The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEmails Re 280California CUP AppealFrom:Patino, Mallory To:Joshua Pinsky Subject:RE: CUP Appeal Date:Friday, March 13, 2026 2:44:00 PM Attachments:Invoice 00042292 (MOD-0036-2026).pdf Hi Joshua, I am still working on finalizing the Resolution document (obtaining signatures). I’ll send it your way when it’s signed. The outstanding fees for the Modification (Re-review) still need to be paid. I have attached the invoice here (Invoice Number 00042292). The invoice can be paid online using the “Pay Invoice” tool in the City’s Permit Portal (Info SLO), at https://infoslo.slocity.org/EnerGov_Prod/selfservice#/home. You can search using the Invoice Number. The Planning Commission’s decision may be appealed to the City Council. To appeal, you must complete and file the Appeal to the City Council form with the City Clerk’s Office within 10 calendar days of the written rendered decision (by end of business day, Monday, March 23, because day 10 is on a weekend). The required filing fee ($2,662.26) must accompany the appeal form. You can pay the appeal fee at the Finance Counter, located at 990 Palm Street, in person from Monday-Thursday, 8am-4pm. If you need to pay over the phone, you can let me know and I’ll coordinate phone payment. Information about the appeal procedures is on the City's Website here (refer to the ‘Appeal to the City Council’ section). Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2026 11:54 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Subject: CUP Appeal Good Morning Mallroy, Hope you are having a good day and it was such a pleasure to meet you yesterday. I wanted to see if you could run me through the process of appealing the outcome and how I can get started with that. Thank You! Joshua Pinsky Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity President | ΣΩ Chapter Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration INVOICE (00042292) FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BILLING CONTACT INACTIVE Alpha Epsilon Phi INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE INVOICE DUE DATE INVOICE STATUS INVOICE DESCRIPTION 00042292 01/23/2026 02/22/2026 NONEDue REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME TOTAL MOD-0036-2026 Time Extension / Modification $2,815.14 $2,815.14 SUBTOTAL280 California Blvd San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 TOTAL $2,815.14 Page 1 of 1January 23, 2026 City of San Luis Obispo From:Joshua Pinsky To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Alpha Epsilon Pi CUP Date:Friday, March 20, 2026 10:30:09 AM Good morning members of the City Council, My name is Joshua Pinsky, and I am the current President of the Sigma Omega Chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi, located at 280 California Blvd. As you are aware, our permit was revoked last week. Following the recent Planning Commission review, it was made clear that this matter falls outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction and must instead be addressed at the City Council level. Additionally, two Planning Commissioners approached me after the hearing and indicated that this issue would be more appropriately considered by your body. We will be formally filing an appeal to bring this matter before the City Council. In advance of any formal proceedings, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with each of you individually to better understand your perspectives and prepare. Please let me know dates and times that work best for you. I am happy to accommodate your schedules. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Joshua Pinsky -- Joshua Pinsky Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity President | ΣΩ Chapter Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration From: To: Subject: Date: Corey, Tyler Cohen, Rachel; Mezzapesa, John; Patino, Mallory FW: Alpha Epsilon Pi CUP Friday, March 20, 2026 11:03:00 AM fyi From: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 10:52 AM To: Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Alpha Epsilon Pi CUP BCC: Council All Joshua Pinsky, Thank you for taking the time to contact City Council on this topic; your message has been provided directly to them. By copy on this email, it is also being shared with Timmi Tway, Director of Community Development and Tyler Corey, Deputy Director of Community Development, for their awareness. City Clerk’s Office City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 10:30 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Alpha Epsilon Pi CUP Good morning members of the City Council, My name is Joshua Pinsky, and I am the current President of the Sigma Omega Chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi, located at 280 California Blvd. As you are aware, our permit was revoked last week. Following the recent Planning Commission review, it was made clear that this matter falls outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction and must instead be addressed at the City Council level. Additionally, two Planning Commissioners approached me after the hearing and indicated that this issue would be more appropriately considered by your body. We will be formally filing an appeal to bring this matter before the City Council. In advance of any formal proceedings, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with each of you individually to better understand your perspectives and prepare. Please let me know dates and times that work best for you. I am happy to accommodate your schedules. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Joshua Pinsky -- Joshua Pinsky Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity President | ΣΩ Chapter Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Joshua Pinsky; Tyler Corsello; Corey Cohen RE: CUP Appeal Friday, March 20, 2026 11:31:44 AM PC-1117-2026 (MOD-0036-2026 -- 280 California Blvd.).pdf Hi Joshua, I have time on Monday from 10am onward to chat about the appeal process. If you have any specific questions, feel free to email them before we talk so I might be able to come with answers. Let me know once the invoice for the modification is paid as well! Additionally, Resolution No. PC-1117-2026 from the 3/11/2026 Planning Commission hearing was signed; I’ve attached a copy for ease of reference. Please review the resolution and let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 9:28 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org>; Tyler Corsello <tyler@espondaassociates.org>; Corey Cohen <corey@espondaassociates.org> Subject: Re: CUP Appeal Good Morning Mallory, I hope you are doing well! Apologies for the delayed response; I had finals, which kept me very busy. We'll pay the modification fee today. I wanted to see if you have time to hop on a call today or Monday to answer a few of our questions regarding the appeal process before we submit the appeal? Corey, whom I have attached to this email, will handle paying the appeal fee over the phone on Monday. I have attached his phone number. Corey Cohen: + Thank you again for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you! Have a great weekend! Best, Joshua On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 2:44 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Joshua, I am still working on finalizing the Resolution document (obtaining signatures). I’ll send it your way when it’s signed. The outstanding fees for the Modification (Re-review) still need to be paid. I have attached the invoice here (Invoice Number 00042292). The invoice can be paid online using the “Pay Invoice” tool in the City’s Permit Portal (Info SLO), at https://infoslo.slocity.org/EnerGov_Prod/selfservice#/home. You can search using the Invoice Number. The Planning Commission’s decision may be appealed to the City Council. To appeal, you must complete and file the Appeal to the City Council form with the City Clerk’s Office within 10 calendar days of the written rendered decision (by end of business day, Monday, March 23, because day 10 is on a weekend). The required filing fee ($2,662.26) must accompany the appeal form. You can pay the appeal fee at the Finance Counter, located at 990 Palm Street, in person from Monday-Thursday, 8am-4pm. If you need to pay over the phone, you can let me know and I’ll coordinate phone payment. Information about the appeal procedures is on the City's Website here (refer to the ‘Appeal to the City Council’ section). Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2026 11:54 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Subject: CUP Appeal Good Morning Mallroy, Hope you are having a good day and it was such a pleasure to meet you yesterday. I wanted to see if you could run me through the process of appealing the outcome and how I can get started with that. Thank You! Joshua Pinsky Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity President | ΣΩ Chapter Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration -- Joshua Pinsky Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity President | ΣΩ Chapter Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration RESOLUTION NO. PC-1117-2026 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REVOKING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY AT 280 CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD. THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. WHEREAS, on August 2, 1983, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, and denied an appeal and upheld the Planning Commission’s approval to allow a fraternity at 280 California Boulevard (the “property”), pursuant to a proceeding instituted under U 1099; Alpha Epsilon Pi, applicant; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, for the re-review of a Conditional Use Permit and conditionally approved the continuation of the fraternity at 280 California Boulevard, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-0625-2024; Alpha Epsilon Pi, applicant; and WHEREAS, the City received complaints, and, between November 2024 and February 2026, the Police Department issued three citations relating to noise violations at the property, including at least three citations within a 12-month period within these dates; and WHEREAS, Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Violation on July 15, 2025, relating to the multiple, verified violations of the existing Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the property received a third noise citation on October 29, 2025 after receipt of the above-referenced Notice of Violation; and WHEREAS, in order to grant a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must find, among other things, that the establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use (SLOMC 17.110.070(A)(5)); and WHEREAS, revocation of an existing Conditional Use Permit is appropriate if the Planning Commission cannot make one or more findings of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.110 or Section 17.86.130 upon review of the permit due to violations thereof (SLOMC 17.102.020); and Resolution No. PC-1117-2026 280 California Blvd. Page 2 WHEREAS, Condition No. 2 of Use Permit USE-0625-2024 requires Planning Commission re-review if 1) conduct on the permitted premises results in three citations within any 12-month period for a violation of law or permit condition, 2) that citation is not contested or is upheld on appeal, and 3) the conduct for which the citation was issued resulted in adverse impacts to, or complaints from, residents or occupants of the surrounding neighborhood, at which time the Planning Commission could add, delete, or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, on March 11, 2026, for the re-review of the Conditional Use Permit and to consider the continuation of the fraternity at 280 California Boulevard, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under MOD- 0036-2026, Alpha Epsilon Pi, applicant; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was provided at the time and in the manner required by, including publication on February 26, 2026, in the New Times newspaper of a legal ad for the public hearing; and WHEREAS, at said hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo considered all evidence, including testimony of the applicant, public comment, and recommendations by staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Recitals stated above are incorporated herein as Findings of the Planning Commission. In revoking the Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Municipal Code Section17.102.020(C)(7), and without prejudice, the Planning Commission additionally finds: 1. The current use is not consistent with both Conditional Use Permit regulations of Municipal Code Section 17.110.070(A) and Fraternity regulations of Municipal Code Section 17.86.130 because: a. The fraternity has been repeatedly cited for violations of the City’s Noise Ordinance. b. Since April 2025, the Police have issued three citations for noise violations at the property. c. Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Violation of the Conditional Use Permit on July 15, 2025, which provided warning that a third citation before April 16, 2026, would result in a recommendation to re-review the permit to the Deputy Director of Community Development. Thereafter, the property received another noise citation in October 2025. d. The maximum number of people on site at each cited incident exceeded the limit established by the Conditional Use Permit (25 people), as noted by the Police Officers that issued citations for a noise violation on April 16, 2025, April 18, 2025, and October 29, 2025. Resolution No. PC-1117-2026 280 California Blvd. Page 3 e. The fraternity has failed to apply for special event permits or parking and transportation plans as required by their Conditional Use Permit, despite hosting events that exceeded the routine gathering capacity limits of the Permit. 2. For the reasons stated above, the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the current use is not compatible with residential uses in the vicinity. The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions would secure these purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code Section 17.110.070(A)(3) cannot be made. 3. For the reasons stated above, the continued use of the property as a fraternity under the Conditional Use Permit is not appropriate for the subject location, is incompatible with the neighborhood, and will be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions would secure these purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code Section 17.110.070(A)(5) and Section 17.86.130(B)(1), cannot be made. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit may have a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.) SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby REVOKES the Conditional Use Permit USE-0625-2024, previously issued to 280 California Boulevard for use as a fraternity, based on the Findings stated above. Any subsequent application to establish a subsequent Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity at the location shall be subject to all requirements of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to Section 17.86.130 and Chapter 17.110. Resolution No. PC-1117-2026 280 California Blvd. Page 4 On motion by Commission Cooley, seconded by Commission Munoz-Morris, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Cooley, Commissioner Munoz-Morris, Commissioner Flores, Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner Kahn, Vice Chair Tolle, Chair Houghton NOES: RECUSED: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 11th day of March 2026. ___________________ Tyler Corey, Secretary Planning Commission From:Joshua Pinsky To:CityClerk Subject:AEPI CUP Appeal Date:Monday, March 23, 2026 3:42:27 PM Attachments:CUP Appeal Form.pdf Good Afternoon, I have attached the appeal form for MOD-0036-2026. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thank You! -- Joshua Pinsky Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity President | ΣΩ Chapter Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration 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 From:Accounts Receivable To:Joshua Pinsky Subject:RE: City of SLO Appeal Payment Date:Monday, March 23, 2026 3:54:17 PM Attachments:Receipt - Joshua Pinksy 280 California, Appeal to City Council.pdf Hi Joshua, Attached is your receipt for the appeal payment for 280 California. Please let me know if you need anything else, -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 3:52 PM To: Accounts Receivable <ar@slocity.org> Subject: Aepi Cal Poly Email -- Joshua Pinsky Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity President | ΣΩ Chapter Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration 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 2,662.26 Received From: JOSHUA PINSKY - APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL 280 CALIFORNIA Receipt #: finance-03232026-9 Cashier: Maryanna Espejo-Moses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VISA ************4092 Entry Method: MANUAL Date: 03/23/26 Time: 14:50:49 Reference: q-3BMk9BTPyP9id3VWvKl57iA2bBO Auth Code: 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 2,662.26 Received From: JOSHUA PINSKY - APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL 280 CALIFORNIA Receipt #: finance-0 2026-9 Cashier: Maryanna Espejo-Moses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VISA ************4092 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 From: To: Subject: Date: Joshua Pinsky Accounts Receivable Re: City of SLO Appeal Payment Monday, March 23, 2026 3:55:21 PM Received, thank you! On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 3:54 PM Accounts Receivable <ar@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Joshua, Attached is your receipt for the appeal payment for 280 California. Please let me know if you need anything else, Maryanna Espejo-Moses pronouns she/her/hers Financial Analyst Finance 990 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mespejo@slocity.org T 805.781.7148 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 3:52 PM To: Accounts Receivable <ar@slocity.org> Subject: Aepi Cal Poly Email -- Joshua Pinsky Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity President | ΣΩ Chapter Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration -- Joshua Pinsky Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity President | ΣΩ Chapter Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration From:Joshua Pinsky To:CityClerk Subject:Re: AEPI CUP Appeal Date:Monday, March 23, 2026 4:00:09 PM Attachments:CUP Appeal Speach - Google Docs.pdf Good Afternoon, Attached below is our reasoning for the appeal. Thank You! On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 3:42 PM Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> wrote: > > Good Afternoon, > > I have attached the appeal form for MOD-0036-2026. Please let me know > if you need anything else. > > Thank You! > > -- > Joshua Pinsky > Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity > President | ΣΩ Chapter > Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration > -- Joshua Pinsky Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity President | ΣΩ Chapter Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration 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 To:City_Attorney; McDonald, Whitney; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Corey, Tyler; Patino, Mallory Cc:CityClerk Bcc:Dave Houghton Subject:Appeal to the City Council Received - PC"s revocation of the CUP at 280 California Blvd Date:Monday, March 23, 2026 4:21:49 PM Attachments:J. Pinsky 280 California Blvd CUP Appeal to the City Council.pdf 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 revocation 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 City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 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 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 2,662.26 Received From: JOSHUA PINSKY - APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL 280 CALIFORNIA Receipt #: finance-03232026-9 Cashier: Maryanna Espejo-Moses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VISA ************4092 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 From: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 7:54:00 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> 1 Subject:Appeal to the City Council Received - PC's revocation of the CUP at 280 California Blvd Status:Completed Percent Complete:100% Date Completed:Monday, March 23, 2026 Total Work:0 hours Actual Work:0 hours Owner:Corey, Tyler Categories:z NOW From:Patino, Mallory To:Cohen, Rachel Subject:FW: Appeal to the City Council Received - PC"s revocation of the CUP at 280 California Blvd Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 2:03:00 PM Attachments:J. Pinsky 280 California Blvd CUP Appeal to the City Council.pdf See attached. Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 4:23 PM To: City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler < ; Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Appeal to the City Council Received - PC's revocation of the CUP at 280 California Blvd 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 City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 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 2,662.26 Received From: JOSHUA PINSKY - APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL 280 CALIFORNIA Receipt #: finance-03232026-9 Cashier: Maryanna Espejo-Moses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VISA ************4092 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 2,662.26 Received From: JOSHUA PINSKY - APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL 280 CALIFORNIA Receipt #: finance-03232026-9 Cashier: Maryanna Espejo-Moses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VISA ************4092 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 To:David Geiser; Ben Hamik Subject:RE: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill Date:Thursday, March 26, 2026 5:07:24 PM Dave and Ben, Thanks again for meeting earlier this week. As a follow-up, provided below are links to the information I mentioned during our conversation – June 12, 2024 Planning Commission – This