. AS was agreed at the conclusion of our
scussion, a purpose of this communication is to formalize
for the record the substance of our meeting. The agenda which
you had prepared in advance was very helpful and grouped issues
in a clear format. This memorandum of record will attempt to
reflect our discussions in the same major categories.
I. Cal Poly enrollment, expansion and growth
There are two aspects of this issue. The first relates to
the existing Physical Campus Master Plan and our plans to
increase our enrollment toward that ceiling beginning in
1990-91 . The second reiates to consideration of expanding
our current master plan ceiling enrollment.
With regard to the first aspect, Cal Poly has had a
master plan ceiling enrollment of 15 ,000 FTE since 1975 .
Procedurally, within the California State University
system, a physical master plan is developed for each
campus within various planning parameters and a master
plan ceiling enrollment .is determined. The campus then
uses this ceiling as it develops its overall plans and
develops physical building plans, support budget,
enrollment figures and other related matters. In Cal
cIrl,:0 �1
'R1\'E R$IT\' /��
Honorable Ron Dunin
Page 2
January 15 , 1988
Poly' s case, the 1975 Master Plan was the subject of
extensive campus and community involvement, including
meetings with the San Luis Obispo City Council,
Administration and Planning Commission in September of
1974. While Cal Poly has had a master plan ceiling
enrollment of 15 ,000 FTE, its actual enrollment has been
held at 14 ,200 FTE for the last 12 to 14 years based upon
the fact that we did not have instructional facilities to
accommodate the master plan enrollment. In fact, the
campus was operating at about a 1,000 FTE instructional
capacity deficit for many years. It has only been within
the last five years that the State' s situation was such
that capital funds in any significant amount were made
available to the CSU and we were able to obtain new
facilities to eliminate this deficit. When the new
Agriculture Science building is completed, the campus for
the first time in more than a decade will have the
overall instructional facility capacity to meet its budgeted
enrollment.
With the physical facilities issue being resolved, a
decision was made three years ago that the campus should
plan to increase its enrollment to its existing master
plan ceiling, on the condition that additional physical
facilities and resources would be available to
accommodate this increase. The campus' five-year capital
outlay program for the last three years has reflected
this decision. Further, it should be noted that the
campus' plan to increase by 400 FTE in 1990-91 and
2 another 400 FTE in 1991-92 has been shared with the city �1
2 on a regular basis in a number of ways. First, the city
does have a representative on the Campus Planning Committee.
This committee regularly reviews the capital outlay program,
r� including the criteria and enrollment upon which it is based.
[� Second, at the time the decision was made to increase the
enrollment to the master plan ceiling, I shared that decision
with your predecessor as mayor. Third, the most recent
notification came when the City was considering the Housing
Element of the General Plan in 1985. At that time,
Executive Dean Doug Gerard again shared with City staff
Z Q that the campus was planning to increase its enrollment
to the master plan ceiling beginning in 1990-91. In
summary, the campus plans to continue with a budgeted
enrollment of 14,200 on-campus academic year FTE through
1989-90 ; increase to 14 ,600 FTE in 1990-91 and to its
master plan ceiling of 15,000 FTE in .1991-92, assuming
physical facilities and resources are available.
rJ•"�` The second part of the enrollment issue has to do with the
� 01 recent request by the Chancellor for several campuses,
including Cal Poly, to develop a longer planning time
A�� base for enrollment that considers the needs of the State
Honorable Ron Dunin
Page 3
January .15, 1988
and the changing California demographics, regional needs
.� and the specific strengths and missions of the ir_dividuai
y campuses. As I shared with you, the first step in this
A4 process is to review the academic implications of any
f.. enrollment expansion. The faculty and administration are
currently studying this and the deliberations should
Poobring forward proposals to be discussed with the
Chancellor sometime before the end of this academic year.
