The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8/27/2025 Item 4b, Walker, K.1 Dear Planning Commissioners, In consideration of the grand jury’s recommendation to the Planning Commission, I am providing documentation with pertinent information about the grand jury and some history that led to the investigation. I wanted you to have enough time to go through the information before your meeting later this month. Thank you for your time and dedication toward solving this issue. What is the SLO County Civil Grand Jury? The primary function of the San Luis Obispo County Civil Grand Jury is to “examine all aspects of local government, ensuring that the county is being governed honestly and efficiently and that county monies are being handled judiciously,” according to the County’s website. Members of the grand jury begin their one-year service on July 1st. Some jurors may decide to hold over and serve another term. Every year, the grand jury publishes an annual report about San Luis Obispo County law enforcement and the detention centers. The grand jury members determine what other matters of concern they will investigate based on issues in the news, complaints submitted, et cetera. For example, in 2022-2023, the grand jury investigated the mental health in high schools within SLO County following the COVID-19 pandemic, the sufficiency of the Paso Robles water basin, investment in election accuracy, and the safety of the homeless safe parking site on Oklahoma Drive near the County jail. Reports are here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17tMD- cucoU6ohpMZD7fQK7mX8hgHOkNj There were four new matters investigated in 2022-2023, and three new matters investigated in 2023- 2024. However, this year (2024-2025) the grand jury only investigated one new matter. This was presumably because it is a multi-layered and complex issue that took a great deal of time and coordination: The city of San Luis Obispo’s failure to adequately respond to St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, 2023 and 2024; the growth of “Halloweekend”, the 3-night neighborhood takeover by thousands of college-aged people primarily at fraternity houses throughout the neighborhoods; the related “fraternity problem” including the City’s failure to enforce existing fraternity CUPs; failure to adequately address the illegal fraternity houses within the city of SLO; the lack of consequences for extreme nuisance properties with a significant history of many ongoing noise citations at some fraternity operations; SLOPD’s potential lack of understanding of the noise ordinance and failing to enforce the noise ordinance for obviously loud parties; SLOPD dispatching SNAP students to known fraternities instead of sworn officers (the City requires SLOPD officers to respond to fraternities); SLOPD’s ‘policy’ as stated by two police officers to not shut down noisy parties after citing them and requiring the reporting party to make additional calls to dispatch for repeated responses by SLOPD; noise complaints made by the public repeatedly not appearing 2 on SLOPD’s dispatch logs; SLOPD police chief targeting certain members of the public who highlighted SLOPD’s lack of enforcement during a meeting, etc. There were multiple complaints filed, including one by my husband and me. I was the only person from my family interviewed by the grand jury and am aware of one other person who was interviewed for a separate complaint. That person and I have not discussed our interviews with one another. The grand jury asked me questions related to matters outside the scope of my complaint, so I presume those issues were raised in other complaints. During the investigation, the grand jury invited witnesses to voluntarily testify, and each witness was sworn to confidentiality until the report was released in June. Because of the confidential nature, the City could not have known the scope of the grand jury’s investigation, which included a multitude of issues aside from illegal street parties during St. Fratty’s Day and Halloweekend. Although the City was not aware of the full extent of the grand jury’s investigation, in the City’s response memo to the grand jury report titled “Factual Problems with Grand Jury Report,” the City essentially claims it knew better than the grand jury about what information was pertinent to the grand jury’s investigation, and says the grand jury had “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…” The City also implies that the grand jury should have issued subpoenas for the testimony of the police officers whose testimony was requested by the grand jury but was blocked. An interview with the grand jury is typically less than one hour. The City’s implication that two officers did not have one hour available over the course of a multi-month investigation because of the City’s “scarce operational resources” is not credible. It’s also presumptuous for the City to claim that information sought by the officers’ testimony would have been “incomplete and/or duplicative” that would have been “inefficient and operationally unsupportable”. The City did not know the full scope of the grand jury’s investigation. The problems outlined in the grand jury report were not a surprise to the City. I have been emailing the City and SLOPD about these issues since the fall of 2021. I discussed them with the former City 3 Manager and Code Enforcement in 2022 when several fraternities began illegally operating near our home, including next door, directly across the street, and many others within a block from our home. I filed a police report in early 2023, when I was continuously cyberstalked and harassed by a fraternity member living next door, beginning within hours of the fraternity receiving a noise citation. (SLOPD did not investigate the case, falsely claimed in the news that I requested it not be investigated, then when my emails proved otherwise, SLOPD added a supplemental report to my report two years later that said they were not able to get a warrant for the suspect’s computer.) In fall 2023, I met with the Community Development Director and Code Enforcement Supervisor