is the hearing for LCA’s first review. Hearing Report - LCA The Planning Commission’s decision to approve was appealed. See October 15, 2024 City Council hearing below. October 15, 2024 City Council – This is the hearing for the appeal on LCA’s approval. Hearing Report - LCA Resolution to ultimately approve the fraternity: R-11529 denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit to establish a fraternity (USE-0331-2023, APPL- 0365-2024). While most of these conditions are fairly standard, I suggest reviewing conditions #3, #5, #14, #15, and #16 in detail. City Council Hearing Video You will need to fast forward to see the fraternity review, which is the last item on the agenda. I suggest listening to the Council’s discussion because this meeting had set the expectations for fraternity reviews moving forward. November 13, 2024 Planning Commission – This is the hearing for AEPi’s initial re- review due to multiple violations. Hearing Report - AEPi Resolution allowing continuation of the fraternity with updated conditions: PC-1092-2024 (USE-0625-2024 -- 280 California Blvd.) March 11, 2026 Planning Commission – This is the hearing for the most recent fraternity re-reviews. LCA and AEPi were re-reviewed due to multiple violations. Hearing Report - LCA Resolution to revoke: PC-1116-2026 (MOD-0029-2026 -- 1264 Foothill, 1241, 1243, 1249 and 1251 Monte Vista Pl.) Hearing Report - AEPi Resolution to revoke: PC-1117-2026 (MOD-0036-2026 -- 280 California Blvd.) Planning Commission Hearing Video You will need to fast forward to see the fraternity items, which are second and third on the agenda. Ch. 9.12 Noise Control | San Luis Obispo Municipal Code See Table 1 for noise limits in the R-4 zone. As provided above, fraternities would be expected to adhere to the lower noise limits between the extended hours of 10:00 pm and 9:00 am. Let me know if you need anything else. Sincerely, Hannah Hanh Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhanh@slocity.org T 805.781.7432 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -----Original Appointment----- From: Hanh, Hannah Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 3:37 PM To: Hanh, Hannah; David Geiser; Ben Hamik Cc: Cohen, Rachel Subject: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill When: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:30 AM-12:30 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting Dave and Ben, Thanks for setting aside time to meet. I wanted to discuss the overall review process and any post-approval requirements. The meeting is set for an hour, in case we need it. Talk soon, Hannah________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join: https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/2593269226193?p=5q8Byu3YpPLhnq2NAm Need help? | System reference Dial in by phone +1 209-645-4165,,189970971# United States, Stockton Find a local number Phone conference ID: For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN________________________________________________________________________________ From: To: Subject: Date: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) McDonald, Whitney; Collins, Scott FW: Alpha Epsilon Pi CUP Wednesday, April 1, 2026 3:48:00 PM Just FYI looks like AEPi may be reaching out to councilmembers. Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 12:57 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Fw: Alpha Epsilon Pi CUP Hey Timmi, I’ve been asked to meet with representatives from the fraternity. I haven’t set up a time yet, but I’m wondering if you have time or someone from staff has time to chat with me. I’m watching the PC meeting and the minutes, but curious if there’s anything else I need to know about their appeal. Thanks, Emily Get Outlook for iOS From: Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 12:12:42 PM To: Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Alpha Epsilon Pi CUP Hi Emily, I just noticed that I addressed your name incorrectly in my previous email, my apologies for the oversight. Thank you for your understanding, and I appreciate your time! Best, Joshua On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 12:10 PM Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> wrote: > > Good Afternoon Francis, > > I hope you are having a good day! > > Thank you so much for getting back to me! We submitted the appeal last > Monday. Please let me know the days and times that work best for you > to meet. I'm happy to accommodate your schedule! > > Would you mind if our previous risk manager joined our conversation, > as he has been helping me throughout this process? > > Looking forward to hearing from you! > > Best, > Joshua > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 10:27 AM Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Joshua, > > > > Thank you for reaching out. Have you already filed the appeal to the City Council? I would be happy to meet with you, but it might be more helpful once the appeal is filed and we have some of the documentation to review together. That way, we can have a more productive conversation about the specifics of your case. > > > > Please let me know once you've submitted the appeal, and we can coordinate a time to meet. > > > > Take care, > > Emily > > > > Emily Francis > > pronouns she/her/hers > > Council Member > > > > Office of the City Council > > 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 > > E EFrancis@slocity.org > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 10:30 AM, Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Good morning members of the City Council, > >> > >> My name is Joshua Pinsky, and I am the current President of the Sigma Omega Chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi, located at 280 California Blvd. As you are aware, our permit was revoked last week. > >> > >> Following the recent Planning Commission review, it was made clear that this matter falls outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction and must instead be addressed at the City Council level. Additionally, two Planning Commissioners approached me after the hearing and indicated that this issue would be more appropriately considered by your body. > >> > >> We will be formally filing an appeal to bring this matter before the City Council. > >> > >> In advance of any formal proceedings, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with each of you individually to better understand your perspectives and prepare. > >> > >> Please let me know dates and times that work best for you. I am happy to accommodate your schedules. > >> > >> Thank you for your time and consideration. > >> > >> Best, > >> Joshua Pinsky > >> > >> -- > >> Joshua Pinsky > >> Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity > >> President | ΣΩ Chapter > >> Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration > > > > > > > -- > Joshua Pinsky > Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity > President | ΣΩ Chapter > Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration > -- Joshua Pinsky Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity President | ΣΩ Chapter Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration From: To: Subject: Date: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Corey, Tyler RE: Alpha Epsilon Pi CUP Wednesday, April 1, 2026 4:14:00 PM Thank you! I will reply to her email with you on it. T Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 4:06 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Alpha