HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7b - Response to Grand Jury Report - Round and Round with Town and Gown Item 7b
Department: Administration
Cost Center: 1001
For Agenda of: 9/16/2025
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 120 minutes
FROM: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
Prepared By: Natalie Harnett, Policy and Project Manager
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT - ROUND AND ROUND WITH
TOWN AND GOWN
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the City Council, Planning Commission, and City Manager’s joint response
(Attachment A) to the San Luis Obispo County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Round
and Round with Town and Gown.”
POLICY CONTEXT
A response to the Grand Jury report is required by the City Council, City Manager, and
Planning Commission per California Penal Code section 933, which states in relevant
part:
“No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations
of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the
public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the
findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the
governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the
grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60
days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to
the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to
matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and
county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All
of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge
of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to
grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and
the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on
file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury
final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it
shall be maintained for a minimum of five years.”
Page 543 of 615
Item 7b
DISCUSSION
Background
On June 23, 2025, the City of San Luis Obispo received a Grand Jury report titled “Round
& Round with Town & Gown” regarding residents’ concerns over noise, large
unauthorized street parties, and fraternity/sorority events in residential areas (“Report”)
(Attachment B). Prior to the publication of the Report, City officials and staff cooperated
with the Grand Jury’s investigation, with senior staff from multiple departments—including
the Police Chief, Police Department Public Affairs Manager, Community Development
Director, Code Enforcement staff, City Manager, and a Council Member —testifying
before the Grand Jury and providing extensive records and information.
On June 13, the Grand Jury provided the City Manager with copy of the Report prior to
its formal publication. The City Manager then submitted a memorandum to the Grand Jury
on June 20 identifying a number of factual concerns and inaccuracies in the Report
(Attachment C – Exhibit A to the City’s Responses). The Report was publicly released on
June 23 without modification.
The Report includes six findings, and seven recommendations directed to three parties:
the City Council (R1, R2, R4, R5), the City Manager (R3, R6, R7), and the Planning
Commission (R6). Pursuant to Penal Code §933, responses are required within 90 days
of issuance, making them due by September 19, 2025. Under Penal Code §933.05, the
City is required to use the specific response categories and language when responding
to Grand Jury reports:
For Findings: The City must state that it agrees or disagrees (in whole or in part). If
disagreeing, the City must explain why.
For Recommendations: The City must choose one of four required responses:
1) The recommendation has been implemented (with a summary).
2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented
in the future (with a timeframe).
3) The recommendation requires further analysis (with scope, explanation, and a
timeline of no more than six months).
4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or
reasonable (with an explanation).
On July 15, 2025, the Council appointed an ad hoc committee of Mayor Erica A. Stewart
and Council Member Jan Marx to collaborate with staff in preparing responses to the
findings and recommendations directed to the City Council. The ad hoc committee since
met three times to review and refine draft responses. In addition to preparing responses
for the Council, staff drafted responses for the City Manager and the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved its response to
Recommendation 6 (R6) at its August 27, 2025 meeting. The collective responses of the
City Council, Planning Commission, and City Manager are provided in Attachment A.
Page 544 of 615
Item 7b
The City has completed the “Agency Response Form” provided by the Grand Jury
(Attachment D) and will submit the full response letter (Attachment A) and Exhibit A
(Attachment C) to Presiding Judge Rita Federman of the San Luis Obispo County
Superior Court, as required. Both paper and electronic copies will also be provided to the
Grand Jury.
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
July 15, 2025: The City Council appointed an Ad Hoc Committee of the City Council to
collaborate with staff to prepare responses to the Grand Jury Report.
July 22, 2025: Grand Jury Ad Hoc Committee met to review findings and recommendations
and draft initial responses.
August 20, 2025: Grand Jury Ad Hoc Committee met to further discuss findings and
recommendations and draft responses.
August 27, 2025: Planning Commission reviewed and approved draft response to
Recommendation #6.
September 4, 2025: Grand Jury Ad Hoc Committee met to finalize responses and
review public communications materials.
Public Engagement
The public will have the opportunity to comment on this item at or before the September
16 meeting and previously had the chance to provide input on the draft responses
presented to the Planning Commission at its August 27, 2025 meeting.
CONCURRENCE
This report and the relevant draft responses have been reviewed and are supported by
the following:
Ad Hoc Committee of the City Council
Planning Commission
City Manager
Community Development Department
Police Department
City Attorney
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the recommended
action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “project” under CEQA
guidelines Sec. 15378.
Page 545 of 615
Item 7b
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2025-26
Funding Identified: N/A
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $ N/A $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total N/A N/A N/A N/A
There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommendation.
ALTERNATIVES
Council may choose to make revisions to the City’s Response Letter to the Grand
Jury Report. To comply with the Grand Jury’s required deadline, the City’s final
responses must be submitted no later than Friday, September 19, 2025. Accordingly, any
revisions from the Council should be specific and limited in scope so staff can incorporate
them into the final Response Letter without the need for further Council action. The
response to Recommendation 6 (R6) should not be modified by the City Council, as this
recommendation was directed specifically to the Planning Commission. While the Council
could direct the Planning Commission to reconsider its response, there are significant
timing constraints that make this approach impractical.