and provided a large report with documentation of every fraternity location. For your reference, the Planning Commission was sent a copy of that report on 6/10/2024 as an attachment to an email with the subject line “Planning Commission, 6/12/2024, 1264 Foothill Fraternity Use Permit”. Therefore, you have a copy of the report. The “Factual Problems” in the City’s response to the grand jury report illustrates the City’s desire to control the narrative, convolute the issues, and focus on things that are not material to the core findings of the investigation. The City nitpicks the grand jury’s wording, such as objecting to the reference of San Luis Obispo as “a quaint town with a rich history”. It is disrespectful to the 19 impartial jurors who volunteered a year of their time to serve on the grand jury and were tasked with a complex investigation related to operations within the City of San Luis Obispo, knowing nothing more than the information provided to them, mostly by the City itself, and the jurors’ firsthand experiences visiting the neighborhood and researching the issue. The Grand Jury Investigation of the City of San Luis Obispo Although the grand jury could not complete its investigation into some of the actions by the San Luis Obispo Police Department because SLOPD leadership blocked the testimony of two officers (Finding 6), the Grand Jury was able to complete its investigation of the other matters by, among other things: • Interviewing 15 people, primarily City staff members. • Reviewing documentation including videos and statements made by City staff and SLOPD leadership during City Council meetings, Planning Commission hearings, and Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) meetings. • Attending some of those meetings in person (I recognized some jurors at meetings I attended after I was interviewed). • Visiting the neighborhoods near Cal Poly’s campus during weekends. • Reviewing a large quantity of documentation, including “thousands of documents” provided by the City, according to the City Manager. Using the information provided to them, the grand jurors did their best to make sense of these complex issues and condense the information into a relatively short report with 6 findings and 7 recommendations. The Planning Commission is responsible for matters relating to CUPs for Cal Poly’s fraternities located in the city. Finding 4 of the grand jury report states: 4 “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.” Therefore, the grand jury made Recommendation 6, below, and requested the Planning Commission to respond in coordination with the City Manager: “The SLO City Manager and the Planning Commission should move toward adopting more uniform conditions for CUPs 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.” Planning Commission’s Role So Far Recommendation to the City to coordinate with San Luis Obispo Police Department The Planning Commission first became aware of the “fraternity problem” in June 2024 when correspondence was sent prior to a hearing for approval of a CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha. During the hearing on 6/12/2024, Commissioners recommended to City Community Development staff that the City ensure that Code Enforcement and SLOPD communicate information with one another about matters related to fraternities. Unfortunately, that has not happened. SLOPD leadership has said it does not enforce the conditions of CUPs but defers to Code Enforcement. But Code Enforcement does not work weekends or evenings and therefore does not respond to reported fraternity-related events, which are primarily during those time periods. SLOPD officers and Dispatch do not have a database with addresses that have been identified as illegal fraternity operations by Code Enforcement to inform the responses to those addresses when noisy party complaints are called in. SLOPD is required to respond to documented fraternity houses, not SNAP. Unfortunately, SLOPD dispatch continues to send SNAP students to documented illegal fraternity houses with large events, including the main chapter houses of multiple fraternities. SNAP cannot issue noise citations so if there is a loud party, they sometimes issue a $0 fine warning called a disturbance advisement card or DAC but often dismiss loud parties as negative violations. It is intimidating for these SNAP students to confront a large group of fraternity members who are not happy to have their party disturbed. On several occasions, I have witnessed SNAP students respond to a loud fraternity party near our home and walk away without citing it. SNAP students have told me directly that they don’t want to respond to fraternities. This information has repeatedly been relayed to SLOPD leadership, but nothing has changed. SLOPD is not dispatched to a noisy party complaint until after the property receives a DAC, and even then, sometimes SLOPD dispatch sends SNAP for a second complaint at a later date, which means there are no consequences because SNAP cannot issue a noise citation with a fine. 5 There are many illegal fraternity properties with multiple addresses on a single parcel. In those cases, only one address gets a DAC warning. When the fraternity has another noisy party, they receive another DAC warning at the different address on the same property/parcel, and so on, until they finally move up to getting a noise citation. This is a common practice for illegal fraternity houses with multiple addresses on one property/parcel, to avoid getting citations. A DAC warning is given to each individual address before it escalates to a citation, even though the same fraternity occupies the entire property. Some examples are Phi Kappa Psi at 1271 A & B, 1273, 1275 Stafford; Theta Chi at 496 Kentucky & 1350 Stafford; Alpha Epsilon Pi at 331 Hathway A, B, C, D; Kappa Sigma at 281 & 281 ½ Hathway, Phi Sigma Kappa at 348 & 350 Hathway; Alpha Sigma Phi at 1218 & 1220 Bond; Theta Chi at 248 & 250 Grand. This problem was pointed out to the City, with documentation of SLOPD’s noise calls illustrating the trend, but nothing has changed. This should be rectified so that