Epsilon Pi CUP We are happy to speak with Emily. In looking at her email there is nothing new in their appeal that wasn’t discussed at PC. From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 1:13 PM To: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Alpha Epsilon Pi CUP Hi, Would you or Mallory (or both) be available to speak with Emily? I would like it to be someone who was at the pc meeting (so, not me), Thanks, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 12:57 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Fw: Alpha Epsilon Pi CUP Hey Timmi, I’ve been asked to meet with representatives from the fraternity. I haven’t set up a time yet, but I’m wondering if you have time or someone from staff has time to chat with me. I’m watching the PC meeting and the minutes, but curious if there’s anything else I need to know about their appeal. Thanks, Emily Get Outlook for iOS From: Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 12:12:42 PM To: Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Alpha Epsilon Pi CUP Hi Emily, I just noticed that I addressed your name incorrectly in my previous email, my apologies for the oversight. Thank you for your understanding, and I appreciate your time! Best, Joshua On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 12:10 PM Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> wrote: > > Good Afternoon Francis, > > I hope you are having a good day! > > Thank you so much for getting back to me! We submitted the appeal last > Monday. Please let me know the days and times that work best for you > to meet. I'm happy to accommodate your schedule! > > Would you mind if our previous risk manager joined our conversation, > as he has been helping me throughout this process? > > Looking forward to hearing from you! > > Best, > Joshua > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 10:27 AM Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Joshua, > > > > Thank you for reaching out. Have you already filed the appeal to the City Council? I would be happy to meet with you, but it might be more helpful once the appeal is filed and we have some of the documentation to review together. That way, we can have a more productive conversation about the specifics of your case. > > > > Please let me know once you've submitted the appeal, and we can coordinate a time to meet. > > > > Take care, > > Emily > > > > Emily Francis > > pronouns she/her/hers > > Council Member > > > > Office of the City Council > > 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 > > E EFrancis@slocity.org > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 10:30 AM, Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Good morning members of the City Council, > >> > >> My name is Joshua Pinsky, and I am the current President of the Sigma Omega Chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi, located at 280 California Blvd. As you are aware, our permit was revoked last week. > >> > >> Following the recent Planning Commission review, it was made clear that this matter falls outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction and must instead be addressed at the City Council level. Additionally, two Planning Commissioners approached me after the hearing and indicated that this issue would be more appropriately considered by your body. > >> > >> We will be formally filing an appeal to bring this matter before the City Council. > >> > >> In advance of any formal proceedings, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with each of you individually to better understand your perspectives and prepare. > >> > >> Please let me know dates and times that work best for you. I am happy to accommodate your schedules. > >> > >> Thank you for your time and consideration. > >> > >> Best, > >> Joshua Pinsky > >> > >> -- > >> Joshua Pinsky > >> Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity > >> President | ΣΩ Chapter > >> Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration > > > > > > > -- > Joshua Pinsky > Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity > President | ΣΩ Chapter > Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration > -- Joshua Pinsky Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity President | ΣΩ Chapter Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) To:Francis, Emily Cc:Corey, Tyler Subject:RE: Alpha Epsilon Pi CUP Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 4:16:00 PM Hi Emily, Since they were at the meeting and have been closely involved in this, I think its best to discuss with Tyler and Mallory. I have included Tyler here on this email so you all can touch base when it is convenient for you! Thank you! Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 12:57 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Fw: Alpha Epsilon Pi CUP Hey Timmi, I’ve been asked to meet with representatives from the fraternity. I haven’t set up a time yet, but I’m wondering if you have time or someone from staff has time to chat with me. I’m watching the PC meeting and the minutes, but curious if there’s anything else I need to know about their appeal. Thanks, Emily Get Outlook for iOS From: Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 12:12:42 PM To: Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Alpha Epsilon Pi CUP Hi Emily, I just noticed that I addressed your name incorrectly in my previous email, my apologies for the oversight. Thank you for your understanding, and I appreciate your time! Best, Joshua On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 12:10 PM Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> wrote: > > Good Afternoon Francis, > > I hope you are having a good day! > > Thank you so much for getting back to me! We submitted the appeal last > Monday. Please let me know the days and times that work best for you > to meet. I'm happy to accommodate your schedule! > > Would you mind if our previous risk manager joined our conversation, > as he has been helping me throughout this process? > > Looking forward to hearing from you! > > Best, > Joshua > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 10:27 AM Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Joshua, > > > > Thank you for reaching out. Have you already filed the appeal to the City Council? I would be happy to meet with you, but it might be more helpful once the appeal is filed and we have some of the documentation to review together. That way, we can have a more productive conversation about the specifics of your case. > > > > Please let me know once you've submitted the appeal, and we can coordinate a time to meet. > > > > Take care, > > Emily > > > > Emily Francis > > pronouns she/her/hers > > Council Member > > > > Office of the City Council > > 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 > > E EFrancis@slocity.org > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 10:30 AM, Joshua Pinsky <aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Good morning members of the City Council, > >> > >> My name is Joshua Pinsky, and I am the current President of the Sigma Omega Chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi, located at 280 California Blvd. As you are aware, our permit was revoked last week. > >> > >> Following the recent Planning Commission review, it was made clear that this matter falls outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction and must instead be addressed at the City Council