San Luis Obispo City Council
September 16, 2025

SITE DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 7
ZONING
The subject zoning is Neighborhood Commercial (C-N). The C-N zone is intended to accommodate the establishment and operation of small-scale, pedestrian-oriented, and low-impact retail sales and personal services businesses primarily for the convenience of people in surrounding residential areas, to meet the frequent shopping needs of people living nearby. As summarized below, the Neighborhood Commercial zone allows a variety of retail and commercial uses.

ZONING
Designation Neighborhood Commercial (C-N)
Zoning Authority City of San Luis Obispo
Permitted Uses A variety of commercial and retail uses.

Current Use Free Standing Retail
Current Use Legally Permitted Yes
Conforming Use The bulk of the improvements as well as the parking conform to the requirements
ordinance.

Conforming Lot The bulk of the improvements as well as the parking conform to the requirements
ordinance. Zoning Change Not Likely
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Planning & Zoning Department The current use for the subject property is free standing retail and is a permitted use based on the current zoning guidelines. A zoning change for the subject does not appear likely. Based on the foregoing, it appears that the subject’s improvements are a legally conforming use of the subject site.

SITE RATING
Overall, the subject site is considered good as a land site in terms of its location, exposure and access to employment, education and shopping centers, based on its location along a primary arterial with proximity to freeway off-ramps.

TAXES & ASSESSMENT
In California, Proposition 13 establishes that annual increases of assessed value of real property should not exceed 2% per year except in cases of a change in ownership, completion of new construction, and/or in the case of a value restoration due to a prior year decline in value (Proposition 8) assessment. The total assessment for the subject property for the tax year 2024 is $1,846,617 or $285.72 PSF. There are no exemptions in place.

The total tax bill for the property is $20,440 or $3.16 PSF.

According to San Luis Obispo County, real estate taxes for the subject property are current as of the date of this report. Based on the scope of this assignment, any pending tax liens are not considered in the value conclusion. Taxes are summarized as follows:

ASSESSMENT & TAXES (2024)
TAX RATE AREA TAX RATE 1.1069%
ASSESSOR PARCEL # LAND IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL EXEMPTIONS TAXABLE BASE TAX 001-043-027 $796,578 $1,050,039 $1,846,617 $0 $1,846,617 $20,440 TOTAL BASE TAX $/GBA / $ TOTAL $3.16 $20,440
Source: San Luis Obispo County Assessment & Taxation

IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 8

IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIPTION
A description of the improvements is provided in the original appraisal. As discussed, no consideration is given the building improvements.

ACQUISITION DESCRIPTION
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 9
As discussed in the original appraisal, a portion of the property is being acquired for roadway improvements related to installation of a roundabout at the intersection. The acquisition consists of a 2,182 SF portion located at the northwest corner of the parcel. Additionally, the property is proposed for a Temporary Construction Easement on 763 SF as well as a Temporary Non-Exclusive Access Easement for use of the driveway and parking lot containing 1,614 SF. Site and acquisition areas are further summarized as follows:

Acquisition Areas (SF)
Fee Simple TCE TNEAE
2,182 763 1,614
The acquisition area includes some small asphalt parking lot area and landscaping. There are also four mature trees in the acquisition area to include the three tall palm trees (which appear to be Mexican Fan Palms), which are grouped near the corner of the property and provide visual relief and aesthetic appeal. These trees are each roughly 50 to 55 feet in height, with roughly a 12-inch trunk diameter. Also to be removed is one of the three mature oaks, roughly 25 feet in height and 16 inches in trunk diameter. This tree is situated a bit east of the palms. Two other mature oak trees will remain. An existing monument sign will be relocated by the condemning agency. The acquisition will not result in the loss of any on-site parking spaces.

According to Duane Mathis, Forest Nursery, a mature oak tree can cost between $8,000 and $10,000. Shipping and delivery costs are 20% of tree costs. Randy Kendall, Bob’s Crane Service reports the cost of the crane to plant the trees would be approximately $3,250.

The following table provides a summary of the mature tree replacement cost budget on the Patel Trust, et al., property:

Mature Tree Replacement Cost
Palms: 150’ x $60/linear foot = $ 9,000
165’ x $60/linear foot = $ 9,900
Oak 8,000 to 10,000
Subtotal Trees $17,000 to $19,900
Shipping (20%) 3,400 to 3,980
Planting/Crane Operation 3,250 to 3,250
Total Range $23,650 to $27,130
Rounded $24,000 to $27,000
Conclusion $26,000

ACQUISITION DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 10
TCE Acquisitions
There are two types of temporary easements that will encumber various areas of the Patel Trust, et al., property. This includes one Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) that will be required for access, staging, and construction-support purposes. This will encumber a level, landscaped area and a portion of the parking lot. An additional temporary easement is identified as a Temporary Non-Exclusive Access Easement (TNEAE), which includes portions of the parking lot and driveway for shared-use access purposes. These temporary easements will be in place for 18 months. The temporary easements affecting the Patel Trust, et al., property are summarized in the following table:

TCE Summary
Area Required For Affected Land Use
Area Affected
(SF)
Use Period
(Months)
TCE Construction support Landscaped area and driveway 763 18 TNEAE Access Driveway 1,614 18
Total 2,377

HIGHEST & BEST USE
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 11
The Highest and Best Use of a property is the use that is legally permissible, physically possible, and financially feasible which results in the highest value. An opinion of the highest and best use results from consideration of the criteria noted above under the market conditions or likely conditions as of the effective date of value.

Determination of highest and best use results from the judgment and analytical skills of the appraiser. It represents an opinion, not a fact. In appraisal practice, the concept of highest and best use represents the premise upon which value is based.

ANALYSIS OF HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS IF VACANT
The primary determinants of the highest and best use of the property as if vacant are the issues of (1) Legal permissibility, (2) Physical possibility, (3) Financial feasibility, and (4) Maximum productivity.

Legally Permissible
The subject zoning is Neighborhood Commercial (C-N). The C-N zone is intended to accommodate the establishment and operation of small-scale, pedestrian-oriented, and low-impact retail sales and personal services businesses primarily for the convenience of people in surrounding residential areas, to meet the frequent shopping needs of people living nearby. The subject site controls the general nature of permissible uses but is appropriate for the location and physical elements of the subject property, providing for a consistency of use with the general neighborhood. The location of the subject property is appropriate for the uses allowed, as noted previously, and a change in zoning is unlikely.

Physically Possible
The physical attributes allow for a number of potential uses. Elements such as size, shape, availability of utilities, known hazards (flood, environmental, etc.) and other potential influences have been considered.

There are no items of a physical nature that would materially limit appropriate and likely development.

Financially Feasible
The probable use of the site for its existing use as a Free Standing Retail conforms to the pattern of land use in the market area although there have not been new developments in this area recently.

Maximally Productive
Among the financially feasible uses, the use that results in the highest value (the maximally productive use) is the highest and best use. Considering these factors, the maximally productive use as though vacant is for development to uses allowed by zoning.

Conclusion of Highest and Best Use As If Vacant
The conclusion of the highest and best use as if vacant is for development allowed by zoning, upon demand.

IDENTIFICATION OF ASSIGNMENT (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 12

ANALYSIS OF HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS IMPROVED
In determining the highest and best use of the property as improved, the focus is on three possibilities for the property: (1) continuation of the existing use, (2) modification of the existing use, or (3) demolition and redevelopment of the land.

Retaining the improvements as they exist meets the tests for physical possibility, legal permissibility and financial feasibility. The improvements are in average condition and any alternative use of the existing improvements is unlikely to be economically feasible. The market value of the property as improved exceeds the combination of vacant site value plus cost of demolition of the improvements. Therefore, demolition and redevelopment of the site is not maximally productive.

Conclusion of Highest & Best Use As Improved
The highest and best use of the subject property, As Improved, is Continue use as a retail center..

Most Probable Buyer
Based on the type of property and the highest and best use, it is our opinion that the most probable buyer for the subject would be an investor.

VALUATION
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 13

VALUATION METHODS
Based on the agreed upon scope with the client, the subject’s specific characteristics and the interest appraised, this appraisal developed Land Sales Comparison Approach. The values presented represent the Fair Market Value (Fee Simple Estate).

SITE VALUATION – LARGER PARCEL
This section values the subject site by comparing it with substitute land sales or listings within the local market area or in competitive areas throughout the region. Land value is influenced by a number of factors; most notably development and use potential. These factors, as well as others, are factored in the following analysis.

The most relevant unit of comparison for competing land is the $/SF.

Adjustments to the comparable sales were considered and made when warranted for expenditures after purchase, property rights transferred, conditions of sale, financing terms, and market conditions. Based on research and interpretation of value trends, the analysis applies an upward market conditions adjustment of 3% annually.

The following Land Sales Comparison Table, location map summarize the sales data. Then the sales are adjusted and the site value is concluded.

LAND SALES SUMMARY
DATE OF SALE LOCATION MUNICIPALITY SF UNADJUSTED SALE PRICE $/SF 1 6/11/2019 1185 Monterey St. San Luis Obispo 12,196 $2,200,000 $180 2 8/13/2020 1121 Montalban St. San Luis Obispo 15,000 $1,850,000 $123 3 12/30/2020 1480 Monterey St. San Luis Obispo 9,180 $850,000 $93 4 5/24/2021 666 Upham St. San Luis Obispo 14,500 $900,000 $62 5 8/25/2022 564 Higuera St. San Luis Obispo 15,766 $2,525,000 $160 6 5/12/2023 424 Higuera St. San Luis Obispo 7,500 $475,000 $63 7 6/7/2024 666 Upham St. San Luis Obispo 14,500 $1,551,000 $107 8 Pending 973 Higuera St. San Luis Obispo 5,227 $1,295,000 $248

VALUATION
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 14 Sales are adjusted for market conditions as well as based on various characteristics as compared with the subject, summarized as follows:

VALUATION
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 15

COMPARABLE LABEL ADDRESS MILES FROM SUBJECT
COMPARABLE 1 1 1185 Monterey St., San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 0.5 COMPARABLE 2 2 1121 Montalban St., San Luis Obispo, CA, 93405 0.3 COMPARABLE 3 3 1480 Monterey St., San Luis Obispo, CA, 93405 0.4 COMPARABLE 4 4 666 Upham St., San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 1.3 COMPARABLE 5 5 564 Higuera St., San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 1.0 COMPARABLE 6 6 424 Higuera St., San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 1.2 COMPARABLE 7 7 666 Upham St., San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 1.3 COMPARABLE 8 8 973 Higuera St., San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 0.7 7

VALUATION (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 16
LAND VALUE CONCLUSIONS – LARGER PARCEL
The comparable land sales indicate an overall unadjusted value range from $62/SF to $248/SF, and average of $130/SF. After adjustments, the comparables indicate a narrower range for the subject site between $50/SF and $148/SF with an average of $99/SF.

Based on the subject’s overall locational and physical features, a unit value conclusion of $105/SF is supported.

The following table summarizes the comparable land sales analysis and applies the unit value conclusion to the site area to provide an indication of the as-vacant land value..

LAND SALES COMPARISON APPROACH CONCLUSION (SF)

TRANSACTION ADJUSTMENT NET GROSS
PRICE TRANSACTIONAL¹ ADJUSTED PROPERTY² FINAL ADJ ADJ
1 $180 18% $212 (30%) $148 (18%) 48%
2 $123 14% $140 (10%) $126 2% 24%
3 $93 19% $111 (10%) $100 8% 29%
4 $62 11% $69 10% $76 23% 42%
5 $160 (68%) $52 5% $55 (66%) 128%
6 $63 6% $67 (25%) $50 (21%) 31%
7 $107 3% $110 10% $121 13% 43%
8 $248 0% $248 (55%) $112 (55%) 65%
HIGH $248 19% $248 10% $148 23% 128%
AVG $130 0% $126 (13%) $99 (14%) 51%
MED $115 9% $111 (10%) $106 (8%) 42%
LOW $62 (68%) $52 (55%) $50 (66%) 24%
SUBJECT SF $/SF
Usable Land 22,216 x $105 =
INDICATED VALUE (ROUNDED TO NEAREST $10,000) $105
¹Cumulative ²Additive
$2,332,680
VALUE
$2,330,000

VALUE OF FEE ACQUISITION
As discussed, the acquisition area includes some improvements, to include a paved driveway, parking lot, landscaped area and trees. The value of these improvements based on the Marshall and Swift Valuation Guide, as well as the value of the mature trees as already discussed in the Acquisition Description section, is summarized as follows:

QTY. PRICE/UNIT TOTAL
Landscaped & asphalt area 2,182 SF $8.00 $17,456
Irrigation system 2,000 SF $1.69 $3,380
Mature Trees 1 $26,000 $26,000
Total Value of Site Improvements $46,836

VALUATION (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 17
Adding the value of the improvements within the acquisition area to the underlying fee value results in total value of the acquisition as follows:

QTY. PRICE/UNIT TOTAL
Land value of acquisition area 2,182 $105.00 $229,110
Value of Site Improvements $46,836
Total Value of Easement Acquisition $275,946

SEVERANCE DAMAGE
No Severance Damage could be identified. The utility and function of the site in the After condition remains relatively unchanged from the Before condition.

PROJECT BENEFITS
Under California Law, Project Benefits may be used to offset Severance Damage. However, no project benefits are evident.

COST TO CURE
As discussed, the concrete drive approaches along the north property line will be impacted. This appraisal assumes that the condemning agency will reconstruct the driveway approaches as part of the roadway improvements. Further, the v-gutter drainage system adjoining the acquisition area will also be impacted and it is assumed it will be repaired by the condemning agency. No other cost to cure items were identified.

VALUE OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION & ACCESS EASEMENTS
In order to determine the value of the Temporary Construction and Access Easements, the value of the land rent during the length of time the temporary easements will be in effect is utilized. In this regard, investors typically require an annual 8% to 10% return on the underlying land value with a 10% return considered reasonable. This results in the following market value of the easements:

Temporary Construction Easement Value
Underlying Land Value Per SF $105.00
Rent at 10% x 10%
Rent Per SF. $10.50
Area of TCE x 763
Annual Rent for TCE $8,011
Length of Term (years) x 1.5
Total TCE Value $12,016

VALUATION (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 18
Temporary Non-Exclusive Access Easement Value
Underlying Land Value Per SF $105.00
Rent at 10% x 10%
Rent Per SF. $10.50
Area of TCE x 1,614
Annual Rent for TCE $16,947
Length of Term (years) x 1.5
Total TCE Value $25,420

TOTAL FAIR MARKET VALUE
Based on the values discussed above, this results in total fair market value as follows:

Component As-Is
Value Type Fair Market Value
Property Rights Appraised Fee Simple
Effective Date of Value April 17, 2025
Value Conclusions
Value of Fee Acquisition $275,946
Damages Less Benefits Zero
Cost to Cure Zero
Value of TCE $12,016
Value of TNEAE $25,420
Total Fair Market Value $313,382
Round To $313,000

ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 19
This appraisal is subject to the following general assumptions and limiting conditions:

1. The legal description – if furnished to us – is assumed to be correct.

2. No responsibility is assumed for legal matters, questions of survey or title, soil or subsoil conditions, engineering, availability or capacity of utilities, or other similar technical matters. The appraisal does not constitute a survey of the property appraised. All existing liens and encumbrances have been disregarded and the property is appraised as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management unless otherwise noted.

3. Unless otherwise noted, the appraisal will value the property as though free of contamination. Central California Appraisals will conduct no hazardous materials or contamination inspection of any kind. It is recommended that the client hire an expert if the presence of hazardous materials or contamination poses any concern.

4. The stamps and/or consideration placed on deeds used to indicate sales are in correct relationship to the actual dollar amount of the transaction.

5. Unless otherwise noted, it is assumed there are no encroachments, zoning violations or restrictions existing in the subject property.

6. The appraiser is not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal, unless previous arrangements have been made.

7. Unless expressly specified in the engagement letter, the fee for this appraisal does not include the attendance or giving of testimony by Appraiser at any court, regulatory or other proceedings, or any conferences or other work in preparation for such proceeding. If any partner or employee of Central California Appraisals is asked or required to appear and/or testify at any deposition, trial, or other proceeding about the preparation, conclusions or any other aspect of this assignment, client shall compensate Appraiser for the time spent by the partner or employee in appearing and/or testifying and in preparing to testify according to the Appraiser’s then current hourly rate plus reimbursement of expenses.

8. The values for land and/or improvements, as contained in this report, are constituent parts of the total value reported and neither is (or are) to be used in making a summation appraisal of a combination of values created by another appraiser. Either is invalidated if so used.

9. The dates of value to which the opinions expressed in this report apply are set forth in this report. We assume no responsibility for economic or physical factors occurring at some point at a later date, which may affect the opinions stated herein. The forecasts, projections, or operating estimates contained herein are based on current market conditions and anticipated short-term supply and demand factors and are subject to change with future conditions. Appraiser is not responsible for determining whether the date of value requested by Client is appropriate for Client’s intended use.

10. The sketches, maps, plats and exhibits in this report are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property.

The appraiser has made no survey of the property and assumed no responsibility in connection with such matters.

11. The information, estimates and opinions, which were obtained from sources outside of this office, are considered reliable. However, no liability for them can be assumed by the appraiser.

12. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. Neither all, nor any part of the content of the report, or copy thereof (including conclusions as to property value, the identity of the appraisers, professional designations, reference to any professional appraisal organization or the firm with which the appraisers are connected), shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without prior written consent and approval.

13. No claim is intended to be expressed for matters of expertise that would require specialized investigation or knowledge beyond that ordinarily employed by real estate appraisers. We claim no expertise in areas such as, but not limited to, legal, survey, structural, environmental, pest control, mechanical, etc.

ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 20

14. This appraisal was prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the client for the function outlined herein. Any party who is not the client or intended user identified in the appraisal or engagement letter is not entitled to rely upon the contents of the appraisal without express written consent of Central California Appraisals and Client. The Client shall not include partners, affiliates, or relatives of the party addressed herein. The appraiser assumes no obligation, liability or accountability to any third party.

15. Distribution of this report is at the sole discretion of the client, but third-parties not listed as an intended user on the face of the appraisal or the engagement letter may not rely upon the contents of the appraisal. In no event shall client give a third-party a partial copy of the appraisal report. We will make no distribution of the report without the specific direction of the client.

16. This appraisal shall be used only for the function outlined herein, unless expressly authorized by Central California Appraisals.

17. This appraisal shall be considered in its entirety. No part thereof shall be used separately or out of context.

18. Unless otherwise noted in the body of this report, this appraisal assumes that the subject property does not fall within the areas where mandatory flood insurance is effective. Unless otherwise noted, we have not completed nor have we contracted to have completed an investigation to identify and/or quantify the presence of non-tidal wetland conditions on the subject property. Because the appraiser is not a surveyor, he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied, regarding this determination.

19. The flood maps are not site specific. We are not qualified to confirm the location of the subject property in relation to flood hazard areas based on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps or other surveying techniques. It is recommended that the client obtain a confirmation of the subject property’s flood zone classification from a licensed surveyor.

20. If the appraisal is for mortgage loan purposes 1) we assume satisfactory completion of improvements if construction is not complete, 2) no consideration has been given for rent loss during rent-up unless noted in the body of this report, and 3) occupancy at levels consistent with our “Income and Expense Projection” are anticipated.

21. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures which would render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for engineering which may be required to discover them.

22. Our inspection included an observation of the land and improvements thereon only. It was not possible to observe conditions beneath the soil or hidden structural components within the improvements. We inspected the buildings involved, and reported damage (if any) by termites, dry rot, wet rot, or other infestations as a matter of information, and no guarantee of the amount or degree of damage (if any) is implied. Condition of heating, cooling, ventilation, electrical and plumbing equipment is considered to be commensurate with the condition of the balance of the improvements unless otherwise stated. Should the client have concerns in these areas, it is the client’s responsibility to order the appropriate inspections. The appraiser does not have the skill or expertise to make such inspections and assumes no responsibility for these items.

23. This appraisal does not guarantee compliance with building code and life safety code requirements of the local jurisdiction. It is assumed that all required licenses, consents, certificates of occupancy or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state or national governmental or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value conclusion contained in this report is based unless specifically stated to the contrary.

24. When possible, we have relied upon building measurements provided by the client, owner, or associated agents of these parties. In the absence of a detailed rent roll, reliable public records, or “as-built” plans provided to us, we have relied upon our own measurements of the subject improvements. We follow typical appraisal industry methods; however, we recognize that some factors may limit our ability to obtain accurate measurements including, but not limited to, property access on the day of inspection, basements, fenced/gated areas, grade elevations, greenery/shrubbery, uneven surfaces, multiple story structures, obtuse or acute wall angles, immobile obstructions, etc. Professional building area measurements of the quality, level of detail, or accuracy of professional measurement services are beyond the scope of this appraisal assignment.

ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 21

25. We have attempted to reconcile sources of data discovered or provided during the appraisal process, including assessment department data. Ultimately, the measurements that are deemed by us to be the most accurate and/or reliable are used within this report. While the measurements and any accompanying sketches are considered to be reasonably accurate and reliable, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. Should the client desire more precise measurement, they are urged to retain the measurement services of a qualified professional (space planner, architect or building engineer) as an alternative source. If this alternative measurement source reflects or reveals substantial differences with the measurements used within the report, upon request of the client, the appraiser will submit a revised report for an additional fee.

26. In the absence of being provided with a detailed land survey, we have used assessment department data to ascertain the physical dimensions and acreage of the property. Should a survey prove this information to be inaccurate, upon request of the client, the appraiser will submit a revised report for an additional fee.

27. If only preliminary plans and specifications were available for use in the preparation of this appraisal, and a review of the final plans and specifications reveals substantial differences upon request of the client the appraiser will submit a revised report for an additional fee.

28. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the value conclusion is predicated on the assumption that the property is free of contamination, environmental impairment or hazardous materials. Unless otherwise stated, the existence of hazardous material was not observed by the appraiser and the appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required for discovery. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired.

