Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRR25328 Emails Batch 11 From:CityClerk Sent:Friday, May 31, 2024 11:22 AM To:Steven Walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Please forward to SLO City Planning Commissioners ASAP Steven Walker, Your correspondence has been shared with the Planning Commissioners, PC staff, and placed in the public archive for the Planning Commission. Agenda Correspondence (slocity.org) City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E cityclerk@slocity.org T 805.781.7100 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Steven Walker < Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 5:19 PM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Subject: Please forward to SLO City Planning Commissioners ASAP This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Planning Commissioners, I have attached a letter outlining serious issues related to fraternities and the city's zoning and land use regulations. I realize it's a lot of information and appreciate your time to review and digest the situation within our city's neighborhoods. I have also attached four documents and one short video referenced in the letter. Please feel free to reach out with any questions or comments. Thank you, Steve Walker 2 10.28.2023 496 Kentucky at Stafford 9.40pm SLOPD UTL (2).mp4 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Monday, October 14, 2024 8:35 AM To:Steven Walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: 6.b. Appeal for a Fraternity CUP at 1264 Foothill Hi Steven, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the upcoming meeting. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Steven Walker < Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2024 2:56 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 6.b. Appeal for a Fraternity CUP at 1264 Foothill This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Mayor Stewart and Councilmembers, I must respond to the City staff’s report, beginning with Appeal Issue Number 4. City staff says that setting a threshold of violations within a certain timeframe that triggers a review of the CUP by the Planning Commission somehow prohibits staff from referring the CUP to the Planning Condition for re-review upon receipt of any substantiated violation or frequency of violations. 2 I’ve read the appeal, and nothing is suggested to prevent staff from referring the CUP to the Planning Commission at any time if a provision is added for a threshold of violations that trigger a review. It could be two violations in six months or four violations in twelve months. These are not permissive or excusable but require some form of action when the threshold of violations is met. It makes the condition more effective. Here are the historical facts: 1. Every fraternity CUP currently has multiple documented violations of its conditions. 2. Despite these multiple violations, city staff, including those listed in Condition 3 (Code Enforcement Officer, Fire Department, or Police Department) have never written a complaint against a CUP for re-review by the Planning Commission. It seems the responsibility for writing a complaint is left to the residents, if you leave the condition as it is, without a trigger for review. 3. Many residents are afraid to file a written complaint because of potential retaliation from fraternity members. This is a realistic fear because several residents have had their property vandalized or faced other repercussions when fraternity members suspected their neighbor called SLOPD to report a noisy party. One neighbor had their car vandalized and others have been cussed out by fraternity members after noise citations were issued to fraternities near their homes. An unofficial fraternity house for Sigma Pi moved in next door to our family and members began cyberstalking my wife 24 hours after they received a noise citation for a noisy party, and I was away at work. Among other things, they posted ads on Craigslist advertising “free” items at our house and made appointments for people to come to our home. For months afterward, they incessantly teased and harassed our dog, yelled “F#ck you!” toward our home randomly, day and night from a side deck adjacent to our bedrooms and kitchen, banged on trash bins filled with empty bottles for several minutes in the middle of the night after moving them close to our bedroom windows, and can be heard admitting it was done to harass us. We have the video. Our property was also vandalized. Nearly a year after the fraternity members moved out, someone related to the fraternity trespassed onto our property, walked up to our bedroom window, called out my wife’s name, then walked away. Afterward, they are seen and heard on our video surveillance saying they “are friends with the Sigma Pi guys who lived here last year.” Our home address was repeatedly posted on social media, for example, advertising a party at 5 a.m. on St. Fratty’s Day at our address. There are too many incidents to list and the harassment has continued, even though the fraternity members moved out in June 2023. The repercussions experienced by our family and our neighbors were based on suspicions by fraternity members because of the fraternity's proximity to their neighbors. There was no way for the fraternity members to know positively that we, or our neighbors, called SLOPD but their suspicions drove them to take these actions. For these reasons, it is not reasonable to rely on a written complaint by a resident against a fraternity’s CUP. 4. I wrote a complaint for repeated violations of a fraternity’s CUP, and no action was taken. A fraternity with a CUP is located a block from my home, at the end of my street. There are constant noisy parties with hundreds of guests at the fraternity. My wife and I have spoken to the fraternity members several times during noisy parties. In the nine months between 3/18/2023 and 12/3/2023, SLOPD issued six noise citations to the fraternity, including two unruly gatherings 3 with hundreds of people. On 2/5/2024, I submitted a written complaint to Community Development Director, Timmi Tway. It has been over eight months, and the written complaint has not been forwarded to the Planning Commission. (!!!) Community Development did not contact the fraternity about the complaint filed on 2/5/2024 and the fraternity continued to have large, noisy parties. Between 2/10/2024 and 6/8/2024, SLOPD issued five more noise citations to the fraternity, some with 100 people. We filed another written complaint on 6/3/2024 citing four additional citations since the previous written complaint made on 2/5/2024. Neither written complaint has been forwarded to the Planning Commission. Within that time frame, several Planning Commission meetings were canceled because there was nothing on their agenda. Community Development should have taken care of the matter soon after the first written complaint was filed on 2/5/2024. We contacted Community Development multiple times because of the ongoing, noisy parties at the fraternity after we filed our written complaint. The city’s code enforcement supervisor, John Mezzapesa, said that the written complaint was given to Tyler Corey to handle, and he was working on it, but Mr. Corey didn’t do anything. It’s been over 8 months, and the Planning Commission has still not received my complaint(s). Let's be honest. It is not realistic to believe that Community Development will be proactive in filing a complaint and refer a fraternity to the Planning Commission for re-review, especially after one violation, as they suggest in their response. An existing CUP for a fraternity says that any written complaint will be forwarded to the Planning Commission within one week of receipt. In addition to adding a threshold for violations, I feel it is important to have a deadline in Condition 3 for forwarding a complaint to the Planning Commission after it is received. During the Planning Commission hearing on 6/12/2024, Commissioner Kahn suggested a threshold of four violations within 12 months as a trigger for review. As the city staff was drafting new conditions, Commissioner Kahn again emphasized adding that condition, and staff told him that it was already covered by Condition 3. However, there is a distinct difference between requiring a written complaint and having a threshold of violations to trigger a review of the CUP. Setting a threshold of violations of the CUP within a specified timeframe guarantees there will be a review at some point if the fraternity reaches that threshold. It does not require a written complaint from a resident, though a resident may still write a complaint. But as I’ve described, many affected residents do not feel comfortable doing so. It does not rely on Code Enforcement, Fire, or SLOPD to file a complaint, though they may still do so. But City Staff has not asked for a review of any fraternity’s CUP even though every fraternity CUP has had multiple ongoing violations for several years. It does not prevent staff from asking for a review sooner, after one violation, if they choose to do so. But realistically they will not do so considering fraternities have many ongoing violations of their CUPs and no review has ever been requested by city staff. A condition with a threshold of violations that trigger a review by the Planning Commission should be added to the CUP. It protects the health, safety, and well-being of the neighborhood and holds the fraternity responsible for the conditions of their CUP. Adding Conditions to the CUP to Make Things More Clear to the Fraternity: In response to Appeal Issue No. 1, where the appeal asks for specific conditions related to realistic problems of a fraternity use in a residential neighborhood that are listed in other fraternity CUPs, staff says that adding conditions to the CUP is not necessary because the SLOMC has had “incremental improvements” between 1983 and 2013 that directly address concerns related to noise, etc. The “improvements” include updating unrelated things like adding days to the safety enhancement zone or updating fine amounts for citations. It seems disingenuous to imply that these changes justify omitting useful conditions that are 4 included in other fraternity CUPs. Those conditions strengthen the CUP and help to clarify the conditions to the fraternity. When the other CUPs were drafted, the city also had a noise ordinance, residential occupancy requirements, etc. but the Planning Commission included certain conditions to emphasize the fraternity’s obligation to follow the noise ordinance and other laws. These added conditions outline the fraternity’s responsibility to the neighborhood and the consequences for violation of the CUP. Spelling out these specific conditions is beneficial because they clarify common issues related to a fraternity’s use, especially related to its location in a residential neighborhood. When the conditions are documented in a CUP it is less likely that there will be confusion by the fraternity about relevant laws and conditions. I brought up this issue during public comment at the Planning Commission hearing and the commissioners agreed that specifically mentioning the noise ordinance and “quiet hours” is important, even though it’s already in the city’s noise ordinance. It would also be helpful if the Community Development Department met with each fraternity at the beginning of the academic year to review the conditions in the CUPs so there is a clear understanding of the specific conditions. Special Event Permits and Violation of the City’s Noise Ordinance : In response to Appeal Issue No. 2, staff says the municipal code allows the noise control officer to grant exceptions for the fraternity to violate the noise ordinance if deemed appropriate. I don’t understand how it can ever be deemed appropriate for a fraternity to violate the noise ordinance. This is a residential neighborhood. The noise ordinance ensures that every residential neighborhood is protected from unhealthy levels of noise and allows people to rest when needed. It doesn’t make sense that there is a carve-out for a fraternity to violate the law with what the staff’s report refers to as “amplified noise-generating activity”. It is harmful to even suggest a condition that grants an exception of the law to fraternities so they can have a party or multiple parties each year in a residential neighborhood. My work schedule includes long shifts, ranging from 12.5 to 14 hours, and switches between days and nights. I also work on weekends. I depend on a quiet environment at home to sleep between my shifts. As an EMS pilot, it would be unsafe for me to work if I am not rested. It’s unbelievable to imagine that the city would allow noisy parties that would potentially disturb its neighbors and interrupt our ability to sleep. The fraternity brings in a lot of money from its members and can afford to hold larger, amplified, noisy events at a third-party venue. Cal Poly should explore the possibility of providing a venue for their Greek life organizations to hold events on campus. I’ve attended several events on campus at various facilities and they were well done, with catering and other amenities. Cal Poly needs to start taking more responsibility for its fraternities. Cal Poly has recently recruited four more fraternity chapters to its campus without housing provisions for the location of their fraternity houses. Each of those new fraternity chapters is illegally located in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and hosts fraternity events. Still, Cal Poly continues to recruit even more fraternity chapters to its campus and the impact of fraternity activities on our neighborhoods continues to increase. There are now 19 fraternities in the IFC and only 6 have CUPs. 5 This CUP is setting a precedent for other fraternity CUPs and there should NOT be a condition that allows fraternity parties to violate the noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood under any circumstances. Cal Poly has only been in session for a month and Lambda Chi Alpha at 1264 Foothill has already had several noise complaints and two noise citations in the past two weeks for noisy parties after 10 p.m. One of the noise citations says there were 70 people at the fraternity party. The CUP for 1264 Foothill says that occupancy is limited to 48 people unless they have a special event permit. The fraternity doesn't seem to care about the conditions in its CUP or their impact on the neighborhood. A month ago, the police log described a party in the front yard with a sign that said, "You honk, We drink". That party wasn't cited. Considering the documented issues related to fraternities in general, for the protection of the neighborhood and surrounding neighbors, and considering the fraternities’ lack of understanding of the current conditions of their CUPs and laws, I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal and add conditions to the fraternity’s CUP to make it more effective and clear for the fraternity. It also sets a precedent for future CUPs so it’s important to get it right. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve Walker 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Saturday, October 12, 2024 9:31 PM To:Steven Walker Subject:RE: 6.b. Appeal for a Fraternity CUP at 1264 Foothill Hi Steven, Thanks for the email. As I approach deliberations on Tuesday, and keeping in mind, that the item we are reviewing only covers the particular CUP and appeal before us, are there particular items that you would like to ask about or request to be included, that are not? I just want to clarify since you talk about a lot of history here. It’s all relevant for context, but going forward with this CUP/fraternity maybe you could give me your top three biggest “wish list items” from your email below, that you feel are not addressed in the current CUP. I see from the staff report and supporting documents that some of the items brought of at Planning Commission have been included in the revised version coming to council. Thank you, Michelle From: Steven Walker < Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2024 2:56 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 6.b. Appeal for a Fraternity CUP at 1264 Foothill This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Mayor Stewart and Councilmembers, I must respond to the City staff’s report, beginning with Appeal Issue Number 4. City staff says that setting a threshold of violations within a certain timeframe that triggers a review of the CUP by the Planning Commission somehow prohibits staff from referring the CUP to the Planning Condition for re-review upon receipt of any substantiated violation or frequency of violations. I’ve read the appeal, and nothing is suggested to prevent staff from referring the CUP to the Planning Commission at any time if a provision is added for a threshold of violations that trigger a review. It could be two violations in six 2 months or four violations in twelve months. These are not permissive or excusable but require some form of action when the threshold of violations is met. It makes the condition more effective. Here are the historical facts: 1. Every fraternity CUP currently has multiple documented violations of its conditions. 2. Despite these multiple violations, city staff, including those listed in Condition 3 (Code Enforcement Officer, Fire Department, or Police Department) have never written a complaint against a CUP for re-review by the Planning Commission. It seems the responsibility for writing a complaint is left to the residents, if you leave the condition as it is, without a trigger for review. 