HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/25/2025 Item 4a, Walker, S.
Steven Walker <stevewalkerslo@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Planning Commission 6/25/2025 Item 4a
Attachments:Round & Round with Town & Gown.pdf
SLO City Planning Commissioners,
I am working on Wednesday, June 25th, until 8 p.m., so I can't attend the hearing, but I have some input to provide.
I want to commend the Planning Commission for doing the right thing and holding fraternities responsible for the
conditions of their Conditional Use Permits. Today, the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury released its report that found,
among other things:
-The city has failed to effectively handle problems associated with fraternities.
-The city has failed to engage with community stakeholders to find solutions for the negative impacts of fraternities.
-The city has failed to effectively enforce municipal codes that prohibit fraternities in R1/R2 neighborhoods.
-The city has failed to consistently enforce the conditions of fraternities' Conditional Use Permits.
I credit the Planning Commission for recognizing the problem, enforcing the conditions of the fraternities' CUPs, and
revoking use permits when conditions are repeatedly violated. The health, safety, and welfare of the community
surrounding a fraternity depend on the fraternity abiding by the conditions.
Condition 14 of Delta Upsilon's current CUP says it may be revoked if the fraternity violates the conditions or the law,
etc.
"Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct of the use so
as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to constitute a public nuisance or so
as to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is
prohibited and may constitute grounds for revocation of this permit."
Violating the noise ordinance is considered a "public nuisance" and applies to Condition 14.
Please adopt Resolution B and revoke Delta Upsilon's use permit because the fraternity has violated the conditions of its
use permit over and over, even after the city sent them notices. Delta Upsilon has proven that its current use is not
compatible with residential uses in the vicinity.
Thank you,
Steve Walker
The Grand Jury's Findings are below. The report is attached.
Finding 1:
1
Prior to 2025, the city failed to effectively provide a multi-pronged, cohesive approach to manage or shut down large
unsanctioned, costly and unruly events such as St. Fratty’s Day. This created an unsafe environment, with increasing size
of unruly crowds, property damage, injuries and public disturbances.
Finding 2:
The city has not effectively engaged in working together with community stakeholders to find solutions for ongoing off-
campus issues that negatively impact neighborhoods such as code enforcement, noise issues, trespassing, property
damage, and unruly events.
Finding 3:
The city has failed to effectively enforce municipal codes that prohibit fraternity and sorority activity in R-1/R-2 zones in
part due to the difficulty in identifying houses that are hosting fraternity-type events, such as rush events and repeated
parties. This inaction has resulted in an increase of illegal fraternities holding events in residential neighborhoods making
these areas almost unlivable for most residents.
Finding 4:
The city has failed to consistently enforce CUPs such as the requirements for an annual list of parties and events,
notification to neighbors, and parking plans. Strict enforcement of these conditions would contribute to a reduction of
the disturbances in the neighborhoods.
Finding 5:
The current planning appeal fee structure in SLO disproportionately impacts ordinary citizens, as the high costs create
barriers for those raising concerns about community issues such as noise or safety. While these fees may be justifiable
for large-scale development appeals requiring additional city resources, they hinder equitable participation in local
decision-making processes.
Finding 6:
The Grand Jury encountered a lack of cooperation from the San Luis Obispo City Police Department. While one sworn
officer did participate in an interview, efforts to interview two additional sworn officers were unsuccessful. This
unwillingness to engage hindered the Grand Jury’s ability to corroborate statements, obtain essential information, and
maintain transparency in its oversight role.
2
Submitted June 23, 2025 1
ROUND & ROUND WITH TOWN & GOWN
San Luis Obispo (SLO) is a quaint town with a rich history and is home to a rapidly growing
university that has become a vital part of the community. However, the expansion of the
university has led to significant challenges in housing availability, both on and off campus.
Affordability issues have exacerbated these challenges, created a shortage of student housing,
and have pushed students into neighborhoods traditionally occupied by families. Many students
now reside in single-family homes, often exceeding their intended occupancy. This shift has
brought new complexities, as noise and frequent partying have disrupted these once-quiet
residential areas. The situation underscores the delicate balance needed to ensure that all
residents—students, families, and long-time locals can coexist harmoniously and thrive.
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
Over the past two decades, SLO has experienced significant growth, driven in part by the
expansion of its university, California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), and the increasing
student population. While this growth has contributed to the city's vibrancy and economic
development, it has also introduced a range of challenges for the surrounding neighborhoods.
Residents have voiced concerns over noise disturbances, large unauthorized street parties, and
fraternity and sorority (referred to as “fraternities” for this report) events being hosted in
residential areas not zoned for such gatherings. These issues have led to tensions between some
long-term residents and the student community.