Should those del.iberaticns result i.r_ a. proposal to
increase the master plan enrollment, it is at that point
that the issues related to resources, community compatibility,
and the concerns of local government will be addressed. As I
shared earlier, procedurally, the process would call for the
campus to look at a major overall revision of the campus
• physical master plan. We are well aware of the constraints
within which this review would have to take place and it is
within the context of the physical master plan review that the
concerns of the City would be addressed. There obviously will
need to be extensive discussion_ and dialo, in this process to
mitigate concerns of the City, and we are committed to those
discussions once a review of the academic implications has been
completed.
It is at the time of the review of the Physical Master
Plan that other issues you raised -- student housing,
impact on water use and wastewater treatment, traffic and
use of recreational facilities by students -- would be
addressed.
ii. Availability and Use of Cal Poly Resources
This is a complex question because of the diversity of
disciplines taught at Cal Poly and the large number of
faculty and students. There is an expanding formalized
community services program developing on the campus that
may be one source. For a number of years the Political
0 p o Science department has operated an intern program and the
Student Affairs area more recently has evolved a student
community services program. With the help of some lottery
funds and the passage of Assemblyman John Vasconcellos'
Human Corps legislation, a more formal program is
developing. The contact person for this program is tis.
Sam Lutrin of the Student Life and Activities office.
In addition, provided that the activity fits within the
yI structure of the overall instructional program, a number
ar`� of faculty are anxious to have projects that can be used
as instructional tools for the students. For example, on
request our faculty and students will submit proposals to
conduct research, develop plans, or collect and analyze
data for municipalities. Probably the best mechanism for
utilizing this resource, however, is for the City staff
H'cnorable Fon Lunin
r. ye n
Fa4
January 15 , 19So
�1 to maintain_ close liaison with the appropriate
n__tructicnai Cepartrr.Fn_t an_d lits faculty'.
Finally, you inquired about the carpus' interest in the
development of a high tech center on campus. While I
think there are many potential benefits to the campus and
the community, I do not see us moving in this direction
without significant initiative on behalf of the city. The
City and other surrounding communities would play an
important role in attracting the kind -of companies that
would be beneficial to a high-tech research park.
t•evelcpm.ent of a research park would :support our
instructional program, provide employment opportunities
for the under-employed population of the City and County,
and we would view it as a. positive step. Again, however,
I do not see the campus moving in this direction without a
significant initiative on the part of the city.
T_II.. Impact of Students Living in the City
I recognize that the issue of fraternities, sororities,
and shall student croups housed i_n_ vari.ous resident.i.ai_
communities is a. Oifficult one for the. City, and I hope
that we can continue to work together with the students
to mitigate these problems as much as possible with
university recognized groups. while I had hoped that
there would be some way for us to devise a program that
would result in the establishment of a "Greek Row" or
small group housing area on land currently owned by the
University, I am not optimistic that this is a realistic
solution that could be accomplished within the policy of
� the Trustees of the California State University and that
would be satisfactory overall to tree City. Wh-L-L2 ti E'TE
are periodic spurts of interest and Energy on behalf of
the students to establish a Greek Row, there are several
major stumbling blocks. Availability of land on the
campus seems remote in terms of the Trustee policy, ar_d
we both agree that there is limited available land held
by the private sector that seems to fit this need. At
the present time, I do not see an adequate organizational
structure or the financial underpinning that would r;.ake
y"�',� such a project a reality.
=,�V v we discussed the possibility of creating a mechanism that
would provide a forum for communications on a. regularized
basis, and I agree that we should pursue this issue
r� further. I am Uncertain as to what the overall
composition of such a group should be, but from the
university's point of view, I would think it should
C- include students, representatives from the office of
Student Affairs, aloncl with representatives from other
appropriate administrative offices. I would hope that we
can actively pursue this concept in the weeks ahead.
Honorable Ron Durin
Page 5
January 15 , 1988
V. Public Communications
We discussed what ;Night be done to try to avoid the
appearance that the City and campus were moving in
opposite and conflicting. directions on various issues.