3. Many residents are afraid to file a written complaint because of potential retaliation from fraternity members. This is a realistic fear because several residents have had their property vandalized or faced other repercussions when fraternity members suspected their neighbor called SLOPD to report a noisy party. One neighbor had their car vandalized and others have been cussed out by fraternity members after noise citations were issued to fraternities near their homes. An unofficial fraternity house for Sigma Pi moved in next door to our family and members began cyberstalking my wife 24 hours after they received a noise citation for a noisy party, and I was away at work. Among other things, they posted ads on Craigslist advertising “free” items at our house and made appointments for people to come to our home. For months afterward, they incessantly teased and harassed our dog, yelled “F#ck you!” toward our home randomly, day and night from a side deck adjacent to our bedrooms and kitchen, banged on trash bins filled with empty bottles for several minutes in the middle of the night after moving them close to our bedroom windows, and can be heard admitting it was done to harass us. We have the video. Our property was also vandalized. Nearly a year after the fraternity members moved out, someone related to the fraternity trespassed onto our property, walked up to our bedroom window, called out my wife’s name, then walked away. Afterward, they are seen and heard on our video surveillance saying they “are friends with the Sigma Pi guys who lived here last year.” Our home address was repeatedly posted on social media, for example, advertising a party at 5 a.m. on St. Fratty’s Day at our address. There are too many incidents to list and the harassment has continued, even though the fraternity members moved out in June 2023. The repercussions experienced by our family and our neighbors were based on suspicions by fraternity members because of the fraternity's proximity to their neighbors. There was no way for the fraternity members to know positively that we, or our neighbors, called SLOPD but their suspicions drove them to take these actions. For these reasons, it is not reasonable to rely on a written complaint by a resident against a fraternity’s CUP. 4. I wrote a complaint for repeated violations of a fraternity’s CUP, and no action was taken. A fraternity with a CUP is located a block from my home, at the end of my street. There are constant noisy parties with hundreds of guests at the fraternity. My wife and I have spoken to the fraternity members several times during noisy parties. In the nine months between 3/18/2023 and 12/3/2023, SLOPD issued six noise citations to the fraternity, including two unruly gatherings with hundreds of people. On 2/5/2024, I submitted a written complaint to Community Development Director, Timmi Tway. It has been over eight months, and the written complaint has not been forwarded to the Planning Commission. (!!!) Community Development did not contact the fraternity about the complaint filed on 2/5/2024 and the fraternity continued to have large, noisy parties. Between 2/10/2024 and 6/8/2024, SLOPD issued five more noise citations to the fraternity, some with 100 people. We filed another written complaint on 6/3/2024 citing four additional citations since the previous written complaint made on 2/5/2024. Neither written complaint has been forwarded to the Planning Commission. Within that time frame, several Planning Commission meetings were canceled because there was nothing on their agenda. Community Development should have taken care of the matter soon after the first written complaint was filed on 2/5/2024. We contacted Community Development multiple times because of the ongoing, noisy parties at the fraternity after we filed our written complaint. The city’s code enforcement supervisor, John Mezzapesa, said that the written 3 complaint was given to Tyler Corey to handle, and he was working on it, but Mr. Corey didn’t do anything. It’s been over 8 months, and the Planning Commission has still not received my complaint(s). Let's be honest. It is not realistic to believe that Community Development will be proactive in filing a complaint and refer a fraternity to the Planning Commission for re-review, especially after one violation, as they suggest in their response. An existing CUP for a fraternity says that any written complaint will be forwarded to the Planning Commission within one week of receipt. In addition to adding a threshold for violations, I feel it is important to have a deadline in Condition 3 for forwarding a complaint to the Planning Commission after it is received. During the Planning Commission hearing on 6/12/2024, Commissioner Kahn suggested a threshold of four violations within 12 months as a trigger for review. As the city staff was drafting new conditions, Commissioner Kahn again emphasized adding that condition, and staff told him that it was already covered by Condition 3. However, there is a distinct difference between requiring a written complaint and having a threshold of violations to trigger a review of the CUP. Setting a threshold of violations of the CUP within a specified timeframe guarantees there will be a review at some point if the fraternity reaches that threshold. It does not require a written complaint from a resident, though a resident may still write a complaint. But as I’ve described, many affected residents do not feel comfortable doing so. It does not rely on Code Enforcement, Fire, or SLOPD to file a complaint, though they may still do so. But City Staff has not asked for a review of any fraternity’s CUP even though every fraternity CUP has had multiple ongoing violations for several years. It does not prevent staff from asking for a review sooner, after one violation, if they choose to do so. But realistically they will not do so considering fraternities have many ongoing violations of their CUPs and no review has ever been requested by city staff. A condition with a threshold of violations that trigger a review by the Planning Commission should be added to the CUP. It protects the health, safety, and well-being of the neighborhood and holds the fraternity responsible for the conditions of their CUP. Adding Conditions to the CUP to Make Things More Clear to the Fraternity: In response to Appeal Issue No. 1, where the appeal asks for specific conditions related to realistic problems of a fraternity use in a residential neighborhood that are listed in other fraternity CUPs, staff says that adding conditions to the CUP is not necessary because the SLOMC has had “incremental improvements” between 1983 and 2013 that directly address concerns related to noise, etc. The “improvements” include updating unrelated things like adding days to the safety enhancement zone or updating fine amounts for citations. It seems disingenuous to imply that these changes justify omitting useful conditions that are included in other fraternity CUPs. Those conditions strengthen the CUP and help to clarify the conditions to the fraternity. When the other CUPs were drafted, the city also had a noise ordinance, residential occupancy requirements, etc. but the Planning Commission included certain conditions to emphasize the fraternity’s obligation to follow the noise ordinance and other laws. These added conditions outline the fraternity’s responsibility to the neighborhood and the consequences for violation of the CUP. Spelling out these specific conditions is beneficial because they clarify common issues related to a fraternity’s use, especially related to its location in a residential neighborhood. When the conditions are documented in a CUP it is less likely that there will be confusion by the fraternity about relevant laws and conditions. I brought up this issue during public comment at the Planning Commission hearing and the commissioners agreed that specifically mentioning the noise ordinance and “quiet hours” is important, even though it’s already in the city’s noise ordinance. It would also be helpful if the Community Development Department met with each fraternity at the beginning of the academic year to review the conditions in the CUPs so there is a clear understanding of the specific conditions. 4 Special Event Permits and Violation of the City’s Noise Ordinance : In response to Appeal Issue No. 2, staff says the municipal code allows the noise control officer to grant exceptions for the fraternity to violate the noise ordinance if deemed appropriate. I don’t understand how it can ever be deemed appropriate for a fraternity to violate the noise ordinance. This is a residential neighborhood. The noise ordinance ensures that every residential neighborhood is protected from unhealthy levels of noise and allows people to rest when needed. It doesn’t make sense that there is a carve-out for a fraternity to violate the law with what the staff’s report refers to as “amplified noise-generating activity”. It is harmful to even suggest a condition that grants an exception of the law to fraternities so they can have a party or multiple parties each year in a residential neighborhood. My work schedule includes long shifts, ranging from 12.5 to 14 hours, and switches between days and nights. I also work on weekends. I depend on a quiet environment at home to sleep between my shifts. As an EMS pilot, it would be unsafe for me to work if I am not rested. It’s unbelievable to imagine that the city would allow noisy parties that would potentially disturb its neighbors and interrupt our ability to sleep. The fraternity brings in a lot of money from its members and can afford to hold larger, amplified, noisy events at a third-party venue. Cal Poly should explore the possibility of providing a venue for their Greek life organizations to hold events on campus. I’ve attended several events on campus at various facilities and they were well done, with catering and other amenities. Cal Poly needs to start taking more responsibility for its fraternities. Cal Poly has recently recruited four more fraternity chapters to its campus without housing provisions for the location of their fraternity houses. Each of those new fraternity chapters is illegally located in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and hosts fraternity events. Still, Cal Poly continues to recruit even more fraternity chapters to its campus and the impact of fraternity activities on our neighborhoods continues to increase. There are now 19 fraternities in the IFC and only 6 have CUPs. This CUP is setting a precedent for other fraternity CUPs and there should NOT be a condition that allows fraternity parties to violate the noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood under any circumstances. Cal Poly has only been in session for a month and Lambda Chi Alpha at 1264 Foothill has already had several noise complaints and two noise citations in the past two weeks for noisy parties after 10 p.m. One of the noise citations says there were 70 people at the fraternity party. The CUP for 1264 Foothill says that occupancy is limited to 48 people unless they have a special event permit. The fraternity doesn't seem to care about the conditions in its CUP or their impact on the neighborhood. A month ago, the police log described a party in the front yard with a sign that said, "You honk, We drink". That party wasn't cited. Considering the documented issues related to fraternities in general, for the protection of the neighborhood and surrounding neighbors, and considering the fraternities’ lack of understanding of the current conditions of their CUPs and laws, I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal and add conditions to the fraternity’s CUP to make it more effective and clear for the fraternity. It also sets a precedent for future CUPs so it’s important to get it right. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve Walker 1 From:Steven Walker < Sent:Saturday, October 12, 2024 2:56 PM To:Marx, Jan; Stewart, Erica A; Pease, Andy; Francis, Emily; Shoresman, Michelle; E-mail Council Website Subject:6.b. Appeal for a Fraternity CUP at 1264 Foothill This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Mayor Stewart and Councilmembers, I must respond to the City staff’s report, beginning with Appeal Issue Number 4. City staff says that setting a threshold of violations within a certain timeframe that triggers a review of the CUP by the Planning Commission somehow prohibits staff from referring the CUP to the Planning Condition for re-review upon receipt of any substantiated violation or frequency of violations. I’ve read the appeal, and nothing is suggested to prevent staff from referring the CUP to the Planning Commission at any time if a provision is added for a threshold of violations that trigger a review. It could be two violations in six months or four violations in twelve months. These are not permissive or excusable but require some form of action when the threshold of violations is met. It makes the condition more effective. Here are the historical facts: 1. Every fraternity CUP currently has multiple documented violations of its conditions. 2. Despite these multiple violations, city staff, including those listed in Condition 3 (Code Enforcement Officer, Fire Department, or Police Department) have never written a complaint against a CUP for re-review by the Planning Commission. It seems the responsibility for writing a complaint is left to the residents, if you leave the condition as it is, without a trigger for review. 3. Many residents are afraid to file a written complaint because of potential retaliation from fraternity members. This is a realistic fear because several residents have had their property vandalized or faced other repercussions when fraternity members suspected their neighbor called SLOPD to report a noisy party. One neighbor had their car vandalized and others have been cussed out by fraternity members after noise citations were issued to fraternities near their homes. An unofficial fraternity house for Sigma Pi moved in next door to our family and members began cyberstalking my wife 24 hours after they received a noise citation for a noisy party, and I was away at work. Among other things, they posted ads on Craigslist advertising “free” items at our house and made appointments for people to come to our home. For months afterward, they incessantly teased and harassed our dog, yelled “F#ck you!” toward our home randomly, day and night from a side deck adjacent to our bedrooms and kitchen, banged on trash bins filled with 2 empty bottles for several minutes in the middle of the night after moving them close to our bedroom windows, and can be heard admitting it was done to harass us. We have the video. Our property was also vandalized. Nearly a year after the fraternity members moved out, someone related to the fraternity trespassed onto our property, walked up to our bedroom window, called out my wife’s name, then walked away. Afterward, they are seen and heard on our video surveillance saying they “are friends with the Sigma Pi guys who lived here last year.” Our home address was repeatedly posted on social media, for example, advertising a party at 5 a.m. on St. Fratty’s Day at our address. There are too many incidents to list and the harassment has continued, even though the fraternity members moved out in June 2023. The repercussions experienced by our family and our neighbors were based on suspicions by fraternity members because of the fraternity's proximity to their neighbors. There was no way for the fraternity members to know positively that we, or our neighbors, called SLOPD but their suspicions drove them to take these actions. For these reasons, it is not reasonable to rely on a written complaint by a resident against a fraternity’s CUP. 4. I wrote a complaint for repeated violations of a fraternity’s CUP, and no action was taken. A fraternity with a CUP is located a block from my home, at the end of my street. There are constant noisy parties with hundreds of guests at the fraternity. My wife and I have spoken to the fraternity members several times during noisy parties. In the nine months between 3/18/2023 and 12/3/2023, SLOPD issued six noise citations to the fraternity, including two unruly gatherings with hundreds of people. On 2/5/2024, I submitted a written complaint to Community Development Director, Timmi Tway. It has been over eight months, and the written complaint has not been forwarded to the Planning Commission. (!!!) Community Development did not contact the fraternity about the complaint filed on 2/5/2024 and the fraternity continued to have large, noisy parties. Between 2/10/2024 and 6/8/2024, SLOPD issued five more noise citations to the fraternity, some with 100 people. We filed another written complaint on 6/3/2024 citing four additional citations since the previous written complaint made on 2/5/2024. Neither written complaint has been forwarded to the Planning Commission. Within that time frame, several Planning Commission meetings were canceled because there was nothing on their agenda. Community Development should have taken care of the matter soon after the first written complaint was filed on 2/5/2024. We contacted Community Development multiple times because of the ongoing, noisy parties at the fraternity after we filed our written complaint. The city’s code enforcement supervisor, John Mezzapesa, said that the written complaint was given to Tyler Corey to handle, and he was working on it, but Mr. Corey didn’t do anything. It’s been over 8 months, and the Planning Commission has still not received my complaint(s). Let's be honest. It is not realistic to believe that Community Development will be proactive in filing a complaint and refer a fraternity to the Planning Commission for re-review, especially after one violation, as they suggest in their response. An existing CUP for a fraternity says that any written complaint will be forwarded to the Planning Commission within one week of receipt. In addition to adding a threshold for violations, I feel it is important to have a deadline in Condition 3 for forwarding a complaint to the Planning Commission after it is received. During the Planning Commission hearing on 6/12/2024, Commissioner Kahn suggested a threshold of four violations within 12 months as a trigger for review. As the city staff was drafting new conditions, Commissioner Kahn again emphasized adding that condition, and staff told him that it was already covered by Condition 3. However, there is a distinct difference between requiring a written complaint and having a threshold of violations to trigger a review of the CUP. Setting a threshold of violations of the CUP within a specified timeframe guarantees there will be a review at some point if the fraternity reaches that threshold. It does not require a written complaint from a resident, though a resident may still write a complaint. But as I’ve described, many affected residents do not feel comfortable doing so. 3 It does not rely on Code Enforcement, Fire, or SLOPD to file a complaint, though they may still do so. But City Staff has not asked for a review of any fraternity’s CUP even though every fraternity CUP has had multiple ongoing violations for several years. It does not prevent staff from asking for a review sooner, after one violation, if they choose to do so. But realistically they will not do so considering fraternities have many ongoing violations of their CUPs and no review has ever been requested by city staff. A condition with a threshold of violations that trigger a review by the Planning Commission should be added to the CUP. It protects the health, safety, and well-being of the neighborhood and holds the fraternity responsible for the conditions of their CUP. Adding Conditions to the CUP to Make Things More Clear to the Fraternity: In response to Appeal Issue No. 1, where the appeal asks for specific conditions related to realistic problems of a fraternity use in a residential neighborhood that are listed in other fraternity CUPs, staff says that adding conditions to the CUP is not necessary because the SLOMC has had “incremental improvements” between 1983 and 2013 that directly address concerns related to noise, etc. The “improvements” include updating unrelated things like adding days to the safety enhancement zone or updating fine amounts for citations. It seems disingenuous to imply that these changes justify omitting useful conditions that are included in other fraternity CUPs. Those conditions strengthen the CUP and help to clarify the conditions to the fraternity. When the other CUPs were drafted, the city also had a noise ordinance, residential occupancy requirements, etc. but the Planning Commission included certain conditions to emphasize the fraternity’s obligation to follow the noise ordinance and other laws. These added conditions outline the fraternity’s responsibility to the neighborhood and the consequences for violation of the CUP. Spelling out these specific conditions is beneficial because they clarify common issues related to a fraternity’s use, especially related to its location in a residential neighborhood. When the conditions are documented in a CUP it is less likely that there will be confusion by the fraternity about relevant laws and conditions. I brought up this issue during public comment at the Planning Commission hearing and the commissioners agreed that specifically mentioning the noise ordinance and “quiet hours” is important, even though it’s already in the city’s noise ordinance. It would also be helpful if the Community Development Department met with each fraternity at the beginning of the academic year to review the conditions in the CUPs so there is a clear understanding of the specific conditions. Special Event Permits and Violation of the City’s Noise Ordinance : In response to Appeal Issue No. 2, staff says the municipal code allows the noise control officer to grant exceptions for the fraternity to violate the noise ordinance if deemed appropriate. 