HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/2024 Item 6b, Walker, K.
kathie walker <
To:Marx, Jan; Shoresman, Michelle; Stewart, Erica A; Pease, Andy; Francis, Emily; E-mail
Council Website
Subject:Item 6b on 10/15/2024: Appeal to Add Conditions to Fraternity Use Permit (Lambda
Chi Alpha)
Attachments:Kathie Walker letter to Planning Commission..pdf
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear City Councilmembers,
In June 2024, City Planner Hannah Hanh told me that the conditions of the CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha were based on
the two most recent CUPs, which are for two sororities. Each has limited occupancy of 6 and 7 residents, respectively.
Fraternity use is much different than sorority use because sororities don’t have parties with alcohol. Sororities go to
fraternity houses to party, and fraternities have large parties with alcohol that are extremely disruptive to their neighbors.
Even if the City considers sororities and fraternities as the same use, conditions must be added to the proposed CUP for
Lambda Chi Alpha to mitigate the known, documented problems associated with noise and fraternity use.
The municipal code states that violating the City’s noise ordinance is a public nuisance, is detrimental to the health,
welfare, and safety of others, and is contrary to public interest.
On the other hand, the Staff Report claims that there are “exceptions” to the City’s noise ordinance that enable the
Community Development Director to approve Special Event Permits, and such events are allowed to violate the City’s
noise ordinance.
I can understand issuing a Special Event Permit to allow greater occupancy during certain hours of operation, such as
during the day for an event, however allowing a permit to violate the noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood,
especially at night, is not reasonable.
The municipal code cited by Staff (SLOMC 9.12.100) says that any “exceptions” that allow violation of the noise ordinance
can only be granted if all the following three conditions are met:
1. It is subject to limitations “appropriate to protect the public health, safety and welfare from the noise emanating
therefrom”,
2. If the \[fraternity\] applicant can demonstrate that bringing the source of sound or activity into compliance with the noise
ordinance “would constitute an unreasonable hardship on the \[fraternity\] applicant, on the community, or on other
persons”, and
3. Must balance the denial \[not being allowed to have an event that violates the noise ordinance\] as a hardship on the
applicant against
(1) the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of other persons affected;
(2) the adverse impact on property affected; and
(3) any other adverse impacts of granting the exception \[to allow a fraternity party to violate the noise ordinance\].
I’m unsure what limitations cited in item 1. could prevent the neighbors from hearing an outdoor fraternity party with 100
people and/or amplified noise, especially at night when people are trying to sleep, and when the noise ordinance prohibits
amplified noise from crossing the property line.
Is it truly a “hardship” if the fraternity is not allowed to host an amplified event in a residential neighborhood that violates
the noise ordinance? The fraternity representative said they will have at least 4 events over the next 9 months that will
1
require Special Event Permits. The fraternity should host those events at a third-party venue so the people living nearby
are able to sleep and be rested for work, school, or other life obligations.
There are 19 fraternities at Cal Poly. How many events that violate the noise ordinance (considered by the SLOMC to be
a public nuisance, detrimental to health, welfare, and safety, and contrary to public interest) should the City’s
neighborhoods endure?
Another factor that isn’t mentioned is that sororities and other guests walk through the neighborhoods to attend these
events. They yell, especially after they’ve been drinking, coming and going from the events and this goes on for hours.
Fraternity parties impact the neighborhood beyond the fraternity house, itself.
The “hardship” of living near a fraternity is borne by the neighbors who are kept awake by loud fraternity parties. There is
no way to balance or mitigate the adverse impact for those living and working nearby. It is not reasonable to allow events
within a residential neighborhood that violate the noise ordinance which, according to the City’s municipal code, is
detrimental to people’s health, safety, and welfare and is a public nuisance.
Our family is impacted by fraternities on Foothill Blvd. We can hear them from our house. At times we thought the noise
was coming from a block over on Bond St or Hathway Ave because it was so loud, but upon locating the source of the
noise, we found the party was at a fraternity on Foothill. A video link to one recent event at a fraternity on Foothill that
could be heard from our house is included in my previous correspondence to the Planning Commission. I have attached
my correspondence to this email. It took three responses from SLOPD to shut down the fraternity party on Foothill Blvd
and officers had to call their sergeant to the scene because the fraternity refused to stop the disruptive party! I’ve
wondered if there were any consequences to that fraternity, other than the noise citations.
Our family needs to sleep due to work and other family obligations. If my husband can’t sleep, he cannot go to work
because he has a safety-related job, and if he can’t work it affects our family’s income. Using the balancing factors cited
by City staff, outlined in SLOMC 9.12.100, a “hardship” on a fraternity for not being able to host large parties with
amplified noise in violation of the noise ordinance, does not outweigh the protection of the neighborhood and allowing
people to sleep so they can go to work. I honestly can’t believe I have to say this because it seems like common sense.