With the diversity of interests among the students and
the campus community and equal diversit,, among the City
Council and city staff, there are no easy solutions to
this issue. i do think, however, that the concept of a
mechanism to provide a forum for communication on a
regularized basis should significantly help. I would
trust that such a forum would not only provide an
opportunity to discuss issues of mutual concern, but also
would focus on the many joint endeavors that the campus
and the city are involved in.
During the course of our meeting, you indicated that it would
be helpful to you and the City Administration to have a better
understanding of the organizational structure of Cal Poly. I
am enclosing two charts, one for the University as a whole, and
one for the. Academic Affairs area. These charts show the
organizational structure as well as the individual who occupies
the position, including the instructional department
_ heads/chairs. We- will attempt to update this chart annually
and make copies available to the city on a regular basis.
I trust that you will find this summary of our discussions an
accurate reflection of the issues we talked about and a
clarification of some of the concerns, particularly about
enrollment, that you raised. I look forward to the meeting
scheduled on January 26 , when we can further discuss these
matters and perhaps initiate the process for formalizing a
mechanism for communications.
Sincer y f
r • /'�
Warren J. BaJ�er
President
Enclosures (2)
cc: Howard West
Doug Gerard
James Strom
James Landreth
ldalcolm Wilson
Lorraine Howard
my 3 ^+n
m R m m < m
m m W R m
3 0 m O m
R 7
—W
9 W e1 W
a O mr 0 3 O.
R m m r m m
`J > < ncm °
R
W a+mour omm
R
W W 3 m c n a a-------
0 ? O O O n
- ItIt
rDmo
7 6
o ma a+m n n =m
na n
7c O.a L.D ID
M m m m n m n o m e m
9 ° O.m O nc .- 3 �l W a �m
3 IN c 'J+ -mi a^+ O WCID W m O N
W 7
m m m m m N R C
c m m m .W, m r m W <m e
m m to m m
o n W m
m
m �m�nn m R o m eo
IS M
O++:r O 7 Or 3
+a. ooeaaea mm � o
K m 7 < 0 0.0 D 10 3 m 0 G R
m
+m + IS O h m m W
O O m R W
mm �'m p� mmm° 0
02 O D
N^ m
m _ II o
r
ma ° aMG �d < a13m
D
m n oa=m ma m
Z. O 9 "M o _ .-
mmoa z
Cam � m D
aN N �
m <
> mma mmd r.mCCmo I o
m m
m o m e O +m m O .O W 9 D m 3
<_ <'•QOOm m m� O7 O 9� I Tall p=y
m m dc
m R 3 m m
m W
to
03
m
IN m m CD12
�C �M L
m m m m I IIM
omm<a ° "O
O W O.+m �Q
C, m 'e a m m ° Q?m I I c
+ 1 I
a. nn
3 C]W O W
OR N
n . .^m m O O i i O
W D h ° L.9 T m 0
D m R m m 3 m
CID m 7 3 S R O O m W
R m Om 7 0 m
W r < m m m ^. m 0
9Op+9m In<D 7c• m •� W m
O m m "1 m m m.�m 0 Qs
m O.R n m
O cemmemnm D'=
9 m m'm m 6 O.m 0 C
e n a 0
cs 03 A n -e � _ a
Roc m m ° C7 D
m � �-
nmRMm Rm03
R c mmm: Co m R ID+m m - m m
Wm co a o amour
O o m o n o„
7 CL
ur n W O' C +.m m 0 n 3
3 m m ++
n O O W W W 0 3 7
m
IS W Q+m
3 m m 0 IS
m
m n n m n m
R +0 m m
�-m 0.7
m W
�+ m DmNC
v
10 CL R W 1 0
3 3
m m R m
i W
O O +
W 7 6
m m
m Z+
1
F
W= M" Ew T m mu u
4 m
C O T e m •J E W L S m y u p E
O L w D m u TJ m
' m 0 U m _ r>L:2 SzeI- u�
O W W S W U S C W C