SLO has experienced steady population growth, mirroring broader urban expansion trends across
California. In 2005, the city’s population stood at approximately 44,380, and, by 2025, it had risen
to 50,612, reflecting a 14% increase. During this same period, Cal Poly’s total enrollment grew
from 18,278 to 23,016, marking a 26% increase. As a result, university students now comprise
Submitted June 23, 2025 2
nearly 46% of the city's total population, significantly influencing housing availability both on and
off campus, infrastructure demands, and neighboring residential community dynamics.
Year
Cal Poly
Total
Enrollment
San Luis
Obispo
Population
Student % of
Population
2005 18,278 44,380 41.2%
2015 20,944 46,906 44.7%
2025 23,016 50,612 45.5%
While Cal Poly’s expansion has bolstered the local economy and enriched San Luis Obispo’s
cultural landscape, it has also reshaped the dynamics of some of the residential neighborhoods
that border the campus. Many long-term residents, particularly families, cherish the stability and
tranquility of their neighborhoods but now face the challenge of residing in an increasingly
student-centered neighborhood. Striking a balance between fostering Cal Poly’s continued
success and that of its students with neighborhood integrity is and will be an ongoing challenge
for the city. This report explores these concerns focusing on four topics: large, unsanctioned
street parties, ongoing noise from student parties, fraternity zoning issues, and fraternity
permitting requirements.
ORIGIN
The investigation was initiated in response to multiple complaints filed by residents. These
complaints cited disruptive activities associated with college students, including excessive noise
during late hours, unauthorized fraternity houses operating in zoning -restricted residential areas,
and large, unsanctioned street parties that escalate into public disturbances , injuries, and
property damage. The complaints alleged that the City of SLO and Cal Poly officials were failing
to enforce existing rules and municipal ordinances, that citizen complaints were ignored, and
neither took sufficient action to restore order. The San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury (SLOCGJ)
sought to objectively assess the extent of these issues and determine whether city officials were
implementing timely and sufficient countermeasures to address them effectively.
Submitted June 23, 2025 3
It should be noted that the SLOCGJ does not hold jurisdiction over Cal Poly. However, SLOCGJ
would like to express its appreciation to Cal Poly for its willingness to engage in discussions. Their
cooperation was invaluable in providing insights allowing the SLOCGJ to better understand their
perspective on the issues at hand as well as the actions they were undertaking to partner with
the city and the community.
AUTHORITY
California Penal Code section 933 requires that “Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding
judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to
county government matters during the fiscal or calendar year.” Section 933.05 further prescribes
responses to those findings and recommendations. Responding agencies are directed to report
whether they agree or disagree (either partially or wholly) with a finding and whether a
recommendation has been implemented, will be implemented, will not be implemented, or
requires further analysis. An agency may reject a Grand Jury recommendation provided they
include an explanation of why the recommendation is either unwarranted or unreasonable. If a
recommendation requires further analysis, it must be conducted within six months from the date
of publication of the Grand Jury report.
All Grand Jury reports and each agency’s responses are posted online each year at
https://www.slo.courts.ca.gov/gi/jury-grandjury.htm
METHOD/PROCEDURE
The SLOCGJ used the following methods for its investigation:
• conducted fifteen interviews with San Luis Obispo city residents, city leadership (including
City Council members, Community Development and Police Department officials), city
personnel (such as Code Enforcement), and leadership from Cal Poly,
• conducted site inspection of impacted neighborhoods,
Submitted June 23, 2025 4
• reviewed documents such as Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) issued to fraternities,
municipal codes, City Council and Planning Commission meeting agendas and minutes, as
well as outreach plans for previous St. Patrick’s Day events,
• conducted analyses of policies and laws, including The Campus-Recognized Sorority and
Fraternity Transparency Act, Assembly Bill (AB524), SLO and Cal Poly party registration
regulations, and Cal Poly’s General Plan,
• conducted comparative research, including an investigation of cities with overlay zones
to understand their implementation and impact. Explored various policing models, such
as the “Do No Harm” approach, examined strategies used by other cities addressing
similar university-related challenges, and analyzed party ordinances from other
municipalities.
NARRATIVE
CHAPTER 1: UNSANCTIONED ILLEGAL STREET PARTIES
The concept of St. Fratty’s Day began in 2009 originally as a fraternity party to celebrate St.
Patrick's Day and the end of the school term. After the initial party in 2009, the party grew and
by 2015 the event drew over 1,000 attendees. During the 2015 event, the garage roof adjacent
to 348 Hathway Street collapsed because 30 or more students were partying on the rooftop. Ten
students were injured with one young woman narrowly escaping a potentially life -threatening
injury. This incident made national news and sparked conversations between the City of SLO and
Cal Poly regarding how to manage the event and encourage the students to party safely. From
2016 to 2019 the event was smaller and there were no rooftop activities or serious injuries. In
2020 and 2021, with pandemic laws limiting large social gatherings, the event was so small as to
be negligible.