There are obvious blind spots within the City Administration when it comes to dealing with the “fraternity situation” overall,
understanding/enforcing the noise they generate, and enforcing the existing CUPs for permitted fraternity houses that flout
the law, even when a written complaint is made. There are also 70+ documented illegal fraternity houses operating as full-
fledged fraternity houses throughout the City’s neighborhoods, many operating as the main chapter houses for their
fraternities, and they are still going strong a year after I gave a detailed report to Community Development with
documentation of the fraternity locations, including fraternities' social media posts.
Cal Poly’s AB 524 report also documented the address locations of fraternity events, which confirmed the social media
documentation I provided in my report. The standard of proof required to cite these illegal fraternities is a “preponderance
of the evidence” which means it is more likely than not. The documentation adequately met that burden, yet the
fraternities continue to operate illegally at the addresses that were identified a year ago.
Unfortunately, many of those addresses, including the main chapter houses of some fraternities, were not sent Notices of
Violation or Advisory Letters. Some were, but even then, some Notices of Violation were missing dates, and many of the
Advisory Letters were lost by the Community Development Department, so there is no physical record.
I was asked to use the AskSLO app to make reports and did so, but most of the reports I made that specifically identified
dates, times, and addresses of illegal fraternity events were not followed up on during the dates, times, and addresses
provided to the Community Development Department so were dismissed as unfounded, even though the events occurred.
The "fraternity situation" has been so disheartening. And now I am even more baffled after reading the City Staff's
arguments AGAINST addition conditions to the fraternity's CUP which promotes wellness in the neighborhood. Is it
because Community Development staff are already so overburdened that they don't want to take responsibility for
enforcing the CUP? I can't think of any other logical explanation to justify not having a threshold of violations that trigger a
review of the CUP by the Planning Commission.
Under the “exceptions” cited by City Staff that would allow the fraternity to violate the noise ordinance (9.12.100. A.2.), the
municipal code also says, “Any individual who claims to be adversely affected by an allowance of the exception may file a
statement with the noise control officer containing any information to support his or her claim. If at any time the noise
control officer finds that a sufficient controversy exists regarding an application, a public hearing will be held.”
2
How does “any individual” know that the fraternity has applied for an “exception” to host an event in violation of the noise
ordinance? Are neighbors notified before the noise control officer grants the exception so they "have an opportunity file a
statement with the noise control officer"?
The Staff report says a Special Event Permit can only be approved with the three required findings listed in SLOMC
17.108.040. Finding 2 says the event “is consistent with or an improvement to the character of the neighborhood or zone.”
A fraternity party does not improve the character of the neighborhood. Also, a fraternity is not allowed “by right” in an R-4
neighborhood. The CUP is meant to include conditions that mitigate the impact of fraternity use so that the fraternity
house fits into the residential neighborhood, as a residence that is permitted to hold gatherings of up to a certain amount
of people during certain hours. People of all demographics live in our neighborhood. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario that
would be considered an improvement to the character of the neighborhood by allowing a fraternity event to violate the
noise ordinance.
Please limit Special Event Permits to allow an increase in occupancy limitations for events, and do not allow events to
violate the City's noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood.
Appeal Issue No. 3 – Limitation reverts to “residential occupancy” limit per condition 4 at night from 10 p.m. to 9
a.m.
The appeal also asks for a limitation on occupancy from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. based on the maximum allowed residential
occupancy limitation listed in condition 4, which says “The fraternity shall be limited to a maximum of 24 residents for the
property.”
The Staff Response says that the condition cannot limit the type of people (residents vs. non-residents) but acknowledges
that it is permissible to limit the number of people for the use. While the wording of the condition cannot list the limitation
to residents, it is legal to limit the occupancy to 24 after 10 p.m.
Condition 5 limits the number of people for “routine meetings and gatherings” to 48. The reason the limitation of persons
on site after 10 p.m. is included in other fraternity CUPs and is requested here is that the noise generated by 48 people is
much greater than the noise generated by 24 people. This is a residence in a residential neighborhood. The fraternity
representative told the Planning Commission that gatherings happen outdoors, between the front and back houses. Noise
generated by 48 people would violate the noise ordinance and disturb the neighbors.
The primary concern about the fraternity’s use is noise. I know the noise ordinance isn’t that interesting but here are some
main points:
-The noise ordinance is a 24/7 regulation and prohibits a "noise disturbance" that is plainly audible 50 feet from the
noisemaker. The dictionary defines a "noise disturbance" as the interruption of a settled and peaceful condition.