u
W �
Q
< E c
m a
LL0O
C . E
�.- O rd C m C C;f.7 Oi C d m U y 9 E lix
C O L U C W m QLl M - w L mm m E L -0>Wa r m . L m mm m L u m m m06J m; .p nS2 m¢W C m 0 L 0 7 0 7' mE ' y0m m m o L uO Q t S O W C;J W W a m U. m Y a W C W W W n 2 w S C< mtl
O c E m
IL .m O L E
W W U U -CID
m
W U m m Li
w m m m m m Ca w
Q
E m u C V u m m L E
W O C L L . E m T L w fq U T O. �a
ti a m m W Q C r0 m m . E CAC C m 0
J ID co Oum _ mC Emm .m.R OLmULr 7 m�r0 m
1QW art m Ow >Owm CO WmVJ TU C�� Oma 0m7m7
Z C m m J w L:T m T m m L •r
m�0 A W y n ¢ •J N S L 6 U !.J O-w 7 m m U L w m m m
.m OW¢LLa
W L.m W L m 2'�UJr03 Ura mW mY Q>- L
m C aWJ7 C UIC'SLLSr W?n Ya.=:Fa-2 or. n=lLm- C.
T L m
H U co - m
cr V
r _
W . m >
W I m m V y m C.
R r L • L C m O m
co C m
' 1 c CoY t r m m L
_ `r Wm O)TL Olm� CL Uw w
--.,1 OL tC >9W W.m O TC Wi m O 0 we
m 07O C m LR rmmWC 7S m Om U > O 9
I 1 m 0 C 9 W Y m C.0 L H c 0 • m m U 7 L(,) C
K O C m W L tl u E m L C C m i 9 m r y m m
O O 7 M+ 0 • m m m m 7� Q>W W a jul
mi7 C m `W�2 EO Wm WW - <¢UWL¢ �CC a 2 a LLIZ m u W m W O EAj W Q.¢WO IL.Oa mJ` mm9
C M M C 0 m
w
1 GU fWA C-m• C L Y m O G W m
CI-� Cr Diummim
mrc7. m
Ol0 EL m TG <>WWW
W W W u G m U Y m L --
< C r m E tl C T
13
O m O)m LOW r¢ CC mCS 6SWYtiIC0 CL
S m m W L o m y
_ 7
- m L W LL
w
r C E L L c
rz CO, 010 m > C L 9
M C
0 0 0 1 r m M
u .c 7z m D) U Q.>QQCOO N m
7 0 m G w w m-0 T L L L
0 0 r W 3 m 0¢ m C m Q W C
4m. C G • O S W
u
O N p m E m L
C'O.L W 0 L W t a TS m¢9 W L I — C m m
cc
mt O'O m 0 �S L3r3c 0-1 CJD 0 7 m 9 u
m O t C m Q Q O
a CO a m a o U r m r L r r O O
m u C m L Y p C
L m 0 7 S :W r m
r cru L
p H w W'
L
9 w >-wT • m 21
L m C
L• 7 • .m • ~ . Cr m Z Cm7YL 0 mU r
O w L t m m m
w m 7 0 mc E m U W Cla]i. m m S C r 0 w m 0 m m O
7 w m L r
c L m w m , m m _ m m
m>r07W c mW c m
O T W m W m S m U-•' O T u O¢r E m W m C E m
mt L Q •W U •a W< an L W 9S C m¢ U m 7
O my O m ,m
M a W 07� D>Lu 01J C'7 t o m-O 0--7 m 2 ¢.O W m O m m J 9 01 C w
O W Q J Q Q < Q U a LL 2 O W 6>Q¢IL
D L e
L
mL
T m 0 T E O E
m r m m m U L C
ma L3r. a a V
M MJ V O'er>co
w
+aa �
December 29, 1987
To: Cal Poly File
From: John Dunn
Subject.: Cal Pol xpa ion plans and related matters
This morning I talked to Mr. Doug Gerard of Cal Poly. I was essentially following
up my letter to him written just after the December 15 City Council meeting,
requesting information on Cal Poly's master plan and student and support personnel
growth projections. Doug indicated that he had not sent anything to me as yet, and
gave the reasons for that, but also indicated that he would write a letter to me
today on these subjects. His basic reasoning was that while there are certain
announced plans that are a matter of public record, these matters are also subject
to forthcoming discussions between the President's office and the Chancellor's
office, which meetings will take place in January or February. He indicated that
the meetings could have an impact on their projections, and that he and Dr. Baker
would inform us as to the outcome of these meetings.
