HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-27-2025 PC Agenda Packet
Planning Commission
AGENDA
Wednesday, August 27, 2025, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Planning Commission meetings can be viewed remotely on Channel 20, the City’s YouTube Channel,
and on the City’s website under the Public Meeting Agendas web page. Attendees of City Council or
Advisory Body meetings are eligible to receive one hour of complimentary parking; restrictions apply,
visit Parking for Public Meetings for more details.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:
Public Comment prior to the meeting (must be received 3 hours in advance of the meeting):
Mail - Delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Address letters to the City Clerk's Office at 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401.
Email - Submit Public Comments via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org. In the body of your
email, please include the date of the meeting and the item number (if applicable). Emails will not
be read aloud during the meeting.
Voicemail - Call (805) 781-7164 and leave a voicemail. Please state and spell your name, the
agenda item number you are calling about, and leave your comment. Verbal comments must be
limited to 3 minutes. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting.
*All correspondence will be archived and distributed to members, however, submissions received
after the deadline may not be processed until the following day.
Public Comment during the meeting:
Meetings are held in-person. To provide public comment during the meeting, you must be
present at the meeting location.
Electronic Visual Aid Presentation. To conform with the City's Network Access and Use Policy,
Chapter 1.3.8 of the Council Policies & Procedures Manual, members of the public who desire
to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentation must provide display-ready
material to the City Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Contact the City Clerk's
Office at cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781-7114.
Pages
1.CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Tolle will call the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to
order.
2.PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the
agenda. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this
time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is
necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
3.CONSENT
Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non-
controversial and will be acted upon at one time. A member of the public may
request the Planning Commission to pull an item for discussion. The public may
comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three-minute
time limit.
3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - JULY 9, 2025 PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
5
Recommendation:
To approve the Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2025.
3.b COSTCO WHOLESALE OPEN SPACE LAND DEDICATION –
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY REPORT
9
Recommendation:
Approve a draft Resolution (Attachment A) finding that the acceptance
of a dedication in fee simple title of approximately 2.8 acres of
unimproved real property that is a portion of a parcel owned by Costco
Wholesale, located in the City of San Luis Obispo, for open space
conservation purposes and passive recreation by the general public,
conforms with the City’s General Plan.
4.PUBLIC HEARINGS
Note: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this
agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at,
or prior to, the public hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and
address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes; consultant
and project presentations limited to six minutes.
4.a A REQUEST TO MODIFY AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(USE-0550-2019) TO ADD DELIVERY SERVICES TO A CANNABIS
RETAIL STOREFRONT OPERATION LOCATED AT 280 HIGUERA ST
(MOD-0424-2025).
21
Recommendation:
Approve the request to modify an existing Conditional Use Permit (USE-
0550-2019) to add delivery services to an existing cannabis retail
storefront operation at 280 Higuera Street, based on updated findings
and subject to revised conditions of approval.
4.b RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION NO. 6 OF THE GRAND JURY
REPORT (ROUND & ROUND WITH TOWN & GOWN)
31
Recommendation:
Review and approve the draft response to Recommendation No. 6 of
the Grand Jury report, Round & Round with Town & Gown.
5.COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Receive a brief update from Deputy Community Development Director
Tyler Corey.
6.ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for
September 10, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES for the hearing impaired--see the Clerk
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible
to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate
alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who
requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting
should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7114 at least
48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the
Deaf (805) 781-7410.
Planning Commission meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20 and on
the City's YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/CityofSanLuisObispo. Agenda
related writings or documents provided to the Planning Commission are
available for public inspection on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and-
minutes.
1
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 2025, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Planning
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioner Justin Cooley, Commissioner Sheryl Flores,
Commissioner Bob Jorgensen, Commissioner Steve Kahn,
Commissioner Juan Munoz-Morris, Vice Chair Eric Tolle, Chair
Dave Houghton
City Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey, Deputy
City Attorney Sadie Symens, City Clerk Teresa Purrington
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to
order on July 9, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Chair Houghton.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment--
3. CONSENT
3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2025 PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
Motion By Commissioner Munoz-Morris
Second By Commissioner Cooley
To approve the Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2025.
Ayes (7): Commissioner Cooley, Commissioner Flores, Commissioner
Jorgensen, Commissioner Kahn, Commissioner Munoz-Morris, Vice Chair
Tolle, and Chair Houghton
CARRIED (7 to 0)
Page 5 of 89
2
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.a REVIEW OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO REVOKE
THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY, RELATED TO A
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROPOSED AT 1144 CHORRO STREET,
FOR SEVEN (7) AFFECTED PROPERTIES. THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT
FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
All Commissioners reported having no Ex Parte Communications.
Associate Planner Hannah Hanh presented the staff report and responded
to Commission inquiries.
Applicant representative, Mark Rawson, provided a brief overview of the
project and responded to questions raised.
Chair Houghton opened the Public Hearing
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment--
Chair Houghton closed the Public Hearing
Motion By Commissioner Munoz-Morris
Second By Vice Chair Tolle
Recommend the City Council introduce and a dopt an Ordinance revoking
the Planned Development Overlay (Ordinance No. 1687 [2020 Series]),
related to a development project proposed at 1144 Chorro Street, and
amending the Zoning Map to rezone the seven (7) associated properties
from C-D-PD and C-D-H-PD to C-D and C-D-H, respectively. The project
is exempt from environmental review under Section 15301(b)(3) (General
Rule Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines.
Ayes (7): Commissioner Cooley, Commissioner Flores, Commissioner
Jorgensen, Commissioner Kahn, Commissioner Munoz-Morris, Vice Chair
Tolle, and Chair Houghton
CARRIED (7 to 0)
Page 6 of 89
3
5. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey provided the
following update of upcoming projects:
July 23rd and August 13th Planning Commission meetings will
likely be cancelled as there are no items currently on the schedule.
Notices of cancellation will be sent out.
August 27th meeting will have an item to review a response to
recommendation number 6 of the Grand Jury Report: "Round and
Round with Town and Gown"
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:31 PM. The next Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission is scheduled for August 27, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/202X
Page 7 of 89
Page 8 of 89
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: COSTCO WHOLESALE OPEN SPACE LAND DEDICATION – GENERAL
PLAN CONFORMITY REPORT
BY: Robert Hill, FROM: Tyler Corey, Deputy Director
Sustainability & Natural Resources Official
Phone Number: (805) 781-7211 Phone Number: (805) 781-7169
Email: rhill@slocity.org Email: tcorey@slocity.org
APPLICANT: Costco Wholesale REPRESENTATIVE: Pari Holliday
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a draft resolution (Attachment A) finding that the acceptance of a dedication in
fee simple title of approximately 2.8 acres of unimproved real property that is a portion of
a parcel owned by Costco Wholesale, located in the City of San Luis Obispo , for open
space conservation purposes and passive recreation by the general public, conforms with
the City’s General Plan.
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
California Government Code Section 65402(a) requires that the Planning Commission
review an acquisition of real property for public purposes, such as contemplated herein,
for conformity with the City’s General Plan (emphasis added in bold):
If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, no real property shall be
acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, square, park or other public
purposes, and no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or
abandoned, and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized,
if the adopted general plan or part thereof applies thereto, until the location,
purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposition, such street vacation or
abandonment, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and
reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with said adopted
general plan or part thereof.
The Commission’s purview on this item is whether the voluntary land dedication for open
space conservation purposes and passive recreation by the general public is in
conformance with the General Plan.
Meeting Date: 8/27/2025
Item Number: 3b
Time Estimate: N/A
Page 9 of 89
Item 3b
GENP-0610-2025
Planning Commission Report – August 27, 2025
2.0 SUMMARY
Applicant City of San Luis Obispo
Representative Robert Hill
Zoning Retail Commercial (C-R)
Land Use General Retail (GR)
Site Area 2.8 acres
ER Status Categorically Exempt,
§15313 and §15317
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Project Description
The City’s Natural Resources Program is seeking a General Plan Conformity
Determination from the Planning Commission for a dedication of open space along the
southerly portion of the City’s Greenbelt. The proposed project is a fee simple dedication
of a 2.8-acre remainder portion of a parcel that was acquired by Costco Wholesale to
facilitate a new parking lot associated with the expansion of the gas filling station at 1540
Froom Ranch Way.
3.2 Site Information/Setting
Site Size 2.8 acres
Present Use &
Development
Unimproved
Topography Level to Steep
Access Froom Ranch Way
Surrounding
Uses/Zoning
Commercial retail, future park and residential, open
space
3.3 Background
On November 4, 2003, the City Council reviewed and approved a Use Permit (USE 173 -
00) to allow a 140,000 square foot Costco Wholesale warehouse store at Irish Hills Plaza
located off of Los Osos Valley Road. This approval also allowed the operation of a th ree-
island fuel station with six (6) fuel dispensers. The store was completed and opened for
business on September 17, 2005.
In April 2024, Costco was approved by Director Action for a modification of the existing
Use Permit (MOD-0675-2022), together with concurrent Minor Development Review, for
construction and expansion of the fueling station to accommodate sixteen (16) fuel
dispensers, a new parking lot addition, and other site improvements to improve overall
site operations by increasing maneuverability and reducing vehicle queuing. Grading and
building permits have since been issued and the project is currently under construction.
Figure 1: Approximate Area of Land
Dedication
Costco
Home
Depot Irish Hills
Natural
Reserve
Page 10 of 89
Item 3b
GENP-0610-2025
Planning Commission Report – August 27, 2025
To accommodate the new parking lot expansion, Costco acquired a parcel of land
contiguous to the west of Irish Hills Plaza from Madonna Enterprises. The new parking
lot is located to the rear of the Home Depot store and across Froom Ranch Way from
Costco. In addition to the new parking facility, a portion of this parcel also currently
includes drainage basins for the shopping center, but it is otherwise vacant. The subject
parcel is contiguous with the City’s Irish Hills Natural Reserve property. It would also be
contiguous with the future park area identified in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan. See
Attachments B and C.