-Amplified sound (television, radio, etc.) is prohibited from crossing the property line after 10 p.m.
- Depending on the "character of sound", for example, if the noise contains music or speech, it cannot exceed 45 decibels
across the property line after 10 p.m. for 30 minutes, which is equivalent to the sound level in a library. Noise that includes
music or speech at 65 decibels is prohibited from crossing the property line, which is equivalent to the sound level of a
normal conversation.
These are the standards outlined in the City’s noise ordinance. There are free apps you can download on your phone that
measure decibel levels and it’s surprising how “loud” everyday things are, such as a conversation, which can be disturbing
at night when ambient noise levels are low and people nearby are trying to sleep.
Limiting the number of people after 10 p.m. is consistent with the required findings per SLOMC 17.86.130, which is also
cited in the Findings of the Draft Resolution and states “the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare
of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because conditions have been included that place limits on the
number of persons allowed on site, restrict activities … and limit potential disturbances to neighboring properties.”
Nighttime, after 10 p.m., is a sensitive time when most people are trying to sleep, and it is a reasonable condition to limit
the number of people on the property to 24 from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Please add this condition to the fraternity’s CUP.
Land Use and Housing Elements in the General Plan
3
The Findings in the Draft Resolution state that the project is consistent with the General Plan because “the project would
facilitate Land Use Element Policy 2.6.5 and Housing Element Policy 8.6 (sic) by locating a fraternity in proximity to the
Cal Poly SLO campus.”
For context, the first sentence of Land Use Element Policy 2.6.5 states, “The City shall work with Cal Poly to develop a
proposal to locate fraternities and sororities on campus for consideration by the CSU Board.” The secondary portion of the
policy says, “If locations on campus cannot be provided, fraternities and sororities should be limited to medium-high and
high-density residential areas near campus.”
Please consider the intended meaning of this policy. Allowing more and more fraternities to overtake the residential
neighborhoods does not further this policy.
The first sentence of Housing Element Policy 8.5 says, “Locate fraternities and sororities on the Cal Poly University
campus. And secondarily, “Until that is possible, they should be located in medium-high to high-density residential zones
near campus.” (Policy 8.6, referenced in the Draft Resolution, refers to Cal Poly staff housing and is not applicable here.)
Again, the primary sentence in this policy is for fraternities to be located on campus, not in the City's neighborhoods.
Allowing more fraternities in the City does not "facilitate" the intended meaning of these policies in the General Plan, as
claimed in the Draft Resolution.
Housing Element Program 8.15 says, “Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-campus
fraternity/sorority living groups.” That portion of the General Plan was not included in the Draft Resolution.
These Programs and Policies were adopted ten years ago, in 2014. What has the City done to further their
implementation?
The City’s General Plan recognizes that fraternities and sororities do not belong in the City and should be located on Cal
Poly’s campus. The Planning Commissioners also said that fraternities should be on Cal Poly’s campus. Since Cal Poly
does not have a Greek Row, the burden of housing the fraternities falls on the City and its neighborhoods.
To mitigate the negative impacts of a fraternity in a residential neighborhood, a CUP must have conditions that specifically
address relevant issues, and those conditions should be listed in the CUP so they are clear to the fraternity. Specific
conditions that address common issues for a fraternity’s use should be included in the CUP to establish clear
communication of the expectations and the consequences for the fraternity if they don’t adhere to the listed conditions.
For instance, the following condition is included in other fraternity CUPs, which was requested in the appeal, and makes
sense:
“Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct of the use so as to constitute a
violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the
health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for the revocation
of this permit.”
The City Staff implies that the fraternity already has to follow this condition of use because it must follow Federal, State,
and local laws and the obligation is listed throughout Chapter 17 of the SLOMC, so it doesn't need to be included as a
condition. If it’s not listed as a condition in the CUP, how does the fraternity know that it’s a condition of use? Also, any
written complaints, especially by community members, are based on the conditions outlined in the CUP. It's confusing if
the condition is not specifically listed as a condition in the CUP.
This condition and others suggested in the appeal, should be included in the CUP so the conditions are clear to the
fraternity and the community.
Finally, you might think that Lambda Chi Alpha would be on their best behavior in anticipation of this appeal. Cal Poly has
only been in session for a month, so it seems simple: Don’t have loud parties that violate the noise ordinance and don’t
have more than the maximum occupancy of 48 as outlined in the CUP before the City Council hearing on 10/15/2024. But
in the past few weeks, the fraternity has had multiple calls to SLOPD for noise. (None were made by me or my family.)
During the first week of classes a call was made to SLOPD and the dispatcher noted in the log that the fraternity was
partying in the front yard at 1264 Foothill with a sign that said, “YOU HONK, WE DRINK”.