Although Doug didn't say this in so many words, I received the general impression
that the Cal Poly attitude (meaning Dr. Baker and the Academic Senate) seems to lean
more to keeping things as they are or towards a slower rate of growth, but that the
Board of Trustees and the Chancellor's office view Cal Poly as the "jewel in the
crown" and may believe that some planned growth is in the University's best
interests..
I explained to Doug that I believed that the City Council and the community were
quite supportive of the University, on the one hand, but did have a strong concern
which had to be adequately addressed, particularly concerning "the big three"
issues, housing for students within the City, water use and sewage treatment.
Doug mentioned that the Mayor and Dr. Baker were having lunch during the first week
in January, and requested that we schedule a meeting of University and City
representatives during the week of January 25 (City representatives might be the
Mayor, the Vice Mayor, myself. the City Attorney, Community Development Director and
Police Chief) . I emphasized that the City wanted to be a real part of this thinking
and planning process, that we just didn't want to be informed of results at the end
of their planning process.
I also asked Doug concerning what presentations the University had made some six or
seven years ago when they announced their previous expansion plan, and whether they
currently met or exceeded what they earlier projected. Doug indicated that he
didn' t have that information, but that he would look into it.
I indicated to Doug that it had been mentioned to me by one party that Cal Poly
would have an additional 1,000 students by next September and an additional 5,000
students within the next five years. He indicated to me that these figures didn't
check out with what he knew about the situation, but that he would put his
understanding of what the growth projections were to be in the letter, with the
caveat that they will be further reviewed in January or February, as earlier stated.
Doug and I both agreed that the best results were to come from the City and
University working closely together, having straightforward dialogue on these
related matters.
C c. City Council , Doug Gerard, Toby Ross, Roger Picquet, Mike Multari , Jim Gardiner
State of California California Polytechnic State University
Sae tab obblmk G 9UM
Memorandum
To John Dunn Date December 29, 1987
City Administrative Officer
City of San Luis Obispo Fite No.:
P. O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 COP'el •' President Baker
Mike Multari
From : E. Douglas Gera
Executive Dean(
Subject: Cal Poly Issues
I apologize for being so long in responding to your letter in which you asked for
information on the future growth plans of the university. As you may have heard,
this issue is under discussion by several constituent groups within the university
community although I expect it will be some time before any recommendation
is submitted to President Baker for his review.
I believe we have shared with members of the City administration on several previous
occasions the intent of the campus to grow to its master planned size of 15,000 FTE
(approximately 17,000 individuals). The present limit of 14,200 FTE has been in
Place for a number of years primarily because of facility limitations. Our capital
improvement program now contains projects that will permit growth to 15,000 FTE;
400 FTE in 1990/91 and the second 400 FTE in 1991/92.
The study on growth beyond the 15,000 FTE limit was prompted both by a request
from. Chancellor Reynolds and by our internal academic planning staff. There has
been no order of magnitude set for this study but my personal judgement is that
any increase will be moderate for several reasons, not the least of which is the
impact of any growth increments on the City of San Luis Obispo and the supporting
infrastructure. The size issue will be discussed and debated in several arenas
including the Campus Planning Committee 'whose membership includes Mike Multari
of your staff. Further, it is our intent to keep members of the City administration
fully informed of the progress of these deliberations, ultimately involving discussions
with the City Council if that is their wish.