Following initial conversations, the City’s Natural Resources Program recently received a
Letter of Interest from Costco Wholesale offering to dedicate the remaining 2.8 acres of
the parcel for open space and trailhead uses. Staff are now working from City Council
direction and authority to complete the dedication of the property interest, together with
an agreement for trailhead use originating from the new parking lot. It is important to note
that this offer and opportunity represents voluntary community goodwill; it is not a
requirement or condition of approval of the Use Permit modification and Costco has no
obligation to dedicate the land and provide a formal trailhead.
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
Consistency with the General Plan and Project Analysis
The City’s General Plan has several areas where acquisition, use, and management of
City-owned open space is addressed. The Conservation and Open Space Element
(COSE) is where the most pertinent policy direction is found. The list below is not
exhaustive, but highlights a few key goals, programs, and policies in particular:
COSE Goal 8.1: Secure and maintain a healthy and attractive Greenbelt around
the urban area, comprised of diverse and connected natural habitats, and
productive agricultural land that reflects the City’s watershed and topographic
boundaries.
The proposed project implements this goal by adding protected property to the Greenbelt
that is adjacent to other open public lands. The property is contiguous with the City’s
existing Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which totals approximately 1,300 acres. While the site
is relatively small, from a natural resources protection perspective, it is noteworthy that
the land proposed for dedication does possess important conservation values, including
natural spring seeps and small wetland areas, serpentine rare plants, and native coastal
maritime chaparral habitat.
COSE Policy 8.5.1: Public access to open space resources, with interpretive
information, should be provided when doing so is consistent with protection of the
resources, and with the security and privacy of affected landowners and
occupants…
Page 11 of 89
Item 3b
GENP-0610-2025
Planning Commission Report – August 27, 2025
The proposed land dedication will implement this policy by protecting and conserving
sensitive natural resources found within the site and by providing a n opportunity for trail
access to Irish Hills Natural Reserve through an agreement with Costco as the adjacent
affected landowner. Ranger Service staff would install the City’s standard interpretive and
informational kiosk and other open space trailhead am enities. From a land management
perspective, it is desirable to have numerous trailhead locations, when possible, in order
to spread out trail users and reduce systemwide impacts over time.
COSE Program 8.7.1(D) Protect Open Space Resources:
The City will take the following actions to protect open space, and will encourage
individuals, organizations, and other agencies to take the same actions within their
areas of responsibility and jurisdiction: Acquire land and interests in land for open
space, pursuant to City Open Space Guidelines and acquisition priorities.
The proposed land dedication will implement this program by allowing the City to acquire
fee ownership of the property (acquisition priorities are discussed below). The proposed
acceptance will eliminate any remaining development potential of the site. This action is
a result of staff engaging in dialogue with Costco and their agreement to move forward
based on this encouragement.
The acceptance of a dedication of this particular property is consistent with the following
priority-setting policies:
COSE Appendix B, Paragraph 3: Criteria for Acquisition:
To be considered for acquisition a site must have value in one or more of the
following categories:
A) Valuable natural resources, such as habitat for listed species or species of local
concern, groundwater, or surface water.
B) Scenic qualities, cultural resources, or unusual geologic features.
C) Natural hazards to public health or safety, such as flooding or landslide, which
make reasonable development on the property unlikely.
D) Important opportunities for low-impact recreation, such as connecting the
Morros by a hiking trail, linking San Luis Obispo to connecting trails in the
unincorporated County, or for providing valuable environmental education
opportunities.
E) Proximity to land that is already permanently protected as open space, or the
property is close to land that is likely to be protected in the foreseeable future,
thus forming or potentially forming a large area of protected lands.
F) Productive or potentially productive agricultural land, or an effective buffer that
would protect agricultural operations.
G) Individually or cumulatively forms an important part of the City’s Greenbelt.
Page 12 of 89
Item 3b
GENP-0610-2025
Planning Commission Report – August 27, 2025
This proposed land dedication meets all of the above conditions except F, as the site is
not conducive to any form of intensive agriculture, nor large enough for livestock grazing.
COSE Appendix B, Paragraph 6: Criteria for Excluding Acquisition Candidates:
A site that meets the criteria noted above should generally not be acquired by the
City as open space if:
A) The site is developed with facilities or structures, and thus would not be
consistent with the open space definition.
B) The site or resource can be obtained in a timely manner as a condition of City,
State, or County development approvals or agreements.
C) The site’s values are primarily scenic, but the property cannot be readily viewed
by the general public.
D) Adjacent properties are being developed in a way that is likely to significantly
diminish the conservation values of the property in question.
E) Management of the property will be very costly or the terms of an easement
would be unusually difficult to enforce.
F) The site cannot be acquired with reasonable effort in relation to its value or
purpose.
The proposed acquisition would not be excluded by the preceding policy, as none of these
criteria apply to the property.
For the above-stated reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission find
this dedication in conformity with the City’s General Plan.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A General Plan conformity determination is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3), which provides the general rule that
CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on
the environment. The determination of general plan conformity for acceptance by the City
of dedication of land from the property owner is not subject to CEQA because the
recommended action is only a policy review of whether acceptance of the land for an
open space and trailhead purpose is consistent with the City's General Plan. It can be
seen with certainty there is no possibility such conformance review will have a significant
effect on the environment.
The underlying dedication is also exempt f rom the provisions of CEQA because it involves
“acquisition of lands for … wildlife conservation purposes including (a) preservation of …
wildlife habitat… and (c) preserving access to public lands … where the purpose of the
acquisition is to preserve the land in its natural condition” (CEQA Guidelines §15313),
and because it involves the “acceptance of … fee interests in order to maintain the open
space character of the area” (§15317).
Page 13 of 89
Item 3b
GENP-0610-2025
Planning Commission Report – August 27, 2025
6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Parks and Recreation Department’s Ranger Service division concurs with
acceptance of the proposed land dedication for open space conservation and passive
recreation purposes.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review of the project. The Commission may wish to request that staff
come back to the Commission for further review and deliberation at a later time,
although this is not recommended given sensitivities associated with the overall
timeline anticipated for the transaction. An action to continue the item should
include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required to make a
determination.
2. Determine that the project does not conform with the General Plan. The
Commission could find that the proposed dedication is not in conformance with the
General Plan. This is not recommended as the land dedication is consistent with
the Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo
(2002), and with the Conservation and Open Space Element (2006), and will
provide direction as to proper habitat protection, compatible recreational use, and
management activities for the site and its addition to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve
into the future. An action determining that the project does not conform with the
General Plan should include findings that cite the basis for determination and
reference any inconsistency(ies) with the General Plan. It should be noted that the
City Council may still accept the dedication notwithstanding a finding of non-
conformity by the Planning Commission.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Planning Commission Resolution finding that the proposed land dedication
conforms with the City’s General Plan
B - Site Map of the proposed land dedication
C - Site Photo of the proposed land dedication
Page 14 of 89
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
DETERMING GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE FOR
THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN APPROXIMATELY 2.8-ACRE PORTION OF OPEN
SPACE LAND IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 053-510-012 (PORTION)
WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS
REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED AUGUST
27, 2025 (COSTCO WHOLESALE OPEN SPACE DEDICATION, GENP-0610-2025)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
meeting in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
August 27, 2025, for the purpose of considering application GENP-0610-2025; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public meeting were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. The City of San Luis Obispo’s Natural Resources Program has received a Letter of Interest
proposing a dedication of land for open space and trailhead purposes in the southerly
portion of the City’s Greenbelt. The 2.8-acre portion of the property is contiguous with
the City’s existing Irish Hill Natural Reserve and contains natural resource values that
warrant the City’s conservation efforts, as well as land management and passive recreation
trailhead benefits.
2. The City of San Luis Obispo, as a local agency that has adopted a General Plan, must
submit the proposed dedication to its Planning Commission for a General Plan conformity
determination, as required in association with the acquisition of real property under
California Government Code Section 65402.
3. The Planning Commission considered the request and determined that the intended use and
site acquisition for open space conservation and passive recreation purposes by the general
public complies with goals, programs, and policies of the Conservation and Open Space
Element (COSE) of the City of San Luis Obispo’s General Plan, specifically COSE 8.1,
8.5.1, and 8.7.1(D), as well as the priority-setting policies found in COSE Appendix B.
Page 15 of 89
Section 2. Environmental Review. A General Plan conformity determination is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3), which
provides the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing
a significant effect on the environment. The determination of general plan conformity for
acceptance by the City of dedication of land from the property owner is not subject to CEQA
because the recommended action is only a policy review of whether acceptance of the land for
open space and trailhead purposes is consistent with the City's General Plan. It can be seen with
certainty there is no possibility such conformance review will have a significant effect on the
environment.
The underlying dedication is also exempt from the provisions of CEQA because it involves
“acquisition of lands for … wildlife conservation purposes including (a) preservation of … wildlife
habitat… and (c) preserving access to public lands … where the purpose of the acquisition is to
preserve the land in its natural condition” (CEQA Guidelines §15313), and because it involves the
“acceptance of … fee interests in order to maintain the open space character of the area” (§15317).
Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Costco Wholesale
Open Space Dedication, GENP-0610-2025, is in conformity with the City’s General Plan.
On motion by , seconded by , and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of August, 2025.
_____________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
Page 16 of 89
VAN
PARKINGNO
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
VA
N
PARKINGNO
VAN
PARKINGNO
VAN
PARKINGNO
VAN
VAN
PARKINGNO
PAR
K
I
N
G
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
NO
VAN
PAR
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PARKINGNO
PARKINGNO
PARKINGNO
PARKINGNO
FRONT
RESTRICTED ELECTRIC VEHICLES ONLY
RES
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
O
N
L
Y
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
ELE
C
T
R
I
C
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
O
N
L
Y
CA
U
T
I
O
N
CA
U
T
I
O
N
EXISTING
HOME DEPOT
FROOM RANCH WAY
C
O
U
N
T
Y
O
F
S
L
O
C
I
T
Y
O
F
S
L
O
SCALE:
1" = 200'COSTCO WHOLESALE DEDICATION EXHIBIT
LEGEND:
949.474.1960
15535 Sand Canyon Ave, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92618
fuscoe.com
Page 17 of 89
Page 18 of 89
Home DepotCostco
Basin New Costco Parkin g
Land Dedication Area
Irish Hills Natural Reserve
Trailhea d
Page 19 of 89
Page 20 of 89
1
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: A REQUEST TO MODIFY AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(USE-0550-2019) TO ADD DELIVERY SERVICES TO A CANNABIS RETAIL
STOREFRONT OPERATION LOCATED AT 280 HIGUERA ST (MOD-0424-2025).