29. The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) became effective January 26, 1992. We have not made a specific compliance survey of the property to determine if it is in conformity with the various requirements of the ADA.

It is possible that a compliance survey of the property, together with an analysis of the requirements of the ADA, could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this could have a negative effect on the value of the property. Since we have no direct evidence relating to this issue, we did not consider possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA in developing an opinion of value.

30. This appraisal applies to the land and building improvements only. The value of trade fixtures, furnishings, and other equipment, or subsurface rights (minerals, gas, and oil) were not considered in this appraisal unless specifically stated to the contrary.

31. No changes in any federal, state or local laws, regulations or codes (including, without limitation, the Internal Revenue Code) are anticipated, unless specifically stated to the contrary.

32. Any income and expense estimates contained in the appraisal report are used only for the purpose of estimating value and do not constitute prediction of future operating results. Furthermore, it is inevitable that some assumptions will not materialize and that unanticipated events may occur that will likely affect actual performance.

33. Any estimate of insurable value, if included within the scope of work and presented herein, is based upon figures developed consistent with industry practices. However, actual local and regional construction costs may vary significantly from our estimate and individual insurance policies and underwriters have varied specifications, exclusions, and non-insurable items. As such, we strongly recommend that the Client obtain estimates from professionals experienced in establishing insurance coverage. This analysis should not be relied upon to determine insurance coverage and we make no warranties regarding the accuracy of this estimate.

34. The data gathered in the course of this assignment (except data furnished by the Client) shall remain the property of the Appraiser. The appraiser will not violate the confidential nature of the appraiser-client relationship by improperly disclosing any confidential information furnished to the appraiser. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Appraiser is authorized by the client to disclose all or any portion of the appraisal and related appraisal data to appropriate representatives of the Appraisal Institute if such disclosure is required to enable the appraiser to comply with the Bylaws and Regulations of such Institute now or hereafter in effect.

ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 22

35. You and Central California Appraisals both agree that any dispute over matters in excess of $5,000 will be submitted for resolution by arbitration. This includes fee disputes and any claim of malpractice. The arbitrator shall be mutually selected. If Central California Appraisals and the client cannot agree on the arbitrator, the presiding head of the Local County Mediation & Arbitration panel shall select the arbitrator. Such arbitration shall be binding and final. In agreeing to arbitration, we both acknowledge that, by agreeing to binding arbitration, each of us is giving up the right to have the dispute decided in a court of law before a judge or jury.

In the event that the client, or any other party, makes a claim against Central California Appraisals or any of its employees in connections with or in any way relating to this assignment, the maximum damages recoverable by such claimant shall be the amount actually received by Central California Appraisals for this assignment, and under no circumstances shall any claim for consequential damages be made.

36. Acceptance and/or use of this appraisal report constitutes acceptance of the foregoing general assumptions and limiting conditions.

CERTIFICATION
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 23
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions of the signer are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

The signer of this report has no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.
Rachel Unger has performed services, specifically as an appraiser, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment.
The signer is not biased with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment.

The engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.

The compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.

The reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as set forth by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation.
Rachel Unger did not inspect the property that is the subject of this report.
Cameron Born provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the appraisers signing the certification.

Rachel Unger
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California License No. AG044296
Expiration Date 6/6/2026

CERTIFICATION (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 24
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions of the signer are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

The signer of this report has no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.
Michael Burger MAI, R/W-AC has performed services, specifically as an appraiser, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment.

The signer is not biased with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment.

The engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.

The compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.

The reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as set forth by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation.
Michael Burger MAI, R/W-AC inspected the property that is the subject of this report for a prior appraisal but not for the current assignment.

Cameron Born provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the appraisers signing the certification.

The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.

As of the date of this report, Michael Burger MAI, R/W-AC has completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute.

Michael Burger MAI, R/W-AC
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California License No. AG003817
Expiration Date 5/17/2026

ADDENDA
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 25

ADDENDA

ENGAGEMENT LETTER

Corporate and San Luis Obispo County Office 3183 Duncan Road, Suite E, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 773-1459 Ventura County Office 260 Maple Court, Suite 277, Ventura, CA 93003 (805) 658-8844 Central Valley Office 264 Fallbrook, Suite 106, Fresno, CA 93711 (559) 412-8710 HJA / Appraiser Notice to Proceed-2025
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH ☒APPRAISAL OR ☐APPRAISAL REVIEW TO: Luke Schwartz, Client Mike Burger, Appraiser, MAI
[email protected] [email protected]
DATE: April 11, 2025
FROM: Stephen Myrick [email protected]
Hamner, Jewell & Associates
CLIENT: City of San Luis Obispo
PROJECT: California and Taft Roundabout Project
NUMBER OF PARCELS [1] County of San Luis Obispo
• APN 001-043-027 (Patel)
RIGHTS TO BE ACQUIRED: ☒ Fee
☒ TCE Term: 18 months (1.5 years)

PROPOSAL AMOUNT AND
DELIVERY SCHEDULE:
(Total Fee)
By 4 weeks if engaged prior to 4/14/25 and 8 weeks if
engaged after 4/14/25
Per Appraiser’s proposal dated April 9, 2025:

Fee ☐ IS ☒ IS NOT within Contract Budget (extra service) INFORMATION ATTACHED: ☒ Title Report(s) ☒ Project Plans/Maps ☒ Legal Descriptions, Plats and Area Calculations
☒ Sample Deed(s) ☒ Copies of NODAs
☒Prior Appraisal
FEDERAL MONEY?
CALTRANS OVERSIGHT?
☐ Yes ☐ No
☒ Yes ☐ No
COMMENTS: Date of value (DOV) to be within two (2) weeks from date of submittal of appraisal report(s) to HJA.

IF QUESTIONS, CALL: Stephen Myrick at (805) 773-1459
By accepting this assignment, Appraiser agrees to all provisions of Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein.

Client hereby requests and authorizes appraiser to proceed with this assignment and agrees to pay the fee for services as noted herein, 50% within 30 days of this Notice to Proceed and the balance promptly following delivery of Appraisal Report. If as noted above, this request constitutes an extra service, Client hereby acknowledges, authorizes, and agrees to provide the noticed fee payment for such additional services, and if necessary, to provide an associated contract amendment to add these costs. Please review RW Maps and Legal Descriptions to confirm they represent what is to be appraised. For Easement Rights, review and approve Easement Deed(s) and identify TCE durations. Changes after this authorization date may prompt additional change fees.

Client Signature: __________________________________________ Date: _______________ Appraiser’s Acceptance: ____________________________________ Date:__________________

HAMNER, JEWELL & ASSOCIATES
Government Real Estate Services
Right of Way Acquisition ~ Relocation Assistance ~ Real Property Consulting Offices in Ventura, San Luis Obispo and Fresno Counties Writer’s Telephone Number: (805) 773-1459
Writer’s email address: [email protected]
4/11/2025 4/11/2025

ADDENDA (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 26

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
Looking north along California Blvd. Looking south along California Blvd.

View of northeast corner of site and acquisition area Looking east along Taft St. and north property line View of impacted landscaped area and parking View of impacted landscaped area and parking

ADDENDA (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 27
Front view of subject retail center View of westerly driveway Pedestrian sidewalk access

ADDENDA (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 28

ACQUISITION MAP

YIELD YIELD

YIELD YIELD YIELD CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD & TAFT STREET ROUNDABOUT CITY SPECIFICATION NO. 11/17/17
DATE: PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE:
of
SHEET NO. 50
DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JWW
APPROVED BY:JWW
SCALE:

PLAN FILE NO. / LOCATION
O:\PRJ\2251\2251EX004.dwg 10/27/2017 3:59:13 PM
91503
2251EX004.dwg 1
1"=10' RIGHT OF WAY IMPACTS APN 001-043-027
2251EX004.DWG
SMH
SMH

ADDENDA (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 29

ASSESSOR MAP

ADDENDA (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 30

ZONE MAP

ADDENDA (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 31

FLOOD MAP

ADDENDA (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 32

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

ADDENDA (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 33

REGIONAL MAP

ADDENDA (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 34

LOCAL MAP

ADDENDA (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 35

EASEMENT GRANT DEED

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ APN: 001-043-027 City of SLO/CA & Taft Roundabout/Patel/Grant Deed 2024-09-18

Recording requested by:

Hamner, Jewell & Associates
Government Real Estate Services
When recorded, return to:

City of San Luis Obispo
Department of Public Works
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
______________________________________________________________________________ Exempt from the $75 Building and Jobs Act Fee per Gov’t Code §27388.1(2)(D) Public Agency No Fee pursuant to Gov. Code sec. 6103
No Documentary Transfer Tax per R&T Code sec. 11922
No Recording Fee per Gov. Code sec. 27383
APN: 001-043-027

GRANT DEED
(To the City of San Luis Obispo)
For a valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Kirit Chunibhai Patel and Gita Kirit Patel, Trustees of the Kirit Chunibhai Patel and Gita Kirit Patel 1992 Revocable Living Trust (hereinafter collectively called “Grantor”), hereby grants to the
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (“City”),
the following described interests in real property located in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California:

In Fee:

All that certain property described and depicted in Exhibits “A” and “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein;
Together with:

Temporary Construction Easement – 6-month duration:

A temporary easement for construction (“Temporary Construction Easement”) to facilitate the construction of adjacent public street improvements, including the right to pile earth thereon, store materials, supplies and equipment thereon, and utilize said Temporary Construction Easement for all other related activities and purposes specifically in conjunction with the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ APN: 001-043-027 City of SLO/CA & Taft Roundabout/Patel/Grant Deed 2024-09-18

construction of the adjacent public street improvements. This Temporary Construction Easement shall be in, on, over, under, along, and across that certain property described and depicted in Exhibits “C” and “D” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said Temporary Construction Easement shall commence fifteen (15) days after issuance by City of a Notice of Commencement of Construction to Grantor, which shall be issued to Grantor by U.S. Mail, and shall automatically terminate upon completion of City’s construction or six (6) months after the commencement of construction, whichever occurs first.

Together with:

Temporary Non-Exclusive Access Easement – 2-month duration:

A temporary non-exclusive access easement for ingress and egress (Temporary Non-Exclusive Access Easement”) and for completing driveway conforms in conjunction with the construction of adjacent public street improvements. This Temporary Non-Exclusive Easement shall be in, on, over, along, through, and across that certain property described and depicted in Exhibits “E” and “F” attached hereto and incorporated herein. This Temporary Non-Exclusive Easement may be used intermittently for a period not to exceed 2 months within the 6-month Temporary Construction Easement period described in this document.

Easement Extension Provisions:

City shall have the right to extend the Temporary Easement terms in three (3) additional one (1) month increments if City determines that additional time beyond the initial period is necessary for construction completion. In such case, City shall have the unilateral right to extend the Temporary Construction Easements through construction completion and agrees to compensate Grantor ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY-ONE DOLLARS ($1,981) for each 1- month extension term exercised. Payment for any such extensions shall be paid by City to Grantor concurrent with City’s written notice to Grantor of City’s intent to exercise such extension provisions. City shall further evaluate at the time of any extensions whether any increase in value of the temporary rights has occurred since the date this deed was executed by Grantor and if so, shall provide any additional payment based upon the determined just compensation at the time of extension.

Upon termination, the Temporary Construction Easements and Temporary Non-Exclusive Access Easement areas will be generally restored by City to a comparable or better condition as that which existed prior to City’s access and use.

The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of the City, its successors and assigns, and shall bind the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the respective parties hereto, and all covenants shall apply to and run with the above-described property. (Signature Page to Follow)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ APN: 001-043-027 City of SLO/CA & Taft Roundabout/Patel/Grant Deed 2024-09-18

GRANTOR:

Kirit Chunibhai Patel and Gita Kirit Patel, Trustees of the Kirit Chunibhai Patel and Gita Kirit Patel 1992 Revocable Living Trust By: ___________________________________
Kirit Chunibhai Patel
Trustee
By: ___________________________________
Gita Kirit Patel
Trustee

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ APN: 001-043-027 City of SLO/CA & Taft Roundabout/Patel/Grant Deed 2024-09-18

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California
County of ____________________
On ______________________ before me, _______________________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared Kirit Chunibhai Patel, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature __________________________ (Seal)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California
County of ____________________
On ______________________ before me, _______________________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared and Gita Kirit Patel, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature __________________________ (Seal)

APN: 001-043-027 City of SLO/CA & Taft Roundabout/Patel/Grant Deed

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
This is to certify that the City of San Luis Obispo, grantee herein, hereby accepts for public purposes the real property, or interests therein, described in the within Grant Deed from Kirit Chunibhai Patel and Gita Kirit Patel, Trustees of the Kirit Chunibhai Patel and Gita Kirit Patel 1992 Revocable Living Trust, and consents to the recordation thereof.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this ______ day of _______________, 20___.

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
a municipal corporation and charter city
____________________________________
Erica A. Stewart, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Teresa Purrington, City Clerk

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO )
On __________________________, before me, Megan Wilbanks, Notary Public, personally appeared Erica A. Stewart, Mayor, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
______________________________
Megan Wilbanks, Notary Public (Official Notary Seal)
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

ADDENDA (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 36

SALE DATA SHEETS

Former Repair Facility
Comparable 1
Sale Information
Buyer Montorosa, LLC
Seller SLOQ Properties, LLC
Sale Date 6/11/2019
Transaction Status Recorded
Listing Price $2,495,000
Sale Price $2,200,000
Sale Price /SF $676.92 /SF GBA $676.92 /SF NRA
Adjusted Price $2,200,000
Adjusted Price /SF $676.92 /SF GBA $676.92 /SF NRA
Recording Number 19-22663
Rights Transferred Fee Simple
Conditions of Sale Typical
Property
Type Land
Gross Building Area (GBA) 3,250 SF
Net Rentable Area (NRA) 3,250 SF
Buildings 1 Floor(s)
Year Built 1946
Land Area 0.2800 Acres (12,196 SF)
Usable Land Area 0.2800 Acres (12,196 SF)
FAR 0.27
Zoning C-R
1185 Monterey St.

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
County
San Luis Obispo
APN
002-436-007
Confirmation
Name Todd Murphy
Date 12/11/2020
Remarks
The property is located at the southern corner of Monterey St. and Toro St. in central San Luis Obispo. The 3,250 retail building is older and set to be demolished. The property was reportedly purchased for development of a 44-unit hotel with additional space for commercial uses.

The 2019 transaction was under contract for about eight months then sold for $2,200,000 or $50,000 per unit.

Residential Land, Commercial Land
Comparable 2
Sale Information
Buyer Scrap XIX LLC
Seller Covelop Holdings LLC
Sale Date 8/13/2020
Transaction Status Closed
Sale Price $1,850,000
Adjusted Price $1,850,000
Recording Number 2020-068350
Rights Transferred Fee Simple
Conditions of Sale Typical
Property
Type Land
Land Area 0.3444 Acres (15,000 SF)
Usable Land Area 0.3444 Acres (15,000 SF)
Zoning C-T 1121 Montalban St.

San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
County
San Luis Obispo
APN
001-114-034 and -035
Confirmation
Name Pat Arnold
Company Covelop
Phone Number 805-781-3133
Affiliation Seller
Date 7/26/2024
Remarks
This property fronts the south side of Montalban St., one parcel east of Santa Rosa St. in central San Luis Obispo.

This property previously sold in 2018 for $750,000. Reportedly, at the time of the 2020 sale, the site was fully entitled with plans for a 16-unit apartment building. The selling broker, Chris Richardson, reports the site was essentially shovel ready and the buyer only needed to pull permits. Although no specific allocation was made by either party for the entitlements, Mr. Richardson estimates a value of approximately $55,000/unit for entitlements, or a total of $880,000, leaving $970,000 for the unentitled land value.

The seller reports that they purchased the raw land, obtained entitlements and then sold it. They decided not to develop it themselves because they were building another complex across town and got a solid price on this property.

Commercial Land
Comparable 3
Sale Information
Buyer The Housing Authority of City of San
Luis Obispo
Seller Paul Vanderheyden & Lucia M.

Cleveland
Sale Date 12/30/2020
Transaction Status Closed
Listing Price $975,000
Sale Price $850,000
Adjusted Price $850,000
Site Allocation $850,000 $92.59 /SF
Recording Number 2020-78518
Rights Transferred Fee Simple
Conditions of Sale See comments
Property
Type Land, Multi-Family
Land Area 0.2107 Acres (9,180 SF)
Usable Land Area 0.2107 Acres (9,180 SF)
Zoning C-R
1480 Monterey St.

San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
County
San Luis Obispo
APN
001-137-013
Confirmation
Name Preston Thomas
Company Colliers
Phone Number 805-544-3900
Affiliation Listing agent
Date 12/18/2022
Remarks
This vacant lot is irregular configuration with a total size of 9,180 square feet, located on the northeastern corner of the California Blvd./Monterey St.

Intersection. The corner parcel has 100 feet of frontage along Monterey Street and 76 feet along California Boulevard. This property is located in an ideal location for a commercial/retail property, being approximately 2 blocks (1,000 feet) from downtown San Luis Obispo, 3 blocks (1,000 feet) from San Luis Obispo High School, and 0.70 miles from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. This site was formerly a service station site that had been remediated prior to the sale.

It is zoned Retail Commercial (C-R).

Monterey St. is asphalt-paved with concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and street-lights. The location has very good visibility. Highway access is within easy reach. Monterey St. is a 60-foot-wide, two-way thoroughfare with two lanes of traffic. Unmetered street parking is available along the subject block.

California Blvd. is a main street with considerable traffic. It is 60 feet wide with portions that allow street parking, but not in the subject block.

This property is zoned Retail Commercial (C-R), which is the city's designation for areas that allow for a wide range of retail sales, business, personal and professional services, as well as recreation, entertainment, transient lodging, and permanent residences. This is in line with the General Plan and the trend in the neighborhood. Maximum density is 36 units per net acre, and maximum lot coverage is 100%.

This property does not feature structural improvements. Full utilities are available to the site.

This property was listed for sale in September 2019 for $975,000 before selling in December 2020 for $850,000.The buyer plans to use the property for development to low-income housing. The buyer also bought the adjoining parcel to the west, 1422 Monterey St. at the beginning of 2021. The property was originally in contract for $900,000, however, due to a potential issue with clearing up the title to the property, the sale price was discounted by $50,000.

Commercial Land
Comparable 4
Sale Information
Buyer Brittany Tricamo Separate Property
Trust
Seller Cash to conventional
Sale Date 5/24/2021
Transaction Status Closed
Sale Price $900,000
Adjusted Price $900,000
Recording Number 2021-47420
Rights Transferred Fee Simple
Conditions of Sale Typical
Property
Type Land
Land Area 0.3329 Acres (14,500 SF)
Usable Land Area 0.3329 Acres (14,500 SF)
Zoning C-N
666 Upham St.

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
County
San Luis Obispo
APN
003-641-010
Confirmation
Name Hal Sweasey
Company Re/MAX Del Oro
Phone Number 805-781-8101
Affiliation Listing broker
Date 7/29/2024
Remarks
The property is located one parcel east of the northwestern corner of Upham St. and High St., in southern San Luis Obispo. The site was previously developed to an industrial building which was demolished.

This property was listed for sale in October 2020 at $1,349,000 and was later reduced to $989,000 in May 2021. At the time of sale the seller had renderings drawn for a mixed use project. The plans were under permit review by the City.

The broker reports that there were no entitlements at the time of sale, just plans and elevations. Since this 2021 sale, the property has sold again in June 2024 for $1,551,000. There was no listing information found for this sale and the listing agent for the 2021 sale did not have any details on the most current sale.

Commercial Land
Comparable 5
Sale Information
Buyer SLO Management, LLC
Seller GOM Properties LLC
Sale Date 8/25/2022
Transaction Status Closed
Listing Price $3,250,000
Sale Price $2,525,000
Adjusted Price $725,000
Recording Number 2022-34628
Rights Transferred Fee Simple
Conditions of Sale Typical
Property
Type Land
Land Area 0.5100 Acres (22,216 SF)
Usable Land Area 0.3619 Acres (15,766 SF)
Zoning C-D
564 Higuera St.

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
County
San Luis Obispo
APN
002-402-048
Confirmation
Name Chris Richardson
Company Richardson Properties
Phone Number 805-441-4618
Affiliation Listing Agent
Date 2/10/2022
Remarks
This site fronts the north side of Higuera St. in San Luis Obispo, CA. A portion of the site is located in the San Luis Obispo Creek easement area.

Therefore an approximate 6,450+/- SF of the site is unusable resulting in a usable site area of 15,766+/- SF.

The property was listed at $3,250,000. The sale was expected to close in late July or early August at $2.6-2.7 million. There was a price concession for parking in-lieu fees owed to the city. The property sold on August 29, 2022 for $2,525,000. The site was entitled for a 36-unit apartment building. The sale price equates to $70,139 per unit or $160 per usable SF.

The listing agent could not provide an estimate of the value of the entitlements. However, market participants indicate entitlements can add between $40,000 and $70,000/unit depending on location. Therefore, value of the entitlements is estimated at $50,000/unit, or $1,800,000, leaving $725,000 to the underlying land value, or $32.63/SF.

Commercial Land
Comparable 6
Sale Information
Buyer Gregory F. & Dorothy S. Collins,
Christopher Collins
Seller Loh Revocable Trust
Sale Date 5/12/2023
Transaction Status Closed
Sale Price $475,000
Adjusted Price $475,000
Recording Number 2023-13727
Rights Transferred Fee Simple
Conditions of Sale Typical
Property
Type Land
Land Area 0.2124 Acres (9,250 SF)
Usable Land Area 0.1722 Acres (7,500 SF)
Zoning C-R
Zoning Jurisdiction City of San Luis Obispo
424 Higuera St.