ATTACHMENTS
A – City of SLO Full Response Letter to Grand Jury Report
B – Grand Jury Report
C – Exhibit A to the City of SLO Response Letter - Memorandum from June 2025
D – Agency Response to Grand Jury Report Form
Page 546 of 615
City of San Luis Obispo, Office of the City Council, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.781.7114, slocity.org
September 16, 2025
Honorable Rita Federman, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
1035 Palm Street, Room 355
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Subject: Response to San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report, Round and Round with Town and
Gown
Dear Presiding Judge Federman,
The City of San Luis Obispo has reviewed the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report titled “Round
and Round with Town and Gown.” This formal response is submitted on behalf of the City Council,
City Manager, and Planning Commission, each of whom has provided input on the findings and
recommendations relevant to their roles. The City’s responses to the Grand Jury’s findings and
recommendations are provided below, with each item presented in italics, followed by the City’s
response.
PREFACE
The City of San Luis Obispo appreciates the Civil Grand Jury’s attention to the evolving relationship
between Cal Poly and the City, and the shared responsibility of fostering a safe and thriving
community for all. While the City’s responses directly address each finding and recommendation,
many of the findings reflect overlapping themes and omit important context, including external
factors that influence both the root causes of the issues and the City's ability to respond.
To provide a more complete picture, the City offers the following context:
i. Exhibit A to this letter includes the City’s previously submitted response to the Grand Jury’s
draft report, which identified numerous factual inaccuracies and offered clarifications in
good faith. Although this feedback was provided before the Grand Jury issued its final report,
none of the City’s suggested edits or corrections were incorporated. The City’s final response
included herein does not restate all of the information previously submitted and encourages
readers to consider Exhibit A alongside the report’s findings.
ii. Most of the City work referenced in this report—ranging from code enforcement and
neighborhood outreach to public safety and community planning—is funded by the City’s
General Fund, which is primarily supported by tax revenue from San Luis Obispo residents,
visitors, and businesses to benefit the entire community. The City must carefully balance its
limited staff and funding across a wide range of needs and neighborhoods. Concentrating
disproportionate resources in one area would be neither equitable nor sustainable.
Page 547 of 615
2
iii. The City plays a central role in responding to neighborhood concerns through enforcement,
education, and public safety coordination. However, several of the issues outlined in the
report—such as illegal gatherings, disruptive behavior, and group housing—are symptoms of
broader dynamics like student housing availability, rental market conditions, and campus
culture. While the City actively collaborates with Cal Poly, many of these root causes fall
outside its jurisdiction and require leadership from the university.
iv. The Grand Jury’s report does not include findings or recommendations directed to Cal Poly.
This is because, as a state institution, Cal Poly is not under the jurisdiction of the San Luis
Obispo County Grand Jury or the City of San Luis Obispo. While this explains the lack of formal
direction to the university, it represents a structural limitation of the report. By not
addressing a key stakeholder, namely Cal Poly, the report creates the impression that the
City alone is responsible for mitigating the negative impacts of student party culture.
v. These challenges extend beyond City limits since, Cal Poly, Cuesta, the City and the County
all have an important role to play. As recommended by the Grand Jury Ad Hoc Council
Committee, Council Members and City leadership will engage with Cal Poly, Cuesta and the
County to encourage their involvement in finding solutions.
vi. The landscape surrounding student gatherings and neighborhood impacts has evolved
significantly in recent years, particularly with the rise of social media. Events can now
escalate rapidly and gain widespread attention with little warning, making traditional
enforcement and outreach strategies more difficult to apply. Like many communities, the
City is navigating these challenges in real time and continually adapting its approach to
respond to this new reality.
vii. There are legal limits on the City’s ability to inquire into personal relationships among
residents or regulate who may live together in a private home. Focusing on residents based
on “student” status could create legal risks related to equal protection, fair housing, and land
use discrimination.
viii. Finally, as Cal Poly’s enrollment has grown in recent years, participation in Greek life has also
increased. While larger membership can contribute to more activity and potential
enforcement challenges, City data shows a sustained overall reduction in noise and
disruption across the community, even with rising student enrollment.
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.
(F1) The City disagrees with this finding. The City wishes to clarify that the reference to
“unsanctioned, costly and unruly events” appears to focus exclusively on the St. Patrick’s Day–related
event commonly known as the “St. Fratty’s Day street party,” with no other recent examples cited in
the report. The City acts in accordance with law enforcement best practices and sound operational
Page 548 of 615
3
judgment, recognizing that treating every gathering or event as a potential escalation is neither
effective nor sustainable. Overcommitting resources without clear justification would strain limited
resources and erode community trust.
The San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) has decades of experience planning for and
responding to large-scale, unpermitted events, including the historical Mardi Gras and Poly Royal
celebrations. Those events, while initially sanctioned and promoted, evolved into significant public
safety concerns. In contrast, St. Fratty’s Day emerged organically, has never been officially permitted,
and gradually grew in scale (aside from a sharp decline during the COVID-19 pandemic years).