In 2022, with pandemic restrictions lifted, the event grew to 2,000 attendees. In 2023, through
social media, and news coverage, the event doubled in size to approximately 4,000 attendees. In
Submitted June 23, 2025 5
2023, the SLO City Council expanded an existing Safety Enhancement Zone (SEZ) ordinance to
cover a period of time before and after St. Patrick’s Day. The SEZ allows authorities to double
fines for noise, alcohol, and other unruly behavior.
In 2024, the crowd nearly doubled in size once again to an estimated 7,000 attendees. The SLO
City Police Chief used a containment enforcement strategy that resulted in officers being staged
along the outskirts of the crowd in the neighborhood adjoining the university. The “Do No Harm”
approach was adopted not only due to concern for officer safety but because a more aggressive
officer presence could incite a riot. This practice was in line with the department’s enforcement
policy of “Do No Harm” to keep violators, other participants and officers safe. They implemented
a strike team strategy where a team of officers entered the crowd to address a violation, issued
a citation, and returned to the perimeter to keep everyone safe and avoid an escalation.
In 2024 the SLO City Chief of Police deemed their efforts a success as no harm was done to officers
or attendees. However, the residents in the area experienced property damage to their
residences and personal property. Some intoxicated partiers trespassed onto their property,
climbed up on rooftops and power poles, and vandalized cars.
The SLOCGJ wanted to determine the validity of the alleged citizen complaints against the SLOPD
as well as verify statements received from others during our investigation. We also wanted to
confirm the success of SLOPD’s efforts, and possible changes in light of any perceived failings.
We were blocked in this effort by two senior police official’s unwillingness to grant an interview.
This hampered our fact-finding efforts. The reason for these denials remains inadequate and
may stem from a misunderstanding of the role of the SLO CGJ in improving governmental
functions within this county.
It has become a tradition for the students to start partying at midnight the prior night in their Cal
Poly dorms and nearby housing, with the party moving into the surrounding neighborhoods to
kick off St. Fratty’s Day at 3:17 a.m. (to acknowledge St. Patrick’s Day, March 17th). In 2024
Submitted June 23, 2025 6
fireworks were set off in the Alta Vista neighborhood between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., jolting
some residents and their families awake. Thousands of students descended on Hathway and
Bond Streets (in the Alta Vista neighborhood) fueled by alcohol, disturbing the peace by playing
loud music, screaming and yelling. The heavy alcohol consumption resulted in dangerous
activities such as climbing utility poles, partying on rooftops, urinating and vomiting in public,
passing out in residents’ yards and on rooftops, and leaving trash throughout the neighborhoods.
In 2024, the Cal Poly dorms also experienced extensive damage as the students began partying
at midnight and damaged the dorms on their way out to the street party. The damage was so
extensive that Cal Poly had to close some dorms for two days to repair the damage.
After the 2024 St. Fratty’s Day event, it became apparent to the City of SLO and the
administration at Cal Poly that St. Fratty’s Day in its current format could no longer be tolerated.
Cal Poly administration, with concern for the safety of their students, property damage to the
university, and surrounding neighborhoods, as well as the request of city officials, formed a task
force to strategize how to deal with the unsanctioned event. The task force was made up of Cal
Poly Administration, student advisory groups, students, members of the Greek Li fe Community,
and SLO City representatives. No representatives from the surrounding neighborhoods were
invited to participate in the task force.
One outcome of the task force was to provide the students with a safe alternative event. The
event was scheduled for Saturday, March 15, 2025, and included a concert on campus starting at
4:00 a.m. The event was free and up to 5,000 students were able to secure tickets to the event.
The event provided entertainment, beer vendors for those over 21, free food, security, and a
sobering center. Cal Poly police, Cal Poly staff, SLO Emergency Medical Technicians and private
security companies were on campus to ensure a safe and secure environment.
Cal Poly’s messaging to the students prior to St. Patrick’s Day was that past behaviors would no
longer be tolerated. Due to the damage experienced in 2024, several security measures were
Submitted June 23, 2025 7
deployed, including no guests being allowed to stay on campus. Parking on campus was limited
to Cal Poly students and staff starting Friday, March 14, 2025, through Monday, March 17, 2025 .