4
After that, there were at least two more loud parties at night and were issued noise citations at 1264 Foothill on 10/2/2024
and 10/9/2024. One citation lists 70 people at the party.
During the Planning Commission hearing, the Chair asked the fraternity representative, Thomas Symer, if Lambda Chi
Alpha had any satellite houses that held fraternity events in the neighborhood. Mr. Symer said they did not. However, that
isn’t true. Lambda Chi Alpha has at least five illegal fraternity houses in the Alta Vista neighborhood that held documented
fraternity events during the last academic year, including at 171 Orange, 12 Hathway, 253 Albert, and 278 Albert. Mr.
Symer’s name was listed as the person cited at a fraternity event at one of those addresses.
Lambda Chi Alpha has continued to hold illegal fraternity events at those addresses during rush recruitment this academic
year, for the past two weekends.
The fraternity is not even pretending to care about the neighborhood even though they know their use permit is subject to
a City Council hearing on 10/15/2024. This emphasizes the need for clear conditions in the CUP that outline the
conditions/rules for and the consequences of the fraternity use.
Conditions are necessary and also beneficial for the community and the fraternity because they clarify the expectations
and mitigate the impact of use. As mentioned, a fraternity's use is not “by-right” in an R-4 zone. The reason a CUP is
required - to set forth conditions to resolve the negative impacts - is so the fraternity house(s) fits into the R-4 zone as a
residential use. I am baffled at the City’s resistance to strengthening the CUP for this large, impactful fraternity use. This
CUP will be a model for other fraternity CUPs. It is critical that it contains meaningful conditions that make the fraternity’s
obligations clear and mitigate its impact on the neighborhood.
I urge you to uphold the appeal to add conditions to the fraternity CUP for the good of the neighborhood and the fraternity,
so everyone knows what is expected because it’s listed as a condition in the CUP.
Thank you,
Kathie Walker
5
1
June 6, 2024
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support Lambda Chi Alpha’s conditional use permit (CUP) for fraternity operations at 1264 & 1264 ½ Foothill
Blvd and 1241, 1243, 1249 and 1251 Monte Vista Place. The conditions in a CUP are important to ensure that the
neighbors of a fraternity house are not adversely impacted by fraternity operations. I feel there are some conditions
missing from the CUP which are covered in more detail below. The parking suggested is good because much of
our neighborhood is not a parking district and it is difficult for guests to find parking on the street.
The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, and applicable City development standards and regulations including section 17.86.130 A, which
says, “This section is intended to promote the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by ensuring that dwelling
units housing multiple persons who are members of a fraternity or sorority provide adequate support facilities for
the intensity of 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 conditions…” The proposed CUP does not adequately address the noise problems
associated with fraternity houses.
I have been invested in the fraternity issue in our neighborhood for the last couple of years because our home has
been increasingly surrounded by fraternity houses and it has negatively affected my family. I began researching the
issue which led me to a understand the gravity of the situation and the City’s predicament. There are only seven
fraternity CUPs but 18 fraternities in Cal Poly’s Interfraternity Council (IFC), and most fraternities have multiple
house locations. The information I uncovered blew my mind, to be honest, because it’s gotten so far out of control.
I spoke with Derek Johnson (previous city manager) about it, and he encouraged me to share my information with
Timmi Tway who was newly hired as Community Development Director. So, I prepared a report, including
detailed information about each of the fraternities and an outline of the overall situation, and provided it to Ms.
Tway and John Mezzapesa during a meeting with them last year. I apologize for the length of my letter and
appreciate your time to review it. The Cal Poly fraternity situation is a huge issue and is difficult to understand the
scope without some context that is relevant to the proposed CUP.
THE NATURE OF FRATERNITY HOUSES
As fraternities have emerged in our neighborhood, I can confirm that movies like Animal House and Neighbors are
not an exaggeration of the chaos that a fraternity house brings to a neighborhood. The Courts have repeatedly
established that a fraternity house is a unique classification of housing that has an adverse effect on neighboring
properties due to noise and other issues, therefore cities have specific zoning regulations associated with their
placement in a community. There is a big difference between denser housing such as apartments or a boarding
house and a fraternity house, and court rulings have consistently confirmed that fact. In Long Beach v. Sigma
Alpha Epsilon, the court stated:
“The facts of life dictate that there is a vast difference between a boarding house or lodging house and a
fraternity house... college spirit contemplates frequent gatherings with attendant boisterous conduct on
occasions. The rush parties, the dances, the rallies and other manifestations of the collegiate spirit are present
in a fraternity house and frequently absent in a boarding house or an apartment.” City of Long Beach v.
California Lambda Chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, 255 Cal.App.2d 789.