Over the years we have had a close working relationship addressing issues of mutual
concern. It is certainly our intent to continue this process and involve you and
others to the maximum possible degree. For your further information, I am enclosing
a copy of the most recent Trustee adopted Five-Year Campital Improvement
Program.
Enclosure
C'
f / \ -'r r- \ �\
� 2 «
K
� _ _ _ ) u p ( � /
-
ƒ / / \ \ \ (14iA
f
u u } / 2
m # \ 22 }
\ k _ Ach
§ / '
�
g 6 = u -
�
\ u = \ k
j l §i
\ §
j \
� k} ) \ ) \ ) / � \ \ ■ f \ ) ) ( 3 ) � � ■ {
3 q- f = ] � _ » ± ] ) \ / § § 7 7 ] t @ ; • 2 & E
k § \ } k
1 2 3 4 5 -' 6 7
TO NORSE 1121AND ORNAMENTAL
HORTICULTURE'41,UNITS
TO WINE UtIT Ism •
/ A 16
l r.
Indicates one-way street
• T //
>�2• �� �-••�Indicates road closure
9 4:h:•:
A:;:•,::::•i:•:
SpA CPEEK - �SOlntliCates Parking lots
At
B ,::>..,�,<:;f:'ik'i•' ;'":•': ROAD April 1985
M0.L
EEO
AREtNA
mm PO
TO CROPSOn I o I���., v%9,:':.4::. ,. ..4. ' `E °
r� °
U HI
HIGHLAND ORN .,ti.y;v.,:::•:.N , •''•"
JTRUCK '"?•} ?
FROM CAL L,
iiiiii t'•'t':+'•::': ,
J N •.PERIMETEfl.
to 8 Y
.52
III. t • • °
S
F A IIf�
STAIDx
USTMM1. 1Y
,
6t i L SOUTH PERIM•'• _ . a
x
� °EER
n28`
s,x{' e �e fig
`fflllc oZ 113
858647:z::... � 0e :,�l:r?::�?�Ifr•�t.
t TALES t :....r....•.
r'lfgIr t!mg-g.L...'4.
i •rr
'(iii?'ii::gii:?;:??i;?g;ff
FROM U$.ql ULIiORNU1 BLVD kCn •?.??? •F??;f.ti1cNR?i++»
116
Parkin on campus is b PERMIT ONLY during `. °,, -Y....k+"f.7'-::u;''
H 9 P Y 9 ::rrr:iftr»R: +
the academic quarters: 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.. Monday »? T1
through Friday. excluding academic holidays. ?.;
—
Permit required in H-11. 7 a.m. through 8 p.m. •f'i11.7f+�:try+r•;::;,tx•`fC4�;_ Uti
L��•��..?:lrtLl:L:e »fit:..++y.»R
Motorcycle Residence E n••„ "s y;T »
• •-tr��. .L f '
Zone General Staff Moped Hall T
C C1.C2. C3,C5 C3,C4.C7,C8 _--
FROM U4101 DRAlQ AVE.OFFRAMP
C4&C9 to C8 and Music Bldg.
G G1,G2&G5 G3 to G4 G1 ---
C H HH2, H 3HH1aH4tOH11 H2, H4 CAMPUS MAP
R 87, R2 R1,R2 (Buildings and Parking)
Daily permits are ablem Lots H
general
GS anD Vl.Public Safety.anD Stale Casnrer California Polytechnic State University
Daily permits are Vabtl In an general loss
All Dermas are Valid in campus
mezolocations a for
pno ostea time
eowi San Luis Obispo, California 93407
All permlt5 are valid In Ilmltetl time zones lot pasted fame onty