BY: Ivana Gomez, Cannabis Business
Coordinator FROM: Tyler Corey
Phone Number: (805)-781-7147 Phone Number: (805)-781-7169
Email: igomez@slocity.org Email: tcorey@slocity.org
APPLICANT: Megan’s Organic Market REPRESENTATIVE: Megan Souza
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request to modify an existing Conditional Use Permit (USE-0550-2019) to
add delivery services to an existing cannabis retail storefront operation at 280 Higuera
Street, based on updated findings and subject to revised conditions of approval.
SITE DATA
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
Pursuant to the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (“SLOMC”) Chapter 17.110, the
Planning Commission may review the proposed modification to Conditional Use Permit,
USE-0550-2019, for consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations, and
adopt a resolution to amend the use permit in accordance with the request.
Applicant Megan’s Organic Market
Zone Retail Commercial (C-R)
Overlay Zone Mixed Use (MU) Special
Focus Area (S-F),
Cannabis Business Zone
(CBZ)
General Plan General Retail (G-R)
Site Area
Environmental
Determination
0.18 acre (8,000 s.f.)
Categorically Exempt,
CEQA Guidelines §
15301 (Existing Facilities)
Meeting Date: 8/27/2025
Item Number: 4a
Time Estimate: 30 minutes
Page 21 of 89
Item 4a
MOD-0424-2025/USE-0550-2019
Planning Commission Report – August 27, 2025
2
2.0 SUMMARY
Megan’s Organic Market is one of two existing cannabis retail storefronts in the City. On
August 14, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC-1089-2024
recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance which provides a pathway for
cannabis retail storefronts to add delivery services to their existing operations, consistent
with state law.
On October 1, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1740, which allows existing
cannabis retail storefronts to amend their Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to add delivery
services to their licensed operation. In accordance with Table 2-1 within SLOMC §
17.10.020, Megan’s Organic Market has applied for a modification to their CUP to add
delivery services to their location at 280 Higuera Street, including the addition of one to
two small electric delivery vehicles and updated security and operation al protocols. No
physical changes to the licensed premises (including the floor and site plans) are
proposed.
3.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW
On November 13, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC-1013-
2019 granting a CUP to Megan’s Organic Market for the establishment of a cannabis retail
storefront at 280 Higuera Street. Megan’s Organic Market opened to the public on August
3, 2020, and has remained operational since then.
On June 5, 2025, Megan’s Organic Market applied to amend to their CUP (USE-0550-
2019) to add delivery services to their existing operation, consistent with Table 2-1 within
SLOMC § 17.10.020.
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
Project Description
Megan’s Organic Market proposes to add delivery services to their existing operation,
including the addition of 1-2 fully enclosed, unmarked electric vehicles operated by trained
employees aged 21 and over, as required by state law (California Code of Regulations,
Title 4 §§ 15415(a) and 15417(a)). To support delivery services, approximately two
additional full-time employees will be hired. Delivery vehicles will be installed with GPS
devices owned by the licensed business and all cannabis goods carried during delivery
will be stored in a secure, fully enclosed trunk or compartment within the vehicle as
required by 4 CCR § 15417(b) and (d).
Page 22 of 89
Item 4a
MOD-0424-2025/USE-0550-2019
Planning Commission Report – August 27, 2025
3
Orders are prompted by a delivery request from a customer. Cannabis goods are loaded
into the vehicle inside the existing secure delivery bay and accompanied by a delivery
inventory ledger and a log of all stops planned for a route, as required by 4 CCR §
15418(d) and (e). During deliveries, employees are restricted to performing delivery-
related duties and may only make stops necessary for rest, fueling, or vehicle
maintenance (4 CCR § 15415(e)). Upon returning to the premises, all undelivered
cannabis goods will be physically returned to the licensee’s inventory by the delivery
employee that same day (4 CCR § 15418(i)). All necessary internal inventory and track
and trace system records will also be updated that same day by an authorized retail
employee in accordance with 4 CCR § 15049.3.
When delivering cannabis goods to a customer, employees will confirm the identity and
age of the delivery customer as required by 4 CCR § 15404 and ensure that all cannabis
goods sold comply with requirements of 4 CCR § 15413.
Consistency with General Plan and Cannabis Regulations
Staff has evaluated the proposed modification for consistency with applicable General
Plan goals and policies, and for consistency with the regulations for commercial cannabis
activity set forth Chapter 9.10 (Cannabis Regulations) and Section 17.86.080 (Cannabis
Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code. The proposed modification has also been
evaluated for consistency with applicable state regulations, including 4 CCR Sections
15400 – 15424 (Retailers).
Permitting Requirements
Megan’s Organic Market holds a valid commercial cannabis Operator Permit and state
license as required by SLOMC § 9.10.040. Under state law (4 CCR Division 19) and as
allowed under Table 2-1 (SLOMC § 17.10.020), retail storefronts with a valid state license
and city permit may sell cannabis goods through storefront and by delivery.
Security Plan
In accordance with SLOMC § 9.10.50, the applicant submitted an updated Security Plan
that addresses both state-wide regulations of the Department of Cannabis Control and
concerns of the City Police Department (SLOMC § 17.86.080(E)(4)(b)(i)). The Security
Plan prepared by the applicant for this application was reviewed and approved by the
City’s Police Department during the departmental review process. It includes protocols
for vehicle security during transportation, protocols for deliveries, documentation an d
recordkeeping, and a plan for departures and returns to the licensed premises.
Hours of Operation
Deliveries of cannabis goods shall occur only during the business’s approved hours of
operation, 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM, in accordance with SLOMC §§ 17.86.080(E)(10)(b)(v).
Per SLOMC § 17.86.080(E)(11)(b)(ii), retail non-storefront (delivery-only) cannabis
businesses may operate between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM; however, this provision applies
only to businesses without a storefront. Megan’s Organic Market is a retail storefront
cannabis business and is permitted to conduct delivery in accordance with State law.
Page 23 of 89
Item 4a
MOD-0424-2025/USE-0550-2019
Planning Commission Report – August 27, 2025
4
However, delivery activity is limited to the City’s approved retail storefront operating hours
of 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM, as established by local ordinance.
While State regulations allow both storefront and non-storefront retail licensees to operate
between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM, the City’s adopted hours for storefront cannabis
businesses apply in this case.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the preparation of environmental documentation
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project is consistent with
General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the appl icable
zoning designation and regulations. The project consists of the operation of existing,
private structures that involves negligible expansion of use beyond existing and historical
uses, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (Existing Facilities).
6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The project has been reviewed by staff members in the Public Works and Community
Development Departments for consistency with the City’s General Plan and Municipal
Code. As noted above, the Security Plan was reviewed and approved by the City Police
Department. Any conditions of approval or informational notes from these departments
and divisions have been incorporated into the Draft Resolution (Attachment A) for project
approval.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of
additional information or analysis required to make a decision.
2. Deny the item. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with State law,
the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and/or other pertinent City standards.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
A – Draft PC Resolution amending USE-0550-2019 (Megan’s Organic Market) to allow
delivery services (MOD-0424-2025).
Page 24 of 89
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2025
MOD-0424-2025 (280 Higuera St)
Page 1
1
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION MODIFYING AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(USE-0550-2019) TO ADD DELIVERY SERVICES TO A CANNABIS
RETAIL STOREFRONT OPERATION. THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA) AS REPRESENTED IN THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS
DATED AUGUST 27, 2025 (280 HIGUERA ST; MOD-0424-2025).
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. PC-1013-2019 granting a Conditional Use Permit to Megan’s Organic
Market for the establishment of a cannabis retail storefront at 280 Higuera Stree t; and
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2024, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California to adopt Ordinance No. 1740 (2024 Series), amending Table 2-1
(Uses Allowed by Zone) in Section 17.10.020 of Title 17 (“Zoning Regulations”) of the
Municipal Code to allow existing cannabis retail storefronts to conduct retail sales by
delivery with a modification to their existing Conditional Use Permit to include delivery;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on August 27, 2025, for the purpose of considering a modification to Use
Permit USE-0550-2019 to add delivery services to an existing retail storefront at 280
Higuera St; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including
the testimony of the applicant, interested parties and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Page 25 of 89
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2025
MOD-0424-2025 (280 Higuera St)
Page 2
2
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all evidence, the Planning Commission makes
the following findings:
1. The proposed use is consistent with Section 17.86.080 (“Cannabis Zoning
Regulations”) and Chapter 9.10 (“Cannabis Regulations”) of the Municipal Code because,
as proposed, the use is located within a CBZ Overlay Zone, will not negatively impact the
residential uses in the neighborhood, is consistent with adjacent businesses that have
similar hours of operation, and is consistent with buffer requirements imposed by the
City’s Zoning Regulations.
2. The site is physically suitable in terms of:
a. Its design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the
proposed use;
b. Traffic generation and the provision of public and emerge ncy vehicle
(e.g. fire and medical) access;
c. Public protection services (e.g. fire protection, police protection, etc.);
and
d. The provision of utilities (e.g. potable water, schools, solid waste
collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collect ion,
treatment, and disposal, etc.).
3. That the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of
persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the cannabis retail storefront
does not present a potential threat to the surrounding property and buildings. This project
is subject to Use permit requirements, City regulations, and California Building Code
requirements designed to address health, safety, and welfare concerns. Additionally, the
applicant prepared a Security Plan that addresses both state- wide regulations of the
Bureau of Cannabis Control and concerns of the City Police Department.
4. The cannabis retail storefront, as proposed, will comply with all the
requirements of State and City for the sale of cannabis goods, including dual licensure
and participation in an authorized track and trace program.
Page 26 of 89
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2025
MOD-0424-2025 (280 Higuera St)
Page 3
3
5. The proposed modification to USE-0550-2019 is consistent with the
regulations for commercial cannabis activity set forth in Chapter 9.10 (Cannabis
Regulations) and Section 17.86.080 (Cannabis Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal
Code, because the Operator holds a valid commercial cannabis Operator Permit and
state license as required by SLOMC § 9.10.040, and, under state law (4 CCR Division
19), and as allowed under Table 2-1 (SLOMC § 17.10.020), retail storefronts with a valid
state license and city permit may sell cannabis goods through storefront and by delivery.