While a fraternity house is allowed in R-3 and R-4 zones in the City, the CUP must have conditions to address and
mitigate the known issues related to a fraternity house, so it is not detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of
those living and working in the neighborhood. Noise pollution (defined as an unwanted or disturbing sound) has
been linked to health problems. Noise also disturbs a good night of sleep and causes difficulty falling asleep and
2
awakening, which lead to sleep deprivation and several other negative health consequences such as depressed
mood, decreased cognitive performance, and fatigue1.
We have many unpermitted “satellite” fraternity houses around our home, and there is one fraternity with a CUP at
the end of our street. We can hear fraternity parties from our home, including at the fraternities on Foothill Blvd.
Our neighborhood feels like a downtown bar district on many weekends because of the fraternity houses nearby.
My husband and I have raised our sons here and our neighborhood has completely changed, especially over the
past several years, specifically because of the proliferation of fraternity houses nearby. We have known and
enjoyed our college-student neighbors and do not expect a perfectly quiet neighborhood. In fact, we loved the
vitality of the mix of residents who lived here. When our sons were young, we carved pumpkins on our porch with
college-student neighbors during Halloween season. I also participated in the production of a video for Cal Poly
that was shown during W.O.W. week, promoting the relationship between long-term residents and our college
student neighbors.
But we no longer recognize our neighborhood, and it has become a nightmare because of the fraternity houses. I
cannot begin to describe the adverse effect the “fraternity situation” has had on my and my family’s life, because
we are unable to rest or enjoy our property much of the time due to the noise from fraternity houses. Fraternity
parties are completely different from standard college-student parties, and fraternity house operations are
completely different than standard college-student housing situations.
Last year, Theta Chi fraternity moved into the rental house across the street and immediately had a fraternity party
in their backyard with 700 people. At the same time, Sigma Pi fraternity moved into the rental house next door and
had non-stop fraternity activities, drinking games, loud music and parties late at night, people coming and going,
slamming doors, yelling throughout the night, and vomiting from their side deck near our bedroom windows due to
overconsumption of alcohol. Fraternities are nocturnal operations and many of their events are centered around
alcohol consumption.2
We did everything possible to work with the fraternity next door by texting them instead of calling SLOPD and we
heard every excuse you can imagine. When we went over to break up an enormous fraternity party after one of
their guests vomited in our front yard, some of the fraternity tenants told us that we don’t belong in this
neighborhood and should move.
Afterward, we decided we would no longer text them and would call SLOPD for their parties. Soon after, they
received a noise citation while my husband was at work (he sometimes works nightshift) and they began harassing
and cyberstalking me. Although their lease was not renewed for this year, they still dox me online, post untrue
things using my full name on social media, advertise open parties at our home address, trespass onto our property
near our bedroom window and say my name, and other creepy things that are caught on our video surveillance.
I am not blaming this sort of activity on all fraternities. However, there is an overall entitlement that we have
repeatedly experienced by many of the fraternity members in our neighborhood, that they have the right to have
crazy parties whenever and however they want, and if we don’t like it, we shouldn’t live here.
The unique nature of a fraternity house makes it important to set out clear terms in the CUP, from the beginning, so
the fraternity and the neighborhood know what to expect.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SORORITIES & FRATERNITIES
Sororities are governed by the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) and the NPC prohibits alcohol in sorority
houses and the use of Panhellenic funds for alcohol, which means that sororities cannot host parties with alcohol in
1 Citation: Noise Pollution, Southern Medical Journal. https://docs.wind-watch.org/goineshagler-noisepollution.html
2 After a Cal Poly SLO fraternity pledge, Carson Starkey, died from alcohol poisoning, the National Interfraternity Conference
sent industry experts to Cal Poly to conduct an in-depth assessment of the school’s Greek system, according to university
records. … The assessment, prepared by fraternity executives, college administrators and a social worker… said alcohol
was “a, and perhaps THE, defining factor” of Greek life. (“Cal Poly Brings Back Freshman Pledging After Lobbying ”,
Bloomberg News, October 14, 2013.)
3
their houses. They can host social events at third-party venues but mostly, sororities at Cal Poly attend fraternity
parties at fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo.
The fraternity houses near our home have raging parties that host different sororities on weekends throughout the
academic year. Nearly every weekend that Cal Poly is in session, we see and hear large groups of females walking
to and from fraternity houses in our neighborhood.
Cal Poly posted a report online that lists the “sanctioned events” of every fraternity and sorority at Cal Poly during
the academic year 2022-2023, including the location of each party/event held by each fraternity and sorority.3
Every sorority party event listed in the report is at the addresses of a fraternity house in San Luis Obispo, including
satellite fraternity houses, or an event at a third-party venue. This is in line with the NPC policy that prohibits
parties with alcohol at sorority houses. Since sorority houses don’t host large, alcohol-fueled parties, they do not
have the same impact and repercussions on the neighborhood as fraternity houses.