level. Additionally, two Planning Commissioners approached me after the hearing and indicated that this issue would be more appropriately considered by your body. > >> > >> We will be formally filing an appeal to bring this matter before the City Council. > >> > >> In advance of any formal proceedings, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with each of you individually to better understand your perspectives and prepare. > >> > >> Please let me know dates and times that work best for you. I am happy to accommodate your schedules. > >> > >> Thank you for your time and consideration. > >> > >> Best, > >> Joshua Pinsky > >> > >> -- > >> Joshua Pinsky > >> Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity > >> President | ΣΩ Chapter > >> Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration > > > > > > > -- > Joshua Pinsky > Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity > President | ΣΩ Chapter > Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration > -- Joshua Pinsky Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity President | ΣΩ Chapter Cal Poly San Luis Obispo | Business Administration From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Ben Hamik Hanh, Hannah David Geiser Re: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill Wednesday, April 8, 2026 10:33:53 AM Hi Hannah, Thank you so much for sending along, I will check those meetings out. Best, Ben Ben Hamik (he/him/his) Denver, Colorado, USA Cal Poly Class of 2025 B.A. Political Science/ M.P.P. On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 11:28 Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> wrote: Dave and Ben, In case you are interested in following along, I wanted to share the tentative City Council hearing schedule for upcoming fraternity-related discussions: May 19, 2026 – AEPi has appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke their CUP. This appeal will be reviewed by the City Council. May 26, 2026 – study session on safe and livable neighborhoods and housing (including discussion on fraternities) The agendas (including the reports) will be posted a week in advance of each hearing date on this webpage: https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city- council/agendas-and-minutes. The reports will include details on the discussion. Sincerely, Hannah Hanh Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhanh@slocity.org T 805.781.7432 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Hanh, Hannah Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 5:08 PM To: David Geiser < ; Ben Hamik < Subject: RE: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill Dave and Ben, Thanks again for meeting earlier this week. As a follow-up, provided below are links to the information I mentioned during our conversation – June 12, 2024 Planning Commission – This is the hearing for LCA’s first review. Hearing Report - LCA The Planning Commission’s decision to approve was appealed. See October 15, 2024 City Council hearing below. October 15, 2024 City Council – This is the hearing for the appeal on LCA’s approval. Hearing Report - LCA Resolution to ultimately approve the fraternity: R-11529 denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit to establish a fraternity (USE-0331-2023, APPL-0365-2024). While most of these conditions are fairly standard, I suggest reviewing conditions #3, #5, #14, #15, and #16 in detail. City Council Hearing Video You will need to fast forward to see the fraternity review, which is the last item on the agenda. I suggest listening to the Council’s discussion because this meeting had set the expectations for fraternity reviews moving forward. November 13, 2024 Planning Commission – This is the hearing for AEPi’s initial re- review due to multiple violations. Hearing Report - AEPi Resolution allowing continuation of the fraternity with updated conditions: PC-1092-2024 (USE-0625-2024 -- 280 California Blvd.) March 11, 2026 Planning Commission – This is the hearing for the most recent fraternity re-reviews. LCA and AEPi were re-reviewed due to multiple violations. Hearing Report - LCA Resolution to revoke: PC-1116-2026 (MOD-0029-2026 -- 1264 Foothill, 1241, 1243, 1249 and 1251 Monte Vista Pl.) Hearing Report - AEPi Resolution to revoke: PC-1117-2026 (MOD-0036-2026 -- 280 California Blvd.) Planning Commission Hearing Video You will need to fast forward to see the fraternity items, which are second and third on the agenda. Ch. 9.12 Noise Control | San Luis Obispo Municipal Code See Table 1 for noise limits in the R-4 zone. As provided above, fraternities would be expected to adhere to the lower noise limits between the extended hours of 10:00 pm and 9:00 am. Let me know if you need anything else. Sincerely, Hannah Hanh Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhanh@slocity.org T 805.781.7432 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -----Original Appointment----- From: Hanh, Hannah Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 3:37 PM To: Hanh, Hannah; David Geiser; Ben Hamik Cc: Cohen, Rachel Subject: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill When: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:30 AM-12:30 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting Dave and Ben, Thanks for setting aside time to meet. I wanted to discuss the overall review process and any post-approval requirements. The meeting is set for an hour, in case we need it. Talk soon, Hannah ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join: https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/2593269226193? p=5q8Byu3YpPLhnq2NAm Need help? | System reference Dial in by phone +1 209-645-4165,,189970971# United States, Stockton Find a local number Phone conference ID: For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN ________________________________________________________________________________ From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: David Geiser Hanh, Hannah Ben Hamik RE: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill Wednesday, April 8, 2026 10:37:38 AM Thanks for the update Hannah, Do you know what the format will be for the study session on May 26th? Will is be a standard City Council meeting or more of an open forum discussion? Please let us know. Thanks. Dave From: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 10:28 AM To: David Geiser < ; Ben Hamik < Subject: RE: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill Dave and Ben, In case you are interested in following along, I wanted to share the tentative City Council hearing schedule for upcoming fraternity-related discussions: May 19, 2026 – AEPi has appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke their CUP. This appeal will be reviewed by the City Council. May 26, 2026 – study session on safe and livable neighborhoods and housing (including discussion on fraternities) The agendas (including the reports) will be posted a week in advance of each hearing date on this webpage: https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and- minutes. The reports will include details on the discussion. Sincerely, Hannah Hanh Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhanh@slocity.org T 805.781.7432 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Hanh, Hannah Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 5:08 PM To: David Geiser < ; Ben Hamik < Subject: RE: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill Dave and Ben, Thanks again