Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/2024 Item 6b, Walker, S. Steven Walker < To:Marx, Jan; Stewart, Erica A; Pease, Andy; Francis, Emily; Shoresman, Michelle; E-mail Council Website Subject:6.b. Appeal for a Fraternity CUP at 1264 Foothill This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Mayor Stewart and Councilmembers, I must respond to the City staff’s report, beginning with Appeal Issue Number 4. City staff says that setting a threshold of violations within a certain timeframe that triggers a review of the CUP by the Planning Commission somehow prohibits staff from referring the CUP to the Planning Condition for re-review upon receipt of any substantiated violation or frequency of violations. I’ve read the appeal, and nothing is suggested to prevent staff from referring the CUP to the Planning Commission at any time if a provision is added for a threshold of violations that trigger a review. It could be two violations in six months or four violations in twelve months. These are not permissive or excusable but require some form of action when the threshold of violations is met. It makes the condition more effective. Here are the historical facts: 1. Every fraternity CUP currently has multiple documented violations of its conditions. 2. Despite these multiple violations, city staff, including those listed in Condition 3 (Code Enforcement Officer, Fire Department, or Police Department) have never written a complaint against a CUP for re-review by the Planning Commission. It seems the responsibility for writing a complaint is left to the residents, if you leave the condition as it is, without a trigger for review. 3. Many residents are afraid to file a written complaint because of potential retaliation from fraternity members. This is a realistic fear because several residents have had their property vandalized or faced other repercussions when fraternity members suspected their neighbor called SLOPD to report a noisy party. One neighbor had their car vandalized and others have been cussed out by fraternity members after noise citations were issued to fraternities near their homes. An unofficial fraternity house for Sigma Pi moved in next door to our family and members began cyberstalking my wife 24 hours after they received a noise citation for a noisy party, and I was away at work. Among other 1 things, they posted ads on Craigslist advertising “free” items at our house and made appointments for people to come to our home. For months afterward, they incessantly teased and harassed our dog, yelled “F#ck you!” toward our home randomly, day and night from a side deck adjacent to our bedrooms and kitchen, banged on trash bins filled with empty bottles for several minutes in the middle of the night after moving them close to our bedroom windows, and can be heard admitting it was done to harass us. We have the video. Our property was also vandalized. Nearly a year after the fraternity members moved out, someone related to the fraternity trespassed onto our property, walked up to our bedroom window, called out my wife’s name, then walked away. Afterward, they are seen and heard on our video surveillance saying they “are friends with the Sigma Pi guys who lived here last year.” Our home address was repeatedly posted on social media, for example, advertising a party at 5 a.m. on St. Fratty’s Day at our address. There are too many incidents to list and the harassment has continued, even though the fraternity members moved out in June 2023. The repercussions experienced by our family and our neighbors were based on suspicions by fraternity members because of the fraternity's proximity to their neighbors. There was no way for the fraternity members to know positively that we, or our neighbors, called SLOPD but their suspicions drove them to take these actions. For these reasons, it is not reasonable to rely on a written complaint by a resident against a fraternity’s CUP. 4. I wrote a complaint for repeated violations of a fraternity’s CUP, and no action was taken. A fraternity with a CUP is located a block from my home, at the end of my street. There are constant noisy parties with hundreds of guests at the fraternity. My wife and I have spoken to the fraternity members several times during noisy parties. In the nine months between 3/18/2023 and 12/3/2023, SLOPD issued six noise citations to the fraternity, including two unruly gatherings with hundreds of people. On 2/5/2024, I submitted a written complaint to Community Development Director, Timmi Tway. It has been over eight months, and the written complaint has not been forwarded to the Planning Commission. (!!!) Community Development did not contact the fraternity about the complaint filed on 2/5/2024 and the fraternity continued to have large, noisy parties. Between 2/10/2024 and 6/8/2024, SLOPD issued five more noise citations to the fraternity, some with 100 people. We filed another written complaint on 6/3/2024 citing four additional citations since the previous written complaint made on 2/5/2024. Neither written complaint has been forwarded to the Planning Commission. Within that time frame, several Planning Commission meetings were canceled because there was nothing on their agenda. Community Development should have taken care of the matter soon after the first written complaint was filed on 2/5/2024. We contacted Community Development multiple times because of the ongoing, noisy parties at the fraternity after we filed our written complaint. The city’s code enforcement supervisor, John Mezzapesa, said that the written complaint was given to Tyler Corey to handle, and he was working on it, but Mr. Corey didn’t do anything. It’s been over 8 months, and the Planning Commission has still not received my complaint(s). Let's be honest. It is not realistic to believe that Community Development will be proactive in filing a complaint and refer a fraternity to the Planning Commission for re-review, especially after one violation, as they suggest in their response. An existing CUP for a fraternity says that any written complaint will be forwarded to the Planning Commission within one week of receipt. In addition to adding a threshold for violations, I feel it is important to have a deadline in Condition 3 for forwarding a complaint to the Planning Commission after it is received. 