Each year, SLOPD developed robust operational plans in collaboration with Cal Poly, tailored to the
size and nature of the previous year’s event. These plans included meaningful public safety staffing
and extensive outreach campaigns. The department engaged in proactive communication efforts
through printed materials, door-to-door “knock and talks,” radio advertisements, direct messaging
via Cal Poly and Cuesta College, and meetings with community organizations such as Residents for
Quality Neighborhoods (RQN). SLOPD also issued multiple media releases and participated in campus
town halls with Cal Poly leadership and other City officials to reinforce a message of zero tolerance.
Data collected and analyzed, post-event, also clearly support these increased planning and
enforcement efforts and expanded partnerships to gain broader control over any illegal behavior.
To deter problematic behavior, the City has amended its Municipal Code multiple times. The Safety
Enhancement Zone ordinance 1 was first expanded in 2010 to include Halloween and St. Patrick’s Day
and was amended again in February 2024 to cover the two weekends leading up to St. Patrick’s Day—
the most likely timeframe for St. Fratty’s Day activity.
Despite these efforts, policing St. Fratty’s Day remains uniquely challenging. Unlike a formal event
with a central location, the gathering typically involves hundreds of people walking up and down
neighborhood sidewalks—behavior that is generally constitutionally protected. Many participants
live in the affected neighborhoods and are legally entitled to access their homes, further complicating
any efforts to restrict entry or mobility. In addition, the absence of a formal event organizer means
there is no single point of contact for coordination or accountability. Without anyone responsible for
managing the crowd or ensuring compliance with laws, the burden of enforcement falls entirely on
public safety agencies.
In 2024, the crowd size exceeded expectations and available staffing, despite the department’s
planning. This prompted a significant operational escalation for 2025, which included nearly a year
of planning with a dedicated cross-departmental and interagency planning group in coordination
with Cal Poly students and faculty. More than 300 law enforcement personnel were deployed from
agencies as far away as San Francisco and Ventura. The response included horse-mounted units,
motorcycle, bicycle, and foot patrols, as well as mobile teams and a fully staffed Department
Operations Center. A temporary Law Enforcement Campus with mobile booking and processing
capability was also established in coordination with the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Office.
1 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 9.22 (Safety Enhancement Zones) authorizes the City Council to
designate the entire city or specific areas as “Safety Enhancement Zones” during certain events or periods (e.g.,
Mardi Gras, St. Patrick’s Day, Halloween, and Cal Poly move-in weekend). During these times, fines for specified
offenses—such as open container, noise, unruly gatherings, and public urination—are doubled, up to $1,000,
and violations may be prosecuted criminally or administratively.
Page 549 of 615
4
Advanced technologies such as drones and mobile surveillance cameras were deployed alongside
outreach tools like targeted signage and materials distributed to known problem properties. These
efforts prevented the crowd from forming at any single location. No intersections or roadways were
illegally occupied or blocked because of pedestrians or crowds of people, and there were no reports
of property damage or injuries within the City of San Luis Obispo.
The City’s direct expenditures for the 2025 event exceeded $100,000 in overtime and equipment.
When including regular staff time and mutual aid support, the estimated total cost ranged from
$700,000 to $800,000. This successful outcome—marked by a safe, uneventful day—was the result
of years of iterative planning, lessons learned, and strong relationships between the City, student
organizations, law enforcement partners, and neighborhood groups.
Cal Poly also significantly expanded its role in St. Patrick’s Day weekend planning, and according to
Cal Poly leadership, set clear expectations that past behaviors jeopardizing safety or property would
no longer be tolerated. The university hosted an alternative on-campus music festival that drew more
than 6,000 students and implemented new security measures, including prohibiting overnight guests
and restricting parking to students and staff from Friday, March 14, through Monday, March 17,
2025. It also activated its Emergency Operations Center for real-time coordination and partnered
with the City in planning and operations meetings, establishing a new standard of unified
communication and coordinated response for the future.
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.
(F2) The City disagrees with this finding. While the City acknowledges there is always room for more
effective engagement and will continue working to enhance collaboration with stakeholders, we
disagree with the assertion that the City has not effectively engaged. Addressing neighborhood
impacts related to off-campus student behavior has been a longstanding City priority, reflected in
policies, enforcement, and collaboration with Cal Poly, residents, and other stakeholders.
Efforts to address noise and other nuisance behavior often associated with students have long been
a top priority for our community. Housing and Neighborhood Livability – Healthy, Safe, and
Affordable was identified as a top community priority during the 2025–27 financial planning process.
Such efforts were also the focus of the Neighborhood Wellness goal, designated a Major City Goal
from 2011–2017 and an Important Objective through 2019. During that time, the City convened the
Neighborhood Wellness Community Civility Working Group, composed of residents, students, City
staff, and Cal Poly representatives. The group created a 90-page report which generated many
recommendations, several of which have been implemented. Notably:
• Ordinance Changes:
o The Social Host Ordinance was adopted in 2009.
o The Noise Ordinance was revised in 2010 to reduce the warning period, impose
higher fines ($350–$1,000), and allow landlord citations for repeated violations.
o The Unruly Gathering Ordinance was updated, and a Start-of-School Safety
Enhancement Zone was established in 2015.