4 I don’t understand how it can ever be deemed appropriate for a fraternity to violate the noise ordinance. This is a residential neighborhood. The noise ordinance ensures that every residential neighborhood is protected from unhealthy levels of noise and allows people to rest when needed. It doesn’t make sense that there is a carve-out for a fraternity to violate the law with what the staff’s report refers to as “amplified noise-generating activity”. It is harmful to even suggest a condition that grants an exception of the law to fraternities so they can have a party or multiple parties each year in a residential neighborhood. My work schedule includes long shifts, ranging from 12.5 to 14 hours, and switches between days and nights. I also work on weekends. I depend on a quiet environment at home to sleep between my shifts. As an EMS pilot, it would be unsafe for me to work if I am not rested. It’s unbelievable to imagine that the city would allow noisy parties that would potentially disturb its neighbors and interrupt our ability to sleep. The fraternity brings in a lot of money from its members and can afford to hold larger, amplified, noisy events at a third-party venue. Cal Poly should explore the possibility of providing a venue for their Greek life organizations to hold events on campus. I’ve attended several events on campus at various facilities and they were well done, with catering and other amenities. Cal Poly needs to start taking more responsibility for its fraternities. Cal Poly has recently recruited four more fraternity chapters to its campus without housing provisions for the location of their fraternity houses. Each of those new fraternity chapters is illegally located in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and hosts fraternity events. Still, Cal Poly continues to recruit even more fraternity chapters to its campus and the impact of fraternity activities on our neighborhoods continues to increase. There are now 19 fraternities in the IFC and only 6 have CUPs. This CUP is setting a precedent for other fraternity CUPs and there should NOT be a condition that allows fraternity parties to violate the noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood under any circumstances. Cal Poly has only been in session for a month and Lambda Chi Alpha at 1264 Foothill has already had several noise complaints and two noise citations in the past two weeks for noisy parties after 10 p.m. One of the noise citations says there were 70 people at the fraternity party. The CUP for 1264 Foothill says that occupancy is limited to 48 people unless they have a special event permit. The fraternity doesn't seem to care about the conditions in its CUP or their impact on the neighborhood. A month ago, the police log described a party in the front yard with a sign that said, "You honk, We drink". That party wasn't cited. Considering the documented issues related to fraternities in general, for the protection of the neighborhood and surrounding neighbors, and considering the fraternities’ lack of understanding of the current conditions of their CUPs and laws, I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal and add conditions to the fraternity’s CUP to make it more effective and clear for the fraternity. It also sets a precedent for future CUPs so it’s important to get it right. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve Walker 1 From:Steven Walker < Sent:Sunday, October 13, 2024 9:29 AM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: 6.b. Appeal for a Fraternity CUP at 1264 Foothill Hi Michelle, Thank you for getting back to me. My primary concern is noise. Conditions that address known problems associated with fraternity use should also be addressed in the CUP, listed as conditions, even though there are laws that cover those items so they are clear to the fraternity. Here are my top three “wish list” items: 1. No noise that violates the noise outlined in the noise regulations so large events are held off-site; limit the number of people after 10 p.m. due to noise generated by 48 people in the backyard where they gather. 2. Establish a threshold of violations of CUP within a certain time frame that triggers a review by PC (2 violations in 6 months or 4 violations in 12 months) and that a complaint is forwarded to the Planning Commission within 14 days. 3. Ensure CUP clearly communicates fraternity obligations even if those conditions are implied because they’re already in the SLOMC. List those important conditions in the CUP. Other fraternity CUPs list conditions to cover known issues for fraternity use and are not “outdated” by current laws. Examples of conditions that cover my wish list: Condition: “No meetings, parties, or other types of similar activities that would violate City Noise Ordinances or other City regulations are allowed.” Condition: “The maximum of 24 person provision noted in Condition 4 will apply between the hours of 10 p.m and 7 a.m.” Condition: “Use permit shall be reviewed if the City receives any reasonable written citizen, Code Enforcement or Police or Fire Department complaints, or if two convictions are received for violations of the City's noise or property maintenance regulations within a six-month period. Any complaint received will be forwarded to the Planning Commission within 14 days. In the review of the use permit, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit.” An alternative to the condition above is “...if four convictions are received for violations of the City's noise or property maintenance regulations within a twelve-month period.” Condition: “Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct of the use to constitutes a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or to constitute a public nuisance or to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety, or well-being of the persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for revocation of this permit.” Thanks again for your time. I don't get off work until 8 - 9:30 p.m. next week, so I won't be able to attend the meeting. I appreciate you considering my request. -Steve On Sat, Oct 12, 2024 at 9:31 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Steven, Thanks for the email. As I approach deliberations on Tuesday, and keeping in mind, that the item we are reviewing only covers the particular CUP and appeal before us, are there particular items that you would like to ask about or request to be included, that are not? I just want to clarify since you talk about a lot of history here. 2 It’s all relevant for context, but going forward with this CUP/fraternity maybe you could give me your top three biggest “wish list items” from your email below, that you feel are not addressed in the current CUP. I see from the staff report and supporting documents that some of the items brought of at Planning Commission have been included in the revised version coming to council. Thank you, Michelle From: Steven Walker < Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2024 2:56 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 6.b. Appeal for a Fraternity CUP at 1264 Foothill This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Mayor Stewart and Councilmembers, I must respond to the City staff’s report, beginning with Appeal Issue Number 4. City staff says that setting a threshold of violations within a certain timeframe that triggers a review of the CUP by the Planning Commission somehow prohibits staff from referring the CUP to the Planning Condition for re-review upon receipt of any substantiated violation or frequency of violations. I’ve read the appeal, and nothing is suggested to prevent staff from referring the CUP to the Planning Commission at any time if a provision is added for a threshold of violations that trigger a review. It could be two violations in six 3 months or four violations in twelve months. These are not permissive or excusable but require some form of action when the threshold of violations is met. It makes the condition more effective. Here are the historical facts: 1. Every fraternity CUP currently has multiple documented violations of its conditions. 2. Despite these multiple violations, city staff, including those listed in Condition 3 (Code Enforcement Officer, Fire Department, or Police Department) have never written a complaint against a CUP for re-review by the Planning Commission. It seems the responsibility for writing a complaint is left to the residents, if you leave the condition as it is, without a trigger for review. 3. Many residents are afraid to file a written complaint because of potential retaliation from fraternity members. This is a realistic fear because several residents have had their property vandalized or faced other repercussions when fraternity members suspected their neighbor called SLOPD to report a noisy party. One neighbor had their car vandalized and others have been cussed out by fraternity members after noise citations were issued to fraternities near their homes. An unofficial fraternity house for Sigma Pi moved in next door to our family and members began cyberstalking my wife 24 hours after they received a noise citation for a noisy party, and I was away at work. Among other things, they posted ads on Craigslist advertising “free” items at our house and made appointments for people to come to our home. For months afterward, they incessantly teased and harassed our dog, yelled “F#ck you!” toward our home randomly, day and night from a side deck adjacent to our bedrooms and kitchen, banged on trash bins filled with empty bottles for several minutes in the middle of the night after moving them close to our bedroom windows, and can be heard admitting it was done to harass us. We have the video. Our property was also vandalized. Nearly a year after the fraternity members moved out, someone related to the fraternity trespassed onto our property, walked up to our bedroom window, called out my wife’s name, then walked away. Afterward, they are seen and heard on our video surveillance saying they “are friends with the Sigma Pi guys who lived here last year.” Our home address was repeatedly posted on social media, for example, advertising a party at 5 a.m. on St. Fratty’s Day at our address. There are too many incidents to list and the harassment has continued, even though the fraternity members moved out in June 2023. The repercussions experienced by our family and our neighbors were based on suspicions by fraternity members because of the fraternity's proximity to their neighbors. There was no way for the fraternity members to know positively that we, or our neighbors, called SLOPD but their suspicions drove them to take these actions. For these reasons, it is not reasonable to rely on a written complaint by a resident against a fraternity’s CUP. 4. I wrote a complaint for repeated violations of a fraternity’s CUP, and no action was taken. A fraternity with a CUP is located a block from my home, at the end of my street. There are constant noisy parties with hundreds of guests at the fraternity. My wife and I have spoken to the fraternity members several times during noisy parties. In the nine months between 3/18/2023 and 12/3/2023, SLOPD issued six noise citations to the fraternity, including two unruly gatherings with hundreds of people. On 2/5/2024, I submitted a written complaint to Community Development Director, Timmi Tway. It has been over eight months, and the written complaint has not been forwarded to the Planning Commission. (!!!) Community Development did not contact the fraternity about the complaint filed on 2/5/2024 and the fraternity continued to have large, noisy parties. Between 2/10/2024 and 6/8/2024, SLOPD issued five more noise citations to the fraternity, some with 100 people. We filed another written complaint on 6/3/2024 citing four additional citations since the previous written complaint made on 2/5/2024. 4 Neither written complaint has been forwarded to the Planning Commission. Within that time frame, several Planning Commission meetings were canceled because there was nothing on their agenda. Community Development should have taken care of the matter soon after the first written complaint was filed on 2/5/2024. We contacted Community Development multiple times because of the ongoing, noisy parties at the fraternity after we filed our written complaint. The city’s code enforcement supervisor, John Mezzapesa, said that the written complaint was given to Tyler Corey to handle, and he was working on it, but Mr. Corey didn’t do anything. It’s been over 8 months, and the Planning Commission has still not received my complaint(s). Let's be honest. It is not realistic to believe that Community Development will be proactive in filing a complaint and refer a fraternity to the Planning Commission for re-review, especially after one violation, as they suggest in their response. An existing CUP for a fraternity says that any written complaint will be forwarded to the Planning Commission within one week of receipt. In addition to adding a threshold for violations, I feel it is important to have a deadline in Condition 3 for forwarding a complaint to the Planning Commission after it is received. During the Planning Commission hearing on 6/12/2024, Commissioner Kahn suggested a threshold of four violations within 12 months as a trigger for review. As the city staff was drafting new conditions, Commissioner Kahn again emphasized adding that condition, and staff told him that it was already covered by Condition 3. However, there is a distinct difference between requiring a written complaint and having a threshold of violations to trigger a review of the CUP. Setting a threshold of violations of the CUP within a specified timeframe guarantees there will be a review at some point if the fraternity reaches that threshold. It does not require a written complaint from a resident, though a resident may still write a complaint. But as I’ve described, many affected residents do not feel comfortable doing so. It does not rely on Code Enforcement, Fire, or SLOPD to file a complaint, though they may still do so. But City Staff has not asked for a review of any fraternity’s CUP even though every fraternity CUP has had multiple ongoing violations for several years. It does not prevent staff from asking for a review sooner, after one violation, if they choose to do so. But realistically they will not do so considering fraternities have many ongoing violations of their CUPs and no review has ever been requested by city staff. A condition with a threshold of violations that trigger a review by the Planning Commission should be added to the CUP. It protects the health, safety, and well-being of the neighborhood and holds the fraternity responsible for the conditions of their CUP. Adding Conditions to the CUP to Make Things More Clear to the Fraternity: In response to Appeal Issue No. 1, where the appeal asks for specific conditions related to realistic problems of a fraternity use in a residential neighborhood that are listed in other fraternity CUPs, staff says that adding conditions to the CUP is not necessary because the SLOMC has had “incremental improvements” between 1983 and 2013 that directly address concerns related to noise, etc. The “improvements” include updating unrelated things like adding days to the safety enhancement zone or updating fine amounts for citations. It seems disingenuous to imply that these changes justify omitting useful conditions that are included in other fraternity CUPs. Those conditions strengthen the CUP and help to clarify the conditions to the fraternity. When the other CUPs were drafted, the city also had a noise ordinance, residential occupancy requirements, etc. but the Planning Commission included certain conditions to emphasize the fraternity’s obligation to follow the noise 5 ordinance and other laws. These added conditions outline the fraternity’s responsibility to the neighborhood and the consequences for violation of the CUP. Spelling out these specific conditions is beneficial because they clarify common issues related to a fraternity’s use, especially related to its location in a residential neighborhood. When the conditions are documented in a CUP it is less likely that there will be confusion by the fraternity about relevant laws and conditions. I brought up this issue during public comment at the Planning Commission hearing and the commissioners agreed that specifically mentioning the noise ordinance and “quiet hours” is important, even though it’s already in the city’s noise ordinance. It would also be helpful if the Community Development Department met with each fraternity at the beginning of the academic year to review the conditions in the CUPs so there is a clear understanding of the specific conditions. Special Event Permits and Violation of the City’s Noise Ordinance : In response to Appeal Issue No. 2, staff says the municipal code allows the noise control officer to grant exceptions for the fraternity to violate the noise ordinance if deemed appropriate. I don’t understand how it can ever be deemed appropriate for a fraternity to violate the noise ordinance. This is a residential neighborhood. The noise ordinance ensures that every residential neighborhood is protected from unhealthy levels of noise and allows people to rest when needed. It doesn’t make sense that there is a carve-out for a fraternity to violate the law with what the staff’s report refers to as “amplified noise-generating activity”. It is harmful to even suggest a condition that grants an exception of the law to fraternities so they can have a party or multiple parties each year in a residential neighborhood. My work schedule includes long shifts, ranging from 12.5 to 14 hours, and switches between days and nights. I also work on weekends. I depend on a quiet environment at home to sleep between my shifts. As an EMS pilot, it would be unsafe for me to work if I am not rested. It’s unbelievable to imagine that the city would allow noisy parties that would potentially disturb its neighbors and interrupt our ability to sleep. The fraternity brings in a lot of money from its members and can afford to hold larger, amplified, noisy events at a third-party venue. Cal Poly should explore the possibility of providing a venue for their Greek life organizations to hold events on campus. I’ve attended several events on campus at various facilities and they were well done, with catering and other amenities. Cal Poly needs to start taking more responsibility for its fraternities. Cal Poly has recently recruited four more fraternity chapters to its campus without housing provisions for the location of their fraternity houses. Each of those new fraternity chapters is illegally located in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and hosts fraternity events. Still, Cal Poly continues to recruit even more fraternity chapters to its campus and the impact of fraternity activities on our neighborhoods continues to increase. There are now 19 fraternities in the IFC and only 6 have CUPs. 6 This CUP is setting a precedent for other fraternity CUPs and there should NOT be a condition that allows fraternity parties to violate the noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood under any circumstances. Cal Poly has only been in session for a month and Lambda Chi Alpha at 1264 Foothill has already had several noise complaints and two noise citations in the past two weeks for noisy parties after 10 p.m. One of the noise citations says there were 70 people at the fraternity party. The CUP for 1264 Foothill says that occupancy is limited to 48 people unless they have a special event permit. The fraternity doesn't seem to care about the conditions in its CUP or their impact on the neighborhood. A month ago, the police log described a party in the front yard with a sign that said, "You honk, We drink". That party wasn't cited. Considering the documented issues related to fraternities in general, for the protection of the neighborhood and surrounding neighbors, and considering the fraternities’ lack of understanding of the current conditions of their CUPs and laws, I respectfully request that you uphold the appeal and add conditions to the fraternity’s CUP to make it more effective and clear for the fraternity. It also sets a precedent for future CUPs so it’s important to get it right. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve Walker 1 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 2:30 PM To:Steven Walker Subject:RE: Clarification for 6b Steven, Thank you for the written clarification of the events described below and for your earlier correspondence. I found the additional information helpful and will take it into consideration during our hearing this evening. Regardless of if you are able to attend this evening, I plan to address many of the issues your emails have raised. Take care, Emily From: Steven Walker < Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 2:03 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Fwd: Clarification for 6b This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Steven Walker < > Date: Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 1:46 PM Subject: Clarification for 6b To: <jmarx@slocity.org>, <efrancis@slocity.org>, <apease@slocity.org>, Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>, <estewart@slocity.org> Dear Council, I am working and unable to attend tonight's meeting but his subject is important. I have read some responses from Ms. Tway and Ms. Hahn and want to clarify something. My first written complaint was sent to Community Development on February 5, 2024, after enduring a year of loud parties and unruly gatherings at the fraternity. It has been over 8 months since that complaint was made. The response claims "Upon receipt of this written complaint, staff worked to verify the complaints and began the code enforcement process to gain compliance. In addition, staff reached out to the property owner, manager, and fraternity in question to discuss the written complaint and explain the process involved in taking the CUP to Planning Commission for review." 