The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About_Email Re_ Appeal to the City Council Received - PC's revocation of the CUP at 280 California BlvdFrom:Dave Houghton To:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Cc:City_Attorney; McDonald, Whitney; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Corey, Tyler; Patino, Mallory; CityClerk Subject:Re: Appeal to the City Council Received - PC"s revocation of the CUP at 280 California Blvd Date:Monday, March 23, 2026 7:54:01 PM Thanks for this Andrea. Read and noted. I’m available for discussion if that would be helpful and appropriate. Currently on the road but back in town on Friday. Dave Houghton On Mar 23, 2026, at 4:22 PM, Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote: Hello, Joshua Pinksy submitted the attached Appeal Form to the City Clerk’s Office via email this afternoon. The subject of the appeal is the Planning Commission’s re-review of the Conditional Use Permit at 280 California Blvd, which was heard at the March 11th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Based on Municipal Code Chapter 1.20.030 and 17.126.020, the 10th day to submit this appeal is today, March 23, 2026. Bcc: As listed on the Appeal form, David Houghton, Chair of the Planning Commission. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk I <image001.png> City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><imag e006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications <J. Pinsky 280 California Blvd CUP Appeal to the City Council.pdf> City of San Luis Obispo Finance 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7124 www.slocity.org Thank you for your payment. Have a nice day! Monday Mar 23 2026 03:49:37 PM Clerk - Misc Revenue (CLERKREV) JOSHUA PINSKY - APPEAL TO THE CIT2,662.26 __________________________________________ Total 2,662.26 Credit 4092 2,662.26 Received From: JOSHUA PINSKY - APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL 280 CALIFORNIA Receipt #: finance-03232026-9 Cashier: Maryanna Espejo-Moses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VISA ************ Entry Method: MANUAL Date: 03/23/26 Time: 14:50:49 Reference: q-3BMk9BTPyP9id3VWvKl57iA2bBO Auth Code: 07956G Approved - Thank You Merchant Id: CITYOSANL2GB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL USD $ 2,662.26 I AGREE TO PAY THE ABOVE AMOUNT ACCORDING TO THE CARD ISSUER AGREEMENT (MERCHANT AGREEMENT IF CREDIT VOUCHER) x_________________________________________ Cardholder Signature City Copy City of San Luis Obispo Finance 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7124 www.slocity.org Thank you for your payment. Have a nice day! Monday Mar 23 2026 03:49:37 PM Clerk - Misc Revenue (CLERKREV) JOSHUA PINSKY - APPEAL TO THE CIT2,662.26 __________________________________________ Total 2,662.26 Credit 4092 2,662.26 Received From: JOSHUA PINSKY - APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL 280 CALIFORNIA Receipt #: finance-03232026-9 Cashier: Maryanna Espejo-Moses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VISA ************ Entry Method: MANUAL Date: 03/23/26 Time: 14:50:49 Reference: q-3BMk9BTPyP9id3VWvKl57iA2bBO Auth Code: 07956G Approved - Thank You Merchant Id: CITYOSANL2GB Customer Copy Date Received Revised and Published 10/01/24 Page 1 of 2 Filing Fee Applicant/Non-Applicant: $2,583.46 For Office Use Received by:_____ SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1.In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code or Title 17, Chapter 17.126 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I hereby appeal the decision of the: _________________________________________________________________________ (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: _______________________________ 3.The application or project was entitled: __________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ 4.I discussed the matter with the following City staff member: ______________________________________________________ on ______________________ (Staff Member’s Name and Department) (Date) 5.Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: _________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________________ Name Mailing Address and Zip Code _____________________________________________________________________________ Phone Email _____________________________________________________________________________ Representative’s Name Mailing Address and Zip Code _____________________________________________________________________________ Title Phone Email Joshua Pinsky Planning Commision 03/11/2026 MOD-0036-2026 Mallory Patino 03/13/2026 280 California Blvd, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Revised and Published 10/01/24 Page 2 of 2 cc: City Attorney City Manager Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson Advisory Body Liaison City Clerk (original) SECTION 4. APPELLANT’S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to the following filing fee, which must accompany the appeal form: $2,583.46. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form, except for matters arising under Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code shall be governed by those Chapters. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action is at the discretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. __________________________________________________________________________ (Signature of Appellant) (Date) Reason for Appeal continued Submitted in a Google Doc 03/23/2026Joshua Pinsky Good afternoon members of the City Council, My name is Joshua Pinsky, and I am the President of the Sigma Omega Chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi, located at 280 California Boulevard. We are appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke our Conditional Use Permit. We disagree with the commission's conclusion that no set of conditions could ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood or protect public health, safety, and welfare. We believe the full record does not back this conclusion, is inconsistent with the clear improvements our chapter has made, and overlooks practical changes that would help us comply. We acknowledge that there were three violations and that occupancy limits were exceeded. However, these incidents do not tell the whole story. When we look at the broader context, ● 13 citations in the previous academic year ● 2 citations in the following academic year (both in April) ● 1 citation in the current academic year (October) This shows a roughly 85% decrease in violations over two years. Importantly, this improvement happened despite significant turnover in our membership. This suggests that the changes we made are structural and organizational, rather than dependent on individual members. This trend illustrates a long-term and noticeable commitment to compliance that was not adequately considered in the Commission’s decision. Furthermore, while the City measures compliance on a calendar-year basis, we operate under Cal Poly’s academic calendar. The two April citations and the October citation pertain to different academic years, so only one violation has occurred during the current year. Although the 12-month framework is technically correct, it obscures a more accurate view of our behavioral improvement, which we believe deserves attention. The main issue in our appeal is the Commission’s finding under §17.110.070(A)(5), which states that continued use of the property would harm the health, safety, and welfare of the nearby community. We challenge this finding on three grounds. First, the property is in an R4 high-density residential area, which is the right setting for this use. This zoning is intended to support student housing and higher-intensity residential uses. Revoking the permit and spreading similar activities into lower-density R1 or R2 neighborhoods could impact the city more broadly, rather than concentrating activity in an area designed for it. Second, our chapter has shown measurable improvement year after year under current conditions by actively engaging with neighbors and working collaboratively with Code Enforcement, the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) group, and City staff. Our members undergo numerous safety trainings, and we submitted proposed condition modifications in writing before the hearing. While the Commission ultimately dismissed these efforts, the decision does not explain why revised conditions would not work. This lack of reasoning is central to our appeal. Third, feedback from nearby residents does not support claims of ongoing harm. Of 14 residents surveyed within about 200 feet of our property, 12 reported no disturbances linked to the fraternity. The other two noted occasional noise but could not pinpoint 280 California as the source. This direct input from the community contradicts the Commission’s conclusion regarding impacts on nearby residents. The Commission’s finding under §17.110.070(A)(3) about compatibility with the neighborhood stems from the same concerns. Given the zoning and our progress, it can work with the right conditions. To that end, we are not just asking for the permit to be reinstated as is. We propose a clear set of modified conditions that provide an enforceable path forward, including: ● A mandatory annual compliance meeting with Code Enforcement and City staff for all chapter leadership ● A formalized event notification and coordination protocol with the Police Department for gatherings below the current special event threshold ● Continued proactive engagement with neighboring residents to ensure open communication and responsiveness We also want to note that while we understand the City’s processes, the fees associated with them can be particularly burdensome for college students. We recognize this may not be within the Commission’s control. Still, we feel it’s important to highlight the practical challenges and to emphasize our ongoing good-faith efforts to engage constructively despite these obstacles. During the Planning Commission hearing, especially during the discussion, the Commission acknowledged the complexity of this issue. They recognized the broader structural challenges related to enforcement, student housing, and the relevance of existing conditions. If members of the Commission expressed uncertainty or acknowledged possible paths forward short of revocation, we believe these considerations further support that modified conditions, rather than complete revocation, are the more appropriate response. Ultimately, the question before the City Council is not whether violations occurred, but whether our chapter has shown the ability and willingness to comply in the future, and if revocation is a fair response given our current progress. The evidence shows significant improvement, meaningful engagement, and a clear path to full compliance under modified conditions. For these reasons, we respectfully ask that the City Council grant this appeal, set aside the revocation, and allow the implementation of revised conditions that support accountability and long-term compliance. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Joshua Pinsky