Page 550 of 615
5
o In 2024, the Safety Enhancement Zones for St. Patrick’s Day and Halloween were
expanded to cover additional weekends.
• Education and Outreach:
o Extensive communications campaigns are conducted annually, including radio and
TV ads, social media, postcards, flyers, presentations to Cal Poly student groups, and
outreach to landlords.
o City staff provide weekly violation reports to Cal Poly’s Office of Student Rights and
Responsibilities (OSRR), including noise complaints and criminal activity involving
students.
o The City participates in off-campus housing fairs, Greek Life leadership trainings, and
new student orientation programs (SLO Days), reaching over 5,000 students
annually.
• Program Implementation:
o A party registration pilot launched in 2017 has been successful in reducing noise
complaints and promoting voluntary compliance.
o Walking tours with neighborhood stakeholders were conducted before the
pandemic.
o Cal Poly Police were granted administrative citation authority within one mile off
campus.
o Since 2010, noise complaints have declined by 50%, from approximately 3,000
annually to around 1,450.
The City also participates in the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC), which brings together
Cal Poly, Cuesta College, the City, the County, and community groups to address housing, public
safety, and quality-of-life issues. City Leadership Team members regularly attend Residents for
Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) meetings to provide updates and gather feedback. In addition, staff
respond to dozens of community emails each year, using input to shape enforcement, outreach, and
policy. City staff from the Community Development Department and the Police Department meet
regularly with Cal Poly leadership and student groups, including the Interfraternity Council and Greek
Life staff, to discuss regulations, enforcement, and unpermitted gatherings. The most recent of these
engagements took place in January and March 2025. In addition, separate meetings between City
and Cal Poly leadership focused on discussing new approaches to Greek Life have been occurring and
are ongoing.
City enforcement staff also conduct in-person field inspections and outreach during investigations,
hand-delivering violation notices and educating residents on applicable codes. Staff have offered to
attend student events to support education and compliance. It’s important to note that enforcement
staff must assess each situation on a case-by-case basis, as applicable laws are written to provide
discretion in determining whether an activity constitutes a citable offense. This process can be
complicated by annual changes in residents at a property and by the nature of complaints, which
may range from small gatherings, such as a few people having dinner or playing basketball, to large,
disruptive parties. Each case is evaluated based on the facts, with an emphasis on whether the
conduct violates the law and can be successfully prosecuted.
As mentioned above, Housing and Neighborhood Livability was again identified as a top community
priority during the 2025–27 financial planning process. In response, the City Council adopted Housing
and Neighborhood Livability – Healthy, Safe, and Affordable as a Major City Goal, with multiple
Page 551 of 615
6
associated tasks2 focused on advancing this priority. The City remains committed to promoting
neighborhood safety and civility and will continue to refine its approach in partnership with
institutions and the broader community.
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.
(F3) The City disagrees with this finding. Zoning enforcement is inherently complex, particularly when
activity occurs on private property and affiliations with fraternities or sororities are informal or
unrecognized by the university. While the Grand Jury uses the term “illegal fraternities,” the City does
not consider this terminology accurate. Instead, this term appears to refer to residences suspected
of operating as fraternity houses in locations not allowed by the City’s zoning ordinance.
The City enforces municipal code provisions that prohibit fraternity and sorority activity in R-1 and R-
2 zones and addresses behaviors that constitute neighborhood nuisances or other code violations—
while also balancing constitutionally protected rights to privacy and free association. There are legal
limits on the City’s ability to inquire into personal relationships among residents or regulate who may
live together in a private home. Proactively monitoring private residential properties would not only
exceed available resources but also risk eroding public trust and infringing on privacy—values the
City is committed to upholding.
Consistent with standard code enforcement practices, zoning enforcement related to fraternity or
sorority activity is complaint-driven. Since November 2023, the City has investigated over 100
complaints and opened 42 enforcement cases related to unpermitted fraternity activity or
conditional use permit violations. Additionally, the City proactively issued advisory notices to 33
suspected fraternity or sorority houses in R-1 and R-2 zones to clarify zoning restrictions.
City staff regularly engage with Cal Poly officials and students to provide education on zoning
compliance and ensure Greek organizations understand the implications of their housing choices. As
recommended by the Grand Jury Ad Hoc Council Committee, Community Development staff will start
providing Cal Poly with mapping that identifies where fraternities and sororities may be located (R3
and R4 zones). The City also maintains an interactive online parcel viewer that lets users look up
zoning and parcel details, as well as other planning information, for any property in the city.
The City has also requested Greek life event location information from Cal Poly to aid enforcement,
education, and outreach efforts, but access to such data has been limited. Cal Poly has removed
2 Task 4b. Conduct a study session with Council on Code Enforcement priorities related to safe/livable neighborhoods and
receive feedback on priorities. Discuss potential updates to property maintenance standards.
Task 4d. Create a project plan and standard operating procedures for Community Development enforcement of zoning
code regulations pertaining to Greek houses. Consider potential updates to zoning code to facilitate efficient regulation of
Greek houses.
Page 552 of 615
7
event location data from its public reports—information that previously supported City enforcement
efforts. Enhanced cooperation from Cal Poly, particularly through improved information-sharing and
stronger enforcement of student conduct policies, would significantly strengthen the City’s ability to
address repeated violations linked to campus-affiliated groups residing off campus.