documented fraternities with multiple addresses on a single parcel are not eligible for separate DAC warnings and then separate noise citations at various addresses on the same parcel. The noise citations should be cumulative, against the entire property, when it is known to be occupied by a fraternity. Finally, some of the addresses of documented illegal fraternity operations have been allowed to clear their citation history through SLOPD’s “Early Removal Program” even though recognized fraternities are not allowed to clear their citation history through that program. One example is 348/350 Hathway, below. This allows a fraternity with multiple citations that potentially cost $1000 to the fraternity members and $1000 to the property owner for each violation, to erase the citation history and start over with a response from SNAP and a $0 fine warning or DAC, then progressively increasing citation fines for subsequent violations. Multiple illegal fraternity properties have cleared their citation history through SLOPD using this program even though they continue to be the exact same fraternity year after year. “Early Removal” is not a deterrent and enables fraternities that receive ongoing noise citations, and property owners who knowingly lease their properties to fraternities in R1 and R2 neighborhoods, to escape consequential fines for their continual disturbances to the neighborhood. 6 The City Cites Planning Commission’s Revocation of CUPs as Evidence of Enforcement In the City’s 27-page response to the grand jury report, the City says it has enforced its zoning laws by citing the Planning Commission’s revocation of some fraternity CUPs. For clarification: 7 1. The CUP revocations are very recent and initially, on May 28,2025, the City recommended approval the CUP for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu. The City did not even have Draft Resolutions prepared for the revocations of both CUPs which caused a delay for revocation until the Resolutions could be prepared and approved at the following Planning Commission meeting on June 11 , 2025. 2. The City never re-reviewed any fraternity CUP until residents filed multiple complaints with Community Development regarding a fraternity’s CUP. In February 2024, a complaint was filed about Alpha Epsilon Pi, citing six noise citations including two unruly gatherings in the previous 10 months. The City did not act and AEPi continued to host loud parties and rack up another four noise citations before the end of the school year. In June 2024, another complaint was filed with Community Development citing an additional four noise citations since the previous complaint was filed in February. Most of these parties listed 100 people, which far exceeded the maximum occupancy of 25 people allowed by the CUP. The residents continued to contact the City to ask what was being done and ask when the fraternity’s CUP would be reviewed, pointing out that there seemed to be space on the Planning Commission’s agenda because multiple meetings had been cancelled. The City finally scheduled a hearing for re-review on 11/13/2024. Before last year, the City’s fraternity CUPs included a condition that allowed City staff or a resident to file a written complaint to have the CUPs re-reviewed or revoked based on a noise citation or other violation. The City never requested review of a CUP even though every fraternity with a CUP had a history of multiple ongoing noise citations. Repeated noise citations also showed large parties that violated the maximum occupancy listed in the CUPs. The City did not monitor the situation and there was no coordination between Community Development and SLOPD. SLOPD knew where the fraternity houses were, including permitted houses and many operating illegally within the neighborhoods. SLOPD did not communicate that information to Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement never reached out to SLOPD for the noise history, citations, or notation of the number of attendees on noise citations at the permitted fraternity properties for comparison and compliance with their CUPs. Even after documentation was given to the City that showed multiple violations of the CUPs conditions for all fraternities with CUPs, no action was taken by the City. The City never brought any CUPs to the Planning Commission for re-review or revocation until residents filed a complaint in February 2024, then another complaint in June 2024, and emailed and pestered the City until the matter was finally addressed nine months after the initial complaint was made. The City claims it has made efforts to solve the problem when it was the residents and their non- stop persistence that actually compelled the CUPs to be re-reviewed. Once the Planning Commission was aware of the issue, it recognized the problems and attempted to solve them by implementing consequences, such as revocation of CUPs, and requesting the City convene a forum with Cal Poly, Greek Life, the neighborhood residents and the City. Aside from the 8 recognition by the Planning Commissioners, the overall problem with fraternities has not been adequately addressed by the City and the problem has been allowed to continue to grow. More residents have been forced to leave the neighborhood because the conditions do not allow people to rest, sleep, or have the quiet enjoyment of their property. Some college students won’t live in the neighborhood because the nature of the non-stop fraternity parties makes it impossible to study, sleep, and live peacefully. The City Has Not Followed Planning Commission’s Directive Regarding CUP On 11/13/2024, the Planning Commission held a hearing for a re-review of Alpha Epsilon Pi’s CUP, according to complaints filed by residents in February and June 2024. During the hearing, the Commissioners spent a long time going over the revised CUP conditions with City staff and asked for clarification about whether a noise violation is a “public nuisance” according to one of the conditions. The Commissioners were concerned about one of the conditions that allowed three violations within a year, which they said seemed too excessive