for meeting earlier this week. As a follow-up, provided below are links to the information I mentioned during our conversation – June 12, 2024 Planning Commission – This is the hearing for LCA’s first review. Hearing Report - LCA The Planning Commission’s decision to approve was appealed. See October 15, 2024 City Council hearing below. October 15, 2024 City Council – This is the hearing for the appeal on LCA’s approval. Hearing Report - LCA Resolution to ultimately approve the fraternity: R-11529 denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit to establish a fraternity (USE-0331-2023, APPL- 0365-2024). While most of these conditions are fairly standard, I suggest reviewing conditions #3, #5, #14, #15, and #16 in detail. City Council Hearing Video You will need to fast forward to see the fraternity review, which is the last item on the agenda. I suggest listening to the Council’s discussion because this meeting had set the expectations for fraternity reviews moving forward. November 13, 2024 Planning Commission – This is the hearing for AEPi’s initial re- review due to multiple violations. Hearing Report - AEPi Resolution allowing continuation of the fraternity with updated conditions: PC-1092-2024 (USE-0625-2024 -- 280 California Blvd.) March 11, 2026 Planning Commission – This is the hearing for the most recent fraternity re-reviews. LCA and AEPi were re-reviewed due to multiple violations. Hearing Report - LCA Resolution to revoke: PC-1116-2026 (MOD-0029-2026 -- 1264 Foothill, 1241, 1243, 1249 and 1251 Monte Vista Pl.) Hearing Report - AEPi Resolution to revoke: PC-1117-2026 (MOD-0036-2026 -- 280 California Blvd.) Planning Commission Hearing Video You will need to fast forward to see the fraternity items, which are second and third on the agenda. Ch. 9.12 Noise Control | San Luis Obispo Municipal Code See Table 1 for noise limits in the R-4 zone. As provided above, fraternities would be expected to adhere to the lower noise limits between the extended hours of 10:00 pm and 9:00 am. Let me know if you need anything else. Sincerely, Hannah Hanh Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhanh@slocity.org T 805.781.7432 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -----Original Appointment----- From: Hanh, Hannah Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 3:37 PM To: Hanh, Hannah; David Geiser; Ben Hamik Cc: Cohen, Rachel Subject: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill When: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:30 AM-12:30 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting Dave and Ben, Thanks for setting aside time to meet. I wanted to discuss the overall review process and any post-approval requirements. The meeting is set for an hour, in case we need it. Talk soon, Hannah________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join: https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/2593269226193?p=5q8Byu3YpPLhnq2NAm Need help? | System reference Dial in by phone +1 209-645-4165,,189970971# United States, Stockton Find a local number Phone conference ID: For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN________________________________________________________________________________ To:David Geiser Cc:Ben Hamik Subject:RE: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill Date:Wednesday, April 8, 2026 11:23:33 AM The study session on May 26th will run similarly to a standard City Council meeting – with the exception that it is the only agenda item, so any participation and discussion will be focused that night. You can provide feedback by attending and speaking in person, emailing your comments, etc. More details on this on the agenda. Code Enforcement is spearheading this effort and can provide more information, but generally – study sessions are an opportunity for staff to present information on a topic, provide some options/suggestions/key discussion points, and solicit feedback from Council and the community. The next steps would be based on the direction that Council provides that night. From: David Geiser < Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 10:37 AM To: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> Cc: Ben Hamik < Subject: RE: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill Thanks for the update Hannah, Do you know what the format will be for the study session on May 26th? Will is be a standard City Council meeting or more of an open forum discussion? Please let us know. Thanks. Dave From: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 10:28 AM To: David Geiser < ; Ben Hamik < Subject: RE: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill Dave and Ben, In case you are interested in following along, I wanted to share the tentative City Council hearing schedule for upcoming fraternity-related discussions: May 19, 2026 – AEPi has appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke their CUP. This appeal will be reviewed by the City Council. May 26, 2026 – study session on safe and livable neighborhoods and housing (including discussion on fraternities) The agendas (including the reports) will be posted a week in advance of each hearing date on this webpage: https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and- minutes. The reports will include details on the discussion. Sincerely, Hannah Hanh Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhanh@slocity.org T 805.781.7432 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Hanh, Hannah Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 5:08 PM To: David Geiser < ; Ben Hamik < Subject: RE: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill Dave and Ben, Thanks again for meeting earlier this week. As a follow-up, provided below are links to the information I mentioned during our conversation – June 12, 2024 Planning Commission – This is the hearing for LCA’s first review. Hearing Report - LCA The Planning Commission’s decision to approve was appealed. See October 15, 2024 City Council hearing below. October 15, 2024 City Council – This is the hearing for the appeal on LCA’s approval. Hearing Report - LCA Resolution to ultimately approve the fraternity: R-11529 denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit to establish a fraternity (USE-0331-2023, APPL- 0365-2024). While most of these conditions are fairly standard, I suggest reviewing conditions #3, #5, #14, #15, and #16 in detail. City Council Hearing Video You will need to fast forward to see the fraternity review, which is the last item on the agenda. I suggest listening to the Council’s discussion because this meeting had set the expectations for fraternity reviews moving forward. November 13, 2024 Planning Commission – This is the hearing for AEPi’s initial re- review due to multiple violations. Hearing Report - AEPi Resolution allowing continuation of the fraternity with updated conditions: PC-1092-2024 (USE-0625-2024 -- 280 California Blvd.) March 11, 2026 Planning Commission – This is the hearing for the most recent fraternity re-reviews. LCA and AEPi were re-reviewed due to multiple violations. Hearing Report - LCA Resolution to revoke: PC-1116-2026 (MOD-0029-2026 -- 1264 Foothill, 1241, 1243, 1249 and 1251 Monte Vista Pl.) Hearing Report - AEPi Resolution to revoke: PC-1117-2026 (MOD-0036-2026 -- 280 California Blvd.) Planning Commission Hearing Video You will need to fast forward to see the fraternity items, which are second and third on the agenda. Ch. 9.12 Noise Control | San Luis Obispo Municipal Code See Table 1 for noise limits in the R-4 zone. As provided above, fraternities would be expected to adhere to the lower noise limits between the extended hours of 10:00 pm and 9:00 am. Let me know if you need anything else. Sincerely, Hannah Hanh Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhanh@slocity.org T 805.781.7432 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -----Original Appointment----- From: Hanh, Hannah Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 3:37 PM To: Hanh, Hannah; David Geiser; Ben Hamik Cc: Cohen, Rachel Subject: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill When: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:30 AM-12:30 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting Dave and Ben, Thanks for setting aside time to meet. I wanted to discuss the overall review process and any post-approval requirements. The meeting is set for an hour, in case we need it. Talk soon, Hannah________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join: https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/2593269226193?p=5q8Byu3YpPLhnq2NAm Need help? | System reference Dial in by phone +1 209-645-4165,,189970971# United States, Stockton Find a local number Phone conference ID: For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN________________________________________________________________________________ From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: David Geiser Hanh, Hannah Ben Hamik Re: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill Wednesday, April 8, 2026 11:40:20 AM Thank you Hannah. On Apr 8, 2026, at 11:25 AM, Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> wrote: The study session on May 26th will run similarly to a standard City Council meeting – with the exception that it is the only agenda item, so any participation and discussion will be focused that night. You can provide feedback by attending and speaking in person, emailing your comments, etc. More details on this on the agenda. Code Enforcement is spearheading this effort and can provide more information, but generally speaking – study sessions are an opportunity for staff to present information on a topic, provide some options/suggestions/key discussion points, and solicit feedback from Council and the community on priorities. The next steps would be based on direction that Council provides that night. Hannah Hanh Associate Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhanh@slocity.org T 805.781.7432 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: David Geiser < Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 10:37 AM To: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> Cc: Ben Hamik < Subject: RE: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill Thanks for the update Hannah, Do you know what the format will be for the study session on May 26th? Will is be a standard City Council meeting or more of an open forum discussion? Please let us know. Thanks. Dave From: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 10:28 AM To: David Geiser < ; Ben Hamik < Subject: RE: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill Dave and Ben, In case you are interested in following along, I wanted to share the tentative City Council hearing schedule for upcoming fraternity-related discussions: May 19, 2026 – AEPi has appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke their CUP. This appeal will be reviewed by the City Council. May 26, 2026 – study session on safe and livable neighborhoods and housing (including discussion on fraternities) The agendas (including the reports) will be posted a week in advance of each hearing date on this webpage: https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and- city-council/agendas-and-minutes. The reports will include details on the discussion. Sincerely, Hannah Hanh Associate Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhanh@slocity.org T 805.781.7432 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Hanh, Hannah Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 5:08 PM To: David Geiser < ; Ben Hamik < Subject: RE: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill Dave and Ben, Thanks again for meeting earlier this week. As a follow-up, provided below are links to the information I mentioned during our conversation – June 12, 2024 Planning Commission – This is the hearing for LCA’s first review. Hearing Report - LCA The Planning Commission’s decision to approve was appealed. See October 15, 2024 City Council hearing below. October 15, 2024 City Council – This is the hearing for the appeal on LCA’s approval. Hearing Report - LCA Resolution to ultimately approve the fraternity: R-11529 denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit to establish a fraternity (USE-0331-2023, APPL-0365-2024). While most of these conditions are fairly standard, I suggest reviewing conditions #3, #5, #14, #15, and #16 in detail. City Council Hearing Video You will need to fast forward to see the fraternity review, which is the last item on the agenda. I suggest listening to the Council’s discussion because this meeting had set the expectations for fraternity reviews moving forward. November 13, 2024 Planning Commission – This is the hearing for AEPi’s initial re-review due to multiple violations. Hearing Report - AEPi Resolution allowing continuation of the fraternity with updated conditions: PC-1092-2024 (USE-0625-2024 -- 280 California Blvd.) March 11, 2026 Planning Commission – This is the hearing for the most recent fraternity re-reviews. LCA and AEPi were re-reviewed due to multiple violations. Hearing Report - LCA Resolution to revoke: PC-1116-2026 (MOD-0029-2026 -- 1264 Foothill, 1241, 1243, 1249 and 1251 Monte Vista Pl.) Hearing Report - AEPi Resolution to revoke: PC-1117-2026 (MOD-0036-2026 -- 280 California Blvd.) Planning Commission Hearing Video You will need to fast forward to see the fraternity items, which are second and third on the agenda. Ch. 9.12 Noise Control | San Luis Obispo Municipal Code See Table 1 for noise limits in the R-4 zone. As provided above, fraternities would be expected to adhere to the lower noise limits between the extended hours of 10:00 pm and 9:00 am. Let me know if you need anything else. Sincerely, Hannah Hanh Associate Planner  <image007.png>  <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhanh@slocity.org T 805.781.7432 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -----Original Appointment----- From: Hanh, Hannah Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 3:37 PM To: Hanh, Hannah; David Geiser; Ben Hamik Cc: Cohen, Rachel Subject: Fraternity Review - 1327 E. Foothill When: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:30 AM-12:30 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting Dave and Ben, Thanks for setting aside time to meet. I wanted to discuss the overall review process and any post-approval requirements. The meeting is set for an hour, in case we need it. Talk soon, Hannah________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join: https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/2593269226193?p=5q8Byu3YpPLhnq2NAm Need help? | System reference Dial in by phone +1 209-645-4165,,189970971# United States, Stockton Find a local number Phone conference ID: For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN________________________________________________________________________________