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.
(F4) The City disagrees with this finding. The City enforces the conditions of Conditional Use Permits 3
(CUPs) when violations are reported and substantiated. Over the past year, five fraternities were
found to be in violation of their approved CUPs. This resulted in four hearings before the Planning
Commission since November 2024 to consider revocation or modification of those permits. Three of
the permits were revoked (one is pending appeal review by the City Council) and one was updated.
The City will look into more proactive enforcement of specific conditions in use permits related to
the annual provision of names and telephone numbers for responsible parties, and annual list of
events to be held at CUP locations.
Between May and June 2025, the Planning Commission voted to revoke the CUPs for three fraternity
houses based on verified noncompliance with conditions of approval (as stated above, one is pending
appeal.) The City remains committed to enforcing CUPs fairly and consistently and will continue to
pursue enforcement actions when violations are confirmed.
F5. The current planning appeal fee structure in SLO disproportionately impacts ordinary citizens,
as the high costs consistently and or 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.
(F5) The City disagrees with this finding. It is free for any member of the public to report a potential
zoning or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) violation. Once a complaint is submitted, City staff investigate
and, if a violation is substantiated, may initiate enforcement action or bring the matter before the
Planning Commission—at no cost to the reporting party. This exact process has resulted in several
CUPs being reviewed in the past year.
The fee referenced in the report applies only to formal appeals of Planning Commission decisions,
not to complaints or reports of suspected violations. It is a critical distinction: raising concerns about
neighborhood impacts, such as noise or safety, does not require a fee.
The Planning Appeal fee was adopted by the City Council in 2024 following a comprehensive cost-of-
service study, public review, and Council deliberation. The fee is charged uniformly, regardless of
who files the appeal—whether a resident, applicant, or third party—and is based on the estimated
staff time and administrative costs required to process an appeal. To promote accessibility and public
3 A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is a discretionary land use approval issued by the City of San Luis Obispo that
allows a property to be used in a way not typically permitted in its zoning district, provided specific conditions
are met to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. CUPs are reviewed by the Planning Commission (or City
Council on appeal) following a public hearing process.
Page 553 of 615
8
participation, the City Council intentionally set the fee at a subsidized rate, below the full cost of
service, to ensure it is not overly burdensome.
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.
(F6) The City disagrees with this finding. The Grand Jury was provided with unimpeded access to all
records, the Police Chief himself and the Police Department’s Public Affairs Manager, who is among
the most knowledgeable on these topics. These individuals participated in extensive interviews—one
lasting 90 minutes—and provided thorough written responses to multiple rounds of follow-up
questions. Additionally, the City submitted requested documentation, including thousands of current
and historical data points relevant to the Grand Jury’s investigation.
At no point was the City or any member of the Police Department served with a subpoena for
additional testimony or documentation. The department declined subsequent voluntary interview
requests only after providing full access to its most knowledgeable representatives: the Chief of
Police, the City Manager who directly supervises the Chief, and the designated staff lead on
operational issues related to the issues explored by the Grand Jury.
Further interviews with the patrol or shift-level personnel requested by the Grand Jury were not
appropriate or necessary, as those individuals have limited scopes of responsibility and were not
positioned to speak authoritatively about policy direction, broader planning efforts, or historical
context. The City’s goal was to ensure the Grand Jury received the most accurate and comprehensive
information possible, and that objective was met through detailed, direct engagement with senior
staff.
The City regularly receives inquiries from the Grand Jury on a wide range of topics, including property
annexations, municipal processes, and service delivery, and responds promptly and cooperatively to
each. This inquiry was no exception. Throughout the process, the City and Police Department
provided information with transparency and in good faith.
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.
(R1) This recommendation has been implemented. While the term “St. Fratty’s Day” is no longer
used, the behaviors and risks linked to large, unsanctioned events remain a serious concern and the
City shares the goal of preventing them. Leading up to recent St. Patrick’s Day weekends, the City
and Cal Poly collaborated on coordinated messaging, joint planning, and proactive public safety
operations. These efforts, including promoting on-campus alternatives, engaging student leadership,
and focusing on high-risk properties, successfully prevented a major street party in 2025. The City
will continue partnering with Cal Poly to prevent illegal and unsafe gatherings associated with St.
Patrick’s Day in the future.
Page 554 of 615
9
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.
(R2) This recommendation has been implemented. The City Council agrees in principle, and the City
takes proactive measures whenever possible. In advance of known high-risk weekends such as St.
Patrick’s Day, the City works closely with Cal Poly and regional law enforcement agencies to develop
and execute coordinated safety plans. These efforts include maximum police staffing, outreach to
student leaders beyond Greek Life, deployment of targeted public safety messaging, and pre-
positioning of mutual aid resources when appropriate 4.
As explained in the responses to Findings 1 and 3, there are practical and legal limits to how proactive
the City can be. Many unsanctioned gatherings are spontaneous and difficult to predict, and
excessive preemptive enforcement—particularly when events may not materialize—can erode
community trust and divert limited resources from other public safety needs. To address this, the
Police Department maintains detailed training protocols and response frameworks for managing
large, unpermitted events.