HOURS OF OPERATION
After reviewing the conditions outlined in the CUP, I noticed there are some important conditions missing, such as
hours of operation. The existing CUPs for other Cal Poly fraternities state that no meetings or gatherings will take
place between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. This is a critical item, to ensure that noise from the fraternity doesn’t adversely
impact the neighboring properties.
I have attached the CUPs for every fraternity in San Luis Obispo, for your reference (Fraternity Report, pgs. 15-
50.) Of the seven CUPs for fraternities in the city, one fraternity (Sigma Nu) has two CUPs, so only six fraternities
have use permits out of 18 fraternities in the IFC. Cal Poly does not provide on-campus housing for any of their
fraternities and most fraternities have several houses at different addresses that operate as fraternity houses.
Some CUPs for fraternities do not allow parties. For example, Sigma Nu’s CUP at 1304 Foothill, condition 11
prohibits parties except for two events per year for parents and alumni: “No hosted Greek events on the site shall
be allowed (i.e. TG’s [themed gatherings], rush events, little sisters, etc.) One parents’ barbeque and one alumni
barbecue may be held at the site each year. Not more than thirty-eight (38) persons may be present at either event,
including fraternity members.” Condition 10 specifically prohibits the use of amplified sound at events. Condition
5 states, “No meetings or other gatherings involving persons other than fraternity members living on the site are
allowed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m.” and condition 3 strictly limits all fraternity activity to the house
only, “for residential use”.
Sigma Nu’s CUP was approved 30 years ago, and the number of fraternities at Cal Poly has increased since then,
which has had a greater impact and more strain on our neighborhood. Wit h this increase, there is a responsibility to
ensure that the known issues of a fraternity house are thoroughly addressed and not diluted in the CUP.
The current Applicant, Lambda Chi Alpha, had a CUP for an address at 1292 Foothill Blvd. The CUP stays with
the property, which is now occupied by Sigma Nu. The conditions include (condition 7) “No meetings, parties, or
other types of similar activities involving persons other than the residents are allowed between the hours of 10 p.m.
and 9 a.m., except as provided by the Community Development Director.” The CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha’s
current application should include the same language.
NOISE IMPACTS NEAR A LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
In Attachment B, the Applicant states that the property is located “steps from the Cal Poly campus” but it is
important to note that it is also steps from an R-1 & R-2 residential neighborhood with many long-term residents
and others who are impacted by the fraternity. (See neighborhood map, below)
3 The AB 524 Report is mandated by Assembly Bill 524: The Campus Recognized Fraternity and Sorority Transparency Act, and
is posted on Cal Poly’s Greek Life webpage, beginning 10/1/2023, and annually thereafter. The report for this academic year
(2023-2024) will be posted on 10/1/2024.
4
Fraternity parties on Foothill Blvd can be heard from blocks away. Noise travels throughout the neighborhood and
it is difficult to tell where it is coming from unless you walk to the party to find the exact location. Many times, I
have thought a party was the next block over, and was surprised it was at a fraternity three blocks away on Foothill
Blvd. There are so many examples, but I’ll describe a recent incident on Memorial Day weekend which illustrates
how we are affected by fraternity parties on Foothill Blvd.
On 5/25/2024, we could hear loud music and a lot of yelling at around 2 p.m. It continued to get louder over the
course of an hour, and we found it was coming from a fraternity a few blocks away at 1237 Foothill. We called
SLOPD and were told that the party had already been issued a noise citation and SLOPD would go back to the
party location. Two hours later, the thumping music and screaming could still be heard from our home. We went
over to see if it was the same party, and it was. There were police officers sitting in two SLOPD units parked on
Kentucky Ave , facing toward Hathway. People were climbing over the fence from Hathway to reach the backyard
of 1237 Foothill. One officer said the fraternity had already been issued two noise citations, but the fraternity
refused to stop the party! The officer had called his sergeant to respond so they could figure out what to do. We
endured hours of thumping music and screaming from the fraternity party three blocks away from our home.
5
It has become more common for a fraternity to continue their loud party even after they’ve been issued a citation
for a noise violation. Sometimes the party increases in size and volume and SLOPD is called again.
The day after the party described above, on 5/26/2024, there was another large fraternity party at 1841 Slack for
Zeta Beta Tau. The SLOPD dispatch log shows someone called SLOPD at 1:50 p.m. and a noise citation was
issued with 70 people noted, but the party didn’t stop and continued to grow. At 2:30 p.m. another call was made to
SLOPD issued another citation and noted 100+ people. Someone else called SLOPD from Hays & Graves, a block
away, to report a large party heard in the area. After Zeta Beta Tau ended the party on Slack, they had a loud party
at another of their documented satellite fraternity houses on Albert and received another noise citation.