The City of SLO, concerned about the safety of their neighborhoods, the disruptions to the
residents, and the negative image of the City of SLO, developed their own task force headed up
by the SLO City Police Department. The messaging developed by the City of SLO was “Do Not
Come, the party is over.” In 2024 there were approximately 140 to 160 law enforcement
personnel overseeing the event in the neighborhood. In 2025, the SLO Police Department
activated the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and the SLO County District Attorney’s Office
announced they would not offer pre-filing misdemeanor diversion (see Glossary) to any person
charged with a misdemeanor stemming from criminal conduct during St. Patrick's Day
celebrations in San Luis Obispo. There were an estimated 300 law enforcement officers
representing 25 different local, state and federal agencies. Officers patrolling the area stopped
the students from entering the streets and kept their movement on the sidewalks. The students
were encouraged to keep moving out of the neighborhood and to the event on campus. Due to
the increased law enforcement presence, the neighborhood of Alta Vista did not experience
damage to property and there was no unsanctioned street party. The SLO Chief of Police
Department estimated costs to the city will be approximately $125,000.
The concert at Cal Poly was deemed a success as over 6,000 students attended the event. The
event was limited to 5,000 students; however, un-ticketed students pushed through the
temporary fencing so they could get into the event. Though this is concerning, no one was
seriously injured. Overall, the students remained on campus, attended the alternative event, and
no damage was reported in the dorms or the nearby neighborhoods. The alternative activity on
campus ended around 10:30 a.m.
It is the stated goal of Cal Poly and the City of SLO that the St. Patrick’s Day unsanctioned street
parties come to an end. They have advised that it may take two to three years to completely end
the unruly St. Patrick’s Day celebrations. The City of SLO and Cal Poly are no strangers to
Submitted June 23, 2025 8
controlling and ending large events. After a 1990 riot during Poly Royal, Cal Poly ended the event
and created a new activity that is safe for students, their families, and the community to enjoy.
After a popular Mardi Gras event (2004) was no longer controllable, the City of SLO was successful
in bringing an end to that event.
The 2024-2025 collaboration between the City of SLO and Cal Poly proved successful in providing
a safe alternative event for the students and residents of San Luis Obispo. A communication
received from Cal Poly indicated that Cal Poly is currently evaluating what programming will look
like in future years, especially given the transition from quarters to semesters; however, planning
will begin for another event next academic year, 2025-26.
CHAPTER 2: NOISY NEIGHBORS
SLO Municipal Code 9.12 (see Bibliography) provides that “…it shall be unlawful for any person
to willfully or negligently make or continue to make or continue, or cause to be made or
continued, or permit or allow to be made or continued any noise which disturbs the peace and
quiet of any neighborhood or which causes any discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable
person of normal sensitivity in the area.” Notwithstanding this ordinance, the citizens in the
immediate vicinity of Cal Poly, have regularly complained of excessive noise coming from nearby
houses that are occupied by students. It has therefore fallen to the SLO Police Department
(SLOPD) and the SLO Noise Control Officer (Code Enforcement) to answer such complaints as may
be made. The specific code violation encompassed in the above-mentioned Code states that the
hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following morning are to remain quiet. According to
complaints received by the SLOCGJ, this has not been fully enforced. It should also be noted that
the Noise Control Officer may grant exceptions to this restriction .
The SLOCGJ received complaints that loud parties, located directly adjacent to Cal Poly and in
violation of the above code have forced citizens to file SLOPD noise complaints. The SLOCGJ
reviewed copies of the noise citations issued by the SLOPD during th e 2023-2024 school session
(the most recent information available) and found that noise citations in neighborhoods near the
Submitted June 23, 2025 9
campus were issued an average of more than 3 times per week during the school session. This
totaled 139 citations in the Alta Vista neighborhood, with one house alone receiving 17
citations. Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that this situation remains - to this date -
unabated. Such is the irritation of area residents, that many have fled the area.
To aid in noise ordinance enforcement the SLOPD employs the assistance of Cal Poly students
who are enrolled in a program called the Student Neighborhood Assistance Program
(SNAP). These students interface with groups of partiers in residences in the affected area who
are violating the noise ordinance. These unarmed SNAP students speak to the offending parties
and attempt to get them to comply with the city’s noise standards. There are, however, only a
handful of SNAP students. They wear civilian uniforms and work in pairs. They also have radios
so that they may contact the police when required. These students may, at their discretion, issue
Disturbance Advisement Cards (DACs). Such issuance falls short of an actual fine or a
conventional ticket and is meant to serve as a first warning, so that an additional violation may,
at the officers' discretion, warrant a police citation. Complainants indicated that weekend parties
can mean up to 100 or more students at one address and often continue after visits by police.
SNAP students do not go to lettered fraternity houses; such visits are reserved for sworn
officers.
Additionally, through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Cal Poly Police have the
authority to operate within one mile outside of campus grounds. This allows, at least
theoretically, greater and more rapid enforcement of SLO city laws.