1. Each violation was outlined in the complaint and verification could have happened quickly. 2 2. The fraternity was not made aware of the complaint for many months, presumably until this academic year. That's why they continued to have loud parties and SLOPD issued another five noise citations, which necessitated another written complaint to Community Development in June 2024. The fraternity members were not "out of town" during February 5, 2024, and June 15, 2024. My main point, and the same point made by others, is that Community Development is not proactive when enforcing violations against fraternity CUPs, although they could be. Having a threshold of violations that trigger a review does not prevent staff from taking action after one violation if they choose. The threshold guarantees that a review will happen if there is a certain number of violations within a time period, like two in six months, or four in twelve months. It's an important condition that should be included in the CUP. Thank you, Steve 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 2:12 PM To:Steven Walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Clarification for 6b Hi Steve, Thank you for your additional input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for tonight’s meeting. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Steven Walker < > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 2:03 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Fwd: Clarification for 6b This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Steven Walker < > Date: Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 1:46 PM Subject: Clarification for 6b To: <jmarx@slocity.org>, <efrancis@slocity.org>, <apease@slocity.org>, Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>, <estewart@slocity.org> Dear Council, I am working and unable to attend tonight's meeting but his subject is important. I have read some responses from Ms. Tway and Ms. Hahn and want to clarify something. 2 My first written complaint was sent to Community Development on February 5, 2024, after enduring a year of loud parties and unruly gatherings at the fraternity. It has been over 8 months since that complaint was made. The response claims "Upon receipt of this written complaint, staff worked to verify the complaints and began the code enforcement process to gain compliance. In addition, staff reached out to the property owner, manager, and fraternity in question to discuss the written complaint and explain the process involved in taking the CUP to Planning Commission for review." 1. Each violation was outlined in the complaint and verification could have happened quickly. 2. The fraternity was not made aware of the complaint for many months, presumably until this academic year. That's why they continued to have loud parties and SLOPD issued another five noise citations, which necessitated another written complaint to Community Development in June 2024. The fraternity members were not "out of town" during February 5, 2024, and June 15, 2024. My main point, and the same point made by others, is that Community Development is not proactive when enforcing violations against fraternity CUPs, although they could be. Having a threshold of violations that trigger a review does not prevent staff from taking action after one violation if they choose. The threshold guarantees that a review will happen if there is a certain number of violations within a time period, like two in six months, or four in twelve months. It's an important condition that should be included in the CUP. Thank you, Steve 1 From:Steven Walker < > Sent:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 1:47 PM To:Marx, Jan; Francis, Emily; Pease, Andy; Shoresman, Michelle; Stewart, Erica A Subject:Clarification for 6b This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Council, I am working and unable to attend tonight's meeting but his subject is important. I have read some responses from Ms. Tway and Ms. Hahn and want to clarify something. My first written complaint was sent to Community Development on February 5, 2024, after enduring a year of loud parties and unruly gatherings at the fraternity. It has been over 8 months since that complaint was made. The response claims "Upon receipt of this written complaint, staff worked to verify the complaints and began the code enforcement process to gain compliance. In addition, staff reached out to the property owner, manager, and fraternity in question to discuss the written complaint and explain the process involved in taking the CUP to Planning Commission for review." 1. Each violation was outlined in the complaint and verification could have happened quickly. 2. The fraternity was not made aware of the complaint for many months, presumably until this academic year. That's why they continued to have loud parties and SLOPD issued another five noise citations, which necessitated another written complaint to Community Development in June 2024. The fraternity members were not "out of town" during February 5, 2024, and June 15, 2024. My main point, and the same point made by others, is that Community Development is not proactive when enforcing violations against fraternity CUPs, although they could be. Having a threshold of violations that trigger a review does not prevent staff from taking action after one violation if they choose. The threshold guarantees that a review will happen if there is a certain number of violations within a time period, like two in six months, or four in twelve months. It's an important condition that should be included in the CUP. Thank you, Steve 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, April 15, 2025 1:48 PM To:Steven Walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Item 7.a. City Livability - Greek Life & Illegal Fraternity Operations Hi Steve, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for tonight’s meeting. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Steven Walker < > Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 1:29 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org> Subject: Item 7.a. City Livability - Greek Life & Illegal Fraternity Operations This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Councilmembers, While making your decisions about the 2025-2027 Major City Goals and Work Plans budget, please provide funding to address illegal fraternity operations and improve city livability. I am writing to you as a SLO resident whose quality of life has decreased due to the increase in illegal fraternity operations and Greek life in the Alta Vista neighborhood. There are 19 fraternities in the IFC at Cal Poly. Each fraternity has a main chapter house. Six fraternities have Conditional Use Permits and are zoned appropriately; the other main chapter houses are not and are embedded in the neighborhood, circumventing use permits and zoning regulations. These fraternities also have multiple satellite houses that host fraternity events. 2 This City and current council champion Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; however, I feel those principles frustratingly fall short in this neighborhood. My wife and I have repeatedly been told by fraternity members in our neighborhood that we should move and that we don't belong here. The problem has become worse over the past few years. The current system is not working, and there is a perceived double standard when compared to other neighborhoods in our wonderful city. Please provide some funding to support or create a program or position that can create some meaningful change in the neighborhoods close to Cal Poly. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve Walker 1 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Tuesday, April 15, 2025 3:37 PM To:Steven Walker Subject:Re: Item 7.a. City Livability - Greek Life & Illegal Fraternity Operations Steven, Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns regarding the impact of illegal fraternity operations on the Alta Vista neighborhood. I agree that we have some work to do in addressing these issues and ensuring a more equitable and livable environment for all residents, particularly in areas close to Cal Poly I appreciate your advocacy and will keep your input in mind as we move forward. Take care, Emily Emily Francis pronouns she/her/hers Council Member Office of the City Council 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E EFrancis@slocity.org On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 1:28 PM, Steven Walker < > wrote: This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Councilmembers, While making your decisions about the 2025-2027 Major City Goals and Work Plans budget, please provide funding to address illegal fraternity operations and improve city livability. I am writing to you as a SLO resident whose quality of life has decreased due to the increase in illegal fraternity operations and Greek life in the Alta Vista neighborhood. There are 19 fraternities in the IFC at Cal Poly. Each fraternity has a main chapter house. Six fraternities have Conditional Use Permits and are zoned appropriately; the other main chapter houses are not and are embedded in the neighborhood, circumventing use permits and zoning regulations. These fraternities also have multiple satellite houses that host fraternity events. This City and current council champion Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; however, I feel those principles frustratingly fall short in this neighborhood. My wife and I have repeatedly been told by fraternity members in our neighborhood that we should move and that we don't belong here. The problem has become worse over the past few years. 2 The current system is not working, and there is a perceived double standard when compared to other neighborhoods in our wonderful city. Please provide some funding to support or create a program or position that can create some meaningful change in the neighborhoods close to Cal Poly. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve Walker 1 From:Steven Walker < > Sent:Tuesday, April 15, 2025 1:29 PM To:E-mail Council Website; Stewart, Erica A; Francis, Emily; Shoresman, Michelle; Marx, Jan; Boswell, Mike Subject:Item 7.a. City Livability - Greek Life & Illegal Fraternity Operations This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Councilmembers, While making your decisions about the 2025-2027 Major City Goals and Work Plans budget, please provide funding to address illegal fraternity operations and improve city livability. I am writing to you as a SLO resident whose quality of life has decreased due to the increase in illegal fraternity operations and Greek life in the Alta Vista neighborhood. There are 19 fraternities in the IFC at Cal Poly. Each fraternity has a main chapter house. Six fraternities have Conditional Use Permits and are zoned appropriately; the other main chapter houses are not and are embedded in the neighborhood, circumventing use permits and zoning regulations. These fraternities also have multiple satellite houses that host fraternity events. This City and current council champion Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; however, I feel those principles frustratingly fall short in this neighborhood. My wife and I have repeatedly been told by fraternity members in our neighborhood that we should move and that we don't belong here. The problem has become worse over the past few years. The current system is not working, and there is a perceived double standard when compared to other neighborhoods in our wonderful city. Please provide some funding to support or create a program or position that can create some meaningful change in the neighborhoods close to Cal Poly. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve Walker 1 From:Steven Walker < > Sent:Friday, May 23, 2025 5:23 PM To:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Subject:Re: Planning Commission Meeting 5/28/25 - Item 4.a and 4.b. Thank you very much. Have a great weekend. Steve. On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 4:15 PM Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Steve, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the committee members. It is now placed in the Planning Commission public archive for the upcoming meeting. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Steven Walker < > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2025 3:12 PM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Subject: Planning Commission Meeting 5/28/25 - Item 4.a and 4.b. 2 Planning Commission Meeting May 28, 2025 Re: Items 4.a and 4.b Dear City Planning Commissioners, While making your decisions about item 4.a, and 4.b, re-reviewing the existing conditional use permits for two fraternities, please remember the impacts of these fraternity operations on neighborhood livability. The negative impacts are real, and I have discussed them at length here: https://howtoruinaneighborhood.com/disruption-retaliation-and-issues/ I am writing to you as a SLO resident whose quality of life has decreased due to the increase in fraternity operations and Greek life in the Alta Vista neighborhood. I am a first responder, a shift worker who works nights on the latter half of my work week, and a pilot. My shift is from 7:30 pm to 8:00 am and can run longer if I'm on a flight. I am responsible for getting my crew safely to a scene and then transporting my crew and patient to the nearest trauma center. When I'm on my rest period, I need to rest. This shouldn't be much to ask for in a residential neighborhood. However, Delta Chi had this massive party after receiving the notice to appear before the Planning Commission. They simply do not care. I was woken by the bass last Saturday afternoon an d asked my wife if she could go and locate the source. It was more than 1500' away using Google maps. I don't know how it did, but it got a negative violation of the noise ordinance by SLOPD. My wife took a video, and the music was blaring over the car's sound. She was approximately 160 feet away, according to Google Earth. Both fraternities appearing before you should feel privileged to live in the correct residential zone, where they have a CUP. But let's be honest with ourselves: they violate it with impunity. City Staff is asking that one of the conditions for re-review allow three violations. How many violations happen in your neighborhood? They should be having these massive events at third-party venues, but they don't. Please see how many violations they've had since receiving notice of this hearing. I also ask that you deny these fraternities their CUP. There are currently 18 fraternities in the Interfraternity Council at Cal Poly. Many with additional "satellite" fraternity houses in R1 and R2 neighborhoods that hold events. Only 6 have CUPs. Other fraternities would feel privileged to live in the correct residential zone. Denying the CUPs would be the first step in opening a public conversation around Cal Poly Greek life. The City and Cal Poly would be forced to deal with the situation. The public needs to know how pervasive this issue is and how hands-off Cal Poly is with Greek activities in the neighborhood. 3 The current system is not working, and there is a perceived double standard when compared to other neighborhoods in our wonderful city. Please deny the CUPs to create meaningful conversations and change in the neighborhoods close to Cal Poly. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve Walker 1 From:Steven Walker < > Sent:Friday, May 23, 2025 3:12 PM To:Advisory Bodies Subject:Planning Commission Meeting 5/28/25 - Item 4.a and 4.b. Planning Commission Meeting May 28, 2025 Re: Items 4.a and 4.b Dear City Planning Commissioners, While making your decisions about item 4.a, and 4.b, re-reviewing the existing conditional use permits for two fraternities, please remember the impacts of these fraternity operations on neighborhood livability. The negative impacts are real, and I have discussed them at length here: https://howtoruinaneighborhood.com/disruption- retaliation-and-issues/ I am writing to you as a SLO resident whose quality of life has decreased due to the increase in fraternity operations and Greek life in the Alta Vista neighborhood. I am a first responder, a shift worker who works nights on the latter half of my work week, and a pilot. My shift is from 7:30 pm to 8:00 am and can run longer if I'm on a flight. I am responsible for getting my crew safely to a scene and then transporting my crew and patient to the nearest trauma center. When I'm on my rest period, I need to rest. This shouldn't be much to ask for in a residential neighborhood. However, Delta Chi had this massive party after receiving the notice to appear before the Planning Commission. They simply do not care. I was woken by the bass last Saturday afternoon and asked my wife if she could go and locate the source. It was more than 1500' away using Google maps. I don't know how it did, but it got a negative violation of the noise ordinance by SLOPD. My wife took a video, and the music was blaring over the car's sound. She was approximately 160 feet away, according to Google Earth. Both fraternities appearing before you should feel privileged to live in the correct residential zone, where they have a CUP. But let's be honest with ourselves: they violate it with impunity. City Staff is asking that one of the conditions for re-review allow three violations. How many violations happen in your neighborhood? They should be having these massive events at third-party venues, but they don't. Please see how many violations they've had since receiving notice of this hearing. I also ask that you deny these fraternities their CUP. There are currently 18 fraternities in the Interfraternity Council at Cal Poly. Many with additional "satellite" fraternity houses in R1 and R2 neighborhoods that hold events. Only 6 have CUPs. Other fraternities would feel privileged to live in the correct residential zone. Denying the CUPs would be the first step in opening a public conversation around Cal Poly Greek life. The City and Cal Poly would be forced to deal with the situation. The public needs to know how pervasive this issue is and how hands-off Cal Poly is with Greek activities in the neighborhood. The current system is not working, and there is a perceived double standard when compared to other neighborhoods in our wonderful city. Please deny the CUPs to create meaningful conversations and change in the neighborhoods close to Cal Poly. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve Walker 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Friday, May 23, 2025 4:16 PM To:Steven Walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Planning Commission Meeting 5/28/25 - Item 4.a and 4.b. Hi Steve, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the committee members. It is now placed in the Planning Commission public archive for the upcoming meeting. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Steven Walker < > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2025 3:12 PM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Subject: Planning Commission Meeting 5/28/25 - Item 4.a and 4.b. Planning Commission Meeting May 28, 2025 Re: Items 4.a and 4.b Dear City Planning Commissioners, While making your decisions about item 4.a, and 4.b, re-reviewing the existing conditional use permits for two fraternities, please remember the impacts of these fraternity operations on neighborhood livability. The negative impacts are real, and I have discussed them at length here: https://howtoruinaneighborhood.com/disruption- retaliation-and-issues/ I am writing to you as a SLO resident whose quality of life has decreased due to the increase in fraternity operations and Greek life in the Alta Vista neighborhood. I am a first responder, a shift worker who works nights on the latter half of my work week, and a pilot. My shift is from 7:30 pm to 8:00 am and can run longer if I'm on a flight. I am responsible for getting my crew safely to a scene and then transporting my crew and patient to the nearest trauma center. When I'm on my rest period, I need to rest. This shouldn't be much to ask for in a 2 residential neighborhood. However, Delta Chi had this massive party after receiving the notice to appear before the Planning Commission. They simply do not care. I was woken by the bass last Saturday afternoon and asked my wife if she could go and locate the source. It was more than 1500' away using Google maps. I don't know how it did, but it got a negative violation of the noise ordinance by SLOPD. My wife took a video, and the music was blaring over the car's sound. She was approximately 160 feet away, according to Google Earth. Both fraternities appearing before you should feel privileged to live in the correct residential zone, where they have a CUP. But let's be honest with ourselves: they violate it with impunity. City Staff is asking that one of the conditions for re-review allow three violations. How many violations happen in your neighborhood? They should be having these massive events at third-party venues, but they don't. Please see how many violations they've had since receiving notice of this hearing. I also ask that you deny these fraternities their CUP. There are currently 18 fraternities in the Interfraternity Council at Cal Poly. Many with additional "satellite" fraternity houses in R1 and R2 neighborhoods that hold events. Only 6 have CUPs. Other fraternities would feel privileged to live in the correct residential zone. Denying the CUPs would be the first step in opening a public conversation around Cal Poly Greek life. The City and Cal Poly would be forced to deal with the situation. The public needs to know how pervasive this issue is and how hands-off Cal Poly is with Greek activities in the neighborhood. The current system is not working, and there is a perceived double standard when compared to other neighborhoods in our wonderful city. Please deny the CUPs to create meaningful conversations and change in the neighborhoods close to Cal Poly. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve Walker 1 From:Steven Walker < > Sent:Monday, June 23, 2025 3:41 PM To:Advisory Bodies Subject:Planning Commission 6/25/2025 Item 4a Attachments:Round & Round with Town & Gown.pdf SLO City Planning Commissioners, I am working on Wednesday, June 25th, until 8 p.m., so I can't attend the hearing, but I have some input to provide. I want to commend the Planning Commission for doing the right thing and holding fraternities responsible for the conditions of their Conditional Use Permits. Today, the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury released its report that found, among other things: -The city has failed to effectively handle problems associated with fraternities. -The city has failed to engage with community stakeholders to find solutions for the negative impacts of fraternities. -The city has failed to effectively enforce municipal codes that prohibit fraternities in R1/R2 neighborhoods. -The city has failed to consistently enforce the conditions of fraternities' Conditional Use Permits. I credit the Planning Commission for recognizing the problem, enforcing the conditions of the fraternities' CUPs, and revoking use permits when conditions are repeatedly violated. The health, safety, and welfare of the community surrounding a fraternity depend on the fraternity abiding by the conditions. Condition 14 of Delta Upsilon's current CUP says it may be revoked if the fraternity violates the conditions or the law, etc. "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 revocation of this permit." Violating the noise ordinance is considered a "public nuisance" and applies to Condition 14. Please adopt Resolution B and revoke Delta Upsilon's use permit because the fraternity has violated the conditions of its use permit over and over, even after the city sent them notices. Delta Upsilon has proven that its current use is not compatible with residential uses in the vicinity. Thank you, Steve Walker The Grand Jury's Findings are below. The report is attached. Finding 1: Prior to 2025, the city failed to effectively provide a multi-pronged, cohesive approach to manage or shut down large unsanctioned, costly and unruly events such as St. Fratty’s Day. This created an unsafe environment, with increasing size of unruly crowds, property damage, injuries and public disturbances. Finding 2: The city has not effectively engaged in working together with community stakeholders to find solutions for ongoing off-campus issues that negatively impact neighborhoods such as code enforcement, noise issues, trespassing, property damage, and unruly events. 2 Finding 3: The city has failed to effectively enforce municipal codes that prohibit fraternity and sorority activity in R-1/R-2 zones in part due to the difficulty in identifying houses that are hosting fraternity-type events, such as rush events and repeated parties. This inaction has resulted in an increase of illegal fraternities holding events in residential neighborhoods making these areas almost unlivable for most residents. Finding 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. Finding 5: The current planning appeal fee structure in SLO disproportionately impacts ordinary citizens, as the high costs create barriers for those raising concerns about community issues such as noise or safety. While these fees may be justifiable for large-scale development appeals requiring additional city resources, they hinder equitable participation in local decision-making processes. Finding 6: The Grand Jury encountered a lack of cooperation from the San Luis Obispo City Police Department. While one sworn officer did participate in an interview, efforts to interview two additional sworn officers were unsuccessful. This unwillingness to engage hindered the Grand Jury’s ability to corroborate statements, obtain essential information, and maintain transparency in its oversight role. Submitted June 23, 2025 1 ROUND & ROUND WITH TOWN & GOWN San Luis Obispo (SLO) is a quaint town with a rich history and is home to a rapidly growing university that has become a vital part of the community. However, the expansion of the university has led to significant challenges in housing availability, both on and off campus. Affordability issues have exacerbated these challenges, created a shortage of student housing, and have pushed students into neighborhoods traditionally occupied by families. Many students now reside in single-family homes, often exceeding their intended occupancy. This shift has brought new complexities, as noise and frequent partying have disrupted these once-quiet residential areas. The situation underscores the delicate balance needed to ensure that all residents—students, families, and long-time locals can coexist harmoniously and thrive. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE Over the past two decades, SLO has experienced significant growth, driven in part by the expansion of its university, California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), and the increasing student population. While this growth has contributed to the city's vibrancy and economic development, it has also introduced a range of challenges for the surrounding neighborhoods. Residents have voiced concerns over noise disturbances, large unauthorized street parties, and fraternity and sorority (referred to as “fraternities” for this report) events being hosted in residential areas not zoned for such gatherings. These issues have led to tensions between some long-term residents and the student community. SLO has experienced steady population growth, mirroring broader urban expansion trends across California. In 2005, the city’s population stood at approximately 44,380, and, by 2025, it had risen to 50,612, reflecting a 14% increase. During this same period, Cal Poly’s total enrollment grew from 18,278 to 23,016, marking a 26% increase. As a result, university students now comprise Submitted June 23, 2025 2 nearly 46% of the city's total population, significantly influencing housing availability both on and off campus, infrastructure demands, and neighboring residential community dynamics. Year Cal Poly Total Enrollment San Luis Obispo Population Student % of Population 2005 18,278 44,380 41.2% 2015 20,944 46,906 44.7% 2025 23,016 50,612 45.5% While Cal Poly’s expansion has bolstered the local economy and enriched San Luis Obispo’s cultural landscape, it has also reshaped the dynamics of some of the residential neighborhoods that border the campus. Many long-term residents, particularly families, cherish the stability and tranquility of their neighborhoods but now face the challenge of residing in an increasingly student-centered neighborhood. Striking a balance between fostering Cal Poly’s continued success and that of its students with neighborhood integrity is and will be an ongoing challenge for the city. This report explores these concerns focusing on four topics: large, unsanctioned street parties, ongoing noise from student parties, fraternity zoning issues, and fraternity permitting requirements. ORIGIN The investigation was initiated in response to multiple complaints filed by residents. These complaints cited disruptive activities associated with college students, including excessive noise during late hours, unauthorized fraternity houses operating in zoning -restricted residential areas, and large, unsanctioned street parties that escalate into public disturbances , injuries, and property damage. The complaints alleged that the City of SLO and Cal Poly officials were failing to enforce existing rules and municipal ordinances, that citizen complaints were ignored, and neither took sufficient action to restore order. The San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury (SLOCGJ) sought to objectively assess the extent of these issues and determine whether city officials were implementing timely and sufficient countermeasures to address them effectively. Submitted June 23, 2025 3 It should be noted that the SLOCGJ does not hold jurisdiction over Cal Poly. However, SLOCGJ would like to express its appreciation to Cal Poly for its willingness to engage in discussions. Their cooperation was invaluable in providing insights allowing the SLOCGJ to better understand their perspective on the issues at hand as well as the actions they were undertaking to partner with the city and the community. AUTHORITY California Penal Code section 933 requires that “Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters during the fiscal or calendar year.” Section 933.05 further prescribes responses to those findings and recommendations. Responding agencies are directed to report whether they agree or disagree (either partially or wholly) with a finding and whether a recommendation has been implemented, will be implemented, will not be implemented, or requires further analysis. An agency may reject a Grand Jury recommendation provided they include an explanation of why the recommendation is either unwarranted or unreasonable. If a recommendation requires further analysis, it must be conducted within six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. All Grand Jury reports and each agency’s responses are posted online each year at https://www.slo.courts.ca.gov/gi/jury-grandjury.htm METHOD/PROCEDURE The SLOCGJ used the following methods for its investigation: • conducted fifteen interviews with San Luis Obispo city residents, city leadership (including City Council members, Community Development and Police Department officials), city personnel (such as Code Enforcement), and leadership from Cal Poly, • conducted site inspection of impacted neighborhoods, Submitted June 23, 2025 4 • reviewed documents such as Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) issued to fraternities, municipal codes, City Council and Planning Commission meeting agendas and minutes, as well as outreach plans for previous St. Patrick’s Day events, • conducted analyses of policies and laws, including The Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act, Assembly Bill (AB524), SLO and Cal Poly party registration regulations, and Cal Poly’s General Plan, • conducted comparative research, including an investigation of cities with overlay zones to understand their implementation and impact. Explored various policing models, such as the “Do No Harm” approach, examined strategies used by other cities addressing similar university-related challenges, and analyzed party ordinances from other municipalities. NARRATIVE CHAPTER 1: UNSANCTIONED ILLEGAL STREET PARTIES The concept of St. Fratty’s Day began in 2009 originally as a fraternity party to celebrate St. Patrick's Day and the end of the school term. After the initial party in 2009, the party grew and by 2015 the event drew over 1,000 attendees. During the 2015 event, the garage roof adjacent to 348 Hathway Street collapsed because 30 or more students were partying on the rooftop. Ten students were injured with one young woman narrowly escaping a potentially life -threatening injury. This incident made national news and sparked conversations between the City of SLO and Cal Poly regarding how to manage the event and encourage the students to party safely. From 2016 to 2019 the event was smaller and there were no rooftop activities or serious injuries. In 2020 and 2021, with pandemic laws limiting large social gatherings, the event was so small as to be negligible. In 2022, with pandemic restrictions lifted, the event grew to 2,000 attendees. In 2023, through social media, and news coverage, the event doubled in size to approximately 4,000 attendees. In Submitted June 23, 2025 5 2023, the SLO City Council expanded an existing Safety Enhancement Zone (SEZ) ordinance to cover a period of time before and after St. Patrick’s Day. The SEZ allows authorities to double fines for noise, alcohol, and other unruly behavior. In 2024, the crowd nearly doubled in size once again to an estimated 7,000 attendees. The SLO City Police Chief used a containment enforcement strategy that resulted in officers being staged along the outskirts of the crowd in the neighborhood adjoining the university. The “Do No Harm” approach was adopted not only due to concern for officer safety but because a more aggressive officer presence could incite a riot. This practice was in line with the department’s enforcement policy of “Do No Harm” to keep violators, other participants and officers safe. They implemented a strike team strategy where a team of officers entered the crowd to address a violation, issued a citation, and returned to the perimeter to keep everyone safe and avoid an escalation. In 2024 the SLO City Chief of Police deemed their efforts a success as no harm was done to officers or attendees. However, the residents in the area experienced property damage to their residences and personal property. Some intoxicated partiers trespassed onto their property, climbed up on rooftops and power poles, and vandalized cars. The SLOCGJ wanted to determine the validity of the alleged citizen complaints against the SLOPD as well as verify statements received from others during our investigation. We also wanted to confirm the success of SLOPD’s efforts, and possible changes in light of any perceived failings. We were blocked in this effort by two senior police official’s unwillingness to grant an interview. This hampered our fact-finding efforts. The reason for these denials remains inadequate and may stem from a misunderstanding of the role of the SLO CGJ in improving governmental functions within this county. It has become a tradition for the students to start partying at midnight the prior night in their Cal Poly dorms and nearby housing, with the party moving into the surrounding neighborhoods to kick off St. Fratty’s Day at 3:17 a.m. (to acknowledge St. Patrick’s Day, March 17th). In 2024 Submitted June 23, 2025 6 fireworks were set off in the Alta Vista neighborhood between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., jolting some residents and their families awake. Thousands of students descended on Hathway and Bond Streets (in the Alta Vista neighborhood) fueled by alcohol, disturbing the peace by playing loud music, screaming and yelling. The heavy alcohol consumption resulted in dangerous activities such as climbing utility poles, partying on rooftops, urinating and vomiting in public, passing out in residents’ yards and on rooftops, and leaving trash throughout the neighborhoods. In 2024, the Cal Poly dorms also experienced extensive damage as the students began partying at midnight and damaged the dorms on their way out to the street party. The damage was so extensive that Cal Poly had to close some dorms for two days to repair the damage. After the 2024 St. Fratty’s Day event, it became apparent to the City of SLO and the administration at Cal Poly that St. Fratty’s Day in its current format could no longer be tolerated. Cal Poly administration, with concern for the safety of their students, property damage to the university, and surrounding neighborhoods, as well as the request of city officials, formed a task force to strategize how to deal with the unsanctioned event. The task force was made up of Cal Poly Administration, student advisory groups, students, members of the Greek Li fe Community, and SLO City representatives. No representatives from the surrounding neighborhoods were invited to participate in the task force. One outcome of the task force was to provide the students with a safe alternative event. The event was scheduled for Saturday, March 15, 2025, and included a concert on campus starting at 4:00 a.m. The event was free and up to 5,000 students were able to secure tickets to the event. The event provided entertainment, beer vendors for those over 21, free food, security, and a sobering center. Cal Poly police, Cal Poly staff, SLO Emergency Medical Technicians and private security companies were on campus to ensure a safe and secure environment. Cal Poly’s messaging to the students prior to St. Patrick’s Day was that past behaviors would no longer be tolerated. Due to the damage experienced in 2024, several security measures were Submitted June 23, 2025 7 deployed, including no guests being allowed to stay on campus. Parking on campus was limited to Cal Poly students and staff starting Friday, March 14, 2025, through Monday, March 17, 2025 . The City of SLO, concerned about the safety of their neighborhoods, the disruptions to the residents, and the negative image of the City of SLO, developed their own task force headed up by the SLO City Police Department. The messaging developed by the City of SLO was “Do Not Come, the party is over.” In 2024 there were approximately 140 to 160 law enforcement personnel overseeing the event in the neighborhood. In 2025, the SLO Police Department activated the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and the SLO County District Attorney’s Office announced they would not offer pre-filing misdemeanor diversion (see Glossary) to any person charged with a misdemeanor stemming from criminal conduct during St. Patrick's Day celebrations in San Luis Obispo. There were an estimated 300 law enforcement officers representing 25 different local, state and federal agencies. Officers patrolling the area stopped the students from entering the streets and kept their movement on the sidewalks. The students were encouraged to keep moving out of the neighborhood and to the event on campus. Due to the increased law enforcement presence, the neighborhood of Alta Vista did not experience damage to property and there was no unsanctioned street party. The SLO Chief of Police Department estimated costs to the city will be approximately $125,000. The concert at Cal Poly was deemed a success as over 6,000 students attended the event. The event was limited to 5,000 students; however, un-ticketed students pushed through the temporary fencing so they could get into the event. Though this is concerning, no one was seriously injured. Overall, the students remained on campus, attended the alternative event, and no damage was reported in the dorms or the nearby neighborhoods. The alternative activity on campus ended around 10:30 a.m. It is the stated goal of Cal Poly and the City of SLO that the St. Patrick’s Day unsanctioned street parties come to an end. They have advised that it may take two to three years to completely end the unruly St. Patrick’s Day celebrations. The City of SLO and Cal Poly are no strangers to Submitted June 23, 2025 8 controlling and ending large events. After a 1990 riot during Poly Royal, Cal Poly ended the event and created a new activity that is safe for students, their families, and the community to enjoy. After a popular Mardi Gras event (2004) was no longer controllable, the City of SLO was successful in bringing an end to that event. The 2024-2025 collaboration between the City of SLO and Cal Poly proved successful in providing a safe alternative event for the students and residents of San Luis Obispo. A communication received from Cal Poly indicated that Cal Poly is currently evaluating what programming will look like in future years, especially given the transition from quarters to semesters; however, planning will begin for another event next academic year, 2025-26. CHAPTER 2: NOISY NEIGHBORS SLO Municipal Code 9.12 (see Bibliography) provides that “…it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully or negligently make or continue to make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, or permit or allow to be made or continued any noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes any discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity in the area.” Notwithstanding this ordinance, the citizens in the immediate vicinity of Cal Poly, have regularly complained of excessive noise coming from nearby houses that are occupied by students. It has therefore fallen to the SLO Police Department (SLOPD) and the SLO Noise Control Officer (Code Enforcement) to answer such complaints as may be made. The specific code violation encompassed in the above-mentioned Code states that the hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following morning are to remain quiet. According to complaints received by the SLOCGJ, this has not been fully enforced. It should also be noted that the Noise Control Officer may grant exceptions to this restriction . The SLOCGJ received complaints that loud parties, located directly adjacent to Cal Poly and in violation of the above code have forced citizens to file SLOPD noise complaints. The SLOCGJ reviewed copies of the noise citations issued by the SLOPD during th e 2023-2024 school session (the most recent information available) and found that noise citations in neighborhoods near the Submitted June 23, 2025 9 campus were issued an average of more than 3 times per week during the school session. This totaled 139 citations in the Alta Vista neighborhood, with one house alone receiving 17 citations. Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that this situation remains - to this date - unabated. Such is the irritation of area residents, that many have fled the area. To aid in noise ordinance enforcement the SLOPD employs the assistance of Cal Poly students who are enrolled in a program called the Student Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP). These students interface with groups of partiers in residences in the affected area who are violating the noise ordinance. These unarmed SNAP students speak to the offending parties and attempt to get them to comply with the city’s noise standards. There are, however, only a handful of SNAP students. They wear civilian uniforms and work in pairs. They also have radios so that they may contact the police when required. These students may, at their discretion, issue Disturbance Advisement Cards (DACs). Such issuance falls short of an actual fine or a conventional ticket and is meant to serve as a first warning, so that an additional violation may, at the officers' discretion, warrant a police citation. Complainants indicated that weekend parties can mean up to 100 or more students at one address and often continue after visits by police. SNAP students do not go to lettered fraternity houses; such visits are reserved for sworn officers. Additionally, through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Cal Poly Police have the authority to operate within one mile outside of campus grounds. This allows, at least theoretically, greater and more rapid enforcement of SLO city laws. SLO Municipal Code 9.12.050 is specific about excessive noise. It provides a detailed list of prohibited acts between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. While it does not specifically prohibit noise from parties, it does speak to the use of loudspeakers and other electronic devices, including: “radio, television set, phonograph, drum, musical instrument, or similar device which produces or reproduces sound…” Submitted June 23, 2025 10 CHAPTER 3: ZONING VIOLATIONS / CONCERNS – IS SLO CITY IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE ABOUT ZONING ISSUES? As outlined previously, the SLOCGJ reviewed citizen complaints reporting “Illegal Fraternities” operating in residential zones (R-1/R-2). During interviews with City officials, five individuals confirmed their knowledge of the existence of illegal fraternities. City officials stated that identifying illegal fraternities is difficult but usually starts with a citizen complaint reported to law enforcement about a noisy event or party in an R-1/R-2 residential zone, which is the top citizen complaint happening most weekends while school is in session. Noise issues and complaints are usually handled by the police department. Municipal Code guidelines that address noise issues and enforcement are outlined in the “Exterior Noise Limits” section MC 9.12.060 and the “Enforcement” section MC 9.12.110. If found to be out of compliance, SLOPD may issue a warning or citation. Fines for cited noise violations escalate for each subsequent violation. Code enforcement gets involved if SLOPD or citizen complaints identify the location may be operating as a fraternity. It is illegal per the Municipal Code for fraternities to operate in an R-1/R-2 neighborhood. Due to the lack of on-campus student housing, some students must live off-campus. In some cases, fraternity members will rent houses in R-1/R-2 zones and may hold fraternity-sponsored events, which is not allowed by the Municipal Code. In 2023, using extensive citizen-generated data from a Cal Poly-generated report required by AB524, code enforcement started an investigation into the illegal fraternities. Based on the investigation, 30-40 Advisory Notices, and 22 Notice of Violations (NOVs) were sent to property owners. In response to the NOVs, the city advised that many of the property owners reported they were unaware of the fraternity events that were being held at their property. At the time, Cal Poly and code enforcement were working together on the illegal fraternity issue. However, due to changes in policies, Cal Poly stopped assisting the city, stating privacy concerns, and revised their AB 524 report to remove some of the addresses that were previously provided in the document. Submitted June 23, 2025 11 The current policies and enforcement approach is not conducive to a real time solution. Based on the SLOCGJ investigation, the number of illegal fraternities may be more than 40 locations currently operating in the city. In addition, citizens have reported that several Cal Poly recognized fraternities listed in AB524 have multiple illegal fraternity locations operating within the city: some with as many as 7 separate locations. In January 2025, due to detailed information received by code enforcement, from members of the public and several complaint calls, the code enforcement team was sent out on a Saturday night to the neighborhood adjacent to Cal Poly specifically looking for illegal fraternity activities. It is not the usual practice for code enforcement to be working on a weekend, at night, and on overtime, but due to the increasing attention to the problems, city officials believed it was appropriate. Results from the neighborhood review resulted in identifying and citing 12 locations that were found to be operating as fraternity houses in R-1/R-2 zones. The city is taking steps to address these violations. The city plans to continue working on the issues using the existing municipal codes and modifying them as needed. With the current fiscal situation and funding constraints, city officials plan to provide enforcement with current staff and resources and ensure they have a clear and concise process to use. Based on comments from city officials, identifying illegal fraternity party houses is labor intensive since code enforcement has to prove that the party or activity is sponsored by a fraternity in a n R-1/R-2 zone, which is a land use violation. Some indicators are Greek letters posted out front, social media posts advertising fraternity events, and citizen complaints. After investigating, if enough evidence exists, code enforcement will issue an NOV and if they are in an R-1/R-2 zone, tell them to cease all fraternity-related activities. Code enforcement will follow-up within 30 days to verify compliance. Unfortunately, the city is regulated to reactive rather than proactive enforcement of municipal codes. Code enforcement complaints are often received after business hours or the following Submitted June 23, 2025 12 day. The result is that they are limited in their ability to verify the code violation, as it is after the fact or violators are not easily identified. CHAPTER 4: FRATERNITY PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The City of SLO Municipal Code regulates land use, developments, and operations within the city. That Municipal Code restricts fraternities to zones R-3 and R-4 and requires a CUP (Municipal Code Section 17.10.020, Table 2-1) to operate. CUPs that allow fraternities are regulated by Municipal Code Section 17.86.130 which defines the standard conditions that shall apply to all: 1. “Occupancy” shall be limited to not more than one resident per sixty square feet of building area. The landlord shall allow the city to verify occupancy by allowing an inspection of the records or by a visual inspection of the premises. Any inspection shall be at a reasonable time and shall be preceded by a twenty-four-hour notice to the residents, 2. The maximum number of persons allowed on site for routine meetings and gatherings shall not exceed the limit established by the applicable conditional use permit, 3. The fraternity or sorority shall remain affiliated and in good standing with the Interfraternity Council of Student Life and Leadership at California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo. If the fraternity or sorority becomes unaffiliated or no longer held in good standing with California Polytechnic University, the conditional use permit shall be revoked, 4. The landlord shall provide names and telephone numbers of responsible persons to the community development department and SLOPD neighborhood services manager on an annual basis. Responsible persons shall be available during all events and at reasonable hours to receive and handle complaints Additional conditions may be imposed by the planning commission when they approve the CUP. The permit stays with the parcel as long as the approved use continues, and the conditions are Submitted June 23, 2025 13 adhered to. If the parcel is no longer used for the approved purpose, then the permit expires after one year. If the occupants of the parcel violate the conditions of the CUP, the planning commission may revoke the permit. In January 2025, the SLOCGJ requested and received a copy of each CUP granted by the city to a fraternity or sorority; Appendix A is a summary of the 16 conditional use permits provided by the city. It should be noted that the Cal Poly website lists 36 recognized fraternities and sororities. The SLOCGJ double checked with the city, and it was confirmed that the 16 conditional use permits were all that are in place at this time. AB524; Sections 66310-66312 of California Education Code requires each institution of higher education to include in the institution’s requirements for campus recognition of a campus- recognized sorority or fraternity, a requirement that the sorority or fraternity submit to the institution on or before July 1, 2023, and annually thereafter, specified information concerning the sorority’s or fraternity’s members and their conduct. Cal Poly assembles this information and submits it in a public report to the State each year. The report also provides the address of each “affiliated chapter house” which AB 524 defines as those located on -campus or on land owned or leased by the fraternity or sorority. The list submitted in 2024 did have 16 fraternities and sororities the same as the number of CUPs in force. Evidently, this means that of the 36 recognized fraternities and sororities, 20 either do not have a chapter house or are in chapter houses that are off-campus and not owned or leased by the fraternity or sorority and therefore do not meet the definition of an affiliated chapter house. Any of these chapter houses that hold fraternity activities such as meetings, rush events, or parties, are still required by the SLO municipal code to have a CUP. It is not clear why they have not applied for a permit. It could be the cost (In FY 2024-25, the application fee for a CUP is $10,932.57) or effort required, or it may be that they are located in an R-1 or R-2 zone, in which case the fraternity activity would not be allowed. Since Cal Poly is not required to provide the addresses of these recognized fraternities, the city has no easy way to verify the location to Submitted June 23, 2025 14 determine the reason that the fraternity does not have a CUP. This makes it difficult for the city to enforce the code. As shown in Appendix A, not all required conditions are the same for each permit holder. In addition to the standard conditions required by code, some permit holders have other conditions such as: • restrictions on the time of day that meetings and gatherings can be held without city approval, • a neighborhood relations program with evidence of implementation to be submitted annually, • a list of planned events for the year to be submitted annually, • complaints received by the city are to be forwarded to the Cal Poly interfraternity council prior to being forwarded to the planning commission, • notice must be provided to residents within 300 feet prior to special events, and • a transportation and parking plan must be submitted prior to each event. These CUPs were approved over an extended period of time by planning commissions with different members; the earliest is dated in 1971 and the latest in 2024. That may explain why additional conditions were imposed on some fraternities and sororities and not others. It may also have to do with specific characteristics of the individual parcel. Interviews with City staff have revealed that many of the conditions, such as submittals of planned events and neighborhood relations programs have not been adhered to or enforced. The planning commission has the authority to enforce these conditions, add new conditions if the existing conditions are not met, and ultimately revoke a fraternity’s CUP. Citizens can also appeal for a use permit to be revoked or request that a permit not be approved. The current cost to make such an appeal is $2,583.46, (in 2017 the appeal fee was $281.00). A complainant noted that the cost to appeal discourages this practice. While these appeal fees may be justifiable for major development projects that demand substantial city resources like legal reviews, public Submitted June 23, 2025 15 hearings, or environmental impact assessments, they place an undue burden on ordinary citizens. Residents raising concerns about local issues like noise or safety issues may find these costs prohibitively high, limiting their ability to participate in community decision-making. FINDINGS F1. Prior to 2025, the city failed to effectively provide a multi-pronged, cohesive approach to manage or shut down large unsanctioned, costly and unruly events such as St. Fratty’s Day. This created an unsafe environment, with increasing size of unruly crowds, property damage, injuries and public disturbances. F2. The city has not effectively engaged in working together with community stakeholders to find solutions for ongoing off-campus issues that negatively impact neighborhoods such as code enforcement, noise issues, trespassing, property damage, and unruly events. F3. The city has failed to effectively enforce municipal codes that prohibit fraternity and sorority activity in R-1/R-2 zones in part due to the difficulty in identifying houses that are hosting fraternity-type events, such as rush events and repeated parties. This inaction has resulted in an increase of illegal fraternities holding events in residential neighborhoods making these areas almost unlivable for most residents. F4. The city has failed to consistently enforce CUPs such as the requirements for an annual list of parties and events, notification to neighbors, and parking plans. Strict enforcement of these conditions would contribute to a reduction of the disturbances in the neighborhoods. Submitted June 23, 2025 16 F5. The current planning appeal fee structure in SLO disproportionately impacts ordinary citizens, as the high costs create barriers for those raising concerns about community issues such as noise or safety. While these fees may be justifiable for large-scale development appeals requiring additional city resources, they hinder equitable participation in local decision-making processes. F6. The Grand Jury encountered a lack of cooperation from the San Luis Obispo City Police Department. While one sworn officer did participate in an interview, efforts to interview two additional sworn officers were unsuccessful. This unwillingness to engage hindered the Grand Jury’s ability to corroborate statements, obtain essential information, and maintain transparency in its oversight role. RECOMMENDATIONS R1. The SLO City Council should continue to work with Cal Poly to develop a multi-year plan to ensure that the illegal street parties known as St. Fratty’s Day is completely eliminated. R2. The SLO City Council, in collaboration with Cal Poly and other stakeholders, should implement proactive measures to address future unsanctioned illegal street parties as they arise. Taking immediate action can prevent these gatherings from escalating over time due to prolonged non-enforcement. This approach would foster a safer community while promoting shared accountability among all parties involved. R3. The SLO City Manager should develop and implement an ongoing formal process to identify illegal fraternities to bring them into compliance. R4. The SLO City Council should initiate a task force to explore the creation of a “Student Overlay Zone” near the campus that would allow for municipal code requirements to be introduced that would differentiate it from the rest of the city and recognize the needs of Submitted June 23, 2025 17 a dynamic university environment. This could facilitate changes to such things as density, parking, noise and fraternity activities. R5. The SLO City Council should consider adopting a tiered planning appeal fee structure to promote accessibility of community concerns by individual residents. Such a structure could ensure that financial burdens do not deter public involvement. R6. The SLO City Manager and the Planning Commission should move toward adopting more uniform conditions for CUP’s and enforcement of existing requirements. Due to the time span (1971-2024) in which these CUPs were approved, the requirements are inconsistent. The City should consider using future CUP violations to determine if it is appropriate to revise the conditions to make them more relevant for today’s environment. This may require consideration of additional code enforcement staff or alternative work schedules. R7. The SLOCGJ recommends that the SLO City Manager create formal guidelines and provide training outlining how the SLO City Police Department will respond to requests from the SLOCGJ and other oversite bodies. COMMENDATIONS The SLOCGJ commends Cal Poly and the City of SLO for their efforts and collaboration in keeping the students and the community of SLO safe during the 2025 St. Patrick’s Day weekend. REQUIRED RESPONSES The San Luis Obispo City Council is required to respond to R1, R2. R4, and R5 within 90 days. The San Luis Obispo City Manager is required to respond to R3, R6, and R7 within 90 days. Submitted June 23, 2025 18 The San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission is required to respond to R6 within 90 days. All responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court. A paper copy and an electronic version of all responses shall be provided to the Gran d Jury. 933.05. Findings and Recommendations (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated o r reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation, therefor. Presiding Judge Grand Jury Presiding Judge Rita Federman Superior Court of California 1035 Palm Street Room 355 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury P.O. Box 4910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Submitted June 23, 2025 19 APPENDIX A Submitted June 23, 2025 20 Submitted June 23, 2025 21 Submitted June 23, 2025 22 GLOSSARY 1. Fraternities and Sororities. Municipal Code (MC) 17.156.014 “F definitions.” - Residence for college or university students who are members of a social or educational association that is affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings. 2. Illegal fraternities – Similar to the “Fraternities and Sororities” defined in the MC, except the residence is located in an R-1/R-2 residential zone instead of R-3/R-4 zones and hold fraternity sponsored activities and parties, which is not allowed by the MC. Sometimes referred to as a satellite Greek house. 