before a fraternity was brought back for re-review. The Commissioners asked for clarification about a condition that was included in the CUP which would bring about a review for a single noise citation if it was considered a public nuisance. The City staff said that a noise violation is considered a public nuisance (it is defined as such in the Municipal Code) and therefore, the fraternity would be brought back to the Planning Commission if it received another noise citation. At the end of the hearing, a Commissioner issued a stern warning to the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity members about the consequences of a single noise citation, and that they would be back before the Planning Commission should that occur. On Wednesday, 4/16/2025, Alpha Epsilon Pi received a noise citation with 150 people listed at the party, cleared by SLOPD at 10:55 P.M. The CUP limits max occupancy to 25 for any event so that party had six times the maximum number of people allowed. Two days later, on Friday 4/18/2025, the fraternity received a second noise citation with 100 people listed at the party. 9 The City, including Community Development, was made aware of the violations of the conditions of the CUP and reminded of the directive from the Planning Commission at the hearing on 11/13/2024, regarding the public nuisance condition that would bring the fraternity back to the Planning Commission after one noise citation. However, Community Development did not and has not taken any action to have Alpha Epsilon Pi’s CUP re-reviewed. After Alpha Epsilon Pi received its second noise citation, it began hosting fraternity events at its illegal fraternity location at 331 Hathway Ave, directly next door to its main chapter house at 280 California Blvd. This was likely done to avoid getting a third noise citation at their permitted house and bears out the Planning Commissioners’ statements and concerns that it is problematic to allow three citations before the CUP is re-reviewed. The City has identified 331 Hathway Ave as an illegal fraternity house and issued a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operation at the property. Still, AEPi fraternity events are advertised and continue to be held at 331 Hathway Ave. 10 On May 25, 2025, AEPi hosted a large daytime raging party also known as a “dayge” at 331 Hathway and received a noise citation for a party of 100+ people. Many college-aged females were recorded on our home video surveillance walking down Fredericks Street toward the fraternity and some said they were going to AEPi’s dayge, therefore it was apparent that it was a fraternity-related event. The person who received the citation is a member of AEPi. As mentioned, Code Enforcement has already documented that 331 Hathway Ave is an illegal location for the fraternity for AEPi. Nothing has happened to hold Alpha Epsilon Pi accountable for violating the conditions of its CUP with extremely large, loud parties that received noise citations, or continuing to operate illegally at 331 Hathway Ave. A complaint was filed for the illegal fraternity event at 331 Hathway on 5/25/2025 and it was dismissed by Code Enforcement staff as “unable to verify”. The City’s Response to Illegal Fraternity Operations The same illegal fraternities continue to operate as they have for several years, and more were added to the R1 and R2 neighborhoods each year for the past several years. Code Enforcement does not go to verify the fraternity events reported at illegal fraternity houses because the events are usually on weekends and Code Enforcement officers don’t work weekends. There was one occasion in January 2025, after the City became aware of the Grand Jury’s investigation, that Code Enforcement staff worked after-hours to respond to reported illegal fraternity events. According to the grand jury report, Code Enforcement cited 12 illegal fraternity houses on that occasion. Despite these citations, the illegal fraternities have continued to operate at those addresses. Still, the effort proves that proactive enforcement on weekends does work to identify and cite illegal fraternity operations. The City claims they are enforcing the Municipal Code because Community Development has issued multiple Notices of Violation and Advisory Letters to property owners where illegal fraternity operations are happening. However, those notifications have not compelled the property owners or fraternity members to cease fraternity operations at those locations. Nothing has changed since this problem was first brought to the City’s attention four years ago except more illegal fraternities have been established in the R1 and R2 neighborhoods that continually hold illegal fraternity-related events. Fraternity events are distinctly identifiable because they follow Cal Poly’s Event Registration Policy, with guards wearing ‘security’ or construction vests at the front doors, checking in guests on laptops. There 11 are usually a large number of female guests often dressed similarly in themed costumes or the same color, etc. for sorority exchanges/parties at the fraternity houses. Sometimes there are banners. Complaints about illegal fraternity operations are routinely dismissed by Code Enforcement as ‘unable to verify’ or ‘unfounded’, even though the fraternity events took place at the reported fraternity addresses on the date and time reported. This is because Code Enforcement officers don’t work on evenings or weekends, when fraternity events happen, so those that are reported are not cited. Also, the City employee who is primarily responsible for handling the fraternity was using an incorrect and standard of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, therefore was dismissing complaints unless the fraternity admitted to holding the event. The actual standard of proof required is the much lower standard of a “preponderance of the evidence”, which means it is more likely than not. Most complaints met this standard, with photographic evidence and social media posts by the fraternities showing illegal events at the fraternity houses, but were dismissed by the City. This staff member