One does not expect a standard party to consist of 50-100+ loud, intoxicated people with blaring music heard
blocks away, day and night, even in an R-4 zone, but that describes a standard fraternity party. There are also
constant drinking games, yelling, chanting and profanity throughout the weekend, increased car and foot and
traffic, to and from the fraternity parties, and intoxicated people screaming as they pass by. There is no escape if
you live nearby. The only way to have any order is to set out detailed conditions in the CUP, that address the hours
of operation and noise impacts in a meaningful way, and to enforce the CUP.
I have attached a 2-minute video with series of videos in the past few weeks including:
A short clip of the Theta Chi party at 1237 Foothill on 5/25/2024, taken from a block away in an R-1 zone.
The video that was posted by Theta Chi fraternity beforehand, advertising the party that took place at 1237
Foothill on Saturday 5/25/2024.
The video that was posted by a Zeta Beta Chi fraternity advertising a party that took place at 1841 Slack
on Sunday 5/26/2024.
The video posted by a Phi Sigma Kappa fraternity advertising a party beforehand that took place at 348
Hathway on 5/18/2024.
Video taken of the party at 348 Hathway on 5/18/2024.
If the attachment doesn’t work here’s a link: https://vimeo.com/955676812?share=copy We have dozens of videos
and, unfortunately, have become increasingly frustrated over the past two years due to lack of action by the City.
I’ve attached video with some snippets from various fraternity parties for one fraternity house so you can get an
idea of the noise impact from a fraternity house. Link: https://vimeo.com/955760836?share=copy
People who live in our neighborhood can’t get away from the constant noise and disruptions that are specifically
from fraternity houses in our neighborhood unless we leave our home. And when a party is at night and keeps us
awake, we must get out of bed, get dressed, and go find the party to get an address to call SLOPD.
There needs to be conditions added to Lambda Chi Alpha’s CUP to better define the fraternity operation, so
everything is clear from the beginning, for the benefit of the fraternity and the impacted neighborhood.
FOUR STRIKES
The CUP should include a condition that outlines a threshold for noise violations, which triggers a review of the
CUP. For example, “If four noise citations are issued to the property within 12 months - including a cumulative
total of all addresses within the same parcel - the conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission may add, delete or modify the conditions of approval or may revoke the
use permit.”
Condition 3 of the proposed CUP says the CUP “shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission if the City
receives substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, Fire Department or Police
Department employee, which contains information and/or evidence supporting a conclusion that a violation of this
Conditional Use Permit, or of City Ordinances, regulations, or Police Department resources (e.g., calls for service)
applicable to the fraternity use has occurred.”
6
1. One complaint should satisfy this condition, instead of multiple complaints, so that word should be
changed from “complaints” to “complaint” in condition 3.
2. It is highly unlikely that the city will write a complaint. The city has not been proactive whatsoever about
regulating fraternity operations for at least a decade, when it was documented that there were illegal
fraternity houses on Hathway, after a roof collapsed during St. Fratty’s Day. In my report given to Ms.
Tway and Mr. Mezzapesa, I pointed out the ongoing violations of the existing CUPs at fraternity houses,
but the city did not take any action against the CUPs. For example, Alpha Gamma Rho has been
suspended by Cal Poly for two years and is not in good standing, which is automatic grounds for revoking
their CUP, but when last I heard, their CUP was not revoked.
3. Residents are reluctant to come forward to file a written complaint and risk being targeted by the fraternity.
Several of my affected neighbors have expressed fear about that. Some have contacted Mr. Mezzapesa but
will not file a written complaint because they are afraid of retaliation.
4. My husband and I finally made a written complaint against a fraternity CUP in early February based on
ongoing violations, including six noise citations / two unruly gatherings in 10 months. No action has been
taken by the city. It’s been over four months since the complaint was filed, and the fraternity has received
more noise complaints and has been issued at least four more noise citations since then.
It makes more sense to have a certain number of strikes (citations) outlined in the conditions, and when that is
surpassed, the CUP shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
A WRITTEN COMPLAINT REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN SPECIFIED TIME
If a substantiated written complaint is received, the CUP should set forth a timeline for referral to the Planning
Commission, for example, within 30 days.
LIVE BANDS, DJs, and AMPLIFIED MUSIC
Chapter 9.3 of the SLOMC defines the prohibition of unruly gatherings (URG). Unpermitted live bands, DJs and
amplified music fall under the URG definition (Section 9.13.020 E) yet are extremely common at a fraternity
house. Unfortunately, SLOPD does not often cite live bands, amplified music, and/or DJs as unruly gatherings.