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
County
San Luis Obispo
APN
002-511-022
Confirmation
Name Erik Berg-Johansen (MLS, public record)
Company Richardson Sotheby's
Phone Number 805-538-1828
Affiliation listing agent
Date 8/29/2024
Remarks
This property fronts the west side of S. Higuera St. in San Luis Obispo, CA. San Luis Obispo Creek is adjacent to the west of the property and the site is level with the street. A bridge crossing the creek is parallel to the site at the south property line.

This property was listed for sale in February 2023 at $499,000. The MLS listing states nothing about entitlements or approvals at the time of listing. The rear 15' of the parcel is located within San Luis Obispo Creek and there is a 20' setback for development. The site contains 9,250 SF gross. The broker reports the sale was based on a usable site area of 7,500 SF. The buyer reportedly purchased the site for development to a mixed use residential/commercial building.

Commercial Land
Comparable 7
Sale Information
Buyer Demott Family Revocable Trust
Seller Brittany Tricamo Separate Property
Trust
Sale Date 6/7/2024
Transaction Status Closed
Sale Price $1,551,000
Adjusted Price $1,551,000
Recording Number 2024-15728
Rights Transferred Fee Simple
Conditions of Sale Typical
Property
Type Land
Land Area 0.3329 Acres (14,500 SF)
Usable Land Area 0.3329 Acres (14,500 SF)
Zoning C-N
666 Upham St.

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
County
San Luis Obispo
APN
003-641-010
Confirmation
Name Hal Sweasey
Company Re/MAX Del Oro
Phone Number 805-781-8101
Affiliation Listing broker
Date 7/29/2024
Remarks
The property is located one parcel east of the northwestern corner of Upham St. and High St., in southern San Luis Obispo. The site was previously developed to an industrial building which was demolished.

This property sold in June 2024 for $1,551,000. It previously sold about three years prior in July 2021 for $900,000. It was listed on the open market for the 2021. However, the 2024 sale appears to be off market as no marketing material was located. The listing agent for the 2021 sale doesn't know anything about it the 2024 sale. However, the property had plans for a mixed-use project which were in the permitting process with the City in 2021. It is unknown whether approvals/permits were obtained.

Commercial Land
Comparable 8
Sale Information
Seller JCC Monterey Morro LLC
Transaction Status Pending
Sale Price $1,295,000
Adjusted Price $1,295,000
Rights Transferred Fee Simple
Conditions of Sale Typical
Property
Type Land
Land Area 0.1200 Acres (5,227 SF)
Usable Land Area 0.1200 Acres (5,227 SF)
Zoning C-D
Zoning Jurisdiction City of San Luis Obispo
973 Higuera St.

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
County
San Luis Obispo
APN
002-432-012
Confirmation
Name Preston Thomas
Company Colliers
Phone Number 805-544-3900
Affiliation Broker
Date 4/24/2025
Remarks
The property includes a parking lot parcel. The buyer intends to develop the site to a mixed-use retail and residential building. The broker reports there were multiple offers and the property is selling at the full asking price.

ADDENDA (CONTINUED)
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA APPRAISALS 33-S25 37

QUALIFICATIONS

MICHAEL C. BURGER, MAI, R/W-AC
Central California Appraisals | Michael Burger &
Associates
[email protected]

CONTACT INFORMATION
4915 Calloway Drive, Suite 101
Bakersfield, CA 93312
Main: 661.587.1010 x101
Fax: 661.834-0748

STATE CERTIFICATIONS
California
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
License AG003817

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science
Agricultural Business Management
California Polytechnic State University
Michael C. Burger, MAI, R/W-AC
Senior Managing Director
Central California Appraisals

EXPERIENCE
Senior Managing Director
Central California Appraisals (2023 - Present)
Senior Managing Director
Valbridge Property Advisors | Central California (2013 - 2023) President and Chief Appraiser
Michael Burger and Associates (1997 - 2013)
Probate Referee
State of California (2011 - Present)
Area Development Officer and Zone Owner
Zone Data Systems | Zaio Inc. (2007- Present)
Residential and Commercial Appraiser
Bruce Beaudoin Real Estate Appraisers (1987 - 1997)
VP Finance
Alpha Gamma Rho – San Luis Obispo Chapter (1985 - 1986) Home Builder
John K Richardson – General Contractor (1985 - 1986)

PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
MAI – Appraisal Institute
Certified General Appraiser – State of California
FHA Approved – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development R/W-AC – International Right of Way Association
Probate Referee of Kern County, Mono County, Inyo County Department of Veterans Affairs Fee Appraiser ID#5003448

CIVIC, VOLUNTEER AND PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Director (2013-Present) Friend of Mercy Foundation
President (1998) Bakersfield Chapter Appraisal Institute Director (2003) Bakersfield East Rotary Club
President and Treasurer (Past) Executive Association of Kern County Class of 2000 Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce Leadership Club
Director (Past) Alpha Gamma Rho Alumni Association
Director and Secretary (Past) Bakersfield Active 20-30 Club Advisory Team City of Bakersfield Planning Department – Urban Decay Guest Lecturer: Bakersfield College, Cal Poly State University, Bakersfield Board of Realtors, Executive Associate of Kern County, Kern Kiwanis, Kern County Tax Payers Association, KERN Talk Radio, Watson Realty Corporation.

Pro Bono Appraisal and Consulting services have been provided to the Bakersfield Police Activities League, Bakersfield Museum of Art, American National Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, Salvation Army, and Kern Veteran’s Memorial Foundation.
www.appraisecc.com
Empowering Decisions,
Delivering Excellence

Michael C. Burger, MAI, R/W-AC
Senior Managing Director
Central California Appraisals

APPRAISAL SPECIALTIES
Subdivision Development, Mixed-use, Retail Centers, Professional/Medical Office, Hotel/Motel, Restaurant, Apartments, Industrial, Special Use & Going Concern, Hangars, High-rise and Low-rise Condominiums, Gas Stations, Golf Course, Auto Dealerships, Specialty Medical Facilities, Bowling Centers, Self-Storage, Single Family Residential, Right-of-Way/ Condemnation, Investment Analysis, Market Studies, Feasibility & High and Best Use Analysis, Business Valuations, Partial Interest Valuations.

REAL ESTATE COURSES
Rural Appraisal – Cal Poly University Real Estate Appraisal – Bakersfield College Real Estate Finance – Cal Poly University Advanced Real Estate Appraisal – Bakersfield College Principle of Real Estate – Cal Poly University Partial Interest Valuation

APPRAISAL INSTITUTE COURSES (19- TO 40-HOUR COURSES)
Real Estate Principles Standards of Professional Practice A & B Basic Valuation Procedures The Appraisers Complete Review Capitalization Theory & Technical A & B Condemnation Appraising Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation Separating Real & Personal Property from Intangible Report Writing & Valuation Analysis Business Assets

INTERNATIONAL RIGHT OF WAY COURSES (19- TO 40-HOUR COURSES) The Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions (#401) Business Relocation (#502) Eminent Domain Law (#803)

REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL SEMINARS
Understanding Limited Appraisals – General The FHA and the Appraisal Process Appraising Complex Residential Properties FHA Appraising for Valuation Professionals Non-Residential Demonstration Appraisal Reports Appraisal of Nonconforming Uses O.R.E.A. Federal & State Laws & Regulations Appraisal of Nursing Facilities Loss Prevention Program for Real Estate Technology and the Appraisal Process Real Estate Appraiser Expert Witness National USPAP Update Trends in the Hospitality Industry Appraising Manufactured Housing Valuation Considerations - Partial Acquisition Litigation Seminar Valuation of Detrimental Conditions Business Practices and Ethics A Review of 1 – 4 Residential Form Vineyard Valuation & Ag Symposium Internet Sources for the California Appraiser Uniform Appraisal Dataset (UAD)

City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: September 16, 2025
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
Prepared By: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director Rick Scott, Police Chief
VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEM 7b – RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT – ROUND AND

ROUND WITH TOWN AND GOWN
Staff received the following questions regarding the City’s response to the Grand Jury Report titled “Round and Round with Town and Gown.” The questions are listed below, with staff’s responses provided in italics.

In addition, the presentation for the meeting is included as an attachment to this agenda correspondence. The presentation contains three maps (slides 11–13) showing noise complaint data for the last three years. The Ad Hoc Council Committee reviewed this information during their discussions of the report findings and providing it in advance will allow the audience to reference it during the presentation if needed.

1. Since the changes implemented in 2010, how frequently have landlords been cited for repeated noise complaints? If an exact number is not readily available, a ballpark figure or general sense of how often this tool has been used would be helpful.

All landlords receive a written warning after the first noise violation. Landlords are then eligible to receive a citation for noise if it occurs more than 14 days after the written warning was issued. Since the changes were implemented in 2010, there have been 1,542 citations issued to landlords as a result of tenants receiving a repeat violation for noise. This equates to an average of about 100 citations per year, or several per week.

ITEM 7b – RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT – ROUND AND ROUND WITH TOWN AND GOWN Page 2

2. What does Cal Poly say in response to our formal requests regarding sanctioned event information? I.e. what is the formal justification for withholding that information now?
When City staff requested registered event information, Cal Poly routed it through their formal records request process. A subsequent letter was provided to the City denying release of the addresses that stated that the records sought by the City were not public records and would not be provided. The University stated that "disclosure of such records does not contribute to the public's understanding of the University's business, and therefore they are not public records to be disclosed under the California Public Records Act."
The University cited privacy and security issues as well as a desire to be more consistent with how other California State University (CSU) campuses provide the information to the public. They have stated that they were the only campus that published specific addresses and have made the decision to publish only the city in which a registered event is located, similar to other CSU campuses.

3. Can you clarify what a student overlay zone would achieve? Specifically, in other communities that use them, do these zones typically involve stricter regulations on activities such as noise levels or gathering size? I read the legal concerns regarding a student specific overlay as well as the Grand Jury's desire for one but how far do these go in regulating behavior in private residences.

City staff has researched the idea of a student overlay zone. Several communities that have large student populations have zones or unique regulations for specific areas of town to address compatibility issues, however, they are all different.

An overlay zone could create specific regulations in an area to address land uses, enforcement/fines, or noise regulations. Generally overlay zones are used when a jurisdiction would like to have unique regulations that apply to one area, and not citywide. Due to state law, changing things like parking regulations and density in the area near campus could be challenging. Some of the overlay zones that staff found during research restricted or regulated housing and/or rental housing in a specific area (for example, requiring that registered student housing rentals be a certain distance apart, or requiring registration and inspection of student rental housing in an established zone). Others had zones or rules specific to fraternity/sorority houses. Generally, these were zones where fraternity/sorority houses are allowed and encouraged, and regulated through a use permit (similar to the City’s Conditional Use Permit Requirement). One City established a specific area of town for specialized code enforcement, where enforcement is geared at the student population, proactive, and enforcement duties are shared between the City and the school police department.

ITEM 7b – RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT – ROUND AND ROUND WITH TOWN AND GOWN Page 3
Establishment of an overlay zone would require resources to determine what the intent of the zone is, where it should be established, and what regulations would apply in the zone to achieve the intended outcome.

4. The City’s response to R4 states that the recommendation “will not be immediately implemented because it is not reasonable at this time.” How does this align with the four response options under Penal Code section 933.05? Specifically, does the City intend to further analyze this recommendation (Option 3), or has it determined not to implement it (Option 4)? The response references both legal constraints and upcoming work in the 2025–27 Financial Plan that could explore similar concepts. Can you clarify?
The Grand Jury Ad Hoc Committee recommended this response because the item did not clearly fit within the “still analyzing” option (Option 3). Selecting Option 3 would obligate the City to complete the analysis and discuss it with Council within six months of the report’s publication (December 23, 2025), a timeline staff is not currently able to meet without reprioritizing other work. If Council wishes to direct staff to pursue this path, it can be done, but it would require reordering existing priorities.

While the City’s formal response to R4 is Option 4 (“will not be implemented”), the Ad Hoc Committee wanted to emphasize that Council remains open to further analysis. Two related Major City Goal tasks have already been adopted in the 2025–27 work program, during which this recommendation can be considered.

These efforts will provide an opportunity to explore overlay-related options, though not within the six-month timeframe set by Penal Code section 933.05.

The Grand Jury specifically recommended “initiating a task force to explore the creation of a Student Overlay Zone.” Staff believe such a step would be premature ahead of the scheduled study session and required research. The reference to legal constraints was included to give context on why forming a task force is not recommended at this stage. As mentioned in the draft response, there are other options, beyond overlay zones, that can also be explored and may help achieve the same goal.

Attachment A – Item 7b Staff Presentation

1 City Responses to Grand Jury Report
“Round and Round with Town and
Gown”
Item 7b: September 16, 2025

2 Presentation

1. Background and Policy Context

2. Overview of responses

3. Consolidated review of findings and recommendations

4. Closer look at some data and maps

5. Next steps

6. Questions and discussion

3 Recommendation
Approve the City Council, Planning Commission, and City Manager’s joint response (Attachment A) to the San Luis Obispo County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Round
and Round with Town and Gown.”

4 Background and Policy Context
June 23, 2025: Report issued
State law (Penal Code §933) requires responses within 90 days (9/19) July 15, 2025: Ad Hoc Committee (Stewart/Marx) appointed to help respond to findings and recommendations
July 22, Aug 20, Sept 4: Ad Hoc Committee meetings
August 27, 2025: Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 2025: Presentation to Council on joint responses

5 Background and Policy Context
The Report includes six findings, and seven recommendations directed to three parties:
• City Council (R1, R2, R4, R5)
• City Manager (R3, R6, R7)
• Planning Commission (R6)
State law (Penal Code §933) Response Options:

Findings: City must agree or disagree (with explanation) Recommendations: City will identify as implemented, not yet implemented, requires further analysis, or will not be implemented. (With explanations pursuant to §933.05)

6 Overview of City Responses
• The City disagrees with all six finding with explanations included in report.
• Recommendations numbered R1, R2, R3, R6 have been implemented with explanations in report.
• Recommendations numbered R4, R5, R7 will not be implemented with explanations in report.

Attachments included in agenda report: Response letter to Presiding Judge, June 2025 Grand Jury Report, June 2025 Staff Memo, Agency Response Form

7 Key Points of City Responses
• Shared Responsibility
• Complexity of Issue and Evolving Landscape
• Legal Limitations
• Limited City Resources
• Recent Progress

8 Findings & Recommendations
F1: Prior to 2025, City Failed to Respond to Large Unsanctioned Events City disagrees with the finding
R1–R2: The City Council should implement a multi-year plan to eliminate “St. Fratty’s day” and proactive measures to prevent future street parties.

City has implemented both recommendations
Response Summary:
• Robust annual plans, outreach, & Safety Zone ordinance updates • 2025 success: strong City–University planning, 300+ officers, advanced tech, oncampus alternative • City follows best practices & responsible resource use • Proactive measures taken when feasible & appropriate
• City Council encourages early reporting & collaboration with Cal Poly

9 Findings & Recommendations
F2: The City has not effectively engaged with stakeholders to address neighborhood issues
The City disagrees with the finding
Response Summary
• The City has ongoing and regular engagement with community • Recent and expanded discussion with Cal Poly regarding the issues • Ordinances, outreach, programs cut noise complaints 50% • Housing & Neighborhood Livability a 2025–27 Major Goal; two new tasks programmed to review code enforcement priorities and zoning regulation related to fraternity/sorority housing.

10 A closer look at noise
complaint calls for service data

14 Findings & Recommendations
F3: The City has failed to identify and enforce code violations related to fraternity and sorority activity
The City disagrees with this finding
R3: The City Manager should develop a process to identify illegal fraternities This recommendation has been implemented
Response Summary:
• Complaint-driven enforcement (40+ cases since 2023)
• Legal and Equity Considerations
• Education and outreach regarding city zoning and compliance • Required partnership with Cal Poly
• Future tasks to set enforcement priorities and standard operating procedures

15 R4: Council should initiate a task force to explore “Student Overlay Zones” This recommendation will not be immediately implemented (not feasible within six-month timeframe)
Findings & Recommendations
Response Summary:
• Two Major City Goal action items already planned on these concerns • State law and legal constraints
• Establishing a task force at this stage is pre-mature • The City has existing tools: CUP requirements, noise regulations, Safety Enhancement Zones
• Staff will continue research and explore options to review at future Study Session

16 Findings & Recommendations
F4: The City has failed to consistently enforce CUPs
The City disagrees with this finding
R6: The City Manager and Planning Commission should move toward adopting more uniform conditions for CUPs and enforcement of existing requirements.

This recommendation has been implemented
Response Summary:
• CUPs enforced when violations found
• 3 revocations since 2024; recent modernization of outdated conditions • Complaint-driven; fraternities = ~6.5% of 1,400
• Steps will be taken to explore more proactive enforcement

17 Findings & Recommendations
F5: The current planning appeal fee structure disproportionately impacts citizens.

The City disagrees with this finding
R5: The Council should consider adopting a tiered planning appeal structure.

This recommendation will not be implemented
Response Summary:
• Reporting zoning/CUP violations is free; fees only for formal appeals • Appeal fee structure designed to balance access with cost recovery – currently below cost
• Fees adopted in 2024 after detailed study, public review, and Council deliberation • Council is open to exploring alternative ways to engage

18 Findings & Responses
F6: The Grand Jury encountered lack of cooperation from SLOPD The City disagrees with this finding.

R7: SLOCGJ recommends City Manager set formal response guidelines and training for requests
This recommendation will not be implemented.

Response Summary:
• Grand Jury had full access: Police Chief, Public Affairs Manager, extensive interviews (including a 90-minute session), written responses, and thousands of data points.
• City consistently responds promptly and cooperatively to Grand Jury inquiries with oversight from the City Manager
• Grand Jury requests vary in scope and do not lend themselves to a uniform response process.

19 Next Steps
• Submit response letter & attachments to Presiding Judge & Grand Jury • Continue collaboration with Cal Poly, County, and community stakeholders on neighborhood livability
• Upcoming Major City Goal tasks:
• Study session on Code Enforcement priorities related to safe/livable neighborhoods and receive feedback on priorities. Discuss potential updates to property maintenance standards. (est. FY 2026 Q4) • Create a project plan and SOPs for enforcement of zoning code regulations pertaining to Greek houses and consider potential updates to zoning code. (est. FY 2026 Q3)

20 Recommendation
Approve the City Council, Planning Commission, and City Manager’s joint response (Attachment A) to the San Luis Obispo County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Round
and Round with Town and Gown.”

Item 7b
Department: Administration
Cost Center: 1001
For Agenda of: 9/16/2025
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 120 minutes
FROM: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
Prepared By: Natalie Harnett, Policy and Project Manager SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT - ROUND AND ROUND WITH

TOWN AND GOWN

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the City Council, Planning Commission, and City Manager’s joint response (Attachment A) to the San Luis Obispo County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Round and Round with Town and Gown.”

POLICY CONTEXT
A response to the Grand Jury report is required by the City Council, City Manager, and Planning Commission per California Penal Code section 933, which states in relevant part:
“No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years.”

Item 7b

DISCUSSION
Background
On June 23, 2025, the City of San Luis Obispo received a Grand Jury report titled “Round & Round with Town & Gown” regarding residents’ concerns over noise, large unauthorized street parties, and fraternity/sorority events in residential areas (“Report”) (Attachment B). Prior to the publication of the Report, City officials and staff cooperated with the Grand Jury’s investigation, with senior staff from multiple departments—including the Police Chief, Police Department Public Affairs Manager, Community Development Director, Code Enforcement staff, City Manager, and a Council Member—testifying before the Grand Jury and providing extensive records and information.

On June 13, the Grand Jury provided the City Manager with copy of the Report prior to its formal publication. The City Manager then submitted a memorandum to the Grand Jury on June 20 identifying a number of factual concerns and inaccuracies in the Report (Attachment C – Exhibit A to the City’s Responses). The Report was publicly released on June 23 without modification.

The Report includes six findings, and seven recommendations directed to three parties:
the City Council (R1, R2, R4, R5), the City Manager (R3, R6, R7), and the Planning Commission (R6). Pursuant to Penal Code §933, responses are required within 90 days of issuance, making them due by September 19, 2025. Under Penal Code §933.05, the City is required to use the specific response categories and language when responding to Grand Jury reports:

For Findings: The City must state that it agrees or disagrees (in whole or in part). If disagreeing, the City must explain why.

For Recommendations: The City must choose one of four required responses:
1) The recommendation has been implemented (with a summary). 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future (with a timeframe).
3) The recommendation requires further analysis (with scope, explanation, and a timeline of no more than six months).
4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable (with an explanation).

On July 15, 2025, the Council appointed an ad hoc committee of Mayor Erica A. Stewart and Council Member Jan Marx to collaborate with staff in preparing responses to the findings and recommendations directed to the City Council. The ad hoc committee since met three times to review and refine draft responses. In addition to preparing responses for the Council, staff drafted responses for the City Manager and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved its response to Recommendation 6 (R6) at its August 27, 2025 meeting. The collective responses of the City Council, Planning Commission, and City Manager are provided in Attachment A.

Item 7b
The City has completed the “Agency Response Form” provided by the Grand Jury (Attachment D) and will submit the full response letter (Attachment A) and Exhibit A (Attachment C) to Presiding Judge Rita Federman of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, as required. Both paper and electronic copies will also be provided to the Grand Jury.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
July 15, 2025: The City Council appointed an Ad Hoc Committee of the City Council to collaborate with staff to prepare responses to the Grand Jury Report.

July 22, 2025: Grand Jury Ad Hoc Committee met to review findings and recommendations and draft initial responses.

August 20, 2025: Grand Jury Ad Hoc Committee met to further discuss findings and recommendations and draft responses.

August 27, 2025: Planning Commission reviewed and approved draft response to Recommendation #6.

September 4, 2025: Grand Jury Ad Hoc Committee met to finalize responses and review public communications materials.