SLO Municipal Code 9.12.050 is specific about excessive noise. It provides a detailed list of
prohibited acts between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. While it does not specifically prohibit
noise from parties, it does speak to the use of loudspeakers and other electronic devices,
including: “radio, television set, phonograph, drum, musical instrument, or similar device which
produces or reproduces sound…”
Submitted June 23, 2025 10
CHAPTER 3: ZONING VIOLATIONS / CONCERNS – IS SLO CITY IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE ABOUT
ZONING ISSUES?
As outlined previously, the SLOCGJ reviewed citizen complaints reporting “Illegal Fraternities”
operating in residential zones (R-1/R-2). During interviews with City officials, five individuals
confirmed their knowledge of the existence of illegal fraternities. City officials stated that
identifying illegal fraternities is difficult but usually starts with a citizen complaint reported to law
enforcement about a noisy event or party in an R-1/R-2 residential zone, which is the top citizen
complaint happening most weekends while school is in session. Noise issues and complaints are
usually handled by the police department. Municipal Code guidelines that address noise issues
and enforcement are outlined in the “Exterior Noise Limits” section MC 9.12.060 and the
“Enforcement” section MC 9.12.110. If found to be out of compliance, SLOPD may issue a warning
or citation. Fines for cited noise violations escalate for each subsequent violation. Code
enforcement gets involved if SLOPD or citizen complaints identify the location may be operating
as a fraternity.
It is illegal per the Municipal Code for fraternities to operate in an R-1/R-2 neighborhood.
Due to the lack of on-campus student housing, some students must live off-campus. In some
cases, fraternity members will rent houses in R-1/R-2 zones and may hold fraternity-sponsored
events, which is not allowed by the Municipal Code. In 2023, using extensive citizen-generated
data from a Cal Poly-generated report required by AB524, code enforcement started an
investigation into the illegal fraternities. Based on the investigation, 30-40 Advisory Notices, and
22 Notice of Violations (NOVs) were sent to property owners. In response to the NOVs, the city
advised that many of the property owners reported they were unaware of the fraternity events
that were being held at their property.
At the time, Cal Poly and code enforcement were working together on the illegal fraternity issue.
However, due to changes in policies, Cal Poly stopped assisting the city, stating privacy concerns,
and revised their AB 524 report to remove some of the addresses that were previously provided
in the document.
Submitted June 23, 2025 11
The current policies and enforcement approach is not conducive to a real time solution. Based
on the SLOCGJ investigation, the number of illegal fraternities may be more than 40 locations
currently operating in the city. In addition, citizens have reported that several Cal Poly recognized
fraternities listed in AB524 have multiple illegal fraternity locations operating within the city:
some with as many as 7 separate locations.
In January 2025, due to detailed information received by code enforcement, from members of
the public and several complaint calls, the code enforcement team was sent out on a Saturday
night to the neighborhood adjacent to Cal Poly specifically looking for illegal fraternity activities.
It is not the usual practice for code enforcement to be working on a weekend, at night, and on
overtime, but due to the increasing attention to the problems, city officials believed it was
appropriate. Results from the neighborhood review resulted in identifying and citing 12 locations
that were found to be operating as fraternity houses in R-1/R-2 zones. The city is taking steps to
address these violations. The city plans to continue working on the issues using the existing
municipal codes and modifying them as needed. With the current fiscal situation and funding
constraints, city officials plan to provide enforcement with current staff and resources and ensure
they have a clear and concise process to use.
Based on comments from city officials, identifying illegal fraternity party houses is labor intensive
since code enforcement has to prove that the party or activity is sponsored by a fraternity in a n
R-1/R-2 zone, which is a land use violation. Some indicators are Greek letters posted out front,
social media posts advertising fraternity events, and citizen complaints. After investigating, if
enough evidence exists, code enforcement will issue an NOV and if they are in an R-1/R-2 zone,
tell them to cease all fraternity-related activities. Code enforcement will follow-up within 30 days
to verify compliance.
Unfortunately, the city is regulated to reactive rather than proactive enforcement of municipal
codes. Code enforcement complaints are often received after business hours or the following
Submitted June 23, 2025 12
day. The result is that they are limited in their ability to verify the code violation, as it is after the
fact or violators are not easily identified.
CHAPTER 4: FRATERNITY PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
The City of SLO Municipal Code regulates land use, developments, and operations within the city.