The City continues to promote early community reporting and encourages a “See Something, Say
Something” approach and strong collaboration with Cal Poly remains critical. The City would benefit
greatly from improved access to timely and accurate information about sanctioned student events
and party addresses—data that Cal Poly is uniquely positioned to provide. This would significantly
enhance the City’s ability to anticipate and plan for large gatherings, focus enforcement where it is
most needed, and ultimately reduce the risk of unsafe or illegal activity.
The City also recognizes that part of the solution involves identifying safe, alternative venues for large
student gatherings outside residential neighborhoods. While constraints such as California
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) licensing and jurisdictional authority limit the City’s
ability to provide or manage these spaces directly, the City will assist in this effort by helping connect
partners or identifying opportunities through its Economic Development team.
The City considers this recommendation implemented and remains committed to proactive
measures.
R3. The SLO City Manager should develop and implement an ongoing formal process to identify
illegal fraternities to bring them into compliance.
(R3) This recommendation has been implemented. Through the code enforcement process, the City
has identified properties that are suspected to house fraternities, in locations not allowed by the
City’s zoning ordinance or have been proven to house illegal fraternities. It is important to note, that
per the municipal code, fraternity members can live together in any zone in the City. As noted in the
City’s response to Finding #3 (F3), the City is legally limited in its ability to inquire into personal
relationships among residents or regulate who may live together in a private home. Additionally,
4 Activating mutual aid takes time and must be grounded in credible intelligence.
Page 555 of 615
10
targeting residents based on “student” status could create legal risks related to equal protection, fair
housing, and land use discrimination.
A violation occurs when fraternity members, who live together, also hold meetings or gatherings
associated with the fraternity within a house that does not have a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)5.
When events occur at these houses that violate the Municipal Code, the code enforcement team
follows City standards and practices to notify occupants and property owners of violations and assess
fines for non-compliance, as dictated by City regulations. Fines and enforcement actions escalate if
repeat events occur that are found to violate the Municipal Code.
The City has established processes for keeping records on these houses to inform future
enforcement. Discussion of code enforcement priorities will take place with the City Council as part
of the Housing and Neighborhood Livability Major City Goal, Tasks 4b and 4d, during the 2025–27
Financial Plan. These Tasks include a study session with the City Council to discuss Code Enforcement
priorities related to safe and livable neighborhoods to receive feedback on Council and community
priorities as well as the creation of a project plan and standard operating procedures for the
enforcement of zoning code regulation of Greek houses.
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 a dynamic university
environment. This could facilitate changes to such things as density, parking, noise and fraternity
activities.
(R4) This recommendation will not be immediately implemented because it is not reasonable at this
time. While the City Council agrees that neighborhoods near campus experience unique land use
and quality-of-life challenges, the concept of a zoning overlay that introduces separate municipal
code standards based on presumed student occupancy raises significant legal, equity, and policy
concerns. Two Major City Goal tasks adopted by the Council in June 2025 are closely aligned with this
recommendation and initiating a new task force before these tasks are complete is premature. While
these tasks cannot feasibly be completed within the six-month timeframe outlined in subdivision (b)
of Section 933, they are part of the City’s formally adopted work program to be completed during
the 2025-27 Financial Plan:
• Housing and Neighborhood Livability Task 4b. Conduct a study session with Council on Code
Enforcement priorities related to safe/livable neighborhoods and receive feedback on
priorities. Discuss potential updates to property maintenance standards.
• Housing and Neighborhood Livability Task 4d. Create a project plan and standard operating
procedures for Community Development enforcement of zoning code regulations pertaining
to Greek houses. Consider potential updates to zoning code to facilitate efficient regulation
of Greek houses.
5 CUPs can only be issued for uses allowed by the City’s Zoning Regulations in specific zoning districts. SLOMC
Chapter 17.156 defines Fraternities and Sororities as a 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 and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings.
Page 556 of 615
11
Consideration of Legal Constraints:
Under current California state law, the City cannot reduce allowable residential density or increase
parking requirements for certain unit types (such as accessory dwelling units). These limitations
constrain many of the zoning tools typically associated with overlay zones. Moreover, municipal
regulations must be applied fairly and consistently across all residents. Creating zoning provisions
that effectively target or differentiate based on “student” status could expose the City to legal risk
related to equal protection, fair housing, and land use discrimination.
Existing Tools and Enforcement:
The City already uses a variety of municipal code tools—such as conditional use permits, noise
regulations, unruly gathering ordinances, and Safety Enhancement Zones—to address behaviors and
impacts associated with high-occupancy housing and disruptive gatherings. In fact, it enforces some
of the most rigorous fraternity-related zoning laws in the state and has taken proactive enforcement
action against group housing that is not allowed under current zoning.
Overlay Zone Research and Next Steps:
City staff have completed an initial review of how other jurisdictions have approached similar
issues—such as Los Angeles’ Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay or Santa Clara’s code enforcement
overlay—to assess potential applicability in San Luis Obispo. While these examples offer useful
insights, they are often tailored to local legal frameworks and campus conditions. Notably, many
include annual permitting, inspection requirements, and enhanced noticing—tools that may be
adaptable in San Luis Obispo within existing zoning and code enforcement systems.