was hired about 1 ½ years ago and has handled the fraternity problem throughout that time. The Community Development Director acknowledged that the code enforcement officer should be using the lowest standard of proof necessary, which merely needs to tip the scale to show that it is more likely than not that the event held was a fraternity-related event. The Community Development Director indicated that training would be provided to the code enforcement officer so that he understood the actual proof required. However, he has continued to dismiss fraternity-related events as ‘unable to verify’ or ‘unfounded’ despite the evidence provided. Unless code enforcement officers are working weekends and evenings to confirm fraternity events within the residential neighborhoods, the problem will not be solved. Therefore, in accordance with the grand jury’s recommendation, the City should have code enforcement staff work evenings and weekends to confirm fraternity events at known and/or reported fraternity houses Additionally, the most feasible way to verify the addresses of the illegal fraternity operations is to compel Cal Poly to disclose the addresses. Fraternities are required to register each of their events 5- 10 days beforehand with Cal Poly’s Greek Life staff, and those events are “sanctioned” by Cal Poly beforehand. The events are listed in Cal Poly’s annual AB 524 report as “sanctioned events”. A screenshot from a portion of Cal Poly’s most recent AB 524 report is below: 12 The City claims it submitted a public records request to Cal Poly for the addresses where fraternity- related events are held, and Cal Poly refused to release the addresses. However, those addresses are not protected by any exemption under the California Public Records Act. Therefore, the City can ask for a judge to compel Cal Poly to release the publicly disclosable information to the City and the public. So far, the City has not been willing to hold Cal Poly accountable for the illegal fraternity operations and the damage they have caused to the neighborhood. Cal Poly claims it is not responsible because the university does not have jurisdiction over the city, and it is up to the City to enforce its laws. Meanwhile, the problem remains unsolved. Existing Fraternity Conditional Use Permits Community Development recently realized that the CUP for 1292 Foothill Blvd and 123, 135, 137 & 175 Crandall Way is not valid because it was based on an older proposed project that was never completed. Therefore, there are currently only three CUPs for fraternities within the city of San Luis Obispo and two of them are tenuous because they have had multiple violations of their CUPs. 1. Alpha Epsilon Pi at 280 California Blvd 2. Lambda Chi Alpha at 1264 Foothill Blvd & 1241, 1243, 1249 & 1251 Monte Vista Place 13 3. Phi Kappa Psi at 1335 Foothill Blvd Alpha Epsilon Pi Alpha Epsilon Pi was covered already, above, and has violated the conditions of its CUP without consequences, while also holding events at its illegal fraternity location at 331 Hathway Ave. The fraternity has 133 members according to Cal Poly’s last AB 524 report. Lambda Chi Alpha Lambda Chi Alpha’s CUP was approved by the City Council on 10/15/2024. By 5/31/2025, the fraternity had received five noise citations during the 2024-2025 academic year including three noise citations since its CUP was approved on 10/15/2025, which automatically triggers a re-review. The fraternity has about 137 members according to Cal Poly’s last AB 524 report. i The noise citation on 5/31/2025 was for a dayge with 200 people listed. This is over four times the maximum occupancy allowed of 48 people for any event at the property. According to the Code Enforcement Supervisor, John Mezzapesa, Lambda Chi Alpha’s CUP will be brought back to the Planning Commission for re-review or revocation in the fall. The fraternity also has documented illegal fraternity houses that hold fraternity-related events at 171 Orange, 12 Hathway, 253 Albert, 278 Albert, 285 Chaplin, and 178 Chaplin. Some have a significant history of noise complaints to SLOPD and noise citations, with documentation of ongoing fraternity events advertised on the fraternity’s social media, but the City has not acted to shut them down. Therefore, they continue to hold fraternity-related events. Phi Kappa Psi The fraternity CUP is outdated and should be updated to remove unnecessary information, bring the conditions in line with current laws, and ensure the conditions cover the problems that have been brought to light over the past few years. I have attached the original CUP to this email. 14 Conditions of the CUP limit occupancy to 8 people. Meetings or gatherings are limited to a maximum of 11 people from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and 17 people from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. It also requires a minimum of 6 parking spaces on site “maintained at all times”. A condition allows the CUP to be referred to the Planning Commission with receipt of a substantiated written complaint from any resident, Code Enforcement Officer, Police Department employee, or Cal Poly employee, when there is a verifiable violation of the CUP or City regulations. This condition should be included in every CUP. The fraternity has 82 members according to Cal Poly’s last AB 524 report. In 2023, I provided a report to Community Development and Code Enforcement with a list of the noise complaints for every fraternity. During nine months (June 2022 to March 2023) Phi Kappa Psi had six noise complaints, between 10:25 pm to 1:05 a.m., and four resulted in citations at 1335 Foothill, as noted in my 2023 report, below. No action was taken by the City to re-review Phi Kappa Psi’s CUP. During the last academic year (2024-2025), there were two noise citations at 1335 Foothill. Most of Phi Kappa Psi’s events are held at its illegal fraternity locations at 237 Albert, 346 Grand, 1740 Fredericks, 1271, 1273 and 1275 Stafford, which have a significant number of noise complaints, and 1276 Bond, which was observed by Code Enforcement as holding a rush event in January 2025 and has multiple