Public Engagement
The public will have the opportunity to comment on this item at or before the September 16 meeting and previously had the chance to provide input on the draft responses presented to the Planning Commission at its August 27, 2025 meeting.

CONCURRENCE
This report and the relevant draft responses have been reviewed and are supported by the following:
 Ad Hoc Committee of the City Council
 Planning Commission
 City Manager
 Community Development Department
 Police Department
 City Attorney

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “project” under CEQA guidelines Sec. 15378.

Item 7b

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2025-26
Funding Identified: N/A
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $ N/A $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total N/A N/A N/A N/A
There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommendation.

ALTERNATIVES
Council may choose to make revisions to the City’s Response Letter to the Grand Jury Report. To comply with the Grand Jury’s required deadline, the City’s final responses must be submitted no later than Friday, September 19, 2025. Accordingly, any revisions from the Council should be specific and limited in scope so staff can incorporate them into the final Response Letter without the need for further Council action. The response to Recommendation 6 (R6) should not be modified by the City Council, as this recommendation was directed specifically to the Planning Commission. While the Council could direct the Planning Commission to reconsider its response, there are significant timing constraints that make this approach impractical.

ATTACHMENTS
A – City of SLO Full Response Letter to Grand Jury Report B – Grand Jury Report
C – Exhibit A to the City of SLO Response Letter - Memorandum from June 2025 D – Agency Response to Grand Jury Report Form

Submitted June 23, 2025 1

ROUND & ROUND WITH TOWN & GOWN
San Luis Obispo (SLO) is a quaint town with a rich history and is home to a rapidly growing university that has become a vital part of the community. However, the expansion of the university has led to significant challenges in housing availability, both on and off campus.

Affordability issues have exacerbated these challenges, created a shortage of student housing, and have pushed students into neighborhoods traditionally occupied by families. Many students now reside in single-family homes, often exceeding their intended occupancy. This shift has brought new complexities, as noise and frequent partying have disrupted these once-quiet residential areas. The situation underscores the delicate balance needed to ensure that all residents—students, families, and long-time locals can coexist harmoniously and thrive.

INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
Over the past two decades, SLO has experienced significant growth, driven in part by the expansion of its university, California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), and the increasing student population. While this growth has contributed to the city's vibrancy and economic development, it has also introduced a range of challenges for the surrounding neighborhoods.

Residents have voiced concerns over noise disturbances, large unauthorized street parties, and fraternity and sorority (referred to as “fraternities” for this report) events being hosted in residential areas not zoned for such gatherings. These issues have led to tensions between some long-term residents and the student community.

SLO has experienced steady population growth, mirroring broader urban expansion trends across California. In 2005, the city’s population stood at approximately 44,380, and, by 2025, it had risen to 50,612, reflecting a 14% increase. During this same period, Cal Poly’s total enrollment grew from 18,278 to 23,016, marking a 26% increase. As a result, university students now comprise

Submitted June 23, 2025 2
nearly 46% of the city's total population, significantly influencing housing availability both on and off campus, infrastructure demands, and neighboring residential community dynamics.

Year
Cal Poly
Total
Enrollment
San Luis
Obispo
Population
Student % of
Population
2005 18,278 44,380 41.2%
2015 20,944 46,906 44.7%
2025 23,016 50,612 45.5%
While Cal Poly’s expansion has bolstered the local economy and enriched San Luis Obispo’s cultural landscape, it has also reshaped the dynamics of some of the residential neighborhoods that border the campus. Many long-term residents, particularly families, cherish the stability and tranquility of their neighborhoods but now face the challenge of residing in an increasingly student-centered neighborhood. Striking a balance between fostering Cal Poly’s continued success and that of its students with neighborhood integrity is and will be an ongoing challenge for the city. This report explores these concerns focusing on four topics: large, unsanctioned street parties, ongoing noise from student parties, fraternity zoning issues, and fraternity permitting requirements.

ORIGIN
The investigation was initiated in response to multiple complaints filed by residents. These complaints cited disruptive activities associated with college students, including excessive noise during late hours, unauthorized fraternity houses operating in zoning-restricted residential areas, and large, unsanctioned street parties that escalate into public disturbances, injuries, and property damage. The complaints alleged that the City of SLO and Cal Poly officials were failing to enforce existing rules and municipal ordinances, that citizen complaints were ignored, and neither took sufficient action to restore order. The San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury (SLOCGJ) sought to objectively assess the extent of these issues and determine whether city officials were implementing timely and sufficient countermeasures to address them effectively.

Submitted June 23, 2025 3
It should be noted that the SLOCGJ does not hold jurisdiction over Cal Poly. However, SLOCGJ would like to express its appreciation to Cal Poly for its willingness to engage in discussions. Their cooperation was invaluable in providing insights allowing the SLOCGJ to better understand their perspective on the issues at hand as well as the actions they were undertaking to partner with the city and the community.

AUTHORITY
California Penal Code section 933 requires that “Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters during the fiscal or calendar year.” Section 933.05 further prescribes responses to those findings and recommendations. Responding agencies are directed to report whether they agree or disagree (either partially or wholly) with a finding and whether a recommendation has been implemented, will be implemented, will not be implemented, or requires further analysis. An agency may reject a Grand Jury recommendation provided they include an explanation of why the recommendation is either unwarranted or unreasonable. If a recommendation requires further analysis, it must be conducted within six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report.

All Grand Jury reports and each agency’s responses are posted online each year at https://www.slo.courts.ca.gov/gi/jury-grandjury.htm

METHOD/PROCEDURE
The SLOCGJ used the following methods for its investigation:
• conducted fifteen interviews with San Luis Obispo city residents, city leadership (including City Council members, Community Development and Police Department officials), city personnel (such as Code Enforcement), and leadership from Cal Poly, • conducted site inspection of impacted neighborhoods,

Submitted June 23, 2025 4
• reviewed documents such as Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) issued to fraternities, municipal codes, City Council and Planning Commission meeting agendas and minutes, as well as outreach plans for previous St. Patrick’s Day events, • conducted analyses of policies and laws, including The Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act, Assembly Bill (AB524), SLO and Cal Poly party registration regulations, and Cal Poly’s General Plan,
• conducted comparative research, including an investigation of cities with overlay zones to understand their implementation and impact. Explored various policing models, such as the “Do No Harm” approach, examined strategies used by other cities addressing similar university-related challenges, and analyzed party ordinances from other municipalities.

NARRATIVE
CHAPTER 1: UNSANCTIONED ILLEGAL STREET PARTIES
The concept of St. Fratty’s Day began in 2009 originally as a fraternity party to celebrate St.

Patrick's Day and the end of the school term. After the initial party in 2009, the party grew and by 2015 the event drew over 1,000 attendees. During the 2015 event, the garage roof adjacent to 348 Hathway Street collapsed because 30 or more students were partying on the rooftop. Ten students were injured with one young woman narrowly escaping a potentially life-threatening injury. This incident made national news and sparked conversations between the City of SLO and Cal Poly regarding how to manage the event and encourage the students to party safely. From 2016 to 2019 the event was smaller and there were no rooftop activities or serious injuries. In 2020 and 2021, with pandemic laws limiting large social gatherings, the event was so small as to be negligible.

In 2022, with pandemic restrictions lifted, the event grew to 2,000 attendees. In 2023, through social media, and news coverage, the event doubled in size to approximately 4,000 attendees. In

Submitted June 23, 2025 5
2023, the SLO City Council expanded an existing Safety Enhancement Zone (SEZ) ordinance to cover a period of time before and after St. Patrick’s Day. The SEZ allows authorities to double fines for noise, alcohol, and other unruly behavior.

In 2024, the crowd nearly doubled in size once again to an estimated 7,000 attendees. The SLO City Police Chief used a containment enforcement strategy that resulted in officers being staged along the outskirts of the crowd in the neighborhood adjoining the university. The “Do No Harm” approach was adopted not only due to concern for officer safety but because a more aggressive officer presence could incite a riot. This practice was in line with the department’s enforcement policy of “Do No Harm” to keep violators, other participants and officers safe. They implemented a strike team strategy where a team of officers entered the crowd to address a violation, issued a citation, and returned to the perimeter to keep everyone safe and avoid an escalation.

In 2024 the SLO City Chief of Police deemed their efforts a success as no harm was done to officers or attendees. However, the residents in the area experienced property damage to their residences and personal property. Some intoxicated partiers trespassed onto their property, climbed up on rooftops and power poles, and vandalized cars.

The SLOCGJ wanted to determine the validity of the alleged citizen complaints against the SLOPD as well as verify statements received from others during our investigation. We also wanted to confirm the success of SLOPD’s efforts, and possible changes in light of any perceived failings.

We were blocked in this effort by two senior police official’s unwillingness to grant an interview.

This hampered our fact-finding efforts. The reason for these denials remains inadequate and may stem from a misunderstanding of the role of the SLOCGJ in improving governmental functions within this county.

It has become a tradition for the students to start partying at midnight the prior night in their Cal Poly dorms and nearby housing, with the party moving into the surrounding neighborhoods to kick off St. Fratty’s Day at 3:17 a.m. (to acknowledge St. Patrick’s Day, March 17th). In 2024

Submitted June 23, 2025 6
fireworks were set off in the Alta Vista neighborhood between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., jolting some residents and their families awake. Thousands of students descended on Hathway and Bond Streets (in the Alta Vista neighborhood) fueled by alcohol, disturbing the peace by playing loud music, screaming and yelling. The heavy alcohol consumption resulted in dangerous activities such as climbing utility poles, partying on rooftops, urinating and vomiting in public, passing out in residents’ yards and on rooftops, and leaving trash throughout the neighborhoods.

In 2024, the Cal Poly dorms also experienced extensive damage as the students began partying at midnight and damaged the dorms on their way out to the street party. The damage was so extensive that Cal Poly had to close some dorms for two days to repair the damage.

After the 2024 St. Fratty’s Day event, it became apparent to the City of SLO and the administration at Cal Poly that St. Fratty’s Day in its current format could no longer be tolerated.

Cal Poly administration, with concern for the safety of their students, property damage to the university, and surrounding neighborhoods, as well as the request of city officials, formed a task force to strategize how to deal with the unsanctioned event. The task force was made up of Cal Poly Administration, student advisory groups, students, members of the Greek Life Community, and SLO City representatives. No representatives from the surrounding neighborhoods were invited to participate in the task force.

One outcome of the task force was to provide the students with a safe alternative event. The event was scheduled for Saturday, March 15, 2025, and included a concert on campus starting at 4:00 a.m. The event was free and up to 5,000 students were able to secure tickets to the event.

The event provided entertainment, beer vendors for those over 21, free food, security, and a sobering center. Cal Poly police, Cal Poly staff, SLO Emergency Medical Technicians and private security companies were on campus to ensure a safe and secure environment.

Cal Poly’s messaging to the students prior to St. Patrick’s Day was that past behaviors would no longer be tolerated. Due to the damage experienced in 2024, several security measures were

Submitted June 23, 2025 7
deployed, including no guests being allowed to stay on campus. Parking on campus was limited to Cal Poly students and staff starting Friday, March 14, 2025, through Monday, March 17, 2025.

The City of SLO, concerned about the safety of their neighborhoods, the disruptions to the residents, and the negative image of the City of SLO, developed their own task force headed up by the SLO City Police Department. The messaging developed by the City of SLO was “Do Not Come, the party is over.” In 2024 there were approximately 140 to 160 law enforcement personnel overseeing the event in the neighborhood. In 2025, the SLO Police Department activated the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and the SLO County District Attorney’s Office announced they would not offer pre-filing misdemeanor diversion (see Glossary) to any person charged with a misdemeanor stemming from criminal conduct during St. Patrick's Day celebrations in San Luis Obispo. There were an estimated 300 law enforcement officers representing 25 different local, state and federal agencies. Officers patrolling the area stopped the students from entering the streets and kept their movement on the sidewalks. The students were encouraged to keep moving out of the neighborhood and to the event on campus. Due to the increased law enforcement presence, the neighborhood of Alta Vista did not experience damage to property and there was no unsanctioned street party. The SLO Chief of Police Department estimated costs to the city will be approximately $125,000.

The concert at Cal Poly was deemed a success as over 6,000 students attended the event. The event was limited to 5,000 students; however, un-ticketed students pushed through the temporary fencing so they could get into the event. Though this is concerning, no one was seriously injured. Overall, the students remained on campus, attended the alternative event, and no damage was reported in the dorms or the nearby neighborhoods. The alternative activity on campus ended around 10:30 a.m.

It is the stated goal of Cal Poly and the City of SLO that the St. Patrick’s Day unsanctioned street parties come to an end. They have advised that it may take two to three years to completely end the unruly St. Patrick’s Day celebrations. The City of SLO and Cal Poly are no strangers to

Submitted June 23, 2025 8
controlling and ending large events. After a 1990 riot during Poly Royal, Cal Poly ended the event and created a new activity that is safe for students, their families, and the community to enjoy.

After a popular Mardi Gras event (2004) was no longer controllable, the City of SLO was successful in bringing an end to that event.

The 2024-2025 collaboration between the City of SLO and Cal Poly proved successful in providing a safe alternative event for the students and residents of San Luis Obispo. A communication received from Cal Poly indicated that Cal Poly is currently evaluating what programming will look like in future years, especially given the transition from quarters to semesters; however, planning will begin for another event next academic year, 2025-26.

CHAPTER 2: NOISY NEIGHBORS
SLO Municipal Code 9.12 (see Bibliography) provides that “…it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully or negligently make or continue to make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, or permit or allow to be made or continued any noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes any discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity in the area.” Notwithstanding this ordinance, the citizens in the immediate vicinity of Cal Poly, have regularly complained of excessive noise coming from nearby houses that are occupied by students. It has therefore fallen to the SLO Police Department (SLOPD) and the SLO Noise Control Officer (Code Enforcement) to answer such complaints as may be made. The specific code violation encompassed in the above-mentioned Code states that the hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following morning are to remain quiet. According to complaints received by the SLOCGJ, this has not been fully enforced. It should also be noted that the Noise Control Officer may grant exceptions to this restriction.

The SLOCGJ received complaints that loud parties, located directly adjacent to Cal Poly and in violation of the above code have forced citizens to file SLOPD noise complaints. The SLOCGJ reviewed copies of the noise citations issued by the SLOPD during the 2023-2024 school session (the most recent information available) and found that noise citations in neighborhoods near the

Submitted June 23, 2025 9
campus were issued an average of more than 3 times per week during the school session. This totaled 139 citations in the Alta Vista neighborhood, with one house alone receiving 17 citations. Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that this situation remains - to this date - unabated. Such is the irritation of area residents, that many have fled the area.

To aid in noise ordinance enforcement the SLOPD employs the assistance of Cal Poly students who are enrolled in a program called the Student Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP). These students interface with groups of partiers in residences in the affected area who are violating the noise ordinance. These unarmed SNAP students speak to the offending parties and attempt to get them to comply with the city’s noise standards. There are, however, only a handful of SNAP students. They wear civilian uniforms and work in pairs. They also have radios so that they may contact the police when required. These students may, at their discretion, issue Disturbance Advisement Cards (DACs). Such issuance falls short of an actual fine or a conventional ticket and is meant to serve as a first warning, so that an additional violation may, at the officers' discretion, warrant a police citation. Complainants indicated that weekend parties can mean up to 100 or more students at one address and often continue after visits by police.

SNAP students do not go to lettered fraternity houses; such visits are reserved for sworn officers.

Additionally, through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Cal Poly Police have the authority to operate within one mile outside of campus grounds. This allows, at least theoretically, greater and more rapid enforcement of SLO city laws.

SLO Municipal Code 9.12.050 is specific about excessive noise. It provides a detailed list of prohibited acts between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. While it does not specifically prohibit noise from parties, it does speak to the use of loudspeakers and other electronic devices, including: “radio, television set, phonograph, drum, musical instrument, or similar device which produces or reproduces sound…”

Submitted June 23, 2025 10
CHAPTER 3: ZONING VIOLATIONS / CONCERNS – IS SLO CITY IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE ABOUT ZONING ISSUES?
As outlined previously, the SLOCGJ reviewed citizen complaints reporting “Illegal Fraternities” operating in residential zones (R-1/R-2). During interviews with City officials, five individuals confirmed their knowledge of the existence of illegal fraternities. City officials stated that identifying illegal fraternities is difficult but usually starts with a citizen complaint reported to law enforcement about a noisy event or party in an R-1/R-2 residential zone, which is the top citizen complaint happening most weekends while school is in session. Noise issues and complaints are usually handled by the police department. Municipal Code guidelines that address noise issues and enforcement are outlined in the “Exterior Noise Limits” section MC 9.12.060 and the “Enforcement” section MC 9.12.110. If found to be out of compliance, SLOPD may issue a warning or citation. Fines for cited noise violations escalate for each subsequent violation. Code enforcement gets involved if SLOPD or citizen complaints identify the location may be operating as a fraternity.

It is illegal per the Municipal Code for fraternities to operate in an R-1/R-2 neighborhood.

Due to the lack of on-campus student housing, some students must live off-campus. In some cases, fraternity members will rent houses in R-1/R-2 zones and may hold fraternity-sponsored events, which is not allowed by the Municipal Code. In 2023, using extensive citizen-generated data from a Cal Poly-generated report required by AB524, code enforcement started an investigation into the illegal fraternities. Based on the investigation, 30-40 Advisory Notices, and 22 Notice of Violations (NOVs) were sent to property owners. In response to the NOVs, the city advised that many of the property owners reported they were unaware of the fraternity events that were being held at their property.

At the time, Cal Poly and code enforcement were working together on the illegal fraternity issue.

However, due to changes in policies, Cal Poly stopped assisting the city, stating privacy concerns, and revised their AB 524 report to remove some of the addresses that were previously provided in the document.

Submitted June 23, 2025 11
The current policies and enforcement approach is not conducive to a real time solution. Based on the SLOCGJ investigation, the number of illegal fraternities may be more than 40 locations currently operating in the city. In addition, citizens have reported that several Cal Poly recognized fraternities listed in AB524 have multiple illegal fraternity locations operating within the city:
some with as many as 7 separate locations.

In January 2025, due to detailed information received by code enforcement, from members of the public and several complaint calls, the code enforcement team was sent out on a Saturday night to the neighborhood adjacent to Cal Poly specifically looking for illegal fraternity activities.

It is not the usual practice for code enforcement to be working on a weekend, at night, and on overtime, but due to the increasing attention to the problems, city officials believed it was appropriate. Results from the neighborhood review resulted in identifying and citing 12 locations that were found to be operating as fraternity houses in R-1/R-2 zones. The city is taking steps to address these violations. The city plans to continue working on the issues using the existing municipal codes and modifying them as needed. With the current fiscal situation and funding constraints, city officials plan to provide enforcement with current staff and resources and ensure they have a clear and concise process to use.

Based on comments from city officials, identifying illegal fraternity party houses is labor intensive since code enforcement has to prove that the party or activity is sponsored by a fraternity in an R-1/R-2 zone, which is a land use violation. Some indicators are Greek letters posted out front, social media posts advertising fraternity events, and citizen complaints. After investigating, if enough evidence exists, code enforcement will issue an NOV and if they are in an R-1/R-2 zone, tell them to cease all fraternity-related activities. Code enforcement will follow-up within 30 days to verify compliance.

Unfortunately, the city is regulated to reactive rather than proactive enforcement of municipal codes. Code enforcement complaints are often received after business hours or the following

Submitted June 23, 2025 12
day. The result is that they are limited in their ability to verify the code violation, as it is after the fact or violators are not easily identified.

CHAPTER 4: FRATERNITY PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
The City of SLO Municipal Code regulates land use, developments, and operations within the city.

That Municipal Code restricts fraternities to zones R-3 and R-4 and requires a CUP (Municipal Code Section 17.10.020, Table 2-1) to operate. CUPs that allow fraternities are regulated by Municipal Code Section 17.86.130 which defines the standard conditions that shall apply to all:

1. “Occupancy” shall be limited to not more than one resident per sixty square feet of building area. The landlord shall allow the city to verify occupancy by allowing an inspection of the records or by a visual inspection of the premises. Any inspection shall be at a reasonable time and shall be preceded by a twenty-four-hour notice to the residents,

2. The maximum number of persons allowed on site for routine meetings and gatherings shall not exceed the limit established by the applicable conditional use permit,

3. The fraternity or sorority shall remain affiliated and in good standing with the Interfraternity Council of Student Life and Leadership at California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo. If the fraternity or sorority becomes unaffiliated or no longer held in good standing with California Polytechnic University, the conditional use permit shall be revoked,

4. The landlord shall provide names and telephone numbers of responsible persons to the community development department and SLOPD neighborhood services manager on an annual basis. Responsible persons shall be available during all events and at reasonable hours to receive and handle complaints
Additional conditions may be imposed by the planning commission when they approve the CUP.

The permit stays with the parcel as long as the approved use continues, and the conditions are

Submitted June 23, 2025 13
adhered to. If the parcel is no longer used for the approved purpose, then the permit expires after one year. If the occupants of the parcel violate the conditions of the CUP, the planning commission may revoke the permit.

In January 2025, the SLOCGJ requested and received a copy of each CUP granted by the city to a fraternity or sorority; Appendix A is a summary of the 16 conditional use permits provided by the city. It should be noted that the Cal Poly website lists 36 recognized fraternities and sororities.

The SLOCGJ double checked with the city, and it was confirmed that the 16 conditional use permits were all that are in place at this time.

AB524; Sections 66310-66312 of California Education Code requires each institution of higher education to include in the institution’s requirements for campus recognition of a campusrecognized sorority or fraternity, a requirement that the sorority or fraternity submit to the institution on or before July 1, 2023, and annually thereafter, specified information concerning the sorority’s or fraternity’s members and their conduct. Cal Poly assembles this information and submits it in a public report to the State each year. The report also provides the address of each “affiliated chapter house” which AB 524 defines as those located on-campus or on land owned or leased by the fraternity or sorority. The list submitted in 2024 did have 16 fraternities and sororities the same as the number of CUPs in force. Evidently, this means that of the 36 recognized fraternities and sororities, 20 either do not have a chapter house or are in chapter houses that are off-campus and not owned or leased by the fraternity or sorority and therefore do not meet the definition of an affiliated chapter house.