Also, Community Development enforces the terms of the CUP and SLOPD does not.
The CUP should include a condition that prohibits unpermitted live bands, DJs and amplified music. Although it is
already recognized in the SLOMC, other provisions of the SLOMC are listed as conditions of the CUP, and are
also covered by the SLOMC, such as the loss of the CUP if the fraternity loses its standing which is specified
under SLOMC (17.86.130 A.3). Listing unpermitted bands, etc. as a condition will underscore the importance
especially as it pertains to a fraternity house, as this law is commonly violated. If they don’t plan to have
unpermitted live bands, DJs and amplified music, then they should not object to having this condition in their CUP.
CUMULATIVE CITATIONS FOR FRATERNITY OPERATIONS ON SAME PARCEL
Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 052-071-030 includes all the addresses in this application for the CUP. If a noise
citation is issued to the fraternity, regardless of whether it is for any one of the listed six addresses on the parcel,
the citation should accumulate against the APN, not each separate address.
The fine for a noise citation increases for each citation written as follows: 1st noise citation, $350, second noise
citation, $700, third and subsequent noise citation, $1,000. After nine months without a citation, the fine reverts to
$350. When there are multiple addresses on the same parcel, each address is treated separately, so their first
citation is $350 for each address. This is because there is a presumption that unrelated groups of people reside at
each separate addresses, so it would not be fair to hold one group responsible for the other group’s behavior.
However, Lambda Chi Alpha is applying for a CUP as a single entity / fraternity to occupy all addresses on the
parcel. Therefore, the fraternity should be held responsible for noise citations cumulatively for the same parcel.
7
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
Most CUPs for other fraternities include a “neighborhood relations plan” with annual training. At the very least,
the fraternity should be made aware of the terms of their CUP every Fall so they understand their responsibilities.
NOISE HISTORY OF LAMBDA CHI ALPHA AT THIS LOCATION
Since Lambda Chi Alpha has been operating at 1264 Foothill, there have been numerous calls to SLOPD for noisy
parties. The fraternity was issued a noise citation at 3:45 a.m. on St. Fratty’s Day, 3/16/2024. Prior to St. Fratty’s
Day, in anticipation of the potential for early morning disruptions in the neighborhood, city representatives met
with Greek life leaders at Cal Poly and specifically warned them about their participation in St. Fratty’s Day.
SLOPD also did not allow fraternities to register parties on 3/16/2024, St. Fratty’s Day. Still, Lambda Chi Alpha
received two noise citations at this property early that morning.
One week earlier, on 3/10/2023, the fraternity held an event called “SLO Jam” with multiple unpermitted live
bands on the property, which is against the law in all residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. The fraternity
originally planned to hold the event at a satellite house on Albert Drive, but code enforcement told them and the
property owner that live bands are not allowed in any residential neighborhood, and they would receive a code
violation if they held the event. Instead of canceling the event, the fraternity moved it to 1264 Foothill and held the
event anyway with several unpermitted live bands.
Less than five months earlier, on 10/27/2023 at around 10 p.m. my husband and I witnessed hundreds of people in
Halloween costumes streaming out of the house and yard at 1264 Foothill Blvd. SLOPD had blocked off a lane of
traffic on Foothill Blvd to clear out an out-of-control party at the fraternity house and there were many officers,
including bicycle officers, on scene, escorting people off of the property.
On 7/14/2023 at 12:30 a.m. the property at 1264 Foothill was cited for a noise violation, and a month earlier, on
6/17/2023 at 11:23 p.m., they received another noise violation.
The property at 1241 Monte Vista was issued a noise violation on 2/3/2023 at 10:11 p.m. and had multiple other
noise complaints since Fall 2022. 1243 Monte Vista received a citation on 12/2/2023. 1249 Monte Vista had a
report filed by SLOPD for a noisy party on 11/15/2022. 1251 Monte Vista had noise violations on 12/3/2022,
12/8/2023, and another on 3/16/2024 at 3:30 a.m., St. Fratty’s Day.
This is not a quiet property. The neighbors are negatively impacted by the noise and other fraternity activity.
To put this in perspective, most addresses in our neighborhood don’t have a single noise violation but most of the
fraternity houses have had multiple noise violations. Please don’t normalize the disruption of a fraternity house just
because it’s near campus, because it’s also near our lower-density residential neighborhood. The CUP should
address and mitigate the impacts of the fraternity operation, consistent with the CUPs for other Cal Poly
fraternities, to ensure that the fraternity members understand the responsibilities toward their neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration and time.
Best Regards,
Kathie Walker