The City will continue to explore feasible strategies that balance neighborhood livability with a
growing student population. This includes:
• Revisiting “responsible landlord” lease language.
• Evaluating the feasibility of programmatic enhancements.
• Improving coordination between enforcement and planning functions.
• Enhancing collaboration with Cal Poly, especially around access to sanctioned event
addresses and off-campus behavior data.
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.
(R5) This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The City Council
appreciates the Grand Jury’s interest in broadening access to the public process and agrees that
community participation is a cornerstone of good governance. As explained under the City’s response
to Finding #5 (F5), while planning appeals require a fee, the Planning Commission’s review of a use
permit, when initiated based on public complaints or information indicating a permit violation, does
not. For fraternities with CUPs, any member of the public may submit a code enforcement complaint
at no cost. Such complaints are investigated and, if warranted, can result in a re-review of the use
permit.
The current appeal fee structure was thoughtfully designed to balance public accessibility with the
need to recover a portion of administrative costs. Importantly, filing an appeal is only one of many
Page 557 of 615
12
ways residents can engage in land use decisions. Community members can provide input through
public comment, neighborhood meetings, and direct communication with City Council or the
Planning Commission.
While the City Council agrees that a full reassessment of appeal fees is not immediately warranted,
they are open to considering whether alternative pathways—such as creative mediation options,
structured neighborhood input sessions, or project-specific community liaisons—might more
effectively support early and meaningful engagement in the development review process.
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. 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.
(R6) 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.
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
Page 558 of 615
13
related to ensuring the health, 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, conditions 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 hours 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 considered 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.
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
Page 559 of 615
14
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.
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.
(R7) This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. 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 Department is managed by the Chief of Police who is supervised by and
accountable to the City Manager. The City Manager has and will continue to review and provide
appropriate oversight and direction to her staff in providing responses to the Grand Jury, in
consultation 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.
Respectfully,
City of San Luis Obispo Councilmembers
City of San Luis Obispo City Manager
City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
Cc: San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
P.O. Box 4910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Page 560 of 615
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 561 of 615
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 562 of 615
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 563 of 615
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 564 of 615
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 565 of 615
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 566 of 615
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 567 of 615
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 568 of 615
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 569 of 615
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 570 of 615
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 571 of 615
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 572 of 615
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 573 of 615
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 574 of 615
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 575 of 615
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 576 of 615
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 577 of 615
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 578 of 615
Submitted June 23, 2025 19
APPENDIX A
Page 579 of 615
Submitted June 23, 2025 20
Page 580 of 615
Submitted June 23, 2025 21
Page 581 of 615
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 582 of 615
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 583 of 615
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 584 of 615
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 585 of 615
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 586 of 615
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 587 of 615
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 588 of 615
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 589 of 615
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 590 of 615
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 591 of 615
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 592 of 615
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 593 of 615
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 594 of 615
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 595 of 615
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 596 of 615
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 597 of 615
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 598 of 615
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 599 of 615
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 600 of 615
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 601 of 615
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 602 of 615
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 603 of 615
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 604 of 615
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 605 of 615
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 606 of 615
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 607 of 615
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 608 of 615
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 609 of 615
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 610 of 615
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 611 of 615
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 612 of 615
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 613 of 615
Page 614 of 615
RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT
Report Title: “Round & Round with Town & Gown”
Report Date: June 18, 2025
Response by: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
City of San Luis Obispo Councilmembers
City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
FINDINGS
1. We agree with the findings numbered: N/A
2. We disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Recommendations numbered R1, R2, R3, R6 have been implemented.
2. Recommendations numbered N/A have not yet been implemented but will be implemented
in the future.
3. Recommendations numbered N/A require further analysis.
4. Recommendations numbered R4, R5, R7 will not be implemented because they are not
warranted or are not reasonable.
Date: September 16, 2025 Signed:
Number of pages attached: 41 (City of San Luis Obispo Response Letter – 14 pages; Exhibit A
– June 2025 Memorandum – 27 pages).
Page 615 of 615
1
City Responses to Grand Jury Report
“Round and Round with Town and
Gown”
Item 7b: September 16, 2025
2
Presentation
1.Background and Policy Context
2.Overview of responses
3.Consolidated review of findings and recommendations
4.Closer look at some data and maps
5.Next steps
6.Questions and discussion
3
Recommendation
Approve the City Council, Planning Commission, and City
Manager’s joint response (Attachment A) to the San Luis
Obispo County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Round
and Round with Town and Gown.”
4
Background and Policy Context
June 23, 2025: Report issued
State law (Penal Code §933) requires responses within 90 days (9/19)
July 15, 2025: Ad Hoc Committee (Stewart/Marx) appointed to help respond
to findings and recommendations
July 22, Aug 20, Sept 4: Ad Hoc Committee meetings
August 27, 2025: Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 2025: Presentation to Council on joint responses
5
Background and Policy Context
The Report includes six findings, and seven recommendations directed to
three parties:
•City Council (R1, R2, R4, R5)
•City Manager (R3, R6, R7)
•Planning Commission (R6)
State law (Penal Code §933) Response Options:
Findings: City must agree or disagree (with explanation)
Recommendations: City will identify as implemented, not yet implemented, requires
further analysis, or will not be implemented. (With explanations pursuant to §933.05)
6
Overview of City Responses
•The City disagrees with all six finding with explanations included in
report.