Any of these chapter houses that hold fraternity activities such as meetings, rush events, or parties, are still required by the SLO municipal code to have a CUP. It is not clear why they have not applied for a permit. It could be the cost (In FY 2024-25, the application fee for a CUP is $10,932.57) or effort required, or it may be that they are located in an R-1 or R-2 zone, in which case the fraternity activity would not be allowed. Since Cal Poly is not required to provide the addresses of these recognized fraternities, the city has no easy way to verify the location to

Submitted June 23, 2025 14
determine the reason that the fraternity does not have a CUP. This makes it difficult for the city to enforce the code.

As shown in Appendix A, not all required conditions are the same for each permit holder. In addition to the standard conditions required by code,some permit holders have other conditions such as:
• restrictions on the time of day that meetings and gatherings can be held without city approval,
• a neighborhood relations program with evidence of implementation to be submitted annually,
• a list of planned events for the year to be submitted annually, • complaints received by the city are to be forwarded to the Cal Poly interfraternity council prior to being forwarded to the planning commission,
• notice must be provided to residents within 300 feet prior to special events, and • a transportation and parking plan must be submitted prior to each event.

These CUPs were approved over an extended period of time by planning commissions with different members; the earliest is dated in 1971 and the latest in 2024. That may explain why additional conditions were imposed on some fraternities and sororities and not others. It may also have to do with specific characteristics of the individual parcel.

Interviews with City staff have revealed that many of the conditions, such as submittals of planned events and neighborhood relations programs have not been adhered to or enforced.

The planning commission has the authority to enforce these conditions, add new conditions if the existing conditions are not met, and ultimately revoke a fraternity’s CUP. Citizens can also appeal for a use permit to be revoked or request that a permit not be approved. The current cost to make such an appeal is $2,583.46, (in 2017 the appeal fee was $281.00). A complainant noted that the cost to appeal discourages this practice. While these appeal fees may be justifiable for major development projects that demand substantial city resources like legal reviews, public

Submitted June 23, 2025 15
hearings, or environmental impact assessments, they place an undue burden on ordinary citizens.

Residents raising concerns about local issues like noise or safety issues may find these costs prohibitively high, limiting their ability to participate in community decision-making.

FINDINGS
F1. Prior to 2025, the city failed to effectively provide a multi-pronged, cohesive approach to manage or shut down large unsanctioned, costly and unruly events such as St. Fratty’s Day. This created an unsafe environment, with increasing size of unruly crowds, property damage, injuries and public disturbances.

F2. The city has not effectively engaged in working together with community stakeholders to find solutions for ongoing off-campus issues that negatively impact neighborhoods such as code enforcement, noise issues, trespassing, property damage, and unruly events.

F3. The city has failed to effectively enforce municipal codes that prohibit fraternity and sorority activity in R-1/R-2 zones in part due to the difficulty in identifying houses that are hosting fraternity-type events, such as rush events and repeated parties. This inaction has resulted in an increase of illegal fraternities holding events in residential neighborhoods making these areas almost unlivable for most residents.

F4. The city has failed to consistently enforce CUPs such as the requirements for an annual list of parties and events, notification to neighbors, and parking plans. Strict enforcement of these conditions would contribute to a reduction of the disturbances in the neighborhoods.

Submitted June 23, 2025 16
F5. The current planning appeal fee structure in SLO disproportionately impacts ordinary citizens, as the high costs create barriers for those raising concerns about community issues such as noise or safety. While these fees may be justifiable for large-scale development appeals requiring additional city resources, they hinder equitable participation in local decision-making processes.

F6. The Grand Jury encountered a lack of cooperation from the San Luis Obispo City Police Department. While one sworn officer did participate in an interview, efforts to interview two additional sworn officers were unsuccessful. This unwillingness to engage hindered the Grand Jury’s ability to corroborate statements, obtain essential information, and maintain transparency in its oversight role.

RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. The SLO City Council should continue to work with Cal Poly to develop a multi-year plan to ensure that the illegal street parties known as St. Fratty’s Day is completely eliminated.

R2. The SLO City Council, in collaboration with Cal Poly and other stakeholders, should implement proactive measures to address future unsanctioned illegal street parties as they arise. Taking immediate action can prevent these gatherings from escalating over time due to prolonged non-enforcement. This approach would foster a safer community while promoting shared accountability among all parties involved.

R3. The SLO City Manager should develop and implement an ongoing formal process to identify illegal fraternities to bring them into compliance.

R4. The SLO City Council should initiate a task force to explore the creation of a “Student Overlay Zone” near the campus that would allow for municipal code requirements to be introduced that would differentiate it from the rest of the city and recognize the needs of

Submitted June 23, 2025 17
a dynamic university environment. This could facilitate changes to such things as density, parking, noise and fraternity activities.

R5. The SLO City Council should consider adopting a tiered planning appeal fee structure to promote accessibility of community concerns by individual residents. Such a structure could ensure that financial burdens do not deter public involvement.

R6. The SLO City Manager and the Planning Commission should move toward adopting more uniform conditions for CUP’s and enforcement of existing requirements. Due to the time span (1971-2024) in which these CUPs were approved, the requirements are inconsistent. The City should consider using future CUP violations to determine if it is appropriate to revise the conditions to make them more relevant for today’s environment. This may require consideration of additional code enforcement staff or alternative work schedules.

R7. The SLOCGJ recommends that the SLO City Manager create formal guidelines and provide training outlining how the SLO City Police Department will respond to requests from the SLOCGJ and other oversite bodies.

COMMENDATIONS
The SLOCGJ commends Cal Poly and the City of SLO for their efforts and collaboration in keeping the students and the community of SLO safe during the 2025 St. Patrick’s Day weekend.

REQUIRED RESPONSES
The San Luis Obispo City Council is required to respond to R1, R2. R4, and R5 within 90 days.

The San Luis Obispo City Manager is required to respond to R3, R6, and R7 within 90 days.

Submitted June 23, 2025 18
The San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission is required to respond to R6 within 90 days.

All responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court. A paper copy and an electronic version of all responses shall be provided to the Grand Jury.
933.05. Findings and Recommendations
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation, therefor.

Presiding Judge Grand Jury
Presiding Judge Rita Federman
Superior Court of California
1035 Palm Street Room 355
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
P.O. Box 4910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403

Submitted June 23, 2025 19

APPENDIX A

Submitted June 23, 2025 20

Submitted June 23, 2025 21

Submitted June 23, 2025 22

GLOSSARY

1. Fraternities and Sororities. Municipal Code (MC) 17.156.014 “F definitions.” - Residence for college or university students who are members of a social or educational association that is affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings.

2. Illegal fraternities – Similar to the “Fraternities and Sororities” defined in the MC, except the residence is located in an R-1/R-2 residential zone instead of R-3/R-4 zones and hold fraternity sponsored activities and parties, which is not allowed by the MC. Sometimes referred to as a satellite Greek house.

3. Zoning Regulations - Zoning regulations are rules designed to help guide the growth of a city in an organized way. They are based on a general plan that aims to protect and improve the environment, both natural and man-made. Zoning regulations help keep communities safe, healthy, and well-organized by controlling how land and buildings are used, as well as where and how structures are built. Examples of different zones are:

Residential Zones are where homes can be built, and Commercial Zones are where businesses or stores may be built.

4. Residential Zones definition R-1 through –R-4 (MC 17.16 – 17.22) - The city is divided into zones to allow for orderly, planned development and to implement the general plan. a. The R-1 zone provides for low-density residential development and supporting compatible uses that have locations and development forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood cohesion, and that provide private outdoor space for the households occupying individual units.
b. The R-2 zone is intended to provide housing opportunities that have locations and development forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood

Submitted June 23, 2025 23
cohesion for the households occupying them, but in a more compact arrangement than in the R-1 zone, and near commercial and public services. c. The R-3 zone is intended primarily to provide housing opportunities for attached dwellings with common outdoor areas and compact private outdoor spaces. The R-3 zone is generally appropriate near employment centers and major public facilities, along transit corridors and nodes, and close to commercial and public facilities serving the whole community.
d. The R-4 zone is intended primarily to provide for attached dwellings with common outdoor areas and compact private outdoor spaces, and to accommodate various types of group housing. Further, the R-4 zone intended to allow for dense housing close to concentrations of employment and college enrollment, in the downtown core, along transit corridors and nodes, and in areas largely committed to high-density residential development.

5. Exterior Noise Limits MC 9.12.060 - Defines the Maximum Permissible Sound Levels at Receiving Land Use for all zoning categories (see table 1 in MC for details.)

6. Overlay Zone MC 17.06.020.C - An overlay zone supplements the base zone for the purpose of establishing special use or development regulations for a particular area in addition to the provisions of the underlying base zone. In the event of conflict between the base zone regulations and the overlay zone regulations, the provisions of the overlay zone shall apply.

Submitted June 23, 2025 24

BIBLIOGRAPHY
2019 Shelter Force – The Role Student Housing Plays in Communities https://shelterforce.org/2019/09/06/the-role-student-housing-plays-in-communities/ 2019 Terner Center for Housing and Innovation – UC Berkley Affordable Housing Overlay Zones. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2020/10/Affordable_Housing_Overlay_Zones_Oakley.pdf 2022 MCRC Using Affordable Housing Overlay Zones to Reduce the Risk of Displacement by Steven Butler. https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/april-2022/using-affordablehousing-overlay-zones City of Ann Arbor. Noise Ordinance and Housing Density Regulations. https://www.a2gov.org.

City of Boulder. Student Housing Zoning and Overlay Districts. https://bouldercolorado.gov.

City of Austin. Land Development Code on Student Housing. https://www.austintexas.gov.

City of Syracuse. Housing and Land Use Planning Near Universities. https://www.syracuse.ny.us.

American Planning Association. Best Practices for Student Housing Overlay Zones. https://www.planning.org.

National League of Cities. Managing Noise and Density in University Towns. https://www.nlc.org.

Submitted June 23, 2025 25
2024 – U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing – Operationalizing Proactive Community Engagement by Roberto Santos and Rachel Santos. https://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter/content.ashx/cops-r1145-pub.pdf City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Codes
https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code
City of Santa Barbara Municipal Codes
https://santabarbaraca.gov/government/city-hall/city-charter-municipal-code California State Assembly Bill 524 - Postsecondary education: Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB524/id/2606489
City of San Luis Obispo Voluntary Party Registration
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/police-department/partyregistration California Polytechnic University Party Registration
https://content-calpolyedu.s3.amazonaws.com/greeklife/1/images/Party%20Registration%20Procedure%202018.pdf San Luis Obispo City Council Agendas and Minutes
https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and-minutes California Polytechnic University Enrollment
https://ir.calpoly.edu/content/publications_reports/polyview/index https://content-calpoly-edu.s3.amazonaws.com/ir/1/images/2025- 26%20Enrollment%20Projections.pdf

Submitted June 23, 2025 26
Cal Poly Greek Fraternity and Sorority Life – Reports and Assessments – AB524 Fraternity Sorority Transparency Act Reports
https://greeklife.calpoly.edu/reports

City of San Luis Obispo, Office of t he City Council, 9 90 Pal m Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 9 3401-32 49, 805 .781. 7114, slocity.org
September 16, 2025
Honorable Rita Federman, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court 1035 Palm Street, Room 355
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Subject: Response to San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report, Round and Round with Town and Gown
Dear Presiding Judge Federman,
The City of San Luis Obispo has reviewed the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report titled “Round and Round with Town and Gown.” This formal response is submitted on behalf of the City Council, City Manager, and Planning Commission, each of whom has provided input on the findings and recommendations relevant to their roles. The City’s responses to the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations are provided below, with each item presented in italics, followed by the City’s response.

PREFACE
The City of San Luis Obispo appreciates the Civil Grand Jury’s attention to the evolving relationship between Cal Poly and the City, and the shared responsibility of fostering a safe and thriving community for all. While the City’s responses directly address each finding and recommendation, many of the findings reflect overlapping themes and omit important context, including external factors that influence both the root causes of the issues and the City's ability to respond.

To provide a more complete picture, the City offers the following context:
i. Exhibit A to this letter includes the City’s previously submitted response to the Grand Jury’s draft report, which identified numerous factual inaccuracies and offered clarifications in good faith. Although this feedback was provided before the Grand Jury issued its final report, none of the City’s suggested edits or corrections were incorporated. The City’s final response included herein does not restate all of the information previously submitted and encourages readers to consider Exhibit A alongside the report’s findings. ii. Most of the City work referenced in this report—ranging from code enforcement and neighborhood outreach to public safety and community planning—is funded by the City’s General Fund, which is primarily supported by tax revenue from San Luis Obispo residents, visitors, and businesses to benefit the entire community. The City must carefully balance its limited staff and funding across a wide range of needs and neighborhoods. Concentrating disproportionate resources in one area would be neither equitable nor sustainable.

2 iii. The City plays a central role in responding to neighborhood concerns through enforcement, education, and public safety coordination. However, several of the issues outlined in the report—such as illegal gatherings, disruptive behavior, and group housing—are symptoms of broader dynamics like student housing availability, rental market conditions, and campus culture. While the City actively collaborates with Cal Poly, many of these root causes fall outside its jurisdiction and require leadership from the university. iv. The Grand Jury’s report does not include findings or recommendations directed to Cal Poly.

This is because, as a state institution, Cal Poly is not under the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury or the City of San Luis Obispo. While this explains the lack of formal direction to the university, it represents a structural limitation of the report. By not addressing a key stakeholder, namely Cal Poly, the report creates the impression that the City alone is responsible for mitigating the negative impacts of student party culture. v. These challenges extend beyond City limits since, Cal Poly, Cuesta, the City and the County all have an important role to play. As recommended by the Grand Jury Ad Hoc Council Committee, Council Members and City leadership will engage with Cal Poly, Cuesta and the County to encourage their involvement in finding solutions. vi. The landscape surrounding student gatherings and neighborhood impacts has evolved significantly in recent years, particularly with the rise of social media. Events can now escalate rapidly and gain widespread attention with little warning, making traditional enforcement and outreach strategies more difficult to apply. Like many communities, the City is navigating these challenges in real time and continually adapting its approach to respond to this new reality.
vii. There are legal limits on the City’s ability to inquire into personal relationships among residents or regulate who may live together in a private home. Focusing on residents based on “student” status could create legal risks related to equal protection, fair housing, and land use discrimination.
viii. Finally, as Cal Poly’s enrollment has grown in recent years, participation in Greek life has also increased. While larger membership can contribute to more activity and potential enforcement challenges, City data shows a sustained overall reduction in noise and disruption across the community, even with rising student enrollment.

FINDINGS:

F1. Prior to 2025, the city failed to effectively provide a multi-pronged, cohesive approach to manage or shut down large unsanctioned, costly and unruly events such as St. Fratty’s Day. This created an unsafe environment, with increasing size of unruly crowds, property damage, injuries and public disturbances.
(F1) The City disagrees with this finding. The City wishes to clarify that the reference to “unsanctioned, costly and unruly events” appears to focus exclusively on the St. Patrick’s Day–related event commonly known as the “St. Fratty’s Day street party,” with no other recent examples cited in the report. The City acts in accordance with law enforcement best practices and sound operational

3 judgment, recognizing that treating every gathering or event as a potential escalation is neither effective nor sustainable. Overcommitting resources without clear justification would strain limited resources and erode community trust.

The San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) has decades of experience planning for and responding to large-scale, unpermitted events, including the historical Mardi Gras and Poly Royal celebrations. Those events, while initially sanctioned and promoted, evolved into significant public safety concerns. In contrast, St. Fratty’s Day emerged organically, has never been officially permitted, and gradually grew in scale (aside from a sharp decline during the COVID-19 pandemic years).

Each year, SLOPD developed robust operational plans in collaboration with Cal Poly, tailored to the size and nature of the previous year’s event. These plans included meaningful public safety staffing and extensive outreach campaigns. The department engaged in proactive communication efforts through printed materials, door-to-door “knock and talks,” radio advertisements, direct messaging via Cal Poly and Cuesta College, and meetings with community organizations such as Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN). SLOPD also issued multiple media releases and participated in campus town halls with Cal Poly leadership and other City officials to reinforce a message of zero tolerance.

Data collected and analyzed, post-event, also clearly support these increased planning and enforcement efforts and expanded partnerships to gain broader control over any illegal behavior.

To deter problematic behavior, the City has amended its Municipal Code multiple times. The Safety Enhancement Zone ordinance1 was first expanded in 2010 to include Halloween and St. Patrick’s Day and was amended again in February 2024 to cover the two weekends leading up to St. Patrick’s Day— the most likely timeframe for St. Fratty’s Day activity.

Despite these efforts, policing St. Fratty’s Day remains uniquely challenging. Unlike a formal event with a central location, the gathering typically involves hundreds of people walking up and down neighborhood sidewalks—behavior that is generally constitutionally protected. Many participants live in the affected neighborhoods and are legally entitled to access their homes, further complicating any efforts to restrict entry or mobility. In addition, the absence of a formal event organizer means there is no single point of contact for coordination or accountability. Without anyone responsible for managing the crowd or ensuring compliance with laws, the burden of enforcement falls entirely on public safety agencies.

In 2024, the crowd size exceeded expectations and available staffing, despite the department’s planning. This prompted a significant operational escalation for 2025, which included nearly a year of planning with a dedicated cross-departmental and interagency planning group in coordination with Cal Poly students and faculty. More than 300 law enforcement personnel were deployed from agencies as far away as San Francisco and Ventura. The response included horse-mounted units, motorcycle, bicycle, and foot patrols, as well as mobile teams and a fully staffed Department Operations Center. A temporary Law Enforcement Campus with mobile booking and processing capability was also established in coordination with the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Office. 1 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 9.22 (Safety Enhancement Zones) authorizes the City Council to designate the entire city or specific areas as “Safety Enhancement Zones” during certain events or periods (e.g., Mardi Gras, St. Patrick’s Day, Halloween, and Cal Poly move-in weekend). During these times, fines for specified offenses—such as open container, noise, unruly gatherings, and public urination—are doubled, up to $1,000, and violations may be prosecuted criminally or administratively.

4 Advanced technologies such as drones and mobile surveillance cameras were deployed alongside outreach tools like targeted signage and materials distributed to known problem properties. These efforts prevented the crowd from forming at any single location. No intersections or roadways were illegally occupied or blocked because of pedestrians or crowds of people, and there were no reports of property damage or injuries within the City of San Luis Obispo.

The City’s direct expenditures for the 2025 event exceeded $100,000 in overtime and equipment.

When including regular staff time and mutual aid support, the estimated total cost ranged from $700,000 to $800,000. This successful outcome—marked by a safe, uneventful day—was the result of years of iterative planning, lessons learned, and strong relationships between the City, student organizations, law enforcement partners, and neighborhood groups.

Cal Poly also significantly expanded its role in St. Patrick’s Day weekend planning, and according to Cal Poly leadership, set clear expectations that past behaviors jeopardizing safety or property would no longer be tolerated. The university hosted an alternative on-campus music festival that drew more than 6,000 students and implemented new security measures, including prohibiting overnight guests and restricting parking to students and staff from Friday, March 14, through Monday, March 17, 2025. It also activated its Emergency Operations Center for real-time coordination and partnered with the City in planning and operations meetings, establishing a new standard of unified communication and coordinated response for the future.

F2. The city has not effectively engaged in working together with community stakeholders to find solutions for ongoing off-campus issues that negatively impact neighborhoods such as code enforcement, noise issues, trespassing, property damage, and unruly events. (F2) The City disagrees with this finding. While the City acknowledges there is always room for more effective engagement and will continue working to enhance collaboration with stakeholders, we disagree with the assertion that the City has not effectively engaged. Addressing neighborhood impacts related to off-campus student behavior has been a longstanding City priority, reflected in policies, enforcement, and collaboration with Cal Poly, residents, and other stakeholders.

Efforts to address noise and other nuisance behavior often associated with students have long been a top priority for our community. Housing and Neighborhood Livability – Healthy, Safe, and Affordable was identified as a top community priority during the 2025–27 financial planning process.

Such efforts were also the focus of the Neighborhood Wellness goal, designated a Major City Goal from 2011–2017 and an Important Objective through 2019. During that time, the City convened the Neighborhood Wellness Community Civility Working Group, composed of residents, students, City staff, and Cal Poly representatives. The group created a 90-page report which generated many recommendations, several of which have been implemented. Notably:
• Ordinance Changes:
o The Social Host Ordinance was adopted in 2009.
o The Noise Ordinance was revised in 2010 to reduce the warning period, impose higher fines ($350–$1,000), and allow landlord citations for repeated violations. o The Unruly Gathering Ordinance was updated, and a Start-of-School Safety Enhancement Zone was established in 2015.

5 o In 2024, the Safety Enhancement Zones for St. Patrick’s Day and Halloween were expanded to cover additional weekends.
• Education and Outreach:
o Extensive communications campaigns are conducted annually, including radio and TV ads, social media, postcards, flyers, presentations to Cal Poly student groups, and outreach to landlords.
o City staff provide weekly violation reports to Cal Poly’s Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities (OSRR), including noise complaints and criminal activity involving students.
o The City participates in off-campus housing fairs, Greek Life leadership trainings, and new student orientation programs (SLO Days), reaching over 5,000 students annually.
• Program Implementation:
o A party registration pilot launched in 2017 has been successful in reducing noise complaints and promoting voluntary compliance.
o Walking tours with neighborhood stakeholders were conducted before the pandemic.
o Cal Poly Police were granted administrative citation authority within one mile off campus.
o Since 2010, noise complaints have declined by 50%, from approximately 3,000 annually to around 1,450.