That Municipal Code restricts fraternities to zones R-3 and R-4 and requires a CUP (Municipal
Code Section 17.10.020, Table 2-1) to operate. CUPs that allow fraternities are regulated by
Municipal Code Section 17.86.130 which defines the standard conditions that shall apply to all:
1. “Occupancy” shall be limited to not more than one resident per sixty square feet of building
area. The landlord shall allow the city to verify occupancy by allowing an inspection of the records
or by a visual inspection of the premises. Any inspection shall be at a reasonable time and shall
be preceded by a twenty-four-hour notice to the residents,
2. The maximum number of persons allowed on site for routine meetings and gatherings shall
not exceed the limit established by the applicable conditional use permit,
3. The fraternity or sorority shall remain affiliated and in good standing with the Interfraternity
Council of Student Life and Leadership at California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo. If
the fraternity or sorority becomes unaffiliated or no longer held in good standing with California
Polytechnic University, the conditional use permit shall be revoked,
4. The landlord shall provide names and telephone numbers of responsible persons to the
community development department and SLOPD neighborhood services manager on an annual
basis. Responsible persons shall be available during all events and at reasonable hours to receive
and handle complaints
Additional conditions may be imposed by the planning commission when they approve the CUP.
The permit stays with the parcel as long as the approved use continues, and the conditions are
Submitted June 23, 2025 13
adhered to. If the parcel is no longer used for the approved purpose, then the permit expires
after one year. If the occupants of the parcel violate the conditions of the CUP, the planning
commission may revoke the permit.
In January 2025, the SLOCGJ requested and received a copy of each CUP granted by the city to a
fraternity or sorority; Appendix A is a summary of the 16 conditional use permits provided by the
city. It should be noted that the Cal Poly website lists 36 recognized fraternities and sororities.
The SLOCGJ double checked with the city, and it was confirmed that the 16 conditional use
permits were all that are in place at this time.
AB524; Sections 66310-66312 of California Education Code requires each institution of higher
education to include in the institution’s requirements for campus recognition of a campus-
recognized sorority or fraternity, a requirement that the sorority or fraternity submit to the
institution on or before July 1, 2023, and annually thereafter, specified information concerning
the sorority’s or fraternity’s members and their conduct. Cal Poly assembles this information and
submits it in a public report to the State each year. The report also provides the address of each
“affiliated chapter house” which AB 524 defines as those located on -campus or on land owned
or leased by the fraternity or sorority. The list submitted in 2024 did have 16 fraternities and
sororities the same as the number of CUPs in force. Evidently, this means that of the 36
recognized fraternities and sororities, 20 either do not have a chapter house or are in chapter
houses that are off-campus and not owned or leased by the fraternity or sorority and therefore
do not meet the definition of an affiliated chapter house.
Any of these chapter houses that hold fraternity activities such as meetings, rush events, or
parties, are still required by the SLO municipal code to have a CUP. It is not clear why they have
not applied for a permit. It could be the cost (In FY 2024-25, the application fee for a CUP is
$10,932.57) or effort required, or it may be that they are located in an R-1 or R-2 zone, in which
case the fraternity activity would not be allowed. Since Cal Poly is not required to provide the
addresses of these recognized fraternities, the city has no easy way to verify the location to
Submitted June 23, 2025 14
determine the reason that the fraternity does not have a CUP. This makes it difficult for the city
to enforce the code.
As shown in Appendix A, not all required conditions are the same for each permit holder. In
addition to the standard conditions required by code, some permit holders have other conditions
such as:
• restrictions on the time of day that meetings and gatherings can be held without city
approval,
• a neighborhood relations program with evidence of implementation to be submitted
annually,
• a list of planned events for the year to be submitted annually,
• complaints received by the city are to be forwarded to the Cal Poly interfraternity council
prior to being forwarded to the planning commission,
• notice must be provided to residents within 300 feet prior to special events, and
• a transportation and parking plan must be submitted prior to each event.
These CUPs were approved over an extended period of time by planning commissions with
different members; the earliest is dated in 1971 and the latest in 2024. That may explain why
additional conditions were imposed on some fraternities and sororities and not others. It may
also have to do with specific characteristics of the individual parcel.
Interviews with City staff have revealed that many of the conditions, such as submittals of
planned events and neighborhood relations programs have not been adhered to or enforced.
The planning commission has the authority to enforce these conditions, add new conditions if
the existing conditions are not met, and ultimately revoke a fraternity’s CUP. Citizens can also
appeal for a use permit to be revoked or request that a permit not be approved. The current cost
to make such an appeal is $2,583.46, (in 2017 the appeal fee was $281.00). A complainant noted
that the cost to appeal discourages this practice. While these appeal fees may be justifiable for
major development projects that demand substantial city resources like legal reviews, public
Submitted June 23, 2025 15
hearings, or environmental impact assessments, they place an undue burden on ordinary
citizens.
Residents raising concerns about local issues like noise or safety issues may find these costs
prohibitively high, limiting their ability to participate in community decision-making.