noise complaints. Fraternity events, including rush recruitment, have been advertised at these addresses. Current Fraternities at Cal Poly Despite only three fraternity CUPs in the City, there are currently 19 fraternities at Cal Poly, and a 20th was approved to join Cal Poly Greek Life in Fall 2026. These 19 fraternities have active memberships and routinely host events at their main chapter houses and satellite houses. The City requires a CUP for a fraternity to hold any fraternity-related event. As noted, the CUPs have restrictive maximum occupancy limitations for gatherings, which are often impossible to meet for a standard fraternity event, including rush and sorority exchanges. It is illegal for them to hold any fraternity-related events within neighborhoods in the City, therefore, 16 of Cal Poly’s fraternities without CUPs cannot legally hold a fraternity-related event in the City’s neighborhoods. Many of the main chapter houses for those 16 fraternities are in R1 and R2 neighborhoods, and dozens of satellite houses that hold fraternity events are also in those neighborhoods. The City has told Cal Poly and Greek Life that it is illegal to hold fraternity-related events in the neighborhoods, but the fraternities hold them anyway. They usually get away without any consequences because there isn’t 15 coordination between SLOPD and Code Enforcement, and/or complaints for illegal fraternity events are not followed up on and/or are dismissed by the City. The fraternities and the address of the main chapter house are listed below: 1. Alpha Epsilon Pi 280 California Blvd – CUP at least 2 recent noise citations 2. Alpha Gamma Rho 190 California Blvd (R4) 3. Alpha Sigma Phi 1218/1220 Bond Street (R1) 4. Beta Theta Pi 1327 Foothill Blvd (R4) 5. Delta Chi 1236 Monte Vista Pl (R4) 6. Delta Sigma Phi 1684/1688 Mill Street (R2) 7. Delta Upsilon 720 Foothill Blvd (R4) 8. Kappa Sigma 281 Hathway Avenue (R1) 9. Lambda Chi Alpha 1264 Foothill Blvd – CUP to be re-reviewed soon 10. Phi Delta Theta 260 Chaplin Lane (R1) 11. Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI) 1237 Fredericks Street (R2) 12. Phi Kappa Psi 1335 Foothill Blvd - CUP 13. Phi Sigma Kappa 348/350 Hathway Avenue (R2) 14. Pi Kappa Phi 740 Foothill (County) & 66 Rafael Ln (R1) 15. Sigma Nu 1304 Foothill Blvd (R4) 16. Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays Street (R1) 17. Sigma Pi 1525 Slack Street (R1) 18. Theta Chi 1844 McCollum & 250 Grand - properties share backyards (R1) 19. Zeta Beta Tau 654 Graves Avenue (R4) 20. Pi Kappa Alpha (PIKE) “unofficially” at 138 Orange (R1) – will re-join Cal Poly Fall 2026 I urge you to take the opportunity to drive by those addresses, especially in the R1 and R2 neighborhoods, to see what they look like now versus when the fraternity members return next month and they are overrun with cars, beer pong/dye tables, trash, etc. Since there is an extremely limited number of fraternities with CUPs, now is the ideal time for the Planning Commission to adopt a uniform template for CUPs, with an outline of conditions, as recommended by the grand jury. A unform template would provide consistent expectations to Cal Poly’s Greek Life for fraternity operations within the city. The occupancy limitations would depend on the size of each fraternity property. One condition missing from recent CUPs is that the “CUP can be referred to the Planning Commission with receipt of substantiated written complaints from any resident or City employee, which includes information supporting a conclusion that a violation of the CUP or City ordinances or regulations has occurred.” This should be included in the updated template for all fraternity CUPs especially because it seems the “public nuisance” condition related to noise violations is not being utilized by Community Development, and a fraternity should not be allowed to get three noise citations within a year before the CUP is re-reviewed. It is important to include the condition above to ensure a CUP can be re-reviewed with a substantiated written complaint. The re-review should occur withing a reasonable amount of time, such as within 45- 60 days of the complaint. 16 There should also be a uniform policy for enforcement of the conditions of CUPs with regular communication between SLOPD and Code Enforcement, overseen by the City Manager. • SLOPD should have a list of documented fraternity houses, both legal and illegal properties, from Code Enforcement and the list should be updated regularly, not less than every 6 months. • Each of the property addresses of all documented fraternities – legal and illegal – should be in SLOPD’s database and SNAP should not be dispatched to those locations. • When a noise complaint or citation is received by SLOPD at any of the documented fraternity addresses – legal and illegal - Code Enforcement should be notified. • Documented Greek houses – legal and illegal - should not be allowed to wipe their citation history clean through SLOPD’s Early Removal Program. • Documented Greek houses – legal and illegal - should not be allowed to register parties through SLOPD to avoid response from SLOPD for noisy party complaints. • The terms of a CUP should be included in SLOPD’s database, such as the maximum occupancy at the property, and referenced by officers during response to noise complaints. To effectively address the ongoing issues with fraternities operating both legally and illegally within the city, Code Enforcement staff must be scheduled to work alternative hours, including evenings and weekends, as that is when most fraternity events occur. The City must hire an additional code enforcement officer, even if on a yearly contract basis, to specifically focus on the unique challenges posed by fraternity operations, ensuring compliance with the City’s zoning laws. The problem needs immediate attention to stop the severe damage caused by the ongoing, documented disruptions of Cal Poly’s Greek life to the City’s neighborhoods, outlined in the grand jury report, news articles, and an Editorial by The Tribune Editorial Board. Without the addition of another code enforcement officer, this issue