The City also participates in the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC), which brings together Cal Poly, Cuesta College, the City, the County, and community groups to address housing, public safety, and quality-of-life issues. City Leadership Team members regularly attend Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) meetings to provide updates and gather feedback. In addition, staff respond to dozens of community emails each year, using input to shape enforcement, outreach, and policy. City staff from the Community Development Department and the Police Department meet regularly with Cal Poly leadership and student groups, including the Interfraternity Council and Greek Life staff, to discuss regulations, enforcement, and unpermitted gatherings. The most recent of these engagements took place in January and March 2025. In addition, separate meetings between City and Cal Poly leadership focused on discussing new approaches to Greek Life have been occurring and are ongoing.

City enforcement staff also conduct in-person field inspections and outreach during investigations, hand-delivering violation notices and educating residents on applicable codes. Staff have offered to attend student events to support education and compliance. It’s important to note that enforcement staff must assess each situation on a case-by-case basis, as applicable laws are written to provide discretion in determining whether an activity constitutes a citable offense. This process can be complicated by annual changes in residents at a property and by the nature of complaints, which may range from small gatherings, such as a few people having dinner or playing basketball, to large, disruptive parties. Each case is evaluated based on the facts, with an emphasis on whether the conduct violates the law and can be successfully prosecuted.

As mentioned above, Housing and Neighborhood Livability was again identified as a top community priority during the 2025–27 financial planning process. In response, the City Council adopted Housing and Neighborhood Livability – Healthy, Safe, and Affordable as a Major City Goal, with multiple

6 associated tasks2 focused on advancing this priority. The City remains committed to promoting neighborhood safety and civility and will continue to refine its approach in partnership with institutions and the broader community.

F3. The city has failed to effectively enforce municipal codes that prohibit fraternity and sorority activity in R-1/R-2 zones in part due to the difficulty in identifying houses that are hosting fraternity-type events, such as rush events and repeated parties. This inaction has resulted in an increase of illegal fraternities holding events in residential neighborhoods making these areas almost unlivable for most residents.
(F3) The City disagrees with this finding. Zoning enforcement is inherently complex, particularly when activity occurs on private property and affiliations with fraternities or sororities are informal or unrecognized by the university. While the Grand Jury uses the term “illegal fraternities,” the City does not consider this terminology accurate. Instead, this term appears to refer to residences suspected of operating as fraternity houses in locations not allowed by the City’s zoning ordinance.

The City enforces municipal code provisions that prohibit fraternity and sorority activity in R-1 and R2 zones and addresses behaviors that constitute neighborhood nuisances or other code violations— while also balancing constitutionally protected rights to privacy and free association. There are legal limits on the City’s ability to inquire into personal relationships among residents or regulate who may live together in a private home. Proactively monitoring private residential properties would not only exceed available resources but also risk eroding public trust and infringing on privacy—values the City is committed to upholding.

Consistent with standard code enforcement practices, zoning enforcement related to fraternity or sorority activity is complaint-driven. Since November 2023, the City has investigated over 100 complaints and opened 42 enforcement cases related to unpermitted fraternity activity or conditional use permit violations. Additionally, the City proactively issued advisory notices to 33 suspected fraternity or sorority houses in R-1 and R-2 zones to clarify zoning restrictions.

City staff regularly engage with Cal Poly officials and students to provide education on zoning compliance and ensure Greek organizations understand the implications of their housing choices. As recommended by the Grand Jury Ad Hoc Council Committee, Community Development staff will start providing Cal Poly with mapping that identifies where fraternities and sororities may be located (R3 and R4 zones). The City also maintains an interactive online parcel viewer that lets users look up zoning and parcel details, as well as other planning information, for any property in the city.

The City has also requested Greek life event location information from Cal Poly to aid enforcement, education, and outreach efforts, but access to such data has been limited. Cal Poly has removed 2 Task 4b. Conduct a study session with Council on Code Enforcement priorities related to safe/livable neighborhoods and receive feedback on priorities. Discuss potential updates to property maintenance standards.

Task 4d. Create a project plan and standard operating procedures for Community Development enforcement of zoning code regulations pertaining to Greek houses. Consider potential updates to zoning code to facilitate efficient regulation of Greek houses.

7 event location data from its public reports—information that previously supported City enforcement efforts. Enhanced cooperation from Cal Poly, particularly through improved information-sharing and stronger enforcement of student conduct policies, would significantly strengthen the City’s ability to address repeated violations linked to campus-affiliated groups residing off campus.

F4. The city has failed to consistently enforce CUPs such as the requirements for an annual list of parties and events, notification to neighbors, and parking plans. Strict enforcement of these conditions would contribute to a reduction of the disturbances in the neighborhoods. (F4) The City disagrees with this finding. The City enforces the conditions of Conditional Use Permits3 (CUPs) when violations are reported and substantiated. Over the past year, five fraternities were found to be in violation of their approved CUPs. This resulted in four hearings before the Planning Commission since November 2024 to consider revocation or modification of those permits. Three of the permits were revoked (one is pending appeal review by the City Council) and one was updated.

The City will look into more proactive enforcement of specific conditions in use permits related to the annual provision of names and telephone numbers for responsible parties, and annual list of events to be held at CUP locations.

Between May and June 2025, the Planning Commission voted to revoke the CUPs for three fraternity houses based on verified noncompliance with conditions of approval (as stated above, one is pending appeal.) The City remains committed to enforcing CUPs fairly and consistently and will continue to pursue enforcement actions when violations are confirmed.

F5. The current planning appeal fee structure in SLO disproportionately impacts ordinary citizens, as the high costs consistently and or those raising concerns about community issues such as noise or safety. While these fees may be justifiable for large-scale development appeals requiring additional city resources, they hinder equitable participation in local decision-making processes. (F5) The City disagrees with this finding. It is free for any member of the public to report a potential zoning or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) violation. Once a complaint is submitted, City staff investigate and, if a violation is substantiated, may initiate enforcement action or bring the matter before the Planning Commission—at no cost to the reporting party. This exact process has resulted in several CUPs being reviewed in the past year.

The fee referenced in the report applies only to formal appeals of Planning Commission decisions, not to complaints or reports of suspected violations. It is a critical distinction: raising concerns about neighborhood impacts, such as noise or safety, does not require a fee.

The Planning Appeal fee was adopted by the City Council in 2024 following a comprehensive cost-ofservice study, public review, and Council deliberation. The fee is charged uniformly, regardless of who files the appeal—whether a resident, applicant, or third party—and is based on the estimated staff time and administrative costs required to process an appeal. To promote accessibility and public 3 A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is a discretionary land use approval issued by the City of San Luis Obispo that allows a property to be used in a way not typically permitted in its zoning district, provided specific conditions are met to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. CUPs are reviewed by the Planning Commission (or City Council on appeal) following a public hearing process.

8 participation, the City Council intentionally set the fee at a subsidized rate, below the full cost of service, to ensure it is not overly burdensome.

F6. The Grand Jury encountered a lack of cooperation from the San Luis Obispo City Police Department. While one sworn officer did participate in an interview, efforts to interview two additional sworn officers were unsuccessful. This unwillingness to engage hindered the Grand Jury’s ability to corroborate statements, obtain essential information, and maintain transparency in its oversight role.
(F6) The City disagrees with this finding. The Grand Jury was provided with unimpeded access to all records, the Police Chief himself and the Police Department’s Public Affairs Manager, who is among the most knowledgeable on these topics. These individuals participated in extensive interviews—one lasting 90 minutes—and provided thorough written responses to multiple rounds of follow-up questions. Additionally, the City submitted requested documentation, including thousands of current and historical data points relevant to the Grand Jury’s investigation.

At no point was the City or any member of the Police Department served with a subpoena for additional testimony or documentation. The department declined subsequent voluntary interview requests only after providing full access to its most knowledgeable representatives: the Chief of Police, the City Manager who directly supervises the Chief, and the designated staff lead on operational issues related to the issues explored by the Grand Jury.

Further interviews with the patrol or shift-level personnel requested by the Grand Jury were not appropriate or necessary, as those individuals have limited scopes of responsibility and were not positioned to speak authoritatively about policy direction, broader planning efforts, or historical context. The City’s goal was to ensure the Grand Jury received the most accurate and comprehensive information possible, and that objective was met through detailed, direct engagement with senior staff.

The City regularly receives inquiries from the Grand Jury on a wide range of topics, including property annexations, municipal processes, and service delivery, and responds promptly and cooperatively to each. This inquiry was no exception. Throughout the process, the City and Police Department provided information with transparency and in good faith.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

R1. The SLO City Council should continue to work with Cal Poly to develop a multi-year plan to ensure that the illegal street parties known as St. Fratty’s Day is completely eliminated. (R1) This recommendation has been implemented. While the term “St. Fratty’s Day” is no longer used, the behaviors and risks linked to large, unsanctioned events remain a serious concern and the City shares the goal of preventing them. Leading up to recent St. Patrick’s Day weekends, the City and Cal Poly collaborated on coordinated messaging, joint planning, and proactive public safety operations. These efforts, including promoting on-campus alternatives, engaging student leadership, and focusing on high-risk properties, successfully prevented a major street party in 2025. The City will continue partnering with Cal Poly to prevent illegal and unsafe gatherings associated with St.

Patrick’s Day in the future.

9 R2. The SLO City Council, in collaboration with Cal Poly and other stakeholders, should implement proactive measures to address future unsanctioned illegal street parties as they arise. Taking immediate action can prevent these gatherings from escalating over time due to prolonged nonenforcement. This approach would foster a safer community while promoting shared accountability among all parties involved.
(R2) This recommendation has been implemented. The City Council agrees in principle, and the City takes proactive measures whenever possible. In advance of known high-risk weekends such as St.

Patrick’s Day, the City works closely with Cal Poly and regional law enforcement agencies to develop and execute coordinated safety plans. These efforts include maximum police staffing, outreach to student leaders beyond Greek Life, deployment of targeted public safety messaging, and prepositioning of mutual aid resources when appropriate4 .

As explained in the responses to Findings 1 and 3, there are practical and legal limits to how proactive the City can be. Many unsanctioned gatherings are spontaneous and difficult to predict, and excessive preemptive enforcement—particularly when events may not materialize—can erode community trust and divert limited resources from other public safety needs. To address this, the Police Department maintains detailed training protocols and response frameworks for managing large, unpermitted events.

The City continues to promote early community reporting and encourages a “See Something, Say Something” approach and strong collaboration with Cal Poly remains critical. The City would benefit greatly from improved access to timely and accurate information about sanctioned student events and party addresses—data that Cal Poly is uniquely positioned to provide. This would significantly enhance the City’s ability to anticipate and plan for large gatherings, focus enforcement where it is most needed, and ultimately reduce the risk of unsafe or illegal activity.

The City also recognizes that part of the solution involves identifying safe, alternative venues for large student gatherings outside residential neighborhoods. While constraints such as California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) licensing and jurisdictional authority limit the City’s ability to provide or manage these spaces directly, the City will assist in this effort by helping connect partners or identifying opportunities through its Economic Development team.

The City considers this recommendation implemented and remains committed to proactive measures.

R3. The SLO City Manager should develop and implement an ongoing formal process to identify illegal fraternities to bring them into compliance.
(R3) This recommendation has been implemented. Through the code enforcement process, the City has identified properties that are suspected to house fraternities, in locations not allowed by the City’s zoning ordinance or have been proven to house illegal fraternities. It is important to note, that per the municipal code, fraternity members can live together in any zone in the City. As noted in the City’s response to Finding #3 (F3), the City is legally limited in its ability to inquire into personal relationships among residents or regulate who may live together in a private home. Additionally, 4 Activating mutual aid takes time and must be grounded in credible intelligence.

10 targeting residents based on “student” status could create legal risks related to equal protection, fair housing, and land use discrimination.

A violation occurs when fraternity members, who live together, also hold meetings or gatherings associated with the fraternity within a house that does not have a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)5 .

When events occur at these houses that violate the Municipal Code, the code enforcement team follows City standards and practices to notify occupants and property owners of violations and assess fines for non-compliance, as dictated by City regulations. Fines and enforcement actions escalate if repeat events occur that are found to violate the Municipal Code.

The City has established processes for keeping records on these houses to inform future enforcement. Discussion of code enforcement priorities will take place with the City Council as part of the Housing and Neighborhood Livability Major City Goal, Tasks 4b and 4d, during the 2025–27 Financial Plan. These Tasks include a study session with the City Council to discuss Code Enforcement priorities related to safe and livable neighborhoods to receive feedback on Council and community priorities as well as the creation of a project plan and standard operating procedures for the enforcement of zoning code regulation of Greek houses.

R4. The SLO City Council should initiate a task force to explore the creation of a “Student Overlay Zone” near the campus that would allow for municipal code requirements to be introduced that would differentiate it from the rest of the city and recognize the needs of a dynamic university environment. This could facilitate changes to such things as density, parking, noise and fraternity activities.
(R4) This recommendation will not be immediately implemented because it is not reasonable at this time. While the City Council agrees that neighborhoods near campus experience unique land use and quality-of-life challenges, the concept of a zoning overlay that introduces separate municipal code standards based on presumed student occupancy raises significant legal, equity, and policy concerns. Two Major City Goal tasks adopted by the Council in June 2025 are closely aligned with this recommendation and initiating a new task force before these tasks are complete is premature. While these tasks cannot feasibly be completed within the six-month timeframe outlined in subdivision (b) of Section 933, they are part of the City’s formally adopted work program to be completed during the 2025-27 Financial Plan:
• Housing and Neighborhood Livability Task 4b. Conduct a study session with Council on Code Enforcement priorities related to safe/livable neighborhoods and receive feedback on priorities. Discuss potential updates to property maintenance standards. • Housing and Neighborhood Livability Task 4d. Create a project plan and standard operating procedures for Community Development enforcement of zoning code regulations pertaining to Greek houses. Consider potential updates to zoning code to facilitate efficient regulation of Greek houses.
5 CUPs can only be issued for uses allowed by the City’s Zoning Regulations in specific zoning districts. SLOMC Chapter 17.156 defines Fraternities and Sororities as a residence for college or university students who are members of a social or educational association that is affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings.

11 Consideration of Legal Constraints:

Under current California state law, the City cannot reduce allowable residential density or increase parking requirements for certain unit types (such as accessory dwelling units). These limitations constrain many of the zoning tools typically associated with overlay zones. Moreover, municipal regulations must be applied fairly and consistently across all residents. Creating zoning provisions that effectively target or differentiate based on “student” status could expose the City to legal risk related to equal protection, fair housing, and land use discrimination.

Existing Tools and Enforcement:

The City already uses a variety of municipal code tools—such as conditional use permits, noise regulations, unruly gathering ordinances, and Safety Enhancement Zones—to address behaviors and impacts associated with high-occupancy housing and disruptive gatherings. In fact, it enforces some of the most rigorous fraternity-related zoning laws in the state and has taken proactive enforcement action against group housing that is not allowed under current zoning.

Overlay Zone Research and Next Steps:

City staff have completed an initial review of how other jurisdictions have approached similar issues—such as Los Angeles’ Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay or Santa Clara’s code enforcement overlay—to assess potential applicability in San Luis Obispo. While these examples offer useful insights, they are often tailored to local legal frameworks and campus conditions. Notably, many include annual permitting, inspection requirements, and enhanced noticing—tools that may be adaptable in San Luis Obispo within existing zoning and code enforcement systems.

The City will continue to explore feasible strategies that balance neighborhood livability with a growing student population. This includes:
• Revisiting “responsible landlord” lease language.
• Evaluating the feasibility of programmatic enhancements. • Improving coordination between enforcement and planning functions. • Enhancing collaboration with Cal Poly, especially around access to sanctioned event addresses and off-campus behavior data.

R5. The SLO City Council should consider adopting a tiered planning appeal fee structure to promote accessibility of community concerns by individual residents. Such a structure could ensure that financial burdens do not deter public involvement.
(R5) This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The City Council appreciates the Grand Jury’s interest in broadening access to the public process and agrees that community participation is a cornerstone of good governance. As explained under the City’s response to Finding #5 (F5), while planning appeals require a fee, the Planning Commission’s review of a use permit, when initiated based on public complaints or information indicating a permit violation, does not. For fraternities with CUPs, any member of the public may submit a code enforcement complaint at no cost. Such complaints are investigated and, if warranted, can result in a re-review of the use permit.

The current appeal fee structure was thoughtfully designed to balance public accessibility with the need to recover a portion of administrative costs. Importantly, filing an appeal is only one of many

12 ways residents can engage in land use decisions. Community members can provide input through public comment, neighborhood meetings, and direct communication with City Council or the Planning Commission.

While the City Council agrees that a full reassessment of appeal fees is not immediately warranted, they are open to considering whether alternative pathways—such as creative mediation options, structured neighborhood input sessions, or project-specific community liaisons—might more effectively support early and meaningful engagement in the development review process.

R6.The SLO City Manager and the Planning Commission should move toward adopting more uniform conditions for CUP’s [sic] and enforcement of existing requirements. Due to the time span (1971-2024) in which these CUPs were approved, the requirements are inconsistent. The City should consider using future CUP violations to determine if it is appropriate to revise the conditions to make them more relevant for today’s environment. This may require consideration of additional code enforcement staff or alternative work schedules.
(R6) This recommendation has been implemented to the extent practicable and appropriate. Over the past decade, the City has been moving toward both the application of more uniform municipal code requirements (standard conditions) for fraternity and sorority uses as well as the imposition of more uniform conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permits (CUPs). Per the definition of Use Permit in the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.158.046), CUPs are discretionary permits that may be granted to provide for the accommodation of land uses with special site or design requirements, operating characteristics, or potential adverse effects on surroundings, which are not permitted as of right but which may be approved upon completion of a review process and, where necessary, the imposition of special conditions of approval. Therefore, it is often necessary to impose non-standard conditions on a CUP to address site specific concerns and issues, and therefore, the conditions cannot be completely standardized.

Chapter 17.86.130 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations) regulates fraternity and sorority land uses to promote the quality of life in residential neighborhoods. This is accomplished by ensuring that dwelling units housing multiple persons who are members of a fraternity or sorority provide adequate support facilities for the intensity of the associated use, and that such uses are operated in a manner that is not detrimental to the neighborhood in which they are located due to excessive noise, inadequate off-street parking, general property maintenance, and similar potential impacts.

Per the Municipal Code, Fraternity and Sorority uses require a CUP in order to operate.

In 2018, the City updated Chapter 17.86.130 of the Zoning Regulations for fraternity and sorority land uses, in part, to codify a set of standard conditions that would apply to fraternity and sorority land uses. This update included resident occupancy limits, maximum number of persons allowed on site for routine meetings and gatherings, requirements that a fraternity or sorority be affiliated with and in good standing with the Interfraternity Council of Student Life and Leadership at Cal Poly, and requirements that contact information be provided by the landlord to the City for responsible persons. These uniform regulations apply to all new and existing fraternity and sorority land uses.

As noted above, new fraternity and sorority uses require the approval of a CUP. In addition, if conditions of an existing use permit are violated, the CUP is re-reviewed to determine if the use permit should be revoked, or if conditions need to be updated, removed, or added. In order for the reviewing authority to approve a CUP for a fraternity or sorority use, specific findings must be made

13 related to ensuring the health, safety, and welfare of those living on the site and around the site, consistency with the City’s General Plan, and consistency with zoning regulations and neighboring properties.

Given that conditional use permits are site and project specific, conditions of approval within CUPs for fraternities and sororities will vary to some degree to address the unique circumstances of each proposal. However, the City has made a concerted effort to standardize and modernize conditions, as appropriate. This provides clarity for CUP holders, City staff, and the public, and enhances the ability of the City to enforce the conditions in a CUP.

For example, since 2024 the City has reviewed one new and four existing fraternity CUPs which has led to the modernization of CUPs issued in the 80s and 90s to current standards. This has included:
removing outdated conditions that no longer apply and adding certain standardized conditions related to establishing thresholds for re-review should violations occur, extending the hours of compliance with a lower noise limit, requiring ongoing communications between fraternities and their neighbors, prohibiting amplified noise-generating activities, and clarifying that exceptions from the Noise Ordinance will not be approved. The City will continue to standardize conditions of approval as appropriate as new reviews are undertaken. Where there is an opportunity for a condition to become standardized as a uniform requirement in the Municipal Code, the City will consider this change in a future update of the Zoning Regulations. For example, there has been an update to a standard condition for when the re-review of a CUP should occur when there has been a violation of the Municipal Code or CUP. This updated condition language would be considered for inclusion in the Municipal Code as a uniform standard when the next update to the Zoning Regulations occurs, which will likely be within the next year.

The City does enforce Conditional Use Permits. As noted above, the City conducted a re-review of four existing CUPs because of verified violations of the conditions of approval, and several others are pending re-review. This enforcement of the CUPs led to the revocation of three permits, and the updating of one permit. The Community Development Department investigates all complaints received and works closely with the Police Department to determine if a violation of conditions has occurred that would lead to re-review of a Conditional Use Permit (such as a noise violation). In addition, the Community Development Department takes input and complaints from the community, which can and do lead to the re-review of CUPs for non-compliance at no cost to the community member. Enforcement of CUPs is addressed on a complaint basis, similar to other code enforcement activities in the City.

Assuming the last sentence of the Grand Jury’s recommendation is intended to suggest the City should increase the level or hours of code enforcement activity, current staffing levels do not support proactive enforcement of fraternity and sorority CUP regulations in that manner. Noise, unauthorized events, and similar complaints related to fraternities during the fiscal year of 2024- 2025 represent approximately 6.5% of code enforcement complaints and responses and existing code enforcement staff work during standard business hours, with staff available generally between 8am and 5pm. In 2024 existing staff responded to 1,400 complaints, alleging violations relating to substandard housing, mold growth, significant building and fire code violations, land use, property maintenance, unpermitted construction, animals, etc. Extending staff hours or increasing the number of staff available to address fraternity and sorority enforcement would represent a significant increase in ongoing costs to the public at a time when the City is forecasting future budget deficits.