Additionally, the Operator has submitted an updated Security Plan in accordance with
SLOMC § 9.10.50, which has been reviewed and approved by the City Police
Department.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The project is categorically exempt
from the preparation of environmental documentation under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use
designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The
project consists of the operation of existing, private structures that involves negligible
expansion of use beyond existing and historical uses, as described in CEQA Guidelines
§ 15301 (Existing Facilities).
SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby approve the
modification to Conditional Use Permit USE-0550-2019 to add delivery services to an
existing cannabis retail storefront located at 280 Higuera Street, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The proposed use shall operate consistent with the project description and
other supporting documentation submitted with this application unless otherwise
conditioned herein, including, but not limited to: the Operations Plan , Chapter 9.10 of the
City Municipal Code, and Section 17.86.080 of the City Municipal Code, all of which are
incorporated into and made material terms of these conditions. This permit shall be
reviewed by the Community Development Director if any reasonable written complaint is
received from any citizen or from the Police Department or upon receipt of evidence or
observation that the use is not in compliance with conditions of approval and the Municipal
Code. The Community Development Director may refer the complaint to the Planning
Commission at his/her/their discretion and conditions of approval may be added, deleted,
or modified or the use permit may be revoked to ensure ongoing compatibility between
uses on the project site and other nearby uses.
2. Any parking lot lighting installed on the site by the applicant shall be night
sky compliant LED bollard lighting, as specified on sheet A1.0 of the project plans dated
June 27, 2019, by Ten Over Studio. The Community Development Director may modify
this requirement upon a determination that such lighting would not be conducive to the
safety of the public or would not meet the requirements of the California Building Code.
Page 27 of 89
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2025
MOD-0424-2025 (280 Higuera St)
Page 4
4
3. The applicant shall obtain and maintain the commercial cannabis operator
permit and any appropriate state licenses. Applicant shall comply with applicable state
law, including but not limited to Chapter 3 of Title 4 of the California Code of Regulations.
4. The applicant shall pay all applicable current and future state and local
taxes and all applicable commercial cannabis fees and related penalties established by
the City Council, including but not limited to application, administrative review, inspection,
etc.
5. Minors and persons under the age of twenty-one are prohibited from
entering the cannabis retail storefront, even if accompanied by a parent or guardian,
unless the individual is at least eighteen years of age and possesses a valid physician’s
recommendation for medical cannabis.
6. Outdoor storage of cannabis or cannabis products is prohibited.
7. During business hours, defined as 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM in accordance with
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 17.86.080(E)(10)(b)(v), all delivery vehicles
associated with the cannabis business shall be parked in the designated secure delivery
bay for long-term storage. Outside of business hours, a maximum of one delivery vehicle
may be parked overnight in the business’s designated parking area, as shown on the
approved site plan.
8. The applicant shall operate a maximum of two delivery vehicles to support
delivery operations. Any additional vehicles proposed to support delivery operations are
hereby subject to the approval of the Community Department Director.
9. Each delivery vehicle shall be fully enclosed and unmarked, equipped with
a Global Positioning System (GPS) device owned by the licensee, and a minimum of two
cameras with at least 720p resolution, recording continuously during deliveries.
Surveillance footage must be retained securely for a minimum of 90 days and made
available to city and state officials upon request.
10. All delivery employees must be at least 21 years old, employed directly by
the licensee, and carry valid identification and delivery documentation during deliveries.
11. Deliveries shall not be made to schools, day care centers, youth centers, or
publicly owned land, consistent with state law.
12. The licensee shall consent to unscheduled inspections of delivery vehicles,
premises, and records by city and state officials to ensure compliance.
Page 28 of 89
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-2025
MOD-0424-2025 (280 Higuera St)
Page 5
5
13. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/ or
its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
and/ or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval
by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but no t limited to
environmental review (" Indemnified Claims"). The City shall promptly notify the applicant
of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim, and City shall
fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
Upon motion of ______________________, seconded by __________________ and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of August 2025.
___________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
Page 29 of 89
Page 30 of 89
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION NO. 6 OF THE GRAND JURY
REPORT (ROUND & ROUND WITH TOWN & GOWN)
BY: Tyler Corey, Deputy Director
Phone Number: (805) 781-7169
Email: tcorey@slocity.org
APPLICANT: City of San Luis Obispo
RECOMMENDATION
Review and approve the draft response to Recommendation No. 6 of the Grand Jury
report, Round & Round with Town & Gown.
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
In 2024, a Grand Jury was convened in San Luis Obispo County to review Cal Poly’s
Fraternity and Sorority operations in the City of San Luis Obispo. The Grand Jury
submitted a report entitled “Round & Round with Town & Gown” on June 23, 2025
(Attachment A). The report includes a list of findings and recommendations and requires
responses from the City Council, City Manager, and Planning Commission. These
responses are to be provided to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court by September
19, 2025, as required by California Penal Code §933 -933.05. The City prepared
preliminary responses to the statements, findings, and recommendations of the Grand
Jury report on June 20, 2025 (Attachment B). These responses, other than the response
to Recommendation 6, are beyond the scope of this report but are being provided for the
Planning Commission’s awareness. These responses will be supplemented by the City
in its official response to the Court.
Recommendation No. 6 of the report requires a response from the Planning Commission
and is provided below for reference:
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.
Meeting Date: 8/27/2025
Item Number: 4b
Time Estimate: 30 Minutes
Page 31 of 89
Item 4b
Grand Jurt Report Response
Planning Commission Report – August 27, 2025
2.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
Under Penal Code Section 933.05, the responding agency (in this case, the Planning
Commission) shall report one of the following actions to the Grand Jury for
Recommendation No. 6:
(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 explan ation 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 or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency wh en
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.
3.0 DRAFT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION NO. 6
This recommendation has been implemented to the extent practicable and appropriate.
Over the past decade, the City has been moving toward both the application of more
uniform municipal code requirements (standard conditions) for fraternity and sorority uses
as well as the imposition of more uniform conditions of approval for Conditional Use
Permits (CUPs). Per the definition of Use Permit in the Zoning Regulations (Section
17.158.046), CUPs are discretionary permits that may be granted to provide for the
accommodation of land uses with special site or design requirements, operating
characteristics, or potential adverse effects on surroundings, which are not permitted as
of right but which may be approved upon completion of a review process and, where
necessary, the imposition of special conditions of approval. Therefore, it is often
necessary to impose non-standard conditions on a CUP to address site specific concerns
and issues, and therefore, the conditions cannot be completely standardized.
Chapter 17.86.130 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations) regulates fraternity and
sorority land uses to promote the quality of life in residential neighborhoods. This is
accomplished by ensuring that dwelling units housing multiple persons who are members
of a fraternity or sorority provide adequate support facilities for the intensity of the
associated use, and that such uses are operated in a manner that is not detrimental to
the neighborhood in which they are located due to excessive noise, inadequate off -street
parking, general property maintenance, and similar potential impacts. Per the Municipal
Code, Fraternity and Sorority uses require a CUP in order to operate.
Page 32 of 89
Item 4b
Grand Jurt Report Response
Planning Commission Report – August 27, 2025
In 2018, the City updated Chapter 17.86.130 of the Zoning Regulations for fraternity and
sorority land uses, in part, to codify a set of standard conditions that would apply to
fraternity and sorority land uses. This update included resident occupancy limits,
maximum number of persons allowed on site for routine meetings and gatherings,
requirements that a fraternity or sorority be affiliated with and in good standing with the
Interfraternity Council of Student Life and Leadership at Cal Poly, and requirements that
contact information be provided by the landlord to the City for responsible persons. These
uniform regulations apply to all new and existing fraternity and sorority land uses.
As noted above, new fraternity and sorority uses require the approval of a CUP. In
addition, if conditions of an existing use permit are violated, the CUP is re -reviewed to
determine if the use permit should be revoked, or if conditions need to be updated,
removed, or added. In order for the reviewing authority to approve a CUP for a fraternity
or sorority use, specific findings must be made related to ensuring the he alth, safety, and
welfare of those living on the site and around the site, consistency with the City’s General
Plan, and consistency with zoning regulations and neighboring properties.
Given that conditional use permits are site and project specific, cond itions of approval
within CUPs for fraternities and sororities will vary to some degree to address the unique
circumstances of each proposal. However, the City has made a concerted effort to
standardize and modernize conditions, as appropriate. This provides clarity for CUP
holders, City staff, and the public, and enhances the ability of the City to enforce the
conditions in a CUP.
For example, since 2024 the City has reviewed one new and four existing fraternity CUPs
which has led to the modernization of CUPs issued in the 80s and 90s to current
standards. This has included: removing outdated conditions that no longer apply and
adding certain standardized conditions related to establishing thresholds for re -review
should violations occur, extending the h ours of compliance with a lower noise limit,
requiring ongoing communications between fraternities and their neighbors, prohibiting
amplified noise-generating activities, and clarifying that exceptions from the Noise
Ordinance will not be approved. The City will continue to standardize conditions of
approval as appropriate as new reviews are undertaken. Where there is an opportunity
for a condition to become standardized as a uniform requirement in the Municipal Code,
the City will consider this change in a future update of the Zoning Regulations. For
example, there has been an update to a standard condition for when the re -review of a
CUP should occur when there has been a violation of the Municipal Code or CUP. This
updated condition language would be con sidered for inclusion in the Municipal Code as
a uniform standard when the next update to the Zoning Regulations occurs, which will
likely be within the next year.
Page 33 of 89
Item 4b
Grand Jurt Report Response
Planning Commission Report – August 27, 2025
The City does enforce Conditional Use Permits. As noted above, the City conducted a re -
review of four existing CUPs because of verified violations of the conditions of approval,
and several others are pending re-review. This enforcement of the CUPs led to the
revocation of three permits, and the updating of one permit. The Community
Development Department investigates all complaints received and works closely with the
Police Department to determine if a violation of conditions has occurred that would lead
to re-review of a Conditional Use Permit (such as a noise violation). In addition, the
Community Development Department takes input and complaints from the community,
which can and do lead to the re-review of CUPs for non-compliance at no cost to the
community member. Enforcement of CUPs is addressed on a complaint basis, similar to
other code enforcement activities in the City.