is unlikely to be resolved, and the incredibly difficult and untenable living conditions will continue within the residential neighborhoods Given its scope and complexity, this matter requires the dedicated attention of a staff member as soon as possible for a proper and lasting solution. This issue is a “need” versus a “want” because it directly affects public safety. The fabric of the neighborhood has been drastically affected, and people are being forced to move away. The City has said it would cost approximately $100,000 for staffing an additional code enforcement staff member or contract employee. There is money in the FY 2025-2027 budget that could be reallocated from various “wants” to cover this need, to prevent the problem being allowed to continue to grow, as it has for the past four years. This issue cannot continue to be kicked down the road. In some areas, universities share the costs of such enforcement efforts, which could be a potential solution here, however if Cal Poly refuses to contribute, the City must find funding for a dedicated staff member to handle the Greek life issue within the city limits, including working weekends. Annual Noisy Party Calls to SLOPD / How Many Are at Fraternities? In the “Factual Problems with Grand Jury Report,” the City claims that noise calls have been reduced by 50% over the past 10 years. 17 Below is a chart that shows the number of annual calls to SLOPD for noisy parties over the past 10 years, which have not been reduced by 50%. The numbers were taken from a report prepared by SLOPD. Last year, I began tracking the SLOPD weekend dispatch logs and found that a large number of the noisy party calls to SLOPD were for parties at addresses documented as fraternity houses addresses. Most of the fraternities are operating illegally in the R1 and R2 neighborhoods. I sent reports to the City Council to show the negative impact that fraternity operations are having on the City’s neighborhoods. I also wanted to highlight the excessive resources expended by SLOPD and the City to respond to the large numbers of fraternity calls, to process the DACs and citations, and to communicate with Cal Poly per City policy. Some of my reports sent to the Council showing calls during a weekend at documented fraternities are shown below. The bold font indicates the address is the main chapter house: 1779 1571 1483 1439 1228 1518 1417 1409 1408 1422 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Annual Noisy Party Calls to SLOPD 18 19 These are not standard college parties. When the noisy fraternity parties are cited, there are usually large groups of people (50-150) noted on the citations, which is self-reported by the person getting the citation. When I sent the noise reports to Council, I continually explained how my family was kept awake throughout the weekend by fraternity parties and their guests who scream as they pass by our home throughout the night. Sometimes I sent videos. The City has known about this problem since at least the fall of 2021 and it has become worse throughout that time. The grand jury was able to witness the neighborhood firsthand, and presumably that information was a consideration in their findings. Please support the grand jury’s recommendation: 1. Compile a template for Conditional Use Permits, with conditions that apply to all fraternity/Greek life. Only 3 fraternities have CUPs right now and one of those three is up for re-review because of multiple violations of its CUP. Sororities do not have parties with alcohol, so their chapter houses do not have the same impact on neighborhoods as fraternities. However, there is value in having consistency in every CUP. This would be a one-time exercise, and would bring all 20 CUPs up to today’s standard, with consistency, so the conditions are clear every year to everyone each year. 20% of Cal Poly students are involved in Greek Life. Every fall, SLOPD meets with Greek life. If the conditions of every CUP are the same (except for the maximum number of guests which depends on the size of each property) it would simplify the process, make the conditions easy to understand, and promote behavior consistent with the conditions in the CUPs. 2. Require Code Enforcement staff to work evenings and weekends, when the fraternity events are happening, so they can enforce the conditions of the CUPs and cite illegal fraternity operations as they did on one weekend in January 2025, where Code Enforcement cited 12 fraternities. Thus far, the City has not been proactive about enforcement and the problem has grown over the past four years to the point where it is not sustainable for those who need to be able to rest. 3. Convene a plan to hire a code enforcement officer to proactively enforce the Municipal Code related to illegal fraternity operations to turn the tide on this enormous problem that is spreading to other neighborhoods in the City, has made the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property impossible, and is driving residents out of the neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration and for taking this problem seriously. I am extremely grateful to each of you for all your efforts. Sincerely, Kathie Walker Attachment: Phi Kappa Psi’s CUP &' ڠڸ vz]I@^WX_o0 " $w{`JAaYb:?4|%ZK}c.B~pdqL-[G=1eUVCDf\,trug> &5s6xh'MNi(7yE)H;jkFOP/lQ8*2'' <nRS#mT9+3! ĝëąÝÊČ!ڸ׃ȕڸýΉīг˛ڸÑмϗͷԒԓ̗нϘڸоʼڸׄȖڸÒ̘S׼ڸпʽ٠ڸčťڸðؙԔڸöƌ̙ԕӗڸƥқРǚּؘǛڸĬڸҪؖΊ̚Ʀڸ ˻ʩڸT̛ϙڸի˼ȗڸ ÓрؒСƧ̜΋ڸ Ô˽ŤƍȘӜڸ сʾڸÛͧ׽ڸ çĭΌ΍"ڸ ª«ڸ þĮρڸ ĎׯșȚլ#ڸďŦڸñ؂̝Ԗڸ üƢ΂Ә$ڸÕįξˑтԋ̞İ%ڸ уϚڸ ï؝ڡڸ &ڸ¡ ʿфӝڸׅțڸҫؠԗUڸхˀڸƨцϛԘ̟ǜȜԆϜ˜ڸıҬҭΎ̠ƩĲלчϝڸĘڸ¢¦A½ڸŧǝڸ '' ġéáĈËĐ'ڸ ϞшםƪȝԙĢڸˁڸԚĳ̡ǞڸҮ؃ƎΏ̢ƫڸ˾ȞĴԉ˝١ڸ شȟӞȠڸ ڊڸϑǟȡڸ ƈڸ խ˿Ȣڸ שȣ(ڸ ŨǠڸ ͺڸ ֫̏Ȥڸ ϐźʷ ӟȥӚؚӠȦǡڸƏُڸΐĵص¾ڸũǢڸ٢ڸ B ٣ڸ 'Xڸ ğċđ¿ڸ ׆ȧڸ ÿΑẒ́ϟ˞ڸ Öщςσ̤ԛզңϠڸ ƐĶԜ٥ڸ ǣ؄ΒِڸƬQд̥ǤȨӡȩYǥڸķΓΔڸȪة̦ʛТǕ)ڸ ͻƭΕ؅Ȑϡ˟ڸׇȫڸ ծȬԝתъّڸыӢ٦ڸ׈ȭڸŻ*үμƮ¬ĸϢկ+ڸ̧ϣ,հȮԀԞձȯǦڸҰƄȰԟ-ڸŪǧڸղ̀ȱڸȲتĹΖؕמьϤڸĺϥڸӣȳǖϕȴϦȍճ̨эеڸƑْڸԠֹ˒ڸ ұԁ՛ʜϧմȵǨڸƉڸդǩڸ́ȶƂϨˠڎڸ ڏ ' õ÷ĞÀڸĕêâĆÞäøĉ.