•Recommendations numbered R1, R2, R3, R6 have been implemented
with explanations in report.
•Recommendations numbered R4, R5, R7 will not be implemented with
explanations in report.
Attachments included in agenda report: Response letter to Presiding Judge,
June 2025 Grand Jury Report, June 2025 Staff Memo, Agency Response Form
7
Key Points of City Responses
•Shared Responsibility
•Complexity of Issue and Evolving Landscape
•Legal Limitations
•Limited City Resources
•Recent Progress
8
Findings & Recommendations
F1: Prior to 2025, City Failed to Respond to Large Unsanctioned Events
City disagrees with the finding
R1–R2: The City Council should implement a multi-year plan to eliminate
“St. Fratty’s day” and proactive measures to prevent future street parties.
City has implemented both recommendations
Response Summary:
•Robust annual plans, outreach, & Safety Zone ordinance updates
•2025 success: strong City–University planning, 300+ officers, advanced tech, on-
campus alternative
•City follows best practices & responsible resource use
•Proactive measures taken when feasible & appropriate
•City Council encourages early reporting & collaboration with Cal Poly
9
Findings & Recommendations
F2: The City has not effectively engaged with stakeholders to address
neighborhood issues
The City disagrees with the finding
Response Summary
•The City has ongoing and regular engagement with community
•Recent and expanded discussion with Cal Poly regarding the issues
•Ordinances, outreach, programs cut noise complaints 50%
•Housing & Neighborhood Livability a 2025–27 Major Goal; two new tasks
programmed to review code enforcement priorities and zoning regulation
related to fraternity/sorority housing.
10
A closer look at noise
complaint calls for service data
11
12
13
14
Findings & Recommendations
F3: The City has failed to identify and enforce code violations related to
fraternity and sorority activity
The City disagrees with this finding
R3: The City Manager should develop a process to identify illegal fraternities
This recommendation has been implemented
Response Summary:
•Complaint-driven enforcement (40+ cases since 2023)
•Legal and Equity Considerations
•Education and outreach regarding city zoning and compliance
•Required partnership with Cal Poly
•Future tasks to set enforcement priorities and standard operating procedures
15
R4: Council should initiate a task force to explore “Student Overlay Zones”
This recommendation will not be immediately implemented (not feasible
within six-month timeframe)
Findings & Recommendations
Response Summary:
•Two Major City Goal action items already planned on these concerns
•State law and legal constraints
•Establishing a task force at this stage is pre-mature
•The City has existing tools: CUP requirements, noise regulations, Safety
Enhancement Zones
•Staff will continue research and explore options to review at future Study Session
16
Findings & Recommendations
F4: The City has failed to consistently enforce CUPs
The City disagrees with this finding
R6: The City Manager and Planning Commission should move toward adopting
more uniform conditions for CUPs and enforcement of existing requirements.
This recommendation has been implemented
Response Summary:
•CUPs enforced when violations found
•3 revocations since 2024; recent modernization of outdated conditions
•Complaint-driven; fraternities = ~6.5% of 1,400
•Steps will be taken to explore more proactive enforcement
17
Findings & Recommendations
F5: The current planning appeal fee structure disproportionately impacts
citizens.
The City disagrees with this finding
R5: The Council should consider adopting a tiered planning appeal structure.
This recommendation will not be implemented
Response Summary:
•Reporting zoning/CUP violations is free; fees only for formal appeals
•Appeal fee structure designed to balance access with cost recovery – currently
below cost
•Fees adopted in 2024 after detailed study, public review, and Council deliberation
•Council is open to exploring alternative ways to engage
18
Findings & Responses
F6: The Grand Jury encountered lack of cooperation from SLOPD
The City disagrees with this finding.
R7: SLOCGJ recommends City Manager set formal response guidelines
and training for requests
This recommendation will not be implemented.
Response Summary:
•Grand Jury had full access: Police Chief, Public Affairs Manager, extensive
interviews (including a 90-minute session), written responses, and thousands
of data points.
•City consistently responds promptly and cooperatively to Grand Jury inquiries
with oversight from the City Manager
•Grand Jury requests vary in scope and do not lend themselves to a uniform
response process.
19
Next Steps
•Submit response letter & attachments to Presiding Judge & Grand Jury
•Continue collaboration with Cal Poly, County, and community
stakeholders on neighborhood livability
•Upcoming Major City Goal tasks:
•Study session on Code Enforcement priorities related to safe/livable
neighborhoods and receive feedback on priorities. Discuss potential
updates to property maintenance standards. (est. FY 2026 Q4)
•Create a project plan and SOPs for enforcement of zoning code
regulations pertaining to Greek houses and consider potential updates to
zoning code. (est. FY 2026 Q3)
20
Recommendation
Approve the City Council, Planning Commission, and City
Manager’s joint response (Attachment A) to the San Luis
Obispo County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Round
and Round with Town and Gown.”