Assuming the last sentence of the Grand Jury’s recommendation is intended to suggest
the City should increase the level or hours of code enforcement activity, current staffing
levels do not support proactive enforcement of fraternity and sorority CUP regulations in
that manner. Noise, unauthorized events, and similar complaints related to fraternities
during the fiscal year of 2024-2025 represent approximately 6.5% of code enforcement
complaints and responses and existing code enforcement staff work during standard
business hours, with staff available generally between 8am and 5pm. In 2024 existing
staff responded to 1,400 complaints, alleging violations relating to substandard housing,
mold growth, significant building and fire code violations, land use, property maintenance,
unpermitted construction, animals, etc. Extending staff hours or increasing the number of
staff available to address fraternity and sorority enforcement would represent a significant
increase in ongoing costs to the public at a time when the City is forecasting future budget
deficits. Alternatively, redirection or adjustment of existing staff toward this effort would
result in decreased service levels and/or delays in addressing other community response
workload. In limited instances where potential large-scale events (such as rush) were
known ahead of time, Code Enforcement staff have adjusted schedules or worked
overtime in order to gather information in the evening or on weekends to support
enforcement actions. This can be useful in specific circumstances, but would be
disruptive to other code enforcement efforts and the budget if done regularly.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply because the response
to the Grand Jury report does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Section
15378 because it can be seen with certainty that it will not result in either a direct physical
change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indire ct physical change in the
environment.
Page 34 of 89
Item 4b
Grand Jurt Report Response
Planning Commission Report – August 27, 2025
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Modify the response to Recommendation No. 6. If the Planning Commission
wishes to modify the response to Recommendation No. 6, it could propose and
adopt modified language.
2. Continue review of the response to Recommendation No. 6. An action to continue
review of the response should include a detailed list of additional information or
analysis required to approve the response language. However, continuing the item
would likely result in a violation of the Grand Jury report’s mandate and Penal Code
Section 933, which requires a response to the Presiding Judge by September 19,
2025, so continuing the review is not recommended.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Round & Round with Town & Gown Grand Jury Report
2. City’s Clarification of Factual Inconsistencies in Report
Page 35 of 89
Page 36 of 89
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
Page 37 of 89
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.
Page 38 of 89
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,
Page 39 of 89
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
Page 40 of 89
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
Page 41 of 89
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
Page 42 of 89
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
Page 43 of 89
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
Page 44 of 89
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…”
Page 45 of 89
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.
Page 46 of 89
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
Page 47 of 89
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
Page 48 of 89
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
Page 49 of 89
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
Page 50 of 89
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.
Page 51 of 89
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
Page 52 of 89
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.
Page 53 of 89
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
Page 54 of 89
Submitted June 23, 2025 19
APPENDIX A
Page 55 of 89
Submitted June 23, 2025 20
Page 56 of 89
Submitted June 23, 2025 21
Page 57 of 89
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
Page 58 of 89
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.
Page 59 of 89
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.
Page 60 of 89
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
Page 61 of 89
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
Page 62 of 89
City of San Luis Obispo, City Administration, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.781.7114, slocity.org
1
To: The Grand Jury of San Luis Obispo County
Via: Foreperson, Bonnie McKrill
From: The City of San Luis Obispo
Date: June 20, 2025
Re: Clarification of Factual Inconsistencies in Report,
Round & Round with Town & Gown
The City of San Luis Obispo (City) team appreciates the opportunity afforded by the Grand Jury to review the report entitled
“Round & Round with Town & Gown” ahead of publication. We believe this opportunity will help ensure that the community
has the best available information related to this important issue. With that in mind, the City has reviewed the report contents
and is offering clarifications of fact in the table below to help correct what we believe may be inaccuracies in the draft report.
Text in the “Quote from Report” column is copy-pasted from the draft Grand Jury report the City reviewed. The City’s concerns
as to the accuracy of each quote are in the far-right column.
Page # Quote from Report Factual Problem
1 Many students now reside in single-
family homes, often exceeding their
intended occupancy.
The phrase “intended occupancy” is unclear and not reflective of a
defined legal term. Legal occupancy is a concrete, discernable number
derived from the California Building Code. Please provide citation to
relevant occupancy data supporting the conclusion stated.
1 Over the past two decades, SLO has
experienced significant growth, driven
The population of the City of SLO has not increased significantly over the
last two decades and remains under 50,000 at the last census (2020).
Page 63 of 89
Page 2 of 27
in part by the expansion of its
university, California Polytechnic State
University (Cal Poly), and the
increasing student population.
The enrollment of Cal Poly is a separate number and is not captured in
the census for the City, as Cal Poly is not located in the City and the
campus houses significant portions of its student body on its campus.
Even as to students who reside in housing within the City of San Luis
Obispo, those students may have been counted as living at a City
address, or at their permanent residence address somewhere outside
City limits. It would be more accurate to say that Cal Poly’s student
population has had significant growth.
1 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.
The 2025 population number appears to be a projection and is not a
verified current number. Please accurately reflect the City’s population
based on a statistically valid and verified source (i.e., U.S. Census
Bureau's Population Estimates Program (PEP) or the American
Community Survey).
1-2 As a result, university students now
comprise nearly 46% of the city's total
population…
This is incorrect. Not all university students live in the City and, at the
time of each census, not all students who do reside in the City during the
school year would necessarily be counted as City residents for census
purposes. Cal Poly’s student enrollment is not a de facto subset of
census numbers or City population estimates. Again, Cal Poly’s campus,
and therefore campus housing, is not within the City limits.
2 … significantly influencing housing
availability both on and off campus,
infrastructure demands, and
neighboring residential community
dynamics.
Provide factual details to support these general conclusions. The
statement lacks clarity.
2 Many long-term residents, particularly
families, cherish the stability and
tranquility of their neighborhoods but
now face the challenge of residing in
The term “Family(ies)” is used more than once in the report but is
undefined. If it refers to a household with school-aged children, by
definition those children did not exist 20 years ago (the look-back period
that is referred to by the population numbers).
Page 64 of 89
Page 3 of 27
an increasingly student-centered
neighborhood.
2 …large, unsanctioned street parties
that escalate into public disturbances,
injuries, and property damage.
This use of “unsanctioned street parties” seems focused on the St.
Patrick’s Day related event (“St. Fratty’s Day”), which is a singular, annual
occurrence. If there are other instances of such street parties being
referenced, clarification is requested as to where and when those took
place.
2 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.
All official citizen complaints received by the Police Department and the
Code Enforcement Division are fully investigated. If the report is defining
“complaint" in a specific way, that definition should be included in the
glossary.
2 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.
The report’s focus on the City leaves out the role of Cal Poly and property
owners in addressing issues. Looking solely at the City's role misses
significant pieces of the picture, most notably Cal Poly and their much
more comprehensive access to student information and greater ability to
regulate student conduct, and property owners/landlords/property
managers responsible for management of their rental properties in the
City and their tenants’ use of their properties in a manner that facilitates
neighborhood nuisances.
3 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
Implies that no interview was held with the City Manager and leaves out
the interview with the non-sworn Police staff member who is one of the
persons most knowledgeable on town-gown topics.
Page 65 of 89
Page 4 of 27
4 conducted analyses of policies and
laws, including… Cal Poly’s General
Plan
Clarify what document this is referring to as Cal Poly does not have a
general plan.
4 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.
More specificity as to what materials are being referenced would be
helpful context for readers. The attached bibliography contains general
links to website home pages, rather than pinpoint resources seemingly
being referenced, and there are no citations within the report connecting
statements to sources.
5 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.
Though quoted in the report as an official term, “Do No Harm” is not a
phrase used by the City Police department. However, the technique
described is indeed one SLOPD planned and implemented (to not use
aggression should students occupy a street, with a focus on de-
escalation, community safety, closing affected streets, and other tactics
due to the high risk of crowds turning violent, the prevalence of alcohol
impaired judgment, and past experiences in SLO with riots).
5 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.
It is an accurate data point that there were minimal arrests and citations
in 2024 given the crowd size, and property damage was minimal overall.
The comparison within this statement, however, implies a disregard for
property damage, which is false.
5 The SLOCGJ wanted to determine the
validity of the alleged citizen
complaints against the SLOPD as well
A citizen complaint against a police officer or department has a specific
meaning and triggers a formal process for investigation. The reported
dissatisfaction with prioritization of police resources that was
investigated by the Grand Jury should be distinguished from the formal
Page 66 of 89
Page 5 of 27
as verify statements received from
others during our investigation.
complaint investigation process, which is diligently followed by the
City/SLOPD. (See California Penal Code Section 832.5.)
5 We were blocked in this effort by two
senior police official’s [sic]
unwillingness to grant an interview.
The Grand Jury interviewed the City Chief of Police and its Public Affairs
Manager, both providing extensive and sworn testimony. These two staff
members are the City’s most knowledgeable on the strategic,
operational, prioritization and historical perspectives of law enforcement
and community relations related to the student impacts on City residents
and activities. The Grand Jury chose not to subpoena any witnesses and
there was no need for additional City staff to divert scarce operational
resources toward likely incomplete and/or duplicative appearances that
would have been inefficient and operationally unsupportable based on
the City’s understanding of the scope of inquiry. In addition, the police
department provided hundreds of requested records and
communications, and responded to multiple sets of subsequent and
follow-up questions to accurately clarify and verify any and all
information requested by or testimony provided to the Grand Jury, which
reflects the most complete and accurate source of information.
5-6 In 2024 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.
This incident is unverified. On March 16, 2024, the City received
approximately 30 noise/party calls for service between 02:15am and
08:00am. None of those calls indicated fireworks were heard.
6 The damage was so extensive that Cal
Poly had to close some dorms for two
days to repair the damage.
This statement is incorrect. Muir residence hall closed for a few hours
and was reopened the same day to residents.
6 No representatives from the
surrounding neighborhoods were
invited to participate in the task force.