2 During the Planning Commission hearing on 6/12/2024, Commissioner Kahn suggested a threshold of four violations within 12 months as a trigger for review. As the city staff was drafting new conditions, Commissioner Kahn again emphasized adding that condition, and staff told him that it was already covered by Condition 3. However, there is a distinct difference between requiring a written complaint and having a threshold of violations to trigger a review of the CUP. Setting a threshold of violations of the CUP within a specified timeframe guarantees there will be a review at some point if the fraternity reaches that threshold. It does not require a written complaint from a resident, though a resident may still write a complaint. But as I’ve described, many affected residents do not feel comfortable doing so. It does not rely on Code Enforcement, Fire, or SLOPD to file a complaint, though they may still do so. But City Staff has not asked for a review of any fraternity’s CUP even though every fraternity CUP has had multiple ongoing violations for several years. It does not prevent staff from asking for a review sooner, after one violation, if they choose to do so. But realistically they will not do so considering fraternities have many ongoing violations of their CUPs and no review has ever been requested by city staff. A condition with a threshold of violations that trigger a review by the Planning Commission should be added to the CUP. It protects the health, safety, and well-being of the neighborhood and holds the fraternity responsible for the conditions of their CUP. Adding Conditions to the CUP to Make Things More Clear to the Fraternity: In response to Appeal Issue No. 1, where the appeal asks for specific conditions related to realistic problems of a fraternity use in a residential neighborhood that are listed in other fraternity CUPs, staff says that adding conditions to the CUP is not necessary because the SLOMC has had “incremental improvements” between 1983 and 2013 that directly address concerns related to noise, etc. The “improvements” include updating unrelated things like adding days to the safety enhancement zone or updating fine amounts for citations. It seems disingenuous to imply that these changes justify omitting useful conditions that are included in other fraternity CUPs. Those conditions strengthen the CUP and help to clarify the conditions to the fraternity. When the other CUPs were drafted, the city also had a noise ordinance, residential occupancy requirements, etc. but the Planning Commission included certain conditions to emphasize the fraternity’s obligation to follow the noise ordinance and other laws. These added conditions outline the fraternity’s responsibility to the neighborhood and the consequences for violation of the CUP. Spelling out these specific conditions is beneficial because they clarify common issues related to a fraternity’s use, especially related to its location in a residential neighborhood. When the conditions are documented in a CUP it is less likely that there will be confusion by the fraternity about relevant laws and conditions. I brought up this issue during public comment at the Planning Commission hearing and the commissioners agreed that specifically mentioning the noise ordinance and “quiet hours” is important, even though it’s already in the city’s noise ordinance. It would also be helpful if the Community Development Department met with each fraternity at the beginning of the academic year to review the conditions in the CUPs so there is a clear understanding of the specific conditions. Special Event Permits and Violation of the City’s Noise Ordinance: In response to Appeal Issue No. 2, staff says the municipal code allows the noise control officer to grant exceptions for the fraternity to violate the noise ordinance if deemed appropriate. 3 I don’t understand how it can ever be deemed appropriate for a fraternity to violate the noise ordinance. This is a residential neighborhood. The noise ordinance ensures that every residential neighborhood is protected from unhealthy levels of noise and allows people to rest when needed. It doesn’t make sense that there is a carve- out for a fraternity to violate the law with what the staff’s report refers to as “amplified noise-generating activity”. It is harmful to even suggest a condition that grants an exception of the law to fraternities so they can have a party or multiple parties each year in a residential neighborhood. My work schedule includes long shifts, ranging from 12.5 to 14 hours, and switches between days and nights. I also work on weekends. I depend on a quiet environment at home to sleep between my shifts. As an EMS pilot, it would be unsafe for me to work if I am not rested. It’s unbelievable to imagine that the city would allow noisy parties that would potentially disturb its neighbors and interrupt our ability to sleep. The fraternity brings in a lot of money from its members and can afford to hold larger, amplified, noisy events at a third-party venue. Cal Poly should explore the possibility of providing a venue for their Greek life organizations to hold events on campus. I’ve attended several events on campus at various facilities and they were well done, with catering and other amenities. Cal Poly needs to start taking more responsibility for its fraternities. Cal Poly has recently recruited four more fraternity chapters to its campus without housing provisions for the location of their fraternity houses. Each of those new fraternity chapters is illegally located in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and hosts fraternity events. Still, Cal Poly continues to recruit even more fraternity chapters to its campus and the impact of fraternity activities on our neighborhoods continues to increase. There are now 19 fraternities in the IFC and only 6 have CUPs. This CUP is setting a precedent for other fraternity CUPs and there should NOT be a condition that allows fraternity parties to violate the noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood under any circumstances. Cal Poly has only been in session for a month and Lambda Chi Alpha at 1264 Foothill has already had several noise complaints and two noise citations in the past two weeks for noisy parties after 10 p.m. One of the noise citations says there were 70 people at the fraternity party. The CUP for 1264 Foothill says that occupancy is limited to 48 people unless they have a special event permit. The fraternity doesn't seem to care about the conditions in its CUP or their impact on the neighborhood. A month ago, the police log described a party in the front yard with a sign that said, "You honk, We drink". That party wasn't cited. Considering the documented issues related to fraternities in general, for the protection of the neighborhood and surrounding neighbors, and considering the fraternities’ lack of understanding of the current conditions of their CUPs and laws, I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal and add conditions to the fraternity’s CUP to make it more effective and clear for the fraternity. It also sets a precedent for future CUPs so it’s important to get it right. Thank you. Sincerely, 4 Steve Walker 5