FINDINGS
F1. Prior to 2025, the city failed to effectively provide a multi-pronged, cohesive approach to
manage or shut down large unsanctioned, costly and unruly events such as St. Fratty’s
Day. This created an unsafe environment, with increasing size of unruly crowds, property
damage, injuries and public disturbances.
F2. The city has not effectively engaged in working together with community stakeholders to
find solutions for ongoing off-campus issues that negatively impact neighborhoods such
as code enforcement, noise issues, trespassing, property damage, and unruly events.
F3. The city has failed to effectively enforce municipal codes that prohibit fraternity and
sorority activity in R-1/R-2 zones in part due to the difficulty in identifying houses that are
hosting fraternity-type events, such as rush events and repeated parties. This inaction has
resulted in an increase of illegal fraternities holding events in residential neighborhoods
making these areas almost unlivable for most residents.
F4. The city has failed to consistently enforce CUPs such as the requirements for an annual
list of parties and events, notification to neighbors, and parking plans. Strict enforcement
of these conditions would contribute to a reduction of the disturbances in the
neighborhoods.
Submitted June 23, 2025 16
F5. The current planning appeal fee structure in SLO disproportionately impacts ordinary
citizens, as the high costs create barriers for those raising concerns about community
issues such as noise or safety. While these fees may be justifiable for large-scale
development appeals requiring additional city resources, they hinder equitable
participation in local decision-making processes.
F6. The Grand Jury encountered a lack of cooperation from the San Luis Obispo City Police
Department. While one sworn officer did participate in an interview, efforts to interview
two additional sworn officers were unsuccessful. This unwillingness to engage hindered
the Grand Jury’s ability to corroborate statements, obtain essential information, and
maintain transparency in its oversight role.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. The SLO City Council should continue to work with Cal Poly to develop a multi-year plan
to ensure that the illegal street parties known as St. Fratty’s Day is completely eliminated.
R2. The SLO City Council, in collaboration with Cal Poly and other stakeholders, should
implement proactive measures to address future unsanctioned illegal street parties as
they arise. Taking immediate action can prevent these gatherings from escalating over
time due to prolonged non-enforcement. This approach would foster a safer community
while promoting shared accountability among all parties involved.
R3. The SLO City Manager should develop and implement an ongoing formal process to
identify illegal fraternities to bring them into compliance.
R4. The SLO City Council should initiate a task force to explore the creation of a “Student
Overlay Zone” near the campus that would allow for municipal code requirements to be
introduced that would differentiate it from the rest of the city and recognize the needs of
Submitted June 23, 2025 17
a dynamic university environment. This could facilitate changes to such things as density,
parking, noise and fraternity activities.
R5. The SLO City Council should consider adopting a tiered planning appeal fee structure to
promote accessibility of community concerns by individual residents. Such a structure
could ensure that financial burdens do not deter public involvement.
R6. The SLO City Manager and the Planning Commission should move toward adopting
more uniform conditions for CUP’s and enforcement of existing requirements. Due to
the time span (1971-2024) in which these CUPs were approved, the requirements are
inconsistent. The City should consider using future CUP violations to determine if it is
appropriate to revise the conditions to make them more relevant for today’s
environment. This may require consideration of additional code enforcement staff or
alternative work schedules.
R7. The SLOCGJ recommends that the SLO City Manager create formal guidelines and
provide training outlining how the SLO City Police Department will respond to requests
from the SLOCGJ and other oversite bodies.
COMMENDATIONS
The SLOCGJ commends Cal Poly and the City of SLO for their efforts and collaboration in keeping
the students and the community of SLO safe during the 2025 St. Patrick’s Day weekend.
REQUIRED RESPONSES
The San Luis Obispo City Council is required to respond to R1, R2. R4, and R5 within 90 days.
The San Luis Obispo City Manager is required to respond to R3, R6, and R7 within 90 days.
Submitted June 23, 2025 18
The San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission is required to respond to R6 within 90 days.
All responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior
Court. A paper copy and an electronic version of all responses shall be provided to the Gran d
Jury.
933.05. Findings and Recommendations
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding
person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response
shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of
the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the
responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented
action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and
parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated o r
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This
timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury
report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation, therefor.
Presiding Judge Grand Jury
Presiding Judge Rita Federman
Superior Court of California
1035 Palm Street Room 355
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
P.O. Box 4910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Submitted June 23, 2025 19
APPENDIX A
Submitted June 23, 2025 20
Submitted June 23, 2025 21
Submitted June 23, 2025 22
GLOSSARY
1. Fraternities and Sororities. Municipal Code (MC) 17.156.014 “F definitions.” - Residence
for college or university students who are members of a social or educational association
that is affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University (Cal
Poly) and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings.