The City, Cal Poly, and representatives of the community, including
representatives of the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) group,
and members of the public, participate in monthly Student Community
Liaison Committee (SCLC) meetings where town-gown issues are
discussed. Following the 2024 St. Patrick’s Day event and at the request
of the San Luis Obispo City Manager, all SCLC agendas had a standing
item for reports to be provided by both the City and Cal Poly regarding
Page 67 of 89
Page 6 of 27
their preparations and work to address St. Patrick’s Day. To the extent
that outcomes from the task force meetings could be shared with the
group, they were at that time, on a monthly basis. During these monthly
meetings, SCLC members and the public were provided opportunities to
ask questions and provide feedback. Additionally, several City officials
met with RQN representatives well in advance of the 2025 St. Patrick’s
Day event to discuss detailed information regarding the City’s
preparations.
7 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.
Although work was done throughout the year to prepare for the 2025 St.
Fratty’s Day event, there was no SLOPD “Task Force” officially formed.
SLOP D engaged in the same planning and preparation process as in prior
years, but with a larger response planned for 2025, which included
coordination with other law enforcement agencies, Cal Poly, and other
City departments such as Fire, Public Works, and Parks & Recreation.
7 The messaging developed by the City
of SLO was “Do Not Come, the party is
over.”
The $125,000 cost estimate listed at the end of this paragraph in the
report includes the marketing costs for 2025. The communication plan
was extensive with staff spending approximately 40 hours in the months
leading up to St. Patrick’s Day speaking to student groups on campus
about the Safety Enhancement Zone and communicating to them what
to expect. TV ads, radio ads, “every door direct mail” postcards to 8000
addresses, additional postcards handed out by patrol, paid social ads,
message boards, three radio station in-person interviews, and Adam
Montiel's podcast were all completed to inform students prior to the day
of the event. It should also be noted that the City participates annually in
Cal Poly Day Week of Welcome to inform and set conduct expectations
with each successive year of new students to Cal Poly, and has done so
for many, many years.
7 In 2025, the SLO Police Department
activated the Emergency Operations
Center (EOC)…
Cal Poly activated their EOC. The City activated a Department Operations
Center (DOC) at the Police Department, which is different from the City’s
Emergency Operations Center, so this is an inaccurate statement as to
the City.
Page 68 of 89
Page 7 of 27
7 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 phrasing here suggests that the number of officers was the only
factor in the reduction of disturbances, leaving out important details
about the work and effort SLOPD did to prepare a plan, broadly
communicate, and execute it with coordination and support from
multiple other City departments as well as many other agencies.
Multiple patrol methods were used including foot patrols, bicycle patrols,
motorcycle patrols and mounted horse patrols. Walkways and access
routes to and from campus were manned with officers and
signs/barriers, directing revelers back out of the area. In addition, rental
lighting and electronic street signage were deployed in the area to
improve safety and inform visitors of the enforcement activities. A nearby
Law Enforcement field campus included support services, a mobile
booking station staffed by the San Luis Obispo Sheriff's Office, as well as
Fire Department personnel for medical support, and City Public Works
personnel for any road closure needs. The Police department used
extensive mobile surveillance cameras mounted on street poles, and
multiple drones to provide live video feeds back to the DOC. SLOPD also
leveraged relationships with AT&T and Verizon to provide increased
bandwith and network monitoring to ensure communications
capabilities during the event. The National Guard also assisted by
providing technology support used to track officers in the field for
situational awareness as to their locations. The CHP also assisted on the
night prior to the event by conducting a DUI checkpoint and screened
over 1000 vehicles to deter partying in the hours leading up to the event.
7 The SLO Chief of Police Department
estimated costs to the city will be
approximately $125,000.
This estimate does not include any costs borne by other Law
Enforcement agencies who assisted and did not charge the City for their
time. The $125,000 number also does not include any City personnel
who were already scheduled to work, as it was calculated on overtime
and equipment/logistics needed for the event.
Page 69 of 89
Page 8 of 27
7 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.
When the fence around the event was breached, Cal Poly EOC requested
help from the SLOPD DOC as they needed more officers to manage the
crowd. Two 12-Officer teams were immediately sent to respond to the
concert venue and help restore order.
7 The alternative activity on campus
ended around 10:30 a.m.
The report does not include an estimate of Cal Poly’s costs to host the
concert/alternative activity, which have been made publicly available.
This data would seem to be important to facilitate fully informed
community-wide assessment of the relative costs and benefits of the
comprehensive prevention and response effort.
8 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.”
This quote is from section 9.12.040 of the SLO Municipal Code.
8 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.
The reference to the 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. timeframe is in SLO Municipal
Code section 9.12.050 and technically only applies to: “Radios,
Television Sets, Musical Instruments and Similar Devices. Operating,
playing or permitting the operation or playing of any radio, television set,
phonograph, drum, musical instrument, or similar device which
Page 70 of 89
Page 9 of 27
produces or reproduces sound.” There is a similar provision in a separate
section that restricts construction noise during the same timeframe.
8 It should also be noted that the Noise
Control Officer may grant exceptions
to this restriction.
SLO Municipal Code section 9.12.100 provides for an exception process
that requires a permit application and establishing criteria by which
either the SLOPD Chief or the Community Development Director may
grant exceptions. The sentence quoted here does not reflect the correct
permitting and approval process required for the exception.
8-9 …noise citations in neighborhoods
near the 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.
There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over
the past 10 years. It is important for the report to acknowledge that the
problem was much worse, and great effort has been made to achieve this
reduction in calls for service. Use of phrases like “fully enforced” and
“unabated” implies an expectation that there should be no noise
complaint calls from any neighborhood, which is unreasonable and
unattainable.
There is also ambiguity as to the timeframe of these citation numbers
and to what property the 17 citations were issued. Please clarify what
data points are being cited here as our data does not support this
conclusion.
In contradiction to the statement that noise violations are being allowed
to continue “unabated,” the City’s Planning Commission revoked two
CUPs for fraternities near campus (1236 Monte Vista Place and 1304
Foothill Blvd) on June 11, 2025, in part due to noise violations. The
Planning Commission is reviewing a third fraternity CUP for modification
or revocation on June 25, 2025. The City has also cited multiple houses
for illegal fraternity operations in R-1 zones as result of noise complaints,
and dozens of citations are issued each year.
9 To aid in noise ordinance enforcement
the SLOPD employs the assistance of
Cal Poly students who are enrolled in a
SNAP Officers are City employees, not enrolled in any school program,
and are a mix of Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and Hancock College
students.
Page 71 of 89
Page 10 of 27
program called the Student
Neighborhood Assistance Program
(SNAP).
9 These students interface with groups
of partiers in residences in the affected
area who are violating the noise
ordinance.
SNAP Officers respond to noise complaints city-wide, not just adjacent
to campus.
9 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.
SNAP are student civilian employees of the Police Department who
operate as a first response to noise calls. Their primary objective is to
educate residents about the City’s noise ordinance, issue a written
warning where appropriate, and gain compliance to end the noise
disturbance, thus keeping sworn officers free to handle other public
safety calls for service. SNAP employees do not carry weapons, and they
wear polo shirts and pants. If residents are uncooperative or the situation
appears dangerous, they are trained to request officers to respond.
9 These students may, at their
discretion, issue Disturbance
Advisement Cards (DACs).
SNAP and patrol both issue DACs, with SNAP alone issuing 588 DACs in
2024. Officer discretion is guided by Lexipol policy 430 and other training
(see SNAP manual Section V: Noise Complaint Enforcement & Safety
Expectations).
9 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.
Responding officers can issue a citation for a party as either multiple
citations at the same time or as additional citations if the problem
persists. There was one unruly gathering citation during the St. Fratty's
Day 2025 event, and 22 Unruly Gathering citations issued in 2024. Unruly
Gathering citations are used for very large parties that meet defined
criteria in the municipal code that cause significant disturbance to the
neighborhood.
9 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
Various City Municipal Code sections are being conflated in these
sentences. Sections 9.12.040, 9.12.050.A, and 9.12.050.B regulate
different types of sound sources and are applied in different contexts, not
all relevant to party noise situations.
Page 72 of 89
Page 11 of 27
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…”
10 If found to be out of compliance,
SLOPD may issue a warning or
citation.
Citations can be either criminal or administrative, but most often noise
violations are citated administratively.
10 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 addition, there have been 22 NOVs and 6 administrative citations
issued since the 2023 investigation related to unpermitted fraternities or
use permit violations.
10 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.
Cal Poly has removed information about the location of parties from its
public reports, which previously facilitated the City’s enforcement of its
regulations. Outside of the AB 524 report, the City has requested the
information directly from Cal Poly, but those requests have been denied.
Page 73 of 89
Page 12 of 27
11 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.
Please clarify from what sources these numbers are derived and on what
verified evidence they are based, keeping in mind the constitutional
considerations/limitations noted below in response to report finding #3.
11-12 Code enforcement complaints are
often received after business hours or
the following 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.
Party activities reported to police are documented and provided to code
enforcement, and there is no barrier to the City using all of the
information in the possession of either the Police Department or the
Community Development Department to pursue enforcement. It is
inaccurate to state the City cannot verify violations without sending code
enforcement staff out on weekends or after hours; noise complaints
received by emergency or non-emergency dispatch after hours are
responded to by SLOPD and call logs and citations issued by the Police
Department are evidence of that response.
13 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.
Education Code Section 66312 defines “chapter house” as “any
residence located on or off campus that is owned by the institution of
higher education but occupied by a campus-recognized sorority or
fraternity, or any residence located on or off campus that is owned and
occupied by the campus-recognized sorority or fraternity.” There is no
definition of an “affiliated chapter house” in the Education Code. The
Education Code’s definition of chapter house is confined to properties
owned and occupied by a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity, or
occupied by a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity and owned by the
university.
Page 74 of 89
Page 13 of 27
13 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.
Clarify whether “chapter house” as used here is meant to refer to
“unaffiliated chapter houses,” and by what definition this is being
applied.
13 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.
Clarify if a distinction is being made between affiliated and unaffiliated
chapter houses.
13-14 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
determine the reason that the
fraternity does not have a CUP. This
makes it difficult for the city to enforce
the code.
It is legally debatable whether the addresses should be published and/or
disclosed or not, but it is true that since Cal Poly now declines to provide
specific address information regarding locations of all fraternity/sorority
sponsored events, this does impede the City’s enforcement efforts.
14 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.