ڸZÏßڸìĖڸĊĒùòěãÜڸƣڸյ̂ȷ®ڸ ĀΗڢͨУˡڸ×юτυ̩ԡ[Ԣ̪яϩڸҜːڸն̃ȸڸØ̫׾٧ڸ˂ڸēū ó؆ͩ՜ڸúƒ̬ԣҲڸƅڸ˖ζѐضԤ¯٨ڸڸ ڐڸ ڑڸ \°±]ڸ ڒڸ ړڸ ٩٪ڸ ڔڸ ڸ ڸ ' ' ^ ' ' ' ĔȹƯןёϪڸ_ڸ `åͪФȓˢԥaڸ ÐƇǪڸ ؇ҳђ¼ڸ ڣíڸ׉Ⱥڸ Ȼد ǫȼϫưȽ/bڸכ ڸڤÙѓϖ̭Ԧԧ̮єϬڸ φŜȾԨڸ ׊ȿڸ ˃ѕΘΙcҩϭˣڸ ˓ϮȒЩ0˸²ڸ ' '' ' %'dڸ îe ėڸҴӤҧі1՝ʝǬڸҵӥї΃ɀƱշڸ̯ԩڸǗж΀ոɁϯչڸق׋ڸæɂϰɃӿ2ڸ āΚŬڸôǭڸęեڸӕҝΛ̰³Ʋ´̱ɄԪڸf§ڥ£٫ڸ ŭǮg¨h¤ڸŮǯ qڸ èјءͫХˤڸàΜʞώʲպڸҶљΝ̲Ƴٓڸ©ڸijڸ¥ڸ׭ڸΞњǒջɅڸ ԫ׺ǰɆϱռڸ̄Ą؈ÁԬ˚˥٬kӖӽҢ΄Âɇƴ״3ڸ»ֽԌ̳ս̴Ɉԭ٭ڸůǱڸԮћӦԇנɉԯ4ڸ Űǲڸ ˳ϲɊӾοٔχŽɋڸĻڦ˙ќӧȎƓΟڧڸ̅ѝآ̵ϳ˦DͼڸўΠџ԰ڨҷԍه̶ϒ׿ڸվѠ׌ɌڸǔҸ؉Աڸlmڸ ٮڸE ڸ ڸÇٯڸ ڸµF ڕڸ 5 ڸ ģ Ĥ ڸ G Ãڸ ¶ڸĥH ' ' $' ' nڸ' ڸ '''oڸ pڸ ƵҨǳ̷סѡЮǴ@P ׍ɍڸҹӨѢә ʫٰأɎڸĦħڸٱ̸ԲڸکǘϴԳ̹թɏϵտڸط̺ڪڸ ֬̐ɐڸ Ġѣ϶ͬЦ˧Irćɑ˹ΡļעѤзڸƔʪ؊Դɒڸיʦڸ Ϸنƕʸڸѥ˄өʟ՞̻ǵʴږ̼Ե ڸǙͭ՟րʠЧցڸظ̽׎ڸ˷؋Һڸ̆ѦԶ̾ϸ˨ڸψĽو̿ω؜ڸѧƶƷ؞űǉٛڸsνϓ׵ګڸ׏ɓڸֺǶɔϊڸ JڬΈ˩ڸƸѨа˺ףиڸžɕڸǊҞ ՠ̀ժʳւڸĜאڸϹɖ·́˶ѩԊ˪ڸٲֶڭһʺɗԷÄľٳٞɘ׮K ԸװəɚփٴٕƀڸԹɛքƖĿǏ΅ كڸ Rηθعڸ˅ѪӪڸtЯǷڸ ˔ɜى͂Ɨ͸̓օٖڸ غ̈́בuѫ،ֆڸƹӫɝƊϺ˫ٵڸŲڸ ؍ϻԺŀˆɞڸƺÆϼǸ͇͆ͅѬЫڸ ƻѭϋҼŁƼևڸ ٶէłɟʻڸ م΢ ڮҽŃǐπڸϽگפخٷٸױڰٹڸųǹڸvԅƽֈ͈ҦٺڸѮˇڸԂӛԄڸ ѯϾLԻ͉־ڸԼҾřɠMԽÈڱ؎˴ڸńҿӀԎثŝ¸ ѰˈڸŴڸƋόѱƘͮιɡٻڸײӁڸ։ʮƾץϿڸӂΣŵڸԃԾ؛׶¹ڸ;ڸŅڸӬɢƆҠЀņƙ֊ɣЁϔƚɤӭټڸѲˉڸըŇǋʡ6Կڸٽپ˗ӮڸӯɥՀ͊Ǻʱ֋Ձڸwڸ ' ÌՂڸƿѳЂǻ͋צѴЃɦǼ7ٿ֭̑ɧڀؤɨڸلΤΥځЄѵ֌ڂ̇śڸַʨڸˬɩЅɪӰňΦڸ̈ɫŞ֍̉8ڸգˊʤֵٗ9ڸڲǽڸػɬΧˋŉӱɭڃѶ ˌxӃʵΨɮyڸκس˭ڸ ѷӲڸ ͽڸ֎̖ʥڸ ذǀ͵б؀ڗơʢٟŊ؏ՃɯڄڅǑҡЭ֮ͯѸйN ѹІڸגɰڸĚՄɱڸĂָ֏ΩΪΫ͌֐ڳĨzżӳѺجş{ӄάŋʯڸ έ͹͍׷ڸѻЇچדɲڸ Јؔƛɳ֑Յڸ ѼˍڸӅʹкڸ ţѽؼɴǾڸ ѾЉڸՆֿ͎:ڸӴɵՇ׳ǁ֒|ڸ Ś֓}͏ر֔͐ɶՈ;ڸژڸŌЬ~ڸ ͑ڇЊ͒֕ڸӆѿ֖ɷЋקŠڸ ȌʹՉ׬ƜŶڴʣաڸ֗ڸ Ќɸ͓˵ƝҀԐڸ ÍՊڸǂҁЍǿ͔͕֘҂ЎɹȀ<ڸ֯̒ɺڸӇӵ҃ӈ҄Ջɻȁڸإɼڸ΁ڸōӉӊӶ҅ӋԈŎ׀ڸŏ֙ڵ֚̊ºɽڸՌؗɾǌְڸήÅÉǓֱͰ҆ЏڸƞڈɿǍئʀڸ͖֛ڸ͗ՍڸίҤ ֜ʁȂڸͿڸڙڸ' ǃΰ҇Վʂڸӌ͘҈يͱϏͲ֝٘ڸֲҟڸÚŐαڸă҉βٙڸƃȃڸҊֳ̓ʃӷڸՏ׻ڶʄА֞Oύ=͙ʅБׂڸؐՐʆՑڸښŷȄڸ̋ҋا͚Вˮڸڸ !"' ' ''''''' ÎՒڸǄҌГȑרҍДʬ>ڸ֟̌ʇڸӍԏҎՓʈȅڸʉًǅʊӎ֠͛ڛҏЕՔڸ֡Ґڸהʋڸ ĩӏſ·Ъ˯ڸőЖȆڸȔحʌؽŖٜڸՕֻȏڸšγґؾڸˎҒӸڸ Зʰʍȇڸ˕ʎٌ͜Ɵ͝δ͞؁ڸ Ȉؑʏڸ ֢ғڸ ڷՖ֣͟ʐڸǆҔл֤ӹŒ͠И׸ڸŸȉڸƁڸ ǇҕЙ՗͡՘֥ʑК֦ڸؿ͢וڸזʒڸʓٍͣՙ֧ͤЛ˰ڸМʔͥ˲ƤӺ̍Җҥڸ ڸ Ӑœ׹ڸŗШȊڸբ؟ӑûԑڸĪƠٚڸחʶَͶвִٝڸҗˏڸטʕ?بʖڸ֨ҘڸǈŘӒ׫ڸـ̔ͳǎ̕ڸفҙؓλȋڸ̎ʗ֩ӓډڸŢεʘزŔ֪ʙڸךʧ #' Нʚʭڸ˘ӻڸҚОڜ՚ׁͦӔŕӼΆП˱ڸ ڸ ڝڸ ڞڸڟڸ %+) )4,.*(!//",+4/,&20!,4,4 4 4 4 4,-1#%'4$34 4 5 &öXîö !ö" ö ö T ö$,ö5äöS«Lö < ö$P$ö öö5¥.ö ö öö ö öö ö ö"½ö ö ööööö ö" §öööö . +-ö >ö V!B'ö ööö ö âö öIöYö;*:ö A ö ööö ö $-Uöö\ öö2Rmö 0ö7 !öööö ö ö'ö~ö =ö 'ö ö / öxïöö%[kö ö(ö ö ÌöÜÉ¦ ðööö¬ö4ööö ö öö )ö.ö iö öö öö ö öö öJö öö ö;} ö ß ö Cö1ö @ö =ö 1ö ö öA ö ö ö%lö¢/y#¾ X öÎ àö ¤¹ööñÝöz ö .ö @b8&ö ö"ö 2QKö :ö D_ö Mö ö öö¯ A ö ¨ö' öö pö Èöö ö ö 'ö ö Äöj .ö ö ]éö Ícö ö ö Ðö ö ö ?Å ö Cfö Æ 8qö ö å ö b ,ö öö !öö ´ö D+B`Nö % ö @ Ë3ö,ö 'ör%ö ©ã0ö ;-V!cö ö ö ö ö D&8ö To /ºö ö öö dö /ö _%ö ö ö( !ò ö öG ö /ö %öödööªö ö Bö%[kö ö ¶Øöö = ö !!ööö ö öö ö &1ö # Úö#9 ö^ ö ö ²ö ö 7öö ö ööç,ö áLö,ö ) >ö èsö Nö ìöF 9öö¸ö Óöö eö 0ö ö ö ^ ö öö öööFö#4 ®{# - Q-JWöö ö 8ö gö óö tö ?ö öö Ñ öö ö "+ 6Eaµ ö·öÏ ö\æHö4ö ööö7¿ö ö Õ¡ *)5" ö 0ö »³ !ö öööö # ö # öö ö 3 ö "9Êöö ö (ö ö:ö ööêÁöö G+ö ö " ö ö 2$*Kö 6Eë]ö*ö )ööuÒö ö Sö ö H ö vö ö öö öôö ö õ`ö ö ( 1+ö Oö RUö3ö +Mö ö göÛ öö6ÖÙ ö À9ö ö ö" ö ö ! "&ö öö ö2ö$$nöGöÃö öHö1ööö $Pö öö*ö)w ö j7×íö C ööö&&|# iö#f ö4öö 0 ( ö ÔöÂÞI* O >ö6E hö öe ö ±¼ ö ööö (ööö° aöF' Çö <Zöö ö ö ö?höWZ öY 3ö<ö ö £ ) "!, #(($ ,(%*)& ,', , , &$),+, 3XF:ttfY?9pX9ef t|s\DF<pF9pDFfFtXspFpwo=F| sM xFtspY=fFuFysp sXF #sllp`$FFgstlFp$Ft9zpFp:pD2+./$-F\VX>szXssD2FzZ@F,:p9VFzsp: F:zf=9\ 1Ftsp\=fFtFzspX9hf=F:9\8:=fFDz\pV;*(FFp9pD:zF9sp:=iFXs{ szF@F\F9pDX<pDgF@sltf9\p 4XF5F/FzlZg:gg=FxF`FFD=XF#sllp\$FFfstlFp$ZzF@szLszBsltg\:p@F \X @spD\\sp sM9ttzs:fszsDFF\pFXFXFz9lsD\Na@9ZspsM XF5F/Frq` [ pF@F<7tsp\W\Na@9p@X:pVFsXFFm\zFtzFFpHD\pXF29ML1FtsD9FD )pF sz\pXFFFpsM9@X9pVF\pspFzX\tX\@Xl:zFg\pDFZ9\spO}slXF tzscHCDF@z_tspsz:ttzsKth:p 4X\5F/F\B:q=FzFMFFEsXF/f:pp\pV#sll\\spMsz~IZFZMDFFrpZpFD= XF #sllpZ$FFfstlFp$\zF@sztspzH@F\tsM=:p\9FDz`FpBsltf:\pTsl:p @\\Fp#sDF%pMsz@HlFp.P\@Fz0sf\@F $Ft9{lFpFltfsFFsz#;g/sf FltgsFF X]@XZp@jDF`pMsm:[sp9pDszF\DHp@Fttsz\pV:@sp@g\sp X9 :\sf:`spsMXZ 6F/Gzn_szsM#Ys{D\p:pBFszzFVf:\sp:ttgZ@9=fFsXFtzstFszXFstFz;\spsM XF=\pFX;sA?xzFD "XF\lFsMXF5F/Fzl\xH\FsFpzF@sltf\;p@F XFF@spD\\sp@spD\ZspsM9tt{s:fl:=F:DDFDDFgFFDlsD\RFDszXFvl\l: =F~IsdFD 4XF&~<F\5F/Fn\X:ff:sl9\@:gh=FzF\FFD=XF/g9ppZpV#sln\^sp_p spFF:zTslD9F:ttzs9fsFp~J@sltfY9p@F\X@spDZZsp "XFzF`FXF9z\pV XF/g:ppZpV#sllZZspl::DDDFfFJszlsD\U@spD__spsM9ttzs9f !^7--7V"3 ^7^>=Q#>23P^>^#3-Q^7?^#67@4K#73-^9$D;7EJ^731^!W^F>U^L7^ #S^ K!^99-#3K^^ >-^'^7^7K!?^#OY^><N #>2KG^K. K^/T"0-^:-X^K7^K)C^9>8+K^!#F^*J^37K^ % K5^K7^^ 3^!RFK#U^-#FK^F^7K!A^?=$#?23KH^2W^^#5K(&^Q>#Z ^K!^9-3^!,^ 9B7M[]\I^ /f9p=l\FDMsz:=\fDZpVtFn\X:ffZp@fDFXFgs@9ZsqsM:@zFFpFDz:XFp@fs~I /g9p=l\IDMsz9=\fDZpV tFzl\X9ff\pBgDFFz`Q@:]spsM9DDzF FMsz ! 'ssX\fg /f:p=l\FDMsz9=\fD\pVtFr\X:ff\p@fDFFbS@:\spsMFsMt9@Fk9=FgFD9 2sz9VF1ssl &6+5<-I!;0D1?=I)C#F94@ >I %' I I *III "ABE/2738I :GH,$ (.I I ·Ă͡łϪبWب ӫ֫ƑΫ̫՘ՙȌǇب ׾ʳјҦب ĝب ź֬̈͢ǈ̉Ћب ѻȍΜԶ̊Էب Ӭ˟Ğͣͤب ηƘ֭ͥǉȎب ӭˠБѼب ǊӞר̬θ˅Ӯب 'ğ׿ιǋب Գ ȏ ( ƙ ̋ ˁ ƚ Ġ Ը ̌ ѵ ӯ ب љʴب Ń ϫ ġҢ )יǌب øíă×ب ²æب ʵ̭ҹȐب ԴκЎɺҺب ӰװӱԹȑΝgب ¸ب Đ˩Ȓب Ǎɻńǎب؀לѹب Вλب ՚˪ȓب Ȕ׫̍Ӳ՛̮Ϭˆب þŦب ֡ȕȖhӳب ԱĢͦͧب Żȗب Ӵģˀͨױب ѽiһֿμɼǷب ؁ԺГ ՜˫Șب ԬŤև͐ӵ*ʿƛԻ Ѷب Дʪب՝ˬșب ßÁ̎֩ب ÝЕνjÂԝ՞ب Ŷ+بĤب kƜЖξǸ̯֜њϭب Зʫب՟˭Țب ż͈֮ΙȊοˇبѾțÃӥ͌Լlب ĕȜب ŽםÄͩǏ̏πˈب ѿȝӛΰ̐֌بҀ,òŠЇӶ؂ب ӷˡŅΌͪب ÅӸ̆מب šЈǐبρИԽȞب ֔ȟب ԞƶѺȠب ЙʬبҁҼћ҂К ӹɽǹ ب ҃ҽ׀ς̑σˉب ņϮǑب Ӻ̅ب ؃͖ǂ֯Ǻɾب ĥب ҄Ҿ ؄bcǃЏ֦Ɲՠ̰ќϯب ΞȡȢԾÆ̒τˊب žȣυך؅Ȥφب աˮȥب à֪̓ Þҿ̱ԟբب Ňϰǒب ҅Ӏ̲׏Ħֆʟب ƞȦӁգ̔ʶ̳ȧǓب ňդſЛҧ͜Կب Ɵ؆Мχ֣Ơ֑ǔب ՀНب ОѴͫȨÇեɿmب Ԡŉ̕Ǖب ҆ҨְЍψˋب Ĕ̖̃ӻب ןПҩfب ơؠРׁôÈǖب ƀȩب -Ƣ_ѝС.Ҫǻ̴ϱħՁȪǗب Ŋϲǘب ƣТΟ҇ͬȫ$զȬǙ ب ֱ֚˚˯ب է˰ؤبá̗ը׻بÙӂƁУωӼՂب ĄӃ̵̘ÿب թў Ƃֲ̙ͭǚ̚ϊˌب ҈ȭϳϴ̶֍ب Ĩң̛ͮƤŢօ̈́Фϋ ŋϵǼʷبџӄب҉ȮӦnب ºoب ęʛب ʸ̷϶Ō΍ب /ǽʀժō̜Ύԡب Хʭب ի˱ȯب ҊЦӅѠ؇ׂԢب ҋĩא͚ˍب ĪǛ͞RşǀȰόՃب ֊Ѳ ąŎӆ̸͟Ϸˎب ĊҌīЧȱب ب ӽˢĬͯͰب ̇ÉύШÔب լ˲Ȳب ȳ׬̝Ե͗ˏ ³»ب Ā ŧب խӇʁȴب pūǜب ӨՄب ׽Щώ0ȵqب Ėȶب ƥͱʢʾӗЪΠب ďĭƷʂب ب ֋ѳب ֕ȷب ʥːȸب Ыʮب ҍĮΡţ׼ب Ɩب ӈʃǾֳƦȹǝب ¾Õب ֠ ҎӚ͋Ьט͓ǞȺب ťȆͅՅ̞ЭЊͲب 1ƧͳʣȻب ε׉ǟب ծ˳ȼب ֤Ƚrب Ûب įʹՆȾӧկʄÊب ΢Źȿҫ̟ũب Ӿִƨˣب sŷب ƃŏԣɀب βب ƄɁب ׎ب ׇ֛ب ֙͏ӿب ֢ŐϸԤʯ؈ֈ͑ЮϏب űبİtب ėɂب ؉®S2ֵ͔ȇ͆Ќب ҏʡ¡ϐ̠Շب Ґ͵őϹب Ԁ׃ƒί͊֨Ͷب ԁ̄Θب γΚЉǠɃبıͷ͸ب ʽ͛ب ǿʅ֎̹ΏԥبʹѡҬبհ˴ʆبґЯӉѢֶԂ¢بҒĲבʇӊب3ԦʈƩՈ̡аϑبŬǡبձӋŭԃ̢։͒ѷبŴ׊Ǣبղ˵Ʉ ب֥ʠب I ½u đ˶ɅبԄ̣֒بғ͹ŒϺبԅˤбַΐȀب 4ƪ&ɆœҭΑ5ײب Ԇ˷ѣנب Ŕϻǣب؊ϒвճʉبմƓ6ͺѤƸĳƅгдʰب֖ɇب؋׋ȉҮ˛ӌѥ׌Ǥبָ֝ͻ̺յ̻Ɉԇ7£ب ˞بΣɉՉإ8 ɊͼʊƹՊӍ̼ƫŪب ԰͍Ƭɋ9بŕϼǥبŖϽ׳بе:ն˸ĴƔѦזʋب،ءжүبƆɌΒ סب˝ӘĵǦɍب͕;ҔӜѰגɎΤɏvϓ֧ب շ˹ĶՋبƭзׄΓǧبƗبķʺʻɐƮՌʌȁبƇ¤״ ո˺ɑبҕөиԈʦبǄϔԉչӎׅƯϕйϖب ѧӏ؍بӐʍҤ׈ɒǨبҖųˑبưͽɓŲϗƱɔԊwب <¿ب Üب ŗϾƺ˻кӤب תɕɖ;ب ԭαҗب лҰب мнϿƻVɗպʎب ǆӠب ԋ˼ŘͿ΀ب ƈɘب ěҘʱ` כǩəǪب xĸՍبՎ˥ɚب ɛË׭̤Ԍ֞Ϙ˒ب ƲaϙƼӑʏջʐب ҙĹǫب ˂ұ ċ=Қřƽɜب¹¥ب Ē˽ɝب қ>ҲئҜо?@ԍɞeبȋ͇חTɟעĺ׵ب ʩɠА̥пϚب̦Ԏب ϛ؎рՏبӒʑҥΥәʝǬبŚЀǭبyԏÌƉсֹ¦z Ɗɡب§ǁΗ¯Φ¨ϜĻՐɢǮبռѨب˦тϝуҳب ŰبҝӓʒԧAʨɣب ؏ս˾Öɤب ɥׯ̽Ԑ֟˓ب ñبÀ ć Ũب Ցӣʞب °UфƾśՒʓȂب ļՓب վ˿ɦب ƋʔŜȃب ֗ɧب ԑҡƳ Ĝب Ęɨب ף˧ʕʖب Ԓտѩҟب хҴ ƴֺӡآب ԓ˨цֻ΁ǯب!ƌɩب ÍԮՔبƍĽƿ͠ب´¼XY ˄Χبր̀ɪب ɫ׮͉ԫBՕ̾Ё˔بƕʗɬ{ب āبζց̿чϞبƎ׶بâш|δ̀ԨԔ©ѸʘӔبõּ΂֏͎}Cب ԕɭǅϟǰɮǱبƏ ׷بãDщΨΩ̧Ԗԗ~̨ъϠɯҵ ب ðפ΃بҶEبŮǲبыϡب ֘ɰب ˃΄ΔѪؐץ͘˕بӝѱ΅Ά Ƶľ·Έب דь֓Î ب ØĚĎ Zاب"بd ب ؑùª بؒب эؓؔÏFêԘ[G ĈëîĉÐ Ú ؕìبüؖ بؗبب\ؘب]ؙ äюάέӕԩبöؚ׆Ε֐ÑHبï я؛צΖɱҷIب ԙ؜͝ϢJ˖ɲקĿΉǳKب ÷ɳ׸ʜӖLب çӟɴب Č؝ՖɵהʧѐϣMبŝЂǴبΛӪёÒϤ úђϥɶب ûѫЃ^؞ب ýЄʙب ḗɷبʼѬӢ˜ѭ͙˗بɸԲNΊ؟ֽւ̩ѓϦبשԚ بҞŸԯبŞЅǵبŀǶѮҠ՗ʚȄبփ̂́ԛب «µOȈ׹بأєʲ#óب׍Pب±¬¶ èѕ־˘بéŁוȅԪіϧQبčʤҸɹ%քŵب Ć΋ůІ͂Ϩ˙بåѯΪή̓ب Ԝ̪їϩبƐ׺Óب