2. Illegal fraternities – Similar to the “Fraternities and Sororities” defined in the MC, except
the residence is located in an R-1/R-2 residential zone instead of R-3/R-4 zones and hold
fraternity sponsored activities and parties, which is not allowed by the MC. Sometimes
referred to as a satellite Greek house.
3. Zoning Regulations - Zoning regulations are rules designed to help guide the growth of a
city in an organized way. They are based on a general plan that aims to protect and
improve the environment, both natural and man -made. Zoning regulations help keep
communities safe, healthy, and well-organized by controlling how land and buildings are
used, as well as where and how structures are built. Examples of different zones are:
Residential Zones are where homes can be built, and Commercial Zones are where
businesses or stores may be built.
4. Residential Zones definition R-1 through –R-4 (MC 17.16 – 17.22) - The city is divided into
zones to allow for orderly, planned development and to implement the general plan.
a. The R-1 zone provides for low-density residential development and supporting
compatible uses that have locations and development forms that provide a sense of
both individual identity and neighborhood cohesion, and that provide private outdoor
space for the households occupying individual units.
b. The R-2 zone is intended to provide housing opportunities that have locations and
development forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood
Submitted June 23, 2025 23
cohesion for the households occupying them, but in a more compact arrangement
than in the R-1 zone, and near commercial and public services.
c. The R-3 zone is intended primarily to provide housing opportunities for attached
dwellings with common outdoor areas and compact private outdoor spaces. The R -3
zone is generally appropriate near employment centers and major public facilities,
along transit corridors and nodes, and close to commercial and public facilities serving
the whole community.
d. The R-4 zone is intended primarily to provide for attached dwellings with common
outdoor areas and compact private outdoor spaces, and to accommodate various
types of group housing. Further, the R-4 zone intended to allow for dense housing
close to concentrations of employment and college enrollment, in the downtown
core, along transit corridors and nodes, and in areas largely committed to high-density
residential development.
5. Exterior Noise Limits MC 9.12.060 - Defines the Maximum Permissible Sound Levels at
Receiving Land Use for all zoning categories (see table 1 in MC for details.)
6. Overlay Zone MC 17.06.020.C - An overlay zone supplements the base zone for the
purpose of establishing special use or development regulations for a particular area in
addition to the provisions of the underlying base zone. In the event of conflict between
the base zone regulations and the overlay zone regulations, the provisions of the overlay
zone shall apply.
Submitted June 23, 2025 24
BIBLIOGRAPHY
2019 Shelter Force – The Role Student Housing Plays in Communities
https://shelterforce.org/2019/09/06/the-role-student-housing-plays-in-communities/
2019 Terner Center for Housing and Innovation – UC Berkley Affordable Housing Overlay Zones.
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2020/10/Affordable_Housing_Overlay_Zones_Oakley.pdf
2022 MCRC Using Affordable Housing Overlay Zones to Reduce the Risk of Displacement by
Steven Butler. https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/april-2022/using-affordable-
housing-overlay-zones
City of Ann Arbor. Noise Ordinance and Housing Density Regulations.
https://www.a2gov.org.
City of Boulder. Student Housing Zoning and Overlay Districts.
https://bouldercolorado.gov.
City of Austin. Land Development Code on Student Housing.
https://www.austintexas.gov.
City of Syracuse. Housing and Land Use Planning Near Universities. https://www.syracuse.ny.us.
American Planning Association. Best Practices for Student Housing Overlay Zones.
https://www.planning.org.
National League of Cities. Managing Noise and Density in University Towns. https://www.nlc.org.
Submitted June 23, 2025 25
2024 – U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing – Operationalizing
Proactive Community Engagement by Roberto Santos and Rachel Santos.
https://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter/content.ashx/cops-r1145-pub.pdf
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Codes
https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code
City of Santa Barbara Municipal Codes
https://santabarbaraca.gov/government/city-hall/city-charter-municipal-code
California State Assembly Bill 524 - Postsecondary education: Campus-Recognized Sorority and
Fraternity Transparency Act
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB524/id/2606489
City of San Luis Obispo Voluntary Party Registration
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/police-department/party-
registration
California Polytechnic University Party Registration
https://content-calpoly-
edu.s3.amazonaws.com/greeklife/1/images/Party%20Registration%20Procedure%202018.pdf
San Luis Obispo City Council Agendas and Minutes
https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and-minutes
California Polytechnic University Enrollment
https://ir.calpoly.edu/content/publications_reports/polyview/index
https://content-calpoly-edu.s3.amazonaws.com/ir/1/images/2025-
26%20Enrollment%20Projections.pdf
Submitted June 23, 2025 26
Cal Poly Greek Fraternity and Sorority Life – Reports and Assessments – AB524 Fraternity Sorority
Transparency Act Reports
https://greeklife.calpoly.edu/reports