The differences in the CUPs also reflect regulatory changes to the City
Municipal Code that have been made to address issues that have arisen
with the fraternities and sororities over time. This is the nature of any CUP
and CUP process; it allows for adjustments over time to address
emergent needs through the exercise of discretion, individual review, and
application of conditions of approval that are tailored to the unique
potential impacts of each location as it is reviewed.
Page 75 of 89
Page 14 of 27
14 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.
It is within the authority of the City’s Planning Commission to take the
steps described, but these are part of a process that also includes notice
and due process to the permit holder and property owner. CUPs cannot
be revoked without due process to the permit holder, which holds a
property right to the permit.
14 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.
The cost described here is what a citizen would pay to appeal any
decision of the Planning Commission immediately after a CUP is
approved or denied. There is also a process that costs no money through
which a member of the public can report potential CUP or zoning
violations to the Community Development Director. Once investigated,
City staff can bring substantiated violations before the Planning
Commission for consideration without any cost incurred by the citizen.
This process has led to the revocation of two CUPs this year, and several
other CUPs are either scheduled proactively by the City for a future
hearing or are being investigated based on violations of conditions.
14-15 While these appeal fees may be
justifiable for major development
projects that demand substantial city
resources like legal reviews, public
hearings, or environmental impact
assessments, they place an undue
burden on ordinary citizens.
As stated above, a member of the public does not need to pay a fee to
make the Community Development Department aware of a potential
violation of a CUP, which, if verified, can lead to re-review of the permit by
the Planning Commission, and potential revocation. The appeal fees
apply to the granting (or denial) of a CUP.
The setting of fees, including the appeal fees referred to here, follows an
extensive study process, reporting by staff, and deliberation by City
Council, with fees based specifically on a fraction of the cost of
processing an appeal.
15, 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,
SLOPD had a robust plan in 2024, based on the size and actions of the
2023 event. The City must balance police response vs. expected crowd
size, danger to the community and financial constraints. It is not
operationally or financially feasible to call in officers from all over the
state every year out because something might happen. The need must be
articulated based on intelligence and past experience, and the 2023
Page 76 of 89
Page 15 of 27
with increasing size of unruly crowds,
property damage, injuries and public
disturbances.
event did not rise to the level of problems to create a state-wide staffing
aid request in 2024. Each year’s staffing and tactical plan is prudent and
appropriate based on previous events and current expected attendance.
The San Luis Obispo Police Department has effectively planned for and
staffed numerous large-scale, unpermitted events dating back decades,
including the end of Mardi Gras and Poly Royal events. Those events were
distinctly different as they were permitted, official events that turned
problematic. St. Fratty’s day started organically, has never been
permitted, and has slowly grown over the years, with the exception of the
COVID-19 pandemic years, where participation sharply declined. Each
year, the Police Department engaged in significant community outreach,
including print material, directed communication through Cal Poly and
Cuesta Colleges, radio ads, door to door knock and talks, met with
community organizations including RQN, and authored several media
releases, ahead of the unpermitted St. Fratty’s Day event. The City
changed the Municipal Code multiple times to increase fines as a means
to deter problematic behavior (the Safety Enhancement Zone was
amended in 2010 to include Halloween and St. Patrick’s Day, then
amended again in February 2024, expanding the Safety Enhancement
Zone to include two weekends prior to St. Patrick’s Day to cover the likely
dates for St. Fratty’s Day). Robust operational plans were developed each
year, in collaboration with Cal Poly, to staff public safety personnel in a
meaningful and effective way. St. Fratty’s Day is a particularly difficult
event to police, as it consists of revelers walking up and down the
sidewalk, with no destination in mind. Short of completely shutting down
a neighborhood to all traffic, both foot and vehicular, there are few
options police have for preventing what would normally be
constitutionally protected activity: walking down a sidewalk in a
neighborhood. To further complicate enforcement, many of the revelers
Page 77 of 89
Page 16 of 27
actually live in the very neighborhoods that would be closed and would
have to be provided access to their homes.
As the event grew in scale, so did the public safety response. 2020-2021
saw minimal St. Fratty’s Day activity due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It
was not until 2023 that any extended street closure occurred due to the
size of the crowd in the neighborhood. As a result of the increased
crowds, the Safety Enhancement Zone was expanded, along with other
tactical operational planning to prevent another occurrence. As the
crowds in 2024 grew even larger, the departmental staffing became no
longer sufficient to safely keep the crowds out of the streets and
neighborhoods, resulting in extensive planning for 2025.
2025 planning included working with Cal Poly on a task force that met for
almost one full year prior to March 2025. Extensive outreach was
conducted, and a request for mutual aid was sent to many agencies
across the state. There were over 300 law enforcement personnel in town
working the 2025 St. Fratty’s Day event, along with additional personnel
at Cal Poly Campus to provide security for the campus dorms and the
alternative concert event planned on campus. Officers assisted from as
far away as San Francisco and Ventura to ensure enough law
enforcement presence in the neighborhood. As a result, although some
revelers attempted to go into the street in 2025, no intersections or
streets were closed to traffic due to revelers, and the party was
effectively shut down, before it started and without incident. For many
years, the department has also utilized advanced technology such as
drones, and mobile surveillance cameras, along with print materials,
street signage and targeted outreach to problem houses in an effort to
deter the event. Department leadership worked in collaboration with
SCLC monthly and met with the IFC (Intra-Fraternity Council) to engage
in productive conversation to gain compliance and warn of the fines and
Page 78 of 89
Page 17 of 27
administrative sanctions that could come with illegal behavior. SLOPD
Leadership were guests on several radio shows in an effort to distribute
the message of zero tolerance ahead of the unplanned, unpermitted
event, and participated in town-hall style meetings on campus with Cal
Poly leadership and other City officials.
In summation, the department conducted an outreach campaign as
extensive as possible, and employed law enforcement officers from
across the state, including horse-mounted patrols, motorcycle patrols,
bicycle patrols, foot patrols and mobile teams to effectively end any
problems early and quickly. The department fully staffed an Operations
Center to function as a command post, and in conjunction with the San
Luis Obispo Sheriff’s Office, created a Law Enforcement Campus near
the event, for mobile booking and processing of arrestees. The
combination of operational planning, use of technology and
infrastructure, and the assistance from law enforcement partners from
around the state, resulted in an extremely safe and trouble-free event.
The crowd was not able to develop at any one location in the
neighborhoods, and there were no reported cases of property damage or
injuries. In short, 2025 was an extreme success in quelling the event,
which was the culmination of years of iteration and planning.
The City spent over $100,000 in overtime and equipment related to the
event. This amount does not include all of the staff time of everyone who
was working their normal shift, or all of the other agencies, who supplied
their personnel as no-cost mutual-aid. The total cost of the St. Fratty’s
Day response was likely in the $700,000-$800,000 range when
accounting for all staff time associated with anyone working the event.
2025 was the result of process evolution built upon years of previous
plans, lessons learned, and extensive personal relationships built with
student, law enforcement, and neighborhood community members
Page 79 of 89
Page 18 of 27
resulting in a least-harm approach to preventing what could have been a
highly dangerous event.
Additionally, for many years, the City has engaged in extensive outreach
and education each year with Cal Poly to elevate awareness of City
codes and conduct expectations, as well as engaging in robust
enforcement against individuals engaging in misconduct, as well as
landlords whose tenants engage in repeat violations at the landlords’
rental premises. The City notes that it has continued enforcement of its
landlord responsibility provisions for properties that host repeat code
violations, notwithstanding ongoing landlord and tenant opposition and
even in the face of threats of legal challenges.
15, 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.
Neighborhood Wellness was a Major City Goal (MCG) from 2011-2017
and then an Other Important Objective (OIO) from 2017-2019. During
that time, the Neighborhood Wellness Community Civility Working Group
was established and the 90-page report produced. Working groups
included neighbors from areas directly off campus, students, City staff
and Cal Poly staff. SLOPD, City Administration, and elected
representatives of the City Council frequently meet with RQN and
participate in SCLC.
The Neighborhood Wellness Community Civility Working Group report
contained recommendations, many of which were adopted by the City.
Prior to adoption of the MCG, the social host ordinance was adopted in
2009, stating that party hosts can be held responsible for underage
drinking at their parties. In 2010, the City Council adopted amendments
to the noise ordinance. Instead of multiple warnings, one warning is
provided, then the house goes on the premise list for 9 months and if
more complaints are received, and violations verified, citations are
issued. The fine structure was changed to $350 - $1000 and landlord
Page 80 of 89
Page 19 of 27
citations were added for repeat offenders. A Cal Poly - City MOU was
adopted giving Cal Poly Police administrative citation powers a mile off
campus. Party registration was piloted in 2017 and has been going strong
since. Stakeholder walking meetings were implemented in the
neighborhoods led by Cal Poly to provide residents the opportunity to
give feedback on problem locations, though the walking meetings were
not revived after COVID. The unruly gathering (UG) ordinance was
amended, improving the definition of what a UG is, and Start of School
safety enhancement was added in 2015. The City did not implement the
keg registration recommendation contained in the Working Group Report
because students no longer use kegs like they did in the 90s, nor did the
City implement SNAP ride-alongs because SNAP employees are not
sworn police officers. Even after the MCG and OIO expired, extensive
amendments were made in 2024 to the safety enhancement zones for
Halloween and St. Patrick’s Day to include additional weekends of
enforcement. Partnerships between the police department and Cal Poly
expanded to include focused outreach to incoming students during SLO
Days, presentations and outreach to Fraternity and Sorority Life (FSL)
chapters, outreach to sports teams and coaching staff and participation
in off-campus housing fairs. Annually, the Public Affairs Manager
presents to all 5000+ incoming new students and about half of all FSL
individual chapters covering city ordinances that most effect students
living on and off campus. In 2017, Council approved a pilot party
registration program which has since proven to be very successful in
reducing noisy parties and improving student-age City resident
understanding of how to socialize without being disruptive. In 2024, the
St. Patrick’s Day and Halloween safety enhancement zones were
amended by Council to include additional dates which provide the police
department a longer span of enforcement to better address negative
Page 81 of 89
Page 20 of 27
behaviors in the neighborhoods. Extensive communications plans are
created and implemented to provide information to the community about
neighborhood related ordinances, with the plans including postcard
mailings, radio commercials and PSAs, TV commercials, on and off
campus presentations to student groups, noise violations notifications to
property owners, posters and flyers throughout the community and
electronic communication via police department social media channels
including paid ads targeted to college-age residents of the City.