Alternatively, redirection or adjustment of existing staff toward this effort would result in decreased service levels and/or delays in addressing other community response workload. In limited instances

14 where potential large-scale events (such as rush) were known ahead of time, Code Enforcement staff have adjusted schedules or worked overtime in order to gather information in the evening or on weekends to support enforcement actions. This can be useful in specific circumstances, but would be disruptive to other code enforcement efforts and the budget if done regularly.

R7. The SLOCGJ recommends that the SLO City Manager create formal guidelines and provide training outlining how the SLO City Police Department will respond to requests from the SLOCGJ and other oversite bodies.
(R7) This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Grand Jury requests vary in nature and scope and, by their nature, do not lend themselves to a uniform approach in each instance. The Police Department is managed by the Chief of Police who is supervised by and accountable to the City Manager. The City Manager has and will continue to review and provide appropriate oversight and direction to her staff in providing responses to the Grand Jury, in consultation with the City Attorney as needed. In the event a particular request directed to the Police Department demanded confidentiality from the City Manager, the City Attorney’s Office would review and advise the Department’s response and support communication to the City Council.

Respectfully,
City of San Luis Obispo Councilmembers
City of San Luis Obispo City Manager
City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
Cc: San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
P.O. Box 4910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403

City of San Luis Obispo, City Administration, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.781.7114, slocity.org 1 To: The Grand Jury of San Luis Obispo County
Via: Foreperson, Bonnie McKrill
From: The City of San Luis Obispo
Date: June 20, 2025
Re: Clarification of Factual Inconsistencies in Report, Round & Round with Town & Gown
The City of San Luis Obispo (City) team appreciates the opportunity afforded by the Grand Jury to review the report entitled “Round & Round with Town & Gown” ahead of publication. We believe this opportunity will help ensure that the community has the best available information related to this important issue. With that in mind, the City has reviewed the report contents and is offering clarifications of fact in the table below to help correct what we believe may be inaccuracies in the draft report.

Text in the “Quote from Report” column is copy-pasted from the draft Grand Jury report the City reviewed. The City’s concerns as to the accuracy of each quote are in the far-right column.

Page # Quote from Report Factual Problem
1 Many students now reside in singlefamily homes, often exceeding their intended occupancy.

The phrase “intended occupancy” is unclear and not reflective of a defined legal term. Legal occupancy is a concrete, discernable number derived from the California Building Code. Please provide citation to relevant occupancy data supporting the conclusion stated. 1 Over the past two decades, SLO has
experienced significant growth, driven
The population of the City of SLO has not increased significantly over the last two decades and remains under 50,000 at the last census (2020).

in part by the expansion of its
university, California Polytechnic State
University (Cal Poly), and the
increasing student population.

The enrollment of Cal Poly is a separate number and is not captured in the census for the City, as Cal Poly is not located in the City and the campus houses significant portions of its student body on its campus.

Even as to students who reside in housing within the City of San Luis Obispo, those students may have been counted as living at a City address, or at their permanent residence address somewhere outside City limits. It would be more accurate to say that Cal Poly’s student population has had significant growth.
1 SLO has experienced steady
population growth, mirroring broader
urban expansion trends across
California. In 2005, the city’s
population stood at approximately
44,380, and, by 2025, it had risen to
50,612, reflecting a 14% increase.

The 2025 population number appears to be a projection and is not a verified current number. Please accurately reflect the City’s population based on a statistically valid and verified source (i.e., U.S. Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program (PEP) or the American Community Survey).
1-2 As a result, university students now
comprise nearly 46% of the city's total
population…
This is incorrect. Not all university students live in the City and, at the time of each census, not all students who do reside in the City during the school year would necessarily be counted as City residents for census purposes. Cal Poly’s student enrollment is not a de facto subset of census numbers or City population estimates. Again, Cal Poly’s campus, and therefore campus housing, is not within the City limits. 2 … significantly influencing housing
availability both on and off campus,
infrastructure demands, and
neighboring residential community
dynamics.

Provide factual details to support these general conclusions. The statement lacks clarity.
2 Many long-term residents, particularly
families, cherish the stability and
tranquility of their neighborhoods but
now face the challenge of residing in
The term “Family(ies)” is used more than once in the report but is undefined. If it refers to a household with school-aged children, by definition those children did not exist 20 years ago (the look-back period that is referred to by the population numbers).

an increasingly student-centered
neighborhood.
2 …large, unsanctioned street parties
that escalate into public disturbances,
injuries, and property damage.

This use of “unsanctioned street parties” seems focused on the St.

Patrick’s Day related event (“St. Fratty’s Day”), which is a singular, annual occurrence. If there are other instances of such street parties being referenced, clarification is requested as to where and when those took place.
2 The complaints alleged that the City of
SLO and Cal Poly officials were failing
to enforce existing rules and municipal
ordinances, that citizen complaints
were ignored, and neither took
sufficient action to restore order.

All official citizen complaints received by the Police Department and the Code Enforcement Division are fully investigated. If the report is defining “complaint" in a specific way, that definition should be included in the glossary.
2 The San Luis Obispo County Grand
Jury (SLOCGJ) sought to objectively
assess the extent of these issues and
determine whether city officials were
implementing timely and sufficient
countermeasures to address them
effectively.

The report’s focus on the City leaves out the role of Cal Poly and property owners in addressing issues. Looking solely at the City's role misses significant pieces of the picture, most notably Cal Poly and their much more comprehensive access to student information and greater ability to regulate student conduct, and property owners/landlords/property managers responsible for management of their rental properties in the City and their tenants’ use of their properties in a manner that facilitates neighborhood nuisances.
3 conducted fifteen interviews with San
Luis Obispo city residents, city
leadership (including City Council
members, Community Development
and Police Department officials), city
personnel (such as Code
Enforcement), and leadership from Cal
Poly
Implies that no interview was held with the City Manager and leaves out the interview with the non-sworn Police staff member who is one of the persons most knowledgeable on town-gown topics.

4 conducted analyses of policies and
laws, including… Cal Poly’s General
Plan
Clarify what document this is referring to as Cal Poly does not have a general plan.
4 conducted comparative research,
including an investigation of cities with
overlay zones to understand their
implementation and impact. Explored
various policing models, such as the
“Do No Harm” approach, examined
strategies used by other cities
addressing similar university-related
challenges, and analyzed party
ordinances from other municipalities.

More specificity as to what materials are being referenced would be helpful context for readers. The attached bibliography contains general links to website home pages, rather than pinpoint resources seemingly being referenced, and there are no citations within the report connecting statements to sources.
5 The “Do No Harm” approach was
adopted not only due to concern for
officer safety but because a more
aggressive officer presence could
incite a riot.

Though quoted in the report as an official term, “Do No Harm” is not a phrase used by the City Police department. However, the technique described is indeed one SLOPD planned and implemented (to not use aggression should students occupy a street, with a focus on deescalation, community safety, closing affected streets, and other tactics due to the high risk of crowds turning violent, the prevalence of alcohol impaired judgment, and past experiences in SLO with riots). 5 In 2024 the SLO City Chief of Police
deemed their efforts a success as no
harm was done to officers or
attendees. However, the residents in
the area experienced property damage
to their residences and personal
property.

It is an accurate data point that there were minimal arrests and citations in 2024 given the crowd size, and property damage was minimal overall.

The comparison within this statement, however, implies a disregard for property damage, which is false.
5 The SLOCGJ wanted to determine the
validity of the alleged citizen
complaints against the SLOPD as well
A citizen complaint against a police officer or department has a specific meaning and triggers a formal process for investigation. The reported dissatisfaction with prioritization of police resources that was investigated by the Grand Jury should be distinguished from the formal

as verify statements received from
others during our investigation.
complaint investigation process, which is diligently followed by the City/SLOPD. (See California Penal Code Section 832.5.)
5 We were blocked in this effort by two
senior police official’s [sic]
unwillingness to grant an interview.

The Grand Jury interviewed the City Chief of Police and its Public Affairs Manager, both providing extensive and sworn testimony. These two staff members are the City’s most knowledgeable on the strategic, operational, prioritization and historical perspectives of law enforcement and community relations related to the student impacts on City residents and activities. The Grand Jury chose not to subpoena any witnesses and there was no need for additional City staff to divert scarce operational resources toward likely incomplete and/or duplicative appearances that would have been inefficient and operationally unsupportable based on the City’s understanding of the scope of inquiry. In addition, the police department provided hundreds of requested records and
communications, and responded to multiple sets of subsequent and follow-up questions to accurately clarify and verify any and all information requested by or testimony provided to the Grand Jury, which reflects the most complete and accurate source of information. 5-6 In 2024 fireworks were set off in the
Alta Vista neighborhood between 3:00
a.m. and 4:00 a.m., jolting some
residents and their families awake.

This incident is unverified. On March 16, 2024, the City received approximately 30 noise/party calls for service between 02:15am and 08:00am. None of those calls indicated fireworks were heard. 6 The damage was so extensive that Cal
Poly had to close some dorms for two
days to repair the damage.

This statement is incorrect. Muir residence hall closed for a few hours and was reopened the same day to residents.
6 No representatives from the
surrounding neighborhoods were
invited to participate in the task force.

The City, Cal Poly, and representatives of the community, including representatives of the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) group, and members of the public, participate in monthly Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) meetings where town-gown issues are discussed. Following the 2024 St. Patrick’s Day event and at the request of the San Luis Obispo City Manager, all SCLC agendas had a standing item for reports to be provided by both the City and Cal Poly regarding

their preparations and work to address St. Patrick’s Day. To the extent that outcomes from the task force meetings could be shared with the group, they were at that time, on a monthly basis. During these monthly meetings, SCLC members and the public were provided opportunities to ask questions and provide feedback. Additionally, several City officials met with RQN representatives well in advance of the 2025 St. Patrick’s Day event to discuss detailed information regarding the City’s preparations.
7 The City of SLO, concerned about the
safety of their neighborhoods, the
disruptions to the residents, and the
negative image of the City of SLO,
developed their own task force headed
up by the SLO City Police Department.

Although work was done throughout the year to prepare for the 2025 St.

Fratty’s Day event, there was no SLOPD “Task Force” officially formed.

SLOPD engaged in the same planning and preparation process as in prior years, but with a larger response planned for 2025, which included coordination with other law enforcement agencies, Cal Poly, and other City departments such as Fire, Public Works, and Parks & Recreation. 7 The messaging developed by the City
of SLO was “Do Not Come, the party is
over.”
The $125,000 cost estimate listed at the end of this paragraph in the report includes the marketing costs for 2025. The communication plan was extensive with staff spending approximately 40 hours in the months leading up to St. Patrick’s Day speaking to student groups on campus about the Safety Enhancement Zone and communicating to them what to expect. TV ads, radio ads, “every door direct mail” postcards to 8000 addresses, additional postcards handed out by patrol, paid social ads, message boards, three radio station in-person interviews, and Adam Montiel's podcast were all completed to inform students prior to the day of the event. It should also be noted that the City participates annually in Cal Poly Day Week of Welcome to inform and set conduct expectations with each successive year of new students to Cal Poly, and has done so for many, many years.
7 In 2025, the SLO Police Department
activated the Emergency Operations
Center (EOC)…
Cal Poly activated their EOC. The City activated a Department Operations Center (DOC) at the Police Department, which is different from the City’s Emergency Operations Center, so this is an inaccurate statement as to the City.

7 Due to the increased law enforcement
presence, the neighborhood of Alta
Vista did not experience damage to
property and there was no
unsanctioned street party.

The phrasing here suggests that the number of officers was the only factor in the reduction of disturbances, leaving out important details about the work and effort SLOPD did to prepare a plan, broadly communicate, and execute it with coordination and support from multiple other City departments as well as many other agencies.

Multiple patrol methods were used including foot patrols, bicycle patrols, motorcycle patrols and mounted horse patrols. Walkways and access routes to and from campus were manned with officers and signs/barriers, directing revelers back out of the area. In addition, rental lighting and electronic street signage were deployed in the area to improve safety and inform visitors of the enforcement activities. A nearby Law Enforcement field campus included support services, a mobile booking station staffed by the San Luis Obispo Sheriff's Office, as well as Fire Department personnel for medical support, and City Public Works personnel for any road closure needs. The Police department used extensive mobile surveillance cameras mounted on street poles, and multiple drones to provide live video feeds back to the DOC. SLOPD also leveraged relationships with AT&T and Verizon to provide increased bandwith and network monitoring to ensure communications capabilities during the event. The National Guard also assisted by providing technology support used to track officers in the field for situational awareness as to their locations. The CHP also assisted on the night prior to the event by conducting a DUI checkpoint and screened over 1000 vehicles to deter partying in the hours leading up to the event. 7 The SLO Chief of Police Department
estimated costs to the city will be
approximately $125,000.

This estimate does not include any costs borne by other Law Enforcement agencies who assisted and did not charge the City for their time. The $125,000 number also does not include any City personnel who were already scheduled to work, as it was calculated on overtime and equipment/logistics needed for the event.

7 The concert at Cal Poly was deemed a
success as over 6,000 students
attended the event. The event was
limited to 5,000 students; however, unticketed students pushed through the temporary fencing so they could get
into the event. Though this is
concerning, no one was seriously
injured.

When the fence around the event was breached, Cal Poly EOC requested help from the SLOPD DOC as they needed more officers to manage the crowd. Two 12-Officer teams were immediately sent to respond to the concert venue and help restore order.
7 The alternative activity on campus
ended around 10:30 a.m.

The report does not include an estimate of Cal Poly’s costs to host the concert/alternative activity, which have been made publicly available.

This data would seem to be important to facilitate fully informed community-wide assessment of the relative costs and benefits of the comprehensive prevention and response effort.
8 SLO Municipal Code 9.12 (see
Bibliography) provides that “…it shall
be unlawful for any person to willfully
or negligently make or continue to
make or continue, or cause to be made
or continued, or permit or allow to be
made or continued any noise which
disturbs the peace and quiet of any
neighborhood or which causes any
discomfort or annoyance to any
reasonable person of normal
sensitivity in the area.”
This quote is from section 9.12.040 of the SLO Municipal Code. 8 The specific code violation
encompassed in the above-mentioned
Code states that the hours between 10
p.m. and 7 a.m. the following morning
are to remain quiet.

The reference to the 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. timeframe is in SLO Municipal Code section 9.12.050 and technically only applies to: “Radios, Television Sets, Musical Instruments and Similar Devices. Operating, playing or permitting the operation or playing of any radio, television set, phonograph, drum, musical instrument, or similar device which

produces or reproduces sound.” There is a similar provision in a separate section that restricts construction noise during the same timeframe. 8 It should also be noted that the Noise
Control Officer may grant exceptions
to this restriction.

SLO Municipal Code section 9.12.100 provides for an exception process that requires a permit application and establishing criteria by which either the SLOPD Chief or the Community Development Director may grant exceptions. The sentence quoted here does not reflect the correct permitting and approval process required for the exception. 8-9 …noise citations in neighborhoods
near the campus were issued an
average of more than 3 times per week
during the school session. This totaled
139 citations in the Alta Vista
neighborhood, with one house alone
receiving 17 citations. Unfortunately,
there is reason to believe that this
situation remains - to this date -
unabated. Such is the irritation of area
residents, that many have fled the
area.

There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over the past 10 years. It is important for the report to acknowledge that the problem was much worse, and great effort has been made to achieve this reduction in calls for service. Use of phrases like “fully enforced” and “unabated” implies an expectation that there should be no noise complaint calls from any neighborhood, which is unreasonable and unattainable.

There is also ambiguity as to the timeframe of these citation numbers and to what property the 17 citations were issued. Please clarify what data points are being cited here as our data does not support this conclusion.

In contradiction to the statement that noise violations are being allowed to continue “unabated,” the City’s Planning Commission revoked two CUPs for fraternities near campus (1236 Monte Vista Place and 1304 Foothill Blvd) on June 11, 2025, in part due to noise violations. The Planning Commission is reviewing a third fraternity CUP for modification or revocation on June 25, 2025. The City has also cited multiple houses for illegal fraternity operations in R-1 zones as result of noise complaints, and dozens of citations are issued each year.
9 To aid in noise ordinance enforcement
the SLOPD employs the assistance of
Cal Poly students who are enrolled in a
SNAP Officers are City employees, not enrolled in any school program, and are a mix of Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and Hancock College students.

program called the Student
Neighborhood Assistance Program
(SNAP).
9 These students interface with groups
of partiers in residences in the affected
area who are violating the noise
ordinance.

SNAP Officers respond to noise complaints city-wide, not just adjacent to campus.
9 These unarmed SNAP students speak
to the offending parties and attempt to
get them to comply with the city’s
noise standards. There are, however,
only a handful of SNAP students. They
wear civilian uniforms and work in
pairs. They also have radios so that
they may contact the police when
required.

SNAP are student civilian employees of the Police Department who operate as a first response to noise calls. Their primary objective is to educate residents about the City’s noise ordinance, issue a written warning where appropriate, and gain compliance to end the noise disturbance, thus keeping sworn officers free to handle other public safety calls for service. SNAP employees do not carry weapons, and they wear polo shirts and pants. If residents are uncooperative or the situation appears dangerous, they are trained to request officers to respond. 9 These students may, at their
discretion, issue Disturbance
Advisement Cards (DACs).

SNAP and patrol both issue DACs, with SNAP alone issuing 588 DACs in 2024. Officer discretion is guided by Lexipol policy 430 and other training (see SNAP manual Section V: Noise Complaint Enforcement & Safety Expectations).
9 Complainants indicated that weekend
parties can mean up to 100 or more
students at one address and often
continue after visits by police. SNAP
students do not go to lettered fraternity
houses; such visits are reserved for
sworn officers.

Responding officers can issue a citation for a party as either multiple citations at the same time or as additional citations if the problem persists. There was one unruly gathering citation during the St. Fratty's Day 2025 event, and 22 Unruly Gathering citations issued in 2024. Unruly Gathering citations are used for very large parties that meet defined criteria in the municipal code that cause significant disturbance to the neighborhood.
9 SLO Municipal Code 9.12.050 is
specific about excessive noise. It
provides a detailed list of prohibited
acts between the hours of 10 p.m. and
Various City Municipal Code sections are being conflated in these sentences. Sections 9.12.040, 9.12.050.A, and 9.12.050.B regulate different types of sound sources and are applied in different contexts, not all relevant to party noise situations.

7 a.m. While it does not specifically
prohibit noise from parties, it does
speak to the use of loudspeakers and
other electronic devices, including:
“radio, television set, phonograph,
drum, musical instrument, or similar
device which produces or reproduces
sound…”
10 If found to be out of compliance,
SLOPD may issue a warning or
citation.

Citations can be either criminal or administrative, but most often noise violations are citated administratively.
10 In 2023, using extensive citizengenerated data from a Cal Polygenerated report required by AB524, code enforcement started an
investigation into the illegal
fraternities. Based on the investigation,
30-40 Advisory Notices, and 22 Notice
of Violations (NOVs) were sent to
property owners.

In addition, there have been 22 NOVs and 6 administrative citations issued since the 2023 investigation related to unpermitted fraternities or use permit violations.
10 At the time, Cal Poly and code
enforcement were working together on
the illegal fraternity issue. However,
due to changes in policies, Cal Poly
stopped assisting the city, stating
privacy concerns, and revised their AB
524 report to remove some of the
addresses that were previously
provided in the document.

Cal Poly has removed information about the location of parties from its public reports, which previously facilitated the City’s enforcement of its regulations. Outside of the AB 524 report, the City has requested the information directly from Cal Poly, but those requests have been denied.

11 Based on the SLOCGJ investigation,
the number of illegal fraternities may
be more than 40 locations currently
operating in the city. In addition,
citizens have reported that several Cal
Poly recognized fraternities listed in
AB524 have multiple illegal fraternity
locations operating within the city:
some with as many as 7 separate
locations.

Please clarify from what sources these numbers are derived and on what verified evidence they are based, keeping in mind the constitutional considerations/limitations noted below in response to report finding #3. 11-12 Code enforcement complaints are
often received after business hours or
the following day. The result is that
they are limited in their ability to verify
the code violation, as it is after the fact
or violators are not easily identified.

Party activities reported to police are documented and provided to code enforcement, and there is no barrier to the City using all of the information in the possession of either the Police Department or the Community Development Department to pursue enforcement. It is inaccurate to state the City cannot verify violations without sending code enforcement staff out on weekends or after hours; noise complaints received by emergency or non-emergency dispatch after hours are responded to by SLOPD and call logs and citations issued by the Police Department are evidence of that response.
13 The report also provides the address of
each “affiliated chapter house” which
AB 524 defines as those located oncampus or on land owned or leased by the fraternity or sorority.

Education Code Section 66312 defines “chapter house” as “any residence located on or off campus that is owned by the institution of higher education but occupied by a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity, or any residence located on or off campus that is owned and occupied by the campus-recognized sorority or fraternity.” There is no definition of an “affiliated chapter house” in the Education Code. The Education Code’s definition of chapter house is confined to properties owned and occupied by a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity, or occupied by a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity and owned by the university.

13 Evidently, this means that of the 36
recognized fraternities and sororities,
20 either do not have a chapter house
or are in chapter houses that are offcampus and not owned or leased by the fraternity or sorority and therefore
do not meet the definition of an
affiliated chapter house.

Clarify whether “chapter house” as used here is meant to refer to “unaffiliated chapter houses,” and by what definition this is being applied.
13 Any of these chapter houses that hold
fraternity activities such as meetings,
rush events, or parties, are still
required by the SLO municipal code to
have a CUP.

Clarify if a distinction is being made between affiliated and unaffiliated chapter houses.
13-14 Since Cal Poly is not required to
provide the addresses of these
recognized fraternities, the city has no
easy way to verify the location to
determine the reason that the
fraternity does not have a CUP. This
makes it difficult for the city to enforce
the code.