3. Zoning Regulations - Zoning regulations are rules designed to help guide the growth of a city in an organized way. They are based on a general plan that aims to protect and improve the environment, both natural and man -made. Zoning regulations help keep communities safe, healthy, and well-organized by controlling how land and buildings are used, as well as where and how structures are built. Examples of different zones are: Residential Zones are where homes can be built, and Commercial Zones are where businesses or stores may be built. 4. Residential Zones definition R-1 through –R-4 (MC 17.16 – 17.22) - The city is divided into zones to allow for orderly, planned development and to implement the general plan. a. The R-1 zone provides for low-density residential development and supporting compatible uses that have locations and development forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood cohesion, and that provide private outdoor space for the households occupying individual units. b. The R-2 zone is intended to provide housing opportunities that have locations and development forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood Submitted June 23, 2025 23 cohesion for the households occupying them, but in a more compact arrangement than in the R-1 zone, and near commercial and public services. c. The R-3 zone is intended primarily to provide housing opportunities for attached dwellings with common outdoor areas and compact private outdoor spaces. The R -3 zone is generally appropriate near employment centers and major public facilities, along transit corridors and nodes, and close to commercial and public facilities serving the whole community. d. The R-4 zone is intended primarily to provide for attached dwellings with common outdoor areas and compact private outdoor spaces, and to accommodate various types of group housing. Further, the R-4 zone intended to allow for dense housing close to concentrations of employment and college enrollment, in the downtown core, along transit corridors and nodes, and in areas largely committed to high-density residential development. 5. Exterior Noise Limits MC 9.12.060 - Defines the Maximum Permissible Sound Levels at Receiving Land Use for all zoning categories (see table 1 in MC for details.) 6. Overlay Zone MC 17.06.020.C - An overlay zone supplements the base zone for the purpose of establishing special use or development regulations for a particular area in addition to the provisions of the underlying base zone. In the event of conflict between the base zone regulations and the overlay zone regulations, the provisions of the overlay zone shall apply. Submitted June 23, 2025 24 BIBLIOGRAPHY 2019 Shelter Force – The Role Student Housing Plays in Communities https://shelterforce.org/2019/09/06/the-role-student-housing-plays-in-communities/ 2019 Terner Center for Housing and Innovation – UC Berkley Affordable Housing Overlay Zones. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp- content/uploads/2020/10/Affordable_Housing_Overlay_Zones_Oakley.pdf 2022 MCRC Using Affordable Housing Overlay Zones to Reduce the Risk of Displacement by Steven Butler. https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/april-2022/using-affordable- housing-overlay-zones City of Ann Arbor. Noise Ordinance and Housing Density Regulations. https://www.a2gov.org. City of Boulder. Student Housing Zoning and Overlay Districts. https://bouldercolorado.gov. City of Austin. Land Development Code on Student Housing. https://www.austintexas.gov. City of Syracuse. Housing and Land Use Planning Near Universities. https://www.syracuse.ny.us. American Planning Association. Best Practices for Student Housing Overlay Zones. https://www.planning.org. National League of Cities. Managing Noise and Density in University Towns. https://www.nlc.org. Submitted June 23, 2025 25 2024 – U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing – Operationalizing Proactive Community Engagement by Roberto Santos and Rachel Santos. https://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter/content.ashx/cops-r1145-pub.pdf City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Codes https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code City of Santa Barbara Municipal Codes https://santabarbaraca.gov/government/city-hall/city-charter-municipal-code California State Assembly Bill 524 - Postsecondary education: Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB524/id/2606489 City of San Luis Obispo Voluntary Party Registration https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/police-department/party- registration California Polytechnic University Party Registration https://content-calpoly- edu.s3.amazonaws.com/greeklife/1/images/Party%20Registration%20Procedure%202018.pdf San Luis Obispo City Council Agendas and Minutes https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and-minutes California Polytechnic University Enrollment https://ir.calpoly.edu/content/publications_reports/polyview/index https://content-calpoly-edu.s3.amazonaws.com/ir/1/images/2025- 26%20Enrollment%20Projections.pdf Submitted June 23, 2025 26 Cal Poly Greek Fraternity and Sorority Life – Reports and Assessments – AB524 Fraternity Sorority Transparency Act Reports https://greeklife.calpoly.edu/reports 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Monday, June 23, 2025 4:57 PM To:Steven Walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Planning Commission 6/25/2025 Item 4a Hi Steve, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the committee members. It is now placed in the Planning Commission public archive for the upcoming meeting. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Steven Walker < > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2025 3:41 PM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Subject: Planning Commission 6/25/2025 Item 4a SLO City Planning Commissioners, I am working on Wednesday, June 25th, until 8 p.m., so I can't attend the hearing, but I have some input to provide. I want to commend the Planning Commission for doing the right thing and holding fraternities responsible for the conditions of their Conditional Use Permits. Today, the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury released its report that found, among other things: -The city has failed to effectively handle problems associated with fraternities. -The city has failed to engage with community stakeholders to find solutions for the negative impacts of fraternities. -The city has failed to effectively enforce municipal codes that prohibit fraternities in R1/R2 neighborhoods. -The city has failed to consistently enforce the conditions of fraternities' Conditional Use Permits. I credit the Planning Commission for recognizing the problem, enforcing the conditions of the fraternities' CUPs, and revoking use permits when conditions are repeatedly violated. The health, safety, and welfare of the community surrounding a fraternity depend on the fraternity abiding by the conditions. Condition 14 of Delta Upsilon's current CUP says it may be revoked if the fraternity violates the conditions or the law, etc. 2 "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 revocation of this permit." Violating the noise ordinance is considered a "public nuisance" and applies to Condition 14. Please adopt Resolution B and revoke Delta Upsilon's use permit because the fraternity has violated the conditions of its use permit over and over, even after the city sent them notices. Delta Upsilon has proven that its current use is not compatible with residential uses in the vicinity. Thank you, Steve Walker The Grand Jury's Findings are below. The report is attached. Finding 1: Prior to 2025, the city failed to effectively provide a multi-pronged, cohesive approach to manage or shut down large unsanctioned, costly and unruly events such as St. Fratty’s Day. This created an unsafe environment, with increasing size of unruly crowds, property damage, injuries and public disturbances. Finding 2: The city has not effectively engaged in working together with community stakeholders to find solutions for ongoing off-campus issues that negatively impact neighborhoods such as code enforcement, noise issues, trespassing, property damage, and unruly events. Finding 3: The city has failed to effectively enforce municipal codes that prohibit fraternity and sorority activity in R-1/R-2 zones in part due to the difficulty in identifying houses that are hosting fraternity-type events, such as rush events and repeated parties. This inaction has resulted in an increase of illegal fraternities holding events in residential neighborhoods making these areas almost unlivable for most residents. Finding 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. Finding 5: The current planning appeal fee structure in SLO disproportionately impacts ordinary citizens, as the high costs create barriers for those raising concerns about community issues such as noise or safety. While these fees may be justifiable for large-scale development appeals requiring additional city resources, they hinder equitable participation in local decision-making processes. Finding 6: The Grand Jury encountered a lack of cooperation from the San Luis Obispo City Police Department. While one sworn officer did participate in an interview, efforts to interview two additional sworn officers were unsuccessful. This unwillingness to engage hindered the Grand Jury’s ability to corroborate statements, obtain essential information, and maintain transparency in its oversight role. 1 From:Steven Walker < > Sent:Tuesday, August 26, 2025 8:32 PM To:Advisory Bodies Subject:Planning Commission, Grand Jury Recommendation Dear Planning Commissioners, I am unable to attend the meeting because I am in the process of clearing out my home and moving my family to another neighborhood across town. I thought we might be able to attend the meeting, but the move is taking more time than we anticipated. I am writing to ask you to fully implement the recommendations of the Grand Jury. In its draft response to the Grand Jury’s report, the City states the recommendation has been implemented to the extent practicable and appropriate. The City claims cannot fully implement the Grand Jury's recommendation because it does not have the resources to proactively enforce the law. It says the City does not have the money to provide additional code enforcement staffing to handle the matter and/or to work alternative hours, including evenings and weekends when the fraternity-related events happen. The most critical recommendation by the Grand Jury is for the City to actively enforce zoning and municipal codes for fraternities. The Grand Jury found that the City’s current reactive approach is ineffective, and this inaction has allowed illegal fraternity operations to continue unabated. The lack of enforcement is gravely affecting neighborhoods. That is a fact that can no longer be denied.  Numerous fraternities operate without CUPs, yet the City's current enforcement actions have not shut them down.  Example: Beta Theta Pi at 1327 Foothill continues to advertise its address as its fraternity locations, hosts large parties, and accumulates citations including unruly gatherings, without consequence.  In 2023, Notices of Violation and Advisory Letters were issued based on Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report, but these properties remain active fraternity houses.  Complaints submitted ahead of time are dismissed because Code Enforcement does not work evenings or weekends, allowing illegal activity to escalate. The Grand Jury concluded the affected neighborhoods are unlivable, and it is true. Many residents have already had to move away because they could no longer tolerate the disruptive noise which is primarily from fraternity parties. Believe me, I have lived in the neighborhood for many years and the exponential growth of fraternity activity in the past several years is out of control. My wife and I hoped that the publicity through news investigations, such as the one published by The Tribune, would prompt action. But it did not. We hoped the Grand Jury investigation would uncover the truth, which it did. And we thought the City would then take action to solve the problem, which it is not. 2 After seeing the City's response to the Grand Jury report, my wife and I realized we had no choice but to leave. We are currently in the process of moving because the constant fraternity-related noise has made it impossible to rest, harmed our health, and disrupted our lives. The move has strained our finances, which has made our future plans uncertain. It is an unplanned, unwelcome, and difficult change at this stage of our lives as “older” adults. Imagine being forced out of your home because your City refuses to enforce its own laws. It should never have come to this point. The City should have done something when the problem was brought to their attention years ago. Now, with the Grand Jury’s investigation and report, there is no question that the City must be proactive in its solution. Misleading Complaint Statistics The City cites a statistic that fraternity-related complaints represent 6.5% of all code enforcement complaints. This figure is misleading because noise complaints to SLOPD are excluded from that figure. A large percentage of noise complaints are from fraternity-related events at fraternity houses. They are the most disruptive events in the neighborhoods, week after week while Cal Poly is in session. Those noise complaints and citations are not reported to code enforcement. There is no accurate database of illegal fraternity addresses, so most calls to SLOPD are not logged as fraternity-related and code enforcement is never aware of them. Code enforcement takes action if a resident proactively makes a complaint. Then, the complaints are usually dismissed even though there are video and social media posts that show they happened because they are not working evenings/weekends to witness the event firsthand. This underreporting of violations of the zoning and municipal code minimizes the severity of the problem and undermines the recommendation for stronger enforcement. Misaligned Budget Priorities The City has claimed it cannot fund additional enforcement staff, yet the budget includes numerous nonessential items, such as $100,000 annually for City art projects. While art and other initiatives are valuable, they should not come at the expense of residents’ health, safety, and ability to sleep in their own homes. The City could find the money to pay for someone to proactively start to handle the problem, even if it's on a contract-basis for the short-term, to start to get a hold of the problem. The Case for a Dedicated Code Enforcement Officer Hiring someone to proactively handle the fraternity problem is essential. That person should:  Work Thursday through Saturday evenings when most major fraternity parties occur.  Respond to pre-reported events on weekends.  Coordinate with SLOPD to enforce zoning and municipal code violations effectively.  Focus on fraternity enforcement for 1–2 years to restore stability and livability in the affected neighborhoods. There are a few fraternities with CUPs and they violate the conditions with large noisy parties, but continue to operate. There are also at least 40 illegal fraternity houses operating openly in our neighborhoods. Their 3 unchecked behavior has turned parts of San Luis Obispo into chaotic and crazy environments that make it impossible to live peacefully. Please fully implement the Grand Jury's recommendation. Insist the City hire a code enforcement officer to address fraternity-related violations. Prioritize the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhoods by funding proactive enforcement rather than continuing to the ineffective reactive approach. Our neighborhoods cannot withstand another year of inaction. The Grand Jury’s findings are clear, and residents are suffering as a result of the City’s failure to enforce its laws. Proactive enforcement is the only way to restore order and protect the livability of our community. Thank you for your time and service to our city. Sincerely, Steve Walker 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Wednesday, August 27, 2025 9:19 AM To:Steven Walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Planning Commission, Grand Jury Recommendation Hi Steve, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the committee members. It is now placed in the Planning Commission public archive for tonight’s meeting. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Steven Walker < > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 8:32 PM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Subject: Planning Commission, Grand Jury Recommendation Dear Planning Commissioners, I am unable to attend the meeting because I am in the process of clearing out my home and moving my family to another neighborhood across town. I thought we might be able to attend the meeting, but the move is taking more time than we anticipated. I am writing to ask you to fully implement the recommendations of the Grand Jury. In its draft response to the Grand Jury’s report, the City states the recommendation has been implemented to the extent practicable and appropriate. The City claims cannot fully implement the Grand Jury's recommendation because it does not have the resources to proactively enforce the law. It says the City does not have the money to provide additional code enforcement staffing to handle the matter and/or to work alternative hours, including evenings and weekends when the fraternity-related events happen. 2 The most critical recommendation by the Grand Jury is for the City to actively enforce zoning and municipal codes for fraternities. The Grand Jury found that the City’s current reactive approach is ineffective, and this inaction has allowed illegal fraternity operations to continue unabated. The lack of enforcement is gravely affecting neighborhoods. That is a fact that can no longer be denied.  Numerous fraternities operate without CUPs, yet the City's current enforcement actions have not shut them down.  Example: Beta Theta Pi at 1327 Foothill continues to advertise its address as its fraternity locations, hosts large parties, and accumulates citations including unruly gatherings, without consequence.  In 2023, Notices of Violation and Advisory Letters were issued based on Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report, but these properties remain active fraternity houses.  