Additionally, noise and unruly gathering information is provided weekly to
Cal Poly to be addressed via the Office of Student Rights and
Responsibilities (OSRR). OSRR is also provided information on students
who have been arrested for crimes in San Luis Obispo, such as
suspected DUI, domestic violence, theft and assault.
In addition, the City works extensively with Cal Poly on finding solutions
for these issues. The SCLC is an additional venue for discussion,
dialogue, and collaboration.
The City is committed to ongoing engagement with a variety of
community stakeholders related to neighborhood issues.
More recently, City staff have participated in the following collaborative
efforts:
January 10, 2024: City staff with Cal Poly Greek Life staff to
discuss the complaints received regarding Fraternities and
Sororities.
Page 82 of 89
Page 21 of 27
April 10, 2024: Follow up meeting with Assistant Director of
Fraternity & Sorority Life regarding City’s response to
unpermitted fraternities.
April 16, 2024: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership
regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for
Fraternities/Sororities
August 2024: Community Development Director met with Cal
Poly leadership to discuss the issue of Fraternities/Sororities
and land use requirements for houses.
January 12, 2025: Presentation to Greek Organization
Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement
methods for Fraternities/Sororities
March 4, 2025: Meeting with City staff and Cal Poly Greek Life
staff to discuss the ongoing issues regarding Fraternities and
Sororities and upcoming “St. Fratty’s Day” event.
In addition to these scheduled meetings, code enforcement staff have
met with numerous fraternity members as part of several investigations
into alleged unpermitted events. During field inspections and hand
delivery of violation notices, residents were verbally provided information
regarding applicable regulations. City staff have clearly stated to Cal
Poly that staff are available to attend events to educate students on
compliance with City regulations.
The Police Department specifically has worked tirelessly over the past
decade to address these issues, supported by dedicated staff, new City
ordinances, and proven programs that have delivered undeniable
positive results. Noise complaints in particular have steadily declined to
their lowest recorded levels, while voluntary compliance continues to
Page 83 of 89
Page 22 of 27
increase. In 2010, Council adopted revisions to the City’s noise
ordinance, improving the definitions, raising the fines for violations, and
adding a provision to include landlord penalties for repeat violations at
individual properties. Since the change in the ordinance, there has been
a 50% reduction in noise complaints. Prior to 2010, the police
department would receive on average 3000 noisy party complaints each
year and the average is now around 1450.
15, 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.
Along with the Cal Poly general enrollment numbers, participation in
Greek life has also increased; with an increase in membership would
understandably follow an increase in activity.
The City enforces municipal code regulations that prohibit fraternity and
sorority activity in R-1 and R-2 zones and behaviors that create
neighborhood nuisances or otherwise violate City code, while balancing
constitutionally protected rights of privacy and free association
(specifically, keeping in mind that there are legal limits on a governmental
entity’s ability to inquire into the personal relationships of persons living
together in their private residences and to regulate the rights of such
individuals to associate freely in their homes). The enforcement of these
regulations is carried out on a complaint basis, consistent with most
code enforcement issues. Since November 2023, the City has
investigated over 103 complaints and opened 40 code enforcement
cases related to fraternities without permits and violations of conditional
use permits. In addition, the City proactively notified 33 suspected
fraternity/sorority houses in R-1/R-2 zones that it is illegal to be a
fraternity/sorority house in an R1/R2 zone through a courtesy notice. The
City has proactively met with Cal Poly staff and students to provide
education about compliance with zoning regulations so that Greek
organizations can plan living arrangements accordingly, and so that
students are aware that they will receive violations if they establish
Page 84 of 89
Page 23 of 27
fraternity/sorority houses in these zones. The City has also been
attempting to obtain Greek event registration address information from
Cal Poly in order to support enforcement efforts. There is no cited
evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that
these neighborhoods are “almost unlivable” for residents and such value
judgments presented as factual investigation or inquiry undermine the
objectivity and credibility of the report’s analytical approach and
conclusions.
Cal Poly could substantially aid and enhance the effectiveness of the
City’s prevention and enforcement efforts in addressing repeat or
habitual misconduct by campus affiliated individuals and groups that
occupy properties within the city through increased exchange of
information regarding Greek event locations and through enhanced
enforcement of its own student conduct measures.
15, 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.
The City enforces the provisions of CUPs as violations are reported and
verified. In the last year, the City verified that 5 fraternities have
violations of existing CUPs. This resulted in 3 hearings before the
Planning Commission for revocation/revision of the CUPs in question,
with additional hearings scheduled in upcoming months. In May 2025,
the Planning Commission voted to revoke the CUPs for two fraternity
houses due to violations of conditions of approval.
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
As stated previously, the planning appeal fee described in the report is
what a citizen would pay to appeal any decision of the Planning
Commission. It costs nothing to report potential CUP or zoning violations
to the Community Development Director. Once investigated, City staff
would bring substantiated violations before the Planning Commission for
consideration without any cost incurred by the citizen. This exact
process has resulted in the re-review of several CUPs this year.
Page 85 of 89
Page 24 of 27
development appeals requiring
additional city resources, they hinder
equitable participation in local
decision-making processes.
It is an incredibly important distinction to make that citizens raising
concerns about noise or safety is free. The appeal fee only applies to a
decision on a CUP before the PC.
In addition, the appeal fee structure was adopted by the City Council in
2024 after robust review of cost-of-service data presented in the
associated fee study and report and following significant deliberation by
the City Council regarding the fee amount. The Council carefully
considered how much the fee should be subsidized in order to not
discourage the involvement of ordinary citizens in the decision-making
process. The fee is the same regardless of the status of the appealing
party (whether a developer, city resident, non-city resident, etc.) and
therefore does not disproportionately impact any specific party. The
appeal fee is based on an analysis of the amount of time required to
process an appeal, and, per City Council direction, the fee was set at a
percentage of the full cost of processing an appeal in order to ensure it is
not overly burdensome.
16, 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.
One of the City’s most knowledgeable persons on these topics is a non-
sworn staff member and was interviewed for 90 minutes. The City
provided its two most knowledgeable people (with the “one sworn
Officer” being the Chief of Police) to be interviewed. No subpoenas were
issued to Police staff.
This is a false statement – The police department provided unimpeded
and direct access to both the Chief of Police and the Public Affairs
Manager, as well as written responses to multiple iterative series of
questions, as well as providing documents with thousands of current and
historical data points requested by the Grand Jury. Neither the City nor
any particular City police department personnel was ever served with a
subpoena for additional witnesses, documents, or data. The department
Page 86 of 89
Page 25 of 27
did decline further voluntary requests for additional interviews of
department staff by the Grand Jury after complete access was already
provided to the department’s Chief, the City Manager who supervises the
Chief, and the civilian police department staff person who were best
informed as to all relevant operations to speak most comprehensively
about the issues the City understood were being investigated. Both
agency representatives and the City Manager engaged thoroughly and
exhaustively, responding to all questions submitted in person and in
writing from the Grand Jury, on multiple occasions. The police
department did not elect to “voluntarily” provide access to other shift
working staff who have limited scopes of operational responsibility or, at
best, incomplete historical information or who were themselves unable
to speak with completeness or accuracy about current planning efforts
for what was at the time the upcoming 2025 St. Patrick’s Day
Celebration.
The finding misrepresents the transparency and cooperation the police
department and the City as a whole extended to the Grand Jury to
complete the most accurate and comprehensive report possible on this
dangerous and nuisance event for our community. The department has
been extremely proactive in combatting this event and in providing
critical information to the Grand Jury, Cal Poly, the City Council, and our
community to reduce and ultimately prevent the dangerous street party,
which was in fact accomplished this year, exceeding all expectations.
17, R6 The SLO City Manager and the
Planning Commission should move
toward adopting more uniform
conditions for CUP’s [sic] and
enforcement of existing requirements.
As CUPs come in for re-review staff are ensuring that they are as
consistent as possible with the new set of standard conditions the City
has created, with uniform conditions being updated as needed. Setting
constraints like a uniform set of conditions on the exercise of discretion
diminishes the usefulness of the review process to address specific
needs over time or for unique circumstances that may exist at specific
properties or with particular groups or organizations.
Page 87 of 89
Page 26 of 27
17, 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.
Grand jury requests vary in nature and scope and, by their nature, do not
lend themselves to a uniform approach in each instance. The Police
Chief is supervised by and accountable to the City Manager and the City
Manager has and will continue to review and provide appropriate
oversight and direction to her staff in providing staff responses,
consulting with the City Attorney as needed. In the event a particular
request directed to the police department demanded confidentiality
from the City Manager, the City Attorney’s Office would review and advise
the Department’s response and support communication to the City
Council.
24-26 Bibliography Links are to general websites and not specific reference materials. No
specific citations exist in the report. Some of the links do not appear to
actually contain the information that they are being relied upon to
support in the report.
In addition to these specific factual corrections offered in the table above, we believe the overall tone of the report could be
improved by removing language (e.g. comparing City zoning to the Twilight Zone television show) which trivializes both the
serious issues for the neighborhoods and the tremendous ongoing resource investments made (past and present) by the City
to address those concerns.
The report also suffers from the recurring use of ambiguous phrases and references stated as facts, which do not seem to be
connected to factual support or contextual or temporal data points, thereby diminishing the objectivity, credibility, and impact
of the conclusions in the report. Some examples are:
• “a quaint town with a rich history”
• “once-quiet residential areas”
• “residents—students, families, and long-time locals”
• “a range of challenges for the surrounding neighborhoods”
• “neighborhood integrity”
Page 88 of 89
Page 27 of 27
• “fully enforced”
• “this situation remains - to this date - unabated”
• “the affected area”
• “warrant a police citation”
• “a real time solution”
The City recommends replacing those phrases with more precise language or providing the noted factual, temporal, or
contextual support for the statements.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these clarifications, recommendations, and suggestions for the report before it is
released to the public. We fully support the effort to provide the public with a complete and accurate picture of the issues raised
in the complaints that gave rise to this report, and we hope our recommendations assist in that effort.
Page 89 of 89