It is legally debatable whether the addresses should be published and/or disclosed or not, but it is true that since Cal Poly now declines to provide specific address information regarding locations of all fraternity/sorority sponsored events, this does impede the City’s enforcement efforts. 14 These CUPs were approved over an
extended period of time by planning
commissions with different members;
the earliest is dated in 1971 and the
latest in 2024. That may explain why
additional conditions were imposed on
some fraternities and sororities and
not others. It may also have to do with
specific characteristics of the
individual parcel.

The differences in the CUPs also reflect regulatory changes to the City Municipal Code that have been made to address issues that have arisen with the fraternities and sororities over time. This is the nature of any CUP and CUP process; it allows for adjustments over time to address emergent needs through the exercise of discretion, individual review, and application of conditions of approval that are tailored to the unique potential impacts of each location as it is reviewed.

14 The planning commission has the
authority to enforce these conditions,
add new conditions if the existing
conditions are not met, and ultimately
revoke a fraternity’s CUP.

It is within the authority of the City’s Planning Commission to take the steps described, but these are part of a process that also includes notice and due process to the permit holder and property owner. CUPs cannot be revoked without due process to the permit holder, which holds a property right to the permit.
14 Citizens can also appeal for a use
permit to be revoked or request that a
permit not be approved. The current
cost to make such an appeal is
$2,583.46, (in 2017 the appeal fee was
$281.00). A complainant noted that
the cost to appeal discourages this
practice.

The cost described here is what a citizen would pay to appeal any decision of the Planning Commission immediately after a CUP is approved or denied. There is also a process that costs no money through which a member of the public can report potential CUP or zoning violations to the Community Development Director. Once investigated, City staff can bring substantiated violations before the Planning Commission for consideration without any cost incurred by the citizen.

This process has led to the revocation of two CUPs this year, and several other CUPs are either scheduled proactively by the City for a future hearing or are being investigated based on violations of conditions. 14-15 While these appeal fees may be
justifiable for major development
projects that demand substantial city
resources like legal reviews, public
hearings, or environmental impact
assessments, they place an undue
burden on ordinary citizens.

As stated above, a member of the public does not need to pay a fee to make the Community Development Department aware of a potential violation of a CUP, which, if verified, can lead to re-review of the permit by the Planning Commission, and potential revocation. The appeal fees apply to the granting (or denial) of a CUP.

The setting of fees, including the appeal fees referred to here, follows an extensive study process, reporting by staff, and deliberation by City Council, with fees based specifically on a fraction of the cost of processing an appeal.
15, F1 Prior to 2025, the city failed to
effectively provide a multi-pronged,
cohesive approach to manage or shut
down large unsanctioned, costly and
unruly events such as St. Fratty’s Day.

This created an unsafe environment,
SLOPD had a robust plan in 2024, based on the size and actions of the 2023 event. The City must balance police response vs. expected crowd size, danger to the community and financial constraints. It is not operationally or financially feasible to call in officers from all over the state every year out because something might happen. The need must be articulated based on intelligence and past experience, and the 2023

with increasing size of unruly crowds,
property damage, injuries and public
disturbances.
event did not rise to the level of problems to create a state-wide staffing aid request in 2024. Each year’s staffing and tactical plan is prudent and appropriate based on previous events and current expected attendance.

The San Luis Obispo Police Department has effectively planned for and staffed numerous large-scale, unpermitted events dating back decades, including the end of Mardi Gras and Poly Royal events. Those events were distinctly different as they were permitted, official events that turned problematic. St. Fratty’s day started organically, has never been permitted, and has slowly grown over the years, with the exception of the COVID-19 pandemic years, where participation sharply declined. Each year, the Police Department engaged in significant community outreach, including print material, directed communication through Cal Poly and Cuesta Colleges, radio ads, door to door knock and talks, met with community organizations including RQN, and authored several media releases, ahead of the unpermitted St. Fratty’s Day event. The City changed the Municipal Code multiple times to increase fines as a means to deter problematic behavior (the Safety Enhancement Zone was amended in 2010 to include Halloween and St. Patrick’s Day, then amended again in February 2024, expanding the Safety Enhancement Zone to include two weekends prior to St. Patrick’s Day to cover the likely dates for St. Fratty’s Day). Robust operational plans were developed each year, in collaboration with Cal Poly, to staff public safety personnel in a meaningful and effective way. St. Fratty’s Day is a particularly difficult event to police, as it consists of revelers walking up and down the sidewalk, with no destination in mind. Short of completely shutting down a neighborhood to all traffic, both foot and vehicular, there are few options police have for preventing what would normally be constitutionally protected activity: walking down a sidewalk in a neighborhood. To further complicate enforcement, many of the revelers

actually live in the very neighborhoods that would be closed and would have to be provided access to their homes.

As the event grew in scale, so did the public safety response. 2020-2021 saw minimal St. Fratty’s Day activity due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was not until 2023 that any extended street closure occurred due to the size of the crowd in the neighborhood. As a result of the increased crowds, the Safety Enhancement Zone was expanded, along with other tactical operational planning to prevent another occurrence. As the crowds in 2024 grew even larger, the departmental staffing became no longer sufficient to safely keep the crowds out of the streets and neighborhoods, resulting in extensive planning for 2025. 2025 planning included working with Cal Poly on a task force that met for almost one full year prior to March 2025. Extensive outreach was conducted, and a request for mutual aid was sent to many agencies across the state. There were over 300 law enforcement personnel in town working the 2025 St. Fratty’s Day event, along with additional personnel at Cal Poly Campus to provide security for the campus dorms and the alternative concert event planned on campus. Officers assisted from as far away as San Francisco and Ventura to ensure enough law enforcement presence in the neighborhood. As a result, although some revelers attempted to go into the street in 2025, no intersections or streets were closed to traffic due to revelers, and the party was effectively shut down, before it started and without incident. For many years, the department has also utilized advanced technology such as drones, and mobile surveillance cameras, along with print materials, street signage and targeted outreach to problem houses in an effort to deter the event. Department leadership worked in collaboration with SCLC monthly and met with the IFC (Intra-Fraternity Council) to engage in productive conversation to gain compliance and warn of the fines and

administrative sanctions that could come with illegal behavior. SLOPD Leadership were guests on several radio shows in an effort to distribute the message of zero tolerance ahead of the unplanned, unpermitted event, and participated in town-hall style meetings on campus with Cal Poly leadership and other City officials.

In summation, the department conducted an outreach campaign as extensive as possible, and employed law enforcement officers from across the state, including horse-mounted patrols, motorcycle patrols, bicycle patrols, foot patrols and mobile teams to effectively end any problems early and quickly. The department fully staffed an Operations Center to function as a command post, and in conjunction with the San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s Office, created a Law Enforcement Campus near the event, for mobile booking and processing of arrestees. The combination of operational planning, use of technology and infrastructure, and the assistance from law enforcement partners from around the state, resulted in an extremely safe and trouble-free event.

The crowd was not able to develop at any one location in the neighborhoods, and there were no reported cases of property damage or injuries. In short, 2025 was an extreme success in quelling the event, which was the culmination of years of iteration and planning.

The City spent over $100,000 in overtime and equipment related to the event. This amount does not include all of the staff time of everyone who was working their normal shift, or all of the other agencies, who supplied their personnel as no-cost mutual-aid. The total cost of the St. Fratty’s Day response was likely in the $700,000-$800,000 range when accounting for all staff time associated with anyone working the event. 2025 was the result of process evolution built upon years of previous plans, lessons learned, and extensive personal relationships built with student, law enforcement, and neighborhood community members

resulting in a least-harm approach to preventing what could have been a highly dangerous event.

Additionally, for many years, the City has engaged in extensive outreach and education each year with Cal Poly to elevate awareness of City codes and conduct expectations, as well as engaging in robust enforcement against individuals engaging in misconduct, as well as landlords whose tenants engage in repeat violations at the landlords’ rental premises. The City notes that it has continued enforcement of its landlord responsibility provisions for properties that host repeat code violations, notwithstanding ongoing landlord and tenant opposition and even in the face of threats of legal challenges.
15, F2 The city has not effectively engaged in
working together with community
stakeholders to find solutions for
ongoing off-campus issues that
negatively impact neighborhoods such
as code enforcement, noise issues,
trespassing, property damage, and
unruly events.

Neighborhood Wellness was a Major City Goal (MCG) from 2011-2017 and then an Other Important Objective (OIO) from 2017-2019. During that time, the Neighborhood Wellness Community Civility Working Group was established and the 90-page report produced. Working groups included neighbors from areas directly off campus, students, City staff and Cal Poly staff. SLOPD, City Administration, and elected representatives of the City Council frequently meet with RQN and participate in SCLC.

The Neighborhood Wellness Community Civility Working Group report contained recommendations, many of which were adopted by the City.

Prior to adoption of the MCG, the social host ordinance was adopted in 2009, stating that party hosts can be held responsible for underage drinking at their parties. In 2010, the City Council adopted amendments to the noise ordinance. Instead of multiple warnings, one warning is provided, then the house goes on the premise list for 9 months and if more complaints are received, and violations verified, citations are issued. The fine structure was changed to $350 - $1000 and landlord

citations were added for repeat offenders. A Cal Poly - City MOU was adopted giving Cal Poly Police administrative citation powers a mile off campus. Party registration was piloted in 2017 and has been going strong since. Stakeholder walking meetings were implemented in the neighborhoods led by Cal Poly to provide residents the opportunity to give feedback on problem locations, though the walking meetings were not revived after COVID. The unruly gathering (UG) ordinance was amended, improving the definition of what a UG is, and Start of School safety enhancement was added in 2015. The City did not implement the keg registration recommendation contained in the Working Group Report because students no longer use kegs like they did in the 90s, nor did the City implement SNAP ride-alongs because SNAP employees are not sworn police officers. Even after the MCG and OIO expired, extensive amendments were made in 2024 to the safety enhancement zones for Halloween and St. Patrick’s Day to include additional weekends of enforcement. Partnerships between the police department and Cal Poly expanded to include focused outreach to incoming students during SLO Days, presentations and outreach to Fraternity and Sorority Life (FSL) chapters, outreach to sports teams and coaching staff and participation in off-campus housing fairs. Annually, the Public Affairs Manager presents to all 5000+ incoming new students and about half of all FSL individual chapters covering city ordinances that most effect students living on and off campus. In 2017, Council approved a pilot party registration program which has since proven to be very successful in reducing noisy parties and improving student-age City resident understanding of how to socialize without being disruptive. In 2024, the St. Patrick’s Day and Halloween safety enhancement zones were amended by Council to include additional dates which provide the police department a longer span of enforcement to better address negative

behaviors in the neighborhoods. Extensive communications plans are created and implemented to provide information to the community about neighborhood related ordinances, with the plans including postcard mailings, radio commercials and PSAs, TV commercials, on and off campus presentations to student groups, noise violations notifications to property owners, posters and flyers throughout the community and electronic communication via police department social media channels including paid ads targeted to college-age residents of the City.

Additionally, noise and unruly gathering information is provided weekly to Cal Poly to be addressed via the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities (OSRR). OSRR is also provided information on students who have been arrested for crimes in San Luis Obispo, such as suspected DUI, domestic violence, theft and assault.

In addition, the City works extensively with Cal Poly on finding solutions for these issues. The SCLC is an additional venue for discussion, dialogue, and collaboration.

The City is committed to ongoing engagement with a variety of community stakeholders related to neighborhood issues.

More recently, City staff have participated in the following collaborative efforts:
 January 10, 2024: City staff with Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the complaints received regarding Fraternities and Sororities.

 April 10, 2024: Follow up meeting with Assistant Director of Fraternity & Sorority Life regarding City’s response to unpermitted fraternities.
 April 16, 2024: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for
Fraternities/Sororities
 August 2024: Community Development Director met with Cal Poly leadership to discuss the issue of Fraternities/Sororities and land use requirements for houses.
 January 12, 2025: Presentation to Greek Organization
Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement
methods for Fraternities/Sororities
 March 4, 2025: Meeting with City staff and Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the ongoing issues regarding Fraternities and Sororities and upcoming “St. Fratty’s Day” event.

In addition to these scheduled meetings, code enforcement staff have met with numerous fraternity members as part of several investigations into alleged unpermitted events. During field inspections and hand delivery of violation notices, residents were verbally provided information regarding applicable regulations. City staff have clearly stated to Cal Poly that staff are available to attend events to educate students on compliance with City regulations.

The Police Department specifically has worked tirelessly over the past decade to address these issues, supported by dedicated staff, new City ordinances, and proven programs that have delivered undeniable positive results. Noise complaints in particular have steadily declined to their lowest recorded levels, while voluntary compliance continues to

increase. In 2010, Council adopted revisions to the City’s noise ordinance, improving the definitions, raising the fines for violations, and adding a provision to include landlord penalties for repeat violations at individual properties. Since the change in the ordinance, there has been a 50% reduction in noise complaints. Prior to 2010, the police department would receive on average 3000 noisy party complaints each year and the average is now around 1450.
15, F3 The city has failed to effectively
enforce municipal codes that prohibit
fraternity and sorority activity in R-1/R2 zones in part due to the difficulty in identifying houses that are hosting
fraternity-type events, such as rush
events and repeated parties. This
inaction has resulted in an increase of
illegal fraternities holding events in
residential neighborhoods making
these areas almost unlivable for most
residents.

Along with the Cal Poly general enrollment numbers, participation in Greek life has also increased; with an increase in membership would understandably follow an increase in activity.

The City enforces municipal code regulations that prohibit fraternity and sorority activity in R-1 and R-2 zones and behaviors that create neighborhood nuisances or otherwise violate City code, while balancing constitutionally protected rights of privacy and free association (specifically, keeping in mind that there are legal limits on a governmental entity’s ability to inquire into the personal relationships of persons living together in their private residences and to regulate the rights of such individuals to associate freely in their homes). The enforcement of these regulations is carried out on a complaint basis, consistent with most code enforcement issues. Since November 2023, the City has investigated over 103 complaints and opened 40 code enforcement cases related to fraternities without permits and violations of conditional use permits. In addition, the City proactively notified 33 suspected fraternity/sorority houses in R-1/R-2 zones that it is illegal to be a fraternity/sorority house in an R1/R2 zone through a courtesy notice. The City has proactively met with Cal Poly staff and students to provide education about compliance with zoning regulations so that Greek organizations can plan living arrangements accordingly, and so that students are aware that they will receive violations if they establish

fraternity/sorority houses in these zones. The City has also been attempting to obtain Greek event registration address information from Cal Poly in order to support enforcement efforts. There is no cited evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that these neighborhoods are “almost unlivable” for residents and such value judgments presented as factual investigation or inquiry undermine the objectivity and credibility of the report’s analytical approach and conclusions.

Cal Poly could substantially aid and enhance the effectiveness of the City’s prevention and enforcement efforts in addressing repeat or habitual misconduct by campus affiliated individuals and groups that occupy properties within the city through increased exchange of information regarding Greek event locations and through enhanced enforcement of its own student conduct measures.
15, F4 The city has failed to consistently
enforce CUPs such as the
requirements for an annual list of
parties and events, notification to
neighbors, and parking plans. Strict
enforcement of these conditions
would contribute to a reduction of the
disturbances in the neighborhoods.

The City enforces the provisions of CUPs as violations are reported and verified. In the last year, the City verified that 5 fraternities have violations of existing CUPs. This resulted in 3 hearings before the Planning Commission for revocation/revision of the CUPs in question, with additional hearings scheduled in upcoming months. In May 2025, the Planning Commission voted to revoke the CUPs for two fraternity houses due to violations of conditions of approval.
16, F5 The current planning appeal fee
structure in SLO disproportionately
impacts ordinary citizens, as the high
costs create barriers for those raising
concerns about community issues
such as noise or safety. While these
fees may be justifiable for large-scale
As stated previously, the planning appeal fee described in the report is what a citizen would pay to appeal any decision of the Planning Commission. It costs nothing to report potential CUP or zoning violations to the Community Development Director. Once investigated, City staff would bring substantiated violations before the Planning Commission for consideration without any cost incurred by the citizen. This exact process has resulted in the re-review of several CUPs this year.

development appeals requiring
additional city resources, they hinder
equitable participation in local
decision-making processes.

It is an incredibly important distinction to make that citizens raising concerns about noise or safety is free. The appeal fee only applies to a decision on a CUP before the PC.

In addition, the appeal fee structure was adopted by the City Council in 2024 after robust review of cost-of-service data presented in the associated fee study and report and following significant deliberation by the City Council regarding the fee amount. The Council carefully considered how much the fee should be subsidized in order to not discourage the involvement of ordinary citizens in the decision-making process. The fee is the same regardless of the status of the appealing party (whether a developer, city resident, non-city resident, etc.) and therefore does not disproportionately impact any specific party. The appeal fee is based on an analysis of the amount of time required to process an appeal, and, per City Council direction, the fee was set at a percentage of the full cost of processing an appeal in order to ensure it is not overly burdensome.
16, F6 The Grand Jury encountered a lack of
cooperation from the San Luis Obispo
City Police Department. While one
sworn officer did participate in an
interview, efforts to interview two
additional sworn officers were
unsuccessful. This unwillingness to
engage hindered the Grand Jury’s
ability to corroborate statements,
obtain essential information, and
maintain transparency in its oversight
role.

One of the City’s most knowledgeable persons on these topics is a nonsworn staff member and was interviewed for 90 minutes. The City provided its two most knowledgeable people (with the “one sworn Officer” being the Chief of Police) to be interviewed. No subpoenas were issued to Police staff.

This is a false statement – The police department provided unimpeded and direct access to both the Chief of Police and the Public Affairs Manager, as well as written responses to multiple iterative series of questions, as well as providing documents with thousands of current and historical data points requested by the Grand Jury. Neither the City nor any particular City police department personnel was ever served with a subpoena for additional witnesses, documents, or data. The department

did decline further voluntary requests for additional interviews of department staff by the Grand Jury after complete access was already provided to the department’s Chief, the City Manager who supervises the Chief, and the civilian police department staff person who were best informed as to all relevant operations to speak most comprehensively about the issues the City understood were being investigated. Both agency representatives and the City Manager engaged thoroughly and exhaustively, responding to all questions submitted in person and in writing from the Grand Jury, on multiple occasions. The police department did not elect to “voluntarily” provide access to other shift working staff who have limited scopes of operational responsibility or, at best, incomplete historical information or who were themselves unable to speak with completeness or accuracy about current planning efforts for what was at the time the upcoming 2025 St. Patrick’s Day Celebration.

The finding misrepresents the transparency and cooperation the police department and the City as a whole extended to the Grand Jury to complete the most accurate and comprehensive report possible on this dangerous and nuisance event for our community. The department has been extremely proactive in combatting this event and in providing critical information to the Grand Jury, Cal Poly, the City Council, and our community to reduce and ultimately prevent the dangerous street party, which was in fact accomplished this year, exceeding all expectations. 17, R6 The SLO City Manager and the
Planning Commission should move
toward adopting more uniform
conditions for CUP’s [sic] and
enforcement of existing requirements.

As CUPs come in for re-review staff are ensuring that they are as consistent as possible with the new set of standard conditions the City has created, with uniform conditions being updated as needed. Setting constraints like a uniform set of conditions on the exercise of discretion diminishes the usefulness of the review process to address specific needs over time or for unique circumstances that may exist at specific properties or with particular groups or organizations.

17, R7 The SLOCGJ recommends that the SLO
City Manager create formal guidelines
and provide training outlining how the
SLO City Police Department will
respond to requests from the SLOCGJ
and other oversite bodies.

Grand jury requests vary in nature and scope and, by their nature, do not lend themselves to a uniform approach in each instance. The Police Chief is supervised by and accountable to the City Manager and the City Manager has and will continue to review and provide appropriate oversight and direction to her staff in providing staff responses, consulting with the City Attorney as needed. In the event a particular request directed to the police department demanded confidentiality from the City Manager, the City Attorney’s Office would review and advise the Department’s response and support communication to the City Council.
24-26 Bibliography Links are to general websites and not specific reference materials. No specific citations exist in the report. Some of the links do not appear to actually contain the information that they are being relied upon to support in the report.

In addition to these specific factual corrections offered in the table above, we believe the overall tone of the report could be improved by removing language (e.g. comparing City zoning to the Twilight Zone television show) which trivializes both the serious issues for the neighborhoods and the tremendous ongoing resource investments made (past and present) by the City to address those concerns.

The report also suffers from the recurring use of ambiguous phrases and references stated as facts, which do not seem to be connected to factual support or contextual or temporal data points, thereby diminishing the objectivity, credibility, and impact of the conclusions in the report. Some examples are:
• “a quaint town with a rich history”
• “once-quiet residential areas”
• “residents—students, families, and long-time locals”
• “a range of challenges for the surrounding neighborhoods” • “neighborhood integrity”

• “fully enforced”
• “this situation remains - to this date - unabated”
• “the affected area”
• “warrant a police citation”
• “a real time solution”
The City recommends replacing those phrases with more precise language or providing the noted factual, temporal, or contextual support for the statements.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these clarifications, recommendations, and suggestions for the report before it is released to the public. We fully support the effort to provide the public with a complete and accurate picture of the issues raised in the complaints that gave rise to this report, and we hope our recommendations assist in that effort.

RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT
Report Title: “Round & Round with Town & Gown”
Report Date: June 18, 2025
Response by: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
City of San Luis Obispo Councilmembers
City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission

FINDINGS

1. We agree with the findings numbered: N/A

2. We disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Recommendations numbered R1, R2, R3, R6 have been implemented.

2. Recommendations numbered N/A have not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future.

3. Recommendations numbered N/A require further analysis.

4. Recommendations numbered R4, R5, R7 will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable.

Date: September 16, 2025 Signed:

Number of pages attached: 41 (City of San Luis Obispo Response Letter – 14 pages; Exhibit A – June 2025 Memorandum – 27 pages).