Complaints submitted ahead of time are dismissed because Code Enforcement does not work evenings or weekends, allowing illegal activity to escalate. The Grand Jury concluded the affected neighborhoods are unlivable, and it is true. Many residents have already had to move away because they could no longer tolerate the disruptive noise which is primarily from fraternity parties. Believe me, I have lived in the neighborhood for many years and the exponential growth of fraternity activity in the past several years is out of control. My wife and I hoped that the publicity through news investigations, such as the one published by The Tribune, would prompt action. But it did not. We hoped the Grand Jury investigation would uncover the truth, which it did. And we thought the City would then take action to solve the problem, which it is not. After seeing the City's response to the Grand Jury report, my wife and I realized we had no choice but to leave. We are currently in the process of moving because the constant fraternity-related noise has made it impossible to rest, harmed our health, and disrupted our lives. The move has strained our finances, which has made our future plans uncertain. It is an unplanned, unwelcome, and difficult change at this stage of our lives as “older” adults. Imagine being forced out of your home because your City refuses to enforce its own laws. It should never have come to this point. The City should have done something when the problem was brought to their attention years ago. Now, with the Grand Jury’s investigation and report, there is no question that the City must be proactive in its solution. Misleading Complaint Statistics The City cites a statistic that fraternity-related complaints represent 6.5% of all code enforcement complaints. This figure is misleading because noise complaints to SLOPD are excluded from that figure. A large percentage of noise complaints are from fraternity-related events at fraternity houses. They are the most disruptive events in the neighborhoods, week after week while Cal Poly is in session. Those noise complaints and citations are not reported to code enforcement. There is no accurate database of illegal fraternity addresses, so most calls to SLOPD are not logged as fraternity-related and code enforcement is never aware of them. Code enforcement takes action if a resident proactively makes a complaint. Then, the complaints are usually dismissed even though there are video and social media posts that show they happened because they are not working evenings/weekends to witness the event firsthand. 3 This underreporting of violations of the zoning and municipal code minimizes the severity of the problem and undermines the recommendation for stronger enforcement. Misaligned Budget Priorities The City has claimed it cannot fund additional enforcement staff, yet the budget includes numerous nonessential items, such as $100,000 annually for City art projects. While art and other initiatives are valuable, they should not come at the expense of residents’ health, safety, and ability to sleep in their own homes. The City could find the money to pay for someone to proactively start to handle the problem, even if it's on a contract-basis for the short-term, to start to get a hold of the problem. The Case for a Dedicated Code Enforcement Officer Hiring someone to proactively handle the fraternity problem is essential. That person should:  Work Thursday through Saturday evenings when most major fraternity parties occur.  Respond to pre-reported events on weekends.  Coordinate with SLOPD to enforce zoning and municipal code violations effectively.  Focus on fraternity enforcement for 1–2 years to restore stability and livability in the affected neighborhoods. There are a few fraternities with CUPs and they violate the conditions with large noisy parties, but continue to operate. There are also at least 40 illegal fraternity houses operating openly in our neighborhoods. Their unchecked behavior has turned parts of San Luis Obispo into chaotic and crazy environments that make it impossible to live peacefully. Please fully implement the Grand Jury's recommendation. Insist the City hire a code enforcement officer to address fraternity-related violations. Prioritize the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhoods by funding proactive enforcement rather than continuing to the ineffective reactive approach. Our neighborhoods cannot withstand another year of inaction. The Grand Jury’s findings are clear, and residents are suffering as a result of the City’s failure to enforce its laws. Proactive enforcement is the only way to restore order and protect the livability of our community. Thank you for your time and service to our city. Sincerely, Steve Walker 1 From:Armas, Sara Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 1:36 PM To:Steven Walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: City Council agenda item 7B Hi Steve, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for tonight’s meeting. Regards, Sara Armas pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk I City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E SArmas@slocity.org T 805.781.7110 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Steven Walker < > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 1:32 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: City Council agenda item 7B Dear Mayor Stewart and City Council Members, To be honest, I'm disheartened at the City's response to the Grand Jury's findings. This once again solidifies just how out of touch the City is with life in the neighborhoods in the northern part of the city that have been negatively impacted by fraternity activity. There has been no real introspection and it feels defensive. The City can do better. In addressing the rejection of Finding 2. I would like to counter a few arguments. One was that "since 2010 noise complaints have declined by 50% from approximately 3000 annually to around 1450." How many non-student residents have left these neighborhoods? In particular, the Monterey Heights and Alta Vista Neighborhoods. How many noise calls are now being generated from the neighborhoods north of Foothill? Since 2022? How many fraternities were in these neighborhoods in 2010 versus now. 2025? There are 19 fraternities on the IFC. Where are their main chapter houses and other fraternities located? In the neighborhoods. Hathway. Bond. Stafford. Chaplin Lane. Albert Drive. In 2023 40 had been personally verified in the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods, holding events, 60 city-wide. Are they still operating? Yes. 2 In addressing the rejection of Finding 3. The City takes issue with the term illegal fraternities citing complex issues with activity that occurs on private property and affiliations with fraternities or sororities are informal or unrecognized by the university. Honestly this sounds like a Cal Poly PR response. Obviously noise made by 5 fraternity guys living together is different from a 100 to 150 person party at a residence where people are dressed the same and the house has door monitors. What I'm describing is an event. Where do they take place? In the neighborhoods. Where do the summer dages and car washes occur? Are these fraternity "events"? Yes. And they occur at private residences in the neighborhoods. By the City's own code they're operating as fraternities and holding events in the neighborhoods where they shouldn't be, therefore illegal. Let's not mince words. Cal Poly has said that what happens in the City's neighborhoods, is a City issue. These events are sanctioned by Cal Poly and they know beforehand where they are going to be, since fraternity events have to be registered. In other correspondence relating to this issue, Cal Poly defends its position on removing the addresses of where Greek events are held from the AB524 report citing student privacy concerns and in alignment with other CSUs. In analysing the CSU AB524 reports a few years ago. The following data was gathered from 23 CSUs to verify erasing the addresses of events to align with other CSUs. Of 23 CSUs, only six did not include the addresses of events: Fullerton, Pomona, Long Beach, San Diego (partially), San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, and San Marcos. Fullerton did not understand the reporting requirements and made PowerPoint presentations to promote Greek Life. It only has 175 fraternity members in the IFC compared to Cal Poly, which has over 2,200 fraternity members in the IFC. They have a much greater impact on the community, especially because all of their fraternity parties and events are in the residential neighborhoods. San Francisco did not seem to understand how to prepare the AB 524 but only has a nominal amount of fraternity members, and there fore does not impact the local community by hosting ongoing fraternity events in the residential neighborhoods. Cal Poly SLO has a much larger Greek system than any of the other schools by far, and the fraternity houses are located in residential neighborhoods! Obviously, that is a problem. San Diego is second but they have listed the addresses of their fraternity houses under the "Affiliated Chapter Houses" page of the AB 524 Report. Cal Poly has 19 fraternities and only lists 7 addresses on the Affiliated Chapter Houses page. Here are the number of IFC fraternity members from each CSU, according to their AB 524 reports. Bakersfield - 22 Channel Islands - 28 Chico - 404 Dominguez Hills - 86 East Bay - 108 Fresno - 401 Fullerton - 175 Humboldt - 22 Long Beach - 717 Los Angeles - 72 Maritime - 0 Monterey Bay - 52 Northridge - 779 Pomona - 258 San Bernadino - 92 San Diego - 1,724 San Francisco - ? (nominal) San Jose - 466 3 San Luis Obispo - 2,218 San Marcos - 246 Sonoma - 193 Stanislaus - 62 Evaluate the size of San Diego's CSU and the number of fraternity members versus the size of Cal Poly and the number of fraternity members. Make some changes. You matter and you represent all residents in this town. If the City doesn't know how to tackle the noise issues, they should just be honest. Sincerely, Steve Walker 1 From:Steven Walker < > Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 1:32 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:City Council agenda item 7B Dear Mayor Stewart and City Council Members, To be honest, I'm disheartened at the City's response to the Grand Jury's findings. This once again solidifies just how out of touch the City is with life in the neighborhoods in the northern part of the city that have been negatively impacted by fraternity activity. There has been no real introspection and it feels defensive. The City can do better. In addressing the rejection of Finding 2. I would like to counter a few arguments. One was that "since 2010 noise complaints have declined by 50% from approximately 3000 annually to around 1450." How many non-student residents have left these neighborhoods? In particular, the Monterey Heights and Alta Vista Neighborhoods. How many noise calls are now being generated from the neighborhoods north of Foothill? Since 2022? How many fraternities were in these neighborhoods in 2010 versus now. 2025? There are 19 fraternities on the IFC. Where are their main chapter houses and other fraternities located? In the neighborhoods. Hathway. Bond. Stafford. Chaplin Lane. Albert Drive. In 2023 40 had been personally verified in the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods, holding events, 60 city-wide. Are they still operating? Yes. In addressing the rejection of Finding 3. The City takes issue with the term illegal fraternities citing complex issues with activity that occurs on private property and affiliations with fraternities or sororities are informal or unrecognized by the university. Honestly this sounds like a Cal Poly PR response. Obviously noise made by 5 fraternity guys living together is different from a 100 to 150 person party at a residence where people are dressed the same and the house has door monitors. What I'm describing is an event. Where do they take place? In the neighborhoods. Where do the summer dages and car washes occur? Are these fraternity "events"? Yes. And they occur at private residences in the neighborhoods. By the City's own code they're operating as fraternities and holding events in the neighborhoods where they shouldn't be, therefore illegal. Let's not mince words. Cal Poly has said that what happens in the City's neighborhoods, is a City issue. These events are sanctioned by Cal Poly and they know beforehand where they are going to be, since fraternity events have to be registered. In other correspondence relating to this issue, Cal Poly defends its position on removing the addresses of where Greek events are held from the AB524 report citing student privacy concerns and in alignment with other CSUs. In analysing the CSU AB524 reports a few years ago. The following data was gathered from 23 CSUs to verify erasing the addresses of events to align with other CSUs. Of 23 CSUs, only six did not include the addresses of events: Fullerton, Pomona, Long Beach, San Diego (partially), San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, and San Marcos. Fullerton did not understand the reporting requirements and made PowerPoint presentations to promote Greek Life. It only has 175 fraternity members in the IFC compared to Cal Poly, which has over 2,200 fraternity members in the IFC. They have a much greater impact on the community, especially because all of their fraternity parties and events are in the residential neighborhoods. San Francisco did not seem to understand how to prepare the AB 524 but only has a nominal amount of fraternity members, and there fore does not impact the local community by hosting ongoing fraternity events in the residential neighborhoods. 2 Cal Poly SLO has a much larger Greek system than any of the other schools by far, and the fraternity houses are located in residential neighborhoods! Obviously, that is a problem. San Diego is second but they have listed the addresses of their fraternity houses under the "Affiliated Chapter Houses" page of the AB 524 Report. Cal Poly has 19 fraternities and only lists 7 addresses on the Affiliated Chapter Houses page. Here are the number of IFC fraternity members from each CSU, according to their AB 524 reports. Bakersfield - 22 Channel Islands - 28 Chico - 404 Dominguez Hills - 86 East Bay - 108 Fresno - 401 Fullerton - 175 Humboldt - 22 Long Beach - 717 Los Angeles - 72 Maritime - 0 Monterey Bay - 52 Northridge - 779 Pomona - 258 San Bernadino - 92 San Diego - 1,724 San Francisco - ? (nominal) San Jose - 466 San Luis Obispo - 2,218 San Marcos - 246 Sonoma - 193 Stanislaus - 62 Evaluate the size of San Diego's CSU and the number of fraternity members versus the size of Cal Poly and the number of fraternity members. Make some changes. You matter and you represent all residents in this town. If the City doesn't know how to tackle the noise issues, they should just be honest. Sincerely, Steve Walker 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Wednesday, September 17, 2025 9:27 PM To:Steven Walker Subject:RE: City Council agenda item 7B Hi Steve, Apologies for not getting back to you before the meeting, but I have been in frequent contact with Kathie before and since the meeting. I appreciate your frustration with the response to the grand jury report response. I found the whole process frustrating myself. Both the format of the required response and the process of drafting it were very frustrating to me. As I said on the dais though, I am very committed to continuing to work on these issues and consider any creative solutions I find, or that come to my attention, if there are ideas that have been successful elsewhere. Thanks again. Michelle From: Steven Walker < > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 1:32 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: City Council agenda item 7B Dear Mayor Stewart and City Council Members, To be honest, I'm disheartened at the City's response to the Grand Jury's findings. This once again solidifies just how out of touch the City is with life in the neighborhoods in the northern part of the city that have been negatively impacted by fraternity activity. There has been no real introspection and it feels defensive. The City can do better. In addressing the rejection of Finding 2. I would like to counter a few arguments. One was that "since 2010 noise complaints have declined by 50% from approximately 3000 annually to around 1450." How many non-student residents have left these neighborhoods? In particular, the Monterey Heights and Alta Vista Neighborhoods. How many noise calls are now being generated from the neighborhoods north of Foothill? Since 2022? How many fraternities were in these neighborhoods in 2010 versus now. 2025? There are 19 fraternities on the IFC. Where are their main chapter houses and other fraternities located? In the neighborhoods. Hathway. Bond. Stafford. Chaplin Lane. Albert Drive. In 2023 40 had been personally verified in the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods, holding events, 60 city-wide. Are they still operating? Yes. In addressing the rejection of Finding 3. The City takes issue with the term illegal fraternities citing complex issues with activity that occurs on private property and affiliations with fraternities or sororities are informal or unrecognized by the university. Honestly this sounds like a Cal Poly PR response. Obviously noise made by 5 fraternity guys living together is different from a 100 to 150 person party at a residence where people are dressed the same and the house has door monitors. What I'm describing is an event. Where do they take place? In the neighborhoods. Where do the summer dages and car washes occur? Are these fraternity "events"? Yes. And they occur at private residences in the neighborhoods. By the City's own code they're operating as fraternities and holding events in the neighborhoods where they shouldn't be, therefore illegal. Let's not mince words. Cal Poly has said that what happens in the City's neighborhoods, is a City issue. These events are 2 sanctioned by Cal Poly and they know beforehand where they are going to be, since fraternity events have to be registered. In other correspondence relating to this issue, Cal Poly defends its position on removing the addresses of where Greek events are held from the AB524 report citing student privacy concerns and in alignment with other CSUs. In analysing the CSU AB524 reports a few years ago. The following data was gathered from 23 CSUs to verify erasing the addresses of events to align with other CSUs. Of 23 CSUs, only six did not include the addresses of events: Fullerton, Pomona, Long Beach, San Diego (partially), San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, and San Marcos. Fullerton did not understand the reporting requirements and made PowerPoint presentations to promote Greek Life. It only has 175 fraternity members in the IFC compared to Cal Poly, which has over 2,200 fraternity members in the IFC. They have a much greater impact on the community, especially because all of their fraternity parties and events are in the residential neighborhoods. San Francisco did not seem to understand how to prepare the AB 524 but only has a nominal amount of fraternity members, and there fore does not impact the local community by hosting ongoing fraternity events in the residential neighborhoods. Cal Poly SLO has a much larger Greek system than any of the other schools by far, and the fraternity houses are located in residential neighborhoods! Obviously, that is a problem. San Diego is second but they have listed the addresses of their fraternity houses under the "Affiliated Chapter Houses" page of the AB 524 Report. Cal Poly has 19 fraternities and only lists 7 addresses on the Affiliated Chapter Houses page. Here are the number of IFC fraternity members from each CSU, according to their AB 524 reports. Bakersfield - 22 Channel Islands - 28 Chico - 404 Dominguez Hills - 86 East Bay - 108 Fresno - 401 Fullerton - 175 Humboldt - 22 Long Beach - 717 Los Angeles - 72 Maritime - 0 Monterey Bay - 52 Northridge - 779 Pomona - 258 San Bernadino - 92 San Diego - 1,724 San Francisco - ? (nominal) San Jose - 466 San Luis Obispo - 2,218 San Marcos - 246 Sonoma - 193 Stanislaus - 62 Evaluate the size of San Diego's CSU and the number of fraternity members versus the size of Cal Poly and the number of fraternity members. Make some changes. You matter and you represent all residents in this town. If the City doesn't know how to tackle the noise issues, they should just be honest. Sincerely, 3 Steve Walker